--------- I'll let that I'd >> like to call the meeting to order. Will you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Statement of adequate notice. Under the Sunshine Law, adequate notice in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act was provided on January 5th, 2026 of this meeting's date, time, and location. The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry
Press and Home News Tribune, posted on the Township Bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice and filed with the municipal clerk. Roll call, please. Miss Anderson, here. >> Miss Elvadawi, >> here. >> Mr. Giddings, >> here. Miss Conram here,
>> Mr. Mildenberg is out. Mr. Mucelli >> here. >> Mr. Pulk >> here. >> Mr. Stewart is out and Mr. Whitman >> here. >> Okay. Thank you. We have a quorum chair. >> Great. Uh before we start, I do want to welcome the board. Thank you for coming tonight and thank you for our professionals coming tonight. It's
always greatly appreciated to see everybody here. We got a full house tonight. We got a lot to do. Um, first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from May March 5th, 2026. Are there any comments or qu questions
from the board? Corrections. >> Can I have a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Can I have a second, please? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call for the March 5th minutes. Miss Anderson, >> yes. >> Miss Albadawi, >> yes. >> Mr. Giddings,
>> yes. Miss Conram, >> yes. >> Mr. Mucelli, >> yes. >> Mr. Pulk, >> yes. >> And Mr. Whitman, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion passed. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is public comments for non-aggenda items.
Is there anybody that has any comments that are for items not on the agenda? Hearing none, I'm going to close the public comment section for non-aggenda items. And we're going to go into our first application of the e evening. PB
409-25 Cranberry Senior Apartments LLC. Good evening. >> Good evening. Now, as far as um they're good to we're good to hear them tonight and everything.
Yes. Publication services in order. The board has jurisdiction. >> Okay. >> Good evening everyone. Good to see you again. My name is Damian Deluca and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Deluca Lewis and Burr and I represent the Cranberry Senior Office
LLC. I know I saw most if not all of you uh in August when we were here before uh and we're back to course property for which we're appearing tonight is 1274 South River Road which is block 5 block 16.01
and there are exhibits that are currently being handed out. Intimidate 2 is an aerial photograph of the property in the immediately surrounding area. property shown in yellow. That's the existing property of course with the structures that are on the property.
River Road is to the top of the page. Uh Route 130 is to the left. >> How do you want to mark these? Do we want to mark exhibit A2? >> Okay, >> that's fine. >> I'll go through all the exhibits in a few moments. My plan, Mr. Chairman, I
don't want to be presumptuous for us to give you an overview of our application. why we're here in the history that I think will help expedite your hearing the application and uh and then of course I can answer any questions that you have and we have some brief testimony some testimony to provide uh
as well. >> Do you have professionals you're going to need squaring in or should we just do them when they come up to speak? >> Uh we will swear them in. I suggest I finish with my introduction that we can swear them in. Okay. >> We have three uh witnesses, none of whom will be particularly long. Uh we can
have them all sworn at once finish if that's okay. >> Yep. That would be adequate. >> Okay, great. Uh so that's the property. I think you all know it. You remember it. Uh it's a property that has some big constructions on structures on it. And
in August of 2025, this board granted preliminary major site plan approval to allow us to build 60 senior affordable park units on this lot on this single lot. And we're back tonight for final
site plan. When we were here in August for preliminary uh at that time the plans were at that time very preliminary and we went through them. We spent a lot of time with you. We spent a lot of time with the professionals who are very
diligent efforts cooperation which has been significant and appreciated. Um and at that time you grant preliminary site plan approval. Uh there's a history of this application in this process which I want to review briefly for the record for those of you who may not remember
it. But this is what we in the affordable housing business refer to as a municipally sponsored community. Um, by municipally sponsored, what I mean is is that there's been collaboration between the applicant, which is Cranberry Senior Apartments
LLC, which is affiliated with the Walters Group, which is an affordable housing developer. There's been collaboration and agreement reached between them and the township related to the redevelopment of this site as an affordable housing community. A 100% affordable housing community limited and
restricted to senior citizens who meet the affordability controls for very low, low and moderate income seniors which are all very technical and defining terms uniformly applied across the state. Although the incomes income limits vary depending
upon the region in which you live, the rules are the same for all of us in all the towns, all 560 plus communities. And so in this case, Cranberry Township has adopted a fair share a housing element fair share plan as it was required to do
as part of the fourth round of affordable housing, which I know is board you know about because you you adopted that plan. And I'm not going to give you more than you need, although I'm happy to give you questions answer. Uh, you adopted that plan in June. You
amended that plan earlier this year. This property is in that plan. So, this property is part of the township's efforts to satisfy its fourth round affordable housing obligations. And these 60 units that you approved in August are in that plan.
The township has adopted a series of ordinances which I'll quickly summarize as number one authorizing eminent domain to acquire this property. Uh number two to reszone the property to permit the
affordable housing uh multifamily community that we propose and that ordinance is important because it what governs the zoning for this application. That's where it's at 062509
was adopted on July 14th. That reszone this property to the quote Mount Laurel 5 zone, also known as the RNLV zone. That ordinance is tailor made uh to fit this property and we comply with
that ordinance with a few limited exceptions that we're going to talk about this evening. The town also adopted an ordinance that authorized a financial agreement and adopted a resolution of need recognizing the need for affordable housing at this location
in this community. The town also entered into a developer agreement with the with the applicant on July 15th of last year in which it agreed that this property would be redeveloped as we proposed and the property ultimately would be conveyed. I push it, it goes red, which I think
turns it off. >> Turns it on. I apologize. >> You're on now. >> Okay. Well, I I I usually speak loudly, so hopefully we picked up the audio and I thank you for that tip. Um, on July 25th, 2025, we applied for
preliminary major site plan approval and you granted that on August, I believe it was 26, 2025. You adopted a resolution on October 9th memorializing your approval of the preliminary site plan application. Uh, I'm sorry for that long history, but it
helps sort of paint the found picture and lay the foundation for why we're here tonight. And when we were here in August, you probably remember that it was uh somewhat of a compressed time frame that we had. And the reason for
that was that these types of communities, these 100% affordable communities are financed through a special type of tax credit financing that's administered by a state agency called the HMFA. And applicants like my client apply for
these tax credits. They're very competitive and they require certain things to be completed in order to comply. One of which was obtaining preliminary site plan approval. And we had to apply I think it was the deadline was right at Labor Day. And and so we
appeared before you not long before that. Obtain preliminary. And when we were here, we said, "Listen, we know there's some work that needs to be done on these plans, so we'll come back for final." Everyone agreed to that. That was appropriate. Um, and so we obtained that final approval and we said we would
do that if we get the tax credits. I'm happy to report that this application was approved by the HMFA. So those tax credits have been awarded uh and uh so we're back for final so that we can go forward with this community. Those tax
credits have deadlines. There is time sensitivity relating to it. So, as a result of that, we've continued to work on the plans in the interim in the hopes that we would get the tax credit award. Um, not sure if we would, hoping that we would. And, and the most notable aspect
of that is the conditions of approval that were laid out in your resolution required a fair amount of dialogue, back and forth, and work on the plans. And I think there has been a fair amount of that that's occurred. And as a result of that, uh, we've made revisions to the
plan, which I hope are satisfactory to the board, but we did that as a result of the the discussions that we had with various township representatives. Uh, and we've attempted to get these plans in final condition. We're here for final major site plan approval. And as you
know, as a planning board, the purpose of final is to confirm that we satisfied comply and complied with the conditions of preliminary site plan approval. And if not, uh, we would request that you carry forward as conditions of final any
remaining conditions or any new conditions that you impose tonight. Although again, the purpose of final is really to focus on did we comply with the conditions of preliminary and and we have review letters from your professionals which you're going to hear
from tonight. And I think it's fair to characterize that by and large we have satisfied the conditions of preliminary and we'll get into some of the nuances of those that we have to provide testimony on or still have to address. But for the most part
for the most part we we've addressed those conditions. In addition to final major site plan approval, there are a few variances that we require that are detailed in uh your review letters. Uh one relates to signage. We're going to provide testimony.
and clarification. We don't believe we need any variances related to signage and we'll support that with testimony. Uh and so long as you agree, we don't need that variance. We do need a few bulk variances under the new ordinance that was adopted last year relating to uh rear, you know,
setbacks and uh we'll provide testimony on that from our civil engineer, Miss Bove. Those variances you'll hear are a direct result of some of the tweaks that we made to the plan to help make it a better plan but resulting in some minor encroachments into the required
setbacks. Uh we also got a variance when we obtained preliminary site plan approval for imperous coverage. The ordinance allowed 40%. you granted a variance for 50% because that's what we proposed as a result of some of the
changes that we were asked to consider like adding uh some some amenity space on the outside uh a gazebo and some walkways that slightly increased our impervious coverage to 50.7 that was discussed at preliminary hey
can you do this and we said sure uh I don't think you I know that you approve the variance for 50%. but with the understanding that there would be an evaluation of whether we could improve the plan and that's resulted in a slight increase in that coverage. So to be
safe, I'm going to ask you to grant a variance for 50.7% coverage as opposed to the 50 that you granted in August. Uh we have three letters from your professionals uh from your planner dated March 30th uh from
your traffic engineer dated March 31st and from uh your civil engineer dated March 18th with a few very limited exceptions. We have no objections to the recommendations and comments set forth in those letters. They've asked us to provide testimony in certain cases.
We'll do that momentarily and I'll identify the very few comments where we have either a concern or a clarification. Otherwise, if I don't raise it, we've agreed to comply with any of the comments in those letters. And I think that could save us some
time. Uh I mentioned exhibits. I've shown you A2, which is the aerial. Of course, our primary exhibit is the site plan. And this is exhibit A1. This is a color rendered site plan which you same plan that we submitted in the package I believe that was submitted with the
application superimposed on an aerial zoomed in a little bit. Uh the hotel is to the right just to orient everybody. Route 130 is still to the left as you face it but our building is here. South River Road is at the top of that exhibit. And then the last exhibit
we've pre-marked as exhibit A3 and you have a copy. This is a rendered architectural elevation or 3D elevation. And we gave you one of these in August. There's been some some changes to the the building largely as a result of
discussions with various township representatives. Our architect, Mr. Bole, is going to provide testimony in a moment to explain what those are. But this shows you those elevations in color. I'm going to leave that up because he's actually going to be my first witness. So,
um, that concludes my introduction. If you don't have any questions for me, we can bring my three witnesses up, have them sworn, and go from there. Our witnesses are our architect Arnold Bole, our civil engineer, Denise Bove, and our
traffic engineer, John McCormack, with Dynamic Traffic. I also have with me Ed Spitel who's an employee of the Walters Group who was here in August who's very familiar with the operations of the Walters communities the affordable
housing uh related issues and I don't have any planned testimony for Mr. Spitel but someone may have a question that he may a answer in which case we'll have them sworn at that time. Does the board or any of our professionals have any questions at the
moment? >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> So, why don't we bring our your witness all of your witnesses up? All your professionals. You raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give to the truth?
>> So, sworn or affirm, please state your full name and spell your last name. John McCormick, MC C O R M A C K. >> Thank you, principal with dynamic traffic. >> Oh, you know what? Why don't you grab the mic over there?
>> Just grab this will come out. Just turn it on. Is it on? I think it's on. >> Yep, it's on. >> Again, John McCormack, MC C O R M A C, Principal with Dynamic Traffic. Denise Bove, B O V, senior engineer with
Shulo Engineering. >> Arnold Bole, B L Y, principal architect at Walters Architecture. >> Thank you. And council, I take it as you put them on, you qualify them. >> I'll qualify them as I put them on. >> And just so you know, Mr. Muller, Schulo
is spelled S C I U L L O. >> We're going to start with Mr. Bole. >> Oh, okay. >> Mr. Mr. Boy, do you have the microphone? >> Okay. Uh, can you begin by briefly reviewing your professional background? >> I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey.
I've been practicing since 2005. Uh, presented in front of this board as well as 20 to 25 boards throughout Mabosa County. >> And your license is in good standing in New Jersey. >> It is. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the board accept uh Mr. Bole is an expert in architecture.
>> I'll accept his credentials. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Bole using exhibit A3 uh which is on the easel first of all was that prepared under your supervision? >> Yes. >> And is that a 3D architectural rendering? >> Correct.
>> And does that show what we proposed from an exterior architecture perspective? >> Yes. These are the updated renderings based on the conversations we had and what we're presenting to the >> Okay. Can you give everyone an overview
of the changes? You give an overview of the building that's proposed from the outside and focusing on the changes that were made as a result of discussions we've had since we obtained preliminary. >> So working at Glad Oh, you got the mic. Okay. >> Sorry, just hiding.
>> Um we have the front elevation of the building in the middle is that covered portico. I think we discussed this earlier. Um, if you look at the materials, we have a brick facade. These are the same materials we discussed the last meeting, party board siding, partyboard panel,
um, and brick facade. So, the goal was to make a colonial style building to fit in with the town. Um, based on the last meeting and the comments, we made some design changes to actually make to enhance the building design. Uh we added
some more board and batten siding. Instead of it being all flat up in the gable ends, we added some gable end details, some metal roofing. Uh a comment that was made were the side elevations when the last meeting happened that weren't developed enough. So what we did is we created these these
bumps and they're in the plans as well and the uh 2D elevations to kind of create some some movement and some character to the side of the buildings. These sitting rooms on the left side of the building are actually I'm sorry, this bump on the left side of the building is actually they're small
sitting rooms. We got that comment from the affordable housing committee. So each end of the building, one end has sitting areas on each side and the other side of the building. This side here actually has exterior balconies that will overlook that park proomenade
gazebo that we're proposing. Um, another change we had made was this. I guess we'll discuss it further. This rear deck, what we did was we extended it. It was 12 feet uh deep. It's now 24
feet deep. This will allow more sitting area for a residents. Um it does slightly stick over onto the um the drainage ement or the drainage uh area basin. >> Um we did check this with our civil
engineer. As long as we build it as we're showing here with post in the ground, water can still flow underneath and it won't impede anything. Some other minor changes we made to the plan. We moved the fitness room from the front of the building to the back of the
building so it accesses this rear patio. We moved some of the accessible units to the upper levels instead of the lower levels where we had more room in the floor plan so we can make cabinet spaces bigger and and those sort of adjustments. Now the the resolution that memorialized
the preliminary site plan lists 49 conditions of approval and a few of them are architecturally related. Condition 21 states that the applicant shall make such changes in the interior of the building as are required by the
affordable housing committee. Uh can you give us an overview of the changes that we proposed to the interior of the building as a result of discussions with the town? >> Sure. So a couple of those changes were moving those um handicap accessible units so we had more room in them. Um
one of the it's >> very granular but one of the comments were to give enough countertop space and cabinet space the same as the other unit. So we made all those those sort of changes as well that get very granular. Um, the other big change was, like I said, moving the fitness room to the
rear of the building to give it a better area to have more access to the back deck and that sitting area on one side of the building and the exterior sitting area on the other side. >> Okay. Condition 22 states, quote, "Units shall not be located immediately
adjacent to elevators in order to avoid the noise associated therewith." End quote. Uh, did we attempt to address that condition and what was the result? We did. So the the plan as it is, it's was hard to manipulate to pull those
units away. We'd almost need another buffer which would increase the size of the building and then cause more variances and cause more issues. So what we're what we're doing is we're putting sound attenuation walls between that elevator and those adjacent units on every single floor. So we're going to
add some additional air gaps between them. We shrunk some spaces. We're putting u sound detoning insulation in them. So we also don't want them to be noisy. So we are creating um some spaces there to knock down that sound.
>> Okay. So is it correct that we're trying to comply with the intent of that condition which is to allow those residents quiet space. Correct. >> As best we can without moving the units. >> Correct. And most of the units do the bathrooms back up to it instead of your living space or your your bedroom and
those sort of things. So we seek relief from that condition or modification of that condition. >> Correct. Okay. Now go to the um exhibit A1 which is the civil plan the site plan. Now let's start in the back because you
mentioned the deck in the back. Can you just show everybody where that is on exhibit A1? >> It's this area right here. >> So it's that roughly rectangular orange area behind the building. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, is it correct that that encroaches into the required rear yard setback?
>> Yes. >> When we applied for preliminary, we show did we show a deck that did comply with that setback? >> Yes. >> Why did we enlarge the deck? >> Um, it was based on on feedback we had from the committee uh just to make it larger due to the grading on the site. There
wasn't an area to kind of have exterior space here to sit for activities, so on and so forth. So we just doubled the size of the deck to give that elevated space um to not affect the basin. >> So we did that to create more amenities
because partially because we were were challenged to provide amenities in the rear yard otherwise. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now the the letters call out correctly that we require a variance for a minimum building setback to parking
which is in the front. I believe 10 ft's required and uh in one place we're at 6.9 ft and in another we're at 3 feet. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> The building is at 6.9 and a column is at 3 ft. Can you just point where that is on exhibit A1? >> Right here.
>> So would it be correct to say as you face the building the front left u these as well? >> Front left uh what do you call that? An over what is that architectural feature called? >> A portico. >> Okay. A portico. >> Front left portico. Yes. >> Why don't we have a 10-ft setback to the
parking there? >> So, we wanted to make the entry very monumental. We wanted to make it feel like a very colonial building and also give coverage to the residents when they get out of their car if this is a drop off zone. So, they're immediately underneath for cover of rain, snow, the elements that we have here in New
Jersey. And is it correct going back to exhibit A1 that the only place where we don't comply with that 10-ft parking setback is in that corner? It's these two corners right here. >> Oh, two corners. Okay. Otherwise, the
setback to parking is compliant. Yes. >> Mr. Chairman, that's all the questions I have for Mr. Bole. >> I guess we could we could do this one at a time while we have Mr. Boille. Does any of our professionals have any questions of Mr.
Bole while he's up here? >> I do not. >> He won't be going anywhere. I know. I know. But while he's here, >> how about our board members? >> Just a minor comment. I think the comment about the elevator's concern was
more about the unit across from the elevator and the entries on each side of the elevator, just the ADA ding that you have when the elevator reaches that floor. So, making sure the sound seals on the doors and actually the sound like not as concerned about bathrooms and k kitchens. So, you got, you know, that's
not a living space. It's more of the 88 ding, you know, ding. So, >> we can address that with the doors door seals, things like that. >> Exactly. >> I do I do have one question if nobody else from the board has a question. I have a question on the on the
um setback from the from the in the front. Um, is there any prevention from anybody running into those columns in in the event we get a runaway car or something like that? Are they are they elevated a little bit? Those knockouts
there, those two wings that are in front there, >> he's here. >> Yeah, >> I have to let the civil engineer Okay. >> talk about the current I'll ask Miss Bo to address that. >> Okay. Thank you. on the same on the same issue because I'm also just uh trying to get my bearings on the um on the parking
setback. Uh you're talking about the the parking setback. You want relief um from either side. Is that what I'm understanding? >> Yes. They're they're a mirror image. So the the the ordinance requires 10-ft setback to parking. We complied or preliminary, but we pulled the portico
forward for architectural aesthetic value and that resulted in two pinch points where we need a variance, one on each side or on each side >> and 10 10 feet from where? Like if can you point on that uh on that diagram like because we've got parking on either
side and we've got parking in front. >> Yeah, I I'll maybe >> might be better to >> Yeah, I'll have our civil engineer answer that. I was trying to get Mr. Oh, that question. >> Mr. boil to answer sort of where that was and why we were proposing that. >> Okay, >> we'll follow up on that as well. >> Okay,
>> thank you. >> Any other questions from Okay, >> I I I do. So, the accessible units were brought up to the second floor for additional space. >> Uh they were brought up to the third and fourth floor. Um, in the event of an emergency,
>> is there a plan for folks with accessibility issues to get out of that space if you can't use elevators because there's no electricity or there's a fire? Like it seems I don't know. Would anybody else be concerned about somebody
who has accessibility issues being on the third or fourth floor? >> Area refuge is something. Yeah, I mean there's the there is areas outside of each individual stairwell for the required building. Um there's a generator if we
have to run the >> Okay. So there is a generator. >> Yes. So beyond that >> now the building is sprinkler obviously. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Our next witness is our civil
engineer Denise Pog. Thank you, Arie. Arie, you want to put your papers down? >> Good evening, Miss Both. Can you uh begin by briefly revealing your professional background? >> Hi, I've been practicing engineering for 29 years. I've been licensed in New
Jersey for 23. >> And have you qualified as an expert in civil or professional engineering before multiple land use boards in the state? >> Yes. >> Is your license in good standing? >> Yes. >> And you personally familiar with the plans that have been submitted by your office? >> Yes, I am.
>> Mr. Chairman, we'd ask the board accept Miss Bove as an expert in civil engineering. >> We'll accept her applications. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Miss Bo, were you present during my introductory comments? >> Yes. Were they factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? >> Yes.
>> Using exhibit A1, which is a site plan, can you give us a brief overview of the site plan with emphasis on the changes that we've made since preliminary? >> Yes. >> Okay. So,
one of the concerns at the preliminary hearing was uh outdoor amenities for the residents and at subsequent meetings with township officials. So, what we were able to do is provide a paved path that loops around a little bit there with a gazebo. So, there's a nice
outside area there. There's benches. Uh unfortunately, we're not able to provide any outdoor uh space for residents behind the site. uh sorry behind the building due to the small size of the site and the fact that it drains to the
back that's where the basin has to be. Uh one of the um other amenities is as Arie referenced to increase the deck so it's a much larger space for residents to be outside. Uh one of the requests of
the board of the last hearing was to change the basin. Uh there was two requests. One to slide it as far back on the property as we can and we did that. The second was to change the linear shape and we're just not able to do that. Again, because of the site
constraints, we need that size basin to meet the current state rules. >> What are those site constraints? Uh well, it's a 2acre site and uh the impervious coverage is 50% uh I'm sorry,
40% allowed and we were at 50%. Um and we actually reduced some of the parking spaces. So we made an effort to get as little impervious as possible, but we added the again the path and the gazebo and the larger deck. So that's the reason for the increase the slight
increase in impervious coverage. Uh one of the other things requested by the board was the entrance and exit to make those separate ingress and egress. We show that on our plan now. So the southern driveway is an ingress only.
Traffic will loop around and then the northern driveway is an exit only where they can make right or left turns. The southern driveway is under the jurisdiction of New Jersey DOT. We before we made this change of separating
the driveways to ingress and ingress, we already submitted to DOT to get a letter of no interest and that was granted. Now if we are making changes to the driveway, we will have to go back to them and get a uh highway occupancy permit and we will do that. Uh the driveway, the northern driveway is under
the jurisdiction of Middle Sex County and we have submitted an application to them and it's currently under review. Are there any landscaping changes since we obtained preliminary approval? >> Yes, we had added some landscaping. And
besides changes, I just wanted to emphasize how much uh of the landscaping we're maintaining. I don't know, I'm sure you're all familiar with this site, but the trees along this uh property line are significant in size. They're beautiful trees and provide a lot of buffer there. They're going to remain.
That's why the path, you know, originally we were looking at trying to loop it more, but we want to leave those trees as is. Um, excuse me, we increased the, uh, landscaping along the front. And one of the comments in the review,
um, since that submission was to add a little bit more in the driveway, and that's shown on this landscaping plan. And also more buffering around. This is a a utility box. So, we've added more landscaping around that and around the
trash enclosure. >> Uh there are several variances that I outlined in my introductory comments and the first one relates to the parking setback and a question was asked and Mr. Bole addressed that variance as far as
why we were creating that variance condition. Can you just briefly review exactly where those nonconformities are proposed? >> Right. Yes. So, yes, the the requirement is 10 ft between the building and parking. So, typically that's this
distance here between the building and the curb. That's at least 10 feet. And we had that. And where we don't now is because we increased this lobby area. And so that building, that corner right there and right there diagonally to that
curb is 6.9 I believe it is. Uh and the column the portico has columns here. That column to that curb is three feet. It's not any issue as far as pedestrians moving through because the columns are spaced and as we mentioned it's like at
the drop off area. So it's providing cover for residents. There's plenty of room between the building and the column for pedestrian paths through it into the building. >> There was a question from the chair about whether there's any protection for
those columns shown on exhibit A3 which is five columns according to that exhibit. Can you address that please? >> Yeah. As you can see on I'm sorry which is this A2. >> That's A3. >> A3. uh the columns there's a brick base
at the bottom so any car parking here you know with the three feet we don't see an issue with it. We can put uh a wheel stop in there if that >> avails the concern >> in the first parking spaces. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So you're not proposing for example ballers in front of the columns? >> We were not. >> And and why not? Why do you think you don't need those? Well, mostly for aesthetic reasons. It's not something I think that would take away from the beautiful, you know, as
you said, colonial look you have there. But if it's something the board feels is necessary, of course, >> but also I assume distance comes into it and this is a drop off area. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you concluded that they weren't necessary. Correct. Correct. Okay. Now, there's a variance for the rear yard setback. Go back to your plan,
please. Exhibit A1. And I know we've covered it briefly. It's 40 ft proposed uh where 50 ft is required. Correct. >> Correct. >> So when we conceptualized this plan, when the ordinance was drafted and when we got preliminary, we showed a smaller deck that complied. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Is there any adverse impact that you can think of uh from enlarging that deck and encroaching into the required rear yard setback? >> I don't see any adverse effect. Again, the the most positive is the more outdoor amenity for the residents, but
we have existing trees along the property line. We're supplementing that with, you know, and every in any area that we're disturbing. So, I don't see that it's an adverse impact on anybody. >> And looking at this aerial exhibit A1,
there's a great distance, is there not from that deck to the closest building? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now uh the plan shows impervious coverage of 50 point excuse me before I leave the basin in the deck.
>> Will the inclusion of footings in the basin for the deck have any negative impact on the uh operations of the basin for its intended function? >> No, it will not. >> Okay. uh and there was a condition that
we should look at softening or changing the shape of the basin. Have we done that? >> Yeah, as I mentioned, we we tried, but this is the volume that we need in order to meet the state stormwater rules. So,
there's really nowhere else to manipulate it to get it to be a different shape. >> And that's where it has to be. >> Yes. >> Okay. Impervious coverage. The ordinance allows 40%, the board previously granted a variance for 50%. We're now 50.7. Show
us where the additional coverage is. >> It's, as I mentioned, the outdoor amenities. It's this uh the sidewalk connecting up to the existing sidewalk on River Road. It's the path, the gazebo, and the larger basin. >> And is that total.7%? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> And those were uh things that we were asked to consider to enhance the amenities for the residents, correct? Okay. Uh there is a waiver required for the location of a uh trash enclosure. Correct. >> Correct. >> Show everybody where the trash enclosure
is, please. >> Okay. The trash enclosure is right here. This is for bulk trash only. Regular trash and recycling is collected inside the building. The higher floors have a chute where they can drop it down to this room. Staff then wheels it out and
a truck will pull up and they'll put it in the truck and leave. And I believe that is once a week. Once a week for that. But bulk trash with a senior population generally doesn't fill up. It's four to six weeks. If it fills up sooner, they will get it emptied sooner.
>> We need relief because it's in the front yard setback. It's in the front yard and also in the minimum required sideyard setback. Is that correct? >> It is not in the sideyard setback. No, it's just between the building and the front. Well, uh, according, uh, to the
board planners letter on page six, it states that, um, ordinance section 150-50 states that the the trash enclosure, and I'm paraphrasing, shall be permitted between a street and the front of a building. Oh, and shall
conform to all yard requirements. I'm sorry, I may have misinterpreted that. Yes. >> So, the only relief we need is for the minimum sideyard setback. >> No, it meets the sideyard setback. It's between the building and the street. Okay. And why are we putting it there? >> Uh, well, basically there's nowhere else
to put it. Of course, typically we try to put a trash enclosure on the side or behind the building, but clearly there's no room behind and we can't we don't have enough room to get circulation around the building. So, that was the and to have a truck access it, that was
the best location. And so, we provided some additional screening so it can't really be seen from the street. >> Okay. Uh there's a few comments in the letters I want to address and it won't take long. Okay. >> Uh first relates to landscaping and buffering which are related. There are
comments uh recommending considering trying to augment buffers and landscaping where we can to create a better plan. Are we amendable to those comments? >> Yes, we put it where we see but if certainly a condition that we'll work with the planner if they find there's
other areas they need supplemented. >> Okay. Uh there is a comment I believe it's number 10 uh on page eight regarding mechanical equipment screening it. Is it correct that we'll comply with that? >> Yes. >> All right. Comment number 12 on page
eight of the planners letter uh relates to buffering. I'm sorry you've already addressed that. I apologize. Uh fire comments 37 and 38. I say comments, these are actually conditions of preliminary and they're they're they're numbered uh in the letters to match that
which makes sense. Of course, conditions 37 and 38 relate to fire. Do we get responses from the fire official? Yes, we had conversations with the fire official. We submitted a plan showing that the fire truck can circulate. It comes in and then loops around and can
make it out. Uh there they issued a letter of approval with one condition that they want these curves to be mountable just for the ease of the fire truck, not beating up any curb. Uh that's no problem for the islands. For
the driveways, we of course need DOT and county approval to make those mountable. If they say no, then we go back to the fire department and tell them they said no. But if they say yes, we will comply. So, we'll comply with the fire officials comments regarding mountable curbs so
long as the outside agencies approve that. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Uh lastly, condition 43 asked us to submit a phase one environmental assessment. Can you give us a brief overview, if you're
familiar with it, of the status of the applicant's investigation of the environmental condition of the property? >> Yes. a phase one site assessment was completed. They did find uh a few areas of concern and so then a phase two investigation was completed and that
came up that there was no issues and no further investigation required. >> Okay. And we're happy to provide a copy of that phase two to the uh board professionals if requested. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh lastly, is it correct, Miss Boove, that the site plan application
process in Cranberry Township has a completeness requirement that you apply to the Shade Tree Commission for approval relating to tree removal and tree protection? Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And is it also correct that that we actually file that application? >> Yes. Uh, and I know I sent an email
today that I copied you on and several township officials, but just for everyone's benefit. Uh, is it correct, Miss Bo, that ordinance 062509, which created the zone for this affordable housing community, includes a
condition at the bottom of page two, section C3F, which states, quote, "The development of the parcel is exempt from tree removal or tree protection standards within the land development ordinance, chapter 150." End quote. >> Yes.
So, um, is it the applicant's position that the township does not require us to, uh, go through the typical tree requirement, tree protection and removal process because this is an affordable community. >> That's our understanding. Yes.
>> Okay. Um, that's all the questions I have for Miss Bo, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Um, I'd like to start with our professionals first if they have any questions or comments. >> Go ahead.
>> Dave Hoder, engineer for the board. Um, thank you for putting the mic on. >> Do we we got a square and everybody >> swear everybody raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony about to give the treatment? >> I do. I do. >> I do. >> Yeah. Just please state your full names for the record.
>> Andrew Fanda, traffic consultant. >> David Odor, site engineer for the board. Uh, Liz Laney, board planner. >> Okay. So, I did do that letter March 18th. You didn't address really any of the items, I don't think, though. The attorney said that you were going to comply with most of the items. I'm just
going to bring up a couple. >> I can clarify, we had no issues with your letter, and I should be clear on that. >> So, so you will be willing to move the the storm drain in the front that that services the front of the building away from the curb so you don't have to dig up the curb later on? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, in in terms of that deck in
the back, what are the columns made of? Are they concrete? >> If they're not, can they be concrete encased? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, in terms of um I had a couple of things having to do with lighting.
Uh, one was the Kelvin temperature. Uh, I don't know if I saw it on the plan, so you know, have an idea what what you're proposing. >> Uh, we will modify it to 3,000. >> What's that? the Kelvin will modify it to 3,000. That was the comment, right? >> Thank you. >> And I'm sorry, I forgot that that was one of your comments about the lighting
that we will add a light pole at both driveways to >> Okay. So, there are no lights on South Road uh to speak of. So, the lighting is needed to be given by you guys on site, >> right? >> Okay. I was worried about not having enough lighting at intersections. Our
ordinance does require that. >> You won't be able to see where to get in. So, >> Right. Right. Uh, okay. Uh, in terms of, uh, landscaping, um, most of the comments were dealt with in in Liz's letter. Uh, as a general comment, I'd
like rather I'd like to rather see, um, larger clumps of of landscaping, uh, like for example, on each side of the two entrances to delineate the entrances low landscaping, like you know, something that's no no higher than a foot foot high at mature height. uh
and also clumps of landscaping in the back. Right now you have a couple of shade trees behind the building, four and then you have um um areas of two small plants um one, two, three, four, five, six of
them. And I'd rather you I'd rather see instead of clumps of two, I'd rather see clumps of like four, five, maybe less clumps because that gives you some grass area, >> right? Absolutely. We can comply with that. Okay. Uh, if you could just indicate
where you are as you go through >> on my letter. >> Yeah, that would be useful. >> I was doing it by uh memory. >> Oh, sorry. >> Uh, that would be for example like the detention basin would be items four and
five on uh on no page number. under G and the lighting comments were under four under F. Um
and also lighting under uh 25 under lighting. Um and in regard to drainage, uh they uh pretty much did what I wanted them to do. I don't have a problem any longer with where the flow is going. I did at the
last meeting because we did not have a survey and now I understand where it is and what's happening and I think it's acceptable. Um the the uh a deed notice has to be recorded with the county clerk. You're you're going to do that? >> Absolutely. >> Okay.
Uh any comments on uh pedestrian link on South River Road going out towards uh the highway? >> So where where is that Mr. >> Well, uh as one of the comments on the
previous resolution, it said off track number 40, the applicant shall explore a pedestrian link with commercial properties to the south on the east side of South River Road. >> And I said testimony should be provided. In other words, the possibility of linking this property to some of the
commercial properties out on 130 >> our or traffic I'm going to cover that with our traffic engineer who's next. >> Okay. Okay. I'm going to leave all the entrance comments to uh Andrew because I know there's some back and forth between the DOT and the uh
um and the uh county. Uh you you'll explain that I guess with traffic uh testimony. Uh, under other, uh, number 46, uh, are you, uh, willing to paint the hot box in accordance with the colors in the ordinance? >> Yes.
>> The color in the ordinance. >> Mr. Chairman, that's what I have. Otherwise, if we're going to do everything else, I'm there's no reason for me to continue talking. >> Thank you, D. Andrew. >> Okay. Um, I'll start with the access. Um
but maybe we'll be hearing some more about it when traffic comes up. But uh just from the engineering testimony, um we had uh requested that the driveways be made simplified so they weren't in and out at both driveways. That was done. Thank you very much. Because that
does help the site plan. Um it makes it more efficient and uh safer. I think I'll leave the rest of the testimony up to the traffic engineer then uh to discuss how that was done with the uh different jurisdictions. uh firet truck
turning uh and I'm on page two uh first uh comment was under access now we're under circulation number one firetruck turning analysis was provided that's shown on the plan the fire department did mention about the curbs I understand what you're saying that you know they'll be provided out on the road if they get
approved sometimes the departments don't want to do that so um there might have to be some conversation with the fire department because we do want that to have approp appropriate access. The fire department to have appropriate access. So, >> right, >> depending on what the different
jurisdictions say, coordinate with the fire department. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Um, there are a couple of handicap ramps, existing handicap ramps at the driveway. I I noticed on the first preliminary, they were shown on the second set of
plans. Are they in condition that they need to be replaced or what what is going to happen with the existing? They're out there. I'm just not sure if they're going to be put in uh new with the new driveway and curb that's being
>> right. Well, one of the comments was to sorry >> provide a concrete apron. >> Okay. >> So, we are going to do that. So, we actually will reconstruct this curb and the ramps. >> Okay. >> That'll be that will be driveway apron. Okay, that's good.
>> Um that was number two on page two. Number four on page three. I think we talked about that the crosswalk. You're going to work with the county. Uh you have an application with the county and they are looking at that whatever >> it's done
>> at security drive you're talking about. >> Correct. >> Yeah. That to put up a static sign of a crosswalk sign. Yes. Okay. >> We will request that from the county. >> That was number four on the circulation. And then um parking again there'll be some more testimony by the traffic engineer I'm sure.
Can you describe uh what changes there are from preliminary with the site the parking layout and how the parking spaces may have adjusted? >> Yes. So with our previous submission we had 60 parking spaces and we were
requested to reduce it to 54 using the EV spaces as double to still meet the 60 space requirement. We did that by pulling this parking in and that provided that outdoor amenity space.
>> Okay. So, before there were 60 physical spaces, now they're using the EV credit which is allowed by the New Jersey EV law to take that credit. You're providing 54 physical spaces, 12 of
which are EV spaces, 42 of which are regular parking spaces. Correct. 42 and 12 is >> keeping the man >> just had to think of >> okay um that was the change and then my other comments uh are traffic so we can
wait for the traffic near >> yeah if I could just ask a followup relating to the EV spaces one of the comments uh was there are some EV spaces up front and we were asked at the time of preliminary to consider reducing those that number of EV spaces can you address that please
>> yes so the state law for EV spaces is 15% of the spaces. So that would be nine would be required. However, some of the funding that this project receives requires the applicant to follow the New Jersey Department of Energy
Home Ready Program where it requires 20% of either the number of units or the number of spaces whichever is less. So that would require 11 EV spaces. The reason we have 12 is because they put a charger between two spaces. It's a dual
charger. So it was 12. Uh so the one question was can we reduce them? We can't for that reason. The other was could they not be along the building? The reason is one of the EV spaces has to be ADA accessible. So we have that
there. If they're all out here, it's kind of sorry an ADA space. not really going anywhere. Uh the other issue is just the cost of running the conduit to it. If we have some here and some here, it just adds
cost. >> Uh is it correct the comment or condition 17 of the preliminary approval states EV spaces shall be moved away from the building. Can you show where the spaces are where they're near the building? >> Sure. Uh, these spaces all here are EB
and then these four, one ADA and three regular spaces are EV. >> Did the fire official raise any concerns regarding the location of those four spaces? >> No. >> Okay. And is it correct that the EV charger apparatus themselves is for two spaces? >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, can't have one. If you have one, you have two, >> right? >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Can I have one more comment? Uh only because it came >> all night.
>> The entrance um where the drop off is um there was discussion about Ballards being there. Um the fortunate thing about this location is there's no drive aisle directly towards the uh front entrance. So the circulation aisle is
parallel to the sidewalk in the front of the building. there will be no vehicle except potentially maybe two of the vehicles parked across the way. Uh and it's low volume. They're parked vehicle. It's not a motion. So I understand what you're saying that it has the brick around the bottom. There's a curb there
as well. So I just wanted to put that on the record as well in addition to what you had mentioned about that entrance. >> Thank you. So then we wouldn't need to put um car bumpouts at the back of those
parking spots because there's a curb there. Is that what you're saying? >> The curb is there and the parking spaces aren't necessarily uh directed towards uh those columns. They're directed towards the build building perpendicular, >> right? >> And the lo the drop off area is
parallel, right? So that area that would be in front of the building isn't directed toward the column. So >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I just uh Are you going to discuss signage or >> you know I I I was I realized after I said I had no further questions that I
forgot sign. So >> I can do that now. Would you like me to do it? It'll only take a minute. >> Yeah, that'd be fine. >> So I will hand out an exhibit. It's it's exhibit A4. Uh, and this is an exhibit intended to show everybody what the proposed sign uh will look like. So, let me have Miss
Bove uh using Let's start with the site plan. >> Using exhibit A1, is it correct, Miss Bo, that we propose a one freestanding sign? Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Where is it? >> It's located right over here just south of the >> just south of the south entrance.
>> Yes. >> Is it also correct that we do not propose any facade signs? >> Correct. There was some ambiguity in our plans perhaps. We don't propose any facade signs. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now, the ordinance limits freestanding signs to 40 square feet. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Does exhibit A4, which I just handed out, um show >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Does Does that show um conceptually the proposed sign?
>> Yes. And is it correct that the font may change, the artwork may change? We're happy to share that with Miss Laney, but that's a good representation of what we propose. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, is that 40 square feet? >> Yes. >> And is that your understanding what the
ordinance allows? >> Yes. >> And and that 40 square feet doesn't include the masonry base which is proposed to be below that. >> Correct. >> Okay. So to the best of our knowledge, we don't need sign release subject to
hearing from Miss Lenny. >> I'm sorry. Could you just go? So the height doesn't include the base. That's what you you're saying. >> So the 40 square f feet is 8x5. That's the sign panel. >> Okay. >> When we looked at your ordinance, we we thought we interpreted to mean if it's a pylon or pole sign, you include that
area. >> Uh but for a a monument sign with structure underneath the sign, you don't. If I if you disagree, then we would request the variance, right? >> Because we think that the the base is a uh is a better plan. Uh but the sign
itself is 40 square feet. >> Okay. Let me double check that for a second. But and also can you just just excuse me just discuss the lighting of the sign? >> Yeah. Uh you'll see on there there's uh
LED flood lights that are in the ground aimed up at the sign. So externally illuminated. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I'm just going to That's all I have for now. I just want to double check the signage there. >> Okay. >> So, thank you for that reminder. Uh but that's all I have on signs.
>> So, any of our professionals have any other questions for at the moment? Go ahead. >> Is there any is there any way you can light the sign from above um from the top of the sign down to not cause skylow?
Is there any way I suspect there is uh I uh so we can look at that >> up to the point if >> that's if that's the board's pro uh preference. So a down lit externally illuminated sign. You know >> board has often approved that type of sign in the past as opposed to ground
lit signs which sometimes a little more too obvious to passerbys. I'd investigate that. We're >> happy to. >> So, condition being investigate. >> Yeah. >> Download externally eliminated.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm going to ask >> if I may. Um, if it can be done, then is it pleasure of the board to have them do it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Because if I I see Mr. Hart's point it >> line with the house next door,
>> right? >> So then I would and I we have no objection to that. I just don't that's going to require the plans to be changed which is fine. I don't know how they get the light above it to shine down. Uh so to the extent your ordinance requires us to include that area in the in the
>> it's it's not going to it's it's not going to increase the size of the sign. I don't think so. I think we should be all right with that. >> I just didn't want to get to it and realize we needed a variance we didn't get and have to come back for that which would be unfortunate. >> No. No.
Um, if our professionals don't have any other questions, I'd like to ask the board if they have any other questions. Go ahead. >> Um, I'm sorry, I have a couple of questions. Thank you. >> Um, when when we talk about the requiring a little bit more um, uh, with
regards to the for I'm sorry, with regards to the impervious coverage, that 7 that you need extra. Um it was your testimony that it was like you know the addition of the foot paths and stuff um sort of um extended uh the impervious coverage. Can you not just change the material of those foot
paths? Can you just make it like a pvious concrete and then and then it's fine and it goes away? >> I didn't look at your definition. You you know it better than I do, I suspect. I didn't know if that would take it would therefore not be impervious coverage under your ordinance
definition. It varies from municipality to municipality. Um >> I know we used it for the walking path in village park. We used uh pvious not concrete, what do you call it? Like black top pavers or and u that that
brought our impervious coverage down. >> Something what comes to my mind is and I admit that I'm sitting on the applicant's side. A big part of that is the deck which is going to have openings where the water's going to go into the basin. So I don't think that's an imper that's not a storm water issue there. So
what we're really talking about is the the the pedestrian circulation around the gazebo up to the street. >> Correct. >> So it's a nominal increase. Is it correct, Miss Bo, that our basin will will handle that additional? Yes. >> Increase. >> So clearly the board has the the
discretion to impose that as a condition. Respectfully, I don't think you need it, but I'll I'll defer to the board. >> Okay. Well, I'm just, you know, I say that in the event that this board is not interested in increasing, you know, what our our relief that we've already given that that that should be an option that
we could use this pvious um concrete of sorts. >> Mr. Chairman, there are various kinds of pvious papa >> and uh we should just make sure that the applicant chooses one that's u um okay for seniors. >> That's what I was just going to say. And
possibly I mean also we we try to make sure that those type of things are good for for heels high heels that are thinner >> so you don't fall through to the >> park. Can can you can you put your mic down? I'm sorry. >> At the park that's pvious asphalt. >> Yes.
>> Um not pavers. >> Yes. >> Um I assume pavers are more expensive. The pvious asphalt is probably more expensive than the concrete. Um, >> but I I would tell you that it's a maintenance issue. You have seniors for
the very limited amount of impervious coverage with with respect. I don't think it's necessary and I'd ask you to consider not requiring it. We'll comply if you require it. No question. I just don't think it's necessary. And as he mentioned that it depends on your definition but typically in my
experience pvious pavement is still considered impervious as far as >> right qualitatively it may be different. The definition may be the same. >> Right. Okay. Um thank you. I just wanted to to point out that I really appreciate you looking out for those mature trees
on the side and really trying to preserve that. Like thank you very much. >> Absolutely. >> Um we went over the parking so I'm like I get that piece. Thank you. Uh the from this image it looks like the deck overhangs the basin. Is that correct? >> That is correct.
>> And so um this basin will contain water all of the time. >> No. >> Oh. Oh, absolutely not. No. >> What's the infiltration requirement? >> We have to infiltrate any water in the basin within 72 hours and that is done.
So, >> okay. Yeah. So my followup question was going to be what if someone falls over into this basin of water? What do we do with it? Like how do we prevent that? Yeah, >> there is going to be no air. I mean it's not going to be that deep. >> It is I don't have the grading plan with
me but I three feet at most. >> Oh yeah, >> it's a shallow basin >> that will >> that will evacuate within 72 hours. >> Required to infiltrate within 72 hours. >> Yeah. Okay, that's perfect. Thank you.
One more question. >> Is EV parking EV parking only? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Oh boy. >> So it again it you can only park there with an electric vehicle. That's like a state law. >> That is the state law.
>> Not a courtesy. >> That's not the reality, but that's the state law. >> Well, I'm just saying like the creatures of habit. People are going to notice that the EV spots are empty and then that if they go park there, what's the penalty for that? Is it a state law?
>> It relies on enforcement. Um, and I've seen and especially at senior homes that it doesn't get enforced because the EV spaces are near the building and those are the first spaces, the most um desired spaces. So, I I've been to these senior homes where those spaces are
starting to fill up with non-vehicle pickup trucks from the 60s. >> So, they're not EVs. So again, that falls back on enforcement to make it happen or it could become a regular parking space if not enforced.
>> Yeah. Because it's still it it it always surprises me with a senior community that of 60 units that we're looking at three handicap parking spots only and one of them is an EV. I it just it surprises me that there's not a larger
mandate in these types of projects, especially because it's not a 55 plus, it's a 62 plus. Correct. >> No, it's 55 plus. >> It's 55 plus. Yeah. So, I'm just speaking from my own experience. It just startles me that that we can develop
this way. >> It's not mobility impaired. It is senior housing and they do have a drop off area. So that drop off area typically could be used should somebody impaired need to go directly to the door, but that doesn't >> Yeah. >> accommodate somebody who lives there who
needs to park there. >> Correct. So someone that is there with a handicap placard, you know, the odds of it being more than two and one having an electric vehicle to me is just that's not for your problem. I'm just startled that that
that's allowed. So, and that was my concern last time with we're taking up even more spots in the front because of the EV. And I understand the cost of running that, but you're taking up more spots on the front that could be used
for regular regular vehicles that would be an overflow if they happen to have an additional handicap placer. >> So, >> well, most of the EV spaces are on the on the south side. There are four in the front. I would I mean again I would only
consider if we only required 11 and we're providing 12 can we give up one more spot to be a regular parking spot versus an EV spot or you're doing it because of the number it has to be an even number because one electrical unit take gives two spots shares two
>> spots. So, we're limited to the is it seven spaces on the south, Denise? >> Uh, eight. >> Eight. We're limited to that number there, right? >> And in front, >> if you have three, you have four because of, >> right? Because of the number and you're sharing it. >> Sorry, my simple question got
complicated, but >> you could strike it as space and then just let it be. >> Yeah, that's true. >> That's true. So, >> you could have single charging units. You don't have to have dual charging units, too, right? I mean that is also true.
>> You you don't have to have a dual unit. So I mean if you >> I I think the maybe Mr. Frana's suggestion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what we propose stays the same, but one of those spaces is
striped. Striped as a reg not striped, but considered a regular parking space. Even though it will have a charger in it, if you pull in with an EV, you could charge it, I guess, but you don't have to. That would work for us. >> Thank you.
>> I'll go there. I'll go last with my comments. So, go ahead. >> I'm always longwinded. >> Not you, Bill. Never. >> Um, I guess on this, we're really relying on Walters Group experience that they're
going to have enough park. I mean, there's no overflow parking anywhere else. So, we're really relying on Walters Group experience that they're the ones going to have to police the EV. they're going to have to, you know, make sure there's adequate parking for their employees and the residents and guests
during holidays because there's really nowhere else to park, you know. So, I'm going to kind of push that back to the Walters group because they're the experts on how much parking is really needed functionally for the for the space for the lot. The only thing I
would say is if they if if they were uncomfortable with that, I would consider looking at the plan east and west side, you know, gaining gaining more spots. You know,
I'd rather see more imper I agree with you totally, Elon, but I'd rather see more impervious and a parking lot that works. you know, if you had if you had to push the the box on the east side further out and gain two or three more
spots there and if you could gain another, you know, one or two spots along above the the EV to make it work. So, I'm going to push that back. My recommendation is that you look at that again and if if you do feel you need
more spaces, you work with the engineers to, you know, work that out. address >> just to refresh everyone's recollection at the time of preliminary our traffic engineer Mr. McCormick who was here. I believe he testified regarding the adequacy of the parking. Forgetting for a moment that it complies with your
requirement, but it also complies with our experience of what senior communities like this require because people age in place in these communities. And I I know I'm not testifying here. I'm I'm recapitulating what he said. They age in place. And so as they stay, the the parking demand
gets lower. And so yes, the applicant is confident that we have enough parking and that's been approved by you. um the connection to the rest the Italian restaurant and the Dunkin Donuts. We know we know residents are going to walk
there. So, you know, my concern is providing a safe sidewalk. There's two ways to get to the Italian restaurant is either extending a sidewalk, you know, in front of the two adjacent homes. I don't know if that's doable if they've been approached. or there's a back way
to to the Italian restaurant behind those homes where the Italian restaurant lot comes all the way up to this lot. I also just question how, you know, how do people safely cross over to Dunkin Donuts because you know it's going to
happen. You know, is there a crosswalk? Is there any any anything that should be considered there? I leave that up to the professionals. I'll just go through my questions real or comments questions real quick. Um, you said about the tree removal not
falling under the township ordinance, but that's a state ordinance. Um, >> no. Um, well, you have ordinances relating to tree removal and tree protection, >> but tree replacement, I guess, as well.
>> Tree replacement and tree protection. You have ordinances that govern that. >> But that's ordinances based on state regulations. It was my understanding that there's a New Jersey state uh ordinance for tree replacement when they're whenever they're cut down. I thought that's where
>> Yeah. No, that's actually it varies town to town. >> Okay. Um I leave that that to the professionals. >> Yeah. You know that that that's correct. It's it's purely a local. >> It's purely local. Okay. Um I still
would like to see more trees out front. you know, other properties, you know, um right now in the landscape plan. See, sorry, just got to the wrong page. Where's that at? What drawing?
Watch my face. Sorry. What drawing is that on? >> CO601. It's probably a sheet five. >> And while you're looking for that, Mr. Giddings, we sure, >> we have agreed to the comments in Miss Lane's letter to to fill in buffers
where necessary. We'll work with your professionals to improve on the landscaping. >> And I guess I just want to kind of maybe relate to our professionals as well. I think that the you know the tree ordinance would require I think on your chart was somewhere around 48 trees. Um
the replacement trees right now from memory was about 29. >> Yeah. We to be clear we are not agreeing to comply with those requirements. >> Right. >> Because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding. >> I just think that >> but but we are willing to improve upon
the plan to make sure that there's adequate buffers and an appropriate landscape plan. Yes, there are constraints and we're limited to cost, but we think there's opportunity and availability for us to reach agreement with Miss Laney as to what's a good mix. >> And I'm just going to convey to our
professionals, I think there that the the front is very, very bare. It's way more bare than what has been done on the other one Route 130 affordable housing. There's a there's a tree line along the street that's very appropriate. Would soften this. I'd rather see smaller
caliper trees that are cheaper because this is affordable housing and what the regulations are that will eventually grow and and look appropriate to the street and also make this a nicer complex. >> Agreed. >> And I think those locations would be along the property line. Um I think you
know like ornamental trees around the gazebo you know because you're sitting are right next to a parking lot. Um I think that you know maybe two rather than one in the two islands you know one on the corner you just filling that in to me that would be the priority. The
American I arboritey that are kind of along the front of the street those die during the storms they don't last they don't really provide a you know shade tree along along the street >> uh recommend against those. Um, so as
you're working that out, those would be I'd ask you to look at that, think about that. >> Uh, there's no deck lighting shown. I assume you're going to have that. Uh, I just ask that that kind of be worked out. It's not going to affect any neighbors or any main thing. There's no neighbors back there, so it's not going
to be an issue. >> Um, but just that's something that's not shown. >> The trash enclosure doesn't meet our typical standards. It's chain link fence with the uh the front of it is wood on on metal posts which I think is fine.
You know, ideally um but on the sides that's a it's a chain link fence with the slats in them I think is the way I read the plans. Is that the idea? >> Uh I think being in the parking lot very
visible it'd be nice to have those slats on all sides. Our ordinance says that it should be same similar materials to the building essentially. I'm not saying it has to be brick and you know for cost reasons, but it could be wood slats or something painted green that blends into
the landscaping. What is that odd little space within the curb cut to the um souththeast? It's planned south of the trash enclosure. >> This right here? >> No, no, between Yeah, it's right there. between the curb.
>> Oh, generator and transformer. >> No, but the there's about looks like a parking looks like a space where trying to park. >> Yeah, >> that was just room because they are going to be wheeling the trash out of the building to this area. So, it was
just a little room there for that. So, what if you made the trash enclosure, turned it so that it it took up the whole space, but that space came out in front of the trash enclosure, but you had the same amount of space. Um, just so you know, car is going to try to
squeeze in there. >> Okay. >> How wide is that? This boat >> ballpark using the parking spaces for a motorcycle. >> Five feet, maybe. >> Five feet. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And we're trying to create room for people wheeling trash out at at the end of the sidewalk. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, if that could be turned and just lined up with front of of that, I think that would be a little bit cleaner and not have >> I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. >> Rotate the enclosure 90 90 degrees. >> How do we empty the trash inside the enclosure?
>> You still have the doors to it. >> Oh, meaning rotate it, move the doors. >> Yeah. Would that work? >> Rotate it and move the doors. >> No, they need to pull the whole container out right through the front. So if it's this way, it's up to a landscaped island.
>> Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? >> It's up to the landscape. >> They open the gates here. >> Yeah. >> And then a truck pulls up and pulls this whole container out and loads it onto the truck. >> So if we turned it 90 degrees, it would
be facing the parking spaces. >> I just mean turn it. Is there what what's in there? One dumpster. What size dumpster >> is it? 30 cubic yards. >> Yeah, 20 or 30 cubic yards.
>> Okay. >> Then I would just >> maximum 20. I think a 30 wouldn't fit in there. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. >> And that's deeper than than than wide. >> Yes. >> They're they're either five or six feet wide. And how?
>> But they have to come out the front. They can't >> Right. But how? How deep? >> Um well 10 is about is probably about uh 10 ft deep. >> Okay. >> Know 10 by five by five. >> I guess all I'm suggesting is then just
push it back into the landscape so the front of it lines up with that area where they wheel out >> and then get rid of that little asphalt area. >> Push it back this way. >> Yeah. that would create a variance for the setback. I believe >> it if the board wants to push it back,
they can grant that variance. >> Yeah, >> we're trying to minimize that. >> Yeah. >> I just think functionally people are going to throw trash. I live across from the senior housing. What when they move out, whatever doesn't fit in the dumpster ends up all
around it, and that that paved area is going to end up be where all the stuff ends up. So, I'd rather You're saying that you're bringing containers from inside the building and they're rolling them out and they're trying to create room for them to get out and then around into the
dumpster. >> No, not into this dumpster. It's wheeled out here to a truck that So, this is only for bulk trash. >> So, if any resident gets rid of a piece of furniture, anything large, it goes in there. And their experience is it
doesn't fill up frequently with senior residents. The trash rolled out comes out to here where the truck that's waiting where it's put into the truck and then the containers are wheeled back into the trash. >> So, so what gets wheeled out is the nonbulk trash or the so-called regular
trash, right? >> Recycling and regular trash >> and a different truck picks that up. >> Correct. And that will be weekly. >> Yeah. >> Um again, you know your business. I live across from the senior housing. They have two dumpsters, 27 units. There's
always trash all around there. So, I would just say you've got where you have that hatched area, >> you have plenty of area to kind of to to bend your your sidewalk to get away from the dumpster and just get rid of that black top area.
>> Well, that hatched area is actually uh pavers like uh grass pavers. Yeah. >> So, that there's this is actually considered the maintenance access to the basin, >> right? So, I'm just saying make your >> turn the sidewalk. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's all. Just get
my advice is get rid of that black top area because it's going to accumulate trash. That's all. If it's not if it doesn't have a purpose. Um the the rear deck, is there any reason why there's stairs down only one
direction and not both? >> They are just emergency steps. They are not to be used regularly just because of the basin proximity. It was just for an emergency purpose and it was put on this side because we have this path here. If somebody was to get down here, they
would have to navigate over and there's slopes here that may not be good for >> too steep. Okay. >> Um in terms of the concrete, the question about the in case concrete, I assume the concrete sites are going to come up above
whatever water level there would be and then the wood would be above that the deck. Okay. In terms of the drainage basin, what is that going to look like when it's dry? Is there any >> It's a sand bottom and then we currently have the side slopes as grass.
>> Okay. Uh in terms not asking for a rain garden, but is there any way senior's going to be sitting out there a lot, right? Is there a way to plant grasses like you know similar to a rain garden that are more natural a little bit nicer look out over that are appropriate
>> pollinator seed mix. Yeah. >> Mechanical condensers. So you know for the public areas got to be mechanical equipment somewhere. There got to be condensers somewhere. Where are they going to be? >> Mr. Bo,
>> if you don't know, >> so these are questions for you. If you don't know the answer, we'll we'll get somebody. >> So again, if those are worked out with the engineers and landscaped, >> we've stipulated that we'll comply uh there and I believe the requirement is that they be screened and we will screen
them. >> Great. And this last time I think you've done a nice job. I know this is a challenging site is squeezing it all in. You've done a nice job. I think it's going to be, you know, you really kind of made the most of what you can and appreciate it. >> Thank you.
>> Also appreciate that the lighting does is the type of lighting that it is. It's lower. You don't see the source of light. You know, we really want to be conscious of the neighbors to the to the east. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Any other question from other board members?
>> Mr. Chairman, on the on the basin. Yeah. >> Um, Bill talked about the possibility of a rain garden. A rain garden is a different thing than a >> rain I said similar to a rain garden. >> Well, I'm just saying a rain garden is a different thing than a sand filter for the bottom of a basin, >> right? >> So, I'm not sure if you can accomplish
both without expanding the basin, >> right? >> You might need you might need that square footage or square yardage of sand. >> Yes. I wasn't saying we were going to change the sand bottom. I said the side slopes where we currently have as grass, we could plant it with a pollinator seed mix
>> just to get something. >> Okay, but that's not a rain garden because that's that's a sloped area and the water doesn't go in there. >> She knew exactly what >> So you're really just changing the you're just really changing the vegetation. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Do you mind if I have one more question?
>> Go ahead. just the with regards to the connection. There is no connection from the hotel to this property, but do you see that someone may try? >> There's a sidewalk. >> Yeah, there is a sidewalk along the road >> in the front, but is there is there not
a security issue in the back there? Um, you know, we've got the hotel and all that parking and then that that corner the corner to that property, right? this whole property, the the buffer is going to be foliage. There's no fencing. Like,
do we have to be worried about that? >> Well, I could tell you that we weren't worried. We weren't there some communities where we have fencing. We didn't think it was necessary here. So, no, we were not worried about that. >> Okay. Okay. >> And similar to this side, there are significant trees here. Not to say that
people can't work walk through trees, but there is a pretty good buffer there. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow up on the signage. Okay. So, I our ordinance is um
not clear and so I what I would suggest is that you just seek the variance, >> right? >> You know that it it you're allowed 40 feet. I think you and a maximum of 8 feet you're a maximum of seven feet. Um
but I think to be clear or to be you know safe you should just seek variance for 56 square feet which would include the base um where 40 square feet is permitted. >> Okay. Thank you. Then we um include that
request and the argument there of course that's a better plan than the 40 square foot without the base. >> Correct. that advances purposes is only for desirable visual environment. So thank you. >> Okay, my turn. Um I'll be I'll make it
brief. So just re with respect to the increase in the lobby area in the front that was by our recommendation and discussions with you. Correct. >> I wasn't privy to all the discussions but my understanding was that was one of the topics of conversation. >> Okay. And with respect to the dee
extension of the deck area and back, it was the same thing. We I think it was part of our discussions and conversations >> that brought us to that. You just didn't say, "Well, I want to do this." No, that that I want to make that for the record that this this was a a joint thing that we had talked about
>> and had discussed. >> That's my understanding. >> Um and Mr. Giddings did bring up about the ba basin plantings. That's that's something that I would be um I was going to bring up anyway, but he brought it up first. So, this is good. So, I would
seriously, you know, work on that and and include that. >> We agree. >> Could I ask about that? The basin plantings, are there going to be plantings in the basin itself or on the slopes? I I guess I thought >> no it's when it's planting it when we
refer to planting it's it's it's um a it's probably a wild wild flower something kind of grass mix that attract that is >> it's not pl it's not like deciduous plants or evergreen plants or things like that. It's native grasses and and
you know ground cover type material that goes on the green area instead of just grass. >> Right. But but that would be not the not the sandy >> not in the sandy area. Correct. >> Basically the slope area. >> Correct. The side slopes of basin. The bottom will still be sand. >> The bottom will still be sand. Correct.
>> Yes. Right. Good. Thank you. >> It will kind of look like you're in a nature preserve. Sitting on the deck. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. And also from the landscaping standpoint, I think you know the the shrubs that you have in the back are less important than I think adding
trees to the front because in the back it's all naturally kind of planted already. So not trying again, we recognize this is affordable housing and we're trying to meet a budget. So I just think the front is a little bit more important. >> Makes sense.
>> Okay. Thank you, Miss B. Oh, it doesn't mean we're done. >> Our last witness is John McCormack, our traffic engineer. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, Mr. McCormack, I know you were
qualified at the time of preliminary, but unless I'm told otherwise, I'll have you briefly review your professional background. >> Absolutely. I have a bachelor of civil engineering from Villanova University. I have a New Jersey professional engineering license. I've been practicing traffic engineering for over
30 years, unfortunately. >> I commiserate. Uh, >> and my license is in good standing. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd ask the board to accept Mr. McCormack as an expert traffic engineer. >> He's accepted. >> Uh, m Mr. McCormack, uh, is it correct that your office authored a traffic
report dated August 12th, 2025? >> Yes. >> And you testified before this board at the time of the preliminary hearing in August of 2025? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, and we're not going to have you repeat all that testimony. Uh, but a
couple questions. One is review the plan changes since the preliminary approval that relate to traffic or circulation. >> Sure. I think uh I think Denise hit it already, but I'll hit it again. Basically, we have two access points on South River Road. The uh the
southerntherly access point is in NJOT's jurisdiction. the northerly access point is in um the county's jurisdiction. So, not to make a an easy project difficult, but that's what we're trying to do here. Obviously, um based on Mr. Feranda's suggestion, the uh the change to the
driveways, if you remember, originally it was both driveways were were full movement in and out. Um currently now the south driveway is an entrance only and the northerly driveway is a exit only with a separate left turn and a separate right turn under stop control.
and those driveways. There's some comments in Mr. Firanda's letter that point out that to the extent we make any improvements to those driveways, we may require permits from either the county or DOT. Is that correct? >> That is correct. If we upgrade the sidewalk, the curbing of the driveways,
etc., we will need a highway occupancy permit for the uh for the southerntherly driveway from DOT. And then similarly, you heard from Denise that we are going to make an application to the county for the the frontage improvements that are within the county jurisdiction. for the DOT permits that are required, highway
occupancy permits or whatever they're called. U one caveat or clarification that I wanted to add relates to comment two on page two of Mr. Firanda's letter in his access comment number two. >> Okay. >> And is it correct that we're going to apply for those permits, but we want a
condition of approval to be that we just have to obtain those before we get the certificate of occupancy as opposed to before we start construction. >> That's always the best way with NJ dot. Sometimes they're a fickle. Sometimes their permitting takes a little bit longer than humanly possible. So yes, we
always ask that uh DOT permits are before CO, >> but we won't work in the rightway without the required. >> No, no. That's right. That's right. >> Okay. Um and >> can I can I add to that, Dame? There's there's really not >> a tremendous amount of work being done.
It's the same driveway. We're cleaning up the edges right now. There's no edge. There's no curb. So we're cleaning up the edges. We're putting uh the ADA ramping to the driveway and a little bit of sidewalk. So, it's it's essentially the same driveway properly properly built.
>> Okay. Um we've had some discussion tonight about the quantity of parking. You've been present for that. >> Yep. >> Uh I know you testified I believe you testified I should say at the time of preliminary regarding the adequacy of parking. >> Absolutely. >> Can you just briefly recap that?
>> Sure. So the 60 units um you know obviously this is senior affordable units. These are not these are not market rate town homes. This has a very low uh traffic generation and a very low parking generation. Um you know the Walters Group has probably almost a
thousand senior units uh spread over over a dozen communities. Uh they see parking demands in the range of 6 uh spaces per unit. Um so we're up we're up in the 08 spaces per unit, right? We're
at 54 spaces for the 60 units. So, um we we are very confident based on our experience, all the units that are built that are occupied and operational, that the parking that's provided here is plenty. >> And are you uh satisfied that the layout
of the parking including the changes that Miss Bow summarized since preliminary uh represent safe and efficient parking and circulation and access for the site? Uh ve very much so. Um you know the the one way in one way
out is very efficient. The parking lot is uh standard dimensioned aisles parking spaces. Uh yeah this is as traditional a rectangular parking lot as you can get. >> Okay. Now condition uh 42 of the
preliminary approval related to asking the county to add a static crosswalk sign at the crosswalk which if you look at exhibit A2 is to the north of the site. Correct. >> Correct. There is currently a crosswalk at Security Drive, which is a couple
hundred feet north of our project. Um, the crosswalk is painted and there are ADA ramps to the sidewalk, but there are no signs indicating the crosswalk is there. We agree that that crosswalk should be signed appropriately with uh traditional static, you know, aluminum
yellow signs. So we acknowledge and we'll comply with that condition by asking the county. Of course it's their call but >> we will I imagine they would have an objection. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> So another point of discussion that was brought up by Mr. Giddings tonight but it was discussed in detail in August was
whether we should install a crosswalk to the Dunkin Donuts which can you point out where that is on exhibit 8. >> Yeah. Dunkin Donuts is what I'll call inside the jug handle for Route 130 across from our site. >> And is it correct that that was not imposed as a condition of preliminary? >> Correct. And can you remind us why that is?
>> Well, um, that piece of, uh, Cranberry South River Road is under DOT's jurisdiction. So, any type of crossing or anything that would happen basically from our south driveway south towards Route 130 would need to get uh, approval of the NJ DOT. And quite honestly, it's
extremely unlikely that the NJ DOT would entertain a crosswalk across what is essentially a near side jug handle for Route 130. >> Mid block. >> Midblock. >> Okay. Uh, condition 41 states that the applicant shall explore pedestrian link
with commercial properties to the south on the east side of South River Road. >> Can you point out where that area is? I'm envisioning it is the continuation of where we end our sidewalk at our south property line uh down towards Route 130 where there are a couple of commercial businesses, some of which are
restaurant type uh businesses. Um the issue with that is we're extending sidewalk in the public rightway across private property. That sidewalk then becomes the maintenance issue of those private properties. Um
you know, we're bringing the sidewalk to the limit that we can. our southern property line and uh that's the proposal as it stands. >> And there are also some physical improvements on those private properties. >> There are mailboxes, flower beds, rock bed, you know, this typical things that people people do in the rightway when
they don't realize it's actually rightway and not their property. They think it's the edge and they created an edge that we would have to undo. >> So is it therefore correct that the applicant proposes relief from that condition? >> We do. Uh Mr. for letter. I think we addressed
most of it. I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. >> Um, address those uh comment one in the traffic section on page three just to ask for confirmation uh that the trip generation hasn't changed. >> Trip generation has not changed. the 60
unit senior affordables I I think I mentioned this when I was here before is probably one of the lowest traffic generators you could you could build um the the trips just looking at my original report are you know four or five people leaving the site in an hour or coming to the site in an hour it's
this is a sleepy uh sleepy development as far as traffic generation okay Mr. friend will certainly let us know if I missed anything in his letter. And I believe uh that's all the questions I
have for Mr. McDonald. Just going to check Mr. Hoder's letter. I don't think there's anything there. Nope. That's all the questions I have for Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald. Mr. McCormack. >> I don't have a planner's license. >> Thanks. Sorry. >> Okay, I'll open it up to our
professionals again. I think they addressed uh the comments between the engineer and the traffic engineer regarding the access, regarding the pedestrian circulation. The crosswalks are a difficult issue. I agree that um I don't think the DOT would permit a crosswalk at that
location because technically it's part of a ramp system. That's why it's part of DOT jurisdiction and the DOT is not uh going to allow a pedestrian crosswalk across that uh section of the roadway, especially since you have vehicles
coming off 130 at quite a speed. If somebody's out there walking and you're coming off uh Route 130 at 50 miles an hour, you don't want somebody in the road. So, I just don't see the DOT doing that. And that's why we kind of requested that you talk to the uh county
about the pedestrian crosswalk up the road. It's not as convenient. It's up the road. If you want to go to Dunkin Donuts, which you can see across the street, you have to walk 500 feet up the road to the crosswalk. Um potentially a sign could be put up, don't cross here, go to the crosswalk. But
human nature sometimes is what it is. So I I I I don't know that we could do anything different with the plan and get approvals from the different jurisdictions >> that is is there if we have to put signs to do work to that existing crosswalk, is there a way
to move it further to the west? >> Still was not in the DOT area. A request could be made of the county, but they're likely to keep it there because it's an existing crosswalk and moving one and you have a intersection there, right, which is the important part. It's at an
intersection and moving it to a non-intersection location um or at a location where it's untested. Right now, anybody who goes by knows it's in the road. You move it to another location, somebody crosses at this location or somewhere else. And
again, it can be requested of the county. I I don't disagree. >> I guess I mean this is sort of the bigger issue, not this application, but the other the other project too is how do you get people to town? And
>> we're not solving the problem of Dunkin Donuts, mind you. Because if you go north, you go to that northern crosswalk, you cross over, you take the sidewalk back, you still are crossing through the jug handle without a crosswalk with rates of 50 miles an hour coming into that. So
>> that that that doesn't solve that problem. You're still have to go through there regardless of where that crosswalk is. >> Agreed. >> And there's not even sidewalk that entire way. Yeah. >> I agree. I just think that we need to as a town as figure out
>> Well, this may this this >> the walk get continue the walkway. I I I agree and and but this may be a a whole separate discussion with just the board and our planners
on how we do that because you know the applicant um is not going to get an approval from DOT to put that over there and and the only thing and again if we're going to extend this we can't really make the
applicant and force them to put sidewalk in on property they don't own. So that would have to be a township issue where we'd have to force the sidewalk to go in along the properties along on the adjacent properties and we're going to
have to work on that and that may be our homework assignment as we move along here with this whole process. But it does become a responsibility like the more we talk about this I realize that you know if we if we create the visual feed that says hey people walk here be
here it's a responsibility now on you know on us who created the sidewalk to if people are somehow affected by the >> well we will have sidewalk connecting the two sites that's that's a given but after that then it's up to us to figure
out how to get it across the street into town. It's not going to be it's it's not going to fall on these on the applicant, >> but the the current residents there right now have whatever this condition is and I I
don't know if they walk to town. I I don't know if they come. >> Probably not, right? >> Yeah. Probably not. And it may be that we investigate something and this is just sort of it sits as it is and we just make this property as beautiful and as welcoming that you know people are
happy to be here and maybe we talk to the pizza guy and say hey don't charge them for delivery. >> Right. Exactly. >> Again we there are other residents on the east side of Route 130. >> It's not right those as Aman eloquently
stated those conditions exist already. We have residents that are equally, if not further away from the downtown area on the west side of Cranberry. >> So, I don't think this is a discussion for the applicant. A proper use of their
time in my opinion. >> Right. And I I think what I'd like to do is is um release them from that at least initially right now. we might work with in collaboration with them later on on this, but to make it a requirement of
this application that they they get this done, it's it's it's we're just we're just whistling into the wind here right now at the moment. >> Just another quick point, too. As you go south of the site, remember that sidewalks in the DOT rightway. So, now
it becomes an issue not with the county to work with but with the DOT. and the DOT has been pushing sidewalks, but >> now you have to go to the DOT and get another permit to do the work within the DOT, right? It's not the township, it's not the county, it's the DOT that you
have to work with. And they're they're pushing for sidewalks, but it becomes a longer a different process than this applicant would like to be involved in. people walk across the grass. see what people
>> and the other thing is um did you have any other the other thing is just the e and again to go back what Lisa said too the whole EV parking um uh I know this is a hard kind of fast
requirement but if you could go down at least gain one more parking spot and and uh what you were talking about go down. You know, you threw an extra EV spot in, but >> you take that out and just go to 11 if
you could do that and give us one more parking spot and um whatever the minimum amount of EV parking spots you need on that site because I'm seriously doubt if you're going to see 11 EVs on that site. Personally, >> yeah, it's my understanding and I'll ask
anybody from my team, including Mr. Spitel and correct me if I'm wrong is that we're required to have 11 for the funding that we're getting. We're proposing 12 because of the the way the product comes and and I don't dispute Mr. Chairman that there's probably single head I'm sure that I know there
are single head EV chargers but it's a cost issue. So that's why we're proposing what we are. We have no objection to considering that as a regular space even though it has an EV charger at the end if hopefully that gets it done. And as far as policing these spots, I don't know if we have
anything in our ordinances that have any >> it wouldn't be us. >> No matter what, it wouldn't be us. It would be property management. >> Okay. And and it's on you guys that and we're we accept that responsibility. >> All right.
>> Yeah. Are we okay? I'm not going to go to jail by telling it's our responsibility. Okay. All right, that's all I want to know. >> Um, I think we're good. Okay,
now I guess with >> Go ahead. not for actually for the board. Um because one of the conditions it was something that Bill said about maybe bulking up the landscaping along the road um and if you
were able to have sort of a pollinator garden in the rear that you may not need as much landscaping in the rear. And one of the conditions that we put in the uh August resolution was that they had to have more ornamental trees and so forth
around the basin. And I'm just cur curious to the board, would the board be amanable if they were to do a pollinator garden to relocate if possible some of that landscaping they're proposing at the form of the site along South River Road
or you know it given the given the that we're sensitive that this is 100% >> and when I was out there it loo it looked nice I mean it's nice and natural the way it is. So again, I think front is where, you know, get getting ornamental trees around around that
gazebo and getting, you know, shade trees along the street. It's going to make this feel so much more welcoming and softer and nicer. >> So I agree. I agree. And I would suggest, I guess, that we maybe release them from that. >> Which condition is that? Do you know? I
just >> I also think it can help with sound buffering >> the more that you put >> there a little bit. >> Oh, absolutely. >> Whereas if the back if you people on the ground floor, >> anything that you put back there might actually be an a block of a nice view,
>> right? If you're having larger trees in the back and now you have a tree in front of your balcony and you don't you're not enjoying any sort of view, >> especially when they're going to see all the wildflower wildflower things out there. So, >> and maybe what you do is you put a couple ornamental trees directly opposite the deck so when you're out
there it has a nice, you know, flowering this time of spring just but totally agree. >> Okay. So, I just because that was a condition that maybe we released them from that condition with uh relocating that that landscaping elsewhere on the site. >> That's fine.
>> Okay. Does any other questions from our board professionals? Any other questions from the board? I have one additional final, I guess. Uh, security cameras, I guess, on the outside of the building. Are they going to be included on the outside of the
building? And this follows up with what Iman said about security issues. >> My understanding is, and I'll represent to the board, that yes, there will be some security cameras attached to the exterior of the building. Okay. or uh covering the exterior of the building.
>> Okay. So, it'll cover the four corners, the back, the front, the side. >> Now, now you're testing my uh >> I don't know if we have we can we can certainly provide those details. >> Yeah, I would I'm not sure the answer. >> I I think I think I would feel comfortable if if that was included
because that Yman brought that up about security. So, um I think that would be good to have those on the outsides of the building. Okay, we we got you up here anyway. Do we got to swear them in? Yeah. Edge tell
everybody swear or excuse me. Do you swear or affirm that testimony about the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> So, swear affirm. Please state your full name. >> Sure. C D M O N D spyel S is in sand P as in Paul E I T E L
>> Thank you. >> Security cameras. >> Yes, I know that we have them. I know that we I would I would just want to check as to where exactly they are, whether they cover all four corners. I believe that they do. And oftentimes when we do have these types of cameras,
we're more than happy to share them and have the police department looped in with them. Yeah, I think I think that would be a good if you're if you're if you would reach out to the Cranberry Police and just, you know, double check with them how they how they would like
that because I think that would be, you know, good for the police and it was also be good for the residents to know that there's security cameras out outside. >> Absolutely. We're having >> surrounding the building there. So, >> so Okay. So the condition would be that
the applicant will cons coordinate with the police as to uh >> location of security cameras outside the building. >> Yep. >> Can do >> we agree. Thank you. >> And I guess one one final question and
this this may need our traffic engine or tra your traffic. The entrances to the building will accommodate a firet truck. Correct. Even though the they want to drive o potentially drive over the curb. I'm trying to understand that
>> their circulation plan shows the firetruck uh accessing uh within the curbed limits. >> Uh the fire truck uh maybe uh traveling faster, wants a little bit more leeway on the curbs, but uh the circulation
plan shows it making through. That being said, there was a letter put out by the fire department that said, "Can you uh request that the curbs be uh depressed?" So, they're um going to seek that and see what the DOT and the county say.
>> Right. But if they don't get that, the the width is still big enough to get the fire truck in and out of there. Correct. >> That's what the turning analysis showed. Okay. But certainly after they get the response from the county and this the the DOT, they should go back to the fire
department. And I think in the letter it said if you get denied for this, then provide the denial to show that this was denied. I think it was worded something like that. >> Okay. >> So, >> I just wanted to double check on that.
Okay. All right. Um, any final questions from anybody up here? All right. At this point in time, I'm going to open it up to the public for any comments or questions on this applicant.
>> Yep. You want to see the seat? >> Hi. >> And for the You got to please for the record state your name and address. >> I'm Robert Blackberg. I live at 12 Hardley Drive in Cranberry. >> And sir, I'm going to swear you. If you could raise your right hand, I'm going
to swear you. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> Absolutely. >> So, if you could say your name again, I'd appreciate it. >> If you could state your name again, I'd appreciate it. >> Robert Blackburn. >> Blackburn. >> B L A C K B U R E. >> Thank you.
>> I'm a Eagle Scout and a veteran. Promise to tell the truth. trying to get over here. My wife and I own the home just south of the property in question. I came tonight because I got a notice that they were
applying for a variance on the signage. I got here and I think I heard the gentleman say they're no longer looking for a variance on the signage. Is that correct? >> No, they are now. They are now. >> Yeah, we're gonna we're Yeah. >> Why?
>> Because of the the base of the sign is now included with this sign. >> I'm just looking at the sign, not >> Yeah. Yeah. They're not increasing the sign size. >> I have no problem with it. But I do want to express my appreciation for all of you giving up your time to listen to the
same thing said multiple times. >> That's our job. And we that's why we get paid the big money on this board. >> You can't even imagine. >> Yeah. >> This is a labor of love, believe me. Um,
okay. Any other questions or comments from the public? Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to close the public portion of the meeting. And I guess do we need to review the 100 or so conditions or or whatever? What do
we need to do here, D? >> I don't think so. Obviously, we want a motion to approve a final site plan approval >> with the conditions stated. >> With the conditions stated and the two um variances that we talked about, the improper cover and the signage.
Yeah, there were two. >> Oh, and said yes. Right. >> So, motion to approve final major site plan with a variance for the size of the sign 56 feet square feet proposed 40 square ft permitted parking setback in
the front 10 ft required 3 feet in one place and 6.9 feet in another place proposed rear yard setback of 40 feet where 50 feet is required. And lastly, a waiver, I guess, for uh the location of the
trash enclosure. >> There's >> and impervious coverage variance. I apologize. >> There's also an encroachment. It's it's one half of the same thing with regard to the setback from the parking area being there's an encroachment into the
parking this building set back from the parking. I have it in my letter. You're required. Yes. So yeah, I I that's the one where we're required to have >> it's six feet and so I think you're actually seven feet within that set back to the parking.
>> Oh, okay. >> It's a very technical technical and it has to do with the porch again. >> Okay. So I'm going to try to put something together here. Um, I'm putting out a motion to approve
final site plan approval with the amendments just stated and the additional items discussed like security and the drainage basin and additional landscaping and a couple other dozen things that everybody and you'll work with our professionals to come up with
that those final things. So, I'd like to have a motion to approve the Cranberry Senior Apartment Complex LLC. Can I have a motion to approve? >> Can I have a second, please? >> Second. >> Mr. Chairman, before a vote, if there's
discussion on that motion, can I ask a question about the motion? >> Sure. Uh, Mr. Giddings, as an example, only had some comments about suggestions. I just want to make sure the record's clear as to whether all those suggestions are now conditions of approval, which I didn't take that they
were. Just don't want there to be any confusion. >> I think I think his suggestions were strong considerations for you to work with our board professionals to, you know, do like for example the grass around the drainage basin, additional landscaping.
>> We understand that's a condition. >> Yeah. And and that's that's kind of what we're talking about. asking us to consider to expand the parking, for example, would be an issue for us. And I just want to make sure >> I think I think I think it's something that if you went home tonight and you just were
laying in bed and say, "H, I could do this." And you go back to our board professional and say, "We could put in six more parking spots and not do it." We're not going to have a problem with that, but not it's not a requirement. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That's that's where we're kind of going at.
>> Okay. So, I have a motion to approve in a second. Are we good to go further? Are we good now? >> I think so, Mr. >> All right. Speak now forever. Hold your cuz once I give you the approval, that's it. You know, >> well, yeah, I know. And and you know, I
wrote down what I thought the conditions were and I and we're we're good with all of it. There's no hesitation substantively, >> but Mr. Mueller's the poor person who's got to write this resolution. And I just want to make sure it's clear that there's a understanding of the difference between a condition and
asking us to consider things. >> That's that's we're we're on the same page with that. >> Okay. >> Okay. I have a motion and a second. >> All right. Roll call for PB 409-25. Miss Anderson.
>> Yes. >> Miss Albadawi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Giddings. >> Yes. >> Miss Coner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mucelli? >> Yes. >> Mr. Pulk? Yes. >> And Mr. Whitman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion. >> Thank you all very much. We really appreciate it. Thanks for your time. >> Thank you very much. Um I'm going to ask
for a fivem minute recess. How are you? Okay. Nice to see you. at least. He was a good man. Good luck. You're better off going here.
How are you? Chrome sideline. I've been trying to go electronically. So this I've got four spreadsheets. So they know what you're saying. Yes. I send myself
>> Yes. All right. Parking lot. cemented water notice the center of my channel. I was on the committee. So,
you know, No, but I want to hear September. >> You still This is probably >> what call the meeting back to order and we will uh Our
second applicant tonight, 1250 South River Part: 2
000 21,000 in his office. At the time, we received um a side yard a sideyard variants and two design waiverss. Tonight, we're seeking amended preliminary and final site plan approval
uh to construct 18 additional trailer parking spaces on the northeast side of the site. variances to allow inference covers to be increased from 54.92% to 58.41%
whereas 55% is permitted. Uh we're also uh asking for variances to construct dimminimous portions of the passenger uh car and trailer parking spaces within
uh 25 a 25 ft set uh sideyard setback and we have a design waiver to provide 130 cars whereas 125 is the maximum. if there are any other variances or waiverss in our
notice. We did include uh the uh standard catchall clo uh phrase so that if any came up that we missed um the board would have jurisdiction to uh consider those. Um
we have received three review memos. Uh one prepared by Mr. voder dated March 20, 2026. We also have a review memo from the board uh planner uh dated March
30, 2026. We also have a traffic review letter from Mr. Feranda uh dated April 2. Um in terms of outside approvals, we think that the only approvals
uh required uh beyond this board would be county planning board and soil conservation district. Um we do have some exhibits but we'll go through those as we go through the presentation. We do have three
witnesses. Uh our first would be Josh Adler. He's a managing member of the applicant and will make uh an opening statement and is available uh to answer questions and I think uh the chairman
may have a few for him. Uh Mike Lanzafama is our engineer. He can talk about the descri modifications to the car parking areas. uh and he can address um comments in the
review memos and also is a uh in in addition to being an engineer a licensed planner and he'll provide the planning rationale for the variances requested. We also have tonight uh Carl Panky. He's
our traffic consultant. Um, and he'll testify about the uh uh impact of adding 18 parking spaces or I should say the lack thereof. And I'll also comment on internal circulation and um uh levels of
service on South River Road that would not be uh impacted by the additional uh trailer parking or uh car parking. Um so um unless there are any questions or
comments for me, I'd ask Mr. Adler to come forward uh and uh describe for the board his uh proposal and why it is uh necessary
uh for him to um request these items even though there are some dimminimous uh variances. >> Frank, I'm going to swear all your witnesses in. I'm going to swear all your witnesses in at the same time. So,
if they could all come up and stand. If you could raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give be the truth? >> Some sworn or affirm. If you could just go around, state your full name, and spell your last name. >> Yeah. Grab the mic, please.
>> Yes. Yeah, please. Thank you. I'm Joshua Adler from 1250 South River Road. I'm managing member and I developed the property. >> Carl Penke P is in Peter. E H N K with Lang Engineering and Environmental Services.
>> Michael Zafama, that's spelled L A N Z A F A M A. I'm with the firm of Casey and Keller Incorporated, 258 Main Street, Milbury, New Jersey. Thank you. I'm Josh Adler.
I didn't need a GPS to get to the meeting tonight. I am Princeton High School. I found this today. I was in the midst of moving our towel from graduation.
>> Went to school with obviously a bunch of Cranberry kids and spent a bunch of time here. My girlfriend my junior year was lived in Cranberry. Uh Cranberry has always been a really thoughtful town with how it's addressed its commercial development, especially
its warehouse development. Your ordinances are more rigorous and robust. your requirements are more rigorous and robust and you've produced a better product because of it. And starting from when we built the building
uh back in 2001, our approvals in 2000, um we've participated in that and and we still own the property and and intend to continue to go forward. That's just our nature. We're not a developer who sells the asset after we build it and lease it. In fact, the property has been
through a number of life cycles of different tenants, and we've always tried to uh develop as flexible a product as we could. Um, and frankly, when we initially built the building, we really thought that we did.
Unfortunately, today, as things have changed in the warehousing business, we're really having a difficult time leasing the building because of a lack of trailer parking. We have brokers who call. We've been we advertise on Co-Star, which is the main broker advertising. We advertise on Loopnet. We
send out flyers and mailings, email blast to broker lists and the like. And I've sat vacant for two years. It'll be two years in uh the end of this month. It's an un >> for what percentage of the building? >> It's a little over a third. It's an
unconscionable amount of time for a building of this quality. This building has nice architectural features, has nice awnings, things that we did that frankly in some cases weren't being done even back when we got the building approved. We've been fortunate for one
tenant that has been in the building for a while that is there and we came back and I believe it was 2012 um to the to this board and got an approval for outside storage and uh the difficulty in getting that is frankly what's kept them
with us. Um we've been fortunate they have stayed but again the lack of trailer parking is really harming our leasing ability today. And so we're here today with a plan that really we tried to take into account um not just
Cranberry but just smart design in in doing this in adding the parking in a way that would be not visible off the street. The places where we are encroaching into this sideyard setback and will require variance for not a lot of square feet but it's a few. I'm not
denying that. but it's on a side driveway that takes you back to a to an 800,000 foot warehouse building. It's not on a common public road. It's just an internal driveway. And mind you, if you drove past our building, our
landscaping is great. We take good care of the property and we will continue to do so. So, we hope you'll um consider our requests for this a little bit of extra parking area so that we can park some trailers at the site, meet some of the requests that
we're getting for leasing proposals, um and keep going and and be a good neighbor in the town and a good steward to uh both the industry and and the business. Thank you for considering that
and um if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Um, >> thank you. Um, with respect to the tenant that's already occupying the building, you said you you got um approval for outdoor storage back in
2012. >> I think it was 2012 and it it's a year or two from there. Uh, please don't hold it against me. >> All right. And that did that approval includes fencing. >> It was a requirement of your board and that that um that fencing screens the
outdoor storage so that it's not as visible. Additionally, besides what that fencing did, we had initially when we got the first approval we had had a arrangement with the property owner here uh four something Prospect Plans Road.
Forgive me, I don't remember the address off the top of my head. But all this landscape Just for purposes of the record, you're referring to an aerial photograph that I guess will >> Oh, yeah. >> A1 mark is >> A1.
>> Thank you. I'm sorry. >> Um, so this area here, >> which is not on our property, is mounted and landscaped by us to prevent sight lines to our building when we built it. And we made an agreement with uh a
joining land over to do land owner to do that. And part of it was because of it was envisioned as a threeb building park when the initial um approvals were gotten for it. But we've really gone above and beyond in in um screening it
and doing that. the the fence requirement and the way the fence is built. >> The Can we just define what a fence we're talking about? Because there may be >> the chain link fence with the slats or like the green looking fake grass in
between the the thing >> surround that you could see it. There's it's boxed in there. There's a definite line down. Yes, that's correct. There's a line that goes around there. >> That's correct. But that was your uh your board's requirement. Okay. Yeah, I wasn't on the board then. So, but so the
so you came in for board requirement that was granted um because there's only a small gate down to one end that really limits any kind of circulation through that site. Um and I was there today and
I w I tried I I watched a a tractor trailer trying to park in there. Man, they were having a hell of a time trying to park a 53 foot trailer in there with everything that's outside >> in in their facility. That's true. Yes. But that's how that's the they came to
you came to me. We came to you for out outdoor storage and it was granted. >> Okay. So, we're talking about everything to the right of that fence. Correct. Is that what we're talking about? That's unoccupied right now.
>> Correct. Um, how many bays are in the back of that unoccupied section? >> How many loading dock doors? >> Yeah, >> there are nine tailgate loading dock doors and one drive-in ramp. >> Okay, so you got nine >> nine loading dock doors. >> Mhm.
>> So, and one drive-in ramp. >> All right. So essentially, whoever would occupy that, why would they need an additional 18 trailer spots to park if there's only nine loading docks? Because today in
today's uh warehousing industry, it's not just about the doors that you have at the building. It's about the trailers that are coming and going and being able to store them there. It interestingly doesn't really change the traffic requirement for the building because they get to the trailers at different
times, but they need the ability to have trailers there both um on their way in and on the way out and and it is pretty universal in the in their in our business. >> Okay. And I'll let Carl speak the our traffic engineer speak to that more from
a professional perspective. Now, now are you envisioning an increase in in um occupants within the building that you know um for office work or something like that? Um right that would exceed
the current level of parking that you have or or if you've lost 10 say you lost 10 parking spots and didn't ex expand the current parking lot. Are you looking that that that would be a detriment to the building? You
wouldn't have enough room to park everybody in that side of the building? I I I think it would be. We we would not want to see a reduction in automobile spots because warehouses today are more employment or larger employment centers than you think. And they're not it's not
just sometimes it's a few people, but sometimes they're more people doing more operations in the building. And it's not only just in the office, some of it times it is in the office, but sometimes it's in the warehouse as well. um having a big reduction in our auto parking could really impact our ability to lease the facility.
>> All right? Because that's an important because our our experience has now seen that we've had Amazon, you know, way overbuilt employee parking and it's it they've reduced these these things down by
>> 20%. You know what I mean? So that >> I mean you can't compare this building with the with what it has to one of those large Amazon facilities. They're different. They're different animals in our business. >> Okay. All right.
So, you're you're um you you're envisioning how many square foot is that that side of the building? You're not you're and you're the current ley. They're they're planning on staying. They're not leaving. They're Well, they have a lease that runs for another three years.
Um, I can't speak to what they're doing after that. Um, it would be too early to engage them in talks of an extension at this point. Um, they're not they don't have any reason to and it's not typical in the industry to do that till between
12 and 6 months um before the uh term is over. Um, the space that's available is 80,000 square feet. Okay. >> So, and again, you don't know who who's you're just trying to get somebody in the building. You know, you don't know
who who's going to come in there. >> No, just like you and this is, you know, for better or worse, what we've said over the years as as we've done this is not just, you know, we we have other facilities in other towns in the state because we're not just a developer who's coming in with one user or one tenant
and selling it out to another owner. we have to plan for some flexibility and have to be able to lease to different people o over the years and that's just part of the business. Um we for better or worse are part of that business going
forward and um you know uh our business is based in New Jersey and is here in New Jersey and and will continue to be. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any questions from the board? At least initially
owner. >> Just just an observation. You know, going there, it just seems like the electrical company's just bursting at the scene. It's kind of spilling over there. You know, every parking spot is where employee parking is is taken.
They have trucks parked on, you know, so they just seem like they're they're bursting at the seams. We seem strange having, >> you know, >> we engaged them storage. >> We engaged them to expand. In fact, we had set up the last lease in this 80,000
square foot space to be cerminous with their lease in the event that they did want to expand on their renewal time. >> Yeah. >> And they they haven't. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um we've tried. >> It would have been great for us.
>> Do you have a contact Okay. Anybody else? Any questions at the moment? All right. >> I'll be here. >> All right. No. Thank you. I asked Mr. Lance to come forward.
>> Good evening. Um Mike, by whom are you employed in what capacity? Uh, I'm a principal with the firm of Casey and Keller Incorporated, 258 Main Street, Milmore, New Jersey. I've been licensed as a professional engineer and land surveyor
since 1984 and as a professional planner since 1985. Um, been doing this for some time now. And uh, I last time I think I was before this board was when we got the outdoor storage area approved. And we were the engineers on the original building
approval. We appeared before the board back in 2001 and and secured that uh approval. Um we've been like I said been accepted as experts in planning and engineering throughout the state. >> Okay. And your engineering and planning
licenses are in good standing. >> They are. >> Okay. Couple more questions. Did you prepare or supervise uh or participate in the preparation of the preliminary final site plans
uh last revised January 7, 2006? >> I did. >> Uh again, did you prepare or supervise or participate in the preparation of the storm water management measures maintenance plans and field manuals
dated December 8, 2025? I did. >> Um, and did you uh prepare or supervise or participate in the preparation of the tree removal plans and tree removal application? >> Yes, I did.
>> Okay. Um, by the way, the uh tree removal plans, I believe, are they part of the preliminary site and final site plans? Yes, there landscaping plan and
tribute plan. Okay. Um I guess I'll accept your qualifications. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to get to that once I found a piece of paper. Okay, Mike, can you uh just and and I
mean we've talked a little bit about that with Josh, but just go through the existing conditions. >> Get up and go to the board. >> Can we mark? >> So, I'll I'll mark it if you like, but it's uh what we have up on the easel,
which we've determined to be A1, uh was prepared by my office. It's an aerial exhibit of the subject property. Um the subject property is outlined in yellow and you can see that running along the top of the sheet is South
River Road. Prospect Plains Road is to the left. The access drive is to the right. Uh north on this map is basically diagonally left to right. And um as uh Mr. Katrino pointed out, this is about a
14 and a half acre site um that is primarily occupied by our 200 plus thousand square foot warehouse facility with about 21,000 square ft of office space. Um parking for the uh the
building is located on the north and south side of the building. the on the uh right and left side on the exhibit >> is car parking >> and that is that is a passenger vehicle parking only um and it totals 125
spaces. The way the building was originally envisioned it was that it could possibly be a two tenant uh type building. That's why we had the parking on either end with uh primary access points at both the northwest corner and
southwest corners uh of the building. Uh loading is provided along the eastern edge of the building. Um there's approximately 26 total bays. Um but as Mr. Adler pointed out, the vacant portion has about nine uh loading bays
associated with it. And what's important to take note and the importance of this aerial exhibit is to look at the surrounding area and look at how well-maintained the landscaping is on this site. Um there's a significant
buffer that exists along South River Road. There are uh trees that line both sides of the access road. U they are deciduous trees that are uh getting mature. Um there's some significant evergreens that exist on both the north
and south side. And as Mr. Adler pointed out there's a significant buffer that was planted uh on the east side of the building as part of the overall development of the site. Uh this is on a conservation easement. This is a retention basin uh to the east. We have
a very large detention facility that currently exists uh along the west and south side of the building. um the uh project at hand. What we're here for tonight, >> Mr.
A2. >> Yeah, this would be A2. This is a colorized version of the landscaping and lighting plan. >> I can't see the title. >> It's a detailed lighting and land landscape and lighting plan. Uh now
we've made some modifications and prepared by your office and what's the date of that plan? >> Um it was revised through April 7th and the reason for the uh revision was in an effort to respond to some of the review
memos we received from your engineer and from your planner. So, first of all, what we decided to do to create the 18 uh uh trailer parking areas on that northeast corner of the property, um we
reconfigured the parking that ran along that north face of the building. And we reconfigured it into uh a bit of a circular loop to allow for truck traffic to vehicular traffic to continue to circulate and move through there. even
though that through connection was removed. And what this would allow us to do is hopefully attract tenants uh to the building to keep the building viable and leasable and allow this facility to continue to be uh a good ratable for the
community. Um in reconfiguring the parking area, we saw the opportunity to expand uh the parking to pick up five more parking spaces. Uh and again uh based upon uh Mr. Adler's experience with potential
>> tenants sure >> take your time. >> Okay. >> All right. >> You're good. >> That may not be. >> Of course it's not. It's not it's not
not it's not exactly the same but >> Mr. um as >> sir, if you could identify what what is on the um the easel. >> I'm sorry. >> What what what document is that? This is
a color version of what? >> This is a colorized version of sheet number five in your plan set. >> Thank you. >> Uh it's entitled detailed landscape and lighting plan. Okay. and it has a revision date of April 7th. And I will
get to what those little revisions were um once. >> So, it's not the plan that was submitted to the board. It's a new plan. >> It's it's been slightly modified in an effort to address some of your comments. >> And let's mark that as exhibit A3.
>> I I marked it as A2. >> No. >> Yeah. He was talking about this when he said A2. Oh, okay. I see. >> Okay. Good. >> So, to be clear, what's in our plans isn't this.
>> It's what you have is in 90% of this, >> but not this. >> Again, he said this was revised to address comments. >> It was in in an effort to comply or respond to some of the comments we received. >> So, what's different? Just the landscaping. >> Well, what's different? Just landscape.
>> A couple of minor things also. Um, so, uh, as I was saying, we reconfigured the parking area to keep circulation working. To do that, we had to relocate, uh, three light poles. Um, one light fixture was moved from, uh, a point
along the parking area on the north side, just shifted back. And then there were two light poles that were across the driveway that were shifted to the east. We added a new light fixture at the end of the or in the middle section
of the uh proposed truck uh trailer parking area. Um that should be exactly as you have on your plan. The only thing that's different on this particular plan is we shifted the uh trailer uh loading area just one foot away from the
building to achieve the 10-ft separation required by your ordinance that was pointed out in Liz's memo. Um, we've also added some fullface curb along the back of the trailer parking area. Uh, on Mr. Hoarder's uh request, uh, we did
leave a section open because part of the design element is to take the runoff from this area and sheet flow it into a bioail uh, immediately to the west of uh, the loading area. On to the right of this is the
landscaping plan. And what we did is we took the um the ordinance requirements for buffers and we've now added a buffer compliance analysis at the top of the sheet which is not on your latest plan. And what we've done is we've
supplemented what you saw on your plan with some flowering trees, uh some shrubs, uh at the base, and some additional uh evergreens to give you a substantial amount of buffering um for
the trailer loading area. The design calls for a burm, a 3 to four foot >> height storage area. >> No, you're correct. Trailer storage area. We're going to be uh creating a approximately three to four foot high
burm between the passenger parking area and the trailer parking area that will help further screen it. And then a top of that would be the evergreen screen with the uh low growing shrubs as well. So this plan would be fully compliant
with 150-57 D1C which requires a certain number of plant materials based upon the linear footage of the buffer. And we looked at this as like buffer number one, buffer two, and then this would be buffer
three. And that's displayed on the top of the exhibit. So to manage the storm water from uh the new paved areas that we are creating for the trailer storage area is we created
two basins two bioail. One is a bioail and the other one is a biodetention basin. Um the one would receive the sheet flow from uh the trailer storage area. Um and that would be collected by an inlet that is tied into the existing
drainage system which takes us to the main detention facility uh on site. Um the new paved uh parking area would sheet flow into a new biodetention basin just to the north and that too would tie
into the collection system that takes all the storm water uh to the larger detention basins. These are designed based upon the latest BMP standards. Um as part of our modification to the plans
um we are now providing groundwater recharge. We've eliminated the under drain uh under the basin and um these we've done some preliminary analysis and we can provide the necessary groundwater recharge that was raised in your
engineers memo. So based upon this um we can see that we've really mitigated to the greatest extent possible um the impacts associated with the additional imperous coverage. There is an intrusion
into the 25- ft setback. This dashed line you see on the exhibit represents the 25- foot setback. And you can see that there are three parking spaces that create that encroach into that
area. And that area totals about 150 square ft along the trailer storage area. You can see it's just those two trailer spots that encroach into that area and that's about 270 square ft. So they're
truly dimminimous intrusions into those areas. And given the fact that the buffers are there and being proposed and you're adjoining an access road and then a large air open area before the office
building, there's a significant area. If you go back to the uh exhibit A1, you can see the extent of the area and the existing vegetation that exists along that area. So the area where the
intrusion occurs is right here as I'm pointing in the northeast corner of the site where the intrusion is really not going to have an impact on any adjoining property. So you can see from this uh that in my mind uh the variances that we
are seeking are truly dimminimous. >> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. What's uh the distance to the area of the uh encroachments from South River Road? >> From South River Road is probably a good
300 ft away. >> 300 ft. >> 300 ft. Yeah. So um so to summarize the the variance the extent of the variances we are seeking are impervious coverage. We are permitted 55%.
We are at 58.41% which is about um a 20,000 square foot uh area increase. Um the intrusion into the setback as I said the passenger car area is about 150 square ft with the setback being 14 ft
where 25 ft is required and the trailer parking area is set back 9.7 feet at its closest point but the area into the 25 ft setback is only 270 square ft. Um, we
are asking for the five additional cars uh above what is required under your ordinance for parking. Uh, 125 is required. We're proposing 130. Um, and as Mr. Adler pointed out, we need every
leg up we could possibly get to get a tenant into this building. two years for 80,000 square feet to be vacant uh is very difficult for uh a land owner to continue to keep his property up and pay
the ratables that are necessary. So based upon those facts, it's it was my opinion as a professional planner that the variances could be granted under the C2 criteria. Uh also I felt that because of the unusual
configuration of the lot, you could say C C1 for uh the setback intrusion uh for the passenger car vehicles and the trailer, but it's more about the the C2 variance that the benefits outweigh the detriments that in my opinion the uh the
positive criteria, you got to look at the general welfare and by allowing this building to continue and be a good ratable within the community, which is one of the goals and objectives of your master plan. By the way, one of the
goals is to allow the area east of Route 130 to have a good ratable base to support the rest of the community. And by allowing this building to become successful and attract tenants, you're
advancing that goal and objective. So in my opinion the C2 could be granted under that criteria that the negative impacts associated with it are mitigated by the uh application of the uh buffering and the storm water management
elements also mitigate negatives associated. So based upon that is my opinion that the variances could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or the intent and purpose of your zone plan. >> Can you just because I think it's in
your outline. Can you just read into the record the uh language from the cranberry master plan re-examination goal two? >> Sure. So what it says
is goal two provide a sufficient ratable base to sustain Cranber's fiscal and community needs in the long term focused on the Route 130 corridor and the areas east of Route 130. And objective D1 in
the master plan says maintain a strong non-residential ratable base. And I think this does exactly that. This helps the community continue the ratables that helps support the town. >> Um I just wanted to ask I mean you've
talked generally, but >> in um one of the memos there's a question about the change in the circulation patterns. Is that for you or is that for uh >> Mr. Panky?
>> Mr. Panky. But we did do um a vehicle turning exhibit. I believe it's on the sheet. >> But now this is not in the U. >> Yeah, this was not in submission. >> This was not in the original submission.
This was in response to uh comments we received. Um I have this as uh this is going to be A3. >> What's the title block? And this is truck turning template fire. Uh it was
prepared under my direction uh with a date of April 7th >> A3. >> A3. >> Yep. >> And what this shows is that the fire truck can enter the westerly driveway
and navigate through the uh passenger vehicle parking area and exit back out the same driveway. Um they can also come in and straight in. It shows them properly maneuvering uh on the exit
side. Uh ingress and egress is shown on the exhibit. >> Is that a pumper truck or a ladder truck? >> A pumper truck. And then uh we've also created for a tractor trailer. This would be A4.
>> What's title block? >> And this is truck turning template trailer. >> And this shows a tractor trailer. >> What's the date of that plan? >> April 7th. Um, and this shows a tractor trailer coming in off the access road, which is
how they would access the uh the loading bays, um, and pulling in. And then um they would back into position once they dropped their trailers. And then when they wanted to pick up the trailer, we're showing the truck coming making
its way back out with two parked trailers uh adjoining it to show how it would be the most constrained uh situation and that the truck can still make that prop maneuver properly. Uh as far as um the engineers review
memo, we've gone over that. I don't have any issues in complying with the elements within that memo. We tried to make every effort coming here tonight showing our intent to do that. We tried to make these adjustments to show that a lot of those elements within uh the
engineers review memo can be addressed easily and we would be happy to do that as a condition of any approval. So of his letter which was six or seven pages and had a number of comments. Uh there is no comment that uh you're objecting
to or want to discuss or uh >> no we we've had some conversations about uh the letter. Um we will continue to make every effort to uh satisfy any issues that are in the memo. So, we're at a will comply,
>> correct? >> State. Okay. Thank you. >> You have anything? >> Nothing. I have nothing. >> I have nothing for this witness. >> Okay. I'm going to I'm going to turn it over to the board professionals to ask questions and then I'm going to turn it
over to the board like we did with the last applicant. >> Sure. >> With your your witness, your expert witness and then we will go from there. So, >> thank you. Okay, for the record, Jay Motor engineer for the board. Um, and I did do a letter
March 20th. I'm just going to talk about a couple things. Um, uh, because they said they're going to comply with most of the items in my letter, which is wonderful. Um, so um, are there any um, u environmental or conservation
easements on the property? >> There's a conservation easement. Let's go back to the uh >> our ordinance requires conservation easements for areas um of environmental sensitivity. I'm not sure if there's any
property on this location that is environmentally sensitive. There are detention basins. >> Yes, there's a detention basin existing here. There's a con this portion the area to our east is a conservation easement >> off your property. >> Off the property.
>> Okay. But none on your property. No. >> And I don't think I'm really requiring any on this one. Uh even though the ordinance says sensitive areas, I don't really see sensitive areas. Okay. Uh let's see if there's anything else. Um I always ask if the board wants to ask for
sidewalks. That'd be a heavy lift on this one. There's a lot of >> Well, there's there's actually a whole sidewalk network on the property. >> On the property. I'm I mean on the roadways. >> Well, it actually rings the property. It it worked it works its way. You could see it on the aerial. It works its way
through the grove of trees. Okay. And actually brings you around. So you could you could actually walk out of the building and make your way around. >> So that's really more of a more of a sight walk sighting walk. You can go from place to place on the site for right >> for a lunch walkway kind of a thing.
>> The ordinance talks about roadway sidewalks. That's a different thing. I'm not sure if they're really needed here. No, I I think there's sidewalks on the far side of South River Road. >> Okay. What about your storage and disposal of waste? Can you just do a quick a quick description of where it
all goes? >> Um all of the refues store what >> the were done the way that the board requested them back in 2000. It was 2000 the actual when we built the building in
in 2001, but the this was the way that they requested the sidewalks be done that they felt like they were part of the landscape and part of the property. >> Understand. Thank you. >> Uh as far as the refu areas, those are
located uh in the loading bay areas and they each tenant would have their access to the loading. Are there are there um >> are there surrounds to the uh to the the dumpsters? Are they dumpsters? Are they something else? >> Well, I think they're enclosures. I think we had enclosures with dumpsters
in them >> because I can't really see them on. If you could if you could just spot them on the plans when you make any revisions. That would be good. >> Sure. >> Because this this board usually wants to make sure that that kind of thing is buttoned up. Yeah, that's >> there is a dumpster area behind the
building just there's a there's a burned up area. Not burned. There's a detention wall in the dumpster area just to the left >> of that retention wall. >> Mhm. >> Kind of beat up, but it's it's there. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, there's really nothing else I want to cover. They said they're going to do everything else. So, uh there's other technical things in here that maybe we won't talk about tonight. for our three consultants because this is a formal hearing. Um you should all
be sworn obviously I haven't David but for three you can raise your hand you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give or have given um is or was a truth. >> Yes. >> Yes. My name is still Dave Oer the board and
I've included my testimony for today and >> Andrew and Fanda and >> Liz Laney. Thank you. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Okay, traffic on page two of four
starting uh starting at the top with the access uh access is not changing along the uh county roads. Um >> that's correct. >> But as you obtain your county approval, provide that to the board. uh turning analysis for delivery trucks. You
provided that for the loading area. The trucks hopefully won't be going into the passenger uh parking area. Um dimensions provide for the radio some cleanup. One of the thoughts I had, and it isn't necessarily in my letter, um but as you
were talking about it, there's a disconnect now between the parking area and the loading area. And that's that's typically a good thing not to connect them, not to combine the traffic. But in this case, we kind of had
>> Mr. Petrino, could you turn off your uh mic, please? I think that's what's going on here. >> Better. >> Try. We'll see what happens. >> Okay. It's good to separate the loading from the passenger.
>> And now that's disconnected. But now because the fence is there, you have three disconnected areas. The loading area, the loading area, and the passenger area. I believe the u there's also parking on the south side of the building which connects into that driveway out the prospect plan.
>> Right. There's a there's a driveway here where vehicles >> they're connected for a short distance, but they're in effect separated. Um and that's not part of this application. This application is the north end of the building, >> right? Can you describe how that's a benefit to
this site having that disconnected? Because I know you showed the pumper truck going through, but a ladder truck couldn't make the movement in the passenger and then out the loading area. I know the fire department, I don't believe, has reviewed or hasn't provided a letter. They may have reviewed it, but
it we'll need that letter uh to confirm um that the fire truck of their um requirement would make it through the passenger vehicle area. But just describe how that's maybe a benefit the
way you've laid it out and disconnected it and now there's three disconnect. Well, well, the benefit I had thought of was that we were separating the passenger vehicles from the truck traffic and and isolating the two is always a benefit in my mind in in
designing of a site. And the fact that we were able to make it kind of a loop configuration allowed vehicles to still make that complete turning movement so they can come in and circulate through
and out. I I thought kind of negated any downside from cutting off this driveway that once connected here because truck most passenger vehicles coming into the site are going to use the first driveway. They're coming in off South
River Road or Prospect Plains Road. They're either using that driveway or the one like I said off on the south side of the site. So passenger car vehicles are are not going to be utilizing the loading area and the trucks coming into this site for this
tenant are going to be isolated to that back area. So they could easily maneuver into position and come back out. And I would imagine the fire truck would do the same thing. He'd be able to pull in and he would be able to negotiate through. The the key obviously is to get
to the fire. getting out, you always have a little more time and if you have to back out, so be it. But, um, we would certainly have the fire department review it with the whatever apparatus they feel that they're going to bring to the site and we'll do whatever we need to do to make sure that they're comfortable with it.
>> And a box truck can circulate the passenger vehicle. >> Yes. >> Again, approximated by the fire. >> Yeah. Like a UPS type truck, something like that could easily >> That's what's going to happen. And they >> Okay. Um, I had a couple of comments about uh
pavement stripes and markings for the parking spaces. That's cleaned up. >> I'm sure you want the new tenant to have something nice and new, shiny spaces in there. There TCD compliant signage as well as the markings. >> Um the parking uh comments and traffic
assessment probably will be covered u by your traffic engineer. um you're adding five spaces and that's due to the reconfiguration and the looped area just based on >> I don't know if you were targeting it an additional five spaces or that's just
the way the layout allowed for the spaces >> both both we were we were trying to make the building as as rentable as possible and we saw the opportunity to to uh add five spots so we thought we'd take advantage of that >> okay on the cover sheet I think you have
calculations for the overall parking also provide on that cover sheet the parking for this specific I I think it came up that >> there'd be enough parking uh for this tenant 40% of the building 80,000 square foot whatever it works out to be so that you can do the calculations for the
warehouse and the park um office portion of this building and know that they have enough um >> yeah we can certainly do that >> I think my other comments have to they can wait 18 proposed uh trailer spaces. Again, the industry
standard is usually to provide one to one or potentially more of the trailer parking spaces as um compared with the loading docks. So, >> and and as Mr. Ale pointed out, we don't know what's coming down the road. You know, if this tenant decides to move out
that we have, we want to be in a position to be able to lease the entire park. And one other comment I have about those trailer spaces. They're sized at 11 12 by 53. The ordinance requires 15, which is awfully wide. And we've been through
this before with other warehouses, but 11.5 is we we've used that dimension on just about every warehouse we've done and it works very well. Obviously minimizes impervious surfaces by keeping them in as narrow as possible.
And again, you have trained personnel to park those trailers there. It's not somebody coming in. So, um >> I I just want the board to know that 11.5 is even below the 12. >> The lowest we went was 12 with Amazon. >> That was >> just letting you know. And we we relaxed
it from 15 to 12. Okay. And that was just recently. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And maybe the traffic testimony will include some information regarding industry standards. >> Liz, do you have
>> I just Sorry. Excuse me. I have a couple of questions. Um, with regard to the landscaping, we had noted um to use the it's not quite the environmental commission, but it there's a >> uh species that are >> correct. >> What is it called?
>> Shade tree commission. I'm sorry. The shade tree commission. So you're willing to use >> we'll make any adjustments to the species as needed. >> So the other question I have is, you know, when you walk or are coming into the site going down that driveway, there's a really nice existing sort of
allay of trees. Are you going to be removing any of that allay on your property? >> Well, all all of the trees along the access drive are going to remain. >> Okay. >> That was an important aspect of the design that Mr. rather directed us to make sure that those are saved.
>> Okay. Um and then you know I because I know you just presented this that landscaping plan tonight but I know across the across the driveway the um you know the drive uh the entry driveway that site across the street has really
significant landscape buffering up against and I know you probably don't have the width to work with to to mimic that. Unfortunately, we don't. >> But I I think to whatever extent you can >> Yeah. I I I think the way uh my landscape architect and I worked it out
today, uh I thought we really did a fairly good job, if I don't mean to boast at all, but I thought we really achieved the goal of trying to get the necessary buffering in there and tried to get a nice variety of plant material. >> And like I said, so we, you know, we
haven't seen it, but would it be a sort of a year round screen? Is it mostly It's a year round screen. It is absolutely >> those are my only questions for right now. Um, so
I was out there today And my big concern was really how close the car parking is and the truck parking is >> and the lack of being able to burn particularly the trailer parking. You
know, it it is truck access for most of the buildings, but the one building the back corner, it does seem like a pretty prominent. It's not a lot of parking spaces there, but it does seem like their main entry. And while you screened it coming in, going out, they're just they're just it's going to you're just
going to see all these trailers. And the design of the whole complex had all of the truck areas quite set back from this, you know, entry >> from the front of the building. from the front of the road, but but from the roadway. You know, if you take if you
look at the, you know, truck parking behind you and you take that line and and follow it straight up, you know, all all the trailer parking, there is no trailer parking this close to that access road in the whole
complex. So my question to you is did you look at well now second part of my question is I didn't understand why you were pushing the trailer parking beyond the back face of the building because even next door
which is a good example um they have all that storage they have all those trucks parked there and they're still getting into their loading docks. So by pushing that trailer parking to the north, you're making your life much more
difficult your difficult with the car parking pushing that closer to the access road. So what I was going to ask was did you look at taking your trailer parking shifting it all to the left? You've got at least you got it looks
like about 50 feet or so just estimating from this drawing from the corner of your building to where your drive-in is. >> Yeah. You have a you have a ramp up here. Yes. >> But what we need is the depth too, >> right? But I'm saying that same depth if you maintain that same depth. Right
>> now, you could take all of that those trailer spaces, push them all the way over either to there or you could even keep going um further. You'd have to build a retaining wall and move a fire hydrant. But you could at least move it
50 feet to the left. And now you can really get now you can get the adequate burming. You did some nice burming, you know, between your three-foot burm and your seven to eight foot landscaping. In two or three years, you won't see the
trailers from the car parking lot, you know, but you're always going to see it coming north on the access road from the other properties. And you're also going to always see that corner of the trailer is so close to that access road. you're you're you don't have enough room to to
buffer it. If you moved everything over that 50 ft, now you've got enough room for a burm, three-foot burm with your buffer on top of it, you're up to 12 feet. You're buffering, you know, you better chance of doing layers of landscaping. So, you're buffering those
trailers from that sight line. And like you pointed out earlier, you've got the landscape buffer on the neighbor's property. If you could buffer some of put some buffer >> there is you could see there's existing vegetation here. Those are pretty significant trees here.
>> Yeah. I just want to make sure that for courtesy of the other properties, you know, particularly >> courtesy of an 800,000 foot warehouse building. >> It's their main entry. It's it's it's your neighbor. It's it's a main it's it's a main entry. It's um
you're asking for variances. Wait a minute. Let me finish here. By doing what I'm proposing, you wouldn't have to you're going to save cost and that you don't have to change your entries so much. You can maintain your entry curve because you're pushing it back. you could pull it actually gains you two
parking spaces that you can now cut back and not have your setback issue or minimize your setback issue from to the car parking and you won't have the setback issue to the trailer and you'll be able to meet our ordinance and achieve your goals and I don't think at
additional cost quite frankly >> can can you point on the on the diagram what he's saying >> sure could you do that please So, so I'm I'm looking at exhibit. >> Is it inappropriate for me to show you the sketch I did?
>> I'm actually actually not because >> to go to go to Mr. Patrino reminding us of what our job is here about trying to enhance the um the ability of all of our warehouses to succeed and to make sure
that we grow be a prosperous area in the industrial area which is always our goal. Um and thank you for reminding of us that and reading that into the record. But we we do have an obligation to look at the big picture, not just for
the one site, but for as Bill said, for all the sites. And I know that it might seem somewhat petty that yes, this is an access road into all the industrial areas, but when you drive down,
you're you're asking to reconfigure the entire front of this building to something that it was not originally designed for. You're putting in trailer storage where it wasn't originally designed into the into the building. And you're putting in and and you're
putting in trailer storage. You're putting in 18 extra spots for trailer storage when you only had nine bays you're accounting for. So you're putting in twice as many trailers to store than you have bays to
to load them. And I'm having a hard time even trying to rationalize now. If the 18 if the if there's nine bays that you have open now and you're putting 18 extra spots, that's 20. Now you have 20
uh some 20 n and 9 and 18 is 27. So are you going to be is is that I'm I'm you know that seems like it's you're pulling it out of the air. Now, if the 18 spots was for the whole building, I could understand that. But that's not
what you're presenting here. >> You're presenting that the 18 spots are for the the the new tenant coming in. Just to your point and your point, if I took two trailer spaces out and five parking
spaces, it would be totally compliant. It would be an as of right application. Asof right application. Right. >> Well, I cover varotes. >> Well, that's true because right
>> c can I go back to my question and say, can you show it to us? I'd like to see it. >> I can I can sketch it for you. >> It's probably better to do is um >> Why don't you Why don't we save time here? pull this down.
>> So this is this is the overall survey of the property and Mr. Oh, yeah. That's even better. Thank you. So, what we're saying to do, this is sheet number two on your plan
set, by the way. >> Is taking the truck story. >> This would be A5, I believe. Is that right? >> Uh, well, this is sheet number two, and I'm going to mark on it. So, so it would become A5. >> Yeah. >> So, what we're saying to do is run it.
Oh my god. >> You could take out that that whole elbow there up to your loading dock. >> Right. That's what I'm doing. I'm I'm taking this is our drive-in door. We need to maintain that. >> Right. And you take everything to the
right of that driving door and that >> we could extend it. Take the >> Mr. Muller. This isn't A5. This is board exhibit one. This is not. We're just marking it up as was suggested by the member.
>> So, this would be the trailer storage here. >> Correct. >> It'll be PB1. >> It goes a little bit further. All the way to your >> Well, we're going to have to do some transitioning in there. And I I think
there's going to be some grading transitioning. I think I'm going to need some separation. Yeah, but it's it this is going to be regraded here. And then the only the only downside of that is um the proximity to the building. We'd have to
protect the building with ballards or something like like we did on the corner here and and just make sure that we have adequate room to get in and out. That that was the reason we had pushed it back a little bit. We were concerned about impacts to the building and we also wanted to make sure we had enough
room to make our swing in and out of those spaces. >> But you would agree or at least consider agreeing that the change of putting truck storage in the front of the building was never envisioned with the original design. So this is something
this is something >> based on it's 2026 not 2001. >> Absolutely. So, so we're changing the entire front of the building here, the the one the west the um the northern side of
this building to a configuration that's that's different than the original design >> by incorporating truck storage trailer storage there. >> Yeah. By by bringing it up to date to modern standards, >> right?
>> That's what you don't that's what you're not following. This is what's No, you're not following it. And we could do very few tweaks and have an as of right application. >> Frank, what I'm follow you know you we can sit here and argue all night and if
you want to get your applicant that an approval here we can we can we can go around a hundred different times. >> Right. >> All right. Just just for a quick quick perspective if you don't mind this this Mr. Adler is speaking. >> Is that working? Is that working? Great.
Um, >> their main entrance for their cars are here. This is really just used for trucks coming down from >> What's that circle? There's cars parked and it kind looks like a main entry that >> there's cars here, but it's not. It's I don't think it's often used. And you see
this building? >> It's an office area. It is a front. It's kind It's designed like a front that building. >> Didn't you do the approval for this? for 1240. >> This is the main
parking here is the back half the building is >> that was the point. >> I I and I do I'm not looking at this. I agree with you. There is some parking there. It's just to be consistent with the original design. The trailer parking
is too close to the access road. You're not going to be able you're not going to be able to adequately firm it, which is requirement. You're not going to be able to adequately landscape it to screen it. >> I guess we were looking for some, if you call, relief from the fact that it's an
access driveway to a to trailers. >> And we are we are entertaining relief of the impervious coverage. I'm so I'm just asking you a question that as soon as I was there I was like well why not just shift this whole thing down shift this down save some money on your well the
curving and the entry and you have a better design >> you could just reduce trailer spaces too and parking spaces >> trying to I'm trying to make this a win-win for you as well as
>> maintain the original design intent Frank, could you turn on the mic? >> Does it make sense given the time? I don't know if we're going to get to a vote tonight. Does it make sense to get any other testimony in and then carry this, let you think
about it, and come back to the next meeting? >> Yeah. When's when is your uh when when are your hearings scheduled? I have we have a proposal if you're willing to listen can potentially get us through tonight. It's we've been waiting
a long time. We waited a long time to get here. It's I mean we're sucking win on this. So I would appreciate if we could just try to solve this tonight. And so the depth of these sorry
>> no no no abs yeah I don't know um the depth of this was purposeful it wasn't arbitrary we could go with some wider spaces here because what happened when this building was built your your doors on I can't
pull it there but doors on center are wider there which allows the fact that you only have 130 ft from face of building to face of curb. And that's what makes the train the the truck turning radi or template or whatever you
want to use word you want to use work. I'm willing. I I I hear what you're what you're trying to accomplish. Pull these out. Give me them here. They'll have to be a wider space to make it work. We could do
everything on 12 feet if that pleases the board. figure out how that works to get it get us out of the buffer area. And then we would approach the adjoining land owner and see if we could plant a few other trees that would uh give you some
more screening on that side. Personally, I like what you're saying. Open it up. >> Well, I I I can do I think we can reduce it. I don't think we'll be able to keep it where it is today. And >> I I would have loved 30.
>> I know. You know what? And you know what? >> I would love to give you 30. >> No. And and and look, >> I I want to I don't want to have to come back in a few years when if we lose the other tenant. Now I've got to have trailer parking for this other space.
>> I I am I focused on and and really focused our professionals on providing that screening from Cranberry South River Road. That to me was more important than what a truck driver sees coming out because now what we're doing is spending money to burn some to
landscape something for a truck driver. That to me doesn't make sense. That's my opinion. >> I understand. But the other building you're referring to but the but the other build but the other building has its office space and
building office. They're not going to go arbitrarily build office in the other side. That building's office space is on the north side of its building. >> It could be an all storage, which is a little bit office for the number of parking spaces they have. We don't know what it what it's going to be. And and I'm not debating. We're just trying to
keep the original design intent of the whole complex and screen the trailers from from the main access. >> I understand. And it's just a little the costs keep ratcheting up for for us who
have lost two years of rent on space >> and and this whole uh process is very expensive and all the things that we're doing here. >> Said if you came to the BRC we would have told you this before you did all the engineering. So
>> wasn't a what that >> DRC where you can come. >> Okay. We didn't >> and then we would >> okay was that wasn't part of the process back in the day and it was never it was never offered in the in this I would have >> just so you know it is there >> okay it wasn't
>> before you do all this >> 12 years ago or 13 years ago it wasn't something that you did and nobody offered that as a possibility >> all this all this none of this what we're doing here none of the things that we're doing are going to add square footage to the building is which is what
we get paid on. We're just simply trying to make the building more marketable to get it done. >> You don't comments related to the trail um area. What about the parking area where there and the parking uh to exceed
the 125? Do you have an issue with that? >> You know, the other side is overly cramped. Of course, they have twothirds of the building. So, I understand wanting more spaces than what you have. However, this has less
square footage. So, I do question the necessity of it and just losing one or two parking spaces to not to again have better setbacks. >> No, I I hear what you're I know what you're saying. >> If you had a tenant that came in here
and said, "We need this in order to in order to This is all hypothetical, right? How many parking spaces, how many trailer spaces? So, we're trying to work with you. We we don't want it empty. You want to bring back the fly spaces.
>> That's that's up to you. >> I have to come back to the board. >> The trailer is is personally my bigger issue. There's a lot of other members on this board. >> To have to come back to the board is incredibly expensive and and time consuming. I mean, submit, wait,
get to a hearing. You can't keep a tenant involved for that length of time. >> No, I agree. >> I'm willing to green bank where I could take, you know, not have the spaces in that space unless we needed them for a tenant who said, "I need X amount of
spaces. I'm willing to do that." Are we talking about the the vehicle parking? >> Vehicle parking. >> Okay. >> You talking about banking spaces? >> Banking spaces in the in the vehicle parking and
moving the truck parking over for the request. >> So, you don't have a tenant ready for this. >> No. But you've come up with this formula through maybe conversations with previous tenants who were interested and then walked away
>> through a combination of conversations with brokers. I do the leasing for our spaces myself through a combination of having other buildings and other spaces like it in other places. Um, you know, it's trying to be flexible and
be available. I don't have a tenant today. I'm, you know, I have people who have said, and I look, I've said to people, I'm going in front of the board to try to get some trailer parking. And they were like, well, if you get it, let us know. >> And Mr.
Just in terms of the proposal you made about moving some of the trailer spaces basically to the left of that plan, how many spaces are we talking about? >> Well, we would move everything out of the buffer, keep the 18 spaces
and and try to move as much as far as we could reasonably do and keep the and then reduce the extent of the entrance. We would have some spaces that would be along the building that would be in
slightly wider spaces and then we would be at a minimum of 12 foot spaces per your recommendation through the rest and they would bump back out and be essentially where these other spaces are on this plan. Can I make a can I make a suggestion to you? I just checked my
schedule right now. Um and I'm willing to move around some people at the next meeting in May. Can you come back in May? I mean, if I if I if you go and and and at least entertain this because I would
like to see what it looks like and if you can even do it. You might go back and say, "I can't do this, you know, and then we're then we'll have to I mean, I I think we could do it." My fear is that Okay, I have a I have a question. Would you be willing to read a resolution at the same meeting if we
were able to get an approval so that we then didn't lose the time that we would that we're going to lose? >> That would be I could certainly prepare something on the assumption a certain set of assumptions as to what the board be willing to do. Um so I could do that.
That's pretty un it's unusual because obviously usually it's based upon a hearing. No, completely fair. But I could do a drift. >> It's unusual but not unheard of. And and yes, it would have to be something that the board was okay with and we didn't
come in and have to rejigger it in front of the board at that point because it would have to meet whatever you had already prep roughly prepared. >> Yeah. >> But if you if you're would be willing to give us that not so we don't lose that time. I'm certainly
willing to correct me if I'm wrong. Could we create the resolution that night? Is that is that what he's looking for? I'm I'm I'm confused. >> He's seeking approval of a resolution, but I would want something that I can
that I've prepared in advance which anticipates what the board is going to do. So, you can see and we can make you make whatever changes the board will make. >> I believe your date May date is May 9th. Is that
>> May 7th? Sorry. Seven. Excuse me. >> So, normally what we would do >> try to do without my reading glasses. >> Um, >> we're we're going to we're going to lose we're going to lose my uh my good luck charm, >> but
>> Oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. >> Um, I might have another option for you. >> What's that? >> No, they wouldn't have to renotice. Um, can we get them in next week? >> I mean, I didn't agree.
>> Are you talking? >> Yeah. >> I I have a conf I have a conflict on the seventh. I could not make it. >> How about the 16th? Are you available next Thursday? >> Yeah. >> Does the board have a notice for the meeting since the special meeting? >> How long?
>> Oh, yeah. I did already notice the special meeting. Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah. It should be it should be pretty straightforward. >> Just a consistency review. >> I did already notice. >> Yeah. But then it >> if we're carrying it days.
>> Yeah. I mean, we don't need for the for the application. We don't need any notice. We just be carrying it to a date certain. >> But it's not a regular scheduled planning board meeting. >> It's all right. It doesn't matter. >> It's open public meeting. Can you get here in a week with some
changes? >> Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. >> Yeah. Right. >> Just a quick thought. We have a traffic engineer here. I like to provide the testimony before we >> No, I'm just throwing We're we're we're >> No, and I and I and I really appreciate
the the options. Thank you. Because then what would happen is if we if you come in and we're kind of satisfied we're working in the right direction then I won't give you the resolution next week but we'll give you the resolution at our maid meeting then we
could have it by then. >> I mean that's as good as I could hope for. That's wonderful. >> Very reasonable. >> See Frank I'm not an unreasonable person. >> Frank not an unreasonable person Frank. I'm
really not. >> Well, she doesn't think I'm unreasonable either. >> Come on. All of our sp all of our spouses have something to say about us. I mean, that's just life. >> Um, all right. Let's I'd like to hear from the from the our last your last witness so we can get
>> Yeah. >> I just wanted So, we're clear on what we're going to be looking for. No, let's let let him finish. Why don't we go through his qualifications and then I'll approve.
>> Certainly. Again, for the record, my name is Carl Panky, uh, associate principal with Langan Engineering and Environmental Services. I am a registered professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing and I've appeared before this board many times uh, in the past
uh, qualifying as an expert in uh, traffic engineering. Well, I'm told to turn it off. >> Well, yeah. Yes, I You're good. >> Yeah. Let me just use you
preparation of the traffic assessment report dated March 27th, 2020. >> I did. >> Okay. Yeah. Uh, you know, very briefly, you know, obviously Cranberry is extremely experienced with uh
warehousing and logistics. Uh, you're one of the few communities that both understand it as well as host quite a bit of it. and I've been involved in the design of many of those warehouses. So what you're hearing tonight with regard to the need for the trailer storage is obviously not a surprise. I know this
board has faced applications in the recent past for trailer storage and and that's what's happened over the last 20 years. The industry has evolved. It has evolved from building sizes. It has has has evolved from clear heights and it has also invol evolved in how the
logistics delivery uh works and the truck courts work and uh the 18 spaces that are proposed uh this evening while it's related to trying a tenant the the remaining space it's obviously planning by the owner to position this entire
property as you heard the lease that exists could be up in three years he may keep them he may not uh but they want to make sure that this building continues to be viable in today's world of of logistics which hence has has created this this application from a traffic
engineering standpoint. Uh there is no change of access externally. The access that exists for this site is excellent. Uh the driveway on South River Road has a right turn lane in a left turn lane in. Uh the the driveway on Prospect Plains Road is also likewise well
established. The sight lines are good. they've been functioning through the years. Uh and uh there there's no changes from that standpoint. The addition of the the few parking spaces and the trailer parking spaces doesn't change the traffic characteristics.
There's no change in the building uh size or type or use. Uh so the traffic generation characteristics really doesn't change as a result of this application. What does happen is the the the truck court becomes more efficient. It handles the types of tenencies and
and operations in a in a safer and better manner. Uh as was discussed a little easier earlier tonight, the separation of the parking from the trailer parking area actually is creates an advantage uh on this site. It just it separates car traffic from getting back
into the business end of of the site. So I think that is actually an enhancement from that standpoint. The proposed parking as laid out by uh Mr. Alanza Farama creates a a loop so that a car is able to loop through the parking uh has
efficient search pattern is able to find the parking as you heard just heard we are willing to to land bankank a few of the spaces uh and and keep them uh in our back pockets in case we need them. Uh we think it's a good idea since we're going out here and doing this site work
to take care of the things that give us the maximum flexibility. Uh so overall really from a from a traffic standpoint there there there is no negative impact uh on on the adjacent roadways and on our access and internally I think Mr.
Lonzo Palmer has done a great job laying it out and uh as you heard we'll take into account the consideration of shifting around a little bit internally the trailer parking and come back uh and share that with you and hopefully appease and address the comments we've
heard this evening. I I just I should also say emergency vehicle access also works well. You still have full circulation around the building as you're aware. While the uh the uh electric company does have a gated uh yard, it it does have an
emergency gate that allows you to go through the entire truck port in case that that happens. So that that exists also. So I just wanted to point that out. >> I I have a couple of comments. Can you talk about the EV spaces and is there
any requirement on this site for the uh relocated? I'm going to call them. Um there's five additional spaces, but it's mostly just being relocated in a different pattern. So, >> sure, >> it's cut off. So, so under the EV the statewide EV ordinance and law, uh if
the uh the need for EV parking spacing only applies in a situation such as this where you're making an amended site plan uh with regard to a calculation against the increased parking uh and also relates to your ordinance requirements.
So, EV spaces are only applied against the number of spaces required by ordinance. So in this case actually there would be no requirement under the ordinance for EV parking spaces. Uh the four additional spaces are actually beyond the number of spaces required by
your ordinance. So they're not even subject to the calculation. So uh uh so the EV ordinance really doesn't apply in this particular case. And there is there's several questions to that in on the DCA website for clarification that's been asked many
times. And and one other thing uh the size the width of the trailer parking spaces can you give some support for I guess 12 foot now instead of the 15t uh that's required by the >> Yes sure I mean uh it's been this
applicant's experience at the 11 12T width with the bay width that's been been developed uh a truck trailer is 8 1/2 ft trailer itself uh the the cab is is uh 8 ft. So the 11 1/2 ft does work. uh the 12 feet obviously this board is
found already uh is also functional. It does work with actually even a shorter uh bay width. So uh from that standpoint the the ability to provide the uh the storage spaces at that well I guess we're agreeing to 12 ft now uh is is
adequate and provides the ability for safe operations. And that's the witching hour. I have a quick question. I don't know it was A4 or A3, but it was the truck turning radius coming in and out. >> Again, not an expert here, but to
support Mr. Giddings's comment, that very first space seems super tight pulling out. And if you're shifting everything to the left, I actually think that supports what you're saying because your example, you were using a couple spaces in to
show that versus showing that very first spot. >> Yeah. So, I got two comments on that. One is you're correct. Once we move that away, uh, it does help that, but the other thing is Mr. Lonza Palmer really isn't using the right truck. The truck he shows here is an Astro truck for a
WB67. Uh it's it's not an illegal truck in New Jersey. The actual uh King the back rear can only be 41 ft. He's running it at 43.5. So >> when he actually corrects that, it'll
it'll be even better. So combination of what we're talking about this evening, there's more than enough room. >> Thank you. >> We at one point somebody uh mentioned about a ladder truck. Do we know if a ladder truck could get into the uh parking lot? and we were going to reach
out to the fire department. If we're coming back in a week, I just want to make sure somebody reaches out to the fire department in a week to get that piece of it taken care of. Right. We want to make sure a lot of get >> we'll do our best to reach.
>> We'll reach out for sure. Because the and this is more of a comment. I don't think there's anything to do about it with with the fence being there >> in terms of how a truck actually backs into that ninth bay is somewhat limited in terms of how they get in and get out,
but that's just going to limit what size trucks you can get in those last few days. Is there any cons do you have any concerns in terms of what trucks come in here? because it's not approved traffic anymore, but it's that was already approved and taken care of. How do they turn around? >> And that and that's something that the
tenant potential tenants are considering, I'm sure, on the site evaluating the building. >> We actually did have someone bring a truck over to for that final loading dock next to the fence and they were able to do it. >> Great. >> No, but it was we were hopeful and then
they went a different direction even after that. Thank you. >> So, we're talking about 12 foot wide spaces. We're talking about moving those docks >> to the left >> to the left. And you could take that
that whatever that grassy area is to the left to the right of your to the right of your current load to pull up loading back. You can do whatever you need in that area. >> Okay. >> The only thing is you have a fire
hydrant just to the left of there. I don't think that'll be >> good lord. I think I don't think that'll be touched. The fire hydrants that's into the there's a little bit of left of a grassy area there. I don't think you'll be touching that, but there's that whole like loop um that's on the
corner of the building. And since you're proposing to put trailer parking there, I don't see the need for that loop anymore since you're going to be, you know, you could use that whole area there as um additional real estate to shift
everything over. You don't have to keep that. So, >> we're we're also talking about bank parking, >> right? Uh, so if we shift the trailer park, >> the back parking only is in the car parking area. You're
>> right. So that won't even affect what >> um so um we're moving the trailer parking that'll take care of one of the variances, >> right? And if he banks the other one, it'll take care of the other one. >> Okay. That's where I was trying to get
to. >> Until they have a tenant that comes in and they need the additional spaces to appease the tenant. I I get it. I'm a realtor. I get it. You got to do what you got to do, right? >> Are they then going to have to come to us for variance down the road when we unbank it or >> That's why it doesn't doesn't take care
of the variance. >> You still need the variance. >> You still need the varian? >> No. No. I know we need the varian, but we're going to show bank parking, right? >> But bank parking still you still require the variance for it. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> So we can build it without having to return to the board.
>> Yes. >> Yes. But they won't they don't need to ask for the variance for the trailer parking. >> Right. >> Does this Mike does this have any effect on the uh impervious coverage >> moving? I I think it'll balance out.
>> We're going to try to figure it out. >> Well, no. I just I'm probably not. >> It's going to balance out. Okay. >> Yeah. Because you're gonna you're going to take some of the You're going to take some of this green >> and then and shift it, but then you're going to increase the green over there.
So, >> it's going to balance out. >> It's going to be pretty dang close one way or another. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if we can use the green spaces. U they have to be counted as imper as impervious because they're the possibility of future. >> So, it's probably not going to bounce
out. There'll be a little bit more pavement. the they're going to be adding greens. Well, >> the green has to be I think the green has to be considered impervious even though it's green now. >> The banked green has to be considered. We
>> agree. I agree with you in that what we were just I what I was I thought we were talking about was more with regards to this area here. >> Yeah. I don't know. That would be something that Mike's got to figure it out. >> I think there might be a little more actually, but not a lot more. >> Let's see what we got. >> Less than a percent.
>> Try to do our best. All right. And >> can do we need our traffic expert for next Thursday? >> He's expensive. >> He's busy. He's >> busy. >> He's the best in the state. >> I don't think we if there's anything
between changes, you you two could communicate. >> All right. Is that fair? >> Yeah, >> that's fair. And then Liz, with respect to the landscape, you could you could work with their with them on that.
>> We're asking for a resubmit of Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. electronically if that's possible to give Mike team enough time to do it. Now, Mike also has an obligation with his family Thursday night. So, it's going to be somebody else from his office here Thursday night
with us. That's a shame because I like your I know me too. I like >> but I just don't want I was getting comfortable to be surprised when but >> that's fine. >> Somebody different shows up as long as
you're here. I will be here. Okay. >> Okay. I'm all right with that. >> So we announcing the continuation. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Right. This is going to be continued to April 16. There'll be no further notice.
Are we are there other matters that night or >> Yes. But what I'm going to do since they have been waiting to co since they've been I'm going to put you first. We're going
to put them first. >> Then you can >> Yeah. The the the >> consistency review it's consistency. It's not a >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we'll put >> I'll bring my I'll bring my yearbook from 199. >> That's okay. That's okay. Time is short
here. So, >> I found that. >> All right. >> Okay. >> All right. Where's my uh >> Well, thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you very much. >> We're getting there. We're getting closer. >> No, we're carrying it.
>> No. Yeah, we don't. We don't. >> It's only if we carry if we're carrying it. We don't need public comment. >> No, >> no, we're right. We'll >> It's only when we get to the final approval, then then you open up the public for public comment.
>> What happened in my agenda? I lost my >> uh is it under the minutes? >> Oh, yeah. No, I got it. Yeah, I lost my agenda. So, >> okay, moving right along. Uh, next item of the
public comment for applications. Well, we already that's out. Old and new business. Any old and new business? >> Right. Yes. >> No, we're we're we're Yeah.
>> I wrote Yep, that's it. Um, we don't need a close session. So, uh, I have a motion to Can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Eyes win. Meeting closed. Thank you everybody.