Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on July 10 2024

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

Speaker 0     00:00:12    Hey, Tom. Tom, you there?  
Speaker 1     00:00:18    Yes, I am. And I just had to unmute myself.  
Speaker 0     00:00:21    Okay. I, I think we're just gonna take testimony tonight. I don't know if we're gonna have all the people to, to do actually do a vote, so.  
Speaker 1     00:00:29    Well, I mean, I'm gonna see where the testimony goes, but I would tend to agree because I only got Ms. APTAs report from CME today. Yeah. And there's, there's a number of items in there that I, that I think either I need to address or we need to research farther. I think Ms. Corcoran will need to also to make sure that we have everything we need under the general development plan statute. So,  
Speaker 2     00:00:56    And  
Speaker 1     00:00:57    Tom, if it's just my 2 cents, I'm not gonna be overly thrilled because, you know, we haven't done one of these, I think, since the eighties, so I want to make sure.  
Speaker 0     00:01:06    Yeah, I mean, this is the first time, and I've been involved for 30 plus years, is the first time we've ever done one of these.  
Speaker 1     00:01:11    Yeah. So, I mean, we'll see how it goes, but I would tend to agree with you. Okay.  
Speaker 0     00:01:15    All right.  
Speaker 3     00:01:15    Sounds good. And Tom, it's Dawn.  
Speaker 1     00:01:17    Hey, Dawn,  
Speaker 3     00:01:18    I just wanna say we also did not receive the board traffic engineers report. She has not issued it to date, so just wanted to bring that to your attention.  
Speaker 1     00:01:29    Okay. And I think the CME report, I mean, we'll go, we'll get onto all this on the record, but the  
Speaker 4     00:01:34    C Yeah, I mean, I think it's, I think it's premature to say that, you know, we're not gonna be done tonight. You know, I, I, I think that there's not that many comments with the CME once, you know, we address some of the questions there, so I'm not sure that that's, you know, that there should be no vote, especially 'cause you know, we're, I think we're up at a, up at a time crunch right now. So  
Speaker 2     00:02:01    I have to start the meeting.  
Speaker 1     00:02:02    Okay. Oh,  
Speaker 2     00:02:04    Sorry.  
Speaker 1     00:02:04    Now brings it all to that.  
Speaker 2     00:02:07    Okay. Madam chair, we are ready to begin.  
Speaker 5     00:02:12    The 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 Courier News notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Courier News and the star ledger. Ms. Buckley, will you please call the  
Speaker 2     00:02:34    Role Mayor Wahler  
Speaker 0     00:02:36    Present  
Speaker 2     00:02:38    Ms. Corcoran?  
Speaker 3     00:02:39    Here.  
Speaker 2     00:02:40    Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 0     00:02:42    Present  
Speaker 2     00:02:43    Mr. Atkins? Here. Mr. Foster's not here. Mr. Ahmed Madam chair  
Speaker 5     00:02:49    Here. Mr. Barlow, would you read the open public meeting? Notice?  
Speaker 1     00:02:54    Certainly. Madam chair. This meeting's being held VIR via this virtual Zoom platform in keeping with the Department of Community Affair guidelines that have been promulgated and it's appropriate to go forward in this fashion.  
Speaker 5     00:03:09    Thank you. You can see the flag over my shoulder with Could we all recite the pledge of Allegiance and, and unison I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Can we swear in the professionals please?  
Speaker 2     00:03:42    You have Malika.  
Speaker 1     00:03:44    Okay. Is Ms. Saunders is not here. Correct. Okay. If you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 6     00:03:53    Yeah. Malika Apte. A PTE 1 4 6 0. Route nine, Howell, New Jersey. CME Associates.  
Speaker 1     00:04:02    Okay. And you swear the testimony you give before the board will be the whole truth?  
Speaker 6     00:04:06    I do.  
Speaker 1     00:04:07    I think that's the only township. Yes. Mr.  
Speaker 2     00:04:10    Barlow.  
Speaker 1     00:04:11    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:04:12    Are there any alterations? Item number six. Are there any other changes to the tonight's agenda?  
Speaker 1     00:04:18    As of the agenda Most recently revised July 8th, 2024. I do not believe there are any changes to that agenda. Madam chair.  
Speaker 5     00:04:26    Thank you. Can I have a motion to pay duly audited bills?  
Speaker 7     00:04:33    Madam chair. Madam chair Henry Kinneally. I'll make a motion that we paid it dually. All bills.  
Speaker 5     00:04:41    Thank you. Can I have a second?  
Speaker 8     00:04:44    Dawn. Corcoran. I'll second.  
Speaker 5     00:04:45    Thank you. Roll call.  
Speaker 2     00:04:47    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 7     00:04:52    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:04:52    Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     00:04:56    Yes. And item number eight, adoption of resolution to memorialize action. Taking on June 12th, 2024. Can I get a motion?  
Speaker 7     00:05:08    Madam chair. I make motion that we take the adoption of resolutions taken on June 12th, 2024,  
Speaker 5     00:05:17    Which was item A 23 PB 23 slash 24 V as in Victor Spark Car Wash. Can I get a second to that?  
Speaker 8     00:05:25    Dawn? Corcoran. I'll second.  
Speaker 5     00:05:27    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 2     00:05:29    Mayor? Wahler. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 7     00:05:34    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:05:34    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 1     00:05:36    Yes.  
Speaker 2     00:05:36    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     00:05:38    Yes. Number nine, adoption of the minutes of the regular meeting of June 12th.  
Speaker 7     00:05:46    Reverend Kinneally I adoption of May meeting June 12th, meeting 2024.  
Speaker 5     00:05:52    Thank you. Ro second. Can I have a second?  
Speaker 8     00:05:55    Dawn Corcoran. I'll  
Speaker 5     00:05:57    Roll call.  
Speaker 2     00:05:58    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Penny? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     00:06:07    Yes. Item number 10 21 PB 31 Eminem at hose lane, phase two LLC, general Development Plan. Ms. Elgar, please.  
Speaker 4     00:06:21    Good evening everybody. Irena Elgar from Weingart and Law Firm on behalf of Eminem, the applicant. As everybody knows, this is a general development plan that we're looking for approval on so that we can move on to our site plan as everybody knows, which would obviously provide the board with more information. We have submitted several reports with regard to the GDP. As everybody knows that this has been part of the township's housing element Fair share plan Since 2017, we are proposing 121 affordable units and we presented our application in 2021. We were deemed complete in 2022. We've had several. We have workshops with the professionals, we've had several meetings. This GDP has been in the works for a number of years with the professionals as well as the town attorney. We've done what we can to provide as much input as we can with regard to the GDP.  
Speaker 4     00:07:32    And so from our last meeting, which was February 14, we had provided several additional information just based from what the professionals were looking for at the last hearing. We submitted those reports March 18th. We provided a revised project description. We provided a planning report, we did a fiscal impact analysis. You know, even though, you know, we believe it's should be reserved for site plan, but that fiscal analysis did show that there were no adverse impact on municipal services or, and or on the school district. In fact, it showed that there was a net surplus with regard to the DOT, we submitted the letter of no interest, which indicates that there is, that the development would not increase significantly any traffic. With regard to the traffic impact study, we also expanded the study so that it, we studied the most affected intersections as requested, even though, again, that was supposed to only be part of the preliminary site plan.  
Speaker 4     00:08:46    And we also submit a revised GDP. There's a common, you know, use plan. There's a stormwater plan, phasing plan where we proposed by phases. And there's a preliminary signage plan, which is what has been called for in the GDP ordinance. And in response to that, we have, we did not actually receive any in, you know, any more requests for information as of, I guess March 18th was when we submitted that until today about two 30, we received a letter from CME. And you know, we plan on going through that letter and you know, I think that we can allay any concerns that the board might have that are raised in the letter. So with that being said, if you could swear Ron Allach in, please. Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:09:42    I think you were sworn last time, but out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Allach, if you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your professional address for the record.  
Speaker 9     00:09:50    Sure. Again, it's Ronald Albach, A-U-L-E-N-B-A-C-H, director of Engineering Planning and Development Graduate properties 1260 Stelton Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 0 8 8 5 4.  
Speaker 1     00:10:04    Okay. You raise your right hand. You swear the testimony give before this board will be the whole truth?  
Speaker 9     00:10:08    I do.  
Speaker 1     00:10:09    You're witness, Ms. Albert.  
Speaker 4     00:10:11    Thank you. So Ron, I'm gonna direct you to CES's letter of July 10th, 2024. We're gonna start with page two. I believe there's a comment there that I I'll address because I think it just talks about we recommend timing, schedule and municipal development agreement to be provided. The development agreement obviously will be part of resolution compliance. So I don't think that that's, it's premature until the GDP is actually approved. So certainly that will be something that will be provided. And with regard to the timing schedule of the act of the development, we plan to, you know, do a build out in about 10 to 15 years, is what we're looking at, I believe. And just from, you know, once we get all agency approvals. And I think that's all that, you know, that really needs in terms of comment. And then if you look at page three, Ron, if you could explain whether we included the parking space count in the garages and the driveways for the road townhouses in the parking count.  
Speaker 9     00:11:21    Yeah, first off, I wanna apologize to the board and the board's professionals because when I looked at CES's letter and I went back and looked at the GDP plans, the parking counts that are on the, the page to show everything neglected to count the parking that's associated with the single family houses, meaning the garages, the driveways, any on street parking for the single families. As it relates to the townhouses, we were, we did count in that chart, we did count driveways and garages for the townhouses. I know it comes up later in the letter, but you know, based on all of that and based on the EV spaces and everything, we will agree to comply with the parking requirements. But I know that comes up later in the letter.  
Speaker 4     00:12:04    Okay, thank you. And then I guess the next comment was, we recommend the bedroom distribution information be added to the GDP. Which, do you think we can comply with that, Ron?  
Speaker 9     00:12:14    Yes, we'll comply.  
Speaker 4     00:12:16    Okay. And it'll be the same bedroom distribution that we provide in the fiscal impact analysis, correct?  
Speaker 9     00:12:25    That's correct.  
Speaker 4     00:12:27    Okay. On page four, there's, I guess it's page five where Ms. Apte indicates that certain aspects of our GDP do not comport with the concept plan. Well, the concept plan that we understand it to be is the one that's attached as an illustration to the zoning ordinance. It's not itself provide any zoning standards within that or any, you know, again, it's a concept plan. It was something that was put as where the general uses of should be located. It's general location only for reference. And we believe that we've complied with that. That's the first that we're actually hearing of the fact that it may not comply, which we believe it does because the uses are in the general vicinity. And it does call for us to come back with A GDP, which is what we're doing. And we're just solidifying where we're actually putting the, you know, the townhouses, what's happening in the mixed use village. So as far as we're concerned, we, you know, that that concept plan doesn't dictate exactly where all the uses are gonna be. And then with regard to, let's see, page six, Ron? Yes,  
Speaker 1     00:13:52    Ms. Elgar, I'm sorry to interrupt, but if you're going sequentially at the top of page four, you'll just see a line that says there appears to be a discrepancy, Ms. Apte noted between the affordable housing units and that some say 1 21 and some say 1 22. Can you clarify that?  
Speaker 4     00:14:11    Understood. Absolutely. Ron, if you could address that, please.  
Speaker 9     00:14:15    Sure. It's 1 21.  
Speaker 1     00:14:17    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 9     00:14:19    Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:14:19    Thank you. Okay. All right. So, and on page six, lowercase CI think that was also the comment there was whether it was 121 or 122 affordable units, and we're gonna do 121 and Ron, with regard to D the 13 story tower, we plan to comply with that requirement. Is that right? That's, that's correct. Okay.  
Speaker 1     00:14:56    Can we go back a second, Ms. Elgar just, and Sure. On page five,  
Speaker 4     00:15:01    Yep.  
Speaker 1     00:15:02    On in the middle there. B, with regards to the pub, are you gonna address that later? The public square and the public focal point?  
Speaker 4     00:15:16    Yes, we will address that.  
Speaker 1     00:15:18    And then above that, in a, and Ms Apte, I guess can clarify this, but in the middle of, of that a but halfway through it says, this restricts the area within which townhouse units to those highlighted red or orange image above this. Thus this area of the development does not comply with the requirement to the zoning ordinance. The GDP must be revised to provide the appropriate land use in the southwest section of the project. And if I, if I'm reading that correctly, and again, Ms. Apte, please chime in and correct me if I've misread it. If, if the town homes aren't allowed in that area pursuant to the zoning ordinance, so that use isn't permitted, could that potentially trigger a use variance?  
Speaker 6     00:16:06    Not technically the use variance. Okay. But when we were reviewing the ordinance, we believe the ordinance, and as Ms. Elgar said, the the plan is attached as part of the ordinance where it specifically denotes the areas. And this is, you know, as part of the ordinance, it shows where the single family detached dwellings should be going and where the townhomes and the mixed use village districts should be going. Of course, the, the image was in gray scale, so we interpreted and brought it, you know, the, the red and blue and oranges, what we have shown in the report as part of, you know, for readability of the project. And based on that, because if you look at the ordinance itself, it doesn't DeMar where they're proposing what type of uses. But that's how we've interpreted that the ordinance was trying to direct this entire town center growth where they wanted mixed use and where they wanted the single family to go. So, you know, that's, that's the comment that we've based our, that I think the zoning ordinance wanted the single family along to the rear where there are already existing single family users go hand in hand with that. And then the mixed use village district is what they're proposing along the frontage on hose lane is what the zoning ordinance was intending to do.  
Speaker 4     00:17:38    Right. And I guess that's what I was referring to before, that this is, and it even says in your report that it provides an illustrative conceptual redevelopment plan. And since then things have changed based on meetings with the professionals, you know, with regard to at least the single family, there was supposed to be access to the, to the single families that border on the southwest side, but we, we, you know, complied with the request of the town and there's no access to those other single families. Now with regard to the, these single families, also, if you actually look at the Cahn, the illustrative conceptual plan that's attached to the ordinance, you will also note that there, again, this is again, illustrative and I'm just underscoring that it's illustrative because it says single family detached dwellings, 10,000 square feet lots, where we know that the actual ordinance allows for a minimum of 7,500 square foot lots. So again, this is merely illustrative. It wasn't something that, you know, these were the lines that demarcated where exactly we're going to put all the uses. But generally speaking, we do have a mixed use village in the general vicinity of where it's proposed. The townhouses are in the townhouse, and there are some townhouses, you know, in the, in the other section where I guess what it's found by, what is it the yellow, but that's, again, this is an illustrative conceptual plan. This was not something that's part of the zoning  
Speaker 6     00:19:25    Having I agree portion of it. But I think going back to the, what you just said about, there have been certain changes after that agree to that. However, this is the zoning ordinance that has been adopted and we have to rely on the other iterations are still in, in, you know, in momentum right now they haven't been adopted. So we are basing our analysis on the ordinance that has been adopted.  
Speaker 4     00:19:56    Right. And I'm saying that we comply with the ordinance, the concept plan, which was illustrative, is just merely illustrative for purposes of the zoning ordinance. Should I move on, Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 5     00:20:20    I think he's, he's muted. Tom muted.  
Speaker 1     00:20:23    Sorry, I again, because you were going sequentially, I just wanted to, I had some notes in the that I wanted you to just hit them up as you were going through the report. So continue. Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:20:38    Thank you. Okay. All right. And I guess the next comment on page seven, Ron, if you could, or I guess it starts page six to page seven, where it discusses the commercial and retail uses that we maybe anticipating if you could address that.  
Speaker 9     00:21:13    I'm not sure what, except for the fact of, obviously you know, there's certain permitted uses that are allowed in the zone. Obviously with just a GDP it's premature to talk about exact tenant lineup, whether we have retail slash commercial, whether we have healthcare, whether we have hotels. We're not showing a hotel on the site, but it's premature to talk about what our tenant mix is gonna be. You know, even at site plan sometimes that's difficult to figure out exactly who your tenants are gonna be. But, so right now it's just, you know, whatever's permitted, you know, in the TC zone is what we're shown under our, what I'll call our retail slash commercial umbrella if you will.  
Speaker 4     00:21:51    Okay. So we're gonna comply basically with the permitted uses, correct?  
Speaker 9     00:21:57    Yeah, I'm sorry, I think Malika was, yeah,  
Speaker 6     00:22:00    I just was  
Speaker 4     00:22:00    Oh, I'm sorry  
Speaker 6     00:22:01    On the question. The reason for asking that question is because you were getting the additional bonus because of the qualifying Main Street commercial users. I think we just want it on record saying that these are the qualifying main Street commercial users and whatever is going to be proposed are going to be within these qualifying commercial uses  
Speaker 9     00:22:24    For allowing us to u utilize the, the density bonus that goes with it. Correct? Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:22:32    Thank you. The next comment I believe is under accessory uses E that there clubhouse appears to be proposed in the Western portion of the developments. And we're, we need to just clarify and label where that clubhouse is on the GDP, is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:22:52    Yeah, we'll modify the GDP to show there's multiple clubhouses on the site. There will be a clubhouse located in the, the mixed use area for the residential units that are over in that area. So we have a clubhouse that obviously Malika pointed out on in the western side of the site. And then there will be an additional clubhouse located in the mixed use area in the lower right over by where the public plaza is.  
Speaker 4     00:23:19    Thank you. And the next comment is under single family requirements indicating that minimum lot size for the single family is 7,500 square feet. And Ron, if you could clarify if the, if the single family lots meet this requirement, if all of them meet that requirement,  
Speaker 9     00:23:38    Yes they will.  
Speaker 4     00:23:40    Okay. Okay. And then on page eight, with regard to the landscaped buffer referenced in along, I think it's, I think it's Kyles avenue we do, we intend to comply with that comment?  
Speaker 9     00:24:12    Yes. Obviously in A GDP you don't get to that level of detail to show grading, bi landscaping buffering, anything like that. 'cause that's, that's more suited for site plan approval, but obviously it's in the ordinance and we, if we can't comply, obviously we'll have to bring it to that board's attention, will we come in for site plan.  
Speaker 4     00:24:31    Okay. And is that the same, you know, basically with three where it talks about the buffering between the single family lots and townhouse development?  
Speaker 9     00:24:40    That's correct.  
Speaker 4     00:24:42    Okay.  
Speaker 6     00:24:43    But is, isn't it currently indicated as stormwater area over there  
Speaker 9     00:24:46    Or? Yeah, again, Vega, we show, if you look there's a, a tot lot over in that area. There is some stormwater there, but there is some area between those, again, they're just pictorially shown as stormwater. 'cause obviously we have to fully engineer the site and that'll dictate exactly the size and location of the, of the detention basins. But there's adequate room between those basins and the back of those townhouses to provide landscape buffer so that there is something between the single families in the townhouses, especially in that area where it kind of opens up and there's a separation between the single families in the townhouses. Similar to what we'll do as you work your way south along those townhouses where the single family lots actually a but up against the townhouses, obviously we still have to provide that same buffer in there. It'll just continue down.  
Speaker 4     00:25:32    Okay. And I, I believe Malika that you recognize that, you know, the landscape plan we, that we'll be submitting with our site plan for sure. So that that's, you know, something that we will come comply with. I think the next comment again dealt with the conceptual redevelopment plan and I think we addressed it. What page you  
Speaker 9     00:25:55    On Irena?  
Speaker 4     00:25:57    Page eight under townhome requirements. Okay. Little I And then with regard to II double I, I think Ron just addressed that one with regard to providing the landscape buffering. Ron, with regard to the height restrictions in the townhouse development, could you just provide guidance and clarification with regard to that?  
Speaker 9     00:26:26    Yeah, it's our intention to comply with the height requirement for that area as well.  
Speaker 4     00:26:31    Okay. Okay. And with regard to the multifamily apartments and mixed use requirements, did we, would we we agree to comply with the height requirements there as well?  
Speaker 9     00:26:46    Yes.  
Speaker 4     00:26:48    Okay. Okay. And then the next page, page nine, with regard to the town square, we're gonna have Christine Cone address that comment if that's okay with everybody with regard to, I think the next comment to address is under access and onsite circulation double I where the zoning ordinance calls for landscape meeting Landscaped Boulevard along hose lane, Skiles and Knights Bridge Road, we provide one on the plan for Skis Avenue. Ron, will we comply with regard to Knights Bridge Road?  
Speaker 9     00:27:40    Yeah, we will take a look at that and work with as to how we could comply with the boulevard off of Knightsbridge as it as it enters into the site for that main entrance.  
Speaker 4     00:27:52    And with regard to Ericsson drive, while it's not in the TC zone, we plan to comply with that one as well.  
Speaker 9     00:28:02    Well that one's I kind of defer to the attorneys on that one because it's not in the TC zone. You know, it's obviously shared property that we own where you are connecting into it, but it's not in the TC zone. So I'm not sure how that requirement would apply to that or not apply to that. But certainly okay. We could discuss that with staff as we work towards site plan to see how that would impact the zoning regulations, if you will.  
Speaker 4     00:28:28    Okay. And then page nine, continuing triple I, if you could address the multi-use path and how it complies with these zoning ordinance.  
Speaker 9     00:28:41    Yeah, a again, this is, it's hard to tell on a plan of this magnitude and the scale because we don't get into the details to show and, and what we talked about with staff was to have what we call multipurpose path, very similar to what they have along route 18 now, which would be a shared pedestrian slash bicycle. And that would be a, again, a multipurpose path that would be adequate width to, so it's shared. So whether it's eight feet or 10 feet in width, again, we work at those details, but that is the intention for the bicycle and the pedestrian access throughout the site.  
Speaker 6     00:29:16    Ms. Algar, just to confirm, but, so that's the proposed bike lanes around the site, but as the ordinance requires dedicated bike lanes along the primary access roads, those are not being proposed?  
Speaker 4     00:29:32    Well what we're saying is that, well the ordinance actually allows for shared bike lanes with pedestrian access, not vehicular access. Obviously there's a specific preclusion to that. So we're not proposing, you know, to have shared AC bike lanes with vehicular traffic. It's just shared with the pedestrian access. And with regard to paragraph four, right after the traffic impact study we did provide, sorry, I'm sorry. Oh, sorry,  
Speaker 6     00:30:14    Sorry. I'm just trying to find in the ordinance where it says the shared, so could you please direct you Sure. Because I was looking at access and onsite circulation, this is 21, 32 0.1 item D, it says shared ba bikeway route with TI traffic shall not be permitted. Is that  
Speaker 4     00:30:42    Okay, so under 32.11 G.  
Speaker 6     00:30:46    Yeah,  
Speaker 4     00:30:48    Within that paragraph, I don't know how many sentences in, but let's see, 1, 2, 3, 4 starting on the fifth line. Midway or so, bike bikeway routes shall interconnect with existing bikeways surrounding the development or shall foster the connection to existing future bikeway routes. Shared bikeway routes with vehicular traffic shall not be permitted. So it, it's, it doesn't, there's no preclusion for the bike routes to be shared with pedestrian walkways and that's what the multipurpose path is for.  
Speaker 6     00:31:32    So there's no bicycle bike route that's being proposed on the primary access way. It's just going to be a multipurpose path that can be used as pedestrian as well as bike way.  
Speaker 9     00:31:47    That's correct.  
Speaker 6     00:31:51    Okay. But then does that comply with the item A of the ordinance which says,  
Speaker 3     00:32:04    It says primary access roadways, right? Mika? Yeah, Shelby provide, right.  
Speaker 6     00:32:10    Yeah. So  
Speaker 3     00:32:11    How are we handling styles avenue? How are we handling my spread road?  
Speaker 9     00:32:21    I'm  
Speaker 4     00:32:22    Confused. So E says, yeah, I mean it says it just links all the, go ahead. Sorry Ron,  
Speaker 3     00:32:26    I'm, I'm sorry it's B  
Speaker 9     00:32:29    No, I understand that. But you said again in Kyles inright are you talking about offsite?  
Speaker 6     00:32:33    So if you look at that same ordinance, Ron, sorry, I misspoke and Dawn just collected me. It's item B, the above noted primary access roadway shall be provided with dedicated bike lanes in each direction and shall connect to township's existing bikeway circulation system.  
Speaker 9     00:32:57    So if I read it correctly, this is saying that you're asking us to provide dedicated lanes on the two township streets in both directions as well as route 18. And when you say dedicated, you're talking about separate like an eight foot bike path separate from the travel lane.  
Speaker 6     00:33:15    I'm not saying that that's, well  
Speaker 9     00:33:16    I'm, I'm just asking, I'm not asking specific you, I'm just asking in general because I'm trying to understand what you're asking us to either agree to comply with or tell you why we can't. I'm just making sure I understand, you know, what you're asking  
Speaker 6     00:33:29    That that's the way the text, I'm interpreting it, I don't know what the intent of the ordinance was, but that the way the text is written, I'm interpreting it that way and you know, feel free if anybody else has a different interpretation of that. And that might be, I'm interpreting the same way Mika  
Speaker 1     00:33:52    And I think they both might want clarification from our traffic engineer Betsy Dolan.  
Speaker 6     00:34:00    Yeah.  
Speaker 1     00:34:02    And that I think is a comment in Ms. Aptis report is deferring to the township traffic engineer for comment.  
Speaker 6     00:34:10    Yeah. The, the last point, the traffic impact study that the applicant has submitted. I do, I have deferred it to township engineer to comment on.  
Speaker 4     00:34:26    Okay. I mean it just talks about is there and there's an existing bikeway circulation system  
Speaker 6     00:34:35    According to this ordinance. It is, yeah.  
Speaker 4     00:34:39    Well  
Speaker 6     00:34:41    I'm assuming, and this is, you know, I'm assuming it's connecting to, you know, the, the, the same item that you brought brought up the single family loop that was going to get connected to the rear and maybe there are bike lanes there. I'm not very sure at this moment to give you a correct answer.  
Speaker 4     00:35:04    Okay. Well, I mean I guess the answer is, is there has to be an existing bike waste circulation system to connect to, according to this one, according to the, the ordinance here. So  
Speaker 6     00:35:20    Yeah, a dedicated bike lane that connects that and shall connect to the township's existing bikeway circulation system.  
Speaker 4     00:35:28    Yeah, and I think some of the acts, well at least with regard to Ericsson Drive, that's not in this TC zone. So  
Speaker 9     00:35:44    I think the question, and, and just so I'm clear, I think the clarification is the, the roads that the, the ordinance is looking for these dedicated bike paint lanes, it seems to be the three listed above, which is hose lane skis and Knights Bridge. I, I'm, I'm telling you this is not something I, if even if you come back and say that we're looking for dedicated bike lanes on hose lane or skis or Knights Bridge, we're simply connecting into those existing roadways. I don't believe that's something we're prepared to go out there and potentially widen streets to put dedicated bike lanes in offsite and we're just simply connecting into those streets.  
Speaker 4     00:36:23    Right. So I mean, you know, with regard to the shared bike and pedestrian routes, we're, we're, that's what we're doing the multi-use path with. Is there any other questions with regard to that comment? No.  
Speaker 6     00:36:43    So, so just to, you know, just to clarify so that item B cannot be met with this GDP, but you will be providing an alternative multi access path to provide this bike way and pedestrian access. Is that correct?  
Speaker 9     00:36:59    Yes.  
Speaker 6     00:37:02    Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:37:06    Okay. So on page nine, okay, so with regard to parking, it's common, I, it's on page nine at the bottom indicates that because we have parking, angled parking, I think it is on either side of the town, town square, we don't comply with the plan with the, with the TC zone. Is that what that comment is saying? Malika,  
Speaker 9     00:37:46    Just for clarification, we have parallel spaces,  
Speaker 4     00:37:49    Oh sorry,  
Speaker 6     00:37:53    Eight. So sorry, I'm trying to read and answer to you at the same time. So I believe that that requirement said that for the town square portion shall be provided either within the common parking area or parking deck located near the rear or side of non-residential or mixed use building. We just want a clarification that the town square parking, is it only the parking that's around the town square or you're providing additional spillover parking around some commercial area or mixed use building?  
Speaker 9     00:38:31    Yeah, again, it's, it's, it's not really dedicated for any particular use. It's obviously for the residents that are gonna go to the town square, the park, there's parallel spaces, but obviously there's additional perpendicular spaces and parking lots that surround there that will be available for parking.  
Speaker 6     00:38:48    Okay. Because this would be a public square that's accessed not only by the, it it'll be used by, you know, anybody who comes to the town center, is that right? Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:39:01    Right. And I think that according to section 21 dash 32 A, it does provide for on street parking, whether it's parallel or angular in the mixed use village area. So.  
Speaker 6     00:39:19    Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:39:21    Thanks. Okay, so then the next item is the load off street loading comment. Ron, will we comply with that and identify them in the GDP?  
Speaker 9     00:39:36    Yeah, and, and obviously again the same thing, just like any site plan. If for some reason we can't then, you know, we'll deal with that at site plan.  
Speaker 4     00:39:45    Okay. The next comment has to do with parking on page. Ron, if you could address the, the parking that we are proposing?  
Speaker 9     00:39:58    Yeah, again, as I indicated before, the the plans need to be revised to show all the parking that we're proposing on the site and our intention to meet the ordinance. So that will be revised and resubmitted to the town so that we comply with the ordinance.  
Speaker 6     00:40:15    So Ron, could you just for for the record, just tell us the total number of parking spaces that would be on site?  
Speaker 9     00:40:24    Again, Malica, without going, I'm gonna rely on your letter. I didn't go through and and physically check all the bedrooms and everything like you did. So your letter reflects the 20 26 37. That's our intention to comply with that, that number once we obviously get credit for whatever EV space is and how that all formulates into the calculations. But it's our intention to meet that. If there's a discrepancy because I have a different calculation, then obviously we could deal with that. But it's our intention to comply with the ordinance.  
Speaker 6     00:40:53    Okay, thank  
Speaker 4     00:40:53    You. Right, and and just, yeah, just based on, you know, how many EV spaces you're looking at 340, so technically, you know, that's 200, sorry 2,296 potential spaces. But obviously  
Speaker 6     00:41:10    Okay.  
Speaker 4     00:41:12    We will comply with whatever we need to comply with there. Okay. With regard to the signage, I think comment one is just a statement and so is comment three, but comment two. Ron if you could just expand on that.  
Speaker 9     00:41:36    This just simply talks about, there's a question about whether or not we would comply and, and again, I I think the question is we provided the signage plan, you know, details are not on there. We'll certainly provide that. And again, when come in for site plan, if for some reason we need to, you know, increase the sign for traffic, safety visibility, whatever, we would obviously deal with that at some plan with obviously we'll add some more details to the sign plan to make sure that MAL V could look at it and, and come up with Okay. Exactly what we're looking for.  
Speaker 4     00:42:09    Okay. Understood. And I guess the same is true for comment four and five there,  
Speaker 9     00:42:18    Correct.  
Speaker 4     00:42:21    That will come in with a more detailed sign plan with our, with our site plan. Correct.  
Speaker 6     00:42:26    The, the only thing, the reason for making that second comment was because we, when we define the sign area as defined in the ordinance is just the entire frame of the edge of the sign. So we will have to, you know, where you have the Piscataway town center and above that the steel cap like that entire area would have to be included. So it becomes eight by six rather than eight by four. 'cause you have to include the  
Speaker 9     00:42:55    Understood.  
Speaker 6     00:42:56    Yeah. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     00:43:00    And I guess the next comment on page 12, letter I, it refers to the, again, landscape buffering. I think we had agreed that to do that already and that we're gonna, you know, provide obviously further details with our site plan and that that holds the same with J and K and I think L alika you recognize that a full landscaping plan is not required at this time. So, okay. I think the next comment is with regard to on page 13 little I and it refers to the appropriate height for the mixed use buildings, which is a maximum of three stories. Ron, I think you indicated that we are going to comply with that?  
Speaker 9     00:44:09    Correct.  
Speaker 4     00:44:10    Okay, thank you. And with regard to the phasing we provided, our phasing plan is just to reiterate our phasing plan. The next comment has to do with the building design.  
Speaker 6     00:44:30    Irene, I'm sorry if I can, yeah, you're talking about the phasing because I know you in the beginning of the testimony. So to clarify the phasing is just giving us, you know, the timing when you'll start the first phase and second phase and third phase. And I know you mentioned at the beginning that this whole project is going to be 10 to 15 years. Are we gonna get a timing schedule in this phasing?  
Speaker 4     00:44:55    Well, I don't think anything more specific is required now. We couldn't possibly, you know, predict at this point. So I think that once we come in with our site plan, we'll be able to put, you know, better dates to and timeframes to each of the phases.  
Speaker 1     00:45:10    Ms. Ms. Elgar. And again, I, I I, I apologize because I am dealing with this for the first time as is I think every board member, but because it's not something we see very frequently, but if we look at 40 colon, 55 D dash 45.2, which talks about a general development plan may include but not be limited to the following. And then outline,  
Speaker 4     00:45:37    I'm just gonna, sorry Mr. Barlow, I don't mean to interrupt you, but just could you tell me this section again? I have now the GDP statute in front of me, so  
Speaker 1     00:45:44    Sure, sure. I'm, I'm going to the MLUL.  
Speaker 4     00:45:47    Yes, I have it.  
Speaker 1     00:45:48    40, 40, 55 D dash four.  
Speaker 4     00:45:53    Yeah, yeah, sorry, I got it.  
Speaker 1     00:45:55    Dash 45.2.  
Speaker 4     00:45:57    Got it.  
Speaker 1     00:45:58    Okay. And again, there there's a whole section of the MLUL that deals with these general development plans because as you said in the beginning, they're general, they're for ma large projects where you're going to have different elements and, and I assume a developer wants to build pieces at a time and that's why there's phasing and it lists A through l different items that can be included and it doesn't limit the board or the, the applicant to those items. But if you look at k, it talks about a proposed timing schedule where Cahn, where construction is contemplated over a period of years. And I know in the beginning you said 10 to 15 years, but I, I think the statute contemplates look, you know, phase one we think will be completed by January of 2027 hypothetically and and so on. And the reason I think it calls for a little bit more specificity is as you go further in the statute to 45.4, it says in the event that the developer seeks to modify the proposed timing schedule, such modifications shall require the approval of the planning board.  
Speaker 1     00:47:22    And it talks about what the planning board should consider when modifying it. So I think, think the statute clearly is calling for more specificity than it's gonna take a decade or so. So I I really think if we're gonna, if we're, and again I'm looking at the statute 'cause I really don't, I can't tell you I've done 11 of these and this is what we did in the past and I don't think this right. I mean, board can say that. So I'm looking at the statute and I think it would be helpful to provide the timing schedule. 'cause I don't know how we can then modify the timing schedule later if we didn't have one before the board date. Right. Well  
Speaker 4     00:48:08    I think that  
Speaker 1     00:48:09    Approval potentially,  
Speaker 4     00:48:10    Well the section that you're looking at is, is, is obviously they're not requirements of the GDP, it's just what the board or sorry the township could require of A GDP, but they would have to require it by ordinance in order for it to be required. But I understand the question that you're asking just to have a more general understanding of the timing schedule and you know, the, the proposed timing schedule really is from when we first get all of our approvals, right? So we don't know at what point we're gonna have the, all the approvals and all outside agency approvals and then it's really dependent on the site plan. And that's where we're gonna be able to provide you with a lot more detail in terms of the proposed timing. At this point it's more general in terms of what we think the build out will take.  
Speaker 4     00:49:05    And again, the how long the build out will take will also, you know, from final agency approval. So we can't give you dates and, and you know, any actual timeframes with regard to the GDP itself. And I actually have not seen that in many of the GDP approvals, quite frankly. And I, I understand that, you know, the board, you know, hasn't seen one of these since 1980s or something like that I believe. But a lot of times it's, it's really just, it, it, there's not even like a, you know, a a set timing when, when build will build out is going to be complete. Particularly because GDPs are supposed to be flexible. In other words, there's market conditions at stake, there's other considerations. And until you get to your site plan, you really don't know, you know, how long any particular phase will take. But, and, and again, some of these Yeah, go ahead Ron. Sorry.  
Speaker 9     00:50:03    Sorry, Irina. And, and, and just to be clear, Mr. Barlow, I, I understand you know what that says and, but it's really difficult even when we get to the site plan stages to have some kind of definitive schedule even if it's flexible because obviously as Irene started to indicate market conditions, I mean obviously interest rates, what's going on in the world, all impact whether you're gonna start construction, not start construction, you know, so it's really difficult to try to specify a, a specific date to say, oh we're definitely gonna do this, you know, we're gonna start, put a shovel on the ground the minute we get all our approvals and we'll be done in three years or five years or 10 years. It's hard to put a date on that because, you know, things change. The retail market is, is where it is today. Who would've predicted that five years ago interest rates, all the things that go with it, it's really difficult. So I understand the concern and that's why we kind of put a rough timeframe on it a decade or 15 years because we just don't know it's a large project.  
Speaker 1     00:50:59    I I agree with you 100% Mr. Aback and that's why the statute 45.4 specifically says that the board, in deciding whether or not to grant a modification of the timing take, should take into consideration prevailing economic and mar market conditions. So you're a hundred percent right. Those are all factors that can affect it and can screw up the best timeframe. And the legislature, when they adopted this specifically said, consider exactly what Mr. Hallenbeck said. So  
Speaker 4     00:51:33    Right,  
Speaker 1     00:51:33    Because it's in there, obviously it was, it was a consideration that I think, I'm just saying from my perspective, 10 to 15 years as a timing schedule for a five phase thousand unit project is a little, from my liking, a little too general. And again, it's the MLUL, it's, and it doesn't talk about an ordinance, it talks about a general development plan may include but not be limited to the following. So again, I'm just putting it out there because all I have, well,  
Speaker 4     00:52:09    I guess maybe there's, I mean maybe there's something that can be discussed in terms of a timing, you know, in, in connection with the site plan. I mean that's gonna be, we'll put our application in and you know, we're just, we're trying not to create any, you know, fall hopes, false hopes. So to say that if it's gonna be done, you know, in three years, I mean we, we certainly, you know, could limit it if you would like for purposes of the, you know, of, of the approvals to the extent that the board may approve this and you know, we would be willing to agree to five to 10 years. I don't know if that's something that, you know, Ron, if you could address that.  
Speaker 9     00:52:57    I I think that's, I think five to 10 years would be, we could probably commit to that to tighten it up a little bit.  
Speaker 1     00:53:02    I and I was, I, pardon me Mr.  
Speaker 6     00:53:04    Barlow, can I just, I'm sorry. Sorry Mr. Barlow, just one to understand, I think GDP is approved on the basis of limited number of years also, right? Like, I mean I, there is, I believe, and I don't have it in front of me, but it's something like up to 20 years is when the GDP is. So I think, you know, based on that and based on your experience of, you know, obviously you guys know what outside agency approvals you need and how much a site plan approval process would take, is there like a timing schedule that, you know, tentatively can be formed on that for how many years of GDP approval you're looking for? If you're looking for 15 years, then we just backtrack it that way and kind of make like a Gantt chart just showing, you know, phase one, six years, phase two starts between the, you know, something.  
Speaker 1     00:53:57    Yeah, and I would, well  
Speaker 4     00:53:59    The vesting schedule is different,  
Speaker 1     00:54:01    You know, now, I mean I would think you would know for phase one, which is, you know, I think it's the purple, you know, from the time we put a shovel in the ground, it would take x amount of years to build the purple, which is phase one, which I think is the single family and some stuff. Now, again, and I, and I agree with Ms. Apte that, you know, the, the de development plan isn't, you know, to infinity and beyond. And, and again if you need 15 years, I'm not saying don't ask for 15 years, I'm just saying it's phase one you think, you know, well, takes three or four years. 'cause I would imagine once you get started that it's a little easier.  
Speaker 4     00:54:47    Correct. And I think that that's where, you know, once we get a little further into, we'll be able to have I guess a more robust timing schedule. However, at the GDP stage, you know, there's a reason why there's a, there's the allowance of an up to 20 year vesting schedule that's, you know, there's a reason for it. And, and most of the approvals that I've seen for GDPs have the 20 year vesting approval regardless of what the timing is. You know, even if somebody e even if a developer has said that it's five years, you still get the 20 year vesting schedule. And the reason is because sometimes market conditions change, sometimes it takes longer. And yes, sometimes you have to come in for modifications, right? And so a developer doesn't wanna come in and, you know, pr prepare A GDP go in for site plan and not have that vesting schedule in place, you know, for, for 20 years because there's a lot of uncertainty  
Speaker 1     00:55:54    A a a hundred percent.  
Speaker 4     00:55:56    And that's what we're trying to do here. We're trying to, you know, we're saying that, you know, we could, we could put in a five to 10 year, but we would still be looking for the 20 year, you know, vesting schedule.  
Speaker 1     00:56:06    Well it, the statute says it can't exceed 20 years. Right. And the planning board and  
Speaker 0     00:56:11    Stop. All right, stop right there. This is not gonna be 20 years right now. No,  
Speaker 1     00:56:16    I agree. That agree. What I was saying is, is  
Speaker 0     00:56:18    There i'll counselor, I'll not be voting for anything 15 or 20 years that it, that's not happening. I mean, 20 years I'll probably be living in Resurrection cemetery in my grave plots. Come on, let's get real hair.  
Speaker 1     00:56:29    Okay. And, and  
Speaker 4     00:56:30    Well the, the statute provides for up to  
Speaker 0     00:56:33    20 years. I don't care what the statute provides for. And,  
Speaker 1     00:56:35    And mayor if I may, that's  
Speaker 4     00:56:36    All we're saying. Yeah, go ahead. The  
Speaker 1     00:56:38    Statute doesn't say you get 20 years, right. All the statute says is the most the planning board could ever give you is 20. And that's why's we're trying to look at for some limiting,  
Speaker 0     00:56:48    Let's put the cards on the table. Doesn't, doesn't the owner of the property have a contract purchase to sell off the, the first space? Yes or no? So you gotta have an idea, Ron, of how this is gonna go. Well  
Speaker 4     00:57:05    One has nothing to do with the other. That's not something that's really counselor's considered. Really, really, really,  
Speaker 0     00:57:12    I respectfully disagree on that one. And that's why vote tonight. 'cause I wanna, well the  
Speaker 4     00:57:17    Planning board can certainly shorten the time period for the vesting that's within its discretion. So in other words, if you're not willing to have give us a 20 year vesting schedule, it's within your discretion to shorten it. But it's not a reason to deny it.  
Speaker 0     00:57:33    I didn't say deny it. I said I'm not voting on it tonight till we get this further pinned down.  
Speaker 1     00:57:38    And I think that's why the timing schedule helps the board consider the period of time for the applicant. So  
Speaker 4     00:57:48    Right. But the longer we go without A GDP, the longer this will take. And I don't think we are, we are at a point where this has already been in the housing element fair share plan since 2017. So, you know, if we're here, so  
Speaker 0     00:58:06    What counselor, so what, so what you, you, you're pushing water up a hill on this one? Yeah.  
Speaker 1     00:58:11    So what, it's one month in the grand scheme  
Speaker 0     00:58:13    Thing. Don't try, don't try to throw around COA to this sport. Please, please don't insult our intelligence. Right?  
Speaker 4     00:58:19    I'm, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I'm just saying that, you know, the longer that this progresses, you know we're saying anywhere we'll give you a  
Speaker 0     00:58:27    Schedule statutes call for our counselor. You don't have to lecture the board. I'm just telling you right now, not trying  
Speaker 4     00:58:32    To lecture.  
Speaker 0     00:58:32    We'll not be voting on this tonight until we get this pinned down.  
Speaker 4     00:58:37    Okay, well we're proposing, you know, five to 10 year. All  
Speaker 0     00:58:41    Right. But this is something when we adjourn this meeting to next month, this is all gonna be worked out as well as all the other stuff that's been added on here. And I have a, several other questions with the sign. Well,  
Speaker 4     00:58:52    And I'm sorry we were not advised of this, just like the board has not been advised of it. We were just made aware of the, these issues at two 30 today. So I appreciate that you, I'm not trying to lecture you, I'm trying to say that we have just found out about these issues ourselves, so Understood.  
Speaker 1     00:59:13    Not questioning that at all, Ms. Over. So, all right, I mean you, you understand my concerns from the statute. So if you want to continue going through the CME report, I'm not, not sure what we left off on the CME report.  
Speaker 4     00:59:33    Yeah, I'm trying to go back here.  
Speaker 1     00:59:35    I think we had the phasing on phase phase  
Speaker 6     00:59:37    13. Yeah we were moving at 13. Phasing is where we stopped. I started the asking, so I guess it's item O you wanna move to building design?  
Speaker 4     00:59:46    It looks like that's a just a statement that full architectural elevations are not required but you know, we will be providing those during site plan.  
Speaker 6     00:59:56    Yeah. But would we have like some kind of theme or anything that, you know, the board can kind of get a vision of the plan or something like that, that we know of as to what the buildings are gonna look like. Again, not holding to it, I understand right architecturals are not developed but like a, you know, to show them that well that's,  
Speaker 4     01:00:19    That's something that we can work with the board and the board of professionals but certainly you know, that's after site plan that that could be something that we will address during site plan. The next item is ground floor commercial. Ron, if you could just verify and confirm that comment there.  
Speaker 9     01:00:50    Yeah, as required in the ordinance, the ordinance requires that the mixed use buildings have commercial on the ground floor level only with residential above. It's our intention to comply with that.  
Speaker 4     01:01:00    Okay, thank you. And with regard to, let's see, I'm on page 14, the fiscal impact report. You know, we submitted the report and we plan on addressing these comments during site plan review. I think there was some questions with regard to the multipliers and whatnot, but we tried to submit the, a proposed fiscal impact in response to comments from the last hearing in February. And I think that takes us over to page 15 s clubhouse and I think, Ron you addressed that before that we have multiple clubhouses and that we will label that on the GDP, is that correct?  
Speaker 9     01:01:51    That's correct.  
Speaker 4     01:01:53    Okay. I don't have any further questions for Mr. Allach. The last two comments, two and three. I think that that's for Ms. Cone to respond to I, I really, unless Ron you have,  
Speaker 9     01:02:09    Sorry, I just have one thing to add before you finish up there. Yeah, because in paragraph T it talks about approval and outside agency, but it specifically talks about include a permit slash approval approval from NJ DOT regarding access to route 18. Obviously we provided a letter no interest to the board under the last submission back in March. So there is no other NJ DOT approval required except for that. So I just wanna make sure it's clear 'cause the letter seems to indicate that we'll provide some kind of DOT approval.  
Speaker 4     01:02:41    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 6     01:02:42    Noted. Thank you Ms. Algar wa before we the next witness up, I wanna clarify one thing and Mr. Barlow, please correct me since we are talking about the timing schedule. The other item, which was noted in the initial testimony, the municipal development agreement, I believe your testimony was that that would be provided after the GDP. Again, this is also, yeah,  
Speaker 4     01:03:08    That's  
Speaker 6     01:03:08    Those items that is included in the list of items which may be included under the GDP items to provide. So  
Speaker 4     01:03:20    I mean, well actually that's, that's an optional item that that has in case law has been held, that section 45.2 has been held as optional items that are not, you know, can be required by ordinance and it's not required by the TC zone ordinance. And we are saying that it certainly makes sense to have a developer's agreement after the GDP approval so that we can set out the terms that are necessary to set out otherwise, right now we don't have any specific terms to put in the developer's agreement. Right. It would be consistent with whatever gets approved.  
Speaker 1     01:04:05    The, theoretically, if you have case law that says something other than what the MUL says, I, I've also asked that you share that with me, you know, tomorrow or before the next meeting. Okay. Because I'm just going by the MLUL. I don't. So  
Speaker 6     01:04:26    Yeah, and same, that's why my question was like, because  
Speaker 1     01:04:30    I, I mean I, I generally agree that a developer's agreement would have to be entered into, right? I'm just not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what I would prepare to put in a developer's agreement other than maybe a developer's agreement that says we'll have a developer's agreement. So Yeah,  
Speaker 6     01:04:49    My  
Speaker 4     01:04:49    Only in terms of why, I'm sorry only  
Speaker 6     01:04:51    I'm just putting the planners hat so please. Oh, a hundred  
Speaker 1     01:04:55    Percent.  
Speaker 6     01:04:55    I mean, you know, I'm looking at it like a redevelopment plan would be, you know, you always have a redevelopment agreement and then you come before the planning board in this case, you know, you don't have an agreement, you wanna get a general development plan and then go back to the council for an agreement. It's just, I'm trying to  
Speaker 4     01:05:14    No, no, no. The agreement is with the township and it's based on whatever the resolution would provide in the GDP resolution. Typically, even with site plans, you know, if there's gonna be a requirement for a developer's agreement, it's usually through resolution compliance. It's not something that's done before you have your site plan approval. So it's not done in conjunction with, it's done as a resolution compliance item. And that's what I'm saying is that with regards to the GDP, once we know what the terms are of this approval, then we'll be able to put together a developers agreement. It's premature and the developers are gonna, is with the township. It's not with the planning board. And, and Mr. Barlow, you could correct me if I'm wrong.  
Speaker 1     01:06:00    Yeah, no, no. And what I'm saying is I don't even know what we put in a developer's agreement. Right. I mean I agree with you. There would be one. I just don't know what it would be in it yet.  
Speaker 4     01:06:10    So you're saying that it's, that it is a resolution compliance item rather than it would be premature right Now? Is that, are we agreeing? I'm not sure if we're agreeing or not.  
Speaker 1     01:06:19    No, no, no. I'm agreeing because I, I dunno how I could, I dunno how anyone could prepare one right now, so. Gotcha.  
Speaker 4     01:06:26    Right, I agree. I agree too with you. So, so,  
Speaker 6     01:06:32    So would the timing schedule and everything Mr. Barlow be part of the agreement or would that be something the planning board would decide on  
Speaker 4     01:06:43    It? Something that would  
Speaker 1     01:06:43    Be, if, if, if this was, if this plays out  
Speaker 1     01:06:48    And there is a general development plan that is ultimately approved, there would be a resolution approving the general development plan in whatever context it is with timing schedules or whatever and everything that the applicant's agreed to and as a condition there would be, ultimately the developer would agree to, would enter into a developer's agreement. But I, I could also foresee as each piece of this comes before the board for site plan, there might be a developer's agreement for that deals with different sections or different phases also. So there could be multiple developers agreement. So there will be one in, in at some point. Absolutely.  
Speaker 6     01:07:36    And the other question, Ms. Elgar, so the fiscal report we have, what's the conclusion? The answers will be provided during a site plan approval to the questions in the report?  
Speaker 4     01:07:48    Correct. Okay. In terms of the multipliers and, and again, the fiscal impact analysis was provided as an accommodation since that was something that the board professionals had asked for last time. I don't remember if it was Mika or if Dawn had asked for it, but yeah,  
Speaker 6     01:08:08    We, we again based it on the general development plan, permitted contents list in the MLUL and I think fiscal report is one of those items that we had asked for. So we did get it in March as you had said. So yeah, we just reviewed that and had questions based on that, so.  
Speaker 9     01:08:26    Okay. And, and Malika, I think it's something, if there's, there's questions in here. It's obviously based on the, what the mayor had said and what Mr. Barlow had said. We're not gonna finish tonight. So if there's questions in there, we could probably try to get clarification for you.  
Speaker 6     01:08:40    Okay. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Algar. I have nothing further right now.  
Speaker 4     01:08:51    Okay. Thank you. I would like to call Mr. Christine Capone.  
Speaker 0     01:08:59    Could  
Speaker 4     01:08:59    Madam chair? She could be sworn Jump  
Speaker 0     01:09:01    Madam chair. Can I jump in? I, I have two questions for Mr. Berg.  
Speaker 9     01:09:04    Sure. Go  
Speaker 0     01:09:05    Ron, go ahead. The tower portion, the signage. I was around when the tower went up and there was a big controversy in town about the size of the sign that went up on the tower, the illumination and things like that. Are we gonna tackle that issue in this general perimeter or is this gonna have to wait for the site plan approval?  
Speaker 9     01:09:27    To be honest with you, mayor, I haven't even thought about it.  
Speaker 0     01:09:30    Well, I have 'cause I've been around when that that was first built. Yeah.  
Speaker 9     01:09:34    Obviously it's a concern that, you know, we could discuss  
Speaker 0     01:09:38    And try to, just so you know, by the way, there was a big controversy when that building went up because it was lit up like a Christmas tree 24 7 and the residents nearby were up in arms with basically landing, you know, living next to a a, a light bulb, you know, a a 12 story light bulb. So we need to deal with that prior to voting on this and how that's gonna happen. And the second issue is with the bike path on Skis Avenue. Is there any reason why in that green section right there, why, where the Verizon building is that you can't continue the bike path to where the new street's gonna go? Where the single family homes are?  
Speaker 9     01:10:20    You mean in front of the Verizon building itself?  
Speaker 0     01:10:22    Yeah. In the front of the VAR, Verizon building going all the way down to where the new road is gonna be back by, I guess Orchard. Right. And, but Path, 'cause ultimately the other section to connect up to Route 18.  
Speaker 9     01:10:39    Yeah, let me just double check on that. I'll try to get an answer before we finish tonight.  
Speaker 0     01:10:43    Okay. Alright. Thanks.  
Speaker 9     01:10:44    The one thing I will point out in mayor is I'm not sure where they're, according to my plans, that property line for Verizon is sitting pretty tight up against the curb. I don't wanna be in a situation where I gotta go out and try to get pri you know, private easement. Yeah,  
Speaker 0     01:10:57    We'll, we'll, we'll we'll work on that. So,  
Speaker 9     01:10:58    But let me, let me get you an answer on that.  
Speaker 0     01:11:00    Okay.  
Speaker 9     01:11:01    As well as the lighting I'll  
Speaker 0     01:11:03    Okay,  
Speaker 9     01:11:04    I'll discuss that and get back to as what our intentions are as far as Yeah, well  
Speaker 0     01:11:07    You can, you can do that. You can do that, you know, for have it, give it to the staff. Right. What's gonna go for, you know, after this meeting, but  
Speaker 9     01:11:14    Just,  
Speaker 4     01:11:14    Just so right, well I just, sorry. Yeah, I just wanna make sure we're clear that this is something that, you know, these are specifics that should be worked out at site plan. This is not for the GDP, so to the extent that it's gonna hold up the GDP, we'll be happy to provide information, but it's not something that should be considered even at this with the GDP  
Speaker 9     01:11:40    Mayor. Just so I'm just so I'm clear, the, the si the signage, it's size and lighting are the two concerns? That's,  
Speaker 0     01:11:49    That's correct, Ron. I mean the size and lighting. Okay. We need to set some parameters on that.  
Speaker 9     01:11:58    Understood. Thank you.  
Speaker 4     01:12:10    I think we can move on. Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 1     01:12:14    Yes, I think you want to call Ms phone?  
Speaker 4     01:12:17    Yes, please. If you could swear her in.  
Speaker 1     01:12:20    I was trying to find her. Oh, there she is. Hi.  
Speaker 11    01:12:22    Hi. Hello. Does that make it easier?  
Speaker 1     01:12:24    Yeah, I gotcha. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your professional address for the record.  
Speaker 11    01:12:30    Yes, of course. It's Christine, C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E cone, C-O-F-O-N-E. Business address is 1 25 half Mile Road, suite 200, Redbank, New Jersey 0 7 7 0 1.  
Speaker 1     01:12:44    If you could raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony you you'll give before this board will be the whole truth?  
Speaker 11    01:12:49    Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:12:50    Your witness, Ms. Elbert.  
Speaker 4     01:12:51    Thank you. And Mr. Barlow, Ms. Kaon was qualified last time. Should I requalify her or is it okay if we just proceed?  
Speaker 1     01:13:00    Madam chair, are you okay? Since you qualified her as an expert last time, unless  
Speaker 5     01:13:04    I think it's okay to continue her Cahn qualification.  
Speaker 1     01:13:07    That's fine. Thank  
Speaker 11    01:13:08    You. Thank you. Madam chair.  
Speaker 4     01:13:11    Okay, so Ms. Cone, if you, how did, well you had a chance briefly to look at the July 10th letter. If you could turn to page nine with regard to the town square, there was a comment that the town square may not have been adequately integrated into the fabric of the development. If you could just go through whether you believe that the Town Square conforms with the intent of the redevelopment plan itself, I'd appreciate it. Or the TC zone. Yes, the T, sorry. Yes.  
Speaker 11    01:13:47    Yes. So when you're looking at the TEC zone or CTEC do zone, there's a specific section 21, 32 10 that deals with the Town Square. So I appreciate Ms. Aptis comments. I did have an opportunity to review that July 10th, 2024 letter. I have it in front of me and one of the sections in the TECD zone states, specifically the location, dimension and composition of the Pedestrian plaza portion of the Town square shall be subject to the approval of the planning board. So I think that this is something that I take no exception to the location of the pedestrian square. I think it actually exceeds the requirements in the TECD zone by about 10%. So more than ample space to create a vibrant welcome inviting, meaningful, usable area. Right? The, the ordinance is very specific in that it wants it to be, have high quality materials, it wants it to have place for people to sit a focal point.  
Speaker 11    01:14:47    These are all things that, given the fact that we actually exceed the minimum requirements in the zoning ordinance for the pedestrian, for the Plaza, I think we will certainly more than be able to accomplish the intent of the town square as far as its location in the development. In my opinion, this project is going to be both a destination for the people who live in it, right? We're gonna have a substantial number of both market rate and affordable housing units here, but it's also right off of 18 and it will certainly be a destination for people who come in vehicular traffic as well. So certainly if somebody is there and stopping in to utilize one of the stores, they can park their car, get, get a, get an acai bowl, get a coffee, and go enjoy the town square. So it's something that is going to be able to be enjoyed and has been designed to be enjoyed by people who both live and who are coming to, you know, to utilize the, the center overall.  
Speaker 11    01:15:48    So I think that we, we meet the intent of the ordinance. I think the fact that we have parking on either side of the town square makes it accessible to people who may be visiting the center by by car or walking. The other thing I would say is that right in the TECD zone, this is 30 section 32 11 E, it talks about creating positive pedestrian access. And the way the ordinance reads, it reads that positive pedestrian access shall be provided throughout, including delineated crosswalks, handicap wraps and ramps and pedestrian signage. So we're certainly going to be doing that. You heard Mr. Obeck testify on direct that we would be in fact providing a multi-use path for people who would be biking or walking throughout the development. I know it would be very, very granular in my opinion to put bike racks and those type of things on A GDP, I have had an opportunity in my 28 years of practicing to work on a number of GDP ordinances and GDP projects, whether it's in my capacity of representing the developer or in Wayne Township, I'm sitting as a special master where I've spent a lot of time reviewing A GDP ordinance up there.  
Speaker 11    01:16:58    And I would say those are very granular things that I would say would not routinely be found on A GDP. I recognize that the, the town square section of the ordinance does require those types of focal points, artistic features, and they will certainly be incorporated. And I think that that's likely why the, or the TECD zone just di defers the composition of the pedestrian plaza to the planning board because I think that that's something that, you know, will, we have had many meetings with township staff with the public on this site, and I know that this, this public, this, this town square will be an important part of this project. And, you know, the developer certainly has made a commitment to making it a vibrant and meaningful usable space for this development.  
Speaker 4     01:17:47    Thank you. You're welcome. And then I think the next comment is on page 15, dealing with the GDP ordinance itself. And if you could just touch upon, for example, the, the common open space and whether you believe it's adequate as well as some of the other points that Ms. Apte makes there. That with regard to section 45 a I think it is what page It's on page 15 of cme. Yep, got it.  
Speaker 11    01:18:25    Right. So there is noted we're we're providing 22.9% in open space. So I think that we are certainly providing, and again, I appreciate that it is very difficult to look at a site, the subject property is about 75 acres, right? So very difficult to look and see that we do have a number of areas that are meaningful on the property with regard to abilities to put in smaller sitting areas, areas to walk dogs. We have contemplated on this areas to didn't have a cup of coffee. Those areas have certainly been contemplated by our project team. I can tell you we've had countless of hours of meetings to go over those type of things. So I think that it is something that has been contemplated and it is something that when we get to the planning board detail, you'll see, you'll see a greater level of detail. But I can assure you as, as a planner who's been living with this project for several years now, that those are things that we have discussed at length in our meetings and are, I believe shown on the GDP and certainly I can represent to you as, as one of, as a consultant on the project that we have certainly considered those things in usable, meaningful, open space areas will absolutely be incorporated into this plan.  
Speaker 4     01:19:43    Okay, thank you. And with regard to the GDP and I believe it's on comment, it's page 16 of the CME letter. If you could just give us, in your opinion, whether you believe that the proposed development will have an unreasonable adverse impact on the area, or maybe you actually believe it might have a positive impact on the area.  
Speaker 11    01:20:08    I think we will most definitely have a positive impact on the area. I think this is going to be an ideal live workplace space that our, our communities in the state of New Jersey and really throughout, throughout our country are finding to be the most vibrant and desirable places that make strong, strong communities. It's a, it's a wonderful location. It's got excellent, excellent accents. It is going to be a mix of housing types, which is, again, something that communities strive to achieve. I can assure you that when I went to the public meetings that we had to talk to some of the public members on this site. Some had asked if they could put down deposits on, on some of the residential portions of it. So I think it's something that people will be excited about and I think it's a great opportunity as a planner to, to be part of an exciting project like this that has really a vibrant mix and a vital mix of, of several different housing types, all included on one property in areas where you could work or, or have regional, you know, certainly plenty of regional employment opportunities in the area, schools in the area.  
Speaker 11    01:21:15    It's just a, it's a wonderfully situated site in the state that has a great amount of opportunities. So I certainly appreciate the township's desire to make sure that you do incorporate, you know, the design and open space elements to make it a meaningful open space area. But I think that you have certainly a, a, a commitment on behalf of, of this developer that, that they will achieve those, those goals.  
Speaker 4     01:21:39    Okay, thank you. I don't have any further questions. If the professionals or the board might,  
Speaker 6     01:21:46    Does anyone on the board have any questions? Ms. Apti, do you have any questions? Yes, thank you Mr. Ra. Thank you Mr. Chairman. So couple of follow up questions, Ms. Gfo, just so my understanding is correct, I believe the discussions on this town center and the plan have not been part of the GDP review, but a different, you know, the concept plan, right? I mean, just making, clarifying that like the GDP is based on the ordinance that is, that has been adopted and in place since I believe 2017 as Ms. Elgar said. So want to just clarify that the other point regarding the Town square and as testified by Mr. Ron today, that there are going to be additional clubhouses, you know, interper throughout the concept plan throughout the GDP. Because from what the GDP we saw, there was one clubhouse to the Northeastern side and one town square again to the south eastern side. I've had, I'm considering not the top, sorry. So my basement is on wrong, but you know what I mean.  
Speaker 11    01:23:04    I do know what you mean. Yes.  
Speaker 6     01:23:05    So the intent of the town square as is the way we looked at the GDP is, would you justify that it is the focal point or it is it at one corner of this building and how is a single family owner of this development going to have, you know, the, the same focal point to the town center than the apartments that are right next to it? Yeah,  
Speaker 11    01:23:30    So through the pedestrian connectivity, through the access to the pedestrian connectivity, you could have a single family home there where the family may decide to take a walk or to ride their bikes. We'll have bike racks on site for sure. So there will absolutely, there will not be vehicular connectivity to the single families, but we can certainly accommodate, you know, a pedestrian walk if it, if something to be discussed at site plan. So I think that there's certainly ways to accomplish that. But to an answer your first's question, it is governed by the TECD zoning district standards Yes. The subject property. So just to make sure I get an answer to that on the record, that yes, we are governed by the TECD.  
Speaker 6     01:24:11    Okay. And then part of the testimony was the town square is, you know, going to be this pedestrian trend boulevard and everything. Then how do we like kind of propose these, it's, it's almost surrounded by, you know, ular circulation neck around it with parking around it. How is it becoming that pedestrian boulevard or the village style architecture that I think the town center is intending to do over there?  
Speaker 11    01:24:40    So in addition to vehicular access, you will be able to have a sidewalk network, you know, throughout this community in a multipurpose path and there will be bike racks proximate to the area so that you will be able to achieve reaching the town square, either by bike or by car or by pedestrian access, which to me speaks directly to the town's desire to make it a vibrant and accessible forest. So if somebody's on a bike ride, they can stop in. If they're walking, they can stop in. If they're in their car and they just want to, you know, grab a few things and maybe have their coffee or their, their slice of pizza or whatever they're having there, they can do that. So by having all of those modes of getting to it makes it, in my opinion, more accessible to, to this community.  
Speaker 5     01:25:29    Okay.  
Speaker 6     01:25:30    I have nothing further. Madam chair. Thank you. Thank  
Speaker 5     01:25:32    You. Any other questions of Ms Scone, Ms. Colon cone? Sorry. Okay, we, I don't think to have any further questions.  
Speaker 7     01:25:46    Yeah. Reverend County, I have a question since I live in the area at the seniors building, the question is, the seniors have been asked some questions whether or not they'll have handicap access for wheelchairs or anything for the seniors because they, we do live in the seniors building and it involves us trying to get to the center, maybe to, for a cup of coffee or a sandwich or whatever, just to see what's going on in, in the center. We wanna know if we can have, have that type of access for handicaps persons.  
Speaker 5     01:26:26    Can  
Speaker 4     01:26:26    Someone answer? Well, I believe that, I mean, maron if you wanna answer that, but I believe our we're gonna comply with all accessibility standards.  
Speaker 9     01:26:37    Yes, Reverend, we're, we're required obviously to provide whatever a DA rules and regulations as far as number of handicap spaces, van accessible spaces, ramps, all the ramps have to be in compliance with all the a DA regulations. So that'll be part of the site plan to show those details of exactly all the accessible routes throughout the site, where the parking is and how the a DA spaces are dispersed throughout the site. That's all something that we have to do by law and it will be required and provided at, at site plan.  
Speaker 7     01:27:08    Yeah, I understand that. That's from the state, but from our building over to the site, that's what we're, we're concerned with. You'll have that I know what the state requires.  
Speaker 9     01:27:18    Are you asking me if I'm gonna be providing a handicap access from your building to our site along property? I don't own,  
Speaker 4     01:27:26    Yeah, that's gonna be tough for us to be able to do. Okay,  
Speaker 7     01:27:29    Well, well,  
Speaker 4     01:27:30    I mean Mr. Barlow can  
Speaker 7     01:27:32    Address saying no. Well, Mr. Kinneally, we'll have, we'll have to address that later then. Thank you.  
Speaker 5     01:27:46    Has has that been answered?  
Speaker 7     01:27:49    I believe that has No, I really didn't get a, a good answer on it.  
Speaker 4     01:27:53    Well, I may, Mr, do you, okay,  
Speaker 5     01:27:55    Go ahead.  
Speaker 4     01:27:56    No, if I may, I, I guess the answer is that that's not part of our property if that's, you know, something I, I I can't speak to it now, but that's certainly not something that we are capable of providing at this point directly, you know, from, from the senior center to our site. That's certainly not gonna be something that we can do. That's something maybe the township can do. I don't know if there's  
Speaker 7     01:28:23    Okay, I I, I understand what you're saying now. Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 4     01:28:28    But certainly it will be accessible and, you know, there are, you know, plenty of parking for, you know, for there to be accessibility whether it's, you know, but obviously you have to come to the site, but maybe there's something we can do to work with the, with the town. But at this point, you know, with regard to the GDP, that's not something it's, it's not a consideration or shouldn't be a consideration with regard to the GDP itself.  
Speaker 5     01:28:59    Okay. Ms. Elgar, do you have anything else?  
Speaker 4     01:29:03    I do not. That would be the end of our presentation. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:29:07    Madam chair. You should open to the public. I don't think there's anybody from the public on it, but just for completeness.  
Speaker 5     01:29:14    Okay. Members of the public, if you've heard the testimony of two witnesses, Mr. Ron Beck and Ms. Cone, does anyone in the public have any questions of either of these two witnesses? If you do, please indicate by raising your hand.  
Speaker 4     01:29:36    No. One Madam chair.  
Speaker 5     01:29:37    Thank you. Close to the public.  
Speaker 1     01:29:40    So Ms. Elgar, I mean procedurally I think you understand that I don't think the, I don't think I'm confident or comfortable even asking the board to have a vote on this matter. I know several members have indicated that, that they're not comfortable going forward with a vote this evening. I think there are items that we've discussed and I think Mr. Aback understands places where things need to be noted on the GDP As per MS Aptis report, I think we need some more concrete information about the proposed timing schedule. And we also, I mean, you did submit a very comprehensive traffic engineer report and the township's traffic expert, Ms. Dolan, who was unavailable this evening. I'd like to see if she would like to just comment and since there are several items in Ms. Aptis report, which she deferred to the township's traffic expert and just to get her comments on it, which I think is also contemplated under 55 D dash 45.2, I think you understand not only my position, but the board's position in terms of bringing you back to, to answer those questions that we had, get more information so that the board is in a, in a better position to, to vote on it.  
Speaker 4     01:31:16    And I can understand that. It's just that we have, I mean this has been lingering, I guess for this project has been lingering I guess since 2017. And a lot of time, you know, while we submitted our GDP in 2021, there was also delays that were had because we were trying to work with the professionals as well as the town. And we had multiple meetings trying to work out something where the town and would be, you know, willing to either amend the TC zone if that's what they were meant to do. We explored a lot of different options and so, you know, we're in a position now where, you know, we, we'll be open to granting maybe to the next meeting, but otherwise we would not agree to any further extensions and, you know, certainly the next meeting is what we would hope. And as long as we get carried without further notice,  
Speaker 1     01:32:25    You, you would of course be carried without any further notice. If anyone's on this meeting from the public, please note the, the matter would be carried to the August meeting. I know we have a lot on that evening, but obviously if we can get the information that, you know, you heard, I think it's been made clear in terms of the information that's being sought so that the planning board can bring this matter to a vote. And again, I, I can't speak to when it was filed or how long it's been kicking around. The planning board has heard this for two nights. I think they've been very diligent and you know, so I can understand from your perspective. It may have taken a long time, but I mean, I think this board's trying to act as diligently as possible and again, wants to make a educated decision with the information that the MLUL says that they're entitled to. So,  
Speaker 4     01:33:28    No, understood. And we'd be willing to, you know, carry it to August if, you know, provided also, if, if I may, you know, I know that the traffic engineer is gonna take a look at the, our traffic impact statement and provide comments provided we can have those comments relatively quickly so that we could actually, you know, be able to digest them. That would be appreciated.  
Speaker 1     01:33:53    Promise you'll get more than five hours.  
Speaker 4     01:33:56    I would appreciate that.  
Speaker 1     01:33:57    Thank  
Speaker 4     01:33:57    You. I  
Speaker 1     01:33:58    Think look at Ron raising his hand  
Speaker 5     01:34:01    Back.  
Speaker 4     01:34:02    Yeah.  
Speaker 9     01:34:03    Thank you. Just a quick question for you. When is, when is the August meeting?  
Speaker 2     01:34:07    15th?  
Speaker 5     01:34:08    August the 14th.  
Speaker 2     01:34:10    Oh, 14th. I'm sorry. I'm doing zoning anyway. 14th.  
Speaker 4     01:34:14    Is it also at seven 30? Is that right again? Right. Yes. Yes. I dunno if that's  
Speaker 5     01:34:18    A regular meeting. Seven 30 making. Okay.  
Speaker 4     01:34:22    Okay.  
Speaker 9     01:34:23    Laura Laura's got me back coming back on the wrong night.  
Speaker 4     01:34:29    You  
Speaker 1     01:34:29    Want want the zoning board to see you?  
Speaker 2     01:34:32    I'm doing live zoning tomorrow. Marie, thinking ahead. Sorry guys.  
Speaker 4     01:34:37    On to the next day.  
Speaker 2     01:34:39    So August 14th,  
Speaker 5     01:34:41    We're clear then. See you on August the 14th.  
Speaker 4     01:34:44    Okay. Thank  
Speaker 2     01:34:46    You. Take  
Speaker 5     01:34:46    Care. Thank you everyone.  
Speaker 9     01:34:48    Stay safe.  
Speaker 5     01:34:49    You too. Take care. Item number 11, discussion to authorize foresight Planning to determine whether block 12 2 0 1 lot 1.01 and block 2 0 2, lot 42 0 2 needs to have a study as an area in need of development.  
Speaker 1     01:35:12    Okay. Members of the board, so this is a two parcels block, 2 0 2 lot 42.02 and block 2 0 1 lot 1.01, which are over by the dunnellon border. And also more commonly known as 1791 South second Street and 1776 South second Street. So it's a request to have the board retain foresight planning so that they can do an area in need of redevelopment study for the properties. Any members have any questions? I'm happy to answer  
Speaker 5     01:35:53    Any questions. This, this property located at 1791 South Second Street. Any representation as to how badly, how has anyone seen it?  
Speaker 1     01:36:10    I mean, as that, I believe  
Speaker 0     01:36:11    Madam chair, if I, I can, I can tell you right now, we get a lot of illegal dumping going on out there. I think t it's on a regular rounds at TPW with all the illegal dumping that's going on out there right now.  
Speaker 1     01:36:24    I, I mean that's what Mr. Clark and I guess will ascertain, but it appears that the, the area will, may certainly qualify, but you know, he'll do his study and he'll give a report to the board and,  
Speaker 5     01:36:38    Okay. Can I, can I get a motion to have Mr. Clarkin do the study to designate it as an area in need of redevelopment? Can I get a motion?  
Speaker 7     01:36:50    Reverend Kinneally, I make a motion that Mr. Clarkin looks at the area for redevelopment on Second Street in Piscataway.  
Speaker 5     01:37:00    Do I have a second  
Speaker 8     01:37:03    Madam chair? Dawn. Corcoran. I'll second.  
Speaker 5     01:37:05    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 2     01:37:07    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 7     01:37:12    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:37:12    Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Hammed?  
Speaker 5     01:37:18    I don't think he's here. Oh, there he  
Speaker 2     01:37:19    Is. He has,  
Speaker 5     01:37:20    Oh, there he is. Okay.  
Speaker 2     01:37:21    Oh, he's been here. He was here in start And Madam chair.  
Speaker 5     01:37:25    Yes. Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:37:27    Madam chair of abundance of caution. I prepared a resolution so it would be appropriate so that Mr. Clarkin can get working right away if there  
Speaker 5     01:37:36    Motion. Motion to approve. Do I have a motion? Do I have a motion to approve the resolution?  
Speaker 7     01:37:42    So move Madam chair.  
Speaker 5     01:37:45    Second. Do I have a second  
Speaker 8     01:37:47    One? Corcoran second.  
Speaker 5     01:37:49    Thank you. Roll call.  
Speaker 2     01:37:50    Mayor. Wahler? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 5     01:37:56    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:37:56    Mr. Atkins?  
Speaker 5     01:37:57    Yes.  
Speaker 2     01:37:58    Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 5     01:38:01    Yes. Okay. We have concluded our agenda for the night. Everyone stay. Seven. Do I have a motion for an adjournment? I'll make, no one wants to go home. Oh, I wanna  
Speaker 2     01:38:16    Go home. I'm not home. I have to go. Ms. Corcoran, do I have a second? Please?  
Speaker 5     01:38:23    Do I have a second please? Mr. Atkins? I second Mr. Atkins. Eric. There he is. All, all approved. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.  
Speaker 2     01:38:35    Thank you everyone have a good evening.  
Speaker 5     01:38:37    Thank you. I think that's everyone. Have a great night everyone. Goodnight. The next meeting. Okay. Thank you. Good.  
Speaker 2     01:38:43    We have workshop. The 20.  
Speaker 5     01:38:46    The 24th. 24th.  
Speaker 2     01:38:47    24th.  
Speaker 5     01:38:48    All. Okay. Goodnight everyone. Good night. I'm lavender. Ms. Buckley.  
Speaker 2     01:38:54    I know you called Lavender. I wasn't letting you in. I didn't know it was you. Now I'll remember now.  
Speaker 5     01:38:59    You know,  
Speaker 2     01:39:01    Have a great night.  
Speaker 5     01:39:02    Okay. Good night.  
Speaker 2     01:39:03    Bye-Bye.