Evening everyone. Would you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. All right. Statement of adequate notice. Under the Sunshine Law, adequate notice in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act was provided on August 13, 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 is not here yet. Miss Elbadawi, here. Mr. Giddings, here. Miss Nearum
here. Mr. Mildenberg here. Mr. Mucelli here. Mr. Pulk here. Mr. Stewart is not here. And Mr. Whitman here. Thank you. We have a quorum.
Okay. Um, so if you'd like to read the statement of adequate notice. I think Gina Gina that one. I'm sorry. No, we're good. I already did it. Oh, okay.
All right. Um, one of the things I'm gonna do, uh, my bad on the public comments for non-aggenda items. I did not catch that when the agenda wrote out, uh, went out. So, we will not have any, um, public comments for items not
on the agenda, only for items on the agenda. So, if you would like to make public comments at our meeting next Thursday, please feel free to join us and we will talk all night if you'd like. So, first item on the agenda tonight is
the village commercial zone extension request. And um I'd like to have Liz lead off this conversation. Oh, we we we got that. Um I'd like to have Liz lead off this conversation on this, please.
Okay. Thank you. U Mr. Sure. In the 2010 comprehensive master plan, there was a recommendation to extend the village commercial zone up to Bunker Hill to include two properties, a Bunker Hill Road, I'm sorry, along Main Street. There were two properties at the
southwest corner um that uh the master plan recommended be included in the VC zone. um a uh the the homeowner of one of those properties approached the TC in the last few months saying, you know, this was never done and we would like it to be
done. And so we sort of did or I did some exercises of going through everything trying to understand why it was never done. Well, at the 11th hour, literally last night, I read through meeting minutes from 2011 and found that it in fact had been done, that the site
had been part of a um large amendment to the land development ordinance that was adopted by the TC uh on November 28th, 2011. Um but the issue is is that the zoning map is um was kept has
traditionally been kept by the engineer, the township engineer. The township engineer changed at the end of 2011. Uh and so some of these changes that were adopted at the end of 2011 were not implemented in the zoning map only. But
um part of the ordinance that was adopted in um November 2011, it says there these are changes to the zoning map. There were changes um draft changes to the zoning map that were circulated to the TC that night. Um, and there was
follow-up memo from uh, Richard Price, my predecessor and former colleague, saying, "Okay, all we need to do now is make that change to the map finalized." For whatever reason, that fell through the cracks. But the actual adoption of
this change, and it's specifically mentioned in those meeting minutes, that was adopted officially as part of that ordinance. Right. So, I wasn't imagining that. I had thought that that was the case back in the day that we included your
property and the property on the corner up to Bunker Hill. So I guess from our standpoint, right? So it's the so the planning board recommends back to the TC or to the
zoning off. It's it's it is truly sort of an administrative thing where I the the township engineer was made aware of this this morning and he is in the process of of really just redrawing a line on the zoning map to implement what
was part of that ordinance. So there's no further action needed by the planning board. There should be because it was already passed, right? That's correct. There's no further actions necessary. Okay. So, we don't need to vote on anything or not on anything other than update the map and
Yep. Correct. And do we have a timeline for that? I do know that the township administrator conveyed to the township engineer ASAP. So, hold on one second. Any other questions from committee on this or from
the board? I'm going to open it up to the public for comment on this. Please identify yourself and where you live. Glen Johnson. Push the button, please. Can you hit the right button? Perfect.
There we go. Glenn Johnson, 77 North Main Street. Um, I wanted to ask that the zoning officer also be informed because I know that my realtor called town hall within the last month and was
told that we were in the village hamlet residential zone. So, in addition to updating the map, I think he needs to know so that if he gets any inquiries of that nature, you know, he's got the right information. Thank you very much. Could
you just sign in on that yellow paper just for sure? Any other comments or questions from the public on this item? Hearing none, I'm going to close the public portion of the meeting on this particular item. Good luck in selling your house.
It's rare we do something and didn't codify it like this. It it really it literally did fall through the cracks and that's not something we normally do. So, but it it worked out fine. So, all right. Next item on the agenda is
application PB 409-25 Cranberry Senior Housing Apartments LLC. Mr. Chair, before the uh applicant starts, yes, just wanted to state that the notice is proper and proof of publication and service proper and the board has
jurisdiction. I will point out that the notice only asks for one variance. Mr. Deluca will indicate that a second variance will be necessary. That really came up during the course of the review as a result of the review by Liz. And
the rule is you have to state in the notice all variances except if they come up during the care course of the proceeding. It's all right. So there's no problem with that. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you, Jerry.
Now I don't I don't know how you want to handle the presentation. if you want to call if you want to swear in all your experts at once um so we can get them all or one at a time. Why don't why don't we swear them all in at once? I always find that's a little
more efficient. Okay. Well, I I'll start with myself. I'm Damian Deluka and I'm the attorney for the application representing the applicant. I'm with the law firm of Deluca Lewis and Burr. Um I was planning on giving some introductory comments. We can swear them first and then I can do
that or I can give my introductory comments first. when you swear in that. Sure, we'll do that. Uh my my plan witnesses are Joseph Deluca, who's a principal of the applicant in the Walters group. Uh Jason Schulo, our civil engineer. Uh Arnold Bole, our
You can stay by your seats, and John McCormack, our traffic engineer. Okay. We also have with us Ed Spitel, the Walters Group, and Fred Brock of the Walters Group, but they will not likely be tested. Okay. Um if the individuals were indicated by Mr. Deluka who would raise her right hand.
Would you like us to do that same? No. No. We don't we don't swear in members of the board. That's because the board members always tell the truth. Um so we don't have to worry about that. Um do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?
So sworn and affirm. Could you go around again? Just state your full name um and spell your last name. Sure. Jason Shoul. S C I L L O. Civil engineer. Thank you. Uh, Joseph Deluka, D E L D U CA,
Arnold Bole, D O Y L E, license on, and John McCormack, MCC O M A C with dynamic traffic traffic engine. Thank you. And and when you come up, if you could just um state your your um your qualifications and everything when you
come up, that would be appreciated. And we don't want to swear in our board. We usually swear on our board, right? That's pretty unusual. I never swear on the board. I I really think it's completely unnecessary because the board members are not testifying. Well, I mean our professionals professionals.
Oh, our profession. Oh. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, that would be Oh, we you want to do that now? That's absolutely if you could raise your right hand. You swear we're affirm that testimony about to give be the truth. I do. So, affirm. Please, please state your
full name. Spell your last name. Andrew Feranda, David Hoder, H O D, uh, engineer for the board. Uh, Elizabeth Laney, uh, Len Y, planner for the board. Good. Thank you. I I
misunderstood that. Okay. Yeah, we always do tell the truth. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, again, my name is Damen Deluca, and I'm the attorney for the applicant. I've introduced my team. Joseph Deluka, who's the principal of the applicant, is also my brother, in
case you were wondering. We'll kill that suspense right out right out of the gate. Uh the applicant tonight is Cranberry Senior Apartments LLC uh which is an entity that was formed to take title to the property that we're here for tonight and it's affiliated with a company called the Walters Group. Uh Mr.
Deluca and his partners are principles of the Walters Group and they uh develop affordable housing in New Jersey and beyond u as their primary uh business and Mr. Deluk will tell you more about them and what they do. Uh they are the applicant here this evening. The
property that we're here for tonight is 1274 South River Road here at Cranberry, which is block five, lot 16.01. It's a 2acre site. There are uh several structures that are vacant on the site and the property is in the mount the
recently enacted Mount Laurel 5 zoning district. Uh the proposal is to demolish the existing structures on the property and construct 60 senior affordable apartment units. Uh these units will be
both will be d-restricted based on age and income. Uh this is what they call a 100% affordable community because all 60 units will be restricted to seniors who meet the applicable income qualifications. And as you know as a planning board having just gone through
your fourth round housing element fair share plan process uh every municipality in New Jersey has a constitutional obligation established uh through a well-developed body of statutory and case law that provides that you and all municipalities in New Jersey have to
provide a realistic opportunity for your fair share of the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income families and seniors. U this will not be what we call a family community. This will be a senior community. Uh so in this case senior
means 55 and older. The the total number of units as I mentioned is 60. They'll all be age restricted. They'll all be income restricted and uh 55 of those units will be uh typical senior units
and five of those will be special needs units. the uh this application unlike some of your applications before a planning board has a bit of a history some context which I'd like to review not only for the record but also to to help make sure
everyone's up to date including the members of the public that are here. This is what we consider in in our line of work as a municipally sponsored community. And by that I mean that the municipality has taken several specific
steps to uh facilitate the construction of affordable housing on this property. Let me explain. The first step was as I mentioned what your obligation is as a town. That's not unique to Cranberry. Every town in the state has an obligation to provide its fair share of
affordable housing. And we are just now entering what's known as the fourth round which is the next 10 years which is a new obligation for for you as a municipality as in all other municipalities to provide a certain number a realistic opportunity develop a certain number of units in the town and
that number of units is 265. That's a number that uh the town has accepted and one of the primary steps in that process was adopting uh part of your master plan called the housing element and fair share plan which is a
document that explains how the municipality is going to provide its uh a realistic opportunity for those 265 units. And that housing element and fair share plan was adopted on June 24th, 2025. And I'm going to make that part of
the record record in a few minutes. And in that housing element and fair share plan, this site is specifically discussed and identified as one of the properties in Cranberry where affordable housing would be provided and specifically 60 senior affordable
housing units. Uh that was I'll call it step one in the municipal process that has led us here to this evening. The township also u adopted ordinance 04-25-05
which authorized eminent domain to take this property. The applicant does not own this property. uh the the municipality has adopted an ordinance in which it is stated that it intends to take this property and I'm not the best person to tell you what the status of
that is but they have sent a letter to the property owner to attempt to voluntarily purchase the property which is a prerequisite in eminent domain uh but their ordinance states and their fair share plan states that there is an intent to take it if necessary if they can't reach agreement uh with the
property owner so that occurred on May 12th 2025 The town adopted an ordinance on July 14th, 2025 number 06-25-09. And in that uh ordinance, you created this Mount Laurel 5 zoning
district which applies to just this property. And in that zoning ordinance, you uh permitted the use that is proposed this evening, multif family. you permitted uh the density which is 60 units and you established bulk standards
like you do uh in any zoning ordinance that was tailor made for this property. Uh and that ordinance was again was adopted on July 14th. That ordinance was adopted as per your housing element and fair share plan. The
next step in in that process from the municipalities pers perspective, not including some of the court related aspects of it, is to adopt an ordinance to make the master plan, which is a vision a vision document to make that a reality. And so you adopted that
ordinance uh last month. The town then adopt then entered into a development agreement on July 15th with the applicant which is an agreement pursuant to which the applicant has agreed to acquire the property from the the municipality, excuse me. And that
agreement specifically identifies that this will be 60 senior affordable units. So again, 60 units has always been the number at least uh since these ordinances and resolutions have been adopted. On August 25th of this year, uh I
believe that's the date, the municipality adopted a resolution of need uh by resolution 08-25-109. And I apologize if I had that date wrong, but they recently adopted a resolution of need, which is a resolution from your governing body uh confirming that there's a need for this
housing in your municipality, and that is a prerequisite for the financing for this type of community, which I'm going to talk about in a few moments. And finally, uh you adopted ordinance or the governing body adopted ordinance 08-25-10 authorizing the execution of a financial
agreement for a tax abatement. And that was that ordinance was adopted yesterday. And a tax abatement is a prerequisite for a 100% affordable community. Doesn't matter whether it's Cranberry or anywhere else in our 560 plus municipalities in the state. Uh
that's a prerequisite for 100% deal uh that is funded through uh tax credits. Let's talk about the funding because that's a prominent aspect of why we're here and that's not typical for a site plan application. Uh, so
100% affordable communities in New Jersey are often funded through what's called 9% tax credits. And I'm not an expert in that. It's not really relevant to tonight as to how that works other than how it interrelates with the municipal process. These communities
like this uh don't get built unless they have funding financing. And a 9% tax credit mechanism is is one example of that that is administered by a state agency. It's called the Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency known as HMFA.
And the 9% tax credit deals are typically uh once a year where you apply uh and this year the deadline to apply is September 2nd, next Tuesday, one week from today. And uh applicants, the developers, not the municipalities,
apply to HMFA for these tax credits. In order to file that application, they have to satisfy many conditions and satisfy many or have many prerequisites addressed. One of those many prerequisites is that the applicant has
to have at least preliminary site plan approval. And um we are here tonight to present to you that application to the planning board for preliminary site plan approval. There is some time pressure associated with this because if we don't
get preliminary site plan approval this evening, we can't file the HMFA application. And unlike other applications that you hear where there's some delay because it's something relating to an application and you tell the applicant to come back next month, uh there is no next month for this application because if we don't have an
approval this evening, then we can't file the application and we would have to likely have to wait uh potentially wait a year. Uh so uh that's a critical aspect of this. Now that clearly benefits the applicant, but it also benefits the municipality who is trying to satisfy its fourth round obligation
to provide affordable housing. The one re one of the reasons why we're anxious to apply this year to HMFA is that we just started our fourth round. You've heard about this as a planning board for but for those who are here that may not be familiar with it. So all the
municipalities in New Jersey have a number of units that they have to try to provide and they those units in large part get built through funding provided by HMFA through this type of tax credit application process. And we think and
hope that there will be less competition this year than next year where all towns will have had a chance to bring applications forward and get them ready through collaboration with developers to apply to HMFA. So, we're hoping that our odds are better this year. That benefits
the municipality. Uh, the primary reason why it's it's a tight time constraint is the housing element and fair share plan in Cranberry and every town had to be adopted by June 30th of this year. And all throughout the state in June, towns like yours were
adopting these housing element and fair share plans. So, that wasn't adopted, I think, until June 24th. And so that didn't leave a lot of time between June 24th and September 2nd to uh develop plans, file applications, and do all the things that I just mentioned. So, a
lot's been done and uh our certainly our appreciation to the municipality for for doing that. Uh but that's why it's so critical for us to obtain preliminary site plan approval tonight. So, let's talk about the site plan. you know as a planning board that the
purpose of site plan review is to confirm that the applicant complies with the applicable standards in your ordinance which is in this case is primarily the new ordinance you adopted earlier this summer uh but any other applicable ordinance as well. So that's
what it's about. Do we comply with the ordinance provisions? It's really a to a large extent a box checking process. Do we meet the ordinance standards? And if we don't, do we have sufficient evidence to grant either a variance or waiver depending upon what it is? Uh in this
case, uh we're applying for preliminary major site plan approval. You know that there when you have a major site plan like this, which is a defined term in your ordinance, you need preliminary and final. Tonight is the beginning of the site plan process for us. We're here
just for preliminary. And as the name suggests, it is a preliminary approval that gives the applicant certain vested rights. But the board has the right to impose reasonable conditions that have to be addressed before we get final site plan approval. We will have to come back
for final site plan approval. We'll have to provide notice for final site plan approval. And in the interim, we have to uh meet the conditions or ask the board to carry certain conditions forward as a condition of final. So, we know, we expect, and we welcome the fact that
we're going to continue to work with the municipality to improve the plan, to address design concerns, concerns your professionals may have, concerns that come up this evening, and we understand that, and we look forward to working with the municipality to help improve
upon the plan so that by the time we get the final, uh, everything's tightened up, ready to go. uh that includes I understand that you have an affordable housing subcommittee uh and uh we've been made aware that uh we should collaborate with them, work with them to
address design concerns they have and we're happy to do that and we understand that that would be a condition of approval and we're used to that and u we look forward to working with them. So no issue there whatsoever. We are going to present the building design. You can see it on the on on the easel now um which
has been proposed and uh but it's not a finished product and we'll continue to to take input and uh within reason address as many comments as we can and that's not just relating to building design that relates to the site plan as
well. Uh so we will be back this is the beginning not the end of the site plan process as Mr. Mueller mentioned we did notice for one variant. So in your ordinance it allows imperous coverage to be no more than 40%.
We propose 50%. And that requires a bulk variance. The underlying ordinance permits 60%. And for whatever reason this ordinance has a 40% limit. We'll present testimony from Mr. Schulo who's our professional engineer and professional planner and uh he'll
explain why we need that variance. Uh the second item did come up, Miss Laney's letter, and it relates to uh section 150-43 B2D of the ordinance which relates to the amount of plannings in a parking lot
area that and I spoke to Mr. Mueller today. I identified it as a variance, but I actually believe it's a it's a design waiver or design exception. Uh so that means there's a slightly different standard uh less a lesser standard or an easier standard to satisfy. So we do
need relief under that section but it's a waiver not a var. Let let me just clarify that um the difference between variances and waiverss in terms of what what relief is necessary is simply where they are where where the provision in the code is for
which you're seeking relief. If if it's in the zoning ordinance you need a variance. If it's in the site plan or subdivision ordinance, any waiver also call an exception. I take it this is in the site plan ordinance. It is. Okay. So, it's in article five of the ordinance, which is the site plan. Okay.
Design standards. Uh but we'll address that in Mr. Schulo's testimony. Uh we have review letters from your engineer, your planner, and your traffic engineer all dated August 20th, and we thank them for their thoroughess and their and their promptness. Thank you for that. Uh we
have no objection to the comments in the letters. We'll address the comments in the testimony tonight through our direct testimony. Uh there may be a few clarifications, but subject to those clarifications, we understand that we'll have to address the comments in those letters. No issue there. Uh lastly, I'll
identify the exhibits before I have Mr. Shulo come up. First is exhibit A1. Can you mark that please? Yeah, it's already marked. Okay. Well, the hand I've handed out a copy, right? And they're all pre-marked. So, exhibit
A1, you have a handout. We have a copy of the board is site rendering prepared by Jason Shulo, our engineer planner, dated today. It's a color version of the site plan that you have in your application superimposed onto an aerial. South River
Road is at the top which is I'll generally refer to as the north site even though it's actually I guess the northwest that shows the site plan. We're obviously going to spend a lot of time discussing that. Exhibit A2 is is what I'll call our architectural plans which
are six pages in length. You have 11 by 17 copies. Uh those are floor plans, architectural elevations, and the last page of which is the color rendering of the building, which I had on the easel a moment ago. That's been marked as exhibit 82. That's six pages long.
Lastly, and quickly, I'm just going to mark the ordinances and other documents that I identified in my opening. I didn't bring everyone copies of this because I didn't think it was necessary, but I did want it to be part of the record. And I gave Gina, Mr. Mueller a copy as well. I'll mark as A3 the
housing element and fair share plan. A4 ordinance 04-25-05. A5 is ordinance 06-25-09 and that's the new zoning ordinance for the Mount Laurel 5 zone. Exhibit A6 is Cranberry Township Resolution 0625-95
which authorized the execution of the development agreement. Exhibit A7 is a development agreement between the township and Walter's Cornerstone Development LLC again dated July 15, 2025. Exhibit A8 is township resolution
08-25-109 which is a resolution of need for construction of a 60-unit affordable senior housing project. And exhibit A 9, which you'll be happy to hear as our final exhibit is ordinance 08-25-10,
which authorizes a municipality to sign a financial agreement for a tax exemption for this community. So, thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, unless you have any questions for me, I'm going to ask Mr. Shulo to step up. He's going to provide the bulk of the testimony.
He is our professional engineer professional planner. Can I just clarify? You said you said exhibit A2 is is this A2. That is the final page of exhibit A2. Exhibit A2 is our architectural plans. It's six pages long. It's the whole thing.
It's the whole thing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for me? All right, Mr. Shulo and I'll sit and why don't you can use the microphone, Mr. Shulo, and the board. Um, why don't we start, Mr.
Shulo, while you're getting comfortable by reviewing your professional background. Sure. Good evening again, Jason Shulo. S C I U L L. on. Yeah. Yeah. You could you could hold it if you want
to talk in that. Whatever. Haven't been to a concert in a while. Yeah. All right. What was your promise? Sorry again. Jason Shulo. S C I L L O. Profession professional engineer and planner licensed in New Jersey. I have a bachelor's of engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology. We're
practicing professionally for 25 years. Licensed in engineering for 20. licensed and planning for 10. Uh our office is located in Atlantic City. The primary focus of my experience has always been land development projects such as this for private applicants all over the state. Uh this is the first time I've
been in Cranberry. I appreciate the opportunity. Um other places in Middle Sex County that I've been um would be Serville, Edison, Woodbridge, and then everywhere else south of there. Um, am I licensed as a good good standing as a you're licens licensed as a
professional engineer and a professional planner? Yes. And have you qualified as an expert in both fields through before multiple land use boards in New Jersey? I have. Mr. Chairman, we'd ask the board accept Mr. Shulo as an expert in civil engineering and professional planning. We do. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Shulo, were you present during
my introductory comments? Yes. Were they factually accurate? Yes. Uh, have you been responsible within your office for the preparation of the site plan and exhibit A1, which is a rendered version of the site plan? Yes, sir. And do you have personal knowledge of the site surrounding area?
I do. Uh, can you give everyone a brief overview of the existing conditions and the proposed site plan? Sure. Sure. And thank you again. So, as Damian mentioned in his opening, this is block five, lot 16.01. It's 1274 South
River Road. site is exactly two acres and it's shown on this rendering which is exhibit A1 that we prepared in the yellow out that's the the property boundary what you see in the brighter colors is proposed work it's overlaid on
a 2020 aerial photo available from DP uh what you see on this the very edges of this site the surrounding area so from the site going to the left on the sheet which is generally to the south um is the intersection with 130 where south river
road breaks off and then to the right on the sheet to the north is security drop. Um site was recently reszoned as as Damian mentioned to Mount Laurel 5 and before that it was Highway commercial which is what all of the zoning around this site remains. Um to the north on the right side is a
hotel and then that lot actually wraps around the back of the site. So the rear area here that's open space that looks to me like the stormwater feature for this existing hotel facility to the left or the south you see there's a couple single family residential lots
commercial excuse me portion of commercial parcel that kind of wraps around the rear of those and then to the back here you see the edge of the site there that's a trailer sales facility um that fronts the side street on the opposite side of South River Road you'll see this intersection here is a peel off
jump handle go 130 Directly across from us is the the back side of I think it was California cabinets. Maybe it was a light industrial office building. So the the loading dock doors face this driveway on that facility.
Again the site is exactly two acres. Um what we prepared as part of the submitted application and Mr. Hoder and I have talked a few times. Um being the time frame that that Damian mentioned um the preliminary status of the project goes beyond just what we're requesting from the board. Uh we had to use a lot
of publicly available information to prepare this application. So in addition to the surrounding area that you see in the aerial a lot of what was shown on the original site plan submission was based on publicly available information. We have since prepared a site survey, detailed boundary and top topographical
survey after we gain site access and the boundary is substantially similar to this and it is again exactly 2 acres. Um as Damian mentioned the project proposes a 60unit building so it's one building at four stories very compact in
footprint um efficient. So you'll see that in the central portion of the site here in tan color between that building and the proposed or excuse me South River Road is a proposed parking lot to serve that senior apartment building. In addition to accessible spaces that are
in front we have a drop off area centralized on the main entrance of the building and then lining the south side against that that edge we have electric vehicle charging station parking spaces as required by state law nowadays. The other pieces you see on this in the lighter brown, we have utility structure
from New Jersey American Waters backflow pre. We have a transformer, a generator. There's an access area here to get back to the stormwater feature, which is this strip in the rear. That's this brownish color, yellow color that signifies a sand bottom to meet current D Stormwater standards. It's either sidewalk that
wraps around the beginning or the front portion of the site here. Uh minimal amount of pavement, just what's necessary to service the actual project. You'll see there's some landscape islands in the parking lot. We have landscape buffer along the front edge. There's existing vegetation to remain on both sides. The areas that are not
currently vegetated or supplemented additional plantings and most of the area that we show along the edges that has supplemental plings is currently cleared. We are trying to minimize the amount of trees that are removed as part of this application. Um
again the the approvals being saw preliminary major site plan and blocks relief. Um the site generally grades as you see because of the location of storm water feature generally grades from south river road back to the rear where the
storm feature is behind. We maintain that existing drainage pattern and we'll improve existing drainage conditions and that today there's a portion that drains towards a single family residential lot. I'm going to pick up all that runoff through a conveyance system that run down and pipe back to this basin to direct everything the site produces to
the rear to where it would discharge generally overland into the stormwater feature in the rear of the parcel offsite. Uh it will be fully compliant with stormwater rules. It'll be it'll have reduction in rates as required by regulation. It'll have an infiltration volume as required by regulation. Water quality treatment through green
infrastructure and then the connotation of the current version of stormwater rules. Generally that means smaller features with smaller drainage area. So you distribute the runoff around the site. In this case it's such a small site the drainage area limitation is 2 and a half acres. The entire site's two acres. So we meet that standard by
virtue of the size of the parcel. In addition to stormer will have public utilities. I mentioned those other features on the right side of the plan here. Everything will be underground in a future condition. Publicly available or public services are available along the frontage between sewer, water, gas
and electric telephone and cable. um for trash service as a function of the facility. So you'll hear more from Mr. Deluca. Walters has many of these senior developments all over the state. We found great success in use of indoor
trash storage facilities and trash shoots in the buildings that could drop into that trash storage room. In this case, the reformer here and maintenance personnel on site collect that trash in that trash room. And then on pickup day, trash truck will be able to park in this oversized space here in the front. Trash
gets wheeled around from the outside to that location. So we don't show an outdoor enclosure, and that's because everything is stored inside. Um, and Damian, I don't know how much more. Yeah, a few follow-up questions. I know we're going to get into it with our
traffic engineer, Mr. McCormack, but we have two driveways proposed. Correct. We do. And the existing condition is also two driveways. They're in substantially similar locations. This one on the right is almost identical in location. The one on the left side pulled over slightly just geometry of the parking lot. Still two
and South River Road is is a county road, is it not? U one of the comments from Mr. Fando was considering making one driveway I guess on the left or to the south an ingress driveway and the driveway to the north an egress driveway. Correct. That's what I believe it said. Yes. And are we willing to consider that
subject to the county's approval? Yeah, it's we have no issue with that arrangement. Okay. Uh the ordinance requires that we preserve trees within the buffer area to the extent practicable I think is what it says.
Do we comply with that requirement? We do. So we are minimizing the amount of disturbance based on grading needs to address existing conditions and obviously proposed development. So the setbacks permitted from the side and the rear all of them in fact on the right. We're we're not up against any setback
lines. So, we're trying to leave as much as we can outside of it. There are in this case on the right side here to get down to the storm feature. We need to have access. And on the left side here, it's already a lot of cleared area that neighbors supplement. That's a drainage feature to get everything from the road around the building to that rear basin.
But we are minimizing the amount of clearing and maximizing the amount of trees that we can save. Now, is it is it correct that there are several structures that exist on the property? Now, there are. And is it also correct that we've been aware that there's some concerns from some members of the community about preserving some of those
structures? I heard that recently. Yes. And uh have you have we evaluated that? My understanding is we have. Yes. Generally not not because of that comment but prior to receipt of that comment. When we look into any of these redevelopment type sites we want to obviously preserve as much as we can
adaptively reuse as much as we can. In this case, because of the volume of building needed to meet the ordinance generally requisite of 60 units, um those existing buildings weren't going to be able to accommodate any redevelopment effort to be able to save them to be able to use them for this proposed project. So, it was not practical uh or feasible
to use those buildings here? It was not. Okay. Now, will this plan satisfy all applicable stormwater requirements? It will. Okay. Landscaping. I know you show some landscaping on this rendering. Is it correct, Mr. for sure that we'll work with the board planner to augment that
landscape plan and try to find ways to make it as compliant as we can. Absolutely. Now, one of those issues or a related issue is the parking lot uh landscaping that I alluded to in my opening. Correct. Yes. Now, section 43B2D states that parking areas with a
capacity of 40 spaces or more, how many do we have? 16. 16. Okay. are required to provide landscape dividers and islands which in the aggregate shall cover not less than 10% of the total uncovered parking area inclusive all of all islands isles and
other paved areas. Is it correct that we don't meet that requirement? As it sits now we are at 4%. So we do not meet that and we propose we request a waiver for that. We do. Why don't we meet the requirement? In general terms, the site is small and 60
spaces to accommodate 60 units needs to fit. This is the minimum to make it work. Um, the addition of the landscape around the outside and a couple other locations where trees can be placed outside of impact to utilities and and other access
features. Um, affords additional landscaping opportunity, but we can't meet that specific standard because it won't be in the parking lot. It'll be around the parking lot. And what are we trying what what have what have we done and what are we willing to do to attempt to mitigate that relief
for the the landscape coverage in the parking lot. So you'll see that this drop off area has paving shown up to the pump and wings. There's an angled area for a car to get to pull in off of that travel. We can certainly carve off pieces that act to make some landscape opportunity. We
can also add a tree in this corner. um between preliminary and final and this is Andy it's going to be some of the conversation with you about traffic. So um from electric vehicle charging perspective the board has heard previous applications in the recent past there's a state standard we have to follow that requires a certain percentage to be
electrical vehicle charging stations in this case as residential it's 15%. I'm going to start shooting some numbers out. It's going to sound a little confusing but we can have them for that 15% they count as two spaces for every one that's physically constructed if it's electric vehicle charging. So in
this case at 60 spaces um we have 15% of 60 we need to have nine we show 10. So there are a section over here that has eight 12 actually. So excuse me we're have we're over what's permitted or what's
required. So what happens is when they count double you can have a reduction in the total amount of parking that gets constructed by up to 10% of the total. So, in this case, we could remove six parking spaces and still be fully compliant with ordinance standards. We don't know yet if that's going to be the board's pleasure. If that's what's
desired, we're willing to work with the board to do that. That will reduce impervious coverage. It'll give us additional landscape opportunity, but we would be able to only remove six parking spaces while remaining fully compliant with zoning standards. Uh we know that we need less and our traffic engineer will talk about that based on not just
what the ordinance permits, which is a standard clearly, but there's also national studies. There are studies that we have done for or the group has done for Walters for the other developments that they have that shows senior affordable developments we can utilize less parking and still remain fully operational without an issue with
parking. So that's pretty much the only opportunity really to reduce the amount of impervious in parking. Now the new M laurel 5 zone is codified at section 150-25.4 the ordinance. Have you reviewed that ordinance? Now, uh, is it correct that,
uh, we meet the minimum lot size, lot frontage, and all setback requirements? We do. All right. We meet the minimum building set back to internal parking. Correct? We do. Yes. Uh, we meet the maximum building height, which is four stories or 50 feet. Correct.
We do. Yes. Uh, we meet the maximum permitted density, which is the maximum number of units per acre, which is 60 units. Correct. 60 units. Yep. And the uh ordinance requires one space per unit or 60
parking spaces and we meet that requirement. We do in physical construction and we exceed it from a calculation perspective pursuant to zoning. Is it correct that the only thing we don't meet in the new ordinance is the maximum impervious coverage? It is. And we propose 50% where 40% is permitted. Yes.
Okay. Why do we propose 50 rather than 40% impervious coverage? So, the fair share plan and the housing element has adopted contemplates 60 units and you heard me say earlier in testimony that this is a four-story building. Not that
that's unusual, but most of these a lot of these end up being three stories, so they larger in footprint. In this case, it's more efficient. We've tightened it up as much as we can to make it the footprint that you see. And just the way the math shakes out to have 60 units and
60 spaces, there are minimum um unit sizes required by HMFA to be able to qualify for funding. So this building is not oversized. And the parking spaces, as shown, is they're fully compliant with RSIS by way of dimensional standards. And sometimes RSIs is less in
size than what would be some municipal standards. And what I mean by that is the spaces are 9 by 18, the driveways are 24 ft. We really can't go any smaller or we'll be not compliant. So just by the physical need of the 60unit development, we end up at 50% impervious
coverage. The remaining or the existing zoning that was underlying this site was 60% permitted coverage as is the entirety of everything around it. Um the original intent, my understanding was it was going to be adopted as this zone to have 60% and it was adopted at 40. more
or less following in line with another Mount Laurel section that was generally used as a base for that one for this one. Okay. Have you have you calculated if you eliminated the six parking spaces and use part of the wings in that entry area
what the impervious cover would go to at that point it would drop less than 2%. Okay. The that's the only variance that would require is that correct Mr. Schul? That is and then that waiver we talked about will granting that variance create any adverse impact on the surrounding
properties? No. And I'll I can go through variance proofs in detail now if you'd like. Just let's just let's just go with that question. Okay. Will granting that variance create any material adverse impact on the surrounding properties? No. Uh because we comply with the stormwater
requirements fully. Yes. Okay. Uh and we comply with the parking requirements. We do. Okay. Uh will granting that variance change the nature and character of the neighborhood in any way? No, it will not. Uh will we work with the planner to uh
buffer the parking area which of course makes up a significant portion of the impervious coverage? We will. Okay. Uh is it correct that we comply with all the other provisions in the ordinance? We do. in your opinion as a professional plan or would granting that variance substantially impair the purpose and
intent of the zone plan and the master plan? It will not zoning ordinance in the master plan. It will not. So the the connotation what what Damian's mentioning is specific language in municipal land use law. So it's the negative criteria. So there's two prongs to it generally says that we have to show there's no substantial detriment to the public good. The courts
have held that that means impact to the immediately surrounding area which obviously site around it. The second prong is to not impair the spirit, purpose or intent of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Zone plan in that context is the master plan. So we mentioned earlier that the um fair share
plan and the housing element were updated to include this site contemplated 60 units. You heard me say earlier that in order to fit 60 units we need to have and to accommodate that pursuant to all the other regulatory standards we need this coverage which is shown as generally the minimum that can be proposed. So the intent and purpose
of the zone plan, the master plan and the zoning ordinance was to have 60 units on the site. U the remaining or the surrounding zoning also permits 60% coverage. So to the impairment potential impairment of the zone planning zoning ordinance fit the 60 units and
everything around it is permitted to be at 60%. This site was permitted at 60%. I feel that it fully meets the intent of the ordinance and and fits into the surrounding area with with no issue and definitely no negative impact. Okay. Um the one of the review letters points out that we propose light poles that are 20
feet in height, but the ordinance limits that to 18 feet. Is it correct that we'll comply with that ordinance limit? Absolutely. So we do not seek any relief for the light pole height. Correct. All right. Uh there were some comments in uh well there was a comment in one of the review letters that states that uh you have to
have uh I believe it's one tree for every 300 feet of basin perimeter. Is it correct that will comply with that requirement? So yeah, the there was three different standards of shade trees, ornamental trees, and shrub quantity based on the length of the basin. We didn't show as many ornamental
trees as what the ordinance proposed or requires. We show evergreen trees. We can mix them up however I can work it out with your planner. Um, but we will be compliant if uh that's desired. If it's better to have the evergreens, then we'll do that.
Okay. On uh page four of Mr. Hoder's letter, he has a comment number um letter E which talks about buffering all sides of the basin. Can you address that Mr. Shulo?
Yes. So in many cases as we're fully aware most likely the buffer standards that are imposed for stormwater features are intended to buffer the view of that feature from neighboring parcels. In this case, we show existing vegetation to remain which can be supplemented if
deemed necessary. We have buffer on the other side towards the residential and a buffer along the rear. We don't propose buffer plantings between the basin and our building because there's maintenance access and general visibility. Um so to the extent that that somehow generates a need for relief, we respectfully
requested to allow that area between the building and the basin to remain open. Okay. Uh there is a comment on page five of Mr. Hoder's letter comment one H which states that the ordinance requires the paving uh specification to be 4 in
thick or the base to be 4 in thick and the top coat to be 2 in thick. What do we propose? Our detail shows one and a half inch top course and 3inch base course. The reason for that is it's compliant with New Jersey residential site improvement standards which by law
is the maximum that can be imposed on a residential application anywhere in the state. And I'm not saying that in like an argumentative or combative way. Um it's cost generative to propose more pavement than that. It's affordable housing job. It doesn't necessarily need it. It's not public pavement. This is owned and maintained by the developer.
So to the extent any relief is needed from the township ordinance to be compliant with state standard, I guess we respectfully request that. So when I mentioned in my introduction that we're going to comply with the comments in the letter subject to a few clarifications, those two comment onee on page four,
comment uh 1H on page five or two clarifications, correct? They are. All right. Uh stay on that same page five of Mr. Hoder's letter. Uh can you explain where our basin will drain to? Sure. So I mentioned that the site generally drains from South River Road
to the back of the site on this eastern edge towards the existing feature to the south of us. This proposed facility since there is no downstream connection point such as a pipe system off site. We propose a spillway or an outlet structure, excuse me, that's only going
to be in this corner I'm pointing at here, which is the southern corner of the facility that'll have a an outlet box, a typical type B type of inlet. Um, just a box with a grate and have a couple orifice in it and a pipe that leaves that structure that that pipe will discharge that great in this corner
and it's the flattest part of the site that leaves and goes into this existing stormwater feature to the rear. So, that's where all the flow goes today. That's where we'll all continue to go in the future. The difference between the two and what the comment that Mr. Hoder brought up in his letter was we're taking what generally amounts to sheet
flow along that entire edge that goes out to now kind of concentrating it through that outfall pipe. So the comment that was in the letter was show me where it goes and show me it's stable. Totally reasonable. I want to point out that we are also subject to the state soil erosion sediment control standards. Chapter 21 of that standard
has off-site stability requirements that we will have to meet and by virtue of meeting that standard which we will justify and show that will address Mr. Hoder's comments. So that's generally where it goes that corner and this existing feature in the rear. Okay. Uh I
think the last comment that I want to address in Mr. voters letter unless I missed one or more was comment 2E on page six asking us to provide an explanation that we've met the green infrastructure standard requirements. Yeah. So
in addition to what is typically seen I mentioned we have to be fully compliant with RSIS. So RSIS references within it a lot of different type of standards. One of which is the state stormwater rules. Those rules have been updated a few times. They're in their general form since 2004 for most of the quantitative
standards. 2021 they adopted a new objective way to deal with low impact standards. So before that there was a checklist and they said do your best to meet these things. Everybody say we did our best and they just let it go. 2021 they said we're going to make it so now there's this quantitative objective way
to do it and they called it green infrastructure GI. So green infrastructure or GI limits drainage areas to certain features has a table and lists of features that can be used to meet the standards which of which there are three. runoff quantity, runoff
quality, and groundwater recharge. We meet all three of those through the use of a small scale infiltration basin. That's a specific term in the current version of stormwater rules that generally says it's a small drainage area to it and it's an infiltration feature. In this case, has sand on the bottom, meets state standard, and it's
shallow, excuse me, won't have standing water in it, won't have any issues with mosquitoes, has to drain within 72 hours. All of which we will fully comply with. And being that other basins in the area, as I mentioned earlier, they're dry. We anticipate the same. To be clear, we weren't able to get on site to
do soil testing. So, as a condition of preliminary approval, we will do that requisite work, address it with Mr. Hoder in his letter, excuse me, and update this design as necessary. But it fully complies and will continue to do so in the final version of the plan. Okay. Uh, moving to uh, Miss Laney's
letter on page six, comment five notes a discrepancy between the number of trees shown on your plan and your landscape schedule. Will we address that? Yeah, we'll fix that and we'll work uh with her to uh supplement and supplement trees and collaborate with her as to the types of trees.
Absolutely. Okay. Uh page seven, comment seven in that same letter from Miss Laney asked us to clarify what we propose in terms of signage. Can you address that please? Yeah. So I mentioned that a couple times
now that with the tight time frame a lot of things um had to be assumed in this case the um the ordinance for Mount Laurel 5 permits a building mounted sign. So we showed on the plan as a placeholder if there were a building mounted sign to be on the front of the building it would be
compliant with ordinance standards. We don't currently propose a building mounted sign. There may be a need for one with a street address or some other name on it for fire protection. I don't know that that's subject to the standard, but to the extent that it might be, it'll be fully compliant with the zoning ordinance. We also propose a freestanding sign, which is shown in the
left corner of the site here, the the southern or excuse me, the eastern corner. Um that again um well will be similarly compliant with the ordinance standards in our detail. Um the dimensions may have been um may not have
been presented properly. We will revise that detail to be fully compliant with ordinance standards. Um, moving to Mr. Ferando's letter, just two comments that I want you to address. First is there's a question as to whether uh the applicant will use vans with this facility. Do you know the
answer to that? Yes. So, this is in the context of services provided. As you can imagine, with a senior building, um, some social services are necessary. In this case, Walters provides quite a few. Um, but they're not going to be full-time staff that parks on site or leaves a van on
site. So, that'll it'll be available for shuttling the uh residents to appointments they have or other um activities in town, but it won't park on site. Okay. Uh lastly, can you explain whether you've evaluated uh turning templates or
turning movements for trash trucks and emergency vehicles? So, we did for a trash truck and it's shown in the plans as submitted and it will circulate through the driveways and back into that trash space with no issue. And again, the driveways and the parking lot are fully compliant with RSI as dimensional standards, and that generally was set up by the state to
accommodate most vehicles. We don't have the fire apparatus for the township, but if when we get those specs, we can run it. To be clear, though, to the extent that maybe it can't maneuver through the site as easily as one would hope. Um, RSI is the state standard as mentioned for multif family courts, which this
qualifies as, it can be up to 300 feet on a dead end without a means to turn around. So worst case, a fire apparatus would have to pull in the driveway and possibly back out. It's contemplated statewide. It's been in the rules since 1997. It's not ideal, but it's the way things typically go. We hope we never
have to have that issue, but we have to design for it. Want to also point out that the building will have fire suppression, which is required by state codes. So firefighting apparatus won't really have a need to get to the building. It'll be suppressed. Okay. and we'll evaluate the truck turning temple for a firet truck as a
condition of yes that's all the questions I have for Mr. Schula Mr. Chairman I don't know if we when Mr. sho is up if you like and then we can go or should we hear all their professionals first or
I would prefer to hear traffic before. Okay. So, we'll go through we're ready to roll right through and then we can answer all the questions when you choose to ask them. Okay, let's do that. Thanks. Our next uh witness is going to be Joseph Belduca. All right, Joe. Uh can you start by
explaining what your role is with the Walters Group? Uh yes. Um I'm the owner of the Walters Group. Um been employed there for 20some years. I am by background an attorney um similar to my brother and uh my primary job is dealing with affordable housing
in the state of New Jersey. And can you give us a brief overview as to who Walters Group is? Sure. Um well our main office is located in Barnagant, New Jersey. Uh I'm located in Hadenfield, New Jersey. and we are uh we do other things but pri predominantly we build affordable housing in the state
of New Jersey. We do everything from developing we have our own general contracting company so we do our own GC work and we have our own management team so we do our own managing of all of our affordable communities. Um we've never sold a community. We have no desire to
sell one. We currently own somewhere uh around 2,000 plus units apartment units in the state of New Jersey. We probably have another close to a thousand that are um we have funding for but but haven't been built yet and of course we have quite a few more in the pipeline
which would be u what what this would qualify as. Were you present during my introductory comments? I was. Were they factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Now do you or the Walders group have other similar senior affordable housing communities like the one proposed here?
Yes. And uh w will this community operate similar to those that you already have? It will. So uh and is it correct that we require preliminary site plan approval tonight for the reasons that I mentioned from a timing perspective?
Yeah, that that is is uh is correct. And as many of the people sitting here today know the sort of sprint that we've all been through and been very very difficult not just on Cranberry but on other towns. I think even more difficult on Cranberry. But yes, we've all had to
deal with that. And I and I and I I what I've made clear in any conversations that I've had and there have been many um with with people in Cranberry is that um first of all, we appreciate that you're out here on a on August 26 on a at a special meeting. Not an easy
thing to do to get everybody together. And more importantly um the idea here this is not a commercial um transaction. This is a collaborative transaction as you suggested through the the plan and and making uh meeting the town's
requirements. So it's a little bit different in the sense that okay we meet we check the check the boxes which was talked about. This is more than checking the box. This is a collaborative effort. Um we've committed from the beginning to work with the town. We didn't have time
from June 30th to getting this completed to do as much collaborating with the town and with your professionals and in particular with the affordable housing subcommittee as we would have liked and as I'm sure you all would have liked. Um
being able to get preliminary site plan approval at this point we recognize as you indicated is the first step and that's all it is. We have every intention and welcome uh the opportunity to sit down, go through the plans, and to the extent possible, make any
adjustments that make this the best it can be. Every town's a little bit different. Every town has its own hot button issues, things that are really important to them. And and you need to design around those things and and to the extent that it's possible meet those requirements. Again, we we do have
financial limits. the 9% tax credits limit what you can do. The sky is not the limit. Rents as uh I think you've implied maybe didn't state are are very limited. So this isn't like a commercial regular property where you can increase rents or you can do what you can do to
cover expenses. It doesn't work that way. This is a very tightly regulated situation. Inside of those parameters, there's plenty of room uh for working with a community to make a design the best it can be. We've done that um all over the state. I know I've indicated
that to many people in in the township who I know have checked our credentials and have confirmed that that's the case. We intend to do that. We look forward to that process. That's not a process that we um that we worry about. It's a process that we welcome. Now, in this case, you're proposing 60 units. Correct.
Correct. All seniors. Correct. Which means at least one of the residents has to be 55 or older. Well, yes, except there there is a it's a federal law and there is a uh an exception for people with disabilities. Um, so it's someone's got
to be at least 55 years or older or a person with disabilities. Okay. And is it correct that 55 of the 60 units will be senior regular senior units and the other five will be what they call special needs units? Correct. What is a special needs unit? Well, it it it depends. It could be a number of things. is people with
generally with disabilities. In this case, uh three of them I think are for people with physical disabilities. Um two one of them is for visually and two of them are for visually or audio impaired. So we design and build things in that unit so that folks can do that.
And all of our uh ground floor units are adaptable so that we can and do uh put handicap uh all the handicapped uh infrastructure that needs to go in. And what you find is that over time um as people age in place, and that's what
happens here, more and more of those folks, you want them to stay and be able to to live independently. So, you'll go in and and upgrade their unit and and do all the things that you need to do to make them fully accessible if I've got my legal terms correct. Uh now, let's talk about some numbers.
Is it correct that 56 of the 60 will be the one bedroom? Correct. And the other four will be how many bedrooms? Two bedrooms. Now, is it also correct that there are each of these units will be restricted by a deed restriction that re uh limits our ability to rent these
units to people who qualify for the applicable income limits? Correct. And is it also correct that there are very low, low, and moderate income units? That's that is the standard. Yeah. And those are three different income limitations, right? Correct. Is is it correct that there will be
eight very low units here? Yes. 22 low. Yes. And 30 moderate. Correct. Is that a number you made up or is that a requirement? No, that's that's part of the regulations. And that's a number that the municipalities bound by. Correct. In order to get credit for the units. So, in order to get credit for
the units, we have to comply with that income mix and record a deed restriction that restricts this community to individuals who meet those income limitations. Yes. Uh, last but certainly not least, Mr. Shul
talked about staffing. Can you give everyone an idea of how this community will be staffed? Sure. Um, we have somebody on site, uh, a property management person during business hours at all times. We also have property maintenance at all times.
Um, some of our some of our communities we have a live-in superintendent. I'm not sure that we'll have that here. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. But when we don't, um, there's a phone number and text messaging and various other ways is a little tougher for seniors to make sure that they can get
in touch with people. They usually call as opposed to text or send an email. Um, and somebody's available around the clock uh to come out and do whatever they need to do. In addition, we provide social services in the community. We have um a social service coordinator and
we have a whole social social services staff. Those social services folks come out, they meet with the people, they make sure everybody's doing well. They communicate between uh these folks and their families. We also have a nurse that comes out and spends I think it's
20 hours a month, get the exact number, but they're there to help with, you know, this isn't assisted living and it's it's not a nursing home facility, but you provide those services so that so that folks are able to uh you know, to stay. Again, the idea here is to have
folks stay independent for as long as possible. So, we provide all those services. Now, the minimum age is 55, but is that the typical age? No. Uh, as I indicated, these the tendency is that folks the age the
average age gets older and older every year the community is open. The average age will be the youngest when it opens. I don't know the exact number, but the average age is over 70 even when you open. Um, but it gets older and older as as you go. Again, the idea is to have
folks stay there as long as possible. Uh, lastly, I know Mr. Bole, our architect, is going to testify next about the architectural features, but can you just talk for a second about what you've tried to achieve as an organization as it relates to the quality of the architecture and the
features that are offered to these residents? Yes. Um, very important to us. Uh, and I know I've asked the folks in in Cranberry to go visit some of the other uh communities that we've built. Um, I think uh Ranchburg might be the closest
one here. It's 150 units there. It's two communities. Um, and again, the architecture there probably a little bit different than here. There's certain things that we like to do um to make sure that things are the way they want to be. One is um we always use Hardy Plank siding, which is a cement based
siding. We've never used um the vinyl or those kinds of products which most people do. So from the outside, that's one thing we do. Um the exterior portions of the building are very important to us. The details are important. Again, really didn't have the
time to dig in as deeply as we would have liked here. We'll work through that. We do uh typically have a patio, an outdoor space for every unit. Not usually a big space, but it's nice to be able to get outside, have a cup of coffee, read a book, and give people a
little room to be able to have outdoor space. We'll also have amenities. We'll have outdoor spaces for people to be. And and again, in the senior communities, and the family communities, uh that balcony in your unit is a lot more important. The senior communities like to be together. And so, it's more
important to have those amenities central. And so, there'll be uh porches and outdoor spaces. Typically, we have grills. We'll have some activities uh for seniors. We'll have a gym. Um we have uh community rooms so that we can have various events. One of the things
we do is every year in all of our communities, we have something called the senior prom, which is, you know, kind of funny, but it it's extremely popular and a lot of fun. Um, and what you find is that as people age in place and get to know each other, sometimes
they've been isolated and and have lived in a home where they really needed to get out of but didn't have an ability to do it. Um, they become very social and and um it's important in the senior communities to have those kinds of events which we do regularly. The other
thing we do, um, it's may sound silly to some people, but every survey we've ever taken, it's by far the most important amenity in a community is a washer and dryer side by side in your unit. We don't share washers and dryers. Almost every other developer that does what we
do has a they have a common area, sort of a laundromat inside. We don't do that. We have washer and dryer inside the unit. There are various other upgrades and things we do from flooring to the kitchens. I won't bore you with all those details. I think they're good
details to talk about when we meet with the um with the affordable housing subcommittee so we can go down that and make sure that everybody's aware of what we're doing. But I think it's important for you to understand sort of the mentality and and the process of what we try and achieve. Can you tell us what
the significance or importance is of having the community amenities in the same building, the central location as opposed to in a separate building? Well, I mean, for the obvious reasons when you have seniors, when you have we typically in a family community like to have a
standalone clubhouse, you know, all the community areas sort of centered around that. In our senior communities, we we have it in the building so that people don't have to go outside. They don't have to leave the building. The seniors get not lazy is not the right word, but it's hard for
them. It may be difficult to walk even 25 to 30 steps, and they're not going to go to a place that isn't centrally located. So, it's important generally to have those those amenities proximate to where these folks live. Great. Thank you. That's all the questions I have for
Mr. Deluca. Uh, our next witness is Arnold Bole, our architect, who will have some brief testimony. You put that. Thanks. Uh, Mr. Bole, you've been sworn, but can you briefly review your professional background? Sure. I'm a licensed architect. uh New
Jersey, been registered for 10 years. Uh graduated New Jersey Institute of Technology in 2005, been practicing architecture since I graduated full-time and principal architect at Walters Architecture. At Walters Architecture and is your uh architectural license in good standing in the state of New Jersey? Yes, sir.
And have you qualified as an expert in architecture before other language boards? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, we'd ask the board to accept Mr. Bole as an ar expert in architecture. We accept. Thank you. Uh on the screen you have page six of exhibit 82 which is a color rendering of
the proposed uh building. Is that correct? Correct. Can you just tell us or give us an overview of the primary exterior architectural features? Sure. So u what we're proposing here is a four-story residential building as we discussed on a very traditional design.
We featured a twotory covered entryway able roofs, traditional style railings, um, flip windows with with grills, hardy plank siding as we talked about, um, hard panel siding,
brick base and brick detailing. We've also we incorporate very traditional style trims. So, we don't use vinyl trims and all Hardy or their ASAC trims. Um, That's it. Okay. Now, there was a comment in one of the letters, probably Miss Laney's
letter, asking us to evaluate uh these side elevations as to whether we can add some additional windows. I know they're not shown on page six of exhibit A2. They're shown, I believe, on page five of exhibit A2. Uh do you have that elevation that you can put up on
the easel? Thank you. Now, this is page five of exhibit A2. Correct, Mr. Bole? Correct. Can you point out where the site elevations are? Is it is it correct that we're willing to work with the board professionals to try to uh provide some additional
architectural interest on those elevations? Correct. Yeah, we um we were actually working today in the office to how we had more penetrations for components, maybe add some box windows, try to add some more detailing. Again, this was
uh put together relatively quickly, so we have time to develop these as much as we did the front and back elevation. Okay. Can you tell the board what types of amenities we're currently contemplating for the residents? Sure. So, the building um as I said
before is 60 affordable senior units. Um the whole building will be equipped with an automatic fire suppression system. There's two elevators located in the central corridor. probably on your plan. Um there will be a
when you're into the building, there's a two-story lobby there. Within that lobby, we're going to have our management office. Uh there's a wellness center. There's package pickup and storage. There is a fitness room. As you go through that,
Can you just identify that sheet number before you discuss it? Sheet A1, which is page one of exhibit A2. Go ahead. It's the first floor plan. So, address the building. We'll go through this entry porch lobby. As you continue down, there will
be a twotory community room that will have a kitchenet, that outdoor patio that we discussed earlier. Um, right off that are public restrooms that's known in the center and these centrally located elevators. Outside every elevator uh lobby as you
go up the building, there will be seating areas that are fully furnished by our interior designer as well as the community will be fully furnished by our interiors. Great. Thank you, Mr. Bole. Mr. Chairman, that's all the questions I have for architect Mr. Bole.
I'll uh our final witness will be our traffic engineer, John McCormack. And again, Mr. Bole, we'll be here if there are any questions for him when we're finished. Not at all. Uh Mr. McCormack, let's start by briefly revealing your professional qualifications. Absolutely. Good evening. Uh John
McCormack, MC C M. I'm a principal with Dynamic Traffic. I have a bachelor's of civil engineering from Villanova University. I have a New Jersey PE license and been practicing traffic engineering for more than 30 years, unfortunately. Um, I have been on this
side of the table all over the state with other developers. I've also been in Mr. Feranda's seat as a board review professional. And Mr. Chairman, we ask that the board accept Mr. McCormack as an expert traffic engineer. We do. Thank you. Uh, Mr. uh, McCormick, did you author a traffic report dated August
12th, 2025? I did. And was the purpose of that report to evaluate both the uh projected traffic volumes for this senior community and secondly a parking assessment? It was. Okay. Can you first address the traffic impact or traffic volumes that you
evaluated? Sure. I maybe I'll just go through a couple topics I have. Is that all right? So, uh, while I was brought on just to do a traffic and parking assessment since we have the review letters, I can talk a little bit about some of the other facets of traffic that we've been discussing tonight. Um, I love going
behind Jay. Uh, he he hits all the high points uh for me, but I'll just hit the access uh which Jay mentioned. We have two points of access. There's two currently out there today. Two existing driveways. Those will be improved basically in the same location. And remember that county jurisdiction, uh,
South River Road. So, uh, it's up to the county exactly what the driveways look like. We we have heard Mr. Feranda's suggestions and we like them, but it's not up to it's not up to us. But we will bring that up to the county when we do when we make that application. Um, when
I look at the driveways, I always look at sight line first. The sight lines are actually very good out here. Uh, South River Road is very straight. It's relatively level. Uh, whichever access scenario is chosen, whether it's two driveways or, uh, you know, one ways or
anything else, uh, the sight lines are very good. So, I'm very confident that the drivers both entering and exiting our site will have no issue um with the sight lines. Um I will talk about the trip generation. There's not a lot to talk about when you have a senior
affordable apartment development. It is one of the lowest traffic generators you're going to see at this board. Um that is proven by the IT, which you've probably heard traffic engineers mention, the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They put out a publication,
Trip Generation. It's about that thick. It's got almost every land use you can imagine and it goes around the country and it it tabulates and and and takes recordings of traffic generation, summarizes it all. That's what Andrew and I use. There's a specific land use
in that book. It's land use 223, affordable housing for seniors. So, it's very specific. It's very appropriate. Um that it estimates uh this site is going to generate about 10 trips in the peak hours. So 10 trips in the morning, 10
trips in the afternoon, and some combination of trips throughout the day, but it's a very very low traffic generator. Um, just to put that into perspective a little bit, I mean, that's that's one trip every five minutes or so. Um, you know, when when the Route
130 jug handle loads up behind the Duncan up at the light, there's probably 20 cars in that queue every time the light turns. So, we're talking about having 10 cars, five or six in, five or six out, over an hour. So, that's the that's the order of magnitude of this
site. It's going to be the lowest generating site on South River Road by far with the exception of the senior uh single families next to us. Um, and then I'll touch on parking. Um, you know, we do satisfy the ordinance one to one. Uh,
we satisfy that. As Jay mentioned, there are uh EV credits that could be taken. We are not taking them at this point, but that could be something that is worked in. We can get a 10% credit. Uh so we could actually put 54 parking spaces and be totally compliant uh with
the with the requirement. Um we we know that one per one is plenty. Um we know that a couple different ways. One, the IT, I go back to it. Not only do they have a traffic generation manual, they have a parking generation manual. Same
type of thing. Uh the 85th percentile, which is the number at which 85% of the senior affordable um projects have a parking demand at is8 parking spaces per unit. So that equates to 48 required
spaces for this project. That's what the IT recommends. Um we have also done our own internal uh recordings. I put that in our in our report. I listed about five or six that are most approximate um to Cranberry and we show the actual
demand of fully operational uh functioning developments. The actual demand, the average is 76. So the IT is pretty good. They got it they got it pretty close. Um we're we're very comfortable with a 08 number. um a one
per one number uh is is fantastic because it covers a lot of a lot of board's concerns. So, we're very comfortable with however this lands, whether it's 60 spaces, 54 spaces, or somewhere in between, that the parking is is more than enough um to to
accommodate our residents. I mean, that's that's really the traffic story for this. A couple followup, please. One is a question that Mr. Fanda asked, and that is we show three ADA parking spaces on site. which complies with the applicable requirements. Correct. Is it also correct that the developer uh
has an open parking arrangement but reserves the right in his leases to assign parking in case someone has a need a handicap or other special need. Absolutely. Uh the Walters Group likes to provide obviously what is required in the number but don't over assign the
parking. If in fact just like they can um uh adapt a unit in the building, they can adapt a parking space. The parking spaces that are right along the front are all uh ADA grade acceptable. They could accommodate somebody, but we don't
want to over assign it because then we may have a situation where there's an empty parking space right in the front when we don't need that. So like like you've heard from Joe and everyone else, this building is managed. This is not built and left. Um and that's what that management team uh focuses on.
Lastly, uh well, two questions. Does the does the data that you've shared with us include visitor parking? Does it take that into account? Absolutely. It data all um includes residents, visitors and and personnel at the building. Uh as do our demand
recordings. Obviously, we went out to the parking lots. We know how many units and we went around and we counted it numerous times and that's how we developed our our own internal parking demand summary. So, it absolutely includes everyone that's on the property. Uh, in your opinion, is the
proposed access, site circulation, and parking safe, efficient, and in accordance with industry standards? Yes, it is. Thanks. That's all the questions I have for our traffic engineer, Mr. McCormack. And Mr. Chairman, that concludes our PL plan presentation. Of course, we reserve
the right to comment based on testimony from others. Well, thank you. That was an extremely thorough presentation. I sincerely appreciate that. Thank you. Um, what I would like to propose real quick is a fivem minute break before our professionals go in. I
would I would sincerely appreciate that. And then I'm going to turn it over to our board members for comment and then to the public for comment. Okay. So, that's the way I would like to go from here on out for the rest of the evening. Mr. Chair, do you want to get comments
from our own professionals? I I'm I'm going to take a quick break for like five minutes. No, no. I mean, yes. Our professionals are going to go first. Correct. So great. I'm going to adjourn for 5 minutes and we'll be right back. Thank you. We hope
I have Yeah. I mean, So, how long getting you a little less? Yeah. Those people, they're never going to matter what you do. put together today.
We'll see what they don't for us. It's not great. But it'll be cool. It'll be cool. I don't know who else. Not me. They're out there though. They're out there and they're righteous.
Yeah. Sisters of this place is 56 She wasn't a good job. That'll take a long Everybody else has told that you in my house.
like to call the meeting back to order, please. Okay. What I'd like to do is um now that we've had a a few minute break, then our professionals have are ready to go. So, I'm gonna I don't know who wants to start first. I'll let you guys fight
it out over there. So, thank you. David Hoder, engineer for the board. I did a letter on the 20th. What I'd like to just do is go through some of the things that I think are more important. Uh and and and actually uh the engineer for the applicant has gone through a lot of them anyway, but I may
provide some emphasis for a couple of things. Uh waivers requested. As you know, now uh I request the board to take a look at the waivers from the checklist that uh uh that the applicant uh asks for and and then eventually put them in
the resolution uh if they so feel that they could be granted. You know, I've let the application move forward between completeness to the board level with these waiverss, but the board is really the decision factor owner. The first one was 29, the survey that has since been
provided. They now have a topographic and uh outbound survey, so that's good. Item 31 is meets and bounds, which is the same thing. It gives you the uh distances and bearings of all the the survey information. So, those two are no longer needed. Uh item 41, percolation
tests, that is a waiver that has to be granted as part of this application if you approve it. Uh road and underground utility cross-sections. Item 53, they did not do that. They don't really need it. This is not a major major plan. Um so that is a waiver I think the board
should um should grant. Environmental impact statement number uh 59. Um it's up to the board whether or not you want to them to provide an environmental impact statement. this particular property. Um, I think most of us have known it and watched it over the last
10, 15 years or longer and know what's there and and know how this new project will uh impact uh the surrounding properties of the roadway system and etc. which is often in environmental impact statement. So, if the board feels that you can grant it, then you grant a
waiver from item 59. Item 60, earthwork calculations, it's a very flat site. Uh I'm you know I I don't have we don't have the final grading yet because we didn't have the initial too. So that uh this you know it could change but in reality the engineer for the applicant
would do a great disservice to his client if he did something strange with the grading. So he should be working with the grades that are out there. And if I can ask you is that what you did? We will and we have. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So so therefore I think you can wave item number 60 if you if you wish to do
so. And then um item 61 has to do with the proposals to remove a tree. Uh this one's a little sketchy in the fact that I think there was something in the in the new Mount Laurel ordinance that said that they they're exempt from some of this. But in any case, um I did ask them
to send an application over to the Shri Commission. They have now done that uh by I think by email. Correct. Yes. Yeah. So item 61 is not needed. So waivers requested uh that have to be either granted or not by the board are
41, 53, 59, 60. David, could you go back over the environmental impact statement again? Well, normally environmental impact statement is provided on a site plan. Yeah. And that environmental impact statement includes what?
Usually what they do is they they take a look at what the uh what the site is like in terms of vegetation. They talk about what type of animals, whether there's deer or turtles or anything on the site. Um they tell you whether uh uh what the generally they look at what the
soils are like. Um get an idea what the vegetation is like. um what some of the prior uses were and whether or not they would have had any environmental impact to the site or surrounding areas. Like if this was once an oil refinery, well,
you know, we better have a we better have a little bit of study going on. But I don't think it was. Um and um you know, I'm sure as part of your work, you'll have a phase done one phase done phase one done. Yes. And we're happy to provide and I'd like to see that just to make sure.
Okay. That's what I was concerned. Yeah. and and that that really would give us on on on what was probably once a residential property can turn commercial. That's probably all you need. That's my opinion. Okay. So, in terms of the other parts of
the letter, um the engineer went through most of it. Um I'll leave all the zoning to um to Liz. Uh let's see. They did say they would work with us on doing some additional plantings around the uh the basin. That is good.
Uh I asked that the wasn't talked about that the water the heated the heated water enclosure on the front which has check valves be painted the green as per our ordinance and as per previous requests that we've done so that it blends in. Um
can I can I ask about that? Um New Jersey American has no issue with you doing that. Correct. They've done it before. Okay. Well, maybe you've done it, not them. But I think you know it's an aluminum box, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, so yeah, you're gonna have you'd have to treat it with a special solvent of some kind and then and then and then have it
painted. So, all good. Uh it's not a big deal. Just happens. Okay. Uh David, as you go through these, could you identify where on your letter you're up to? Okay, that's item uh 1F is is Do you have my letter? Page five.
Page five. And oh, you know what? I in my pages right here, I I have four and five mixed up, so I'm going backwards, but that's okay. So, there were no comments on on page one. Page two was all about the waiverss
that I just went through. Okay. Uh, page three was the only comment I wanted to talk about was the buffers under C3. Okay. And then I'll go to four because that's where I should be. Uh four. Um I asked for uh for data
having to do with existing trees. Now that they have a survey, I think the trees can be spotted on there and we know what trees will be losing in terms of uh new construction versus what's there now. Um item four, signage. Uh the signage
does exceed the ordinance, and I think Liz will get into that. Um, but they also said that they will I think they said they would scale it back to the ordinance requirement. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Yes, sir. That's good. So, and then under other engineering items, which starts my one
again, um, got to change it to board engineer. I'm not the town engineer, fortunately. Um, and, um, I wanted to see those trees put on the demolition plan. You could do that, right? Yes. Trees that you have spotted in.
And then back to five, which is 1F, uh, I asked about the water heater enclosure and if it be painted, they said yes. On one I, I asked whether or not, uh, the pavement apron uh, detail
um, could be reinforced concrete. Uh, unless the county has something different. I mean, it'll probably be just up to the county. Yeah. No issue by us. Okay. Uh, and then item 2B, uh, with storm order. Yeah. just ask you about um sure
the the base of 4 in and the top of two inches the testimony was the one and a half inch top course and 3 in base what's your feeling on that okay well I I I acquies in the fact that uh the RSIS standards do um do apply
which means what they have is correct but I always try to ask for our standards see if they'll give it to us a lot of them just do in this case it's an affordable housing situation. They have maximum limits on the amount of money they can spend. I did have a
conversation with the engineer u off record uh today uh about the fact that if they do find out the soils are bad, they'll increase it to make it work. So, they'll design the paving and the parking lot to the standards needed for
the type of soil that's on site. They don't anticipate that, but you never know. Agreed. Agreed. So, I got that out of them. That was good. Okay. Then in in terms of the drainage, they did a good job in terms of how to do the drainage considering that they
didn't have TOEFL before they started. Uh but I am concerned with one item and and that's that um they're running as as the engineer for the applicant said they are running all the flows to the one corner of the site near the uh the the
the truck uh storage selling area behind that residential house. Um and there is a basin of some kind that's part of the hotel that's back there. I don't know the nature of it. I haven't walked it. Um, I might eventually um when we get
more information in so I'll know what I'm looking at and have the paper in front of me. Uh, but the idea is they're taking shallow concentrated flow shallow shallow flow along the whole back of that rear of the property and they're bringing it all into one spot. Now, it
is being detained in a basin. Some of it's going to be put into the ground, meaning recharge. Uh, but still, I want to know where it's going to go. I don't want it to flood out a parking lot where you know at at the adjacent uh trailer
facility. I don't want it to overwhelm um that one particular spot right there or overwhelm the basin. So we now have some topo which we got from the um you know from the uh from the new survey. But I've asked for additional topo in
that general area to know where it flows. So so once the water pops out of the pipe on site it goes somewhere. And there are state standards having to do with soil conservation that the applicant has to conform to and that will help me in my job to make sure that
there's no erosion back there. But I want to make sure that that you know it doesn't take some strange turn and wind up in a parking lot or in in you know the corner of some building or or in a place we don't want it. So that because we don't want to we don't want to cause a problem somewhere else.
Exactly. Offsite. So that that has to be figured out and that's something that would be subject to if this board approves this application. Otherwise, the drainage application the drainage uh uh uh um calculations are are good. They're in accordance with our
ordinance and the state ordinance. Um I did ask somewhere in the letter and I got to find it. Uh that you do something to the front zipper drains as I call them. Uh I'm not used to seeing maybe you can you can provide some information
to me on this uh drains that zipper drains that are only um so wide and and not very deep um exited by a pipe. So how is that detail going to work? So the the trench drain that we spec and for the board's knowledge what I mean by
trench drain is when you say zipper drain I want to make sure it's clear. It's not skinny little zipper. These are drains that have a 12-in wide minimum width and they look like more or less like a long catch basin like an inlet. There's a concrete trough for Ben's trench that was about a foot deep and a
foot wide or maybe more depending on the pipe size leaving. In this case, it'll be a 15 inch. So, at the end of that, the concrete opening, which if you can imagine it is like a like a gutter, but concrete at the end of it will have a pipe connection and the water will just go through that. So the end of the
trench drain will be uh fashioned in a way that will allow for the pipe to enter into it. Yes. Seal to it. Yes. Okay. Well, that's acceptable then. Very very similar to how pipes exit concrete stormwater inlet boxes. It's right. I just didn't think it would be big enough.
Yeah. We deal with it quite a bit as you can imagine with with urban work. It's right similar details. So I'll provide all all that for you. Okay. And then we talked about he the the applicants engineer as a result of that though Dave. Sorry. Do then we don't you don't you're okay with not having the inlet boxes on the
ends of it if we do that detail. Yes. Okay. That's correct. Okay. So, um I was just going to go to lighting real quick and that they did say that they were going to reduce this is item three. Uh yes, on page seven. Uh I AI is talks
about 18 ft versus 20 and they they acquiesed and said they would do that. And then uh item C uh I'd like to see a foot candle map uh pointto-oint foot candle map be provided which is a uh pointtooint has every 10 feet or so it
has information on what the lighting level is so you don't get hot spots. You can get a minim and a max and you can get an average and you get a average high and average low and it really helps you give you an idea whether or not you're going to get blinded out there or it's going to be too dark. And and this
is something we ask for all applicants on our on our sites. It's not in our ordinance, but I'd ask for it. Right. I'm saying I' we've asked for this in the past. It's done usually free by a lighting company if you buy their lights. Dave, nothing's free, but yes, we'll get we'll do it.
We'll do it. No problem. Okay. uh soil logs. The all the rest of the items uh uh in my letter on page six uh they said they would just do uh and and G is the item we talked about with the inlets
and that I will acquies on that one. Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Darl, I have a quick question for the waiverss. Um, do we need to grant them tonight as a preliminary or would we
grant them as a in the final? They would be granted tonight. But if you wanted to condition the waiver, uh, just granting it for this application, but subject to further review. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Yeah, some of them they may they may
provide between now and then, right? But you grant them now. In other boards, they used to they would call them a temporary waiver. Yes. So, while we're on that topic, the four waivers that Mr. Hoder called out, three
of which we do request a waiver. We don't think we need them at final, which are 53, 59, and 60. The one 41, which is the percolation test. We will do that. We just want to defer that. Well, you'll do equivalent maybe not exactly percolation tests, but because there's no permeability testing in support of the
storm water. Yeah. Right. Right. So, Any other questions? Nothing. Okay. Andrew, do you want to go next? Would you mind putting up the rendering so we can see the access and parking
circulation? That's exhibit A1. There was quite a bit of testimony given about the access and the circulation by both the engineer and the traffic engineer. Um I just want to call attention to the existing driveways are
virtually in the vicinity of what you have there now and that straddles the entrance to the ramp to 130. Uh my suggestion to make them inbound and outbound, separate the movements, uh was with the thought that
the south uh driveway would be inbound to bring traffic a little further south and get it out of the way of that ramp so that they're not stopping where vehicles are trying to get into the ramp. It just makes sense. I visited the site. There's a stop sign on the north
driveway and there's an enter sign on the south driveway. Again, the site hasn't been used in quite a while, but I think that is the intent of this site. Even though it has two driveways, as a traffic engineer, I typically say it's better to have more distribution, allow the traffic to get out both ways, but in
this case, I I truly think it would be safer. I also suggested looking at left turn storage lanes. That was because if a vehicle was turning left and waiting to turn left, I wanted there to be enough room for the vehicles to pass by. But I still think it's better to get
them out of that ramp uh section. And you may not even need a left turn lane because the situation differs. You have less volume following the vehicle. You still have to look at opposing traffic, but you understand what I'm saying that you just have one lane there.
Again, there's a transition at this point, too, where you have two lanes passing the northern driveway. It would be better uh not to have the complicated conflicting movements at that point. that that's my suggestion and I believe the county would look favorably on that
but it is the county's jurisdiction so they really should be looking at that in addition and I know you said the sight distance is good the sight distance is better from leaving the north driveway to the south because you get 160 additional feet vehicles uh on 130
travel 55 miles an hour or more sometimes and it's a skew intersection so they could come off the highway at a very high speed which maybe even more than the 50 mi uh for the south. That being said, I know there's single family houses and there's a commercial site
further down, but this site is for seniors. Seniors who are using potentially their vehicles and sight distance should be maximized in my opinion uh for that roadway. So, I I really think it should be pushed for at
the county and I don't think they would disagree with Oh, we have no we have no problem. Okay, good. Um, that was my as to the one-way driveways. No problem. As to the one-way drivers, I think even potentially the southern driveway could
allow right turns out if you prohibit left turns, you might even allow the movements across so that they could get into the ramp without if they wanted to go south uh on 130. Allowing that movement at that driveway where there's less volume and less complication. That's a possibility to
have that still 2-way. But the north driveway, I'd really prefer just outbound. That's no problem. We'll bring up your concerns and your comments to the county when we uh Okay. Apply for that because we absolutely have to make an application because they have the jurisdiction.
The rest of the comments in the access I think are pretty straightforward. Some details, some things to fix up uh for final. Uh under circulation, you talked about the staffing. Uh there's no designated parking for the staffing. No. Okay, that's good. They're not there all
the time. They circulate in and out. Okay. Uh the drop off and pickup area. Um it has room for it looks like one or two vehicles. My concern is you don't want to block the circulation uh the 24 ft circulation aisle. And that gets to
the next comment to deliveries. Where will where will the deliveries occur uh on site? And if they are at the pickup and drop off area, I just want to make sure that that doesn't that type of delivery doesn't interfere with the circulation aisle.
Sure. There's two opportunities on site for deliveries. There's the front door, right? Quick quick hits in and out. UPS maybe even uses those. And then there's also the the uh paved area over by the trash right area. So if there's a water delivery, if there's a move in, if there's something like that, that type
of vehicle can sit in that in that loading area. for an extended period of time, such as a box truck, somebody's moving in with their um furniture or whatever, they can back up there and there's a door to an elevator or whatever. Okay, that makes sense. Um
I have number six on uh page three uh deals with limited emergency access to the rear of the building. I'm not necessarily talking about vehicular access. I know the site uh would not allow that, but is there a pathway or
pavers or something um should emergency have to get to the rear of the building? Yeah, there are Andy. So, it's hard to see there. Try it out. So, on the right side, the north
side of the building at that loading area that that John just pointed out, you'll see there's this layer gray feature here. There's two things going on there. There's a widened sidewalk for that trash movement and then outside the sidewalk there's also reinforced grass for fire and basin access. So they could
come down that edge and get to this corner be able to see down that end. Truck wouldn't be able to get through the back, but it could the truck could come down that that edge of building and along the back of the building if somebody were in a window and need uh emergency need to put up a ladder or
something to get somebody out a back window. Is that possible along the rear? There's 20 ft of space there and it drops down. Yeah, there's 20 feet of space from the building. You see this this area here that projects off the rear? That's a patio.
So, that width is available all through there to to do what you mentioned. There's a need for stand on a ladder or anything against the building. It's flat. It doesn't have the basin directly against the foundation. Again, I will defer to the fire department. Yeah. But do you think maybe um grass pavers or some surface?
Not typically. So, um, I mentioned we have a bunch of these. There's been a handful that have this almost exact arrangement and every other fire department anywhere has not asked for that. If they do, of course, we'll, you know, coordinate, but it's probably not likely. If they request it, I guess it can be done, but those reinforced uh,
grass areas are really made for vehicular traffic, not necessarily ladders. You know, contractors work on ladders all the time. They're they're made to sit. Okay. So, shouldn't be an issue. They will do what they have to do to get the the building. as will we. Um, comment number nine, and this is an
off-site consideration. This is really up to the county. There is an existing crosswalk uh up at Security Drive. Um, it's striped. It's just off the plan. It's just off the plan. I I went up there. It's well striped there. It's heavy markings. Uh, and I
don't know if there's pedestrian signs with it. It's poorly signed. It's poorly signed. But it is well structured, but to get to the other side of the road, that is the crossing. If somebody from this building wanted to go to the Dunkin Donuts to the restaurants on the other side, to the dentist to the there's there's quite a bit on the other
side of the road. And my thought is to enhance that as best possible. I don't know if that's like a RF flashing pedestrian sign or something along those lines. Request of the county so that maybe they can provide that because the
crosswalk is there. There's two lanes in each direction and then there's left turn lanes. So, it's a wide crossing. And I'm just thinking we're more happy to ask the county if we put up the static signs just to identify. That should be the minimum.
I'm actually shocked. So, two lanes of trucks and cars in each direction with a left turn lane. No signs. Yeah. Anything more than that gets handicap ADA accessibility pushings and other things. We'll put up the static signs. We'll we'll say that to the
county. I don't extend I know what you're saying that is a a path for pedestrians. We don't expect to have a whole grouping of people, but there is a Dunkin Donuts and there are restaurants on that side. I just want to bring that up because you know seniors sometimes want to get out and walk a
little bit. So, we'll bring it up with the county. Okay. Um now the EV parking spaces and I've heard the testimony and actually you're exceeding the requirement. Good thing you didn't take the credit. Good
thing. It's all good. Except in your opinion, how many seniors will have EV cars that will be charged and then those EV spaces won't be used. So, you're now actually subtracting 12 spaces. Struggle on every job we have. And the
law says we have to have them. If we could get away from it, we we would. It's the market should demand it. But we're not going to end the political discussion. We have to do it. Unfortunately, if you guys at the building department level say we don't care, I I don't know.
Well, Andrew, do what what can we do for our I mean, I'm not opposed to some law in front of me and it says you get 15%. 15% would be nine EV spaces. My recommendation is do not go over those nine. But even those nine will take away
how many seniors are driving the latest and greatest EV car that they have to charge up. And now you have those nine spaces that can't be used by regular cars because it's illegal to park a regular car in those spaces. Yeah. Yeah. We have no objection to reducing
it. They're going to be there. There's nothing you've done. You've done what's required of you. No. Right. If you want us to remove three, I guess go ahead and advocate the DCA to change it. We'll be behind you. I wish this would go away, but that's So, yeah, we reduced the nine. So, just
to be clear, the pedestals come in pairs like that. One pedestal charges two space. You get two, right? So, one will have capability without a sign. I mean, it's just we'll have nine that are signed to meet the law. And you have one handicap space which also has the EV, which is good just in
case. But again, that's a difficult one to work through because of the requirements. I think those requirements should be less for an affordable senior type development like this where I don't think the Tesla is going to be their car of choice. I'm just putting that on
record. Um the handicap spaces you talked about they're not going to be designated, but potentially you could have more if you have more residents who have handicap needs. So I agree with that. don't designate them because that would be the same problem with the h the EV spaces. You put too many of those and they can't
park in them. So, yeah. So, just to be clear how that how that would work. Um, as you know, accessible spaces have the space itself and then the painted aisle. In this scenario, if there's a a resident that wants that space or needs that space, it'll be assigned to them, but it's not
going to be compliant for anything other than grading. We're not going to be able to remove spaces and put in extra paint. It'll just be available to them close to the door. Okay. And then as for the uh Oh, loading spaces, you do have a loading dock there
for any um I wouldn't call it a dock, but a loading space. Yes. I I heard that there's a kitchenette in the kitchen. Is there deliveries for food or is that just No, that's for use by the residents. We don't have food service or anything though.
And as for the traffic and parking, you've given the testimony. Um I agree with the uh parking the IT demand and we've done counts in our office as well and they come to one or less is the demand. So I I don't see a problem I see
more of a problem with that EV taking away from the ability to fill you know the 60 physical spaces that are on site. Um so those are the comments I have. Thank you. Um, I actually have a follow-up question
for Andy. Um, that may help the board. Um, and this has to do with the the testimony, which I guess is a little bit changed now that they're providing 60 spaces, but you were going to be able to get a one for one for up to six, right?
No. Yeah. Oh, for 12? No. So, now you're going to have fewer. Yeah. As clear as mud, but the way it works, we get double credit for the space, right? Right. But the physical construction can't be less than 10 or it can't be more reduction than 10% of what's required. So at 60 we have we can build 54. That's
the lowest we can physically have. But the space is counting double in reality when we do the numbers it ends up being 70. Okay. So even if there are nine EV spaces, you still can only reduce it by six, right? Okay. So you still can get that full six in a reduction. So, I guess the
the question I have for Andy and then probably to the board is that there was a a design waiver raised in my letter of August 20th regarding um the lack of landscaping within the parking area itself. And so because they're could
avail themselves of this uh EV bonus and could provide 54 uh physical spaces. I guess my question to Andy is would you recommend to the board that they stay at 60 if they're going to have 60 units?
Um, or do you think that it would do you think it is reasonable for the board to reduce it to 54 in order to get more landscaping in the parking area? I I think as a traffic engineer, I'm going to say if they have the three
handicap spaces which are potential for use, they may not be used and then the nine EV spaces which are potential for use and not may not be used. I would at for this site I would suggest that we
keep as many keep the 60 if possible. Now again I understand the landscaping needs and the board is going to have to weigh that. Um but I would really like to see as many as possible because they're required to put the handicap spaces in and those I think will be more
used than the EV spaces honestly on the site. Okay. So, you know, obviously the board will then just have to grant a design waiver um to the applicant. If the board agrees that the the um 60 spaces are
what the board would like to see, they just have to grant a design waiver for the landscaping, which is a much less uh stringent standard than for a variance. Um just a couple other qu uh items from my letter. Um, you know, I I had my
comments beginning on page five referring to the C bulk variance. There is just that one variance for the impervious coverage. And I understand from uh Dave Hoder's testimony that he feels confident that the um
storm water management can be accommodated or more than accommodated on site. Right. I agree. Okay. um which is you know typically kind of the main driver of impervious coverage aside from bulk. Um the next uh
question I had um had to do with the makeup of the residential units. And I will say actually there's a new provision in U-Hack uh the uniform housing affordability controls that requires that 5% of senior/sp
specialcial needs units have to be two-bedroom and the applicant is providing that that's they could have pre prior to this recent uh legislation they could have done all onebedrooms um but the question actually I have related to that to the two bedrooms is in your
experience in your other projects I guess you probably haven't built that many under the new U-Hack rules, but do you have school children if you have a two-bedroom unit? Well, I think that's probably a question for for Mr. Deluca, but I believe there
are minimum age limitations. Now, that may not apply to the special needs unit, so I'll ask Joe to answer if he can. Um, no, we have no school age children. Never have had one school age child in any community we've ever built. And the way the rules are in the senior communities, yeah, the way the rules are
set up, it's I guess it's not absolutely impossible, but virtually impossible. Okay. All right. Um then the only question actually while you're still here, just I think you said this, but I want to just get it on the record. Did you are 13% going to be very low? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
And that's eight units. Eight units. Let's round it up. Okay. Oh, thank you. Um, and then you know I have a a whole bunch of comments four, five, six, um,
and nine having to do with the landscaping and I I think the applicant has provided testimony that this is preliminary site plan. they were under if they are under a very tight time frame. And so I would request uh if the
board is okay with that that as a condition of any preliminary site plan approval that the applicant continue to work with the board professionals um to sort of improve the landscaping to the extent uh to the professional
satisfaction keeping in mind this is a 100% affordable project and there can't be any sort of unduly cost generative um provisions. Absolutely. And we agree. Okay. And I would also recommend a very
similar condition for the architecture. Again, knowing that there are, you know, there are limits. This is a very, you know, unique 100% affordable municipally sponsored project. We can't be uh too
ownorous in our our requests, but that we would Oh, yes, we can. Okay. because the town's going to just pay anything that goes over here. Okay. All right. So, but but anyway, a similar condition of approval that you know, working with the
professionals um you know, and the plan board in general to make some improvements given um you know, what the testimony was, which is understandable that they had to get something very quickly done. And going back to the landscaping um as you you made
application to the shade tree commission. Our shade tree commission is an excellent group of individuals that takes this very seriously and they have a pre umcribed list of of plant material that we you know that uses native New Jersey plants, drought resistant plants,
things along that line. And um your plan I know will incorporate all of those because we just don't want white pines and arborites in the backyard there. So you'll work with Liz on on developing that landscape plan. So yeah, I I mean I'm fine with that if
they're okay. And and and with the Shade Tree Commission. Yes. Just so we're so I understand what the condition is. What is the condition relating to this? The condition is the shade tree commission provides um plant material that's a recommendation for
planting on all of our all of our commercial properties. Um and we want you to you know use plantings from those those u those lists and and incorporate that into your landscape design. Um if
you know if we could get some bigger caliber trees you know that would be appreciative and um you know things along that line so we can you know build the landscape up clearly quickly rather. Yeah. So the applicant agrees to work uh with the planner to improve upon the
landscape plan as to quantity and quality and species and we have no objection to complying with the shade tree commission plant list. I haven't seen it. Jay may not have seen it. If there's some issue, it's nothing exotic, believe me. So, if there's some issue, which I can't imagine, we'll resolve it with your
planner. Worst case, we'll come back to the board of final and deal with it. Then, I can't imagine that'll happen. Uh and and that is really the extent of my comments. So, I'm done. Okay. At this point in time, um so we're
all good all for at least for the And again, this is a preliminary approval tonight. it's not the final approval because we obviously we've been talking about a dozen different things here that we need to, you know, carry through and everything. So, at this point in time,
I'd like to turn it over to the board um for questions and comment and we'll we'll start with you and then we'll just kind of work away around the room here if that's all right with you if you have any questions or comments. Thank you.
Yeah, I have a question. Um, this is a a building that has elevators in it. Do you intend to meet the type A requirement for all the units? The type A accessibility requirements. Also, it's a pretty large building. What construction type is it?
You have to step up to the microphone. You have to step up to the microphone on it. Does this meet the height and area requirements for the 5A building? I know. Okay. They need an increase for frontage increase. No, we got the increase with the sprinkler. Very good. That's it
for me. Thank you. Thanks, Ronnie. I think my prime I appreciate everybody's um testimony and it was really well done and very detailed and I, you know, I do truly appreciate that. I think my biggest concerns will
continue to be the I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around the parking and how that's all going to play out. at 60 units and six like but you guys do this. This is you know what you're doing but parking bothers me and I I agree with
all of Andrew's comments about you know the access and that's a fast road. We all come off of 130 and and these are senior citizens and I think we have to be really really aware of how that's designed. Um, I
mean, I don't even know if they can get if the county would reduce the speed limit there to a certain extent. That's not going to help much, but you can at least make the effort. But I I do I am concerned about the safety there. Yeah, I'm going to keep it short. Um, I
similarly agree with Andrew on the uh on the access issues uh regarding the entrance and exit to South River Road. Um, it would be nice if there were a left turn stall, but knowing that most p traffic is not going to continue along South River Road towards 130 at that
point and they're actually going to make a right and towards the signal and, you know, only folks going to the Dunkin Donuts are going to continue down the road. Yeah, that there isn't really uh much, but knowing that it opens to two lanes right at the uh point that uh we
would like to have these uh folks exit. It kind of, you know, uh does provide an opportunity, if we could convince the county to do so, to add a left turn stall and push the uh split into two lanes further down the roadway, past the
entrance or past the exit of the uh of the age restricted housing. That's all. Um, just want to say thank you for, you know, I think the very thorough presentation. Uh, I think improvement of
the design from what was originally submitted. I appreciate that a lot. Um, mine are kind of general comments just for as as you develop the site. Um, I guess first I want to say is, you know, I live across from the senior housing at
Cranberry. Um, it's very nice senior housing complex. I would say a third of the residents we see outside all the time. Um, twothirds I've never ever even met. They never come out. Um, but you know, they they come out and they walk
their dogs. They come out and they smoke and they sit on the bench. They walk to cranberry pizza. you know, uh, my wife and I go to cranberry pizza way too much, but I guess we're in the senior age and, you know, you get tired of cooking for yourself. So, the point is,
we really for the success of the project want this to be really nice senior housing for the town, for the residents, for you. We want this place to be full, you know, no vacancies. We want people to live here. So really encouraging you
to think about, you know, if this was a place where you were to live or your, you know, mother, you know, your parents were to live and or grandparents, you know, what is it like really living there and being able to when you're
inside an apartment, my parents are in 98 and they're or 89 and they're in a condo and they go stir crazy. They just can't they look for any opportunity to get outside. Luckily, they have a large deck they can get out to in good weather. Um, so think, you know, I
encourage you to think about that indoor, outdoor space, outdoor spaces as you develop this. I know budget is tight. I know the site is very tight. Um, you know, the entire backyard is a storm water retention basin, you know,
but right now it's very linear. How can you develop that in terms of making better indooroutdoor space off the community space with the landscaping? Um, I think Liz is probably going to kill me on this one, but I'd rather see
waiverss for landscaping where it makes sense rather than just meeting the ordinance. So, to me, having all that landscaping behind the um retention basin doesn't make sense. you already have nice green
space behind there. And by building that, you're making the backyard feel even smaller. You want that backyard, all that back green space to feel like it's part of this property. And people that have the third floor, you know, are on the third floor and the fourth floor have this beautiful view out to over all
this green space. Take advantage of it. um does that allow you push the building back a little bit and and create the much needed um buffer, you know, medium strip between the parking. Right now, the front just came off a vacation, you
know, uh traveled two some 2,000 miles and stayed in many hotels. This is very much like an extended stay hotel. Um right now it's still the parking lot feels like it. The building does not. The front building facade is very nice, very welcoming. I think a place where
seniors will really enjoy living. Uh but the parking lot is just this huge blank parking lot with no parking, no streetscape uh landscaping, no building landscaping to soften this four-story building, um which is larger than the other buildings in the area. Luckily, it
is set back, but I think to take that landscaping and move it around to to where it makes sense is important. Um, so if you can move the retention basin back and the building back and gain space that way or if you change it to oneway traffic and you can go from a,
you know, 65 foot 60 foot wide drive lane to 55 feet, you gain five feet there, another two and a half on the other side. You know, you just gain seven and a half feet for that green strip. There's lots of non-cost simple things that I think that you can do to
take this to the next level and that's what I'm asking you to look at. Uh just to go through my list, but that's the main gist of it. Um you know, the retent the storm water retention basin, you know, um is there a
way to shape it so it feels a little bit more natural? um you know a rain garden or part of it rain garden or the landscaping around the rear patio that makes it feel more like a rain garden. You know I just lots of little inexpensive tricks that can
you know change you know how how this how this looks and feels like a backyard in a garden rather than a big retention basin. Um, I think the, you know, I would love to see people are going to cross the street
and go to the Dunkin Donuts. They're not going to walk 500 feet, you know, north to come back 500 feet to to get to the restaurants or whatever. There's the Italian restaurant to the left that comes all the way up to this property. Talk talk to those owners. Is it
possible to put a sidewalk, you know, a back sidewalk to to the restaurant? Um, is there a way to talk to the town to put another crosswalk rather than investing that one that's too far away that's probably never used by anyway anyone? Is there a way to invest, you
know, that money into a crosswalk which is closer that will get them to the Dunkin Donuts and the other restaurants across the street? Um, you know, I just encourage you go out there, walk the site, you know, um, really get to know this site inside and out and and how how
people will use this community and fit into the community. Um, lighting. Um, I think you already heard it, but you know, the worst thing in a hotel is when you got that outdoor light shining in your in your light in your night in
your, you know, unit all night long, you know. So, lower lighting, more more fixtures. You get them all down to 12 feet. Needs to be safe. Obviously, a warmer light, 3,3500 Kelvin, that feels more residential, not a stark daylight
light that feels like a commercial building, you know, uh or a hotel. Um the I think the facade design I I I think to me the southwest facade is more
important because that's what you're really going to see come, you know, coming coming from Route One 30. Um the north facade you're going to see less. It's got a well buffered trees, got the hotel that probably has no better facade on that side. So, you know, spending
your money wisely, I fully understand. Um, and though it's not really the purview of this board, but again, I would say the interiors, you know, making really nice community space. um having elevators where the doors where the ADA
being of the door isn't like right across from a a unit entry where they hear that constantly, you know, just really kind of taking taking that interior common space core uh design to another level. Um really putting
yourself living in that uh and think about all of the bad hotels that you stayed in. And I'm saying not not that this isn't I think the plans are good. I think there's a good design. uh you need to really look at the all the units how they're adaptable and functional for cabinet space. It's a challenge. I know
it's a challenge. It's such a small unit, but you know, really think it out as though you're living there and you become in a wheelchair and how you're going to use the space. And this will be a successful project, I think, both Cranberry uh uh and your group. Thank
you. Sure. Um, first of all, I just want to say thank you uh for a very very detailed presentation and I'm very sensitive to the time constraints that you're under. If anybody can understand that, um, it's
us. Um, I want to reiterate the north being the outbound. Um, one thing I've learned on being on this board is I pay very special attention to my own behavior. Now, uh, when I'm driving, when I'm parking and I'm in a parking lot, it's crazy the
things that I think about, but the behavior pulling out of that Dunkin' Donuts is to not even get into the northbound lane. I've seen people pull out and stay in the southbound lane and then go into that turn to go south on
130. And I've seen it consistently. So, it just reiterates your point. If you watch that and observe that intersection, you will see people like, "I'm pulling out of Duncan, so I'm going south on 130." And they don't even pull into that lane. So, it just reiterates exactly what you're suggesting. And I
would use that as observational research when you're talking to the county. Um, if you are going to remove EV spots, I would suggest that they're the spots that are closest to the building next to the accessible spots because then you can reassign them or repurpose them as
you said and that way the EV kind of stays on the side. And if they're not going to be used, why take up the spots that are closest to the building? So, I would do the six furthest away EV spots and keep them or however you do that. I
just want to note that there are some municipalities that move the uh EV spaces away from the building because if there's a fire with EV spaces and typically the ignition source starts where you're charging if one and then the row of them go it's right next to
the building. It's easier to fight if it's away from the building. Just keeping that point in mind and check with the Cranberry Fire Department to see their requirements. what he said. Um, I think the integration of a community room is absolutely critical to
this project. As uh a daughter of somebody who is uh hearing uh both audible and um and hearing and visually impaired. Uh there's a sense of internal community that naturally forms in these buildings
and I'm sure that you've seen it. So I applaud the effort to keep it integrated there. They will do more activities together. They will be more prone to socialize together. They will be more prone to coordinate if they do go outside for activities together. So the
integration of that uh community room being on site is critical. Uh I appreciate that. Um, we at another project in town thought about a connector uh from the Ingramman project to Bennett Court and we we negotiated
the township with those two entities to create a connector and we did it after the project. Any way that you can connect to the Italian restaurant or the next building over which is the um Mr.
uh subs, which is a sub sandwich shop, and they also serve breakfast. If there's something that you could work out with the neighbors of that property, if you do that intersection and crosswalk to the north, you're then coming back, and then you're asking these residents to go through that
intersection, that turn style to 130. There's no crosswalk there, which is an extremely dangerous intersection to be in a car, let alone on as a pedestrian. and there's no sidewalk there. That sidewalk ends. So, that scenario doesn't
appeal to me, but some sort of connector to the south on the east side, I think, would be interesting. You do have single family homes there, so extending the sidewalk down would probably be more difficult and costly, but if there's a connector on the back side of those
properties, that would be interesting. And that's all I have. So, no questions, just comments. I have I have a few thoughts. No, you're good. Thank you. It's funny. I I don't remember a time that we talked about a project like this and didn't mention
salt and salt storage and and snow removal and like all I kept waiting for something like that. We have you. No, not necessarily. I don't want to open up that that can. Um I actually was wondering about with regards to parking and the fact that we have this big
beautiful structure, how um did we not contemplate parking underneath the structure at all and what does that do for the project? Um well in simplest terms, it creates accessibility issues because you have to get accessibility needs to the building. It just adds a lot of cost. It it becomes a different construction type.
Fire suppression goes up. It's it's just very very costly to do it. Okay, good answer. And being that this is how the the parking lot is laid out, is there an opportunity to maybe utilize the space above for solar cells or anything like that? And is that a
The answer is possibly. Um we've done it in in quite a few communities that we have. Um the way it works is the way the funding is provided. If you don't put it in the initial community,
it doesn't they don't want it in there. They want you to spend the money in the community. But we have a contingency. These things are again very very tightly regulated. We have contingency dollars. And when we have contingency dollars available um they don't go in our pocket. They need to be utilized. And
the main thing we like to utilize for it is solar. Um and the solar that you can do, you can't provide solar. It's against the law to provide solar to the units themselves because it needs to be through the utility company. There's too much I guess opportunity for fraud or
whatever it is. But you can do um your parking lot lights and all your common areas can be with the uh the solar. So oftentimes rooftop solar is sufficient to provide a good bit of that um a good bit of that common electricity. So it
happens. It's one of those things that kind of happens organically as you go through. We're we're doing several as we speak and we've done it quite a few. Okay. And I was just sort of imagining how if if there were those that solar canopy, how we could then create a canopy that would allow people to walk
straight to the front of the building without having, you know, in inclement weather or something. Yeah. Typically, we do it on the rooftops. We have done it in parking lots as well. We're doing it right now. um in parking lots. It again when you're doing in the parking lots um
it it it impacts your site plan and the cars and moving around and seniors have the tendency to pump into things. Um so it's not out of the question. It's something that we can certainly consider and we like to do and that is our number one thing to do with contingency dollars is is to provide. So
that's good to know. Um and I uh I think Lisa discussed a lot and there was a lot of discussion about the the Mr. Fernanda your suggestion about the ingress egress. I just making the comment that as we come down this road and we are driving very fast. How do you discourage
people from making that first left into this into this unit? Signage to the outbound. Yeah, definitely signage. Do not enter. Just signage. Is that sufficient? Um, for residents, they will see the signage
at least once, twice through their times. It it should be sufficient. If this were a commercial store, you might have people coming that don't recognize it and get in there, but residents will see the signage and I think that is the best pretor. Um,
they'll get used to they'll get used to their environment there. Yeah. And that's something we can discuss with the county and what they're looking for. um to make sure that that's an outbound only.
And I would um not do this presentation justice if I didn't say thank you very much. If it's been very clear to follow, I love the colors. I love the details. I mean, thank you all. Thank you. Okay, my turn.
My turn. Um first, I would like to uh compliment my board. I work with some very talented people up here on the board and our professionals and most of the questions I had written down tonight have already been answered. So, um I do
have a couple questions. Um I do like I do um impress upon you some of Bill's comments as far as um in the back of the building if we can extend that back. And Liz, I don't know if we can do that legally and go right up to the property
line with the detention basin with minimal shrubbery and give more green space behind the building and maybe get a little creative with the detention basin and make something look, you know, turn something that just a detention basin into something that's a little bit
more, you know, for lack of a better word, fencheway looking and and and and build it so it's more of an appeasing type of thing if you're in the backyard there because u you are right. I mean there's people that are going to want to go out and they want to walk their dog or do
whatever and sit out in the backyard on a nice day and and that would afford them to do that. Um there are no sidewalks in the front of this property, right? We're not putting sidewalks in at this point in time. Exist already. Are there sidewalks? There are sidewalks. There is fronting
sidewalks. Okay. Um, I agree with the with the with the comments about um everything with the traffic going in and out. That that's a that's a real it's a tough spot there. It's not impossible, but the egress and ingress in and out of that
property um obviously um you know, you're going to have to get uh input from the county and and try to work that out. And if there's anything we could do to soften that um with the additional signage like you know coming off of Route 1430 tell the county
because people fly off of that off the highway um and I've done it myself. I'm coming off the highway on the South River Road there. I'm driving highway speeds, you know, and you decelerate a little bit but um
actually you decelerate from the from the potholes in the road that are there. But, uh, I would say put some speed bumps in, but we're not allowed to do that on a county road. So, uh, um, and and I press upon you to try to look at
that those ex interior access points to um, the Italian touch restaurant, some of those. That's a very good suggestion if we can if we can figure that out somehow and get people walking interior to the properties versus exterior.
And on a final note, I know we talked about this at the beginning. Um I know there's a lot of concern about demolishing the homes that are on the property currently. I had thought that there would be a way to potentially
utilize those homes into the plan or repurpose them somehow. But in looking at this now, it's it's I know you did your due diligence and looking at this and seeing enough you could try to get it you I don't see how it could be done. I I I'm I'm not seeing
how this can be done at with incorporating those buildings in there. Um it just doesn't seem possible right now. Um there is a comment I want to bring up and this is something um Joe if you'd
like to come back up to the mic. Um and this is something for just a general comment in the future for some of your projects and maybe your your ne you know the next project we potentially do together um with respect to putting in um child
care in into your facilities. I mean, with this particular facility, um, you have a lot of amenities that I did not even think were going to be in the building there. Um, which is which is great. Um, it it actually adds to the, um, user friendliness of the building.
But in in other facilities that you have or stuff of the future, you might want to consider some kind of child care um facilities with located within the affordable housing units because I think um as we heard last week in Trenton,
there was a a woman who um who I met uh Winford Jen Smith Jenkins and she made a presentation about and I think it was an excellent idea about incorporating daycare into into the into affordable housing facilities if possible,
especially larger scale ones. Um, it really makes a difference. And she was advocating with the state that they that we get some kind of um housing credit for doing that, which I would advocate with with um with some of
our state representatives that they should push that. So, something food for thought for you in the future. I'm publicly saying it now. So, yeah. And and I appreciate those comments. Um it's it's actually a pretty complicated issue, but it is one that the agency is looking at because um
probably six months ago the director reached out to us and asked us to do some studies and feasibility work on that exact issue. So I know it's an important issue to them. Um there's licensing issues, right? Um there's the issue of scale. You don't
you know if you have a 60 unit family community, you don't necessarily have, you know, we average pointing school age children. So how many kids do you have that need daycare? It's not a huge number, right? So those kinds of issues and of course there's always cost,
right? So they're all issues that need need to be wrestled with, but the need for it and the problem of not having it is undeniable, right? So that's I mean if you have obviously smaller units might be tough, but if you have a larger unit like you
know some of the balance of the projects we have here in town, it's something to maybe potentially think about in the future. Yeah, they're changing the rules on allowing people in small areas. It's actually a great job for a mom who lives in a community like ours to have and
take care of other children in the community. So, they're the kinds of things that are being worked on. I suspect that that that kind of guidance will come out. But, as you can also expect, those rules will be they will be very specific and strict obviously for the safety of
the children. Right. And and while you're up here, I'm going to go back to Iman's burning question about salt storage and and maintenance. So, um obviously you do all the maintenance on the site, snow removal and everything. So, you there's really no need to store
large quantities of salt or anything on the site other than maybe bag salt for the sidewalks. They do all that. Our our folks will do that kind of stuff, but typically we have outside contractors that come in and do the major. We don't have the equipment there where we clean it all
ourselves, but um you know snow was bug of all apartment developers when you know you have control the cost and uh but we have all that equipment and I'm not I I couldn't tell you honestly exactly what we have in every community and don't but I know
we have um enough there to take care of immediate issues and we always have uh contractors who show up very quickly. Now, I noticed on the site, I didn't see on the plan, maybe I overlooked it, um, emergency generation to at least run the elevators and things like that for
Yes, we have. Okay. All right. Well, that's all the questions I have right now. And I I share the sentiments of my board members. I I found this to be a very good presentation, very thorough and everything. Um, but I would
at this point in time I'm going to open the open for public comment on this application. So, as you come forward to make public comment, please state your name and address
and please sign in on the sheet up here. So, um, do you want me to vacate the seat? Yeah, if you would vacate that seat for a minute, I'd appreciate that. Sure. And we're timing this at 3 minutes for
public comment. And I'm I'm going to swear the members of the public who are going to speak in if you could raise your right hand. Yes. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. Yes. So sworn affirm. Please state your full name. Spell your last name.
Jennifer Sutmmeer. S u tt m i e r 14 Scottsdale court. Thank you. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. I want you just pull the mic back. We can for those listening at home. All right. Um so good evening. Uh my name is Jennifer Setmire. I'm the chair
of the Cranberry Historic Preservation Commission. And the commission spent considerable time reviewing and discussing this site plan in our meeting last week. Uh for your convenience, I'd like to summarize u some of the key points that we discussed. Um first and
foremost, this property contains a historically significant structure known as the Roger G. Ishim House, constructed in 1853. It is a strong example of mid 19th cent century vernacular residential
architecture with later 19th century Victorian additions including a number of details including a glazed double dub panel double door with single light transom lubed blinds arch window openings a hip roof stoop porch
decorative barge board barge board I can come through here this it's a lot of details I have a report I can give to all view that came from the state. It has a high degree of integrity. It was listed as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion C in the early 80s, we believe. And this is part of Cranberry's architectural history and what makes Cranberry very special. Just demolishing this building is irreplaceable. There are not many buildings like this left in
our town. In my opinion, the responsible approach is to preserve this property, not simply demolish it because it wasn't designated locally. It has an architectural and historical significance. Again, the state historic
preservation office determined this as eligible. Cranberry never went forward with a local designation for a number of reasons, including resources, prioritizing our historic district, the requirement of having multiple houses all next to each other and making it
into a district. This was an individual property, very difficult, would have required a lot of resources. So, it was never made um you know uh on the national list or anything like that. That doesn't mean it's not important and we don't believe that preserving this
structure and providing housing are mutually exclusive. We think that both of these goals can be achieved and so we are here uh to urge the developer and the board to rework the plans. Please please rework them in a way that retains
this historically significant house. Again, I'm referring to the structure, the Victorian structure that's in the front. the other structures are not um not part of this this oversight. Um it's concerning that the plan now has that
where the house was is now considered a parking lot. Um it's difficult to understand how parking is more important than than history and we think that you guys can find a way. It I've heard testimony earlier this evening where they said there's no way to do it. I
still don't believe it. So, please look at some adaptive reuse. There are grants that can be achieved. There are organizations such as Cranberry Housing Associates that can help. And we believe you guys can save this house. So, thank you. Thank you.
Please sign in. Okay. You can raise your right hand. Do swear or affirm that testimony about to give be the truth. I do. So sworn or affirm. Please state your full name. Spell your last name. Thank you. My name is Gerard Guyire. I live at five Applegate Court in Cranberry. I'm also a member of the
Historic Preservation Commission and a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and many other jurisdictions around the country. Um, with all due respect, Mr. Chair, um, I don't believe that it is impossible to save this house. I've done a sketch, uh,
which I'm happy to share. It's not a detailed sketch at this point. Um, but I do believe that the house could be preserved um by reconfiguring the building on the site um into an L-shaped building instead of a straight building
across the back. Um it could be uh two wings, one uh going across the northern boundary and then L-shaped uh elling over on the eastern uh side. Um if you if the building was pushed uh all the
way to the um sideyard and rear yard setbacks, it would give it enough space at its current width, the building's current width to fit between the existing house and the sideyard setback. And I believe also that the existing
house could then be used for many of the community facilities that are currently planned to be put in the new building, which would actually save square footage square uh and potentially save construction costs uh for the for the uh developer. Um, of course, the parking
would have to be completely reconfigured, but my rough layout um got at least 60, if not more parking spaces in that configuration. Um, it's already been talked about in terms of the rear yard and the and the
rainwater detention that would obviously have to be reconfigured, but I think it can be done. Uh and also I think there could be other things done to mitigate rainwater runoff such as bioailes uh which are often used these days to
mitigate runoff as well as uh pvious paving not necessarily for the entire parking lot but some of the paving could be made pvious so that the water would not actually run off it would be absorbed into the surface uh before it ran off. Um,
so I would say that there are ways to do this. It requires a little bit of innovation and creativity and uh it does not change the basic footprint of the building other than the fact that it's an L-shape, but we see next door there's a hotel that has two L-shapes. So we
know we can do single double loaded carters um and have units on both sides in that kind of a configuration. Um, so, uh, again, I would, uh, ask that the board reconsider this and ask the developer to, u think about new ways to
approach this, and I'm happy to work with them as part of the historic preservation commission and, uh, try to discover a better way to do this. Thank you. Thank you. Would you mind leaving that with our engineer, please? Thank you.
Would anybody else uh like to come up and talk? Okay, hearing no other comments from the public. I'm going to close the public portion of the meeting. Now, Jerry, are we going to read back
what now? could you give us a quick um synopsis of um of the conditions for the approval tonight and and and explain preliminary versus final. Yeah, I can I can certainly do that. Um
and and I might say just um as predicate um as Mr. Delunka pointed out if low-income housing tax credit financing is to be secured, the deadline is Tuesday. So, it's essential from that point of view and I believe the
municipality's point of view for site plan approval, preliminary site plan approval to be granted tonight. Um, if there is a complete redoing of the plan, uh, then it cannot be granted tonight. And I think that exposes the
township uh to uh other developers coming in and saying, you know, the housing element fair share plan. Basically, you've just turned down an application to approve one of the projects in the housing element and fair share plan. And we have an alternative
site which should always be um in uh less density um occupied areas because that's where the land is cheapest that we're willing to build and it's an invitation in my mind to litigation. So I just I just say that um now I I I can
certainly walk through the conditions. Um and for and for preliminary it's just that that it's expected during fi when somebody comes back in for final um that they'll have more you know they'll have
pinned down all the points the conditions of of preliminary here uh there is g given the time frame that was created by the approval of the housing element fair share plan at the end of June there is a lot of changes that I
think will be made which is appropriate when they come in for final. Um in terms of the uh conditions um the applicant has indicated that they'll work with um the staff including
the consultants uh and the affordable housing committee uh in terms of modifications and improvements to the plan. Um, there'll be much further consideration of landscaping and what can be done to
improve the landscaping, including the possibility, as the chair indicated or raise a question about, of moving the the detention basin back. um and including uh possibly reducing the number of parking spaces to create more parking
more trees in the uh the parking area. Um and again in terms of the landscaping um the applicant will work with the um uh the staff. they'll utilize the uh
list of of acceptable plantings from the shade tree commission um and try to work out something which enhances the landscaping. Um it's the same as Liz indicated um should be done with respect to the parking uh
I'm sorry with respect to the architecture you know working with with with the staff including that is the consultants on um in seeing what improvements could be made to to the uh to to the uh to the
architecture. Uh one of the considerations that we'll be taking that they'll be considering particularly in terms of landscaping is reducing the number of parking spaces. Uh and if that's done moving the EV spaces that are closest to the building
away from the building the light poles are going to be reduced from 20T to 18 ft. As was indicated earlier even lower might be appropriate. that could certainly be a subject of discussion. Um,
and in terms of the landscaping, they a whole number of items u trees around the basin. Um, possibly more landscaping in the the parking area, more buffering, uh, moving the detention basin back as I indicated
a moment ago. Um, in terms of runoff, um, more information is necessary with respect to to where the flow is going to go to to make sure it doesn't go into a, uh, another property.
Soil testing will be done that and with that soil testing, they'll update the basin if necessary, which now is a sandy bottom and drains would drain within 72 hours. They'll do a template for trash uh trash. They've done a template for
trash trucks. They'll do the same kind of turning movement analysis for fire trucks and they'll get the information from the fire department and they'll go to the fire department for whatever approvals they need from the fire department. Um
and then um obviously the affordable uh development will be dee restricted. Um in terms of the ingress and egress the is it the north um uh ingress will be uh
exit only and the south will be um ingress only. although was indicated that they could consider a right turn out on the south ingress. Uh just a suggestion, make that a condition
of the county approval because it's really under county. Yeah. And that's I was going to get to that that all of this relating to the county road, they it's going to be subject to approval by the county which has the jurisdiction over that um be a phase one EIS. It'll be submitted.
Um I will they'll they'll consider and go to the county with a left turn lane in um that's from my notes. You want me to go through what's in the uh in the reports?
Um as far as the waivers go. Yeah. Why don't we Oh, just for the waivers, right? Yeah. Well, at this point there are three submission waiverss which are um I guess actually uh the road and utility underground uh sections, the
environmental impact statement although they're they're going to actually do the phase one EIS earthquake earth work calculations and they're going to do percolation tests also and then they'll um they'll reduce as per the RSIS the um top course
and the base from 2 in and 4 in to 1 and a half inches and 3 in. If they determine given what they find out from the the perk tests that the one and a half inches and the 3 in will sustain the the the amount of development uh on
the surface. Then there'll be the one um design waiver which is the one from the landscaping in the parking. Although even if that's granted, that doesn't mean as part of the ongoing development
of of the design, uh that they won't have landscaping in the um in in the parking area, and they might even try to comply with the ordinance. The fact that you got a waiver doesn't mean that you have to use it. Um, and then I could go over the uh the
individual items. No, I think I'm good. Is that all right? Yeah. Uh, Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify one or two things? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Muller, for such a thorough job reviewing your conditions. I I align with with those conditions. Just a a point of clarification or two.
Uh as far as the submission waiverss, there were four uh items 41, 53, 59, and 60 that we're asking for. 59 is the EIS. We'll submit a phase one in lie of an EIS. Okay, that should be acceptable. Um that's what's proposed anyway,
something to the board's approval. uh we will submit soil tests uh that may not necessarily comply with checklist item 41, but that will be adequate to properly design the storm order. Uh we'll comply with the comments in the
three review letters discussed tonight other than as clarified on one or two items on the record tonight. Um we certainly understand that we'll have to comply with the the remainder of those comments. Um that the approval would include
not only prelim preliminary site plan but also the variance for impervious coverage 40% where 50% is required and a waiver to allow 4% of landscape area where 10% is required under section 43B2D
the ordinance although we'll work with your planner to see if we can improve upon that but granting asking for that that design waiver Um, I think that was all I had. Okay, Mr. Chairman, in ter in terms of the checklist waiverss, I think you still
have to approve uh the waiverss for 31, 41, 53, 59, and 60 because they're not providing them at preliminary. They might provide two of them at final or three of them at finals. I agree. And so for the for today, this resolution, I think you got to put them
in there. Yep. Does everybody understand that? Hey Wayne, um I did hear uh Gerald state that storm water would not flow out of the retention ditch into other properties. That's exactly what it's
going to do out of the emergency outlet. What they're going to check is that it's not flowing towards uh structures or correct you cause damage. Right. But you're right. water flows downhill and it's going in that direction and
that's not going to change. But I think the intent of the combo is to make sure that it's not creating an adverse condition for a downstream property right downream. Right. Any other questions from board members or our professionals?
Okay. I am going to call a vote on the plan as submitted. So with the all of the items listed, the submission waivers is the design waiver and a condition
and with the understanding that the applicant will work with the affordable housing subcommittee that consists of from the planning board of Bill and myself and from the township committee Iman and Lisa.
Great. Okay. So, with that in mind, I would like to have a somebody make a motion. So, moved. Like a second. Second.
Okay. All right. Roll call for PB 409-25. Miss Anderson, yes. Miss Albadawi, yes. Mr. Giddings, yes. Miss Conram, yes. Mr. Mr. Mildenberg, yes.
Mr. Mucelli, yes. Mr. Pulk, yes. And Mr. Whitman, yes. Thank you. Motion passed. Thank you. I want to thank you. Thank you very much for your indulgence in your consideration. Thank you.
Yes. At this point in time, I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn. Have a second. All those in favor say I. Meeting closed.