Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on November 9 2022

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

Speaker 0     00:00:00    Good evening, Madam chair. My name is Malika Apte. I would be presenting this area in need study, which my office did prepare. We have a report that stated October 27th, 2022. So I'll be providing a brief synopsis of that report and you know, present the area in need study. Alright, I think you're telling me to proceed, so I'm gonna proceed Mr. Barlow, Is it okay if I share my PowerPoint presentation?  
Speaker 1     00:00:34    Of course. You're gonna be sharing parts of your October 27th report.  
Speaker 0     00:00:37    Exactly just that I'll just put it in a a PowerPoint format so nobody has to keep staring at my face. They can actually  
Speaker 1     00:00:47    Go right ahead,  
Speaker 0     00:00:49    Right. Just one second please bear with me. I wanna make sure cuz I have two screens that you guys are looking at the presentation. If somebody can just confirm that for me that you are. Okay, thank you. Sorry  
Speaker 2     00:01:08    There. It's  
Speaker 0     00:01:13    All right. So as I mentioned, I'm here to present the area need of free development study for block 62 0 1 lot 6.02, block 7.01 lots, 2.02203. I'm sure all of you are very familiar with these three properties. It's in the central west portion of Township. Of Piscataway. In all this study area is approximately 117 acres and it's located or more familiar known as the Ericsson Drive area. To begin this study, the governing body, the Township Council, prepared a resolution and adopted a resolution around October 6th directing planning board to prepare this area in need of redevelopment study. They'd also directed that this would be a non-con contamination area in need of redevelopment study and intern planning board authorized CME to prepare this study. What you see before is an aerial map showing the three properties. This is in our October 27th, 2022 report. Very briefly. So the three properties, as you can see, two of them front on hose lane one is on Skys Avenue.  
Speaker 0     00:02:39    Very briefly, they, the properties are currently within what we call the town center zone and the business professional zone of the Township of Piscataway. The lot 6.02 as you can see, which is the northernmost lot is currently awakened. It has an Ericsson drive access easement going through the property along its Western property line as well as it is mostly awakened and developed with trees. At some point between 1995 or 2002, there used to be an existing building on that property that was demolished and ever since then, the property has remained essentially vacant lot 2.03, which is two words, which has the maximum frontage on hose lane, is a corner property. It has about 2000 feet frontage on hose lane and then part of it is on Skys Avenue. This property is currently developed with about four buildings, which are between one story to three story buildings, office buildings, and an excessive amount of sea of parking around four parking lots.  
Speaker 0     00:04:01    Then the third property, which we call block 7.7401 lot 2.02. We refer to that as the real property because that essentially what it is. It only has a 290 foot frontage on Scales Avenue and most of the property is to the rear of lot 2.03. This property is also very familiar, I'm sure, because this is the property that contains the 11 story currently vacant office building, which I believe is one of the tallest building in Township of Piscataway. So it's almost like a landmark for the Township. It is surrounded by sea of parking. There used to be another building on this property, which has recently been demolished and towards the southern portion of the property there is an existing one-story storage building. There is an electric substation. Most of the western portion of this property is currently vacant with a helipad on the western portion of the property.  
Speaker 0     00:05:12    In terms of environmental constraints on this entire study area, lots 6.02, there is some presence of wetlands, again through state mapping that we found out along its northern portion of the property and a 2.02 has an extensive amount of wetland along its western portion of the property. There was the 2.03 property currently has the N J E ems, which is essentially environmental monitoring system going on. Other than that, there was no known contamination on this property that was found during this study. We also review the Township tax maps. We review townships, a zoning map, we review townships, all kind of violation notices, as well as any other information relevant redevelopment plans and studies for this property.  
Speaker 0     00:06:11    I'm gonna go through that individually for each property. We also looked at the Township of Pisca based master plan. The most recent comprehensive master plan was done in 2005, following which in 2020 we had the reexamination report done. What that tells us is what are the goals and objectives for the Township? The 2020 reexamination report just generally reaffirms the goals of 2005, which basically says we want to promote efficient land use planning. We want to create a adequate community facilities for its residents. We want to promote a set strong sense of community and kind of create a town center for our Township. We also, in our review, we look at the state development redevelopment plan, which identifies this property in a PA one zone, which is essentially a infill growth area where basically the state has said these are the areas that has in identified as already has existing infrastructure and they recommend re redevelopment or growth or replanning of this area.  
Speaker 0     00:07:33    These are some of the pictures. What we are achieving with this area and need study is we are trying to decipher if individually each of this property meets one of the eight criteria that are listed in our local redevelopment and housing law. Or section three, which I'll get into a little bit later and can be designated as non condemnation area in need of redevelopment. So these are just few images which can be found in our report in the appendices of the report. These are the eight categories. Again, I have kind of given it a more, you know, easy read. The local redevelopment housing law goes into exactly what they mean for each criteria. The, the first criteria is deterioration or basically buildings that are deemed as unsafe and dilapidated. The second criteria has to do with abandoned commercial buildings that have remained vacant for at least consecutively two years and are almost in a state of that they can't be tenable anymore.  
Speaker 0     00:08:47    The third criteria has to do with a land that is owned by municipality, by any public entity, or also a un improved vacant lawn that has remained so for more than 10 years and that has not developed just by private capital alone and needs some kind of, needs a public private partnership. Criteria D has to do with any buildings or site that in today's modern land use planning standards can be deemed as obsolete out and designed and that would kind of meet that criteria. Criteria number E or five has to do with properties that are, have some kind of condition of titles or diverse ownerships and because of which they haven't been developed over the years. Criteria F or over year six has to do with fires and natural disasters. You know, properties or buildings that have suffered any kind of fire or natural disasters can be designated through that criteria.  
Speaker 0     00:10:04    Criteria F has to do with areas that are in the urban enterprise zone and can be designated under this criteria. And criteria eight is smart growth consistency. Section three basically is what we call a donut in a whole situation where you need to add this property by itself, the property can't meet any of the criteria, but the property is very essential in a comprehensive redevelopment plan. So according to the L R H L A property has to meet only one of these eight criteria or section three to be designated as area in need of redevelopment. Through this study, we have to study each property on its own unless a section three can be applied to them. Now I'll briefly describe each property and what we found when we studied the property block 6 2 1 lot 6.22. This is that vacant property located on the northern portion of your study area.  
Speaker 0     00:11:14    It has frontage along hose lane as well as Knightsbridge Road. This property is about 28 acres in size and it is, it is an irregularly shaped lot. A review of aerial images showed that at some point this property was developed with a structure. However, somewhere between 1995 to 2002 that appears to have been demolished. There are several easements noted on the property that has to do with access easement, which is essentially your Erickson Drive. It has couple of drainage easements on on the property. It also has the varied with slow easement along the hose lane frontage. The property itself is in the Zone X, which is the area of minimal flood hazard. However, as I mentioned before, along the northern area of the property, there was some wetlands noted. As in our review of, you know, Township records, we discovered that there was only one violation that has been issued on this property and that had to do with clearing of trees without permits.  
Speaker 0     00:12:29    No other violations have been noted. It is also interesting to note at one point this property was designated in 2014 as an area in need of re redevelopment. However, a redevelopment plan was not adopted. The property itself, however, has been noted in the tc, what we call the town center zone, which basically permits, you know, very a mixed use type of development where we would have commercial supporting residential development at almost 12 dwelling units to the acre. So it is interesting to note have that for such a long time, even with this property being, having access to all types of infrastructure and being located in the town center zone hasn't seen development for almost 20 years now.  
Speaker 0     00:13:25    We think the, our analysis shows this property can meet criteria C, which is our properties that has remained vacant for more than 20 years and will less, will most likely not be developed through only private partners, only through private capital and will need to be developed through a public private partnership. We also designate this property under criteria. We also recommend this property be designated under criteria H, which we call the smart growth principle. Again, the location of the property. It is in one of the more commercially viable corridors of Township. Of Piscataway. It already has existing infrastructure. It is according to the state plan in the PA one zone. It's ideal for an site for a compact and efficient development. So our recommendation would be that this property to be designated as an area need of redevelopment under criteria C N H. Now we look at the next property, which is block 7 0 1 7 4 0 1, Block 2 0 2.  
Speaker 0     00:14:39    This is the property which we, I earlier mentioned we call it as the real property. And again, that's only because it does have frontage, but only a very minimal frontage of 290 feet on Scales Avenue. The site is currently developed with a, you know, large parking lot. It does have that iconic 11 story currently awakened office building. Pat Township up this getaway. It also is developed on the southern side with one electrical substation as well as one story building, which seems to have dilapidated over the years and used for some kind of storage to the western portion of this property. It's mostly vacant with only one helipad there. Our review of the property showed that the parking lot, again, because of its excessive land coverage, seems to have seen some kind of shows part of, you know, state of disrepair over the years. The main building that 11 story building is currently vacant and has remained so for I believe since 2016, if not before that the property has received maintenance violation again because of overgrowth of weeds and this appears to be an ongoing issue. As we have noted from the Township records, the property again was designated in 2014 and is in the town center zone.  
Speaker 0     00:16:19    These are some of the images of the property. There was another building on this property right next to that tower, which has since been demolished, I believe somewhere in between October, 2020 to April, 2022 is when it was demolished. Our redevelopment analysis showed that this property can be, we would recommend this property be designated under it almost three criteria. Again, remember it needs to meet only one criteria, criteria B, which is basically a discontinuance of any kind of commercial or office buildings that has, you know, remained vacant and is almost untenable for, you know, period of at least two years. Clearly, this property has remained vacant. They live into story tower is weakened. It's again, it's, it's interesting to see how, you know, single tenant office building is no longer a modern land use planning standards. You almost would see, you know, for a commercially or economically viable property, you need to create a live play atmosphere and just having these office parks with sea of parking around us is no longer a creating an attractive commercially viable property.  
Speaker 0     00:17:43    So we also believe that this meets that under criteria D or off an obsolete site layout, the property also meets criteria h again, smart growth. When you assemble, you know, couple of properties together and come up and create a more comprehensive, compact efficient land use development, it would meet the H criteria for this property. Now the third property, which is identified as block 7 4 0 1 block 2.03. This is the property with the largest frontage around 2000 feet along hose lane. It also has frontage along Skys avenue. This property is fully developed with almost four parking lots. It does have couple of buildings, again, ranging from three story to one story building. Our review of the site showed that what we identify as building six, you can see on this, on the top page top photograph was the only one that was currently tenanted with couple of other different types of offices. The other three buildings on the property are essentially almost awakened over the years. The, the property has received various kinds of violations, starting from fence installation to zoning violations to needing to obtain a site plan for any kind of rehab or redevelopment on the property. We also reviewed the police records. Again, there have been very minor police activities on this property. However, they have been almost about 29 calls, be it, you know, just hangup calls or be it some kind of minor offenses or sometimes theft of the building being vacant on the property.  
Speaker 0     00:19:44    We think again, the property meets two of the criteria criteria D again, going back to, you know, having an office park with the sea of parking is, doesn't seem to meet a modern land use park standard. It almost seems like an obsolete layout. You need to create a, a mixed use type of development where you can have a symbiotic land users on the property for that to be a, a, a commercially viable redevelop property. We also feel this property would meet the criteria each, which is the smart growth planning principle for creating a more com compact land use planning development. So finally this is a conclusion where we studied each property on its own and we think it meets at least two of the criteria out of the eight criteria that it meet needs to meet under the local redevelopment housing law. This has been a very brief synopsis. Again, our report has more comprehensive information. It also has all the fact records that we collected, you know, be it the violation records or be it previous designation and so on and so forth. Overall, I would conclude and recommend for this planning board to recommend that these three properties be designated as an area in need of redevelopment under the various criteria I described. So that's a short presentation. If anybody has any questions, I would be happy doing.  
Speaker 0     00:21:29    Thank you. I'm gonna stop sharing the screen so this way everybody can see each other and then  
Speaker 1     00:21:36    Thank you  
Speaker 4     00:21:44    Madam chair. If I may, if I could, you said that there had been a building on one of the properties that had been demolished. I think it was in the first parcel. How, I apologize. I know you said when it was, but I apologize. How long ago was that demolished?  
Speaker 0     00:22:06    So the, if you're talking about the northernmost, which is currently vacant, we can't really sell again. We looked at the aerial images, so we feel it's between 1995 to 2002. We can't put pinpoint exactly when the demolition took place.  
Speaker 4     00:22:27    Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:22:28    You're welcome.  
Speaker 1     00:22:30    Adam Chair, You're muted. Did  
Speaker 4     00:22:37    Any other questions from the board?  
Speaker 5     00:22:40    I'm sure Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     00:22:42    Go ahead. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 5     00:22:44    In regards to those buildings, they're, it seems to me in according to your reports, most of those buildings are disarray. They, they would have to come down and we had to start all over to rebuild or get a developer, whatever we plan to do to reconstruct that whole area, so to speak. Is that correct?  
Speaker 0     00:23:06    So I mean, what, what we looked at the property, I, I didn't say they are, you know, not habitable. They do seem to be untenable right now because of the, you know, the layout because of them being only office parks, which was more of a nineties land use rather than today everyone more, you know, a mixed use type of development where you would have commercial retail as well as office use. So part of our review is, you know, why are these, you know, office buildings if they were rehab today, why are they still remaining vacant is probably because of, you know, the obsolete site layout.  
Speaker 5     00:23:53    Right, Right. Well that type of building, especially a larger building, that 11 story, they don't have that type of a building anymore for office space, you know, commercial use. That, that, that is an absolutely building altogether. But that's my only question. I, I didn't know. I, I've been buying in and out that complex for quite a few years, but I, I never really got inside to look at those buildings except when they were taking things out. I don't know what the inside could look like. Condition of the building. That's why I was asking. Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:24:30    You're welcome.  
Speaker 6     00:24:32    Any other member of the board have questions? I was seeing no hearing, no questions. Ms. Buckley, can we open this to the public now?  
Speaker 7     00:24:44    Anyone in the public has any questions or comments, please raise your hand and I will unmute you. No one's raising their hand.  
Speaker 6     00:24:59    Okay. Close to the public. Okay. Are there any more, Finally, before we get to a recommendation, are there any other questions from anyone who has heard this recommendation from Ms. Atke? Seeing no response, I put the, put it before the board. What is your pleasure? Do you see that this is in Misskey has made the case that this is an area in need of redevelopment, non condemnation.  
Speaker 1     00:25:28    And just so the board's clear, what would be is a be a motion to, for a resolution recommending to the Township of Piscataway Township Council to consider designating it an area of need of great development. Non combination. Or not.  
Speaker 6     00:25:51    Or not. Would someone please make that motion if they so desire?  
Speaker 7     00:25:57    Madam chair. Dawn Corman. I'll make that motion.  
Speaker 6     00:26:01    That's a motion for recommendation of a non-con area in need of redevelopment. Do I hear a second  
Speaker 5     00:26:10    Reverend? Reverend Kinneally? I'll second that motion.  
Speaker 6     00:26:13    Thank you. No call please.  
Speaker 7     00:26:15    Mayor. Wahler? Yeah. Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 5     00:26:27    Yes.  
Speaker 7     00:26:28    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?  
Speaker 6     00:26:31    Yes.  
Speaker 7     00:26:32    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 6     00:26:34    Yes. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:26:38    Thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:26:39    Thank you Adam. Thank you. Mr.. Dacey  
Speaker 1     00:26:42    Madam. I, I I may have missed it. I'm not sure on the, on the agenda and Laura will correct me if we ever adopted the minutes.  
Speaker 7     00:26:50    No, we did not.  
Speaker 1     00:26:51    No, no. Number nine.  
Speaker 7     00:26:54    You skipped it.  
Speaker 1     00:26:55    Just didn't want,  
Speaker 6     00:26:57    We don't want lose track of that.  
Speaker 7     00:27:01    Right. So who wants  
Speaker 6     00:27:02    To returning, Excuse me.  
Speaker 7     00:27:05    Oh, go ahead.  
Speaker 6     00:27:06    Two, returning to item number nine, just backing up a little bit, adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of October the 12th, 2022. Do I have a motion to adopt the minutes?  
Speaker 5     00:27:19    Reverend Kinneally? I'll make a motion to adopt the minutes.  
Speaker 6     00:27:23    Do I have a second? I second it. Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 7     00:27:30    Councilwoman? Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 6     00:27:42    Yes. Thank you. Item number 11, discussion redevelopment plan for block 1701, block 2.03. Also known as 4,100 New Brunswick Avenue property is located on Matt. Page 12, Page 17, excuse me, on the Piscataway Township tax. You're having a discussion regarding that property?  
Speaker 8     00:28:08    Yes. Good evening. Members of the board, James Clarken here from Foresight Planning. How are you all  
Speaker 6     00:28:12    Doing well. Oh fine. How are you? Who's Clark?  
Speaker 8     00:28:14    Good, good to see you all again. So I will be presenting that redevelopment plan for you. So if it's okay, I'll go ahead and share my screen. Okay. So we can kind of follow along with my report. I'm actually gonna start at the end of my report cuz it has the map. So I can kind of give you all a brief synopsis of what we're looking at here. So as say this is block 1701 lot 2.03, better known as 4,100 New Brunswick Avenue. This is actually in the eastern part of the Township right on the border with South Plainfield. In fact New Brunswick Avenue right here going north south is on actually is the actual border between SCA and South Plainfield. So just across the street from this is South Plainfield borough tier South is Stelton Road. You have a stop and shop here and 2 87 is less than a mile away. Some other existing uses nearby are some residential uses to the north and then a vacant site to the west.  
Speaker 8     00:29:14    This is in your M five industrial zone and it is approximately 11.72 acres. If you recall from the in need study that was prepared there currently is a use on the property that is somewhat of a blend of manufacturing and warehouse, but it's a hundred thousand square foot building right about here. And it's really almost entirely surrounded by existing parking lot tons of parking. In my re in need study, it was actually found that it was probably too much parking. But nonetheless in August of this year the Township Council adopted by resolution that the property does in fact meet the criteria for in need of redevelopment. So this is allowed for myself to prepare this redevelopment plan for you for this set property. So now that we have a little bit of backgrounds, I'm going to skip up a couple pages to actually two page five if I may, so that I can kind of, Sorry not page five, excuse me, where is it? Yeah, here we go. This is what I'm looking for. Plan goals and objectives.  
Speaker 8     00:30:36    So out of these goals and objectives, I just wanna highlight a couple. So the first is really we wanna create lane landus requirements specific to this redevelop area, this property specifically so that we can effectuate its redevelopment in such a way that improves the area and benefits the redevelopment area. We also want to utilize best practices of zoning, excuse me, planning and engineering so that it fits in with the existing neighborhood and the zone that it's currently in, which is M five industrial. And then finally this is what it's the use for the property is actually envisioned to be a warehouse. So the last goal is to provide modern industrial warehousing uses and facilities in the redevelopment area. So moving on to the land use plan, as I mentioned, the principle permitted use for this redevelopment is warehouse. So just one warehouse structure on the principle use on the lot.  
Speaker 8     00:31:34    Also consider for permitted accessory uses are pretty typical for such a facility. So you have your off street parking and loading offices within the warehouse structure, guardhouse if necessary, signs, gates, fences, emergency generators, electric charging stations as required by ordinance in the state. Also, solar energy systems are permitted as it can well under the current zoning is conditional use. So this would be permitted accessories now and anything that would be considered customary or incidental to such a warehouse use prohibited uses, anything expressly not permitted herein. We definitely do not want any storage or warehousing of hazardous and dangerous materials and definitely no outdoor storage materials or product.  
Speaker 8     00:32:26    So as I mentioned before, this is in your M five so it makes or so the use does fit in with the existing zoning. So I'm gonna move on to the redevelop development area bulk standards. So these book standards were created specifically for this property. Its unique cares but specifically to make sure we could fit a modern warehouse use on the site without overburdening it and that it fits in with what, how it was previously used. So plenty of minimum, a lot width and depth cuz it is quite a large parcel at 11 acres. But we do want a good amount of setbacks. So we have 80 feet for the front from New Brunswick Avenue, 50 feet off the back and then 50 on the sides. Structure can be no more than 55 feet maximum pervious coverages, no more than 75% of the total area. So that would include building parking lots, circulation, everything. And then the building itself has to have a minimum floor area of a hundred thousand square feet. And then the rest of the table is really just making sure that the parking stalls and the loading spaces are adequately sized to fit today's, you know, tractor trailers and cars and also to make sure the parking lot is set back from the property lines.  
Speaker 8     00:33:49    So with that I'm gonna move on to page eight, which is actually the next one. I just wanna touch on a couple more of requirements of this redevelopment plan. I'm specifically talking about traffic analysis and design. This is pretty typical, but we wanna make sure that any site plan that comes with four year board that would try to implement this redevelopment plan is making sure that it's taking a look at what the traffic impacts would be. You know, how many trucks would be coming onto the site, can the existing roadway handle that, Look at levels of service. It does have a good route to 2 87 so that should not be a problem. But nonetheless we wanna make sure that the both the site and the circulation can accommodate such a use. And then as always, parking is very important. So looking at this warehouse use, this is pretty typical for what we've done for past warehouse redevelopment plans.  
Speaker 8     00:34:49    So we're doing one space per 3000 square feet of gross floor area. And then we wanna make sure we account for any office use that's within that building. So that's one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, which is pretty typical. And then you, we want one living space for 5,000 square feet. We wanna make sure there's plenty of or enough tractor to trailer spaces provided so that you know, you're not having tractor to trailers stored offsite or not offsite but not where they should be. And then finally a minimum of three ready made electric charging stations will be required for this project if they go to site plan. And then to wrap it up, just, you know, pretty standard boiler plate language for utilities. Solid waste disposal. I do. So this would be page 10. I have some signage requirements. We're allowing two monument signs.  
Speaker 8     00:35:47    We're allowing wall signs on the finished facade that can't exceed 150 square feet. And then lighting, We wanna make sure the parking lot's adequately lit, but most of these will really get into the details on site plan. So especially things like landscaping. But I did include that we want some landscaping put in the front yard on New Brunswick Avenue to you know, make sure you can possibly break up the large building walls that sometimes comes with warehouse. And then to wrap it up, I did review your master plan but also the borough of South Plainfield because if you're within 200 feet you need to look at that to make sure it's consistent. And I did find that this redevelopment plan is consistent with both those master plans. Okay. There were goals and objectives that this will meet. And yeah, I think and also your county mill six county and state plan is also consistent with this redevelopment plan. So overall I think this redevelopment plan allows the Township to properly redevelop the site with a modern warehouse facility and I think it'll allow a chosen redeveloper to implement this plan. So with that I can take any questions you may have.  
Speaker 6     00:37:07    Thank you Mr. Clarken. Board members, do you have any questions of Mr. Clarken regarding his report?  
Speaker 9     00:37:14    Madam chair? I actually do, Jim on New Brunswick Avenue in front of this property, this is one of the few properties that do not current, that does not currently have sidewalks out in front and right next to a conrail spur. And in order to have the D O T freight division do an upgrade of that railroad crossing, you have to have a sidewalk right there. So I strongly suggest that we make sure that it is in the plan allowed to add a sidewalk in so we can prod the D O T freight division to do a safety upgrade of that great crossing next door for pedestrian movement.  
Speaker 8     00:38:00    Absolutely. Mr. Mayor. That's a good point. So typically, and it is actually in here, I forgot to touch on it. So back to traffic analysis and design on page eight towards the bottom of the paragraph I did require a minimum should incorporate five foot wide sidewalks along New Brunswick Avenue. So that requirement is in there. I usually keep it in there cause we want sidewalks, but that's good to know about the free division.  
Speaker 6     00:38:27    Okay, thank you. Any other questions of the board?  
Speaker 4     00:38:30    Madam chair? I may, it's council. So Mr. Clark and Heim, the Mayor pointed out the, the need for the piece of the sidewalks to be in there, which it is. Is there anything else in there to note for this board to be aware of in terms of requirements other than, you know, are the typical aesthetics of the build? You know, just our typical ordinances is, is there anything else in there? I mean, I don't know Mr. Mayor, if there had to be anything with right of ways or anything of that nature, you know, where we don't want our residents to incur, you know, the fees where, you know, we always ask our corporate neighbors to do their part to alleviate that. I just wanna make sure if there's anything else other than the sidewalks that this board should be made aware of out loud right now that you do  
Speaker 8     00:39:33    That does, Oh sorry, go ahead Mr. Mayor.  
Speaker 9     00:39:36    I think this question's really to Dawn. I'm assuming we're getting the half width of the master plan out there in New Brunswick Avenue.  
Speaker 10    00:39:46    So this is, as you know Mr. Clark and just presented the redevelopment plan to this board, once a developer has been designated they have to come back to this board once again with the site plan itself. It is at that time certainly where we will pick up any ne or request any necessary right away to bring New Brunswick Avenue and compliance with the circulation element of the master plan. So we will, we will get that when they come in for formal site plan.  
Speaker 8     00:40:21    Yeah, I totally agree. And actually that your comment Ms K help reminded me there is an actually an existing access SE two access easement two lot 1.01, which is the buckeye easement on the southern property line. I did put something in there that this any site plan submitted shall honor that access easement  
Speaker 10    00:40:43    And that was also part, that was a condition of the approval that was granted by the zoning board. Maybe it was last year, I believe so Mr. Clark, and also incorporated that into the plan just to make sure we have it not only in the zoning war resolution, but it's here as well. So thank you.  
Speaker 9     00:41:03    If I, if I may ask another question, Madam chair. Sure, go ahead ma'am. I think that also that access easement also is for a road to go into the back of the, the adjacent property. If I correct, I'm wrong Dawn.  
Speaker 10    00:41:17    That is  
Speaker 9     00:41:18    Correct. Okay.  
Speaker 11    00:41:20    This is Ron Reiners. Wasn't this this application just here a few months, this property here a few months ago for the, the parking lot. 4,100 New Brunswick?  
Speaker 9     00:41:30    Yes they were.  
Speaker 11    00:41:31    Okay. Yeah, I just, it's, it  
Speaker 8     00:41:32    Just wanted one and a same. So I'm not going crazy. I just looked it up. Thank you Mr. Mayor.  
Speaker 6     00:41:39    Okay. Board members, are there any other questions before I open it up to the public? Okay, Ms. Buckley, would you ask the public if they would make a comment on this resolution, on this recommendation,  
Speaker 12    00:41:55    But Id but you unmuted so  
Speaker 6     00:41:58    You don't really,  
Speaker 7     00:42:01    I'm sorry, I made sure he was unmuted. Brian re has his hand now.  
Speaker 12    00:42:05    Yeah, Brian re 1247 Brookside Road.  
Speaker 7     00:42:07    There we go.  
Speaker 6     00:42:08    Okay, Mr. Rag, is it,  
Speaker 12    00:42:14    Oh, I didn't know if you square me in or not. You  
Speaker 6     00:42:16    Gave our name, your name and address, correct? Yeah. Okay. Do we have to swear him in Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 1     00:42:22    Sure. Mr. Dacey, you swear the testimony before the board will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but help you.  
Speaker 12    00:42:28    Yes.  
Speaker 6     00:42:28    Thank you. Proceed with your question please.  
Speaker 12    00:42:30    I was just, I think this is probably more of when the site plan comes in, but exit five is a disaster anytime around rush hour. I don't know if there's been any thought given about what adding additional truck traffic around there will do. I mean it, it regularly backs up on 2 87 these days. So that was, that was really my only question slash statement. Thanks.  
Speaker 8     00:42:55    Yeah, thank you Brian. I think you're correct. Site plan, like I mentioned before, the traffic analysis and design at site plan, that's when their traffic engineer will prepare a traffic study for the site and it should look at nearby intersections. But that may be something that the Township could work on with the redeveloper to make sure they look at that.  
Speaker 6     00:43:22    Thank you Mr. R, Is there any other questions?  
Speaker 1     00:43:26    I don't think anyone else has their hands raised. Madam  
Speaker 6     00:43:29    Chair. Okay. Anyone else? No. Okay. Hearing we're seeing no hands,  
Speaker 7     00:43:33    No one  
Speaker 6     00:43:34    Close to the public. Okay. That concludes this presentation, I believe Board members, what's your pleasure? Would you like to recommend or not recommend this redevelopment plan?  
Speaker 5     00:43:55    Madam chair Reverend Kinneally and the redevelopment of block 1701 lot 2 0 3. I recommend that we go forward with the redevelopment of this property.  
Speaker 6     00:44:11    Recommend for redevelopment plan. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you Mr.  
Speaker 7     00:44:21    Atkins.  
Speaker 1     00:44:22    Mr. Atkins.  
Speaker 6     00:44:23    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 7     00:44:25    Mayor Wahler.  
Speaker 6     00:44:29    He's muted.  
Speaker 7     00:44:31    Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 6     00:44:45    Yes. Do we have a resolution? You wanna do the resolution now? Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 1     00:44:54    Certainly. Madam chair, you have a resolution recommending adoption of the redevelopment plan to the Township Council as prepared by Foresight Planning entitled 4,100 New Brunswick Avenue Redevelopment Plan dated October 23rd, 2022. So if there is a motion  
Speaker 6     00:45:12    To motion to move that resolution?  
Speaker 7     00:45:16    Motion.  
Speaker 13    00:45:17    Councilwoman. Cahill.  
Speaker 6     00:45:18    Thank you. I have a second.  
Speaker 7     00:45:21    Second. Dawn Corcoran.  
Speaker 6     00:45:24    Okay, roll call please.  
Speaker 7     00:45:28    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 6     00:45:45    Yes. Item number 12 is 22 PB 16 slash 17 V as in Victor Tanglewood Terrace, LLC for preliminary and final sense site plan.  
Speaker 13    00:46:04    Hi.  
Speaker 6     00:46:04    Good,  
Speaker 13    00:46:05    How you doing? Good evening. My name's Deborah Schulsky with the firm of Riley Riper Holland and call Greco here on behalf of the applicant owner East Coast Halewood Terrace llc. Also wanted to introduce my team to you as well. I Lauren work with Morgan Properties management company llc, Justin Base with Morgan Properties and he's gonna be our van White tonight displaying our exhibits for you. And we have a representative from our assign company, Rick Crawford, who's right in the middle here. And you may recall we were before you several months ago, I guess now at your work session meeting to explain the scope of this application, which we hope you'll agree, is fairly benign. This is an existing apartment complex that's been there for a number of years. My client is looking to give it a facelift, which is well in need of. And the signage is part of those exterior improvements that they're proposing to make.  
Speaker 13    00:47:01    Currently there exists a double sided existing freestanding sign which we are proposing to remove and slightly relocate approximately nine feet closer to the roadway and replace it with two single face signs, which are generally of the same size. Your ordinance is fairly unique in that the use obviously is a permitted use. The signage is there and has been there for a number of years. But your ordinance really does specifically address this type of sign, which is a little unusual. But we were told by the doning department that we needed to seek certain bulk variances to permit this replacement of the existing sign relating to the sign area. Even though the face of the sign is essentially the same as what is there, but your ordinance requires calculation of the surrounding monument portion of the sign. So that's essentially the only reason that we need relief from the area requirements cuz the face of the sign itself is, is fully compliant with that section of the code.  
Speaker 13    00:48:03    Okay. And then we also will need relief from the setback provision to the, the property line with the relocation of the sign. And our witnesses tonight will walk you through the need for this and some of the visual obstructions situated along the property there that that really necessitate us having to move slightly closer up from where the sign currently exists. So with that introduction, if the board has no initial questions for me, what I was gonna do is just kind of for purposes of the record read in my exhibits, I have pre-marked exhibit list which Justin's gonna display. I don't know if you need to share, Does he need something to share the screen or? Okay, Mr, there you go. Thank you Justin. And, and we don't, some of these are kind of more administrative like housekeeping items, so we don't necessarily need to display them all, but I just wanted just read them into the record real quick.  
Speaker 1     00:49:05    You don't really, you don't necessarily need to do that. What we'll do is, is that he pulls them up, we'll mark them as exhibits. A lot of this stuff is already part of the record, like a one, a two eight. They don't need to be marked as exhibits. Okay. So we can, we can deal with the exhibits as Mr as your witnesses utilize something that's not part of the plan.  
Speaker 13    00:49:36    Okay. Certainly we can do that. And I, and I do, again, I have a full, a full hard copy that I can mail to Ms. Buckley at the conclusion of, of this matter. Okay. So with that I, I guess we can swear in the, the witnesses if you don't have any initial questions from me and I, I just really have two witnesses. Lauren work on behalf from work of properties to essentially establish standing and, and discuss what they're intending to do with the property. And then we have a representative from our sign company who can walk you through the specific details of, of the sign itself.  
Speaker 1     00:50:11    Okay. So you're calling Ms. Shire as your first witness?  
Speaker 13    00:50:15    Correct.  
Speaker 1     00:50:16    Okay. Is she gonna be utilizing what's on the screen or can we unshare that?  
Speaker 13    00:50:23    She will not be utilizing the exhibit list.  
Speaker 1     00:50:26    Okay. So why don't we, Thank you Miss Workey. If you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address please.  
Speaker 14    00:50:37    Sure. Lauren Weiser. Last name is W E R K I S as in Sam, e r Design director for Morgan Properties. And I am based out of the corporate office, which is at 60 Clubhouse Road, King Pria, Pennsylvania.  
Speaker 1     00:50:57    Swear the help  
Speaker 14    00:51:02    I  
Speaker 13    00:51:05    You, Ms. Weiser, can you explain what your affiliation is with the applicant owner, East Coast Tanglewood Terrace, LSC, and Morgan Properties and explain what the connection is between those two entities?  
Speaker 14    00:51:17    Yeah, so again, I am the design director for Morgan Properties. I oversee all interior and architectural design on behalf of the company. And with that I also oversee signage efforts and I am representing Morgan Properties and East Coast Tanglewood Terrace LLC is the legal record owner for the property. That's the off premise sign that's the serving. And the property is managed by Morgan Properties who I work on behalf of.  
Speaker 13    00:51:48    And you're therefore authorized to appear, make representations at tonight's hearing on behalf of the applicant owner. Is that correct? Yes. And I had marked exhibit A four, which is the property deed. Does that confirm the ownership of the subject property?  
Speaker 14    00:52:02    Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:52:04    And can you tell the board a little bit about Morgan Properties and some of your other properties?  
Speaker 14    00:52:10    Yeah, so we were established in 1985. We're a national real estate investment and management company. We currently own and operate a multi-family portfolio of 345 apartment communities. Now it's about over 94,000 units across 19 states. We're in the top three largest owners and operators in the country. I think we're currently the largest owner and operators in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New York. And we have about 2300 employees nationwide. So we've been doing this for a while. We're in a lot of different municipalities and states, but we also operate up and down, you know, north to south in the state of New Jersey. So, you know, very familiar with a lot of the, the rules and regulations and the state of New Jersey. And we've been operating, you know, within this municipality for a while.  
Speaker 13    00:53:09    Okay. And how long has the applicant owned this particular pro property? The apartment complex here,  
Speaker 14    00:53:14    15 years. So it was 15 years, September 28th, 2007 when we purchased it.  
Speaker 13    00:53:22    And are you familiar with the subject property? Its features, the proposal and the general surrounding area of the property?  
Speaker 14    00:53:27    Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:53:29    I'm referring to exhibit A five, which is an Aithal, which Justin, you can display that. Can you identify the location of the property that's the subject of this evening's hearing?  
Speaker 14    00:53:39    Yes.  
Speaker 1     00:53:40    We're gonna mark that as a one though, so  
Speaker 13    00:53:44    Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:53:44    Don't confuse the record by  
Speaker 13    00:53:46    Going, oh, you might be confusing my notes. Yeah,  
Speaker 1     00:53:49    Sorry about that. So this is A one.  
Speaker 13    00:53:51    A one, okay.  
Speaker 14    00:53:54    Right. So I'm gonna read my blurb that I have here. So property notice, Tanglewood Terrace, large multi-family residential complex located in the RM zoning district. It's comprised of approximately 13.5 acres. It has 214 dwelling units. There are three separate entrances. There are two off of New Brunswick, I'm sorry, two off of Tanglewood Drive, one off of New Bruns, old New Brunswick where road, which connects to Lennox Drive and Lennox Court is where the signs are that we're looking to locate for this application this evening.  
Speaker 13    00:54:34    Okay. And the area that's generally surrounding the property, can, can you describe those, some of those uses?  
Speaker 14    00:54:40    Yeah, so it's mainly surrounded by predominantly other multi-family complexes, but they're also some single family residences as well.  
Speaker 13    00:54:51    And you mentioned that the application before the board is limited to the sign and specifically that one replacement sign at the main entrance of the apartment complex, Correct?  
Speaker 14    00:55:00    Yes.  
Speaker 13    00:55:02    And the sign vendor will explain in more detail for the board, but can you generally explain why the sign is being updated?  
Speaker 14    00:55:10    Yes. So recently we refinanced this property so we were able to get a decent amount of funding to make some overall general enhancements and improvements. So as part of our enhancement efforts, we took a look at the community. I identified just some general areas where we really wanted to make some, some improvements. And one of them is, you know, we don't really have a significant or a main entrance of, of note here. And you know, with a lot of the new competition in town directly across the street and new construction, obviously we're an older community so we wanted to compete a little bit and also just enhance the overall curve appeal and the general look of the community for our residents and also for the surrounding area. So one of the things that we took a hard look at was obviously our curb appeal and our signage.  
Speaker 14    00:55:58    And in addition to that, our leasing office was an old apartment that basically was converted a very long time ago prior to us even buying the community. So you know, if you were to build a community to today, you would have a very identifiable clubhouse of note that you could easily, you know, drive into and note, okay, here's the clubhouse, here's an office. So you know, we really are looking to create more of a grand main entrance. It's identified by signage so that you know, when you drive in you can identify also our leasing office, which is basically, again as I mentioned, a unit that was converted that we've done our best to try and highlight, you know, and make pop in essentially from, you know, other units that are within the community. So with that, that sparked kind of this conversation with the additional funding that we were able to receive that started, you know, the, the snowball efforts of looking to enhance the signage and we felt, you know, this was a great opportunity to do that and that's, you know, where it really where we are today and we haven't touched that sign since we bought the property in 2007 other than just refacing it.  
Speaker 13    00:57:07    That's all the questions I have for this witness.  
Speaker 6     00:57:10    Oh, thank you. Members of the board. Do you have any questions of this witness? Okay, Seeing no hands Ms. Buckley, would you open it to the public and see if they have any questions of this witness?  
Speaker 13    00:57:27    No one's raising their hand. Madam  
Speaker 6     00:57:28    Chair. No thank you. Close to the witness.  
Speaker 10    00:57:31    Madam chair if I may. It's still in Corcoran. Sure. Ms. SCHs, who, which of your professionals will be addressing the reports?  
Speaker 13    00:57:41    That will be Mr. Crawford who will be testifying next.  
Speaker 10    00:57:45    Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 6     00:57:46    Okay, then the show. Good. You can call your next witness.  
Speaker 13    00:57:49    Okay. My next witness would be Richard Crawford.  
Speaker 6     00:57:58    Mr. Crawford,  
Speaker 1     00:57:58    Sorry I was mute. Mr. Crawford, if you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address please.  
Speaker 15    00:58:07    Richard Crawford, c r a w f o r d Address, 3 0 2 North Washington Street, Forsburg, Pennsylvania. Don't ask me to spell that. Nine,  
Speaker 1     00:58:22    Could you spell the for me?  
Speaker 15    00:58:24    Believe it or not, I'm getting my S B U R G or Wisberg.  
Speaker 1     00:58:35    You got that Ms. Buckley. Okay. You could raise your right sir. You state the testimony before the be the the help you God.  
Speaker 15    00:58:47    I do.  
Speaker 1     00:58:48    You're a witness.  
Speaker 13    00:58:50    Thank you. Mr. Crawford, with whom are you employed in and what capacity?  
Speaker 15    00:58:56    I work with Baruch Signs and I'm project manager. I'm a sign designer. I do surveys and I take care of permitting for the company.  
Speaker 1     00:59:06    I'm sorry, what's the name of the company?  
Speaker 15    00:59:08    Baruch, B R T U S H.  
Speaker 1     00:59:13    Thank you.  
Speaker 13    00:59:19    And Mr. Crawford, can you just describe some of your experience in the assign industry And Justin if you want you can display, well you're gonna have it marked as exhibit A six, but I believe following Mr. Barlow's numbering it'll be exhibit A two, which is CV Brick Crawford.  
Speaker 15    00:59:39    Yeah, I've been in the sign industry since 1983. I've worked with Barrie sign since 1998. I also have a consulting company, Mercer Sign Consultants, where I help sign owners with end towns with sign zoning problems. I'm an attorney licensed to practice of Pennsylvania and I'm one the board of directors of a National Sign Foundation that does research on signs the United States Sign Council Foundation. We've done about 20 research projects on the design characteristics of signs and I have personally managed all of them. And I'm the co-author of the most recent American Planning Association publication Street Ramps in the law, which some of your planning people may be familiar with.  
Speaker 13    01:00:31    And have you testified in a number of municipal proceedings with respect to signage?  
Speaker 15    01:00:36    Yes, I have to think about it. But yes, in New New Jersey in this area, Burg Township, West Windsor Township, Homedale, Township, Borough of Eden Town, Hillsborough, Township Raton Township are examples.  
Speaker 13    01:00:56    And are you familiar with the subject property and its features and the proposal as well as the surrounding area?  
Speaker 15    01:01:01    Yes.  
Speaker 13    01:01:02    Are you also familiar with the applicable regulations of the Piscataway Township zoning ordinance?  
Speaker 15    01:01:09    Whether they're applicable or not, but yes.  
Speaker 13    01:01:13    Can you describe for the board the existing freestanding sign that's the subject of the application, including the size, general dimensions, appearance and location of the sign. And I know we have exhibit an exhibit which will help you walk the board through this sign package of the proposed and existing signage consisting of four sheets, which we'll mark as exhibit A three.  
Speaker 15    01:01:40    This is the new sign I'm gonna talk about the existing sign. Yeah, that one. Yeah. So the existing sign is what we call a phone monument. It's a manmade monument made to look like it's masonry, it's sort of a drive it process. It's double sided. It has signage or panels on both sides. It's not internally illuminated, it has external illumination. What is generally considered the sign area. The sign area is 29.32 square feet. If you count the whole monument, you're at 43.64 square feet. That's the entire structure and it sits about 28 feet back from the curb.  
Speaker 13    01:02:31    And in terms of the location of the existing sign, are there any obstructions along the property frontage that limit its visibility?  
Speaker 15    01:02:39    Yeah, so this is the first thing that I surveyed when I went out in the early spring. It sits in a big brass area, it's not located near an entrance and the view of the sign is obstructed by trees along old New Brunswick Road in vegetation.  
Speaker 13    01:03:01    Can you explain for the board what's proposed with respect to the replacement sign?  
Speaker 15    01:03:07    Yes. So I was tasked with figuring out how to create an a suitable entrance for the property and the applicant wanted to put two single-sided signs at the entrance. Pardon me,  
Speaker 1     01:03:30    Mr. Foster, Continue Mr.  
Speaker 15    01:03:34    Fa. Okay. We have two single-sided signs at what will be the main entrance versus one double-sided sign. The thought behind that is two single-sided signs essentially equal a double-sided sign. Drivers can't see both sides of a single-sided side and they will only see one side. So this creates an entranceway and marks the property and is an updated design. So they're trying to beautify the entrance. The signs are proposed as internally illuminated, however only the letter is light up so that black background is not illuminated. And then instead of traditional, instead of wood, we, we use treks to create the same wood-like appearance because it lasts a lot longer. We use this as an exhibit, but the letters will not be raised like this. They will be pushed through the metal face. So they, they push through about a quarter of an inch.  
Speaker 13    01:04:55    And will the face of the sign itself actually be below what the ordinance requirement is with respect to the maximum size?  
Speaker 15    01:05:03    Yes. So I looked at all of this when we were creating the design, what was in the code thinking that the 28 square feet of the proposed new sign would be under the 32 that applied to churches, hospitals, non-public schools, and other permitted institutions. So we are at 28 square feet, a four by seven. If you count the whole monument, it's 54.64 square feet. But our thinking was, and also in relation to the existing sign that this sign would be slightly smaller than the existing sign and be code compliant.  
Speaker 13    01:05:45    And the sign is also proposed to be slightly relocated from the existing location, correct?  
Speaker 15    01:05:50    Yes. The desire was to place the signs at the, at Lennox court to create an entrance to mark the entrance clearly for motorists.  
Speaker 13    01:06:01    Okay. And let's mark this, what Justin is showing here as exhibit A four. This is a portion of the site plan showing the location of the proposed sign. And then let's mark as exhibit A five. The next one, Justin, which is photographs show when the proposed sign location consisting of two sheets.  
Speaker 15    01:06:22    So when I went out the survey, I found a utility pole and I found lots of trees at the entrance, well all along the roadway. So if we wanted to put a sign at the entrance, it couldn't be behind that utility pole in my opinion. A because there would be, there would be an obstruction and B, it would be too far back from the roadway for drivers to be able to see and read the sign. So there's a triangle, if you will, here created with the utility pole out to that tree on the top photograph. And that's where we wanna land the sign. We can't make, we don't want those trees to go away, but we're giving drivers coming in the opposite direction as good a chance as possible to be able to see the sign. So that's why we, we are mimicking on each side. We're making it symmetrical, but we're in this zone where we're closer to the road and 25 feet back from the property line would,  
Speaker 13    01:07:21    And correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the proposed sign proposed to be located 21 feet from the curb line and 10 feet from the property line, correct?  
Speaker 15    01:07:31    Yes, that's correct. I took the 10 feet back from the property line from other portions of the signs and residential zones so that that code session does contemplate 10 foot setbacks and since maybe 21, 12 0 1 4 applies or maybe it doesn't, it would be within the board's prerogative to say that the 10 foot setback applies.  
Speaker 13    01:08:00    And are you familiar with other signage with respect to other apartment complexes near the subject property?  
Speaker 15    01:08:07    Yeah, in general, if you get closer down to 2 87, there's the Grove Piscataway, which has a V-shaped sign, which is essentially what we're doing. Only they put their V together, we are separating them with the driveway. Ok. There's Carleton Club that has the same situation. They have two single sided signs on either side of their entrance line and then right across the street there is the Avalon property, which has one double sign of sign.  
Speaker 13    01:08:36    Right. And that, let's mark that sheet as exhibit A, A six what Justin just pulled up and it looks like that sign is actually has less visibility obstructions to it and it looks like it's closer to the road than than our proposed sign. Is that your understanding?  
Speaker 15    01:08:55    Yes, it's a newer development. There are far less obstructions along the roadway. The Avalon sign is closer to the curb than our proposed signs will be.  
Speaker 13    01:09:07    And can you explain why the proposed improvements are necessary and beneficial with respect to the signage?  
Speaker 15    01:09:15    Well first it's going to give drivers a better visibility to the sign. So it's gonna be easier for people to see and read the signs. And we're not just talking about visitors or potential new residents, but I'm sure there are a slew of delivery people coming to this property at all hours. This will mark identify the property properly at all times of the day and night and at all types of weather. It promotes safety, it promotes good driving because it's not just a matter of, Oh, we're gonna stop accidents, signs that don't cause accidents, but signs can cause inappropriate driving maneuvers like slowing down, like stopping, like missing a turn and then going up ahead and making a U-turn. And if you make a sign visible and legible, you've eliminated some of those issues or you've done the best you can. Thirdly, we're gonna beautify the entrance. It's gonna be a vast improvement compared to the existing sign. So we're gonna improve the, the appearance of the property and the surrounding area.  
Speaker 13    01:10:29    And you're familiar with the legal standard for the grant of sea variance. I believe some of what you said might weigh into that. Is there anything else that you want to clarify with respect to the positive criteria to satisfy the hardship criteria?  
Speaker 1     01:10:44    Ms. Schulsky, if I may just interrupt for a second. Mr. Crawford, you're not a licensed planner, are you?  
Speaker 15    01:10:51    No, but I know Kinneally.  
Speaker 1     01:10:52    Okay. And and you're not a licensed traffic engineer, you're fine. No. You're a sign expert.  
Speaker 15    01:11:03    I'm a sign expert.  
Speaker 1     01:11:05    Okay. Ms. It's appropriate to have Mr. Crawford comment on the positive or negative criteria, the granting of variance. It's just not within his area of expertise.  
Speaker 13    01:11:16    Well, he is a licensed attorney as well.  
Speaker 1     01:11:20    Okay. But you and I are licensed attorneys and if we tried to give planning testimony, we wouldn't be allowed to  
Speaker 13    01:11:29    Understood. I'll move on,  
Speaker 15    01:11:32    See if I can say this. Based upon my experience in the state of New Jersey, this is a classic bulk and dimensional variance classic case.  
Speaker 13    01:11:45    Hmm. And do you believe that the proposed signage would have, in your experience doing this for a number of years with your credentials, do you believe that the proposed signage would have any adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood in consideration of the surrounding area?  
Speaker 15    01:12:02    No,  
Speaker 1     01:12:03    I think that's planning testimony. Ms. Schulsky, I, I, I understand. I understand why you're asking. I  
Speaker 13    01:12:10    Think he could give his, Go  
Speaker 1     01:12:11    Ahead. No, I, he can give opinions and signs. He can't give opinions in planning or engineering or water runoff, or  
Speaker 15    01:12:19    Can I give opinion based upon research.  
Speaker 1     01:12:23    But again, it's not your area of expertise. If I research engineering, I can't give questions on how much water can go through a 10 inch pipe. I mean,  
Speaker 13    01:12:36    I mean, he could, he could, he could offer, and the board could give whatever weight that they, that they deem it to me. He obviously is not, I'm not offering him as an expert in, in planning.  
Speaker 1     01:12:47    So the, and I, and I appreciate that, but I don't think he can give any testimony that starts with, it's my opinion other than it's my opinion that this is a, a nice color palette for the sign, or it's my opinion as to why I want to interiorly light them. Like he can give his opinion about the signs, but I don't think he can give his opinion about fitting the character of the neighborhood and positive and negative criteria.  
Speaker 13    01:13:17    Do you believe Understood. I'll move on, Mr. Crawford. Do you believe that the proposed sign will be an improvement to the overall appearance of the apartment complex and in keeping with some of the exterior building improvements that Morgan Properties is proposing to make to the property?  
Speaker 15    01:13:34    Yes. The sign is in the best, We're proposing the sign in the best location possible, and the alternative would be a sign that would not be visible or legible for motorists.  
Speaker 13    01:13:48    And did you have an opportunity to review the review letter issued by the Division of Engineering Planning and Development?  
Speaker 15    01:13:54    Yes.  
Speaker 13    01:13:56    And is it your understanding that the applicant is agreeable to comply with item three, which is the fixing the, the broken sidewalk in item five regarding removal of certain signage?  
Speaker 15    01:14:08    That's my understanding.  
Speaker 13    01:14:10    And is it your understanding some of that signage actually has already been removed as well?  
Speaker 15    01:14:15    Yes.  
Speaker 13    01:14:17    And regarding item five, which is the recommendation as to reducing the size of the sign height, do you have an opinion as to whether it makes sense to reduce the sign height?  
Speaker 15    01:14:30    Based upon the research studies that I have managed, most of which were done at Penn State, at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, which is called the Larson. Now, low mounted signs are hard or harder for motorists to see. We did one project in regard to minimum sign height. And surprisingly, as it may seem, the view of low mounted signs five feet, four feet high, the view of them is blocked by other traffic to a high degree. And that was the basis of the study, particularly where you have a four lane road where someone on an opposite direction on the, out on the outside land is trying to look across. And they have only maybe five or eight seconds to see the sign.  
Speaker 15    01:15:21    The view, the view of a low mounted sign is blocked to a degree that motorists can't see the signs. New Jersey, d o t has a traffic audit available online from a 2019, but they took a look at this afternoon and it's was taken farther down the road at South Randolph Road. But when I look at the numbers, the traffic counts per hour at certain hours of the day, morning and evening. You can have a high degree of blockage if you make this lower. So if you said, Well make it one foot lower, I'd say that can't be my recommendation based upon the research, it, it should stay in the height that it is. And in fact, in the study at Penn State, RVs and trucks and SUVs were not even imputed into the study. They, we just looked at cars. So the, the higher the sign, the easier it is for motors to see and read the sign. That would be my recommendation.  
Speaker 13    01:16:21    And regarding, regarding item one, which relates to the dedication of additional right away, is it your understanding that the township's master plan is changed and as a result the township's requesting that 19 feet of additional right of way along the entire property frontage of applicant's property be dedicated?  
Speaker 15    01:16:41    That's my understanding, yes.  
Speaker 13    01:16:43    And if the applicant were to dedicate the additional 19 feet along the entire length of the property, would that then put the proposed sign within the right of way?  
Speaker 15    01:16:53    Yes. As we are proposing it? Yes.  
Speaker 13    01:16:57    And in your opinion, would that create some issues for the owner?  
Speaker 15    01:17:03    Yeah, you're gonna end up with signs in a newly dedicated right of way or behind it. If you go with the 25 feet, they won't be able to be seen maybe a waste of time nor to be a service to, to motors. They won't be able to see them.  
Speaker 13    01:17:24    And could it also impact some of the other existing area bulk requirements of the apartment complex in terms of setbacks of existing buildings, impervious coverage, building coverage, those types of things? If an additional 19 feet were taken from the property,  
Speaker 1     01:17:40    Ms. Schulsky, that's planning testimony, he can answer that.  
Speaker 13    01:17:43    Okay. That's all the questions I have.  
Speaker 6     01:17:48    Thank you. Board members. Have you heard the testimony of this witness? Does anyone have any questions? And I'd like to start out with my own question. The, the, the height of the, of the letters on the original, on the proposed sign is are they larger or the same size, or even smaller than the sign that's there now, the letters,  
Speaker 15    01:18:11    I'm just going by by eye because I can't, I don't wanna call this up on my design program, but the letters on the proposed sign are larger than the letters on the existing sign. If you see, you look at, if you look at the exhibit, it's all on one line right now on that oval. But in the new sign it's stacked so the letters could be larger.  
Speaker 6     01:18:41    Okay, I see. Thank you. Now, any other board members have questions of this witness?  
Speaker 10    01:18:52    Madam chair? If I may. It's not a question, but I would like to circle back to item number one in the report. Just going back to what Stein said, this board wouldn't grant the applicant the right to have assignment right away. So as, as you are aware, anytime an application is brought before this board, we take a look at our circulation element of the master plan. In this case, the requirement along all New Brunswick Road is 52 feet. That is why the staff has made the recommendation that the applicant make a 19 foot dedication. Now, if they were to make that dedication, it would be up to this board where that sign should be placed outside of that right away, whether it be 10 feet, five feet. I know Mr. Crawford made a comment that across the street there's the Avalon, the Grove, those, those developments were also required to make this 19 foot dedication, to bring this roadway to the 104 foot.  
Speaker 10    01:19:48    Overall. Right away, those signs are slightly closer due to that roadway dedication. Mr. Crawford, I don't recall if you made any comments about the square footage of those signs across the street and how they compare to the one being proposed this evening. But again, I just wanna bring it to the board's attention. This is not, this is not something unique to that we ask, this is of all applicants that appear before our board, in terms of the right of way, dedication, you know, we might be able to work with you in terms of the, the size of the sign. But waiving this requirement is not something this board tends to do in terms of, again, of that right of dedication. I just wanna, I just wanna bring that to everyone's, you know, attention and, and so forth. But ultimately it, it's, it's the decision that it's board.  
Speaker 14    01:20:48    Do you want me to comment on that now or do you wanna Well,  
Speaker 13    01:20:51    Okay,  
Speaker 14    01:20:52    No comment.  
Speaker 13    01:20:52    What I was just gonna say, I mean, just from a legal perspective, I mean, and I understand, I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the fact that you're trying to keep everyone, treat everyone equally. And I, and I do, I do appreciate that. But I do think our situation is different. When the apartment complex was constructed across the street was a raw land site, it's much easier when, when it's raw land to plan and develop and, and determine where you could gonna put your buildings and your setbacks in relationship to the ultimate right of way here. It's been an existing apartment complex for a number of years with existing signage. And it just doesn't seem like it's rationally related that there's a nexus between that 19 foot dedication and what the relief that we're seeking tonight. I mean, as a, I'm sure the board is well aware, there is, there is numerous cases out there that say there has to be some reasonable relationship. There has to be something generated by this particular development that's necessitating the need for immediate road improvements that would justify having to provide, you know, essentially right away without just compensation. So again, we, we really wanna work with the Township on this, but 19 feet is, is really extraordinary amount of land along that entire property frontage, given just the nominal improvement that's being done here, which is simply replacing a sign.  
Speaker 14    01:22:12    Well, I just wanna add to that.  
Speaker 14    01:22:16    Sorry, I just wanted to add to that really quickly. So, and, and Ms. Schulsky tried to, we tried to talk about this in advance cuz I, I know that this is a sticky situation. So I, I consulted our general counsel and has is just say, look, what is the process of going about this? And basically, I mean, the overall response is, is we are totally agreeable to doing this. But the process for us is, is we have to go to the lender and say, Hey, you know, we're looking to, to dedicate the right of way and we have to say what it is that it, that we're looking to dedicate. So there has to be some type of plan or some type of proposal that says what this is being dedicated for. And then there's a process. And from what I'm told, it's not a quick process. It could take several months for the lender to get back to us. There's a, a cost associated with that, you know, that we would incur. And, and again, you know, our general counsel said they're happy to put a letter together that says that we're agreeable to going down that path if and when plans ever come to fruition, if something were to, you know, happen where there's going to be an expansion or something.  
Speaker 9     01:23:23    Madam chair, Can I cut this off? This, You know, this is going on too long if you don't give the right of way up. I'm voting. No, I've been on this board Madam, I've been on this board for 30 years. We've treated everybody equally when it comes to the master plan. We get the dedication, end the discussion. So if you guys aren't gonna do the dedication, then I'm voting no. Simple as that. And I'll encourage my other board members to vote no too.  
Speaker 13    01:23:52    I mean it really,  
Speaker 9     01:23:54    Counsel  
Speaker 1     01:23:55    Can I pushing  
Speaker 9     01:23:56    More up the hill on this one?  
Speaker 13    01:23:58    I'm just saying we're trying to be reasonable here. But if you have to take, if you have to go through eminent domain 10 years from now, cause you wanna ride the road, you gotta pay my client a lot of money to I  
Speaker 9     01:24:09    I'm voting now. I'm voting, I'm voting now.  
Speaker 1     01:24:11    And and to be clear, Ms. Schuls, I didn't want cut off Ms. Work heiser before Mr.  
Speaker 9     01:24:18    Barlow. Can we take a vote on this?  
Speaker 1     01:24:19    I just wanted to put something on the record. Okay. May I appreciate that. I just wanna put something record. You're not just trying to change a sign. Cause if you were gonna just reface a sign, you could do that without going before the board. You want to change the sign and move it to an area that's within the 25 foot setback currently. So this isn't just, we want to change the sign. If you wanted to change or reface the sign in its current location, you could do that without having to appear before the planning board. It's the moving of the signs and the placement of them that's triggering the variance relief and, and the, and the requisite standard. So I just want the record to be clear. We're not just changing a sign, we're moving the signs. And that's what's triggering all this. And that's the only comment I had. If any of the other board members have any questions following up on Mayor wall.  
Speaker 13    01:25:14    And  
Speaker 4     01:25:15    I think  
Speaker 13    01:25:17    That your sign, your ordinance doesn't address this type of sign. It's under this category that it really doesn't fit within. And there's other districts that allow it to be 10 feet where it is proposed. We,  
Speaker 10    01:25:28    We only allow original signs to be located 10 feet. I mean, those are, they're small signs. We're talking very small signs, not a, I mean, you're coming in here, even if it was a 28 foot sign, we wouldn't allow you to have it at the ordinance. Doesn't allow you to have a 10 feet from a the property line.  
Speaker 4     01:25:44    Dawn, if I, if I may, just again, getting back to the issue of the right away dedication. Look, we save our taxpayers dollars by having our corporate business partners agree to that. You know, Ms. Schulsky telling me that we would have, you know, that your client would be eligible to get, you know, quite a bit of money for that right away has no bearing on this board. To be honest with you. What we do on this board in terms of that is ask our business, our corporate partners to do that precisely for the reason of saving the taxpayers the dollars. It has nothing to do, whether that I wanna do this or that or the other. At the end of the day, that road will have to need improvement. The, the road may be widen some, and the last thing that this board would be willing to sustain is to pay for that right of way because that's how we save our taxpayers dollars.  
Speaker 4     01:26:56    And I'll be quite honest with you, I have a 20 foot right of way in front of my house that I had no say on when my road half width was changed. No one came to me and said, Oh, Gabrielle, here's, you know, the money for that. And I didn't even go before a board to argue my point. The point is, is that these are for the betterment of the society like sidewalks, et cetera, et cetera. I would venture to say that if the client is agreeable, well, while it sounds like Miss ER is saying that and there's these other sort of, you know, behind the scenes issues that may delay the project, I might just have you ask your client to table this for a moment. Go back to the lender now and ask them exactly what that process is. Because that sounds like to me from miss work is that that's really the only issue is gonna be the delay and how much time it takes for you to advise the lender of sort of this loss of land and then whatever it's gonna take to maybe redo that loan paperwork. That is our goal here. We try to do right by our residents and we try to save them those taxpayer dollars. And I know, you know, the Mayor has heard it for 30 years, so he's kind of not, does not have patience for this where I just wanna give a full explanation as to what is behind this board's adamant sort of stance on that. If I, if I could just be Blount about it. But, but in a maybe clearer way perhaps.  
Speaker 14    01:28:35    And I just wanna clarify so that I can be clear. We're happy to go to the lender and it's not about time and we're happy to, to absorb the cost that's associated with plans and presenting and getting the approval. But we don't know what we're asking for approval for. We have to go to them and say, here's the plans for the right of way.  
Speaker 4     01:28:57    Well, I think the Township would expect you to hire an engineer and  
Speaker 13    01:29:00    Survey it and provide all that information. That's my understanding.  
Speaker 1     01:29:06    Yes.  
Speaker 14    01:29:07    But what is the right of way for like, what are we hiding the road? Are we putting in a turning lane? Are we,  
Speaker 13    01:29:15    I guess that's the other issue too. And again, I  
Speaker 14    01:29:19    I  
Speaker 13    01:29:19    Put a gun your head saying that's  
Speaker 14    01:29:21    We're not  
Speaker 13    01:29:23    Township over the last the records. We need people to talk one at a time. Please.  
Speaker 1     01:29:28    Yeah, Ms. Sch, you're talking over your client. So the widening of it's a 19 foot dedication, it's exactly what it says in the report.  
Speaker 13    01:29:40    But the, my concern is the 19 foot dedication then puts our proposed sign in that right of way. So if you ever go to wide in the road, our signs gonna be in the right of way.  
Speaker 1     01:29:52    You can't, your signs gonna be farther back. You're gonna go, you're gonna start at the 19 foot dedication and then move the sign back. And the relief you would be seeking is whether it's five feet from that 19 foot right away or 10 feet or whatever. And that would be what you are seeking the relief from the board. We're not, the board can't let you put the sign in the dedicated right away.  
Speaker 13    01:30:16    So then we're gonna have our sign back further than where it is right now.  
Speaker 1     01:30:22    Yes, correct.  
Speaker 14    01:30:23    Right.  
Speaker 10    01:30:24    Mr. Crawford, I'm sorry, you had an exhibit before that showed the proposed setback, I believe it was for Avalon and the Gro, maybe it was around 16 feet, is that correct?  
Speaker 15    01:30:35    I think it showed it back from the curb.  
Speaker 10    01:30:37    From the curb. Okay.  
Speaker 15    01:30:39    Yeah.  
Speaker 10    01:30:40    Okay. There. Its okay.  
Speaker 1     01:30:41    I it was,  
Speaker 10    01:30:43    Yeah, you were from the curb. Okay.  
Speaker 14    01:30:49    Right. So,  
Speaker 10    01:30:50    So s I'm sorry. That's what Mr. Barlow is trying to say to you. You cannot, we wouldn't approve of obviously a sign in Ari in the right of way, but if in fact your client was agreeable to the dedication, then we would wanna know what you would, what relief you'd be looking for. Whereas Avalon, right, you can see again, this is from curb, maybe it's eight feet, maybe it's seven and a half feet from property lines.  
Speaker 14    01:31:14    Right. But see, yeah, Debbie, I guess this all goes back to my original point. But then even if then it doesn't make any sense because we do the plans, we get the approval, we dedicate the, the right of way, we have to put the sign 19, we have, we can't put the sign in the right of way. You, even if you got the right of way, doesn't mean you're actually going to to act on it.  
Speaker 13    01:31:40    What,  
Speaker 14    01:31:42    So then we would just have a sign that sits really far back from the road  
Speaker 9     01:31:49    Madam chair. I wanna make a motion, deny this application. I, I mean, I'm tired of hearing this application. You know, you guys didn't prepared, You knew, you knew the town was asking for this. Your attorney knew this was asking this.  
Speaker 13    01:32:03    I I have been, with all due respect, I have been talking to all your various consultants and I got  
Speaker 9     01:32:10    Tomorrow, I'm making a motion to this application. Well,  
Speaker 1     01:32:13    May, may, I appreciate that. But I just think I want just Miss Ms. Schulsky to indicate if she doesn't have any further testimony, she plans on putting on the record and we just have to open it to the public and then it would be appropriate for a motion.  
Speaker 13    01:32:28    I just wanna clarify that we have been working in, in due diligence in good faith trying to resolve this for the last, since we became aware of, of this 19 foot dedication. When we originally speaking after the planning board meeting that we were at two months ago, we were thinking it might be a few feet. We had no idea what the, the ultimate implication of it with this amount of land. So I have been trying to speak with all your consultants. They've all been very, very responsive to me when I, but nobody has been able to answer that question of what, you know, whether the Township would grant us back in easement. If we were to dedicate this, could we then have an easement to have a right to have this sign there? And it sounds like from what you're saying tonight, no, that's not the case. That was the question I was trying to, to learn before this hearing so that we could properly respond to, to the board tonight. And we have been really trying to work this out. That's why we quite honestly, that's why we gave AUR the last year and we were trying to come up with a resolution so that we could have everything, you know, resolved and discuss this evening.  
Speaker 9     01:33:32    Okay. Mr. Mr. Barlow, Let's, let's move, move, see if the public wants to make comments. So we come to a conclusion and as  
Speaker 1     01:33:39    Can unshare the screen, please.  
Speaker 6     01:33:46    Okay. Ms. Buckley, would you, I'm opening the, this portion to the public and would you check and see if anyone has made a motion that they want to ask a question of this witness?  
Speaker 7     01:33:59    No one's raising their hand.  
Speaker 6     01:34:01    Thank you. Close to the public. What, where do we go now?  
Speaker 9     01:34:08    I, I Madam chair my motion still stands to deny this.  
Speaker 6     01:34:15    Is there a second?  
Speaker 7     01:34:19    I'll second that. Motion.  
Speaker 6     01:34:23    Roll call.  
Speaker 7     01:34:24    Excuse me. Mayor. Wahler?  
Speaker 9     01:34:26    Yes.  
Speaker 7     01:34:27    Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 1     01:34:33    Yes.  
Speaker 7     01:34:34    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 1     01:34:35    Yes.  
Speaker 7     01:34:36    Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 6     01:34:40    Yes. Okay. The motion has been denied.  
Speaker 13    01:34:47    Thank you.  
Speaker 6     01:34:55    Okay. Our final item on the agenda. Well, it's not, Yeah, the final item. Item number 13. Discussion and adoption of the 2023 planning board calendar. Ms. Buckley, do you have a proposed calendar?  
Speaker 7     01:35:16    Everybody got it in their packet? Madam chair.  
Speaker 6     01:35:20    Okay. Are there any, are there any adjustments or changes that the board wishes to make to the proposed calendar at this time, if there's no amendments or adjusters adjustments, I make a, Would someone like to make a motion to accept this as our official calendar for 2023?  
Speaker 5     01:35:40    Chair Kinneally, Make that motion that we accept as official 2023 calendar.  
Speaker 6     01:35:50    Second  
Speaker 5     01:35:51    Calendar.  
Speaker 7     01:35:52    I'll  
Speaker 6     01:35:54    Thank please.  
Speaker 7     01:35:56    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Hill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 5     01:36:04    Yes.  
Speaker 7     01:36:05    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 6     01:36:11    Yes. Do I have a motion to adjourn?  
Speaker 7     01:36:15    Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 5     01:36:16    Chair  
Speaker 7     01:36:17    Atkins. Oh,  
Speaker 6     01:36:21    We have a resolution. I'm sorry. Yeah.  
Speaker 7     01:36:23    Mr. Barlow, I believe we have a resolution. The area in need. Okay.  
Speaker 1     01:36:28    Oh, okay. Just to go. The first area need study. I don't think we adopted the resolution. Madam chair. We did it on the second one, correct. Laura?  
Speaker 7     01:36:39    Correct.  
Speaker 6     01:36:41    Okay.  
Speaker 1     01:36:41    So we just need a motion to adopt the resolution on the area in needs study for redevelopment recommending to the Township council.  
Speaker 6     01:36:54    Is that the New Brunswick Road? New Brunswick Avenue?  
Speaker 7     01:36:58    No, that was the in need  
Speaker 6     01:37:02    Have to the resolution.  
Speaker 7     01:37:06    Motion.  
Speaker 6     01:37:08    I have a second.  
Speaker 7     01:37:10    Second. Dawn  
Speaker 5     01:37:11    Second. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 6     01:37:15    No call please. Mayor.  
Speaker 7     01:37:16    Wahler? Yes. Ms. Cor Councilwoman. Cahill? Yes. Ms. Cor? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 5     01:37:24    Yes.  
Speaker 7     01:37:25    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 6     01:37:31    Yes.  
Speaker 7     01:37:36    Now you could go to your German Madam chair.  
Speaker 16    01:37:43    Was there a four lot subdivision that needed to be memorialized or was that done earlier?  
Speaker 7     01:37:48    That was already  
Speaker 1     01:37:49    Hollywood. That  
Speaker 6     01:37:51    Was before.  
Speaker 7     01:37:52    That was the first.  
Speaker 16    01:37:52    Gotcha. Just wanted to make sure.  
Speaker 6     01:37:55    Oh, I got it. Thanks. Another set of eyes that we, our next site plan meeting is November 23rd. Everyone. So motion to adjourn. Motion. Motion I, Mr. Boston. All in favor? Aye. Everybody the same privilege? Hearing none. The motion the meeting is adjourned. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Thanksgiving technical review. Happy Thanksgiving. Okay, Byebye everyone. Thanks for everyone that's.