Good evening. I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the zoning board meeting of July 10th, 2025 in accordance with the open public meetings act 1975, chapter 231. Adequate notice of this
regular meeting of the zoning board of the township of Franklin has been provided. Board members, applicants, professionals, and members of the public, please speak directly into the mics so that our recording secretary can properly process minutes.
Applicants and professionals, please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony. Thank you. Uh, call the role, please. Okay, Chairman Thomas. Um, Cheryl Pacia,
Michael Dy, Kunalia, all asked to be excused this evening, just so you're aware. Okay. Richard Roanic here, Verdas here, Alan Rich here, Gary Rosenfall here, Robert Shepard here, Faras Khan
here, Shapen Dusin here, and Chairman Thomas here. Uh we have minutes regular meeting June 5th 2025. Robert Shepard and Paras Khan can hold
a second. Richard Roanic. Yes. Verbas. Yes. Gary Rosenthal. Yes. Bishop Hindu Singh. Yes. Chairman Thomas. Yes. Uh we can move right to the hearing section for the one application on the
agenda today. IDI Logistics LLC ZBA24 O10 D1 use variance preliminary final site plan with C variances in which the applicant seeks to build a 212,500
ft warehouse at 13 Executive Prime Somerset lot 469 lots 1.03 1.04 1.07 7 in the B1 zone.
Thank you very much. Good evening. Uh my name is Paul Ktorii, an attorney with the law firm of Price Me Schulman and Dominino representing the applicant IDI Logistics LLC for this application which as indicated concerns 1-3 Executive Drive. It is a D1 use variance um along
with some bulk variances. Preliminary final site plan approval for construction as the chairman indicated of a 212,500 square foot warehouse distribution logistics facility. Um this application is one that we have uh made a lot of
effort on already. Uh to start with some of the things we already have uh flood hazard permit approval, we have uh county approval, DRCC approval. We're close on the wetlands. We have uh the uh the Franklin uh sewer authority as well
with their conditional approval. So the applicant is making great strides to get this in a position to expedite the matter tonight and to have this come on board as quickly as possible hoping for an approval. Um in that regard um we
have been in communication with your professionals specifically Mr. Healey, Mr. Mis your your engineer. We did have a meeting earlier today to go through and get further clarity on their comments to talk through some things
with the goal and purpose of expediting matters so that this board does not have to spend can spend as minimal time as necessary to kind of get to the point of of making a decision. Um I can tell you happily that we did make some significant progress and I want to just for a few minutes touch on what it is.
You'll hear about it in detail, but I think it's it's best just to hear a few minutes of it now. Um, first relates to the vacation of Executive Drive. Um, the street is one that only services currently this property. It was clear
from the comments that the clear preference of Franklin is to have that street vacated. We talked through the issue and I can represent and you'll hear that the applicant will consent to initiating promptly a request of the municipality to vacate that street and
we'll do whatever is necessary to assist in that process. Um and that that can be or we would consent to that being a condition of hopefully an approval this evening. Um that process uh as you all may know is overwhelmingly in the hands
of the municipality. It's an ordinance adoption process. We know that the property is legal the the street is legally able to be vacated. So we hope that it would be done promptly. Um but there is always the possibility of some issue arising some legal or engineering
issue that causes delay. So for that we do have a a nuance in terms of the condition which we discussed today and had consensus on. Of course subject to the board it pleasing the board. Um if there is some delay in that process which we do not expect but you never
know. Um and we have completed all other resolution compliance issues. In other words, we are in the position with all outside agency approvals, all resolution compliance is done such that we would be in a position to obtain a building permit. If the only thing left is for whatever reason either the town has not
moved on it that is still out there we would be able to proceed with uh construction permits building occupancy while we continue to to work through the street vacation process. We don't think that's going to happen but obviously I
have to deal in the world where we can't really countenance that risk. So that makes sense. We would have a continuing obligation to do whatever is necessary to get that done. But if that were to happen, which we don't think will happen, that's the way we kind of discussed it and which I would say I would ask consider hopefully at the time
of of conditions of an approval related to the street vacation. I want to just touch on variances for a moment. Uh one of the many good things about the street vacation is that it eliminates two significant bulk variances. significantly. We have um parking of
cars and trucks on the front yard of executive and we have truck loading on the front yard of executive. Those would go away with a street vacation which obviously is a very significant thing. We discussed as well though however that again on the unourred event of a delay
we will be putting on the evidence for those variances and we would respectfully request that they be adjudicated and we think approved for the reason that if there is a delay and we're in the position to obtain the permits we would need those variances having been granted in order to proceed
to construction and occupancy. We you'll hear that we believe it's very clear that this is a very unique situation. The idea that the street is going to be vacated is certainly unique. The property itself is incredibly unique in that the street only services this property and it has the property three
street frontages. It has 287, executive and Davidson. So you'll hear that evidence and we would respectfully request that even though we know and expect hopefully very promptly that those variances will not be necessary, we do need that to be part of of the
process. Lastly, um the comments from your engineer made reference to the request for uh roadway improvements at the intersection of Davidson and what what is Executive Drive. Now, we the details of that will be during resolution compliance. We discussed the
generalities of it but again the applicant will consent to having that as a condition to implement um those roadway improvements which will be um uh coordinated through your engineering department and Mr. Healey to the extent he's it's relevant on his avenue as
well. Um so that that is also a consent. I will say as you'll hear um the concept of that is is uh on the assumption and understanding that um the other application which is pending before this board for the adjacent property for a
warehouse development if and when that comes before the board and if and when that's approved our our assumption and expectation would be that that same condition for those same roadway improvements at that intersection would also be a condition of that approval. And then of course the coordination
would be between the two applicants to figure out how it gets done, who pays for it, etc. But that's the expectation. So those are three significant things I think we we've kind of squared away to expedite matters. Uh in closing, the only thing I want to just mention in terms of the use variance itself and the
appropriateness of this site. Um, very briefly, we know a year and a half has gone by and and Franklin has uh retained outside planners and traffic consultants to evaluate comprehensively where in the BI zone a conditional use for a
warehouse may exist or be appropriate. Um this does not control you and I say this only for purposes of general information but the ordinance which has been prepared not acted on yet um comprehensively talks about warehouse development and identifies what our
project would be which would be a medium medium intensity warehouse. It identified 10 different conditions relating to proximity to to uh to to 287 proximity to residential size of the building number of loading docks etc.
and came up with these 10 conditions of saying if you meet these it's appropriate. And the only thing I'll say again for general references and and for understanding the appropriateness of this site um with the vacation of the street this site would comply with all 10 of those conditions. So I think
that's at least relevant to at least understand that independently um those professionals have determined that a project like this does make sense doesn't control here but I wanted to just make that statement so that you have that information with that unless
there's anything one second I know it's getting ahead of it a little bit but your your introduction kind of introduced this and u good intentions are fine but things need to be on the
I like your comment. My my proposal is that should this if this be approved and we go forward with road improvements and so on, vacating the street, the traffic signal remains
there and in effect I mean operational during the construction. Yeah. I mean I I think that that's typically how it that's signal there is crucial because you have two lanes of traffic coming off 287 up Davidson Avenue all
merging at that point. Understood. I I I would I would defer to the you know we have traffic in so I would defer to that but I certainly understand should this go forward then your client's resources
toward this project will be to not only vacating the street but maintaining the traffic signal understood okay we can go on thank you okay so unless there's any any other questions or comments I can call the
first witness and and get started. I I guess the only other question that I have is um uh whether the the vacating of the street will result in the removal
of the madam uh of the street so that the impervious coverage would be reduced. I we can certainly ask I don't I don't think that it has gotten to that point. I think those are things that that would come out during the the resolution
compliance of figuring out how that works. My my expectation would be that it that it would be remaining as as needed for the proper, you know, we're going to be we're going to be improving the intersection. So, it really is a function of engineering and and such.
So, I couldn't speak to that, but I don't think the idea is to make it go away. I think we need that we need it. It's just going to be a driveway instead of a with now improvements at the intersection. Yeah, Bob, let me speak to that real quick. I I think what I would suggest is
to the degree that um the culde-sac extends beyond or the street extends beyond their access. Um I would again if the board was to grant this, I would suggest that uh it be a condition that the applicant explore that with staff.
You know, I'd like to find out, for example, from our um emergency management officials, fire prevention, do they want the culde-sac to stay, you know, the bulb at the end or not? I mean, it was there, it's there now because it's serving three different properties and it's a public road, but
if it was to be abandoned, you know, the road was to be vacated. Does that bold need to stay or not? I can't answer that. Um, but I think it's something that again we can explore. If it can go, great. Less impervious. If it has to stay, it has to stay.
So if we were to well if in any possible resolution that should be included as something to be discussed with um the Franklin Township um zoning.
Yeah. I I I would suggest again if once if if we get there I would suggest that that would be a condition that the applicant that we'd have to explore that whether whether the end of can any of the existing macadam go away. Okay. The these these kinds of things like the street vacation raises issues
that are just things that have to kind of be worked out as you go through that process. But we understand where you're coming from. I think now we can actually get started. Okay. Thanks Justin. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. So, your first witness, Mr.
Yes. This is Justin Burns, a representative of the applicant. If you can raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. If you can just repeat your name, spell your last name for the record, please.
Justin Burns, B U R Ns. Thank you. Mr. Burns, for purposes of the board, can you um provide your title, position with IDI experience, etc.? Sure. Uh my name is Justin Burns. I'm the Northeast Market Officer for IDI
Logistics. Um I am responsible for uh acquiring new and managing existing projects uh within the northeast region. And obviously you're familiar with this particular application and all of its details. That's correct. Okay. Uh can you provide some background
detail on IDI briefly? Um we I know we had another project approved around the corner on Davidson, but for this board that was before the planning board, perhaps you can just generally uh acquaint them with IDI logistics. Sure. There we go. Uh Idea Logistics um
is a investor and developer of logistics warehousing. Uh the company's been around for approximately 36 years. Uh in that time we've developed uh approximately 240 million square feet of warehouse development uh for more than 700 customers um across the United
States. Uh in New Jersey we have a portfolio of approximately 4 million square feet. Um, and I would say specifically within the Northeast region and specifically in New Jersey, we've been heavily focused on uh the redevelopment of um non-performing
properties into uh warehousing to basically turn something that's um quite frankly just an eyesore within a township and try and create an asset for for both both a tax benefit and a job benefit. Thank you. and and obviously we'll have professionals that will talk it talk
about it from their perspective, but again briefly from your perspective as as the applicant, the real a real estate developer. What are what are the aspects of this property that make this something that uh came to your attention and make sense for for this project? Yeah, so I I already touched on this a
little bit, but I would say the fact that this is a redevelopment. Um so executive drive, similar to our project that we have on 195 and 215 Davidson, um you know, we're going to be redeveloping three vacant office buildings into a class A state-of-the-art um warehouse
development. Um so obviously the redevelopment component is crit critical for us. Um second, um this this really fits within the neighborhood in our opinion. It's surrounded by um other commercial properties um and it is not
proximate to any residential which again is a a key component for warehouse development for us. Um the third factor would also be the proximity to uh I287 a major interstate highway system which effectively gives almost uninterrupted
access for uh both cars and trucks from the highway to uh the proposed warehouse. Um and then lastly, the fact that uh the property has both uh water and sewer um already available. And then in in terms of the building itself, perhaps you could just confirm
for the record the the size of the building and just what what is this a spec building? Are there tenants? How many would you would you expect to possibly be uh in an ideal world in the building? That kind of thing. Yeah. So this the building that we're proposing here is 212500
uh square feet. Um this will be built on a speculative basis meaning that uh there is no tenant identified at the start of construction. Um our expectation here is that um this will be a single tenant building. Uh however we have designed it to accommodate uh two
tenants. U just just in terms of some details to make things clarified there was a comment a question comment I think in Mr. Healey's regarding signage. Just to confirm for the record uh the understanding is that there will be no uh signage variance as requested. Can
you just confirm that? Yeah, confirming for the record that we will not um have a signage variance. Okay. There is a variance regarding loading birth which uh length of it which is something very common. I know comes up in every application uh in terms of the size. Can you just comment
on the size of the loading birth we're proposing in terms of industry standard versus what otherwise is required by the ordinance? Yeah. So we we generally refer to it as truck court. Uh with within our our industry 130 ft is industry industry standard across North America. I can say
that within our um 4 million square foot portfolio in New Jersey all of our truck courts are 130 ft. Similarly with the um width uh of the driveway the the truck driveway which is 36 permitted we're at 40.6. Perhaps you can just comment on that from your
perspective. Yeah. So I mean really the the the thought process there was just um accommodating safe traffic flows for the trucks. Um Alex Lame our engineer will touch on that in greater detail but that was the the rationale. Okay. And that's something that's customarily
you know is a standard essentially that you use in your in the developments. Yeah. I I'd say I mean ultimately right you just have to accommodate the the truck turning radius in in an appropriate way that's safe for for traffic. Okay. Um in terms of uh vacation of Executive Drive, um if you can just
confirm, you know, we a meeting today and your thoughts on uh from the applet's point of view, the the idea of vacating the street and it being a condition of of approval in your words. Yeah. So, we we agree with the advantages as Paul stated um with
vacating Executive Drive. Um, effectively today, it serves as a it only serves um, executive drive and it's effectively a driveway for our property as it as it stands today. U, and again, as Paul stated, it would effectively remove two variances.
In terms of the the the nuance of possible delay, although we don't think it'll happen, is that something critical in your mind for accepting the condition in terms of being able to move forward in the event of a delay to the to the street vacation process? Yeah, I mean, absolutely. I mean, as as
all of you know, this is a significant investment for IDI. Um, and ultimately, we have to build uh the building within a specific time frame. And then we're also obviously looking uh for tenants to occupy the building. So, we'd obviously be concerned if that would jeopardize the the construction timing in addition
to the occupancy of a tenant. Um there was also mentioned in the reports and we discussed at our meeting today uh the road improvements at the intersection of um Davidson and Executive Drive. Can you just confirm um that you understand that that you would
exceed to a condition related to to those improvements, the details of which will be done during resolution compliance? Yes, we we understand and we agree. Okay. And is there an expectation of I know there's an adjoining uh site that may come before this board. Is do you
have an expectation on those road improvements as it relates to that in terms of approval of that application, similar conditions, etc. Yeah, I mean that that would be my assumption. Yeah. Is this building uh solar ready?
Uh the building will be developed solar ready. We build all of our buildings uh with the capacity for solar um so long as the the grid can accept solar and the tenant has a need for solar. Um we would plan on um developing solar on this building. But every building we develop has the load capacity on the roof to
accommodate solar and lead certification. Same question. what what's the position there for this project in generally? Yeah, again similar effectively across the country for idea logistics. Again, we take sustainability and and building in an environmentally conscious way very
seriously. Um so every project is leadcertified. Um and then we we try and pursue the highest level of lead certification that's um possible for a project. Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I have for Mr. Burns. Anything from the board?
What does solar ready mean? Does that just mean that the the roof of the building would uh uh support uh the mech the necessary equipment to be solar active?
Correct. It just requires extra uh investment from us in terms of the roof load uh so that the panels can be effectively the roof can support the weight of the solar panels. Thanks. Yep. Now along those lines, the uh the solar is 40%. I'm not mistaken, right?
40% of the total roof. That's what would be. I I I believe that's correct. But I we'll we'll the other the other 60%. Does any of your properties have uh um uh green roofs?
We do not. We've evaluated that for for certain projects. Um we have not initiated with any projects but we we're constantly evaluating new ways. Um that's generally there there's issues with cost and just the weight associated with that roof and the maintenance. Um
so the short answer is no. Any other questions? We'll open to the public. Is there anyone that would like to ask this witness a question concerning his testimony? come up to the mic, please. And
again, just to reiterate, this session is to uh question the witness concerning his testimony. Oh, hello. My name is Barbara Burns. I live Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. I live at 79 Habill
Place and Um, I have a question about um it um the truck route um coming to and from 287. Is it going to go be going down Davidson
or is it going to just be on and off 287? Yeah, I mean one of the attractive features of the property to us was the proximity to 287. Um it would be our expectations that uh trucks would almost exclusively use 287.
That's good. And um there's been a lot of warehouses being built and I was just somebody mentioned something about a request from the township for a truck stop. We have a a shopping center near
where we live and tractor trailers have been parking in the back and running refrigeration units at night. Do you envision a truck stop or anything uh a necessary
for your trucks? Is it going to be 247 and is it going to how many trucks are there going to be or it's subject to the the tenant that ultimately occupies? But we don't anticipate a truck stop or anything like that. Okay. All right. And there'll be ne negative
effects on our drinking water. Um because the um I think our drinking water comes near there if you can. Not not to my knowledge. Okay. That's all I can think of. Um
thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. and we'll close the public next. Very good. Uh, Alex Lame of Bowler Engineering, who is the project engineer. Just a a quick question. Uh, Mr. Kator,
I hope I pronounced your name correct. You did. Thank you. Yes. Um, can you just So, what other folks are you going to have presenting today? We have, uh, after Miss Lone, we have Betsy Dolan to briefly touch on traffic. Um we have uh our architect who
basically just do the renderings and show what it is and then we have Paul Gel who obviously the planner to to talk about it. Okay. And the reason I asked that question is just for any members of the public. Um you're going to hear from a couple a few different experts so that
basically you're going to hear from the site engineer. So if you have questions about his testimony you're going to hear from if you have questions about the architecture you're going to hear from the architect. You can ask those questions to the architect. The traffic engineer is going to testify to the traffic. So you can ask questions about
traffic to that person and then the planner is going to testify. So just keep that in mind. So if you have questions, just so you can point your your questions to the to the correct person. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Lame, raise your right hand.
Uh do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Can you uh just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record, please? Yes. My name is Alex Lume. L O M as in Mary. Ei. Thank you,
M. Lome. Can you briefly uh provide the board with a benefit of your schooling experience? Uh testimony before this board and others. Sure. Um I graduated with a bachelor in science or civil engineering from the University of Delaware. I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey since 2016. My
license is currently active and I'm a senior project manager with Bowler Engineering uh with an office located at 30 Independence Boulevard sweet 200 in Warren, New Jersey and I've been with Bowler for almost 14 years and you've testified before this board and others I assume. I've testified before this board and
I've testified before the township's planning board as well. Okay, we accept them as Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lame. Um can you uh provide the board with uh the underlying conditions that you think are relevant as well as um the engineering aspects of this project that are relevant for them
including reference to any comments from engineer planner for the board? Yes. So uh up on screen right now I have an aerial exhibit that just outlies uh outlines the existing conditions which we'll mark. You just mark this as an exhibit um A1.
Yes. This is uh dated June 27th, 2023. Uh it's prepared by our office and north is to the top of the page. Uh as Mr. Conttoria had noted in his introduction, the site is identified on tax map as
block 469 lots 103, 1, sorry, 1.03, 1.04, and 1.05. Just that I I'm sure the board is familiar. Sorry, 1.07. Uh I'm sure the board is familiar with the site, but just very quickly for uh
edification, uh David Davidson Avenue in the surrounding area, uh Davidson Avenue lies to the east with to the east of the site with a hotel use beyond. Uh executive drive currently, Executive Drive li is to the north with a cultural center beyond. Uh Interstate 287 is to
the south with some industrial uses beyond. Uh and there's a cemetery to the west with single family residential beyond. Uh the site is approximately 18.33 acres. It's situated currently in the BI business and industry zone where
a warehouse is not a permitted use. Uh and as Mr. Kinori had had mentioned in his his opening the the town we understand the township is currently going through a re-examination of their master plan. There's an assessment on different intensity uh industrial uses and for
this site uh the site would qualify for in the proposed condition as a medium intensity industrial use and with the vacation of executive drive we would comply with all 10 of the conditions for that intensity industrial use. So, I'd like to bring up my second
exhibit, A2. And we can mark this as exhibit A2. And I'll zoom in a bit, but this is a colorized version of the overall site plan sheet that was included with our submission package. Uh, that was sheet
uh C301 in the submission package. And just for the board, I'd like to go through uh just the the proposed conditions for the site. And I'd also just like to point out North is towards the top of the page for this exhibit and it's dated July 10th,
2025 and again prepared by our office. Uh the development proposes a 212500 thou 212,500T warehouse with associated loading docks, driveways, car parking spaces, storm water and utility infrastructure, uh landscaping and lighting.
While we noted that the warehouse is not uh not a permitted use in the zone, we are in front of this board seeking a use variance for the warehouse from a parking perspective. We are proposing 152 car parking spaces for the site which exceeds the minimum requirement of
93 spaces and also exceeds the minimum requirement uh for the the medium indust the medium intensity light industrial uh pursuant to the master plan re-examination which had a requirement of 119 spaces. Uh the parking will include six ADA
accessible spaces uh two of which would be van accessible per per the code and we also propose seven electric vehicle parking spaces uh which are located to the east and west sides of the car parking which is located on the south side of the building and the proposed EV
parking and the number of those complies with the state statute as well. uh within the EV parking spaces. There will also be one of the EV parking spaces as uh ADA accessible. We're also proposing 22 trailer parking spaces on the north side of the site.
The building also has 39 loading docks on the north side of the building uh which are facing Executive Drive. Uh we also have two drive up ramps on either end of the loading docks on the east and the west which are for for use by smaller box truck box trucks to drive up
the ramp and make deliveries as needed. Uh Mr. Conor had noted it in his opening as well. We are requesting a variance for for the requirement parking drive aisles or driveways within the 50 foot front yard setback. Uh the site is unique such that there are three front yards. There's a front yard that borders
I 287 a to the south, a front yard for Executive Drive to the north, and the the more true front yard with Davidson Avenue to the east. We we are requesting that variance uh for Executive Drive and for I287. Now,
with the vacation of executive drive that's been mentioned, that variance relief requirement would would go away effectively, but we would have still the the variance uh for the 287 side of the property. And again, 287 is about 15 ft
below grade from the from the proposed site. And uh there's a pretty substantial landscape buffering and with existing trees and shrubs that do a pretty good job screening from I287. Relative to kind of pedestrian circulation for the site, we're
proposing concrete sidewalk along the south side of the building to service the car parking spaces and provide uh access to the building. ADA accessible routes are proposed from the ADA parking spaces to the entrance doors on the south side of the building. And we're also proposing a sidewalk from the
building along the east side of the building along the car the car driveway back out to Executive Drive and then ultimately back out to Davidson Avenue to provide connectivity to the public right away. Access for the site's proposed vingress
egress driveways on Executive Drive. The westerly driveway is for for truck access and the easterly driveway will be for car access to the parking lot on the south side of the building. Uh we as mentioned previously we are requesting a variance uh for the width of the driveway for the truck driveway
on the west side of for the west executive drive uh for being greater than 36 ft. We're proposing 40.6 ft and that really is to promote safety for trucks entering and exiting from that driveway and to be able to avoid conflict if they're making turning motions at the same time.
Uh we're proposing two-way circulation around the north and the south sides of the building uh for truck and car access respectively. And we also are providing an emergency access lane around the rear of the building uh circulating to the west uh for emergency vehicles, firet truck access uh around all sides of the
building. Uh the truck court and the docks along the north side of the building total in 130 ft in width for truck access and maneuvering. uh we are requesting a variance uh for that width as well as the code requires uh two times the length of the longest truck. So in this
instance the the code requirement would be 147 ft but as Mr. Burns has stated in his testimony 130 ft 130 foot width for a truck court is industry standard across the United States and plenty of room for truck maneuverability. Uh and
uh there was a comment in the CME letter from the board engineer uh requesting circulation plans for trucks and fire trucks and access which would be provided to provided to the town as part of resolution compliance. We're also requesting the variance for the loading space maneuvering area in
the front yard for the portions of the truck court because executive drive is a public rightaway but again if executive drive is vacated that variance uh would be eliminated. Very quickly on signs, we're proposing one monument sign near the front corner
of Executive Drive in the northeast of the site. Uh and the sign will be less than 100 square feet, including the measuring the base of the sign and would comply with what is allowed by code. Uh furthermore, for the building, we would be proposing two wall signs. each would be less than 100 square feet and have a
vertical dimension of less than two feet in height assuming there was multiple tenants and no more than one sign on any facade would be present to comply with the code. Uh the the board may notice in the in the packet with the site plan that we are noting four signs are proposing a variance but that is not the
case anymore. It'll be two signs on the building to comply with the code and we would not be requesting a variance. Uh just very quickly to talk about some wetlands uh on the west side of the site. There are flag wetlands on the west western portion of the site which
have an anticipated transition area of 50 ft. However, the proposed site improvements are outside of the wetlands and all the pro the proposed improvements for the site are limited to uh the already currently disturbed asphalt areas of the site. uh and in in
in the condition we are going to be eliminating uh paved areas and asphalt surfaces and putting and replacing that with grass and some of the transition areas for the wetlands. So that's something that's allow allowable by the D's code under you know normal site maintenance. They they usually promote
removal of asphalt surfaces in their transition areas or their wetlands and replacing it with grass or vegetation. Uh we also have there's a storm an existing storm water basin on the north side of the site that was flagged as a wetlands with no anticipated transition area and no improvements proposed in
that basin. And as Mr. Conor had had mentioned, we currently have an application into the D for a letter of interpretation to confirm the the location of the wetlands and the transition areas associated with them. There's also an unnamed uh tributary brook along the western side of the
property which has an associated flood hazard area which the applicant has verified with the D and has also received a individual permit for flood hazard area from the D since the site is considered a major development and as part of that individual permit the D conducts their storm water management
review and has found that the storm water management proposed for the site complies with the D's requirements. very quickly to touch on uh coverage for the site because I think it's important to note uh the development development proposes 9.29 acres of imperous coverage
uh which uh comes to 50.7% of the entire lot where 60% is allowable allowable by code. Uh this is a decrease of 1.31 acres of imperous coverage on the site which I think is significant especially with the goals uh of the town and this board to reduce impervious coverage in
town. So again a reduction of 1.31 acres of impervious surface on the site and we also have a net uh decrease of what the DP classifies motor vehicle surface area which is areas where cars and and vehicles can drive over. We have a decrease of 4.6 acres of motor vehicle
surface area on the site as well. From a utility perspective, uh we we'll have utilities servicing the site. Gas, electric, phone, cable, water, and sanitary sewer are all proposed for the building. Uh we are currently proposing a water connection from Executive Drive.
However, we will be revising that to connect directly from Davidson Avenue as requested in the engineers report uh prepared by CME Associates related to the application. Uh quickly for lighting for the site, uh we're proposing site lighting throughout the property, which complies with the
with the town's requirements. Uh a combination of polemounted area lights along access drives and parking areas, as well as building mounted lights. The polemounted lights proposed uh along the property lines throughout the property will have shields to reduce glare to any of the neighboring properties and will
also uh face directly downward. they won't be shining up in the up in the air and they'll be dark sky compliant. For for landscaping for the site, we're proposing a combination of shade, ornamental and evergreen trees, and deciduous and evergreen shrubs throughout the entire site. Uh landscape
screening around the property with a with a mix of existing and proposed um landscaping. We're trying to maintain as much of the existing landscaping as possible around the site. Uh there's also a code requirement for tree replacement for for the trees on site
that we are proposing to remove. Uh the requirement calls for 295 trees to be replaced and we are proposing a total of 441 trees to be replanted on site. Relative to screening for the site, uh I
have a few other exhibits I'd just like to show to the board because I think it's important for visibility for the board and to see kind of how some of these views might look from the different areas surrounding So, I'll bring up the this cross-section exhibit, and we'll mark that as exhibit
A3. Um, this is also prepared by our office and is dated May 8th of 2025. And I'd like to zoom in on the, it's hard to see, but I like to zoom in on the bottom portion of this exhibit. Uh, this is more of a cross-sectional exhibit, a sighteline exhibit to demonstrate that a
car traveling westbound on I 287 and what they may or may not see as they're driving by the site. So given the the significant plus or minus 15 foot elevation change from 287 to the site and the existing landscaping uh that is already along the southern portion of
the property, a car driving by uh will be pretty well screened uh with the existing landscaping and the grade change uh from seeing the building as they drive by the site on I287. And then lastly, we have a few uh 3D
renderings as well that show some views from uh Davidson Avenue. I'd like to mark this collection, and it's four sheets. I'd like to mark this collection as exhibit A4. And I'd like to just call this the 3D rendering exhibit package.
So this this first uh this first exhibit or first page of this exhibit that you see here is is entitled uh view from the corner of Davidson Avenue and Executive Drive with planting heights at install. And this is dated January 10th of 2025 prepared by our office. Uh this shows
the proposed plantings for the site at the time of installation for trees and screening for the building from the intersection of Executive Drive and Davidson Avenue. And I'd like to go to the next page which shows the plantings at a maturity height of between five and
10 years. So it's the same view, same intersection, same corner, but after between 5 and 10 years of growth and maturity for the trees and and and health uh that they they provide a good screen and buffer to the proposed building and even the loading zone from
that corner of uh Executive Drive and Davidson Avenue. And then on the next page, this is uh looking north from near the bridge coming over uh 287. This is looking north at the building. And again, this
first this first uh picture here is showing the the the plants and the screening at the install height. So when they first get installed and then similarly I have a view the same view with the maturity height of the the
trees for between five and 10 years. So hold on a second. How tall are the uh the trees when they're planted? Uh with regard to the location on um um
Executive Drive and uh what's the other Davidson Avenue? Davidson. Yeah, sure. So, the the install height of the trees plus plus or minus 6 feet could be 6 to 8 feet. Okay. uh relative to Davidson Avenue, I believe Davidson Avenue ranges from
elevation, let's say 62 to 60, 62 at the south side to say 66 or 67 at the north side. And the finished floor of the building will be at elevation 62. So generally this very similar elevation, but once you have the trees in and they
have a few years to grow and mature, they will create from someone's in a car driving by, they'll create a very nice buffer and screening from the building. Okay. So the Davidson is where uh that's the that's the east side of the and then
across the street from Dave from the the warehouse is a hotel. Is that correct? Correct. And um will the this screening um uh help the hotel avoid a lot of um
uh extraneous uh movement and traffic from the uh from the warehouse? Will it the will the trees that you're planning on planting block? The they they'll block it. Yes. From grade level at the hotel with cars driving and circulating around the
hotel. Yes. It'll provide a good screen and I believe I believe the hotel does sit a little bit lower in elevation as well which also helps. Okay. All right. Thanks. Sure. Just one question. Um if you can go back to the exhibit that's uh basically at the at the intersection
um that seems to be if you can just explain to the board I believe that is also showing in addition to the landscaping a kind of a burm. Yes. Thank you Mr. Haley. Uh yes, that also includes uh a burm along Davidson Avenue as well to provide extra elevation, to provide the trees at a
higher elevation to further help screen the building from along Davidson Avenue. It's a bit more pronounced at the intersection of Executive Drive and Davidson Avenue than it is on the on the south side of the site looking north, but yes, there is a there's a proposed burm along the front of the property as well.
And that exhibit reflects the height accurately consistent with the plan, the grading plan. That that's correct, Mr. Healey. Thank you. How tall is the burm? The burm is about four or five feet. Depends on where you are. Yeah. Uh and then I'll leave this up uh
because I think it's a nice illustration. But uh just very quickly relative to touching on some comment letters uh that we had received uh regarding the the board engineer and the letter received from CME Associates dated June 16th of of 2025. Uh we we have no objections to the comments in
the letter. Uh there is a note of a proposed disturbance within the I287 right ofway on the south side of the property, but there is no disturbance on the I287 right ofway. Uh we have a few a few trees near the uh near the property line that we are planning to remove and graphically speaking, we show a limit of
disturbance offset from the tree to kind of show that there is disturbance there, but the reality is that there will not be any disturbance in the I287 rightway. Uh and just one other note from that uh from the engineers letter that I thought was important to note is that I just wanted to confirm for the board that we can complete uh all the work with the
property without disturbance to any of the flood hazard areas that have been verified by the D. Um and then just quickly from the the town's department of planning and zoning letter dated May 9th of 2025. Similarly, we we can comply with the comments. We
take no objections uh to the comments. Uh Mr. Hilly, we can add shade trees to the some of the curb islands that we have in the car parking spaces. That was uh an item that you had noted in in your letter. So, we can we can add some additional shade trees there. Um there is a comment about disturbance in the
stream corridor. Uh this the disturbance that is inside the stream corridor is to remove dead or dying trees. Uh it's truly that we're not replacing we're not touching anything else in the stream corridor, but it truly is to remove some dead or dying trees uh in that area. So uh we will work with Mr. Healey on that
aspect of that to uh get alignment between the plans and the stream corridor preservation exhibit as well. If I can just pause you for one second. I know Mr. Healey in his in his report also requested that additional detail be provided on building height calculations to make to make it clearer. I just want to
Yes. And uh we will also show building height calculations on our plan as well. Uh the the building height from finished floor is 45 ft. uh we have to run the calculation of average grade at the frontage of the building which is pretty close to what the the finished floor of the building is uh and the code allows
for 65 ft. So I have no concern that we will comply with the building height requirement for the town. Um Mr. Chairman just one follow-up question. So with respect to the disturbance um you know in the direction of the stream corridor so it's my understanding
based on our conversation earlier that um well right now there's the existing curb line that you know defines basically the edge of disturbance of the existing office building site. Correct. Um and so I'm going to ask you to confirm my statement. It's my
understanding that this plan you're not there's no further there's no pavement curbing or any disturbance any closer to the stream than that existing curb line. That is correct. Okay. And that means no no curbing, no grading, nothing.
That's correct. So so to the extent that uh you know the existing proximity of development to that stream and the corridor is not being further disturbed in any way. That is correct. Okay. Um, all right. Thank you. That's why I just wanted to make sure. So, technically the stream corridor
ordinance doesn't really actually come into effect because you're not further disturbing that stream corridor. So, thank you. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Haley. I I have another question regarding the um the the view from the east side. The
we I think that you're between the burm and the trees. You're you're going to do a good job blocking light from headlights from the truck shining on the hotel, but what about the building is what what kind of lighting is there on
the building? Is it just basically no no lighting at all? There there's lighting on the building. They're they're called sconce lights, but they just shine directly down. They're they're mostly over uh emergency egress doorways and any entrances and exits off uh into the building. Okay. Thanks.
Sure. If you could put up the first picture that you had up there for 287 or do you want to see the with the lower the install height of the trees? No, I don't want to see the trees at all. I want to see the the There you go.
That you have 22 semi- parking spaces up there. Correct. Correct. Is that for the tractor and the trailer or just the trailer or how? Just for the trailer. Just for the trailer. Correct. So there won't be any tractors parking there at all? They'll be there to drop the trailer, but they will not be
parking there. They won't be parking there. Perfect. What are you going to do with overflow if there is any from a parking perspective? Um I that's not really a question for me from an operational perspective, unfortunately. But Okay. All right. Um that's all I had.
Thank you. Is there anything else that you need to comment on or you are you That concludes my direct testimony unless there's any other questions. That's I have no further questions for this witness. Okay. Then we'll again open to the public. Is there anyone who'd like to ask the engineer a question concerning his testimony?
May I ask a question before we um what's the typical building in other industrial zones within our township? Well, my uh the warehouse the the the u height
of warehouses I think varies. Um, I think we typically some see somewhere in the range of 44 44 feet to 50. Okay. It was just a ding in this zone. It was 65, but I'm sure that was probably more indicative of of the commercial aspect of of the zone. Yeah,
the zone um permits um office buildings as well. Um, so I think that's really that's where it comes from. Um, and the zoning at the time this application was deemed complete. Actually, that's not true. Um, I'd have to look at the ordinance, but I know if
you go above 50 ft, then the setbacks change and the buffering changes. So, I think the testimony is that they're going to comply with the 50. Correct. And they're going to demonstrate that. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Yep. Yes. All right. Again, if there's anyone in
the public would like to ask a question. Seeing none more clos next witness. Thank you. Uh Betsy Dolan, please. Mr. Dolan, uh do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Can you just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record, please? Elizabeth Dolan, D O L an N. Thank you, Miss Dolan. Uh, obviously I know you've you've testified many times before this in other boards, but perhaps just for the record if you can uh very briefly.
Um, testifying as a traffic engineer. My license in New Jersey is uh in good standing and I've testified here and throughout New Jersey many times and qualified as an expert in traffic engineering and I can go into more detail if any of the board members wish. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, M. Dolan, if you can,
similar to Mr. Lame, you've obviously evaluated this from a traffic perspective. If you can provide the board with your findings and and underlying conclusions. Sure. Um, our office prepared and submitted a May 15, 2024 traffic impact study uh for the warehouse to replace
the uh office buildings. Uh, we initiated the study with traffic counts that were performed during the weekday morning and afternoon, evening peak periods. That was back in March 2024. Taken a while to get here. Um I've been
studying this intersection since 2014. So I had pulled um some of our older counts. And back when the office uh not just the offices at on Executive Drive, but in the general corridor um were full
and operating, we had a morning peak hour of about 2500 vehicles. That's a two-way flow uh on Davidson Avenue and about 2,000 in the evening peak hour. And we're now um just under 1,900. So there's definitely a reduction as a
result of the office vacancy and and the the transformation of the the land use in the area. Um we did uh look at different IT trip generation uh estimates because the IT breaks down warehousing into various categories and
a lot of times there's a fear that this is an Amazon type of thing. Uh this is not designed as Amazon. Uh those buildings have um bays on either side for uh unloading and loading and they're uh more intensive with regard to um
employee parking to accommodate shift overlap. and so forth. So, we did use we did not use the traditional warehousing numbers. Those are a little bit lower. And as you heard, this is a spec building. So, we wanted to air on the side of caution. So, we honed in on um what is called a parcel hub. Uh so, that
gave us about 149 trips during the morning peak hour and 136 uh trips during the evening peak hour. And that's two-way entering and exiting. Um I know there was a question from one of the members of the public about truck activity. Um you know again we're we're
relying on the IT data base. Um but over the course of a day based on the size of this building we are estimating about 60 trucks. So that would be over the over the course of of a day. Um our traffic study does compare the IT trip
generation for the 260,000 square feet of office that has been here and and it shows um when we compare a reduction of over 200 trips. Now certainly those trips aren't happening here but that's just provided as a matter of
umformational purposes. Um so using it to it we would show that the warehouse would generate um in excess of 200 fewer trips than the former offices. Um when I had said that we had counted executive drive when the offices were
operational um we had lower numbers than the IT would give you for those offices. uh but it still results in um a a decrease in activity of anywhere from 50 to 90 peak
hour trips. Um since the preparation of this study um and we were advised of the pending application for a warehouse on the other side of Executive Drive, I did obtain the traffic study that Langen prepared and I know you'll hear testimony from them. Um, but I wanted to
review that and see um um how their volumes would affect our analysis. Uh, they used the straight warehouse numbers. Uh, but I took all of their numbers, their projections, and our projections, and I ran them through the Executive Drive and Davidson signalized
intersection, and I found acceptable levels of service because our report was prepared before we knew about their application, and their traffic study didn't include our projections, presumably because we're not yet approved. Uh but I did run that analysis and whenever Langan is before you on
that application uh you may hear similar testimony, but the uh overall projections with both warehouses is still lower than the volumes that we recorded in 2014 when the office activity was was being generated. So we certainly can achieve and maintain
acceptable levels of service at the intersection. And to the question regarding maintaining the signal operation, um what typically happens is the new poles will be installed um and then uh the existing uh signal will be
maintained until we have the new curbs constructed because that's those the curb radi are going to wipe out not just the signal poles but also some utility poles. So all of that will be coordinated as we have um said with with
staff and the applicant uh who's proposing a warehouse on the other side of of the intersection. Um so from a a traffic capacity perspective, the intersection can accommodate our traffic uh which is you know a higher trip generation estimate than Lankens, but
overall the numbers are still lower than historically uh accommodated through that intersection. Um, so it's a pretty standard analysis. We touched on parking, but you heard all of that from um from Alex. Um, I would agree with the
um the 130 ft for the truck maneuvering and I know that we did have a very similar approval of that geometry and a couple of other applications. I was involved with one at 230 Belmont and the one that was it was came in as Duke, but now I think it's Prologess on uh
Elizabeth going um north. Um those were 135 at Belmont and 130 um on Elizabeth Avenue. So it's um certainly an appropriate um variance relief because the accommodation for the trucks is is
made within the geometry that's shown on the site plan. Thank you. Those are the questions I have for this witness. Anything from the board? I do have one. Um, how many in your estimation tractor trailers would queue up at that light
before the light turns green? Sure. Sure, that's a good question. Um, I talked to you about um the daily truck um numbers, but let's go to the peak hour. Um, in the morning, we're showing 10 entering and nine exiting over the course of an hour. So if you have one
per signal, that's probably what it would average out to. Randomly, maybe you have two, but I don't see a queue occurring because it's it's a pretty low number. And and it's fewer uh trucks during the evening peak hour, seven entering, six exiting.
Yeah, I'm probably sure you you know why I'm asking. There is 80 ft between the um the stop bar and the curb return for our driveway for the passenger vehicle. So that really could only accommodate that's only going to accommodate one. So in the once in a a day, twice a day,
they'll just have to manage it on site. Yeah. I mean, that's there's there's no that's a pretty long driveway for the passenger vehicles as they're coming up to executive drive. So it's not like um if you have two or three cars waiting for the light to change so a truck or two can leave. Um that's not going to
cause any problems on site. They're not blocking an on-site intersection. They're not blocking any parking spaces. So, um I think that um you know the the the likelihood of two sure it can happen and is it going to block? Yeah. So, but
they those passenger vehicles have the time and space to wait for the signal to change without having a negative impact to site circulation. I mean, would the applicant be open to a condition that don't block the intersection? Oh, we could certainly do that. You know, it it
we do it at at busy intersections. We can do it here. Sure. Thank you. Sure. Along those lines, um you mentioned acceptable level of service. Uh what letter are we talking? Just Sure. Sure. It's uh levels of service B
and C coming off of Executive Drive and that would get less green. So you'd have A and B on Davidson and B and C on executive. Okay. I have a question for you, Betsy. So, what's the latest time the trucks are
expected to be there driving in or out of the facility? Well, I I believe they're looking to have 247 so that they can market it to any potential tenant or tenants. Um, so if if there's some trucks overnight, they'll come and they'll go just as they
do during the day. Um, I didn't break down the trip generation overnight. Uh but as I said, you know, you're looking at 10, five to 10 per hour during the course of the day. So, you know, you may have a few overnight, but we are up against 287 and no residential. So, from
that perspective, truck impacts are are uh light and certainly there's not much traffic on Davidson and Easton during those hours. I have a question. How many employees are going to be at the I think that's dependent upon the the
tenant. I mean, you know, we we look at um the the peak hour projections we're looking at, you know, maybe about 60 to 70 cars. So, you know, that's just based on the trip generation, but the employee load is going to be dependent on who who
occupies the space. Any others? Then we'll open to the public. Again, would you come up to the mic? And again, reminder, the questions should be based on traffic testimony.
Question. When the trucks are coming off of 287, you know, from the north, what exit will they be taking? Would it be exit 10 or exit 12? Oh, I think it would be tw 12 is Eastern Avenue, right? Yeah. That's 10, right?
They go in that way, right? Exit 10. And also, I know earlier there was a mention of about Davidson Avenue. There's truck prohibitions further to the south on Davidson Avenue. So, we would expect them to be coming to and from Eastston Avenue from East. So, it' be exit 10.
That's exit 10. Yeah. Um otherwise, they'd have to come via Pierce um and exit 12. And then you mentioned there would be a second warehouse built and more and more trucks. I just hope that, you know, the exit 10 can accommodate all of these
trucks, especially at rush hour and things like that. Sure, we we know that 287 is is quite constrained at various hours of the day. Um, and that's that's a real problem. Um, but the um overall volumes on Davidson Avenue, as I had said earlier, are lower than they have historically
been. Um and the big thing that this applicant and should the other application come before the board, both applicants will need the um the road improvements. Uh widening out those radi so that the trucks can move onto and off of uh Executive Drive is is an
appropriate treatment for this type of use. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Then we'll close the public next. Thank you. You're welcome, Claudia. So, Clauddio Bruda, who is our uh
project architect, can you just state your name for the record so that Sure, please. Good evening. Uh, Clauddio Breto, B re-a. Okay, Mr. Breto, if you can raise your right hand, uh, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give
before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Bradock, can you uh briefly u provide the board with your uh qualifications, experience testifying for this board and others? Uh, sure. So, um, licensed architect in
New Jersey as well as 11 other states here on the east coast. I've been in the field of architecture uh for 23 years now and I'm a graduate in Pratt Institute which I obtained my bachelor's in architecture and you've testified before this on other boards. Yes, I have. Yes. And you did mention he's licensed in New
Jersey. Yes, correct. Okay, we accept. Thank you. Mr. Betta, can you as as similar witnesses, can you uh focusing on on the architectural aspects of the project, can you um provide the board
with a summary of uh summary of um the architectural features uh referencing exhibits as as needed? I would if I could get this display. Yes. Is it in all the way?
I know it it worked last time we were here, so it has to work. It did. Huh? There we go. No, it doesn't. Leave it to the engineer. Thanks, Alex. So, I'm gonna start with I think we're up to a five, so we'll
mark this at 85. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. So, I'm going to start with um some 3D renderings of the exterior based on previous comments. Um comments before were were to address um the aesthetics of the overall building, if you will.
So, we did a few studies and ultimately we landed on this one uh which you can see here on the render. We provided uh some additional reveals uh some additional uh paint brakes um obviously in keeping in with the branding colors of IDI logistics. We
also provide an additional canopy at the entrance. So we we try to do a lot of different things to break up the massing of the and the scale of the building with different articulation. So this is a closeup of the corner. Um, and then
this is a further closer up. Uh, and then from here I could show a quick video um going um through the site. So this is if you were driving starting on Davidson Avenue obviously driving within the speed
limit. So this is on Davidson obviously then we're going to slow down uh to enter executive uh drive. So you pull into executive and then ultimately we'll turn into the the site itself. So I really just wanted to highlight the
the changes made to the to the aesthetics of the building. Um but I could go through the plans and elevations in greater detail if need be. I think there was a a question in one of the comment letters about screening um in terms of the roof equipment and things. Um
yeah, I mean as you can see here given the the height of the building the scale um any roof equipment will not be visible uh eye level because they'll be obviously pushed away from the parapit. Thank you. Those are the questions I have for this witness.
Anything from the board? We'll open again to the public if anyone has a question for the architect. Okay, we'll close. I just I had one quick question. Sorry, it popped into my head after you brought it to the public.
What's the uh the clear space internally? 40 ft. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, I'll call my last witness, which is uh Paul Griel, who is the uh planner for the project.
That's the the general accepted level. Mr. Gargo, if you can raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record, please. Yes. Good evening. It's Paul Grigel.
Last name spelled G R Y G I E L and I apologize but just site housekeeping on the exhibits. Um I think we the video is A6. Okay, that's fine. Okay, just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Thank you.
Mr. Gel, if you can um provide the board with your summary of your analysis and conclusions in regards to the obviously primarily the D1 use variance as well as the several uh C variances, including even though we know that they will
become uh moot uh with the vacation of the street, we still nonetheless would like testimony regarding the two uh variances related to executive drive frontage. If you can uh provide the board with that. Sure, I'd be happy to. Just for the record, I'm a licensed professional planner in New Jersey. Have been since
1999. Thank you. Okay. And I've appeared before this board in over 150 other boards throughout the state as a professional planner. Good. Good. Thank you. And with that, I think we can uh provide relatively brief testimony. Everybody knows who you are.
Oh, I wish. Um, we've heard already about the site and the proposal. Uh, with regard to planning, I think we can cut right to the chase. I actually Mr. Conservatory actually stole some of my testimony as far as outlining some of the proofs as did Mr. Burns. But from planning point of view, the issue is we
have a uh property in the BI zone in which the warehouse is not permitted. As we've also heard, uh the applicant is seeking to build something that complies with the potential new standards for the zone for warehouses of this size. So I
will put still the testimony in because we do need a D1 use variance. So address both the positive and negative criteria with regard to that. Uh just in terms of background very quickly, we've heard about the site itself being very unique. I think that's important to consider in terms of having three road frontages
including one on a street that really only serves the subject property at the current time. Uh so with regard to the positive criteria, I do believe the site is particularly suitable to accommodate the warehouse use. And again, Mr. Burns actually mentioned a number of these, but the setting, the fact that we're in
a location in a non-residential section of Franklin Township. The closest residential property is about 650 ft uh to the west uh beyond the cemetery and the stream and a wooded buffer. Um there's no vehicular access directly to
that area and we actually have direct access via main roads to route 287. Um so certainly I think there'd be no potential impacts as far as residential areas are concerned. The location on Davidson Avenue again is in a corridor that has other uses of this type and
goes directly in terms of access to an interstate highway. Uh the size of the property is enough to accommodate this use, but it's also a relatively modestlysized warehouse in the scheme of that realm of those types of buildings. Uh it's classified as a medium intensity
light industrial use per the regulations that we referred to. Again, there are not adopted regulations, but that were through an extensive publicly noticed and publicly uh visible process by the township to classify the different types of warehouse uses. Uh so clearly it's
within the realm of what's considered a medium-siz facility and that for the 10 conditions that are required for that size facility, we meet all of them. Uh so I think for those reasons, the positive criteria are met and we further purposes of the municipal land use law. uh purpose a the public health safety
and welfare due to the site's particular suitability and purpose G being particularly uh a providing sufficient space in appropriate locations for various uses and again this is a location that was deemed appropriate uh through the various studies that have been done by the township. Um in terms
of negative criteria I think there'd be no substantial detriment to the public good. Again, we've heard a lot of this, so I'm not going to rehash everything, but essentially recapping the proximity to residential or lack thereof, the proximity to an interstate highway, and proposing a use that can be essentially
screened properly from adjacent roadways, and from all surrounding areas. Uh the area of disturbance would be less than what was already on the property, not any closer to the stream corridors, and we'll be enhancing landscaping, aesthetics, and other aspects of the site. Uh lastly, with
regard to the negative criteria and the use uh for the use and demonstrating how it would not have substantial detriment to the master plan or zoning ordinance, um there's a lot of detail here, but I think we can again go to the point of this is a BI zone that allows various non-residential uses. We have a site
that was previously developed and is no longer viable for its current use. We're proposing a use that actually fits within the township's uh efforts to try to limit warehouse development to certain sizes and certain locations. Um
so I think clearly, you know, even though we're not permitted today, the applicant falls within all 10 of those factors if and when uh executive drive is vacated. Otherwise, it's nine of the 10 factors that are met with this property. So I think for all intents and
purposes, we're clearly consistent with the objectives of the township's planning efforts despite not being technically permitted as a use. I'll turn now to the C variances again briefly. Uh we have the addition the issue of the off- streetet parking and loading spaces within the required
setback. Um, this one is one that won't go away because there was parking proposed along 287, but exhibit A3 that was shown previously demonstrates the grade change between the highway and the the building and parking areas. There's also substantial existing vegetation in
the highway right ofway plus additional planted areas that would be proposed on site. And again, frankly, this is actually very very much an improvement over existing conditions where the entire highway frontage has parking areas within the what would be the front
yard required area. We're removing about half of that and it's again only for vehicle or car parking, not for truck parking. That would be in this location where we're violating uh that requirement. The other requirement with regard to front yards, the executive drive where loading is not permitted in
terms of truck truck loading, off- streetet loading areas uh including vehicular maneuvering. Um I think if we need to have this variance because there for some reason the vacation doesn't happen, we do have a hardship. The site does have three frontages. a very extensive frontage on Route 287 as well
as a 300 ft uh excuse me a decent amount in Davidson uh as well plus Executive Drive and that's where we're trying to focus the anything that's an incursion into areas facing Executive Drive which is actually really more of a private street currently and in the
future hopefully will no longer be a public street. Uh but it's really the portion of the site that can accommodate that type of use. that's away from the most visible road frontages and still set back well from all residential. Um, we also have the variances we heard about for the driveway width and
actually that may even go away as well if we vacate the street. Uh, but we'll put in the proofs anyway as you heard from the applicant representative. The industry standard is about 40 ft. We're proposing 40.6 ft. Uh, this is more for public safety and trying to make sure trucks can maneuver and it's only for
the truck driveway we're dealing with here. the car tri driveway, excuse me, meets the maximum widths uh that are set by ordinance. And again, it's only to this one property. And lastly, with regard to loading births, we have the issue of the depth. Uh we don't need to provide the
147 ft required because it'd be excessive compared to industry standards, and we think there's no basis for providing more pavement when you don't need it. So, we're trying to reduce the impact of development. Uh lastly, with all the variances that are being sought that can be granted under C2 criteria, there's benefits of
redeveloping the site, providing it adequate parking and loading areas, enhancing landscaping, uh having code compliant buildings, and essentially providing for an upgrade to this section of the township that would outwe detriment. So, I don't think there substantial negative impacts from the C
variances for all those four standards. Likewise, the negative criteria is met for the bulk variances in my opinion as well for the reasons I stated previously. And and for the for the frontage variance variances on executive, I assume that the C1 would also potentially Yes. So C2 for all of them in my opinion, but there's also this hardship
issue that again extensive road frontages plus they're limited in the rear with some environmental constraints. So there's not a lot of room to work with. I know you know the building can be moved different ways, but you're really limited with regard to where you can actually put that truck loading. This is the best place to do it to an internal roadway, not the external
roadways. Great. And then that conclude my direct testimony. Those are my questions for this witness. Okay. Anything from the board? Well, open to the public. Anyone close to the public? Any uh thing you
want to add? No, I don't need to to belabor anything. just the the the few items I said in the beginning which is with with this the vacation just to have the nuance with the conditions so that if there's everything else is is done we can proceed and uh granting those variances for the frontage even though we think
they'll go away. Um other than those clarifications I think we're good. Okay. Anything the board want to offer motion? Well, I'll just I'll just reiterate, you know, in case if um somebody wants to make it in the form of
a motion, if um you know, the applicant agreed to all of the staff reports. Um I think the only additional testimony that I can recall was um in response to Rich's suggestion about the um um don't
block the the intersection, you know, maybe adding some signage or striping. Um, and then otherwise they've testified to how they were going to comply to the different staff reports. I don't recall, Brian, I don't know if your notes if you have anything else additional to that.
Wasn't there a suggested condition in your opening statement or am I confusing that? I that's the one I just mentioned that we will vacate the street, but we do want the new ones that if that's delayed for some other reason that we can continue that. Yeah, I I didn't mention that because frankly I didn't think to
mention that because frankly both myself and um the engineer had recommended that the street if the application was approved be vacated. Um and just to clarify just for you know so you hear from staff as opposed to just you know just the applicant you know the position
of of of the township and then the staff is again it's only going to be serving them. So the township shouldn't be responsible if the board was to approve it, you know, to maintain it, plow it, etc. Basically only going to be serving
them. So they should own it and they should maintain it. So that mean that's the suggestion in a nutshell. Um and staff is I'm sorry too. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So so I would suggest again that if there was a condition that it would be, you know, that the
applicant has to um participate has to make the request to vacate it. um they have to participate uh in good faith um to the degree they have to there's really minimal involvement on on their part um and that you know they have to basically participate and at the end of
the day if they've met all of the different conditions and if frankly if the township doesn't move forward with the vacation they shouldn't necessarily be responsible for that as long as they've done everything that they have to do to move that forward um and also I
think related to that they should explor floor to the degree if it's possible and appropriate for some of the pavement of that existing culde-sac to be removed. Um that that they would do that that would be part of the application as well.
Okay. Uh, I move that we grant IDI Logistics LLC a D1 use variance and uh the required C variances uh necessary for it to construct a 212,500
square ft warehouse at 1-3 Executive Drive, Somerset block 469, lots 1.03, 1.04, 1.07 7 in the uh BI zone. Uh this uh
variance is uh subject uh to uh the applicant uh pursuing uh the vacation of uh the street currently known as Executive Drive and uh moving forward in
good faith and cooperating with the town um uh to vacate that street uh so long as the uh applicant and proceeds in good faith and and does all of the things it
needs to do uh to achieve the vacating of that street. Um it will have complied with this requirement. Further uh if the street is vacated, the um uh the
applicant should uh try to see if any of the the madam used on that street can be removed to reduce the impervious coverage. And further the um uh the
signage at the intersection of Executive Drive and Davidson uh should indicate uh a notice that uh the uh truck should not block the um uh should not block uh the
traffic at that intersection. I think that's it. You might have a record of longest motion ever. Could we add to that m Mr. Sheeper? Mr. Sheper, could we add to that with the understanding that
they work hard in obtaining a tenant? Can I add that to Miss Shepard? Yeah, I'll accept that a minute. We have a second. Richard Propanic. Yes. Busim Verdas, yes. Alan Rich,
yes. Gary Rosenthal, yes. Robert Shepard, yes. Faras Khan, yes. Chairman Thomas, yes. Thank you very much. Okay. Is there a motion to close? Um, do we need to send a recommendation
to the council? No, I I think um I think the applicant can do so whenever they wish. I think in the drafting of the resolution, um I mean I think I think by by by the fact that you're conditioning the
approval on that I think sends the you know the the message to the council that that that you're in favor of just seems we have so much concerns about I've never I've never known that the council refused like this.
Um I agree. I don't think there's any issue. Yeah, the discussion hasn't been had obviously with the council yet because it's I mean this was just discussed tonight with you. Um but staff will make the same recommendation to council that that I discussed with you that there's frankly no reason for the township to
maintain it. Um you know and that that should be their responsibility. So we'll be believe me that'll be communicated to the council and they'll make the decision that they they make and as needed we can send a formal letter Yeah, I think that should kickstart the process and and again
staff certainly I've indicated staff certainly recommends that it be vacated now. Um Okay, good. Now we'll have a motion to close. I move that we I move that we adjourn. Okay, meeting ajourn.