Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on May 25 2023

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    Leaving everyone. Hello, John. Hi.  
Speaker 0     00:00:28    Okay, I'm down.  
Speaker 1     00:00:34    Yeah, I'm good. Got it? Yeah.  
Speaker 2     00:00:38    How you feeling, John?  
Speaker 0     00:00:42    You  
Speaker 1     00:00:42    Good? Yeah. Okay,  
Speaker 0     00:00:45    Fine.  
Speaker 1     00:00:49    Hey Laurie, did you get the memo in Colgate?  
Speaker 3     00:00:53    Yes. Yeah, I sent it. I'm double checking now, John, but yeah, of course. Yes, I got it on May 12th. We got it. John?  
Speaker 2     00:01:31    I got seven 30, Laura.  
Speaker 3     00:01:33    Okay. Just one quick announcement. Anybody who is an attendee, if you are here for an application. Lori, do you hear  
Speaker 1     00:01:41    Me?  
Speaker 3     00:01:42    Yes. John, we can hear you. If you're a professional for an application, raise your hand and I can make you a participant cuz I don't know if you're a participant or not. Mr. Wilder. Okay. Are there any other professionals that need to be become? Okay. All right. I think we're good. Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:02:14    Okay. Thank  
Speaker 3     00:02:15    You. Only  
Speaker 2     00:02:15    Board of zoning, board of adjustment meeting will please comfortable.  
Speaker 1     00:02:19    Your audio  
Speaker 2     00:02:20    Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice posted on the board in the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Curry News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll?  
Speaker 3     00:02:37    Ready? Mr. Tillery?  
Speaker 1     00:02:42    Here.  
Speaker 3     00:02:43    Mr. Patel?  
Speaker 1     00:02:44    Here.  
Speaker 3     00:02:45    Mr. Regio? I don't think he was gonna make it. Mr. Mitterando?  
Speaker 1     00:02:52    Yes. Well, yes. Mr. Dacey? Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:02:56    Chairman. Cahill?  
Speaker 2     00:02:58    Yes. Here will everyone please stand for salute to the flag  
Speaker 4     00:03:05    Allegiance?  
Speaker 5     00:03:18    Amen.  
Speaker 2     00:03:20    Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?  
Speaker 4     00:03:24    I am not aware of any changes to the agenda. Good.  
Speaker 2     00:03:26    Let's proceed. Let's go to item number 5 23 dash ZB dash 42 v AIF Juta washy Ori. Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:03:37    Yes. That's me.  
Speaker 2     00:03:39    Okay, sir.  
Speaker 4     00:03:40    Sir, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand?  
Speaker 5     00:03:43    Yes, sir. I can.  
Speaker 4     00:03:44    You swear the testimony you're about to give be the truth?  
Speaker 5     00:03:47    Yes, I do. Address  
Speaker 4     00:03:49    Please.  
Speaker 5     00:03:50    20. My name Cahill. My address is 20 Valley Lane Paca 8 8 54.  
Speaker 4     00:03:56    Thank you. You can put your hand down and to the board why you're here.  
Speaker 5     00:04:00    I'm here be because  
Speaker 3     00:04:05    For the fencing.  
Speaker 5     00:04:05    For the fencing,  
Speaker 4     00:04:09    Yes.  
Speaker 5     00:04:13    My wife does everything.  
Speaker 4     00:04:17    Mr., Dacey, Cahill. Do you understand that if access to the easement is necessary, you're responsible for removing and replacing the fence?  
Speaker 5     00:04:25    I agree. Your I I do, your Honor.  
Speaker 4     00:04:27    That's all that I have. Mr. Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:04:30    Okay. Henry, no other issues? Nope. That was the only issue. Okay. Fair enough. Any other members of the board have any questions about this application or comments? Hearing and seeing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application?  
Speaker 3     00:04:50    No. One Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:04:51    Hearing none? I'm gonna close the public portion and make a motion to approve this application.  
Speaker 6     00:04:56    Second, please  
Speaker 2     00:04:57    Call the roll.  
Speaker 3     00:05:01    One sec. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?  
Speaker 2     00:05:12    Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:05:13    Mr.. Dacey. Your application has been approved. We will memorialize it in a document at our next meeting and send that document to you.  
Speaker 5     00:05:20    Thank you so much, your Honor.  
Speaker 4     00:05:21    Good luck.  
Speaker 5     00:05:23    I I can get off.  
Speaker 4     00:05:24    Yes, you're all done.  
Speaker 5     00:05:25    Thank you, sir.  
Speaker 2     00:05:26    Have a good evening. Number 6 23 ZB 49. Vsh and Aita.  
Speaker 6     00:05:36    Here. Right here.  
Speaker 4     00:05:37    Hi. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth?  
Speaker 6     00:05:43    Yes, sir. We do  
Speaker 4     00:05:44    One at a time. Could I have your name and address please?  
Speaker 6     00:05:47    Mukesh Setti, 35 Ballas Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 0 8 8 54. Thank  
Speaker 4     00:05:56    You. You  
Speaker 7     00:05:58     35 Ballas Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 0 8 8 5 4.  
Speaker 4     00:06:03    Thank you. Could one of you explain to the board what you'd like to do here?  
Speaker 6     00:06:07    I'd like to retroactively get approval for existing front porch with the roof. This, this is how we bought the house back in 2008. And  
Speaker 2     00:06:17    Can Mr. Sethi, could you raise your volume a little bit or speak closer to the microphone?  
Speaker 6     00:06:22    Yeah, we are seeking retroactively approval for existing front porch with the roof on top.  
Speaker 2     00:06:30    Okay.  
Speaker 6     00:06:30    This is how we purchased the house back in 2008, as is the roof was there. So have submitted that image when we purchased the house, the listing of the house. And  
Speaker 2     00:06:44    Did you have an opportunity to look at Mr. Hinterstein site impact dated May 16th of this year? Henry, why don't you tell, tell him what you said on there, please.  
Speaker 8     00:06:57    Yeah, I mean, really there's only a couple of conditions. I don't see any issues with this. Obviously, they, they bought the house like this. I looked at the other homes in the area. There are some other porches. The only condition would be is that the porches to remain open on all sides. We don't have an, a problem with the, with the roof, but it shouldn't be enclosed. And the only other condition would be is that you, you're gonna need to pull a building permit and just have the, the porch inspected by the building department to make sure that it was constructed properly. They'll come out and do an inspection, and that's for your protection as well as the Township protection. We don't wanna see something that was constructed without a permit being faulty. So just once, if you get your approval, just take that resolution, file for the building permit, have 'em come out and inspect it. Tell 'em you bought the house. That way if there's any issues, they'll let you know.  
Speaker 4     00:07:52    And is, are you agreeable with that?  
Speaker 6     00:07:54    Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:07:55    Okay. That's all I have. Mr. Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:07:57    Thank you. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing and seeing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the general public have any questions or comments about this application?  
Speaker 3     00:08:08    No. One Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:08:09    All right. Close the public portion. Make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second?  
Speaker 6     00:08:14    I second  
Speaker 2     00:08:15    Please. Call the roll.  
Speaker 3     00:08:17    Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. El? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?  
Speaker 2     00:08:26    Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:08:29    Your application has been approved. We'll Alize it at our next meeting in a written document and send that document to you. That's the document you'll need to get your permits.  
Speaker 6     00:08:37    Thank you very much. Board member. Good  
Speaker 2     00:08:39    Luck. Have a great night. Guys. Let's move on to item number 7 22 dash ZB dash 82 v Eve Star Properties.  
Speaker 4     00:08:48    Mr. Schwartz?  
Speaker 2     00:08:50    Yes. Mr. Chairman is Brian Schwartz. I'm here for the applicant.  
Speaker 4     00:08:55    It's all yours.  
Speaker 9     00:08:56    All right. We were here last in March, I believe, and we were given certain suggestions as to how we could make our plan better. We've worked with the townships consultants continuously in the last couple months. We've come up with a plan, which I think addresses Mr. Stein's concerns and the other consultant's concerns of the Township. And that's what we'd like to present tonight. I am not going to belabor it because you've already heard extensive testimony from us. So I just have two witnesses, our professional witnesses who are gonna explain the changes. And in Mr. Wilder's case, who's our planner, he's just going to reiterate that he believes that the positive and negative criteria of the statute are satisfied by our, our revised plans. Okay. Please proceed. All right. Mr. Kumar is our Barsh Kumar is our architect. I think Mr. I know Mr. Kumar on.  
Speaker 10    00:09:55    Yes, I'm here.  
Speaker 9     00:09:56    He's on.  
Speaker 4     00:09:57    Mr. Kumar, were you sworn in at the last hearing?  
Speaker 10    00:10:00    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 4     00:10:00    You remained sworn in to tell the truth?  
Speaker 10    00:10:02    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 9     00:10:04    Mr. Kumar, are you able to share your plans, your revised plans with the on the screen?  
Speaker 10    00:10:11    Yes, I can. Should I go ahead? Yes,  
Speaker 9     00:10:18    Please. Yes, if you can. Okay. It's been enabled. Okay. Why don't we start with a one, the cover sheet with the, which is an elevation, which is going to show how, how significantly I believe that the facade has been modified. There you go. Yeah. This is a, is this plan dated May 11th pk? Yes. Alright. Could you explain what the changes have been made since the board last saw this?  
Speaker 10    00:10:45    Yeah, so I'll just go with the, about the differences. So we brought down the size of the, of the house significantly based on the board's comments. And so it became from a four bedroom, two car garage house to a three bedroom, one car garage house. And the, the big item was the building coverage was brought down from more than 25% to 20%, which is in compliance. And so there, there's no variance required for that. So, so the footprint of the building became much smaller. And also the height, so the ceiling heights of the ceiling heights is, can you hear me? Is there some introduction? Okay, so the ceiling heights for the both the floors was reduced from nine feet to eight feet. The basement windows were removed and it, the base was lowered. So, so now the basement does not have any windows, but we had to sacrifice in order to bring down the, the, the, the height of the building. And also the roof was lowered a couple somewhat. So, so now we are about eight feet less than what, what is allowed, the allowed is 35 feet. So now we are about 26 feet, nine inches.  
Speaker 10    00:12:22    And then also, as per the comments from the board, we had re we removed the, the front two story porch and also the overhangs in front of the, of the main entrance and on top of the garage door. So those were removed. So the massing became much smaller. And, and however, it's still looking good because the, the patterns, the material patterns, the, the design was about the same concept. And, but now it's flat, flat on the, on the walls. It's not sticking out as much as, as it used to. And, and also, so I'll just go quickly and show you the first floor. If I zoom into the first floor, you can see the main entrance. So it's one big open area these days is the o open concept. Everybody likes that. So in the main, main entrance, you see the living room, the family room, the kitchen, the dining.  
Speaker 10    00:13:32    And then from the garage, you come in on the right side, you have a powder room, and then you go down to the basement from the stairs and you come further down and in the front. And then you can go up, there's a small pantry over here and a court closet for any guests, you know, to use that. Then when you go to the second floor, on, on the left side, you have a master suite with, with the master bedroom in the front, the sitting, sitting area in the back, the two walk-in closets and a master bathroom. So this whole thing becomes a master suite over here. And then you have two additional bedrooms with walk-in closets and a common bathroom in the, on the back, right on the back, right corner. Back right corner. Right. And then if I go to the next one, the basement, the basement, you will see when you go down, you have an office, a laundry room, a mechanical room, a bathroom, and, and one big open entertainment area. And the rest is on.  
Speaker 10    00:14:51    Bye. Rest is unex excavated. The roof plan is pretty simple. It's, it's economical and, and, and simple with barely any, any overhangs. However, you know, to make it look good from the front, it obviously has to, has to work with the, with the elevations. And then we go to the elevations. The, the front elevation is still looking pretty nice, aesthetically with the, with the brick patterns in the middle, the brick and stucco is mainly on the two streets, street facades, which makes it very attractive. And the other two sides are just vinyl siding. It's nothing much going on it on the other two sides.  
Speaker 10    00:15:42    And, and the, the back, the back stairs that we did, it's, it is using the, the 16 inch diameter footings, not a continuous foundation. So it's not really part of the building, not a, not a building foundation, it's just on 16 inch diameter footings, and three, probably three footings is what we need. And then you can see the height is about 26 feet, nine inches. And that's to the peak, the peak of the house. So in reality, you know, if you look at the massing, you know, the median heights, the median, the, the median height is, some of the ordinances look into the median height, but that's even, even less. But the 26 9 is to the, to the, to the top, to the ridge, to the peak. And rest of it, you know, you just, you see eight foot ceilings, you see one foot six from the ground to the first floor. And rest is self-explanatory. So if I go one more last time to the, to the, to the cover sheet, you can see this is a major intersection and it's going to look really nice entrance to the neighborhood where it's a very attractive building notwithstanding that we, we brought down the size significantly, both the, the, the footprint and also the height and, and the massing. So, you know, we feel it's still looking very nice, although we've brought it down significantly. And so,  
Speaker 9     00:17:30    So basically, Mr. Kumar, you've tried to strike the balance between the reducing the mass and the footprint and the size of the building, but at the same time keep its aesthetic features for a new home, that'll be a benefit to the neighborhood. Is that correct?  
Speaker 10    00:17:47    Correct. Exactly.  
Speaker 9     00:17:49    Yes. I, I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:17:52    Do, does anyone have any questions for this witness? No, I guess we can address the site impact after your next witness, Mr. Schwartz?  
Speaker 9     00:18:07    Yes. Yes. We'll, we, we have our engineer and planner. I think he, he'd be able to address that.  
Speaker 2     00:18:12    That, that's fine. Yeah. If we could, in the interest of expediting this, if we could address Mr. Stein's memo from May 18th, I think that would be in every, both parties past interest,  
Speaker 9     00:18:21    We'll certainly do that. Awesome.  
Speaker 2     00:18:22    Let's proceed with your next witness.  
Speaker 9     00:18:24    Okay, good. Mr. Wilder, you still here? Yes.  
Speaker 12    00:18:27    Yes,  
Speaker 2     00:18:28    Mr. Wilder, you were sworn in at the prior hearing, is that correct?  
Speaker 12    00:18:31    Yes, it's  
Speaker 2     00:18:32    You, you remain sworn in to tell the truth.  
Speaker 12    00:18:34    Thank you, sir.  
Speaker 9     00:18:36    Mr. Wilder, you are both our planner and engineer, is that correct?  
Speaker 12    00:18:39    Yes, it is.  
Speaker 9     00:18:40    Are you able to share your screen and show your most re recent site plan plan which is dated, I also believe May 11th, 2023?  
Speaker 12    00:18:48    Absolutely.  
Speaker 9     00:18:53    Okay. Why don't you explain what changes have been made since the board last saw this, this plan in March?  
Speaker 12    00:18:59    Sure. So the biggest change obviously was related to the building changes, as Mr. Kumar pointed out. So we had adjusted the building footprint based on his revised plans. Aside from that, we did make some other changes at the, we talked about at the first meeting and also that we had discussed with the board professionals. So aside from the building modifications, we did relocate the air conditioner to no longer being in the, in the rear yard. We provided screening around it. We also reduced the footprint, if you will, of the driveway, which was available since it was now a one car garage in lieu with two car garage. So in the grand scheme, while the site plan changes weren't, weren't subs or weren't significant in, in number, they reduced the number of variances that we're seeking for the proposed construction down simply to one. So again, not, not a lot of changes were made from a site plan perspective, but we were able to bring the, the proposed development into much greater compliance from the first application or the first exhibit from the prior application.  
Speaker 9     00:20:00    I, I believe the most important change in the footprint is that you move the building, correct?  
Speaker 12    00:20:05    That's correct. It's now pushed up against the east side of the property. So it, it sits on the eastern setback as well as the northern setback. And that maximizes the setback to the, to the west  
Speaker 9     00:20:18    Still maintaining the setback, required setback with the ordinance, correct?  
Speaker 12    00:20:22    That is correct.  
Speaker 9     00:20:23    And as far as the front setback goes, we had initially gotten a report saying that the setback was 12.99 feet, but we had maintained it was 14 feet. And, and in fact Mr. And Mr. Stein's report his memorandum date May 18th, he agrees as 14 feet, correct?  
Speaker 12    00:20:40    Correct. And that, that was a function of the bay windows not extending to the foundation.  
Speaker 9     00:20:44    Okay. But, but we have, we have increased the front setback, correct?  
Speaker 12    00:20:49    That is correct. The prior, when we were here previously, that front setback proposed was, lemme see, it was 10 feet. So we've increased it by four feet.  
Speaker 9     00:21:01    And, and, and at same time we, we have the difficulty, I mean the, the classic sea variant situation where we don't have much room in the backyard. Is that correct?  
Speaker 12    00:21:09    That's correct. I mean, this is in an undersized lot and it's an undersized corner lot. So just from being undersized in nature, it's being squeezed, but it's further being squeezed by the fact that it is a corner lot.  
Speaker 9     00:21:19    Now, you, you have seen Mr. Hinterstein report date May 18th, 2023, correct?  
Speaker 12    00:21:24    Yes, I did.  
Speaker 9     00:21:25    All right. Nu number one, we just talked about the setback. The other requirements two through six are engineering details that he would like to see the applicable comply with. You've got up on on the board now.  
Speaker 12    00:21:38    Yep. And we have no issue with those. We will provide those as a resolution compliance submittal.  
Speaker 9     00:21:43    All right. So we will agree to a condition to approval that we will comply with these requirements prior to issuance of billing permits?  
Speaker 12    00:21:49    That's correct.  
Speaker 9     00:21:50    Alright. I think I just have one final question, Mr. Wilder, because I want you to put on your planning hat for a minute. You've gone through all the criteria, all the positive name criteria for the variances that no longer exist in terms of the one variance. Well, there are two other existing conditions we can't do anything about. Does that, has your opinion change at all with regard to this variance now that we have changed plans?  
Speaker 12    00:22:15    Yeah, if anything, by bringing the property more into compliance, at the last hearing I referenced the Doll Meier case, which is really the case that establishes how isolated undersized lots should be dealt with. And one of the prongs of the Dolley case is to try to build as conforming a home as possible. And the reductions we've made have eliminated some of the variances that we were seeking. So again, the negative criteria I thought was satisfied in that we're building a residential use in a residential zone, and I believe from the positive criteria, establishing greater conformity with the zoning standards advances that as well.  
Speaker 9     00:22:50    Thank you. That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:22:53    Thank you, sir. Any other members of the board have any questions for this witness? Hearing none, I'm gonna, I'm assuming that's your last witness, Mr. Schwartz?  
Speaker 9     00:23:04    It's, it's fine.  
Speaker 2     00:23:05    Mr. Chairman Chaill. Mr. Please.  
Speaker 1     00:23:08    I would add one other condition. The affordable housing fee is part of the resolution each, each new residential construction has to pay into the Township Housing Trust fund.  
Speaker 9     00:23:23    Well, there's not much we can do about that, so I have to agree.  
Speaker 1     00:23:27    And  
Speaker 8     00:23:28    There's one other thing, Mr. Mr. Cahill? Yes. And that's just, you know, looking at that driveway, the nine foot driveway, I think that should probably, we don't have an impervious coverage. So in, in fairness, I appreciate the fact that they've reduced the footprint of the driveway a little bit. My concern is though, that the, the driveway is only 14 feet, roughly 15 feet in, in depth in front of the garage. So I just feel like, I think that it probably makes sense to have that driveway be a little bit wider than nine feet, perhaps 10 feet. I just wanna make sure that a car can comfortably fit on that driveway that's along the side of the house, that somebody could get in and out of it without any issues since really that's their full parking space. I think the space in front of the garage really won't be that usable unless they have a small vehicle. So really the garage space becomes a space and then that parking space to the side of the home. So I just think it'd probably be beneficial that that driver would be perhaps another foot, foot wider, which doesn't result in any, any issues or variances. I just feel like that'll be just more usable for the future homeowner as far as being able to park there.  
Speaker 2     00:24:51    Thank you. Ms. Daniel, Christine, Mr. Schwartz, are you in agreement? I'm certainly in agreement, but I have to ask my client, Manish Carna, who I, I believe is here by the phone. Please do. We'll, we'll take a couple minutes. Yeah, we'll agree to it. There you go. That was quick. All right. So any other members of the board have any questions or comments about this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Laura,  
Speaker 3     00:25:23    No one Chairman.  
Speaker 2     00:25:24    Okay. Close the public portion and make a motion to approve this application. Second. Thank you so much. Call the roll.  
Speaker 3     00:25:33    Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Re? Yes. And Chairman Cahill?  
Speaker 2     00:25:42    Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you very much calling Morning everyone. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you Miss Buckley.  
Speaker 3     00:25:50    Thank you. Have a great night.  
Speaker 2     00:25:52    Let's move on to item number 8 23 ZB 31 slash 33. Colgate Aithal Corp. Mr. Gal present?  
Speaker 14    00:26:05    Yes. I'm trying get my video started here. It is not starting you mind if I proceed with that video for the momentarily  
Speaker 2     00:26:23    By means?  
Speaker 14    00:26:25    All right. My name is Sandy Glacia. I'm an attorney with Wendell's Marx Lane and Mittendorf on behalf of the applicant. Colgate Paul Mall Company. Colgate is the owner of the subject property located at 9 0 9 River Road, known as as block 1 7 1 Lot 16.05.  
Speaker 14    00:26:49    Colgate received approvals in 2009 for phases one through three of a, a solar project on the campus as an effort to reduce their carbon footprint and use renew reusable and renewable energy to help power the facility. This involved the installation of solar panel arrays on the roof of the parking garage and in the surface parking lots at the rear of the facility. The application we're presenting tonight is for phases four and five, which propose installation of solar arrays over the existing visitor A and B surface parking lots and the new W wing surface P parking lot along with the associated electrical equipment, the installation of 24 electric vehicle charging stations and associated landscaping we're requesting conditional use of bulk variances in connection with this application and we'll be, we'll be presenting planning testimony and support of those. We have submitted our affidavit of service of notice to the board and we have also submitted an application to Middlesex County. I have two witnesses to present tonight. Mr. Michael Thomas, who is the engineer, and John McDonough who is our planner. I would ask the secretary, allow Mr. McDonough to participate as a, as a panelist. He is on the call currently.  
Speaker 3     00:28:23    Okay, but what is he under? Cuz I don't see his name. I see a Zoom one or Ronald Meyer.  
Speaker 14    00:28:31    It may be Zoom one.  
Speaker 3     00:28:34    Is that you?  
Speaker 4     00:28:38    What's his name, sir?  
Speaker 14    00:28:40    John McDonough. John McDonough? Yeah. I didn't see nothing either.  
Speaker 3     00:28:43    No, I do not see him. Sandy,  
Speaker 14    00:28:47    Is he in a waiting room?  
Speaker 3     00:28:50    No, I don't, I don't do waitings. I only have attendees and panelists. There's nine on there and none of them are him.  
Speaker 14    00:28:56    Okay. We'll see if we can get him, get him. Okay.  
Speaker 3     00:29:00    You can send him your link too when he, he could use your link to log on. I could just change his name.  
Speaker 14    00:29:04    All right. I'll forward that to him. Thank you.  
Speaker 3     00:29:07    You're welcome.  
Speaker 14    00:29:09    So without further ado, I'd to call my first witness and have him sworn in. Mr. Michael Thomas. Please proceed.  
Speaker 4     00:29:17    Mr. Thomas, are you present?  
Speaker 15    00:29:20    Yes, I am.  
Speaker 4     00:29:21    I need to swear you in cause you raise your, raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth.  
Speaker 15    00:29:27    I do.  
Speaker 4     00:29:28    Thank you. Your name and address please?  
Speaker 15    00:29:30    Michael Richard Thomas. I work at T n M Associates, 11 Road Middletown, New Jersey.  
Speaker 4     00:29:37    Thank you.  
Speaker 16    00:29:43    This meeting is being recorded.  
Speaker 2     00:29:49    You there Sandy?  
Speaker 14    00:29:51    Yes, I am. Yeah,  
Speaker 2     00:29:52    Please proceed with your witness.  
Speaker 14    00:29:55    Okay, Mr. Thomas, can you provide your credentials to the board?  
Speaker 15    00:30:02    Sure, sure. I have about a 2020 years of site development and water resources based experience. I'm a graduate of Penn State University with where I did my undergrad in civil engineering. And then, and I also have a master's degree in civil engineering from N J I T. His credentials  
Speaker 2     00:30:23    Are acceptable. That's, you can proceed.  
Speaker 14    00:30:25    Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomas, you've been involved in the preparation of this application and the plan submitted to the board?  
Speaker 15    00:30:34    Yes.  
Speaker 14    00:30:35    And are you prepared to provide testimony in support of the application?  
Speaker 15    00:30:39    Yes.  
Speaker 14    00:30:40    All right. Can you provide that testimony please?  
Speaker 15    00:30:43    Sure. So it's okay with everybody. Can I share my screen?  
Speaker 2     00:30:48    Please do.  
Speaker 15    00:30:55    Okay. And I believe the exhibits, what you're viewing right now, were provided to the, to the board prior to the hearing, but I don't know if this needs to be marked or not. Sandy,  
Speaker 4     00:31:07    If it was part of the original submission, it does not need to be separately marked.  
Speaker 14    00:31:12    It was not. So we would need to mark it as a one  
Speaker 4     00:31:15    A one with today's date, please.  
Speaker 15    00:31:23    Okay. So the, there was a package that we had provided to the board, like as I had mentioned. Hello?  
Speaker 4     00:31:39    Yes. And we can hear you.  
Speaker 15    00:31:42    Sorry, there, I have  
Speaker 2     00:31:43    Something else on.  
Speaker 15    00:31:47    Yeah, there was an echo on. I'm sorry. Okay. So the, the first exhibit that, that we have up here is an overall exhibit of the site. I'll just run through some of the existing conditions on the property. We wanted to just give sort of like a, almost like a 10,000 foot overhead point of view of the site so you could see what's going on around. So Colgate Palm, this is not the first time we've presented in front of the board and I'm sorry, I'm hearing another echo again. Everybody can perhaps mute their, okay, that's better. Oh, so we have presented previously to the board for, for a separate so solar application at the same site. The project site that we're looking at is, is is adjacent to several features around the site site. Most relevant, I suppose is the rare Itan River, which is nearby the Delaware Maritan Canal. River Road is also immediately to the south of the site. And there's existed wooded areas surrounding the site as well. Residential properties are located to the east of the site and also to the south of the site. But generally speaking, the, the facility is kind of tucked in within its property, surrounded mostly by existed wooded vegetation with the slight exception of the Long River road where, where there's more open grass areas as you approach the site more visible from the roadway.  
Speaker 15    00:33:20    So I'll give a a a brief background, I guess, of, of some of the zoning requirements that we, that we're asking for, for this particular project. The, the job is located in the ER zone, which is the education and research district. There's a few variances that we are requesting as a result of this. There's more specifically there's two D three variances that we're requesting. Both of these are surrounded ar around the idea of the conditional use that we are, that we are requesting. Solar is permitted in the zone as a conditional use, but we are not complying a hundred percent with the conditional use requirements. So, so that, that's the reason for the D three variance. It's very, very similar to the variance that we had requested back in 2019 when we were in front of the board for phases one, two, and three of the project. And that had to do with the ground mount arrays being taller than than 10 feet at that particular time back in 2019. And also with, right now we're, we're proposing a arrays that are taller than that. More specifically, we are providing canopy solar arrays, which are, which are essentially located within the existing parking lots and are covering the existing would be covering the existing parking spaces.  
Speaker 15    00:34:43    In addition to that, we're requesting a variance for providing solar that is located within the existing front yard. And, and that's the, the two arrays, which I'm gonna kind of hover my, my hand around, which are on the southerly end. We're calling that parking lot A and parking lot B over here where my hand is. And those are located within the front road adjacent to where river road is obviously set back quite a distance from, from the, from the roadway. But nonetheless it requires a, a variance for that. There's a few bulk variances also that we're requesting. The height of the, of the array itself is, you know, shall shall not exceed 10 feet. So we're requesting just a basic bulk variance for that, for that specific requirement. And then in addition to that, the structures shall not obstruct parking aisle access and more specifically, we're providing two arrays that are spanning existing parking aisles, which are located in lots A and B.  
Speaker 15    00:35:55    In addition to that, we have the maximum accessory structure requirement, which is a bulk requirement in the, in the zone it's limited to, to 25 feet. We are proposing two of our arrays, which are arrays, again, located in the, in the A and B lots in the site, which are 28 feet in height at its at their maximum level. And then the last bulk variance that we're requesting has to do with just the general condition use conditional use standards. And we're requesting a bulk variance for that. We have a series of waivers that we were also requesting. Most of the waivers that, that these are focused on are, are irrelevant to new buildings, new building construction, enclosed building instruction, roof, roof improvements, stormwater management improvements on the, like we we're requesting waivers for those things. Mostly because they're just simply not applicable to, to the nature of this project.  
Speaker 15    00:36:56    So I'll talk a little bit about the, the proposed work that we have. I'm gonna move down to our next, our next rendering, which is part of this, this exhibit. I dunno if you want me to mark this one out separately as well as a two or if you want me to just keep it as a one. Yeah, A 2 8 2 please. So this will be a two. So this is just a more zoomed in version of the last exhibit that we just viewed. It gave, it gives the overall perspective of the site with all the improvements that are on it. We were trying to show our existing landscaping that's out there today with the, with the existing rendering that's there, along with the proposed landscaping that we are suggesting for this particular project. Buffering for the arrays as well as in some internal plantings that we're proposing.  
Speaker 15    00:37:46    And the, the little red xs that you see hovering around the screen, those are the existing trees that we are proposing to be removed. In total, we have about 136 trees, which we are proposing to be removed. Some are smaller, some are larger. There are some of them that are, that are, you know, taller trees, you know, upwards towards 50, 50 feet plus. And then there's others that are much smaller. You know, something around the 10, 10 foot height level. We are proposing a tree replacement ratio, which was consistent with the first three phases of, of the development of the solar development. So back when we were presenting in front of the board in 2019, lot parking lots, d and l, which is located on the, I'll call it the more nor northwestern corner of the, the, of the site parking lots, F and k, which is located on the north eastern corner of the site.  
Speaker 15    00:38:41    And then there was an existing parking deck that was out there as well. We were proposing solar over that in order to install much of the solar that was on the ground, especially in lots D, N, L and F and K, there was a necessity to remove some of the existing trees that were located within the, within the existing parking lot. The trees themselves were either interfered with where the proposed arrays were going, or they would have provided shading onto the arrays, which would've minimized the efficiency or effectiveness of the arrays themselves. So the, the necessity that we're, we're calling for out in this particular development, there's, there's three parts of it. There's the, the W wing, which is I'll say is located on the more like southerly corner of the, of the lot. There is a lot B, which I was mentioning a little bit earlier, which we have a, a spanned array, which, which like I said, it covers or runs over an existing dry vile, which is within the existing parking lot.  
Speaker 15    00:39:42    And then very similarly we have a little bit smaller array, which is, which is located in, in lot a this one is also, again, spanning the, the, the existing aisle that that's there today. So you could see like, you know, in relation to where the arrays are with, with where on the site, you could see that they're located over mostly existing parking spaces, with the exception of the previously approved parking deck and the solar that's on top there. We, we did investigate and, and you know, do a preliminary analysis of where we could put the arrays on the site and working with the team where, where would they make sense, you know, where where was the most logical place to put them without creating additional disturbances and new impervious surfaces and things like this. The rooftops of the buildings were investigated as well, but there was several concerns, especially from the, from the fire folks in the Township and elsewhere and, and just the flat out fact that structurally speaking, and also size-wise, the roof was much more limited in terms of availability compared to the ground mount systems.  
Speaker 15    00:40:55    So, you know, decision was made by the Colgate Palm Mall of executive folks to, to propose this addi, these additional arrays on the ground as opposed to on top of the roof rooftops of the, of the existing structures that are there and, and proceed in that fashion. This is a, a a, this, this arrays that we're proposing are part of a phase sequence. Again, I had mentioned that a little bit earlier. The Colgate Pal's portfolio is, is growing to expand more renewable energies. There, there's a great, a big, a large desire to offset as much of the existing facility power production as possible, you know, with, with the renewable energies. So, so that is the general intent behind what is being proposed here. I'll run through a little bit of some of the specifics of the arrays themselves. So we ha we're proposing 10 arrays, which are located on the, I'll call it southeastern corner of the, of the site.  
Speaker 15    00:41:57    Those arrays are generally all the same size. The approximate dimensions are 93.5 feet by 40.9 feet. And then at, its at their very, very tallest, it's 25 foot tall. The, the, the minimum height that we made for all of the arrays that we're posing right now is 14.5 feet. The general intent behind that was to, was to provide enough clearance that an emergency vehicle can, can go underneath them. Now we, we don't intend or expect emergency vehicles to go underneath any of these arrays. In fact, we've done our truck turning exhibits showing that they would be able to access either in between the arrays or around the periphery of the, of the arrays. But not, but not necessarily underneath the 14.5 foot clearance was really just a backup plan, so to speak. Whereas if, if someone had to get underneath their emergency vehicle for whatever reason, then they could drive, they could drive underneath them and do that.  
Speaker 15    00:43:01    So the, the arrays that are located on this corner of the site, again, on the, on the southeastern corner, 25 feet is the max of height, which does meet the, you know, the accessory structure, maximum height requirement. It is taller than the 10 foot maximum solar height requirement. But again, there are safety reasons that are, that were brought into play here. And the rationale for, for making them, making them higher, a little bit taller. Generally speaking with solar, and I don't know if everybody's aware of this, but, but we live in the north northern hemisphere and what that generally means is you try to, you tilt the angle of the arrays towards the equator, right? And that, that's not, it's not always perfect for every site. Can't always get that exactly, but that's the general intent. So with these particular arrays that are located here in the southeastern corner, they're tilted towards the southeast, generally towards the south.  
Speaker 15    00:43:58    So the low side of the array, which is the 14.5 foot minimum clearance is, is the side that's closest to where like the existing residences are. It's not the high side but the low side. So that's, that's important because with things like lighting and other, other pieces that we have to incorporate into the design, which are located underneath the, the array so that everything is gonna be focused downward and it's the low side, again, that's gonna be facing where the, where the existing residence are not, not the high side. The configuration that we chose for this was not by accident. Like I said, there was a lot of investigation, preliminary work that went into laying out the locations of these arrays where, where they could feasible be feasibly be done and safely be installed. And also provide the necessary emergency services that, that would be needed in case there, you know, in the case of a fire or something else that needed, needed access to the site.  
Speaker 15    00:44:57    So in this particular case, the arrays, you know, again, this, this w wing lot which is over here is a little bit curve alinear. So the, the arrays that we chose for this particular lot are done in a sort of like a staggered way and not done as one continuous lar lar larger or longer array. The, we are proposing some removal of existing trees on there. And with the, with the configuration that we created here, it, it is a necessity to remove those existing trees because of the shading impacts that they have on the arrays themselves. There's some, there's some existing trees which are out here, which are either in the exact same location or where the arrays are proposed or they are just very, very tall. So it's 50 feet plus some of them are even 75 foot tall. And we had, you know, as part of our due diligence and working with this project, we have to do a shading analysis.  
Speaker 15    00:45:58    And that shading analysis allows us to determine the exact extents of the shading on the arrays and if there's any kind of production or, or or power generation reduction that's associated with that. So we have to, when we're doing this, we're coming up with numbers in terms of figuring out how much offset this will create on an annual basis for, for the exist for the existing facility. We have to account in different times of the year, different months, you know, when the sun is lower in the, in the winter months and higher in the summer months. And, and all that is factored into, into the annual offset that the solar solar produces.  
Speaker 15    00:46:45    I'm gonna move a little bit to the, to the west now. And this, this second one here is the, is is a lot B of the site. We're, we're calling this one array LS two. That particular array is 155 feet by 95.4 feet. And at its very highest point is 28 foot tall. 1414 0.5 foot vertical clearance at the very, very minimum, again very similar to the, to the arrays in the wing. And then the array, which is very similar to it just slightly smaller, is located further to the west. And that array is, is LS one. And, and I apologize, I got the two mixed up there. Ls, LS one was the longer one and that, that dimension was 180 7 0.1 by 95.4 by 28. And then and lot a where my hand is right now. That array was the first dimensions that I told you, which was 1 55 0.9 by 95.4 feet by 2028 foot tall at its max.  
Speaker 15    00:47:56    All the arrays that we're proposing here are, are supported by steel structures. The steel structures have concrete footings which are, which are circular in in nature. They're about three foot diameter for the most part. There are some piles that we have to put in and then also some different foundations and some some specific locations. So in, in one of one of the array locations in the, I believe it's in lot a, there's an existing, I'm sorry, in lot b I should say there's an existing parking space where one of the arrays, one of the columns for the arrays needs to be located in order to make, to make it work. So for that particular array, that parking space, we, we ended up relocating it in the same, same parking lot without having to create any additional impervious surface or anything like that. But it's just a simple relocation of the lot of, of that parking space from one place to the next to to account for that proposed column that's, that's gonna be lo located there.  
Speaker 15    00:49:00    And in terms of parking for the site, we're not changing the parking, we're not modifying it. We did do a parking study as part of this particular project. Colgate Aithal had asked us to do that, just to have an accurate accounting for themselves more than anything else. But, but also to provide and fill out the zoning information in the parking information correctly on site. It's part of this project and the nature of it, because we're for, we're here for preliminary final major site plan, we are required to follow this data, New Jersey requirements for new ev charging stations on the site. So, so there's several new EV charging stations, which we are proposing on the site more specifically. And just, just for everyone's awareness, there's about 1,355 total parking spaces on the site. Those parking spaces include 507 existing parking spaces, which are located in the parking deck and then 814 surface parking spaces, which are throughout the facility.  
Speaker 15    00:50:06    And then there's also a childcare center which has some parking associated with that, which, which has about 34 spaces. So when you do the math for the, for the ev charging space requirements, we are, we are going to be providing under proposed conditions, a total of 56 EV charging stations throughout, throughout the site. Some of them will be handicapped accessible to meet the handicap accessibility requirements. But you know, the general idea with this again, was to pro provide that accurate accounting of the existing spaces on site. And then in addition to that, provide the correct number of ev ev charging stations.  
Speaker 15    00:50:51    So those are the general specifics about what we're proposing. I'm gonna talk a little bit about the landscaping next on the site. As I mentioned a little bit earlier, we are, we are proposing landscaping at a two to one ratio. One of the things that we are suggesting on site, and this is not, not that the client was unwilling to do so, but the site is quite oversaturated with existing trees and I'm, I'm gonna go back to exhibit A one if that's okay, just so everybody can kind of see. But, but again, you could see that the periphery of the site is, is quite, quite well vegetated. You know, there's less, less so, you know, with the number of trees I, I suppose, which are fronting river road, however we are providing 117 proposed trees on site and then 155 to meet the two to one ratio. We are, we are suggesting 155 additional trees be provided as a fee in lieu of, of the remaining trees that, that we had to provide and you know, essentially a donation to the Township for that. So, and, and you know, to locate those trees where, where they, where they feel best suited. We, we, for the trees that we are proposing of the 117, we tried to strategically locate them in the best spots. I'm gonna flip now to another exhibit, which I, I guess I'll call this exhibit a three. Yes.  
Speaker 15    00:52:30    And what this exhibit shows, it's, it's sort of like a, a photograph point of view from, from some of the locations of the existing residences which surround the site. This particular one, front, front River Road. The purpose of the exhibit was just, was just generally to show the, you know, the distances to the, to the existing homes and you know, it's quite, it's quite far. There's quite, quite alar, large frontage, you know, in front of the site, you know, along with an existing detention facility that's there. But we wanted to show some of the, some of the nearby distances. And I'll just zoom in just a touch here just to give you guys an idea what we're talking about on the southeastern corner of the lot, you know, from the, from the nearest proposed array, it's the closest assistance we observed to the existing residence was 237.34 feet and that's from the w wing lot.  
Speaker 15    00:53:31    The, the visitor lot, which was lot B in, in phase five was about 540 linear feet from that existing residence. And then there was another existing residence which was a little bit further to the west, which is about 600 and 686 feet away. And then as we moving a little bit further to the west lot, lot a in that existing or that proposed array, you know, to the nearest existing residences are 703 feet and 813 feet respectively. So it's quite, it's quite a distance from from River Road to where these arrays are. It's not to say that you wouldn't see them, but we, what what we did do is we showed some photographs here just, just, just to give you an idea from strategic locations about what it looks like currently there in front of the site. And these, these photographs were taken about a couple weeks ago and I apologize for the, for the loading here, it's just, it's a pretty large PDF size here.  
Speaker 15    00:54:40    So, so photo photo number one, which was taken, I'll call it on the south western corner of the lot, it was the general idea behind it was to show the kind of the breadth of the existing vegetation that's out there today. And you could see that in the photograph that's shown here, photo, photo number two, which was taken, which would almost be like a, a bullseye shot if you will, to where lot lot A is and where the solar would be located there. But again, you could see the existing wooded vegetation that is in front of that today. And then picture number three is, is more focused on on lot, you know, pointing towards lot B, which, which that particular array is there. And then again, the existing vegetation that's there today. So we did see some comments in the, in the, I think I believe it was Mr. Stein's review letter about pro providing some, maybe some additional supplemental plantings in these locations. And you know, we, we'll definitely be able to work with him to, to find strategic locations of where we can do that. So I don't think that's, that's an issue. I have  
Speaker 2     00:55:53    A quick question if I, if I can interrupt Mr. Thomas? Sure, sure. Do you have a similar exhibit for the homes that are on Wal Haven or Orchard, which is off hose lane's west?  
Speaker 15    00:56:03    Yes, and that's gonna be my next exhibit. Perfect.  
Speaker 2     00:56:06    Appreciate it.  
Speaker 15    00:56:08    So this, I guess I'll call this one exhibit A four.  
Speaker 2     00:56:13    Yes.  
Speaker 15    00:56:14    Okay. And I'll zoom it out first so you guys can see it again, I apologize for the reloading, it's just, it's a large PDF size. So,  
Speaker 15    00:56:23    So we're obviously very concerned about the residences which were nearby and, and, and the proximity to where our, our, our arrays are here. We, we were, we're providing landscaping buffer to, to compensate for, for many of the trees that are to be removed. Obviously when trees are planted, really can't be installing new trees taller than eight foot tall. Many, many of the nurseries don't, don't have them. And you know, it's just a, there's, there's a much higher success rate when you're, when you install something at a somewhat reasonable height and eight feet seems to be kind of the magic number at planting. So it's gonna take a few years for these trees to mature. However you could expect the trees that we're proposing, and a lot of them are, are, are evergreen in nature what we're suggesting here. But you could expect them, you know, within five years they'll be around 12 to 12 feet tall, 12 to 15, potentially within 10 years it could be like 15 feet, maybe a little bit taller than that.  
Speaker 15    00:57:31    And then within 20 years and and beyond it'll, they'll probably reach their more mature height. We had to be a little bit careful with species selection for these, for these evergreen plantings here. We don't want the trees to be taller than the arrays themselves. Right. And the rationale for that is the shading impacts that it has on the arrays. You lose power production when, when you have those, those shading impacts. I, I know there was a comment that came in from Mr. Hinterstein about the location of where we had concerning the five closest arrays, which are, are on the, I'll call it the, the more southerly or easterly side of, of the W wing. And those arrays, again, were strategically placed there, there were several reasons for that. I'll, I'll just run into some of them right now. The first is that the shading impacts that we have on a site, and this is just kind of a, you know, just a, a a basic thing that's gonna happen re regardless of where these arrays are gonna be located within this parking lot.  
Speaker 15    00:58:35    But shading occurs throughout the parking lot here for, for these trees that were proposing to be removed. So whether we took the arrays and relocated them further to the east or not, it's, they're still gonna be shaded by the existing trees that are there today unless we remove them. So that's, that's one one thing that, that was important when we were going over this and trying to figure out a, the best location for this. There are several trees which we are proposing to be removed in those areas. Many of them have been planted recently and are, and are and are around a 10 to 12 foot fall height. Some of them, again, as I had mentioned earlier, before are taller. Some of them are, are quite tall, like, you know, 50 to 75 foot tall exist existing trees. But there was also a practical and safety application with this as well.  
Speaker 15    00:59:25    We wanted to make sure that we were not putting a raise closer towards where the existing driveway was cuz that's, that's where the main access is, is running around the, the periphery of the site. So there would be some overhang there if we had done that. And then, and then in addition to that, even though we did design, or at least what we're proposing, the, the lowest side of, of the arrays are about 14 and a half foot above the ground. There was never any intent to have emergency vehicles go underneath these arrays. And we designed our p our our our truck turning movements that are, that are running around these parking lots to, to essentially stay out from underneath them to, to just run around the periphery of them to not, to not go underneath them. So putting, putting these arrays with the low side of the array closer towards the roadway would complicate that and there's safety concerns with that as well.  
Speaker 15    01:00:24    In addition to that, there's an existing PSEG utility, overhead utility line which runs i'll I'll just say in a north east easterly direction, sort of where my cursor is running on the screen right now, we're gonna need to relocate that as, as part of this project. The, the relocation for our preliminary discussions with PSEG was to come along the, the, the ring road which runs around the periphery of the site. And, and if we were to do that, you know, that that's the preferred location of where they would want that to go. So, you know, if, if we had moved the arrays there, obviously we wouldn't be able to to do that. So there's, there's some engineering and practical reasons for locating them where they were or where they are right now. But we are again very, you know, very cognizant of the fact of the impacts of the, of the tree removal.  
Speaker 15    01:01:16    So we did prepare this exhibit to try to help, I'll call it clarify some of the existing buffer that's there today. The photos that are shown on here were taken from, from Google, from Google Maps. And the reason why we did that, because they had the best photographs with the leaves down, the desiduous leaves fallen down and we, we didn't have as good of pictures. Most of the pictures we had had full coverage of the, of the leaves back here. So we, we, we were utilizing these photographs here to kind of show the, the points of view. The first one, number one on here is from Orchard Road. So it gives that viewpoint sort of like at the end of the roadway there looking in, you can see there are some existing evergreen trees already out there today. A lot of, a lot of deciduous trees which, which are there, but the trees down. But, but again, you know, I'm gonna zoom in just to touch here so you guys can see this a little bit more clearly.  
Speaker 15    01:02:14    But again, even with that you can see there's so many trees that, that are there, right? And that the buffer that's there, even with the leaves down, it's quite, quite substantial. You know, even, even with that down there, item number or pic photo number two, and I'll zoom out again one more time here and I apologize for the loading here was taken from Wald Haven Court from the point of view of looking towards our site as well. And I'll, I'll try to zoom into this one again a little bit closer so you can see some of the, some of the existing buffer impacts that are there today. Again, this is, this is the middle of the wintertime when this picture was taken with the trees down, you can see it's pretty well, pretty well buffered with all the leaves down, right?  
Speaker 15    01:02:59    And then the last photo we took or we utilized was, was photo number three. This, this one more specifically I believe we did take this photo when we were out there, so out of the ones we were looking at, but this one shows from our site looking out towards, I'll just say the existing and, and, and there's an existing easement which is located here, which we're not doing any work within, but looking out towards the existing re residences, which are, which are there today. And we have one more, one more colored exhibit, which I'd like to show, which if, if I can, I'd like to mark it as a five. Yes, I'll open that up right now.  
Speaker 15    01:04:05    Okay. So what we're, what we're looking at is kind of like on the opposite side of the fence, so to speak, on the Colgate palm side. Looking towards the residences from, from where we are, just to give you that point of view of the, of the existing, excuse me, of the existing buffers that are there. So the, the two, the two site shots or two aerial shots that we're showing here are without the array and then also with the array just so you could get some perspective photo number one, which is taken sort of in the middle of the existing lot or I should say maybe more on the southern end of the, of the existing wing lot. You could see that there's some existing plantings that were there. And I believe again, in, in Mr. Stein's letter he had pointed out that, that some of those trees were, have been planted more recently, you know, that are there, some of them are evergreen in nature and we are, we are proposing as part of this project to have those, those trees removed cuz they would directly interfere with the proposed arrays that we have.  
Speaker 15    01:05:05    But you could see beyond that and sort of the purpose of the, of the photograph was to give you an idea of like how tall these trees are, and you could see how high they get up to the deciduous ones, which are in the background. Those are the ones that are creating the biggest impact on our, on our site. And again, it doesn't really matter if we move the arrays or not. Those shading impacts will still exist no matter what from those, from those large trees. But these trees where my hand, my, my hand is hovering around there, they're somewhere between 50 to 75 feet and some of 'em, perhaps even taller than that, that, that are there today. Photo, photo location number two is taken from, I'll, I'll just say a little bit further westbound for photo loca. Photo location number one was, so again, looking in and I'll, I'll zoom in again so you guys can see this a little bit more clearly.  
Speaker 15    01:05:57    These were photos, not from, from Google Street View, but from photos that we took out of the site. You could see some of the, the leaves were down mostly in these photos as well, but photo, photo number two, you could see again, pretty dense grouping of, of existing plantings that are there. And again, the, the deciduous leaves are down at that particular time. And then the last one, which is photo, photo location number three is, I'll say more in the central part of the W wing looking and viewing in a more eastbound direction. And that one again, is, is to give, give you some perspective of how tall some of the existing trees that are there today.  
Speaker 15    01:06:39    So I did want to give some, some additional, and I'm gonna, I'm gonna hop back to our first, I'm sorry, exhibit number 82. I'm gonna hop back to this one just to go over a few other items on the site. Just to, just to review them. We did do truck turning exhibits on the site. We bought the largest fire truck that we thought that was gonna be realistic, you know, within Piscataway Township to navigate in and around the proposed arrays to show that they, they can access it. The, the fire trucks can technically go underneath the arrays, though we don't think that's going to happen. But, but again, we were, we were trying to be cautious when we were, when we were designing these things to make sure that there was enough clearance in case there was an emergency and they needed to get underneath there for whatever reason, traffic on the site.  
Speaker 15    01:07:39    So this, this facility is, is passive in nature. There's no new vehicular trips that we're proposing as, as a result of it. It's very similar to what we had suggested back in 2019. For the first three phases of the project, there will be some maintenance vehicles on site every once in a while. It's probably not gonna be often on a more realistic side, it's gonna be probably no more than once every six months. But, you know, for to be a little conservative, you could, you could expect the vehicle to come out and observe the, the facility perhaps, perhaps once a month. That would probably be the, the normal frequency. There's really no need to come out here to do anything unless something is wrong. So there an array is down, a light bulb went out, something to this effect.  
Speaker 15    01:08:26    So in addition to that, we, we have some utilities that we are proposing on the site. So we are proposing some underground trenching, which, which runs kind of in a, we'll call it a southbound to a, to an eastbound and then, and then to a northbound direction. And both, all three of these locations for the arrays are all gonna tie in up north on the site. Oh, it's just similar to where the first three phases were tying in. So the, the, there's an existing substation that's on the site right now where they have their switch gear equipment, which is located, I'll call, call it, on the more north easterly side of the site. And we are proposing two additional improvements in that location. One of them is going to be an underground vault, which we are proposing to accommodate the five kilovolt circuit breaker. It's gonna be underground, as I had mentioned.  
Speaker 15    01:09:25    And that one's gonna be associated more specifically with phase five of the improve of, of the improvements. So phase five are the, are the two, I'll call it the larger arrays, which are located in lots A and B. And then in addition to that, we're gonna be tying into the existing manhole, which is phase four of this project, which is the W wing. And again, every, everything is intended to be tied back into the existing substation. So some necessary equipment that's gonna be required to make the, the electrical system work. We are, we are proposing to, to trench and then repair, provide payment repair to those existing areas where we're trenching within the ring road. And then in addition to that, there's some ground, ground mounted pads, which we are proposing. All, all the pads that we are proposing on the ground are, are approximately six feet by four feet.  
Speaker 15    01:10:17    And it's for the, the transformers which are associated with the arrays that were located. There's, there's one that is propo located on the, the east side of, of array Ls one, which is in lot A and then, and then in lot array number LS two, which is located in lot B. The, the pad is also located on the easterly side of that. And then gonna apologize for the lag here. It's just a big pdf. I'm gonna zoom also to the last pad, which is located, i'll, I'll call it on the more northerly side of array T five. And, and again, the, the, the pads are all approximately the same size to handle the transformer equipment that's associated with the, with the arrays. There's no new signage that we're proposing for this project. So, so we're not really proposing any new traffic control signs. There's no, there's no, you know, I'll call it monument signs that are associated with this project.  
Speaker 15    01:11:23    So it's very similar to what we had PR provided in the package back in 2019. From that point of view, we are providing lighting underneath the arrays as required to meet, you know, minimum ordinance lighting requirements and meeting the minimum, the minimum photometric standard. So we are providing lighting underneath the arrays. There are some existing light poles within the parking lots that are going to be removed as a result of the arrays, similar to some of the existing trees that, that are there. And again, the intent behind it was to provide the, the, the minimum required ordinance required lighting levels, you know, for these arrays we are using l e D lights. L e d lights are, are intended to point in the very specific direction, right? In these, in this particular case, they're gonna be pointed all downward. It's a little bit different than the older types of lights that have been used like metal haylight or high pressure sodium, which have a lot more spillover effect and lighting impacts.  
Speaker 15    01:12:23    LEDs are intended to be focused light and point in the exact direction that you're, that you're aiming it. So, so that's the general summary With regard to, to the lighting. The canopies themselves, they are not v style canopies and a V is in victor. So they're not that where they were stormwater collects in, in the arrays and gets funneled down the middle of the arrays. These, these arrays are, are draining in one direction continuously. So there's a high side of the array and then there's a low side of the array to make sure that we're providing, meeting all the safety requirements on the low side of the array with regard to icing and, and snow accumulation that could happen during winter months. We are proposing snow guards on the, on the low side of the array to mitigate that. The arrays themselves and, and all solar arrays more or less follow the same, the same criteria.  
Speaker 15    01:13:21    Solar arrays are de are intended in design to absorb sunlight, not reflect it back. So glint and glare is, is really a non-issue associated with these particular arrays. And you know, there is some humming noise I suppose that is generated from the transformers and from and from some of the electrical equipment. But it's very, very similar to what you would hear in the back of like an office building or something to this effect, a transformer that's located there or perhaps even on a street corner in an nearby neighborhood. So it's not very different from that very, very low innocuous type of use that is, that is proposed from that point of view. So I'm gonna talk a little bit about the, the carbon offsets that are associated with these arrays. So I did wanna, I did wanna touch on this cause I know this was, it was a comment in one of the review letters, so I did want to touch on this cuz I thought it was important to, to bring out to the hearing. So what I have up right now is, is a, is an Microsoft Excel file, which pretty much identifies what the, what the five, I'll call it more southerly arrays from the w w Wing would produce on an annual basis. And,  
Speaker 14    01:14:44    And Mr. Chairman, this was submitted to the board secretary in the PDF format, so we'd like to mark that as exhibit A six.  
Speaker 15    01:14:56    A six. Thank you. Thanks, proceed. Mr.. Dacey. Okay. So, so, so for this particular one, th these are those five again, those five southern arrays. I'll just show everybody again on the screen if I can, if I get there it goes. So it's, so it's these arrays which are located here on the, on the W wing lot. So it's, so these, those, those five specific arrays which are arrays, T six through through T 10 total 750 modules that are, you know, solar modules that are associated with them. And the, the, the watts that each of these arrays are producing is 485 watts. And these are much more efficient panels now than, than they did that they made even 10 years ago. So on an annual basis associated with this, we can expect in the kilowatt hours is what I'm talking about here. We can expect 454,000 680, 88 kilowatt hours, which are, which which is what those five southerly arrays are, are producing. And then what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna bring up one other PDF on the screen if you just bear with me a second. And I wanted to kind of bring that into context of like a real life scenario. So, so what we have up on the screen right here is taken from,  
Speaker 14    01:16:36    Sorry, Mike, we would mark this as a seven  
Speaker 15    01:16:40    Mr. Dacey a seven. Sure,  
Speaker 14    01:16:46    Go ahead Mike.  
Speaker 15    01:16:47    Sure. So, so that's equivalent to 322 metric tons of carbon dioxide. And just to give that as a point of comparison of what that means, that that would be equivalent to, excuse me, that would be equivalent to 71.7 gasoline powered passenger vehicles being utilized for one year or, or 826,051 miles driven by the average gasoline powered passenger vehicle. And to, to put it in the context of vegetation. And they have a whole bunch of equivalencies here that they, that they provide. I don't think I need to go through all those. I appreciate that. But it's also equal to 5,328 tree seed seedlings that are grown over a 10 year period, which is also equal to 384 acres of the United States Forest over one year. So, so those little arrays, those five arrays that we're talking about, pack quite a punch in terms of offset, you know, associated with them. Now that's not, these numbers are not for the entire system we're proposing. That's just those five arrays that are, that are located, you know, furthest to the east of, of the wing w wing lot.  
Speaker 15    01:18:14    So in addition to that, I'd like to provide one last, one last exhibit, which I guess we'll call a eight. And this is the, this is the offset that the proposed solar facility is, is, is proposed. This is, this is how much equivalent offset of, of the annual production or power, power usage that the facility does on, on, on a yearly basis, right? So the first three phases of the project were already constructed. We had that improved back in, in 2019. Phase one of that offset 6.25% of Colgate's energy usage. Phase two did 14.55%. Phase three did, you know, the cu and these are cumulative numbers by the way, once you add one to the other, then phase three did 21.94%. So phases one, two, and three together did, did about 22% offset of the entire facility's energy usage. When we're adding in these two new phases, now that we're proposing, we're getting all the way to to to over 34% of the facilities energy, energy usage from, from these, from these arrays.  
Speaker 15    01:19:34    So it's quite substantial offset what we're proposing here. So again, just just to kind of sum up, you know, it's very innocuous use that we're proposing. We, we understand obviously that there are some things that have to be accounted for in order to do it, which can include things like tree removal. We are concerned obviously about the, the impacts to the nearby residences and, and, and the nearby community as well. The visual impact of it. We're absolutely willing to work with the, you know, with the Township landscape architect to come up with a scheme that would, that would provide the greatest visual buffer that we could possibly produce, you know, on site while at the same time understanding that that the site has a lot of trees on it already. Right? And which is, which is part of the reason why we were suggesting to the, the fee in lieu landscaping portion of the site.  
Speaker 15    01:20:36    But, you know, if we don't have to use the exact numbers that I was throwing out there, but you know, if there's a need to add more trees onto the site and then perhaps some of them less with the, with the fee and lieu, that's, that's fine. But we do feel that this is a well thought out design that the arrays are located in the correct spots on the site and to meet the maximum, you know, efficiency that we could possibly get, you know, on the site and, and try to create the, the least impact that we can make on the nearby community.  
Speaker 2     01:21:09    Thank you.  
Speaker 14    01:21:10    Thank thanks Mike. I just have one question cuz you, you, you were very thorough. During weekends and, and off hours, will these panels supply power to the local grid through PSEG?  
Speaker 15    01:21:31    So this is, this is intended to be a net metered project. So the, it's it's based upon the usage of the facility. So I, if there are overages there, there can be credits that are, that are given associated with that. But this is not a direct connect into the, into the system. So the net metered system is intended for the, the, the end user here, which is  
Speaker 14    01:21:56    Okay, thank you. It's the only question that I had.  
Speaker 2     01:22:00    Okay. I'm sure we have a few more though, Mr. Hinterstein, did you wanna address this now or?  
Speaker 8     01:22:07    Yeah, I mean I could address some things now that were what since it was brought up that  
Speaker 2     01:22:11    Was just recently brought up. I appreciate that.  
Speaker 8     01:22:13    Yeah, again, I mean some of those exhibits, you know, I understand they, they look great on, on, on paper, but with the unfortunately what the exhibits, what a lot of the, what the exhibits show is a lot of trees that are gonna be removed by this application. So yeah, right now the buffer's doing its job, the buffer that mind you was required not only as part of the installation of the parking lot when the W wing parking lot was put in place, many of the residents came out, had concerns, the buffer was a condition of that parking area being placed in that location. But if we go beyond that, these homes have been here probably before Colgate was even constructed. And when they came in to construct this campus, they did a nice job. They located in the center of the property, they maintained a large buffer around the perimeter of this, you know, research and development site.  
Speaker 8     01:23:13    Again, for a reason because the residents had concerns at that time and as a condition it was laid out as such and the buffers were provided. And as you pointed out, you know, many of these trees are 50, 75 feet tall. That means they're probably 50, 75 years old. You want to cut them down because they're casting a shadow on your shoulder panels and totally decimate the buffer that these homeowners have had for the last, you know, I don't know, maybe as long as the, those trees have been growing 50, 75 years ever since Colgate's been constructed. You talk about strategic location and how this is, I mean, you're basically putting these solar panels in a forest and then saying this is a strategic location and cutting down the entire buffer. To me a strategic location would be putting 'em on the rooftops where you don't have to cut down any trees and impact the neighboring property owners or putting, putting, putting the solar panels on the soccer field that's located in the front of the property that they use for recreational purposes instead of cutting down the neighbors buffers.  
Speaker 8     01:24:20    So I have to disagree with you, don't get me wrong, solar panels, I don't think anybody disagrees with the fact that the, the reduction in carbon that, you know, solar panels are, are, are noble and are worthy cause to reduce back carbon footprint and energy issues that we have in this in the world. But, you know, at the expense of the neighboring property owners who've been here a really long time and have been, I think good neighbors and, and Colgate's been good neighbors to just come in here and say, we're gonna take down 50, 75 foot trees, we're gonna take down all these evergreen trees that already had a five year head start to start over and then put in species that only grow a fraction of the height as the buffer that's there. Now to me, you know, again, those exhibits are great for the houses across the street, which I really don't have an issue with for the houses across the street, you don't have any exhibits for any of the river road houses that are along the north side of River Road that are way, way closer to this w Wing parking lot.  
Speaker 8     01:25:23    And that if you go there, you could see those homes when you stand in that parking lot today, right now. So, you know, to go in there decimate this, these solar panels are that, that those five panels on the Southeastern league portion of that lot are half over the parking lot. They're not even over the parking lot. Half of the Reyes, the other half is not. So you're going much farther into that site than I think even then would need to be. But again, I think there's other locations on this property, hence the roofs of the buildings, which again, maybe it doesn't work for your, for for Colgate, but you know, it, I feel like that's the better solution to meet the need that they're trying to, you know, get to as far as the, you know, the amount of the carbon footprint and the amount of energy that they're supplying through solar without impacting the residences.  
Speaker 8     01:26:17    Again, you have a, a soccer field in front of the campus. If you did brown and raise that were 10 foot in accordance with the, you know, with the ordinance on those, on that field, you probably would be able to accommodate most of those solar panels that are, that are going on the, the west, west wing parking area. So again, I'm just, you know, I agree with you on the, on the benefits of the project and I don't think anybody would dispute that. But the problem I have is, you know, at the cost of the buffer and the adjacent, you know, neighborhood to me when there's other locations that have, you know, that could be used on the site and, and if there can't then, then, you know, although it's a, a noble, you know, project, it, it just might not be, you know, I think feasible with, with that much of, you know, destruction of the buffer. So, you know, that's all I have to say about it, you know, at this time.  
Speaker 14    01:27:16    Thank you. Yeah, thanks Henry. Do you think that you could work with us to supplement the plantings we're already proposing and also on the other side of that sun oil pipeline, there's about a hundred feet of existing vegetation and trees there. If we added infill plantings in that area and further back into the, the existing, call it the vegetation in that area, you know, to mitigate, you know, the effects further. What's your thoughts on that? And you know, to address the rooftops, you know, Mr. Thomas testified that, you know, the Piscataway fire department does not want the solar panels on the roof and the insurance companies that ensure don't want them. And, and if you recall Colgate did have a roof fire a few years ago.  
Speaker 8     01:28:22    I don't know about what the fire department's criteria is to the roof panels. I know there's roof solar panel, they're allowed in this, in the Township. Yep. They're all over the Township. So I don't know why they would've said it's not good for Colgate, but it's good for other buildings in Piscataway. So to me that doesn't make any sense. But, you know, if you have something from the fire commissioner that says he's opposed to it, well then that, again, that just goes to my point where, you know, maybe it's not a feasible project. The problem with just adding infill, you know, closer to the residents doesn't take away from the meat of that, that buffer, the thickness of that buffer that exists now. Not only to, again, buffer the parking area, but it buffers the whole campus. And again, that buffer was, you know, left there and, and probably was a requirement of when this site was constructed.  
Speaker 8     01:29:18    I if you, you look at that site, how everything is located in the center of that site with the wooded area left all the, you know, around the perimeter. I think that was strategically done for a reason. And to just go in here and now take out trees that are 50 to 75 feet. You can't mimic that. You know, planting a new eight foot tree near these homeowner's homes is not the same as having, you know, these large trees and these trees that are now, you know, 14, 15, some of these evergreen trees that have even had a four or five year head start. You know, it's, I don't think it's fair to them to have to start over when it was a requirement from when the building went in, it was a requirement from the West Wing parking lot went in. And again, nobody's disputing the fact that this is a noble project, but I think what has to be done is I think find a location where you have less of an impact to the surrounding neighbors.  
Speaker 1     01:30:21    Henry, can I, Henry can I ask you a question that Sure. That five panels that are closest to the homes, if you remove those five panels, do we have to cut any of these trees down?  
Speaker 8     01:30:36    Well, he's saying that some of these trees cause them a shadow effect. I'd have to see,  
Speaker 1     01:30:40    I wasn't sure what he said on that,  
Speaker 8     01:30:42    But I'd have to see again, I mean, and as,  
Speaker 1     01:30:45    As as Mike, Mike, if you take the five panels out, do the five remaining work or not.  
Speaker 8     01:30:53    Yeah, I'd have to see exhibit that shows otherwise, but I think that the majority of the vegetation would be able to be saved if, if those panels were removed. I mean again, he was talking about the panels. Mr. Thomas, you talked about the panels being too close to the loop, bro, if you look at your, your proposal for, for parking lots, A and B, you're right up against the loop road. So I, I don't understand that commentary that putting the panels closer to the loop road on the West Wing parking lot is any different than putting the solar panels right up against the loop road on parking lots A and B And again, and, and I think you could create a structure, maybe it's a continuous structure similar to what you have in a B that doesn't have gaps over the aisles because you're gonna be high enough where I don't think it's an issue with the firetrucks being able to circulate underneath these, these arrays. But again, I think there needs to be a little bit more investigation and, and, and thought into perhaps alternative solutions. And if those five, those five arrays can't be built. And I understand, you know, again, what Colgate's trying to accomplish. But again, I just don't think at the expense of the neighboring property owners, you know, at this picture right here, you could see almost the neighboring pool on the right side of this picture. Yeah.  
Speaker 2     01:32:22    The very right.  
Speaker 8     01:32:24    A hundred feet away, if not less from where that parking lot is. And if you look at the other homes that are on the northern side of River Road, they're relatively close as well. So again, I know there's some strategic issues, but you know, again, without seeing an exhibit to see if these rays remove what impact the existing vegetation has on the solar rays and other, you know, the center of the parking lot. I couldn't tell you exactly I'm sure. I guarantee you one thing that the evergreen trees and, and all the newly planted material along that edge would not have to be touched. There may be just a handful of the larger trees that make cast a shadow portions of the day. Again, you can see from this picture, the, the shadows on there. So, you know, there may be two or three four trees that are cascading shadows to the center of that parking lot.  
Speaker 15    01:33:16    Other than that, so, so, so that's not true. The, the, there's several trees. There's several trees which cast shadow on the site throughout the year. This is just a photograph just to show an example. Okay. Of, well, to me,  
Speaker 8     01:33:29    To me, Mr. Thomas, you're, you're just making my point. So now there's several trees that are gonna have to come down just to put solar panels in this area that are gonna impact the neighboring homes. If it was maybe just a handful, I could see the, you know, perhaps that's, you know, not that big of a deal. But again, there's the substantial amount of trees being removed from this project is in this area. And, and again, i I just don't see the, you know, although the benefit again is a noble worthy one, I just, I think the expense to the neighboring homeowners is too great.  
Speaker 2     01:34:04    Mr. Thomas, we need,  
Speaker 15    01:34:07    Yeah, this is just a, we could certainly do this is I guess 89. This is just a, this is just a Google aerial showing shade at one time of the year from, from the, from the existing trees. Obviously it's not, it's not comprehensive cuz it doesn't follow the entire year, but it just gives an idea of what, what we're talking about.  
Speaker 2     01:34:31    Okay. Mr. Galio, this is my 20th year on the zoning board and I, I can read the temperature of the board pretty well. I would suggest that you get back to your reps at Colgate and come up. I, I just don't think we should pursue this anymore tonight cause I don't believe your application will be read favorably for call game. So if, if you'll grant me a few minutes to discuss with  
Speaker 14    01:34:56    My client offline, we'll entertain that  
Speaker 2     01:35:01    Suggestion. Okay? Thank you. Okay. Mr.  
Speaker 4     01:35:06    Chairman, would you like to do the resolutions?  
Speaker 2     01:35:08    Yes. Why don't we do that? Sounds great.  
Speaker 4     01:35:11    Okay. The first resolution, Goomer centennial on what? You voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Then Mat, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Next is Joe Korea, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Aithal? Yes. Next is Nick Mr. Dacey, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Aithal? Yes. Next is Raul Aithal Cahn, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Aithal? Yes. Next is Neville, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Aithal? Yes. Finally Yale Street Wrestling Club, which you voted to approve. Mr. Tillery? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have for this evening.  
Speaker 2     01:36:31    Thank you.  
Speaker 3     01:36:35    You could do number 10,  
Speaker 2     01:36:38    The minutes. Yeah. Make, I'll like to seat motion to the minutes from the regular meeting of May 11th, 2023. All in favor?  
Speaker 4     01:36:48    Aye. Aye.  
Speaker 2     01:36:51    On number 11,  
Speaker 3     01:36:55    There's no number 11 yet.  
Speaker 1     01:37:06    Chairman they, when the presentation was given that they would not provide any glare. I think you need to, whatever solution we get on this, the glare would be the most visible impact. And it, and should be very specific. The kid has to be a glare free.  
Speaker 2     01:37:30    I thank you John. I agree. There's also, I wish Mr. Weisman was here tonight because he's, he could lend his expertise to some of the, the in town fire issues that was brought up by the applicant. So another reason why I think this is a better move if we move this to a different date and have them sit with Henry between now and then Henry meeting. Yeah. And, and I, this is all good, but the applicant's not here, so we really shouldn't be talking about the application. Why don't we all take a two minute breather, rather just sit here and look at each other. All right. So will we go off? Yeah, you can go off camera for a minute or two, but let's reconvene in about two minutes. That was a good break then, huh? Bill? I wish I could share my peanut butter. Oh, peanut  
Speaker 3     01:45:21    Butter pretzels.  
Speaker 2     01:45:22    Hey Jesus, they should be illegal.  
Speaker 3     01:45:30    All went. Hello? No, it's,  
Speaker 2     01:46:42    Hello? Sandy? Sandy? Yes. Yes. We're back.  
Speaker 14    01:46:48    Mr. Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     01:46:51    Laura, are we recording?  
Speaker 3     01:46:52    Yes.  
Speaker 14    01:46:54    Okay. All right. After, after conferring with my client, we would like to hit the pause button and continue this at the next hearing. And in the interim, we'll we'll have discussions with Mr. Hinterstein about what we can do to address his concerns.  
Speaker 4     01:47:20    I think that's a wise move on your behalf.  
Speaker 2     01:47:22    Good move. Mr. Dacey,  
Speaker 4     01:47:27    How long do you think you would need him?  
Speaker 14    01:47:33    Depending on Mr. Henderson's schedule, you know, a couple weeks, two weeks, three weeks.  
Speaker 4     01:47:40    Do we have a second meeting in June?  
Speaker 3     01:47:42    Yes, we have June 22nd and then after that we only have one in July, which is July 13th. But if there's revised plans, I would need them 10 days prior to the June 22nd meeting. That'd  
Speaker 14    01:47:52    Be June 12th. Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:47:57    So you want the June 22nd meeting for now and if you can't make that, we can adjourn that.  
Speaker 14    01:48:02    Yes, sir.  
Speaker 2     01:48:07    Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:48:07    Mr. Chairman, do you wanna continue this matter to June 22nd with no further notice by the applicant?  
Speaker 2     01:48:12    Absolutely.  
Speaker 4     01:48:14    Okay. Anybody in the public that's here in this matter, it's going be carried to June 22nd, two three with no further notice by the applicant so that the applicant can Mr. Hinterstein and discuss possible changes.  
Speaker 2     01:48:28    Thank you, Tim.  
Speaker 3     01:48:29    Okay.  
Speaker 14    01:48:30    Thank  
Speaker 2     01:48:30    You Mr. Mr.. Dacey. Thank  
Speaker 14    01:48:32    You Mr.. Dacey, I appreciate it.  
Speaker 4     01:48:34    Goodnight Mrio.  
Speaker 14    01:48:36    Yep. Goodnight. Thank you to the board. We appreciate you. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:48:41    So any residents that are on hold right now, your, your issues will be addressed at the June 22nd meeting, which has been set up. So the issues between the applicant and the Township can be addressed and your concerns are very important to us. So please tune back in on June 22nd. Let's move to item number 11. Make a motion for adjournment. All in favor aye. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, have a great night. Thank you once again for you volunteering. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     01:49:10    Thank you, thank you. Good night everyone,  
Speaker 3     01:49:12    Everybody have a good weekend. Bye John.  
Speaker 18    01:49:14    Bye.