Um this is the um regular planning board meeting of uh April 16th uh 2025 uh for um Township of Franklin in accordance with the open public meetings act uh chapter 231 um adequate notice of
this regular meeting has been provided. So if everyone could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, Mike. Um, Charles Brown and Mark Dancy asked to be excused this evening. Uh, Councilman Embar here. Theodore Chase. Uh Bob Lort here, Shaw Keller
here, Jennifer Ragnau here, Mahier Rafi here, Robert Thomas here, Rebecca Hilbert here, and Mikeini here. So just to cover the agenda, we had um two hearings tonight. Both have
been carried. Um Dial Enterprises LLC has been carried to June 4th without further notification and There's another one, right? NPH Real Estate LLC. That's carried to May 21st.
Yep. They needed to notify need to notify. Okay. All right. So, um Mark tells me that uh we've got about a 30-minute meeting. So, if you choose to accept that challenge, um you can enjoy more of your evening. All right. So,
first things uh is uh minutes from the regular meeting of February 19th, 2025. Everybody here can vote. I'll move to approve. Second. Councilman and Barson. Yes. Robert Lort.
Yes. Shaw Keller. Yes. Jennifer Ragnau. Yes. Mahier Rafi. Yes. Robert Thomas. Rebecca Hilbert. Yes. And Mike um I was going to say Mike Thomas. You hear me? Mike Garcini. Yes. Oh boy. Okay. So we have three
resolutions. Uh, first is 179 Cedar Grove Lane. Uh, just Mahir, Bob Thomas, and yourself can vote on that, meaning me as Yes, this was one of the subcommittee one. Oh. Oh, that's right. It was a minor. So, it's just the three
of you. Okay. Um, I would move to approve. Second. Okay. Mah Rafi. Yes. Robert Thomas. Yes. And Mike Orsini. Yes. Uh the second one is uh Elon Franklin
Development Group LLC. Uh Mahir Rafi is the only one that can't vote tonight. Okay. Um this is a resolution by the way that I we had a lot of discussion of and and the application needed to be expedited per court order. Um, so I
really read over the um the resolution very carefully and I think uh Pete did a great job in terms of um putting everything in there that we had. They have quite the quite the list to go through. So um I move to approve.
Second. Councilman and Barson. Yes. Theodore Oh, no. He's not here. Robert Lort. Yes. Shaw Keller. Yes. Jennifer Ragnau. Yes. Robert Thomas. Yes. Rebecca Hilbert. Yes. Chairman Aini. Yes. Um and the last
resolution, Hamilton Street Management. I think this was the for the preliminary, right? Preliminary. Uh they got to come back for a file. Yep. Just Rebecca can't vote. Uh move to approve. What? Oh. Uh just let the record show
that Ted is here at 7:34. So noted. So I have moved uh Hamilton Street. And I'll second. Okay. Councilman Embarson, yes. Robert Lort, yes. Shaw Keller, yes.
Jennifer Ragnau, yes. Mah Rafi, yes. Robert Thomas, yes. Chairman Rsini, yes. Uh Ted, I'm going to go back to you. I was just giving you a chance to settle. This is for a resolution for Hamilton Street Management. Would you like to
weigh in on that? Yes. Okay, I got you. Okay, we're at the by uh board bylaws now. Um we we still have we have the one minor sub Christine um that we just that the minor submit for tonight. So let's do that first and Mark just give us a
brief summary. Yeah. So um we've had uh a few of these over the last few years meeting minor subdivisions. Um this is the uh property that is on Route 27 in the Franklin Park area. This is the IHOP building right here. Um, an application
was for a minor subdivision. Basically, uh, when this shopping center was built, there was there was this out parcel, a resident, and I guess who at the time didn't sell to the developer. Um, that property has since been acquired. Um, and the the subject of the subdivision
was is basically to um incorporate that into the development site. um what's uh proposed. You can see this grass area here at the time of the original approval. That was always intended to be some type of um retail development. Um
that's still what it's zoned for. Um and they're basically again really just at this point reconfiguring the property lines. Um and again, it went before the minor subdivision because the the lots that are proposed fully comply. uh the TRC did a report and the recommend and
the the minor subdivision committee uh approved the application subject to compliance with any outstanding comments in the TRC report. Uh no actions required of the planning board for our bylaws. Uh the committees required to report their findings to you. That's it.
Thanks Mark. Um so the vote on any resolution will be in the future like we just had. Okay. Um, I'll turn it over to Pete who will briefly um give us a a synopsis of what he has written into our bylaws to
uh Oh, yeah. You can do it. So, if everybody recalls, I'm going to do these. Microphones. Oops. Thank you. [Applause] Yeah. So, all right. We'll make this brief.
Um, I believe it was at last meeting or or the meeting prior. Um, there was a question over how we Let's try that. Even better. Uh at a prior meeting, we had a discussion over an amendment to the rules to deal with um notice requirements for adjourned hearings. Um
and I believe Chairman Orsini wanted a rule modification so that if an application was carried to a later meeting and then was not heard at that meeting, an applicant would need to renotice. So I took a look at your rules. I made an amendment to two of your rules to refer to a new section
which I've created which essentially says that an applicant can carry once and if they need to carry again they're going to need to renotice and it also provides the board with the ability to wave that requirement for good cause shown or other equitable reasons uh you know as there are times when the
adjournment is at the township's request uh for some reason and it wouldn't necessarily be fair to uh require an applicant to renotice under those circumstances. So that's really what you've got in front of you. um would just be looking for a motion and a second to make that rule amendment and a vote and then I can just revise those
rules and provide a new set of rules for Christine for this year and then you can uh ratify them again next year at reorganization. Yes. So just to let the board know what I was trying to prevent was um and I think Hamilton Street Management was a good example. Um I think they were going
to come last October. Um they postponed once I think to January or something and then they postponed again until we actually heard them. Um you know one is fine but and and then I remember for
um and I think it was for that application Carl Wright came in and and and Carl was representing his entire ward because they had lost track of the meetings, right? Um so he had a list and so that that was great on his part but
um it got me to thinking that um you know we should you know balance like they get one right and that you could track that that could be reasonably expected. You postpone two or three times I think you should renotice. Um if we hear and we
don't get through the whole testimony and we say we're carrying it to such and such a meeting and we have that meeting fine no renotice. you keep carrying it because the plan isn't ready, you should renotice. This is what this accomp attempts to accomplish. Plus, um it's,
you know, we have a language in there that the board of the chair can um you know, on a case-by case basis, um you know, like Mark said, if there is no plan revision that causes them to have to come back one meeting later, then
maybe we wave that. But um I I wanted some sort of line in the sand and then um some sort of of um wiggle room. So I think Pete did that. So um I would move to approve and I'll second that. You done?
Oh. Okay. Councilman, yes. Theodor Chase, yes. Robert Lort, yes. Shaw Keller, yes. Jennifer Ragnau, yes. Mahir Rafi, yes. Robert Thomas, yes. Rebecca Hilbert. Yes. Mike Orsen. Yes.
So, our last item tonight for discussion and then I'll open it up to the public, but uh is the BI zone draft ordinance. And so, this um actually leads me um thinking I don't want to open it up to the public for any comment on this tonight because we will have a dedicated
master plan hearing for that. Um what this is is just um the last time when we did have um the the first work session on it, the board um suggested some changes. Mark has made those and so he's just going to update us as to what those
are. Thank you. Yeah, thanks Mike. And uh yeah, so the planning board will be having a well as you recall it was a a work session at the last time where you received a presentation of the full document by the consultant in terms of the master plan and I went through the ordinance draft ordinance. Um there is
going to be uh again a formal uh hearing because it's uh you know amending the master plan uh and that's going to be scheduled for um uh Tuesday, April 29th 29th at 7:30 p.m. Um but again since
this meeting was kind of uh we knew was going to be short took this opportunity to make some of the changes frankly all of the changes that the planning board had discussed. Uh so I'm just going to go through them briefly. Uh they were emailed to you um I believe late last week. Um so the changes are highlighted
in green. Um Ted had some comments about the wording of the uh loading dock ratios. Um I think I've made it more clear. What I would suggest, Ted, if if you do have comments, suggestions, why don't you stop by? Uh I I it seemed
okay. you you just step to saying one per 5,000 square feet or one per 10,000 square ft. And as long as we didn't go to any other way of describing the
situation, I think that way is okay because that's probably functionally how you would determine whether the requirements were met or not. Yeah. Okay. Well, yeah. Thank you. And I
knew that it was going to be a little bit of a challenge to get that wording right. I um I think the changes are more clear at this point. Um again, tent, but if you have any suggestions, let me know. Um some of these again are rewarding. Um the first par sentence
three here about not loading, not being permitted on a cedic roadway, that was already in there. It's just a rewarding to make it more clear. Uh five and six. Um this is the building the supplemental building setbacks uh and buffering setbacks from a
residential zone. Uh nothing's changed here substantively from uh what was presented previously. Actually what the clarification is to make it clear that the it's not sometimes zoning boundaries are seem to be in the middle of the street. So you know it's making it clear that it's from the property line not
from the zone boundary. So if some attorney doesn't get, you know, try to get funny, um it's from the front property line or the rear property line, not from the zone boundary. So So Mark, I was at a meeting this evening, uh this afternoon evening. Uh one of the
comments from a resident was um is there any scope to increase the buffer? Is there any scope to increase the buffer uh uh in the neighborhood where the residences are more than uh more than the 200 ft that is in the
ordinance? Um well I believe I believe that's believe we're doubling it. Um, yeah. What I was told was it was 500 ft before and it's it's less now. That's two two different things. Um, and it's confu and it can be confusing. What what
this is talking about is if you have a property line that abuts if you're a warehouse or a light industry used that absuts a residential zone. This is the the amount of first the buffer is the amount of
undisturbed landscaped area that you have to provide between um any portion of the development and and the residential uh property line. The other one is the building setback. Um so that's a kind of a um an onsite
requirement. So here in this case we're we're doubling those from what currently is in the ordinance both in terms of the building setback and the buffer. Um, what I believe that resident was probably talking about was in a previous ordinance, the council had
changed it so that no um warehouse could be located within 500 ft of a residential zone. So, it's kind of like a separation requirement. You can't be on a property that's within 500 ft. Um, and then the council subsequently
changed that to prohib prohibit them alto together. Um, I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure how to answer that question other than to tell you that those are different requirements. If the planning board andor the council wants to go in that direction, they they can discuss that.
I'm not sure I'm not sure how else to say that. All right. I just heard that today, so I wanted to bring it up here. Um, but as far as the the again, if you're next to a if it's on a property that's next to a residential zone, the building setback requirement is proposed
to double from what it is now in the ordinance and the buffering is proposed to double. Um, and again, the language that's in here is is just making that more clear. Um, the board had asked for
discussed uh hours of operation Um, so this paragraph nine here is addressing that. Um the the basically it says that you can't have any and and this language mirrors um an ordinance that the council passed uh within the
last year um that basically says so so it's talking about um outside activities loading unloading um closing handling of boxes crates blah blah blah blah outdoors is uh when it's adjacent to to
or adjacent to or across the street from residential zone during the week. That's that activity is is prohibited from 10:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on weekends or federal uh federal holidays.
Uh and then there has to be a fencer gate to prohibit um access to those areas. And again, that mirrors the language that's in the township ordinance. Um so again that was at the the planning
board's request. Uh this now we're getting into the design standards. Uh this is uh another one of Ted's suggestions that um basically we we we the original ordinance had taken some language out about you know paying particular
attention to the building the architecture of the side of the building that faces a street. You know, Ted's question was, why are you taking that out? You should keep that in. So, that was a good comment. And then also saying that particular attention should be paid to a building facade which absuts a residential zone. Um, so we added that
as well. Um, and that supplements again all the stuff in yellow is gets into details about uh you know much more um robust architectural standards generally for uh these types of buildings. Um, bicycle repair station. And I think that
was that was recommended by one of the board members. Sure. Um anti- idling signs. Um this mirrors the language that's in the um environmental commission's reports about the the number and placement u of anti- idling signs on the site. Um so I basically
again took the language from some some of the environmental commission reports and put it in the language of an ordinance. Uh and it's in the draft. Um oh this is really a re rewarding. it's that nothing substitive substantively nothing is changing. Um this is basically basically saying that they
have to design the site terms of turning radi you know areas that are going to be used by cars you know have to be designed so that people can make the appropriate movements. Same thing with the you know obviously the areas that are going to be used by trucks they have to be able to make those movements and
stay within their travel lanes provide the turning templates. Uh Mark, it seems to me remembering applications where turning of trucks was brought up that there are
different sizes of tractor trailers. I don't remember the exact designations. They're W something or other. and that you might want to specify a particular whether it's the longest or the second
longest type of tractor trailer by the specific U number. I I I I would recommend that we leave it the language the way it is and and and you know Darren, you know, is very vigilant of
reviewing the applications based on the the types of vehicles that are going to be used and you know different areas of the sites. Um I don't know if we need to necessarily get to that level of detail identifying the exact types of trucks.
um you know, if it's going to be the long tractor trailers for that particular loading dock, then they're going to have to address that on their site plan. I I would recommend you leave it the way it is. I guess I would I would agree because the way it's written says um roadway adjoining roadways blah
blah blah shall be designed with adequate list and turning radi allowing anticipated vehicle types which means all anticipated vehicle types that you're going to demonstrate that they're going to be able to complete turning maneuvers uh within
those lanes and then it further says turning templates demonstrating this shall be provided for all anticipated vehicle types and routes. So, I don't think there's a need to call out one because we really want to make sure that the circulation functions for every vehicle that's going to be there. Yeah.
And I think that language gives the staff and and the board plenty of ammunition to make sure that the site plan is adequate. Um the one last change um that I want to bring to your attention, if you recall at the last meeting, I indicated that we we did um a
preliminary map of the onem road distance um and that we were going to uh improve that map by doing it in GIS, which is computer mapping. Um in doing that, there was u some slight changes. the the one
meaningful change is um there was one this area south of Pierce um basically was is within one mile um and that raised an issue which is one of those properties a butts um a zone that
is a residential neighborhood um and you know I know the board I'm sure is aware that the the purpose of the onem um distance from the interstate is twofold one is again to try to restrict them as close as possible to um 287 but also to
keep them away from residential neighborhoods. Now when we've remapped it well it's one of those properties is now adjoining uh a residential neighborhood. So we've added this language here um this is again the proposed standards for medium intensity light industry. So it would be worded
said said use must be located within one road mile of an interchange with interstate 287. and it's indicated in attachment 32, that's the map, and shall not have bought a residential zone. So again, I I I don't think that this doesn't change the intent of that
requirement at all. In fact, I think it just makes it stronger because that was the intent all along. Um, so that's basically it. Uh, any questions? Not for me. I think you you did a great job incorporating our feedback from the
work session and if anybody thinks of anything between now and the 29th discuss it with Mark um you know any any sort of particulars but I think this is in great shape. Looks like a question. I
have one very very minor correction to suggest. On page six, the the paragraph begins, "The buffer buffer yard shall be landscape with a minimum of
50% native plant materials of types resistant to and what you obviously meant was drought, but what you've got is draft with an A." Okay. Yes, that's clearly the intent. Yes, we'll we'll
change that. This is about as minor as you can. Yes. Might as well get the might as well get the right word in there. Thanks, Ted.
And so the 29th is when we're going to have a um dedicated master plan hearing on this, right? Yes. Okay. All right. So that's that's all the business we have tonight, but we do have to open to the public for any general
planning comments. So with that, I will make a motion to do so. Second. All in favor? I I um meeting is open to the public for any general planning comments. Hello, Debbie Stewart to Fington Plaza.
This is um I hope this is an allowable question. It's really procedural and for my own education. Um today we had Rahm to our community and not that I doubt what he was telling us but I just would like um to hear about time of
application and the go materials the checklist if each piece each document is there it just requires the minimum it's here it's here it's here that there is
no um review of anything within each of those documents documents. So if you I mean you could say in anything Mary had a little lamp but yes it's the storm water report. Okay, it's here. It's here. It's here. All good. Now they've
got uh time of application resolved. So, and is if that in fact is that simple for the um person putting it in for the company, is that just a simple
requirement from the state? They made it that simple. I know I don't think it's Franklin Township, but if you could just educate me and the rest of us a little bit on that particular point. Thank you. Well, as far as the the
um the time of application, that is a state that is a state law. Um as far as our completeness review, it's not nearly as simple as, you know, it has the word stormwater report on the cover and it says Mary had
a little lamb in the in the in the middle. Um, we do go through we do go through it to see if it is in fact a stormwater report. I mean, they could be hundreds of pages thick. Um, and I've been doing this for a very long time. So, I can
review a storm water report, for example, and see, yeah, this is does seem this has the the analyses that are typical of a stormwater report. There's certain graphs that are in there and different things that they evaluate. Um, same thing with a traffic report.
There's, you know, different things that different studies that they do in a traffic report and we open it up and go through and say, "Yes, they they have all those materials." As far as the site plans, it's very detailed. uh landscaping, do they identify the
type, the size, the spacing, all those things? The lighting, do they identify the height, the type, the power, you know, uh all of those things we evaluate to make sure that they're submitted. That's the law.
Um then there is you know the substantive review that that is much more detailed but we don't review it and the the the storm water report and and decide oh the stormwater report has
a mistake on page 27 that gets that gets identified and discussed in the staff reports after the reports are reviewed in more detail. So, so just to make it abundantly clear, it's certified in terms of the
time of application which starts the clock ticking on when you need to make a decision or when you need to hear the applicant by state is determining that, right? It's a it's a state requirement that if if a complete application has been submitted,
and that's where I think some of the gray area comes in on what is a complete application. It's got to meet all your uh elements of your checklist and whether or not the storm water report that is captioned stormwater report and reads Mary had a little lamb certainly doesn't comply with that but there is
some level of gray area between um you know what is in fact the stormwater report that would satisfy that requirement or other other elements and I don't know that we can really hash that out here um but once a complete uh application has been submitted then the
um zoning that is in effect when that application is deemed complete is what applies and you can't change it subsequent there too. Right? But that does not mean that as staff reviews the materials for the applicant and request changes um and they may want to come to a certain planning board hearing and
I'll say they're not ready um and and they're going to extend the deadline because I'm not going to hear waste the board's time. Um we've done that quite a bit. Um and um yeah, there's applications in the hopper that are not being heard
tonight because of the fact that they're just not ready. So that's the other portion of it. But in terms of certifying it complete so that zoning changes can't be made, that's as Pete said. Hi, I'm Jan Brandt. uh 22 Bryant Court.
Um so the at the last planning board meeting I was here and I mentioned to all of you about the um about Hillsboro and having the speculative warehouse um in their um standards for site plans and all and I actually I made copies to just
hand out to all of you that I'll give but um someone had mentioned that they were being sued from that by because of that but they actually um were not being sued for that. And I just I think that's an excellent idea to have for warehouses
being built in Franklin Township knowing exactly what's going to be inside it. I don't know, one of my questions is to Mark like what is the vacancy rate for warehouses right now? And I know in the news um what they've been saying is that
um since 2023 that the vacancy rate has reached its highest since I think 2013 with 9% and over. And you know the the reason I mean I know that you all have said that warehouses you know if somebody has a piece of property they want to build a warehouse that's you
know that's their prerogative. However some of these warehouses like the one behind shopright you know they're there's 2,000 trees. I'm not sure the exact amount. Mark Healey can say it but you know trees are being torn up to build these warehouses and we don't know
what our future holds with what's going on right now. So, I just um I made these copies just so you all can consider thinking about making it so that we know what kind of warehouses are going into place with this new ordinance that's
that's going on right now. Um because I know one of the reasons they said that um they're making the new uh master plan ordinance is because um it's the one that the banning the warehouses is nonsustainable. However, when I check the lawsuits that
have gone into place since 2023, really the last uh lawsuit is B9, and there really hasn't been any future lawsuits, but that those are the lawsuits. So, there really hasn't been a lawsuit since that new ordinance um that went into
place with the U banning warehouses that they have to go to the zoning board. Um now, I know you said, Mr. Chairman Orsini um about the you don't want to talk about the master plan. Can I talk about traffic or that's out? No, no,
that's out because we can't control that anyway. But I mean, I would encourage you to come on the 29th and and hear the entire master plan. Um um I'm fine if you want to um you know, however you want to do it, Pete, if if you want to distribute what Hillsboro's ordinance
is. Um, I mentioned it. Um, but what I didn't realize at the time when I mentioned it, um, and it's not that we shouldn't look into it. I'm I'm happy to look into it, J. Um, the thing the thing that we have in the ordinance that we're going to be proposing is a real strict
definition of light, medium, and and so they have to come in with knowing that because that's going to dictate all of the uh parameters, right? uh that they have to conform to based on that ordinance. Now high high intensity as you know is not a permitted use now
under this ordinance. So we won't we wouldn't get a fulfillment center for example or something like that but they would at least have to tell us because otherwise they can't propose a plan whether it's a light or a medium intensity use according to the definitions in the ordinance. So, I
think in some way that mitigates the spec thing because it won't be spec at that point. It can only be a certain thing. They may not know the tenant. They may not know what they're warehousing. Um, but it won't be a complete black box. That said, happy to.
Okay. Yeah. You know, it's just one step even better. And um and I know you all have probably read um what came out a couple years ago from the New Jersey State Planning Commission and they had all the recommendations for warehouses
that you know we need to know the impact analysis, the cost benefit analysis, the noise impact, the air quality um you know um impact and I don't see any of those things listed in this new master plan. And these are all recommendations.
I mean, we need to know if the warehouse that's coming into town is going to help the costbenefit, you know, an analysis as far as it's going to bring money to the community or are we going to be fixing roads all the time? So, I'm just a little disappointed that we don't have any of those things that the state
planning commission from New Jersey um put in their report as far as when you consider warehouses in your community. And I'm also disappointed that um the 500 feet away that um your mom was
mentioning and that Rahm brought up um questioning, you know, here we had that and we're kind of backpedaling to now it's um going to be 200 feet away and and I'm I'm, you know, if the mayor, you know, had that ordinance a couple years
ago that warehouses should be at least 500 feet away and since we're having it on such a bigger property, I'm not sure why that has changed. Um, and so, um, so I don't know if anybody I guess you guys already asked that question. So, um, if
somebody could tell me what the vacancy rates are of warehouses right now that we have. We're not going to get into that, Jan. And I'll tell you why we're not going to get into it. We We can't for through planning law say we can't we can't zone for a use just because it's
vacant. You know, I mean, if it's zoned for a gas station and we have six gas stations and three of them never get any customers, that's something for the market to sort out. The only way you can handle that is is by is by zoning, but
you can't say, well, we we're not going to allow any more gas stations in town. So, when it comes to those kind of things, and just to answer your other question about noise and things, so the noise ordinance is covered in the township noise ordinance, right? they have to comply. Um costbenefit analysis
is again not something that the board can legally take into consideration to approve or deny an application. Um and I would say for the 500 ft thing I think I think we're the way I read this Mark is we have that onem zone right where you
can't you have to be within one mile and if you're not then you can't abut a residential zone. there is only as you just pointed out one place where it conforms to that. So that's the only only place that it anyone could
build a warehouse abing a residential zone. way I I read it. Um I don't know whether that Well, I'm not sure exactly sure what the I mean the the if it's the the medium in intensity which is the um 150,000 to
400. Those are the ones that have to be within one mile and can't. And then the smaller warehouses are would be permitted um in the rest of the BI zone, but subject to all of the additional requirements that are in the ordinance, including the again the doubling of the
the building setback, doubling of the buffer and again all of the different changes that we've discussed over the last few meetings. Yeah. Okay. Um, so when you mentioned, you know, about that you can't control like how many gas stations, whatever.
However, if you had the no spec warehouse, then you would probably you would be able to control what the vacancy rate is. Um, not really. I mean, you could build seven light intensity uses, which you're fully permitted in the zone, and you still and have none of
them occupied. So, that's not true. Can't be done. But but if you know who's going in there, that's but that's no reason to deny them. I I could say, you know, I I you know, don't want person X, they're my enemy, and I don't
want them to open this store, so I'm going to deny their application. That's basically the same thing. Well, what I'm saying is that it would be nice to know what what's going in there. And if Mark could um also tell us where that um where he did say that it does a butt
next to that within that mile area residential area. I'm just curious where that is that you mentioned. The corner of Pierce Davidson. Mark can Mark can show you the map um offline there. Jen. Okay. All right. So
who should I I I just like you all. You know I think it would be better for our community if we knew what's going on. Can you can leave them on the dis with Pete and myself and we we'll distribute it to the board.
I only made eight. It's okay. Okay. We can always make more. Thank you. Thank you. Nirmal Sha N Congress Court canal walk. I have one question. couple questions maybe but uh one question is that I can
we limit the um size of the warehouse in terms of its height you know rather than you know making it I don't I don't know whether it has ever in the in the new master plan you've said anything like that but it used to be 30 ft I think
before and now in the old BI zone and then no no that's not true the the the building height requirement in the M1 zone was 50 ft. Um no it's what I'm suggesting was that in the very old one
you know uh the very old BI zone or it used to be lower and then it got increased to higher feet but could we limit the height can we put that coordin you know thing close in the master plan that
would actually help so I'll I'll just I'll bring up the the M1 zone um as it existed did previously. Okay. And the other question, I know that you may not be able to address it, but I'm very concerned that we are going
ahead with allowing warehouses and not addressing the issues of all these uh 14 16 um traffic junctions that are really problematic and I know maybe it is not part of your uh you know uh it could be
it could there could be a traffic intersection that's level of service F minus minus And we can't deny it. But I mean, we we can ask for we can ask for certain things like contributions, right, towards their fair share of road improvements or uh that's if it's a
township road. If it's a state or county, it's out of our hands, but it's it's it cannot be used to adjudicate an application. And the setback, you know, I know you doubled it from 100 to 200 ft. Um but it would be better if the setback was
little setback. That's the buffer you know 500 ft in every case. Okay. And I remember originally when we were doing the talking about doing setbacks that I think mayor had mentioned that in future we may actually increase that from 500
ft to higher number but um I don't know whether you would still consider that right I'll leave it to you but that's what my request would be to consider increasing the setbacks and limit limiting the height of the warehouses. Thank you.
So yeah that the requirement was in the M1 zone in the M2 zone it was 50 feet. That's it was never 30 feet. It was 50 feet. And the M1 and M2 zone are so old that I don't know that it's relevant. What was it in the old BI zone? 50 ft.
Well, there was no old BI zone. What happened was the M1 zone, M2 zone, and the CB zone were merged. Merged. But those standards stayed the same. 50 ft. 50 ft is that's what I was asking. Okay. Any other comments from the public?
Hi, my name is John Sinatus. Uh, my family owns 377 Davidson Avenue, which is the mic. Oh, sorry. He's How's that? John Cotake is 377 Davidson Avenue. uh were the um were
directly adjacent to 390 Davidson Avenue which um I was you know sent a certified letter um that I received April 11th you know to come here and then I heard something like really quick that they
didn't send out some other notification and so that was cancelled but I guess that's PH real estate how do uh you know Yeah, I think I think it's it's um being heard May 21st. Yes, May 21st is is the
hearing date. Unfortunately, without the applicant here and his ability to represent themselves, we can't really discuss it. Oh, no. I understand. just say I I I wondered how like I should have been
notified that that was changed because I just received this, you know, that I'm supposed to come to nothing. And so that was part of our bylaw change, right? So you're here tonight because you thought that was going to be heard. It was carried. Now you know it's going to be carried to May 21st. Now if we don't
hear it May 21st and it gets carried to June or July or September, they're going to renotice. So you get that again. That's why we wanted to change the bylaws because we don't want to have disenfranchised people who have a vested interest in things. So because you're
here tonight, they but they actually have to be notice anyway for so well for the for the newspaper not not for nothing. Okay, that's what I mean for what it's worth it has been up on the website since late last week that the meeting was going going to be adjourned.
Yeah. And that and that's fine. And like if you didn't look at the website and so you came here tonight thought we were going to hear it. It's why I say at the very beginning when we're not going to hear it because I don't want people to stay here if they're say oh you know I stayed here for an hour listen to these guys talk and then no application so you
can you know and then I say it's adjudic it's adjourned to us whatever date it is. So okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Seeing uh no more um questions from the public. Move to close. Do I have a second? Second. Oh. Oh,
wait. We have one more person. In several discussions, I heard this has been fixed, that has been fixed, cannot be changed now. Not our responsibility. Sir, if you could just provide your name words and I think as a holistic community, could you give us can you
give us your name and address please? where you live, please. Your name and address. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Harish Salal, 26 Patriots Way. Cannot walk. Thank you. Uh, so now that you know where I am, you
can come shoot me, but that's okay. Uh so this this business of not my business, this is not my I think as a community what we have to do is what is right for the whole community. We live in the same place. We live down
different streets. But traffic in my area affects traffic in your area. So it's not that what you do in my area is not uh should not be done because it doesn't affect me. So I think this whole idea of I
cannot do this has to go away. Well, it can't go away because it's law. It's planning law. Where you should be maybe is the state assembly and ask them to change the planning law because I mean uh it's the same thing for municipal. We
have 564 whatever I think municipalities in New Jersey. They all have home rule. So there's all that's why there's affordable housing for every one of them. That's why they all adopt their own master plans. So it's not a question we can address here tonight
cuz it's not it's not within our purview. All right. In in this community, correct? Not within our purview for a planning with a planning board. If you want to go talk to council, I don't know. They can you can give your opinion
to council, right? And the council has a right to Well, the council legislates for the community. I mean, they can't override state law, but they legislate for the community because state laws can be wrong, too, right? They can be wrong, but they're still law. So, then they got to get
changed. I agree. That's what But we can't change them. Well, you cannot change it, but somebody can change it. Yes. If it's appropriate. Talk to Assemblyman Danielson. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep. Again, seeing no takers. more. I think we had every actually every actually who
was here who gave a comment. So with that I move to close. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. Next meeting is when? Two weeks hence. No. The 29th is the special. 29th is your special and then the next one is
what? It'll be a week from the May 7th. 7th. Do you want one of these? Do I? No. Okay. We are ajourned.