Call the meeting to order. Would you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge algiance 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. >> Statement of adequate notice under the sunshine law. Adequate notice in accordance with the open public meetings act was provided on January 16th, 2025 of this meeting's date, time, and
location. The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry Press and Home News Tribune, posted on the Township Bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk. Roll call, please. Miss Anderson, >> here. >> Miss Alawi, >> here.
>> Mr. Mr. Giddings is out. Miss Conan >> here. >> Mr. Mildenberg >> here. >> Mr. Mucelli >> here. >> Mr. Pulk is out. Mr. Stewart >> here. >> And Mr. Whitman >> here. >> Thank you. We have a quum. >> All right. First item on the
first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from October 9th. Meeting minutes from October 9th. Are there any corrections, comments? Okay. Hearing none, I'd like to have a motion to approve.
>> I'd like to have a second. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Roll call for the October 9th minutes. Um, Miss Albadawi, >> I think I could abstain from that one. >> And Miss Conneal, >> yes. >> Mr. Mildenberg, >> yes.
>> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion passed. >> Very good. Okay. Next item on the agenda is for public comments for non-aggenda items. >> If there's anybody that has any comments
about items not on the agenda, please let me know. >> Yeah. If you want to come up, just >> state your name and address. Just you got to talk into the mic. >> Yeah, just turn on the right. >> Turn on the button on the right.
>> You could sit down if you want. >> Okay. Uh Santor on D road. >> What's the address? >> 116. Um basically we're here asking for help because we don't know what to do. We got a letter last week from the EPA,
New Jersey Department of Environment Protection about deleting wet lanes. This is the first notice we had on anything on this. So, we did send them a letter. The problem is we live on D road
on the Cranberry side, the other side of South Brunswick. Well, this letter brought it to the attention they plan on building a freaking warehouse directly across the street from us. this warehouse >> 30 32 or 33 acres.
So they want to build they already got plans for it. It's got 36 acres. The building footprint is 385 square ft height undetermined. They're building two driveways to dump
on dire road. Our problem is in that area we have a lot of wetland flooding. They're building this thing 10 ft above the road level. They're raising it up 10 ft above the road level. They're having two driveways come out.
One has 150 I'm sorry, 214 parking spaces with an additional 150 for employees. Then they have 63 spaces for trailer parking, 59 loading docks.
Uh, and >> nobody said what the purpose of this warehouse is. >> It it Could I I'm going to interrupt you. I already heard from somebody about you and this situation didn't. >> Yeah.
>> So, here's what I would like. First of all, did you get any notice from South from the developer? >> No. >> And I'm just I'm just curious and that's what brought it to attention. >> Aren't we supposed to get like if a development's going on? Isn't 200 notice?
>> Yeah. >> So this development is in South >> Correct. Correct. >> Not right. >> Yeah. So when you make an application for a development, you have to get notice from both towns. If you're on, you know, property that's adjacent to
two towns, it should be the 200 foot list within both towns. Now, should the t should our township engineer or anybody have been contacted about this or anybody from our town >> because if they're going to be funneling water off of that property into
cranberry >> All right. >> Can I interrupt? >> Yeah, go ahead. Uh Brunick did contact Cranberry and ask for a list of property owners. They did that. Uh the
And forgive me because I'm not 100% up on this. Everything was crammed in last week. I believe that their variance permit was only given to South Bros residents. Everybody on side got nothing. And I
have a list that who they sent it to and it's all south. >> So how did you know they contacted Cranberry and who did they contact some place in there? I got it that Cranberry provided a list.
>> They said nothing. I went to a stack of papers like I guess >> and we went and we looked at prints and we did you know a whole a lot of that kind of stuff but we don't know how much really we can do ourselves and >> I'm worried about the flood the township
committee heard what the township could possibly you know help us with and look into and >> well if they're going to be dumping water from that project and it's going to flow into Granberry then we're affected Then we should have been noticed. We should be part of this whole
thing. >> Was there an approval given already? >> Oh, yeah. >> 45 days from the approval to >> uh this is going back over a year ago. >> Well, like I said, the first notice to us was a week ago when we got from the
EPA to delete the wetland. I think it was this one is about wetlands, but I believe they were had gotten a variance to be approved for that property or that kind of thing which we didn't know anything about till we got this letter. >> So there's already been a hearing at the planning board for South Brunswick.
>> South Brunswick I imagine. So >> probably don't know. No, because this is the first one week that we've, you know, heard of it. And with the flooding as it is, >> you can't you can't they got they can't
just dump the water in the cranberry and have a nice day. >> They're supposed to have retention ponds, but >> Well, I don't I don't know. I don't know of the project. I don't know, you know. >> No, they're building two retention ponds. And what I didn't understand is
one of the holding basin is under the driveway. And the way I understand it, half the driveway is tred and the other half is what's the word? >> Impervious. Pervious. >> Impervious. >> Imperous meaning water can go through
it. >> Pervious. And so it was brought up by somebody that does this kind of work. He goes, "They can't salt or plow that because that's all going to go into that and eventually clog it." So it made no sense why they're doing this in the driveway.
Everything I've seen about this is they don't care about the neighbors. I mean, if you got a 10 foot rise and you have no no storm sewers out there, everything is septic. Oh, yeah. and they're building a huge septic field and we all know the ground doesn't work out there.
So, we're kind of >> So, can I ask for your contact information and then what we'll do is get in touch with South Brunswick. We'll make some inquiries within our own town hall and find out what was done. But you're saying the South Brunswick notified the South Brunswick residents
of this. >> Yes. from what we saw on some of the the correspondents if it had you know had the addresses and it was the people on the south runwood side you know no neighbors like you know not that
anyone's real close to us but still >> you know said anything or hey did you hear you know so it was like really a blindsided slap to us >> so I guess we're here to see what >> what help we can get um from you
Just give me your >> I'll give it to the secretary. >> You can read this and back up. This is what they gave. These are the you flip through all the pages. It tells who they responded to. Here's your list of South.
>> Is there any way you can get copies of this and give it get it to us? >> Copies of what? >> Which you have. >> I can come here one day if somebody can make them. >> Yeah. Yeah, because we're we're flying blind here. We need to see what you got.
>> Yes, I figured you guys were because >> Well, we weren't we weren't contacted. We we have we're >> Well, now you're as blind as I am. >> Well, but you're going to be affected. So, >> drastically affected, but here's here's some of the things that I came up with
here. Besides all the parking spaces, the trailer spaces, um building footprint 38 385,000 square feet, it's 360 ft wide, 1,070 ft deep, height undetermined.
And this is here's one thing that gets to me. Proposed water demand two thou uh 28,763 gallons per day on ground that doesn't percolate. No storm showers out there. I don't know
where. >> So again, I I don't we're we're talking about things I have no idea. >> I know. >> All right. So what what we could do is will >> Lisa the mayor will follow up with South Brunswick. >> Yeah.
>> And then we can we could have either I don't know if it's the town engineer or being the town engineer >> or follow up with South Brunswick. We can follow up directly with South Brunswick too as well. >> Um, and then if you get copy of anything
that any of your correspondence, if you bring it here, we'll make copies of everything. >> Then you make copies of big maps. >> Do you want the map? >> We got plans from them already. >> Do you want any of the plans or anything to not yet?
>> Probably our township engineer will be able to get all of that. for people and see what the hell's going on with this and >> be happy to. >> Okay, great. >> Oh, part of our problem is we've had flooding out there before. We complained
to the county. We had pictures of how cars go down die road like motorboats. Uh so the neighbor across the street and asked Rose to think about it. Uh their idea is they came out, they flushed,
excuse the expression, there's three storm drains further down. They flushed them, but that's not in the area that's flooding. Uh they replaced the pipe across the road and now all that water from the north side comes to the south side and dumps onto my lawn.
>> I mean, it takes me weeks for the lawn to dry up to cut it. And their whole idea when that didn't work was they came back and added four inches of uh black top on top to raise the roof. And it still goes over now and then.
>> Well, let's if you can come if you can come in um and then we can make copies of that and then >> Well, you have my name and number. >> Yep. Well, you got >> whenever you guys think we can get together, I'll spend the time to do this. Bring everything I got. You can
copy what you want. >> Yeah, we'll be I'll be on it tomorrow. We'll start making inquiries with our township engineer and directly with you. >> Okay, we're around it. >> With our information. Yes. >> So, I sent an email. So, whatever's
convenient for you guys know what >> um >> right. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, I didn't we didn't give Mr. Gettings much information. went to him for some advice
and I kind of said, "Well, I'd rather just come there with all the info and a little drugs and grabs." >> Yeah. Thank you for spending the time to go. >> Yeah, I appreciate this because I I did hear about this from him and >> last week. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because that's when we found out
>> Yeah. >> Excuse me. I was looking it up on the South Point site. Their zoning board is having a meeting on this today, tonight, starting in 15 minutes. So, it's not the first item on the agenda, so you probably have time, but you might go to them.
>> Go there. >> Yeah. I mean, certainly you want to hear what they have to say, and you probably want to be on record if they have public comments that you weren't noticed and that your neighbors weren't noticed either. >> Okay. >> It looks like they're meeting at I've never been there. It doesn't say they're meeting. Let's see.
>> But it says it's starting at 7:30 on uh November 6. That is today. at night building. >> Yes. In 15 minutes. 15 minutes. >> Sure. Take it on the way. >> Take take your time.
>> No, they list they have an agenda and they list it as item number nine on the agenda. I don't know how quickly the round, but I wouldn't panic. And honestly, they're going to have to have testimony. Usually, they'll let you speak at the end. >> Yeah, they'll have a usually have a public comment period at the end. So, so
Nick, this was timely that you came in, but go I would definitely go over there and let them know too. >> Oh, does it? >> Yeah. >> It doesn't say that on the one that they publish here. >> Okay. >> At the bottom of it.
>> They said for resuling only application will not be heard. >> So, I would still if you could make it, I'd still get there and make a public comment. >> I would do that. Yeah, we'll do that >> regardless. We will. >> But it also sounds if they've delayed
it, then you will still have time to >> maybe get more. >> Yeah. And then we'll I assume our township will still follow up and you know, hopefully we'll have more info by then, too. >> Well, not knowing I'm going to say this, not knowing this kind of what goes on,
we did find out that this company is out of Missouri that's building this thing. Uh, nobody has ever said what the warehouse is for, but 50 some bay docks and all these trucks are going to supposedly be dumping on die road. Now,
I hate to say it this way, we moved there, it was a single lane up to the light and it got so bad that I'm a quarter mile down to the light. Got so bad that once you started backing up, they made a turn lane. That worked fine for a while. Started backing up again,
they made another turn lane. So, we got a right, a left, and a straight lane now. And right now, it still backs up past my drive. I can imagine 200 and some odd cars and everything else coming out there. >> I would let them definitely know
tonight. >> South Brunswick. I sent you guys an email. So, you have our number. >> Yes, please. >> Thank you for your time. button. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for coming in. Thank you very much for your time. >> Yeah, I was going to bring this up when I saw him. So, it it um what bothers me is they're dumping the water and it's coming in the gram and
>> Yeah. And and they didn't even let us know what's going on. Well, I guess we should see it. >> Yeah, we got that. >> Excuse me. Um, Mrs. Rogers, you something with soil? >> Yes.
>> One more fact. Out of the 36 acres, 47% is covered. That's a lot. >> All right. Thank you. All right. >> All right. Um, >> next item on back to the agenda. Next
item on the agenda is application PB 402-25 Amazon. >> Mr. Thank you. the bottom right. >> Good evening. Um Joe Pero from Porzio
Romber and Newman on behalf of Amazon.com services. Um this is a continuation of an application that we began back in March, March 6, we were before you. This is for the existing Amazon Fulfillment Center at 22
Heightstown Cranberry Station Road. That's block 10, block 10.02. Um, just as a quick overview, I know it's been some time before, you know, since we were here last, we are seeking site plan approval for some modifications to the existing associate
parking area to convert that parking area to trailer parking. Um, this site's located in the IL industrial light impact zone, uh, where the existing use is permitted. Um as I you were here uh last in March uh we began our
presentation and during that presentation we received uh some very helpful feedback and comments from you all. Um since that time we adjourned the meeting and uh met with our design team uh took that feedback into consideration revised the plans actually participated
in a meeting with the DRC and thanks to the help of the DRC and the board's professionals um we've come up with a proposal which we feel satisfactory addresses the issues that were raised by this board back in in March. uh the plans that you have before you uh this
evening are a culmination of the comments that we received from you all in March as well as the impact I'm sorry the uh improvements and recommendations of the DRC awards consultants. Um so we are again happy uh to be able to work
with your team to come up with a proposal that makes this a more palatable uh proposal and project for you all. Uh we did receive the latest reports from the board's consultants. That's the planning letter from October 30th, 2025. The engineering report dated
October 30th, 2025, and the traffic engineers report November 2nd, 2025. Uh we are prepared this evening to address the remaining recommendations in those reports. Um uh so again, there are a few design
waiverss for the new layout that were noted by the board's planner. uh we will address those as part of our presentation this evening. Um and what I'd like to do is pick up where we left off, recalling the project architect, Sher Miller, to come back and talk about
uh how far we've come since we were here in March with a uh revised uh circulation plan and modification plan for that trailer parking area. >> I do. We have two two this evening. Sherry Miller and Benio.
>> Okay. And then we als you were uh qualified and accepted by this board at the March 6th meeting. you are under oath and continuing your testimony as support this application. Um I know the revised plans were submitted. You have an exhibit. Those
are the plans that were submitted to the board. Correct. >> Um why don't we use that microphone? >> Just turn on the bottom. Yeah, there's a switch. Do we since they changed these around? Do we are we starting fresh?
>> Okay. All right. Let's do it that way. >> Yeah. So before we begin um Sherry there was one of the comments that was raised both in March and I think again in the DRC meeting uh was a question about the
methodology of calculating the parking for the existing warehouse. uh you've taken a look at the plans that were approved originally uh on file uh and applied the square footage uh of the total warehouse both the warehouse space and the office space to the parking
ratios of Cranberry um in their code and what's can you just provide the total number of parking spaces that are required >> yes thank you everyone yes so the existing parking on site for vehicles it's 987 stalls
based on the square footage of the warehouse at 1 to 5,000 ft and the square footage of the office at 1 to 250 square ft. The total required stalls for parking this facility is 327.
After the work that we are proposing in this project for the new trailer slips and the pedestrian amenity space, we have a remaining parking stall counter for the associates of 726.
So we are well above the required. >> I just wanted to start out with that because that was a a carryover question. Uh we did not have the full parking calculations according to your code when we were here in March. actually wanted to just correct that for the record. Um, Cher, you can pick up where we left off.
Um, referring to your site plan said before you give any testimony, I just refer to the sheet that you're speaking on so the board can follow along. >> And and just for the record, the plans that we're looking at, the revision date is 10 2025. Is that right?
It's not really whatever on the project. The overall site plan shows the locations of where we're focusing this project on and it's mostly in the southwest corner of the site over
here. Um this is where currently associated parking that we're looking to convert into the slips. The other location that I'll touch on tonight is in the central
portion of the south side of the building. Um, part of the scope was to change the associate parking lot from single directional traffic to two-way traffic. And in doing so, creating at the main
entry a pedestrian um, associate amenity space where all the associates can go and enjoy the outside and um, have, you know, lunch and enjoyed the facility all day. And I'll go into
more detail on that as we go through the pages. But those are the two areas that I'll be touching on in our presentation. One of the items that was brought up in the last town was um
neighbors. Amazon parking lot side out and from the street side at various locations along Headstone Cranberry will look like. Um, as you can see, this is the area on a very large aerial map. This is
Heightstown Cranberry Station Road. I'm sorry. I'm on the overall uh site plan view diagram. A map now. >> What does that translate to? >> No, it's in your >> It's in that packet. >> Yeah, I think we're
call um A7 that entire packet and then pages from there. So, is that all right? >> Sure. I mean, we actually pre-marked that exists. We'll just adjust everything one. >> So, you want to pre >> So, so let me just back up. So, this
set, you should all have this. Yeah. Okay. Um, if we want to mark it, we can certainly do that. Um, and then we'll just start with A8 for the ones that were pre-marked. It's fine. So, this set will be A7. >> This set is A7. >> Sure. No problem. >> Go ahead. >> Okay.
So, we wanted to be able to show um some street views and some uh proximities to show that the area that we are proposing the parking study is not um in a view corridor or creating any negative views
to any of the surrounding areas. Excuse me. Um so I will forward uh continue on with um the views from various locations. >> Sherry, please continue. Do you have the
dimensions on this on this exhibit of how far is that? Does this have the dimensions? Continuing on with the Google diagram 1.00B set. So, we did a couple of aerial Google uh
dimensions to show any structures that are within proximity of the existing facility against where the new trailer area is being proposed. From the two structures that sit at the corner of
Heisttown from Cranberry Station Road to Brickyard Road, the first one is 1,232 ft. Then the second one is 1,120
ft. So we're over 1,00 square I'm sorry 1,000 ft in distance and as you can see this area is quite wooded um between the two spaces >> close to a quarter mile. >> Yes.
So on this exhibit, we we went down the street at multiple locations to show where the view corridors would be. Um uh looking back towards the proposed trailer area. And as you walk through
down the street, as you can see, the Amazon building isn't visible in any of these diagrams all the way to the corner. Continuing on on the A1.00
C. Um after our meeting last March, I spent the next day on the site taking photos in the winter smoke on the trees and taking the same taking photos from the
Amazon side where our project was looking back in all directions across that large wood area and basically showcasing that no structures are visible beyond that large group of
trees. So we are confident that the location So, I'm going to skip the more details because I want to be cognizant of everybody's time. Um, so
I'm gonna go to the new pages. >> We got all >> So the A1.10 new work site plan on the west. This is the southwest corner of the property. Oh, I'm sorry. The southwest corner of
the property. So this highlights the scope of work focused on the new trailer area. Um essentially there's an existing north south uh access point to the parking area that the plans to remain or
were intending to do a sliding there. Um that provide a a detail in the set for and stack the panels so that they don't end up going into the landscaping. will stay on the strike area. We've made some
modifications based on the discussion that we had last time when we were here. We've increased the trailer stall width from 10 ft to 12 ft. Um we have reduced the number of trailer stalls trailer
stalls from 52 to 44. Um we have because of the increased width of the stalls this area has gotten slightly larger. Um, still plenty of associate parking. We provided um some additional buffers and turnarounds that
were brought as comments for us. So, we have a 50ft turnound for those trailers to easily back up and turn around and get out of this space without any potential of hitting the fence, which was a a
discussion we had last time. Um, we've also added a lot of landscaping um along the the perimeters um as buffers and um I will I will let the engineering team go into more detail
in their testimony on that. Um, and then just to catch the the back end of this, I'll move to the A1.11, which continues this turning circle for the trucks.
Additionally, we provided a 9 foot buffer beyond the outside of the trailer guard for between the drive by and the associate parking stalls and the fence to allow that addition. >> Right. Because I I think initially you
had it right up to the fence. Correct. >> We did. Yeah. >> And that was one of the recommendations we gave you the DRC. So, >> yes. >> Okay. And we also uh one of the comments that the DRC made was to straighten out this fence. So we went ahead and made that update as well. Um so the swing
gates here are for the fire truck so that the fire truck has complete access throughout the site as always. Um and that's that's the extent of the revisions related to the trailer yard.
Um, as we move east on the site, um, as we discussed last time, really the only revisions to this was the two-way striking um, and it's associated
uh, relocation of um, drive arrows and um, um, I'm Sorry, I've been on a plane all day. I apologize. Um,
so the second area of work on a 1.12 that I would like to address is our revisions to create this um associate amenity space. Um, so with the revisions
of making the drive by S2 and trying to make the interior circulation of the associate parking area more efficient, um, Amazon really wanted to create this space for their employees. So, a lot of facilities have these and people really
enjoy going outside. Um, we weren't able to talk a lot about this at the last meeting. Um, but we spoke about it in the DRC and we've made some changes related to this um that were requested. Um, we have really enhanced this area
significantly both for safety and for aesthetics. Um I think when we first came we had kind of plastic planters and um that was supposed to be both the protection for the associates and also
you know the landscaping factor. Um since then we have worked with the landlord to allow us to um do some more work here. So we have um we have regular steel concrete steel filled uh ballards
for much more high level safety of the pedestrian or I'm sorry pedestrian the associates in this space. Um we've worked to separate it from any um traffic if there were traffic coming into it. Um including taking the
existing staircase that leads up to the building that was pointing north south currently. Um that was a comment we had was a request to redo the stair in an east way east west direction um above
the drive aisle so that people weren't coming down the staircase directly into this drive aisle. So the drawings now show that we're rebuilding that stair to enhance that protection level as well. Um, and there are details on the new benches and u planters and such within
the landscape plans that are in the engineering package that we can also look at later. Um, but we spent a lot of extra time trying to make this a special place for the Amazon associates. So, we wanted to um
show you what we've changed there. Um and I think architecturally that is probably um the >> Yes. And I think that was a a great
summary, Sherry, of how far we've come since you were here in March with not only the trunk port area, but that employee um plaza. Um so, thank you for for going through that. You had a chance to look at the reports. I know they they
some of them are more engineering focused, others speak to some of the architectural aspects that you've identified. Is there anything from your perspective that requires some attention? I know going through the comments um for
the traffic, you know, we spoke briefly about the sliding gates that we provided detail for that and then the the swinging gates related to fire access are provided in the drawing. So we will we will continue that. Um,
we addressed the parking requirements and the trailer size related to upgrading that from 10 to 12 ft. >> Sure. There was a comment I'm sorry. There was a comment about EV um and
although the the traffic engineer noted that it's not required, >> there was a you know a request for us to explain why um in order to to add EV to this area that would require removing all the pavement and putting in infrastructure.
Correct. >> It would. Yes. Yeah. Typically when you do parking, there's quite a bit of site work to accommodate the new electrical and such that is required. which we've run into a great issue with the landlord trying to do
>> and in the area that's being converted from associate parking to trailer will ultimately just be trailer. There's really not a need for >> That's correct. >> EV charging trailer. >> That's right. There's no intention to do anything to the other associate for this project.
anything in the planner report from from your perspective that you can address or would you defer to the engineer? >> I think that I I'll primarily defer to the engineer. Um I think the only piece that I would mention if there was a
question uh related to pedestrian circulation through the trailer yard and um based on the fact that people will not be walking from through this yard won't have access to this yard and the people
that will be in the trailers are basically picking them like and moving them. >> They're in vehicles. They're in vehicles with they're coming with a cab picking up a trailer. So, they're not really getting out to a vehicle walking around the site
for us. There's a operationally it's not really effect appropriate and a safety concern for having anyone walking in the in the trailer yard. The only thing within the trailer yard, I don't know if that's if it was addressed, was that we
were supposed to have an um an emergency exit? >> Yes. >> Push bump out. So that's the that's there in the trailer yard area. >> Was this the the the door of the burger? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Sher, can you point out where that is located now in the proposal? And that's enough for deressing that area. It's just >> in case there was an emergency. >> Emergency, right? >> Somebody needs to get out.
Correct. Can you just Yes. Just direct the board to where that is on the plan. >> Yes. Thank you. On A1.10 there is a pedestrian van gate over on the west for >> Oh, you can see. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a related question? Um there
are five exit or stairwells with doors to the primary structure. Are those emergency only exits? >> Yes. >> So nor they would sound an alarm would not be normal that someone could exit through that. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> I have nothing further for the project architect at this time. If there's any questions, >> why don't why don't we do um we'll have the engineers come up and then our professionals and >> Sure. Thanks.
>> Our next one is Dan Dario. >> Good evening. >> Oh, you've already Yes. Can you give your >> Dan, can you give the board and the public the benefit of your education, area of expertise, and the licenses you hold? Sure. For the record, Dan Desario,
last name is D I S A R I O, Principal with the Firm of Lang Engineering, headquartered in Pipony, New Jersey. I manage the Princeton, New Jersey office. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey as well as several other states. I've been accepted
as an expert in civil and traffic engineering before hundreds of boards throughout New Jersey. Full disclosure, I was the original engineer involved with this original project originally um when Amazon came well I was part of the
original speculative warehouse proposal and approval by this board and I was also part of Amazon request for the revis. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. Have your qualifications. >> Thank you. Thank you. And again, I know you have a number of exhibits uh as
well. So just before you testify to any of those, we're going to have to mark those or remark those starting with K8. Sure. And I don't have that, which I think is a good thing. But before I start with specific testimony, I think it's important for
the board to understand that originally this proposal was to put trucks out onto ice station road. That is now no longer the case. So any activity in terms of moving trailers between the truck court where the guard shack is and the
proposed trailer parking area down at the southwest corner will be completely contained on site. No more will trucks have to go out on high cranberry station road to jockey trailers back and forth between the proposed trailer parking
area and the main truck. And we're accomplishing that again referring to exhibit A7 sheet A10 0 by making several modifications which are outlined in the black dashes
along that path between the trailer parking and the truck. And those changes essentially consist of modifying curve lines and minor widening to allow trucks to travel along that path between truck
court and the proposed trailer park. I will introduce now an additional exhibit. This is not in your package and we mark it.
So it is marked as a >> good color site plan exhibit prepared by Lang 1023 2025. Just want to say it's first time in 15 years on the board that I've seen
someone come with exhibits already pre-marked to the right number. Can we >> and I did have a pen in case I got it wrong. And really the intention of this exhibit is to zoom in on those specific areas where we are proposing modifications to
allow trucks to travel between the main truck court and the proposed trailer parking area. So starting up on the left hand side, this is inset one. This is where the main guard house is for the main truck court.
As you come out of the truck court on either side of the north south circulation aisle, we are pulling those curve lines back to make it wider so that any truck that is coming out of there can make a right turn easily and continue on the existing circulation.
Same thing coming back. We're pulling that curve line on the east side a little more. So the truck's coming back and needs to make the left into the truck. There's more area to do that. And for directions, that's on the east side of the building. Right. >> Correct. Right next to and adjacent to
where the assistant guard is for the truck. Um on this exhibit, forgive me, I'm kind of color blind, but I can't see the green. All the green that's on this exhibit is new green area. As you proceed down from the truck court
and you head along that north south circulation aisle, heading in a southerntherly direction in set two shows you an area um where we are proposing there's some existing car parking stalls. We're proposing to take that pavement away and
turn them into green space. And we're doing that because the additional pavement area that we are proposing to accommodate the new truck path back and forth between the trailer lot and the main truck court. We want to offset that
increase in pavement area with a return to uh taking away some pavement and creating grass area. So overall this proposal that is before you the amount of imperous area so the area where water cannot penetrate is being slightly
reduced and the amount of pvious area where water can penetrate to the ground is being slightly increased. Inset three is when you get to the end of the north south circulation aisle on the east side of the building. You come
down to essentially the driveway on the south side of this site that is on Heightstown Primary Station Road. That circulation aisle comes down and meets a circulation aisle that runs to the third building that's all the way on the west side of the site. So we are modifying
where that north south circulation aisle intersects that east west circulation aisle. Again we're widening that area and doing some heavy duty pavement and add some greenery as well. And we've designed this path
assuming worst case scenario where you have two over the road trucks with sleeper cabs and a trailer passing each other. Now, that's extremely conservative because the reality is the likelihood that that would ever occur is
extremely low. And the reality is that most if not all of the trailers that would be in the trailer parking lot are not going to be moved by um over the road tractors that have sleeper cabs. Mostly going to be
yard hosters or yard jockeyies they call them, which are just day caps. So, we conservatively, intentionally designed it for over the road tractor trailers passing each other, but the reality is that's likely never going to happen. I'm
sorry, design is very conservative. And then inset four on this exhibit, again referring to A8, is just giving you an idea of the additional landscape area along that east west circulation aisle that takes you to the building all
the way on the west side of the site in the shared Amazon. In the vicinity of where the trailer parking area is proposed, there is an existing landscape strip. It essentially consists of ornamental and shade trees. Right now in the area where the trailer parking is
proposed, we are proposing to supplement that existing landscaping with additional trees, both ornamental and shade trees, as well as lowlying shrubs to fill in the spaces in between the existing trees that are out there because they are kind of spaced pretty
far from each other. In addition, right here on the southwest corner of where the building is, there is existing car parking spaces that also run out the west side of the building. We're proposing to take away some of those existing car parking spaces. So, taking
the asphalt away and converting into grass area again to keep the impervious slightly reduced and impervious slightly increased with this proposal. And so correct me if I'm wrong on the parking that's on the west side of the building is very rarely used right now if at all
>> if ever Mr. Chairman and and I think that's an important point just to make for everyone's education. You had the dubious honor of having one of the first Amazon facilities in the state. Robinsville came first and I think this one followed not too long
after. And at that time, Amazon, these kind of buildings were relatively new. And I'll be very frank with you, Amazon was overhiring the amount of people they needed to run these buildings because
they were definitely afraid of not being able to run them efficiently. So, they wanted to ensure they had more labor than was actually needed. The other thing that's happened since this building opened is there's new technologies that Amazon continues to
introduce into these buildings, particularly for labor or manual tasks that potentially can hurt associates. So, they're looking to automate those specific kinds of things inside their buildings. What that
has translated into is their headcounts are decreasing over time. they're not increasing over time. So yes, Amazon was before you. I was part of that application seeking more parking than what otherwise your ordinance would
require at that time. And the reality is now they don't need all that parking. The headcounts and the amount of associates they hired to run the building when it first opened versus what they need now and what they used to run this building are night and day. So the reduction in the headcounts have
less have left more than abundant number of car parking spaces and that's why we can reduce the spaces to create some additional green area and take a bunch of spaces away for the trailer parking because it's not going to affect their their associates ability
to find parking. There's more than enough parking here. Absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. The building entrance is over here. No one parks on that west park. And just quickly, >> if they did, is there a way for them to
get in and out without crossing all the other area outside? >> There isn't. Um, with the proposed park trailer parking lot, there isn't the ability to get from the west parking spaces over to the front door because
the trailer parking lot's fully secured and essentially cuts off that pedestrian path. That's a comment that your planner had in terms of not having that pedestrian path continuously. Um, but
with all due respect, we know no one parks on that side of the building. If the board's concerned about that, we can certainly agree to a condition that the Amazon would instruct all of its associates not to park on the west side of the building. >> And maybe at the entrance have some sort
of signage or something saying no parking or something to that effect. >> Yeah, we could do that. Absolutely. Um, while I'm while I'm at it, I'll just hit one of the comments that Andy Andy Fr had in his letter. He wanted a little
bit of testimony as to if we looked at other areas, specifically the east side of the building to create this trailer park. And I can tell you, we did look at converting the east side of the building into
the trailer park. So again referring to A7 sheet A1 000A the east side of the building has car parking. So we laid out trailer parking stalls on that side of the building. It
yielded less than 30 trailer parking spaces and it required essentially a redesign of that entire east side to fit in the trailer parking which for two reasons was basically
thrown out as an idea. one because it didn't yield as many trailer parking spaces and two because of the modifications it would require on that side of the building. The landlord flat out said no because the landlord's booking to the future if and when Amazon
ever left the building and this returned back to a spec warehouse. It would inhibit their ability to market the site if they didn't have parking on that side. So the landlord basically tied their hands, but we didn't yield enough trailer parking
for Amazon's purposes anyway. And again, just for the board's information, why is Amazon doing this? This is prevalent in the warehousing industry. There's a trailer and container management issue. Back in the day, you got a container,
say from a port, you could empty it and send it back to the port and they would hold it for you. They don't want containers back anymore. the ports are too congested. So, individual warehouse buildings and individual tenants have to now manage their empty containers on
their sites. And that's why Amazon seed this trailer park. Dana, that's a point I want to talk about. So, current the current operation, Amazon has to take their empty trailers off site. Yes. This proposal will allow them to keep them on
site. Correct. In in your opinion, by having it on site, does that reduce truck traffic going to and from the site to whatever the off-site location? It does, and it'll reduce the amount of truck trips that are occurring on a
daily basis along time station. And I think that's an important point that was brought up at the DRC and I don't think it was I don't think we got that in the March 6 meeting, but that's significant because
if we could reduce I didn't realize you're you're donkeying these things around to a third party site off site. So that means you're you're bringing trucks on the road, bringing trucks back every day. >> That is correct. and and and you know
>> do you know what volume >> I do not um right now Amazon has on the order of like 40 plus trailers from this facility and the offsite line and look I live in South Brunswick I
wanted to vulge out here prior so for everyone's information I did text the mayor I said hey there's an issue here and there's going to be contact from cranberry I already set the table for that. >> Thank you. You're welcome. He's a I've known the mayor. We grew up together.
So, I've known him for everyone experiences, right? Home Depot along station road. Home Depot jockeyies empty trailers from the one facility on the north side to their other facility on the south side. So, you guys live it
and experience it. Yes. 's taking its trailers today to an off-site location. It's not in this town. It's in another town. So, not only does it create some issues on Heightstown Station Road, but it's also creating additional truck trips along station road.
>> So, in your opinion, would this additional parking eliminate the need to have that third party parking offsite? >> Absolutely. as it relates to this facility. That off-site trailer lot takes trailers from other Amazon facilities in the region.
>> Okay. So, that's significant. >> Yes. And I think that is an absolute positive with this proposal and I'm glad that we are are talking about it. Um, next. >> Yeah. I think the only other thing in Andy's letter, he just wanted some
testimony in terms of the adequacy of circulation. So we do have an exhibit. That one was premarked A7, but now it will become A9. It's entitled Circulation Exhibit again prepared by my firm with a date of
October 23rd. >> This sheet is in your package. that you see. But essentially, it shows the critical areas. Again, those insets just like the similar the previous activity, showing
two trucks passing each other, coming in and out of the truck port in set one. In set two is them circulating along the north south aisle as they're making their way either to or from the trailer parking lot. Inset three is where that
north south aisle um intersects the driveway coming off primary station road and the ability for two trucks to pass each other along that section. And then insect five and insect six start with insect four. Insect four is
showing a truck tractor trailer. Again, this is over the road, even though it's going to be probably daycs, but over over the road, tractor trailers, Amazon calls them blinds or long holes.
Um, accessing parking spaces, which are the furthest ones to the east next to the spin circle with these. And then in five and inset six has also shown emergency vehicles,
firet truck being able to access um the areas that are proposed both for the car park and the trailer lot. So in terms of circulation, we've already designed it intentionally and it can accommodate not only emergency
vehicles but over as well. I think in terms of design waiverss, the architect did touch upon the one as it relates to the width of a trailer stall. The ordinance requires 15 ft. I know
originally the proposal back in March was for 10 ft. Admittedly, that's a little narrow. We are now proposing 12 feet, which is completely consistent with typical modern warehouse design standards for
trailers or trailers. The only other waiverss we are seeking as the board's planner has highlighted really relate to pedestrian access as it relates to the trailer parking lot. And as you heard from earlier testimony, that is a no
area. The only people that will be accessing the trailer parking lot are the drivers that are coming in their cabs. They'll get out of their cab, they'll hook into a trailer and they'll leave. So there is no need for pedestrian accommodations in our opinion
respectfully for the trailer parking lot. Your board planner correctly points out that in the main truck court there are pedestrian accommodations in terms of crosswalks and pedestrian circulation aisles. That is intentional because that
main truck court Amazon does do trailer inspections. So there are people walking up and down that truck port area regularly conducting trailer inspections and because that's a secured area with
trailers full of product as it's being loaded either into the building or from the building onto a trailer. Um security measures are pretty tight in that area and pedestrian accommodations are necessary for all that security to be
conducted. But the proposed trail lot has none of that. So we would seek that wave those design waiverss from the board for those reasons. Um Mr. Hoder's review letter, we we can
comply with everything. We have no issues that were raised in his letter. We are seeking those design waiverss as highlighted in the board planners letter. I don't think there was anything else in the board letter that we need to address in terms of requested changes
and then letter we we can comply with everything other than you heard earlier testimony we can't provide the parking spaces um if this was a brand new site absolutely would be required but seeing that this is a right fit and
the amount of trenching that would be needed I can tell you flat out We're not going to dig on a site where there was ordinance. That's >> and the landlord's going to tell us. I've had extensive conversations with the landlord subsequent to the March
meeting in advance of the RC meeting and I fully understand what we can and cannot do trenching for electric for EV spaces. they're not allowed to. And I kind of laugh when I was thinking about when I was driving here like EV spaces for employees to me that
doesn't make sense because employees are going to live relatively close to where they work. So you charge a car overnight, you drive to work, you got plenty of charge to get them clean. So that never made sense to me to have spaces at places where people work.
totally makes sense where people live and it totally makes sense for uses that will draw from far distances like right I'm sure yeah there shouldn't be any spaces because there are probably people driving 300 miles to go to bring it the places of employment I don't necessarily
agree with it that's just a philosophical thing of mine but nonetheless yeah >> because you raised it for the record I work at a building that has 1 1600 employees most of drive they provide EV
spots. There are 296 people who have registered to use them and by 6:00 a.m. every morning they've already been fil. >> Are they free to the employees? >> Uh yes. >> That's why that's exactly why everybody wants to
do. Hopefully you're not commuting too far to get to your place of employment 60. I hear that parking lot for >> Oh, no. Yeah, this is part of the
original unacel property where it blew up and ordinance was thrown all over >> saying, >> well, I told the DRC when we here perform, I learned a new term when we were doing this project originally. It's
called mech. It's materials of explosive concern. >> And yes, the mech has been mitigated to the greatest extent possible. And there's like a set of ex-military people that have a business where they go around removing this explosive material,
but there's no guarantee of that at all. And it can it can still migrate up through the soil. So yeah, the buildings, the pavement, and the landscape areas, they're all part of a capping system that the D required as part of this development.
>> The only thing is when you do come back in for a new building somewhere else in town, we will need some EV spaces. So just plot chair, I have nothing further for Mr. >> All right. Um let um we're going to start with our professionals. Brian, do
you want to say anything? >> They addressed all the concerns that put in his letter. >> Okay. >> Yeah, they did take some wind out of my sales and the fact that he said
everything they're going to do there uh is going to be completed as part of compliance. Uh so that's wonderful. Uh, and um, the only comment I have is if I could ask the architect to uh, put a real revision date on these plans. I I
was a little confused tonight when I got here because your first plan sheet says revised number 63525. Uh, but I did notice down below that it's been printed was printed out on 1020,
which isn't really it's a plot date. It's not really a revision date. So, if you could help me out when you do the compliance plans uh and tell me what a real revision is and when you do it and and if you have different ones for different plans, you can do that, too. Or you do the whole thing just so that
my uh brain can understand. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Liz, well, they have addressed the designs that I highlighted. Um if the board is satisfied with the
reasons given then I'm I'm satisfied. Um I think one thing that is important uh testimony which was not brought up in March was why they're doing this which is this um I think makes it all make a lot more sense. >> Yeah, it's significant because if we're
going to reduce if we're I didn't real and it's probably not just for this building. It's it's something that we should actually inquire throughout all of our spaces if they're donkeying stuff to third party sites.
And that's something we need to think about because if it if we can eliminate truck traffic in and around the town or through the town or in certain areas, you know, especially, you know, Brick Ride Road or, you know, oh,
you know, Cranberry Heights, what is it? Um, what's the road? Cranberry Station Road there or Station Heights Road. I get it right. um and stop, you know, the truck traffic from going on that or eliminating a bunch of it. That's that's
significant. >> Yeah, I think that I in my mind I thought that would be good to share with the traffic subcommittee, >> right? >> Just in terms of is this actually contributing to some of the traffic issues that that people do raise. So, it's an interesting thing to learn.
Thank you for that. I think furthermore it's important to realize that if they are trucking those trailers off and bring them back double the truck traffic that was probably in the original uh traffic statement
traffic report and you know that makes you think well how many more of these sites are in excess by double of their original TIR as it was presented to the town for approval. That seems like a pretty important question.
>> Do they normally I mean are they supposed to take that into account or is that outside the scope of their >> So trip generation for warehouses is done based on it and it does studies at warehouses across the country and base
thousands of them and they base their trip generation rates and peak hours based on those. So it takes into account whatever activity is happening at those warehouses across the country. So some may be donkeying to other sites, some might not be. So it >> so on a national level it's averaged in
the repositioning. >> I mean it has a lot of holes in it. Um I'm not going to argue that uh you know Costco does its own studies now because it doesn't properly predict the truck traffic that they have. I'm sure Amazon runs into similar issues throughout the
country. Um and this issue is relatively new. the IT it's unlikely to have been updated uh since uh ports stopped accepting their trailers back. So this might be a unrealized uh change in
traffic patterns. >> I'd like to go around members of the board. Do you have any questions or comments? >> I have no questions. >> Yeah, >> I'm good. Thank you. Nothing more.
>> Just for housekeeping, um, does Amazon have any portion of its employees who come in by either walking or public transportation? I would imagine not in that location, but if they do, is there with all this additions of the trucks
moving inside, are there clear pedestrian paths for the crossing of those paths for anyone who didn't arrive by car and already parked in the parking lot? >> Yes. If anybody, and I don't think anybody does, but if anyone came up
Heights down Station Road and wanted to get into the building, there are ways for them to walk. No sidewalks, but there are ways for them to walk to get into the building. And just so the board understands, this isn't going to be a constant flow of empties running back
and forth between the main truck court and the proposed trailer parking area. um you're probably going to get maybe one or two movements an hour over the course of the business many business hours. Um so it's not a high volume line or high activity proposal.
So if anyone works there today and they walk today, they can continue to walk the same way they have right now to get into the building. >> So the new truck parking area is not going to restrict that access. Not at all. >> Yeah. It wasn't so much the parking area I was interested in. It was that
circulation path across to the stair. It's just that there was some sort of striping somewhere across. referring to exhibit A8. I think you are referring to like this drive on Hightown Cranberry Station
Road. Yeah, there's no there's no sidewalk and without any sidewalk, there's really nothing warranting putting in a crosswalk or doing anything like that. The reason why I say that is you put in
a crosswalk, now you need to put in handicap ramps on either side of the crosswalk. And then you need to provide a accessible path, which means a new sidewalk. And it means very extensive work to accommodate what
is likely little or any use by their current associates. >> Okay. >> No, I was going to get to you. >> I I have two brief questions and I followed um I followed the number of parking stalls earlier on and I got lost
for a second there. Do we have a net number like at the very end that number? >> Sure we do. The net number I'll take you through. Right now 987 car parking spaces. With the changes that
are proposed there'll be 726 car parking spaces left. Your ordinance requires 327 car parking spaces. >> Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Um I given the the information with
regards to the trend of these trailers not being welcomed necessarily at the at the ports. Um do you see that what you're proposing today is enough for the future? >> Yes, we do because this building is
basically at its operating capacity. So and that was one important point that I didn't make. This trailer parking lot is not going to increase the amount of trucks coming in and out of this facility other than in order for the facility to function. It will reduce the
amount of trailers that are pulled back and forth between the offsite trailer. But in terms of the trucks that are needed to run this facility, that amount is matching. >> That's great. And um I just want to recognize how you have chosen to return
some items back to nature and that it's very well received. You're welcome. >> Just to echo your comment, I don't think that Amazon of all companies could have been predictive about the use of
automation to reduce, you know, physical labor and human capital. I would hope that future projects and new warehouses are not having an excess of 400 parking spaces being built. So, I
echo your thought of returning some green space where you can, making a nicer space for your associates that work there, those that do. But I would hope in future planning, just if you added up all those original warehouses that were built to this spec and how
much acreage was wasted by doing that, I would be astonished at that number. So, more of a comment than a than any question. >> A point well taken. then you're spot on. And I worked on the wrong one, right?
That one was designed for 2500 employees for the day shift and 2500 employees at night shift. So they have 2500 car parking stalls out there. That same building, no, it's not they don't configure it the same way anymore. It's
different configuration. It's down to 700 employees. >> That's how much technology. >> Oh yeah. Um, does anybody else have any comments from
the board or our professionals? Okay. At this point in time, I'd like to open up for public comment from the public on this application. Please come up and state your name.
State your name and address, please. >> Yeah, we're going to put the clock on here. So, 54 years. And first I would like to say that our the way our house is we have 450 foot on
that sh from the other side of the drive. Our bedroom is on that side down the same side of the drive. I sleep with the window except when it gets real and so therefore the noise that we're talking
about I'm about 5 600 ft away that so that's just one of the points but I have a little bit of legal point that I got to ask you and you maybe somebody can answer. I think Mr. voter was what I've
been uh I went to the first meeting for CBY and they started and I've been at every meeting for 10 years but then we were killing that fact my wife found the fact that they were going to bring sludge in from when they were digging out for the
bigger boat not to kill up there and they were sent to Pennsylvania and clean but they never checked for toxins there used toxic sludge to dump it underneath that building which runs into the Milstone which runs into which feeds up
most of our water. So we brought that to their attention detention and they put a hole for that. But anyway that's not good. Mr. order. I believe there was there was a problem with you sitting listening to the first when
the first application was receiving why uh pertaining to the country got done some work for some of them either Amazon or >> yeah we we were conflicted out of the original application because at the time I was at major and one of the people at
major had worked for for this so I didn't have anything So he's not at the same firm as what he's saying. >> No, I'm on my own. I've been on my own since 12. >> Okay. I just want to bring that up.
This board >> which one of the reasons I left I didn't like uh >> lives there. Okay. And the other thing that I don't think you're aware of the first when it
was first approved an approval had things that they had to comply with afterwards. If you look at that the approval, it'll have all those listed on. And one of those was when all three build because of traffic was so
confusing and so it could be it was jarred up so bad that they couldn't be sure what they in fact was going to be when all three of those buildings were were completely full and at the peak time of the year if it would the roads would be able to handle. So that's
factor was what they did is there's a statement in there that after the third building was was built and was operated is when they had to do that traffic stop to see how much increase in traffic on two million roads and that's the little building in the slowest one that was
filled once they did a traffic stud and what was going to happen if it exceeded the amount of traffic that they were going to allow or that they couldn't allow on secondary roads that they would have to build the road out of that site. And one of the plans was to there was
two curve openings on 130. One of them was right through the traffic light on old train road and it used take up some of my vans but it could be built and nobody liked that cranberry >> except for me >> except for me. >> Huh?
>> Except for me. >> Except for you. You wanted to see that? >> Yes. I I put the light there. I put purposely put that intersection there. Route 130 at the time. >> Yeah. >> For it to go into that. >> Well, the point is what this discussion
is going to is that >> that that traffic study in that number was never done. >> Well, I don't I I can't say that I know or don't know about that. So, >> no recall
on this application until you find out the first one. Well, what what what what we're actually doing is actually decreasing the truck traffic going in and out of this site. Okay. So, right now they're donkeying
trucks, trailers in and out to a third party site, a brickyard road, a cranberry station, hikes down road. So, there's more truck traffic now being generated. This should reduce that. It's all internal to the site. So if a truck
comes in and the trailer's got to stay, it stays on site. >> I understand. >> And and then and it goes back to whether it's Yeah, I know we're past our time, but I'm going to break my rule here. So, uh >> and then it stays within the site. So if
it go comes on, gets unloaded, and they got to stage it, it's staged on site instead of going off site and then coming back. That to me is ridiculous. We're we're increasing more truck traffic >> and on the roads out of the property. So
this in my opinion is is and I didn't realize this until just about a month ago when I heard this that they had this third party and and I'm going to look at other if this is going on elsewhere in town. Um because if it is, this is
something we're going to have to seek to address because if if we could eliminate this stuff by letting people park at least park their trailers on site in the short term and again you like you said they're not using the over the hall over
the road. They're using these small you know yard jockeyies to just trailer these things in and out. So it's not like we have these, you know, cabover, you know, tractors pulling this stuff in and around the site. So
I'm really and and again, if the study wasn't done, then we got to follow up on that. If there should be some record somewhere, if it's in some kind of legal if it's legally supposed to been done and it was never done, then we should follow up on that. But that doesn't take
into account what we're talking about here with this. This is actually eliminating truck traffic on the roads outside of the site. >> I understand what you're saying, but it's the way I look at it is we're we're
supplying more parking for more trucks, more operations. Okay. And one other thing was that I question last time was the doors on on the south side southern side of that building. Okay. And the six
trucks being parked here because that's the closest to >> it's not 60. It's 44 now. >> And there's no there's going to be no access to anything from that building to that to that spot where they're parked. They're not going to be unloading or loading there.
That's that's that's not part of this. It's strictly storage only. They're never going to they're not going to unload and nor would we let them unload on that side of the building. >> Okay. Either either way you want to cut it would put it someplace else or we use
the six that's on site. Okay. Either way you cut it still that that truck that many trucks more in that ter site and swap them out or what have you. So it's my my question there would be is
these hours that this is going to happen. Are they doing this all night long swapping trailers in and out of the the third shift in order to get more activity done? >> You know what I mean? >> I'd have to talk to the operations. They could they could they could answer that
question. >> They check for the noise level. Well, the noise levels are going to be what they're going to be as as far as truck. You you've got trucks going in and out of Amazon that are just >> Yeah.
>> Just say just a couple of corrections. So there, as the traffic engineer testified, this is not going to result in more traffic, more trucks. It's servicing the existing. So the second thing is that they have to comply with Cranber's noise ordinance
and the state of New Jerseyy's noise ordinance regardless of where these trailers are. So we have an obligation to comply. Doesn't matter from the south side or the north. >> I already been there. Same thing. You know who has to provide the noise pay for the noise test and
stuff? The owner who complain county when they got somebody available. Well, >> well, your three minutes is long past. So, so um you know, make it quick. >> I'll try, >> please.
>> Yeah, you get three minutes to talk. >> No, don't don't start it. But >> yeah, that's the way we it's it's it's what we provide all every citizen to make public comment. Well, my feeling is and the truck speaking of that while you're talking
about the trucks on the road at South Fe Station Road, the intersection on the northern end was completely engineered. The one on the south end on my corner, they said that's a that's a hard hard turn hard. They end up on my lawn.
That's how hard it is. I gave the I gave the township committee a group of photos from I got one on my phone but the track is actually all the way on the wall of the sport. >> I know I think you brought this up last time and again that's that's for
unfortunately for the township to correct. That's not that's not for the board here to correct. I mean that's a that's a town road >> that's I understand what you're saying. a lot of applications pertain to if they can use the roads to
get to that place and that was supposed to have been done when they did the first that intersection. >> Well, that's the second thing we'll follow up on. Okay. >> All right. That's that's a big thing. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Mr. Sorry. The last time that you had sent photos in on trucks being on your lot or anything like that, was this the current township committee or was this a couple years ago or >> this was recently >> at the March at the March planning board
meeting? >> March planning board meeting. I was I was referring to information we sent to the committee. >> You probably didn't send it to the committee. What I would recommend is that >> asking if it was to the detention
committee if you wouldn't mind resending anything. >> I gave my picture. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Then I'll try to research it and track it down. It was at the planning board meeting versus community. That's what I was trying. >> They should be on this file.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. independent of this application. >> If there was a legal requirement in the original approval for the site with the land with Amazon to do an additional traffic study after the third building
was done, we should inquire whether that was done. If not, yes, >> they should do it. >> Can you turn your microphone off? >> Well, I wasn't involved at the time. I know the personnel involved. Um, Andrew Frano was here and he there then and later on he always asked for that
traffic study. Whether he got it or not, I don't know. Uh, the engineer that reviewed the plan was TNM Associates, a guy named Glenn Kirk and he replaced me for that application. And he no longer works for the town. Probably take forever to get anything out of TN
because it's such a big company. >> Uh, but it may be that uh our buddy here can can ask Andrew if he ever had anything. >> I can call the manager. Yeah. Um, the town engineer I think was still the same company that we have now, but not Tom
Decker. And so he would have to go back and look at his own. He may or may not have reviewed it. He's not a traffic engineer. Well, maybe Andrew would be the first one. >> It would have been the landlord who was responsible for commissioning. Right. >> Right. >> So the land worst case, we could just
ask the landlord to provide it if they if they produced it. Well, the other thing is we do have the traffic engineer I think that did the work at the time here tonight. >> I did the study and I submitted. >> So, you did the original or the new one
after the third? We did the original. So, I did the original one. >> Yes, >> we did a subsequent one. >> Um, >> so yeah, consider and I can provide it again if if the township needs it. And then we did do a third one which was
submitted as part of the package to the DRC when we got heard by the DRC a month ago and did speak to it and his review and I don't want to put words in his mouth but in summary he said everything's consistent with the original approvals. We did analyze the
intersection of station road and heights townry station road and yours truly designed that traffic signal too and the results of that analysis as part of that study submitted for the DRC in that package showed that everything was working great just as intended.
I got a technical question for for you. Um and this has happened before. Once the board approves something and it leaves us, we really don't have any jurisdiction to
follow up on enforcement. Yes, >> the township. >> The township does, but we don't >> or we can make requests, but it sounds like it's >> it should be on file. >> So, we should get that just to make sure we we bring closure to that and then the
township should have that then. And if there's in if there's issues with the intersection of Brickyard Road that needs to be addressed and the township engineer and and to that point, Mr. Chairman, the
original developer, I'm almost positive a $500,000 payment in li of any improvements for the township to put towards improvements to Brickyard Road. And then what the developer took on themselves,
>> they improved pretty road >> was an complete reconstruction of Heightstown Cranberry Station Road from the subtlety access all the way to the station road intersection. And when I say reconstruction, you probably remember it was full depth
reconstruction. It was minor widening and a full depth reconstruction to accommodate the additional stress of trucks out using that. >> Now, Mr. Dylan and I probably don't agree on a lot of things, but one of the things I do agree with him on is the is
that the intersection of Ultran Road and Cranberry and Route 130 should have been the access to that property. And it should have been all internal and then brought out to Route 130. Why it never did why it never got there. I know
there's wetlands. You could work around wetlanders, but it's it's >> it's the same reason why Liberty Way has never been extended over that water. The EP was not going to allow through all the weapons because the the
original developer and the current >> is gez between >> we did look at four clarion partners that connection out to opposite Old Tren Road and we even looked at a connection
linking where all the Rayfair buildings are along station road like connect because they own those buildings too. They bought those buildings. They wanted to connect internally this park with that one with a eventual hopes that Liberty Way would be completed and again
our assessment of the permitting that would be required it was a non-starter. You need an individual permit. It would be massively profession and probably not feasible. >> All right. We >> I don't remember the application, but
there was an extensive testimony about it at some point years ago that more or less said the same thing that it was almost that if there was very little chance the state would approve it and that it was probably like a 20 million plus venture.
>> All right, we we beat that to death. Um, so if there's no more questions or comments, >> I have one question. >> All right, go ahead. >> Um, with respect to the the amount of truck traffic coming in and out of the site, um,
Amazon proposing about a 30,000 square foot mezzanine pick module on the northwest corner of the building. Um, how is that going to impact the traffic coming in and out? Is that going to cause more truck traffic? Is that kind of the reason we're doing all of these
additional spaces? I'm not aware of what you're referring to. >> Is there a separate >> I guess Amazon put in for a big 30,000 foot what looks like a pick
module conveyor system >> for this building. >> For this building. Yeah. >> Yeah. At least this team's unaware of that. You can certainly And this happens often. >> I mean, it's the same amount of loading. I mean, they're not increasing like that. But I'm just kind of wondering
>> if I if I wait. Yes. Again, I don't know specifically, it's probably to reduce some human labor inside the building where people have a higher chance of getting hurt. >> It's construction plans. There's nothing.
>> Is it existing space or new space? >> It's existing space. >> So no square footage difference. >> No square footage. >> Just mechanical stuff. >> Yeah, just just mechanical. Just automation. Okay. >> All right. I'm going to close the public
portion of the meeting and if anybody else has any questions or comments from the board or professionals. All right. I'm going to call this to move this forward for approval.
So, can I have a motion to approve plans as stated? >> Motion to approve. >> Can I have a second, please? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call for PB 402-25. Miss Anderson,
>> yes. >> Miss Albidi, >> yes. >> Miss Conro, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Mildenberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Stewart, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion passed.
>> Thank you very much. I just again, I just want to on behalf of the applicant thank the township for working uh with us throughout this project. As you can see, we came a long way since the March meeting. Frankly, that wasn't due to us. It was due to the board and the board's consultants. So, thank you. Appreciate
it. >> You're welcome. Okay. All right. Next item on the agenda is old and new business. >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. >> I thought we were going to Yeah, we need
to officially do that. >> All right. And next item on the agenda is PB411-25 Ker Associates Gates. >> Yes. They have request a continuation to your January meeting and without further
notice looked at the affidavit they submitted for publication and they were in order to take jurisdiction and move it to January. >> Okay. Do we need to vote on that or just just say
>> Yep. We're going to move it to January. >> January 8th. Yep. >> Okay. Now we're on to old and new business. No. Old and new business. >> Has to be old and new at the same time. >> It has to be old and new at the same
something borrowed something. >> Okay. Zoning subcommittee. Anything on that? >> Last Wednesday. Oh, no. Thursday. last Thursday. >> Yeah. >> November 13th, I think.
>> Yeah, >> we'll continue that. And then we got a recommendation back from HBC >> on kind of replacing the historic preservations guidelines with in our design guidelines that seem
to be a little bit antiquated that were kind of written a long time ago versus their guidelines in chapter 93. >> Right. 93 and basically taking and referencing chapter 93 rather than what
is in existence now. So we're in the process of swapping that out. Right. >> Okay. And so we got a little bit more work. >> Yeah. We had drafted some design guidelines, but our architect
so he >> does an option like the spoke about that find We talked a great deal about screening like we normally do. >> We did mention it on our call that the hot box came up.
>> I I Yes, we could we could look at again um doing that for the hot box rather than in addition to the panone green color number that they could do. have is that
something because I I you know we've had applicants come in all the time and they have these hot boxes that they have to put in and we request that they screen the ever loan >> garbage out of them. Is there any way we could look at them putting a wrap on it
to to instead of all this additional screening or something to hide it? I mean >> in the middle of a parking lot, right? So >> yeah, >> you can't really screen it without pulling on block pavement. Yeah, that's just it. >> In their case, they're they're taking
two more parking spaces out of the school parking lot in order to provide the landscaping around it. Whereas the wrap might be um two parking spaces, >> you know, a less cumbersome
combination with the school >> because if they're if you don't do anything, they're really visually obtrusive. Well, it looks like there's big bricks sitting in the middle of the barcode into this document and then it becomes
an option that we are already aware of. I think that the school specifically came to us at the the TC to say this isn't anywhere in our ordinances and this is an option that we can have that does save the parking spaces and can look aesthetically pleasing. Um and so I
I I just share that here. I bring this up here today just so that we can get ahead of this for the rest of the applicants. >> I'm familiar with the hot boxes obviously not the one that's here. Help my imagination. What's an example of an aesthetically pleasing rap?
>> So they they do >> I know what the wraps are, >> right? So they they can do it for example with school spirit and it can look like uh you know the Vikings for example, right? >> It could be as our chairman mentioned earlier something that's very naturish. So it looks like u you know a painting
or or an element of nature itself. It could be uh it could be interchangeable. It be something that that you you do for a couple of years and you change it again >> like the rock. >> It's to mimic >> like the rock. It's to mimic exactly what it is you would put in landscaping.
So, it's a wrap of landscaping, right? So, instead of having the shrubs and the hedges, you have a wrap that goes around the hot box that looks like the shrubs. >> That one worries me more because and I'm open to seeing it and being wrong. But in my general experience, when you have
something like that, it ends up drawing attention to the fact that it is fake. the idea of something that looks purposeful like school spirit or something. I get the idea. I guess I'm just worried because if I see like a picture of landscaping that draws my
attention more than just like a green box >> and and the the school, if I'm correct, they they said that they would work with with um you know with the various suggestions, but you know like HPC had a suggestion of something historic and then you know we've got this suggestion of something naturelike and then the
school said oh we just make Viking spirit. The point isn't it's an option, right? It's an option that I personally was never aware of. And if we can put it within the list of options that we have, it becomes a little bit more familiar for the rest of us.
>> Well, it gives it I I don't want to lose parking spaces out there because parking's tight as it is out there. It makes me nervous and I'm just one opinion. So this and I think it's fine here but I think we could do it as like
we've done many other things saying there's sort of special circumstances here. Once you make a rap an option I still think real nature around it. hiding it is better than a wrap when it's possible. And once you make a wrap an option as if it's like just in your
choice that anyone can make, I would think every applicant would choose the wrap over using real real landscaping. And I think there's plenty of sites where there's room for real landscaping and that would still be the better outcome where we can accomplish it. So if we're going to do it, I think we
should try to do it and say that there that it's a hardship there, you know, that that there's clear parking with it. So it's a clear ask a question. Wasn't this a capital project review one that they did not necessarily have to listen to the comments of the board? They could do what they needed to do,
>> right? So they don't have to come back to the board. We don't have to change the ordinance. They can do I as I see it chair, they can do their rap and say thank you. We can say you're welcome and that's it. >> But but I think that's I think you bring up a good point. We shouldn't make that as an option.
>> Yeah. But but in in the future if there is another hardship thing that we have it in our right >> arsenal but it doesn't have to >> I just never thought about using a wrapping. >> Okay. >> All right. The chickens.
>> So um I know yesterday it didn't go out to everybody until today. Um but the question really that the board needs to opine on I think is recommendation as to um whether
chicken coots should be a permitted use or conditionally permitted use in um either the village commercial zone which is sort of the sort of right here or the village hamlet residential zone which is
sort of spreads out from the village commercial. Um either just to step back, home agriculture is permitted in every zone in Cranberry except for those two zones. And um a resident had come uh
forward and asked TC to permit chickens in the village, a Hamilton residential. Uh, and so the question is if the board um would recommend that there be uh that it be permitted in
either or of those zones or both and if it is specifically with chicken coops if there were uh some regulations that you would want put in place. Um and the the memo provides some samples of nearby
towns where you know they lot size you know they at Princeton ties the number of chickens you have to your lot size you know that there things like that setback requirements there are um you know you can't have roosters is just
about a uniform uh standard um that you can't you know the have to be uh set back a certain distance from your neighboring uh residential dwellings etc. So I think the question is
would the board feel comfortable allowing this in I mean it's allowed everywhere else in the township currently without any standards. Would the board uh recommend that it be permitted in these zones
either or or both with st I would recommend with standards but it's it's a question for >> well if my humble opinion >> um if we're going to be redoing it or looking at it just for here I'm going to
redo it for the whole town because I'm not just going to do this here and just say, you know, you could have a you could have a rooster over in in Shadow Oaks and you can't have it here cuz No. Yeah. Things like that. So there there's
got to be some set set of standards throughout the that are uniform in the whole town. Number one, that's just my humble opinion. And number two, um, yeah, I read all the different things from the different towns, you
know, you know, and I'm still confused. Why is that the planning board and not the zoning board? But that's a whole another thing. But, uh, why is this a planning board issue, not a zoning board issue? Is it >> Could you make it because you do the master plan?
>> Oh, so this would be in court. >> Yeah. you make the recommend and and and just to remind you in the 2010 master plan there was um language about not permitting home agriculture in the VC the village commercial it didn't mention
the BHR but when it came to do the zoning it included both zones >> so again and and including out so the way I'm reading you said you can't include that so I can't have a garden in my backyard of town here is that what it's I can't have a vegetable garden in my
backyard. >> I mean, >> that's a little ridiculous. >> Well, was there intent? >> Was it did was there intent to limit it within the village residential? >> I think there was certainly in the
master plan there was intent to limit it in the village commercial, >> right? >> But not necessarily the village res. >> So, are we dealing with an accident? Um, what I can tell you, I think I provided this information last time. I
just honestly don't remember. But what I can tell you is when it came to the TC back in 2011 uh to change the zoning, the TC was uncomfortable with not permitting it to the BHR and
they directed they adopted it but they directed my predecessor Richard Price to look into it further. I don't not sure they ever did and so nothing has changed since 2011. said they were uncomfortable but adopted it.
>> Well, they there were it was part of a whole like overhaul of the zoning ordinance. It's one small aspect and so they didn't want to, you know, throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, they sort of said, "Okay, we're going to change we're going to adopt this whole sale, you know, these massive changes to
the ordinance." But there was two there was another issue actually that they kind of said, "Look, we want to think about this further." >> So, I mean, next question. And I don't know if you have an answer to this as it comes to enforcement. Why all of a sudden is this being enforced now and
not 10 years ago when people still had chickens in the village? But what's what is spurring this on? I mean, it seems like somebody's comment saying, "Can I have chickens?" >> But there's plenty of people in town who never asked a question. Can I have chickens? >> They just had chickens. >> I guess we're finally counting on
chickens >> after they hatch. So is it like >> there's a different personel some people are gonna >> it's a different sheriff in town now >> different um you know and this
particular the resident who came forward was made to get rid of his >> okay so I mean maybe came from the feeling of hey listen nobody's ever really enforced this thing you know we all know that people are chickens and then all of a sudden
>> it happened one day Yes, that's exactly I think it's incorrect. >> We have the same issue with signage in the village. You know, we've had various revisions to the signage code and then people start doing things a little out of it. Everyone's okay with it until
someone says something props up. >> Yeah. But I think what we talked about last month, members of the board who do live near chicken coops raised questions and concerns of of it being completely
unregulated, you know, as >> well. Yeah. I I I I I know people that they have chickens that are running not contained in the in their own yard where they're supposed to be going into
the neighboring yard, digging up the landscape and scratching, you know, the mulch out of the beds and laying eggs over it. I mean, it just I've I've had people tell me this. So, if you're going to be, you know, it's got to be uniform throughout the
whole town and and >> but to your point, um, my dog coming over in the yard, that's not okay. It's the same for chickens, >> right? It's the same thing, right? >> So, I mean, I think that's beyond that point, but you know, there are certain things you can do to contain the
chickens, right? And I mean, I've read a lot of it. Princeton and couple other municipalities. Yeah. Well, they spent a lot of time wanting to get that stuff right. >> I mean, I I was impressed. You know, so many square foot, two chickens or three, you know, was
>> you can have 12 chickens to an acre. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You have to make the conversion. >> Yeah. So, it's it's um I mean, we can piggy back on that. I mean, is this a standalone thing to look at or is this something we can combine
with other planning issues that may come up in the future? Like if we're going to look at modifying zones to do this, that, or the other thing, is it something we should put together as one big package or just this
is a oneoff look at this and fix it? Well, I mean, it was raised by a res, you know, had a specific um >> I know the res. So, >> the specific uh concern >> should we should we send it to the
zoning committee? >> We could send it >> and then see what happens there and then come back. >> Well, it's going to come back here. I mean, I got I got the look from Sharon. It's like I guess it's our baby. So, >> can you remind me again with regards to
the the master revisit >> what was the decision that was what was the suggestion that was made that was not sort of executed. So there as I as I said what the master plan in 2010 said
no home agriculture in the village commercial and was silent on the village Tampa residential when they all these and you know massive changes came to the zoning ordinance in 2011 it was removed from both zones and I think the TC I can't you know I wasn't
there I can't speak but based on the record that I read they were like okay we're gonna we're going to, you know, pass all of these changes, but we're uncomfortable with two issues. And one was somebody having to do with setbacks. And the second was
should, you know, what about home agriculture in the BHR? And somebody at the time who was on the TC said, you know, it this actually isn't consistent with the master plan. The master plan doesn't say in the in the uh EHR.
So it was they had directed Richard Price to look into this. All I ever in our files was Richard Price just said had a memo to the TC saying just take it into consideration because what the impacts could be on
>> they take they kick the ball down the court. >> So so basically let's just look at take this down to its course. So if the committee decides to um adopt an or or introduce an ordinance for chickens in this zone right now, it's not in the
master plan. So when it comes out back to us, the board would say it's not consistent with the master plan. >> So So the to >> I guess what you need to do is see if the master plan should be up. which
>> came first. >> Yeah, the chicken. >> Excellent suggestion. >> If you take the other side of that, if I'm in a VHR and I want to have chickens, that's okay because I'm not in a commercial.
>> No, but what what they're saying is that the the master plan >> because to both the intention was only the VC. Well, I should say what is written in the master plan is only the VC. I don't know why
the HR was locked in >> in the ordinance. >> In the ordinance in the ordinance, but not in the master plan. Correct. Correct. Right. That's what I'm saying. So, >> but the ordinance is what counts. >> Okay. So, so it seems like what happens is at the time they consciously knew they were approving the ordinance that
was going to have two things they weren't really sure about >> and they kind of directed we could always change this later to future >> let's revisit next year. either the study wasn't done or that brief memo that he provided was intended to be his thing which was yeah you got to think
about the noise and then no one did anything with it and they left it that but standing law is what was passed in the ordinance >> and they did so with purpose and intent just to follow didn't >> so could a revision to the ordinance be made
>> that doesn't contradict the master plan >> okay in the VHR >> if you >> in the VHR yeah that's the Yes. Yes. >> If you removed it, if you start getting into all this like >> regulations >> regulations, the question is, is that
consistent with the master plan? >> Yeah. Did you say that yesterday? Was this amendment to anyone's ordinance? So it's not in the land ordinance. >> That's true.
>> I'm sorry. >> I didn't hear that. >> Yeah. But that but yes, if you'll see and I put this in my memo is a lot of this is regulated through municipal codes outside of land.
>> Well, what bothers me is that if it's no agriculture, that means I can't even have a tomato garden in my backyard. I mean, that's what that's that's literally what it's saying. That's ridiculous. >> I mean, I can't have a a two foot by two foot plot and put some tomatoes in in my backyard. That that doesn't make any
sense. I I would say all home agriculture under one umbrella is not a great idea because I mean not that it's not a great idea but I think you could separate out some uses and say yes very
use I think I guess what for example what Hampton did here at the state did do an ordinance uh regulating chickens on residential property in its general code rather than it land use code. Does does their land use code allow um
farming in that particular zone and then they you know and then they have an ordinance regulating chickens on top of that. >> I mean I can understand why it would be separate because chickens are different. Would this be two steps? Write the write the village residential portion and make
that come the you know the intented master plan and then secondary uh try to uh separate or you know separate chickens out as a concern of the home agriculture and then possibly uh
possibly impose some limits on that. But you know, one is easier, the other one's potentially harder. >> So what would be the easier one? >> The first one. >> Agriculture and the BHR. I think that's
what you said. Yes. >> And then and then second one will get into what's the proper number of chickens per acre >> and maybe >> and is that really I mean that that's going to probably elicit some opinions. Well, and and I think what Sharon was
suggesting is that most of the samples that are combined those regulations were outside >> Mr. Chairman two weeks ago. I don't want to keep >> So, so limit that foul. I I can do that.
>> So would would allowances for chicken poop be along the lines of dog licenses and things along >> those. >> Oh day December 4th Christmas party. >> I already >> So if it is dog licenses or chicken
licenses if you will >> then that's a TC issue not not ours. Correct. >> But I think what you said before is right or something like that, >> right? >> But the home agriculture, but then these
specific regulations go in another, >> right? It doesn't, >> right? It goes in the control, >> right? So I'm getting the sense we're going to try to we're going to try to move this forward. Is that what we want to do?
>> Well, the first part second I love that word. The thing that would be appropriate for us to do would be to recommend that they specifically revise the home agricultural issue for the hamlet to be consistent with the master
plan and what was previously looked at the township. That would that would not impose any regulation. we could recommend or not recommend and leave it to them whether but either way it becomes a township issue to then follow up on whether they want to look into additional animal control regulations
that could apply to any of the you know to the town at large and so we make that >> we wouldn't be the ones responsible for coming up with those regulations >> be responsible for separating chickens from tomatoes like isn't that
>> yeah it's literally it's literally Right. The township committee would ultimately have to pass something that just regulates chicken ownership. >> Agriculture,
>> right? Covers everything. >> Well, there's home and commercial is different. >> Yeah. >> That's done already. >> It's done already. But I I think um it's that the home agriculture definition is so
broad. >> You know, I like I like what Jason said. So we clean up one thing but then make a recommendation to the township committee or or something like that. >> What I'm saying is we could do or not to depending on whether the group was
comfortable with it. Either way, it's going to be on the township committee. We have two members of the township committee here. So even if we said nothing on that component, they could still raise it and talk about it. It's only if people felt strongly on this group about that issue like yes, we should definitely add it to the animal
control things that we could make that recommendation. They could choose to ignore it. I mean, the only thing we're doing is providing a recommendation either way or we can just keep our recommendation to to be consistent with the master plan. You know, we suggest
that, you know, a modification to make home agriculture, you know, >> minus minus minus animal. >> No, no, just home agriculture. They're two separate issues. One is what affects us. >> Home agriculture >> and then we leave the rest to be
affected by >> it's two issues either way that but we can recommend one or we can recommend both. That's totally up to us or neither. So the first is you make to make it consistent with the master plan home agriculture is allowed in the VHR
correct right and then we need to define home agric the township committee >> it needs >> well you you already have a definition under the master plan >> my understanding is that it would need
to be defined but really but but if we're going to speak about the livestock the foul right you can elaborate in a separate ordinance >> my personal opinion either either of these things
>> is in terms of a broader look at what these definitions are as as pointed out a minute ago we're a couple years away from the logical interval for a master plan comprehensive we should do it there I hate the idea of spot redoing the
master plan if we have to >> yeah but I I think if the TC wanted to take on regulations, they could do that independ because it's already it's already been demonstrated that can be done as a township ordinance that isn't related to zoning or planning.
>> So, in other words, we're plugging the dyke here. We're just plugging this hole right now to kind of fix it. It it seems like what we're doing is taking a step that was consistent with the spirit of the
original planning board when they looked at this, consistent with the spirit of the intent of the township committee. For whatever reason, it didn't happen. So, we're we're we're we're fixing we're fixing a problem, a minor problem, and then letting the township decide if they
want to take additional action having seen the work of these other towns now to, you know, put put something in place that doesn't prevent people from having it, but creates a reasonable balance of health and safety and um you know, what is it? Quite enjoyment of neighbors.
>> I like what you said. So what how do we articulate that as a go forward for us here? >> So but broadly speaking it would be I propose that we that the uh pro planning board so count this as a proposal. Okay.
That the planning board recommend to the township committee a that they um adjust the ordinance to allow um home agriculture in the uh village
hamlet consistent with the master plan. and B at their discretion that they further look into health and safety animal control regula um requirements
for livestock and chicken in the home agricultural district and you know basically that >> that would be the proposal >> and nothing changes within commercial >> right specific to home. Yeah.
>> And then we're not making specific recommendations. They could look at it. They could do what Princeton did. They could do nothing. They that, you know, someone should look at it more closely than we're doing right now. There may be a bunch of reasons why it makes sense not to do anything. And I'm not suggesting one way or another. We're simply suggesting that the work get
done. >> Pretend I just made that. >> Sounds like a motion. >> Yeah. So, so we need to vote on that. >> And you would vote on it. Okay. >> A memo could be prepared by >> All right. >> Is there a second? >> So, so we need to we need to
get a motion. >> Okay. Let's let's have >> a roll call on that. >> All right. Roll call on the chickens. Miss Anderson. >> Yes. >> Miss Eladawi. >> Yes.
>> Miss Coneran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mildenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mucelli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stewart. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Whitman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passed. >> Now we go over. >> That's right. >> No, but thank you for that was
articulated that way. I was hoping to get something codified. >> Okay. Um, potential upcoming special meeting dates. There are none at the moment. The only reason I put that on
the agenda was for if something came up with our affordable housing um situation at this point in time. I spoke with the township lawyer about that and he said he doesn't feel we need
to do any special things or jump any hoops or take a barrel over Niagara Falls or anything like that like we had to do earlier this year. So right now um we're on I would call hot standby.
something could come up that we might have to address and we will obviously make sure that we have at least a quorum here to vote on whatever we may need. I don't see that through the end of the year right now. So, we're all good for that
at the moment. And the only other final item would be um at their December 4th meeting if anybody'd like to go over to the Cranberry in after the meeting at this point in time. Gina is gonna make sure nothing is on the agenda other than
approving the minutes and then um and then uh we should all adjourn for the cranberry and for some liations and the Christmas spirit or the holiday spirit. So any other comments or questions from the
board? Anything for the cause? All right, I'd like to have a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. Meaning closed. Thank you everybody. Thank you for getting the chickens off
my