Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on February 9 2022

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 1     00:00:14    Madam chair. You got the new revised agenda, correct?  
Speaker 2     00:00:17    Yes, I do. Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:00:22    It's much easier that way. And somebody is going to have memorialized the resolution in the minutes because Carol not going to be on the seat.  
Speaker 2     00:00:30    Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:00:31    Thank you. All right. Seven 30.  
Speaker 2     00:00:35    The Piscataway Township planning board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting has, was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the courier news notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the courier news and the Star-Ledger. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the open public meeting notice with  
Speaker 0     00:00:59    Yes. Madam chair, this meeting of the Piscataway Township planning board is being held to the online meeting platform in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 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 public meeting act and the governance guidelines and dealing with the current situation. The applicants whose matters are being heard this evening. Also have the login information for the zoom meeting and their notice members of the public wish to be heard will be afforded an opportunity the appropriate time. Thank you, Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:01:35    Thank you, Ms. Beckley, would you please call the bro  
Speaker 1     00:01:40    Mayor Wahler He's here. Ms. Corcoran here, Reverend Kenny, Mr. Espinosa. Thank you. Madam chair  
Speaker 2     00:01:55    Here. W could we please recite the pledge of allegiance? The flag is over my right shoulder. 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 and everybody was muted, but I heard you anyway. Okay. Mr. Barlow, would you tell us okay. Before that let's swear. Swear in the professionals.  
Speaker 0     00:02:34     where'd you go I'm here, you raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you, God,  
Speaker 2     00:02:48    You may also note any changes to our agenda tonight. Agenda.  
Speaker 0     00:02:52    Yes. Please note that the Yates minor subdivision, which is block 1, 1 7 0 1 lot 4.1 1 10 23 river road has been carried to the March 9th, 2022 meeting as has the Patel minor subdivision of both bearings at eight brotherhood street has been carried to the March 9th, 2022 meeting, and one 40 circle drive north, which is blocked 4 1 0 1 lot three has been postponed until the March 9th, 2022. And Laura, correct me if I'm wrong, eight brotherhood we'll have to, we'll still notice correct?  
Speaker 1     00:03:31    For a brotherhood has to notice one 40 circle drive still has to notice.  
Speaker 0     00:03:35    Okay. So both of those, anybody that's on for those meetings, you'll get a notice for the March 9th meeting. Thank you, Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:03:46    Thank you. Can I get someone to adopt the resolution of January 12th, 20, 22? Or should I do Mr. Kenney? Go ahead.  
Speaker 3     00:04:03    Okay. I don't have that.  
Speaker 0     00:04:20    Reverend Kelly, we snack innovations a 21 PB 36 and 37 V. If that's your emotion, then just need a second. Dawn  
Speaker 1     00:04:32    Corcoran. I'll second that Councilwoman. Should I hear his car card? Yes. Reverend Kenny. Mr. Espinosa? Yes. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:04:52    Yes. Item number eight minutes of the regular meeting.  
Speaker 3     00:05:06    January 12th, 22.  
Speaker 2     00:05:10    Can I get a second please? Thank you. Rocco.  
Speaker 1     00:05:19    Corcoran. Yes. Reverend Kenny, Mr. Espinosa. And that I'm chair  
Speaker 2     00:05:31    Item number nine. Do we have a discussion and see if someone here from the scatter way, Middlesex county vo-tech schools campus to give us a discussion?  
Speaker 4     00:05:43    Well, I don't think I'll be representing Middlesex county. Vo-tech on from their architect's office.  
Speaker 2     00:05:54    Ms. Buckley, do you have his name and credentials on the record?  
Speaker 0     00:05:59    I can get that information and then swear him in and let him make his presentation. If you want Ms.  
Speaker 2     00:06:04    Smith. Yes, I would like that,  
Speaker 0     00:06:05    Sir. Could you state your name, spell your last name?  
Speaker 4     00:06:08    Yes, Adam Finkel, F I N K L E with SSP architects.  
Speaker 0     00:06:16    Okay. And raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you give before the board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you out.  
Speaker 4     00:06:22    I do  
Speaker 0     00:06:23    Get to just briefly give the board your credentials and then go over the proposal.  
Speaker 4     00:06:28    Sure. I'm an architect with SSP architects. We are the architect of record for Skyway. I am licensed in New Jersey. Do you need anything else  
Speaker 0     00:06:40    Testified in front of land, use boards before?  
Speaker 4     00:06:43    Yes. Including this board. Okay. All right. Thank you. At the Piscataway campus 21 Sutton's lane, we are completing a interior alterations renovation project to convert an existing machine shop and associated classroom into two new upgraded general classrooms and a life and health technology shop. As part of the project, we will be taking an overhead door and converting it to an man door and adding four new windows to the exterior wall.  
Speaker 0     00:07:30    And you just replace it again. Next year. Cooling tower. Also  
Speaker 4     00:07:34    The cooling tower is being replaced as well. Correct? It is below grade in a pit.  
Speaker 0     00:07:42    Gotcha.  
Speaker 2     00:07:44    Okay. Are there any other questioning questions of the board, Mr. Fenkell how near is this to completion or when do you anticipate completion will take place?  
Speaker 4     00:07:58    Construction is expected to begin in the coming weeks. It should be completed by end of summer  
Speaker 2     00:08:10    Taking a hearing no questions from the board. Then I do, I need to open this to the public. Mr. Barlow,  
Speaker 0     00:08:18    You can Madam chair. I don't see anyone in the chat room. I don't think anyone's raising their hands. Laura. No, no. One's raising their hands.  
Speaker 2     00:08:26    Okay. Close to the members of the public, Mr. Fenkell, if that's all you have to tell us that we have no questions. I appreciate your appearance here for today.  
Speaker 4     00:08:36    All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:08:39    Good evening.  
Speaker 2     00:08:43    Item number 10 21, PB 21, PB 40 slash 41 V as in Victor revolutionary housing group, LLC.  
Speaker 5     00:08:56    Thank you. Madam chairman members of the board. My name is Kevin Morris, attorney Woodbridge, New Jersey. I am appearing on behalf of the applicant revolutionary housing group, LLC. The subject property is located at 900 water street in Piscataway. It presently contains an existing single family residence that fronts on water street. And we're before you this evening seeking minor subdivision approval to subdivide that property into two lots. One of the lots where the house is funding on water street, that lot is proposed to remain with the existing single family dwelling. The second lot is proposed to front for the construction of a new single family dwelling on international avenue. Now, for those who may have been on the board back in 2007, I don't know if anyone was, this application was heard and approved back then some 15 years ago by the prior owner, an applicant of the property. However, that owner did not perfect. The subdivision. I happen to be the attorney of record for that prior owner and my witness, Paul Fletcher happened to be the professional engineer and planner on that application. I'm amazed. It was still alive, 15 years down the road later. That's a whole nother thing, but before I proceed, I just want to confirm with Ms. Buckley that you did receive our affidavits of publication and mailing, everything is in order. So the board has jurisdiction to proceed. Everything's in  
Speaker 0     00:10:21    Order Mr. Morrison.  
Speaker 5     00:10:22    Thank you. So I have two witnesses available ring Kash Patel. Who's here on behalf of the applicant. I don't expect to call him, but he's available if we need them. And I would call Paul Fletcher who will be testifying as our professional engineer and planner. If he could be sworn please,  
Speaker 0     00:10:36    Mr. Fletcher, you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 6     00:10:46    Paul J. Fletcher, F L E T C H E R. A professional address is 54 westbound road in hope.  
Speaker 0     00:10:53    Can you swear the testimony you give before this border be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. Yes, I do hear witness Mr. Morris.  
Speaker 5     00:11:01    Thank you. Now, Mr. Fletcher, you're a licensed professional and engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and both of those licenses are in good standing. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. And you were accepted as an expert in both those capacities back in 2007, when you test the P five before this board. I understand since then, you've also testified before this board in both of those capacities, as well as other municipal land use sports has always been accepted as an expert in both fields. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. Mr. Barlow, thank you so much. All right. So first Mr. Fletcher, I'll call you as in your capacity as a professional engineer, you prepare the plans that are before the board this evening, is that right? Under my supervision? Yes. And you were the engineer who represented the prior owner on the minor subdivision application back in 2007, which is really the same project is before the board tonight. Is that right? That's correct. Can you describe for the board, the site as it presently exists?  
Speaker 6     00:12:03    Yes. They're a two has a lot with have a 72.6 feet, a depth of 291 and a half feet, total area, only 1000 square feet. There is an existing split level, single family home, which fronts on water street and that home is proposed to remain. It also has frontage on the terminal of international avenue, applicant proposals to subdivide the property, essentially in half leaving the existing home fronting on water street and to construct a new home that would have access from international avenue.  
Speaker 5     00:12:57    Okay. Now, well, with regard to the various relief, the lot is as a preexisting lot with deficiency, correct? That  
Speaker 6     00:13:06    Is correct.  
Speaker 5     00:13:08    Just as well as a lot frontage. We're not exacerbating or increasing that situation are we,  
Speaker 6     00:13:13    We are not Dutch existing. We're in the arts a hundred feet, a lot with is required.  
Speaker 5     00:13:21    And the hence the lot post for international avenue will also be that same lot with correct. That is correct. Right now. I understand that there are some minor setback violations with regard to the existing dwelling that are pre-existing variants conditions, correct?  
Speaker 6     00:13:40    That is correct. Each side yard single side yard back is 7.9 where 10 feet is required. That is an existing condition. The combined side yards comply.  
Speaker 5     00:13:52    And the applicant is not proposing to expand those existing conditions as if, as a result of this application.  
Speaker 6     00:13:57    No,  
Speaker 5     00:13:59    I, and I gather really what we have here is because the square footage of the lot is so tremendous that even with the proposed subdivision or cutting a lot in half, although there is still the lot frontage in lot with variances, the LA area, even with the two lots exceeds the required lot area for the zoning question. Is that correct?  
Speaker 6     00:14:21    That is correct. Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:14:24    Now, with regard to the proposed new dwelling to front on international, I know the applicant submitted a typical plan may not be the exact plan, but for demonstrative purposes it's depicted as a five-bedroom home, correct?  
Speaker 6     00:14:39    Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:14:40    And needless to say, there is enough property and a sufficient area, so that there would be a sufficient parking as required under recess or the bedroom count for any new dwelling to be built on that property so that there would be no need for any type of parking bearings. Correct? That is correct. Yes. And of course there's sufficient parking already for the water street property, is that correct? Yes. Right now there are two review memos that we were provided with back before the site plan workshop. One is dated January 25th, 2021 by CME associates. We had the opportunity to review what are the planning comments on page five, a starting paragraph eight. There are numerated items, a through H and the applicant can comply and is prepared to comply with all those comments and recommendations. Is that right? That is correct. Yes. Right. We also had the opportunity to review the in-house memo issued by this townships divisions of engineering and planning dated January 25th. The site impact comments are enumerated one through eight on that. And the applicant is prepared to comply with all those recommendations as well as that. Correct. That is correct.  
Speaker 6     00:16:00    Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:16:03    Now, in addition to the engineering work that you did on this project, you, once again, I'm going to ask you to switch hats now and put on your planner, sat have reviewed this application from a professional planning standpoint, is that correct?  
Speaker 6     00:16:17    Yes, that is correct.  
Speaker 5     00:16:19    And you were also testified as the professional planner back on the two seven, 2007 application that was approved as well as that, correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. Now I understand it's your opinion, as much as it was back then, and it still exists today that the variance relief is a  under the C2 or flexible C analysis and municipal land use law in that prong of the statute. Is that correct? That is correct. But I'd ask you to detail your review and analysis from a planning perspective, any opinions you reached and the basis for those opinions, for the board's consideration.  
Speaker 6     00:16:57    Certainly here we have a unique and specific piece of property. So unlike others in the area that has a lot of frontage on two streets, water street and international avenue from a general planning standpoint, this type of double frontage is not a typical or desirable lot configuration in this area. It is a single lot now, but it contains double the required lot area and can support two substantial and conforming loss each with single street frontage. I also believe that the, the number of purposes, the miserable land use law would that would be advanced by a deviation.  
Speaker 6     00:17:39    The lot with in front of you do not meet the ordinance, but this is a pre-existing condition in creating a tuner, lost a lot with frontage variants, a hundred required where 72.6 provided for each is existing and that is balanced. But with a greater loss depths, a hundred feed required 145 feet provided for each both new lots exceed the required lot area under the ordinance 10,000 square feet required versus 10,579 square feet provided for each of the new lots. Eliminate the odd double frontage represent the, an improvement, the zoning by having to substantially conforming lots each with their own single frontage on water street. And one on international avenue, new house on, excuse me, international avenue in a mixed area with some older homes blends with the character of the neighborhood yet brings improvement. And we're planning standpoint, new investment in the neighborhood positively affects surrounding property values.  
Speaker 6     00:18:52    In addition to the granting of the variances would advance the following purposes of an admissible land. Use law, a purpose, a to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate user development of all lands in the state and the manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare purpose. Key to promote the establishment of appropriate population, densities and concentrations that will contribute to the wellbeing of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions, and preservations of an environment and purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential, recreational commercial, 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.  
Speaker 5     00:19:47    All right. So can these variances be granted about substantial detriment to the public? Good.  
Speaker 6     00:19:52    Yes. I see no detriment.  
Speaker 5     00:19:55    Right? So without any detriment, then the benefits of any deviation would outweigh any detriment in it as much as you seen on, correct?  
Speaker 6     00:20:04    That is correct. In fact, it would substantially outweigh any detriment.  
Speaker 5     00:20:09    Would it be your opinion that these variances could be granted without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the townships, a zone plan and zoning ordinance?  
Speaker 6     00:20:19    Yes. Again, I see no detriment,  
Speaker 5     00:20:24    Right? That would conclude Mr. Fletcher's planning testimony. He is my only witness.  
Speaker 2     00:20:34    Do you have any questions? Does anyone on the board have any questions of this witness? You may go ahead. You may ask a question  
Speaker 3     00:20:47    At this time. It's just going to be the subdividing block, no building of property or anything.  
Speaker 5     00:20:54    No, that, no, that's not correct. This applicant intends on constructing a new single family residence on international avenue, which of course, that residence conforms to the building envelope. There were no variances of a bolt nature with regard to that. And the board should be aware with regard to the existing dwelling. It was a dwelling that was in need of some fate faceless thing and rehabilitation. And this particular applicant, who's the owner of that as well. He owns the whole, they own the whole property. This company is already engaged in substantial renovations of that dwelling unit as well.  
Speaker 3     00:21:30    Okay. All right. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:21:36    There's no more, Mr. Morris, obviously you acknowledge if during construction, it turns out that the house envelope is going to require any additional ball-bearings is the applicant to where they'd have to come back, correct?  
Speaker 5     00:21:47    Absolutely. Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:21:50    If there are no more questions of the board, could we please open it to the public?  
Speaker 1     00:21:59    No one Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:22:01    Okay. Close to the public. Do I have a motion on the acceptance of this application? Go ahead. And  
Speaker 7     00:22:11    It's Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the staff report and subject to the CME report.  
Speaker 2     00:22:25    Thank you. Roll call please. Mayor Wahler.  
Speaker 1     00:22:29    Yeah. Ms. Corcoran, Reverend canny, Mr. Espinosa and Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:22:39    Thank you so much. And I Mr. Morris. I was on the board of TedTalk. I just looked through it. It  
Speaker 5     00:22:46    Doesn't ring a bell at all.  
Speaker 2     00:22:47    Yes it does because it's not, it's just outside the 200, the 200 foot envelope in which I live.  
Speaker 5     00:22:56    Okay. Okay. Hopefully this is the last one.  
Speaker 2     00:22:59    I hope it goes  
Speaker 0     00:23:02    Perfected this time. Kevin.  
Speaker 2     00:23:04    I hope so. That, that corner a lot.  
Speaker 5     00:23:08    Thanks so much. Thanks everyone. Have a pleasant evening and stay safe.  
Speaker 2     00:23:13    Okay. The next item on the agenda is item number 11, which is 21, PB 46, 46 V as in Victor, ACM Y LLC.  
Speaker 8     00:23:30    It's Madam chair. My name is Sandy Glacio of the law firm of Windells marks lane and Mittendorf. I represent the applicant ACM, Y LLC. We're here tonight seeking a preliminary and final site plan approval and various approval for re striping of the existing paved parking lot. And several other improvements. The property is under contract to be sold. We anticipate the sale will happen this spring. And one of the purposes of bringing this application is to address certain zoning violations that exist at the property in order to obtain a CCO, the township as identified certain variances that are required for existing conditions, they're listed in the agenda. And the various application as the applicants, witnesses will testify a number of these setback violations that require variances stem from a 1989, right away widening of new Brunswick avenue, which, which affected the setbacks for the existing building and signs. At that time, we're presenting three witnesses tonight, the applicant, a civil engineer and a planner. So without further ado, we'll, we'll get to it. My first witnesses, Lester Weiss, he's the principal of the applicant. If he can unmute his connection, turn on his video.  
Speaker 0     00:25:10    Mr. Weiss, if you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional dresser.  
Speaker 9     00:25:16    Lester Weiss, w E I S S 100 new Brunswick avenue, Piscataway New Jersey.  
Speaker 0     00:25:25    So did you say 4,100? Yes. Okay. Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you give before the board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God, I thank you. Your witness, Mr. .  
Speaker 8     00:25:40    Thank you, sir. The applicant ACMY LLC is the owner of the property, correct? Yes. Yes. And you were the sole member of the applicant and trans Packers, which is an affiliate of the owner, is the current tenant? Correct. Okay. And my understanding is the property is currently under contract to be sold sometime, probably this spring And trans Packers would continue as a tenant after that sale. Okay. And how about how long would trans Packers remain as a tenant after the sale? Okay. And what business does trans Packers engage in at the property?  
Speaker 9     00:26:32    We are contract food manufacturers.  
Speaker 8     00:26:37    And about how many employees? Those trans Packers have approximately  
Speaker 9     00:26:42    65.  
Speaker 8     00:26:43    Okay. And do you know how many vehicles are used to transport those employees to work on on a day-to-day basis? How many with the use of the parking lot is  
Speaker 9     00:26:56    Approximately 20 to 22 vehicles.  
Speaker 8     00:27:00    Okay. So some of the employees carpool  
Speaker 9     00:27:03    Daily, that is correct.  
Speaker 8     00:27:06    Okay. Where do they corporal from  
Speaker 9     00:27:09    Many carpool from New Jersey or various towns of Piscataway and the surroundings and many from New York city in the Bronx.  
Speaker 8     00:27:20    Thank you. And what are the hours of operation at the facility?  
Speaker 9     00:27:27    7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Monday through Thursday. And on Fridays seven to five.  
Speaker 8     00:27:34    Is there a wash shift or several  
Speaker 9     00:27:35    Shifts as one single shift.  
Speaker 8     00:27:39    And does the site receive any visitors on a regular basis?  
Speaker 9     00:27:45    Very few.  
Speaker 8     00:27:46    Okay. And what's the, the, the truck traffic daily  
Speaker 9     00:27:53    Two to four trucks a day.  
Speaker 8     00:27:57    And is there a package delivery daily?  
Speaker 9     00:28:00    We receive ups occasionally FedEx. That's pretty much it. Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:28:10    And how often is the dumpster at the facility service?  
Speaker 9     00:28:16    I believe twice a week.  
Speaker 8     00:28:19    And you also have recycling picked  
Speaker 9     00:28:20    Up? Yes, we do. On a weekly basis.  
Speaker 8     00:28:23    Okay. And I understand you also have a uniform service.  
Speaker 9     00:28:27    That is correct.  
Speaker 8     00:28:28    And how often is that?  
Speaker 9     00:28:32    Once a week. Once  
Speaker 8     00:28:33    A week. Okay. And there's an existing driveway, a paved driveway on the Southern portion of the property. Is that used as part of the daily operation or is that not used at this  
Speaker 9     00:28:44    Point? It is not used.  
Speaker 8     00:28:48    And if you recall, there was some of the violations that were cited at the property consists of storage trailers being used. Those are going to be removed, correct?  
Speaker 9     00:29:01    They are already removed.  
Speaker 8     00:29:02    Okay. And there was outdoor pallet storage also. Is that being removed or has that been removed already?  
Speaker 9     00:29:10    The pallets broken. Those are picked up on a weekly or biweekly basis by an outside service where they're disposed of.  
Speaker 8     00:29:21    And there was a Quonset hot or a shed that was also behind the building that's been taken down. I understand as well.  
Speaker 9     00:29:27    That is correct. Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:29:29    Thank you. That's those are all the questions I have for this witness. Would you like to have the board or the public question now or wait until the end of Madam chair I'd  
Speaker 2     00:29:41    To get any questions that the board may have right now, my board members. Do you have any questions of this witness? The testimony is given so far hearing no questions, Ms. Buckley, would you see if there's any questions from the public? Okay. Close to the public. Okay. Ms. Nicola geo, you may proceed.  
Speaker 8     00:30:07    Thank you. Madam chair. The next witnesses, our civil engineer, Mr. Greg Oman from Menlo engineering.  
Speaker 0     00:30:17    Mr. Owen, if you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 10    00:30:22    You are Gregory omen, O M a N 2 61 Cleveland avenue, Highland park, New Jersey.  
Speaker 0     00:30:29    Raise your right hand and swear the testimony you give before this court will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but through Sophia.  
Speaker 10    00:30:34    Yes, I do  
Speaker 0     00:30:36    Hear witness,  
Speaker 8     00:30:37    Mr. Roman, can you briefly give you a professional qualifications and indicate whether you've testified in front of this board before?  
Speaker 10    00:30:44    Certainly I am the president and owner of Menlo engineering associates have been with Menlo now for over 23 years. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Now for just over 19 years, also licensed in the state of Pennsylvania. I have testified in front of this board numerous times.  
Speaker 8     00:31:04    Thank you very much for Mr. Omen as a, the expert in civil engineering, Mr. Aman, you've prepared a, the site plan that was submitted in connection with this application, correct. And you've prepared testimony on behalf of the applicant, correct? Correct. Can you provide that testimony?  
Speaker 10    00:31:28    Certainly I'd like to share my screen. Can everyone see the aerial photo?  
Speaker 2     00:31:38    Yes. Perfect.  
Speaker 0     00:31:40    I think a lot of show we'll just cite this as exhibit a one and continue that trend if he puts anything else up. Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:31:48    Yes, sir. It's been, if you can see it's been marked in the upper left-hand corner as a one and a, we did provide copies of these exhibits to Ms. Buckley prior to the hearing.  
Speaker 0     00:31:59    Perfect.  
Speaker 10    00:32:00    And so my, my first exhibit a one is entitled existing conditions exhibit it's basically just an aerial photo with the property boundaries overlaid on top of that, showing the road network adjacent to the property, this applications for a 10.99 acre parcel identified on the township's tax map as block 17, 0 1 lot 2.03. The site falls within the  industrial zone. The use here, which is food packaging is a permitted use within the M five zone. The site is bound by new Brunswick avenue to the east Conrail right away to the south at the Southeast corner of the property is the intersection of Tyler place in new Brunswick avenue and existing woods to the west and Northern sides of the property site is currently fully developed, contains a one story masonry building of approximately 96,080 square to an industry built calls. These stoles are nine feet. And with Mr.  
Speaker 10    00:33:09    Ohman you cut out, can you just start from the woods? Certainly. I just got a message. My internet was unstable. Okay. I apologize. No problem. Woods to the west end to the Northern side of the property. The site is fully developed, contains a one-story masonry building of approximately 96,080 square feet utilized for food packaging. There are 95 parking stalls on the Northern side of the existing building. These stalls are nine feet in width by 18 feet depth with two ADA striped parking stalls per township code. The requirement for this building is 238 parking stalls. Again, 95 exist on site today. Two-way driveway aisle with are only 21 feet with where 25 feet is required per code. There are six loading docks located on the Western or rear of the building that provide the access in and out off of the Northern easterly driveway in off of new Brunswick avenue, as mentioned on previous testimony, there is an existing full movement driveway out at the Southeast corner, which is not used typically by this tenant.  
Speaker 10    00:34:25    It's more of an emergency access, but there is also a 50 foot wide Buckeye gas line easement that is located along the southerly property line. So this access road does provide access for them to go on site if they need to maintain or do any kind of inspections on their line. And within their easement area, there are two existing monument signs that, that are located along new Brunswick avenue. The first is a 43 square foot, five foot high sign looking roughly in the middle of the property line of the lot frontage along new Brunswick avenue. It is set back 39 feet off of the current right of way. The second sign is a seven square foot, three foot high ID sign that is actually located within the right of way, just south of the Northeast early driveway. This sign was actually located outside of the right of way, but when the dedication was done, it actually pushed it within the right of way. And I'll testify about that shortly, that we're going to slide that into the property. Lastly, the site drains basically from an east to west direction out to the rear of where the existing is along the north bitterly and westerly sides of the property.  
Speaker 10    00:35:43    Everyone. See my second exhibit that I have up up in the corner, 82, this is marked a two. This exhibit is entitled minor site plan, exhibit virtually the same plan with basically an arrow photo showing the boundary properties. And it shows the minor improvements that we are proposing here tonight. There are no changes currently proposed for the building at all. The minor site plan changes that we are making start with the restripe of the northerly parking lot to provide the extra two additional ADA parking stalls to bring it up to code for four total, and also provide the 25 foot two way driveway drive aisle width to match code. We are not losing any parking. We are maintaining the existing 95 parking stalls that exist today. We are providing some additional sidewalk along the ADA parking stalls that we're proposing to provide safe and adequate ADA access to the main entrance.  
Speaker 10    00:36:42    We're constructing a five foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of new Brunswick avenue. This is a five foot sidewalk with ADA ramps located at each of the two full movement driveways. The existing ID sign is going to be slid into the property set off the right of way 10 feet based on the recommendations made by the board professionals. We're also going to replace, there are two to three trees that are being removed for the restraining and construction of the additional ADA access and parking stalls. Those will be placed on site drainage patterns and utilities remain on changed by this site plan application. In terms of outside agencies, we have received our conditional Middlesex county planning board approval. And because we are disturbing over 5,000 square feet, mostly for the construction of the sidewalk, we will require a soil erosion permit from the township. We do have a professional planner who is going to go through the existing non-conformity variances and waivers that exist today and are going to kind of maintain as we move forward as our proposed conditions.  
Speaker 8     00:37:57    Thank you, Mr. Aman. Now the I'd like to take an opportunity to review the comment letters that were provided by the, the board and its professionals with you. We did receive comment letters from the department of public works, which did not have comments and the fire prevention bureau, which approved the application with no comments. First I'd like to go over is the, the planning, a memorandum from the, the township dated January 25th, 2022. Do you have a copy of that, sir? Okay. Do you have any responses to some of the comments that were made in this report?  
Speaker 10    00:38:43    Yeah. So just to summarize the applicant is willing to basically do every of the recommendations made within this memorandum with the exception of the removing and replacing all the new lighting and any of the landscaping that is being requested along with the electric vehicle charging stations. The reason being is they are looking as previously testified to they are looking to sell this property potential buyer. In, in what I've been told has already been looking at making site plan changes and will be back in front of the board. It was discussed briefly at the TRC meeting that some of these items, including lighting landscaping and charging stations could be part of a developer's agreement. That puts a timeline that if for some reason, the sale of the property doesn't go through within so many years, then this particular applicant would be required to make these improvements. I can not just identify the comments that we won't comply with within that memo. It's items two and three, which are both regarding site lighting, item five in terms of milling and overlaying the entire parking area, but they will be willing to replace a really damaged areas, item nine, which is the electric charging stations and 10 through 14, which all has to do with landscaping.  
Speaker 10    00:40:11    And then we also had the opportunity to review the CME review letter dated January 21st, 2021. And similarly, we can comply with everything in this letter except for comment nine eight, which is again, is the Evie charging. And that is it. We can comply with any of the other recommendations made within that, that letter.  
Speaker 8     00:40:34    And I, I have one comment on item 17 in the January 25th memo from the township, the applicant is willing to provide the municipality with a 15 foot wide access easement across the Southern driveway to access a low 1.01, which is directly behind this property to the, to the west.  
Speaker 0     00:41:04    Mr. Glossier, just so I'm clear with regards to 17, you're willing to provide a 15 foot access easement. And then based on what Mr. Ohman said, you have nine a in the CME report and number nine in the Mr. Hinterstein report that deal with the electric vehicle charging stations. Now that's a state statute. So you're suggesting to encompass that with the landscaping and other items into a developer's agreement.  
Speaker 8     00:41:45    Yes, We'd like to avoid install it going through the, the expensive installing the wiring in case it's being removed or demolished by the new owner that's coming in, who would be required, install a appropriate number of VV stations in accordance with their site plan. As I understand this property is also being considered for redevelopment designation, and that would be a redevelopment would be accomplished by the new owner.  
Speaker 0     00:42:22    Okay. And then we would have timeframes in there where either this applicant or the new owner would have to do it within a certain timeframe or as part of a subsequent site plan. If it's within that timeframe is what your rec is, what you're proposing.  
Speaker 8     00:42:42    That is correct, sir.  
Speaker 7     00:42:44    And Mr. Mr. Barlow, if I may, I just joined,  
Speaker 0     00:42:48    I was about to say Ms. Corcoran, do you have any comments?  
Speaker 7     00:42:52    No. No. I just wanted to say that with regard to item 17 of the staff report, the township does agree to the 15 foot wide access easement  
Speaker 0     00:43:03    And Ms. Corcoran, it is the staff amenable to a developer's agreement to encompass the timeframes for the other comments in the staff reports.  
Speaker 7     00:43:21    Yes, that is correct.  
Speaker 0     00:43:33    That was all the questions I had at this point, Ms. Smith.  
Speaker 2     00:43:37    Okay. Is this the end of Mr. of this testimony? Okay. Are there any other questions from the board?  
Speaker 12    00:43:48    Just a comment from the planner. I understand that I'm S I wasn't psychic. I just forgot to change the year to 2022. So my apologies.  
Speaker 2     00:43:58    Okay. Ms. Mr. Buckley, would you please check and see if there's any questions in the public? How can we take this down now? If you're finished with, okay, bye. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:44:18    You're muted, Laura.  
Speaker 7     00:44:23    No, one's raising their hands.  
Speaker 2     00:44:25    Okay. Thank you. Close to the public. Okay. Do you have any other witnesses, Mr. Galatia?  
Speaker 8     00:44:32    Yes. Madam chair by final witnesses, Coleen McGurk who is our planner.  
Speaker 2     00:44:36    Okay. You may proceed.  
Speaker 0     00:44:43    Ms. McGurk. You could state your names, spell your last name for the record and provide us with your professional address.  
Speaker 13    00:44:51    Coleen McGurk last name MC D U R K, Colleen, C O L L E N. I am a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey and a member of AICP. My license is current. I have testified.  
Speaker 0     00:45:06    I haven't sworn in yet. I just wanted your, I just wanted your address. Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you out. I do hear witness, sir. I think she wants to tell us, are your credentials?  
Speaker 8     00:45:23    Yes. Could you give a, the board, your credentials and you know, your parents has before boards in this state?  
Speaker 13    00:45:29    Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey and a member of AICP. I received my license in 2012 and I've appeared and performed multiple boards, including Bedminster, old bridge Woodbridge, Edison, and also Piscataway.  
Speaker 8     00:45:48    Thank you. Madam chair, we offer Ms. McGarvey as a, an expert in planning  
Speaker 2     00:45:54    Is accepted as an expert in planning.  
Speaker 8     00:45:57    Thank you, Ms. McGurk, you've reviewed the application and materials for this site plan application, correct? Yes, I have. And I understand you've conducted an inspection of the site.  
Speaker 13    00:46:10    Yes. I actually went twice. Okay.  
Speaker 8     00:46:13    And you have prepared testimony in support of the variants as being swapped? Yes. Okay. Can you provide that testimony to the board please?  
Speaker 13    00:46:22    Yes. Thank you. The master plan classifies this area as industrial, and it has no recommendations for rezoning, the subject property known as block 17. Oh one lot 2.03 contains 10.99 acres, and is an odd shaped lot that is located within the  industrial zone and the existing use as a food distribution center, which is a permitted use in this zone. The lock contains a one-story 96,000 square foot building, which was constructed in 1967, a ninety-five stall parking lot, and a gravel parking lot with six loading areas. The surrounding area is industrial and commercial with multi-family residential and single family. Residential further to the north and west. The surrounding zones are light industrial to the west and north and shopping center zone to the south. The border of south Plainfield is to the east. The applicant is proposing to restripe the parking lot, install striked islands to the lot, relocate the guard, check curb and pave and improvements of five foot wide sidewalk along new Brunswick avenue, and to remove a concrete pad and installed four ADA parking stalls adjacent to the building in order to justify the variances requested folk relief can be granted based upon C1 and C2 analysis.  
Speaker 13    00:47:42    The C1 one analysis deals with hardships related to the property. The physical aspects of the site, the C2 is a weighing test to the benefits outweigh the detriments they're proposed. Both relief can be granted based on C1 hardships pertaining to this specific property and see to analysis. Since the proposed variances advanced the purposes of the Moul and the benefits of granting of these variances outweigh any detriment that may result from their approval.  
Speaker 13    00:48:11    The following bulk variances are required or required paved parking. Lot. The gravel parking lot is existing and is located at the rear of the building, which contains the loading area. It has been functioning well with this type of use for decades. The area is for large deliveries, only employees and visitors utilize the paved parking lot. The applicant is asking for a variance from this requirement, parking 238 parking spills are required, whereas 95 or existing and 95 are proposed. The tenant is done increasing the parking demand. Since the usage remaining out of food distribution, only the owner is changing. The applicant is altering the parking lot layout in order to install the four ADA compliant, parking stalls adjacent to the building. This is an improvement from the existing condition with only 2 88 parking stalls or as far as required. So it will now be compliant with state regulations.  
Speaker 13    00:49:06    The parking requirements is stringent for the warehouse and parking in manufacturing uses. And in this case requires more than the applicant meets during my site visit on January 13th at 1:30 PM. The parking lot was less than half full and again on February 1st at 12:30 PM, I observed parking usage of only 22 cars parked at the site. The applicant has also provided testimony stating that the existing parking is adequate for their needs. I also reviewed ITE parking standards, which would only require 0.5 stalls per thousand square feet of warehouse space, which would create a parking need of 34 stalls versus the 135 required. And the office use it recommends 2.8, four stalls per thousand square feet. So for the office portion, 13 still would be needed. And for the manufacturing portion, 1.3 per 1000 square feet. So a parking need of 32 for a total of 79. And my professional opinion, the existing 95 stalls is sufficient for this existing use minimum front yard setback for both the building, the existing building, the parking lot is 80 feet.  
Speaker 13    00:50:16    Whereas 61 is existing for the building and approximately 37 feet for the lot. The intrusion into the setback is due to a 27 foot right away, dedication granted in 1989, which provided a benefit to the township and his residence prior to the dedication the principal building was conforming. Since the dedication there had been no note, no negative impacts to the adjacent properties or any substantial detriments to the purposes of the zone plan signage, a one sign is permitted, whereas two or existing, the second sign is needed since the property is located at a T intersection. And there was also a band in new Brunswick avenue. The additional signage increases traffic safety by letting traffic coming from three directions, know where the site is located, signage, minimum distance from right of way. Both existing identification signs are located within the front yard setback. The northernmost sign located nearest to driveway has been providing testimony will be relocated 10 feet inside the property line.  
Speaker 13    00:51:17    Whereas it is currently seven feet, 17 feet into the right of way, thereby reducing the variance. The second sign is 39 feet. Whereas 80 is required. The applicant is requesting a variance for the second sign to remain in his current location. And also a variance still for the relocated sign. The signs are much smaller than a permitted max of 150 square feet and would not clearly be visible at placed 80 feet from the property line as required. The Southern sign is 43 square feet with a height of five feet. And the Northern sign is seven feet for the height of three feet signage within right of way. The northerly sign will be relocated 10 feet inside the property line. Therefore eliminating this variance, additional signs, minimum distance to any similar sign is 2000 feet. Whereas 315 feet is existing between both sides. Both sides are much smaller than the ordinance allowance. Both sides were attractive. The signs are not intrusive, nor did they block these for traffic and post no negative impacts.  
Speaker 8     00:52:16    Let me just interrupt you for a second, Colleen, for, for that various, with the 2000 square foot, whereas three 15 is existing. We identified in the, the CMA report where they indicated that the distance between the signs, it was not a given. So subsequently we went out and measured that. So there'll be a variance from, from 21 dash 12 0 3 0.5. Yeah. That's additional to what we, we have in the, in the agenda.  
Speaker 13    00:52:50    Thank you. The final one would be the electric charging stations. I know that was just discussed. I actually had a different take on that. I did not think, I believe this is a minor site plan. So in reading in the state regulations, I did not think that it would be required that we go under the township ordinance. The state law refers to preliminary site plan only, but I'll, I'll leave that up to the attorney and the board to make that determination. So I just have a few remaining design waivers. I understand the lighting and the landscaping is going to be incorporated into a developer's agreement. So I don't know if you really want me to discuss those or just continue on with the justifications.  
Speaker 8     00:53:39    Yeah. Mr. Barlow and Ms. Cochran, I think the, the Eve stations and the, the lighting and landscaping waivers would be, there would be no variances required for this since they're being incorporated in a developer's agreement and the applicant would still have the obligation or the new owner  
Speaker 0     00:53:59    Agreed since you've agreed to comply. It's more the question of the timing of it. The developer's agreement we'll take care of the timing of it, but since you've agreed to do it, I don't think variants relief would be necessary.  
Speaker 13    00:54:15    Thank you. I'll just continue on with the rest of my testimony. The C1 hardship in relation to this property is the existing location of the building, the parking lot and the freestanding signs. And this has been the case for many decades. All of the structures were affected by the 27 foot right away, dedication, which reduced the frontage of the property. It has also an odd shaped lot, which presents a hardship. These hardships can justify the variances for the existing front yard setback, the parking lot, and the signage. The applicant also advances several purposes of the Moul 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. We know that the property is located in the  zoning district and is a permitted use.  
Speaker 13    00:55:02    And the surrounding area consists of similar uses. Its current layout will remain the same with the exception of the parking lot improvements, which will improve safety and the ADA improvements, which brings the site into conformance with state regulations. The guard house is also being relocated. The applicant has agreed to install a sidewalk around along new Brunswick avenue. And this improvement will provide a benefit to the surrounding area. The design waiver for parking Iowa with is being eliminated, which also increases safety. And the Northern most sign is being relocated out of the right of way. Purpose G to provide sufficient space, inappropriate locations for a variety of agriculture, 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. The granting of the variances for the existing nonconformities would provide sufficient space for an industrial use that meets the needs of the local and regional population purpose M to encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development for the view of lessening, the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of the land, the required improvements will not mitigate any negative impacts since this business has been in operation for a long time and there appear to be no negative impacts.  
Speaker 13    00:56:22    The existing violations have been addressed by the applicant. The business has a positive impact on the area by providing necessary services. Further improvements will also be made to the property as for the timing in the developer's agreement to make these improvements at this stage would pose an undue hardship since the current tenant will be relocating and the future property, the future plans for the property are uncertain. This is an existing permitted use. The building size and intensity they use will remain the same. Therefore it is my professional opinion that the granting of these variances will not result in a substantial detriment to the public. Good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the master plan or the zone plan. The benefits of this development outweigh any potential detriments. Thank you.  
Speaker 8     00:57:06    And that  
Speaker 13    00:57:06    Concludes your testimony. It does. Thank you.  
Speaker 8     00:57:10    Any questions from the board,  
Speaker 0     00:57:13    Mr. Glossary? Just one quick question. There was testimony with regards to the distance between the two signs and you were conceding that you need a variance for that distance, but obviously you believe that planning testimony has addressed that, correct? Correct. And Ms. Mugger, could you just, what was the distance that you measured it at  
Speaker 13    00:57:37    315 feet? It was provided to me by the engineer.  
Speaker 2     00:57:49    Are there any other questions from the board with reference to Ms.  testimony, hearing no response from the board? Can we look to ask the public, open it to the public? You see any hands  
Speaker 1     00:58:06    From the public  
Speaker 2     00:58:07    Madam chair, close to the public. Okay. Does that complete your testimony, Mr. Calandria?  
Speaker 8     00:58:14    Yes, it does Madam chair. And I'd like to thank the board and its consultants for concerning this application. I appreciate your, your time and effort in, in looking at it and hope we have a favorable outcome here. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:58:29    Thank you, members of the board. You've heard your testimony. What's your pleasure with reference to this application? Do I have a motion?  
Speaker 3     00:58:44    This application be approved pending to Evagrius different changes. If there be any  
Speaker 2     00:58:58    Dawn Corcoran a second. Thank you, Mayor. Wahler  
Speaker 1     00:59:08    Yes. Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:59:16    Yes. The application is granted. Okay. Item number 12 on our agenda tonight is 21, PB 44 slash 45. Victor, V as in Victor, Q T S investment properties scattered away, LLC preliminary and final site plan.  
Speaker 14    00:59:42    Good evening. Madam chair, members of the barley or behalf of the applicant. First want to thank the board for hearing us tonight? It wasn't that long ago. Madam chair, that we were at the workshop with you and the board was quite accommodating about getting us on this agenda. I am very grateful. I know the applicant is incredibly grateful for the opportunity to get going this evening. So I want to thank you folks again for that brief background. Madam chair. We're not going to take up all that much of your time. This evening. Certainly go through all the questions you folks have and answer all of them. But we were just recently before this board, if you recall, in fact, I think it was a year ago, tomorrow that we were here on February 10th, last year, for an addition to the property by way of a generator yard.  
Speaker 14    01:00:26    If you recall, we took the board through the application at that time, told the board all the great things that QTS has done at this property since they've owned it QTS has since undergone an endeavor to further expand the use of this property by way of a principal structure edition. That's what we're here for this evening. Madam chair, that's just some brief background. The site's one-on-one possum town road to large site Serbian weaker site and the  zone. It's a permitted use what we've got there today, and what's going to be there tomorrow. It's an existing data center, relatively innocuous use, not all that much folks coming in and out on a day-to-day basis with parking fields and our generator yards and some other accessory structures and improvements. The data center has been quite successful and they have the need to now expand their data center to serve their existing and new clients and customers.  
Speaker 14    01:01:16    So the proposal is for an approximate 45,000 square foot footprint addition, Madam chair, two story addition. The proposal is going to match the existing structure with material colors. It's going to blend in. Well, our architect will take you through that shortly Madam chair, as to what's going to happen in the addition, our site engineer will testify first take you through the site as it exists today. So the board can refamiliarize yourselves with the lay of the land here and where we propose to develop this edition. We'll note, the variances that we generate, there are some slight bulk variances, not withstanding being on 38 acres. The existing structure is quite sizeable. So we generate some setback relief. Some of it matches existing relief and encroachment that exists today. But it's new for the addition. Other relief is wholly new, but they're all, both variances. We think they're appreciable and our engineer will identify them as he walks you through the site plan shortly, Madam chair, you'll then hear from our project architect briefly, we'll walk you through the floor plan and walk you through the skin of the addition.  
Speaker 14    01:02:18    The net change here really is zero Madam chair. If there's no change to operations, no change to the site uses the services, the hours and the net change of employees is quite nominal considering the operations here on a data center. So really not much happening except for the addition itself, a Madam chair and members of the board. Lastly, not withstanding the fact that we think our variances are relatively slight and appreciable. You will hear planning testimony from our third and final witness to see if the Madam chair and at that point, we hope to conclude it and put the matter in your hands at that point. And if no questions, we're glad to get started with our first witness.  
Speaker 11    01:02:53    You may proceed.  
Speaker 14    01:02:54    Thank you. So first we'll call Mike Marinelli of Menlo engineering and we'll shortly qualify him as a civil engineer.  
Speaker 0     01:03:03    Mr. Marinelli, could you state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address, please.  
Speaker 14    01:03:12    I mute Mike.  
Speaker 11    01:03:21    I  
Speaker 14    01:03:26    Still don't have your mic.  
Speaker 11    01:03:31    You had phones, aren't working.  
Speaker 0     01:03:33    No Good things in engineering should be able to figure that out.  
Speaker 14    01:03:44    This is normally where I hit my TV or computer, but I'm not sure what he's going to do with his headphones,  
Speaker 0     01:03:49    The lead or unplug it. There's only two things I know  
Speaker 14    01:03:55    We might need some help from a data center applicant here, Madam chair, in a moment with some technical difficulties,  
Speaker 11    01:04:00    Let's call it out on his phone. Does this, does this computer have a mic?  
Speaker 14    01:04:14    Thank you for bearing with us folks.  
Speaker 11    01:04:16    So work.  
Speaker 15    01:04:33    All right. I apologize for that. Everybody. It's weird because I use the exact same set up for the workshop meeting we had last week, but for whatever reason, it's not currently working. So I apologize for that  
Speaker 14    01:04:44    Delay. No problem, Mike.  
Speaker 15    01:04:49    So you can hear me now. Yes, we can hear  
Speaker 0     01:04:51    You. Okay.  
Speaker 15    01:04:53    My name is Michael Marinelli, M a R I N E L L. I have metal engineering located at 2 61 Cleveland avenue, Highland park, New Jersey.  
Speaker 0     01:05:02    Okay. You raise your right hand. Swear. The testimony you give before the board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I did  
Speaker 14    01:05:11    Mike for the benefit of the board. Would you briefly describe your educational background experience in licensing?  
Speaker 15    01:05:17    Surely I am a graduate of Rutgers university class of 1999. I've been practicing site planning and site engineering. Since that time I at Menlo engineering, I am a licensed professional and have been so for 15 years tomorrow. So I'm a little bit of an anniversary. I've provided professional testimony in front of numerous boards across the state, including this one on multiple occasions.  
Speaker 14    01:05:49    Madam chair, we'd offer Mr. Marinelli as an expert in the field of civil engineering.  
Speaker 15    01:05:54    He's acceptable as an expert. Thank you. Ma'am.  
Speaker 14    01:05:58    So Mike, the plans filed with the board were prepared by your office, you and or under your direction, is that correct? Yes. Okay. To say the least you're familiar with the site and the proposed improvements.  
Speaker 14    01:06:12    So what I'll do now, Mike is I'll turn it over to you. And any time we get to a sheet, even if it's just mocked up in color, that deviates from the file plan set, let's call it out, identify it. And we'll mark it as an exhibit and counsel, just so you're aware, the limited exhibits we're going to show this evening more advanced to the township, you know, in concert with the DLG S guidelines more than 48 hours. So what you're going to see tonight is posted on the website, nothing more, and we'll call things out when it varies from the file plans.  
Speaker 0     01:06:41    Okay. And just for ease of reference sake, we'll just, we'll just call it 81, which is the existing conditions. Exhibit  
Speaker 15    01:06:52    Will surely survey can see my shared screen.  
Speaker 15    01:06:56    Okay. The exhibit you see here entitled QTS Piscataway existing conditions, exhibit dated 2 7 22 is an arrow representation of the site actually, prior to our previous approval, this, this, the aerial hasn't been updated yet with the approval that we received last year that Mr. Kelly had spoke about where we added a generator yard on the, on the east or a top side of this exhibit. Again, this is an error. It's an irregular lot. As you can see in the highlighted black dotted line, which has three front judges, possum town road to the, to the west or bottom of the exhibit where the main access is, there's a secondary or emergency egress on circle drive to the north. And then there's technically frontage along 2 87, but there's no access to that. The lot is designated as block two lots. There's a rectangular more regular size lot on possum town road on the Northwest corner of the product property.  
Speaker 15    01:08:08    But the block in lots are blocked 41 0 2 lot 3.01 and block 42 0 2 lot 6.02 on the tax map of Piscataway Township. The is commonly known as 1 0 1 possible town road. And as you said, it's located on the, on the Eastern side of possum town road between circle drive, which is immediately to the west. The intersection of those roads are just off the sheet to the bottom left and Centennial avenue. On the other side of route 28, route 2 87 to the east, as I said, the pro the property has two access points. One on the Western side, possum town road, and the second emergency grass on the north side of circle drive over all the properties. Approximately 38.12 acres is located entirely within the  or light industrial zone. The site, as you can see this around the areas on the north and west are from primarily industrial.  
Speaker 15    01:09:17    Other industrial uses, there is a lot being developed immediately to the Northwest is, is currently under construction. There's a park across possum town road, immediately to the west. And then as I said, re route 2 87, bounds the property on the south side, as you can see, the, the site is developed, this was actually a redevelopment when they built the original cute DuPont Fabros building back in 2008 and it was expanded in 2011. And again, received approval from this board to include some additional generator, external generator or utility yard. On the Western side, back in 2020, there are a couple of smaller buildings or accessory buildings located, including a guard house and a metal building, which are all part of the operations here that, that have existed for some time. Now there, the applicant, as you can see from this exhibit, and I will zoom in for, for period, as you can see from the exhibit, the, this site doesn't really generate a lot of traffic in this particular instance. I believe there's 17 cars in the parking lot.  
Speaker 15    01:10:40    This is pretty regular for this facility. The site doesn't, although we have 155 existing parking spaces, it is very, very underutilized in, in the existing condition. And when I go through the proposal this evening, you'll hear that we're not anticipating any additional or very few additional trips based on the proposed addition. What I would like to know, however, is as part of the previous approval from last year, 2020, the applicant did construct for electric vehicle parking spaces. So there are four existing spaces onsite. And in, in the minute, I will tell you that we're going to improve upon that to meet the current standards for that in all, there are 155 existing parking spaces. You can see the circulation around the building. It's not really for operation more for a mirror emergency access. There's a loop road that circular circulates the entire building. And again, there's, there's secondary secondary access or emergency egress off of circle drive. If I may now switch exhibits and share what I assume we will notice exhibit a two.  
Speaker 14    01:12:04    Thank you, Mike, if you could identify a to Mike before we speak to it.  
Speaker 15    01:12:13    So this is, this is QTS Piscataway site planning exhibit dated two seven, 2022. This is the same aerial photograph in the background, but what we've done is highlighted the proposed improvements and colorize the, the landscaping said the board can see you also, no note, this is a zoomed in view because although on exhibit a one, you probably saw that the site is rather large. The proposed improvements are primarily on the Southern side of the existing structure. What the applicant is proposing is to continue the two story structure to the south with a 44,572 square foot addition. This, this will bring the total to I'm sorry, two story addition. So the total square footage within the addition will be 89,144. This brings the site total for the data center to 440 2022 square feet, which is made up of 52,452 square feet of office, 114,650, a square feet of mechanical space as well as 274,920 square feet of storage.  
Speaker 15    01:13:38    As you can see, the circulation on site remains the same that that loop road, which currently wraps the Southern end of the building will just be extended around the proposed addition. The addition is, is noted by the tan color on the Southern side or right side of the exhibit a to these rectangles that you see around this edition are exactly the same utility yards that you approved back in 2020, there are three of them on the east west and Southern sides, totaling 12 new equipment containers, which hold the electronic electronic components for the equipment yard, 12 generator positions, which are again very, exactly the same as the slabs on the previous approval and transformer pads, excuse me, it transformer pads that circle those proposed utility yards. Again, this is very similar to what was approved in 2020. And you can see on this exhibit, we've sketched in that previous approval, which has since been constructed.  
Speaker 15    01:14:49    We're also taking the applicant is also taking this opportunity. Now, as far as loading goes on the existing building, there are three on the, on the Western side of the building three dock positions as part of the 2020 approval. The applicant built a fourth dock position on the south west corner of the building. And as part of this application, we're proposing a second dock in that location to bring the site total to five dock positions, as you can see, we've w w we've enhanced the landscape buffer along 2 87, as well as in the revised detention basin on the existing Western side of the existing parking area. What I didn't mention in the exhibit one is there's two existing detention facilities on site there, a wet wet pond, or, you know, you could see the fountain on exhibit 82 is active.  
Speaker 15    01:15:49    That was constructed as part of the original design. There's also a small dry basin or detention basin on the Western side of the, the, the existing parking area. And you see, we we've landscaped or buffered that re revised basin in all we're proposing 28 shade trees, 41 evergreen trees and 115 shrubs surrounding the property and buffering or adding to the existing buffers that exist on site today, of course, because this is a circulation road. We're improving the lighting in this area as well with eight pole mounted, dark sky compliant, led downcast and fixtures mounted at 24 and a half foot high with a design of 0.5 foot candle, minimum 1.26 foot candle average, which meets the township ordinance from a stormwater management perspective, the offs to offset this additional building or clean runoff. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing dry detention basin on the Western side of the parking lot in order to accommodate that additional runoff within the existing facilities.  
Speaker 15    01:17:04    Now, when this original building was redeveloped, there was a lot of extra planning that was put into the, these detention facilities so that it accommodated excess water quality and excess groundwater recharge them what was required at the time. So the impacts of the proposed addition and the extension of the boop road are, are mitigated by the fact that the existing facilities were in fact over-designed, but we are accommodating the additional runoff volume by expanding the existing base basin to create more volume and be able to detain that so that in the future condition, post development condition, the actual runoff from the site is less than what it is in the existing.  
Speaker 15    01:17:59    As I said, it's a small increase in impervious coverage. It's only 4.3% in increase in impervious coverage. And again, this was part of a redevelopment. So the impervious coverage that will exist, even if this is approved and constructed will be well less than what was previously here before the data center was, was in fact constructed. The site is going to utilize existing onsite utilities, including water, gas, and sewer. However, they will be extended to the new facility. And of course, the waterline will wrap around to the east west and south of the proposed addition in order to provide adequate fire safety and fire hydrants.  
Speaker 15    01:18:45    We are, there are a bunch of existing nonconformances that I'd like to, to just run through real quick with the board. There is a side yard setback of an accessory building of 39.4 feet, where, and that was approved as part of the previous 2020 approvals where 50 foot is required. Additionally, there's an existing tower on the Eastern side of the building in the Northern part of the concrete area where that existing accessory structure is 60.5 feet, where 25 foot max and is permitted. Again, this is an existing condition. As far as loading births go, this site would, would require 19 loading births, but because of the operations here not being a distribution center or a typical warehouse, the applicant only has four existing and is proposing a fifth, which meets their needs, but requires relief from the board. Continued really from the board. The existing sign is located in the, in this, in the landscape area, on the Northern side of the possible town road access that that sign is set back 25 feet, where 50 is required.  
Speaker 15    01:20:01    Again, this is an existing condition. The building signage is not proposed to be, but again, it was previously approved for 376 square feet where 150 square foot maximum is required. And finally, as far as existing, nonconformities go the board previously, granted a fence height variance for an eight foot high fence along the frontage where six foot max is permitted. There are a few new bulk requirements that we are seeking this evening or exacerbating this evening. The first new, which is parking spaces. We, again, the site has 155 parking spaces were based on township ordinances and the new square footages 1,147 spaces are required, as I stated previously. And you can see from the both exhibit a one and a two, this particular applicant doesn't need any additional spaces. In fact, it's my opinion that the site is over parked in its existing condition. And again, this proposed addition to the data center will, will only equate to two or three additional onsite personnel, which can be accommodated with, by the existing parking spaces.  
Speaker 15    01:21:31    Secondly, there's a front yard setback. We're going to require for an accessory structure because the generators utility boxes and transformer pads are considered by the municipal ordinance as an accessory structure on the Southern side, as it faces route 2 87, we're proposing an 83.5 foot setback where a hundred foot is required. So it's roughly 17 feet. There is a mature treeline along 2 87. And as, as I stated previously, we're supplementing that mature tree line with a plethora of additional screening. We'll get to the review letters in a little bit, but the engineering planner within the municipality have requested some additional plantings and specific plantings to be added. And of course, we'd be amenable to that to offset this proposed variance.  
Speaker 15    01:22:30    But, but for reference, the building is 138.6 feet from 2 87. So the building itself doesn't necessitate any variance relief. As I stated previously, there's an existing non-conformance in the side yard for 39.4 feet to an accessory structure. We're actually matching that with, with the new newly proposed utility yard in the SU Southeastern most corner again, matching what was previously approved in 2020 with a 39.4 foot setback where 50 foot is required again in this area. And that's for the accessory structures, the transformer pad actually, but the building itself is 62.1 feet and meets the setback requirement. Again, that relief is something that was previously granted, and we're asking for a second relief for the transformer pad in the south east corner. Those are the only, those are the reliefs that we're seeking this evening. And that is my presentation. Should anybody have any questions? I'd be willing to answer them.  
Speaker 14    01:23:47    Thank you, Mike, Madam chair, and make Mr. Marinelli available to any questions you folks might have.  
Speaker 2     01:23:53    Yes. Does the board, does anyone on the board have any questions for Mr. Mark Martin? Nelly hearing no questions from the board. I would like to open it up to the public now, Ms. Beckley, do you see anyone wishing to ask questions of this witness?  
Speaker 0     01:24:17    No, one's raising their hand. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     01:24:20    Okay. Thank you. You may call your next witness.  
Speaker 14    01:24:22    Thank you. Madam chair. My, our second of three witnesses will be our project architect, Eric Scott  
Speaker 0     01:24:30    On a unshare, your screen, Mr. Martineau. Thank you, Mr. Scott, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 14    01:24:43    Sure. Eric Scott, S C O T T. And address is one east 33rd street, New York, New York 1 0 0 1 6.  
Speaker 0     01:24:56    And who are you with  
Speaker 14    01:24:58    Sir? Highland associates.  
Speaker 0     01:25:01    Raise your right hand. Do you swear? The testimony you give before the board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do your witness, Mr. Kelly  
Speaker 14    01:25:11    Council, Eric shortly. You'll be testifying as our project architects. So would you get the board, the benefit of your background experience and licensing in that field? Sure. I have a master's of architecture and from Roger room's university, I'm an architect, licensed architect and principal at Highland associates, who is the architect of record for the project. And I've been with Highland for about 15 years. And I've testified previously in other municipalities throughout the state. Thank you, Eric. Madam chair, we'd offer Mr. Scott as an expert in the field of architecture.  
Speaker 2     01:25:49    Yes. The board accepts him as an expert in this  
Speaker 14    01:25:51    Area. Thank you. Okay, Eric. Well, shortly when we screen-share and show the board, your render and we'll mark it as a three. What I'd like you to do? Eric is take the board on the, of the proposed addition. They've seen Mike's psych and render Rick. I know you were online for that portion of the application a short while ago tonight, but if you could take the board through the elevation renderings, so the board can get a sense as to the massing, the color and what it's going to look like, and then we can work our way briefly into the floorplans thereafter. That'd be great. Yep, absolutely.  
Speaker 14    01:26:27    Can everybody see my screen? It's low. It looks like it's coming up in a second. We got an Erik. Okay. Are you just saying yes. All set, Eric. Thanks. So right. As you saw, the addition is an extension of the existing building. So we've provided a few exterior renderings. This exhibit is slightly updated from what was originally submitted as we've developed the site plan and some of the equipment layout. We we've enhanced it from what was submitted, just to show some of the plantings screening and fencing around the building. We are matching the existing building. So using the precast facade in the, in the exact same function and look that it is today and bringing that out. It is a two-story building, essentially two stores stacked on top of each other with a similar layout. And as was described the views from route 2 87, our screen with some trees, we, we actually kind of in the rendering, remove some to show a little bit more of what the building and equipment yard would look like.  
Speaker 14    01:27:50    But as you can see a visual representation of what's, what's being proposed, Eric, if you could have, and this will be a three exhibit, if you could just identify it by name and then perhaps with these four images, let the board know the, the point of reference at which we would be standing, if you could, to sort of orient the board perhaps a little bit. Sure. So this a three would be a 3d rendering images. The top elevation is actually kind of on the Southwest side. So this would face possum town road and the main entry. So it's got a few windows at the stair tower and the equipment yard and 2 87 to the right in the view. The view directly to the bottom left of that is moving around a little bit closer to 2 87 on the property outside of the fence line. Once again, just sort of a visual representation, you're kind of in the woods, but for visual purposes, we've removed the vegetation and you could see the equipment yard and the building beyond directly underneath that is a view from the, that would be the Southeast side of the building.  
Speaker 14    01:29:04    Once again, 2 87 would be off to your left and the front of the building would be on the other opposite side of the view right here. This is where you see some of the equipment that similar to what was being, or what has already been constructed as part of the previous approval of that other project. And finally, to the right side, the view from route 2 87, kind of standing back, looking through the vegetation at the building. And like we said, the vegetation has been kind of cutaway a little bit to show more of the view, but there is a pretty substantial growth there. So most of the view from the building and the equipment will be blocked.  
Speaker 14    01:29:46    Thank you, Eric. And just so the board's aware, you know, the applicant is, is very eager to get this going. If, and when this board acts favorably, I believe we're anticipating that once we get the resolution compliance we're at about a year construction schedule, give or take to actually construct this addition, is that right? Eric? That is correct. Okay. And would you concur with Mr. Marinaro Lee's testimony that the net change of employees is nominal in the ballpark of, you know, a couple of employees? Is that what we suspected correct. And we w when we look at the plan, I'll kind of walk through that, but yeah, we're, we're expecting a minimum of like four people. Perfect. Thank you, Eric.  
Speaker 14    01:30:29    We can go to your next sheet. If you want to start moving towards the interior, Eric, the next sheet here was submitted previously and unchanged as well. The rest of these plans, this is the first floor composite plan. It's going to zoom in right here. So we walked through the outside of the building. The inside of the building is essentially, I still see the first image. I don't know if I'm the only one that's let me stop sharing and I'll try resharing. You got to put a quarter on the computer to get the new image up. I think. No kidding. Yeah, I know it's probably a dollar now. Right? I can take my kids to the arcade. It cost me a hundred bucks. I don't get it, but perfect. Thank you, Eric. Well, You guys hear me? Yes. And is my screen still being shared? My zoom reset now. Hmm. Sorry about that.  
Speaker 14    01:32:13    So the, the first floor is a large data center space with mechanical rooms on the, the top and bottom. There's a corridor surrounding the space. And that is the bulk of the addition. We have some restrooms and some small storage area, as well as a vertical circulation with stairs and elevator to the plan south here. So no new offices, no new kind of personnel areas. It's more of just the, the same program that's been in the existing building extended to this new addition. Those servers are they're essentially, yeah, just computer rack cabinets. And if I could, I'll move to the second plan sheet, which shows the second floor.  
Speaker 14    01:33:16    And this is a second floor composite plan, a dash 0 0 4 B. And this is essentially the kind of a duplicate of the first floor minus some of the quarters connecting the existing building to the top of the plan. But we have the same data center space on the second floor with restrooms storage and vertical circulation. Perfect. Thank you. Eric. Moving on to our next sheet is our roof composite plan, a dash 0 0 4 C. There, the roof plan houses, some mechanical equipment. There are condensing units that actually feed some of the units within the building. So essentially like a residential split system type of system where there's condensers on the roof, they feed the cooling within the building. And this is all these units serve both the floors both first and second. And moving on to the next sheet, which are our building elevations, a dash 2 0 1, these show a little bit more of a, kind of a detailed elevation from what the rendering show, but the renderings are a little bit clearer of a visual, but essentially mimicking the same thing, matching the existing building, falling in the same relief patterns and design and coloring as well as the equipment that mimics the previous phases.  
Speaker 14    01:35:02    And the last sheet here, which is cross sections a dash 3 0 2 a this shows the two stories. It actually has the high point of the building at the 50 foot zoner requirement of the town. There are mechanical units that we looked at in plan shown here in section. Those do not extend past the 12 foot height limitation in the zoning. And there is a screen wall that is essentially an extension of the building facade that hides and shields, the mechanical units from view. And that is on all sides of the building. So at each portion of the site, those units are shielded from view. And I know, I know a rendering is just that, but the render we provided to the board, a three that's essentially a true representation of what you would see out in the field. You didn't see any mechanicals in that rendering and we're not going to see them when it's constructed. That's correct. The only mechanicals you would see are on the, the ground level. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Madam chair, we make Mr. Scott available to any questions you folks might have.  
Speaker 2     01:36:14    Are there any other, any questions from the board at this time of this witness? I hear no questions from the board, Ms. Buckley, would you check and see, we can open it to the public and see if there are any questions from the, from the bumps  
Speaker 1     01:36:33    And the public. Have any questions? No one Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     01:36:39    Okay. Do we have any other witnesses?  
Speaker 14    01:36:42    We have one more item chair, our project planner, who will be relatively brief to discuss the new variances we generate here.  
Speaker 0     01:36:51    Who is that going to be? Mr. Calley,  
Speaker 14    01:36:53    Justin right there with his hand.  
Speaker 0     01:36:55    Oh, is that Justin Osceola? Yes, it is correct. Okay, sir, could you state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 16    01:37:06    Justin RCLO a U C I E L L O phone consulting group, a one twenty five half mile road, suite 200 red bank, New Jersey, 0 7 7 0 1.  
Speaker 0     01:37:20    Raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give before the board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So  
Speaker 16    01:37:25    Yes, I do. Your witness, Mr.  
Speaker 0     01:37:27    Kelly  
Speaker 14    01:37:28    And council, Justin briefly for the benefit of the board, your credentials in the field of professional planning.  
Speaker 16    01:37:33    Yes, absolutely. So I have a, a master's degree in planning from Rutgers university that was granted in, in 2005. I've been a licensed plan in the state of New Jersey since 2008. My planning practice is on both the public and the private side I've been involved in, in master planning and redevelopment on many occasions over in the private side, I've been involved in applications like this big and small I've appeared at planning and zoning boards in 18 counties in New Jersey in Middlesex county, I've appeared at most of them. I believe I appeared at your zoning board years ago, but other than that, I've, you know, been, been, been qualified as a professional planner on hundreds of occasions in my career.  
Speaker 14    01:38:26    Thank you, Justin. Madam chair, we'd offer Mr. RCLO as a professional expert in the field of planning. He's accepted as an expert in planning. Thank you. So Justin, just before we go through your analysis conclusions, just a few baseline confirmations, if you were online and heard the testimony this evening from our engineer and architect, is that right? Correct. You're familiar with the plans that have been filed with the board.  
Speaker 16    01:38:50    Yes, I am. The relief  
Speaker 14    01:38:52    Requested. Yes. And the zone, the master plan and all the reports filed. You've had a chance to review all of those in connection with this application. I've  
Speaker 16    01:39:01    Reviewed all of them.  
Speaker 14    01:39:03    And you know, my profit to the board was that we have slight unlimited bulk variance relief. Of course I've got a bias being the applicant's representative, but Mr. Marinelli went through them sort of objectively and qualified, you know, exactly what the deviations were and where and how much. But if you could just enough, you wouldn't mind taking a board through the various proofs to justify the variances that we've identified this evening in connection with this project. That'd be great.  
Speaker 16    01:39:28    Yes, absolutely. And thank you so much to the board. So Mr. Marinelli and our architect have, have gone through the variances and the site layout and the design as proposed. So I won't belabor that point. I understand that it's getting late, but just, but just from the standpoint of the planning proofs, as the board is aware, there are certain proofs that must be put on the record to sustain the required variances. Of course, this is a permitted use what's what's currently on the site and what's proposed are all permitted, which of course is why we're here at the planning board. So the analysis is, is a bit different than, than if we weren't permitted the standard of proof for a permitted use for bulk variances is the, the at the sea variances. And, and that is under the, the C1 criteria, whether there's a hardship and number two under the C2 criteria, which is it benefits versus the detriments.  
Speaker 16    01:40:27    In this instance, as Mr. Mayor, as Mr. Marinelli had stated, we do require variances for the assessory front yard setback, the, the, the, the side yard setback for the assessory as well for the Mac, some height in the front yard and for the parking. I think it's easy to dispose of the parking variance first as Mr. Marinelli and our, and the architect Mr. Scott had there, there are going to be, you know, funeral employees that will be generated relative to this project. So the, the requirement may be high under the ordinance, but there's plenty of parking that currently is at the site to accommodate the, you know, handful of, of, of new employees. So, so certainly the benefits of this application, you know, relative to any detriments of that variance, I don't see any detriments at all, relative to the, the front yard setback for the, the accessory structure.  
Speaker 16    01:41:30    That's, that's only for the accessory structure, not the principle structure. And that's 2, 2 87, you know, certainly as you heard from our witnesses, that's that, you know, that structure will be well buffered to 2 87 with, with, with, with screening that that currently exists, and that will be supplemented with, with supplemental screening. So certainly the benefits of that to allow, you know, the operation of, of this use to sustain itself in the future do outweigh any detriments. And again, certainly there are no substantial detriments for that variance. And I, I don't see much in the way of any detriments at all, relative to the variance for, for the side yard setback for, I believe it's the transformer pad. That that is a variance again, that that is for the accessory structure that is not for the building itself. I also believe that in this instance, there is a, there's a hardship bless you relative to the, the, the, the size and the layout of the property.  
Speaker 16    01:42:44    The property here tends to taper a bit, so that, that tends to, you know, limit the, the, the space in which the applicant can, can situate that, that area. So I believe that that is a hardship due to the nature of the layout of the lot, but also more importantly from the standpoint of, of the C2 analysis, the benefits of, of granting this variance, we don't where the detriments. And I would say that in, in looking at the area in which this is situated, it's next to a lie. And I also think it's important just as there were four context. This is a light industrial area, you know, somewhat remote next to 2 87. And, and, and, and this part of the property is surrounded on both sides by, by wooded area. So I think that's just important just to establish for the record. That is the, the analysis of the positive criteria.  
Speaker 16    01:43:41    I also think that this is an application that advances at least one purpose of the Moul that's that's criteria G for I sufficient space and property locations for a variety of uses. In this instance, it's a data center. Certainly I believe that there is, there is a sufficient space to accommodate the, the proposed improvements. It's consistent with the master plan. As I have previously stated, even though this is not a use variance analysis, I believe that this is a use. That is where the proposal is, is particularly suited based on the, you know, the, the current layout of the site, and also the nature of the, the wooded nature and 2 87 we're well, below the, the maximum building coverage that's permitted in the zone. The impervious coverage as our engineer has stated is well less than what was previously existed prior to the data center.  
Speaker 16    01:44:37    I believe that the, the aesthetics here are consistent with, with what currently exists as you heard from our architect, and also the, the, the enhanced landscape buffer along along 2 87, those are all benefits as for the negative criteria. There's a board of as aware, that's a showing if, if there will be a substantial negative impact to the public good. As I had previously stated, I believe that these are nominal proposals in nature, you know, relative to the overall scale of the site. And certainly given the, the, the, the character of the surroundings and what's proposed, certainly does not rise to the level of being a substantial detriment, let alone, in my professional opinion, much of the way of any detriments. And lastly, variances should not have a negative impact to the zone plan. The zoning ordinance, as I had previously stated in the L I zone, this is a use as proposed with currently existed. What's proposed is permitted, and it's recognized by the zoning ordinance and the master plan. So again, in my professional opinion, no, no negative impact to his own plan of the zoning ordinance.  
Speaker 14    01:45:56    Thank you very much,  
Speaker 16    01:45:56    Justin. Thank you.  
Speaker 14    01:45:59    That's all we have on director seeming Madam chair,  
Speaker 0     01:46:02    Mr. Kelly, can I, can I just ask a quick question? I see in the agenda, there was a question raised if the rooftop equipment is going to be at least 12 feet from the roof edge or an additional barriers might be required. Did Mr. Scott address that is the equipment more than 12 feet from the edge? I just want to make sure you don't need an extra variance, but I may have said it and I just missed it. So  
Speaker 14    01:46:24    I appreciate that, Eric, can you confirm that dimension? Correct? I did not mention that. I just talked about the height, but in regards to the distance from the building edge, we are beyond the 12 feet. We are 17 feet and 15 feet.  
Speaker 0     01:46:44    Okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn't need planning testimony on that. Thank you. I,  
Speaker 14    01:46:49    That Mr. Barlow. Thank you. Thank you, Eric.  
Speaker 2     01:46:55    Okay. Mr. Barlow, any other, anything else?  
Speaker 0     01:46:58    No, I, I assume Mr. Kelly's just going to talk about the reports a few seconds, but I don't have any other functions.  
Speaker 2     01:47:06    Did we ask the questions of the board on this witness?  
Speaker 0     01:47:10    I don't think so.  
Speaker 2     01:47:12    Does the board have any questions on the testimony of Mr. RCL? If so, I'd like to open it up to the public at this time. Ms. Buckley,  
Speaker 0     01:47:29    No one raised their hands.  
Speaker 2     01:47:30    Madam chair. Okay. Thank you. Close to the public at this point in time, Mr. Lawyer, you may offer whatever does you would like to offer Mr. Kelly, I'm sorry. Oh, that's okay,  
Speaker 14    01:47:42    Man. I've been called worse. That's okay. Mr. so that essentially is our presentation relatively, you know, light request this evening to add on more of what's already there, nothing that in the DNR reports or the CME reports that we think are going to be difficult complying with Menlo engineering has been working out, you know, other agency issues with the DNR engineer and your in-house consultants, but by and large, all can be complied with the V state requirements, things like that, nothing that makes the applicant cringe or, or asking for a pre from. And at the end of the day, this is a nice success story of QTS being here for about 15 years, being a good member of the community, and they need to expand because of their own success. So a large expansion, but for them relatively modest on this 38 acre site. And, you know, they're very eager to hopefully get going with this project shortly. And with that Madam chair just want to thank all of you folks again for your time this evening for getting us here and for expediting, Mr. Barlow is new.  
Speaker 0     01:48:40    Just want to clarify. So the Dre, the DNR report of January 25th, 2022, the CME report of January 24th, 2022, and Mr. Hinterstein January 26th, 2022 reports, the applicant has agreed to comply with them, correct.  
Speaker 14    01:48:58    I don't think there's any difficulty fully compliant with them. I'll ask Mr. Marinelli to confirm that for me it's most of them nine issues.  
Speaker 15    01:49:10    Excellent. So yes, we've reviewed all three of those letters with those dates and agree to comply with the conditions  
Speaker 0     01:49:18    Within them. And the only other question I have Mr. Kelly was, I thought in the beginning, there was a Mr. Marinella may have said, you know, the, the four TV stations from the previous approval hadn't been put in and the applicant was going to spruce that up, I think is something that he's spiked. So is that mean you're putting into three additional Evie charging stations,  
Speaker 14    01:49:46    The intent to comply with the state regulations, which I think, I think we generate the need for more here, Mr. Barlow. So I think it's two, two more dual ports are probably what's going to come into play.  
Speaker 15    01:49:57    That's correct. Yeah. So we will comply with the, with the requirements of the stations. I believe in this case, the additional spaces would be, make ready, but the applicant has already expressed interest in actually just building them at this time.  
Speaker 0     01:50:13    Well, that's my question that the state statute would have them be made ready. The municipal request was to actually put in the TV stations and I just don't want them to, I just want to make it clear on the record. So the applicant is planning on putting in the actual ed stations. That is  
Speaker 15    01:50:34    In fact they've. They said they liked to do them in Paris. So although seven would be required, they w they would actually concede eight Evie stations.  
Speaker 0     01:50:43    Okay, wonderful.  
Speaker 12    01:50:46    Okay. Mr. Marinelli, we're all in agreement with this. Ron Reinertsen, well, an agreement with the parking. I think it's the warehouse standard. And Dawn can just confirm that because I was a little confused, but I think we're all in agreement on this at this point.  
Speaker 15    01:51:05    Yeah. So actually this came up during the workshop meeting, we had been calculating it based on one for 200 square foot of industrial space, but it was clarified during that, that we were, we were calculating inappropriately and it would be actually one per 500 as is noted in the January 26 letter, or I'm sorry, in the January 5th letter where it's calculated out. So we've amended the zoning table to reduce it from 2000, some odd spaces to the 1100  
Speaker 12    01:51:44    Clara was my letter kind of left it open-ended I was leaning to, I said, I agreed with Dawn's numbers, but now we're all on the same page on, on where it's  
Speaker 15    01:51:53    Generated. Agreed, Don you concur.  
Speaker 0     01:51:58    And Mr. Reinertsen, would you agree that if they put in the extra thousand parking spaces basically be a sea of asphalt out there?  
Speaker 12    01:52:06    Yeah. I, I think that it would probably go over to the Bob's discount furniture. A lot that they're developing here. Yeah. That I think testimony on, on planning proved that it just doesn't work for this site.  
Speaker 2     01:52:27    Okay. Fine. Okay. Members of the board, I think you're there to complete application has been presented thus far. What would you do? I hear a motion.  
Speaker 12    01:52:41    Madam chair going queer. Cause I'd like to make a motion. We approve the application,  
Speaker 1     01:52:45    Subject to the CME report, the DNR report and the staff report.  
Speaker 2     01:52:53    Do I hear a second?  
Speaker 3     01:52:55    I'm sure we haven't. Kenny I'll second that motion.  
Speaker 2     01:53:00    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 1     01:53:04    Mayor Wahler Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Reverend Tanny. Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair. Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:53:16    Thank you  
Speaker 1     01:53:17    Very much folks. Wish everybody a good night. Bye-bye number 13.  
Speaker 2     01:53:34    All right. I've gotten my stages out of border here. Sorry. Okay. Number 13 was number 14 was adjourned.  
Speaker 1     01:53:49    Number 13th, duly audited bills to be paid.  
Speaker 2     01:53:53    Okay. 16. Do we order a bit before  
Speaker 1     01:53:56    You have the old one again,  
Speaker 2     01:54:02    It's still duly audit bills. I have a motion to pay the bills.  
Speaker 1     01:54:10    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:54:15    We get emotion. Yep.  
Speaker 1     01:54:19    Yep. Marijuana. Yes. Yes. Reverend canny. Mr. Espinosa. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     01:54:30    Yes. Enjoy this Superbowl. This weekend. Next meeting will be March 9th, seven, Have a wonderful night. Everybody have a good  
Speaker 1     01:54:44    Bye-bye.