Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on September 9 2026

Last updated September 9, 2026

Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.

Sep 9 2026 · Planning

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Madam Chair, we're ready.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Good evening everyone. The Piscataway Township Planning Board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Courier News and the star ledger. Ms. Buckley, would you please call the role

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mayor Wahler. Present Councilwoman Cahill? Here. Ms. Corcoran? Here. Ms. Saunders? Here. Reverend Kinneally? Here. Mr. Atkins? Here. Mr. Foster? Here. Mr. Ahmed Here. And Madam Chair

Brenda Smith (Chair) Present. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the open Public meeting Notice?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Certainly. Madam Chair, I'd just like to place on the record we're doing this meeting through an online meeting platform, specifically Zoom and keeping with the guidelines that have been disseminated by the Department of Community Affairs Planning Board has tried its best to comply with the Open Public Meeting Act and the DCA guidelines. In addition, any applicant whose matters matter will be heard this evening has had the login information for the online meeting platform put forth in their notice. Members of the public who wish to be heard will be afforded an opportunity as they as if they were in an actual physical space. I believe the board has done its absolute best to comply with the DCA guidelines and the Open Public Meetings Act. Thank you.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. The flag is visible over my shoulder. Can we all salute the flag? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Can we have the swearing in of the professionals?

Speaker 3 Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

Laura Buckley (Clerk) I do. Thank you.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) That goes for Ms. Dolan also. I

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Was just gonna say that. Do I do just don't wanna us hear also. I do. Thank you. There. She's, Hey Nancy,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Are there any changes to our agenda tonight?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Yes, there are several. Madam Chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Number 1226 PB four, which is two Johnson Avenue LLC Block 3 4 0 1 Lot 61 at 10. Possum Town Road has been postponed to the October 14th, 2026 meeting. The applicant will re notice, so if anyone's on for that matter, you will get a new notice in the mail. Number 13. What

Brenda Smith (Chair) Was that date again? Mr. Barlow?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) October 14th is the next meeting,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Correct?

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Yes, correct.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Okay. Number 1326 PV 10 and 11 V, which is 6 0 5. Fairview properties LLC block 1 4 0 6, lot 10.02, which is 6 0 5 Fairview Avenue has been adjourned to the October 14th, 2026 meeting. There will be no further notice if anyone is on the, the zoom for that. You will not get another notice. That matter will be heard on October 14th. And lastly, Madam Chair number 14 on the agenda. 25 PB 14 1 0 2 8 Stelton developers, LLC, which is block 5 4 0 1 lot 1.02 at 10 28 Stelton Road has also been adjourned to the October 14th, 2026 meeting. No further notice will be sent on that one also. So if you're here for the 10 28 Stelton matter, that's been adjourned and you will not get another notice in the mail. Please note accordingly. And those are all the changes. So we went from five down to two.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Thank you so much. The next item on our agenda, therefore is item number seven, which is, may I have a motion to play the duly audited bills

Speaker 4 Item chair? I make a motion to pay the duty order the bills.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second? I second it. Roll call please.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Wonders

Brenda Smith (Chair) Is your, is your mic on Ms?

Speaker 3 Yeah. Yes. Echo Reverend. Okay. Sorry about that.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Marvin County. Reverend County.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Item number eight, adoption of resolutions. Ms. Ms?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) We don't have

Speaker 3 Any Madam Chair. I'd like to,

Laura Buckley (Clerk) We don't have any. Oh, there,

Speaker 3 There's no resolutions.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Oh, okay. Item number nine

Speaker 3 Minutes from August 12th, 2026.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second?

Speaker 4 Reverend Kinneally? I'll second it.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Roll call please.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?

Speaker 3 Yes.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Reverend Kinneally?

Speaker 4 Yes.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Item number 10 26 PB 17 Greek Orthodox community of NB final major subdivision. Mr. Kevin Morris, which you enter your appearance please. Yes.

Speaker 5 Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, honorable Mayor, members of the board. My name is Kevin Morse, an attorney with offices in Woodbridge, New Jersey. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant, the Greek Orthodox community of New Brunswick, New Jersey. Subject properties block 11 9 0 4 lot 31.01, commonly known as 57 Riverview Avenue was one single large piece of property. The applicant appeared before this board on October 9th, 2024 where we received preliminary major subdivision approval to create four new lots from the subject property which were conforming lots. One of the lots contains an existing dwelling. The other three were for future development and still are. The Board thereafter adopted a resolution of approval dated November 13th, 2024. The applicant has moved forward and complied with all the conditions set forth in that resolution of approval. Putting us in a position this evening to request the board grant us final major subdivision approval for this application. I do have an applicant's representative, Haney wba present. I have the applicant's engineer, Les Walker present. If they're needed. I don't suspect they will be, but unless there are questions or comments, we respectfully request the board. Now. Grant, final major subdivision approval for this application.

Speaker 6 Madam Chair, if I may, yes, I can confirm that the applicant has complied with all the conditions of the preliminary approval. So at this point in time we're, you know, all they need to do is perfect. This final major subdivision

Brenda Smith (Chair) Members of the board, do you have any questions or that you may ask Mr. Morriss at this time? Members, I'll now open it to the members of the public. Members of the public. Do you have any questions regarding this application? If you do indicate by making yourself known, by either waving your hand so that we can see, you can be seen and ask any questions or that you may use some other means to indicate you would like to ask some questions.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) No one Madam chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Close to the public members of the Board. What is your pleasure at this time?

Speaker 6 Madam Chair Dawn Corcoran, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the final meter subdivision.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second? Second. Councilwoman Cahill roll call please.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?

Speaker 7 Yes.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Okay. The application has been passed. Great. Has been approved.

Speaker 7 Thank you very much everyone. Have a pleasant evening.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Thank you. You and then everyone. Goodnight. Goodnight. Item number 1126 PB zero one slash zero two slash zero three V as in Victor, 30 K-B-L-L-C. Preliminary and final site plan and vault Bearings

Speaker 8 Bearing.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Oh no.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Appearing for the, for this application. Mr. Stall?

Speaker 7 Yes, Madam Chairman. Jim s Stahl. We're having that echo. We had that before, but I think we're Okay. Good evening. Mr. Mayor Chairlady and the board Jim Sal from Boris Gold and Foley and North Brunwick. This is an application as indicated by Laura with regard to preliminary final site plan, six bulk variances and a minor subdivision. Laura, do we have proper notice and service?

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Yes. Mr. Stall,

Speaker 7 Thank you very much. As I've indicated this is a preliminary and final application, I do wanna indicate the board the following in order that there's no misunderstanding. It is the intent of the applicant in connection with his proposed warehouse development that upon receipt of the development approvals, assuming they are granted, which are now pending before the board, that the applicant agrees to work with the board as follows, provide a mechanism to integrate the approvals that it obtains into the conditions as created under the redevelopment plan, which has been through first reading. Second, we intend, we indicate to the board that the existing application before you meets or exceeds the conditions and requirements of the redevelopment zone. And finally, we agree that such integration into the redevelopment zone would be subject to the mutual agreement between the township and the applicant as to necessary and reasonable conditions.

Speaker 7 That's a redevelopment agreement. Re related terms and conditions and financial agreement. I do wanna indicate to the board that we have worked with the staff. This is a permitted use in the existing zone and there are a number of variances. I have a, here are my witnesses. I have Mr. Josh Ald, who I won't embarrass by saying how special and good he is. I have Corey Chase again of dynamic who is our traffic engineer. And I have a Travis Kepler who is our architect. If it pleases the board, I will start with Mr. Al. It is not my intention to waste your time, so I try to move as efficiently as possible. Josh, where are you?

Speaker 9 I'm here Jim.

Speaker 7 Okay, why don't you raise your right hand and you'll be sworn in. Who swears him in?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Ms. Saunders. Ms. Saunders? Ms. Saunders? Saunders. You're muted. I think she's muted. Okay. Hey Carol, you're whoop, you're muted Ms. Saunders.

Speaker 7 Alright. Alright, now Mr. Al by whom you're, wait, wait, wait.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Jim, he hasn't been sworn in yet.

Speaker 3 Okay, now I had, I'm having problems with it today. Okay. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about the give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

Speaker 9 I do.

Speaker 3 Thank you.

Speaker 7 Alright, Josh, who by whom are you Presley employed?

Speaker 9 Dynamic Engineering Consultants.

Speaker 7 Why don't you give us your name, spelling your last name please.

Speaker 9 Sure. Josh Ald. S-E-W-A-L-D.

Speaker 7 And as I indicated to you, I'm gonna qualify you as both a civil engineer and as a planner. But we're gonna put your civil engineering testimony on first. Go through the other witnesses and you'll be our closer at the end with regard to the planning testimony. Are you a presently licensed New Jersey engineer?

Speaker 9 I am.

Speaker 7 Have you been before this board before?

Speaker 9 I have.

Speaker 7 How many occasions and when was your last appearance?

Speaker 9 The last time was actually back in 2020, right as we were heading into COVID. And that was for another warehouse on exit seven, on 2 87.

Speaker 7 Well give us a short give, give us your qualifications.

Speaker 9 Certainly Jim, both a bachelor's of science and a master's of science and civil engineering. Licensed professional engineer professional planner in New Jersey. I'm a partner at Dynamic Engineering Consultants and I do this, what appears to be on a nightly basis. Tonight is hearing number 31 for me this year.

Speaker 7 Thank you. Mad.

Brenda Smith (Chair) He's acceptable. He he's acceptable. Thank you very much.

Speaker 7 Alright, Josh, thank you. Mad the drill. What I do, I ask you three questions, Josh, and then you take it from there. Number one, current conditions on the site and what is intended to be demolished or removed. And then two, the proposed development and C, the any variances or concerns we have. And then later on we'll get back to your planning testimony. So go right ahead.

Speaker 9 No problem. What I'm gonna do, Jim, is I'm gonna share my screen.

Speaker 7 Yes.

Speaker 9 We'll move this over here. Can I get a thumbs up that someone can see it?

Speaker 7 I don't see it. Well, mine is still circling.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) No, no picture there. Okay. It's

Speaker 7 Before we go

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Ahead, Mr. Stall and, and Josh, if I may, any exhibits you're gonna use, we'll mark them as a one, A two, et cetera as we go through. And if you could just identify each new one as you bring it up. So we'll, we'll label this as a one and if you could just tell us what it is. If you could just tell us what it's, what it's,

Speaker 7 That's what I was gonna ask Tom. Oh, just give us, you know this, the block describing what the document is right ahead.

Speaker 9 Certainly this is will be a one aerial map exhibit prepared by my firm Dynamic engineering with today's date. This is the aerial map, Mr. Barlow, right out of the site plan drawings. However, it's a separate exhibit and it's colored for tonight's presentation to the top of the plan is to the north bottom of the plan is generally to the south. The property is, is labeled in a bold yellow line. The dotted yellow line around the property is approximately the 200 foot property owners list. And then the light blue colors that everyone sees is the zoning lines coming straight out of the zone map. So we'll quickly go through some of the existing conditions and then I'll pause for Mr. Stall to ask me any questions on the site. As you can see on the aerial map exhibit, the property is quite large. It is 44.53 acres in size as you can see.

Speaker 9 Also, it is very uniquely shaped with one main frontage on Knights Bridge Road that again, is located in that northern side of our property running in that east west direction. There are some fringe wetlands along the Ambrose Brook that is on the Western property line that we share with our manufacturing neighbor. We have received our wetlands, LOI on the property so we know where the wetlands are and the associated buffer with them. In addition to that, we have studied the Ambrose Brook. Again, that's on that Western property line. It continues southerly with our shared property line to the south with our residential neighbors. What that means essentially is that we have identified where the floodplain is for that property. We've identified the riparian buffer and the DEP has reviewed and confirmed it. The property tag is located within the LI five light industrial zone. It has been developed since the mid 1970s and as you can see, there's four various different office buildings spread throughout the northwestern corner of the property and is substantially paved over with over 2100 parking spaces on site today.

Speaker 9 Overall, based on some prior documentation items received from the municipality, we believe that there is close to 700,000 square feet of total FAR between the different office buildings and again, through other further research, historical research. It was designed and developed by at and t for their mission critical office at the time in the 1970s in this part of New Jersey. And also included a small data center inside of it today out there, as you could see from this aerial and if be driven by the site, a lot of the office space sits vacant and a lot of the parking spaces sit vacant as well. To the north of us is Rutgers University and various office buildings. Again, that's across to the northern side of the plan along Knights Bridge Road to the south of us is our residential neighbors to the east is undeveloped land with Route 18 beyond and to the west is further industrial and manufacturing uses. If you ca, if you would like Mr. Stall, I'm happy to go on to our next exhibit and start going through what we're proposing this evening.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Oh, the question was do, should we go on Mr. Barlow? Anyone else

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Think I'm fine with it? If Mr. Stall is

Brenda Smith (Chair) Mr. Stall, you, you want him to proceed? No, I think

Speaker 7 We'll continue on. Okay. We don't have to stop.

Brenda Smith (Chair) All right. You can

Speaker 7 Ask all the questions at the end of his presentation.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Exactly. Members of the, we don't have any questions at this time.

Speaker 9 Okay, I'll keep rolling. The next exhibit, which we can mark exhibit A two. This is entitled Overall Site Plan Rendering Prepared by my firm Today's Date. And what this is is the overall site plan overlaid onto the aerial map that you just saw on Exhibit A one. We're getting an echo again, Mr. Stahl, if you don't mind going on mute real quick. If you don't

Speaker 8 Mind going on mute.

Speaker 9 Thank you. Just real quick. So exhibit A two overall site plan rendering prepared by my firm today's date, same orientation as Exhibit A one zoomed in. And what we did here is we took the overall site plan, overlaid it onto the landscape plan, colored it for presentation purposes, and then you'll see in the surrounding areas of the property boundary, the aerial map exhibit. The light orange boxes that you see on the plan are the three proposed warehouses that we'll be discussing this evening. The dark gray areas are the associated parking lots, loading facilities and access drives. Everything else that you see in green will be a combination of open space, grass landscaping, stormwater management, and some existing buffers that we have as well on the property. So we are seeking tonight a few different things. Minor subdivision, I'll tackle that first. That's the most simple part of the application.

Speaker 9 Then we'll get into the preliminary and final major cycling along with those wear warehouses that you see before you. And then we'll go through some of the components of the land development and then close after Mr. Chase comes up and we'll talk a little bit about some of the variances that we have. So overall, the property today, as I mentioned when we are talking about Exhibit A, one is 44.53 acres in size. We're looking to do a minor subdivision, which means we're gonna take one lot and split it right into two lot A, which will be located on the northwest side will house the first warehouse and that's on 17.04 acres. Lot B will be on the east side and that will have two warehouses for 27.49 acres. Like I mentioned earlier, the LI five zoning permits, warehouses and offices and they are permitted uses. The total development of all three of these buildings will be 694,840 square feet. So just under 700,000 square feet of FAR. A lot a, like I mentioned again, which is on the western side of the property. That's 271,000 square feet. And change of a warehouse, it includes about a 10,000 square foot office has 91 parking spaces on the property and 74 loading spaces.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Josh, can I just stop you for one second please? Just so Yes, absolutely. Just so I, it's clear, just wanna make it clear for me. So, and it's also clear for everybody else, you have the warehouse on the left and then you have the two on the right, the top and the bottom. Yes. The subdivision is for which one?

Speaker 9 It goes right in between here where my cursor is. So it's sitting one on the, on the west side Mr. Barlow and then two on the east.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Okay. So the, the left one, the the one to the most left on the screen is going to be the lot a

Speaker 9 Yes sir.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Okay. Just want that to be clear. Thank you.

Speaker 9 Absolutely lot B, like we mentioned, we'll have the two warehouses totaling approximately 423,000 square feet. Each one of their buildings also will have 10,000 square feet of office. This development has about 322 parking spaces and a handful of loading dock positions and trailer storage. The site has been designed to function as two separate developments, hence why we have the minor subdivision from the east and the west side. Lot A on the left. The singular warehouse has their own dedicated two curb cuts to Knights Bridge Road and the lot to the right, which is to the east. Servicing the two warehouses will have its own dedicated curb cut on Knights Bridge Road. The site plan is designed to take into account essentially all of our existing development on the property as well as our neighbors. And essentially what we did with these warehouses, we tried to develop them so that we have the least impact to our surrounding uses and neighbors as well as improve some of the frontage along Knights Bridge Road.

Speaker 9 As you saw on exhibit A one, there's a very large parking lot that's more of the 1970 style that comes along with those power office buildings. What I hope you see here on exhibit A two that even though we have more FAR on a singular floor instead of tall office buildings, we've converted a lot of that parking space into a warehouse. And what we did was put perimeter buffering all around the development. So let's start on the west side lot A with that singular warehouse, we actually were able to move up the development from that southern side residential area, increased green space and landscaping, and give back additional land to the DEP for their wetlands and their floodplain area. When going to our east side of the site for the two warehouses that we have, again noticing the fact that we had residents to the south and not really sure what's going on to the east of us on that undeveloped land, we provided a big 50 foot wide green space along all of those shared property lines.

Speaker 9 Further on the eastern side of the property with our two warehouses, the loading facilities are facing internal to each other, meaning the activity that comes along with the warehouse, AKA, our logistics center, the truck specs, that's all facing internal to the site. The perimeter around the buildings on the east side of the property will all be associated with parking and drive vials. And as we all know when we go to work, maybe we leave once or twice for lunch or a break. But overall we park our car and we stay inside of the building for the majority of the day. From a grading and drainage standpoint, the property again today was developed in the 1970s prior to really any substantial stormwater management regulations. And the only thing that we have on the property today is essentially conveyance pipes, meaning that the water gets collected and then discharged out to various portions around the site.

Speaker 9 Today we're happy to say with the redevelopment of this property, we certainly comply with all four prongs of stormwater management. We have large scale above ground bio retention basins and one of the benefits of those basins, both of them are located along the northern side property line on the frontage of Knights Bridge Road is that they are 85% vegetated, doesn't just look like a hole in the ground anymore, it doesn't look like a body of water. It looks like an extension of landscaping. And then when a rain event comes, it fills up and then eventually drains within 72 hours. In addition to those large scale fire retention facilities, we have three pervious pavement systems as well as an underground infiltration basin. And again, like I mentioned, we comply with all four prongs of stormwater management, quantity quality, groundwater recharge, and green infrastructure. I'm also happy to report that any remaining technical items that are located in the board engineer's report Mr.

Speaker 9 Carly's report and the DNR engineering we will comply with. So any remaining technical items, we'll we'll be happy to testify right now that we will deal with that. Should the board vote favorably through resolution compliance due to the, the redevelopment of the property for the these three buildings, we will be providing brand new utilities, electric, gas, sanitary sewer, as well as domestic and fire suppression services. Another major improvement I would say with the overall development and redevelopment of this property is the substantial landscaping that comes along here. Like I mentioned, both the basins along Knight Springs Road will have substantial landscaping 'cause they must be 85% planted. I'm gonna throw out some numbers out there. They all are part of the record drawings, but this is the, the new count that will be coming to the overall property. 219 shade trees will be spread throughout the development.

Speaker 9 Those are the little circles that you see in green on the Exhibit A two that I'm presenting before you 111 ornamental trees, 277 evergreen trees. So overall 600 plus new trees will be coming to the property. A lot of them focused again on the perimeter along the frontages and of course along our existing buffers that we have to the south with our residential neighbors. In addition to that, we have another 206 evergreen shrubs and 1100 deciduous shrubs. Again spread throughout the property, focused on the perimeter and the stormwater management facilities. I do believe that we provided a landscape compliance chart located on our landscape plan and we do comply with the underlying landscape code. I'll get through the design waivers later, but we are going to remove a lot of the landscape design waivers that we have from a lighting standpoint, all of our lights that we're proposing will be flush-mounted and forward throw.

Speaker 9 There will be zero spillover to any of our neighbors, particularly of course, the sensitive buffers that we have to our residential. All of the lights that we have will be LED and at a max 25 feet tall. I do believe based on my review that our lighting complies with the underlying Piscataway ordinance and will be spread throughout the property to eliminate for safety purposes but not over illuminate the overall parcel. I am in receipt of the majority of the review letters. I believe those are the fire marshal and DPW. Both of those professionals have approved and had no further comments. I just testified a few moments ago about your engineer from DNR and we agree that there were no issues. We, and we can discuss all those items. Mr. Chase will talk about Ms. Betsy Dolan's traffic engineering review letter. But the one thing I do want to a add while I'm going through my direct on lot a, we do have a parking variance and one of the comments correctly identified by Ms. Dolan is that we're about 10 spaces shy of complying with the ITE recommendation. Now that's still a little different than the parking ordinance that we have, but she made a recommendation that a minimum there is some extra real estate. Can you add 10 parking spaces and I'm happy to report now it's not on this exhibit A two, but we will be adding 10 parking spaces located on the northern and southern side parking area to bring that up to meet the ITE recommended number of parking spaces.

Speaker 9 We went through the, the staff report that was issued earlier today. I do believe that we will address all those items. We're gonna remove the barbed wire as discussed at the TRC meeting. We are going to make sure that we comply with the fencing around the stormwater management facilities. We talked about the landscaping and overall we, we think that through the TRC meeting that we have, that the width and height of the buffer and berm that we have to the south that we share with the residential neighbor is adequate. However, we will happily work with the professionals to supplement even more landscaping that I mentioned a few moments ago on top of that existing berm to further protect and buffer those residents. But the actual width and height I do believe is, is satisfactory. I'll save the Aon planning letter to the second half of my testimony when I put on my planning hat just 'cause we want to hear from the, the traffic engineer and we'll go through some of those items, but I think at this point it's a good just quick pausing point for Mr. Stall if there's any questions you want me to redirect or address.

Speaker 7 Well, Josh, Josh, if you will, could you just address the other variances from an engineering perspective? I think you went through at least three or four. Can you just go through your list of existing bulk variances?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Yep. I was gonna ask that Josh specifically the fiber optic, are you, you're, you're installing that I think based on the TRC meeting?

Speaker 9 That's correct,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Yes. Okay. And then the wall or fence being over eight feet height and the proposal is 10.9 with a four foot, is that being changed?

Speaker 9 No. So I, I can go through the, the variances that we have and I can go through the ones that we're also eliminating. So starting on lot A, which is the warehouse to the west, we do have a minimum front yard setback where the underlying LI five is 80 feet required. It's approximately 190 feet existing and we're proposing about 53.2 feet. So you could see on the, this exhibit where my cursor is, a very small corner of the building is being ched by the building envelope from an engineering standpoint, as you could see, the property has a unique frontage along Knights Bridge Road. And one of the benefits of this redevelopment is that the vast majority of the frontage is now going to be green space. Whereas today there is a lot of asphalt parking and really no limit landscaping along the frontage. Where we're providing, hopefully in view of this small deviation is that we get a ton of landscaping along the frontage.

Speaker 9 We pull back the development from the roadway and provide a nice corridor, but due to the unique shape of this property and engineers, of course, like rectangular buildings, we're looking for this small deviation. The property has over a thousand linear feet of frontage on Knights Bridge Road and we have less than 50 feet wide of the deviation from the building. So that's the first variance that we'll be seeking on lot a and the warehouse. The second variance is the amount of parking. I, I just touched on that a few moments ago, Mr. Barlow. We do have a parking variance based off of Piscataway ordinance. About 178 spaces are required. We are proposing about 89. I'm gonna bring that up to 101 based off of meeting the ITE land use code and parking generation. You'll hear a little bit more about that from our traffic engineer, but it was a good comment from Ms.

Speaker 9 Dolan and we'll be looking to satisfy that component. Again, we'll still need the variance, but ITE says that based on a speculative warehouse, this is a good blend of amount of parking and we're happy to comply with that. The third and final variance that we have associated with lot A, this is called fences and wall heights. Essentially the ordinance talks about not having a, a very tall wall and a fence. This is very straightforward. After you do a retaining wall that's more than 30 inches, you need a fence on top of it for building and fall protection. So we have a retaining wall located on the property and then we put a four foot fence on top of it. So for purely safety purposes, we're not looking to make a topographic situation extreme, we're just putting it on top of a wall for safety purposes. So those are the three variances that we have with lot A. There was a fourth variance but we've eliminated it and that was the fencing around the basin. We will certainly comply with that. So three C variances associated with lot A. You

Speaker 11 Read my mind, I was about to ask about that. Okay, I'm crossing it off.

Speaker 7 Josh, have you, have you finished your engineering testimony before we pass it to the board for questions?

Speaker 9 Not yet. Let me run through lot B real quick. Mr Stall,

Speaker 9 So lot B which is the, the two warehouses on the right, we have a principal building side yard variance where 50 feet is required and 40 feet is proposed. Essentially this is due to the, the subdivision that we have laid out in the middle of these two buildings. And again, the focus based off of my direct testimony earlier is we want to take this development and shrink it towards the middle of the site. And what we're doing is providing that green perimeter buffer around the exterior to all of our neighbors, including towards the east where we don't really know what's gonna happen on that undeveloped property, but putting in a buffer of about 50 feet and then working our way in. So the entire goal was to centralize all the warehouses to the center. And even though we're seeking a variance for the fact that this building is now 10 feet closer to the building envelope of an internal property line, these buildings fully comply with the exterior, which is the most critical portions of the site.

Speaker 9 And finally again, we get to add some green space on the perimeter areas as well. We have a similar fence and wall height on lot B. That's our second variance on lot B. Again, that's purely safety for fall protection. It's technically two variances listed as correctly identified by your planner just because there's two different walls. But it's the same reason we, we need fences on top of there. There are two variances that we are gonna withdraw and comply with on lot be again, just following your board planner's review letter. The first one will be barbed wire that's existing today. We were gonna leave it, we talked about this at the TRC meeting with your staff and we're gonna remove that and comply. The second will be providing fencing around the stormwater basin and on lot B as well. So going from five variances to three on lot B and going from four variances to three on lot A.

Speaker 9 Now Mr. Stall, I know we wanna pause real quick, but I just, without getting into planning, I want to testify a little bit more. Your planner did a good job identifying what we like to call potential relief AKA. He was looking for testimony and I want to provide that for you now. So the board knows that we're gonna vastly comply with a lot of these items. So we are gonna provide fencing that does not have fencing facing the wrong way from an enclosed area. We'll do a type of fence that doesn't have a front and a back necessarily. So I don't believe we need any potential c variance relief for proposed lots A and lots B. The board planner also correctly identifies two state regulations. We will absolutely comply with them. One is gonna be solar ready for a building, a hundred thousand square foot in size. We will certainly comply with that, that governor's state statute. And second, we will certainly comply with the minimum EV spaces located on the property. I do believe we have it correctly identified. We just need to update the a DA number that's associated with them. So those two state statutes go away and we don't require any relief there. And I'll save the design waivers for the planning testimony. But Mr. Stall, I think that wraps it up. We, we took a look through the planner's letter and reduced the variances that we could, what,

Speaker 7 What I do is I'm hearing you twice Josh, because of the echo. So that's why I didn't hear it before. I, I think we may as well go into the planning testimony. Josh, since you've ended with the variances, why don't you just move into planning and finish that up and then we can move to the rest of the, the two witnesses.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Josh, before you do that, I I I understand the three variances for lot A what I thought you said, I thought you went over two for lot B, but then you said there are three. So for lot B you have the side yard, have the side yard, step back yard

Speaker 11 I think has to mute. Yeah, exactly.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Jim, can you mute when you're not Yeah, yeah, we go and then, so you have side yard 40 proposed where 50 required and the wall height because of this fence you have to put on top for safety. What's the third one for lot BI

Speaker 9 Believe it was the other,

Speaker 11 There were two fences in, oh, there were two fences in walls, Mr. Barlow. One was, it was 10 foot, 10 foot, nine feet in height, top with a four foot fence for 14.9. And then there was another one for a total of 10.76. So there were two sections of fences on top of walls. So

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Fences,

Speaker 11 Two fences, yeah,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) On lot beat. Okay, got it. Thank you.

Speaker 6 And Tom in my report, it just has the highest one. I, I didn't break it down but confirmed

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Like Gotcha. Okay. I, he said three, I wrote two down, so that's why I just wanted to clarify. No problem. And,

Speaker 11 And maybe we should just talk about these potential waivers because let's just clean the board and, and, and then I don't have to talk the rest of the evening. So the minimum height of loading birth, are you gonna con comply with that?

Speaker 9 We are.

Speaker 11 Okay. Done. Minimum distance of driveway from side property line,

Speaker 9 We will need a design waiver for that. Now we, we

Speaker 11 Can design waiver for that. So it's not gonna be 10 feet. So Mr. Barlow and for everyone record, this is from page 18 of our review letter, minimum lighting at intersection, three foot candles required.

Speaker 9 That's, we will comply with that.

Speaker 11 Okay, so that's gone. Yep. And ma maximum height of freestanding lights match building height are 25 feet permitted? It's an either or.

Speaker 9 Yep. We'll comply.

Speaker 11 Okay. So the only potential waiver that was left Mr. Barlow and, and everyone is that distance of driveway from side property line, which was item two page 18. So that's it. Thanks.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Thank you Ron. Planning testimony, Josh? Planning testimony certainly.

Speaker 9 Thanks Jim. So in my opinion, all of these C variances fall within that C two criteria and I know this board's familiar with that. So basically the, the C two criteria talks about we can provide and propose a deviation and could be granted by the township planning board assuming that the benefits outweigh the detriment. We call this the flexible planning balance. And we have to prove that the purposes of the municipal land use law would be advanced by the deviation of these benefits and that the deviation from the zoning ordinance would substantially outweigh any of those detriments. It doesn't mean that there's zero detriments, it just means that we have to balance that the benefits outweigh all the, the detriments. And then of course we go through the positive and the negative criteria. So overall, when we look at the three variances for lot A and the three variances for lot B, it's my professional opinion that we talked about a lot of the positive criteria tonight.

Speaker 9 We talked about how we're redeveloping a property and that we're permitted use within the zone. We talk about how we comply with the, the massing in size with all the other bulk criteria of building height, building coverage, impervious coverage, et cetera. What we're talking about here is a couple of deviations associated with a unique shape of the property along Knightsbridge Road for that corner of the building. And we're also talking about some of the parking spaces being a little bit under the ordinance but still complying with ITE. The fence and the wall heights are an easy discussion. The positive criteria is we're providing safety associated with that. And then when we talk about the actual side yard setback of building B, that's really more of an internal centralized development. So what we like to do is balance out the property and take a look at the overall development.

Speaker 9 And I think, and I hope the board will find that with the redevelopment of this property and modern stormwater management reducing encroachments into the wetlands buffer, into the riparian buffer, being able to provide a substantial amount of landscaping and over 600 trees spread throughout the development, that a lot of those benefits certainly outweigh any detriment with a small deviation of the building envelope along Knightsbridge road or the small deviation associated with a handful of parking spaces. It's my professional opinion that, that there is no substantial detriment to the public good. I actually think redevelopment of the property will be a benefit to the public good. And then when we continue balancing out the negative criteria, that there's no substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. If you take a look at the master plan, if you take a look at the findings of the LI five zone, this is what the council and the board contemplated.

Speaker 9 They contemplating warehouse development on here. And I think the way that it's uniquely laid out so that there's no truck courts facing any of the residential that this has been laid out and and designed in a way so that it meets the intent of the master plan and the ordinance, but still is sensitive to some of the existing residential neighbors that we have to the south, but also sensitive to what may come to the east on those undeveloped parcels. The, the purposes of the municipal land use law, I believe that will be advanced are purpose a GI and M and being the most important in my opinion from a planning standpoint, M talks about the encouraging and coordination of various public and private procedures and the activity shaping land development with the view of lessening the cost of the development to the more efficient use of land.

Speaker 9 That last five or six words is critical on this job. It is to the more efficient use of land, which Mr. Stall talked about earlier on this, about it being contemplated with the municipality as a redevelopment project. That's what this project is in a nutshell. We're taking the underlying permitted uses within the LI five and we're redoing the property that's been developed and in your community since the 1970s with a very similar amount of FAR and over 2000 parking spaces on the property, reconfiguring that to a modern use that will be usable. Are we able to hire local and nearby people to run this facility? Whereas today the properties are really vacant and underutilized. So overall we certainly have some deviations and they may have some impacts, but I believe the total redevelopment of the property certainly outweighs any potential detriment and negative associated with the parcel. And that concludes my planning testimony.

Speaker 6 Sounds good to me

Speaker 7 To get an A. Alright. I give an a plus. Alright, Mr. Madam chair lady, it's board questions please.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay, that's the end of his testimony. Members of the board, do you have any questions of this witness who has test both as an engineer and as a planner? Who the first person please? Let's have your name so you can put it on the record.

Speaker 4 Reverend Kinneally. And

Brenda Smith (Chair) Could you, could you remove, could you remove your exhibit please? There we go. Thank you Chair.

Speaker 9 Absolutely.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Hmm. Okay, Mr. Reverend Kinneally, you had a question? Yes,

Speaker 4 I had a question in regards to the, the basin, the stormwater basin. Did I hear you're supposed to have, you have two basins for those buildings or is it just one detention retention pond?

Speaker 9 Great question. We have six different stormwater facilities for this project. Two of them are above ground that will be planted. Those are our buyer retention basins. Along Knights Bridge Road, there are three pervious pavement systems. That's where water goes through the pavement section to an underground system. Those are in the loading and parking lot areas. And the sixth and final basin will be an underground infiltration. So four of the six basins, you're not gonna see. It's gonna be part of the parking lot improvements and underground, but two of them, the ones that you will see along the front of the, of Knights Bridge Road will be planted with substantial trees and landscaping.

Speaker 4 Okay. That's, that's my understanding was two and the other four, we won't, we won't see. Okay. They're underground. That's my question. Now I wanna make clear. So I'm looking at in regards to that. Thank you very much.

Speaker 9 Thank you Reverend.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Any other questions from the board?

Speaker 6 Madam Chair Dawn Corcoran, if I may, and Josh, I don't, I don't know if this is for you or for Mr. Stahl, but again, just to confirm, the applicant will be supportive of any required infrastructure improvements as required by the redevelopment plan. Is that correct?

Speaker 7 As I said, Dawn, the, we intend to integrate this approval assuming we obtain it into the redevelopment plan that is being developed by your planner. So the condition should mirror, but if there are a minor change, we think we cover everything in the redevelopment zone. If there's something that has to be modified, we have no problem with that.

Speaker 6 Okay. Thank you.

Speaker 7 Thank you

Speaker 12 Madam Chair, it's Councilwoman Cahill. FMA. Yes. Hi Josh. Thank you so much for the presentation. Just a, a couple of questions. So I know you were talking about the, the green space. Is it, is it your testimony? Did I hear you correctly say that, that that is roughly about the same as what's out there now?

Speaker 9 That was my testimony about the floor area, so,

Speaker 12 Oh, I'm so sorry.

Speaker 9 So yeah, no, it's okay. The, the, there's four office buildings out there, but they're multi-story. Some are two, some are three stories. And again, based on documents that we were given by older plans and, and approvals, there's about 700,000 square feet of FAR. We are similar, but ours is all on one story for our warehouses.

Speaker 12 Okay. And my other question is about the office space that you, you spoke about Yes. That I, I heard 10,000 square foot. Is that the total number amongst the three buildings or is that, was that for one building?

Speaker 9 That's for each building has 10,000 square feet, so about 30,000 square feet total. And again, Ms. Cahill, the, these are speculative warehouses, so we're putting in for 10,000 square feet. There is a good chance that we don't actually need 10,000 square feet depending on who the final tenant is. So to try to capture potential tenants that come in, you show a a a 10,000 square foot facility.

Speaker 12 And also just with regard to the tenants, the, the plans are is that there's one, one tenant per building or are these buildings made to be so that there are multiple tenants, at least in the larger ones?

Speaker 9 I would say that these could be split into two per building. Ms. Cahill, when you have a larger warehouse building it, it's not common to have what we call a middle tenant. So the ends of the shorter ends of the building will have the office buildings or the office portions of the site. And then you could have a demising wall in the middle of this facility. So I would say at max you're looking at two tenants per building. But I would say it is the applicant's goal to secure a lease with a tenant that is gonna take over the entire facility.

Speaker 12 And today we don't have tenants. That's right.

Speaker 9 We don't ma'am. Okay.

Speaker 12 And my last question, and you may not be the right person to answer this, but with the one tenant in there, I think there might be another one who actually does rental space. The, the owner of the property is having conversations. I mean I know that's not, that doesn't have bearing on the application itself, but just wondering if, you know, if tenants there now have been, will be given reasonable notice?

Speaker 9 I'm gonna have to defer that back to the applicant's attorney. I have not personally spoken with any tenants. Okay.

Speaker 12 Alright. But we don't know of any new tenants right now. Oh, you know what, one other question though, just because you said they might be split. So then getting back to that office space, the potential is there is that if the owner of the property finds two tenants for the one space that the office spaces, as you said would be on the ends? Or will there be office spaces built in there? Let's say you go to build, you don't have a tenant. Is the intent to have office space on those, on those ends to attract potentially two tenants?

Speaker 9 It's a great question. Nine out of 10 warehouse buildings that I've ever had the experience of being a part of is should we, the board will favorably, we go into con we go into full approvals, they're gonna build these buildings with one office space to try to attract a tenant that's gonna take the entire thing. Okay. However, should they find a couple of tenants or leasing takes longer than they would like, they could then submit a separate ti building permit package where they could demise and then build out maybe a second office space. But the plans that have been filed with your board show one office space at one end of the building.

Speaker 12 And so then would that affect then the, the parking if that where the building were to have to be split?

Speaker 9 That is a great question. If they did that, they would have to split that 10,000 square feet to two fives. But that would make sense because the 5,000 square foot would only need half the building, the 10,000 square foot is set up for the whole building. So it wouldn't be two tens on one building, it would be five.

Speaker 12 No, no, I get you. But like the plan for, like the plan for for parking, right? If you're, I'm holding up my plans, but as I look at the plans where, let's just, let's just take the, the two buildings, right with the smaller warehouse and the larger one where the trucks, you know, the, the docking loading docks are in the center. I'm, I'm looking at parking behind and on the side of one building, if that, let's say just the bigger building were to be split because it looks like there's parking on the smaller one that could accommodate either side. The larger one, it doesn't look like it necessarily would accommodate or I guess it could just being on the back, like on the backside. So if you're looking at the dark parking lot, the borders, the, the streets there, Shirley, you see Ellis Parkway, would that parking lot then area be considered the spots accommodating offices? I guess the offices would be located back on that backside then maybe?

Speaker 9 That's correct. So we would anticipate if the building would be split, it would be split within the short length of the building.

Speaker 12 Ah, gotcha. Yeah. Okay. And

Speaker 9 Then we would have the yeah, yeah, an office spot on the bottom left and an office spot on the bottom right

Speaker 12 On the, on the bottom right. Okay. That, that answers that question. Thank you. Can I,

Speaker 9 No

Speaker 7 Problem Ms. Cahill, I just have a couple of questions for Josh if I may. Bootstrapping what has already said, Josh, is this the building you have designed contemplates a a speculative building which would fit comfortably within each of those two buildings? Am I correct? I do not understand. You don't anticipate anything larger or requiring more traffic than you have designed for?

Speaker 9 Yes.

Speaker 7 No, I'm not trying to lead you. But that's part of your design based upon your experience in putting up warehouses, is that correct?

Speaker 9 Yes.

Speaker 7 And the, the applicant would like obviously to only have one tenant, it makes it easier for him to control as opposed to two tenants. Isn't that correct?

Speaker 9 Of course.

Speaker 7 And and these warehouses you seldom see more than two tenants at one time, although you can can, but it's unlikely. Isn't that correct?

Speaker 9 That is correct.

Speaker 7 And one last question. I think it's important to the board, the exist, and it's not our client's responsibility, but the existing appearance of the property that he has acquired is, will be favorably changed by this development, will it not?

Speaker 9 It will.

Speaker 7 Could those old buildings and the power, whatever is there in its presently existing state, including the parking lot will disappear with landscaping and modern buildings. Is that correct?

Speaker 9 That is correct.

Speaker 7 Thank you.

Speaker 12 You know, Madam chair, I just thought of another question while Mr. Stahl was asking his question. Sorry about that. Jessica,

Brenda Smith (Chair) This is Councilwoman Cahill is

Speaker 12 Speaking again. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. Sue, did we talk about the option for these buildings to have solar panels added on?

Speaker 9 Yes. So I, I talked about it a little bit. Your, your professional planner correctly identified that the state statute is mandated that any building that's a warehouse over a hundred thousand square feet must be solar ready. But that essentially means is that the deck on the building can handle the weight of a solar panel and that you have the electrical infrastructure installed and ready to go should the local electrical company allow you to tie into their system. So basically what it says is you're gearing up the development is promising that the building design and the site plan is ready to go for it. But the applicant doesn't control if solar panels will be approved in this location or even if the grid in the nearby area will be able and willing to accept it.

Speaker 11 So, okay, so mi Mr. Ald, I think the simple answer is you will comply with the state standard, which makes that you have a have to be solar ready to install it in any particular time.

Speaker 9 That's correct.

Speaker 11 And and the other one just on the parking, just I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is really simple office space is the, is requires more parking correct than, than the warehouse space. So in theory, if you don't need 10,000, go down to 5,000, that that'll actually decrease the amount of parking required, right?

Speaker 9 That is correct.

Speaker 11 So I guess maybe the only concern this goes to the councilwoman s question is like the only time that the parking will increase in theory is if that you go over 10,000 square feet in work office space?

Speaker 9 That's correct.

Speaker 11 Okay. So and, and 10,000 sounds like a conservative amount, you know, but you, you're anticipating that you might not need more than that.

Speaker 9 Agreed. Okay.

Speaker 12 Yeah. So Mr. Reyerson, while you are the professional too, is if the office space ends up being less, would the parking requirement then go down and we could potentially reduce some of that

Brenda Smith (Chair) Parking space,

Speaker 12 Parking spaces to create more green space?

Speaker 11 In theory, yes. So I mean that is always can be a condition of approval if they need less that you can bank, you can bank in the future. But you know, that's, that's your prerogative. But that's a very good, very good question.

Speaker 12 All right, well I think it's something we could look into. I mean, I'll let the professionals discuss that, but that would be a very interesting, an

Brenda Smith (Chair) Option.

Speaker 12 Yeah,

Speaker 11 Well, considering, I would just say on, on lot A, they're already very short in parking, so, you know, and they are adding more. But you know, I guess I'll leave that to Ms. Dolan because she's gonna talk about, you know, how much they need there. So that's her expertise, not mine.

Speaker 9 I would agree lot A is is probably fine with the addition of the 11 spaces to meet the ITE standard lot B, which has the two warehouses. Again, it, it's set up because it's speculative development. Should the board ask for a consideration, we could look at planning out and land baking some spaces that, that certainly could be accommodated.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Members of the board is anyone else who have, might have questions of this witness at this time? We, I want to open it to the public members of the public. You've heard the testimony of Mr. Siwa. Do you have any, as a planner and as an engineer, does anyone in the public have any questions of this witness? Would you indicate by either waving or calling in on the phone that the numbers indicated? Ms. Buckley, do you see any indication that somebody has a question? Ms. Buckley, is she muted?

Speaker 12 She is muted.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Yeah. I see the logo.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Ms. Buckley.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Oh, we're rudderless without her.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Laura,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) I don't see on the bottom of my screen that anyone is raising their hand and I don't see anybody on a box indicating they wish to speak.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay, we'll give them an opportunity after the,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) They'll have a chance. 'cause there's another witness, right?

Brenda Smith (Chair) There's another witness, right. Okay, Mr. Stahl, you can call your next witness. Thank you

Speaker 7 Very much Mme. Travis. Are you there? Travis or Troy? Where's my architect? Travis?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Are we having

Speaker 12 Technical? No, Travis is, is that Travis Kepler because,

Speaker 7 Well, I usually use it here. Here's what I'm gonna do. He's,

Speaker 12 He's an attendee and has his hand raised. So if you go to the attendees list, Mr.

Speaker 7 Barlow, I don't see on the list he was

Speaker 12 On. There's a tra Travis Kepler. Is that your Yes.

Speaker 7 Yes. Okay. That's who I need.

Speaker 12 His hand is raised. I don't know if I, I, I don't know if Mr. Barley of the ability,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) He, he's not even on my screen.

Speaker 12 He's on the attendees list. You have to look at the total participants. Oh,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) The participants

Speaker 12 Look at it. Attendees, not panelists. Attendees and Travis Kepler's. There, there's also somebody. Yeah.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) No, I, I see him there with his hand up, but I don't see him. I don't see a, I do,

Brenda Smith (Chair) I see him

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) There a box.

Speaker 12 Well, that's okay. We just have to let him come into the screen. But I'm not, who has the power

Brenda Smith (Chair) To do that?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) I don't, I missed Laura Fox. We

Speaker 12 Lost Laura, right?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Is she back?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Laura

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Laura's back there. She's okay. Okay. Okay. I have

Speaker 7 Two, lemme, lemme try something if I may. Madam Chair, just

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Wait Jim, just a

Speaker 7 Second. Lemme back my good. Hold

Laura Buckley (Clerk) On, hold on, hold on. Who is Travis Kepler? Is he what you guys?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) He

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Is a late, well, he didn't use his link to get on, that's why he's not.

Speaker 7 Yeah, he had problems. Lemme

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Do it this way. You don't need to, Jim, wait a second. Lemme try this. Jim, just wait a minute, please let her bring him in. Okay. Now she can unmute him and he can, he'll be, well

Laura Buckley (Clerk) I unmuted. He has to,

Speaker 13 Can you hear, hear us? He

Speaker 7 Is.

Speaker 14 Oh,

Speaker 7 Okay. Okay.

Speaker 13 Thank you. Thank you.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Why don't they use the, there he is. Okay.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Yeah. You guys, when I send you links, use the links, it brings you right on the

Speaker 14 Meeting. Yeah. I mean we, we clicked the link that we had in the attachment, but it wouldn't let us in. Yeah,

Speaker 13 Okay. We, we've been able to hear, but, but not speak. So I appreciate the opportunity.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Okay.

Speaker 7 Alright. Travis? I may.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Okay. He needs to be sworn in. Raise

Speaker 7 Your right hand please.

Speaker 3 Which one is one?

Speaker 7 Where's your picture? Travis?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Jim, who are you calling as a witness? Travis Kepler.

Speaker 7 Travis Kepler is a short witness with regard to architecture.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Thank you. Okay, Ms. Saunders.

Speaker 3 Okay, Mr. Kepler, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will the truth and nothing but the truth?

Speaker 14 Yes.

Speaker 3 Thank you.

Speaker 7 Alright. Unfortunately, Tom, he was a late bloomer to the extent that he had a, there was an issue getting him the information. Alright. Travis, raise your right. Oh, your order was sworn in?

Speaker 14 Yes. Yes

Speaker 7 Sir. Alright. And by whom are you employed?

Speaker 14 Warehouse architects and engineers.

Speaker 7 Alright. Are you an architect?

Speaker 14 I am, yes.

Speaker 7 Are you licensed in New Jersey?

Speaker 14 Yes.

Speaker 7 And for how long have you been licensed?

Speaker 14 In my first licensure started in 2015 in Pennsylvania and I've been licensed in New Jersey for four years.

Speaker 7 And have you testified before planning and zoning boards in the state of New Jersey?

Speaker 14 No, this is my first time.

Speaker 7 All right, well good for you. Congratulations. And where did you go to school and then we'll get you qualified?

Speaker 14 Sure. I went to Drexel University in Philadelphia with a bachelor's of architecture and I've worked for warehouse for 14 years now.

Speaker 7 Alright. Mr. Barlow is a Buckley. I ask that he be Madam chair lady that he be qualified as a, an expert in architecture?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Yes. Okay.

Speaker 7 Alright. Mr. Travis, you say is your, what is your specialty in terms of architecture?

Speaker 14 From our, from our firm, myself and Troy Banker, who's the project manager, we do a lot of warehouse work, different sizes down, you know, a hundred, 200,000 square feet up to over a million.

Speaker 7 And have you been engaged by KB to provide architectural plans and the design of the three buildings?

Speaker 14 Yes, sir.

Speaker 7 And could you describe for the board briefly? Construction, material, color and, and what and the interior if you

Speaker 14 Sure. So the construction type is the precast concrete panels that are erected on site via a crane with steel structure as the roof, rubber roof, rubber, e you know, membrane roof. Currently we have a few different elevations of the buildings. Right now we are looking at kind of light medium gray tones and with some darker accent tones on the different sides of the building. The panels will have some variation in them as far as reveal joints, just to break them up a little bit, kind of give 'em some architectural style. There's some vertical joints, some horizontal joints. And like I said, there's some, some variation in the, the colors of the panels themselves. The elevation heights of the building. So building a, the maximum height is 47 feet two inches. Building B is 47 foot seven inches, and building C is 46 foot 11 inches tall

Speaker 7 At the highest. And this is the new system. When I say new, this is the height requirement. They're, most warehouses are require at this time, is that correct?

Speaker 14 Correct.

Speaker 7 40 40 feet plus. Is that correct?

Speaker 14 Yes. Typically they, they're looking for 32 foot to 34 foot clearance inside the warehouse for the stacking of the racks in internally. You ask about the interior finish of it, it's typically the concrete wall panel on the inside, you know, lar large concrete floors and then, you know, a small office as we've, we've talked about in the corners of the buildings themselves.

Speaker 7 And you have the ability to, or the applicant has the ability to construct a demising wall if in fact there were two tenants in the building. Is that correct?

Speaker 14 Yes. Yes.

Speaker 7 And I think, let me ask the question. That's really all I have the Madam Chairman chairwoman lady.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay, that's fine. Members of the public, do you, members of the board, do you have any questions of Mr. Kepler?

Speaker 15 I do. Madam, Madam Chair. I, I just got a question. I,

Brenda Smith (Chair) This is the mayor. This is Mayor Wahler speaking for the record. Yes,

Speaker 15 I, I noticed the plans here talks about four different color schemes. I just wanna make sure when we do the motion that the staff reviews this, I'm, I'm telling you right now, there's not gonna be any obnoxious colors out there. So we're gonna have final sale color goes out there. So I just want to give the architect a heads up, Mr. Stahl.

Speaker 7 Yeah, I, I agree with you. This

Speaker 15 Is our, our main thoroughfare in town and we're not gonna have like an Amazon color or some BS like that.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) So you work with the professional staff for acceptable color schemes, correct? Mr. Stall?

Speaker 7 Ab Absolutely. Mr. Barlow and mayor, we, we, I, you know, I, it was one of my questions. Whatever the staff and the planning board think we, we have no problem with that. We want a good looking, we want good looking buildings and we want the neighbors to, to enjoy that or not enjoy it, but to not be offended. Okay.

Speaker 15 Thank you Mr. Stall. And, and I remember as a kid growing up in that area that one time there was almost 3,500 employees there at that site.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Oh geez. That's,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Any other members of the board have questions of

Speaker 12 Mr. Madam Chair? I'm just gonna thank the mayor for saying what I always say. I get really persnickety about aesthetic, so thank you. Make it look good.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Any other questions from members of the board? I guess we'll open it up to the public members of the public. Do you have any questions for this witness who has given testimony about the actual physical layout of the building as it's proposed? If you do, please indicate by either waving your hand or calling in by the numbers provided.

Speaker 12 No. And Madam chair,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Close to the public members of the public. If you have any questions of the previous witness, you can take this time now to call in and to ask questions of the previous witness who I believe his name was. What was his name? Mr. Seawall. You can do so by raving raising your hand or calling in at this time.

Speaker 7 I have Corey Chase.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Corey, do you see it? I don't believe anyone is wants to ask. Mr. Sewell has responded. Any questions either. So I think Mr. Stalls calling his next witness. Mr. Corey Chase? Yes. Cory

Speaker 7 Chase.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Cory Chase is the next witness called you?

Speaker 16 Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Board.

Speaker 7 Here he is. Thank you. Well, did you, did you and Josh decide to have the same haircut Corey? We do. We

Speaker 16 We, we go for the team effort.

Speaker 7 Alright, raise your right hand, Cory. Okay.

Speaker 3 Yep. Do you swear swear the testimony about the give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

Speaker 16 I do.

Speaker 3 Thank you.

Speaker 7 Alright, Corey, please provide the board with your, spell your name and spell your last name please.

Speaker 16 Good evening everyone. Cory Chase, C-O-R-E-Y. Last name C-H-A-S-E Partner with dynamic traffic located in Chester, New Jersey, bachelor's of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Massachusetts, licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Nine other states licenses are all current and in good standing

Speaker 7 Madam Chair, I ask that Mr. Chase qualified as an expert in traffic engineering. So granted. Alright Corey, I'll, I'll leave you to go as I usually do two things. I'd like you to discuss the ingress and egress to the site in terms of safety and and reasonableness. And then I'd like you just to advise the board as to what we're doing on the interior with regard to access and the parking design.

Speaker 16 Certainly. And I pulled up exhibit A two, which was previously entered by Mr. Ald, which is the overall site plan rendering depicting the redevelopment of the subject property. As Mr. Ald mentioned, we are providing three full movement access points along night. Knights Bridge Road, a lot A will be accessed via two full movement driveways. Lot B will be accessed via single full movement driveway. These driveways will provide safe and efficient access to all areas of the site for both employee traffic as well as the truck traffic associated with each of the warehouse buildings. We did prepare a traffic impact study. It was previously submitted to the township dated January 26th, Jan dated January 28th, 2026. We did a pre and post development analysis on the adjacent roadway network to determine if there are any detrimental traffic impacts as a result of the redevelopment of the subject property. As Mr Ald mentioned, the site's currently occupied by approximately 700,000 square feet of office space with approximately 2000 parking spaces.

Speaker 16 So we did provide an it, which is the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Comparison, utilizing the latest edition of the Trip Generation manual, which is the 12th edition, just to provide an apples to apples comparison. We obviously, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the office space is currently vacant today, what the ITE would suggest that that office space would generate in comparison to what the proposed warehouse development would generate should the board act favorably on this application. Those results are summarized on table five, which is located on page nine of our report. And what it indicates is there would be a significant reduction in overall traffic to and from the subject property during both the critical peak hours as well as through the course of a day when you compare the traffic generated by the office building to that traffic, which is projected to be generated by the proposed warehouse development.

Speaker 16 So a, a substantial reduction in traffic when you look at the IT trip generation comparison between the existing office facility and the proposed warehouse development. However, in order to provide an extremely conservative analysis, we assumed that the site was undeveloped. So we assumed all traffic was new over vacant land to provide a conservative assessment of the overall impacts on the adjacent roadway network. As I mentioned, we did do a pre and post-development analysis at the foreigner sections directly adjacent to the subject property as they would be the most impacted by the redevelopment of the subject property. Providing that free and post-development level of service analysis, we found that there are no degradations in the overall operational conditions at any of those intersections during the critical peak hours. So as traffic engineers we focus on the weekday morning and weekday evening peak commuter hours per a facility of this nature found that there are no overall level of service degradations during either of those critical peak hours at any of those adjacent intersections.

Speaker 16 We found that the site driveways were gonna operate at acceptable levels of service during each of the critical peak hours. We did investigate a relatively minor a two second signal timing modification at the Centennial Avenue intersection with the Route 2 87 south ramps just to overall improve the operational conditions at the intersection during, during the weekday evening peak hour with that very minor traffic signal timing modification. But we found that the overall intersection would actually operate better than it does today. What we found is over time, you know, these intersections have a traffic signal time that set in place and then tends to go by many years before they get updated and generally aren't reflective of the current traffic patterns in the area. As Mr. Siwa mentioned, we are going to provide an additional, and this is consistent with Ms. Dolan's recommendation again based on data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and their parking generation manual.

Speaker 16 She correctly identified that laday was about 11 spaces short of what the ITE would recommend for a speculative warehouse of that size. So we will be adding those 11 spaces on lot a to conform with what the ITE would suggest for la. And based on that and based on Mr. Al and myself have done these facilities all over the state of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania as well, we feel that there's gonna be sufficient parking for the site on both lot A as well as on lot B. Again, safe and efficient circulation will be provided to all areas of the site for both trucks and employee access and no detrimental impacts on the adjacent roadway network as a result of the redevelopment of the subject property. And that's based on the conservative analysis as I mentioned, that we prepared, which assumed that the site was completely vacant today and that this warehouse development would be new over vacant land. Mr. Stahl, that's all I have for direct testimony, obviously I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board or Ms. Dolan may have.

Speaker 7 Thank you Corey. I hope I didn't offend you about your haircut Actually I like it Madam Chair. Thank you. I turn the Mr. Chase over to the, to the board and the public for questions. Ma

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Madam chair, may I just real quick, Ms. Dolan?

Speaker 17 Yes, I'm

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Here. Good to see you. Ha, having heard from the applicant that they are going to comply with comment TS five that you had rightfully noted the shortage of the 10 spaces and now they're bringing it up to 101, are you satisfied that they've addressed the parking as you, as you saw it to be an issue for lot a?

Speaker 17 Yes, I'm satisfied.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) And having reviewed the traffic study that the applicant is it, is it your belief that the project as designed would result in safe and efficient traffic flow?

Speaker 17 Yes. And, and Mr. Chase's testimony was, was, was perfect in my regard in identifying the fact that this is a much lower trip generation scenario than had historically existed and they did conservatively analyze the situation without accounting for the traffic associated with the prior use, the, the office, which was much more intensive. So I do agree with the overall conclusions of the traffic study and the access configuration as well as the onsite circulation will provide safe and efficient movement for vehicular traffic.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) And as, as amended by them with the 10 additional spaces, you believe there's enough parking on site for what they are proposing?

Speaker 17 Yes. And there was a commentary earlier in the testimony regarding the surplus on lot B and I think we could definitely land bank some of the parking there because there, there does seem to be a bit more than maybe required and if needed in the future it can be added if it's land banked.

Speaker 7 And I don't think we'd have any problem Mr. Barlow working with the staff and Ms. Dolan to determine how much banking would be required. You know, in the future we may have to use it, but I'll leave that to Corey, Josh and the Betsy and the staff to work out.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Sounds good. Ms. Dolan, do you have any other comments?

Speaker 17 No, I think the only other outstanding comment in our report had to do with the potential for higher trip generation associated with some of these across docking type of, of higher intensity warehouses. But based on the sizes of these buildings and the testimony that's been provided and the fact that the site had overall generated much higher intensity traffic, I think we can conclude that even though the tenants are unknown at this time, we're talking about speculative warehouse and I, I don't think we're looking at anything close to an Amazon situation here. So I'm, I'm satisfied with the testimony and the submitted materials.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Thank you. That's all I had. Ms. Smith, if you wanna open it up to the board, if they have any questions as to the Mr. Chase's testimony,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Members of the public, you've heard the testimony of Ms. Chase, Mr. Chase, Mr. Cory Chase, do you have any questions of this witness? Would you indicate that you have questions by either waving your hand or calling the number and the telephone number to call in? No.

Speaker 12 One mad Madam Chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Close to the public. All right, Mr. Stall, do you have any other witnesses or would you like to get the

Speaker 7 Question? No, that's all. I, I have Madam Chair and I just wanted to indicate that I don't use, I don't do closings or a commentary, but I think quite seriously that this application and the request is gonna make that site, which is rather unsightly now quite honestly into a, a productive site, good looking landscape and with the required access and interior parking, interior traffic. So I would request the board look favorably upon this application.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Do I members of the board, do I have your, do I have a motion?

Speaker 12 Madam Chair? Councilwoman Cahill, I'd like to make a motion that the board approve this application, but with, as we stated earlier, and as Mr. SA indicated that through the redevelopment plan that this applicant works with the township through each of the processes, whether that is in terms of land, banking, parking, the aesthetics, as the mayor mentioned, or really any other part of this application, as Mr. Stall mentioned, it is gonna, they're looking for approval and to work hand in hand with the redevelopment. So I just wanna make sure that, and, and Mr. Barlow, if I missed anything, please do add on that as this board does look to approve this, that, that the applicant understands that this is an application to work through what the redevelopment plan says and work with our professionals in town should something come up. And there is a change of plan that we make sure that the applicant is abiding by what not only the master plan is of the town, but also the spirit of which that we're, you know, doing this redevelopment obviously to invigorate to create jobs a better aesthetic, but really in every aspect of the application that the applicant is working with the town.

Speaker 12 I probably said too much and it wasn't very specific, but Mr. Barlow, you can add on there,

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Ms. Ca Councilman Yes. Subject to all the conditions that the applicant had previously outlined and agreed to.

Speaker 12 Thank you. So

Speaker 7 Mr. Barlow, if I can, and I don't wanna, and, and I don't wanna get tested. I'm not testing, I never am the condition. We're gonna work with the township as indicated with regard to subsequent approval of the redevelopment

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Jones. Mr. Stall, you, you had made your opening statement and we'll, we'll incorporate it as you indicated then

Speaker 7 That's, thank you Tom. I, I knew I could count on you. Yep.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second?

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Mr. SA second.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Thank you.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Phone call please.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam Chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Thank you gentlemen. And thank

Speaker 7 You ladies and gentlemen and mayor. Well, mayor is the gentleman, but you know, all of you, I think you're gonna, we're gonna make you proud. My client is not a novice in the development area. He puts up quality buildings and I think you'll be proud of what you see when he is done. And I thank you again.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) You. Thank you Mr. Stall. Pleasure as always to see you.

Speaker 7 I believe this pleasure. I'll be talking to you.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you all. I believe this completes our agenda. The reminder that our next board meeting is September the 20. Our site meeting is September the 23rd and our next regular board meeting is October the seventh. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Excuse me, Madam Chair. It's October 14th is the next meeting.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Oh, okay.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Raise, switch the dates. I apologize.

Speaker 11 October 14th. Noted. October,

Brenda Smith (Chair) October 14th is our next regular planning board meeting.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Correct. So moved. Madam Chair,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you for the adjournment. All approved signified by saying aye. Aye. Ayes have it. Thank you. Everyone have safe, safe. He says stay safe until our next meeting. Thank you. Good night

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Everyone. Good night.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) I'll give you a call in the morning if that's okay.

Speaker 11 You you got it. Good

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Night. Okay.

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Good night.

Speaker 11 Thanks.

Thomas W. Barlow (Planning Atty) Ron and I are seeing each other again tomorrow in birthday.

Speaker 11 Yeah, I, I'm actually, Tom, I'm, I'm gonna interest because we've had, I, I have a junior planner who's, who's on on, was on the call. Isabella Rodriguez. I'm gonna introduce her to you. Okay. So anyway, have a good

Laura Buckley (Clerk) Night everyone. Alright, good night everyone.