Well, everybody's taking their seats and uh we'll we'll do the preliminary stuff. So, >> in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, PL 1975, Chapter 231, adequate notice of this regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Franklin has been provided. If everyone
could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge 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. So, prior to the start of the meeting, the oath of office was administered to uh um the folks who are here, Robert Thomas, Robert Lort, myself, Michael Arcini, and Ted Chase. And so with that, um Christine, if you could do the roll
call. Councilman Embarrison asked to be excused. Theodore Chase >> here. >> Robert Lort >> here. >> Mark Dancy >> here. >> Jennifer Ragno >> here. >> Everybody turn your computer your hold
on. >> Uh Mahira Rafi >> here. >> Charles Brown >> here. >> Robert Thomas >> here. Chairman Arcini >> here. >> Um, so while while I I was not able to get Mikey Cheryl here, um, like council
did, um, we we do we do have we do have Pete, probably the biggest dignitary we we have. >> Thanks. >> No problem. Um, so we we do have to um we do have to go through a brief reorganization. Um, so the first would be the uh nomination and selection of
chairperson. So to do that um have a call for uh nominations. >> Mr. Chairman, I nominate Michael Orsini to be the planning board chairman. >> Do we have a any other nominations on the floor?
>> I second the nomination. >> Okay. Thank you both. Any other nominations on the floor? >> Seeing none, um I move that uh nominations be closed. >> Um all in favor of that? I >> I
>> um and then can we call the vote for um my nomination? >> Sure. Theodore Chase? >> Yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mark Dancy, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Mahir Rafi, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes.
>> Do you get to vote for yourself or no? >> Uh yes. Yes. >> Chairman Rini, >> yes. Um so now um nomination and selection of vice chairperson. >> I I'd like to nominate uh Charles Brown for vice chair.
>> I'll second. >> Who second? I'm sorry. Bob. >> Um are there any other nominations on the floor? If not, I move nominations be closed. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes.
>> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mark Dancy. Yes. >> Jennifer Ragno. >> Yes. >> Mahier Rafi. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Norcini. >> Yes. >> So that's uh that's uh chairperson and
vice chairperson. Now we go to board attorney interviews. Uh we have two applicants. Um Clark and Involo, our current council and and Eric Bernstein. Um is Eric Bernstein here tonight? anybody representing their office here
tonight to be interviewed. If they are not uh there's only one um one firm here to be interviewed which is Clark and Vignulo and uh represented by Peter uh Vignulo to my left and I will just ask Peter to give a very brief summation of
um his qualifications for >> uh I've been practicing law since 1998 uh work with my partner Jim Clark in a firm that focuses primarily on municipal law and land use. I'm currently the burough attorney in Miltown, the planning board attorney in uh Monroe,
planning board attorney in Planefield, the zoning board attorney in Planefield, the zoning board attorney in Monroe, and the planning board attorney in Franklin. Uh been the planning board attorney here for about 13 years. >> Thank you, Peter. Um I would wish to u nominate the firm of Clark and Invulo
for our council for 2026. >> Second. Christine, if you call the role. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. For Clen and Val. >> Robert Lort.
>> Yes. >> Mark Dancy. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Arcini. >> Yes. >> Thank you all very much. >> Do you need to be Oh, wait. It's Mark.
Mark, do you need there's a witness oath? >> So, I need to swear in both uh Mr. Healey and Mr. Mazy. Uh so that if they provide testimony to the board over the course of this year, uh it is sworn testimony. So, starting with Mr. Healey, if you could raise your right hand, do you swear that any testimony you provide
during calendar year 2026 will be the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Super. Um if you could raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony you provide during calendar year 2026 will be the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Super. Thanks. Okay. Um, so I think uh, well, not
quite. So I know this is a discussion item, but let's just get it out of the way now because it fits better. Um, appointment of the minor subcommittee. Um, that has been myself, I think Mahair
and Bob Thomas. Bob Thomas. Yeah. Um I I'm you know more than willing to um seed my spot. Uh we we need three people. I'd like to rotate it. Gives people a little experience. Is it that earth shaking? Most definitely not. So
um I mean I have no problem like if you guys want to keep doing it. Uh or if somebody else would like a crack at it. >> If nobody else wants a crack at it, we'll go with we'll rock with the three we have. Okay,
>> Bob, are you Bob Mahair? I know you've got extra responsibilities these days, Mahair. So, um, do you still want to do it? >> I'm good with it. >> Thank you, Bob. >> I I would put myself in the same position as yourself. I think it's good if other people have an opportunity to
take advantage of it. It's it's good background for the future. I'll be happy to do it if no one else wants to. Okay, since nobody is jumping forward or it's kind of like the volunteers with the line steps back and the people who forget to step back are nominated. Um,
so uh I guess that that means that the minor subcommittee will continue to be myself, uh, Bob Thomas and Mahairi. >> We have to vote on that or no? >> All right. Um, so that would be my nomination. Myself, Bob Thomas, and Mahair. >> That's my motion.
>> I'll second that. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mark Dancy, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Mah Rafi, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Arcini, >> yes.
>> Okay, now we'll go to the rest. So, uh, minutes of the regular meeting for December 3rd, 2025. >> Uh, only Mark Dansancy and Charles Brown cannot vote. >> I'll move those minutes. >> Second.
>> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Mahir Rafi, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Rini, >> yes. >> Um, having taken care of the minor subcommittee appointment, um, our other
discussion item is Baldwis realy extension of time. Do we have anybody here representing Baldw? We do. Oh, Matt. Good evening members of the board from >> Oh, sorry. >> No kidding. Careful.
>> Better. Okay. Good evening, members of the board. Matt Flynn from Savo Shock on behalf of the applicant. Uh the applicant was granted preliminary and final major site plan approval with variances on January 3rd, 2024. As this board is aware under section 52 of the municipal land use law, the final site
plan approval remains valid for 2 years after entry of a resolution subject to the applicant making up to three one-year extensions of time requests, which we have put in with the board back in December. So we would request an extension of time through January 3rd,
2027. The basis for the extension under subsection D of that same statute is that we remain outstanding with our uh water department approval. So we actually need approval from Franklin Township Water. Uh we don't have access
to water on the site yet. We're negotiating with them. Uh so we'd ask for a one-year extension of time. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Thank you, Matt. Any any questions from the board? >> I'm glad to hear that the project is still alive. I'm so proud of such a
green structure coming in and I was afraid that that requirement for a waterline was going to kill it, but I hope that you can succeed in those negotiations. >> Okay. Well, with that, um, I will, uh,
make a motion for an extension of time to January 3rd, 2027 for Bulbasa Realy. >> I'll second. >> Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mark Dancy, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragno, >> yes. >> Mahir Rafi, >> yes. >> Charles Brown,
>> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Rini, >> yes. >> Okay. Um, public comment. So uh this is the s time when uh we um entertain any general planning comments from the public if you are here uh for either the
hearings Davidson property or Odin Dune those will be opened in their own time um when they are heard so you can comment on them at that time. So uh with that preamble I make a motion to open to the public for general planning comment. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. Anybody want to please um and state your name and address in the mic and um >> just hope that's on. >> I guess it's on, right? >> The green light's on. So
>> got the green light. So can you hear me? >> You have to speak into it. >> I'm Ernie Levis. Uh 21 Como Drive. I've been there uh 55 years going on 56 years now. >> I just have a couple of questions. >> Can you just put the mic a little bit
>> for the builder? I'm sorry. >> Can you just put the mic a little bit closer to your face? >> Oh, hold on just a second. Uh are are you speaking about Odin Dune that application >> for the 14 hole? >> Yeah, that's going to have its own
public hearing once we hear their testimony. So, can you hold your question until we reopen for that? This part of the meeting is for general planning comment like I don't know something general not specific to that application. >> I just wanted to ask about the sewers.
>> Yeah. No, you'll do you can do that but when we open for that here at that time. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else for any general planning comment not associated with the two applications tonight? >> Seeing no takers move to close. Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Hearing uh first hearing, Davidson Properties LLC, PLN 2300007. And I assume Matt, since you haven't moved, you're probably going for this one, too. >> Thank you, members of the board. Again,
for purposes of the record, Matt Flynn from the law firm of Savo Shock on behalf of the applicant. uh Davidson Properties LLC here tonight uh applying for preliminary and final major site plan approval with variances to construct an approximately 35,000 square
foot warehouse uh on property designated as block 468.01 lot 20.01 in the township better known as 230 Davidson Avenue. Um as with a few of these applications and noted in Mr. Keely's Memorandum. This application for
a warehouse was deemed complete prior to the passage of ordinance 439122 and thus is a permitted conditional use in the subject business industry BI zone. Uh because we can confirm and will confirm in testimony that this uh
project is at least 500 ft from residential and it's served by public water and sewer. The application is a permitted use. Limited variance relief from the bulk standards of the zone is required, which we will outline in our
testimony. Uh, and one more note, the site already houses an existing light manufacturing use uh closer to Davidson Avenue. That use is unrelated and largely unchanged by this application. So, our application will be dealing with
the uh building addition to the rear of what's existing. With me tonight, I have four witnesses. Our civil engineer Joe Hosfeld from Bowler Engineering, our project architect, John Manino, our traffic
engineer, Betsy Dolan, and last, our professional planner, Paul Ricky. Uh, with that, unless there are any legal questions, I'd like to call our first witness and have him sworn. Okay, Joe. Joe here. This should
Good evening. If I could just swear you in quickly. Sure. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. >> Sure. It's Joe Holtz. Last name spelled H O L Z A P F E L. Polar Engineering.
Uh, address is 125 Half Mile Road in Redbank, New Jersey 0770. >> Okay, I'm connected to the screens, but they have not come on. >> We'll definitely figure it out. As long as you're not running up here with an
easel, you're >> I mean, we can do that if that's >> No, no, you can't anymore. Here we go. >> I think he brought one just to be safe, but Okay, here we go. All right. So, do
you want your site plan set or do you want to start with A1? Joe, >> I think we start. >> A1. Okay. >> Can we get the while we're waiting for all this, can we get just the benefit of of Joe's qualifications? >> Can you go through your qualifications, please? >> Sure. I am a licensed professional
engineer in the state of New Jersey. Graduated from >> Sorry. graduated from the New Jersey Institute of Technology with my bachelors of civil engineering. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Have testified in front of several boards. Um and my current
license is stat my status of the license is current. >> Accepted. >> Great. Joe, uh I believe you want to mark an exhibit for the record. >> Sure. So, what you see here and can everybody see this at least holistically and then I'll I'll zoom in and out. So what we have here is our first exhibit.
We'll call it an aerial exhibit. Market evidence is A1. Does that work? Y. >> Okay. So just for orientation, north is to the we'll say the top left uh corner. The site is outlined in yellow. The date of this exhibit is tonight's date of
January 7th. Um and this exhibit was prepared by my office. So, I'm going to use this exhibit just to run through some of the existing conditions um and especially some of the sites circulating around this site. So, again, site is in yellow. You can see
here it is known as 230 Davidson Avenue. As Mr. Flynn had indicated, we are block 468.01, lot 20.01. And we are here tonight for preliminary and final major site plan. The site is approximately 4.82 acres and we are located in the BI zone. The surrounding
uses as you can see generally office uh to the north northwest with Davidson Avenue to the northwest as well. To the south and southeast you have some additional offices and then directly to we'll call it the southeast property line the longer property line along this
if you're following my mouse is more of an industrial outdoor storage type use. The site as it exists today. If I zoom in a little bit more, you can see in the northwest corner, we do have a a full movement axis off of Davidson Avenue.
I'll get into it a little bit more in the proposed conditions, but the access will generally stay in the northwest condition. It will move slightly, we'll call it west or southwest, but generally in the same location. We do have an existing building that's approximately 13 13,000 square feet um light manufacturing use. Um, and as you can
see, a lot of the circulation of this site, we'll say, is fairly inefficient. Um, there are some one-way circulation aisles around the, we'll call it, the sides and the rear of the building. There is a larger parking field in the front with several parking spaces for
the use. Um, and then really towards the rear, you see some some additional uh we'll say impaired areas with some wooded area in the rear. I will now look at the next >> I'm now going to get into a little bit
of the proposed conditions. So, we'll mark this into evidence as exhibit A2. This is essentially um exactly the overall site layout plan that was um part of the package that the board should have received. Um, and you can see it is now colorized and we have superimposed some landscaping on it just
for visual and for tonight's presentation. The date of this exhibit is also today's date of uh January 7th, 2026. And again, for orientation, we'll consider north to the top left corner of the page.
So, from a proposed standpoint, I'll talk about a little bit more of the the front of the site or the north side of the site a little bit. We do have that existing building. It does largely remain in the same area. That's helpful. Does it does largely remain in the same area.
One of the great aspects of this application is we are looking to um enhance and make the parking in this area more efficient. So, we have added some uh essentially all the aisles are two-way. We do have standard parking. I'll get into some of the details specifically, but you can see instead of the building having almost head-end
parking directly to the building face, we are providing curbing, you know, five to six feet of curbed and grass area um and sidewalks in between the parking and the building. And with the efficiency that we were able to have here, we are also able to increase, we'll call it the
the area between the property line and this initial row of parking on the north side. Uh originally it was it was less than 30 ft. Now we're looking at about 75.5 ft from the property line to that first curved area. Continuing on, we'll say um
southsoutheast um we are proposing a new building. This is a proposed warehouse building. Gross floor area is 37,461 square ft with the breakdown of warehouse and office being 35,511
ft of warehouse, 1,950 ft of office. um which Mr. Flynn had indicated is a conditional use. Uh hence why we're at the currently at the planning board. As you can see, this building is constructed behind the existing building
and for southern landscaping. Again, I'll get into some further detail, but just wanted to outline for the board, we are looking to maintain a lot of that rear um tree area and add a substantial amount of trees to that area. In terms of setbacks for the building,
we are proposing to uh be in compliance with setbacks from both Atrium Drive and from Davidson Avenue. Um the setback dictating the Davidson Avenue is from the existing building. It's approximately 145 ft. And the rear yard setback is a little over 540, call it a
rear yard, but technically going to Atrium Drive is about 540 ft, a little more than that. With that said, part of tonight's application, we are proposing a variance for the sideyard setback. So, I do want to talk about this a little bit. Per the code, you are allowed um
each sideyard needs to be at least 10 ft. So, we are complying with that. However, there is a second part of the code which indicates that you need a combined sideyard setback of 50 feet. So, currently we are proposing 44.65 65 ft when you add the two sideyards
together of 10.15 and the 34.5 on the eastern side of the property. From a site circulation perspective, we are looking to favor the southwest property line in terms of having the building be closer to that property line due to the fact that um you know we are showing
this drive aisle along the eastern side. It'll be continuous, allows access to both buildings, um, and then allows the truck circulation at the rear where you see these loading docks. It is worth noting that even with this variance, we are proposing to be well
within the lock coverage or the building coverage of the site of about 23% where 50% is permitted and F where we're proposing about 0.27 F where 0.5 is permitted. So, so let let me um just ask here. Um
I'm looking at at Mark Healey's planning report and the comments that he makes on some of what you're talking about, Joe. And while I fully understand that your planner will probably come up and testify why these are the variances are justified under whatever criteria that you you you choose from an engineering
perspective only. Um I would and you know I think we are all understanding kind of where where this is so we can probably expedite like going to the reports it kind of really kind of narrowing down what we we really want to know. Um I'd like you to be able to
address Mark's comments three four um about those setbacks and why he thinks you should comply with them or could comply with them. I think Joe was getting into that but I kind of just wanted to let let you know where I was going. >> So Mr. chairman, the the uh setback issues that relate to the drive aisles
and the parking, I think Joe can hit on. >> As for the um uh sideyard setback and the way the building is laid out, that's very specifically a question that our architect will address and then our planner, it has to do with the internal racking of the building. We will provide
a justification under the C2 criteria that it is a better zoning alternative as opposed to changing the current building layout. >> Okay, that that's fair. Um, in terms of the loading zone width, this is a common variance we've seen in many, many, many warehouses. I don't think Mark calls it
out particularly or in the width of the parking lot drive aisle. Um, but yeah. Um, >> Mr. Chairman, can I actually the loading uh zone width variance has actually been eliminated because we're not going to have >> So, so the loading is compliant. We are
showing a 60oot loading bay with a 70 foot, we'll call it an aisle. So that's 130 foot. One of part of the um latest updates to these plans is we are proposing uh WB50 access only and your loading uh area is a function of the largest truck. So when you do that you
only require 110 ft plus or minus. So the 130 would comply. Previously um it was a WB67 was anticipated. That would be 147 ft I believe. So therefore being higher than the 130 >> and we would accept that as a condition to eliminate that >> explanation. No that's great. Always
good when you take them off, right? Yeah. So, um yeah. Um other than the one that you just said that your um architect will address, then let's kind of zero in on the on the ones that then Mark's report and kind of go into that. Um yeah. Yeah. >> Do you want to discuss the um the
setbacks as they relate to the um drive aisles in the parking area? Uh and our traffic engineer will address the 24 versus 26 ft uh drive aisle. >> Okay, great. And I think yeah circulation parking drive aisles will be uh kind of the next part of this. So
from a circulation perspective I had indicated that we are generally maintaining the approximate location in the northwest corner. The driveway coming into the site is 30 ft wide. We are requesting a variance for 24T internal drives versus the code required
26. Um in terms of parking we are proposing 70 parking spaces. Uh we are compliant with the electric vehicle charging ordinance as well as uh ADA in terms of number of parking stalls and we are proposing a variance. We'll we'll talk
about it in two sections. When it comes to the sideyard setback 5T is required per your code. We are proposing a 2.1 foot setback on the northeast property line. It's along this drive. It is worth noting that under existing conditions it was essentially
zero. the curb was essentially on the um the property line. One of the reasons why we are looking for that uh variance request for 24 foot aisles which is very common and we're trying to make that setback as best as we can. The second is a 2.5 ft setback and specifically it is
for the EV spaces as you can see here along the southwest property. We are having these EV spaces be a little larger and really what that's for is to help with accessibility of those EV. It's near the ADA and provides the ability for the EV per the state code as well as providing access to the ramps
and whatnot getting to the larger building. And would you agree would you agree that in addition to the the 2.1 ft when you get to the portion of the site that is uh going to house the warehouse, the drive aisle actually moves further away from that sideyard.
>> That's correct. We were able to reorient that a little bit so that we can get that further and provide as close to that 5T as we can, if not more. So the loading spoke about that a little bit. We are proposing five loading bays at the rear. Um had talked about the the
ability to not need that variance in terms of the width. Uh trash was um a comment in some of the comment letters that we received from the town. We are proposing an enclosure uh along the northwest corner of the site for the existing building. You can see it here
along this parking aisle. And then we for in terms of the proposed building due to the size and due to the some of the internals we are anticipating that uh trash and recycling being handled internal to the building um and will then be carried off by a private hauler and we'll use that rear area to handle a
lot of that. Now in terms of signage um signage there was an existing freestanding sign along Davidson Avenue. I can approximately show it on exhibit A2. It was in this general area. it was actually straddling the property line and and over. We are proposing to
relocate that more to the northern corner of the site and uh we'll remain the same in terms of size and we'll be uh within compliance when it comes to the setback from that front property line from utility and stormwater perspective. Many of the utilities will be coming
from Davidson Avenue from a stormwater perspective. We will be compliant with uh DRCC and uh New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reviews. Um, and I'll end with landscaping and lighting. So, from a landscaping perspective, we are proposing 277 total
new plantings, 177 of them, which are trees. As I had mentioned, we are looking to enhance the area in front of the site along Davidson Avenue by adding more trees and allowing for more of that uh area between the property line and that initial curve line. Again, we are
looking to enhance the first existing building with additional grasses, lawns, um, in front of the building, accent the some of the sidewalks that are also along that building without having parking be head on to the building. And then, as you can
see, having a line of greens um along the southwest property line and again enhancing that rear um tree laden area. So it's the intention of the applicant that it will comply with the tree replacement ordinance by planning as much as we can and then making a
contribution in lie. >> That is correct. >> So we would accept that as a condition of approval. Um are you in receipt of Mr. Mazy's report dated? >> It is December 31. >> December 31, 2025. >> Correct. >> Uh and as a condition of approval, do we
agree to comply with each and every one of the recommendations contained in that letter? >> That is correct. >> Okay. And we are in receipt of the uh updated review from the fire department. >> That is correct. >> We can comply with that as well. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And finally, with respect to uh sidewalks was mentioned in Mr. Healey's letter. Uh we would submit that we would ask for a waiver for that. You guys u have heard a lot of these applications along Davidson and Atrium. It's not particularly walkable. So we'd ask for a
a waiver from that. I think if if I remember correctly, there's been four in the area and three have been granted waivers for sidewalk, but we're willing to address that. >> Um yeah. Um I'm going to ask Mark to comment on on parts of his his report.
Thank you for going through those tap reports um expeditiously. We we like love to hear that you can comply. Just in reading them, I get different numbers from the trees. just make them consistent. I I see different numbers in Mark's report versus and I think must you must have the latest ones. Um ju
just make sure that those are reflected on the plans um and noted that it's >> um you know that you'll comply. Um >> before I go to Mark Darren, do you have anything to questions that you want to specifically address in the engineering report?
>> I do not. I spoke with the engineer yesterday and we went through a high level on my comments and he sat he has agreed to satisfy him to uh for what I'm looking for. >> Excellent. Um Mark, we've heard the engineering testimony at least on the variances that um that you called out in
your report. Do you have any any questions or clarifications for the board on those >> or for the applicant? >> No, not at this time. I'm absorbing their comments and kind of going through my my report. um if something comes to me I'll I'll ask to address the
question. >> I mean they seem fairly dimminimous and then you know I hear that the one uh the drive setback is sort of a the existing condition is zero and you're improving the existing condition um which is good going in the right direction. So I mean if there's if there's anything that you feel Mark from a planning perspective
that we need to know as a board to be able to um potentially um pending the planning testimony grant these variances please let us know. uh board. Any questions for our in here? >> Ted, go ahead.
>> Well, I'm a little concerned. Your uh landscape plan shows a whole lot of trees being planted in the rear portion of the lot. Uh where you already have some trees and will you be able to uh
respect the existing trees? It's always better to save existing trees and yet get as many trees in as you proposed. Plus, you have I think two uh pipelines going through that part. So, and you
can't plant directly over the pipeline. So, one is I guess a drain from the detention retention basin. I don't quite know what the other one is, but
>> corre I believe you might be seeing a water line. >> Yeah. >> Which in uh in some of the comments um that we will be complying with, we will be speaking with the water department and the fire department. And currently it is being asked to be removed. So there likely won't be a water line through there. >> Okay. So that will make probably a
little more room for the trees to be planted there. >> Correct. I suspect, I'm trying to remember because I did go go by the site and look at it, but it was some time ago. Um, you probably got some
multifloor rows and that sort of thing in there that you probably want to clear that out to make room for new trees that you're planting. >> Okay. And correct. And I think uh it did come up in one of the uh professional
comment letters as well. Um in terms of very similar questions. So thank you for that. And I think the the approach is yes to maintain the existing trees just due to them being established. It is going to be on the contractor and the applicant to keep those alive especially for a certain period right as as
required. Um so those will be replanted as as needed should they die. Uh, one other thing I think Mark mentioned, yes, there are no idling signs, but not exactly where the environmental commission asked for them.
And I looked, the one place that you don't have one that we would ask for one is uh right on the wall where the uh the loading docks are. probably uh one above the middle loading dock
would be sufficient there. But the you have it on the other side of the lot there so that the want the dry driver of the trucks to see the
>> sign the no idling signs >> and no problem. >> Absolutely. We can we can have that. Your your sign no idling zone is too simple. There is a state specified no idling sign.
I asked another member of the environmental commission and he gave me some information. I can even give you the hyperlink to that and I think the specific sign is SKU colon K2-
1294- NJ that I think is more specific about u not idling and the penalties possible penalties if you're reported uh if if a
truck driver is reported and if If you have no id sufficient no idling signs up then the property owner is not uh liable only the truck drivers are liable for
violation of no idling for more than three minutes which is a state law. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah, we would be happy to look into that. uh you're telling me for the first time and I don't want to appine about liability for the property owner, but if
you're saying I wrote down the citation you gave, we'll look into it and if that is a better alternative, we'd be happy to provide it. >> Yeah. And I have the hyperlink here, but it's too long to recite. I can give it to you. >> Well, you have the SKU, so probably
order those off Amazon. >> We can do that work with work with the engineer on that. Sure, we could do that. >> Yeah. And usually we would not want trees planted on the floor of a
detention basin, but my fellow environmental commission googled uh chyonanths and found that it is specifically endorsed for planting on the floor of uh detention bases, which
is something I didn't know about before. >> Correct. >> Correct. Yeah, it's as part of the BMP bio retention. These are required for that type of mix of plantings. Yes. >> No. Okay. So, I think I think that's everything that I had.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have one concern and I'll just bring it up. It doesn't have to be uh dwelt on. We'll have to dwell on it too more, but too much. I'm I'm concerned now that we missed the boat again because I have
some mixed feelings about sidewalk issue. >> Uh are you referring to >> You're a couple You're a property or two from a restaurant. Uh you're also relatively
close neighbors to a potential affordable housing project. Uh you made an accurate statement that it's not walkable. So there's I mean that's true. It's not walkable because there's no place to walk. But if you travel
Davidson there are a number of people walking in the shoulder in the roadway because it offers bus service. I think it's time personally I think it's time we started insisting on sidewalks on at least one side of
Davidson Avenue. I don't know how the board feels about it. I don't know whether this is the side to start, but at least it's it's brought up for a quick review. You can drop it or or go after whatever the board wants to do. >> Well, yeah. I mean, we can only address
it application by application, but I've come to appreciate what you're saying, Bob, and that we sometimes uh are left with buyer's remorse by not insisting on them. So, let me ask you this, Matt and Joe. Um, can they be provided um and not
substantially change your plan? >> I'm getting yes from the audience. So, >> I mean, would they would they create any variances because now's the time to think of that or exacerbate anything? >> We're way under on impervious. So,
>> so if your testimony is that you can provide them, I think we I would be in favor of providing them because what I found and I think the board would agree is that we uses change, >> right? >> Right. over time and then you know what
was a um you don't you don't want to do it because there's nothing you're just walking from warehouse to warehouse or from light industrial to light industrial and and then we we have an office buildings interspersed and then those office buildings become say affordable housing or they become something else and then we don't have
those any and so we saw it with NPH right right now we have to maybe use part of the sidewalk fund to connect to New Brunswick so I think it's always best I would like to have them. >> Yeah, I know we've had this discussion on multiple applications. So, >> and more of just food for thought. I can
I think we're okay with it. We're good with it. Question is, I believe the one that did require it was across the street. >> So, I just I just get nervous when you have pieces of sidewalk across the street. I don't know if >> that helps. >> Yeah. I mean, I'd love to have both sides of the street, but I mean Yeah. I
mean, it's just one of those things that I I don't like sidewalks in nowhere. I mean, if you're in a residential area where the curb, like we've all seen the houses, right, where the curb comes right, the grass comes right up to the street. There's no curb. There's no place to walk. There never will be a place to walk unless somebody comes in
and completely redo it, right? Or >> somebody has to be first. >> Exactly. And but when you're talking about this type of use and you can do it, it always it always makes sense to do it. I think >> that's fine. >> Okay. >> Oh, right. >> Yeah. I just thought of one more thing
that really came out of the testimony earlier about the sign. It was mentioned that uh the warehouse use will not have any connection to the uh use of the existing building and it indicated what
the current use of the building is. So I was wondering uh if you have a sign in front which is it going to advertise the existing building or the warehouse or will be a sign one sign advertising
both? >> So the way the sign currently is I believe it does have two panels and the idea is that you would keep the same panels and you can work with the paneling um depending on the tenant because that that sort of thing. So the overall area size will stay the same
then. >> Yeah. So you you don't have anybody lined up as a tenant for the warehouse. >> Correct. >> No, it's a spec construction. >> Correct. >> One of these days we're going to suddenly find out that we have too many warehouses.
>> Yeah. And unfortunately we don't we really can't address that from a a legal perspective. So >> and I would just add that the intention of this is it's smaller. It's more for local businesses. >> Very small. As warehouses go, it's it's it's one of the smaller ones we've probably seen. But I assume the two
existing uses are still going to continue as they are. Correct. >> It's not like the site's going to be completely fow from the get-go. >> Correct. >> Actually, I'm kind of sorry you're not the property next door because I think that outdoor storage facility is a
disgusting mess. I originally thought maybe this will be good because it'll hide everything and remove it, but >> we can only control the property that we own. >> Agreed. >> Yeah, we can we can we can worry about that. Um so um and actually Bob hold
that thought till the end of the meeting because I have I have an idea but I'll save it till then. Yeah, we we had some discussion at the Environmental Commission about buffering and I commented that given what's next door. Uh
there's no point to having buffering and on the other side of course you have a parking lot. So I know you you've got very tight space there. There's no real room for uh planting bushes for buffering, but
it's not as if there's a residence next door. >> Understood. >> Ted, you read my mind because I was just as you were speaking, I was looking at the plan and thinking if if I should make a comment about having why why is there no landscaping along the southerntherly side of the proposed
warehouse? And then I look and they're not screening. It's not like, as you said, it's not it's not like a a residence next door. >> Yeah. Well, you heard Bob description though. You >> I I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. And I know it did Ted brought this up before.
>> Um could you just bring up the rear of the site because I I did have some questions about um two related questions. I mean, one, it was just unclear to me the areas on the rear of the site that is going to be preserved in terms of trees. And then
then Ted brought up my comment about the viability of planting trees in the area where you're preserving trees and how are those going to be maintained if it's a basically a forested area. That seems to be what's depicted on the plan. >> Correct. So it it shows it a little
better in terms of limitous disturbance, but there is a pocket of we'll say untouched area. Um, and then to to the point I was trying to make was we are looking to be in favor of maintaining the trees where we can, plant where we can with the 177 that we have. There
will be a the requirement to keep them alive. Right now there's no anticipation of irrigation, pretty typical for trees like that, but they will be native species and it'll be during construction to find the viable locations to plant the 177 and keep them alive during construction and for that that uh one to
two year span. So is this what's depicted on here? Is this a mixture of existing and proposed? >> That's correct. >> Okay. I I think again I reviewed this a few months ago so but I I you know I think the comment was and it's a pretty common issue that comes up on site plans that sometimes the tree preservation
limits and the clearing limits aren't consistent. So I guess and I was trying to read the plans on my phone. Um, a little hard to do that on a phone. So, my comment is just make sure that they're consistent on the revised plans. >> We can we can do that. I did see that
comment. I believe it was uh number two in your comments regarding landscape. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> All right. >> Comment. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Uh, now that we're proposing the sidewalk uh which I'm in favor of on Davidson, we should have a connection
from the roadway to the front of the building, the immediate building. Are you changing that at all to allow for that connection or No, >> access on site is a concern for me. >> We we can take a look at that. As you know, it's going through the site and
really what we're going to take a look at is just the impervious coverage surfaces and how that impacts some of the design, but we could work with the uh with the engineer on that and see how we can accommodate. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um maybe Matt, we'll move to your
architect so we can get through that. I'm going do um then do Betsy and or maybe then do do your planner and then do Betsy or Betsy in your planner. >> Okay, >> Mr. Manino. >> Y >> good evening. If you could raise your right hand.
>> You swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your give us your address, please, for the record. Uh, John Manino, Mannno, Serminara, Architect, 224 Courtyard
Drive, Hillsboro, New Jersey, 08844. >> And can you provide >> can you provide the board the benefit of your professional credentials? >> Uh, yes. I am the uh principal and owner of Serino Architect. Have been now for six years since the previous ownership retired. I'm a graduate of Philadelphia
University, which used to be College of Textiles and Science. Um, I've uh been a licensed architect in New Jersey as well as five other surrounding states. >> Accepted. >> All right, John. Um, do you want to start by marking an exhibit or do you want to start by going through the floor
plan? >> Yeah, let's open up the floor plan. >> Here's your submission. Okay. So on the uh on the screens is the exact uh floor plan that was issued as part of the application packet. It is
representative of the proposed building floor plan as well as a building cross-section. I don't know if you need this as an a separate exhibit since this has already been submitted on record. >> It was submitted 10 days in advance. >> Okay. So it does not need any mark.
Um, I don't really need to touch on more much of what Joe talked about in engineering. Um, I'll just highlight it. Uh, we're looking at a singlestory warehouse building of approximately 37,000 square ft. Um, it's been designed to accommodate 36 foot clear height
interior uh, which is really what the market demands for for warehouse storage type capabilities. Um, it accommodates five loading docks at one end of the building, uh, and one drive-in door. Uh, the footprint of the building is 318 ft
long, uh, by 118 ft deep. Um, and again, the cross-section there identifies the height. Uh, the height of our building on the on the high side is approximately 44 feet above finish floor to the top of the parapit. So, so maybe
if I could interrupt, there's there's not to be um how do I phrase this correctly? >> Uh the board the board probably is more interested in the outside than the inside. >> Yeah. >> Um so unless there's anything unique or particular, we don't really control what
what's in between the four walls. Um we're not asking for a height variance or anything. What I think the board would want to see is um um you know a colorized rendering of what things will look like on the outside and if you can address anything in Mark's um comment
number five design of BI uses that uh attractively landscaped. I think Joe more or less covered that. Um but anything else that deals with um appearance is probably what the board would be most interested. >> Yes, and I appreciate that. I was only going to use the floor plan to address your recent comment about uh racking and
uh layout inside the building with respect to uh the sideyard setbacks. >> Oh, oh, okay. Gotcha. I'm sorry about that. I forgot you were you were going to handle that variance. >> Okay. >> So, um w with the floor plan on the screen and and the identification of the
36 foot clear height, um the building footprint was looked at a number of different ways when it was first laid out. And as we all know, it's a very narrow and long site. Um, it was a balance to try to find a a building footprint that didn't get too long since
the loading docks are at one end of the building to be able to feed, you know, a a racked um storage warehouse. um the the five foot four inches or five and a half feet of difference that has been talked about
regarding the combined sideyard setbacks um would actually equate to over about 600 pallet positions. So when we were looking at kind of efficiency to the building um the reduction of the width of the building would increase the length of the building uh probably about
25 to 30 feet to make up the same kind of yield that obviously our applicant was looking for. we were wanting to avoid growing the building any longer which would impact more landscaping um and so on. So we felt the lesser of the evils uh in terms of how we've presented
the the application >> instead of lesser evil. Would you say it's a better zoning alter >> better zoning alternative? I'm not the planner. So that that is kind of how we we we went about that. We did a number of different studies uh and certainly um in
order to make the um the build and the uh and the application viable um you know there are certain criteria that needs to be met to meet the market. >> Okay. >> Having said that um do you want to show your uh rendering? >> Yes. >> And mark it as exhibit A3 for the
purposes of the record. Peter >> Y. Thank you. >> All right. So briefly just describe this is going to be the proposed look of the building and in construction the visual will substantially match what's on the screen.
>> Yes. Um so what you're seeing here is an image at the north corner of the uh of the building. Best best shot for us to do. It's a digital representation. Um it is uh you know three to four different color tones as you see with some stone accent veneer um to help dress up the
front facade that would face towards Davidson Avenue. Uh this is the facade that you would primarily see as you enter towards the rear of the site. Um we tried to capture this the elevation along the side of the building to show that we are continuing clear story windows the paint pattern and aesthetic
of joints around the building which is actually continuous on all four sides uh of the building to address um the one comment that was in the report as well about articulating the facades on all sides >> and the existing facility is sort of behind what we see in this picture. Yeah, we're standing in the space
between the front building and the the new proposed building. >> Okay. Can you touch on mechanical equipment? >> So, what you're seeing there right now is a transformer that'll be at the in the front uh foreground. As far as rooftop units, um for a building of this size, we don't anticipate much in terms
of rooftop units. Uh one Cambridge unit would uh be sufficient. Um, and there would be a small unit for any uh accessory office space that's being considered. >> And to the comment from the environmental commission and from Mr. Healey, can you talk about solar ready
roof? >> Yeah. So, the building is designed to be uh make ready in terms of the roof design for solar panels. Um, >> I have no further questions of this witness. So, so I just want to see if I can
paraphrase for the board um your sideyard setback um argument. So, if you were to comply um and to get the square footage and the racking that you wish, you could comply, but it would make the
building longer. >> That's correct. >> Which you would be pre that wouldn't create a variance in and of itself, right? You could you could do that. >> Correct. It would just it would extend the entire development further into the rear >> and so that would engender potentially
let's just say it wouldn't be more impervious coverage because it's just switching right it's just but you'd be going back more into the undeveloped area than you would by you said 25 or 30 feet. >> Yeah. So >> so so okay. So, I know I just I just
want to understand and paraphrase for the board that um well, while you could do it, it creates a longer, narrower building that is potentially less attractive to it to a client, >> less attractive, less functional, and affects the existing conditions of the
site more. >> Okay. >> I think it ch Mr. Chairman, I think it might slightly increase the impervious. >> That's correct. We were just >> It would have to the driveway would have to get longer. >> Yeah, driveway gets long in addition. the width building >> probably a few percentage points.
>> Okay. Well, so but maybe not to variance worthy, but I I'm just trying to um a frame for the board just kind of what what the benefits are um to to not use your the but but what the and I'm not trying to make your case for you. I'm
just I'm just saying you would be well within your rights to build a longer narrower building. You may have more impervious coverage, but you probably wouldn't exceed it. Um, and you could make that work in the site, but it would make it less economically viable. It would make the site longer, narrower,
and potentially less attractive for a big long building. Um, and less economically viable, which to the point of none of us wanting warehouses sitting empty, right? >> Um, to Ted's point, um, is not. So, those those are all what you would consider positive criteria.
>> Correct. And it's important to note as well that we are compliant to the the closest neighbor. It's the issue of combining the two sideyards. So, we are technically compliant to the southerntherly lot. It's above the 10 ft. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> U board, any questions for architect? >> Uh if not, >> your your choice of whether your plan >> do traffic quickly and then we'll we'll have Paul hit clean up. Do you deserve the testimony you're going to provide us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes, I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please. >> Elizabeth Dolan, D O L A N. Dolan and Dean, Consulting Engineers, 181 West High Street in Somerville, New Jersey. >> And Miss Dolan, have your credentials changed in the three weeks since you were last here?
>> Uh, no, they have not. >> So, we asked the board except Miss Dolan. >> Okay, maybe it's four, right? accepted. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Can you provide the uh benefit of your uh traffic report and its conclusions? >> Yes, we uh prepared a report for the
proposed warehouse. Uh this is, as you've heard from now, two witnesses, a relatively small warehouse uh compared to many of the other applications uh you've been involved with. Um five loading docks, 30 just under 38,000 square feet. It's not a high generator.
uh we're looking at 14 trips in the morning peak hour and 17 during the evening peak hour. So it's well below that level that is considered significant which is defined as 100 trips in a peak hour. Um and um certainly not going to have a negative
traffic impact on the adjacent roadway system. Uh we did a review of the the site plan as well. You've heard most of that, but I was asked to touch on the 24 foot circulation aisle. that is the uh it's recommended width uh particularly
where you have perpendicular parking um and 26 just adds more impervious and is is not needed um to accommodate the circulation or the parking maneuvers and I've testified uh in support of that uh 24 foot width and other applications um
and that's the really the sum of the traffic statement that's been prepared and submitted >> and you believe in your professional opinion that the site even with that two-foot deficiency can be safely circulated by trucks and pedestrian vehicles. >> Uh yes, yes it uh it can and I know that
Bowler has specifically designed this uh with focus on the WB50 as you heard from Joe. Uh we we need to make sure that they're going to function. So with the turning templates and the uh geometry that is shown, there will be safe and efficient circulation for the various
vehicle sizes that will visit the uh visit the site. I don't have any further questions. >> Questions from the board. >> I I would assume is full movement driveway and in the existing, you know, access to Davidson that most of your
traffic pattern would be to enter from and exit to Davidson and then head towards 287. >> That's that's what we think. And and I would um just echo what Joe told you about the um driveway redesign and parking lot redesign. there's going to be a much longer driveway throat before
that first on-site intersection than under the existing conditions. So, I think it's an improved driveway configuration. >> Thank you. >> There no questions from the board. >> Okay, Mr. Ricky, our professional planner.
Do you sure the testimony you want to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, give us your address for the record, please speak into the microphone before Christine yells at me. >> Sure. It's uh Paul Ricky, R I CCI, 177 Mammoth Avenue, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey.
>> And Paul, can you give the benefit of your professional credentials for the board? >> Uh yes, I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed since the year 2000. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, our national certification. Um, I'm a planning consultant in in six towns. Uh, I
testify regularly in front of boards. I've been qualified upwards of 250 boards throughout the state, including this board. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> So, Mr. Ricky, you've heard the testimony before you. You're aware that this application needs some C variance relief. Why don't you take the board
through uh the positive and negative criteria and our burden of proof for those variances? >> Okay. Sensing the tone of the chairman, I was going to I have a detailed outline here. Um I was going to summarize my outline. If that's not sufficient for the board, I will um elaborate on the variance and the like. I know that that
the chairman and the board has already elicited a lot of the information I think the board needs to to properly evaluate some of the variances being requested. Um here I just mentioned from a a starting point. I mean we did talk about this site from a planning
standpoint. It is a somewhat unusual property. Um, while this property does conform to your zone plan in terms of its width exceeding 150 ft in width, the the depth of the property exceeds a quarter mile in depth. And I think we all can recognize that a property with
dimensions like this does create some inefficiencies on on how it can be developed moving forward. Um, when I looked at the site, some of the first things that I look at is when we're seeking variances, um, does the applicant exceed the building heights,
the building coverage or the impervious coverage? If that occurs, there's there's a there's a potential that the applicant is overutilizing the property. And and a key factor here is that's not occurring as part of this application. It's couldn't be further from the truth.
uh even with this addition, the building like in terms of the floor area and the floor area ratio is essentially about a half of what's permitted on this site. So these variances aren't stemming from overdevelopment. It's here the applicant is trying to make the best use of the property in a in a meaningful way. And
when when you look at the the sideyard, I'm just going to maybe speak at this point. When you look at the sideyard setback, um, which I'll call the north looking at the top of the the exhibit being shown here, um, that's again the the 10 foots compliant, uh, on both
properties, but the actual building itself as how it addresses the property to the north will be an additional 5.5 ft away from the existing building. So the property to the north is not being negatively impacted with a new building
that is approximately 21 ft lower than permitted by ordinance that's step back further than the existing building. And then where the where I'm told it's largely PS&G storage uh to the south that's occurring in the in the rear of that site. You have a compliant 10-ft
sideyard setback that's being buffered. Why is it um does it really need to be buffered? Probably not. I think the applicant's buffering the property so they don't have to look at uh of what's occurring on the adjoining property as well. So we're trying to make our property attractive uh to whoever may
come in and utilize um the the property. Um I know Mr. Healey asked for us to to discuss the the conditional use standards. We are in compliance with those conditional use standards. Uh I measure the nearest residential building um well over 2,000 feet from the subject
property. we have public water and sewer uh and the like. So we we do meet your conditional use requirements. I saw this again application from a planning standpoint as an opportunity in an economic development area of the township um to help the township meet
its economic development objectives in a in a meaningful manner. Uh, I know that, you know, warehousing today is becoming more and more frowned upon and including this township. And again, I think the board recognizes that this is a very modest warehouse. This isn't a
mod warehouse that you're seeing over at Atrium Plays that I saw being uh developed right now. uh even towns in a town that I represent where they've restricted warehousing, they still allow warehousing of 50,000 square feet or less that recognizes existing mom and
pop operations that are more not what you see in in a modern warehouse today that that most communities uh are concerned with with those with those truck movements. Um so I thought that was very positive as well. Um and and just so you're aware, the the property
to the south where the PSCG um is utili utilizing it. Um the setback that we were able to pull off of the survey of the building is approximately 8 ft. And then if you look on the on the exhibit itself, the two white top buildings in the in the center uh lower portion of
the exhibit, you have two setbacks that are um clearly well under the 50- foot standard. So, we're not proposing a condition here that is out of character uh with the neighborhood as well. Um I'm jumping around a little bit. Uh so, here
uh in terms of the the setback variances, um it's our position that um the the benefits of the of the variance outweigh the detriments. You heard from the architect that this results in the creation of a more efficient building. By having a more efficient building,
that building could be 25 feet approximately less in length. That that reduces additional disturbance. Uh results in less impervious coverage will help retain and maximize the number of existing trees in the rear of the site. And overall, when you look at this
application in its totality uh of an application that meets the front yard setback, see the applicant is actually pulling that parking field in the front further from the street and providing additional curb appeal and landscaping. It meets the one sideyard setback, meets
the rear yard setback. As I stated, it's less than half of the building coverage. Meet your impervious coverage requirements. Uh it's well under the proposed floor area. Off- streetet parking and loading is compliant. So despite the fact that we're needing this variance, we are substantially compliant with your zone
plan. And for that reason, this application would not result in a substantial departure from your zone plan. And the public good is not being impacted as, as I stated, we meet or exceed existing requirements or the existing condition of the building on
the norly property line. I kind of jumped around here a little bit and and for these reasons again this application uh meets several purposes of the municipal land use law. Uh purpose A promotes the general welfare of the community. Purpose G provides sufficient
space to meet the needs of industrial users by allowing that that five foot setback. Uh it it advances purpose M which is the more efficient use of land. And I I partially mentioned this because I jumped around in my testimony, but I've already opined that the variances
can be granted with a substantial detriment to the public good, namely the surrounding property owners without a substantial impairment to the zone plan for the reasons I mentioned. And for all these reasons, I think this is a very positive application that results in significant improvements uh to the
existing building, the the frontage, and having the site being relayed out uh by Bowler Engineering. um you have increased storm water improvements. That's in terms of that storm water is is largely untreated today and how that storm water is being collected. So
overall the site is being improved as part of this application as well. >> Thank you Mr. Ricky. Uh he is available for questions. >> Any questions from the board? So just to ask because I I do this uh it is your
opinion that uh you these gr variances can be could be granted under siege criteria and that they the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. >> That is correct, Mr. Chairman. >> Um any other questions from the board for for anybody? If not, I'm going to um
ask to uh open it to the public. Um >> second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> I'm good. Meeting is now open for any comment on this application. Anybody who is owed and dude, just be patient. >> Seeing no takers, move to close.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I Matt turn it over you to brief summary. >> So, as I said in my opening, the we're requesting preliminary and final major subdiv site plan approval, excuse me, with the variances outlined by Mr. for
Ricky and for the reasons outlined uh from our witnesses subject to any conditions uh espoused in this the staff reports which I've said we can comply with. Um ultimately we feel this application uh even with the variance is
a better zoning alternative than if we were to fully comply and we do think we're taking a site that could use a little bit of a facelift and is providing that facelift uh for the community. So for those reasons, we'd ask for your approval this evening.
>> Thank you, Matt. Um so, um I will u make a motion to approve the preliminary and final major site plan. Uh the variances uh stated being um
get down to the variances uh total sideyard setback, drive, side setback uh with a parking lot drive and parking lot setback but not loading zone width. Um, under the, uh, C2 criteria,
um, we will ask that you please look into your, um, uh, no idling sign, per TED's directions. Um, revise um, your tree plan to make sure that the numbers all agree. Um, and you're going to
comply with all the uh, comments in the staff reports and outside reports as well. >> And second, Sidewalks. >> Oh, and inclusion. Thank you, Jen. Um, and inclusion of sidewalks
and also limiting WB50 vehicle, >> but yes, limited WB50. >> Correct. >> And and I'm sure Peter would have picked this up in the resolution, but it's also conditional use approval as well. >> Yes. >> And they provided testimony demonstrating compliance.
>> Thank you, Mark. I amend my motion to that effect. >> Bob second, right? Does he need to resc since you keep adding things or no? >> Super duper. >> Okay. Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes.
>> Mark Dancy, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Mia Rafi, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. I only wish you were able to refresh your nextdoor neighbor. >> Chairman Orsini, >> yes. >> Thank you very much for your time.
Our uh second and last application on the night, this carried from December 3rd, is um >> um Odin Dune LLC PLN2400007. >> Give you guys a minute to all hook up
and do whatever you need to do. Yeah, good idea. Uh, anybody needs to take a five minute bio break? We'll just uh take a take a brief break when we let you guys get set up. I think technologically we look squared away. So, we're going to come back into
session here. Um, and here Odin Dune LLC PLN2400007. Um, >> I don't know where I am, but I can't get out of this. >> Well, maybe we're you're technologically squared away now. We're not, but we'll see. There we go.
Anyway, let why don't we go just start, please? >> Certainly. Uh, may it please the board. Uh, my name is Tim Arch. I'm an attorney uh, licensed of the state of New Jersey uh, for Bob uh, with Bob Smith and Associates here representing uh, Odin Dunn LLC. Um, we are proposing a 16 lot
subdivision. Uh, we're seeking preliminary and final subdivision approval to create 14 buildable single family lots as well as one lot that is dedicated to storm water management uh, facilities and one lot that is consisting of uh, the private roadway and culde-sac. So technically that's a
that's a separate lot. Uh the property is located at 295 Cedar Grove Lane. Uh it's located in the R40 residential zone um where uh single family uh what we are proposing as a permitted use. Uh we do require some very minor bulk variance uh
relief uh namely uh from frontage requirements for two of the corner lots. Um one of those is the basin lot. Uh so you'll hear some uh explanations as to as to why we feel that that's all justified. There's also a a single technical uh imperous coverage variance
for that roadway lot that I uh that I just spoke of uh that Mr. Healey called out that technically if that is a separate lot since it is consisting of just a roadway and a culde-sac uh there is an impervious coverage but we believe that that is a technical variance uh it doesn't really uh apply the same way it
would on a uh a buildable single family lot. Um there is a mention of a uh coverage uh variance in uh uh for one of the single family home lots. However, we are not seeking that. That was in a previous iteration. It was called out uh
previously. We are not seeking any uh variance relief when it comes to the um coverage of the home, size of the homes, uh area of the lots or anything uh anything beyond what I just mentioned there. Um all the single family uh home lots will conform to the overall area
requirements and are consistent with the zone standards. Um there I think I can uh say generally categorize um uh Mr. Healey's comments in two two separate categories and I think we can address both. Uh this is broadly. One has to do with um tree preservation on the lots
and we will address that through the testimony of both our civil engineer. We have a our licensed arborist here as well. uh and we do have a professional planner. Uh but the other category uh has to do uh broadly with uh the architectural plans that we submitted. I'm always hesitant to submit
architectural plans with subdivision applications because quite frankly it's we're not seeking site plan approval and we're not seeking any variance on the homes but obviously boards like to see what type of a house could go on uh the lots. Uh and so when we gave the architect the the essentially this the
footprint that is the maximum constraints that you could build a home on that in coverage the architect does what architects do and they build a house that is to the limits of those of those buildable areas. And so some of Mr. He's comments have to do with, well, it looks like the house that's being
proposed is rather large and and uh an owner wouldn't have the opportunity to then maybe in the future put in a shed or uh or any other accessory structure because they'd be over their coverage limits. I want the board to understand that this is not necessarily representative of the homes that are
going to be built there. The purpose of these lots is that each individual owner is going to be able to custom design their home on the lot. And so that means that they may decide that they want to build the home to, you know, you know, the biggest that the ordinances would require or they may want to give
themselves some more flexibility so that in the future if they want to uh if they want to add to it uh or add other accessory structures, they can do that as well. Uh what's important to note is we're not asking for any variance relief. So we're not asking this board to uh to grant anything as to the
designs of the homes, the size of the homes, the heights of the homes. Those will all be conforming and that will all be handled through uh the building department. When a building permit is applied and those architecturals are put in, they will determine if the uh homes are compliant. >> Um
>> I'm sorry to interrupt you there. Can I clarify something? Certainly. Does this mean, Mark, that under this plan, every home that's built, that homeowner, potential homeowner, has to come to
has to come to the uh through the building department, get a permit, go through all the inspections. There they're like 14 individual site plans. >> No. Yeah. Well,
the the process is for a generally for a subdivision like this is that I Mr. Arch is correct that the planning board unless they're seeking some type of variance at the time of subdivision, which they're not for the homes, the the applicants typically show um kind of
representative homes. Usually it's just square boxes on the lots and then once the subdivision is constructed um typically you know as the subdivision is being built out they have to submit building permit plans and and permit
plans for uh those each individual homes those get reviewed administratively uh by by this by the staff >> for conformance with the subdivision as well as the the and with zoning and then obviously applicable building codes. But this one seems different. Now this one
he's saying that each owner is basically designing their own house. Now did they come with their design to our building department? So they meet all the setbacks. You know, >> as far as as far as we're concerned, it
doesn't matter who whe whether it's one builder building out all is there 14 homes or or individual builders coming in with each of them having different plans. We review it the same. We review it. It's the same criteria that we're going to look for. We're going to look for if there are again specific
conditions that the board imposes as part of the subdivision. We're going to look at that. We're going to look at all of the applicable zoning requirements, building coverage, impervious coverage, um setbacks, etc. and the building code, building department's going to look at building, plumbing, electrical, fire
protection, all of that. We review it the same regardless of who the applicant is. >> Does that mean uh that you're you have a builder that's going to do all 14 homes, but they're going to work with the individual homeowner? >> Uh I don't I don't know exactly if
they're going to to have a a a choice of a different builder or a different architect. Um, but the idea is that these are customuilt homes. And so it's not that a builder, we're not going to build out 14 homes uh that are of slightly different, you know,
essentially cookie cutter styles and then try to sell those homes already built. The idea is to have the ultimate user, the end user, work during the process of designing those homes so that it's a custom home on each on each lot. I understand that concept as long as I'm
sure that there is a a single person or entity who's an intermediary between the potential homeowner and the township so that any conditions that are put into the
potential approval are universally applied. Yeah, I I get a feeling that this is just 14 We're approving a subdivision with 14 lots. Now we have 14 individual homeowners doing whatever
they want. >> Well, they would have to do that within the purview of the ordinances. It would have to be conforming homes. No different than if you bought a vacant lot anywhere in the >> But who's representing them? >> Well, no, they would have they would have licensed architects that would be drawing up the plans and submitting it
to then your building department to review uh and and your township professionals review it. Again, no different than if you bought a vacant lot >> and they would be doing that all themselves as opposed to you as a developer being the representative of them to the
township. >> Uh there very well could be a general contractor or developer that is doing that. It could be it going through us, but if they choose to to go with a different architect, they would all be licensed individuals that that are qualified to to do that work. >> All right. I I just wanted to make sure
I understood this. I don't want to see 14 people going in 14 different directions and all of a sudden some of the conditions or something slip through the I I can tell you that that is the purpose of the building department review is that there is a zoning review
and a building department review. So any plan that is submitted for the construction of those houses would have to conform with the subdivision approval assuming that there is one and any conditions contained therein and would also have to conform with the uh the ordinances and the setback requirements, height requirements, coverage
requirements, as well as any of the building code uh uh requirements. I I I I apologize if I made it sound like this was that we're we're handing these over to 14 amateur uh architects who are drawing their homes on a napkin. That's not that's not the the case. These are
the only reason I mention this and I mentioned this in my introduction is because many of Mr. Healey's comments are specifically pointed to the architectural uh plan that was submitted as a as a quote unquote representative home. And I just want the board to understand that that is not necessarily
the home that's going to be built. It's just to show that it's possible to build a home within the within the purview of your ordinances on the uh on the lots that we are proposing. And that is the purpose of the of the of submitting the architectural. >> Okay. Thank thank you. I
>> let me just let me just ask there seems to be for what it's worth there seems to be in my it seems to be a little bit of a pivot. I I don't know how else to put this but the application that was made had very the applicant chose for
whatever reason to present very specific architectural plans. They chose to do that. The township didn't ask for that and that raised those architectural plans raised a lot a number of questions from me and and from Mr. Mazy. Some of
those plans were even over the impervious coverage and building coverage. And now you're pivoting and saying, "Well, those were just theoretical, so disregard the comments from staff." I'm just It's a little frustrating, I'll be honest with you, to kind of hear this pivot.
>> Um, >> if I can be fair, Mr. Hilly, we did speak about this when we met in uh October that those were representative plans and that again we are not seeking any variance relief for the homes that are built and so ultimately the homes are going to be have to go through that
building department process and the review and if they are over coverage then somebody would have to go back in front of a board with a with a request for variance relief in order to build a home such as that. So, so again I I >> I I I only say this by by by way of
saying that we are we are not asking for any coverage and I know that you did uh bring up in your report that there may be variances triggered by this architectural plan. And again, we we we don't want to go I I don't want to waste this board's time or go down the road of
of parsing out an architectural plan that is not ultimately ever going to be built because it's going to be up to the ultimate homeowner as to what they want their their home to look like. >> Yeah. I agree. And so I think Mark Mark hit on it um at the at the top is is normally as you said also Tim right the
you normally just don't show that kind of detail you did it then engenders right comments. >> Understood. So here here's where I'm at is that um whatever whatever um disposition of this application in this
form or any other form may take the the building envelopes will be regarded as you would have to comply with just like what you said the board regardless of again how the overall subdivision may or may not be granted uh will will not opine as to the houses right um what I
think Bob as also chair of the zoning board is concerned erned about is you you stick your big toe out and you're going to need a variance. If you build out to that envelope, somebody's not going to be able to put a shed in a fence in. I think also from the gist of the staff reports, and correct me if I'm wrong, you also might have shown that
detail to demonstrate that you were compliant with storm water and runoff that you could build to those envelopes and be compliant. not necessarily that you will build to those envelopes or that whomever builds whether it's somebody's
private contractor or whomever uh will necessarily build to those envelopes. So, um that'll confuse the heck out of me because this would not something we normally see uh in a residential subdivision. You see a square box on a lot and you know you comply with the the
lot area coverage and all of those kind of things, right? So, um I think that's where the confusion. So, thanks for clearing that up. Let's take what the houses will look like and everything off the table because that's not really what we apply. It's like Mark said, it's the building department. We're not going to
grant you implicit or explicitly anything um any variances or anything that would enable you to build monstrosities or over the impervious coverage of a law. >> Thank you. Uh so I just want to acknowledge for the
record we do have the following report since I since I did uh reference that. We do have the planning report dated December 23rd. A health department memo uh dated December 18th uh indicating I don't believe any comments. Fire prevention memo uh dated December 15th indicating that they were satisfied. Uh
police report uh dated March 3rd indicating that uh uh they also had I don't believe any comments. Environmental commission report uh dated February 4th, 2025. uh the engineering report as well as a letter from the uh Franklin Township Sewer Authority. So, we do acknowledge all of those uh all of
those reports. Um I do have three direct witnesses tonight. Um Chris Ole would be our first. He's our civil engineer. He's going to go over the over overall site, describe the proposed plan, and address any of the report comments that uh that we feel need to be uh spoken about. We have Matthew Wyel. He's our tree expert.
He's going to testify as to his report. And then we have Allison Coffin, who's our professional planner. So unless there's any uh initial uh other questions of me, I'm ready to proceed with my first witness. >> No, but go ahead and and and we'll see how things unfold. >> Thank you. Uh Chris, you would be our first witness. >> If you could raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony? You're going to
provide us the truth. All truth, nothing but truth. >> I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. >> Yes. My name is Christopher. Last name is S as in Sam as in zebra A. >> Can you can you turn your mic on, please? >> Thank you. >> Hello. Okay. Uh, I currently work at
Menlo Engineering Associates located at 261 Cleveland Avenue in Highland Park, New Jersey. I received a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of Rhode Island in 2008. And I've been a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey since 2013 and my license is in good standing. And I've testified before uh
this board as well as a number of other boards throughout the state. >> Accepted. Commissioner. >> Thank you. Uh Chris, if you uh Chris, if you please can uh take the board through the site uh our proposal and highlight any uh relief that's needed and touch upon any of the comments and the reports
that uh you feel need to be addressed. >> Okay, we'll do. Uh so tonight we have prepared uh a few exhibits for the board to consider. Uh the first exhibit you will see on the screen uh which I guess we can introduce as exhibit uh A1 is an aerial photo exhibit uh of the site
depicting the existing conditions of the site uh with the property boundary highlighted and uh a bit of the surrounding area to give everyone a a feel for the for the property as well as the surrounding area. Uh this exhibit's entitled 295 Cedar Grove Lane existing
conditions exhibit and it's dated January 7th, 2026. Uh the second exhibit we have uh prepared is a colorized rendering of the submitted site plan over the same aerial background showing the property with
landscaping uh shown as well. This exhibit is entitled 295 Cedar Grove Lane overall plan exhibit also dated January 7th, 2026. Uh is going back to exhibit A1 just to describe the property. So the the
subject property for this application is a long rectangular shaped lot approximately 16.54 acres in area uh designated as block 508.02 102 lot 12 as shown on the tax map of Franklin
Township has approximately 451 linear feet of frontage along the west side of Cedar Grove Lane which is also a county road uh designated as County Road 619. Uh and the property extends about 1,600 ft to the west uh away from Cedar Grove
Lane. The address is again 295 Cedar Grove Lane which is about 1300 linear feet uh north of the intersection with Komo Drive and the site is located entirely within the uh R40 zone which is the residential uh zone district. Uh
surrounding the property to the north and west you'll see is mostly open space with some uh slim wood areas. Uh and to the south and east are uh single family homes. Uh currently the property is partially
developed. Uh has a single family home set back about 240 ft from Cedar Grove Lane with a gravel driveway. Uh there's multiple sheds and remnants of old buildings uh per the previous use which
was mostly commercial and agricultural. Uh the the rear of the property uh is a mix of open space and woods. Uh historically the site being in agric agricultural use was mostly cleared about 20 years ago when you go through
the historic aerials. Uh so the woods are relatively uh young in nature compared to you know more historic sites that have been untouched. Um but there are some areas that that do have some some older trees and larger trees on it. Uh the site does slope from the
northwest corner towards the south towards the adjacent property owners as well as to the southeast towards uh Cedar Grove Lane. And there's really no wetlands or other environmental restrictions located on the site. Uh
moving to exhibit A2. What the applicant is seeking approval for is a uh 16 lot subdivision. 14 of the lots will be occupied by single family homes. Uh one of the lots at the
southeast corner will be occupied by an infiltration basin. And then the last slot uh encompasses a private roadway which will uh provide access to the site from Cedar Grove Lane. Uh being in the
R40 zone uh requires a minimum of 40,000 square foot lots. The lots proposed vary in size from about 40,044 square ft to roughly 45,638 square ft. uh which is roughly a 200 by
200 foot lot. Uh the basin lot is is oversized at 1.62 acres and the private road is contained within a 50- foot wide right of way and the lot totals uh 1.88 acres. Uh the the creation of the lots
by the subdivision plan creates only two variances. Uh they're both lot frontage variances for the corner lots. Uh adjacent to Cedar Grove Lane, lot 12.01, which is the uh most northeast lot has a
lot frontage of 16 167.32 feet. And lot 12.15 uh which is the basin lot to the southeast has a frontage of 13 133.68 68 ft where 200 feet uh is required for for all frontages. Uh and this is really
just based on the creation of the uh the roadway lot and the the 50 foot wide right of way that that reduces as well as the uh the radius of the road uh which reduces the frontage of those two corner lots uh along Cedar Grove Lane. And the only other variance that we're
seeking is uh is for the uh roadway within lot uh 12.16 and it's that it's uh mostly impervious coverage uh which of course it's it's a road within uh you know being held to
single family home standards. So uh we're seeking variance for impervious coverage for that lot uh as well. Uh, regarding the the subdivision and design, um, this we are seeking approval for a private community. So, it'll
contain the 14 single family homes, the private access road and the storm water basin, as well as other associated improvements. Access to the properties from Cedar Grove Lane, as I stated, via that private access road. The road is 30 uh 30 foot wide paved road with curb
running along both sides of the road. Uh the road extends about uh 1510 linear feet and ends in a uh culde-sac with a 90 foot diameter bulb uh which is all in accordance with uh RSIS standards and
compliant with RSI standards. Uh proposing concrete sidewalk that will run along the perimeter of the road on both sides and connect to a sidewalk that will run along the Cedar Grove Lane frontage. Uh and the the road, curb,
sidewalk will all be contained within that 50 foot wide private right ofway of lot 12.16. Uh the entrance will be a full access uh roadway. So right right uh right turn in, left turn in, right turn out, left
turn out. Um and the entry will be a boulevard style, meaning that there's an island uh at the entryway which separates the ingress and egress to the site. Uh we we'll be providing some landscaping in there to provide a nice
uh you know aesthetic entrance and being a private community. The entrance uh will be a gated entrance. Uh and the entrance will contain two lanes which will be one for residents and one for one for visitors. Uh the gate set back
approximately 100 ft from the right of way to provide space for queuing. Uh beyond the uh the gate and entryway will be a decorative fence that extends uh to to the north and south uh with a uh
crossing the sidewalk and towards the property lines. Uh there will be a a gate that uh allows access at the sidewalks and that decorative fence will connect to a 6 foot high uh decorative brick wall that
will run along the the frontage of the site uh along Cedar Grove Lane. That wall will extend to the north and and southern northern and southern property lines where a six foot high uh solid fence will then run the perimeter of the site uh for its entirety. And again,
being a private community, there's a a sense of security that uh the applicant is seeking. Uh especially for uh lots this size and homes this size, there's a market that uh the applicant is seeking to address and and it comes with uh with
a level of security that they are they're looking for. Uh inside the community, each lot will contain one single family home. uh that will vary in size, but as we stated uh representative purposes, we showed a uh 50 by 80 foot
box which totals 4,000 uh square feet which complies with the 10% uh building coverage uh requirement and permittance. Uh the homes will be each be accessed by a 20 foot wide paved
driveway uh that will be with a sideloaded garage uh where the driveways will extend about 35 ft to provide ample room for maneuverability and parking. Uh walkways are provided from the driveways to the front doors of the homes as well as optional uh decks and patios in the
rear. And as we discussed, the idea here was to design the site to max out, I guess, what is compliant with the ordinance as far as building coverage, lot coverage, impervious coverage, and then be consistent with the storm water
design, design the storm water management to be able to handle uh should each lot be built out to its maximum uh ability. Um, if we had designed, I guess, the storm water for maximum coverages and then showed less than that, there would be some
inconsistencies with the plans, which I think would have created some confusion. Um, oftentimes there are there are property owners, homeowners that want to come in and add a patio, add a pool, add a shed, and the question is, you know, how are you going to handle the additional storm water runoff? And when
a single family homeowner comes in, they don't know how to address that. So, what we've done is is really designed for the maximum buildout. Even though these homes and and coverages may not be to the maximum extent that is uh approved, the the homeowner can always come back
in the future and and add features that will uh continue to comply with the ordinance and also be uh not have to worry about the storm water management in the future. Um so for
bunch of this uh so again each each home uh it's designed it complies with the 40 foot front yard setback. There's a 25- foot uh sideyard setback, 50 foot rear yard setback and homes comply with the maximum 2 and a half story or 35 foot
height. uh maximum building coverage of 10% and maximum impervious coverage of 20% on each lot and again the site is designed in accordance uh with RSIS standards which are the uh residential standards required throughout the state.
Uh turning templates have been provided as well uh to address the fire officials comments as well as engineering comments to show that the largest fire truck and ladder truck can enter the site through
the gated entrance, maneuver the site, maneuver the culde-sac and exit the site safely. Uh with that firet truck being able to maneuver the site, of course, smaller delivery trucks and and refuge trucks will be able to maneuver the site as well. Um, one thing that was
discussed uh with the fire official and also with the engineer uh and planner is how that entry gate will function. And the idea is it will be an electronic entry gate that each resident will have a pin code. Um they will have a code to
enter into the gate or a key fob that simply when they drive up the gate will open. They will also be able to provide the code to visitors to use the visitor gate. they'll be able to provide the code to UPS, uh, FedEx, refues, and and
the applicant actually reached out to a number of delivery services and, uh, confirmed that this is an acceptable, uh, way of of handling the uh, the gate entrance and and deliveries, and it's something that they are familiar with and and comfortable with. Um, and the
the gate will actually also be siren activated. So, should there be an emergency, a fire truck pulls up, a police vehicle pulls up with a siren active, the gates will automatically open. And that that was at the request of the fire official. And it's something that that we can accommodate uh with the
fire official. Um, and with all of the uh common amenities, the gates and and the uh equipment and of course the the private roadway and landscaping, um, we we agree
that all of these uh common amenities and even some of the private amenities uh throughout the site will be maintained by an HOA and uh we'll agree to make that a a condition of the approval um to handle obviously all of these improvements. This is a major
development. We're increasing impervious coverage by more than a quarter acre. We're disturbing more than an acre uh of land. So, this is a major development and storm water management uh must be addressed. So, we're we're proposing to construct a conventional storm water system, underground pipes, inlets that
will convey runoff to a sand infiltration basin that's located on uh lot 12.15, which is that southeast corner of the site. And as I stated, the existing uh grading patterns of the site really grade to the south and towards the east. So we we've located that basin
uh kind of at the lowest point of the site to maintain uh existing drainage patterns uh to the maximum extent we can. Uh green infrastructure was utilized on the site to address all storm water management requirements such as uh groundwater recharge, water
quality requirements, and water quantity requirements. uh water quality was achieved by uh utilizing five aquaponic structures which are smaller structures that provide uh media soil filters to to
filter storm water runoff comply with the 80% TSS removal rate that's required by the D and these are D certified uh uh BMP structures um runoff will be then conveyed downstream to the infiltration basin
which is designed to handle peak runoff off from the site and make all required reductions. Uh again, in accordance with the township uh state and local agencies to uh to meet uh any any required reductions
uh before runoff is discharged downstream. And then within each to handle groundwater recharge which is essentially and the amount of water that is infiltrated into the ground in existing conditions we must match that
under proposed conditions. So the way that we're handling that is by providing portions of the existing driveways where when we did perform soil testing there were infiltration rates. Portions of the existing driveways will be porous and
have uh subgrade what they're calledtech chambers which will provide additional storage and allow for uh runoff from the roofs uh of the single family homes and some of the driveways to uh infiltrate into the ground and therefore meet the
groundwater recharge uh requirements for the site. So, so I I hate to interrupt you, but there's as we you went through a couple of things and now you're on storm water. >> I think it's reasonable to kind of stop and and and there's certain things I'm very
concerned about that I want to get addressed from the staff report. So, um as we're on storm water and I'm just referring to Darren Massy's, uh engineering report. U there's some comments there. Um and I just want to understand if you can comply with those
given all that you're telling us. >> Uh sure. So yeah to to address uh Darren Mazy's report the the center state uh engineering report dated December 31st
2025. We really don't have any objection and feel that we can comply with all of the comments in in Mr. Mazy's report. There are a number of comments that uh I feel we can provide some additional uh testimony to um if we want to go through I guess each of those or do you want to
talk about storm water specifically? >> Well, yeah, I did want to go back to your gated thing because there's a comment there and I have the same much much the same question. I don't think it's practical to do what you're saying, but uh beyond that, I don't need the technical um you and Darren is here, so
he can he can he's certainly uh willing and able to to ask. >> Um I need to know that you would comply with his report or if you can't comply, tell us why and and and have that discussion. Um so I don't need the technical things, but um Darren, I I
just defer to you what you think is the most important in the storm water part and then I'll go back to the guard house later. Sure. So Chris and I actually spoke on the storm water back in October. There's just more of a definition on a BMP to where when you have the coldtech chamber underneath the porest pavement, the way it's presented,
we could it wouldn't be approvable. But if you look at as two separate systems, it is. So I'm asking him to just revise his report to show it as two separate BMPs at which point it would be acceptable from a township perspective. >> So storm order wise, we're pretty close
there. The bigger question I have again is the gate though, right? >> Because I'm still concerned. I don't know if somebody comes with Uber Eats, if they're going to get how they get that code potentially. I mean, garbage you'll probably have in company, so you can give the code to them, but >> Well, not necessarily. I mean, the way
garbage is handled in Franklin Township, it's uh everybody for themselves. Um, yeah. I mean, I just don't think it's practical. I I don't understand why in a 14 home subdivision uh that you feel the need for all this type of uh bells and whistles. It's just I mean I don't I I
know you could do it. I mean I know other gated communities do it for fire and the people getting through, but those are also manned gate houses. Yeah. 14 I mean I don't care. It's it's your money, not mine. If you this if you can
divide the cost of 14 people maintaining everything you're saying, then I want their job, not the one I got. So, um, yeah. I mean, I I I don't I I think you need a way to have, you know, Amazon,
FedEx, trash, and not I mean, if I go to Amazon and I order a widget, where the hell am I going to put into them and tell them, you know, you got to press this gate? I'm lucky if I get them to actually bring it to my porch. So, I mean, I I I I just don't see this practically working. >> A couple things that I will note about
the gate. >> Sorry, a couple things that I will note about about the gate and about in discussing uh uh with the client is uh one, I can say Amazon actually does have the the ability you can put in codes and different directions to the drivers, but again, I know not everybody is going to necessarily do that. >> It is a uh this is a commercially
available uh product that's used in in many different uh uh communities all throughout um the United States. So it's not it's not something novel or new that we're proposing here. Um it is programmable so that during for example during daylight hours it can be programmed so that the gate is always in
the raised position for uh and that is only closed during night for uh for safety purposes and for security purposes. Um there was a question also as to the pedestrian uh gate access and to make sure that if there was an emergency pedestrians or or people could exit from the uh uh from there. That
system is set up so that there is no locking from the inside. You can always exit. Uh there would only be a locking mechanism from people entering in. And that too can be controlled through a uh uh on a timer system so that it only engages during you know nighttime hours
uh or it can be programmed to be on a on a schedule. Um, and the the systems default so that if there's ever any uh issue or glitch or power outage or anything along those lines, it always defaults to uh to allowing access, not restricting access. Um, and so I I I
know that we have uh we can certainly provide much more information as to the uh as to the specifics of this system, but I can tell you it's a very uh from from my understanding, it's a it's a very widely used system. uh it is successfully used in lots of communities
and and it's uh and it's very flexible uh uh to be able to uh to allow for all different kinds of uh all different kinds of use cases. >> I mean yeah I mean the board doesn't actually you know obviously have to have to have to grant that particular uh
accutrant. Uh it's up to your discretion. I don't know how the board feels. I I just don't see how you need it for 14 and on man look it's like a coffee maker. the more bells and whistles you get, the more stuff it goes wrong. Um, and I'm just I understand what you're saying and and and you know,
if it were manned like it is in Somberat Ron and other communities with thousands of homes, um, this looks like an, you know, kind of an edifice complex thing that you're going for, like just make it big and showy and not practical. And I I
don't know. I I don't support it. I don't know what the rest of the board thinks. And I we we did discuss the mand gate just to jump in and found just like you're saying for 14 single family homes the a man uh guard house feels like overkill where
this >> so does this though. So does this I mean again does I'm looking for board direction on one vote. Um so um I I just I guess I don't know >> I have a question. you have a right, you
know, uh to want a private access uh residential complex. I just want to know sort of why why in this case um that I can tell you that that is the that is the style of development that the that the owner uh
wanted to go for. Um, again, I think it's it's it's representative of a lot of other developments throughout the United States and it is um it's a it's a feature uh to have uh sort of a private community and and sort of a gated community that encourages uh that is is
sometimes a selling feature to certain individuals that want to that want to purchase it. Um again, is it is it a necessity in the in terms of that if it's not there uh it it it's not as though the the subdivision will function? No, it's a feature and it's a
it's a sellable feature uh for people and it's something that that based on my clients uh market research is is something that is desirable that that is uh uh that people want. So >> yeah, and it it could be um I'm just telling you that I understand that this
is a a buy application and that it's a R40 zone single family residential and you're proposing single family residential. We don't have to prove a gate. Just understand that. >> Oh, absolutely. and and and if the board has any other if the board has any specific questions as to it. Um I do I I
sort of anticipate that I don't know if we're going to necessarily get to a vote tonight. We're happy to if the board has additional comments or additional questions, we can certainly provide additional information if we don't get to a vote tonight. >> So So yeah, I mean I I'm kind of glad you went there, Tim, because looking at the hour, I'm kind of was going about to
go there myself. What I would like to hear from the applicant is so f to focus on on Mark Healey's report because and this may engender your tree expert and again we may we may not get to a vote tonight but
we've repeatedly asked you to kind of consider the cluster option. Um we have provided evidence that there's ample planning uh from it like a C2 criteria positive things. Um, and and you know, I also
take what Chris, what you're saying is that we're not talking old growth forest. We're preserving. That being said, we can preserve some more open space. We can preserve some more trees. Um, we can actually uh you would still
get the full 14 lots. Um, maybe you wouldn't you maybe those lots wouldn't be as big. Um, but I think the overall development would be more enhanced and and better buffered. And I
think Mark presented in his report a lot of very positive criteria that the board would be very willing to consider. Um and and I don't really even think it requires variances and things like that so much that if you took care of the cluster um
and he also provided examples along Cedar Grove in which uh that was used and used successfully. We also have our tree ordinance which says thou shalt conserve as many trees as possible. You may be in successional growth and yes the ordinance does not differentiate invasives from non-invasives. However,
um ecosystems will will successional forest has taken over the United States since everybody cleared it for farming. Um and and so it it it does sort itself out. Just to say that's not something we
want. Um doesn't do it for me. Um, I understand the applicant has their preferences, but what will do it for me is is to say, why do you think this is a better or planning planning alternative when we've kind of showed you a path that the board favors? Um, and you're
not really engaging us with that. So, that's kind of like in the time we have left kind of where I'd like to go. I'd like to hear from Mark um and and you know, um, and then we can we can talk about some other things. But, I think that's a key sticking point for me. uh it to address that quickly and we and we
may be able to address that potentially through planning testimony. But one thing that I will say is that uh it does not apply to our site. There are very specific criterias as to when the cluster option in your ordinance uh is >> No, no, I get that. But but we've done that elsewhere on Cedar Grove where it
does not apply successfully. But what you are asking is us to to ask for relief from the ordinance for a cluster option that does not apply in lie of a permitted use that does apply that is by
right by ordinance. And what that is is that is the the governing body is the and and I don't know if Mr. Vnola wants to chime in at any point, but the governing body are the ones that dictate what the zone standards are and what the ordinances are. And and I
With all due respect, to say that the planning board thinks a better planning option is something that is not permitted in a zone versus what is permitted in a zone is strictly uh a a a issue that case law brings up that says that
>> people do that. People do that all the time. That's why we go to the they go to the zoning board. >> I I I do understand that and and and I know Pete would say that and and I I don't I don't doubt that you're right. There are places along Cedar Grove with
exact same criteria, multiple places, not just one-offs where it has happened. So, it can happen. And basically that planning precedent we have said through who's ever approved it, some on the zoning board, right? And some like right across the street from you um and rest
um this board >> that has said the cluster is is something that we can do. Now, one thing I don't know is you never presented us an optional plan to say board um chairman rini this is what it would look
like and and we would require 10 variances whereas this would only require the two or three. I I don't even consider the road to variance. It's a freaking road. Of course, it's going to have more impervious governance. Um, the other two we maybe could discuss, but um, I would like to see evidence rather
than what I see in the staff's reports, which is the applicant hasn't engaged to actually show and demonstrate and testify to the board. This is why we don't think it's better planning alternative. I understand what you're saying from a legal perspective, but I also have four or five other from Mark's
report where where it has happened and Bob is probably going to tell you um he he'll support me on that, but I just from a planning perspective, I see a reluctance to you sort of just engage us and have that discussion and say this is what we want. Well, yeah, we can grant
you a 14 lot subdivision by right doesn't have to be what you're putting on this paper. I I I could well I'll I'll let Chris uh uh respond to that if there's any technical reasons for it, but then I can respond after that. >> I mean, just just regarding the variances and what would be required, right? So, each each lot's required a
200 foot frontage. So, right now, each lot is exact just about exactly at the 200 feet. So, if we were going to do the cluster option, we'd need at least 14 variances just for the lot frontages. Well, for each lot. >> So, I'm sorry, I didn't want to
contribute. you're going down the wrong path because that's not the way our cluster ordinance works. >> The cluster ordinance if you if you go from the R40 to certain if you go and you make let's say you make the lots 20,000 square feet then the bulk requirements of the R20 zone applies.
>> Okay. >> So theoretically the only variance that you would need is the use of the cluster ordinance. So it' be one ordinance would be one variance. It would be the criteria that trigger that which is size of the overall lot which I believe has 40
acres. >> One variant. Theoretically you could do it with one variance being and we have done this. The one ordinance is your ordinance says you have to have 40 acres. We have less than that but we would like to utilize the cluster the
cluster provision to save additional forested area etc. And the board has done that and that is a C2 variance. It's a better zoning alternative. So that for those reasons that's why I recommended that that be considered.
>> Actually we've done that as Mike has mentioned a number of times right on the same street and the one of the things that >> that concerns me a little bit. I might be mistaken. I'm sure someone will
correct me. This may be the only other than the uh age restricted developments. This would might be the only gated community in Franklin Township. It's something historically in the past
when it's come up that this board has frowned upon and kind of discouraged people from doing and I remember specifically a couple of different places. I'm not sure why you need
that secure of a gate and a wall along the street in the area where you're proposing this development. It's almost like you're building a a fancy prison. There's no pl there's there's developments just like this all along
the street. There are no gates. It seems that the gate is presenting a little bit of a problem. you might have more uh might be a lot less expensive for you to do. Uh
>> I mean I don't care about the expense. That's on you. But I mean to Bob's point, Princeton Run, Princeton Writings, you could go down uh you know all the Hans Voji Drive, all of those off of Butler, huge expensive homes. I'm sure quite in line with what people's
line all the development all the same. No gates, no anything. I just I don't think this makes for a a community. It's like you want a little little fork to yourself and I I'm I'm sorry. I mean, yeah, I I can only do so much with planning law, but I don't have to I
don't have to do the bells and whistles for you guys and I'm not going to. >> Understood. And I I I can certainly talk to our our I can talk to my client after again because I anticipate we're not going to a vote tonight. can certainly speak to my client and and ask them if that is something that can be uh uh that
the gated portion of it be uh uh relinquished uh to comment as to again to the cluster option. Uh it is not what we are presenting. We did go we did uh consider it. My clients did consider it. Uh I the board is not going to want to hear this but it is a it's an economic
decision. It's a business decision. Um it would be smaller lots. It would be smaller uh homes. it would be uh it would be not as profitable as an option. But again, it's also this is a permitted use. This is a permitted >> I get that >> thing versus versus asking us to then
request new variances and have that be a better planning. >> Well, you've got one like you said. So, let's let's said let's let's take the plural out. All right. It's one that we said we would give you. Now, Tim, you're you're 100% right. You have a right to request what you have. It's it's
compliant from that. and and and but we you think you can and may Mark can you u just pay attention here. Um what we think you could probably still do better and and maybe there could be a way if you look at the plans with the John Dy
and maybe Mark has some suggestions to accomplish a more conservation design than what you've got and still you know >> and that we're happy to do. In fact, one of the things that we're doing because we now have we have a an arborist, a a tree expert who has plotted and surveyed uh the trees on the lot, uh we are uh
and we're happy to continue to work with the township, with our tree expert, with our civil engineer to uh to maximize the amount of tree preservation that is that is on that lot. Um but in terms of the in terms of going with a cluster option versus a non-cluster option again that
that is a that is that's something that was again suggested to us very early on. We did look into it. It is not an option uh that that we are willing to take. >> I thought after 28 years I probably have heard everything but this is a first. Any of the times I ever remember us
discussing cluster versus non-cluster with a developer, they've usually jumped at the idea that they could cluster a development and save money and consolidate services and everything. Here
we're we're throwing that at you almost and you're saying no, we don't want it. We want to do this. The vision for this development is not to have a high density close together um buildings. We're not going for high density. We're not going for uh floor area ratio uh uh
consolidation. It is going for a luxurious uh high impact uh community and that is what the vision was and I I can't dictate what the vision of my client is or what the vision of the developer is. uh and we presented it within the
confines of what the ordinance and of what uh the the township uh allows us to do. I understand your your your positions and I have to just say respectfully that is not the proposal that we have brought before the board today. Um >> and we understand that. Um that said, I
still think the proposal that you've brought before has a lot of questions that need to be addressed before it could ever come to a vote. And I think I wanted to just ask Mark because I think um he could have some guidance um that um you know it would have been would have been great if we had this
discussion kind of in an informal session first right but that's not the path you chose. So um and while you're correct that um you know it is a buy right application and all that and it I agree with Bob it's sort of mindboggling
why you wouldn't want the cluster but um that said I think we can do better with with uh the spirit if not the letter of that. So Mark, I I think you might have had some suggestions that might they maybe the the applicant could could consider. >> And Mark, can you clarify? I heard uh
chairman say this, but we don't have to grant the gate is what I'm hearing. >> Well, I I and and I'm sure Peter can opine and Darren as well, but I mean part of the board's review of a subdivision application is akin to a
site plan review. I mean, you have to make sure that the you know, Darren, of course, is looking at the storm water. Does the storm water plan function appropriately in accordance with applicable rules and and uh and engineering practices?
Similarly, I think that the roadway and and the access to this community needs to function appropriately. So, I think things like how people are going to be able to access how visitors delivery people are going to be able to access this site. Uh if they can't, that could
cause issues like queuing. do if vehicles can't enter and then now they have to turn around. Is there adequate access for turnaround for the for the different types of vehicles that may enter this site? I think all of those things are appropriate considerations for the board as part of this application.
>> And we are not disagreeing with that. We I I I did not say and I don't I I don't want the board to think that I am indicating that you have to grant no everything that we show >> that that was understood. I I think Mark also might answer some suggestions in terms of the overall site plan where you
know the width of the buffer and various things could be increased without compromising the um and I'll put this in quotes vision that you may have. Well, yeah, and I think all of that is really outlined in my comment number two, um, on tree preservation. Um, you know,
again, we we do have the the or the provision in our zoning ordinance that talks about again encouraging clustering, but we also have the tree ordinance that talks specifically about all applications for site plans and subdivisions. Number one priority is to design them in a way to maximize tree
preservation. Um I have I mean I don't think I I I think you know again the applicant's not going to finish tonight. I would suggest they you know dig into my comments on under comment number two if they need to meet to discuss those and
um you know Darren and I could probably provide with them with some direction on how they could uh best meet these comments. Um the applicant prepared uh you know they had a tree expert prepare report. Um I think to some degree that
report was um um informative. Um you know off the top of my head I mean I think basically the the rear of the site that you know on the aerial looks like it's a forested area was predominantly succession success successional growth as opposed to old growth forest. My
recollection of the findings was that a lot of the larger trees were around the perimeter of the property. Um, there were two areas on the site in the in the interior that had some larger healthy trees. I think the applicant needs to look at modifications to the I don't
even know if it's going to result in any changes to the to the lot layout. I think it's likely they could preserve a lot more trees with modifications to the grading, the limits of disturbance, possibly some modifications to the storm water plant in terms of, you know, the
piping, if you will, going through the site to to drain to the larger basin. Um, and I think that if they did some of those modifications more than just this 15 foot buffer around the perimeter, you know, which by the way was within the limit of disturbance on the plans. So I'm not even sure if they're even, you
know, preserving any trees at this point, but I think they could again with some relatively minor modifications to the plan preserve a lot more trees than they are right now. If I can answer that because I mean the reason and I understand that and if you
just put you know drop a a house onto a lot and then look at the surrounding areas you can say okay we can save a lot of the the trees and everything surrounding it. The issue that we have is that per what's required for storm water management
there's a lot of things that the green infrastructure specifically creates created by using the the BMPs that are created by required by the green infrastructure. There's a lot of elevation drop throughout the storm water management system. And by having
that drop and having to have the basin at the front of the site, the low point of the site, it's creating a lot of fill on the site in order to manage the storm water from a relatively flat site that it's it's draining from to towards the south and
towards the east, but it's not just a a straight slope from the from the west to the east. that would just allow us to to follow the existing grade and not modify areas. There's a lot of ups and downs in the site, but we have to grade the site to convey everything from west to east.
And by doing that, it's creating a lot of fill on site. And by filling, when we're filling the site, in order to manage the storm water, we have to disturb and clear the site. And looking at the plans again, that's not going to change. The sto the basin still has to
be at that southeast corner. We still have to grade up to the north and to the west and it's going to modify the existing grade and therefore we're going to have to clear a portion of the site. What I did present on this exhibit and I apologize that we didn't have a PDF to make it more obvious for everyone to
see, but I took the tree locations that the arborist mapped because we had to go out and locate each 16inch tree and I showed in red the trees that would have to be removed and in blue the trees that would be able to be saved which are as uh Mr. clearly stated the trees that are
mainly along the perimeter of the site. And I think that we can work with the grading and with the areas that we're attempting to preserve and we can save about 44 of those 16inch trees that were located. And so I think that's better
than what we had really knew uh or had previously shown on the site. And this applicant has worked with the township when we submitted plans about a year and a half ago and improved the plans based on how many trees were being removed and how many trees are being planted. And the Atkins really worked with the town
and the professionals to kind of bend over backwards and try to help with the tree cut, you know, the tree deficit and the number of trees being removed and number of trees being planted. And this is what we've been able to come up with. And I think it's a it's a major
improvement from what was originally designed and presented to the township. And to be honest, I don't know that we we can't add any more trees. Any we plant any more trees and they're not going to survive. We've really maxed out how many trees can be planted on the site. And due to the grading issues of
the site, there's really not much less area that can be there. There's not much more area that can be saved. It seems to me as an observation that the what you're trying to create, you know, I I get, but I don't think I don't
think you have the ideal site for it. It would I think you would be easier to incorporate some of our suggestions if the site were wider or if it were bigger. Uh since is it's not either of
those things. maybe you need to consider uh some other things like personally I don't think that that the that's an attractive site plan where you have basically a straight runway from
front to back. It's almost like a racetrack. There's no character for the kind of high-end housing that you say you're trying to create. like you're just trying to do too much
too many like Mike says too many bells and whistles in the project and not enough space to do it in the right way. >> Again, it is the R40 zone and that's what we are that's what we're here for. >> Well, technically that's what I said. you comply, but that doesn't mean that
that it's nice necessarily. >> And I understand that a lot of other sites may have, you know, were more open to the cluster option, but again, there's a reason that there's different styles of residential zones throughout a a township. You don't want every single family residence to be
10,000 square feet. You don't want everyone to be 20,000 square feet. You want a variety to attract different types of people and to attract different markets. And given that many of the other sites, including the one directly across the street, did the cluster option, you know, went with the cluster
option, this is a different offering to >> different doesn't mean better, though. You know, I don't know that I I I buy that argument. Well, here's what I'd like you to do. I mean, yes, you can you can get what you you know, there there's two ways to to do this, right? Um and it
not, you know, it doesn't to do this in a planning way. Um and then one would be to cluster, the other would be to say, "Okay, look, maybe maybe we can live with 12 or 13 uh building lots um rather than 14 and that saves some trees or
that reduces the um the um storm water enough so that we don't have to grade and because it just I understand what you're saying from a engineering perspective. Look at our perspective. Does it make sense to clear a site through your green
engineering and then replant the trees when they're there? And if they're successional, they will keep succeeding. I mean, that's how forest happen. Nature sorts itself out. It's been doing it for thousands of years without our help. And when we does get our help, it doesn't go in the right direction. So, um, I would
like you to meet with Mark and I would like you to hear his ideas and and you know, just I'm not here with a ruler or protractor or volume calculations for storm water that he's a professional planner. I'd like you to meet and say, okay, how can we make the buffer wider?
Can we make it if we can't make it 15 feet, can we make it we can't make it 50 feet? Can we make it 25 ft? Can is this the best plan? I'm not convinced because I haven't seen an options analysis. You haven't presented me with anything that I can see that says other than what you
want. That's not that's not the way things are done. You would present an options analysis and say this is why we think it's the best option. We can agree or disagree. We can approve disapprove. You can do what you want after that. Uh the other thing I want you to be very clear about all right the sewers.
You got the letter from the sewage authority. So I don't need to expound. You will not get Darren phrase this correctly. >> Final maps won't be or final plats won't be signed until all outside agency approvals are obtained. So that's going
to be a condition of approval that I'd recommend border act favorable >> and we would readily agree with it that we would assume the plats would not be filed and it would not be signed as a >> because we don't want the site cleared if you don't have sewer capacity. I my understanding was you originally uh got that capacity through the rest of
development uh which of course the sewage authority um granted it to resta they didn't grant it to rest as a proxy for you um then they recommended either Amwell or Trepto tie-ins um each with their own um expense right you'd have to run a lot of line up to Trepto you'd
have to improve the pumping station at Amwell it's all in the sewage authority letter um with a condition of approval I just want you to understand going in would that that is go granted before any plaster sign and any disturbances happen because the last thing we want is a cleared site and you can't get sore.
>> We would we would readily agree to that. Absolutely. >> So, can you do me that favor? Can you can you get together with our folks? Can you give me an analysis of some sort? You're all very smart. Chris, I know you know you all got the experts. You know, I'm sure they're all qualified, right? They're going to tell
give you know what I want, right? Think of it as you could go into Excel and you make a table, right? And the table option one, two, three, and and and why why it could be right why this is your best plan aside from an economic. All right? Because economics don't matter to
me. That's your thing. But I want to understand why you can't make the buffer wider or why you can't cluster or what what it would engender. And I want you to listen to Mark's ideas and not just say we we want what we want. That's not the way to me to approach a board.
>> With all due respect, I don't want I don't want the board to get the the the feeling that we are not cooperating or listening to, uh or working with uh Mr. Helium with the township professionals. We certainly are and we certainly are open to that. Um uh I I don't want to go into the whole the reason why this took
a year to get from application more than a year to get application to in front of the board. that because that does have to do, excuse me, with the with the sewer authority uh and with uh certain discussions and and urgings at the from the sewer authority to go one way and
then 12 months down the line being told by them that actually they would prefer us to not go that way that they suggested uh and quite a bit of money and time being spent as to that. But again, this has nothing to do with this board. But I do want to express that we have been working very diligently with
the township and with township agencies for the last over a year on this project. So I I I want the the board to to understand that we are not just coming in saying look this is you know we're not uh uh we're not agreeable but again within the within the confines of
what the ordinance is of what the law is of what the governing body believes is the is the correct zoning um you know we we we feel that this that this meets those criteria but we're happy to meet with uh the the township professionals. We're happy to meet with Mark again and to go over it. One of the things that
that again because we only got this survey completed uh approximately two weeks ago, we didn't have the time to be able to uh to map all of that onto uh what what Chris was showing as to uh the the uh trees that could be saved. And
so, you know, we presented that to you tonight, but I know Mr. Healey hasn't had an opportunity to really go into that in depth. Part of the reason that I that I realized that we were likely not going to get to a vote both both because of the time limitations and because of um I assume that the board will want Mr.
Healey to to you know opine more as to that preservation effort. And so we're happy to work with him. We're happy to continue to work with him >> if at some point there is an approval. We'd be happy to continue to work with the township professionals. >> We don't need it down to the tree. I I
think the the gestalt I want you to take away from tonight is I see the three options. the option you've proposed, a potential cluster option that Mark has outlined, and something in between that
achieves a a better um development um but that's not a cluster, but that maybe preserves more and and gives the spirit uh and the int the intent if not the letter um where you may be able to accomplish a lot of the tree preservation that a cluster could
otherwise do. And maybe maybe you consider that it's not, you know, 14 homes. I mean, I've had I have had subdivisions before me before where I'm like I mean, looks like looks like the land dictates that maybe you should have 12 or 13. So, I mean, that might be an
option as well, but I see at least those three that you can easily obviously one you've got the other, you know, I'd like to just see some evidence um as to what that would be, especially if it's just one variance. It's just >> the gate. >> Oh, yeah. The gate. The gate's out. Um,
but I I just I really would like to see some effort to inform the board of what the options are and so that we can make a reasonable um uh proposal for you, a reasonable um a reasonable decision for you.
>> Mike, I just have a quick statement and a question. Um, look, I can appreciate, you know, your idea of luxury homes with all the bells and whistles. There are quite a few of them in Franklin Township. Have you taken a ride down on
Princeton Highlands Barbar Court? >> Uh, I I don't know off the top of my head. >> I I recommend you do that >> as an example of what to do or what not to do. >> What to do. >> Okay. Thank >> Just wanted
Yeah. >> Yeah. They're pretty luxury homes there with pretty >> a region. >> Take a look. >> So I think I think because we do have public here tonight who've already expressed that they have opinions. Uh I would like to open to the public. We
will not have a vote tonight where they're going to continue where they're going to come back. Um and we're going to continue the hearing with your other experts. So you can wait. Uh but I would do want to give you the opportunity to do it now if you want. So um I make a motion to open to the public. Second. >> All in favor?
>> I >> uh anybody wishing to speak? I mean, it might be good to do it now because they're going to go back and talk to the You can get your opinions in. Sir, if you want to >> My apologies for before. I thought we were talking about this.
>> No, it's all good. It's all good. >> And if you could just give us your name and address for the record again, please. >> Ernie Levis, Lvees, 21 Como Drive, uh on lot 508.0. 2 lot 24.
Um, you want me to show it after? >> I have the largest lot on this side of the street. >> You can take the microphone with you. >> I spoke with my neighbors. >> So, just make sure that you're talking into the mic if you're speaking. If you walk away, they can't they can't get you in the mic.
>> Well, did you get where I >> I spoke with my neighbors? It's on. The lights on. >> I I spoke with my neighbors, a lot of elderly neighbors. Uh I'm there 55 years going on 56 years in a couple of months.
And u the the big three concerns that they have. We're on wellwater and I think you're proposing to put these homes on wellwater, correct? No. You're going to tie in the municipal utilities? >> Yes. >> And the sewers also?
>> Yes. >> Okay. that alleviates that. The other one was a fence and and when I read in the uh planning board, I guess when I went in and looked at the plans and everything, I saw something about a white plastic fence on the common
border. >> Yes. >> At the back of our property, >> a solid PVC fence. >> We would request a u 5 foot high heavy duty chain link fence. Uh and there's reasons for that. brief history of Komo
Drive is that they were built as summer homes back in the 1920s,30s, 40s. After World War II, they built new homes or remodeled the uh existing bungalows that were there. Um I when I bought mine, it
was a four room summer bungalow, but I have almost three acres. I remodeled it. I put two additions on it. I put a third addition on a garage. Now it looks like a customuilt ranch. But the point that we're I I want to make here is
back in the 20s30s people came out from Brooklyn to be here for the summer just like they went up to the Catskills. So >> the fencing in the back uh there was barb wire when Axel Rod Farm was in the
back there. They they put barb wire along the back our common border. Um, they dumped all of their trash back there, glass cans, because there was no garbage pickup back then. When I moved there years ago, I took out truckloads
of of glass cans and and that type of thing. But there's still a lot of lot of garbage back there. So the the reason for the fencing that I'm suggesting is that the woods that we have in the back, it's going to be like a magnet for the
homeowners maybe cutting grass or pruning bushes. What am I going to do with Oh, there's woods over there. We'll throw it or the kids that eventually will be there will play back there and I don't want to see them with the barb wire and the cut glass and everything else back there. That's why I'm
proposing a more solid fence. But when that vinyl fence deteriorates, and it will, unless it's a real heavyduty vinyl with the ribbed inside, uh, who's going to replace the fence? Who's going to be responsible that? Will a builder still
be responsible or replace that fence? >> So, likely the Yeah, likely the HOA, the homeowners association would be responsible for maintaining those those common elements. >> I just think it should be secure, you know, that common. >> I ag I certainly agree. And and I think
a solid fence is generally considered more secure than a than an open chain link fence, especially a five foot high chain link fence that a I can imagine a child being jumping over that or something or whereas I think the solid fence is is likely provides more number
one privacy but also uh deterrence for somebody to >> you're familiar with the one across Cedar Grove the behind rest project? >> Uh not not off the top of my head. No, I'm not. I I was involved with negotiating a a thousand feet on our common border with the cemetery because
I run the Cedar Grove cemetery also. Um and they went right for it right away. Again, we have woods on that side of the cemetery. There's 12 and a quarter acres in there and uh just to keep the kids out from 32 homes. So, so they don't get
hurt and they don't do any damage. >> Okay, you've answered the questions that I had. So, thank you. >> Thank you. So, yep. No, no problem. So, so I mean aesthetically, I'm sure you probably don't like the idea of a chain link fence, but what what Ernie's saying is I think you can probably do maybe
some sort of uh different because I've seen sections where like it will entirely fall down like that section of a fence. I think that's what he's talking about. So maybe maybe you can do something with the slats interwoven or some other design that that makes it
that makes it more secure but still looks attractive because I mean I understand the kind of look and and just all you're going for and so I don't think chain link is probably what you're looking for but I think we can find something. And my experience has been I think most of the vinyl fences that uh
that end up looking really bad. Um no offense to homeowners are probably put in by the homeowners and not by uh professional professionals or contractors that do that. Um but again the HOA will be there to to ensure that that fence is maintained regardless of what material it is.
>> Um anybody else from the public since we were open in the public? I don't I didn't close it yet. So >> seeing no takers move to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? All right. So, uh, logistically, um, Christine, we need to find a new date.
Um, you need to meet, you need to revise. What you need to revise is your opportunity to present us with a, um, you not only the plan, you we'll discuss with Mark, but also to clean up anything existing in your in your current one. Um, so let's find it. Let's find a date.
You will if you do save the date now, you won't have to renotice because we don't make you renotice unless your multiple meetings that were carried and then the public loses track. But we can just tell the public tonight when to come back. >> So actually I have a question. So >> yeah,
>> is is the is the plan to you had mentioned having a meeting and having plans revised. >> I mean if that's the direction then that's going to take some more time. >> Well, it takes what it takes. I mean um you have to let us know. Obviously, you and you and Christine can can control
the calendar. Um, if we can't get a date tonight, then obviously they're going to have to renotice because then we we're going to like scratch, right? >> Why don't I suggest that we had already kind of scheduled in the the 21st in two weeks? >> Well, if if that meets the applicant, is
that still good for you? >> I think we can certainly I'll defer to to Chris as to as to what we prepare. We're happy to meet with you as soon as possible and to stay on that date. If if it has to get pushed from that date, perhaps we can announce that that date that another >> that's exactly what I was going to suggest that why don't we keep that the
the 21st, see where the discussions go. Um, you know, maybe the applicant, maybe we have some epiphany together and then they revised their plans in some, you know, meaningful way that pushes it out a little bit more, >> but maybe it gets them to, you know, a
better place. >> Well, we've given them good feedback tonight and I'll be interested to see what what they do with it. So yeah, let's keep the 21st so we can keep the chain of custody and that way like you say you won't at least have to go through the expensive renoticing if on the 21st people show up and then we say
no it's deferred to X and then so that that keeps you from renoticing. We just have had instances where um and I'm very big, you know, public transparency is that um you know, we'll push it and we'll push it. We'll actually not have it at least even this discussion that we're having tonight and then the
public's like I don't even know when this was pushed to, right? And even though it's on the website this way at least we can announce it here and people are going to come because they see it's going to be on the 21st even if it's >> car. Correct. Understood. Absolutely. >> Okay. So Odin Dunn LLC docket number
PLN240000007 is going to be carried to January 21st at 7:30 p.m. at 4:75 Deont Lane in this room. Uh you don't have any requirement to notice. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you everybody. Have a wonderful
evening. >> Deadline. >> Um I think I think that's all we have today. I just want to say one thing with the agendas in the future. So I have for many years had a section here called committee reports that was intended at the time to have the board members that
we have like for example Ted who's environmental um uh and various other people who are cross-pollinating boards to come the chance to come before us and say what their committee's up to. Um we really haven't taken advantage of that and and and then we also get the staff
reports from the commissions that review plans anyway. So I was wondering if and we don't have to do this first of all take committee reports off because we never do them. Uh but in in itstead um what might be interesting is to have like a five or 10 minute board uh
discussion because like there's planning things that come up sometimes. Bob, you'll mention ah you know there's this there's this thing this is property that's you know whatever and we can maybe you know do something or maybe it teaches us a lesson in the future when as we revise our master plan there's
something or uh some part of the development ordinance that we can go and and and and close a loophole that's come up. So I would suggest maybe if the board you can think about it we don't have to have to decide tonight but it would be like bo open board comment you know what whatever whatever planning bug
is in your bonnet you know you as you drive through town um can can be good to hear could be a traffic issue or whatever um I think that might be a useful part of that time. >> Uh if I could Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to um
>> remind the board. So, I I sent well two things. Uh you noticed there's a report that's was sitting in front of you. Um I also this evening, some of you may or may not have seen it. I sent you an email. Um so, we're going to be busy, a little busy the next few months. Um the
document that's in front of you is that's the um the township uh the planning boards are required every 10 years to comprehensively evaluate their re-examined their master plan and their development regulations. We last did so
in March of 2016. Uh so we have to do so before uh March of 2026. Um this is a complete basically first draft. Um obviously it's my draft. um you obviously have to end up it's going to
be your document. So please review it carefully. We're going to schedule a work session for the 21st. So if we do have Odin, we'll do a work session after that. Um so I do ask that you review it carefully. Any comments that you agree with, don't agree with, want to want the
report to expand upon. If there are things issues in there that I didn't address, uh let's talk about it on the 21st. Uh then we're going to schedule another um after that I'll prepare a revised draft incorporating whatever input the planning board wanted and
we'll have another so I think it's back on um with the goal of having the public you know two work sessions and then um hopefully we'll be in a position to have a for a public hearing on it on February 18th. Um the other thing again just to remind the
board we do have a meeting next Wednesday. >> So this is for the u the master plan examination of the you know basically the what everybody calls the BI study um you know that was presented to you at some point last year. I think the summer
of last year into the fall um with along with a a draft development uh ordinance. Um, we went over that at two different meetings. The I sent you the link to that document. That's going to be the subject of the hearing. Uh, and that incorporates the comments. Again, you discussed it at two different meetings,
had a number of comments, and that draft incorporates your comments. And the public hearing is going to be next Wednesday. So, >> Charles, I know you're you're not available to come. Um, I don't know if you want to can they send you comments or anything or
>> Yeah, if you can't make it, I mean, I I'd prefer obviously that for those that are going to attend that you bring it up for the full board discussion, but if you're not going to be there, please feel free to send them to me and then I'll communicate communicate them to the rest of the board.
>> So, again, this is what I said, you know, this is the fun part, right? The planning part that we do should be fun. Um, and and not everything when we do this re-examination and and it's sort of I I don't know if I want to say it's at a high level, but I think the key thing
that you think about when you curl up with a hot cocoa and read this um is is not to like go into gory detail, but if there are things that you really think that we need to address because there is no thing nothing that says thou needs to
wait 10 years to address your master plan element, we can do that anytime that we feel we need to revise something. Um so you know we could prioritize the things that we identify from this master plan re-examination that um we'd like to tackle o over the
coming months and years. So look at it that way rather than we're going to solve this with a re because I mean we have to do this re-examination by March. What can we practically do between now and March? So it's more identifying and prioritizing things that we will want to do in the future. Is that good?
>> Perfect. >> All right. So with that motion to adjurnn. Somebody give me a second. Second. >> All in favor? >> All right.