municipal building. Please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10:00 p.m. Hearing assistance is available upon request. Accommodations will be made with for
individuals with a disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA provided the individual with a disability provides 48 hours advanced notice to the planned department secretary before the public meeting. However, if the individual should require special equipment or services
such as a CART transcriber, 7 days advanced notice excluding weekends and holidays may be necessary. I would ask that everyone please rise to salute our flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good evening, Miss Probes. Can I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Basio >> here. >> Mr. Bonjouro
>> here. >> Councilwoman Isla >> here. >> Mr. Pepis, >> Mr. Mcora >> here, >> Mr. Wang >> here, >> Miss Sakora >> here, >> Mr. Mr. Banga, Miss Chardich
>> here, >> Mr. Chowdery >> here, >> Mr. Atkins, Mr. Peek, board attorney >> here, >> Miss Sarmad, board planner >> here, >> and we have Marie Rafé for Bill Burke, board engineer this evening
>> here. >> You have a quorum. You can proceed. >> Thank you, Miss Pro. Good evening and welcome to everybody. If there are any members of the public this evening that wish to address our board in any matters that are not listed on tonight's agenda, please feel free to come forward at this time.
Hearing none, seeing none, we'll be moving right along to our resolution portion of our agenda. And the first we have is a courtesy review for the SRVSA new administration building, block 305, lot 50 Pis Lane. Any questions,
comments, or changes to the record? Hearing none. Could I have a motion to adopt said resolution? >> A motion. >> That's Miss Chardawitz. And a second, please. >> That's Mr. Chowry. Could I have a roll call, please? >> Vesio. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Isla? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mora? >> Yes. >> Mr. Wang? >> Yes. >> Miss Chardawitch? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chowdery? >> Yes. Okay, we'll be skipping right over our pending resolutions this evening. We'll
going be going straight to the memorialization resolution of the planning department for the major final subdivision of Rand Moshe. That's block 405, lot one, which is 59 Cornell Boulevard. Any questions, comments, or changes to the record?
Hearing none, could I have a motion to adopt said resolution? I'll motion. >> That's Miss Chardovitz. >> Second, please. >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Miss Probes. A roll call, please. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Yes. >> Councilman Misla, >> yes. >> Miss Chardawitch, >> yes. >> And Mr. Chowdery, >> yes. >> No one else was eligible. >> Thank you, Miss Probes. M pro the le record record reflect that Mr. Papus is
in the building this evening. >> Hi. >> Okay, moving along to our application portion of the evening. First would be an initial hearing for application 26006-PB. That's Mueller-mark, 20114 Primrose Lane and 101 Vosel
Avenue, blocks 802, lot 70 and 78. And who will be representing the applicant this evening? >> Good. >> Good evening. Very well. Uh, would it be possible for somebody to take a microphone? >> Sure.
>> Please, please, uh, whoever's going to be testifying, why don't you come up? I'll swear you all in. We'll get your names for the record [clears throat] and then you can proceed. [clears throat] So, can you all raise your right hand?
You swear that the testimony you're going to give in connection with this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. Uh starting ma'am on the left if you could just state your name and and spell the last for the record. Deborah DB R A Harrison H R I S O N
>> Mark Mueller M A R K M U L L E R >> Zachary Mueller Z A C H A R Y M U L L E R >> All set, >> please. >> Yes. >> Okay, so uh
>> before we get going, I see you have sort of a colorized sketch. Can we mark that as a statement? >> Please, >> please subdivision. >> That's correct. And I'll I'll just walk you through that momentarily. Uh this is from the uh Reynolds School survey that
was done for this application. Um so my name is Mark Mueller. As I said, this is my wife Deborah Harrison and this is our son Zachary Mueller. Uh my wife and I live at 2110 Arbor Way, which I'll just point out is right there. Um and we've raised our two
children there, Zachary and Rebecca. Uh we've lived there for just about over 30 years. Both of our children attended the local schools. And our son Zachary now lives at 10001 Vosler Avenue, which is right here, which is one of the properties we'll be discussing tonight,
which is lot uh 78. So, um just a little bit about us and what our connection is to Bridgewater. Uh as I say, Deborah and I have been here for over 30 years. We're active members of the community. Uh we both coach children's uh township
recreation sports. Um, I have served on the rec board here in Bridgewater. Deborah has been a scout leader over the years and she also served on Bridgewwater's affordable housing board. Uh, she wins many awards every year as a maker of jam at the 4H fair. And, um,
she, uh, I also a Ruter certified master gardener and that's a lot of what I spend my time doing is is working in our yard. Uh I'm also the past president of the Morrison Somerset County Beekeepers Association and we still to this day uh keep honey bees in our backyard and uh
give our give our good friends honey. So um so that's just a little bit about us and our connection to the community. Um we're here today seeking approval for a lot line adjustment from the property at 2114 Primrose Lane in Martinsville, New
Jersey. And that's also known as block 802 lot 70. and looking for that piece of property to be conveyed to where our son lives, which is the 100001 Vosler Avenue, Martinsville, New Jersey, also known as block 802, lot 78. So, as I
say, I've mounted on this board here my plan from the Reynolds group that was dated February 20th, 2026, identified as page LLA-1, I guess, also known as exhibit A1, uh, boundary lot line adjustment survey. And this is the same plan that was submitted with our
application, although I've cropped it just a little bit to make it a little more user friendly. And I mounted it here for your convenience so I can point out uh the items on this testimony. So, as I say, both my neighbors lot 70, which is right right here,
>> funky shape to it, if you would. Um is uh let's see here, is lot 70. and my lot which my son lives at is this lot 78 right here in the green. So, uh so both my neighbor's lot 70 and my lot
78 currently conform to Bridgewater Townships R50 zoning which is a zoning that's that's appropriate in this neighborhood here. Uh each property contains a single family home. Right here is the one on lot 70 uh that fronts Primrose Avenue which is right here and
then uh lot 78 uh is down here and and has a long driveway that comes out on Velor Avenue over on this side. Um but what what you will see is um that lot 70 as I said Front Primrose Lane to the north but to the southeast the same
Lot 70 property has a tailpiece that's approximately 84.52 ft wide and 450 ft long and that's this tail right here that I'm pointing out that that comes down there. Um and that tailpiece separates our property with our son that
he lives at. It's lot 78 from our property, lot 60. And so that's the piece that in question that we're uh looking at right here. So um and so this tailpiece I would best describe it as sloped. It's fully wooded. It's without
structures and it's otherwise landlocked in and of itself. And all we're looking to do is extend the property line between lot 70 and 78 as I've put little dashes here and um and seeking your approval for that uh so that we can
convey lot 70 and 78 will rem they will [snorts] both remain uh fully conforming lots when this is done per the township's R50 zoning requirements and I can pro provide a little further detail on that in just a minute. So, in some what we're seeking to do is looking for your approval uh to convey this tail
piece of property right here over it from lot 70 to lot 78 and [snorts] we are uh we have agreement from the two parties involved and we are not looking for any variances at this point because everything is in compliance both before and after. So, um any any questions so
far? >> Thank you, Mr. Muller. I'm assuming that concludes your testimony. >> Um I have a little more. >> Very good. I'll just ask the board if they have any interim questions. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chowry. >> No, no, let Sure. So, um, which lot did you say you are at?
>> So, we are lot 60. My wife and I live here. >> 60. >> We own this lot in conjunction with our son, which is 78. And our neighbor, uh, Carol Lidle owns this lot right here, lot 70. Again, that fronts Primrose and then comes down with this tail piece here. and it's this tailpiece that we're
looking to buy from her and add it to this lot 78. So, this property would actually be more a regular shaped property really. So, >> and and you have a neighbor in lot 60. >> We we live in lot 61. >> You live in 60. So, 61. Uh those
neighbors are okay with it because it looks like from a picture we have on page two of six. Um yeah. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Yeah. We're in good terms with all our neighbors. Okay. I mean, we sent out the form. I told them we've been talking to my my neighbor Carol Lidle about this
for the last two years. So, I've been telling neighbors what we've been going to be doing. >> So, >> Okay, great. Yeah. I was just looking they're so close to each other at the culde-sac, right? You're at the culdeac. >> Exactly. So, >> exactly. And we sort of say, you know,
the front of our house we we call it suburban, but the back of our house we call it country because it's it's all wooded in here. And this is all green acres per bridgewater. And then the on the other side is the stream and that's um Washington Valley Park there. So it's it's very nice. Very nice. >> Okay.
>> Great. Thank you. >> Um what I'd like to do is just address some of the things. >> We have another question. I'm sorry. >> Actually I have a question for our planner. >> Um the [clears throat] new the lot that I would call a flag lot with the front
of John Bosler. U what's the uh what would the square footage become? or acreage do you know? >> I have all that information too for you when you're ready. >> It would have a resulting acreage of 5.56 acres or 242,215
square ft >> and minimum lot size >> 78 would be 5.5. >> One second. >> Oh, sorry. That's the that's the combined. I apologize. The proposed lot is 4.687 acres which is 24,181.
Thank you, Mr. Pek. Uh the minimum lot area is the R50 zone which is 50,000 square feet. So uh this is about you know four four times bigger. >> So um it's an R50 zone which is single family
lots on 50,000 square feet and it would become potentially buildable for how many lots? It's hard to tell because it is a flag lot, so it wouldn't have the lot width. Um, and I'm not I'm not quite sure of
what that rep how much property that represents on the, you know, the flag stem portion of it, right? >> Um, but there, you know, that's is kind of one of the questions I sort of raised in the review of like, you know, what is what would this be utilized for because it already is oversized. So the the only
frontage is Vosler right now on this lot >> and that will it will continue to only be Vosler. >> Yeah. Okay. That's all for now. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Mr. Chowry. >> Thank you. >> Uh okay. So basically what is the tail
end of the this pink line is 84 ft 84.4 something like you mentioned. >> Yes. I have when I continue I'll give you all those numbers but um so the lot that tailpiece is roughly 84.52
ft wide >> yes >> and uh 450 ft long >> uh Mr. P can I uh can we ask what will be the future planning will be um >> it's not really relevant
question the question question really before the board is whether or not the proposed subdivision meets the uh subdivision criteria. >> If I may continue, I think I can address all those issues. >> Please continue.
>> Thank you. So, what I want to do now is address the engineering and zoning project review comments regarding the application and fill in any of those missing details that you're talking about. So, I appreciate that. Um, as I mentioned, both lots are currently oversized for R50 zoning and will remain so after the conveyance. So, lot 70,
which is this lot right here, is currently 2.281 acres or 99,339 square ft. The tail that's being split off from lot 70, assuming you approve that, is 873 acres or 38,34
square ft, which is an area that will be added to and merged with lot uh 78 here. Okay. The new lot 70, assuming again that you approve the application, will consist of 1.408 acres or 61,35
square ft, still 11,000 square ft above the R50 zone minimum. Okay. Uh the current lot 78, our lot where my son lives right here, uh consists of 3.814 acres or 166,147
square ft. The new lot 78 would consist of 4.687 acres or 204,181 square ft. So, you know, our plans are my son will continue to live there as the home presently exists. We're not planning to remove any trees. We're not
uh planning any new disturbances, grading, construction, or site improvements as per this application. Our only plan is really just to walk through our backyard to our son's backyard. And frankly, one day, if we're fortunate, maybe we can have some grandchildren walk back to our yard. So, um that that's really the plan there.
The proposed lot 70 impervious coverage will be 9.8% or 5,979 square ft, which is just shy of half of the allowable maximum. The proposed lot 78, this lot, uh, impervious coverage will
be 8.7% or 1,00 I'm sorry, 17,687 square ft, which is less than half the maximum allowed. So the proposed lot 70 area ratio or F will be 6.13% which is 3,754
square ft as per Bridgewater Township's tax assessor where I get that number which is almost one-third the maximum F allowed. The proposed lot 78 F again our lot will be 1.6% or 3,248 square ft which is onetenth of the
maximum FAR allowed. Okay. So, while the approval of this conveyance will make our Arbor Way lot, this is lot 60 where my wife and I live, um, contiguous with our sons Vaser Avenue, lot 78. Uh, I
just want to address that because they will share a border of approximately about 30 ft right there. Uh, we have no intention of consolidating our lot 60 with our new lot 78 and that's not part of this application. In fact, the two properties are titled differently with lot 78 containing my son's name and my
wife and my name while my lot 60 is just in my wife's and my name. Again, we simply want to walk between our house and our son's house without trespassing on our neighbor's property. That's really the bottom line. So, uh I will say also the uh uh the township review noted that the Reynolds Group survey
misidentified an adjacent Bridgewater Township owned property. And that's important because we all own that. And that's this one right here, which is really green acres and they identified as lot 69 when it should be correctly labeled as 79. So that's a typo that we can easily get fixed and we'll do that
and resubmit the survey. Um, and lastly, I want to confirm that this proposed lot line adjustment will not adversely affect any of the existing easements uh situated on the subject lots. So, aside from that, I just want to thank you for your time and consideration and uh I'm
open to any questions that you might have and any questions that anybody from the public might have. And thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Mhler. Any final question for Mr. Mhler? >> Uh yes. Uh so I think it's a good gesture that you are basically you are trying to do a you know have a pathway
to go to your son's house. >> Yes. >> Uh are you going to cut any trees? No, we are [laughter] No, to be honest, as a master gardener, we bought this property about two years ago. We we've cut no trees. I've added about 20 trees, and I have plans to add about another 40 trees. And I that's
just what I do. But, um, no, this is wooded. It's sloped. It's really not too buildable on. The only path that's existing there is is the ones that the deer have created. So, that's what we use to to walk from our property to my son's house. We have a pool here, and we hope one day to have grandkids, and they
can walk down here, walk to our pool. So >> uh on your current properties which is 60 I think. >> Yes. Right here in the blue >> uh that has a um exit which exit to which road? >> So this is on this is on Arbor Way right
over here which is a dead end culde-sac. >> Okay. >> So yes and that that so if you know this area um you know we're by Washington Valley and Vosler but this primrose comes into Laurel Trail which comes down to into a dead end of of Arbor Way. And we're the last house.
>> Your son will still have a exit to the voser avenue and you will be still continuing to have the avenue towards the uh arbor road or something. >> Yes. Yes. >> And that is no no change at all except you are acquiring about 873 uh acre of land from your neighbors.
>> If you were to come back 10 years from now, you wouldn't see anything different than what's there now. You wouldn't know anything different except this property would be part of that versus versus, you know, part of this. >> Okay. >> That's >> uh No problem. No question. Any more questions from >> any other questions from this side?
>> Mr. Mueller, you testified that the small piece of property that you're seeking to acquire, you just testified that it's mostly wooded, slightly sloped. Do you have any idea approximately how sloped it is of a property? >> Um, I don't know exactly. That was one of the things I didn't get from the Reynolds group. So,
>> does our engineering team perhaps have any idea? >> No sleep. Okay. >> It says here 190.9. >> Yeah, that sounds about right. And I will tell you too, so where [snorts] my son lives, this property, lot 78, this
this is basically grass here, but the woods actually starts right here and goes down. So if you walked across this, you wouldn't know the difference between the two properties. All you would know is you leave the grass here and walk through the woods, walk through the woods, walk through the woods, and then you're at our house. So I mean, the from
here down is pretty much all that that same look of property with just a wooded piece. Anybody else? >> How about former professionals? >> Mid. >> Mr. Chairman, I believe most of the
review comments um in the in the joint review were covered by Mr. Mueller. Um I I um believe he did cover kind of the the one question of you know what what's the purpose here? um and and the adjoin
joining um properties under common ownership. So, we've heard testimony that it's not going to be utilized for anything other than just to have access um and to kind of connect the properties. Um so, I have nothing further. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Um I don't I I think the applicant has addressed all of the engineering comments in the um joint review letter as well. We were um curious about the easements and it doesn't sound like anything's going to be affected by the um the easements that are on the property. Um are you willing to submit
the deed for review before you file that? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> And really that's all I had. >> Thank you. >> At this time I wish to invite any members of the public to question directly any part of the testimony just heard by Mr.
Mueller. Seeing none, hearing none. That'll close the public portion for this witness. Mr. Mueller, uh, are you going to have any other uh, testimony this evening from Miss Harrison or uh, Mr. Mueller Jr.? >> You're scaring me. No, I don't I don't expect any.
>> Very good. >> Sure. At this time, any final public commentary is allowed at this time, please. >> Seeing none, hearing none, that'll close the public commentary. Any final comments by our board? Mr. Muller, >> I have some
>> Oh, Mr. Papus, >> I'm I'm going to support this. I do have a concern that this, if it's not you, a future property owner will try to come for a single lot subdivision and have built several houses here. Um, again,
that would be the subject of a future application, but um I just think that that's a real concern that I have. >> I appreciate that. and and as you say they would certainly have to come before the board if they did that. That's not something that we are considering. We
bought the property two years ago and putting significant amount of money in the existing house which I think talks about we're not looking to change that house or do anything like that. So >> if it provides any comfort, I think anyone who would try to
given it and Mr. Papis, I went back I was very curious about the configuration of the lots. So I went back through some of the deed history and the subdivisions and there was actually two separate subdivisions. One that created Mr. Mull Müller's house off of um is that Arbor Arbor Way? Harbor Way. Yes,
>> Harbor Way. That created one subdivision. And the north of the property along um Primrose was also a separate subdivision. And throughout both of those, this property remained as a flag. It existed and then remained as a flag lot. And then eventually those properties were sold off as green acres to the south. Um mostly because the
middlebrook runs through it and there's flood hazard area. So it is interesting. Um I don't know if it was intentional. The flag lot which are now prohibited. So it would the configuration I don't think would be as seamless if this was a full rectangle to to Vosler. Um which the open space would then prevent ever
from acquiring additional property here. Um >> so you know I I do agree that that's the first thing that came to mind is we've got a big property and it's becoming bigger. You know what's the endgame? But uh we've heard you know we've heard as much as we could from the applicant about their plans. So thank you.
>> Thank you Mr. Papus. Any other final comments from our board? Mr. Miller, any closing comments? >> No, I rest. I just want to say thank you and appreciate your time and consideration on this. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Good. At this point, Mr. Peek, we'll need a motion to approve the application
with the lot line adjustment. >> Yeah, the motion would be to uh could be to approve uh the minor subdivision. I didn't hear any conditions uh other than standard conditions that would be imposed on standard.
>> Who'd like to make that motion? >> That's Miss Sakura. And I'll need a second. >> That's Mr. Bonjouro. Could I have a roll call, please? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Muller. Best of luck to you and your family. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Take care. Moving along to our second application this evening. That's going to be an
initial hearing for application 26005P. That's Visco Fan USA which is located at 145 Southside Avenue block 301 lot 2. And they're here for preliminary and major final site plan with bulk variances. And who will be presenting
this evening on behalf of the applicant? >> Good evening. John Sullivan. I'm an attorney with the offices of Vasola and Sullivan and I am representing the applicant Viscoan USA incororated. >> Good evening, Mr. Sullivan. How are you?
>> Good. How are you? Thank you. >> Doing okay. >> Uh yes. So, just to um give you a little bit of background here. Um ViscoFan is a corporation. um they are engaged in the operation of the production of casings and packaging
solutions for the food industry. Uh they've been conducting that particular operation on this site um for a number of years um and they are currently the owner of the property before them. Uh the property was also used for the same
type of purpose. Um I call it kind of an industrial um office campus. Um it is a piece of property. It's fully improved. It has four separate buildings on the property now. Um it has drive aisles areas, walkways, and like I said, fully
improved. Um the property itself is located at uh 141 Southside Avenue. It is lot 2 in block 301 and we are located in the M2 zoning district. Um it is important to note this is a corner lot.
Um we're located at the corner of Southside Avenue and Loser Avenue and um the size of the lot is just over 15 acres. The proposal before you tonight is to construct an addition to the
northernmost building and reconfigure the parking lot and drive aisles right in that particular area. And uh that is in order to um expand the current operation in that building. Uh the total size of the addition will be
approximately 16,000 square feet. Uh the relief that we're requesting tonight is for preliminary and final major site plan approval um together with some variances. I'll have our planner discuss those in more detail. But there are some existing non-conforming conditions which
we're going to ask for confirmation of. And there are some additional um variance conditions which um we are creating as a result of this application. What we submitted to you is the site plan originally dated January 19th of
this year. Um that's prepared by um Mr. Montana and the last revision date on that is February 13th of 2026. We also submitted the architectural plans which are dated uh February 13 of
2026 prepared by Harry T. Osborne. We submitted a storm water management report dated January of 2026 also prepared by Mr. Montana. We submitted the survey prepared by Brad uh Joshick
dated July 2nd of 2023 and last revised January 13 of 2026. Um, we also submitted a steep slope analysis as well. Our witnesses tonight are Mr. Galler um, Diaz. He is the CEO
of the applicant. We have Harry Osborne who is our architect. We have Adolf Montana who is our engineer. And we have Brian McPeek who is our professional planner. Um, so do we want to swear everybody in at once? >> Yes, please.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give in connection with this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Great. Now, starting uh your right, my left, uh if you could just state your name and spell the last for the record. >> Adolf Montana. A D O LF Montana ma.
Uh I'm with PSNS at three Mountain View Road. Uh Warren, New Jersey. Eric Osborne. H A R R Y O SB O R N E. I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey and I work for PSNS at the
same address. Hi MV U I l M O D I E I am the CEO of Isco US and representing here. Thank you. Good evening. Brian McPeek, B R I an MC
capital P A K. I'm a licensed professional planner, also employed by PSNS, though in a different office. I'm at 1450 Route 35 North in Wall Township. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I'd like to begin with
Mr. Diaz. Um, So, Mr. Diaz, what is your position with um Visco Fan USA, Inc.? >> I'm the CEO. >> Okay. And uh that company is uh not only the owner of the property, but also the occupant and operator of the uh
processes that go on on the site. >> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. >> And how long is it on the property? Do you know? >> Since 2020. >> Property since 2020. Yeah. And um and prior to that, I understand that uh there was essentially the same use on
the property for a number of years. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. Uh the building was built in the mid60s by Johnson and Johnson. Uh Johnson and Johnson has been operating the facility till the 90s 1991 exactly. Then the property and the
business was acquired by Nita Casein, another company performing the same activity. and Nita Quasing has been operating the plant since 1991 till n till till 2020. 2020 Miskfan acquired the property the business and we've been running the plant and the facility ever
since. >> If I if I may, Mr. Diaz, um sometimes we actually have this being uh streamed live. So, anybody that I ask is going to give testimony, make sure you speak very loudly into the microphone because at times they complain they can cannot hear the testimony. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Diaz. Proceed. And can
you describe to the board um exactly what what you do on the site? >> Okay. Um we continue performing the same >> Can you hear me? Yeah. >> Here we go. >> We continue performing the same activity as the former owners of the facility
have been doing in the previous years. What we make in there is we manufacturate artificial casings for the meat industry. Basically what we do is the skin of the sausages. Um, just to give you an idea of where you can find our products in the
everyday life, two out of the three hot dogs consume in the United States are made with the casing that we manufacturate in here or um the pepperoni cup in the pizza that pepperoni stuff in the casing that we made in here. That's what we doing
there. And we also manufacturate manufactur um um biomedical gels made of collagen for the skin health industry. Okay. These patches for the skin to to to recover after a burn for example.
Yeah. That kind of products. Is everything made on collagen? Edible collion. >> And um there are four separate buildings on the site. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. And can you just explain to the board the um the use of each building?
>> Right. Um what we call admin building. It's a vacant space. There were former offices. They remain vacant right now. Uh we have another building. It used to be an R&D uh building used by Johnson and Johnson in the past. We keep it
empty as well. We use it uses use it as a storage but uh it's remain empty of people normally. And then we have uh the main building. What we call the main building is where we have the production lines or extrusion lines where we make the casing our product. And the other
one is we call what we call the processing building is where we receive the raw materials and we start the process. And this is the building of the subject for the project when we want to to extend. >> And what are your hours of operation?
The plant operates 247 uh continuously 3000 365 days a year 247 and um we operate on a shift schedule. We have two shifts per day 12-hour shift and 247 continuous
continuous process. >> All right, let's talk a little bit about what are the total number of employees overall and then what is the total number of employees per shift? Okay. Currently we employ 130 132 exactly
employees as of today and the maximum amount of people that we may have simultaneously at the plant is 67 in a normal day. Uh if we consider the overlap of the change over in the shift we we may reach up to 80 people maximum.
And based on um your long experience with the property um what has been your your maximum number of parking spaces that are used at any one time? >> Um as I said maximum could be around 70. We normally have 67 people at the same
time with the overlap in the change over the shift up to 80. So that would be the number 80 maximum. Yeah. >> Okay. And uh have you had any issues with um not having enough available parking on the site at any time? >> No, never. Never. >> And let's talk a little bit about um uh
deliveries that are made to the site. Um now um can you speak about um you know how often these happen on either a weekly or a monthly basis? >> Yes. Um we do have currently around a 25
inbound trucks uh per month coming to the plant. >> Are those tractor trailers or box trucks or >> it's mainly tractor trailers? Yeah, mainly >> 25 per month. >> 25 per month. Exactly. Right. And that includes everything incoming raw
materials, packaging supplies, even the waste pickup. Okay. And uh we have around 20 outbound truckloads for the shipping of the of the merchandise our product per month as well. So 25 inbound
20 outbound per month. And uh you propose to construct an addition to um the building I had mentioned earlier and that'll be in accordance with the plan submitted. Can you explain to uh the board um what goes on in that building now and how that
will be changed if the uh addition is constructed? >> Yeah. Um the activity is going to remain the same. I mean the nature of the activity what we do in that building is we receive the raw material our main raw material for for uh making the casings
the collagen casings and uh we wash it. We treat it with with water and salt. We uh grind it. We use industrial u meat grinder and then we create a paste. That's what we transfer to the main building to the to the other main
building and we continue the strusion process in there. U the activity is going to remain the same. We just want to increase capacity but it's going to be the same the same product the same the same process. >> Okay. And if this application were to be approved in the um the addition
constructed um would there be an increase in number of employees? It's going to be a small increase of employees. Actually the current number we have right now considers uh we have already started the prehiring the employees because we need training for them to get used to the process and to
the training. So the number is going to go up to maybe 140 at max >> and um in will there be a then small a small increase in parking demand as well? >> Yes. So if we are saying that we're
going to using right now we are using up to 80 maximum simultaneously if we consider this increase in the head count of up to 140s plus 10. So we will go up to 90 maximum in the overlap in the change over for the shift.
>> So you feel that the 160 parking spaces that we are proposing will be more than sufficient for your needs? >> Definitely. Yeah. [snorts] >> And what about um deliveries in and shipments out? Will they um change at all? >> Yes, there will be slight increase. Uh
so we are going to go uh from 25 inbound per month up to 30. And for the outbound the shipping from 20 per month uh to 25. That's what we what we we estimate as of now. >> And can you explain to the board um how
we handle refu and recycling now and whether that will change at all um if this application were approved? >> Okay. Right now we segre segregation program in the in the plant. So we >> you keep the mic closer to your mouth
please. Um we uh we segregate the waste in the plant internally. So we segregate the boot the casing. >> Yeah. For our process. >> Mr. Chairman, can we get him a different mic? That one doesn't seem to be
working. Well, >> you could attempt to use the one here at the lectern. >> Yeah. Okay. I'll try. Okay. Um so as I was saying we segregate the different types of fractions of waste and we send around 90% of our waste it goes to
beneficial reuse only a 10% fraction goes to the landfill right now this is a program we have been implementing in the last two years actually we are seeking the zero waste certification I'm not sure if you are familiar with with that so we are seeking that certification we are already in the in the parameters to
achieve that certification that means It's less than 10 10% of the waste needs to go can go to the landfield. So, we're already in those parameters. >> Excuse me. Um, what is your waste made up of? >> Uh, mainly uh boot for the pallets that
we use to to transport our emergency. Um, metal, some metal scrap that we send to recycling. Metal. >> I'm sorry, what was that? >> Metal. Metal. >> Metal. >> Metal. Right. And then we have the reject for our process which is collagen
casings. Uh the skin imagine all meters meters of casing for the sausage. Uh that's if doesn't meet the quality standard we need to waste it. So it's I can show you if you want. I have something some samples in here so you can you can see but it's uh collagen
edible collagen waste. >> Now you take in hides cow hides >> right? That's the raw material. >> And how do you treat them? Say that again. Sorry. >> How do you treat them? >> We receive them in the building. We want to increase the capacity. Right now, we
introduce them in a mixer drums. It's like a vessel. We wash them. We remove some [snorts] salt because the the heights are coming uh preserved with salt. We wash them and then um we add
citric acid to adjust the pH of the of the blend. And that's it. Then we uh we remove uh we wash out the the the water the salt and then we grind. >> What do you do with that water?
>> The water goes to the we have a a small water treatment plant. It's not a plant actually. It's uh two big vessels where we adjust the pH in there. We need to meet the the summit the yeah the seawware authority. We need to meet the
pH standard between five and nine. So we adjust the pH before it goes to the seawware and that water goes in there and we use citric acid or sodium bicarbonate to adjust the pH. That's what >> what chemicals do you use to do that?
>> Yeah. Citric acid. >> I'm sorry. >> Citric acid. Citric acid. >> Okay. >> That's to reduce citric acid. >> Reduce the pH >> or sodium bicarbonate to increase the pH. that is already um communicate and
in agreement with the summer rally valet ci authority and every quarter we report the results. So, uh, here's it a question. You don't use any tce or PCE chemicals? >> TCE?
>> Yes. Triclorene, I can't even pronounce it. It's tricloroene. >> No. >> No. >> And pero I can't even pronounce it. It's called PCES. You You don't use any of
those types of chemicals? >> No. Not what I'm aware of. No those names as well. >> Okay. So just to clarify I'm sorry I'm don't understand your process enough. Um you change the pH. You have this liquid
in a holding tank. >> Yes. >> It's concrete or it's what? >> No, it's metal. It's a metal. >> It's metal. >> Metal or fiber? It's fiber. Fiberglass. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The the inner coating is fiberglass. Right. Yeah. So, just like a homeowner will put in something to
change the pH of his pool, you do the same thing, >> right? Yes. Yes. And >> once you do that, that water can be released where? >> The seawhere. To the seawhere. >> Into the sewer. >> Yes. To the sewer line of the of the of the of the city. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Barjouro. Please conclude your testimony. Thank you. >> Um or continue at least. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we've actually pretty much concluded. >> Was there anything further you wanted to add to that? >> Oh,
>> I know you had a a line go of thought going there before we had questions about uh chemicals and transfer chemicals and whatnot. So, if there was anything else that you want to add to that, please feel free to do so. >> No, I think we all the notes we have in here, we have already go through through them.
>> Yeah. So, that's it for my side. >> Thank you, Mr. Das. Okay. Okay, I'll open up to the greater board for any questions. Mr. Chowry, >> hi questions. U first of all, what is the Matt Pro
building? You may have explained, but you know, kindly explain again what is the Matt Pro? >> Yes, Matt Pro stands for material processing. That's the name that former user of the plant Johnson and Johnson use. So, this is where we receive the raw material about that. That's good. That's it. Now you said the R&D building
is not being used. It is being actually used for a storage. >> Yes. >> I'm sure this is something there may be some you know old lab equipment or something like that which is you know better than me. [snorts] >> But why don't you use the R&D building itself instead of building another building near with Matt Pro.
>> Well because both are separate there is separation in between and um we need to keep the continuity of the processing line that we have in the existing math pro building. We need to extend the conveyor belt and add another pair of vessels to continue the process. So we
need to keep it together. >> Okay. Uh I have additional question later on but the did you mention citric acid or sulfuric acid? >> Citric not the sulfate. That's why I'm more worried about it when >> citric citric acid. Yeah. All the
chemicals we use are food safe because the product we do is edible. So therefore no biohazard chemical comes out of the your processing areas and you know 10% you trying to reduce up to 0% later on. Okay. Uh 10% goes to here.
Where do you where do you put the 10% waste now? Where do you dump the 10% waste now >> to the well 90% goes to compost compost mainly and the 10% that it doesn't go to beneficial reuse it goes to the landfill.
>> Okay. the current area of the uh proposed addition of metro building there. This is all flat land right there is nothing else there. >> Sorry, can you repeat the question? I think >> the proposed metro building expansions that are 16,000 square ft or so that
basically is there is no tree or nothing. It is all vacant land basically. >> Okay. >> Um I'm sure you'll have a record of all the storm water management everything else later on. Yeah, they'll be >> No problem. We'll have a different
person later on. Thank you. I'm done. >> I think someone line a question for Mr. Chad and Mr. Bjardo is that the byproducts of your process, >> the byproducts are essentially wood, metals, and other things that become either compost that are sent off site for scrapping. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And as far as the byproducts of
the process of the actual sausage casing itself are mostly food safe and NSF safe. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So there are no hazardous materials that are created as a result of this of the byproduct process? >> Nothing. No. >> Okay. So whatever does go into our municipal sewers is not of a hazardous material. >> Exactly. No. No.
>> Okay. Thank you. And is there any containerization of hazardous materials on site? >> Um we no the only thing in the labs we use we use a small amount of um chlorine. chlorine
>> chlorine and uh we dispose it in our hazardous material uh waste container but that's for the lab testing that's the only thing but that's nothing to do with the expansion of the building that's the chemical we use in the lab for the quality testing >> okay and that's safely guarded
>> yes yes there definitely we have the hazmat shed in the plant >> okay roof and [clears throat] >> any other questions along this process >> yeah so I think you mentioned that Um J&J used to own some of this Johnson and
Johnson. Yes. >> Um they obviously weren't doing food production, right? So was that all cleared? Um now that you are doing food production, um any chemicals, hazardous material that was on site, was that all
cleared? Any EPA requirements? >> Yes, everything. Well, we didn't purchase the facility to Johnson and Johnson. We purchased it to the next owner, Nita Quasin. Okay. M >> but anything was left in there from Johnson and Johnson rather than all equipment and all machinery that we keep
using until we have removed it. But uh nothing from from Johnson and Johnson. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um >> you mentioned earlier the deliveries by semi-trail. Do those trailers and tractors stay overnight?
>> No. Um currently we have installed a fence. So now they cannot enter to the property. In the past sometimes they used to do it because they could enter to the property and stay there overnight until we do the download of the truck the next morning. Not anymore. No.
>> Would you uh be up for allowing a tour of the facility? >> Yes. >> Um could you work through Nancy to arrange that? >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Bjardo I I think any
questioning regarding any types of tours of your facility again please work directly through Nancy I think uh the broader scope or I should say the minimized scope would be somebody that's qualified to tour the site somebody that could report on behalf to the board as a liaison uh so that's something that you
could directly uh set up with with Miss Propes over here. Sure. >> Any other questions? >> How about from our professionals? >> Just a couple. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you, Mr. >> You'd mentioned that the the hides currently are processed in like a large
drum essentially, right? So, it just kind of spins them around like a dryer or something, right? >> Um, h have there ever been any you are kind of surrounded by residential neighbors. Have there been any noise complaints or issues with noise? No. >> Do you expect with the expansion of the building, which I think you mentioned
would be for the same process, there would be any noise issues. >> It's going to be the same thing. We don't expect any noise. >> And is there any kind of noise that you can hear outside the facility? Okay. >> Um, last question. Um, you'd mentioned
kind of the the current delivery scheme right now, how many tractor trailers in and out um that you expect. Do you think with the expansion of the building um there will be increased deliveries or increase truck traffic. >> Yes. Um there will be
we will go from as I said from um 25 inbound trucks per month up to 30 and outbound trucks from 20 to 25 per month. That's our estimate. >> Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you, Miss Orman. How about from our engineering department? So, um could you talk about the um the grease interceptor and the um and the pump that's outside that's going to be proposed outside the building? Um it doesn't look like there was a grease
interceptor before. Um what what is changing that now there needs to be a grease interceptor. Is there something about the process? >> If if it's for the engineer later on, we can I'll hold off on that. >> Yeah, our engineer will address >> that's fine. I just wanted to see if
there was something internally about your process that was changing. Um I think >> the process not changes the same process. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Thank you. At this time any members of the public that wish to question Mr. Diaz fear at this time? I don't see any
members of the public in the audience. So that'll close for this witness. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz. >> Thank you. Our >> next witness will be our architect, Mr. Osborne. and Mr. Osborne, um, if you could start by, um, stating your qualifications for
the board. >> Yes. Good evening. Uh, my name is Harry Osborne. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey as well as about a dozen other states. Um, I've been practicing since 1978
and I've met been before this board a number of times. >> And is your license uh current and in good standing? >> Yes, my license is current. >> We would ask that Mr. Osborne be so accepted. >> Does the board have any objections to Mr. Osborne's qualifications? >> No. >> Please proceed.
>> Now, uh, you had prepared the architectural plans that we've submitted to the board. >> Yes. And you're familiar with the site and the application in the existing uh building that we want to put the addition on? >> Yes, very familiar. >> Could you describe to the board um the
existing structure um in terms of elevations, floor plans as well as items such as size, layout, height, and the facades. And then um and it finish up on that with the uh proposed addiction. >> Sure. The existing the existing building
that we are talking about is in the rear of the property. It's currently 13,694 square feet. Um, the building has been operating on the site and is consistent primaril consists primarily of a concrete masonry structure uh with an
overall building height of about 21 feet 8 12 in above finish grade. The applicant is proposing to construct a 16,920 ft addition to support the continued growth of the operation.
The addition has been carefully designed to function as an extension of the existing facility while meeting the operational requirements of the manufacturing process. The add the addition will be constructed of a pre-engineered metal building utilizing
utilizing insulated metal wall panels. The construction method was selected because it's particularly well suited for the industrial processing facility. It provides durable, energy efficient uh it'll keep the noise down, the speed of
construction and flexibility for the equipment and the manufacturing process that will occur within the building. The roof of the [snorts] building is a 1/2 inch and 12 slope standing seam metal roof um resulting in a maximum
ridge height of 32 feet above finish grade. Although the addition is taller than the existing masonry building, the increased height is driven by the operational needs of the facility uh and the clear interior volume interior volume required to accommodate
the specialized processing equipment and material handling process. The building has been proportioned to achieve these functional requirements while maintaining a simple and orderly architectural appearance.
Architecturally, the proposed addition components um of the existing in existing industrial character of the site, the use of insulated metal panels will provide clean contemporary appearance with a long-term dis uh
durability and low maintenance requirements. As part of the project, uh, a limited rooftop mechanical equipment will be added, um, and installed on the existing lower rooftop. Specifically, a new air handler will be located on the roof of
the existing building to provide air conditioning to the new addition. Um, and there will be an exhaust fan uh, as well on the existing building. These mechanical units are typically for an industrial facility of this nature and have been located to minimize their
visual impact. They will serve only as operational requirements of the expanded facility and not significantly alter the app appearance of the existing building. Um, from an architectural standpoint, the proposed improvements have been
designed to integrate with the existing facility while providing the functional necessity necessary for the owner's continued operation. The building materials are durable and appropriate for industrial use. The existing building um is masonry and will
be cleaned and repainted to match the new building. Any questions? >> Any questions? >> All for later on. >> Sorry. >> We'll ask later on.
>> Okay. No questions thus far. Any questions from our professionals? From our members of the public? None from our members of the public. Please proceed. >> Thank you. Our next witness will be Mr. Montana, our engineer.
And Mr. Montana, would you start by explaining your qualifications to the board? >> Um, I am a professional engineer at the state of New Jersey. I have a good standing uh license. Uh, I've been doing this for 25 years. Um, and I have
testified multiple planning boards and so many boards. >> We would Mr. Montana be so accepted. >> Does the board have any reservations regarding Mr. Montana's qualifications? >> None heard. Please proceed.
>> Thank you. Um now, Mr. Montana, you prepared the um site plan and related drawings as well as the storm water report that we've submitted to the board. >> That's correct. >> And you're familiar with the site and the application? >> That's correct. Could you begin by um
describing the site as it exists now and its overall condition? [clears throat] >> Okay. Um every member of the board is seeing my screen. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. So, as I was testified before, um there are four existing
buildings on the site. Uh the site is uh next to Southside Avenue and Loser Street. Um the site [clears throat] is approximately 15.3 acres. um is identified as lot 301 lot 2. Uh
the project area is situated on the M2 general manufacturing zone within the township. Um [clears throat] the the site is bordered by the train track on the north. You have residential units on the east and south side and you have an
existing park to the to the west. the the project uh approximately right now has 164 existing parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct a building expansion in the rear. I'm going to switch to another exhibit. Uh
this is this is basically um a color exhibit of the site plan of sheet C4. >> You call that uh A1. >> Yes. >> Site plan. >> Correct. We have hard copy that you can provide to Nancy or can we get that Mr.
Sullivan? If we don't have a copy tonight, can you get a copy, Mesh, tomorrow? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, like I [clears throat] said that the the applicant is proposing to construct an expansion in the area of the site. Um the building expansion is
approximately 16,920 square ft. um [clears throat] the existing parking lot in the rear of the site due to the expansion is going to get reconfigured uh and due to the reconfiguration the parking space is going to go down to 160
uh spaces. We're also proposing um a [clears throat] series of sidewalks uh on the south side of the building and on the north side as well. Uh those sidewalks are concrete 4t wide. Um the parking space is a night 9 night 9 by 18
feet. The drive valves are approximately 24 feet. Um the [clears throat] traffic banning as it was mentioned before that's not going to change. Uh deliveries will come in through uh southside and they will leave through the southside avenue. Uh the the the
driveway located on Loser Avenue is for employees only. In terms of existing condition, [clears throat] a portion of the site is located within the flood area, but none of the improvements are located within uh the flood [clears throat] area. In
terms of bulk requirements, I'm just going to put the numbers on the record. Um the minimum lot area requires 20 acres. Uh we're proposing 15.3. That's an existing non condition. The minimum width required for the site is 500 ft.
Uh we're proposing 893. Minimum from yard for the principal building along Loer Avenue is 150. We're proposing 90.5. That's a pre-existing non-conformance. Um minimum [clears throat] from yard principal uh for the principal building
on this for for Southside Avenue is also 150. Um we're [clears throat] providing 81 which is also the pre-existing non-conformance. Uh for the sidey yards is 75 uh and we're providing 35.7 which is
also existing non-conformance one. Uh for the rear is 100 ft required and we're providing 67.2. Uh for the accessory building in the rear uh the minimum side yard is 75 ft
and we're providing 27.7. We we will require variance for for this condition. The minimum rear yard for the accessory building is 100 feet. Uh and we're providing 17 187.4.
In terms of improved lot coverage, uh we're allowed 60% existing condition is 50.2 and based on the improvements we're going up to 52%. In terms of maximum flow area ratio
require is 0.35, existing is 0.22 22 and we're pro proposing to increase the F to 0.24 24. And as the the architect testified just now, the build maximum building height
requires three stories, 45 ft in height. However, proposed building expansion is one story, 32 ft in height. As I mentioned before, um there is like 164 existing spaces. Uh per the owner's
requirement, we need a 566. Uh with the new improvements, we'll reduce the parking count to 160. As as I stated earlier, as the applicant testified, um Mr. Garmmo I testified before, the employee count is only 130.
It is my understanding that the maximum number of employees uh at one time will not be more than 80 under excess under the proposed condition, no more than 90. Therefore, we are providing more than the site requires to support this facility.
Um in terms of ADA spaces, there are two ADA spaces the at the main uh building at the entrance. Um based on the on the 160 spaces provided uh we will need an additional four spaces. Uh so for for
resolution compliance, we'll we'll show that on the plan so we can comply with the requirements. Um all the site items that we're proposing, all the curbing shown on on on the screen, uh it's going to be 6-in
concrete curbs. Uh all the striping is thermoplastic white stripes. The proposed uh new pavement will be ashalt. We are proposing uh concrete pavement on the east side of the building right here. There's two uh doors that you come
in and uh and the applicant would like to for that to be concrete. So, we're doing that. Uh, in terms of topography, um, the the site slopes from north to south, so from from here to all the way
down to South Avenue. Um, in terms of the drainage, it does the same thing. Flows from from north to south. Um there is an existing drainage system that comes from our site is an 18inch line that goes down to a 24 in uh RCP pipe
and then from there runs down to um to the west. Um [cough] in [clears throat] the proposed conditions we're going to maintain the existing drainage patterns. Uh the surface runoff for the proposed improvements will be collected via proposed storm water draining system
which is comprised of HDP piping catch basins uh that will collect the surface runoff uh and directed towards the proposed small scale infiltration basin. The small scale infiltration basin is right here in the middle of the of the parking lot.
Um the small scale infiltration basin uh will be uh storm techch chambers which is the semi arches usually if you see in constructions they're yellow uh plastic chambers they're manufactured by ads uh prior to the infiltration basin we're
proposing two manufacturing devices they're named bay filters they're they're located at this right here which is going to do pre-treatment before it goes into the filtration basin. The [clears throat] proposed roof, we
have roof leaders located along the north side and the south side of the building. Um that will also be collected via the drainage system and will go down to the infiltration basin. Uh this project is considered a major development. Therefore, subject to the
new green infrastructure storm water management requirement and JAC 78. Uh the stormwater criteria for water quantity has been met using the small scale infiltration basin. Uh approximately 1.7 acres of the site will be disturbed. The proposed improvements
will increase in previous coverage by approximately.3 acres but the proposed project will decrease motor vehicle surface by approximately 0.14 acres. Therefore water quality measurements for this project is not required. In [clears throat] terms of storm water
quantity, uh we addressed it by detaining the two the 10 and the 100year storm by applying the required reductions of 50 75 and 80 respectively. Um [clears throat] even though groundwater recharge is not required for this project because the project is
located within the metropolitan area PA1 uh is exempted from the recharge requirement. However, the small infiltration basin uh will provide some grow water recharge for the project by virtual infiltration component of the basin. Therefore, the proposed storm
water management strategy meets the new green infrastructure requirements set by NJ. Um [clears throat] as was mentioned before, uh the project proposed new I'm going to switch I want to I'm going to go to the set of plans
that was submitted to the board. I'm going to go to the utility plan. Uh this is sheet C5. Uh so you should have a copy of this. So [clears throat] as mentioned before the
there there's a process system that's part of the casing production process. Uh so we're proposing a brand new uh 8 in pipe coming out of the existing base. uh coming out of the b uh the building and then is going right into a
5,000galon grease interceptor. Um [clears throat] the the grease interceptor is approximately 17 by 9 by 9 ft. After the grease trap, the process fluid enters the duplex pumps uh station system. A single pump is assigned to
handle the anticipated big flow approximately 350 gallons per minute. The proposed pump is a submersible pump manufactured by flight model N3102MT. After the pump station, we're proposing a 4 in HDP uh force main that goes to
[clears throat] the main building. Uh there's an effluent room in the building that that deals with the process uh fluid. >> [cough] >> It is my also my understanding that there are six existing tanks and new ex
and the new expansion will add an additional nine tanks for a total of 15 tanks. The new number of tanks will not increase the flow as the applicant would only drain two tanks at the time as it does today. It's also my understanding
the visco fan has a permit with SRVSA to discharge a maximum of 390,000 gallons per day. the new proposed discharge will not violate the permit condition. Um other improvements when it comes to
uh utilities, we're relocating the hydrant uh at this location uh because due to the improvements it needed to be moved. Uh we also we're also um rerouting the existing uh sanitary line that's coming up from the building today
due to the expansion. Right now it goes in this direction. So the the building will conflict. So we just we're bringing it around and tying it to the existing building. There was there [clears throat] was a question before by the by the planning
board engineer regarding the grease trap. There is an existing grease trap here today and it's at this location and due to the expansion it needs to be relocated. Uh so therefore the grease trap is doing the same function that the
existing structure does today. Uh, in terms of landscaping, I'm just going to change to to sheet number number six. Uh, so we're proposing install the
following plant materials as shown on sheet CO6. We're proposing eight deciduous trees. Uh, they're 2 and 12 to 3 in in caliber. We're using red maples. We're proposing 35 evergreen trees. There are six to eight feet in height
and you we're using eastern red cedars. Uh we're also proposing eight shade trees. Uh they're 2 and 12 to 3 in caliber uh London plain trees. Uh 20 we're also proposing 27 evergreen shrubs. The three gallons in size. uh
eight of them will be baron holl and 19 junipers. As the ordinance uh uh requires uh we are required to plant 45 trees and 27 shrubs and our landscaping design thus uh proposes 45 trees and 27
shrubs. Also as per the ordinance we're required to install six shade trees. We are proposing eight shade trees uh to meet that requirement. Finally, the uh required foundation planting requires installation of 234
uh shrubs and we're unfortunately we're providing none around the perimeter of the the existing building. [clears throat] The reason for that uh >> we're going to allow him to continue. Uh so the reason for that the my understanding is the process facility
requires a clean environment and the applicant believes that having planting material in close proximity to the proposed doors will create an unsafe environment. So basically that's my understanding uh of the application process. So uh also
in terms of landscaping uh the orange requires 5% in the parking lot. Our proposed design is prop uh is providing 8.9%. >> And just while we're on landscaping, uh it was mentioned earlier that there's not going to be any trees removed for this project. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. We're not removing any trees. I am going to switch to sheet CO7. Uh this is the lighting plan. That's part of the plans that was submitted to the board. In terms of uh in terms of
lighting, we're proposing three LED light fixtures with a type four distribution with a house size shields mounted at 25 ft manufactured by Lethonium. The light fixtures will be mounted on a separate on a square straight pole with a natural aluminum
finish. We're also proposing 13 LED wall-mounted sconces with a natural aluminum finish manufactured also by Lethonia. The light fixtures will be mounted at various height either 8, 16 and 18 ft. All fixtures will be LED full
cutoff with a temperature of 4,000 Kelvin. The average full candle are as follows. Parking areas will have an average of 1.7 foot candles. Loading areas will have an average of 5.3T candles and the sidewalks will range
between one 1.9 and 3.1T candles. The lighting design uh level meets the township of Bridgewater Orange requirement. The lighting fixtures will be equipped with automatic uh lighting control from dust to dawn. And that concludes my direct testimony and I'm
happy to answer any questions. >> Well, I actually want to just cover a couple of more things. [clears throat] >> Um in terms of um uh are there any constraints on the property in terms of slopes? Uh we did submit um a steep
slope analysis to the board. Um we and I'm just going to switch back to the exhibit. We pretty much comply with the requirement of the ordinance. Uh there are there are two little contours that run in this location that slightly
exceed the 10%. Um and that's that's not a natural man-made uh feature. So, like I said, it's is minimal. >> Okay. And then you had mentioned um about um I guess a portion of the property is affected by a flood area.
>> Correct. >> And uh is that [clears throat] in terms of what we are proposing are we going to is that going to be within the flood area? >> No, it's not within the flood. Therefore, NDP uh application is not required.
>> Okay. Okay. And you covered um a large part of what was in the um the board and staff reports that we received, but just a couple of things to cover um in terms of Miss Smad's um July 1st [laughter] report. On page five, she asked for a
breakdown of the calculations for both lock coverage and F. We can provide that. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And on page seven, um is requesting an amendment of the zoning table. And I think we can also comply with that. >> That's correct.
>> In terms of Mr. Burr's report, which is dated July 2nd, um I think under uh policy, we've covered items four and five. In terms of six, um there are no easements or restrictions that would prevent or
interfere with what we are proposing. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And then I'd like to go to technical review. Uh you address the ADA parking spaces. Um item five asks about um EV spaces.
Can you address that? >> Right now the plan is is not proposing any any EV spaces. >> And are any required? >> It it depends how the boards the application. uh
to me the if it's required you probably will need uh 4% of the of what we're proposing or 160. So that means we would need 70 AD uh EV spaces and one of them will probably need to be ADA. Uh but that I'll leave that to the board.
>> And um [clears throat] uh there's a question as to whether there will be some ballards um in the area of the overhead doors. >> That's that's correct. Um the architectural plan submitted to the board showed uh ballers right at the entrance here on the north side of the
building and there was uh two additional ballers on the southside door. Um we will we will show uh the ballers on under the resolution compliance process. >> Okay. And then um under grading and drainage there's 21 items there. Is
there anything in there that um we either can't comply with or requires some further discussion with the board? >> No, we'll comply to all the comments uh for stolen management. >> And then that would be my same question in connection with item C, landscaping
and lighting comments. I believe there's a total of uh nine comments there. >> That's correct. We'll comply with the comments for landscaping and lighting. and item D. Um, in terms of an environmental impact statement, I understand um an abbreviated statement
was submitted um but it looks like the they are requiring a um more substantial statement. Is that something that we can provide? >> That's correct. My office is uh preparing the EIS and it's almost completed and will be submitted to the board part of the resolution compliance.
>> Mr. P, could we make that a condition of approval? already noted that >> and under item E general comments um I believe number two he's recommending a table be added um to show
the proposed and existing coverage and we will provide that as well correct >> that's correct >> uh in terms of traffic and safety police um there was no comment on that report um same for the tax assessor no comment
And that brings us to the um Mr. Gova's report of June 30th of 2026. Um in particular, he has a number of review comments uh beginning on page two. And
can you address these um um in general? And if there's anything here that we feel um you know we can't or we shouldn't have to comply with, can you address those as well? >> Yes. for for the most part I I believe that the process system is doesn't
doesn't need to uh follow the sanitary sewer uh guidelines. I think it's that system is a little different but we we can we can have that discussion with um with the sewer authority uh with Mr.
Gova, we then uh in terms of the sanitary sewer on the lateral, uh we'll definitely comply with those comments. We'll make sure that it has the the proper cover. Um I I know he also mentioned the slope. Right now we are
showing half a percent. I think he he says 2% is typical. Uh but it's an existing condition. We're just rerouting the lateral. Um, >> what was the um the condition that you were going to review with Mr. Gova that you proposed?
>> I I I just want to make sure that I understand that the this the system that is dealing with process. >> What are you referring to? >> General >> in general because like I said, I think he thought maybe the process system was an existing
it was a sanitary sewer uh line and and and it really isn't. So, when it comes to the sanitary sewer comments for True Sewer, uh yes, of course, we'll we'll comply with that. Um I did have one com
one uh thing that is worth mentioning. He is requesting um a cleanout right at the rightway on the ex on the final sanitary sewer line coming out of the property. We're not proposing any improvements at that location. So not
sure uh how applicable that is >> and everything else was we'll comply with >> uh the flood plane administrator indicates that there are no comments and that we've um submitted what needed to be submitted
and in terms of code enforcement there was no comment and I think zoning there was no comment as Well, um I think the last of the reports is from the uh Bureau of Fire Safety and that has four
comments uh numbers one through four. Uh can you um and and I do believe we're able to comply with items one, three, and four. Is that correct? >> Well, >> could you review each of those, please? I can't find my copy.
>> Okay. So item number one uh is relocate fire department connection or hydrant closer within 50 ft of each other. >> Yeah, we'll comply with that. Right now the plan showing them right here. We'll put it on the other side of the building no more than 50 ft from the proposed
hydrant. >> And item number three is the access road um leading from Loser Avenue uh which is on the right side of our building. Um, we should mark that as a fire lane. >> That's correct. You're talking about
number two now. >> No, number three. >> Number three. Yes. >> Okay. And we'll do that by, um, pavement markings as well as signage indicating no parking. >> That's correct. >> And then item four, um, establish marked
fire lanes in front of the new building, um, with pavement andor signs detailing the no parking areas. >> Yes, we'll do that. Um, now item number two, um, I think we want to discuss this a little bit further. The comment is that the access
road at the right of the building from Loser Avenue needs to be 26 feet in width. Um, and uh, I don't believe that we are 26 feet in width the entire distance, are we? >> No, we're not. Uh, the existing driveway right here on Loser Avenue is
approximately 21 ft. And then as we start our proposed improvements, we go from 21 to 25 ft. Um that we have an the existing building that is in very close proximity of that existing driveway. And I believe there are some utilities on
the right side as you come in. Um so it'll be tough to uh to make that 26 ft. Um but right now this is an existing condition. I'm not sure if the fire chief has had any issues coming into the site.
>> And you feel um you know the width at 21 feet up to 25 ft um is adequate to get um an emergency vehicle in there. >> It's bigger than a 12 inch lane. So it should be more than adequate, but I'll defer that to the fire chief.
>> Uh thank you. That's all I have for Mr. Montana. Thank you, Miss Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Montana. Like to help to the board. We we've heard a lot from this uh witness. Any questions? >> I have a few. >> Mora, >> thank you. Um you mentioned an area that
employees only can only come in, right? Outside of the trucks that come in and and employees, who else comes on this site? >> That's a question for the applicant. All all I'm aware is deliveries and
employees. >> Yes. Sometimes we also have contractors coming to the plant to to do maintenance stuff or that's the only other visitor we may have. >> And how often are they there? >> Maybe once twice per week depend on the
month. Yeah. But no more than that. >> Okay. Um ADA spots you have two proposed. What's the requirement? There's two existing >> two existing >> that requires six. So we need to add an additional four which is not shown in
the plan right now but we'll add that >> gonna add four. So there will be 160 spots total. >> Correct. >> And the 160 spots that's on the entire property or of this area? >> Entire property. >> Got it. >> Uh grease trap. You mentioned the grease
trap and moving it. Right. So correct. Currently have it. How does the maintenance change for maintaining the grease traps, emptying them? >> Mr. applicant >> with where they're located now. >> Well, we're going to do I mean this is
not going to change the maintenance procedure is going to be different location, but it's going to change anything else than than the location >> should be the same. >> Are they outside now? >> Yeah. >> So, what is your maintenance of your grace traps? Well, we open the the the pit where the grease trap is and we
remove the sludatch. We get in there and we treat that sludge as a waste. We doing the same the same thing. >> You don't utilize an outside vendor to >> uh No, we do that internally with our maintenance staff and the cleaning crew.
The cleaning the waste the waste the waste pickup service. We use the same the same company for that. Our maintenance staff internal maintenance staff and then the slatch is removed and disposed by the by the waste company.
It's going to keep doing the same thing. >> Got it. And is it it's being moved closer to where the parking spots are? Right. >> It's moved right here at this location from from here to here. >> There's no risk of a So, sorry. Can you
show me where they are now? I'll I'll I'll move to to the other plan. The utility plan today is right here. This little structure >> inside. >> No, it's >> that's outside >> outside the existing building. >> The new building that you're proposing >> and then it's being relocated to this
location. >> Okay. And the lines for the grease trap and the drainage because that all changes, right? So are they where where is the grease coming from and to >> the grease is coming from the our raw
material the heights skin of the of the raw material. So that grease came out through the process and it's trapped in this grease trap >> meaning is it it it's in the existing building that's there. It's coming from that building. Yes. >> So were the lines longer now or are they
shorter? Uh it should be similar size. Um you know you can see it from here to here. So I I believe right now it goes directly to the same location but as soon as we had to relocate it um and due
to grades it became um a pump force main system instead of gravity. That's the only change. >> And we are not increasing the size of the grease traps. It's the size of the grease strap is based on on the expansion and maximum
flow. But like I stated before, we have to meet the SRVSA maximum allowed number of um that we're allowed to discharge to the scient line and that is meter and the applicant has to submit that to the
treatment works uh folks for to make sure they comply. So we can't exceed that number. >> So that's controlled by the D and by the local sewage authority. >> That's controlled by the local sewage authority.
>> And who inspects the grease traps >> or maintenance crew? >> Okay. So maybe it's not required to inspect it like it is a restaurant. Okay. Um and last question for me. U foundation plantings. Can they be
planted somewhere else on the property? >> We can we can sure enhance. Uh let me let me go to to uh the plan. Obviously, we we don't want to do anything in here. Um we're
improving. We can add more shrubs in this location. Um I just don't know what it will be accomplished besides just, you know, meeting that number. Well, it's required. >> No, no. I I I hear you. Uh, so I'm sure the applicant is open to adding that
material somewhere else. Um, doesn't have to be where the expansion is, right? I I'm not sure what you're looking for. >> I mean, I'm looking for a different type of solution other than zero. >> Yeah.
>> Can you explain again all of the plantings that we are already adding? >> You explained those. No, >> there's still 233 missing. >> Correct. So the question is are you willing to install 233 sharps somewhere throughout the site that are not
interfere with the process? >> Well, the main thing is that uh since we do process food product, best pest control is a concern. So adding this material is I mean it's uh it's in favor of the best control growth of the pest
growth. I'm just looking for another solution other than >> is it possible to maybe add some plantings to the, you know, to buffer some of the residential properties, you know, maybe put them on your property line or something like that.
>> I I just turned on to the existing uh area. And uh >> we do have a a fund that if an applicant for whatever reason can't uh uh there can be a cash contribution to a fund that the township then maintains and
utilizes elsewhere. So that is another option. I think they're making a from me my perspective they're making an argument why they the site may not be u appropriate for additional plantings. So that's another option that applicant could consider
cash contribution towards this dedicated fund the township uh maintains and utilizes to plant do conduct plantings on other maybe municipal property or right ofways.
I will leave that to the applicant. >> Know the detail. >> Perhaps Mr. Diaz, you could work directly with our planner and our planning office to achieve that type of outcome. That might be more desirable option for you. Your your concern is noted with the
pest control issue. So >> yeah, if you get in touch with our planning office, perhaps we can make that a condition as well. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Core. Any other questions? Okay, Mr. Chandry.
>> Yes. Uh, thank you. Thank you, chairman. So, tell me again on the fire department uh comment on number two comments what uh you're going to discuss with him or >> with the fire department. If you look at my screen, he he is looking for this
road to be 26 wide. >> Right now, it's only 21. >> Okay. So, it's already existing 21. >> It's an existing 21. We're not touching it. and we're hoping we'll we'll talk to the fire chief and see what kind what kind of resolution we can come up with.
>> Okay. Uh also, Mr. Pack and Chairman, can we request for EV space, please? >> Yeah. Uh if the board would like to make make that a condition that they install a compliant number of EV spaces, that's certainly
something you can you can >> we can we recommend for EV spaces >> as far as EV spaces go. There's currently no proposal for EV spaces. Whether or not it's required or not, Miss Sarmat, I'll defer to you, but we also have the option of potentially make ready spaces or
>> Yeah. So the the state model ordinance which is you know the law um does include provisions for make ready spaces kind of the first step. The law initially was not clear about who it applied to. Right? The it it
makes allowances for EV spaces in certain locations. It it it makes other allowances as far as reductions from EV spaces in relation to the parking. Um but what what came out after the law to clarify through the DCA and the D even
through guidance was uh they basically clarified that the the the requirements are only based on a preliminary application. So a new application for a site plan, not an existing site plan. So while this is a a new site plan application, it's really an amendment of an existing site. Right? So there is no
EV obligation. There is no requirement in my opinion for the property to include new EV spaces here. Um and that's based on the DCA guidance and their clarification that that's really just for preliminary plans. Now, could the board um impose that condition? Possibly. My
my only concern would be that they are already 400 spaces, 406 spaces below what's required technically for the use um on the property. And EV spaces really then hamstring the ability to use those spaces. And while we've heard testimony saying that, you know, it's really only
80 spaces, you know, let's say it's even 90, they're well under what they have on the property. My only caution would be when you are in a parking varian situation, further limiting who can use them, almost like a handicap space or something, it's limited to a certain type of user. Um, that's my only concern because they are in a variance
condition. So, um, they aren't seeking a variance from the EV requirement. Um, I did speak with Mr. Fay about that offline when the question came up before. Um but you know my interpretation from the DCA guidance is really this is not applicable to an existing site. Um you can't make
somebody add new spaces if they already have you know a parking arrangement for for existing site. >> But can we recommend it? >> You absolutely can recommend it you know and I think it's up to the applicant if they want to agree with that or not. >> Mr. Chairman if Mr. P and chairman agrees we like to recommend it.
>> It's not my fault. It's it's up to the >> Mr. Papus. you know, I don't think it should be compelled. I think if the applicant wants to, I think that's fine if it's not a requirement. Uh I'm I'm curious about the handicap spaces. What formula did you use to come up with the four
additional spaces as compared to the two existing? How did you arrive at that number? >> It's the ADA requirements. Uh there's a table uh based on the number of spaces, how many you need. Um and it's required that you have six. Is it based upon the
square footage of the structure or what? >> The number of spaces provided for the entire site just >> it's proportional. Yeah, it's proportional to the note. So when you have 25 spaces, you have to include one handicap space and then plus one you
have to or you know >> and is that the formula that all site plan applications have to adhere to? >> They should based on ADA compliance. And is that checked by anyone on our staff when people submit applications?
>> I usually check when especially when there is a new >> It just seems that the number of spaces for additional is a lot more than I have seen in other site plan applications where it seems that it's a larger
um proposed expansion or so I'm just I'm not I'm I'm happy about it. I just am surprised as compared to others where it seems that we'll have a one or a two additional and there's an significant I'm gonna have to track this more closely myself and just
>> I'll ask Mr. Montana is was were the was the site previously out of compliance with ADA >> I believe so. >> So that's I think that's the issue here is that the site pre-existed probably any site plan changes may have pre-existed ADA changes and so they're bringing it to compliance which is actually a benefit here.
>> Thank you. Thank you for your insight, Miss Sarmment. >> I have few more. >> Mr. Chowry, please continue. >> Thank you. Uh on the lighting, uh you said that you have a three uh LED light at a 25 ft uh height. Those are existing
or you'll add those. >> We adding those. >> Uh will it affect you also says that for dusk to dawn? So will it affect on the neighbors uh tonight? >> No. there. We did an analysis point by
point and you can take a look at um I can show you on on the lighting plan [music] and we're we're not we got zeros all the way around. Uh so nothing uh will be effective to the existing residents. >> Okay. Well, because rest are in 16 ft
should be okay anyways. >> Excuse me. >> Rest of the lights are 13 LEDs are in 16 ft. That should not affect any neighbors at all. So >> correct. Those are the wall-mounted uh around the building. >> Okay. Um I also did not understand you have a you had a good reason why you are
not putting 234 shrubs. Uh are you replacing with the equivalent trees or any other things with that? I know you are putting 45 trees there >> like like the board uh suggested that we the applicant should coordinate with the
planner the board plan and the board engineer and and see if they can come up with a you know an agreeable solution. >> Yeah, we're going to uh recommend as a as a condition that they meet the number. If they can't meet the number working with the board professionals the
number of plantings they're supposed to have on site then they'll make up the difference by making a contribution to the township uh tree farm. >> Okay, good enough. Uh so you are disturbing actually 1.7 acres of the land and so equivalently you obviously
proposing the three different kind of the trees together about 45 trees or so. I'm going to let professional to you know um guide us whether that is sufficient for the uh overall storm water management or not because I'm not expert on that side. So I'm going to ask
uh Miss Katherine to at least guide her whether it is okay or not. Uh we already talked about the gas machines and uh grease machine all the things and what else? Uh fire you already include
this one site work what is a lighter necessary just give me one more minute. Oh, can you uh it looks like there are eight waiver you are looking for and some are already existing one. Can you kindly go through this? I I I
read these are 500 ft to 800 ft there 150 to 90 and 15 to 81. But I I just want to know what the all the waiverss are that you know you mentioned. There's the eight of them. I wrote it down. >> You're talking about the setbacks. >> Yes. >> I mentioned on the zoning.
>> Yeah. For from Loser street as well as the other streets. Just uh give me one more summary of one more time the summary of a dollar waivers. >> Yeah, I'll I'll show you the I'll show you the existing condition. Uh Ariel, basically these three this some of these
buildings are have a pre-existing condition, meaning they're not meeting the current ordinance in terms of setbacks for the front, the rear, and the side. Um so those are pre-existing conditions. The one that we're requesting a variance is for the building expansion for an auxiliary
building that does not meet the criteria. >> And what is that variance number sir? >> Is 27.7 I believe. >> Uh yeah the 75 75 ft to 27.7 right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And that's the existing there's a
new building you requesting the waiver. >> That's correct. >> Rest of the all the waivers are all existing >> existing pre-ex conditions. one you're looking for. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh so that's we're going to ask uh
professional what they think about it. Uh and what is this 60% uh versus 50.2%. Um then you >> that's the the impervious coverage. >> Okay. >> 60 is allowed and we're I believe it's 52%
proposed. So well under the allowable. >> Okay. Uh and then uh you also mentioned about uh parking space related to 160 versus 565. >> Correct. Uh the ordinance required for
the site to have 566 pieces, >> but you don't need it anywhere. >> Existing conditions today before the improvements is 166 and we're going down to 160. Sorry, 164 going down to 160. And that is uh that
is inclusive of any of the ADA uh edition or or if you want to do EV that inclusive of this 160 160 will include all those things. >> Correct. I mean we have to look at the site plan and we want to comply with the
ADA requirement at minimum and we'll add the four spaces and we want to make sure that we don't lose any spaces as we're doing that exercise. >> Okay. Uh no problem. I I'm done. I may write down some additional things. I'll come back to
>> Thank you, Mr. Chadgery. Mr. Pus. U going back to the fire marshall's report. Um the point number one references the fire department connection and hydrant. Those are uh the hydrant is existing on site.
>> That's correct. >> And is it privately maintained? >> Correct. >> Okay. That would continue here. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. If >> I could regarding the fire muler report item number two, uh we talked about the size of the current uh through fair. I
understand the need for the utilities or or rather you know not serving the utilities. Do we know for example if the turn radius is sufficient upon entering the site for a I think it's a 33 foot hook and ladder. >> Yeah, we just got that comment letter today. So we haven't done the analysis
but we can definitely do the analysis and coordinate with the planning board engineer to make sure that it can enter the site. >> Okay. So just to address that comment we can make that a condition as well that we have that conversation as well. Um just want to switch early in your
testimony you talked about sidewalk locations. Could you just go back to that and um and and demonstrate to the board exactly where you're proposing the sidewalks. So, if you look at my screen, this is the the new sidewalk that is in the
south side of the building. And there's another one uh for the door that's come behind the the building that takes you away, takes you to the parking lot. >> Okay. So, it's designed for local worker pedestrian traffic then. >> Correct. >> Okay. And just one more comment on the
uh storm water catch basins. Uh if we could just look at the site at a high level, where are the catch basins located on the site? >> I'll I'll go back. I'll switch to the utility plan. >> Yep. >> So we we have catch basins. There's one,
two, three, four catch basin. We have another one uh right here on a on a depression. We also are proposing two uh on the east side of the building and an additional uh two more in the in
the I would call it the north side of the building. >> Okay. And you said you testified that you have an in infiltration basin underneath the parking lot. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And uh once that water does enter the infiltration basin, where is it discharged to at that time?
Well, it's an infiltration basin. So, therefore, some of the water gets infiltrated into the ground. And then there's also an outer structure that has the water uh that that goes out to entice into an existing 15-in line
>> within the site and eventually that goes all the way down to Southside Avenue um toward towards the 24 in uh existing pipe. >> 24. Okay. That is all I have, Mr. Montana. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Montana? >> Um, just one more question for the
applicant. I think you mentioned um the folks that would be in and out of this facility, but um what about inspectors? Do you get that often now? And will that increase with this new facility? Obviously, you don't have to share any proprietary information, but um you
know, do you have the capacity? Are you guys planning for that? You know, with this new proposal, you might get more inspections. Okay. And then like if if there's any I mean these are the federal inspectors that come in typically at these food facilities, right?
>> The USDA, >> USDA, USDA, FDA, >> FDA. Yeah. >> CDP. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> is visiting us as well. Fire marshall Mr. Scara is the name. Yeah. He's visiting us regularly. Yeah.
>> And if there is anything that's potentially going to impact any of the residents or the township, do you um inform us? >> Do we inform the township? If the inspectors do find something that will impact Okay. So that's ongoing now
because you have this site already there and then with this expansion the the risk might increase depending on Yeah. Okay. Great. >> Perhaps more of a question for Mr. Osborne. I testified earlier that their HVAC handling units will be on top of
the new proposed structure. Is that correct? >> Okay. As far as any backup power generators, are there any existing or any proposed? >> No. >> Okay. Any other questions?
Okay. I'll move it over to our professionals. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just a few questions mostly related to the landscaping plan. Um there there was I I I appreciate the
testimony providing the compliance with the various requirements under section 126-191. Um just some clarifications under 191. C2 there's a requirement that of the trees that are the replacement trees that are
provided you know based on the disturbance um that 50% of them be deciduous shade trees from what I calculated it looks like about 10 of those 45 are deciduous shade trees the other are evergreens and so only about 22% is provided I don't know if you're
um would look into potentially you know making some of the other trees deciduous shade or if you'd like to seek a variance for >> no absolutely we'll comply with the requirement. We'll we'll revise the landscaping to to meet that section. >> Okay. Thank you. Um as far as the actual
species um that are listed, I'm just pulling them up. Give me one second. There they're at at a minimum under 191.1A. I'll just point you in the right direction. uh uh that section of the ordinance, it lists out the the
acceptable deciduous trees. Um some of them are not New Jersey native on that list that are acceptable, but I would just make a request that where possible you you do choose New Jersey native trees. Um in particular,
um the one there is also a list that follows that one that is not acceptable deciduous shade trees. one of them being the London plain tree and it notes specifically that it you know it doesn't provide great shade and it also provide or requires additional maintenance and particularly near parking areas some of
the seed droppings and things like that and the bark are not the greatest. So, um, if you could just replace, you know, whatever trees have been chosen to, you know, on the list potential New Jersey native, again, subject to availability, um, and, you know, with other options on
that list, and then also just replace that London plane tree uh, from the list. >> Absolutely. >> Sarm, that's not a native tree. >> The London plane is not a new J. >> There are lots of them around here. >> There are a lot of them. They're are they're a hybrid tree of a sycamore and
another, right? >> Um but on our list, it specifically says don't you can use it as a landscaping tree away from parking lots and you know where it's supposed to be shaded. Um but as a shade tree, it's not on the it's on the the the no-fly list um because of
some of the maintenance that comes with it. >> So it can be a shade tree but not near a parking area. >> Be in a landscaping tree. We have another list for acceptable landscaping trees that it appears So, so the definition of a shade tree is for near parking. >> There are shade there are requirements
for shade trees in parking areas and then also shade tree replacements. >> Did you create that differentiation? >> I did not >> who did who did I >> I'm not sure. I'd have to look back at when the ordinance was adopted. It's a very extensive landscaping list that we do have. Um, and you know there, like I
said, I think right now, um, some of the trees on that list are not New Jersey native, but overall it does a very good job. Um, I'm not saying every tree has to be New Jersey native. It does help. Um, >> it's another project to look at that. >> It's that's potentially another project,
but it's it's okay to have non- New Jersey so that there's some, you know, competition. You don't want to, you know, have species get hit with a disease. It's good to have some some mixup. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah. And and I think in one of our council meetings recently, we we had a resident who mentioned the native trees
from the Redgers list. I don't know if that's cross reference with the Redgars list. >> I I don't that I think that same resident came to a meeting. Maybe I was at that meeting. That's where it was. Yes, I was at that meeting. >> Yeah. I spoke to our our public works
superintendent about that and he said that uh many of the native trees, New Jersey native trees are um not available. That's that's why I >> recommended to the applicant that we're available because um spec specifically where they source it from may not have
it um or the price has gone up because of supply and demand issue. But yes, so I I appreciate your willingness to to work on that. And uh thank you. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you, M. M. >> Thank you. Um
I I noticed on here and I think um Tom Goenova also said it in his report that there was um the connection um from the force main to the existing building there. Um it talks about um refer to the plumbing plans. Was that something that
that'll come up in um when you file for your building permits? >> That's correct. that there there are plans associated with those improvements and when when the applicant submits to the building department to submit the architectural, the structural plans,
electrical and plumbing plants and you'll see those uh improvements inside the building. >> Okay. So there's there's nothing um I mean this this is a force main a new force main that's going into this building, right? >> There was no force man before. Correct. >> No, it was via gravity before.
>> Okay. Right. Um I um could you just talk a little bit more about um your storm water? So just for um full disclosure um we reviewed the storm water in in more detail after
we put our review letter on the street and um and we didn't find anything that was um egregious. There's certainly some things that maybe I think we can work on as as part of um a condition of approval, but um there was nothing there
was nothing in there that was that was too objectionable. There may be some house cleaning things that we can take care of, >> but could you talk about the um the infiltration basin and um the discharge from the outlet control structure to the
existing storm water system? Is there anything else that's feeding into that overflow besides just the outlet control structure? >> Correct. Everything that's going into the into the infiltration basin then is is goes through the alo structure through the orphice to the weir and it
goes towards the existing inch uh pipe. >> Okay. So um so you have the runoff from the um driveways, the runoff from the roof is all going into that um that infiltration basin and any anything that's overloaded in that system is going through metered out through the
outlet control structure. >> That's correct. >> Existing system. Okay. Um let's see. Um I I know we've talked extensively about the um the the Greece interceptor. Um is there is there um is this a larger
system? And you may have talked about this before and maybe it got lost in in the whole discussion in my head, but um is this a larger system than that that was there before? Is there anything different about this system than what was there before? >> It pretty much operates the same way it
does today. Um so so yeah it's the same function. >> So um and any additional discharge um would have to go through a new treatment works approval and get get approved. Right now they're working they are planning on still working within that same discharge.
>> That's correct. They're not [music] allowed to increase the flow as per the SRVSA requirements >> and if they do increase it they do have to go and and get an additional approval but their intention is to stay the same. >> Okay. So, so there there because of the
increase in um in in workload that's going to be happening, there could be an increase in discharge and they might have to ask for >> No, my understanding is there is no uh change on on how they're proceeding today.
>> Okay. Um and that the um the cleaning of the grease interceptor and any problems with the pump that is on the site is all um taken care of privately. That's not a responsibility of the town to manage the
grease interceptor or the pump itself. >> That's correct. As the applicant just testified they have a maintenance crew that that takes care of the grease trap and the pump station. Is the um is the um sanitary pump a redundant pump or is
it just um a single pump that's in there? >> There's two pumps >> and red it redundancy. So if one fails the other one kicks in. >> Okay. I think we already talked about the environmental impact statement. You um we there was there was something in the
package that said it was coming under separate cover. I think that was um that was what what we were talking about when we were looking at that. Um when um I think in the storm water um design um we would still need an operation and
maintenance manual. >> I believe that was submitted as part of the stormwater management report. and it should have been one of the appendix. >> Okay. I don't I don't think we saw that. So again, I I don't think that's a a deal breaker at all. I think that's just something we can work through in resolution compliance. I don't see that
as a problem. Um and I think um I think that's all I had. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ref. This time I'd like to invite any members of the public that wish to question Mr. Montana's testimony. Please come forward
at this time. There are no members of the public in the audience. That'll close the public portion for this witness. Thank you very much, Mr. Montana, for your testimony. Okay, Mr. Sullivan, who else do we have here this evening? >> Okay, our last witness is our professional planner, uh, Mr. Brian
McPeek. Okay. Could we begin with um you stating your qualifications for the board? >> Sure. Absolutely. [clears throat] Let me just little bit of a sound check here. Uh so um uh my name again is Brian McPeek. I am a licensed professional
planner, member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, been licensed by the state for um coming up on 30 years. Uh testified by in front of various boards, including this board. My license is in good standing this time
>> and we [clears throat and cough] we would ask that he be so accepted. >> Does the board object Mr. M's qualifications? [cough and clears throat] >> Okay. So you are um familiar with the the area, the site itself and the uh application that has been submitted.
>> Absolutely. Um and of course heard all the testimony this evening. Uh substantial amount I'll cite back into later in my testimony. Um uh just to summarize very briefly uh as we've uh as has been presented viscoan
operates a facility here on this campus that uh manufactures basically collagen uh for collagen casings used in the meat industry as described uh uh earlier as well as um uh biomedical collagen for
skin care uh and skin health products. Um, as we've discussed extensively, there are four uh existing buildings on a uh basically a 15.3 acre site uh known as uh block 301, lot 2 on the township's
tac m tax maps, excuse me. Um, the specific proposal the board is considering this evening is a modification of the site to uh put on a uh 16,920 ft addition uh to uh the uh existing
building on the north um uh portion of the site uh up against the uh uh the railroad tracks there. um as well as has been detailed extensively revisions to existing walkways, parking areas,
internal vehicle circulation um uh and some additional utilities, storm water uh and uh sanitary flows uh in particular. Um the site's located at the intersection of Southside and Lozer
Avenues. It's in the M2 general manufacturing uh district. Permitted uses include manufacturing, fabricating, printing. Um the existing use uh the proposed use being the same or or permitted uses in the district.
I have reviewed applicable portions of the uh township's land use ordinance. Um the new master plan. Um congratulations on a new master plan. I know that can be extensive effort. uh and when I was before the board last time it was
underway, I was glad to see that you've made that progress. Um and I've become familiar with the review uh letters that uh have also been discussed pretty extensively this evening. Um uh generally my conclusions regarding
the proposed development are that um while there are uh multiple existing nonconformities um uh I concur with the board's planner as to the status of those nonconformities um related to lot size front side rear
setbacks in particular. Those were detailed by Mr. Montana. I can review them again as need be. uh his testimony from my presentation or from my observations was was accurate and complete. So I think it's on the record
at this point. Um of the existing um nonconformities only one is exacerbated by the proposed building expansion and that is the condition the relationship of the building to um uh the property line here
along uh the railroad tracks. Uh by extending this building uh to the east um we are continuing and exacerbating that 27.7 ft sideyard condition whereas the ordinance requires 75 ft in in uh in
that situation. Um there are three additional bulk variances that um um have been identified. I'll go through those at this point. Uh, first is relief from
section 126 hyphen 33 or 333. Let me try that again. section 126 hyphen 339 C as the modified accessory structure
totals um approximately 30,835 square ft which is larger than the ordinance allows the ordinance uh restricts accessory buildings to a,000 square ft. So um it's uh substantial uh
variance in terms of the overall size but given the context and the location and the size of the existing structure I think the uh the magnitude of this is um not reflective of the significance of the uh uh uh the proposed addition relative to this ordinance permission uh
provision. Uh second and and this has been discussed extensively at this time um uh the applicant is proposing to omit foundation plannings is required by ordinance section 126 191C5.
However, as has been discussed uh they've agreed to uh work with the township professionals. Um and I believe what I heard uh uh at the end of that was the intent is to either meet that requirement albeit maybe in different
locations on the site or provide um payment in lie uh to the township's funds. Um there's also a parking variance. Uh 160 parking stalls is proposed where the
ordinance section uh 126 169A requires 566 stalls. Um there are some questions raised in the reviews about ADA and EV charging. Those have been discussed here. With regard to the ADA,
the intent is to work with the uh uh the town's professionals and uh provide the ADA parking. Um and I believe at this point, my understanding is that um um whatever EV may be required, it's not a
variance from the ordinance necessarily. Uh so um the uh I'm I'm not here as a planner to put forward proofs for a variance on uh relative to the EV charging. At least that's my understanding of the way it's been left.
um uh relative to these variances um the board is uh I'm sure as familiar as I am with the statutory provisions of 40 colon 55D hyphen 70 uh C. we're here
tonight. From my perspective, I would view the existing nonconformities generally as C1 variances uh because the strict application of those regulations to the existing structures in my opinion would result in an undue hardship. So I would recognize
any existing variances that need to be documented as C1 variances. Um the other variances uh in my opinion are C2 variances where under municipal land use law uh the purposes of uh of uh
the statue are advanced uh by the deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement and the benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any detriments. Uh in both cases obviously
uh we have to uh demonstrate that that relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. Um as I'll discuss through the rest of my testimony,
I believe those positive and negative criteria are met uh by the applicant in this case. Uh with regard to uh the positive criteria, uh my view is that the um these variances do advance the
purposes of planning under the statute. specifically purpose G um um which is to uh provide sufficient space and an appropriate location for a variety of uh uses uh and public open space public and
private u in accordance with the respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. um relative to the negative criteria. Um let me pause for a moment, return to the
positive criteria. Relative to um the sufficient space argument for this site, um I think that the the campus nature of the site is well preserved by this addition. Um the reconfiguration of uh of the supporting activities, the
parking, the circulation, etc. Um all of those I think have been designed and and integrated into the into the site in a way that it does um provide sufficient space for the uh requested uh additional production space uh but fully uh
respective of all the environmental requirements associated with uh this site and its surroundings. So in in my view uh the purpose of planning there is is advanced by these variances. Can I just um ask a question? In connection with the
>> um additional plantings on site, um does that factor into um either general welfare or an aesthetic upgrade? >> Um I certainly an aesthetic upgrade. Um, and
I happen to believe having visited the site and and examined it uh pretty carefully that the aesthetics of the site are are um actually um beneficial to the community already, but certainly uh aesthetics are a general welfare
condition. So, um to your point, um uh purpose A of planning is also advanced by um some of these uh uh by by the improvements themselves. Um and relative to landscaping, that was your particular
question. >> Yes. uh the uh willingness of the applicant to work with the township uh to integrate additional plant uh plantings andor supplement efforts by the township throughout the community via payment and
loo uh certainly advances the public good um relative to the negative criteria um given the existing conditions and the functioning of the existing facility and the nature of the proposed addition. I
as a general overview don't see a substantial detriment to the public good by this application or any of the variances requested. Parking in particular um is another one where the magnitude of the deviation is substantial and I've I've I've heard the
dialogue with the board about parking and um understand the concerns that have been uh expressed and the responses that have been provided. Um to me the applicant provided credible uh testimony
with with regard to how operations are conducted on the site today and in the future. And uh the uh notion that there's 130 persons that are employed at the facility today, approximately 67 in
a max shift, 80 uh parking stalls might be utilized given shift overlap. Um that to me points to the adequacy of the existing parking which is 164 as well as the proposed parking in the
future of 160. Given that um testimony was that the um uh there's a limited uh at at most I believe approximately 10% increase in employment that uh um Mr.
Diaz testified might occur on the largest shift with this expansion. Um, and given that uh by his testimony and by my general understanding of of of the the site in the area, there is not a history of parking problems on the site
where uh people have uh uh uh parked in an ad hoc manner or random way on the site. So um despite the magnitude of that variance uh uh given the testimony given the history of the site I believe that the variance uh can be advanced
without a substantial detriment to the public good. The accessory building set back in size um the existing building obviously uh uh exceeds the um the size uh limitation
and will exceed it again even more so into the future. However, its location uh well to what I think a general observer would describe as the rear of the site away from the public rights of
way backed up to a uh heavily wooded reasonably heavily wooded uh railroad embankment and a railroad. Um the um the ex the existing and proposed conditions here are such that uh those
features that naturalized vegetation the setbacks from the the public rights of way all those adequately buffer the existing building and the proposed building. So in my mind again no significant adverse uh effect. In fact, I I don't believe there's any uh
substantial detriment that's caused by uh the grant of those variances relative to that accessory building. Finally, prior to summer at least, we've uh the foundation discuss uh plantings were discussed extensively. I mentioned a
moment ago the applicant's commitment to uh work with the town's professionals and and uh if need be make a payment in lie. Um to me that uh while the variance is still there uh the intent is to uh mitigate or
eliminate any potential detriments that would result from the variance. Therefore, I can as a planner sit here today and and and find uh good reason for the board to uh to move forward with that variance. Um in summary, the potential impacts resulting from these
variances are extraordinarily limited. Um they were mitigated by the existing campus-like atmosphere and um will be further mitigated by the uh uh uh other aesthetic improvements, the landscaping plans that are uh already shown on the
plans, let alone uh to be supplemented moving forward. Turning briefly to uh the no substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. Um, as I noted, uh, the township's new
match master plan, uh, commendable effort. It details, uh, from my, uh, review an extensive and diverse manufacturing use space in the township, um, and clearly documents the support of that as a component of the township's
economy. This project will advance those purposes of the master plan. So I think we're in good standing relative to uh uh that aspect of the negative criteria. Um and generally speaking from the the
ordinance perspective um we're looking at a permitted use uh in the district and it's a use that's condict uh conducted at a scale and an intensity that is consistent with the uh um the light manufacturing districts that are allow or uh uses that are allowed in the
district. So I think again we're we're not doing any meaningful damage to the zoning ordinance by uh moving forward with these variances. So in conclusion I I would just note that the the benefits of the deviation the advancement of the purposes of plannings
clearly outweigh any detriments. In fact, from my viewpoint, there are really no detriments that uh this applicant has worked pretty diligently uh uh to mitigate and return to uh what I would uh detail as acceptable conditions from the standpoint of of an
outside observer. >> Mr. McPeek, thank you very much for that very thorough testimony. At this time, I'd like to open up to the board for any questions. No questions from our deis. How about from our professionals? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions from our
members of the public? No questions from our members of the public. Thank you very much, Mr. McPeek. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Sullivan. Does that conclude all the testimony this evening? >> Uh, yes, it does. >> Okay. Do you have any closing comments? >> The best the best thing I could do at
this point is what he said. >> [laughter] >> We would ask you we would ask you to consider um you know everything that uh that you've seen. Uh number one is the applicant's willing >> it's good >> board and the board professionals. Uh number two we do feel that there are
certain benefits to this application including general welfare providing sufficient space for commercial uh uses um and I feel also an aesthetic upgrade. Um in terms of detriments I think Mr. MC Peak pointed it out very well between
the um the buildings on site um the plantings on site and whatever additional plantings we come up with. I don't think anybody's really going to know that uh that we've done anything there. Um you're not going to be able to really see the building. Um it's closest
to the railroad tracks. Um so we don't really see any any detriment at all. Um, so I think both hardship and the C2 benefits outweighing detriment um are applicable here and uh we would ask you to consider granting the application.
>> Have we satisfied all conditions and requests? >> Yeah, they've uh they've uh their testimony. I mean the conditions uh through a lot a lot going around. So in addition to uh standard conditions
that would be applicable to approvals, payment taxes, etc. I have uh that they're to show four new spaces uh locations for the engineers approval. They have to provide various
calculations and amendments uh the zoning table to show bulk uh bulk regulations and the satisfaction. They will provide a full environmental impact statement. Uh they will in
accordance with memo do signage and pavement markings fire access fire access lanes. Uh with regards to the plantings as we've discussed they'll either meet the number of plantings overall required by the ordinance.
uh they'll do that in conjunction with the board of professionals and to the extent they can't meet that number will make up that difference. Also with the fire official memo, they will confirm that the access width is
sufficient for fire trucks. which would storm water management operations maint satisfaction professionals and that was all I had unless I missed something. >> The sewer authority I know that we had
some feedback >> the right away. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think there were the applicants professional had some questions about certain points in those reports. So, um
I think it would probably be appropriate for this to be a point of um discussion without necessarily imposing all of the requirements in that report. I think there there was some consideration that I think they're
asking for. We say uh maybe shall meet with the sewer utility and to the extent they can resolve matters to their satisfaction this board will retain jurisdiction. >> Yeah. Thanks.
>> They're also required as part of their compliance when they do resolution compliance to get the sewer utility sign off. So it is it is I mean this a second layer of protection but I would essentially that would be the condition that they work with the sewer utility to make sure that all comments are
addressed or resolved. >> Yeah, I think that's >> Mr. I like that address or resolved. Yeah. >> So that means right they can sit down with Tom and be like okay that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> So yeah follow up with Tom Genova.
>> Mr. pack. Uh, did you also include the fire department um, right about 2 26 ft versus 21 ft? >> Yes. >> Thank you very much, Mr. P. >> Okay, >> that's all I have.
Okay. So, the motion would be to grant the requested preliminary and final major site plan approval uh with the bulk variance relief uh subject to the conditions. >> Unless anybody has any comments would
like to make that motion. >> That's Mr. Papus. I'll need a second. >> Second. >> That's Mr. McGor. Miss Probes, could I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Vesio. Yes, >> Mr. Bonjouro. >> Yes, >> Councilman Isla. >> Yes, >> Mr. Papis.
>> Yes, >> Mr. McGora. >> Yes, >> Mr. Wang. >> Yes, >> Miss Sakura. >> Yes, >> Miss Chardawitch. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Chowdery, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, thank you very much. Mr. Diaz, best of luck to you and thank you to all that testified this evening.
>> Thanks everybody. Have a good night. >> Congratulations. Thank you. >> That's right. See how two and three casings uh for hot dogs are made in the United States. >> That's right. >> Oh, they just make they just
>> I think they just make the skin. >> Miss Chart, do you need a tour? I usually like cut it and not going. >> Okay. >> It's okay.
>> Okay. Before we leave this evening, before we leave this evening, just some quick homework here. And uh we need to determine uh what dates uh this board and its members will be visiting the quarry at Chimney Rock. So we have two separate dates. Uh Miss Probes has
already sent a a message and we just need to know who is available on which date and perhaps uh we can get a little confirmation. Has anybody gotten back to you? >> So we have um I have some people that are confirmed for both dates.
>> Okay. Um, Miss Chartawitch is the only one for July 16th. >> For July 22nd, it is uh Mr. Vanjouro, Councilwoman Isla, and Chairman Vesio. So, only one other board
member. There's only one slot open for the 22nd. If anyone else would like to be put there. >> Okay. So, >> will just be assigned unless you tell me that you can't make either. So we have one on the 16th and three on the 22nd. >> We have three available on the 16th and
one slot available >> in the reverse >> 22nd. >> Okay. >> Has there been that much change since last time? >> I don't believe so. They're probably going through the different phases at this time. But
>> um I I only available on 22nd if nobody can compete with me. >> Mr. Wang, sorry. >> Yeah, 22nd. I only available then. >> Okay. >> Is there anyone who didn't see it last time? Anyone here who did not see it on
the last tour? >> Okay. >> It is not It is not a requirement, >> right? >> Yeah. Just >> I'm I'm new so I didn't go. Obviously >> I have >> Yeah, I'll be there on the 22nd. Yeah. >> 22nd.
>> I think you once you see it once it it uh >> it is very good. >> You see what you need to see for the next 20 years. Okay. Um, Miss Propes, our next meeting, I believe, is on July 21st. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>> Correct. >> And a residential application. >> Okay, if I could just get a show of hands, it was available on the 21st. We should have quum. Okay. Okay. No further business.
>> Would like to make a motion for adjournment? >> I'll make a motion. >> That's Mr. Cor second. Second. >> Mr. Bjon. All in favor? I >> thank you very much everyone.