Folks, um, this is the planning board meeting for, uh, June 3rd, 2026. In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, PL1975, chapter 231, adequate notice of this regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Franklin has been provided. If everyone could please stand for the pledge of
allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Councilman Embarson >> here. >> Theodore Chase >> here. >> Robert Lort >> here. >> Mark Dancy >> here. >> Jennifer Ragna >> here. >> Mahira. >> Not me.
All right, hold on one second. >> Uh, okay. My here's Charles Brown >> present. >> Robert Thomas >> here, >> Sammy Siobhan, >> and Chairman Orcsini >> here. >> Okay. Uh, minutes. Uh, regular meeting
of April 15, 2026. >> Mark Dansancy cannot vote. Um, I would move the minutes. >> Second. >> Councilman and Barson, >> yes. >> Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Robert Lor, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Charles Brown,
>> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> And Chairman Arcini, >> yes. >> Um, resolution for Ayanna LLC. If everyone recalls, this was the charging stations at the Wawwan 27. So, um, um, move to approve that, um, resolution.
Second. >> Uh, and let the record show that Mahir Rafi is is here. Um, Councilman Embarson, >> yes. >> Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Robert Leort, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Mah Rafi, >> yes. >> Charles Brown,
>> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> And Chairman Darcini, >> yes. Um, second resolution we have is Odin Dun. Um, as everyone knows, that's the subdivision on Cedar Grove. Um, they were back three times. I read the
resolution very carefully. Uh, it has all of the restrictions. Um, and they can't start turning one spade of soil until they have approval from the sewage authority. So, um, it looks good. Good resolution to me. So, um, I would move it.
>> Second. >> Councilman and Barson. >> Yes. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mark Dancy, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragno, >> yes. Yes. >> Mah Rafi. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Marcini.
>> Yes. >> So, we have one discussion item tonight and that is the uh BI zone ordinance which was introduced by the council uh at their um last meeting or maybe the meeting before that but um was introduced now is referred to us.
Um there won't be because all we are doing as a planning board is um making a judgment on whether the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan. So we are not opening to the public for um any
comments because we're not making any changes. Um there is of course the normal public comment section but um we're not opening to the public just for this. So with that Mark take it away. We have uh Dave dialed in so maybe we'll swear him in first there.
>> Yeah. So I'll just introduce Dave Roberts as you recall um from Bright View Engineering. Uh he's the uh gentleman who who um authored the the master plan update and re-examination evaluating the BI zone. Um as the
chairman said, the ordinance uh or the the planning board adopted the master plan. Uh an ordinance was was forwarded to the council for their consideration. um they've introduced an ordinance and now it's before you for your uh review for in whether it's inconsistent with
the master plan. We asked uh Mr. Rob Dave Roberts to prepare a report since since essentially he was the planner who prepared that master plan. So he'd be the person most appropriate to conduct a professional review of that. So with that um I guess I'll give it hand it
over to Peter to to swear him in and >> Yep. do that. So, do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And if you could just state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address for the record. >> Um, the name is David Glenn Roberts. The
last name is spelled R O BTS. Um, my address is 102 Bair Drive, Palm Coast Florida. >> Perfect. >> Go ahead. Um Um, he's sorry. he's qualified and obviously has um worked on
this extensively. So um take it away. >> Yeah, I think Dave, if the board has you've you've done a a memo um regarding this um seven pages that's been provided to the board and was in the the agenda packet. Uh could you just give a an
overview of of your report and and uh your key findings? >> Sure, I'd be happy to and I'll keep it I'll keep it concise. Um really the main the first point um that I wanted to make is that uh the the document that the planning board adopted in January uh was
a multi-part uh document and and the board has uh has done this um many times previously in that it was a re-examination report uh and re-examination of the master plan and land development ordinances but in particular uh those that pertain to the
business and industry zone. uh but it also was an update um to the master plan. So uh the board has followed that format in the past. And so in ter in terms of trying to determine for your determination as to whether this
ordinance that has been um prepared and and referred to you by council is is not is um not inconsistent with the master plan or even consistent with the master plan amendments that you made. That's the that was the first point I wanted to
make. And what I what I tried to do in the in the memo was to pull out the uh the man the main uh land use element um amendments. And they really were fairly limited because it had to do with one
specific goal that uh of all the land use goals in your master plan that pertain to commercial and industrial and light industrial uses. And then the the objectives that were modified in the land use element and then there was an additional uh there's additional
language in the land use element that was that was incorporated in that update that is pertinent to consistency. Um, and really to sort of u try to make it as uh easy as possible, I tried to put
together a table that broke it down um as to the goal, which was the the same goal all the way uh across the additional objectives that were added to the land use element and then um lining up provisions from the proposed
ordinance that pertained that that compared to that uh objective. And then a a a determination at least what I would suggest would be a yes or no. Is it consistent or is it not consistent? And I think what the uh I think the as
the board well knows the um the main uh difference in this ordinance because I I did point out um that the ordinance that's been referred by council in incorporates a a lot much of
the recommendations that were in the proposed ordinance in the re-examination report. Um for example, definitions um were incorporated. Um many of the conditional use standards that were in the uh board's recommendation are in
this proposed ordinance from council. Uh the biggest difference is that in instead of having the two layered low and medium intensity uh light industrial uses and having their their u location
determined. Um the the ordinance that came back from council limited the uh allowable uh development light industrial or warehouse development to low intensity and kept the kept those uses uh there was two different
parameters. one is keep it within a road mile of uh the inter of an interchange to I um 287 and also an additional parameter that restricted him from being any uh any closer than 500 ft from a residential zone. So the the one mile
the one road mile was in the recommended uh standards from the board but it pertained to medium intensity. um the council's applied that same standard to low intensity and then restricted all warehouse development from being anywhere within 500 ft of a of a
residential zone boundary. So the obviously the council's ordinance is more restrictive than the one that the board uh preferred to to the to the council. Um but if you compare it to the the overall goal and the overall objectives uh that I laid out in that
table, they are equally responsive um in terms of those achieving those objectives. So generally the the the standards are consistent in my opinion um to the goals and objectives that were in that update. Um, and then there's the
additional language that I pointed out in uh page seven, which was the which is the summary conclusion. Um, I'll just read that uh quickly for the board. Um, it's in quotes in the in the middle of that page. It says that the
recommendation of the land use element um was to provide a framework to minimize traffic, noise and air quality impacts of light industrial uses including certain types of warehouses by applying reasonable standards as to the
size uh the location and the intensity so as to preserve the quality of life of residential zones adjacent to the B business industrial zone. So that it was that was the overall recommendation. What the board had suggested in that in
the ordinance that was sent to council was a way to do that. What the council came back to the board with was a slightly different way of doing it and more restrictive way of doing it, but no no less uh responsive to that overall
recommendation in my opinion. So that's really it in a nutshell. I think the the the main consistency termination is that the the ordinance doesn't have to be consistent with every every aspect or every every detail of the re-examination report. It has to be consistent or at
least not inconsistent with the goals and recommendations and the amendments made to the land use element. And in in my opinion that there is nothing in the proposed ordinance that would be inconsistent with that uh with those recommendations. and and Mr. Chairman,
that's that's pretty much what I was trying to to relay to the board. >> Thank you, Dave. Um, any any questions from the board for Dave? I >> I just have one question. So, I I think one of the main objectives of the uh
master plan uh initiative that the town went through was to try to minimize um trucks coming from warehouses from traversing through streets that go through residential areas of the township. And as well as trying to minimize just generally minimize impacts
to residential zones to the effect to the degree that this ordinance um further restricts uh warehouse locations more than the one that was recommended in the master plan. I would think as a planner that that
this ordinance is certainly consistent with that objective those objectives and and and actually is furthers those objectives more so than even the recommendation in the master plan. >> Would you? >> Yes. Yeah, and I would Mark and I think one
of the things that is in this proposed ordinance that really um hits that directly or addresses it directly is there are standards now in it proposed in that ordinance that would require at the time of application that the truck
routes um that are contemplated within a particular type of application that involves uh uh trucking uh that those truck routes be laid out uh for the board as part of site plan. Um that's a that's an additional layer of oversight
that we I don't believe we had in the original ordinance um which is you know in this in this proposed ordinance. And there's a lot of other uh provisions that really are uh really hit those those objectives hard and and that's
particularly the objectives that having to do with uh controlling truck traffic and especially uh using residential streets or prohibiting them from using residential streets. Some of those conditions are the same. for example, the requiring that they have access on
uh higher order streets so that they don't uh they're not um outleting onto any kind of residential street. Um and then also the the board's recommendation regarding the F um which as I pointed out in my memo was intended to prevent
um a um a circumvention of the standard by subdividing a parcel and building two warehouses on a parcel um instead of one that the F has to be maintained and we went over that the board with the board understands that as from when we went over the master plan. So, I think uh
there's a lot of uh there was some a lot of provisions that were carried forward from the board's recommended um standards and some that were added by council that are even more um that add an even additional layer of oversight.
>> Yeah. And I think I think that point Dave about floor area ratio is probably the most important point because you may look at the parcels now and say, "Oh, a certain size warehouse maybe couldn't be built." Um, but then if you were to
consolidate a bunch of parcels and then subdivide them or, you know, do various machinations to get what you would want, uh, the floor ratio still rules the day. And I think that's that's really important. So, thanks for pointing that out. >> Yep. Yep. Welcome.
>> Board have any questions for Dave? >> I have a question. >> Yeah, go ahead, Charles. >> Um, thank you. Thank you for a great overview, Charles Brown. I have a question um regarding the potential enforcement of truck traffic. You know,
I understand that we use a onem um distance. this uh which which I'm in favor of. However, human behavior allows for travel still within and around those part parcels. So, what's the enforcement
mechanism even when we have in place a route for the truck traffic? >> Well, I think that that goes with uh and that uh uh Mr. Brown, I I totally appreciate that question because the the
issue of the one road mile just governs the location of the use. It doesn't govern the the routes that the truck takes back and forth to I uh 287. Um, and I think that's one of the reasons why that additional layer was added so
that at least the board has something in front of them where the applicant is uh projecting how trucks will move back and forth from the proposed site. Um and how and that's when this ordinance that's how this ordinance can be related to
that because the board can say well you may be within one road mile of one of the uh interchanges but u how are your how your where else are your trucks going to be coming from what other roads are they going to be using to get to the site and how do we how do we control
that so I think I think that was some of the concern pro I suspect that the governing body shared and that's uh I think why they they had Mark add some of that um some of those protections. Um so that then after the the application's
approved and there's been a truck route that's been proposed as as part of that application that the board approves, then the then the staff has something to enforce. And particularly if your resolutions make those aspects of the of
the site plan and conditions of if they violate those conditions, then there's enforcement mechanisms for violating the conditions of a of a um of a resolution of approval. that that's probably the best way to do
it unless the township uh moves forward um with the county because the county has jurisdiction to establish actual truck routes um that are marked and that can be enforced by the police. But um as far as what the board can do um at least
you have that um additional um way of of examining that aspect when you're when the site plan applications in front of you. >> Thank you. I I I must say though um it
would be really good to to revisit this to see if it's working in terms of if we foresee any penalization happening frequently for them breaking uh that rule. I'm concerned about the capacity of staff and the the township as a whole
to monitor that behavior on a daily basis, but we do need some data to support that this is actually effective and maybe there's a period of review to take a look at this. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. The only thing I the only You're welcome. And the only thing I would add
is that now we're talking about uh limiting the uh size of any uh warehouse to 150,000 square ft. So basically the only warehouses that would be permitted under this new ordinance or proposed ordinance would be what the would be the
high end of what we were calling low inensity before. So with that and and and don't we also need to remember that the we had the ordinance that was proposed by council didn't um forget about the the ratios of loading docks.
So, it's not only going to be the size of the building, it's going to the the loading docks are going to be regulated as well. And the loading docks um are directly related to the number of trucks that can be um can be serviced, which relates to the number of trucks that are
on the road. So, at least the ordinance is is kind of uh restricting those parameters and the as far as what those uh drivers what routes those drivers take um to get back and forth from that
warehouse. That's that's something that that that this board doesn't have jurisdiction over, but there are other ways of dealing with that. And I think the township is um is certainly the master plan recommendations for that are not changed by this ordinance. >> Thank you.
>> Yep. >> Anybody else have any questions for Ted? Well, the the one thing in this that I'm a little dubious about and I wondered
how it came to be 500 ft from a residential zone which and precludes u at least warehouse development from a substantial part of the zone. Uh I would
like to look at 250 ft rather than 500 but that's a minor detail I guess but it does uh affect the goal uh to encourage commercial and light industrial development.
Um if we have less of the area available to uh development that is otherwise permitted. Thanks Ted. Um any other questions from the board?
Uh if not Mark um I think we can let Dave drop off. Um, and then logistically, I think what we need to do is we need to have a vote on the ordinance being not inconsistent with the master plan and then a vote to refer it
>> to council. >> We'll let you go, Dave. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, everybody. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, uh, the one other thing I would add is this ordinance also takes out data centers as a permitted use in the zone. So, like
anything, um, you know, you're in an R40 and somebody wants to build McDonald's next to you, it's not allowed. They can always go to the zoning board for relief of that use use variance. Um, probably won't won't meet with success, but that that's always an option, but it is the data centers are taken out as a
permitted use. So, that's not a small thing, by the way. So with that, um I will make a motion that um uh that we uh as a board um deem this revised um ordinance, the BI zone um land development ordinance not inconsistent
with the Franklin Township master plan. >> Second. >> Councilman Embaram, >> yes. >> Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mark Dancy, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragno, >> yes. >> May Rafi, >> yes. Charles Brown, >> yes.
>> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Marcini, >> yes. >> And the second piece of business is um I will make a motion that we refer um set ordinance u back to uh council for final reading and adoption.
>> I think that's essentially what you just did. What we would need to do is in I guess to the extent that you have a defined period to review the ordinance and report back to council, you will not have another meeting before the council can act on this. I prepared a draft resolution which was circulated to the
board members uh memorialized. You'll be adopting that that resolution which will be the report of this board indicating that the ordinance is not inconsistent uh with the master plan and that will be something the council can rely on in uh making its decision on uh the second reading of the ordinance.
>> Sounds good. So uh based on what Pete just said, I would make a motion to that effect. Second, >> Councilman Barson. >> Yes. Oh, wait. Did you second? You second. >> You got it. >> Theodore Chase.
>> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mark Dansancy. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Ragno. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Rini. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the next item up for bids is
public comment. So, this is general planning comment. Uh, for anybody has any general planning comments. Um, we do have one hearing tonight. If you are here for that hearing, AP Realy Group, which is the minor sub on u 426 Ralph Street, will open that to the board or
to the public um uh at its own own hearing. So with that, um I make a motion to open to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> uh meeting is open to the public for any general planning comment. >> Uh seeing no takers, I move to close.
>> Second. All in favor? >> I >> All right. Hearing AP realy groupell CPLn 26006. Matt is with us tonight. >> I plug my computer in. Do we mind taking two minutes?
>> No. Go ahead. We'll talk amongst ourselves. >> I'll give you a topic. >> Discuss. Discuss. Feeling a bit over. Let's do the chip
masterch. cooperative extension. >> Okay. >> Lower water quality monitoring probably. Yeah, I'm ready. >> Thank Thank you for indulging me there.
>> Oh, no problem. >> Apologies for the delay. Good evening, members of the board. Matt Flynn from Saboshock Law in Somerville on behalf of the applicant AP Realy Group LLC here tonight for its application for minor subdivision approval and variances. The applicant seeks to subdivide the
existing parcel uh which is designated as block 227 lots 15 through 18 and your tax records more commonly known as 426 Ralph Street into three lots. So it's going from four tax lots to three. The property is located in your R7
uh zone which mandates a minimum lot size for residential development of 7500 square ft for residential uses. Uh we can confirm that all three lots exceed that uh substantially. Two lots proposed of 15,000 square ft and one lot of
10,000 square ft. There's an exist existing home on the property that's proposed to remain uh with proposed lots 15.01 and 17.01 for future construction of single family homes. Uh the variances
are for uh the 10,000 ft lot, lot 15.01 01 uh which has a deficient lot frontage 50 ft versus 75 ft required and there's also a technical variance for the uh effective square uh which is noted in
Mr. Healey's memo. We are in receipt of your TRC memo uh and can report that we are happy to comply with all of the recommendations in that report as conditions of the approval whether it relate to the hookup to this to public sewer or the site improvement comments
that were listed in the TRC report. Can we um can we pull up somebody the TRC report because when I was reading it although it is well written uh when I went through uh review comment too uh I got confused
as hell. So I kept scrolling because there's like lot plus this equals lot plus that then lot that lot. It was like one of those um math problems you get and kind of like uh that that you hate your teacher for. Sorry. Sorry. president uh company not not included
there. Um but yeah, it's it's a lot easier to visualize. Um >> and we'll put this we'll put the subdivision plan up. Um you want to figure four, Mr. Chair? >> Yeah, I want figure four. So, just to orient the board because this is ultimately where you're going here,
right? Um so6001 is your existing home. >> 16.01 is the existing home that's proposed to remain. Lot 17.01 01 to the left here is a 15,000 ft lot. It's proposed to be double the size of the standard in the zone and to the right
here is lot 15.01 which we need the frontage variance for. It's 10,000 square ft whereas 7,500 ft is required but as you can see the lot's rather deep. I'll make one more comment as well just because the um I know we have some public here. Um, I know the lot had been
subject previously to some various violations and dumping on the property, illegal storage, etc. My client purchased the property uh at the end of 2025 and is committed to completely remediating any of those issues to the
extent they haven't been already. The proposal here is to make aesthetically pleasing single family development and to avoid any future violations or issues uh with the property. So, with me tonight, I have two witnesses. I have Mr. Fletcher who's to my right. He is our engineer and planner. Um he'll start
with his engineering testimony and then I'll call um Roger Winkl who's our architect. We do have floor plans and elevations for the two proposed homes. Uh and then Mr. Fletcher will be recalled for planning testimony. >> So we don't generally deal with architecturals on single
family homes aka Odin Dune comes to mind, right? where they they showed us this massive these massive homes that then took us down a rabbit hole because you know that that sort of is a a construction code issue. Uh are they going to be complying with all the normal things of the zone?
>> The yes the the homes themselves with the ex with the exception of 15.01's deficient frontage the homes will be completely conforming to all bulk standards. >> So I don't think we need your arctic. Um, not that I don't want, no, no offense, but I mean, normally that's not
something if you're going to build a six-story single family home, we're going to have a discussion. You're not. Um, 15.01 is the only lot, not deficient from lot area, but only from frontage is sort of, you can see, and this weird square thing because none of them are
square. They're rectangles. So, none of them are perfect perfect squares. But, if that's technical, whatever the hell that means, that I would think they would all have to get that. But, uh, apparently they don't. So what whatever um it it's it's >> Mr. Healey might be able to explain that. >> It's I mean it's immaterial from the way
things look on the ground. So you know you're not driving by measuring a square. So um yeah. Um so I think we only need to hear from >> Mr. Fletcher. Okay. What whatever the board's pleasure. We provided the plans and he's here. So, >> no, we'll let construction deal with that because you know you need cos for
each of these things are going to have to be a certain thing and and and we're going to tell you that you need to conform and you're going to say you're going to which you just did and and we'll we'll move on with life. So, uh yeah, go ahead. >> I guess people want to see the next game. >> Uh >> actually, I didn't I didn't even realize
that was on tonight, but of course um that uh maybe you want to see the next game. I'm from Philadelphia, so we we we paid that price already. Um, all right. Mr. Fletcher, can you uh >> if you could raise your right for me, sir. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your business address for the record. >> Yes. Speak into the mic. >> If you could, you can have a seat and talk in the microphone. Otherwise, Christine gets upset. >> Paul J. Fletcher, Fle Ter,
business address 54 West Pond Road in Hope, New Jersey. And Paul, can you can you give the board the benefit of your professional credentials both as an engineer and a planner? >> Certainly. Uh I'm a licensed professional engineer and licensed professional planner in the state of New
Jersey. Uh I have been a long time. >> You're accepted as long as you're well as long as your credentials are current. You are accepted as a witness for both engineering and planning. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, Paul. Um, was
there a specific uh exhibit you'd like me to put up to start your testimony? >> Uh, well, that uh exhibit would be for uh the exhibit I prepared would be for planning. Uh, but you could probably put the uh sheet two of the site improvement plan up. That would be the most
appropriate one. The next sheet. Yes. If you could zoom in on the Yeah. Uh this this uh first first of all uh I think Mr. Flynn had mentioned but this
property is in the R seven zone. Uh it's a has a total area of 200 by 200 or 40,000 square ft. Uh there's four existing tax slots that are each 50 ft wide. Uh we're proposing to maintain the
existing 50-foot tax lot as uh we're calling it uh 1501. Uh the second lot would be combined with half of the next lot making it 75 ft wide and that would have the existing home.
That would be proposed 1601. And lastly, we would have lot 18, which is the the last 50 foot lot plus half of the lot that's being shared with the lot 16. That would be lot 1701. That would be also 75 ft wide, 15,000 ft². The
existing home would remain in the middle lot. Uh has existing utilities, uh water and sewer from the street. The applicant proposes to construct two new single family homes uh one on each of the two created lots. Each one would be fully
conforming with regard to side, rear, uh front setbacks, lot coverage. Uh and uh we would also be be uh complying with the uh township uh stormwater management
ordinance regulations which calls for uh uh stormwater mitigation. Uh providing uh storage for uh 3 in of runoff for every uh new impervious square foot of impervious area. So those are designed
and proposed to be in the front yards. Uh prior to construction, we would do some soil tests to determine permeability. Also seasonal high water table to ensure that the sebage beds as well as the basements are a full 2 ft
above seasonal high water table. And we would expect that as a as a condition if the boards would uh uh approve this application. Uh with regards to the effective square, it's it's an ordinance requirement that
each lot uh have an effective area uh as a square that is developable. And uh in the R seven zone, it's supposed to be 55x 55. So within a you can imagine that within a 75x 200t deep lot, there's lots
of areas that are 55 x 55. So we're complying with those two. uh for the 50x 200 foot lot, the 55 distance overlaps the sideline. So the largest effective square we can provide
is 55 by 50 and that's one of the variances we're seeking. Uh the other variance as mentioned is for lot frontage or lot width. Uh for the far right lot 1501 uh we're proposing 50 ft
where 75 ft is required in the zone. Although we are providing uh 50% more than the area required in the zone. We're at 10,000 square ft rather than the I guess that's a third more. Sorry. Uh rather than the 7,500 square ft
that's required. We're addressing uh the grading issues. The property is high at the rear, slopes towards the front. Uh the driveways and impervious areas will uh certainly driveways will
flow to the street to existing storm systems. There is a uh storm drain between uh the two left lots. uh the drainage from those lots will uh
overland flow to that existing inlet. Uh we designed a a drain that will avoid trapping water on the the next door property. Uh so we see no adverse impact from a from a grading point of view or drainage point of view to any of the
adjoining properties. We will accommodate our runoff uh through storm water management techniques and uh proper grading techniques which will believe me be uh fully reviewed by uh
the township engineering department. >> So you heard my profer in the in the beginning of our presentation. uh you agree that we can comply with the uh technical comments that are listed under the site
improvement plan uh in the TRC report. You take no exception to those? >> No, I've reviewed them all and we can comply. >> Okay. And that same applies to the um subsequent uh items that are addressed here relating to the Franklin Township
Sewage Authority and and other recommendations contained in this memo were able to comply. >> Yes. Can you talk a little bit about tree removal? >> Uh yes, we have uh addressed the uh tree replacement ordinance requirements uh on
the plan. Uh identified the trees that are being uh removed uh by uh diameter and we're proposing replacement trees uh to accommodate those. And the
environmental commission memo mentioned uh that they wanted native species for all plantings. We're able to comply with that. >> We will adjust our species to to comply with that certainly. And to the extent that during the process of constructing Ne's home, should we be so fortunate to
receive an approval, um the idea of maybe additional plantings, uh would we agree to work in good faith with the township planner on uh additional plantings within reason uh on the site? >> Yes. Okay.
Um with that, I think we can maybe take your engineering hat off unless there are any questions. >> Uh yeah. Um, so thank you for the trees. Um, yeah, I mean I think that we would very much not like to take your money uh
to the shade tree fund and and make sure that those trees with the apparently from the environmental commission report, you have plenty of space to plant them. Um, and if you can do more, that would be great. We can't force you to do more, but like you said, within
reason, um, we would much appreciate it. And yes, please don't please don't plan anything that's on the uh state invasive species list. Um uh that would be helpful. Um one of the points is a sidewalk. Where are we with those? Are you asking for a
waiver or are you ask putting a sidewalk detail in? >> Uh we're requesting a waiver. >> What's in the area? Are there any sidewalks in the area? >> I don't think so. >> Anywhere to go to know
>> next door. Oh, we we can we can we can hear you when we uh when we open to the public, please. Um let's get through the testimony first >> if so requested by the board. We we can do sidewalks. >> Okay. Um let's see what the public has
to say. Um but noted that you can accommodate those without creating any additional hardships. Um that's all the questions I had. Um board have any other questions? >> I I have one question. >> Yeah, go ahead, Ron. >> Um yeah, did I hear that the um sto the
the rain the storm water runoff? You were directing it to the inlet, the the storm drain inlet, >> the uh uh the sheet flow from the from the lawn areas. Yes, we'll be directing it to the existing storm element. >> And that's been approved by the
engineer. >> Uh, we haven't addressed them yet. >> No, engineering does not review in detail the storm water at the time of subdivision. >> I I'm my understanding is that is not permitted. >> I I I would defer to the engineer. I honestly don't look at that. But that's
no this the plan they've submitted it. I don't even know if engineering really reviewed it in any degree of detail. when they come in for building permit, that's when the real review happens. >> Okay. >> We we are providing storm water management on the site though. Correct.
>> Yes, we're providing uh uh seepage pits for the roof leader for the runoff from the roof area. >> Yeah. >> But ult ultimately the storm water ultimately will end up in the existing >> ultimately will flow to the street. But we're the the idea is we'll infiltrate
what we can and and obviously the the pits will um stretch out the time in which it makes its way to the street. So >> yeah. No, that I mean obviously with a one home there already and two on one on each side uh you know it's not a big enough development to do a detention
basin or retention basin or any type of um major storm water management like that. But um yeah, we want to make sure that um so that's a great question Rob. Thank you for bringing that up. >> At the time of building permits, we'll we'll go through and make sure we comply with uh any minor storm water ordinance
that you that you may have. >> I I have a question. Are these sidewalks currently in the neighborhood on that street? >> The client is saying yes >> that there are sidewalks >> and and they they've said that they can
construct one. So it I think that we would ask them to do that based on the fact that we don't want to have buyer remorse as we've said in our master plan. Um the only time I would want to give a waiver is if there was nothing in the area and really kind of no hope,
right? Um you know where where curbs like go great go right down to the street and there's really no place to put a sidewalk but like basically rip up somebody's lawn or whatever. um that's the place to think about a waiver, but um this this seems okay. Uh but we'll
we'll we'll hear more. I want to hear from the public, too. Um any other questions? >> Just one question, Mr. Chairman. So, with your engineering hat, can you just again, you may have addressed it in your direct, but can you just show the board there? There are some easements on this property that's affecting where the
homes can go. Can you show the board where that is? Are you able? Are you able to point it out? >> Here's a drainage easement through the middle of the property here. >> Drainage easement through the middle of the property. If you're able to follow
my cursor here and then there is sanitary sewer, right? >> Sanitary sewer goes straight up to the top. >> Okay. Right here. the existing there's an existing house right that's on the middle lot >> right here yes
>> okay so it would be the one house on the proposed lot to the left that you know would be restricted on where they can place their homes their home >> correct >> okay and is there anything in the drainage ement is that a swale or is it
a pipe do you know >> the only thing there's an inlet just near the right ofway. That's that's all that's in the drainage ement. There's no there's no pipe within the easement. It's just a
not even a very well- definfined soil. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> If there is nothing else, I will switch to our planning testimony. >> Yeah. Do that for now. Sure. >> Okay. So, uh turning to your planning testimony, I know there was an exhibit that you wanted to present.
struggling to see anything that looks like a dangerous. >> Okay. Uh I I have uh hard copies of these. Would the board like to see them? Might be easier to read. >> Sure. >> You made the trouble to make them. >> We'll call this exhibit A1.
>> Yes. Okay. Good. I was going to ask about this. >> Thank you, sir. Good to see you. How are you? >> Good to see you. Thank you. >> How's doing? >> It's going well. You're on vacation. >> Better than me. >> There you go. This also shows your a lot
easier. You can see your tracker, too. for the board members. As you're looking at exhibit A1, it also identifies the uh those easements a little more easier to see. Easier to see because there's not as much on the plan. Okay. Knowing that we do need uh some
bulk variances as part of this proposal, Mr. Fletcher, can you take the board through a planning justification for those variances? >> Uh, yes. Um, if I if I could, I'd just like to explain the exhibit we just introduced
and and handed out. Uh, this is a photocopy of the uh uh Franklin tax map. Uh, subject property is highlighted in blue in the middle. Uh there's two uh radi 200 and 300 feet uh around it. The
orange highlighted properties are lots that uh are substandard with regard to lot width. The vast majority of those are 50 50 ft wide. There is a 68 foot
one at the bottom right corner, but the rest of them uh I believe are all 50 50 feet. Uh and to quantitative that quant give you some some percentages uh within
the 200t radius is 24 properties. Nine of those or 38% are non-conforming lot widths. Within 300 ft there's 37 properties. Of those 17 or 46% almost half are
non-conforming uh with regards to lot width. And I I introduced this exhibit to show that uh what the applicant is proposing uh is is not inconsistent and is very in in character with the existing uh
development pattern uh in the neighborhood. uh with regards to justification of the variances u I I believe we can rely on the C2 criteria where the benefits significantly outweigh the the
detriments. uh firstly I think we uh promote the general welfare uh we are uh providing uh I'll call it it's hard to call it
modest in in today's markets uh but certainly these are not McMansions they'll be uh houses affordable for uh you know the middle class people uh I I think we're allowing for the efficient ient use of land uh with appropriate uh
population densities. Uh we're going to introduce two new aesthetically pleasing houses which uh will be a certainly aesthetic improvement uh for the neighborhood. Uh I see no detriments to the public
good uh the master plan or the the zone plan. Uh granted there'll be some uh minor perhaps inconvenience during construction, but then you have uh a uh two new homes which will be a benefit to
the neighborhood uh not inconsistent with the lot sizes that are already in existence. Uh so I see no adverse impact uh to the neighborhood. uh and since the
lot sizes match uh uh match the neighborhood it I don't see any adverse impact to the zone plan or the master plan. >> So would you agree that considering to the east there with the relative consistent amount of nonconformity that
this proposal would promote a consistent streetscape along Ralph Street? >> Absolutely. the the next five properties uh going to uh going to the west from uh the 50ft lot we're proposing are all of identical size.
>> And would you agree that taking a lot that has historically had these issues with violations, unlawful storage, etc., and replacing it with proper modern single family construction is something that perhaps benefits the public health safety and welfare.
>> Absolutely. I believe that's true. I don't have any further questions of Mr. Fletcher >> board. Any questions for Mr. Fletcher as a planner? >> All right. Um, let's uh open to the public. I make a motion to do that.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Uh, if you want to come up and speak, please come to the podium. Um, as would be sworn in by our attorney. You can state your name and address for the record. Sir, if you could just raise your right hand for me, please. Do you
swear any testimony you provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Sir, if you could just state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address. Please put your hand up. >> Thank you. >> Willie Sanders, 410 Ralph Street. >> Go ahead and let let us know what you
think. where I live next door to the property that's in question. I was remembered some years ago the previous owner of this property that's in question. Uh he said to me that they
wouldn't allow him to subdivide it because of the storm drain that goes through that property. So has that changed now or what? There's an easement over on the property that we can't interfere with, but the subdivision and the proposed
construction when we go in for building permits is designed so as to not interfere with that easement, or else we would need further relief from the township committee. So, I can't we can't testify as to what the prior owner said
or didn't say. Uh, but the intention at this moment is to not interfere with that existing easement. That's all I have. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Um All right. Um make a motion to close to the public.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> All right. Um Matt, you want to make any summary before? >> Sure. Briefly, we'd ask that you look uh we'd be looking for an approval this evening. Uh the intention of this
application was to take a site that's oversized uh provide for construction of single family which is needed in the market. Um we've we're cleaning up the site. I think overall it's an improvement to the neighborhood. I think the planning
proofs have justified that although we are deficient on the lot frontage/width, it's in conformity with the existing streetscape and therefore I think uh we can meet the C2 criteria. And I just remember that all the comments that your
TRC committee came up with, we're happy to comply. We also heard the feedback from the environmental commission. We're happy to comply. What we're trying to do here is, I think, an improvement to the existing property and to add needed housing stock to the township in an area that I think and a site that it can fit
it. >> Thank you, Matt. Any other board comments or deliberation that we need to have? No, this this map uh clarified a lot of uh issue visually. It's a good good thing that you did this. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. And I was going to I was certainly uh Ram was clearly poised to ask it. So was I was just to give us a flavor for the overall character of the neighborhood which you have done. Um, so I would make a motion uh to approve with all the conditions in the TRC report uh
with the conditions in the environmental report regarding native species and the planting of additional trees within reason and in conjunction with staff um consultation. Um, I won't say I guess I won't say anything about the construction or the
engineering as a condition to this because it's it's a given um that that will be addressed at the time of construction. Um I do um um support the variances for lot frontage on 1501 and
the technical variance for the square lot on 1501 um as being consistent with C2 and and um agree with your testimony of benefits versus detriments. Um I miss anything >> sidewalk. >> Sidewalk. Yes. Um thank you. Um, we
will, um, ask you to install a sidewalk, which you testified you could do without creating any other hardships. And, uh, >> all right. It's all if that's all Pete's got, that's all I have. >> Second. >> Councilman Baram, >> yes.
>> Ted Chase, >> yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mark Dancy, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragno, >> yes. >> Mahir Rafi, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. Chairman RC. >> Yes. >> Thank you for your time. Have a great evening.
>> You too. Um, >> thank you. >> Board comments. The only comment I'll have, and I already emailed all of you, is uh if you're looking for something to do on Sunday, June 28th at 2:00 p.m. you can come down to the lovely historic uh
Greekstown area of the township and the fellowship hall of the Greekstown Reformed Church, uh where the DNR Canal Watch uh organization, of which our own Ted Chase, I believe, is treasurer still hopefully. Right. >> Not treasurer, secretary. >> Secretary. Okay. Well, you know, I don't
know whether that's a promotion or demotion, but um good to get that right. >> Volunteer to take the minutes. >> Yeah. And and so DNR Canal Watch is a is just a u an an organization, I guess they're a nonprofit that that um advocates for the canal. Um this their
annual meeting, which this is, um is going to feature uh the DNR canal commission director, John Hutchinson, um will share the work on the new master plan. Um, Franklin Township has the greatest linear mileage of any municipality along the canal. We have 22
linear miles of the canal in the township. Um, which is greater than any other municipality. And so I think this is very important. Um, I'm going to be there. Um, I I hope some of you I understand Sunday at 2:00 is not favorable for many for a lot of people.
Um, I get that. Um but just just to let you know um I will bring back as she no no doubt know um some sort of report on this um at at the meeting following uh this but I would like to make sure um that that you know I obviously we can't
force DNR canal commission to be consistent with our master plan. I would like to inform them if there's any and I doubt they are but I would like to inform them you know what it is since we just did the re-examination and I would like to hear from them as to what they're looking for for the canal so we
can put it in our master plan. So um and then everybody just you know um holds hands and is happy about that. So um I mean it's a great resource for the township. We are so blessed to have so much of that linear park in our township. So I think I think this is good. Um and that's all I I have for
board comments. Anybody else have anything to say about that? >> Just a quick thing, Mr. Chairman. Um, so the first ordinance that came out of the um the master plan uh went to council. Um so it should be introduced soon. >> That's our lowhanging fruit ordinance. >> Low hanging fruit ordinance. Uh and I'm
in the process of preparing the next round. >> Excellent. So we are chopping through this which is great. It's going to take some time but glad to see glad to see movement and and much thanks Mark for that. Um, by the way, we got that you
were not busy with this whole BI thing. Um so um yeah. Oh, yeah. How about our how about our our Tricorn hat guy over here? Um, yeah. >> What do you got today? >> So, uh, on the 20th of June, we'll have
the Blowenberg band play outside. All right. >> Here um at the gazebo. Um, they're 168-year-old band. um over the years and they're going to play all patriotic music 6 to
7:30. Hopefully we'll have some food trucks there. People can get and sit and enjoy the music. July 2nd is our fireworks here. We'll have a big tent. Um and happy to report that we got the New Jersey National Guard band to play.
So they will be in uniform. They're going to play a small set and then the whole uh thing will come out and play. It'll be in 45minute uh interviews uh not interviews um inter interview
okay I'm from Elizabeth so >> say no more >> right periods of time um and then July August 15th is at the Somerset Patriots game Franklin 250 day so we bought 500
tickets there's about 150 already sold old. And uh we have a nice section, section 210 to 215, something like that. And there will be a a a little colonial
military that comes out and then the uh patriots will play. It will be the last uniform. They have a special uniform. Um there it's a semi. Okay. From Yeah. bring from Elizabeth. Okay.
250 >> semi coincidential whatever 250 years. Okay. So that's the last time you're going to see their uniform and then after that is fireworks. Um you can get your tickets at the wreck. They're $10. So you know
we're trying to keep it where it's um familyfriendly so everybody can go. >> August 15th. >> I'm sorry. >> August 15th. >> August 15th. Yeah. It should it should be coming out >> from the the RC department. Yep. Can you get them online or do you go >> You can get them online. Yeah. From the record department website.
>> So August 15th happens to be the Independence Day of India as well. >> I'm sorry. >> Independence Day of India. >> Okay. So >> August 15th. >> So we'll have firework. >> Bring them there. >> Yes. >> Right. >> So uh and then we have um Franklin Day
which is the September 26th and we'll have a 250 tent but it's Franklin Day. Um, you may see a cannon there with uh some infantry. I'm working on that. We're not going to shoot the cannon off.
So, but um that's some of the things that we have. >> Thank you, chairman. >> Yeah, no problem. Keep reminding us as things get closer. Um but thanks thank you for the uh Frank. Thank you for the update. >> All right. If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> All in favor? Go home.