##VIDEO ID:eUfCdzxhDiM## in accordance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 um P 1975 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the Franklin Township planning board has been provided if everyone could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance to the of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for [Music] all okay um the IT people here in the in this building as you know this is the first time that we have computers and everything if you are not speaking he said to me you need to turn your mics off because if there's more than three mics that are red you're not going to be able to hear the fourth person won't be able to talk so that was something new I wasn't told before but I'm telling you guys now so when if I call your name you say yes then turn your mic off and turn it off on the side not just or maybe you can just turn it off here I don't know but anyway you need to turn it off okay so councilman marison I think we can hear you uh Theodore Chase here Robert Lort here Shaw Keller here Jennifer ragau here Mahir Rafi here Charles [Music] Brown he's here Robert Thomas here uh Rebecca Hilbert I don't see and Mark Dy and Mike orini here okay okay so there um there are no minutes we have one resolution Chad rossback pln 24003 okay so for Chad rosback that hearing was that hearing that applicant was denied so I'm only calling the members on the board that were for the denial so uh so that means Theodore Chase Robert Lort Charles Brown and Mark Dancy are the only ones that can vote on that resolution so we need a first and a [Music] second second okay Theodore Chase Robert Lort yes Charles Brown yes Mark Dancy yes okay thank you um so we're going to um there's no discussion items so before we start the hearing uh this is the time of the meeting that we open to the public for any general planning comment so if you're here for Onyx um please wait until the meeting is open to the public on that matter um but if there are any general planning comments now is the time so I would make a motion to open the public for any general planning comment second all in favor I meeting is open for any general planning comments seeing no takers move to close second oh please come the microphone so um I was wonder if you if you honorable members can just give a little insight about when a project will require a variance as opposed to changing the entire Zoning for an area so for example if something was let's say zoned for like a if something was zoned for no Warehouse when would it go to the planning board or when it would it go to the zoning board to seek a variance yeah I can take a stab at that so the zoning board um hears things called use variances or D variances so if the use is not permitted in the zone it goes to the zoning board if the the use is permitted in the zone and there are variances such as setbacks um impervious coverage or or any design waivers that are required then it would come before the planning board okay thank you Sirah any other members wishing to speak in a general planning sense seeing No Hands raised and move to close second all in favor I okay before we turn it over to Mr lfred for Onyx let me just um do a little Preamble here for how things are going to go um so as most of you know um right now as of today uh there is no Zone in the Township in which warehouses are permitted so you can say maybe why are they why are they coming um so anything that was deemed a completed application prior to that decision decision being made um must be heard and and and was permitted as of the time that their application was deemed complete so um this application um falls under those conditions uh what we're going to do is after each of the witnesses that the applicant calls we're going to open to the public so I'm going to handle this more like a zoning board matter just due to the number of public here and and due to the due to the question um when you come up um if you want to speak um treat it like a um treat it treat it like a legal proceeding which it actually is um and ask questions um when when I call you um and I'm going to um just have to wing it in terms of the number of people who want to speak so we can hear the maximum number of people so in terms of time limits I'll Reserve judgment on that but use your time wisely um if you come up and you want to make a make a comment or ask ask the ask the witness uh a question please do so uh what we don't need is you know personal anecdotes about how you're stuck in traffic almost got hit by a tra trailer um anything like that um you we need to stick to the facts and we need to try to um make the most of the time we have tonight um we will uh call proceedings at 10:00 so um any witnesses that can finish before 10: we'll have um anything that starts or will continue after 10: um we'll we'll have to continue and go ahead Jim all right if I just want to make one more comment there will be a separate portion of the meeting when your opinions okay will be permitted all right that'll be at the end after all the testimony is in and any comments from Buckeye pipeline are in then you'll have a separate portion of time to give your opinion for or against the application thanks Jim and with that um I'll turn it over to Peter for Onyx 789 LLC pln [Music] 2217 try again is it working now good evening Mr chairman members of the board Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the applicant uh this matter was originally filed as an application for Sight plan approval on April 12th 2023 uh the matter was scheduled for a hearing and a hearing took place on April 17 2024 uh during that hearing in April of 2024 uh certain issues and concerns and questions were raised by certain board members and that application uh contained certain variances uh at the end of that hearing uh my client made a determination that uh there needed to be revisions to the plan to eliminate the concerns that the board had we resubmitted uh an applic uh submitted plans uh those plans were reviewed by your staff uh we had meetings with your staff some as late as today uh We've addressed a lot of the issues there's still one or two that we are working through but uh feel comfortable that we can resolve uh but what we have here is essentially a different plan than what was uh displayed back in April so I'm going to start tonight with my site engineer to go through the site to go through the changes that we made and explain everything to the board and hopefully we will have addressed the uh the concerns that the board had in April the concerns that the staff had and the staff reports that were recently issued and then uh we would be happy to answer any questions that either the board or members of the public may have uh also before I call uh Mr Cahill uh as has happened with the prior hearings that we we had in this building uh we will have the exhibits on the screen however Mr kahill is a little bit old school so he likes to talk on with boards the boards will be the same as what's on the screen and what everybody is seeing uh but uh he will reference both the boards and the screens uh having said all of that I would like to have Mr K Hill sworn raise your right hand Sly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to helped you got I do name and address for the record please Keith Cahill c a i l l with the firm of bowler engineering located at 30 Independent Boulevard in Warren New Jersey 07059 Mr kahill you're a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey yes I am can you give the board briefly the benefit of your educational and professional background certainly I have a uh civil engineering degree from Ruckers University I have a master's degree in engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology I've been practicing civil engineering for the past 30 years for the past 27 years specifically at bowler engineering doing civil engineer uh site plan design I'm a principal at bowler engineering I oversee the four New Jersey offices for bowler engineering and bowler engineering prepared the original site plan in this application and the revised site plan which is the subject of our discussion this evening is that correct yes that is and I've been testifying throughout the state of New Jersey in excess of 100 different municip and accepted as an expert witness in all cases as you as you will be here so um Mr Kill is accepted thank you so much Mr chairman I just want to make sure that the attorney for Buckeye pipeline has no questions and no objection to this Witnesses qualifications Council please appearance for the record while I have you [Music] here Mr chairman members of the board John wisneski wisneski and Associates representing Buckeye Partners LP thank you Mr Cahill uh I guess it would be easier if you're going to rely on the boards to use the microphone that's over there and I will have one of your Associates man the uh computer y okay good evening everyone uh thank you for your time this evening um what i''d like to do is start going through a couple exhibits and give you a brief ex uh a brief description of the overall project please remind me if I am not loud enough for anyone back there I want to make sure you see everything that's on the screen the exhibit that I have up as mentioned by my attorney here I'm old school and I like to show both the boards and what's on the screen so please don't hesitate to speak up if you can't hear me I'm trying to do my best with that uh I want to start in my first exhibit I think we're going to call it A1 is it a colorized version of what was submitted this is an aerial exhibit that has not been submitted just going to give an overview of it I'm going to mark it A1 entitled aerial exhibit a uh Direction and control yes Mr Lanford any objection n okay and this is dated 1 125 2024 prepared by bowler engineering marked A1 okay for reference what you can see here uh the site itself is outlined in red for reference North unfortunately folks is going to be down to the bottom of the page as shown at the uh the arrow at the top because it just shows everything nicely uh this is a great example of what the site looks like today it's representative of that as you can see the site outlined in red uh is 6.15 Acres it is known as 785 old New Brunswick Road Block 50715 lot 2.01 um and it's located in the bi zone or the Business Industrial Zone in the uh retail District overlay uh for reference here we're located at the Northwest what I'll refer to as the northwest corner of old New Brunswick Road and New Brunswick Road and as you can see that the T intersection here uh just for reference and give you some ideas here the size of this site we have approximately 720 ft of Frontage along new Brunswick Road we have approximately uh 480 ft of Frontage along Old New Brunswick Road uh surrounding site uh what's around us uh we have the shopping center uh to our West uh we have the shop right the hers distribution and a a nursing home facility Rehabilitation uh facility to the north and both to the south and east of our site uh is a residential development that you may all be aware of uh in terms of uh Somerset run condominiums that gives you the general overview around it you can see also the the lands uh there's a portion of the land that is vacant that is also owned by the uh the residential Community as well uh just I want to give a couple other brief points what you see on the site is has been previously approved and partially constructed which is a uh 55,1 19 ft retail building as as you can see here it is visible to New Brunswick Road when you drive past it you can see in there uh obviously very visible from old new brunic road there's also a structure small residential structure uh of approximately 839 Square ft just for reference you can see that up in the northern corner here it's about 15 ft from the property lines um a side property line about 45 ft from the existing uh right away of old new bronz road uh the site itself because it's partially built um doesn't have the best appearance today there's debris on the site uh the construction uh in terms of the storm water management system wasn't fully compliant or constructed uh in general the Landscaping was never completed lack of a better term it's not visible not friendly to the to the eye and anticipating a Redevelopment the intent is to make it look a lot nicer so we'll go through that in a moment but a couple other key points to the existing conditions of this site that you should be aware of in general the high point of this site is in the top right corner of this exhibit we in the South uh in the southwest corner and and grades to the uh south or to the uh sou northeast corner in this area up by the intersection the T intersection of old New Brunswick Road in that area uh is a small ditch and a head head wall with the start of a stream uh it there is wetlands in that corner small pocket we've obtained the proper NJ DP letters of interpretation to determine the limit of that that's valid now along with that ditch there's a reparan buffer and as part of this application there's also a buffer from uh the doar and Ron uh Canal commission so this corner with the trees again up at the T intersection is environmentally sensitive and we have to be aware of it we have to preserve it and we have to comply with all regul of the njd your local municipality as well as the DNR Canal uh couple other constraints that I think are important is that and obviously we're here is the Buckeye pipeline that runs in a north south direction through our site I can highlight it and trace it but to give you some idea it splits the property of the hers distribution and the uh the uh uh nursing home facility and comes onto our site just to the west of our Entrance Drive and goes all the way up and Crosses um New brunwick Road in our Southern Property Corner goes into the residential development and splits the uh Town Homes uh in that development as well the pipeline goes throughout Franklin Township it crosses numerous roads it goes through numerous neighborhoods it's something we have to deal with and there's regulations that the pipeline Buck Buckeye has prepared and we have to follow and show and Our intention is to follow those and work with them to make sure that any type of development on this property will be in compliance with what they need to do to protect their pipeline to protect their access to it and of course protect the safety of the community that's what we're committing to and there's numerous drawings within our site plan package that has been submitted that shows the profiles of where that pipeline is shows our setbacks to it and things to that so I just want to be very clear It's Not Unusual that when you do construction in Franklin Township you have to deal with pipelines this isn't the only pipeline in town There's others and we have to deal with them so and I've personally dealt with them in numerous spots in the in the in your community prot Tech hockey I think the Procare uh cancer facility I know I had to deal with it as well so different pipeline but same premise we have to understand when we're developing a site we need to protect the public we need to protect the infrastructure this is no different than any other application when that is in our property or is on a site that we're going to redevelop um couple other key points to as I mentioned this site has impervious coverage it's really not up to today's standards for storm water management any type of Redevelopment we have to meet the standards of this town we have to meet the state standards because we have wetlands and the state and the community has adopted those those we also have additional regulations with soil erosion uh from the uh the county as well as the uh DNR Canal all of those agencies are going to be reviewing everything that we designed to make sure that we're in compliance with those codes and that we're improving in improving the existing conditions that exist today and that is Our intention and I will explain how we are going to do that with the Redevelopment um couple other quick points it's interesting enough enough to know that the current building is about 12.5 ft from the pipeline almost in the easement if you look at the survey the easement is adjacent to the external wall in the northeast corner the pipeline is 12 ft it was a retail development to have the general public in and out of there all day long we are intending to demolish this development and reconstruct the building to be further away from the pipeline in improve that situation so I just wanted to point that out a couple other things the runuk road it was built in approximately 2002 2006 if you look at the Aerials this development this site has been developed since the80s industrial uses there's other types of uses there's a proposal for a school all in the area around this pipeline that site impervious coverage uh roadway ways up to 12 to 18 ft from the existing road that exists today you pull out your uh along New Brunswick Road you see driveways you see asphalt you see piles of stuff a parking lot 18 ft from the RightWay okay not in compliant with today's standards today you have to have a 50-ft buffer you want to perfect this and build it out as it is you don't need to because we were already built the intent is to redevelop it make it better and provide the buffers that your town has asked to provide to your residential development and that's our intent uh I think everything relative to the existing conditions they are the most important items that I think uh kind of puts a framework on what we're looking to deal with the constraints that we have on site and how we want to redevelop the site I want to go to my next exhibit which was going to be entitled A2 Mr compared under your direction and control yes A2 is entitled c-301 site plan layout this exhibit colorized for today's presentation is dated 1 125 2025 it's the exact same sheet that was in the site plan package that was in your uh that was submitted before um we've enhanced it for colorization for reference again North will be to the bottom of the page and we've had different colors Green in general is just about Landscaping that bright red line that runs to the North and South uh again is the the Buckeye pipeline the tan is the the building just to give you some overall um facts about this cuz I want to kind of go back and refer a couple things in history The Proposal that's in front of you tonight after we revised the plan since the prior Hearing in April is a 91,9 ft Warehouse building that in inside of that footprint is 1995 ft of office and it has 8931 14 ft of warehouse this proposal shows setbacks for the building uh completely in compliance with the bulk standards of the of the development ordinance so we're not requesting any variances relative to the bulk Varian of the bulk the bulk table for setbacks impervious coverage building coverage location of basins location of buffer the size of buffers we also revised the storm Water Management to be fully compliant with the new storm water management regulations for the njd for water quality which at the time of this original application was not in place so we were kind of grandfathered in on that similar to the comment about warehousing being fully compliant at permitted use in this zone I'll say that again this development is a permitted use for a warehouse in this Zone and we're complying with all of the bulk standards we are requesting one variance which your ordinance has a setback from the pipeline that requires 100t setback I mentioned before the building that sits there today is 12.65 Ft This is 43 ft 43 and 1/2 ft away we are going to request that variance I will get to the pipeline further and I'll go into the standards that Buckeye has for themselves and what they reference for recommendations so there's no restriction by them to be a certain distance and if there is there's design standards and I will say we have to stay out of the easements and things to that I don't want to uh contradict any of your design standards I went through them all but I just want to make sure we're on the same page this development does have uh 47 parking stalls in compliance with the ordinance it has 10 loading areas for trucks which I will get into detail but I wanted to make sure you see what today's application is about it has full circulation around the building the loading zones uh is to the uh east of the site fully compliant with a buffer to that to screen that area the parking for the office areas is to the uh uh west side of it and there's two separate accesses for that to separate the entrance from separation from the uh the V car vehicles and the [Music] truck yep sorry so this has an overview is what's proposed tonight what I want to do is refresh everyone's memory of the the application or the hearing that occurred in April this year which will be my third exhibit A3 A3 was also prepared under our purview and it's entitled c-301 site plan layout but it's revision one dated 3:30 2023 this plan where you go further that was the plan that was presented to the board in at the last hearing yes and the only thing that is different is that it is now colorized for tonight's hearing yes colorized and in a similar fashion North will be to the bottom of the page and the colors representing the green is Landscaping the tan is the building and that red line is the uh the pipeline again this is what we showed before and actually the first building that we submitted to this town to review was 128,648 33 Square ft this applica this project shown in front of you had variances for setbacks it had uh it did not have the storm order management and compliance in today's standards it had poest pavement throughout you can see the separation through the pipeline was far less uh in regards to that and the Landscaping was different as well and a couple critical there you go you there sorry about that uh you can you notice a key Point here we didn't have fire access around the entire building uh the driveway coming out had a different shape uh in regards to that the building was much closer to the street uh to be exact uh the original submission was 16.5 ft and we had pushed that back to uh um approximately 50 ft now this building is much larger and as I mentioned we reduced the square footage from 128 796 to now what is today 91,000 about 30% increase in reduction in size of the building we also took comments from your Fire official about adding an emergency road around it we had comments about additional fire hydrants we had comments about improving the site circulation relative to the driveways and we learned a couple key points too in terms of truck traffic where the traffic must go and we'll in reinforce that too as I get into this but the trucks are being forced to make when we exit the site to the right because we learned the roadway to the uh west side towards the shopping center is a private road so we're not going to go towards that direction and we'll force all our trucks to go out from Old New Brunswick Road out to New Brunswick Road the difference here the difference here again is that we're we're listening to the Professionals of your town with the guidance of improving the application to make it more compliant with the regulations the standards to improve the circulation improve the safety relative to fire protection uh and improve the Landscaping as I'll get to so I just brought this up to remind you where we were in April and now I want to go back to A2 and go into the details of the proposal tonight so Dan if you could go to A2 okay in relative to this application I'm going to repeat it again permitted use we're not deviating from the bulk standards in terms of height we're in compliance just less than 50 ft in height our front yard setback is 50 ft we've pushed the building back and have even the stormw improvements uh out of that setback as well which was required so there's no variance required for that I want to C I point out again remind you that now we have a roadway that completely circulates around the building as requested by the Fire official just to walk you through the site the uh as I mentioned in terms of accessing the site we have two driveways primarily the office of the building is on the uh West Side the driveway uh farthest to the west or right behind the shopping center is intended to be uh 26 foot wide in compliance with the ordinance with the prior application for the prior submission was 24 this is where the cars would enter and all the parking along that side it would be utilized to go to the office in this corner of the building there's no trucks entering there we separate the car traffic from the truck traffic the size of those parking stalls in compliance with the ordinance by 9 by8 we provide the sufficient 88 uh handicap parking stalls again in accordance with the ordinance we're also in compliance with the uh the EV charging uh of that we did have a comment from your engineer to to modify it slightly and we intend to comply with all the comments from the township engineer in regards to uh this application which I we will go through later but the parking is in compliance for size location setback uh and the need based on the size of the building and the size of the office flipping over to the other driveway on the east side which is for trucks only the anticipated truck route would be again coming off uh New brunwick Road uh We've modified that driveway to make it aligned less I'll say curvature but make it easier to come in we have 10 loading spaces on the east side of the driveway again fully compliant with the size of the town's uh ordinance um we also have two spots one for the on the north side of those loading Courts for a trash compactor which is also in compliance with the regulations for recycling for your uh town and on the south end of that loading Court we also have a ramp that goes into the building I want to highlight the point that um another item was the size of this loading Court there is a geometry requirement there the prior submission did not comply with it was 130 ft now it's 147 again just to make the ease of the movements for the trucks coming in and out of we've also enhanced the site for circulation with signage in and around it making sure we complied with the environmental Commission comments about no idling uh we did have a comment from them that they liked porest pavement however we weren't in fully compliance with the storm water management rag so we've resubmitted to them and this submission as I mentioned we are fully compliant with the green infrastructure that the state requires and I'll point out three things there in general going into the the storm order we had to add three uh bio retention basins first one on the north side of the building and it's landscaped you can see in accordance with those regulations second one that is over by the I'll say the south side of the loading court and the third one is an area just to the east of the loading court all of these items uh uh storm water management basins collect water from either the parking lot or from the roofs um we also have one other underground Basin that you can see it's very difficult to see but it's in this area intended for recharge of water the water gets collected throughout the site it gets filtered to the uh the different element for improving the water quality it then comes out and discharges out into the the ditch area where as I mentioned before all the existing storm water on site goes to today we maintain that we reduce the flow we improve the water quality and essentially make the site significantly better than today but meeting today's standards which is the highest than even at the time of application it's even been improved so in regards to that after Redevelopment this will have the highest level of water quality reductions in storm water and reductions in volume of water leaving because we're also putting that water back into the ground again that will be reviewed by the state of New Jersey the DNR Canal this your your professionals as well as the county and the County Soil Conservation District in regards to um the driveway and the circulation which I want to bring up and I know was in area I got it Dan can you do me a favor and go back to A1 in the area I forgot to point out one thing I mentioned briefly that our trucks and at the last hearing I think there might have been confusion the roadway to the West between our property and what I'll call the hers development towards Elizabeth Avenue is private property and we are not going to be sending our trucks that direction today at shoppr right you notice all trucks that load and go in and out are forced to go right but they're part of that development and go out to Elizabeth Avenue our trucks as I mentioned we'll go out to uh New brunwick Road it is anticipated that trucks coming in now this facility most likely be coming from 287 they're going to be coming to our site from either Exit 12 or 10 they could be coming from anywhere else on the in the in the state but either way they will get to New Brunswick Road and they're going to have to circulate onto Old New Brunswick world and in there's a comment from your professional asking us to show truck turning exhibits offsite at this intersection which we completely understand and we will work with him to show them we still need to do that but we're confident that we can comply with the requirements that he needs to see to make sure that those circulation movements are safe and what I mean by that is when trucks turn in and out they don't cross double Lanes they don't cross into any other uh double lines of traffic they don't cross any lanes of traffic so at that point having the circulation coming from that area coming into our site utilizing the the uh and Dan why don't we go back to A2 they will be using a lot utilizing our eastern most driveway and the radius is there as well or in compliance with standards that make those movements safe and efficient one other item how do I prevent trucks from making a left out of that road as would be a concern so what is not shown on this exhibit but I am confident we can make work we've already done it in the office but I can't really put it up today is that we will put a what we call a pork chop Island that'll Force tractor trailers to go left and it will still allow the emergency vehicles to circulate in terms of your Fire official it'll still allow the trucks entering in and this site will operate effect uh efficiently and safely with that and prevent besides having that the signage will indicate no no left turns arrows exactly as the development just adjacent to us has signage up but we're going to go one step further and put a barrier relative to an island to force traffic to go that direction now in regards to um the professionals comments uh I'll get to that in a minute but what was really important to us was making sure the Fire official was satisfied having the circulation we have a 24t wide roadway that goes around it it's intended only for emergency vehicles relative to that in other words we're not going to allow tractor trailers to go around it and we don't want cars to circulate behind it to go into the truck loading Court there's no need for that um in regards to other items sufficient or significant to the uh a de development in town is making sure that we comply with the lighting standards the signage standards and things to this nature so for lighting we have lighting attached to our building that's that provide sufficient lighting to both sides of the the parking our driveway points as well as our truck loading cords your planner did an excellent job reviewing our entire development relative to lighting and for the signage and in his letter you will see that we are fully compliant with the regulations for lighting design and the standards we're using LSI uh LED standards it's energy efficient uh will not have any glare off site and will not cross any property lines uh in terms of the signage we have signage on the building our architect went through that last time again we intend to be compliant and we're not asking for any variances relative to signage we do have a freestanding sign excuse me a building Mount two building mounted signs in accordance with the Ordinance one on the called the uh the uh east side and one on the North side uh in regard and we have a freestanding sign out at the uh in between our two driveways on the North side again compliant in terms of size it's a monument sign and in terms of set back from the roadway and area the last thing I want to uh or emphasize is the Landscaping that we have proposed um sorry ex give me a second too many numbers to remember in regards to screening as I mentioned the existing site as it sits today is within uh 20 ft of the roadway it does not have a full barrier of landscaping it doesn't have any types of fence for screening what we're proposing and is required by your ordinance is a 50 foot buffer which you can see in here this nice green swath along the South Side you also notice there's two rows of plantings on there there are evergreen shrubs evergreen trees shade trees along our road Frontage things of that nature that not not only will be screening with the operations inside of the building inside of the courtyard there's also a 6 fo High solid fence up along our curb line that will also screen the activity that occurs on site so we're providing distance in terms of a buffer we're providing vertical with a fence that starts day one we're providing evergreen trees up to 10 ft in height that'll continue to grow and get a bigger buffer but there's two sides of that or two rows of that in there the only area where we cannot plant and our friends from Buckeye can explain it if you don't believe me I'm not allowed to plant inside of that easement we have to keep our trees far enough away so if the limbs don't grow into it because if they do they're going to come along and cut them anyway so we're going to do a nice job working with them to make sure we comply with their requests but we still will do everything we can to screen that view from new uh New Brunswick Road to give you some numbers the prior development required to plant 119 trees uh because they cut down trees we're proposing only to cut 18 more trees down to do that Which is less than was before environmental commission ask us to go look and save a few how many more can we leave look at the existing vegetation in this corner and along new Bron Road and see how many trees we can we can say but we still need to cut 18 trees down which requires us to replace 13 more the 119 to 13 um is the number that is about 132 we're we're replacing over 180 trees to do that to give you an idea of all the different plants there we have 546 different plants in terms of trees shrubs and plants and 18 different species um throughout the site those dark green areas we have storm water basins we have requirements because they're bio retention basins we have to plant an additional 321 plants and trees and shrubs of six different varieties so in total we have 867 plants and trees and shrubs going on this site besides the fencing and there are 24 different varieties of species that will provide year- round screening as well as a nice aesthetic look to the uh to the traveling public in and around the New Brunswick Road and Old New Brunswick those items again I think are critical for this Redevelopment so that we are like our pipeline friends here say we want to be good neighbors so do we and we're looking to rescreen redevelop this property to be the best it can just a couple other quick points the utilities that we do need for the site are all available in Olden Brunswick Road in terms of water uh gas uh electric we will need to cross those um the pipeline we understand all the regulations they have they will have Representatives on site if we get approved and we move forward with construction and we intend to comply with all their regulations to be uh crossing their easement I just want to add a couple things as I mentioned where we started we've reduced this project e e e [Music] this once it hold it like [Music] this all right sorry about that technical difficulties and I pr did it like my son says I always create the problems with this stuff um I just want to summarize in saying that the intent here and all of the time and effort between the last hearing coming now was to make this a better project and listen to the professionals here to give them the recommendations to make sure that what we develop here is something that looks nice as well as being as compliant as possible with the store with the uh standards of the Zone in terms terms of setbacks Landscaping Etc the one variance we have is for the setback to the pipeline and as I mentioned the prior development that was on the site was more than three times closer to it we're pulling it back further it's not a safety concern because Buckeye has significant regulations to follow when construction is done in adjacent to their RightWay Our intention is to comply with that we have provided drawings and submitted application to them they have provided their uh feedback to us we still have some work to do with them in terms of the profile and making sure the amount of fill over top of it is compant with their regulations we did a lot of changes to comply with the New Jersey state regulations for storm water which caused some of the changes in grade but I'm confident that what we have there and following their regulations relative to Construction in and around their pipeline we can achieve both satisfaction and an approval from them for how we're proposing to do construction as well as comply with the standards of the community uh and your ordinance for development of a permitted use in the zone with that I hope I hit all the comments and if I missed anything if there's nothing else or I could get to the the staff for reports or at least the engineering which I think is pretty simply summarized yeah why don't you covered the engineering report um from CME dated November 27th 24 uh because then the first action when you're done Mr kills I'm going to um turn turn the questions over to Darren um so um he can ask any questions specific to the report so that would be great if you could cover that okay so I'm refering refering to uh Darren's uh the township Engineers review letter dated November 27th speaking the M sorry sorry November 27th 2024 which I have reviewed with Darren and gone through it and I will say one of the items I may have left out in terms of my testimony was that we are proposing sidewalk another better point to the exhibit I've agreed to 99% of the comments in in Darren's letter he mentioned that we do have a waiver requested for sidewalk along uh New Brunswick Road from a pedestrian standpoint we have sidewalk that runs entirely along Olden Brunswick Road we have access from our site out to the RightWay everything in compliance with Ada there is also a sidewalk along the south side of New Brunswick Road and in this area um of sidewalk on I'll call the north side of new Bruns Road along our Frontage we had not proposed one we respected respectively requested a waiver in a sense because the connection on the North side or to the west side was not there there is circulation from in and around uh the residential communities on the south side of new Bron road we have this environmentally sensitive area which also challenging to have a sidewalk we're not opposed to sidewalks but we felt it didn't mean to be sent here uh provided value to be in this location we know there's pedestrian circulation from the shopping center and the bus stops that are up along Elizabeth Road this area we did not have one with that being said I mentioned that if there's a further requirement to we can talk about it further but that was the a waiver relative to sidewalk everywhere else on this site we are in compliance with that and I was referring to comment number five in his letter I'll pause and just say on the balance of those comments in his letter in general site Improvement section um we do not have any concerns with complying with his comments uh number 13 specifically asked to look at at the truck turning movements along the intersection of old NE Brunswick Road and Ne Brunswick Road which we will do uh and to his satisfaction if that's a condition um there was a comment about the truck turning vehicle number 16 which we have done in now and it's not a problem we will show him too that that that works uh the balance of his comments in grading and utility and storm order management again we have no concerns with any of those we intend to comply with those there's no diff in uh concerns in terms of the storm order management and again complying with his comments and to the regulations of the ngdp um there was a comment in regards to having infiltration as mentioned to being in compliance in the uh looking for a letter from our lsrp which we just recently uh received to say that it was not a problem which again we'll provide to your professional um and the signage and different items requested in regards to details um the EV charging details uh and anything else in there for details and the outside agencies we understand and we will comply and provide that uh as conditions of any type of action by this board Keith in addressing those comments does that in any way substantially alter what the board is looking at this evening or what the members of the public are looking at or most of them technical comments that need to be addressed yeah in terms of uh physical appearance to the site no many things would be underground type things so no changes that I would impact uh the plan that's in front of you in terms of from a zoning perspective and with respect to all of the other reports that were issued uh we will comply with those reports yes in terms of a Fire official comments we we had a uh a letter after the last uh hearing um I I think we addressed 99% we just got a new letter he was requesting another hydrant which we will comply with he asked about continuing to clean up the site that has some debris and stockpiling that's underway now and and being actively done which we agree with also um so there's no concerns with those comments from the Fire official uh or the um the sewage Authority which we did receive a letter all of those comments we can agree to I think in terms of the memo and the revised plans as I mentioned went to the environmental commission I haven't received a new letter but I think we've addressed their issues relative to the Landscaping saving number of trees and and complying in the storm water management side of the of the world I think in regards to the traffic reports that were submitted also to the other agencies that we're requesting has been provided I would like to address one item relative to the planning side I mentioned uh your planners provided us guidance in terms of lighting and Landscaping different elements and one of the main comments was hey why do you have the loading zone proposed in the direction that you have now I mentioned where we started with app this application in terms of being a building of approximately 130,000 ft and we're down to 91,000 ft we all understand the concerns of the Buckeye pipeline we also heard the the the desire to provide safe access to tractor trailers into the site and circulation on site and some of those standards require Dimensions specifically loading zone sizes circulation sizes for the courtyard being out to 147 ft as shown in this application as shown on this exhibit A2 if we went to re rotate that loading onto the opposite side towards the shopping center I'm starting at at least 160 ft from that property line with that geometry which then pushes my building over top of that pipeline much quicker and as if you looked at that we're getting down to a building that would be under 50,000 closer to 35,000 square ft which then at that point an industrial type use and building really does not comes feasible or marketable in place place it just isn't good planning relative to that to rotate that building because of the constraints that I mentioned on the site the bucke pipeline as well as in the North or excuse me in the Southeast Corner the environmentally sensitive areas that have the buffers relative to uh the wetlands the stream encro uh the stream flood Hazard and and encroachment areas uh the uh buffer areas so in so doing it starts to reduce the OM envelope that you can actually have something that would be feasible that would be uh that would be functional to this type of development therefore we had to rotate it and from a planning perspective address the items that your ordinance anticipated which was providing proper B uh buffering which we've complied with providing both landscaping and permanent buffering with a fence from day one all those items I think address that concern but I wanted to make sure it was clear from a planning perspective that we did look at it like this and came back with this product uh that we feel addresses the the ordinance and the planning aspects um that we're raised by your planner as as just a quick followup to to be clear uh based on the existence of that pipeline easement we are not allowed to put any buildings upon the pipeline easement correct that is correct however we are allowed by virtue of the easement again subject to working everything out with them allow to put roadways and parking areas and things of that nature over the easement that is correct so that's why we have the ability to put the truck Court uh where we are proposing it and taking advantage to some degree of the ability to tr to Traverse the easement with the truck court and truck circulation that is correct okay thank you and even in the review letter there was no comment in terms of the activities that were on top of the uh their easement as long as we're in compliance with their standards and the conditions of our easement that's on site which we are okay uh I don't think I have any other questions of Mr Cahill okay um open I'll open up the board questions initially I just want to first go to Darren because uh you want to um cover anything um engineered engineer sure thank you so as part of the original application one of my larger concerns was the driveway let me start over so as part of the original application one of my larger concerns was the site driver which originally was on safe they have addressed the majority of the comments here were okay with what they're proposing with the with the stipulation that that Port Chop Island if the Border act favorably would be requirement and just looking at the driveway one other recommendation I would have is just in the northwest corner of the driveway would be to reduce the radii just to limit any trucks who would try to come in right which I wanted to see if Mr K would have any objection to okay the other another area of concern I did have was with the original application was a loading Court which there was a variance request that's now removed the reason why I had that initial concern just for the board's education edification is because I was concerned that trucks would have to make K turns originally wouldn't have you know just a quick in andout movement which this redesign now shows they can just back into these spots safely without having to do more maneuverability which Mr kahill has a testified to but I wanted to make sure the board's aware now in terms of the old New Brunswick New Brunswick roadway Mr Gill s has stated he's going to provide a turning template for further review as part of what we've discussed I would be analyzing that to make sure that trucks do not turn over the double yellow line in either Direction that's going to be a critical if it does it's going to be something that's not approved as part of that that might require the applicant potentially to get either a DP permit because they're in that environmentally sensitive area or uh or property on the opposite corner which it's going to depend on the layout it's not known at this time but it's something that I would hold them to at that time I just want to make sure the board's aware now in terms of the call the northeast corner of that intersection if you guys could just put that exhibit back up okay so if that curve if that curve line is going to be uh W increased in radi to make a turning movement work uh the only other request I would have is if you're going to touch that handicap ramp in order to make the Turning movement work that you'd bring that handicap ramp up to the standard but that's going to be dependent on what's there I just want to make sure everybody understands what we would be looking for from the township perspective we we understand and we don't have a concern with complying with that okay let me just kind of go through one second sure for the record before Darren goes on the issue of that New Brunswick Road uh all New Brunswick intersection first appeared in this last set of comments that was not a comment in any of the prior iterations so we got it and it was just recent and we are tackling it and we will address it the reason we don't have answer complete answers today is because we just got the comment with his last report and we but we understand what the comment is and we can uh deal with it yep and the reason why that comment is there just because it wasn't clear in the last hearing whether they could Traverse the private right roadway or private roadway which they've now testified that they they can't um he's already he's he's testified that he's going to satisfy all the requirements of the storm water testing that's still outstanding just for the board's record uh the typical testing timeline is usually in the January April season so I have recommended Offline that they do their testing you know sooner or later depending on where this application goes with the board but that's just another matter but he has gone through I guess the the only other item that would be left to discuss really and it's going to be the board's determination is the sidewalk along Old New Brunswick typically I do that recommendation it's part of it's a it's a waiver requirement but also that recommendation is there just to prom prohibit or to promote a walking uh uh walking Community but there are times where the board has also taken the stance of asking for a contribution so I would leave that to the board members on what the preference would be those are the main parts of my comments may we ask a question of the engineer before you think thanks Darren um yeah we'll open it up to board question Charles I think you're going to leverage this so go ahead yeah uh certainly not in favor the waiver to not place a sidewalk uh around the site I'm in favor of sidewalk on all sides we have a complete streets policy in the township we should honor that by ensuring the protection of cyclists um it not only protects cyclist it protects everyone using the roadway so we should never um wave that in my opinion and we've also seen payments in L uh we don't know where those payments happen I've never seen an assessment of sidewalks being built as a result of that so I remain curious as it relates to the payment and L when it comes to the um the truck turning movement I'm curious why he wasn't required to bring that tonight for the public to see why is that something that we see later given how important it is and it's not the first time that they've received that [Applause] comment just so we clear we had truck turning comments from the prior hearing on the onsite and when we resubmitted we then got that comment I actually have an exhibit to show what can be done but I didn't want to introduce anything new because it was new to us on how to resolve it like what would be specifically required we looked at it we have truck turning that shows what would be impacted we can make this work on our lands but as mentioned I have to define the D amount of impact and I wanted to have my answers to it but if it was satisfactory to show of radius to say I can get a truck to make a right turn onto hold the Bruns excuse me on from Old New Brunswick Road onto New Brunswick Road we can achieve that what has to occur but but we did not update all of the drawings to show this so that's why it wasn't being able to be done because it is impactful on the entire package but to just show that I can make it work yes and I can work with your professional to show that and what happens is the radius gets around into our environmentally sensitive areas we need to build retaining walls we have to get approvals for the encroachment of the buffers which the math shows we can make that within the GP the general permits of the D we just need to it's just a lot to do in a short period of time I can say it's feasible and that other than that intersection off of our site we can make that occur I I I think respectfully you gave an excellent testimony um I respect your engineering judgment but I need to trust in verified we need to see proof that what you're saying can actually happen and if it's if it's so easy to be done it could have been done prior to tonight it's I didn't say it was easy but I did say we could get it done if you have them go ahead and show your drawings let us I what I don't want to disappoint anybody with we won't hold you to ity no no not that is that it impacts things that on I have 18 or 20 some sheets right so that is a lot of work you introduce it that way right so all I can do is say hey this is what it looks like at this intersection so why don't we show no not yet let me let me jump in for a second here because we don't have a radius plan because the staff hasn't reviewed it and this goes for the pork chop Island as well and because the public hasn't seen it right the board cannot vote this application tonight even if we were to finish okay it's got to come back for a second night so that the review process as we customarily handle it okay will be adhered to that's great because it will give us more time to make it look nicer and spend time cuz it does though it can be drawn quickly it doesn't have the everything that goes with it that's understood thank you okay thank you um so we will go to the rest of the board and I know a lot of people have questions let me just pursue this a little bit because I have a question sure so I totally agree with Charles in that the sidewalk should be provided on Old New brck Road um you you you don't have an isol ated site here uh you have the ability to walk to the shopping center and restaurants that are right next to your site you have the ability to walk across the street to shop right you have the ability to walk across the street to the other Plaza um so I think that's important um if it were isolated and you know part of lean industrial park where where nothing was around that's one thing here um you know there's a reason to walk there um so I agree with Charles there the thing I the question I have about your turning movements though is is why you would want a truck to do what you describe why wouldn't you want it just to go out to Elizabeth the way shoppr comes in and not have to make that turn and and and not have to deal with any of the stuff um rather than going around you know right out of the site you go left and you're on Elizabeth you're to 287 or you're down Schoolhouse and you're to 287 why would you want to do that can you please repeat that I said why would you want to bring truck traffic on New Brunswick Road and make that convoluted turn which you need a lot of engineering to do and why not just go right out to Elizabeth like the shoppr trucks come in and make a no right turn out of your site left only so so you're suggesting that the trucks go through the private easement they do now so and and it has to be a public Street for them to either come in right so I mean it's not like you're getting approval it is let me go back in history okay um that actually might be useful because uh I can show I can show something graphically too all I'll explain the history and then you can show it when the shoppr application came in in the old New Brunswick Road was a public roadway from New Brunswick Road to Elizabeth Avenue then the owner of shopright came in with the commercial space across the street which is where Frank's Pizza is there's some uh other eating establishments so that the same owner owned both sides of the street at that time and it was a zoning board application the zoning board wanted to make it pedestrian friendly so people can park on one side and walk over to the other side they required that there be speed H humps put in and tables there for for walking for crossing the street which would not normally be allowed on public right ofo so at that point in time it was discussed that perhaps since the owner owned both sides of the street that the council vacate that portion of New Brunswick Road on either side of the shopping center so that it became part of the shopping center the council did vacate the road it was duly filed that road is not for Public Access other than to uh for the shopping center now I know people people use it but legally it is for Public Access now also uh I did that application how many years ago uh I still have a relationship with the owner and I did make inquiry of the owner as to whether he would uh grant us an easement for our trucks to go through that uh area so that they would then make a left turn out to Elizabeth Avenue and his response was that uh he was unwilling to grant that easement so we did pursue that so we do not have the legal right to run our trucks out to Elizabeth Avenue through that shopping center Now Keith can go on just so you can see exactly what we're talking about this aerial going back to A1 you can see the lines for old New Brunswick and you see a dark line that cuts across that's the end of the public road from that point to the West until you get to the intersection where again a solid black line crosses that is private road and as described the improvements that are along here like stop signs in the middle of what it feels like a road it's actually like a driveway if you're driving through a mall that roadway is private there's crosswalks raised crosswalks That You Don't See in public roadways as if it's like a shopping center are connecting the shop right to the balance of that Center and we do not have legal permission to take our tractor trailers through that section of the roadway well so now I understand that and my I have to say that's unfortunate so let me let me turn the question around 180° how can you assure us the trucks coming to your site are not going to make that exact left turn that you don't have um the right to how do you make sure that they're going to go down to New Brunswick Road make a left and then make another left up old New Brunswick and then into your site which is what your circulation plan is and and not make that left from Elizabeth onto Old New Brunswick Road when you just admitted that many people do use that so it's not like there's somebody sitting there patrolling and saying where are you going so how do you control that so from exiting the site part of the discussion again as or as recent as this morning was to add a physical barrier in terms of an island at our exit Drive um onto Old New Brunswick Road one side would be a full height curb Port Chop to to steer the trucks physically to the right so they'd have to make a right out of our driveway that would control the truck's exiting but it wouldn't control the truck's entering which is what I'm asking you know and and so that is I mean chairman if I may part of what I had recommended was for them to reduce that radius for the entrance so that trucks could not make the turn and that's what uh I believe Mr G had agreed to yes is and we'll obviously make sure the the emergency vehicles can get through there but it's we can reduce that to almost no radius other than physical to make it look like it looks nice that's it but not allowing tractor trailers to make the right in to the site so if they were to go down that way accidentally and they don't have the turning radius then they lap around we got the Franklin 500 going on here it's again the intent is if that was a shopping center and it is and it was you're going into a someone's driveway is the way I view it I view everything in inbound of that shopping center private property we have to comply with that we have to give our guidance on how things come in and out of our track out of our facility and provide guidance on truck circulation it's going to be signed that direction again there's signage for the shoppr right trucks to follow a certain route do they come a different route I I don't know but it's not any different than that scenario where they're indicating where they come in and where they go out based on signage and not physical barriers yeah okay I see what you're saying I don't like it but I see what you're saying don't doesn't shoppr right have some cut on Elizabeth where their trucks can come in right off of Elizabeth they they do have their own that's an option that shoppr right has that you wouldn't right and and you know when when the shoppr application was heard many years ago there was a lot of sense in doing what we what was talked about by the zoning board and ultimately the council which was to vacate the road which was a benefit to the Shoppers to that shopping center what I don't think anybody ever contemplated was the development of this site and the impact that vacating that road has to this site and by vacating that road it was detrimental to my client's property because if that road was not vacated well having this discussion it may be detrimental as a warehouse I don't think it would be detrimental if it was retail or residential because you wouldn't have tractor tril but back then and today and when we filed the application it was zoned for a warehouse it was zoned for other things too because that's why you were building the retail you chose to then make it a warehouse because you couldn't make the retail ago but but it was it but it was zoned for warehouse and it's really difficult and it's a tough situation but you know if you say you're allowed to have a warehouse here but you can't get to it uh are you really Z you know are you really zoning it for a warehouse maybe not yeah and that's a and maybe maybe you're making a great case but anyway um we um we will move on since I understand it um whether I like it or not is immaterial let's um who else Bob a lot of the uh constraints that you're working to overcome uh are kind of a red flag now that maybe this property is not suitable for this site while while a warehouse may be permitted and have been permitted this was designed as a retail overlay and Retail is what was being developed as warehouses were not contemplated and probably if they were contemplated would have been eliminated from this particular spot that being said how can I'm not sure how you can justify replacing a 9,000 square foot building with one that's 10 times bigger 90 some th000 your Warehouse is 90,000 sare ft right so don't look at me like I'm in a fog no no no the the existing building is 55,000 Square ft you said a 9,000 square ft retail no use okay it's still twice just to be clear I'll I'll give you it's still roughly twice the size it's 55,1 19t and when you look at the lot coverage of your lot we're far under the allowable the uh percentage there uh again we're not exceeding it we're under the allowable so we're not over cramming the fact that's great onent on paper you are but this is a particular site with specific kinds of restraints the pipeline for instance in your testimony and maybe it's a a planning uh responsibility to me you have given absolutely no justification to Grant a variance on the pipeline all right the pipeline the variant you you mentioned the building is 12 ft now you're looking for 46 ft when it should be 100 ft but you're introducing a much different use than what the retail was so as far as I'm conc concern it's a nonstarter for me if you move the building if you if you make the building comply with the setback reduce the size of it I don't care what the applicants problems are with marketing a 30,000 ft building because it also the size of the building also presents another problem in that all of the activity is facing the residential Zone get I just want to point out relative to the pipeline the pipeline runs through your community if you point out to the areas of you need 100 ft for safety the number of residents that are far less than that for their structure occurs today a retail development that's open to the public that's 12T from it that has anybody driving in and out of it I don't know what the concern is from having that go through a property if you look at the p uh Buckey's uh RightWay use restrictions rev 7.2 there's design standards to be adjacent to that pipeline it does not prohibit uses it does not prohibit being within 100 ft by the engineering and the safety aspects of why that guideline is set the difference of any other type of structure being there if you look at who's going to be in that structure the number of people being in that structure versus a retail facility I think you'd rather have an industrial facility there that's your that's your that's your opinion from a from a pipeline perspective and what is design guidelines from Buckeye from my perspective the ordinance says 100 ft if you reduce the size of the building and comply with that you have an opportunity to address the other kinds of issues like the activity all the trucking activity faces the Residential Properties it should be the opposite all right and I don't care what those constraints do to the size of your building that's the way it should be all right in my opinion and since I have a vote my opinion does count a little bit I appreciate that now the next issue is the intersection well that's coming up after the the traffic the truck traffic coming to your facility is either going to come from Elizabeth Avenue Davidson Avenue or New Brunswick Road from Cedar Grove Lane all right you have a problem in my opinion because those roads except for Elizabeth Avenue you have a a problem because you're not allowed to use that Eng entrance but on your runuk road and Davidson Avenue you have 4 ton weight limits all right now your truck traffic may not be going up East Avenue all the time to see to New Brunswick Road they might be coming from Amwell Road to New Brunswick Road and they do turn onto that part of New Brunswick Road now all right it's the most inappropriate route for TR trucks that you can find it's narrow from Cedar Grove to Davidson to to almost Davidson there's no shoulders they don't belong there but they use it all right Davidson from Pierce Street to new Bruns Road it's a 4ton limit now I'm going to be told the the old story well you can make a delivery to a building that's on a fourth well this isn't making deliveries this is a point of origin and departure it's an actual Warehouse business we have a state legislature here I don't think the legislature had it in mind in the spirit of that that ordinance or law Municipal land use law that an actual point of business could be operating on a 4ton road limit you don't actually have any truck entrance legal truck routes to get into those entrances at your driveway and I for one would love to roll a dice and go to court for that because you don't have it right getting to the intersection it looks wonderful on the picture to a point it looks doable but when you get out there in in face reality and try and make a left turn coming out of old New Brunswick Road onto new New Brunswick Road it's one of the more dangerous intersections around because you're turning into traffic coming downhill and making a curve away from you so when you make a left turn you're effectively turning into the traffic there's no truck I don't care what your traffic expert says that's going to efficiently make the left turn onto New Brunswick Road to go to Davidson Avenue they not way it exists going to make a right turn on Elizabeth Avenue on on New Brunswick to go to the white it's not going to happen you also have a driveway to a nursing home immediately after you turn off the street that has to be considered and you talk about sidewalks which is a great idea but they're no good if people coming out of Somerset run walk down the hill to that street to that New Brun old New Brunswick Road intersection and they can't cross the street because there's a guard rail there and you would never willingly cross that street with the traffic going making turns going in and out I have my doubts if a truck can make the turn coming from Elizabeth Avenue to that intersection can make the the left turn into New Brunswick Road it's it just isn't going to happen without inter major interference with traffic there's routinely two or three cars at that intersection stacked to go out onto New Brunswick Road those trucks can't make the turn around those stacked cars so one thing that's real important is I'm not voting anyway on this except no until I see an engineered picture of what you're going to do to that intersection including how you're going to comply or accommodate pedestrians that want to cross the street back and forth there right it you you have a lot of planning testimony to give and a lot of other testimony to give quite frankly to go anywhere near convincing me that this is anywhere approaching an appropriate site for a [Applause] warehouse I thank you so so Jim um wants to say something yeah I just wanted to follow up on one of the issues that you raised Bob and and that's the pipeline distance variance and you're correct that we still have planning testimony left to hear and like any other applicant uh Onyx has to demonstrate either a a hardship or B that it's a better zoning alternative so we await that testimony and Mr Thomas I appreciate your back not trying to change couple things just relative to safety sidewalks and Crossing from uh the residential area at T intersections across to the north side I wouldn't recommend if we built one there it should be at a traffic signal and you have full stop mid block traffic crossings I don't think anybody would want cuz they are unsafe unless it's at a signalized intersection so we would not want to propose that at either T intersection at merwald or at Old New Brunswick that doesn't mean we can't build a sidewalk but we would not encourage that for safety reasons and I think your professionals wouldn't want that either so from a pedestrian circulation we could definitely show where we would highly recommend and direct safe Crossings of New Brunswick Road which would be towards the the res uh the retail side and Elizabeth Avenue where they're controlled signals with proper signalization for pedestrians but I I heard you loud and clear I appreciate your feedback and I don't disagree we should show you an engineer drawing of the impact on that signal I mean excuse me at the intersection that shows truck turning that's it I'm just saying you're absolutely right Mr Brown mentioned the same thing we're not opposed to showing you an engineer drawing and that's that's fine that's your request we understand but if you know you have to change the intersection why wouldn't you go all the way why is it wrong to go all the way and make it pedestrian friendly that's what the whole area was supposed to be in the first place this wasn't supposed to be a warehouse area and that goes back 20 years cuz I sat on the board when you did your shop right application this wasn't meant to be this way and however it developed it did it was something a warehouse slipped through the cracks with simple as way say I understand it and and just reiterate from a safety perspective if it was retail I would not want as the person signing and ceiling and drawing to have an individual cross that a mid block Crossing it would need to be signalized that change of a signal there in those locations I don't know if it warrants it I don't know if your your engineer to ever recommend that I think the intent by all of the sidewalk around the entire community Community clearly directs the pedestrians in a certain pattern and what we're looking at is complying with what your ordinance says in terms of providing sidewalk which we will do in all those locations might recommend it now with this potential use it may not have recommended it and maybe they need to do a study there because that is a dangerous intersection as it exists adding trucks to it is going to make it impossible and and again your engineer has provided guidance as recent as today on what would want to be shown that road has curves in it the great news from an engineering perspective we're on the outside of that curve not on the inside our line of sights are visible I understand we have to show our line of sights we have to show the curing radiuses and show that it's safe and you have a great engineer that'll look out for the community to make sure that what would be proposed there is in compliance with the ashto standards the dot standards and what his engineering judgment would recommend for safety and that's all we can do is to address that well the last thing real quick it doesn't have to do with this and you'll have to forgive me but I can't help but getting it in for the politicians in the office is Franklin Township has to start enforcing its traffic regulations if we had police enforcement for truck traffic and those 4ton load Li limits we might have have a much different conversation tonight but I understand that's not your [Applause] problem be before we move on I just want to clarify one point that Mr Thomas made that a warehouse slipped through the cracks this property was always zoned in the shop right property was always zoned M the retail next to this property was always zoned M the township then enacted a retail overlay Zone it did not eliminate the industrial zone that zone is now a bi Zone but in essence it's an industrial Zone the shoppr is still in an industrial Zone the retail Center on opposite shop right is in an industrial Zone and this site and the her site are in an industrial Zone and my recollection is even the nursing home is in the bi zone so that was always let's be honest okay you're not wrong in that I'm not arguing with that however when you did the shoppr application and all the other ones in the area there connected with it you did not anticipate a warehouse ever being on that Pro property wasn't it you who represented this same client for the retail Center and the school that was approved yes right no one this was a retail overlay for this section all right no one anticipated a warehouse so let's be [Applause] honest um yeah let's uh thanks Bob for your comments let's um let's go to others on the board um who hasn't spoken yet Charles I'll get back to you uh Ted go [Music] ahead well I compliment you on fixing the the many things that were very very wrong with the the plans that we saw last April for instance it looked to me as if a truck could get into the parking lot and the loading dock but really couldn't get out but I think that what you have now it is although we need a real as our engineer has said we need a real demonstration that trucks can uh turn left and get out of the parkings uh of the truck parking area uh which you I don't think you quite have at this point but you said you can supply um Ted I think you need to speak up speak up I'm speaking about as close to the microphone as I can without eating it uh one concern that I've had and it's demonstrated in some pictures in the original app application I understand that you can't plant trees on top of the uh the pipeline easement and therefore there's a sort of a window out to New Brunswick Road which probably the people who live on the other side are concerned about I'd suggest that you uh at the edges of the uh easement there you plant uh trees which will eventually have rather widespread branches to occupy as much of that space as possible and possibly if it's permitted under the conditions of the easement that you could have herbaceous plants that grow uh 4 feet high or so you but you don't have a a root structure that would affect the pipeline but that would also uh make the the space there less of a window for people to see on the the side walks I myself would not want require a sidewalk on your side of New Brunswick Road because it doesn't really lead anywhere where you want the sidewalk and where I guess it does exist is on the other side of New Brunswick Road and then the should be as you say ideally a signalized intersection short of that a sidewalk with the kind of sign that you push a button and it flashes lights and generally discourages um traffic while people are crossing the street but that's what you would want for people from Somerset run to get to uh the shopping center and shoppr right uh but about that exit onto New Brunswick Road from Old New Brunswick Road I think a a serious concern I'm sure a serious concern of the um audience is that trucks would uh come out and turn left and go to Davidson road because Davidson Road comes out to Eastern Avenue very close to the entrance to uh 287 and that would be of a considerable increase in truck traffic on the weight limited New Brunswick Road and apparently that section of um Davidson Avenue and that I I think it in itself may be uh an insoluble problem for putting the trucks out of that um out of old New Brunswick Road onto New Brunswick Road that's exactly the kind of problem that legally they aren't supposed to do and nobody's going to be able to stop them unless you post a police car permanently at the intersection the kind of problems we have with the trucks idling on Randolph Road so that to me is an argument against going that way but I understand why you can't go through um the private road in front of chop rry and all of that is a conclusion that this is not a place for a warehouse and you pre the owner previously had a proposal for a retail establishment there which would have been reasonable because the traffic would not have been heavy trucks I'm sure that the legislature intended the exception for trucks making deliveries to trucks delivering to residences along a street that had a weight limitation uh residences or possibly very small businesses not um aware wouse whose very purpose is to have trucks deliver there and trucks take away from there um and I do praise you for keeping trees along the New Brunswick Road side I'd only suggest that perhaps you plant spice bush underneath them to make this this is if the application is otherwise approved that you spice bush or something like that underneath those trees to make a a greater barrier I was somewhat surprised to see spice bush in detention Basin one I don't think of it as a Wetlands uh shrub you might want to look into things that uh will uh be happy there if the detention Basin fills up and doesn't drain for a couple of days uh Wetland shrubs have adaptations that enable them to survive under those conditions when the the root surroundings go anerobic uh but that's why I maybe somebody know a landscape architect knows that a spice bush is appropriate for that but um anyway that's a that's a fine detail and I think the bigger concerns have been raised thank you m Mr Chase thank you for your comments and I appreciate specifically the comments about the S the the sidewalk because there is a safety issue there for crossing the road just like cars pulling out of a driveway you want that to happen in the safest spot and the planning and the master planning of Where The Pedestrian Crossings were to be from the residential Zone to come over towards the shop right is clear when you look at an aerial to happen at a traffic signal putting it at a mid block unless you have some of the ability to stop traffic is concerning and if you look at that section of road with the turns in there it would not be anticip anticipated to have that happen in other words it's not happening anywhere else on that stretch of road that you have a mid block Crossing and the Traffic Engineers and your own Traffic Engineers and professionals can weigh in on that when it's time to do it but we would highly encourage to have The Pedestrian Sur circulation focused at traffic signals with push buttons that give the a right amount of time to allow pedestrians cross can't disag I can't agree with you more if it's a matter of building a sidewalk we're not going to die on that hill and we'll build the sidewalk but we will not encourage Crossings at either of those T intersections in that road in that area because in our view and we'll let the traffic professionals weigh in it's not the appropriate location in go ahead I'm sorry I I just don't see any purpose to a sidewalk on the the north side of New Brunswick Road there because uh pedestrians who walk along the South Side would naturally go to the New Brunswick Road Elizabeth Avenue intersection which is signalized and they could safely cross there you're right another comment relative to what you had requested we can't plant in the easement they actually have a section in their use regulation or their in the RightWay use restrictions that certain plants they want us to make sure that the limbs don't overhang because they're going to come through and cut them anyway now with that to your point and I'll refer to A2 we'll do the best we can to add maybe parallel in that 50ft area which then closes that window as you drive by right so to that point give us a shot to make it better and still comply with our friends okay so we'll do something with that um you also mentioned concern about the proposed Wetland or the excuse me I don't want to say Wetlands the basins and the Landscaping we're following the njd BMP manual and the Landscaping plan in the schedule shown there is all material that is required by the BMP manual for Bio retention Basin the plant materials specific approved by the state of New Jersey's Landscape Architects to be planted there and encourage that Improvement of water quality and absorption of that water into the soils rather than running off so just to let you know I think that area is addressed and we're following the regulations of the state of New Jersey and the BMP manual okay well you know more about it than I do then and it's on the plan for your professionals to confirm yeah I just one more thing I remind remember I wanted to say my concern about the pipe on line is really more during the construction of the building that is if uh is when let's say a back hole might hit the pipeline as happened in Edison U it's it's less the closeness of the building to the finished building to the pipeline than of the construction to the pipeline but I'm sure Mr winki is going to have something to say yes and you're absolutely right we can agree with you more I've worked for other utilities like Verizon representing their best interest on building residential developments over type of their their their infrastructure it's a pipeline we have all their standards it's a nice manual right here we intend to comply with it and I will tell you the contractor that has to deal with it is going to spend a and my client will spend a heck of a lot money more money for construction to comply with these Reg ulations and there's no intention to not because it's what's required to Purdue construction safely okay any uh um here will go to you then Bob and then I think Charles has something more to say so just just to um I I do a lot of shopping at shoppr right and I come out on that corner over there and I tell you with the slope coming down this way you got to maybe 5 seconds to see who's coming the slope coming around this way you got about 5 Seconds who's coming I I don't I wouldn't vote for anything unless that that intersection is really improved and I see what you're doing not imaginary or or whatever but and I agree with you Bob that that is a really dangerous corner and I've seen a lot of residents come out of Somerset run walking where sometimes I can't even I I may want to give them a ride but I'm I'm going in that way where I can't give him a ride so I mean I I'm I want to see something about that corner if there's anything okay um here please okay I'm on all right I um you know I listened all my colleagues but I listen listened really intently to your proposal can you hear me now okay I I'm really really trying to get convinced that a warehouse belongs there you know I get it that you're a business I mean the plan is Beautiful Everything Is Beautiful it just this is not the spot you look around you there is you know just just do the right thing this is not the spot for it it's really a good plan there's a shopping center there's a nursing home you know on the other side this a massage place I mean it it cannot work so I and then also what I found amusing is and I tried to get convinced on this part too all the wonderful plants that you're going to be putting in right8 there could be 10,000 plants this is not the spot for the warehouse yeah um I still disagree with the comments that the sidewalk should not be placed on New Brunswick Road I think we should provide pedestrian accommodations when and wherever we can um you also whenever you have a T intersection in New Jersey whether it's marked or unmarked it's a legal Crossing so while engineers in this in this state may make judgments about where pedestrians are crossing many of those judgments are inaccurate and thus lead to pedestrians being killed unfairly in this state and that then the determination being made that they had no right Crossing there they have a right to cross on both sides of this street because this is a T intersection and thus it is a legal unmarked Crossing so we should provide the crossing there for them to do so I have another question for you though U outside of the crosswalk have you asked the um where the Panera Bread entrance is have you asked that property for uh an access easement so you could turn lot left off of um Elizabeth and go through the back of that property to access your site via truck the that's the same driveway that we've been talking about that the Panera no the back one it's not the same one it's the one behind the era where right now it's where the trash is behind the the project site but that driveway are you saying to take it behind Panera I'm just saying in it first of all I'm opposed to this development I want to be clear of the warehouse but if you were to do it if you were to do it if you were to reimagine the connection we know you can't go through the private road so behind the Panera you could expand the width of the access easement there to connect to the back of your site okay we we did not explore that as a possibility uh that also obviously is private property that's why access yeah I I have not I don't think we've looked at that as to see whether it can work forgetting whether the owner would let us do it or not but it's it's an interesting suggestion and something we can perhaps look at okay just one quick final thing Mike I think there's a height difference between the I I think so and your property and there's a wall in fact just be clear what you talking about referring to A1 are you talking behind yes with an understanding that you may have to do some re-engineering right to accommodate um everything but it's just a it's just a you know in a in a Ideal World with good planning you would use access easements to accommodate travel uh across various sites like this as opposed to depending so heavily on the roadway [Music] system all oh RAM and then and then Jim has um Jen do you have oh okay RAM and then on Jim yeah thank you for all the testimony I think this is much better application than the last time um but I still have some concerns but Prim L of the safety of the people and other cores in the neighborhood I live not too far from the uh complex in another uh senior community um so I shop in that shopping mall quite a bit and I know the traffic patterns and the number of cars that I that pass through old New Brun week Road on both sides uh so I am very concerned by the introducing your uh trucks that are delivering Goods into the warehouse and then taking them out using new brunwick road which I don't think is normally allowed to uh truck trafficking except now you are saying that this is delivering to a location which is questionable subjective um those number of trucks that are going to come in and go out are going to considerably delay the traffic the the The Pedestrian as well as the C traffic traveling on Old brunwick Road in terms of uh uh the trucks that are going to make a left turn into the facility from Old New Brunswick Road are going to be backed up so people are not going to be able to get to this shopping mall and similarly uh trucks make going to make a left turn from only new BR Road into new BR Road are going to back up waiting for the cars to clear in the morning and in the evening the touring uh peak hours uh that are going to terribly inconvenience the cars the car traffic that is normally there uh people like me going shopping and um don't know how much uh impact that's going to have in accidents which are another major which is another uh major concern for me uh so I really think that intersection um seems to be a huge issue in my mind in in this particular plan have have you looked at how what's the distance between the entrance to the prop uh Warehouse to the Cur uh to the curve H how many trucks can back up there yeah um if you want an exact Dimension I'll measure that but it's it's an I can tell you now 67 ft is your truck length yeah I'll measure I'll measure for you I just we had traffic engineer provide testimony back in April he's here again in terms of the number of trips in and out and I don't want anyone to think this is an Amazon distribution facility on the number of vehicles going in out of it on the size of a building this size the report that was submitted is you're looking at a truck in uh a fraction one in that fraction of a truck in the peak hour okay so it's not trucks lined up by any shape of imagination in regards to the comments that numerous board members have made and your engineer and talking to him clear to us from an engineering standard we need to show how it can happen it's in compliance with ashto standards for line of sight for safety and that does include vertical and horizontal curves we have the geometry we can do that and the engineers can show if it meets the standards that apply to everybody not just this applicant but to everybody okay that's what we're is our challenge we understand that and we work with your professionals on that in regards to understanding the vehicles I'll I'll measure off on the aerial but as I mentioned if is your concern that they're going to back up old New Brunswick Road because we don't anticipate as again the number of vehicles per hour would not is not going to be able to do that based on again the type of use that it and again I'm not a traffic engineer I'll let him put the on the record for you he'll do that for you but it understand this isn't a distribution facility where trucks are going to be lined up coming in and out of it it's just not that type of use it's the size of the building that controls that it's the marketplace that does that it's that's not what's going to be here I understand it and you have to rely on our traffic engineer based on use and what the experience of it shows you on the trips is it a spec thish house right now it is okay so there's no you cannot guarantee there's not going to be a distribution again based on the number of loading spaces in the size of that building it that's what drives the ability for that to happen so I'll just give you a measurement just to make sure I'm clear on it specifically have 100 ft directly off of the intersection of new brunck road to Old New Brunswick Road to the curb and then in additional 160 ft to the radius of our driveway so you have 260 ft there from our driveway to what would be considered a stop sign at the intersection of old new brunic road does that help you does that answer your question yeah it does uh so so what I'm hearing is if uh there are three trucks that are waiting to turn into the driveway the traffic is going to back up on New Brunswick Road it it would be the third the fourth truck having to do something like like that but again in terms of this type of facility size and the loading zone that it's not a concern relative to this type of Landers and what a tenant we would expect to come in here just a quick thing yeah one uh Bob and then Jim and then I want to get um Mr riski out um and then we'll open to the public for the time that's left for cross on the um Mr Gill right sorry sorry um okay first of all yeah can we can we have quiet um second of all I'm sorry I will repeat it we're going to go to Bob and then we're going to go to Jim and then we're going to get Mr winiski out for the um Pipeline and then we'll open to the public for questions for Mr K I think that's what we'll get to tonight so just just a quick follow up to The Pedestrian Crossing that we've been that's been discussed I understand when you say there are concerns about safety of a a mid block Crossing I will say this I do a lot of traveling to a lot of different towns in this area matachin is one place Edison Woodbridge South Brunswick there there's many midblock crossings that have pedestrian signals this no matter what people want to make make it seem New Brunswick Road is a residential street the speed limit is about I think it's 35 mil an hour I think if a proper facility were installed it would work because I think a lot of the traffic except for the new trucks that are going to be potentially coming are routine Travelers that use the route regularly and get used to seeing that there I don't understand I'm told all the time we can't do things in Franklin like this but other towns do it we can't give trucks tickets but other towns do it I don't understand uh just maybe consider it again I I if it can't be it can't be but I see this situation a lot of places where I travel I appreciate your feedback and again the concern would be safety again on a T intersection parallel to the roadway across old new brunic road not a problem the handicap ramps that were mentioned making sure we have that no problem it's the other direction for that reason and again I'll let other professionals weigh in too because Traffic Engineers focus on that much more than I do but I tell you I'm the one that has to put my hand my signature on the right hand corner and sign and seal it and safety is Paramount for that and again if it all shows it works love to I'm not saying it can't be done I'm just saying let's make sure safety's addressing it and it could be it can't be done we have found lots of things can be done if people are willing to spend the money to do it that's usually a big issue yeah it's called a Hulk signal ha a WK that was for [Music] free Jim thank you Mr chairman Mr Kill You testified that there are 47 parking stalls being proposed yes what does the ordinance require 47 all right so you're not overp parked no okay what's the status of the application before the County planning board uh we resubmitted to them with the new set of plans that came in here we have not heard anything back we address their comments and our resubmission okay uh what's the status with the Delaware R and Canal commission we also have comments from them we've addressed them in terms of the storm water management for my testimony and it's back into their Court as well all right thank you okay Jim uh how do you we going to handle let's as we previously discussed we want to give Mr wisnoski on behalf of Buckeye pipeline an opportunity uh to present whatever uh comments he has with respect to the application once again remembering he is not a fact witness he is an advocate as an attorney good evening Mr chairman members of the board ladies and gentlemen once again my name is John wineski I represent Buckeye Partners LP Buckeye is a 138 year-old pipes and terminals company and in this particular application Buckeye obtained a property right to the property that is subject to development in this application so I just want to underscore that Buckeye has a property right on this property that property right uh was granted some 70 years ago by a prior owner and that property right says a couple of things in the deed of easement that are relevant to this application and relevant for whatever consideration the board will make of this application there are four items that the easement speaks to perhaps in some cases prohibits it says the grantor shall not granter in this case being the current property owner place any building or structure on the easement building or structure on the Ean and the grantor shall not engage in any activity that would directly or indirectly alter the depth of soil coverage over or in that easement and those really are the two fundamental issues that brings Buckeye to this hearing tonight we have a engineer who is responsible for Buckey's easements that would be available to testify and understand that that's not appropriate this evening pending the conclusion of this witness's testimony uh and the questioning but Buckeye his concern not only do we have the standards that Mr kale has said that the applicant is willing to comply with those standards are separate and apart from the restrictions that are in that easement and I would just draw the board to pay attention and look at those easements critically the the requirements in that easement critically because I think they speak a volume I also want to speak to the 100t setback now certainly that is a Township ordinance uh Buckeye is a beneficiary of that Township ordinance and we can all acknowledge that for instance when this easement was granted 70 years ago that ordinance did not exist uh but it does today and that that EAS that uh the requirement in ordinance in order to uh vacate that to uh give relief from that one of the critical things is that the person seeking relief cannot be uh responsible for creating the hardship that they're seeking relief from this property owner bought a property that has an easement on it for 70 years this is not new and so we just want the property rights that Buckeye acquired 70 years ago to be honored this year in whatever development is finally approved by this board we take no position to whether the board should approve or not approve we do take a position that our easement ought to be honored and respected and our property rights adhere to thank you thank thank you John and and we do want to hear from your engineer and and we will um ask that that happen at the next hearing um what I and so we can get the details of of how the current proposal impacts or does not impact um the safety um and and the things you mentioned uh in terms of um the historical agreements um for the remainder M Mr orini may I just make a quick response to Mr wisneski statement absolutely we don't disagree with anything he said and I think if you heard uh Mr Cahill during his presentation he clearly indicated it w it was our intent to honor the obligations that we have under the terms of the easement after the last hearing uh in April there were discussions with Buckeye concerning their issues we are aware of them we have not yet finalized how to resolve them but we think as Mr kale said we can uh we were driven by some storm water management issues which conflict with some of the things that they're looking for us to do so we're trying to work through those things and go back to them so that hopefully by the time we come back to the next hearing we and the representatives of Buckey will be on the same page to have to you what we are going to do do to indicate that we are in compliance with their regulations and that we are in compliance with the terms of the easement yes and that I totally agree that um that is exactly what what we'd like to see as a board too is is um how that is satisfied um in the remaining time we have an indifference to the number of people who are here for this hearing um I would like to open it to the public um for any questions they may have of Mr Cahill and um again to make the best use of the time and as as Mr Clarkin said at the outset of the hearing um your opinions your personal beliefs or whether the application should be approved or not will all be heard at the final public opening this is to ask questions specifically of this witness so I would ask you to keep to that um and I will direct you to keep to it if you decide not to um with that I Mr I'm sorry one more thing just for the benefit of the public too I have three additional witnesses that I intend to present including a traffic expert the architect and also a planner so that if members of the public have questions along those lines they should wait until those Witnesses are called but we're happy to answer all engineering questions absolutely and and you know that's just something you can say if somebody from the public comes up with a question that you can't answer so just say that that will happen um with the testimony of whomever um that being said um I'll make a motion to open to the public um and we got a second all in favor I all right uh meeting is open to the public if you can say your name and address um uh Dave Robinson 349 built more Lane Somerset run uh while this picture is up here I have a question on the turning radius you're going have to go to m uh we won't you can't we Mr kahill indicated the turning radius they were looking at was okay uh Mr Cahill indicated that they were working on the turning radius going right out of uh old New Brunswick and that they were looking at this my question is have are you going to look at this turning radius off of New Brunswick which is very tight all the truck traffic is probably going to be coming down from this direction can they make this turn without modifying this turning radiuses as well you don't own this property I don't think uh so something's going to have to be done there what would be how would you handle that y so as your board members and your professionals have asked is is that we need to show that and engineer and we will and you're absolutely right we need to make sure the right turn if you're heading um West on uh excuse me yeah if you're heading towards Elizabeth Avenue on uh oh New Brunswick Road I'd have to make the right I'd also have to make that right out and I am I was heard I heard very clearly I need to show both work and would happen at the same time as if there was two trucks sitting there so I know my restrictions and we will show how we can do that all right uh next question I've reviewed all the documents that you sent uh not in addition to what's being discussed here today why did you replace a WB 20 67 truck with a WB 67 New Jersey tial truck to shorten the truck by two uh 2 feet to make it easier to make the turning radius at 147 ft why was that done cuz that is the vehicle that the state of New Jersey re uh allows to have in New Jersey what happens if a w real WB 67 Truck shows up at Onyx it's it's not allowed to happen in the state of New Jersey it's kind of like um if you've been in other states where you have heavier I'll use gasoline trucks that deliver to gas stations New Jersey limits it to 10,000 gallons as a maximum size truck in other states it can have 12 or 15,000 gallons because the infrastructure is different so in the state of New Jersey they adopted the geometry of what they call a title 39 and your engineer accurately pointed it out we inaccurately shown it and we were actually more conservative originally and then asked to show the actual one and we have shown that both do work and again I will confidently say that our site onsite and exiting the site will comply with the vehicle that your professionals recommend as well as data New Jersey Mr K can you also just confirm the size of that truck for Mr sure if you don't mind I gotta look at that exhibit let see 71 A2 what what changed just so you're clear the it's the wheelbase ends up getting 2 feet shorter the pin distance was longer the actual distance of the vehicle I will show you it's on the truck turning exhibit that was submitted and the revision was done when we discussed this um with your engineer up there perfect Mr Mr kahill just for the record is that document that you're referring to part of our plan submission yes on the last sheet um second last sheet for truck turning exhibits we had the vehicle shown um the name of that sheet just for the record WB 67 Truck turning exhibit sheet one was dated 330 2023 and that was the geometry that showed 5 ft on the pin the design that's shown you right now is the vehicle and the exact geometry that the NJ title 39 drawing is for WB 67 if I misquoted that by any way cuz I'm not the traffic engineer he's sitting back here but if Darren if you want to back me up that our intent is to use the vehicle that you want which is accurate to what the state asks us to use that is correct what Mr Robinson is questioning is the original submission was a 712t truck which you guys have now re revised back to a 73 and2 fo truck I think that's the ju of it uh Mr Thomas asked a couple of questions relative to the orientation of the building if this uh design or proposal were to go through would you consider reversing the the uh orientation of the building to put the parking lot for the cars over and next to the pipeline easement rather than 60 to 70 trucks pounding away on top of the easement every day if you reoriented the building the uh parking lot for cars would put less stress on the pipeline easement so again from our planning perspective and our planner will also identifi uh in his his testimony but from a layout perspective we did evaluate what that would do and if you look at the geometry that's required on a truck Court coming off of a building and then apply the adequate setbacks from what I'll say the rear of the shopping center it starts to push over top of the pipeline we hence then said we will comply with the pipeline we can't have any structure as you heard therefore we followed what the ordinance allows in terms of when you have these uses adjacent to each other what is required by this ordinance and by your town it's a buffer we complied with all the conditions the town's master plan and this ordinance anticipated uses being being adjacent to each other and they gave guidance to applicants to follow your plannner report indicates that we do follow those buffer requirements in accordance with what has to happen to Shield use so looking at this layout we mitigated the concern of having the activity on that side of the building by following the ordinance that's what we were asked to do that's what your ordinance says and what the master plan says we did that reversing it as I mentioned has a detriment to the layout from our perspective you propose screening and uh 6 foot uh high wall and trees yes you uh proudly said that there's more plantings in the Revis um drawings than there were on the original Plants plans they went up but a lot of those were shrubs and smaller grasses the actual number of trees in the revised plan went down from 228 to 184 uh those trees are 10t trees the evergreens are 10 foot trees the uh deciduous trees will lose their leaves in the fall the entire backside will be exposed until these trees take 10 to 15 years to mature how is that adequate screening for the truck Bays that will face Somerset run again in regards to what is required and what we do to Shield we are providing a vertical and uh solid separation with a fence day one we are then supplementing with 8 to 10t high uh evergreen trees and they are double staggered across it those trees grow at a rate and will continue to grow above the height of that tree that will again Shield the the activities within our Courtyard but you do agree it'll take 10 to 15 years to reach I do not believe it'll take that long to again the day one shielding will prevent the fence at the lowest levels and the Evergreens in a double stagger at 8 to 10t height will continue to grow it's is it there's no requirement to have zero visibility to any height in the requirements of your ordinance or any ordinance in the state relative to buffering we were F we were provided the guidance of how to buffer this use relative to other uses and that's what we've complied with all right in the uh in the engineer's letter uh there was a quest for um a contamination it was Comet number 11 njde Geotech shows groundwater contamination you replied and you supplied something called a preliminary assessment report which was dated uh 2014 I don't know how that could still be considered preliminary but it was it was included and included in that 380 some pages of data was a discussion of the contamination on this site back when it was a retail Mall uh presentation by your concern and there were 20 areas of concern relative to contamination and pollution and other things uh mentioned in that report 18 of which were approved or recommended or remediated there were two that uh stated that they needed further remediation between polycorp and uh the developer there was no proof that that remediation was done not to my knowledge I couldn't see it in the 300 pages that those that those two remediations for groundwater one was for groundwater contamination in other words for Vapor do you have documentation that those remediations were successful I am a civil engineer and not the environmental consultant however I will answer to what the NJ DP case that no further action letter was issued we have an lsrp on this facility and we just recently got a letter which again is challenging to submit late it was we have just received so we we will provide and it will be submitted to your professionals to review again in terms of the jurisdiction of this board in terms of zoning this does not fall into that purview however we are under the jurisdiction of the njd and the remediation requirements in the lsrp and their report will satisfy that condition and your professionals can verify that all right and my final question has to do with the environmental impact statement that was part of this submission um there's quite a few pages associated with a lot of different things but there's not really much documentation referencing air pollution noise and air quality as a result of this development um there's no there's no mention of data taken studies taken references provided for what amount of truck pollution will uh come from the site that's going to have 60 to 70 trucks per day going in and out of and backing up why isn't there more documentation relative to the air pollution um and contamination uh from diesel diesel very harming diesel um emissions um I'll just re reiterate what the requirements are to show in the environmental reports the Eis we've addressed that and it was also submitted to your own environmental Commission in regards to reviewing that uh I will state by uh the land use the anticipated truck traffic uh being on this site uh will be no different or the number of vehicles in and out of this facility is far less than if it was another type of land use like retail uh in regards to pollution again the standards relative to the vehicles that would be on site by a permitted use uh there is no standard to say that it has to be shown but the use of this property as it is zoned and allowed to have this and in compliance with all the zoning regulations doesn't trigger the need from a threshold to say there's a concern from that there are state regulations that need to be complied with from a noise perspective that has to be we will comply with it very easily there's uh you mentioned the air pollution again based on the number of vehicles based on this use and that the fact that this is a permitted use in this area there's no concern it there's residents if you think about it and where residents exist around highways and the number of vehicles that are along here these are roads that are intended to have vehicles like this it's not a pollution concern you're saying New Brunswick Road is a road that's intended to have 60 or 70 trucks a day traveling over what I'm saying is next to a res pered in terms of vehicles in adjacent on arterial roads that are also adjacent to Residents it occurs every single day that in this case there is not meeting a standard that would be a concern from air pollution you've mentioned a couple of times and I know we haven't addressed the traffic engineer yet and I have several questions for that on those reports you've mentioned a couple of times there's only a couple of trucks coming out here do you know how many trucks are coming out there during peak hours it's in do you know how excuse me but do you know how many trucks will be coming out of there in 200 and 26 or 27 when this F this uh Warehouse would be functional I will let the traffic engineer answer that because there are standards of how to project what it is for a use he can describe that and it's in this report as well I I understand I know what the numbers are um but it's not a few I have no more [Applause] questions my name is Bernard goldban I'm 8208 West over way Somerset having recently driven down Dennison Road uh Dennison Road watching a truck uh an 18wheeler making a rightand turn onto Pierce uh several cars had a back up for them to do it and uh it was amazing but considering your proposal you're looking to use um Elizabeth Avenue to turn left into um New Brunswick Road that is a one lane road in each Direction when it comes to New Brunswick Avenue we have a turn lane that turn lane could probably not accom accommodate a 16 a 16 wheeler so what you're going to be doing is backing up cars on Elizabeth Avenue for a while until the light changes are you prepared have you discussed that have you considered that have you considered that what's the question is it did I consider Elizabeth Avenue a left turn did you consider the left turn we'll let our Traffic Engineers say that but I would respond to what makes sense in the world of of Industrial Vehicles are going to be coming from and to a spot if you look at your highways X and 10 and x and 12 what is convenient if anybody drives down Davidson Road in a vehicle and tries to get on 287 it's challenging enough they may want to go a different direction which is designed for tractor trailers and goes through Cotton Tail down to Exit 12 however if they're traveling north on 287 they may come from that direction want to come there we will address as we mentioned the concerns that were raised in as as recent as today of a conversation which is not in a letter but was in a conversation to address and I will repeat it so that we may avoid these questions from a bunch of people we will look at the Turning movements to and from this site that would be best or most anticipated to come and if there's an impact we need to address it in doing your design in doing this design you had to address that or else you have to rip it apart this design doesn't accommodate turning references how do you do turning how do you do a design like this without considering in egress and regress yeah so so s the board the board has asked the applicant to come back with all of that information not only for the turn that you referring to on Elizabeth to New Brunswick but also the turns left and right from Old New Brunswick onto New Brunswick correct correct so um by the time we have our next hearing and we'll get to in a little bit when that is um we're going to ask the applicant to come back and we're not going to basically render a decision on the application until they provide that testimony when they do provide that testimony if it's not to your satisfaction I would encourage you to ask the question again in addition the chart you have here doesn't properly represent old Bron Hook Road into new brunwood road that J is really more of a t than a j yes and that's what we've asked them to address in terms of an engineering standpoint um and in terms of the not only the the turn on their property but also across thank you [Applause] let's see what we got here I'm I'm Jeffrey fredman I live in Somerset run which is the residential area opposite the proposed warehouse and uh several questions one is uh what is the operation of this Warehouse is it a 24 or 8 Hour operation we anticipate uh 24 hours okay so I I'd like to address and the lighting will be the sight lighting will be on 24 hours a day or 12 hours of that day to accommodate night operations is that correct yes all right uh when I believe when shopright and the adjacent U uh strip mall was uh built there were some restrictions imposed upon lighting at shoppr right in that strip mall at certain hours so that the residents of the Carriage Houses the apartments that face new Bruns Road would not be disturbed because their bedrooms face that area so I'd like to know if there are going to be proposed or do they have there's a developer have to De have to abide by those restrictions that were imposed on that other site where shoppr right and the strip mall is located should the board choose to no the applicant can propose a 24-hour operation that doesn't mean the board has to agree to a 24-hour operation we can actually put reasonable restrictions on it uh based on where it is and based on sound planning testimony and I'm I'm I would be inclined to think that we would do that okay um so while we haven't gotten to that in the testimony at tonight um until you raised your question um it is well within the planning board's purview to put reasonable restrictions on such as the ones you're talking about because even if it's only 8 or 12 hour um operation I'm sure they would use those that lighting for security purposes for the uh stuff that's in the warehouse yeah and but there is a difference between like lighting a site for security um where you may have like building mounted lights that face downward uh to lighting a site for General use where you would have you know you go into a shop right and there's 20 foot poles and they're on as long as Shop right's open um so the board can consider different ways that security lighting and general lighting can be caught off at reasonable hours given the fact that this site is next to a residential area okay my next question is that this is for 24 hour operation that the noise from these trucks will actually well disturb not only the people in Somers run but also the patients for residents of the nursing home and that um that you know lowf frequency noise travels much further than a high frequency noise and the noise from the trucks is basically a low frequency noise so I think that should be addressed by uh the developer and also uh the board uh wait and um there was a recent study and I'm not sure if you're the developers aware of it or if even if the boards aware of it but there's a paper by uh George Washington University U that addresses pollution from trucks at warehouses and it says to make a summary is that there's 20% object to reference to a study because I can't cross-examine it okay so I would recommend that both the developer and the board look at this study it was published sometime last year and U I can give you the details after the meeting if you want to the board the board cannot accept the details except at a public meeting that everybody can hear oh okay so it's um was published by researchers at George Washington University and IT addresses air pollution associated with large warehouses now while this may not be a large Warehouse it adds on to the pollution the um size of nitrogen I'm going Mr Mr Clark and I'm going to in the air from the other warehouses so um you know there's um over 55 place across the street and there's a nursing home next door so this just adds on to any respiratory overload that the residents those places may have yeah unfortunately I I I have to say that well that interesting and and and I'm sure factual um the board really the board's really limited to consider what is in Municipal land use law and unfortunately um those that's not part of it unless it were to be added to the municipal land use law that you know certain amount of pollution or noise can't be within I mean they do have to comply with a noise ordinance but I have heard no testimony that suggests they wouldn't be able to do that um and as far as police ution there's there's there's nothing in the in the municipal land use law that we as a board can really use um there Al so it would be a state or county that could address that no I mean if it were a state or County if it were a state law state Municipal land use law then we could obviously abide by that but there isn't as so far as I'm know or our attorney knows that speaks to that there is not it is not a factor that the ml Municipal lus law allows a to consider hi um so given the hour I'm going to let you um ask your question anybody else who wants to ask questions when we continue this hearing and Christine will give us the details of when that will be we will start with an opening to the public and continue um questions to Mr Cahill before we open up to new Witnesses so everybody will get a chance to ask their questions um so ma'am if you'd like to close this out for tonight okay Susan Kaplan 4207 Chesterwood way um whose responsibility would it be to clean up the current site 2 hours ago Mr kahill said it looked terrible whose responsibility is it is it not the applicant so couldn't Onyx clean it up if if they felt like it it I did mention too that the uh in conversation with the Fire official who also we spoke with um we have started cleaning things up there and the applicant's going to continue to do so 18 months my other comment is that uh it was stated and admitted tonight that all of the regulations in the world about uh the weight of vehicles and who's permitted on which roads and who can turn left and who can turn right none of it is being enforced and I think that together with this plan if it is approved it must come alongside a plan for enforcement of traffic regulations so it will wind up costing the township a lot of money and extra time for officers to monitor the traffic and as the first pedestrian Crossing New Brunswick Road I would love for the developers to do it acknowledged and and you know we have some star power in the audience in the mayor and Deputy Mayor and we had assemblyman Danielson here so um they no doubt have heard you and and hopefully we'll take appropriate action thank you thank you um Christine um again um we will continue before any more testimony to make sure everybody can he everybody can get their questions in at the opening of the next hearing which Christine you're going to tell us when it is yeah um the next meeting will be uh well actually Onyx will be carried to um March 19th here in this building at 7:30 p.m okay thanks so much um do we have any other business tonight uh just before Mr Lanford Mr Lanford excuse me do you extend the board's time to act until March 19th sir I will grant the board an extension of time to act through the end of March of this year thank you very much okay so March 19th 7:30 p.m. in this room we will continue um I make a motion to adjourn all in favor