Good evening everyone. This is the planning board meeting for October 15, 2025 in accordance with the open public meetings act PL 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the township of Franklin has been provided. If everyone
could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay, ready for the roll call. All right. Councilman and Barson >> here. Theodore Chase >> here. >> Bob Lord ask to be excused. Shaw Keller >> here. >> Jennifer Ragnau >> here. >> Mahir Rafi and Charles Brown ask to be
excused. Robert Thomas >> here. >> Mark Dansancy >> here. >> And chairman Orsini >> here. >> All right. So the first items of business tonight are minutes. Uh the first the planning board uh regular meeting from September 3rd.
If there's no changes or corrections, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Shaw Keller, >> yes. >> Bob Thomas, >> yes. >> Mark Dancy, >> yes.
>> Chairman Orsini, >> yes. Uh and second set of minutes uh regular meeting of the planning board from September 17th, 2025. >> And I should have said that. Uh on this one, uh Councilman Barson and Jennifer Ragnau cannot vote.
>> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Shaw Keller, >> yes. >> Bob Thomas, >> yes. Chairman Orsini, >> yes. >> All right. two resolutions. First one
for B9. Uh probably don't have to remind everyone uh where that stem from. So um move to approve the resolutions moralizing the conditions to the court. >> Okay. So um those that can vote uh Councilman Barson, uh Ted Chase, and
Chairman Orsini. >> I I move to approve. Second. >> I've lost my connection. Uh, let's see. Councilman and Barson, >> yes. >> Ted Chase,
>> yes. >> Chairman Orsini, >> yes. >> Second resolution, Temple Bethl, uh, minor sub. >> I I would move to approve that. Mark, if you'll let us know, we can vote.
>> See, uh, Councilman Barson cannot, Jennifer cannot, and Mark Dancy cannot. So, I made a motion to approve. I get a second on Temple Beth. >> Second. >> Second from Shaw. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Ted Chase, >> yes.
>> Shaw Keller, >> yes. >> Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Orcsini, >> yes. Uh it doesn't look as though we have any discussion items. Uh we come to the portion of the meeting where we open to the public for general planning
comments, which I will move to do. >> Somebody second that. >> Second it. All in favor? >> I motion is open for any general planning comments. If you are here for either of the two hearings, 500 Atrium or uh Hamilton Street, there will be
openings to the public specifically for those applications. So, this is not the time to talk about those. Seeing no takers, move to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Okay. Without further ado, we have 500
atrium. Uh Matt and um for those uh who are here for this, we had a uh an initial hearing in which we gave the applicant some instruction. They are now back um after having um addressed our comments for preliminary
and major uh final site plan approval. >> Good evening, members of the board. Matt Flynn from Savo Shock Law in Somerville. Here tonight representing the applicant 500 Atrium LLC in connection with its application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with bulk
variances to demolish an existing office building. Construct two warehouse buildings each about 69,000 69,000 square ft on the site designated as block 468.01 lot 21.07 7 in your tax records and as the LLC name indicates, more commonly
known as 500 Atrium Drive. We were last before the board on July 16th of this year where you heard testimony from our engineer and our architect. Uh we took feedback from the board uh and your professionals and are happy to report the following changes which we'll
outline in testimony. Number one, we've reduced the square footage of the buildings. Originally combined they were about 161,000 square ft. Now we're at 139,000 square ft combined. Two, uh we've further reduced the impervious
coverage on site now is about 78%. When we came to the board in July, that figure was at 75% for the proposal. Now we are at 69.85% uh which is below the 70% that the board had recommended that we get to at the
last hearing. And finally, we've uh reconfigured the drive aisles and added some landscaping uh such that we no longer need a variance for the parking lot in the the front yard setback for the parking lot uh in the front yard. So, we've eliminated a variance uh as
part of this proposal. We've received the memos from your various board consultants and township uh personnel. we can report that we are able to comply with all of the recommendations in those memos. Uh if
there's something specific the board wants to get to, we certainly can go through those memos. Um with me tonight I do have four witnesses, the same team from last time, Craig Styers, our professional engineer, Brian Dearbiieri, our architect, Betsy Dolan, our traffic
engineer, and then we have John Tyena, our professional planner. Um, so really unless there's anything the board wants to uh start discussing at this time, I'd like to have Mr. Styer sworn in.
>> Do you swear the testimony you're 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, please, for the record. >> Craig Styers. S I R E S. >> We're gonna We're gonna need a
>> Sorry about that. Uh Craig Styers St I uh business address 43 West High Tai Street in Somerville. >> Ask him. >> I I mean Craig, is your uh qualifications or expertise changed any since the last time you were sworn before this board?
>> Uh no. >> Yeah, then you're accepted. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Stars, um why don't you take the board through the changes to the site plans as you were last here? I'm trying to get this displayed. Thanks.
>> Hey, Mark. Um, never mind. The internet was cut out. Came out. >> Love technology. >> Is that TV on? That's good. >> When it works, it's good.
>> I don't need everything. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Um, so the last time we were here, as um, Matt said, we were over 74% with our coverage. Uh, we had two buildings that were 72,000 and 73,000 plus.
Um and you know we put some testimony in but uh you know as our discussions went along you know we kind of cut things short and we had some direction from the board that ideally it would be to get it at 70% if possible and also discussions
about uh a feasible project and buildings trying to be that at 70,000 plus or minus. Um, so we went back to the drawing board and obviously revised the plans. Uh, got the
buildings to just under 70,000. So they're both uh 69285, I believe. Um, and also changed the uh parking lot to the north. Uh, if you recall, that driveway
used to come in right about this point here. This parking lot was into the setbacks and it was roughly 22 23 feet from the set um the right ofway. Um what we did was we shifted that parking lot
back. Lost obviously some of the building to accommodate that. Took the driveway that was to the parking lot and combined it with the emergency access. So now the parking lot access would be off of the culdesac and then the
emergency access would continue off of that again saving some square footage. So ultimately we got down to 69.85% which is below that targeted 70%.
And then um the other major thing was Mr. Thomas was had concerns about the landscaping in the front yard the rest of the board as well. um and also saving some of the trees along Atrium Drive. So what we did was as much
as possible um started with saving a lot of the trees along Atrium Drive and then as you can see supplemented the landscaping in the front of the building along Atrium and also along the Atrium Drive culde-sac
and also eliminating that driveway allow us allowed us to fill in a little bit more. So there's actually an existing burm here with existing tree. It's a landscape burm already. This curb line here is essentially following the curb line that is out there today. So that
this burm is essentially going to remain unchanged and supplemented. So again, ultimately we have two buildings that are 69,252. Uh the front yard setback for the parking lot on the cold attack side is
not required anymore. We have eliminated one of the driveways. So now we only have three. Two off of Atrium, one off of uh the Atrium Drive Culdeac. 60 parking spots rather than 71.
Uh again the coverage is 69.85. >> Sorry, the parking it's 60 but with two EV credits. So we are compliant on the park. >> Yes. 62. Correct. >> Mhm. >> So ultimately we have a uh we reduce the
coverage by 15,322 which is a 25,252 reduction from what is out there now. Um, as far as the trees, we've added 105 trees along Atrium Drive, 21 along
Atrium Drive, um, Culdeac, as well as 315 shrubs. Um, I think I covered everything else. So, that I think those were the major discussion points and the changes that
we made to this point. >> And are you in receipt of um, Mr. Mazy's uh October 6th, 2025 memorandum. >> Yes. >> And can you confirm for purposes of the record that we take no exception with any of the recommended I'll call them
planned cleanups that he's requested in that letter? >> Yes. Yeah, they're pretty much all technical in nature and u again we can work with Darren like we've done in the past to resolve any post approval stuff. >> Um I have no further direct questions of
Mr. desires at this time. >> Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Craig. Uh, does board have any questions? >> Yeah. Is is it possible to get a a look at the what the site plan is beyond the building on the left
to the left? I don't know if that's south. >> Any further than that? No. >> Right. The building then is across the street from what will be an affordable housing complex. >> That would be up in this uh area here to
the towards the top. >> But the building is across the street and the landscaping. >> Which building? >> The left. One on the left. Right. >> The one on the left would be the uh it's kind of a mixed use that faces Pier
Street. The affordable housing would be along the top here. Okay. And the landscaping, >> yes, >> has has has done a lot with it. And I also uh understand that addressing any
uh conflicts with the affordable housing would have to probably better be done would be done better when it comes for a site plan in here. But at least it's and especially since you're the permitted use and they're not. But uh I think that
that's a big improvement. The goal was to add the landscaping requested along atrium to buffer that future development. >> Right. Right. >> Correct, >> Ted. Well, I thank you for moving that
parking lot in and thereby saving most of the trees fronting the culdeac. Although there's a couple more that are still shown as X's on the demolition plan, but that are not in the parking
lot. So, I wondered about them. And also up at the the front, the truck entrance, uh you've got nice big areas there for plantings, but the again
there are several X's, particularly the ones just to the south side of the entrance, which are I assume are existing trees that you're still planning to take down. And I wondered uh why can't those be saved?
>> Well, the ones that are in the upper right on the plan, which would be the northwest, the only ones I took down were where the utilities would go through and it was tough to, you know, because there we're really using the existing and tying in. So that the route
is a little difficult. So there there were a couple there and then >> uh more so if I would say it's the grading and the removal of the existing building that really constituted some of the removal along Atrium Drive because
you have the building and then you have I don't know it's almost like ventilation for the building that's right up to um Atrium Drive and the trees are interdispersed in there. So I wouldn't expect they would survive. I mean, they are some of those are larger.
We could do what we can, but they're really close to that appendage, I guess you could say, of the building. >> Well, I I tried to save everything I could along on both roads. >> Well, okay, if you
if you tried, but I just always view it that an existing tree is going to be much bigger than anything it'd be planting right now. Yep. >> Uh, another point of no idling signs. I think you just have one shown up at at
the entrance, right? And what we and we as the environmental commission generally ask for is in the area the loading docks to have a sign about every fourth dock so that the truck drivers
can't say they didn't see them. Um, >> so you would have fixed them right on the building. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> So if you've got 10 docks, you put them on one, four, seven, and 10. >> I mean, you on the building. They don't
have to be a separate stand or anything. And then there should be ones at the entrance to the car parking areas. Although it's not likely that idling will be a problem there. It's
just, you know, trucks you really got to tell. So, um, and Dr. Chase, the, um, the applicant agreed to basically comply with the staff reports. So, that's spelled out in the environmental commission report. And I I refer to that
comment as well. >> Yeah. Actually, I don't I looked at the Environmental Commission report and I didn't Somehow we missed making the the no idling sign. >> Thought you there. >> I thought I read it.
>> I think it might have been in the first one. >> They don't have it full. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They they had mentioned it in one of their reports. So, >> yeah. >> And the applicant agreed to comply with all the staff reports. >> Okay. Mark, it's paragraph four of your report on page four. >> You do call it out. So, we'll work with
you to make sure that's complied with. Thank you. >> And I just say that I the putting the landscaping on the plan I is very very busy. I can't tell too much
of what is where, but on the other hand, I don't really care which spruce species you're using at a particular point. So, it's a combination of mostly evergreen and an occasional >> Are you saying there's too much
landscaping? >> What? >> Are you saying there's too much landscaping? >> No. Anyway, >> and I've never I've never heard say that. change there. It's good. It's hard to read what you >> and I thank you for having a a complete
list responding to all comments which because when we're reviewing a plan in this third goround you and you particularly if you don't have the first goround plans in front of you,
it's hard to know sometimes what's been changed. And here you've really told us and I just wish that all applicants would do that. >> We remind them over and over again. >> They do. >> You know, we are fortunate both both both hearings tonight um fulfill that
and uh it's part of the reason why they're here because they didn't might not be. Um Jen, you >> just a quick clarifying question from the last time we met. The stairs at the bottom, are they
going away. You are they going to be stairs leading to nowhere? I can't remember. >> So So it's a cross access easement, okay, >> between the two lots. The sculpture that's there is going to be removed because that's solely on our property. >> For the stairs, if the stair the
easement language says that if the stairs have to be repaired, either party can do it and charge the other party half of the cost. >> Okay. So, we will just deal with that with the other owner. And if during
construction we determine that they have to basically be replaced in kind, my understanding is they're already falling apart as it is. Okay. >> But to the extent that they have to be replaced in kind, we have the authority to do that. So, we're leaving the stairs. Um, and to the extent that they
have to be uh repaired, we'll do so. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you. I couldn't remember my discussion. >> Yeah. And it looks like um Darren Massie in his report comment 15, he he still has some questions about that too. So >> yeah, I mean >> they're going to have to work, you know,
>> the way I the way essentially the plans are now are to remove the existing and if we are required to replace, I have them shown and they do work into this site plan. >> Okay. >> So it's it's kind of an either or to make it work, but >> Okay.
>> Like uh Matt said, we'll work it out with the neighbors. Yeah. And and you'll have to work it out as well to the satisfaction of our engineer. So it's >> understood >> done properly whichever direction. >> Yeah. Understood. And just for purposes
of the record, I can uh affirm that we have sent letters certified that they received to try to engage in that dialogue. And so far we've been unsuccessful. So, I was happy to learn that in reviewing the language of the easement that we're actually able to
make the repairs unilaterally. >> Good to know. Anybody else have any questions for Craig? >> If not, um, can you introduce your next witness? >> We have our architect, Brian D. Barbieri >> and Oh, I'm sorry, Craig. For
recordkeeping purposes, did you submit colorized versions to the board in advance or just the um black and white? >> I did not. >> Okay. So, I think um Peter, this should be marked as A7. >> Okay, perfect. Thanks, >> Matt.
Better address. have to. >> There you go. >> Can we have him sworn? >> We can. Could you raise your right hand for me? >> Yes. >> Do you swear? The testimony I'm 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,
please, for the record. My >> name is Brian Debarie. D E B A R B I E R I. Um, uh, address is 97 Chestnut Street in Rutherford, New Jersey. >> Licensed professional architect stay in, New Jersey. >> Uh, yes, I received my Bachelor of
Architecture uh from Virginia Tech in 2012. uh became licensed in the state of New Jersey in 2017 and currently licensed in four other states, New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. >> And you've been qualified as a architect before this board. >> Yes. >> Accepted.
>> Thank you. Um very brief question. Just uh let the board know what changes you've made to the plans after we were here in July. >> Yeah, I'm I'm going to be very brief. Uh really the only major uh changes architecturally to the building is um as
um the previous witness mentioned is the reduction of the overall footprint of each building. Um from uh 73,000 and 72,000 down to 69,000 uh 252.
Um and everything else uh really is is is remaining the same. um the exterior design, um the orientation of the front entrance and the truck loading areas, the uh construction type, the the
building safety features, the building height, um and the energy efficiency uh characteristics of the building all remaining the same. Um the I I did prepare updated uh renderings um that I
presented last time, but I did update them to um uh show the added trees and landscaping along the front uh which I can bring up. So this is the uh
uh south building uh from the a view of the entrance area. Um, I did fade out the landscaping a little bit just to be able to uh show the building facade. Um, but you'll see the added landscaping and trees.
>> So, the the architectural plan that we had was the copy submitted to the board colorized. >> I believe it was. Okay. Yes. I >> So, this So, this would be A8 is >> A8. >> Perfect. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, and then I also prepared a a view of
the northern building. Um, as you can see again the the trees uh have been added um along along the front. >> That'll be A9. >> So I would assume that this view is also
where the existing trees are as well. Correct. Along atrium drive or am I in the wrong direction? I don't do north south. This is like atrium drive side the other side. >> Yeah. So, so the um I believe the the culdesac is um on on the left of this uh
rendering cuz yeah I've driven down there and I've seen I've seen the trees. They're in fairly good shape. I mean, it's been a long time since anybody took care of that place. And of course, it's going to be demolished, so it doesn't matter. But, I mean, I can imagine the stairs and all everything else is not in great
shape because nobody's really maintained it. It looks like it's seen very much better days. But the trees are in good shape along Atrium Drive. And to Bob's point, um they they will block a lot of the view from ultimately what will become we hope uh one of part of our
affordable housing. So, um, that's good. Yeah. So, I would assume, and I should have asked this to Craig. He's still sworn in, but I bet you could answer it or Matt, you could probably answer it. When it comes to tree replacement, chapter 222, um, all that, you guys
satisfy it all on site. Correct. >> Yes. And well, in excess. >> That's what I thought. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. I have no further questions of Brian. >> Does Does the board have any uh questions to the architect? >> Seeing none. Thank you, Brian. And
>> traffic. Thank you. >> Yeah. We have her sworn. Of course. Do you swear the testimony you're 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, please, for the record. >> Elizabeth Dolan, D O L.
Confused by the chairs. >> Sorry. >> Uh, Elizabeth Dolan, Dan N. Dolan and Dean Consulting Engineers, 181 West High Street in Somerville, New Jersey. >> Betsy, I know you've been here many
times and your qualifications are still the same. >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. you are accepted. >> Thank you. >> So, uh, Miss Dolan, I know your office prepared a short traffic impact statement uh, in this matter. So, why don't you take the board through some of the conclusions of that study? >> Sure. The, uh, report was prepared, it's
dated January 20, 2023. Um, and it was prepared before these uh, buildings were redesigned and made smaller. So, the um, trip generation is I think what what really matters in this application.
And because we based it on the the original 161,000 square feet, we're estimating 27 morning peak hour trips, 29 uh during the evening peak hour and then just under 300 over the course of a day. And we broke that down into trucks
and um and passenger vehicles. And during peak hours or any hour of the day, we're looking at five total trip uh truck trips. So I think that's usually what u people are interested in is how much truck activity. Um so we would expect based on it data the numbers to
be a little bit lower but um there was no point in revising to uh decrease the trip generation. So uh the other part that we did was we compared the trip generation with the existing former office and it's a reduction of 200 plus
peak hour trips. So it's much lower generator. Um and this is not a um large enough building for something like an Amazon. And I believe there's a comment in one of the review letters uh that if it was engineering, yeah, that if it were to be some type of fulfillment that
we'd have to um I guess discuss that before CO is issued. Maybe I should just read the the comment. >> Yeah, it's number 14. Um, should the board act favorably on this application once a tenant is selected? Uh, should
revising the land to high cube facility be required, this office recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant come back before the board prior to CO. >> And is it your understanding that this facility given the way the driveways are structured as well as the size of the
warehouses that that's not uh the intended enduser of this facility? That that is my understanding and there's a lot of data that's been published um about warehousing but typically those fulfillment centers are a minimum of
800,000 square feet usually more like 2 million square feet so we're well below uh that type of uh Amazon type of building. Um I think the only other thing I wanted to touch base on because um Craig took you through the the revised parking and the site
circulation. There is a variance for that truck court. Um we've got 60 foot bays and um it and an 85 uh foot two-way travel aisle. So that gets us to 145 and
technically 147 is proposed. Uh but the plans do show tractor trailer um turning paths. So that's been evaluated and I think we've used that dimension in other applications and it's uh it's been accepted. So the two-foot difference
based on the turning templates um can be granted >> and in other words it can be the trucks can safely maneuver according to the templates that we provided as part of this application. >> That is correct and and he ran a lot of templates. Um so I think we've we've proven that case. And do you want to
just briefly hit on the the one other variance that we need, which is the um three driveways instead of two? I'm assuming that that's also just for uh safer circulation of the site. Yeah, I'm not sure the the origin of that, but
certainly based on the templates that we've just talked about and the fact that the plans been reduced, I'm sorry, the building areas have been reduced and there's been um an an increase in the um the landscaping and some of the other
requests that were made back in July. Uh but certainly the plan is designed to promote safe and efficient flow and I don't think that well plus we've got the emergency driveway. So again, I think that can be uh granted. >> I have no further direct questions of this witness.
>> Uh I have a question. So let's talk about So this is a reuse of a site existing that was developed ex as existing office
buildings. Correct. So, in your professional opinion, Betsy, how does the traffic compare to a warehouse use in terms of intensity and impact versus the proposed use? >> This is a substantial reduction in trip
generation. Um, when you look at the IT numbers for the building area for our general office, uh, that would generate more than 200 additional peak hour trips above what this proposed warehouse would be generating. So, it's a much lower volume use.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions, other questions for the board other than from me? >> If not, >> planner. >> Planner. Thank you, Beth. >> See, those are nice trees. >> No, they are.
>> They're very nice trees. >> Yeah. 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, please, for the record. >> John Tyena, T is in Thomas. A I K as in Kelly. I N is in Nicholas A. Uh, all
things planning and development. 30 Newman Road, Kendall Park, New Jersey. I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. Have been since 1992. >> Always good to know. Thank you. when I finished my uh studies at Ruckers University and I uh do this testify before planning and zoning boards. I was
last here in May I believe for Hamilton who happens to be behind me. >> Great. >> Excellent. You are accepted. >> Thank you so much. So uh John, you have uh done a planning analysis for the site. Can you please uh take the board
through the variance relief that's required as part of the application and in your professional opinion why we meet our burden under the positive and negative criteria. >> Certainly. Uh thank you. So I am here to talk about the application from a planning standpoint. Um,
very importantly, and I know this was gone over the last time, we kind of fell in between the ordinance uh changes uh ordinance evolutions, I guess, uh, for the business and industry zone. Um, so we are a permitted conditional use. Uh
the two conditions that we would be required uh to provide are uh one that we're located on a lot that is no closer than 500 ft to the nearest residentially zoned property. Um and we comply with that in your uh in your ordinance
actually adopting the business and industry district and the revisions. We we were in the green as they say. Um and uh that a warehouse distribution use shall be served by public water and sewer and uh we are on the public water and sewer system. So we are permitted
conditional use. Um in terms of the other standards for the conditional use um we we believe we meet them. The use is designed and located to be uh operated in a way that protects the public health and safety. Adequate landscaping and screening has been
provided as has been discussed this evening with our revisions. adequate off- streetet parking and loading is provided uh and the the ingress and egress is designed to provide minimal interference to traffic on your budding streets and the use conforms to the
applicable regulations governing the district. So again, we believe we meet the standards of your ordinance both in terms of the specifics and your general conditional use standards. In terms of our uh variance relief, we require three. We have an impervious we still
have an impervious uh coverage variance. We've reduced from 76% existing down to 69.85% proposed. 60% is the maximum, but I believe that this reduction is uh substantial. Uh it is a C1 variant. It's
a little bit of a hardship to start to continue to pull up pavement from an an existing developed site. Um and given the uh use that is in question, uh we believe it's appropriate to have the impervious cover uh to make sure that we have adequate fire access all the way around the building. Uh our number of
driveways is three and again as we said that third driveway is on our uh second street or our culde-sac um and it does provide for additional emergency access. So we believe it's a better plan having that access. And then finally our
loading zone width as as Miss Dolan did uh talk about and I appreciate that. Uh we are at 145 feet proposed as opposed to 147 that is in your ordinance. um 147 is actually very very large. Uh 120 is
is often adequate uh for as a minimum uh for these types of uses. So uh in that Mr. Styrus is able to show all the turning movements. We believe that this uh movement is safe and efficient and represents a better plan. Again, if we're concerned about impervious coverage, having that reduced uh loading
zone uh is a good push me pull me to make sure that we uh provide a better plan. That is the second standard of NAC2 variance. That is a a plan that represents a better planning alternative than would be a compliant plan. Uh the first is that we relate to a specific
piece of property. Obviously, we're talking about 58 GM drive. No other uh parcel. Any relief that you do grant uh carries no precedence to any other parcel. Everybody has to make their own case and and we do that here. The balancing test is under Poland v South
Planefield. Again, the overall plan represents a better plan than it would be without the relief. And again, we think that providing for adequate circulation around a warehouse building is uh the most appropriate thing. We advanced some purposes of zoning, specifically to provide for sufficient
space and an appropriate location for a variety of uses according to their respective environmental requirements. The applicant proposes a use that's conditionally permitted in the zone and uh we believe that the warehouse is appropriately located far enough from adjacent residential areas. Uh purpose I
to promote a desirable visual environment through create creative development techniques and good civic design arrangement. We've done a nice job of making sure that our parking is out of our front yard setbacks. We have a building pulled up. uh they will be attractive uh new uh ind you know
warehouse industrial buildings and represent an attractive freshening um to that uh what is an I guess an evolving office district you know where it was in the 80s to where it is today and and again representing uh really a dramatic
change in uh in the uh landscape really of this portion of the township and encouraging coordination of the various public and private procedures shaping ing land development with the view towards lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of the land. But again, redeveloping
an existing developed site um that is uh you know gone through its evolution as an office into a modern warehouse facility uh is closer and uh is a more efficient use of this land uh than it would be out on a on a green field parcel uh out in the hinterlands, if you
will, the township. Um, you know, as as uh um Obi-Wan would say, these are not the warehouses that you're that you're concerned about. Um, you know, this is this is exactly where where you do want those types of things. In terms of negative criteria, again, uh the most
important thing, no substantial detriment to public good. Um, we're not going to have any uh any detriment to our surroundings. Uh we have our our loading internalized. We have our parking well uh well screened. Uh we have a substantial reduction in traffic.
Um, you know, Miss Dolan said it's 200 more, but it's it's 200 compared to 27. So, again, it is an 80% reduction in traffic uh on the site. It's really a dramatic reduction uh which is going to help our surrounding roadways. Um, this
is provides small uses that that are really modest warehouses that will promote commercial development, enhancing economic development of township. And these are the types of uh modest warehouse uses that tend to have uh you know good jobs that are associated with them. Uh the building
proposed are compliant in terms of height and bulk standards. Uh there'll be adequate light available to the neighboring properties. And then uh no variance to be granted and pair the intent and purpose of the zone plan in your zoning ordinance. Again, the the goal of your ordinance is to encourage commercial industrial development in
areas with access to major highways in established areas, to locate major employment and traffic uses in areas where they have least impact on residential neighborhoods and and still maintain size of industrial districts to ensure adequate space for light industry, which is this much this is
much closer to that uh and warehousing. The proposal specifically implements those ordinance goals uh that were in your original business and industry district and in your uh modified business and industry district um where uh we are permitted conditional use. Uh
in terms of your your master plan goals, we are implementing your goals of your master reexamination from September of 2020 that created the business and industry zone. Um we are uh kind of adjacent to the goals of your 2025
uh master plan re-examination where you modify the business and industries district um to go away from strict warehousing and more into a light industrial a light industry. We would qualify under the light industry uh sizing of your new ordinance. Again, it
would come specific for the use there. Uh but again, we're kind of before that. Um, but again, I don't believe we're impair we're impairing the intent and purpose of that. Mainly because of where we're located. We are in the right spot. We're in the green, if you will, for uh for your your districts uh to be far
enough from residential um that we don't believe there'll be a negative impact. Uh so for those reasons, I believe you have the ability to make the requisite findings available for your questions. >> Easy one first, John. um for your two variances for that are C2, do you
believe that the benefits substantially outweigh? >> Yes, they do. I think it's a much better plan uh to have, you know, we've reduced impervious coverage uh and and uh you know, but we still provide for adequate circulation around the buildings and that to do that, the third driveway is
is a good thing to make sure we have good emergency access from both sides. So from a purely uh sort of intellectual standpoint, I I really rarely I rarely hear a C1 invoked, especially in this kind of circumstance. So just interested
why you chose that because I mean the the board could have stuck and said, "Guys, we're working from a blank slate. 60% is what's permitted in the zone. 60% is what we're going to hold you to." We didn't do that. We said, "Well, it's compromise." And which you did. Um maybe
my argument would have been a C2 would have been more because I mean there may be an argument that a commercially viable uh enterprise could not be done um reducing um the the building size any further. uh rather you chose to sight
pulling up pavement which to me is not more difficult than um you know may maybe maybe me taking a loader and driving it very poorly across the parking lot and ripping it off which doesn't seem that all that hard. So I was just wondering from an intellectual standpoint why you chose a C1 argument
over a C2 for that. The C1 argument relates to is a specific condition of this site and we can't ignore and we shouldn't ignore the fact that the existing site is at 78% impervious coverage and that impervious coverage is
a resource uh it's a resource to be uh to be utilized and to be utilized efficiently when you look at the overall elements of the land you saw. So I think it's appropriate there to to invoke C1 and say yes we have a specific condition on this site in terms of impervious
coverage. Uh it's appropriate to utilize that resource in the most effective way and uh and we believe we've done that. Um and recogn and and again in the balance and so you could do both. you have the balancing with the board where the board said, "Okay, you know, 78's
too much, 75 is too much. 60 is probably >> uh too extreme of a change." And and we struck a balance in the middle. So again, >> John, how about this? Um I because I I I certainly uh agree with your professional opinion, but the board
doesn't care if I agree. Why don't you also um because you outlined some other purposes of zoning that are advanced by this application. an efficient use of land, sufficient space for a variety of uses. With this type of flex warehouse user, would you also think that perhaps
exceeding that 60% uh uh impervious coverage in an industrial zone uh perhaps fits the positive criteria for the C2 variance as well? >> Oh, it certainly does. Um again, we have we have a benefit an overall benefit there in that our impervious coverage is
providing for adequate circulation that is specifically related to this use. So we have our loading requirements um where again we have trucks that need to safely efficiently move around the site. We have parking requirements for our employees and we have emergency access requirements for our emergency services.
So you add all those things up and again the um the elements of this use um kind of add up in terms of uh the impervious needs and we think that's why it's an appropriate balance to provide for a little bit more on whole and it represents a better planning alternative
to have that additional uh circulation space on these types of use. >> Short and sweet impervious coverage you think it's C1 or C2 and for the other two it's C2. >> Yes. >> No further questions.
Yeah. Okay. No, I I I I did it purely I asked the question purely from an intellectual standpoint because really I mean the way we were taught right when we go to the the board planning courses, right, is oh you got a triangular shaped lot. You're putting a square house on it. You can't meet the setbacks. You
can't meet there's going to be variances and that you're constrained by the lot shape or by um um a stream buffer or something that you know advances the MLU. Yeah, I've seen it. >> We really don't have that in this case, which is why I sort of from only like
from an intellectual standpoint. I could I see your argument now that you've explained it. I see the C2 argument. I just wanted the board to fully understand kind of where uh where that was just from a >> sure Peter can disagree, but I I think you're right. Usually C1 is reserved to physical characteristics of the site.
But I have seen C1 criteria used when let's say a building is obsolescent and or a site site's function is obsolescent and a planner will say well we actually do have a hardship here because of the sheer amount of changes that we have to
make to the property in order to make it economically viable. >> Yeah, that makes sense. All right, thanks. Um any questions to the board from for John for the planner? All right. Well, thank you very much. Um, let me open to the public and then
you can make your final uh >> um summation or whatever. Um, make a motion to open to the public for this here. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Anybody who wishes to speak on this application, please come forward. State
your name and address. Going once, twice. No takers. Move to close then. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Matt. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um, we are looking tonight for
our pro preliminary and final major site plan approval for this project. As you've heard, there is some very minor variance relief, three driveways instead of two, a two-foot deficiency in the loading area, and then the impervious coverage, which again is is as testified
by our planner, is being improved by virtue of this application, knocking almost 10% off of what's there now. Um, and so what we would hope is that we were receptive to the board's comments. We added landscaping. We wanted to make sure the site could be circulated
safely. We even reduced the uh building coverage size of the buildings in order to uh better fit some of the suggestions that you made when we were here in July uh to the extent that um you know we're more in and Mr. Tyena touched on this a
little bit more in sort of that flex warehouse light industrial size 69,000 and change per uh each warehouse. I can say from doing these developments all over the state, these are sort of your
small business goes in and ships locally is sort of the what we're hoping an end user to be here. It's not a fulfillment center. It's not 800,000 square feet where you have the pack and pick vans that arrive in a line uh at one time. We're talking according to our traffic
testimony and that's with the larger size of the building as predicted by it peak hour one truck every 12 minutes. So, what we would hope is that you see that although warehousing is no longer permitted, we did get in uh when it was a permitted conditional use that you see that this is the kind of development
that makes sense for this location in the township. Uh so, we would be looking for an approval and thank you for your time this evening. >> Thanks, Matt. >> Thanks, Matt. Um, so I'll go ahead and
and move to approve um with um the uh condition that all of the um minor comments that still need to be worked out or technical comments in the engineers report are satisfied. Um and the we increase the loading zone signs
to include um or sorry the um no idling signs to include um one every four spaces in the loading docks attached to the loading dock. Um, I think I don't think there's anything else we need to do about trees. Anything else I'm missing in particular?
>> I think there was a secondary no idling sign that was requested at the entrance to the other parking area. >> Mr. Chairman, I think if it's I I think should be satisfying, you know, all all outstanding staff reports. I think that's basically >> Yeah, I'm just I'm just trying to call out the things we specifically talked
about and the only thing that really stands out is is is is the idling signs and everything else you were were was minor and was engineering detail. Um so with those conditions I would move to approve. >> We need a second. >> Second.
>> Councilman Embarson. >> Yes. >> Theore Chase. >> Yes. >> Shaw Keller. >> Yes. Jennifer Rangno. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. I just want to say I I do appreciate the cooperation that we got
from you making some pretty substantial changes and I agree with you. This is a project that does make sense where it's being put. >> Thank you, >> Mark Dancy. >> Yes. and Chairman Arcini,
>> you know, when you first um when you first came here, I guess it was July, uh we had staff reports that were verging on two years old. So, um, but we had a good discussion that night and, um, I'm very pleased with what the applicant has done to address all of the comments, uh,
in the staff reports. And, um, I also feel that this, uh, complies with the master plan for all the reasons stated uh, by your planner and by ours um, in in terms of um, you know, the the right place for this type of development. So,
with that, um, I'm a yes. >> Great. Thank you for your time. Great. Okay, we will turn it over um to >> Mr. Lennis >> and Hamilton Street Management.
>> So, while you're getting set up for all that, I'll do a little little little soft shoe here. Um, >> so, um, not unlike the application we just heard, this is one we had sent back for a little, um, a a little tweaking
and a little a little finetuning. Um, not so much for the same uh, for the same reasons, but u more for just specifics of the site plan um, that we wanted to see actually uh, written down on um, in black and white or as be it in
color. um to asssure that the board was was getting what the applicant was promising um and and we didn't feel we had the information that night to do it. Um so some similarities, some differences. So we granted preliminary approval and now the applicant is coming
before us for final site plan approval. And with that I think I've uh done enough intro. >> Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, members of the planning board, members of the public. My name is Francis >> Frank. Frank, can you use that? Yeah. >> And my office is a Franklin Township and
have been here for a number of years. Okay. The chairman is exactly correct. This is an application for final site plan approval for the project located at 681685 Hamilton Street. It's known as block 281, lots one to nine. It's a 0.52 acre
site located on the northern side of Hamilton Street between Bayer Avenue and North Do site has frontage on all three streets. It's located in the township's Hamilton Street business district zone and it currently contains a one-story
commercial building. I believe it's a barber shop, a detached garage and a paved parking area. Surrounding properties consist of commercial uses and paved parking areas. Surrounding properties consist of also commercial uses and mixeduse buildings with
commercial uses on the first floor. Apartments above and along Hamilton Street with residences located to the rear the northern portion of the site. The this board favored this application with preliminary approval on February
18, 2025 and adopted a resolution memorializing that approval on April 16, 2025. Since that time, the applicant has been working with the board staff and the board professionals in revising its engineering plans and revising its
architectural plans in accordance with the directions that were given to us by the board and some of the comments by the board. And uh the plans you're going to be reviewing tonight for approval hopefully are dated June 9th, 2025.
Those are the revised engineering plans and the architectural plans were revised through April 19th, 2025. As I've indicated before, these plans were reviewed by the board professionals and we have certain reports that we can
discuss tonight and will be discussed by our witness, Mr. Khan. Uh the review report is a memorandum by Mark Healey, your director of planning, dated August 21st, 2025. Darren Mazai of the Township Engineers Office dated August 27th,
2025. In addition, we have a a small review by John House, the director of fire prevention, and a memo dated August 25th, 2025, and a revised report from the Franklin Township Sewage Authority dated September 3rd, 2025. Not to steal
his thunder, but I can tell the board we can and will comply with all the items in in every report. Now, the final plans did pick up a variance and that was at the request of the board. The board wanted to see perhaps how towers would
look on the on the building. So, we installed some towers. Unfortunately, that caused a very deminimous increase in the uh lot coverage, the building coverage from 50% which is the maximum allowed in the zone to 50.52%
which is a we believe a deminimous increase. The variance for lot coverage has been reviewed and basically Mr. Healey uh has indicated in his report that he can support a C2 variance for th those towers, the introduction of those
towers. Now, I have uh three people here who are available for testimony. I intend to produce one witness and that's Mr. Adnan Khan who testified originally. He's the site engineer, civil engineer from AWZ Engineering, Inc. He's the
applicant civil engineer. I also have available from the architect's office in case the board or the public has any questions, Mr. Kareem Bajda. And uh also available is Akash Derry. He's a principal and managing member of
Hamilton Street Management LLC. So he's available for questioning. So without further ado, Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Khan and hopefully you will swear him in. >> I will. If you could raise your right hand for me. 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 please for the record. >> Adnan Khan. K h an AWZ engineering 150 River Road Montville, New Jersey. >> Mr. Khan, you previously appeared and qualified as an expert in the area of uh professional engineering before this board. Is that correct? Correct. >> And since you last appeared and so qualified, have your credentials been
detrimentally affected at all? >> No. >> And your license is still in good standing? >> The area. >> How's that? >> Accepted. >> Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Khan, would you go over with the board some of the changes that were made with respect to the final application that's before the board?
>> Sure. >> Before I before I go to the site plan with the changes, I just want to quickly go over the architecture plan uh because that's what's transpired, the changes to the site plan. And of course there were some comments that we received from the
professionals board professionals. As you recall in the last meeting uh we had an elevation which looks a little flatter and then the comment from the board came in like if you want to add some elements uh uh that uh towards the end of the building. So the architect
went back and I believe in consultation with the board professionals we came up with the idea or he came up with the idea of adding towers to the both the ends of the elevation on Hamilton Street. So that's what uh basically has been changed as far as u uh the
elevations, number of units, number of parking, everything remained the same. Uh in order to do these changes and create this notch on both the sides is that's the reason that 0.52% of the increase in the building coverage that you see. But again, this is I believe is
uh uh I mean justified in the sense because now the building looks much better than what was originally proposed. >> All right. From an engineering standpoint, do you believe it qualifies as a C2 variance? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. >> And in that uh in that situation, do you
believe that it advances the following purposes of the municipal land use law? encourages municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner which promotes the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. >> Absolutely. Yes.
>> Okay. And do you believe that uh another purpose of the municipal land use law more specifically 55D-2 C >> is satisfied? It provides adequate light, air and open space. >> It does. Yes. And then finally uh I
think the most important uh provision of the land use law special reason at least from a legal perspective would be subsection I which is to promote a desirable phys visual environment through creative development techniques
and good civic design and arrangement. >> That is correct. Yes. In my opinion yes >> and this was at the request of the board. We didn't initially apply for the variance, but we did notice and we did apply for the variance at final at the request of the board. >> Correct. >> Now, on the negative side, do you
believe that the if the board favors us with the grant of the variance they requested that it would have a detrimental impact on the zone plan and scheme? >> Uh, yes. It's my opinion. Yes. No, it will not have a detrimental effect >> and I mean I mean like no no no
detrimental effect actually it enhances if it it promotes what the board requested and it enhances the overall look of the building. >> Okay. All right. And uh basically that's your testimony. Do you believe that it benefits the community this enhanced
view of the towers? >> I I think it is because I believe one of the comment originally was that this building mimics the building next door. Now, it's a significant change from the building next door. So, I think it it enhances the looks. >> All right. Do you think the overall
benefits out substantially outweigh any possible detriment? >> Yes. >> Do you see any detriment to the >> I don't see it? No, I don't see it. >> Okay. Uh you can go on with your testimony. >> All right. Okay. All right. So, basically what uh the changes as I
mentioned like it increased the building coverage from 50% to 50.52. So that triggers a variance. However, internally there are a few changes. Uh since the building coverage increased, it also increased the lot coverage and in order
to avoid the lot coverage uh variance which is 85% as required by the board and we are very close 85 >> you're talking about impervious coverage. >> Impervious coverage which are we we are very close like 84.5. So what we did one change here is like
if you recall like this driveway on North Do Avenue was used to be a two-way driveway. So we made it one way exit driveway. So we have a full uh driveway full access driveway from Bayer Avenue. Uh cars coming in and out. However, the
cars can only leave out of North Dover Avenue. And this is in order to avoid that lot coverage uh variance if and again we are flexible with that. If the board wishes that we go back with that uh full exit and entrance driveway, it
will increase the impervious coverage and it will create again like very insignificant uh variance probably maybe one or two point half a percent I would say half a percent over 85%. But right now we are complying and we are less
than 85%. So that's something that again we are flexible as far as making it either one way or two-way. So as the board however directs us, we will comply with that. >> All right. Mr. Connor, have you had the u opportunity to review the most recent
staff reports on this application? >> Yes. >> Okay. For the first report that I'm going to refer you to is Mr. Healey, the director of planning August 20 August 21st, 2025 report. Can the applicant and will the applicant comply with the
comments of Mr. Healey? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to refer you to the report of Darren Mazai. He's the township engineer and a representative of the township with respect to this matter. And uh he issued a report, his latest report, August 24th, 2025. Can
the applicant and will the applicant comply with the comments made by Mr. Mazai? >> Yes, we can. However, like again, uh just for the board's sake, we had a meeting this morning with Mr. Mazai and uh uh Mr. and we went over and M Mr. Mazai wants
me to dis to bring into attention of the board few things that are in his report and we agreed to comply with. >> Okay. >> Uh one is there is a slight light spillage in this corner of the property which we agreed that we will work with our lighting plan and try to will
eliminate that u uh lighting spillage across the property line. Uh originally there were some trees or shade trees on their avenue which subsequently based on one of the comment uh from the board professional were were removed. Now we
agreed back again this morning that uh we will need those trees and the applicant is okay providing those trees back on Bay Avenue. So we'll have the share trees just like we have it on North Dover and Hamilton. We will add the share trees along. >> Well, let's let's be clear. There was a
reason for the Bay Avenue um taking or taking those trees out. I think they were because of utilities. So, we don't want shade trees there. We probably want flowering trees, right? You Mark knows what they are, but you know, >> I I I I believe the comment came from
generally we don't want u street trees in the rightway, >> right? Typically, um I I think that the um Department of Public Works then when they have when we have applications along Hamilton Street, they recommend that they be taken out of
>> the right of way. But on Hamilton Street, just by the nature of the that the development in that area, that's the only place to put them because the buildings are allowed to be right up on the property line. So, what I would what I would recommend um chairman is that that the trees be added back in >> and that they coordinate with staff as
to what types of trees I don't know if it's utilities if that's the exact >> I thought it was overhead from what I was reading, but yeah, I mean, whatever the case may be, there's there's plenty of literature out there on which uh >> um >> yeah, we actually have a um a a planting
plan for Hamilton Street exact situations. So if it if there are overhead utilities then they'll have to choose those the trees that are selected for that purpose. So for that >> not to be not to be outdone by Ted but my personal favorite is syringe reticula was tree lilock. We really like those
you see there's a few out here in front that the shade tree commission planted uh and there's a couple in the post office. >> Oh we'll definitely look into it. >> Okay. Did you have the opportunity Mr. Khan to review Mr. Houses? He's the director of fire prevention. His report
of August 25th, 2025. And can and will the applicant agree to comply with all his comments? >> Yeah, those comments will be addressed once we go to the design phase. >> Okay. And finally, the other staff report, more recent staff report is the report of the township sewage authority
and it's dated September 3rd, 2025. Can we and will we comply with those comments? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, uh, you were asked by a board member, uh, at the last hearing to make a presentation to the county regarding tightening up the radius. You want to
explain that issue and what you've done since then? >> Sure. Uh, I think the radius in question is from Hamilton Avenue making a right Hamilton Street making a right turn on Bear Avenue. Right now, if you look at the curb radius is pretty wide. And I think the concern raised by one of the
board members is like the cars at a high speed make that turn which is not safe for uh the pedestrians crossing the street. So what we did is like based on um the recommendation by the board. We
prepared a small sketch, a rough sketch. We submitted that to the county. I believe that was early September. that was submitted via an email to the county and we showed like uh from the way the site currently is which is this radius
and how we can tighten up the radius and come up with a better solution. So we submitted that request to the county. We got an email about a week later saying that we are this is under review and they will get back to us. >> All right. And and and basically it's within the jurisdiction of Somerset
County. Is that not correct? >> That is correct. >> That's why we're approaching the county. >> That is correct. And again we try to follow up and they're still saying that it's still under review. So as soon as uh we get some response if it's a positive response we already have a sketch as far as the engineering wise we
can implement that based on the response. Again if they come back but they says no they don't want us to do anything then we have to leave. >> So basically the county is going to be the determinant of what >> that is correct. They have jurisdiction over the issue. But does the county understand that that
this is the um >> what the board was asking for? >> Yes. In our email that we sent it to them, we specifically say it based on our hearing and this is a request made by the town. >> Okay. >> All right. I have no further questions.
So Frank, I had suggested in our call today that you go through you went through the staff reports, but there were a number of and you've addressed some of them. Uh but there were specific conditions of the board's preliminary approval. Uh many of which came from the
board and not directly from staff. Um and I'd suggested that you go through and let the board know kind of where you stand on each of those conditions of preliminary. >> Is this in your report, Mark? Yeah, these are the the you know the Roman numeral. >> Oh, the Roman numerals
>> one through >> two is the details >> because again these are the reasons why the board basically only granted preliminary having you come back. >> So so let's let's let's parse these a little bit because there's some I think there may be more than others. So
number I, you say it's satisfied. The detail of the wall needs to be added to the plan's material blah blah blah. And we don't need to hear more about that. Just comply. Um number two, satisfied. Three satisfied. Um let's keep going here. Uh trees should be added to this
buffer. Proposed arriving. Where's that? I don't know. Partially satisfied. Oh, so add trees. I hate arborvit. And do something else. Um I don't know if there's deer in that area, but you know, you're going to have going to have some pruning going on. But at any rate, um
uh referred to the board engineer to the trees in the rear. What did the board engineer say about that, Mark? A number of >> Yeah, we we discussed that in our meeting today. Uh and I believe that's in Darren's report. He had some questions about the feasibility of saving some of the trees that they're they're um had indicated as being
preserved. um they agreed to basically look into that and work that out with the engineer. If they can't be preserved, then they would have to uh they in our meeting and I believe I'm um summarizing our meeting correctly today. If they can't save them, then they would
add more more trees back in proposed trees to compensate. >> And if they didn't have room for those, they would have to make a contribution in kind per chapter 222. >> Okay. No dens, right? We talked about that. EV space satisfied. Okay, let's
see what's not satisfied. Eight turning radius. Oh, you just addressed that. So, I would just ask that and and this this is simple. I don't I don't know. I wasn't rather than Mark asking does the county understand. Can you just forward a copy or copy Mark on the emails that
you send to the county? So, we know what you asked. It's so simple. Um we don't need to go back and forth and wonder about that. Um because it's it's you've written it. Just copy us, please. um revision of the lighting partially satisfied applicant invey further changes reduce light trespass on the adjoining residential property. Where
are we on that Mark? >> Yep. They they agreed he just agreed in testimony that they're they're going to look into that. >> Okay. How about uh X10 refu and recycling plan? I mean that that's that's stuff that's I mean >> we agree or provide a written refuse and
recycling recyclable plan to >> architectural plants or color palette. You just described those EV charging stations dispersing. I think you agreed to that. >> Yeah, we we we agreed that we will definitely look into it. Uh once we have
the construction drawings and the meetings, initial meetings with the utility companies, uh the applicant is okay as far as dispersing, but usually utility companies dictates what and where we can do things. So we agree to that that we will coordinate with the utility companies. >> Solar ready? Yes, I think so. Oh, you
said that was >> the building will be ready for solar but uh there is no date yet uh satisfi set aside for the installation >> just has to be able to bear the weight. Um let's see uh the other one satisfied we talked about I think you gave
testimony planning testimony even on that that's the impervious blah blah blah let's see soldier course I don't even know what that means but looking at the picture it's looks like the the way the block looks or whatever along um so
>> uh let's see street trees on buyer we did we already talked about that building height assume you'll measure it correctly >> 222 we talked about that already. If you can replace the trees, you know how that goes. Frank Frank is very familiar with
that. U intersecting street sideyard setback law. What does any of this mean? It would appear building setback would comply but not satisfied. Um you're going to have to explain that one to me. >> I think it's the second to last bullet of
>> whatever. Yes, there you >> have to schedule two along intersecting streets, the sideyard setback shall be 20 ft where abuing an existing one or two family home. The comment is that thus
where adjacent to lot 36 the required building setback is 20 ft the site plan drawing and the zoning table should be revised to reflect this required setback. >> Mike this is about as technical as it gets. I mean that that the variance if there was a variance had been granted
previously. It's just making sure that the that the plans reflect the zoning requirements. >> So you all work that out. Okay. Okay. >> Uh let's see. Development subject to affordable housing fees. Yep. We know that. Uh let's see. Number 17. Applicant prepares and applicant site plan
approve. What? No you don't. >> They're here now. >> There you go. Okay. All right. That's what I thought. I don't I don't want to see it again. No offense, but um and payment in fund of fund parking deficiency eight spaces uh need to be
paid. You agree to pay it, right? Okay. Uh and you're good with Darren's report, right? I don't think any of the other staff reports had anything significant in them. >> That's correct. >> But if you did, you'll comply with them, correct? >> Absolutely. We can and will comply with all the comments of every staff report
that I've referred to. >> Fantastic. Board, have any questions? All right. Uh, without further ado, move to open to the public for any questions or comment on this application. Somebody should say second.
>> Uh, all in favor? >> I. >> Anybody wishing to comment on this application, please step forward. Give us your name and address. Seeing no one, we move to close the public session. >> I'll second. All in favor?
>> All right. >> Any summation? >> Yes. Very briefly, this is an application for final. We were before the board for preliminary. The board favored us with preliminary approval. We've worked very diligently between preliminary and final so that we've presented a plan before you that we
believe is worthy of your consideration. The one new variance and I noticed for it had to do with the request of the board regarding the introduction of towers to the building and we believe that it qualifies as a C2 variance and under the pull in case a benefit to the
community a net benefit to the community. Uh having said that, we would ask that this board favor this application with final approval subject to all the conditions that we've enumerated and that we've discussed tonight. >> So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one comment, which is, you know, as
again, as the applicant indicated, um they addressed uh just just so the board is clear, u the reason for this variance again is that uh the design standards in the Hamilton Street business zone speak to um having, you know, particular
architectural emphasis on building corners. And this site has two building corners. Um and they did that, you know, the the the renderings that were in your packet. there were some three-dimensional renderings that were in your packet and on the website um address that uh I think the building u
the addition of that tower feature on each side I think uh significantly improves the aesthetics of the building and addresses that design standard of the Hamilton Street zone um the the the variance is 0.5% uh I I think again clearly that's in my
opinion that's a C2 variance if there ever was one very dimminimous And again a significant improvement to the uh aesthetics of the building. Um the with respect to the impervious surface um staff recommends that both driveways
stay two-way. Uh staff's never recommended you know and you know let's not have a you know um a less functional site plan just to avoid a 0.5 imperous variance. So, I would say, you know, again, I think similar to the lot
coverage, the building coverage variance, I think the testimony was that it'd be um less than 1%. So, if the board was inclined to approve a variance, again, the notice went out for any and all variances. This came out during the testimony. Um so I know again
I think a variance for impervious of up to 86% would be uh justified under the same C2 variance as I explained for the building coverage variance basically results from the change to the you know the addition of these two towers. >> Yes. And there is a catchall provision in the notice.
>> Well no that's fine. I mean thank you for going there Mark. realized well uh you were talking about the the tower uh the towers that necessitated the impervious that we kind of left your question about the driveways hanging. So thank you for going there. So we both
driveways should be full movement and we have asked you for certain things that creates a dimminimous variance um because we believe it is a benefit and that the benefits outweigh the detriments under C2 >> will comply. >> Okay. Excellent. So with that um I will
make a motion to approve uh with the variance for impervious coverage of 50.52% where 50% is the maximum um and compliance with all staff reports and revisions to staff reports uh herein and any outside agency uh compliance as So
it's the lot coverage variance that's the 50% uh deminist building it's building coverage I think that's the 50% >> building coverage >> and then the lot coverage is 86% >> two variants >> two variants okay so let me amend let me amend so that's very good so 86% for uh
lock coverage instead of 85% which is the maximum required again a deminimous variance same justification of C2 okay there you go that's my motion >> seconded Councilman and Barson, >> yes.
>> Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Shaw Keller, >> yes. >> Jennifer Rangnow, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Mark Dansancy, >> yes. >> Chairman Orsini, >> yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> Thank you. You too. Our next meeting is
next week. >> Um, which is the 22nd. >> It is. I make a motion to adjurnn. >> And no, we're going to second that. All in favor?
>> All right. Have a good evening.