Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on October 14 2026

Last updated October 15, 2026

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

Oct 14 2026 · Planning

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes and Madam Chair present. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the Open Public meeting Notice?

Speaker 1 Certainly Madam Chair, I just wanna place on the record that we're doing this meeting through an online meeting platform and keeping with the guidelines that have been disseminated by the Department of Community Affairs, the planning board has tried its best to comply with the Open, open Public Meetings Act and the DCA guidelines. In addition, any applicant whose matters 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 if they were in an actual physical space. And I believe we've done our best to comply with the DCA guidelines and the Open Public Meetings Act.

Brenda Smith (Chair) The American flag can be seen over my shoulder. Can we please recite the Pledge of Alle Allegiance? I pledge Allegiance alle to the flag 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. Can we have the swearing in of the professionals? Please can,

Speaker 2 Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

Brenda Smith (Chair) I do. I do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Barlow. I believe there's some amendments changes on tonight's agenda.

Speaker 1 Yes. Madam Chair, item number 1426 Pvo four, which is two Johnson Avenue LLC Block 3 4 0 1 Lot 61 at 10. Possum Town Road is postponed to the December 9th, 2026 meeting. The applicant will notice number 15 on the agenda, 26 PB 10 and 11 V, which is 6 0 5 Fairview properties LLC block 1 4 0 6, lot 10.02 at 6 0 5 Fairview Avenue has been postponed till November 4th. There will be no further notice. So if you're here for 6 0 5 Fairview Properties, the matter's not gonna be heard this evening and it will be heard on November 4th. And lastly, number 13, tower. Just to remind the board I, I can't handle that matter. Mr. Kinneally is present when it gets to number 13 and he'll step in and handle that on behalf of the board.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. That's number 13. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Item number seven, please. Can I get a motion to pay the bills, please?

Speaker 3 Madam Chair, Reverend Kenney, I make a motion and would pay the duly ordered

Brenda Smith (Chair) Bills. May have a second.

Speaker 2 Carol Saunders second

Brenda Smith (Chair) Roll call please.

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahammed? Yes. Mr. Cheveria? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Thank you. Item number eight, adoption of resolutions.

Speaker 2 Madam Chairman, I'd like to adopt the resolutions to memorialize action taken at the September 9th, 2026 meeting application 26 PV 17 degree Orthodox community of nb final major subdivision.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second please? Mr.

Speaker 1 Adkins? Reverend Kenney. I'll second it.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Roll call please.

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Sta Ahammed? Yes. And Madam chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes.

Speaker 2 Madam Chair, I'd like to memorialize application 26 PB dash zero one slash zero two slash zero three B for 30 KB LLC preliminary fight, final site plan, bulk variance. Major subdivision.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second please?

Speaker 1 A seconded

Brenda Smith (Chair) Full call please.

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?

Speaker 2 Yes.

Speaker 4 Reverend Kenney? Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahammed? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes.

Speaker 2 Madam Chairman, I'm number nine. I'd like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of September 9th, 2026.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Do I have a second please? Matt? Go ahead Ms. Ms. Cochrane, where are you going to say something?

Speaker 4 I was just saying

Brenda Smith (Chair) Madam chair, I'll make, I'll second that.

Speaker 4 Thank,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Roll call

Speaker 4 Please. Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilman McCahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Mr. Ahmed? Yes. And Madam Chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes.

Speaker 4 Sorry, I lost my place.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Item number 10, we have a discussion tonight. The needs of the a need of Rema matter in an area in need of re redevelopment of a block. 57 0 1 lot, 11.01 and 12.

Speaker 1 Next what?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) See yes. Good evening. Members of the board, James Clark in here to share this report with you. So this is an area I need a redevelopment study addendum. So we're adding a piece of property. James,

Speaker 1 Can I just stop you for one second because I didn't see you on the screen when Ms. Saunders swore you in. Were you present

James Clark (Foresight Planning) For that? I was there, yes.

Speaker 1 Understand you're under oath for all these next three matters. Okay, thank you. I just didn't see the box. There were a lot of em and I'm just seeing

James Clark (Foresight Planning) All good. Yes, continue. Check the boxes. I'm under oath. Understood. So yeah, so this is an addendum to an area you need of redevelopment study we did a couple years ago. The study in question is block 5 7 0 1 lots, 11 and 12. So I'm just gonna walk through my report. It's pretty straightforward. So the piece of property that we're looking to add is called 96 Woodland Avenue. But before I get into that, I just want to put a couple things on the record. The board asked me to do this because of township council resolution 26 1 7 8 that was passed this past summer on June 30th. And once again, the study in question that we're adding to is the one I did in 2004 for block 5 7 0 1 lots, 11 and 12. So after that study back in 2024, both of those parcels were deemed an area in need of redevelopment.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) And then I believe the following year we did a redevelopment for Lot 11, which was for the senior housing project. And at this point, I'm gonna bring up the map as like a little refresher. So this is South Washington Avenue. I'm hoping you can see my cursor on the right here. So the study we did in 2024 was for lot 11, which is in the blue. And then lot 12, which is a little bit further down. And then the redevelopment plan was specific for just Lot 11. Now what pre piece of property we're adding is called 96 Woodland. I'm gonna zoom in a little bit. Hopefully you can follow along. It's this tiny parcel right here on the corner of Woodland and Sylvan. Well technically, yeah. So it's a vacant, undeveloped property that sits right here.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) So I perform my normal investigation and I found that it's a small 5,000 square foot vacant lot that's about point 11 acres. And as I mentioned, it's right next door to the area native redevelopment that we already did. So I looked into it's past, it's as far as I can tell, it's always been vacant land with no previous developments. Perhaps it was used as agriculture. But after my investigation, I believe it meets the CE H criteria and also can be included for the effective redevelopment. So, and I'm gonna go into why. So as a reminder, the C criteria is land that is owned by the municipality, county Housing Authority Redevelopment Agency, or an unimproved vacant land, which this is and has been so for a period of 10 years. And that due to reason of its location remoteness or topography, that it won't be developed through the instrument tend to instrumentality of private capital.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) So this vacant, as I mentioned, this vacant corner lot has been undeveloped since prior to 1950. It has never been looked at to be redeveloped. And I think it's highly unlikely that private capital would look for just this one lot to develop it mostly because it's undersized the existing zoning limits, the development to single family residential. And it would be pretty difficult to construct a modern single family home that meets all of your zoning bulk requirements and also the size and modern amenities of a new home. So due to that, those two reasons I think that it meets the C criteria. It's vacant on improved land and very unlikely to be developed by private capital for those reasons. Moving on to E, the E criteria is a growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of title, diverse ownership of real properties or other similar conditions which impede land assemblage or discourage the undertaking of improvements.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) I'm not gonna read the whole thing, but such those conditions it causes a negative social or economic impact is really the key provision there. And so that small lot 96 s that we're looking to add to the study area is zoned R 10 single family residential zone. And that requires a 10,000 square foot lot. And this is only 5,000 square feet. So you definitely would need a number of variances to get a single family residence, which would be rather small and very on top of the neighbors. So it's unlikely to be economically viable. Further, the rezoning of Lot 12 for senior citizen housing really contributes to the isolation even more. We can't really use it for single family and it can't really be used for lot 12 unless there's some sort of land assemblage. And so these con conditions are causative factors for the E criteria as they're creating a negative social and economic impact on the community. 'cause it's becoming stagnant and unproductive, which we would like to reverse.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) I also find that the property meets the each criteria, which is the smart planning principles. That's because it's in the state planning area one. And then on the last page I also say that the property is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the existing in need study. Excuse me. So block 7 9 0 3 lot 67.01, which is 96 woodland is necessary for the effect of redevelopment of the surrounding area because that will need proper access as an integral part of the overall vision. As you know, the overall, the overall vision is senior housing development for the study area. So we want to add this for additional infrastructure connectivity access and also to increase areas used for stormwater management de. So in conclusion, I think such use and adding this to the redevelopment study area allows any future redevelopment to further achieve the planning objectives, which is really maximizing the amount of senior housing units on the projects that will help meet the township meet its fourth round obligation for affordable housing. So in conclusion, this addendum to the area need of redevelopment study block 5 7 0 1 lots, 11 and 12 prepared by foresight planning back in 2024. I find that block 7 9 0 3 lot 67.01 meets the CEH criteria as well as the criteria that including it as necessary for the effect of redevelopment is true. So it is my recommendation that we add 96 woodland, which is block 7 9 0 3 lot 67.01 into the study area as a non combination area in need of redevelopment.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) And I know I went through a lot, so happy to go over anything again.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Are you done?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yeah, this is a quick one because it's such a small law in an existing study area, we're really just tacking it on to something we've done previously.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Effective. Oh right. We wanna take down your

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yes. Thank you.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Okay. Members of the board, do you have any questions?

Gabrielle Cahill Madam Chair, Councilwoman Cahill, Mr. Clark. And just to be clear, the, the idea here is on this, on this piece of land is that there shall be no building but rather used as an accessway AC access point to the senior housing development. That's redevelopment plan that's already been approved, that you know the land that's contiguous to this piece. Is that correct?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) That's exactly correct. You got it. Yep.

Gabrielle Cahill Thank

James Clark (Foresight Planning) You. It's really just an extra access point.

Gabrielle Cahill Will that redevelopment plan suggest that as its own road or driveway? I know you mentioned retention basin in there as well, but if it's an access point it's gonna be paved, correct? Or the idea

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Would, yeah, I think it'll be paved in. You probably couldn't tell from the map, but I think a part of it is paved, so I think the pavement would continue, but I'm not sure if it would be a regular driveway or if it would be a secondary access point with a gate for emergencies only. It might be the latter.

Speaker 4 Okay. Thank you.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Anyone else on the board have a questions of Mr. Clarkin? Okay, we can now open it up to members of the public. Members of the public. You've heard the testimony of Mr. Clarkin regarding this piece of property that is up for consideration of whether it's appropriate for an to be an area in need of development. If you have any questions of Mr. Clarkton, would you please raise your hand and indicate that you have a question?

Speaker 4 And if you're on a phone you can hit star six. That'll unmute you.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. You see anything?

Speaker 4 No one Madam Chair. Welcome.

Brenda Smith (Chair) There

Speaker 1 Is a, there is a ma'am, no

Brenda Smith (Chair) Question. Is there a question?

Speaker 4 No, we have two. Okay.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay.

Speaker 1 Somebody typed in and said, where is the senior housing planned to be built? I don't know who that person was.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. He can come forward or he or she can make their,

Speaker 4 We have Timothy. That

Speaker 7 Was, yes, that was me. Can you hear me?

Speaker 4 Yes.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. That was

Speaker 7 That. That was my question. I moved here about a year and a half ago and I'm not familiar with the senior.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Housing. Could you give, sir, could you give us your name, your full name, and your address

Speaker 7 Please? My name is Timothy Noey. I live at 1 39 Woodland Ave or Woodland Road. Sorry.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Could

Speaker 7 You,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Your question please.

Speaker 7 And I'm just wondering if, if I could just get some awareness for the planned senior housing development. I don't know if, if there's some vision for how big it, how big of a footprint it has on the map. I would just appreciate that. Thank you.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Sure. So I don't have the plan in front of me. I believe we did it last year, but we could pull it up, but I believe it's for lot 11, so there should be some space between Woodland and the senior housing center. But you know, let me, I'll have to look it up really fast to give you an idea of how many units, but

Speaker 8 Correct. Madam Chair, this is Mayor Wall, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clark. And the primary access is gonna be from South Washington Avenue?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) That is correct. So really what this, my presentation tonight is really just to add that small parcel, undeveloped parcel into the in need study area so that we can add that secondary access for emergencies. So there shouldn't be anyone coming to enter the senior housing development from within Avenue.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Does anyone else a question? Mr. Clark?

Speaker 7 Yeah, there's

Speaker 1 A

Speaker 7 Carl Fitzgerald. Yes. My name is Carl Fitzgerald. I live at 90 Lakeside Drive North. I'm, I'm surprised a little bit for the extent of the senior housing project, the, for the fact that there are two streams on that property. One stream is at the, is at the Paper Street on Lakeside Drive North, the other stream is at, is at Burn Park. It's definitely wetlands back there. There's also a pipeline that goes through that area. I'm not fully sure like why we would develop so much when we already have five lights going up, going up Washington Avenue to Stelton, you know, that I'm not sure that we need cluster housing on, on that level.

Speaker 1 Thank you Mr. Fitzgerald. Just to understand, this has nothing to do with the development that may take place on the property. This is solely with regards to adding that 5,000 square foot parcel to the area in need of redevelopment. Ultimately there will be a site plan and an application and a building and everything else that can be reviewed. And we'll have to go through the review by the board's professionals. If there are wetlands, it goes to the DEP. So yeah, just to understand that the, the board isn't considering any development tonight. It's just considering whether the 5,000 square foot parcel meets the definition in the statute of an area need of redevelopment that will be attached to of properties that were already designated that a year ago.

Speaker 7 Yeah. Again, if this is going to be an access point, that means that there'll be building equipment coming through our roads. There'll be different components of access to if this plan is approved and then, you know, he's saying that the, that that we blocked off, but that would be a tremendous amount of traffic coming through a neighborhood. We have kids walking to a bus stop. We have little children in, in the neighborhood now,

Speaker 1 Mr. Fitzgerald, but we're not discussing, that's not what's before the board. There is no

Speaker 7 Application. The access is what you're saying that that would be access to that property, I'm assuming it's for building what it, why else would you have access?

Speaker 1 No, the the, the issue is does it meet the criteria in the statute to be designated in area need of redevelopment and added to the properties that have already been so designated. There is no development plan before the board today. There you, you're gonna get a chance to see what's going up there and the plans and there's gonna be a presentation before this board and the board's gonna have to review it and approve it.

Speaker 8 I think Madam Chair, I think Mr. Fitzgerald's asking there, there already is a township Paper Street right there as of right now on Silva. But you know, the, there's still the, the board, the applicant still has to go through all applicable, as Mr. Clark had said, DEP reviews and everything, if there's a stream there, obviously they can't build on it or whatever. You know, there's a whole litany of things that they have to take care of before they even get to, to the, to come before the board.

Speaker 9 And two Mr. Fitzgerald, when, when the application's filed with our office and it is deemed complete, the actual site plan, if you're, you're, if you're within 200 feet, you're gonna receive that notice and you can certainly come into our office, look at the plans, look at the file, any permits that were, you know, issued by GEP and so forth. So you can certainly be in touch with our office throughout the process.

Speaker 8 Okay.

Speaker 9 We understand. Okay.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Are there any other questions of this witness from the public

Speaker 4 One plus CEPH?

Speaker 10 Hey, my name is Jeh Patel. I'm currently residing at 87 Woodland Road. I just had a question. I heard you guys said there was approved senior housing, it's, so is that approved already or is in process of getting approved because somebody said it was approved.

Speaker 8 That is not.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) So there was a redevelopment plan that was done a year ago. And really what that does is it sets up the vision for that lot in that area. But to miss Corcoran's point and others, they still have to file an official site plan application to go through the normal process to make sure you're complying with said plan in order to build it.

Speaker 9 And there weren't

Speaker 8 Gonna be, and sorry Dawn, just jumping, there was an approved plan, correct Site plan approval of the property to the north of this

Speaker 9 1700 South

Speaker 8 1700. This, this property, not the 5,000 square feet, but the other property when it comes in, that'll also be age restricted and that they will have a joint access agreement to get out onto South, south Randolphville Road

Speaker 10 End of. Okay. And is the zoning application approved for, I guess this is agriculture land or, or I don't know what kind of zoning it is currently under, but the, if the planning is senior

Speaker 8 State restricted housing,

Speaker 10 It is zone for as of now.

Speaker 4 As of right now.

Speaker 10 Okay. Just just outta curiosity, was this zoning changed

Brenda Smith (Chair) Subject of a redevelopment plan and an area you need?

Speaker 10 Okay, so it was part of, okay. And, okay. All right.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Are there any other members of the public who would like to ask a question?

Speaker 4 No. And Madam Chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Hearing no response. It's closed to the public. Okay, Mr. Clark. And do you have anything additional with reference to this discussion?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) I do not.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Okay. Members of the board, you've heard the testimony and discussion of this additional matter that has to go before the council. What is your pleasure

Speaker 9 Madam Chair? If I may, it's Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a motion that we recommend that block 7 9 0 3 lot 67.01 be added to the area in need of redevelopment study.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second?

Speaker 3 Second chair Kevin Kinneally. I'll second that motion.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. We have a, a motion and second that this is an area, a non-con condemnation area in need of redevelop development. That should go, this is a motion to go before the council, is that correct? That is

Speaker 3 Correct.

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

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahammed? Yes. Mr. Aria? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Hi. Hi. Item number 11 of discussion redevelopment plan for block 1901 lot 64 0 1, shown on page 19 on the Piscataway Township tax map property known as 44 Stelton Road.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Once again, I'll be presenting this redevelopment plan to you for 44 Stelton Road. So this is block 1901 lot 64.01 as a refresher. This, we did this indeed study I think earlier this year. Pardon me? And this is the new market school Yeah. Project. That's

Speaker 3 The only school redeveloped that for, you know, for stores and for,

James Clark (Foresight Planning) So I am gonna start with the plan overview. So we are proposing multifamily residential apartments and limited retail as permitted uses for this redevelopment plan. And really this is proposed use is because it's consistent with your master plan but really also your fourth round of housing element for affordable housing. So that is the intent for these permitted uses. As I said, it's block 1901 lot, 64.01. So I showed you the picture from the street, but this is at Stelton Avenue and Hopkinson Avenue and it's adjacent to the new market park. So the redevelopment area is three and a half acres and it's located in your business professional zone BP two and further as it's on Stone Road as part of that commercial corridor. I will, I can move this, give you a little map for orientation. So new market park back here we have Stelton Road, which is the frontage to the old school and this old, this strip mall and then Hopkinson Avenue right below it, find my place.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Right. So the next part of my plan really just goes over the principle permitted uses that currently exist today for your business professional zone. So as you're already familiar with your own zoning ordinance, I'm not really gonna spend too much time on that. I will touch on the plans goals and objectives, which is to create land use requirements specific for this area that effectuate development of the underutilized parcels such that they can increase tax rateables and construct appropriate land uses within the township. We want to reverse the observed conditions within the redevelopment area and use financial tools such as tax abatement to encourage this redevelopment.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) And I believe it'll provide the township with moderate residential units, including affordable housing units to satisfy the demand for affordable housing and your compliance with its fair share obligation. So jumping into the land use plan, which is really the meat of it, the principal permitted uses, as I mentioned, is just residential multifamily. This does include supervised independent living and group home units. I will touch on that more. I also have a bedroom mix listed below. But we wanted to include this because we wanted to give the board ultimate determination and control over the final bedroom mix for the residential units and for that matter, make sure that they're complying with the full affordable housing requirement. We're also permitting governmental and institutional uses. And then I mentioned that limited retail, so this is where the neighborhood serving retail service and commercial uses are listed. It's quite extensive, but I don't believe that the amount of retail will be significant as most of the property will be used for the residential units.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) So these uses are just what could go into that limited retail space, cafes, coffee shops, bakeries, delis, wine shops, art galleries. I can let you all read them all. But you know we, we, we wanted to give a wide breath to make sure we included any type of retail use that could be included for permitted accessory uses and structures. This is what you would typically think of for a multi-family residential building. So you have your amenity spaces like fitness centers, gyms, club rooms, lounges, game rooms, things of that nature. Coworking, we are encouraging outdoor tables and benches. You have your off street parking, your signs, outdoor patios or decks.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) And we're also saying fiber optic conduit meeting township specifications is permitted and required indoor and outdoor bicycle racks and anything that's considered customary to the principal use. And then prohibited uses is basically just nothing that's, or anything that's not expressly permitted herein is prohibited and obviously nothing dangerous or hazardous. So that brings me to the bulk standard table. We're going with a minimum lot area of three acres since the entire property is three and a half, your typical lot width and death is appropriate for this size property. We want 25 yard setbacks from the street and then we have 15 foot rear yard setback. So that would be from I believe the park and then the, you had the side yard setback at the ev. The maximum structure height can be four and a half stories or 53 feet maximum impervious coverage is 90% and that's because we have to fit so much parking, which I'll get into in a bit for these residential units with the maximum density being 52 dwelling units per acre.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) I did want to touch on this one asterisk. We are limited, we're allowing a limited number of compact car spaces can measure eight feet by 18 feet can be approved by your board. We wanted to include this flexibility because it will be tight. They are proposing a parking garage, so this will be a, may allow them to move things around so that they can fit the full amount of parking that's required for all these units. Moving on to parking at the bottom of page seven of my report. So the residential is 1.6 spaces per unit, whereas any supportive or independent living houses can be reduced to 0.5 spaces. And the reason for that is typically they don't own cars, but also there's only I believe three total units of those types. So it's a very small amount. So the majority of the parking will be covered by the residential units. And then for the limited retail it's one space per employee. During peak shift we included the typical electric charging stations requirements for utilities. I don't think there's anything of note that we need to go over. I wanted to jump to lighting. We're allowing a maximum mounting height of 12 feet to give proper lighting but also not shine into neighbors. Landscaping will be

Speaker 8 Madam Chair, if I can interrupt Mr. Clark in there. I did speak to Ms. Corker today about making sure we have the decorative lighting that like we have in our municipal complex and in a lot of the other areas of town now to make sure that's incorporated into plan, you know, where it has the Piscataway logo on it, you know, sort of like the Victor Stanley type lighting.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Got it. Yes, we can do that. I mean I have that later in here, but if not, I'll confirm. Okay. Right. Landscaping is just making sure we have shade trees along Stelton Road and Hopkinson on the frontages every 50 feet and making sure that they replace them if there's any die off and making sure they use native species additional design standards. I do wanna spend some time on, it's mostly fencing, but the reason is the bedroom distribution is in here. So as I mentioned, the planning board will have ultimate say on what the bedroom distribution will be, but this is the layout for market rate units. So we have 81 1 bedroom units, 59 2 bedroom, and then three three bedroom units. There are two non-revenue producing staff units that may be included. I think these will be for the group home unit that's included, which is a four bedroom and that counts towards your affordable housing requirements. And then there's also two independent living units. So I think these non-revenue staff units are for those support. And then for the affordable rate units we have four one bedroom units, 14 two bedroom units and five three bedroom units. So that's total of, sorry, 1823. And then,

Speaker 9 Sorry Jimmy, I'm I'm sorry, can I just jump in there? I just, yeah, just one concern with that breakdown on those affordable units. Sure. You know, this is a site that's in our fourth round plan and obviously we do have a specific number of units that are identified within that plan. So I just don't wanna be backed into the corner with that breakdown there. I know in the beginning of your testimony you said that they would have to comply with their fourth round obligation. Yeah. But this one section makes me just a little concerned

James Clark (Foresight Planning) 'cause of the required breakdowns by the state. Correct.

Speaker 9 It just seems to be a little bit under what the requirement will be, but Got it. Certainly that's something we can address at site plan as well.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Okay. Yeah, I'm happy to work with you to address this. Excellent. By either removing it or updating it after this meeting. Thank

Speaker 9 You. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Thank you.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) No, no, absolutely. We wanna make sure we get this right. It's important

Speaker 8 C brings up the thing if, if the, if the board chooses to approve this plan tonight, we can make it subject to our conditions of meeting the COA requirements for

Speaker 11 This site. Mayor, Mayor Wahler, you read my mind,

Speaker 9 I

Speaker 11 Put that, put that language in there subject to you know of forth run obligations. You then you should be covered.

Speaker 9 Yeah, he has it in the beginning of his report, but again, this breakdown just made me a little bit nervous.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yeah. And you can't say it as enough times can, you

Speaker 11 Can't hurt to have a qualifier there.

Speaker 9 Thanks Jimmy.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) No worries. No worries.

Speaker 12 Madam Chair, is it right if I just ask a clarifying question real quick?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Sure.

Speaker 12 Is, is section I, is that in addition to section H or that's just the breakdown of what would be, that's

James Clark (Foresight Planning) In addition. So like total you would a 85 1 bedroom. Got it. 73 2 bedroom exce, et cetera. Thank you. I think the total unit count is 170 when you include the non-revenue staff, the group home, everything.

Speaker 12 Thank you.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) I did want to touch on, we're a asking them to do gate access or any redeveloper really to New Park. Park is encouraged and a contribution to improve new market park as well. Roof decks with outdoor seating, public seating, et cetera. Also the board has always has say over the four plans elevations of building materials when the site plan comes before the board. I believe those were the major things I wanted to touch on, but before I a hundred percent say that. Yes. Also at the end we do say that the affordable housing credits will count towards your fourth round affordable housing plan and the Fair Housing Act and that it's satisfied through affordable units and supportive housing units. And in no event shall the required number of physical affordable units exceed 20% of the total approved residential unit count, which is the max. So yeah, definitely contingent on subject requirements for and total number of affordable units. So I am happy to take questions.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Members of the board, do you have questions of Mr. Clarkin?

Gabrielle Cahill Madam chair, it's Councilwoman Cahill, Mr. Clarkin, I apologize and you might've said it, but did we, did we include in what we want to have our vision of this lot to, you know, since it is residential requirements for any kind of charging stations?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yes, we did. It's at the top of page eight right after the minimum parking requirement table.

Gabrielle Cahill Okay. Which, which would make

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Sense highlighting the state's requirements of 15%. Yeah. Okay. And that they gotta be there prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.

Speaker 11 I mean, I'll make a humble, I'll make a humble suggestion with all these plans. Just say you gotta comply with the state requirements because if you put percentages in, it gets confused. We all know what it's, yeah. And if it changes at the state level, then have plan. We don't have to come back and change the plan.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) I like that. Thank you honor. Yeah,

Gabrielle Cahill I I would agree with that statement.

Speaker 11 Yeah. Mr. Clark. And so I, I I just ask you, you mentioned about the assisted, I mean independent living and you were gonna get back to it, but you didn't loop back. I just wanna ask you about that. Is that gonna be a defined term or what, what, what are we talking about here?

James Clark (Foresight Planning) So I don't think it's a defined term, but there're envisioning two independent living units.

Speaker 11 So here's what I said. If, if, if, if, if Ms. Kran is happy with all the language and it gives enough flexibility, we know what it is. We don't have to have a separate defined term. Okay. Otherwise that always suggests just say what the state defines it as. But you know, whatever Dawn is happy with, I'm good.

Speaker 9 And vice versa, Ron.

Speaker 11 So, you know, I'm a, I'm a big defined term guy, so if there's anything ambiguous ambiguity between the ordinance in here, because ordinance de definitions will take precedent if it's not defined in, in, in the plan, I would just suggest that we clarify it within this plan because that's what a plan's for.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 9 And Jimmy, just so I'm clear, there's gonna be one four bedroom group home, correct? Correct. And then two two bedroom independent living units. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yep.

Gabrielle Cahill Madam Chair, may I have a follow up question? Sure. So Mr. Clark, and just to continue, Ms. Corcoran's thought there on that, that suggested inclusion in the redevelopment is the, that that somehow a group living setting is set apart from the rest. I'm not so sure how that works If we're looking at like apartments for young people, for families, you know, like I, I don't know how developers work a, a group home or assisted home living setting within, you know, a setting that's not for that type of people in sort of one building.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) No, I totally hear you. The vision is actually to include it in the one structure. So this is, I think the plan is just one structure. So it'll be more of an apartment type, I believe with four individual bedrooms. And so I think it, you know, what you would typically think for a group home is who would be occupants might be transitory in nature, but

Gabrielle Cahill Wait, could you keep, could you provide a definition of group home then? Man, maybe I missed and the only reason why I say it is I, my

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Sister-in-law. Okay. It's been a while I, the

Gabrielle Cahill Principal of a group home in New Jersey, that was ARC and I Yes,

James Clark (Foresight Planning) That's a

Gabrielle Cahill Good, is exactly what I was

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Thinking. Exactly. Lots of arcs. The reason I said, oh man, is you're, you're making me dust off my affordable housing. Not

Speaker 11 Much. Now we're on the same wavelength, which is I, and then how is that to different from

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Independent living? Alright, you guys ready? It is a licensed community-based residential setting that provides 24 hours supervision care or s support services to a small group of individuals. So I think that's why that you have the two non-revenue producing staff units that will be supporting the four bedroom group home.

Speaker 11 See, and and that's why I would suggest that you copy and paste from what the state definition is and put it in defined terms so we know exactly what it is. I mean, it's, it's clear as day. This is the, the state regulates this

James Clark (Foresight Planning) For sure.

Gabrielle Cahill May I ask another question then? Sure. When we say folks who need assistance to live, we're not talking about people who could be potentially dangerous to neighbors or things of that nature. Are we talking about people with disabilities? I don't know what the state's definition is and what the terms are as to what group of people are defined to be people who need 24 7 assistance to live.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Right. I'm not positive if it's limited to disabilities only, I don't think so. So I can get back to you on the proper definition.

Gabrielle Cahill Well if we have to vote on it tonight, I won't be able to vote affirmative until I have that definition.

Speaker 8 If I can make a suggestion. You make it limited to disabilities.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yeah. Developmental disabilities for children and youth.

Speaker 8 I mean there's, there's already in that neighborhood Councilman, there's already three other group homes within a five block radius.

Gabrielle Cahill Yeah, that's not my concern. It's that there's gonna be no delineation. So you're talking about a group home that Mr. Clark and is not giving me a complete definition as to what type, you know, what people with what kind of needs would be in there. And there are folks who could potentially need 24 7 care who could be maybe disruptive to people living in a, you know, one contiguous sort of building. And that's the reason why I would like to have a complete definition of, you know, in

Speaker 8 Every group home, right, in every group home right now in our town, there's, there's live in I guess lack of a better word, faculty, that they're for a reason, you know, whether it's physical or mental or whatever that that's, that's going on right now throughout the town

Gabrielle Cahill As standalone or within other buildings.

Speaker 8 Standalone. Standalone.

Gabrielle Cahill Right. This is the difference. This is not standalone according to Mr. Clark. And they would be sort of like affordable housing would be mixed in and you know, you couldn't say necessarily the, my concern is that without a proper definition as to folks who would qualify for whatever the state's definition is of group home and who could be in there. You know, you don't want to have a situation where, you know, we're gonna, I mean we're approving for up to five bedrooms if, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct? And potential for families. I'm just, you know, thinking about if I'm living in an area, I would not want it to be a type of group home where it might be substance abuse or something like that.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Just to clarify, it's one unit with four bedrooms, so it'd be a larger unit

Gabrielle Cahill And I get that.

James Clark (Foresight Planning) Yeah,

Speaker 8 No, i i

James Clark (Foresight Planning) To the

Speaker 8 I agree with the councilwoman. So Mr. Barlow, if I can make a suggestion that if the board approves this, that we can make that subject as a condition of the regular planning process to get the definitive And if we don't like what we're seeing, that that just won't be part of the, part of the approval process.

Speaker 9 I think that's a fair suggestion. And at that time we'll have a developer who can explain what their true vision is, what license unit.

Speaker 8 Yeah. 'cause then, you know, ultimately they gotta go, come back before the board anyway and then you Yeah,

Gabrielle Cahill We

Speaker 8 Can put regulations on. Right.

Gabrielle Cahill I I I think that, that I would, yeah, I could have vote affirmative tonight if that could be part of the approval process.

Speaker 11 And alternatively we're putting Mr. Clarkin on the spot. The only other thing I would suggest is if he wanted to, we give him a, a, a quick assignment that he can do some research and we do have other applications here and if can figure out and give us the state definitions that might clarify, we can deal with this that at the end. But I defer to you guys. I mean he, he can't give this answer in 30 seconds, so.

Speaker 1 Right. Just keep in mind that we're not adopting anything. This is a recommendation to the council, which still has to review it and adopt it. So Yes,

Speaker 11 Good point Mr. Barlow.

Speaker 1 So those changes can be made as it goes

Gabrielle Cahill To the next. So Mr. Barlow, you're saying that at the council we can make those recommended changes and then bring it back here to the planning board?

Speaker 1 No, what I'm suggesting is we're, we're not adopting this plan this evening. We're reviewing it and recommending to the council to act so Mr. Clarkin can address the issues that have been brought up in terms of firming up some of the language in it before the council gets it to ultimately either adopt it or not adopt it. Okay. Because you had some questions about definitions and what I was suggesting is that can be tightened up before the council votes on the

Gabrielle Cahill Adopted. Okay. Yeah, no, I take your point. Fair, fair enough. But I still like what the mayor suggested.

Speaker 1 Yeah,

Speaker 11 I like, that's,

Speaker 1 I agree. But since he, he, he doesn't have a word processor out to edit it. I think Jim's gotten the marching orders, so to speak, as to the tweaks, changes in definitions that will be in the final version, I guess that the council will be reviewing and adopting or not adopting.

Speaker 11 So Mr. Barlow and mayor and, and Councilwoman McCahill, can I just clarify, was this referred to the planning board for consistency with the master plan or, or was this charged with Mr. Clark and to write it and then, you know, the planning board was writing it and Mr. Clarkin was charged with writing it

Speaker 8 Mi Mr. Clark was in charge of writing it because this was a, a COA site.

Speaker 11 Oh no, understood. Yeah. You know, mayor, while I'm just saying because if it was referred to us for consistency with the master plan, that's easy. We can make these recommendations and then they can be, council can adjust it. Yeah. So that, that's a, if that's the case, that's a simple answer. Yeah. I just, I don't know the resolution, how it was referred then, how we wrote it. So I, I think he got a clear pass. So that's enough of me.

Brenda Smith (Chair) So where do we stand? Are we gonna pose a motion or are we going to back to Mr. Clark? Well, I don't dunno if anyone else has any questions. And then if you wanna open it to the public and well, we can open to of the public, we may as well. Members of the public, you've heard the testimony of Mr. Clarkin here on this proposed

Speaker 4 Redevelopment plan.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Redevelopment plan. If you have a question of Mr. Clarkin and, and the information that he's given, please raise your hand or dial in to

Speaker 4 Star six to unmute on the phone. Raise your hand if you're on a computer. No. And Madam Chair,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Members of the public. Close to the members of the public. Alright. Does anyone wanna attempt to pose a motion? Perhaps Ms. Cochran or

Gabrielle Cahill Madam Chair? Ms. Councilwoman Kay.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Councilwoman Kay will help. Yeah,

Gabrielle Cahill I will propose the motion, but you know, it's all gonna be based upon getting a clarifying definition. I propose that we refer this back to the council and that when council receives it, that there is an updated def or there is a definition of what that means, what the state is definition of group home means. And that also that we include the ability for the planning board once it comes before us to be looking at what that may or may not look like in the final plan.

Speaker 12 Madam Chair.

Gabrielle Cahill Sorry, I I'm just adding that I'm not so sure I can say all that for this, but I will offer to, to move it up to Council.

Speaker 12 Madam Chair, I second it and I was gonna also second all of Councilman McCann's comments as well. So I hope you can say it because I'll say it.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Mr. That Aria, you seconded Whatever Councilmember, Uhrin Cahill said. Oh, I, so Mr. Barlow, I I think you can pull it together to make a motion. I

Speaker 4 I Yeah, we need to do the vote.

Brenda Smith (Chair) I know we're gonna, I'm gonna put it to a vote, but Mr. Barlow is gonna pull it together. We have a motion and we have a second. Would you please call the role

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes.

Speaker 4 Reverend Kenney?

Speaker 12 Yes.

Speaker 4 Yes. Oh, I was gonna echo Mr. Adkins. Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Ahammed? Yes. Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Okay. Okay, fine. We're done with item number 11. Item number 12, retain foresight. Planning to do a redevelopment plan for block 67 0 1 lot 3.01, also known as one Centennial Avenue on the Piscataway Township tax map.

Speaker 1 Dawn, you wanna or I, I'll take care of it. So there has been a request to undertake whether or not block 6 7 0 1 lot 3.01 is an area need of redevelopment. So the council has tasked us with that and we would need to retain a planner to prepare an area need of redevelopment plan. So that's what we just need to retain Mr. Clark's firm so that he can

Brenda Smith (Chair) We have a motion to retain. Do we have a motion to retain foresight? Planning to do second motion. Motion chair. Do I have a second?

Speaker 4 Second. Dawn

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

Speaker 4 That's okay. Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney?

Speaker 1 Yes.

Speaker 4 Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?

Speaker 1 Yes.

Speaker 4 Mr. Ah Ahammed? Yes. Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair? Yes.

Speaker 1 Madam Chair before you. Madam Chair Before you are Tom, are

Brenda Smith (Chair) We doing the resolutions

Speaker 4 For both

Speaker 1 These? That's just literally the next words out of my mouth before we move on to the next.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Couldn't get them out fast enough. Alright.

Speaker 1 Couldn't get him out. I believe Ms. Saunders has resolutions for 10, 11, and 12 with the understanding that we're gonna tweak the resolution on number 11 to reflect the board's concerns about the definitions and the review process. Okay. As Ms. Councilman Cahill outlined when she made the motion. Yes. But we need to memorialize the motions. Madam Chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. You ready Ms. Saunders?

Speaker 2 Yes I am. Madam, can you hear me? Am I muted? Oh, okay. You're alright. Madam Chair, I like to memorialize the resolution for the area in need of redevelopment study for block 5 7 0 1 lots. 11 and 12.

Brenda Smith (Chair) 12. Do I have a second?

Speaker 1 Reverend Kenney? I'll second that.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Roll call.

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Harold Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney?

Speaker 1 Yes.

Speaker 4 Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?

Speaker 1 Yes.

Speaker 4 Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Mr. Echevarria? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes.

Speaker 2 Madam Chair. I'd like to memorialize the resolution for 44 Stelton Road Adoption of redevelopment plan.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have a second?

Speaker 13 I second it.

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

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes. Yes. Mr. Adkins?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes.

Speaker 4 Mr. Foster?

Speaker 13 Yes.

Speaker 4 Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Mr. Aria? Yes. And Madam chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. And did we do a resolution for the retention of

Speaker 4 Nope, that's next.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay, go ahead

Speaker 2 Madam Chairman, I'd like to memorialize the resolution to retain foresight planning for the redevelopment plan of block 67 0 1 allot 3.01

Brenda Smith (Chair) Second. Do we have a second?

Speaker 4 Second

Brenda Smith (Chair) Roll call please.

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes. Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?

Speaker 13 Yes.

Speaker 4 Mr. Ah Ahammed? Yes. Mr. Aria? Yes. And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. Thank you. All right, we will now have Mr. Kinneally is to step in for our item number three.

Speaker 14 Good evening. Members of the planning board. James Kinneally, your zoning board attorney stepping in for Mr. Barlow on the next application.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes, it's that application is 26 PB 12 slash 13 V as in Victor Amrit, KAUR for a minor subdivision and bulk variance. Is

Speaker 14 Mr. Morris present?

Speaker 13 Yes. Thank you Madam Chairwoman, members of the board thank you for Mr. Kinneally for stepping in so we could proceed. My name is Kevin Morris, an attorney Woodbridge, New Jersey. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant Amate Preet Coer Subject properties block 1 5 1 6 lock 1701, commonly known as 1 55 Summers Avenue. The property presently contains an oversized single lot in the R 7.5 zone that contains an existing single family dwelling that is diagonally positioned facing both the corner of Summers Avenue and Eva Street where before this evening seeking minor subdivision approval to subdivide this property into two conforming lots, raise the existing structure and to conduct construct a new single family residence on each of the two new lots. Before we proceed, I had previously submitted our affidavits of publication and mailing with regard to our notices. I just wanted to confirm that they were received an order so the board of jurisdiction to proceed,

Speaker 14 They were received and I reviewed them. They are in order and you have jurisdiction to go forward.

Speaker 13 All right, thank you. So I have two witnesses available. I, I have the applicant Amate pret Cower, although I don't intend on calling her unless it's necessary, are professional engineer and planner Paul Fletcher. I expect we'll carry the testimony and would call him now if he could be sworn please.

Speaker 2 Okay, Mr. Fletcher?

Speaker 15 Yes.

Speaker 2 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?

Speaker 15 I do.

Speaker 2 Thank you. Can you please just state your name for the record?

Speaker 15 Yes. Paul J. Fletcher F-L-E-T-C-H-E-R.

Speaker 2 Thank

Speaker 15 You. Thank you.

Speaker 13 All right. Now Mr. Fletcher, you're a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey for many years now, is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct.

Speaker 13 And both of your licenses and those disciplines are presently in good standing, is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct.

Speaker 13 Alright. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Fletcher has testified before this board on numerous prior occasions as either a professional planner or a professional engineer. He has been always accepted as an expert in those disciplines and I would ask that you accept him again this evening without him having to further go through his qualifications in curriculum Vita as an expert both with regard to professional engineering and professional planning.

Speaker 14 Madam Chairwoman, are you accepting Mr. Fletcher as a professional? Oh

Speaker 2 Yes. I'm sorry. Yes I do.

Speaker 14 Thank you.

Speaker 15 Thank you.

Speaker 13 Alright now Mr. Fletcher, you heard me introduce the application. Is my introduction accurate?

Speaker 15 Yes.

Speaker 13 Alright. Now you prepared the minor subdivision plan that is before the board this evening, is that correct?

Speaker 15 That's correct. It was prepared under my supervision.

Speaker 13 Alright, so I ask you to describe the site that presently exist in the proposed development.

Speaker 15 Certainly the subject's property is located in the R 7.5 single family residential zone. It's a corner lot has 150 foot frontage on Eva Street and 100 foot frontage on Summers Avenue. It's commonly known as 1 55 Summers Avenue. It's a lot 17.01 in block 15 1 6. It has a existing single family house as you had mentioned. It's located at diagonal on the lot to the facing the corner, the intersection corner. The applicant proposes to demolish all the existing site improvements, subdivide the property in half, creating 2 75 by 100 foot lots and then construct two single family dwellings on each of those lots. One would be fronting on Eva Street, on wood front, on Summers Avenue.

Speaker 13 Right now lots themselves are conforming to the R 0.75 zone with regard to lot width, lot depth lot area. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct.

Speaker 13 Right now the two proposed dwellings for each of them, will they be sufficient off street parking?

Speaker 15 Yes, they will each have a, an attached garage and a a double wide drive. They will provide parking in accordance with the RSIS standards.

Speaker 13 Right now with regard to drainage, I understand that not much will change from the present drainage patterns but there are some improvements, is that correct?

Speaker 15 Yes, the, the general pattern of drainage will remain the same. We have introduced two seepage pits, one on each lot that would capture the roof runoff and infiltrate some of the rainwater. So that will be an improvement for stormwater management and groundwater recharge.

Speaker 13 Right. And there and none, no such facilities presently exists with the dwelling that is at the property at this time. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct, yes.

Speaker 13 Right now from the engineering standpoint, will this proposed development have any type of negative impact in on drainage for adjacent or surrounding properties? It

Speaker 15 Will not.

Speaker 13 Alright. Now we did have the opportunity with the applicant to review. There are a couple of memos issued by the various board professionals. I first direct your attention to a letter issued by DNR engineering as dated August 24th, 2026. We have the opportunity to review that with the applicant, is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct, yes.

Speaker 13 And I understand that with regard to these various comments, you do not take issue or the applicant does not take issue and prepare to comply with the recommendations of the DNR engineering report and Mr. Carly, is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct. I would like to just expand on one or two points. We have noted that soil tests will be performed prior to construction. There is some concern about the type of soils on site. So we will do adequate soil logs to determine where the seasonal GR high grow water is. We will ensure that the basement floor levels are set at an elevation compliant with state regulations above that level and also the seepage pits.

Speaker 13 Right. And I know of course all that will be sent to Mr. Carley for his review in consideration, correct?

Speaker 15 Correct.

Speaker 13 Okay. Let me next direct your attention to a second staff report memorandum. It's dated August 18th, 2026. This is from the Township Divisions of Engineering Planning and Development. We have had the opportunity to review this document as well with the applicant. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct.

Speaker 13 Alright. Now there are a number of comments under site impact. I know you're going to talk about the one requested bulk variance during your planning testimony. That would be item two. So Sands item two, which you will get to in a moment, is the applicant prepared to comply with the remainder of the staff recommendations, which are really plan review comments?

Speaker 15 Yes.

Speaker 13 Okay. Including of course the fiber optic, the conduits that are now requirements in this municipality, is that right?

Speaker 15 Yes. They are shown on the plan to be installed. There's some additional notes requested and also more legible details. We'll provide that.

Speaker 13 Right. Thank you. And finally, there was a board planner review issued by Aon Mr. Reinertsen dated August 24th, 2026. You applicant's prepared to comply with any recommendations as to landscaping that may be set forth in that report. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 Yes. Correct.

Speaker 13 And, and you'll discuss the bulk variance to address the report during your planning testimony. Is that also correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct

Speaker 13 Ministry honor. Alright, so I will be asking Mr. Fletcher to switch hats and testify some professional planner. But with any technical questions from an engineering standpoint before we go forward, we would invite them now or we can wait till the conclusion of both of his disciplines and he'll still be here to field questions. I leave that up to you Madam Chair.

Brenda Smith (Chair) I'm getting ready to lose my power. I'm sorry, what did you say? Mr. Morris? I'm sorry.

Speaker 13 Mr. Fletcher has concluded his engineering testimony. I am now going to ask him to testify from the standpoint of professional planning. I don't know if you wanna hold questions all his testimony 'cause it may fill some issues in if there're questions.

Brenda Smith (Chair) I, I think we need to ask the members of the board to ask questions right now.

Speaker 13 Okay. So with regard to the

Brenda Smith (Chair) Members of the board, do you have questions of this testimony right now?

Speaker 13 Yes, I do not.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Let me call you next witness since Mr. Morrison and then I'll put it all to the public when you think when the other one testifies.

Speaker 13 Alright, so Now Mr. Fletcher, at the request of the applicant, you have also analyzed this proposed development from standpoint of professional planning. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct, yes.

Speaker 13 Right. So I would ask that you detail your analysis for the board, any opinions and conclusions that you've reached in the basis for them. But before we do so, I just want to confirm a few things. As you've testified to, both of these lots are conforming in size, dimension and so forth to the R 0.75 zone. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct.

Speaker 13 And the applicant is requesting one bulk variance only. It's with regard to one of the proposed single family dwellings only. And that is the dwelling that is proposed to front on Summers Avenue, is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct.

Speaker 13 And the bulk variance that is requested is for a technical front yard variance because Summers Avenue is a corner lot. And the applicant is faced with the constructing house with two front yards, correct?

Speaker 15 Correct.

Speaker 13 And from the standpoint of development, I understand it's preferential or better to front the house on Summers Avenue, which is why it has been located in that fashion. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct.

Speaker 13 And with regard to the proposed dwelling itself, I understand it complies with the front yard that's on Eva Street, is that correct?

Speaker 15 Yes,

Speaker 13 But the front, actual front of the house that fronts on Summers Avenue, the bulk re variance request front yard there is 25 feet. It really depends on where you measure it from. We're 15 feet from the actual steps of the front porch. I understand 17.5 feet from the front porch of the dwelling, but the actual dwelling facade itself, that side, the front side of the house is actually 21 feet. Is that accurate?

Speaker 15 Yes, that is correct.

Speaker 13 But we're requesting the 15 because the steps come out that far also. Correct?

Speaker 15 Yes.

Speaker 13 All right. So please detail your analysis. I just wanted to get clarity as with regard to the bulk variance request. But you may continue.

Speaker 15 Thank you. Yes. It's my opinion that the bulk variance is requested by the applicant, can be granted under the C two or flexible C analysis as this application meets the criteria. Firstly, it relates to a specific piece of property proposed new lot 17 2 17 0.02. While a conforming lot presents the constraint of having two front yards instead of one because it is a corner lot. Secondly, that the purposes of the muni municipal land use law would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement.

Speaker 15 I believe there's three of the following purposes that are advanced purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. C, to provide adequate light air and open space G, to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open space, both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. These purposes are advanced because the proposed new dwelling, it's similar to many other new dwellings in the area and fits into the character of the existing neighborhood. It will eliminate the existing single family dwelling on an oversized lot which has the diagonal orientation to two streets. And that orientation is not desirable from a planning perspective. And the subdivision as a whole provides new construction in this existing neighborhood, which generally, generally has the effect of enhancing the value of surrounding properties.

Speaker 15 Three, that the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public. Good. I see no detriment with this proposed subdivision of variance that the benefits of the deviation will substantially outweigh any detriment. Again, I see no detriment, only positive of benefits. And lastly, that the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the township's zone plan and zoning ordinance. And I believe that is the case based on everything that I have testified to. It is also my opinion that the bulk variances requested are recognizable under the C one or undue hardship provisions. As this application meets the criteria, there is a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty, exceptional and undue hardship on this applicant.

Speaker 15 As they have testified already, the proposed new lot 17.02, while the conforming lot that presents the constraint of having two front yards instead of one because it is a corner lot and that creates a hardship for development despite the fact that the lot is, its itself is conforming the, the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. I see no detriment to the public good in this this application and that the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the boroughs zone plan and master zoning ordinance. And for the same reasons that I've already tested testified to under my C two analysis, I believe that is the case. I would point out that where the house to be turned and faced Eva Street, it would be restricted in regards to lot width, would be a maximum of only 42 feet. The proposed home is, is wider, more pleasing. It allows the builder to create a center hall colonial. It has the driveway and garage access further away from the intersection than would be the case where the house to face the other way. So those reasons, I think that the, it's an appropriate request. It also allows the homeowner to have a larger rear yard, usable rear yard by having the house pulled forward a little bit.

Speaker 13 And the two dwellings themselves, they're gonna be constructed and offered for sale on the open market, correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct. Okay.

Speaker 13 Alright. Does that conclude your planning testimony?

Speaker 15 Yes it does.

Speaker 13 All right. Madam chairwoman, you, we've now heard from Mr. Fletcher with regard to professional planning as well as engineering. If there are any questions of him and his testimony at this time, we would invite them.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Mr. Members of the board, do you have any questions of Mr. Fletcher at this time on both portions of his testimony?

Gabrielle Cahill Madam Chair, Councilwoman Cahill here. Mr. Fletcher, just as I look at the current lot now, the house sort of sits catty corner where the driveway does come out to Eva Street, is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct. Okay.

Gabrielle Cahill And I, I, I guess I don't understand how is it, if both lots have a 75 foot frontage, is there an issue with some sort of right of way that would make this dwelling that you want to face? Summers now have this, you, you mentioned something about a 42 wide width. I could you just explain that a little bit more clearly? Certainly as to what, what that issue is?

Speaker 15 Yeah. Yes. What I was pointing out was we have two essentially identical locks, same size, 75 by a hundred side yard setback is in this zone is eight feet. So the interior lot, the lot that fronts and the home fronts. Eva Street has an allowable width of 75 minus 16. So it could be 59 feet wide. The home on the corner lot because of the front yard setback from summers where it also to face EBA Street, it would have a 25 foot set setback from summers and an eight foot side yard. Oh, from

Gabrielle Cahill Both sides, right? 'cause you said it was two frontages. Okay. Thank you.

Speaker 15 Sure.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Anyone else have any questions of Mr?

Speaker 8 Yes, I do. Madam. I'm sure it's not questions but suggestions that I have to go into the board. Okay. Resolution, we wanna make sure in a deed restriction that the seepage pads can't be taken out. 'cause I can envision some homeowners years down the road wanting to make renovations and they may want to take them out. So we wanna make sure there's a deed restriction on that. And I just want the roof leaders, are they being tied into the street?

Speaker 15 No, the roof leaders are gonna, would be tied to the seepage

Speaker 8 Pits. Okay. I just wanna make sure, you know, the new homeowners don't get any ideas of trying to get rid of the seepage pads. And lastly, most importantly is Mr. Morris, we're gonna have to get some verbiage in this approval and also in the deed to say that there, the, the owners are aware that they live across the street from the American Legion and the township has its annual Memorial Day parade there. And we do have a lot of people that come to that. I don't want folks that come in and buy the house saying they didn't know anything about it. So it needs to somehow or another be in the deed that they're aware that, that that celebration happens at that site.

Speaker 13 All right. Look, obviously the deed restriction for the seat pits, there's no issue in that, would be part of the subdivision deed. So memorialized, I must tell you, Mr. Mayor, and I've never heard of a type of request that you've made. Now I understand the reason for it and your concern. I am, I've never seen the deed restrictions. Really? A deed notice.

Speaker 8 Well, it's a deed. I want a deed notice because I don't want the homeowners coming back and complaining to town hall that they didn't know anything about

Speaker 13 This. I'm sure we can work out an appropriate notice. All right. I just,

Speaker 8 I will not be memorialized unless I see that verbiage there. I, I will work that out with Mr. Morse.

Speaker 13 Okay.

Speaker 8 Alright. Thank you Mr. Camille.

Speaker 13 Thank you.

Speaker 8 Alright,

Brenda Smith (Chair) May, we're gonna open it to the public now. Oh,

Speaker 11 Go ahead. I have one question for Ms. Corcoran. Maybe she was gonna say Dawn, have we,

Brenda Smith (Chair) I, sorry. Made a determination, which is we have, we still have board business. Okay, Ms. Corcoran. I'm sorry.

Speaker 9 A new

Brenda Smith (Chair) Planner. I jumped ahead. Okay, I'm sorry.

Speaker 11 So, so this is an odd duck because we have what we would consider the front yard is a, is the longer lot frontage and the shorter lot frontage on the corner. Lot is. So what are we considering? The rear yard on the shorter lot frontage.

Speaker 9 So what, how we interpret it is that you take the shorter of the two frontages and the opposite of the shorter now is considered the front the rear yard, which is very, and

Speaker 11 That's fine, that's fine with me. We go forward that that's your determination. We're good. Thank you.

Speaker 9 I guess so, Mr. But going into, I was also gonna say, Mr. Fletcher, so your testimony, I know there was a comment in our report as to why, based on what Ron and I just discussed, this home couldn't be shifted back to comply with the setback requirement. Your testimony was that they needed to have a larger space to enjoy a yard and so forth. Is that correct?

Speaker 15 That is correct. To comply, they would have a much smaller rear usable rear yard.

Speaker 9 I just, I just wanna put this out there for the board. If the board was uncomfortable with granting a variance for a 15 foot front yard setback, in the alternative, just again, putting this out there, what they could do is if they eliminated the covered front porch and if just the porch uncovered and the steps encroach only five feet into the setback, you'd really be looking at a 20 foot front yard, a variance for a 20 foot front yard setback opposed to 15. Just putting that out there. It's just

Speaker 8 Something No, I, I actually agree with Ms. Ms. Corcoran on this one because as is right now, the house is gonna be on top of the roadway. So any, anything we can get away further from the road.

Speaker 13 Well, I would just point out with regard to that comment, the structure itself, the, the house is actually 21 feet. What we're talking about here is, and that's really the big facade of the house. That is what the structure, what we're really talking about here is the porch and the steps. We believe that that's a nice amenity and adds architectural. So I, I understand the spirit of the comment, but I I I would just suggest if it was the whole house was 15 feet, that's a, that's a horse of a different color. But this structure itself, this the house,

Speaker 8 Well, guess what, you just talked to sim Mr. Morris. How about moving the house back another five feet?

Speaker 11 Well,

Speaker 13 If we do that, that, that, that, that impinges on the, on the, on the rear yard, which is, I

Speaker 8 Actually have

Gabrielle Cahill Everything

Speaker 9 Reduce the size of the house.

Speaker 11 Because according to Ms. Corcoran's definition, now that what you would consider a rear yard is a side yard. So if you move it back five feet, you got room,

Speaker 9 You have room, you just have a larger side yard.

Speaker 13 But that's technically really the rear yard of the house.

Speaker 8 You know what Madam chair,

Gabrielle Cahill They brought it to us.

Speaker 8 Chase, Mr. Fletcher, you gotta move the house five feet back End of discussion. Yeah.

Gabrielle Cahill Or get rid of the front porch

Speaker 8 Or bo both up. I I or

Speaker 9 Construc a smile.

Speaker 8 I know that neighbor. Really, that neighborhood really well move the house back five feet and then, then you got an approval, then you messed up.

Gabrielle Cahill See Summer Street is the busier street too. Correct. That house has been

Speaker 8 A pain. That's the other issue. Summer Street is, is a, is a connector road right. Feeds into it.

Gabrielle Cahill Like it would almost be better for Summer Street to remain as more of the side because of the, you know, the busy nature of the front. No, I'm just, just interested why they would wanna have frontage on the, it's a, like the mayor said, it's, it is a connector street. It's a very busy street.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yep.

Gabrielle Cahill I don't know. It almost feels like, why wouldn't they wanna keep it as a side yard where you're mostly not hanging out? I don't know. These are just my thoughts. But, you know, and, and Mr. Morris, I, I understand the, the, the, what you're talking about the, the cover porch adding an amenity and attraction. But you know, not all homes have those, right?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Well, you know, yes.

Gabrielle Cahill And it's a big house. It

Speaker 8 Also have a smaller house.

Speaker 13 Right. So look, I think, and I understand all the comments, certainly if removing the front porch that really eliminates and we're, we're at 21 feet instead of 25

Speaker 8 Feet, forget the porch. Move the house back five feet and if you can't do it, you're gonna have to make the house smaller. End of discussion. That's what I'm, that's what I'm suggesting

Speaker 3 You be, just shut his mouth. He would

Speaker 8 Pass. If you wanna talk it over Mr. Morris with your client. If not, then we'll punt this application in next month. Understand. Need to figure out something. We got several other applications on tonight.

Speaker 3 Too much improvement on, on, on the main drive.

Speaker 13 Alright, well I will certainly take that. You know, we take your suggestions seriously. Of course. Yeah. And I think, you know, I don't think my client, I I understand where we're going with this. There might be some other solution or compromise that we could at least present to you before you make a final determination. So why don't you give us the opportunity to do that, Mr. Mayor, chairman, if we need to amend the plan accordingly, that's crazy. We will do so or ask for your approval what we have, but at least it gives us the opportunity to see if we might come up with something in between or otherwise, you know, you'll make a determination.

Speaker 8 Yeah. All right. So Madam, Madam Chair, I, I'm assuming we'll give them next month.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes. If they want next month you can have it.

Speaker 13 What, what date is that?

Speaker 14 That's November 4th. Fourth

Speaker 8 November 4th. In about, in about three and a half weeks.

Speaker 13 Yes, that would be sufficient time, certainly. But I appreciate you giving us the time, Mr. Me. So we consider all these comments and make an informed decision.

Speaker 8 Come back to and just sit down with Ms. Corcoran.

Speaker 13 Will do. All right. So we're carried without further notice to November 4th.

Speaker 8 Yeah, that's correct. So anyone

Speaker 14 Here on the application of am Pret Cower 1 55 Summers Avenue? It is being carried to November 4th, 2026 with no further notice by the

Brenda Smith (Chair) Applicants? Yes. All right. Thank you folks. Have a pleasant evening. You too. And now return the meeting to Mr. Barlow. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Ley. Did I miss anything? Fun? Not much. All right. Number 16, Madam Chair? Yes. Okay. Okay. The other two were adjourned. Okay. I have 26 pb. Item number 1626 PB 21 slash 22 V is in Victor Amal Pharmaceuticals. LLC for a preliminary and final site plan and bulk variance appearing. Doug Wolfson No, no, no, no, no. Or Nick number six. Oh, Cory Klein. Klein.

Speaker 17 Yeah, I'm good evening. Sorry,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Mr. Klein. I'm sorry.

Speaker 17 Yeah, good evening. My name is Frank Olo.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay.

Speaker 17 Yes, I'm a, I work with Mr. Klein. I will be handling the application this evening.

Brenda Smith (Chair) That's fine. Good

Speaker 17 Evening, every good evening. I'm with the law firm of Sills CU and Gross. I represent the applicant am Neil Pharmaceuticals. This applicant is a tenant of the building located at the property known as 21 Colonial Drive identified on the tax maps as blocks 8 4 8 0 1 lot 2.02. The property is located in the I five zone district. The current use, our client's current use on the site is warehouse in connection with pharmaceutical products. We are asking for amended site plan this evening to convert approximately 14,726 square feet of the existing warehouse space to light manufacturing. Apple will use that area to manufacture lidocaine patches, which are applied to the human body to relieve pain. Light manufacturing is a permitted use in the zone district. We are not proposing any expansion of the building. We're not proposing any change to the facade. We are not proposing any changes to the site design or layout.

Speaker 17 The, the re and the site layout, excuse me, the reason we're here this evening is that light manufacturing generates a parking requirement that far exceeds what's needed for this use. As you'll hear from our experts, the light manufacturing operation here is highly automated and it requires far fewer employees than is contemplated by your ordinance. For that reason, we are requesting a c variance to allow this applicant to utilize the existing parking supply on the site, which satisfies the requirements of our proposed use. Before I give you the roadmap for this evening and the witnesses, I will calling, I just wanted to, at the front end of this application, respond to some of the comments made in the September 18th, 2026 staff report from the Division of Engineering and Planning. And I just wanna address these comments so everybody's clear on, on what we're willing to do in response to the comment.

Speaker 17 So, you know, first there was a comment that sidewalks are required along all property frontages. We will comply subject of course to the terms set, set forth in a developer's agreement. You, I've also asked for fiber optic conduit. We will comply again subject to whatever terms in a developer's agreement. You've also asked for a standard mill and overlay of existing parking lot. We will agree to repave the 68 stalls in the rear of the property that our client uses for parking. And we'll have my civil engineer identify this for you on the map for your consideration. You've also asked us to inspect existing curbs and sidewalks and if there's anything broken or deficient replace, we will comply. And of course, subject to the terms of a developer's agreement. So I just wanted to put all of those on the record so there's no confusion as to our willingness to comply with the conditions this evening.

Speaker 17 You're gonna hear from Richard Keller. He's a civil engineer with Casey and Keller. You're then going to hear from Ra Patel. He is with Kerry Engineering pc. He's an expert in the design of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. He's gonna talk about the operations of the light manufacturing we're proposing. And he is also gonna take you through the parking requirements and lay a foundation for recalling Mr. Keller. We're gonna call, recall Mr. Keller at the end. He's also a planner and he's gonna provide the proofs for the C variance that we are requesting. We have served notice of this application by certified mail and published notice of the hearing. And we've submitted proofs of such publication of service to the board. We'd ask that the board please acknowledge receipt and that the board has jurisdiction for us to proceed this evening.

Speaker 1 The board has jurisdiction to proceed, but you've provided everything. We've reviewed it.

Speaker 17 Thank you. Counsel. We would like to call our first witness, Mr. Richard Keller.

Speaker 2 Mr. Keller, can you please raise your right hand? Okay. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

Speaker 3 I do.

Speaker 2 Please just state your name for the record.

Speaker 3 Richard Keller. K-E-L-L-E-R, with Casey n Keller.

Speaker 2 Thank you.

Speaker 17 Okay. And Mr. Keller, I'm gonna qualify you as both civil and planner right now just for efficiency. So could you please give the board the benefit of your qualifications?

Speaker 3 Yes. I'm a licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey since 1990. I have a Bachelor of Science and Civil Engineering with a concentration in water resources and environmental engineering. And that is from Rutgers University. I also hold a master's in architecture from the New Jersey Institute of Technology with a concentration in Urban Planning and design. It's also an institution that I taught in both the undergraduate and graduate levels of the architecture school for approximately 11 years. I have appeared before approximately 110 boards throughout the state of New Jersey. As both engineer and planner, I have been retained to provide planning services to the Bargo of Caldwell as well as we were the township engineer, I'm sorry, the board engineers for Long Hill Township for three years to the planning board and Board of Adjustment. My licenses are in good effect. I think it's been a while since I've been to Piscataway. I will say I started my survey career on this very lot when I was about 16. My father said, get outta bed, you're going land surveying. And our, our cup firm did the development of, of Centennial Industrial Park, which is all these properties around Centennial, colonial, Randolphville Road, et cetera. So, but it's, it's nice to be in town again. It's been a while.

Speaker 17 Thank you Mr. Keller. We'd like to qualify Mr. Keller as an expert in both civil engineering and planning.

Brenda Smith (Chair) He's qualified and good to have you back to Piscataway.

Speaker 3 Thank you.

Speaker 17 Okay, Mr. Keller, I understand that you have an exhibit that you'd like to show.

Speaker 3 Yeah, I do. So if I can, I will share

Speaker 1 Mr. Ola? Yes. We'll just mark this as a one and as you go through your presentation, just a two, a three and just have each witness identify what the exhibit is. Okay.

Speaker 17 Very good. Thank you. Mr. K, could you please identify this first exhibit?

Speaker 3 Yeah. This is labeled as an annotated aerial photo. It was prepared by my firm yesterday, October 13th. It has, in the background is aerial photography from near map.com. It's ortho rectified, so it's to scale. And the photo is captured on March 21st, 2026. So it accurately represents the site as it as it exists today.

Speaker 17 Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cower, can you please describe what, what this annotated aerial photo shows for the board? Yeah,

Speaker 3 I, this is basically a little, some of the same infor all the much of the same information that's on the site plants before you, but I thought this was a little more convenient 'cause you get an idea of, of the contacts and trees on the site, et cetera. So the property itself is, comprises 11.7 acres. It is located in the LI five light industrial D zone. There's a large building that fronts on Colonial Drive. It's 143,596 square feet. It is accessed from Colonial Drive through three driveways on this drawing. The left is east, the right is west, so I'm just gonna say left center and right. There are three driveways that access the property. All there are 24 feet and width. On the left side of the property is, is the driveway. Hold on one second. The driveway on the left side comes down. There are are 68 parking spaces, 34 on each side coming down the side of the building.

Speaker 3 That then gives way to a loading docks at the rear of the site and a turnaround for trucks. The center driveway is, is located roughly at the center of the property. It allows circumnavigation in two-way driveways, both through the center driveway and the right driveway. That provides access to a 40 car parking lot that sits in the front of the building providing access to both the Amal tenancy, which is on the left side. And the second tenant, which is over on the right, the coming down the right side, another 24 foot wide driveway gives access to another eight parking spaces. And then that gives way to additional loading docks in the back of that sent second tenant space. You'll see when the, when our manufacturing expert engineer talks, you'll see the division. Basically the left side of this building is, is basically the Amal lease space and most of the right side is the second tenant.

Speaker 3 The property has a total of, has a total of 590 feet of frontage along cent Centennial Avenue to the back and a 612 linear feet of, of frontage along Colonial Drive. And as I said, there are three vehicular accesses. The existing parking loading areas, driveways, utilities, stormwater infrastructure and landscaping are ultimate remain in place. The only changes we are proposing other than the ones Mr. Are the ones Mr. Vitello indicated as a result. Well, two reasons. One is there was already the recognition that coming down the left driveway, that tri, that pavement has taken some abuse over time. So the intention is for us to repave in exactly the same location. The, the driveway that comes down the left side for the 68 parking spaces, giving way to the loading space at the end. So that'll all be repaved and retried as it is today.

Speaker 3 The rest of the parking lot we've looked at, it's actually in fairly good shape to very good shape coming throughout. There is some degradation along the driveway entrances and so certainly as a condition of the, what we've agreed to meet as a part of a developer's agreement, we'll meet with township officials and we'll discuss what needs to be done in those areas. The sidewalk also we'll need to discuss with that because there's, the sidewalk will have to be in the township right away and then pop in to come around some guy wires. So, but we're happy to, to work with the township engineering department to, to facilitate that driveway. But other than the, the driveway and the, the sleeves for the, for the fiber optic conduits, there are no other changes proposed to the site as it is today. The site, I'll just briefly go into the parking, what's there, there are 116 spaces that are there.

Speaker 3 If you break down the parking based upon the both tendencies and the current uses, the parking requirement is 115 spaces. So we are, we are fully compliant with the current parking requirements. Obviously, as Mr. Vilo said, when we transform a center portion of that into a high tech manufacturing facility, the parking requirement goes from one per 2000 up to one per 300. So the parking demand goes up considerably. But we'll have an expert that will talk about how that automated process really requires much fewer workers to be in the site. And so that when you do the analysis of breaking down some office space, the manufacturing space, and the warehouse space, you'll see that based upon actual use. Well, if you break it back down just upon the uses per your ordinance we're required to have 157 spaces. So with 115 spaces existing, we're increasing the parking requirement by 42.

Speaker 3 We were one under before, so we need a parking variance for 41 spaces. But again, the testimony and my, from our expert, and I'll rely on that in my planning testimony as well, is that the nature of this use is such that the 116 car existing parking space will be more than adequate to, to allow this operation to proceed with no shortage in parking. That's pretty much the engineering overview on the site. Again, no changes to the grading, no new impervious coverage, no different stormwater management, no different exterior lighting, no changes to the building. So none of the setbacks change, the height doesn't change and the co everything's basically remaining the same with the exception of the improvements that have been requested by your, your township professionals.

Speaker 17 Okay, thank you Mr. Keller. We don't have any other questions on direct from Mr. Keller. Happy to hear any questions from the board professionals or the board.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Can you take down, can he take down his exhibit?

Speaker 3 Sure. Just, there we go. It's on the other screen. There we go.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Appreciate members of the board. You've heard the testimony of this witness. Do, does anyone have any questions?

Speaker 9 Madam Chair, if I may? It's Dawn Corcoran. Hi Mr. Ler. It's more of a comment, but since the, since the applicant has agreed to install the sidewalks along the, all the property, frontages Colonial Drive and Centennial Avenue, we're just gonna need confirmation that we have a 52 foot half width on Centennial Avenue as required by the master plan. I believe we may based on the plan you provided, but we again, we're just gonna need confirmation of that.

Speaker 3 Yeah, I can, I can get you confirmation. So you need a 50 foot, two foot cart width, is that what you're saying? Traveled way?

Speaker 9 It's the, it's the half width. Yeah, 52 foot half with,

Speaker 3 Half with. Yeah, we can, I can certainly confirm that I may be able to do it when I come back from my, but when I come back from my planning testimony.

Speaker 9 Perfect. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Speaker 3 Yep.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Any other member of the board have questions of this witness hearing no response. Can we open it up to the public now, members of the public, you've heard the testimony of Mr. Keller. Does anyone in the public have any questions of this witness? You can indicate by raising your hand or dialing, what is it? Six

Speaker 2 Star. Six star six. No. And Madam chair,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Close to the public. Okay. Do you have another witness?

Speaker 17 I do. I just wanted to just clarify something. So the, the sidewalk would be required only along Colonial, correct?

Speaker 9 That is not correct. The staff report, it's along all property frontages.

Speaker 17 Okay. All right. Even though we don't have any access on Centennial?

Speaker 9 That is correct.

Speaker 17 Okay. Alright. I'd like to call Bishop Patel.

Speaker 2 Okay, Mr. Patel, 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?

Speaker 12 I do.

Speaker 2 Can you please state your name for the record and spell please?

Speaker 12 Thank you. Mr. Patel. First name is V-I-S-H-R-U-T, last name is Patel, P-A-T-E-L.

Speaker 2 Okay, thank you.

Speaker 17 Okay, Mr. Patel, can you just give the board the benefit of your employment and some of your experience and what your expertise is?

Speaker 12 Sure. So I've been working in pharmaceutical processing industry for about 13 years, have experience with designing various different types of pharmaceutical facilities. I have a mechanical engineering degree background from Rutgers, and I've worked on various projects within township, within Pisca Township as well, including m Neil and some of the other pharmaceuticals.

Speaker 17 Okay, thank you. And were you involved in the preparation of the floor plan that we have submitted to the board in this case?

Speaker 12 Yes, I was.

Speaker 17 Okay. And you were familiar with it and prepared to testify about the manufacturing layout and to discuss the operations in the facility?

Speaker 12 Yes.

Speaker 17 Okay. I'd like to qualify Mr. Patel as an expert in the design of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Well, he has a degree in it. I guess he, he would know, pretty much know

Speaker 1 About that. Frank, could you just put some, just a little bit more as to, I understand he's been doing something for 13 years, just

Speaker 17 Yeah, sure.

Speaker 1 Describe what what it is he does.

Speaker 17 Yeah. Yeah. So Mr. Patel, the board would like some more detail as to exactly the kind of work you do with regard to these facilities and, and what you, you know, you, what you look at and what your experience is in this field.

Speaker 12 Sure. So we get involved with a lot of pharmaceuticals, whether it be a solid oral dosage or it's, in this case it's a lidocaine patch or it would be some sort of IV bag of manufacturing style manufacturing. We get involved on the process end where we would look at the employee entrance, how the process works and how does the facility operation needs to occur in order for the in client pharmaceutical client to achieve the maximum throughput from their machines.

Speaker 17 And your firm is, correct me if I'm wrong, it's a design and build. So you, you help soup to nuts in these pharmaceutical companies designing their facility?

Speaker 12 Correct. So our farm is fully licensed. We do have a professional engineer on board. We do MEP design and including architectural instructional design for, for pharmaceutical facilities across the United States.

Speaker 17 And you're a principal of that company, sir?

Speaker 12 No, I am not a principal. I'm an associate principal of the company.

Speaker 17 Associate principal, sir.

Speaker 1 Okay. What company is it? What's

Speaker 12 It? Kerry Engineering

Speaker 1 Careri. Can you spell that?

Speaker 12 K-E-R-I-K-E-R-I.

Speaker 1 And what's the prof, your professional address, sir?

Speaker 12 It's 1 4 0 Mountain Avenue, Springfield, New Jersey. Okay.

Speaker 1 Madam Chair, I, I'm satisfied he should be qualified in the field of pharmaceutical design and engineering, I guess. Is that fair, Frank?

Speaker 17 Yes. Okay.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay.

Speaker 17 All right. Mr. Patel, do you have the ability to share screen to show the, the board the plan that you submitted in this case or would you like me to do it?

Speaker 12 No, I can share.

Speaker 17 Okay.

Speaker 12 So this is the existing facility that we are discussing.

Speaker 17 Hold on one second. Just we wanna identify this plan for the record. And this is, I believe exhibit two, correct? Counsel

Speaker 12 A

Speaker 1 Two? Yep. And if you could just tell us what it

Speaker 17 Is. Yeah, so go down Mr. Patel to the block, you know, on the, on the, on the side and just tell everyone what the date is of the plan and what it shows.

Speaker 12 Sure. So this is, this is the zoning zoning plan that we've issued to the board. It's dated July 7th, 2026. And this is, how many

Speaker 17 Pages is it?

Speaker 12 It's two pages. Okay. The first page of this document is the existing building plan, right, which shows the existing warehouse facility for both tenant. And the second page of this document is the proposed building plan, which shows the manufacturing area as well as some of the remaining existing warehouse space.

Speaker 17 Great. Okay, sir, why don't you just describe for the board or identify for the board where we are looking to convert existing space into the proposed light industrial use.

Speaker 12 So the, the front half of this building, which is this area, is all currently a warehouse space. And we are proposing to convert that area into a light manufacturing use. The, the purpose of this is to make lidocaine patches and the process is fully automatic once it gets to the coating and pouching area, which is this large room. So what we are, what we are classifying here is there would be two rooms where we would disperse the front end products. They would be mixed in these two mixing rooms. And then once the mixing occurs, the entire process is fully automated and that automated process leads us all the way out into the packaging room and then the product would be packaged. So the total employee, because of the fully automated process, we are estimating because we have this similar operation in another facility, we're estimating about 25 operators per shift for this entire operation. The rest of the spaces here that we need to build out is for some of the purified water system storages for, for the toolings and other cleaning equipment. And then we are also proposing some lockout areas and additional restrooms for the operators that we will have for this building. The existing office area in the front of the house will remain as is and we're not proposing any changes there.

Speaker 17 Okay. And Mr. Patel, you have analyzed the parking needs for, for these employees. Why don't you, do you want me to pull up your letter? Do you have your letter or do you wanna just go to the chart first on this plan to show everyone how you calculated the existing need? Why don't you do that now, sir? Is this the existing need per the ordinance?

Speaker 12 Yeah, so based on the ordinance, we've calculated that required parking in this area and the area shown on this drawing. We are proposing the new industrial area to be 14,007 and 26 square feet based on 300 square foot per parking spot. We're calculating that to be 49 for the storage area, we'll have nine spots for the existing warehouse. We'll have 18 and then the un unchanged office area have 49 parking spots. In total, we will need about 125 parking spot for the MNE tenant space.

Speaker 17 Okay. And just to be clear, Mr. Patel, the 125 parking space is per the ordinance correct?

Speaker 12 Per the ordinance? Correct.

Speaker 17 Okay. And then let's go on to the bottom chart there.

Speaker 12 And the bottom chart reflects that based on adding up the existing aja, is it adjacent tenant, which also to our knowledge is all warehouse use will require about 32 parking spots, which adds up to a total of 157 required parking lot

Speaker 17 Spots. Okay. So Mr. Patel, it's 157 if the ordinance was strictly applied, correct?

Speaker 12 Correct.

Speaker 17 Okay. So would you please tell the board what is the actual need for the AM Neal building note that would include the existing plus the proposed manufacturing?

Speaker 12 So based on the 25 operators per shift and 30 people in the office, we are estimating that the maximum employee for this particular building at any time we will have is about 55. He and hence our maximum spots parking spots required for this building would be around 55. Okay.

Speaker 17 So 55 is the maximum number of employees peak at any time and so it will be less at certain times?

Speaker 12 Yeah, there could be when we have less office folks coming in or when we are running low on production, there could be

Speaker 3 Less employees.

Speaker 17 So when you have, how many existing spaces do you have for the entire property?

Speaker 3 Patches, mannequin patches believe

Speaker 17 The, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 3 Yeah, believe the existing property has about 116.

Speaker 17 Alright. And so, so Mr. Patel, if you take the 116 existing and you subtract the 55 that we require for amne, does that leave you with approximately or does that leave you with 61 spaces for the neighboring tenant?

Speaker 3 That's correct.

Speaker 17 Right. And and the, their code requirements sir, is 32, is that correct?

Speaker 3 That's

Speaker 17 Correct. Okay. So in your opinion, sir, we have an ex, even with the existing 116 parking, we have about an excess of 23 spaces, is that correct?

Speaker 3 You? That's correct.

Speaker 17 Okay, thank you Mr. Patel. I I don't have any other direct for Mr. Patel. If there's questions about this manufacturing operation or the plan, et cetera, he is the person to ask.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. We can ask members of the board if they have any questions of Mr. Patel, but I believe we need to take the exhibit down so we can see the faces of Thank you and members of the board. Do you have any questions for Mr. Patel?

Speaker 3 Madam Chair, Reverend Kenney. Mr. Patel, in regards to the, the, the, the redesign of that building, that's an inside that warehouse is where you're gonna do the reconstruction for this ladder, king patches to be done inside no exterior change of the building at all. Am I correct? Yeah, that's correct. It's all engineered renovations. That answers my question then. That's why I was looking at the plants. That's what it looked like to me. Thank you. Yep.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Any other questions from the board? Then we will open it up to the public members of the public. You've heard the testimony of Mr. Patel. Do you have any questions from him? If you do, would you indicate by either waving your hand or dialing six star six to dial in to ask a question of this witness?

Speaker 3 No. And Madam chair,

Brenda Smith (Chair) Thank you. Closed to the public. Okay. You may proceed if you have another witness, sir.

Speaker 17 Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Yes, we would like to recall Mr. Rich Keller.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Mr. Keller, he's been sworn in, Mr.

Speaker 3 Understand was still under oath, right? That's correct.

Speaker 17 Okay. Mr. Keller, I believe you prepared planning testimony to put on proofs for the required for the requested C variance. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 That is

Speaker 17 Correct. Go ahead sir.

Speaker 3 So as, as indicated, the the properties in the Ally five light Industrial District, the proposed manufacturing use is a permitted use. There's no expansion of a non-conforming use, no introduction, introduction of a non-conforming use. The only thing we need variance relief for is the parking. And we've had testimony to indicate that the parking that's there is adequate given the special, the highly technical automated processes that are being proposed. The, as indicated, the existing ordinance parking requirements are, are one 15. We have 116 spaces. So it exceeds it. The ordinance requires 157 spaces. So we have a, a variance request for 41 spaces. And again, that's attributed to the increase in the requirement for manufacturing over warehouse. We see this as a flexible C two variance where the purposes of the Land use Act are advanced and the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments associated with this application.

Speaker 3 We think it's, it's basically the, the test is we think it's a better than a fully conforming application if we were try to make this a conforming application and add parking to the site. The purposes of the Land use Act that are advanced under 40 55 d two of of municipal land law, first is general welfare in that the, this facilitates the productive use of an existing industrial facility for a permitted manufacturing activity and it accommodates contemporary automated production without unnecessary building or parking expansion. It also advances purpose G is to provide an appropriate location within the, within the community for a variety of uses. Manufacturing is permitted and we're just establishing, we're bringing that to this established industrial property. The, and basically maintains the existing industrial development pattern that's all around this neighborhood Purpose I and JI is a desirable visual environment and j is conservation of natural resources.

Speaker 3 This project avoids additional parking pavement that is not needed for this operation. There's certainly room on the property to add parking in the back of the property, but we would really be counterproductive and not the environmental choice to be add more pavement when it's not needed for the pro to to, for the, for the proposed uses, the, this preserves existing landscaped areas and provides for the targeted pavement and curb improvements that we discussed. We're reusing an existing building space, parking, utilities access, and stormwater infrastructure. And as I said, it avoids unnecessary land disturbance and new impervious coverage. So we think it advances four of the purposes of the land use act under 40 55 D two. The balancing we talked about, we think the benefits certainly substantially outweigh any detriments. It facilitates permitted, use it efficiently reuses an existing facility, which is what the state master plan says we should do while avoiding additional pavement.

Speaker 3 The we have accounted for the, the other tenant's 32 parking space allowance and we still come well under the required parking for the site. We think that the benefits substantially outweigh any potential detriments, any application needs to demonstrate that it meets the negative criteria, which is in two prongs. The first is that there's no su substantial detriment to the public good. And the second is that there's no substantial impairment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance with regard to the public good. We think that the 116 car parking lot space parking lot can accommodate the, the demands of both of the, of the, of the tenants, the existing circulation loading access remain unchanged. So there's no reason to believe that there will ever be a need for any offsite employee parking. The it can all be handled well within the site. The proposed use is permitted and compatible with the established industrial setting.

Speaker 3 So there's really no negative to the public. It'll be made more attractive. The parking will be, the parking lot will be improved. We've agreed to the sidewalk improvements and I need to understand that a little better as well. We've agreed to the sidewalk improvements and the, as well as the fiber optic and we'll certainly work with the town on the, on the parts of the, of the, the frontage that are on public, on within the public right of way to make those improvements on a, on a as needed basis. So for certainly we think there's no substantial detriment of public good and we think there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and zone plan, again, permitted use the, the ordinances, generalized manufacturing parking ratio exceeds the demands of this highly au automated operation. So really meeting the intent of the ordinance, which is to provide practical parking while avoiding unnecessary con construction, which really advances the underlying intent of the parking regulations. So my planning opinion, we think it meets both the positive and negative criteria in support of the variance. It's an efficient reuse of the property and really is the most environmentally light and sensitive approach you could take to better improve this property, better improve the efficiency of the property, while having no negative impact on either the, the public or the master plan. We think it meets the criteria and we hope that you'll approve it. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Brenda Smith (Chair) The public, you have any questions of Mr. Cowell's presentation?

Speaker 8 I, I, I, I don't have it. Just, just to let Mr. Barlow know. On our staff report it says about the comments I know the applicant agreed to install on Colonial Drive in Centennial, but the staff report needs to be revised to say that it, it, it says Sutton's Lane, Ethel Road West. So I just wanna make sure for the record Okay. That it's Colonial Drive, essentially, because I don't think Mr. Keller wants to be installing it a mile and a half away from the site.

Speaker 3 No, I I yeah, that's, yeah, we, we agreed in the beginning we're putting it across our frontage. I think attorney corrected that, but I do have some, I do have a clarification. I need for, I looked through the ordinance quickly. I see that your ordinance requires sidewalks, four foot sidewalks on, on all street frontages, but I didn't see what the caveat was that I think Ms. Corcoran was referring to.

Speaker 8 I'll tell you what the caveat, all you gotta do is go up and down Centennial Avenue, you're gonna see sidewalks or multi-use paths the entire length. You're, you're one of the missing links and guess what? It's not gonna be a missing link after you do your edition.

Speaker 3 Yeah, I wasn't aware that we were referring to, to the, to the centennial as well. And I, you know, I guess my client will have to Yeah, you're

Speaker 8 Gonna have just take a look. We, we were spending $9 million on the upper half. Sure. So sidewalk, so people could

Speaker 9 Walk and, and Mr. Keller, if I may, that was why I just made that earlier comment about, you know, just confirming about the half width. If in fact we don't have that 52 foot half width, that's gonna be an additional requirement.

Speaker 3 Oh, so we'd have to do a dedication you mean?

Speaker 9 Correct.

Speaker 3 Yeah, we have on Centennial we have 104 foot pavement width. Okay. So I think centennial's not an issue obviously, you know, when I'm looking at the, see, I'm looking at the, the photograph that I had before clearly. Yeah, I understand. It's an imperative, the, the property immediately to our west on Centennial does not have sidewalks. And it may be that, you know, that's part of the, the next phase. But everybody,

Speaker 1 You thank sidewalks. Mayor. Mayor. Oh, you are muted. But just quick to go back to number five. You you, I didn't catch it. It's not Sutton's Lane, it's Centennial. Is that what you had said? Centen?

Speaker 9 It's a typo, Tom. Yeah, it's

Speaker 1 Okay. But it's Sutton comes out, Centennial goes in.

Speaker 3 So this

Speaker 8 Is Sutton anywhere near it, there was a typo and a staff report. Okay. It should have said Centennial Avenue and Colonial Drive.

Speaker 1 Gotcha.

Speaker 8 So I just wanna let the record reflect that. If you go by agreement with the staff report right now, it would say Suttons Lane. In Ethel Road, which is nowhere near the applicant's property. So I just wanted make sure we have the proper streets in.

Speaker 1 Yep. I just wanted to make sure I caught it.

Speaker 3 Okay. We, we picked up that, we picked up that typo and we assumed it was Colonial. We didn't, I didn't know it was Colonial and Centennial for the, for the fiber optic conduits. So that's what our attorney said. We,

Brenda Smith (Chair) We still have to open it up for the public for the last part of Mr. Keller's testimony.

Speaker 11 Actually I have Madam Chair, I haven't housekeeping You have a question? Yeah, just housekeeping on it, Mr. Keller. We had a whole bunch of stuff that like to be charitable. The old resolutions didn't address like what was previously approved with waivers. We put a whole bunch of not provided. Are there any there that, that you, you do comply with? 'cause that might make it a lot simpler.

Speaker 3 Well, I noticed a bunch of things that were not listed. I mean, we per, we comply with the parking space requirement. Our spaces are 10 by 18. We comply with the driveway entrances. So the number that, and, and I think some of the previous relief that was requested for some storage was removed from the site. So I, I would have to go item by item and we can certainly,

Speaker 11 And and and it's nine o'clock at night. I don't want you to, but I mean, you know.

Speaker 3 No, no, I wouldn't, I wouldn't tonight.

Speaker 11 How about, how about we just say that, that anything that's previous conditions are not changing. How's that?

Speaker 3 That would be, that's the way we Mr.

Speaker 11 Tomorrow. Would that make you happy?

Speaker 3 That would make me happy,

Speaker 11 Yeah. All right, there we go.

Brenda Smith (Chair) We still have to open it up to the public. I don't think we opened it in public for the last of Mr. Keller's testimony, members of the public, you've heard the last part of Mr. Keller's testimony, which I ref had reference to his expertise as a planner. If you have any questions of his testimony, would you please indicate by rubbing your hand or dialing star six.

Gabrielle Cahill No, Madam

Brenda Smith (Chair) Chair. Thank you. Close to the public. Okay. We may proceed. If anyone has a motion, it's time to, you can make it at this time. Well, Mr. Vilo, do you have anything

Speaker 11 Else or do you wanna sum up Okay.

Speaker 17 Yeah, I'll just go for one minute. I wanted to thank, thank you board.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Sure. Mr. Vilo, go right ahead.

Speaker 17 Yes, thank you Chairman. Thank you board for your time this evening. Thank you Mayor. We heard you, you know, we'll do what we're required to do under the letters. This is a good project. I mean, you know, typically have ex warehouses being built. We're actually taking a piece of a warehouse and making it into manufacturing, which is great. 'cause who doesn't want more manufacturing? Not only in town but in, in, in this country. So we think it's a good project. We think it's a reasonable project and we would respectfully ask for your support. So thank you so much.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion at this time

Gabrielle Cahill From the board? Madam Chair, if I could unmute myself, I'll make a, a motion that we approve this application based upon the comments from Ms. Corcoran and all of the professionals in terms of the sidewalks on Centennial. And I believe Ms. Corcoran was the halfway there. I'm not sure it's the same road, but that would be my motion.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Do I have

Gabrielle Cahill A second? Carol Saunders second.

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

Speaker 4 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenney? Yes. Mr. Adkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. Mr. Aria?

Speaker 17 Yes.

Speaker 4 And Madam Chair?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Yes.

Speaker 17 Thank you very much. Board, I just have one question on the resolution. I know the, the owner's anxious to get moving on this project. Could we expect a, a resolution at the November four meeting? Yes,

Speaker 18 Certainly my plan

Speaker 1 And I'll get you a draft

Speaker 17 Beforehand. Thank you Mr. Barlow. I really appreciate it. Okay, everyone have a great evening. You too.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Alright,

Speaker 2 You too. Thank you.

Speaker 18 Thank you. Goodnight.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Goodnight. Item number 1725 PB 14. 10 28. Stelton developers, LLC, preliminary and final site plan. Doug Wolfson.

Speaker 18 Thank you Madam Chairman. Been a long night. We hope to not keep you too long. They don't really trust me any longer with hard applications. This is one with no variances. So hopefully we'll be smooth sailing for you and your professionals. Thanks very much for being with us and allowing us to do this. Thank you Mr. Mayor. And thanks Mr. Barlow. I would ask Mr. Barlow if he just could confirm about the notices so that there's a jurisdictional basis for us to proceed tonight.

Speaker 1 Absolutely. The notices are in order and the board has jurisdiction.

Speaker 18 I appreciate that very much. So this is an application for preliminary and final site plan approval of a, a pretty large open track now in Piscataway, near Centennial and Howard Grand. It's about five acres. I think it's technically 4.9 something, but it's just about five acres we have short and I don't mean height witnesses for you tonight. We have Ron Beck, who I know, you know, we have Matt Setler who will address the traffic issues that were raised by your consultants and there are no variances, but there are a couple of waivers of Mr. Cielo is in the wings and will testify as the planner. We don't expect the testimony to be too long, but we're happy to answer any questions that you or the public may have in conjunction with that. So if I may, Madam Chairman, I'd like to call Mr. Allen back and have him detail the plans rather than me summarize them.

Brenda Smith (Chair) You may proceed.

Speaker 18 All right, Mr. Aback, I hope you're on. I am. Can somebody swear at him?

Speaker 2 Yes,

Brenda Smith (Chair) You'll be sworn in.

Speaker 2 Yeah. Mr. Aback? Yes. 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? I do. Can you please state your name for the record and your address?

Speaker 19 Sure. It's Ronald Beck, A-U-L-E-N-B-A-C-H. And it's 4 44 hose lane, suite 200, Piscataway, New Jersey.

Speaker 18 Thank you. Ron. I know that the board knows you before, but for the record you can just tell 'em who you are relative to the applicant and then go right into what it is we're proposing.

Speaker 19 Sure. Thank you. Obviously the board. I've been here before. I'm the director of engineering planning and development for Edgewood Properties. The, the developer on this parcel itself, as Mr. Wilson indicated, this is approximately five acre parcel on a corner of Stelton Road and Centennial. It's the site of the former Sonoco, I don't wanna use the word refinery, but I think everybody's familiar with what was there before with the large above ground tanks. Sonoco has vacated the site. I will put on the record 'cause I know it came up. It does come up in one of the professional letters. The site has been cleaned up and received two RAOs, one for soil and one for groundwater. The only restrictions, and we would agree as any condition to provide this documentation to the board and its professionals, the soils, is that if any soil has to leave, the site has to be tested as the requirement under the LSRP and as well as there's a groundwater issue. And the only issue with that is can't, the groundwater can't be used for potable water. So there's no real issues with that. Everything is been filed with the county clerk and under DEP strict guidance and we do have a registered LSRP on the site that is responsible for the environmental activities as we move forward. Mr. Chairman, if it's all right if I share my screen?

Speaker 1 Yes it is. Yes, you may. And Mr. Wolfson, we'll just mark any exhibits A 180 2. Your witness can just identify him as they go along.

Speaker 18 Thank you Tom. A one?

Speaker 19 Yeah, A one is a site aerial photograph entitled 10 28 Stelton Road. It shows the site somewhat shaded out and outlined in red. As I indicated, it's a corner piece of property located with frontage on Stelton Road, a centennial. And then to the back is a paper street that was developed as part of the development next door called Howard Grand Boulevard. So technically it has three street frontages again, we intend on developing with four individual buildings. Oops, sorry. Lemme just stop sharing here and share the site plan.

Speaker 19 As I indicated, starting from page left towards the southern piece of the property, we have a 10,500 square foot building that is slated to be half medical, half retail. The half medical is located closest to Stelton Road. We do have a signed lease with an Aspen Dental, which will occupy 3,500 square feet of the corner of the building closest to Stelton Road Building two is a 3,100 square foot fast food pad with a drive through that wraps around from the south of the property along Stelton and comes out on the side of Centennial located in the middle of building three. We have a 6,200 square foot building. This is slated for a 3000 square foot shake shack, which we have a signed lease for. And then there's two, we do have two spaces slotted for potential retail and another fast food or type restaurant, but there is no drive through associated with this pad.

Speaker 19 And then building number four, which is located at the furthest west of the, the site is approximately 4,843 square feet. This is for a 2,597 square foot slated for fast food. It does have a drive-through at the end cap and then another retail or or food use on the other end cap closest to Howard Grand. We do have access off of Centennial Avenue. We have a right in right out driveway on Centennial. And we also have a right in right out driveway on Stelton Road. We also do have access onto Howard Ground Boulevard. As the board may be aware, my company is the owner of the shopping center or the property next door where the Starbucks and the Longhorn is. So we will grant access through our site to get out to utilize the light that we installed years ago at our intersection opposite the Lowe's, but also have access to Howard Grand Boulevard, which is an existing road that connects to Centennial but the exception of the two tenants that I mentioned.

Speaker 19 The Aspen Dental and the Shake Shack. I know in a staff memorandum they asked for some testimony about operations. We expect that the building number one, which is located here, which is half office and half retail, would probably occupy about 14 to 19 employees. The retail, the office space would probably have one to two deliveries a week. And the retail we estimate three to four. The general office hours for the office is approximately seven 30 to five. The retail again would be typical of six to 11. Again, we don't have any tenants for the spaces, so obviously that may vary as we lease up the site. The fast food pad that's located on the corner, again, we estimate that that's gonna occupy about 10 or 12 employees. The hours are estimated to be from 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM Monday through Sunday and the deliveries are generally four to six a week.

Speaker 19 And they're generally early morning billing number three, which is located in the center here. Again, we estimate that they'll have somewhere between 19 to 25 employees for that building estimate deliveries to be four to six a week. This is primarily, it's got two food uses again, so we estimate somewhere between six and midnight or six and one o'clock in the morning for that building. And then the last building again, this one we estimate somewhere between 18 and 22 employees, four to six deliveries a week. And again, the hours may vary but we're estimating 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM only 'cause we have a fast food restaurant at the end cap. That's the general overview of the site. We do have our stormwater basins located on site. We are in compliance with the stormwater regs. And Mr. Wilson, I indicated we are not proposing any variances with this site plan and therefore we'd like to move forward. I'm open for any questions the board may have unless you want me to go into the professional letters, but I'm,

Speaker 18 Let me ask you, is there anything also

Speaker 1 Just that's a two. Ron is the, sorry, colorized Sergeant

Speaker 18 Barlow. Sorry Tommy.

Speaker 19 Yeah, this is sheet three of 18. It's in there set that the board received. It's just colored. Yep. I apologize.

Speaker 18 Nope. Thank you. So Ron, in the staff report, which is dated September 21, is there anything in there that is something that either is just a statement or will comply?

Speaker 19 No,

Speaker 18 Everything in everything that's in there is basically we would comply with or was just a statement other than the testimony about the operation which it requested and which you've just given us. Is that right?

Speaker 19 That's correct.

Speaker 18 Alright. Is there anything else in the other reports the the DNR raring engineering that you wanna address? I'm looking at your notes and indicating it will compliant all of them, but I, I don't wanna put words in your mouth. You're the witness.

Speaker 19 Yeah. And Mr. Wilson, just for clarification, the staff report by division of Engineering Planning and Development is a staff report dated July 17th, 2026. Last revised September 21st, 2026. Alright,

Speaker 18 That's the date I gave you. Right.

Speaker 19 As I indicated it, we agree to comply with everything in there. The DNR engineering letter, which is dated October 13th. Again, we agree to comply. You can comply with all of the comments in Mr. Carley's letter.

Speaker 18 Alright, so we, we satisfy coverage, we satisfy the side yards, setbacks of the buildings, building coverage, everything and uses are all permitted, correct?

Speaker 19 That's correct.

Speaker 18 Okay. Madam Chairman, I don't have any other questions in Mr. Aba. Perhaps the board

Speaker 19 Or the public. Mr. Wilson, I'm sorry. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I just wanna respond. There is a fire review memorandum that I just wanna put on the record. We received a, an approval from the Fire Safety Review. I don't see a date on here.

Speaker 18 I don't see it's dated

Speaker 19 10 13 26. It's dated, signed by the Fire Prevention Marshal. It's dated 10 13 26

Speaker 18 Matthew Al.

Speaker 19 Yes.

Speaker 18 And it says signed dated 10 13. Right. So that should be part of the record. I'm part of your board record, Mr. Barlow.

Speaker 1 Yep. And you're gonna comply with his comments?

Speaker 19 It's an approval.

Speaker 1 Yep. But he has approved penal fire language. Oh, I'm sorry. Clearly marked and signs you're gonna comply with his comments?

Speaker 19 Yes, yes sir.

Speaker 18 Correct.

Speaker 1 Yep.

Speaker 18 Sounds good. Appreciate that. Catching that. And,

Speaker 11 And for the record, our planning letter, you see that most of our stuff said comment address, so we don't really have to add much tonight. Thank you.

Speaker 18 Appreciate that Mr. Stein. So Mr. Chairman, if there are questions to the board or members of the public, members

Brenda Smith (Chair) Of the board, do you have any questions of Mr. Beck?

Speaker 12 Yes, actually, Eric Campbell with Dole and Dean, we did prepare a comment letter and in the letter we mentioned concern about the five Legg intersection, interior intersection proposed next to the Centennial Avenue driveway. I was

Speaker 1 Just stop you real quick. Let me just real quick, Mr. Campbell, I don't know because there were so many people on and the meeting started. Yeah. Were you present and were you sworn

Speaker 12 I was present? I was sworn, yes.

Speaker 1 Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Have at it.

Speaker 19 Sorry, Mr. Campbell, what I should have said earlier, when we went through the review letters, there is a Dawn and Dean review letter that Matt Seckler, our traffic engineer is gonna address.

Speaker 12 Got it. Thank you.

Speaker 19 I apologize

Speaker 18 Goodnight. Unless Mr. Campbell addresses it. Now we're okay with that. If you wanna do that, Eric,

Speaker 12 I'll, I'll see what Matt says.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Does any other members of the board would, would like to ask a question at this time? I,

Speaker 8 I, I, I'm mad Madam Chair. I would like to say a couple words. I I gotta congratulate Mr. Beck. With all these arrows that you have on the plans here, you doubled the amount of arrows in the entire town. This is a very busy, busy, busy, busy application here that you had before us. And I'm letting you know straight now, judge, I'm not in favor of this drive through whatsoever. So if there's an approval, it will be without the drive through. So go ahead Mr. Omba.

Speaker 19 I no response to that mayor.

Speaker 8 Well, you're not gonna have it 'cause I'm, I'm not approving this application with this drive-through. I've seen the disaster that's over at your other site. I've seen the disaster across the street. I'm not about to vote for another potential disaster on this site. This is such a busy, busy site here. So you could put on your testimony we will not be taking a vote tonight because I want my staff to look further over this. So go ahead with your application. And by the way, if you're gonna get whatever you get in, you better get it before 10 o'clock. Thank you very much.

Gabrielle Cahill Madam Chair. It's Councilwoman Cahill. Mr. Alba, could you, I apologize, I'm, I'm just trying to orient myself. So on the other side of the Howard Grand Boulevard, that's what borders where the Starbucks is?

Speaker 8 That's

Gabrielle Cahill Correct. That is correct. Okay. And so I think, you know, just, I may not be as passionate about the mayor, about the drive-through 'cause I understand the demand, but, you know, could there be some sort of, you know, I'm not sure so sure what we could do here to mitigate what, what the mayor's concerns are, which I'll, I'll share with you. You know, I was very happy when the Starbucks moved to the new location with the drive through, where before it didn't have one for sure as a a, a shopper, you know what the, that the issue is with that Starbucks. And so perhaps with your planners, you, you could take a closer look, is that the Starbucks drive through traffic as a practical matter every day it blocks people coming out of the two parking lot entrances where the, oh my gosh, I can't think of the restaurant. Restaurant and where the liquor store is and the hair. Oh the right,

Speaker 8 The door sushi is back there.

Gabrielle Cahill Right, right, right. So when that drive through traffic at Starbucks backs up, you know, there's no issue on the, on Howard Grand Boulevard. It is, it is all within the parking lot area. So I, you can't see my arrow. But when you come in off of Centennial at the traffic light that you put in and you were to go straight, you the, there rightfully so, was put in a left turn to go to Longhorn and then to get onto the Starbucks drive through or even a park in Starbucks, right. On any given day, the drive through traffic at Starbucks at peak times, blocks access coming out of the two spots from where the, the buildings are. And we'll back up onto, you know, where the traffic's coming in from Centennial. So, you know, to the mayor's point is, you know, again, I'm not as passionate about it 'cause I understand the demand and all that for the drive through, especially for folks driving on Centen on Stelton.

Gabrielle Cahill I mean, what can be done to mitigate that? You know, the, the, it is a, it's a busy lot here with a lot of, you know, drive driveways here. Just wondering, especially given that it's right at this corner here where we do see the traffic, you know, on the, on the spot. You can't see for, for that drive through it, it, it causes a lot of backup and I can appreciate that the traffic studies and all that. But the traffic studies for whatever given reason aren't in fact, you know, showing what reality on the ground is today because of the demand of a Starbucks. Certainly.

Speaker 19 Yeah. So I, I appreciate it. Councilman McGrail, just before I answer that question or try to answer it, the mayor mentioned about the drive-throughs. We have two, two buildings with drive-throughs. It is this both drive-throughs, one drive-through bothers you more than the other. I'm just trying to get clarification so I can respond correctly. Just finish your, just finish your testimony Ron. Okay. So Council Councilman Cahill, I know you know Matt, our traffic engineer can talk about it. I know we don't show the adjoining site plan on our screen right now, but if you look at the drive-through that's on the corner here, the drive-through window is located approximately in this location where my cursor is. This is a tremendous amount of stacking that wraps around the back of this building. I don't know off the top of my head. I can probably find out while maybe Matt's testifying or something, what that distance is, but tremendous amount of stacking for this. Yeah,

Gabrielle Cahill I mean if I look at that and I apologize I didn't, I didn't see that, you know, it's very small on my screen and I, for some reason I don't have this plan in my packet, but I only saw the cars, you know, like there's the drawing of the cars up by the Howard Grand Boulevard, the drive. Right. Which would be closer to the Starbucks I'm talking about. So I do see that. I see there's two drive aisles similar to what is over across the street at the chicken place. I forget what it's

Speaker 19 Called. It just opened.

Gabrielle Cahill Which did you say? No, no, no, no, no, no. Chick on the South Plainfield side. Oh,

Speaker 19 Chick-fil-A.

Gabrielle Cahill Chick-fil-A. Yeah, Chick-fil-A chick. So it has two, it has two drive throughs, which yeah. That makes that move faster than if it were one for sure. I see the one closer Hargan. Is it, and I apologize, I I know you mentioned a couple of retail places. What do you have like an understanding of who your tenant may be with without you divulging anything and understanding what the demand is of a potential tenant there with the drive through. Like certainly a Chick-fil-A coming into this part of the country drew a lot of demand, right? It was newer. Do you have any indication as to what that spot where your cursor is right now, that the potential tenant and what their demand may be

Speaker 19 At all? Unfortunately we do not, we've been trying to market this site, but it's, it's hard to market a site without some kind of approval in place. 'cause I want to know, you know, when not if you're gonna deliver a pad. So, you know, we were able to secure a couple tenants, but I, I'll be honest with you, council, when we've had this project's been going back and forth, no fault of the township on our own, going back and forth different iterations and going on for a few years now, we've had tenants come and go that were interested and then they end up going someplace else. We had a fast food for the corner that ended up didn't wanna wait and they left and went to another location. So right now we don't have anybody. So I don't wanna speculate that of who it's gonna be because you never know what tomorrow's gonna bring. Sorry.

Gabrielle Cahill Okay. You know, and I can appreciate that and I, I I, I remember at some point there was talk about this potentially being more of like a hotel with a restaurant sort of idea floating at one point. But Okay, thank, thank you. I mean you could answer as much as you can on that one. Thank you.

Speaker 19 You're welcome.

Speaker 18 And Councilman Cahill, it's just Doug Wilson. Just, I don't really understand that the circumstances of the Starbucks on the other site, where the queuing line will then go in front of other roads applies here. If you look at the course of this site without regard to the dimension which Ron may be able to figure out, no matter how long those lines are, it's not gonna block any of the other buildings. So that concern, which we, we may have to take a look at for our own purposes

Gabrielle Cahill On the other, well again, not right, and, and Mr. Wolfson, I could appreciate exactly what you're, you're saying here. So the, it, you know, at the end of the day, it would really be dependent upon the kind of demand that a particular restaurant may have in this area or may not. Where I, you know, and as I look at the one closest to Howard Grand Boulevard, you know, could I potentially see them coming out into the main drive vial or wrapping through the other parking lots spots

Speaker 18 Taking awful lot of cars?

Gabrielle Cahill Yeah, well, yeah, I get that.

Speaker 18 Not that big and it's not that big a space. So

Gabrielle Cahill Yeah,

Speaker 18 I understand the position and I

Gabrielle Cahill It depends upon the,

Speaker 18 On the other side.

Gabrielle Cahill Yeah. It's just gonna depend upon the demand. We, you know, what we just don't wanna get into is a situation similar to, you know, the, the, the site is zoned by the same organization where probably the, the testimony for the, the traffic patterns really didn't fully take into consideration the kind of demand that a Starbucks would drop. You know, would, would, would.

Speaker 18 Yeah. But it's more than the demand. It's the demand and the location of other roads and other buildings so that if there is a backup, it causes a

Gabrielle Cahill Conflict. Well that, I mean look, that's all on this. There's no

Speaker 18 Conflict. It's same. There would be no conflict

Gabrielle Cahill Here. Yeah, it's the same owner development. So it was developed.

Speaker 18 I understand, but it's a different tenant and it's a different, it's a different setup, but the buildings are different locations with different rack access roads and different driveways. Right.

Speaker 8 Judge, I I, I'm looking at these plans. This has the making of a, I can't say it because I probably got in trouble with the FCC, but I could see this from the track record, what happened on the other site and across the street. This has the makings of repeating that and I don't wanna see that repeat happen.

Speaker 18 Well we understand that

Speaker 8 Because you know who's gonna get the complaints. I'm gonna get the complaint

Speaker 18 For the record, Mr. Mayor,

Speaker 8 Not your owner. I appreciate the honor it's come to my

Speaker 18 Office, but I'm no, I'm no longer a judge so I appreciate that. But what's a

Speaker 8 Judge? Always

Speaker 18 A judge. Doug and Mr. Wilson works fine for me. Yeah. I won't even tell you some of the other names of my family call me. But yeah, I'm okay with either one of those and I do appreciate it, but I'm no longer on the bench, so thank you so much for that. I don't know that it's fair to equate the way that the other project is situated with the way a completely different project is situated and while there may be some overlap in ownership, it's not identical. The owner of this site is not, or the owner to be of this site is not the same as the owner of the other site. And we try very hard

Speaker 8 To locate. But you're, but the thing is you're gonna use how, I'm sorry, go ahead. To have some of the people go through that site to get out to the traffic lane on Centennial.

Speaker 18 Well having the extra ability that's gonna do that is a plus, not a minus in my view, but I think it's further

Speaker 8 Gonna screw up the other site too.

Speaker 18 Well, I

Speaker 8 Don't think so. You're making my case on perhaps I, there shouldn't be a drive-through.

Speaker 18 Perhaps I will, but perhaps Mr. Ser will, will put enough evidence on the record that will persuade you and other members of your board

Speaker 8 That problem. Mr. Barlow, let's let the, a finish some of the testimony 'cause 10 o'clock's the witching hour.

Speaker 18 I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, did you, did you want us to keep going? No,

Speaker 8 You go ahead. Keep going, keep going.

Speaker 18 Alright, Ms. Cao, we responded as best we can to you. Are you okay with what we've given you so far?

Gabrielle Cahill Where'd she go?

Speaker 18 She's on mute.

Gabrielle Cahill Yeah, no, no. Yes. Answers are question or the questions have been answered to, you know what we can talk to now.

Speaker 18 Appreciate the, the input.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Are there any

Speaker 18 Other question? Chairman? Any other questions from Mr. Aback?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Are there any other questions from the board for Mr. Beck? I hear no response from members of the board. Would, can we open it up to the public members of the public? You've heard testimony from Mr. ABA as to the plans that are going for this site. Do you have any questions of him? Please indicate by raising your hand or pressing star six to ask questions or to raise questions of his testimony. Ms. Buckley, do you see any? No. And Madam Chair close to the public. You may proceed. Mr. Wolfson? Thank

Speaker 18 Madam Chair. Mr. Seckler, are you still on our screen?

Brenda Smith (Chair) You can't see it? I'm still here because the, the exhibit is still up. Is if he still there? Matt, you there?

Speaker 20 I'm here. Do you hear me

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay Matt? His hand is up. He can be sworn in.

Speaker 2 I, I'm sorry, I didn't catch the name.

Speaker 20 Matt ler.

Speaker 2 Oh okay, sorry.

Speaker 20 S-E-C-K-L-A-R.

Speaker 2 Do you swear that the testimony you about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

Speaker 20 Yes I do.

Speaker 2 Okay. Can you please give your address?

Speaker 20 It's 92 Park Avenue in Rutherford, New Jersey. I'm with Stonefield Engineering Design And again my last name is S-E-C-K-L-E-R.

Speaker 2 Alright, thank you.

Speaker 18 Now, I know you've been before the board before, but for the record just put some brief qualifications as your expertise in traffic and engineering.

Speaker 20 Yes, I'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is still in good standing. Been practicing the field for almost 20 years. I've been accepted of four over 150 boards in the state.

Speaker 18 I'd offer Mr. Barlow, Mr. SCO is an expert in traffic engineering.

Brenda Smith (Chair) He's acceptable.

Speaker 18 Alright, thank Madam Chairman. Matt, I'm gonna shortcut this if we can. I know that there was some issues raised in the review letter by the Dolan and Dolan office. I know that you've been working closely with Eric and the other, perhaps other members of his organization to try to work out issues. Can you wanna summarize what has been discussed and what we're doing to respond to their concerns?

Speaker 20 Certainly. And my cell service isn't great here, so I'm gonna keep my screen off if that's okay. Let me know if people are having trouble hearing me. I'll be sharing an exhibit, which would be a three.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Mr. Barlow, I think that's correct. A three? Yes it is. Okay.

Speaker 20 Matt, do you want screen pull up screen to bring it up, Matt? My screen. Oh nevermind. I think I got here.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Here it comes.

Speaker 20 Do you guys see my screen with a three?

Speaker 18 Do not.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Still circling. It's coming.

Speaker 19 Matt, you want me to

Speaker 20 See my screen?

Speaker 19 No, it's not coming up. No,

Speaker 18 It's not showing.

Speaker 19 I'll bring up the plan Matt.

Speaker 20 Sorry about that. Do you guys still see me or hear me? I can hear

Brenda Smith (Chair) You. I hear you.

Speaker 20 All right Ron, can you actually share the screen so it'll help me with my

Speaker 19 Sure.

Speaker 20 Poor service. So this will be a three. It's called driveway modification plan.

Speaker 19 Can anybody see that?

Brenda Smith (Chair) There it comes. There it is now.

Speaker 20 Alright, so what we're focused on is the intersection or the driveway that's near Centennial. There was a comment in the latest do and Dean letter regarding the fact that in the previous plan there was like a five-way intersection with a lot of movements going on in close proximity to Centennial Avenue. What we have done, and Ron if you wanna zoom into that intersection as we've looked to clean up that intersection by actually making it a one-way internal intersection heading in towards the retail pads. So anyone coming out of the drive through would actually have to make a left turn and recirculate within the drive aisles itself. They would not be able to go directly out to Centennial Avenue. Also, again, it cleans up some of the conflicting movements so that cars coming in again from Centennial are not, you know, they're not seeing a lot of conflict points. In addition, we've added a stop bar for any of the vehicles coming towards Centennial Avenue just prior to that internal intersection. So we went from a five Legg intersection with a whole lot of movements to simplified basically a, a really like a three-legged intersection. That

Brenda Smith (Chair) Muted.

Speaker 18 Oh, lost, lost you Matt. I just sent him a text. We can't hear 'em.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Mm.

Speaker 18 Ron are you able to go through the movements the way you would discuss them with Eric?

Speaker 19 Yeah, I think if Matt can't jump back on, maybe Tom Pugsley, who's the site engineer is on, maybe we could swear him in and having, he actually mod, he's the one who modified

Speaker 20 The plan. I'm back Ron, I'm back. He's back. Sorry I was talking to myself. But basically we've simplified the intersection to create what's more like a three-legged intersection due to the one-way circulation going in front of the building. Eliminates a, a number of conflict points at that location and again, allows for all the traffic leaving the drive through to circulate the buildings themselves instead of going directly outta Centennial. So that is the improvements that we've made or we're suggesting to that internal intersection to provide for more simplified approach at

Speaker 18 That. Is that based on the input that you were given by Eric and Betsy?

Speaker 20 Correct. Again, their concern was the location of so many conflict points, a five legged intersection in close proximity to Centennial. We've reduced it really to a three leg intersection in this case.

Speaker 18 Is there anything else about the internal circulation at this site that causes you or the town's consultants any concern in terms of ingress, egress, internal circulation ability of, you know, delivery trucks to drop off the buns in Coca-Cola?

Speaker 20 No, and, and again, I think there was obviously some questions or concerns about drive through and queuing. I think when you look at that fast food restaurant number one, which was the, the one that's, you know, immediately in the center of the screen, I think one of the options could be that the drive through window probably could be moved up closer to Centennial Avenue itself, which would actually increase the queue to about 10 cars for comparison purposes. I think the Starbucks that people are referring to has about a seven car queue. So you're talking about at least a 30% larger queue in this site. If we're able to move that window closer to the front of the building as opposed to where it's located. Now, obviously without having a specific tenant in mind, I think it was just, you know, just randomly drawn. So I think we could clearly move that again closer to Centennial Avenue, that pickup window and get, you know, a 10 car stack, which would be, again, 30% more than what the Starbucks has. Mr. Wolf said, I think you were on mute or not wanting to talk to me.

Speaker 1 Is that all of your testimony Matt?

Speaker 20 We are compliant with all parking on the site with this new design. We again still comply with the parking without needing to take any EV credits. The driveway movements as you've seen here, are all right in right out on the major roads Centennial and Stelton and the Howard Grand Boulevard obviously is full movement, but that's obviously a very low traveled roadway and really is just provides access cross access to the other development which gets you to the traffic signal. So again, we have really no concerns from a, you know, traffic access perspective, especially with the cleanup of this internal intersection.

Speaker 18 And, and I take it you don't have any issues with any of the queuing or drive-throughs that are shown on the, on the plan with the two two buildings?

Speaker 20 Correct. And again, I think that obviously I would make a suggestion here, hearing the, you know, the concerns of some of the board members is again just moving that pickup window a little closer or a little, little further up towards Centennial. And then again that would be able to increase the queue by two for the stacking on that site.

Speaker 18 Based on the way these buildings are located. If the queueing looked ended up being longer as Ms. Cahill was concerned about, do, would the cuing lines block access to any of the other buildings like apparently happens on the other site?

Speaker 20 No, it would basically, you know, this site is actually, looks like it's kind of built in almost three different, or even four different sections. You know, it would basically stay within its quadrant

Speaker 18 If operate independently Correct. And not negatively impact the other buildings.

Speaker 20 Correct.

Speaker 18 Alright, I don't think I have any other questions that Mr. Sackler, perhaps Eric May have questions or may want to comment on what he's heard.

Speaker 12 Yeah, I think the redesign definitely addresses our concerns that we had at the Centennial Avenue driveway. There was a lot of conflicting movements happening with the previous design and this design seems to take away many of the conflicting movements. Matt, I do have one question, which was also in a review letter. If you head down the drive aisle coming from the centennial driveway Yep. Right there where your cursor is. Is there a stop sign or stop bar at that location?

Speaker 20 There should be. We definitely could add one to the plan as we have plenty of arrows on the plan. But looks like we missed the stop bar and a stop sign.

Speaker 12 Okay. That was my only other question.

Speaker 18 I chairman. Any other questions from any of your board members?

Speaker 2 Harold Honors, I do have a question. You said they're going be going to the traffic light to get out.

Speaker 20 How are they wanna make left turns?

Speaker 2 Okay. Nick's gonna be plenty of stop signs on here because I, I I know we're not supposed to be comparing it to the other site, but I've almost got hit like four times then over there by the Starbucks. I even called the property Edgewood properties to try to get, 'cause I'm like, that shook me up 'cause I'm, I'm my car sit low and them trucks just barrel through there. They don't look.

Speaker 18 Yeah, certainly take a look at that Ms. Saunders. Yeah,

Speaker 20 Yeah, I think, I think we have about 10 stop signs and I think we missed one. But definitely there'll be stop signs at all conflicting areas on this plan

Speaker 18 And we're certainly prepared to work with Eric and Betsy to make sure that Andy stop sign that they thinks appropriate. We put in

Gabrielle Cahill Madam Chair, sorry, this is Councilwoman Kale. Just more question, could you just make this plain just a little bit larger? So the act council

Speaker 19 Council, I'm sorry. Any, any specific area or just Well,

Gabrielle Cahill I mean, so I just wanna be clear because maybe I overlooked it. Okay. So there's that, this is Centennial. So when we talk about access to the light, we're talking about the light on the other side of Howard Grand Boulevard that connects where you would go across to Lowe's.

Speaker 19 Correct.

Gabrielle Cahill And, and how is, where is that access, how do, what is the traffic flow to that access? Is it back through Starbucks behind or behind the buildings? Because that street right there, it's behind Longhorns. Yeah, well not behind Longhorns in between the, like essentially where the Starbucks drive through traffic is is what you're saying. So this, I'm, I'm just, show me what that anticipation of that is gonna be. You gotta show it to me because that, that's not gonna be acceptable. That's not access. I'm gonna tell you why, because when the traffic backs up to Starbucks, it, you can't, you can't go in the opposite direction. That lane is blocked.

Speaker 19 So

Gabrielle Cahill Do you want I i I don't know if I can explain it because I don't have the plan. Just sh do you have the Starbucks? Do you have that lot right there? Okay. Can

Speaker 19 You see my screen

Gabrielle Cahill Okay? Yes I do. So show me where the, this is Starbucks, right? Where do you anticipate access to the traffic light on the other side of Longhorn going from this particular development that we're talking about?

Speaker 19 So the only options, and I'm sorry Mr. Barlow, I don't know if it's appropriate 'cause Matt was testifying if I jump in here. No,

Gabrielle Cahill That's okay. You're on oath.

Speaker 19 This, there's a drive opening right here that's behind Starbucks.

Gabrielle Cahill Oh, I know it. That's the, that's that's where the people get online to do their pickup. Right? If I, the line will go right, but the line goes all the way to Longhorn and they block your traffic coming from your development. They can't go that way. The only way they'll make it that way when, when, when it's high peak time is if they get into the lane going against them, that's not access.

Speaker 19 So if I could, if I could respond

Gabrielle Cahill Yes.

Speaker 19 So there's the Starbucks here, it's the top of the page. There's a drive aisle immediately behind it. That's a one way out only. So anybody leaving our site can't go into that drive-through Lane 'cause it's a do not enter. Okay. It's a one. So one way out that when it was originally designed for that center, okay, the car come down here and if they got into the drive-thru by accident, that was like the escape lane. Okay.

Gabrielle Cahill Right.

Speaker 19 The only way they'd go is they have to come to this drive aisle here, which is on the opposite side of I think T-Mobile. Whoever's in this cloud.

Gabrielle Cahill Yeah. Well T-Mobile's gone.

Speaker 19 Well whoever's in the corner of this retail, they have to go through here and then navigate behind Longhorn or they have to go back around the large.

Gabrielle Cahill Okay. They'll never be able to go next to whatever's gonna replace T-Mobile, make a right and make a left. 'cause the drive aisle for the takeout of Starbucks during peak time peak extends all the way to where you see Longhorn. So people coming to go to Starbucks, this is why this is a point of contention just so you know, when they come in here, they make, there's a dedicated left to come where, where your cursor is. But opposite of the, the site we're talking about. Right? They come to make the left, they start getting online right where the Longhorn building is during high peak times. So where we suggest access to the light, oh cut through the parking lot where T-Mobile used to be. Well then they're either gonna have to make a left go all the way around in front of that and then make a right during peak times they'll never be able to make the right at T-Mobile, make a left 'cause it'll be blocked. This is during peak times for Starbucks takeout.

Gabrielle Cahill There is no lane for people headed back towards, you know, where you would catch the light on Centennial. It is blocked. So almost essentially you would almost have to force people to make a a, if they wanna get to access to the light is to go left all the way behind that building. That that's a nightmare. If that's what we're talking about. People wanting to get an access to a light to get back onto Centennial, to to, you know, to do a left onto Centennial with the amount of businesses that you have in the new site. This is gonna become untenable for folks who wanna go back left onto Centennial. It really will. And I'm not an expert but I shop there all the time. All the time. I go to Longhorn, I go to Starbucks, we go to the liquor store over there, we go to Midori all the time. And as a practical matter, I would suggest that on any given day, you and a team of people go sit there and look at it and understand that that just would not, I mean 10 cars at any given time. But if you look at the amount of of business there, if there is an anticipation of X percent of folks wanting to access that light, this circulation plan would be terrible. Absolutely terrible. And Ron I say that wanting you to come wanting these businesses here, wanting it, you know, desperately understood.

Speaker 19 Understood.

Gabrielle Cahill Okay.

Speaker 3 Any other board members have questions of Mr. I Concur

Speaker 2 With or Mr. Alman? I concur with Gabrielle 'cause I'm there every day at Starbucks.

Speaker 19 Thank you.

Speaker 3 I'm there a lot. I get my haircut there. I go in and out of there. I go to the, the bank. 'cause my daughter works for the for, for the, for the bank there. So, and I go to Longhorns so I know what it is. Different types today that go there. 'cause I'm retired and I study traffic 'cause that's what I did for a living. Okay. So I I know it's a nightmare. That's all I gotta say about that. And the drive, drive through, that's, that's a terrible place for drive through coming off the centennial. Centennial is busy as it is. And when you can't get in and out properly, that's, that's really a catastrophe for accidents. That's all I gotta say about that. I'm sorry Ron, but this is the truth.

Speaker 19 You don't have to apologize. The frustrating part on our end is this, the first we're hearing of it. We have a variance free application. We submitted, we got review letters. We're trying to respond to that. So please understand. It's, it's hard for us to respond to a lot of these questions and statements because again, this is the first we're hearing the, the, the concerns that

Gabrielle Cahill The court have. You know, you know, Ron, I I let me just have to, I I get it. It's variance for you. This is not about trying to withhold it, but when developing this, that really, it has to be taken into consideration. And for folks who are working on it and doing the plan, just having them planted over there during high peak times to see what that circulation would look like. Maybe the smarter people who do this for a living could figure out something. Do you know what I'm saying? That's all looking, looking for a solution really more, you know, like a, a good plan that would help mitigate that.

Speaker 8 I appreciate the input. Thank you Madam Chair. Any other questions from board members or the public?

Brenda Smith (Chair) I, I'm wait, the discussion is the question period. The only other thing is to ask the public because members of the board have spoke pretty much spoken.

Speaker 8 I just did not cut anybody off on the board.

Brenda Smith (Chair) No, I don't think you've cut any members of the board. Do do you have any other commentary or questions that you'd like to ask of Mr. Beck? If not, we can open it or

Speaker 8 Mr. Ser

Brenda Smith (Chair) Well, Mrs you're right, you're correct. As or Mr. Ser, we've had a pretty full and open discussion of the topic. I can get my 2 cents and I don't go to Starbucks. I'm not a a a specialty coffee user, but I do use Longhorns and I do use the, the back mall where the liquor store is. I avoid, I avoid the conflict back there because it is exactly as they say. So I would like to see a simpler plan for that corner quadrant of property and just to think at during rush hour it would add to the confusion is a nightmare because I take my grandchildren back and forth to school at five o'clock and it's just, I just, the thought of it, it drives me crazy. So I'd like to see a simpler plan be devised for high traffic times and that's what I have to say about that.

Speaker 8 Thank you.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Members of the public, do you have any i the questioning is opening to you. Does any member of the public wanna ask Mr. Allen back or Mr. Ser any questions regarding the testimony that's been given so far? If you do please indicate by waving a hand or by pushing star six.

Speaker 8 No chairman.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Okay. Okay. Close to the public. It's on the record that we did open it to the public.

Speaker 8 Thank Madam Chairman. Our last witness is Mr. Ocie. A hey, you're counselor. We're gonna, we're gonna give you next month, 10 o'clock. I get up, I'm out the door four o'clock in the morning, you know, I just, I'm gonna be down in this building in about another six hours and to get some sleep. So, and I, I strongly suggest you start rethinking not having those drive-throughs 'cause you're not gonna get my vote on that. And then you a heads up right now? No, you'll get approvals of everything else but no drive-throughs. End of discussion on that one. Can I, Madam chair, can we give him next month?

Brenda Smith (Chair) Are you available next month? Do we, Mr. Barlow, do we have room on our schedule for November or does it have to be pushed to the December meeting?

Speaker 8 Tom, you're muted.

Speaker 1 My review of the agenda for the November 4th meeting shows that we have a board of ed review matter, I think an NITA redevelopment review. We have five applications that are already scheduled and we carried the co hour. Kevin Moore application. Yes we

Brenda Smith (Chair) Did. Sounds like No, sounds like December to me. It,

Speaker 1 It, Ms. Buckley can correct me, but so we have eight matters currently scheduled.

Speaker 4 Yeah, it's it's busy season.

Speaker 18 On the other hand, Lauren, our planner's gonna take five minutes 'cause there's no variances. It's just three waivers. No, no. Mr. Mayor,

Speaker 8 I, I'm, I'm letting you know right now. I've you,

Speaker 18 I really don't like being interrupted talking to the chair that'll

Speaker 8 Give you time to figure it out. I'm doing you a favor.

Speaker 18 I appreciate that you're trying to do us a favor. It really has nothing to do with whether or not we should be on for the November 4th and near the top of the agenda. 'cause we're only five minutes away. And

Speaker 8 If, and if you,

Speaker 18 If you, if you already decided you're not gonna vote for us. Okay. But I have to put my,

Speaker 8 I didn't, I didn't say that. I said review, reviewed it,

Speaker 18 Your Honor. You're putting words. I I have to present the plans for the hall board and for any future action. So I understand it. You know, I understand it and I know you understand it. You don't wanna let me put my five minutes on tonight, okay?

Speaker 8 No, just listen, I told you 10 o'clock, it's 10 o'clock. Let's go.

Speaker 18 I understand.

Speaker 8 December it is. Let's move on to the next item.

Speaker 18 Mayor, I'm sorry. Can I find out what date that is please?

Speaker 4 It's December 9th.

Speaker 18 Nine.

Speaker 4 Yeah, nine the ninth.

Speaker 18 Okay.

Speaker 1 Yeah. Doug, I don't wanna put you on the fourth and have it get swallowed up and

Speaker 18 Well, we wouldn't be swallowed. We'd be done in five minutes and you'd vote us up or down. No.

Brenda Smith (Chair) 'cause you wouldn't be number one.

Speaker 1 I,

Speaker 8 Yeah, I wouldn't bank on that one.

Speaker 1 So

Speaker 18 We carry without notice. I've done a few too, Mr. Banger, so I know how long Mr. CIO would bank.

Speaker 1 Just, I, I would just make an announcement that the, the matter will be carried to the December 9th meeting. The applicant will not have to notice further. If anyone's on for that is here for that, you won't get any additional notice. And it will be scheduled for the December 9th meeting without notice.

Speaker 18 Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very much. Chairman, thank you so much Tom. Appreciate it, Dawn. Okay, counsel. Appreciate it. Lawyer. Watch Mr. Mayor, we'll see you then. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Councilman

Brenda Smith (Chair) Chair. Good night. Have a good evening. Good night. Meeting's adjourned. Okay.

Speaker 1 Motion.

Brenda Smith (Chair) Motion to adjourn. Oh, second. It's unanimous. It's, it's, it's unanimous.

Speaker 4 Goodnight everyone.

Speaker 18 Goodnight.