Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on July 13 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     00:00:21    All right. Madam chair, ready to go?  
Speaker 2     00:00:25    The getaway Township planning board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the courier news. Notice 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 read the open public meeting notice please?  
Speaker 3     00:00:52    Yes, ma'am I'm chair in keeping with the department of community fair guidelines with regards to virtual meetings and keeping with the COVID pandemic. I believe that the board has complied with the DCA guidelines that it's appropriate for the board in a virtual setting chair.  
Speaker 2     00:01:09    Thank you, Ms. Buckley, would you please call the role  
Speaker 1     00:01:13    Mayor? Wahler present Councilwoman Cahill Ms. Here, MSS. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:01:30    Sorry. I had to use my other line  
Speaker 1     00:01:32    Cause it's okay. Reverend Kinneally here. Mr. Espinosa here. Mr. Atkins here, Mr. Foster and Madam chair  
Speaker 2     00:01:44    Here. The flag is over my left shoulder, my right shoulder. Can we all pledge allegiance to the flag? I pledge allegiance to flag of the United States, United States of America and to the Republic, which swearing professionals  
Speaker 3     00:02:23    Mute Saunders. You're on mute. Ms. Saunders.  
Speaker 4     00:02:26    Sorry, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 1     00:02:34    I do.  
Speaker 4     00:02:35    Thank you,  
Speaker 3     00:02:36    Mr. Espinosa, can you put your camera on please?  
Speaker 2     00:02:46    Can you hear you?  
Speaker 3     00:02:50    I think so. He's on mute, but I just need him to turn his camera.  
Speaker 5     00:03:01    Sorry. I'm sorry about that. I will turn on my camera in a few. I just gotta prepare.  
Speaker 0     00:03:06    Okay.  
Speaker 3     00:03:08    You can go forward. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:03:11    Okay. May I have a motion for, to pay our dually bills?  
Speaker 6     00:03:16    Madam chair, Reverend Kinneally. I make a motion that the bills be paid.  
Speaker 2     00:03:22    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 4     00:03:23    Carol Saunders, second  
Speaker 2     00:03:25    Roll call please.  
Speaker 1     00:03:26    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Corcoran. Yes. Mr. Saunders?  
Speaker 4     00:03:34    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:03:34    Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 0     00:03:35    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:03:36    Mr. Espinosa?  
Speaker 5     00:03:38    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:03:39    Mr. ATUs. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:03:43    Yes. Mr. Barlow, are there any amendments or changes to tonight's agenda?  
Speaker 3     00:03:49    Madam chair with regards to the agenda dated July 7th, 2022. There are no changes to the agenda that I am aware of.  
Speaker 2     00:04:02    Okay. Item eight, adoption of the resolution to memorialize action taking on June 8th,  
Speaker 4     00:04:10    Adam Chairman. I like to memorialize.  
Speaker 1     00:04:14    There are no resolutions for  
Speaker 0     00:04:16    No,  
Speaker 4     00:04:16    There are none. Oh, no resolutions. Sorry.  
Speaker 2     00:04:19    Oh, okay.  
Speaker 1     00:04:22    There are minutes though. So we can do number,  
Speaker 2     00:04:24    Number. Okay. Adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of June 8th,  
Speaker 4     00:04:28    Adam Chairman. I like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of June 8th, 2022.  
Speaker 2     00:04:35    We have a second. Madam  
Speaker 6     00:04:36    Chair, Reverend Kinneally I second  
Speaker 2     00:04:38    Roll call please.  
Speaker 1     00:04:40    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Corcoran. Yes. Saunders.  
Speaker 4     00:04:47    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:04:47    Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Ms. Espinosa.  
Speaker 5     00:04:51    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:04:52    Ms. Kins. Yes. And Adam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:04:55    Yes. Item number 10, which is, or whether 22 P B oh nine 90 Hancock road, LLC. A major final subdivision. Mr. Mon,  
Speaker 1     00:05:11    Madam chair. You don't have the revised agenda that I sent to you.  
Speaker 2     00:05:16    Well, I have the most recent one I downloaded which  
Speaker 1     00:05:19    Seven, seven revision dates on the top right hand side. It's the one I emailed Smith and I emailed them out Friday in case number 10 is the discussion item for 1551 south Washington.  
Speaker 3     00:05:48    Ms. Jaza. How's the camera coming?  
Speaker 0     00:06:02    Madam  
Speaker 1     00:06:09    Chair. You want me to re-mail it?  
Speaker 2     00:06:11    No, I have it.  
Speaker 1     00:06:12    Oh, cool.  
Speaker 2     00:06:16    But the most recent one I have says, well, what it does, I'm not, no matter. There's no 90 high Hancock road.  
Speaker 1     00:06:24    Yes, but that's number 12. But the two discussion items are first.  
Speaker 2     00:06:28    Okay. Item, number 10. Discussion area in need of study for redevelopment block 53 0 1 block 14, 0 4  
Speaker 7     00:06:44    Meeting members of the board. I'm James Clarken ForSight planning. I'll be presenting the in need study for 1551 south Washington avenue. Also know block 5, 3 0 1 lot 14.04. Can everyone see what I'm sharing?  
Speaker 0     00:07:02    Yes.  
Speaker 7     00:07:02    All right. Great. All right. So I'm gonna start with the map, which is actually at the end of my report. I think it gives good context. So this is the site in question. I always remember it as the old paychecks building, cuz that's what was on the side of the building for many years, but it's a four story class B office building about 190,000 square feet in size. It's built in 1986. It's located in your ally five light industrial zone. So on the map, you can see 2 87 running along at south Southern border to the west north. You have some light industrial warehousing, also a self storage facility. And then to these, you have a residential neighborhood. The building itself is about 190,000 square feet in size. And it's surrounded by a parking lot as you can see in access roads. And that's really what constitutes the site. So I'm going to gimme a moment, scroll back up  
Speaker 7     00:08:14    To discuss more about the study area itself, right? So I visited the site on February 3rd of this year to take some photos of the existing conditions. I also did some research into your building permits. And the biggest takeaway I took away from that was that there have been no upgrades to this building, whether it's the saw the operations or the systems, or just improvements in general, since it was built in 1986 only permits that I saw were really for like security upgrades. So by tenants. So I think it's fair to say that it's mainly remained the same since 1986. And I also researched the historical occupancy of the office building and it clearly shows a steady decline since the mid two thousands. The last time this building was fully occupied was 2005. Since that time, the decline has been steady in 2012, it had 60% occupancy. So almost two thirds full. And then the decline continued cuz by 2016 that had gone all the way down to 35%. So dropping to almost a third full and then the pandemic hit. And obviously this kept the occupancy rate under 40%. So the vacancy rate is approximately 60% as of today with only about six tenants in it. So it's definitely underutilized with a lot of vacant space inside.  
Speaker 7     00:09:43    That was the main takeaway. But before I get into the analysis of the in need study criteria, I just wanna touch on the environmental aspects as always. I take a look at NJ web to make sure there's no major environmental concerns. I did not find any, technically this does count as a known contaminated site. I looked into this further and what happened is there's a former in-ground hydraulic lift system that they removed in July, 2019. And when they removed it, they found some small soil contamination that they had to remediate. It has been remediated. It is totally clean, but the record remains. So that is why if you do research, you'll see that it's a no contaminated site, but for the purposes of this study, there's no environmental concerns. And the site is clean, already went over surrounding land uses when I showed you the map.  
Speaker 7     00:10:39    And as I mentioned before, it's in your light industrial five zone, which you are very familiar with. So I'm going to skip down to the bottom of page seven, my report, as you very well know your master plan states that as vacant develop a land diminishes in the Township redevelopment, adaptive reuse efforts will increase and become much more important, particularly within older sections of the Township. And as this site has been around and first developed in 1986 and the residential neighborhood to its east was well before that, I definitely believe this constitutes an older area of the Township that could see some redevelopment. So I believe that this needs study is consistent with your master plan. And as always, since the entirety of Piscataway is in the planning area, one of the state plan policy map, we are consistent with the state planning area classification.  
Speaker 7     00:11:34    So I'm going to jump to page nine, which is where I analyze the study area conditions. So I'm, I'm gonna roll through the photos. But basically what I found was that the parking lot was almost entirely empty. The exterior building did not show any signs of dilapidation or deterioration, but the inside conditions were much different. Lots of signs of vacancy and non-use were found on every floor with the six tenants that I found occupying the building interspersed throughout. So on page 10, I took a couple photos of the parking lot. You can see that it is mostly actually totally empty on this side. So the amount of parking provided is much more than is needed for the number of tenants. And then this is the first floor west side, if you're looking at the front of the building. So as you can see that entire section is vacant and not in use for, by any office tenants. These are more photos of the first floor, which really show the same conditions, you know, totally vacant and not ripped up, but all the amenities have been taken out as the, they don't have any use. And then this is the second floor, very similar condition, only differences that the carpet still remains, but it is totally vacant on both the west and east sides of the second floor.  
Speaker 7     00:13:11    The top photo is the west side of the second floor. And then continuing, this is the third floor. So this is some dilapidation. The roof has obviously, or the drop ceiling has been ripped out and some of the lights are dangling. So that's some deterioration that has been caused. You can also see some of the ceiling tiles falling have fallen off in this vacant spot in the third floor. And really this was, this was kind of the conditions that we saw on every floor when I walked it, you know, big open vacant spaces and then followed by once in a while coming across a occupied space. So this is on the top floor of the fourth floor where tingly rubber has space, but right next door, another big wide open vacant space. So this, these existing conditions that I photographed, obviously coincide with the historical records that I just mentioned about having a over 60% vacancy rate. So that is quite significant in my view. And I think this evidence provided supports criteria B and D of the New Jersey redevelopment and housing law.  
Speaker 7     00:14:22    So B criteria based upon the evidence gathered the building found that the conditions meet the state of qualification of an office park with significant vacancies for at least two consecutive years under the B criteria. It clearly the photos and the historical records clearly show a discontinuous of office use, but more importantly, the significant vacancies throughout the building. And since the vacancy rate at the beginning of 2020 was over 50% and has continued to increase through 2022 that's two consecutive years. And in my opinion, over 50% vacancy is considered significant. So in my professional opinion, the significant vacancy has Cahn existed for over two years, as well as past significant vacancies, such as in 20, but all those together meet the B criteria. So the vacancy tie with the discontinuous and office is evidence that the is by this office building.  
Speaker 7     00:15:29    And then I also found that the D criteria applies here as if you look at the photographic evidence. And even if you look at the aerial of the building, it's this odd design, which kind of creates these dead ends and odd office configurations. And I find this to be an obsolete and falsey layout that would need to be fixed if someone was to come and use this as a modern office space. But more importantly, as we know, COVID 19 turn on a spotlight to, you know, just the ineffectiveness of centralized office space work from home. You know, this zoom meeting is obviously taking place in most of our homes. So has made a lot of these large office buildings and office parks obsolete. This also conclusion is consistent with the sharp downturn nationwide with office space, both before and during the pandemic.  
Speaker 7     00:16:26    Also, as I showed in the photographs, the parking lot is oversized for the number of tenants. So this is excessive land coverage. So altogether the obsolete nature of the office building the excessive land coverage of the parking lot and the overall fault to arrangement means that the study area is obsolete in means criteria D it's detrimental to the general flare of the community because reasonable productivity has worsened resulting in a negative impact on the economic wellbeing of the community. The significant vacancy of office space over a long period is detrimental to the Township because of loss productivity and diminishing land values. So in my professional opinion, the office building and the study area in question meets the de criteria.  
Speaker 7     00:17:14    Also, I found that the study area meets the age criteria, which is the smart growth planning principles criteria. As we mentioned, we are in the states planning area, one we're very close to 2 87. So there's definitely a great opportunity to leverage existing infrastructure, excuse me, which I believe can be sorry, excuse me, which I believe can be leveraged if this does be, if this study area is redeveloped. So in conclusion, I find that the study area meets criteria B for discontinuance of office space and significant vacancy criteria D for excessive land coverage, faulty arrangement, that's detrimental to the Township and criteria H for smart planning principles. So I think I would recommend that this be designated as a study area, sorry, excuse me. As a non condemnation area in need of redevelopment and be considered for redevelopment by the planning board and the Township council that I can take. Any questions.  
Speaker 2     00:18:23    Are there any questions of Mr. Clarken on this matter?  
Speaker 8     00:18:30    Madam chair, it is Councilwoman kale. Hi, Mr. Clarken, how are you?  
Speaker 7     00:18:36    Hi, how are you?  
Speaker 8     00:18:37    Good. I did have a question about this. So you're saying that this building in total has about a 40% occupancy rate right now.  
Speaker 7     00:18:47    Correct.  
Speaker 8     00:18:49    And is paychecks no longer using it at all? Or cause you said there were, yeah, I just tenants or  
Speaker 7     00:18:58    Some, yeah, I just brought paychecks up cuz that's what some people may remember why it was built. Yeah.  
Speaker 8     00:19:02    I know the building.  
Speaker 7     00:19:03    Yeah. They sometime in the mid two thousands, I think they left. I'm not sure exactly when, but some building management company still operates the building. So there, like I said, there were six tenants in total. I don't know all their square footages, but right. Yeah.  
Speaker 8     00:19:28    And you said a building management company is running, is managing the building maintenance, all that stuff.  
Speaker 7     00:19:35    Yeah. So as you said in the photos, the snow plows came in, pushed all the snow for the parking lot. I think that's all, that's obvious that there's some sort of operation, but the significant vacancy, I think is the key, finding that over 50% is vacant.  
Speaker 8     00:19:51    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:19:53    Any other questions from any other members?  
Speaker 6     00:19:55    Madam chair, Reverend Kinneally. Yeah. I looked into this building. I'm familiar with the building because I was interested in that building that one time. And Mr. Clarken and how are you this evening to yourself now? That building I was inside, I got a tour that management company was from Morristown. If I'm correct. And I met with the gentleman and he took me around. It's pretty bad inside from the outside exterior. It looked not too bad, but the interior. Wow. Yeah. Thank you. That's the only comment I have  
Speaker 2     00:20:30    Any other members of the board questions. Okay. Ms. Buckley, can we open it up to the public portion? See if there's any questions.  
Speaker 8     00:20:45    Nobody raised  
Speaker 1     00:20:46    Their hand. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:20:50    Okay. Close to the members of the public. What's the boy's pleasure. Do you have any recommendations? We're trying to raise our hand to speak about the public. Oh, I didn't hear you miss Buckley.  
Speaker 1     00:21:04    There's a way to do it on the bottom. You clicked the hand thing. The wave.  
Speaker 2     00:21:10    Can we see you? Is that you?  
Speaker 9     00:21:20    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:21:22    Would you give your name and your address please?  
Speaker 9     00:21:27    Yeah. My name is Bob Bob Sisk. I'm at 46 35 new Brunswick avenue.  
Speaker 2     00:21:35    Do you have a question?  
Speaker 1     00:21:37    Yes. To get sworn in Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:21:40    Oh miss. Where Ms. Saunders,  
Speaker 4     00:21:47    Can you raise your right hand?  
Speaker 9     00:21:50    Yeah, I okay.  
Speaker 4     00:21:54    You swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 9     00:21:59    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:22:01    Okay. And you can ask your question, sir.  
Speaker 9     00:22:06    Yeah. Mr. Clarken could you explain the, you said the financial productivity is a burden on the Township. Could you explain how a building such as most of the buildings in this town are at least 50% empty? That's a financial burden on the Township.  
Speaker 7     00:22:22    Sure. So as vacancies continue to increase, the productivity is lost. And so the full, the highest and best use of the land is no longer being met. So I find this to be a burden on the Township as there could be better productivity and therefore better, possibly better financial benefits towards the Township.  
Speaker 9     00:22:52    I'm not sure I follow. How, how is the Township losing money if the building isn't full?  
Speaker 7     00:22:59    I understand your question. But I think my argument is, is that office building rates, vacancies are continuing to increase, right? And it looks, looks like the tram will continue. So there are other uses that would be better suited for the land that the Township could capitalize on.  
Speaker 9     00:23:21    What percentage of the buildings in Piscataway would you say are 50% empty?  
Speaker 7     00:23:27    So I did not do an analysis of all properties in the Township, but in the last several years, any office buildings I've looked at, I, I, I would say almost all of them that I've looked at out of a handful were either entirely or mostly.  
Speaker 9     00:23:47    So is it fair to say we could see this trend continuing throughout the town of the, the buildings that are half empty being taken over by the town  
Speaker 7     00:23:58    Taken? I don't quite follow. So  
Speaker 8     00:24:02    Mr. Barlow, could you, I'm sorry, could you jump in and just clarify what redevelopment is. Thank you. Sure.  
Speaker 3     00:24:09    Mr. SIS, nobody's suggesting that the, that the Township is taking over anything. In fact, this is designated a non condemnation. It's just a designation on the property that it is right for redevelopment, based on the testimony of Mr. Clarken, the, the owner of the property, he, he still owns the property and can redevelop it in keeping with any redevelopment plan that might be adopted by the Township. So this is not a situation in any manner that the Township is, you know, taking it over or, or directing what has to happen to it. It's, it's just a mechanism as Mr. Clarken is outlined  
Speaker 8     00:24:56    And Madam chair, if I may, and Mr. Barlow, you could correct me if I'm wrong. And also Mr. Clarken is I think to better clarify why the Township does this is because as you mentioned, Mr. Clarken with office space not be utilized, we U we lose rateables. Is that not correct?  
Speaker 7     00:25:20    Yeah, that is correct.  
Speaker 8     00:25:21    Okay. So the town in essence is losing money because the tax rateables that used to come outta the building when it was more robust and in used would have been much more than what we're getting now and thereby causing what we've come to see in the past, when businesses go out, where residents tend to bear the bigger burden of the tax taxes in town, where when I first moved in right, super robust, we had nine, 11, then slowly from there, things started to happen and the reverse became true, but only in the recent past. And I'm sorry, I don't wanna go on too long. Have we been able to sort of reverse that trend? And I think it's Mr. Sisk just, I'm not the expert here, but I've been on this planning board enough times to know is that when we do this, it reinvigorates the property so that somebody new might be interested in coming in and putting in a building that gives the property owner more mechanisms to attract different types of business. That would be more robust and thereby bring back those tax dollars that in essence were lost because of the vacancies. Is that about right? And correct me if I'm wrong, I don't wanna mislead the resident.  
Speaker 7     00:26:43    No, I think, yeah, I would agree with that. And also I would, I would just tack on that. I mentioned that this is class B office space, and I'm not a real estate agent, so I'm not an expert, but from what I understand, the older, the building and the less amenities or improvements, it has dictates what class of office space it is. So, as I mentioned before, I looked at the records and there's been no improvements. So I think if it continues that way, the quality of the office space will continue to degrade and thereby lowering, lowering the property values.  
Speaker 2     00:27:24    Any other comments from the members of the public?  
Speaker 1     00:27:31    No, one's raising their hand. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:27:34    Okay. Thank you. Ms. Buckley, it's close to the public is one other person he's physically yourself. Mr. Mihill yourself. Mr. Dacey.  
Speaker 10    00:27:46    Yes. Can you hear me?  
Speaker 2     00:27:48    Yes, I can. Would you state your name and Ms. Saunders will swear you in your name and address, please.  
Speaker 10    00:27:53    My name is, and I live next to the property. 46 47, new Brunswick avenue.  
Speaker 1     00:27:59    What's excuse me. What's the address?  
Speaker 10    00:28:01    40, 60, 47 new Brunswick avenue  
Speaker 1     00:28:03    47. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:28:06    Raise your right hand, whether this testimony you're about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 10    00:28:12    I do.  
Speaker 4     00:28:13    Thank you.  
Speaker 10    00:28:17    My question is, okay, go ahead, sir. My, my question is what does the redevelopment means? What are the options? And, and the second question is the owner of the building. Is he, is he like tend to, or is that shown inclination to the redevelopment?  
Speaker 7     00:28:34    Sure. So first, just to clarify, the study that I just presented is actually 1551 south Washington avenue. So that's just next to 2 87 and near the Walmart, but either way, redevelopment opens a number of tools. So, but basically there's a very, not long process, but laid out process in the law. So we're about in like step four. So initially the town council asked the planning board, this board to study the area they hired me to do. So I did this study. I prepared it and showed my findings. So now they're gonna, if they agree with this, they will recommend to the council to designate it as an area in need of redevelopment. And what this does is it opens some development, like a toolbox sort of where, sorry, excuse me. The a redeveloper can be chosen and they can get some benefits or incentives to redevelop the property. So, but before a redeveloper gets selected, you actually have to have a redevelopment plan. And that redevelopment plan will dictate how the site can be redeveloped. Like what kind of use is how big things of that nature. And then can you repeat your second question again, sir?  
Speaker 10    00:29:57    Is, is the owner inclined to redevelopment? Because I, I, what I understand is the owner still owns the property and he, he might do the redevelopment if it's, if the, if the Township suggests,  
Speaker 7     00:30:13    Right. So yeah, the owner could redevelop it. I, I don't know the owner's intentions, but the owner could be selected as the redeveloper  
Speaker 10    00:30:27    And like redevelopment means, is it going to be a commercial or is it can be a residential,  
Speaker 7     00:30:34    Right? So that's where the redevelopment plan comes in, where we really determine what sort of uses can be put on the site. So there will be another hearing just like this at the same board where we'll go over the redevelopment plan when it's ready, assuming, yeah, go ahead.  
Speaker 10    00:30:50    You, you say this is stage number four. So how many next steps are remaining? Like, what are the next steps?  
Speaker 7     00:30:58    So some are procedural. So that's why, but I would say the next major step that you probably would be interested is the redevelopment plan. So there will be a resolution that will go from this board to council. Council will vote on their own resolution and then ask this board to hire someone, to do the redevelopment plan. And then you'll get another notice when the plan goes before this board.  
Speaker 10    00:31:23    And does the immediate neighbors have any say in this redevelopment plan? Like, can we, can we reject any proposal? We, we don't, honestly, we don't want any noisy or anything like public park or any sort of thing next to our homes or a warehouse, for example.  
Speaker 7     00:31:45    Yeah. So I believe at a hearing like this, you'll be able to be heard  
Speaker 3     00:31:49    Just  
Speaker 10    00:31:49    So we, we, we can like, sorry. Yeah,  
Speaker 3     00:31:53    Go ahead. Just so, just so you're aware all this is, is the planning board advising the Township council either. They think the property is in need of redevelopment, or they don't think it's in need of redevelopment. So Mr. Clarken has given his testimony as to why he thinks it should be redeveloped. This board will then vote whether or not they think the council should consider it for redevelopment and will say, yes, we, we heard from Mr. Clarken, we heard from the public, we think that the property is in need of redevelopment, non condemnation. And then the council has to adopt that recommendation or can reject the recommendation or could change the recommendation. And then there'll be a redevelopment plan that they will decide should be done. And then a planner will be hired and he'll write a report as to what he thinks would go well there. And then this board will have another hearing and discuss that plan in more particular. So this is just the step that says, yeah, this property has some problems and issues that under the criteria give rise to a need for redevelopment. And Mr. Clark can laid all that out.  
Speaker 10    00:33:20    Okay. So, so my understanding is Councilman will decide everything. If it's redevelopment, if it's needed or not needed. And after that, what should be done on as a redevelopment plan? It's the residents will have no say or will will there the immediate residents next to the,  
Speaker 3     00:33:42    Well, the residents always have a say, council meetings are open to the public and can be, you know, attended and commented on. And it's, like I said, it's goes back and forth between the planning, the planning board has to review any changes in ordinances or redevelopment. And we just recommend, wait, the board recommends to the council. Yes, it's in need of redevelopment. And then the council is the governing body that, that will ultimately decide that. So as Mr Clarken said, there's other steps in this process, no one is here today to say it should be a, this, or it should be a that it's just, it should be something better than it is.  
Speaker 10    00:34:25    Okay. We live next to 2 87. We have enough of 2 87 noise. We don't want anything more. No. Is it more noisy things on our property besides our property? That's my only concern here. And I dunno whether we will, my concern was issue. We will be having a say in, in this decision. That's why I'm here.  
Speaker 3     00:34:46    Understood  
Speaker 11    00:34:48    Tom, if I may it's Dawn Corcoran. I also wanna just say that in addition to, you know, this presentation on the area need study, there will also be a presentation on a redevelopment plan. There will also, even if the redevelopment plan is adopted, whomever, whomever's gonna come forward with a project still needs to reappear or come to this board once again for site plan approval. So there are many opportunities for this board to hear the public's Cahn comments, concerns, and so forth.  
Speaker 3     00:35:20    As Mr. Clark said, we're like four of possibly 12, 13 steps. And none of this step has nothing to do with what might go there. It just has to do with, could it be used better?  
Speaker 10    00:35:33    Right? So, so just outta curiosity, how much time does 12 or 13 steps stay usually with, with all the histories you have?  
Speaker 3     00:35:42    I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question,  
Speaker 10    00:35:44    Sir. So like we are, we are the step number four, but usually how much time it takes from step going from step four to step step 12, which is the end of the redevelopment plan. Usually two years, three years, five years,  
Speaker 3     00:36:00    It could take that long. It, it, it really depends. I mean, somebody has to, at the end of the day, someone has to be willing to invest the money in a re in the redevelopment project. So nobody, you know, you can't force someone to, to development. You can just provide them tools to, to perhaps make a more beneficial use of the property. So it, it's not happening next week or next month, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a long process on purpose.  
Speaker 10    00:36:29    My question was only because I want to know how many peaceful years I have living next to the three development. That's why.  
Speaker 3     00:36:36    Understood. Thank you, sir.  
Speaker 2     00:36:41    Thank you. Are there any other questions from the public hearing? No one say anything and I don't see any hands  
Speaker 1     00:36:51    Nobody's been raising their hands anyway. So I don't.  
Speaker 2     00:36:54    Thank you. This portion of the meeting is now closed to the public board members. Let me have your desires on this particular discussion.  
Speaker 1     00:37:11    A  
Speaker 2     00:37:11    Motion, someone wanna make a motion as to whether this is an area in need of development that should then we'll have to do a resolution.  
Speaker 11    00:37:19    Matt, Madam chair, Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a recommendation to council that the property be considered a non condemnation area. Need of redevelopment,  
Speaker 2     00:37:31    Or do I have a second?  
Speaker 1     00:37:32    Madam Madam chair of Reverend Kinneally I'll second. That motion.  
Speaker 2     00:37:37    Oh, call please.  
Speaker 1     00:37:38    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran.  
Speaker 11    00:37:45    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:37:46    Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Ms. Espinosa.  
Speaker 9     00:37:52    I'm sorry. Ms. Buckley. So, so I was had, I had some technical difficulty with, so I'm back on the cam and my mic is working now. So I, I think that for the, probably 30% of it, I was not able to hear  
Speaker 1     00:38:07    You then. Okay. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 2     00:38:11    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:38:14    Six. Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:38:16    Okay. You wanna  
Speaker 3     00:38:18    The resolution? Madam chair?  
Speaker 2     00:38:21    Yes. Ms. Miss Ms. Saunders, do you have a copy of the resolution, Ms.  
Speaker 3     00:38:33    You're Mike.  
Speaker 4     00:38:34    Okay. I'm looking. I'm not,  
Speaker 1     00:38:37    I mailed it to you and I emailed it to you twice.  
Speaker 4     00:38:40    Okay. Hold on. I gotta pull it up cause I gotta go back and forth.  
Speaker 2     00:38:56    Okay. You unmuted it  
Speaker 1     00:38:58    Mute.  
Speaker 4     00:38:58    Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:39:00    I'm no, it's on the screen and she's muted. I don't know whether  
Speaker 4     00:39:04    No I'm on the phone.  
Speaker 1     00:39:05    No, she's on the phone. She's  
Speaker 2     00:39:06    Good. Oh, okay. All  
Speaker 4     00:39:07    Right. Oh yeah. Yeah. Cuz I, I couldn't do my computer. Won't allow me to do both. Okay. I like to marginalize the resolution designation of noncom donation area in need of redevelopment for south Washington avenue.  
Speaker 2     00:39:24    Go. I have a second, a second re call  
Speaker 1     00:39:30    Mayor. Wahler yes. Excuse me. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran. Yes. Ms.  
Speaker 4     00:39:38    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:39:39    Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 7     00:39:40    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:39:43    And Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:39:44    Yes. Thank you. Item number 11. Discussion area in need of study for redevelopment for block 17 0 1 2 0 3 41. New Brunswick  
Speaker 7     00:40:01    Switching. Right? Switching gears, James Parker, once again at foresight planning for 4,100 new Brunswick Ave. So I have the map of the site in, in front of you all. It's at the end of my report, if you are looking at my report. So this is a lot it's the one in red is the one in question, the study area it's 11.7 acres in size. It's located in, in your M dash five manufacturing zone. This is actually in the Northern Northeastern part of the Township. In fact, South Plainfield is right across the street to the east on that vacant lot on here is a building a hundred thousand square feet in size. And it is about approximately one to two stories depending on where you are in the building. And then it is surrounded as you can see by a vast parking lot, much larger than probably needed.  
Speaker 7     00:41:01    It was originally built in 1967 and is currently home to someone called trans packer solutions. I'll get into the use first, but I'm gonna go up to this one. So I just wanna know, you can see the back building, which is the two story part. This was in addition many years or several years ago for taller equipment, but I'll get into that. But this is the site in question, this is a non combination area need of redevelopment study. I conducted the site as a, also on February 3rd to document the existing conditions and I will go into what I found. So yeah, so really the main use is a warehouse and distribution facility with a small office area within it.  
Speaker 7     00:41:54    And sorry, I lost my place. Here we go. So yeah, the building is currently owned and operated by trans Packers services corporation. So they operate this warehouse and distribution use on the property. And basically what happens is, is they receive raw materials such as bulk powdered food or drink ingredients. And then they actually take these raw ingredients and blend them in production rooms for a final blended product, which is then placed to packaging and re-shifted out to its clients. So really materials are coming in. They're blending them, shipping them back out. So the main component of the facility is the warehouse distribution center or section, which is probably like 96,000 square feet, which so it's the bulk of the facility. And then in the front, the part that fronts new Brunswick avenue is actually 3000 square feet. That's the office and there's only one floor. So the large warehouse like structure holds 18 production rooms where they do the production of these blended materials. Then you have loading docks in the back, there's storage throughout for the materials and products as well as blending equipment. I did mention that taller part, you'll see a picture it's taller blending equipment. And so that's why the, the roof is higher.  
Speaker 12    00:43:17    Give me a call back.  
Speaker 7     00:43:21    So as always to transition to the environmental piece, I took a look to see if there are any things of concern. I did not find any, there are wetlands in the forested area to the west, but nothing that's actually on the property. And then also to the west is the formal Keal site. So this was a, it's a known contaminated site. So I believe it's gone through remediation, but it does not appear that any of the contamination from that site has shifted over to this study area. So yeah, so surrounding land areas or sorry, excuse me. Surrounding uses. I know I mentioned the vacant site to the east, to the north. There's a storage facility as well as some residential areas to the west as the formal camps site and then to the south is more light industrial commercial and also the stop and shop.  
Speaker 7     00:44:22    So this part of my report is just the M five zoning classification standard. So I won't go through those. I will touch on the master plan perspective. Once again, they can develop a land diminishes in the Township. Redevelopment will become more important and increase particular within older sections of the Township. As I mentioned, this area was originally developed in 1967. The Keal site was built probably around them, but has been demolished. So it's definitely an older section of the Township that I think could benefit from redevelopment efforts. This in need study is consistent with the state planning policy map.  
Speaker 7     00:45:05    So I will shift to the photos that I took and go over an analysis of the conditions. So on these two photos can show the interior spaces so that blue partition is actually a production room. They can move these around as they need for whatever services they need to provide on the right is storage. So it's somewhat typical warehousing storage. These are the loading docks, some more storage. These are, this is the two story tall blending equipment I was talking about in the rear of the pro of the building. And this is an example of a production room and these are the offices. So as you can see, it's an operating facility and business, but in terms of, in need of redevelopment, I really wanna focus on the site overall. So as we look outside, we can start to see the scale and the size of the overall property and how a vast majority of it is impervious or paved surfaces that are just underutilized or not really needed at all. So this is this photo on the bottom here is to the, I guess, north of the building. And this is where employees and customers park. So it's really not very fall. As you can see, there's way more parking than they probably would ever need for this facility. So the rest is underutilized, unused, paved pavement. And I think this one is probably one of the better ones. This just shows the sheer size of the unnecessary pavement and there's really no use for it. Hmm.  
Speaker 7     00:47:07    And I confirmed this with the business owner. So all of these outdoor spaces that they need are really close to the building. You know, they have their dumpster, they have their loading docks in their rear. There's no extra outdoor storage that they need. There's no like, you know, queuing of trucks that need to use this space. It's just all just kind of sitting there and being and underutilized. So, and I think this evidence really lends itself to showing that criteria D of the redevelopment housing law applies to this property. So really the reasoning for that is the extra I purpose surface is overwhelming an amount. It has no or benefit to the current operation or to the Township. And in my view, it's excessive and excessive land coverage really on top of that, it's a faulty arrangement due to the unused pavement. There's no need for it to be that big.  
Speaker 7     00:48:05    As I mentioned, a small amount of the parking lot is actively used close to the building and for parking, but the rest is unnecessary. And in my view, negatively increases stormwater runoff and is an undesirable characteristic. So, and, and so in summation, these observe conditions contribute to an obsolete study area in particular obsolete, land layout, excessive land coverage, and faulty arrangement. That's detrimental to the general welfare of the community because full economic productivity is lost. On top of that. The storm water quantity is increased that has to flow off the impervious services to any nearby streams. And also the storm water quality is degraded. So taking this together, I think this results in a negative impact on the economic and environmental wellbeing of the Township and it meets the de criteria and is in need of redevelopment. I also found that the age criteria, the smart growth planning principles also apply as it is relatively close, I think less than a mile to 27. And there's also other development in the area where existing infrastructure can be leveraged if it is indeed redeveloped. So in summation, I recommend that the planning board and council determine that the study area is in area in need of redevelopment, non condemnation, because it means criteria D and H of the, of the statute  
Speaker 7     00:49:38    And yeah. And a survey and analysis of block 17, 0 1 lot 2.03 revealed the parcels obsolete nature that is detrimental to Township. So with that, I can take any questions,  
Speaker 2     00:49:54    Any questions from the boards for Mr. Clarken?  
Speaker 8     00:49:58    Yes. Madam chair. It's Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Thank you so much. So, Mr. Clarken you mentioned that with the amount of impervious land that the negative impact because of it has increased stormwater runoff, but was it, how long has that impervious land been there? Has it always had this issue? Like what is, what is, what is increasing that storm water runoff?  
Speaker 7     00:50:34    So it's just the, so it's just, it can't naturally percolate through the ground. Right? It has to run off the parking lot into the closest soil it can find, or maybe a local tributary. So really was that  
Speaker 8     00:50:50    Defect, was there a, I mean, I, I don't understand then, like this, this issue had to have always existed then. Yeah. From when they put this lot in,  
Speaker 7     00:51:01    Yeah. I looked at some older aerial photos and they don't go back that far, cuz this was built in 1967. Only found some good ones until like the nineties, but it was always like this with the large parking lot. Yeah. So usually there's storm water management, but that helps, but it's just really, I think what I'm getting at is the unnecessary amount of impervious surface.  
Speaker 8     00:51:33    Okay. So based upon this particular de criteria, which was the focus, I mean most of the focus of what you spoke about yeah. Then it would feel to me like the idea here is to have less imper impervious.  
Speaker 7     00:51:54    Yeah. I think, like I said, it's like aithal arrangement. It could be improved with, you could utilize more of the site while still reducing impervious surface with modern development techniques.  
Speaker 3     00:52:15    Yeah.  
Speaker 8     00:52:17    A reduced parking lot size. Is that what essentially?  
Speaker 7     00:52:22    Yeah. I mean, I mean the building could be larger, but I think there's a better way to arrange the land than currently exists today.  
Speaker 3     00:52:31    Okay. Yeah. I can't miss Councilman kale who, who knows what the, the land use ordinances looked like in 1967,  
Speaker 7     00:52:40    Right. There probably wasn't even storm water.  
Speaker 3     00:52:43    We we've come a long way, especially with storm water runoff. That that would clearly be a focus of this. You'd have the board engineer and the board planner looking for something that removes that sea of asphalt, you know, and keep the water on site as opposed to running offsite, which is obviously a detrimental condition. So trying to update it 54 years later.  
Speaker 8     00:53:13    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:53:15    Any other questions from the board of Mr. Clarken hearing no questions from the board Ms. Buckley, would you check and see if there are any questions I'm I'm I'm gonna open it to the public, that being so would you look and see if there are many, any members of the public that have questions for Mr.  
Speaker 1     00:53:37    Clark? Yes. Brian RA has his hand up.  
Speaker 2     00:53:40    Okay. Mr. Dacey. I would you  
Speaker 3     00:53:44    Yeah, sure. Brian rack 1247 Brookside road.  
Speaker 2     00:53:47    Okay. Ms. Saunders, go ahead.  
Speaker 4     00:53:53    Can you please raise your right hand?  
Speaker 3     00:53:55    Yeah.  
Speaker 4     00:53:57    Where did the testimony about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 3     00:54:00    Yes. Thank you. So my question was, you had mentioned that there were no wetlands on this property, but I'm looking at New Jersey geo web and it definitely shows there's wetlands on the property. So,  
Speaker 7     00:54:14    So I believe when I looked it was on the property edge.  
Speaker 3     00:54:19    Yeah. I mean it's unlike, but I don't  
Speaker 7     00:54:21    Recall or okay. So I think what I meant to say is that it was not on the developed portion of the property. Okay. So like where the parking lot starts. So yeah. So there are minor wetlands on the property itself, but not with like the  
Speaker 3     00:54:43    Developed area. Yeah. Okay. That was it. Thanks.  
Speaker 2     00:54:46    Yep. No problem. Thank you. Any other members of the public have any questions for Mr. Clarken?  
Speaker 1     00:54:51    Do you have any questions, please raise your hand so we can see you guys  
Speaker 2     00:54:55    Or press the button because some people's thing is covered.  
Speaker 1     00:55:00    That's what I'm saying. They hit a button and it weaves there's no one else. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:55:06    Okay. Close to the public board members may let me have your feelings on this discussion.  
Speaker 1     00:55:18    Madam  
Speaker 11    00:55:21    Chair, Dawn Corcoran. Again, I'd like to make a recommendation to the council that this property be designated as a non condemnation area in need redevelopment.  
Speaker 2     00:55:33    Do I have a second  
Speaker 4     00:55:35    Saunders  
Speaker 2     00:55:37    Call please?  
Speaker 1     00:55:38    Mayor Wahler Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran.  
Speaker 11    00:55:46    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:55:47    Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 3     00:55:50    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:55:50    Mr. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:55:54    Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clarken item number 12 on our agenda tonight. I believe we  
Speaker 3     00:56:01    Have a resolution for that.  
Speaker 2     00:56:02    Yes. Oh, we do have, sorry. We have a resolution.  
Speaker 4     00:56:05    Madam Chairman. I like to the resolution for designation of non Cahn combination area in need of redevelopment for  
Speaker 2     00:56:14    Second. You have a second  
Speaker 3     00:56:17    Kinneally I'll second  
Speaker 1     00:56:20    Mayor. Mayor. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Za. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:56:34    Yes. Thank you. Item number 1222, phoe 0 9 90 Hancock road, LLC, for a major final subdivision. And Mr. Dacey.  
Speaker 13    00:56:49    Good evening. Madam chair, Richard of the, forgive me. I'm losing my voice. We're here with  
Speaker 2     00:56:58    I to hold on just a few more minutes.  
Speaker 13    00:57:01    I will do here with my client Patrick Callahan and our engineer bill lane. I believe we've met all the conditions of preliminary approval and our engineers available to answer any questions of the board or to present any findings or any aspects of the subdivision we're seeking approval for four single building lot.  
Speaker 0     00:57:28    Madam  
Speaker 11    00:57:29    Chair. If I may it's Dawn just wanted to confirm that the applicant as Mr. Dacey has stated has met all of the conditions of their preliminary approval.  
Speaker 2     00:57:43    Okay. That being so does, do we have any other questions from the board or can I open it to the public?  
Speaker 1     00:57:54    We can open it to the public manager.  
Speaker 2     00:57:57    All right. Does anyone in the public have any questions of Mr. Elli for this property? You see any response?  
Speaker 1     00:58:10    No. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:58:14    Okay. You have the application before you members of the board. What is your recommendation?  
Speaker 0     00:58:22    Madam  
Speaker 11    00:58:23    Chair, Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application for final major subdivision approval.  
Speaker 2     00:58:32    I have a second.  
Speaker 13    00:58:33    Madam chair, Reverend Kinneally I'll second.  
Speaker 2     00:58:36    Thank you,  
Speaker 1     00:58:38    Mayor. Wahler yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Miss Corcoran.  
Speaker 11    00:58:43    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:58:44    A Saunders.  
Speaker 0     00:58:45    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:58:46    Reverend Kinneally yes. Espinosa. Yes. And Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     00:58:52    Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:58:54    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     00:58:55    Thank you, Mr. Manly,  
Speaker 13    00:58:57    Have a good evening.  
Speaker 2     00:58:58    You too.  
Speaker 1     00:58:59    You too.  
Speaker 2     00:59:01    Item number 1321, PB 34 slash 35 V in 40 circle drive north LLC for preliminary and final site plan.  
Speaker 14    00:59:15    Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you. Members of the, of the board and board professionals. My name Tim arch. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of new New Jersey and I'm here representing one 40 circle drive north LLC. We are here today seeking preliminary and final site plan approval. We're seeking to add approximately 54,000 square feet. A warehouse exist, addition to an existing warehouse building. It is in the I five zone and there are three variances that we are seeking. Number one is the number of parking spaces. Your ordinance requires 334. We are proposing 101 which includes 14 land bank spaces. And then there are two variances related to a free standing sign. The purpose of the addition is to bring in a second tenant for that property and having two tenants. Your ordinance only restricts us to one freestanding sign. We're requesting two freestanding signs. The existing freestanding sign is 39.5 feet from the right of way. We want the second one to be consistent with that. And so that requires a variance as well. Some brief housekeeping. I would just ask Mr. Barlow, if we are properly venued and noticed in front of the board tonight.  
Speaker 3     01:00:44    Yes. Notice ISAR order and the board has jurisdiction. Mr. Our  
Speaker 14    01:00:48    Thank you, Mr. Barlow. I do have several reports. I have a DNR report dated November 24th, 2021, a CME report that was revised July 1st, 2022. Mr. Stein's report dated November 23rd, 2021, a fire marshal approval dated October, 2021 and a D P w report indicating no comment. That was in November of 2021. I don't believe there are any. And of course, miss Corcoran's recitations the variances as well. I don't believe there's any other reports. I would just ask that those are the only reports that the board has.  
Speaker 3     01:01:29    Those are all the reports. Ms.  
Speaker 14    01:01:31    Thank you, Mr. Barlow. I will. And I also wanna know just for the, just on the, on the outset, we will certainly be complying with the, the state EV requirements. We will certainly be replying complying with the solar ready requirements as well. The only reason that they weren't included in our initial submission is cuz believe it or not, this was actually submitted before those laws were in effect. So that's the reason that they weren't initially mentioned in our initial plans, but we will certainly add those and comply with those. In addition, all those reports, we can indicate that we will also comply with all of the, the comments in those reports. There's significant site improvement comments, and we are happy to comply with all those. So without any further ado, I do have four witnesses tonight. I would like to get to my first, which is Brian ENS, our engineer. And I would ask that he come forward to be sworn in, to give testimony,  
Speaker 4     01:02:35    Raise your right hand, whether the testimony about to give the truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 15    01:02:44    I do.  
Speaker 14    01:02:48    Mr. Enni, if you can please just let the board know for whom you work for, if you are licensed at the state of New Jersey and if you've appeared in front of this board in the past.  
Speaker 15    01:03:00    Yes. So I graduated from N J T with a bachelor's in civil engineering. I've been with Bullard engineering for approximately 11 years. The business address is 30 independence Boulevard, suite 200 in Warren, New Jersey. Oh 7 0 5 9. And I've been a professional engineer for the last seven years. My license is current and I have testified in front of this board before.  
Speaker 14    01:03:24    Thank  
Speaker 2     01:03:24    You. Thank you. He's he's acceptable to the board.  
Speaker 14    01:03:27    Thank you, Madam chair, Brian, if you can, you've had an opportunity to, to look at the site to work on the, the proposal tonight. If you can please just take us through what we're proposing and, and give us the benefit of your, your engineering expertise.  
Speaker 15    01:03:45    Certainly. And I can share my screen, correct. Great. Let me know if you see, you should see an aerial image.  
Speaker 1     01:03:57    Yes, we see it.  
Speaker 15    01:03:58    So I think we we'll mark this as a one. It's an aerial exhibit dated today prepared by bowler and for reference north is to the top of the page. So kind of to summarize existing conditions. The site is one 40 circle drive north it's block 41 0 1 lot three on mat 41. The lot size is a little under eight acres at 7.585 and is located in the I five light industrial zone where warehouse is a permitted use just to kind of summarize some of the adjacent uses. It's surrounded to the north by the port Reddington railroad main line to the west by an industrial building to the south by circle, drive north with some development going on beyond and to the east, by another industrial warehouse building. I would also like to note that the, and I'll go into a little bit more detail later on, but this development does share a driveway with the development to the east and as part of the preparation and kind of getting ready for this hearing, there has been an easement negotiated between the two parties to make sure that that shared access drive is legally represented on each end, the existing site, as it stands today, consists of an existing warehouse loading area to the east parking lot to the what I'll call the Southwest of the existing building.  
Speaker 15    01:05:29    The building itself square footage wise is a hundred thousand 94 square feet. There are two driveways and I'm gonna zoom in a little bit more just so you can kind of see there's two driveways one to the west, and that is basically access to the car parking area. And then one to the east where it's the shared driveway with the adjacent industrial building. And that provides access to both buildings, loading areas. There is a 10 foot waterline easement that runs along the Eastern property line and the railroad tracks, again, run to the north here, having run through that. I'm gonna pull up what I'd like to mark at as a two exhibit a two. And this is basically the site layout plan sheet C dash 3 0 1. It's the same plan that was included in the package submitted to the board, but this is colorized for presentation purposes.  
Speaker 15    01:06:24    And the date of this specific exhibit is July 8th, 2022, as we mentioned previously, the proposed development. And again, I'm just gonna zoom in a little bit more on the development itself. The proposed development of this site will include a warehouse edition of approximately 54,213 square feet. In addition to the existing hundred thousand square feet that currently exists today, proposed improvements consists of the expansion of the parking area, which I'll get into a little bit more detail later on new concrete loading area, which is just to the east of the adjacent or what I I'll call the new portion of the building. The expansion. There are storm water management facilities to buy our retention basins located along the frontage of the property and landscaping and lighting, which I'll also go into a little bit more detail as part of this application. Nine loading spaces are proposed, as you can see Stripe just to the east of the warehouse edition, the concrete is proposed and the darker shaded pavement area is what is being constructed as part of this, as well as previously mentioned by Mr.  
Speaker 15    01:07:36    Arch, the applicant has agreed to install the four, make ready spaces as required by law. They will be located and I'll zoom in a little bit more in the bottom left or the Southwest corner of the proposed parking lot. As you can see, there currently are three spaces right now we will be adding a fourth as mentioned in the professionals letters. In addition, there was a question and comment about sidewalk along the frontage that is shown on this rendering that you see before you as well. The proposed layout is currently going through fire official review, and we will certainly work with him to make sure all comments are satisfied. And in addition to that, the application is a major development as defined by the NJ D E P as it is increasing impervious and the limited disturbances over an acre. I am able to let you know that the proposed development, as you see before you does meet all requirements of the 2021 green infrastructure, N J D E P regulations.  
Speaker 15    01:08:39    And again, there's two bio retention basins located on the front with significant landscaping. And again, these basins are designed to meet not only the quality, but the quantity requirements of the NJ, D E P as previously mentioned, there are actually no variances needed for bulk. So all setbacks and coverage are met and within the allowable limits of the code. And in addition, there was the comment that was mentioned earlier about the solar. And again, the applicant will be complying with state law, as it stands today, in terms of parking, there are 334 parking spaces required by code, and that's based on the approximately 145,000 square feet of warehouse and an additional 8,000 plus of office. A portion of this parking lot is being demolished to construct the addition as you see before you. But in addition to that, we will be increasing the total parking.  
Speaker 15    01:09:40    So as of today, the, the development has 70 total parking spaces. After the proposed development, there will be 101 proposed parking spaces. And that includes 14 land baked spaces as well, which are located along the Western property line here. So you can kind of see there's some dash line work here. And basically these are being banked in case that additional parking is ever needed. We just wanted to demonstrate that we can add them. However, the application has shown before you, we don't believe these spaces are needed. So we prefer to have extra landscaping on site, as it currently stands today, as mentioned previously, there is a variance needed for parking spaces. Again, we are proposing 101 spaces, 14 of those land banked, and by code 334 are required. There will be some additional testimony in terms of that requirement and the variance we're seeking by the traffic consultant later this evening, the other two or the last two, I should say, variances associated with this application are in terms of freestanding signage.  
Speaker 15    01:10:48    So today I'll zoom in again, to at the Western driveway, there's an existing freestanding sign. It's set back approximately 39.5 feet from the right of way where 50 feet is required. The proposed sign will have the same setback. So 39.5 feet. And that will also be located at the Eastern driveway. So essentially a little bit more of a symmetrical feel to the signage and the proposed sign will need a variance for setback. Again, 39.5, where 50 is required. And the fact that we are proposing a second sign is a variance that needs relief in itself. The proposed sign will meet all other height area requirements and final signage will be provided to the Township. As a tenant is confirmed to kind of go into a little bit more detail of the circulation. Again, there's two separate driveways. The Western driveway is more for smaller vehicles and cars that are accessing the parking lot.  
Speaker 15    01:11:50    So you would essentially enter on the Western driveway from circle drive north. And at that point you can circulate the parking area, the wider driveway, which is the one to the east. And again, this is shared, and now there is an easement in place with the adjacent property owner. This is where trucks will turn in and it'll access, not only the existing loading area, but the proposed loading area. And also some loading docks on the adjacent building in terms of landscaping. Our development focus is essentially within where the proposed expansion is happening, as well as the parking lot 40 trees that are three inch caliber greater are proposed to be removed. 99. Total trees are being preserved on site. The proposed plantings include 11 shade trees over a hundred shrubs and a mixture of ornamental and perennials as well. 29 additional trees are owed by code for tree replacement.  
Speaker 15    01:12:47    As part of this application, we were proposing a payment in lieu of the additional plantings, the planting specifically associated with the bow retention basin or the two bio retention basins, which again are along the frontage in between the building and circle drive north itself. There's over a hundred shrubs in this as well as a mixture of ornamental grasses, our office and the applicant is working with a Township landscape architect to ma maximize replacement trees planted as part of the development, as well as meeting storm water requirements and working through the payment in lieu of the final trees for replacement. And again, no waivers or variances are needed in terms of any of the landscaping or buffer requirements in terms of lighting. What's actually proposed is again, just focused in the area of development. There's a one single head pole located at the Southern end, where my cursor is of the proposed car parking lot, one double fixture head located again, where my cursor is right in the middle of the proposed parking lot. And then three wall mounted lights. There's a couple on the Western side, which faces the car parking. And then one that faces the non proposed loading docs as part of the expansion.  
Speaker 15    01:14:06    I believe I hit on all my direct. I can certainly go through some of the letters in more detail if I didn't work them into the testimony.  
Speaker 14    01:14:16    Thank you, Brian. I think what I think maybe the best, most efficient use would be to just allow for any questions at this point. And if there's any specific questions that need to be asked, they can be directed towards you  
Speaker 2     01:14:30    Members of the board. Does anyone have any questions of this particular witness?  
Speaker 8     01:14:39    Madam chair, Councilwoman, just, just to confirm that the retention basins are already there, is that correct? Or is that some, will there be additional work done in that area?  
Speaker 15    01:14:54    These are proposed by retention  
Speaker 8     01:14:56    Basins. They are proposed  
Speaker 15    01:14:58    Yeah. Brand new proposed to meet the requirements for the expansion and all new planting within those basins.  
Speaker 8     01:15:04    Okay. Thank you very much.  
Speaker 15    01:15:07    No  
Speaker 2     01:15:07    Problem. Anyone else on the board have any questions? Oh, hearing no response briefly. I'd like miss Buckley. I'd share.  
Speaker 16    01:15:16    Yes. Just one comment. Oh, okay, go ahead. This is the, this, this is Ron reson here. This is the first application that is post. So the solar ready. I think that going forward the, as long as they attest to that, that they'll meet it. And as Mr arts said in the beginning is sufficient. This is one that's open to interpretation because the solar ready says a hundred thousand square foot warehouse. It doesn't say if it's new or, you know, this is a 41,000 square foot edition. I think it's just highly appropriate that going forward, this particular, the solar ready that as long as they say, they'll, they'll, they'll conform to the requirements that that could be Cahn condition of approval.  
Speaker 14    01:16:02    Thank you. And, and actually just to piggyback on that, we actually have a request for a written opinion letter to New Jersey DCA to give us some direction on when you have a situation like this, where it's an expansion where it's an existing building, new construction, how that law is gonna be applied. So we'll certainly comply, but thank you for that comment.  
Speaker 16    01:16:22    Yeah. And I caught a big typo there because I had, because I was actually quite frankly, I was going on vacation for 4th of July week. And I said, I forgot this all already. And this is an older application I had to put it on. Thank you for acknowledging our letter. There's a big typo there, but you, you got our gist just, just confirm, you know, just confirm. And you did so. Thank, thank you very much. Thank  
Speaker 2     01:16:43    You. Thank you, Mr. Renison. Any other comments from the board or questions from the board? Madam  
Speaker 8     01:16:48    Chair. I'm sorry. Care. I just wanted to clarify because some people may not who are listening and may not understand the, the payment in lieu of planting is that the plantings will still be done just in another part of the town and the Township will be responsible for care of that planting and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Barlow or Dawn on that piece.  
Speaker 11    01:17:15    No, you are correct.  
Speaker 2     01:17:18    Okay. Any other questions from the board? Thank you, Ms. Buckley, do you see anyone who's wish open to the public? Is there anyone in the public that would like to ask questions of this witness?  
Speaker 3     01:17:33    And just as to his testimony on the engineering aspects, there will be other witnesses that will testify  
Speaker 2     01:17:38    As just to that, right? No. I'm seeing no response from the, from the public we'll close. It's close to the public. Mr. Archie may proceed.  
Speaker 14    01:17:48    Thank you. My next witness is Mr. Pauling. He's our traffic consultant.  
Speaker 4     01:17:55    Mr. Go, can you please raise your right hand? Yep. You swear that the testimony about to give you truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 6     01:18:02    I  
Speaker 4     01:18:03    Thank you,  
Speaker 14    01:18:06    Mr. If you can, please let us know your credentials and if you've ever testified in front of this board in the past.  
Speaker 6     01:18:15    Sure. My name is Paul ING. The last name is G O I N G. Just like the word going. I'm a 1993 graduate of Cooper union for the advancement of science and art, where I earned a bachelor of engineering degree in civil engineering. That time I've been working as a and transportation engineer. I'm licensed as a professional engineer here in New Jersey, as well as other states. And I've previously accepted throughout New Jersey, including here away.  
Speaker 2     01:18:48    Thank you. He may testify that he's acceptable to the board.  
Speaker 14    01:18:51    Thank you Mr. Going. I understand that you've had an opportunity to look into the potential traffic impacts of the site. If you can, please just let us know what you found.  
Speaker 6     01:19:02    Sure. My office, we prepared a traffic statement. It's dated October 26th, 2022. It was submitted to the board, basically the site's about eight acres, 7.8 acres. It's on circle drive north it's in an industrial park surgical drive north in zero sex with possum town road, just to the west of the site. And from Poon town, you have access to and from I 2 87, the site's developed with about a hundred thousand square feet of warehouse. We have the two separate driveways that's previously discussed with passenger cars on the Westly side of the building and the tractor trailers on the easterly side, the post project is 54,000 square foot expansion. So that's about that's 54% of, of the existing building. The existing driveways we maintained as was pre previously testified. Sidewalks will be added. And the parking supply for passenger cars will remain on the westerly side of the building.  
Speaker 6     01:20:09    It'll be expanded to 87 stalls. Plus the 14 land bank stalls, as previously mentioned, eight additional loading docks would be added on the easterly side of the building. And the first thing we looked at for this project was how much traffic can be expected to be generated by the new square footage. So traffic engineers typically use a publication called trip generation. It's published by the Institute of transportation engineers for it. And this is a publication that has data for, for traffic generation for many different land uses, including warehouses and it's from data that's collected all over the country for warehouses. The, it actually gives us the ability to, to get a breakdown of truck trips versus passenger car trips, which is, which is useful. So using the data from the it, we calculated peak hour trips for the morning peak hour in the evening peak hour for the proposed expansion that would generate 30 additional weekday morning, peak hour trips.  
Speaker 6     01:21:22    Those, those are two way trips. So it that's 15 in or 15 out, or it might not be split 50 50, but that that's the total in and out. And one of those is expected to be a truck in the weekday evening. We calculate 33 peak hour trips, two of which would be trucks. So it's really a low generator, low traffic generator, an increase of fewer than 100 peak hour trips is not considered significant by the it or N J D O T. So our project is well under that threshold and on that basis, it's my conclusion that the project would not result in a significant negative impact on area traffic moving on to parking. So the, the town code requires one stall per 500 square feet of warehouse floor area, plus one stall for every 200 square feet of office space in the warehouse using those rates in the current condition, 219 parking stalls are required and as was previously testified, there are 70 stalls there now. So we're currently 149 stalls deficient, which is 68%. The proposed project would increase the number of parking stalls to 101 that includes the 14 land bank stalls. And that includes the four make ready EV spaces as well. The additional warehouse and floor area in office floor area, and the expansion would increase our parking requirement to 234 stalls. So we're requesting a 233 stall variance, which is 70%. So we're, we're going from a 68% deficiency that we have today to a, a slightly higher deficiency at 70%.  
Speaker 6     01:23:13    So the, the town's requirement for warehouses is, is quite high compared to what's needed in the industry. I used another it publication it's called parking generation, and that's a compendium of parking demand rates observed at different land uses it sites all across, across the country, based on the it data. The average peak parking demand for warehousing is a rate of 0.39 stalls per thousand square feet, which is equal to one per 2,564 square feet. So the, the ordinance requirement is one per 500 square feet. So that's, that's actually five times higher than the it rate.  
Speaker 6     01:24:06    Why is it different? My opinion is that we've had technological advances. Warehousing does not require as many employees as it once did due to automation and, and other technological advances in the industry. So warehouses today really don't need as much parking using that it rate. I calculate peak demand for the site at 60 stalls. And that's for the, you know, the full site, 154,000 square feet. So the 88 87 stalls or 101, if you include the land bank, stalls is expected to be more than sufficient for the use. Mr. Go, did you say that the peak demand would be 60? What? 60, 60. 60. Okay. Thank you. No problem.  
Speaker 14    01:25:01    Thank you, Mr. Go. If you have nothing else, I believe you're available for questioning.  
Speaker 2     01:25:06    Yes. Thank you. Any members of the board? Do you have any questions of Mr. Going hearing? No answer. I I'd like to open the  
Speaker 16    01:25:18    Madam chair. This is Ron Raj Goomer Sy the best I, I just, the testimony was that they were gonna put in four make ready. The plans showed that they were gonna install originally in compliance with the Township ordinance three EV actual active stations. So I just wanna get clarifications. Are you gonna install three EV active EVs E active and one make ready, which will be ADA compliant.  
Speaker 14    01:25:52    So I'll have to confer with my, with my client, which I'll do during, during additional testimony. I do know that Levin management, who, who is the, the owner of the site. I know they have a EV rollout I believe, program to put in these EV chargers. I just don't know what the timing of that would be. So at this point, we'll certainly comply with the make ready status of the, of the four spots, which is what the, the state requirement is. But I'll have to confer with my client as to, as to what we would propose for actual EV charging at this time. But I Kinneally.  
Speaker 16    01:26:30    And I just wanna make, you know, make a point to the board that this application predates the VSC and, and this applicant had Cahn had committed to putting in three EV stations active, which complied with the Township ordinance. And in my letter, I said, you know, we continue to encourage that, that you, you know, install this because that, that, that even though there's that the state regulations supersede the, the local, this is what you committed to before. And I, I, again, I would just, my recommendation is I would highly encourage that you put in live stations, the three, the three that you committed to originally, when you file the application again, the board can make, make your own decisions. But that, that would be my recommendation.  
Speaker 14    01:27:29    And, and I'll certainly, we'll certainly come back around to that question after if  
Speaker 16    01:27:33    Our next testimony and, and I'll defer to the board to, to pick that up, if they wish to ask more questions on that,  
Speaker 14    01:27:41    Actually, before I forget, I just got the answer. So yes, we will commit to the three EV stations with the one make ready station as your encouragement.  
Speaker 16    01:27:51    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:27:53    Well, thank you. Any other members of the board have any questions? Okay. We'll now open it to the public. Ms. Buckley, would you check and see if there's any members of the public, if they have any questions of this witness?  
Speaker 16    01:28:09    No one raised their hand. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     01:28:11    Thank you. Close to the public, Mr. Arch, you may proceed.  
Speaker 14    01:28:15    Thank you. Our next witness would be Mr. Joseph Davidson. He's our architect. If he can,  
Speaker 2     01:28:21    Mr. Davidson  
Speaker 4     01:28:23    Davidson, can you please raise your right hand? Oops, sorry. Do you swear the testimony about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 17    01:28:31    I do.  
Speaker 4     01:28:32    Thank you,  
Speaker 14    01:28:35    Mr. Davidson, if you can please briefly tell us your credentials, if you're licensed in the state of Jersey, and if you've testified in front of this board in the past.  
Speaker 17    01:28:43    Yes. My name is Joe Davidson. I'm with Imus architects. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and in numerous other states as well. I have testified in front of this board previously. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:28:59    Thank you. You up, you may proceed.  
Speaker 17    01:29:02    Thank you. Kinneally  
Speaker 14    01:29:04    Mr. Davidson. Oh, sorry. I what's it gonna look like,  
Speaker 17    01:29:10    Yes, may, may I share my screen?  
Speaker 2     01:29:13    Yes, you may. Here we go.  
Speaker 17    01:29:22    Okay. I think as previously discussed in the civil engineering testimony, I'm just gonna briefly go over that. We do have an existing warehouse space that we are adding onto. The addition is on the shaded area and is approximately 54,000 square feet. I know there was in the letters. That's what I'm gonna address is the materials and finishes of the addition and what is being done with the existing warehouse space itself. I am going to show some pictures quickly of the existing warehouse as it is now, so that you can get some contacts before I go over the proposed finishes and materials. And,  
Speaker 14    01:30:13    And Mr. Davidson, before you go into that, if I, I, I believe these renderings were not previously submitted. So if we can mark these, your initial renderings, as I apologize, Mr. Barlow, what number are we on?  
Speaker 3     01:30:26    I believe we went through a one and a two, so we'd start with a three was the architectural elevations and he went to a four or  
Speaker 17    01:30:36    An architectural plan. So I'll make that SD 1 0 1 would be a three.  
Speaker 3     01:30:42    Okay.  
Speaker 17    01:30:43    All right. And that is dated 9 17 20 21.  
Speaker 3     01:30:49    Okay. And that's the floor  
Speaker 17    01:30:50    Plan? That is the floor plan. The next I'll just go through the, and that way we can cover these SD 2 0 1 will be a four exhibit, a four, and that is the elevations. And then SD 9 0 1 is three dimensional renderings. And that will be exhibit a five.  
Speaker 3     01:31:14    Thank you, sir.  
Speaker 17    01:31:17    Okay. And then back to the pictures. So this, this is just a small grouping of the existing warehouse as it, as it was when we surveyed this a while ago, about a little over a year, this is the entrance to the existing office. You can see that it's a little bit needs in need of some repairs, but there is existing brick finishes at the office area. And then some basically kind of stucco coded plywood. We'll call it band at the office level. The warehouse itself is constructed of CMU, painted CMU with some metal siding above that. And that's pretty consistent all the way around the building. So you can see the office area here kind of ending. And then the warehouse construction beginning  
Speaker 3     01:32:15    Mr. Arch, with those six photos, I'm just gonna have let's mark them as a six, just photos of existing conditions. Is that  
Speaker 14    01:32:25    I think that's fine. Yeah. Just as one photo array I  
Speaker 17    01:32:27    Think is fine. Yep. Okay. And I, I can create the, I can create a sheet for that to submit.  
Speaker 3     01:32:33    Thank you  
Speaker 17    01:32:36    All. So referencing exhibit a four, the elevations, what we have here is that existing office area on the front elevation to the left side, and then to the right is the proposed warehouse edition house addition. The existing finishes. What we are proposing to do is to provide some additional finish where it's in disrepair over that sign, we'll call it sign bands, not really a sign band. That would be kind of like an EFI finish, a textured EFI finish to kind of clean that up in a gray finish. The blue siding will be cleaned up and painted. And then the brick itself would also be painted a gray finish to match the addition on the, the warehouse addition itself. We are, I believe this is in the report we're looking for or on the civil plans, 35 foot clear height. Right now we are proposing a 43 foot parapet height on that to achieve that inside.  
Speaker 17    01:33:43    This would be constructed of concrete tilt up construction, which is standard now in terms of the warehouse construction types that we typically see that allows for the durability of the finishes in a warehouse environment, as well as some energy efficiency as the insulation is sandwiched between two concrete panels, those finishes would be painted with a textured paint. That's typical with light gray, color, dark gray, and a light blue finish. And you can see those colors on this rendering elevations here, going around the left side, which is the side facing towards the office entrance existing office entrance. We created a new entry for the warehouse edition, which has aluminum glass, storefront windows at the proposed office areas. And again, some white texture finished paint, a aluminum canopy, and then the same color pallet on this side as well. That's on the rest of the warehouse and proposed to be added to the existing warehouse, going down to the right side elevation, which is actually the loading dock elevation.  
Speaker 17    01:35:02    This was the concrete block that was tan in the existing building, as it is now. And the blue siding. These will all be painted to match the new warehouse edition, which is again, tilt up with the texture finishes in the light, gray, dark gray, white, and blue colors. And then we have some additional loading docks and the drive-in loading dock door on this side next is exhibit I'm. Sorry, what? That, that was exhibit a five, which is the, the renderings of the building where you can see the existing warehouse area, this dark gray sign band. That's getting refinished on the existing office, the gray brick and block, and how that kind of blends with the warehouse addition that we are proposing.  
Speaker 14    01:36:00    Thank you. I have no further questions of Mr. Davidson. I would  
Speaker 2     01:36:07    The members of the board. Are there any questions from the board, Madam of this witness?  
Speaker 11    01:36:12    Madam chair, Dawn Corcoran. Just one question, Mr. Davidson, are you, is there any rooftop equipment being proposed?  
Speaker 17    01:36:21    There will be rooftop equipment, and I understand that we will need to screen that from view. So we will, we will be screening that and locating that away from the para edge and screening it from from view.  
Speaker 11    01:36:35    Great. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:36:38    Any other witness? Any other questions of this witness? Okay. I'll open it to the public Renee. Excuse me. Do we have any questions from the public  
Speaker 14    01:36:55    Mr. Davidson, if you don't mind, stop sharing your screen. Just so miss Buckley. See  
Speaker 2     01:36:59    Everybody. Thank you, miss Buckley. Do you see anyone question? Madam chair. Okay. Thank you. Close to the public, Mr. Arch, do you have another witness?  
Speaker 14    01:37:09    Yes. Our final witness tonight is Ms. Allison coffin. She's our planner and she is here to be sworn  
Speaker 4     01:37:17    Ms. Coffin. Can you please raise your right hand?  
Speaker 18    01:37:20    Yes, I, can  
Speaker 4     01:37:21    You swear that the testimony about to give would you truth and nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 18    01:37:24    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 4     01:37:25    Thank you,  
Speaker 14    01:37:28    Ms. Coffin, you are a licensed professional planner and I believe you've testified in front of this board actually just recently or fairly recently, is that correct?  
Speaker 18    01:37:35    Well, I do spend most of my time in Piscataway in front of the zoning board, but I have appeared in front of the planning board. I think the most recent time may have been in or 1 51. Newford our new Brunswick road, national manufacturing,  
Speaker 2     01:37:53    The cred. Did you just give her the rest of our credentials please? Sure,  
Speaker 18    01:37:56    Sure. My name is Alison coffin. It's spelled C O F F I N like the box. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm also certified by the American Institute of certified planners. I've had my license and certifications since 2005. And since then I've been accepted as an expert witness in front of boards in more than a hundred communities throughout the state though, I tend to stick to mom, ocean and Middlesex counties.  
Speaker 2     01:38:21    Thank you. She's acceptable,  
Speaker 14    01:38:24    Ms. Coffin, if you can please just provide us with your expert opinion.  
Speaker 18    01:38:29    Sure. I mean the property we're looking at tonight is a 7.8 acre lot. It's got more than 500 feet of frontage on circle drive north. The rear of the site affects the Conrail rail lines and the site is developed with a warehouse office building that's accessed from circle drive by way of two existing driveways, the Western or the Eastern one of which is shared with the adjacent neighbor. The applicant is requesting approval to construct an addition to this warehouse office building the proposed site improvements include the addition, rearranging the parking to provide a total of 101 spaces. That's 87 constructed spaces and 14 bank spaces. And that will include three active EV spaces and one make ready station as well as landscaping, lighting and signage. The properties located in the I five light industrial zone, and the uses are permitted uses as far as bulk the application complies for a lot area, width depth, the front side and rear yard setbacks, building height, building coverage, minimum floor area, but they are requesting relief for the number of free standing signs proposing two or one exists.  
Speaker 18    01:39:37    The signs setback, the existing sign is nonconforming. They're proposing the new sign of the same setback. So they're consistent and Arians for parking, which was discussed in depth by Mr. Goomer traffic expert. The requested variances of are bulk or C variances, and there's two tests within the municipal land use law for this type of variance. The first is the C1 standard, which just commonly known as the hardship variance. And this is appropriate when things like all lots shape topographic conditions or preexisting structures create a situation where the strict application of the ordinance would result in hardship, the C2 standard. The second standard sometimes called a flexible C variance is justified when the purposes of the land use law are advanced by the requested variances and the benefits of the variance substantially outweigh any detriments. It's my opinion that the variance is being requested with this application can be granted under that second standard.  
Speaker 18    01:40:35    So there C2 variances. So looking first at the positive criteria for these variances are these variances advance the purposes of the municipal land use law purpose, a is promoting public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Here. We have signs that allow for proper identification for the multiple tenants of the site at two access points, which promotes public safety by allowing drivers of both passenger vehicles and trucks to identify their destination on the site effectively, we have purpose C, which is providing adequate light air and open space. Despite the set facts required for the signs, they don't negatively impact light air and open space. And the parking variance allows the site to function well without paving more than what is needed. Thus protecting open space. Purpose G is providing space in the appropriate location for industrial use, which this application achieves and purpose M providing for a more efficient use of land.  
Speaker 18    01:41:31    Again, this parking variance allows for the site to be used effectively and efficiently. Providing conforming parking on this property would reduce the usability of the site for the warehouse and office use while increasing the paved area beyond what is needed to support the proposed facility. So the ratio of building to parking as proposed is functional, appropriate and more efficient. And that advances the useful land use lock. There is a public benefit to the variances that are proposed. These variances allow for the development of a site with an appropriate use at an appropriate and intensity. And the proposed development of the site allows for proper site identification and parking facilities without creating that underused sea of asphalt, that would be required to meet the parking ordinance, looking at the negative criteria. It's my opinion that there's no detriment to the variances that are proposed. The signage here is appropriate both in number and in location.  
Speaker 18    01:42:27    The site has 552 feet of frontage and two driveways at either end of that frontage. The two signs, which are each located at one entrance are necessary to identify the tenants and access drives for drivers. Looking for the site, they are several hundred feet apart and thus will not create visual clutter. One sign already exists. And the setback for the proposed new sign matches the existing non-conforming setback for the existing sign. The parking proposed is adequate to support the use. The parking is properly scaled for this size warehouse and office space. The parking on the site right now currently works at a deficit. The deficit is similar that we're proposing is similar to what's existing it's 68% versus 70%. And the, it indicates that the parking required is 60 spaces as it identified by our traffic expert, which indicates to me as a planner that the parking proposed is adequate and will provide additional extra 27 stalls.  
Speaker 18    01:43:24    Therefore there will be no negative impact to that. Vari the variances requested would not impair the intent and purpose of the master planning zoning ordinance. Here, we have a use that's permitted at an intensity of use that's permitted and in its whole, this application advances, the intent and purposes of the master plan and zoning ordinance for the use and intensity of use of the site. And the application improves the site in a manner which provides for a higher quality design of industrial development, that what currently exists on the site and expands the economic and tax bases of the Township, both of which are goals of your land use plan. So for those reasons, it's my opinion that these variances can be supported. They can be granted without detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public, and they do not impair the intent and purpose of your master plan and zoning ordinance.  
Speaker 14    01:44:15    Thank you, Ms. Coffin. I think that pretty much puts a nail in it and I'll, I'm done by direct.  
Speaker 2     01:44:23    Okay. Let me ask the board, do we have any questions of this witness Ms. Coffin,  
Speaker 16    01:44:31    Who is very call? It was very thorough. Thank you very much. I mean, you're welcome. I just would say the, the rule of thumb is substantial detriment. I mean, and I think the planner has testified. There's really no detriment and you know, I think she presented it quite well. So thank you very much.  
Speaker 2     01:44:47    Thank you. Very welcome, Ms. Buckley, I'd like to open it to the public for this portion. Would you see if there's any people in the public who would like to ask a question of this witness?  
Speaker 8     01:45:01    I don't see anyone. Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     01:45:03    Thank you. Close to the public, Mr. Would you like to have a summary?  
Speaker 14    01:45:10    I don't think I could summarize it any better than my, my witnesses said it, so I will leave it at that. That's our presentation. And thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:45:19    Thank you, Mr. Board members. You've heard this application and its witnesses to support the application. Whether someone like to make a motion,  
Speaker 8     01:45:28    Adam chair, it's Councilwoman Cahill. And I believe too, that based upon the, the existing condition, the improvements here. And then of course, obviously with the testimony, talking about the advancements in warehousing and not using, using, needing as many employees, I think it's very wise that, that we, we do as a board approve this application with the reduced amount of, of parking spaces, of course, with the applicant's commitment, commitment about the three EV stations, as initially indicated in the application with the one EV station to come. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, it, it feels to me that they've made their case about at least impact in terms of the variances required. So I, I would put it out there to the board that we approve the application as presented.  
Speaker 13    01:46:28    Okay, Madam chair, this is Mayor wall. I'd like to add a caveat to that. I wanna make Mr. Barlow, I wanna make sure that the temporary construction easements and the right of way dedication gets recorded at county clerk's office prior to in issuance of a temporary certificate op efficacy.  
Speaker 3     01:46:48    Absolutely. And I was also set forth in Mr. Hinterstein report, which they have agreed to comply with. And Mr. Arch, I will work out the appropriate language for the filing of those. Is that fair, Mr. Arch?  
Speaker 6     01:47:01    Absolutely. And that is accurate. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:47:05    Do I have a second to the motion,  
Speaker 4     01:47:08    Harold Saunders? I second it,  
Speaker 2     01:47:10    Thank you, Ms. Buckley, will you read the re please?  
Speaker 1     01:47:14    Mayor Wahler  
Speaker 6     01:47:16    Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:47:16    Councilwoman kale. Yes. Corcoran. Yes. Ms. Saunders. Yes. Reverend Kinneally  
Speaker 6     01:47:25    Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:47:26    Espinosa.  
Speaker 6     01:47:27    Yes. Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:47:28    Hey, Madam chair.  
Speaker 2     01:47:30    Yes. Thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. I'll turn the rest of this Mo this meeting over to Reverend Kinneally, who will preside over the balance of this meeting. Thank you.  
Speaker 3     01:47:46    Chair manager,  
Speaker 6     01:47:51    Item item number 14, Reverend Kinneally cherry 22, PB 1314 V M andm Realty partners at Piscataway LLC, preliminary and final site  
Speaker 3     01:48:13    Chairman, Mayor Councilwoman recording this. Yes, I'm great. Thank you. Thanks Beth. I would just ask before we get started, if I could pose upon Mr. Barlow to confirm whether the board has jurisdiction, that our notices were adequate. Yes. Mr. Olsen, I've reviewed the affidavit of publication affidavit service, and the board has jurisdiction to proceed. Thank you, members of the board. I am Doug Wilson. I represent m&m. This is a piece of property that you all have some familiar with. I suspect, as you may know, just briefly by way of background, this project in the form that you had before, it was approved by the zone board of adjustment when the property was not zoned for this permitted use. But in fact, it zoned rural residential, and we made an application for a variance for this very building and this very footprint based on a number of factors, including the obvious fact that the property was not properly zoned in this day and age for rural residential, given what has sprung up around it, that application was granted by the zoning board.  
Speaker 3     01:49:34    Having found that there were special reasons to allow that variance in this use and finding further, there was no substantial detriment to the public own plans. And he may also be aware that a lawsuit ensued by an objector group, challenging that. And I'm, I'm pleased to announce to the board that, that the complaint was dismissed by judge McCloskey 47 days ago. And the reason I say that specifically is because the appeal is 45 days and our check to the appellate division has confirmed. At least our check to the publish has confirmed that there is no appeal of judge McClusky decision. Mr. Wilson, can I stop you for one second? There's some screeching going on in the background that I see a bunch of people. I don't know where that's coming from, but if, if you're not speaking, if you could please mute your, your audio, just so we don't have that in the background. I, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I just was getting hard to hear you, sir.  
Speaker 1     01:50:34    Mr. Barlow, everyone else is muted. I think it might be Mr. Wolf, as he speaks as maybe  
Speaker 3     01:50:39    I'm fan going. I'll turn it off.  
Speaker 1     01:50:41    That's he's getting feedback from somewhere it's his.  
Speaker 3     01:50:45    Oh, okay. I thought he had a para key. Yeah, it's, it's definitely his mic. So, and as, and this board is aware cause after I'm doing that entire process, the board engaged with a municipality governing body engaged professionals to do a study of the appropriateness of the zone, which of course is one of our special reasons that we proposed through our testimony and our planner, Christine Capon, who here from briefly later this evening and recommended this board, in fact, recommended that the property be rezoned to the use in fact, which it has now been approved for, for which we're now seeking approval from this board, that too has been litigated by the essentially the same group. And that case is pending again before judgment Husky, and as a plenary trial, I suspect that that may take a year or two to get to trial and have a resolution in the meantime, because the original zoning board case was dismissed as moved.  
Speaker 3     01:51:46    But because we want to be able to apply the time of application rule, which judge McClusky mentioned in his opinion, which provides whatever ordinances in effect at the time of our application controls the application. And that's so whether or not the ordinance is later invalidated or amended. So we are looking to do that, to make sure that we are protected and, and, and that the borrows, the Township intent in having this property zoned in its fashion is upheld in a way that has been deemed appropriate by this board and by the council as well. So we have tonight to present to you, Ron, a Beckers, our director of planning and engineering and development at edge properties, the parent company to M and M. We have a traffic expert, Mr. Sickler, and we have our esteemed planner, Christine Kon to go through. We will have Ron testify.  
Speaker 3     01:52:43    And even though this has been an approved project, and some of you have seen it, we wanna make sure our record is complete. And that in the event of there is yet another appeal by a group that we have as stronger record as possible to convince the reviewing judge that the zoning and the approval, if we get it tonight is both approvable and sustainable. I would note for the record that we perceived this to be a completely clean application. I think we got a letter from Ms. Corcoran on the, on the seventh, indicating no variances are required at this time. We do have reports that we will go over briefly, but as you will see, as we do them, basically the testimony is either there are statements confirming our position or their statements that we will say we will comply with. In terms of, of that, I believe there is one small waiver based upon a parking in the front yard, which Christine phone will address.  
Speaker 3     01:53:43    And as it stands, that is the only deviation from what the ordinance requires of us. Again, it's a, a two building, approximately 350,000 square foot twin twin warehouse buildings. We have parking far and excess to that, which is required by the ordinance. The traffic engineer for the town in ours are in agreement, I believe as it accounts and everything that's included. But you'll hear from Mr. Se with regard to that as well. The warehouses, I think have 3000 square feet each of small office or administrative issues that may or may not arise in conjunction with the operation warehouse. So unless there's questions, or I would like to, by calling Mr. Dacey as our first witness,  
Speaker 6     01:54:34    Would you swear? Mr. Dacey swear.  
Speaker 19    01:54:44    Sorry. I had to unmute myself. Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony, but  
Speaker 3     01:54:56    You have to unmute Ron?  
Speaker 20    01:55:00    I'm sorry. I, I do  
Speaker 19    01:55:03    Thank you  
Speaker 3     01:55:04    Next time, Ms. Wonders, you can swear at him  
Speaker 6     01:55:08    Now one at a time.  
Speaker 3     01:55:11    Ron, would you please right ahead know that? I know that I did it, but if you would, please just briefly summarized the nature of the project so that the board and the record is clear as to what're proposing  
Speaker 20    01:55:25    Mr. Chairman members of the board. If it's  
Speaker 0     01:55:35    Sorry.  
Speaker 8     01:55:40    I'm sorry. Mr. Barlow, does Ron need to credentials and be accepted by the board first? I apologize. Am I wrong moment?  
Speaker 3     01:55:51    I'm not sure if he's being offered just as a fact witness on behalf of the owner of the applicant, just to tell us what he's gonna do, and then present experts. Councilwoman is right. Ron is not testifying as an expert, right? Testifying as owner's representative on what we are doing. So you aware and he speaks for the, for ownership. Good catch.  
Speaker 20    01:56:18    Thank you, Mr. Barlow. This is what I'm referring to as exhibit a one, which is an existing conditions aerial. I I'm pretty sure everybody's familiar with the site is located south of Centennial avenue. The page is oriented with north to the top of the page. South Washington avenue to the right is approximately 24 and a half acres, which has the frontage on south Washington is immediately south of two existing warehouse buildings that are constructed to the north of us. This road that is shown to the top where traffic signal is known as Knox drive. The second, sorry. The second exhibit on, on displaying on here is we're gonna refer to as a two. Again, this is just an overall concept plan showing the proposed project labeled buildings one and two or a and B again, with a frontage on south Washington avenue in this area here, Knox drive be immediately to the north. It is shows that if you allow me to zoom in here, the development itself is approximately 660 feet to the school building itself and approximately 670 feet to nearest residential located to the rear. As Mr. Wilson indicated the project is for a total of 358,522 square feet. Each building will have approximately 3000 square foot of office building a or building one is 80 square feet. And building two to is six feet.  
Speaker 20    01:58:19    The exhibit I'm about to show,  
Speaker 0     01:58:22    Sorry, close the screen  
Speaker 20    01:58:32    Again is, is a, a closer view of the overall site planning color. Mr. Barlow refer to this as exhibit a three as previously indicated there's two buildings located in here. There is parking approximately 93 parking spaces located in front of building B a auxiliary parking lot or second parking lot to the south with 63 parking spaces in it. There is 27 loading docks located to the rear of building B. There is 60 trailer parking spaces located in the center of site. And as you work your way west you'll have 28 loading docks for building a all the way to the, the rear. There is 102 parking spaces in this area here. And then again, a secondary overflow lot. If you will, with 80 spaces located to the south, I will point out that this drawing is slightly different than what was submitted. And isn't your package. The reason being is we were contacted by the Township and realized that these two overflow or ancillary parking lots were located within 50 feet of a residential zone. The Township had recently rezoned this lower property, and in order to maintain the 50 feet, we had to adjust these parking lots and again, to maintain that variance free. So those parking lots were some parking was eliminated. And again, I'll, I'll put on a record that these parking lots are outside of the 50 foot required buffer to the property to the south  
Speaker 20    02:00:12    Exhibit. A four is site plan sheet two of two, again, it's the proposed front building, and it's just really a zoomed in or a blow version. There was a driveway access located to the north immediately south of Knox drive, as well as a access drive located as far south of the property as we can. There are pockets of wetlands on the site, I will say on the record that we have secured our N J D E P permits for all of our outfalls, those permits are current and valid for the, the next four and a half years. Exhibit a five, again, sheet one of two just shows again, it's a, a blown up version or zoomed in version of the rear building. Again, as you could see, there's a large wooded area to the Northwest corner. It's gonna remain untouched as well as, as you continue along the property line to the west areas that will not be touched as part of the development. The area located where my cursor is in this area here is where the wetlands on the wetland permitting exist. The next exhibit, Mr. Barlow, I believe this, these drawings were part of the package that was submitted to the town, but if it's appropriate, this is the ground floor plan. I marked it as exhibit 86, unless you tell me differently.  
Speaker 3     02:01:59    No, let's just keep marking. 'em just so the record's clear.  
Speaker 20    02:02:04    Sure. Again, a ground floor plan is a ground floor plan prepared by PR design the architect. And again, as I indicated, it shows the, the two buildings on here. It does show the loading docks located to the west of the front building, as well as to the east of the rear building. Again, all the loading and trailer is located in the center of to site. There are a few ramps to get up into the building, and then you have the utilities that are located in the center of the back. The offices are located in the front building in the Northeast corner, and then in the Northwest corner. And there's also smaller office located at the other four at the other corners to allow for maximum flexibility in the event that there's multiple tenants in there. The next exhibit that I will show you is exhibit a seven. And this is the elevations of building a, again, this just kind of shows you a colored rendering of what the materials are. These are tilt up concrete panels that this board is familiar with. We provided the architect, provided variation in both color and texture to break up the facade.  
Speaker 20    02:03:17    This facade is the west elevation or the, the front of the, the back of the building that faces the school. This is the one that faces the interior courtyard. And then the last exhibit is building building B. And again, this shows you what you'll see facing Washington avenue. And again, the loading area is facing the rear or the interior courtyard, the side elevations that you would see from either Knox driver from the south side of the building. And this would be exhibit a eight again, elevation building B by prat design, as indicated earlier by Mr. Wilson with the square footage, we are proposing a total of 338 parking spaces. As I had indicated located in both the front of the, the front building and two parking lots on the south, and then there's parking all the way to the rear. The parking does comply with the Township ordinance and Mr. I believe that is a overview of the, the application that's presented to the board.  
Speaker 3     02:04:28    All right, let's go through briefly the reports and review letters we received from the Township consultants. I know they're not a lot of controversy there, but I wanna acknowledge them for the record that we reviewed them and what our position is with regard to those statements and those requests. Maybe we can start with Mr. Henderson's July 11th memorandum regarding our application. Would that be okay? I, Ron,  
Speaker 20    02:04:58    That's fine with me.  
Speaker 3     02:05:00    All right, let's go through that. And that way, if the board, Mr. Stelton has any other questions, we can do that one report at a time if that's okay with the chair and counsel. Okay, that's fine. Mr. Dacey. That's fine.  
Speaker 20    02:05:16    Sure is indicated. This is review memorandum for Mr. Henderson division of engineering and planning. I will start on the page on page one, under site impact. There's a variety of comments. Number one, we agree to comply. Number two, we agree to comply. And as indicated earlier, we have already secured some of our NJ DEP permits, whether or not we need one for sanitary sewer, but only outstanding one. I don't believe we need that. So either way, we'll comply items. Number three and four are statements, item number five, we would agree to comply subject to the dedication that's provided along south Washington may cause a variance for parking setback. And I'll let Mr. Wilson touch on that. And then Christine CA phone again, if the board or the board requires that dedication and we do require the variances, we'll certainly put on approved for Mr. Wilson, if you could indulge us.  
Speaker 3     02:06:23    Yeah. I, I would point out to and request affirmation from Mr. Barlow board attorney and our notice. We indicated that what our proposal was, and as Tom indicated it was appropriate under the jurisdiction. We also included in our notice that if the board asked us to make any changes to our plan or members of the public, it made requests that we exceeded to that we, we noticed for that as well. So while we're okay with giving the dedication that Mr. Henderson requested that may be consistent with the, the Township master plan or, or traffic element of its master plan. We just want the board to be aware that if we do that, then the property line setback will of course change. And if it does that, it, it then causes a violation of what the audience requires for setback. We think that that's fine. It's okay with us. We don't think it makes a big difference by planning safety or other standpoint, certainly aesthetics. It's a line in the sand. Nobody would really know that it's there except the engineers, but we just wanted to make sure the board was aware that if it made that a condition, which we would accept, that would be the result of it.  
Speaker 3     02:07:38    Mr. Olson, do we know what the variance setback violation would be a result? It's fair question. Indication of what the impact would be of that 52 foot dedication.  
Speaker 20    02:07:54    Yeah. Just bring up the site plan if I can. So adequate question, basically, we looked at this and the, the, all of the spaces with the exception of the ones that if I can see my cursor here, these spaces located in the very Northeast corner where the, the property starts to widen out there's about six or eight spaces here that would not be affected by this variants, all the spaces along the entire frontage, maybe this last one might not be affected would all fall within that 25 foot setback.  
Speaker 3     02:08:34    Well,  
Speaker 20    02:08:34    Again,  
Speaker 20    02:08:36    If you look at the property, because the way that the property curves, obviously the ones in the center in this area here are more effective than the ones as you start working your way. So in this area here, the 25 foot setback goes through about halfway through the parking spaces. And then as you work your way north, it starts to get closer and closer to where it's really hitting a curb. And then like from this island, north would not be affected as it relates to the Southern portion of it. Again, as you get to the last stall, the back of the curb is right at the 25 setback. And, and obviously it increases as you work your way north, till you get to this pinch point. In the  
Speaker 3     02:09:19    Sense of,  
Speaker 16    02:09:20    I hate to hate to interrupt. This is Ronson. And I apologize, my, my camera just went Mr. Dacey testimony was just on facts. Wouldn't this be more appropriate for the engineer? Because when I read the site plans, they met, I mean, the engineer prepared the site plans. They met that 25 foot setback. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for the engineer to answer these questions?  
Speaker 3     02:09:45    I, I'm not sure that I agree with that. We, we meet to setback. Now, this is more of a legal issue that relates to, I bet the impact of, of agreeing to the condition and all I want Ron to explain to the board. And I think what Mr. Barlow was asking was if it's not going be 25 feet, what's the range of the, of the infraction or the infringement.  
Speaker 16    02:10:08    Okay. Understood. I actually was trying to say that from how I read your site plan, you would meet it either way, but I will defer to the engineer to clarify that further, right. As we go along that that's all, and  
Speaker 3     02:10:23    I haven't done the calculation. I, I'm not sure that Ron has, but whatever it is, we're prepared to agree to it. And it'll be up to the board to decide whether that's something that they think is a, a better alternative from the town's perspective than the, you know, what I, what I will characterize is a minimal violation of that setback. Like I said, it's a busy street, it's a warehouse. And, and frankly, I'm not sure that anybody would drive by would actually notice the difference, but it would be a violation we think. And I would certainly leave that up to you, Mr. Stelton as well as,  
Speaker 16    02:11:05    And Mr. Wilson, I'm gonna put it on record that you've removed it. I mean, this will be a further testimony, but there were other encroachments that you you've removed. So I just wanted to go on here. It looked to me like you were okay, but I'm, I'm happy to hear other testimony.  
Speaker 3     02:11:20    No, if we, I mean, I haven't done the Mayor, so if we're okay, you'll meet.  
Speaker 16    02:11:24    I, I, you know what one of the things is, I'm gonna just say that we were provided in our office and Kevin, Kevin Chen, our traffic engineers, there was like not a full size plans. So it was a little difficult to read certain things. And in fact, my, my revised letter that I sent out yesterday, cuz I, I just, again, I, I was away last week, so I kind of had to address certain things. I couldn't read the zoning table. That's no criticism on PS and S it's just, I couldn't read it, you know, but in the end, their, their plans were so clear in the last one. I think it it'll be just fine that they testified that they'll comply with everything.  
Speaker 3     02:12:07    Okay. If I can just put on the record, the issue is the half with right away, which the municipality seeks in every application and which is part of Mr. Stein's report. It's a double it's kind of the double edged sword is what I think Mr. Wolfson's saying, he's, he's noticed for variance, if it's needed right now, he doesn't need a variance. But if he complies with what Mr Hinterstein is asking for in terms of the half with which is what the Township would normally require at some point on that frontage and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Wolfson, the half width will encroach and require a variance for a parking spot within the 25 foot setback. And I, the question I have in, and Ms. Corcoran probably more than me is just the, the board may be inclined to grant that variance, you know, based on the application and the testimony. I just think we would like to know is the variance, you know, the setbacks 25 feet and the park, the parking spot that encroaches the most is 16 feet or four feet. What  
Speaker 16    02:13:19    Is 24.5 feet? I, I get you. Where you going, Tom,  
Speaker 3     02:13:23    Rob, what is the width now that's going to, is it 48 going to 52? And I don't Mr. Stelton, this is Mayor. Can I cut to chase? We need the 52 half with let's, let's move this application along. I appreciate that Mayor. We're prepared to, to agree to that condition. I believe it's worst case scenario is about a four foot encroachment. Okay. So variance will be needed for four feet, right?  
Speaker 8     02:13:48    As long as it's only for four feet, you move along the application only you want, but if it's something more detrimental in terms of parking spots within the 25 feet, more than four feet or something do minimus, I'm not gonna approve that.  
Speaker 3     02:14:04    Just Ron, do you, you know, what's the width that we're, that we're using now? Is it 48?  
Speaker 20    02:14:10    I, I believe it's 48 and a half feet.  
Speaker 3     02:14:13    All right. So the most, it could be a Councilwoman is the difference between the 48 and the 52. So that's my direct, it's a three and half foot encroachment at its worst, I guess.  
Speaker 8     02:14:26    Okay. That pinch point that you're pointing out.  
Speaker 3     02:14:29    Okay. Okay. And since the Mayor seems strongly and the town seems strongly behind that request, if the board agrees to approve the application and wants to include as a condition that we make that dedication, the applicant consents to that on the record. Thank you. Good, Tom. Do, do you have any other witness, any other one, we were gonna go make sure that you're satisfied that we've complied with everything that Ms. Weisman think necessary and that Mr. Hinterstein thinks is necessary. Mr. Carley, just to make sure the record is complete. I don't wanna really bore everybody. I know everybody's, you know, extended this evening, but there is a history of litigation concerning this property with certain groups of people. So I need to make sure our record is complete. So if, and when there is a case brought against an approval to this board, grant one, I can stand in front the judge and, and make sure that it gets sustained. And I'll put your decision out out. So please bear with me. I know it's late, but I will go as fast as, as we can consistent with what I perceive my obligation to be the decline. Understood. If you want, just maybe just address the ones that are an issue. Yeah. That's a good idea, Ron, you know, just go, go through them. It, the ones that are welcome quickly.  
Speaker 20    02:15:54    Sure. Mr. Hinterstein letter number six, the D lane. This is one that we would request a waiver from and Mr. Wilson and miss Kon will go over that because it's, it's a, the land is not required by the county, but I'll defer to council on that, on the balance of Mr. Henderson's letter,  
Speaker 11    02:16:16    Mr. Mr. Dacey, if I may, I just wanna point out to the board, however, that that is a requirement as per our site plan ordinance. So I just want the board to be clear that it is right. It is a requirement under the Township code.  
Speaker 3     02:16:28    I, Ms. Corcoran is correct that it is in Township ordinances. It is a county road in the interest of time. I would like to come back to that when Mr. Dacey testifies and then Mr. Barlow, and I can have a conversation about how this can be done to the board satisfaction since it's a county road and the county doesn't want it, we have to figure out a way to, to do this in a way that satisfies you all. So let's come. I disagree with the county. Let's come back to that, Ron.  
Speaker 20    02:16:59    Sure. On page, on page, Mr. Henderson's letter, number 10, he points out a testimony regarding the parking space for a variance. There is no variance. That's just a clarification. And number 13, he's asking for building elevation. What I shown everything in either a statement or it's a comply  
Speaker 3     02:17:20    How's of July 12 page. Really just deal with the description of the application that you've already gone through.  
Speaker 16    02:17:38    I was just go planning comments, and that's really the punch list.  
Speaker 3     02:17:43    Go ahead. Page 11, page 10. I think  
Speaker 20    02:17:46    11, just start on page 10. Real quick. Just talks about solar. Ready. I just wanna put on record that we agree to comply with the requirements for the solar ready building. Just wanna put that on record. And as Mr. Reen mentioned, we get to number 11. Again, number one, clarification. I apologize for the 11 by 17 drawings, but again, we are, it's our testimony that we are we've submitted variance free, obviously, depending on this, this parking situation in front with the 25 foot setback with dedication, I'm confirming it.  
Speaker 16    02:18:26    And Ron, there's no apologies necessary. I just wanted to point out I wanted to get the letter out. The original plans were fine. It just, I couldn't read the zoning table. And you guys had, you guys had made a clear record on it. I just wanted, we can handle it in testimony today. I wasn't gonna ask you to send me another, another set just before the meeting, so I just wanted to move it  
Speaker 3     02:18:49    Along. Perfect.  
Speaker 20    02:18:50    Thank you again. Number two. Again, we testified about variances and the waivers that are needed. I believe most of this, this letter, Mr. Ierson will be discussed with Ms. CA phone, but on bottom of page 12, number nine, I am confirming that we have designed the site to avoid the 50 foot step back from the residential zone for those two Southern parking lots. Number 10, I am confirming that there are no monument signs proposed to this application. Number 11, the, of the trash compactors. Obviously we do not have a tenant yet, but based on other warehouses that we have done, we felt that this is an adequate area. It really comes down to frequency for pickup, depending on who the tenant is and, and the generation of trash and recyclables. So we feel it's our testimony. These are adequate areas. Number 12, we have a letter from JCP and L that we've provided to the, the board professionals indicating their approval of the site plan.  
Speaker 16    02:20:00    And, and I, and I think that that corresponds with the staff letter too, about the easements and, and that, you know, you, your legal right to use those,  
Speaker 20    02:20:10    Right.  
Speaker 16    02:20:12    Okay.  
Speaker 20    02:20:13    Number 13, there are no accessory structures. Number 14, as I indicated, we have secured our NJ D E P wetlands permits. And again, copies, if not provided already will be provided everything else in the letter with the exception of Mr. Dacey testimony, just that any variances or waivers is that will comply,  
Speaker 16    02:20:35    Redesign a site with the parking to eliminate that the, the variance that the, because it looked like that, that the, the area itself was squared off a foreign and, and it is just been changed. Cause my interpretation, I didn't have elevations, but that you were gonna meet the fence height requirement.  
Speaker 20    02:20:57    Yeah. So, and as, as you indicate when we've redesigned, those, what I refer to as those Southern parking lots, we eliminated the, what was a previous retaining wall, height, variance, fence Varis, and obviously encroachment into the 50 foot setback. So those were all eliminated when we designed those, those areas. Okay.  
Speaker 16    02:21:17    One, one final item.  
Speaker 20    02:21:19    Sure.  
Speaker 16    02:21:20    We have a nine parking spot difference between what your site plan was showing and what your parking table was showing because it, and it has to do with building a, you show 102 on the side of the building and 80 in that parking lot, the, the parking was not modified for building a, it was modified for building B where you went down from, if I recall, 83 to 63 to, to, to meet the setback requirements. But the parking for building a was not changed. So you, your parking table is doesn't match what your site plan has.  
Speaker 20    02:21:57    That is correct. And that will be corrected as I indicated, your numbers are correct with the, what I'll refer to as 182 located to the rear of the property and then the hundred 56 located to the front and the side of the, of the front building. So that will be correct. And on a site plan.  
Speaker 16    02:22:14    Okay. But  
Speaker 20    02:22:15    The chart on sheet three is incorrect.  
Speaker 16    02:22:18    Okay. So, and, and that's fine. And I, I will stop talking here. If, if Kevin has anything on traffic, I will defer to him other than that, I'm good.  
Speaker 3     02:22:30    Well, the next report, Ron is traffic. We'll, we'll skip over that to Matt sec, deal with that. When you conclude the next one, we have a letter from Doug, the director of public policy works, and he's asked for maintenance of the force main what's our position with regard to that, we agree to comply. All right. And then we have a, a letter from, or a form from the fire chief that's dated 6, 9 22, and it's indicate approved. Can you confirm that? Yes, I can. Okay. And then next we have the letter from DNR, which is Mr. Carley, which is dated June 22. And is there anything in there that we need to address or where is everything there? Statement will, will comply. It's a statement or we'll comply. Right. And I think, I think that's it right? Ron? That's all the reports. Yes, it is, sir. All right. So Mr. Chairman, Chairman Kinneally, we do not have any further testimony from Mr. Abe. Of course, he's available to answer any questions that board or council has. And he was obviously available to the public as well. And the next witness would be Mr. Sec, our traffic engineer.  
Speaker 6     02:23:55    Does the board have any members have any questions for Mr. Dacey? Laura, do you see, what about the, is there anyone in the public have any questions for Mr. Dacey?  
Speaker 3     02:24:15    No one Reverend Kinneally  
Speaker 6     02:24:17    No. Okay. We make all your next witness.  
Speaker 3     02:24:20    Mr. Suler will be our next witness, perhaps concerns perhaps could.  
Speaker 19    02:24:32    I'm sorry, I didn't catch name  
Speaker 3     02:24:35    S  
Speaker 19    02:24:37    You raise your testimony. The, but  
Speaker 21    02:24:44    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 19    02:24:45    Thank you,  
Speaker 3     02:24:46    Matt. You are testifying as a traffic engineer and expert. So would you please give the board the benefit briefly of your qualifications in this area and whether you've testified before this or other boards like it?  
Speaker 21    02:24:59    Yes. I'm a bachelor of science and civil. Yes. Matthew Sickler from Stonefield engineering addresses 92 park avenue in Ruthford New Jersey. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from union college in connecting New York. Master's in city, regional planning from Rutgers university, a licensed professional engineer in the state, also recognized professional traffic operations engineer, which requires both an examination and experience been practicing field for over 15 years, been accepted before over 100 boards as a traffic engineer, including your zoning board.  
Speaker 3     02:25:31    I would offer an expert, Mr. Chairman, you, you, you, you are okay. As an expert, Matt, you did a traffic analysis to the property, and we received a traffic review of your analysis from Mr. Chen, can you go through your study and his to Cahn confirm for the board that the traffic parking layout is all acceptable, consistent with the appropriate standards?  
Speaker 21    02:25:56    Absolutely. And again, we did prepare a traffic impact study for this property, following all the standard care in which traffic engineers like myself have prepared traffic studies like this for numerous development projects, including the application as before the zoning board for the warehouse on this property. As part of the project, we did utilize counts that were taken prior to COVID. So the counts that were taken were from 2018 during the weekday morning and weekday evening rush hour, time periods, seven in the morning to nine in the morning, and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM to capture what is typically the peak volumes along south Washington avenue and the general vicinity of the site. We do note that although the accounts were taken back in 2018, we did account for general growth in the area since 2018, basically accounting for a 1% compounded annually growth of those volumes that we had collected back in 2018.  
Speaker 21    02:26:58    So we added 1% for 2019, 2020 all the way up. So we now consider a build year of 2024, just to note, in terms of traffic trends, especially since COVID, I've been doing counts really throughout the COVID time period, just trying to find out where the new normal is. What we found is typically the rush hours are still a little less than they were pre COVID anywhere between, you know, two to 10% less volume on roadways compared to what they were pre COVID during those weekday morning and evening rush hours, likely due to people having either flexible work hours or flexible work days that everyone commuting at the same times. So really what we've seen is what is those, what was done in 2018 as the counts then compounded above that likely represents a more conservative analysis than if we did counts out there today, out there on south Washington avenue.  
Speaker 21    02:27:58    So our analysis, I believe includes a more conservative analysis with some higher traffic volumes. We did utilize institution Institute, transportation, engineers, trip, generation manual. You heard from the previous application that this is definitive source for trip generation for all land uses, including warehouses. And we did account for both the split and traffic of passenger cars, most likely employees of the site and tractor trailers, and accounted for that in our analysis, that kind of split, which is usually about 15% of the traffic during the rush hour may be larger wheel based vehicles, such as tractor trailers with the remainder, usually 85% of the traffic being passenger cars in terms of some kind of raw numbers you're looking at here in terms of vehicles utilizing the driveways for a site like this in this size, you're talking about about one car a minute during the busiest peak hours being generated onto the roadway of south Washington avenue, most of the vehicles or most of the tractor trailers likely coming tuned from the site via 2 87, coming off the south Washington avenue, exit coming southbound to the site, and then leaving the site, going back to the north, that's the most likely route for tractor trailers.  
Speaker 21    02:29:16    We estimate about 85% or 80 to 85% utilizing 2 87 for passenger cars. Again, it's a mix generally where the employees would be coming from in the nearby areas. Some coming from 2 87 other ones coming from point south, you know, maybe from the, you know, new Brunswick area coming from the south of via route 18 or roadways, such as that. So we did perform our analysis, reviewed the site driveways, both utilizing the typical industry software and has provided this analysis to both your board's traffic engineer, as well as the county as mentioned, this is a county roadway, and they obviously have jurisdiction over our driveway movements as well. The design plan, as you saw from the exhibit that Ron had shared, included two driveways, a right, and right out driveway on the Northern end of the site and what we had designed as a full movement driveway on the south end of the site, I would note that in working with the county, the county has requested us to reach out to the warehouse development to north of us that has a signaled driveway on Knox drive.  
Speaker 21    02:30:27    We are in process of reaching out to them and looking to obtain a cross access easement. We've had conversations again with the county that they would support our efforts in obtaining a cross access easement so that our left turns can be made so that we could get a left turn movement in and out of the site via traffic signal. So again, we are in process of looking to obtain the rights to across access easement. And the county again is in support of such a request from our driveway, from our site. So that would obviously modify the access point. So our southerly access point would not need to be a stop controlled full movement driveway, but instead the left turn movements would be obtained via the signal at Knox drive. And we  
Speaker 3     02:31:18    Approval. Is that correct?  
Speaker 21    02:31:20    I believe we have a conditional approval with the county through this point, Mr. Olson. Oh,  
Speaker 3     02:31:26    Okay.  
Speaker 21    02:31:26    So that obvi  
Speaker 3     02:31:28    Go ahead, sir.  
Speaker 21    02:31:30    Yes. So obviously that would, that would obviously help facilitate movements in that of our site both safely and efficiently, overall in terms of access to the site and the way the site drivers have been designed, they've been designed to accommodate the tractor trailer turning movements into and out of the site within the site itself, the drive aisles parking space dimensions, backing aisles in the area of the loading docks have all been designed to industry standards, which meet, again, both the Township requirements as well as typical industry standards in terms of dimensional standards. So again, from a traffic engine perspective, we found that the driveway access points are designed safely and efficiently the impact on the roadway network adding about one new car every minute. And again, if I said, we saw a car to the driveway now, and then waited another minute to say, that's the second car that leaves the driveway. You would see that with comparison to the traffic on Washington avenue, one vehicle minute is, is pretty minimus. And we've shown that the driveways can work. And we think that with a cross access driveway, the county is helping us pursue with the, with the neighbor to the north, having the access point via the signal driveway at Knox drive would be obviously in advantage to this application.  
Speaker 3     02:32:53    So ingress and egress is okay. Internal circulation.  
Speaker 21    02:32:57    Okay.  
Speaker 3     02:32:58    Correct. Yes. Parking is  
Speaker 21    02:33:00    Adequate.  
Speaker 3     02:33:01    Yes. And how about the EV parking? We  
Speaker 21    02:33:03    Comply with EV we're looking to comply with the statutes and ordinances. So we would be in compliance with the necessary Township ordinances.  
Speaker 3     02:33:13    It says state, state law, and we will comply. Yes. Can make that representation to the board as well. Is there anything in Mr. Chen's report that you think you need to address, or perhaps I should just ask the board to inquire Mr. Chen, does he have any questions that you haven't answered board members? Do you have any questions for this witness, Matt?  
Speaker 8     02:33:37    Yeah. Yes. Mr. Chairman it's Councilwoman kale. Could we just, the, the comments that were just made about those EV stations  
Speaker 21    02:33:48    We'll  
Speaker 8     02:33:50    With the Township ordinance?  
Speaker 16    02:33:56    I can, I can  
Speaker 3     02:33:57    Go ahead  
Speaker 16    02:33:58    That they comply with the Township ordinance of live BV, what they need to show on the plans, or they have represented that they will provide, make ready. Would that, would that be a, a quick, concise summary,  
Speaker 6     02:34:17    Ron, correct?  
Speaker 16    02:34:20    Yes. Yes. So, so right now they have, they, they previously complied with eight that they they're required. And I think they need to provide some more, so whatever they, they, whatever the final parking is, is going to, I think that they would need 14 in total. So I think that they have eight live and six make ready. Does that sound about right?  
Speaker 8     02:34:45    The report is 15. Just so you know.  
Speaker 16    02:34:48    Well, it was, but, but that's that's because you may be reading the earlier report.  
Speaker 8     02:34:54    Oh, okay.  
Speaker 16    02:34:55    They reduced their parking because they eliminated what about 20 in, in building?  
Speaker 8     02:35:03    Yep. I'm sorry. It did come email.  
Speaker 16    02:35:05    No, no worries. Listen, when I'm doing those percentages, it, it, it, it, I get it a little dizzy myself, so.  
Speaker 8     02:35:14    Okay.  
Speaker 16    02:35:15    We're good.  
Speaker 6     02:35:16    So we're, do you have any comments?  
Speaker 22    02:35:21    I, I do have a question about the accessible portion of the, the way, the way I was reading it. It seemed like you guys were proposing one accessible EV space in the front. Are you guys? I believe, I believe you might require a second one based on the second lot. Are you guys gonna be able to comply with that?  
Speaker 6     02:35:48    Yes.  
Speaker 22    02:35:50    Okay.  
Speaker 6     02:35:53    Any other questions for this witness from the board Mr. Chen? You're satisfied.  
Speaker 22    02:36:00    I guess like the only, the only other question which I believe was addressed earlier was there was an error in the note, on the drawing on sheet C dash oh four. Basically my ninth comment. You, your, your site plan says 80 parking stalls and your table had 71 parking spaces. And I believe Mr. Allach had mentioned that you guys would comply with that to make, to correct the, the discrepancy,  
Speaker 16    02:36:26    Correct? Yes, we would.  
Speaker 22    02:36:28    Okay.  
Speaker 6     02:36:28    Ron, you wanna confirm that as well? Yes. We agreed to that. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chen. I appreciate very much. No problem. Any other questions from the board members? Dawn is your, it is not. Thank you. I thought she, I seen her hand go. Okay. Stretching any public, anyone from the public? Yes. Brian rack has his hand up Brian still at 1247 Brookside road. You can swear me in again. If you want you tell me we'll, we'll swear you in for this application as she's muted,  
Speaker 23    02:37:22    You gotta unmute Carol.  
Speaker 19    02:37:24    Okay. Yeah. Cause I'm double muted. Please raise your right hand. Sure. Testimony. You're about to give me the truth and nothing but the truth.  
Speaker 3     02:37:32    Yes.  
Speaker 19    02:37:33    Thank you.  
Speaker 3     02:37:34    What are you expecting truck traffic to do to get to 2 87 south? Is that gonna go down Mettler's and then Stelton to get there. Are you thinking they're gonna make a left onto south Washington and then onto Centennial? I mean, both those roads are pretty traffic heavy, so  
Speaker 21    02:37:51    Yeah, they would be making a left onto south Washington and then heading north on south Washington, 2 87, as was mentioned, we are pursuing with the county's assistance, cross access to the Knox driveway, which would give us a signal access point to be able to make left turns, not to south Washington avenue.  
Speaker 3     02:38:10    Okay. Yeah. I mean, I, I drive by that lot, at least a couple times a week, and I think making it left on south Washington as a truck, without his signal is gonna be very difficult to do safely. So, I mean, that's my big concern with the traffic flow there, but that's all I have. Thanks.  
Speaker 6     02:38:31    Okay. Is anyone else? Okay? Are you Doug? You have another witness?  
Speaker 3     02:38:41    One final witness.  
Speaker 6     02:38:42    Okay. You may proceed.  
Speaker 3     02:38:45    Could you unmute, please  
Speaker 6     02:38:54    Wanna swear  
Speaker 3     02:38:58    You muted? You  
Speaker 6     02:39:02    Swear.  
Speaker 19    02:39:03    I gotta unmute again. Can you please raise your right? Do you swear that the testimony about to give the truth? Nothing but the truth?  
Speaker 23    02:39:11    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 19    02:39:12    Thank you.  
Speaker 23    02:39:13    You're welcome.  
Speaker 3     02:39:15    Christine, briefly, the board, a summary of your credentials and whether to what extent you've appeared before board, such as this in the past as an expert planner.  
Speaker 23    02:39:27    Yes, of course. Good evening. Sharon members of the board for the record. Christine, is there phone, I'm a licensed professional planner. I have testified in Piscataway before both the planning and zoning board, as well as well in access of 400 or so other planning and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey. I've been practicing as a planning consultant for about 27 years. I teach planning and zoning courses for the Rutgers center for government services. My licenses are current and stand and in good standing. I do have a master's degree in city and regional planning from Rutgers and I am also an affordable housing, special master.  
Speaker 3     02:40:05    All right. Thank you very much, Christine. I know it's application, but there was noted one waiver about the front yard parking. Could you address that and indicate why you think that the board should grant that waiver for us?  
Speaker 23    02:40:21    So yes, it is a substantially conforming application and the reason I believe the waiver should be granted is because essentially there is a bit of a conflict in the Township ordinance.  
Speaker 3     02:40:33    Can we identify I'm we the is we're  
Speaker 23    02:40:38    Sure the, that we would requesting would be from section 7 0 2, 2, 3, I believe is which is for the general location. And the way that section of the ordinance reads is that no wash street parking or loading shall be located in a minimum required front yard, all parking shall be located in bays, generally perpendicular to driveways or rows. Now, please be mindful that that comes out of section 24 of your ordinance entitled site plan, review, anything coming out of that section would be a design waiver. However, there's another section of your ordinance, chapter 21, which deals with its entitled zoning in that section section 21, 1 0 1 2, there are regulations regarding parking lots specifically in that section, it reads about the third line in parking may be located in the front yard area, but no closer than 25 to the feet to the street line in business zones and no closer than 25 feet to the street line in industrial zones.  
Speaker 23    02:41:53    So clearly there's a conflict in the ordinance because the zoning, which in my opinion, would be the stricter and more, more stringent requirement. If you require something that you violate in section 21, you would need a variance from that. Whereas the a four mentioned section that I read section 24 is where we need the, the waiver from. So the more controlling section allows you to have parking and specifically states in that section of the ordinance, parking may be located in the front yard area, but no closer than 10 feet to the street line in business zones and no closer than 25 feet to the street line in industrial zones. So from a planning point of view, I think it's certainly appropriate for the board to consider that waiver specifically in light of the fact that your Lang the language in the zoning code section 21 allows for parking in the exact location that we're providing it. So therefore I find that the board can certainly grant the waiver that we're requesting. And it certainly is in conjunction with the contemplated ordinance and the standards in the ordinance for the location of parking in your industrial zones, which the subject property is now currently located. So  
Speaker 3     02:43:07    Just to summarize under the zoning we're doing is fine, but  
Speaker 23    02:43:12    Yes,  
Speaker 3     02:43:13    The time plan ordinance, it conflicts with their own zoning ordinance. Is that right? Correct.  
Speaker 23    02:43:17    Under chapter 21, which is your zoning ordinance in Piscataway we're conforming. In fact, there's a specific provision in there telling you that you may have parking in the front yard section 24, the site plan review, which is the waivers and the design guidelines has a bit of a conflict in that section that I read where it talks about a general location, so much less specific, the more specific and stringent requirements in the Piscataway code we are conforming. So that informs my decision as a planner, that this is a reasonable waiver, reasonable to implement the site plan that's before the board this evening.  
Speaker 3     02:43:54    So Mr. Chairman and Mr. Barlow, it's the applicant's position that the waiver is not necessary because we comply with the, with the ordinance, which we believe controls. But to the extent that council or the board believes that a, a waiver is still necessary, because there is that section, our argument is as Mr. Dacey indicated, it's an appropriate waiver to grant. Cause we are consistent with the zoning ordinance, which is a much more stringent argument. As you know, it would require a variance, you know, with a C2 or C1 criteria, as opposed to a waiver, which is a much lesser standard. So that's our, that's our proofs with regard to the only waiver we're asking for. And that's the conclusion Mr. Phone's testimony, he's available. Just clarification. You're talking about the parking on south Washington is where you need the waiver front, correct?  
Speaker 23    02:44:43    Yes, yes.  
Speaker 16    02:44:46    And, and, and both councils. I was just gonna point out that just for clarification purposes of variance, Ron re you guys can't see me variance requires satisfying positive and negative criteria. A waiver is more localized. Ms. Kone, wouldn't you agree that a waiver is more a design element that would be considered, it's not, you're not weighing a positive negative criteria. It's a  
Speaker 23    02:45:17    Less machine. It's, it's a far less standard. The test is reasonableness. That's why I said when you're dealing with a variance. So if we were asking for relief from section 21, you, I would have to talk about the C1 or the C2 applicability of the statute because it's coming out of section 24. The test is, is the waiver reasonable in order to effectuate or implement the site plan that's before the board, it's the reasonableness of the waiver. And I think, like I said, given that the sec, there's another section of the ordinance dealing with so zoning that would allow for the parking in the exact location that we're showing it, I would have a difficult position coming to the conclusion that the waiver's not reasonable, but you're absolutely correct on the test of the waiver.  
Speaker 16    02:45:57    And that's what I wanted to clarify for, because while we have a contradiction, sometimes ordinances say the more stringent requirement applies, but in this case, it's not a conflict between variances. It's a conflict between the zoning ordinance of which is in 21. And the site plan section, which is, which involves design waivers, right. Which is essentially so, you know, it is, it is one of those, the board has to weigh. Basically it is a much less stringent relief that they're, they're looking for.  
Speaker 3     02:46:40    Thank you. Mr. Dacey. That would concludes testimony if board, of course,  
Speaker 6     02:46:46    Mr. Barlow, could, could you address that along with Ron? How, how, how would we address that? If both sections say one thing and another section says the other, could you address that?  
Speaker 3     02:47:00    Absolutely. I didn't wanna didn't wanna just belabor it, but as it's been pointed out by both planners, the design waivers a much lower standard, they don't need a variance. They don't need to go to negative positive criteria. They they've laid out why they think it's a reasonable request. You've seen the layout of the parking, which kind of surrounds the project, which probably makes it better than sticking, you know, 150 spots in one spot, you know, in the back of the property say, and making people walk, especially when you have two buildings, they've kind of tried to, and Mr. Olson can correct me. They've tried to kind of surround each building with parking, to make it convenient for the respective tenants that may move in there, as opposed to just shoving all the parking in one space, which could be unsafe and also leads to like a sea of asphalt, which it's not aesthetically pleasing and spreads it out a little better. So it's a much lower that's, that's why it's just a waiver it's and there's, it's really just reasonableness. And I think that's been addressed. Thank  
Speaker 6     02:48:10    Thank you Barlow. You clarify that perfectly for me. So everyone understands that more effectively,  
Speaker 3     02:48:19    Mr. Barlow. We said that we would come back to that one aspect of the case. I seen Ms. Corporate's shaking her head. Yes. I didn't forget. We need to, we need to address this Desell oration issue for the, for the record, the board, my position as a legal matter is that the, the road is a county road and we have a traditional county approval that doesn't relate to this issue. The county doesn't seem to want the deceleration lane, and yet it is a Township requirement to do so. What we can do is we can agree that to the extent that the municipality can convince the, the town, the county, that this is an appropriate thing. And if there's an additional, you know, requirement that we do that, Ron, we will agree to do it. Won't we?  
Speaker 20    02:49:14    Yes. One caveat, Doug, if I, if I can, just because I was able to speak to ownership. And, and as I indicated earlier, you know, between Matt's testimony and my confirmation, my testimony about being a county jurisdiction, we didn't think the dation lane was necessarily required. I know the Mayor disagrees with the county's position, obviously the application that's before you tonight has driveways at both the north and south side, and we don't believe it's necessary for the Southern driveway. For two reasons, we anticipate that the connection between our site and Knox drive will be obtained. And if that, when that not if when that easement is obtained and our traffic is going out to the signal, we would agree as, as any condition of any approval that the Southern driveway be converted to a right in right out driveway, they will have access to the signal. And therefore deceleration lane will not be needed as a Southern driveway because it's a right out right in, right out. And Mosa traffic will be coming at the signal, the Northern driveway. We have limited room to what we could do there, cuz it's close proximity to not only a property line, but the adjoining signal. So I dunno if that helps makes any clearer, but that was ownership's position that with the Knox, with the Knox drive connection, we don't think it's necessary. And we would convert that Southern driveway,  
Speaker 3     02:50:44    Mr. Olson, just or Mr. Aback, just by way of clarification. I understand what you're saying as to the county, but if the county comes back and says, you know what, we've reviewed this and we believe there needs to be deceleration lane put in the Township can the township's concern is that the applicant would turn that required property over, which the Township would have to acquire, you know, at no cost that's, that's the main concern. And again, you know, I don't wanna speak for the board, but I think that's Mr. He's concern is will the applicant comply with that as a condition of approval? If the county were to require it, Dawn, would you agree with that? No, I do agree with that, Tom.  
Speaker 20    02:51:36    And I can say, cuz I spoke to ownership that if that was the case, the applicant would agree to bear all costs of whatever property is is necessary. We don't think there's if the deceleration lane is installed, we don't believe additional property is required, but in the event and it's not our property, we would agree to pay for any offsite property requirements as well as pay for the installation as  
Speaker 3     02:52:04    Desell. So there would be no, no cost to town, monetary or cost to the Township, including trying to say, but I clearly wasn't as articulate as Mr. That's fine. I just want, I understand. Pay for any improvements including land acquisition. Correct. Okay. Okay.  
Speaker 6     02:52:26    Is there anything else  
Speaker 3     02:52:28    We're good with that Dawn Dawn that okay,  
Speaker 6     02:52:31    Now I'm fine with  
Speaker 8     02:52:32    That. Thank you. Thank  
Speaker 6     02:52:34    You. You're  
Speaker 3     02:52:35    Fine with that. That's ours, Mr.  
Speaker 8     02:52:40    Chairman. I'm sorry. That is that's all that you have for us, Mr. Wilson.  
Speaker 3     02:52:45    That's why I asked.  
Speaker 8     02:52:46    Okay. Okay. So I I'm gonna take exception here and go back to my first point that Mr. Allach needed to be sworn in.  
Speaker 3     02:52:58    We have this  
Speaker 8     02:52:59    Point. Yes.  
Speaker 3     02:53:00    I'm sorry. I, I, I don't didn't mean to cut you off, but I don't know if we ever opened to the public after Ms. Capone's testimony.  
Speaker 8     02:53:07    Okay. That's fine.  
Speaker 3     02:53:09    I think we started to bounce around and just for the completeness, I think we should just open it to the public, open it for, does anyone have any questions for this? The phone,  
Speaker 6     02:53:26    Anyone in the public? Laura, do you see anyone?  
Speaker 8     02:53:32    No, one's raising their hand.  
Speaker 6     02:53:34    Okay. Close to the public.  
Speaker 3     02:53:36    Thank you, Councilwoman.  
Speaker 8     02:53:40    No, that's the right thing to do. Yeah. So a couple of things here. I, I, I asked about Mr. Dacey being sworn in and I was told he was just gonna lay out the plan. But now I understand that our item asking on the site impact for testimony of the color scheme or something to that effect. So the colors. Yeah. I mean, that's not testimony unless it he's sworn in, am I right? Is that a legal matter or no? Am I wrong?  
Speaker 3     02:54:23    No, you're not wrong. But he was sworn in Councilwoman. He wasn't qualified to be an expert at  
Speaker 8     02:54:29    All. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So I apologize.  
Speaker 3     02:54:33    We did swear him in.  
Speaker 8     02:54:34    Okay. I, I apologize. I overlay. So I wanna get, I wanna get back to that because that's a big thing for me and we really glossed over it. I think, because coming before us, Mr. Olson, it was like, seemingly, there wasn't a lot to do here, but I do wanna go back to those plans. It's something that when applicants come before us, I am fairly clear about okay. And so I would like to, yeah, I'm sorry. Well, I, I know we have something here, not colorized, but if, if, if those plans could be brought back up with the, the color key, I wanted to note something on that. I don't know that it can be changed or considered, but if, if, if I'm accurate the, this color key and I apologize, I can't read it very well. Are the colors on the screen, essentially the colors of the building, the blues.  
Speaker 20    02:55:35    Yeah.  
Speaker 8     02:55:39    Gonna be a, a, a thorn in your side about that, because I don't know if you've looked around at other buildings in our town, they're mostly more muted colors. I mean, is there any particular reason why that blue hue was a, a color picked? Is it a particular tenant's request? I didn't think you have any, is there any kind of leeway here and I know it's gonna sound pretty diminimous to you, but it means a lot to me, since these are going to be very large structures, they're going to be visible and they're not gonna go away for a while.  
Speaker 20    02:56:24    Ms. Cahill, Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I may, again, we're not married to these co these colors, we do not have a tenant. It's simply something that I think the architectures put on, you know, well, he thought was a good color scheme. If the board yourself rested a board or the staff would like to for have us work with staff to come up with more of an earth tone, neutral colors, happy to do that. We're not married to these, these colors that were just something, the show diversity in, in the building. So if it means that we have to introduce a tan or a light brown or something that makes it more of that earth tone that you had referred to earlier, a absolutely it's something we can work with your professionals  
Speaker 8     02:57:07    On. And I appreciate that because I'm sure in your mind, this is like not a major issue, but for me, it, it really is, and has been with every applicant who's come before this board where I at least get a say or, or an opinion of sorts. I think it would be if I may ask for the staff to include it as part of the application, I don't know that we'll approve it tonight, but it would feel like the right thing to do in this case. And if it did not mean one thing or another to the owner, in terms of those, that color scheme, meaning that there was no particular reason why I, I would just ask that. And that would be my big ask.  
Speaker 20    02:57:57    Now, Councilman, we would accept as a condition of approval  
Speaker 3     02:58:00    That this board were to grant that we work with staff in order to come up with a color scheme that is consistent with the Township general schemes. It would be probably helpful if  
Speaker 8     02:58:14    I, I really do appreciate that. And I I'm a little persnickety when it comes to that stuff. So I do apologize, you know, if I came off a little bit that way, but it's, it's how I am when it comes to, to these things. For  
Speaker 3     02:58:28    Sure. They'll call you dedicated.  
Speaker 8     02:58:31    Thank you. I appreciate that.  
Speaker 3     02:58:32    Perhaps you can give your input to the staff so that they have a sense of what you're looking for when they leave house.  
Speaker 8     02:58:38    Yeah. You know, the staff is pretty well versed. There was an exceptional, you know, building structure that was done at the end of river road and no offense to the town next door, but they plopped a white and blue warehouse right next to our beautiful warehouses where we really, you know, in some ways gave it to the, the developer of the land to really make sure that what was out there would be, you know, aesthetically pleasing as much as warehouses can be to the eye. And then certainly as you bend around the corner, there's an Amazon white and blue warehouse, which sorry to the town next door, but they didn't do a good job there, no offense. But, and if you, if you represented them, I apologize.  
Speaker 3     02:59:32    You'll have  
Speaker 16    02:59:33    To come up the next master plan ream.  
Speaker 3     02:59:38    Okay though, you'd be okay. As a condition of approval that the applicant would work with staff as to the color pallet, so to speak.  
Speaker 8     02:59:47    Yeah. I mean, I think we have a whole conversation, other things that we have to talk about in terms of the approval, but you know, and I have opinions on those too, which we know what they're like, but I am definitely of the mind that if it's not of any particular reasoning for this color scheme, that if the applicant is willing to work with staff, that that would be a condition.  
Speaker 3     03:00:11    Can we unshare the screen? We're good with that.  
Speaker 6     03:00:15    Are you satisfied with that? Gabby? Okay. Is anything else,  
Speaker 8     03:00:22    Chairman.  
Speaker 6     03:00:23    Okay. Thank you,  
Speaker 3     03:00:27    Ms. Chairman,  
Speaker 6     03:00:28    How are you complete?  
Speaker 3     03:00:30    We are complete and like the applicant before you, I will waive any summation or completing remarks. The record that speaks for itself. And nothing that I say is evidence. You have heard all the evidence. I think that the, the town was acted appropriately when it rezoned this property, it was clear to us and the court that rural residential zoning was inappropriate that this is an appropriate zone. We've taken that to heart and had an application before you, that is consistent with your zoning ordinance in all respects. Even the one waiver issue it's consistent with the zoning ordinance. We've seen no variances. We have accommodated, I believe any of the, the board and consultants requests for conditions. And we're satisfied with the presentation. And we'd asked the board for a favorable vote subject to any conditions that the board members and council believe to be necessary appropriate. And I thank you for your attention. And I wanted to make sure we got done by 10 30. Looks like we just about made it.  
Speaker 6     03:01:37    Thank you, Ms. Olson, board members. You've heard all the statements and reports coming in from this applicant. What is your pleasure? Do I hear motion?  
Speaker 13    03:01:53    Chairman, Chairman Kinneally. If we Mayor have Mr. Barlow have a list of the conditions we're gonna get that DCE lane. Mr. Dacey, cuz I'm not voting for, unless it's in it. We need to make sure all the conditions that the board members need to know what they're voting on.  
Speaker 6     03:02:10    Okay. Thank you Mayor  
Speaker 8     03:02:13    Barlow. Mr. Chairman, sorry. Sorry. Back up. One more thing too, is that since we don't get another crack at, you know, if the applicant, if this does get approved, if the applicant does agree to all of the Township asks there and requirements by ordinance, I do wanna make sure that also condition of approval is that, that there is no trucks allowed to make a right hand turn onto south Washington headed towards Butler's lane because that goes towards residential. And that is an absolute for me.  
Speaker 6     03:03:02    Thank you, Councilman Barlow, will you, what we need to do as conditions for this applicant?  
Speaker 3     03:03:16    Certainly I'll do my best Reverend Kinneally and I'm sure Mr. Wilson will, will correct me as I go along. The applicant agreed to on the record, almost everything in the staff reports, as you heard, they agreed to the D P w requirement. They agreed to all of the engineering requirements. They agreed as a condition of approval to work with the staff as to the architectural kind of color palette of the project. I believe they agreed to the, if the county requires the deceleration lane that they would pay for all of the costs associated with that, the signal lane, Mr.  
Speaker 13    03:04:14    Barlow, I'm gonna cut you off here. We're gonna build the Desell lane. Otherwise I'm gonna vote. No.  
Speaker 3     03:04:20    Okay. I,  
Speaker 13    03:04:21    I was, listen, we got one bite at the apple. And another thing I know we have a 600 foot buffer between the, the edge of the building there, which is heavily wooded. We've been having problems around town with the Ash trees dying. I want that on a bi-yearly basis or yearly basis that there's a review of that buffer out there between that and the school to make sure that if some of those trees die naturally, that something's gonna be replanted back. And Mr. Wilson there'll be no vote for me coming. Unless that decal lane comes in  
Speaker 3     03:05:01    And  
Speaker 13    03:05:01    I urge my members that that's not  
Speaker 3     03:05:04    Mayor. And we're certainly agreeable to do it. If the county says to do it  
Speaker 13    03:05:11    Well, I guess, I guess, no, you're not. You're not gonna hang this on the county. There will be a Desell lane there, period, period.  
Speaker 3     03:05:23    I don't know how to  
Speaker 13    03:05:24    Respond. Don't push it off on the county engineer.  
Speaker 3     03:05:26    I've doing this a very long time. I've been doing this a very long telling me  
Speaker 13    03:05:30    You're not gonna build it now, then I'm voting. No me know, advise my other board members vote.  
Speaker 3     03:05:36    I can't tell you that the county will last, you know, we,  
Speaker 13    03:05:40    I, I strongly, I strongly believe that they're gonna like, so as a requirement, I'm expecting you to vote now. I mean, I, I, I just, I have a huge problem. There's no, no DL lane.  
Speaker 11    03:05:51    And Mr. Wilson, if I may, it's Dawn Corcoran, the staff Township attorney we have met with the county, we've made it very clear our position. With regard to that deceleration lane, we will continue to have that conversation with the county, but you know, the Township, the staff, we feel very, very strongly that it's it's required and necessary. So  
Speaker 3     03:06:14    I know, but I have no authority to do modifications to the county road. Understand what can I do, Mr. Barlow, I need your help here. And I know how strong the Mayor feels about it, but I can't agree to a condition that they, if they don't want it, I mean, we're happy to do it. If they say yes, we're happy to support you and your request to the county. They ask them to say, yes, we're not looking to get out of this.  
Speaker 13    03:06:38    We, oh, miss miss. I have to vote. No. And I'm, I'm strong, urgent. The rest of my members vote. No, this application. I, I, I, Mr. Wilson, this is it. I there's another D cell lane out there going into the other site next door. This one has to have aithal light. We only get one bite at the apple on this. And that's it.  
Speaker 8     03:07:03    And, and, and if I, Mr. Chair, I'm, I'm I stand with the Mayor on, on this. And of course the other requirements I had. So  
Speaker 6     03:07:14    Thank you, Madam care. I'm looking at, as, as being a former state police officer, sir, I'm looking a safety aspect of it for the Township because we got, we got up to 53 footers now. And without that deceleration lane, I'm I know you did your safety check in regards to trucks and stuff, but I've been involved with trucks and traffic for a long time. And my concern is the safety aspect of it without that lane. Okay. That's my opinion. As a, as a board member. Okay.  
Speaker 3     03:07:55    I would ask council and the staff with regard to the other deceleration lane that the Mayor referred to did the county prove that cause they did, they certainly should be able to ours.  
Speaker 11    03:08:07    You're the channel Crow project.  
Speaker 3     03:08:13    This may be a, I mean, this may be a fight over nothing. If the county has already granted the acceleration lane on there, on their county road, on a property Cahn contiguous ours. I can't imagine why they wouldn't agree in this case,  
Speaker 6     03:08:26    But this is a Township.  
Speaker 3     03:08:28    Well, I know, but there, there are rules  
Speaker 6     03:08:31    Go, right?  
Speaker 3     03:08:34    You can't change. And  
Speaker 11    03:08:35    Mr. Wilson, in all fairness, I would have to pull out those plans. That goes, that project goes back quite, quite a lot of years. So I don't know offhand. It's certainly something we can research, but I can't say for certain right now, but  
Speaker 3     03:08:49    I can't in good conscious say that. I agree with the approach, notwithstanding the safety issue and not withstanding the mayor's strong feelings about this. And, and I would ask Mr. Barlow, if he thinks I'm making a mistake or I'm an error as to the jurisdictional snafu that's been created here, but I don't own that land. You don't own that land. The county does. So for you to tell me  
Speaker 13    03:09:14    That'll what Mr. Here's we're, we're out the testimony tonight. We're not gonna take a vote until this gets resolved. I'll tell right. Doesn't happen. I'm voting. No.  
Speaker 3     03:09:28    Well, look under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman impose it as a condition and we'll do the best we can to go to the county, understanding that it's a condition. I don't know what else to tell you. There's no reason not to vote on it. There's, you know, we're, we're within the timeframe it's, it's appropriate to do it. Mayor can I make this suggestion that what I was listening before were all the other conditions I was gonna get to that one, but we had the architectural, we had the, the granting of the half width along, which would trigger the variance, which the board would grant because of the half width and as a condition of approval that the applicant has to put in the deceleration lane. And if, if they don't believe that they can comply with that condition, they would have to seek review of that. But if the county has previously had a previous applicant put a deceleration lane in, that certainly seems like it would reinforce the Township position that it needs another deceleration later. So that could certainly be a condition of approval. If the board makes that application, Tom, when you finish, Ron has hand up. Yeah, Ron,  
Speaker 20    03:10:50    If it's appropriate, I was able to reach out to ownership and we would agree to D lane as well as no right out as the Councilwoman mentioned.  
Speaker 3     03:11:07    So, so ownership is good with the Mayor request and Councilwoman Kale's request.  
Speaker 20    03:11:13    Correct.  
Speaker 3     03:11:14    Excellent,  
Speaker 13    03:11:14    Mr. Wilson, the reason why I'm very hot and heavy on this one is because there's no guarantees that you're gonna be able to get the access at this point out on the other light. There isn't. No,  
Speaker 3     03:11:27    I don't question Mr. Mayor. I know them. I've known you a long time. I know your interest is only them protecting the town and its citizens and good planning. And, and I do appreciate it and we've known each other a long time, so you don't have to justify your actions. I know they're they're well, well, meaning well thought out  
Speaker 13    03:11:46    And well, I wasn't justifying it to you. It was justifying to the residents of SCA.  
Speaker 3     03:11:52    Of course, of course. Okay. Well that seems to resolve that issue, Mr. Barlow, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mayor Councilwoman Cahill. So I don't know if we  
Speaker 13    03:12:05    Barlow, can you go back? I sorry, Mr. Mr.  
Speaker 3     03:12:08    Yeah.  
Speaker 13    03:12:09    Can you go back through with the list of conditions?  
Speaker 3     03:12:12    Okay. Obviously the record will speak for itself. If I missed something that they previously agreed to, but they've agreed to the deceleration lane they've to know right onto south Washington, they've agreed to work with the staff as to the architectural colored pallet. So to speak of what the warehouses will, would look like. They've agreed to the half width, which as a result of that agreement triggers a variance that would be needed of approximately four feet for the encroachment, the setback, along with the other, I would say smaller items they agreed to during the course of the hearing, did I hit most of them or the, the high points Mr. Wilson? Yeah. I would just try to clarify the thing about the, the extension from the 48 feet to the 52. We're not seeking a variance. We just wanted to point out to the board that if that was a condition, as it seems to be, then you're looking at creating a nonconforming situation. We don't need to apply for the variance, cause that was not our plan, but I just wanted to make sure the board understood if it included that as a condition, that would be the result. So we're not putting up proofs on that, but we understand that to be a request and it's a condition that we would agree to. Okay.  
Speaker 13    03:13:45    And then Mr. Barlow, we need to talk about the issue. As I just mentioned before, about the mature Ron wood step, the difference of the six fund between a school property line and the building that, you know, we've been having problems like other areas of state where a lot of these trees have been dying with the disease. I don't wanna be 10 years down the road. And then we have a whole deforest area that was a nice natural buffer between the, the adjacent property lines. So we need to have some type of mechanism, Mr. Barlow, about making sure that that stays in place as best as possible.  
Speaker 3     03:14:26    That's something that,  
Speaker 8     03:14:27    How are we gonna do that? I mean, because we'd have to check it like on the Township would have to check it, but then how do we come to an agreement Mr. Mayor with like, what is it a dollar figure they have to put in? Or is it just tree for tree? And it's checked every year? Like how, how can we get that put in there? Because it is important. I  
Speaker 13    03:14:47    Think we have to have Henry and, and Dawn, somebody's gonna have to go and take a look out there. I mean, you know, we don't, obviously we don't want anything to die out there, you know, you know, but unfortunately we're having a lot of diseases in some of the trees and we're having to unfortunately take down a lot of trees on the governmental side.  
Speaker 8     03:15:07    Right. And correct me if I'm wrong, but did the, again, referring back to the down on river road, they did agree for the same thing. Am I, am I correct on that application? It was a while ago, but I do remember a very similar issue, the less of a buffer there. Right, right. Okay. So not, not an ask that we haven't gone for before Dawn, right? Yeah.  
Speaker 11    03:15:32    That is correct. And if they don't maintain the buffer, then they fall in violation of their site plan approval. And then we have mechanisms to go after them for that. So we can make that a condition of the approval and we can have, as you said, Henry, go out there yearly and you know, hopefully it's maintained and if not, we'll, we'll certainly deal with it. I'm completely fine with that condition.  
Speaker 3     03:15:53    So to just to make sure I'm, I'm clear on Ms. Corcoran. So once the, the building is in place and we, the baseline of what the buffer looks like on that, on that date. And then that is now a condition to maintain that in generally the same condition going forward and that, you know, a bunch of trees die, a condition, the site plant is that buffer is to be maintained and generally the same condition. And you wanna make that a condition of who, I don't know how we can object to that. I agree with you that if it's a position to plan that that buffer remains generally in that, you know, that width, that shape that size. I just wanna make sure that, you know, if a, you know, a hundred year old tree, that's four feet and diameter dies. So we don't replace it with a hundred foot tree, you know, with four feet. No, we're  
Speaker 13    03:16:42    Not, we're not expecting that. That would be unrealistic.  
Speaker 3     03:16:45    I just want, yeah, but you know what, 10 years from now, 20 years from now? No, one's gonna remember what we did today. So I just want, you know, Tom to craft it  
Speaker 13    03:16:53    Well, Mr. Wilson, I have a very good memory. I guarantee if I'm the board keeps me around, I will remember  
Speaker 3     03:16:59    I'm articulate that in a way that makes it clear that it's not, you know, a tree for tree replacement of exactly the same kind. It's more the maintenance of the buffer between the property and the residential area is the, is the concern. So I'm sure we can couch language, not, are we good with that, but you'd be I responsible to not require that. Yep. Okay.  
Speaker 11    03:17:24    And Tom, I also wanna leave, I, I wanna have this conversation with Henry Hinterstein as well. And if, if he does require, you know, a plan showing, you know, or, you know, he, I just wanna leave it open so that if he has some sort of requirement, just to like, kind of know what's out there today, you know, I mean something to compare to, I don't know that the plans, you know, gave, they're not very specific as to what's out there in that buffer. So I just wanna leave it open so that in the event we need additional information. The applicant will work with staff just to have some kind of like baseline to work off of sure.  
Speaker 3     03:17:55    Applicant will work with point out that Ron has a question, Hey Ron,  
Speaker 20    03:18:02    Sorry. I just wanna make sure we're clear because a couple people are talking about this, this buffer between us, the school, us and residential houses.  
Speaker 20    03:18:14    There's a lot of property there that's between us and those houses in school that we don't own. And I wanna make sure that we're not gonna be responsible for plant trees on somebody else's property, if it's the existing buffer that's between our property line and our parking lot, obviously I'm okay with that. I just wanna make sure, cuz a couple people mentioned about the wooded area or trees between us and the houses. I don't even know who owns that the board education owns or who owns the property behind us. But if they come in clear, I can't be responsible for going there and planting trees on somebody else's property.  
Speaker 13    03:18:44    No, Ron, I'm not Reverend Kinneally or Chairman Kinneally. I'm not expecting to do that. Ron. I'm only what the applicant owns. Okay. Thank you  
Speaker 3     03:18:54    Kids property. And thanks for pointing that out, Ron. Cause I hadn't thought of that. Dawn, are you raising  
Speaker 6     03:19:00    That's what we've been doing? No, I'm  
Speaker 11    03:19:02    Sorry. I just I'm so sorry just said at the table like that, but I, I do see what Ron saying. I'm taking a look at the landscape plan now and clearly the does exceed beyond their property line. So again, Ron, we might just have to work with you to see, you know, to come up with some sort of plan as to what it is out there and what exists you know today. Yeah.  
Speaker 3     03:19:24    Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. I know I'm just part of the public, but we just signed a contract with a tree speaker, Brian rack, Mr. Mr. Rack Chairman looking to the public right now. Can I, can I just make one comment about the  
Speaker 13    03:19:40    Reverend Kinneally this is closed  
Speaker 6     03:19:41    Right now it's closed to the public. You had a time chance to talk. Okay.  
Speaker 3     03:19:48    So, so the, the main conditions I have are, are the D cell lane right out, right out only onto south Washington, the half width, which triggers the potential for the variance and that the matured trees in that buffer zone will be maintained. And the applicant will work with the Township professional staff with regards to same and the color scheme and the color scheme. Yes. Sorry. Yeah, I would prefer, of course, it's up to you, Tom, that you don't put anything in the resolution about the variance. Cause we're not asking for a variance. I don't want there to be an issue in front of some judge later that you know, a variance was created, your condition is that we do this and we're bringing to the condition. No, I, I understand. But I, I just don't want to gloss over the potential effect of it. I guess. I just, yeah, I just want, we want the board to be aware of what they're voting on, but I don't there to be any suggestion that we needed to apply for or approve the need for that Uhrin  
Speaker 6     03:20:59    Square bylaw. What you're stating that and Mr. Wolf that you work with Mr. Interesting on this, on this buffering, is that correct?  
Speaker 3     03:21:09    Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay.  
Speaker 6     03:21:11    Now that would make it clear that's what, what, what you need to do if you want to get this resolved.  
Speaker 3     03:21:19    So Mayor Wahler is that I, I think we, Mayor Mayor laid out all the conditions  
Speaker 13    03:21:23    Is that that's that's suffice that Mr.  
Speaker 3     03:21:26    Barlow. Perfect. So at this point, thank Mayor Kinneally it would be appropriate if the board wants to entertain a  
Speaker 6     03:21:34    Motion. Okay. All right. The board members, you've heard all the comments, pros and cons. Do I hear motion in order for this application to be approved or not to be approved your motion?  
Speaker 11    03:21:59    Mr. Chairman, Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to all of the conditions as outlined by Mr. Barlow.  
Speaker 6     03:22:12    So I hear a second Carol call please.  
Speaker 1     03:22:19    Mayor Wahler  
Speaker 13    03:22:22    Before I vote, I just wanna make two general comments for the members of the public. And I know the applicant knows this. There was a court settlement for, I believe it was 270 townhouses out there when it was under the zoning board jurisdiction. I believe that this current application before this board is less of intensive use out there than what would've happened with the 275 units out there because she would've had a lot more trip generations coming off. This site impacting the school system, both financially social services this way, this is not gonna, we're not gonna have any impact on the social services or less missed services, so to speak. I know there's a lot of folks out there that are disappointed. They would've rather seen the housing, but I respectfully disagree on this. I believe that this application would be a net positive for the town and respect for revenue and not impacting the school system, overloading the classrooms with kids in the school system of what would've happened in the court settlement. So I vote. Yes. Mr. Chairman.  
Speaker 6     03:23:38    Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Comments,  
Speaker 1     03:23:42    Councilwoman K,  
Speaker 8     03:23:45    Sorry. I'm getting an error message. Can you hear me?  
Speaker 1     03:23:48    Yes.  
Speaker 8     03:23:50    Oh, okay. So yes, based upon the applicant's willingness to meet all of the requirements except forth by Mr. Barlow, that I will vote. Yes. For this application.  
Speaker 1     03:24:05    Ms. Corcoran.  
Speaker 11    03:24:07    Yes.  
Speaker 1     03:24:08    Ms. Saunders.  
Speaker 8     03:24:09    Yes.  
Speaker 1     03:24:10    Reverend county.  
Speaker 6     03:24:11    Yes.  
Speaker 1     03:24:12    Mr. Espinosa. Yes. Mr. Atkins.  
Speaker 3     03:24:16    Yes.  
Speaker 1     03:24:19    Thank you.  
Speaker 6     03:24:20    Thank you very much.  
Speaker 3     03:24:22    Chairman Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gross, Mr. Mayor, Councilwoman mate. Thank you very much.  
Speaker 6     03:24:26    Thank you. All  
Speaker 3     03:24:27    Council professionals, Dawn, Ron, having, we really appreciate your hard work and review and getting us to the point where we we're able to eliminate all of our interests here. We think it's a great plan. We hope we think it is. And we look forward to, you know, getting to things done at the Mayor and council, what we want. Thanks again very much.  
Speaker 6     03:24:49    Good evening. Thank you, ES Barlow, Mr. Mayor, more tonight, Weisman  
Speaker 3     03:24:59    Of the re before you submit it to everybody else. Of course. Thanks very much. Have a good night, everybody.  
Speaker 6     03:25:07    Goodnight, motion to adjourn. I'll make that motion. Dawn Corcoran all is tonight. Everyone.