This is zoning board now to order. All meetings of this board are held in compiance with the provision of the open public meetings acted by the board's annual organization
pursuant to the board's resolution. in the following manner. Notice also mailed to the official newspaper days of America to the Mr. Miranda >> here. >> Mr. Moore
>> here. >> Mrs. Parto >> Mr. Allesiac. Mrs. Coer >> here. >> Mr. Bay. Thank you. >> All right. Next on the agenda is Resolution is resolution ZZ 2026
and management at 301 South 94 Z1. Is there a motion to approve resolution? Second, Chris. >> All right. You want to take role on that?
>> Mr. Manda? >> Yes. >> Mr. Moore? >> Abstain. >> Mrs. Parenta. >> Yes. >> Mr. Allesiac. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Kuster. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bay.
>> Approved. Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have supposed to be lighting up. Oh, yeah. >> Mine is. >> Yeah. Mine's >> Who's got Who's got one that lights up? Mine lights up. Yours lights up. >> Mine did pre. I don't know what happened.
>> Try put it on. Oh, it's not working now. >> Look behind. Yeah. >> Ladies and gentlemen at home viewing, please pause for technical difficulties. >> All the special people. >> That's okay. I won't talk.
I just >> I'm very loud. Nothing like nothing like having nothing like having a ghost in the >> sto. >> Excellent. Excellent work. Okay, apparently we can proceed. Sorry to keep
you waiting. The next on the uh agenda this evening is an application. It says LC 46.01 are Good evening and may the board. My name is Dennis of Highland. With me tonight is on behalf of the
applicant as well as Joe Mancini our engineer doesn't mind. I'd like to begin by giving a brief over the application after can testify whether what I said is all true to Joeies. There we go. Gentlemen, you swear the
testimony you give tonight is true. I hope you got it. >> I do. >> I do. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, council very much. Okay. Please. >> Thank you. >> So, this property is designated as block 96.01 located.
The property is randomly shaped like a capital letter. This application to a warehouse that lower In 2021, this board used fair for that warehouse finding that it lent
in market with minimal. The board also site approval. We're here today to errors in regards to that site plan and seek to fix. So I want to highlight what those errors are and what they are not. The use variance in our
opinion is not implicated because the warehouse correctly is being used correctly for that 2021 approval. It's 6,000 square feet which is what was approved. There's one or two deliveries a day at the beginning and end of the day and those deliveries are made by that small truck that was mentioned in
2021 approvals and the employees that work in that warehouse are the same exact employees that work. But not withstanding that, we admit we made mistakes and dueations in regards to that site plan, which we apologize for and seek to correct tonight, such as
the lighting plan, the sidewalk that the proposed that no longer thinks is necessary, and things of similar nature that Joe will get into a little bit. The goal of this application is to correct all those errors, seek approvals for what we can't fix, and to also create a
timeline to fix what we can and ultimately bring the site into. So with that, I'd like to really quick we need you to come up. Come up. I'll I'll swear you in. If you raise your right hand, you swear to refer the testimony you give tonight. It's true.
Sup God. Okay. And state your name for the record. >> Okay. And you're the you're the applicant, correct? Okay. >> Could you spell your name for us, please? >> M I N E. >> And could you just tell the board of view is true?
>> It is true and accurate. Yes. >> Thank you. questions we can try and answer at the end. >> Sure. Council, can I get the spelling of your last name as >> Yeah, absolutely. T based on our council. It sounds like
there'll be no objection. Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt you. We need to speak green light. >> There we go. Excellent. >> All right. Uh so this is a site plan
exhibit which is essentially the same site plan that's included in your set just rendered to kind of give you a better idea of the lay of the land. So uh as Dennis said, we're on route 130 on the north side. Uh the existing Four
Seasons Market is situated um closer to the And then the existing warehouse storage building is situated on the long part of that L shape. So you can kind of see that outlined in blue. So inside of that elbow is is bagel shop and AutoZone
store. Last time I checked, um the total parcel is about 2.47 acres. Um it has about 164 linear feet of frontage along Route 13 where there is
one existing uh two way uh that provides circulation to parking in the front and also parking in the rear and also access to to loading area for that uh storage building. Um the market is a one-story building. The square buildings, twotory
buildings, existing parking, lighting facilities. Of course, the prior approvals that this board granted included, of course, the 6,000 area storage building, some sidewalk areas, the loading ramp configuration,
which is on the west side of that building and others, etc. Um, as Dennis said, the deviations um from that approval are the primaries that we're here tonight. I'll expand on each of those just sort of generally
light. rescue for approval tonight for additional stone and purpose areas to talk about modified and loading configuration area HBAC placement some lighting changes changes
and rear so the current application intends to reconcile legitimize those deviations with the board approval There's also an existing septic system. You can see that highlighted well this is actually proposed system
existing septic system roughly the same location per se but the project does entail getting approval that septic system which we just got approval from the health department to review that subject system bring it up to current standards.
So that will replace physical sewer connection eliminating that public connection to the sewer and rerouted to septic system. >> Is it accurate that there had been a septic system then there was an application to become to be to be
attached to the um the sewer system and now we're going back to septic. Is that accurate? >> More or less. But to be perfectly transparent um yeah the the connection to the sewer was not which is part of the reason.
>> Thank you. >> Um so some of the other improvements that we're proposing as part of this site plan including an expanded stormware area. So the plan had always contemplated area on the east side of the warehouse building. Um but between
2021 and now these new water regulations we've also added as I said addition stone impervious areas on north and south side of the existing warehouse building. So the approach the
new solar design to not only incorporate the the new impervious areas are >> but also bring up current codes in terms of infiltration requirements requirements and so um there are some technical requirements out of engineer
but the board finds it acceptable allowance approval we've agreed to all these comments and requests with respect to management Um there are some removal of some stone
areas along the south side of south property line. So you can see there's some areas there to remove some of that stone and provide some additional landscape buffering around the basin. There's really no visibility in this building from Route 130 because there
buildings that are old 130. There's an existing shed here. There's part of the bagel shop. Um there's fences all along that sub property line. Um but to the extent that we want to sort of just make sure we mitate visual impact proposing
to remove some area as landscaping. As always we'll work with your planner. Um there are some trenches that were dug within the what we're proposing against management based. Um so one of the comments in the board
engineers letter was uh restoration of those trench are indicated in our response letter which really to handle the group leaders from the building. We would restore those trenches.
We'll work out the method of restoration there and the satisfaction. We're also proposing to construct a fence enclosure on the existing dumpster area. Existing dumpster area near the loading area
at the front of the storage building. right now as well. Um balance of the site layout effectively is the same as it was previously. So the site circulation continues to be um a two-way drive on
the on the west side of the four season market oneway drive the east side and two-way circulation parking areas. a minute. One thing we're also going to reconfigure the handicap parking at the
front store to make that comp standards. So that's going to involve new striping uh and new concrete standards at the front of site. And there's also some additional landscaping concrete. Um just for for context, I'll mention
it's not part of this application, but it was on the plan before. There's an existing cell tower that's in the west corner site tower not owned by this applicant on property but at least theirs
um I think for that uh cell tower area included some landscaping which wasn't executed and therefore I think that's the So let's go into a little more detail on
the changes. >> We'll we'll mark that colored site plan as A1. >> So I mentioned some additional stone area that's located on one along the sides of the existing warehouse. Um that was not part of the
prior approval, but we think it makes sense. Um the stone surfacing there was installed um along select parts of that perimeter to facilitate access for maintenance. So there's doors on either side of the long side of the building and there's also access to this garden
area in the back which was also contemplated not exactly in that shape but also contemplated. The stone areas just allow for access and maintenance there. Um they're not for vehicular access. Um they do allow for access to the covered uh loading
area. Not a ramp area into the building on that north side of the building. And that's one that was not previously contemplated, but that allows for hand movement of pallets into that part of the building.
So no change to the vehicular access back there, but the stone um allows for access to to those uh doorways. Um and it's been fully accounted for as I said in the storm management design. So um it
did not really change the uh grading or drainage shed characteristics of the site. Um but obviously we need to account for that in storm water. Based on that, I don't see any impact to the neighboring properties. Um obviously there's
additional volume associated with that which we addressed. Um there is one of the things noted in the engineers letter is there is HBAC equipment on the south side of the building that's within an existing PS documents. Um there's not an exclusive
ement so doesn't doesn't impair intended purpose of that. Uh the previous plan proposed a concrete sidewalk along the north side of the building that was meant to connect the parking loading area with with the main
door on that side. Effectively the stone that I mentioned before does the same thing. We don't think there's a significant need for a sidewalk there. It's only the few employees that I said are accessing that area. The loading docks are essentially in the
same location on the west side of the building as I because the building location shifted a little bit towards that rear parking area. Those loading docks are a little bit shorter than previously. Nevertheless, they're still long enough to accommodate the box truck mentioned
earlier. So, there's there's a depressed um loading area for uh for loading from the back of the truck and then there's a ramp area uh to get into the door. Um as I mentioned, the building location
changed. So, the building location shifted east and north as compared to the approved plan. Um the building remains fully compares that are required as a result of that shift. Um it also doesn't result in any
visual or functional improved plan. Um that just reflects efficiency with the grading based on what the existing conditions were there allowed for that uh elevated loading dock operations that mentioned um really no
impact management drainage patterns the grades around the building notes around the building are the same essentially previously approved site still drains from west to east so that all collected
by the existing storm water based water bas There's some minor changes to the rear parking lot striping. Um that was a result of the trash enclosure being relocated over here. Um the striping still complies with regards
to the required dimensions. The number of parking spaces is the same. I think there's actually one more parking space than was previously approved. The site circulation did not change. impact ass about some of these deviations and
changes when we talk about these I think it's it's important to note that some of these errors truly are errors because they're not lack of a better term positive at the very least >> thanks for that clarification yeah I'm
trying to be transparent about changes are. But Dennis is absolutely right. There's nothing in here uh if I wasn't clear already. There's nothing in here that I view as being detrimental to the public do I think it's significant what was
previously approved, but we do want to be transparent about what those changes are. Um there is one less uh light pole in the rear area, but we did provide uh existing light levels. Um subject to the board planners acceptance of those
minimum light levels. Continue to work with him, but I believe those light levels are acceptable from from my point of view. >> Uh there were some minor deviations to the fence locations. Those those just sort of enclose the uh the garden areas in the back. um no no impact to to the
sight lines or um site circulation. So just fences along along this back um garden area and then around the uh existing uh gardens uh that are that are behind there. So not exactly per the approved plan, but nothing really of any
great consequence. And then I mentioned the the rear uh ramp area that's sort of a loading area uh for for hand trucks. um uh or a pallet truck uh to move um supplies in there.
>> Um those are essentially the changes as Dennis said that you know they're they're not sort of substantive in the in the sense that they have any detrimental impacts um to the neighboring properties. I think they're consistent with the spirit of what the prior plan said, but they are some some minor modifications and that's why we
want to incorporate those with the night's approval if the board decides to act favorably. Are you able to testify as to why the changes occurred compared to what was approved in the last hearing years ago? What what was the reason for these changes?
>> I I I don't want to talk out of turn because I wasn't there. I I think I see some some logical nexus in in that when decisions were made about um some architectural changes, which those architectural changes went to the construction office, they they were not sort of done without any transparency.
Um um they sort of facilitated some of these other things happening. Right? So, without question, as Dennis said at the outset, we didn't do some things according to the approved plan and that was just by mistake. Um,
and some of the things were just logical nexus. You know, providing some stone area here became sort of practical in order to minimize the maintenance requirements to allow continued access. Um, you know, we >> when we shifted the building, that
necessarily made these ramps a little shorter, but we really didn't need the ramps to be any longer. So, that could have been a field decision by the contractor. Um, just sort of saying our truck is only 35 ft long. I only need a 40 foot long ramp. Um, so there's no no need for the for the building to be
further into the site. So, I know that only half answers the question. And I I wasn't there and I can't speak to it precisely, but I think some of these things were omissions that should have been cleaned up and some of these things were sort of logical progression based on some changes to the building architecture
>> and you don't require any new variances typically if there was some if there's no variances that that mitigates >> I agree. Yeah. And and I think if we
were on our game, I think these were also things that could have logically been approved as field modifications. And I think we were sort of falling behind on doing our doing a good job with executing on the plan and documenting those changes along the way with uh with the engineers inspecting.
>> I I believe that is our presentation. If you guys would like to ask any questions of Joe or Yeah. So, so I spoke with the engineer prior to the meeting. They've agreed to address all the comments in our letter. Um just to kind of elaborate a little bit more on on your prior question,
there there certain um deviations from the previous approved site plan um that the recommendation was given that they need to come back in front of the board to address ultimately um the
issues. Now the biggest thing that um Joe Joe briefly mentioned is that they have their health department broken out for the county. Um so they will need to that uh back up connected um since they are currently connected to the sewer without an approval.
But they've been pretty uh you know straightforward about that and they understand that that's a uh an item that needs to be addressed along with the stormware management items that have been our letter. >> Is that true that you're representing on behalf of your client that all of the
recommendations of our engineer or planner will be abiding? >> That is correct. Yes. And I also do have a copy and I think Joe does too of that uh border county commissioners um sort of health approval if you would like it. Um or we can probably send you an electronic copy.
>> He just wants to send us. >> Was there anything else or >> No, I I'm not going to elaborate on uh the modifications that were required. It's been touched upon previously prior to coming to the back of the board and their engineers has plan of action
accordingly. >> Same thing, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've had the opportunity to discuss revisions. We did not write a letter for this. Most of the changes were obviously impact. There are some landscaping changes,
based things that agree to work with our office. >> Now, the one thing I would would actually like to add is um this has been
going on for a little while, >> right? >> Um so just kind of the understanding of when the items that are listed in our letter would be addressed. There's an order of operations that >> So you'd like you'd like to provide
that? I think that would be beneficial just for an understanding. >> And when would you like that? Is there some deadline you have in mind or is it >> I mean I would say the >> the issues that were brought up previously, those should be the first
ones that are addressed which I I know your office is receive of of those three items for the notice of violation that was issued. >> Yes. Yes, I believe so. I think so the first first order of business is going to be the health department aspect because that that's you know the health
and human safety aspect of it and after that management would be number two and I think essentially those are the two biggest things so um timeline wise I think the engineer better to the septic is going to take a little while
that is you know it's not like a twoday thing and are you recommending that the resolution if one is passed this eveningcludes a timeline for those items. >> I would I would recommend that as >> all right.
>> I think a timeline is is certainly fine in the sense that making sure everything is on track. I think my only, you know, I I wouldn't even call it a critique, just a comment is that in the spirit of us striving to never make any sort of representation. I don't want to say
that, you know, the county health department is going to get back to us in 60 days and it takes them 90 through no fault of our own. But I I agree timelines, you know, if we can reasonably coordinate that between the engineer, the municipality, and you know, should there be an extension
necessary because of a factor that isn't us, I think that's reasonable. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, did you have any other witnesses, council, before we Nope. That that concludes. >> All right. So before we jump in, I just want to make sure everyone on the board
if you have any comments, you know, let us knowbody. >> I would just ask that obviously um these things are monitoring through your office. >> Yes. >> Correct. So the timeline that is followed through this is a timeline of
like you have a reasonable expectation of what should be and then when was it not monitored properly by the engineer or how these things happen our office was not properly notified and we ultimately went out and did a site
inspection and work was either done or not done and that's how we got >> what about this days. >> I think that could also be >> I'll be aware.
>> Yeah, I I was going to add that that could also be a a good >> I I guess mod I guess modification to >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was I was saying that a sort of informal almost like a concept
plan hearing with them saying here is where we are. Here's what we submitted. Rather than the rigid deadline of 60 days, do you have it or not? 60 days we are mandated to meet with the engineering office, the planning office, and see where we're at, what we have, and to sort of make sure we are on those
deadlines and getting things done properly. >> There are items that aren't going to require. >> Yes. >> So, we could come up with something potentially Yes, correct. Well, it's just the >> we can hear you.
>> Check. Check. Okay. So, I think the intervening factors are obviously uh as Dennis said, things that we can't necessarily control outside agencies. is if we need to update our soil conservation approval. Um how quickly can we get a contractor on site? So I think we're we're committed to
diligently communicating with uh your professionals in terms of the progress uh and then doing uh what we can control in terms of perfecting the plan and getting it ready for construction. Um but we're we're amendable to whatever the board seems uh to think is
appropriate to make sure that we're we're staying in line. >> Joe, just just board's understanding. Does Burlington County require their office perform inspections or is that done by a professional such as your office? >> I think it's a bit of both. >> Bit of both.
>> I think it's a bit of both. Yeah. So, I think there's some key inspections that the county comes out for. I think some of it self-certification. >> What kind of a landscaping uh plan is there? Because obviously it's a it's a big that stores are backing back into. And
if I'm looking on Google Maps, there's still some large trees. So, was there was there trees that were taken down? Is there going to be composite uh trees that need to be placed? >> So, they did clear some trees,
especially the bas landscape, offset I don't know yet. I don't know yet. That is something that >> Jay, is it true that they has agreed though that they're going to do
work rather than using machines to refill trenches and prevent future trees for the upcoming work? Yes. Exactly. So, so just to clarification on the the handwork hand is being done to not
adversely impact uh the adjacent property that may have been impacted by All right. So before we go any further, I'm going to open it up to the public um and I'm going to say that anybody here in the public who would like to speak to the board and be heard about this
application, please come forward. >> Okay. Uh I don't see anybody raising their hand or coming forward. So close to the public. Uh I'm going to turn it over to now kind of guide us as far as what the application is and what >> the application strictly for the amended
minor site plan. There's no So it's a simple majority vote by the conditions on approval outline the applicant Township. >> I mean reality is the septic is going to
be kind of the done a week inspection. So let's make the resolution or at least I propose resolution include that status report
60 days and the work the remainder of the work should be completed within one quick question. I just happened to notice on the plan um a chicken coupe. Is there is it an active chicken coupe now or was it a pre-existing chicken
coupe? >> I believe it is active. I I don't know when I guess I don't know when it was built or how long it's been there, but it it is active. >> Well, we would need to just testify. How
long? >> A year. It's been a year. Do we have is um the chicken coops have to be registered with the township is it on a residential property or can
they be in the can they be in the commercial district? >> So I don't know the answer to that. I know Delan Township does have a um chicken coupe ordinance in terms of residences specifically where if a non-aggricultural residents wants to
have a chicken coupe, they have a program and a license, but I don't I'm I'm unfamiliar with because this is a commercial property what if any um ordinance there is. >> Is there any proposed change that
>> No, no, there's there's no proposed change to the chicken. >> All right. So, Obviously, if there's if there's any interaction with code, >> yeah, we can look at that. I think to answer Kim's question on their previous
approved plan, it doesn't part of your question. >> Yeah. Is it new? New or >> it it doesn't appear on the previous >> yeargo. We do have an >> resolution also include that you'll
follow any instruction by our our professionals as to what to do about that is something >> yeah absolutely and if there is I feel like that could be a similar um condition as the check-in meetings you
know in 60 days we meet about the chicken coupe and either applicant removes it or make another application if if it's a variance to keep it sorry or we just remove it >> I think understand
>> correct >> correcting access to speakers especially. >> Yes. >> I don't know why the chicken crossed the highway to this property, but I guess
it's here. I guess it's here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, any anybody else? Anybody else have any other thoughts, comments? >> Okay. I've already opened it to the public and close to the public. So, council, sorry, right back to you. Uh, you've kind of given us the perspective.
That's what the proposed resolution will be. Does anyone on the board have a motion? Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> I'll second that. >> Mr. Mirmanda. >> Mr. Moore. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Parenta.
>> Mr. Allesia. >> Mr. >> Mrs. Coster. >> Mr. Bay. >> Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you board for your time. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh the only other thing on the agenda this evening it appears is to
open it to the public in general and there's nobody else here I can note in the room. So nobody else is coming forward. Anybody want to come forward and I see nobody. So I'm going to close to the public in general and do I have a motion to adjurnn? This motion to
>> second I