75 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the town of Franklin has been provided. Uh if everyone please stand to the flag of the United States of America
stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. So for a roll call, uh Charles Brown and Mark Dansancy both asked to be excused. Councilman and Barson is not here. Theodore Chase
>> here. Robert Lort >> here. >> Shaw Keller >> here. >> Jennifer Ragnau >> here. >> Mah Rafi >> here. >> Robert Thomas >> here. >> Chairman Rini >> here. >> So I hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving. Um we uh we'll start with
the minutes for the meeting from October 15, 2025. >> Robert Lort and Mahir Rafi cannot vote. >> Um I'll move them. >> You can't vote, right? >> No, no, no. Mahir and Robert Lort. >> Court. Okay. Sorry. Second from Sorry.
>> No problem. Um Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Shawn Keller. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. and chairmani. >> Yes. Uh Hamilton Street Management LLC.
>> Uh Robert Lort and Mir Rafi cannot vote. Okay. Um just to remind everybody, this is the final giving them preliminary. They came back to tell us a few things um that we wanted to make sure were addressed um and then we gave them final approval. So with that, I would move
that >> that you saw. >> Okay. Uh Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Shaw Keller, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Arseni, >> yes. >> Uh the second resolution we have tonight
done with great painstaking um attention to detail over Thanksgiving break. Peter 500 atrium LLC. >> Oh, uh Robert Lor and Mahira cannot vote. Uh I will move that
Second >> Theodore Chase. Yes. >> Shaw Keller. >> Jennifer Ragnau. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Arcini. >> Yes. So, we have a few discussion items. Um maybe we'll do the easy one first and then I'll turn it over. March will do
the calendar. Um and I think Barb also has a few few things to say about upcoming master plan re-examination. So, uh and what what the board will have to do in uh early 2026. So, um, and then he'll talk about the bylaw. So, without further ado, the 2026 calendar. Anything
you want to note about that? Get that first calendar. Um, expect meetings to be cancelled and moved. Uh, but that's the way it looks now, >> right? And I did check with the normal um, board members just to ask if there was any religious holidays or anything
because I want to make sure we cover everybody. And, uh, every religious holiday in 2026 does not fall on a Wednesday. >> Perfect. Uh so with that I I'll move the calendar. >> Can we do this by affirmation? >> Peter.
>> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. Calendar's adopted. Mark, over to you. >> Okay. So, um this is uh changes to the bylaws uh that have been um really
memorializing discussions that have had been had uh both with the planning board and the zoning board um and trying to encourage applicants to do certain things. Uh and we thought that we should um make it more official by incorporating it into the both the
bylaws of the zoning board and the planning board. Uh the first one is the use of technology. Uh we've been trying to encourage applicants that when they appear before this board to come prepared with a laptop to project it to these beautiful screens here. Uh not only does it help the uh the planning
board in the review of the application, it it helps the the the public that is here to view the application as well as the public that might be watching either live or on the subsequent YouTube videos. Um so we're making it abundantly clear that those applicants that are
represented by professionals which is basically every application before u this board um again have to be prepared to project it u to these screens and frankly it it gives the uh chairman the uh discretion to send them packing if they don't. Um and we will be putting in
our uh correspondence uh you know that that staff sends to applicants making them abundantly aware of that requirement. Um and the other one again this is consistent with basically policy uh that we've been trying to encourage applicants that when
they resubmit um if there are uh staff reports that have been generated uh we want them to provide a written narrative explaining exactly how they've changed the plans. Don't just resubmit the plans. Comment one, see sheet 27, detail number 25, we
changed X, Y, and Z. comment too. So tell us how you changed your plans. Um so uh and again or if they had gone before this if they got before the board and the board said we want you to look at X Y and Z. Put it in writing how you revised your plans and tell us where to
look for those changes. Uh so those are the two changes to the bylaws. >> Somebody doesn't follow them. They don't get hurt. They don't get hurt. >> Yeah. Yep. Because if I if I first of all, the technology is is dead easy.
Number one. Number two, when I look at a resubmitted application, I don't want to read the whole thing. I just want to know how you addressed what we've asked you to address. And I'm sure for staff that's really important because you can't generate staff reports um without
going through it. So yeah, this >> be honest with you, it's always confused me when applicants don't do that. Yeah. Because I I fig if don't you want to put your best foot forward? You know, you told us to do one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. This is how we did it. Instead of just submitting the plans and making us guess and we have to look
through the different sheets and tell us how you changed the plans, be you know proactive about it. Tell us where to look. So again, that's what this uh that's what this this does. >> Yeah. So I mean with that uh you need a motion for us to adopt those and I I would move that
>> for for both changes. I'll second >> Jennifer Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Shaw Keller. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau. >> Yes. >> Mah Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Rini.
>> Yes. >> So, u before we go to public comments, I should have done this at the top. I apologize. anyone who's here for LLC that's being carried to uh January 3rd
right uh seven sorry uh January 7th and this is your notification that that is happening um if they were to carry again they probably notic um but um because I think that's what is in our box so um
yeah >> yeah you you allow allowed them to to do actually they don't need to notice again. You allowed them because the attorney had told me to carry it to today, right? >> And then some one of their professionals
called and said they couldn't do it. The the secretary being diligent, she immediately sent it out. She immediately called me. I called you. Have it marked on there. They do not need to know. Not for January. But if they go past that and you make that decision, that's fine. >> Okay. All right. >> But I just want it on the record that
they don't need to notice again. So January 7th for roads and dues I give that a 50/50. Um so um with that we'll open to general public comment. So the one hearing that we do
have tonight um is NPH real estate. There will be a separate opening to the public for that application. So if you're here for that you will get a chance to talk about that when that comes up. This is for general planning comment. So, um, open open to the public for that.
My motion. >> Just give me a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Meeting is now open to the public or any general planning comments? Not any. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> Matt, you're up. >> Actually, chairman, can I quickly go over the master plan? Do you want to do that real quick? >> Yes. Yes. >> I can put that on there. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah. Take just a few minutes. So, I just wanted to make the board aware. Um
so, as the board knows, as um issues have topics have come up over time. We've updated our master plan um over the years. Uh we most recently uh prepared a a draft BI um a master plan
for the BI zone which uh the planning board may be hearing at some point in the future. Um we've also updated things like the historic element of the master plan, the farmland preservation plan, the environmental resource inventory. Most recently you adopted an amendment to the trails and pathways plan last
year. Um, but we do still have an obligation every 10 years to do a comprehensive re-examination of our master plan. Um, and that's that's coming due very quickly in the first quarter of 2026. Uh, so what I'm uh, you know, alerting
the board is I think we're going to have a a busy January and February. Uh basically what the master plan re-examination is is um you have to look at your master plan, identify basically are there elements that are out of date that need to be brought up to date? Are
there things that have changed that would change our our planning policies and and and recommendations over the years and come up with a document that identifies those things that are uh you know still current and up to date. Maybe there's some things uh some elements
that need to be updated. Uh maybe there's some elements um you know like the farmland plan and and perhaps uh um uh the historic element that that are that are you know they were done in 2019. They're still current. They don't
need to be updated. Um I believe the open space u commission may be looking at uh making some recommendations to update the open space plan. That was from 2013. Um so that's getting a little old. Uh the reason I mentioned that is that basically you we have to put
together a document um adopt a master plan re-examination by early March. Uh and what what I described to the chairman before the meeting it's it's it's kind of a um uh it's kind of like a big to-do list of kind of where we stand on the master plan. Um and then it's,
you know, again, if there are certain things that need to be updated, then we can do that subsequent to adoption of the re-examination report in uh my guess would be we'd be adopting at some point in February. Um so I'll be I'll be preparing a draft uh of it in the next
few months. I'm also going to be reaching out to u the different committees historic um the a preservation committee um uh environmental open space asking them because each of those committees had
helped us on those different elements of the master plan that correspond to their in a way area of expertise and I'm going to ask them to evaluate those you know essentially asking historic look at the historic element where where are we are we still good and having them give us
some feedback on where they think we stand on each of those elements as well. Uh, and I think that'll help the board uh, you know, do this this re-examination in the next few months. And I I'll start that process this week. >> Yeah. Thanks, Mark. And I I think it
seems like two or three months is probably say the end of March, maybe we have three months or whatever. Um, sounds quick, but we, as Mark has pointed out, we've done some stuff, right? We haven't we just did the trails plan not too long
ago. We had tear in to to do that. We had you know back in 2019 we had some stuff done. We had a BI study done with traffic and all that. So I mean we're not starting from ground zero in any way. U but I would like to have um and I
told Mark this I would like to have our open space consultant in. I would like to have the historic preservation in because um You know, this is the fun part of our jobs as as a planning board, I think. And and too often we don't we don't don't get to do it. You sit here and
hearings, which is actually um a duty of the planning board, but it's it's not the role of the planning board. It's to actually plan. And so you get that chance when when you do these master plan examinations. And it's not it's like thou shalt not touch it but every 10 years. You could do it whenever you
want to. But um we've been fairly diligent in addressing elements as they've come. So, I don't think this will be a heavy lift, but I also want it to be fun. So, I want I want to get some people in here that I want to hear from. Um, I'm not I don't want to call Tara in
terms with what their plans are. Some of you may have read Franklin in just got a fairly large preservation grant from Somerset County. So, I mean, these are things that that are actually fun to fun for us to hear and and maybe how we can
help So that's that's that's my Bob. Thomas had a question. >> Have a quick question because I just read where Environmental Commission is asking the council to set up a storm water management utility or is that
going to be part of the included in the master plan or are we going to be included or are we included in something like this? idea or do you is it too uh new to have any information? >> I I I I don't know. I really don't know
anything about that that recommendation. So, and I don't know. I'd have to look to see how that may or may not affect a master plan. I really I don't know. >> They want to charge people a fee based on the amount of
runoff. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm aware of that issue generally. I just don't know what I don't know the impact that that may or may not have on a master plan. I I really I just don't know. >> Yeah. I mean, from what I understand that and I I I've read this in 30 know
very little, but from what I understand the first step is feasibility. So, and I think they have to get some money to pay for that feasibility assessment to set up such a utility. So, I think until they do that, we don't we don't probably have an immediate role. That's a great question. My my guess would be that
that's a a pretty cumbersome process cumbersome process and probably has a process all unto itself that is not going to be you know I think it's going to if if the town was to move forward on something like that
it's not going to be tied to the timing of a master plan re-examination. >> Yeah. Are there any that the state wants to put us in that are new? It seems to me I recall that there are some elements that the
state is now requiring. Yeah, that's one of the things I I had a conversation today with uh Tara Kenyon um and one of the questions is there is a requirement that if you update your land use element of the master plan, you also have to have a sustainability element.
>> Um so that's one of the things we have to look at. Um you know does that mean you have to have sustainability element if you do a re-examination report? I I don't think so. I think it's if you do a if you actually do a new land use element, restructure your land use element, then you have to incorporate
that. But that's one of the things we have to look at. It's a good question. We we'll look at that. >> So, thanks for your um indulging us in that conversation, Matt. And so, with f further ado, we will be hearing from NPH
real estate and PLN 24005. for those of you uh just to frame um this is their third time back with a this is a redesign um and I think that the plant has gotten to a pretty good
point. So with that, um, >> good evening members of the board. Matt Flynn from Savo Shaw Law here tonight representing the applicant MPH Real Estate in connection with its application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with variances to construct a two building office and
retail center on the lot designated as block 502 7.01 your tax records better known as 390 Davidson AB. you recall the site is at the corner of Davidson and New Brunswick. Um we were here on May 21st
and September 3rd. We presented some testimony from our engineer uh and responded to certain comments as they related to site layout, landscaping, etc. Uh among other things, we agreed to carry this application to tonight to better respond to those concerns and pre
present a revised plan that encapsulated some of the board's suggestions and comments. So, we are here tonight, as the chairman said, after making some plan revisions, listening to some suggestions about the site layout, we've met with your board's professional staff multiple times in uh the meantime to
craft an application that we hope addresses uh not just the concerns of the board, but also makes this application consistent with other retail and office mixed uses across town, which I believe is the intent of Mr. Healey's review memo and attaching some pictures
of existing sites of how they work. So, uh, we think that the what we present tonight, uh, we hope to convince you that this two building layout, uh, which does remain important to my client, uh, because he does intend to occupy the second floor of the one of the mixed use
buildings for his accounting firm, uh, that that two building setup does remain a feasible design for the project and with some of the other changes that we made address some of the board's overarching concerns. will you hear about tonight? Better landscaping and
buffering, uh, additional screening. Uh, the building and parking are set further back from David or I'm sorry, from New Brunswick. Pedestrian access and circulation has been improved. Site circulation has been made safer. Uh,
driveway access has been made safer. The pedestrian amenities uh, have been updated to be more consistent with, I believe, what your ordinance intends. uh and just an overall improvement on the scope of this project. And what you'll notice is that this application involves
uh many additional plantings along both street front to try to address the concerns of the board to make sure that the application is appropriately landscaped. Um so with me tonight I do have four witnesses. I have Shri Kawala, our professional engineer to discuss the
changes from site plan. I have David Feldman, our architect. I have Betsy Dolan, our traffic engineer. and K rod camp our professional planner to justify the variance relief. Um so unless there are any questions I would like to call up Mr. Cool.
>> We're going to present some exhibits that we have and we're going to display on the screen, but I have paper copies here. Thank you. Thank you, sir. got set up. Uh he was previously sworn and qualified. I don't know if you
rewear him, but I don't knowification still. >> You sure the testimony you provide is the truth? Nothing but just for the record since you last appeared and qualified as a expert in the area of engineering. Have your
credial Did you get the Oh, I was going to say he's got a US I'm thinking this thing is Yeah. that down there.
>> Sorry. Those clerks are just laughing about the fact that we adopted this technology. We better be ready. Show us the technology. Tell me next.
I just touched it. There we go. >> Good evening again. Exhibit we have here is just more of like a 2020 NJB area photograph of the site which you can see right at the northwest corner of New Brunswick and Davidson
Avenue. site is 2.5 acres and on both sides as well as we are providing an access on both street. my exhibit. Next exhibit will
show a3 and then the next one. >> That the right one. >> Yes. A4. Yeah. So basically just more of likeing of
proposed two buildings since we were here last time in September and we got feedback from professionals and We made the revisions. We had a kind of little like a hammerhead building and one detail building. So both buildings
are more of in our rectangle shape and our intent was based our meeting to provide more greener area and more screening along new street road and henceforth we removed basically a two-sided parking lot along New Road and
created a green space and where we are basically planting screening to avoid like when whoever is traveling on a new street road will not be physically proced in front of them. So that was a big change we made since last time we came
here as well as u because of the change we had to kind of create a three storm water management system instead of two before. So we submitted our plans and I we heard from the township engineer that we need to
move the proposed detention basin below the parking lot rather than having a green area because that does not allow us to plant like a shade trees on top of the underground storm water management system. So we would be able to make the change which is not here on our plan we
have present today but we can make that change subsurface change and basically that will allow us to plant shade trees so the roots can go deeper and it it will basically sustain that goal. So maybe they stop you just so the board
knows. Um I know you don't have the laptop in front of you so you're at a little bit of a disadvantage but so correct me if I'm wrong that the plan the board saw last time and if you're looking at the screen and hopefully you can see that >> my cursor there. >> You basically had parking
>> Yes. >> in this area. Correct. >> Yes. >> Which and the the buffer area the landscape area was roughly half the width of what's proposed. Yes. >> Now, so by re reconfiguring this,
>> you basically increase the buffering, the potential landscaping along New Brunswick Road, basically double that. >> Right. >> Okay. And then when you're talking about the storm water detention basin, the plan that was submitted, you have an underground basin roughly in this area. >> Yes.
>> And our engineer suggested, can you move it from here to underneath this driveway area here? And by doing that, if you're able to do that, then because if it's if it's here, you can't plant on top of it. >> But if you move remove,
relocate here, then you can also put more landscaping, not just a wider buffer, but also more landscaping in this area. >> And your testimony is that you can do that. >> We can do it. Yes, we have the sidewalks, which allows us to design for
water management, and we will be able to do it. >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure the board was understanding your testimony. Thank you. >> And also we create a little more like larger green area in front of the entrance of the office building. So that will provide some like rather than
walking state of the parking lot, you will have some green areas and some nicer landscaping element side to access the office. And as far as the variance goes now with
the parking, we are looking for about 89 parking and we are providing 83 parking spaces where we are taking four parking spaces. So basically we are short of six parking spaces and that's what we
are seeking from the board as well as the aisle width when we drive on a parking lot the required is 26 ft. 25 people a loading area that was one of the questions that came up
would occur. Usually these days based on retail uses they will have instant drop off and take off. So there would not be any overnight parking of any trucks or it just they come offload and just ladies that we always
so in other words the types of tenants that we would be looking for this site would not require a designated living area as part of the can you confirm just for purposes of the record your understanding that the reason that we kept the two buildings
separate as part of the design is to sort of separate the office uh component on the larger building from Okay. And you agree that the intent of the applicant to fill that larger building
predominantly with office. >> The lighting is basically typically what is required and our height of poles are not more than 16 ft. So we are trying to see that the likes don't spread onto the like not on the university
as well as Davidson Avenue. Would you agree that uh once construction has commenced that we would ensure compliance with all applicable lighting codes uh whether that be from the township ordinance or from the state?
>> Yes. Uh would you also agree that we are in receipt of the board engineers most recent review memorandum and there's nothing in that review memorandum that we cannot comply with as a condition of appeal. >> No, we would be able to comply with and the same goes for Mr. Healey's memo
although there is some additional testimony. >> Yes. Yes. About to police protection. So we have been negotiations going on which we can preserve and we would like to preserve as many as we can and how
whatever the decision made by the township plan we will honor it. We would work to do satisfaction on preservation of trees within our landscape are the big changes here that the board
should probably be aware of. But I mean that that as if you recall you've been in the area was right up against Davidson Avenue. We adise you that it would probably be better internal to the site where you focus. I think that's the sort of orangeish are
there. >> Yes. >> Um which again allows you to increase the landscape on Davidson facing Davidson in a place that people may actually use it which might not happen against the road.
That was a positive. >> Yes. You can confirm that that's the amenity area with the cursor right there. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the one other item I wanted to to hit on the variance for the signage. Uh it's my understanding that originally we had 20
foot signs set 10 foot back which required a variance. At the suggestion of the uh of Mr. Healey, we decreased the sign heights to 10 ft each. Instead of 20 ft allowed, we we kept it at 10 ft because we are 10 ft from the property line.
>> So you still need the variance for the setback of them, but they're half the size. >> Half the size. >> And is somebody going to testify? I mean, I think some of the renderings there there was some indication of what they're going to look like. Is the architect going to testify to that?
You're gonna I don't know how to change that. Okay, there we'll call A4 the color site plan. Yep. And then this will be A5 which is um from New Brunswick.
>> New this is from the Sorry. So A5 will be from this sign instead of asking for the height and it's the idea of that 10 ft back as
opposed to 20 visibility and and what I'm seeing is a sign that incorporates the architectural features uh not just the overall design but also the materials. I it seems I don't know what those materials are but I can see the building in the back and it looks
like it's incorporating those materials into the design of the signs. >> Yes, that was our intent to keep the similar finish between signs as well as the building. So there's no contrast between signs. >> And if the board was if the board was inclined to approve that they the site
plan and these variances you would obviously accept as a condition that it would look as as depicted on these these exhibits. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I mean so looking through this I mean the the way it's rendered is I
think exactly what the board hoped to see um in terms of this and the screening and um and everything else. I can only hope it turns out that way. Um I will I will give you credit for having your computer
renderings look actually like real things instead of cartoon trees that some other applications have seen in the past. Yeah. No, it's great. It turns out um lighting. Let me ask a question. Lighting is going to be
>> yes. Um, are there going to be cut off hours in terms of um, I know your client may not know other than his accounting and practice and whatever exactly what the uses are going to be
either for office or commercial, but what I guess what I'm asking in a nutshell is will there be a dimmunition overall at a certain time of night? In other words, like the security type lighting and during the
day, you know, early evening there may be more, right? Um, and the reason I asked is because obviously facing um New Brunswick, right? You do have some separated by a fairly large detention
based whether or not there'll be a sort of We don't anticipate there being late night operations. So 10 we would start on the lights. >> Okay. >> And also we will provide larger back
shields because many of the times we design but construction they forget to put back shields and that spills a lot of light on many shopping center. >> So the plan shows a back shield and definitely see that the back shield is
there. So Yeah, I mean with 16 foot poles that's not that's not too bad. I mean a lot of the spillage that I see around township comes from older older uses that don't have fixtures
down and they're still not um I don't I don't know if you go further in March report. I think most everything report there's anything else mark. >> Um yeah what I'm going through the
report u I'm doing exactly uh what you're suggesting Mr. chairman. Um I believe and and you'll have to excuse me because I since there have been a few meetings, I I don't recall um exactly where we left off, but I believe the board had been looking for some more landscaping along the northerly property
line uh to shield the residents uh to the north. Um you'll excuse me. I don't forget I forget if you had presented that at the previous hearing or not, but it may be worth repeating. >> We added the evergreen screening there. >> Okay. Are one of these exhibits the landscaping plan by chance?
>> Yes, we have one of >> one of the exhibits is not a blown out landscaping plan. Okay. >> We have a landscaping plan in as part of the site plan submission. >> Okay. So, at least if you could verbally describe the changes that were made to the plan to to address that.
Yes, you have provided the entire boundary between the parking lot and the property line with with a like a half of the parking lot is covered with evergreen trees and the rest is uh with a shade piece.
>> Yeah. What and what's um can you just just describe generally what what are these these green trees and just generally just you know how many what size if you could just give the board some. It's like blue jelly and
they have like 10 and 32 and Ted, I believe this comment came from you. >> Did you have a chance, Ted, to look at the plans? And >> I looked at that. Eastern red cedar which is
native as you can get there stay quite dense and there's one shade tree in the middle of Yep. So, I think the plan initially,
if I recall correctly, there really wasn't any landscaping along that northerly boundary. >> And then now it looks like there's 10 to 15 evergreen trees and two deciduous trees. >> It's 32 and
32 basically trees. It will prevent like if someone parks the car, the headlight won't be seen by the neighbors. give it like good screening. Then we have a shape piece like where the house is not there neighbors home. >> Okay.
>> That's more of it's like a dry location. >> Any comments on that, Ted? >> That fine me what we want there. >> Okay. >> It looks fine for me there.
Uh, one question I had was the the PA area um to the northeast of the two-story building. >> Yes. >> Uh, there's a large paver area. I'm assuming part of that is PA because you can't plant on top of it. But then the
rest of it, I just it just seems kind of wasted extra unnecessary impervious surface. >> We would have some kind of flower bed and we'll make that change. Okay. not to have this whole thing solid like a hardcape >> again. So, so the board knows what we're talking about.
It's this area right right in here. >> So, what he's saying is that he can convert a portion of that to to more to more green space and and when we when we comply with all other stuff, we will definitely show
that area with more details of the green plantings. I think that addresses uh the remainder of uh my engineering related comments. Mr. Chairman, thank you. >> I mean the other couple the one last thing was again chapter they still have
to do the ch calculations for chapter 222 which is the tree replacement. So we have to still don't know what the tree replacement um requirement is going to be on the site. As I recall, they're just sort of scattered trees. You're not taking down
any solid tree covered area. Maybe a little bit of the >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, to the to the degree that there's solid tree cover, it's in the rear of the site that is proposed to remain.
>> No, >> it's it's a regulated the rear of the site's a regulated area. So, we're not touching. >> Yeah. I mean, we need you to couch you with all your plantings. You don't know. All right. Uh any any questions more for
uh >> All right. Um we will remain between you again, but David David, you're going to be sworn. Raise your right hand. >> Please for the testimony and provide us the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Hi, D. If you could state your name,
spell your last name, and give us your address for the record, please. >> David H. Feldman, F as in prime, Eld70, Route 34 North, Wall Township, New Jersey. And can you give the board the benefit of your professional credentials, please? I'm a licensed architect in the
state of New Jersey as well as about 8 to 10 other states along the east coast. I have a bachelor of architecture from Temple University. Um I've been a licensed architect since
>> it all sounds good. So you are follow uh so David uh using your architectural plans why don't you describe the proposed feel of the building materials uh and then some of the architecture related comments in Mr.'s report. Okay. So as uh
previously stated there's um two buildings that we're proposing. Um the drawing before you was prepared uh in my office under my supervision. Um that is the twostory uh office building uh
consisting of approximately just under 20,000 square feet. I believe it's 19,900 um with with equal space per uh per floor. Um the intent of the building use is uh primarily office space and as
depicted in the renderings um it's going to be a mixture of of glass uh stucco and um faux wood. Uh I do have some samples here of materials that we intend to use that I brought with us in case people would like to see as well as the
colors. Um, as far as your, uh, design standards, um, I feel that we, we certainly met and exceeded them. Um, we break up the boxiness, uh, of the structure by varying the height of the, uh, roof line
and the and the walls. Um, the type of material that's used as well as the different colors. Um, emphasizing the main entrance to the building, uh, which is actually at a 45 degree angle. um entry uh in comparison to the rest of
the building with the um landscape green area that the engineer testified to uh prior to. Uh we also addressed um some of the concerns of the rear of the building. Uh in the previous submitt we did not have the same uh glazing and
penistration that we are currently depicting um on on this submitt dated uh 101425. Um, the same holds true with the retail space, which is a one-story structure,
uh, just under 5,000 square ft, which is on P2. If you want to the right direction, >> I'm sorry. P4. P4. >> It might be a different set. >> Looks like that's sheet three or three.
>> If you want to stick to the first building, I can go through the floor plan. >> It should It should Can you want to talk about the retail space, the exterior building or the interior of the office space? That's the >> I don't think we need the interior
detail. I mean, that's that's obviously um I I mean, I just I I appreciate your detail of the exterior. I mean, I think it it looks like a really nice building. Um it looks very natural colored. Um I
think again, I'll go back to these if you're testifying, and I think you are. It's going to look like that. >> I sure hope so. >> It's going to look great. So, so I think I think I think if that's good
any questions or comments in terms >> Oh, yeah. That's a good idea. And as the engineer testified about the signage, it is our intent to use similar material to the uh the building. Can you talk about screening of rooftop
equipment? >> Yeah. So, so from my experience, um the rooftop equipment on a twostory building, if it's situated in the middle of the structure, which is what our intention is going to be, uh the sight
angle really from grade prohibits you from really seeing the equipment um on the on the structure. uh because of the height of where it's located, the distance from where you're visualizing it, um and the angle at which you know you would see the top of the roof and
then beyond you wouldn't necessarily see the mechanical equipment on the taller building. Um so it's really not our intent to need any screening um for those mechanicals. However, if if it does become apparent where it is visual
um because of the elevations of the of the road or or whatnot, um we will provide screening around that. Um the screening on the smaller building is probably more of a concern. Um and that we are going to uh to screen as well as place the mechanicals within the center
portion of the structure as well. I have nothing >> to comment. I think I probably made it before. If you can go back to the the floor plan of a twostory building. >> Yeah, I I agree with that. That was an
oversight on our part. An exit door will be provided at the secondary stair coming down. >> Yeah, that was an oversight. >> It's only an emergency. No, no, it's going to be necessary by code as well. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah, that that was an oversight on that
part. >> For the record, what's on the screen right now is A7. >> Yes. Thanks. Um, same drill, I guess.
question. >> Did you stand up before I spoke? >> She did >> also seem to be having >> the testimony going to provide the truth. Nothing but free. >> Yes, I did. >> If you could state your name, tell your last name against your address, please
for the record. Elizabeth Dolan Dolan Consulting Engineers 181 West High Street. Your qualification changes. >> So your office did prepare a traffic report in support of this application. >> Yes, we did. Can you uh give a high
level overview of the conclusions of that? >> Sure. Um I would point out that our report is from February 2024 and the plan has evolved over time. So um we analyzed uh the 18,568 ft of office that was originally
proposed. That was the 2,000 ft more than the current 11,66 ft. For retail, we originally had 7,400 and it's gone up a little bit. 8,3. Um the report analyzed 57 morning peak
hour trips. It's a total inbound and outbound and 90 evening peak hour trips. Total inbound and outbound. Uh when we adjust for the new building areas and the fact that we're now at the uh 12th edition of troop generation manual, the
warranty hour trips by 13, the power increased by six. that's not enough to materially change the um the results of the analysis and and also our report had looked at a full movement driveway originally on New Brunswick Road. Uh so we've done a lot of homework and
anticipation of kind of intensifying um and the results of our study with these new numbers um the change in square footage and the update IT manual shows that drivers will operate at acceptable levels of service during
these uh peak hour periods. uh recognizing that peak hours are the combination of the highest driveway volumes combined with the highest street volumes and during all other hours the drivers will operate similarly to how they are projected to operate peak hours
or better. Uh there are no changes to the intersection levels of service uh between the um before and after you know with with the addition of of site traffic. Um so there's no negative impact associated with this uh site
development. I also would also point out that some of the traffic that will uh likely be generated by the retail component maybe traffic already on the streets uh and diverted into the site in the form of a pass by trip and so we did take a small credit for that during the
evening hour. Uh I think the more important part of the assessment though is the parking because as our engineer was testifying we do have a shortage. Uh but again I would point to data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the sixth
edition of the parking generation manual. Uh that would indicate that for the current 11,666 ft of office we would need 35 spaces. Um and for the 838
the retail would be 38 for a total of 73. So um that is below the the proposed point in supply and I think the variance can be granted the um it data has been updated I think that was maybe two years
ago that uh sixth edition came out and the um one space for 200 square feet of retail in the ordinance and one for 250 in the ordinance for um office. those are pretty high uh based on current ITP
uh research and and data. Um so I would um suggest that that parking variance can be granted. Uh it's a slight deviation from your ordinance but recognizing the IP data I think that that should give the board a level of comfort and I've often testified about
the 24T versus the 26 required 24 is again the recommendation from the IT which also led circulation. So that's my high level over >> in other words in other words taking six
spaces from the ordinance requirement even though it's an acceptable uh provision under the IP and also shortening the proposed drive by one foot compared to what the ordinance requires uh lets us devote that space to
other things from the site such as landsc. >> That's right. And I I'm sorry. It's 25 ft on planet 24, but yes, that does allow for the enhancements that our site engineer just testified to. >> And in your opinion, the site the site
can be uh safely circulated by um incoming vehicles, pedestrians, etc. >> Yes, we've got sidewalk provided throughout the site, crosswalks, across the driveways, appropriate pedestrian connections, um and a two-way circulation.
as I said is the standard and is appropriate for >> um there was a comment number 11 in Darren Massiey's report uh addressing the crosswalks um and probably before your engineer I should have asked you
were comped with Um but some of you some of you are addressable we can cross that bridge in a bit but in terms of the crosswalk um an ADA curb ramp should be added David crossing the crossing must be realigned appears pedestrian standard the crossing
warning may be required I'm not familiar with what these requirements are but I know our engineer is I just wonder if that is something you want to address in terms of um >> our engineer already fully stipulated all the comments in Darren's letter so we will comply with that I think it's It's just going to require a minor
change to >> Yeah. Okay. No, I mean it shouldn't be it shouldn't be a big deal, but I just I just don't I just didn't know whether you were like, "No, we looked at it and we don't we don't agree that you need it, but you're saying
that makes things easy." That was the only question I had that regarded traffic for >> something I' had to bring up against the site plan.
I was looking for uh the second electric charging station. I finally found over by Davidson Road. Your label is upside down. >> Would you like us to fix that?
I would be in >> we'll fix the detail that now. >> Just have one one question, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, and again, this may have been addressed previously, but forgive me. The the exit to New
Brunswick Road, uh, in response to comments, that's now been changed to be a right out only. >> That's correct. Um and it looks like that's being accomplished by um a curb curbed island to direct the cars to the right. >> Yes.
>> Uh I'm assum and can you the plans depict certain signage and it also shows a right turn arrow. So I guess the question is can you can you just tell the board what signage is proposed and is that arrow illustrative or is that going to be actually painted on the
pavement? The arrow and the only word will be painted on the pavement. And is that a be sign? >> No sign. Yeah, no left turn sign. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any other comments from the board? questions for
if not you the testimony you're going to provide is the truth old truth nothing but truth >> I do >> if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address please for >> I'll spell both strange trey c r e i g h rancamp r a h e n k A
you give the board the benefit of your professional credentials please. Um undergraduate p graduate Georgetown postgraduate work at Harvard I've been in the field 44 years licensed in New Jersey for 3000 hearings and trials in the superior court in state and appear regularly
before planning his own including this one a few years ago. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you sir. >> You say you can tell a Harvard man you can't tell much. >> I would leave that one out. stop that for some reason that one gets in trouble. Um, in any case, the good news
is you got to the planner and I'm asking the evening I was here for the testimony. I will adopt the testimony of Mr. Kalda, Mr. Feldman and Miss Dolan. Uh, so I don't need to repeat what they said to you. They address the how, where, and why of our variances. I'm going to just tie it back quickly to
policy. Uh, these are C2 variances. We're balancing benefits against detriments. Um, as you heard council ask stolen in the last question, obviously the primary benefit here is creating the space to allow the additional landscaping and the additional amenity area the board is looking for
the circumstances. I think that's the overriding issue, but there's a couple other more details. Um, on cartwan described to you the 24 foot works. Um, from a planning perspective, the reason we see in commercial ordinances going up to the 26 foot width, um, is because you
have some chaos in larger shopping centers, pedestrians walking down long aisles to get to the stores, shopping carts, goods, that sort of thing. None of that is occurring at the scale of the retail that you have here, and all of our pedestrians are essentially crossing the aisle, not walking along the aisle
in which that extra couple of feet is there to protect the pedestrians. Um so I decided to install and testify to you from a planning perspective I agree it fits the circumstances of this particular site. Um on parking um as you
heard the IT standards currently um would require less parking than we're actually providing. Um from an operational point what I would add to that is that we already know who the office tenant is which means that the owner has the opportunity to carefully curate who he brings in as his retail
tenants. knows what his parking budget is. He's going to have to allocate it carefully as he brings in tenants. That won't work here. But those are choices that can be made to make sure that it works. The good thing from a planning perspective is that we don't have anything in the immediate walkable
area that if somebody couldn't find a space here, they're going to go park there and come here. We're relatively isolated. So, it's it's going to be a self- enforcing parking limitation. If a customer can't find a space, they're going to just leave. Um, so it's going to be that kind of circumstance. So I we have plenty. I don't think there's going
to be a problem. They can be curated and even if there is there's no impact on on a drink suspenders and one more. Um, and the last one is the sign. Um, you saw from A5 and A6 exhibits uh that if you move the sign back another 10 feet, it's
going to be hidden by the landscaping. Uh, and then the applicant is going to want the additional height to be able to see the sign over the landscaping. Um, I think it's a reasonable design compromise to bring the sign closer to 10 foot uh to the uh property line to give drivers the opportunity to pick up
the sign, read it, and make a determination to turn or not turn. Um, but you're you're serving a communication purpose here and overall circulation safety. Um, and I think the the 10 foot smaller sign works as effectively as a deeper setbacker sign.
uh is aesthetically I think better for the site as the board is determined. So for those reasons I think the benefits for these variances outweigh any detriments. I don't see me measurable that I would weigh them against and >> uh is it your testimony that
substantially out? >> Yes. So somebody's been in here but not although I've asked the question that what is substantially mean is it 51 is it 67 versus 33 is it 50 and a half and
it's um generally a subjective feeling is what I've been told from law standpoint >> lawyer answers We have to determine whether you agree that you stay substantially. I mean I
but I just always I always ask that >> when detriments are zero it doesn't take a whole lot of benefit. Um any questions for if not um I'm going to open to the public and then so I'll make a motion to
open to the public. >> All in favor I >> I meeting is open to the public. Please come up and then just your name and address. >> So this is either comments or questions. So, if you could just raise your right hand for me, you swear the testimony and
provide the truth. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please. >> My name is Carla Lucer. My address is 11:07 in Somerset, New Jersey. I live in Somerset. Um
I the only thing that I wanted to mention um actually it's been revoly for me in discovering this there are group I live in Somerset run senior community and there are actually a lot of people in my community who walk to the existing
shopping malls strip malls that exist in our area. Um, but and we're talking about not necessarily ablebodied people, but I see handicapped people with their walkers. And just last weekend, I met people who can't drive because they
can't see who do their shopping with a some kind of a car to go to shop, right? They walk there and they walk back because they're getting their exercise at the same time. So, I love the plan. It looks fabulous. My only concern is
Um, with the increasing traffic on New Brunswick Road of trucks and cars, not many bicycles, some but very little, I'm really concerned about these individuals who have chosen that route to, you know, in a way to do their shopping. I mean,
there's Instacart. I'm old for that, but it would make it so much safer and easier. But they're doing it. get this their exercise when they go out and they do their shopping like you to consider, you know, in the
widths and the crosswalks to ensure that you're safe for, you know, people, you know, doing their shopping and but special people doing their shopping. That's all I wanted to ask. It's a reality. >> No, it is. It's a great question and so
I want to address it. So it looks to me that if you were a resident of Somerset Run, you were going to go to this to be built, you would go down the sidewalk on New Brunsw and you would cross and mark crosswalk
or um and I think that's where probably the comment comes in about the ADA compliant ramps. And I'm glad you want to do that because that way you will have a ramp rather than a curb. you will be able to get a walker or something off there. So now that's my testimony which
is not Betsy or or Matt. Do you want to um and make any comment in terms of its um you know accessibility for wheelchairs walkers etc. >> Well the idea is that the site's going
to be fully ADA compliant as noted in your engineers review but also we're proposing to have some retail tenants. We provided for uh box and striping all throughout the parking lot to allow pedestrians safe
access. I would hope actually that in the development of this site that those people that would perhaps go to a strip mall further down um no sorry further down Davidson yes sorry further down New Brunswick would
frequent our site if we have tenants of interest here. >> So we we have we have no objection to making the site pedestrians. That's the whole idea. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment concerning what the
I was going to bring this up after this application. This may be appropriate. Now, if you look on the rendering or the exhibit they turned in, what this lady is talking about,
you have retail in your development, but you don't have shop right. You got a awful lot of people from Somerset Run that are walking down the sidewalk to get the shop right. They have a sidewalk on their side of the
street, but you can't cross over till you get all the way to Elizabeth Avenue. The sidewalk in front of your property or will have and I can foresee and probably she will agree people will use
the light to cross walk down the sidewalk along your property to get into the shopping center to shop. Right. is lot 58.02 which I believe is Somerset Woods.
We as a zoning board made a huge mistake because when that development was approved, we should have and probably could have gotten a sidewalk on that little section on New Brunswick Road that's at the corner where that intersection is.
That will be missing when your project is done. All right. My suggestion is for all of you people to bombard the council and have to take money out of the sidewalk fund section of sidewalk in to coincide when
your development is doing the job if this I'm I'm making a big assumption that this is going to be approved. I think it's also if there's ever an appropriate time for us as a board to send a recommendation to the council to
take some money out of their infamous sidewalk fund and fund this project because I won't call it a mistake because your project wasn't in anybody's
mind when Somerset Woods was was built. But that if that property is Somerset Woods, it's technically part of the frontage on the old New Brunswick Road where they did put a sidewalk in front of Somerset run up towards Shop Road. It
should have been done there also. And >> and is that the section, Bob, that that the township actually does own because part of that old New Brunswick Road is is actually owned by the shop right. But that's the part up near the shop. Correct. Not the part that Woods. Correct. >> Okay.
>> This can we can't I'm just making sure that we have the right to spend money. >> I'm assuming that it's Somerset. >> Yeah. >> Unless of course your client would like to make a donation to put in a section of sidewalk
>> for there. I mean that's not something >> that's a quite an offsite improvement. It's notated by >> I think that we as a town should be embarrassed enough that this might happen that
should this is an oversight and it's a mistake that should never have happened. >> And that's why that's why the sidewalk fund when we have clients or applicants rather before us who
do not want to put in a sidewalk and we agree with them and we ask them to contribute instead to the sidewalk plan. That's what it's for. I think it's council fund. He funded it. I don't even know that it needs council approval. Maybe it just needs I I
Anyway, um long story short, I would endorse I would I would endorse this board. >> It's important that if you look at your drawing, you have only a right turn out. >> The streets have pretty heavily traffic. And of course, another bone that I have
to pick, since the town refuses four ton load limits on roads, you've got trucks using that section to get to Davidson Avenue, which shouldn't be doing that.
You have the curve at the end where there's no sidewalk. It's the curb in New Brunswick Road, which has been the site of several accidents over the last year. It's it's a very heavily congested
intersection at times and people belong there on a sidewalk. I don't know how to get it accomplished or what to do, but like I said, >> we'll we'll we'll worry about it. No, we will not force you to make an offsite improvement that's a little beyond the
pale. Um I can tell you I can probably tell you why it didn't get built because Somerset Woods a rehab center I'll bet I'll bet this is just this conjecture but I'll bet what we said to ourselves was well and nobody even there right I mean they're not really very mobile
right and you're going to you're not going to go to shop and Somerset runs active more active at all they are going to go right um so we probably said okay a little bit forget it whatever or maybe we did it for more landscaping maybe who knows why we did it Bob's right though
it was I I think in retrospect had we known that Somerset run residents were going to use that heavily to get up to shop right and other we would have put it in without a doubt that's why sidewalk funds exist because not everybody wants to put them in not everybody needs them and we can block
money in the interim much like the shade tree fund and we Hamilton with all that money um all of the all the Hamilton street got reandscaped so >> Mike if it makes you feel any better that was a zoning board application Yeah,
it's your fault. >> So, it there is a sidewalk. I I'm looking at the arrow. There is a sidewalk, but it's it for that was 15 years ago or or or you know, 10 or 15 years ago. There's a sidewalk along the um uh old New Brunswick Road, but then
it stops at the intersection and for whatever reason doesn't go along New Brunswick Road. I don't I don't remember why that decision was made. >> I was here. I don't remember why. >> Well, like Somerset would resoning, so I I I can I couldn't even comment, but I mean, if I was on this board, I'd
probably say what the reason I gave is probably as good a guess as any. No, no one's going to remember now. Um, well, we'll we'll we'll address that, but I thank you for bringing that up. >> Yeah. And I just want to mention we are an active adult community, but our part
and our apartments are handicapped accessible. Okay. So that means that we have people specific that reason because they may be handicapped. They may have to be in a wheelchair and they can roll around our
apartments because all the, you know, entry doorways are very wide. I mean, it's rem, you know, it's a wonderful aspect of where we live. So it attracts people, you know, to that community. And that's why increasingly I'm hearing this
from people, you know, who can't drive, but they can walk. Thank God they can walk. >> No, this is a good this is a good idea. And as a board um I'm happy to um author a letter to council or whomever it may be that controls this mythical not
mythical it exists, but um it is a good idea. See, I think it should be a letter from you number one so that there's a record of it >> and it's and it's public and you know maybe something would will get done and
it's appropriate to do it when if this is approved it's appropriate you know you might even be able to arrange for whoever does your sidewalk to do that one but the town pays for you know that part of it.
How can I coordinate to work with the >> Yeah. I mean the the worst thing is when we always face this and again this is what the cyber phone was created for. There's always gaps. There's always things that come up later on. For example,
500 atrium is a great great example, right? It was an office building. Yeah. You may want a lot of sidewalks because the you people would walk on their lunch out. Now it's going to be a warehouse. So, but things go in the opposite direction, right? And so, you don't put sidewalks and you say, "Why you need
sidewalks?" And then the use changes, right? And things evolve. So, that's why we have this ability to um regress those. So, thank you. >> Thank you very uh public comment.
Seeing no takers, I will move to close public portion. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Um, Matt, any final comments? >> Yeah. So, as I stated in my intro, we're we're looking for preliminary and final
site plan tonight with uh the various outline relating to the drive width shorting deficiency and the compromise over the sign setback for the height of the sign.
uh we as a applicant and our team we came to you with a plan. You provided your feedback. We took that feedback and we wanted to implement a plan that made sense for the town that was aesthetically pleasing, safe, and attracted the kind of high-end retail
tenants that we had for this section of the township. Um and that's part of pull that occurs with every planning board application. So we we come here as applicants looking to be collaborative and deliver something that works for the town, I hope you feel that this
application does that. And to the extent that there's some cleanup uh that needs to be done related to uh some of the reports and moving one of the bases uh under the parking lot, we'd ask that that would be a condition of approval. I think we've demonstrated that uh we we
should be entitled to an approval tonight and we ask for your consideration. Thanks, ma'am. Um, so as far as board discussion goes, I mean, I I'll tell you where I'm at. Um, I this is the third time. Um, I
think now the application has evolved to pretty much what we had asked. Um, maybe before the testimony tonight, I was thinking um, based reading the staff reports, I would suggest that we give preliminary but not final. um much like we had done on Hamilton Street where
they had to clean some things up that might have affected the design. From what I've heard tonight, however, I don't see anything that remains in the plan that would suggest that it's going to change the plan. Obviously, if it did, you would have to come back
anyways. Um but I I mean uh accounting the trees and and and and cleaning up some um CAD drawings and and and various other things don't don't really would not really change what put before you tonight. And so I'm okay with doing both
preliminary and final. Um and so I I think what I'll do is I'll I'll make a motion for that. Um once we get the motion in a second, we can have discussion if we need to. Um um in complian with all um staff reports uh
remaining regressive staff reports um with the three variances. One for the 10 foot sign that is a 10 ft setback uh one for the aisle width and one for the number of parking spaces.
Um the uh two chapter 222 tree calculations as a condition of approval the the 10pm cutoff that was testified to for the lighting um um and and basically anything else is staff reports also outside staff reports obviously u
will have to be um signed off on such as uh DNR canal I don't >> it's outside agencies >> yeah outside agencies will obviously have to have their own have their own staff reports comply with. So, um, anything else, Pete, that I should bring into that?
>> I think, yeah, there were a few other things mentioned on the record, but I'm sure we'll make sure to reflect that in the resolution. >> Yeah, I was taking some notes. Those were the those were the biggest. The crosswalk obviously is anything that's on the whatever whoever managed to get a recording tonight, you'll be taking the
notes. I took notes. So, anyway, that is my motion. >> Ted has a question. One thing. >> Yes. >> Um I'm not totally clear whether the aisle
width is for 24 ft or 25. >> 25. >> It's 25. >> It was 25 but then some of the testimony has said 24. Maybe it just hadn't caught up. >> That's because the IG standard talks
about 24. So when you heard 24 referencing the guidance from the IT, we're actually providing 25. >> Good. Good. That's what I thought the situation was. >> I have a question. >> Yeah. >> I forgot to ask um what is happening
with the mature trees on Davidson? I think it was mentioned the last time right on David and the corner as are weing them. I think the question was that some of them they were not salvageable. >> Just going to say I to the extent that I
think there was already testimony on this tonight. I think the engineer had indicated that he's going to work with Mr. Healey and preserve those trees to the greatest practice. >> Those are the ones create additional testimony that would then require open
so because I have it in my notes. It was there and I can summarize. Appreciate it. Thank you. You got it. All right. So, I have I have my motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Theory Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Leort, >> yes. >> Shaw Keller,
>> yes. >> Jennifer Ragno, >> yes. >> Mahir Rafi, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Arcini, >> yes. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Matt. Thank you for uh working with us and getting us to getting us to where it needed to be. Um,
we I heard think before that we don't have another meeting this month. >> So, everybody be be nice and not naughty. >> So, have a have a good uh have a good Now you have our calendar. So, make sure you know you bring back put it up there
and we'll see you in the new year in 2026. So, great holiday. >> Oh, motion to. >> All right. All in favor? Have a great