Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on March 13 2024
Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.
Mar 13 2024 · Planning
0:00
–:––
Speaker 0That?
Speaker 1No, my husband shaved his a few weeks ago. I'm like, please grow back. Oh boy. My daughter looks at him and goes, dad, no. Like he, he needs to go see the beer.
Speaker 0I was told it's too spiky. It hurts.
Speaker 1You have to wait until it softens up. Yeah. When it grows out a little more. Oh, I go, my husband and I got into conditioning stuff. Oh. He has a whole routine. Oh wow. Oh yeah. Softened it right up. Yeah.
Speaker 0Tom, we have, so the real point of what you're saying is, my wife doesn't love me enough. Is the PO
Speaker 1Not for her. Hi everyone. Hi Dawn. This is an interesting conversation to come into.
Speaker 0You wandered into it.
Speaker 1We have three minutes. Okay. Oh, that's funny. I'm
Speaker 2Not Tom, I'm not Tom Barlow. I just wanna let everybody know,
Speaker 1Oh, I sent you the link. You didn't get it, Ron.
Speaker 2I never got it, but thank you Tom for sending it. Oh, well
Speaker 1I'm gonna, I'm gonna rename you.
Speaker 0You can change the name.
Speaker 1Yeah, I'm gonna, I'm gonna rename them now,
Speaker 2Right now.
Speaker 0And you're clean shaven so they won't get you confused with me.
Speaker 1Oh, I wonder why. Yeah, I did send it. Okay, there you are. I
Speaker 2Heard all, all the problems you guys have been having, so if we can help out. My wife's firm got hacked too. She's still home.
Speaker 1You're
Speaker 0Much better looking than Tom Barlow though.
Speaker 1And Jim put us 2 cents in.
Speaker 0Hey Jim.
Speaker 2Tom, did you lose a bet or what's going on here?
Speaker 0What?
Speaker 2Did you lose a bed or you just growing it out?
Speaker 0No, I, I was away and I got lazy and didn't shave and I had a beard and ended up trimming it down to a goatee, but it, it will be gone shortly. Wow. It hasn't passed the spousal test.
Speaker 2Well, that's what I was figuring. I mean, it looks good to me, but you know, I'm not married to you. Assume.
Speaker 0Well, I don't gotta go home to you after this meeting.
Speaker 2Well, I got pizza downstairs. I don't know if that matters any,
Speaker 3But in from the control room, we are coming up to one minute. From live broadcast, you'll hear some recordings beginning. So I would say withhold any beard comments unless you would like it. Live broadcast to do talking to different towns.
Speaker 1Gotcha. Recording in progress
Speaker 2And good seeing everybody. Just let you know.
Speaker 4Okay.
Speaker 1Okay, we're almost there. Okay. Seven 30 Madam chair.
Speaker 4The Piscataway Township Planning board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the COER News. No notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the Township clerk notice sent to the Coer News and the star ledger. Ms. Buckley, will you please call the role
Speaker 1Mayor Wahler. Present Councilwoman Cahill. Here. Ms. Corcoran. Here. Reverend Kinneally. Present. Mr. Atkins? Mr. Foster? Mr. Hammed and Madam chair
Speaker 4Here. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the open public meeting? Notice
Speaker 0Certainly this meeting is being held via this virtual platform in conformity with the Department of Community Affair Guidelines. Anyone that's here with regards to an application. When that application is called, at some point, the chair or the board secretary will open it up for comment. At that point, if you could raise your hand and the board will allow you to speak in the order that your hand was raised. Thank you. Madam chair.
Speaker 4Thank you. The flag can be seen over my right shoulder. Can we all recite the pledge of Allegiance? I pledge Allegiance. Allegiance to the flag. To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. Nation, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Can we swear in the professionals, Mr. Barlow?
Speaker 0Certainly. Ron, if you could raise your right hand, swear the testimony and give before this board will be the whole truth, so help you God. I do. Oh, I just saw, well, Jim Clark can, we can swear you in when we get to the area in need if you want. Sounds good. All right.
Speaker 4Okay. Are there any changes to our agenda tonight, Mr. Barlow?
Speaker 0Yes. Madam chair. Item number 1323 PB 23 slash 24 V is the Spark Car Wash, preliminary and final site plan. In both variance that has been carried to the May 8th, 2024 meeting. Their notices were in order. Therefore, if anyone's here for that matter, you won't receive another notice. Just note that the matter will be rescheduled and heard on May 8th, 2024. That is the only change I am aware of. Madam chair.
Speaker 4Thank you. May I have a motion to pay our, our duly audited bills, please?
Speaker 5The chair. Reverend Kinneally. I make a motion to pay our bills.
Speaker 4Do we have a second?
Speaker 5A second. That second.
Speaker 4Thank you. Roll call.
Speaker 1Mayor Wahler.
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1And Madam chair?
Speaker 4Yes. Item number eight, adoption of resolutions to memorialize action taken at the February 14th, 2024 meeting. Oh, I see. It's not applicable. Did we do that already, Mr. Barlow or
Speaker 1We don't have any. We
Speaker 0Don't have any Madam chair. Okay.
Speaker 4Item number nine, adoption of minutes from the February 14th,
Speaker 5Meaning Madam chair 24 Kinneally. May I make a motion to adoption of minutes for February 14th, 2024?
Speaker 4Thank you. May I have a second? Do I have a second please?
Speaker 1Court Corcoran. I'll second.
Speaker 4Thank you. Roll call.
Speaker 1Mayor Wahler.
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1And Madam chair?
Speaker 4Yes. Item number 10, discussion KD capital Ventures LLC application 22 PB 27 slash 28 B.
Speaker 0Madam chair. This is a, a subdivision that the board granted the resolution was adopted. The applicant has previously been before the board back on December and asked for some additional time to perfect the subdivision. And I see Mr. Dash, their attorney is on the meeting. He's forwarded a letter setting forth the appropriate time. He would like an additional extension in order to perfect the subdivision. There were some back and forth with the municipality and the applicant that I believe has been worked out. He's asked for an additional 30 days. Frankly, I think out of an abundance of caution, my recommendation to the board would be to grant a a 90 extension just to let him dot his i's cross his T's. And that would put the extension to May 20th, 2024. And that should give the applicant enough time to perfect it. Is that okay with you Mr. Dash? Yes,
Speaker 6It is. I appreciate the board's consideration and I concur with every statement Mr. Barlow just made.
Speaker 0So if that's acceptable to the board, it would be appropriate for a motion granting an extension until May 20th, 2024 to perfect the subdivision Madam chair.
Speaker 4Thank you. Do I hear that motion?
Speaker 7Madam chair Dawn Corcoran. I make that motion.
Speaker 4Second. Do I have a second?
Speaker 5Reverend Kinneally, I second that motion.
Speaker 4Roll call please.
Speaker 1Mayor
Speaker 4Wahler for 90 day extension. Yes.
Speaker 1Yes. Thank you. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. And Madam chair.
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 6Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And have a good evening.
Speaker 4You quite welcome. Thank you. Item number 1123 PB 30 slash 31 V as in Victor Q ts investment properties LLC. Mr. Kelly, would you like to enter your appearance?
Speaker 8Yes. Thank you. Madam chair. Nice to see everybody this evening. Larry Kelly on behalf of the applicant QTS investment properties, Pisca, A LLC, Madam chair members, we intend to be pretty brief this evening. It's a relatively straightforward application. This is, I think our third time here probably in as many years for improvements to this property. The applicant's got a 38 acre property. It's an existing data center, large facility in the LI five zoning district, about 10 times the size of of what's required in the zone. The data center is existing. We were here a couple years ago for an expansion to that data center. This is more akin to earlier applications, which is accessory improvements to the far rear of the property, adjacent to the 2 87 right of way for additional generator and container space. Essentially the equipment that services the engines that service a lot of the power required by the data center operations itself.
Speaker 8No changes to proposed to the data center itself. Hours of operations, what we do inside the data center, the comings and goings, that's all staying the same as it exists today. This is just a very limited new accessory improvement, but it does pinch the rear yard setback a little bit. So we've got some relief for the setback. And as it turns out, when this application was made, it was pointed out that prior relief granted by the board for encroachment to the setback was actually developed in the field about two feet closer than it was approved. A prior approval allowed the applicant to develop structures about 39.4 feet into the 50 foot setback. They were actually developed in the field, 37.7 feet. So we asked the board to take notice of that and ratify that as part of this application as well. Madam chair, you're gonna hear from two witnesses shortly.
Speaker 8Our project engineer Mike Marelli of Menlo Engineering, and then you'll hear from our project planner, I believe Matt Flynn is on with us from John McDonough Associates. Both applicants experts have gone through the reports. We generally have no issues. Just one matter I'd like to head off before our witnesses start testifying, to give it some context, we saw a handwritten note from a board staff member indicating the requested installation of PVC piping along the frontage of two frontages of this property. The applicant has looked into the ability to do that. We're talking about over 2000 feet of linear frontage between Possum Town and the abutting street. Our site terminates at the 2 87 right of way, and to implement that would be about half a million dollars. The applicant estimated the engineer can go through that in further detail. It really has no connectivity to the relief we're seeking tonight.
Speaker 8We appreciate the, the request and we understand it as a data center. We understand the goal of ultimately in installing I, I think it's fiber optics maybe is the goal for this area. But that's the one recommendation that we're gonna have to discuss this evening. And the applicant really cannot accommodate that one. Our end, our experts will go into it further as to the nexus as to the pragmatic issues with implementing that. The balance of this pretty straightforward Madam chair we think we can accommodate. We think we can accommodate all the other items. And with that Madam chair, I'd like to turn it over to our first of two witnesses.
Speaker 0Turn call your first witness.
Speaker 8Thank you very much. So we'll call Mike Marelli, civil engineer. I'm here engineering there you're Mike.
Speaker 9Hello
Speaker 0Mr. Marelli, if you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your professional address please, sir.
Speaker 9Sure. Michael Marelli, M-A-R-I-N-E-L-L-I of Menlo Engineering located 2 2 61 Cleveland Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey.
Speaker 0You raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give before this board will be the whole truth? I
Speaker 9Do.
Speaker 0You a witness Mr. Call.
Speaker 8Thank you, sir. So Mike, you heard my proffer to the board. If, if you wouldn't mind, Mike reorienting the board briefly with the property, the existing conditions, and then the limited areas of proposed improvement along with the delta of relief that those improvements will create.
Speaker 9All right, Laura, I can share my screen. Yes. Okay. Everybody see the exhibit I have up
Speaker 0Mr. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Marelli, what we'll do is we'll just mark any exhibits you use as a one and then just keep going. And if you could just as you put them up, describe for us what the exhibit is. Okay,
Speaker 8Perfect. Thank you.
Speaker 9Sure. So these, the exhibit I'm showing on the screen right now, we'll mark as exhibit A one entitled QTS Piscataway site Plan. Exhibit dated three 13 2024. This is a we, we decided to keep it simple and just do one exhibit for this evening. I do have others available should questions come up, but to kinda show the magnitude of what we're doing here, for the record, we're talking about block 4 1 0 2 lot 3.01 and block 4 2 0 2 lot 6.02 on the tax maps of Piscataway. Township property is commonly known as 1 0 1 Possum Town Road. It's located on the northerly side of, of Possum Town. Road Circle Drive is off to the left and as you can see on this exhibit, 2 87 is on the right. For the purpose of my presentation, even though north kind of heads in the upper left corner, I'm just gonna talk about Plan North, southeast West.
Speaker 4Excuse me, sir?
Speaker 9Yes, sir. Yes ma'am.
Speaker 4Could we get your qualifications on the record, please? Of course. Before we proceed,
Speaker 9We skip that. Sure. Yeah. Again, my name is Michael Marelli. I'm a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I have testified in front of this board on many occasions, including the last application when we came in front of it for the proposed data center addition and utility yard. I've been practicing, I'm a graduate of Rutgers University class of 99. I've been practicing for I guess, almost 25 years now in land use and planning. And I, as I said, I've provided professional testimony in front of hundreds of boards, including this one on multiple obligations.
Speaker 4Thank you, sir. You may proceed.
Speaker 9Thank you. Madam chair. So the site has two access points. One that's near the, the bottom of the exhibit. That's their main access point with Security Gate and Guardhouse off to the left off of the sheet is the, an emergency egress off of Circle Drive. The property is 38.12 acres and is located entirely within the LI five zone. If you're familiar with this area, it's MO 2 87 is immediately to the east, but the rest, the property boundaries are, are occupied by other industrial uses within the LI five zone. So as it exists today, what we did was we, we used, utilized the exhibit that we used back in 2022 showing the proposed data center at the time. This has all since been constructed per that approval. Unfortunately, an updated aerial only showed it under construction at the time, so I wasn't able to use utilize that.
Speaker 9But what we're here this evening to, to discuss is some additional, and I sometimes I enjoy these virtual meetings because it allows you to kind of really zoom in on what we're talking about. So talking about scale, you know, this is the existing data center. This is the addition off to the right or the eastern side with the loop road and generators and cabinets that we had proposed last time. But in this rear upper most right corner, the applicant is propo proposing more of the same. You'll note that, you know, as a previous phase, the more gray and and light tan silhouetted containers and generators, those were approved some years ago off to the right. These are the ones that were most recently approved back in 2002. And what we're proposing this evening is to add one more of the same, a proposed generator, a container that has direct access to the building and two transformer pads.
Speaker 9As you can see, it's, it's consistent, fairly consistent with its setbacks off of that rear, rear property line that it, that it abuts to the north. It doesn't, other than creating the pads to put in these generators and containers and, and transformers, there are no other site improvements being proposed this evening. So the generator is 40.34, the container is 41.01 and the closest transformer is being proposed at 49.29 feet setback. Now the, the, all of these are new variances, but as, as I stated, they're very similar to the variances previously granted by this board as through prior applications, what Mr. Callie had been speaking about with respect to clearing cleaning up the record is when we had proposed the expansion immediately to the east of this, we had gained approval from the board to provide a, an accessory structure setback of 39.4 feet, where 50 feet is required for the second to last most Eastern transformer pad during the course of construction and, and building. When this was as built the, this generator, I'm sorry, transformer pad was also sus supposed to be at that setback, but it was built a little bit closer. It's at 37.17 feet. It has no real impact to the site plan. Again, this is all within a, a secure utility yard for the data center and it doesn't in interfere with any access as it exists today and has no real impact on the overall site plan. Michael, what
Speaker 0Is it, what was it built at? 34? Is
Speaker 9That what you said? 37.7 where we were 37.7. Yeah. Where we were approved for 39.4.
Speaker 0Okay, thank you.
Speaker 9But as it relates to what we're here this evening, again, it's, if you see it's just a continuation of the proposed generators and containers that already exist along the rear of this property and then the trans, the transformer pads that are associated with them. As you see, each pair of units needs its own because the last existing unit had a transformer pad where the new proposed generator would go. It's being relocated a little bit further away, but as you can see, there are no additional site improvements being proposed. The use within the building is not changing. The number of employees is not changing. This is just simply for a believe it or not, an existing client within the building who is looking for some additional capacity in this area of the building. Does anybody have any questions as it relates to what we're proposing this evening?
Speaker 4Members of the board, do you have any questions of this witness?
Speaker 10Madam chair? It's Councilwoman. Cahill. Just a quick question of Mr. Marelli. So was there some, I think you,
Speaker 9Is Ms. Cahill breaking up for everybody else?
Speaker 10Yes.
Speaker 9Okay. Is there
Speaker 0Any counsel Cahill,
Speaker 10Why they hadn't thought about this additional capacity at the time when this Eastern
Speaker 0Councilwoman Cahill you cut out for most of the question? So maybe if you could ask it from the beginning.
Speaker 10Yeah, I've got it. Internet,
Speaker 9I believe the question she was asking for the bits and pieces that I heard was that, you know, was any consideration given during the last phase to include this as part of the, the expansion development? But at the time, no, this particular tenant or client who owns data within the building had not contemplated this extra data at the time that I'm aware of. And therefore, because the, the data center portions that were added as part of the last phase back in 2002 were already accommodated and supplied for, for other users within the building. They needed to find some additional space for additional generator and data container. Did that answer your question, Ms. Cahill?
Speaker 4Hello? Have we lost everyone?
Speaker 0I just think Councilman Kayla's coming in and out.
Speaker 9Oh, I heard a yes. I think that was her. I'm
Speaker 0Here. So,
Speaker 4Okay. Are are there any other questions from any other members of the board?
Speaker 7Madam chair? Dawn Corcoran, if I may. Hi, Mike. Question with regards to the conduit line. I know that Mr. Calley had made mention of the cost for the installation. However, are there any, is there any reason that, is there anything that prohibits the conduit from being installed? Are there any, I don't know, is there anything like there's no wetlands or can you again,
Speaker 9Well, I'm not sure the, the, the quick answer is I'm not sure. Yes. I mean, as, as the board probably is aware of immediately to the southeast, all of this is a creek and, and wetland complex that, that has buffers onto the site that we've had to include as part of previous development. There are three driveway connections from the subject property that would have to be somehow crossed, whether it's ripping up asphalt in order to provide the, the conduit. Additionally, if I, and unfortunately I don't have the exhibit, but on the circle drive entrance, if you recall, is one of the prior phases the applicant was required to put in curb and sidewalk. There was very limited space due to grading. So there are, it's literally, you know, the curb line, a sidewalk and then a retaining wall that, that holds up the land on the site side of, of the circle drive north access way. So there, in order to put the conduit through that area, sidewalk would have to be ri ripped up and or the retaining wall adjusted in order to fit this new conduit. So it's a, it's a little bit more than just, you know, digging a trench and throwing a conduit in the ground in this particular case.
Speaker 7But you could technically get, there could be an easement on the, on QT S'S property, not within the right of way where the conduit could be run. Correct?
Speaker 9Potentially, but again, I don't know what implications that has to existing wetland areas and buffers buffer requirements to provide that. What I'm, what I'm assuming is a private utility across the frontage.
Speaker 7So, and the reason, and the only reason I'm asking Mike, is that the Township recently adopted an ordinance requiring, you know, the installation of this fiber of all applicants. I mean this may be a question for Mr. Kelly, maybe not necessarily for you, but the Township were willing to say, give you some time, say two, three years for the installation. Is that something that QTS would consider?
Speaker 8I don't think it is. I mean, they, they, the cost of it alone is,
Speaker 11I'm gonna cut Mr. Callie off here. I, my advice to the board is they enter into a redevelopment agreement. Otherwise, I'm voting no on this application. I'm the Mayor.
Speaker 8Okay. So I'll, I'll continue. Ms. Corcoran, you're answering your question. Tha thank you Mr. Mayor. The case law is very clear on this. I'll cut to the chase then. In that case, there's gotta be a rational nexus between the implementation of a condition of approval and the relief being sought to 38 acre site with the status center being one of the number one taxpayers in the Township. This is the extent of the improvement being proposed. It's incredibly small in this 30 acre site. There would be no rational nexus under the case law, under the statute, under the treatise for the implementation of such a condition for this type of site plan. It's onerous and it's incredibly cost prohibitive for the applicant. So, so no, they would
Speaker 11Not, if I, if I, Mr. Callie, if I made to the board the applicant, the, the attorney that doesn't know that he's not even willing to have the applicant enter into a redevelopment agreement with the town with a condition of approval. And if they're gonna play that route hard, I'm, I think we should just vote no on this. But that's up to the individual board members
Speaker 8The redevelopment agreement requiring what, what's, what's the substance? No, I, I
Speaker 0I think he meant a developer's agreement. Not a redevelopment agreement. Yeah.
Speaker 8That, that's for one. It's, it's a developer's agreement, not a redeveloper. But I mean, maybe Mr. Barlow can, can enlighten us as to what would be the substance of that agreement. Because if it's implement this in the future, I know the property owner is, is not willing to do that at the moment.
Speaker 0I mean, the developer's agreement would have,
Speaker 11I mean, I I mean at this point, we're spinning wheels. Let the applicant finish his application. You know where I stand on this one. I don't know where the rest of the board members are, but, you know, we treat the, the reason that ordinance is that's, that you have an application, there's an application being heard before this board coming right behind you. And the same conditions are gonna, so if, if you're not gonna do it, that's fine. I understand your client's position, but I'm gonna vote no.
Speaker 0Okay.
Speaker 8Just, and Mr. Barlow can certainly echo my understanding of the relevant case law on the matter.
Speaker 0Okay. Just, and if
Speaker 9I could just put a little number to
Speaker 0It. Right? I, I keep getting asked questions, but I don't get to answer 'em simple.
Speaker 9I'm sorry, Mr. Bar, I just wanted to, I just wanted to say you, the calculation is we're adding 0.0009% of impervious coverage to the site. That's the, it's a 38 8 acre site that we're adding four small concrete pads to just to put it into, you know, a a level of magnitude of what is being proposed. And sorry for cutting you off.
Speaker 0No, no problem. Just to, just so it's on the record, Mr. Callie, an answer to your question. I would envision a developer's agreement that instead of having the applicant immediately put in the conduit, there would be a timeframe of, say, two or three years in which to do it could bond for it just to make sure that there's a timeframe in which it would be done. And that's a condition of approval that the applicant could agree to. You've indicated on the record that's not something they're interested in, but I just wanted to answer your question in terms of what I envisioned or what the board envisioned. So just so that's on the record, so you can continue the, the application. 'cause obviously all the board members are gonna listen to all the evidence before there's a, there's any type of vote taken on it. Mr. Kelly, but continue your presentation. I don't know if you have anything else for Mr. Marelli.
Speaker 8Not on, not on direct. Okay. There might be more cross of Mr. Marelli and then we'll move to our project planner.
Speaker 0Okay. So
Speaker 4Well, before we do that, do we have any other questions from the board? If not, I'd like to open it up to the public for any questions from the public.
Speaker 0If any member of the public wishes to ask Mr. Marelli any questions related to his testimony or the engineering, if you could raise your hand and, and Ms. Buckley will identify it and let you in or allow you to. Do
Speaker 4You see any sound?
Speaker 12No. No. And Madam chair.
Speaker 4Okay. It's closed to the public. All right, Mr. Marelli, you can call your next witness.
Speaker 8Thank you Madam chair. So we'll call Matt Flynn, our project planner, discuss the variance proofs, and we're gonna put further testimony on the record relative to that condition item. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0Okay, Mr. Marelli, could you unshare your screen just for a minute? Thank you. Good evening. Oh, there he is. Okay. Mr. Flynn, if you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your professional address, please.
Speaker 12Yeah. Matthew Flynn. F-L-Y-N-N. Business address is 1 0 1 Gibraltar Drive, Morris Plains New Jersey.
Speaker 0Bear with me, I gotta write that. That's Morris what?
Speaker 12Morris Plains New Jersey.
Speaker 0Okay. And raise your right hand. You swear the testimony I give before this board will be the whole truth?
Speaker 12I do.
Speaker 0Your witness, Mr. Cowley.
Speaker 8Thank you, sir. So Matt, for the record, the benefit of your background and credentials is a licensed professional planner.
Speaker 12Sure. My education comes from Rutgers University. I have my master's degree in planning and public policy. I have my professional, my professional planner's license in the state of New Jersey, as well as my National Licensure for planners, which is the A ICP license. I've testified before over a hundred boards across the state and both of my licenses are in good effect.
Speaker 4Thank you. You may testify as a planner, please.
Speaker 12Thank you, ma'am.
Speaker 8So, Matt, a few baseline items before you get off to the races, what your findings and your proofs, you're familiar with the filed project, the plans on file and the release requested. Is that right? Yes. You're familiar with the underlying code of the zone and the master plan?
Speaker 12Yes.
Speaker 8As well as the existing conditions on the property and the delta proposed conditions as testified to by Mr. Marelli just before you.
Speaker 12Yes.
Speaker 8So if you would, Matt, would you take the board through the variances and the proofs justifying same, and then we'll discuss the reports and the items sought in them?
Speaker 12Sure. And I think a nice backdrop, maybe if Mr. Marelli wants to put that exhibit back on the screen, just while I go through my, my, my testimony, I think that would be a nice way for the board to, to get a glimpse of kind of what I'm talking about. So just at a high level, and just to echo the points made by Mr. Marine, Mr. Marelli, just a few moments ago, we're looking at an already developed piece of property. We're looking at a permitted use in the LI five zone that was granted approvals for everything that's out there today, minus the, the, the setback that we, that we're requesting this evening and then the, the ratification of that other setback that Mr. Kelly mentioned. But at a high level, you know, we are looking at a pretty large development here. And like Mr. Marelli mentioned, we're talking about a very small percentage of the, of the development that's actually up this evening for consideration of the board.
Speaker 12And again, that small percentage that we're talking about is to continue the existing use of the property for what's already happening out there today. So really no significant changes from a land use perspective or even from a mass and scale perspective. When we're, when we're looking at again, how small this, this change is in terms of the C variance for the rear setback, I think it's pretty clear when Mr. Marelli zoomed in on the, on the piece of the property that we're looking at, that this, it really is just a continuation of what's out there today. It's continuing that pattern. It's really not going to stand out again as anything new or obtrusive in the context of the existing land use pattern that's out there today. Again, we are in the LI five zone. We have a permitted use and I think that the purpose of that zone is bolstered as a result of this application, which is to reflect existing industries and promote non-hazardous operations.
Speaker 12The proposed generator that we're proposing this evening is going to bolster that use that's already out there today. It's going to help that use continue and thrive and which I think is in line with what the zone wants here to keep existing businesses up and running and, and doing the best that they possibly can. So again, the sea relief for rear setback, 40.34 feet is what's proposed. 50 feet is what's required. Again, that's consistent with the, with the line, with the pattern of generators that's out there today. Keeping that pattern and extending it a little bit farther out, I think that with the relief is justified by virtue of both the C one hardship test as well as the C two balancing test. To start with the C one hardship test, I would say that the relief relates to the land and the structures lawfully existing there on, again, we're looking at an already developed piece of property.
Speaker 12We're looking at an area where these generators already are and continuing that pattern. So this is an approved area that has that equipment yard with similar structures. And again, that continuation I would say we don't have much choice to put it somewhere else on the property that's already there. There already are setback variances there that we're continuing the C two balancing test. The benefits of the projects as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments. I think in this case. This is a, a clear, the, the weight of this project is clearly on the positives in terms of the purposes of the municipal land use law. We'll look at purpose, a promotion of the general welfare. All of the improvements that we're proposing are going to facilitate the continued operation and services of the existing land use here with backup power in the event of any outages.
Speaker 12I think we can also look at purpose GA variety of land uses in appropriate locations, seeing that this accessory utility structure is in a, is in an, an already existing utility yard. So I think this is an appropriate place on the property for that. And finally, I think we can look at purpose m which is efficient use of land. Again, we're looking at an area that's already approved for utility function. And so I, I believe that this is a, a good location for this. And again, from a mass and scale perspective, this is an, an infinitesimal, I would say stamp on the property that's not really going to be noticed in the public eye. Which I think brings me to the flip side to that, the negative criteria, I believe there would be no substantial detriment to the public or to the zone plan First in terms of public impacts, this is concealed at the back of the building, which is a very large building. It's a visually imperceivable from the street. Again, a very small fraction of the property that we're talking about this evening. The location is secured from public access and dysfunctionally innocuous. And based on all of that, I believe the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public or to the zone. And I think all that goes towards that one setback variance that we're requesting. Again, that's 40.34 feet as opposed to 50 feet.
Speaker 12And just to, I guess go into the, the, the testimony regarding the PVC piping, I'll echo what Mr. Callie mentioned. The, there is substantial case law on this. Notably at the, at the federal level level, there was a Supreme Court case, which is known as Dolan versus City of Tigard, which basically says that in order for, there must be a reasonable relationship between a development that is, that is required by the Township and, and the, the project that's being proposed by the applicant in this case, again, we're talking about a land use that's already there and we're only seeking to modify a small portion of it. I think that the, the, the township's efforts to do this are laudable, but I would say that there would be an opportunity to fulfill this purpose in the future perhaps. But I think that maybe for this particular application, this wouldn't be the most appropriate time for that.
Speaker 12Again, considering that this is an already developed piece of property and in order to get that PVC piping, there would need to be perhaps substantial changes to the, to, like Mr. Marelli said, the asphalt utilities or the, like, perhaps in the future when we're looking at a clean slate or a redevelopment of the property, something like that would be more appropriate. But again, I would say that in this case there is not a, a rational nexus between what's being proposed and that, that initiative. So with that, I think unless there's any redirect or questions, that's pretty much my, my testimony.
Speaker 8Thank you Matt. Madam chair, we make Mr. Flynn available to questions of the board and your staff.
Speaker 4Yes. Members of the board. Do you have any questions of Mr. Flynn?
Speaker 0I I have one question. Madam chair or Mr. Kelly? Is Mr. Flynn gonna address the variance for the pad that was built closer than the previous approval?
Speaker 8Yeah, W we could certainly bolster testimony on that point. I mean, it's, it's, I
Speaker 0Didn't know if he addressed it, if I
Speaker 8Yeah, I I think he globally did as part of his proofs. But, but Matt, if you could specifically speak to what was implemented in the field at 37.7 feet as opposed to 39.4 feet. The as bill condition that's being zoomed in right now, Matt. Thank you.
Speaker 12Right. So as we can see on our screen here, we're talking about just about two feet of difference and counsel. Yet we are going to, we are seeking to ratify that, that existing condition as opposed to what was approved, which is again, just about two feet of, of, of, of delta there. And I think that the rationale for that comes directly from the testimony that I put in for the, the newly sought c variance for rear setback. Again, continuing a pattern that's out there today and making the most efficient use of space.
Speaker 0Thank you.
Speaker 12Thanks.
Speaker 4Are there any other questions for me? Any other members of the board hearing No questions? We could, I'd like to open it up to the public for any questions of Mr. Flynn,
Speaker 0Any members of the public who wish to ask Mr. Flynn any questions? If you wanna raise your hand and signify that you have a question.
Speaker 12No Madam chair,
Speaker 4Therefore I'll close it to the public. Mr. Martinelli
Speaker 8Madam chair, this is Larry Callie. I've had an opportunity to confer with the applicant.
Speaker 4I'm sorry, Mr. Call.
Speaker 8That's, I've been called worse even today. Madam chair. Not a problem. The applicant, while they are, are steadfast in, in our proofs on the condition that's being sought following the mayor's few comments, the applicant said they would be a good neighbor, be a good citizen, continue to do so and enter into a developer's agreement with the municipality as a condition of approval to implement this in the field over a course of time. And, and perhaps Mr. Barlow and I can discuss that period. We think it's probably more appropriate that the implementation be associated with actual implementation in the field of a budding site as opposed to just a two year window. Otherwise you've got kinda that sidewalk to nowhere reality. So the short of it is the applicant will be amenable to enter into a developer's agreement for a, the development of that new ordinance requirement on a protracted basis with a time to be determined with some reasonable measure in there. And the terms could be worked out to Mr. Barlow, myself post-approval. And if they can't be worked out, we can come back before the board. That's
Speaker 9Fair enough Mr. Barlow.
Speaker 0Okay. I would be amenable to that. Just as a quick question Mr. Callie. 'cause I'm, I'm not sure as to the other comments in the board's professional reports, were there any issues?
Speaker 8I don't believe there were, but I'd like to double check with Mr. Marelli. Any issues, Mike, with the other comments in those reports?
Speaker 9No, we agree to comply with all the additional comments received in those reports. A majority of them were related to the zoning table will not being updated per the current phase. But of course with, with revised documents, should the application be approved? We would, we would correct those zoning table
Speaker 0Numbers. Okay. Perfect. I just wanted to get that on the record and I'm sure we can work out the developers' agreement between the municipality and Mr. Ka.
Speaker 8I have no doubt. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4Okay, then I would like to have a motion that includes and incorporates an approval with as long as they have a developer's agreement.
Speaker 7Madam chair Dawn Corcoran. I'll make the motion that we approve the application subject to the board. Professional reports also subject to the applicant entering into the developer's agreement for the fi fiber conduit line installation, which will be the time period of which will be determined by the attorneys.
Speaker 4Do I have a second
Speaker 5Madam chair? Reverend Kinneally? I'll second that motion.
Speaker 4Thank you. Roll call please.
Speaker 1Mayor? Wahler?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 1Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran?
Speaker 7Yes.
Speaker 1Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Foster?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 1And Madam chair?
Speaker 4Yes. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 8You very much folks. Have a good,
Speaker 4Good evening. Take care. Thank you. Just
Speaker 0Gimme one second to grab my file, next file. Sure. And clean up my mess from the last one. All right. All set. Thank you.
Speaker 4Okay, item number 1223 PB 29, PepsiCo Beverages, north America. Mr. Attorney, Dave, and Poso.
Speaker 14Good evening, Madam chair. This is actually Tim Arch from Bob Smith and Associates. I'm filling in for Dave and tonight. Okay. I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey and I'm here representing PepsiCo. This is a site located at 2200 New Brunswick Avenue and this application tonight is for the installation of some chiller units that are being upgraded from ammonia chillers to glycol chillers, which is a more modern and efficient technology, as well as for the installation of a CO2 silo to replace an aid, an aged silo that's on the site now that's about 30 years old and is, and is basically at the end of its useful life. And with that there's gonna be res striping of some additional loading spaces and, and other site improvements. The variances that we are seeking tonight, there are two that have to do with signage. The first involves a freestanding sign and it's a location to the, to the right of way.
Speaker 14We are 20 feet from the right of way where 50 feet is is mandated. That's an existing freestanding sign. I don't know if it was previously approved as part of a a, a previous site plan, but it's been there and it's been in that location for quite some time. We're not, we're not anticipating changing that at all. In addition to that, there's also signage, directional signage, which is set back, supposed to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. Ours are 7.7 feet, nine feet and 9.5 feet respectively. And I believe those signs were actually installed when the sidewalks were installed at the direction of the Township. So again, existing, this is existing signage, we're not proposing to change it at all, but these are existing conditions that we just wanna mention for the, for the completeness sake of the application.
Speaker 14Essentially the only new variance that we're asking for is related to accessory structure height. The CO2 silo that I mentioned, that's replacing the old CO2 silo is 38.83 feet in height, where normally accessory structures are only 25 feet in height. So that is relief that we are, that we are requesting. We do have four reports tonight that we'll be making reference to. One is Ms. Corcoran's zoning report. The other is we also have Mr. Herrera's memo related to the, to the fiber optic conduit request. That was the subject of much discussion on the last application as well. The memorandum from, from Mr. Hinterstein and a memorandum from CME Associates. I will, I have two direct witnesses tonight. First is going to be Scott Turner from Menlo Engineer and Menlo Menlo Engineering. And then also we have Jim Higgins, who is our professional planner. We do also have a representative from Pepsi that is here, Ms. Lauren Goo, who is available in case the the board has any questions that would be more appropriate for ownership to answer. But unless there's any direct questions for me, I think we can proceed with our first witness,
Speaker 0Pepsi witnesses. 'cause they have the logo, they're easy to find on the screen.
Speaker 14So our first witness would be Mr. Who did I say? Scott Turner from? From Menlo Engineering.
Speaker 0All right, Mr. Turner, if you could state your name, spell your last name for us and give us your professional address, sir.
Speaker 15Sure. Good evening, everybody. My name is Scott Turner, T-U-R-N-E-R. I'm a principal engineer with Menlo Engineering Associates at 2 61 Cleveland Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey.
Speaker 0Okay. If you raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony you give before this board will be the whole truth?
Speaker 15I do.
Speaker 0Mr. Arch, your witness, sir?
Speaker 14Mr. Turner, I'm gonna turn it over to you. If you can please just take us through the site and if you wanna touch upon any of the reports that you think are relevant
Speaker 0Sure. And credentials.
Speaker 14Oh, I, I thought he already put the credentials on the record, but I will No,
Speaker 15I I can do
Speaker 14That. My apologies. Mr. Turner put the credentials on the records, please.
Speaker 15Sure. We'll do that. I am a graduate of the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I have a Bachelor's of Science degree in civil engineering. I'm a principal engineer with Menlo Engineering Associates with over 34 years of experience in the field of civil engineering and land development. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing and I provided testimony as a professional engineer throughout the state of New Jersey, including being in front of this board many times before
Speaker 14I would ask that Mr. Turner, thank you. A
Speaker 0To be a pro. He's a crew.
Speaker 15Thank you. Madam chair.
Speaker 14All right, Scott, apropos to my last question, if you please take us through
Speaker 15Sure. And Madam, can I share my screen? Would that be okay? Yes, you may. Okay. What I put on the screen is an exhibit that was prepared by my office. It's titled PepsiCo Piscataway Overall Plan Exhibit dated March 12th, 2024. We can, for the record, mark this as exhibit A one with today's date of March 13th. This is a very basic rendering, more black and white than anything else. There are some green, rectangular areas to identify the areas of discussion throughout the application. Anywhere else beyond the limits of those areas are really areas that are existing and not being, you know, not being touched with respect to anything we're doing on the property with this application. So for the record, quickly, it's, it is block 1 3 0 1 Lot 2.04. The property contains 36.7 acres. It has approximately 2000 feet of frontage along New Brunswick Avenue and Lake View Avenue, Lakeview Avenue being up at the top of the sheet to the north New Brunswick Avenue running perpendicular into the right of this exhibit.
Speaker 15Along the easterly side, the property is surrounded primarily with a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The property itself, again, is the PepsiCo Beverage company around three of the sides. The south side, the west side, and the north side. They are primarily service related areas, service driveways, trailer storage, loading docks, et cetera. The northeast side, which is the primary area of work proposed with the application, is also existing developed service areas where we're just going to be slightly increasing some of the coverage for some additional trailer storage spaces. On the east side of the property, there's a large parking field, car parking field for employees and visitors. And in between that parking field and New Brunswick Avenue is a, a large open area that has some landscaping and existing tree cover. The northwest corner of the property, which is up in the upper left corner here with access onto Lake View Avenue, has an existing structure, accessory structure building with, again, additional service areas, some additional car parking.
Speaker 15Really nothing going on with respect to this application in that area. The property is located in the LI five, the light industrial zoning district. And we are here seeking preliminary and final site plan approval to provide 10 additional trailer storage spaces on the northeast side of the building. They would run adjacent to the existing trailer storage spaces that are in that location. In addition to that trailer storage area, we would also be installing 17 additional Eastern red cedar plants to extend the existing buffer that's out there currently. I know there was in the staff reports to add some additional landscaping on the, what would be the easterly side of the new trailer storage spaces. And we would certainly agree to comply with that as well as to raise the height from six to seven feet on planting to, I believe, seven to eight, whatever that letter had indicated.
Speaker 15And we'll go through that. We will agree to comply with that. There, there's no issue with that. So in addition to that, we're also proposing to extend the, the fencing to again, secure the new trailer storage area, match what's there existing today, which is a, we believe a six foot high galvanized chain link fence to secure the new trailer area. In addition to that, the proposal is to provide three new chillers that are located in this northeast corner. Again, that's where I'm circling. They will be installed on three new concrete pads that were part of a previous permit. And that that should those chillers, there are again needed for the functioning of the facility itself and to, to replace some of the aging equipment that's currently out in the property. Now we're also proposing to install a new CO2 silo pad with a proposed silo.
Speaker 15Again, in that very same corner, there already is an existing horizontal silo that's located within a fenced area directly at the northeast corner of the building. That that horizontal silo will be removed and replaced with this more modern 38 foot, 38.83 foot tall vertical silo, which again, is needed to replace some, some aging material out at the site. And adjacent to that silo existing is another silo at a height of 35 feet. So this silo that we're proposing is 3.83 feet taller than the existing silo that's there currently today. So all of the improvements we're proposing are within that northeast corner. There's no impact on the property to the onsite circulation or existing parking areas. We're not proposing any building additions. No changes to existing utilities or drainage systems whatsoever. There is a slight increase in impervious coverage over the trail of storage of 6,491 square feet existing on the property is 48.3%.
Speaker 15Impervious coverage will, that will be increased to 48.7%, which is well within the 65% permitted within the zone. As, as pointed out by Mr. Arch, we do require variances for the height of the accessory structure, which is this new silo tank itself, which again, is approximately 30 years old and it does need to be upgraded for safety reasons. And it's, it's the size it is in order to, you know, to have enough capacity, the meet the needs of the, you know, from the manufacturing perspective. And it is a standard size that comes from the manufacturer itself. The silo tank will be white in color to match the tank that's there today, which is adjacent to it, which will remain. And so it will blend in with the existing condition is, and the white color is a, is a Pepsi standard color for a bulk silo storage, which is why everything out there is in white.
Speaker 15That silo pad is approximately 300 feet from New Brunswick Avenue. And you know, if you're, if you're looking at that silo or the existing silo from New Brunswick Avenue, you do get a filtered view from the existing vegetation and trees that are in between that area and New Brunswick Avenue itself. The variances required for the signs are existing nonconformities. We have two conditions out at Lakeview Avenue. Two directional signs. One is at 9.0 feet at the one driveway, which is the most north west driveway at Lakeview Avenue. And then the easterly driveway on Lakeview is 7.7 feet, both existing conditions and along New Brunswick Avenue. We have another directional sign at the southerly drive. And that sign is set back 9.5 feet from the right of way. And then the, the, the freestanding sign, which is also the variance requested, another existing non-conformity is set back 20 feet, I'm sorry, set back 12.5 feet from the right of way line where it needs to be set back 50 feet. So those are the existing, and I'm, I apologize, I, there's, there's more directional signs in this area here. The free standing sign, which is the variance request that this driveway is 20 foot setback from the right of way, whereas 50 feet is required. So the free standing's 20 versus 50, and then the other three signs are 7.79 feet, 9.5 feet as opposed to what's required at 10 feet for the to, to meet the ordinance requirements.
Speaker 15We have review letters from CME Associates, Jed, dated January 22nd, 2024 from Mr. Reson. We have no issues or any items in here that we need to discuss. We can comply with all the conditions within that staff report. Again, most of it is dealing with the zoning and the zoning table and some testimony in regards to the, the variances that are required. We have a review memorandum from Division of Engineering and Planning dated January 23rd, 2024. We have no issue with the majority of the items within that staff report other than item number seven that is dealing with the proposed chain link fence that indicates that it should be entirely black. The details should note the entire fence post rails mesh and hardware shall be black. We would request that we allow to match the existing condition that's there currently, which is a galvanized, you know, just a chain link fence.
Speaker 15It is set back significantly from New Brunswick Avenue. Really can't be seen. So we would, you know, recommend to the board that we be allowed to build this new fence around the new trailer storage area at the same type of material that's out there currently. And on that same memorandum on the, the next page, number eight, just a comment in regards to complying with the statewide model EV ordinance, that that ordinance is not applicable to this particular application. We are not adding any new additional parking spaces or any modifications to the parking fields. So that that is not applicable to what we're doing here. We have a review letter from Mr. Herrera, which is in regards to the installation of the four inch PVC conduits along the frontage. And I believe Mr. Arch, we agreed that we would be amenable to that condition as long as again, we have some time in order to implement that in the field.
Speaker 14Yeah, one of the things that I will, will add to that, Scott, is that I, just for the, for the completeness of the record, just so that everybody is aware, we did send a letter requesting relief from that, from that conduit condition, citing the same reasons that I believe Mr. Callie cited in the previous application, which is the, the lack of a causal nexus under the MLUL for the requirement to put that in. I just wanna make sure the record reflects that we, that we did request that if the board is, is insistent on having that be a condition associated with approval. In all candor, we would agree to that. Similarly, as the last application did, we would ask for an opportunity to enter into a developer's agreement to set forth the specifics as to when that will be implemented. But I just wanna note that, that we, we had the same request for relief. If the board, I know the board was not, was not extending that at the last application, but I would be remiss if I didn't ask, we would, we would ask that the board not impose that as a condition of this application. However, if the board, again does, does request that that be maintained as an application, we will agree to, to address it by way of a developer's agreement. Similar to the last application
Speaker 15Madam chair,
Speaker 2I have no further direct testimony at this
Speaker 0Point. Just Mr. Arch, first of all, thank you for placing that on the record. Does Ms. Corcoran with regards to the Mr. Hinterstein, Jan, can you maybe unshare your screen, Mr. Turner, Mr. Hinter, Dean's January 23rd, 2024 report. Do you have any issue if they match what's out there in terms of the fence around this one particular addition?
Speaker 7I don't have any issue with that Mr. Barlow.
Speaker 0Okay. And similarly with number eight of Mr. Stein's report?
Speaker 7No, I agree with the applicant and I also believe that Ron had mentioned that in his report as well, that this is not applicable to the, the, in the requirement of the EVs is not applicable to this application.
Speaker 0Okay. Okay. So I think that addresses the applicant's agreement to all the reports absent Mr. Henderson's number seven and eight
Speaker 14Correct. With
Speaker 0The addendums that have been placed on the record
Speaker 14And Mr. Barley. The only other, the other only other port point I might want to mention is that in Mr. Hinterstein report, his, his number three indicates that the CO2 tank is not part of the application should be removed. I think that's an artifact from a, from an older submission. We did submit with the CO2 tank, we revised it. So I think that that is also not applicable. The CO2 tank is obviously that's the accessory structure variance that we're asking for. So I think that's just a holdover from a
Speaker 7Correct,
Speaker 2Answered my question because when I first got this, you had, I had read the application and basically you said, we are here because a lot of the signage, we were off by a few feet. There was no mention of it, all these other improvements. So it's already covered by the other staff reports and I'm fine with it. But that, this is why I was a little confused because I really thought that this was just a, a signage application that, that, that things were placed a little, a little closer to New Brunswick Avenue than what was initially approved. Approved and, and that that's what your initial submission said. But if it's been changed since then, that's fine.
Speaker 14Yes. Mr. Rice, and, and I apologize if you didn't, if you didn't get access to those revised plans and the revised
Speaker 2We're all good,
Speaker 0I'm sure Mr. Higgins will cover it.
Speaker 2I'm sure he will.
Speaker 14And unless there's any questions like for Mr. Turner members
Speaker 4Of the board, do you have any other questions of, of this witness? Hearing none, I'd like to open it up to the public for questions of this witness.
Speaker 0Any, any members of the public as in the last application, if you wish to ask Mr. Turner any questions about his testimony, if you could signify by raising your hand. And Ms. Buckley will identify
Speaker 4Noah Madam chair, hearing no response from the public. It's closed to the public. Mr. Arch, do you have another witness?
Speaker 14Yes. Our next witness is James Higgins. He's our professional planner.
Speaker 16Good evening.
Speaker 0Mr. Higgins, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address.
Speaker 16James W. Higgins, H-I-G-G-I-N-S. I am a licensed professional planner. My address is 14 Tilton Drive Ocean, New Jersey.
Speaker 14Mr. Higgins, if you can please give us a little bit of your background. Give us
Speaker 0Wait, wait. Let, I gotta swear in, but I can't write as fast as talk 14 Tilton
Speaker 16Drive. Yes. Drive.
Speaker 0Ocean,
Speaker 16Ocean, Township, New Jersey. Okay.
Speaker 0Mr. Higgins, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you'll give before this board will be the whole truth?
Speaker 16Yes, but before I raise my hand, I wanna advise everyone. It's not as serious as it looks. And you should have seen the other guy.
Speaker 4Oh my goodness.
Speaker 0I was like, what the heck is he talking about?
Speaker 4Well,
Speaker 16To
Speaker 0Shake your hand, I would've figured it out.
Speaker 4He set us up,
Speaker 16Swear to tell, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Speaker 0Thank you. Your witness, Mr. Arch. And, and
Speaker 14Mr. Higgins, if you could please go through your credentials briefly so you can be accepted as a
Speaker 16I'm I'm a licensed professional planner. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in landscape architecture from Rutgers University. I've been a practicing and licensed planner for 45 years in the state, and my license is still current. I've testified before hundreds of boards throughout the state been accepted by superior Courts in at least five counties and been recognized by the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey as an expert in the field of planning.
Speaker 4You are accepted. You may proceed.
Speaker 16Thank you.
Speaker 14Mr. Higgins, if you can please just take us through your, your analysis.
Speaker 16Yeah, surely. Well, the application was explained pretty good by Mr. Turner. So ba basically I'll just go through the proofs on the variances. There are are three types of variances. Two, two different sign variances, and then one for the height of the accessory structure. With regard to the height of the accessory structure, which is really the, the, what I consider to be the mo most, the newest and most relevant variance in the application, the applicant's proposing a, a silo that's gonna be a little over 38 feet high. It's gonna be set back over 230 feet from New Brunswick Avenue and well over that from Lake Avenue. The intent of the ordinance in having restrictions on the height of the accessory structures goes more towards buildings than very narrow conical type structures like the silo. And also it takes into consideration the fact that the front yard setback in the zone is 50 feet.
Speaker 16And what's being proposed here is a narrow silo that's actually set back 200 and I think it's 237 feet from New Brunswick Avenue. It's only gonna be three and a half feet higher than the existing silo that is on the site now. And it's gonna be the same exact color and it's gonna blend right in very nicely. It's also gonna be screened by, by existing and proposed vegetation. So there will be no substantial detriment. There is a need for the applicant to have this new structure and the height of the structure is dictated by the fact that it's a, a standard size for this type of silo, for this function. And that to have it be lowered at all, it wouldn't function as well. And also it would cost much more to construct because it would have to be something that would be constructed from scratch rather than one is that's a standard size.
Speaker 16So when I look at this, I think first of all, there's no substantial detriment. It's visibility is, is very limited. What won't look any different than what the site looks like today. And it's necessary for the function of the site and for the improvement of the function of the site so that the applicant can continue to utilize the site in an effective manner. So I think really it fits the C two criteria or the benefits for the granting. The variance substantially outweigh the detriments. With regard to the signage, and I just want to correct one thing Mr. Turner said is that the required setback for the freestanding sign is 30 feet, 50 feet is the setback for a building. And what's, what's proposed and what exists is a sign that's setback 20 feet. The ordinance permits a 30 foot high sign, the sign that exists there somewhere between five and six feet high.
Speaker 16I didn't go out and actually measure the height, but in looking at it, it's shorter than I am and I'm six feet high. It's also enclosed in a landscaped area that has stones around it. It's very, very attractive. And was my understanding, and I may or may not be correct on this, it was actually previously approved at 20 feet with a prior application. But I don't see any substantial detriment. I think it's a very attractive sign, in fact, at 20 feet, because of the way it's situated, the size of the sign, it's probably more attractive than it would be if it was set back the 30 feet. So again, I don't see a significant problem with that, with that variance. As far as the variances for the
Speaker 0Mr. Higgins, can I just stop you there for one second just to, to clarify something? Yes. I, I believe the requirement for a freestanding sign is no closer than 50 feet from the right of way. And I thought you saying you, you're correcting that to, to 30. I'm just looking at the staff reports, which indicate 50 feet. So I understand the proofs for your variance probably, probably are identical whether it's 50 or 30. But I just want the record to reflect, and maybe Dawn can just chime in.
Speaker 7Yeah. The, the ordinance does require a 50 foot setback. However, I do believe there was a prior variant granted for a 30 foot setback. So somehow along the line, the sign was installed at 20 feet. So that is the reason why it was called out in our report. Simply because it wasn't, it it's not where it was supposed to be.
Speaker 16That's correct. For some reason, the CME report, I thought it said 30 and it says 50.
Speaker 0Okay.
Speaker 2Yeah, it, I mean, what I had was that it was, I mean, it it, I concurred with Dawn. It says 50 feet required. Yes. And I think, I think it was supposed to be 30 f 20 feet exists. 30 feet was propo, 30 feet was initially approved.
Speaker 16Okay. That's where,
Speaker 2That's right. So that got a little quirky there. And I'm looking at, and I could have phrased it better, so my apologies,
Speaker 0Just wanted to make sure we, if the, if the vote asked
Speaker 4Favor
Speaker 0That the right variance is granted.
Speaker 2Well, yeah, I mean 'cause that's what Mr. Archs Tech said that it was supposed to be 30 feet, but they actually built it at 20 feet. So it's basically recognizing what's already there. Yep.
Speaker 0Gotcha. I just want the record to be clear. All right. You go on Mr. Higgins.
Speaker 16And as far as the, the directional signs, they, again, they were placed there at the direction of the municipality when the sidewalks were built. They're very small. They're two to three square feet in the area and I, I think all three of them are actually situated so that they're parallel to the street rather than perpendicular. So somebody driving down the street would only see 'em when they're directly opposite the sign. So I don't see any substantial detriment, I think to move them away from the sidewalk. I think the intent of those signs was as much to advise pedestrians that there were driveways there that were loading for loading purposes. And so they should have been as close to the sidewalk as possible. So I don't see any sub substantial detriment. I think there is a benefit to having them where they are. It's not a big deal to move them back to 10 feet, but I don't think it's necessary. And I, I think that's basically the extent of, of my testimony.
Speaker 14Thank you Mr. Higgins. Mr. Higgins is available for questions from the board,
Speaker 4Board members. Do you have any questions of Mr. Higgins hearing? No response from the board. I'll open it up to the public.
Speaker 0Again, forgive the sirens in the background, but if any members of the public wish to ask questions, if you could raise your hand.
Speaker 1No. And Madam chair.
Speaker 4Thank you. Therefore, it's now closed to the public. Do you have any other testimony, Mr. Arch? Arch?
Speaker 14No. Direct testimony as I mentioned before. I do have Ms. Carillo. Is he, is he or she is a representative of Pepsi. So if the board had any questions that could be directed to her, she's certainly here for questions. But that would conclude our, our, our case.
Speaker 4Okay. Members of the board, if you have no questions of these two witnesses or the owner who is here, what's your pleasure on this motion on this application? Sorry,
Speaker 7Madam chair. Dawn. Corcoran i'd, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the board professional's reports and the staff report also subject to the applicant entering into a developer's agreement for the installation of the fiber conduit lines. The timeframe for which the installation shall take place will be outlined in that agreement.
Speaker 4And thank you. I have a second.
Speaker 0Seven and eight on Mr. Stein's report. A three, seven and eight.
Speaker 7Three. Seven and eight. Yes, you're correct. Thank you Tom.
Speaker 0Okay.
Speaker 4Do I have a second
Speaker 1Madam chair? Reverend Kinneally? I'll second that motion.
Speaker 4Thank you. Roll call please.
Speaker 1Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran?
Speaker 7Yes.
Speaker 1Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?
Speaker 4Yes. Thank you Jim.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 14Have a wonderful evening everybody.
Speaker 4You too.
Speaker 0You too. Mr. Arch.
Speaker 1Good night.
Speaker 14Don't shave that goatee Tom
Speaker 4Eddie. That what he say? That goatee is as good as gone. He said
Speaker 1Don't shave that goatee Tom.
Speaker 0He a hundred percent right.
Speaker 4The beard club. Item number 14, discussion
Speaker 0Madam chair. That's an area in need that has been referred over by the council, I believe Mr. Clark and is here.
Speaker 17Yes I am.
Speaker 4Mr. Clark, come forward. So if
Speaker 0We could just get him sworn in, Mr. Clark. And if you could state your name. Sorry.
Speaker 17Yep, no problem. James Clarkin. C-L-A-R-K-I-N. Foresight Planning. This is address at three 20 East Rumford Road in Philadelphia. pa
Speaker 0Okay. You raise your hand. You swear the testimony give before the board will be the whole truth.
Speaker 17Truth. I do
Speaker 0Your, the floor is yours, Mr. Clark.
Speaker 17Excellent. Okay. You
Speaker 4May proceed
Speaker 17All. All right. Sharing my screen and we'll get started. So tonight, good evening board members, I'm presenting on the area need redevelopment study for block 5 7 0 1 lots, 11 and 12. So this is 1700 South Washington Avenue. This is actually just across from the helper farm property. So I'll just report on my investigation of these lots if
Speaker 11I, if I can correct Mr. Clark. It is the ecological park.
Speaker 17Sorry. Thank you. Oh, ecological part. My apologies MA. Mr. Mayor. Yeah. So I'll just report on the, my findings for this investigation. I do the typical look at zoning, building records, environmental constraints, your master plan and your zoning ordinance as I usually do. And then we will compare those conditions against the statutory criteria found in the local redevelopment and housing law. So I'm gonna start by describing the area. There is a aerial map at the end of my report if it's easier for you to see the physical area. But we're talking about two lots. And together they encompass Encompass about 56 acres. So it's quite a large area lot 11 is the bigger of those two tax lots. That's about 42 acres and it's owned by fields of corn LLC and then lot 12 is just below it. They're contiguous and it's a bit smaller at just shy of 15 acres. And that is owned by Delio has Zoom. So as you can imagine, it has extensive frontage along South Washington Avenue and it actually extends all the way back to study Avenue, which is part of an established residential neighborhood. As you can see in the aerial, the entire study area has never been developed with the exception of Lot 12, which has a single family home. I'll get to that. But most of it is currently vacant land and it has a lot of wood, shrubs, meadow, and forest on it.
Speaker 17And you can, once I get to the photographs, you'll be able to see the nature of the site and in terms of its vacancy. But aside from the home, there is electric utility towers that actually bifurcate or split the study area in half, which is obviously a utility easement that's in place with respect to the home it is currently occupied. It's two story single family home. You can see it on lot 12 and is bit built back in 1956 and has approximately 4,300 square feet of Louisville space. And I would like to note that the current occupant is open to relocation without Township assistance if the study area is redeveloped. So back to that utilities. And I just wanna note that it is a hundred feet wide and it's just big overhead electric lines with the massive support towers. And in addition to that, on lot 12 towards the southern border, it is encumbered through its entire depth by a Texas Eastern transmission easement.
Speaker 17So as I mentioned, other than the single family home, no other uses, oops have been developed in the study area after reviewing all the different building and zoning records with RES except for that one house. So you're talking about two tax laws in the study are are located in your SCH zone. So that's your senior citizen housing zone. In terms of environmental analysis, typically I use NJ dps GIS mapping tool and the only thing that really came up was wetlands. So both lots actually have wetlands over an acre, an area present on each lot. Lot 11 has the most with 19 acres of wetlands and lot 12 has 3.4 acres of wetlands. So that's total combined of about 22.4 within the entire study area. Excuse me. And may be, and that condition may attribute to the lack of utilization and development of those lots.
Speaker 17So other than that, there were no other environmental concerns. No known contaminant sites, none, nothing of that nature. Just the wetlands in terms of surrounding land uses as mentioned is the ecological park environmental preserve to the east. On the other side of South Washington to the west is an existing residential residential neighborhood. And then there are some homes to the south as well on Woodland Avenue close to Lake Nelson that border. The redevelopment area or the study area I should say. Further the land use to the north, I believe it's on lot two of this block is currently being developed as a warehouse use. And as you go further north to the intersection of Centennial Avenue, you'll find the the town center.
Speaker 17So with that I'm gonna jump to the photographs, which I believe start on page nine of my report. So I'm gonna start with lot 11. As I already mentioned, this is 42 acres and entirely comprised of vacant, undeveloped land. Also when I did my search, I found no police or building records for this lot. So this is a view of lot 11 from the other side of South Washington. And then as you continue you can kind of see some closeups. There really was no need to walk the entire property. As you can see in the aerial, the entire site is pretty much like this wooded meadow. You can see those large massive utility easements or electro line structures. And actually on this bottom photo you can see where that Texas eastern transmission line is.
Speaker 17But really the rest of the photos show the forest in nature of the lot. And this is the northern border where I mentioned that the construction sticking place on lot two. So now moving on to lot 12, as I mentioned, it has that one single family residential home on it. It's actually at the end of a cul-de-sac, but the rest is just like a lot 11. It's got the overhead electrical utility lines and it's mostly forested in meadow. So this is a good shot of how it bifurcates the both lots. So that continues north northwest and then the remainder of the property is pretty heavily forested all the way to study avenue.
Speaker 17There was water flowing under a culvert. You can kinda see it better here. South Washington goes over this culvert and I believe it just strain to the other side and probably part of the wetlands. And then this is more forested, undeveloped nature of lot 12. And that's a good view of the utility lines as well. Bifurcating both lots. And here's the home. So as you can tell it's in good condition. After my investigation, I did not find that the structure itself did not meet any of the criteria found in the local redevelopment housing law. And you could also tell that the inside is, you know, it's a, it's a home that's being lived in and being taken care of.
Speaker 17So now that I've shown the conditions I want to touch on what criteria it does that does apply to this study area. So my finding was that criteria E and H applied. So the reason for E is for two main factors. So the first is the condition of title which discourages the undertaking of improvements. So as I mentioned, that huge utility easement is cutting the two lots in two and it's really creating an additional development challenge with respect to location of potential improvements, whether it's on either side of the easement area and also you cannot build obviously underneath the easement area as well. Further, I would say that the overhead lines and support structures are aesthetically displeasing and might raise health and safety concerns for segments of the general public, possibly particularly the senior citizens who is exactly the segment that this property is zoned for.
Speaker 17So that could be a development challenge. But when you combine the utility easement with the extensive wetlands on the property, I believe that's the main reason that improvements have been discouraged. And there really is no proper utilization of these two lots. So I think that accounts for the vacant nature with the exception of the single family home. But both lots over the last 60 years have been mainly vacant, which is kind of the opposite of where nearby area saw substantial residential development. So I think this finding shows that the combination of the utility easement and the wetlands shows a lack of proper or is the cause for lack of proper utilization of these lots. Now the second factor that's specific and important to the E criteria is the diversity of ownership. And that was found as a fact for these two lots. So we looked at the title and ownership and there is a distinct separate owner for each lot. So the, so that diverse ownership is what, what it's really doing is impeding land assemblage, which is another hurdle that's stopping development or even redevelopment. So I think redevelopment would pave the way for both laws to be developed together into a more integrated and productive use and can reverse the, you know, non utilization that we see today. So not only does it impede land assemblage, but it's really discouraging the undertaking improvements that we need for senior citizen housing.
Speaker 17So to kind of put a bow on it, the lack of proper utilization improvements in investment is having a negative social and economic impact on the community. As you probably know, these laws were fairly rezo, fairly recently rezoned in December, 2022, the SCH zone, there's no other land zoned anywhere in the Township for senior housing except for Sterling Village. And there really is a significant need in demand for senior housing. There's a lot of aging residents and they either have to leave Piscataway 'cause there's no senior housing options or they have to age in place 'cause they want to stay if they can. So I think that's a negative social impact. But further the lack of development is a negative economic impact because without uses or improvements, we obviously know that it's not the same tax value to the Township and not fully productive parcels. So therefore I found that both a negative social and economic impact can be rectified and reversed through redevelopment of this lot lots, I should say 11 and 12. So in my professional opinion, the E criteria does apply here to the conditions set at above. And I think designating as an area in need of redevelopment will open up more opportunities for land assemblage and redevelopment to reverse these conditions.
Speaker 17Oops, I apologies. Wrong page. And then finally, age criteria applies, which is the smart planning criteria. I believe the principles of smart planning are furthered in that we're on a major suburban arterial that that is South Washington and it directly connects to interstate 2 87, less than a mile away. So if it would be redeveloped, it would be able to promote development using all the existing infrastructure around it. You know, the, the good roadway systems, the sewer service area, the utilities are all there. So the redevelopment of the study area is supported by the smart growth principles in this case. So I believe the age criteria can be applied as well. So in summation, I recommend that this board and the Township Council determine that the study area is an area need to redevelopment because it meets both the E and the H criteria. And I think moving forward with a plan, a redevelopment plan will help reinforce the township's goals found in its master plan, but also the state's smart growth planning principles. So yeah, it's my recommendation to designate as a non combination area need of redevelopment and I'm happy to take any questions.
Speaker 4Members of the board, do you have any questions?
Speaker 5Question? I would like to have Madam chair in regard.
Speaker 4Go ahead Mr. Reverend Kinneally,
Speaker 5In regards to the property you did, you state that you can't have a senior housing project being put up on that property?
Speaker 17So the logic that I'm trying to apply or the conditions that I found are that the combination of the wetlands and the utility easement is causing conditions that make it difficult for development and also the diverse ownership. So it's zoned for it, but nothing has happened yet. And I think it's because of these conditions that I just cited. So I think the intent is if it does become in need of redevelopment, I think we would look at uses that are currently found in your senior citizen housing zone.
Speaker 5Yeah, I, because that's what I was looking at because I know the tower lines are there, but they do build in regards different areas for towers, even Edison in certain areas you can build on it. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
Speaker 17No problem.
Speaker 4Any other questions from the board,
Speaker 10Madam chair? Just one quick question. So I'm, I'm just, sorry, I'm looking at the map because the, the, that aerial view is easier for me to see. Where is the access to that house?
Speaker 17Let me zoom in.
Speaker 5It's off Woodland Road,
Speaker 17Yes. Oh, okay.
Speaker 10Correct.
Speaker 17Let me get down there. Yeah, yeah. It's the, the law lines are kind of hiding it, but there is a driveway I believe, right? Is it right here? Yeah, it's right there. Right at Sylvan and Woodland.
Speaker 10Okay,
Speaker 4So that house is tucked away back there.
Speaker 17Yeah. So you can kind of see it's just vacant all around. And just this tiny, well, not tiny house, but this house. So single family house on it.
Speaker 4Is it occupied?
Speaker 17Yes, it is currently. Currently I believe so, yes. But as I stated, they would be open for relocation without Township assistance. Should this move forward to redevelopment
Speaker 10That would be between the developer then and the owner?
Speaker 17I believe so.
Speaker 4Could you point out where that high intensity with that wire, where that tower is?
Speaker 17Yeah, so I think there's a tower here and you can kind of see the two lines cutting, cutting across. So you know, if you develop on the South Washington side, you're kind of limited. And then there's also the wetlands. So having them together might open more possibilities on the west side that would need access either from woodland or study.
Speaker 4Are those wires removable or are they still in use?
Speaker 17They're still in use so that they would have to remain.
Speaker 10So yeah, so Madam chair, I don't think that the, if if a senior housing were to be built, the the access would not be from Washington Avenue.
Speaker 4I No, I get it.
Speaker 10I don't think,
Speaker 4I don't think so. No.
Speaker 11There, there, there would be access from Washington Avenue. There would have to be, there's actually paper streets back in there also.
Speaker 17Yeah, you would just be limited on that side.
Speaker 11As far as the map, if I remember to call the wetland maps, most of the areas where on the larger lot where you see the trees down at, but where the single family homes are, that's where the wetlands is. So where all there's existing homes abutting both properties, a lot of that is the wetlands. So they would not be impacted.
Speaker 10They would, they wouldn't be able to build there is what you're saying?
Speaker 11That's correct. Correct.
Speaker 10All right.
Speaker 4Well Reverend Kinneally, we still don't have any place to move. Okay. Any questions? Any more questions from the board? Should we open it up for the public?
Speaker 0Sorry, I was muted. Yes, Madam chair.
Speaker 1Anyone in the public have any questions or comments?
Speaker 0You do raise your hand. Here we go. Couple of hands.
Speaker 1Goomer, you need to unmute
Speaker 0Goomer.
Speaker 4Okay. I have several questions. Okay. One is,
Speaker 0Can I just stop you for one second?
Speaker 4Okay.
Speaker 0If, if, if you could state your name, spell your last name, and just give us your address.
Speaker 4Okay. Rosalie Guther. G-E-U-T-H-E-R. I live on one 30 Woodland Road. Thank you. I have two, I have two questions and one kind of comment. Comment kind of questions. The first is, there is a pipeline also in this property that you can see. It's right at the edge of lot 12. It's in between lot 12 and the lot 11. So it looks like a big cleared area, but there's a gas pipeline there. Can they build on top of that pipeline?
Speaker 17I don't believe so, no. No, they would have to move around that or develop. I'm
Speaker 0Assuming there's an easement that would not allow that.
Speaker 4Okay. My second question is, it's designated right now for senior housing if this plan should go through, would there be any way for them to change that to a different type of housing? Can they rezone this after it's been approved?
Speaker 17So the, if I may, the process after this is if the board accepts my findings for the study, we would move to the redevelopment plan stage. And in redevelopment plans you can designate specific uses. However, I think the intent is to keep the underlying zoning for those types of uses for senior citizen housing. Is that fair? That that's, that's
Speaker 11If I may, Mr. Clark. And that's a part of the master plan already that Yes. That that senior housing?
Speaker 17Correct. Okay.
Speaker 4So hopefully they will keep it as senior housing. 'cause I'm, I really am okay with senior housing. I am a senior myself. The last thing is the wetlands. The last study that I saw on the wetlands was done in 2021. We have noticed a significant increase in water puddling in the area since they started building those warehouses further up the road. Would there be any way for them to, I, I guess I, I don't really know where the wetlands are. I did see the, the, the chart for lot 12 from 2021, but it was unreadable when it was sent to me. So it was a little difficult to tell where you're saying the wetlands are, but specifically behind my house, it has gotten wetter and I don't know, I don't think we've gotten any more significant rain than previous years. But it definitely seems wetter since this year. Specifically since they started doing, I mean it was wet up by where they just put in those new warehouses, but I don't know if the water was channeled towards us or what, but it does seem to be wetter
Speaker 11Mr. Clark. And if I may, all I know is that we've had received within the last year a lot of precipitation. I mean the fact that where I live, I only had to run my irrigation system five times during the entire summer because we've had so much rain. And I think if you go by what the National Weather Service is, that we've, we're, we're running a surplus of water in this general area because of the 'cause of the climate. And I think part of the issue up there right now is that some of the storm water retention system hasn't been built yet where the current construction is going on right now. But I think the wetland maps, if I remember from seeing it last year, most of it is where the trees are at that back up towards burn park and that, that area over by SDY and, and Seward over there in, in Woodland?
Speaker 4Yeah, it's sunny and right around where the park is is where it's the wettest. But there is standing water now and we haven't had rain for days but, well we had rain. Rain all weekend. Yeah,
Speaker 0We had a lot of rain.
Speaker 4We had a lot of rain this weekend.
Speaker 0Do you have any other questions or comments, Ms?
Speaker 4Nope, that's it for me. Thank you.
Speaker 0Looks like Ms. Bass has her hand raised.
Speaker 18Yes. Kathleen Bass.
Speaker 0Ms. Bass, do you wanna unmute?
Speaker 18I am unmuted. Hello there. My name is Kathleen Bass and I live at 1 1 2 Sylvan Avenue. My house was built in 54, so we have seen the change of the neighborhood, I should say my in-laws owned it and now their son Michael and my cell phone property. We do have, over the past 2020 or so years, we have a lot of flooding in our basement because of the high water table and also the different hurricanes that come through. But I, I have a question in your, I guess planning of this whole property saying that the high tension wires are bisecting the property, the pipeline is bisecting the two lots, I believe 11 and 12. And again, that goes straight down through all the way over. I do believe it even hits the mayor's area over there. But anyway, it does, it does go through. And if the wetlands are on the western part of the property, I do believe it's also a lot of wetlands on the, a lot 11 near the Washington Avenue. I do believe when that study came out, there's wetlands down that area as well. I don't understand how you're gonna be able to build in there. There's just a small section
Speaker 17That, so as I mentioned in my testimony, it's about 22.4 acres of wetlands compared to 56 acres of the entire study area. When you put the two lots together. So that's a net 30 or four acres or so. So believe it or not, there is some area that can be developed and any redeveloper definitely has to follow N-J-D-E-P requirements for wetlands prop, proper buffers and all those different things. So that would be, that onus would be on the developer.
Speaker 18Right? But I mean it looks like there would be a small triangle in the center that's developable. Developable because of the wetlands, because of the tension wires, because of the pipeline. And so also you can see from your picture that it's lot 11 is a big tree portion or a big forest portion. Unfortunately we had the, I guess the benefit of curbing put in. But in putting in that curbing on Woodland Avenue, we lost 20 huge oak trees because of that. And then we also had the wonderful addition of a oak blight that took at my property. We lost seven trees because of that blight on the oak trees. I would be very disappointed to see the loss of these trees on on lot 11 and also in the area by the park.
Speaker 18The other thing that I'm concerned about was the remark about the unused land We have used that land for hiking and for just enjoyment of the birds, the nature. We've had fox, we have a very large flock of turkeys that use that property. I would hate to see the loss of all the nature and the animals on that property. And then also, you know, in regards to smart planning, there's nothing better than nature to be surrounding your home. So I do believe it is very smartly planned and we have enjoyed that property with the nature all these years. So I would hate to see it developed. Thank you Ms. Va.
Speaker 0There's
Speaker 1One more. Carrie Faloon? Yeah,
Speaker 0If you could state your name.
Speaker 19Okay. And
Speaker 0Please identify your address.
Speaker 19Yes, my first name is Kerry, last name is Felo. Address is 1 38 Woodland Road, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Speaker 0Okay. What's your question or comment Ms. Fallon?
Speaker 19I have more of a comment. I moved here in 2022. What attracted me to the area was the woods and the nature. And basically, and that's quality of life. I moved from a very high water table area, union beach, which was more than half destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. I have to concur with my neighbor on woodland that I've never seen so much water in my backyard. There is the Culver right behind my house about four, five feet behind my fence. And I would say in the last, I have three winters to basically look at 22, 23. And now 24 half of my backyard is now being flooded on, not even a nor Easter, but like an old day storm. I wake up daily to deer, to foxes, to, I hear coyotes in the evening. And I don't know if that was part of the study that this is also a habitat for animals, the ecological park across the way.
Speaker 19It does not have the wooded area that they would need to basically survive. My other point is that quality of life and with the trees, quality of air. When I did move in here, I also had very poor water quality. I had to put a water treatment system in. So I have many concerns and one of the reasons why I did move to the area was, you know, the wooded area, the access, you know, to the lake, et cetera. So this would definitely change my quality of life. And I'm sure other people who have spoken, you know, on this. I guess the only question I do have in that locked twelves, it is a privately owned residence. Yes. The axis is from woodland. Is there any wetlands on that in particular? Because again, if, if you develop land and you put concrete down, it's, there's just nowhere for water to go.
Speaker 19And my feeling is, is that my next step is just to get water in my house already. My neighbor next to me, one door down, which is right next to burn Park, they get flooded all the time. Their renters, they're leaving, they're, I believe she's moving. But these are just some of my concerns. I'm a new resident as of 2022. I come from a very high water table, union beach and area prior to moving here. And I didn't have half as much water as I have here. So more of a comment. My only question was on that lot 12, where the house, I believe it's lot 12, where the house is, is that considered wetland? And that's all. Thank you
Speaker 17So sure. To answer your question, I think, I believe I said 3.4 acres of lot 12 is wetlands, but it's all the way towards the rear, rear closer to burn park in the wooded area. Okay. And so not near the residence, it's, it's, it's further back to like West.
Speaker 19Okay. And that's almost two houses from Byrne. So that would be probably directly behind my house,
Speaker 17Possibly.
Speaker 19Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0I believe there's a, Mr. Rack has a question. Yep. Brian Rack, if you could state your name, sir, and your address.
Speaker 20Yep. Brian Rack. 1247 Brookside Road.
Speaker 0What is your question or comment, sir?
Speaker 20What, which wetlands maps were you using for this What year?
Speaker 17So DEP has kind of like a data clearing house and it's a GIS map. So I'll have to look at the data later, but it might be 2018. But I was able to dig into the records a bit more and I believe they were verified in 2021. Okay. So
Speaker 20Because
Speaker 17I'm basically, the process is, you know, in 2021 that was the verified order. If there is a developer, they would have to confirm that with DEP and possibly reverify that those borders are correct.
Speaker 20Okay. 'cause I'm looking at the, the DEP arc GIS site right now, and the latest one they have is 2012. And looking at the 20 12 1, most of lot 11, I would say at least 50% is wetlands. And for lot 12, even more, probably 60%. So, so I'm not quite sure what the DI don't know if there's a, I mean, I'm just looking at the public side. I don't know if there's a different wetlands map that I'm not seeing here, but
Speaker 17There might be a different layer. I'll have to check. But the, the most recent one I had, as I mentioned in my testimony, showed 22 acres of wetlands. So it might've been revised.
Speaker 20Okay. I guess they haven't publish from
Speaker 17The 2012
Speaker 20That or something. That was it. Thanks.
Speaker 1That's all Madam chair.
Speaker 4Thank you. It's now closed to the public members of the board. You've heard the testimony from, can't think of his name right now. Jim?
Speaker 1Jim Clark.
Speaker 4Clark. Mr. Clarken. Sorry. Do I have a motion as to what, how we should proceed? That we would, it would go to a motion would go to the council that this is an area in need of development.
Speaker 5Madam chair Reverend Kinneally. I'll make a motion that it goes back to the council for further study for redevelopment. And I thank Mr. Clark and for that thorough report and on, on this two lots. And thank you Jim very much. Thank
Speaker 0You. So Reverend Kinneally, just so I'm clear, the motion is to recommend a non condemnation area, new redevelopment referral back to the Township council, correct?
Speaker 5That is correct.
Speaker 0Thank you, sir.
Speaker 4Non-con condemnation, an area of redevelopment. Okay, do I have a second?
Speaker 0I think Ms Ca Councilman Cahill speaking, but her, but she's,
Speaker 1She's muted.
Speaker 4Muted.
Speaker 5You muted.
Speaker 4I seconded.
Speaker 21This is Mike Foster. I seconded.
Speaker 0Mr. Foster. Seconded.
Speaker 4Thank you. Mr. Foster.
Speaker 1Roll call. Mayor
Speaker 4Roll call please. Mayor
Speaker 1Wahler?
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1Councilwoman. Cahill. Just a thumbs up.
Speaker 0Thumbs up. Yep.
Speaker 1Nodding. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Foster?
Speaker 21Yes.
Speaker 1And Madam chair?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 0Madam chair. If, if Ms. Saunders was here, she would indicate that because of the timeframes involved in making sure the council has enough time to consider the board's decision, it would be appropriate for the board to adopt a resolution to be sent to the council recommending the non combination area need of redevelopment. So if there's someone who wants to move the resolution,
Speaker 4Would someone like to move the resolution?
Speaker 5Reverend Kinneally. I so move the resolution
Speaker 4Second.
Speaker 21I second it. Mike Foster.
Speaker 4Thank you. My Mr. Foster roll call please.
Speaker 1Mayor? Wahler?
Speaker 13Yes.
Speaker 1Councilman. McCahill. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.
Speaker 5Yes.
Speaker 1Mr. Foster?
Speaker 21Yes.
Speaker 1And Madam chair?
Speaker 4Yes.
Speaker 0You Mr. Clark.
Speaker 1All right. Thank you.
Speaker 4Thank you everyone.
Speaker 0Great presentation.
Speaker 4Thank you. I believe we have completed our agenda for the night.
Speaker 1We need a motion to adjourn Madam chair
Speaker 4Again. We have a motion to adjourn. So move Madam. chair River. Kinneally. Thank you. All in favor? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Have a good night everyone. Great evening. Thank you. Good night.