Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on August 14 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     00:00:00    Actual physical space and it's appropriate to go forward in this fashion.  
Speaker 1     00:00:04    Thank you. You can see the flag over my right shoulder. Can we all recite the pledge of allegiance at this time? I pledge allegiance. All to the flag. To the flag of the United States of America to the republic before which ITT stands, one nation under God, indivisible liberty with liberty and justice for all. Can we swear in the professionals?  
Speaker 0     00:00:36    Sure. I believe we got Mika Ron and Jim Clarkin. You all raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give before the support of this evening will be the whole truth, so help you God?  
Speaker 1     00:00:50    I do. I do. I do.  
Speaker 0     00:00:52    Thank  
Speaker 1     00:00:52    You. Thank you. Do we have any changes to our agenda tonight?  
Speaker 0     00:00:57    Yes. Madam chair number 17, Dini Communications, which is 24 PBO two slash 12 V preliminary and final site plan for 10 34 Stelton Road. The notice was defective. They're going to have to correct that and re-notice if they correct their notice issues. They will be heard on the September 11th, 2024 meeting. If anyone is here for DE Communications, you will be getting a new notice in the mail. But that matter will not be heard this evening and most likely will be on for the September 11th meeting. Number 18.  
Speaker 2     00:01:38    I'm on video. What are you saying?  
Speaker 1     00:01:41    Excuse me. Yeah,  
Speaker 2     00:01:42    You can not behind me.  
Speaker 3     00:01:45    Hold on. I don't know who's talking.  
Speaker 2     00:01:48    S sorry.  
Speaker 0     00:01:50    Okay, so number 17 is off Dean Communications that they will re-notice number 1824 PB oh eight slash oh nine VL Rrn properties LLC, both variances minor subdivision that's been postponed until September 11th, 2024 was carried at the applicant's request because of a conflict. There will be no further notice for that matter if you are here for number 18 L Rrn properties, which is 60 Normandy Drive. That matter will be heard on September 11th, 2024. And there will be no further notice. Those are the only two changes to the agenda. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:02:33    Thank you. Members of the board. Can I have a motion to pay the duly audited bills? Madam chair. I'll make a motion. Ms. Cahill, you made that motion.  
Speaker 3     00:02:50    Ms. Corcoran did.  
Speaker 1     00:02:51    Oh, ms. Thank you. Ro can I get a second please?  
Speaker 4     00:02:56    Madam chair Reverend Kinneally. I'll second it.  
Speaker 1     00:02:59    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 3     00:03:00    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     00:03:08    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:03:08    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:03:10    Yes. Item number eight, adoption of resolution to memorialize action. Taken on July 10th, 2024. Well, none. Item number nine, OP adoption of the minutes from the regular meeting of July 10th, 2024.  
Speaker 4     00:03:30    Madam chair Reverend Kinneally, I make a motion adoption of the minutes of July 10th, 2024.  
Speaker 1     00:03:37    Can I get a second?  
Speaker 3     00:03:40    I'll second. Dawn Corcoran.  
Speaker 1     00:03:42    Thank you. Roll call.  
Speaker 3     00:03:44    Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     00:03:51    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:03:52    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:03:53    Yes. Item number 10, discussion to discuss whether the property designated is block 2 0 1 lot 1.01 and block 2 0 2 lot 42.02 shown on page two of the Piscataway Township map being commonly known as 1776 and 1791 South Second Avenue meets the criteria to be determined as a non condemnation area in need of development.  
Speaker 5     00:04:22    Good evening. Members of the board, can you hear me?  
Speaker 1     00:04:25    Yes, we can. All  
Speaker 5     00:04:27    Right. So James Clark, in a foresight planning, I will be delivering this report to you this evening. Thank you. First before we get started, a quick housekeeping item last night. So I'm sharing it right now. The council passed resolution 24 3 0 7. And Mr. Barlow, do we need to mark this as an exhibit before I go forward? If, if not, that's fine. Did,  
Speaker 1     00:05:01    Did he hear you?  
Speaker 5     00:05:02    I'm not sure, but if not we can do that later. But basically it's updating resolution 24 2 6 8, which was the original one, asking the planning board to investigate these two lots. And this updated resolution is adding, and you can see it in this bottom paragraph here. It's the 180 linear feet of South second Street, which is about 12,000 square feet. It's just lying between both of those lots. And it's a county road, but we do want to include that in the study area. So that's one contiguous lot. So that's just the, sorry, ahead. Nevermind. I thought I heard someone. Yeah, so that's just the quick housekeeping item. So my study does include that area. So I'll get started. So I'll start with the study area description.  
Speaker 5     00:05:56    So we have a, a forest two lots block 2 0 2 lot 42.02, which is the larger the two. And then block 2 0 1 lot 1.01 and then that 180 linear feet of South second Street I just mentioned. If you want some context, there is a map at the end that shows both or the whole entire study area together. And then for further context, this is in the northern part of the township. So right where the border is with the borough of Dunnellon. And actually both of these parcels are at the dead end of South second Street. And it's actually the dead end of the, of that street is actually the physical border between the township Piscataway and the borough of Dannel.  
Speaker 5     00:06:41    And with from a zoning perspective, block 2 0 1 lot 1.01 is in your M1 manufacturing zoning district. And then block 2 0 2 lot 42.02 is within the light industrial zoning district. And also for the record, these two properties are 1776 and 1791 South second Street. Let's see here. So yeah, so when you combine these two lots plus that portion of the county road, we're talking about 14.5 acres. So block 2 0 1 lot 1.01 is only 1.65 acres in size. It's much smaller than the other lot. And this one is closer to the railroad tracks for context. And I'll go over the photos later in my report. But really this area can be accurately be described as basically an outdoor storage area for vehicles, equipment and junk. And based on our review of the building and zoning records, it does not appear it ever had an approved use.  
Speaker 5     00:07:47    So really looking at historical aerials, it's always been some sort of parking or storage lot over the years. There's no improvements of any kind. And as I said, we didn't find any building or zoning records for this lot. We did find one police record for criminal mischief with damage that occurred this year in 2024. But other than that there was no significant reports related to this property. And as I said, the photos will give you more context of the current conditions that are there. So across the street is the larger lot block 2 0 2, lot 42.02, 12.7 acres in size and actually has three large structures standing on the lot. So tonight I'm gonna talk about them as the western, the middle and the eastern structures. So the western structure is a two story building with loading docks that, and it actually straddles the border of Pisca and Danelle. And in my research I found in April, 2023 study from Danelle's planning experts saying that they found this structure on the dannel side to be in need of redevelopment. When I visited the site did not appear to be occupied. It definitely was in a state of disrepair, which I'll get into more. The middle structure is an operating one and a half story warehouse with some loading spaces, some improper outdoor trailer storage and other outdoor storage. And then finally there's an eastern structure, which is another long one story warehouse, very similar to that middle structure.  
Speaker 5     00:09:21    Oops, went a little far. So for this one there were actually a lot of police records. Just some examples include simple assault in 2005, several thefts in 2006, theft and moveable property property in 2009. A couple citations for outdoor garbage and illegal dumping in 2011 and 2018. So as I get into the photos, you'll definitely see the current conditions and how some of these police records could occur, especially with the violations related to garbage and illegal dumping. Because I was, when I was on the lot, I saw evidence of damaged vehicle storage and storage of large dumpster dumpsters as well.  
Speaker 5     00:10:09    So yeah, I will get into that as we get down to the photos. So just last housekeeping item, I think I already mentioned the 12,000 square feet of South Second Street. Not much to say about it. It hasn't been improved in some time. No sidewalks, nothing, no other really existing conditions of note for that portion of the study area. As always, we take a look at NG DPS records for these properties. So we do the normal review for wetlands contamination, anything of that nature. So there is actually a stream that runs through the bottom portion of this study area. So that's block 2 0 2, lot 42.02. It runs from east to west, but it's really only the bottom portion. And so that is really the only area of the property or the entire study area that had records of wetlands. It was only a small portion.  
Speaker 5     00:11:00    So it's likely that if redevelopment moves forward, either that part will not be developed or they'll work with DEP if they wish to develop that portion. But a bigger note was there was that that lot is also a known contaminated site. And from the information I could find, I had about four cleanup cases associated with it, including a C two remedial level, which is basically a known source or release of contaminant into the groundwater. So it definitely seems like there's some open cases for remediation for this property, which could make this a brownfield redevelopment, which is definitely viewed favorably 'cause we're taking an older, possibly hazardous use in transforming into something more productive.  
Speaker 5     00:11:45    So that was everything I found from an environmental perspective. So I think that redevelopment could definitely be good for this area. Further context surrounding land uses. So it's kind of a mix because you're near Front street in Dunnellon, which kind of has like a mix of commercial industrial, but then also south and west and maybe even a little east. There are residential neighborhoods, mostly of a single family nature. So it's definitely a diiv diverse set of uses surrounding this property. And then also Columbia Park within borough of Dunnellon is south of this study area as well. Moving on to a master plan perspective, you know, judging by the age of the area for both township and the borough of Nellon, especially when you look at the uses along the railroad tracks, it's definitely an older developed section of the township. So I think that this fits in with your 2005 master plan in that as we can develop a land diminishes, you know, older areas will be more prime for redevelopment. And I think this study area definitely fits within that context.  
Speaker 5     00:12:54    So with that background, I'm gonna move on to the photos so we can really get into, you know, the conditions that I found during my investigation. So first we're starting with a larger lot. This is the one I just discussed. Where has the three structures on it? So this first photo you see is that middle structure. Actually it's both top photos are, you can kind of see the degradation of the pavement and some stormwater ponding, then you could kind of sew this was panning left from that position. So this is the eastern structure, the other warehouse, and you can see that's pavement degradation there as well on that lot I did find some storage trailers that may not be entirely proper for the type of use, but as we move forward you can see the outdoor storage of these dumpsters, which I don't think meets code either.  
Speaker 5     00:13:57    And definitely could be potentially hazardous. But as we move further, these two photos are specific significance that I wanted to discuss. So obviously you see the ponding, but in the rear is more of what I really wanna talk about. And I think the bottom photo is a better photo. It looks like some sort of vehicle use is going on, whether it's storage of damaged vehicles or some sort of shipping. Auto shipping industry is definitely not permitted use in that zone and does not seem to be a proper use of the land. And definitely improper outdoor storage. Couple of concerns of, you know, leaking hazardous materials, whether it's gasoline or coolant or something related to vehicles. But definitely something to take note of. And I think bolsters the, sorry, the situation with respect to in need of redevelopment. So these next photos are the western structure. So this is the one that actually straddles the border of Danelle and Piscataway. So definitely clear signs of abandonment, broken glass, broken windows. Actually when I was on site the alarm was actively ringing. There's degradation of the brick of the loading docks. Definitely signs of disrepair and abandonment. So some of these are some further photos of that structure.  
Speaker 5     00:15:34    And then I think some other signs of abandonment is just, you know, no one's there parking or taking care of the regular day-to-day, maintenance of the parking lot. Here's a good photo of the broken glass and the abandoned nature of the indoor portion of that western structure. All right, now shifting to block 2 0 1 lot 1.01, which is across the street from this one. So this is the one next to the railroad tracks. Like I said, there's really no improvements of any kind. It's kind of this haphazard collection of construction equipment, trailers, tractor to trailers, different pieces of vehicles are junk throughout the site.  
Speaker 5     00:16:18    It's really just crushed stone pavement. I'm gonna kind of just roll through, feel free to ask any questions, but it does not appear to have any improvements or be related to anything nearby. So you see some old tires, some unknown barrels, storage containers. Yeah, here you go. Here's a better view of the whole lot. So behind those trees is where the railroad track runs. And that structure way in the back is actually on a different lot. It's an existing, no I'm forgetting like a pipe fitting factory I believe. And so here are some more photos of the existing conditions. No real structures, just a bunch of trailers and junk.  
Speaker 5     00:17:09    So with respect to applying the criteria, I'm gonna start with the larger lot with the three structures on it. So based on the my investigation, the clear evidence of the outdoor storage of trailers, dumpsters, junk, and even cars that are in need of major repair and body work. And also combine that with the police records we found for illegal dumping and garbage citations on that property, I find that criteria A, B, and D apply. So A is specific to that western building where it's clearly in a state of disrepair, it's unsafe and definitely not, you know, wholesome for working conditions. And I think if think if it's left in its current state, it will represent continued dangerous conditions. So criteria A applies criteria B also applies to that western building because it's a di discontinued use of manufacturing. And it's also, I found some evidence that was vacant since 2018 according to the borough of Dannel study.  
Speaker 5     00:18:09    So I think that abandonment in that vacancy has allowed the structure to fall into a really bad disrepair situation where it's really untenable. And then criteria D applies to the entirety of the lot and all the structures on it. So it's really the misuse of the property when it's the storage of trailers, the vehicles, all those conditions. I find that it's obsolete, faulty arrangement and just, you know, not a good land use with an obsolete layout that I think is detrimental to the safety, health and welfare of the community. So I think these three criteria apply to that lot With respect to block 2 0 1 lot 1.01. Since there's no structures, I don't think that criteria A and B could apply. But I think that criteria D does apply basically by also by virtue of the illegal and improper storage of all the chunk that's on that property.  
Speaker 5     00:19:05    You know, it's clearly not permitted and it's a faulty arrangement, excessive land coverage, and really not a good land use for the community at all. So with those two lots discussed, all that's left is just the portion of South Second Street. So as I mentioned, there's the existing conditions don't really meet any of the criteria. You know, it's just minor wear and tear, no sidewalk hasn't been repaved in a while. But I believe that a redevelopment may include improvements such as that portion of the county road. And so yeah, the conditions themselves are not detrimental, but I think it's very necessary to include for the effective redevelopment. So they have one continuous parcel that can be redeveloped through a proper redevelopment plan. So it's my recommendation to include that portion of South Second Street should it be vacated by the county to be included as part of the overall study area for in need redevelopment.  
Speaker 5     00:20:07    And then finally, for the last two lots, I think that the smart planning criteria H can apply. We had the Dannel in New Jersey transit station close by. So that can really give us possibly a range of housing choices, walkable neighborhoods, a sense of place or being offered via redevelopment of the study area. So to wrap it all up, it's my recommendation that this board and then subsequently the town of council determine that this study area is in fact in native redevelopment by virtue of block 2 0 2 lot 42.02, meeting the three criteria or four rather. And then also block 2 0 1 lot 1.01, meeting criteria D and H, and then also including the 180 linear feet of South second Street within that study area. I think this area could definitely benefit from redevelopment, specifically the areas of contamination that I mentioned. And I think that's the crux of my report and happy to take any questions.  
Speaker 4     00:21:14    Mr. Clarken? Reverend Kinneally here in regards to 2 0 1 lot 1.01, do you find that those trucks are, are abandoned or are they being used or worked on? It looks like that, yeah,  
Speaker 5     00:21:31    It, it's kind of hard to say. I, I would say a mix reverend, because like actually this photo in this top left kind of seems like it was being worked on, but others just seem like they might've been there for a long time. Like this trailer here, who knows if that's been moved, but I think there was another photo where the hood of the tractor, yeah, like this one doesn't look like there's an engine in it. So I, I don't think that's moving anytime soon. But this one, this bottom one here, the green one that looked like it was being actively worked on. So there could be some sort of outdoor maintenance going on, which is definitely not allowed by code or probably DEP either.  
Speaker 4     00:22:16    No, that's what I thought. 'cause I, I didn't see any plates on, on any of these vehicles except for  
Speaker 5     00:22:21    Another good point. Another thank you. Another good point.  
Speaker 6     00:22:24    That's the trooper eye in  
Speaker 1     00:22:26    You members of the board. Are there any other questions of this witness?  
Speaker 6     00:22:33    Madam chair? I just wanna add some information to fact, when Mr. Clark was talking about the illegal dumping going on, there's actually more illegal dumping than actually was in the report. 'cause periodically, almost once a month there, somebody drops a load in the middle of the street down there at Department of Public Works. Either our public works in Piscataway or Danelle in Public Works has to go and pick up on a regular basis.  
Speaker 1     00:23:02    Okay, that's for the record. Any other comments or questions? Then let's open it up to the public. Ms. Buckley, let see if we just see if anybody,  
Speaker 5     00:23:16    One second ahead. Ms. Buckle,  
Speaker 3     00:23:18    If anyone has any comments or questions about the discussion item, you could just hit raise your hand. No Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:23:26    Thank you. Close to the public. Okay. Mr. Corkin has completed his testimony. Members of the board, what's your pleasure?  
Speaker 7     00:23:37    Madam chair, this is Dawn. Corcoran. I may, I'd like to make a recommendation that the properties be designated as a non condemnation area.  
Speaker 3     00:23:44    RY redevelopment.  
Speaker 1     00:23:47    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 4     00:23:49    Reverend Kinneally. I'll second that motion. And while I'm seconding the motion, I'd like to thank Mr. Clark and in regards to this, the redevelopment study to the next one job. Thank you.  
Speaker 5     00:24:01    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     00:24:05    Would you call the role Ms. Buckley?  
Speaker 3     00:24:07    Mayor Wahler?  
Speaker 0     00:24:09    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:24:10    Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     00:24:15    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:24:16    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:24:17    Yes. Madam chair. Just yes.  
Speaker 0     00:24:21    Out of an abundance of caution and because of the timeframes involved, I took the liberty of preparing a resolution recommending to the council that the property be designated at a non condemnation area redevelopment. And if the board so chooses it be appropriate to adopt a resolution at this time,  
Speaker 1     00:24:40    Would someone like to propose a adoption of the resolution that Mr. Clark, Mr. Barlow has prepared?  
Speaker 4     00:24:47    Madam chair. Reverend Kinneally. I'll propose a resolution. Resolution.  
Speaker 1     00:24:54    Approval of the resolution. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 3     00:24:58    I'll second that. Councilwoman Cahill.  
Speaker 1     00:25:01    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 3     00:25:03    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     00:25:10    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:25:11    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:25:12    Yes. That completes that item, right? Mr. Barlow?  
Speaker 0     00:25:18    Yes. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     00:25:19    Okay, then we'll move on to item number 11. Amended redevelopment plan for block 92 0 1 lot 46 point 20, also known as Dale Terrace. Z Zari Way. Mr. Clark Zary Way, Z Zary Way.  
Speaker 5     00:25:45    Yes. Also, we'll be presenting this to the board tonight. Thank you. This one's much quicker. So I'm really just sharing the addendum I put together for this redevelopment plan. And I'm just gonna go through it. So back in 2015, township Planning Board adopted a resolution to prepare a redevelopment plan for what was then known as block 9 2 0 1 lots, 46.0 6, 46 0.07, and 46 point 11. Leicester Neal was actually hired to do this redevelopment plan, which I'm gonna refer to as the plan from now on for the planning board. So that redevelopment plan he put together was dated March 6th, 2017, and was subsequently adopted later that year by both this board and the township council. So since that time, these three lots within block 9 2 0 1, which that re that plan was prepared for, had been consolidated. So now it's known as Block 9 2 0 1 lot 46.20, and it covers an area about 20.8 acres in size.  
Speaker 5     00:26:51    So this is actually a case where the redevelopment plan has come to fruition. So it envisioned a multi-family residential community of market rate and low and moderate income, affordable rental units with onsite parking, recreational facilities, open space, and then stormwater as well. So it's actually been constructed, it's occupied, and I would consider it a successful residential redevelopment that is called RI Dale Meadows. Now. So this is, you know, the border of Edison Township. So the reason for this addendum is really specific to the recreational facilities. So on page three of that redevelopment plan back from 2017, it specifically mentions a clubhouse building community pool, including a kitty pool, a tot lot park area fitness trail with workout stations and open space areas as permitted recreational facilities. All that has been built and looks to be working well and successful. What the proposed redeveloper is looking to do is add to those recreational facilities.  
Speaker 5     00:27:54    As you know, since this was written in 2017, some new things have emerged, specifically something called pickleball has become much, much more popular and Yes, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the designated redeveloper wishes to build two pickleball courts, a tennis court and a half basketball court. In addition to those facilities I already mentioned, they feel that these amenities would be relevant to today's public and they think the children and the residents of the development would benefit from such amenities. So through this addendum, I'm amending that plan to add the two pickleball courts, the tennis court and half basketball court.  
Speaker 5     00:28:37    They do have six parking spaces planned to be built near those courts. So this addendum would include the construction of those parking spaces. However, I should know they're not required. It's really more for a convenience, it's not to meet the parking requirements. And then other things like fencing, a lighting will be included. What was originally proposed in that part of the redevelopment or the development plan was detached garage structures. They actually already have some built, so they feel that they are no longer needed and that the site can function well without those garages and that their elimination doesn't cause any parking variance issues. So I think that this proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the master plan and of the original redevelopment plan is really just tweaking it a little bit for these newer recreational facilities. So that, that's the, you know, that's what I'm here proposing for this addendum. And I can take any questions,  
Speaker 1     00:29:37    Members of the board, do you have any questions of Mr. Clarkin at this time? Hearing? No one, Ms. Buckley, would you open it to the public or I'm gonna open it to the public. Would you check and see if anyone in the public is wishes to ask a question of this witness?  
Speaker 3     00:29:59    No, maam.  
Speaker 1     00:30:01    Okay. Just the  
Speaker 0     00:30:01    Orthopedic surgeons who are having the field day with all the new ACL and rotator cuff tears from all the pickle  
Speaker 1     00:30:07    Place. Oh, they're having a ball. All right. Okay. Close to the public members of the board. What's your pleasure on this request?  
Speaker 7     00:30:17    Madam chair Dawn Corcoran. And I'd like to make a recommendation that the amended Redevelopment plan be adopted.  
Speaker 1     00:30:24    Do I have a second? Councilwoman Cahill. We'll second that roll call please.  
Speaker 3     00:30:30    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Council Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 1     00:30:40    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:30:40    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:30:41    Yes. I believe Mr. Mr. Barlow has prepared a resolution.  
Speaker 0     00:30:48    You beat me to it. Correct. It would be appropriate if the board wants to adopt a resolution at this time.  
Speaker 1     00:30:56    If, do I have a recommendation that we adopt from the board?  
Speaker 4     00:31:03    Madam chair Reverend Kinneally. I'll make a recommendation that we adopt the resolution.  
Speaker 1     00:31:08    Second Councilwoman Cahill roll call please.  
Speaker 3     00:31:12    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:31:23    Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. You too. Item number 1224 BB 15 River Road Estates, LLC for a final major subdivision.  
Speaker 8     00:31:41    Good evening. Members of the board, board professionals. My name is Tim Arch, attorney licensed for the state of New Jersey here representing River Road Estates. This is a, a final major subdivision. You will recall that we were back before for a preliminary subdivision to create 14 single family homes at that location. We're proud to say that we have, I believe, complied with all of the conditions of the preliminary approval to the staff satisfaction. And so we are here tonight to ask for the final so that we can perfect that subdivision and move on to the exciting stuff of actually building the homes. So we do have, I do have Eric Ballou, our engineer here in case there's any questions that the board may have, but I think just a confirmation that the staff agrees that we've complied with all the conditions of the preliminary is, is sufficient. So I will, I'll turn it over to see if we can get that confirmation.  
Speaker 7     00:32:43    Madam chair, this is Dawn Corcoran. They have complied with all of their conditions of preliminary approval.  
Speaker 1     00:32:49    Thank you. So are we gonna have any testimony tonight? No,  
Speaker 8     00:32:56    I don't believe it's necessary to have any testimony. I, I, I, again, all the conditions are there. They're, we've met all those and I believe we are, are ripe for the, for the final subdivision at this time.  
Speaker 0     00:33:07    Yep. Madam chair, just so the record reflects preliminary major subdivision with certain deviations was approved by this board on November 8th, 2023. There were a number of conditions of approval and as Ms. Boran has indicated, the Piscataway Township professionals are confident that those conditions have already been, have been met. So we usually split it to preliminary and final just to make sure that the applicant complies, which they have done. So, unless the board, your ma Madam chair or the board members want, I don't think it's necessary to take testimony based on Ms. Corcoran's representations. And therefore it would be appropriate for a motion to grant them final major subdivision  
Speaker 1     00:34:03    And members of the board. Would anyone like to propose that approval? Madam chair of the application? Go ahead. Reverend Kinneally  
Speaker 4     00:34:14    Madam chair. I would like to approve this application to go forward with the final approval and that this application move forward.  
Speaker 1     00:34:25    Do I have a second? Second. Councilwoman Cahill. Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 3     00:34:32    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     00:34:40    Yes.  
Speaker 3     00:34:41    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     00:34:42    Yes. Thank you.  
Speaker 8     00:34:45    Thank you so much. If I,  
Speaker 1     00:34:47    I looking forward to those beautiful homes.  
Speaker 8     00:34:49    Thank We are too. If I may, just a question on the agenda that I had, there was a discussion item that I was also associated with that I think was listed before that, I don't know if it's changed from what the board has right now.  
Speaker 0     00:35:00    There's an updated agenda and it was no longer on this agenda.  
Speaker 3     00:35:03    It'll be on for September.  
Speaker 8     00:35:05    Perfect. I just wanted to make sure I around. No.  
Speaker 0     00:35:08    Okay. Thank  
Speaker 1     00:35:09    You Mr. Mr. Arch. Item number 1321 PB 31 m and M at hose lane, phase two LLC, general development plan.  
Speaker 9     00:35:24    Good evening everybody. It's Irene Agart. I'm with Weingarten Law Firm. It's good to see everybody again. Oh, sorry. There we go. So we were here last in July. I had submitted a letter to Mr. Barlow and I apologize that it was late, but getting it to you today. However, I just wanted to indicate in the letter that we would be looking for a vote for tonight on our application. My understanding from the last hearing in July was that the board asked for an extension so that their traffic engineer could take a look at our study and I guess read over the testimony from our traffic engineer and provide us with some kind of review, whether it was traffic or, you know, bike path related, whatever it was. But we had not received that report. I was surprised to not have received it, I guess. So that's where that letter came from, that we are, we're looking for it.  
Speaker 9     00:36:30    We didn't receive it. My understanding also with regard to some of the items from last, from last month was that when we were discussing CM E'S letter, there were certain things that the applicant was going to note, you know, on, on the plans or however it may be in terms of like the clubhouse. I, I know that there w we needed to note that and just to provide clarification with regard to that, we are providing landscape buffers and things like that. But I always imagine that that would be something that we would do during resolution compliance. So, you know that that's one of the reasons why I wrote the letter just so that there wasn't a misunderstanding that we weren't gonna put any testimony on. There was really nothing further to discuss, I guess, you know, in terms of the timing schedule. I know there was discussion with regard to that.  
Speaker 9     00:37:23    And again, I wanted to clarify it because we put in the fact that there would be five phases. We didn't put any timetable to it, particularly because we are here because, or to find out what the vesting schedule is. Without the vesting schedule, we really don't know whether it's a 20 year vesting schedule, 15 year vesting schedule. And so we're proposing five phases, you know, typically it's a hundred units per year. But you know, there's, that would be something that would be changed. You know, once we get to the first site plan, and it's almost similar to the discussion that we had about the developer's agreement. You know, there's certain things that the board needs to decide before, you know, we can put into the developer's agreement. And that would be one of those things. So we're here, you know, we've submitted all our proofs and we believe that the project is a good project and that, you know, it's not gonna cause an unreasonable adverse impact. Really. That's what, that's what the board needs to find.  
Speaker 9     00:38:26    It's zoned for exactly what we're proposing. We're not seeking variances. If we do need any variances from any of the standards, it's not, you know, we'll have to either come back and amend the GDP or we'll have to come back and, you know, and get those variances through site plan depending on what they are. So I, I leave it to the board and hopefully our proofs were adequate for, for what you're looking for. But again, this is a GDP concept plan. We wanna move forward, we wanna proceed with the engineering and provide even more information as the process moves forward. So thank you.  
Speaker 0     00:39:10    Can I just, Madam chair Ms. Albert, just go ahead Mr. Barlow, just by way of clarification then. So what you're, I I think the discussion that took place in July is in terms of a phasing plan, a more established timeframe of say phase one, it would be contemplated, would take three years. I think that's the single family homes and then phase two, which may be townhouses might take two or three to, to kind of give the board a little bit more direction. What you're, I think saying is if the board tells us this is a 10 year GDP plan, we back the numbers into that. Like once you tell us and adopt a GDP plan of X amount of years, then the applicant can say, okay, we got 10 years and this is a more established timeline of when the phases might get done. Correct. Is that what you're saying?  
Speaker 9     00:40:13    Right. We don't wanna represent a time period that's not necessarily going to be realistic either. So you know, that that's kind of what we're looking for is some guidance as to what the vesting schedule is that the board would approve.  
Speaker 0     00:40:26    Okay. So if, if hypothetically the board gave this as a, a 10 year vesting schedule for the GDP,  
Speaker 9     00:40:36    Right.  
Speaker 0     00:40:37    Then you're, you're saying then at that point you can tell the township, okay, 10 years, this is a, a better timeline. Phase one we think would be done June of 2026 and phase two and understanding those are not written in stone. And the GDP acknowledges if you need more time because of market conditions, financing, whatever else, you, you are more than welcome to come back and say, look, we thought we'd be done in three years. We're gonna take four for that. Right,  
Speaker 9     00:41:12    Right.  
Speaker 0     00:41:13    So you, so you need to know how long the is and then you can give the town a more specific vesting phasing schedule.  
Speaker 9     00:41:22    Right. I mean we, we know only the phases and I can tell you, you know, on average it's about a hundred units per year, maybe, you know, more or less given depending on what hap needs to happen in those phases. And again, that's part of the, the engineering that has to be done.  
Speaker 0     00:41:40    I understand that. But a phase one is the single family homes.  
Speaker 9     00:41:43    Right. And  
Speaker 0     00:41:44    There's 20 of them. Hypothetically, you should be able to once, you know,  
Speaker 9     00:41:48    I think that, I mean the, the single families for, for phase one we have, I think it's 193 market rate units and, and 14 affordables.  
Speaker 0     00:42:04    Okay. But I think aren't the single family,  
Speaker 9     00:42:06    Single family, I didn't know if you were using that as an example. If that case that's fine. I just wanted to correct it if, if Okay. We're not using it as an example. Okay.  
Speaker 0     00:42:14    So I understand what you're saying. You, you'd like to know the length of the GDP and then you can give the township a more accurate reflection as to when things might get done. Right.  
Speaker 9     00:42:27    And I think, you know, three years per phase is su sufficient.  
Speaker 0     00:42:32    No, I'm not suggesting three years per phase. I'm just,  
Speaker 9     00:42:35    Okay, I just, there's, there's about the same number of units per phase. I I'm just looking at  
Speaker 6     00:42:40    Madam chair. Can I jump in and I, I wanna make a motion. Yes. Mayor,  
Speaker 0     00:42:43    Go ahead.  
Speaker 6     00:42:44    I wanna make a motion, has to be five years because counselor, quite frankly, I wanna put you folks on a tight leash. You have zero credibility with me. So I think five years Mr. Barlow. And if they gotta come back to the board, let 'em explain why,  
Speaker 9     00:43:01    Why do we have zero credibility? I'm sorry, because  
Speaker 6     00:43:03    You do, you have zero credibility.  
Speaker 9     00:43:05    How is that  
Speaker 6     00:43:06    Counselor? I'm not gonna get into a discussion with it. My motion is for five years and I I hope my fellow board members will support that.  
Speaker 9     00:43:16    I think Ron  
Speaker 10    00:43:19    Mayor, I just have a quick question. The five years, what is, what is that for five years to complete the entire job, five years to get something done. I'm, I'm just looking for clarification. So I know what we're up against here.  
Speaker 6     00:43:34    Y five years that you have to have roughly 60% done and then I'm, I believe two year, three, two and a half to three years after that to have everything completed.  
Speaker 9     00:43:49    Okay. So I mean this  
Speaker 6     00:43:50    Is not, I'm not,  
Speaker 9     00:43:51    We could agree to it. I mean, I guess like a 10 year, that's something I'm not,  
Speaker 6     00:43:55    We're not doing 10 years counselor. It's not happening. It's not happening  
Speaker 9     00:44:00    I think. But you just said it was fine. It's,  
Speaker 6     00:44:02    You're you're asking for an annuity plan here. I'm sorry it's not happening.  
Speaker 9     00:44:09    Well we have every, I've,  
Speaker 6     00:44:10    I've, I've seen too much go on in this town with folks come in and talk a good game and then they use every excuse under the sun and it doesn't get done. It doesn't get completed. So everybody, it's not just you, it's other people are gonna be on a tight leash now, zero credibility, take it or leave it. That's what, that's the way I'm gonna vote.  
Speaker 9     00:44:35    Well, you're in, I mean, you know, if you're entitled to, to vote however you see fit. So  
Speaker 7     00:44:43    Matt Madam chair, if I may, this is Dawn Corcoran. Hi Irina, just a question. Go ahead. If the GDP was in fact approved this evening, how soon until you start filing for the formal site plan application, like are we like six months out, a year out? Like what is your timing with the filing?  
Speaker 9     00:45:00    I really can't say. I don't know if Ron, if you have an idea, but, you know, I wouldn't want us to commit to something that we can't do. So  
Speaker 7     00:45:08    Fair. I just,  
Speaker 10    00:45:10    I dawn to answer your question, you know, probably if, if, you know, we would get the, get the approval, adopt the resolution. I mean listen, if we got the approval tonight, hypothetically, we would be looking to pull the trigger to start the site plans. You're probably three to four months out from completing site plans on a site this large.  
Speaker 7     00:45:30    Sure. Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:45:34    Madam chair, if I may just ask then, is it absolutely necessary to take a vote tonight on that or can the applicant wait till, I don't know if we have room at the next meeting or not, but maybe just for the board to have a little more information as to this, this whole phasing. I mean I'm in, I'm inclined to vote along the lines with the mayor just because we, you know, again, as he said, not to specific to you, but just that a lot of, a lot of, a lot of times applications come through and then they don't get completed in what the applicant initially sort of has the high hopes to complete, let's say, you know, aspirational things, things happen. And I think to the mayor's point, he is just trying to make sure that this doesn't become like a generational sort of project, if that makes any sense.  
Speaker 9     00:46:33    It's understood. I mean I, you know, we, we would appreciate the vote tonight and you know, if it's five years, you know, that's something I'll have to take back and you know, that's, it's gonna have to work. Right.  
Speaker 2     00:46:48    Well it sounded like it was 60% five years and then like two and a half. So seven and a half years, you know, for the entire project. Which I mean really only is two and a half years less than 10. 10 feels alike a lot too. I mean there's a combination. I'll just tell you of, you know, anticipation from years ago when we, you know, thought about having a town center here, right. And what that all might bring to the community. And also too is just the understanding that, you know, the longer this project takes, the more expensive it'll become. And then, you know, just as, as Mr. Barlow was saying, you know, if you have to come back for, for changes in the plan variances, things of that nature, just to kind of, you know, drop a pin on 10 years really actually probably, I mean let's kind of just put it, put it in practicality would, if there are issues could potentially extend it up to 15, maybe even 20 years. And that I think for the township wouldn't be an ideal scenario. Right. I mean, just from that perspective, that's all.  
Speaker 9     00:48:11    So yeah, I understand it. It's, it's a point well taken. I understand how sometimes it does get projects get delayed. So, and we've  
Speaker 2     00:48:22    Seen it all the time and it's not to say that that's gonna happen here, but I think the idea that the mayor's trying to put forward, and again, not just with you right, but with any new development is to try to figure out how we mitigate those, those projects that end up going on for long periods of time. And then certainly things slip through the cracks and certain things don't happen when they should have happened that are part of, you know, the application, et cetera, et cetera. So some of it is us needing to do our due diligence and you know, our homework to make sure that we're doing right by the resident. So, understood. You know, I'm just suggesting here, maybe you're looking at it as seven and a half years with, you know, the hope that you do get, you know, more than 50% done in five, that's the most ideal. But obviously your your, your client has to agree to it, that's all.  
Speaker 0     00:49:18    Well,  
Speaker 9     00:49:20    Well I mean, just to  
Speaker 0     00:49:21    Clarify, the client doesn't have to agree to it. It would be helpful. It's the, it's the board. I'm sorry.  
Speaker 2     00:49:27    I'm sorry. They don't have to agree to it. Understood.  
Speaker 0     00:49:28    Right. It's the board's pleasure based on the evidence that's been presented. And, and Ms. Elgar, just to clarify, you, you would agree that as each phase comes before the board as a site plan, potentially the need for variances except subdivisions that developers' agreements will most will be entered into at, at during those phases?  
Speaker 9     00:49:54    I would anticipate of course. I mean if we could do one, you know, great. And if every, you know, if each phase requires another one, then that's, you know, that's what we're, we're willing to do.  
Speaker 0     00:50:04    Okay.  
Speaker 2     00:50:06    And I'm just gonna say something here, Madam chair and just say again, I mean I think Mr. Omba knows this about me is that when those plans come before us again, I mean the mayor has his way and I also have the things that I am fairly critical about and full transparency. I've seen some preliminary elevations, but I've seen two different ones. I'm not sure which one's right not and when you're before us also trying to set that, that time limit is because I have been very critical of certain, you know, elevations with that other, you know, applicants have come before with where they have to go back to the drawing board. And so how much time did that add on to it? You know, just, again, just trying to reiterate some perspective here. Not that anyone's being penalized here.  
Speaker 6     00:51:05    I, Mr. Barlow, what, what are we gonna do? 'cause we have several other applications on tonight.  
Speaker 0     00:51:10    A absolutely if the board members don't have any additional questions, it, it would be appropriate to open it to the public and then once public is closed, the, if it's the board's pleasure to move on approving the GDP, we can talk about the parameters.  
Speaker 1     00:51:31    Okay. Well does the board have any more questions of the attorney and Mr. Beck? Or if not we can open it to the public  
Speaker 7     00:51:42    Madam chair. If I may, this was, this was just another item that we had discussed at the prior hearing. I know Mika had brought up concerns about the location of the town square and the applicant possibly looking at the redesign of that square to create more of a focal point. Is that something that the applicant is, you know, we could put as a condition if approved a condition of this approval that they give some consideration to, again, that location of that the town square. That's such an important feature of this project. And Mika, if you wanna jump in, please feel free, but I know you, I know you brought it up, you really stressed it at the last hearing.  
Speaker 9     00:52:24    So you mean the di the location of the actual square or the location of some features in the square?  
Speaker 7     00:52:30    Well the town square itself, I mean it's surrounded by parking. It's not very pedestrian friendly. Again, I, I understand that when you come before the board for these phases it's going to be more detailed but maybe there can be some consideration given shifting it somewhat more to a central location.  
Speaker 11    00:52:50    Yeah, I think, thank you Ms. Cochran Madam chair Ms. Elgar, I think last time we had a bit of discussion, again the intent of the town center zone was to create this kind of a public focal point. And I think some of the questions, again, given that it's a GDP, it's a conceptual plan, you know, there was parking all around it. Maybe you wanna kind of incorporate that design more central to your town center and discussion again as you update your plan, maybe those discussions, because I think couple of discussions were also kind of adding pocket parks throughout the development. You know, creating that kind of, you know, cohesive open space, passive recreation area. I think discussion was maybe the one clubhouse, which is to one side of the property may be adding something to that effect. Again, we had discussed the bike path and how it's surrounding and not adjacent to the roadway, which is what the, you know, the the redevelopment, sorry the ordinance requires. So I think the discussion was lending itself to maybe these things can be worked on as the plans are, you know, enhanced or created in more detail. I think that's what Ms. Cochrane is going to.  
Speaker 9     00:54:14    I mean it's hard to say that. I mean of course we're gonna work with the town. I don't know about moving the town square be just because where it is located appears to be centralized in the sense that, you know, you're gonna have an entryway right there. It's gonna be accessible to the, to the public. So, you know, to move it further into the development, I'm not so, I I just can't, I can't agree to that, you know, you know, in terms of actually moving it, you know, I would say that, I know that for a fact we will definitely work with the board and the professionals to, you know, make sure that it's a vision that they're happy with. But to have it as a condition, I I I just, I'm not sure that we could actually move it and we can work on it and take suggestions. Yeah. You know, that's for sure.  
Speaker 10    00:55:06    If, if I can Irene, I again, we did speak about that Amika and Dawn are both correct and you know, obviously as a developer we, we want the best plan for not just for ourselves but for the town as well. So obviously we're willing to work with the town and you know, should the town act favorably on this application for GDP, obviously it's gonna be a collaboration as we move forward with site plans. It's not saying I'm pulling the trigger tomorrow morning to start site plans on this layout. Obviously it's something that we could talk to staff and and the township and get some feedback from them. Some, there's gonna be some give and take, there's gonna be some reasons why we feel it's strong. It should be in this location you feel strongly and there's gonna be some give and take and hopefully we can come and compromise on some of these aspects. But certainly we're willing to work with the, the township and it's professional staff to make the best plan for everybody.  
Speaker 4     00:55:57    May I, Reverend Kinneally, may I ask a question in regards to what phase is going to be done? First town center or, or the housing or, I was in under impression maybe I'm, I'm not getting it right at the town center. This is the, the major part of this project. Was that gonna be done last or first or when  
Speaker 10    00:56:22    Reverend Kinneally are the current plans you have before you with the phasing plan show? Some residential, some commercial, but it also includes the public plaza in phase one.  
Speaker 4     00:56:35    Okay. Yeah, I, you know, we got phases but we just, you know, I've seen projects go on for 15, 20 years and, and, and a faces doesn't get done and I'm a little concerned about it 'cause I'm getting old and I'd like to see some of this stuff get done.  
Speaker 9     00:56:54    Yeah, I us too though. So,  
Speaker 2     00:56:59    And, and to defend Reverend Kenny's statements, he currently lives where he could easily access the town center once it's built. And I, and I understand a lot of us are anticipating that. And I do wanna say just one other thing, you know, when we talk about, you know, approving this tonight and, and Ron to your point saying, you know, if we're voting favorably on this, I'm not sure what that exactly means that you're gonna work with us. But you know, I I will say one thing, I wasn't at the last meeting and I was a little disappointed because some of originally the plans were that, that the developer was gonna maintain the property. There wasn't gonna be this a separate HOA. Now correct me if I'm wrong, I've heard potentially that's changing. So again, you know, antennas are a little bit up here. We, we, we've gotta stay ahead of it because some of those first meetings we were told hey this is gonna be a property where our main offices are gonna be.  
Speaker 2     00:58:04    I'm not sure if that's really the case anymore. Not that that's a requirement, but that's what we were told, Hey we're gonna, you know, we want this to be the best possible. We're gonna manage it because we don't trust anyone else to manage the property the way we would up to our snuff. And that's what I was told in some of those initial conversations with the town. So if you can imagine the mayor's probably been doing this well longer than I have. I'm just in on those first initial phases. And I am also a little hesitant because now, you know, hearing one thing, it changing, not that it had to be a guarantee, but understand my point of view is we questioned how the property be maintained. We're told the developer was gonna maintain the property. That's, in fact what I heard is not happening anymore. That there will be an HOAI don't know if that's right or not right, but it's something that I've just heard recently. So again, just wanna be, wanna say and take a vote on it. But also to make the applicant you also aware of the reasoning why behind we, we just, well really wanna put some things, some, some things in place here to protect  
Speaker 9     00:59:15    The council. I think part of that, what you had mentioned in terms of the discussions and I'm not sure that there will be an HOA, but part of the discussions that I think you're referring to had to do with when we were discussing a redevelopment plan for the area and which included the other, another parcel, which is where we're talking about our corporate offices going, well  
Speaker 2     00:59:36    That's the corporate offices. But my concern more aligned with the residential piece, with the maintenance of those areas. It was my understanding from some of those initial meetings that the, the m and m was gonna be maintaining the property of like the town home areas and things of that nature. And my understanding is that's not necessarily the case anymore.  
Speaker 9     01:00:02    I, I don't know that that is the case or not, but what I'm trying to say is that those were discussions in terms of who would maintain that was a discussion had not with regard to this particular application,  
Speaker 10    01:00:16    But Councilman, Uhrin, Cahill, you know, our office is still moving there and I know it might be, it may be on adjoining parcel. So it is gonna be our corporate head, our corporate, our corporate headquarters. So we do have, you know, obviously an interest in, in the maintenance of the property no matter who maintains it 'cause it's gonna be our corporate headquarters. So, okay.  
Speaker 9     01:00:40    Fair. If, if that's any  
Speaker 2     01:00:42    No, that's a fair no, it's a fair statement because yeah, you'll be there, you'll have to look at it every day.  
Speaker 9     01:00:50    Thank  
Speaker 1     01:00:53    So where do we going? What are we take we doing, is there any more discussion personally? What are we voting on? What's the proposal that we vote on the whole GDP? Is there an outside date for us to complete the GDP? Are we going to include a first phase goal of what, three years, four years? I'm, it's just seems so unclear as to what we're voting on.  
Speaker 0     01:01:19    Fair enough. Madam chair, maybe by by way of explanation, basically the, the GDP concept came about because developers that are going to do large projects ran the risk of the zoning changed while things were going through the process. And the GDP, you know, for, for big malls projects like this, over a thousand units, it allows them up to 20 years and it's the board's pleasure 5, 10, 7 and a half, 12, 13. Once the GDP, the general plan that's before you, the general plan is approved, the applicant is free that the township can't change the zoning in four years. And, and they're out of luck because their approval's only good for a certain amount of years, three years in some situations, two years and others. So it gives them long-term certainty 'cause they know the project's going to take longer.  
Speaker 0     01:02:26    But the board always is going to retain the, their duties, which are site plan. So when they go to build portions of it, I assume they're gonna come before the board. And for this phase one, this is how it's gonna be laid out. This is where the sidewalks are gonna be, the lighting plans, the landscaping plans, all the things you would normally see. And the board is going to hear the specifics of it as those matters come up. Whereas this is just, this is the general plan, this is what we want to do, here's our overall concept. And the board can approve the, the concept. Think of it that way you're approving the, the general plan and the concept. Understanding the applicant's going to come back before you for the specifics of it. And a lot of the questions that got asked will be dealt with that site plan and developer's agreement.  
Speaker 0     01:03:25    You have not seen the end of this. This is just the, this is the beginning. So that's why you heard 20 years. 'cause the statute says the longest it could possibly be is 20. But the board, after considering the evidence comes up with either what they feel is appropriate or can just say no, we're not going to approve a general development plan, deny it. And then the applicants kind of on their own to try and figure out how to proceed the standard. Just so the board's aware, the standard is, is there sufficient ev evidence to support a determination that the proposed general development plan would not have an unreasonably adverse impact, I adverse impact. So that's what you're looking at Does, does what I've heard so far, does it have an unreasonable adverse impact on the area? If it doesn't, then you get into the things of how long and any conditions or things they've agreed to during their two hearings, generally speaking. Ms. Elgar, you agree with agree with that?  
Speaker 9     01:04:34    I do.  
Speaker 0     01:04:34    Okay.  
Speaker 9     01:04:35    Very, very.  
Speaker 0     01:04:37    I, I and I, there's one issue I, I have to raise now just because it came up during the context of this hearing and it, and it affects this specifically, I'm not sure if Councilwoman Cahill, did you review the transcript of last month's meeting?  
Speaker 2     01:04:54    Not, no, not in full.  
Speaker 0     01:04:59    So we only have five members, Irena, right now, because of sickness being out of state, things of that nature beyond our control. And Laura was contacting me all day trying to figure out how many members we were gonna have. So it doesn't sound like Ms. Cahill has reviewed the whole transcript, so I don't think it's appropriate for her to vote. I only have four voting members.  
Speaker 9     01:05:23    Well, I mean, I guess I,  
Speaker 0     01:05:26    I'll put you on first. I, I don't know what else to tell you. We only have four voting members. I really  
Speaker 9     01:05:30    No, no, no. But I'm, I, I would think that I would be amenable to the fact that Ms. Cahill knows this project. She has reviewed portions of the July transcript. So I would waive that requirement. And I think that that requirement is something that the applicant can waive.  
Speaker 0     01:05:49    As long as we're on the record, I didn't want to,  
Speaker 9     01:05:52    I appreciate be  
Speaker 0     01:05:53    An issue, believe me, Ms. Cahills, other than the mayor, is probably as familiar as anyone about Right. Exactly. What's been going on there. So I, I don't have any issue with that. I just didn't want the record to, to be unclear  
Speaker 9     01:06:05    And I appreciate that. Okay.  
Speaker 1     01:06:08    With the approval of A GDP, would it be accompanied by a, an estimation of the first phase and the time when the first phase would be completed and an estimation of the, of the time period for the first phase to be completed and what it is like residential or, I think Ms. Arena mentioned several things. The town center,  
Speaker 0     01:06:33    They, they've outlined what the different phases are. Phase one, phase two that are, is part of the, the, the plan, and again, whatever the board's pleasure is, the board's pleasure, but within an approval potentially, or theoretically it could be a seven and a half year GDP timeframe with a phasing where 60% of the project must be completed within the first five years, hypothetically. That's something the board could do. And then the applicant would, would go through their phases and attempt to, you know, would comply with that. And if there are reasons beyond their control that they can't, the statute says they get to come back before the board and say, look, financing was an issue, or there was a covid pandemic or, you know, whatever else there might be that would, would allow them to ask for additional time. So that's what you that's what I would foresee an approval being.  
Speaker 7     01:07:34    Well, and I'm sorry, this is Dawn again. Just a quick question. I know at the prior hearing we had talked about a few other minor things, but I, things that I believe the applicant agreed to add to the plan, such as like the bedroom distribution, the clubhouse, as I believe Ron or Irena mentioned, I think the parking plan had to be revised. Is this the time and is this appropriate to tie those conditions to this approval if granted,  
Speaker 9     01:08:00    I, I would think for the most part, I guess we would have to go through the conditions, but I believe a lot of them had to do with, you know, just labeling the, the landscape buffer that we were gonna put between the townhouses and the single family. I find the two clubhouses, you know, I, I believe they were of the, of that kind of nature that it would be appropriate now. Correct. Okay. So  
Speaker 0     01:08:21    Yeah, I would think anything the applicant agreed to during the course of the three hearings now would be appropriate and a lot, and as Irene indicates, some of them are housekeeping or labeling. Correct. But they would certainly be part of anything they've agreed to would certainly be part of any general development plan approval.  
Speaker 11    01:08:44    And Mr. Barlow, just one more thing to add. I think last time we had raised that one of the requirement was dedicated by claims. It's understood that won't be able, they're providing a bike path, a multipurpose path, but it's not dedicated bike lane on the primary access road. So does that, you know, do we wanna factor in that as a variance right now? Or is that something during the site plan they'll be coming in for?  
Speaker 0     01:09:11    Again, I don't, I don't think, I think you said the word variance. We're not getting into variances right now. Okay. Or, or waivers or deviations. If that's something then there, I think, 'cause I think some of the testimony was there were county roads, Ron, or some of it be,  
Speaker 9     01:09:28    I think  
Speaker 0     01:09:29    Was untenable.  
Speaker 9     01:09:31    I think Betsy DOL was gonna look at it Yeah. And let know what existed now. And so we were going to then figure out what we could and could not comply with. Okay. So that certainly, you know,  
Speaker 6     01:09:45    To pertain to Kyle's Avenue.  
Speaker 0     01:09:49    So I think it's something that will be revisited as the, the correct. The plans get flushed out. I think everybody wants them. It's just a question of what's feasible.  
Speaker 11    01:10:01    Correct. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:10:04    So the mayor put forth a proposal of approval with a five year chair.  
Speaker 6     01:10:08    We got it open up to the public.  
Speaker 0     01:10:10    Yeah. Open to the public.  
Speaker 1     01:10:12    Okay. Well, let's open it to the public. Ms. Ms Barlow, I mean, Ms. Buckley, members of the public. You've heard our discussion. Would anyone in the public like to have, do they have any comments or questions at this time?  
Speaker 9     01:10:31    No. One Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     01:10:34    Okay. Close to the public. So the mayor's proposal was approval with a five year goal, seven  
Speaker 6     01:10:46    And a half years total,  
Speaker 9     01:10:48    Right? Yeah.  
Speaker 0     01:10:49    So yeah, again, I I'm just gonna try and condense it. Yep. The board members can correct me if, if the, the motion would be for a GDP approval for seven and a half years with a phasing plan, that 60% of it would be completed within 60% would be completed within, within the first five years, along with the all of the conditions the applicant had agreed to during the course of the three hearings. And that you outlined earlier. Dawn is,  
Speaker 7     01:11:25    And, and can I also state, I think it's important to mention that the only uses that are to be permitted in this development are those listed in the town center zoning ordinance. Just wanna have that on the record. Like, we don't wanna see them coming in for anything that's outside of those permitted uses. And I think they agreed to that. I think Ron did state that. Yeah. Okay.  
Speaker 0     01:11:46    Okay. So, so while I'm not on the board, I think I've outlined it. So Dawn, would you or someone else wants to make that application or make some different recommendation and then the, if there was a second the board can vote on.  
Speaker 1     01:12:01    Could you restate?  
Speaker 7     01:12:02    I, I I can make, I can, I can take, I can track. Okay. I have, okay. So as the chairwoman stated, seven and a half years phasing schedule, 60% done in five years, applicant will agree to add the bedroom distribution to the plans applicant will work with staff and the board as the project proceeds. You know, with regard to maybe the redesign of the public square, the applicant, I believe, had agreed to showing the off street loading locations. The parking plan needed to be revised. The Cub House needed to be labeled as did the buffering. And again, just the only uses to be permitted are those within the TC zone garnets  
Speaker 6     01:12:47    And I believe, I believe Dawn, also the bike lanes on Skiles.  
Speaker 7     01:12:53    Okay. Thank  
Speaker 6     01:12:54    You. The tie in to theirs  
Speaker 2     01:12:59    Madam chair. I'll make the motion that we Thank you. Give the GDP with the stipulations that Ms. Corcoran outlined.  
Speaker 1     01:13:07    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 0     01:13:09    I think that is the second Madam chair. I think Dawn made the motion and,  
Speaker 1     01:13:12    Okay.  
Speaker 0     01:13:13    Councilman Uhrin. Kale. Seconded.  
Speaker 1     01:13:14    All right, fine. Thank you. Roll. Well call Ms.  
Speaker 3     01:13:19    Mayor Wahler? Yes.  
Speaker 1     01:13:21    Mayor. Wahler. You have comments or are you calling the role?  
Speaker 3     01:13:25    I'm calling the role.  
Speaker 1     01:13:26    Okay. Go ahead.  
Speaker 3     01:13:27    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran?  
Speaker 7     01:13:32    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:13:33    Reverend Kinneally? Yes. And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:13:37    Yes. Okay. We have a GDP approval.  
Speaker 3     01:13:42    Thank you everybody. Have a good night. Have a good night for the rest of the summer. Hopefully almost over, almost over. One more meeting. Right?  
Speaker 1     01:13:52    Well enjoy every moment that we have left. Yes. And stay safe, everyone. Appreciate  
Speaker 3     01:13:57    It. Take care. Take care. Goodnight. Thanks. Madam chair number 14. Madam chair. Madam  
Speaker 1     01:14:03    Chair. Thank you. Someone else said.  
Speaker 11    01:14:06    Yeah. Madam chair, this is Mika. I think my associate Ron Reiners will be joining and I'll be jumping off. So just wanted to say that. Goodnight Mika. Oh, goodnight.  
Speaker 1     01:14:16    The record Reflect that Ms. Apti is leaving and being replaced by her associate.  
Speaker 11    01:14:24    Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair. Bye. Goodnight. Goodnight everyone.  
Speaker 1     01:14:27    Goodnight. Goodnight. Okay, item number 1424 PB zero four a GI for a deviation block 35 0 2 lots. L 1 0 3. Is that L one? Oh L? No. 1.03. Wait. Isight zone redevelopment.  
Speaker 13    01:14:51    Good evening. Everyone can, can you hear me? I just had a issue with the camera  
Speaker 1     01:14:57    So far. I hear you. I don't know if I see you.  
Speaker 13    01:15:00    You just can't see me. Sorry about that. So thank you Madam chair. My name is, I'm an attorney at Son Mc Ada. We're representing the applicant tonight. You, so we actually have three applications on, for three separate properties. We're here tonight to seek a deviation from the redevelopment plan to install address logos on the warehouse buildings. I have two witnesses tonight. I have Madison, who's my client. She'll go over the address logos and, and all the signage. And then we have a professional planner, Allison, tonight, to give the testimony to support the Devi.  
Speaker 0     01:15:37    Okay?  
Speaker 13    01:15:38    Okay.  
Speaker 0     01:15:39    Who will you wanna call first? John?  
Speaker 13    01:15:41    It would be, Madison would call she lady factual basis for the deviations.  
Speaker 0     01:15:47    Okay. Ms. Hedrick, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address, please.  
Speaker 14    01:15:55    Yep. It is Madison Hedrick, H-E-D-R-I-C-K. And it's 28 20 Crusader Circle, Virginia Beach, Virginia.  
Speaker 0     01:16:05    Okay. Raise your right hand. Swear the testimony you can give before this board will be the whole truth.  
Speaker 14    01:16:11    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 0     01:16:12    You're a witness, counselor.  
Speaker 13    01:16:13    Thank you Madison, we're gonna start with one 50 old New Brunswick Road. Could you give the board a little detail what the existing beside signages on the building?  
Speaker 14    01:16:26    I can, would it be easier if I shared my screen to show it?  
Speaker 1     01:16:30    Yes, it would.  
Speaker 13    01:16:31    Yes.  
Speaker 14    01:16:43    The first proposed sign is to, is a, it's prolog is Globe and Address numbers. Their globe is looking to be 22 foot six inches tall, but the address number is being 15 inches tall. There is a total of two of these signs being proposed on this building. Both are in, both are 18 square feet total. So the first one is being proposed on the same elevation as the Bob's discount furniture sign. And then the second is being proposed on an elevation without any tenant signage.  
Speaker 13    01:17:28    And could you tell the board what,  
Speaker 0     01:17:30    John, just for purposes of the record, the first photograph we will mark as a one and the second one that says, recommend the second one as a one is EO. Can you go back EO two in the upper left hand corner and A two, I believe had E oh three. Thank you.  
Speaker 13    01:17:57    And then could you provide the board with the total square footage of the existing signage as it is right now? I think it's all the Bob signs.  
Speaker 14    01:18:04    Yep. Existing square footage is one of the Bob Square foot, just 222 square feet. And then the second Bob sign is 124 for a total of 3 46.  
Speaker 13    01:18:21    And the, and the deviation comes into play because under the redevelopment plan, you can only have a maximum of 150 square feet. So it's already over for the Bob's signs. But we're adding the additional, as may, as Madison said, the additional approximately 18 square feet for these address logos. So that's one of the deviations. The other deviation is the number of signage. So it would be, we're adding the two address logos, which would be in addition to the permitted two signs already. Madison, could you go over the reason for the address logos?  
Speaker 14    01:18:54    Yeah. So the, the globe along with the address logos are pro's, kind of global brand. It makes it very easy for their drivers to find these warehouses quickly from just the, from the entrance road. And so they're really way finding signs along with address numbers for safety.  
Speaker 0     01:19:27    Hello? Did we get frozen? John Madison, do you have any other exhibits or that's it?  
Speaker 14    01:19:40    These are just, these are just the two elevations for the, the two proposed signage. That's all we have.  
Speaker 0     01:19:46    Okay. Could you unshare your screen? I just, just looking for where John went. Yeah, I don't think John is with us in the, I think John is no longer with us. It's not with us. Virtually don't have to wait for the attorney. Hmm.  
Speaker 3     01:20:18    Mr. Barlow, we had a few other residents come on after you made your initial announcements about l and r and Dini. So maybe you wanna tell them that they were both postponed one more time.  
Speaker 0     01:20:29    Certainly. I thank you. I didn't see anybody else. Check in if anyone is here for number 17 DE communications. There's 24 PBO two slash 12 V preliminary and final site plan. And both variances that matter is not going to be heard this evening. The re applicant's notice was defective. Hello?  
Speaker 3     01:20:57    John's  
Speaker 0     01:20:57    Here. Just hold on a second. John,  
Speaker 15    01:20:59    Can you hear Yes. Sorry about that.  
Speaker 0     01:21:02    The notice was defective. They will have to re-notice. You should get a new notice in the mail and if their notice is appropriate, they will be heard at the September 11th meeting. Eleanor properties, which is 24 PBO eight and oh nine was postponed at the applicant's request to September 11th. Their notices were in conformity with the statute. So you will not get any further notice if you're here for lan LRN properties, which is 60 Normandy Drive. And that will also be heard on September 11th, 2024. Thank you. And John, I guess you're back with us.  
Speaker 15    01:21:38    Yeah, I'm gonna do it. I don't know, my, my Zoom just kind of froze and it's not responding, so I'll do it over the phone. I, I guess we left off, I was asking Madison if she get explained to the board, explain why they use these address logos?  
Speaker 14    01:21:55    Yeah, so they Prologis uses these logos kind of as wayfinder signs for their drivers to identify their buildings from a distance since they put these logos in the address aisles on all of their buildings globally.  
Speaker 15    01:22:11    So, so it makes it easier for the driver when they're driving in with the semi to get to the building and recognize the building. So it's kind of a, a safety issue? Correct?  
Speaker 14    01:22:20    Yes.  
Speaker 15    01:22:22    Okay. So I don't know if I was cut off before, but I was basically going over the relief we were seeking. So with the two existing Bob signs on there, we were seeking a devi deviation to put these two address logo signs in there. We were also seeking a deviation from the development plan where they, the maximum signage they permit is 150 square feet. The Bob signs already put it over that maximum and we're only adding an additional 18 square feet with these address logos. So that's basically the, the signage and the relief we're seeking for the one 50 new Brunswick Avenue. Does the board have any questions for Madison at all?  
Speaker 1     01:23:12    Yeah, well, does the board have any questions for Ms. Hedrick?  
Speaker 16    01:23:21    I have one question, ma, ma'am. Okay. Madam chair Hedrick, this is Ron Reon the planner. If I'm, if I'm driving in this area and I'm just trying to find this address, will these address logos help me in my wayfind? They do rather than slowing my car down and I can see it.  
Speaker 14    01:23:39    Yes. So they're on the, they're on the corner near the entrance.  
Speaker 16    01:23:42    Okay. I just, you know, I just wanted to know that, you know, it helps us and, and it helps the public. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:23:50    Any other questions for members of the board? Okay, was this testimony only for one building? Do you have more testimony of, of Ms. Hendra?  
Speaker 0     01:24:00    Not for this application. I assume  
Speaker 15    01:24:03    Not for one 50, but I have testimony for the other two buildings from Well let's,  
Speaker 0     01:24:08    Let's keep them set. Let's, do  
Speaker 15    01:24:09    You want her  
Speaker 1     01:24:09    To go? Let's open it to, no. Should we do it all at one time, Mr. Barlow and open it to the public after all three  
Speaker 0     01:24:17    Building? No gentleman, let him finish his presentation. I believe he's gonna call Ms. Coffin to testify. Then you can, if anybody from the public has any questions.  
Speaker 1     01:24:28    Okay.  
Speaker 0     01:24:28    And then do each one separately, so.  
Speaker 15    01:24:32    Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, I would like to call Allison Coffin now our professional planner to provide testimony to justify the deviation.  
Speaker 0     01:24:41    Okay. Ms. Coffin, if you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address.  
Speaker 2     01:24:48    Sure. Allison Coffin. That's C-O-F-F-I-N. I work for James W. Higgins Associates. We're at 14 Tilton Drive in Ocean Township, New Jersey.  
Speaker 0     01:24:57    You raise your right hand. You swear the testimony given before this board will be the whole truth?  
Speaker 2     01:25:01    Yes, I do.  
Speaker 0     01:25:02    You're a witness, sir?  
Speaker 15    01:25:04    Yes. Hi, good evening. Allison. Could you go through your testimony to provide the board with, you know, e evidence of why or support of why the deviation is, you know, viable in this case?  
Speaker 0     01:25:20    John, you wanna qualifier as an expert first?  
Speaker 15    01:25:24    Sure. I didn't, sorry. Allison, could you provide your qualifications and whether you appeared before this board or not?  
Speaker 2     01:25:31    Sure. I have a bachelor's degree from Boston College. I'm a licensed planner by the licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. I've had my license and certification for almost two decades now. It appeared in front of boards in more than a hundred communities, a great many times in Piscataway, although I'm generally at your zoning board.  
Speaker 1     01:25:54    Thank you. She's acceptable. Thank you.  
Speaker 15    01:25:57    Thank you. Madam chair, do, can you provide some testimony to the board? Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:26:02    The property we're looking at at 150 old New Brunswick Road is a little over 40 acres. It's developed with a warehouse that's 622,000 square feet and it has frontages on old New Brunswick Road, Roma Boulevard, and to the north it, it backs up to the Conrail Port Reding railroad. The applicant is requesting deviations from the redevelopment zone plan to add two logo signs and a street address signs. And this requires relief or deviation from that plan for the number of wall signs and the total square footage of wall signs. The redevelopment plan does treat this sort of relief similar to the way the municipal land use law treats bulk variance c variances. So I'm gonna go through the c variance testimony for this. I believe this can be justified under the C two standard, which is justified when the, the variance it advances the purposes of the municipal land use law and the benefits outweigh the detriments.  
Speaker 2     01:27:00    It's my opinion that these signs advance the purposes of the municipal land use law. The primary purpose is to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. And the signs proposed advance this purpose by providing for clear identification of the building from the adjacent roadway systems for the tractor trailer drivers who are approaching the site. Providing that clear identification for the site and its uses promotes public safety by allowing drivers of the vehicles approaching the site to have adequate identification of their destination from the adjacent roadway system, which allows drivers to more readily identify their destination and navigate safely and quickly to the site. The benefits here outweigh the detriments. The primary benefit is promoting public safety through the safe identification of the site, which is a critical traffic control and safety measure for adults, industrial areas and uses. It's my opinion that there's no detriment to the public good that results from these variances.  
Speaker 2     01:27:54    These signs that are being added at 18 square feet are not significantly visually obstructive. They're, they're small in, they're probably the smallest that you need to provide this service. The signs are passive structures. They have no impact regarding traffic noise or odors. The only detriment you could have for a sign are aesthetics or safety. And here the signs are properly scaled to the structures in the site. They don't have a significant detrimental impact to aesthetics. And as far as safety, the signs promote safety. They're not located in a way that causes a visual obstruction or distraction. There's no illumination that would create glare to the roadway. So since it's my opinion that there's a significant benefit to public safety and no detriment to the public good, the benefits outweigh the detriments and approval of the variances would not impair the intent and purpose of your redevelopment plan.  
Speaker 1     01:28:48    Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:28:49    You're welcome.  
Speaker 1     01:28:52    Any more questions of this witness to  
Speaker 16    01:28:55    No, I just wanna ask one thing. Let me just get my camera open here. Actually, I, no, Ms. Kaufman, how are you? Okay, how are you? Oh, just, just great. I give my guard guards to Jim Higgins because I, I'm a substitute planner for him at Ocean A lot. Okay. Anyway, conflict planner. So basically it's not only for the, the truck drivers, but it's the public at whole Right? Right. Yes. In these signage and yes, the, would it be your professional opinion that, that these signage regulations are more to advertising rather than, like, this is more a way finding thing Absolutely. To address.  
Speaker 2     01:29:35    Absolutely. I mean, most of the sign is the address and the, the logo does allow people who are looking specifically the driver's looking specifically for the Prologis facility to find it quickly.  
Speaker 16    01:29:45    Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So just the general purpose that, that's what I don't want to get at the general purpose of a signage regulations are more for, for advertising logo. Yes. Like, you know, logo thing. This is not a logo thing. This is, no. Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 2     01:30:00    This is identification for drivers.  
Speaker 1     01:30:05    Any other questions of this witness? Okay. Do we have another witness for this particular application?  
Speaker 15    01:30:15    No, we do not.  
Speaker 1     01:30:18    Okay. So I can open it to the public now. Absolutely. Members of the public, you've heard two witnesses regarding this application. Does anyone in the public have any questions of either of these two witnesses?  
Speaker 3     01:30:35    No. Madam chair.  
Speaker 1     01:30:36    Thank you. Close to the public. We gonna get an approval now or should we move on to the second application? Mr. Barley? No, no.  
Speaker 16    01:30:46    We should vote on this application.  
Speaker 1     01:30:48    Madam chair. Okay. Thank you. Members of the board, do you  
Speaker 2     01:30:53    Have Madam chair? I'll make a motion that we approve the variation for application 24 P PB zero four for the additional square footage that they need for the signage.  
Speaker 1     01:31:07    Thank you. Do I have a second?  
Speaker 4     01:31:09    We Madam chair Reverend Kinneally. Second.  
Speaker 1     01:31:12    Thank you.  
Speaker 15    01:31:13    Excuse me. We also need it for that number of signs.  
Speaker 1     01:31:18    There's an amendment motion  
Speaker 2     01:31:19    Is also for the number of signs and the square footage. Thank you, madam. That  
Speaker 16    01:31:23    Would be correct. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:31:24    Okay. Thank you Mr. Reverend Kinneally. You approve it as amended?  
Speaker 4     01:31:30    Yes as amended for square footage and the additional, additional two signs. So I approve.  
Speaker 1     01:31:37    Thank you. Roll call please. Mayor  
Speaker 3     01:31:39    Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     01:31:45    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:31:46    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:31:48    Yes. Yes. You didn't hear me? Okay. You can proceed with your second application. Let me make, let me make the, my printer printed it out. And, okay. Application number two deviation is 15 is 24 PB oh five A GI deviation for block 35 0 2 lot 6.02.  
Speaker 15    01:32:23    Thank you Madam chair. Once again, my name is John Reell. I'm an attorney at Sonama Lata. We're here representing the applicant on this matter. The address is 1570 South Washington Avenue. The applicant is seeking to install four address logos on this warehouse building. Once again, I got my two witnesses. If we can get Madison up, we can swear her in and move this along.  
Speaker 0     01:32:50    Okay. Ms. Hedrick, you understand you're still under oath and you haven't moved since last time I asked you what your address was?  
Speaker 14    01:32:58    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:33:00    You're still under oath. You're witness, John.  
Speaker 15    01:33:03    Thank you. Madison, could you provide the board with a little explanation of what we're proposing to install at this property?  
Speaker 14    01:33:11    I can at 1570 South Washington Avenue. I'm gonna pull up the photos for you all. Do you need to make these into exhibits as well?  
Speaker 0     01:33:23    Yep. So A one will be the one that has E oh three in the top left hand corner.  
Speaker 14    01:33:29    There are four total.  
Speaker 0     01:33:31    Okay,  
Speaker 14    01:33:32    I'm sorry.  
Speaker 0     01:33:34    No problem.  
Speaker 14    01:33:38    All four signs are looking to be about around 12 square foot each with the globes being 36 inches and numbers being 15, all four are placed strategically for driver visibility While done, while trying to locate the buildings. This is the first one which was indicated as a one. This is the second sign being proposed, which is a two, the third sign being proposed, which is, which will be noted as a three. And the fourth and final sign being proposed, which will be noted as a four. All are replacing existing number address numbers on the building.  
Speaker 15    01:34:34    Okay. Thank you Madison. I have no further questions on this one.  
Speaker 0     01:34:39    So, so just to be clear, there's no issue as to the square footage. You're just seeking four signs where two are required?  
Speaker 15    01:34:44    No, it's, yes, it's, it is, it's about number for deviations. Yep.  
Speaker 1     01:34:53    Okay. You may call your next  
Speaker 14    01:34:56    Madam  
Speaker 2     01:34:56    Chair if I could, could, could I just, I apologize. Madison could, or Ms. Hedrick, could you put that back up again? So, but it, the signed proposals are all for existing locations of numbers on the buildings already, or there were additional two. I just wanna make sure all four are where there are existing numbers. Okay, thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:35:27    Any more questions of this witness? Members of the board? Okay. You may proceed with your next witness.  
Speaker 15    01:35:33    All right, Allison.  
Speaker 0     01:35:35    Okay, Ms. Coffin, I also just wanna remind you, you're under oath. I presume your qualifications remain unchanged and you still work for Mr. Higgins?  
Speaker 2     01:35:43    That's correct.  
Speaker 0     01:35:44    Okay. You're a witness.  
Speaker 15    01:35:47    Thank you. Allison, could you provide the board with a de detailed explanation of to support the deviation on this, on this for this property? Sure.  
Speaker 2     01:35:57    So this property is 1570 South Washington Avenue. It's a 21 acre site that's developed with a 216,000 square foot warehouse building. It's got at, at the intersection of Centennial and South Washington Avenues, and also has frontage on a road called Access Road. And the sign the signs require deviations from the redevelopment zone for the number of wall signs where we're proposing four and two are permitted. As with the previous application, these signs can be granted under what's similar to the C two variance. They advance the purpose of the municipal land use law with regard to promoting public safety. They allow for drivers to have a quick and easy identification of this property, which is a public safety benefit. There's no detriment. The signs, again, are still passive structures. They are not gonna create an aesthetic problem. They're spread out on different corners of the building. They cause no visual obstruction or distraction, and therefore the benefits of these variances or deviations outweigh the detriments and they do not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the redevelopment plan. Again, the signage ordinance, as Mr. Reine pointed out with the previous application, addresses more advertising style signages. And these are way finding signs and, and as such, they would not having four of them would not impede your redevelopment plan.  
Speaker 15    01:37:29    Okay. Thank you Allison. I, I have no further questions.  
Speaker 1     01:37:33    Are there any other questions of either of these two witnesses from the board?  
Speaker 16    01:37:36    Can I get one clarification? Are we over the 150 square feet cumulative? The no one?  
Speaker 2     01:37:44    We're not. You're okay? Yep.  
Speaker 16    01:37:47    All right. Thank you. Thank  
Speaker 1     01:37:48    You. Thank you honor. Any other member? Any other questions from the board? Okay. I'm going to open it to the members of the public. Members of the public. If you have any questions Of the two witnesses that you heard on this application, would you indicate by raising your hand  
Speaker 3     01:38:07    No. And Madam chair  
Speaker 1     01:38:10    Closed to the public. Okay. Members of the board, do you have any questions or would you like to make a a, a  
Speaker 2     01:38:19    Madam chair? This is Councilwoman Cahill. I'd make a motion that we approve appli. Okay. Let me make sure I say right. Application 24 PB zero five for the replacement of the number signs for the Prologis sign with number as a wayfinder sign. And that, you know, honestly, Mr. Barlow, I'm not sure since their existing new number signs. I mean, is it just the square footage or is it the number of signs as it was in the last application?  
Speaker 0     01:38:53    The only relief they're seeking is the deviation for four signs where two are allowed under the  
Speaker 2     01:38:59    Redevelopment. So that, that would be my proposals that we accept and grant that variance for the four signs.  
Speaker 1     01:39:07    Do I have a second?  
Speaker 4     01:39:10    Kevin Kinneally? I'll second that.  
Speaker 1     01:39:12    Thank you. Roll call.  
Speaker 3     01:39:14    Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 1     01:39:21    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:39:22    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:39:24    Yes. Item number 1524 PB zero five A GI deviation blocks 35 0 2 6 0.02.  
Speaker 15    01:39:39    Thank you. Madam chair once again, John Rencher from, so Lake Maryland, ADA representing the applicant in this matter. This is 600 Ridge Ridge Road. We're seeking a deviation from the redevelopment plan to add two address logos. But there's also the issue that the maximum height of the, the signage can only be 35 feet above grade, where one sign is 37 feet, one inch and a quarter above grade. And the other sign is 38 feet, one inch and one half inches above grade. So that we're, we're seeking two deviations here for the number of signage and the height of the signs. Once again, I have the two witnesses that I'd like to present.  
Speaker 1     01:40:31    Okay.  
Speaker 15    01:40:32    If we could get Madison back up.  
Speaker 0     01:40:35    Ms. Hedrick, again, I just remind you, you're still under oath and I assume everything else has remained the same.  
Speaker 2     01:40:42    You are correct.  
Speaker 0     01:40:44    All right. You're witness.  
Speaker 15    01:40:46    So Madison, just once again, can you detail the, the proposed signage that we're proposing for this property? The two address logo signs, and also, I guess confirm the, the height of each sign?  
Speaker 14    01:41:01    Yep. So there are two address logo signs being proposed on this building, both with the globe being 36 inches and the numbers being 18. Each address sign is roughly 13.8 square feet, adding a total of around 27 square feet of signage to the building. The the, the first one, E oh one we will notate is a one which is shown here. And then on the next page is our elevations showing where the sign is from grade to top of sign. It is 37 feet, one and a quarter inch. And then on the second sign, which we will notate as a two, same idea, 36 inch globe with 18 inch numbers adding roughly 13.8 square feet of signage. And this is the elevation showing that from top of sign to grade is 38 feet, one and a half inch.  
Speaker 0     01:42:14    I don't think this picture changed Madison unless I'm IE oh one is the first one.  
Speaker 14    01:42:23    Oh, it didn't share. Yep. I can try and re-share it. I apologize. We changing screens now.  
Speaker 0     01:42:39    Okay. There's the height 37 and one and one quarter inch.  
Speaker 14    01:42:43    Yep. This will, this is the first sign, 37 1 and a quarter inch from grade to top of sign. And then the second proposed sign is 38. One and a half inch from grade to top of sign.  
Speaker 15    01:43:15    Yep.  
Speaker 0     01:43:16    Just Madison, real quick, the, the height at which this is going, is that the height at where the existing address is?  
Speaker 14    01:43:26    Yes, it is. It's it's centered. It's, it's centered in the same location. Just knowing that these are slightly larger than the existing.  
Speaker 0     01:43:35    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 15    01:43:42    I I have no further questions.  
Speaker 1     01:43:46    Thank you. You, you can question then  
Speaker 0     01:43:54    Wanna unshare Ms. Hedrick?  
Speaker 1     01:43:58    Thank you  
Speaker 0     01:44:01    Ms. Coffin, are you up? I guess  
Speaker 2     01:44:03    Think so. Yes.  
Speaker 15    01:44:05    You're,  
Speaker 0     01:44:06    I remind you you're still under oath. Your qualifications and everything else remains the same. Correct. Still  
Speaker 2     01:44:10    Licensed. Perfect.  
Speaker 0     01:44:12    I'd, I'd hate to think there was a nine o'clock cancellation.  
Speaker 1     01:44:15    Nope. Yeah,  
Speaker 2     01:44:17    I have till midnight until I turn back to a pumpkin  
Speaker 0     01:44:21    Cheer witness, sir.  
Speaker 15    01:44:23    Thank you. Alright, Allison, last one. Yep. Just give the board the detail to support the, the deviation from the redevelopment plan. Yep.  
Speaker 2     01:44:33    Yeah. We're, we're looking at 600 Ridge Road. This is a property that is developed with a warehouse and the applicant is requesting deviations from the redevelopment plan to have two wall signs on a facade where one is permitted and to have signs heights that exceed 35 feet. My testimony may sound familiar to the board, it could be granted under what is similar to the C two variance that it advances the purposes of the municipal land use law with regard to promoting public safety. And that these signs provide for clear identification of the buildings for the adjacent roadway systems for large tractor trailers and passenger cars that are approaching the site. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the primary benefit being the advancement of public safety. And again, there's no detriment that results from these signs. There are passive structures, they're not going to have any harm to aesthetics or safety.  
Speaker 2     01:45:29    It's a little different from the other two in that we have a height variance. But in this case, the height is consistent with what's already on the building and is properly, the sides are properly located on the building structure to provide the, the benefit that they need to in terms of identification. And as there is significant benefit to public safety and no detriment to the public good that results from these deviations, the benefits outweigh the detriments. And these deviations would not impair the intent of the redevelopment plan as these are way finding signs. They're small in scale and, and they do not impede the larger intent of controlling larger advertising signs on the structures.  
Speaker 15    01:46:14    Thank you, Allison. You're welcome. I have no, no further questions.  
Speaker 1     01:46:19    Board members, do you have any questions of these two witnesses?  
Speaker 16    01:46:23    Madam chair? I have, it's actually, I have one question for Ms. Corcoran.  
Speaker 1     01:46:28    Go  
Speaker 16    01:46:28    Ahead. Yeah, Dawn, because this is an older plan, are we in agreement that the, it it, the two deviations that were outlined by our planner is what's needed? 'cause I had raised some issues in my letter and if, if you're satisfied with those two deviations, then everything else is settled.  
Speaker 1     01:46:48    I am satisfied.  
Speaker 7     01:46:48    Satisfied. Unless again, you see something that  
Speaker 16    01:46:51    No, no, no. There there was some, there was some weird definitions about monument signs and such. And really I, I'm, I'm satisfied with the, with the testimony here that they need two deviations and the rest is, is satisfied with this testimony.  
Speaker 7     01:47:06    Okay. Perfect.  
Speaker 16    01:47:07    Okay. Thank you.  
Speaker 7     01:47:08    Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:47:11    Any more questions? Okay. I'm going to open it up to the public now. Members of the public, if you have any questions of this witness, would you indicate by raising your hand on the screen?  
Speaker 3     01:47:24    No. Madam chair  
Speaker 1     01:47:25    Closed to the public. Do you have any summation on your three applications? No. This is, we're just gonna approve this last application. Do you have any summary on this application?  
Speaker 15    01:47:40    No, I'm good. Madam chair. Thank you. It's been a long night.  
Speaker 1     01:47:43    Yes. Board members, what's your pleasure,  
Speaker 2     01:47:48    Madam chair. I'll make a motion that we approve application 24 PB zero six for the two deviations, which include the height and the number of the signs. Did I get that correct Mr. Barlow? Okay. Hit a home  
Speaker 0     01:48:02    Run.  
Speaker 16    01:48:02    Thank you. Yes. No, we, we are, we're in concurrent  
Speaker 3     01:48:05    Third time's a chirp.  
Speaker 1     01:48:08    Second. Do I get a second?  
Speaker 4     01:48:10    Reverend Kinneally? I'll second it.  
Speaker 1     01:48:11    Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 3     01:48:13    Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?  
Speaker 4     01:48:20    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:48:21    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:48:22    Yes. Thank you. We've completed those three applications, I believe.  
Speaker 15    01:48:29    I'd like to thank everybody and everyone have a good evening.  
Speaker 3     01:48:32    You too. Thank you. You're quite welcome.  
Speaker 4     01:48:34    Thank you. And goodnight. Thank you.  
Speaker 1     01:48:37    Item number 19, discussion to authorize foresight. Planning to conduct an area in need of re redevelopment study for blocks 73 0 5 lot 19.01. 20 and 21  
Speaker 0     01:48:53    Madam chair. The counsel has asked that we undertake a preliminary investigation for those properties. And in order to do so, we will need to retain the services of the planner and we would discuss to authorize foresight planning to do so. The board has any questions?  
Speaker 1     01:49:20    Do you have any questions? Board members hearing no questions. This is not a matter that we have to present to the public.  
Speaker 0     01:49:31    Correct.  
Speaker 1     01:49:34    Do I have a motion, please?  
Speaker 7     01:49:37    I'll make that motion. Dawn Corcoran.  
Speaker 2     01:49:40    Madam chair. I'll second that. Councilwoman.  
Speaker 1     01:49:42    Thank you. Roll, roll call.  
Speaker 3     01:49:45    Mayor. Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     01:49:53    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:49:54    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:49:56    Yes.  
Speaker 0     01:49:56    And Madam chair prepared a resolution in the anticipation that the board might act favorably if the board would like to adopt said resolution.  
Speaker 4     01:50:09    Madam chair. Madam chair. Reverend Kinneally. I'd like to adopt a resolution for, for this river CRE and Orchard Street. That's 51 60 and 51 70.  
Speaker 1     01:50:25    Thank you. Do we have a second?  
Speaker 3     01:50:28    I'll second that. Councilman.  
Speaker 1     01:50:29    Uhrin. Cahill. Thank you. Roll call please.  
Speaker 3     01:50:32    Mayor. Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.  
Speaker 4     01:50:40    Yes.  
Speaker 3     01:50:40    And Madam chair?  
Speaker 1     01:50:42    Yes. Item number 20. Motion for adjournment.  
Speaker 3     01:50:52    So moved.  
Speaker 1     01:50:54    Thank you. I don't even think we need a second. We're all out anyway.  
Speaker 3     01:50:57    All in favor  
Speaker 1     01:51:00    Or  
Speaker 0     01:51:01    Adjourn? Mint. As long  
Speaker 1     01:51:03    Adjournment.  
Speaker 3     01:51:05    Yes. I saw that in September.  
Speaker 1     01:51:07    Everybody see you in September. Everybody have a September? Wonderful. End of summer. Enjoy  
Speaker 0     01:51:11    The rest of your summer.  
Speaker 3     01:51:13    Everyone.  
Speaker 1     01:51:14    Everyone. Goodnight. Everybody. Goodnight. All. Thank you all. All right.