uh in accordance with the open public meetings act appeel 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the township of Franklin has been provided everyone could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance to the flag
of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all okay Mahir Rafi asked to be excused this evening councilman andaron here
Theodore Chase here Robert Mt here Shan K Shaw Keller here Jennifer ragau here Charles Brown here Robert Thomas here Rebecca Hilbert here Mark Dancy chairman Orsini
here uh for minutes we have the minutes of the planning board meeting for January 15th 2025 hold on okay [Music] um just Rebecca Hilbert cannot
vote okay um does anybody want to make a motion make a motion to approve is your uh mic on Mr Lort right here thank I just put it on yeah okay I'll make a motion to approve I'll second okay councilman and barison yes
Theodore Chase yes Robert Lort yes Shaw Keller yes Jennifer ragau Yes Charles Brown yes and chairman arini uh yes uh doesn't appear we have any resolutions of one discussion item that I put on the
agenda so let me um tell you what what this is about so um if you recall the last meeting we had uh an applicant um and we had the public come up the public in the form of councilman Carl right um
and he had mentioned that a number of um his constituents were going to be here but they kind of lost track of the meeting because it had been postponed twice um so I got to thinking um and and on the advice of council that we can actually amend bylaws to require an
applicant to R notice um I thought about this a little bit um had some conversations with Mark and Peter and what I propose is simply is is very simple um if the applicant is heard so we have a hearing there's people here
let's say tonight and for some reason we have to have a continuation Christine will announce when that continuation is and the applicant will not have to Ren notice but if a hearing is scheduled and no hearing takes place and if you think about Hamilton Street um application
last time that actually happened in October was rescheduled to January and it was rescheduled again to when we actually heard it a couple of weeks ago so my proposal there is it if it's if if another hearing date is set then they don't have to Ren notice but if they
postpone again then they do and any permutation of the above that results in hearing being postponed more than once like for example let's say onyx right we heard Onyx I don't forget when I um
January right and now they're supposed to come back now let's say they come they're supposed to come back I think the end of March let's say they don't and now it's going to be postponed for a second time we would ask them to Ren notice I think that's a reasonable compromise between putting too much
burden on the applicant and um you know letting the public um you know know because people just don't follow this stuff and can't be expected to follow it um in perpetuity um what Mark has asked is U if the zoning board would adopt a
similar approach um and then we can simply amend the bylaws um all at once uh which Pete would do if we agree to this and we can vote on it at our next meeting can I just ask one question yeah um when they have to Ren notice it is a
cost to the applicant or attorney whomever what would happen happen if we have to cancel say imper weather or if we don't have a quorum do we put that that was brought up um and so you know
at at Peter's um um advice um what we would do is we would we would say that the board on a Case by casee basis can make a different determination or reserves the right to make a different determination now frankly I mean stuff
happens um on both the applicant's part and sometimes on our part and so frankly I don't I mean the cost to Ren notice Is Not Great compared to what they're spending so I'm not like thinking that I have you know um a great deal of uh
concern about that um but you know we would we would at least reserve the right to make a different determination just and just to clarify so my you know my suggestion about the zoning board is if possible just just for the ease of
staff and maybe just you know it' be best if both boards have the same policy so we don't mix things up that that was really so you know I would certainly suggest that the zoning board have that same discussion um the only other thing I'm concerned about is if it's a a
homeowner application you know and making a homeowner Reen notice well that's where where distin based on the scale of the application I think you could use your discre on that but I mean do you have a lot of homeowner applications that get
carried significant time I mean yeah on occasion we'll have I mean because most of the time your homeowners are are people who want to come in they've got a discreet variance that they want to get and you know well I think I think if there was language in there that uh you know and Peter I'd obviously defer to
you and then and then the zoning board attorney you know if if there was language in there that you know I don't know if I would confer Christine and I were confer with the with the with the board chair we can allow for somebody to make a different
call on certain caseby case basis for Equitable considerations yeah okay we you know we we'd be reason about it the two the two homeown applications that I can think of which were both denied um the the one guy did come back yeah but I mean that wouldn't have required a Reen
notice because we had a hearing and and then he came back so you know if people are here for Christine to say this is carried to such and such a date um like now Hamilton right they got heard they had heard for preliminary uh they they don't need to Ren notice for say final
right because that that's just going to come and it's going to be on the agenda and website and anybody who was here which unfortunately weren't many because of this exact problem would have would have known uh can we better understand what's the burden placed on the applicant
around Ren noticing uh before making a a determination I like you know what you presented um but what's the burden help us understand the real burdening Mike I don't know M do you know the answer Mike no okay don't what has to happen is
there's a 200 foot list provided so the applicant anybody who's within 200 fet they have to send out certified mail to them so that would be a cost um and then they have to uh go to The Courier News and then there's three different like um
what is it uh com just say Comcast or something there also three utilities that need so the burden would be that they would have to pay for um the uh certified again so as we're saying you know it does put a cost on some of the
uh app you know the smaller ones the residents right which again we would reserve the we would have a clause in there that we reserve the right to make it you know a reasonable determination but to me you know the cost of you know disenfranchising if it's carried multiple times if we seen for a
number of applications is um offset by that okay yeah and I'll just say you know it's you the burden is also I mean Christine sometimes and I sometimes are dealing with people what is zoning what's a variance so you know if you're
telling you know an applicant who's repr represented by a land use attorney per our bylaws you need to re notice they know what's involved they do that every single day talking to a homeowner who doesn't understand even you what a variance is because they're late people they don't do this all day long that just that just that confusion addition
to the cost that Christine mentioned is something we'd like you to keep in mind so what would you need is would you need like a um um motion or would you need some sort of like indication from the board to just just to please prepare something for us to consider at our next
meeting does anybody in the board have any any objection to that okay okay got it thanks guys all right with that we go to public comments so um this portion of the meeting is to uh open to the public for any general
planning comments so if you are here in reference to L and Franklin Development Group that hearing will have a separate public opening for any questions uh for that particular application so with that uh make a motion to open to the public for General planning
comment second all in favor I I opposed meeting is open to the public for any general planning comment seeing no takers I move to close second all in
favor all right and that leads us to our uh one and only hearing tonight which is allion Franklin Development Group LLC pln 25001 um and I think before I turn it over to um uh your representation I
would like Peter to uh briefly um um explain to the board um the background okay so this is a matter that ended up um in litigation um and currently this application is being heard at the direction of the Court this is a court
order that remanded it to us to hear so uh to the extent that we have um timelines that are a little more uh constrained than we would usually have under the municipal land use law this is a case that uh the court would like to see disposed of and us to back to the
court uh in the near future so March 25th I think yeah exactly so some of some of the things that we would typically see um uh say uh D permitting that is already in hand um isn't something that uh I believe is going to be capable uh with the applicant they
have a permit that uh is currently valid but they're going to need to go back to the D for um given the Court's direction that would be something we would consider a condition that we might not regularly consider a condition or some minor um uh you know re engineering of the site in in response to comments
typically you would want to see revised plans I think you might be in a situation where you would rely on your professionals a little more in this situation based upon what we have before us tonight that being said you still have the ability to hear the application and ask your questions and make your decision based upon what evidence is induced but those are just kind of the
um unconventional ways that we may have to handle this one just so you know so so just to be clear the court did not um in any way this never came before the court for that that the any board had made a decision and that we would treat this differently than any other application this just like to hear it
just to hear it okay all right so with that the floor is yours I agree with that um articulate rendition of background uh Peter I would ask I would ask for confirmation about our notice so that the board has jurisdiction the board does have
jurisdiction to hear the I appreciate that thank you Mr chairman uh for the record I'm Doug Wolfson wfs O N I represent the applicant e - iion I'm not really sure myself how to how to say it whether it's El ion but it's a bunch of partners that are involved in property
ownership on the particular property that you have before you uh as Peter said this is an application for uh site plan approval uh involves two Warehouse buildings of 75,000 Square F feet each uh based upon the uh the zoning ordinance that was in effect at the time
we applied it is a permitted use uh we're seeking no variances uh we have received and reviewed and are prepared through our witnesses to respond to the letters from your engineer and from your planner we have only two witnesses the engineer uh who will go through what
we're proposing uh and the uh review letters and a traffic engineer to make sure that you're satisfied that the internal circulation and egress and egress from the site is satisfactory to all of you uh so if you uh would permit me Mr chairman we just call a witness
and get going please thanks thank you d somebody swear at him please if I could get you close to a microphone and have you raise your right hand for me do you swear the testimony going to provide us the truth the all truth and nothing but the truth yes if you could state your name spell your last name and
give us your address for the record please uh my name is Craig Herman h e r m NN uh I'm a senior project manager with uh Paul Sosi and Stor PSNS address is 3 Mountain View Road Warren New
Jersey Craig just tell the board a little bit about your background and your qualifications so that we can offer you as an expert in the field of engineering sure I have a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from Rucker's College of Engineering in 19 from 1996 means I've been practicing for
about 28 years now which is crazy um I've been a professional engineer in New Jersey since 20 4 and I've been accepted as an expert witness both on a private and on the municipal side in towns such as tubry Hackettstown beler and Warren County Montville Emerson Edgewater
northl and Bergen County Piscataway couple towns in uh Mars County and I'm currently appointed as the planning board and Zoning Board engineer in Hell Township and your license is in good standing in current yes he has accepted
as a I'm oblig I was just about to ask that question but thank you Mr chairman um so Craig give the board the benefit of an overall view of the site uh and what is actually being proposed before we go through the review letters sure so uh and just for the record anything that
hasn't been submitted to the board already will need to Mark if the board does have it already as part of their packet you don't need to mark it so but let's identify whether that well if this is colorized and ours was black and white you should Mark it all right as like A1 I know we're going old school here it doesn't look like anybody has a
computer that we're going to broadcast so that's fine we're we're that's cu the is old old schol yeah just Market A1 and the date well this was colorized already in what we saw it is it okay right then um you
you know you don't have to Market only if it was colorized if it's exactly what we have in our packets then no need to Market I'm not sure if it colorized we'll call exactly just call it a one we'll Market just that way everybody's happy nobody has to work in FA Market
makes reference easier sure does but okay so um two Warehouse buildings as Doug had um summarized uh both are 75,000 square feet each for a total of 150,000 uh
square feet of Warehouse uh and office area uh it's block 8802 lot 13.01 and we are uh Frontage on Route 27 which uh the sheet up is essentially um
North uh Route 27 is to the east of the project and um to the north right above right outside of the viewport is uh Veronica Lane and to the South we have Bennett Lane some of the surrounding
land uses we have uh commercial and office uses to the north we have um commercial and office on the uh east side also uh there's some residences along Route 27 across the
street there's residences on Route 27 we have an open space uh area right here that is in the residential Zone and that front some Bennett Lane we have residential property here and uh uh I believe this is an old bank property
property um the site itself is generally open space with uh some tree lines and uh it's an actual Farmland with uh uh roow crops and uh there is a stream uh along the Westerly property line to the
West is another Warehouse use and the proposal is to have our access and all of our utilities uh from that site so just just to knowe I don't think that any of the Residential Properties
on this side of Route 27 are actually used as residences I do believe they sort of Office Professional dentist um things like that right we don't have you know the Deeds or interview they are houses that have been repurposed now on
the other side of 27 yes your pres yeah well we didn't know exactly what was being occupied and what wasn't so we don't want to testify to something we W weren't sure of and and that's that's why I just wanted the board to understand that I I don't think that on
that side of 27 um you're directly impacting any residential uses on on 27 and property fronts on at least in a couple of spots on Route 27 as well correct correct what what is the zoning in
between the uh Route 27 and our property op the op so the op is not does not permit warehouses that correct but we have no disturbance and no improvements within the op Zone okay all right and U we will address that when we get to
those things in the uh review letter about the requests uh and observations made by I think both the planner uh and the engineer with regard to emergency access okay right so um unless the board has any questions about the orientation of the site and the proposed use uh I
will go to the engineering letter uh which uh um I don't know that you independently I I do have a quick question excuse me was was the access to the site from 27 is the access from 27 there's no access from 27 where's the access point go ahead the access point
is going to be uh along this driver that connects to the uh uh Warehouse building to the north and that has a driveway to Veronica okay so so let's let's be clear so you actually won't have your own
separate access on to Veronica you will be leveraging the access of the much larger Warehouse down there correct there's there's going to be easements so this is like an internal access road that then takes you out to that so it takes you out to the warehouse um
driveway Network and then to Veronica yes okay yeah that's not an unimportant point because obviously um you know the more Consolidated that access can be um as in is in this case um you the safer the any movements will be better everybody likes it yeah
and we control that uh as well so it should be no problem although I understand there'll be some requirement if there's an approval for a condition that the easement be um drafted and reviewed by Mr venol all right so um is it the board's
policy to independently Mark or just make reference to the review letters um just make reference and and generally the way we run things is um if you are going to comply with everything in the letter um then then um simply state that
if there's points that you cannot comply with can comply with like three4 of it half of it none of it um then then we obviously want to want to have that have that brought out and then the board will ask questions and Mark will you know planners report Etc so you understand correct we're going to go through the
engineering report um which for the record is dated February 7th February 7 2025 from Darren Mazy T Engineers office and that will be the first review letter that we will address so understanding
the chair's Direction um where there's just a statement Let's Make a note that it's just a statement um and where it is asking us uh to do something um say we will comply or we won't and you don't have to go through it Point by point I mean if it makes a statement it's a
statement if it says the applicant shall and you're going to shall do that um and you agree I don't want to hear it um if you can't or if you can only do some of it or if there's a but or if or an and then we should discuss but if you say I
comply with the whole report then that's great all right well then maybe I can help a little bit so on the on B General site improvements um the first one through 10 on on uh page two um are either statements or will comply is that
correct corre yes all right um 11 on page three um the plan should be revised we comply yes all right and um number 12 uh I if you don't mind Mr chairman I will take that sure that's a question uh that relates to uh
what the engineer has kindly uh underscored and put in bold about our flood Hazard area permit uh it is valid as we speak uh but it will expire before the board uh were to adopt a resolution of approval if it were to do so um so we
understand that we do have to go back and show them the calculations under the new regulations uh and get a new delineation we understand that if it's different from what's being proposed now we would have to come back to the board and we understand that if there were to be an approval it would have to be subject to the condition that the D
issue us a flood haard permit and we comply with it that's acceptable to the board and to the chair yeah and I I think that there's that aspect and I think kind of what number 12 is asking is um I guess it's designated as a c one
stream and the township has an ordinance that um I think it's required of a 300t buffer um so I think it's not just the flood Hazard but whether it complies with the Township's stream cor or preservation
ordinance I I can't disagree with that I mean we have to comply with unless you're preempted and I don't know that that you are you're not uh we would comply with whatever the law requires certainly okay so the your site plan um can work with a 300 foot buffer from
that stream that would be great I I believe um and I asked mark this before the meeting because I I can dimly remember but the R40 Zone that abuts your property I do believe is in state planning area 4B which is probably the
second most restrictive right five is you can't build anything at all I think 4B is almost the same so I I I think that that's why it is that that way because of the fact that you do have a stream that ultimately I think feeds um
a probably six mile run um so well it's a six it's a category one stream which gets extra Defence right and so that's why I'm pursuing this a little bit more but the the app says you will so um I was just informed by U Mr
albach the director of engineering for the applicant's parent company um that the cross access easements are already in place okay for the uh access to the other Warehouse site so we'll show that to you as part of our just got actually think we're going to get to
that next if number 13 is any indication well this is different perhaps Mr chairman number 13 I think relates to the issue that uh we had discussed briefly which is um crossing over a Zone where the uh the use of Warehouse or
truck traffic is not specifically permitted meaning the op Zone um uh I don't know whether Mr vinolo wants to take a position on that or have me do it and he'll say whether he thinks I'm right or wrong what's what's your I always like to tell you whether you're right or WR so You' like to let us know
I happily jump in how how the switches of the seats right it's really it's really nice to be sitting up on the DI yeah don't you know it's easy to get used to I understand so thank you for that in any event um our view of this is
that um the emergency access uh is not the same as um the cases of of uh where someone runs a residential a truck traffic through residential area because it was permitted to be a warehouse but the residential Zone becomes the main
public driveway or public Street um those cases do say that you would need a d variance in order to do that um but there is nothing that indicates that for emergency access where the primary user of the site is not using it it's only being used for ambulances fire and
police that is a permitted use everywhere because of the need for Public Safety and police power generally in in the municipality so it is our view that uh from a legal perspective and perhaps Mr venol will weigh in that that does not trigger a Dev variance and
therefore if you were to ask us to provide an emergency accessway uh through the op Zone um as a condition of any approval uh I'm authorized to say that we would accept that as a condition and I can indicate that uhu Mr Wolfson and I
did speak about this um I also reached out to Mr Healey about it and there there seems to be a distinction between an access driveway which would create a intensify the use on the site in which case it might be a D1 variance versus an
emergency access way which is really only there on an as needed basis for your First Responders to get to the site in order for public safety reasons so I I think that distinction would be appropriate and I don't think it would require the applicant to get a d variance in order to provide that um
Mark I don't know if you want to add anything to that um no I'll just you know draw a well first of all I I would say two other things me one is it's not something that is um required by the ordinance this is a recommendation by
the board's engineer as well as the uh director of fire prevention so it came as a recommendation to address Public Safety um not something that the applicant needs for their site plan um and and I'll just just for just so the
board understands too there was another application all the warehouses to the uh to the west where they actually did have to go to the zoning board because they had their basins in the U residential Zone and that allowed them you know that was a part of their functioning site
plan extended into the residential Zone um and I I don't I for the reason stated by both the attorneys I don't think this is the same and I do agree with the clarification by Mr Healey I would point out just one reservation since it's
Route 27 we will need the dot to approve the emergency access we don't we don't think that they'll have a problem with that but it is not up to us right or unfortunately the board it's going to be up to them because they you know they're the know all and do all and be all for State highways so we have to live with
them yeah and and just to Enlighten the board so I mean one of the ways that you would address a fire at this site is obviously through the driveway that they're going to share with the huge Warehouse that's on Veronica already now if that warehouse were on
fire like for example you got a problem right that this addresses because you would have this um emergency access use so it's not I think has has been explain well sort of an accessory to the actual primary use you're not going to be able
to bring in more trucks cuz you're not using that as clearly for emergency I assume there would be some sort of control like Baller in chain or a lock or a key or whatever whatever the fire department wanted yeah whatever they want to control access to it that only fire emergency vehicles would be able to
get there so yeah if I could make one further Point uh it would be this emergency access if it were available for
pedestrians then employees could commute to the site by the bus on Route 27 get off I think there's a bus stop approximately where this would come out and walk into the site instead of
driving to the site so that would be uh just a useful point about the emergency access point and I don't see any reason why that would be prohibited hang on second questions so um Mr arach has asked me to
make sure that um we don't trigger that d by making a sidewalk or some other kind of an improvement there that is not then quote for emergency purposes I think it probably does fall in the same category but I just want to be clear and thank Mr
Al for bringing to my attention I I don't want to inadvertently cause a problem for the board or for us yeah um if there were to be an objector if there were to be an approval that that somehow you know lost your jurisdiction because it became a d variant so we certainly don't have any problem Mr Chase with
pedestrians using it makes great sense um but I wouldn't want to make sure that we wouldn't do any other improvements that would were not intended for municipal emergencies fire and as an emergency access I assume it would be improved it would be paved yeah and and
so yeah we mean we wouldn't ask you to put a sidewalk or do anything that I take your point about making it um Central to the use itself which is what we want to avoid yeah and if it's for commuters that somebody could argue that
that it's being done for that purpose even though from a practical and logical standpoint you're reducing traffic by having people you know take mass transit but you never know what a judge will do I I think I think the the most logical way to handle it is to say that it's an
emergency access way and if pedestrians see fit to want to use it because it's there that's something but we're we're not creating necessarily a dedicated pedestrian access way for fear of triggering the devarian right and you're not asking us to put up a signage that
says pedestrians are permitted or anything like that so um I I think that Mr Chase it's a great point and we obviously don't have any objection to that good subject as I said to the dot making sure that it's right okay and we don't have any reason to think that they
won't but we just want to make sure that we're covered um in the event there's a unpredictable response from them um so back into the uh engineering review letter um I'm showing that 14
through 18 or will compli yes uh 19 um is will comply yes and 20 is is the soil erosion so that's subject to the was sumers Union County Soil rosion so Conservation District Y and we'll
have to comply with whatever they say is that correct yes okay and of course Mr M that would be uh obviously a condition of any approval the board CH chose to uh to grant us on that um what about number 21 um this
issue about the abruptness of the driveway aisle so uh I believe they're referencing this rupt shift here and uh this really relates to the conservation easement um that uh the language and easement requires US based off of the
flood Hazard area kind of pushes in a little bit to the back driveway there so it's a wide driveway it's 26 feet wide it's it's slow moving traffic there's no trucks or anything on that side it's going to be cars so we don't see it as being an issue um one spes over there is
it possible youate one or two soften that we could we can do that and um I just um spoke with our traffic engineer too and one thing we could also do is maybe throw put some striping here since it is so wide just put some striping to kind of lessen that that uh abruptness
of it and uh um push the cars around it so I think there's some ways we can do and we can work with their engineer to figure out the best way to handle that yeah we would prefer not to lose the parking but if that was something that the board felt made it safer obviously we would be considered uh seriously that
request um and also the striping we could include as a condition of any approval the board chose to uh to Grant I think that's reasonable yeah Mr chairman I would just suggest that they the engineers meet and work out the best solution I I mean the the board would say that you know we'd rather have that
type of engineering solution you described than to encroach on the scream Corridor and and and push that further um we would prioritize the stream Corridor I think there's engineering solutions that you've described they can address it agree thank you Mr chairman
uh 22 is will comply yes all right um if the chair permit me I'd like to skip C because we have a traffic uh engineer to testify as to those that's good uh grading and utility comments number one's a will comply right M yes and now
what about number two the service connection Loop issue we'll work with your we'll comply will'll work with your water department and um your fire department to provide the water system that they require chairman all right with that yeah all
right I mean none of us woke up as Engineers so I mean if you're going to comply with the we don't need to go through Point by Point you're going to work it out with the engineer that's fine I mean the other things that you've brought up that you specifically wanted to discuss that's fine as well but I mean I can't I can't second guess an
engineering report so we would just say you're going to have to work it out to the you know condition of approval is you you're going to work it out with staff if there's any discretion I mean I get all this like the drainage pipe should be 6 in wide I don't know that I'm not going to pretend to know it
I'm just going to say you know if you can't comply you'll work it out we lawyers pretend to know that um so number three is will comply and number four is a statement yes and then on the next page which is number five um five through the first 11 or
will complies correct correct all right so for some reason by accident there are two number 11s on on the sheet so second number 11 um perhaps you can explain what is talked about there so yeah so um there was a question related to the
retaining wall on this side of the site and what happens with the grading in this area so as I indicated there is a stream on the west side of the property and really the stream kind of begins here so the way the natural Greening is
now there's actually a swell right on the other property that runs down along the property Edge to that that start of that stream and that will be maintained uh you it's on the other property so we're not touching it so there's our wall is really not blocking anything
it's on the side of the swell that already exists so the existing train is patterns will remain all right number 12 is will comply yes and turning to page six uh 13 14 and 15 are will complies yes all
right so um how about Landscaping e and lighting we'll comply all right number one is we'll comply yes number two yes three yes uh four yes um four is their concern about the suit
survivability so you'll work with um the Township's professionals to make sure that the are being done are trees that are likely to survive correct we'll pick the the we'll work out with them the Landscaping that be put there okay so that would be a condition that we would find acceptable as a condition of any
approval Mr venola as well and number F environmental impact comments yes we'll address number one is will comply two yes so so just hold on for a second for for number one there vegetated swells proposed for storm water management
designed as green infrastructure all references to should be removed oh okay um so you're not proposing any vegetated swells and so I guess there is reference or you we are proposing um some vegetated swells especially it it's it's a swell
along souly property line within the Vegeta within the vegetation but in terms of New Jersey D green infrastructure there is no vegetated swell okay I get so it's just under their classification it's not for storm water management it's for we're not
getting credit for water management but it helps guide stuff around so that's more of an administrative thing okay yes two you said was a will comply yes and three is updating the E that will is a will comply yes on storm water management on page seven the first two
are are statements yes and then three four and five are will complies yes and six is sort of a statement and a will comply yes um and seven makes reference to what I had referred to earlier which was the exploration of the flood Hazard
permit and Our obligation to get that reissued um regulation it is a statement but we understand that that would be a condition of any approval the board chose to Grant eight is also a statement
and 9 through 13 are they will complies yes turning to page eight um 14 15 16 17 are all will complies is that correct yes um and what about 18 yes that's a will comply yes okay and
show that 19 through 26 are will complies yes all right turning to page nine uh 27 is will comply yes um and number 28 it asks about a Geotech report um what's the status with that we have
there is a Geotech report um it was in the um well essentially will comply there is a Geotech report it was in the um uh appendix of water management report but we will coordinate with the engineer to make sure um that not only
uh that um he sees the testing that we've done as far as part of the the D permit we're going to need to do additional so testing for the storm waterer management bmps were proposed Mr wolson Excuse me the videographer said he cannot hear you you need to speak
directly into the mic please we'll do thank you my wife says I don't follow directions well but you I'm going to ask you to write me a notes so he just text me and said he can't hear you gotcha thank
you um okay so 28 um that relates to the flood Hazard uh permit but it's also will comply right correct all right um and 30 through 3 uh two are will complies yes uh 33 asks that the
drainage pipe be relocated from being proposed underneath stump the dumpster pads is that something that we would consider or would work with him on that we could consider we can work with it again it's it's extra Jan pipe so that's why um sometimes we we try not to do
that but we're not sure necessarily why that is is done but we will endeavor to cooperate with the engineer as to uh the request and and I don't expect it to be a problem Mr chairman um 34 uh is a will comply yes and the
manual that's a will comply yes and as to the mainten miscellaneous yes paragraph 1 a through I is will comply yes and then on page 10 um these are the other approvals that we will need as well as U additions to the site plan
they all will complies is that correct yes um and that completes the review of the engineering letter Mr chairman would you prefer me to go right to Mr Hy's letter Eng yeah let's do Mr Healey's next and you know again the other
reports like fire prevention police whatever environmental if you're going to comply or whatever or they're just statements we don't need to go through those chapter and verse um and then we'll just go am I not doing it in the manner which the chair approves uh it's a little more in you know detail than
but that's fine you're going fast enough and I think um one one thing I will ask though uh do you have a I know you're not an architect um do you have any exhibit that you can speak to as an engineer at least that you can tell us what the buildings are going to look
like unfortunately I don't have that information I'm told we submitted elevations Mr chairman well I mean just like exterior treatments what like the colar and then you know just general sort of architecture we generally do hear something like that give me a
moment I recall that there is an architech submission in the plans I haven't looked at it I mean I don't know that's is that supposed to be color or good
joke thank you Mr chairman um I spoke to one of the owners he said and he owns the warehouse next door he said it's going to be consistent with the look of that warehouse uh if you want anything more detailed than that he's certainly willing to try to answer questions at the board but um you know so that that's
huge but basically what he's saying is the exterior or at least you can represent that what he's he's telling you um since he's not sworn any as a witness right now is that it essentially look like um a smaller version much smaller
version because that's that's huge right um of of what's there in terms that's true and I believe that's uh what he meant when he said to me uh if you want that from him he said he certainly willing to be want to say that but no no that's okay it's just that you I mean
I'm looking at the rendering that Peter's holding here and that the board has in front of it and I mean it's not I would assume that unless you're trying to replicate the ve the the Las Vegas Raider Stadium um that is not going to be black like that and like look like a
you know a Starship or a a death star thing there um it's going to be something different so we have a black and white which doesn't do much for us which is kind of why I'm asking okay yeah so and I know the color of the other warehouse and that's you know
quote unquote normal right what you would expect there's there's some architectural treatments to it there's I can understand the architectural treatments here I can see the Bays I can see you know the different divisions and things but I I just I it's black and white so it's just hard to like
appreciate what it might look like it's going to be pepper corn and and March wind just so you know those those are your base colors somebody's going some white sales somebody spending too much time in a Home Depot I think
um okay just try to help just just just just a question but no um yeah let's let's go to Mr Hy's report all right thank you we're going to Mr Hy's report uh which for the record uh is dated February 18th February 18th 2025 go and
it's from Mr Healey director of planning uh to the planning board and I'm going going to skip over to uh page three I think is the first page where there's substantive comments um and uh a on page three um talks about the uh
the trees and the um the existing buffer um is that that's a will comply to the extent possible and you will meet with um Mr Healey or the engineer or whomever they believe to be appropriate in order to try to maximize the retaining of the trees
yes yeah and and that's important to the board I think you know in general speaking so I mean these are the trees that you the only trees um because it's open land that you have on site and if they are mature and part of a raran buffer they should definitely be
preserved um to the extent possible and um you know less that you have to replace I had I know doubt that you'll be able to comply with the tree replacement ordinance probably on site fairly big site that should be buffered
on multiple sides but um again less less to so so yeah so um in terms of the grading we can adjust the grading to minimize the impact I did speak with my land landscape architect and he thought that the existing vegetation there isn't
the best and that some of the the new vegetation would better enhance that so that's where I think that would be a good give and take with the township and the professionals to determine what's best for that area yeah well you can make additional plannings
to fill in any gaps or weak weaknesses and the existing the effect of the existing trees that's exactly what my landscape architect suggested so thank you asking for part of the
fee thank you Mr Chase uh B is a will comply yes yes now number 2 a there an issue there right yes because why [Music]
um so because it's in the op zone so um it was our understanding we really shouldn't do any uh proposed improvements within the op zone so if we did something along um uh Route 27 in these areas here then we're disturbing
and proposing forunate the trees might trigger a Dev variance but um I'm not I don't want to take a risk that it would so you know a change of grade and putting in the trees I'm probably more interested rather than buffering the op
uses which some of them have their own buffers in the back um but buffering you know and I'm sure there trees on the in the existing Warehouse that is is under the same um own ship they're small it's going to be a long
time before there's any screening you can see that all the way from Bennett Lane I'm more more interested in in screening on that side rather than on the on the 27 yes yeah that's where I'd like you to really really bump it up and
and I'm not so concerned about op because I mean I don't know well that helps us Mr chairman yeah if you're we're not triggering any D variances that's for sure then if the if the board were to Grant approval condition upon meeting and trying to enhance the
Landscaping plantings in that particular area and we're all safe yeah I thought comment about that uh would it would it cause a problem to ask for Street trees along Route 27 you might well that would be in the state
right away um well off the state right away we put Street trees on almost every project and I don't I'm not sure why that wouldn't be appropriate here it would kind of soften the emergency
access so that it isn't just standing out looking like a pathway back to Nowhere um yeah mean talking land property that's really not part of this application technically speaking right
so they you're improving that property in some way which you could argue you're doing with emergency access but that's very different right um yeah I mean it's not a bad idea Bob it's just that again what I would suggest perhaps um is
it not be included as a condition um but that you know the applicant make efforts to see whether or not there it's possible to do that kind of thing and we will act in good faith to try to do it for you Mr Thomas it's we just want to make sure we don't trigger a d variants and we want to make sure that the dot
doesn't have anything to say about it I'm fine with that just make a a really honest effort to be able to want to be good neighbors and we will as I recall there's a fair amount of trees screening along that
stretch although of course there are the op buildings the various Office Buildings um but you also remember that the do does have plans for widening 27
down to Bennett's Lane whether when they will do that heaven knows but yeah I don't know you wouldn't want to put Plants up and then have him exactly RI down commission so if they don't object
to the shry being put there does that work yeah so Mr wolson would the applicant have no objection to the township putting a street tree on that portion of the property subject to obviously I can check with ownership I mean but that way it's that's a good
idea yeah yeah I mean the shade tree commission can plant trees on any municipally Municipal property right so um now this being private property I mean that might question is they just would
indicate they have no objection to that is that something that would be capable of being worked on is that I don't know what your mechanisms are so well I mean I'm looking at at um aerial photography of the the property that the that the emergency access traffic would go
through and you know and as of October 2024 it was basically forested go okay um which is you know one it the property itself is going to serve as the buffer two you know that emergency access road we might want to talk about the the best
alignment of that right because if it goes straight out it's going to take down a bunch of trees we might want to talk about maybe curving it to the degree that is appropriate to try to minimize the tree removal uh my opinion I think that's the way to concentrate
rather than putting putting additional trees on a property that's already forested I I I said let's conc concentrate on keeping the trees that are there I would just defer the Fire official right yeah I mean Ted's right and back of the op um
uses um maybe not so much Victory Subaru but they're not particularly in line with your site but right down from them towards Bennett Lane if you're going southbound um there is a fair amount of buffering between the Office
Professional uses and which in some cases are single family homes uh or had been in the past and your site um back into uh page three of Mr Healey's report um and B um that
addresses an issue that was also raised by Miss Kenyon in her environmental Commission report um and I've communicated with the uh owner and they have indicated that they would be willing to um uh put Islands within
there uh they thought perhaps 8 to 10 would fit comfortably they're not sure the number but we would certainly work with Township um individuals um professional consultants in order to figure out the best place to put those uh and see how many would actually fit
in order to enhance the look there yeah and and to also preserve the amount of parking that you wish to wish to need you could do them in diamond shape right um which the board has recently heard about in in a very recent application um
to not only have those spaces like diagonal you you know I'm probably preaching so do that um and and if we do remove the 10 spaces we'll still be over the required parking for the project all right and how about uh on C at the
bottom of page three so um this uh really talks about um I think this view here from the um residential uses down here this is really the only view of seeing the truck docks so of course we do have our buffer
uh in the front here that as that matures um will help block The View and by putting in uh as was suggested uh keeping uh to the greatest extent practical the existing trees there and putting uh new trees in the
areas that'll help buffer it um also the um owner indicated they can do kind of like Wing walls to block the the trucks right adjacent to the um uh truck parking there so we would accept as a condition of any approval
the board chose get to give to put up screen walls as you describe them yes in locations that are consistent with what the Township's Consultants refer yes okay um and D we just talked about the building um
covered that in your testimony already um and E the applicant should provide testimony um about the screening of mechanical equipment where are where is the mechanical equipment located for the warehouse buildings the med mechanical equipment will be in the center of the roof so there won't be too visual uh too
visibly seen from the outside I don't know what that looks like um could before we just totally leave the architecturals could you just do me one favor and provide to Mark
Township staff whomever a colorized version of what the building will will look like um I I don't I don't necessarily want to hear your architect I understand that it it's going to look like the yeah said hello absolutely sounds
good just so it's on record and if they have any you know um comments with the architectural treatments they can at least have it have a colorized version on hand all right and f um is the problem because there's this discussion about potentially putting a sidewalk um
you know along Route 27's Frontage uh again not not part of this property correct well we do have we do have Frontage on two little sort of fingers correct um do they go anywhere they're separate in AP part
correct there there uh there's two fingers that reach out to uh Route 27 if we did sidewalk uh all the way on our Frontage it would just be a small section here and uh this one section here they wouldn't even be connected and wouldn't be connected to the warehouses
in any way so we would generally suggest that that wouldn't be an appropriate condition but certainly yeah I mean I don't see where they would go to I think I think the bigger thing was what Ted already suggested and that you agreed to is that if there is some some some pedestrian who wishes to be dropped off
at that bus stop and walk back to your site through the emergency access that they um they they could potentially choose to do that um there's really no place on 27 to walk to um you know there's not not a lot of uses there
where if you're working in the warehouse they the trees are right up close to the pavement yeah putting in a sidewalk would take down some trees and if they're going to widen It Anyway then we may lose those so yeah so thank you we
would prefer not to have to address that issue so we appreciate that very much it's conceivable the do say something about a side but let's that's not up to us I I I think Mr wolson said it best um the state will determine what happens to
27 in your application as it pertains to it and I'm more than willing to let them do that much obliged chairman um the u g talks about no idling signs right um and I think I think that uh was that one of the ones that Miss Kenyon also talked
about yes I think her suggestion which we didn't get to yet was four idling signs and we've been authorized to tell the board that we would accommodate that request as a condition of any approval the board chose to to Grant well what we're suggesting is that
in the the loading zone where the trucks are assign about every four spaces so that nobody can plead that they didn't see one that's what Miss Kenyan has suggested and we're certainly agreeable to that as I said as a condition of any
approval of the board which used to give us um H is it will comply with the law yes and uh three that doesn't mean you have to put solar on it just means the roof can support yes if the applicant were to so choose to do that either at the time of
building or later on yes correct and three additional site plans a is a statement correct um what about B existing vegetation in your view so I think that there is there already
is vegetation I think we covered this fairly well with the with the with with the buffering and all I would say is this um the board has been consistent is as many trees as can be retained on site I mean the shade tree is shade tree fund
is great it's used it was used to plant trees all up and down the Hamilton Street business district um and will probably be used to replace some of them that di thanks of the drought but um in general we like them on site so anything
you can preserve and anything you add reduces your replacement obligation of 182 trees on the cost thereof to provide the relief to the shade tree commission and we've already given you some instructions on where we prefer to see it put okay I think we have that
covered um what about the top of page five about moving the driveway is that deed restricted that is deed restricted there's an access easement across um so that's we're putting a driveway within that easement that's already been established all right so without with respect Mr chairman we
can't move our driveway there based upon the existing site constraints and the D regulations I would simply make that statement back to the engineer yeah and u c um there's a request to
discuss the the parking requirements um and whether they can be land banked I'm authorized to indicate that there uh between the the dumpster and the EV parking there's I think 12 spaces that we would be willing to bank if the court if the court if the chair
and the board uh thought that that was appropriate less is always more with parking I mean if what you don't need it's you know there it's in the approval if you do need it but if you don't need to make that perious coverage now the board prefers it and I don't know what
your uses of these warehouses and why you know you're you're going you know like I know some somewhat just shy of 50 over the required uh so you do have a lot to play with and the more you can Bank the better doesn't prevent you from building them in the future but if you find you don't need them these are spec
warehouses as IPC they are then you might not right my only issue with this and it has come up a couple of times in some other contexts with land banking where we've agreed in the past we wanted to make sure that the ability to use the bank spaces did not re trigger uh having
to come back to the board for an additional Amendment to the site plan no basic you basically let's say you're going to only build what's required which is3 8 you want to bank the rest if we give you approval for 181 but you say I don't want to build
those other 40 some whatever whatever uh um I'm not doing the math but you know what I mean um then yeah you don't have to come back you just all right so we can just make an application for whatever permits required and the resolution would provide that the permit should issue without the need to go back to the to the board so that code officer
is in concern it's understood but I can add that I appreciate that very much yeah I I think the the only way to me that you could possibly need use that many parking spaces is if you have more
than one shift of employees because then shift B comes in before shift a leaves and you need twice the number of parking spaces we did have an application once years ago to increase
parking at I think it was well was on Cotton Tail I forget what the business was but they needed more parking for that reason but I've also I think informed uh that sometimes the number of tenants that use the building can also
affect that but we will have a traffic expert who will testify about the parking and everything else okay from his mouth instead of mine um D is a statement um we're going to put the es about a
side identification sign that'll be on Veronica on the monument sign I'm told uh f is a proposed access easement that will comply um that's already in
place I'm told uh G is a statement uh H and I are statements I think that is the extent of Mr Healey's substantive comments although obviously I think Mark might have a question yeah just one just one
question with regard to the um the the comment I had about trying to provide some type of screening along um the Northerly side of the property the the one portion I think you really might want to consider is the portion of the site where this would have joined that
shopping center um because in that portion that is going to be the portion where the loading docks are visible it's also going to be the portion where you know the general public you know will have of it I also think your client may want to have that privacy and separation
between the warehouse use and the shopping center which is available to the public you might want to have that separation so you might want to consider at a minimum of fence it's a actually owned by a related entity I understand that
but U I'm informed that we will work with uh you and try to figure out the best way to put some screening there people who may want to may want to trespass onto this site don't know the relationship between the two Property Owners get one of those electric
fences goodness uh with the chair's permission I'll move over to miss kenan's report please all right so um it's a January 3rd 2025 report from
Tara Kenyan um from the environmental commission uh the um first request was to investigate the feasibility for solar panels on the roof and some other things I'm informed that um our ownership is
not prepared to do that um with respect um so that is not an area there we would voluntarily agree to comply but you did testify that they would be solar ready if you so chose to put solar on them that's corre and I think that's what that that's all that you legally need to do and that's that's that's kind of what
ter is saying it make solar ready at a minimum so that's what you have agreed we've agreed to that Mr chairman as you said the second paragraph um there's some um error that she believe I believe she's made in connection with the coverage and uh Mr Herman has been sworn
what what is the actual coverage issues here the proposed coverage is uh 53.4% Which is less than the 60% permitted yep otherwise you'd be requesting a variance correct yeah I'm not sure what she where she got that number from it must have been maybe an
old plan or something but uh I wanted the record to reflect what the actual coverage is it's only 53.4 discussion at the environmental commission um three I think we've covered in terms of information regarding trees tree replacement and Tree locations well we'll work with your
people uh uh hopefully that's sufficient Mr chairman for me to move on to the next paragraph um again um idea about the electrified uh truck uh capacity that's a a respectful no from the applicant on that they don't believe that that's actually anywhere in the short term or
long-term future and they're uh declining to engage in that type of uh installation not going to have any Tesla trucks well what I call the Tesla truck it's the ugliest car I've ever SE only cyber trucks but you know what I mean
they they do I think they do have you know and I don't know um you know obviously it's something you can do at a later time if things were to go that way so all the next paragraph is the uh anti-idling signs that we discussed with Mr chase the we've already addressed
that and bike storage uh and repair stations um our people are afraid to death of having bikes travel on the same ways as trucks so again respectfully that's also I know would would you at least have a bike rack with people if they were going to bike to the site for
any reason you would have a bike rack outside that's good um if you give me two seconds I will ask all the all the people with a with a sway of left yeah yeah we don't live in a world where everyone has a car you know yeah no I
think in a minimum you should have some some sort of yeah mik a bike rack yeah he's I clearly you can see he's concerned about the mixing of bikes and truck I'm I'm assuming I'm assuming the people who are coming to here the and to
use the parking lot for example are going to be employees and they're not going to be Ming I we haven't heard your traffic yet but I assume as in most good Warehouse applications that you don't exactly what you're saying you don't want to mingle um truck traffic with
with non-truck traffic so assuming your bicyclist or your car or your employee is going to go to the parking lot and park there in in a in a vehicle um there there would be a bike rack there yeah um if we could just Reserve uh on what we're going to do with that until after
you've heard Matt yeah we can and then and then you can decide what you want to do by way of a condition of any approval you choose to Grant um that would be the conclusion uh of Miss kenyon's report the sewage Authority report is uh is non
controversial yeah I mean all outside reports it's always a condition of approval that you will comply D Canal commission whatever Sumer say so Soil Conservation who whoever right um so we don't need to go through report for the record is dated J January 13 uh the next
report we were given was from Department of Health and they said no objection to the application and that was Da febru February 18th and that's all the reports that we have gotten we didn't get one from the fire mark but I suspect the Fire Marshal's concern is the emergency
access way I don't have it probably um um we there's let's see emergency access driveway uh water main uh in the driveway minimum of 10 in and connected to the water main on Route 27 I think we had already covered that additional fire
hydrants required per fire prevention additional details are required for water storage tank and pumps um fire hydrant detail must comply with Township uh stand Det detail and that's it so I think those all
things so there we go yes all right so that would conclude um our affirmative testimony from the engineer I don't know if it's a chair's practice for us to move to the next witness or for there be questions yeah I'll just open it up to the board for any questions and since you only have two two witnesses we'll hold to the after your traffic testimony
to open to the public any board questions for the engineer uh Ted good yeah we've actually covered most of the things that I had down to bring up but I wanted to ask what are the little blue squares at
the southeast corner of the parking if they're charging stations um they should be dispersed see if you have a a dual charging station with these cords
somebody Parks right in front of it and they get charged up but they don't move that car right away you could use the space next to it for somebody else to get charged but if you have all of your charging stations in one place then you
you don't have that advantage of having more spaces available so it's s this is really we have somebody on the environmental commission who's a expert in electric
vehicles and he recommended this so you might you might have three on one side of the site and three on one on the other side or but just not quite next to each other yeah I I'm not sure what's involved with the infrastructure to make
those ready but I will go ask the owner whether that's something that they would consider is there a we there's a place to do it right yes even if you had them all on one side but you had two spaces in two parking spaces in between
the parking spaces that are really dedicated for charging that would achieve my point and I think it wouldn't mean any additional wiring or minimal additional wiring no problem yeah I'm
told it has to be dual but they can have spaces in between the two du so normally that's acceptable to the ownership Mr Chase thank you any other board questions if not you can you can you will remain sworn in case we think of anything but you can
proceed to your traffic witness thanks chairman can't go home yeah can never go good evening uh do you swear the testimony going to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address for the record please my name is Matthew seckler that's SEC c kle e are I'm with Stonefield engineering design address is 92 Park Avenue in Rutherford New Jersey Matt would you
give the board the benefit of your qualifications so that they can determine whether you can testify as an expert certainly I'm have a Bachelor of Science and civil engineering from Union College in SKC New York a Masters in City Regional planning from ruz University I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state with a specialty
in traffic engineering I have a I am recognized as professional traffic operations engineer by The Institute of Transportation Engineers practicing for over 15 years years has been accepted for over 200 boards in the state of New Jersey qualified eminently so it seems so he by
favorite but but don't tell them I said so um Matt you've done a traffic study for the property in conjunction with the proposed uses Warehouse just give the board a general overview of what your conclusions are before we get to the engineering report absolutely and again
that report was dated April 18th 2022 um again I know this being a planning board application the focus the matter is primarily regarding circulation access on and off the site however in the report we also did traffic counts at the nearby roadway in the intersection of Veronica How Lane
and Route 27 not breaking any type of uh news that intersection does have some excessive delays luckily our driveway is over 3/4 of a mile away from where that point is so in terms of the stacking and backups limited uh in terms of anything
that gets that distance it is also a benefit from the design standpoint that we are sharing driveways with other lots and other other similar uses so we're not constantly basically opening up and creating more access points or conflict points along Veronica so I think we have a very positive access design again that
driveways has sufficient width and sufficient sight distance I've worked on that application haven't heard any complaints since it's opened in terms of site distance or any type of operational issues specific to that driveway um again as I mentioned we did do the traffic counts we did our typical level
of service analysis this uh type of warehouse and size of Warehouse again as I think chair has alluded to uh much smaller the two Ware are much smaller than the other warehouses not only just on our development but even comparing to the LG site across the street significantly smaller so you're seeing
significantly lesser volumes of traffic overall during the busiest hours this site would generate about one vehicle every four minutes or so which is pretty low turnover when you think of you know really the size of the property you're dealing with slow down a little bit certainly
um so overall in terms of the amount of traffic we're generating in a peak hour about 25 vehicles in the busiest hour um a portion of them trucks you know maybe four or five of them during those peak hours maybe trucks of various sizes um
but again pretty uh insignificant increase in the amount of traffic we're talking about less than 1% increase in traffic along the Veronica uh Route 27 um intersection so I mean what you state about that route 27 How Lane Veronica
intersection is well known to the board uh it's been that case before any of your warehouses came online it's terrible and it will remain terrible I I take a I don't I don't mean to be jaded when it comes to traffic u a
testimony but as we all know case law right um when we Zone it we say it's okay um so therefore we can't do anything about it when it comes to way to generate right so I'm most interested in hearing the internal sit perfect
absolutely and I appreciate you know I normally have to discuss with boards that their focus should be onsite before planning board but I'm glad that you've got well I I have I pee so on-site circulation uh on-site circulation the vast majority of the
drive AES on the site um are 26 feet wide which is a little bit wider than you would typically experience in your shopping centers or General commercial development it's a little more generous your drive aisles the in terms of where the truck loading will be that is has two 60 foot loading Bays on either side
you basic have that Central Court and 87 foot wide area in between those two loading areas so that's more than sufficient room for any of those trucks to back up they don't conflict with any of the docks in building a don't conflict with Building B very positive design there we do have um the way the
site's been designed the trucks are basically M basically kept in that middle aisle so they're not driving by this you know really where the passenger cars or the workers are parking in terms of the amount of parking and again I know that we've already discussed um
reducing about 20 to 22 parking spaces on the site either by uh planting tree Islands or land banking a portion of them um that still puts us with a compliant number of parking spaces um which would um be about 161 uh if we
land bank and remove some spaces for uh those landscape Island so that is more than sufficient for the site I would note that these type of sites and we've shown basically three office areas in each one when you do have multiple tenants in the building sometimes your parking require parking demand goes up a
little bit because everybody may have a receptionist everybody may have some you know um operational people in the building versus if it's a single tenant and this being spec we don't know so we want to make sure we have those spaces there and that's why we also have the land bank spaces so for some reason we do need parking in the future we're not
back before the board so again uh overall the site has been designed with sufficient parking sufficient Drive aisles and again I think they're actually slightly oversized to help with the circulation and sufficient uh access for the uh trucks uh to both load and get on and off the site so overall I
believe this application uh has met the general engineering standards from a traffic engineering perspective all right and just to be be thorough um in the traffic impact study from the engineering report uh number two talks about the U um access for emergency
vehicles service Vehicles garbage trucks delivery trucks fire trucks Rescue Squad I take it if good enough for the truck traffic for warehouses how is it for those Vehicles there's nothing bigger than a you know WB 67 that would potentially load in here in terms of the fire trucks or garbage trucks that could
work everything else could work and again you've heard agreement from the applicant regarding the emergency access uh driveway to 27 that would only you know enhance the circulation for those vehicles and you're okay with with the parking uh being reduced for land
banking and for the center Islands assuming they're not diamonds correct and again I believe it's a uh uh you know uh definitely a proper way to respond to some of the comments about us Having excess parking on the site all right so that that I guess addresses the first uh number one two three and four
are will complies correct right that would conclude the traffic testimony Mr chairman so Matt you can give me a bike rack yes you testify the rate that they Thou shalt not mix cars and trucks we can have bike rack we would not have it on the loading area of the building no no I
wouldn't suggest anybody do that be on the car area of the building probably who would who would we consult with on that Mr chairman Mr Hy or the engineer or both where where just where to put it where to put it yeah dignify put it in
the front door an engineer I think we yeah all right so we'll make a note of that and agree to that as a condition of any approval the board chooses to Grant so Charles you want to I have one question
uh you're I understand the the two warehouses You're Building are together they're probably equal to one bigger one which is more typical than has been typical of what the applications we've been getting I just want to have you go
on record uh with a comment about the entrance of the driveway the common driveway uh we do now have four warehouses or the two that exist and these two that equal one like that and
almost directly across from that driveway is the million square foot Warehouse do you foresee any adjustments or improvements that might be needed that's to that intersection or to that entrance way uh is there going to be any
queuing of trucks either on Veronica or in the driveway I mean they're there they're built by they're spec warehouses but uh there's onethird more traffic that you can anticipate in a sense may
not work out exactly that way and then the second one was I know you didn't want to deal with offsite uh improvements but would you make a statement concerning the Veronica Avenue Hamilton Street intersection
whether there will be any adverse effect on uh using that uh which has become quite busy with the million square foot Warehouse that's over there yep so I'll address that uh so when we did our
analysis of the um driveway because we studied not only the hen Veronica intersection but we also studied the driveway itself we did the counts of Veronica before the the two warehouses that are now constructed because this application goes back a number of years
we've included that projected trip generation and our trip generation for these two new warehouses plus the million square foot one across the street was in operation and when we studied that intersection still operates appropriately I also note because I did
work on the million sare foot Warehouse as well we counted that driveway it generates about only 20% of what we accounted for when we designed that when that we accounted for when we designed that site so that site is also not
generating I'd say levels of traffic that we anticipated it's much less than that and again that traffic our traffic coming out of the driveway even though they're kind of a skew the two driveways they'll still be able to work appropriately and efficiently I think your other question was about the
offsite intersection we do anticipate only about 20% of our traffic heading that that way so again if we're generating 26 cars an hour we're talking about four or five vehicles going that direction the remainder of them would actually be going towards uh Route 27
which we see as the more uh PRI primary path okay that sounds positive would you happen to know as far as the million square foot Warehouse uh it's you're you're saying it's below your traffic projections is is that going to be can
we look forward to that being a normal long-term operation or is it because it's not fully being utilized yet or it was in full I mean that when we did those counts I think it was three or four years after that million square foot building has been opened so it is
mature in the engineering standpoint um I will state that a lot of warehouses are generating less you know there's the we're going to call the very manual based or direct to home warehouses that generate trips above
what we typically are seeing and then anything that is really not that we tend to be seeing generating less than what you know the book values are so when you have them together you get a nice average but the you know direct to home delivery type warehouses
those things are are turning out a lot of traffic the million square foot warehouses and again what these warehouses are designed for don't anticipate uh levels of traffic even what I'm stating at one every four minutes so the short answer is we can
expect it to continue the way it is in the near future at least correct not knowing their business model changes but as long as it maintains the model that's there I would anticipate having those low volumes that you've been experiencing over the years and the whole driveway intersection will work
with improvements and there will be no queuing there might be a left turn hold up once in a while but it'll still move as it's moving now yes as expected yes and we do have a pretty long driveway so it's not the case where if if we have
two trucks waiting to get out of our driveway all of a sudden it's jamming up so people can't get into the site we have a nice long throat so that is not a concern at this location okay thank you I have a question uh the traffic study uh I think
I heard you say was done in 2022 it was done in two the date of the report was 20 April 28 2022 the data that was collected was 2021 it was 21 so how much would you say would be an increase of traffic over the 3 years
with the building that's gone up in Franklin and also in North and South Brunswick so what we did is we had the counts from 2021 we added what we expected the traffic would be from the two warehouses that are now built but weren't built in 2021 we've added our
traffic from our two warehouses and we also increased the volumes by I believe it was one and a qu% each year for the three years between 2021 and basically 2024 to come up with that kind of growth that you're talking about so again the
compounded increase of 1.25% each year accounts for General traffic increase and then we have the two warehouses next to us plus our two warehouses that were added in as well and and across the street that was already open okay y all right yeah I have a question about
pedestrian access um it's unlikely that a pedestrian exiting your site for lunch um um would walk the entire route down to your uh driveway to come back up uh to access the Dunkin Donuts to Jimmy Johns I think it's Jimmy Johns um Jersey
Mike Jersey Mike's at at the corner uh there but there's a lot of opportunities for people during lunch to go out and get something to eat ideally you would have a pedestrian only connection or easement to the stopping shop uh to allow that to happen I don't know the specific grades
between them so I I yeah there could speak if there's there there's a bridge possibility you can get across I I think is you know to ensure that those businesses continue to thrive given the amount of people you're bringing in that area and cutting down on the amount of
back and forth um I hear that you know people in Jersey really live based on Dunkin Donuts so there's one yeah we're not asking for a sidewalk we're asking for a connection it could be a path or something that's dignified
to get people [Music] across yeah I think they're looking at whether there's the drainage swell or ditch that might be engineering Solutions across that though hard to cross that I know I can't put that EV
but um if you needed I would have um Whoever has this picture testifies to what it shows there's a really beautiful Bridge you can construct a small pedestrian path across that to allow people to frequent those businesses is there instead of having to get in their
cars and drive to Duncan yeah I mean that is the one side of the street where there's worth anything doing I mean you're really not going to do anything on 27 itself cuz we talked about whether You' put the sidewalk and the access easement right there's no point in doing that goes to
nowhere but at least across the street of 27 no makes sense Mr chairman we get it um I'm informed by ownership that they will work with the engineer see if there's a place that they can do it and if it works out that it can be done you know yeah Bridgewater Bridgewater
Commons I'm over here Bridgewater Commons has something like that where people can walk across a small Bridge yeah I look it makes a great it's a great idea I just had to check to see if there were physical constraints made yeah no I I would just say that if the applicant
you know um could explore that be I mean it would be great to do it where your driveway is and to say we can stripe a crosswalk over over Veronica to the problem is there's no sidewalk on that side for then you to walk up to the businesses Charles mentioning so the
other way to do it is the Innovative solution that Charles came up with or a version thereof so um if you could at least agree to explore that the shortest path that makes sense as long as explore it and if feasible to implement
it I mean I don't I don't like it's just something it's just something to think about that's we're not saying you got to do it no it makes perfectly good sense you know and it eliminates or reduces car traffic right I get it yeah I'm just
concerned about if feasible language I already know it's feasible I already know it's doable um you have your traffic engineer here who went to Ruckers where I taught I'm pretty certain he can vouch too that the shortage path makes sense cuts down an amount of travel serves the businesses
the entire Community it makes sense for proper PL planning thank you Mr teach rors from time to time me too law school a busy man all right anybody else have any
questions for either of the witnesses because if not Ted you this is really more to the engineer I meant to I had it down and I forgot to ask it then we'll bring her back yeah well it's just we
you have prvious pavement where the trucks will actually in the loading docks will that perious pavement back support a fully loaded trailer
yes yeah it's it's H20 loading um as if it's highway it's designed for highway traffic so yes accommodated okay just had to ask right yeah no kidding television
first all right if there's uh no other questions let's um go ahead and open to the public and then we'll come back um I make a motion to open to the public for any comments on this particular application second all in favor meeting is open to the public for
any comments they wish to make on this application seeing no takers and move to close all in favor [Music] okay um any summation you may we wish to make Mr wolson just briefly um I'm a big fan of brevity um I think that we tried
to put together an application that is consistent and honored the township codes in effect at the time of the application um we really have indicated our intent to comply with almost everything that's been requested uh I did indicate with respect there a couple things we just didn't think we could do
um and we would ask the board to consider the application favorably um subject to the conditions that we have agreed to and those that the board thinks are uh appropriate thank you any other board comments or discussion before we put
this to a vote okay um if not let's see if I can craft a motion here um I would move to approve uh with the um um condition that the applicant will comply with all outside staff reports those generated
and yet to be generated or to be be amended in the case of your um what is it the LOI or the the um was it flood plane or flood plane or whatever whatever that is that might might be renewed that will that will
have to be included um the um banking of parking spaces is discussed although the applicant is um will be approved to construct the 181 um to bank as many as possible the applicant said 12 if you can do more than 12 great um the
buffering enhanced buffering on the south side of the um towards the residential side towards Ben retaining the existing trees retaining the existing trees to the extent possible the um um what landscape Islands in
landscape Islands um and Charles's um access or path pedestrian path to um the uses on the other side of the Veronica um that the applicant agrees to explore um to the greatest extent
possible the um ability to do that um the emergency access emergency access yes Grant U that that all my notes so yeah every all the conditions they've agreed to well I just want to make sure I hit the highlights you got it um no
okay Mr chair in point of information you had indicated in compliance with the reports I would just ask the motion to be amended to say accept this otherwise indicated by the applicant CU there were several not many but sever where we said sort of no yeah right right like the um
um charging for the trucks and things like that yeah so yeah compliance with I was referring more to outside reports but as well as staff reports um unless the applicant during their testimony tonight has made it explicit um has discussed with the board explicitly why they could not comply thank you Mr
chairman all right that's my motion second okay I'll second it well Charles already did okay I didn't hear thank you already did yeah okay councilman and Barson yes
Theodore Chase yes Robert thank you for being quite agreeable on these suggestions that had yeah he don't tell you that's my middle name it's already there I heard you Bob thank you Shaw Keller yes Jennifer ragno yes
Charles Brown yes I I like the uh joint access roadway I think we should promote more access easement as we do planning uh throughout New Jersey so great job Rebecca Hilbert yes and chairman
arini yes thank you board memb thank we have any other business tonight Christine Mark no if not I would make a motion oh wait a minute there is one one little piece of business uh biis Zone uh Mark you want to talk about this we we need
to have a um we need to have a board discussion uh the bi's own public hearings have have happened and we need to schedule a date where the planning board is going to um um talk about this um and you would suggested what March
26th yeah is that yeah whatever let me just the fourth Wednesday so what the what the thought is is that um yeah we've had as the chairman just said we had the community meetings um series of meetings with the with the steering
committee um and overall just just to refresh everybody's recollection this is looking at the bi Zone we're doing a uh master plan Amendment and an Associated uh draft ordinance um ultimately it's it's going to be it's the intent is for
it to be adopted by the planning board as an element of the master plan what we want to do is have the the planning board go over first you know at a work session so we're not going to just lay it before you at a hearing so we'd like to have you know the opportunity for for
you to review it um ahead of time uh what we're going to do is we're going to have the um the meeting in person here and then uh the consultant is going to be on Zoom so he'll be able to project on the screens and participate as if he was here it's 2025 we can do things like
that yeah so um we're going to confirm what we're asking right now is to basically save the date for um for March 26th and um we'll confirm within the next few days that that's you know
definitely the date we'll also send you in the near term you I mean you could look at it you look at it now but uh all of the different materials that have been prepared in this study have been placed on the website along the way so the different um U minutes or not
minutes but uh notes from the different steering committee meetings both Community meetings uh were were were taped and are up on the website uh the the most recent one in particular um I would strongly request that you you know
review watch that um so you know basically what you know what this is all about and then and then as that the 26th approaches you're you're going to get a draft um document in terms of the draft master plan and the draft ordinance but you this has been a a long
process um with a lot of meetings and input from the steering committee and the public so you know again I just ask that you you know review those materials and then so that we can have a you know thoughtful discussion uh you know at that meeting and then after assuming that that meeting um goes well you know
meaning the board is uh generally satisfied with the approach uh after that at some point we would have a hearing for the adoption of the master plan and then the order ordinance that's in that would go to the council for adoption for their consideration to
adopt yeah sounds good thanks Mark so hold the 26th um are we going to need a quorum for sure let's just say I don't know you need a quum to meet you need AUM to me okay and we'll we'll have to do a special meeting notice but obviously we'll handle that all right
because normally we can normally back in the day believe it or not there was a planning board meeting I think it was the the the the Third Wednesday um that was a combined hearing and work session and as time went by and we didn't have work
session topics it just became hearing um and then we would have a fourth Wednesday that was just a work session so that has gone by the board but we're now we're resurrecting it for this one thing so hold that the used to be three
times imagine that all right so if nothing else motion to adjourn second right all in favor we are done