Close enough. Sorry. Um, if everyone could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Um Charles Brown and Mark Dancy asked to be excused this evening. Councilman and Barson here. Theodore Chase here. Robert
Lort here. Shaw Keller here. Jennifer Ragnau here. Mahir Rafi here. Robert Thomas here. Rebecca Hilbert here. Chairman Rini here. Um minutes for the regular meeting of April 16th. If I could have a motion.
Everybody can vote. Who's here? Excellent. I will move them. Second. Councilman Barson, yes. Theodore Chase, yes. Robert Lort, yes. Shaw Keller, yes. Jennifer Ragno, yes. Mahia Rafi, yes.
Robert Thomas, yes. Rebecca Hilbert, yes. Chairman Rini, yes. We have no resolutions. We have no discussion items. Um, we'll make a motion to open to the public for any general planning comments. I'll make a motion. Second.
All in favor? I I um any general planning comments from the public not related to the two applications tonight, as HSU and MPH? Seeing none, move to close. Make a motion. I did just second it.
You second. Oh, I'll second it. All right. Fine. Um, all in favor? I. So, um, I thought tonight maybe it would be if it's agreeable, um, since I believe the attorney is the same for both
applicants to start with MPH. Sure. Uh, can you There you go. There we go. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Matt Flynn from the law firm of Savo Shock in Somerville, New Jersey. Here tonight representing the applicant NPH Real Estate LLC. Its application
tonight is a application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with some associated sebulk variances to construct a two-building shopping center comprising a total of approximately 26,000 square ft. Um, one building will be entirely retail at one story, um, at
about 4700 square ft² and the other is two stories, 21,000 and change square ft. Um, two stories, so it's a little over 10,000 square foot per floor with a mix of retail on the ground floor and office on the first and second floors.
Um the building is uh proposed to be occupied partially by the applicant who's here tonight um for its one of its principal offices. Um and in addition, we propose other sorts of site plan improvements including landscaping,
lighting, parking, uh and the uh uh normal sort of site improvements that you'd see from a major site plan. The property itself, it's designated as block 502.01, lot 57.01 01 in your tax maps, better known as 390 Davidson
Avenue. Um we're a corner lot, so we have frontage on New Brunswick Road and Davidson. Um and we're proposing driveways from both uh street frontages. The property is located in the BI business industrial district, but
it's subject to the retail district overlay, which is why we're a permitted use with such a shopping center on the property. Um, and in consultation with your staff, in addition to the site plan relief we require, we identified three bulk variances as part of this
application. One related to drive aisle width. The ordinance under section 11288 requires 26 ft for an internal drive. We're proposing 25. We need a relief from section 112 article 4 for um off-
streetet parking. Uh the calculation is 116 spaces required and 91 supplied. Due to the um prominence of office that we're proposing, um we intend to justify that as a better planning alternative
for a decreased parking than the ordinance requires. And third, we need a setback for the signage. Um 10 ft proposed, 20 ft required. That's section 112 article 5 of your ordinance. Uh we have given public notice served by
certified mail and published in your local paper pursuant to the municipal land use law. And with me tonight I have four witnesses. I have our civil engineer Shinath Kodala uh from Kashi Consulting who will provide an overview
of the site plan and respond to the uh CME letter that we did receive and acknowledge a receipt of. We have our architect, David Feldman, um, to go over the proposed architecture. We have a traffic engineer, Betsy Dolan, from Dolan and Dean. And we also have our
professional planner, John Mcdana, to justify the variance relief as part of this application. So, unless you have any uh, initial questions or legal questions of me, I would like to call our first witness. Uh, nothing from me. Go, you can you can go ahead and proceed. Great. So, I'd
like to call Mr. Cordala. Mhm. Mr. Flynn, just make sure they all fill in the paper on the table. Okay. Sir, you can sit over here. That's what I'm doing here. Oh, we got it. They forgot the computer. Just put your
business address there. Maybe they didn't. Good evening. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address for the record, please. You have to turn your mic on, and speak into your mic. Okay.
Uh, my name is Shri, S H R I, last name K O T D A W L A. I reside in Manalapur, New Jersey. Okay. Can you go through your uh the benefit of your professional credentials for the board? Yes, I'm a licensed engineer in state of
New Jersey since 1998. I obtained my PhD degree in civil engineering from Kansas State University in 1994 and practicing land use engineering since last 30 years. I have not been in front of this board, but I have worked on at least
five projects in Franklin Township as engineer. Yeah. No, you're you're you're qualified to testify. Um and before you start, let me just ask are is the testimony and the plans you're about to present uh prepared um at your hand or and andor
under your direction? Yes. Uh myself and under my direction. Great. Okay. So, um Shri, why don't you um take the board through the existing conditions of the site and what we're proposing and if you have any exhibits, I think we might have
to plug in. It's sleeping a lot. And council, just for the record, anything that you was submitted as part of the application package doesn't need to be marked. So, only new new items. Thank you. Okay, good evening again. My name is Shri and here is the project just I put
it on the screen. It's it's basically essentially is the same drawing which you have it as a site plan but we just made little colors. So kind of easily visible kind of we can talk about it. So we started this project. We'll do we'll do A1 because it's colorized. Okay.
Go ahead. Sorry. Street. So this office got engaged by the developer or the applicant and and the owner in in the year 2023. And this office went through few first like typical environmental constraint study and we came up with
because we have a let me describe this property. This property is kind of rectangle shape uh falling on Davidson Avenue and New Brunswick Road at the south northwestern corner of the intersection. It's a currently a vacant property. It used to host one single
family home which was demolished and still we have some reminiscence of driveway and some foundation stones are left at the site. So this kind of site is not forested but we have some like a there's a big null of tree between the stream
which is located along the westernly property line which is a kind of a reritan river tributary and and it carries a roughly about 350 acres of drainage area. So it's a kind of a regulated stream as per
D rules. So our office went to D obtain a flood area design flood elevation. So this this site basically that river creates four different kind of constraint flood area then riparian zone de la river canal commission zone B
as well as the township of Franklin stream corridor. So whatever the green area we see on a westernly portion of the site that is not developable and henceforth all the development is pushed towards the Davidson
Avenue and that was our beginning point and then we created two separate buildings because the owner is seeking to have his own office on a second floor of the large building. We see that on a map. So retail space is to be on the first floor and the the small building
in the front which is going to be a singlestory building retail completely. So the second building uh the big larger building is a mix of retail and the office space and office space will be occupied by the owner on the second floor. So and that's how basically
whatever was available we basically try to utilize it best and and develop the site plan and some of the things I'll just try what we tried here as far as the landscaping goes lighting goes it's typically lighting we try not to put a
lighting pole too high so we try to stay at 16 ft we are allowed to go higher but at 16 ft we are trying to see that we don't spill the lighting on off-site lighting or on neighbors or and all the lightings will have a back shield if they're facing the property lines. So
that will try to reduce the light pollution during foggy days. Uh that's usually we say it complies but on a foggy days you can see a cloud. So our attempt is to reduce that cloud uh on a foggy days. The landscaping is we try to
utilize whatever we have the green area left on a develop within the development and just filled up with with a trees like we can't put any more than what we did. Uh some of the trees we have along the both of the street they are mostly a
locust which is and as we know when there is a power line the trees are being trimmed and they're uneven. So most of the time you see branches falling every every strong event because the trees are not well grown because of one-sided loading on a tree. Branches
are only on one side not on the both sides. So but we will comply with the township rules and applicant will pay if they have to pay the fee for the tree replacement cost. So we have committed that we will make that payment if it's needed. So we will calculate how many
trees we are proposing, how many trees we are cutting and whatever the difference is. uh township uh will collect the tree replacement fund and applicant will has agreed to pay that money and basically everything else is used then we are short of parking space
because as the or attorney told talked about it the building sizes are about 26,200 square ft and anything above 25,000 is called for a shopping center criteria which is not our property but
by the book it's classified as a shopping center. So the number of required parking spaces is more. So henceforth 116 is required. We are providing 91. So that that is a bigger variance we are seeking. Others are some design
variance which is typically it requires between the parking spaces 26 ft township requires we have provided 25 ft and that's one basically we are seeking a variance. There are few other subject one is the loading zone. Township consultant has asked that what
how they going to load and unload deliveries for the shopping centers. So these days it's a mostly it's a box man they come in aisle park and people just offload it. So it's there is no need for them to overnight park or they don't park it there for like more than 10
minutes or 15 minutes to offload and unload and they usually schedule the delivery at non- peak hours. But if board wants to know I can talk about how many trees we are planting, how many trees we are cutting. If if it's needed, we can I can go through the
details of all those subjects. But if board is a question, I'll I'll repeat those things in a detail. Then we are seeking uh two things about signs because of the we have a two frontages. We are seeking
two signs a ground mounted sign on a both of the street. So that's a kind of like a we seek a like a variance there and also the distance distance is typically requires 20 ft from the property line.
20 feet because of planting trees we we think people won't be able to see the signs. So we are seeking 10 feet instead of 20 feet. So so those are the main thing otherwise the all the engineering comments we have we don't see any objection or we don't have any argument
or discussion we are able to we are going to comply with all the engineering comments we have received uh pertaining to storm water and any other design standards. So, in other words, you're in receipt of the CME review letter dated February 14th, 2025. Yes. And we agree
as a condition of approval to comply with each and every recommendation uh and suggested condition contained in that letter. Yes. If the board would like us to go through the letter, we can. Um but we are happy to stick to it. Whatever the board desires. No, if you're going if your testimony is that
you're going to comply with all the review comments, that's fine. What I generally do as you probably know Matt is is you know talk about anything that you can't do or would like to you know discuss or can do half of if you're going to comply then no we can we can
comply with the CME letter. Um have you also had an opportunity to review Mr. Healey's letter dated February 6, 2025? Yes. A few of those items um I think are appropriately addressed to other witnesses, but um beginning on page
three of his letter, do you want to um begin addressing some of his comments as it relates to parking uh placement, screening, etc.? No, we would be able to satisfy those requirements and to the extent you want
to comment or or we can just do the same thing and stipulate same thing. It's the only thing is like loading zone. We will not be providing dedicated loading zone here. That was commented like couple of times on the letters. So we just request that we don't need a dedicated loading zone here. I mean Mark, we're happy to answer
any questions from your letter. Yeah. So when it comes to Mr. Hel's report um and turn it over to him to ask. One of the things that struck me was the uh you the site layout and the the overall design um and some of the comments there. So um Mark, go ahead. Well, yeah, I'm a little
I mean I'm a little confused about the statement you just made that you'd comply. Um and the reason I'm confused is some of my comments speak to, you know, some potentially significant changes to the site layout. um which I
think if if if you were to comply in full with my report, I mean the first one comment that I made is the location of that the larger building and that even though it complies with the minimal front yard setback um the that the way that the the
placement of that building in that location in the proximity to the road and the layout that both the horizontal um uh uh vertical you know layout of that road you're going to be coming up that hill and that that building is
going to be very prominent to drivers driving up that hill uh only 20 ft from the front yard setback. So my comment was that you should explore changes to the site layout to make the rear of that building less prominent. Perhaps
flipping the uh instead of having the parking lot to the north, putting that parking lot to the south and moving the building further to the north. Um the other comments that speak to, you know,
perhaps some more significant changes to the site plan was I had cited um in complying with the the commercial design standards, the other shopping centers, nearby shopping centers on Elizabeth have much wider uh landscaped areas
along their frontages. um you know this is I think in the neighborhood of 10 feet u whereas the other developments are 20 feet or more um I think in some time some places significantly more which allows for a a lot more landscaping uh and the reason why that
comes up is again one of the major themes of the design standards is to put parking lots behind buildings and out of sight. um you know in here you know you have the the both along both frontages it's basically going to be lined with
parking lots and the way that those other sites dealt with that because they also have parking in the front but they dealt with that by having much wider you know landscaped areas in the front of their site. So my comment was you should be looking at those other similar developments just down the road
and emulate what they did. Um, so respectfully, I'm not sure how you addressed that by, well, we'll just comply with Mark's comments without showing the board how you're going to do that. No, I understood, Mark. I I think the point was generally that we understood the intent of your comments and that we're willing to work with the
design to incorporate your suggestions in a revised set of plans that would be especially with uh in essence to the landscaping um to your review and satisfaction as the township planner. Now I think um Shri might have a comment
about the uh closeness of that front building to New Brunswick Road. So we can make an adjustment where I drew just a white line. We can just make it like like hold this area as like a more green
area. So it it can basically screen the largely the building. When the driver is on a north Brunswick road, they will not see the building as much because first 20 to 35 ft will be just covered in a vision with a screening by vegetation
evergreens and that will not your vision will be blocked to see the building. You might see the top like five to eight feet of the building as a as a driver. If someone is walking then he has a little window where the entrance is. That part you will see the parking lot.
So we we can cut down that concern. I I I I agree with it. It's too close 35 ft high building right next to North Brunswick Avenue. So we can make uh that adjustment where we can achieve that kind of
screening if that is the real concern. Yeah. So, so I mean my response is obviously I again I'm I'm not the board um and and I don't know if and I know you know I don't I don't think the board is necessar necessarily going to make decisions on the fly without seeing a
plan showing what you're discussing. Um you know I had I had recommended originally that there be a 3D rendering from that location so the board can get an understanding of what you're talking about. You know, I don't know if the board is going to require that if you move the building back and if that satisfies them, but you know, I think
the board needs to see something to to to so they can so they can be assured that what you're you just described that it won't be visible. They can't do that based on what you just did. We we do have an an architect. It's more than architecture. I mean, it's it's the design. It's the site
plan. And so here here's kind of where I stand uh in terms of what I see and and I I don't think Mark would have put three or four different pictures of comparable developments for your
reference had he thought that what you had proposed uh looked like that. Um, I I think if I was to, you know, you could do to to be kind, um, this could be reimagined in a
much better way. I don't even see why the building's necessary and they have to be separated. Why couldn't they be in an L shape? I mean, um, you would you would accomplish multiple things um that would comply with Mark's Mark's comments? And and I think overall the
design standards and the the precedent set by the similar shopping centers um on the corner of on the corners of um you know Elizabeth and um schoolhouse um and Elizabeth and Old New Brunswick um
could be emulated perhaps on a smaller scale. I don't know how they compare an in area to this or any constraints but in other words could be could be emulated by by this development with a little more um creative uh approach to it. Yeah. And just and and the one thing
I just want to make clear just for the board's edification and for the applicants which is you know this is not Mark Keely's desire. Every one of these comments comes under the heading of commercial design standards that are in the ordinance. So this is, you know,
again trying to make it consistent with what the ordinances set forth of what the these type retail development should have and we have precedent for how those get incorporated in site design by those, you know, retail developments on Elizabeth Avenue. So again, so that's
why I've used those real world examples. This is what this means. I have a a observation and I'm not an engineer and I don't know for sure uh how or if it could be done but just looking at the site plan I don't
see why I do see a lot of concrete along the frontages of both streets which I do not like. I don't know why an attempt couldn't be made to have each building front on one of the streets. As uh Mr.
Morsini mentioned, I I think it was in his what he might have had in mind an Lshape. Why one building can't front on Davidson closer to the street but within the setbacks closer to the street for the
purpose of eliminating the concrete you know and landscaped uh all the parking I don't understand why all the parking can't be behind both of the buildings then
if the parking has to go on both of the buildings because we have a limitations coming from stream corridor flood hazard area and all the entire green area is not usable. So whatever was usable we try to achieve the best out of it. I
understand we can make more modification to make it more greener looking from the from the outside. But the any and because the number of parking requirements well how are you going to make the rear of the larger
building the office building we just can I mean look more palatable because it has a it has a street presence. Uh we can make it like a wider green buffer. Well, I'd like to see what you come up
with, but I think there needs to be it looks like there needs to be a lot more buffering along the street frontages. And I and I reinforce the comment that was made before, you
know, Mr. immediately put pictures, examples of pictures close to you that seem to have accomplished shielding the parking from Elizabeth Avenue and uh to some extent Schoolhouse Lane. I this has just as
much opportunity to do as good or better a job than that does. I mean, you're the examples he showed are entirely within the retail overlay. You are also, but you're also across the
street from a residential project. Not not quite the same circumstances. Do you want to take a minute to discuss? Do you want to take a minute to discuss? Can we Can we have a couple minutes to discuss with my client? So, um, yeah. I mean before Matt before
you you con and yes you can have we can take a fiveminute recess but here here's what I would suggest um I would suggest that um you know you you've kind of gotten the board's feedback. I suggest you go to the
drawing board and and we uh revise the plan um and then come back um with with a better one. Um and and to me that would be the best use use use of this this time. Um I don't think there's a
need to open to the public because I think your plan um if if you're going to comply with the board's direction is going to change. Um and I'd rather have them comment on of a plan that will um you know have a better a better viability than than something you're going to change and then have to come
back and and their comments may not be relevant to the changes that you that you make. Um, that is what I would suggest. Uh, can I say because we appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, we've heard the feedback from Mr. Thomas, yourself, and of course, Mr. Healey in his letter. We would welcome any other
additional feedback if any other board members want to give us uh some suggestions to go back into our design. Yeah, I think that is actually a really good idea. You've heard a couple. Um, let me just say one more and then I'll open it to the board. Um, just because this is on my mind and we were
discussing parking, the board's always been in favor of as little parking as you can reasonably justify to make the site function. Um, you have 95, right? 91 plus four
EVs, correct? Um, 116 is required and I don't think the board would have a problem with that if you can demonstrate that that functions. If you can't, I mean, you you with your site constraints and your building envelope, I mean, you may have to make that second building a tad smaller to accommodate what's
necessary. But I I'll leave it to you to figure out how to accomplish what we what we guide. Um, but you know, though that's sort of I think where the board would go with the with with the uh you know, with the with the parking. Um, with that, um, let me start to my right
because I always tend to look to my left. So, um, let me let me start with my right and Shaw if you have any comments and and we'll we'll just go down the board. The one comment I do have is uh I see that you have a detention basin kind of like in the area of concern where there
might the driver might see the building. Would it be possible to actually move that detention basin and dedicate that to a more landscaped area? Okay. Yes. Thank you, Bob Lord.
I pretty much agree with what you guys are saying, but I I like to see more uh uh shielding, more landscaping, so you don't see the buildings as as much as um that you have there.
Thank you, Mayor. Uh same as everyone else. I'm fine. You're good. Thank you, Ted Chase. Well, I made up I had down a lot of comments based on this plan. I hadn't
been thinking of rearranging things as much. And I I I have to have some sympathy with you. you're working with a much smaller piece of land than the ones on Elizabeth Avenue and that really
constrains what you can do with it. And and furthermore, I I didn't think I would hear Mr. Healey suggest uh moving the building back so as to get more parking in front of the bill the lefthand
building. Um but uh some comments I want to make which can feed into whatever you do. One is that just up at Davidson Avenue there appears to be a residence. Therefore, I think you really
should have evergreen buffering along that side of what's typically the top of the plants. uh right along the the property line uh perhaps red seed perhaps columnar dear
eating there I understand why you are removing practically all of the freestanding trees that do seem to be several shown
in the the easterly corner the the upper corner on Davidson that might be possible to save. Instead, you were planning to plant new trees there. I'd always prefer when possible
to save existing trees because then you're starting out with something at a bigger size than you would plant. Um I have uh one comment which is really for the architect and that is the the
two-story building. You have a a staircase down at I can't think of it as the back of the building. Although from the building's point of view it really is. It's the end closest to New Brunswick Road. I think you ought to
have an emergency exit there because otherwise if you had a fire in the immediate vicinity of the uh door which goes out to the parking lot at the upper end of the building. uh
maybe people from the upper story couldn't get out if uh and I think it would be and you don't have access into the retail stores and even if you formerly had doors there they'd probably
be locked. So I I think that uh it doesn't have to be a door under normal use but an emergency exit. Now, that's far out of what I normally get into, but
um and in this plan, you have over on call it the left hand side of the building, the side toward uh the stream, you have seven eastern red bud trees and
seven red cedars, but they're pretty much smack up against the building. And then just beyond that you have the existing woodland. I think they're sort of wasted there. Uh the more that you're
rethinking if you rethink the design uh probably the more along one of the street frontages. You have a a pretty fair number of trees along the street frontages. Now I do notice that in the
latest version of the plans you have and I think this is new but you did not submit a letter specifying what is new in the latest version. you have a long lines of Japanese holly and I wonder how
high that grows apart from the question is Japanese is not a native species but uh if you have shrubbery along those fronts that seems to be what other people are asking for in terms of the
um yeah shielding of of the of the structures. And another point is I would assume that under at least under this present plan, your singlestory retail
building that the customers are going to go in from the side toward Davidson Avenue. So the parking lots there are the prime spaces for in andout traffic. So, I put the uh charging station maybe
around the upper end of the building instead of at the front where uh in and out parking is going to be really at a at a premium. I I because if people are going to be
charging probably the employees or perhaps visitors to the offices, they're going to want to park there for a couple of hours to get a good thorough uh charge. And the ones you've got up at
the uh upper end of the twotory building are just where you should have them. So these are all um some considerations that whether
however you rethink the design I would like to contri contribute them. Thank you. And the EC did mention that point about the charging station. The the environmental commission did mention that exact same point about the charging stations.
Well, well then there you go. very very consistent. Thank thanks Ted. Those are all very helpful. Ra uh yes. Um so I um had a question on the overall
ratio of the office space versus the retail. Is it your intention to maintain the same 2:1 ratio? Yes. He actually the applicant when we started this project why we have two buildings because he's more of a
professional accounting business. So he wanted to keep active retail to be separate from his business. That's the reason we have two buildings and that's how the whole site gets occupied. The purpose of two building was to separate active retail away from the okay
professional accounting office. So that's the reason we have two build. If we have two buildings, we cannot add more green buffers unless we cut the building, reduce the size which applicant is ready to make it to cut the building and add more green area. But
anywhere we try to switch the parking lot, we cannot achieve two separate buildings of the same size unless we have to cut down the project. Yeah. Or we have to merge the building which applicant always wanted to keep it separate. Otherwise, first we thought make it like one building and it's over.
The reason is accounting office requires some well I separation the I think chairman made the comment uh about the parking requirement and I think you can make a case if uh it's predominantly looks like an office space and then less of a retail focus and I think if we can
achieve that by compacting a little bit of on the retail side I think you can probably achieve both of that and I think um well yeah let me just speak to that because this was an issue um or or discussion that we've had with
the applicant, which is this is the the retail district overlay zone once this is built. Yeah. And unless the board imposes some type of conditions that we would have to track moving forward, if accountants office goes in there
today, 10 years from now, a pizza parlor wants to go in there, it's it's it's zoned for that. Yeah. So this is in essence this is a shopping center. Now you know it might be their intent to have you know office tenants at this time but you know again unless there's
some mechanism where the board imposes puts a deed restriction on x amount of only x amount of retail space 10 years from now 15 years from now. Is that really going to get enforced? I I doubt it. You know the zoning officer at that time's going to go it's retail district overlay. They're
allowed to have, you know, a hair salon. It's permitted. That's So I would suggest you consider it like that shopping center that over time is going to have this mixture of office and retail. And the pros office may replace a pizza place. The shoe store may go in
place of the tax place. Over time, deed restrictions are something we have done before as as Peter just reminded me that the pros and cons of that are are easy to see in the sense that you know you can indeed restrict it and say it's always going to be offices but if you don't find tenants for those
offices now you have half the building or half the site that's fow. So it's better maybe better to have the flexibility to have it occupied by something else. Um, but on a on a related note and then I'll I'll finish up with w with with with um Jen and
Rebecca, but I I think I think you could accomplish what you want in terms of separating the office from the commercial use and and and gain some flexibility to do some of the enhancements that we're asking in the site. If you did connect
the buildings, it won't have to be so physically I mean could be a small breezeway. There could be some architectural treatment that makes them look like some separate use, but in truth they're are connected but not, you know, widely separated. I mean, in some ways, I hate to say it, this is like
what everyone hates about New Jersey strip malls. It's just it looks like a cookie. It stamped it out. Think about the design in a little bit more imaginative way. And I think it could accomplish both things. You do it with architecture. You could do with landscaping where there's a, you know, some landscape treatment between the commercial and and the u office use. and
and sort of delineate, right, with the amount of parking you have in front of the office use, which won't need to be as much as in front of the commercial. Um, it'll be obvious that and of course you you probably won't be able to control spillover. You could put signs, but people ignore them. They ignore handicap signs. They're going to ignore
parking for accountant only. But point is there there's things there's there's things you can do from an engineering perspective. Any um Thank you. So, I agree with all the great suggestions that everybody made. Um, I know you've got some reconfiguring to
do. So, while you're considering changes, have you and perhaps I missed it from these drawings. Are you planning to have sidewalks along? We have a sidewalk all the entire North Brunswick Road and Davidson Avenue. We have
sidewalk. Yes. Okay, perfect. And also from the intersection. So if someone is like want to walk, they can walk out of the shopping center and walk along the street, you know, go across the this this active adult community. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Uh going
last is easy. I agree with all the the suggestions. I have nothing to add. Last but never least, Rebecca, Mr. Chairman, I have a I have a question. Go ahead. That's what happens when you go first. That's fine. I can I can
sympathize. Um, so I'm looking at Google Street View from August 2023. Have any of the trees been removed on? So the mature trees are still there on Davidson. Yeah, actually not in the driveway. Yeah, if we if I like show you
like in this area we have like about three large trees and there's a couple of trees here. That's it. These are like trees which can be saved. All others are like locust trees growing with a on a power line which are like this lines. We have
like trees like here and we have trees in this area which we are not touching it. So you so so only we are removing really is this this three trees here which can by the power lines. Yeah. No here I can
these are strong and decent trees which we would like to save it again. So the one that you marked red in a red yes you're going to save. We we can try to save but at the same time the we are looking to now move the buildings away
from both of the streets. So we are shy of space. Basically what happens if we follow the guidance we have to reduce the building size significantly. If we follow the guidance unless we make one building then we can achieve because
when you make two buildings we lose circulation areas. So I guess where I'm going and an applicant as accounting business he says my whole focus I'm building office at the time when no one builds the office is because my professional field requires me a nicer office and that's the reason he's
pushing for the office like no one wants to build offices these days. So can I just go back to the the question the mature trees on Davidson are they is it by the power lines are you saving them or not? No. Okay. We are instead of that we are
planting newer trees. These are mature trees right mature they are mature but like if you look at it they have like branch on one. I see it. I I see it. I mean that's what happens. You know I live in in I live in Franklin so I know that there's you know they come and they but still they show trees. Yes. So we
can plant I'll talk to my landscape architect and we will try to design the trees which are not super tall but like about 30 ft high so which gives it good and also we will see that it is a native tree so maintenance is less required
that we can do as a replacement. I I have one thing that does concern me a little bit. The trees on Davidson Avenue, I understand what you were saying. Uh uh some of them are affected by the power line, but there there's a couple of pretty healthy
looking, good, mature, big trees there that I don't think fit the description that you're talking about. Would be nice to have them saved. I don't think they all warrant being taken down. We we'll look
into it. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I would agree with that because, you know, the power company I I think they do have qualified arborists and they I mean, unless it's a pine tree or something, I I think they attempt to trim the trees in a manner that makes them uh their branch structure um strong and but yet
allows the power line. So, I I take Bob's comment that, you know, maybe you could evaluate um just because they are are there um they they may have been trimmed for multiple years and now are free of the power lines and you're you're kind of good to go. So, I wouldn't necessarily apply that as a
blanket statement there. Um Bob had his hand up and then Matt back to Mahair. Just just a real quick question. Can they put a burm somewhere in there? So it can kind of aren't block a little bit of the parking.
Oh, you're on a hill already, right? I'm sorry. Aren't you on a hill already? Yeah. You kind of like I don't know what. I'm looking at the picture and it looks like it's going downhill. It's going downhill. If you go west, you're going downhill. You could screen the parking probably with um landscaping.
Landscaping. Yeah. I mean, you could do burn, but I I don't know that I mean, it's going to take room, right? More maybe more room than a tree. And then what are we going to ask you to do? Put landscaping on top of BMS. So, okay. As long as it's
landscape, that's Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Understood. Thank you. I'm good. So, just very quickly, so again, going back to the trees at the intersection of New Brunswick and Davidson, there are trees that are not near the power lines.
Please do revisit it. Yeah. And they're healthy looking trees. So what we will do is we have a tree location map. We will sit with the township professionals and and go over to see which trees we can save really without like a kind of making something unusual where we have
to cut the roots because of you put a parking lot. So we'll try to save as many possible and trying to like kind of we will make it optimization between what we want to do as well as to save trees and we'll I don't want to be labor the point again
but I if you were able to creatively change this into one building I think it would really really create a lot of good possibilities in terms of the site plan.
Okay. We we're we're going to explore that. I I think we'll we'll ask to get continued to another meeting. We have some homework. We've heard your feedback. The other thing I wanted to mention is is if we could potentially get scheduled out in July um in the
event that maybe we can schedule a meeting with Mr. Healey to go over his comments, do something informal with him and our team if he'd be willing to do so. Yeah. I mean, um, I'm sure Christine is checking now for availability. Um,
while she does that, just let me say any any trees you can replant on site. We prefer I mean, we we'd love to take your money. Um, we've taken a lot of developers money for trees and the Jade Tree Commission landscaped all of Hamilton Street due to that. It's great,
right? But at the end of the day, that's something far down the road. It is great use, but we have a pretty healthy shade tree fund. Um, and I'd rather see it replaced on site because it it's what what isn't what what the site impacts in terms of neighboring uses is more
important, I think. And then of course anything else that's great, but yeah, I mean, yeah, Christine, go ahead. Ted is raising his hand. Oh, sorry, Ted. Oh, yeah. Just one other thing. I I have the
impression that you based your requirement of trees to be planted on the freestanding trees that you're removing. But there's also an area at the
uh sort of upper left of the plans as they're usually shown which is shown as woodlands. But it was there are any trees in there that are large enough that you have to take them into account in your in the calculation of trees to
be planted. Yes. uh basically that's what we made a statement that whatever the calculation shows whatever we cannot put the trees on a site we will put in a fund but now after the meeting we realize that we
will try to save as many as three possible without losing our intent of development also so that's why we will seek a meeting with the township professionals and we just go over our kind of new layout which kind of considers all of the comments we heard
ready yet today? Okay, Matt. Um, I have July 16th, 2025 available. You want to confer with your professionals and see if that's good for them? You're good.
You're good. Good. Nobody's in Cancun. No in July. Okay. So, let me make sure I'm available. Unfortunately, I'm not in Cancun. But yeah, me either. While you're doing that, just because we
have heard you tonight and we have uh whatever public is here to hear this, you will not need to renotice in terms of the planning board requirements because we recently amended our bylaws to um um make renoticing a little more prominent because sometimes we have
multiple continuations and then the public loses track. Since we we have had some testimony tonight and who's ever here for it knows uh where we'll hear when this date is. July 16th. July 16th at 7:30. You said yes. Are you looked? Okay. So this will
be the formal notice that NPH Real Estate LLC PLN2400005 will be carried to Wednesday, July 16th at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers at 475 Deont Lane. No further notification will be needed.
And just for the record, and sorry, go ahead. Oh, sorry. I I need an extension letter from you so that it can um What? It said you're good. Oh, I need an extension letter from you carrying it. Um, if you think it'd be all heard in
one meeting, you can give me till July 31st, but if you if you think maybe you have a couple people, you can push it out to September, even if I put you somewhere else. Okay. Yep. No problem. I can do that. Okay. Okay. Uh, can we take a brief couple minute recess so I can
confirm with my client before I have to come back for the second one? Do you mind? Sure. No, we'll we'll take we'll take five. So we'll do a 5 minute bio break Property Holdings LLC PLN 230014. Um Matt, take it away. Thank you.
Good evening. Again, for purposes of the record, Matt Flynn from Savoshawalkaw Law Firm in Somerville on behalf of MAC realy of Somerset LLC uh formerly known as uh HSU Property Holdings LLC. Uh the application is for preliminary and final
major site plan approval with C variance relief in connection with a about 65,000 square foot addition of warehouse space to an existing warehouse and office uh facility. The site's designated as block 51706
uh lot 1511 in your tax maps and better known as 400 Cottontail Lane. The uh applicant is uh here actually with an identified end user uh recently closed on the property um and we'll be able to provide um some operational testimony um
traffic etc. so that you're not uh left in the unfortunate position of looking at a warehouse application without an end user. So, we do have an end user here tonight. Um, the properties in your BI business industrial zone, um, which, uh, based on the ordinance that was in
effect at the time, uh, is a permitted conditional use, provided we're not close to a residential zone and we're subject to public water and sewer, which our, uh, team can confirm we are, and therefore we are a permitted conditional use in the zone.
Um, with me tonight I have uh four witnesses and a fifth if you'd like to hear from the applicant. I have Craig Styers, our professional engineer, our architect, Chris How. Traffic we have Betsy Dolan from Dolan and Dean and planner we have John Mcdana. Um, notice
has been provided, served and published in accordance with the municipal land use law. So unless there are any questions, I'd like to call Mr. Styers. Mr. Chair, let me just explain a quick procedural thing. Um, so Mr. Flynn just indicated, this is a conditional use.
So, um, if the board recalls, you know, at at at one point, warehouses were permitted in the BI zone. Council passed two two different ordinances. One made warehouses a
conditional permitted use subject to certain requirements. and then subsequently the town should pass an ordinance that eliminated warehouses altogether. At the time this application was submitted and deemed complete, it was basically between those two
ordinances. So this or so basically this is a as Mr. Flynn said this is a conditional permitted use and when and when that is uh when when a use is a conditional use that means they can come to the planning board for conditional use approval provided they meet all
provided they meet all of those conditions if they didn't meet one of those conditions they before they'd be before the zoning board for a D3 conditional use variance so in addition so I just wanted to explain that Mr. Flynn did, but I wanted to give a little bit more background just so you understood, you know, why you're here
and why it's a conditional use. So, they're here for site plan approval, whatever variances they may have, but then and also conditional use approval. So, part of that is they need to provide some testimony just verifying that you meet those conditions, right? And and we
a profer, but of course our uh staff and consultants will confirm. Um, but we do meet the conditions that were established in the ordinance that made warehousing a conditional use in the BI zone. Uh, so Mr. Styers, have you been sworn in? He has not. If you could raise
your right hand, do you swear the testimony going to provide us the truth? All truth and nothing but truth. I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. Craig Styers, S tirs. Address is 43 West High Street, Somerville.
Now, Craig, you've testified in front of this board many times. Are your professional credentials uh changed at all? No. You were uh qualified. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Styers. Um do your thing. Um, the existing site is located on the
easterly side of Cottontail Lane between Pier Street and Campus Drive and it's essentially bounded by warehouses on all sides. In fact, there was a uh recently I think it's actually completed by now just to the north uh two warehouses on
one site of approximately 120,000 square feet each. Um, again, I think that was just recently completed. al together. Um the lot is known as 400 Contel Lane or lot 15.11 block
51706 and contains 8.3 acres. Um as Matt and Mark kind of went through, it's located in the B1 zone, business and ind industry zone, which is the the pro proposed uses of per permitted conditional use. uh it is not within 500
feet of a residence and it is serviced by public sewer and water which I believe that are the conditions that we need to meet to be that permitted conditional use. Excuse me. Um, the property is also
occupied with an existing two-story 25,000 foot office in the front portion and a connected to it on the back side is a one-story 30,000 foot warehouse building.
The site has access on both the north and south south sides of the property and currently contains 220 2211 and 221 spaces on the north side of the building and three loading docks on
the south side. The rear portion of the site is basically undeveloped. Uh it almost seems like it's the um the excess fill that was pushed back to construct the original building, but is essentially all grass with a um drainage
way, drainage ditch that drains from the northerly parking lot to the south. And there also is a tennis court in the back portion of the property in the northeast corner. There's a uh detention basin, existing
detention basin located on the front of the property uh along Cottontail that controls the uh the runoff from the original project uh to construct the the existing building. There is a small isolated
wetland in the souththeast corner which we have both received both an LOI and a general permit to fill from the D already. Um, one of the concerns I think from uh from Darren's letter was the number of parking spots and you know the the use
current use and what's going on. And I was told by the our original client who owned the property since uh probably early 2000s, they did apply in 2004 uh for a um site plan approval. And what
they were contemplating was to convert that existing warehouse space to office space because of the market trends. Um and hence the reason for the 221 parking spots. They constructed the parking and
never converted the warehouse due to marketing conditions ironically. So the that is the reason that's why why there is so much parking there and if you ever drive by there it's never any cars in it. Um again as mentioned the property
is not located within 500 ft of a residential zone and is serviced by both public and sewer and water. What we are looking to do is to construct a 64,515 foot warehouse addition
uh onto the back of the uh property which would be connected to the existing warehouse portion. Um to construct that warehouse, we would have to we have to re remove some of the parking on the north side.
uh that would still leave us with 140 parking spaces which meets the requirements of the uh of the project. Uh we will be eliminating the existing loading and constructing new
nine new loading docks uh that would be going into the the new addition. Uh finally, we would construct a um fire lane access drive along the easterly side of the proposed addition and that
would accomplish the truck circulation as well as the appropriate um fire access around the building. Um in as far as the storm water management, the existing basin will remain
unchanged and we have made it so that uh there's really no impacts to it as far as any additional impervious. Uh the the new addition would drain towards a new bio retention basin that would be constructed in the
back of the property and that would ultimately drain uh down towards u cottontail. but it does accomplish the uh stormwater regulations that were implemented uh last year. So that takes
care of the current and future designs. Um as Matt said that uh you know when we originally designed this we had a pot really no potential uh tenant. We do have a tenant now, um, Matt Boring, who
was, uh, previously located on Belmont Drive. Um, we have talked to them and excuse me, they expect to have about 40 employees, uh, 20 employees in the office, 20 in the warehouse. So,
obviously, we have ample parking for, um, the new tenant. Um they expect about two to three trucks per day tops and maybe less than that. Um so again really not a a
big uh traffic generator. Um again as mentioned we currently have proposed 136 physical parking spaces and then the four EV would put us up to the 140. uh five ADA spaces uh as I mentioned the nine
loading docks and as far as any variances for the project the only one I believe is the length of the loading space itself. So if we were to have a
WB67 that would be approximately 146 ft we would need and we have 142 and you can see that the uh the loading spaces are angled so that the and we have shown that that size truck
can circulate out of those spaces and around the back of the building. Um and really that's it. I mean again that as far as the landscaping is concerned. Um we are not changing the front of the site. So what you see is
what you get as far as along Cottontail. Um you can see that the proposed building is set back behind the existing building. Even the existing loading is being removed and pushed further back and it is being landscaped
um uh minimally, but there is additional trees along that drive and in front of the loading. And then any of the um tree compensation uh is accomplished in the back. And I think one of the comments that I think Mark you made that there's
probably some of the additional trees we could save. And I I would agree with that. I think we have been we've probably submitted two or three times going back and forth with CMA. So I think we've accomplished a lot of the comments and concerns related to the
project to this point. And um I think with the latest revision we can probably save some more trees along the back uh and probably on the north side as well. But um that's essentially it. I said, I mean, we have one one variance and like
I said, everything is towards the back. Now, Craig, you mentioned that you have 140 spaces and you broke them down. Um, you still only have these 40 employees. So, are you still um in have more parking than you
probably would ever need? Yeah, agreed. And and so for that reason, is there are there areas that could be landscaped that are now paved? Um I think another comment that Mark
made was to uh try to have some more landscape islands um along the northerly side. uh based on our new tenant and the number of spaces, I would I would agree that with Mark that we could probably put if it's okay with the board to get a
variance for maybe 135 spaces and we can probably put five or five islands or so along that northerly side to accomplish um you know some additional landscaping. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the board will look favorably on that. What What about
the possibility of land banking? The the only thing I my reservation on that is all the we're not constructing parking. It's all there. So, it would be more costly to to remove it. I mean, we do have three or four in the and you can
see in the upper left corner. We could bank them if if we had to or get an additional variance to not put them in. And it was a while ago that I reviewed these plans, but the northerly curb, is that existing? Yeah. All that all that
curb all that parking there is existing along the northerly property line. Okay. I mean if we were constructing it I would agree with you to bank it. Yeah. But unfortunately it's there. So is there any portion is there any portion in that northerly part of the site where the where the parking lot is proposed
where um is any of that currently landscaped? Uh no. The only part would be right here. This is we're adding to to accomplish the 140 right here. So, we could bank these or just not build them. Yeah. I mean, that's up to the board. I
mean, it's Well, I mean, I'll let you bank them in case you need them in the future, but don't don't build it if you don't need it. And and then if you can add the islands, I mean, I don't as as much as you know, we we look
at impervious surf impervious coverage as a bad thing. Um, like you said, it's there. So, um, I think it's a reasonable compromise to say take out what you need for the landscaping and and leave the
rest. Um, only because, you know, who knows what might happen in the future and if you did need more parking and then we're ripping stuff out again. So, that's not cool. Maybe the market conditions will change. Un I would I wouldn't make that bet. I'll just say
um does does the board have any other um questions for Craig? In terms of CME, by the way, just before I go to Ted, um anything there that you need to discuss or you can comply in the report and all that? The big stuff has been accomplished. Okay. The rest is technical. Um and then, you know, we've
we've worked with uh Darren to point. So, as long as you can complain, there's nothing you need to discuss with us. it. I just had one thought where you have the two sets of the two rows of parking
facing each other. Uh in the center what will be a sort of a cut in between the office building and the new building. You could use the type of island that I've always heard was
invented by Bruce Hamilton of our Rutgers horiculture department, I think it was at that time, where you have a little a little diamond right where two four parking places intersect. And since
your wheels are always back of the front of the car, that generally leaves space to put in a little diamond shaped space and you can put a tree in it. Always wanted to be able to suggest that. And here's here's an example. Uh,
one other very different thing. And I can't I just passed over this in trying to scan up and down in the laptop. There's quite a few comments
from the canal commission about the the detention basin and whether it meets certain requirements that you So we have yeah we have all our approvals except the canal commission. We did submit to
them once. So we got the one review. Yeah. Um the canal commission never gives final approval until after the municipality has. Right. And the other thing that complicated things was midstream of this is when the new rules
kicked in last year. So as you know just the state I mean the DRCC is not the same rules as the state. So what we did was to get us to this point here is let's take care of the state and the town. Yeah. And we will come back and
but we have redesigned to try to accomplish all the comments from the canal commission. We just have not resubmitted to them yet. So yeah, but I mean that can report is this much. Now we have to do a whole another one for the canal commission. So it's crazy.
Well, well, we we generally don't do too much with outside staff reports because you have to comply and if the plan were to change, then you'd come back to us and say, "Oh, this." So, I I would assume at this juncture that having a one round, you probably are fairly
confident that you're not going to have to make major changes to satisfy them. Um, how do you feel about the Ted's suggestion about the diamond? Uh, just so we can um wrap that. Is that a possible thing in that location or not? Uh, I mean, in that location there, we
do have three new trees already. I think it would be more beneficial to go be in line with Mark's suggestion to break up that northerly edge more so than the internal. I I understand what you're thinking about, but I think I' I'd
rather put those full islands in and remove the part entire parking spot along that norly side to break things up a little bit more. Yeah. Well, you have parking lot. Parking space is to spare unlike our previous applications, right?
You can do that. No, I mean, we can look into it. Yeah, but I think Sorry. I think for purposes of this exercise, um, we would amend the application to, uh, formally request
relief from the parking. If 140 is required and we eliminate five to accomplish that design, we would ask for that as a as an additional C variance. Yeah. No, that's that's not an issue. Um particularly when you have a user signed
up with that's a lot easier. Yes. Albeit that's not something that the board would um be able to adjudicate the application on. Um, anybody else have any comments for Craig or questions for Craig? A few a few
questions. Yeah. Um, so Craig, comment number one. Um, the what is the impervious coverage with the latest plans? And the reason I question that is that um, between this last set and the set that preceded it, um, you you added,
I guess in response to the to John House, you added the driveway around the back, but then the impervious coverage didn't change. Uh, I confirmed that I think at some point when I was going through your it was 58.75.
58.75. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And again, the reason I bring that up is just to make sure that they weren't you weren't creating a variant. So, right. Um, and then how many Okay. And then this leads to the next question. I wasn't able to confirm. So, schedule six
requires one tree for every 2,000 square feet of paved area. Um, do you know what then what the requirement would be and how many trees you're proposing? The reason I'm asking that again is it's you don't comply. And I
think we did comply, but again, um Oh, that I was talking about the replacement. Um, I thought we did comply, but I'm not positive on that. Okay. Maybe at some point, maybe when the other folks are coming up, you can look into that and
get back to us. Again, we just need to know if if I wasn't able to review it because I wasn't sure what the impervious was. It's basically it's one tree for every 2,000 square feet of of of pavement. Okay. So, whatever that happens to be, I I did a very rough
calculation. I think it's around 43 trees required. So, if you can, again, that's my back of the envelope calculation. So at some point tonight if you could just look into that and just let us know um whether you intend to comply with that or not. And Mark, is that new pavement or just what exists on
total? So the way I calculated it is it's the total sight area and then you you get the impervious coverage minus the building coverage. That's going to be your pavement. Okay. And then that's you multiply that by or you divide that by 2,000. Right. Okay. I mean right now
we're proposing 71 trees. Oh, I think you'll comply. I mean, what we would say as a board is you, you know, you'll you'll plant them on site or you'll make a contribution to the shade tree fund and then you can when you figure out, you know, how you're going to do your landscaping and your parking, how much
you're actually going to take out, you know, that'll that'll sort this is just be this is a different there's there's two there's two there's always two tree requirements. So, there's usually one is comes from this the um it comes from the the land development ordinance. Yeah. Which is the one tree for every 2,000
square feet. they don't comply, you can grant a variance if you choose. The other one comes from chapter 222, which is that replacement thing that you can't you can't give them relief. They either have to do it on site or payment of L. I just wanted to make sure. No, no. I that that's that's helpful. Thank that's why
I'm asking because if they don't comply, they need a variance. But it sounds like they're going to be fine. I think he's I think he's calculating it right now. I might it may take some more testimony from others. Okay. That's all right. We will um any other questions for Craig on anything? I I think
everything's fairly straightforward. Um while while Craig um burned some lead in his pencil, um who's your next witness there? Um I have our architect. Okay, let's go there. Mr.
H. Come up. Come on down. Just you get sworn in. If you could raise your right hand for me. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for
the record. Chris House. First name is Chris and last name is H A How and can you go through the benefit of your credentials for the board? Okay. Um I was u graduated from Georgia Tech master
degree of architecture in the 80s and uh practice mainly in Manhattan for the first 10 years and then moved to Jersey to continue to practice. You licensed professional architect in the state of New Jersey. Yes. And then New York. And
New York. It qualified. Okay. Just general question. As you can see, your plans that were submitted to the board are on the screen. Can you just take the board generally through your architectural design for this project? Uh the design is very simple just uh
basically for the addition of this this warehouse that the uh the previous owner required and the uh work with the site engineer Craig that the uh we get to the
maximum allowed to build up this addition. And what type of material is the building going to be made of? Okay, the [Music] the addition we're going to use a
pre-cast concrete which is 40 story high. I mean 40 ft high and uh we use this uh you know modern prevailed type of conc pre-cast concrete. And would you
stipulate for the record that the rendering that's shown on the screen now that what will be implemented at the site will be substantially consistent with what is shown on the plans there? Yes. Okay. And anything you want to add about any design flourishes, colors or
anything that you have proposed as part of the design? We we try to match the color, not the material, just the color to uh try to match the existing but existing is
pretty much like a very white in color. So we try to just add a little bit of tone to make it more like a a little bit like a warm gray tone for the facade.
I don't have any further questions. I just um just a couple of things I'm reading here in Mark's report that I want to make sure um um and maybe this is more for Craig, but I I think you can probably answer it. Um solar ready. Yeah, I don't think that's
Yeah. Yeah, got to be. Okay. Um and screening of mechanical equipment. Do we have a is it do we have mechanical equipment screening on I guess the the roof? Oh uh the roof is built structurally uh can
uh can uh hold uh this rooftop units they if they need in the future. Just right now we just have some uh in the in the warehouse interior we set up a few uh uh unit heaters for the winter
purpose. In the summer, there is just a ventilation on the wall. Okay. I I think what we're asking more is whatever mechanical equipment is on the roof, is there screening architecturally like a parapit or is it set back so that you
don't see it or whatever the design standard is? Yeah, pretty much in the middle of the warehouse if they have it. Okay. Mark, are you okay with that? Does that answer your question? Yes. All right.
Anything else in your report architecturally, Mark, that you want to highlight? No, I think they've addressed everything. Any questions from the board for the architect? Great. Okay. Uh, who's next? I would call the uh applicant just for to
briefly describe his business and confirm the uh testimony. Craig, actually, let let's hold that. I'd rather hear your witnesses because truthfully, we can't really take into consideration whether you have a tenant or not. And unless there's something
unique to the tenant that you're not describing in your testimony, we wish them all the best. Um so, um maybe maybe Betsy and then your planner to testify for the variances that will go. That's great. This would be the first industrial application that I've had
where the board said that. So, I appreciate that. Well, I mean, it's a warehouse and you have a tenant, which is a great thing. I mean, we get complaints, right, that warehouses are laying and, you know, they're built on spec, which of course the board can't take into consideration when making a ruling. It's not um within our legal
perview to do. Um so, we we're appreciative. I don't want to underell that, but whether they're warehousing widgets or whatever, it's immaterial. Um, Betsy, I actually wouldn't have necessarily called you up given what I hear the traffic, but I feel so bad
after you came out for Onyx and last one and this I want to like Why the hell am I going to Franklin? So, you're you're up. Great. Thanks. All right. Do you swear the testimony? You're going to provide us 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, please, for the record. Elizabeth Dolan,
D O L. Dolan and Dean Consulting Engineers LLC 181 West High Street Somerville. The board is quite familiar with you, Betsy, and your qualifications have remained the same. Yes, please proceed. Did your office submit a traffic impact analysis for this
application? Yes. Dated February 22, 2023. Okay. Can you provide its findings for the board? Sure. Um, thank you for having me testify even though there's not much traffic on this application, but it it's interesting in that we collected traffic counts back in
February 2023. Um, and the existing building has about um 55% Let me just make sure I get it right. Yeah, 55% warehouse, 45% office, which is a high office component for
warehouse. And so it was really no surprise that the driveway volumes that we counted reflected a rate almost twice that of the IT's warehousing rate. So we we prated those numbers based on uh the
proposed building area uh which will then result in 80% warehouse 20% office which is a little bit more typical for um an office. uh it recognizes that there's ancillary office space, but when you're at 45% office in the existing
condition, that's why I think we we revealed such high traffic counts. So even though there's going to be more warehouse in the future, we applied the uh existing driveway volumes, prrated them based on the increase in building area, and we came up with a total of 42
driveway movements in the morning peak hour. That's 37 coming in, five exiting for a total of 42. And then uh zero entering and 52 exiting during the evening peak hour. And when you uh think about the testimony you just heard with
about 40 employees, those numbers make sense. Um and again, it's a conservative projection in that it's um much higher than the it would uh generate for traditional warehouse. Uh for the before and after, we calculate level of service
B as in boy coming out of the driveway during these peak hours. The left turn coming in is an A. Uh and that does include the truck component of about three truck trips in the peak hour. Uh but you heard from Craig that we're looking at maybe two to three trucks
total max over the course of a day. So I think the analysis is certainly uh on the high side and it shows acceptable levels of service. and Craig took you through the site plan. So, I don't think I need to do anything with that. Uh, but I would conclude that the site layout is
certainly appropriate for the trucks as well as passenger vehicles. Uh, there's maneuvering uh room that is uh sufficient for uh both the heavy vehicles as well as passenger vehicles. And I think we've covered the parking. Uh I think there's definitely a uh a
substantial supply. Um, and I would concur with the findings that the board uh just discussed with Craig in terms of not building those extra four and then maybe we can lose a few for landscaping purposes. I don't have anything I don't have anything further in this board. Any
questions for Betsy? Just one question. Do do the trucks go in and out of that same driveway or do they go around the building? They're going to go around the building. That's how the truck circulation um exhibit was prepared by Well, you know what? Let me
just double double double check that because now you got me second guessing. I think they may be doing both because they're going to back into those angled spaces. So, they're going to come in. Yeah, they're going to come in the whe it's at the southern driveway and
then back into those spaces and then the truck circulation exhibit shows them going around the building and entering out or exiting out the north driveway. Okay. And they can Did um CME comment on the
um can they make that turn out of that northerly driveway and not go into the opposing lane of traffic? Looks like there's a pretty big radi there. I don't know. I don't recall uh anything in CME's letter about that. Um
and the truck circulation exhibit doesn't take it out the driveway. Um it just takes it around the building to make sure we can make that. Um let's see. Sidewalks, fire prevention.
How many driveways exist on the site right now? Just the one. Two. Two. You're not changing the radio. We're not changing. Yeah. No, there was the comment about the um as Craig said about the the length of the truck court. Uh but the truck circulation exhibit shows
that what's proposed will accommodate the the maneuvering of the trucks. Yeah. The only comment we got about circulation was confirming that your emergency fire and EMT can safely maneuver the site. Yeah. And consistent with Craig's testimony, right? Um that access
emergency access to the back is is also serving as circulation around the entire building. So that's consistent with what Betsy is saying as well. Correct. And and I would assume that and that's why I asked if there were two driveways on site now because if there were one then clearly it must be a full movement, right?
But it's also been functioning as a warehouse for many years. So, um we assume that they can make that movement. Yeah, I think the northern driveway um under existing conditions is just for passenger vehicles and then the southern
driveway is for the trucks, but we're reconfiguring the entire site. So, we've got that plus for the fire um circulation. We've got the full circulation around the building. So, I assume with the small number of trucks that Craig testified to that you're not
separating um and and because now you're going to have much less um office than than warehousing, right? It's going to go from 5545 to 8020, you're not you're not separating the um the the truck and the car traffic. No. And I I would think that the the primary office spaces are
going to be closest to the building and the the northern uh row of parking would probably be least utilized, but with three trucks a day, the the potential for pedestrian interaction is limited, and you can certainly see a truck coming. There's nothing prohibiting
sight distance around the site. Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest because again, I I just don't know if Darren reviewed that. And the reason I'm not the previous version of the plan, you didn't have the driveway going around the building. Is that correct?
Uh, it was probably between the first and second. Okay. Because that's what John House brought up. He wanted the circuit. So, we incorporated both of them. Okay. I would just want to reserve the the ability for Darren to review that. And I think if the board is inclined to approve it. So, we just want
to make sure that if the trucks are going to go around and exit that northerly driveway that the radi are sufficient that they can make those turns and not go into the opposing lane. I just don't know if he reviewed that. No, I think they think that's that's reason. We can follow up as a conditional. I mean, worst worst comes to worse, you may just have to make the
driveways a little wider or something. It's not going to really change materially change it. Yep. No problem. If there are no other questions for the traffic engineer, we can finish with your planner. There was one comment about sidewalks, I believe. And I think that that's and not to
construct them because two also um Yeah. don't So you guys are good with the waiver for that. Yeah. I mean, well, yeah. Uh waiver, but I think Mark in Mark's report, he said that they they did make a contribution to the sidewalk fund. Is that correct, Mark?
That's commonly a condition when the board waves the requirement. So that would be acceptable. Okay. Uh, batting cleanup is our planner. John Mcdana appropriate analogy. Good evening. Do you swear the testimony
you're going to provide is the truth, all truth, and nothing but truth? Yes, I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. Sure. Hi. Hi there, everyone. My name is John Mcdana. MC Cap MC capital D O N O U G H. Business address 101 Jibralter Drive,
Paripony, New Jersey. Um I'm the project planner. Licensed professional planner, state of New Jersey. Current and in good standing. Excellent. Also AICP national. We offer him as an expert. Education from Ruters. Doc Hamilton was my teacher. We're applauding Mr. Chase over
there. Accepted. Thank you. Uh Mr. Mcdana, we do require 1C variance as noted in the CME report. Can you provide the uh planning justification for that variant? Sure, we can. And I've also I I have some place mats if the board would like to see them. Um hard copies of
aerial photographs. Not necessary. You know, your site. Um again, they're just Sorry. They're just colorized of what we have in the plans. Essentially, they're they're drone photos. They're drone photographs to show you that we're we're putting this edition in a pocket on the site. We're not Yeah, we know that. We
all have Google Earth. Yeah. Fair enough. Thank you. Um, we're going to keep this real short because the relief that the applicant is seeking is a is a very short list here. It's a conditional use, complies with all the specific conditional use requirements. You just
heard Craig talk about that. Um, Mark did ask that we check the box in compliance with the general conditional use requirements. There's about four or five of them. All of them were complied with as well. uh paraphrasing the uses listed as a conditional use on schedule
number one. Um that's based on the controlling ordinance 437122 which is that little window of time that you had where this application was made where this is a conditional use. Uh the use is designed and located to pro protect the public good. I'm
paraphrasing your ordinance. Um this is an infill development. It's going in a pocket on the site. uh unconstrained developable land that is compatible with its industrial surroundings. Um adequate landscaping and screening are provided, adequate parking is provided. You just
heard Betsy talk about supply meets the actual demand. And lastly, this use is going to conform to all your B1 regulations, but for actually two variances that are needed here. Uh one, the parking. You
just heard about the testimony there. I'll fall back on the expert uh testimony of Betsy before me that this is a better zoning alternative for the property. That's the C2 balancing test where the benefits of efficient land use and greening up the site with those
additional bullnose islands would substantially outweigh any detriments. Um I'll add on we are 96.4% compliant with the parking requirement. Whenever we look at a variance, we look at the degree of departure from the zone plan. And I
think we can conclude that the degree of departure here is not substantial. Similarly, the applicant needs relief for deficient loading birth depth. 147 is required. 142 is what's proposed.
Coincidentally, that's about 96.4% compliant as well. Again, not a substantial departure from the zone plan. So we think on balancing this is squarely going to land where the project positives would substantially outweigh
any negatives. Um these loading bursts are not going to have vehicles sticking out in the uh circulation lane or the aisle uh where it would impede the free flow of traffic around the site. Damn street. All said it's a good application. You've heard testimony to support the conclusion that the
statutory criteria for the sea relief were met. Um, is that a design exception for the sidewalk? To the extent that it is, it meets the lower standard of reasonleness and impracticability. So, I would offer that that standard is met as well. In conclusion, the statutory
criteria for the very minor relief that the applicant is seeking are met and approval is warranted. Thank you, John. No further questions. And uh unfortunately John um you said the word substantially so I can't channel Jim Clarkin and say does you
believe it substantially outweighs because you already said that teach it to the punch. Yeah. Um any questions for the planner? Um so since we uh have uh created the variance that we're that you're seeking for the parking in terms
of that um let it reflect the record could reflect that the applicant could be fully compliant um but is a better u better planning alternative to um reduce the parking and and increase the landscaping. Um just want to so just to confirm the numbers we're going to have 135 spaces
uh but we're going to build out 131 and bank four. Is it four or five that's in the corner? I was going to say just I'm just trying to figure out make sure we got for the record. So right now we have 136 physical spaces proposed. So if we take five off it'd be
131. Okay. Physical and then the four EV would put us at 135. Okay. Fantastic. Okay. Um, make a motion to open to the public for any comment on this application.
Second. All in favor? I mean is open to the public for any comment. I think the one person that was here probably just left. Seeing no takers. Um, move to close. Somebody seconded. All in favor?
Matt. Any submission to make? Yeah. I just want to confirm that before I conclude that we don't need any relief from that um trees per square foot requirement. Craig, were you able to confirm that?
It looks like we need 52 and we're proposing 71. Thank you. So, and we're going to have more when we put those islands in. Thank you. So, with that, this application is for an expansion of a permitted use in
the zone. It's conditional. We feel we've testified that we meet the conditions in the ordinance. We've requested very minor variance relief as part of this application. Uh one bulk variance would be required but for uh entertaining the suggestion of the board to eliminate more uh parking and
impervious cover to uh further improve our proposed landscaping plan for the site. And so considering that, we feel that we're entitled to a site plan approval with the variance relief requested. and uh we thank you for hearing us tonight. Thanks, Matt. Um
thanks, Matt. Um I'll make a motion to approve um with the uh variance for a loading dock depth, the variance for 135 parking spaces. Um acknowledgement that
the conditional use standards are met. the condition that um the applicant will meet or will submit whatever evidence is needed to uh CME for reviewing the uh turning radi at the driveway
um and any and other all and and has agreed to comply with all other um staff reports as per testimony. I miss anything substantive. Okay, that's my motion. [Music]
I do. Thank you. Bob did the second. Yep. Bob did the second. Okay. Councilman and Barson. Yes. Theodore Chase. Yes. Robert Lort. Yes. Shaw Keller. Yes. Jennifer Ragno. Yes. Mahir
Rafi. Yes. Robert Thomas. Yes. Rebecca Hilbert. Yes. Chairman Arcini. Yes. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you very much. Uh seeing as we have no other business tonight, I do not believe um our next uh meeting
will be um June 4th. June 4th. Um same here in this building. Same bad time, same bat channel. Right. It won't be till July that we go back out to uh Route 27. So, but I usually try to July 9th, actually. Okay. Okay. Well, with
that, um motion to adjurnn is I'll make it second. Okay. Have a good night, folks.