Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on October 9 2024
Transcript generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Use the audio player to verify any passage.
Oct 9 2024 · Planning
0:00
–:––
Speaker 0This is George. All, all systems are a go here.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 2Thank you. All right. Madam chair. We're ready.
Speaker 1The Piscataway Township planning board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Courier News and the star ledger. Ms. Buckley, would you please call the role?
Speaker 2Yes. Mayor. Wahler is here. Councilwoman Cahill. Here. Ms. Corcoran? Here. Ms. Saunders? Here. Reverend Kinneally? Here. Mr. Atkins? Here. Mr. Foster? Here. Mr. Ahmed Madam. chair. Here. Checking in. Madam chair.
Speaker 1Okay. Mr. Mayor, I
Speaker 2Wasn't lying.
Speaker 1Mr. Barlow, would you read the open public meeting Notice please?
Speaker 3Certainly. Madam chair, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided as required under Chapter 2 31, public Law 1975. This meeting is being done through an online meeting platform. In keeping with the guidelines that have been disseminated by the Department of Community Affairs, the planning board has tried its best to comply with the Open Public Meeting Act. There will be public comment periods for all attendees. Each member of the public shall have only one opportunity to speak during each public portion. As technology does not allow us to know if there are multiple callers on an individual phone line or logged in user account. We ask that if you wish to speak, you log in or dial in separately so that we can recognize you as a separate individual. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand on the Zoom app, or if you have called in on the phone, press nine to unmute. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be called Upon either by name or phone number. Please speak at this time, you'll be asked your name and address and you'll be sworn in prior to your question or comment. Thank you. Madam chair? Yes,
Speaker 1You're welcome. The American flag can be seen over my right shoulder. Can we all recite the pledge of Allegiance together? I pledge allegiance. Allegiance to the flag. The flag of the United States of America, United America, and to the Republic for WI stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty, with liberty and justice for all. Can we have the swearing in of the professionals? Please?
Speaker 2Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you're about
Speaker 4To give to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 5Madam chair, I think Ron was having issues with his audio. He left, but I'm sure he is trying to rejoin.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 3He's in the group chat indicating he had an audio issue.
Speaker 2I just saw that. Okay.
Speaker 3Okay.
Speaker 2Sorry, Ron.
Speaker 1He'll let us know when he gets in. Okay.
Speaker 3There he is. All right. His audio.
Speaker 1Ron, can you hear us?
Speaker 0Oh, I, I I can hear you now. I rebooted. Sorry about that. We, we can hear
Speaker 2You. You also
Speaker 1Okay. We can hear you. Okay.
Speaker 3Miss Ms. sas gonna try and swear you in again.
Speaker 4Okay? Can you please raise your right hand? Ron? Do you swear that the testimony you about to give be the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 0I do.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you. Do we have any changes to our agenda tonight?
Speaker 3Madam chair, the only change, and I know Ms. Buckley had disseminated the agenda earlier today, just in case if, if everybody didn't get it in terms of the hearings this evening, T-Mobile is scheduled to go first, then the Greek Orthodox community of New Brunswick next. And then third, in terms of the hearing, the Clawson urban renewal. But other than that, all the matters that had previously been on the agenda are still on Madam chair.
Speaker 1Okay. That's fine. All right, then we'll proceed with item number eight. Oh, no. Well, with item number seven, can I have a motion to pay the dually audited bills?
Speaker 4Madam Chairman, this is Carol sas. I make a motion to pay the bills.
Speaker 1You have a second,
Speaker 0Reverend Kinneally. I'll second it.
Speaker 1Thank you. Roll call
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler Council. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally?
Speaker 0Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?
Speaker 1Yes. Eight. Number eight, adoption of resolution to memorialize action. Taken on September 11th, 2024.
Speaker 4Madam Chairman Carol Saunders, adoption of resolution to memorialize the action taken at the September 11th, 2024 meeting.
Speaker 1Well, isn't, are there two or was there three?
Speaker 2We need a second. I'll second that. Councilwoman. Cahill.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 3The re just so I can be clear, it's the resolution to grant the three month extension as the Oh,
Speaker 1Okay. Oh, that's a three month. I thought there was 3 21
Speaker 3PB 40 41 that the board approved at the last meeting. And were memorializing the resolution for the extension.
Speaker 1Okay. That's included in the motion. And that's included in the second, correct. Okay.
Speaker 2Roll call. Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.
Speaker 0Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?
Speaker 1Yes. Item number nine, adoption of the minutes from regular meeting. September the 11th, 2024. Okay.
Speaker 4Madam chair, Carol Saunders. I'd like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of September 11th, 2024.
Speaker 1Do I have a second?
Speaker 2Reverend Kinneally? I'll second it.
Speaker 1Thank you. Roll call.
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.
Speaker 0Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair? Yes.
Speaker 1Item number 10 24 PB zero three T-Mobile Northeast, LLC. Preliminary and final site plan. Mr. Edward Purcell. Mr. Purcell, would you turn your mike on?
Speaker 6Thank you very much. Madam chair. My name is Lercel with Price. Meet Schulman in Dario behalf here tonight on behalf of, on behalf of T-Mobile, Northeast, LLC, with respect to pit property at 1551 South Washington Avenue. It's Flock 53 0 1 lot 14.04. Essentially what we're asking tonight is for minor site plan approval. But before I get into that, Mr. Barlow, are we all set up with our notice?
Speaker 3You are. You can proceed, Mr. Purcell. It's been adequate. Thank you.
Speaker 0Can I interrupt? Ms.
Speaker 1Ms.
Speaker 0Francisco? Hit a grand slam home. Run the Mets her ahead.
Speaker 1Yay. Okay. We can proceed.
Speaker 6That's good news. I thought it was something I I did. Yankee
Speaker 3Fans don't care.
Speaker 1Was
Speaker 2Still zero. Zero.
Speaker 1I care. That's okay. I care.
Speaker 6So, as I mentioned a moment, moment ago, this is an application for minor site plan approval. The subject use to place antennas onto a, an approved, but yet, yet to be built warehouse is permitted in the subject redevelopment plan. And basically the history of this site is that right now there's an office on the property, which is gonna be demolished shortly in a place with a warehouse. And on that office, at and t I'm sorry, T-Mobile was approved to place antennas. And when the office is getting demolished, obviously that's no longer an option. So we did have a, an approval, we do have an approval for a temporary tower on the site, but ultimately our permanent location is gonna be back onto the warehouse where the office is currently located. And that's where we will be placing these antennas on a, on a permanent basis. So I'll try to keep it very brief tonight. I have engineering testimony, some RF testimony just for a ME compliance, health and safety compliance, and just very little bit of pending testimony. So with that, I'll just call Mr. Josh Catrell. He's our engineer. Josh, can you hear me?
Speaker 7Yes, I'm here.
Speaker 6Okay. Josh, can you, well, actually, can you, anything you do sworn in.
Speaker 4Josh, can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony about the give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 7I do.
Speaker 4Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
Speaker 7Sure. It's Joshua Cottrell. C-O-T-T-R-E-L-L.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 6Josh, can you just go over your qualifications and experience?
Speaker 7Sure. I have a bachelor's in Science in civil Engineering that just changed university. I've been practicing for over 20 years now. I do hold a valid license in the state of a valid engineering license in the state of New Jersey. I've testified numerous. I'm on as
Speaker 6A panelist now. I was on, that's the wrong, the wrong set
Speaker 7Before numerous awards in the state of New Jersey.
Speaker 6Okay. Madam chair, when I, I'd ask that Mr. Rell be accepted as an expert in engineering,
Speaker 1He's acceptable.
Speaker 6Okay. Mr. Catrell, you prepared the plans that were submitted to the board that are dated January 22nd, 2024, and last revised September 19th, 2024. Is that correct?
Speaker 7That is correct.
Speaker 6Did you review the arrow on the plans and kind of go over the surrounding areas? Orient the board?
Speaker 7Sure. Am I sharing my screen here or?
Speaker 6Yeah, you
Speaker 1Can share your, yeah, you can share your screen.
Speaker 3Mr. Purcell, any exhibits that he puts up, and I know you had previously submitted them to Ms. Buckley, we'll just mark them as a one, A two and, and go through that
Speaker 6Way. Sure. The, these are, these are the plans. This is an ariel that was included in the plans, but I, when we get to exhibits, that's how we'll mark 'em. Yep.
Speaker 7Okay. So I'm just looking at the second, second sheet in the site plan set, it's a existing conditions plan. SP one, this is just an aerial of depicting existing conditions. You can see the existing seven story office building that's slated to be demolished to the west of the site is South Washington Avenue, running up and down. The plan to the south is interstate 2 87. Running left to right to the east is a storage facility to the northeast. To the southeast is a residential area with, with a little frontage on new Brun Brunswick Avenue. And to the north of the site is other, I believe it's a warehouse. But in the north west corner up here, you can see the, where the proposed temporary facility was approved. And I believe it has been installed just not on air quite yet.
Speaker 6And how large is the property?
Speaker 7The property is 10.18 acres.
Speaker 6And what's the height of the antennas on the existing building
Speaker 7Height of the antennas on the existing building? I believe the antennas had been removed,
Speaker 6I guess what height they were at when they were there.
Speaker 7Existing antennas, quite frankly, I don't remember.
Speaker 6I think the center at you can can tell me this is correct. Is the center line 56.9 feet where the antennas that were on the building?
Speaker 7That sounds correct, yes.
Speaker 6Okay. All right. And what, how, what's the access to the property?
Speaker 7Access is off of South Washington Avenue. I'll go back to the area. So access is off South Washington Avenue here. There's an access road that leads into the site.
Speaker 6Okay. And what's the, what's the purpose of the permanent location that's being proposed to be placed on the,
Speaker 7Just, just to maintain the coverage that it had. One, the antennas were on the seven story office building.
Speaker 6Okay. Now, what exactly is T-Mobile proposing?
Speaker 7Sure. I'm just gonna go to, I'm gonna go to sheet. Let's go to sheet SP two, which is the proposed site plan. SP two is the property with the new proposed warehouse building on it. So what T-Mobile is proposing to do is install antenna sectors at three of the corners at the northeast corner, southeast corner, southwest corner, and then to install ground-based equipment on the northwest property right against the building. So that'll be the, the equipment will be at grade. Just moving to sheet a dash zero two, which has enlarged antenna sector views. So you can see the three antenna sectors. Each sector's gonna have four antennas installed on a steel sector frame. Each sector is gonna be partially screened by radio frequency transparent paneling. The paneling is gonna be designed to match the building facade. And we have photo sims to show in a little bit of that.
Speaker 6Just before we get there, what's, what's the roof parapet height of the warehouse?
Speaker 7So the parapet height varies. The top of the roof deck I have at, from the architectural drawings at 45 feet, four inches. The parapet, let's see, just doesn't have the parapet height, but it's essentially, well, let's see. So this is 57. It's about 49 feet. It varies. It's the tallest para pit is, I believe, six feet. So it's around 50 feet. Okay.
Speaker 6Okay. And the antennas will be, the top of the antennas that are being proposed will be at 61 feet, is that right?
Speaker 7Top antennas will be at 61 feet, correct. And the screening will go to the midpoint of the antennas, which is at 57 feet above grade. Okay.
Speaker 6So Josh, let's pull up the photos. S we'll mark these as exhibit A A one.
Speaker 7Sure.
Speaker 6And they're gonna be qualified by Mr. Cronk or a planner when he provides his testimony. That's fine. A one for the location. Yep.
Speaker 7There you go.
Speaker 6B.
Speaker 7Okay. So I'm just gonna show the aerial. So photo one I'm gonna show is at the southeast corner. Photo two is at the northeast corner. Photo three is at the southwest corner. And photo four is at the northwest corner right in front of the equipment. So let's go to photo one. As you can see, photo, the, the photos aren't, aren't actual photos. They're the, the building's not constructed yet. So they're the actual architectural renderings that were used. And then you can see in the top left corner here, we added to these a architectural renderings, the antenna sectors. So you can kind of see the, the rectangular box is the screening, and the top half of the antenna is protruding above those. So that's the southwest corner, looking at the northeast corner. Very similar installation. And then the last corner, again, very similar installation. And then you can see in the last photo rendering the equipment. This is propo, this is, there's a loading docks proposed for the warehouse. There's some access doors on this side. In between you can see the T-Mobile equipment at the ground. So I can kind of describe that equipment. It's gonna be a generator, two equipment cabinets installed on a four by 20 concrete pad within a, I believe it's a, well, let me go to the plan, back to the plan.
Speaker 7So it is a 10 by 25 foot fence enclosure with a four by 20 pad, 50 KW generator, two equipment cabinets, and then a unistrut rack with the electrical cabinets and the fiber cabinets with the utilities. Okay.
Speaker 6And the fencing, what, how tight, how how high will the fence be?
Speaker 7It's gonna be a six foot high chain length fence.
Speaker 6Okay. Then we'll, we'll talk about, talk about the coloring of the fence in a little bit once we go over the reports. Does the applicant propose landscaping?
Speaker 7So T-Mobile is not proposing landscaping, however, the developer of the, of the property is proposing substantial landscaping in this area. We do have a, let me find the exhibit we have that shows up. I believe it's the A two. So this is plans for the overall development prepared by bowler engineering. This plan is last revised August 1st, 2024. And the, and
Speaker 6We mark that as exhibit, just for the record. We'll mark that as exhibit eight two.
Speaker 7Right. And the, and it's, it's, the plan is called
Speaker 3Ed, ed. Just to be clear, we're on a six each one of the photographs. I'm, it should be marked separately.
Speaker 6Oh, you marked. Okay.
Speaker 3Okay. So a one was the aerial photograph and then 2, 3, 4, and five are, the pictures are numbered. 1, 2, 3, and four. And then this would be a six.
Speaker 6Okay. All right. We can do it that way. All right. So we'll mark this exhibit A, A six. Yep.
Speaker 7So the, the only modification we made this to this plan is we color the T-Mobile equipment area in red. So you can see the substantial, I believe these are spruce trees, the larger and then shrubs in between. And that that'll block the view from the approach from South Washington Ave.
Speaker 6Okay. All. All right. And then with respect to just going pull, pulling back a little bit, are there any utilities on the property that will impact the installation?
Speaker 7That No, no. We will not be impacting any utilities.
Speaker 6Okay.
Speaker 7We, we will, can you just talk, the only utilities we're gonna need is electric and fiber line. So
Speaker 6Can you just go over, you know, the site being unmanned, how often it's visited, that type of stuff?
Speaker 7So yeah, so it's an, it's a unmanned facility remotely monitored. A cell technician will visit the site once every four to six weeks just for a routine maintenance diagnostics. And he'll usually shows up in a SUV type vehicle. He'll use existing parking on the site. As I said, the only utilities we need are electric and, and fiber, since it is unmanned, there's no garbage recycling. There is a generator that we are proposing for extended power outages that will be exercised once about every two weeks for about 30 minutes. And that'll, it'll be exercised during the weekday business hours. So it won't be exercised at nighttime. We will are proposing a work light on the equipment. But that is, again, just in case a cell technician does need to visit the site at night, the, the, the lighting will be provided with a timer switch. So basically he will come on, it's usually a two or four hour timer. And when he leaves the site and forgets to shut the, shut the light off, the light won't stay on indefinitely. So.
Speaker 6Okay. And what about parking spaces?
Speaker 7We're not proposing any new existing will be used for the self technician or it's, when I say existing, I mean proposed by others. Right,
Speaker 6Right. Will there be any trees removed from the property?
Speaker 7No. No.
Speaker 6Okay. And then could you go over the, the process for placing the applicant's facilities on the existing building? Sure. From the 10 tower.
Speaker 7So as we, you know, as we mentioned, there is a tent tower on site that's, that should be on air soon if it's not already. So that'll allow the building now to be demolished. So the building will be demolished. Site improvements will go, once the new warehouse building is constructed, T-Mobile will install their new antennas on the new structure. When those antennas are, are up and running and on air, the existing facility will then be removed.
Speaker 6Okay.
Speaker 7The existing temporary facility. Alright.
Speaker 6Have you re reviewed the joint engineering and planning report dated August 19th, 2024, last revised September 30th, 2024?
Speaker 7I have,
Speaker 6And I know we're gonna take apart, we're we're gonna, we're gonna set aside site impact number two with respect to the coating for the fencing. 'cause we're gonna talk about that a little bit with the other planning report. But taking that one aside, are there any other comments that you need to make with respect to that report? Or have we covered them?
Speaker 7No, I, I think we covered them. Yeah, no, I don't have any more comments. Okay.
Speaker 6Have you reviewed the CME planning report dated October 4th, 2024?
Speaker 7I have.
Speaker 6Okay. So let's just go over the comments and recommendations.
Speaker 7Okay.
Speaker 6So comment number one is just the goes over boost for variances. So we're not gonna have to talk about that. Comments 2, 3, 4, 5, and six deal with changes to the plans based on revising, you know, what we view as what we view in the plans as being the, the front yard and side yards. And essentially, you know, shifting that. And would the applicant agree to, does, does the applicant agree with those comments? And would the applicant agree to make those changes in, in the plans and set forth in those comments?
Speaker 7Yes, we agree
Speaker 6And
Speaker 7We'll make the necessary visions to the bulk table.
Speaker 6And if those changes were made, there would be no additional variances that are necessary, right. We're still,
Speaker 7That's correct.
Speaker 6All right. And then with respect to common seven, and this ties back to the other planning report, their comment number two, it says the applicant can confirm, confirm that the proposed six foot chain load fence is not a powder coated chain link fence or a chainlink fence with slats, both of which are prohibited fence types types. Should the applicant application be approved, we re we recommend that the plans be modified to c site any deviation or other relief granted as a condition of approval and or they clearly be noted on sheets a dash oh two that the proposed chain link fa complies with the plan. So we'll do the easy one first. Are we proposing a, a chain link with defense with, with slacks?
Speaker 7The plans currently do not propose that? No.
Speaker 6Okay. And then I guess the question is, I guess it's more for the board's professionals. So this, the comment here says that it's, it's, we should clarify that the chain link fence is not powder coated. Is that will be prohibited. The other memo that we were provided, we just noticed today that comment number two actually requests us to that be black powder coated. That the fence be black powder coated.
Speaker 3No, I, I think it just has a double negative in Mr. Reiner's report.
Speaker 5Well, Mr. Purcell, if I may, that our report, and Ron was absolutely correct, the redevelopment plan does prohibit the powder coated chain link fences. Our report just should have said the fence, it shouldn't say should be black powder coated then not. It shoulda have just been black the color we were look right. Okay. So please Okay. Disregard the second sentence and item two of our report aside from the color.
Speaker 6Okay. Alright. So, so Mr. Catrell, the, the, the fencing will be black, is that correct? Or Applicant will stipulate to making the fencing black?
Speaker 7It'll be a black, yeah, black finish. I guess it'll be black PVC coated.
Speaker 6Okay. But it won't be powder coated.
Speaker 7It won't be powder coated. Thank you.
Speaker 5Okay.
Speaker 6And then comment number eight is we recommend the applicant discuss the environmental issues that may exist at the site that would impact the proposed location with the equipment compound.
Speaker 7Right. So we were provided with a document that indicates there was site remediation on the site from a possible it was some kind of hydraulic lift and that the site has been remediated. Our, our installation, T-Mobile's installation is very minimal impact. We are pouring a concrete pad. There'll be no soil removed from the site for the installation. So there's no concern of removal of any contaminated soils if, if in fact it did exist.
Speaker 6Okay. All right. And then with respect to comments 9, 10, 11, 12 or 9, 10, 11 and 12, those are just standard comments that the applicant agrees to and, and, and would stipulate to if, if necessary or correct. Is that, is that correct?
Speaker 7Yes, it is.
Speaker 6Okay. That's all I had. Mr. For, Mr. Rell, anyone from the board or the board professionals have any questions?
Speaker 5Madam, chair, Dawn, Corcoran, if I may? Yes, you may. Mr. Barcel, with regard to number three of the staff report, do we have more of a concrete timeframe? I mean, once the new building's up, are we looking for the new antennas to go up in a matter of weeks? Is it going to be months? Like what, what is the timeframe we're looking at here?
Speaker 6So I think the, the timeframe from my perspective is governed by the prior approval that we receive for the temporary tower. I think it's once there's a CO for the warehouse building, we have I think 30 days to relocate onto the, onto the warehouse. So I think that would be the timeline.
Speaker 5Okay. And T-Mobile is agreeable to that.
Speaker 6It's
Speaker 5Okay. And then with regard to item six, you know, if approved, can, can you certainly, could you submit the exhibit to our office just because we don't have that landscape plan in this, in this particular file, that would be helpful.
Speaker 6Sure.
Speaker 5Great. Thank you. And,
Speaker 6And Ms. Carpe, I have to correct myself it, the, the approval for the temporary TE tower says that the approval for the, that that approval expires 90 days after the issuance of the co Okay. For the warehouse. So we have 90 days. I, that
Speaker 5Seems a little bit more realistic. Thank you. Yeah,
Speaker 6I I thought 30 was a little bit tight what I said, so
Speaker 5Thank you.
Speaker 0Hey,
Speaker 5And the nick of time,
Speaker 0I'm just gonna jump in a little bit. Hey Josh, how you, how you doing? Good,
Speaker 7How are you? I haven't seen you in, in a while.
Speaker 0Josh knows me from a long way back from telecom. Basically, I can tell you from their perspective, once that building is is finished, they're willing to go up and, and, and attach your antennas. They have to have the new building in place. So what I suspect is they want the, the, the, the cow. What do you have on, on site now? The cow cow.
Speaker 7It's a ball, it's a ballast frame tower.
Speaker 0Okay. So basically when this, when this building gets demolished and the new build building gets built, they're happy to go up within, like, you know, once they get the co basically, I, I suspect that that would be the timing. But I think the main thing is for planning perspective. This is a permitted use in a zone, correct?
Speaker 7It is, yes.
Speaker 0And, and basically they've been there previously correct counsel?
Speaker 6Correct.
Speaker 0And they comply with everything else in, in, in the redevelopment plan, correct?
Speaker 6That's correct.
Speaker 0And so, you know, so, so basically what they're looking for now is it is basically amending the site site plan approval previously for the warehouse to put these antennas up. And your testimony is you, you comply exactly with the redevelopment plan, correct?
Speaker 7Correct. Is that for me? Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 0Okay. So don't wanna put words in your mouth, but, you know, did, did I, I I can't put my, my prior subject matter expertise on, on telecom previously, but to me what T-Mobile has done, they're waiting patiently to, to go on this building. They, they have a sell on wheels that is transmitting in, in, in servicing their customers and they're just waiting for this building to be built. And that's what they're here for tonight. So thank you.
Speaker 1Okay. Is there anything else Mr. Poel?
Speaker 6I do. If we're done, well do we wanna open up the questioning for, I don't have anything else left for Mr.
Speaker 1The job you finished. You have nothing else? Is that's what my question is.
Speaker 6Okay. Yeah, I don't have anything else, so. Okay.
Speaker 8Can you please unshare your screen?
Speaker 1Thank you. Thank you Members of the board. Do you have any other questions? Any questions for the engineer who has testified?
Speaker 8Madam chair. It's Councilwoman Cahill. Just to be clear, right now the antennas are on sort of these mobile units while they wait for the building to come down in the new building to go up. Is that essentially what's happening here? But today the approval is for when the antennas, when the building's built for the antennas to go up there. Okay. So that the approval's in place. So does anyone here, you know, the professional or you Mr. Purcell know any ETA on the timing of the completion of that building and how long that means the temporary units will be out there?
Speaker 6It, i, I, I do not, as Mr. Catrell said, it's a ballast mountain tower, so it's basically, it's a tower that's weighted down that was approved. But I am not aware, I don't know if Mr. Petrell is aware, perhaps Mr. Cronk is when we get to the playing testimony, otherwise suspect he's not even aware. 'cause that's really up to the developers of, of that warehouse,
Speaker 8Not us. Well, I guess I have a question for Ron or our attorney. Is the approvals today, I mean the likelihood that there are any changes to ordinance or are we talking about slim to none? I I mean, you just don't know with, with the timing of this building is today's approval that stand the test of time, I guess is the question?
Speaker 0Well, councilwoman that, that's a great question because this, this is what I'm, I'm at, I don't want this applicant to come back two years from now and ask for another extension. So basically they, you know, they, they're asking for an approval and I will defer it to everybody else. But my understanding this approval will go for three years. I mean, Mr. Barlow, am I incorrect about that Ma
Speaker 3Ma Madam chair? This is, you have to unders
Speaker 1Madam chair. The un the
Speaker 3Underlying warehouse is a redevelopment plan and this is a permitted use within the plan. So I, I believe that Mr. Purcell is just being affirmative in that. So when it's built that the tenants can go up quickly. The zoning board has granted the temporary use for 90 days after the CO is granted to the warehouse. So that's built in, if the developer of the warehouse has to make any changes, they would back come back before the board for changes to the redevelopment plan and amendments to the site plan. So I just think this way T-Mobile doesn't have to worry about it going forward. They are seeking to just put them right back up where they were and that the applicant of the warehouse couldn't do that. Mr. Purcell had to do that because he needed to get the temporary use. Yeah. So I know
Speaker 1You answered the question.
Speaker 6Thank you. So
Speaker 0Per perfect. Yeah. And we're on the same page. We don't have, don't want them to have to come back.
Speaker 1Okay. Any other questions from the board? Okay, let's open Ms. Buckley. Can we, I'm gonna open it up to the public for, for questioning from the public. If anyone in the public has questions of this application and, and the expert who has testified so far, would you please indicate your ques your desire for a question by waving your hand?
Speaker 6No. One chairwoman.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you. Close to the public. You've heard all the testimony from this applicant, Madam
Speaker 3Chair? I think he has other witnesses. Yeah,
Speaker 6I do. Just,
Speaker 1Oh, I'm sorry. You have another witness? I, I apologize.
Speaker 6I do. So Mr. Call Mr. Right,
Speaker 0Mr. Cronk. Right. Mr.
Speaker 1Purcell, would you, who, who is it?
Speaker 6Well, I have one. I I have the RF expert just to just verify we're complying with the SEC standards and then Mr. cro. Okay.
Speaker 1You have two witnesses? Fine. So,
Speaker 6So be I can do it very quickly. So Mr, I'd like to call Mr. Daniel check as RR fx.
Speaker 1He has to be sworn in.
Speaker 6Daniel, can you hear me? Merrill,
Speaker 3You're, yes,
Speaker 9I can hear everybody. Okay,
Speaker 4Hold on. Mr. Check, can you please raise your right hand? Can you hear me?
Speaker 9Yes, I can hear you. I, oh, okay. I have my right hand raised.
Speaker 4Okay. Do you swear that the testimony about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 9I do.
Speaker 4Please state and spell your name for the record, please.
Speaker 9It's Daniel Ze, C-Z-E-C-H.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 6Mr. Che, can you go over your qualifications and experience?
Speaker 9Yes. I have a bachelor's degree in engineering from NGIT with an emphasis on communication systems. I'm experienced in running propagation analysis for wireless carriers and have calculated several RF emissions for FCC compliance. I have over a dozen certifications in RF training. I have been accepted as an expert before this board and the board of Woodbridge and Piscataway.
Speaker 6Mr. Madam chair, I just ask that Mr. Check be accepted as an expert in RF engineering.
Speaker 1He is accepted.
Speaker 6Mr. Check is T-Mobile licensed by the FCC?
Speaker 9Yes.
Speaker 6And the wireless use is permitted in the subject zone, is that right?
Speaker 9Yes.
Speaker 6And from an RF perspective, from a radio frequency perspective, T-Mobile is really seeking to fill a gap that exists, right? That existed when the, when the original tower, when the original antennas were placed and, and just to keep that gap filled. Is that, is that right?
Speaker 9That is correct.
Speaker 6Okay. Can you just go over the, any RF missions analysis that you conducted?
Speaker 9Yes. So do
Speaker 6You wanna show the, maybe show the report your September 5th report and show your screen.
Speaker 9Okay.
Speaker 6Okay. Okay. So we're gonna mark this RF report prepared by Pure Cahn solutions. Date is September 5th, 2024 as exhibit what at Mr. Marlow? A seven? Yes sir. Okay. We'll mark this as a seven. Mr. Che, can you just go over this report and the applicable SEC standards?
Speaker 9Yes. So when we do the MPE report, RF report, we do use two sets of standards. We use the FCC standard, which are a conservative nature of standards and the New Jersey Radiation Protection Act standards. And the methodology we use in this analysis is based on worst case and it's conservative and cumulative and it assumes that all the antennas are on and there is no cable loss. And
Speaker 6What are the findings of your analysis set forth in the report?
Speaker 9So our analysis reported that the proposed T-Mobile facility would emit 5.667% of the FCC allowable limit, which is 17%, I'm sorry, 17 times below the limit and 1.133% of the New Jersey maximum permissible exposure limit for the general public, which is 88 times below the limit.
Speaker 6Okay. So in sum, your report confirms that the antennas will comply with all applicable emissions requirements?
Speaker 9Yes.
Speaker 6Okay. That's all I had for Mr. Check. Madam Chairwoman
Speaker 1Members of the board, do you have any, does anyone on the board have any questions of this witness?
Speaker 0It, it's Ron Reinertsen. How, how are you, Dan?
Speaker 9Hey, I'm doing well. You
Speaker 0Just fine. Listen, I I I I'm talking on lay layman's terms. If I open my, my re refrigerator, the light in, in the fridge, does it emit the same power that these antennas do?
Speaker 9I wouldn't say so, give or
Speaker 0Take. These are low powered antennas, correct?
Speaker 9They are low powered antennas. And they're also, that's
Speaker 0All that's all looking for.
Speaker 9They, they only, only transmit when necessary.
Speaker 0Okay. That, that's all I'm looking for. And they comply with F-C-C-F-C-C, right?
Speaker 9Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 0And that that's what you have to comply with?
Speaker 9Yes.
Speaker 0All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1Does any other members have any, the board members have any questions? I am members of the public. You have an opportunity to ask questions of this witness. If you have any questions of this witness, would you please indicate by,
Speaker 2Can you please your screen? Sorry, Madam chair, can you please un-air?
Speaker 9Yeah, sorry about that.
Speaker 2Yeah, it's just much easier for me to see everybody. Okay. No. Anybody in public have any questions?
Speaker 1Would you indicate by show of ha, hands shake?
Speaker 2No. And Madam chair.
Speaker 1Okay. Close to the public. You may call your next witness.
Speaker 6All right, my last witness is Tim Cronk. Be our planner. Mr. Cronk, can you hear us? Can you hear me?
Speaker 11Yes, I can.
Speaker 6Okay. Do swear you in.
Speaker 4Okay, Mr. Cronk, can you please raise your right hand? I
Speaker 11Am.
Speaker 4Okay. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give be the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 11I do.
Speaker 4Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
Speaker 11Timothy m Cronk. K-R-O-N-K.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 6Mr KK, can you go over your, your education and qualifications?
Speaker 11Certainly. I have a Bachelor of Science from the University of Massachusetts. I have 33 years of land use experience predominantly in New Jersey. I am a New Jersey licensed professional planner and an A ICP certified planner. And I have been accepted by the Piscataway Planning Board and Zoning Board on prior occasions.
Speaker 6Okay.
Speaker 1He's acceptable.
Speaker 6Thank you very much. Thank Mr. Cahn. You've reviewed the zoning ordinances, re redevelopment plan for this site and the master plan. Yes,
Speaker 11I have.
Speaker 6And the proposed use is a permitted principle use, is that, is that right?
Speaker 11That is correct.
Speaker 6Are there any variances required?
Speaker 11No, there are none required.
Speaker 6Would you mind qualifying the sims? Alright. Would you mind qualifying the sims that Mr. Catrell entered into evidence as a two for a six?
Speaker 11Certainly. Do you want me to pull 'em up again or
Speaker 6No, just explain, explain how they were.
Speaker 11Yes. As, as Mr. Catrell mentioned, since the building is not not existing, we were unable to take existing conditions, photographs. I did obtain the building elevations from the developer of the property, and that is we, you know, added some sky and landscaping and to make 'em look more like a, a, a photo than the building elevations that they had. We superimposed the antennas and the concealment structures as they were depicted on the engineering drawings and use those as what the proposed installation would look like on top of the new building once the new building is built.
Speaker 6Okay. All right, thank you. And does this application meet all applicable site plan requirements?
Speaker 11Yes, it does. Completely conforming.
Speaker 6And do you have any comments with respect to the two planning memos that Mr. Catrell went over?
Speaker 11Nope. Completely concur.
Speaker 6Okay. That's all I have for Mr. Kronman and chairwoman
Speaker 1Members of the board. Do you have any questions of this witness?
Speaker 2No planning questions.
Speaker 6Thank you.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you. Members of the public, I'm opening it to you for any questions that you may have. If you have any questions of this witness, please indicate by waving the hand on your screen.
Speaker 2No Madam chair. Thank
Speaker 1You. Close to the public.
Speaker 11Thank you.
Speaker 1Okay. You are under, you have no under testimony tonight, Mr. Pelle? That's,
Speaker 6That's correct.
Speaker 1And you wanna give any closing statement?
Speaker 6I'll just say that I think this is a very, for a very straightforward application, it's a permitted use. We're simply trying to fill, you know, the gap that T-Mobile is seeking to fill in this property for a number of years on the office that's being demolished on the temp tower that exists now. Now once this warehouse is constructed, T-Mobile will be very anxious to be back on there in a permanent location. So I certainly would respectfully, respectfully request of the board approve this application.
Speaker 1Thank you Ms. Members of the board, what's your pleasure on this application?
Speaker 5Madam chair? Dawn Corcoran, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application subject to the staff report last revised November, or I'm sorry, September 30th, 2024. And subject to the CME report dated October 4th, 2024.
Speaker 2I'll second that. Madam chair. Councilwoman. Kay.
Speaker 1Thank you. Roll call.
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corver? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 6Thank you very much.
Speaker 1Mr. Barlow, do we have a resolution Mr. Barlow? Do we have a resolution tonight on this? No.
Speaker 3No. Madam chair. We'll have that at the next
Speaker 1Week. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Perell.
Speaker 4Have a good night.
Speaker 1Okay, item number 1124 PB 16 slash 17 V as in Victor, Greek Orthodox community of New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Speaker 12I thank you Madam Chairwoman. Kevin Morse, Woodbridge, New Jersey appearing on behalf of the applicant. This applicant you've just introduced is actually you folks may know is related to the St. George Green Church, which is a little bit up the road from the site. The subject property before you this evening is block 11 9 0 4, lot 31.01. It is located in the R 15 zone, commonly known as 57 Riverview Avenue. And the applicant is before you this evening seeking preliminary major subdivision approval for this rather large property which contains one existing single family residence. Proposal would be to subdivide the property into four conforming lots with the existing single family residence to remain and three new lots for residential development sometime in the future. Before we proceed, I had previously submitted the applicant's affidavits of publication and mailing and I just want to confirm that they have been received, that they're in order so that the board has jurisdiction and proceed this evening.
Speaker 1Mr. Barlow? Yes they are.
Speaker 3Yes they are. Mr. Morris, the board has jurisdiction, you can proceed.
Speaker 12Alright, thank you. I have two witnesses available this evening. First is Mr. Haney Wba who is here on behalf of the applicant. I don't intend on calling him unless it's necessary, but he will be here for the entire hearing. My second witness, probably my only witness will be Mr. Les Walker who is our professional engineer. I would ask that Mr. Walker could be sworn at this time please.
Speaker 4Mr. Walker, can you please raise your right hand? Sorry, I'm not seeing you. I'm
Speaker 13Right here.
Speaker 4Oh, okay. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 13I do.
Speaker 4Just please state your name and spelling for the record please.
Speaker 13Sure. My name is Leslie, L-E-S-L-E, Walker, W-A-L-K-E-R. Thank you. I'm the, yeah, I'm the president of Meridian Engineering Group in Edison, New Jersey. I've been before this board before licensed in good standing in in New Jersey and several other states, bachelor's and master's degree from Rutgers and Rutgers University in civil engineering. And I've been doing land development for 25 years and, and been probably in front of every board in Middlesex County and then somerset hundred and,
Speaker 12Alright, so madam, sure when I would ask that you accept Mr. Walker as our expert with regard to professional engineering at this time,
Speaker 1He's acceptable.
Speaker 12All right. Thank you. All right, Mr. Walker, you prepared the plans sort of before the board this evening, is that correct?
Speaker 13That is correct.
Speaker 12Can you please describe for the board, the site as it presently exists and the proposed major subdivision? I understand you have a color rendering you may wish to put up as a one.
Speaker 13Yeah, I'm gonna put up, first I wanna put up the existing conditions map just for Okay. Just for reference. And that is, that'll be sheet two of the, the the submitted site plan set. Okay. Can you see that? Can you see my screen?
Speaker 1No. Nope.
Speaker 13Yeah, there we go. Okay, got it now, right? Yeah.
Speaker 13Okay, so, so this is the, the existing site, this is not a colorized version, this is basically the survey you have Riverview on the, the west side, north is, north is basically up on the page, Riverview Avenue on the page left and then Golf Links Avenue on the right. The Rutgers Golf course is on the other side of golf Links Avenue, completely surrounded on all sides by existing single family residential. You have one existing home on the property and a a small pre-standing garage. Then I will go to the colored rendering. And you got that. Can you see the colored rendering now?
Speaker 1I do.
Speaker 13Okay. Alright. So this, so this is, this would be exhibit A1. I did forward it on to, to Dawn and Laura earlier today. So township does have it, you can see around the outside of the property, it's all single family. And then you can see in the, the top right corner, the, the golf course. I'll zoom in a little bit here so you can see it a little better.
Speaker 13Okay. So the, the property is known as lot besides 57 Riverview Avenue for the existing home. It's also lot 31.01 in block 11, 9 0 4. It's a 1.64 acre parcel. It has, as I said, it has frontage on both Riverview and golf links. And then the, the, the small, this is Penrose Lane off of Riverview at the top left of the screen with the, except with the exception of the, the front yard of the existing home. The property generally slopes kind of to the backyards of all these, these properties. And there's a, a hollow in the middle and it drains to an existing drainage easement and, and a large diameter pipe that, that's kind of between the properties and, and continues onto the south towards the river.
Speaker 13There are a handful of existing trees on the site with shown with like smaller little green circles. That's where the existing trees are. There's only two trees that we're going to be proposing to take down. And they are, that's only two get the sidewalk. They, they're right in the sidewalk pathway along Gulf Lakes Avenue. Other than that, no other trees will be taken down. The existing home is proposed to stay along with the driveway in the masonry garage. And we're proposing to divide subdivide into four generally conforming lots that the lots themselves are, are compliant in every way. Two minor variances are required for the existing dwelling. A 40 foot front yard is required. The existing porch is 11.3 feet from the, the front property line. And the, the building itself is 20 feet from the, the front property line. And, and those are both existing conditions, no changes proposed and not being exacerbated by this application.
Speaker 13One new variance is created by, by creation of this, this lot line here between lots, lots A and lot B, the garage, an accessory structure is required to have an eight foot side yard. And by creation of this line, it, it creates a side yard variance needed for the accessory structure of 4.4 feet. It's an existing garage. It, it serves that, that home and, and you know, a, a garage is a, a required component of a, of a single family. It does not, the house does not have an attached garage. So we're proposing for that garage to stay. So that's the only, that's the only two variances. One existing and one that's being created for the side yard of the garage. Everything else on this application is fully conforming. The lots are as big or are larger than required by a zone.
Speaker 12Right. And with regard to the garage, because that's the only variance that's being created, we are, the applicant is not in a position to adjust the lot line between proposed lots A and B to move it farther away from the existing garage because that would render proposed lot be non-conforming. And we have conforming lots here, is that correct?
Speaker 13That that's right. The a hundred, a hundred feet width is required. We have 200 feet along Riverview Avenue and, and each lot is fully conforming at a hundred feet. So, so that line is, is critical to, to making sure that those lots are the correct size. So, so by by, by correcting that, that variance, it would create a new, a different variance.
Speaker 12Right. And speaking of the garage, because we've both been in front of this board on many prior occasions, typically if the board were to look favorably and grant the variance in our experience, the board would require some condition that if the garage became substantially damaged where it had to be rebuilt, that at that point it would have to be moved back and rebuilt compliant with the setbacks in the future. And so the boards are where the applicant would be prepared to accept such condition because they know typically that's what you would require. Second, while we're talking about the garage, you know, we know there's instances in the past we've spoken with the applicant, this is a true garage. It's not used for any other purpose and to allay any fears of its future use. Should the board look favorably on grant in the application for the variance for it to remain the applicant would've no objection to a condition that it not be used as any type of dwelling or living space that's not used that way. Now it is a true garage and we have no objection to that type of condition. Should you, again, you look favorably on the application now.
Speaker 3So Kevin, just to reiterate there, as a condition of approval, the applicant would agree that the garage won't have a kitchen bedrooms or bathrooms of any kind. Correct. It'll be used solely as a garage. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 12No, it was coming to, we'll get it out of the way. So now, and Mr. Mr. Walker if approved this subdivision, because it's a major subdivision, would be perfected by the filing of a final platter map in the county clerk's office. Is that correct?
Speaker 13Th that's correct. We would have to go through the final subdivision once we perfect the, the preliminary, we would've to go through with final submit the final plat. It is already prepared so it's, it's ready to go. It's just a matter of following the steps and, and yes, it'll be filed with the county clerk.
Speaker 12Right now I'd like to direct your attention. We have two memorandums and first memorandum is generated by the division of engineering planning and development from Piscataway was originally September 16th, revised through September 30th. Again, the reason for the revision the board should be aware is that we appeared before your site plan workshop and made some adjustments that the plan to eliminate prior questions or plan review comments, which is why we have a revised and very short memo item number one in that memo, you've already described the variances, we've eliminated any other variances except for those you've just described, is that correct?
Speaker 13That's right.
Speaker 12Including amending the plan to provide for the installation of the utility conduits. That is really a, a new thing that's being required and applicant's prepared to comply with in terms of pi getaway's requirements. Is that right?
Speaker 13That's correct.
Speaker 12Alright. Now we are before the board. We haven't submitted plans for proposed dwellings because this applicant does not in the near future in intend on actually building houses. Is that correct?
Speaker 13Yeah, we, we show, you know, just just for the board's information and, and to, to kind of give a, a a, a visual of how these lots could be developed. We show homes with, with driveways, but they would, the, the intent is that these, these three new lots, lots B, C and D will be created and marketable. Single family buildable lots that would be then sold off. They could, they, they may be one, one buyer that, that builds, wants to build all three or, or it could be three individual purchasers and, and each one comes in with, they would have to come in with building plans at that time. Along with that, the, the, you know, plot and grading plan for, for building permits and I, I know that, that the board was, you know, one of the, another condition to be that, that these wouldn't be, you know, kind of cookie cutter homes where, where they're all exactly the same. That, that each house would have its own character.
Speaker 12So again, because we don't have architectural plans, because no construction is proposed, one of the reasons you generated a one was just to show how spacious these lots are and to show that there, in addition to them being conforming structures as you've located them on a one, are, are would all be in conformity with the required setbacks and just to show generally how it might lay out in the future when developed. Is that correct?
Speaker 13That's correct.
Speaker 12And just Mr. Barlow, as we discussed at the TRC, the applicant would've no objection to a provision should the board look favorably on this application? Some condition that the house does not be mirror image, I think is the word that you used. Okay. Right. Item number three is really a statement of fact. We appreciate you making us aware that there is that moratorium in place. I believe the applicant has already stubbed in the utilities and provided for those in the event it would try to, for some intended development would occur prior to 2029. But we are aware of that situation and we appreciate it. And then finally, item four, Mr. Walker, should the board look favorably on this application, we would of course submit to the Middlesex County Planning Board for their review and approval of the project as well. Is that correct?
Speaker 13That's correct. That's required.
Speaker 12Alright. And then let me next direct, there was a second memorandum issued by CME Mr. Ryerson originally dated September 23rd, revised through October 4th. Again, the reason for the revision is because we after the TRC, but before this hearing, were able to get an amended plan and, and I believe Mr. Walker, that all the plan review comments of the prior memo memo have now been addressed by your revised plans that were submitted prior to this hearing. Is that accurate?
Speaker 13That's correct.
Speaker 12Alright. From an engineering perspective, do you see any negative impact on adjacent or neighboring properties in connection with this conforming subdivision application? No,
Speaker 13None at all. In, in fact, I didn't, I didn't get there yet, but along River View Avenue three years ago, the township reconstructed Riverview Avenue, the applicant at that time went to the state, obtained a DEP permit for this to bring sewer up to the site and actually into the site to, to provide for future sewer for the, the three new lots. And, and with those, the township improvements of Riverview Avenue at that time, they put in the, the curb, the sidewalk and even the driveway apron for the ex, the, the proposed lot b that's an existing driveway apron. So there is no need for any disturbance of, of the roadway. So, so there won't be any kind of a required delay for constructing that lot because everything was already envisioned and put in place with, with those improvements. So, so no, there would be no road opening permit needed for Riverview Avenue down along, all along golf links.
Speaker 13Golf links is a, it's a narrow road. There's only four other houses further past in a, in a dead end, it kind of dead, dead ends into the golf course. There's four other houses further up the page. You can see one of them there at the top of the page number 67. And then there's three more homes. This would, these two homes would make six so that the existing road is only 14 to 15 feet wide. It, it varies. It's kind of a very rural, rural lane. We are proposing to improve that. The, the smallest designation for a an improved street re rec recognized by the the New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards is for a rural lane. A rural lane has a 18 foot cart way and that's what we're proposing. It'll be roughly four, three to four feet wider than what's there now. It'll be formalized with new pavement across the entire road.
Speaker 13Widening out slightly on the golf course side to, to kind of hold what's there on that side of the road. And then a more substantial widening on, on the project side of the road with curb and gutter, a couple of storm inlets, the driveway aprons, the, the required conduit for the, the future fiber optic, all utilities will be stubbed out, the concrete aprons will be put in. So this so much like lot B in the front where, where when they, they did Riverview Avenue, everything was in place for that lot to be constructed. These two lots will be, those improvements will be put in. And prior to, you know, any, any building permit application coming in on those lots. So, so all of the required frontage improvements will be in, be put in the driveways, the homes, none of that will be put in yet pending sale and, and how each owner would, would choose to develop those lots with a single family home.
Speaker 12Alright, thank you. Now does that conclude your engineering testimony on this matter?
Speaker 13I believe that, yeah, I believe that it does, yes.
Speaker 12Okay. Alright. So Mr. Barlow, I don't have a planner available, but I was going to just proffer some legal comment or a proffer as it were with regard to the planning aspects of this case. I don't know if you'd like me to do that now and then open for questioning or board would like to question the engineer about the technical aspects or just hold on that I,
Speaker 3I think you should just make your proffer and just get all the, your position in and then the board can ask whatever questions it
Speaker 12Might. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Again, I'm, I'm not a professional planner. I'm not going to testify as a professional planner, but as attorneys we review these cases and analyze them from a legal perspective, understanding the municipal land use law. And I would just submit for the board's consideration, my proffer that the bulk variance relief is to me, from a legal standpoint, the minimus in nature. I think this board with its expertise and its own professionals could find and review this matter that either under the C one hardship or the C two, flexible C, the bulk brief is warranted to be granted. I mean, we have a very oversized lot here. It can be subdivided into four, conforming lots, four, beautiful lots. As you can see, the house is constrained with an existing single family residence, and we really can't change that and would be a hardship to, to take away an existing functioning garage for the di minimis request.
Speaker 12Other variance for that particular item, and in under the C two, flexible C. Again, this it's a odd shaped piece of property or a unique property, and I think the, you could find that the purposes of the municipal land law exist here for the granting of the relief come coming to minor sections, a, c, g, and M of the special reasons or the purposes of zoning. And I think you can also find, again, subject to your expertise that the relief we've requested could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. And again, on the C two, any benefit would outweigh to me a detriment because there is no detriment and that you could grant the variances because this application in our mind does not impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. Again, that's based upon the testimony over engineer and I offer that simply as legal comment for your consideration in reviewing this matter. So that would conclude our presentation, Mr. Barlow, if there are questions over the board on any aspect of the application, we would invite them. Now,
Speaker 1Members of the board having heard the testimony of the three witnesses and Mr. Morris's, Mr. Kevin's Morris's commentary, do you have any questions?
Speaker 14Madam chair, can you
Speaker 1Unshare your screen Mr. Walker? Yeah, please.
Speaker 14Ma Madam chair. Not, not a question, just a comment. From my understanding, Mr. Morris, that the, the Greek church inherited this property from prior Landow, longtime landowner up the street, and that's how this application came about.
Speaker 12That is my understanding as well. It was a benevolent donation to the church, so to speak. Yeah. They continue to use the residence and preparing for some time in the future, perhaps the better and continued use of the property is why the application is before you right now, Mr. Mayor. And
Speaker 14From what I understand from folks, from the officials, from the churches, that the, the existing house out there, one of the restrictions that the benefactor to the church insisted that the house would stay, the current house would stay.
Speaker 12Well, that is my understanding as well, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 14Yeah. I just wanted to get the, the members of the board some background on how the application came about
Speaker 0And, and mayor council, the, the, the relief being asked is for this existing house, right?
Speaker 14That's correct. Yeah.
Speaker 0Excellent. And, and, and Kevin, how are you
Speaker 12Doing? Well, Ron, how are you?
Speaker 0Just fine. So basically this subdivision eliminates a through lot condition, correct?
Speaker 12Oh, it does, absolutely.
Speaker 0So basically we're gonna have four lots at kind of what we expect would front Yes. Would frontage is on streets,
Speaker 12One street only in the front.
Speaker 0And, and, and the widening has been discussed with the bar, with, with the township, correct? That is correct. The applicant did the existing addition. Yeah. Yeah, because when I went out there, it, it was hard to park on golf. Right.
Speaker 5So if, if I could, I wanted to actually jump in and, and talk about that because the, you know, the, the circulation element of the master plan requires that golf Lengths Avenue have a 50 foot right away. So we would be looking for a 25 foot half width out here. And based on this plan, we're, you know, it's showing us a 20 foot right of away half width. Is that correct?
Speaker 13Well, the, the, so, so the, the right of way, the current property line along golf lengths is irregular. It, it's got angles to it. We really just, we don't know where the other side of golf links Avenue is. There's evidence on a lot number 67, lot 35.02 above us, that there is an existing right of way easement right of way easement to the township that would allow for future roadway widening. And that's where we set our property line. I'm holding what I'm calling 20 feet from it. It's, again, it's an irre irregular roadway, but what I'm calling the center line and we're holding, we are holding 20 feet based on a rural lane condition. This is, this isn't a road that that would ever be unless Rutgers gives up its golf course. There's never gonna be more than there, there actually is room possibly between two of the four homes above that.
Speaker 13Maybe you could get another home in there that would be a total of seven. So the most homes you would ever have back here is seven homes. And based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines, seven homes generates a total of 70 daily trips. And that's far below what a, a rural lane, an 18 foot cart way would, would handle if they actually go up to 200 trips a day. So that's the way we show it. If the township felt strongly about it, there's, there's plenty of depth on these lots that we could give the other five feet, but it, it didn't seem to, it didn't seem to make sense with the constraints around us, above us, below us. And, and with the, the, the very unlikely scenario that that Rutgers ever gives up, its its golf course.
Speaker 5I just,
Speaker 14I maybe correct it. They're not giving a card. They would only have to give up about 10 feet.
Speaker 13The universe. No, we're right, right now it's, right now we're giving up, we're giving up about 12 feet because again, it's an irregular frontage. So you're, you're looking at another five feet is what you're talking about
Speaker 0From, from, from my experience and, and the mayor is very cognizant on, on, on, on lot with and, and its dedications and stuff. Hey,
Speaker 14We, we, we, we, we don't, we don't like doing two bites at the apple. We get the, we take the first bite.
Speaker 0That's, that's it. You take the one bite, mayor. I, I agree. So I
Speaker 8Agree, but
Speaker 0Whatever you guys want.
Speaker 8What, what else could ha I mean, you can't connect up that road, right? I'm just curious.
Speaker 0It's a, it's a dead end council
Speaker 8One right
Speaker 0Up, up, up there. So what you have to realize, I mean, what
Speaker 14Do you, I'll give you, I'll give you for instance, to cut anybody short, we're gonna get the additional five feet. And the reason why is because we had a similar issue up on Hillside going back years ago when the Route 18 DOT was doing the expansion and the residents didn't want it to the full 30 phase. And what ended up happening is now we get the complaints from the residents when they have a landscaping company come in, nobody can get around a landscaping company's trailers. So we're, we're going to additional five feet because I don't want to hear about couple years from now that landscape trailers,
Speaker 5And unless as you stated, it's not gonna create undersized lots here, it's not going to, I
Speaker 13Mean Yeah, no, it won't, it won't impact the lots and you know, that they're, they're, they're far over what, what is required. What I would ask though is the, the proposed, the proposed roadway widening sufficient. I I think if I think any more than that, it, it's gonna be, you're gonna come from very narrow lanes on either end to, to like a, it'll, it'll look like a super highway out there compared to what's there.
Speaker 14If I may,
Speaker 0I defer to the township
Speaker 14Madam chair, if I may, the, the, the Township center to reconnect the sewer line on golf links to down to River Road to upgrade that all that's gonna be taking place probably simultaneously. I mean we're, we're several years away from that happening, but I could see a uniform without there within about three to five years.
Speaker 1Okay. Is that gonna impact our vote tonight?
Speaker 14No, I, no, it's not. But if they give us the, the additional five feet, you know, that'll take a time when the township engineers go to Divine design, the roadway and the sanitary sewer upgrade out there for the neighborhood.
Speaker 13Right. Mr. Mayor, my, my question is, are the, the sidewalk and curb installation where we show them, are they acceptable and it's just a matter of moving the property line?
Speaker 14I believe you're gonna, I believe they're gonna have to be pushed back a little bit. That was something if I, we, if I make a suggestion, Madam chair, that we can approve this application subject to them sitting down with our engineering staff to get a definitive thing out there.
Speaker 12And we'll be,
Speaker 14That shouldn't hold up the approval.
Speaker 12Yeah. And we'll be coming back for final anyway and we can solve, I think Mr. Mayor, between now and then envisioning an easement for municipal purposes. But I'm sure we can work that out. Yep.
Speaker 1Okay. We still have to open it up to the public. We didn't do that yet for the, this, for Mr. Walker's testimony. Oh. So I'm gonna open it up to the public. Does anyone in the public have any question for Mr. Walker who testified, just testified on this application? Yes,
Speaker 2We have Chris Kaiser. Kaiser,
Speaker 1Okay. Mr. Kaiser. Hi, I'm Kristin, you give us your,
Speaker 16Hmm. Yes. I'm Christine Kaiser. I live at 69 Golf Links Avenue. Okay. And this is my husband Matthias.
Speaker 3Okay. If I may just stop for one second, Ms. Kaiser. So only one of you can testify at a time. Okay. It'll be my husband Saunders Is Ms. Saunders is gonna swear. Are you gonna go first, Ms. Kaiser? No,
Speaker 16It'll be my husband.
Speaker 15I'll probably go first.
Speaker 3Okay. If you could state your name, spell your last name, give us your address, and then Ms. Saunders can swear you in.
Speaker 15Okay. My name is Mathia Kaiser. Last name is spelled K-A-I-S-E-R. Address is 69 Gulf Links Avenue.
Speaker 4Okay. Can you please raise your right hand? Sorry, I can't see you.
Speaker 2You, you can't see them. You just have to swear them, maam.
Speaker 4Okay. The testimony you're about to give be the truth and nothing but the truth.
Speaker 15Yes.
Speaker 4Okay, thank
Speaker 3You. Would you like to either say Mr. Kaiser or do you have a question?
Speaker 15Yes, actually, a few concerns that I have. One concern would be the easement that currently goes, those two per proposed lots because I don't want, I wanna make sure that it's not gonna impact us up the hill coming up because before the lots were donated or to, to a Greek church, there was all vegetation, lots of trees, everything was there. There was a hole eight feet deep. Now it's filled in for 30 years. I had no problem with water in my basement. Guess what? We went through multiple hurricanes, nothing dry last, last year came water in my property into my, into my basement. So how is this gonna impact having two homes over there? Because right now it's, it's causing me a problem.
Speaker 3Well,
Speaker 13I can say, I can say that, that our property, I'm just looking at 67, which is the, you know, the home between Yes, my name, your property and ours. That, that the, our property at that limit is at 70, their house is at 72. So it's going considerably uphill from our property towards your property, and then downhill it goes across our property from 70 at the, the top, the north end towards you to 65 at the south side where the existing drainage easement is below us. So water, water from this site is going the, the complete opposite direction. Sh so should not be causing any, any problem with your property.
Speaker 15Okay. But it's not, that has not been the case because right now that easement that goes to a property goes across underneath Stafford, goes past one house and then bears right into, into Riverview. I believe that's currently blocked off. I'm not sure. I mean, I haven't gone into, because right now it's high grass, but I don't wanna trespass, but I wanna make sure that's being addressed properly, that the water flow is gonna go that way and not stagnate, have a, have a lake in the back and consequently raise the water level uphill.
Speaker 13No, that won't be the case. That the property, the way it's graded now, and the way it'll be graded in the, the future, we show, you know, kind of tentative grading for the property, it will all continue to flow in the opposite direction then towards your home.
Speaker 15Okay. Now with regards to golfing, now I know Golfing's covered the way it is right now. It's, it's a country road. It's probably the way the buggy road a hundred years ago. A fair amount of golfing currently actually sits on Rutgers on the Rutgers golf course. So when this is being redone, how is golfing gonna be redone? 'cause currently the only utilities we have, we have all above electric. We have partial water and no sewer. My sewer connects into Riverview. So is is the sewer gonna be put in through entire, entire golf links?
Speaker 13Sewer, sewer for these, these lots was provided through construction and an extension that came up Riverview, and then goes through an easement across to a manhole in,
Speaker 15Okay. I I saw that manhole. Those those four homes are gonna connecting to that manhole again.
Speaker 13They, they'll be connecting to a sewer that goes after Riverview. We're not extending, we're not extending up Gulf links.
Speaker 15Now you had mentioned traffic. Well, there's a lot more, a lot more traffic than you just indicated. First of all, there's currently six, no one to four homes on, on golf links right now, existing homes. So everyone has two cars. So you got, you know, got people at least two or three cars going back and forth. It's heavily used by Rutgers golf course. So you have maintenance equipment, you have tractors, you have porage on utility trucks going down. It, I mean, there's a lot of activity, there's more activity on, on ings you might have on Riverview. So if you propose making the road wider, better view why or not, because there's a lot of equipment going down this road because the mainten currently sits at the end of, of, of, of golfs more towards, well, golfs and then Stafford. Now I know, I understand they may move down the road, but there hasn't been, you know, proposed yet.
Speaker 13Yes, sir. As proposed. The, the road is probably around four feet wider than, than it is right now, than it is up in, in front of your home. And, and then it is up to the south going down towards Stafford. So, so this would be the widest part of the road and then it narrows back down to the existing width in front of your homes from the north and then and into the south. But this section will be widened.
Speaker 15Okay. So that's just, just a bend when you widened because my, my property mark is actually virtually on the road, on the current road.
Speaker 13That's right. That's
Speaker 15About six inches off the current road.
Speaker 13Yeah, that's the way it was on this property as well. That's why we're providing a right of way dedication to, to move the right of way, widen the right of way there and widen the roadway.
Speaker 17Okay.
Speaker 15Okay. No, that's it for me for right now.
Speaker 13Thank you, sir.
Speaker 15Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1Thank you.
Speaker 2Madam chair. There's one more. Natalia.
Speaker 1Okay. Come forward Mr. Natalia
Speaker 2Natalia's
Speaker 1A Natalia. Okay.
Speaker 18Yes. Hello? Can you hear me? Oh,
Speaker 1There you are. Natalia?
Speaker 18Yes.
Speaker 1Anova. Denova.
Speaker 18Yeah. Yeah, it is Denisova.
Speaker 1Okay. Okay.
Speaker 3If you could state your name, spell your last name, and provide us your address, and then Ms. Saunders will swear you in.
Speaker 18Okay. It's Dr. Natalia Giva. Last name is spelled D as in David, EN as in Nancy, ISS as in Sam, OV as in Victor, A
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 18My address is 64 Riverview Avenue in Pisca. Of course,
Speaker 4Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear?
Speaker 18Yes.
Speaker 4Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 18I do.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 18So I have two concerns and one concern is when I came that lot had a huge base in it and basically it wasn't buildable from my point of view, but over the years the neighbors were like adding soil and some other debris to that basin. And now it's significantly smaller. Now, as previous speaker said, once it's filled, where would water go to the neighboring buildings, neighboring houses? Would it be like that? We're not,
Speaker 13We're not proposing any, any changes to, to the general grading of the property. There's no, there's no basin so to speak. There's no, no stormwater management feature. It's, it's just, it, it is a swale that the general kind of, the, the back lot line slightly towards golf links is where the natural depression is. And it, and it, it drops considerably over that, over that 200 feet. It drops about, it drops about six feet from north to south across those backyards. So there's nothing that's, nothing that's holding water, retaining water. It, it's just, and, and it has sufficient slope, you know, that's about three, three and a half percent slope across those backyards. So that's, that's a considerable slope. And, and there should not be any water holding there. And, and if I, if I understand, are you on the other side of, is it Penrose? You're, you're at the corner there. So, so you're even further uphill as well from, from this property. So this is, this property's downhill and, and will, will cause no problem to your, to your property or to other properties in the area
Speaker 1You're cutting out Ms. Denova, Ms Ms. Dennis Ova. Can you hear us hear? Could you repeat that? We couldn't hear you very clearly. Thank
Speaker 18Seems begotten. You were ruled. My basement got wetter than it used to be, even though technically I am on the other side of the road. I'm not a engineer or geologist, I cannot explain it. I just can testify that my basement is better than it used to be. And another thing is I noticed that there are new crux that appeared in the foundation of my house. And I only can explain it by the fact that when New Road was built, there was some, some material, some soil was removed. So now ground is settling a new way and that affects my foundation. When foundations for those three new buildings will be dug, that will affect many houses around. And you probably know that cracks in the foundation is not covered by any personal pro property insurance. So basically that would be up to those residents to manage those cracks and those will be, you know, they will come because, you know, those basements will be humongous. How are you gonna address this issue,
Speaker 3Ms. Denova, this is a, an application for a four lot subdivision and if the cracks are already existing at your house, this wouldn't have any impact since they're already existing. So do you have any issues or questions related to the application or the testimony that Mr. Morris, what
Speaker 18I'm saying, those cracks were not here before new road conditions were created. You know, we just got, maybe two years ago, our street was, how do I say, reengineered in significant amount of soil was removed. I would say at my house, probably three feet of soil was scrapped away. And I think soil is like earth is resettling around my house and now I have new cracks in the foundation. When this new house will be built. I pray that it does not affect my house and foundation of my house because I'm further down, but houses which are around this future construction site, they will be affected. Are you gonna address this issue? Thank you,
Speaker 3Kevin, do you wanna address that? I, I don't think it's an issue.
Speaker 12Yeah, yeah, it's the, the comments really have nothing to do and I, I appreciate the comments and I'm sorry if someone's having an issue, but it's not an issue created, it's something going on before this application. And you've heard from our engineer, nothing proposed here, according to our expert is going to have any neg negative impact on adjacent or neighboring properties. And I think he's fielded all the questions in, in that regard. It sounds like this particular property owner has a, a problem created by some other circumstance.
Speaker 2Madam chair, we have one more. Lewis,
Speaker 1Could you come forth if you have a questioning?
Speaker 3Mr. Dr. Rivera, Dr. Rivera, the hand went away, so I don't know.
Speaker 2Yeah, they muted themselves again. I don't know what he's still
Speaker 19Hear me now.
Speaker 4Barely.
Speaker 3Dr. Rivera. I see.
Speaker 19Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3Can you speak up
Speaker 19Just right now? My, my computer just switched headset sets to the actual microphone. Okay. Should we go through your procedural things? So my name is Luis Rivera. I'm on 61 Riverview Avenue and Piscataway of course. And what else do you need?
Speaker 3No, you need to be sworn in by Ms. Sandra. All
Speaker 4Right, go ahead. Can we, can you please raise your right hand?
Speaker 19Got it. Do you,
Speaker 4Do you swear that the testimony about to give we the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 19Yes.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 19So I think just a few points that I wanted to make. And so one is I think we have to get clear what surface water runoff is with what the impacts on the water table may be in the area. Really, I've also experienced a lot of the flooding issues as well. This property or the whole lot, this single lot, it was really beautiful. It had heavily forested areas. I received a, a little slip from the township, sort of, I guess giving permit for that area or lot to remove weeds, grasses, and shrubs. There's only two trees left in that whole lot. Pretty much everything was taken out. Also, as, as others have have mentioned, that sort of catchment of all the water that happens on the golf course is really impacting all the properties here. It puts a lot of pressure on the water table, not so much on the surface water runoff, which is really not the big issue here.
Speaker 19It does slope. I would, I would be considering more of an issue for those that are at Stafford and I don't know if there's any residents that are at Stafford here that can, you know, express their concerns. I'm a little bit uphill, but of course the issues with the water table and potentially this area that was heavily forced that almost u you know, being used as a little flood mitigation area is, is is gone. There's no more trees that are able to sort of take up all that water that was coming in. So that's, that's a bummer. And from the understanding of the permit from clearing weeds, grasses and shrubs to taking close to more than an acre of trees, they're gone. So that's one thing I wanted to mention. The other thing I wanted to mention is, one concern that I have is with the subdivision of these lots, I'm a new resident here.
Speaker 19I've only been, you know, recently acquired my property about three years ago. I see the sentiment in the community with the issues that are happening in the street with traffic control related to the home games that we have to deal with. The church has expanded their parking. They've also taken, I think about close to another extra acre of their property to just expand more, more, more, more parking space. They also, I believe, own a few more lots in Riverview A, which are also used for parking. So my concern is that there are no foreseeable plans in the future for these subdivisions or extra lots that are happening. And my concern is that in the future, when there are plans that come up that basically again we'll see a small little house that tenants will be, you know, people that rent houses mostly students or who knows.
Speaker 19And that the, basically the area around the whole lot will be used for additional parking. That's four additional lots that potentially, and who knows if they're acquired by the church or by somebody who is a, you know, sort of a, a related to the church, they end up getting more extra parking spaces. So that's one of the big issues I've sort of seen in terms of the quality of life. Also in terms of real estate value, a lot of these properties, not only the churches, but other people that are just basically own and rent, they don't really take care of their houses, they don't take care of the curb appeal. All they really care is renting the house and parking as many h as many cars as they can. I've seen close to 150 cars parked last game, it was $30 a pop that's close to $5,000 per game that some of these people are making.
Speaker 19So it also poses an issue with traffic concerns as the township does not provide any traffic control. So I've seen traffic jams in Riverview for close to an hour for an Ohio State game. I'm an emergency responder if there is any, you know, if I need to evacuate or go out to work, I have to, I would have to cross through the golf course. Basically also poses another issue with the amounts of elderly population that we have in this street that again would, you know, be, be bestowed by all the issues with parking and, and the games that happen here. Again, and, and I don't really understand why so much of parking when we only have about four or five home games. It's not that much of a, of a revenue in terms of how it affects the community, curb appeal, property state, you know, real estate value and so forth.
Speaker 19So that's one of my concerns in terms of, yeah, we wanna subdivide, there are no foreseeable futures for, you know, for planning for construction or anything. We don't know what we're gonna do. We're gonna, you know, what's gonna happen in the future. That's my, my big concern when this was a very pretty huge lot that should have been kept heavily forested in the back and potentially the house that's there reconstructed and, and redone for having a beautiful, you know, single home family with amazing property value that would also impact all of our neighbors. And again, the quality of life. Think about about when everybody in your street rents and every so often they come and go, what kind of community are you, you know, gonna raise your kids. So just wanted to bring that in terms of there are no foreseeable plans in the future and yet I, you know, there's a, a a need for subdividing. And so when I see that meet as
Speaker 3Mr. Rivera, we really have to limit the comments. We have another application. Okay? So if there's anything pertinent to this application,
Speaker 19That will be my only concerns. If you want to hear more, thank you. You know, feel free to contact me.
Speaker 3Thank you sir. Sure.
Speaker 2That is all Madam chair. Okay.
Speaker 1There's no more, there's no more questions from the public, close to the public
Speaker 14Madam chair If I can make a comment, I just wanna get some reassurances and on the record that the church will not be using any of that approved subdivision for football, parking, or any university events. Alright,
Speaker 12Let me
Speaker 14And counselor, I want a deed restriction on those properties. So whoever buys it, they're gonna have to abide by it.
Speaker 12If we could, I have Mr. Waba present and he should be sworn in, so
Speaker 14No, that's fine at church, but I'm talking about I want Mr. Barlow, I want deed restrictions on the properties when they're transferred for this slot division that there could be no university activity related parking on the properties.
Speaker 3Okay. The applicant agree to that, Mr. Morris.
Speaker 12Y you know that, that becomes a thorny issue because, you know a future,
Speaker 14How does it become authority issue, counselor? Well,
Speaker 12Look, I don't, I I know what you're driving at. You don't want someone to create a, a rental parking situation. That's clear. Yeah, but I could envision a situation with me if I had a house there and having a bunch of friends over to go to the game and all of a sudden they're parking, not charging 'em, but
Speaker 14I'm talking for sale. Charging,
Speaker 12Okay. Okay. A business. Okay, so let's, I just, because this was not something that we anticipated and I just want to confirm Mr. Waba is here on behalf of the applicant. He's, he's, I'd like him to be sworn in and
Speaker 14That, and that includes hold on counsel. That includes donations to the church too.
Speaker 12I underst I understand what you're follow.
Speaker 14I'm saying
Speaker 12I underst I follow what you're saying. So we have Mr. Waba sworn in. He's here on behalf of the church.
Speaker 3Sir, if you could state your name, spell your last name, give us your address, and Ms. Saunders can swear you in.
Speaker 2He has to unmute himself. He is trying. There
Speaker 1He goes. Okay,
Speaker 20Stay right there. Last name Waba. W-A-H-B-N.
Speaker 4Your address
Speaker 20Can please
Speaker 4Go ahead,
Speaker 20Right answer. Parkway, north Brunswick, New Jersey.
Speaker 12Alright, now, Mr. Waba, you are here and you've, you've parked Has
Speaker 4He been sworn? I didn't get, I still didn't even have the address up. I couldn't hear him. Okay. I'm sorry. Let's, is this the
Speaker 1Stop? Wait, wait minute. Wait a minute. One person at a time, please believe, can I still have Mr. Believe Mr. Ava's address? We don't have his address please. Let's get, let's go by the regular process we've established we need his name and address.
Speaker 20First name's Haney, last name Waba, W-A-H-B-A.
Speaker 1Now can we have him sworn in please?
Speaker 4Yes. Can you please? Do you swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 20Yes, I do.
Speaker 4Thank you. Alright,
Speaker 12So Haney first state your address because we glossed over that so that Mr. Barlow can take that down.
Speaker 2010 77 North Floyd Parkway, north Brunswick, New Jersey.
Speaker 4Thank
Speaker 12You. Alright. Now, you have been logged in since the beginning of this hearing and you've watched all the testimony and you are here on behalf of the applicant, correct? Is that correct? Yes.
Speaker 20Can you hear it?
Speaker 12No,
Speaker 4No,
Speaker 2No. He needs to get closer to the computer because we can't pick it up.
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 12Okay. And you've heard all the, you've heard all the representation so far by your, your engineer and the comments that I've made, correct?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 12And the applicant has agreed to the, some of the conditions we talked about regarding the garage and the mirror image, house, all that. I just wanna get on the record. Is that correct?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 12Okay. Now the mayor has brought up a situation based upon some of the comments. There's a concern in the neighborhood that the, your organization might in the future seek to use these lots as paid parking lots, like some of the other related properties for for football games. You've heard that, correct? Yes,
Speaker 20I have.
Speaker 12And I understand it is not the, the applicant's intention to do that to, to, to have paid parking on this property. Is that correct?
Speaker 20That is correct. We have not used that, those lots for pave for any paid parking and has demonstrated the years that we've had it, we've had no parking done at that location.
Speaker 12Okay. And you're prepared if the b if the board would look favorably in this application to a Cahn a, a restriction that the lots couldn't be used for paid parking or, or donation to the church parking, you're aware of that request?
Speaker 20Yes.
Speaker 12Okay. And to otherwise solidify that the mayor is suggesting that there be some type of deed restriction so that future owners would also be bound by that should you sell the properties in the future that it couldn't be used for paid parking, a paid parking lot. And I just want to confirm that you have no, the church has no objection to that type, to that request and that type of restriction.
Speaker 20We don't have an objection.
Speaker 12Okay, I think we've covered that. I just want to get that on the record.
Speaker 2Thank you Mr. Wawa.
Speaker 1Okay, now where do we stand? We ready for a vote on this application?
Speaker 12I'm ready if you are.
Speaker 1Do we have any uncovered? Does anyone have any questions of the witnesses? Are we wed to proceed with a, a motion to accept or reject this application board? What do you wish?
Speaker 5Madam chair? I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the conditions, discuss specifically that in the event the garage was substantially damaged, needs to be replaced, it would've to be in a conforming location. The garage is never to be used for living space. Each of the houses have to have their own character. The applicants agreed to provide an additional five foot right of way and finally that the church will not use this property for any type of paid parking or donation parking. And further, that there be a de restriction in place that the future property owners could also not use this, these properties for paid parking.
Speaker 1Do I
Speaker 2Have a Saunders? Second.
Speaker 1Thank you. Roll call.
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 3Can I just ask who was the second floor?
Speaker 2Carol Saunders. Carol Saunders. Thank you. I got you Carol.
Speaker 12Alright, thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, have a pleasant evening. Have a good
Speaker 1Thank you Kevin. Okay, item number 1224 PB 13 Clawson RP owner Urban renewal, LLC Preliminary and final plan. Final site plan.
Speaker 20Congratulations Mr. Obama. Well congratulations. The only question I have is we're gonna give this right away, but we have to increase the roadway. Well that is
Speaker 2Laura. Oh, there
Speaker 20Mr.
Speaker 3If you
Speaker 2Could turn, I got, thank you. Thank you. I can see who it was for moment. My apologies.
Speaker 1Mr. Tripp, are you here?
Speaker 21Yes I am.
Speaker 1There you are. Mr. Tripp. Okay, I'm here. You may proceed. Okay,
Speaker 21Thank you. Good evening. Steven Tripp from the firm of Len Goldman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. Clawson RP owner Urban Renewal, LLC. The applicant is the designated redeveloper of property that's within the Clawson Street and Lakeland Avenue redevelopment plan. It's a 13.67 acre lot. It includes various tax lots and vacated portions of Clawson Street, Brook Avenue and Field Avenue. It's Gotland on one side, clawson on another side, and then Conrail right of way. The property right now is, is vacant. It was used by the applicant. Is it for temporary trailer storage pursuant to a temporary use permit. This board granted earlier this year that use is, has not been continued. There's also vacant structures on site that will be most, many of which will be demolished as part of this plan. The only building that's gonna remain is there's one building, it's 38 6 3869 square foot footprint within an additional mezzanine that's gonna remain.
Speaker 21And one additional building, 9,450 square foot building is going to be proposed as well. And the remainder of the site will be trailer and vehicle parking area. And the proposed uses will be any of the uses permitted by the redevelopment plan, which include vehicle storage, truck terminal equipment, storage, sales and rentals. Those are primarily the uses that we're focusing on that are among the uses permitted in the zone per the redevelopment plan. Also part of this of plan, which is required by the redevelopment plan and is indicated on the site plan is offsite, are improvements on the adjacent township fire training facility. There's a, a requirement in the redevelopment plan regarding some improvements we're adding and the engineer will explain this fencing and gates and improving driveways and the engineer will explain, there's currently two driveways to the fire facility. One is on the portion of Clawson that remains in a public right of way that was not vacated and the other driveway is on a portion of a clawson that was vacated. And what we're proposing as shown on the plans is a right of way easement to the Lawson right of way. And that will provide access to the second driveway and the engineer can show that once he testifies this plan is compliant with the redevelopment plan, we're not seeking any variances. I think there's one or a couple of questions in the reports that will clarify that we're not seeking any type of relief and we believe it's a fully conforming site plan.
Speaker 21What I'd like to do is have our engineer sworn in Bill Lang. I see Bill is right there.
Speaker 1I'm gonna start with him. You gonna start with Mr. Lang? Yes, correct. Okay.
Speaker 4Mr. Lang, can you please raise your right hand? I can't see, I'm not sure if he's on video or not, but yeah,
Speaker 1He's, his hands is raised nice and high.
Speaker 4Okay. Do you swear that testimony you're about to give be the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 21Mr. Lang, can you just briefly review your professional background and your qualifications and what your role was in this project?
Speaker 22Yes. I've been with Menlo Engineering for a little over 39 years. I've been a licensed PE in the state of New Jersey for 27 years with my license in good, currently in good standing. I've testified in front of probably over a hundred boards throughout the state of New Jersey and including Piscataway many times. My, my role in this was overseeing the design and layout of the, of the facility. I've done several projects with Catalyst over the last couple years.
Speaker 21And your task was to develop a plan that conformed to the requirements of the redevelopment plan, correct? Correct. Okay. Now do you, I, I understand you have some exhibits Yes. Starting with the existing conditions exhibit. Yes.
Speaker 22I'll share my screen.
Speaker 1He is acceptable to the committee as an expert, as an expert in this witness testimony. Go ahead, proceed. Just wanted to ref record to reflect that.
Speaker 21Thank you. Is can Bill get a screen share? There we go.
Speaker 22It up. Everybody can see. All right. This is entitled Existing Conditions Exhibit in October 9th, 2024.
Speaker 3We'll marked that is a one.
Speaker 21And Bill, using this exhibit, could you, you know, review the, the current site conditions, the property, the property location and just kind of orient everybody to where the property is and what's, what's surrounding it?
Speaker 22Yeah, the property's been consolidated into lot. It's block 34 0 5, lot 1 0 1 and it contains 13.67 acres. It was comprised of 16 different lots that were in blocks 34 0 1 through 34 0 4 as well as there was an acre of Clawson Street that was vacated and then there was an additional acre of a portion of Field Avenue and Brook Avenue that were vacated. So additional two acres became available to property, which totaled up to 13.67 acres. The property's bounded by a warehouse to the northeast. We got the Conrail right away to the south off to the west. We have the fire training facility, the end of Clawson Street. And then even further over is Bayland Avenue. The sites governed by, as we mentioned, the Lawson Street Bayland Avenue redevelopment plan. The property right now is currently has been used as a temporary trailer of storage. It contains four buildings. The one existing building to remain is the 4,500 square foot building here. And additionally there's a single family home and a couple of garages off in the back portion of the corner of the property down along the railroad. Current access to the property is off at the end of the Clason Street right of way and a large portion of the site is constrained by wetlands over in the Western portion and majority of the wetlands and the wooded area over there will remain even after construction.
Speaker 3Mr. Wayne, can I just interject with a quick question or maybe Mr. Tripp, you indicated that the lots had been consolidated to block 3 4 0 5 lot 1.01. When, when was that done? Was the lot consolidation deed filed?
Speaker 21Well, we're, we're gonna consolidate as Okay. As a condition of the approval, they will be consolidated into a single lot. Okay.
Speaker 3So you're, we haven't done
Speaker 21That intention.
Speaker 3If this is, if this is acted on favorably, that one of the things you'd be doing is doing a lot consolidation deed.
Speaker 21Correct.
Speaker 3Okay, thank you.
Speaker 21Correct. That's the, that's the intent.
Speaker 3Okay. Sorry, your witness?
Speaker 21Yes, Mr. Lane, I believe you have another exhibit now. The overall plan. Exhibit Yes. To, to show what we're proposing.
Speaker 22All right. Alright. This is entitled overall plan Exhibit. This is also dated October 9th, 2024
Speaker 21Bill. Yeah. Okay, there we go. Okay. B two. Okay. Okay. Why don't you explain what the applicant is proposing Mr. Lane?
Speaker 22Okay. Applicant's actually proposing two phases. This site, phase one will be in the northeast section of the property. That is the portion that will keep the existing 4,500 square foot building. Phase two is where we're constructing the new 9,450 square foot building. They'll be fencing down sort of the middle of where we're considering the, the phasing line in between the properties with fencing. The other structures that we're down in the corner here are being removed. Also, just to let you know, as far as the phases as part of phase two, we're looking to get wetlands permit plans. We wetlands permit wetlands permits for that portion of the site. So if those are in the works are being held up. 'cause the DEP, you know, sometimes takes a little bit of time. We, the applicant's looking to get going. The truck phase one portion of the site, the existing
Speaker 21And d as to the DEP permits, you have a letter and, and LOI, correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21And you have your permit applications in and their pending, correct?
Speaker 22Correct, yes.
Speaker 21Okay.
Speaker 22As, as far as phase one with the existing building, 1,976 square feet will be part of maintenance service and storage space. The other 2,570 square feet will be for office for the proposed building. In phase two 8,485 square feet will be maintenance service and storage space. And approximately 965 square feet will be office. And the proposed building will be four overhead doors on each side of the building where trucks will come in for service and they could pull in from the east side and pull out through the west side. Additionally, there's a fifth door on the western side of the rear of the building that will be for a, a wash bay and the, the LA access from the rear of the building and just the blend and then get their car, whatever it needs to be done, is washed the building. They're looking at having a neutral color, either gray or beige.
Speaker 22And as far as the proposed development, we're, we're going to comply with all the redevelopment plan with, as the site as mentioned, the site will be used for industrial and related uses, permitted the redevelopment plan, including vehicle, trailer equipment, storage, sales, and rentals. The existing building will be 23 feet in height. The proposed building will be 26 feet in height, where the redevelopment allows for 55, the buildings comply with the front, rear and side yard setbacks. As far as building coverage, we're at 2.2% where 40 is permitted for our overall impervious coverage. 26% proposed where 70 is permitted. We also have additional gravel areas, which we weren't considered because the ordinances require gravel to be considered impervious, but if we did, we're still at only 43%. Well under the 70, the site axis is still going to remain off the end of Clason Street where the right of way ends. That street portion of the street will be paved with new curbing and sidewalk down the street. After you come into the property, we're looking to propose a 45 foot wide access easement down about 142 feet into the property. This will allow the second driveway access into the fire facility as well as our, our access into both phases of the, of the project. And that's
Speaker 2145, 45 feet in width?
Speaker 22Yes. And about 142 feet long into the property. Okay.
Speaker 22The phase one access will have a gate on the north, the eastern end of the, of the right of the easement. And phase two will have access gate at the very end of that easement. The main drive aisles, they all comply with the redevelopment plan where we have a 20 foot wide minimum and 65 foot wide maximum. For car parking. Under phase one, we're proposing nine new spaces. Just to the east of the existing building. There'll be one handicapped space and one EV space there. And under phase two north of the new building, we'll have 12 new spaces and also there'll be an EV space and an a DA space there as well.
Speaker 22EV stations will be constructed and operational prior to the CO for the trailer storage areas. Under phase one we have three trailer storage areas and that total is approximately 78 spaces. For phase two, we have four trailer storage areas and that totals about approximately 88 spaces. For fencing around the property, we're proposing an eight foot high fence with, with chain link fence with green fabric screen on the exterior of the, of the side of the fence, which is in compliance with the redevelopment plan for offsite improvements. On the fire training facility, we're looking to replace the existing fence along the Clawson Street right away and the Bayland Avenue Street. Right away we're looking to replace the new, the, the existing gates on the main access driveway for Clawson Street. And then the secondary access, as we mentioned, that comes off of through our easement. Also in Clauson Street, we're installing a new sanitary sewer main down the road and into the existing pump station that sits at the corner of Clawson and Lakeland. And we're tying, tying into that as well and upgrading the pumps there. The applicant is also conveying two lots from the property and given back and given them to the fire facility. There are lots 5.01 and 12.01 and block 34 0 2 and that's approximately 4,000 additional square feet to the, to the fire facility.
Speaker 21So that property that property's been conveyed. So the fire station lot has been increased as a result.
Speaker 22Okay. On stormwater, we're opposing three new buyer retention basins for basin one. We have the, the largest one, which is in the southern section of the property along the conrail right of way Basin two is up in the northern corner of the property right up by Clauson Street. And Basin three is down in the corner, the, the, all the way to the east. Right. Again, also along the Conrad right of way post and rail fencing. We proposed around all three basins. The basin design, stormwater design addresses, township and NGDP requirements for water quality, the quantity and recharge. And additionally we've gotten comments in from DNR engineering and the applicant's gonna agree to all of those comments in there. There's nothing we can't satisfy for landscaping. We're proposing to stall 22 new trees, 12 shade and 10 evergreen and 34 new shrubs. Additionally, the three basins, because they're bioretention basins, will have anywhere from a hundred to 300 shrubs in the basin bottom as well as 250 to 500 grasses installed in them. We're there, there's no berms or buffers required or proposed with the parking being five and 80 feet off the property lines.
Speaker 21And that's, that's per the redevelopment plan specifically permits a two foot setback for parking loading on the side and a five foot from the rear. Correct? Correct.
Speaker 22Yeah. And those are
Speaker 21Was a question and one of the reports, I believe the staff report about providing a buffer. Is there anything you could do in, in that area between the fence and the end of the parking?
Speaker 22I mean, we could look to install stuff, but being it's limited from five to eight feet and you're gonna have, you know, cars or trailers backing up in there, you know, it, it wouldn't be ideal, but it can be done if need. If if, if really they looking to the, the board or the town's looking to have that done.
Speaker 21But the conditions we're talking about in terms of the setback is in full compliance with the redevelopment plan, correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21Okay.
Speaker 22Yeah. And those, and those parking spaces along the northern property line, along the warehouse, along the south, along the, the Conrad Railroad and then also along the wooded area next to the fire training facility where the parking spaces are,
Speaker 21You say along the warehouse, that's the warehouse on the adjacent property? Correct. Okay.
Speaker 22So those,
Speaker 21Those are the areas where we have the trailer parking, correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 22Okay. Additionally, because this site was existing wooded down here along the southern portion and we're moving trees, apple's gonna have to make a a, a contribution to the tree fund. There's limited stuff that we could do on site. As, as I'll mention, once we get to the, the get to the utilities, there's easements on site that pro prohibits us from adding much more trees on here. But what they're looking to do right now is we're doing a tree survey and with an arborist to try to hopefully bring the number down to a more accurate number. But we, we will be making a contribution to the tree fund in some fashion because there was a de decent amount of trees out here that needed to be removed.
Speaker 21But now you're looking to identify, you're looking now you're doing a specific analysis to identify trees that are required to be replaced versus trees that aren't. Is that correct? Correct.
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 21Okay.
Speaker 22And lighting, we're proposing 28 new light poles and four new lights along the proposed building. The poles will be 30 feet high with LED lights with a 0.5 minimal foot candle and an average foot candle of 1.69 foot candles across the property. We're also a proposing a new 96 square foot sign out by the Clason Street entrance. And that's also in compliance with the redevelopment plan for utilities. Water is being taken from, there's a 12 inch main that comes down Clason Street and ties to a 48 inch main that cuts from Brook Avenue across the property. So we'll be tying into that 12 inch line for both buildings for sewer as previously mentioned, we're gonna run a new line down Clason Street and kind to the existing pump station with those water lines, because we're vacating the streets, we're going to propose a new easement over them. Additionally, there's a township utility easement back in the corner here, which that will get vacated. There's no other utilities back there. But what we're going to do, we're working with New Jersey American Water, is we're going to have a easement across their 48 inch water main that comes down Brook Avenue and across this portion of the property. And there's a 12 inch line that will have a easement easement also out to, to Clawson Street across this section of the property.
Speaker 22Sites not expected to have any issues with noise from prospective tenants. If anything arises, the applicant have to look at providing some kind of noise attenuating fence. But like I said, with the operations here, it should be minimal.
Speaker 21And the, the residential uses are on the other side of the railroad tracks, correct?
Speaker 22Correct. In the nearest home, I think from where any of our new storage trailers will be about, approximately about 150 feet with that a hundred foot wide right of way there. As far as outside agency approvals, we have our Middlesex County approval from June of 2024. As earlier mentioned, we got a letter of interpretation from the DEP back in January of 2024. And additionally we're under review with the NGDP for wetlands permitting. We've reviewed professional letters that, that have come in and majority of it all that I think we just probably can comply. There was one issue that came up with the payment. Well,
Speaker 21I think, I think there's a, there's a couple of things 'cause some of, some of the items require clarification. Okay. So I just wanted to start with the staff. With the staff memorandum bill.
Speaker 22Okay.
Speaker 21The first couple of comments are just statements. 1, 2, 3 are just statements. Number four asks for the hours of operation, anticipated number of employees and anticipated number of trips. We, we don't, at this point there are no, there's no tenants, correct? I mean, we don't have a specific tenant.
Speaker 22Yeah, correct. There's no tenants known at this time,
Speaker 21At this time. And in terms of trips, we did submit a traffic report, which you, the traffic consultant for the board reviewed and didn't have any real questions regarding that. So I think we addressed that. In terms of the noise, I think you just testified that if we don't expect an issue, but if there is, we can always add an attenuating. There's a comment there that we might have to install an eight foot high noise reducing fence and that's just gonna be a matter of if, if there's an issue, we would comply with that. Correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21The next was tree, a contribution to the tree fund. And I know you indicated that that pending a final count, there'll be an, there'll be a tree tree contribution requirement. Correct. Number seven talks about a buffer and the redevelopment plan talks about what would be in a landscape buffer. But is there, is there any re actual requirement for buffers in those particular areas that you identified?
Speaker 22No.
Speaker 21And that's where, where you, you have the two foot and the five foot set setbacks, correct? That are
Speaker 22Correct, yeah, they're five, they're approximately five feet and eight feet.
Speaker 21But if, if the board wants as a condition of approval that you do add some plantings there, you would, you would be able to do that, correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21Okay. The next comment just talks about additional trees or, and we're, you're gonna add trees and make a contribution to comply with the requirements, correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21Okay. The next comment deals with the color of the building, and I think you provided testimony comment 10 requires electric vehicle charging stations operational prior to an issuance of a co. We agree to that. On the next comment has to do with heavy duty pavement detail. Bill, can you address that briefly? Yeah.
Speaker 22In talking with the applicant, I guess he's already in, in discussions with contractors and stuff on how to, you know, construct a site. One of the thoughts was that during construction they'd like to have a bigger stone base out there. So what they did was they had the soils engineered, geotech, engineered design, a pavement section to thicken up the stone base. So really what we're looking to do and propose is a, a a two inch surface pavement section with a three inch binder course with six inches of stone. So, like I said, during construction it could be a little bit heavier and that works out usually, but your rule of thumb is every two inches of stone is like an inch of pavement. So if you do the numbers we, we provide, that provides an eight inch section. The, I know the town section is one and a half inches of surface with a five inch binder course of pavement and then three inches of stone. So if you take that three inch of stone with one and a half inches, that, that's also an approximately an an eight inch section. So we're matching the sections. We're just looking to do a little bit more stone on the bottom and take a little bit out of the binder course. If the towns and, and you're,
Speaker 21You're gonna work with the, and you're gonna work with the town engineer on that, you need his approval on that, correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21Okay. Number 12 is to keep parking areas clear of debris and vegetative growth. No chemical herbicides. That's obviously we agreed to that. The number 13 is replacing certain details with the township standard details. Bill, there's no issue with that on the plans. No
Speaker 22Issue
Speaker 21Curbs and sidewalks along Clawson on num. Item 14, you've already testified to that, correct?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 21And then the Middlesex County approval letter has been submitted. So that's that report, I believe the Charlie Carly report, the DNR report, you indicated we could comply with fully
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 21And the DPW, the Department of Public Works report. Item one talks about extending the Clawson street right of way to allow proper vehicular entrance. We're not sure what that comment means. We have the right of way and we're giving a 45 foot right of way. We'll, we'll talk to Mr. Gaspari to see what else he's looking for, but we believe we're providing a right of way. The one driveway is on the Clawson Street public right of way, and the other driveway is on the vacated portion, but there's a 45 foot wide right of way access. So if something else is required, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll certainly work with, with your Department of Public Works and your municipal engineer to, to do whatever else is required to make sure, sure. Proper. And Mr.
Speaker 14Trip, if I may jump in, this is Mayor Wahler. We'll just work that out with the township attorney. And the other issue I know that Public Works had is about the, the force main issue, sewer force main issue that needs to be resolved
Speaker 21About the, well, the comments on the report, I think we can agree to the comments on the report.
Speaker 14Okay.
Speaker 21There's comments two through six deal with the, with the, the pump station and deal with the piping. Correct. Okay. Yeah, and I think we can comply with all the bill. We can comply with all the remainder of those reports.
Speaker 22Yeah. Yeah. Just to run through. Yeah, I mean, just to run through a few, the, the, the number two, we will definitely upgrade the line to eight as opposed to the six inch that we show the one number three, the one and a quarter inch PVC pipe. We, we did the calculation, sent them over to the engineering department. Joe Herrera actually said we were good with the design on that, so we're gonna leave the existing one and a quarter inch line number for number, number four is just to comment. And then number five and number six, we, we were doing some stuff with the plan where we thought we might have to alter the line, but the existing line's gonna stay, so the plans and profiles will get corrected to leave the existing line in place.
Speaker 14All right. Just wanna,
Speaker 21On subject,
Speaker 14Mr. Barlow, I just wanna make subject prove that the Public Works department is comfortable and that the applicant can work it out with public works.
Speaker 21Absolutely. Course,
Speaker 3I think Mr. Trip, it would probably make sense to the, there be a developer's agreement and we can subsume all those items into that so it can be worked out at appropriate time.
Speaker 21Yeah, we have no, we currently have a, there is a redevelopment agreement, but we have no problem with a supplemental development agreement to incorporate these terms and conditions.
Speaker 3Thank you.
Speaker 21Not, not a problem. The other reports traffic report basically didn't have any real comments other than at the end. This is the Betsy Dolan and Dean August 8th, 2024. They just wanted to correct the labels on the plan when revised plans are submitted. And I think there also was a question about access to the proposed wash.
Speaker 22Yeah. Just to go over those two things. We, or originally, everybody was gonna pull straight in and straight out. So this was gonna be a one way driveway. You could see here, even on this overall plan, we had a stop bar here. So that's been removed and it's no longer one way. We have a two-way axis in here. So the, the, that portion of their letter has been addressed. The, the next thing is there's a, a wash bay in the back corner here. So now that it's a two-way driveway, they could pull in back, pull into the car, wash back out, and come through this two-way driveway.
Speaker 21And the, the final, the last report is the CME report. And I, I, you know, subject to Thelan, who I know is here, we, can we start with the comments and recommendations or is there anything before that you'd like us to address
Speaker 0Here? But if they, if they have no objections, we can move forward. Basically, one of the things I, I just looked at, I had technical comments about EVSC, but nothing major.
Speaker 21Yeah. The EV comments is just the, we, we subtracted. And you say it's a credit, it's, it's, it's a, it's just the math is different and we have no problem with that.
Speaker 0That's it. It if they have no OB objection. We're, we're good.
Speaker 21Okay. I we're good. Don't, there's nothing, I don't see anything in your report that's, that's, that's an issue. Yeah. You basically asked for qualifications, you found a misspelling, which we will certainly correct. You know, a couple, just, just some technical things. But Bill, do you see any issue with, with addressing their report, their, their report?
Speaker 1No, we're got everything in there.
Speaker 21Okay,
Speaker 0Good. Thank you.
Speaker 21So that, I think we've hit every report now. And at this point I don't have anything further from Mr. Lane, unless of course, the questions.
Speaker 3Mr. Lane, if you could unshare your screen. Thank you.
Speaker 1Okay. Do you have any other witnesses?
Speaker 21Are there any questions? I do not. I do have a representative of the developer if there are any questions, but, you know, at this point, I think Mr. Lane has covered everything that we needed to cover. Okay. Your
Speaker 0Honor
Speaker 1Chair, we need to open it to the public. Well, does the board have any questions? Does the board have any questions of the, with this witness? If they don't?
Speaker 5Madam? Oh, Madam chair. It's Dawn. Corcoran. I, it's not, it's not necessarily for Mr. Lean. I do know there's a representative here from the company, but I, I do realize this was recently brought to your attention, Mr. Trip, that there's debris out at the site from the prior tenant. We do realize that you've been working on cleaning it up. One of our inspectors was out there today, so thank you for that. When do you anticipate the complete removal of that debris being complete? Done. Do you need I have another two weeks.
Speaker 21Let me, let me have Mr. Will, William Slater, who's Yep. Hi everyone.
Speaker 23They should be, they should be wrapped
Speaker 3Up in Mr Hold on.
Speaker 21Hold on. Mr. Slater, before you say anything, you have to, you have to get sworn in and you have to identify who you are and what you're doing with the company.
Speaker 4Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you about to give you the truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 23Yes, I do.
Speaker 4Please state and spell your name for the record.
Speaker 23My name is William Slater. W-I-L-L-I-A-M, Slater, S-L-A-G-E-R.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 21And Mr. Slater, what, what is your position with the applicant?
Speaker 23I'm the project manager for Catalyst Investment Partners. Who's the controlling part of CLO Urban? Clawson Urban Renewal, LLC.
Speaker 21And you're familiar with the site?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 21And you're familiar with the issue of the debris? Yes. And that debris was there from the, your predecessor and title, correct?
Speaker 23Yes.
Speaker 21So Ms. Ms. Corcoran had asked a question about what your timing is, that she was aware that you have, you do have people out there doing me cleanup, correct?
Speaker 23Yes. They, they started today and they have told me they'll be wrapped up by, by Friday.
Speaker 14Thank you Mr. Re, counselor. Mr. Trip. I just have a question for Mr. Mr later. How did you folks close on a property knowing full well that the prior owner left all that debris there? I, I, I, to me there was legal malpractice or something to allow something to like that to happen. And I'm not trying to throw anybody literally under the bus because it was from Leila Bus Company, but that's a whole nother issue. I, I mean, as long as you're getting it cleaned up, that's fine. But I'm just kind of shocked that somebody would close on the property with the condition of that way.
Speaker 23Yeah, we were, we were hoping to clean it. We were hoping to clean it up a little earlier, and then it was eventually gonna be cleaned up with the development of the property. But we're, we're happy to clean it up now.
Speaker 14Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1Okay. Can you hear me?
Speaker 21Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1Yes. Okay. Let's open it up to the public. Anyone in the public wishing to ask a question of Mr. Lane? Would you indicate, would you show your hand so that you can let us know that you have a question? Yeah.
Speaker 4Vivian,
Speaker 24Hi
Speaker 14Ma'am.
Speaker 3If you could state your name, spell your last name for the record of course, and give us your address.
Speaker 24Sure. It's Vivian Harris. And the last name is H-A-R-R-I-S. And I'm at 59 Normandy Drive in Piscataway. Of course.
Speaker 4Can you please raise your right hand?
Speaker 24It is.
Speaker 4Do you swear that this testimony you're about to give you you truth and nothing but the truth?
Speaker 24Yes.
Speaker 4Thank you.
Speaker 24Thank you. So as, as a resident in of Piscataway for over 20 years and actually directly across from where this proposed site is gonna be built, I, I really felt that it was important to voice my opposition to the destruction of this pristine forest and wetlands, which is actually a sanctuary and home to a variety of diverse and protected wildlife. It's been untouched basically for over 25 years. We really, well, I guess I really hate to see it paved over for industrial facilities. And so I have a few questions that I'd like to raise. My first has to do with the pollution and the impact on the residents there. Sounds like there's gonna be a lot of light pollution for the residents that are living within 500 feet or less of this facility. And we really don't look forward to having all that light shining right in our residential windows. And the additional noise and air pollution that may result from having, what, what did you say? 88 truck spaces filled and also a wash basin, which this the first I've heard about having a wash basin there. And what I, I guess what remediation is there gonna be for both the noise and the light?
Speaker 21I
Speaker 24Direction
Speaker 21The light? Well, the light Mr. Lane, can you address the lighting? The lighting has to comply with the redevelopment plan, which has some specific requirements that prevent any glare and any light from leaving the site. Is that correct, bill? Correct. And can you explain that and, and answer the question
Speaker 22Y you know, we, we've designed these to, to, to pretty much just light up the pavement area. Again, the conrail right of way is a hundred feet away. So it's only the backside of those lights that are up along that property line. And they're gonna shine forward. They come in with backside shields, so nothing pulls off to the backside. And the majority of the lights are further into the site, even much further away. They're probably another couple hundred feet into the site. And, and like the Mr. Trip has indicated, you know, it's been designed in accordance with township standards and the redevelopment plan.
Speaker 24And when, when you say that the, the, the lights will be aimed mainly towards the front, I'm assuming that means towards bland
Speaker 22Yes. Or toward into the property, yes.
Speaker 24Okay. I, I still would, would, would like to see some kind of fencing or shielding to be considered that would block that light from coming into our areas or backyard.
Speaker 21Well, Mr. Lane, is there any light at all that's gonna be directed towards the homes on the other side of the railroad tracks?
Speaker 22Again, they're, they're probably the ones that that, that the heads face in towards the railroad. They're, they're a couple hundred feet almost off the property line, so they're much further in. So as the, as the cone of light goes downward, you're really not gonna have that shining up out across the railroad right away.
Speaker 24If, if we find as the construction goes forward that that's not the case, is there some means of coming back to the board to have something changed?
Speaker 21Well, I I think that if, if the lights actually exceed the permitted foot candles and actually create light beyond the property line, it would not be in compliance with the redevelopment plan. Is that correct, bill?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21And we would be required to remediate that as a matter of law, wouldn't we?
Speaker 22Yes.
Speaker 21Okay. The other question I have is, is in terms of the wetlands, we have a letter of interpretation, correct?
Speaker 24Correct. Yeah, I was getting to the wetlands question.
Speaker 21And, and, and Bill, is it fair to say that the majority of the wetlands area is gonna be preserved and that area is vegetated is gonna be left in its natural state?
Speaker 22Yeah, there's a, I mean, there's a big chunk, like, like it indi indicated, even with the gravel area, we're at like 43% of impervious coverage where you're even the, I believe we're allowed 70. So 57% of the site is, is grassed area or remaining woods area. And everything over from that proposed building to where we have a little bit of the driveway behind there, that's all existing wetlands and woods that are, that won't be touched.
Speaker 24Okay. The, the, the, the wetlands actually are a kind of a double-edged concern. My, my first concern with the wetlands is, has to do with flooding and flood control. The storm water or drains around that area says do not dump drains to the waterways. This includes the Ambrose Brook Rare and River. Yet consistently what we've seen with major storms like Ida and Irene in the past Bayland area, floods at both ends as does river and possum town roads. With the loss of some of these wetlands, the, it, it'll actually kind of increase the community flooding and potentially, and residents already have very limited egress to the area in case of flooding and actually have a, a pretty good challenge to get to medical facilities during storm flooding. The last time we had a major storm, there was only one exit out of the entire neighborhood and kind of had to drive over some neighbors properties to do that. Has the, has the plan, as you've outlined it, taken those flooding concerns into consideration And
Speaker 21Bill, bill, can you address that? The, the property bill, first of all, the property's not in a flood zone, is it?
Speaker 22No.
Speaker 21And can you address the issue of the stormwater and, and, and, and the, the, the concerns about, about flooding?
Speaker 22Yeah. Not only, you know, do we have to have, go through a review with the township engineer, but because we have wetlands on site, we also have to go through a stringent review with the Department of Environment Environmental Protection. And every so many years they come out with a little bit more stricter and a little more stricter rules. So as I mentioned earlier, we have three bio retention basins, which collect, treat, hold back, infiltrate the water into the ground. These things are oversized. Any new development nowadays that has to go through this storm water design, they're well designed to handle any increase and reduce the runoff from the property from the existing condition. Whereas the two year storm gets cut in half from the existing conditions up to the a hundred year storm where it gets cut down to 2020 5%. We can't change the drainage patterns basin one goes into the wetlands basin, two shoots out towards Ambrose Brook and the other basin up by cla the street goes out into the system. So this system is designed very, very well. And like I said, it goes through a stringent review with the DP as well as the town. So this i, this is designed pretty well to handle the stormwater runoff increase from the pavement areas.
Speaker 21And your obligation under the regs, just to be clear, is to, is to reduce the rate of runoff, correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21And to address water quality issues as well.
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21And your basins that you're proposing are compliant with the regulations and accomplish that? Yes.
Speaker 24And it's,
Speaker 21And additionally the, the, the, the township engineer in their report had some additional comments regarding the drainage, which you're gonna address as well.
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 24Okay. And it's, I I realize this is an unrelated property, but down the road from this area, there's a huge warehouse property that will be billed as part of Ms.
Speaker 3Ms. Harris. Yes. If we could stick to this application, 'cause that doesn't really have any relevance to the, the application for site plan here and, and the, it is getting late. So if you have anything pertinent to this particular application, otherwise we'd like to move along.
Speaker 24Okay. I, I understand it is kind of related because it's taking out additional areas for the many species of wildlife that have existed over there. There's tons of wildlife over there that are gonna be displaced. Lots of wild turkeys, foxes, bats. There also was a, well, last year there were two bald eagles that I've photographed in that area. They've, since they, they've since I guess, relocated because of the cleanup of the debris that is happening along with the wood chips that existed as part of an i, I guess what I consider or what I've read to be an illegal tree chipping operation. But what, what, what measures are being taken to protect some of the wildlife that's over there?
Speaker 21Well, bill, the wetlands areas, other than the area you're getting permits for, is gonna be left in its natural state, correct?
Speaker 22Correct. And I believe we have to de restrict it and can't be touched.
Speaker 21And when, when you got the letter of interpretation, DEP assesses the ecological value and they, and, and you also have to, to demonstrate that there's no habitat for threatening endangered species. Isn't that correct?
Speaker 22Correct.
Speaker 21And DEP did that analysis before they issued the we or a letter of interpretation, correct? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3Are there any other residents that would like to speak?
Speaker 24Oh, is
Speaker 1This past witness finished? Is she finished?
Speaker 3Well, I think she's, yes. Four exceeded her allotted time. So
Speaker 2No one else. Madam chair.
Speaker 1Okay. Thank you. Close to the public then. Are we ready for a motion
Speaker 3Or Mr. Trip? Do you have any closing?
Speaker 21Yeah, just very briefly, given the late hour, I mean, we, we've come up with a plan that fully complies with the ordinance. We've addressed all the reports. We've agreed to incorporate all the various understandings into a, a further development agreement as the mayor has suggested. So I think we've demonstrated that we've, you know, fully complied with the redevelopment plan and we should, the, the application should be approved subject to the conditions that we, that we've agreed to and the conditions in your professionals reports.
Speaker 1Members of the board. What is your pleasure?
Speaker 25Mad and chair Reverend Kinneally. I make a motion that this application be granted and accepted with the, the applicant complying with the, the staff reports that were set forth.
Speaker 3Seconded.
Speaker 1Roll call
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders?
Speaker 1Sorry. Yes.
Speaker 2Okay. Reverend Ty?
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?
Speaker 3Yes.
Speaker 2And Madam chair?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 21Thank you very much.
Speaker 1Thank you very much. Thank
Speaker 21You. Thank you.
Speaker 1Item number 13, discussion to amend definitions to separate hotel and extended stay hotel under the zoning ordinance pursuant to NJS 40 dash. Is that 5 0 1? Yeah. 26. There's glare under my lamp.
Speaker 3That's okay. Dawn, you want me to just briefly explain to the board? Okay. EE evidently upon review of the township ordinances, it, it's become necessary that to, to lay out a more particular definition as to hotel and extended stay hotel so that the zoning ordinances can more appropriately address those types of facilities. So I know Mr. Clarkin had prepared some definitions of the two that just lay out the particulars as to, you know, there is a difference between a hotel and motel and an extended state facility. And the council sent it over for our review as to whether or not, I guess the planning board agrees that's a good idea and the, the mayor may have some additional comments. Or Dawn,
Speaker 14I I think that Mr. Barlow, I think there was just ambiguity in the two differences. And I think this is just clarifying the differences of the two between a hotel and extended hotel motel and an extended state hotel. Correct. If I'm wrong, Ms. Corcoran,
Speaker 3I just think it, it was all kind of lumped into one. And this will remove the ambiguity and, and allow the township to craft the appropriate ordinances for different types of facilities.
Speaker 8I think it's a really smart thing to do. 'cause we wanna make sure that if an approval's given that we know exactly what's going in there, what type Yeah. Of,
Speaker 1So the distinction will be made prospectively, not retrospectively. Right. There you go. Well, do we have to amend the, the current facilities that are motels and hotels?
Speaker 3I would, I guess we
Speaker 1Envision,
Speaker 3I would envision now that the, if the township council approves the two separate definitions, that the next step may be that the council will craft ordinances to relate to the two different types of facilities and how they operate going forward.
Speaker 1Okay. So then that would just, we would just distinguish in the future.
Speaker 3Yeah. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if we get additional things to comment on relative to the ordinance as, as the council and the governing body fleshes that out.
Speaker 1But I do think it's a good idea though, and I think we should distinguish.
Speaker 0Okay. So, so Mr. Barlow, is there an, is there a revision I advanced here or is this just a, a concept that you're asking for opinion?
Speaker 3Well, it's the, it came over from the council who has adopted it on first reading. So, and as of right now, it just, it sets forth two different definitions. It, it, it differentiates and as the mayor said, reuse the ambiguity between a, what we all think of as a hotel or motel. You stay there for one or two nights, I'm going to a football game as opposed to an extended state facility where people are there for weeks, if not months at a time. And once the definitions are in place, then I would envision a, a possibility where then ordinances can be crafted to govern and both types of facilities.
Speaker 0Okay. And, and, and again, it was a little unclear to me when I, when I saw this, generally when, when an ordinance gets referred on first reading isn't, isn't the planning board basically looking to see if it's consistent with the master plan?
Speaker 3Yes. And I think clearing up the ambiguity and the statutes is consistent with the master plan reexamination,
Speaker 0Your Honor, and I would totally concur with that and just put it on the record. So if it gets referred back to counsel, I mean, as your board planner, I, I would say it's consistent with the master plan.
Speaker 1We do have an, we have an extended stent in extended state facility in town now. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3And I, and I don't think we have the appropriate definitions to address it. And I think that's what the council is trying to remedy.
Speaker 0So, you know, again, I I'm just advising
Speaker 1Okay. Go to a council
Speaker 0Planner. We're good.
Speaker 3So if it's, if the board is in favor of that, it would be appropriate for a motion in concurrence with the council's recommendation as to the two definitions. And then I did prepare a resolution if the board wishes to act favorably on it so it can go back to the council.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 25Reverend Kinneally, one, one question on in regards to that, that can be amendment to the master plan and put into the master plan. Is that correct counsel?
Speaker 3Absolutely. I mean, when the master plan's reexamined, if there have been changes, you know, they can, they should be worked into the master plan at the appropriate time.
Speaker 25Thank you. That's what I thought. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1So who would, who would like to make that pose that motion?
Speaker 8Well, I'll make the motion that we make the recommended changes to the zoning ordinance to make the amendments.
Speaker 1Do I have a second? I'll second
Speaker 25That
Speaker 1Motion. Okey dokey. Take your pay. We got several second seconds, so it's well, it's well seconded. Can we have a roll call?
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally.
Speaker 25Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster? Yes. And Madam chair?
Speaker 1Yes. You have a resolution, sir?
Speaker 3I, I do. Ms. Saunders?
Speaker 4Yes, I see it. Okay. Madam Chairman, I'd like to moralize the resolution for the concurrence with ordinance and to supplement the revised current definition of hotel and the creation of a separate definition of extended state hotel.
Speaker 1We'll have a second. Second. Oh, come on. Come on. I know we got some seconds out there,
Speaker 0Boy. Oh boy. This is great. Seconds tonight.
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler
Speaker 1Roll call. Yes.
Speaker 2Councilwoman. Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Atkins?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2Mr. Foster?
Speaker 1Absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 2And Madam chair? Yes.
Speaker 1Okay. Item number 14, discussion adoption of the 2025 planning board calendar. Is there, was there a proposed one?
Speaker 2Yeah, I sent it to you.
Speaker 1Oh, well I guess I didn't get that deep. Oh, I see it. I see it here. It's, I
Speaker 8Have them all saved in my calendar already. Laura, and by the way, went enter again and I started making duplicate meetings. So you didn't see any conflict for sending it that way? I appreciate it. You
Speaker 0Councilwoman. I i, I do everything ahead of time, which draw people crazy.
Speaker 1Okay. I, I assume we have no conflicts in here with Easter or anything, so. No. Would someone like to propose a motion to accept the calendar? This is Carol Signers.
Speaker 8I make a motion to accept
Speaker 1The calendar. Do we get a second?
Speaker 2Second. Council Kinneally.
Speaker 0I'll second it.
Speaker 1Okay. Roll call.
Speaker 2Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Yes. Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Foster?
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2And Madam chair?
Speaker 1Yes, absolutely. Okay, everyone, motion to adjourn.
Speaker 8So moved
Speaker 1Everyone vote and we'll see you next month. No, we'll see you in two weeks for the site plan
Speaker 2Workshop.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 0And let's go Miss. They won tonight. They won,
Speaker 1Right? Yay.
Speaker 0Yeah. Onset of Champ
Speaker 2Philies are done.
Speaker 8Everyone.