Good evening everyone. Today's Tuesday, June 9th. We're a little late getting started, but pretty close to starting time. So, thanks everyone. I know it's difficult sometimes to get here. We do appreciate it. So, I'd like to call this meeting of the zoning board of
adjustment to order. Um, let me take a moment to read the Oakland open public meeting announcement. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with the open public meetings act NJSA 10 co4-6.
Specifically, on January 28th, 2026, proper notice was sent to the electronic news sources of record, filed with the municipal court at the township of Bridgewwatering, and posted on the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning
board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. And then for those of you who have hearing assistance and other issues, you may read the rest of that to yourself.
So please stand if you're able and join me in saluting the flag. 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 >> with that. Miss Propes, may we have a roll call? >> Chairman Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Wedelli, >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Franco >> here.
>> Mr. Fresco is absent. Miss Henderson Rose >> here. >> Mr. Gi >> here. >> Miss Wiseman >> here. >> Mr. Vessio >> here. >> Luchcci >> here. >> Mr. McNel >> here. >> Richer, board attorney
>> here. >> Bill Burr, board engineer here. >> Katherine Sarmad, board planner here. >> You have a quorum. Great. Thank you very much. I'm going to take a moment to open the meeting to the public for members of the public wishing
to address this board on any matter that's not on the agenda this evening. And if you have any of those issues, you may do so at this time. I'd ask you to come up to the microphone, sign in, and tell us what you what's on your mind.
Looks like we have two volunteers. Welcome. >> Hello everyone. Uh, good evening. Um, we'll just take a moment of your time. I'm Lori Le Perry. This is my husband, Anthony Le Perry. And we are here tonight regarding a property that just went for sale on Foothill Road. It is uh
619 Foothill Road, which is block number uh 536, lot 12. Uh the reason we are here is there has been a lot of activity on our street uh which is 196 Orchard Street. We live at the end of the culdeac and we have lived there for the
past 29 years. The property that is for sale on Foothill Road runs the entire length of our property on Orchard Street. Um our concern is it Orchard Street has been a deadend culde-sac street. I've lived on the street for 55
years. I grew up on that street. We've raised our children on that street. It has always been a dead-end street. Uh per my survey, there's no paper road. There's no plans for a road. Um I just wanted to put it on the the board's radar. Uh that we are very concerned
that if a buyer does buy the house on Foothill Road that he will seek to make our road connect to Foot, excuse me, to Foothill Road. >> Actually, it might be better if you just move the mic a little closer to you. You won't hit it and we'll be able to hear you. Um we are concerned that it is 4
acres of property. Okay. >> So uh it runs deep from Foothill Road all the way to Foothill Road and actually backs up against the houses on Brian Drive which are the houses behind us. >> Okay. >> So it would impact everybody. Uh Orchard Street has a road that is Warren Avenue
which dead ends. Orchard Street is a dead end. The road at the end of Warren is a dead end. So they are all dead ends. So once you come into Orchard Street, you are in a dead end. Everybody knows everybody. Everybody's been there for many, many years. So, my concern um again would be them trying to extend the
road to Foothill Road or extend our road in any way. Um so, I did put in an Oprah request, but I I know that there's no information other than uh that the property is currently for sale that they could give me, but I'm sure a builder is not going to pay $1.4 $4 million for a
house built in 1960, which they will knock down without knowing if they can develop that that four acres of land. So, it will severely impact our neighborhood, our street, and all of the deadend streets. Uh our children both live, they're grown and married, and we
have four grandchildren that live on the corner of Orchard Street and Hillside Avenue, which is a bus stop for about 25 children every morning. I don't want that to become a through fair from Foothill Road and have it be a danger. There are no sidewalks. Uh there's already a drainage problem at the end of
that street, which I'm sure you're aware of when you put in the new paving on that road. Um so I really just didn't want to come too late. I'm sure, like I said, a builder is not going to buy that property for $1.4 million without knowing the answer to the question that I'm asking. So my question really is,
can that road be extended? per my survey in 1998, it is a dead-end road and there's no paper road. So, I don't know who can answer that question, if anyone can answer that question, but that really is our question tonight. >> Well, I can tell you that at this moment in time, I have no information about
that which you speak, but would you give me the um the I have the lot and block numbers 536-12, >> but I have the address again. >> Uh it is 619 Foothill Road. >> Previous owner is Paris Gandola. It's been in their family for generations. Um
Donald and his wife owned it and then Jimmy and he just passed away in the fall. >> Uh so both houses on Foothill Road. Now, one house doesn't have enough footage to put a road through, but the owner owns that house and the house next to it. And I can envision both of them houses being
knocked down and a road coming right down that street or extending Orchard Street through to Foothill Road. And none of us in the neighborhood certainly want to see that happen. And I'm sure >> if anything were on the agenda, we would have, you know, 200 people within the neighborhood in here in this room
tonight. We It only just went for sale about 9 or 10 days ago. So, it is very new. But again, I'm sure a builder is not going to put up 1.4 million without asking the same question that we are. What can be developed with that land? >> Right. >> Legally 619 is Foothill Road, >> right? >> It's not anything with Orchard Street
whatsoever. >> Yes. Understood. >> I looked at this. I looked at this when it came on the market. So, it's a very narrow strip of property. So, you're worried that they're going to try to make it a through street and subdivide and >> Yes. Yes. Four acres. >> It's four acres of property.
>> Valid concern. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> If it helps you at all, in order for them to extend the street, they had this large green area that they would have to cross, which I assume is a >> I think that's the area that what you're looking at. Yes, that's actually the um
the lot. >> That's wetlands. >> Oh. Oh, thank you. >> While we're we we will do a little research to answer your question. When it comes to putting roadways through or adding in roadways, changing dead ends, things like that, all of that is
typically the work of the burrow of the BR Bridgewater Township Council. And so application would be have to make to them. Uh Mr. Dr. Bur, I'm going to put you on the spot for just a moment if I may without knowing the specific property, but just from a procedural
point of view, if someone were going to make application to either put in a roadway or change a dead end or culde-sac, wouldn't they have to go directly to the uh township? >> Uh, yes, I believe they would. Certainly
if if there's a subdivision or any type of building proposal at hand, they would have to come to either this board or the planning board, >> right? >> Any type of road extension, um certainly it's going to have to involve the >> and you know, with respect to an application that might come before this board, I'm going to caution this board
to they should not render any type of preliminary opinions on the property today or before there's an um an application before it, right? because this board sits as a quasi judicial board and is a neutral in determining
those types of applications. So if there were an application for any type of subdivision and if the resulting lots were conforming to whatever the zone requires, it wouldn't even come here. It would go to the planning board, right? So um you know, chances are just hearing
what you're talking about, it's probably an application type that would go to the planning board rather than this one. But to the extent it might come here, I would caution the board not to render any type of a preliminary opinion today. >> Would I be notified as a bordering property? >> If you're within 200 ft of the property,
>> it is my property line. You share the same property line for the full acre of my property. >> Yep. You would be notified. I'm I'm just worried that at that point it's too late and someone's bought the property and then it's, you know, it's in the process of being developed and then it's a fight of all of the neighborhood coming
together to to stop it as opposed to, you know, no one can answer the question, if that road is a dead end, would it stay a dead end? I mean, if they come in from Foothill Road, there's not much I can do about it. But if they're changing my dead-end street to a non-deadend street and there's not 150
ft of front at the end of that road, I would assume they would have to either buy property from me or my neighbor across the street in order to >> all conjecture until we actually see what their potential plan might be. I mean, maybe they'll just buy it and build one big house. I don't, you know, who knows?
>> Okay, let's hope so. Okay, thank you very much for >> Thank you for bringing your concerns to us. We have someone else who would like to offer an opinion, but you have to come up to the microphone, please, and tell us who you are and where you live. >> Hi, my name is Frank Rashelle. I'm at
134 Warren Avenue. Um, and I'm in support of the Learis as well because it'll affect me. I'm on a side street there. And so, uh, not only, uh, have we been there 27 years, um, invested a lot of money in the house. So, this will affect all real estate values in the in
the area. Obviously, if it goes from a dead end to a non dead end, that's a common >> premature to come today to this board. And again, this board can't render. >> No, I understand that, but I'm just giving you the facts. Think of it if think if it was your house. What would you say? >> Uh, it sounds again, it sounds like an
application that would probably go to the planning board. >> No, no sidewalks, kids walking up the street, um, safety issues, privacy issues. M >> and all all of those concerns that you have will be appropriate for you to discuss them with either the planning
board or the township council should okay >> such an application be made and s should somebody want to okay >> change roadways or make that kind of future plans but right now we noted your concern we appreciate you coming out letting us know we'll see what happens
as we move forward >> and the process would be the planning board then the council is would it be two step >> it is likely that they'll go to the planning board first. >> Okay. >> Should they be changing roadways, they would eventually have to go to the township council. >> Okay. >> Um but we would also be notified of
that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Not us, the zoning board, but sorry. But you would be notified publicly uh because it'll either be on the planning board agenda or the township council's agenda. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure I knew the process so I could >> Yes. Appreciate you coming out. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Take care. >> Okay. Any other members of the public who have something to discuss that's not on the agenda for this evening? Seeing none, let's close that portion of the meeting. We have some minutes that we would like to adopt. And Nancy,
please tell me we have both March 24th and April 14th minutes. >> Correct. >> Okay. And with that, I'd like to have a motion to accept the minutes. >> We have to do each separately. >> Oh, we have to do each one separately. different people vote.
>> Okay. So, March 24th, may I have a motion to accept those minutes into the record? >> Mr. Widely moves. Do I have a second? >> Second, >> Miss Rose, do we need a roll call on this? Yes, we do. >> We don't need a roll call. Just for the
record, um, Mr. Gi and Mr. Franco will be marked as ineligible. >> Okay. >> Absent. >> So, by voice vote, >> we can do a voice vote. All in favor of approving the minutes. I >> I >> the eyes have it. Now let's move on to
the minutes from April 14th, 2026. Similarly, I'd like to have a motion to approve those minutes. >> Mr. Widley and I have a second >> Miss Rose and voting. >> Everyone is eligible.
>> Everyone is eligible. So all those in favor of accepting a minutes, please say I or yes. I >> and the eyes have it and we will accept those minutes as they were. We have a resolution that we'd like to also have approved and this resolution
was regarding application number 25-24-ZB Solar Landscape LLC. Um it's block 303 lot 8.04 22 Vanvectton Drive. I'm sure everybody's had the opportunity to
review the resolution. Um, were there any changes or amendments? Anything? >> I I do have one actually on page 8. The whereas clause references um that the board took action on May 12, 2026. It should be April 14, 2026.
>> Okay. >> Otherwise, nothing else. >> Any other comments about the resolution? >> Right. I move with the change, Rich. >> Mr. Deli moves it with the change. >> Second. >> Mrs. Amin is seconding and we will have
a roll call on on that. >> Chairman Kulak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wedelli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Franco. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rose. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Gayi?
>> Yes. >> Very well. So the resolution has passed. Let's move on to um we have a few things a few business items. One is listed for announcement purposes only and this matter only is being carried to
7 or July 28th, 2026 without further notice. It's a continuence from 31026 with change circumstances to add a D4 variance relief. It's application number
25-017-ZB and it's uh the SHA property block 545 lot 14 261 Liam Street. Uh so that's going to be moved forward and carried to 72826 without further notice.
Moving forward, we have what we're calling an initial hearing, but this is application number 23-00009 ZB Chimney Rock Self Storage LLC, block 800, lot 9661, Route 22. They're asking for an
extension of a prior approval. Um, Mr. Oler, you want to take us through this, please? >> So, Mr. Chairman, the applicant uh Chimney Rock Self Storage received preliminary and final site plan approval nearly two years ago with use variance approval. Um pursuant to the municipal
land use law of final site plan approvals are entitled to two years of protection against zone changes. That two years is almost up. Uh municipal land use law allows the applicant to obtain three separate one-year extensions. So this would be their first
of three one-year extensions which would again extend the protection for zoning approval u change and as noted by the applicant in his application the reasons were that there's volatility in pricing of materials supply chain disruption and
which has uh uh impacted their ability for financing currently. So, I would recommend to the board that we approve their first of three one-year extensions. >> So, we have a a motion from Miss Rose.
We have a second, Ms. A Zamin and Miss Propes. And we're going to have a roll call on this, please. >> Chairman Golak. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes,
>> Mr. Franco. >> Yes, >> Miss Rose. >> Yes, >> Mr. Gi. >> Yes, >> Mr. I'm sorry, Miss Wiseman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bessio. >> Yes, >> Mr. Kuchi. >> Yes, >> Mr. McNella. >> That's Yeah, I'm sorry, but there's only
seven. That was everybody, I think. >> I thought for the uh >> only seven. Always only seven. >> Break the um extras. Very well. So we have then this the continuence has will be granted. Is there any special thing that you need to
do, Mr. Roller? >> We'll have a resolution at the next meeting. >> Very well. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So moving forward, we're now into the second hearing. It's a continuence from uh let's see 51226
application number 25-016 ZB. That was the initial hearing and this is Garden Oak Specialties. We're going to pick up where we left off at our last meeting. Um I believe we're about to hear from well I'm not going to say what we're about to do but I'm going
to talk to your attorney when he comes up and see if we can move on from there. This is Garden Oak Specialties and this is the continuence from 51226. Everybody here Yeah, we have two things that we'd like you to do. One is to refresh us. But
before we get to that, just quickly, there was a zoning violation issued on the adjacent property to my knowledge and that we have the same ownership on both parcels. Um part of any decision we make is based on sort of the good faith between the two parties that any
conditions we impose or any um zoning ordinances that exist will be complied with. So here we know we have a a the same owners with respect to a violation and would like you to help us understand what that was and where we are in
clearing that up. >> Yeah, absolutely. Mr. Is this better? >> Yes. >> Yes. Um, yes. So, Mr. Aller did bring that to my attention. So, I thank him for that. Um, and I reached out right away for our
client who actually um went out. He did speak to Mr. Scalera. Um, understood what the problem is. And the problem is that there was a contractor dumping uh some construction debris and dirt on the neighboring property. As I understand
it, all of the construction debris has already been removed. Uh the contractor has been given his notice and told that um you know, he has to be out of there and everything cleaned up uh no later than 30 days and uh that property will
will not be used for that purpose anymore. And it's your understanding that that should resolve the issue from the um the violations that were issued. >> That's my understanding. Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Er, >> that would um be satisfactory, I think.
And you know, I just do want to point out that that's the adjacent property, not the property that's part of the application before the board. >> So, it really has no impact on um on lot 16, which is what's before the board. Okay. >> Great. Thank you. appreciate you
clearing it up for us. So now you can give us the recap. >> Okay. Um so as you know the property is located at 1921 Route 22 West. Um it is the Garden Oaks facility. Um and they sell sheds and other yard implements. Um
we had confirmed uh last time we were here that it is a pre-existing non-conforming use. I think we had produced some documentation going all the way back to 19 I can't remember 50s or 60s something like that. Um the photo
kind of showed uh you know some of the same things there including the sign. Um so uh we are located in the C3 zoning district. We're lot 16 block 821 and we're just under three acres in size. Uh the application before you is to
continue this use and significantly upgrade and improve the site um by replacing uh the antiquated buildings, adding site improvements such as a storm water management system, site lighting, a new well and a septic system,
walkways, and a paved parking area. Um none of that which is is really there right now. So, I mean, it's just improvement after improvement um that we're proposing for this pre-existing non-conforming use. Uh the use itself is not permitted as a principal use. Uh so,
we were requesting either a D1 and or a D2 um expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use. I believe we came to the conclusion last time that it would be appropriately a D2 variance. Um there are also uh some non-conforming
bulk conditions. Uh we're going to have our planner address those in some detail, but we did have uh testimony at the last hearing of uh Jason uh representative of the applicant. He explained to you, you know, the
operation as it exists and how these improvements will make our operation more efficient, safer, and overall aesthetically better. Um, our architect provided his testimony. Um, he showed you some renderings.
My opinion, uh, you know, a very substantial upgrade to the buildings over what exists now. And we had our site engineer, uh, Jardman testify as well, and he explained to you all of the site improvements we're going to make, which I just kind of mentioned. So, um,
overall, I think, uh, you know, it's really an application where we're not looking to truly expand the use from what's already existed, um, but certainly to improve that use, make it safer, more efficient, and more aesthetically pleasing than what's out
there. >> Great. Well, thank you very much for the recap and the summary. We appreciate it. Um, and now I'm presuming you're going to introduce us to your planner. >> I am Kevin O'Brien. And we're doing okay with the microphones, but just so everyone knows,
it's important for us to speak into the microphones because this is being broadcast live on YouTube, but also recorded on YouTube. And if you ever want to look at the archive of the meetings that uh we've had in the past, you can do that. But
you'll notice that if someone wasn't speaking into the mic, there's a blank spot where they were supposed to be talking. So you can see their lips move, but you can't hear them. So we spend a little time just telling you please to speak into the microphone so we can
record it for posterity. >> Mr. O'Brien, would you uh raise your right hand, please? >> Thank you. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. >> And for the record, your name, please.
the microphone, please. >> Thank you. Professional planner with Shamrock Enterprises in Romway, New Jersey. >> Would you share your um your uh scholastic background, a professional background with the board, please?
>> Yes. Thank you, council. I have appeared before this board numerous occasions, most recently uh last summer. I do have a graduate degree from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I teach planning and zoning at Ruckers University Center for Government
Services as well as the Association of Planning and Zone Administrators and the New Jersey Planning Officials. My license is in good standing and has no actions against it now or ever. >> And your license is in New Jersey. >> My license is in New Jersey. Uh we are
the only state that licenses professional planners of the 50 states. Oregon does have something that's not terribly dissimilar. Uh but in addition to my professional planning license issued by the state of New Jersey, which is I've been in planning for about 40
years now. I also have my certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners, which is recognized nationally throughout the United States. >> Great. The board is happy to accept your credentials. Thank you for coming back. Um, Mr. Eler, do you need to swear our
guys in yet or >> Why don't we do that? Did I I did that last time, right? Yeah. And I'll just remind you that you remain under oath. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Please. >> Thank you so much, Chairman. As council has said, uh we are here for
a D2 expansion of a non-conforming use for the garden shed landscape specialty store. A number of existing structures will be removed. As Mr. Sullivan has pointed out, this application is going
to significantly beautify this property. Uh we've all known this over the many years as an interesting collection of I'm about to say Hobbitville because I'm looking at the lettering on the township
seal. All the tiny structures there all of which were rather charming. All of which served their purpose. Now, the ownership is willing to put up, as you've seen, a very large structure that
is befitting this particular use and befitting the area. It's going to make this look very, very nice. Um, it's a beautiful structure and it's going to regularize the property. clean it up. It's going to make it look
a lot up to date with code compliance as opposed to the collection of things that are there now. Uh the use and the owner have been on site since prior to the zoning change in 1976
and it was that's when it was made a C3 zone. Uh the owner has testified previously. They were here on or about 1970 um over the existing conditions in the site. For instance, a setback is still
being violated, but it is much better than it was, much more compliant than it was. One of the purposes of zoning is to bring properties more into compliance. The C3 office and service zone has an
interesting mix of allowed uses including business professional and service offices, health clubs, wellness centers, day spas and gyms, indoor commercial recreation, adult medical daycare.
Those are pretty intense uses and they are here by they are allowed by rights. Intense in that let's just take a medical facility. Um I look at the makeup of the board. Um some of you like me have a little more gray hair than we
used to when we were younger. Perhaps some of us visit medical facilities a little more frequently than we used to. Perhaps not. And if so that's a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, I've visited a few more than I would have liked to. And what do I see? They're
packed. They're full. Waiting rooms are full. The parking lots are full. Trying to get in to see a doctor. As you know, everything is just packed. So, this pre-existing non-conforming use, I
think, is a better fit this area in this stretch of Route 22 than what would be allowed otherwise. heavily intensive medical facility, for instance, or perhaps an adult daycare center, buses in and out, morning and afternoon,
visitors, indoor commercial recreation. What if this were a gym? Heavy in the morning heavy in terms of intensity. So as a use variance we've got to show you a few things that there are special
reasons got to continue the burden of proof by showing that we meet the zone plan and the zoning ordinance for instance what does the master plan say about and Bridgewater has a number of policies
in their master plan since uh under 2.2 2 A for alpha provide a balanced land use pattern in the township of residential, commercial and other uses. B Bravo maintain maintain and strengthen
existing commercial. Continue to permit development within existing zones where there is infrastructure, intermotal access and an established development on Route 22. That's in that description.
Encourage appropriate development land use that will diversify the municipal economic base, create economic employment opportunities, strengthen the tax under P require aesthetically pleasing
land use design with subtle character, site appearance, landscape buffering, including along major parts applications. those requirements in terms the special needs part of the
burden of proof. This application also meets several of the purposes of zoning that are listed in the municipal land use law and section two that is a encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use development of
all lands in the state. F encourages the appropriate expenditure and efficient expenditure public funds by the coordination of public development land use policies just as
land use law both overlap here. G provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of commercial uses. I provide a desirable visual environment and M encourage coordination of the
various public and private procedures shaping land use. This application is consistent with locates a pre-existing compatible needed and attractive use
appropriate location is particularly suited garden shed shopping center. The other burden of proof we have to meet is whether or not there is a negative impact upon the township and
the neighborhood. And in short, I don't see a negative impact upon the neighborhood or the town. There will be a continued positive economic impact, a larger tax ratable, continued permanent employment,
temporary construction employment, all of which will support local businesses. The reference book that planners and attorneys and land use called the Cox book uh talks about a D2 expansion variance
burdens of proof. It's while an applicant for a D2 variance permitting expansion of a lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming use need not show that it would have been entitled to a variance for the initial nonconformity.
It nevertheless must satisfy the same positive and negative criteria test as the other Dvarianes. We meet the positive and negative criteria by showing that this pre-existing use is compatible with the master plan, compatible with the
purposes of zoning and has no negative impact. I believe that the bulk variances that are requested are subsumed within the proofs for the use variance. uh also as established by our reference book the
con I can conclude that I believe this application can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. Mr. Sullivan, do you have any further
questions? >> Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions? >> Not at this moment. I will ask the board members if they have any questions of your testimony. Seeing none, Miss Sarmat, >> I have no questions for this witness.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We appreciate very much your testimony and thank you for appearing before the board and we'll move forward. >> My pleasure, chair, to be
Thank you. >> So, that does conclude our presentation of witnesses and evidence. Um, so we are um if I could just sum up Well, I don't know if there's any public questions or comments. >> Well, I should ask that. I'm sorry. Before Mr. O'Brien, before you leave,
just let's quick check if there's anybody from the public who has any questions for you on your testimony. I got ahead of myself there. But seeing none, we can resume where we were. >> Thank you.
>> Uh yeah, if there's no uh if there's no public comment, um I'll just sum up very quickly. Um you know, we think the application is pretty straightforward. Presents a a use of the site um that has been there for, you know, at this point
over 50 years. Um, as I mentioned earlier, you know, we're not as asking to truly expand the use that is already there. We're really here to improve that use. Um, granted, you know, have an expansion,
not use. Um, but I think, you know, overall, we're just making this a better site existed for a number of years. Uh, the site itself is more than adequate in size to accommodate the use. Um, this,
as Mr. O'Brien mentioned, this use is much less intense than a lot of other uses that are permitted in the C3 zoning district. Um, to me, I kind of found this refreshing property out there on 22. And guess what? We're not asking to put up a car
dealership or a hotel. So, I found that kind of refreshing in terms of the applicant originally brought this application to me. Um, some of the improvements I mentioned, I just kind of want to reiterate that. Um, we have a number of antiquated buildings on site.
All of those are going to be removed and replaced with the, uh, the new buildings. Um, you saw the drawings agree with me that rather attractive and are major visual upgrade to the site.
do. Um that's what I it's kind of my opinion what we're presenting there. Um we are going to delineate a parking area. We're going to pave it. None of that exists right now. Um we're going to uh delineate the the drive aisle. Um a lot
of that doesn't exist now. Path than anything else. Uh we are adding a storm water management system. None of that exists right now. That's going to be a major improvement to the property. Uh we are adding some
landscaping and lighting. Um again, you know, what is there is um is going to be improved upon. Uh we're adding the brand new well in the septic system. I believe that we um provided earlier the approval I think from Somerset County for the
septic system. Um and we're also going to eliminate some of the encroachments. Um I think you guys brought that to our attention. Yes, >> Mr. All of the encroachments, right? >> We're going to eliminate all of the encroachments. Did I say some?
>> I meant all. Um, and as Mr. O'Brien mentioned, you know, the site is suitable for the use. Um, we are compatible with the master plan. Uh, this does satisfy some of the purposes of zoning and I agree with Mr. O'Brien
that I don't really see any negatives. So, with all of that said, we would ask you to consider granting the application. >> Very well. Thank you. Let's have some comments from the board members themselves. >> Mr. Chairman, I I'm I'm very pleased
with everything that they're doing. I'm comfortable with the uh traffic because uh they're not altering the business structure. uh their proposal to improve on variances and to comply with uh our township engineer and our township planner and to remove the sheds on the
adjacent property. I'm comfortable with the architectural designs consistent with the nature of the business. I like the fact that it incorporates a residential style and the selected materials, you know, are appropriate with the character. >> Very well. Thank you. Anybody else who wants to go into it? Miss Rose,
>> I'm very pleased with the presentation. I have only one concern. Um, second floor is not barrier free and I know that you don't anticipate having clients go up the stairs, but you may very well have future employees who
would need access to the second floor either because they have a handicap or as I grow older fall down and break something and can't get to the second floor. So I would ask that there be some consideration for some modification that
would allow the second floor to be barrier free. Other than that, it's great. >> Mr. Gaski, would you like to comment, please? >> I'm in uh support of the application. I mean, I I think I've purchased numerous
sheds from Garden Oaks. Very familiar with the uh with the layout there, and I think it's it's an overall improvement. I personally don't find it an eyesore as it is today, but uh definitely would support what they're doing there and I think it will aesthetically be an improvement functionally and address a
number of safety issues. >> Mrs. Amin, would you have any comments you'd like to offer? >> I I have actually I have a question for Mr. Salivan. you you know um
on that property you see a lot of U-Haul trucks parked are they part of this business or something else at least like maybe 10 or 12 U-Haul trucks are they part of this business and that
office >> that I would have to defer to my client I'm I'm not able to answer that. >> Sorry. We would need you to come here. Yeah. >> Yeah. I pass by that property almost every day
because I have my office that >> you can just use this microphone at the podium. >> And you give us your name first, please. >> Jason Anishchek. >> And you have previously been sworn in. >> Yes. So, we are a neighborhole U-Haul
dealer. Um, trucks come and go. >> Those are parked. You allow them to park. >> They park. They park a couple trucks and they go out. They just they flow in and out. >> So, then uh they park overnight also
>> just depending on when when something gets rented. >> And is that part of your business sort of? It's part of Garden Oaks. It's the same. It's just under U-Haul neighborhood.
So, it's through Garden Oaks. >> So, this expansion of the building has nothing to do with all that other other business that you have trucked. >> Yeah. >> So, can you just clarify for me? Does that mean they're just dropping trucks
off? But if if they were going to rent something, do they come to you? It goes through the U-Haul system through um a POS system that they have and basically a key gets left out in the lock box, truck goes out, truck comes in. >> So, so we have two businesses running out of the property.
>> It's all under that's So, it's technically I guess there's a contract with you all through Garden Oaks. Yeah. So, do you have um are you saying that having a U-Haul business is part of the Garden Oaks?
>> We're a neighborhood dealer. Yes. >> Is it typical that garden facilities such as this would um have U-Haul >> services? There's a lot. Um there's one in case we're friends with uh they're called Buckton's Backyards. They're down
in Euing. They do the same thing. They're a garden center and shed company. Um, it's actually very common. It's supplemental. >> Is it possible that your customers who are purchasing sheds and or gazeos are renting that equipment to >> Actually, that's a great question. Um,
we have a lot of people who bring chairs, furniture, um, they buy wishing wells or chairs off of our lot or even when they buy pond liner and whatnot and they will actually rent a truck to take it home so that they don't have to pay us for delivery. It happens all the time.
>> Okay. Answer your question, Mr. The point that I'm getting to and I'd like Katherine to chime chime in a little bit. You know, are we are we running two businesses? Is there a D1 that we need for the U-Haul business? Maybe we can bring their planner back to have an opinion on the
record. You know, it's it just seems that, you know, potentially the U-Haul business is a separate business even though it's part of, you know, the same company. Um, and if so, you know, it's it's not part
of the D2, right? Because that didn't exist in 1970, whatever. So, that's new and, you know, kind of drives this as a D1 potentially for the U-Haul business. I don't know. What do you think? >> Well, um, I have driven by there and
seen the U-Hauls. My question is, are they is that happening on the Garden Oaks property? because they appear to be in that >> Yes. >> drive aisle, right? They're not actually on the property. >> They are on the property. >> They are on the property. >> So, the ones that are being parked when
you when you drive by and you see that lane of them on the on the kind of roadway there, >> um is that the only place they're being parked? >> Yes. >> That's see that's that's outside of the property limit. At least according to the survey, the edge of the property
line ends before that pavement begins. even >> they're right on that pavement line. >> Well, and that's a that's another question I have is if they're not being stored on this property and they're in a a right of way, you know, that I have more of a problem I think with with the
fact that that that and so if the use is separate from or it's not on this property, let's say, right? I as I see it or the question I just asked is really is it on this property? It seems to be happening in the right of way right there. And that's I have more
problem with that about access safety the other properties that utilize that being off a highway. Um Rich I don't if it's not on the property I mean >> yeah I is the right of way dedicated do we know is that a dedicated rideway to
the township like or is it part of lot 17? I can't tell where that property line is for lot 17. Well, I think I asked that question at the last meeting >> and we were told that it's not a public rightway. >> It's a private right ofway, >> right? >> Okay.
>> It's not it's not an easement. It's a private rightway. >> So, it's part of lot 17, right? It traverses lot 17. And those four buildings that are on lot 17, is that >> a lot 17 business or is that part of >> Lot 17 is its own lot?
>> Yeah, that's what I mean. So that's those four buildings have nothing to do with the with Garden Center. >> Okay. >> Are they involved in the U-Haul business? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. So the U-Haul business is run out of lot 16. They're just parked in the
rideway, which is part of lot 17, a private rideway on lot 17. >> I think I don't even know if it's part of lot 17. The lot lines are showing. >> I can't tell from the survey. Yeah, this I have the electronic so I have the benefit of being able to zoom in nicely.
It appears that it has its own its own boundaries um that separate it. >> Can I ask a question? Is it a service you provide or is you all operating on your property?
>> Technically, it's a service that we have. So, we offer the service of the truck rental. Are there any other business lines that you'd be potentially going into with this building or is it just a continuation?
>> Just a continuation. >> And this is a continuation of a business and a service you offer currently. >> Yes. >> Right. >> We don't want to change anything else. This is I mean it's 54 years of the same basic >> and the U-Haul service that you provide
is essentially a way for people to sometimes transport things which they've purchased from you. Other times perhaps it's just a convenient location for them to pick up a trailer or what have you and it's usually >> it's easier it's I mean we're empty in
the winter. We we really don't work much in the winter so it's a little bit that helps us that just to get through the winter. so hard as a small business and as a garden center said company to be to operate in the winter. We >> I understand what we're saying though is that it's it's a continuation of the
business as it is currently been operated since whenever you had your agreement with you with U-Haul. So I don't know Mr. Oler how that impacts it. Mr. Sullivan if you have an opinion. Um we're all ears. Well, it certainly after
and I I will tell you um until Miss Amin brought up the question, I was not aware. Um but it certainly sounds like in part it's an accessory use um to the >> Well, that's why I was asking them is it something that you normally see with the garden center? It kind of makes sense
that they have customers that come and buy things and it's a great amenity to their business to have them right there, right? So, I can see where maybe it's an accessory use. >> I don't know. What do you think? >> It's It's because I've se I've seen it
at other places. So, like when you go to rent a U-Haul, like even Home Depot, not Home Depot has their own, but when you go some of the self- storage places have them because it's it's kind of the same thing. They know you're moving big things, so they kind of are like have it in one and the same. Now, I I think my
point still stands about the parking and the right of way, whether or not it's an accessory use to to the what's being expanded on the Garden Oaks property. If the if the lot can't adequately h hold those trucks and they're parking them in a right of way that other properties in the surrounding
area need to access their property safely off of a highway, then that's the bigger problem. >> Right. Well, we haven't established whether they can't park the trucks on their own property. They just don't
>> currently because it's more convenient to use the rightway. >> Yes. And that I think that that certainly could be a condition, you know, of the board's consideration >> um for >> which condition then to >> the condition that the parks be trucked on their be parked on their own property. >> Okay.
>> Outside of the right-of-way limits. >> Understood. Thank you. Well, I >> before Mrs. Am we want to resolve this one? So, is this the same topic? >> Well, go ahead. Ask your question. >> I I have a question for Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes, please.
>> Mr. Sullivan see if you have two businesses running from that building are they registered or you both you know the U-Haul is a parking facility kind of
a thing as separate basis from Garden Oaks right >> it's all paid out to garden oaks so it's all under garden oaks >> all under one business >> yes it's not >> so you can park those hall trucks on
your property on your property instead of uh encroaching >> fence line that is coming down and that would shift our >> Yes, >> that would shift our U-Hauls over. >> Okay. Yes, they will be on >> on one one property. Yeah, >> you're providing parking for that and
that's it. >> There on the site plan. There's actually an area on the right side of the building that is designated on our property that there right now there's a fence up. There's always been a fence up. So the fence would the fence is coming down
because the building statue and then they would just get shifted over. >> Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Vesio, do you have a question? >> Uh I have no question just to comment final deliberation. Um I did listen to the uh transcript from the last meeting.
Um, I think Route 22 is a perfect location. Uh, really I think for a unique business. There's there's not many of these, you know, businesses around town except if you go to Home Depot and buy one of those. But, you know, um, certainly it's good to have, you know, small business in our community. Something unique like this. I
think it's a perfect location for it for, you know, delivering of these wide, you know, wide um, deliveries also, you know, coming in and and also going out. Um, I am also kind of pleased to see you are raising the grade around the building as
well. Um, I was subject to the flash flood last May. Uh, I know you folks were impacted, so I think it's, you know, proper improvement for the site to to raise the building. So, I'm in favor. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Kuchi. Comments?
Uh, I think it's an improvement. Like Claudio just said, I I see no problem with it. And I was over there myself and walked around. I think the new improvements will really make this nicer looking and more appealing off the road.
And as long as we keep the U-Hauls on your property, I don't see any problems with it. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Wiseman. Comments? >> Yes. Um I am in favor of the continuing um non-conforming use. I think that it makes sense. Um but I also agree that um
steps should be taken or a condition should be put in place that um that anything that's under your business's umbrella should take place on your lot. I think that's just good general. >> Mr. McDall, comments? >> Yes. Um
you know, I've been driving by that property since I'm a kid. which is probably the 50s something years at this point. But um you know to to not see the sheds there and in the past I know there's been like you know uh swing sets and a a pirate ship or
something. Um it would be a shame to see something else there. I'm glad that uh you have the foresight to improve your property. The the plan the building I think looks great. It's going to look better than if something else came in.
You know, you used to have a driving range across the street. That's gone. You had this little sort of bucolic corner of the highway there. You're keeping it going and I would approve the uh uh application. >> Mr. Widley, any comments?
>> Uh yes. Um actually, I bought my shed there a while ago and actually I've been there a few other times. Not recently, but I've been there. And you know, the buildings do need improvement. And I think that you put a lot of thought into this whole project to clean up the
property. Can I use that word? Um, and make it really look nice. And I'm really glad you want to stay because like you said, when you drive down 22 and see the swing sets and the sheds, it's different than seeing a car lot or something else or a big flag, you know, over the whole
thing. And so I'm in favor of the whole thing and the U-Haul thing wouldn't doesn't bother me at all. I think the majority of the people use them like they would at Home Depot to take something home and and that's what you purpose because I I had friends who had businesses years ago before costs
skyrocketed and they actually own the vans and would rent them out to for but then it got too expensive to do that. So and uh so I don't have a problem with it but I'm in favor of the whole application. Thank you. Um, from my p from my
perspective, I see a multi-generational family business with a long-term pre-existing use. Um, the property will be enhanced substantially by the design that you proposed to us. It'll, I, in my opinion, make your business more
efficient and perhaps attract even more customers so that you can be more successful. I think gives you an opportunity to display your merchandise in some ways differently. Um, and I would be very much in support of this. I need to ask two questions. One is Mr.
Oler, how what are we thinking now in terms of the appropriate relief so that we can make >> Well, actually, I was thinking maybe we could have Mr. O'Brien come back up and give us some reasons why the U-Haul is a part of the D2
um expansion of their current uses so we have something on the record. >> Mr. O'Brien, thank you. Glad you didn't leave. >> Always a pleasure, Chairman. Thank you. Is there any way we could just clarify
too that it's just the trucks from U-Haul service because they do offer other services at U-Haul, right? Like propane and storage containers and stuff like I just want to make sure. >> So it's just trailers andor small trucks. >> All right.
Thank you. I think an interesting question has been raised, but when you look at what's being actually done here, uh the U-Haul is, I believe, an accessory to uh the garden center
shed sales. It's been explained that people rent the U-Hauls to bring equipment home. It is very much like bring the big stuff home. U-holes are
commonly found these days in a mult multiple places. Um the U-Haul brand you find them in a gas station where they are accessory to gas station use but
they're not exactly I don't think that they're strictly accessory to the gas station use u because you're not buying stuff at the gas station all home trouble but over times
found at a place I guess motors gas stations sell gas somehow they've made that work through common sense in this particular case you're talking about something that really does flow from the business itself
and if the occasional person comes by to rent a truck or rent a trailer well that's a benefit for the owner particularly since you said he's a seasonal business. Is it ancillary to the business? Yes. Is it subsumed within
the D2? I believe it is. If the board wanted to consider it a different business for some reason, I think that proofs are on the record, show that we meet special reasons, the positive and negative
you, but I would say let common sense prevail. This is ancillary to what's there now. uh you've recognized it. There's going to be a mention of it on the record for future use, future boards.
I think that from a planning perspective, that should address that. Chairman, I >> Thank you. Mr. Oler, did you have any additional questions? >> I I don't I appreciate that. Thank you. >> I appreciate you standing by. Let's take
a moment to open the uh comment section to the public. Anyone who would like to speak for or against this approval of this project may do so. Seeing none, we'll close that portion. So, Mr. Roller, what what we'd like to
do is to entertain a motion >> right to approve the application but with the conditions that you're going to outline for us. So, um, in the event there's a motion to approve, um, the application for the expansion of their pre-existing uses with the, uh, U-Haul
use as a, um, accessory use to the garden center. Um, there were some conditions. Um, one would be, uh, modify the storm water drainage plan to the township engineer's satisfaction. Site
lighting would be dark sky compliant, angled downward, so no light spillage onto adjacent properties. Um, modify the plans to include a chart calculating the total coverage areas, both existing and proposed in square footage. um remove
all of the encroachments from adjacent lots and uh to prohibit parking uh along that ride ofway between lot 16 and 17. Okay. So, the U-Hauls would have to find a home on lot 16.
>> And um are professionals comfortable with the conditions as Mr. Oler has outlined them? Did we leave anything out? >> No, I think he covered everything. Thank you, >> Mr. Burger. >> Um, yes, I I agree with all those conditions. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> So, we're good. >> That would be that. Yes. So, I I would like to make a motion to approve the application with the conditions as we've just been outlined by Mr. Oler. >> I will second that. >> And Mrs. Aine will second the um motion.
And Ms. props. We're going to need a roll call vote. >> Yes. >> Widelli. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Zamin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Franco. >> Yes. >> Miss Rose. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gazki? >> Yes. >> Miss Wisman?
>> Yes. >> Motion is carried. Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. Thank you. Thank you to your clients. Appreciate it. >> John, I will need the transcript to finalize the uh resolution. Okay. >> Take a quick five minutes. Go.
>> Let's go. Let's go another. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Too many places in my notes. It says see transcript. So, yeah. >> Thank you. >> We're going to power through for a
little bit and then take Yeah. has nothing to do with that. I was not the last. >> Yeah, that's All right, next.
I had no idea. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're just allowing some time for everybody everybody to get their ducks in a row, so to speak. And while we're doing that, because we would like to continue and then take a break maybe in
about a half an hour. >> I'm sorry. >> All I'm saying was we're just allowing you some time to get everything organized and then in about a half an hour or so, we will take a break. But we wanted to keep going, not lose too much time. Okay.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, members of the public. My name is Michael Silbert. I'm an attorney at Murphy Schiller and Wilks located in North New Jersey, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant this evening, Non Reality Holdings LLC. Uh thank you for having us back for continuation of our
application for preliminary and final major site plan approval uh use variance relief and related C variance relief and design waiverss for the proposed climate controlled self-control self storage facility at 360 Miltown Road identified
on your tax maps as block 165 two. Um before I go on, I just wanted to confirm if I can. Um there were a number of members, uh Miss Propes and Miss Oler that were absent at the first hearing and I just was wondering if if those
members that weren't present if they can just indicate to me so I have an idea um if they were able to review the uh transcripts and or watch the YouTube video from the prior hearing. >> I have received uh Mr. Franco has not
been able I'm sorry Mr. Franco has not been able to provide an affidavit >> if you want on the record if you did. >> I I have not >> have not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um
I I don't know my notes. I had uh Mr. G. I don't >> I did >> Thank you. Okay. >> I just want to point out um that unless you conclude this evening, he still has time to do that to vote at whenever we do conclude. >> Roller. Thank you. I'm hoping I can, but
we'll see. But that's certainly the goal on our end. >> So, thank you. >> Um, so, as the board will recall, it's it's been some time since our initial hearing. Um, that was all the way back in in mid-March. So, I'd like to just briefly reorient the board to this
application. Um, so just to quickly summarize, the applicants proposing to construct an approximately 85,000 square foot fourstory self- storage facility on the property um will contain approximately 227 storage units on the
northern end of the subject property. The overall property size is 6.4 acres and it is located in the township C3 office and service zone. Um property currently contains a onestory approximately 17,700
square foot research and development facility occupied by Avenos Inc. It also uh contains a direct air capture pilot facility that is operated by Avenos. Um that was the subject matter of a planning board application back in 2025.
um project uh is proposing a financial condominium arrangement, a financial subdivision if you may, not a subdivision in the formal land use sense, but we provided uh in our submitted plans where we think that the financial subdivision line will go um
between the two private parties, the applicant and the property owner. Um so the self- storage facility would be located on proposed unit A. um or contemplated unit A and the existing avenues facility would remain on on
contemplated land unit B. Uh in terms of the relief sought, the application requires the following variances. Um there is a D1 use variance being sought for a self- storage facility uh in the C3 zone. Self- storage is not a
permitted use in the zone. Um there's also a um C2 variance for the number of stories proposed where the ordinance permits a maximum of three stories. The applicant is seeking relief to permit four stories on the property given that
the basement the proposed basement counts as a story under the township's uh ordinance. Applicant is also seeking a D4 variance for floor area ratio of 36.8% 8% or 0.368
where 30% or.3 is permitted in the zone and um funny enough as it came up in the last hearing um the applicant is is seeking a potential D1 use variance for multiple principal structures and uses on a single lot um which we are prepared
to address tonight uh through the testimony of our professional planner should the board determine that relief is required. Um, we're also seeking additional relief in connection with with uh landscaping, foundation plantings, uh, tree replacement, loading
spaces, um, parking and loading locations, uh, loading space areas and dimensions. Um and then there's some relief being sought with respect to existing signage that was missed from the prior application before the planning board as well as some new
relief um in connection with proposed freestanding sign signage in connection with the self- storage facility. There was another variance noted at the last hearing which we'll address regarding the emergency fire access stabilized turf area. um with respect to F and
we'll touch on this very shortly in our architectural testimony, but I wanted to remind the board um that, you know, the applicant very deliberately designed the building so that floors one through three would be compliant with the township's floor area ratio requirements
and that the the floor area overage is is truly attributable to the basement level, which again is not visible to the public. Um building height is 40.57 feet or proposed to be 40.57 feet which complies with the 45 foot
maximum height permitted in the zone. Um we're also compliant with respect to imperous coverage at a proposed uh imperous coverage percentage of 36.6 which is approximately just over half of what's permitted in the zone for the
property. Um, so again, all of these representations are made in in furtherance of the board's evaluation as to whether the site is is particularly suitable for the proposed use and as well as whether the site can accommodate the proposed F overage.
On May 24th, 2026, we presented the testimony of of two expert witnesses. Um, the applicant presented the engineering testimony of Mr. Robert Michello of Gladstone Design. Um he provided detailed testimony regarding the site plan, existing site, proposed
site layout, um setbacks, building dimensions, and the anticipated relief. Um he was uh subject to to questions from the board, members of the public, and um I believe we've concluded his testimony unless the board would like to hear further testimony from Mr.
Michello. He is here this evening. Um the applicant also presented the traffic testimony of Corey Chase of Dynamic Traffic. Um, Mr. Ta Chase testified that the self- storage facility generates a maximum of only 14 trips during peak
hours. Um he testified that um if the applicant were to put a permitted use on the property to generate the same level of traffic that's anticipated with the proposed self- storage facility, which does trigger a D4 variance. Um, in
comparison, a 6,500 foot office building or a 3,000 foot medical office building is projected to generate the same level of traffic as the proposed self storage facility for this application. Uh, likewise, um, board have the opportunity
to question Mr. Chase and, um, the public comment portion with respect to Mr. Chase's testimony was closed. Um, he is not in attendance this evening. So, I'm hoping as I, as I represented to Mr. roller that we will be able to conclude our our application. We have two remaining expert witnesses and I'm also
uh joined this evening by the principal. Um we I intend to call uh our architect Susan Deart who will address the building's architectural design uh internal layout and and address the professional questions um the professional reports. And I'm also
joined by our professional planner Shepard of Planning and Consulting who will provide the planning justification and proofs for the variance relief that we're seeking. Um before I call our first witness, there were some there
were several open items from the prior hearing that the board asked for us to resolve. One of them was with respect to um our marshall's review memo which had to do with the fire access area, the stabilized turf area to the east of the
proposed building. Um I do have I I was able to um contact Mr. Scalera and I had him put in writing um great appreciation making available so that I could address
this to the board this evening. Um we we were able to come up with a compromise that the uh stabilized turf area would be increased from 20 feet as it's current as it was currently proposed to 23 feet. Um Mr. Scara originally
requested a 24 foot wide uh stabilized turf area for emergency services uh and vehicles. Um so we were able to come up with that 23 foot number. So, if this application is approved, we would increase the stabilized turf area to
total 23 feet in width. Um, >> and just to help me remember, >> yes, >> that that access to the stabilized turf was meant to be behind the building, but adjacent to the railroad tracks that are back there and the >> kind of BM that holds them up.
>> Um, so now you're are you making your building smaller? How are you getting the extra >> Yes. So the the space between the building was was 23 and a half feet approximately. The space between the building and the property line setback. We proposed originally a 20 foot wide
stabilized turf area. So we're we're just going to extend the stabilized turf area the full width. Um and that seemed satisfactory to Mr. Scaler. What I have, which if I may, um because this came up at the last hearing, I did want to get something in writing from him.
>> Sure. if I would be permitted um to pass out um email confirmation correspondence with Mr. Scalera and if I can mark it as an exhibit. >> Mr. Roller, are you comfortable with that? >> I think so. Yeah, let's see it. And it'll be A4.
>> A4 and we can entitle it email correspondence between fire marshall and applicants council dated May 28th, 2026. Just to clar not to clarify but to reiterate what I said there is no ext or reduction in the size of the building.
You're just going to stabilize turf on an existing piece of land that had already that was already there. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> That actually makes sense. I had represented in the last meeting that we did review the plans with Mr. Scalera um
prior to our submission to make sure there was adequate space. And I think that there was a miscommunication about the size of the stabilized turf area. We got the the setback, the building setback correct. Stabilized turf area needed to be increased and I I think we
were able to address that adequately. >> Okay. Thank you. >> While we're passing that in information around, Mr. Bird, did you have any comment that you'd like to or question? about the stabilized turf area that will
be Thank you. behind the building. >> Thank you. >> Um well, this is the first time I'm I'm seeing or hearing about this, Mr. Chairman, but >> Yes. >> No, I I guess I guess just as a point of clarification for maybe Michael. Um was
this as a result of a meeting with the fire official or And I'll let I'll let Oh, you have your mic. Yeah, I'm >> It was just a It was just >> a discussion over the phone. >> So, I met with Mr. Scalera um during our during an informal conceptual review. Um
and we had discussed it then. We had our March 24th hearing. This topic came up and I wanted to immediately address this with Mr. Scara following the conclusion of our March 24th meeting. Um so, this this culminated into phone
correspondence with Mr. uh square where I had asked him to please look at the site plan and I laid out my proposal to increase the stabilized turf area from 20t to 23 feet. Um Mr. Scara called me back called me and left me a voicemail
after reviewing the plans and indicated that he was okay with the proposal. So didn't want to come to the board with a with a voicemail. So I I asked him to put it um in writing. Um, and I'm I'm I think that I'll have additional requirements to get that in a revised
fire review memo um during post-approval compliance should this be approved. Um, but I wanted to come back to the board with something saying that we did address this and um hopefully we can get that in a revised fire review memo. And
so an updated plan has not been prepared yet to >> but as as I understand you said there's 23 and a half feet setback now proposed from the rear of the building to the property line and 23 of that 23 and a
half ft would be this fire lane. >> Correct. >> Okay. And at at the last meeting and and I don't know that it was resolved, but I think one of the board members had uh requested or asked a question of if there was space to the rear of the building to accommodate some additional
landscaping. In this current scenario, the answer would be no. But I'm curious as we move through tonight's hearing if there's an opportunity to shift the building a little bit, reorient the building a little bit to not only accommodate this wider fire lane, but
also maybe some landscape plantings in there. Something to keep in mind. >> Um, we were we were we were going I was I was going to address landscaping momentarily because I was able to make um some progress on that end. Um, we don't anticipate providing landscaping
to the rear of the building since it abuts the railroad. I I don't it it's truly not visible. Um, I I think that there it would be increased landscaping and enhanced landscaping is is better served elsewhere on the property than
abudding the railroad in in my opinion. Obviously with this proposal um we wouldn't we wouldn't be able to increase landscaping behind the building. However um and I don't I don't mean interrupt if you have more questions but
>> um there were a couple of of landscaping items which I wanted to to address. >> Okay. Be >> before you do that. >> Yes. >> So we have 23 and a half feet. >> Why not just stabilize it all? Um, if if it if it can be done, then we
would be happy to do that if it can be done. >> And we're talking about, you know, it's it's I know it's petty, but I'm saying you're going to measure out 23 feet and there's going to be six inches hanging over that you're not going to stabilize. I mean, >> I I I would I would answer that to the
above no less than 23 feet and to the greatest extent possible to utilize the entire setback, we'll use we'll utilize stabilized turf. Okay. Fair enough. >> I know from an construction feasibility standpoint. >> Yeah. And that might be the that might be the answer right there.
>> The idea was the 23 ft was supposed to satisfy. >> Right. I understand. >> I have a question. >> Mrs. I have a question. How uh before it was only 20 ft of space behind the building.
Are you reducing the building or moving the building? >> No. So I should allow me to explain explain that better better. the proposed setback, the building setback was, I believe, 23.5 >> uh feet and within that building
setback, we had originally proposed 20 a 20 foot wide stabilized turf area in the event of emergencies and we're increasing that to the full width of the building setback. >> So, it didn't >> My goal in speaking with Mr. scaler was
to hopefully not have to reconfigure or relocate the building to see if we could work within the 23 ft and change uh between the proposed building and the property line >> and the fire marshall is fine with it >> in I mean I'm I'm I'm representing yes
and I'm hoping that the email correspondence um evidences that and look we'll still as a as a condition of approval we'll have to still get an updated um we'll still have to get fire marshal sign sign off from the fire um department, if
you will. So, it's it's not over, but I was just trying to evidence that we made progress on that front. >> Mr. Pasio, did you have a question? >> Yeah. Um I think the context is certainly important when you speak to the fire marshall kind of to show them that the lane 23 foot lane width is
starting right at the face of the wall here. Um I mean, do you have anything protruding off your facade that's going to be fing your your We do, but I can confirm with our architect who's about to testify, but I don't I don't believe so.
>> Okay. But I think certainly the context that a plan that our board engineer had mentioned, I think is really important. Um because he this individual may be thinking a 23 foot wide lane, not realizing it's literally adjacent to the face of the building.
>> Yeah. And I unfortunately I don't have um the abil I I don't have Mr. are here to testify to that. But all I can say is I he does have the site plan. So I I did like very clearly explain I certainly don't want to relocate the building if I
do not have to. Can you work with this proposed access way if we increase the stabilized turf a couple of feet to 23 feet? I'm I'm representing it. I'm not under oath. >> That's the email correspondence I felt very fortunate to get in in advance of
tonight. So um >> but according to your your email, this was all done by voicemail, right? There was no direct conversation. >> There was there was no direct conversation. So he left me a voicemail uh wasn't able to reach him and
confirmed that this would be okay. >> Okay. So your representation is that you would accept a condition to stabilize the entire area from the rear of the building to the rear yard. >> Yes. Right. >> And of course, just like any other approval, I still have to get we still
have to get the fire um division to approve the final plan anyway before they would ever consider issuing a building permit should this be approved. >> So, um >> Miss Armed, did you have a question as well? >> I think it a little bit of it end up being covered, right? I think I was
going to ask the same question Mr. Oler just asked. >> You just had that look about you like you had a question. That's why I'm asking. Well, and part of it is, I think, the same questions that Mr. Vesio asked. You know, how much was explained to Tomclara was it we don't know the
context of what was proposed to him. You know, Mr. Burr and I were not involved in any kind of meeting to go through that or over it. >> Um, so we don't have the benefit of what the what both ends of the conversation were. We we can see there's a confirmation but we don't know how it was posed this particulars if he had a
plan in front of him if the middle and the other thing is the you know the site plans right now show a 23 foot setback. So if 23 and a half was what was they were trying to achieve they'd absolutely have to move the building because it's an impossibility at this point to do 23 and a half when you have a 23 foot
setback showing on your site plan right now. >> Okay. So then it's only 23. >> It's only 23 because that's what the plans are showing unless unless they're wrong or unless would stabilize the whole thing is what you're saying. >> Correct. And and I guess the other consideration is if they did need 24 feet, they would have to move the building and
>> or make the building smaller. >> Correct. Or if they wanted to put a a if top Mr. Scara wanted a separation between the building and the roadway, if that ended up being a condition, they'd either have to shift the building >> and make it smaller or potentially even seek a front yard setback variance
because they are kind of close to that. So there I think there's a lot of factors that may or may not have been considered and and we're just not privy to them because we weren't part of that conversation. >> So we're not trying to uh impeach your
testimony, Mr. Silver. We're just trying to elaborate and find out the missing pieces that we don't have in front of us right now. But what we're really saying is that um at this moment in time, although we accept your representation
that the conversation took place, we need more detail in order to accept this as a solution. >> Well, at the at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, the the fire marshall is going to have to we can't get a building permit on this. >> I understand that, but the building permit comes after the approval. And
right now, we're not certain um on what ground we're standing um in order to even propose an approval at this point. >> So then why don't we say that we'll comply with we'll comply with the fire marshall's review memo. I expect that he
would update it in accordance with his >> conversation. And so I'm expecting a revised fire review memo. >> Nonetheless, we would have to comply. So if he requires 24 ft, then we'd have to come back and seek a amended site plan approval.
>> Right. I think that's fair. But Mr. have an opinion on that. Well, I I I think we should just understand what you're saying here and move on to architect issues because I think you
have a lot of architect issues that haven't been addressed. And I think when you address those, you may end up redesigning the building and then maybe there's a 24 foot lane. >> Right. Just one last thing I guess if it is
being considered is the driveway there is a driveway setback requirement in the township code. >> Yes. >> Of 10 feet. So I think just so the board is aware and I don't know if it came up at the last hearing. I can't remember. >> Yeah. I think that we you'd be having to seek a seek that regardless of how wide
it is um in the present condition or the proposed condition. It still needs a 10. It still needs a setback variance for that. >> In the back you're saying >> in the back for the emergency drive. It's still driveway. >> And is that considered a driveway even though it's only meant to be emergency access in the back of the property?
>> In my opinion, yes. The the way the code reads, you know, driveway is it can be anything. It can be, you know, a driveway to someone's house. It can be a driveway. It's the intensity of them different. Okay. >> But this would be an an emergency driveway in my opinion. >> Thank you.
Sure, >> Mr. Silver. Why don't we why don't we move on with our with our architectural testimony because that certainly could could drive um >> you know our our plan forward with that. >> So Mr. Silberg with your indulgence I think now since we kind of burned
through a >> fine >> few extra minutes. Why don't we take a 10-minute break then reconvene with your architect's testimony. Would that be acceptable to you? >> Very good. So let's adjourn for 10 minutes and we'll reconvene in 10.
Miss Probes, would you like to do a roll call for us? >> Chairman Kulak >> here. >> Mr. Wedelli >> here. >> Mrs. Zamin >> here. >> Mr. Franco >> here. >> Ms. Rose. >> Mr. Gi >> here. >> Miss Wisman
>> here. >> Mr. Vesio >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Kawuchcci >> here. >> Mr. Mcnella >> here. >> Mr. Aller >> here. >> Mr. Burr >> here. >> Star >> here. >> And we have everyone. >> Everyone's back.
>> Everyone made it back. Thank you, Mr. Silbert. Thank you. You may continue. >> Do you need some microphone assistance? We have experts available. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I would just based upon um what happened prior
to our our recess here, I would like to bring up my my first witness, uh, Miss Susan Deart, who is our professional architect. Um, I believe she was sworn at the first meeting, but Mr. Roller. >> Yeah, we'll do it again just be sure. >> Yeah.
>> So, would you raise your right hand, please? >> You can even go up to the podium wherever you're comfortable. >> Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. >> And your full name, please.
>> Susan De Hart. >> Can you spell your last name? >> D E capital H A R T. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um if I don't know if there's anything else I need to do on my end to get the
screen um back up so that I can present um our exhibit. I don't I don't know if the because we were in recess. >> Yeah, I'll see if we can get you some help, Suzanne. >> It's okay. >> Oh, no worries. I'm actually now having
trouble getting the um computer screen back up. While we're getting our technology squared away, um Mr. Hart, if you could just um provide your credentials and professional background to the board in in the field of architecture.
>> Yes, I'm a principal with USA Architects in Somerville. I have a bachelor of architecture from Virginia Tech and I've been licensed in the state of New Jersey since 2009. >> License is in good standing. >> Yes. Have you testified in front of zoning boards and planning boards in the state of New Jersey prior to this
evening? >> I have most recently in Somerville and in Morris Township. >> Have you testified in front of this board before? >> I don't believe so. >> Okay. Well, >> well, welcome then. We're happy to have you and we accept your credentials. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um,
Mr. Hart, um, did you pref prepare the architectural plans that are before the board this evening? >> I did. Yes. And if you will give me one moment, I'm going to getuals on uh the screen here. This these
architecturals were previously submitted with to the board and they're on file with the board. >> Yes. >> No changes to the um plans we're about to >> correct. No changes. >> All right. And you'll just tell me if you want me to zoom in or zoom out. Mr. Er, do you want to mark this as an
exhibit? >> No, this is the same set that we have in our in our packages. Correct. >> Yes, Mr. Roller. >> It's not necessary. >> Okay. So, uh, start, why don't why don't you start off with with what we're looking at here and
>> absolutely. So, you have concept plans on sheet A1 and then we also have concept elevation and perspective views on sheet A2. I think maybe it makes sense to look at plans first. So, as previously noted, the overall
proposed building square footage is approximately 85,000 square foot. So, we're proposing one level below grade, which we're calling a basement, and then three levels above grade. Each floor is approximately 21,000 square feet. So, the main entry to the building is on the
southeast corner of the first floor. So, that's the plan in the center of the page. and that has a glass entrance that faces the main driveway. Um, clearly the main entry point. Off of that lobby, we've got an office where staff will be
present during business hours, as I understand. There's a single-user toilet, which is available for use by anybody who has access to the building. We've got an egress stair, and then there's three elevators here. It's my understanding that subsequent to the submission of this plan, it was
determined that we only need one elevator from a functional standpoint and from a code standpoint, that's also the case. So, it's likely that we may reduce the number of elevators in the building moving forward. >> Is there any specific reason other than meeting the minimum that you would
choose to reduce the number of elevators? I mean, from a service perspective, I've got four floors. How many units? Um we're showing 305 in these plans total. Um it also the units that are shown
here. It's important to note that's a placeholder only. The sizes and the quantity may shift once a management company comes in and looks at what's required in this area. How to best serve the community. >> I'm just it's your it's your building. It's your design. It's your plan. I'm
just wondering out loud if I've got 400 and something storage units if one elevator is going to be enough when I originally proposed three. So, it's up to you guys. >> Would you say that the uh consideration to the number of elevators is not
necessarily based upon the size of the building, but the amount of traffic that the building generates? I would how many people are likely to be in the building at the same time would be my opinion. But once again, we would investigate that further. I guess my point is just that one is all that's technically
required. So you might see a reduction there perhaps down to two even. >> Okay. >> I think that's something that to be discussed further as we move forward. >> That's great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So then the EMR there next to the elevators is a mechanical space. And if
we go all the way down to the other end of the building, we have another egress stair and an electrical room. Everything else on the floor plan are storage units of various sizes. If you look at the basement floor plan and the two upper levels, they're very similar. The only
difference is that we've introduced a corridor along the front of the building for circulation. On the first floor, we do have 21 units that are directly accessible to the outside. that's along the planned south side at the front of the building. And I
believe there was testimony the last time there was a concern that vehicles might enter those units and that's not the intent at all. The doors are only six feet wide and there is a sidewalk that runs along the front of the buildings. >> So a vehicle cannot pull up to those rollup doors on the exterior of the
building. >> Correct. You could pull up to the sidewalk for, you know, ease of unloading, but you can't back right up to the building. Can you uh talk about perhaps the the design intent of providing units in this manner?
>> From a design perspective, it makes the most sense to have those units be on the front of the building. Whereas aesthetically, I could understand a question around that. I think from a functional and site access standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. And also, you know, we were talking about the challenges with the access at the back of the building. So clearly we wouldn't
want to try to have um you know a drive up unloading area back there. >> And as far as a um is is the point of of these types of rollup doors self storage facilities you know we we've seen a number of self- storage facilities across the state and the country that
that provide the opportunity for for vehicles to pull up directly to the units and even potentially access the units. These units don't do that per your testimony. So what is the purpose of this? Is it is it for convenience or >> Correct. It's for convenience and the
the rollup door is just the easiest way to get a larger opening that allows you to maybe unload some larger belongings. >> So So it could be would you anticipate I know you're not the operator, but would you anticipate that um somebody who leases this storage unit may pay a
premium for the convenience factor of having this on the ground floor? >> I would imagine so. Yes. >> Okay. And is this atypical or or have you seen this design before? >> Um, personally I have not seen it one way or the other with respect to backing
up. I can't comment on that. >> But it but you've seen um ground floor storage units with rollup doors. >> Okay. Well, as you're continuing your testimony, did you have you designed similar um self- storage facilities and
designed them with rollup doors or is this your your first design? >> We have. >> Well, I'm asking you personally. >> Me personally, I have not, but Okay. Certainly have. >> But your firm has. >> Okay. And aesthetically from your
perspective, you're designing the building and then the setting of this building is is somewhat unique in that we're across from the 4H fairgrounds, a variety of parkland and so on. So
despite the industrial use next door and the um some of the buildings being not so much out of the scope of the neighborhood but just a little outside, this one is going to stand out because of the rollup doors um contrasting with
the parkland across the street. So from a design perspective, I'm just questioning what I'm trading off and Mr. silver seem to intimate that perhaps it's a premium price that the operator might be getting for these units versus those which are
less accessible. But do you have a perspective on it? >> I do. Well, first of all, I grew up in Bridgewater, so I'm really familiar with this area. I drive down the road all the time. Um, actually, the first building I ever designed on my own was the toilet pavilion at North Branch Park.
>> Okay. >> So, I have a lot of pride around that. But yeah, I'm very familiar with the spot and I understand the concern. But I also think the rollup doors are selected in a color, like theoretically they'd be selected in a color to match this facade adjacent and you really wouldn't notice
it unless it was actively in use. So the thought process is to try to make those blend and stand down as much as possible. >> And and are you even taking to taking into account are you considering the the buffering that would be present on the property too in terms of noticing it? Are you are you saying you wouldn't
notice it unless you were on the site if you were on the street based upon the the proposed landscaping? >> Absolutely. Landscaping would certainly help to shelter it as well. But I do think that just having a good material color match would make it stand down quite a bit.
And you may you may have already provided this or a lot of the board finds very helpful drawings that show the perspective from let's say Miltown Road from the north end of the building, the south end, the rear end. We're not
we're not sure um if it's going to be visible to anybody, but oftentimes the perspective of those drawings helps us um understand the aesthetics of the design and the function. And so I I just wanted to leave that out there.
>> Sure. If if the board uh will leave an open mind with respect to the to the proposed exterior rollup doors on the ground floor, um I can certainly have uh Mr. from Mochello um present um the originally proposed landscaping design
and speak directly to whether or not the proposed buffering would provide adequate shielding of these exterior doors assuming that the board was concerned about the appearance from Miltown Road as well as speak to any enhanced landscaping improvements that he would propose to address the board's
fears with respect to um you know the impact that ground flooror rollups could have to the surrounding area. Okay, please continue. >> Thank you. >> So, with respect to the floor plans, are there any other >> Sorry, Mrs. Zamin has a question for you.
>> Sorry, >> I have a question regarding the the ground floor those doors. How big are the doors? >> The doors are six feet wide. >> Uhhuh. >> The height I would have to verify
looking at this. I think we're at about seven feet. >> Seven feet. And they're rollup doors. >> Yeah, they're they're coiling rollup doors. Yes. >> Okay. >> Are they are they similar to the roll-up doors that would be found in the interior? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> The reason I'm asking this question is uh is there a demand for people to have exterior doors so they can go in? >> I do think there is. Actually, thank you for asking that because I was going to mention that earlier. In addition to being able to charge a premium, I do
think there's a demand for that. It may be >> Did you do a study to determine the demand? >> Personally, USA architects did not do a study. >> Do you have a te someone who's going to testify with respect to demand? >> Um, we we can have somebody testify with respect to demand. The principal is here
who has um uh pretty large range of experience with respect to self storage. Um I think uh and I I so I think that answers you and if with respect if the board wants additional testimony regarding the demand or >> I can tell you with the with the last
two >> yes >> self storage facilities that were approved by this board neither of which had rollup doors by the way. >> Yes. >> Um there there rollup doors >> exterior rollup doors. There was testimony with respect to demand.
>> Yes. So, if the board would would want to hear that, we we could provide that. Um, I Mr. Oler was was uh gracious enough to provide me with a copy of a resolution from a prior application, which I which I didn't get to address, and maybe I'll address that at a later
time, but I did note that it seemed like that uh application was modified so as to remove the rollup doors. However, my understanding is from the the prior applicants that that tried to obtain approval with exterior rollup doors um
that they were seeking they they were that those proposals did not have sidewalks that the doors were intended to have vehicles drive up to it. So, we have a little bit of a unique um proposal and certainly are not trying to set a precedent where the board approves
this application should they approve it with roll-up doors when they previously denied the other um they they didn't deny they approved the other applications without it. I'm I'm simply highlighting that there is a uh difference and a uniqueness to this proposal that wasn't to my knowledge uh
proposed to the board. So, I'm asking the board to at least consider it with a fresh perspective, uh, particularly if we are able to satisfy any type of visual concerns that the board might have with respect to Miltown Road and the bucolic nature of the properties across the street. Um, so noted on on
testimony of demand and and I'm hoping that we can minimize the impact um through additional testimony. So, >> were any options explored without the rollup doors on the exterior? We we to to my knowledge they were not ex
explored and if if the board comes to the conclusion that there is no way for the applicant to mitigate the board's concerns whether that has to do with the the use of the storage units or the impact to the surrounding properties or
to the to to just the visual impact of it then we would we would explore it but um I it's it's very important having spoken to the applicant and and he can certainly testify to this. It's it's a very important feature of the project. Um, you know, we I don't want to
backtrack. I want to focus on the architecture, but we tried to come in here and and obviously the board's going to have um suggestions. We really tried to come in here with our best foot forward. I know a lot of applicants come in and they seek way more than what they can get and they try to play this game
with the board, a tradeoff where, you know, you make these changes or you reduce the size, etc. I am I'm not lying when I say that we we tried to come in here with something that that we thought would be palatable to the board um to the public right off the bat. Not asking for too much, asking for something that
we felt was appropriate for the size, the impervious coverage, the height, and we're still asking for those rollup doors. Again, if we can mitigate the impacts of them, we will certainly do that. if the costs to mitigate them are are extreme. It's a business decision
that you know the the principal can determine what the cost and the trade-off is to try to um accommodate the board with respect to its concerns if the board would allow us to keep those exterior features. That was our thought process.
>> So, you don't need to respond to this, but I'm going to pose the question sort of generally. Has anyone in the architectural world said, "Um, I wonder if I can come up with a better door, better appearing door than a typical metal rollup door that would operate the
same way, give you the same functionality, but it would look different or better." And I I don't know if it's true, but just I'm going to throw that out there for future consideration. >> Certainly. and and I'll let um Mr. Deart speak to that, but that's why this this
opportunity that we have uh to get feedback and for you to hear our feedback, that's why it's it's it's an important feature. Obviously, when I started this hearing this evening, I was hoping to to conclude our our testimony, but but hearing feedback from the board um gives us the opportunity to respond
appropriately. And so, um, if there's if as we move on with our presentation, if the if if we get the idea that there's a a clear problem with the material or the style of the roll-up door, we would certainly tried to address those concerns. Um, so, uh, if I could turn it
turn it back to you, Mr. Deart, there um, you had touched upon something regarding the floor plan. So, the the unit count is not um, set in stone. The the operator eventually might determine different sized units. >> Correct. So the overall quantity may change, but the locations of the units
within the building, the egress corridor, and the entry points would all be the same. >> One of the concerns about that the board has had in the past about combining units is turning in turning this into more of a warehouse type of building, right? One of the conditions in the uh
prior resolution was that it could be used as a a warehouse operation, which of course we would um it would be in in our standard lease anyway, but we would agree for that to be a condition of approval. >> Um >> well, you wouldn't have the ceiling heights, but you could have the width.
Like what if what if they combined your entire first floor into one unit? if if the if the in in that I believe in that uh resolution for the application that just sought an extension of their approval. I believe there was a condition in there that required that
the units not be combined. So if the board has if the board has a concern above and beyond just the ordinary condition requiring that it can't be used for warehousing, then I I wouldn't see any reason why we couldn't agree to to that condition. It's reasonable that
um you wouldn't want to see 10 units combined. So, um I think what uh Mr. Hart was just explaining is that you see a certain number of units proposed and a certain size units. >> You're talking about combining units, which I guess is certainly related. I I'm just trying to represent that if you
see uh a 10 by 20 interior unit, that that might not be the the unit size. They might do, and correct me if I'm mistaken, it might be 12 by 20, >> right? And the quantities of each might differ too. I think that that's really
>> Yeah. There's going to be >> point of view, your your building will support the flexibility of sizing those units differently. >> Correct. >> And we're asking simply that you consider our previous request to >> eliminate the possibility that somebody
might create a kind of mini warehouse effect and running a business out of there that >> it's already agreed 100%. In addition, another condition that was found in the prior resolution um that I that I looked at was that you know a leie of a storage
unit may not operate it as you know they can't stay there overnight. They can't operate a business out of there. Um actually I don't know if you can confirm or deny this but um it was indicated to me that the storage units don't have any um outlets. >> Correct. There's no power within each
individual unit. So that can be a condition to to as a as another safeguard to prevent >> I think we're all on the same page. We're just having a dialogue about what the impact of having that flexibility would be and how we might limit that flexibility somewhat so as to achieve
our goals and still let the business have the flexibility that they need. >> Mr. Chair, we could >> please >> stipulate that they can't exceed 300 square feet. >> Well, I was getting there. Yeah. Yeah. There needs to be a maximum size. I mean allows you configuration but we set a
limit of 300 ft. >> Units cannot exceed 300 square ft. >> Sorry, but we need you to either come up or you guys can take five minute break. Whatever you want to do. >> Yes, Mr. Nataly, come up, please. >> And and I'm going to need to swear you
in before you start to talk. So, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth? So, help >> and your name for the record, please. >> Joseph Nataly. >> Okay. So, we were just talking about a 300 foot maximumsized unit.
>> Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity. Um, it's tough listening to things and you can't respond back there. And um I want to first start with there is absolutely in the industry zero market for 10-ft ceilings and wide
floors. So economically that's unfeasible. >> Mhm. >> Number two, these are not Legos. I I want to make sure that everyone understands not being in the industry that they're not like you can't move a door, you can't take down a wall. and
the industry. Thirdly, and most importantly, is the reason why this is a placeholder is because the market is going smaller 5x5s, 5x10s. People don't want the 10 by 20s. That's the least desirable. The bigger ones are
the least desirable. And again, it couldn't be industrial ever. So, as far as limiting the square footage, not a problem. As far as limiting the height, not a problem. the doors, changing the doors on the outside to accommodate aesthetically between plants and making
the doors the same color. First of all, any door that is the same color of the building aesthetically, you're going to have to really be really close to notice it. And secondly, the door. I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you so much because I
have several of these going on. It's first time I had questions. If there's a door out there that is more pleasing um to the board to Bridgewater, no problem. Zero issue with accommodating that. As far as the doors outside, there's a massive market for convenience. There's
not enough of them. They don't have to, let's say there's a gate. They get their key. The gate lifts up until 9:00 at night. They don't have to go in the building. No concern being dark. It's dark couple months a year, 4:30, 5:00.
people want to pull up, it's lit, they want to walk on the sidewalk and they want to utilize um those that facility in that manner on the outside. So it it is yeah people could say and some somehow it's a criticism there's a
premium there's a premium but they it costs more to build from the outside and people want them there's a market for it if there wasn't a big market for it we wouldn't do it we just put them on the inside and it helps us with square footage but I want to put everyone's
mind at ease ceiling height there's nothing industrial about it there's no market for it zero and secondly the market is looking for less units. So, Public Storage is the management company, the largest in the world that we've employed to do our latest project
to manage our latest project out in um out in um Cranford, New Jersey on 16 Commerce Drive. There was another question um before as far as you had a question. Oh, elevator, >> right?
>> That was an era. The three elevators was designed in era. When we saw that, we corrected it. I have a 40 Well, the family has a 145,000 foot building being built with,75 units, one elevator, because there's so
few people there at any given time. I've always used uh that I've always said used the saying that there's only one industry that that has less traffic than self storage. That's a cemetery with the exception of a holiday.
>> Right? So, I hope I've answered some questions. I'm happy to answer any other questions while I'm up here and I can't thank you enough for the opportunity to speak for a few minutes. >> We appreciate your testimony and thank you for offering your insight and flexibility to us. I think at this
moment um would you prefer to continue with your architectural testimony? >> I just have just a couple of questions for uh Mr. Natalyia if I may and then and then would like to go back to architecture. But um Mr. Nataly, you're in the self- storage business.
>> We are. The family is my my children. >> And and um would you consider yourself to have uh above the knowledge of a of a of an average person with respect to self storage? I I just want the board to gauge your level of expertise. >> I do I I do consider myself a
professional in in the industry. when you're building buildings from 80,000 to 145,000 and being designed and dealing with the largest companies and professionals in the in the world, let alone the country. Um, yeah, I do and I say that humbly.
>> Um, and and approximately how many projects are are you involved with with respect to self storage >> currently? Seven. >> Seven projects. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. >> That's it. >> That's all. >> If there's any other questions, I'm happy to come back up again. >> Hey, thank you. >> And thanks for the advice on the doors. We'll get back, >> Mr. Chairman. Welcome.
>> Can I just ask two question? >> Oh, please. Miss Armed, you have a couple questions. >> Yeah, if you don't mind. >> I wasn't looking at you, so I >> It's easier to answer the questions up here than to sit back there. >> Oh, and I don't want to make you walk back and forth. >> No, please. >> Um, are the units that have the rollup doors, are they climate controlled? >> Everything is climate controlled.
>> So, even those ones, >> even outside. >> Got it. Um, >> at Do you have any are you currently operating or or fun or own any self- storage buildings that are, you know, under are already operating? No, I don't at this point right now because what we
do is we build them and then have them managed by a professional organization with greater expertise than us and then we make decisions three years down the road whether we keep them or sell them. >> Okay. Thank you. I I was just curious because the what you described about the
convenience is convenient for some some people, right? And and it's exactly in some cases exactly what was prohibited in the other case, right? That a if someone is using this unit as, you know, a plumber or a contractor of some sort, right? And storing their tools or extra
stuff. It happens it happens all the time. there. They would love something where there's, you know, they they they gate in and then they can get in till 9:00 p.m. and they can they can offload their stuff. And I was just asking if you if you currently operate any to see if that if that's ever been an
enforcement issue because even if it's a condition of the resolution for the township and for the board, I guess my my real question is how how can it be enforced? Management isn't enforcing it. >> Well, it's very aggressively enforced. >> Yeah. So, and I say this respectfully to you as a professional planner. Of
course, there's a lot of scenarios. What if, what if, what if, two things I want to say. I think it's a little unfair to do a what if, although they're great questions and they are possibilities, but I always say there's probabilities and possibilities. The probability is an
accurate question, but the possibility based on the lease, the cameras, 82 cameras per building to 115 cameras, it is so heavily enforced, we can go under certain provisions, we have the right to open the locker and check if we see
anything that's an issue, and I mean anything. without notice um with 24 hours notice we can ask you to remove yourself and your locker give it up your self storage uh unit or units. So it is
very very heavily enforced and everything is so digital. There is the management company has a um a company that literally if any sensor goes off after hours after any hour let's say 6:00 someone leaves we're open for
another 3 hours. there is under visual camera. There are people that sit in the room that will call the police if they see any issue, any lording, any anyone trying to sneak someone in. It is heavily enforced. It's you really can't
fool around and people are asked to leave. Now, the other last thing I want to say to your point and good points is that how many doors do we have on the outside, please? >> 21. >> 21. 88,000 square foot building approximately. Forgive me if I'm off a
couple thousand square feet and there's only 21 doors and it could be 5 by10s, 5x5s. It's a very very small piece of the building. >> It can't be 5x5, right? >> Well, they have a 10 foot width because
the door access that you're >> But the doors are six. So, well, the Did Did you design I'm sorry. They're 10 feet wide on the outside. >> They're six feet wide. The doors are six feet but the units are >> they are 10 by 30. So yeah, I think there's just a there is a limitation for
them, >> right? They let there is but it's a very small ratio, a singledigit ratio of the building and there's 49,000 people in I believe last count was 49,000 people in Bridgewater, 8,500 in Ritton,
18,900 in Somerville. You >> have applications there, don't you? >> There's a rumor. My family, my children do. Um, yes, we do. So, we studied the market to great lengths. There's programs that are not AI. They're just
programs where you could plug in an address and see what the market demand and need is. And the reason why we're in Somerville, to your point, real quick, is because out of all those apartments, those magnificent apartments, and the resurrection of that great job that they
um renaissance that's taken place the last 25 years, there is zero square footage in the burrow of Somerville. So at the end of the day, there's a big need. That's why you've seen a surge of applications the last few years because there's just nothing out there on 202
towards Wegman's. There's those little garages, that little place behind the Spanish restaurant. That's it. So until hopefully the next couple years of construction, there's a big need and there's a massive need for the exterior.
It's not just because of the 30 cent premium. It's I don't want anybody to think it's because of that. it's a need and we just want to service it. So, if we have to get better doors or colors, a specific color for you, um, or additional landscaping, we're happy to do it.
>> And I and I appreciate your testimony and I think you've provided some really good information that's very helpful to the board and answered my questions. Um, >> but there's another one coming. >> There is one more coming because um, you've done such a good job. So, um, there, you know, I in reviewing this
application and reviewing because we have a few other applications that have either been approved or pending, etc. You know, I've had a good chance to kind of study, >> I could give you the addresses, >> what exists in in Bridgewater. Um, currently, not what's proposed, but what exists currently, and it seems like
majority of the the four properties that are in Bridgewater right now all have exterior rollup doors. Our older sort of older facilities, you know, there's a range. big difference in those. Yeah. >> So that's my question is is there a difference in what you are proposing and
the demand for newer climate controlled exterior access versus what exists in Bridgewater today? >> I'm not as familiar with the older ones because to be honest with you, they're antiquated. They're really bad. So I wasn't concerned about them. They have an issue with all this new construction that's going to be taking place, the
evolution of the self storage industry in the area. But I could tell you that the demand is for certain square footage, very minimum. We have 18 20 doors. Forgive me what the number was. It escapes me. They want they want to know that it's it's climate controlled
100%. And that's it. So we purposely put a sidewalk there so we we don't attract only contractors. We want to discourage that. That's why or else why would I put a sidewalk, right, for paving and maybe stick some more uh parking there. Parking wasn't required. we we we
fulfill the need of the community based on the exterior. It's a very singledigit uh percentage of the overall square footage. So, we kind of tried to find the balance to uh uh Michael's uh Michael Silbert's um point. We tried to come in with our best
foot forward, something that fits the community, something that fits the need of the public, and trying to find a balance. That's all I tried to do. >> Thank you. >> You're very welcome, and thank you so much for your time. I hope I didn't over take advantage of you being here just to ask if there are any members of the
public that would have questions of you at this time. >> And and Mr. Burr has a question as well. >> I do as well. >> Okay. We have a lot of questions, but we're gonna problem. >> I'm going to just close the public comment because there's nobody coming up. And Mr. Burr, you wanted to go first or would you like Miss Rose to go first?
>> Miss Rose can go first. Um, did I understand you correctly to say that people are looking for smaller storage? >> Is there a possibility that in this building you would design it such that you don't have an issue with F? Can you make it smaller?
>> I can't because the based on cost I need to pencil from the financial side. There's a certain amount of square footage associated with the construction cost and the acquisition. That's just sheer economics. To make it smaller, they just don't work. I I would love for example, we would have loved to have
gone. You want to say something? >> Yes. Mr. Nataly, you also said that you believe based upon your research that there's an incredible demand, a pent-up demand for storage units and that while while certainly like most developments, um would would you say yes, there's a
financial advantage to building a bu bigger building, but there's also a benefit to to the public in the sense that you're meeting this pent-up demand by having more units. That's a That's exactly right. I couldn't have said it any better. Um, usually typically, uh, like I said, my my most recent that's
under construction right now is 145,000 square feet. I would love nothing more than to put up 125,000. That's that's like the sweet spot in the industry. This building is already 3540,000 square feet under. We're at the point where that's why I went into the ground
because I couldn't make I couldn't justify the square footage. So, that's why we put one full level in the ground. Like Sally, the con going into the ground is is far more expensive than just expanding the footprint of the building. >> Oh yeah, absolutely.
>> What excuse me, what other sites did you look at in the township? >> Well, what was available? We just we scanned the township. We actually uh retained the expertise of a very successful he happens to be here this
evening uh Mr. Silbert realy management company and uh pulled up everything that's that's available the last year or so and that's what pointed us to this u to this area and what I also like about it is it lacks we're not bothering residential
people there's a research building next door that at one point was very industrial um it just fit the area and with the exception of traffic is a negative thank god this is a digital industry because if this was eight years ago I couldn't come here to this area we
couldn't go on Miltown Road. There's not enough traffic. You need a certain amount of traffic and traffic today is not only driven by fueled up cars or electric cars. It's done by your phone digitally. >> So, just so I completely understand this because I'm I'm struggling with the F. I
I see a blank an empty piece of land and my expectation is that what's going to go on it fits. So, when something comes before me and it doesn't fit, I have lots of questions. Um, ask away. >> I am. >> I'm good.
>> So, what I understand you to say though is this building is this size because economically it cannot be any smaller >> when you Yes. When you're in a a prestigious community as Bridgewater, the cost of land is I'd say between here
and the George Washington Bridge, top 10 communities in the state economically, per capita, etc. Right? You have a great community here. I grew up I went to school here. Grew up in Rarittonboro, right on First Avenue. been here all my life. Um, when you're looking at the value of land and going into better
economic areas such as Bridgewater, it becomes the the value of the land justifies a price. And the price, the expense plus construction simply equals the size of what you need in square footage to drive revenue to be able to justify the cost of being able to build
that. >> Does it have anything to do with what's on the other side of the railroad tracks? No, no. I I I don't even know how to answer that because on the other side of the railroad tracks, which is over 200 feet away, I understand I believe
there's condominiums that have been there for 40 years, >> I would believe, would need the kind of storage that you're talking about. >> Oh, people there would be some customers, but that's a very very very small if we get some business from there would be we're talking about the community as
a whole. um threequarters of the way. The market is measured in the industry, the rule of thumb is everything is measured in a no further than 10-minute ride, including traffic or three mile radius. That's a standard in the industry. You could look that up. And
within the three mile radius, we took that into consideration. How many people are there out of the 49,000? And we didn't go into Branchburg too much because that's being served by another facility on Route 22. So a lot of thought went into how do we get this
square footage tremendous amount between cost size community need everything went into consideration that's why we're requesting this size this was like the bare bone minimum and we had to go into the ground to do it 10 5 years ago there was no such thing as going into the
ground said hey listen this these are like submarines there's no windows whether you press lower level or press level three you don't know where you're at if you're blindfolded So, we tested the water table. It passed passed mustard. Engineering did a great job and
um we determined that we can go x amount of feet down. We could fall under the 45 ft height restriction. I believe we're at 40t and a half and we meet all the requirements and we're a little over on the F. That's a fact. But I just want to tell you how we got there. I want to be
able to answer that for you >> because economically it it what's driving the F is economics. It's the cost of the land, cost of construction, right? Has to meet a certain amount of units to be able to justify putting anything up, whether it's an office
building, medical or >> I understand. >> Is there but is there also a public demand for storage space? >> Are you serving? What I want to make sure Mr. Natali is that, >> you know, every site is is sight specific. the the numbers work
differently from one site to another site whether it's in Bridgewater or all throughout the state or country. What I want to ensure uh and I'm asking you is is there a benefit that the building the proposed building is is slightly above the permitted F. Is there a benefit to
the community? >> There is a massive uh benefit. I'll tell you why. They take the amount of people, the amount of rooftops and that includes apartments, that includes condominiums, town homes as well as single family and multif family homes, one to four condos,
everyone. And they the statistics show in the industry that there's so many the community will need so many square feet of self storage and that's approximately eight square feet per rooftop.
Bridgewater is way under that I believe at this point including everything that's been approved and what's before you it's it's about three feet per rooftop less which means it's about 250 to 300,000 square feet underserved which
means if I may um if another 300,000 square feet I I don't know if you know this but out of the 300,000 square feet as an example or this building at 88,000 ft² only 74 to 75% is rentable square
feet. So this community could use another 300,000 square ft on top of what we're proposing here this evening on top of what has been approved the last 24 months including Chimney Rock. So digitally
just by numbers alone the community is underserved and that's documented. I could obviously we're going to be back here another night. I could get a a print out for you uh and and tell you exactly where we got it, what program. You could look it up, and we'll have documentation for you to support the
need of the community. >> I don't mean to um sidetrack your presentation, but I would like to hear from the realtor at some point in time. >> Understood. And and Mr. Tally, I would like to if unless the board has more
questions. Um I' I'd like to to wrap up your testimony if I can and and there's >> I did have one more question for Mr. Burr. I think wanted to and he deferred for Miss Rose. So, okay. >> I don't know if your question was answered or >> actually I had almost an identical
question. Rose, but I I I do want to just ask a follow-up question to that. >> Um >> you know, Mr. to tell when you when you first came up to the podium, you you mentioned that the smaller units, the 5x10s, the 10 x10s, I think you said they were more valuable.
>> They're more desirable. >> They're more desirable. >> The market asks for that. For example, there's a project in Find Bridgewater Township uh that public storage has that they used as an example that's constantly full, constantly. And based
on that, there's a certain percentage they look for based on success. 70% 75% 80 all the way to 95%. That is so successful and not the finest location going. People traveled from the other side of Bridgewater. They have a
they have a list of people and addresses where their customers are. They even give us that data. That's why I like that company. So statistics are showing that the first units to go overnight are the smaller units, not the larger ones. >> And and the smaller units are 5 by 10,
10 by 10 in that in that range. >> Yeah, there's very there's not that many at 10 by 20 because what happens is the 10 by 20s are fairly large and that's the person that is putting a couch in there and things of that nature. People aren't doing that. usually empty
nesters, downsizing, people getting engaged, living together, uh working from home, consolidating apartments, uh hey, let me put storage, uh let me put my stuff and let's use your stuff. Um and next thing you know, until they
break up or get married, there it's five, six, seven years before they even come. It's like a gym membership. You can't get rid of it. So when people the last thing you want is on a Saturday to take your child to soccer practice or baseball practice and say, "Hey hun, let's take four hours and
clean out that self- storage facility." They just don't. That's why they're always full. Some of those units have worthless items in there for years. All this information I'm giving you is specifically there's data out there to support absolutely everything. I'm not
just making it up. I can support it at any time. >> I believe you. >> Yeah. I just want to be able to make that clear. >> Fair enough. >> Yeah. >> My my >> but that is the trend smaller. >> Okay. So my specific question is and and you heard some of the questions about the F variance. >> Yes.
>> And how we can economize this building >> it gets smaller. >> Um >> the way your plan is laid out or your architect's plan is laid out now. I think I heard at the first hearing there was 227 units. Tonight I heard 305. I'm
sure that'll be clarified at some point. >> Yes. >> But that 227 or 305 is based on a a floor plan layout that is largely 10 by 20, 10x 25, 10 by 30
sized units. And I know it's at this point it hasn't been planned out thoroughly, but if if if the the valuable or the desirable units are the 10 x10s, the 10 x 15s, the 5 by10s, when this thing does
get redesigned, you could be looking at twice, three times as many units. >> It won't be three times. Three times is just I'm I'm a numbers guy. Three times is just economically. I'm just thinking if if if the testimony is 227 or 300 units, >> but it's they're they're the oversized
units and in reality what you're looking to do is 10 by 10 units. >> Now there's 500 units. Why can't we why can't we bring that building down just a little bit? I mean, we we heard the testimony. We're only at, you know, six what 36 versus 30.
>> First, I want I want to say that that's just done as a placeholder. There's no way that they're going to be I want to make that clear. >> I understand that. That's why I'm asking the question because they're all over the units. >> Can we can we economize this saying you're still going to get that many more
units out of the real plan? >> Maybe we can bring it down also in F to kind of address kind of bridge that gap. Maybe I'm not understanding. >> Yeah. You know, as an engineer, I could appreciate that very much. Right. You're looking at numbers, right? As an
operator, there's a minimum that we need, right? Only 74% maximum 75% efficiency takes place. So when we're done with that, there is 25% minimum depends on the shape of the
building that we're building and never going to make a dollar on. So now those units are so incredibly important and valuable that has to 74% to 75% has to pay the economics of operating that entire building. There is 25 there's
going to be 20,000 square feet to 22,000 square feet that's useless. So that's that's why we just we don't just say let me see let's go in and Bridgewater at 88,000 square feet.
We did the economics and backed into it to see because I'd rather get an approval and be successful here than ask for something that I don't need. That was the purpose of we'd love 125,000 and take 74 to 75% of that. We backed into
the number. We didn't do it just to torture people over the F. >> Mr. Natali, when you're backing into the number, and again, we'll have planning testimony and you've and and correct me if I'm mistaken, but you've developed property all over the state for decades and decades, not just self- storage.
>> Correct. >> If you're going in front of a board, >> I wish it was self storage for the last 30 years. I wouldn't be here. >> If you're going in front of the board and you're seeking to deviate from F or size as a developer, aren't you taking into consideration, traffic impact, height impact, impervious coverage
impact? Are you considering as a developer the possible detriments to uh a proposal and to the surrounding area if you're going in over the F? >> Everything gets taken into consideration. >> So you considered all of these factors
and in in backing into this number >> pick it out out of the air. We have to because as a developer you have to before you take on to get here respectfully a developer people don't realize it's a 300 250 to $300,000 cost
to potentially hear a no people don't realize the other side of the developer for some reason there's a connotation out there that everyone thinks a developer oh my god you know it's like he found Bitcoin or he has the Willy Wonka chocolate factory ticket the golden ticket it's not like that it we
take we need to study every economic uh impact as well as impacts that you just mentioned because we need to know the feasibility and what our chances are of getting something approved where it belongs. That's why we study everything that you just mentioned.
>> So based upon your assessment and the board's going to have a different assessment, you're a developer based upon your assessment whether the building is 36 F or 3 F. developer considering the property, you don't perceive any impact to the community
with respect to traffic uh um material impact. You don't perceive any impact to height if the F is decreased because if you heard Mr. Michelle's testimony, the height's the same either way. Is that >> correct? >> And and you don't perceive any impact to impervious coverage if the F is changed.
>> Correct. >> So So I'm I'm asking you, is the is the F differential at least is it is it on paper? Is that in terms of impact or perceived impact to the community? Is it is it just merely an impact? >> Michael, everything everything's taken
into consideration. What one of the best things about the self- storage industry other than the need in this situation? The traffic is not in the morning. There was a gentleman here, a neighbor that was very concerned. I remember getting my license of 17 a long time ago and
taking that same route that he's talking about and going under that train. that's been a disaster since the beginning of this community, right? No one was thinking. So, that was one of the that was one of the things I thought of why I liked about the property because we're
bringing we're not harming the residents, no negative impact. We're we're enhancing the development. Uh it's a great ratable for the community and there's no traffic during impact time, which is the morning and the evening. So
if we're not hurting the neighbors, we're not we might upset a few deer and a few squirrel, but it's a big positive for the community economically, socially, and there's a big need. And then we backed into it to see what we needed to do, what's it, we drafted a
document and put filled in the blanks. There's a formula and it came out to be 88,000 square ft because we walked away from it originally until we decided to go into the basement. Without that basement, we can't do it. >> Mr. Datali, could you have designed a building that would have complied with
the F, but would have increased impervious coverage, would increased height and and would have increased impact, at least to your opinion, to the surrounding area. >> Height for sure. Height for sure. >> In impervious coverage, you could have increased footprint. >> Of course, of course, I'm not >> But the F could have complied, right? Because you would have eliminated the
basement. >> Correct. So, so, >> so the F respectfully the F when it's above ground and I'm just I'm just thinking of it how you would think of it, right? The F underground when you take into consideration that 25% of that
building is underground. I felt what what negative impact could it possibly be to the surrounding areas? It's underground. People won't even know unless they're customers. If it was if I was asking for 60 ft
impervious coverage increase, F increase, I couldn't agree with you more. But being that it's underground and the impact, there's no negativity. We felt it was sound. It was a sound suggestion and it was a sound product to bring to the table.
>> We we'll have more. We we'll have planning testimony to speak to the to the positive elements of this uh as the speak to the positive elements to the relief that we're seeking to the community as well as as any potential negative detriments. But I think Mr.
tell you you're doing a fine job explaining it to the board your your assessment of of why you chose this F from a from a market demand uh from a from a community demand community benefit as well as economics penciling out the pro the project based upon the
>> By the way I just want to close with one remark if it wasn't a need in the community we can't rent space that's not needed so there's we wouldn't have put up thought of building anything here if
there wasn't a need. The need drove us. We look at all the properties. We look at the properties and we measure them to need and then we proceed by the process of elimination the economics etc etc and impact. >> Tying this all back to how you ended up
coming up here this evening. There was a question posed by Mr. Franco of the board whether you would consider uh a size limitation on on the size of the units. And Mr. Mr. Franco 300 ft. So absolutely 100% more than enough that we can accommodate that
>> without a question. >> Mr. Vesio, you had a question. >> I do have a question. Um Mr. Natali, I we with the number of units you're saying there could be more units. Um a lot of the sort of expert testimony presented here, um I think is kind of
based on a certain number of units, right? >> So >> it's square footage, sir. >> Right. But if you have if you have 500 units, you have 500 customers. If you have 300 units, you have 300 customers. So I think we would we we should kind of or at least board should kind of grant
an approval based upon, you know, if there were to be an approval a number of units, right? Because more units equals more people would then need lead to more traffic. I understand it's a very low intensity use more parking spots, right? More more people in the building. Maybe you do need second elevator. So I think
kind of those numbers um you know more units does mean more of other things too and I think having sort of an upper limit say okay we're looking for approval of x amount of units. >> I I hear you. I just want to respond to that and I apologize if I just
interrupted you. Please finish. I apologize. >> No that's fine. >> Okay. Okay. What people don't realize unless you're in the industry smaller units are less visits. If we had larger units, there's more visits. The smaller units where there's 5 by 10, the
traffic, you would think, you would think numerically, you think in numbers, right? What you said was incredibly logical. If you're going to put 600 units in, it's going to be more there's going to be more traffic, more people, more customers than 400 or 500. The size of the unit dictates the turn, how many
visits you will have to the location. So we can have a difference of about 150 as long as they're smaller units. The traffic difference is is barebone minimum. It's minimum because that person it's almost like a closet. They just throw stuff in there and they never visited.
>> And the >> I just wanted to mention that to you because what you said was extremely logical. If I wasn't in the industry, I wouldn't have known that. >> And and the IT so when we when we heard the testimony of Mr. Chase at the last hearing, the IT deliberately doesn't consider the number of units. It looks
at the square footage. It's it's it's how the the uh professionals in the industry try to uh estimate the intensity of the traffic impacts and they look at hundreds of facilities. I mean every every land use
code under the IT is different. They look at 100 facilities approximately x number of facilities to generate the the data which was then presented to the board to estimate what the traffic volume will be for a self- storage facility of this size. So I don't I
don't have the testimony because Mr. Chase didn't testify to what a smaller facility would look like. But if the Mr. Chase did testify 14 uh trips during peak hour. If the building is decreased, then perhaps he would have testified
that there'd be 13 peak trips during 13 trips during peak hour. But the the impact to the community based upon the F overage is is negligible from uh an F component and it Mr. Chase's testimony
didn't didn't consider the number of units. It looks at the at the square footage like a number of uses in the township. If you look at the township ordinance, a number of uses look at square footage. Whereas some uses like a restaurant use looks under the township's code looks at the number of
of seats to determine parking and and presumably parking is related to traffic. But you know that this is part for the course is terms of self storage. It looks at at square footage to >> the one thing I would just interrupt you for a moment and add is that I'm sure
when we have an opportunity to hear from your planner. >> Yes. >> And we'll learn more about um the F variance and specifically we look at it from different perspectives. One of which is intensity of use, the visual impact of the
building, and we've already outlined some of the the things which you have described about the building which may mitigate that. So, it's it's really um something that has yet to be determined by the board. The board is correct in expressing its concern. And if you're
able to mitigate it in a way that's acceptable to the board, then you just stay with your original size proposal and we see how it goes, right? Um, in the meantime, Mr. Tanley, thank you for your questions. I just want to make sure that we can squeeze in your
architectural testimony because we are getting late in the hour. >> Thank you again. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Answer. >> Um, just going directly to the professional memo prepared by Miss Sarmad. Um, one of the questions was um, uh, what materials are used for the
separation between and above units? So the separation between the units is a metal system. So it's metal structure and then either corrugated or flat metal um surface to the walls. And those stop
I want to say about 2 feet shy of the structure above in order to allow the fire protection system to work properly. All right, I want to turn to what I both are very important, but let's talk about the aesthetics because we do need a D1
use variance uh potentially too. And uh the board is certainly within its purview to want uh a building that complements the adjacent building on the property and the surrounding area, particularly in light of the fact that
use variance relief under uh a D1 variance is being sought here. So, can you walk us through um color scheme, materials, um inspiration behind your design, consideration of the adjacent building so we can get going on the estate?
>> Michael, is this photo that's on the screen part of our package? >> It is. It's on the second sheet of the architecturals um A02. It's on the top left corner of the page. >> Yes. So, this >> same thing we have. >> Yes. >> Okay. on the upper left is looking
directly at the entry lobby that you would see as you come in the main drive. So that lobby space and the elevator lobby on the second and third floor would all have storefront glazing. And then we do have some intermittent glass along the circulation paths on the
second and third floor as well. Just it helps with interior orientation and of course a little bit of daylighting is always nice. >> Are you saying that those are real windows? >> Correct. >> Okay. So the entire first floor is proposed to be brick veneer. The color that we're
showing here is kind of a warm gray brown and our pallet inspiration was to go with warm neutrals that complement the existing building but as we're not trying to copy it. So we took cues from the existing materials both color-wise
and the patterning of the panels on the side. If you look, I don't have a picture of the existing building on the sheet, but if we were looking at it closely, you would see that they do have kind of a concrete vertical line every four feet or so. So, we're mimicking
that with our stucco look material here. It's in a lighter gray. And we're also showing that same rhythm of of 4 foot vertical sections. >> On the screen, just for the record, is exhibit A3, which was presented at the first hearing, which are photos of the existing building. So, the existing
building is different tones of gray and that it also has this kind of gray blue accent color to it, which we chose not to go in the blue direction. We were actually looking at trying to go in a little more modern direction with this dark anodized color that we're using for
the the vertical metal panels. And then there's also a flat metal panel in between the floors and the glazing >> going that architecturals >> that would match the the framing of the storefront system. So I mean I'm sure everybody's seen that that color is very
popular right now. So we're just trying to give it a little more of a modern look but still kind of have that warm neutral natural palette. You know, honoring the fact that we are across the street from a park and backed up against the woods here. We we want to do something that it's kind of like a long
horizontal line that can potentially stand down, blend in with the tree line, and also speak to the building that's adjacent on the >> So, if I'm standing in the park in the building that you designed, does this look good to you? >> Yes, to me it does. No, because and I
think we'll go back to that with the civil plan, but for instance, the view on the right hand side is looking towards those rollup doors that we were all talking about, but you can see the shadow in the rendering that you're actually behind the tree line. So, if you're at the park or driving down the
street, you wouldn't even see that side of the building. And >> those um those three darker grayish blue whatever they are panels that surround the windows. I I tend to be more of a symmetry person myself. Is there a reason you didn't put
another one there from a design perspective or a functional perspective? >> From a design perspective just because it's not as visible from off property. >> So just to be more efficient with the the dollars spent. But certainly we could look at that if that was
>> fair >> driving factor. >> Um and uh if if the board wanted color a different if the board felt there were different complimentary colors that could be provided that's certainly something we could would could accommodate. >> Of course
>> with respect to the rollup doors I apologize if we've already addressed it. Uh I don't know if you addressed it. I know Mr. Nataly addressed it. Um is there contrast here? Is is the contrast shown here just for rendering purposes or do you expect there to be a contrast between the roll-up doors and the uh
brick facade? >> I cannot speak to the exact color match in the rendering. My sense is that's probably shadow that we're seeing. Um but yes, we could work to have that be as close a color match as we could possibly get. And also we could look at other door styles. Um before the
conversation proceeded, I was going to ask, are we opposed to the exterior doors or just the design? and it sounds like it's more the design of the door itself. So, we could certainly explore that. >> I think that there's probably mixed feelings on that, but I think as you said it, there's the opportunity to
possibly explore um I don't want to use the term higherend uh more aesthetically pleasing um doors. That is that possibility. And and if the intent of the board is is uh to make it not stand
out, you can do potentially more to ensure that it doesn't stand out. >> We could definitely work towards making these stand out more. >> Okay. Um can you talk a little bit to the um building massing?
>> Yes. So, I mean, like I mentioned, we're trying to kind of have it be a long horizontal line, which does blend in with the natural landscape a little bit better. So, those darker portions are accents to give it a little more architectural interest, but generally
speaking, we're trying to have the height be obtrusive, let's put it that way. Um, in the background of the ren of the rendering I have on the on the right side of the second page of the architectural perspective view looking southeast. It shows what appears to be a
white box. >> So this is a proposed stucco look material and that hasn't been selected yet. So it could >> right here. I'm sorry. This >> Oh, that's the existing building behind. Yes. >> Do you know if that's intended to be to scale?
>> It is. Yes. So, so there the proposed height of the building is is approximately 40 and a half feet. Is that correct? And the ordinance permits 45 ft. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Um architectural perspective and and what
you see in the running, but also just your perspective based upon your experience in industry. How will the height of this building, even though it's permitted, how will that jive with the existing adjacent building? I think it'll be fine. I actually don't think it's that much taller. The force
perspective is making it look taller than it really is. We are estimating that the existing building's about 35 ft tall. So, you're looking at a difference of, you know, 5 foot and change. If you could verify that, that would be great. >> I can. >> Also, the distance between the buildings
is going to make them seem >> um a little more comparable than if they were directly next to each other. And the distance is uh between the two buildings is approximately 70 ft or let me let me not represent that. I'd have to confirm that.
>> So when you're coming from the other direction and you can actually get a sight line into the site, the perspective is going to be working in the favor of making the new building look shorter because it's further away. Just so according to the site plan that was
approved by the planning board, the um previously approved building is 27 and a half ft. >> Okay. So it's a little bit shorter than I thought. >> So So approximately a 13 foot height difference >> reflective of a one-story difference.
>> That makes sense. Yes. Um back to the memo here. Um so uh client can come to you and and tell you as an architect design the
building any which way, right? That the they you're you're given a program so to speak and and you could make whatever building a developer comes to you appear on paper, right? without considering the surrounding area, without considering the neighborhood, based upon the the
size of this building, even though you were you're essentially given a directive to design a building this x number of square footage, do you think that the site can accommodate this building from an architectural standpoint? >> Yes. >> Why do you why do you say that? >> Because I think it seems proportionally
fitting with the site. I think the having the mature trees in the background that exceed the height of the building at least, you know, from your first perspective, that's the perception. I think it's set back from the road enough that it does not seem overwhelming. And like I mentioned
before, I think you'll be seeing the the most designed piece of the building with the glazing and the metal panel at the entry point when you drive by. and the majority of what could be considered a more warehousy look to the building will be hidden by the existing and new
landscaping. >> Um, are you ever given a uh objective or or a design request to prepare something that right off the bat you're like it doesn't fit? >> Of course. Yes. >> But this is not that situation.
>> No, I would not categorize this that way. >> Thank you. Um, are there any materials that we didn't touch upon that are on the exterior facade that that you want to speak to? >> Um, I don't think so. I was going to
point out that the lighter gray material is a stucco look material, which could be either or FRP panel, something along those lines, but that has not been officially selected yet. So, kind of like a concrete look in a warm gray.
Are there um changes to the uh facade of the building that you think could make it stand out more? Do do you do is your intent to not have this building stand out or >> I think we want it to look nice when people notice it, but we don't want it
to jump out and slap you in the face. >> So, are there um design elements that you stayed away from in fear that it would so, as you put it, slap you in the face? >> Yes. I think we stuck with more modern clean lines to to not have it grab your
attention as much. >> Okay. Um I don't remember if Mr. Michelle testified to this. Um but uh mechanical equipment is to be located on the roof. And if you don't know, that's that's okay.
>> We are anticipating that there will be some mechanical equipment on the roof. We're thinking the units are likely going to be multiple smaller units that we would try to position towards the center. So, we don't believe that they'll be visible from the street, but if they were, they would be screened.
Okay. And and on page two of your architecturals, you do have some uh facade signs shown. Um can you speak to the to the proposed signage? Yes, there's a proposed sign at the entrance that right now just says self
storage, but the dimensions are shown here to be in compliance with the ordinance. >> Um, do you know if that sign I is, if you don't know the answer, is it is it do you know if that sign's proposed to be internally illuminated or is it typically ter internally illuminated?
>> We're proposing a backlick a backlit anodized aluminum sign. So, it would be a metal material to match the metal panel and lit from behind. Okay. Um, >> the area is shown here as 22 square feet
of the sign itself. >> So, I think uh I'm sure the board has feedback, commentary as well as the board professionals. So, with the time that we have left, Mr. Chairman, I would love to to hear some of that feedback. >> Are there any questions from the board
members? >> We have a few. Uh, Mrs. You want to go first? >> Last question. Do you have any building mounted lights on this building? >> You know, we're not showing any building
mounted lights in the rendering, but there would have to be something, you know, for egress and safety purposes, and I don't know that that's fully developed at this point. >> I don't see >> Yeah, I think I think Mr. Michelle
testified to the um proposed exterior lighting. Um I don't recall off the top of my head exactly what he testified to, but I believe it would be pretty standard um exterior lighting that that we believe complies with um the township's
ordinance in terms of um foot candles. Um >> I'm sure you could also show us that at some point what it's going to look like. >> It's in his sight plan set. Um >> no, but I mean when I'm looking at it architecturally, I don't know where it is. I understand
what it is and what it complies with, but it'd be nice if I could see what it looks like on the building. >> Understood. That could be added for sure. >> And while you're doing that, Miss Rose, you had a question. >> Will this property in this building be
fenced? >> Um, so the there was discussion at the last hearing about proposing a a gate. I don't is when you say fence. Do you is does that encompass a gate? So there was uh discussion at the last hearing about
proposing not an not an access gate to the property but to the self- storage facility and that's something that we would want to provide um to ensure that um people leis storage unit owners could not access the facility at least by
their vehicle after the hours of operation. And so that's something that we're committed to providing and can be a condition in the resolution of approval. >> Any chance some we could get a picture of it? What it's going to look like with the with fence? With the building is going to look like with the fence
>> with Yes. With the with the gate. Yes. Yeah. I I keep >> Well, the fence goes to a gate. >> We We wouldn't I'm Thank This is why I wanted to have this exchange. So, we weren't proposing enclosing the property. So, if somebody wanted to walk
to the property on foot, and I mean, this is a self-s storage facility, so that'd be odd to go there without a vehicle to move your your belongings. We we wanted to to secure access to the facility from a vehicle. So, it would probably be, and I have to show it to you so you can see what I'm talking
about, it would probably be just a gate that would prevent a vehicle from entering the self- storage parking area. Is that a >> no perimeter fencing, just fencing providing access into the driveway >> to to restrict vehicular access to the
self- storage facility. We would propose a gate >> and the facility itself will be you'll be unable to access anything after 900 p.m. based on the testimony we received so far. Anyway, >> so even if I walked up to it, I couldn't
make it work, right? >> Because I'm shut down from having access, >> right? There's there would be >> no on the outside >> there would be >> I have outside doors >> in order in order to access the building you'll either have to provide keypad information or have a fob card in order
to actually access the facility. Um but in terms of keeping vehicles you know there's also a concern that we don't we don't want there to be overnight parking. We don't we don't want there to be outdoor storage on the property. So, um that's that's why I believe I saw
this in the other um resolution for the chimney rock self storage that a gate was proposed to keep vehicles off the premises outside of hours of operation. There is added security measures such as 24-hour surveillance as well as like I was describing actual uh fob andor
keypad um access requirements in order to get into the building. But even those will be limited by the hours of operation. >> Corre correct. But just saying there's there's additional safeguards in place. >> Mr. Val, did you have a question?
>> I have a question. Um, when when you designed the building, I see that there's an entry through the lobby and then there's an entry through the stairwell, which then you have another door to get
to the inside of the building. So on the first floor, there's no other access to the whole building other than those two doors. >> That's correct. And those are really
generally used for egress only. So we need to have two remote means of egress to serve the building from a safety standpoint. Okay. >> The egress stairs and they have to be fire rated, which is why you've got the series of doors. I you know it's up to management whether you'd be able to
access the building that way but mostly it's for egress and that's how we would expect it to be used. >> So person car carrying a sofa into a 10 by 20 unit has to go through the lobby or the two doors.
>> Yes. And that's where the majority of the parking is as well. Correct. And where the elevator access is. >> Yes. But usually self- storage facilities of the silk would provide carts on premises to make the transfer of of materials a little bit easier. In
in your hypothetical a sofa, you might need to get um a couple of uh strong willing participants to get that to the lobby and into the elevator. >> So So like at the end of the there's there's like a hallway. It runs the
entire length of the building. Um, there couldn't be a door at the end of that because you'd need to have a fire door to >> um, where my cursor is. Is this where you're referring to? >> Yes.
>> I I think that theoretically anything is possible provided it complies with code. But if somebody wants to access the second floor, you would want your I I see what you're saying, but I I don't I don't know if that's
I don't know if that's >> it's just from my perspective of I I've used this a self storage facility in the past and it seems like there's obstacles and then the only entrance is on one end of the building and that's just an
observation I guess. >> Understood. And I do think that's something that we could look at. >> Yeah, I I would I I can have Mr. Michelle will present the this the aerial, but I believe that MR do you are you locating the lobby door in proximity
to where the proposed parking spaces are? >> We are. That's true. So, we have to look at the site elements and the access to those parts of the building to see if it makes sense to add doors there. We can we so we can certainly look to see if it's necessary to add an
additional door, but based upon the site plan that that's on display there, um it looks like Mr. Hart, would you agree that the uh loading areas for single unit trucks are the are the ones that are furthest away from the lobby? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So those are the ones that are >> I understand it's just I asked questions at the last hearing about where those loading areas are for the trucks also and it just seems very roundabout and >> going to do a lot of walking.
>> Yeah, >> especially if you're all the way in the unit >> all the way at the end. >> Any additional questions from the board members? Yeah, >> it's getting late. >> Mr. Vesio has a question >> on the egress piece. Um, you said you
need two means of egress from the building, right? You have one at the front and then the other one I think is at the back corner of the building, >> correct? Two remote means. >> So when people exit that, where do they go?
So with respect to emergency egress, you just need to have a pad area outside the building where people can safely gather in the event of an emergency. >> How far away from the building? >> I would have to look that up to be 100% sure.
>> I think it has to be at least 50 feet away. >> Well, >> if you don't have a direct >> verify that >> if if you don't have a direct um path to public radio right away, you need about 50 feet away from the building. Oh, >> so right that that so that kind of goes
in along with the you know the fire lane to make sure we have enough room there. Um you know where people would go you know do they have to walk the entire length of the building to to get to a point of refuge or or some other path. So uh I certainly think that needs to be
taken a look at because it does impact kind of the placement of your building and also the site design as well. Um my other question is um looking at the renderings, do you know if the floor to floor heights you use for these renderings?
>> Yeah, the floor to floor heights are actually shown on the elevation. So above grade, we're at 12t floor to floor and then the basement level is 11 foot clear. >> I'm just looking at the rendering. I'm having trouble seeing a 40 foot high
building um from these renderings. Maybe you can just confirm that that the renderings are. >> We can double check it. Yes. I think that the length of the building is kind of making it seem shorter than it actually is, which we're trying to take advantage of those horizontal
proportions to make it stand down a little bit more. >> Mhm. >> Of course, the township code has its own unique way to calculate height, which I'm not sure, Mr. Hart, if that's reflected on your um >> these are actual dimensions on the elevation, >> but does it take into account the ordinance requirements on how to
calculate height? But I know Mr. Michello's calculations. >> I don't know. I would have to verify that. >> Okay. >> That's all the questions I have. Thank you. >> So, uh, Mr. Silver, we are at the end of, um, our time limit.
>> We have questions, I'm sure, from the board professionals. So, I'm read, you're going to have to ask your architect to return unless the board professionals have no questions. I don't know. We have questions. Okay. So, we're going to have
to ask Mr. Deart to come back um at the next meeting. Mr. >> Chairman, I would love to be able to come back to the board at the next meeting with revised architecturals to address board professionals questions, concerns.
If if I can't hear them this evening, if the applicant can't hear them this evening, can't come back with revised architecturals improvements, I don't I don't know how long Miss Armad's um questions would would would
be, but if there's any way just to hear them, we don't even have to respond to them, but just so we know what they are, that way I can at least come back in here with with a chance to address them at least through plan revisions. Would you be comfortable just itemizing them
or would you prefer to have the witness return? >> She's going to be back anyway. >> No, I understand. But >> I don't I think some of my my questions are related to the design that could be
an update, but some of them are about other things that you know would warrant a respon a verbal response rather, >> right? >> A line of questioning rather. So, with respect to anything that might impact the plans, do you have anything that >> I think I've already outlined them in my review?
>> Okay. And how about Mr. Burr? From your perspective, >> we're looking at the architectural design and Mr. Silbert is saying perhaps his architect would go back and incorporate some things that may have come out of questions that you might or
Miss Orman might have posed. I think um my questions probably could be summarized in three quick points. >> Fair enough. >> First being I think the board would want some clarity on the number of units being proposed. The real number of units being proposed. Yes,
>> we heard 227, we've heard 305. We also heard testimony tonight that you know >> could be necessarily jive with what we're seeing on plan. So >> I think we might have to, this is just my opinion right now, but I think we might have to accept a range of units
that would be acceptable to the board. >> Yeah, there's there's been multiple questions raised. So I think they need to they need to talk as a team about that. Right. >> I don't think that would impact the design of the building per se. >> Um
the layout plan potentially and >> the interior. >> Yeah. >> But the exterior I don't know. >> Well, unless unless it unless they adjust the size of the building based on some of the F questions. >> Okay. >> Um >> the other is just as far as the facade is concerned,
>> you know, we heard testimony on the elevation like the north westerly elevation. >> Yes. >> Which is just kind of like the plain blank gray facade. >> Yes, >> I would recommend they take a look at that. I understand there is some
existing landscape buffer closer to the the railroad um trestle. I know there's some landscaping proposed, but I don't think any of that landscaping is truly going to hide the entirety of that facade. So, >> something to make that blank section
more consistent with the rest of the building or more visually appealing. >> Miss Armad, would you agree with that assessment as well? get dragged into this. Um, I I think my comments go beyond just adding stuff, adding elements to what the design
currently is because I think I raised in my review that I didn't necessarily think that the the current design really fits the scale of of the area. And so I have disagreements, I guess, with the with
some of the opinions that have been presented thus far that go beyond just adding things to what's already there. Okay, >> those those are raised in my review, which is what I was getting to. So, it's more complicated than just >> Yes, >> I I agree with the symmetry. If this is what the board likes, then that's fine. Um then then I would agree with that.
But if it's beyond that, I think if there are a whole different design package for this, then then it's don't even worry about adding on, you know, another panel, a few panels to the building, >> right? >> Yeah. So in as I understand where this
may translate, if you would like to make changes based on the general feedback that you've heard and the specific itemizations of things in Miss Sarmad's report along with what Mr. Bur just said, then do it. But we can't give you more than that tonight, Mr. Chair. Yes.
>> So, um >> I'd like to see what the rear elevation looks like >> because there's there's really no buffer from the building to the railroad to Vander >> and advancing directly at that building. There's there's no landscape. There's no buffer whatsoever. >> No, it's going to be
>> would like to see it's an elevated rail. >> Thank you. We'd like to see that. I'm sure based on what we've heard so far, it's just going to be a blank wall because you've got the railroad right there. >> Blank canvas. >> Yeah. But it but it's highly visible from Vanir.
>> That's the question. How how visible is it from Vander? So I think your question if there's no landscape buffer between that and the railroad and then from the railroad to Vander there's nothing. You're you're >> I I hear what you're saying and I can't visualize it. So I think you're correct
in asking for that rendering. >> Uh I'm I just I don't know if it was visible on the YouTube presentation. It is part of the record, but A3 provided photographs from Vanir to show the extensive vegetation that that exists to
provide buffering not on the client's property, >> right, >> but along the railroad. Um, so this is one of the photos that was included in A3. >> There were two photos taken from Vandervir. >> So the height of the building though
exceeds the height of the railroad as we're looking at it from this perspective. True. >> I Yeah, I believe it does based upon Mr. Michelle's testimony. I believe Mr. Michelle's testimony was that the that the trees do provide buffering. So, >> some buffering. Sure.
>> The building does poke above the railroad, but >> So, maybe you could show us what that looks like. >> Yes. >> I I was going to suggest that maybe some more zoomed out views so that you can really get a true sense of the scale of the building with respect to the
surrounding area would be helpful. Yes. >> I uh I don't want to keep the board any longer. I I just what what when what when what when what when I'm I'm taking the feedback and it's good feedback and I'm appreciative of it. What what what I struggle with when when I put together an application and we are seeking
variances. Absolutely. But if there's a building setback and we comply, if there's a height requirement and we comply, your ordinance sets forth um certain standards to ensure that the impact of a
building in the C3 zone is not uh creating a detrimental impact to the adjacent properties. we we comply at least with the setback and the height. Um architecturals design, no windows, blank facade as you put on the rear,
things of that nature. Those are all things we can look at. But like if we're if we're complying with the with the setbacks and the height and yes, we're seeking an F variance, but if I eliminate part of the basement, the the building could become F compliant, but it would still look exactly the same. I
we I want to make it better. >> I'm not disagreeing with you. Um >> yeah I so >> I'm not sure where you're struggling with in in >> the question is can we see additional renderings and if we if we get them then visually the board can say well that looks better than I thought it was going
to look or oh my god that's worse than I thought it was going to look >> um and that and that could be very helpful and that would be true if you decided to add if you came up with something creative for the rollup doors other than color or if you came up with
some additional design to the building. That's on you and we're trying to give you as much guidance as we can given the constraints of time that we're facing tonight. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you. A lot of lot of good feedback that I can take back. Um I think we've conveyed our our
constraints, but we can work the board. >> Fair enough. So, thank you. And with that, we're going to have to continue this hearing. I don't know when, but I'm going to ask Nancy to offer an opinion. And Richard, you'll have an opinion
about notice and things like that. >> What's What do we have for a date, Nancy? >> We have u the next fully available date would be September 8th. The only other date that we don't already have double or triple booked is
8:11. And 811 they would be sharing the evening. I'm sorry the 11th sorry >> the 11th is uh cafe Amelia. >> Yeah. So in terms of of sharing the application um I think the preer would
have >> you might want to turn around and I will say >> yeah. So if we agree to the 11th, are you saying you're going to share the the meeting time with your other application even though
>> it's still the same client. >> Yes. I'm not involved with I'm sure that will >> very well understood. >> Michael, are you okay with extending time through >> 9:30?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's August 11th, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, for purposes of the public, this meeting is being adjourned. It will be continued on August 11th in this room at 700 p.m. without further notice from the applicant.
>> August 11th, >> we did want to we're trying to be as efficient as we can and we'd like to achieve the same objective. So, you're welcome. Um, Nancy, are there any open issues that we have to discuss before we can let everybody go?
>> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Very well. With that >> and all in favor >> and the motion is carried. >> Meeting adjourned. Let me go