That's pretty cool. >> Mr. Jacobs, >> I am here. >> Mr. Walter, >> present. >> Mr. Orana >> here. >> Mr. Leonard >> here. >> Mr. Gini >> here. >> Mr. First >> here. >> Mr. Wild >> here. >> Chairwoman Gota
>> here. Adequate notice of this meeting of the Bedinster Township Lanny Board was filed with the township clerk sent to Bernard Hill news and the couer news and to all subscribers and posted at the township municipal building one Miller Lane Bminster, New Jersey on January
9th, 2026. Please stand for the pledge of Texas to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. open it up to the public if there's anything that anybody would like to discuss that's not on the agenda. So again, if you're online and you'd like to discuss something not on the agenda, so that means not AT&T through
our hearing tonight, you can either unmute yourself, raise your hand, or if you're in the audience, you can come up to the podium. Anybody online? No. Okay. Then we'll close it to the public. Uh we have some minutes that we need to
approve. We can start with February 12th. >> I make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> All in favor? All right. >> February 12th. Let's see. >> Steen. >> Steven wasn't here.
>> Okay. >> I'm thinking last week. >> Okay. >> And now we need to approve the February 26 minutes. I'll make a motion to approve 26 minutes. >> Second
in favor. >> Anyone opposed? Anyone was not here for that one. >> Okay. All right. Uh we also have a resolution
>> second Jacobs. >> I >> Mr. Walter. >> Hi. >> Mr. Arvana. >> Hi. >> Mr. Leter. >> Hi. >> Mr. D. Jen. >> Abstain. >> Thank you. >> Mr. First >> I >> and I
we can start our hearing for AT&T. All right, got the technological issue aside, so we're good to go. Thank you very much. Good evening. Don Chowski, Feary Drinker. I'm here on behalf of AT&T. Um, I'm sure you're familiar with the AT&T site that we're discussing
tonight. It's 1405 1455 206 lot 41, lot 16.02. in the O office research zone. Um, we're here uh to seek an approval um to upgrade site lighting to better illuminate the parking areas at the AT&T
office complex. uh to provide more euperform lighting in the parking area, more efficient LED lighting fixtures and to avoid that would allow us to avoid operational safety concerns that um that some of the employees have expressed due
to lower lighting levels with the older lighting um bulbs that are in the facil in the existing fixtures. And then we're going to add some lighting poles as our expert will testify to in a few minutes. Um we are to just give you an overall
summary before we begin. We're upgrading 46 existing lighting fixtures uh again with LED LED lighting. Uh we're also installing 11 new 12T poles with the same LED fixtures.
uh as we in relationship to adding these additional poles, we're taking away some pvious um some pvious coverage. So, we're reducing that through the poles by or roughly 78 square ft. However, we're
offsetting that by a reduction in a a walkway that we'll show you in a minute. Um which picks up about 100 square feet. So, the net is that we're actually decreasing coverage by 22 square feet. Um there are no variances needed for
this application. Uh we did receive one review letter from Mr. Fier um dated February 3, 2026. Um we can comply with that review letter subject to one discussion we'll have with regard to what the new set will be with the timing
of this lighting. Um, as you'll hear in a few minutes, I do have one witness that will be testifying this evening, Iran Malik with Carbon Engineering Services, um, who has who's an expert in electrical engineering and lighting. Uh, so unless there's any initial questions,
I'll have my witness sworn in and qualified. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Malik, please uh, stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God?
>> I do. >> And please state your name, spell your last name, and give us at least a business address. >> Immran Bell, M A L I K. Business address is 344 Redton Center Parkway in Edison,
New Jersey, 08837. >> And please, please go ahead, gentlemen. >> Thank you very much. Uh, Iran, will you give the board the benefit of your qualifications, please? >> Uh, sure. Uh, I'm an electrical engineer. Uh, my educational background is that I have a bachelor of science in
mathematics from NYU and bachelor of engineering in electrical from uh Steven of Technology in New Jersey. >> And what what's uh can you just give us some additional background on what experience you have from an electrical engineering and lighting standpoint? >> Sure. I've been working as a design
consultant for over 25 years now. um specialize in um all commercial applications including data center um office fit out um and we do power and lighting system design for all sorts of commercial applications um and we have
clients all over the US that we work for >> the board the board will recognize and accept Mr. Mal Malik's qualifications as an an expert in lighting and electrical engineering. Please go ahead gentlemen. Thank you very much.
Imran, will you please bring up the first exhibit, exhibit A1? Um, and >> could you guys do me a favor and talk a little bit more into the mic just to >> Absolutely. >> Sure. >> Thank you. You can pull it close or whatever.
>> Thanks. >> Can uh everyone see my screen? >> Okay. Okay. Good. Yeah. Uh so this is the u the aerial view of the site um uh block one block 41 lot 1602. Um it's a
an office complex um that's leased by AT&T. Um it's an office space for them. Um which and it comprises of two buildings north and south. Um and then it has a parking lot spaces around the the two buildings. Oh, >> ju just for some record keeping. Is this
one of the sheets that was submitted >> with your application? >> No, it was not. >> No, it was not. >> So then it should be marked as an exhibit. >> We have it. >> That'll be it. That'll be A1. >> Okay. >> Right. You move on to exhibit A2. Um,
which is our site lighting plan. This was submitted with our application. >> Yeah. The only thing that changed here is we just highlighted the fixtures that we're adding as new. Um just so that it's more for clarity purposes. Um but this this represents the overall site. Uh let me just zoom in so everyone can
see it. Um so again this is the north building. This is the south building. These are the parking lots around the two buildings. Um and uh we have existing light fixtures that are there. U the pole light fixtures u but they were
installed back in in the 90s and um there has been recently there has been some u security and safety concerns raised by the employees just because there wasn't adequate light around the complex like around the the parking lot areas. >> I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> What what were the safety concerns? uh
just that there wasn't enough light uh when they're like people are work if people if someone's saying late at night at work and they're walking out there wasn't enough light for them to get to the cars and no specific security concern but again just there there wasn't enough light for them to be
walking to the to the cars >> so u AT&T engaged us to uh to practically first come in and do a a lighting test for the for the exterior lighting for the site light lighting. Um so we did that and based on that study u we found that there were few fixtures
that were not working. There were some fixtures that were I mean there were there weren't enough light in certain areas so which needed a new light fixtures um and um so so we came in and basically we put the package together u designed it showing the new light
fixtures u and replacing the existing light fixtures with the LED type. the existing ones were incandescent type uh which are obviously um it's not the uh a very efficient technology u so going in we replaced the existing fixtures with the LED type which are way more
efficient and then we added some light fixtures just to address any um dark spots that we had in the parking lot area. Uh so u just looking at the the plan um the the blocks that you see in the middle of the parking lot right here these are the existing light fixtures.
So the intent is that we're going to go in and just replace the existing heads with the LED type. And then along the perimeter where there were note adequate lighting in the in the space, we are adding these uh new light poles uh which
are going to so three on this side, then one over here, then one closer to the to the building in the parking area spots right here. And then same thing on the north side as you enter in through um through Route 206. Um you as you're
driving through this area, there isn't enough light also in these areas. So um so one light fixture here, two fixtures here, two in the back, and then one uh closer to the um to the to the building uh by the parking spots there. Um
>> the note the different heights too. >> Oh yeah, sure. So the the the existing light fixture that we have in the in the parking lot area, they they vary in in height. They either they're 12t or 15t. mostly are 15 foot. Um but the new pole that we're adding looking to add are
going to be all 12 foot. Um and the intent is to match what's there. So the the new poles are going to match existing. Um the new light fixtures that we're selecting are again as I said it's LED type. The the temperature rating on those fixtures the color temperature on
these fixtures is going to be 3500K which my understanding is what the the township requirement is. It meets the compliance. Um and um the also the we submitted as part of the package we submit we did and submit the the photometric calculations showing the
foot candle levels um from the from this um upgrade that we're doing. Um and the the code requirement is to have the the foot candle level range between 2 to 4 foot candles and we are compliance in compliance with that with the average of
one foot candle across the overall facility and we're in compliance with that. Um me I think the maximum range we have seen is is it gets to about three foot candles. It doesn't even get to close the maximum that's allowed by code which is four. Um but the average that
we're maintaining on the site is per code which is one foot candle. Um uh let me just see here. Oh, also the uh the new light fixture that we're adding along the perimeter just because obviously that's right at the like very
close to the property line and again the property line the the closest uh residence that we have is about 270 ft from where the where we're at where we're looking to add these fixtures. So it's it's quite it's quite far. Um but the idea the um the spec the fixtures that we're specifying are going to have
u an internal shield which is basically going to protect or prevent any spillover to to to behind the fixture. So you're really not going to see any light um on the back side of the picture. So the light source from from a distance you're not really going to see that um
>> including neighboring properties. Correct. >> Including neighboring properties. Correct. I mean and the photometrics that we submitted do show that the uh like by the by the time you get to the property line the foot candle levels are zero. So there is no more nothing that goes to the uh to even to the property
line and the residences are even further than that. Um the other thing was the controls on these light fixtures. Um the existing lighting controls that we have in the building or at least for the existing light fixtures um are it's controlled through a time clock. So it's
on it's a it's in a time schedule. um basically turning the lights on at uh uh dusk and then they turn off at dawn. Um the uh we're not really changing the the criteria in terms of how the fixtures are controlled but what we are adding we're adding a feature of motion
sensors onto these fixtures. Uh so what that's going to do is and I mean with that the dimming capability to these fixtures what what that does is now if there isn't no if there is no activity once the light fixtures turn on and there is no activity around those fixtures the fixtures are going to dim to 50% of their whatever their um
overall capacity is and if there is an activity detected they don't they they come back online for the full illuminance and then they they go down to 50% after 20 minutes interval like once there is no activity. Um so that's an added feature that we added to these
fixtures. Um um so it's uh it's definitely more efficient and uh obviously during like if there is no activity you you I mean the light levels even go further down >> and can you identify for the board the lights that because we have two separate sets right we have a set that's going to
dim to 50% from so they'll be on from dust to dawn and then they'll dim to 50% subject to the motion sensor. Correct. Yes, the all the all the motion all the all the fixtures except for the So, let me just zoom in so you can um so all the
fixtures except for the ones that are coming in um as you enter into the facility. Uh the the entryway and then the where the handicap parking is and the access drive that those are the fixtures that are not that are going to be on photo cells. So they're going to be on all the time when there is there
is no light um because for life safety reasons. But every other fixture in the um on is going to be motion sensor controlled and uh the inter in integral shielding that I mentioned is going to be only on the perimeter fixtures that
are uh towards the uh the property line. >> Just so we're clear too. Uh so those other lights that are on the sensor they will be go on at dusk they will turn off at dawn they will be when the motion sensors triggered they'll be at 100%. >> That is correct. >> After 15 minutes they would if there's
>> they will go down to >> they drop down to 50%. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um and we'll be complying with requirement that a night light test performed after lighting installation. Correct. >> That that is the intent. We we will we we'll do a nightlight test um similar to
what we did before we actually get uh the the design for this project. So it will be similar and the results will be submitted to the uh the township chief engineer for review and approval. >> At this point can you show exhibit A3 please the photos of the existing lights
just why we're upgrading. >> So um so as you can let me just uh show that. So this represents the uh the single uh head poles and these are the dual head poles that we have on the facility. Um and uh you could look at
some of the conditions on the poles as well. So in in these instances, we're also replacing the poles, but that's just replacing the poles for those light fixtures. We're not changing the height. We're not changing anything else. just replacing the replacing or repairing the bolt as as needed to make sure that it's
uh it's not corroded or not. Um it's it's it's not uh dangerous uh because of the electricity. >> Um sorry. >> Oh, I was going to say and can you uh address show um exhibit A4 and address
with the board uh the coverage >> Yeah. change. So u again with the the the with the addition of the new pole light fixtures u we are incre u increasing the impervious coverage by about uh because it's 11 poles so it's about 78 square foot. Um so there was an
existing walkway um on the north side. So if you look at the exhibit A1 I mean this is the condition of the walkway. As you can see it needs repair. Um just to get you um from going back to A1 real quick to get you an idea where that is. It's right here on the back side of the
the north uh building um leading from the um from the from the parking area going back to the to the library that's in the back. So, we AT&T is we're going to be looking to repair that walkway and then um basically eliminate or reduce
the um the asphalt uh for for a 200 stretch 200t stretch by 6 in. So it's going to reduce the overall width of the the width of the the walkway by about six inches. Uh which gives us the uh the uh impervious coverage by about reduces
it by 100 foot. So the net reduced reduction is going to be about 22 square foot >> and the wall is 6 ft. >> It's 6'6 inches. Correct. So it's going to be six foot uh going forward for that two foot uh stretch. Two 200
>> 200 foot stretch. Sorry. Um >> and then um the based on the comments that we received from the township engineer, we also added the details for the uh for the light fixtures um which includes the the base um which is going to be a concrete base similar to what's
what's there. Um match it match that. And then the mounting height, the mounting details for the for the light fixtures and also the uh the fixture detail itself showing the internal shield that's going to be on the on those fixtures. >> And we'll just mark that 85.
>> You submitted that >> that was submitted. >> Yes. >> And then I think we'll just conclude by going through the uh addressing a couple of the comments. Um there was a comment regarding compliance with the prior
approval condition regarding the occupancy of the building. Just one clarification on that. The prior condition was that there um from between the hours of 900 p.m. and 6 a.m. So will be less than 50% of the number
of employees occupying the building between those hours between um the 50% of the employees that occupy the building during between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. So it reduce down the overnight hours by 50%. the the one clarification was I think the engineering review letter said 8:00 PM
the condition was 9:00 p.m. but just I wanted to clarify that and note that we will apply um >> excuse me can you just repeat that a little bit slower and go over from the beginning because you're you're talking to the papers and I didn't get
>> sure the so there was a prior condition that between the hours of 900 p.m. and 6 a.m. the amount of employees of the building will be reduced down to no more than 50% of the number that occupies the building during the day. That being 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. So that's a prior condition. We will continue to comply with that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No problem. Um and then there was another comment regarding um regarding internal lighting. Uh can you
address that our compliance with that? >> Yeah. So, the the the internal the internal lighting, we have the the shades on the windows, which usually go down by 6 p.m. And then the internal lighting shuts off by 8:00 p.m.
Just just the lighting if if there's an override in place. If someone's working, uh they can turn on the lights for their office for their office or the corridors as needed. Uh but the lights typically they were shut down by 8:00 p.m. And that's that's in place. It's not that's not changing. That's how
it is right now. >> And with regard to this project, all building fire codes will comply with >> that is correct. So no, we we will definitely we will comply. We I mean that with all the with respect to all the projects. That's that's the intent. We always comply with whatever the
building regulations are and the fire and building codes are. >> Okay. That that's it for our uh presentation. We'll open up to any questions. >> Madam Chair, if I could, I just I I want to make sure I have it in my head. Okay. >> Exactly what is being proposed for the
lighting and I'll I'll say it. You tell me where I'm right and I'm wrong. You've got the security lighting that comes in from the driveway and goes around the loop. That is photo cell control. >> That's correct. >> So it's dusk till dawn beyond. >> That is correct.
>> Do those have the motion sensors to cut them down to 50%. >> They don't. No. >> Okay. >> We we specified all the fixtures with them. Uh if we had to use them, we could, but right now the intent is not to use the motion sensors on those fixtures. >> Okay.
>> Those are going to be for life. >> Okay. And the the rest of the lights are time clock shut off at 8 or I'm sorry, 11 p.m. Correct. >> That is correct. >> But they'll have the motion sensors. So there's nobody in the area before 11
p.m. they'll be down to 50%. >> That is correct. The fixtures will again the the time clock basically just is a function of the time the function of the time clock is to turn the lights on and off right the lights will be turned on as per the schedule which is whatever
the schedule is 6 p.m. the lights will go back to as soon as they turn on if there is no activity they will dim down to 50%. They don't shut down to they they don't completely shut down if that's what you're asking. They don't completely shut down but
except at 11:00 then they completely shut down. >> They No, they don't because right now the existing fixtures don't shut down. They they will just go down to 50% as soon as there is no activity in the parking area. The time clock doesn't it's not on a schedule where it shuts
down at 11:00. They time clock leaves the light fixes on. It's just that we have dimming that that brings it down to 50%. >> Then I'm I'm starting to be confused. >> Okay. And and this is I think this is a significant the way I understood it was
you had a hard shut off at 11 o'clock. The parking lot lights would shut off. >> I I can clarify. This is what we're proposing. I I I I understand there's some confusion. >> The proposal is that the lights around the center entryway, right? You said
wrong photo cell. So they will be on 100% >> during the overnight hours. And that's not >> go go back to the uh Sure. >> to the screen that shows the entire site so we're all clear >> on what's turning on when and what's
dimming and what's not dimming. >> So uh these fixtures if you look at the plan this is the entryway into the facility. So you will see you see these notes where it says photo cell control the fixtures into the entryway going over to
the handicap parking area and then the access drive they're all on photo cell. So they will turn on and off through the photo cell. >> So those will be on dust. >> All the other lights are going to be on a timer which will essentially be dust
to dawn as well where they will be set to 100%. such the motion sensor so that after 15 minutes if there's no motion they dim down to down to 50%. >> I I I I gotta tell you that that's a problem.
I understood this the way I read the notes on the plan that there would be a hard shut off of all the parking lot lights except that security lighting in the front at 11:00. Before 11:00 they would go to 50%.
with the because if if that's what you're telling me there is no purpose to the time clock time clock has no value. >> Well, except that it's basically it shuts off the light at dawn, right? I mean that's that's all it's >> then you use a photo cell.
>> Well, I think I important things I would like to state. One is that currently all of these lights are on at 100% during that time overnight hours. They're not supposed to be. >> Okay. >> Because the original approval had a
phased lighting plan where various lights in the parking lot will be shut off completely at different times. They're not supposed to be on all night. If they're on all night, you're violating the prior approval. Okay. There was a phase sighting phase lighting plan that was originally
approved where the outermost parking would shut down at a certain time and I think there were three sections of the lighting. That's the way it was supposed to work. That's what was proved. So, what you're doing now is you're keeping all the lights on. Even at 50%, you're
keeping them on my own light. That's not the way it's supposed to work. And if you've only got 50% occupancy of the building after 9:00, I it would seem to me that you would need the entire parking lot lit up all
night long. Imran, what is the lowest level that we could bring them down to? If is there a level below 50%? >> There there definitely is. Um I >> But zero is less than 50%. Why do they have to be on?
>> I I would suggest the reason that they would I hear what you're saying. In a perfect world, the employees staying, let's say there's only 20 employees that stay in the overnight hours, so it's a small amount. Well, why aren't they parked just as close to the building where the lighting is? Right. I think the issue is that they might come in
during the day. You walk out to your car at night and lights are out. So, you know, I I think that is there is there a half measure of where them being on all night would be acceptable if we could
reduce them down to >> maybe 10%. I I I I mean ultimately it's a decision by the board, but I I I think it's a a departure from what was a substantial departure from what was originally
approved? >> Go ahead, Brian. >> Well, just a just a question. When that was when that was approved, did this building and property have overnight employees already? >> Well, it was unknown. That the the approval was done before
the building was leased. I would say that the concern employees are going in and out. If there wasn't a way to bring the light on, it defeats the I can see it if the building beforehand maybe was had no employees at night and everything shut down and there was no employees. It made sense to shut
the lights off. right employees at night then maybe >> there there's other one other key thing I I point out and and said it before even at 100% we're at zero full cam property wise uh and with the shielding the the neighboring properties looking straight in would not see
>> the light and and it's not necessarily >> all light impacts are not full candle levels >> okay there's a there's a glow of the site and and that's what's And you know the original the intent of
the original approval was reduce the area of that globe as as the night went on. Now I'm I'm saying a lot of things because I want the board to understand what was approved, but the board's ultim ultimately going to make this decision. So, you know, maybe I'll stop talking
for a moment and let the board express their opinions. >> Are there people in this building around the clock at all times? It's it's an AT&T facility. So, yeah, there is people um mostly there. Yeah. >> And was that the case when the prior approval was made?
>> Nobody was there at all. >> All right. Well, I think >> Well, when the when the prior approval was done, there was no tent. >> Right. Okay. >> There was but the prior approval originally said >> you could only have 20% of the building occupied after 9:00.
>> There was It was originally 20%. Yes. >> And then it was changed to 50% because it I think it was recognized that there would be more people over there at at later hours. Would it be possible to do uh and this is just you know and if I'm you know stepping out of line, you know,
to have like lights come on when there's motion and then they go off completely when the motion is no longer there after a period of time like >> which is what they're proposing. But here's the >> but completely off. >> Here's my concern. If we're dimming down to
>> 10% or 5%. >> We live in boys. >> Right. >> Right. And so it's not motion sensors don't just pick up people walking in their cars. You're going to get and so the lights are going to be going on and off all night. >> And and and and that's why I didn't have
a major concern between 50% and 100% because it's different. But between 100% zero or 100% 10% it's more of a >> I I'd almost ra if we're if we're going to be okay with them being on all night, I'd rather them be at 50% than 10%.
>> Why? Why? >> Because the change is less >> because the change is >> is more annoying >> is is more annoying. Now they're flexing on and off as opposed to just sort of >> the thing the thing that I don't understand is that we're we're talking about security. that's the reason
they're here. >> Mhm. >> So, if you're talking about security and someone comes in to work, because I go by there, people are there fairly early in the morning. If somebody comes in to work at quarter to 9, which I think is relatively late for that building, and
they park all the way in the corner and they're going to work till 10:30, you really don't want them walking all the way to the corner regardless of how much light there is. So, one would think that if people are going to work past a certain hour, I think most of the people
even five or six, anybody's going to work past 8, you want to have them move if they're concerned about security, you want to have them move their cars to a certain security area anyway, regardless of the lighting. >> I I I certainly understand your comment.
I know from my just anecdotally from my own experience working long hours I there have been plenty of times where they haven't changed the timer and I walk out there like a complex and I'm parked where I'm parked right you get locked into your day and next thing you know right >> the sun's down and you haven't moved
your car so and I know that you know the employees haven't said like listen there was an incident or something but they were really scared of but I I think you know we've all experienced it when you walk into a pitch black parking lot it's you know >> right that's why I'm saying I would think
I would think that the the people and mo maybe most people who are concerned about security not everybody is but whoever they are they would want to move their cars anyway regardless of how much light there is. >> So I I just want to come back to sort of
the uh the prior approvals regarding uh the building the property. So this goes back to um at least my recollection fizer dendrite malcra vacant AT&T.
So Paul, when you say the prior approval, which which approval are you? >> The original site plan approval for this the Samus Finance Center >> which is >> SFC >> which is ancient ancient history,
>> right? I tell you the 20% that was set by a resolution adopted 1986. >> Yeah, that was that that was the original Samus approval I believe was in ' 86. And then in in 1998, that's when it was subsequent approval was put in
place that allowed us to go up to 50%. >> And even at that time, this was premium. >> Oh, yeah. >> Right. >> Way. >> So, >> um I very much doubt that. Well, who knows? dendrite melanchtrot uh they may
not have been 247 but it is my understanding that the facility to some extent is 247 that I don't know >> yeah and do we have testimony to that effect or
>> correct >> what if the people that work late hours had specific parking >> I was thinking that Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Maybe assign it somehow. >> They have assigned parking so that >> that's what Steve and Jeff were both sort of alluded to earlier.
>> So that you know they parked there and the lighting would be appropriate for those specific people that >> that are working within that time period. Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. Because if there's no one outside, they're going to dim down to 50%. Mhm.
>> They're only going to come back up to full strength >> when somebody's walking through the parking lot. >> In the winter in the winter months, there's really no difference between 5:30 and 10:30 at night. It's >> true. >> Oh, that's right. >> Oh, yeah. >> You know, so I think uh
>> 7:00. >> So, currently the lights are on. Yes. >> Full blast. >> That's correct. >> And you would like to bring them down to 50%. >> That's right. >> No one's walking around. But but keep in mind 100% is not compliant. >> It's not compliant. Okay, I got you. I
got you. Now, I'm gonna have to ask. >> Oh, wait, wait, wait. It's not compliant with a condition of a prior resolution. >> Correct. >> So, we're not talking about an ordinance. We're talking about a condition of a prior resolution and there was a different applicant and different operation.
So, it's really the board's call tonight. And it's we're not bound by a condition. We're mod we're being asked to modify a condition. So that's why it's important to just get a sense of what the facts are, what the needs of
AT&T are, and what the impact is if it really is 247. Um, >> Tom, this is so Tom, you agree that this is not a variance? >> This is not a variance. This is not it's
not even a waiver. It's it's a condition of a prior approval. Two conditions of two prior approvals. It's the board's call and the explanation of the applicant is that AT&T unlike prior applicants is a 247 for some of of the
employees and the the offer to have all the lights reduce except the security ones reduced to 50% with the uh motion detection exception
is what's on the table. Okay. And it's it's an interesting option and uh there might be other options built into this technology that uh and and conditions that might be considered. But the applicant's asking
you to do this allow this change to the prior conditions. >> The the only point I would make, Tom, and I'm looking up right now. I believe the ordinance has a requirement that be that the lighting be shut off at 11:00 for all uses.
>> Yeah. Well, I will say that just to that requirement is um there's an exception for needs for security in that >> understood the security lighting but that but the entire site is not security lighting or every site could be on all
the time. The concept of security lighting is is is just as you have it here. The access area up around the front to be able to get in and out and keep that illuminated. >> Yeah. I guess the way we read it was, you know, the security concerns of having adequate length. So that's why we
were offering to drop it down to 50% but have it go to 100% when someone walking through. Um so that that's why we read it to that we were in compliance with that provision. >> That's that it's never been done that way by this board. >> Do we have other 24-hour operations in
town? >> Is kings on all the time? I feel like it is. Every time I try to find I I don't know what everything is at this point, but I can tell you what the it's >> not supposed to >> what the ordinance says. Yeah. It says elimination for non-residential users
shall be extinguished at 11 p.m. or the end of the business day, whichever is earlier except for eating and drinking establishments. >> So, I'm sorry. What was that again? Non-residential uses shall be extinguished at 11 p.m. or the end of the business day, whichever is earlier,
>> except for eating and drinking establishments. >> Except for minimum security >> start by saying except for >> All right. I'd like to ask some other questions though. So there are currently 46 light poles lights there.
>> Exactly. Yes. >> Okay. 46 47 >> 46 >> 46 And you want to add an additional 11. >> That is correct. >> And you will be replacing all of the heads, not all the poles, but all the heads. >> That is correct. >> The new LED. >> That is correct. >> And the light output of them is going to
be similar exact as what's there now. Or is it going to be less or >> I believe it's going to be less based on the based on the the study that we did of the foot candle levels that we're coming up with. It's it's less than what what was there before. >> It may be a little less. Okay. Correct. >> You're going to do a test on that. Make
sure and part of your proposal here is to knock those down to 50%. >> Which is even less >> night time. Except the motion sensor. Now the motion sensor, how does that work? So if it's off and you walk by and it goes on, >> correct? Stay on for a certain amount of
time or is it going to be popping on and off and on? >> No, no, no. It stays on for 15 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes. >> Somebody else comes, it's not off and on and off and on. >> No, it stays on for 15 20 minutes. It's it's it's programmable. >> So you can adjust the time delay. Uh typically it's 20 minutes. >> Okay. >> Um and then it stays on for 20 minutes
and then if there is no activity it shuts off. >> And that's probably good because people are leaving you probably have another one. We don't want to have it like pop strobe effect. >> Agreed. We don't want to have a warning light. You know there are strobe lights in this movie kind of thing. You're right. Okay.
>> All right. Um so all the heads are going to be replaced all of the lamp poles then. You said you may or may not replace all the lamp poles. the the poles themselves just because you saw you saw in one of the pictures it was corroded right. Yeah. So any any any issues like that we're
replacing the poles but it's not >> ones that are 15 ft. If that pole was fine it's 15 ft. Are you going to replace it? Because you all the new ones are going to be 12 ft. Correct. >> Well the the new ones that we're adding are 12 ft but if there's an existing pole that we have we're replacing we're going to replace with the same height
that it was before. If if it's a 15t pole then we're going to replace it with the 15t wall. >> Why would you do that? because that's what it's matches the other poles in the in the area. I mean the the some of the other poles >> leave you're going to leave the 15 foot poles if they're 15 >> if they're 15
>> next to it if you need to replace you can replace the 12 foot >> the new ones that we're adding those are the only ones going to be 12 foot >> they'll be 12T >> yes >> just to clarify that point on the on the perimeter of the north and south side that's where the new 12T are going
>> in the interior there's some 15t poles that might need to be replaced but they don't want to put a 12t pole there because then you'll have 15t 12 Yeah, that's >> it doesn't provide the uniform distribution from the light fixture. >> Now, what about the color of the lamp now? Is it going to be similar? I know
LEDs are usually 5,000 K. Is it going to be the same warmth? >> It's it's very close to the incandescent. Incandescent are anywhere between 2,800 to 3,000K. >> So, that's more of a nice >> It's it's a little warm. I mean, it's it's like a neutral white. I would say
>> it's a neutral white. Like, it's it's between the warm and the and the cool blue. Like what would you maybe like a 3,000? >> It's 3500. >> 3500. 3500 is what we're going >> more than 3500 people. >> So it's not going to be like you know someone's out there playing. >> No. Yeah. >> Sports. Okay.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> So I think then so then you feel that having them on all night long which they are now even though this not supposed to be at 50%. How much when you say 50% I mean is it considerable?
Like if I had a just a regular bulb at 100, knocked it down to 50. Does it really look like 50 or does it really make it darker to the eye? >> Does it drop the foot candles by half? >> It it almost does. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. And it still has these new heads. Are
they going to have the same spread? >> Same spread. Yes. Same spread. Yes. >> Okay. >> I have a question for Paul. Um Paul, the ordinance says regardless of what the condition was that was approved, the
ordinance says 11 p.m. They're asking now for something a change in the condition which is well beyond 11 p.m. all the way overnight. Does that require variance? >> It's it's a design waiver because it's a design waiver section of the ordinance.
And I just and and just to be, you know, completely clear on it, it does I'll read the entire sentence. Okay. >> Which ordinance are you referring to? >> Uh, this is >> res. >> Yeah, this is 1350
4.1C. >> Okay. >> And it's the last paragraph of that. It says, "Except for minimum security lighting, illumination for non-residential uses shall be extinguished at 11:00 p.m. or the end of the business day, whichever is earlier,
except for eating and drinking establishments where the same will be extinguished at the time the establishment is closed." Now, I think that the question here is what I'm hearing it's the applicant's position that all the lights on the property are security lighting.
Basically, >> that's that's that's the position they're taking. This board has never looked at all the lights on a property as being security. Now, they can they can make their their points or whatever, but that's that's I think the nuance we have here.
>> Can you turn off the perimeter ones? The perimeter ones, what are they for? I know you have your inner parking lot. The ones you're adding for perimeter, were they added just for driving in that area or for walking to the car? >> Those are also for the parking. If you if you're looking >> for really walking to your car, if it's all the way on the perimeter, it's not
within the parking spaces. >> Yeah, because there is no light. I mean, when we did the the the lighting study, there was practically no light in in those areas. So, we ended I mean, again, we just wanted >> problem. Well, but these new lights are going along on the on the outside of the
parking lot, right? >> Some of the spaces are on the edge, Tim. >> They're they're at the edge of the parking, right? >> Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Yep. >> So, I just want to switch the conversation just a bit. >> Um,
>> so where the new poles are going in that's grass landscape area? >> Yes. >> Okay. And I do you have an existing conditions diagram and just it was hard to tell from from
the plans where what which area was grass that uh the new poles were going. >> It's it's the grass area. I don't really have an existing condition picture or a drawing, but um if you the the I if if if you look at this, this is where the
asphalt for the for the parking is and the the pole structure, the base is going to be right behind that in the grass area. >> Okay. This could be like a tube, just a cement. >> It's it's like a cement. Yes. Yeah, exactly. It's it's a I think it's a it's a 6 in um diameter. Actually, maybe more
than 6 in. Has the township ever received complaints about the lighting at this location? >> So I have >> the complaints that I've heard not to do with the
lighting in the parking lot. They actually have to do with the lights from the windows of the office building. >> Which are supposed to be the shades are supposed to be drawn at night. And they used to I my understand is that um there
used to be some personnel that would go around and literally close the shades at the end of the business day and some of the lights some of their shades are being left open and uh that's the complaints that I've heard about is that it's not from the parking lot but from
actually the built building they're much higher than the lights themselves. >> Yeah. And uh they're visible from uh Lucas Brook. Are they still is this still a manual operation or is this a uh >> My guess is he doesn't know. >> Well, for the for the interior, I all I
know is that it's it's on time clock also and it's basically shuts off. But the the thing is there is an override in place for the offices, but I I'll bring it up to AT&T to make sure that it's uh it's enforced. >> Right. You're talking about the lighting inside the actual offices, but I think the question was regarding the shades
being drawn. Uh we can certainly report this issue back to AT&T and ask that they you know do their very best to make sure that's being >> and this is on the residential side of this all around. >> It's on the residential side is where those faces that you've been receiving the if
you said you received some complaints. >> Yes, I've received complaints both ways. Complaints that the shades weren't shut but it's been quite some time. But I also got complaints from some of the tenants in the building that the parking lot lighting is not adequate. So I I just I just want to say
that that's you know this is an issue. >> Oh, okay. >> But I just want to make sure that we solve it completely. But have you heard complaints about the 206 Lamington Road complaint of the
visibility of the overnight lights from 206 or Lamington Road or or Clucasbrook for that matter? >> No, not I haven't heard I have not had complaints about the site lighting. >> Okay. >> Other than what he said about it not
being enough for the people in the building. >> Right. So it's the other way. It's it's in favor of having the overnight lights. >> Listen, I think 50% is adequate. That's my feeling. But you know, >> anybody else? Anybody else have any
questions? Go ahead, Steve. >> Sort of. I mean, we raised the issue of having a dedicated area and we didn't get any response to that, I don't think. >> Yeah. you know, it's something that I would have to talk to AT&T about. Um I I
just know that practically thinking this through the operation is, you know, people showing up to work at certain hours and you don't know when you're going to leave and and you you might be locked into a busy day and so it still doesn't solve the solution of oops, I
forgot to move my car because I was busy on calls all day and now they're still facing the same scenario. So, I mean, even if AT&T and I have to talk with those folks, if they were to say, "Okay, we could do something in that regard, I still think we would have this issue where some, you know, a handful or more
employees come in, even if it's at, you know, they say their their shift or or their hours or later in the day, but they come in when the sun's up and then they forget to move their car and now they're walking out there and it's pitch black and they're going to have the same complaint, you know, which is why we're here tonight." It's not just a question
of moving the car, but giving them specific places to park. >> Yeah, if they know they're I think >> I think I think that's problematic thing to manage. >> Yeah, they have to to manage that, but that's just I think that's where they're going to be a business in itself.
>> And and I I'm I know that um I don't believe they even have like firm shifts, right? It's it's it's an office, so there might be certain people that work shifts, but I'm sure there's plenty of people that it's, you know, they they start their day later for whatever reason and they're there later. Um, I know that happens at our office. So, I I
think it's it's very hard to to nail down, oh, these specific employees come in at this time and are going to leave at that time, so let's work something out of where they're going to park. >> A lot of them are salary do have to do a job, whatever it takes, type of a thing. Well, I I from what little I I know of
the operations there, there are some um security elements because it's a major telecommunications and there's some backup uh issues in there. There are there is an overnight >> Yeah. that's working on telecommunications stuff, whatever that
means. >> Yeah. Um but you know I I I would imagine it it could be an effort to police and you know get the parking and reserve the parking and >> practical
return to our uh office building landlord. >> Yeah. From a practical it would be a very hard thing to >> to to manage >> to >> Yeah. >> to come up with a plan and then manage it because quite frankly you don't know necessarily who's going to be there.
>> Right. >> Yeah. And Steve gets preferential parking at Lowenstein. They associate the associates never work past 10 o'clock. >> For all it says for old people only. >> Well seniors >> not going to touch that.
>> Medicare. No, I I must say though, um, you know, we're put in a bit of a a disadvantage because there's no one here from AT&T, which is, I would say, relatively unusual. You know, we're
forced to speculate on your behalf. >> Um, which, uh, >> if if there's any questions that you want answered, I mean, there is a representative AT&T that um was on. If she's still on, but I I have her cell phone. I could >> I'm only making a comment. I mean,
I'm sure whatever the majority is, I'll go along with, but um just seems to me that if we're troubled that we're asked to do something, uh contrary to what the ordinance is and um
we're concerned about security. So we ought to be able to address the security issue which is the issue uh in the context of the lighting as opposed to speculating on security.
>> I I'm not that troubled like with sort of know how office buildings operate and people come and go and they park where they can for whatever reason and >> well and based on on the fact that we haven't had many complaints about the parking lighting. It's come in the light of complaining about lighting
>> and the parking complaints have been that it's not enough. >> Right. Right. >> Well, that exactly about it be too much. I mean, if it's the building they're complaining about, that's a different issue. >> I'd like a reminder with the extent that we're interested in approving it. I'd like a reminder that they should be drawing the shades at night.
>> Yeah. Which is a separate thing altogether, especially on the best to comply with that requirement by just just as a as procedural order. So, um the engineers testimony we've
asked um you may present someone from AT&T just to address some of the questions that uh Steve um had asked earlier. >> Well, I I was saying is if there's anything I can answer, I could I could go into the hallway and call and find
out more information, but um I I don't even know. I don't know that I I think um I mean if you like to hear from her I could >> Well, yeah. I mean, but at the same time, uh do you have public comment for uh the engineer?
>> I have still have a question. >> Go right ahead. >> Okay. So, my question again is for Paul. I don't want to put you on the spot, Paul, but between no lighting, 10% lighting, and 50% lighting, as our engineer, where would you fall on that
decision tree? >> Do you walk to school or carry your lunch? >> I don't I don't understand the question. pump >> because are are you what what do I think is the appropriate security >> design for the site? >> Yeah, that's the best way.
>> I I don't know. I haven't I haven't thought that out. That's that's not my job, Frank. >> Okay, >> that's >> I've designed plenty of sites where there's been security lighting and I don't think I've designed any site where
all the light was considered security. Okay, thank you Paul. >> Anybody else have any questions? Is there >> Oh, in just trying to keep in line with the ordinance or at least the intent of it, the you know the spirit behind it.
Is there some consideration maybe that that can be given? There's definitely a difference between a property that operates 247 versus a business or a property that does not have employees at night. And this obviously should absolutely be follow understood completely where a
property doesn't have something that's open. It closes at a point like Paul said to close like shut off the whole bit. Is that something without that can just be built into a consideration that if this was to be cons, you know, be
considered for this that we don't open up for all these other properties that just say, well, they're allowed to do it. And >> no, that never happens. These are all all our decisions are oneoff decisions. >> I can meet the property that meets this guideline. Obviously, we have plenty of them that shut down that that's
following the intent with this. But business that's closed. No, I don't want them coming back and saying we want our lights on all night. That's not that's not the intent or the spirit of this versus again we're considering people going employees going to their cars having safety things like that. So
in that vein when um Paul since you go all the way back uh >> I was not here when this site was approved. >> I was here when it was built but not when it was >> I was I was going to go to the earlier AT&T uh campus and you've got the you
certainly got the security gate got the long drive in. you had they were I believe they were well certainly with the GO they were 247 um you don't have to go that far back go to the Verizon building right now
>> they have portions of the site that are lit all night >> because of the site is lit >> that I don't know >> or how much lighting they have all night because it does there are houses right there are there are houses behind there >> but there requirements met before
approval that they had to put a solid fence along that property line and recently got a complaint that part of it was knocked down. So, they've got to put the fence back up. >> And was and and just was the fence
because of um spillover uh >> light light and noise. So if the testimony is that there's no spillover based upon uh this lighting plan, is that already is that concern
already into what's been proposed? >> I have zero concern about >> Okay. So you're just talking about the globe. >> The glove >> the globe. Okay. So, we're asking poll questions, but yeah, but we're but it's it's the public
questions will be interesting. >> Okay, we will I guess anybody from the board. >> Okay, we will open it to the public and see anybody online as well. >> There are people online. Um, >> anybody have a question? >> So, if you're online again, you can
either raise your hand underneath yourself or if you're in the audience, you can come up to the podium. you will have to be um you know you'll have to give us your name and Tom squares you in. So um make sure that you do that. But again you have
>> Jim in the back >> you want to come up. >> Yeah the online people first. >> Yep. Come on. >> Give us your name and address. >> So good good evening folks. My name is
James Statmiller. s t a dt t m u e l l e r 2300 lamington road at minster >> James uh hold on one second please do you please raise your right hand >> sure >> do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God >> I do >> please go ahead
>> thank you um I didn't have any remarks prepared but listening to all the stuff that's gone on here tonight I I feel compelled to say a couple of things uh so number one um my occupation of 2300 L road predates you guys. Um, and I can
say that yeah, there is a definite glow there. I don't know what percentage of that relates to the outside lights, what percentage of that relates to the inside lights, but I can tell you for a fact that those inside lights are on at all hours of day or night. And so, I think one of the things that has to happen here is that you can you can get
electronic slides that drop those blinds electronically every night. You don't have to worry about someone coming in there and turning them on or off or pulling them up or down. So, I think having electronic blinds that drop down at night is a critical component. Um,
and then I'm curious to know how many people are working there. I know there's not shift work, okay? So, there's not like a second shift or third shift, but I'm in a profession where people have to hump to get projects done and meet deadlines. So, I know there are nights where you're there at 8:00, 9:00, 10 o'clock. It's incredibly rare that
you're there past 11. and to be there at two in the morning is maybe 1% of the workforce half the time. So, so how many people are working there at night? >> I don't know the exact number, but I I can definitely confirm that.
>> I mean, is it 10? Is it 200? What's the >> No, I don't think >> what's the building capacity? >> I'm not sure either on that. So I would >> we can confirm all this about five per 10 people you know buy a flashlight
I think that's an important piece to know >> I mean again it's two it's it's not a single building it's two buildings and it's uh I'm sure it's more than 200 uh people I'm not I'm not saying it's uh but I'm not I can confirm the exact number of people I'm not sure yeah I can
definitely confirm that >> again there is there is a glow to that site there is a glow Is he competent to answer these questions? >> Well, he's competent to answer them. He's >> I know. I mean, is he sufficient knowledge of his own knowledge to answer
any of these questions about the way this company works? >> Well, for AT&T, no, I'm not. I'm not. >> How have you done some what what background do you have on how this facility works?
I don't nothing really because I don't really work in that building. >> I that you know I think you're being put I just repeat I I don't want to be malicious but you know someone from AT&T really should be here. >> Fair application. They want something.
We're happy to give it but I think we're entitled to some answers. >> Right. Well thank you folks. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. >> Thank you Jim. Is there anybody else you need online? >> So online again u we do have a couple of
people. I'm not sure who's was part of the applicant or um you know you could just raise your hand or you can unmute yourself and then let us know that you have a question and Tom will swear you in. Jillian, did you have something that you
wanted to say? You unmuted yourself, but we can't hear you. >> Technical issue have some issues with it. the other night at the TTC meeting. >> Know if they're trying to get through, do you know? >> Uh Jillian, did you have something to
say? I can see you now. Do you want to raise your hand or Okay. So, you have something to say. Can you can you try to speak so we can see if we can hear you? Yeah. I don't think your mic is turned on because we've been able to hear everybody else online. So, if you want,
just take a second and check your computer. Or maybe type a type a message. >> No, >> in the chat. >> Uh, >> oh no, we have to she has to be >> you have to hear >> audible. Yeah.
>> Okay, we can send Brian over. >> Uh, Jillian, do you have the ability to call in? Is that the same? >> Well, why don't you help her with her mic? Um, Jillian, are you on a a laptop or computer?
Okay. Um, do you Does your mic usually work? Sometimes there's a uh on on Zoom. Sometimes there's a uh icon at the bottom of the screen. If you hit your cursor on the screen, you
should see an icon for a microphone. And you can do a test there. >> Shut up this mute. >> Okay. Is that better? >> There you go. There you go. >> Please, please raise your right hand.
And uh do you swear swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. And please state your name, spell your last name, and give us an address. >> I'm Jillian Young, Y O U N G. I live at
1300 US Highway 206, Bedminster, 07921. >> Thank you. Please go ahead. Um, I actually am probably in the only house that's on the 206 side directly opposite from AT&T and I'm looking out my window at the
moment and just about 75% of the windows have not had their shades pulled down at the AT&T building. All all the lights are on and I can certainly agree with my neighbor on Lamington Road that there is definitely a glow. So my my concern is
>> if I could just interrupt you just for your information that that restriction was only on the Clucas Pro road side of the property not the 206 side. >> Okay. Well few years ago when um uh the other company was there FISA apparently
they told us that the shade would be down overnight so that we wouldn't see the disturbing bright lights. I'm assuming now as other companies have taken over that that variance or promise was uh no longer valid. But according to
the uh meeting tonight with the new lights going in, my concern is that it will be even brighter if they don't put the shades down and with 11 new lights. >> Well, the level of the new lights will be less. >> The the new lights are not going to be facing the 206 though. It's It's going
to be towards the back. It's It's behind the buildings. >> Right. Right. But looking at the map here, I can see some of that going to be butting up against the piece of property on the 206 South. But I'm just just making a point that it's bright enough as it is with the interior lights on and
then with an additional 11 lights out here. Um I think it's going to be awfully bright if they don't dim now at nighttime. from from the lighting perspective, the illuminance levels are going to go down with the with the new fixture that we're proposing. So, it's not going to be same to what we
currently have. Um, >> so it's it's definitely going to go down. I'm not sure if how I mean it's in comparison, I'm not sure how much it's actually going to down, but it's definitely better than what you currently have there. >> Okay. All right. It was just a concern.
>> Thanks very much. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? Not sure. Let's just see. Does anyone else have anything they want to say? Again, you can unmute yourself. You can raise your hand. I only see a couple of
people, I'm assuming. >> There's only one other person that I I I don't know and they have not unmuted themselves or raised their hand. So again, anyone else? >> Okay, we'll close it to the public. >> So I got guess a question is uh whether
or not uh the attorney uh wants to make a call and get someone from AT&T to answer. >> I think it would be a good idea. >> You want to adjourn for a couple seconds? I I already attempted that >> so I will not be able to provide that this evening.
>> Okay. >> You can't wait to >> Well, I think we need more information. I mean, unless >> Well, the proposal of the parking lot itself, >> personally, I'm okay with it's I think the problem is the lighting of the
building. That seems to be the big problem. So, are these the same issue or are these separate issues, Tom? I mean, are we going to say >> they're different? They're different issues. They're different issues. Okay. So, I mean, >> I would agree, >> but the applicant the applicant is
committed to comply with the Clucas Brook um um light window shade condition. They're not asking for relief from that. They are asking you for this >> be an enforcement issue that >> it is.
>> Yeah. And and it's it's something that can be met. What what I might suggest is that if Mr. Stat Mueller or any of his neighbors see the issue out there with the lights at the back of the building that they contact the zoning officer and from the
AT&T side, we should have a contact that the zoning officer can reach out to to to handle that because it's it's very hard to to do the enforcement. So, get us somebody that we can reach out to. >> Absolutely. And
>> but you know I I just I I Tim I agree with you but I I do recognize the uh the issues raised I think mostly believe by Steve is if we're going to say that these lighting that this lighting plan is needed for
the security I do we need testimony from AT&T to support the design that that these are this is security. >> If I could just make one point on that and obviously you're going to do
whatever you feel is best from from my perspective. If I had a representative from AT&T here, they're going to say the same thing that Mr. Fero has already told you, which is we have employees that have made complaints about their their well their personal well-being, how they feel when they're walking out to their car at night. As far as the
capacity of the building and the number of employees that are impacted by this that we cannot answer right now, uh I suspect whether they come in and they tell you it's 10 employees or 100 employees, the concern still would be the concern and I'm sure that from our discussions preparing for this, I know
that while I don't have a definite number, I know that does fluctuate, right? So, um, you know, we certainly could come back with representative if that's what the board wants, but I think basically what I've just said is about what you're going to hear from that representative. So, the testimony that
Paul Ferrero has given you, Steve, >> I I also think another there's another perspective. I think that it's really important that the people at AT&T understand that the board and the township cares about it.
>> But the the indoor lighting is >> No, I'm just saying that I'm done. >> No, no, but I I Are you talking about that? >> Fine. Make your motion. It's fine.
I think it is important that it gets back to the representative of AT&T as Ste said that there is an issue with the interior lighting and we need some kind of >> I think that condition can be reiterated you know re restated in this approval
resolution. We're certainly going to advise them that listen, if you don't comply with this, there could be enforcement action. And also, we have no problem finding out who the point person is for that building that the zoning officer could reach out to should this issue arise. >> Okay,
>> Brian. Brian, this is Tom now. >> Brian is, you know, Mr. Statm Miller made a very good recommendation and that was automatic shades. Can you commit to that for AT&T on those
Kucusbrook facing windows? >> That is something I have to go back to them with because that's quite an undertaking. I I I couldn't even >> I don't think it's that I don't think it's that big an undertaking, Brian. So, um maybe maybe that'll be a condition
that you have to do no matter what. Yeah, I think you're I think you're not thinking about you're not aware of this importance of this and you because you didn't work on it. But if that truly isn't being fulfilled,
that is a bad situation. Okay. So, you got to cure it and the cure is appropriate that it be automatic >> or I would say be done manual or automatic, right? >> Yeah. Well, it has to be done and it hasn't been done and apparently uh this is this has been something of a known
problem for a while. So, this is not this not it should be it should be dealt with automatically and and it could be a condition. I >> I just don't know that, you know, I'd have to speak to AT&T. >> I understand. I understand. But but what I'm getting at is we can make it a condition. If you really object, you can
tell us about it, but I don't think you're going to really object. So, >> understood. I just would make the point that I don't know what the cost of that is. Um I could see a scenario where >> doesn't sound though it doesn't sound that bad. So like >> I am not comfortable making that a condition. >> No. Yeah.
>> Huge expense for 80,000 square feet >> like >> Yeah. >> Well, but it's not an excuse the the fact that it costs money or that somebody has to do it manually is not an excuse to the violation. >> So
>> I agree. I think we need to give them an opportunity to say something and see what they do. Yes. But >> I just put window sheets in compliance in my house and lost >> compliance. I'm not sure mandating that they put automatic window shades is is a thing that I
>> I agree with that. >> And should it be more than um you know on the 206 side as well you know um you know with the with the blinds so that it cuts down on the interior alto together.
Well, there's been a change to the corridor obviously since that Samus project was approved because now in the other side of the street. >> Yeah. >> It used to be only the Forbes building. Now you've got the advanced building behind that. You have to fresh pay and
you've got the other advanced buildings that also have been approved. It's not the same >> as it was. >> It's going to be even more >> true. This is true. >> So it's it's a it's a different character of the corridor. >> Yeah. And it's on route 206 and it's
it's an O zone on both sides of the roads. >> All right. I recommend we stick with what we have, but just enforce what we have. >> Enforce what we have. >> Let's handle this and then go after the enforcement side. I don't know either. >> Yeah. U I I I just like to make a
comment. Um Tom said that the what we're here for is the exterior lighting and that's not part, you know, the interior lighting is not part of it. But what happens is that the interior lighting and the exterior lighting combined adds to the glow of
additional light. So if they could make some, you know, correction on the interior lighting and maybe make sure those lights go off also. That's I'm sure not every one of those offices are open. >> Didn't you mention that they go, aren't
they on timers and interiors? I believe they're Yeah, they're they're on time clock, but I need to confirm on that as well. I'm not sure. >> Seems like they're not it's not >> Yeah, that's that's what it looks like. It's not It's not They're not being overridden or at least they're overridden on the from the time clock operation >> for some reason.
>> So So that would help us to help you. >> Yes, understood. >> So Brian, you said you would agree to um reiterate the uh the indoor lighting
in a resolution >> we we would do that. Yeah, that condition we you could restate it and then that could be an enforcement >> in blind. So, one I just want to just go back to the board and say with Paul's earlier comment that you
know the complaints that he has heard um have to do with >> the light coming from uh towards Lucasbrook and then the complaints regarding the outdoor lighting in the parking lot. Those complaints are
actually coming from AT&T employees. So, I know it's not testimony, but Paul Paul addressed some of the uh those items. Does that satisfy the board members with respect to
having uh an AT&T representative? So, you can >> Well, that's up to the board. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm that's fine with what we have. I don't >> You're okay. >> It would be nice, but I don't think it's necessary. It's not going to change my opinion. I'm I'm okay with not having the board
the AT&T representative here, but I do feel like it should have been someone I >> should have. I agree. Should have, but it's not. >> So, you're okay. >> Okay, we're okay with So, we're
agreeing. >> Okay. So, if if the board is ready, you could consider a motion to approve the manded preliminary and final site plan as discussed and a site plan exception for uh lighting after 11 p.m. in the parking lot with the conditions proposed
by the applicant and with the U Paul's report except as explained in testimony and with the uh restatement of the condition that applies to the um window and window shades facing Clucas
Brook. And I guess the board also wants a condition that uh the applicant is encouraged to turn off unnecessary uh window interior lighting and to use shades
u to reduce the outdoor appearance of lighting. >> I I don't know that it's encouraged. I think it's >> that's part of the >> Yeah, I think it's a condition for >> No, I'm I'm talking about all the all the windows,
>> not just the if you would like to. It sounds like you're >> Oh, okay. >> You're saying and the witness is even admitting that >> they probably could turn off interior lights on the window walls when they're not in use. I don't know that it's a big
problem, but Mr. Mrs. I think the witness across the street indicated that lights are on for the windows facing 206 >> and that's Paul that also addresses the additional impervious and reduction of that walkway.
>> Yeah, it's it's a net reduction so no variances. I'm >> so I have a I have a point of clarification. Is the the condition on the interior lighting that's all the interior lighting in accordance with the ordinance? The ordinance talks about all
interior lighting as the woman who um expressed an interest living on 206 or are we only addressing the interior lighting um other than 206 in Lamington Road? So Tom's proposed
motion was that they have to comply with the existing restriction facing >> but they should try to turn off all the lights >> so that we're going to give some kind of a variance or some kind of a um
>> I don't think that's a that's not an ordinance we're >> giving a waiver of the provision. I just want to make sure I understand the waiver of the provision in the ordinance under whatever section >> under the subsection E it does talk about interior lighting to be shut off
at 11 p.m. However, the prior approval in my opinion envisioned that the site would be occupied after 11:00 be because it had the condition on the shades. >> But that was just a condition then >> that it was a it was a condition then this ordinance was after that approval.
>> Okay. So, in other words, it's >> Well, we can't permit them to operate in the building 247 and then tell them they can't turn the >> No, no, I understand, but I'm just trying to understand what we're doing. >> So, I'm comfortable. Um I'm comfortable with Tom's motion on that.
>> I am too. >> Making a second. >> Second. >> Mayor Jacobs. >> Hi, >> Mr. Walter. >> Hi, >> M. Orana. >> Hi. >> Uh, Mr. Hi >> Mr. First. >> Hi >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi >> Mr. Wild.
>> Hi >> Cheryl. >> Hi. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Last week. >> I know Jeff's invisible. We know that.
>> I'll take that as a compliment. Not many people tell me I'm invisible. All right. Next week we have Somerset Air Service. >> Yes. >> They'll be coming back to us with the
gentlemen. Does any board member have any comments that they'd like to make tonight? >> So, um, at Monday's township committee meeting, uh, the township committee, um, we approved the
affordable housing ordinance, uh, reflecting the DCA and HMFA rules. Um, and we authorized attorney to file uh the the the
housing element fair share plan uh to and the spending plan to uh to the court uh which uh John has done. Presuming there's no other comments coming from
the court or fair share housing, we should have a final order by April 15th. >> Wow. What's the likelihood of not them not having a question about >> that? They they really because John's already um told them and they reviewed drafts of
done. So that's really should resolve our fourth round of complications. Um and now Okay. Which is built into that uh built into that plan will be committing
uh at some point to uh for its project. >> Every time I stop at that light, I think about >> Well, you might be getting your answers. >> Yeah.
>> Like to see the road. I >> I have a question. >> Yeah. question for for um I I guess for Larry if anyone else knows on a previously approved project we approved elite on Lyington Road and Larry do we know if
those moderate housing units have been occupied? My understanding is they are >> it. >> Do we know the percentage of occupation in that in that property? Because I pass there a lot in the lights. There's like never any lights. >> Oh, I pass I mean I pass every day.
>> I my understanding is that the elite project the residential is 100% on. >> It is. >> But there's nothing in the retail space ever. No, there there's a sign outside that
>> there's a a cos is it a cosmetic? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. There's there's a cosmetic >> the realtor's office is there, too. >> Okay. >> Really? >> Well, they put the sign up. >> Looks like it. >> Oh, and I think there's a sign on the road that says they're fully >> Yeah, I haven't passed that.
>> So, I I my understanding is that uh there was what 4,000 5,000 square feet of retail. >> 4,000. >> Yeah. that I think the dentist took about 2,00 or 2200 square feet. So I think there's another,500 square feet
>> retail in that first floor that's still available. >> But but the residential my understanding is residential is >> that's good. >> They must be drawing the shades. Yeah, I
>> you do see some sometimes I'll drive by you can like oh so look the size of that TV that's a really big TV. Uh oh. >> Then a lot of times the the shades will draw you here. >> I know one of the tenants and they're not here all winter. >> Oh okay.
>> You know so that may be the case where they are >> do they like it? No, but they love it. >> Because at one point we talked about trying to get a uh a tour when it was >> I did and I tried to do that and it just never fit together and they were written faster than you know we
>> Yeah. I have no idea what it looks like inside. >> No, I don't either. I'm sure the finishings are very nice. >> Go knock on the door. >> Well, your friends aren't there. Do you have a key? >> Yeah. Right. Right. >> Or something or maybe Zillow or maybe some of them are on there.
>> Oh, that's true. Yeah. So, >> okay. >> Okay. >> I will see you next week. We need a motion to adjourn. >> Approve. >> All right. >> Good night, everybody.
>> Parking lot. Just so you know, Frank, >> get some new lights. >> You got to say something. >> Thank you, everyone. He doesn't submit bills anyway.