one. Um, welcome to the January 14th uh meeting of the planning board. Uh, in accordance with the open public meeting, Zach Peele 1975, chapter 231, adequate notice of this special 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. >> Okay. So, Councilman Ambarison, Jennifer Ragnau, Charles Brown, all asked to be excused this evening. Theodore Chase >> here. >> Robert Lort >> here. >> Mark Dansancy, Mahia Rafi
>> here, >> Robert Thomas >> here, >> chairman Arcsini >> here. Um, so uh tonight's meeting is a special meeting uh to discuss the business and industry zone zoning standards. So the way this will go, I think, is uh we're
going to hear from Dave Roberts, our consultant. Uh he's going to go through what these are. uh we can ask him any questions. Um we'll open to the public for any questions and then we'll uh we'll vote uh um to send these to
council or or yeah or not. So that's that's the way that'll go. So um anywh who um without further ado, Mark, I'll turn it over to Dave Christine who however you're technologically doing this. Welcome Dave. >> How to maximize the screen here.
Dave, why don't you say hi? >> Yes. Good evening, everyone. Um again for the record uh my name is Dave Roberts um with the firm of Bright View Engineering uh consulting firm that uh worked on both the traffic uh analysis
and uh the re-exam report which is my understanding is the public hearing this evening for um amending the master plan for adopting the the re-examination report for the business industrial zone. Um, and I guess uh Mark, if you'd like,
I can just uh go through the a kind of a an overview of the of the what led to the production of the the re-exam report and uh kind of brought us uh to the hearing this evening. >> Sounds good. The floor is yours and your
uh slide uh show is being is is shown on the screen right now. >> Oh, very good. Um first of all uh I wanted to this the the study that uh was undertaken by Bright View is really a two-prong study. It started with uh a traffic analysis of given of 14
intersections that were identified by the township as being uh critical for analysis for purposes of circulation within the business industrial zone and the business industrial zone being really in two primary areas of the
township. uh the northern uh section of the township uh along 287 and then a smaller a much smaller section of a business industrial zone uh adjacent to 27. Um and as the study started in 2023,
uh we were provided the opportunity the township assembled a an ad hoc steering committee and you can see their names um represented on the on the initial slide on the screen. Um and and we want to especially on behalf of Breit View want to again um thank them for their the
time that they um invested uh on behalf of the township as as volunteers uh to give valuable insight uh and guidance to us as we uh went through the process and we we met with them uh periodically during the process. Um, and then
basically the um uh the the to kind of give bring us back cuz it's been some time has gone by um since we've last had this on our our plate um if you will. But um really these these uh these
images of a really an aerial photograph of the township uh on the right side shows both areas of the township. uh of the image on the left in the upper left hand corner sort of zooms in on the the northern section of the township. But uh
to really to just to u uh re kind of review what we're looking at um the uh white shaded properties and these are uh g this is from a GIS uh uh uh data layer. The white properties are uh
warehouses that are constructed and operational. Uh what you see shaded in green uh were at the time under construction. Um what you saw what you see shaded in orange were applications that are pending and in red there were
there were a couple of sites where where applications for warehouse uses were denied. And that's kind of where we were when we uh we started off u on this journey um in in terms of coming up with this land use recommendation for trying
to deal with this issue. Um and you can see in the lower left uh lower leftand corner just the the magnitude of uh this kind of explosion of growth uh really um carrying over uh during COVID and and
then just sort of taking off from there ever since. uh between 2018 and and 2023 at the time that the we quantified everything there were 37 applications uh totaling 7 million uh795,641
ft of warehouse space and of that 34% were 277 uh 677,752 had been built and occupied. So that would repres that would represent the white shaded properties. Um the most prominent of those as you can see in the
upper lefthand corner would be the the Amazon site. Um really out of this out of the community meetings there were kind of there was a couple of themes that came from a lot of the comments and just uh sort of again to review um we
had uh input that was provided um at the here at these meetings um and we uh summarized those in terms of u meetings meeting summaries and then we had steering committee meetings uh ad hoc steering committee meetings in between
them and uh really the main themes names were, as you can see, kind of shown um in the middle there. There are sever several interest several intersections, excuse me, that were references needing to be included. So, there was two that came out of the community meetings that
were not among the original 14. Um so, we spent about another month um kind of uh get collecting the data for those two intersections to add to the traffic study. Um, and then another theme that came out of the public comments was it
is not so much just the impact of uh of truck traffic uh and vehicular traffic being added to the roadways and to the road network of the township, but also the impact of air on air quality and noise pollution that were that was
occurring that was uh being felt by the residential neighborhoods that were the closest to um where this development was taking place. And really the last uh kind of main theme was that warehouse uses uh if they're if they were to be
permitted should be steered away from residential areas. That's kind of a kind of a uh kind of obvious but u easier said than done. The portion of the business industrial zone between Davidson Avenue and Atrium Drive was mentioned um as being an area where
warehouses could be accommodated without impacting uh adversely residential areas. And then another uh theme came out was the that that the regulations that came out of this effort uh would need to be enforceable. So they would
need to be measurable um and they would need to be enforceable so that township officials and u and so on could um use them to be able to to um direct the development as to where it was more appropriate and away from areas where it
was uh less appropriate. Um then then we as far as the final traffic study report as I mentioned before there was a total of 16 intersections that were included in the study. Um and the we we did adjust for the two additional
intersections because those counts were done um over the summer, but we had a factor that were added in to account for additional school related trips that take place during the school year. Um the the report applied level of service
projections to all 16 intersections and we did it in in um in two two different uh uh ways. One is we took the uh the traffic generated from um all uh from
all approved and uh under construction. Um the we already knew the trips the trips that were on the roads from the the the uses that were operational, but we added in the additional trips from based on projections from those
applications that were approved and those applications that were under construction uh were sites that were under construction but not yet generating traffic on the road. So we we factored them in and calculated the level of service change. Then we did another run with based on all pending
applications whether uh without any without regard as to whether they were approved or denied but assuming that it was a an accountability for future growth. Um so it was kind of the worst worstc case scenario and that's what a lot of that's what those level of
service uh projections uh were based on um for a couple of different scenarios and we those counts are all in the traffic study which is an appendix to the um the re-exam report. Um the uh appendices were provided for existing
which would which include those or that are operational. The uh scenario one which was approved and uh under construction and scenario two which was everything that was in the pipeline for for all intents and purposes uh projecting those roads on those trips on
the roadways. Um we had the evaluation in terms of potential zoning strategies. Uh what we came up uh what came out of the process was that there are uh traditional storage warehouses uh which are have minimum minimum minimal traffic
import uh packs. Those are the the types of warehouses where storage takes place for long periods of time. Uh there's there's not a lot of uh of deliveries and uh uh and and pickups of loads. The it's a storage warehouse. So those those
types of warehouses have uh relatively minimal impacts compared to other uses and there are another a number of them already built in Franklin. Um so we have actual experience with them. But then there are the distribution warehouse
types. Uh the most um impactful of which would be the fulfillment centers and the parcel hubs. uh which to this at this point at this point in the study there were none in Franklin at at that time
but the the there was a you know there there was a danger that they could come in. So we wanted to try to take that those uses off the table and then deal with the ones in between. Um there because there's a there warehouses have
a range of distri distribution types and a range of of impacts. Um the what we try to do then is um the the lower impact distribution warehouses um really all of the distribution warehouses
should be where we needed to direct them away from the residential areas and we the best way to do that was to separately uh define them and and measure them in terms of their impacts. Um the way we tried to do that was by uh
which was somewhat in my experience um somewhat um creative and a little unique is by it the the use intensity. So, and we we backed into the sizes of the warehouses based on uh trip generation
numbers which are based on the square footage uh gross square footage of of the buildings and also on the number of loading docks of the density of loading docks, the number of loading docks per thousand square ft. And we came up with
three different categories, low intensity, medium intensity, and high intensity. uh the highintensity warehouse uh as you can see on on the bottom would be prohibited. So the current ban on warehouses would remain
in effect for those high impact highintensity um types of warehouses and those would be any warehouse over 400,000 square ft or where the loading dock the ratio of of of uh would be higher or above one uh loading dock per
5,000 square feet. So the in other words you do one loading dock per 2,000 square feet or one loading dock per thousand square feet that kind of level of loading dock density. Um so we have we're left with medium and low um and
the we'll go backing up to low. Anything up to 150,000 square ft um would be considered uh low intensity uh in order of magnitude in terms of the way warehouses go. Those were the
smaller warehouses um and and some of the warehouses are small as 50,000 square feet that we we have in town. So those would be low as long as their loading dock ratio was uh was at one or fewer per 10,000 square
ft. Um and then medium was in between the low and the high. Um there's a range of between 150,000 and 400,000 because if once you once you had exceeded 400,000 you'd be in a high density
intensity category. would not be permitted anywhere in the township. Um and then the loading uh that the ratio of loading docks is below one loading dock per one or 5,000 square ft. So
between 5,000 and 10,000. Um so those were the three categories and we what was uh the next step was um to steer the medium intensity uh types away from the residential area
and residential areas and closer to the two interchanges, one at Eastern Avenue, one at Western Canal Road um in in that that 28 along the 287 corridor. So the what we ended up doing with the actual
um proximity was we we looked we looked at u the distances from interchanges that were considered to be um it the sort of the status of the industry. And then we looked at how that would affect
uh the areas from the two interchanges uh with 287 and then made an adjustment um to and and came up with one mile. So the proximity to to I 287 um the medium intensity uses would have
to be located within a mile. Um low intensity uses would be allowed at a greater distance than a mile. Um, so in in uh farther away in the business industrial zone from Interstate 287. So they'd have to be in the business industrial zone and if they were medium
intensity, those those sizes, they would have to be within a mile of 287. Um, and then we also wanted to keep them off of scenic roads uh because that is consistent with the the master plan recommendations in the circulation
element of the master plan. And then if wherever there were areas that came close to residential zones or touched on residential zones, then we had we wanted to increase the uh buffer width standard
and the setback standards um to keep the buildings away from the residential zones and then have a um a minimum 100 foot buffer in between the building and the zone line, the residential zone line. Um and also keep loading and
service areas uh out of the public view. So uh that they would not face a residential zone line or not face a res a public street. Those were the basic um uh parameters which then led to recommended conditions. Um so these
would both be low intensity and medium intensity would both be um conditional uses. So even if there was an application that were to come in that would pass muster in terms of meeting either the low intensity or medium
intensity parameters. Um they would still need to be approved by the planning board as a conditional use. and the basic conditions and and part of the reason for that is that if any of as the board knows um if any of these
conditions were not met then it would it would flip to the zoning board of adjustment as a as a devariance for uh conditions of a conditional use. So that requires the five affirmative votes. Um it makes it a much uh tougher uh
sledding for the applicant. It's really trying to um trying to be a disincentive u and an and the incentive would be meet all the conditions and then you have effectively a conditionally permitted
use. So the the probably the most one of the most important conditions that applies both to low and medium intensity would be the floria ratio. And the reason why we added this condition is that we were there was a concern
expressed by the steering committee that uh say we have these say you had a a a property that um you had 150,000 you wanted to build 150,000 foot warehouse but you you decided to subdivide it so that you could then build 150,000 on
both properties. Well, the the Floria ratio pro requires a certain amount of land area per building. So whether you built a uh a 400,000 ft uh uh warehouse
on a large parcel or 200 two 150,000 uh square foot warehouses on smaller parcels, the proportion would have to remain the same. And the the reason that it's uh 362 is that that translates to uh just to
give you a couple of examples um a uh 150,000 square foot or I'm sorry 100,000 foot warehouse just to pick a round number would require a parcel of 6.33 acres. Um, and to flip it around, a
10acre parcel, the the biggest warehouse you could build on a 10acre parcel would be 150,000 square ft. The biggest warehouse you could build on a 20 acre parcel would be 314,000 ft² and you would need 25 acres for a 400,000 ft
warehouse, which is the maximum uh threshold for a medium intensity uh site. So, as you can see, you can try you could try to play say play play some games with the numbers, but you're always going to have to have that
minimum parcel size for the the in proportion to the size of the warehouse. So, that's a pretty important condition. Um, another important condition is that the the uses have to have direct access to a minor collector or higher order street. And this also this applies to
both low and and um and medium. And that's really meant to keep the uh the access for the trucks going back and forth to 287 um on collectors and and off of residential uh level streets and those
are all defined in the circulation element of the master plan. Um also no frontage permitted on a scenic roadway as was mentioned before. um minimum vegetated buffers. Um that the the bud the buffer on schedule six would be
would apply but it would have to be 100 feet instead of 50 ft and then or 25 ft depending on the circumstance. The minimum building back the building minimum building back set back at 200 ft. Um and the that includes a residential zone boundary by the way
that runs down the middle of a street. Sometimes zone lines separating a residential zone from a non-residential zone will run down a main road and that setback would apply to that side of the property as well. Uh and then you you
saw loading and service areas not facing a residential zone or a public street. The main difference between the low and the medium on the next slide is that the medium uses in addition to all of those other conditions would have to be
located within a mile um of an interchange with Interstate 287. And the township actually um in order to try to get a real uh handle on what that meant uh generated a map with their GIS um
capabilities which shows what that line would look like. And you can see um in the sort of the uh where 287 is the the arc that runs across the tip of the the northeast tip of the township. Uh with Eastern
Avenue's interchange being to the right and Western Canal Roads interchange being to the left. Um you can see the roads that would be primarily the parcels first of all in in this tan color are the actual parcels and then the roads that they connect to and how
they connect uh to those interchanges. That would be the portion of the the business industrial zone that would um be limited to where medium intensity uses would be permitted. Low intensity uses would be peritted there as well,
but no medium intensity uses would be allowed outside that area or or uh farther than one mile from the interchange. And that's how we distinguish the the low and medium are distinguished by their size, by their loading dock ratio, and by their
proximity to 287. And that um Mr. Chairman is pretty much a summary of of of what's in the re-exam report in terms of recommendations. and I believe uh has then been reflected in terms of actual regulations that potentially could be
adopted by the township. And with that uh those are my that's my overview. U Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to take any questions from the board or uh for the public. >> Thanks Dave. Appreciate it. Um Mark, do you want to add anything before I just open to the open to the board for questions?
Um just that the um draft master plan that that's been on the website uh for a few months also as Dave just mentioned does have a draft zoning ordinance that goes into uh all of the it basically incorporates all of the concepts that
are in the master plan that Dave just uh went through. Um there are a number of additional things. Um changes to improvements to the buffering requirements. Uh all of these uh improvements to the ordinance came out
from either comments from the steering committee, comments from the public, uh comments from this board. Frankly, you know, the board's review of these applications over the years. Um so there's a lot of uh improvements to the ordinance that are not there now. um
buffer requirements, you know, requiring irrigation, uh increasing the number of of trees that are required. Um uh the design standards have been improved um again based on the board's review of these applications in terms of
architectural design, um sustainability features. There's a requirement for um a noise study if it's adjacent to a residential zone. That's again one of one of the issues that's been brought up through this whole process. Uh a truck routing plan. Again, that's something
that this board and both boards have have dealt with. A gate management plan to to address try to reduce the potential for queuing um onto the road back onto the roadway. um and a bunch of wanting a narrative statement addressing compliance with all
of these standards. That's something again that the board has talked about and and the purpose for that is basically kind of put the applicant on, you know, on notice, you know, that these are important and you they need to provide us something in writing explain to us how you comply with all these standards. And there's a bunch of other
things in here that again are in that draft ordinance. um some of those came specifically as recommended by the planning board. >> Thanks Mark. And so I mean what I've derived from Dave's presentation and the
work of committee citizen committee which great work and and I think it was very uh well represented widely represented of people with various interests. um is is that the one thing I take away
that I think really makes this plan or these standards really uh really good for the township is that um you anything they were derived really looking at the uses, right? The low and the medium and high intensity uses um and what that
means in terms of actual measurables, right? Uh size of the building, the docks, the per square footage, etc. and then working out from there. So, not really a you know um an arbitrary or capriccious anything but that. Um
basically a very wellthoughtout plan that's not like oh you know where where should we put things but more or less these these are the standards for the industry for these type of uses and and what what sort of zoning standards do
then u accommodate those uses. So, I think it it went in the right direction. Um, I have a just a couple of questions for Dave. I think they're easy questions. Uh, my first one is if you could just um tell us I mean we all know
that um planning 101 teaches us that we cannot use traffic to deny or to approve or use that use that as a reason for applications. Right? Where we do it is zoning. So, where what are we doing right now? we're doing zoning. So, um
that deres my question which is how has the plan been specifically or what aspects of the plan are specifically formulated to mitigate as much as possible and that's a very key phrase there uh level of service declines and
intersections and traffic in general. So, that's my first question. >> Yeah. And I think um really because this this came from uh the the data that was collected um and and then and then kind of advanced sort of uh projections or
kind of a sort of predicting the future of what would happen as these different uses built out. Um we identified some uh but you know degradation and and at a couple of key intersections where um the level of service declined to F and and
generally if it declined to F in scenario one or the where we had uh the uses that were the applications that were approved. So we knew that there was a chance they were going to get built at some point in the future as well as those that were already under
construction. then we they were obviously going to get worse with the worst case scenario which was the the last sort of uh projection. So that identified a number of of of places where you know where the traffic study for
example came up with recommendations for trying to ease that um that pain if you will of that that growth pain. But the the the size the the warehouse and the loading dock in particular, the sizes
really kind of came from truck projections where we where we I know the steering committee a lot of times they were like, "Okay, we know what the overall traffic projections are, but what about the trucks?" You know, what about the heavy trucks? There was a lot
of lot of focus on those. So we tried to we tried to zero in on those using the information from the in the institution of traffic engineers that were related to square footage warehouse square footage and then kind of flipped them
around to come up with the the sizes that you see for 150,000 for example a 400,000 foot and the master plan narrative goes kind of gets into that a little bit more detail to explain the the relationship
between the size of the warehouse and the number of truck truck trips that would be generated, trying to keep those uh manageable so that spread out over a 24-hour period, the roadways would be less impacted. Um, and that's kind of so
there's a there's definitely a correlation and it's it it's grounded in uh in traffic analysis, traffic study data, but it's expressed in terms of the zoning ordinance in a more understandable way, which is building size. Everybody knows uh what 150,000
square feet uh thousandt building is. The the applicant knows how to relate to that. the the board knows how to relate to it as opposed to truck trips and trying to trying to get the you know the applicant to come up with here's my
project here's my projected number of of truck trips and then trying to regulate it on that basis. It's you're you're going to definitely get that information or you're going to ask for it when you review the site plans because that's going to be a critical component, but it's not something that it can be
translated easily into a into an ordinance. So, um with really with in collaboration with the township staff, that's kind of how these uh these intensity levels came uh uh were were generated, but they're grounded in traffic data.
>> Okay. Thanks. Uh my second question probably easier to answer is um with your floor area ratio of 362 and and you described how that um you know what what size warehouses would need what what size parcels to be built under these
standards. Can you just uh I mean I know floor area ratio is an long accepted and recognized way to um as a zoning standard um in in especially in industrial and manufacturing zones, warehouses, etc. How did you come up
with 0.362? >> Well, it really we really kind of it's a great question. Um and because it sounds like such an arbitrary number, you know, why 362? Um it really was if we'd gone any higher than that um I think we would
have we would have had a a situation where the uh the the the maximum sizes wouldn't have wouldn't have fit. Um, and I it's not a great explanation, but for example, a 50,000t
warehouse, um, you would you would only need uh a 3 acre site, which is what you've have already. Um, in most cases where you have smaller warehouses in town, the the sites are consistent with
that. And then we wanted to keep that in proportion. Um and so that you know by the time you got up to a uh 400,000t warehouse and that is not even the biggest warehouse that is in the township already um it's probably in the
middle range I would say. Um you still now you're going to need 25 acres for a warehouse that large. And and part and part of that is that it gives you you you need to have not only space for the building, but you need space for interior and uh the the road circulation
and access roads uh store, you know, the u uh loading dock and the parkings for the employees, the parking for other other aspects of the of the uses. So, it it's a big site
for a building that big. A 400,000 foot building. It's kind of hard to give you a uh from my experience a comparison, but uh it it's pro, you know, it's it you you think about say for example um a 100,000
square foot Wegman's grocery store or supermarket is probably going to be on a site. it's going to be in a a shopping center and it's going to be on a site that's comparable to some of these acreages because of the amount of land area that's devoted to all of the ancillary aspects that that allow it to
function. Um, so I think that I think the the.3 uh.362 even though it sounds kind of specific um is based on really a comparison of parcels that are already developed within the township and trying to keep the parcel sizes proportional to
the size of the buildings. >> Thanks Steve. That definitely answers my question. Um, open it up to the board. So the only two questions I have right now. Um, Ted, do you got anything? We'll start over here. Now I was interested you
uh use the terms uh high docks and low docks and I was wondering first of all how are they defined and secondly this is more a question to mark uh do we require that a
site plan describe whether a dock is high or low because I don't think I've ever seen that distinction in a site plan, but I guess we're going to have to have it. >> Yeah, those are good questions. First, yeah, the the draft ordinance does have
definitions and it's basically um you know, the height of the of um the loading space from from the ground. Um as far as when applications come in, um that's something that we'll we're going to have to look for. I mean, to the degree that and and require that they
they delineate that on their plan. Um, I'm sure if we were to go back and look at um previous applications, it's probably already reflected on the architectural plans. Uh, but if it's not clear, we're going to have to make that make them make it clear, identify the
height, provide details perhaps. But the point seems to be that low dock ones are typical of things like the Amazon warehouse to allow a high number of
trucks to come in. >> Yeah, that's my understanding, right? >> Yeah, >> I think that's what the ratios are based on. >> Um, >> go down. go down this end. Any any any questions for Dave or any?
>> You're good. Okay. Um, with that, um, I'll make a motion to open to the public for any questions that they may have. >> All in favor? >> I >> I meeting is open to the public. If you come up, please speak directly into the microphone. Give us your name and
address, please. >> Dave Robinson. Uh, Dave Robinson, 349 Builtmore Lane, Some Somerset Run. I was one of the participants on the BI committee. So, I am in support of the recommendations and
I think it's a reasonable uh realistic approach to accepting the fact that warehouses are going to be proposed for this area. I have one question for Dave if he's on Hi Dave. if he's on the uh on the call still and he is under the low
and the medium intensity guidelines the draft ordinance which I printed out this morning has an and a requirement for hours of operation between 1000 p.m. restricted between 1000 p.m. and uh 7
a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 am on weekends. Is that still part of the draft audit? >> Yes. What what the document that's on the website is the proposal. >> So those documents for uh restricted
hours are still in the plan. >> Yes. Okay. Um and the the the other qu it's not a question but it's a statement. Uh the the size of the warehouses and the validity of these requirements.
Um, for example, there's a 30 acre parcel that may be developed into a warehouse as part of the Catalin Ardenna zoning application. 30 acres would, according to Dave's figures, equate to about a 350,000 square foot warehouse on
Schoolhouse and Elizabeth. Uh, that would be precluded from being passed because of the it's greater than a mile from 287. So these criteria, the combination of these criteria, I think
are what will make this plan successful. And I just hope the mayor's here and mayor and sheep is here when it gets to the council that they act on this as quickly as possible. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dave. Thank you for your
service on the committee as well. Hi, Debbie Stewart. I don't think this is on. >> You're good. >> Debbie Stewart to Farington Plaza. Excuse me. This is a little over my head. So, if you have a 25 acre parcel,
you could have a 300,000 or 400,000. But if if you what happens if four different owners go in and they all build
the maximum for their particular little section, couldn't it exceed because they're different owners when you add them all up? Couldn't they be the size of a gigantic one even though they're on smaller parcels? I know I'm probably not making sense,
but >> No. No. Actually, you're making perfect sense that that's exactly uh the concern that the steering committee had. Um and the thing to keep to remember is that that that Floria ratio applies to the parcel no matter how many how many times
they subdivide it. Um they that same floor ratio applies. So, uh, whether it's one big 25 acre parcel, um, and you have a a 400,000 ft building, which would be the max, you know, you couldn't
go exceed that, uh, roughly, or you you divided it into say um three uh 8 acre parcels, in which case you're looking at um you're looking at buildings that are probably closer to 100,000 square ft
each. So, they're not going to they're not going to gain any more square footage by subdividing. Um, they they'll just be they'll there may be more buildings, but they'll be smaller. >> The floor ratio. >> What if there are different owners? Does
that make a difference? It >> doesn't make a difference. No, it's all about uh what the parcel can support and the so the one way another way of looking at it is a 25 acre parcel can never will never be able to support any more than 400,000 square feet whether
it's in one building or three or four. >> Okay. I thought the different ownership might play into it but no. Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Hello, Jan Bryant. Uh, 22 Bryant Court. Can you hear me? Okay. Okay. Hi. Thanks,
everyone. Um, I'm speaking tonight as a resident who cares deeply about what kind of place this community is going to be for people who already live here, not just for those who want to build. Um approximately two years ago there was an
important decision made after more than I get according to Dave Robinson's it was 8 million square feet of applications were submitted and 34% of um of these properties had been approved.
The township recognized that the scale of the development was harming the quality of life in our township. Traffic, noise, pollution, and loss of open space were becoming too much. So, warehouse development was stopped for future applications. That decision told
residents that this board was willing to put people first. Tonight, you're being asked to reverse that decision um by rewriting this master plan to allow warehouses again, even if they're with conditions, even if they're smaller and they have to be a certain distance
away from the highways. Um this this plan would have been great if it had been made back when the BI uh zoning was done and that would have been great but that was neglected and in the meantime all these warehouses had been built. I
want to be clear that adding limits does not change the basic impact of warehouses on a residential community. It only ch changes how we describe it. I also want to point out something important. A master plan is supported to reflect what is best for the long-term
health, safety, and welfare of the community. It's not supposed to be rewritten because developers are unhappy with existing rules. Many residents are concerned that this change is being driven not by planning principles, but by legal pressures. If the message
tonight is that zoning policy changes when developers sue, this is a dangerous president. It tells every future developer that the way to get what they want is through is is not through good planning but through pressure and once that door is open it doesn't close
again. I also want to speak about what this means in real life for me. This is not just theoretical. A warehouse has already been approved with a 200 foot sitback from my property. That is closer than most people realize. And at that distance, it
really doesn't matter. Size limits from truck noise, diesel, exhaust, lighting, vibration, or the loss of privacy and property value. When a warehouse is that close, it becomes part of your life. the 24-hour truck engines, the constant traffic, the glare at night, the air you
breathe. This is not minor con inconvenience. It is a permanent change to how someone lives in their home. The new plan also says warehouses must be within one mile from a highway. But being one mile from a highway does not mean trucks magically disappear. It
means they drive through local roads and residential neighborhoods to get there. The burden of that traffic is placed on the people who live here, not on the developers who profit from the building. And we have been here before. Approximately two years ago, more than 8
million square feet of warehouse applications were in process with 34% approved. That did not happen overnight. It happened one approval at a time with small changes that eventually became overwhelming. Residents were told the system would protect them and it didn't.
We are now being asked to trust a system that already failed. Once warehouses are led back into the master plan, the pressures to expand them will only increase. Limits can be challenged. Variances can be granted. Rules can be changed again. But the impact on
residents once these buildings go up is permanent. The people who live with this decision every day are not the developers. It is families who deal with the trucks, the noise, the pollution, and the loss of the community we moved here for. I am asking that this board to
stand by the decision that was made a couple years ago. You recognize that warehouse development had gone too far and was damaging the quality of life in the township. That was the right decision now and it's the right decision now. Please do not rewrite the master plan in a way that sacrifices residents
to development pressures, protect the people who already live there. And I just want to I I have a few questions. I want to just Can I go up and give this to you and just >> It's a map. >> It's a map of the ws. So once you you
take a look. So I had fun coloring it. I was with my granddaughter last week and we colored a lot. So if you look at war two and I don't know if Dave Robins if you um had considered the um you know the the size where all this development
is occurring. Most of this development if you're aware is occurring in W 2. So I I have some questions. Um Mark how how big is W two? >> I don't know. >> Okay. All right. So if you see on the
map, so where uh Franklin Township I think is 44 square miles. >> Where is this going, Jan? >> Okay. So >> the the reason is it doesn't matter whether it's Ward 1, two, three, four, five or A, B, or D. You know, it's a
it's a zoning standard and and nobody is looking at, you know, one ward. I mean, it it is because I mean W two happens to be biseected by 287. Okay. And so it's a planning thing, not a political thing, not a ward thing. And so I don't want
this to go off the rail. >> No, no. I'm I'm not making I It's I understand that it's there because 287 is close by. But if you if you look at that, I guess when you're thinking about this, you need to kind of consider that that ward, our ward is is small
comparison. I you know, I don't know how square miles. And then if you consider how many millions of square feet of warehouses that are already in W 2. I'm not trying to make it political at all. And um and so I know there are benefits
to that, but there's also drawbacks when you put all these warehouses in one area. And I don't know if they considered having business and industry in some other areas besides Ward 2 because really it's all concentrated in that area. if you look at it.
>> Well, well, Jan, I I disagree a little bit because, you know, I'm in Ward 3 and live right behind Commerce Drive and you know, um I get the odd potato chip rapper from Fredo Le over there and L'Oreal is right. I mean, it it would
you want to put them on Copper Mine just so you can say, "Hey, they're all there." Yeah, that that would be great infrastructure. So I mean it's driven with planning and I mean it happens to be where the ward is but it also happens to be where the infrastructure supports it is and also happens to be historically where they've been. So to
say that they should be distributed just be you know impact into certain ward I understand the principle of what you're saying but if you think about what ward one looks like and and that's you know and million people on social media saying we have no open space. Well,
that's where a lot of the open space is. Ward one and three and six mile run and and all of those. I mean, that's not where you have the infrastructure. That's not where you'd want to put it. That's not where you'd want trucks going. And that doesn't I mean, you'd have to It just doesn't make sense. So,
I'm I I'm having trouble seeing >> you're I mean, I understand what you're saying and you live in war and I don't for one second, you know, um trying to minimize the impact. I mean, we're all we all drive the same roads. I mean, I have to get on 287 every day
>> to go to work and so yeah, I deal with I deal with trucks. I I'm not trying to minimize that, but I I just want to be a sanity check on, you know, >> right? >> I I understand. No. And and according to to planning that sometimes it's it's a disadvantage to have everything in one
one area. Um, so, uh, one of my questions is, um, the, uh, traffic person had mentioned, uh, Davidson Avenue being, I guess, a a more congested area for or no, a better place to put it because it's going to be away
from uh, residential, right? Is that what you said? That um, that warehouses won't be that bad if they're located in that area because it's away from residential areas. Davidson. No.
>> Yeah, Dave. I think I think Jan's referring to Davidson Atrium World's Fair that that area there. Um >> Oh, yes. that was that was identified by during one of the community meetings as that especially around World's Fair Drive that that part off of Davidson
where um there there's a a concentration uh where there's there there's a uh the amount of residential areas around it are less. Therefore, that that would be where they would be more appropriate. That was actually brought up um by a
member of the public at the uh one of the community meetings. So, I'm I'm wondering with um are there going to be in that area potentially because I know the affordable housing's coming up. Are there places proposed to be in that residential affordable housing places to
be proposed in that area as well? >> I think two of the BI zone. >> Two of the affordable housing. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, yeah. No, and it just tends to be that sometimes, you know, um places get put. Yeah. I I guess was that taken into consideration that there's going to
be affordable housing in that area and there will be people living in that area >> when you you did the report. >> I'll answer that. No, because the this the production of this document preceded that preceded the affordable housing plan. I I'll just speak just just
briefly to um I think your question gets to in my mind when Dave had the exhibit up with the um the areas that are within one mile of 287 and and that came out of concerns
obvious concerns raised by the public by the planning board and by recommend and and from recommendations from the public and the planning board and the steering committee that if there's going to be if we're going to allow medium intensity um warehouses that they should be
restricted to a reasonable distance to 287 and in an area where and this I think speaks to your point before about you know possibly looking at spreading it out you know you know to try to minimize the impact of these uses the
thought was let's concentrate them to close proximity to the 287 interchanges and in places where the resulting truck traffic is not going to go through residential areas of the township. So that's were some of the guiding
principles behind, you know, those areas that are shown in the in the the tan on the map. >> But but we know that it's not going to, you know, depending on the type of warehouse, uh trucks are allowed to make deliveries locally. So, you know, some
of these warehouses could be four. >> We can't control every truck, but but but the but the realistic logical conclusion is that mo most of the trucks that are going to be going from existing warehouses and any future warehouses, they're here because of 287. So that
that's so we wanted to try to direct those medium intensity ones to close proximity to 287 to minimize the the the overall amount of trucking the truck activity in in residential areas of the township. Could some trucks go to
deliver elsewhere in the township? Yes, that could happen. >> Should there be a certain limit, Mark, on how many million square feet of warehouses there are in one area? I mean, it it develops a warehouse sprawl.
>> I I don't I I'm looking at Peter, our attorney. I don't think you can you you regulate >> uses >> uses and and but I don't think we can regulate that we put a cap on >> I can think of like the Pedaluma case in California where they tried to put a cap
on the residential building permits per year. You can't do that. >> Typically, if you're going to regulate the use, you're going to permit the use within the zone. So, I mean, you you see it a lot where you end up with a gas station on all four corners of an intersection because it's a really good intersection. Um, and logically, you'd
say, "Well, we we really don't want that." But unfortunately, you've you've regulated it. You've said that it's a permitted use within the zone, so you're going to be essentially stuck with it. So, has anybody looked at how many million square feet of warehousing we
already have in Franklin Township before deciding to get rid of the ordinance that warehouses aren't allowed since since this could, you know, since you're saying that as many can come in as possible. I mean, has any I I appreciate
>> No, no, no, no. That I'm going to stop you there now. not as many can come in as possible because that's the point of doing this in the first place. If you want as many to come in as possible, don't do this. >> Right. But >> point blank. Point blank, Jen. I mean,
right now, >> if you if you want a court to tell you where they go, this is the not passing is a great way to do it. You got in zero control. If that's what you'd like, if that's what you're standing there saying, then say it. >> Well, no. I'm just worried that we're allowing more in. That's That's I I like
how it is now that there's no more being allowed in that they have to go through the zoning board. >> But you're not >> Yeah, but that Okay. Well, you said a mouthful there. Okay. So, now we're getting somewhere. They could go through the zoning board, but the zoning board also has standards, right? That may be a
little higher, but doesn't mean that they won't approve them. Having them as a conditional permitted us. planning board really does not, you know, we had these are standards, you know, from the ground up, right? If if if it if they
want more, then they have to go to the zoning board for a Dvariance. Either way, you're going to get more. And if you don't have any standards, you're going to get more and a court will tell you what they look like. >> I mean, that's just reality. And Mike, and I've addressed this same question
perhaps from Jan at previous meetings. If they in my opinion, it makes a lot more sense to if if an applicant is going to propose a warehouse that is in an area that's not permitted.
With this master plan adopted, any any applicant that goes before the zoning board would have to basically prove to the zoning board essentially why this master plan should be um
ignored absent the master plan I think I used the word blank slate you know there's no guide absent this master plan there's there's no guidelines so so what is the zoning board to follow and and there's no you know in a way this this makes it a
higher hurdle for applicants seeking either you know D1 use variances in areas that aren't permitted or for you know again these conditional use standards. You know we have a very exhaustive study based on community input that was over a long period of
time uh very well thought out that I think raises the bar for applicants who want to deviate from this. So I I think it does exact opposite frankly of what Miss Brandt is saying. Has there been I I know that there's six
lawsuits right now on file, you know, from this the ordinance that was put in place. Since that those lawsuits, has there been any additional lawsuits filed? >> We're not going to discuss that. Jan, you well know this. You ran for council, right? I think you know the rules.
>> No, I don't I don't I don't think you know the rules. Okay. All right. I I guess I think there haven't been any more lawsuits since the ordinance. So, um I guess my point is is that really >> I have to say something. >> There may not have been other lawsuits,
but what you're calling for is to leave the total ban in place. That does not prevent warehouses from being approved here. As Mark said, there's probably a lower bar for them to to uh accomplish a
warehouse approval through the zoning board right now than there obviously will be when this when or if this ordinance is passed. The ban doesn't it it makes everybody feel good, but it doesn't stop warehouses.
>> Well, you guys are the ones that put it in place. Um >> actually, you guys are not the ones. >> We're not the ones. Okay, that's right. >> Do you know it was council, right? You ran on it, I guess. Right. You should know. >> I did. >> Congratulate. Um, so, well, I guess what what I'm
aware of is that um not many warehouses that the warehouses that have been approved through the zoning board is has been minimal. And I prefer, in my opinion, I prefer there to be abandoned. somebody has to, you know,
um, meet all the requirements than to have a conditional requirement. But that's my opinion. >> They would still have to meet the requirements or ask for a variance. >> Yeah. But it's different >> from us or or if they exceed it, they'll have to go then it's no longer >> with the ban there are no requirements. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> To meet. >> Right. But but still it's not allowed. You know, with legally there's a there's a lot of differences. Um, I know I've taken up a lot of time. I have one last question. U two questions. Um with the um the study that was done, I noticed
the uh property, you know, the B9 property um was traffic taken into because it says it was um not approved. So I was wondering if you included any traffic because it h it back then you
were correct. It wasn't approved, but um now it's approved. Did you take that into consideration with the traffic study? Well, I I guess what I'll try to answer that. Um the when we were doing the traffic analysis, which was I believe um
partially in 2023 and and partially in 2024 because we added the two additional intersections. We uh as I tried to show before on the map, the whatever was approved at that time and whatever was under construction, we didn't have the benefit
of knowing how many trips that would those those sites would generate once they were operational. So there's the the traffic experts used formulas and projections to come up with those numbers. Um, and then the the next category after that was any application
whether it was approved or not that was in the pipeline that was on file in in front of one of the boards, probably the zoning board most likely would have or or the planning board if it if it was a time of application type of thing, those
applications were at they were they were rolled in to the numbers as if they were approved and built. So that was why we we we wanted to generate a worst case scenario and that's how it was done. So if it was if the application was approved but the building hadn't been
built yet, we still used the site plan application to based on the size of the building and and those kinds of parameters, the information that was available to come up with a projection not for for vehicle trips and truck trips from those sites. So, and you said
you did that for the the um warehouses that were declined as well. >> So, Dave, she was spec specifically asking about the B9 application. It's it's on the corner of Schoolhouse and Metlers. Do do you recall if that site
was uh included? >> I believe if if we had information on it, uh Mark, then it was included. Yeah. >> Why don't we just go to the go to the mic? Yeah, Dave, that that was one of three that was in a category named denied
slashwithdrawn. So when you looked at F the the FB1 and FB2, I don't know if those volumes were in the study. >> Okay. Thank Thank you. I appreciate that information. I I didn't think that we're because I know I had asked that at a
previous one um and it hadn't been included because it had been declined. So just uh fy um so and and that might be something you want to look at again. And then my last question and thank you all for your patience and guidance. Um I did not I I
looked at theund I don't know 13page document today but I didn't see the ordinance so I didn't read the ordinance. Is there anything in the ordinance to protect residents from um air pollution? I mean, legally,
I don't I mean, Pete, you can chime in, but I don't think we're allowed to specifically consider that. the way you would control it is the way we're controlling it now, which is through these standards. >> Well, plus I mean, it's part and parcel of the use. I mean, the
the use itself is going to um have to comply with board of health regulations and you know, if it it doesn't create any uh condition that would violate that, then it's permitted to to exist. I mean, it's certainly truck traffic is
going to produce exhaust. you know, they have anti-edling laws that they can't they have to comply with if if they operate. So, >> yeah. >> So, so there's nothing for um air pollution in place. >> Well, there's nothing we could legally enforce. So, no specific.
>> No, I think I think the chairman did answer the question. I mean, it's it's handled through the regulations. I mean, it's addressed to the degree that we can address air pollution and zoning. It's addressed by minimizing by prohibiting the the the the highintensity uses with with some of the you know fulfillment
centers and other specific high traffic generating truck traffic generating uses prohibited. So I think that addresses air quality by minimizing or or keeping the medium intensity to within a mile of 287 and and away from from uh most of
the residential uses and and the you know higher intensity uh or denser residential uses areas like Canal Walk and you can see on the map that it's a distance away. We've added significant buffer requirements, significant setback requirements, all of that stuff. That's
the things that we can do in zoning that touches on air quality. >> All right. Thank you. >> That's a good way to say it. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> I'll try to make this quick. I hope you
can hear me. Uh my name is Sally Zaharek for Constitution Way Somerset Canal Walk. Uh three years ago, I stood before this board and asked if there was a master plan. Um and if so, when was the
last time it was revised? So, I have been watching this very closely and personally have been very happy that you're working on this. Um my question is this. I have lots of family and friends in New Jersey.
Um, this is a problem everybody's grappling with. Netflix is building right near my son's home. Huge complex, right? This is not a problem that's um
specific to Franklin Township. Does everybody agree with that? It's it's a national problem. It's a New Jersey problem. So my question for the um firm, I believe your name is David. >> Yes.
>> Is this something other towns are doing as well? They're working on as well. Managed growth is very important in strategic planning, in urban planning, suburban planning. Um are you finding
other towns in New Jersey um jumping on this revision of master plan as a way to manage growth? Yes. Uh I guess that's the short answer. Uh which for me is uh I don't give a lot
of those but yes that's that is the case. They're doing it they do it by a number of different methods. U some towns have just done it by uh parsing out the definitions a little more specifically. Uh, I think all towns recognized that most zoning ordinances
were sort of uh not keeping up with the with the trends because they would just have one use called warehouses. And that was that that that encompassed every type of warehouse. and the and the as we talked about before because of the boom
of e-commerce the functions of warehouses are becoming much more uh specific and kind of uh logistically ba based. So um just saying warehouse covers everything was one of
the first things that most towns did. they they they uh separated out the um the the uh last mile or the fulfillment center type and the postal hubs for example the ones we're doing they define them differently and didn't permit them
there a lot of towns used a lot of different techniques in terms of zoning to deal with it but yes I' I'd say probably the the ones that are uh following the process in the municipal land use law have been keeping their master plan up to date with their zoning
regulations. Not all of them. Some of them just amended their zoning ordinance to add more definitions and tried to work it that way. But and and other towns um depending on their situation um have been, you know, letting it pretty much just letting it run its course. Uh,
for example, some of the towns in South Jersey close to the uh ports along the Delaware River, some of those towns have been basically uh using it as part of their economic development strategy. So, it's a it's a New Jersey is a very diverse state and there's a lot of
different ways that towns have been dealing with it. But I totally agree with you that this is a uh a statewide issue. Um, that's why the the state generated guidance documents about warehouses. Um, and it's a national issue as well.
>> Thank you. >> Uh, if I could just say something, I mean, Sally makes a good point. I just I just want to um be clear that, you know, council can refer changes, right, in the development ordinance to us as a planning board for for examination at
any time, right? Um, and then we would review them and then we would get back to them >> um much as they just did, right? they they passed four resolutions or five or whatever for the affordable housing. They're coming to us. We'll refer them
back. Um so I just want you to understand that yes, even though we are legally required to do master plan reexamination every 10 years, uh nothing says that we can't look at certain things at any time we want. >> Thank you.
>> Uh good evening, Norman. Norman Roberts, 15 Benjamin Street. uh you know I understand the importance of having standards with regard to the co-mingling of residential traffic and large trucks.
Uh has there been any interaction with the police department or Mr. born locker or who whomever would be the people to contact as far as sitting. Uh minimum requirements for traffic enforcement, be
it speed humps or traffic cameras or signage. Uh has that been discussed before actually passing this ordinance? Well, f well, first of all, the the as far as the
not to get too technical, but the the the planning board doesn't adopt the ordinance. So, the count the ordinance is law. Just just make it clear. So, it's going to go to council and the council will decide to actually pass the ordinance. This master plan is essentially for all intents and purposes
a uh you know, a recommendation document and if the planning board adopts it, they're basically recommending the ordinance. Um, so if the again if the board does adopt us tonight, it's not law. >> Um, as far as what I would say is I think the way to answer this question is
I I know the issue of truck traffic going through township streets and truck routes and I think you mentioned um speed humps, things like that. That's a council issue. Um, I think the council
has been I'm sure this issue has been raised to them a number of times. I I I would suggest you bring it to their attention and and Mr. Vornlocker. >> Well, his response generally is called the police department. I I'm suggesting taking a step back
>> and having that coordination or minimum standards >> in regard to warehouses >> from the get-go as part of this plan rather than trying to deal with it after the fact. And it just concerns me that
it appears that they have not been consulted for input with regard to that. And I would think that considering the density and volume and the frequency of having to deal with large trucks and steer around start
large trucks that that would be a concern from the outset. Yeah. >> And try to get their input and perhaps they would have some suggestions that could be integrated into this plan and then they would obviously be involved with enforcement.
>> Yeah. I mean I I would say You're bringing up good issues, but I I'm trying to to answer it as best I can. I mean, the planning board is is trying to address those issues with the powers that it has, and it's trying to
again minimize the, you know, place the allow warehouses in close proximity to 287, you know, and through the mechanism of zoning trying to address those issues that you're talking about. As far as
you're basically talking about, you know, uh, traffic regulation on township roads, that's not really something that the planning board gets into. >> Um, I think the other thing you brought up was basically coordination between the planning board and the council
to my I mean the council is aware of this study. The council asked basically charged the planning board with doing this study. Um, and if the this planning board adopts it, it's going to be basically formally uh transmitted to the council
u and they're going to consider, you know, whether to adopt the ordinance or not. And to the degree there's traffic related and traffic circulation related improve uh recommendations in there, you know, they would be the body that would implement those things. You know, speed limits, things like that. Those are all laws that are adopted by the council.
Well, all I can say is I hope that the council and the the response is that the onus is upon the individual residents for enforcement purposes. Take a picture of the truck and contact the police
department because uh that of and by itself, that suggestion is dangerous. It's just uh disappointing to hear that it was not part of the discussion. >> Well, I would think it was part of the discussion because I mean the citizen
committee and and and Bob was and foreign locker was involved in all of this. I mean he's the township manager knows what's going on. Um it's like Mark said to put it in a nutshell. Um we're doing what we can as a board with the standards to make sure that we don't
have a warehouse on the southern tip of the township that's going to traverse the entire township to get to 287. That's what these standards do. They put it in a place where warehouses have long existed. Um where they can be accommodated and where they are closest
to the roads that they need to get to. Um, when it comes to individual traffic, like Mark said, um, we don't control that. Um, weight limits, truck routes, um, all those kind of things. Um, for
township roads, you should go to council and say what you're saying to us when council hears this in a couple of weeks. Um, and so, uh, and then, you know, in terms of and then they will tell you a lot of these thing, a lot of these roads, Elizabeth, you know, um, are are
county roads. So then the county has jurisdiction over any weight limit signs or restrictions. Um and and yes, I mean there's a matter of enforcement. Um you know, do you do you sit there do you have the manpower to sit somebody there for a couple hours,
peak hours, and see whether or not a truck is over the weight limit that's posted or that's going in in a in a place where it shouldn't go? Um it it you know, that's again a question for council and and unfortunately not for us. But the best way to control any of
this is to do it macroscopically, which is through zoning standards, not through truck by truck. >> Thank you. >> Hi, Sutisha 74 Brian quote. Uh just very simple questions and more clarification.
the one mile distance we talked about. Is it an aerial distance or is it the distance by the road rather? It's it's road miles and then uh as Dave explained and the map just happens to be up on the map up on the screen. Uh you
can I think in the little u yellow triangles those were the the the the interchange. Um and then in I guess in blue um the computer program basically um went a mile a road mile
from those points. >> Okay. And in tan are those parcels that have frontage within that one road mile. And we wanted to map it so that down the road, frankly, an applicant can't, you know, come up with some different
distance. We measured it and we mapped it. And that map is referenced in the draft ordinance. >> Okay. Then the topic came out about 362 is based on what currently exists in Franklin Township or is it based on industry
standard or some other standards? >> Did you hear that Dave's a question about the 362? Yeah. F. Oh no, actually the the.362 uh comes really from uh taking uh applications of sites that are already developed that with uh existing
buildings and coming up with a proportional size parcel. Um so that there was you know we we wanted to be careful that we didn't make the F so restrictive that it would be considered arbitrary. Um but we it's it was really
based on parcel sizes that are uh typically found in the township that um and and the sizes of the warehouses that we were permitting. So for example, 400,000 ft would be the largest warehouse that would be permitted
anywhere in in medium intensity zone. Um and so that that's what it's proportional. a a threeacre parcel for a 50,000 square foot building would be equivalent to a 25 acre parcel for a 400,000 foot building. So that's where
that 362 came from. It was our standard. It wasn't u based on an industry standard because quite honestly every town is different and uh so that that's really more of a Franklin Township specific standard for um for this or for
this recommendation. >> No. So you looked at the history rather what the things are built currently right you know some township may have more some township may have less rather >> right you know and >> right right they they I my guess is that
this is a pretty uh pretty uh strict f um but when you think about the size of a 400,000 square foot building 25 acres is not I don't think I in my experience is not unreasonable and not out of the ordinary to uh for a parcel for a
building that size. >> Have you seen any restrictive standards in other township within New Jersey? Much more restrictive than.362. I think I I can't I haven't compared FS with other ordinances. I'm not sure even
how many ordinances you're going to find that apply an F to specific well what we would call um industrial uses whether it's uh medium intensity industrial or low intensity industrial and and that's that's actually a point
we haven't made yet which is that that doesn't necessarily limit it to warehouses. any type of permitted use uh industrial use um would meet would would follow these same standards. So if for for example if you had a factory
building um it would have to it would have to fall within these parameters as well. It's not just warehouses. Um, and that's why you might find F uh standards in other towns ordinances for um commercial buildings or you might find
conditional standards that have F for uh for warehouses. But um I my my sense would be that they would be comparable or less restrictive than what we've come up with for this ordinance. >> Okay. Uh then you mentioned about this
low, medium and large intensity warehouses. Low, medium, high. I may not be using the right words there. Okay. >> Um yes. >> To to classify the warehouses. >> And you indicated that for uh smaller warehouses, you looked at the
loading dock based on 10,000 square ft. Number of loading dock per 10,000 square ft². For medium, for medium it was 5,000 and for large it was also 5,000 square foot, right? Yeah. Yeah. That was a previous slide
was Yeah. So in medium intensity, right? Why did you select same as what is high density? Maybe you should have gone with 7500 square foot loading dock. any particular reason for medium and
high density to be all 5,000? >> Yeah. Well, that that's again the uh the the where you start to get high trip generation for trucks is when you start having warehouses that have uh the uh
higher number of loading docks, the more trucks. So this this effectively r this ratio keeps the number of loading docks within a standard that will will help to minimize the trips. Um
>> but if I could just cut you just in the interest of time is high is banned. We were not allowing high. So it's low and medium. So it it it doesn't matter what high is defined as >> what I'm no where I'm going with is for medium you know should it be 7500 square ft per loading dock rather
>> because it was 10,000 5,000 5,000 I understand >> no I I doesn't the slide show the low intensity if it's one per 10 >> and the medium intensity is one per five doesn't that mean the low intensity is half the loading dock ratio
>> that's the way they're not the same >> yeah no they're Oh yes, that that's that's actually that's correct, Mark. Yeah, I I maybe I misunderstood the question. Um but yes, the um you're you're you're going to use up more square footage of warehouse for
one loading dock for low than you are for for medium and and and it's basically half as many loading docks for low as as for medium. >> Yeah. I think the fi the five maybe if you and I think then if the question is
there's the same 5,000 the medium intensity you have to have below that ratio. If you're above that ratio, then you're high. >> And high band high we're not allowing. It's not a permitted use. >> No, but but by making medium and 7500,
you're reducing number of loading docks as a result of it and that will reduce hopefully num traffic rather. Okay. >> Well, the the analysis produced what? Well, I'll just say that I mean I know Dave, you came up with these figures based on,
you know, the traffic generating um characteristics of not just based on the square footage, but also the loading docks. Um so, you know, the 5,000 square feet I don't think was just arbitrarily derived.
>> So, I don't know if we want to >> come up with with with new standards on the fly. uh respectfully it's you know he came up with if it's you know if it's 5,000 or higher then it becomes it's automatically going to be a high intensity if it's below that then it's
medium >> and then if you'd made that 3500 you say why in the low be 15,000 so I mean we could do this all night but ultimately >> it's half >> right then there was another condition you had which was >> loading dock should not be visible from the residence or some such wordings were
there >> can you explain that a little So if if if there is a a development that's in the B there are properties that where there the BI zone adjoins a residential property. Um those areas
would be limited to the low um which is limited to 150,000 square feet and there's a whole bunch of additional requirements that come into place. the building setback would be doubled. The buffering, meaning they'd have to have a landscaped area, um, would be doubled.
And they also can't have their loading docks where the truck activity is facing the residential zone. They would have to orient their their site and and design their site so the loading docks are facing away from the residential zone.
>> And what is residence zone? So if there is a warehouse here and with a loading with a loading dock here, if there's a road here and there's a residence here, right? >> That resident should not be able to see that >> loadings.
>> That's that's the intent. The intent is again not just to increase the setback of the building to move the building away from from that boundary to in to double the the the buffering and also to make it so that they not don't even
locate the loading docks facing those residences to start with. All of those are intended to try to minimize the impact and visibility of those loading zones from their joining residential properties. >> Just trying to understand. Yeah, thanks. And then you mentioned that uh
warehouses are this is the last question okay so I won't drag on um warehouses are different types storage type and the fulfillment center fulfillment center can have more traffic storage may not have that much traffic so based on the parcel are we specifying that only
storage warehouse can come in or only the fulfillment warehouse comes in or all the builder or the owner can change you know today I'm storage tomorrow I am fulfillment center. Okay. >> So again I I'll answer this question Dave again because this is about the the
zoning ordinance. Um and I h happen to have it right in front of me. So the >> okay the the way that you know the certain the highintensity uses you had mentioned fulfillment centers and Dave I think before had mentioned postal hubs and truck terminals. You know those were
identified as um types of warehouses that are particularly um impactful. Those are included in the definition of high intensity. So therefore, they're prohibited. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um we the ordinance doesn't get into
whether it's a storage warehouse. It regulates it by the size of the warehouse and the number and ratio and type of loading docks and and the and the the the approach is to try to you
know and I think you know Dave basically said this but you know it was based on the traffic generating characteristics of those aspects of warehouses. So that means the medium where medium intensity warehouse that we may have it
can be anything storage or the delivery type right fulfillment type >> yeah I mean >> but the loading dock so so let like let me just so >> it could be any type we're not regulating by the type but but the type
>> is manifested >> a lot of in the size of the warehouse and also the number of loading docks so there's certain loading Let's say you had a 300,000 foot warehouse and it had loading docks on both sides and there were 200 loading docks.
>> So that's probably going to be a pretty high traffic generating warehouse. But if it's 300,000 square feet and only 20 loading docks, well that's probably going to be more of the storage type warehouse. That's less of an impact >> that. So that's what's it we're not saying it specifically, but that's what
it's trying that's what it's aimed at addressing. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> That's right. So, you couldn't have an air a warehouse that had say a a relatively few number of high high bay loading docks for tractor trailer trucks and then have
dozens and and multiple lower loading docks for vans. you know that that that that those are the type that we're we're trying to basically eliminate because of all of that extra traffic that goes on the roads when then those are basically
fulfillment centers. So uh it's all related to the type of warehouse. >> Hi uh my name is Kikstas. I live in Canalwalk 3204 Enclave Circle.
Um I uh have a few comments and also a question which is a a little bit of a not a very intelligent question but um anyway um I have been involved. It's
it's it's bittersweet to see that we have come to this point. Um, I remember coming with a whole bunch of people from Canal Walk uh to complain about warehouses and I don't want to lie, I do not like warehouses.
Um so uh we started I think three years ago and um both sides have come a long way um as um learning how to conduct ourselves uh during council meetings and
planning board and zoning board meetings and what questions to ask and what questions are out of >> I'm sorry to interrupt you Kiki out of the order just can you get to your your good question >> get to the point there you go okay never learns. Um I was also assigned and
thank you for the um for the honor to be a a me a let me see what the term is the community liaison uh in the ad hoc committee that studied this and I I just want to say that
um everybody had a clear purpose and an openness which I appreciate. ated it and I think clearly everybody from the township and and David and everybody
else on that committee tried to do the best they could uh given the circumstances. Um my thoughts marry fears at the completion of the study and I
want to commend David uh for the the quality of work that he did and of course the input from the other people. Um, I hope this is not and a final stop for our community
because as good as a compromise this study is, and it's a darn good compromise, it still leaves the community with a whole bunch of problems. Okay. And my question is, could you please remind me
what is in the ordinance? the um the exact uh buffer between a warehouse and a resident and and a residential uh structure or community.
It's 200 200 feet. >> The the building setback would be 200 feet and then within that 200 feet there'd be a 100 foot minimum minimum 100 foot wide planted buffer. >> Okay. Um I think in hindsight that's probably if I stay up at night thinking
about this this will be my biggest concern. Okay. That we have not managed to delionate the areas where the warehouses stop and
people's homes begin. Okay. Of course we have to coexist. Of course, there are market forces and legal forces and all kinds of forces uh that dictate that we have to coexist with the warehouses. But I just want
this board to ask yourselves, do you think that this amount of buffer provides a quality of life, sufficient quality of life for those of us in canal walk that will be stuck with this amount
of buffer. And I can tell you that as a a member a le a community liaison to get my title correct I can attest to the fact that when I walk my dog um the people in my community that talk to me
are not happy. They don't think that 200 feet whether it is because of B9 which is of course not covered by this ordinance or any potential future warehouses that creates nothing
for our quality of life. Okay. So I hope that this is not the end but rather a very meaningful place where the residents and the township have come
to reach a a an agreement. Uh but also a basis where we can move forward. And my other concern also is and that will definitely keep me up at night. How do we we move forward? And I
know Dr. Orsini, I'm out of line and I need to go to the township council for this. Um, but the traffic, it was clear in the study that we have failing intersections.
How are we going to solve the problem of 16 intersections that are currently getting a grade of F? And I will stop here. I know it's late. I know everybody's tired. Um, and thank you for allowing me to to get
off off on a tangent. Um, but as I said, I hope that the conversations will continue in the council and I hope that um we can continue to do everything we can to improve. This is not this should not
be a final stop because the pro problems still exist and I hope we will continue um and I know there are a couple of council members here that's why I say that that we will continue with an open mind to resolve whatever problems we're all facing and thank you so much
>> thank you Kiki for your participation in in the uh advisory board and uh I I just want to say that there's there was one thing in terms of buffering um that we should remember that only the low inensity warehouse use is is allowed
right uh to abut I mean there's always going to be a point where one zone ends and another begins we can't avoid that uh but I think um you know having only a low inensity use permitted next to a residential zone along with the buffering and landscaping standards and
and many of the other design standards that are in the ordinance if you take the time to read it um h have done have done the best we could um uh to make make sure that that's uh those uses are as um compatible and
distinct as as possible uh with within the you know the planning law um you know that we're that we're sworn to uphold. Any other comments from the public? Seeing no takers, uh, beyond that, I move to close public portion. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. Um, and Mark, um, and Pete, anything else you want to say? Um I know we need two votes. So um just want to >> Yeah, just for the record, it would be
the the first vote would be to um adopt the uh amendment to the master plan regarding the BI zone. The second would be to recommend the draft ordinance. Uh yeah, >> before the board votes, I just again I I
I also want to thank the steering committee um on their effort as well as the planning board and particularly I want to thank David Roberts um and his team on this effort. So I think he should be specifically thanked for his his role. So thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much everyone >> and everyone I mean not just the people who are here tonight but everyone on on the steering committee. Um we we thank you anytime you raise your hand for volunteer municipal services. Uh that's a wonderful thing. So um with that um
I'll make a motion to adopt um and give me the right wording again, Pete. The the >> master plan amendment >> the master the master plan amendment to include the BI business and industry zone. >> Second. >> Bob L court second.
>> Call individual. >> Yeah. Call me man over here >> individually please. >> Individually. >> Yes please. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Rini. >> Yes. And the second uh motion I have
would be to adopt the business and industry zone standards as um >> it's a recommendation recommendation to send those to council as written in the in the zone standards. >> Seconded. >> Oh wait. Both of you did. I'll use Mahair this time.
>> Uh Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Arcini. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you all. And thank you to the public for your comments. I appreciate them coming out
tonight. And uh Mark, anything else, Christine? If not, um busy calendar. Yes. Next week. So, um, >> thank you, Dave. Appreciate it. >> All righty. Happy New Year, everyone. >> Thank you. Happy New Year.
Uh, motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Good night.