Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on February 10 2021


Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.

Speaker 2     00:00:14    Alright, Madam chair. I believe we are ready to go.  
Speaker 1     00:00:20    The Piscataway township planning board meeting will please come to order open public notice. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the courier news notice published, posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the courier news and the star ledger. Can we read the department of community affairs guidelines? Mr. Barlow,  
Speaker 3     00:00:51    Certainly Madam chair, this meeting is being held virtually in conformance with the department of CUNY affair guidelines that were promulgated at the beginning of the pandemic. The notices have indicated the appropriate zoom information. So any member of the public wishing to log in can do so I believe the board has complied with the DCA requirements and it's appropriate for the meeting to go forward by the chair.  
Speaker 1     00:01:18    Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll  
Speaker 2     00:01:25    Council woman Cahill. This Corcoran. Yeah, the Saunders was the one that was just here. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I'm here Reverend Ketty. Mr. Espinosa, I don't believe is here. Nope. Mr. Foster,  
Speaker 1     00:01:55    Here, you can see the flag over my shoulder. Can we all recite the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with Liberty and justice for all. Will everyone be voting tonight? Ms. Parkway?  
Speaker 2     00:02:32    1, 2 3, 4 5 6 7. Yes. Madam chair. Everybody will be voting tonight.  
Speaker 1     00:02:37    And can we swear in the professionals please? Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:02:41    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 is state your name for the record, please?  
Speaker 2     00:02:51    Yes. Steven Gottlieb from CME associates. Yes, I do.  
Speaker 4     00:02:56    Thank you  
Speaker 2     00:03:00    With GEI consultants. Yes, I do. James Clark and from foresight planning. Yes, I do. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:03:10    All right. Now we will turn to our formal agenda tonight. Before I get started, there are two matters that are going to be adjourned tonight on the district. And so if anyone is here for those particular items, then they're adjourned until April 14th and they require no further notice. The first one is 17 Plainfield avenue, LLC. So that's a drain to the 14th, April, April the 14th, not March the 14th, April the 14th and Q T S investment properties of Piscataway  
Speaker 3     00:03:54    Madam chair. It's actually the minaret investments QTS is on for tight minaret investments. 19 PB 20 is being  
Speaker 1     00:04:04    Okay. That's then that's the one that's being adjourned. Yes ma'am. Okay. And that's April 14th, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. On with our, the rest of our agenda, the discussion for redevelopment redevelopment plan for 8 57 holes lane west also known as block 11, 9 0 1 block 22.15 on the Paskataway township TexMex. Judy,  
Speaker 3     00:04:32    You want to adopt the minutes first?  
Speaker 1     00:04:36    Oh, did I skip down to those? I'm sorry, by the lines of January. Yeah. There's two items. Adoption of resolution to memorialize action taken on January 13th.  
Speaker 5     00:04:49    I make a motion that we received the minutes of January 13th, 2021.  
Speaker 1     00:04:59    Okay. We'll do that one then. Do I have a second roll call?  
Speaker 2     00:05:07    Mayor Waller? Yes. Yes, yes. The Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Foster. Yes. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:05:23    Yes. Okay. Adoption of the next resolution please.  
Speaker 2     00:05:29    Madam chairman. I like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of January 13th, 2021.  
Speaker 1     00:05:35    Then we just do that one  
Speaker 2     00:05:41    There's regular minutes. So  
Speaker 3     00:05:42    Two sets of minutes and no resolutions,  
Speaker 2     00:05:45    Correct? Right. Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:05:48    Just reading from the agenda. Adoption of resolution. Okay. Whichever, go ahead, Carol. Just don't unders  
Speaker 4     00:05:59    I'm doing number six, right?  
Speaker 1     00:06:02    I thought we,  
Speaker 3     00:06:08    Okay. There's no number six. It says none. There are no resolutions. There are two sets of minutes. One is from the reorganization on January 13th. I got the  
Speaker 1     00:06:19    Wrong seven minutes  
Speaker 3     00:06:21    Is for the January 13.  
Speaker 1     00:06:25    And  
Speaker 3     00:06:26    I would say Mr. Reverend Kenny moved the minutes for the regular meeting of January 13th, 2021. So we would need a motion to adopt the minutes of the reorganization meeting of January 13th, 2021,  
Speaker 4     00:06:41    Madam chairman. I liked him more, a lot adopt the minutes from the reorganization meeting of January 13th, 2021.  
Speaker 2     00:06:55    Mr. Foster,  
Speaker 1     00:07:00    Mr. Forrester. So roll call please.  
Speaker 2     00:07:07    Yes. Council woman Cahill was corporate. Yes. The cylinders. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Foster and Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:07:19    Yes. So is the discussion next?  
Speaker 3     00:07:23    Yeah. The discussion for the redevelopment amended redevelopment plan for 8 5, 7 hose lane west would be next. And that's a foresight planning, which is Mr. Clark.  
Speaker 6     00:07:36    Yes. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. I hope everyone is. Well, I don't believe I've seen you since 2020, so it's good to see you all in 2021 as mentioned, I prepare the amended redevelopment plan before you tonight. It is 4 8 57 hose lane west also known as block 11, 9 0 1 lot 22.15. I was going to go into a little bit of background since it's been awhile, since this redevelopment has come before the board. So back in the summer of 2017, the board heard the initial in need of redevelopment study that was done by CME associates. And later that summer, the township council adopts a resolution to formally make it in, in need of redevelopment. Subsequent to that later in early January of 2018 of redevelopment plan was also done by CME and was adopted by the township once again, in early 2018, both of the, both the study and the plan was a non condemnation in need of redevelopment. And this amendment to the plan will not change that at all.  
Speaker 6     00:08:48    So as you can see, since 2018, not much has happened on the property in terms of redevelopment. So with no redevelopment occurring, the township of Skyway is looking to amend the redevelopment plan in an effort to spur redevelopment activity. And in addition, as you probably recall, in December, 2020, you did a master plan reexamination, which proposed certain rezonings, which you implemented. And one of those rezonings was for this area or for this a lot bedding campuses, the redevelopment plan. So it's two fold to spur economic or redevelopment activity, and also to be consistent with that rezoning.  
Speaker 6     00:09:35    So now that we've gotten through the backgrounds, just a kind of give you a little locational context. It's the property is located in the Southern part of the township. It's at the corner of river road and Hosely and west, if you were going east on river road, Johnson's park would be on your right Rutgers golf course would be on your left. If you went further down river road, you would hit record stadium St. George Church and further west of this is the Colgate Palmolive facility. The size of the lie is 8.7 acres, and it is mostly wooded, but except for a couple of structures, one being a rather old home that could be argued to be almost a mansion by its time when it was built in the 1740s, along with, I believe two other structures, a garage or a shed in the rear and another barn like structure further in the rear.  
Speaker 6     00:10:42    So this is effectively known as the Miller house. And back in 2003, Rutgers university actually purchased it with, I believe the intent to make it the residents for the president of the university. But I believe that plan ever went through and it's really stood vacant since then. So it's really been vacant for a long time and nothing has happened to it. So as I said, the intent of this amendment to the redevelopment plan is to spur redevelopment activity where none has really happened in since the first effort three years ago. And to be consistent with your new master plan re exam. Oh, you know what, I'm sorry. I just realized I did not share the plan. That might be helpful. Here we go. Okay.  
Speaker 6     00:11:33    Just so at least you can follow along with me. So yeah, I just gave a plan overview and I went through the existing conditions. So I'm looking at the middle of page four. So when, when the first redevelopment plan was done, the underlying zoning was the RR one, which was your rural residential zone. Really what it allows is mostly single family homes and farm uses as well as some other rural conditional uses. So I've amended this section to reflect the, our 17.5 zone, which is really just single family, detached dwellings, your typical accessory permitted uses and conditional permitted uses. I will highlight this right here, customary farm accessory uses. So that's currently permitted under the, our 17.5 zone. However, as I will point out shortly, we have moved that to be prohibited for the redevelopment plan as we don't feel it really fits for that parcel, especially on such a busy corner of river road and hose lane west.  
Speaker 6     00:12:40    So since the last rate of open plan, the plan vision is the same it's to have single family residential homes in the area, which is consistent with the neighborhood around it, as well as recreational facilities like the golf course in Johnson's park. We have not altered the plan goals and objectives, which is really to create the land use requirements, to change the parcel from vacant and underutilized, to something more fitting of the neighborhood, as well as move smart growth principles, excuse me, and fit with your master plan. Now that I've covered that I will move towards the land use spoke standards. So this is really where the main changes are. So as I mentioned, the zoning change, well actually, sorry. So let me back up. So yes, the zoning change was implemented by the master plan re exam. And this redevelopment plan is trying to match the zone standards of our 17.5 with a few exceptions.  
Speaker 6     00:13:52    So, as I mentioned, these are the same for your principal. Permitted uses you have your single family, detached government parks and playgrounds. The main difference is, as I mentioned, as we made the customer, your farm accessory uses such as hay storage or chicken runs, prohibited uses under five. You'll see some required standards for development that are really landscaping in nature. Most of these were in the original redevelopment plan. It's really just saying, you know, have to do certain fences, submit a landscaping plan, try and preserve some trees as it is a rather large lot, add some deciduous, evergreens shrubs and even street trees. And one important item is we don't want any homes fronting on river road or hose lane west. So the idea is to create an internal circular or yeah, internet internal circular access drive, where the homes would face that new roadway.  
Speaker 6     00:14:57    And once again, the area yard in bulk requirements changed slightly to match those of the, our 17.5. I took a look at the old debris development plan and the changes are actually not that substantial. For example, in the old plan, the minimum liar, we have 17,000 square feet versus 17,500. The minimum front yard set back was 50. Now it's 40. So it's minor tweaks just to be consistent with our 17.5 and your master plan re-examine oh, and one chain. And one other change from this section in the old plan, we had a density limit within the plan. We decided to remove that because as I'll share, I'll try and point it out to you on the map, there is a water course on the Eastern part of the property. It actually flows into another lot and I believe it goes underneath river road. So that will have an effect on the number of homes that can be built. And rather than putting a minimum or a maximum, we realized that that's not really necessary because there's only so many homes that you could fit onto the space with minimum lot sizes of 17,500 square feet.  
Speaker 6     00:16:16    So that was an effort to be, you know, to spur redevelopment activity. So those are really the main changes. They're not really that substantial year now you're still sticking with versa, dental uses. We're just trying to be more consistent. I'm just gonna touch on a couple of items here. I'm going to jump to page 10, you'll see parking and loading space requirements as this is residential. We're looking for a minimum of two enclosed spaces per units. So two car garage, but no more than three. So maximum maximum of three enclosed spaces per unit, the minimum width for residential roadway with on-street parking are consistent with the RSIs. We just have only made a small change. We said to include a bike lane that connects with the existing bike clean as on hose lane west right now. And yes. So just want to point out page 11 environmental assessment. It was conducted way back when we did the initial study in 2017 when I, we CME associates, but there are known environmental constraints on the property. At this time, we just know about the water course on the property, and it has been identified and determined by a letter of interpretation from the DEP.  
Speaker 6     00:17:47    So I want to go over your master plan will not go over your master plan. See how it's consistent with your master plan re-examination report since it's changed a little bit. So really your master plan re-examination report actually continues the assumption from the 2005 master plan that the importance of redevelopment in the township will still be very important for older developed sections of the scat away. So I've fucked two excerpts from your reexamination report that I think are applicable to this amendment for the redevelopment plan. So the first is as vacant developable, land diminishes and the township public and private redevelopment rehab and adaptive reuse efforts will continue to increase particularly within other sections of the township and on older developed land parcels and buildings. The second one is due to the economic downturn that occurred in 2008, urban and older, suburban municipalities, like Skidaway township have refocus their efforts for growth and economic opportunity. The redevelopment for areas or buildings that were abandoned, sub-standard unsafe, vacant underutilized, or were not likely to be developed without incentives and given Piscataway, townships, excellent local access for regional roads. And just as general location, we believe as many of the redevelopment plans that I presented before this board, we believed that this had been largely successful. And we think that this will be no different. So that is how this amendment of the redevelopment plan is consistent with your new master plan reexamination still consistent with the state plan is always as we're planning area one.  
Speaker 6     00:19:39    And I really, I think that's really it, so, oh, right. I just wanted to point out the water course on the map. I'm gonna have to zoom in a little bit. So Rutgers golf course up here, Colgate Palm olive down here. This is the law in question, you can see the Miller house right here, and you can see some of the other structures in the rear. So I believe the water course runs along. I think you might be able to see it in the tree better. I believe it runs along here and comes into this property. So that will have an effect on building homes in this area. And with that, I can take any questions. And just to quickly summarize this amendment is to be more consistent with your new master plan re exam in terms of the rezoning on the lot, and also to hopefully spur someone to redevelop here for what you were hoping to do in the first place, which was single family residential. So, yeah. So with that, I can take any questions.  
Speaker 1     00:20:43    Okay. You, are there any questions from the board?  
Speaker 8     00:20:48    Yes. Madam charities, council, woman, Kay hill. I would like to just ask of Mr. Clarkin just, what is the Ori, the reason for the orientation and I'm not, I am not disputing why it was just a curiosity for my, and I have another question after that, is that to keep it, is that going to be an address hoes lane or will it have a different address?  
Speaker 6     00:21:25    I believe I'll have a different address cause it'll probably be a new roadway with a new name. And I think that's the reason for the orientation as to avoid driveways going onto a hose lane west or river road.  
Speaker 8     00:21:35    Oh yeah. Well, there's not enough frontage, I think on either side.  
Speaker 6     00:21:39    Yeah, exactly. That plus, yeah. You don't want to, you don't want, you'd rather avoid cars trying to turn to their driveway  
Speaker 8     00:21:49    On river road.  
Speaker 6     00:21:51    Yeah. You already have to deal with that.  
Speaker 8     00:21:53    I do. And then I guess what was my other question? Okay. No, the sidewalks to trails. Oh, the part in the R 17 is, I believe you mentioned it's government government property, but that means governmental parks or play playgrounds. So in the AR 17, you can either have a single family detached dwellings or a governmental park or playground.  
Speaker 6     00:22:29    That is correct. Yes. Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:22:34    I, I mean, I, I, I, we certainly, you know, don't tell people who buy land exactly what they do as long as they abide by this. But I think it is the intent that this is for single family. I would hope. But in any case it does fall under that zoning.  
Speaker 6     00:22:54    Yeah. I think it was an effort to be consistent if, if you want to, you could ask for it to be removed.  
Speaker 8     00:23:05    Yeah. No, I mean, not necessarily. I just, you know, we want to be very cognizant of the, you know, the residents, the people who live on hos lane west over there, so. Okay. Yeah. All right. I think that was, those were my two main questions about this property. Cause I have some other questions, but I don't think you can answer them. They're not in your purview. And that has more to do with what happens to the old house.  
Speaker 6     00:23:34    Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:23:35    Okay.  
Speaker 6     00:23:35    Thank you. No problem.  
Speaker 1     00:23:39    I have a question. So how many, how many singles, if this goes to a single family housing, how many, how many houses could be, would be built on this?  
Speaker 6     00:23:48    So, as I mentioned, the old plan had a max of 14 and because of the watercourse, I think it'll be under that. I, I don't, I don't think I've actually seen any, any concept plans, but I would guess 12, but yeah, I'm not positive. I haven't done the math to divide a 0.7 by 17,500.  
Speaker 1     00:24:13    Well, I just wanted to get a general idea of,  
Speaker 6     00:24:16    Yeah. I think it would be in the neighborhood of 12. If I had to take a guess  
Speaker 1     00:24:20    And an excess then would come from west  lane west.  
Speaker 6     00:24:24    Yeah.  
Speaker 1     00:24:27    Okay. All right. Any other questions from any of the members of the board?  
Speaker 9     00:24:33    Just a Madam chair, just for clarification. If without the environmental areas you would, there's sufficient lot area, he 0.7 acres for, for 2121 single family homes with the, just based on the lot area and the allowable density that would never happen though, because you have the layout and you have the property layout and then you have to the wetland areas and the street  
Speaker 1     00:25:12    On there. Right.  
Speaker 9     00:25:13    So Jim is short. Jim is pretty close to it being between 12 and 14 lots. Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:25:21    Okay. But I, I, I wouldn't think it would, we'd want it to be too dense. So that sounds about right. Okay. Any other members of the board have any questions before we open it up to the public? Okay. Ms. Buckley, would you check with the public to see if there's anyone wants to  
Speaker 2     00:25:41    Share your screen so I can see it?  
Speaker 6     00:25:43    Yes. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. Thanks.  
Speaker 2     00:25:48    Yes, we have. Brian is raising his hand.  
Speaker 1     00:25:56    We do Brian. Ms. There you go.  
Speaker 4     00:26:03    Hi, Brian, can you, do you wear the testimony about to give with the truth and nothing but the truth? Can you please state your name for the record please? Thank you.  
Speaker 6     00:26:33    I am not aware of any traffic studies on either. Typically if the, if this amendment is approved, they would still have to come before the board for site plan. So it, usually at that time they would do a traffic study for the number of homes that Steven Gottlieb and myself just referenced. I don't believe that would be significant, but I'm also not a traffic engineer. So I can't speak to that. But so if the board approves this tonight, it would go before council to be approved by resolution and then a redeveloper would have to come before this board again for site plan. So, and that would have to be noticed and they would have to address traffic concerns at that point.  
Speaker 1     00:27:29    Thank you, Ms. Buckley, nor are there any other members of the board of the public?  
Speaker 2     00:27:35    No term.  
Speaker 1     00:27:37    Okay. Thank you. Close to the public. Do we have any last minute questions or are we ready for, to vote on this motion? Amended redevelopment plan. Okay. I'm ready for a motion then.  
Speaker 2     00:28:05    Adam chair. So moved council woman. Kay hill.  
Speaker 1     00:28:09    Thank you. Can I get a second please? Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 2     00:28:19    Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. This wanders. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Foster. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:28:30    Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark.  
Speaker 6     00:28:37    Yep. You too. Take care.  
Speaker 1     00:28:39    Our next item is number eight, 20 PB 12 via Mir LLC, preliminary and final site plan. Mr. Is Mr. BV or here  
Speaker 10    00:28:55    I am. Hello.  
Speaker 1     00:28:58    Nice to meet you.  
Speaker 10    00:29:01    You as well.  
Speaker 1     00:29:02    Okay. You may proceed.  
Speaker 10    00:29:06    Thank you. I, my name is Dan . I'm the attorney for the Inmar LLC application number 20 PB, 12 to 11 river road, Piscataway New Jersey. It is a light industrial five zone. Eventually  
Speaker 1     00:29:23    The reason why he's still on river road, I say, okay.  
Speaker 10    00:29:27    So we were granted a site plan approval back in November of 2007 for an office building and a bank with a drive in at two 11 river road. We received our approval in November of 2007, to construct a two story, 7,475 square foot office building. And it connected one story, 2000 hundred 25 square foot bank with the drive-through and teller service for a total of 10,000 square feet of building proposed. Several variances were granted for all of them due to existing non-conformance with regards to the lot size lot, with lot depth, minimum floor, air, front and side setbacks, parking, stall size, and signed setback. No new variances are being proposed as part of this application, the areas because, and the previous application, we were going to connect to the county sewer main, as it turns out, we are unable to do that because it is a high, the, the exact term I could tell you, I don't want to say the wrong term.  
Speaker 10    00:30:41    It's a high pressure force main, so we cannot tap into it. So our solution is a force mean and run it approximately 700, 700 feet south existing municipal sewer line. So that's the only reason we're here is because of the, the, the connection to the silver line. We had a work session, I believe a couple of weeks ago where I think we worked through the issues. The, I had prepared a, an amendment to the agreement with the county. I sent that to the board for review. I am hoping, and the county as well. I was, you know, we're waiting for, for approval and or comments back from both Piscataway and the county on that. But essentially this is a, a simple application. The development has already been approved with the variances granted, and it's just a question of, of the, the connect rather than connecting to the, to the county sewer line. We're going to be putting in a new line and running it to the municipal sewer. So fairly simple and straightforward. I have my engineer, Mike lands a farm, a presence. I want, I do want to say that before we go forward, that we were requested by the fire Marshall to increase the south driveway access from 15 feet to 20 feet wide. We have agreed to do that. And with that having, I will call Mr. Lonza pharma as my most likely my only witness by  
Speaker 1     00:32:30    With sworn morning. And you may proceed, Ms. Sanders, can you just swear, Mr. Lauer, can you  
Speaker 4     00:32:39    Please get, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about to give was the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 9     00:32:46    I do. My name is Michael Lonza pharma that that's L a N Z a F a M a. I'm a licensed professional engineer, land, surveyor and planner, a principal with the firm of Casey and Keller incorporated 2 58 main street, Melbourne, New Jersey. I've testified before this board and numerous applications since the 1980s. And I did most of the Kingsbridge development and Centennial avenue developments years ago with Evans park partnership and Murray construction. I was the here I've testified on this application. As Dan pointed out, we're here only for the modification to providing sewer service for the building. There is no changes to the building and its size shape configuration. There was no change to the detention system that was originally proposed and approved. That was modified some time ago. When we, when we got our original approval, this does meet the current standards, provides for reduction in storm, water runoff, as well as treatment of the system, the main directly in front of our property.  
Speaker 9     00:34:05    And if you let me share my screen, I could show you I, Mike. Yeah, it's just this one. I assume that the board accepts, I apologize. No problem. They, what you see before you is the grading and drainage plan, which is sheet number seven, and the plan set that was submitted as part of the application. And what we've added was a pump station located on the Southern end of the property that would pick up the ser connection from the building and allow us to pump it up from that location via a two-inch diameter scheduled 40 forced main to a point approximately 790 feet south of us to Balas lane, where it'll connect into an existing sanitary manhole at that location. This, this design was reviewed by the Middlesex county utility authority, Middlesex county planning board, as well as Mr. Herrera here in Piscataway. This connection is a single connection for a building that generates less than 8,000 gallons per day.  
Speaker 9     00:35:31    So it does not require DEP approval to, to construct and operate the maintenance of the system will be retained and provided by the property owner. And I know that was one issue that county had, I believe, and that that's basically our application, other than that. Oh, and as Dan said, we did Wyatt, the driveway, you can see on this drawing, the driveway was 15 feet. And in response to the, the fire department's concerns, we widened it to 20 feet. So to prayer provide for easier access by the fire department. I have an email from the fire department indicating approval of such. Okay.  
Speaker 10    00:36:21    Hey Mike, could you just briefly address the planning comments in the CME report?  
Speaker 9     00:36:29    I don't have a CME report. I have, I have the DNR report, but I don't have this DNA report. There's, there's no new, no variances that we are seeking as part of this application. It was all done back in 2007 and we haven't modified the plan.  
Speaker 10    00:36:50    So I, and, and Mike, we're all, we're going to abide by the conditions and requirements or the previous application, correct? This is the only change changes you stated.  
Speaker 9     00:36:59    Yeah. As, as indicated in Mr. Henry Steen's report, we have no problems complying with any of those, those comments.  
Speaker 10    00:37:09    And these are permitted uses in the light industrial district. They are. And the, with regard to the county agreement, we had prepared one, and we're waiting for comments from this board and from the county, but certainly we've agreed to, to, to undertake the maintenance of that line. Correct.  
Speaker 3     00:37:37    Mr. Revere, just as you're on that, this is Tom Barlow, the best attorney, a couple of questions are what, what is the reason that Piscataway is a signatory to this agreement? Because in reviewing it, it seems like it's strictly between the county and the applicant.  
Speaker 10    00:38:01    Th this, the simple answer to that is that that's what the county required of us. That was the county's requirement,  
Speaker 3     00:38:07    Because it looks like four, a and four B are the two that would, that, that mentioned Piscataway. And there are no ordinances or resolutions that Piscataway needs to do to accomplish the construction. And four B just talks about maintenance of adjacent sidewalks, which are the property owners responsibility. So the township's not really involved with any of this.  
Speaker 10    00:38:37    I, I don't necessarily, I don't disagree with you, but that the county demanded this of us. Unfortunate,  
Speaker 11    00:38:44    Mr. Barlow, if I may, it's doing Corgrin just to elaborate. I mean, that was also the, the director of public works, the township attorney and the township administrator all agree that we do not have to be involved with that agreement and don't want to be involved in that agreement. So you may want to take that back to the county. And as you said, Mr. Barlow, there's absolutely no reason for us to have to be.  
Speaker 3     00:39:12    I mean, Mr. Ray, did they give you other than the county demanding it? Did they give you an actual reason or basis?  
Speaker 10    00:39:21    Well, I mean,  
Speaker 3     00:39:23    If they did, I don't know if they give us a reason why or 10 years ago  
Speaker 10    00:39:34    That will be the person who seen you on the property would be the town.  
Speaker 3     00:39:41    I mean, the problem that township has is we're kind of being dragged into an agreement by a third party. Not you. I understand that by a third party for no reason, I don't understand.  
Speaker 10    00:39:57    I, listen. I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Tell you is that's what the county's demanding of, of us. And I don't know whether they will agree to sign under given without the township being a signatory on it. But I could tell you that by you signing that agreement, it's not obligating you to do anything. So it's not like your, your, your, your, your, your becoming obligated by signing it. I believe it's just an acknowledgement that that's what the agreement is.  
Speaker 12    00:40:26    If I may, Madam chair, mayor Waller for Mr. Barlow, any agreement debit come by with the council would have to authorize me to execute it, and I don't necessarily have to sign it. So that's something that's going to have to be dealt with the county at hand with the applicant. Thank you, Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:40:58    You're finished with your application.  
Speaker 10    00:41:02    Okay. I yeah. Is our application straightforward, so this,  
Speaker 1     00:41:06    And you made your presentation. Okay. Or have any questions of this witness in this application? It's time to,  
Speaker 11    00:41:16    I'm sorry, Don Corrigan. Did, did you say that you agree with the report that was issued by DNR engineering?  
Speaker 9     00:41:24    What I had said is that I believe we've already, complish the items that were in the DNR memo at the last go around. We had gotten them to sign off on the plans initially. So many of these comments are basically throwbacks to the last approval. For example, we had already gone to the DP confirmed that the flood elevation was elevation 34. We did not need to get any type of DP, a flood hazard permit. There were no wetlands present on the property. The design of the detention basin is compliant with current standards. The storm surge system along our frontage was relatively new. It was a new construction, but we have no problem in confirming and certifying that the existing system is in good order because it was recently constructed. Then other than that, we have no issues. Number nine, for example, talks about inlay jails. The details we have are pre-cast and they are eco compliant grades that we are showing on the plan. So many of these comments were already addressed, and we have no problem in reviewing them again with DNR and reaffirming our approval.  
Speaker 3     00:42:49    Okay. You can comply with all of the recommendations and it may be as simple as we've already gave that to you exactly. To comply. Okay, Mr. Barlow. Okay. And again, you have no issues with Mr. , January 26th, 2021 report,  
Speaker 9     00:43:06    None whatsoever. And we've complied with fire chief cores comments and provided him with that modification to the system. And we have no problems. And Mr. Gas Barry's comments as well.  
Speaker 1     00:43:26    Okay. I guess we've covered everything. If there's no further questions by the board, we can open it up to the public for their comments.  
Speaker 8     00:43:36    Madam Madam chair, it's council women, kale. Just one quick question with the approvals that you received back in oh seven, am I to presume now that the applicant is going to move to the construction of the sites in the very near future?  
Speaker 9     00:43:58    Yeah, that's pretty, that's pretty much what triggered this whole event is a question came up when we were considering applying for the building permit. At the last minute, we were told by Middlesex county utility authority, we couldn't tap into that line. So then we began exploring options and came up with this solution, but it is our intention to move forward.  
Speaker 8     00:44:23    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:44:28    If there are no more questions by the board, we'll open it up to the public and sparkling,  
Speaker 2     00:44:33    No one Madam chair  
Speaker 1     00:44:35    Close to the public is that you have any other witnesses? I do not. Okay. Well, I'm open for a motion from the board as to what is your desire with reference to this application? And I get a motion from the board, please.  
Speaker 8     00:45:02    Madam chair, it's council, woman Cahill. I will make a motion that the board approves this application 20 PB 12, provided that the applicant, as stated, in fact abides by all of the recommendations made by the township professionals. And also with the recommendations that Mr. Barlow put forward tonight.  
Speaker 3     00:45:29    Okay. So that's what the, with the proviso that the board is not a seeding to signing the proposed multi-party utility agreement, but that's something that the applicant will need to bring to the mayor and council and for a township attorney, correct?  
Speaker 8     00:45:52    I, if that's what the recommendation is from our attorney, then I would, I would move that way.  
Speaker 3     00:46:02    Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:46:04    I need a second on second roll call.  
Speaker 2     00:46:14    Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Yes. It's Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kenney. Mr. Foster. Yes. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:46:29    Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good night. Our next item. Let's see that that's adjourned. It was a journey right here.  
Speaker 2     00:46:46    Number 11  
Speaker 1     00:46:46    Manager. Now we have general public comments. No,  
Speaker 2     00:46:52    QTS QTS.  
Speaker 1     00:46:54    I tell you, I don't know what happened with this agenda. QCs 20 PB zero eight slash zero nine, VQ T S invest 10 properties, Piscataway, LLC, preliminary and final site plan. Mr. Lawrence Kelly,  
Speaker 13    00:47:10    Madam chair. Nice to see you. Nice to see everyone, the  
Speaker 1     00:47:12    Data. How are you?  
Speaker 13    00:47:14    Well, thank you. I hope everybody's well started the new year, too much snow. We did that. We can be pretty brief this evening. Madam chair, we've got a pretty straightforward application for a longstanding property owner and a township. What I'd like to do is sort of just tee up what we're doing here. What we're asking for, introduce you to our two to three witnesses that you'll hear from. And then we're glad to get started with some testimony, explaining what we hope to build, what the deviations are and how we can still achieve the goals and accomplish everything we want and meet the township, you know, recommendations as outlined in the reports that we've gotten so far. Madam chair, if that's okay with you. Wonderful. Thank you. So QTS which we'll refer to them as owns the property at one-on-one possum town road. It's a very large 38 acre site where QTS operates a data farm and offices, a data center, where they store a lot of, you know, important computer documents in clouds that UI and other users such as RKC or hospitals, healthcare providers, all store at QTS facilities offsite.  
Speaker 13    00:48:23    And this is one of them, a Piscataway where QTS operates this very large successful facility for a number of years, we're in the  zone. We've got a few very large structures. And if, and when there are power outages, we need to have backup power available to us by way of standby generators. Of course, you've already got several on the property, but it requires more to keep us going in the event of a power outage. Now, Madam chair, you and the board know that these generators they're all regulated by title seven, the DP standards, when it comes to acoustic standards, noise standards, when we're operating under emergency power, we can and will comply with all that. But we're still here for a site plan application for the board, for what I'm going to call our generator yard, Madam chair. This is certainly more sizeable than we saw with folks coming into the zoning board for bearings after hurricane Sandy, for little standby generators in the yard, these are pretty sizeable cause they have to power up a lot of equipment, any event of a power, power failure.  
Speaker 13    00:49:23    So you've got Menlo engineering plans on file. And we'll take you through those sheets this evening, where we're proposing a generator yard. We have it in the back of the property, which is ideal, but we have a pinch point with our odd property lines. So we're about 32 feet off the property line, budding another multi-tenant industrial user in the back. So we're shy a few feet, I think about 17 feet and change from the setback standard for accessory structures. That is the one and only variance. We've got our rear yard setback to an, a budding industrial user for our generator yard and our generator equipment. We already actually have a lot of equipment in this yard power equipment, but this is sort of at that pinch point where we can't do anything about it. Bill lane, from Menlo engineering, we'll take you through that shortly.  
Speaker 13    00:50:08    I know you folks know bill from a lot of testimony here. He'll confirm that we're going to conform to the acoustic standards. He'll tell you about the fueling sources. He'll confirm my proffer, that we're not changing anything else about this site. And then we can go through the board reports. And there were a few issues in there that are really easy Gibbs and a few others that we'd like to at least discuss a little bit thereafter. Madam chair, we've got two more witnesses for you. We've got Doug Burton from Gensler. Doug can take you through the more granular design, if you will, of the generator units sort of give you an illustration of the cut sheets, the size, how tall they are given the actual acoustics and decibel levels. If you want to sort of get into the details of the generator, boxes themselves beyond just the site layout.  
Speaker 13    00:50:51    And lastly, even though I said, you know, it's sort of a light, easy variance as we see it, it's a variance, nonetheless, Madam chair. So we've got a standard to meet for this board to approve it. And you're going to hear it from our planner, Christine  as our third and final witness. We do have a few more folks on with us as you can probably see on this Brady bunch screen here from yes. So if there are any questions that go a little beyond what our folks can answer, but the board's got a question that you'd like answered. We'd love to give you the answer. So we may have to jump to another member of our team. We can quickly swear them in, and if they're an expert, qualify them and make an answer. Any pointed questions the board may have if it goes beyond bill Doug and Christine at that point, Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:51:32    Okay, fine. Who would you like to call  
Speaker 13    00:51:33    First? Wonderful. Thank you. Bill lane, our site engineer,  
Speaker 1     00:51:38    Mr. Lane stepped forward and you'll be this morning, Ms. Saunders.  
Speaker 4     00:51:51    I'm sorry. I was talking on mute. Hi, your, do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Can you please state your name for the record? Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:52:06    You may proceed.  
Speaker 13    00:52:07    Thank you, Madam chair, bill, could you, I know you've testified before this board numerous occasions, but if you could briefly give the benefit of your credentials and experience so we can qualify you as a civil engineer this evening.  
Speaker 14    00:52:17    Yeah. I've been with metal engineering for approximately 36 years. Been licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey for about 24. Worked on numerous projects throughout the state, probably testified in front of 80 some odd boards, many times in front of the Skyway, both zoning and planning  
Speaker 1     00:52:33    Is a qualified.  
Speaker 13    00:52:35    Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. So bill, you heard my sort of general proffer and explanation to the board as to what we're doing here this evening and a very brief overview layout of the site what's on it and what we hope to do. But if you would bill and I assume you're going to want to share the screen momentarily. Could you take the board through the site? What's there today, what's been there and the limited accessory improvements we're going to propose. And if anything is different from what we filed, bill, just let us know when we see another screen. So we can, we can mark it as an exhibit a if we have to.  
Speaker 14    00:53:08    Alright. Yeah. Th this is the, the overall plan that as Larry mentioned, this 30 acre site, we have possum town road to the west circle drive north to the north, and then route eight, route 2 87 to the south site, as it currently has a three and 53,000 square foot data facility on it, their main entrance is off a possum town road, which accesses to approximately 155 spaces onsite, which over the years have been more than adequate for the, for the property itself. I've been out there several times since this building has been built 2010, I don't think has ever been more than 30, 40 cars in that parking lot beyond the parking lot. There's the loop road around the drive around the building to provide access completely around the building. And as mentioned, what the applicants looking to do is construct a generator yard in the generator yard is going to be seven new transformers, seven new generators, and seven new equipment containers to all facilitate the facility.  
Speaker 14    00:54:10    As this is basically phase two of the building phase. One is completely gone with this generator yard. What we'll do is walk to push the loop road a little bit more towards the east, just to get around, to keep the loop road continuous going around the building. Additionally, with that, with applicants looking to do is on the west side of the building is also installed a new loading dock to help facilitate this end of the building to the south end of the building. And that'll be on the west side of the building near your, the Southwest corner of the building with this change. Also, we're having to remove some trees right now. Our proposal is to have 35 new trees. We're looking to put seven deciduous trees in and around the loop loop road. And then about another 28 evergreens along the east side, just to the east of where we're putting our generator yard to help buffer to the neighbor internally site plan wise. That's, that's basically it.  
Speaker 13    00:55:10    And bill, if you could just show the board what I identified as sort of that pinch point where we're encroaching into the rear yard setback of the other industrial property with our generator yard or equipment back there, BA  
Speaker 14    00:55:22    Just as you come around that the Southeast corner of the building, it starts to get a little bit tighter in here. Cause that's where the, the site starts to narrow down as you go towards the 27.  
Speaker 13    00:55:33    Okay. No issues with access as you modify that loop in the back.  
Speaker 14    00:55:37    No, we still can, you know, have a tractor trailer, a firetruck, anything, and nobody can access it and around the building.  
Speaker 13    00:55:43    Okay. So there were a few board reports bill. I just want to go through a few items and then we can defer to the board professionals if they want to go over any other specific ones. There was discussion at the tech meeting about proposing some additional landscaping. I think it might've been ended up being memorialized in Henry's report. And I know you talked about 35 new plantings, but to the extent that we have to work with the township post-approval as far as any screening that may be required, bearing in mind two 80 sevens, right on top of us here, we have no issues with installing additional green buffering. Do we?  
Speaker 14    00:56:18    No, no problem. Okay.  
Speaker 13    00:56:22    And the other issues in the report, bill that you'd like to go over before we turn it back to the board for any of their questions, have you?  
Speaker 14    00:56:28    No, I think everything, everything in the reports are good with us.  
Speaker 13    00:56:32    Okay. Madam chair, I'd make Mr. Lane available to any questions you or the board may have.  
Speaker 11    00:56:39    Sure. Does the board have any questions of Mr. Lane, Matt chair? If I may, Dawn Corcoran. Hi Belle. I, I know you just addressed items four and five and Henry's report just going back to item number one with regards to the sidewalks along all frontage. Is, is that something that the applicant can now comply with?  
Speaker 14    00:57:04    Yeah, we, we we'd looked in prepared a plan. And with that, I mean, there, there are some constraints. I know I submitted a sidewalk impact report to the one with our last submission. And if you look along circle drive north where the secondary access is just, just south, just, just actually west of that and all the way up. There's a pretty big Burman here. So what we would have to do is we'd have to build a retaining wall in there to get the sidewalk. And so what we look to do is get the sidewalk up along the curb, and we're still gonna need a three, four foot high retaining wall go further back. I mean, you're starting, you know, you could be looking at 8, 9, 10 foot high wall. So we're looking to accommodate a sidewalk up on the curb there. And as we get down, we have a couple of crossings, one on circle drive north, where it's hold with Brooke and then also down at possum town road.  
Speaker 14    00:57:55    So we have guide rail in both of those areas, which has probably about in total 350 lineal feet. So that'll have to get relocated further back so we can again put the sidewalk up along the curb line. But with those, like I said, if we could get as close as we can to the curb line along started drive north relocate, that guy road we could do, we can install it in the same thing along on possum town road, right where the crossing is, or the guide rail we're going to need to come up along the curb line. And then as we get further out, we could start meandering away from the road and the rest of the, you know, the rest of the possum town road frontage.  
Speaker 11    00:58:30    Okay. So there's no area where you feel you cannot provide the sidewalk at this time.  
Speaker 14    00:58:36    Yeah. Like I said, we're just looking to get it up as only to get it up along the curve there. And certainly in those areas, we definitely can accommodate it. Okay,  
Speaker 11    00:58:44    Great. Thank you.  
Speaker 13    00:58:46    So Madam chair, before we go to the next question, the sidewalk issue is one that we've been going back and forth with internally. And the issue we've had is it's about 1200 linear feet of install for us here. And, and a lot of it is, you know, I understand the grand vision of sidewalks, the conductivity here, it's kind of not really going many places for a pedestrian. So when we looked at the, the linear run of it and the cost, especially when we have to start creating retention wall support for it, it became pretty onerous for the applicant to do, but, but much to the credit of the applicant they had in Menlo engineering prepare plan, they're showing the sidewalk along the entire frontage is I still am of the thought that there, there could be perhaps some flexibility here. If the board thought there would be any, I know the boards and townships policy and preference for sidewalk development. When applications come in here, I'm not sure what the utility of it is, but nonetheless, the applicant is prepared to offer it. If the board thinks that the 1200 feet give or take is warranted as part of the application,  
Speaker 1     00:59:48    Ms. Cochran will talk to you about that with you and Mr. Interesting. And actually it's about 1900.  
Speaker 13    00:59:56    I'm sorry. That's why I'm not a lawyer. I'm really bad at math.  
Speaker 11    01:00:01    It's always been the town. It's always been the township's opinion and the policy of this board that the, the sidewalks be installed. You have to start somewhere. It has to continue. I'm sure the mayor would concur in this case, if it can be installed and we're going to have the applicant stall.  
Speaker 13    01:00:22    Okay. Understood. And that's why we land. It's a, it's a lot of, it's a lot of run. That's why I thought it's at least worth the discussion point.  
Speaker 1     01:00:29    Sure. Any other questions from the board? All right. We'll open it up to the public. Any questions of this witness?  
Speaker 11    01:00:40    That's Brian.  
Speaker 3     01:00:42    All right. Yeah. Brian reg toll free seven bricks at roads. And swear me in again.  
Speaker 1     01:00:49    Sure. Go ahead. He was previously, you've been 3%  
Speaker 3     01:00:56    During this meeting yet. I just had a question. I'm sorry, go ahead.  
Speaker 1     01:01:01    I just said the lender reminding you that you're still  
Speaker 3     01:01:04    Under oath. Okay. That's fine. Are these new generators for new Kevin's or are they for existing tenants?  
Speaker 13    01:01:13    They're serving our existing facility.  
Speaker 3     01:01:16    Okay. So the existing generators that are there are not sufficient, so you're getting more,  
Speaker 13    01:01:21    Correct.  
Speaker 3     01:01:22    Okay. Yeah. That was my only question. Thanks. Thanks.  
Speaker 1     01:01:24    Thank you. Any other questions from the public hearing? No response. It's close to the public with this witness, Mr. Kelly, you may proceed.  
Speaker 13    01:01:36    Thank you, Madam chair. And you know, because we didn't touch I don't Mr. Lane. And it only came in the records through my proffer so far not testimony. What I'd like to do is briefly go to Doug Burton, our design professional with Gensler who has been involved with the design of these units, sizing them. And once we qualify, Doug swear him in. I want to just have him take the board through the conforming acoustics of it, and then open up to any questions the board may have about the actual generator units themselves, if there are any  
Speaker 1     01:02:06    That's fine. Thank  
Speaker 13    01:02:07    You,  
Speaker 1     01:02:10    Mr. Burden. You're going to be sworn in,  
Speaker 4     01:02:15    Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony, the game  
Speaker 15    01:02:19    With the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Prefetching for the record, please. Douglas Burton. Thank you.  
Speaker 13    01:02:29    Hey Doug, can you briefly give the board the benefit of your background and credentials please?  
Speaker 15    01:02:34    Sure. I'm a licensed architect with Gensler. I I'm, I'm a New Jersey resident. I live in west orange, but I work out of our New York office at that 1700 Broadway in New York. I've worked against her for 15 years. I worked on, we did a project for QTS in 2018 at the same site. And I was the project manager on that. And I'm the project manager again on this project that's before you tonight.  
Speaker 13    01:03:00    Thank you, Doug.  
Speaker 13    01:03:03    Thank you, Madam chair. So Doug, you've heard Bill's testimony and I know your office has been involved with drafting, many of the plans that are involved in this project related to the generator install. But what I want you to do is sort of give the board a very brief overview and we can, we can dig in, as the board may have specific questions as to the units. I want the board to sort of get an understanding of illustration of just the size of the units, and then confirm that there are acoustic level limitations established by the title seven NGDP regulations. And we can and will conform with them. We can't ask for a deviation from the board and we can form with them when we cycle for maintenance. And if you could just advise the board, when we think that will be with these units, I want them to sort of get an understanding as to how this will operate if installed.  
Speaker 15    01:03:51    Yeah, sure. So to be brief, there's seven units. We're looking to install the, the, the size of the boxes around 12 foot by 35 foot six are required to handle the critical load. If there was an emerging event emergency of that, the seventh is a redundant unit, which is required there there's 2,250 kilowatts. They each have a 9,000 gallon belly tank to handle the fuel. They would be tested once a month and that testing would be for a couple of hours at a time.  
Speaker 13    01:04:26    And we could agree to do that testing and maintenance whenever if the board did have a preference, oftentimes, you know, we day daytime hours are preferred. You don't want to do anything overnight. We could control and set one. That would be right.  
Speaker 15    01:04:41    Yeah. I would defer to QTS they would run those tests, but that's typical that, you know, they would, they could differ. Exactly. And then, yeah.  
Speaker 13    01:04:54    Okay. The fueling source,  
Speaker 15    01:04:58    It's their belly. Thanks. So there's a tank that's in, but it sits under the generator and then it's fueled by a truck, a truck comes and just make sure that they're always full of fuel and that tank has this diesel fuel. Yeah. And then from an acoustical perspective, the idea is to the rating required by code through the generator enclosure. But as, as you said, Larry, you know, we're going to comply with, with that portion of the code. So if, if we needed to leave the generators, sit, there's a metal grading that sort of in circles, then that provides access to them. So we have the ability within that system to sort of also provide acoustical panels if required. But at the moment, the present plan is to just satisfy the requirements through the enclosure that comes with the generator itself.  
Speaker 9     01:05:52    Thank you, Doug,  
Speaker 13    01:05:54    Madam chair, you know, very limited testimony on the generators themselves. It's a, it's a permitted accessory improvement. It got some regulations to comply. So any questions you, your colleagues may have Mr. Burton would make them available at this time.  
Speaker 1     01:06:07    We'll open it to the board or any questions of Mr. Burton? No questions.  
Speaker 9     01:06:17    Madam chair. Okay. Madam here. May I ask this question,  
Speaker 1     01:06:23    Mr. Godwin,  
Speaker 9     01:06:26    How often you said that you test the generators once a month, is the testing of each generator staggered or are they all done at once?  
Speaker 15    01:06:41    I would defer to Q to QTS on that because they're the ones who would be responsible for, for, you know, providing those tests. So for performing those tests, I should say,  
Speaker 9     01:06:52    Maybe there'll be another question as well when the generators are in use in terms of the power outage to all the generators have to be operating at once or, or again, depending on what is under operation in the facility, can they get by with one or two of the generators?  
Speaker 15    01:07:23    So, so we do have Brian Hunter from QTS on the phone. Ryan, if you'd like to answer that, I guess you could be sworn in by the board cross, take a stamp  
Speaker 1     01:07:33    Ms. Saunders to Ryan's gonna test Mr. Testify. Could you swear him in?  
Speaker 4     01:07:39    Yes. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about to give with the truth and nothing but the truth, please state your name for the record.  
Speaker 10    01:07:52    Thank  
Speaker 4     01:07:53    You. Thank you.  
Speaker 13    01:07:54    And I told you, if you had to testify tonight, you were going to be on camera. So you comb your hair and you got ready. You  
Speaker 10    01:08:00    I'm in the parking lot waiting for my daughter to get out of cheer. So I apologize for the background.  
Speaker 13    01:08:05    Thanks for your help. Be relatively quick. So Ryan briefly your position with QTS, if you could advise the board please.  
Speaker 10    01:08:12    Yeah. Some VP of facilities for QTS across the entire us, but I do a workout up kind of office in the getaway data center as well.  
Speaker 13    01:08:22    And your D to say the least you're fully familiar with this project that we've got here tonight, presenting to the board.  
Speaker 10    01:08:27    Yes, sir. A very invested in this project.  
Speaker 13    01:08:30    So you heard Mr. Gottlieb's two questions that, that are probably targeted and best answered by you, whether or not we can stagger the generators when they're cycling for maintenance on their monthly maintenance cycle and during an outage, do we anticipate requiring every generator to be on full load, to satisfy our needs, to keep power going when we have an outage?  
Speaker 10    01:08:51    Absolutely. So I'll take the first question about staggering first. And the answer is yes. We'll we'll test the generators one at a time. So we don't cycle all of them at once. We actually do an inspection of the generator. We carefully monitor the operation of it during the testing. And for that reason, we do them one at a time so that we can pay attention to that particular engine while it's operating. And that's actually only about a 15 minute, no load run. So 15 minutes per generator, one at a time, and a, there will be seven. And then to address the second question, if I may, in the event of a power outage, it depends on which utility feed is lost. So the generators are fed from the onsite substation, which has already, you know, approved permitted and in use on the property. If we lost both utility feeders, yes. All seven generators would run and response to that outage. If it was a partial outage, then we may only run three or four of those generators.  
Speaker 1     01:09:55    Thank you very much. Any other questions? No, that's all Madam chair. Any other board members have any questions before I open it to the public? Okay. Ms. Buckley, could you check and see if there's any questions from the public place? No, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Kelly is a question real quick, Mr. Kelly Fila was that?  
Speaker 3     01:10:24    Yes. Ma'am. The applicant doesn't have any issue complying with any of the other planning comments raised in Mr. Gottlieb's report? No, we don't like for instance, he, I just think it's a discrepancy on numbers.  
Speaker 13    01:10:39    Okay. No, there there's no issues complying with the report.  
Speaker 3     01:10:43    Thank you. Thank you.  
Speaker 13    01:10:46    Our final witness, Madam chair. Christine can phone our project planner. She'll take you through the limited variance relief we seek and the justification's a momentarily. Once we swear her in and qualify her.  
Speaker 1     01:10:57    Thank you, miss burden.  
Speaker 4     01:11:00    I Christine, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about to give with the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 13    01:11:11    I think you might be on mute Christine. Gotcha.  
Speaker 16    01:11:17    Okay. Usually people never have a problem hearing me so clear. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please state your name for the record. It's Christine Nazaro M a Z Z a R O  C O F O N E. Business address is 1 25 half mile road, suite 200 red bank, New Jersey. Thank you. You're welcome.  
Speaker 13    01:11:43    Christine, would you mind giving the board of the benefit of your background and experience in planning?  
Speaker 16    01:11:47    Certainly I am a professional planner. I've been testifying for 25 years as an expert witness. I've been qualified here in Piscataway before both of your boards and about 420 other planning and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey from Ultraman affordable housing, special master, and about 30 different districts. I have a master's degree in city planning and my licenses are current and valid. I teach zoning courses.  
Speaker 13    01:12:14     thank you, Madam chair. So Christine, you heard the testimony earlier of bill Doug and Ryan you're fully familiar with the application. The plans filed, the relief requested. Is that right? That's correct. So I posited to the board that we have pretty minor relief that we're seeking relief, nonetheless. So if you would, Christine, would you take the board through the deviation that we're requesting as well as the statutory justification supporting that relief? Yeah.  
Speaker 16    01:12:44    And as Mr. Kelly said, this, shouldn't take very long from a planning point of view because it's a substantially compliant application. The use is permitted in the ally five zone. The issue is that on our Eastern property line where we're proposing to put this generator yard, the ordinance requires a 50 foot setback, and we're at approximately 30 to 48. So for that, and as your planner correctly points out in his February 5th, 2021 review letter, we have to justify the various relieve and we can do that under the C criteria. So we can either demonstrate that there is an existing hardship on the property or in the absence of any hardship. At certain purposes of the municipal land use flow would be advanced. I would submit to the board that I believe this variance can be granted under both the C1 and C2 statutory criteria. You heard Mr.  
Speaker 16    01:13:30    Kelly also testify as to he doesn't testify, but he stated that we haven't a somewhat irregular Eastern property line and that our property line takes a little bit of a jog. And then Mr. Lane explained where the generators were going to be situated and the substantial plantings that we were proposing there. So that's why I'm informed that I believe from a planning point of view, it can qualify under the C1 criteria. And when you talk about hardship, the land use law is very specific. It's not, the language is not, you need to Piscataway, it's not my clever planning language. It's something unique about a piece of property. So certainly that would be that Eastern boundary property line that Johns, or of course the lawful structures preexisting there on. So this particular case you're presented with an existing lot that has a jog as well as lawful preexisting structures.  
Speaker 16    01:14:17    So I think that the board can certainly recognize that and take notice of that. And that's what makes me believe that the C1 criteria applies for the hardships that you weren't going to apply to hardship. You could certainly apply to C create C two criteria where it's really just a better zoning alternative. And you find that one or more purposes of the land use law would be advanced criteria G of the land use law advance would be advanced, which talks about providing sufficient fate space and appropriate locations. I think this is certainly inappropriate location for this use for this generator. Given the proximity of the adjoining commercial uses specifically a small linear parking field that we're adjacent to as well as the other commercial uses. And also as Mr county said the presence of 2 87. So that's, I think satisfies the positive criteria as your planner asked us to address.  
Speaker 16    01:15:04    We also points out that we have to address the negative criteria and the negative criteria does not ask you to hold us or any other applicant to a standard that they're redoing. D'etre, it's just the benefit of the grants and the variances outweigh any detriment. And we satisfy that. There'll be no negative impacts on either the public good or the zone plan. So when you talk about the public good, there are four reasons that I think that we can consider that we will not have a substantial negative impact on the public. Good. And the first is that we are providing substantial plantings. Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Lane also identified that we would be proposing plantings in that area, but also that we'd be willing to work with your board professionals. If you felt that we needed more or different plantings and what we were proposing.  
Speaker 16    01:15:45    In addition to that, we stated that we will comply with the noise requirements, the noise ordinance in town. So we will certainly comply with that. We're willing to provide the sidewalk despite the fact that this is not a particularly walkable area or an aspect of the application that is generative of pedestrian foot traffic. We understand that that's something that the township certainly I've done a lot of applications in Piscataway. So I certainly am not surprised to see that you want to have the sidewalks on honor. And the fact that again, when you look at, we do have a 50 foot requirement and the ordinance requires that for accessory buildings and structures, and these are generators are not really structured. So I think that they have somewhat of a different massing and different impact than a four walled enclosed building. So I think for all those reasons, the board can be comfortable that we're not going to have a substantial impact on the public.  
Speaker 16    01:16:35    Good. If you were to approve us having this generator field in this location, and as far as the impact on his own plan, the stated purpose right in the zoning schedule for the  zone is to establish zoning districts, which reflect the existing pattern of industrial land use and provide for future development of similar types of industrial land uses within the same area. So having this generator farm here, the generator field really allows us to support that purpose and allow this youth to continue and thrive, calm quite the way the ordinance recognizing had a stated purpose for a to, to, to develop. So I think we're certainly consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the, of the zoning district. The last thing I would close by saying is that your planner in his planning comments also asked us to talk about the impact on the state plan.  
Speaker 16    01:17:27    This is in a planning area, one, which is a metropolitan planning area where the state is looking to channel, of course, the most gross in development. So having these generators here allow us to continue to develop the area in accordance with the vision and intensity that was established for the area. So statutorily, I think this is sort of an easy one, a bit of a layout, but from a planning point of view, because I think we certainly substantiate our entire burden of proof and the board can grant this variance in my opinion, with no substantial detriment to either the public good or your zone plan here in Piscataway.  
Speaker 13    01:18:04    Thank you, Christine. You're welcome. Madam chair, any questions you, your board members or your staff might have?  
Speaker 1     01:18:10    Well, let me just go that to the board and say, does the board have any questions of this witness or any of the other witnesses that has been presented? I hear nothing. Ms. Buckley, would you open it to the public look, please?  
Speaker 2     01:18:27    I do not see anyone. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     01:18:31    Okay. Thank you. Close to the public. We've heard the entire, this application, Mr. Kelly,  
Speaker 13    01:18:40    You have Madam chair, relatively simple and straightforward, but we wanted to make sure we had all of our, our team here ready to present and explain to the board this a very important development. The applicant needs. It's essential for them. The data center is essential in this day and age. And you know, I think we'll probably be more of the planning board down the road as, as needs, expand for a facility like this and perhaps even this facility itself. So right now, pretty limited proposal, but it's quite meaningful and important to the applicant. And we do appreciate your time this evening. We appreciate getting on the agenda and as always to your staff, getting us through complete lists and to you this evening, it's always very much appreciated.  
Speaker 1     01:19:18    Thank you. If there's any other questions from the board, if there's not any other questions or concerns from the board, I'll take a motion as to whether this application is acceptable. I'll make a move to accept this offer with any additions or corrections. I don't think there are any emotion with, do I have a second?  
Speaker 2     01:19:52    Carol Saunders. Second  
Speaker 1     01:19:54    Roll. Cool.  
Speaker 2     01:19:57    Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kenny. Mr. Foster.  
Speaker 1     01:20:11    Thank you. Yes. Mr. Kevin, thank you so much. Like seeing everyone have a nice evening.  
Speaker 12    01:20:21    Madam chair, I like to make a motion to pay the bills.  
Speaker 1     01:20:26    Do I have a second from someone who pay the bills? Second Councilwoman K hill vocal Council, woman Kao.  
Speaker 2     01:20:45    Yes. Thank you, Ms. Corpus. Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kenny. Mr. Foster. Madam  
Speaker 1     01:20:55    Chair. Yes.  
Speaker 12    01:20:58    I like to make a motion to adjourn cause the Rutgers second half that's coming up.  
Speaker 1     01:21:06    Motion to adjourn. Ms. Meeting's adjourned. 


	
Minutes for Piscataway Planning meeting on February 10 2021