Transcript for Piscataway Zoning meeting on June 22 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 0 00:00:10 Okay, Chairman, we're ready to go. Speaker 1 00:00:12 Okay. Thank you. The zoning board of adjustment meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice publishing co news notice posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk. Hello. Notice sent to the Curry News and the star ledger. Will the clerk please call the roll? Speaker 0 00:00:35 Mr. Weisman Speaker 1 00:00:36 Here. Speaker 0 00:00:37 Mr. Tillery. Oh, he's out today. I apologize. Mr. Patel? Speaker 2 00:00:45 Yes. John. Speaker 0 00:00:46 Mr. Regio Roy is here. Yep. Hey, Roy. Mr. Bla here. Speaker 1 00:00:54 I'm Speaker 2 00:00:54 Sorry. Yes. Here to hear you. Speaker 0 00:00:57 Mr. Hey. DACA. Here. Mr. Mitterando? Here. Mr. Ellie? Here. Chairman. Cahill. Speaker 1 00:01:04 Here. It looks like PCT V has provided us with a flag on your screen if you wanna salute that or you can salute the one behind me, Speaker 2 00:01:21 The Republic, which it stands. Liberty. Speaker 1 00:01:30 Mr. Kinneally, are there any changes to our agenda? Speaker 2 00:01:35 Yes. There are four changes. The application of Carlos Arroyo, 38 Murray Avenue is adjourned. Theyll schedule a new date. No date is scheduled at this time, and they'll have to notice the application of Marcus Sanders postponed until August 10th, 2023 with no notice. The application of hundred Lakeview rear postponed until August 10th with no further notice. And finally, LNR properties adjourned until August 10th, 2023. They must notice the changes I have. Speaker 1 00:02:07 Okay. At this point I'm going to have the adoption of the, of the resolutions from the regular meeting of June 8th, 2023. Speaker 2 00:02:19 Certainly first resolution is five resolution Speaker 0 00:02:24 Approved. Jim, we can hear you. Speaker 2 00:02:26 Mr. Weisman. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. Duka? Yeah. Mr. Ali? Yeah. Yes. Speaker 1 00:02:43 Yes. Speaker 2 00:02:44 Elh. Patel that this application was approved. Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Ogio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Last resolution, Beth Lardo. This application was approved. Mr. Weissman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. O'Reggio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Speaker 1 00:03:10 Yes. Speaker 2 00:03:10 Mr. Duka? Yes. Mr. Ali? Yes. Chairman. Cahill? Yes. Those are all the resolutions I have. Speaker 1 00:03:17 We'll move to item number 16, which is at the adoption of minutes from the regular meeting of June 8th, 2023. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Let's start off with item number 5 23 dash ZB dash 59 V. Charlene Jones. Speaker 2 00:03:34 Is Charlene Jones present? Speaker 3 00:03:37 Yes. Speaker 2 00:03:38 Ms. Jones, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 3 00:03:46 Yes. Speaker 2 00:03:47 Thank you. Can we have your name and address please? You can put your hand down. Speaker 3 00:03:50 Charlene Jones. 2 59 Grant Additive. Speaker 2 00:03:54 Thank you. Ms. Jones, could you explain to the board what you'd like to do here? Speaker 3 00:03:58 Yes. I'm seeking a bulk variance for the required variance is 21 501 21 6 17, and 21 6 19 0.1 regarding setback. Speaker 1 00:04:14 Mr. Hinterstein, do you have any comments about this? Are you muted, Henry? There you go. Speaker 4 00:04:21 No, the, the really, most of the variances that are being requested were either previously approved or preexisting. The only variance that I believe is not, it may, it may be the one rear yard variance, which is a result of the addition, but in this particular case, it's a corner property, so there's two front yards and it's really a technicality in the sense that the rear yard is considered opposite the short, shortest frontage. So in this particular setup, it's really the side of her property, but it's considered her rear yard due to the fact that it's opposite the shoulder of the frontages on the corner property. So there's no issues with that. The only recommendation is, again, is that eight foot permanent easement for municipal purposes along Peabody Street, and that's to accommodate the wider road and sidewalk that exists there. Currently today, the sidewalk's actually outside of the right of way on the, the property of, of Mrs. Jones. So we'd like to get that in the easement. So the Township has the ability to maintain it, if it ever was to be replaced. Speaker 1 00:05:27 Got it. Is that okay with you, Ms. Jones? Speaker 3 00:05:30 Yes, sir. Speaker 1 00:05:31 Awesome. Anyone, anyone else on the board have any questions or comments about this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 0 00:05:44 If anyone has questions, you have to raise your hand. No one Chairman. Speaker 1 00:05:49 Okay. Close the public portion. I make a motion to approve this application. Please call the roll. Speaker 0 00:06:00 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blo? Yes. Mr. AKA? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes. Speaker 2 00:06:15 Ms. Jones, your application has been approved. We'll memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and send that document to you. Speaker 0 00:06:22 Okay? Thank you very much Chairman. Have a good Speaker 1 00:06:24 Night Speaker 0 00:06:24 Ma'am. And members have good night. All good night. Okay, Speaker 1 00:06:27 Let's move on to item number six, which is 23 dash zb dash 32 v. Elizabeth George Speaker 2 00:06:36 Is Elizabeth George present Speaker 5 00:06:38 Her daughter Sasha Jorge is present here for her. Speaker 2 00:06:41 Ms. Jorge, I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Speaker 5 00:06:46 Say that again. I'm sorry. Speaker 2 00:06:47 I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Speaker 5 00:06:50 Yes. Okay. Do you Speaker 2 00:06:51 Swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 5 00:06:54 Yes. Speaker 2 00:06:54 Okay. Put your hand down and give us your name and address and tell us what this is about. Speaker 5 00:07:00 My name is Sasha Jorge, address 37 Murray Avenue. We did a variance for a shed that we will like to place in our backyard. Speaker 1 00:07:13 Okay. Simple enough. Henry, any comments or questions? Speaker 4 00:07:17 No. Again, this is another, this is an undersized lot and again, the shed being requested is very modest in nature. Seven by seven I I don't see any issues with the, the request for the, the coverage, the minimal coverage variance is being requested. Again, it's due to the undersized lot. Again, the only, only only request would be is a five foot temporary construction easement along Murray Avenue for possible future road improvements that may take place along Murray. So, but the applicant doesn't have any issues with that five foot temporary construction easement. I don't see any issues with this application. Speaker 1 00:07:56 Okay. Ms. Jorge, you're okay with that? Speaker 5 00:07:59 Yes. Speaker 1 00:07:59 Okay. Awesome. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments about this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application? Speaker 0 00:08:12 No. One Chairman. Speaker 1 00:08:13 Okay. Close the public portion I to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? A second. I'll second. Thank you. Please call the roll. Speaker 0 00:08:22 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Blount? Yes. Mr. AKA Yes. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Yes. Speaker 2 00:08:37 Ms. Jorge, your application's been approved. We'll memorialize it in a written document at our next meeting and mail that document to you. Good luck. Speaker 5 00:08:44 Thank you so much. Have Speaker 0 00:08:45 A good night, ma. Speaker 5 00:08:46 Have a good night. Speaker 1 00:08:47 Correct if I'm wrong, but are we on item number 10? Speaker 2 00:08:50 Yes. Speaker 1 00:08:51 23 dash ZB dash 60 V Trans Steel Speaker 2 00:08:54 Incorporated. Thanks Continental. Speaker 6 00:08:58 Alright, thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Kevin Morrise, Woodbridge, New Jersey. I'm appearing this evening on behalf of Transcontinental Steel, incorporated the subject property as block 8 0 5 lot 31, commonly known as 2 0 1 11th Street in Piscataway. And we are before you this evening seeking approval of a temporary use permit for the use of the property by my client's business, which is a steel fabrication business. By way of some very brief background and as a board may be aware, this property was previously utilized for many, many years by a company called Binky and Snyder that did piping metal piping fabrication at the site with outdoor storage. The fabrication use itself is permitted in the ally zone. Outdoor storage probably isn't and as it's been determined, there's no actual formal site plan approval there. Binky and Snyder recently ceased operations and my client whose business operation is almost identical, very similar to Binky Snyder is seeking to utilize the property and you'll hear testimony from the applicant's owner With regard to that. Before we proceed, I just wanted to confirm that my affidavits of mailing and publication, which I previously submitted, have been received that they're an order so that the board's jurisdiction to proceed Speaker 2 00:10:19 They were received and they're in order. The the board has jurisdiction. Speaker 6 00:10:22 Right. Then I would call Mr. Joel Rosenthal as my witness if he could be sworn please. Speaker 2 00:10:28 Mr. Rosenthal, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 7 00:10:33 I do. Speaker 2 00:10:34 Thank you. Speaker 6 00:10:35 Alright. Mr. Rosenthal, you are the owner of the applicant Transcontinental Steel Incorporated, correct? Yes. And the applicant is in a, the business of steel fabrication, is that right? Correct. Now, I understand that you have been in business operations as a steel fabricator since 1999. Is that accurate? Correct. And I understand that you have been conducting those business operations at a property located in Newark, New Jersey during that time, is that right? Correct. All right. Now I understand that you have been seeking to relocate that business out of a city environment and that in the pursuit of that relocation you have located the subject property, which I know from your perspective for all intents and purposes, is really turnkey for you to move your business into and and continue the light industrial use of the property. Is that correct? Yes. All right. So very briefly for the board, can you just describe, you know, what is your steel fabrication business? What do you produce? Speaker 7 00:11:32 We, we fabricate steel for buildings. Basically, I try to explain it as if you go to Home Depot and you buy a two by four and you cut it to size, we do the same thing with steel, so it fits into buildings. So basically you were just cutting and putting holes into steel. Speaker 6 00:11:48 All right. Now the steel fabrication, that operation your production, that will be conducted entirely indoors within the existing building at the subject property, is that correct? Correct. Right. Now I understand there's also an outdoor storage component that will be either for material to use for production or for finished, fabricated product. Is that also correct? Correct. Now the outdoor storage, from what I understand will be located on the property in the area that we marked out on a rudimentary survey really to that one right side of the building all the way till we get to the property line. And at that property line there's trees and vegetation, correct? Correct. All right. Now with regard to the storage itself, I understand that is predominantly on storage racking, is that correct? Yes. With some product on wood blocking on the ground itself. Correct? Correct. And I understand the height of the racking is approximately 10 feet. Speaker 6 00:12:44 You don't intend on exceeding that. Is that also correct? Correct. All right. Now in terms of business operations, it's my understanding that you conduct operations Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM and then on Saturday 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM. Is that accurate? Correct. Right. Now I also understand that when you're conducting operations there will be approximately 40 employees at the property or on site at any one time during business operations, is that right? Yes. 25 of which the breakdown would be in the shop area of the building, is that right? Correct. And then the other 15 in what will be in office area inside the building? Yes. And that number may vary a little bit day from day depending on production, correct? Correct. But 40 is kind of the max, right? Yes. Okay. Now, based upon the number of employees you have and the property itself, is there sufficient area on this property to provide for adequate onsite parking of your employees vehicles, which I understand will be either personal vehicles, cars, automobiles, as well as work pickup trucks? Speaker 6 00:13:54 Yes. Alright. Now with regard to deliveries at the site, I understand that on average you get one steel trail trailer delivery per day for material, is that correct? On average, yes. Okay. And that outbound, actually two steel trailers per week, is that also correct? Correct. Okay. Now being in the business for I guess over 25 years, reviewing the subject property in the surrounding neighborhood, I understand you have the opinion and this is your new home, that your business operation is not going to cause any type of disruption or nuisances for the surrounding neighborhood. Is that, is that accurate? Correct. And you're pretty much doing, you know, very similar to what's been going on there for I guess almost over 20 years, certainly by Binky and Snyder, correct? Yes. Right now the board professionals generated two review memos. One was generated by Mr. Chadwick, it's dated June 16th, 2023. Speaker 6 00:14:58 And reviewing that, there's a request by Mr. Chadwick that should the board look favorably upon approving our temporary use permit, that we agree to submit a site plan and use variance application within 90 days of such granting. Now I know we've talked about that and I know and I can represent to the board that you have preliminarily met with a j v Engineering, Mr. Angelo, Val Tuto, and you intend on engaging in services because you do fully intend to move forward and file a formal site plan use and any bulk variance application with the board. Is that correct? Speaker 7 00:15:34 Correct. And I've, I've already retained him. Speaker 6 00:15:37 Okay. Now with regard to the 90 day timeframe, and I throw this out to the board and for, for its consideration, obviously we do intend on moving forward, we are going to ask that you consider giving us a 120 day timeframe to file the application for two reasons. Number one, the site plan's gotta get generated by the engineer and it just takes time to put that together. And the second thing, after speaking to Mr. Rosenthal, it'll give us a little time to get settled into the building, start conducting operations so that we can determine whether there might be items that we're not Cahn thinking of now that might need to be part of that site plan application. So we're certainly agreeing that we're gonna submit it and we'd ask you considering just give us a 120 days for that reason. With regard to the second memo, which is generated by Piscataway Township division, maybe, Speaker 8 00:16:29 Maybe I could respond to that. I have no issue with that, Mr. Chairman. Speaker 7 00:16:34 Gotcha. Speaker 8 00:16:35 I have no issues with that request. Speaker 7 00:16:38 Okay. Fantastic. Speaker 6 00:16:39 Thank you Mr. Chadwick. Second, there's a review memo issued by Piscataway Township Division of Engineering Planning Development that's dated June 20th. We have had the opportunity to look at that and I believe through Mr. Rosenthal's testimony, we have covered all the items that were requested in that memo, unless they're questions with regard to the business operation Speaker 7 00:17:06 Henry, is that accurate? Speaker 4 00:17:07 Yeah, that's accurate. My only question would be is again, I was just trying to get a little bit more information regarding the type of steel. So are we talking steel i i beams for actual, you know, constructing, you know, large buildings or is it more on the small scale Speaker 7 00:17:26 Steel? We're, I didn't mean to cut you off, I apologize. So we we're renovation, I don't wanna say experts. So we do a lot of small stuff. We do a lot of rails at the airports and, and stairs. We do do beams, sorry, I'm gonna echo, we do not do 50 story buildings. We might put a story on top of a building, but we're not doing, you know, beams that are entire trail lakes, you know, or take up one trail or that kinda thing. You know, we're not doing bridges, we're not doing, again, we're not doing large highway. Does that answer your question? Speaker 8 00:18:02 Yeah, it does. Okay. I I Chairman I have one other comment. Sure. John suggested that they be under the performance standards, which is ongoing, but because of the nature of this, they've already stated that all the operation is indoors. But I think you should put it in the resolution. Speaker 6 00:18:26 Right. And I just in closing it up, I just wanted the board to be aware that when we filed this application a couple of weeks ago, transcontinental Steel, they weren't the owner of the property. But since the application was filed, I can tell you that Mr. Rosenthal, through a real estate holding company, actually closed on the property, purchased it from Binky and SLI Snyder because he wanted to be conducting his business on property that he also owns. So he's the owner of the business, he's the owner of the property, which I always think is important and I understand Mr. Rosenthal, that you went and had and actually CLO closed on the property because you are confident that this really is a perfect location for the continuation of your business and that you are looking forward to being a good business member of the Piscataway Township community. Is that correct, Joel? Speaker 7 00:19:15 Yes, Speaker 6 00:19:15 Sir. All right. So that is the conclusion of our testimony. Yes. And we Kinneally request that you grant or request for a temporary use variance for six months in order that Mr. Rosenthal can move his business in and we can get a formal site plan together to come back and present to the board for further consideration. Speaker 1 00:19:34 Thank you. Mr. Moore, any other members of the board have any questions or comments about this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? Speaker 0 00:19:50 No. One Chairman. Speaker 1 00:19:52 Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve the patient. I a second. Speaker 8 00:19:57 I'll second. Speaker 1 00:19:58 Thank you. Please call the roll. Speaker 0 00:20:01 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 00:20:02 Yes. Speaker 0 00:20:03 Mr. Patel? Speaker 8 00:20:05 Yes. Speaker 0 00:20:06 Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla? Speaker 8 00:20:09 Yes. Speaker 0 00:20:09 Mr. AKA Speaker 8 00:20:11 Yes. Speaker 0 00:20:11 Mr. Mitterando? Speaker 7 00:20:13 Yes. Speaker 0 00:20:14 Mr. Yes. And Chairman Cale? Speaker 1 00:20:17 Yes. Speaker 2 00:20:18 Mr. Morris will memorialize this at our next meeting. Speaker 6 00:20:21 Thank very much folks. Have a pleasant evening. Thank you for your Speaker 1 00:20:23 Thank you gentlemen. Have a good night. Let's move on to item number 1123 dash ZB dash 54 V 33. Clausen owner L L C. Speaker 9 00:20:37 Yes. Good evening. Steven Trip from the law firm of ens, Goldman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. Speaker 2 00:20:45 Go ahead Mr. Trip. Speaker 9 00:20:47 Well this is an application, it's 33 Clawson Street. The applicant is 33 clawson owner, L L C. The property is about 1.7 acres in the LI Zone block 3 4 0 1 lot 12.02. It's currently vacant. There were prior use variances granted in 2011 initially for a truck terminal and then subsequently for the storage of buses. The applicant is working with the Township right now to put the property in a redevelopment area to add a couple of adjacent parcels and to have it done as part of a redevelopment plan. The council has already by resolution, sent it to the planning board to conduct an investigation for an area in need of redevelopment. What we're looking for is, in the interim we have a tenant and a principle of 33 clause and will explain a tenant who would like to use the property for the storage of empty trailers, which is consistent with the prior use. Variance is a truck terminal. It's in, it's located in industrial area. We think it would be no impact and it would at least provide for some use of the property in the interim while we move through the redevelopment process. So we're asking for a temporary use permit. We're not proposing any changes to the property. And what I'd like to do is have Dan Haron the principle of 33 plus and just explain a little bit about what they're proposing and to address some of the comments in the reports, Speaker 2 00:22:31 Please proceed. I have his name again, please. Speaker 9 00:22:36 Dan Haron. Dan, I Speaker 2 00:22:38 Swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 10 00:22:45 Yes. Speaker 2 00:22:46 Thank you. Speaker 9 00:22:47 Dan, I don't see you. Where are you? Speaker 2 00:22:51 Got his hand up please. Speaker 9 00:22:56 Okay. Dan, can you tell us your position with 33 clause and owner? Speaker 10 00:23:08 Sure. Principal of the owner. Speaker 9 00:23:11 And when did you acquire the property? Speaker 10 00:23:15 November of last year. Speaker 9 00:23:17 And what's your ultimate intention for the property? Speaker 10 00:23:21 Ultimate intention is to conduct a truck parking facility on a few of the sites adjacent to and including this property. Speaker 9 00:23:38 And you understand that the council has adopted a resolution sending it to to the planning board? Speaker 10 00:23:47 Yes. Speaker 9 00:23:49 And in the interim, as I indicated, you have a tenant. Can you tell us who the tenant is and what the tenant would be doing on the site? Speaker 10 00:23:56 Sure. The tenant is Vital Transportation. They're a logistics company who has a facility on a, at a hundred New England Avenue about two and a half miles down the road down Possum Town Road. So the use of this site will really just be storage of trailers while they're, you know, kind of staging for their main operation. And you know, as Steve mentioned, the site already has a use variance for, for this use. So this would really just be a continuation of the use variance use here Speaker 9 00:24:34 Before we continue, I got an email from my, from the court reporter that Nancy Ambrose, the reporter is logged in but can't speak or be seen. So she just wanted the ability to Speaker 0 00:24:49 Yeah, I'll, I'll give her permission when they come on as an attendee without a link, they're automatically in the public. Speaker 9 00:24:55 Oh, okay. This is Nancy, Speaker 0 00:24:58 I got her. Speaker 9 00:24:58 Okay, great. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:25:00 You're welcome. Speaker 9 00:25:04 Dan, can you tell us also the propose some of the operational details in terms of the hours of operation, what they intend? Sure, Speaker 10 00:25:12 Sure. Hours of operation here will be 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM no more than 38 trailers on site at any given time and no repair maintenance activities on site. Speaker 9 00:25:23 And these are gonna be empty trailers, correct? Speaker 10 00:25:26 Yes. Speaker 9 00:25:27 And there'll be no storage of, of any, of anything other than these trailers on site, correct? Correct. And the only trailers that will be on the property will be the tenant's trailers? Correct. You're not letting Correct. Other people use the site for parking. It's gonna purely be for the one tenant. Speaker 10 00:25:45 Correct. Speaker 9 00:25:47 And your intent is to utilize this until you get through the redevelopment process and end up with a, a, hopefully a larger redevelopment lot and then you would develop that according to proper procedures. Speaker 10 00:26:03 Correct. Speaker 9 00:26:06 I don't have any other questions of, of this witness. Speaker 1 00:26:11 Does anyone have any questions? Oh, Henry, would you have any comments or questions on this? Speaker 4 00:26:17 No, I believe the applicant is satisfactorily answered the questions that I had regarding the use and the fact that he's not gonna, it's gonna be strictly 38 max empty trailers that there's gonna be no repairs or maintenance of the trailers or any vehicles on the site. No sublease, no other commercial parking of any kind for any other businesses or storage of boats, things of that nature. I, I think that, that the request is, is acceptable. Speaker 1 00:26:51 Okay. Thank you. Speaker 9 00:26:53 Any Speaker 1 00:26:53 Other members of the board have any questions or comments? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to, oh, Mr. Trip ready? I think we can proceed with this if you've wrapped it up. Speaker 9 00:27:03 Yeah, I just had one other question in Mr. Stein's report, he mentioned county approval. I don't think we need anything from the county at this point cause we're not doing anything to the site, so I don't really think we need a county, any, any letter from the county. That was my only, my only comment on that. And I think we addressed everything in Mr. Chadwick's report as well. If we have, well, one, Speaker 8 00:27:26 One item, but I know you're in need of redevelopment, but some site cleanup in the intro might be worthwhile. Speaker 9 00:27:35 Dan, do you have any? Yeah, we Speaker 10 00:27:37 Just, we just did some site cleanup very recently on our property. So we got rid of all the prior owners debris and cleaned up the site a little bit. We got rid of some of the dead landscaping. We did a, a fair bit of cleanup there, you know, at the town's request. Speaker 8 00:27:54 That was quite recent then, right? Yeah. Okay. Speaker 1 00:28:00 Thanks John. Mr. Tripp? Speaker 9 00:28:04 I, I don't have anything further. Perfect. Speaker 1 00:28:08 What, what's the, Speaker 4 00:28:08 What's the timeframe as far as coming back to the board? I know like you said, you're in a redevelopment, the needs study right now and, but you know, it could take some time for that redevelopment plan and some of the other moving parts to take place. Are we looking at, you know, four months, six months with the, you know, you could come back at that point and ask for an extension? Speaker 9 00:28:31 Yeah, I, I mean, normally to get, you know, take, it could take six, six months or so to get, you know, the study has to get done, then the redevelopment plan has to get adopted. Then we're designated the redeveloper, you do a redevelopment agreement and then once you have that in place, you go to the planning board because presumably the redevelopment plan will create a, an as of right for what we're proposing. So we would expect to have that done and then, and then end up before the planning board. That would be the intent. If obviously something that doesn't go according to that plan, we would be back to this board if need be. So I I, I mean, I think maybe, I don't know if, if if it's within your normal procedures, but maybe a nine month period as opposed to six months given the fact that it's redevelopment. Speaker 8 00:29:23 Your problem with that is it's the ordinance allows six months. Speaker 9 00:29:26 Yes. Okay. So we'll take six and then we'll come back if we have a problem. Speaker 1 00:29:31 Okay. Sounds good. At this point. Any other questions or comments from the hearing? None. I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this application? Speaker 0 00:29:44 No. One Chairman. Speaker 1 00:29:45 Okay. Public portion is closed. I'd make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Speaker 8 00:29:51 I second. Speaker 1 00:29:52 Thank you. Please call the roll. Speaker 0 00:29:53 Mr. Weisman? Speaker 1 00:29:57 Yes. Speaker 0 00:29:58 Mr. Patel? Speaker 1 00:30:02 Yes. Speaker 0 00:30:03 Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla? Speaker 1 00:30:06 Yes. Speaker 0 00:30:07 Mr. AKA Speaker 1 00:30:08 Yes. Speaker 0 00:30:09 Mitterando? Speaker 1 00:30:10 Yes. Speaker 0 00:30:10 Mr. Ali? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:30:14 Yes. Speaker 2 00:30:15 Mr. Tripp, we will memorialize this at our next meeting. Speaker 1 00:30:17 Thank you very much. Goodnight gentlemen. Everyone have a good evening. You too, too. Goodnight Steve. Let's move down to item number 1223 dash ZB dash 62 V. New York, Sy m s a, Verizon Wireless. Speaker 11 00:30:33 Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Edward Purcell. I'm an attorney of Price Fees Shaman and Dear Arminio here at tonight on behalf of Verizon Wireless, this application has to do with block 6 0 0 3 lot 12.01 more commonly known as 3 77 hose lane. This is a request for interpretation, an appeal of the zoning permit determination. As you all may remember, we, we've had this discussion before. This is a, an application that's subject to six sec section 64 0 9 A of the Federal Spectrum Act in the New Jersey Colocation Law, which says when you're not making a substantial change in an existing wireless space station, then, then that application for co-location is a right and can be done by administrative approval. So in this particular situation, Verizon is proposing to replace two antennas and remove one remote RA Radiohead with four new remote radio heads on the building on the base station located on the subject property. And we are requesting that the board interpret the applicable federal laws, state laws, local ordinances to permit and direct the zoning officer to issue administrative approvals. With respect to this application, Speaker 8 00:31:52 Mr. Chairman, I've reviewed the plans and they do confirm to the limits for the applicable laws Speaker 2 00:32:00 And the applicant has submitted a structural letter saying that the structure can handle it and that the emissions will comply with the FCC requirements. Those are usually what we require on these applications. Speaker 1 00:32:11 Okay. Yeah, we've handled these a bunch of times in the past. It's, it's an upgrade and almost a cookie cutter upgrade application. Henry, do you have any comments at all or we're good? We are good. John covered it. Okay. All right. Any other members of the board have any questions about this application? Hearing none, I'm gonna open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions or comments about this particular application? Ms. Buckley, you're muted. I can read your lips. You said no one? No one your ok. Alright. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Speaker 12 00:32:54 Yes, Speaker 1 00:32:55 Please Call the roll. Speaker 0 00:32:57 Mr. Weisman? Yes. Mr. Patel? Yes. Mr. Regio? Yes. Mr. Bla? Yes. Mr. Akaka? Yes. Mr. Mitterando? Yes. Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Chairman Cahill? Speaker 1 00:33:12 Yes. Mr. Purcell memorialize this at our next meeting. Speaker 0 00:33:16 Thank you very much. Have a nice evening. Speaker 1 00:33:18 Have a good evening, sir. At this point I'm gonna turn the meeting over to Steve Weisman. I live within 200 feet of the subject property for the next application. So I have to recuse myself. I hope everyone has a great evening and once again, thank you for volunteering and doing this for the Township Speaker 12 00:33:34 Thank care. Chairman Speaker 0 00:33:36 Chairman. Mr. Vice Chairman, you're up. Speaker 12 00:33:40 Moving on to item 14, that's 23 ZB 31 slash 33 B. Colgate Palm Corporation. Mr. Speaker 1 00:33:51 Gcio present? Speaker 12 00:33:52 Yes sir. Can you hear me? Good evening. How are you? Good. My name is Sandy Gcio. I'm an attorney with Windells Marks Lane and Mittendorf on behalf of the applicant, Colgate Palm Olive Company. We are here with respect to the property owned by Colgate at 9 0 9 River Road, also known as block 1 1 7 0 1 Lot 16.05. It's a 79 acre property along River Road. We are, are here again. We were a couple weeks ago on a, our application for phases four and five of Colgate's Solar Energy project. Colgate received approvals in 2019 for phases one through three of the project. And the application you'll consider tonight is for phases four and five, which proposed installation of solar arrays, which are ground based arrays over the visitor A and B parking lots and the W wing surface parking lot associated with, along with installation of associated electrical equipment, 24 vehicle, electric vehicle charging stations and associated landscaping and electrical work. Speaker 12 00:35:20 We are requesting conditional use of bulk variances and we'll present testimony in support of those. Following our meeting two weeks ago with the Township, we went back and reviewed our plans and also met with Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Hinterstein at the site to review the layout of arrays in WW parking lot. And you will see with the testimony of our engineer Michael Thomas, we rearranged the arrays in the WW parking lot to preserve the existing landscape screening at the edge of that lot, you know, which was a concern at the last meeting. We are going to re present Mr. Thomas's testimony to reflect those changes and also provide testimony, you know, because Mr. Cahill refused himself. Tonight we have submitted our application or affidavit of service to the board, which is accepted at the last meeting. Mr. Kinneally provided notice of this meeting and we're ready to present our witnesses. Speaker 2 00:36:36 You gonna call Mr. Thomas first? Speaker 12 00:36:38 Yes, sir. I was gonna call Michael Thomas the engineer. Speaker 2 00:36:42 Mr. Thomas, you were sworn in to tell the truth at the last meeting. You remain sworn in to tell the truth. Speaker 13 00:36:47 I do. Speaker 2 00:36:48 Thank you. Speaker 13 00:36:51 Right, thanks. Is it okay if I share my screen? Yes. Okay. All right. I'll try to go through this as thoroughly as I can or as quickly as I can. I apologize if some of the information about to present was repeated from the last, from the last hearing. So what we have up on the screen is an overall ariel of the project site with the proposed phase four and five solar arrays on it. Previously this was marked as a one. I don't know if we would like to remark it again as a one or Speaker 2 00:37:37 Has it changed in any way? Speaker 13 00:37:38 It has not, no, Speaker 2 00:37:39 It does not need to be remarked. Speaker 13 00:37:41 Okay. So the purpose of this exhibit is just to give a, you know, really like a 10,000 foot, you know, elevation in the sky view of, of the project site. Again, the arrays that we're proposing are, are, are embedded within the project site. The existing conditions around the site are most, is mostly vegetative in nature. River road is to the south to the west of the site is existing wooded vegetation as well as to the north of the site. There are existing residences also to the, to the east of the site. A little bit further to the south is the Ton River, followed by the Delaware Andan canal. So I'll move on to the, to our next exhibit. So this exhibit has changed since the last, since the last hearing. I believe we, so we'll Speaker 2 00:38:35 Mark this exhibit. Speaker 13 00:38:37 Okay. Sh and I believe, as I recall from my notes, we were on a 10. Is that correct? Y you Speaker 2 00:38:44 Know what, why don't we go with B one Speaker 13 00:38:46 B one. Got it. So the exhibit that's shown here is, is just a more zoomed in aerial view of what we were just looking at at the project site. The intent is to give so, so a little bit more specifics and detail for the proposal array, just to give a quick synopsis of, of what was previously done. Phases one through three were were previously constructed on the project site. They're shown on the aerial here. I'm gonna zoom into those just a little bit more so you guys can see that in a little bit more detail. Speaker 13 00:39:25 So there was an existing parking structure structure that's on the site. We were previously approved to put solar on top of that parking structure. In addition to that lots d and l, which is a surface parking lot, was approved for canopy solar arrays on top of that as well as lots F and k as well. Kind of nestled in between the, the ground mounted lots as the existing onsite helipad. And just to the north of that there's an existing daycare center and and substation for, for the Colgate Palm facility. We'll zoom out a little bit more, again, a few few variances that we are requesting for the, for this project, again, similar to the last hearing that we provided, there's there's two D three variances, which we are requesting. Both of them arises from the conditional use of the project. Solar is a permitted use, but it's it's permitted conditionally. We are requesting variances from those conditions from a couple of those conditions, which include the height of the ground array, which is, which is shall not exceed 10 feet. Whereas we are proposing our tallest array has a maximum height of 28 feet. And then in addition to that, the, the presence of the arrays located within the front yard of the project. So we have two arrays, which we are proposing, which are located within the front yard of the building. Closest existing roadway is, is river road. Speaker 13 00:41:14 So I'll give some of the specifics about some of the bulk variances that we're requesting as well. So there's a few, few variances for those. The height of the, the solar structures that we are proposing shall, shall not exceed or should have a height and maximum height of 10 feet. So we're requesting a variance for that. In addition to that, we're requesting a variance for the solar structures that shall not be essentially crossing a drive aisle. So no structures that would run across a proposed or existing drive aisle are two arrays, which are closest in the front yard. Are, are, are spanning the drive aisle under under proposed conditions, the accessory height of the, of the structure. So, so these solar arrays are considered to be accessory structures. The ordinance has a requirement that no accessory structure shall be taller than 25 feet. The, the height of our tallest array as mentioned earlier, is going to be 20 foot tall maximum. And then in addition to that we're requesting a variance from NJ s a section 40, colon 55 D dash 70 D three, which is uhdi, you know, requesting a variance for the conditional use standards that I had mentioned earlier. Speaker 13 00:42:37 So I'll give a a quick overview of of what changed from our current design versus our last two. Ray Speaker 12 00:42:45 Mike, this is Sandy. Could I just jump in for a second? I, I think you mentioned that the maximum height would be 20 feet, I think you meant to say 28 feet with respect to the accessory height variance. Speaker 13 00:43:00 That's correct, yeah. And I apologize if I said 20 feet i 28 feet is the correct is the correct answer. Speaker 12 00:43:05 I'm sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. Speaker 13 00:43:07 Sure. So there was no change in the configuration for the two arrays which are located in the front yard. So generally speaking, those have stayed exactly the same as it was under the prior submission that we made to the Township. The major change that we made on this in the last few weeks was to, was the W wing lock with a concern being removal of existing trees and buffer, which is closest to the existing residences, which are more closely located. And I'll hop back here just for a quick second. If you just bear with me a second. Speaker 13 00:43:48 Most closely located near Wal Haven Court and Orchard Road, that's to the west of the project site. There is an existing pipeline easement, which is located also to the, to the east of the, the W wing lot. Our proposed arrays are loca, are gonna be located outside that even though a portion of that pipeline easement is running through the Colgate palm oil property, the general intent here was not to remove trees that were, that were alive and healthy along the, the buffer. There are, there obviously are some concerns on our end with regard to shading of the proposed arrays that we have on site. However, we, what we essentially did was we took the arrays that were closest to to where the residences were and we relocated them further to the west, which is na, which are now running adjacent to the existing ring road of, of this. Speaker 13 00:44:51 So it's, it's more or less where my hand is hovering around right now on the screen and the, the central arrays that we had proposed within the, I'll call it interior parking spaces of the lot, those are in the same place that they were before. And then the, the two wing arrays, we actually have now a new proposed array to the south side of the, of the existing lot. And then the array that was located on the north side of the lot has remained unchanged. So as a result of those changes, there are some setback changes that that resulted as well from, from the property line. So the, the side yard setback that we originally had from our original design, the array was 90.5 feet from the, at its closest point to the property line, we're now more than 150 feet away from the property line, 151.2 feet to be precise. Speaker 13 00:45:47 And then in addition to that, with regard to tree removal on the site, we are providing much, much fewer trees to be removed and with the attempt to preserve the buffer that's there, there are some trees along that existing buffer, which we are calling out to be removed. Those trees are primarily dead. We, we had a field meeting with, with Mr. Hinterstein to, to discuss if, if we could remove those trees because they're no longer alive. Generally speaking, we had agreement that those trees can be taken down. But, but generally speaking, any, there was one, one, I'll call it a live tree that we have called out to be removed. It was a tree again that was discussed as we were in the field because it had the greatest shading impact on the arrays. So, but, but all in all the, the buffer is by and large maintained. Speaker 13 00:46:44 We are proposing some additional plantings along that buffer as well to supplement, sort of fill in some of the holes and the gaps that are located within the area. And those are located primarily behind the, the W wing lot. There's, there's three of them that are, that are closest, I'll call it, towards, towards Orchard Road. And then, and then there's another grouping of, of additional trees, which we are proposing on the, on the most southerly array of the existing lot. So these in total, there are 10 arrays that we are proposing here. They're all the same size for the most part with the exception of one array. So similar to the testimony that was provided before, the size of the arrays that we are proposing for, for arrays T1 through T 10. And, and the one exception to that is gonna be T nine. But tho but the, for those arrays, the dimensions are gonna be 93.5 feet long by, by 41.5 foot wide with a maximum height of 25 feet. Speaker 13 00:47:50 The one exception array is located on the more southerly end of the parking lot. That's array T nine that has dimensions of 58.9 feet by 41.5 foot wide and 25 foot maximum height. So those are the sizes of the arrays in the W wing lot. And the the other two arrays which we were proposing, again, this is, this is a repeated testimony that was provided before. However, array LS one, which is located in lot B of the of of the existing facility has dimensions of 187.1 by 95.4 wide and 28 28 foot tall. And then array LS two, which is located in lot and I apologize LS one was the one that I just described with the 180 7 0.1 by 95.4 by 28 N array LS two, which is located in lot B. That one is 155.9 by 95.4 wide and 28 foot tall. So again, testimony that was provided before is not changed with regard of to the piles or, or, or column supports that are supporting these structures. Speaker 13 00:49:10 These are circular concrete footings that we are proposing with steel columns that, that are, that are driven into the ground. The approximate width of the, of the concrete footings are gonna be, are gonna have about a three foot diameter. The panels that we are proposing on the site range between a 470 to four hundred and eighty eighty five watts. Again, much more efficient panels than they were even five years ago. With regard to tree removal for these initial arrays, there are some existing trees which are located within the parking lot that we are calling out to be removed, either because they're directly conf conflicting with the arrays themselves or they are just too close to where the proposed rays are, are be, will be installed. So in all, in total, we are proposing to remove 81 trees throughout the project site, which is a reduction from our original number of 136 trees to be removed. Speaker 13 00:50:13 That is, that includes approximately 10 dead trees that we have counted on site. It's my understanding that there are other dead trees on, on the project site that could also be removed. And we're willing to work with the landscape architect to, to mark out and identify those, those dead trees and provide replacements as as necessary. Generally speaking, we, we attempted to ma to prepare a two to one tru tree replacement ratio. So two trees replace for every one removed. So that includes 71 proposed trees on site, which is down from 117 proposed trees that we had in our, our initial submission. And then we're also proposing a, a fee in, in lieu proposal for the remaining trees that we are proposing on site, which is, which is 91 total trees versus 155 trees that we had included in our original application. So a total of 162 trees would be proposed versus the, the 81 that we are, that we are removing. Speaker 13 00:51:28 All right. I'm going to move, move to a couple other exhibits if I can. The, the next exhibit on here, I, I'll call it as exhibit b2. Yes. Which is a re revision to the exhibit that we previously provided, which I believe was a three. And this one shows some of the, some of the distances from the arrays to the nearby residences or in the front of the facility as well as some photographs that were taken along River Road. So, so generally speaking, the closest distance that we have now in the W wing lot for, for array T 10 is, I'll zoom in just to touch so everybody can see this is th is a little bit over 300 feet. Speaker 13 00:52:30 So that's, that's the distance to the closest, closest residence. So that's, it's a further distance away from, from our original design that we had provided. In addition, the array that is of the two arrays that are located in the, in the front front yard of the, of the existing facility, the closest distance to the, to the existing residence or the nearest residence is a little over 540 feet. As we, as we zoom in, zoom this out and look at the, the residences which are, which are across from River Road, the closest distance that we are are providing to the closest residence from the array is a little over 685 feet. Speaker 13 00:53:14 And then as you move further and that's located on the more easterly side of the, of the front of the facility. And then as you, as you approach to the west of the facility, the distances get quite, quite a bit larger, upwards towards over 800 feet away to the nearest existing residence. All right. I'm gonna show the next exhibit which we have revised. Those will be b3, b3. This one shows the W wing lot, a little bit more closely if you will, to where some of the existing residences are in relation to lot. And I'll zoom in a little bit so you guys can see the, the dimensions. So our closest, our closest distance from any array, you know, as, as we approach the north side of the w wing lot is 194 feet to the existing residence. Some other, some other, some other ties distances get a little bit larger as, as you migrate down south. So it's upwards towards 390 feet or more than 390 feet away from where their arrays are. So the distances are, are greater than our, than in our original application from the arrays to the existing existing residences that are there. And again, much of, much of the existing wood line as well as the existing buffer is being maintained from, from existing to proposed conditions. Speaker 13 00:54:58 Right. And one more exhibit, which shall mark out as B four. Yes. Again, this is a revision to a previously submitted, previously presented exhibit that we had. The purpose of this exhibit was to show some of the photographs from the existing parking lot looking outwards towards the buffer, which is to the, to the east of the parking lot. And we wanted to show on here what that would look like with the trees that are to be removed that we had on there. Just, just to get an, get an idea, most of the trees that we are removing within the parking lot are located on the ring road of the parking lot. There's some existing shade trees which run, run along that edge and it's ne it's necessary to remove those trees so that they do not directly conflict with the canopy. So again, that's on the eastern, or I'm sorry, on the western side of the w wing lot, but again, by and large very few trees are being removed on the easterly side, the ones that are being removed, most of them are dead that, that are there today. Speaker 13 00:56:18 So again, if I zoom into some of these photographs that are here down at the bottom, you could get the point of view of, of what it looks like out there today. And again, there's, there's existing healthy, I'll call them evergreen trees, which are, which are going to be remaining and then you could see some of the, some of the trees in the background are, are dead and, and this, these photographs were taken, you know, while, while leaves were down, but there were some of the trees again that we're proposing that are dead from there. But it gives, it gives a point of view though of, of the existing buffer that's there today. I'll just run through a few of the specifics on the project site. I'm gonna show an exhibit if I could, which is a revision to our truck turning exhibit. This is part of the, the site plan package that was submitted before this hearing to the board. I don't know if you guys would like me to mark this or not, or if, if it needs to be marked. Speaker 2 00:57:22 It, it, it's part of the submitted package, Speaker 13 00:57:24 Yes. Speaker 2 00:57:25 That it does not need to be separately marked. Speaker 13 00:57:27 Okay. Mike, did you make any revisions to this? Yep, so the, the, the two lot, the two arrays which are located in the front yard of, of the project, the truck turning exhibits have not changed. So tho those will remain the same. We did receive the original, I guess more or less letter of no comment from the, from the fire fire folks within the town that they're okay with those truck turning movements. We, I think we're still waiting on a response from them regarding any comments that they might have for the new configuration that we have made. But really the only changes on this plant sheet are occurring on the W lot and the purpose behind it shows where the new arrays are and, and validating that the, that the firetruck can make the appropriate turning movements without clipping or or running underneath any of the arrays that are there. It's important to note that the minimum elevation of all the arrays that we're proposing is 14 feet five inches. So, so again that's that, the intent behind that was to meet the N J D O T minimum height clearance specifications. So, so theoretically the firetruck could run underneath the arrays, although we don't recommend it. It, it's, the arrays will be designed with enough vertical clearance so that, you know, a larger truck can fit underneath them. Speaker 13 00:58:51 Just a couple points of that I wanted to bring out, there are some additional pads that are being proposed on the site. We are connecting our, the electricity for, for our new project on the more northerly side of the, of the project, which will eventually tie into to the existing onsite substation, which is there. The electrical lines are generally gonna be running in a south to north direction along the existing ring road. And then they're going to be tying up and I'm gonna switch if I could to the, to our electrical plan, which was part of the revision set that we submitted back in, which shows the electrical line running in a, like I said, from a south and a north direction. Very ty tying up to an ex to an existing manhole, which is there today. So the phase four portion of it is gonna be tying in the phase four portion of this project is gonna be tying into to the existing utility manhole. In addition to that, the phase five portion of the site is gonna be tying into a new 12 by 10 concrete volt, which is, you know, is intended to have a five kilovolt circuit breaker. Speaker 13 01:00:07 Some other, some other things about the site. There are some transformer pads, inverter pads if you will, and transformer pads that are gonna be located on the ground. So we have a couple of 'em, three of them proposed on the site to the, to the east side of arrays, LS one and LS two, which are located in the front of the site. There we have a concrete pad, which is, which is being proposed there six by four in size. And then on the more northly side of the w wing lot, the most northerly array. So it's on the, on the west side of, of the most northerly array. We are also proposing the same size electrical pad for that as well. All the pads that we are proposing will make some humming noise, which is typical for, for transformer pads. But all the, all the pads that are proposed will meet the N J D E P noise criteria at the property line from, from where they're located, which is 65 D B a, at least no more than 65 d b a during the daytime and no more than 50 D dba a at nighttime. Speaker 13 01:01:17 The arrays themselves are, are not designed to reflect sunlight, they're designed to absorb sunlight. There is no glint or glare that will really be designed for these arrays. They, they're intended to absorb the sunlight, so not not reflected back. It's generally true of most solar installations that are out there with regard to that issue. Just some housekeeping items on the project as well. We, we have made a submission to the Middlesex County Planning Board. They had reached out to us a couple weeks ago requesting, requesting an extension to their review. They just, I think just had too many projects on their plate at one time. So we, we granted that, that extension. So we're expecting to hear back from them I think by the end of this month. And we should know if there's any, any comments or if there's not any comments associated with the project. Speaker 13 01:02:12 Talk a little bit about what the arrays are doing from the, call it the greenhouse gas reduction, if you will, on site. So the, this, this exhibit was presented at the last hearing as well. It hasn't changed since the last exhibit. I believe it was marked out as exhibit A seven from the last last meeting. I'll zoom zoom into it so you guys can see it a little bit better. So really what this is, is an exhibit to show the, the offsets for the, for the new installations that are in phases one, two, and three, which are shown here. What's highlighted on, on the screen right now. The, they, they have a cumulative offset of the existing elect listing building electricity of, of about 22%. When you add phases four and five to the mix, it takes the grand total of offset for, for the entire installation of, of a little bit over 34%. Speaker 13 01:03:10 So the, the arrays that we're proposing on site in total, it's a little over 4,000 kilowatts, which if you calculate that, it, it ends up being on a, on an annual basis almost 5 million kilowatt hours is, is generated. So it's quite a bit, we, we did present during the last hearing as well, some of the, some of the exhibits, and I'm trying to remember exactly which exhibit number this was, but it was present, pre presented last time. I'm thinking perhaps it was a five or a, maybe a eight. A eight maybe it was the, was the exhibit and the last hearing. But it just gives a, an idea of what we're talking about from a, a carbon offset that we are proposing. Again, the, the, the reconfiguration that we, that we are proposing with the reconfiguration that we are proposing with this, with this redesign has more or less the same output that we originally had proposed and, and presented to, to the board. Speaker 13 01:04:19 So, so this, this offsets about 322 metric tons of, of, of carbon dioxide equivalent. And then just to give sense of like what that means compared to other things that we're all more familiar with, like gasoline powered passenger passenger vehicles. It's about, it's equivalent to about 71.7 for over a period of one year. And then if you did the math that that equals about 826,000 miles per, per the passenger vehicles not. And then some of the other ones, and again, we, we had, we had discussed a few of these during the last hearing, but you know, some of the, the, the one that kind of hits home at least on the, I think on the vegetation front was the number of, of saplings that were, you know, that, that it would replace if you will. And I'm actually trying to find that right now. I think it's on the next page here. So, so that's, it's about 5,300 tree seedlings that, that grow for a period of 10 years. So that, that's what that's equivalent to for what the arrays are, are offsetting for this project. So, and again, that's, it's about 384 acres of, of existing forests in, in over a period of one year. So this exhibit hasn't changed. It's still the same numbers. The, the prior exhibit, which I believe was a seven again, has not changed. So in summary, that is pretty much our presentation, or at least my presentation. Speaker 12 01:05:56 Mike, can you talk for one minute about the electric vehicle stations that are being installed? Speaker 13 01:06:02 Yes. So there, we did a, a parking facility, existing parking space assessment, if you will, as part of this project. Colgate Palm Olive wanted this anyway, you know, they would've probably done this, whether this project was taking place or not, but we needed it on our end to find out how many existing parking spaces are on site so that we can determine how many electric vehicle charging stations need to be installed. There are already some existing part electric vehicle charging stations on site, a lot of them being located within the existing parking garage. Under proposed conditions, we are providing 22 EV charging stations within the, within the parking garage. And then in addition to that 10 additional surface EV charging stations. Some of those are, are going to be handicapped stations to meet the, the handicap ADA a requirements. So it's a total of 32. Actually, I apologize, that's under existing conditions. So 2022 spaces in the garage under existing conditions, 10 surface spaces under existing conditions and under proposed conditions, it's, it's also gonna be 22 spaces within the existing garage and 34 parking spaces that are gonna be ev spaces for surface parking spaces. So it's a total of 56 total proposed ev charging stations to meet the State of New Jersey requirements. Speaker 12 01:07:39 And you had an opportunity to review the, the staff comment letter from Mr. Hinterstein? Yes. Did you not, Mike? Speaker 13 01:07:51 Yes, I did. Speaker 12 01:07:52 Yes. And, and do you have any issues with, with anything in that letter? Speaker 13 01:07:59 No, I, I believe we have addressed most of the issues that are identified in that letter. Anything that has not been obtained yet will be obtained. So, for instance, approval from the Township fire Marshal, you know, we will, we will obtain that approval and then, you know, for any dead trees that are found on site or any gaps that are found on site, we can provide some of the trees that we are proposing in those specific locations and tree replacements for, for any of the dead trees that are out there, Speaker 12 01:08:38 The applicant is willing to work with Mr. Interesting on both trees to be removed and, and infill trees as mentioned in his report. Speaker 14 01:09:04 Do Speaker 2 01:09:09 You have anything more for Mr. Thomas, Mr. Glacio? Speaker 12 01:09:13 No, I just wanted to address something that Mr. Hinterstein had put in his prior staff report letter. It was a question about had the applicant obtained variances in connection with the lack of fencing around the dry detention basins? And the answer is yes. And that that was part of, still hear me? Yes, I can hear you. That was part of the variance is granted in application 13 ZB 27 slash 28 V. Speaker 4 01:10:00 Thank you. Appreciate you providing that, Sandy. Speaker 12 01:10:04 No problem. And that's our direct testimony for Mr. Thomas if the board or the professionals have any questions. And if you wanna open, it's up to the public, we're ready for that. Oh, okay. Henry, do you have any other questions or concerns? Speaker 4 01:10:24 No, I, I think the applicant has done a good job of coming back to us with the revised proposal after I think hearing some of our concerns that we had originally. I think this is a much better option. The, the removals on the vegetation that exists there currently is, is much more limited now to what previously was proposed. So I think this is a much better proposal. Again, the applicant's willing to work with us and work with me specifically on just pointing out maybe some gaps that need some in filling some, some dead material that need some replacing and some, some dead ash trees that have, that have not, not survived the several problems that they've had recently. So all that being said, I, I definitely think this is a much more favorable proposal or revised proposal and I don't see any issues with it. Speaker 12 01:11:23 Thank you Evan. Anyone on the board have any questions, concerns, or comments? Hearing none, I would like to open this to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, concerns, or comments they'd like to say at this time? Speaker 2 01:11:38 At, at this point? Mr. Thomas, can you take your screen down? Yes. Speaker 12 01:11:46 Lori, do you see any hands up? No. And Chairman. Okay. I'd like to close the public portion. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Speaker 8 01:11:58 You, you need some testimony from Mr. McDonough, I believe. Speaker 12 01:12:04 Yes sir. I'm sorry. Speaker 8 01:12:06 I'm sorry. But Speaker 12 01:12:08 That's okay. Gun? Yeah, I, I'd like to present our, our next witness, Mr. John McDonough, provide planning testimony in support of the variances. Just Speaker 2 01:12:18 Mr. Mr. McDonough, can you, Speaker 8 01:12:19 I would, I would suggest this is the second hearing. We're fully aware of all the facts, so it might be able to be concise on this testimony. Speaker 2 01:12:31 Mr. McDonough, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? Speaker 15 01:12:37 Yes, I do. Speaker 2 01:12:38 Thank you. Speaker 12 01:12:41 Mr. McDonough, you've had a chance to visit the site and review the plans that were submitted by the applicant? Speaker 15 01:12:49 Yes, I have. Speaker 12 01:12:51 And you have prepared testimony in support of the variances sought by the applicant? Speaker 15 01:12:58 Yes. Speaker 12 01:12:59 Okay. Can you present that testimony to the board please, sir? Speaker 15 01:13:02 Sure, I can be extremely brief here. I think Mr. Thomas was extremely thorough in the presentation in establishing the predicate for the belief the applicant is seeking. We're here in the er education and research district where the existing use is a permitted use. That's the probate facility and the research center that's there. This is a support use, which is also a permitted conditional use in the zone subject to conditions at 21 dash 1 0 14. The application is in substantial compliance with those conditional use requirements but does need some relief. And I would like to, Mr. Speaker 12 01:13:38 McDonough, lemme just interrupt you for a second. I think I've neglected to get your qualifications as an expert for the board. Can you just lemme correct that you've appeared before this board before as an expert in planning testimony? Speaker 15 01:13:54 Yes. I'm a licensed planner. I've been here before. It's current good standing local, state level, national level. I'm also a landscape architect as well in New Jersey. Speaker 2 01:14:03 And your credentials have not changed since the last time you were accepted as an expert here? Speaker 15 01:14:07 That's correct. Speaker 2 01:14:09 I think you can be accepted. Speaker 15 01:14:10 Thank you. So again, relatively brief because the relief that the applicant is seeking is relatively brief D D three conditional use relief to allow solar array height of 28 feet. Where 10 is, is the maximum that's allowed and the location in the front yard. The justification there is this is basically completing the circle of what's already been done out there. You've heard sort of a phased installation here and much of that has already been put in. So this is continuing the theme, if you will, that will help offset the energy consumption needs of the Colgate facility. It's going to take a good use, it's going to make it better. I would also like to thank the board professionals, Mr. Chadwick and Mr. Hinterstein who took what is really a good application and made it even better with their input last, last time, such that this issues can effectuate its purpose and also have better integration with the surrounding neighborhood. Speaker 15 01:15:05 In terms of that D three conditional use relief, I think we well know the use per se is not issue, but we focus on the conditions which are intended to prevent negative visual impact. Based on all of the testimony on the record. The impacts here visually are going to be minimal. This is a well, well duffered site separated horizontally and vertically from the neighboring land uses. On the positive side, the project is going to support a permitted use that serves the healthcare industry. We know that the photovoltaic aspect is of such paramount public importance that the M L U L defines it as inherently beneficial. As I said, it's a continuation of a phased development that's already in place. The use promotes the public good with environmental sustainability and renewable energy. The arrays are low profile. They blend and integrate with the surrounding landscape and no tree loss. Speaker 15 01:16:00 The project will promote core planning purposes of zoning, especially purposes A C D G H I M, and N with a underline or a double underline under purpose N, which is right on point, which is planning goal to promote renewable energy resources. Based on all the testimony on the record, the plans have evolved as part of an interactive process, which is exactly what our courts envision. The plans have been revised to completely preserve those trees, buffer the buffer area adjacent to those homes to the south. The planning intent behind those height and location conditions minimize visual impact and met. And again, the relief that's being sought here is very similar to the relief that was granted for the installation that's already in place. That goes towards the D three, the C2 relief, the lesser C variances all fold into the D as well as necessary to effectuate the beneficial aspects that I just gave you. No substantially negative impact with covering a parking lot. Other parking lots on the site are already covered. And again, the height relief relates for the accessory structure. Also relates to the D three conditional use relief that there is a substantially separate, a substantial separation between these structures and the neighboring residential uses. All said it's a good application. It's gotten better since the last time we were here. Most importantly, the statutory criteria for D three and C relief are met and approval is warranted. That's all I have on direct. Speaker 12 01:17:40 Thank you. John Temple. Mr. Yeah, sorry. Mr. McDonough, you've seen the report from Mr. Chadwick? Speaker 15 01:17:49 Yes. No issues with Mr. Chadwick's report. Speaker 12 01:17:53 Thank you. That's all for this witness. Mr. Weissman and the board or the professionals and the public have any questions. We're ready for that. Speaker 2 01:18:02 And do you have any other additional witnesses? Speaker 12 01:18:05 No sir. Speaker 2 01:18:06 Thank you. Speaker 12 01:18:09 Okay. John, do you have any other comments at this time? John Chadwick? No. Thank you again. Back to the board. Anyone on the board have any questions or concerns? Any comments at this time? Hearing none. I'd like the closing board's portion. Open it up to the public. Anyone in the public have any questions, comments, or concerns at this time? Ms. Buckley? Any hands up? Speaker 0 01:18:36 No. Mr. Weisman. Speaker 12 01:18:37 Thank you. I'd like to close the public portion at this time and I'd like to make a motion to approve this application. Can I get a second? Make a second. Thank you. Artie Melissa, secretary, please take the role. Speaker 0 01:18:53 Mr. Patel? Speaker 12 01:18:54 Yes. Speaker 0 01:18:55 Mr. Regio Here. Mr. Blount? Yes. AKA here. Mitterando? Speaker 15 01:19:03 No. Speaker 0 01:19:05 Mr. Ellie? Yes. And Vice Chairman Weissman? Speaker 12 01:19:10 Yes. Speaker 2 01:19:13 Mr. Gio, we'll memorialize this at our next meeting and send a copy to you. Speaker 12 01:19:17 Thank you. And I'd like to, to thank the board and its professionals for, they're always a considerate review of these applications. Thank you very much. Speaker 0 01:19:27 Thank you. Have a good night. Speaker 12 01:19:28 Good night. Good night. I'd like to move on to the next item on the agenda. I'm 17 Chairman. Can I get a motion? All those in favor. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening. Have a great, Speaker 0 01:19:44 Happy fourth. Speaker 12 01:19:46 Good evening. Have good evening everyone.