Transcript for Piscataway Planning meeting on November 13 2024
Note: Transcripts are generated by rev.ai and may not be fully accurate. Please listen to the recording (below) if you feel any text is inaccurate.
Speaker 0 00:00:00 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 posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building. Okay, Dito notice made available to the township clerk notice sent to the Courier News and the star ledger, Ms. Buckley, will you please call the role Speaker 1 00:00:25 Mayor Wahler. Present Councilwoman Cahill. Here, Ms. Corcoran? Here. Reverend Kinneally. Here. Mr. Atkins, you're muted. Alex. Hi. I see you. He's here. That Mr. Ahmed? Yes. Here. And Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:00:56 Here you can see the flag over my left shoulder with Could we all recite the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pledge Allegiance to the flag. To the flag of the United States of America and, and to the Republic for for which stands? One Nation. One Nation. Under God. Under God, indivisible. Visible with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Barlow, would you please read the open public meeting? Speaker 2 00:01:26 Thank you, Madam chair. 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 Meetings Act. Through this virtual platform, there will be a public comment period 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 in a user account, we ask that if you wish to speak, that you log in or dial in separately so 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. Unmute, excuse me. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be called upon either by name or phone number. Please speak. At that time you'll be asked your name and address and will be sworn in prior to your question or comment. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:02:18 Can we swear the professionals in please? Speaker 2 00:02:20 Mr. Foot, I'm gonna just swear you in. You raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you'll give before this board will be the whole truth? Speaker 1 00:02:27 Yes. Speaker 2 00:02:28 Okay. Speaker 0 00:02:31 Okay. Mr. Barlow. Oh, Speaker 2 00:02:34 Sorry. Madam chair. I forgot Mr. Farrell, I might as well swear you in now. Speaker 0 00:02:38 Okay. Speaker 2 00:02:38 Mr. Farrell, you swear the testimony you'll give before this board will be the whole truth? Speaker 1 00:02:42 I do. Speaker 2 00:02:43 Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:02:46 No problem. Are there any changes to our agenda tonight, Mr. Barlow? Speaker 2 00:02:50 Yes. Madam chair number 10 24 PBO two slash 12 V Dini communications that has been withdrawn. Anyone is, is on the zoom call for that matter. It's been withdrawn. If they want to come back before the board, they will have to refile and start the process all over again. Also, number 1124 PB oh eight and oh nine VLRN properties has been postponed to December 11th, 2024. They had an issue with their notice and that matter will be heard on the December 11th, 2024 meeting once they correct their notice issues, those are the only changes to the agenda. Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:03:35 Okay. Thank you. Okay. That brings us to item number seven. Oh, can I make, have a motion to pay the duly audited bills from the board? Speaker 3 00:03:52 I make a motion. Reverend, can you make a motion that we pay the duly ordered bills? Speaker 0 00:03:57 Do I have a second? Speaker 1 00:04:00 I'll second that. Councilwoman Cahill. Speaker 0 00:04:02 Thank you. Roll call Speaker 1 00:04:03 Please. Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 3 00:04:11 Yes. Speaker 1 00:04:12 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair? Speaker 0 00:04:18 Yes. Item number eight, adoption of resolution to memorialize certain items on, taken on October the ninth, 2024. Speaker 2 00:04:33 Normally, Ms. Saunders would be here and she'd make a motion to adopt a resolution with a second. So in, in our absence, would someone else like to move? Okay. Maybe Reverend Speaker 1 00:04:44 Kinneally should do that. Speaker 3 00:04:46 Yeah. I'll, I was gonna do it, but Okay. Sorry. Somebody stepped on me. Sorry. Okay. I make a, a motion to, sorry. Speaker 0 00:04:53 Lose. Oops. Speaker 3 00:04:55 Taken on October 9th, 2024. Speaker 0 00:04:59 Do I have a second please? Speaker 2 00:05:00 Mr. Atkins? Second. Speaker 0 00:05:01 Thank you. Roll call please. Speaker 1 00:05:04 Mayor? Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman kay. Help? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 3 00:05:11 Yes. Speaker 1 00:05:11 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair? Speaker 0 00:05:17 Yes. Next item please. Speaker 1 00:05:23 Reverend Kinneally. We need the second one. T-Mobile. There's three resolutions. Speaker 3 00:05:28 Okay. I make a motion that we memorialize T-Mobile Northeastern LLC 24 PB dash oh three. Speaker 0 00:05:41 Do I have a second please? Speaker 2 00:05:42 Mr. Atkins? A second. Speaker 0 00:05:43 Again. Speaker 1 00:05:44 Thank Speaker 0 00:05:45 You. Roll call please. Speaker 1 00:05:46 Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilman McCahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Speaker 3 00:05:55 Yes. Speaker 1 00:05:56 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Ah Ahmed. Yes. And Madam chair? Yes. Speaker 0 00:06:02 There's a third item. Reverend Kinneally Speaker 3 00:06:06 Greek Orthodox community. I make a motion that we memorialized Greek Orthodox community of New Brunswick, New Jersey. 24 PB 16 dash V 17 V. Speaker 0 00:06:21 Second please. Speaker 2 00:06:22 Mr. Atkins. Second. Speaker 0 00:06:25 Welcome. Speaker 1 00:06:26 Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill. Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally. Speaker 3 00:06:33 Yes. Speaker 1 00:06:33 Mr. Atkins? Yes. And Madam chair? Speaker 0 00:06:37 Yes. Item number nine, adoption of minutes from October the ninth, 2024. Speaker 3 00:06:43 I'll make a motion that we adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of October 9th, 2024. Speaker 0 00:06:50 Do I have a second? Speaker 2 00:06:51 Mr. Atkins? A second Speaker 0 00:06:53 Roll call please. Speaker 1 00:06:54 Mayor Wahler. Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Speaker 0 00:06:59 Yes. Speaker 1 00:07:00 Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Ms. Saunders. Oh, excuse me. Didn't write that down. Reverend Kinneally. Speaker 3 00:07:07 Yes. Speaker 1 00:07:08 Mr. Atkins? Speaker 2 00:07:09 Yes. Speaker 1 00:07:10 And Madam chair? Speaker 0 00:07:11 Yes. The next item is item number 12. Discussion Piscataway. Township would like to subdivide block 11 3 0 2 lot 2.03. Speaker 2 00:07:23 Thank you. Madam chair. This is an application or a request by the township to subdivide block 1 1 3 0 2 lot 2.03, also known as 5 5 1 Highland Avenue. Mr. Farrell is here. He's the engineer that was retained by Piscataway Township to do the site plan, and I'll turn the meeting over to him. Mr. Farrell, you are under oath. Speaker 4 00:07:50 Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Frank Farrell, as pointed out, and I am a principal here at Grotto Engineering. We were tasked with subdividing block 1, 1 3 0 2, lot 2.03 into smaller lots. I'm gonna share my screen in an attempt to show you what we prepared. All right. I think I got it right. So what we should be looking at is a PDF of a three sheet plan. Right in the middle here, we have a key map. We have a zone map, not terribly interesting to themselves, but the property is fronts predominantly on Highland Avenue. Two small pieces of it, relatively speaking also are through lots. I guess we would, we would refer to 'em as through lots that extend at the Park Avenue. The lot, the existing lot 2.03 is just under 1.75 acres in total. The zone that it's in is the 7.5 R 7.5 or residential zone. Speaker 4 00:09:09 The minimum lot size in this zone is 7,500 square feet with a 75 by 75 lot width and depth respectively. The subdivision that we prepared creates eight lots fronting on Highland Avenue and another two lots that would front on Park Avenue. All of the lots with the exception of proposed lot 2.13, which I will zoom in on over here, are conforming lots by lot area. There's no development proposed at this time. So the, we're not, we're not talking about setbacks, although we show the, the building footprints on this plan. There's no existing, or I'm sorry, there's no proposed development on this lot at this time. It's strictly a subdivision. And I'll point out too that again, there's one lot that we're creating that is a slightly undersized at 40 feet rather than 75 feet in width. But if you look at the existing condition, there's really no way that this, this is that area that this lot could ever have been a, a, a conforming lot. So we have the, the best, the best case scenario here again, is eight lots that are all uniform. 75 by a hundred fronting on Highland with the remaining two lots, 2.04 and 2.13 fronting on park with one variance for lot area and a second one for lot width related to lot 2.13. That about sums up the subdivision. Speaker 2 00:10:42 And again, Mr. Farrell, this will create essentially conformity out of non-conformity and, and get rid of that through lot potential through lot condition. Correct? Speaker 4 00:10:53 Correct. Speaker 2 00:10:54 Okay. Does anyone from the board have any questions of Mr. Farrell Speaker 5 00:11:05 Madam chair? I do have one question. So it creates the conforming lots on Highland Avenue one, obviously on park, but then there's gonna be one that is not a standard lot by current ordinance. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker 4 00:11:27 That's accurate. Yes. There's, there's one, I guess we could call it an oversized lot that would be this lot. 2.04, right? That fronts on park, which is 120 feet wide and a hundred feet deep, whereas 75 by 75 is the minimum. And this second lot that fronts on Park Avenue lot 2.13 is gonna be 40 feet in width, whereas 75 feet is required. But again, had this not been subdivided separate from the lot fronting on Highland, you'd have a through lot condition, which is also somewhat unusual. This is, I, we believe this is the best layout and the best use of the, of the lot and the property. Speaker 0 00:12:08 Brenda Smith, I have a question. Is there any potential for purchase of property on either side of that lot to make it a little bit more conforming to the Speaker 4 00:12:19 That's not really a question I can answer. As the engineer, I'm not sure who would be best poised to answer that question, but that's not really engineering. I imagine Speaker 6 00:12:30 If I may frank jump in, the town would have to, the town would have to approach the adjacent property owners to buy off some of their property and or I, I don't know where their houses are situated on their properties too, you know, so it's a whole nother issue. Speaker 0 00:12:49 Okay. Speaker 5 00:12:51 So then Madam chair, since that's the case there, my concern would be if we subdivide that, make it a 40 foot width wide lot and somebody were wanting to build on there. Now, they don't have variances. I mean, 40 wide seems pretty narrow. Speaker 6 00:13:14 They, they, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Barlow, they still would have a variance Speaker 2 00:13:18 Involved. Yep, absolutely. If someone tried, if someone purchased that lot and wanted to build on it, they would either have to build within a footprint that did not violate the side yard, front yard and rear yard setbacks, which is build a small home to fit a smaller lot. Or if they exceeded the setbacks, and I, and I presume Mr. Farrell, your box is within taking into account the relative setbacks, they would build the house in the box that's outlined, or say they wanted to build a bigger house and exceeded the setbacks. They would come before potentially this board or zoning board to get approval for those, that variance relief. But you could build a conforming house, and I think that's what Mr. Farrell is showing. Speaker 5 00:14:07 Okay. Thank Speaker 7 00:14:08 You. You could, and ga you could build a, I mean, even if you build the conforming house, quite frankly, they have to go to the zoning board because of the width and the frontage and the lot area. So yeah, they're gonna go to the board regardless. Speaker 5 00:14:20 Even, even if, even if the house were, the structure were to fit the side yard, front yard, backyard setbacks, they still have to go because the lot's non-conforming. So somebody would potentially buy that lot as non-conforming and do a roll of the dice, Speaker 7 00:14:38 Essentially. You're right. Yeah. Speaker 5 00:14:41 Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:14:47 Okay. Is that the end of your testimony? Speaker 4 00:14:51 I believe it's, yes. Speaker 0 00:14:53 Okay. Members of the board, we've asked questions of this witness, but is there, have you finished with your question or nor should I open it to the public? Okay. Hearing no questions from the board members of the public, if you would like to ask questions of this witness regarding this particular matter before the board, would you please indicate so by waving your hand or whatever technol technological way of, of making yourself known that you wanna ask a question? Speaker 1 00:15:25 Mr. Far, can you un share your screen, please? Speaker 4 00:15:28 Yes, absolutely. Stop sharing. Speaker 1 00:15:31 Makes my life easier. Yeah. No one in the public Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:15:37 Okay. Close to the public. Well, this was a matter of discussion. Is there anything for us to vote on? Make a motion for Speaker 2 00:15:45 Yes. Madam chair. It would require a motion to approve the pro proposed subdivision, and I did prepare a resolution in case the board did wanna move the matter. Speaker 0 00:16:00 Would someone on the board like to make a motion? Speaker 7 00:16:04 Madam chair Dawn Corcoran. I'd like to make the motion to approve the subdivision. Speaker 0 00:16:08 Do I have a second? Speaker 3 00:16:10 I'm chair Reverend Kinneally. I'll second it. Speaker 0 00:16:13 Roll call please. Speaker 1 00:16:14 Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 3 00:16:22 Yes. Speaker 1 00:16:23 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair? Speaker 0 00:16:30 Yes. Speaker 2 00:16:32 And again, Madam chair prepared a resolution if someone would like to move that, Speaker 0 00:16:38 Would someone make a motion regarding the resolution, please? On the board, Speaker 3 00:16:43 I'll make a motion that the, that the resolution be approved in, in regards to the matter of the subdivision that was just discussed for the township. Speaker 0 00:16:56 Do I have a second, Speaker 1 00:16:58 Mr. Speaker 0 00:17:01 I got some static there. Who was that? Who made that motion? Who was that second person? Speaker 1 00:17:07 I grabbed Alex. Speaker 0 00:17:09 Okay. Speaker 1 00:17:11 I, I'll get going next time. Okay. Mayor Wahler? Yes. Councilwoman. Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 3 00:17:20 Yes. Speaker 1 00:17:21 Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair? Yes. Speaker 0 00:17:28 Okay. Thank you very much. Speaker 2 00:17:29 Thank you Mr. Fo. Speaker 4 00:17:31 Thank you. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Everyone Speaker 0 00:17:34 Will do. You too. Item number 13, GWL four Corp. LLC. Mr. Psad Poso Psad. Speaker 8 00:17:49 Good evening Board, Madam chair. Mayor Wahler. Members of the board My name is David Psad, licensed attorney in the state of New Jersey here tonight representing GWL four corporate LLC, who is seeking preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances. The property in question is block 5,001 lot 2.02. It is located in the LI five zone and it's also known as four corporate place. Tonight the applicant is seeking preliminary final site plan approval for a property that is approximately 366,724 square feet with 730 square feet, 730 feet of frontage on corporate place the rear of the property, abuts route 2 87 and has adequate screening. Screening from the highway view. The site currently contains a one story warehouse building with an attached smaller one story office building and patio that is on the eastern side of the building. Ingress and egress to the site is accomplished via a three, via three separate points along corporate place and is the property is surrounded by other industrial and commercial uses with no nearby residential. Speaker 8 00:19:08 Currently the site is being used as a warehouse for a tenant. The applicant is seeking to continue a warehouse use on the site, just removing a portion of the building that is in office space. I do wanna point out that the applicant has a holdover tenant in the building right now. Their lease was expired in May and they continue to stay in the building only because they are searching for, they have another facility in Georgia and that facility is not ready. We have a bunch of informal correspondence from that tenant stating that they will vacate the property by January of 2025. We are trying to procure something in writing so we can present that to the board. We have not been able to obtain that today, but we do have informal correspondence that does guarantee that they will leave in January of 2025. As part of this application tonight, as I mentioned, the applicant is proposing to remove a small one story office building from the warehouse, which will essentially reduce the building in size with the removal of that office building. Speaker 8 00:20:11 They want to construct 13 truck loading spaces with overhead doors, 11 tractor trailer parking spaces, and that's all on the eastern side of the building where that office building will be removed. Part of this application, the applicant is proposing 219 parking spaces, a small two feet deep bio retention basin, landscaping improvements, and EV charging spaces. I also wanna say that the, the New Jersey statute does not require EV charging spaces to be installed, but the applicant is willing to install them and believes that they are great for the environment And also our engineer here tonight will go into more detail on those site improvements. Speaker 8 00:20:57 We are seeking four, or we had applied for four variances a part of this application. One for a mini minimum rear yard setback where 50 feet is required and 49.62 feet is existing. That variance is not changing. We are propo. We need a variance for off street parking where 286 parking spaces are required and 219 spaces are proposed with eight EV charging spaces. We were originally seeking a variance for the installation of two four inch conduits along the frontage on corporate place. The applicant would like to mention to the board that this variance is no longer needed, as we will agree to install the conduits on the frontage additionally. And finally, the last variance is fencing around that small bio retention basin that I had mentioned earlier. The applicant will agree to install fencing around that bio retention basin tonight. I have four witnesses here. I have the applicant's representative, Bianca Marquez from GWL four Corporate. I also wanna point out that we will probably use GWL four corporate and GTJ synonymously. It is the same company. GTJ is just the overarching company that owns the building. We have our engineer, Michael Marelli, who's here from Menlo Engineering Associates. And we have our architect Matthew Walco from Parrot SOM Gen Architects, LLC. For the record, we do have three staff reports that we received from the township. The first is the DNR engineering report dated October 18th, 2024. We have the township staff memorandum dated October 18th, 2024. And we have a planning report from CME Associates dated October 21st, 2024. If the board has no questions of me, I'd like to have our first witness sworn in and we can begin the testimony. Speaker 0 00:22:51 Sir, you may proceed with witness. Speaker 8 00:22:57 I'd like to call Bianca Marquez as our first witness from the applicant's company. Speaker 9 00:23:02 Good evening, Ms. Speaker 2 00:23:03 Mar. Ms. Marquez, you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address. Speaker 9 00:23:11 Sure. My name's Bianca Marquez. Last name M-A-R-Q-U-E-Z. And my professional address is 1399 Franklin Avenue, suite 100 in Garden City, New York. 1 1 5 3 0. Speaker 2 00:23:26 Okay. If you raise your right hand, you swear the testimony you give before this board will be the whole truth? Speaker 9 00:23:30 Yes. Speaker 2 00:23:31 Your witness. Thank Speaker 8 00:23:34 You Mr. Barlow. Ms. Marquez, can you please give the board the benefit of your qualifications and your role with GWL slash GT J? Speaker 9 00:23:46 Sure. Good evening. My name is Bianca Marquez. I'm a property manager for GTJ reit. I've been working with the company for a little over six years now. GTJ is a fully integrated self-administered and managed public non-listed reit. We engage in the acquisition, ownership, and management of commercial real estate. We have 50 industrial buildings located in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and North Carolina with the majority of the buildings concentrated in the Tri-state area. Speaker 8 00:24:16 Thank you. Ms. Marquez, if you don't mind, can you please explain GTJ or gws experience in Piscataway? Speaker 9 00:24:24 Sure. We purchased four corporate place along with five other buildings from Suler companies back in 2015. We own over 700,000 square feet of commercial space in Piscataway. We also engaged in a joint venture with suler at two corporate place south. As mentioned before, we own other industrial properties in New Jersey, but one of the main things that attracted to us to Piscataway was the large commercial presence that it has as well as its proximity to I 2 87. Speaker 8 00:24:53 Thank you. Can you give the board the reasons why GTJ or GWL is seeking this approval tonight? Speaker 9 00:25:01 Sure. As you mentioned before, we do have a current tenant ID nova. It's holdover tenant. Their lease expired at the end of May and we've had informal correspondence with them for months now on their plans to vacate the property. From my understanding, the tenant has a building in Georgia that they're relocating to, but the facility is not ready for them, which is why they continue to occupy our building. We are aware of the current condition that the tenant creates and has had many conversations with them on keeping the site clean and organized. Tonight we're seeking approval on the proposed modifications to the building as we feel that the changes presented will make the property more attractive and marketable to prospective tenants. Part of our plans, which our engineer Mike, will also touch on, includes removing the office space, adding loading docks and adding EV chargers. Speaker 8 00:25:52 I just, I wanna make it clear for the board that none of the conditions on the site and we do mention and they, they are mentioned in the township staff report, the dumpsters, the pallets, the tarps, things that are almost haphazard on the site. Th these are not caused by your company, correct? Correct. This is correct. These are items of the tenant? Correct. And you have had tr multiple conversations with them. They're just not very responsive on cleaning up the site, Speaker 9 00:26:17 Right? Correct. Speaker 8 00:26:18 And the last conversation that you did have with them, they did agree that they were leaving at the end of January of 2025. Is that correct? Speaker 9 00:26:26 Correct. They did send us an email stating that, yes. Okay. Speaker 8 00:26:29 Thank you. You are welcome. And currently you have a tenant, but for future operations you are doing these changes because you do not have a tenant in mind at the moment, is that correct? Speaker 9 00:26:41 Correct. Yeah. With the proposed modifications, it's intended to add the marketability of the site. Speaker 8 00:26:47 Okay. And the site is to remain a warehouse, Speaker 9 00:26:51 Correct? Yes. Speaker 8 00:26:52 Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness. If the board has any questions. Speaker 7 00:26:57 Board members, do you have Speaker 9 00:26:58 Any questions of this witness? Speaker 7 00:27:00 Madam chair? Dawn, Corcoran. So since our la our workshop meeting, when all of these issues were brought to your attention by the staff report, has your current tenant made any effort whatsoever to clean up the site? I mean, the debris, the, again, pallets, dumpsters Speaker 9 00:27:21 Is located. It, it seems that, you know, when we, when we do go by the site, they do clean it up, but then it just kind of goes right back to, you know, what, what it is with with their use and you know, their business. So yes, they have, but not how they should be. Speaker 7 00:27:40 And then you had mentioned there was a date in January. Is that a firm date? I mean, is that something, so there's, I know, I know your attorney said early on that informal correspondence between you and your tenant. When do you expect to have a something firm writing? Speaker 9 00:27:56 Well, we did reach out to the tenant. We, they said that they were going to be sending us something in writing today, obviously that that has happened. So we're hoping maybe within, within the week, you know, we are, we are, we understand the headaches, we understand, you know, the, the mess. Let's just quite say, put it that way, that they, that they make out of all our buildings that we do own in Piscataway, this is the, one of the issues that we have with them is just the un cleanliness and the haphazard, you know, the way that they keep the space and in the past we have reached out to the town to issue violations just so it kind of pushes them to do what they gotta do. And we are welcoming that. So no, I'm serious. It's, it's, you know, it, it'll give them more of a push to be honest with you. Speaker 7 00:28:48 And quite honestly, I'm only asking those questions because until the site is either cleaned up or you can show something in writing with a firm date, I'm really, I'm really honestly reluctant to vote on this. It's, it's just one of those things, as you said, your tenant just apparently they'll just clean it up and I don't know, maybe a week later it looks like a mess. I went out there with our engineer, we couldn't even, we could barely get circulate around. Get around. Speaker 9 00:29:10 Yeah. Correct. Yeah, Speaker 7 00:29:12 I mean, it, it's, it, it's a big issue. We understand, Speaker 9 00:29:17 Okay, Speaker 8 00:29:18 Ms. Corgan and, and the applicant is willing to hold off on a vote tonight if, if we can put on the application and we do want to present something in writing to the board, if that makes you more comfortable with a vote. Speaker 7 00:29:29 It does, quite honestly. And I would rather, you know, take another ride out there prior to our next meeting December, who knows, maybe they did clean it up or as you said, maybe we'll have something in writing, but it, yeah, it really is just a mess. As, as you said, it's, Speaker 2 00:29:46 And practically, practically speaking, Mr. Psad in, in terms of getting the impetus to get them out, perhaps a complaint in landlord tenant to vacate the premises. There are commercial tenant, their lease was up in May. Your client certainly has the right to their property back from a holdover tenant and maybe a complaint to vacate the premises would be kind of another kick in the, you know, what to get them, you know, to allow your client to move forward. Just something to think about. Speaker 8 00:30:22 No, we understand. And, and we were waiting for that official writing today, but I, we did have that discussion about filing a, a formal complaint. Speaker 2 00:30:30 Okay. Speaker 8 00:30:31 So hopefully we get you guys something soon and, and it will be a, a concrete date in January. Yes. Speaker 2 00:30:38 Yeah. But I think that might be a good compromise in terms of at least getting all the testimony on the record today. Speaker 8 00:30:44 We appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 5 00:30:46 Thank you. Speaker 8 00:30:47 Any other questions from the board? This witness, Speaker 5 00:30:49 Madam, chair? Councilwoman Cahill, I don't know if it's so much a, a question of, of this witness rather than are we going out there and trying to summon this company for property maintenance or not? Speaker 7 00:31:12 We certainly can. To answer your question. I mean, they had an application filed with our office. It was brought to our attention when we were preparing the staff report in terms of what con type of condition this was in. I mean, if it doesn't get cleaned up, Deb, we certainly will do that at this point. Speaker 5 00:31:32 Yeah. I mean, yeah, so I guess there has to be a little bit of time, right? So the landlord's been trying to get it cleaned up. This application comes in, this is when the township becomes more fully aware of the condition of the property. But I, you know, listen, oh, maybe there is a question here is, let's say this tenant leaves and they leave all that crap behind. I'm, I'm gonna guess Mr. Prasad, that your client then is footing the bill for the cleanup of the property. Is is that about right? Speaker 8 00:32:09 Absolutely Speaker 5 00:32:10 Correct. Speaker 8 00:32:12 They, they have expressed, I agree, but they have expressed the, the sentiment to go onto the site and clean it up for the tenant. However, they're not allowed to touch their property as it is not the owners. But they have tried, they have tried everything. And as Mr. Barlow recommended, if we can't get anything in writing from the tenants, we will probably take more serious action to remove them from the site. Speaker 5 00:32:36 And I would just suggest too, dawn, that if the time period has lapsed, nothing's happened that the township also make, you know, I don't know that they were gonna pay a fine, but, or if they get a warning first, but maybe that the township also has that on some sort of record that they're not keeping the property up because, you know, if you can't move around, if there's, you know, God forbid any kind of issue over there, emergency services won't be able to get around. Correct. Speaker 7 00:33:09 Agreed. Agree. And Speaker 8 00:33:12 I, and so I I'm sorry, go ahead. Speaker 7 00:33:13 I'm sorry. I was just gonna say, I, you know, when I, when I went out there, I went to our code enforcement supervisor and he, he was, you know, it was just as, as, as Bianca had said, he had been out there in the past for other violations. He's well aware of the, he knows the property. So we, again, we were just trying to give them a little bit of time to clean this up, but unfortunately that just hasn't been accomplished. So Speaker 8 00:33:40 Yeah. And we have, as, as Bianca did mention, we have requested the town to go out there and issue violations to the tenant just to force them a little bit to do what, do what they say they're gonna do a little quicker. We understand the situation and it's definitely not something we want to bring to the township of Piscataway. Speaker 0 00:34:03 Any other questions? Okay. It's, we'll have to open this up to the public members of the public. You've heard the testimony of this witness. Ms. Marquez, does anyone in the public have any questions of this witness at this time? Please indicate by raising your hand. Speaker 7 00:34:25 No Madam chair. Speaker 0 00:34:27 Thank you. Close to the public Speaker 10 00:34:29 Madam chair. This is Nathan Foot from CME Associates. I, I just had one question, if I can jump in. Speaker 0 00:34:36 Yes, go ahead Mr. Foot. Speaker 10 00:34:38 So one, one of the questions that we had brought up in our review letter was regarding the, the nature of the use. It's my understanding from the testimony that was just provided that they, that Ms. Marquez, you, you don't have a tenant yet, but that it is proposed to be a w continue to be a warehouse use. There is a difference between warehouse use and warehouse fulfillment center. So is there, and that was the calculation that was used in, I believe in the engineers site plans. So I guess the question is, is there a possibility that any future tenant would be a fulfillment center or is this strictly going to be a, a, a warehouse type use? The, the, the tenants that you would be looking at would be warehouses or could they include fulfillment centers? Speaker 9 00:35:33 Yeah, right now we're, we're looking at, at warehouse, like I said, we don't have a tenant in place. This is all just for future use. Trying to make the site more marketable Once Id Nova is out of the space. Speaker 10 00:35:50 Okay. Thank you Mr. I'll Speaker 12 00:35:52 Be able to provide a little bit more as part of my testimony Mr. Foote. Speaker 10 00:35:56 Okay. Very good. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:35:58 Would would we have to open this up to the public after this question? Do you think Mr. Barlow, Mr. Barlow? Speaker 2 00:36:12 I was talking to myself 'cause I had on mute. Sorry. I don't think that's necessary. And if, and if you wanna let Mr. Prasad put all his witnesses on and then just open it to the public once. Okay. You can also do that. Speaker 0 00:36:24 That's fine. Okay. Thank you. I think that's more appropriate for this application. Yep. Okay. Your next witness? Speaker 8 00:36:31 My next witness is Mr. Michael Marelli from Menlo Engineering Associates. Speaker 0 00:36:36 Okay. Come forward so he can be sworn in. Speaker 12 00:36:38 Hello everybody. Speaker 2 00:36:39 Hi Mr. Marinell. So if you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your professional address for the record, please. Speaker 12 00:36:45 Sure. It's Michael Marelli, M-A-R-I-N-E-L-L-I of Menlo Engineering, located 2 61 Cleveland Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey. Speaker 2 00:36:56 You raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give before this board will be the whole truth? Speaker 12 00:37:00 I do. Speaker 2 00:37:01 You're witness Mr. Peran. Speaker 8 00:37:03 Mr. Marelli, can you please give the board the benefit of your qualifications? Speaker 12 00:37:07 Surely I'm a graduate of Rutgers University class of 1999. I've been practicing land use and site planning since that time. I'm a licensed professional of State of New Jersey. I've been, so for 17 some odd years I've provided professional testimony in front of this board on many occasions. Speaker 8 00:37:27 And your license is in good standing? Speaker 12 00:37:29 It is. Thank Speaker 8 00:37:30 You. If you don't mind, can you please give a brief description of the subject property layout and the existing Speaker 0 00:37:36 Condition he's accepted as a, as a Speaker 8 00:37:38 Oh, I apologize. Professional. Speaker 12 00:37:40 Thank you. Madam chair. Surely I will share my screen and Speaker 2 00:37:52 Mr. Marelli, if you could just, any exhibits you put up, we'll refer to 'em as a one and a two and, and just keep going. Okay. Speaker 12 00:37:59 Surely. So if you could see my, see the screen now. I've put, put on there an existing conditions exhibit. We'll mark it as Exhibit A one. It's entitled four Corporate Place dated 1113 2024. As you can see, this is an error representation of the subject site. The lot is designated as block 5 0 0 1 lot 2.02 on the tax maps of Piscataway Township property property, commonly known as four. Corporate place is located on the north side of corporate place, kind of sandwiched between 2 87, which runs along the top of Exhibit A one and corporate place, which runs left right on on the south or bottom side. The property has three access points, one on the most southeast corner, one on the most southwest corner, and then one central to the building closest to the southeast corner of the existing warehouse portion of the structure. The overall property is 8.42 acres and is located entirely within the LI five zone. Speaker 12 00:39:08 As I stated, highway route 2 87 runs north of the project and all the other surrounding properties east, south, and west are a continuation of the ally zone with other industrial slash commercial uses in the existing condition. As you can see, the site is fully developed. It, it has a 151,712 square foot structure that includes a large rectangle off to the western side of the site, which is the warehouse portion that we were speaking of. And the white area to the east of that, a very irregular shape is a 16,200 square foot existing office. There is parking for the site located all over on all sides of the building. Existing loading is four recessed door locations at the center driveway access, and I had been in front of this board maybe 10 years ago when we added eight loading, loading doors on the southwest on the southern facade. But on the western side of it, for some additional loading for this existing structure, you can kind of see some of what was previously discussed about the, the shape of or how the site is handled there. There's debris along the 2 87 side. There's haphazard trailers within some parking areas and blocking some dry vials. And this is one of the better indicators of, of how the site has been misused by the, the, the current tenant that is, is soon to leave. Speaker 12 00:40:49 If I can then refer to a second exhibit, we'll we'll mark this as exhibit A two. This exhibit is an arrow representation of the site plan colorized. If I could refer back to a one quickly, this office space that I spoke of, the 16,200 square foot office space and patio that was discussed is in this treat out cove of that office space is what the applicant is proposing to remove. Referring now to exhibit A two, you'll see in that portion of the site we're making some modifications. We're of course removing that existing 16,000 square foot office and replacing it with some additional loading areas for this existing warehouse that is to remain in all, there will be 13 new dock positions, which will be detailed by the architect in a little while with a, and I'll zoom in real quick with a full, full circulated loading area and then 12 trailer storage spaces. Speaker 12 00:42:03 This will allow 10 future tenants while once this tenant is gone, 10, to have access to the 12 dock positions that they have currently on the building at 13 additional with 11 storage. So it, it would really make this building more appropriate for more users who need to utilize either more dock positions and, and have the need for trailer storage spaces without impacting the existing parking spaces that are located around the, around the building. Circulation in the proposed condition is relatively unchanged. The, the, you'll still have full circulation around the ve around the building for emergency vehicles and emergency services. It'll still have three access points off of corporate place so that there's good access to each of the voting areas that would be present on on the site. The, the proposed improvements in this area not only remove the 16,200 square foot office portion of the building, but also impacts some of the existing car parking we're, we're looking that car parking would be reduced on site to 219 physical spaces where 262 are are there in their existing condition. You'll note that on the eastern most side of the site, we are implementing eight new EV spaces, although this site doesn't require it by, by law because we're not implementing any more than 25 new parking spaces. The applicant thinks that it's good to put them in it on day one. Of course, all would be installed prior to any co being issued for the proposed building modifications. Speaker 2 00:43:53 Mr. Marelli, real quick. Yes. When you zoomed in, I thought you said it was gonna create 12 new trailer storage spaces, but I think that says 11. Speaker 12 00:44:02 If I said 12, I'm sorry. I apologize, I misspoke. Okay, no problem. It is 11, it's 13 truck spaces and 11 storage spaces. Speaker 2 00:44:09 Okay, thank you Speaker 12 00:44:10 Sir. My apologies. So although we're not required because we're not implementing more than 25 new parking spaces, we are providing those ev charging locations. However, as noted by your professionals, we can't gain that two to one credit that would normally be associated with the EV spaces and the credit that goes along with that statute. And I'll get into that in more detail as I go through our parking variance in a little bit. Other improvements you'll see are, you know, general landscape additional lighting for, for a safe area there. And as Mr. Pade noted, we we'd also agree as a condition of the approval to provide the newly required two four inch conduits along the entire frontage as well as a junction junction box and leader to the existing building. Speaker 12 00:45:10 As you can see, as part of this, of course the site would be cleaned up. Again, a lot of the stuff that is happening on the sites, the pallets, the tarp areas, the extra garbage containers, all of those are part of the process of the existing tenant that is going to be removed. So of course the applicant is a condition approval, would agree to have all of that cleaned up and brought back into the previous approved state. As I mentioned, there is some improvements to lighting and landscape. We're proposing eight new shade trees, seven new evergreen trees, 20 shrubs, and you know, 72 ground plantings. A majority of that is in the, the basin area between the proposed loading area and the corporate place frontage. You'll see there's also some evergreen trees proposed along the 2 87 frontage to kind of shield from, from that view a little bit better. Speaker 12 00:46:06 And then along the eastern facade, some shade trees to supplement the existing mature buffer with the adjoining that that abuts the adjoining properties access road. We're also proposing lighting. There are two building mounted lights at 25 feet high and four pole mounted lights that cast a 0.03 minimum and a 1.76 foot candle average throughout the loading area that meets the ordinance standards. These lights are all LED, you know, energy efficient down casting lights, dark sky compliant type fixtures. From a stormwater man management perspective, we we're not considered a major development because we don't disturb more than an acre of area and we're not proposing more than a quarter acre of new impervious. However, the applicant did, did recognize that the, what we were removing was the impervious that we were removing was roof area, which is in engineering terms considered clean runoff and replacing it with some pavement and concrete for this loading area. Speaker 12 00:47:21 So we took this opportunity to implement a, a green infrastructure BMP in the form of a, a relatively shallow, again, it's only, I think it's three feet at its max point, but two feet, a majority of it in the in by means of a buyer retention swale or basin. In along that, that side, it was mentioned in both professional letters I and I believe the township planning letter that a variance relief would be sought or needed to be sought for a, a fence around that basin. We're not going to seek that relief this evening. We'll provide as a conditioning approval, a fence around that basin. Additionally, it was recommended but not required by your engineer to provide some sort of guide rail structure along the top of the retaining wall, separating the loading docks and the basin. And we, we would of course agree to do that as a condition of the approval as well, just to make sure that nobody's coming off this, again, relatively short, three foot high retaining wall and into the proposed basin. Speaker 12 00:48:30 As noted, we have an existing nonconformance on site. You'll note on the northeast corner of the existing structure, the building is at 49.6 feet, where 50 feet is required on the rear yard. In this instance, route 2 87 is considered a rear yard for the purposes of zoning from. And then as far as new variances go, the only one that we are proposing is for parking. This is a variance condition that exists on the site today. There is a parking, a parking variance that was granted as part of the previous approval that we obtained for this site for southern companies 10 years ago. We are proposing 219 physical spaces where 287 spaces are required in the worst case scenario. And this le lends to the question Mr. Foot had asked a little bit earlier, because the applicant doesn't know who the tenant tenant is going to be here, they wanna leave their options open. Speaker 12 00:49:37 So in the worst case scenario, the the, if it were to be a distribution center in lieu of a standard warehouse, the requirement would be 287 spaces. If it were a standard warehouse, the the requirement would only be 91 spaces where we're providing 219. So we're, we're basically providing double of a regular warehouse, but we're deficient 67 spaces from a a a DI distribution center. The existing deficiency is 108 spaces for a distribution center at this site. So, and again, we're now only a 67 space deficiency. So I think that variance could easily be granted because it, it's better than the existing condition and it, it calculates in for what is the worst, worst case scenario. The reduc, we also have reduced the requirement of parking on site by reducing the area of the building, right? We we're taking 16,000 square feet of office off, and you'll hear a little bit from the architect about the mezzanine spaces within the existing warehouses that we're also removing that bring down the total requirement for parking on the site. Speaker 12 00:50:52 Mi Mr. Psad had mentioned the three review letters. We have gone through all of them in detail and agree to comply with all of the comments and or recommendations within that within them. The one other minor note that I would make, and I'll refer quickly to exhibit A one on the northwest corner on the adjacent property for two corporate place. That treat area has a wetland associated with it and there are potential buffers from that wetland that would encroach onto the subject site. But as I've presented in testimony, we're we're a hundred, we're 500 feet away from that existing wetland complex and have no impact on the wetland and no permit would be required for any disturbance of that existing wetland. But I thought it was appropriate since it was mentioned in both the professional's letters to at at least address the, the wetland comment. That is my direct testimony. Should anybody have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Speaker 0 00:51:59 Could you remove your exhibit from the screen? Thank you. Members of the board, do you have any questions of this witness regarding his testimony? Speaker 5 00:52:11 Madam chair. Councilwoman. Cahill. Just one quick question. What exactly does trailer storage look like? Is that, are those just parking spots essentially? Speaker 12 00:52:25 Yes. So just it's where they, you would leave the trailer portion, not the cabs but the trailer portion. In some instances, in most in instances, they're left there empty into or in staging where there isn't a door currently available and, and stuff needs, needs to be offloaded. It's a temporary storage space so that they're not blocking dry aisles or out on corporate place. They have a place to reside while they're either empty waiting to be loaded or full waiting to be emptied. Speaker 5 00:52:57 Thank Speaker 0 00:52:58 You. Any other, any other questions? Speaker 3 00:53:03 One question comes to mind there, there was no hazmat material to be stored here at all. Is, is that correct? Speaker 12 00:53:11 N none is proposed. That's correct. Speaker 3 00:53:13 Thank you. Speaker 0 00:53:17 All right. Madam Speaker 10 00:53:19 Chair, you Speaker 12 00:53:20 Can proceed Speaker 10 00:53:21 Again. Our, the CME review letter had brought up several NJ EMS sites associated with this particular property only what we identified only one as being open, that was, I'm not gonna read out the, the whole number, but it was HW non-regulated item number 11 on page 15 of our report. Mr. Marelli, do you have any testimony regarding that particular item from our letter? Speaker 12 00:54:00 I do not. I I note that you listed the, the N-N-J-E-M-S numbers for hazardous waste. I don't know what that open permit is for. I I can only assume that it's associated with the existing tenant that will be removed once they leave. They would have to close that permit. Speaker 10 00:54:27 Okay. Then let's see. So, so several of our, so item number eight on page 14 of our review letter just deals with a number of different items that we requested further information on in, in regards to the, the site site plan review. Can that information be provided? Speaker 12 00:54:52 Of course we can update as a conditioning approval of the zoning table in, in order to clarify these existing conditions. I would only note that all of these are existing conditions on site that are not being exacerbated or changed in any manner. But we can of course provide them in an updated zoning table that would clarify those requirements of the zoning ordinance. Speaker 10 00:55:20 Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. Speaker 0 00:55:24 Any other questions from the board? We're going to save the questions to the public for all of the witnesses. So sir, do you have any other witnesses? Speaker 8 00:55:38 Yes. Madam chair. I have one final witness. It's our architect, Matthew Walco from Paris Architects. Speaker 0 00:55:44 Okay, ask him. You may call him Speaker 2 00:55:52 Mr. Wal. I'm sorry. I'm butchering at Wal Walco. If you could state your name, spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address please. Speaker 13 00:56:01 Matthew Walco per architects we're located at 4 39. I'm sorry, last name? Walco. W-O-L-C-H-K-O. Our address is 4 39 Route 46 East in Rockaway, New Jersey. 0 7 8 6 6. Speaker 2 00:56:23 Raise your right hand sir. You swear the testimony give before this board will be the whole truth? Speaker 13 00:56:27 Yes, I do. Speaker 2 00:56:28 Your witness, Mr. Prasad. Speaker 8 00:56:30 Thank you Mr. Barlow. Mr. Walco, can you please give the board the benefit of your qualifications as an architect? Speaker 13 00:56:37 I am a registered architect and a licensed professional planner and the state of New Jersey. Received a Bachelor of science and Architecture from Pennsylvania State University, a master's of architecture from Arizona State University. And I have a certificate in historic preservation studies from New York University, also a lead green associate. Speaker 8 00:57:00 And have you testified before boards in the state of New Jersey before? Speaker 13 00:57:03 Yes. I'm a former chairman of the Garfield Planning Board and also a former member of the Garfield Zoning Board of Adjustment. Speaker 8 00:57:10 And your architectural license is in good standing? Speaker 13 00:57:13 Yes, both my architects and planners license are current. Speaker 8 00:57:17 And ask if the board can accept this expert? Yes. Mr. Speaker 13 00:57:21 Walco is tech is accepted. Speaker 2 00:57:24 Mr. Pra, are you offering him just as an architect or as an, I think he said he's also a licensed Planner. Speaker 13 00:57:28 Planner, Speaker 8 00:57:29 Yeah. Yeah. He is also a licensed planner, but we are just offering architectural testimony. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Walco Walco, can you please describe the interior changes that the applicant is proposing to the site Speaker 13 00:57:42 Right now? In addition to the, the approximately 16,000 square foot appendage to the building, there are multiple mezzanine areas internal to the, the warehouse building and it's the intention to have these removed to make the floor area of the warehouse building essentially a flat plate and make it as wide open as and as flexible as possible. This includes other areas that will become the, the easterly side of the existing warehouse where that office building is removed, that will be modified to incorporate the loading bays. So these will be the, the standard 10 foot wide loading bays with load dock levelers. And there will also be some provisions because we do not have a current tenant, we do not know what the what type of interior improvements exactly would be required for any ancillary or additional office space. But we have been, the brokerage consultant for the owner has recommended that the na with the nature of this building, that there would be anywheres from between 2,500 to 5,000 square feet of ancillary office space required. And I believe it's that 5,000 square foot limit that was included in the zoning table so that the vast majority of the building is intended to be used for open warehousing space and with the potential for a small amount of accessory ancillary office space at some point when a tenant if and when, say whatever the proposed tenant would require, but this would be very minor to the usage of any new tenant. Speaker 8 00:59:50 And we've seen it on the, on the engineering plans, but just a little more information if you can. The exterior of the building is not being changed anywhere else other than that eastern side, is that correct? Speaker 13 01:00:03 No, the existing frontage along corporate place is going to remain as it is. And all the modifications would be on the easterly side of the building that is gonna be facing the modified, the new truck loading zones and trailer parking areas. But these will, it's going to be, it's a utilitarian building right now that is very basic with some, some masonry. And the majority of that side is gonna be the overhead doors for the truck loading base. Speaker 8 01:00:36 Thank you Mr. Wesco. There was not, there were not many or if any at all architectural comments for this application, seeing that a warehouse is typically just a big box. So that is all the questions I have for Mr. Wesco. If the board has any questions, Speaker 0 01:00:53 Members of the board, do you have any questions of Mr. Walco individually hearing no questions from the board? I'm gonna open it up to the public now for bi, both this witness as well as Mr. Marine, Mr. Marelli members of the public. If you have any question for either of those, these two witnesses, would you indicate by waving your hand, Ms. No. And Speaker 1 01:01:25 Madam chair? Speaker 0 01:01:25 You don't hear anyone? You don't see anyone? Speaker 1 01:01:28 I don't see and I unmuted them. I gave them permission to speak. So Speaker 2 01:01:32 There, there was a there's a question though in the, not that this is really pertinent. There's a question in the chat. Just who is the current tenant in the building to be demolished? I assume that's the tenant we were, you were discussing earlier that you're trying to get out of the building. Speaker 8 01:01:51 That is correct. Yeah. The, the existing office building attached to the warehouse is essentially just one building that's used by that one tenant. Gotcha. And we, and they're trying to get them out as soon as possible. Speaker 2 01:02:01 Okay. Thank you. Speaker 8 01:02:05 If I can just prepare, oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 0 01:02:08 It's still public portion, then it's closed to the public once if we ask, we ask that particular que answer that particular question close to the public and now board members. Any other, any other questions of this app for the whole application? Mr. Poso, would you like to make a statement or are you ready to have us make a motion one way or the other? Speaker 8 01:02:32 I'd just like to summarize very quickly about the applicant. Speaker 0 01:02:35 You may do so. Speaker 8 01:02:36 Thank you. Madam chair as mentioned, the applicant does own five buildings in Piscataway, over 700,000 square feet combined. It is a very successful commercial tenant and a very good corporate neighbor to Piscataway. Unfortunately, this is the only building in town that they have a difficult tenant that they are trying to actively get out. As mentioned, we will try to obtain something in writing from the current tenants that they will be vacating as they said in their correspondence in January of 2025. We also think that the parking plan that was created by removing that office for the trailer storage and the loading spaces makes it more appealable site to the township and to anyone driving down corporate place as it moves all of the trailer storage to the rear of the building away from the frontage. The tenant, the applicant is happy to add the ev charging spaces and making them operational as a condition of a co if the board looks favorably on this application. And we'd just like to thank you for your time tonight. We appreciate giving us a chance to put on our testimony. Thank Speaker 0 01:03:42 You. Thank you. Members of the board, you've heard this full application. What is your pleasure Speaker 6 01:03:48 Ma'am? Chair? Speaker 0 01:03:50 I'm Mr. Mayor, Speaker 6 01:03:52 We're gonna hold off on a formal vote tonight. Speaker 2 01:03:55 Yeah, I think it would be appropriate based on what the applicant had indicated and the concerns of the board and the board's professionals as to the tenant and the current condition of the site. For a motion to just carry the application to the December meeting, at which time understanding the records closed other than assuming Mr. Per, per will either appear or hopefully provide ahead of time confirmation as to when the tenant is leaving or, or preferably that the tenant has left. If, if that's the board's pleasure. Okay. Speaker 0 01:04:34 Board members, what is your pleasure? Speaker 3 01:04:39 I I agree. Speaker 0 01:04:41 Are we going to withhold it the vote or are we gonna make the vote and hold it? It's in, it's, I don't vote. How are we gonna do that? Speaker 2 01:04:49 I, I think based on what, what I indicated I heard from the board members is there would be an a, a motion to carry the vote and the hearing to the December meeting in order to allow the applicant time to provide the information that was requested as to the tenant. Speaker 0 01:05:09 Is there? That Speaker 3 01:05:10 Is correct. Reverend Kinneally. I concur with that because I was at the site also and it's been carried on quite a few, quite a few times. We had a discussion about it before and it hasn't been cleaned up as of yet. And I see a little problem with this and it should have been addressed a little earlier, providing that we were gonna get this application approved. I have no problem with the application being approved, but I would carry it on to December's meeting and see where the applicant, who is at, at this place now, whether he moves and the situation is cleaned up in that area. Speaker 0 01:05:53 Do I hear a second? Dawn Corcoran? I'll second roll call Speaker 1 01:05:59 Mayor Wahler? Speaker 0 01:06:01 Yes. Speaker 1 01:06:01 Councilwoman Cahill? Yes. Ms. Corcoran? Yes. Reverend Kinneally? Speaker 3 01:06:07 Yes. Speaker 1 01:06:08 Mr. Atkins? Speaker 0 01:06:09 Yes. Speaker 1 01:06:10 Mr. Hammed? Yes. And Madam chair? Speaker 0 01:06:13 Yes. Speaker 1 01:06:16 All right. So it's carried to December 11th, 2024. Speaker 0 01:06:19 Exactly. Speaker 2 01:06:20 No further notice will be required if anyone's here for this. You won't get a new notice in the mail, but it'll be carried to the December 11th meeting. Speaker 0 01:06:31 Okay. Thank you Madam chair. Mayor Wahler, members of the board. Hope you have a great night. You too. Thank you. And everyone have a happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. You as well. Thank you. Well, thank you. Well, thank you. Speaker 1 01:06:43 Thank you. Goodnight. Goodnight. Speaker 0 01:06:45 A Speaker 2 01:06:45 Motion to adjourn? Motion. Speaker 0 01:06:47 Motion to adjourn. Anyone? Do I have a second? Move Speaker 1 01:06:54 Again? Thanksgiving, everyone. All in Speaker 0 01:06:56 Favor? Aye. Aye. Speaker 2 01:06:57 Have a great Thanksgiving everyone. Speaker 1 01:07:00 Take care. Take Speaker 0 01:07:01 Care. Thanksgiving everyone. Good night.