represents us. He represents us. >> Yeah, cuz he lives. >> Yeah. Township of Edison zoning board of adjustment special meeting of July 7th, 2026 is now in session. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open
public meetings act of 1975 has been provided by the annual notice published in the home news trabune on December 4th, 2025 as imposed in the main lobby municipal complex on December 4th, 2025. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Madam Secretary, roll call, please. >> Mr. Carly, >> here. >> Miss Knight, >> here. >> Mr. Sammon
>> here. >> Mr. A >> here. >> Mr. Johnny >> here, >> Mr. Chabra >> here, >> Mr. Certo >> here, >> Mr. Patel >> here, >> Mr. Schneider >> here, >> vice chair Gorman >> here, >> and chairman Gumba >> here. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is a
special meeting of the township of Edison zoning board of adjustment. The board is composed of Edison Township residents appointed by the municipal council who volunteer their time and service to the board. Municipal land use law requires a member successfully complete a land use training course ministered by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. This board also
holds in-house training conducted by our board professionals. The zoning board abides by the provisions of the municipal land use law in addition to our board's bylaws. The zoning board is a quasi judicial land use board which differs from the township planning board. Under mipal land use law, board members are required to be impartial and
are not allowed to discuss any case prior to being considered at a hearing. All applicants will have the opportunity to present their case before the board along with the opportunity for board members and board professionals to question the applicant and their witnesses. At the conclusion of the applicant's presentation of the case, the case will open to the public.
Residents within 200 ft of subject site will be heard, followed by residents from outside 200 feet. All residents will be sworn in. They'll provide their name and address, and they'll be given six minutes to comment on the application being considered without the opportunity for rebuttal. Residents may ask questions of the applicant, the applicant's professionals, and board
professionals. The board requests that these questions are as priority commentary being made on the application. Once commentary begins, the resident's timer will begin. The applicant will be allowed the opportunity for cross-examination of their witnesses. Under the law, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary which is repetitive or an attempt to
filibuster the board. Further, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary that is irrelevant to the case or prohibited from the board's consideration. Once public portion is closed, all public comments are ended unless new testimony is presented by the applicant. Following the closure of the public portion, the applicant will have the right of summation on their application.
Following summation, the case will go to the board for decision. This procedure has been followed by the board and is similar to procedures followed by boards of adjustment statewide. Miss land use law requires the board engage in a balancing act is not required to strictly apply township ordinances zoning plan or master plan.
As a board of adjustment, variances are granted when appropriately necessary following all legal considerations. I ask that all applicants, professionals, and residents show respect each other and be civil throughout all proceedings. I ask that you withhold applause, booing, or interrupting of anyone while they are speaking. The chair will not
tolerate tolerate outbursts by applicants, professionals, or the public. Further, since most cases are being recorded by a court reporter, I ask that speakers do not speak over one another. Madam Secretary, first case on the agenda, please. >> Case number Z8 2024, ultimate collision
at 115 US Route 1. Applicant is seeking bulk and use variances for the addition of 22 exterior car lifts and to permit two sheds and two trailers installed without prior approvals. Standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan. Auto repair shops are not a
permitted use in this zone. Accessory building in the front yard is not permitted. Proposed is 5.5 ft. Max fence height required is 6 feet. Proposed is 12 feet. Max building coverage required is 25%. Proposed is 26.4%. 4%. Affected
property is located in the GBH zone designated as block number 2011, lot number 17 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening, Mr. Shar. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Members of the >> Mr. Sher, I'm going to stop you short. I need a we need need a microphone.
Your fans at home need your your fans at home need to hear you. I could hear you, but the people at home, they want they want to hear Skip SH. Good evening uh Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Bernard Shire with firm of Conv Convary and Shire uh representing the applicant ultimate
collision repair. Uh this application involves a uh a facility that was approved by this board uh over 20 years ago. Uh the uh it was probably the first
modern uh collision repair facility in the certainly in the township of Edison, maybe in the county of Middle Sex. Uh it is uh far from what your uh old vision of a of a auto uh collision repair shop
would look like. Uh the uh business uh has been there successfully for over 20 years. uh at 11:15 US Route 1, block 2011, lot 17 in the GBH zone. Uh this board
approved uh a uh an addition uh some 12 years ago uh for rooftop parking uh and uh a slight increase in the size of the building. Uh and uh due to uh the nature
of the business changing uh over these years, uh my client uh is seeking uh to uh essentially create more parking uh for the vehicles that he services uh as
well as some uh relatively minor changes uh to the facility itself. Uh the business has changed substantially uh especially since co uh in that uh
insurance companies take their sweet old time getting somebody down to examine the vehicles uh in order to authorize their repair and come to an agreement on price. uh once a car is delivered uh in undrivable condition, of course, it has
to remain on the property in a safe location. Uh the uh applicant in order to remedy that situation is proposing uh 22 car lifts uh which essentially turn
one parking space into two. Uh I have provided to the board uh previously uh the specifications for these uh and I uh gave the secretary a copy for each board member uh in case there weren't enough
originally submitted. Uh the other problem in the business that has arisen is obtaining parts for vehicles. Uh I can tell you that uh my partner had his vehicle repaired and it took weeks to
get the parts in. Uh that is just simply a a problem that can't be remedied without keeping the vehicles on the premises longer than normally would have occurred 15 20 years ago. Uh these car
lifts are rather unique uh and uh they will greatly alleviate the problem. Uh they have already been installed uh based upon the fact that these are not fixtures, they're movable. And it was
believed uh by my client that this did not require any approval from the board since they were not fixtures. Uh however uh Mr. Big Nell determined that it does require board approval and therefore we
came before the board to seek approval. Uh the uh other uh aspects of the application will be described by the architect. Uh the trailers uh in question have been removed as Mr.
Bignell asked. Uh they are not on the property. Uh there is no barbed wire which I saw mentioned in one of the reports. Uh I I that's that was resolved many years ago to my knowledge. uh the
uh variances or a D2 use variance for slightly increasing uh the size of the facility. Uh there's a variance for fence height uh we were proposing a 10-ft fence uh
for better screening if nothing else. Uh however, it should be noted that there's nothing around this facility which would cause anyone to even see uh any of these uh improvements that are being made. Uh
the uh Mr. McNe will testify as to what he's surrounded by. Uh and very very frankly there essentially is is nothing. Uh he's set way back from Route One, so you can't see it from the highway. Uh
he's bordered on one side by the 287 offramp. Uh there is uh uh a Wawwa facility that was originally an office depot when this uh uh was approved I believe uh it was approved together with
the office depot which now is a Waw Wa gas station uh over the last year or two which was approved by the board. Uh the uh uh other side uh there is a a restaurant and uh uh motel facility
offset quite a ways and also uh a uh I'm not sure if it's a uh parking lot or a junkyard uh but Mr. McNe can tell you what that's about. But certainly has nothing to do with ultimate collision application. Uh unless there are any
preliminary questions by the board, I'm ready to proceed. I have Mr. McNe the principal of Ultimate Collision, William Lane of Menllo Engineering, Charles Deetsz, the architect, and John McNunner, our planner. >> Board have any preliminary questions of Mr. SH? Seeing no, you may proceed.
Thank you. >> Well, Mr. McNe, >> could you raise your right hand and repeat after me? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? Can you state your name and address for the record, please? >> Gerald McNe, 5 Casey Court, Somerset, New Jersey.
>> Mr. McNe, you're the owner of Ultimate Collision. >> Yes. >> And location. Yes. >> And how long ago did you actually construct the business there? >> I've been at this location for 26 years since 2000.
>> And was approved by the Edison Township zoning board. Correct. >> Yes, it was. >> Uh over the 26 years, uh the nature of the business has changed dramatically. Is that correct? >> It is. Uh you heard what I indicated to the board as far as time that is
consumed getting a car actually repaired and getting authorization and parts to get it repaired. >> Yes. The the the average time the average time to actually repair a car and turn a car nowadays about 25 24 days
uh opposed to the original 7 to 10 days that had taken place previously. And of course, a damaged vehicle that's brought in that is not operable can't be put back out on the street. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Uh now you're uh
just briefly describe the area around uh your facility. >> So if you were facing the building, standing in front of the parking lot to the right hand side is is the off-ramp or on ramp from 287 to Route One, which is a wooded area uh probably about 20 or
so feet. pretty dense. Um it's it's a good buffer zone there. You have a state fence there. You also have my fence there as well. Um behind me essentially is the dead end street um which leads to a trucking company and the lot that you
called um which is rented to multiple tenants along with the restaurant and caddy corner behind office depot is is the Knights of Columbus. Other than that, there's there's that's the whole neighborhood.
>> How how far back are you set from roof? >> I say the the building is probably set back around 200 feet. >> Not visible from angle around the property. Is that correct? >> No.
>> To add 22 car limits. briefly describe for the board what these are. >> Uh, essentially it's just that I guess the best way of putting it is a New York style city parking where if you were going to the city and you were looking for parking
of space, they would double, triple, or stack them. This is a single stack. So essentially, it's a platform that lowers down to the ground as a lift. You back the car on it, you raise it up, and you park another vehicle underneath it. So in essence, you're turning one parking space into two.
>> Yes. >> And this is a necessity for your business. >> Have to keep vehicles on the property longer these days. >> Yes. >> Uh these these are movable. Correct. >> Yeah. They're not permanent structures. They required no footings and I know you
alluded to it earlier that um I didn't think I needed permits based upon the company. It's the double or triple stackers that would require uh some type of footing or foundation anchor, not not the single. >> Right. Now, there was also reference
made to trailers that Mr. Those were removed. Correct. >> Yes, they were. >> Also, there was reference to a 10-ft fence, which is above what is generally permitted. Uh where was that fence proposed? It's it's the same location
outside the front of the building. Um I think we had scheduled or I'm looking to put a generator in front in the event of power issues which we've had over the this weekend and has caused me a lot of harm. Um essentially that that's the only one that that's going to extend to
the front of the building. Other than that, the the fence is just going to be replaced and in order to give it a little more buffer from the surrounding neighborhood. Uh now actually need this fence. Correct. You've done it just to try to make uh
greater. >> That's correct. >> Also a reference in a report to barbed wire. There's no barb wire. >> No. The bob wire was on that property for 20 plus years and has since been removed.
I have another question. >> Does the board have any questions for Mr. >> Mr. Chair? I have a question for the job. >> So, you mentioned that these are not permanent structures. Um, what are they just bolted on to the ground? >> They just sit on the ground. >> What is it? Asphalt? >> Just on the asphalt on the parking lot
in on the on the pavement. Yes, >> it sits on the asphalt. It just anchored in or how? >> Oh, it just just sits on the just sits there. There's a little platform. Uh if you look at the the plans itself there, they just sit on top of there. >> There there are a couple anchors that go
into the asphalt, not in every location, just preventing from sliding if somebody was to bump into it or something like that. But yeah, they're they're not permanently mounted to the ground. >> I'm just trying to figure out like what's holding it in. I mean, asphalt doesn't hold anything. You're not you
can't screw it into >> it's a frame that sits on on the asphalt and they're all tied together. All the units I think there's uh six units in one area, seven in another, and nine in another location and they're all tied together. They're all bolted together.
So, it's one structure. They're really individual structures, but as bolted together, it's one chain. >> Okay. And when when was this installed? 2023 24 I'm I'm not sure >> the first when's like the first lift that you had installed.
>> Yeah, that that's all at the same time. Yeah, I guess it was about the same time as the construction and demo started on the office depot. That's really what the lie of this this this parking space came about. >> Okay. And when this premise was approved
in 2000, um this is a GBH zone. So, general business highway. So at that time when the office depot was approved that was a retail this was be approved as a variance for auto body shop. Um what were the conditions for what kind
of vehicles would be serviced here? >> I'm not understanding about the conditions. What do you mean? >> What were the conditions set by the board at that time in terms of hours? What kind of vehicles can be there? >> Yeah, I mean we we still have the same amount of vehicle or the same type of vehicles there. The hours have not
changed at all. Um, in fact, we're working less hours now um than we were prior to that. We we don't work Saturdays. Um, it normally staff ends probably 4:00. I have a few that'll work to five, but um before the hours I think
were 8 to six, my understanding Saturdays uh half a day >> cuz I've driven by near in that area and I've seen the garages open 8:30, 9:00 and I've seen cars being worked on with lights on inside. So, um that is one
purpose. I I have one employee that starts probably 11:00 and he's the only one there at night unless these guys are working on their own personal vehicles, but we're not working that late. >> Okay? Cuz my biggest concern is this. Um so the variance was issued 26 years ago
for a auto body shop. The reason why auto body shops are not permitted is because this is more like an industrial size job. Intensive noise, repair on cars. It's a lot of noise. Um it's not like a typical retail store or something that's where people are coming in and
out. There's car station there. There's dust, etc. Um so I just feel like you're intensifying that non-conforming use. So hopefully your planner could elaborate on it more in terms of why it's being more intensified.
>> Well, I I I could say that the auto body came first and then the retail center came second. I had a deal cut with the owners of Office Depot and they had changed it to the the zone the current zoning with my place being a permitted use. I was zoned first and they actually
came second. >> But the GBH zone stayed the same since then. >> Since then. Yes. >> Correct. So that office depot was permitted in that zone. >> Yeah. after I was approved for uh business, I I worked a deal with them to
move over on the property so they could develop the rest of the property and that's how it ended up changing unbeknownst to me. That's a sore subject between me and the the owner next door and the issues that I've had with them. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Does the U board have any other questions for Mr. McNe? >> I do. Mr. Mr. McNe the um is there truly a need for this many of car lifts on your site? >> Yes. Uh essentially I was I was talking
to Skip earlier today of about 65 cars on on the property and only 15 of of inwork in process. Um the rest are either waiting for parts ultimately becoming a total loss waiting for insurance approvals. Since COVID, things
have changed. There's no more or very little personal interaction with an appraiser coming out. Everything is done virtually. Um they're running into the same issues that everyone else is. Is the staff is is um is not educated to
the point to write a proper repair. The technology in the cars have changed. the the advancement of ADAS and and self-breaking and pedestrian u um uh assistance and and night vision. It's it's it's beyond a rolling computer
anymore. And as I as I alluded to earlier, it's about 24 25 days to turn a car. And as as Skip had mentioned, Clark Convery's vehicle was two months before we can get the bumper for his vehicle.
At this point, the car is disassembled. We don't have something to put back on it. We have to disassemble a car completely, do a full blueprint on it as if you were planning to build a house or anything electronical. Um, you know, whatever you need. We have to fully
blueprint it. That's every nut andbolt repair procedure um from the manufacturers. It's got to be researched. It's there are no more 15minute estimates and there it's it's no such thing as just a dent anymore with the advancement in in the vehicles today. So, the time frames have have
lengthened. Um, something that I thought I've never seen in the 49 years being in business, but it's it's it's the the tsunami wave of technology is is here. Whether you're driving a vehicle that has this or or not, it's here. Thank
you. And on the site, uh I've noticed there are quite a number of uh Amazon delivery vehicles parked. I know that you had previously been approved for a location down the road um which the purpose was for these Amazon delivery vehicles. Is the plan still that once
your site is operational your second your auxiliary site is operational that the Amazon vehicles will go away? >> Well, this will happen currently there's no Amazon vehicles on on the property. Uh essentially what happened is Amazon at their their warehouses because Amazon owns these vehicles at their warehouses.
They put um a drive-thru system in that will will digitally enhance and photograph the vehicles and they started rating the vehicles. They lease those vehicles to the DSP um locations. There's three of them here right in Edison. Um and what happens is they
flagged them from one to five. So, anything over a three has to be taken off the road. And when they put that new drive-thru in, we just got slam with them. Um since then, um you know, we've weeded through all of them. There there's no more. And essentially, yeah,
parking them down the street would have been the ideal scenario. However, that's we didn't have approvals on them. They were some of them were warranty work. Amazon had 10,000 vehicles throughout the country that needed warranty work where the steps had to be replaced, but
they have to be approved to be replaced. Currently, there are none. But yes, there was a moment where there was probably about 16 of them on site and based with the Wawa and the limited parking, you know, we did the best we could with with juggling them around.
It's like Tetris and at the end of the day, we we you know, we parked them and and then moved them accordingly. >> So, problem solved. They're no longer an issue. >> They're no longer an issue. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, does the board have any other questions for us?
>> Seeing none. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. for Mr. Bill Lane. >> Could you raise your right hand and repeat after me? Do you swear affirm uh do you swear affirm to tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> Yes. >> Um state your name and address for the record, please. It's William Lane, uh,
261 Cleveland Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey. >> Mr. Lane, you've previously appeared before the board. Uh, if you could please give us a brief summary of your background, back background and qualifications. >> Yeah, I've been with Menllo Engineering for over 41 years. I've been a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey for about 29 years. Um, I
probably testified in front of 100 100 or so boards throughout the state. Uh, many times in front of Edison, both zoning and planning boards. >> And your license are current in good standing? >> Yes. >> We'll accept you. May proceed. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Uh could you please >> Yeah. Um currently right now the existing auto body shops uh approximately 12,323 ft footprint. Um what occurs right now is there's 10 parking spaces in the front. In the rear, as mentioned, we
have 22 spaces with 22 lifts. I'm sorry, 16 spaces with 16 lifts, and there's additional six spaces that face uh route the 287 ramp and also six additional lifts. So, there's 22 lifts and 22 spaces back there. Um there's a an
existing dumpster back in the corner. Uh the site is accessed off of Patrick Avenue, which is a shared access between the Wawa now and Ultimate Collision. um what the applicants proposing again as we mentioned to get the approval for these 22 uh lifts. Uh additionally, we're looking to get a propo approval on
the generator which will be in the southeast corner of the building. Um and that'll be encompassed behind the proposed 10-ft fence that we're proposing around the rear and the eastern side of the property. Um that'll have a slats screen to help uh provide some uh screening around the property.
Um, I think that's pretty much what we're looking to Oh, and additionally, the sheds that were previously put out there years ago, looking to get the approval on that. And as mentioned, the um two trailers that were previous out there have been removed. >> As Mr. our lips
parts for the people for screening. No other purpose. Correct. >> Correct. >> Does the board have any questions? Mr. Flynn, >> Mr. Chairman, >> vice chairman, >> were you involved? Did you look at these uh double stacker two-level parking
systems? Have you looked at that? The weight of them that there's they're sitting on the Macadam. >> Yes, I've seen the plans. Yes. >> And and you're comfortable with that? >> I mean, it's it's standard like like uh Jerry McNe had mentioned that they're using the city all the time on on on pay parking lots.
>> I'm talking specifically on this this lot. >> Yeah, it's a normal. >> Let me ask my can I can I ask my question? you're you're comfortable as the engineer that with the weight and they're not anchored and you're you're comfortable that the weight on the madam
that it's going to be no issue. >> No. >> Were you involved with this in the beginning when when they went up? >> No, they were put up before we got involved. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is the board any other questions? Mr. Wayne?
>> Yeah, I just I have a question. >> Mr. Sure. >> Are you sure it doesn't have to be anchored as engineer? I don't mean to harp on this. >> Yeah, but like >> the weight of it keeps it in place. I mean, nothing's going to there's no movement. It's it sits in there. It lifts it up and the weight of the system
itself and the car is going to keep it in place. >> So, this this was entered into evidence, right? And then it says like the second paragraph, it says stackers designed to be mounted on grade concrete or asphalt.
>> Yes. Mounted to me means maybe mounted is not synonymous with anchor, but mounted doesn't mean place. >> Mounted on the ground. Yeah. I mean, it has these long extended arms. It has a big solid arm. And like I said, I mean, you can go out there and see them. They're you see them in the photos.
>> So, let's just say somebody was at Wawa. They got a coffee and they walk by these things. You're comfortable. >> They're not walking by there. They're behind the fence. >> All right. So, they're not So, if they fall, so under oath, you're these do not have to be anchored. No, if I Googled it, it would say
>> again the arms that are that are there keeping these in place. That's why they designed them like that. They're not going to design something for a faulty system. The these >> Well, no, because I mean the way I see it, it's designed to be anchored, but everybody keeps saying it doesn't have to be anchored. So, I just I just wanted to make sure that you guys as experts Yeah. So, like I said, as the arm goes
out, it it it holds it in place, and you got two of them on each one. So, it's it's it's held by itself with the with the arms or the legs that are out from it. >> Thank you. Can I add to that M? >> It's a two- post can of levered. So it's
not even like a four post. It's two post and it's canlevered. >> Correct. >> So I mean that makes me more worried than than anything. >> Like I said, these have been used for parking. >> They're used on concrete footings. >> No, asphalt just on asphalt pavement.
>> Asphalt does no compression. It cannot physically hold anything in when tensile strength. >> Well, I mean these been out there for a couple years and there have been no issues. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lane. The um
when it says that they are movable, is there any plan to move these? So, so here's what I'm saying, right? So, if if they're movable, so what's to say that you can't go out there and say, "Oh, well, you know, I don't want them in this spot. We're going to move them to this location." Would you agree to a
condition that that any any moving of the if so approved that any moving of the devices that you'd have to come to the board for approval? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Um and then with regard to the 10-ft fence, would the 10 10ft fence
would it shield the uh vehicle like on the upper level? What? So the the arm the the arm that comes up that's 9 foot 6 in. So it's 9 and 1/2 ft. So the fence will cover that. When the car sits on the deck, depending on the height of the
car, that sits about 11, 6, 12 feet. So you'll see the top of those cars over the fence because the fence is 10 foot. So it's about a foot and a half, two feet that'll be over when they're raised up. >> Okay. Are you proposing any landscaping on the outside of the fence? >> No. The fence is going to go up to
basically the property >> fence is going to the property line. Okay. And then there's no space for because so then then the the vehicles are up to the fence. >> There's no space for any landscaping along the >> There's a there's a few feet in there to get if you look to get something. But um
I know along 287 especially that's probably where your biggest screening is is you have a big um swath of like landscaping all along that ramp there. Grass coming down Route One. >> It's grass, Mr. Lane. It's grass. >> Oh no, it's not landscaping. No, I I see it. There's trees up there. There's
trees along that. >> There's trees. They're not They're not at all shielding because you could see the vehicles very clearly when you're on the on the ramp coming from Main Street to head on southbound Route One. >> Oh, if you're coming down the I'm talking about if you're coming down Route One because you're >> Yeah. No, I don't I don't That's That's
not my point. I'm talking about when you could see them. They're most not in my opinion, they're most noticeable when you're coming down that that southbound ramp. >> Oh, yeah. Because it's up higher. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. Um, have you received the um, now this is a little bit dated. You may have
made some changes uh, in the interim. There is a letter from Edison Police Department uh, July 10th, 2025 from Sergeant Winters. >> I did not see that. >> Okay. Uh, it was in my file. I was hoping it was yours. Uh, so the officer
reviewed the above state application. The proposed plan does not directly affect traffic flow and meets ADA parking requirements. Any markings or signage should be in compliance with the manual on uniform traffic control devices. No further devices as per the manual on uniform traffic control devices and assigned by Sergeant
Winters. Um and then also there was a letter dated September 2nd, 2025 from Fire Chief Andy Toth. Did you receive that? >> I did not see that one. >> Okay. So this one um has reviewed this I've reviewed the submission division of
fire finds a proposed site plan to be missing a fire plan to include the required items for review S47 truck turning radius compliance as well as all existing proposed fire hydrants on and surrounding the site to meet a requirement related to Jersey Uniform fire code regulations.
Do your plans reflect this? because I know you had to revise your plans in the interim so as to reflect Wawwa being adjacent to the property. >> Yeah. No. Uh we never received that letter so we didn't address it. Um I know they as a far as far as a fire truck they can come in off of Patrick
Avenue and come down that that drive to fight anything that they need to along there. Um that was something we looked at way back when when we did the original plan, but we we didn't address that letter. >> Okay. We're gonna need something to be submitted to the fire chief because I'm not going around him any way, shape, or form. >> Okay,
>> we can read that. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um and then have you received um the Delaware Baron Engineering report dated June 29th, 2026? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Mr. Carly,
>> thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I'd like to dovetail on some of the commentary for from the board members relative to the structure of the the parking and I want I want to ask a question. Uh, Mr. Lane, does does such a structure because it's going to be modestly high,
right? It's four levels of automobiles. It's going to be 24t tall or it is, right? That that's a question. How tall is the structure in Toto? The structure you're talking about the >> the parking structure.
>> It it's uh the arm that comes up is nine nine and a half ft high. >> But how many times are you going to level it up? >> Only the one. >> Only the one. >> All right. So, I'm assuming that you have a manufacturer's cut sheet for the thing that was produced.
>> Correct. I I would suggest you enter that into evidence with the testimony, but I would think uh as a brother engineer, you can uh produce maybe not tonight a competent analysis of the subs
soils because as Mr. Chopper, Mr. Gorman suggested asphalt is a poor medium for structure and uh the subs soils will determine the loadbearing capacity of the asphalt
over top of it and I understand you're talking about a compression force not a tensile force but as was pointed out you have a canal lever and canal levers do require a little bit of tensile strength so I think it'd be prudent for the board
to ask you uh to put your license to use and give them an an a thoughtful analysis. >> We'll have to get a soils engineer then to review that in the field. >> That's meal engineering has been around for a while. Uh that's uh in in regard
to that and I think the board uh is uh recognizes the format of my reports and I'll ask Mr. lane to go at the speed of lightning if that's possible through the bolded and
italicized comments which are very few. Those are the action items that remain right now and for the board's edification. Our first review was some time ago and so Mr. Lane has done a pretty good job uh addressing most of
the comments. Our first review was in May of 2025. And so, as uh Mr. Cumba uh relates, we got some rep uh some revised materials in June of 2026 and issued a report. And so, I'm going to ask Mr. Lane to go through uh really a handful
of comments. Uh Mr. the bolden and italicized. Uh, one of them is the last comment in section one uh, which really just describes the relief uh, which is actually Miss
Knight's uh, uh, thing. Item 4.1 talks about lighting and the need not to have light trespass on your adjacent properties. I expect that you you can confidently
testify that you can assure that you're not going to have light spillage onto the adjacent properties. >> Yeah. I mean, currently it it spills over into the rightway. Um and when but there is lighting that's spills over onto the Wawa property, but that was an
existing condition that was sort of uh set up when we did the original um office depot with the ultimate collision. >> Okay. and the uh and comment 4.3, right now it looks like
you have a deficit relative to trees and that also speaks to Mr. Cumber's comment about some areas being lawn areas, not landscaped areas. Uh you can address that. >> Yeah, I mean we could either I mean if we're as we're short, we could either make a contribution or we can look to
add some more trees or landscaping as needed. >> Okay. Comment 9.2 too just uh uh speaks to uh the board's instructions from uh spring summer of last year saying that your ser the survey that had been
provided wasn't up to date because the Wawa indeed had been built but that's been updated. That's just a statement of fact in section 9. So is there anything else in the report that gives you pause? >> No.
>> Okay, that's it for me, Mr. chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Carly. Miss Knight, >> thank you. Um, so my first question is with the addition of these lifts, is there any need, this might be a better question for the um the business owner, but with the addition of these lifts,
has it increased the need for additional employees? I know you said that there's actual less time being involved um with the hours of operation, but just seeing if it contributed to any additional um kind of exacerbations of workforce.
>> Mr. McN, you have a microphone, please, sir. >> There are no additional employees that are required. >> Got it. Thank you. Um, and then in addition for things like deliveries, um, the deliveries of parts, how are those delivered to the site? >> Well, behind the building there's a
parts room, receiving room. So, normally they would pull into, uh, the parking lot and unload there and the parts team would, you know, accept all all all the deliveries. Got it. >> And they're normally minor deliveries, small parts, fenders, doors, hoods, you
know, windows, things like that. It's really nothing major. Once in a while they'll come in a ballot and then we'll we'll have to unload it. >> Got it. Um yeah, because there's just noting for the board um there is no loading zone, but due to the nature of what's being delivered, it doesn't seem
like a loading zone or a loading dock would be necessary. >> Correct. >> Um next is um I know we went over the height. Did by any chance did anyone take actual images of the site showing the height of the existing lifts in
relation to the existing building or the existing surrounding areas? >> Yes. >> Thanks John. Um so that'll be presented I guess with the planner's testimony. Um and then finally, I think if the board was to look favorably upon this application, I
would recommend additional landscaping along the um property lines. Mr. Lane, the um I'm just reviewing the application. So, the application uh is for a maximum fence height of 12 ft. Um, but everything that I'm seeing
is referring to 10 feet, >> which is it, >> Mr. Chairman. Uh, originally we did apply for 12 feet. Mr. Big Nell asked us to reduce it to 10 ft. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we're clear on that. Um, so you would agree to submit a
revised uh application? >> Absolutely. Revised compliance plans. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, is there any other questions for Mr. Lane? Mr. Chair, I have a question. Mr. driver. >> Uh what's the current existing height of the fence right now? >> I believe it's 6 ft.
>> Okay. And then um on the spec sheet that you gave um do you know which model it was particularly that you guys have installed? >> There's four different models here. There's a CC, there's a CS, SS, there's different ones on here.
is that just like the general height that it's giving you if it's that kind of vehicle or the the system is the is the DP 003. Those are the clearance heights depending on what's sitting on top of it. So a compact sedan will be 10 foot six off the ground and then you go up to
a standard SUV which is 14T 6 in. >> But the the the model is what the width determines, right? So, like which one out of the the five that are listed, is it like a variety of them or is just like one lift that you guys installed for all of them?
>> Saying it's the smaller ones, the 7 foot 11 foot 11 inch wide ones. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions for Mr. Lane? Yes, Mr. J. >> Mr. Johnny, >> uh what is the protection on the top
layer of your uh stack lay uh on this uh level parking system on the top layer? How do you protect your car? If your base is not proper, I understand. I have seen the locking mechanism on this. It locks your system locks it. But if if in case of land is not supporting your
system, how do you protect your top layer? Do you need any extra protection other than your system? Not that I'm aware of. No. >> Okay. >> Any other questions, Mr. Lane? >> Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if this application
got approved, would you would the applicant agree to put the trees in and not put the make a donation to the tree fund and do the landscaping as requested from the professionals? >> I I would say yes. Uh there are 39 trees on the property. So I'm not sure where
the the count came from because I physically counted the trees. As far as the landscaping is concerned, if you if you have a suggestion, I'd be open to it. And um quite honestly, in the front of the building, if you're driving by currently now, the building is almost
hidden from Route One due to the trees, you know, covering the the front of the property. You have the entire buffer down the side on on the ramp coming down. And again, nothing behind us at all, but if you have suggestions, I' I'd be open to entertain them.
>> I would rely on the on the township ordinance and the professionals reports. That's what I would rely on. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Mr. Carly, >> chairman, come back. What I'm relying on is uh uh your site plan uh that describes uh the uh the 24 shade tree
requirement and the 10 that you're providing. I I see, you know, intuitively you're looking at your property and you're saying there's a lot of trees, but the ordinance is based on the trees that you remove or you have removed in the past for replacements. And so that's what Mr. Lane site plan
reflects. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Lane? >> Okay. So for matters, Mr. I think before the board moves forward with a decision on this application, I think there are
some engineering questions that we're going to need answered um in terms of the soil analysis uh as well as the fire plan. Um, so it's your choice if you want to continue your case um or carry. But the before the board makes a decision on this. This is something that
we're going to have to see. And where actually then also your soils your soils analysis will have to be submitted to Mr. Carly for his expert review. >> Correct. Absolutely. It's your It's your >> No, no, it's your it's your it's your
case. >> Whatever the board wants to see before it makes a decision. >> And I appreciate that. It's your case. I just want you to quarterback it the best way you see fit. Thank you. >> That's something to be I want the black. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you
give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes. You say your name and address for the record, please. >> Charles P. Deetsz, Die TZ, managing member of the Deetsz Partnership LLC architects. >> Mr. Deetsz, I believe you've appeared before the board prior. If you could please give us a benefit of some of your
back if you could. >> Uh, yes. I have a uh bachelor's of architecture degree from the New Jersey School of Architecture at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I have a professional license in architecture for the past 37 years and my license is in good standing. and I'm also licensed in 14 other states.
>> We'll accept you. May proceed. I know that you have uh some exhibits. So, what you'd like to do is when you walk over the exhibit, you could either take the microphone from the podium or you can take the microphone from the other table. Um because then the problem is that we can't hear Mr. Sh. So, you could so you can your choice, but don't take
Mr. Sh. >> I wasn't really calling them exhibits. They're the black and whites that were present were submitted as part of our package. >> That works. >> So, nothing has changed what you received previously. >> All right. There we go. Thank you. Yes, I was.
>> And you're familiar with the facility? >> Yes. >> Well, just to give you the history of the project, I was the original architect in 2010 that designed the building and got it built for Mr. McNe. I was then hired again in the mid- teens
maybe 2014 and 15 to do the addition in the rear that was approved by the board and for the third time I was hired again a couple years ago uh for a very small part in this whole process and application uh due to the the nature of
the business as Mr. McNe explained uh parts and vehicles and the systems used to uh repair these and the volume he needs to store vehicles for a longer period of time. We took the existing uh roof level that we did during the
addition that's covered. It's filled with a a block wall that goes all the way to the ground up to a certain height, but it was open for the top four feet. weather, rain, snow, if it was coming down sideways, could come in and fall onto the the concrete slab that
that second or higher level roof was uh designed for. Uh Mr. McNe again, because of the types of vehicles and the type of equipment that he needs, he needed to store certain pieces of equipment to fix certain cars in a more controlled
environment. So basically my task was to follow the line around that wall where the block wall stopped up to the roof height and we're installing new storefront aluminum framing system with glass. The storefront aluminum will match the same storefront aluminum
that's on the front of the building and any other windows. It'll match in color and style. The glass and the windows will match what's on the front of the building as well. So what that does that allows Mr. McNe to provide some manageable heating in there just to keep it temperature controlled because the
parts and the equipment are sensitive to very very cold or very very hot temperatures. So we're basically taking and there was a typographical error on the application. There are actually only 14 spaces on that roof. That's the 14 we did when we did the addition. They're
staying as is. But now he's going to place certain vehicles with certain types of repair equipment in that area in a temperature controlled environment so that these processes can be done per the manufacturer standard. The only other thing we did, there's a ramp that
you drive up from the parking lot up this ramp, make a turn, come up to get to this roof level that's remaining, but for security reasons again because these are expensive pieces of equipment and expensive vehicles, we're putting a coiling door at the top of the ramp that
could be closed at the end of the day when business is done and locked. So now you have a nice secure uh area for him to do what he needs to do for these specific vehicles. So, that's really been the extent of my scope of work as the architect.
No other building changes, no other colors, nothing's being done to the facades. We're adding storefront and glass that matches what's on the building already. And we're putting an overhead door at the top of the ramp for security and to close that area off for temperature control.
maximum building coverage on the property >> defer to Mr. Lane. We're not change I mean I'm not doing anything that changes that the footprint of the building is the footprint of the building. Nothing's changing. We're working on an existing roof level that we built in 2014 or 15 when we did the
addition. There there was a question of maximum building coverage on the property. Uh what was the building coverage of trailers on the property? >> Yeah, originally with the trailers I
believe it was 26.4. The trail has been removed. So now it's down to 25.8 with the sheds. The building itself is at 25%. >> Talking about either >> correct due to the sheds. Yes. >> Okay. Does the board have any questions
for Mr. Deetsz? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Deetsz. >> Thank you. by our planner John Mcdana. Can >> you raise your hand? Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you get state your name and address
for the record, please? >> Sure. Hi everyone. My name is John Mcdana. That's spelled MC capital D O N O U G H. And I'm the project planner. >> Mr. Mcdana, you have previously appeared before the board. If you could just give us a brief summary of your background qualifications.
>> Sure thing, Mr. Chair. So, I am a licensed professional planner here in the state of New Jersey. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. That's a national certification. Both are current and in good standing. >> We'll accept you. Thank you very much.
>> You've been retained by Ultimate Collision, correct? >> Yes. Uh the variances requested uh are uh essentially uh the D2 use variance for the extension
of the project. >> Yes. uh the maximum fence height uh which 12 ft recommendation of >> correct >> and the maximum building coverage which was at 26.4%
has now been reduced to 25.8% >> correct >> yourself with the project as testified >> yes I did >> you please give the board And I I I I do want you to assume uh
that uh applicants will comply with the fire department recommendations writing uh to the board the subs soil analysis requested for the asphalt under the limits. >> Yes. >> To the satisfaction.
>> Yes. >> Could you please give your test? >> Sure. I'll cut to the quick and then I'll I'll follow up with some of the more substantial planning proofs that I I have to go through. But um I always like to cut to the core here. Um certainly we always look at the
positives and the negatives. On the positive side, these are going to be enhancements to an established business with a long-standing commitment to the community. It's going to take what's there and make it better. And really site betterment is at the heart of good planning. It's what we all do all the
time. I'm going to give you some photographs. Miss Knight asked about it. Um, I think the board has asked some good questions about the functionality of what's happening there. Safety concerns, obviously. I think the question about the sinking into the pavement is a good question. It sounds
like you're going to get some engineering back up in in that regard. Nobody wants these structures to fall over, not the least of which is our is our applicant here that has a a very heavy investment in its business. So, you're going to get that functional backup. I'm going to give you some
visuals here that will show from a visual standpoint. This is not going to have a substantially adverse impact uh on the site or the surroundings. And I think our applicant has done a real good job here of retrofitting within the existing site, tucking these structures
in the back. They're lower than the building, so they're really not going to be out there, I'll say, biting at you in the public eye. uh well concealed, well camouflaged, a nice row of plantings that are already established there to give the site a
nice soft edge. And basically what's familiar in the public eye, the longstanding identity of this site in terms of the local landscape is not going to change as as part of this application. So I'm going to give you those visuals now. Um and again reminding the board that um these
photographs are fresh and should I approach Okay. >> Okay. >> And Mr. Chair, as it's being passed around, you want you want me to have these marked as one exhibit? >> Council?
>> Yeah, that's fine. Three items. A1 first exhibit. >> Okay, looks like everybody has A1. It's three photographs, aerial photographs. um somewhat of a challenge even to find where these lifts are in the context of
the site, but we'll take you through each sheet. The first page, and by the way, these were all taken about a month ago. I can get you the exact date that they were taken, but um when we started the application last time, that's when when they were taken. Um it's a single
tax lot, block 2011, lot number 17. It's a little more than an acre. It is developed with this longstanding auto collision repair shop. We're at a transportation node. We're at the junction of Route 1, Route 287 and Main Street. And suffice it to say, as this
photograph shows, we are completely surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. No residential within eyesight. What the applicant is looking to the board to do here is to essentially validate what's there. One of the nice things about this application,
notwithstanding how we got here, is that you do actually have something in the landscape uh to prove what what the applicant's points are. Um the subject building is right in the middle there with the ultimate collision uh logo in the front. You can see the red roofed
edition structure in the back. And those lifts would be tucked behind that. Uh again, those parked vehicles that you see on page number one in exhibit A1 are where those lifts are located. They're not standing out like a sore thumb and actually well integrated into the site
surroundings. Um also towards the point about the landscape, you can see that nice edge, that nice green edge complements the good planning uh that has um manifested along the off-ramp from Route 287 as it
works its serpentine uh form off of uh 287 onto Route One. Second page is sort of a reverse view. Takes you from the front to the back. And again, you can see those double stacked lifts well below the roof line of the building. well tucked into the
the landscape, well buffered with the landscaping that's in place. Um to the extent that we can supplement it, we certainly will. Uh we certainly don't want to kill a tree to plant a tree. Uh you have a real nice landscape that's established there right now. And then
finally in the third, we give you a closer view of uh that double stacked system uh that's now there in place. The key point here visually innocuous. It is not going to have a substantially adverse uh visual impact in terms of the surrounding landscape
and again as you've heard operationally it will improve the overall site functionality. Um in terms of the justifications for the relief here and reminded the board that the applicant is asking the board to move on a D2 use variance uh which has a lesser burden
than a D1. um it's not within the purview of the board to take a look back and and evaluate whether the use belongs there in the first place. This is not a wholly prohibited D1 use variance. It has been permitted uh by variance in
the past. Again, this is really an enhancement to we technically call it an expansion of a non-conforming use. Uh but in terms of uh the board member's question about intensification here, we're not looking to expand hours of operation. We're not looking to expand
the employee count. And most importantly, we're not looking to expand, I'll call it, the development footprint or the the limits of disturbance on the property, but actually a retrofit in a pocket on the site working within the confines of uh the boundary that's already there.
In terms of the positive criteria for that use relief, that D2 use relief, I see four purposes of zoning advanced here in the land use law at NJSA 405D-2, including purpose A, the promotion of of the general welfare with those
enhancements to an established business that I led off with. Uh, purpose M, which is our planning goal for efficient use of land. It's no secret here in New Jersey, we have run out of land. We have scarcity of land. That's why we call our state plan the redevelopment plan.
Repurposing land that has already been developed. It's exactly what our applicant is doing here. Not expanding onto another site. Not increasing the limits of disturbance disturbance, but working within the confines of the site and at the back of the site, not the not
the front of the site. Also, purpose I the promotion of positive aesthetics. What's nice about this application, as I said at the start, is the applicant is retaining what's familiar in the in the public realm in the local landscape. This is tucked in the back where it will
not have a substantial visual impact. Lastly, purpose G to provide for a v variety of uses in appropriate locations. The uses there, we're at a transportation node. We are surrounded by other autocentric uses as well. So I think this will actually be a pretty
good blend with that which is around it. In terms of the negative criteria, I think you have a good body of evidence now as a predicate to conclude that from a functional standpoint with those good safety concerns that the board asked um I would say as as a condition of uh that
the applicant will demonstrate the uh conditions that the board had asked for relative to the soils uh relative to the manufacturer specifications. Um, in that regard, relief can certainly be granted without any substantial detriment from a functional standpoint.
In terms of visual impact, I think you've got the evidence in front of you with A1. And lastly, with respect to the zone plan and the ordinance, uh, we turn now to your 2024 master plan, which talks about the need to balance future growth and the
development of Edison's tax base. Good planning is all about balance here. What's nice is the application is to retain what's there, maintaining that stable ratable base without overly intensifying the site. So I think the applicant has struck that good balance
here to meet that 2024 master plan goal and objective. There are some subsidiary C variances under that D. I think the board can certainly if it wants move them all in as as one package uh subsumed within the D. Uh the sea relief for the existing
front yard setback 46.4 where 50 feet is the minimum that's required. This is an improvement off the back not the front. Uh SE relief for the building coverage uh which is at 25.8% 8% which with the change above that 25%
that is the maximum that's allowed that is mitigated by the overall lot coverage which does comply and is in fact 10% below what the ordinance would allow. So we have a site that's greener than what the ordinance would contemplate. And then finally that accessory building
setback of zero feet versus 5.5 feet minimum required is justified under hardship here showing you the visuals again from the from the site that we do have triple frontage here. Uh so it's a somewhat uh unavoidable or at least a
practical difficulty relief that the applicant is asking the board to move on. Taking it all together, I think this is a positive application. And I think this is consistent with good planning and most importantly meets that statutory criteria for the D2 relief and
folding in that subsidiary C relief as well. That's all I have on direct. >> I believe your opinion and zoning in light of the fact that this has been approved by the board for the last
and also This is a nice boutique expansion here. I I think the board member that let off with the question about concern about overintensification has been well addressed here by the exhibits and and the testimony. This is not overintensification of an
established site. >> Thank you very much. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Mcdana? >> Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah, the question is on parking. I'm not sure the exhibit one that you just submitted. Not sure if you can answer it, but I'm looking on page one. There's two cars parked right in the front.
And then when you go to page three, there's one there's several cars parked along the building and also along the um on the entrance way there. And they're not parking spots, right? >> No. Oh, I and I'll defer to operations,
but it looks to me like that's some shunting of vehicles on the property into and out of the repair base. >> I drove by there today. It was the exact same setup. >> So, so if this got approved, then that would be a condition you wouldn't you would you would park in the parking spots and not park
>> throughout the lot. I mean, that's that's a fire hazard right there. We we would we would accept the condition that there's there's not parking there shuttling the cars in and out of the bays, but we would accept that these should not be utilized as
parking spaces. >> Again, so the again, if this got approved, the condition would be no no cars whe whatever you call it, they're not going to be be allowed to be there along the along the uh building and along the medium right there.
We would agree to that condition. >> And I have another question. On the second page on the street, there's a bunch of cars. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Is that in rep in reference to your
establishment? >> I'm I'm sorry. The >> on the on the third on the second page, right? So, when you look on it, and it's actually right behind the the convenience store there. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine cars parked. >> Oh, on the street? Are you talking about on the street behind the Waw Wa? >> Yeah. >> I don't know whose cars those are. I I don't know. >> I'll yield to our operator. >> Uh, I have an answer for that. That
That's a combination of some of the employees. Uh, Waw Wa. Um, Wawa, I've noticed overnight parking. Um, there's a vehicle that's been there for about two weeks that comes and goes. I've seen people
camped out there in their vehicles, tractor trailers parked back there. Um, so it's a combination of some of the employees and just people visiting Wawwa or dare I use the term camping out back there.
So they're they're not your employees. >> Some of them are. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for Mr. Mcdana? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chopper. >> Um I would assume the Amazon vehicles, the ones on the road are yours. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And as uh Mr. Gorman had mentioned, uh I mean you guys have the lifts already set up and it seems like the aisles and everything are being used on the road. How does your applicant intend on removing those vehicles on the road and refraining from parking there considering that the lifts are already
in place? >> I'm sorry, asking for the condition. >> No, I'm saying that the condition even if the condition was in place, where would you guys park these vehicles? Um, it seems like all your lifts are full and there's the lifts are installed there. So, and there's still cars on the
road. That's my concern. I mean, if you look back there, there's a restaurant there. There's a hotel back there. If a fire lighter truck were to come down this road, I mean, this is a fire hazard completely. >> And I'm going to have to respectfully
disagree. There's a trucking company back there that has about 30 or so tractor trailers with tanker trucks that make that bend and turn 30 times a day. So, if you're concerned about a fire truck coming down there and those uh I
don't even know what's 60 40 foot uh trucks with the tanker trucks that haul gasoline back and forth all day long. Um it's it's there's no restrictions on on movement back there whatsoever. >> Okay.
All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. McDana? Miss Knight? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mcdana. Mr. Chair, >> that's the applicant's presentation. I'm assuming that the board before voting
wants to see compliance uh to the satisfaction of the fire marshal number one. Yes, correct. >> And uh I have not received that report. If I if I could. >> Sure, absolutely. The board secretary will provide copy. The other item is you
would like subsoil analysis by the engineers uh to determine that the asphalt can support the uh car lifts. Correct. >> That's correct. So if Mr. Lane can put that analysis together and then just submit to Mr. Carly for his expert
opinion um in advance of uh a rescheduled date and then once the secretary gets back to her seat uh we'll we'll consult on a um next date and then make sure that works with you and your
team. Okay, madam secretary. >> We have August 25th available if that works for you. Skip. >> August 25th. >> August 25th. >> That's fine. Okay. Mr. Lane, does that give you enough time? It's August 25th. >> We'll we will we'll take the August 25th
date. If there's any difficulty, we can consult with the >> That's fine. We appreciate that. All right. >> I assume no further notice. >> Yeah, no further notice. So, what I'll do is I'll put it on the record now. So, if you are here for this case and you received the notice, uh you will not receive another notice, this case Z8
2024 will be carried till Tuesday, August 25th with a meeting beginning at 700 p.m. here in council chambers. Uh if you receive the notice, you will not receive another notice. This will serve as your notice. Uh thank you so much, Mr. Sh and have a good evening. Thank you so much. The board is going to take
a fiveminute recess uh to allow the next case to set up. Thank you. The board return to order. Madam Secretary, next case on the agenda, please. >> Case number Z46, 2017, K1 at Birwood,
1350 Inman A, settlement of litigation. This is a hearing held in accordance with the requirements of the whispering words versus Middletown Township 220 NJ Super 161 for the board to consider, review, and vote on the terms of the proposed settlement where
applicant will attain preliminary and final site plan approval along with a bulk and use variances to construct a three-story 114 unit assisted living facility on the property located at 1350 Enman in the township of Edison. Affected property is located in RA zone
designated as block number 410, lot numbers 27, 28, 30, 31, and 11 C on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Thank you, M. Shim. >> Okay, so before we begin, I want to briefly explain what we're doing here
tonight because this is not a normal land use application like what what you uh heard earlier this evening. This hearing arises from a lawsuit that was filed by Care1 at Birwood against the township and the zoning board after the board denied Care 1's prior
applications. The parties have negotiated a proposed settlement agreement and because that settlement involves land use relief. It has to be considered by the publicly by the board at what is commonly called a whispering woods hearing. hearing is called a Whispering Woods hearing because of a
case from 1987, a lawsuit from 1987 called Whispering Woods versus Middletown Township. It is a process that is used uh when a land use board is asked to approve a settlement of litigation that involves a land use application. The public has to be given
notice of the proposed settlement. The uh matter must be presented at the public hearing. The board must hear testimony and public comment. and the board must vote publicly and memorialize its decision by a written resolution. The board is simp is not simply
rehearing the original application exactly as it was uh first presented and then denied. The application has been modified in this case significantly as part of the proposed settlement. For example, and you're going to hear uh uh about this in more detail as it goes on,
the application is changing from an assisted living facility to a memory care facility only. It is being reduced in size including its height and number of beds. The generator is being moved farther away from Lewis Court etc. Uh most importantly I want to make it clear
that this is not a formality or a rubber stamp. The board must consider the settlement the revised plans the testimony the professional reports the proposed conditions and the comments from the public before deciding whether to approve or reject the settlement and related related land use relief. The
board does not have to simply appro approve this. It is their decision. And before we begin, I believe we have some objectors that want to raise some issues before we get get into the get into this. >> Thank you, Mr. Solomon. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh members of the board, my name is
Richard C. Lelay Jr. I am an attorney from Seagurt, New Jersey. I represent Kevin Catel, a 200 foot resident both individually and as a member of Care One opposition group. We are raising the issue of the board's jurisdiction to
hear this matter based on uh insufficiency of notice. Uh according to the published uh notification, the notice was published on June 27. Uh we don't know what time. Uh and this
meeting is being held literally uh 10 days later to the minute almost. Um it provided the uh interested parties less than three working days to obtain information with regard to this application. Understanding that the
notice has um been uh provided as a modification of a prior application which was denied. uh a lawsuit being filed more than three years after that denial which is in violation of court rule uh which
provides that uh suits must be filed within 45 days of such denial. Uh no party here tonight has either seen the settlement uh uh provisions, knows anything about it, was allowed to participate in it. Uh many individuals
uh according to information and belief never received certified notice of this meeting. Um and we we uh are here tonight to advise that we are uh challenging the jurisdictional uh authority of this board. That's all I
have for now. >> If I could uh really briefly, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Peter Flannry with the law firm of Pisg Hoff on behalf of the applicant care one at Birchwood LLC. Um, regarding notice, of course, the the board and its
professionals have weighed in that it's proper. And I also want to confirm that uh the applicant did comply with all the requirements of the municipal land use law in terms of publication and online publication at least 10 days before the hearing and uh uh certified mailings to all property owners and other uh
required parties, person to a list provided by the township. Um and I ask that the board move forward um with uh with this hearing. Um I do have with me uh the attorneys who are handling the litigation. If there are questions specifically regarding the litigation that the board has or the members of the
public may have, I can certainly bring them forward to discuss. Um but uh you know these these individuals who are objecting tonight were not uh part of the litigation. They're certainly welcome to ask questions and and present testimony tonight as part of this public hearing. um but they were not involved
in litigation and and in terms of settlement um you know the terms of the settlement agreement will be discussed as we move forward uh through this hearing. >> Mr. Chairman, if I may, >> Mr. Gazerowski, please. >> My name is Ron Gajeroski. I was in fact
the attorney who represented the residents who opposed this. >> My my name is Ron Gajeroski. Uh I was in fact the attorney who represented the residents at the last hearing I believe when the vote denied the application for
at that time uh the assisted living facility. Uh that was probably five or six years ago. I was contacted by them again to appear before this board to once again raise objections to this proposed use. My main argument in the
very beginning is that the notice in question which was sent out is both inadequate and improper. And I would like to read just briefly from that and that will be the summon substance of my comments. It points out in paragraph two of the
notice that the applicant and the board seek to conduct a public hearing in accordance with the procedures of whispering woods. It says based upon a modified development plan and with the applicant relying on the hearing record
created with respect to the original application. It then goes on to say that the applicant seeks preliminary and final major site plan use variance and other variance approvals and it modifies the original application as follows.
First of all, this is not a modification of the original application. The original application was for an assisted living facility. This is a completely different separate use.
And it's I find it difficult to believe that this board can rely upon a transcript of a hearing in which that application was denied. uh not only was it denied, but the applicant upon
hearing or receiving that notice never filed a prerogative suit pursuant to the municipal uh land use law. So, here we are today, years after that denial. And what I find striking is they're saying
they're going to be relying upon relying upon the hearing that took place where the application was denied and they want to enter into evidence before this board presumably a copy of that transcript or portions of that transcript. Well, my
clients, nor have I ever seen a transcript of that hearing, and I would respectfully argue to this court that going forward, this matter should be adjourned at this particular time with the applicant to come back with a revised site plan application seeking
the variances that he is using, as well as an application for a quote new use end quote. not a modification of a use that was denied, but a new use. And I would respectfully say to this board, you do not have jurisdiction at
this evening to hear this application. Thank you. >> Just like to say to that, um, this board did hear extensive testimony at the original application. The memory care use that's proposed is is somewhat similar to the assisted living facility use. We're going to have testimony on
that. We're going to show that although there are some significant changes um which are beneficial to the public um the general footprint is is similar the general orientation of the project is similar um and there are a lot of similarities to the prior application.
So we maintain that this is an amendment uh to the original application at the board has jurisdiction. >> This argument of similarities it's just difficult to comprehend. It is a new use. No different than if a person
was coming in for a use of, let's say, a carell or a food store and a new application came in uh for a a a automobile use and whatnot. They're just different. And the public has not been
given proper notice of exactly what they're seeking. and they're relying upon relying upon testimony and hearing for an application which was denied. How is this board supposed to sift out from that denial? Sift out from that
resolution what's to be considered this evening and what cannot be considered. Uh I've been doing this for a long time and I don't want to sound like I'm pontificating. But this issue having a new use predicated upon an old use that was denied I just simply think is improper. Thank you.
I just want to add to that uh the memory care use is part of the umbrella of uses that are under the same license as an assisted living facility with the state. Um it's just simply a slightly less intensive use with respect to traffic and that there are um no uh independent
living uh opportunities with the memory care. Um you don't have residents who have their own vehicles and are um uh parking or uh traveling to and from the building on their own. Mr. Sim, you want you uh we're going to
take a two-minut break uh break before we continue. We have a a technical thing that we need to figure out and then we'll resume in like 2 minutes. >> Okay. Board will stand uh in recess for 2 minutes. board return to session. >> Oh, we're missing something. We're
missing something. Where'd he go? >> Where did he go? Oh, maybe you want another come back. Okay. >> All right. We We have a board member in the restroom, so we're just going to give him a minute. Mr. Fing, I apologize. Stay back in
Yeah. >> Never mind. That's >> a few more things I'm going to say. They're going to >> No, I don't. No, thank you. All right, the board returns to session. Okay, so as the proposed settlement
agreement requires, we're going to enter a copy of the settlement agreement into evidence as exhibit A1. We're also going to mark the engineering plan as exhibit A2 and the architect site plan as exhibit A3. And then depending on what the board does at the end of the
meeting, they those may be uh entered into evidence as well. Um I'm going to pass this over to Mr. Flannry in a moment and to put on to put on his case, but he's going to my understanding is that care 1's engineer is going to uh present the draft site site plan. The
board engineer is going to provide some com comments. Um and then if care one has any other uh has any other testimony to provide they they may do so. Uh after they're done putting on their case the member members of the public uh or their their representatives will have an opportunity to give sworn comment on the
application which should be limited to the settlement agreement and the final site plan proposed site plan. Uh you'll each have five minutes to speak. Uh because we are relying on the uh recording here. Uh we don't have a core reporter here. We ask that you speak loudly and clearly directly into the
mic. If we interrupt you because you are not doing it, we're not trying to be rude. We're just trying to make sure that the record is clear as to what everyone is saying. So, if we're interrupting you that you're not being clear, we just That's the That's the reason. >> I've never seen a cop. >> Mr. Gazowski, we need you on on a uh
microphone. >> I need you on a microphone, too, sir. >> My name This is Richard Lehey speaking to the record >> again, sir. I need you on a microphone. >> Go to the mic. Richard Lehey. Uh again, uh for the record, is that microphone
working? Uh is the board intending on voting on both uh passing a resolution approving the settlement and passing a resolution approving the application this evening? Because it would require two separate resolutions. So this would be uh it depends on what
the the vote is that the board wants to do, but they need only agree approve the Whispering Wood settlement agreement which includes in it the um the I'm lacking on the word the revised site plan.
>> The board is intending on passing >> Mr. Ley again the microphone please. >> The board is intending on passing both resolutions this evening. >> I don't want to say the board is intending on passing any any resolutions. the board's able to make it whatever decision it wants to make, but they will uh they will they'll they will
they will vote either in favor or against the uh the settlement agreement. >> Okay. So that the only issue tonight is the validity of the settlement agreement. Is that my understanding? >> The validity of the settlement agreement contains all the terms and conditions of
the approval. So they're they're I'll call them essentially one one and the same by by approving a settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement already contains >> Can I Can I be heard? Can I be heard >> now? You can. >> Okay. I'm sorry. So the settlement
agreement already contains all the uh uh requirements for an approval on this new application. Is that correct? >> I'm not sure what you mean when you say contains all the requirements of approval. the approval. It contains all
the terms and conditions of what could be approved by by the board. It lists all the changes, for example, uh between the original application and the new application. So, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but that's that's what it contains. And I believe that's what Mr. Fliner is going to go into in a little
bit. >> Copy of the settlement agreement. >> Can you speak into the microphone, please? >> Mr. Gazerowski has requested a copy of the settlement agreement. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we're going to give you copies of them. Yep. Okay. So, uh, as I was saying, members
of the public will have five minutes to speak. Again, I know we've already heard it now, but it's important that you speak loudly and clearly into the mic. We're really not trying to be rude. If anyone interrupts you, we just need to be able to get the reporting accurate. Uh, at that point, the after after all those comments, the board can consider
the application and decide how they want to proceed. And so, with that, Mr. Mr. Flannry, the floor is yours. >> Thank you. Um, just for the record, >> just not for the record that we have not seen a comment. >> Mr. Gazerowski, again, if you could please speak into the microphone. I'm tired to keep interrupting you, but I
need you to speak into the microphone. We got you a working microphone. Need you speaking to it. >> I'm sorry. >> Well, this so the record is clear. >> I'd like the record to reflect that neither I nor council have seen a copy of this settlement agreement until 30 seconds ago.
>> We understand. Thank you. Again, for the record, uh, the property is located at block 410, lots 28.01, 30,31, and 11.03, formerly known as lots 27, 28, 30, 31, and 11 C. It's located
at 1350 Inman Avenue in the RA single family residential zoning district. It's currently developed with a skilled nursing facility and two residential structures. Um originally before this board, the applicant had filed an application for preliminary and final major site plan D1 use variance and
other variance approvals. Um application file uh number Z46 2017 to construct a three-story 106 bed assisted living facility with signage on the property to consolidate the lots constituting the property and to make certain
improvements to the skilled nursing facility on the property uh known as the original application. Uh approximately seven hearings were held before this board from December 18th, 2018 through December 17th, 2019. Um the board ultimately voted not to approve the
original application and adopted a resolution of memorialization regarding this denial at its meeting held on May 12th, 2020. Um the primary concerns of the board were the visual impact of a three-story building for the new proposed assisted living facility um on
the eastern portion of the site and potential impacts from uh trash and recycling and a generator being on the eastern portion of the property uh near residential areas. There was also concern regarding potential traffic and and other um impacts from the uh
specifically the assisted living facility use which had a potential for residents to uh be utilizing uh vehicles. Um applicants subsequently filed two lawsuits against the board. Uh one was a uh progative writ New Jersey
Superior Court docket number MIDL 4382-20 known as a state action. The other was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court um docket number 220 CV7976 BRMJSA.
Uh the state action was dismissed by consent uh subject to reinstatement uh pending the outcome of the federal action. Um the applicant subsequently filed a motion for summary judgement in the federal action uh which the federal district court granted in part. Um this led to settlement negotiations between
the board uh and the applicant. Um and uh that brings us to uh this evening, the whispering woods hearing in which applicant is proposing certain amendments um to the original application. Um still seeking preliminary final major site plan D1 use
variance and other variance approvals um regarding the uh the property um but modifying the original application as follows. And I will have of course our professionals, our engineer and our architect speak on this in greater detail um with exhibits. Um but the
applicant proposes to provide for a memory care facility in lie of the assisted living facility. Uh to provide for 114 units consisting of 122 beds in the memory care facility. um to reduce the memory care facility building height
uh to two stories nearest uh uh Lewis Court and along the eastern side of the property. Um to locate the generator for the project uh furthest from Lewis Court and to place that generator uh between its existing skilled nursing facility
building and the new proposed memory care facility building uh to provide a shed on the western side of the property along with the generator. uh to place a trash and recycling enclosure on the western side of the property uh along with a generator and a shed and to
provide a memory care facility building footprint of approximately 37,447 square ft and a total building area including basement of approximately 95,059 square ft. Also to provide 104 parking
spaces with approximately 40 of those spaces reserved for employees and to modify the building footprint and length such that the building setback would be approximately 73.96 ft from the rear property line and approximately 82.94
feet at its nearest point to the Lewis Courtzside property line. The applicant also pro uh proposes to provide improvements to the existing skilled nursing facility uh to permit the utilization of approximately 11 uh banked parking spaces to add four new parking spaces to confirm the current
dumpster location to approve an asbuilt rear sidewalk uh and to permit the existing 6 foot 10-in uh high signs. Uh as part of this application, the applicant is proposing a D1 use variance for the memory care facility. variances
regarding building coverage, uh, lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, and, uh, stories. Um, as well as continuing certain existing non-conformities with respect to the skilled nursing facility that exists on
the property. Uh, and there was a catch-all provision in the, uh, notice as well for any other uh, variance or site plan exceptions that may be required as part of this application. Um, I'd like to present our first witness, uh, our civil engineer, uh, Brian.
>> May I comment as to that representation? >> Not at this time. Let him get through the presentation, then after that you can make your point. >> Let me just for the record. >> No, I'm sorry. I just I you just >> No, you just asked me if you could speak and I said you will have an opportunity after the presentation's made, but let
him make the presentation and then you can make your objections, >> but they can they're entitled to make the presentation without being interrupted. a presentation based upon the settlement or upon the new application. >> I'm sorry. The it's it's the same. It's one of the same. >> Pardon me.
>> The settlement is the is the revised uh the revised application. >> No, the the settlement has to do with the initial original application, not with this new application. What am I missing here? >> You will have an opportunity to make your objection after they're able to put on their presentation, but they are
entitled, the applicant is entitled to make their presentation and then you can comment and object. Thank you. Uh so I'll first for my witness I'll have our civil engineer uh Brian Wazer from Langan. Um his firm was involved in the original application materials. >> Could you raise your right hand?
>> Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? Do >> Yeah. Can you state your name and business address for the record? Brian Brian the mic >> Brian Wazner Wis N Langan Engineering
300 Kimble Drive Paripony New Jersey >> and Mr. Wazner if you could please give the if you could please don't interrupt me if you could please give the board the benefit of your uh background and qualifications. >> I'm a professional engineer in New
Jersey. I have a bachelor's of science from uh Lehigh University in civil engineering. I've been uh working on land development projects such as this in New Jersey and the tri-state area for approximately 30 years. I've been accepted as a witness before other boards providing expert testimony.
>> And your license is current and good standing. >> It is. >> We'll accept. You may proceed. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Wner, if you could I believe you have uh an exhibit. This was submitted uh to the board previously
has been marked as exhibit A2. >> And Mr. Finer if you could also speak into the microphone as well. >> Sorry, we speaking uh sidebar there. Um yeah, we were just uh preparing the exhibit to show the uh the board and public
Mr. Wazer, if you're going to speak to that, you could actually take the microphone from the podium there just so that or actually No, Mr. Carly is going to just return to he's got to bring it back to the end of the night talking to the mic. >> Yes, sir. >> I'm sorry. The
>> report >> of the report. >> Which report are you referring to? Um, so this uh exhibit I believe is marked in evidence as A2. >> A2. >> It's uh the first sheet of five sheets that were submitted uh by my office
lying in engineering. Uh this sheet is sheet CS 101 titled site plan. Uh last revised 1217 2025. Uh, I have 11 by7s. Would it be helpful to hand that out?
>> Yeah, let's let's hand those out. Yes. Shall I continue or wait a second? >> I know that. Okay. >> Thank you. >> So, this is an exhibit of the proposed site plan uh for the new building that
would uh go on the eastern portion of the site. And again, it's the 10 acres uh on the north side of Inman Avenue um adjacent to the existing skilled nursing facility. Uh it's in the RA zone. The site's occupied by the skilled
nursing facility which is on the left side of this page. uh as well as two vacant uh residential structures uh that are situated where the proposed building will go. Um the existing access points to the
existing nursing facility will remain as is. Uh there will be some parking adjustments that were covered in the prior testimony and application. There's no proposed changes to that as part of this amendment. Um but as part of this amendment the
building was modified and I'll explain that as follows. Uh so aside from the change in the use from assisted facility to a memory care facility uh which will have 122 beds in 114 rooms or units. Um the building
footprint was updated because the interior had to be reconfigured for that. And the east side of the building, and the architect will go through this in a little more detail, the east side of the building, so that's closest to Lewis Court, has been reduced to two stories, and the west side of the
building is going to remain at the proposed three stories. Uh the footprint is 37,477 square ft. So that's the ground floor when you walk in. Uh all of the floors,
the first floor, second floor, third floor for a portion of the building as well as a basement total 95,000 and 59 square ft and that includes the basement area which is for storage and mechanicals. The driveway from Inman is in the same
location as previously proposed. It's approximately at the location of the existing driveway for one of the residential structures. The drop off in the front of the building remains as previously proposed. Uh there's a spot for an ambulance to
park there. Uh there's ADA parking along the front of the building. Um and that's really where the primary parking is for visitors and for employees. You've got the front of the building uh near Inman Avenue. You've got the west side of the building between the new building and
the skilled nursing. You've also got parking in the rear similar to what there was proposed before. Uh and there are 10 parallel spaces proposed on the east side of the building that are tucked closest to the building along that drive aisle. We're keeping the full
circulation around the building for fire access uh and any kind of circulation that's necessary on the site. Similar to before, uh the total number of parking spaces proposed uh for the entire facility, that would
be both the new uh memory care as well as the skilled nursing. Uh we're going to have 26 spaces total and that is compliant with the regulations which calculate one space per two 100 excuse
me one space for every two beds plus one space for every employee. So there's 122 beds in the existing facility, 122 beds in the new facility, 41 employees on a peak shift in the existing facility,
and 40 employees at the new facility. And so that totals 203 spaces are required and 206 spaces are proposed. Um, one of the enhancements aside from lowering a story off the building was
the reconfiguration of the service area, which is the loading area, the trash, the recycling, uh, an equipment shed, generator, transformer, all of that to the west side of the building. So, that'll be between the two uh, nursing facilities.
Um, again, we think this is an enhancement compared to the prior uh layout which had most of that on the east side of the building closer to Lewis Court. Um we have identified where the generator uh and the transformer will likely go but of course we'll have
to coordinate that with the utility company and we will provide adequate screen screening for noise and of course for aesthetics as it's now close to the front door uh certainly closer to the front door than it was in the prior rendition.
I'm going to move to page two in this set of drawings. which is titled grading plan CG 101. It's got a 1217 2025 date on it and really this shows the proposed grading schematically for this new layout or
this updated layout. Um uh topography still runs uh from the north west to the souththeast of the site. Uh we have lowered the floor, the finished floor, the lowest floor, so all
the stories come down uh by 18 in, a foot and a half to make it closer to Inman Avenue and reduce the general appearance uh compared to uh the grades around it, which do drop off as it goes down to Inman Avenue.
Um doing so will require more earthwork uh for the project. So more soil will have to be dug out, removed and exported as a result of dropping this. But it's a benefit uh that the applicant would like to make uh to facilitate moving this
project forward. Uh the storm water management system and I'll move to the third sheet in the set. This is titled drainage plan CG201 dated 1217205. Uh we have uh run preliminary
calculations uh based on the current regulations which do require adjustments to the rainfall intensity. Uh and it does require green infrastructure. A few years ago the rules changed. You used to be able to put pipes below the parking lots and
store all your water that way. Now you have to treat the water and infiltrate the water. and we have made uh plans to do that. We've shown schematically how big and where these elements will be. We still have to run through the final design and submit it for a final review.
Uh but preliminarily we've done that. Um, we also have completed testing in April of this year during the seasonal high groundwater period to make sure that the depths of our basins are not going to be in groundwater because obviously we wouldn't be able to
infiltrate if we were in groundwater. Um, so we did not find groundwater which is good, but we did find the soils percolate very slowly which means we'll have to dig out some of that soil and replace it with sand so the water can go into the ground. Uh lastly uh or not lastly but uh next
uh utilities we did provide a schematic utility plan. I don't have a lot to go over with you on that because the utilities do have to be redesigned. All the service area which is where the utilities come into the building has been switched from one side of the building to the other. So we'll have to
run through all the agencies to confirm the utilities and the new connections and routing. But preliminarily we've shown how we intend to do that. And lastly, landscaping. One sec. Landscaping is the last plan in the set.
Landscape plan LP 101 dated 1217 2025. Again, similar to the previous layout, it shows an intense uh landscaping scheme uh with additional planting along the eastern side and the northern side
uh of the site uh which is where the property abuts uh residential um property. Um the sizes are the same as proposed previously which are larger than I would say typical on most of our projects. Um,
the site will be irrigated. All the planted areas will have an irrigation system. We are proposing an 8- foot high board on board fence along the residential property to the north and on the east. And I do believe that requires
relief that we're seeking to get to put in that 8 foot high board on board fence. Um, and I would point out there's also the benefit uh of a landscaping that is along that eastern buffer uh that was put in I think about eight
years ago. And having driven the site today, uh I can tell you that it's there and it's pretty tall. It's probably close to 20 feet uh out there along the property line today. So um that's really the changes. I'll
just run through the zoning compliance changes in the chart. uh which is the last point I would like to make before I answer any questions you have and that's on the first sheet. I realize this is probably too difficult for you to read on an 11 by17 on the
handout, but on the full-size sheet there is a zoning compliance chart. Uh the items that have changed, the minimum front yard, 35 ft is required. 41.2T is existing to the existing nursing facility. Uh, and this project proposes
84.97 feet to the canopy, 111.15 feet to the front of the building. The sideyard, 15 feet is required. 82.94 ft is proposed. The rear yard 60 ft is required. 73.96 ft is proposed.
For the maximum building coverage, 15% is permitted. Our plan uh identifies 16.1%. However, that is a typo. As I recalculated myself, the uh building coverage is actually 17.4%. So, we would
amend that in any revised submissions uh to the entity. But for the record, the proposed building coverage is 17.4%. The maximum lot coverage is 30% permitted, 43.2% is proposed.
Uh the gross floor area, a minimum of 1,400 square feet is required. 134 254 square ft are proposed. Uh F 0.25 is permitted. 030
5 if you want to take another decimal place is proposed. And again the maximum number of stories 2.5 ft is permitted. A portion of the building is twotory. A portion of the building is threetory. Other items such as lighting, which was
called out in um DNR's letter, has not been recalculated yet, but our intention uh is to have a design that's fully compliant uh with all the regulations. Dark sky, cut off shields, zero light, overspill.
I think the rest of the numbers are unchanged or they speak for themselves. Be happy to answer any questions you have. >> Thank you very much. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Wisner? >> Mr. Sure, I have a question. >> Um, Mr. Wisner, is this a prelim
preliminary and final site plan >> from your office? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm just curious why it's not signed or there's no stamp or anything. >> So, these plans were prepared in December as part of I guess settlement discussions and
>> I was told these are the plans that have to be presented because they were part of settlement discussions. Eventually signed sealed plans with additional information will be provided. >> Okay. But this was prepared by you and your team. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Board have any other questions. Mr.
Wazer seeing none. Mr. Carly, I don't want Mr. Willie to yell at me. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh we had the opportunity to review uh application materials and the basis of
our application or review of that was uh to hue to what I believe is our direction from the settlement agreement. And so we looked at the current uh iteration of laws that
applies to the site layout uh predominantly the New Jersey administrative code as expressed in the storm water management rule at 788 78 and the residential site improvement standards which is applicable here at 521.
And so my report as Mr. ways they're testified does point out those instances on a technical for just from a solely technical perspective where the design should be improved the
hue to the administrative code uh but also the standards for soil erosion and sediment control in New Jersey and of course uh Edison Township's uh land use ordinance uh I offer any number of comments in my
report. Uh, but I'm going to ask Mr. Wazner, is there anything in my report that you can address over time? >> I believe we can address all your comments and work with you to address your concerns over time. Yes. >> Okay. But this this bad boy is going to
be the record, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh, one exception though. I think we're going to request a uh a waiver of the EIS which was set forth in the report. >> That's not my decision. That's the board's decision. >> No, understood. I I just want to point that out. >> Okay.
>> Correct. >> Duly noted. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Carly. Miss Knight. >> Um, no. The questions I had for engineering were answered during testimony. >> Great. Thank you so much. Uh, Mr. Mr. Ways, before I let you go, I'll just go to the board, see if any other questions
came up. Seeing none, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Are we permitted to cross-examine the witness? >> That going to be done after all the witnesses? >> I mean, it's it's up to it's up to you if you
>> I'd like to bring him up and you do them all and then they can call them back up >> and then we could have maybe cross examination after that. >> Okay. So, >> he will have an opportunity. They're going to finish putting on their case. >> Thank you, Mr. Solomon. >> We'll have the opportunity after all the
witnesses have testified. >> Uh my next witness will be uh Mr. Michael Pomerico, our architect. >> You could raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes. >> Can you say your name and address for the record, please? >> Michael A. Pomeico, architect, 19 Front
Street, Newberg, New York. >> Mr. Pomerico, you have previously appeared before the board. If you could please give us uh a brief background of your summary. Excuse me, brief summary, your background qualification. Thank you very much. >> Mr. Chairman, I've uh I've presented in front of this board in the past. I'm a
licensed architect in the state of New Jersey, New York, Connecticut. uh Massachusetts, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Montana >> license current good standing. >> It is sir. >> You may proceed. We'll accept you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Mr. Pomeico, uh you of course had handled the
original application and had worked in the architectural uh designs for for that application. You've also prepared uh some amended plans which were previously submitted to the board. Um if you could just briefly go over those plans. I don't know if you have a uh any
handouts or >> I I have presentation boards. >> Yeah, let's Is that just the one that >> I have and I have handouts for the board members if need be. >> Let's do both. >> Okay. Hold your hand.
This one might be included already. I think we did 11 by 17s as well, but we'll see. >> Thanks. >> So, what we just handed out was exhibit A3, the architectural plan previously submitted to the board.
Okay. Ready. >> So, is this the sheet that you're showing right now? This is part of the the plan set that we just passed around. >> Yes. And uh for the board, I I'm going to start with the exterior elevations and then we can review the plans because
I think that's most relevant to the discussion. >> Sounds good. >> So, uh if the board would reference, uh drawing SK7 and um should I enter these in as exhibits?
No, I think the the entire plan set is just exhibit A3. So, we'll just reference to each sheet. So, >> all part of exhibit A3. >> There there was I'm going to grab my notes. There was a number of modifications that we made after the previous
design was submitted and and reviewed. and all of the the primary changes were done to try and mitigate the exposure of the building on the Lewis Court side of the building, the east side of the building. So, we did a few things. We
took the elevation, the floor plan. I'll show you the floor plan in a few minutes, but I have this elevation SKO7 that shows the east side of the building is now a twostory structure and the west side of the building remains as a three-story structure. So, what we did
was we removed an entire floor off the east side of the building. It reduced the elevation of the building and height so that it's no longer visible from the Lewis Court side the east.
We also modified the roof lines. And if you note the the gable ends that projected out, we've we've chered those now so that we reduced the amount of the
roof that it ex is exposed and and viewed from all elevations of the building. We took the rooms that were located on the third floor and those were redistributed throughout the building.
That necessitated some dimensional changes to the structure of the building which are shown on the drawings that were submitted. And we also reorganized the services in the building. These are the support services, the kitchen, the dining areas.
We moved some of the elevator locations around and all of that was done to support flipping the service entrance from the east side of the building to the west side of the building. So what that did is supports the Langan site
plan of moving the generator and moving the waste and the support services that were previously on the east side of the site are now all on the west side of the site. and all of the internal services that
are connected to those that the the waste and such and the service entrance for food deliveries. All of that now happens on the west side of the site. So, we've eliminated all of that traffic and all that exposure on the east side
of the site. So, there's very limited activity. There's actually no activity happening on the Lewis core side of the site. Um, so let's just take a look.
SKO7, you see, is now a two-story elevation. Was previously a threetory elevation. This elevation two shows the the lowered roof elevations on the east side of the site. Elevation one shows the lowered
elevations on the east side of the site. So it was a really significant reduction. The west side of the site you can see remains the same but this is the side that faces the existing care one building. So there's no change there.
And the front elevation from the street you can see that the the east side of the building is now two stories and the west side of the building remains as three stories. the floor plan. And I'll start at the top
and we'll kind of work our way down. So you can see there's a roof plan and on the roof plan you'll see there's we've just highlighted this darker line here that is the west side of the building which remains as three floors and the east side of the building now is
an entire story lower. So it sits below the height restriction that side of the building. you look at SKO4, you'll see that the east side of the building now shows a roof where
previously those were resident units. So, we've eliminated all the resident units on the east side of the building and the residence units are now on the third floor only on the west side of the building. There's still the internal courtyard that remains so that the
residents have access to daylight and we have internal space inside the building. If you look at SKO3, this floor plan stays the same. This is now the second floor. Again, this is a roof now on the east side as opposed to
the west side where there's resident rooms above the second floor. The remainder of the arrangement of the building remains the same with the neighborhoods and the common services in the front, the country kitchens and the
support spaces for the residents. All that remains the same. And SKO2, which is the ground floor. Again, the main difference here is that points of entry that were previously on the east,
have now been changed and they're now on the west. Board have any questions? Board have any questions, Mr. Pomerio? The uh the only thing Mr. Chairman left that I have um on this diagramming is
SK1 which is the basement which is not visible. It's underground and that's really is 4,000 square ft and it's just service space down there. >> It's a support from my review is uh supports services and laundry. >> Yep. SK1.
>> Okay. >> There's just some dry storage. It's it's just support space. >> Okay. Does board have any questions? Mr. Rico. >> Now, a few other things that I want to bring to the board's attention. >> The and this is important. I believe the
the building is designed um to meet the criteria for the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services for licensing as an assisted living facility. Now they are memory care units and these
are memory care residents but from the state's point of view and from the point of view of lensure this is assisted living and it's identified under chapter 4.1 of the guidelines the
2022 guidelines for the design and construction of residential healthc care facilities all of the planning standards all the design standards assisted living. There's nothing in the code that speaks
to memory care. So as as as a type of alternative design or a different type of lensure, it is 100% assisted living. It's just that they're memory care residents.
I don't have any other material to offer to the board. >> Talk a little bit more about the memory use. >> Okay, that's very good. So, yes. So, just so we understand, I want to be clear the the entire building is under
access control. You can't get into the building and you cannot leave the building without going through an access access control point. All of the elevators and access into the elevators is by an access control. If
you don't have an ID badge, you don't have the ability to be able to access and use the elevators. Right? So, there's controlled movements in and out of the building. As you get deeper into the building and you get off the elevator, the elevator opens into common
spaces, the country kitchens and the living room spaces. And then as you move from those spaces further into the building, you go through additional access control points. So each of the neighborhoods has access control.
So there's it's really virtually impossible to be able to elope out of this building because of all of these security provisions. In addition to that, when the patients are in their rooms in the evening, the patients are are locked in their rooms, right? So there's there's access control
at that level. Care 1 has in their other facilities very sophisticated means and methods of monitoring how patients move. They have camera infrared camera systems that monitor the movements of patients. They
track the move movements of patient patients. They always know at all times where the patients are inside the building. This is what they do and they do an excellent job at it.
>> Absolutely. To ensure the safety of these residents. Right. Right. >> Does that uh conclude your direct testimony? >> Do we have any other question? I think so. Unless there's any questions on it. >> Okay. Uh, so I was going to go to the board. I just wanted to make sure. I didn't want to cut you off short. Okay.
Does the board have any questions for Mr. Pomerio? >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. um the your F, if I may. Um 23 is required. You're asking for 3
includes the third floor. >> Yes. Yes. >> That hadn't changed from the original submission. I I I would defer >> Mr. >> Mr. Wazner on
that's his >> Mr. Wazner if you want to just use the the podium up there that'll make it a little easier. >> Yeah. I'm not sure if that one working right now. >> Uh the uh the F includes the third floor, the second floor, the first floor, and the basement. Um so that's
how you get to 30. Um the prior application find my note right here uh was um 284.
So it's slightly larger. >> If I need to repeat I'm okay. >> So the large amount is due to the third floor addition. >> Right. So what we had to do to be able to absorb the movement of the beds from the third floor to the other floors,
right? So we had to change the format of the building and elongate the building slightly to be able to reabsorb those units into the floors below. >> I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned just with the F. So the F the
increase in the F is a result of the third floor only. Is that correct? the the third floor was the third floor was previously proposed. It's changing where those units fall in the building to make them in module. So, it's kind of reorienting the space.
>> Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Mr. Pomerio? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Mr. Prico. >> Thank you. >> All the witnesses I have this time I mentioned before I I have the attorney
who had Okay. >> Yeah, we can we can turn over to the uh the objectors. Just if you could just also again uh clearly identify who you're the attorneys representing. We'll hear from the attorneys first and then we'll hear from any members of the public.
Uh again, Richard Ley on behalf of a a 200 foot resident Kevin Catel uh individually and as a member of Care One opposition group. I guess we'll go in order of uh planner first and then >> Mr. Lee, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I
just I'm going need you to make sure you're on mic. So whether >> I guess we'll go in order of how they testified. So I'll direct my cross-examination to Mr. Wazner first. Mr. Wazner, uh you m you made a comment that uh you
were told to prepare the plans pursuant to a settlement agreement. Is that your testimony? >> Uh I modified the plans uh at the client's request as part of what I understand were settlement discussions.
>> Okay. And who gave you that instruction? >> My client. specifically who >> care one >> is there an individual's name that you can give us that from care one who gave you the instruction to modify the plans
pursuant to the settlement agreement >> uh I don't see how this is relevant is my question >> yeah I'm I'm not sure I see the relevance to it either >> fine um Mr. Mr. Wazer, do you have any familiarity at all with the terms of the settlement agreement?
>> I've read them. >> Okay. Are you aware why the uh planning board in the township of Edison bound itself to uh conduct this meeting within one meeting and and approve both the uh uh settlement agreement and the
application within one meeting? >> Again, you know, relevance here. The relevance here is that it might be in violation of both Whispering Woods and the Open Public Meetings Act. That's the relevance, >> which are all points that you can make if you decide to challenge this in court.
>> Question question regarding Mr. >> Well, so just for just for the record, this is a zoning board, not the planning board. The planning board has better look. >> I'm sorry, zoning board. I I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for misidentification. Um, Mr. Wisner, are you are you aware as
to why uh uh the township of Edison is paying over half a million dollars to the applicant as part of this settlement agreement? >> Yeah. Not within the scope. >> Well, he can answer whether he knows or not. >> Have Mr. Nagel >> if he doesn't know, he doesn't know.
>> Do you have any idea why? >> No. >> Okay. Now, you uh as part of your testimony, um I'm sorry, as part of your preparation of the plans, did you uh review the zoning ordinances of the
township of Edison? >> Uh I reviewed them. Yes. >> Okay. Um within that review, did you find a definition of what is an assisted living facility? >> I don't believe so. >> You did not find such a definition?
I don't believe so. >> Did you review section 30-1 of the zoning ordinances of the township of Edison? >> I've not reviewed it recently. >> Well, this application uh is for an assisted living facility, is it not?
>> Is that And you didn't review the ordinance regarding the definition of an assisted living facility. I'm here to test on the changes to the plans that I made subsequent to the original application.
>> Okay. And so you're not an expert in in uh behavioral health or Alzheimer's or mental disorders in any way. Is that true? >> I'm a professional engineer, not a health professional. >> Very good. Okay, that's all I have.
I I'll Mr. got asking questions. >> Could you stay your state your who you're representing for the record? >> Okay. Let let the record be reflect as I earlier did. Uh >> my name is Ron Gazeroski and I I have some brief questions. Uh were you the uh
>> I'm sorry. I we need to hear we need to hear who you're representing. That's fine. >> We need to hear who you're here representing. >> Who I represent? >> Yes. >> Amodel Sagali. S Y A L E. >> Okay. and she is also uh a member of
other uh citizens but she is their uh spokesperson with regard to this. Uh I want to kind of just clarify a couple of things. As I read the application as
well as the notice, there's reference to the prior application. Are you familiar with that? I've read some of the transcript and materials. >> Will you speak up a little louder, please? >> I've read the some of the transcript and reviewed the materials.
>> Okay. Now, in this uh notice making reference to certain uh engineering data uh with regard to the first application that is being incorporated into this
application, are you aware of that? I'm here to speak on behalf of the modifications I've made. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm here to speak on behalf of the modifications I've made. >> Well, wait a second. Uh, you're in other words, you're only speaking in terms of
the modification. You're not here to in any way address the original application drawings as they would apply to this application. In other words, you're completely unaware of them and you didn't consider them.
I've reviewed the prior drawings. I've made modifications to them. I've presented the modifications and that's tell me and I apologize for interrupting you. Okay. I I'm sorry for that. Can you tell me what part of the original application
is being incorporated into this application? >> Well, that's really a question for me. >> It's a question. It's a question to the witness, not to you. If he can't answer it, he can't answer it. >> I'm going to defer to the attorney to answer that. >> I'm I'm sorry.
>> I'm going to defer to the attorney to answer that. >> How can you refer to the attorney? He's not the question. You are You're the engineer. >> I want you to tell me what parts of the original application that you incorporated into this application. If
you can't answer that question, you can't answer the question. I can't answer that question. >> Are you also aware of the fact that with regard to that initial application in all of the engineering data which was included in application,
this board denied that application? Are you aware of that? >> I am. >> Are you also aware then by denying the application they denied the efficacy of all of the engineering data that was included in that first application?
That seems like a legal. Is there a question? I don't I'm an engineer. I'm not a >> Look, and I don't I apologize if I'm badgering you. I'm just a badgering guy. Having said that, you can present or give no testimony with regard to the
original application and the engineering data that was included in that application that is incorporated into this application. >> Okay. Okay. Is there a state? Is that a question? >> Yeah, it's a question. >> Can you restate the question?
>> Pardon me. >> Can you please restate the question? >> I'll restate the question. Now, in the original application, as in all applications, it's filled with engineering data, is it not? >> Yes. >> And you have no idea what was in that original application
that was included in this application. >> I reviewed the prior application. I've prepared modified plans and I've presented those modified plans tonight. I will need to continue to update these plans.
>> What parts of the original application as it pertains to engineering data that you modified and what parts you did not modify? >> So I modified the building footprint, the building layout, the grading, the
drainage, the utilities. I've essentially re-engineered the site. >> Pardon me? >> I have essentially re-engineered the site. >> So then you didn't rely upon anything from the first application >> in my presentation tonight? No.
>> Okay. Let me uh let me if I can refer to the uh review letter which is dated May I'm sorry, July the 6 of 2026 that was prepared by uh Neglia and refer you to page uh four of eight. Do you have that
before you? >> Yes, I have it. >> You have it. >> Page four. >> Page four of the Okay, let me just if we can go through this now. In preparing
uh an application, you of course have to work with the uh dimensions of the property in question, do you not? >> Yes. >> Okay. And at the very bottom of that letter, it says the applicant shall
provide a calculation breakdown of the proposed lot coverage not including the existing nursing home. Now, are you aware of the fact that there is a nursing existing nursing home on this site? >> I I'm not I'm not seeing this question
in my letter. >> What page? >> Pardon me. >> What page? >> I'm sorry, it's page four of eight. Let me show it to you. >> I have a nine-page letter from DNR. >> I'm sorry.
>> I have a ninepage letter from DNR consulting. >> Okay. At least >> I don't have any other review letters >> sent to the board. It's dated July the 6th of 2026. >> Thank you.
I have a copy of the letter you're referring to now. >> Take time to consider your >> I gota speak into the mic. Okay. Do you have it before you? >> I have the letter that you're referring to now. Yes. >> I'm looking at page four of eight of the
review letter prepared by Neglia. Uh and he lists the bulk deficiencies uh that he observes. Now, there is in fact a second building on this site, is there not >> the existing skilled nursing facility?
>> It's the intention of the applicant to have that building remain, not to demolish it. Correct. >> Correct. >> Uh, can you give me an approximation of what the square footage of that building is? >> Approximately 39,000 square feet. >> Pardon me.
>> Approximately 39,000 square feet. >> Okay. So if we're talking in terms of the total forro of buildings which are on that site that 39,000 square ft would be added on to the proposed building would it not
>> for the total F. Yes. >> Okay. Fine. Now once again uh where it says maximum floor area ratio uh permit required 0.25% 25% and with regard to just the memory care
facility, it's 30%. Now, as an engineer in conjunction with the architect, you could in fact reduce the size of this proposed building so that it beats the 25%
uh uh maximum permitted. >> I'd like to correct something you just said. The30 F is the new building plus the existing building. >> Pardon me. It's the new building plus the existing building.
>> Yes, it's the entirety of the 10acre. >> Why? Why does it say then? I'm sorry. Why? Why does it say then? Uh on number five, it excludes the existing nursing home. >> I didn't write this letter. I don't know why it says that. >> Wait a second. Okay, look, I understand.
Would you agree with me that right now the letter reads and says what is permitted or required is 25% and what is proposed is 30%. But what is reflected also in this
letter it says that that 30% does not does not include the existing nursing home. So if we were to look at the total uh floor a area ratio on this site, it would have to be that 30% plus the
existing nursing home. >> And I'm saying on the record that the 30% F the.3 includes the existing nursing home. >> Okay. So you know mistakes happen. You're saying that Neglia was just
simply incorrect in the figures they give. >> They may not have understood that that was our calculation. >> Now, having said that, you could reduce the size of this proposed facility so that you did satisfy uh the 25% regardless of what buildings were
considered. >> Any change to the area would change the calculation. >> Pardon me. >> Any change to the area would change the calculation. >> Okay. Now looking at for example the maximum building height it says that
required or permitted is 40 ft or 2.5 stories. Now what is proposed is 47 ft but you could reduce that to 40t could you not? >> It is less than 40 ft on the eastern
side of the building. >> It is less than 40T on the eastern side of the building. What about the western side? >> The western side is 47 ft. >> Don't you don't you have to consider both sides of the apple? >> It's the building and its entirety.
>> Okay. Uh also with regard to stories, a portion of this building is three stories high when only 2.5 stories is permitted. >> I understand. Now, as I recall your testimony, you also said that with
regard to the initial proposed building, you reduced the three stories on one portion of the building to 2.5 stories. Well, you could do that on the entire building, could you not? >> That's not the proposed application. >> I understand. But you could do it, couldn't you?
>> Could do lots of things, but it's not >> I don't care about that. But if you can reduce one half of a building to 2.5 stories, you could reduce the remaining balance to 2.5 stories, couldn't you? >> In theory, you could, but you could also increase it back to three stories.
>> Let me ask you this question. Uh, when a municipality passes a zoning ordinance, they're relying upon guidance being given to them by the master plan. Is that not correct? >> I'm not a professional planner. Okay. I
think this is heading into planning territory. >> I'm a little confused by number three which says minimum rear yard setback what is required or permitted is 60 ft and what is proposed is 40 73.96
ft. Uh pursuant to the zoning ordinance should that setback red be reduced to 60 ft rather than 73.96 ft? The rear setback requirement is 60 ft. The existing skilled nursing home is
less than 60 ft today. I believe I believe the comment is noting that our table refers to it as existing nonconformity and is suggesting that we need to get relief as opposed to calling it an existing nonconformity. Are
>> you saying it's an existing nonconformity, but the entire site is being expanded, is it not? So therefore that existing nonconformity uh must be remediated but you're seeking relief for that. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Also then you say a maximum building coverage is 15% and I believe you testified that it has been increased to 17.45%. >> 17.4% correct.
>> Now does that include the existing building? >> Yes it does. So when you take the existing building and the new proposed building, it totals coverage of 16.5%.
>> 17.4%. >> Pardon me. >> I'm sorry, 17.45. But you can cure that, could you not? By simply reducing the size uh of the care facility. That would obiate the necessity of
getting a variance. I'm sorry, I heard another voice. >> I I'm saying that if you wanted to, with regard to the proposed building, if you reduce the dimensions of it, you could bring the maximum building coverage to
within what is permitted by 15%. >> Changes to the building would change the coverage, which would increase. >> Lastly, we're talks in terms of maximum lot coverage. What is required or permitted is 30%.
>> Correct. >> That's correct. >> And you are proposing 43.2%. >> That's correct. >> Now, does that include uh the existing building? >> I believe it includes the existing building and the existing parking around.
>> You believe or you know that it uh does. I calculated it to include the existing building and the existing parking around it. >> Okay. Now, having said that, once again, when you take the 43.2% if you reduce the size of the proposed
building, you could satisfy what the ordinance requires. >> Reductions would reduce the number. Yes. >> Funny. >> Reductions would reduce the number. >> Okay. Now, just so we're clear, I mean, a municipality
when it passes an ordinance, it does not simply pick uh numbers out of a sky, does it? >> I don't know. I don't create ordinances. I'm not >> Well, okay. But our zoning ordinance made up of guidance being given to it by
the planning board, by the engineers, by the zoning officers and the like. And they are saying to the world at large, this is the way we want buildings to be built within our community. >> Is that a question? >> Yeah, it is a question.
>> I agree. There's an ordinance that the municipality sets. >> Okay. Now also uh just I have just a few more questions. Now uh I think it's be a proper question
for the planner not for you. Uh just a couple quick questions perhaps. Now I I'm looking at the uh settlement agreement which I would represent to the uh board that I've just seen for the first time this evening. Uh were you a
participant in the preparation of that document? >> I reviewed some of the numbers in the document to make sure they matched my plans. >> Pardon me. I reviewed some of the numbers, the dimensions in the agreement to make sure
that they matched my plans. To make sure they matched on the plan, >> they matched the plan, >> but they did not match with regard to the ordinances of the community of the or the zoning ordinance. Did they? In other words, you prepared, not you,
but the applicant prepared a document which he wanted signed by this board, by the township committee and whatnot, which was contrary to the existing zoning ordinances. >> We're asking for relief. >> I'm asking that question.
>> We're we're asking for relief on certain items. >> What? >> We're asking for relief on certain items from the zoning. Well, tell me tell me please if you can as an engineer when does the township council committee
where do they have the authority to give relief to a zoning question? >> That's right. I think this is a legal >> Well, he said they g he said they he said they put together a document which granted relief. Fine. I want to know if
he knows whether or not there's a provision wherever it may be that says that a township council can grant relief to a zoning board. Isn't that the proper function of this board? >> Pardon me. >> Planning questions.
>> Are you going to call Are you going to call planner? >> We do not have a planner this evening. We'll rely on the planning testimony from the original application which I respect it. So at a later date, you're going to call a planner. >> No, he's relying on the original >> relying on the original application, the
testimony by the planner, Paul Phillips, which requested very similar variances. I >> I apologize. You know, I'm an old man. I can't hear that. Good. >> We are relying on >> You're going to call a planner to testify. >> No, we are not >> listen to me. Relying on the original
application planner. Just so it's clear in my mind, you're relying on the testimony of the original planner who gave testimony and this board denied that application. >> That's correct. >> Can I be permitted to uh cross-examine
the architect? >> That's fine. >> And sir, I'm sorry I I didn't get your name. I apologize. Michael Pomeico. Now I'm hard of hearing. Michael
Pomeico. >> Pomear Rico. Mr. Pomear Rico. Mr. Pome Rico. Uh you testified to what? >> Tell him to step to the >> Okay. Well, when you you can when you
testified, you made a comment that uh you installed certain security devices or you designed certain security devices within the building that are intended to prevent residents from egress from both
their floor and the building itself. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And uh you made a statement that uh uh according to design these uh um um blockades if you will
prevent the residents from leaving the facility. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And you made the comment that uh um you were familiar with Care One and that Care One was great about it. Isn't that what you said? Care 1 utilizes very
sophisticated technologies to monitor their patients within their facilities. >> Okay. >> And do you have any data or or statistical studies that show Care One is is better at preventing residents
from uh uh egressing the building than any other uh uh memory care. >> That is outside of my purview. >> No. And um you're again you're not a behavioral uh scientist or a a
psychologist or psychiatrist or mental health specialist. >> The only thing that I can tell you is that I'm I I've been a healthc care architect for 45 years. >> Mhm. >> And um this is not a behavioral health facility. Behavioral health facilities
are identified as an I2 occupancy. >> Okay. And this is a residential occupancy. Behavioral health facilities are completely different typology of patient. It's a different typology of care model. And this is not a behavioral health facility in any way, shape or form.
>> But you have no >> it's not it's not identified as such by the state of New Jersey and it's not licensed as such by the state of New Jersey. >> You've made very clear that assisted living facility uh does not differentiate between memory care and
non-memory care. Is that correct? >> The the state of New the Department of Health and Senior Services in the state of New Jersey follows the 2022 guidelines section 4.1 which is assisted living facilities under the residential
code. >> Okay. Do you have any statistical data that shows Care One is better than any other memory care facility? >> I I told you already that that's outside of my purview. >> Okay, very good. So your opinion that
Care One is great about it is a lay opinion. >> It may be a lay opinion, but I've worked with Care One for many years and I've worked with them on developing these models and how these facilities function with these types of neighborhoods and how these patients interact with these
neighborhoods and these care models. And in my professional opinion, this model that you see here of using neighborhoods and how they process patients and manage patients within this environment of care
is in my opinion a superior model to other models that I have seen >> from an architectural point of view. >> Yes. Yes sir. >> Not from a human behavior point of view. >> I am an architect. What other what other entities have you designed buildings for compare uh other than Care One uh that
implement these um blockades and and devices to prevent egress? >> Well, I mean we do all types of health care facilities all over. We do skilled nursing facing people who have memory care deficits. What what other entities have you
designed buildings for? The only health care client that I work with in the behav in the assisted living space is Care One. >> Care one. Okay. Very good. >> But I've >> So you you have nothing to compare your
statement that care one is great at it any other. >> You're intruding into my ability. >> That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. That's all the questions I have. >> Ju just really quickly on redirect just to clarify, Mr. Rico, when you say neighborhood, you're talking about the common space within the building.
>> No, the neighborhoods are the areas within the building where the resident rooms are. So, >> but we're not talking about outside. >> The patients the patients reside in their neighborhoods and that is a access controlled area within the building.
>> Thank you. >> I I have a >> Yeah, go ahead. You're allowed to cross examine. >> Um I I want to just if I can uh reflect on a comment. So I I want clarification
from the attorney for the applicant. Is it your representation to this board that you did not intend to call a professional planner to give testimony before this board with regard to this application?
It's my intention not to call a professional planner tonight, but it's it's my intention not to call a professional planner for this evening, but we are relying on professional planning testimony from the original application which had very similar variances. >> Do you intend
>> We're proposing less intense variances. >> Do you intend to call a professional planner to present testimony before this board? >> We've already called a professional planner. >> Okay. Do you that if you're not going to call a professional planner, who then could I cross-examine with regard to the
planning testimony of a hearing that took place six years ago with a different use? >> It's a similar use, and you already had the opportunity to cross-examine our planner at that time. >> Who Who is your professional planner to say that the uses are similar? >> We need to get past this because you
keep drilling down on this. This is the exact same use. It's the exact same use. there. >> There's no diff. We've already I've already testified. >> Can we let the witness uh answer the question, please? >> I've already testified that this is
licensed as an assisted living facility, which is the exact same license as the original facility. There's no change in use. >> Did you Did you read the review letter uh from the board professional, Nolia? Did you read that letter?
>> No, I did not. >> Didn't read. But yet appeared to give testimony and comment with regard to that. Now he said on page seven of eight, the applicant shall provide testimony addressing the proposed D1, D4, D6, and C variances as illustrated
in this review letter. You are not qualified to give testimony with regard to that, are you? >> I am qualified to give testimony. >> Answer the question. >> I am now trying to answer. >> You're not a profession. Are you a professional player? Mr. >> Chairman, I'm I'm not going to >> He's not a professional. This is this is
not unproductive. No, >> I I I I really and no, I don't want to say really and truly here's a letter from your professional is telling you they have to provide testimony as to this application, not as to an application that took place six years
ago with a different use. Also, let's go down further. Applicants professionals are provide testimony addressing positive criteria. They may show that the proposed use promotes the general welfare or that the specific side is uniquely qualified. He wants he's saying
to you, I'm going to rely upon testimony going back uh six years, which by the way was denied by this board. >> Sir, do you have questions for this witness? Do you acknowledge the fact that you are not qualified to give testimony with
regard to the planning criteria or the satisfaction or provide as to planning? You're not, are you? >> I am not a professional planner. >> Well, then fine. No further question. >> You have any? >> No further questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pomerio.
Open up to the public then. >> All right. So, we now going to open up to the public. Um, you want to just go the parameters to the uh Yes. So, we uh everyone will have five minutes to speak. Um the comments should be uh limited to the settlement agreement to
the final site plan. Obviously, as we've all repeatedly heard, please speak loudly, clearly into the microphone so we can get so we can get it. I'm going to you're going to be asked to be um you're going to be sworn in. We're going to ask that you state your name uh name and address for the for the >> presenting each witness a copy of the
settlement agreements. They can refer to it since no copy has ever been provided to any of these individuals prior to right now. >> Thank you. >> Also, I'm sorry. Point of order. I just want to clarify that each member of the public who's going to be speaking or
asking questions is not represented by a council. Just want to make that clear. >> That's fine. No, no. I want to make that clear that you're not having your clients ask questions. >> No, I'm not asking for the attorney's client. >> Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes, I did. >> Can you state your name and address for
the record? >> Pat Carol, 85 King Street, Edison, New Jersey, 08820. >> All right, proceed. >> So, we are within the affected rate. We did receive a notice. Um, it was a holiday weekend, so we didn't receive that notice right away. We were provided very little time to get ready for this.
This is my first time ever seeing the settlement agreement. I would also like to officially request copies of the drawings be sent to the public so that we can understand what's being proposed right behind our houses. My address, if you look at it on Google Maps, backs up directly to the nursing homes property. I am currently bothered almost every
single day by loud noises at their facility. And by building a larger facility, these noises are only going to get louder. Their current generate their current generator on site is already a noise disturbance for the entire block. Um, and I understand that this was addressed for Lewis Court, but nothing has been addressed for King Street. And
it appears that they're planning to move the generator closer to King Street. So, I would like to also request a sound report. And I would like that sound report to be committed on site so that it can deal with real field conditions such as, you know, the barriers that this generator is going to be facing and not just the perfect scenarios inside of
uh the manufacturer's warehouse or something like that. Um, I think we should also have new safety and traffic plans drawn up because as was discussed, all this information is being uh based on information that was given to you guys 6 years ago. Those traffic patterns
have changed drastically and traffic has gotten worse, not better in our neighborhood. Um, another thing I wanted uh to the nursing home to consider as well is the potential cost impact. I'm not sure. I haven't seen any drawings that show there is a golf course that's right
across the street which would lead to potential harm to your patients should a golf ball go through the window. Are there any reinforced windows or any sort of netting or anything that's being proposed in order to protect your patients from such health hazards? Um, and another thing before I wrap this up,
I have a feeling there will be another meeting and I'll be able to address more points then. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of time today. It's already past 10 o'clock and a lot of people deserve to get home. Um, I did reach out to one of our council members for Edison who was able to reach out to the assemblymen and one of the public members here was also able to reach out
to the assembly men who you might have seen earlier in the uh room. Robert Carbenchuk, he had to leave because he had other professional matters and wasn't able to address this, but he's fought this case in the past and is willing to continue fighting on our behalf. Also, I spoke with Bill Jenkins
who is the assistant head of schooling for Waldler Hortridge. They have not received any sort of notice that this um proceeding has begun again and they are completely against this. They told me I have the right to speak on their behalf at tonight's meeting, but the school does not have anybody that they could
send here. Um but they would request to be present at the next meeting so that they can address all of their concerns with the Care One facility, not just with this expansion, but with other current problems that they're experiencing with their facilities. And last thing I'll end this with is uh
the land that they're proposing to build this on. This is a map from FEMA. I can provide it to the board. It's all protected wetlands that surround the nursing home. So, I'd like to understand how these civil drawings are not going to impact the protected wetlands that
the uh existing facility is already established on and it should also violate EPA standards that were recently passed not long ago building on wetlands. I'll end with that. Thank you and I hope you all have a good night. >> Thank you very much. Next member of the
public. >> M mr chairman. >> Next member of the public, please. >> Mr. Chairman, uh I want to apologize, but I'm looking at this document. It is called a settlement agreement and it calls for the signature of members of
this board as well or the whatever it may be. H how does let me now let me just take one step back before I put my foot in my mouth. Where's the settlement agreement? I I I should have raised this in the very beginning, but my question is I'm
looking at this settlement agreement. Was this settlement agreement reviewed by and agreed upon by the zoning board prior to this hearing this evening? >> If so, how how can you in fairness to my clients sit in judgment of what they're
proposing? I mean, think about it. Sir, your questioning the concept of a whispering woods, which No, excuse me. Let me You spoke. Let me answer your question. >> Let me answer your question, please. >> You're questioning the concept of whispering woods. What a whispering
woods does is allows us to tentatively negotiate the parameters of a settlement agreement. Nothing has been agreed upon formally. That's been it's an understanding uh between essentially council with with the consultation guidance of our clients. the settlement
agreement and the terms and the proposals for what the uh the applicant is is seeking to do come before this board as part of this hearing. Nothing has been signed yet because it all depends on whether or not the board approves or rejects the the
>> approves or rejects the settlement. So has not been has not been signed. It will not be signed unless the board approves the H >> having said that and and I'm I want to speak respectfully because I've been doing this for a long time and and that's why we have courts and that's why we have hearings. This zoning board six
years ago denied this denied an application that they're relying upon. Okay. And uh that was based upon and there was no prerogative writ. If there was one filed, then this board
would have had to defend their action and the objectors would have been able to participate in that progative red suit. That was not done. So now, six years later, we're asking this board to enter into
negotiations to basically settle this case. And I and I think that everybody acted perhaps innocently in this matter. But I I'm respectfully stating to you I think it's highly improper and I think
that it should be rethought. >> Thank you. >> And I can assure you that if in fact I receive an adverse uh decision from this board that will all be a part of a prerogative rit suit which I will file. >> Thank you. Go up to the next. Yeah.
>> My name is Parth Sha. Um I am living at 74 King Street. >> Sorry, I just need to swear. >> I swear. >> You swear. I got to say for the record otherwise for the prerogative suit challenge. Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes. >> And now can you state your name and
address for the record? >> Sure. Thank you to the board and I appreciate everyone here. My name is Parth Sha and I live on 74 King Street. But before I give a testimony, there are a number of young ladies here, as you can see, it's past their bedtime. They
wanted to say a few words. So, if would you allow for them to say uh they'll come up, they'll swear, and they'll state their names and and state their >> We have no objection to that. Perfect. Thank you. >> But you're on the clock, sir. So, if you want to state your case, so this way we don't. >> Okay. So, that's fine. And then Okay.
So, I I'm not a lawyer, but um a quick u examination um of some of the things that I was listening on what the the various uh professionals were talking about. And um
I just want to respectfully um disagree uh of the val validity of this hearing because under New Jersey case law, a whispering woods settlement hearing requires a dedicated standalone
agenda to ensure a clear public awareness and focused deliberation. mixing this massive zoning meeting shifts with unrelated municipal businesses which we were just the first
two hours of our meeting today was with an another entity uh and that I believe is unfair to the people here and uh what we're trying to achieve. Uh the next thing I wanted to discuss here
um is that uh perhaps the board um needs to um the board has possibly no legal authority to settle this matter because the underlining lawsuit and
jurisdiction uh under New Jersey court law developer had only has 45 days to challenge the board's original decision. waiting uh approximately 3 years means their legal claims are completely
timebarred. The board uh should consider not uh reviewing any of this and legally this the matters that they're uh the developer is uh putting together is invalid. uh it expired the lawsuit as a
is doing this is like something of a backdoor and bypasses local zoning ordinance. Another thing I wanted to discuss here the public due process rights have fundamentally been violated tonight. The
proposed settlement agreement was never made uh available for the public inspection prior to this meeting. Even these various uh gentlemen here to my right had just got their uh the documents in front of them. They no one got a chance to really prepare the
settlement or see the settlement. I think that is absolutely unfair. Um and I want to state that for the public. Prior to this meeting, we are being asked to comment on a rushed secret agreement without being given the
statutory time to review the text, consult with our experts, formulate a meaningful questions. I request immediately to postpone this vote until a full settlement documents are made public for at least a minimum of 14
days. And now I would like to thank you for listening to me. I would like to ask the young ladies to go ahead and say a few words. >> Do I have to swear? >> I don't. Okay.
Okay. My name is Sori Sha and I live on 74 King Street. Um, we are focusing on how the expansion of the settlement directly threatens public safety, which is a court um duty of the zoning
board to protect. All right. My name is Samira Tube and I live on 26 Morning Glory Lane in Edison. And um we think this is a real concern because we're worried about the pedestrian safety and the safety of children, especially um us and many of
our friends as we're always biking in the King Street neighborhood and in that area and it already has quite windy and narrow roadways. Um, and another example of this is one of our friends who actually got hit by a car and got involved in a car accident in Edison.
So, we're worried about our safety while we bike and the safety of all of our peers. >> Hi, my name is Envy Patiel. I live at 5 Foley Avenue and I'm an upcoming 9th grader at John JP Stevens High School. Um because of how Inman is built,
there's not a lot of sidewalks for us and many other children to walk, which is like a big safety hazard in my opinion because well, we're walking alongside vehicles and it's a burden on us and it just makes us feel unsafe while we're trying to get around our
town. Um my name is Samira Sevita and I live at 160 Westgate Drive and I'm an upcoming 9th grader at East Brunswick Magnet School. I think safety should come before development because as teens we often use our bikes or walk around as
our form of transportation and I think having a commercial expansion would take away what we have and how we use um >> sorry speak into the mic as best you can. >> Yeah. Children like us, we are exploring our
com community and foreshadowing potential accidents is and this foreshadows potential accidents and tragedies. Good evening. My name is Ana and I'm going to 8th grade at John Adams Middle School and I live on 97 King Street. I'd
like to start off by saying this construction project would be almost directly in my backyard, posing a significant risk to young children, basically me and my friends who frequently play there. The building would be directly seen for my brother's bedroom window and would be a huge distraction. If it were to proceed, it
would not only endanger the safety of us kids, but also disrupt the peaceful residential environment, ultimately making it a loud area that is not ideal for children of any age. Furthermore, this is a zone residential lot which was a major consideration for my family and many others when moving here or into
this area. Moreover, construction such as a large hospital compromises the public safety of the property, the entire neighborhood and its residents. Essentially, I strongly believe that this construction project is a recipe for disaster in such an active and
child-friendly area. Thank you. Hi, my name is Rava Pangiar. I'm going to be a seventh grader at John Adams Middle School and I live on 101 King Street. This project is very close to my house. So, while younger children do play in the area, a lot of people pass
by on walks like me and the area is like primarily used by pedestrians. So occupying the area with a building will not provide a space for people who walk like me. I think that this area was is a good place for people like me to go by
and pass by. So using that area and filling it up would not be a good idea. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Next member of the public. Next member of the public wants to be heard.
>> You swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth. >> Yes. >> Can you say your name and address of the record, please? >> Sure. Um, hi everyone. My name is Ankit Majmudar, 89 King Street. Yeah. Uh, Ankit Majmudar, 89 King Street. Um so I
moved into this neighborhood last year and we fell in love with wonderful neighbors. We saw children running around taking school bus and we this is the kind of neighborhood we really wanted our son to grow up and he goes to jams. Uh he's going to be going to the
seventh grade. Uh so today I'm here I cut short my vacation because I got this notice on July 1st that there is a hearing there's a big construction project and we have great neighbors who told me about that just few days ago. So I'm here to raise awareness. My
neighbor, my backyard faces directly to caravan facility. So some of the scenarios that you are hearing today, it's a reality for me, right? I'd see there were two two trees that fell down, right? The gentleman you mentioned the landscape is up to date, but it's not.
Two trees fell down. I can see the vehicle movement. I can see the dump truck making noises. I can see uh all the workers working on the backyard. And when I reached out to care one, hey there is an issue the response I got this was again without me knowing any of
this going on that we are going to take care of in future we are not going to do about anything about this right now. So that's a concern that if you you have a corporation doing a business already not considering a residential request that there is a trouble right so that's the
one nuances the other concern I have is the whole process to me looks a little bit lack of transparency right just few days no details I'm hearing that uh request for planner is being denied that it's already done six years ago I just
moved in last year I want to know I want to hear from planner Why why are we not bringing planners on site for this hearing? It's a very it's supposed to be a transparent process. Right? So that being said, I think it's a reasonable request to the board who has been doing
this for years. Give us more time. We want to hear more from both sides. We want to see all the documents, right? I think it's unreasonable to just vote today and have a decision. So that's a request. Uh also the facility was
probably built 25 years ago. The case was last case was 6 years ago where it was denied. The reality today is different. Road is busier than ever. Today if you go to the school in the
morning or rush hours you will see it's not the same road probably it was six years ago. the flood waters, traffic, concerns from the kids, right? Concerns from the new neighbors who are hearing this for the first time. I think it
needs to be addressed and uh I have full faith in the board that they will do the right thing, give us more time to understand this better and and uh take this forward. So, thank you. Could
you Yeah. Do you swear affirm tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> Yeah, I swear. I'm Rajie Pangar. I'm resident of 101 King Street right behind the K1 facility. Uh like many things have been said. So I would not repeat that and I would say I'm a software
engineer by profession but I'm a dad of two kid. I have to drop my kid every day like they are one is in high school another one is in a uh like middle school like the traffic pattern has changed a lot today the the the road near where the careman facility is way
too thin like it's when you are coming back you can't reach home to drop your another child there's not enough time like so it's already so bad if such a big facility is coming in it will make it so worse that it will be blocked all the way up to a Martin Luther King school it will be really bad like the
nearest big facility uh on Inman uh Avenue is the shopping uh area which is now like the stop and shop which is closed. The the width of the road there is way too big. This area is like way too thin like it's barely there are like
two cars they can get stuck like this is and all the time the trees are falling. This is like having something like three times bigger than what is there today will make the traffic pattern way too worst. That's what I would like to add up. Thank you very much. Next member of the public,
folks. Um, as we we said in the ground rules, we don't allow for any applause, booing of interrupting of anyone. I when the kids came up, they're a totally different story, but let's just be adults. Just just keep the the proceedings civil. Thank you so much. Good, sir. Our turn. >> Do you swear from they the testimony you
give tonight will be the truth? >> I do. >> You state your name and address for the record, please. >> My name is Sanjay Amin. I live on 1368 in Man Avenue. um right facing the actually I live right facing the inman avenue where the where the whole traffic line basically gets queued up every
morning so I was part of this whole proceeding 5 years back and I attended each and every meeting one thing I'll tell you the inman avenue 5 years back it hasn't gotten one inch bigger and the queue of the of the all all the cars
which gets queued up which is probably goes way beyond the caravan facility Right? That hasn't basically decreased at all. Right? Only thing which has basically changed is the people who are sitting in front of you. Our problem has remained same. Our ask has remained same
and and the desire for carbon to make more money basically has that aspiration has goes beyond the limit that if I remember correctly this used to be the 90,000t facility. They basically Mr. Architect said oh we have significantly
reduced the building. they have how how could they reduce the building from 90,000 how could they reduce the size of the building significantly if the size square foot goes from 90 to 95,000 ft I think I may not have been good in the
math but at least at least I know that 95,000 ft² is bigger than 90,000 square ft so whatever these people are saying it is just the for them for them it just that they'll go home you all will go home and all these people have a
generator humming like a like a like a massive massive machine which is going to basically kill that sleep at night. 114 people bed only the exhaust from the kitchen will basically wake you up. Forget about the generator. So I really want you to think you all are going to
go home. Think about how it would feel to all these people. Excuse me to to when we go home. So, and I I basically I I I'm right next I'm I'm right neighbor right next door neighbor to them and I know how how this care and I'm not
basically blaming you all but there are at least four or five times a year I go to them and tell them that hey there are so many dead trees please cut nobody even care to come now I'll give you another example so now they're building
what 200 car facility now their employee comes 7:00 in the morning. So they in the snowy days they really have to make sure that they start cleaning that whole parking lot 5:00 in the morning. Now I know precisely how those those those
snow thrower comes and basically hit the ground because I hear them every snow day 5:00 in the morning and with this 7 200 car garage it is going to become nightmare for each and every every neighbor in the in in the in that
vicinity. So please think about this thing and I know what what basically behind the door settlement you guys have done it but think about all these people sitting here and there are so many people who wanted to come here but but but be the way this whole thing was
planned they basically sent notice on 26 majority of the people were actually outside and when we are coordinating there are certain people in Washington certain people in Dallas we were coordinating over the phone and they basically cut their plan to basically be here and there at least 20 other people
who could not make it today just because they basically planned it in such a way that let's plan it around the 4th of July weekend. So we have a least amount of people who basically will come and they will have a easy way to basically get through it. So so please be a human
being and be just think of a human being and think of a family person living in this area. I I'm I'm not making any emotional speech. I just want you to be the fair to all this additional township. Thank you. >> You swear affirm the testimony you give
tonight will be the truth. >> Can you state your name and address for the record, please? into the mic, please. >> Hold on. Sorry. I think the microphone may not be working. Frank, you just want to check that one. >> Hello. Is it better?
>> Okay. So, there are two ways uh we can go to our offices or drop our kids. One is in Man Avenue. The other one is Woodland Avenue. There is already construction going on. There is a big community coming. So the the traffic is worse that side. And in Man Avenue also with this construction is going to go
over. So as Rajiv said, right now when there is a peak hour, it takes approximately 5 to 20 minutes. There are 10 to 50 cars in queue that we have to cross. And with this facility, it's going to go worse even more. I have my six year 5year-old old son who I drop
almost every day and there is no pedestrian traffic. the road is really narrow and uh it's unsafe for the kids as well. You would you have heard the other kids also talk about that. That's all I have to add. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next member of the
public. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> I swear. >> Can you say your name, address the record, please? >> Uh my name is Vive Desai. I'm the resident of 87 King Street. So I'll so I live right uh in so the the care facility is on the my is on my backyard
every morning around 6:00 the truck comes the generator sound I do wake up I just moved into the uh neighborhood like one and a half years uh back uh you know just because of the backyard is so beautiful is a luscious green tree but the sound of this generator uh you know
the sound of the truck always wakes me up. So today while I was listening and making notes all I could hear was that there is a revised plan there is a revised plan and all I could understood was they have taken the problem of the east side and they are moving everything to the west side. So there is no plan
right that's what I understood what I see is that uh you know after few years when I'll wake up I'll have this 33 floor building there would be a much more bigger generator there will be truck sound coming around right so and there is this is not what I expected you know when I moved into this amazing
place so my request to you guys is one is give us more time right do take a look at there is no transparency that was offered to us and this whole challenge of moving everything to west side. They are still saying that we'll have a three-story building on the west side. So nothing has changed for the
west side. So they went back they they they came back on the drawing board and all they did was they took the issues on the east side and they are pushing it on the west side. So I I'll request the board to take a look at this uh you know think more from a resident resident point of view right and that that would
be it sir. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next member of the public. >> Uh hello, my name is Rafrit Tali uh from 97 King Street. >> You swear from the testimony you give tonight will be the truth. >> I do. >> Okay, you can continue. Thank you. >> Um so my primary objection is really to
the use variance itself um that to keep it designated as residential and um uh not put a commercial flag on it. Uh the next is the height of the structure. As it was also mentioned by a couple of my
neighbors, the adjustment of just one side is not something that should be accounted for a significant adjustment to the overall uh plan that is being proposed. In the previous hearings, the height of this structure was almost a
standing uh objection that was resonated on most of the board members uh during the vote. the such a minor change or of the facade to make it look like they're actually um doing something about it should should clearly be discounted. The
height was for the whole structure. Any point of the structure exceeding the height is a violation of the ordinance. Um on the safety side, this is something which is very close to my heart because I have two kids and um to state the
obvious, people with severe memory loss are known to get disoriented and violent. There have been plenty of incidents where patients have wandered off premises and either caused harm to themselves or to others around them. Um while the applicant has uh displayed
certain security measures in their u architect and uh um the discussions and uh exhibits that they've shared uh the the approving the uh this plan basically is putting the residents within few feet
of this danger like based on this um I I just want to have a a quick question to the applicant or if anybody has an answer to is what happens if there's a fire in the building? Where do those patients go when they are put out of
harm's way? What security measures are you going to have that all of the patients that are now putting are now circulating around the property are not going to cause any harm to the to my kids or me. I I have absolutely no assurances that there will be enough
security measures in place within the time that it takes for within a evacuation where the emergency personnel is probably looking at containing the fire or the emergency itself where there could be another one happening right under their nose
and that that is putting me at harm's way. I do not accept that. The last thing which is probably much minor much more minor than this is the light and sound uh nuisance that this this poses. This this will become a 24/7
operation. It's and a threetory. I live on King Street. King Street should also be given the first class citizen treatment that you gave to the east side. Lewis Court is not the only one facing this. Inman Avenue will still see three stories. King Street will
still see three stories. the the height alone goes over and beyond what I can see from my building my the highest point from my house. I will be able to see just a building in front of me and and that completely
changes the landscape that I bought in this is my current view and my house is actually shown in one of the exhibits that uh that was presented earlier. my view changes from a green landscape
to a hospital in front of me and and that just completely changes the quality of life. There's there's so many reasons so many more reasons that my neighbors have also brought up and I completely agree with them. Uh but I strongly uh suggest that you you reject this
proposal and add its merit. We had a good run eight years back. I really would expect the same outcome of this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next resident wanting to be heard. >> You raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be
the truth? >> I do. >> Say your name and trust for the record, please. >> Uh my name is Neil Jarth. I live at One Lewis Court in Edison, New Jersey. Zero8. >> Thank you. >> 08820. Um, so
>> to the mic. Thank you. >> So, uh, it's been established that this is a residential area and this project will negatively impact all the surrounding neighbors and the quality of life. Uh,
we obviously need a copy of all the documents that were u discussed. Um, so I'd appreciate if we could get copies of the documents, the drawings, and um, you know, keep in mind that this is a 9-year-old case and others have already
said that uh, a lot of things change in 9 years and if things haven't been uh, uh, recent traffic studies, etc. haven't been conducted, I don't think this board would accept a 9-year-old uh, uh, 9-year-old outofdate um, results. So uh
that's something to consider. Uh so we also need a comparison from the original design to the revised design. Um we need to make sure that the uh applicant has reintroduced the revised projects with all of the expert
testimony. As has been stated tonight, not all the experts were here. I know that they were relying on uh previous testimony, but um you know there are aspects to this that need to be um heard. U
there should be no variance granted for this project and we need to make sure that this traffic study is as I said is current. Uh again it's 9 years old. Um if a traffic light is needed then the applicant must pay for it. The uh
applicant must meet all the current uh all of current day laws in Edison County state uh all regulations by the state, the DP, the EPA, DO um and must meet all current storm water management laws have
uh and the uh applicant hasn't uh uh testified as to why this will help Edison and all of its neighbors. Uh we've heard some of the testimony of the security uh that they're planning for this facility, but as some of uh my
neighbors have said, um you know, a plan is great until something goes wrong and everything goes out the window. So uh there's a fire or something as was mentioned in by the previous uh uh neighbor that what's going to happen to the rest of us?
uh what protection um uh protections are provided for safety fences uh etc. What kind of monitoring, gate uh entrance, etc. Uh I really haven't heard too much about that in the applicant's uh testimony
and you know the the the sound testing has to be uh has to be done uh with regards to the uh um to the applicant's proposal uh during various times uh you know as has been said many times already. I
don't want to repeat too much, but uh these these sounds are going to be there forever. You everybody here else gets to go home. We live there. We're stuck with the results. We have to live through it. And once these things are done, they're not going to change. I mean, it
it so we're stuck with what happens. We have to live with it. I ask that the zoning board not uh vote on this application tonight so we'll have adequate time to review all the documents that this should have been offered to
all the residents and rather than uh sneaked in um and tried to uh hoodwink us by uh uh pushing this through without giving us a chance to review anything. Three business days, that's it. That's
all we were given. And as has been said, uh, many of our neighbors are away on vacation because of July 4th. And some came back early. They shouldn't have had to do that. Others are still away and they won't they won't have the opportunity to
testify. Today's the uh uh last day and the decision is going to be made. There should be consideration for the conditions and even if this project or proposed expansion goes through, there must be significant uh
curtailment of what they can do and restrictions and oversight because we're stuck with the results. >> Thank you very much. Next member of the public, please. Thank you. Do you swear from the testimony you give will be the truth? >> I do. Can you
>> say the name and address of the record, please? >> I'm Susan Dylan. I live on 90 King Street. I lived there all my life, 71 years. And this building shouldn't even be put up. In the 70s, they had a big
fire in Birwood. They took the oxygen tanks down and then they had took the people out. They were all over the lawn. They used our water. They had to get our water from King Street to put out the fire. And then you have Martin Luther
King there. They have autistic kids. They have a few that ran out. It's dangerous. You have another school there. It's just dangerous. It doesn't belong on Emman Avenue. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next member of the
public wanting to speak. >> Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm that the testimony I give today will be the truth? >> I do. >> Can you say your name and address for the record, please? >> Kevin Dylan. >> Mike. Is mic good? Everybody can hear me. >> Um, speak to the mic, please.
>> Yeah. Is it good now? >> There you go. >> Yes, it's good now. >> Thanks, man. Should get a new microphone amplifier. Um, good evening. My name is Kevin Dylan. I live on King Street, directly behind the Care One facility. I lived on that street for 37 years. My mom, who just spoke, has lived there
since 1955. We've seen lot a lot of changes in this neighborhood over the years, some good, some bad. Given that history, I could tell you with confidence that this facility will have serious negative consequences for our street, especially when it comes to safety. Over the past
decade, the biggest problem has been massive increases in traffic and the danger it brings to the intersections around our street. I think the town recently acknowledges acknowledged this when they approved the lights at Tingley and Rawway. That may have been Scotch Planes, but um but nothing has been done
for imminent old Raridan. That intersection is extremely dangerous. 10 to 15% of the time when I drive past West 9 towards my street, I have to slam on my brakes for someone coming off Iman, ignoring the stop sign or assuming I'm turning right. The added traffic from this facility, its employees,
deliveries, ambulances, etc. will only make this worse. And if there is an accident, will emergency vehicles even be able to reach the intersection? I believe that there Sorry. Um, with more traffic, it becomes more likely it happens again. So, I'll
ask directly, have Care 1's engineers completed any new independent traffic studies for IM in the affected intersections um since the previous ones? Um or has the town evaluated the risk of imminently?
Um, every day during the school year, I watch kids trying to cross while cars fly by, dodging drivers who pull around um backed up traffic and drive down the shoulder while others make dangerous left turns through the crosswalk. And people walk up in around blind curves near the current facility with no
sidewalks at all. Teenagers on ebikes and scooters. Um, you know, they're zipping around. It's dangerous even without this expansion. And while I focused on mostly safety here, um, the concerns are environmental, too. Just the other day during the storm, I spent
multiple days listening to Care One generator rumbling behind my house. Now, there will be two generators or a louder generator. um you know, will they be bigger generators or or what? And then there's also the runoff stream behind the houses at the end of our street. I've personally seen that flood into
people's backyards. I don't know how the paving will affect the the runoff water if it will also go down there or be handled some other way. Um you know, I'm all for companies expanding and I understand the need for more elder care, but this location isn't it. It's dangerous. It's disruptive and it
doesn't solve any of the problems on this side of medicine. It only makes them worse. In 37 years on King Street, this is the first time I felt the need to show up to one of these meetings. That should tell you how bad I think this will be for our neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next member of the public
board. >> No, there's someone. >> There's someone else. Hang on a second. There's someone. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm the testimony? Give 10 time will be the truth. >> Yeah, I do. >> Can you say your name and address for the record, please? >> My name is Sunil Bandari. I live in 95
King Street. >> So, apart from all the things other people said about traffic, I just want to say one more thing. They are bad neighbors. My backyard touches their backyard. The trees in their yards in their yard are not maintained. They have
been fallen. They I see them fallen trees for years. They just did some cleaning a few weeks back. Now I know why, right? So I don't think Edison should allow people to convert their single family homes to commercial properties. This will set a bad precedent. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public wanting to be heard? Let's call. Anyone from the public wanting to be heard? >> Please approach. Richard Ley for the record in summation for my client. Mr. Le, if you just bring the microphone up a little bit.
>> Sorry. Richard Lehey uh uh Secret New Jersey in summation on behalf of my client. Um, I'm not going to repeat the uh argument for jurisdiction and insufficient notice only to say that the worst uh uh consequence of the uh what
we are considering insufficient notice is uh we don't have the ability to call our own expert at this uh extremely constricted uh notice time which was uh can only be
conceived as by design. Uh, I graduated law school in 1998. 1998, 1988. A and in 1986 I worked for a firm called Meel and Michelle
who were counsel on Whispering Woods and I helped write the brief. This settlement agreement and this proceeding is the worst perversion of the ruling in that case I have ever experienced.
To allow a settlement agreement to dictate how this board operates down to how long a person can speak. The fact that you have to make a decision tonight is unconscionable.
unconscionable. That's not what Whispering Wood stands for. You cannot zone for fear of litigation. I understand you're under marching orders. I understand the township is paying an enormous amount of money to
the applicant for some reason other than the fact that they were denied their approvals six years ago, but you're an independent board and you have an independent moral obligation to do what's right for the township of Edison.
So, please do that. Thank you very much. uh want to thank you for your attention. Uh let me just first say that the settlement agreement that you have before you this is an unexecuted
document. Not executed. It is not signed. And we are here today uh for you to independently assess what is before you. >> So please
>> pardon >> closer yet maybe I'll okay uh I would also as my colleague has done incorporated the portions of the prior hearing when this matter was voted upon.
I will do likewise and I would like to have marked into evidence the transcript of the prior hearing. Also at the prior hearing uh I did present witnesses who testified as expert planners and I want to specifically incorporate their
testimony uh as well. uh nobody has the authority to simply arbitrarily uh decide a case such as this. I I respect board members. I've appeared
before board members throughout the state and I'm asking this board to respectfully if you were present at the prior hearing five or six years ago, jog your memory, think about it, and remember this. The
testimony that was given by my experts six or seven years ago was adopted before this board council is repeatedly said to you. He is incorporating what was presented to the board six or seven
years ago. Well, guess what? You denied that application then. After hearing everything, after listening to his witness, after listening to his experts, you denied the application. And what they're saying to you today, this is a
modification of the earlier application that you denied. Having said that, how could you possibly approve this? Now, I know that often times people look for compromise and seemingly there was a document prepared
that was a compromise of some sort which my client did not have the opportunity to participate in. uh when I listen to my uh representatives and listen to the community, I understand now how this
country works. We're here to listen to these people. You've listened to them and I would urge you urge you to s your conscience and deny this application. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else from the public that wants to be heard? Sir, please
approach. You could have a seat, Mr. Gazowski. Thank you, Mr. Ley. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony gave tonight will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Can you say state your name and address to the record, please? >> Sahil Shaw, 78 King Street, Edison.
>> Mr. Shaw, you can bring that microphone up just be so you comfortable. There you go, sir. >> Can you Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Perfect. Thank you so much. >> All right. I just want to say I opposed to the project. Um I've been I think
it's especially being near schools and and other facilities. It will just not only um bring down the value of the houses but also um will just make it more chaotic at the at those intersection areas as well as the schools. I've been working in schools
for 15 years. I have been seeing I work with autistic students and students with difficulties. I just think that um bringing this project will um bring everything else down. So I oppose a project.
>> Thank you very much. Anyone else uh from the public wanting to be heard? Last call. Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public portion? >> Motion to close public portion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Mr. Schneider, second by
Mr. Patel. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I oppose nay. The eyes have it. The public portion is now closed. Um there was a question that did come up during uh one of the attorneys. Miss Knight, um from your review, uh they the one of the
attorneys had raised the issue that the applicant did not present planning a testimony as a professional planner and given that you had given a report on it. Would you mind just shed your opinion on this? Sorry to put you on the hot seat at 11 o'clock at night.
It's okay. Um, so in my professional opinion, I mean, I was not given the testimony from the previous hearing that was provided by um, the previous planner. So, when I produced my letter, I did not include any of that
information because I didn't know what was put on the record at that time. Um, and I know Mr. Carly and I both received all of the information late last week for this um application. So I think that also presented a bit of a difficulty in, you know, drafting the letters and and
making sure we had all of the information at our disposal to be able to contribute to that. So a lot of my comments were meant in terms of clarification or needing additional information. Um, so had I had the testimony to review, um, it would have
probably assisted with clarification, especially determining the Dvariance criteria. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Flannry. You're >> Yes. Um, I have a few things to to comment on. I want to turn it over first though to Bruce Nagel, who's uh,
attorney representing uh, the applicant in the litigation. There were some questions during the course of the hearing regarding the the nature of litigation and just want to have Mr. Nagel just briefly uh summarize litigation for the benefit of the board and the public.
>> Everybody, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you for uh your patience tonight and listening to our presentation and the objectors. Um, what I'd like to do is very briefly put in context all of the discussion tonight
and the issues um, and put a legal framework on what we're doing tonight. And in a significant way, I want to educate the object the objectors and the public about why it is so important in our view to adopt the settlement
agreement uh, and grant the uh, the Whispering Woods application. Okay. So, the starting point is what is it that we're settling and and and how did we arrive uh at the point of the
settlement agreement. So, number one, what hasn't been mentioned today is what happened in federal court approximately two years ago. >> And what and what happened? What what is the purpose?
>> If if you don't mind, I'd like to outline where I'm going. >> Just giving his closing statement. He's allowed to get they're allowed to speak. >> I'm doing it I'm doing this in broad terms and I'm happy to answer questions as soon as I'm done. So, what happened in federal court is after the initial
zoning application was denied approximately six years ago, there was two separate lawsuits filed. one, a state court action and two, a federal action. In the federal action, the argument was made that what the board
did approximately six years ago in denying the zoning application, that act was illegal. And the federal judge in a long detailed opinion ruled in March of 2024, approximately
two years ago, that the denial of the initial zoning application violated federal laws and discriminated against elderly people and disabled people. Now, that is the framework that
we have to live with. That's a ruling of the federal court that stands today. It was never vacated. It was never appealed. So now what what did we do in response to that? We have been reporting to the federal court for the last
several years and my firm has been litigation counsel in the case and we have reported to the federal court for the last several years almost on a monthly basis over the last year that we all want to resolve the case. And what
did we do to resolve the case? We came down here with our team of experts and we met with the professionals of the town and we met with council and we listened to what the town wanted to be done and we accommodated that. We met
time after time. We spent hundreds of hours accommodating what the town wanted by way of design, by way of height, by way of setbacks. on and on and on. And all of those
accommodations and compromises in the settlement process were set forth in the notice of public hearing. So when I've heard council get up and say, "We didn't know what this is about." Please, in the notice of public hearing that was
approved by the town before it was sent out, drafted by council, Mr. Flannery with approval of the town. We set forth the listing of the material terms of what is here today and we reached a
compromise over the course of a year and even as late as this afternoon with Mr. Sammon's very important input. We worked on getting the terms of this agreement
resolved and I compliment Mr. salmon and I compliment council before Miss Bavveni Shaw because they acted with utmost concern for the town and in the most professional possible way and we worked
together to get this settlement done and it's done and it's before you before the board Mr. Chairman of the board for a vote hopefully tonight. Now, we are hopeful that you will find good reason to adopt the settlement.
And I I preface what I'm about to say to advise the c the court advise the board, Mr. Chairman of the board, that we do not want the alternative. We are here to get the settlement done. But I need to be real. And if the board does not
accept a settlement, I need to outline for the objectors and counsel what the alternative is. And I need to make it I need to make it factually clear. The alternative is we will be forced to try the case. And as Mr. Sammons will tell
you, because he's been on those calls with the magistrate, we are under a real difficult timeline. We have to check in virtually on a monthly basis and let the court know where we stand because this case is now
six years old. And if we try the case, we are starting, the applicant is starting with a ruling of the federal court that the prior board violated the law. And I'm going to have to put proofs in of damages.
And those proofs will be about $40 million. I don't want to do that. My client does not want to do that. We want to build the project, but if the settlement is rejected, we have no choice but to try the case. And the
juryy's going to be, it's a jury trial. The juryy's going to be instructed that the federal court has already ruled that you violated the law by denying the last application six years ago. And I'm going to be able to put in proofs of approximately 40 million in damages. I
don't want to do that. I don't want to put this town in a situation where it affects the budget or requires a bond or requires increased taxes. That's the last thing we want. We want the settlement. And we walked away
from that claim to make the settlement. The only thing that we negotiated, and I want to make it very clear, we negotiated a payment by the insurance carrier, not a dime out of your pocket, to reimburse my client for six years of
litigation following the improper denial many years ago. That's the only thing we negotiated. And that will not be paid until the project is started. So, we're not getting money outright. That money is going to be held in escrow for many
years until potentially for many years until the project starts. So we're here today to urge the board to accept the settlement that has been worked on so diligently by Mr. Sammon, by prior
counsel, by your engineers in conjunction with our professionals who worked arm in-armm to make this work and avoid a trial. The last thing we want is a trial, but that's the only other pathway if the settlement is rejected.
We also urge the board to understand that by providing this service to the community, it will enhance Edison. It will allow people to move here with elderly or disabled parents,
friends, family members, and be close to them so that they can live in a facility that is run by an extremely wellrespected company that has these facilities throughout the East Coast and give access to
wonderful care for disabled and elderly people. Thank you very much. and I'm willing to answer any questions Mr. Chairman of the board may have of me. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Nagel. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Nagel? >> Thank you very much, Mr. Nagel. >> And if I could just add really quickly,
Mr. Nagel's comments. >> Not a witness. Is >> He's not a witness. >> Can you speak into Can you speak into the microphone? really need better mics. >> Microphone check 1212.
>> Is council for the burrow here to to explain the burrow's side of this case? No, I >> It's a township. >> The township. I'm sorry. I understand council for I I understand council for uh I assume it was a an ADA action that was brought or something along those
lines, >> but uh is council for the burrow here to explain what the township's sorry the township's position was with regard to this lawsuit and was it a summary judgement motion ruling or >> was it it was
>> okay I respect I have a questions. >> When a judge bangs a gavl in a courtroom, do you stop talking or do you continue talking? >> I have. >> Then show me then show me the same respect because council asked a question and I'd like to get an his question answered.
>> I shall. >> Mr. Keter, um, if you could just put your appearance on the record as representing uh, the township's insurance company. Yes, this is uh Scott Keter on behalf of the township of Edison uh from Meth and Wble. I'm happy to answer any questions
you have. >> Mr. Ley, you're you're going to Mr. Le, you're Mr. Le, hang on. You're going to need you're going to need a microphone. You got to you got to borrow that back from the microphone. >> What was the nature of the uh claims brought by the uh applicants uh back in
whenever it was 2020? >> As as Mr. Negle explained it was a uh civil rights action based on uh desperate impact uh due to there not being an ordinance that would allow for such facilities in this
>> in a residential zone >> in a residential zone and there was no other zone in which uh such a facility could be could be constructed. >> Well well no the ordinance is what it is.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Uh, I I do have a question or two of the witness who just testified. >> He didn't testify. A statement by an attorney. Wait a sec. Could I finish, please? >> He's not a w he's not a witness. He's attorney.
>> He's not going to answer my question. So, just let the record be that he presented a series of issues to the board. I'm not being allowed to question him. And what and what I want to ask council is if in fact this board were to
approve this application, which of course it has the jurisdiction to do. Is it your position that my client would be denied the application to appeal this to the Superior Court of New Jersey? >> I don't think we can take I'm sorry. So
that's a that's a legal question as to whether your client has the right to challen challenge it. I don't think we're in a position to give an opinion on that. That's a that's a a decision for a judge to make, not not for us. >> So, you're basically saying, why why are we here then? My kind my cl I mean, isn't this sort of just like a show? Why
are we having a hearing? Why am I being paid to represent them when you're saying to me they have no say in this matter? Couldn't participate in settlement negotiations and now they really have uh no right to participate in decision. What's going to happen if I
file a prerogative suit? Uh, you're telling me that a superior court of the state of New Jersey would have no jurisdiction to hear the case? >> At no point did I say that. And in fact, I specifically said I cannot say that. >> I'm sorry. >> At no point did I say that. In fact, I specifically said that we cannot tell you that the answer to that because that
is a decision for a judge to make, not for us. So, I can't give you my legal opinion. You're not my client. My clients are up here. So, if you're asking me my legal advice, I would tell you to find a lawyer. Well, my qu my question of view would be that as council based upon what you're saying
that this board is duty bound for some reason to approve this application. >> No, in the settlement agreement itself as as in every whispering woods the board the board is obligated to consider it. The board is not obligated to approve it. They can approve or disapprove. It's in their discretion to
do to do that. So, um were there more questions for Mr. Heder? Miss Cutter, you're you're good. Thank you very Do you have anything else to add? >> I do not know. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Flannry.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ju just really quickly just uh two three points. One, I just want to say again that um notice was proper. It was provided pursuant to the MLUL. There was no conspiracy on the part of the applicant um to arrange this uh over the July 4th holiday. This was
um a special hearing that was arranged um at a time when the board could meet um and around uh certain court deadlines. Um second, I want to for the record incorporate um uh all of the uh exhibits in the hearing transcripts as
well as the resolution under the original application. Um that would be exhibits A1 through A45 for the applicant, exhibits 01 through 03 for the uh objectors and um exhibits R1 and R2 for the residents as well as the
seven hearing transcripts December 18th 2018, February 26, 2019, June 18th, 2019, September 17th, 2019, October 29th, 2019, and December 17th, 2019, as well as of course the board's resolution
uh adopted on May 12th, 2020. Uh and then finally, just want to reiterate that um this uh is an amendment to the original application which had been filed back in 2017 2018. The applicants relying on the testimony that was provided as part of that original application as well as the testimony
here tonight. And and tonight's testimony is uh consists of amendments um to the materials that were presented under the original application. Um and they essentially rectify um uh issues that the board had in denying the application originally. Uh specifically
respect to uh building height on the eastern portion of the property as well as locations of the uh uh garage, sorry, the the trash and recycling and the generator. Um and the memory care use is is a is a type of assisted living facility per the lensure. Um and it's
not a totally separate use. Um it's just not a general assisted living uh facility use. It's a specific type of assisted living facility use uh but essentially the same use. Um and uh finally with respect to special uh planning testimony in particular uh we
rely on the planning testimony of of the applicant's planner. Um with the original application uh the proofs were given for the same types of variances. Um what we're uh providing now is something that's less intense. Um and so we uh would rely on that plan testimony.
And then finally, I just want to make it clear that most Whispering Woods hearings, such as what the board is hearing tonight, are based on prior denials of of a a planning or zoning board application. There's nothing novel about the board hearing. Uh the application tonight was based on a prior
denial. Thank you. I ask that the the board um grant this application. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Ch. Do you have anything to add before? I do not. Okay. All right. So, we'll go to the board for any uh motion or discussion. Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, I >> I have a question. So, we have to make a
decision this evening, right? Either approve this or deny this. And if if we deny it, what happens? That's really going to our attorney. >> If the board denies us, the litigation continues and will eventually, as uh was indicated before, will go towards go to
a trial. I believe um vice chairman also had a question that this had to be decided this evening. >> Yeah. Under so under under the ter terms of the proposed uh settlement agreements to be decided this evening that those are those are terms that have been negotiated between the parties.
It's not been signed yet. So they're not it's not necessarily binding on on you. But that is the that was the intention here was to have this resolved this evening. >> Okay. So if we deny it then we we go to trial. Would there be another meeting on this?
>> There would only be another meeting uh before this board if the if the count the attorneys are able to work out a I'll say a new arrangement, a new deal. Uh otherwise, no, it would not come back before to the board. >> Thank you.
I'm going to make a motion to deny this application and that's based on the positive and negative criteria not being met. There were some concerns brought up about the uh the planning and and and the professional backed it up. So, um and also there were some concerns from
the the residents in reference to the some noise and some uh traffic and trees. >> Second, I would also add a few items. Mr. Chair, >> please. >> The variance standards are not satisfied. The proposed application
undermines the township's residential zoning is not consistent with the master plan and conflicts with the O's and lighting standards for RA residential zone. There's not as mentioned there's not sufficient testimony from the planner. Um like to mention that the drawings that were shown to the board
are not signed or sealed. um does not match the characteristics of the neighborhood and um the variance sought for this non-conforming lot has a negative direct negative impact to the quality of life for the residents.
>> Motion made by Vice Chairman Ogorman, seconded by Mr. Chabra. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Schneider, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Chabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Ser, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Johnny, >> yes on the motion.
>> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes to the motion. >> And Chairman Gumba, >> yes on the motion. This whispering wood agreement is denied. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> We're still in We're still in session. Uh Madam Secretary, any additional business come before the board.
>> That'll be all for this evening. >> Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion made by Mr. Patel, second by Mr. Johnny. All in favor signify by saying I. >> Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. We're stands adjourned.