I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the zoning board meeting of February 5th, 2026. 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, applicant professionals, members of the public, please speak directly into microphones so our recording secretary can properly re uh process minutes. Applicants and
professionals, please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony. Would you call the role, please? >> Vim Verdas asked to be excused this evening. Cheryl Bethia >> here. >> Richard Proanic >> here. >> Alan Rich >> here.
>> Gary Rosenthal >> here. Robert Shepard >> here. >> Mike Dy >> here. >> Kunalakia >> here. >> Chairman Thomas >> here. Regular minutes December 4th uh
12-4 2025 documents. >> Only Kunal can't vote. >> I'll move. >> Second. >> Wait, who said they'll move? I'm sorry. >> Gary. >> Oh, Gary. I apologize. I didn't hear that. And then Cheryl, you were second. Cheryl Bethia. >> Yes. >> Richard Proanic. Yes.
>> Alan Rich. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosenthal. >> Yes. >> Robert Shepard. >> Yes. >> Michael Dy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Thomas. >> Yes. First resolution Hawthorne Management LLC ZVA 21001.
An extension of time. >> Cheryl Bethia and Michael Dy cannot vote. >> A motion in a second from anybody. >> Moved. Second. Who was second? >> Alan Shepard. And
>> Richard Roanic. >> Yes. >> Alan Rich. Yes. >> Gary Rosenthal. >> Yes. >> Robert Shepard. >> Yes. >> Kunal Lakia. >> Yes. >> Chairman Thomas. >> Yes. Houndtown 543. ZBA 2515. Uh, this was a resolution of
reconsideration. >> Michael Dy and Kunalakia cannot vote. >> I'll move. >> I'll second. Cheryl Bethia, >> yes. >> Richard Panic, yes. >> Alan Rich, yes. >> Gary Rosenthal, >> yes. >> Robert Shepard, >> yes. >> Chairman Thomas,
>> yes. >> 655 M LLC, ZDBA 2420. >> Cheryl Betheia, Michael Dy cannot vote. >> Moved. >> Second. >> Richard Proanic. Yes. Alan Rich. Yes. Gary Rosenthal.
>> Yes. Robert Shepard, >> yes. >> Kuna Lakia, >> yes. >> Chairman Thomas, >> yes. In the uh discussion section of the agenda, side data mander, ZBA1937,
extension of time. Come on. >> Good evening, chairman and board members. My name is John Duca of the law firm Savo Shock. I'm here representing the applicant side data uh Mandere Inc. We are requesting an extension of time uh for the D3 conditional use and C2 uh
variance relief along with preliminary final site plan approval. Uh this was uh granted in 2022. It allowed the construction of a 28 uh almost 29,000 square foot uh house of worship. Uh right now the uh hiccup is uh we have to
go before the state historic commission concerning the right turn lane uh into the site. So, uh, that is the delay and that's why we're seeking the extension of time through November 24th of 2026. >> Okay. Any questions?
>> Is this the house of worship that was uh ownership was transferred? >> I do not have that information. I can tell you this is the one at at 583 Middle Bush Road. >> No, that's not the one. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> I knew that somebody would know.
>> That's the one on the right going south, right? Correct. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> This is your first extension, right? >> Uh, actually, I don't believe it is. I think this is the second extension if I'm not mistaken. >> There's one on Middle Bush Mark. Huh.
>> Yes. >> There's the one that's >> Yeah, there was pre previously an extension um uh one previous extension. >> Yeah. So, so to get to Bob's question, this is the one as you're going southbound. It was on the right hand side. >> Okay.
Um uh could uh I have a question for our attorney. Is there any limitation to the number of extensions uh that an applicant uh can ask for? >> Um they can ask for the mic. >> Oh yeah,
>> mic. >> There's a limitation on the amount of of time but you can extend more than once. What is it? >> Um I think three times. >> Okay. So, all right. I got my
>> Any other questions? >> Any motion? >> I'll move. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Cheryla, >> yes. >> Richard Proanic, >> yes. >> Alan Rich, >> yes.
>> Gary Rosenthal, >> yes. >> Robert Shepard, >> yes. Michael Dardy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Thomas. >> Yes. >> 64 Cassa Assencia ZBA 2100 027. Again, extension of time. That's
yours also. >> Yes, it is. Uh once again, for the sake of the record, John Duca of Savoshawk. Uh here for the applicant 64 Casa Ania LLC. Uh we are seeking an extension of time. This one um the the approval
expired on September 21st, 2025. So we would be seeking extension through um September 21, 2026. Uh this was an approval granted in uh 2023 where the applicant received preliminary and final site plan approval with D1 and D4 and D5
variances as well as bulk variance relief. This allowed the construction of a uh 12 unit uh townhouse on the site. The site was is located at 64 Norma Avenue. Um there's been back and forth
with the engineering department and uh my client is close to resolving those uh engineering issues. I don't anticipate that it will take all the way until September. Uh but given the uh statutory provision for a one-year extension, that is what we're seeking. >> Okay. Any questions?
>> So this is their first extension. >> This I should have clarified. This is their first extension. Yes. Okay. >> Questions or motion? >> I move that we uh grant um the applicant an extension of time.
>> I'll second. I'll second. >> Cheryl Bethia? >> Yes. >> Richard Brokanic? Alan Rich? Yes. Gary Rosenthal? >> Yes. >> Robert Shepard? >> Yes. >> Michael Dhy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Thomas. >> Yes. Loiato Hardscapes.
uh Fischer Realy ZBA20018 extension of time again go >> again uh John Duca of with Savo Shock on behalf of the applicant Loiato Heartscapes LLC uh this was an approval granted by the board in February on
February 15th of 2024. It's set to expire on February 15, 2026. So in anticipation of that expiration, uh we are seeking an extension of time. Um, this approval was for a D1 use variance allowing the applicant to operate a
landscaping business uh at uh 221 Bennett's Lane. Um, this is our first extension of time and the we're very close to closing out issues with NJD and once those are resolved uh then we should be able to uh complete resolution
compliance and construct. >> Okay. Again, any questions? A motion or and a second. >> I move that we grant the applicant an extension of time. >> A second. >> Cheryl Bethia.
>> Yes. >> Richard Brokanic. >> Yes. >> Alan Rich. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosenthal. >> Yes. >> Robert Shepard. >> Yes. >> Michael Dy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Thomas. >> Yes. Okay. Hearings tonight. Manet Sing and Rafinder
Cower ZBA 2411. A site plan with use variance and C variances in which the applicants proposing to convert the existing repair garage into a convenience store 339
Elizabeth Avenue Somerset block 493.01 lot one in the R10 zone. This application has been withdrawn and I'm sure I haven't heard any size of disappointment
with that. Somerset Bible Baptist Church ZBA 25004 CND variances in which the applicant is asking permission to build a one-story 35t tall 8640 square ft gymnasium at 42 Cedar Grove
Lane Somerset block 424.02. This is carried to April 2nd, 2026. And this has been more than uh I guess carried more than a couple of times.
They need to renotify under our guidelines. Now again uh sorry for the pronunciation third third Kumarin Vela
Yuchan ZBA 242 applicant requesting a relief of condition from the previous approval with regards to the height which was reported incorrectly for 21 Highland Avenue Somerset block 194 for lot 20.01
in the R seven zone. >> Yes. Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh Lawrence Saxs on behalf of the applicant. Um we are here this evening uh seeking a relief of condition uh from an approval uh which
uh was granted by this board back in uh 2023. Uh again, the uh the property owner and applicant uh Thoru Kumaran Vaduan. Um, the property is located at 21 Highland Avenue, block 194, uh, lot
20.01. It's located in your R seven zone. Just to give, uh, the board a little history, and I don't know if you remember this application, uh, but the application was approved back in April of 2023. Uh, this board granted a certificate of nonconformity under
section 68 of the municipal land use law, uh, to utilize this property as a two family residence. uh various uh certain var variances were granted at that time uh for lot area, lot frontage, front yard setback and impervious coverage. Uh what was determined after
the approval and the resolution was memorialized I think in July of 2023. uh is the architect discovered that there was a discrepancy uh between the survey, the engineering plans and the architecturals and as a result uh the
height of the building differed from what was approved. Uh what was initially approved was a height of I believe 31.9 ft and in actuality the height of this building is going to be 33.3 feet. it's still below your 35- ft thresh threshold
which would trigger a height variance. But once we realized that there was this error and a discrepancy between the plans, we also realized that uh there were some other modifi certain modifications that needed to be made to the plans which needed to be reflected
obviously on a new approval. So after consultation with your staff uh we decided to come back in front of this board uh seeking relief from those conditions. Um, so I I really have just one witness this evening. Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, that would be, uh, my architect. Uh, so if I can have him
sworn in. He will explain what the discrepancies are, what the changes are. I know you have up on the screen the new plans, and we actually have a we'll set up an easel. We have the old plans, and he'll explain what the discrepancy is between the two plans. >> Sir, if you can raise your right hand,
please. >> Yep. 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 just state your name and spell your last name for the record? >> Yep. Pedro Rosado. R O S A T O.
>> Were you the architect last time? I >> That's correct. Yes. >> All right. We already approved them as long as your license is still functioning. >> Still active. Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Before you start. >> Hello. Yes, I'm over here. That's okay.
Um, I just want to make sure that I I I understand what we're talking about here. This is the application to try and establish that this house was in
existence and was being used as a three family house, two family house prior to the the zoning laws being established. >> That's correct. Okay, good. >> And go ahead then. Am I also correct
that that's an that's been established so we don't deal with anything that has to do Okay. >> Yeah. We're not seeking any other uh any other relief under that. We're not seeking a use variance. Obviously, when the board approved it back in 2023, you
essentially said you're grandfathered in based on that particular statute in the M. >> Okay. Then the big question I have is why are you here? We're here because we want to go ahead and make modifications to this structure and we realize we had a discrepancy. Primarily, the
discrepancy is with the height. Uh the plans that this board approved uh uh indicated a height of 31.9 ft. In actuality, it's a little bit higher, maybe another foot and a half. It's still below the 30 35 foot. Anything above 35 ft would require
>> You'd require right then it would make sense that you were here. But I guess what's hap what you're concerned about is getting your plans rejected. >> Correct. >> At the at the construction office. >> Exactly. >> Because it doesn't match up. >> Exactly. >> All right. All good.
>> Let me let me provide just a little bit more clarification because this is a little bit different than it wasn't just a certification of pre-existing non-conforming use because usually when you get those there aren't any changes to the structure. you know, they just want to basically have their two family
or three family structure kind of legally recognized as pre-existing to zoning. When they came before you a few years ago, they were doing that, but then they were also doing modifications to the building. And associated with that, uh, there were some existing non-conforming conditions. So, there
were also some variances. So, it was a little bit more more complicated than just your garden variety pre-existing non-conforming use. And then as part of that testimony, there was questions uh uh a discussion about the building height. And at that time, uh it was stated that the building height was
going to be the uh uh 31 ft. >> And then that got incorporated as a condition of the board's approval. So that's one of the things that they're here before you tonight. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Good. Now we know what's going on. >> Now you know what's going on. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. So, uh, Pro, if you can explain, and and I know you've got an easel board, so maybe we set up the easel and show what the original plans were. >> We actually, you have them on the screen. >> We have them both on the on the screen, kind of swap them between the old and the new. >> Okay, great.
>> Okay, so um, good evening. Um so the existing building footprint um was actually revised uh to match the latest survey and the the building where the building
width is 24T4 and uh and now we have the existing building footprint area of 821.55. So there was a slight variations once the survey was done of seven in wider in
seven inches wider and seven inches longer based on the existing survey of the of the foundation. Okay. And uh previously we only did a manual uh um a manual um
measurement. Okay. and uh the house as you guys know it was uh a fire occurred in the house and uh obviously it's inhabitable so we couldn't really get the right measurements but after we got the the right survey uh we noticed that
that was one of the discrepancies so between the old plan and the new plan the width and the length of the house changed by seven inches on both sides okay so now I'm going to give you few numbers reference numbers of what
changed and how much it changed. Okay. Uh so the footprint area uh that we have now is 821.55 square ft whereas the previous uh ZBA approved drawings showed 783 square ft
and the area uh the proposed area of or addition um also changed um based on these measurements uh is now 644 square ft. Uh and the previously approved was 633 square feet. Uh the total building
footprint is now 14,465.55 square ft and the uh where is the approved uh the the previously approved ZBA drawings showed uh 1416 square ft. Um and which
means that the increase uh of the building coverage is 49.55 ft. Um the front uh covered porch will remain as approved by ZBA which is 21 ft wide by 8t deep uh with a with a floor
area of 168 square ft. That does not change from the approved drawings. Uh the building height which is what we are talking about was revised to 33 foot 3 in
uh measured from the average grade uh and the previously approved building height was 31.9 ft. Uh and also what changed is the slope uh was revised from the old approved drawings of five over
five on 12 to 5.5 on 12. Um all of the layouts of the basement, first floor, second floor, and attic say the same. The there's a couple of changes uh just
in the attic in the attic space. We added a wall uh just an additional wall to create some separation of the storage spaces and uh this entire attic is going to be a storage space. Okay, we have a 6'5 ceiling height which makes it
inhabitable. Okay, not inhabitable space. And as you can see it in the section there. Okay. Um so the attic area uh with a ceiling height of 5 foot or less uh actually was
revised from 44.9% previously approved uh to 41.06 06. Uh this was affected by this change was affected by the fact by the um roof
slope change and the dimensions, width and length of the building. Um the um so then the the revised engineering plans that were prepared by
AWZ engineering dated July 30, 2025 were revised as follow. uh the building coverage increased to 19.83% from the ZBA approved on 19.63 which is uh less than the maximum
permitted uh building coverage of 20%. So there was an increase of 2%. The impervious coverage increase uh increased to 34.96% from ZBA submission of 30.74.
So there's a a an an increase of 4.22%. Um this is addressing the resolution condition item 11 and and 14 to increase the driveway width for a double car with driveway from 10 ft to approximately 15
feet which is technically for and now we have it at 14.83 feet. uh and that's what we're proposing which at 14.83 ft still stays below the 35%
uh max allowed based on the resolution. >> All right. So, just to put everything put everything into perspective here, um because of the uh discrepancies between the survey and and the architectural plans that you plan on submitting, the
the footprint uh was listed originally as 1,416 square ft. >> In actuality, it'll be 1,465.55 square ft. So, there's a net increase of of 49.55 square ft.
>> Correct. Okay, that's correct. All right, that's correct. >> Uh, no changes on the covered porch. The building height again because of this discrepancy, I think you said 33 foot >> 3 in, not 337. All right, so 333. Uh, whereas the approved plan showed it at
31.9. Um, and as a result of the ceiling height change in the attic, uh, there's a roof slope increase from 23.9 in to 24
and 4 in. >> No, 23t 9 in. >> That's what I'm saying. 23T 9 to 24 >> foot 4 in. >> Exactly. Okay. Correct. All right. And in terms of the but because you're increasing the square footage uh the footprint by a little less than 50
square feet that increases the building coverage from 19.63 to 19.83. >> Correct. >> All right. But again, you're still under the maximum permitted. Correct. All right. The impervious coverage increase is is is I guess triggered as a result
of the increase of the width of the driveway to 15 feet. And that was one of the conditions that was imposed uh when this was approved. >> That is correct. >> Okay. All right. So, did I more or less summarize the changes, Mr. Rosado? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and Mr. Chairman, we did
receive a report uh from Mr. Healey. Um and let me just couple comments in here and and we can agree to to what he's recommended here. Uh first of all uh all of the conditions that were imposed in the 2023 resolution would continue over.
We have no objection to that. And secondly um the um and this is the discussion I had with Mr. Healey even u prior to submitting this application or while the application was pending. We will agree that the attic and the
basement cannot be used as any living quarters. Certainly the attic at a 6 foot five height. you know, no, no one's living in a in an attic at six foot five height, but we will agree to that condition for the attic and the basement. He's further recommended that we put a deed restriction in, and we're
willing to do that as well. So, that's that's not objectionable to us. Um, that's essentially it. Uh, I don't have any other testimony to offer, Mr. Chairman. >> Anybody have questions? >> I'm I'm assuming you are completed. We
are >> is there any uh with the gentleman in the public wish to ask any questions or make a comment on this application? No. Then we'll close that part of it. And uh
I'm assuming you don't need a any your whole testimony is almost like a a summary of a a conclusion. >> Yeah. I don't I don't need to make any closing summation, Mr. Chairman. >> Any board discussion or motion
or questions? >> So, Mr. Chairman, I I think what it boils down to and thank you for that detailed um uh summary or or or presentation. I I think even with these changes um basically what it boils down to as far as the change um the architect
showed some relatively minor changes to the building architecture than what you saw previously. Um it's basically the same building but a little bit different um u roof pitch and then there was that clarification on the building height that was again a specific condition of the board's approval. That's really the
main change is going from the specification of the 31 uh was it 31.9 to the 33 whatever you know whatever that was testified. I think that's really the main change that's the subject before you tonight and that basically all the other changes stay within the parameters that you
previously approved. >> Okay. Thank you again. Any questions, comments? We're ready for a motion. >> Uh I move that we grant uh the
Kam Kamaran Beludiahan um relief of the conditions set forth in our previous resolution for block 194 uh lot 20.01 1 and updating um that um um
previous uh uh resolution uh to include where necessary uh the changes in the uh uh measurements and appearance of the building uh that are discussed uh by the applicant tonight
>> and I guess specifically mentioning including the deed deed restriction. Yes, sir. >> Yes. Let's include the there'll be a deed restriction added into the um the deed uh in which uh the applicant and
any future owners of the property will not use the basement or the attic as a living space. >> And we need a second. >> Second. >> Cheryl. >> Yes. >> Richard Panic. >> Yes. >> Alan Rich. >> Yes.
>> Gary Rosenthal. Yes. >> Robert Shepard. >> Yes. >> Michael Dhy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Thomas. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Larry, can you just make sure that the architect's name and everything is on the paper? >> Thank you. >> And thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Thank you.
>> Okay. Watch King Somerset LLC ZBA 2525. sign variance in which the applicant intends to put a freestanding sign at 1463 Route 27 Somerset Block 85 lot 39.01. >> Please bear with me while I set up for a
minute. >> Hey John, when Larry's done putting the name of his professional, you can just write right under there. I can make put a line for Kathy to see. >> You got it. >> Thank you. >> Uh, I'm just going to pass out a couple of extra
Thank you. >> Uh, it's actually um one, two, and three. A a one, two, and three. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> How old school. >> I know. I like the paper.
I'm gonna display Okay. All right. Why am I not see? I do not see. Hold on. There we go. Okay. Thank you very much for your patience.
Uh board members, again, my name is John Duke. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant Wash King Somerset Opco LLC. This is application number ZB25-000025. Uh we're here tonight for a freestanding sign setback variance. Uh so the the
only relief we are seeking tonight is the location of a sign uh because it deviates from the setback requirement for the applicable zone. The uh the property is located at 1463 Route 27. That's Lincoln Highway. It's also
designated as block 85 lot 39.01 on the official tax map. So this is the GB or general business zone where uh auto spas or car washes are a permitted use. So um existing conditions this site is already developed with the car wash.
It's already operating. Um however the proposal is to install a freestanding sign uh uh as as depicted here and my my witnesses will describe these more but this will be the sign. Um,
and the reason for the relief is the the applicant uh is requesting to position the sign uh at 8.75 ft uh off of the uh front boundary line where 20 ft is
required. The reason for this is that the applicant applied for and was issued a permit. They constructed the sign and then when they went out and did field marking, they realized that a sewer easement conflicted with where they were going to put it in. So, um the original
permitted location is not feasible. It can't be put there. And then any other location that uh would be in compliance with the 20 foot setback standard just doesn't have any visibility. So, it wouldn't be functional. Uh and it wouldn't signal any passerbys that this
is the car wash that you're looking for. uh washkin car wash. So, um the sign is already fully fabricated and it's based on uh that previously issued permit and this um this application again is strictly for relocating
uh that that sign uh to be within the required setback. Um I will have two witnesses tonight. Uh one is >> wait, >> you don't want it to be within required setback. You want it to be somewhere
other than within that space, right? >> Well, yes. So, I'm gonna I'm going to breach the setback and go into where I'm not allowed to go. >> Right. Okay. >> I thought you said something different. Never mind. >> I I I might have worded it in a way that was subject to interpretation, so thank
you for clarifying. Um, so, uh, I do have two witnesses tonight. um one is the business owner and operator and uh the second is the sign designer and manufacturer. Uh so um first I'll ask that I I'll also
just note for the sake of the record that this application has been duly noticed by publication the newspaper and serving uh certified notices on property owners within 200 feet. Uh unless the board has any housekeeping uh matters or legal questions for me, I'd ask that my
first witness be sworn in to testify. >> You're on or you >> sir? Uh who's testifying? Can you raise your right hand, please? 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?
>> I do. >> Can you state your name and spell your last name for record, please? >> My name is Na'vi Permar. My last name is spelled P A R M A R. >> Thank you. >> So, uh, Na'vi, what can you tell us about um your operations generally?
>> Yep. So, uh, we opened up Wash King Car Wash, uh, about 5 and a half months ago. It's an express car wash. Um, the community is able to come in and wash their cars uh, as many times as they want a month. We have free vacuums for
the community to use. Uh, you know, we give out free amenities for the community to use as well. It's open 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. every day, um, 7 days a week. And, um, that's that's about it.
>> Okay. Um, so you're currently operating now. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> All right. And do you have any uh signs up at this time? >> We do not. >> Okay. Now, you did have uh some signs to to announce your opening. Those have been taken down, correct? Correct.
>> All right. So, I just want to um draw the uh board's attention. I was intending to mark this as A3, so I'm going a little bit out of order for my own intention here, but I just want to note that it was marked in uh the the uh technical review committee report that
there were some signs. Uh if you look at the the review report, that was on uh I think the final page, page six depicts them, and then they're also depicted um on page three. So, all of those signs have been taken down. Uh those are those
were temporary just announcing the opening of the signs. These pillars are still here. So, if you see those pictures, the the ground's frozen. Can't get them out of the ground. When the ground thaws, uh those will be removed. The only the only sign that will be freestanding and marking the location of the property will be the proposed sign.
So, uh, with with that in mind, uh, Na'vi, if you could take my cursor and just kind of hover on this map approximately where the sign will be. >> Um, I should defer this to Clint. >> Well, if you can actually just flip here.
>> Um, let me get you a better view here. >> May help if you zoom in. >> Yeah, >> let's try that. >> So, if you're looking right there where that corner is. >> Yep. or the Eastman Corner. >> And I should state for the sake of record, this is a map of survey that was
uh provided with the the application. I don't know why this is here. >> So, zoom in a little bit more. >> Let me do this. All right. It's not cooperating. >> Yep. Scroll down. So, it's going to be right in that little corner right there. >> Right in that area there. >> Okay.
>> Right. Yeah. Right there. So, so and if if you look at this map, Na'vi, you see this this dark uh thick thick dark black line that that's your boundary line, correct? >> Yep. >> So, bumped out from the boundary line, uh a number of feet is actually the curb line. Correct. >> Correct.
>> So, we although we're proposing to put this at 8.75 ft away from your boundary line, it's still going to be set back a decent amount from the curb. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> How much is a decent amount? So, if we're adding 8.75 to the setback here,
um, again, I'm going a little bit out of order. Clint, by any chance >> talking about from the curb itself or from the >> from the curb? >> Yeah, you're you're looking from the curb right there. >> Can we can we swear u Clint >> raise your right hand? Do you swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And state your name and display your last name. >> Eers. E H L E R S. Thank you. >> The I know from the I didn't measure from the corner where the curves right
there, but if on the straight side of uh New Jersey 27 back to the setback line, the be I mean to the beginning of the easement is 13 feet. So from the corner because it's wider, I would imagine it's close to 20 feet to
the beginning of the uh easement. And then you have another eight and a half feet to where we're putting the pole or to the edge, I'm sorry, the light box, which is the widest part of the sign. Our goal is to put the pole out of the easement right in that corner. Our
engineers say because of the um and I'm getting ahead, I apologize, but because of the retaining wall that's there, we need to be at least seven, eight, nine feet away from that so as not to mess with the construction uh of the retaining wall itself. So, uh, just getting back to Na'vi's
testimony now, do you operate any other car washes? >> I do. So, I operate two car washes in Vinland, New Jersey. One car wash in Landisville, New Jersey, one car wash in Bridton, New Jersey, one car wash in Pensville, New Jersey. Uh, we have
recently acquired one in Cherry Hill as well. Um, I do want to point out that this sign we are proposing is industry standard. It's meant to be something attractive and appealing to the community. Uh it's nothing that is
flashing, nothing that is digital. Um nothing that is distracting. It just a nice sign that goes along with our branding. Um it's also a sign that we have spent substantial amount of money building when we were granted our
permit. Um but unfortunately the sign's been in storage for the last five and a half months as we you know awaited to um being with you with the board today. Um as of right now for the last five and a
half months we've been trying to grow our business without a freestanding sign. It's been very difficult as there is nothing on the building that helps the community identify where an existing car wash and that we're open. Um, it
also serves as a safe way for uh ingress for motorists to come onto our property. Um, but also allows us to again be present and compete and help recoup the significant investment we've made on this property as well.
>> So, I'm going to ask you a little bit about the >> Wait, I'm not sure I understand what this sign looks like. I I have I have all these exhibit things. I have I guess this is A1 maybe. And then we got
another one nearby sign photo exhibit and another one temporary signs remove photo exhibit. But I looked through for example this first one and I got like shooting things of water >> and then
>> but I got no I got no language there. Then I go further down and I have this sign which looks like a a standard sign. And this is not an insult to you, sir, but it doesn't look like you spent a lot of money on this sign. >> It just looks like a sign.
>> So allow me to uh eliminate some of the mystery. >> And then there's this. >> And so what does this sign look like? >> Yep. >> I'm not getting it. Um, so when you we actually uh >> so we're looking at an exhibit that was
submitted uh with the application. So that's why I didn't uh pass >> the exhibit that the commissioner was referring to. Is that was that submitted as part of the application? >> So everything I handed out was not submitted as part of the application. That's why I marked that as A1. >> Yeah. So I would request that uh as
labeled it's applicant's new sign photo exhibit. I would ask that that be a A1. >> Okay. >> Um nearby sign photo exhibit. I would ask that that be A2 >> and then temporary signs be A3. And that clears up the the marking and
identification of our exhibits. And to uh address Mr. Sheepard's question, I'll I will zoom in. This is exactly what the sign will look like. And um Clint, if you wouldn't mind just describing the dimensions of the sign and some of the other features that might not be
immediately obvious just by looking at the exhibit. >> Yep. So the sign overall is 20 ft high from the ground level. It is made up of three different light box type sections. >> The top part is the lion which is their logo. >> One second. Is is he being picked up
without a mic? >> Got it. >> I'll start over. So the overall sign height is 20 ft. The sign is made up of three different light box sections. The first section, the top section is their logo. puts the line on top of the car that is 65 in wide and 78 1/2 in tall
which equates to 35.43 square ft. The light box, the center box which is made up of has a divider bar so if they ever change their pricing it's an easy switch out. Uh that is 4 feet by uh uh 98 in that makes up 27.9 square feet. And then
we have the water feature which is part of their branding. All their signs that we put together have this water feature on it, which is they're known for. That is 109 in tall and at its widest point at the top is 47 in. That equates to 35.58
square ft, which is the total of the sign would be 98.91 square feet which is under the 100 square feet which is all allowable. >> And just to >> back me up with that last thing, what you said, it's the code says that 100 square feet of signage that you can
have. So the all three elements add up to the 98 uh 98.91 square ft. >> Okay. But uh does it do what is the variance? Well, look just the location >> just location. >> So in other words, I was kind of shocked
to hear again tell me what's the height of this thing? >> 20T >> 20T and that that falls within what you're allowed to do. >> That falls within the code for that area. >> Okay. And that probably has something to do with the nearby science photo exhibit, doesn't it?
>> Okay. Very. >> I'll wait to hear about that. >> Okay. >> Um, yeah. So, the I mean I I think it's important to keep in mind where in the township we're talking about. This is on Route 27. So, um I think that's a that's a fair segue. You're hearing that. Oh,
wow. This is a big sign. It's 20 feet. It is that is allowed in the zone. The area of the sign is allowed in the zone. And I want to give you an idea of what the character of this zone looks like. So, um I am referring now to what I have uh marked or requested to be marked as
A2. And um Na'vi, correct me if I'm wrong. These these were pictures that uh you took a couple days ago around 10 10 p.m. Is that right? >> So, correct. These were taken between 10 and 11:00 p.m. the other night along that area there.
>> Okay. So, this is this is, you know, right right up the road, a little bit northbound uh from from the subject site. And if we scroll through, you know, you're going to see a number of signs of varying heights. Um, you know, I I would presume I I can't say that
they all comply with the code, but they all are illuminated. They all all are close to the rightway. I mean, this this is a sign that is outside of a retail plaza. Um, you know, I I can't say for sure how tall that is, but I I would I would estimate that our sign is not
going to be larger than that or appear larger than that. >> Can you say relatively for sure that there's a number of them that would be violating the setback? It depends on >> or any >> it's it's hard to determine because it's hard to determine exactly where their
property line is in is in relation to the curb, but they certainly do appear to be, you know, relatively close to the front of the edge of the property. >> All right. >> What What's the big cross street here? Is it Veronica? >> Sinclair >> Somerset. Is it Sinclair? Yes,
>> Sinclair Boulevard. >> Okay. So, that's even further down toward New Brunswick than than Veronica. >> Yeah. This is uh an intersection um just before uh like the turn onto Bennett's Lane. It it's it's before that. If you go a
little bit further down, you're going to see um like the uh trying to think of what gas station is right there. >> There's a Wawa about uh less than half a mile away from us >> before
>> toward Kaz. It's way before, >> right? >> After Wells Fargo. >> We're talking >> after Wells Fargo. >> If you know where the Jiffy Loop is, it's just a couple couple spots down from the Jiffy Loop. >> You can actually see the Jify Loop from
our property. >> Yeah, it's a stones throw. >> Thanks. >> Um, so with that in mind, uh, I really don't have further further
questions for for my witnesses. I think we've covered uh everything. Obviously, we're we're open to and fielding the board's questions if there's any. >> All right. >> I have a question for our attorney and I'm asking this so we cover all the bases.
>> Is it necessary to have a planner? Uh I don't well I don't believe so for this application for the the type of application that it is. >> That's all I'm asking. >> Is that supposed to be on there? >> Yeah. I and if if I may respond
obviously I would listen to listen to your your attorney's advice, but this isn't a D variance. It's a C variance. Um it is a bulk variance. we are seeking it under um the the C2 standard. Um or I >> it's okay with me. I just don't want you
to have to come back because somebody said we did something wrong. And >> I appreciate it. I I listen I don't have a professional planning license, but I think the benefits are that this this sign will signal to the public what the use is at this site. The based on the
nature of the corridor, I really don't see detriments. Um, but again, I I I'm I'm just an attorney who who handles these, but they it it is fitting in with the nature of this commercial uh general business zone. >> All right. Any board questions before we
go public? >> Yeah, I have one. Um, relative to the overhead wires, how close is it and um what setbacks are required to those overhead wires? I don't know what the setback requirements are for the wires and
looking out there and we have not had our bucket trucks go up and measure those wires appear at least probably five feet higher six feet higher than where we're at. And plus >> we we should be just back from that. There's one all the wires are closer to the road. There's one wire that goes uh
by itself diagonally over to another pole and that's the only one we should be steered away from. >> The problem is this is it feels like it's at some sort of transmission line. So, the utility companies need to be able to access those wires. And I don't know what it is, but I would I'm fairly
certain there is a type of setback associated with that, like a blanket easement of sorts. And relative to that or relative to anything, where are you proposing the sign other than within us
within the setback? >> What are the other options? Is that what you're saying? >> No. No. Like where though? >> So, this is this is a the same question I asked at the beginning. Where's this thing going to go? >> I'm show I'm showing uh an exhibit. This is an an approximation. So, >> it's an approximation. So, if if we were
to write a resolution, the the the variance would be granted to put a sign x amount of feet from the property line where 20 is required. So, what is that x amount of feet? >> It's it's 8.75. >> Okay. >> And where is that? I I just didn't see
it, so I apologize. >> No problem. So, uh, again, I'm I'm I'm when I say approximation, I'm talking about the image. >> Sure. >> Uh, and not not where we're seeking relief for, you know, we're not saying, "Hey, in this area and anywhere in that
area." So, you'll see on our exhibits a a precise location. Uh so for the resolution I I would anticipate it would hold us to our testimony and exhibits that uh we would we would have to position it it right here 8.75
feet off of the boundary line. >> Isn't there isn't there a plan that shows it over the survey? >> Yeah. Yes. It you should have that in the uh the application I mean the drawings for the permits. You should >> and the plan shows the precise look
>> on it's on the survey. No, no. It's It's on the drawings that you showed the sign. It'll be the last page. There's three pages to that PDF, so it should be the next page. >> There it is. >> My apologies. >> Does Does the plan show the precise location of the sign? >> That shows 9.2. We did redid the math and that's where we came up with 8.75.
>> Yeah, I think the 9.2 is based on the base of the sign and the 8.75 is based on that that wider overhang at the top. >> Yeah. >> So, that the yellowish orangish striping, is that the easement? That's the That's the sewer easement.
>> It's overhanging the sewer easement. >> Yes. That's what we need relief from. >> Well, we we don't have the ability to grant relief from a sign hanging over an easement. That wouldn't be between the easement holder and your attorney.
I I guess my my question or point or or whatever it is is you have this easement and it's it's a ground easement to some extent, but there needs to be clearance so that if something happens and the DPW needs to get in there and access that that pipe, they can't be your sign can't
overhang that. And then there was also a comment about the setback to the wall for the for whatever the structural integrity of the wall or whatever. But what what is that? What is the wall? What's the instructional integrity? >> The setback that you had mentioned.
>> What is the distance? I guess >> the engineer the engineer request has to be at least 7 to 8 ft back from that. >> And how far are you? >> We are about 9 ft. >> It >> either either way we do it, it's going to be a corner of the sign hanging over
that. But if you look at that dotted line is the sewer pipe. The black dotted line, the black dot is the manhole cover, I believe. >> Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, the S and the line are typically indicative. >> So, we're not the dotted S.
>> We're number of feet away from any digging that has to go if they have to get into that pipe at that exact location. >> Yeah. But it doesn't really necessarily matter where within that easement the sewer is located. The rights to that land have been given to another party.
>> But there, as you mentioned, it is a is it is a ground easement. so that the base will not encroach into the easement. This that's why this location. >> So I I I didn't say that with any certainty because I don't know. Obviously, they have to excavate down where the the the pipe would be. I guess I I guess I'm asking are you certain
that having that sign overhang into the easement is an acceptable condition of that easement? >> We are. And that's why we're we're seeking the variance. That's why we we position we chose this location and include it because the initial location where we were sought the permit was
within the easement. So this was the solution to that problem. >> So what was the approved setback from the property line previously? >> Uh the when we applied for the U permit initially we submitted our application
with measurements on the overhead map and those were all approved. When we got the time when we went out there >> when we went out there to mark the after the got the um the permits we went out there to mark for N dig 111. Sure. >> And then found I saw a manhole cover and I didn't know if the manhole if the
pipes went this way or if they went perpendicular. So then we went down >> uh back down to the township. They referred me to the sewer authority who sent me this map is which and we found out that there is an easement there. >> But was this sign ever approved previously? >> Yes.
>> Who approved it? the zoning and the and the and the building. >> So there's a res building permits based on the prior location where it was going to be at >> which sign the sign was previously approved for a variance. >> Not a not a variance. Not a variance. It was it was >> we didn't when we applied for the the
the permit initially we did not know about the sewer easement. >> So we didn't require >> just respect. We're talking about two different things here. I'm not really too I'm not asking about the sewer easement right now. I'm just saying the previously approved location of this sign. Did you receive approval for this sign
specifically in a certain location? >> Yes. >> And that was closer than your 9 ft 2 inches. >> Yes, it was in the sewer. >> Okay. So, there was a a variance granted for that. >> Well, let me No, let me explain. There wasn't a variance granted. What it the the the the var the the the
zoning permit should not have been granted but the information that was presented was not drawn on a copy of the survey with the property with with with the the property line shown. What was presented was a location shown on an aerial
photograph and the 20 foot required setback was measured from the curb. So our zoning officer erroneously approved it. So that's that's the history, you know, a lesson on part of not our zoning officer that he should not have approved
it in that way. Um and it frankly it probably was in the you know the right of way of Route 27, let alone within within the uh the sewer easement. So that that's why we're here. >> Okay. >> So I mean that that all makes sense. Thanks Mark. Um, I mean, what about like
line of sight? Has that been looked at? Is this because it is not just like a pylon sign where it's a pole and then it just expands out. There's there's shape, there's body to it. Has that been looked at because that is I guess a controlled intersection, right? There's a a light there. So, we I I I will say we we don't
have a a traffic engineer, a traffic expert, but if you if you look at the >> stop sign, >> stop sign. >> Okay. >> I don't know what your site triangle requirements are for this particular area, but >> Well, it would be the DOT because it's a DOT roadway. >> Right. Right. But I believe that we are
at least 3540 ft from Sinclair back and then we're far enough far enough back from uh the 27 as well. >> Yeah. But what what a sight line triangle and establishes is if and that
one picture you can see there's like a left turn only lane on the 27. If a car is stopped there that they can see appropriately in both directions before coming on to 27. Yes. From where that sign is placed. Yes. There's landscaping that's in front of
that. >> And street >> and and the width of the sign the width of the sign at the bottom where that thing is is like 18 20 in. >> It doesn't it gets bigger obviously at the top which is above the sight line. I
I understand what you're saying. Well, what what at what elevation is a sight line? >> Well, I Yeah, I mean, being out there, I know that Sinclair kind of drives up to it, so you're at a little bit of an angle. >> I I I think the sign is a great idea. I
think it looks great. I It's very cool looking. It's pretty big, but it's cool looking. I I just don't think you guys have demonstrated the the requirements that were outlined in the TRC in terms of the the proofs for the C uh I guess we were doing C2 for hardship. Um our
council said that it's it's it's okay, but we still don't you don't know if you how close you are allowed to put it to the overhead wires. I I don't think I'm not sure if anyone else has a level of comfort that the sign can overhang into the easement and the setback to the wall is
>> we we would accept as a condition of approval to clear it with the sewer authority if that if that was if the board were to act favorably before we install the sign and we if we need to clear it with them we could >> I was going to ask you if you had any conversations with the sewage authority
before coming in. It probably would have been helpful to know where they are terms of what they require. um clearance above an easement area, >> you know. >> And I have a question for possibly for Mark because if I just look across the
road, um that mall, that strip mall that is there. >> Mhm. >> Of course, not this sign, but they have another big sign out there, and it seems to be very similarly placed as this.
It's actually closer to the road. >> So, and it seems to be from the pictures. Okay. I And I've gone down that road multiple times and it seems to be right under the wires and all of that conditions.
So, do we know any background on those signs or >> Well, I don't cuz that's in those are in North Brunswick. Y >> is this the utility line? >> But but again, you know, they showed the different signs. I'm not quite sure what
I mean, what the Franklin regulates signs by use. So, you know, to the degree that there's signs in here for office buildings, well, th those are permitted to be 10 foot from the property line, but they can only be 10 foot high. Retail is allowed to go up to
20, but they need to be 20 feet high. So, you know, I'm I'm not quite sure what these signs at at other uh establishments uh address. I mean, here in my opinion, you know, the issue here is they need a setback variance.
Um so, you know, I again I think maybe we're sidetracked looking at other signs on other properties. I don't know how gerine that is to this particular application. This is this sign on this on this property and they're addressing this as a hardship.
That's their testimony. So >> correct. >> Why is that, you know? So I think they need to prove to you why they can't >> put a sign that's compliant with the 20 foot setback from the property line. And that's basically the case. >> It just Yeah. So any any compliant location would not be a useful sign.
You'd be putting it in the corner of the property or would not be visible. It wouldn't be near an entrance. You'd be driving down the road. You wouldn't even see the sign. So um you know, could it be installed in another location? Yes. but then it would be a pointless sign. So the the reason we're we're seeking it
in this location is is it would be functional. Um the the I think it's it's worth noting that there is no um electric utility easement on the property line. So it's the the those
power lines are not going to encumber. >> The power line actually is marked that solid line that goes to the white area. That's the location of the power lines. >> Yeah. So, so it's no it's nowhere near it's nowhere near the power lines. >> Wait, what? >> This this line right here.
>> No way. There's no way. >> Well, if you look at the photos, it's exactly about exactly where the um telephone poles are that we have. >> Yeah. If you were looking at the photo p on page three of the uh >> the TRC report, it's right in line with that. >> The the power lines might even be closer
>> Yeah. >> to the road. No, that that that's not that is not accurate. If you page five of the TRC report in the yellow, that shows the location of that power line that kind of cuts across. >> Which is that?
>> I mean, you could see it on the area. You can see the shadow of the line on the aerial. >> Yeah. Is that not the same spot as this line we're looking at on the map? No, that the line you were referring you're referring to.
>> You can show that to me. >> This line that's what I was just looking at this. >> Yeah. >> I was just looking at this photo and that's kind of lined up where the line is. >> Actually, I think that's closer to us. So, you're probably right. That's not the line. But the power lines >> I think the power lines might be closer
to the curb. >> It cuts through here. >> No, no, it cannot. It will. If it cuts through there, then it would cross 27. >> So where the transmission line the transmission lines are closer to the roadway. I'm looking at it from an old
from the old approval on the on the car wash. But what's not shown is there's a service line that comes in. It's not shown on the plane that comes across. >> Right. That's the one I was referring to that I was in the original location that we wanted, which is where that black dot with the circle around it. That's the
manhole cover. We were actually above that close to the black line where the start of the sewer eastment with about a foot. That transmission line looked to go over the top of where we originally want to do it which is one of the reasons we want to get away from the manhole cover and the uh that transmission line. I think we're far
enough back. I think the transmission line would be in front of our sign and we can as a contingency we can make sure that we verify that >> before before it's ever installed and permits are issued. >> I just got to bring Okay. Do we have any other board
questions? >> And uh that you said that completed your testimony. So we'll open to the public. Is there anyone who would like to ask a question or make a statement concerning the application?
>> Come on up to the mic at the podium. We'll need your name, address, and have you sworn in. >> Sure. My name is Barack Patel at 55 Sinclair Boulevard. >> Do I need to swing? >> Swear. >> Yep.
>> Can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or from 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. >> Barack Patel. P A T E L. >> Thank you. >> I'm not here to speak for it or against
it. I just want to win cup of concern. I I think uh Mr. Excuse me. >> Sir, just hold up. Hold up one second. I have to check the mic. >> I failed the test. Dang. Nothing's going on there.
>> The lights on and the battery is there, but it doesn't seem to be very loud. >> Can he Can he talk into this? >> Okay. >> Wireless. >> Thank you, Clint. >> Oh, great. >> Like I said, I'm not here to speak for
or against. I just want to bring couple concerns that I have in my mind. I think uh the member Richard, excuse my he was right on it on on the sight triangle after after the new stropping has been done. Most people trying to make a left
on the left lane because it's so far in they go so far out you can't see anybody. And especially when they had couple signs on uh those white post I saw it was really hard. Every time I've been in that area for 30 years lately, I
can't make a left. What I do is I make a right, go on the North Bronstead, turn around and come back. Uh, so somebody should look at the site triangle. And that's that's that's my first concern. The second one is
something happened in last three four months. I have a picture, but I only have one copy. Somebody installed a solar panel with a camera on the opposite side of these. I have no idea whose is that. >> Is that That's not on this property though, right? >> No. No. It's on the opposite side, but
it's facing your site competition. >> No. Still there. >> I didn't see it. >> I I think you should give it to the board. I mean, I'm happy to look at it, but
>> yeah, we don't have any idea about that at all. I've never even seen that. I don't know if it's still there or not. >> So, what's the importance of that >> to to this application? >> To this application, because of these new left turn lane moved in, I almost
clipped that because it's only like a one ft away from the curb and the curb is so depressed, you can just jump right over. I almost clipped it in the snowstorm. That's why I want to bring it to your attention. >> Thanks. >> I have no idea who is that is does it belong to to me. It looks like a solar
panel is facing south, but the camera or or anything that's that's facing the car wash. So, I'm not sure if if if it's there or not. And like I said, I'm not here to speak for it or against it. Uh and and uh
the third one is uh we we've been having a lot of people moving in the back. I don't know whether the the traffic from the car wash, but they go into the single lane road inside try to turn around. We had a tractor trailer got stuck in somebody's driveway. We had to
get to truck out about 6 months ago. So there are some signs it says dead end, but they are so faded nobody can read it. I'm talking going further in the woods and those are the only thing I have to I have to say like I said
and one more thing I think the sign is there anyway you can do some sort of conventional sign this looks like it came out of a ar kids arcade or or one of those uh this >> uh to answer your question
this is where our industry >> you you got to find a mic to use >> and and speak you can speak to the board. >> Yep. So, uh to answer your question, this is not meant to be a boring sign that
uh is used from 20 years ago. The the industry is headed towards the car wash business model being something that families like to go to. Um is a entertaining place to be. It's meant to
be fun. Um, we have our tunnel filled with G&G lights that are colorful. Community loves going there. Um, this falls in line with our branding, sir. Uh, we're called Wash King Car Wash. We have a lion with a crown over it. We
have a water geyer uh to depict that, you know, it's a car wash and we have a basic light box that says our name and that we offer unlimited car washes. I I'm I'm just just talking about the top character. It looks like it it it came
out of some kids arcade or or what is that place on uh in Edison that kids go to have a fun. >> Uh >> I I I agree with you and I anticipate when I drive past my kids are going to ask to go through the car wash and I think it's by design. Uh some of the other comments uh that that this
gentleman made that I I do want to address. Um, so you mentioned that that temporary sign that has been removed, it was blocking your view. It's gone. So that should not be an issue for you anymore. And the the sign that's proposed here is set back further than those signs. And also at the the ey
line, um, the temporary sign, I think, was three feet or four feet >> wide. >> It was four feet wide. This is going to be 18 inches wide at at that uh at that same elevation. So uh it so it'll be set
further back. It'll be more narrow. Uh it will not present the visual obstacle uh that that other sign said. So your visibility is actually it should be improved today. But when you when you go back into that area today, you should have more visibility today. Um and this sign will will not interfere with that.
And as we mentioned previously, we would consent to a condition of approval that we confirm those sight triangles before the sign is installed. Well, that that was the biggest technical impetence I had. And one one last thing, and like I told you, I am not going to vouch for
you. I'm not fighting with you. I'm I'm just bringing what I think of them. But somebody made a comment that anywhere you place it, it will be useless. I don't I don't think you can hide 20 foot sign just by moving it five foot left or right or up or down. And that's all I
have to say. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else? uh then we'll close to the public. Anything you want to add? >> The the only thing I want to add is the the the depiction of the sign, the style of the sign, the way it looks, it's all by design. It's intended to capture the
eye and draw your attention, especially for kids who are going to ask their parents, hey, I want to go through the car wash that has lights and it's fun. I know my kids love that. Um so in terms of the location, I understand the the board's concerns in terms of the overhang of the sewer and the sight
line. we consent to conditions of approval that we will square those away before this any permits are issued or this is installed. Uh and yes, we are seeking a hardship because if you put this and I understand the gentleman said, you know, you how are you going to
hide a 20ft sign? Well, we have a building that you'd have to put the sign essentially behind. So, you wouldn't see it if it's behind the building. It wouldn't be functional. It wouldn't be useful. It would be a waste of investment and the public would not know that this car wash is available,
operating, and a fun place to bring your family. >> Again, to the board, we've been operating five and a half months with no form of identification of what we even are. We've made a substantial investment
to bring this car wash to life to the community. Um, we're willing to comply with the conditions of approvals if you guys would grant them to us. Um, we
we're just requesting that uh we're able to locate it slightly out of uh where it was requested and you know somewhere that it it's not going to affect the community in any way, shape or form.
Thank you. Nothing further. >> Any comments, questions, or motion? >> Mr. Chairman, maybe just a suggestion. I I think um I I don't anticipate that having a portion of the sign um overhang
into the sewer easements um will be an objection, but I do agree it's a good idea to make sure we check with the sewer authority. Um I think similarly, you know, we've heard testimony that they think this that that uh service line is 5T above. We don't know that's
true. Um so I would think that we should have some type of uh feedback from PSENG that the placement I I I'm not so sure that this is not exactly where that service line is crossing the property
and that it's not the same height. So I think they need and PSEG is the entity who services that line. We would consent to that as well. >> Well, see, but we we don't want to give you something with things that you have to do later. >> But I I understand and we are certain
that those are not issues and that's why we're confident that we won't be coming back to you. >> That's great. See, I know you're speaking to me as a lawyer representing other people when you talk like that. I appreciate what you're saying and I appreciate your confidence, but I do not
share that. I think you need to get this tightened up before we're going to give you our approval. Maybe maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everybody else feels good about this. I don't I don't even really understand where this thing is going to
go and there's lines all over the place. I I'm just uncomfortable with the level of finish on this application, but we'll uh we'll take it to a vote if that's where you want to go. >> And then my other suggestion that the
TRC report did ask about um there was landscaping that was required to be put in as part of their approval. It's unclear if those trees are going to be removed, uh if they're going to be relocated, what have you. Um so that was a question of the TRC that hasn't been
addressed. I would say uh clearing what Mr. Shepard just mentioned and Mr. Healey and making sure uh somebody officially comments on the
site triangle would all be a good idea to tie up ahead of time and and whatever landscaping issues that again that Mark mentioned I'm not sure
I don't know. I'm not sure that you want to complete this yet. >> I think you should. >> May I talk to my client one more time? Yeah. So, I mean, we're we're willing to replace the shrubs. Um, I I don't think
that's the board's primary issue. Um, >> I think you should get clearance from the sewage authority that the overhang would not interfere with work. They might have to do the sight triangle. Uh, and the public service issues. I
don't think that that's asking. I mean, if you want, we can go we can go forward and and finish the hearing, bring it to a conclusion. U >> that's that is what my client is requesting.
>> That's what they want. >> Yep. >> Okay. Any more uh discussion on the part of the board? Yeah, I would just point out I I guess from my perspective with the electrical wire, I mean that could potentially be a life safety issue. Should the wire arc to the the sign?
>> We we would not ever put a sign close to to that if it's we we would never do that. >> No, of course, but you know what I'm saying. >> 100% I I my business and my family mean too much to jeopardize my life, my crew's life, and my business and livelihood.
>> All right. Uh after speaking with my client again, we are going to request uh to be carried to um a date uh certain in the future uh when we will present more testimony and evidence shoring up these issues. >> I think it's been
>> I'll get out there with our bucket truck. I'll measure the height of >> I would also suggest you speak to sewage authority before you come back. >> Yep. >> I think you you got enough suggestions as to what information we're looking for. We have a date that we can uh
>> John, if you want to talk to your client and professionals, the next available date I have is April 2nd. >> Can you do April second? >> April second. >> We got too much. >> Is that them? And then we put all these
>> too much. >> We got this little >> booked. >> I think It's my birthday right there. >> Yeah, >> we'll take it. >> Going to be 77. >> Okay, so hold on a minute.
>> Uh, Wash King Somerset Opco LLC, docket number ZVA250025. Uh, the signed variance request will be carried to April 2nd, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. here at 475 Deont Lane. No further
notification will be needed at for this. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. Next is JC iOS acquisitions ZBA 2520
B1 use variance preliminary final major site plan with variances in which the applicants applying to develop the site with an outdoor storage facility 945 Route 27 Somerset block 88.01
lot 7.01 in the B1 zone. >> Hi Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Simone Cali, Cali Law LLC. On behalf of the applicant, as I'm sure you recall, we were here last month, I think it was January 8th,
where we presented our proposal to expand the existing bus depot with our new to the township outdoor storage use. Um, you heard from four witnesses. You heard about our operations.
Um, you saw our proposed site plan and our site engineer took you through the proposal. You heard from our traffic engineer, um, who concluded there are no impacts with regard to traffic and circulation on site. And lastly, um, our
cleanup hitter. You heard from our planner who took you through the planning proofs and concluded that we do in fact meet the burden to obtain the devariance relief that we are seeking from this board. After we concluded our direct testimony, um, we heard from your board
professionals who actually identified that there is a need for this use in the township, which was music to our ears, as you can imagine. Um, they even further opined that this site was suitable and agreed with our planner.
However, the board members had some concerns. Um definitely vice chair had a few concerns I recall and some members asked for a revised site plan to better understand what our use would look like laid out on
that plan. Um another board member asked if there was any way we can reduce the impervious coverage and I'm really happy to report that we did and we revised that plan. And um our intent tonight is to be brief, present our project
engineer to show you our revised plan. Um explain it perhaps a little bit clearer now that you could see our proposal and the type of use on that plan. Literally that visual might be a little bit more helpful to the board and
um give you that great re that great news that we were able to further reduce the impervious coverage. Um, and that's really it from me for now. Um, council, our it's the same project engineer from last meeting,
>> previously sworn in. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, if I may >> go ahead. >> Thank you. >> Take it away. Would you like to um >> Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, vice chair, members of the board. I do have um it doesn't appear that this is compatible with my computer, but I do
have a flash drive. If we if we could upload these exhibits somewhere. >> Sure. Yeah. Or if you have an adapter >> how many total um >> not compatible >> exhibits is it going to be Jeff? Is it three total? >> It's four total compatible.
>> Um the last three are almost >> like one exhibit. >> We were up to exhibit A3 at the last meeting. Counselor. >> Yes. >> Yeah. You're right.
>> Yeah. those up here. Go. >> Is it the same exhibits that you emailed? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Thank you. So, we'll wait for the first exhibit, but um to begin, um we heard several uh
great questions from the members of the board. Uh some comments and and we had revisited the site plan layout um prepared an exhibit. We didn't formally have the time to revise the site plan drawings and resubmit to the board. So, we prepared a site plan um exhibit
rendering um encompassing some modifications to the site layout. Um in addition, we do have three other exhibits which could quantify as really one exhibit. Um but for intents purposes it's basically um uh three exhibits that show how different tenants would operate
on the site with certain types of materials um building supplies, vehicles um or um you know landscaping equipment, items of that nature, how they would operate cohesively on the site if there were more than one tenant. Um so to
begin this exhibit that's shown here is entitled site plan exhibit rendering. Um it's it's uh prepared by my office um dated January 27th. Um >> A4 for the record. >> Yes, this will be exhibit A4. Um again,
it's the colorized site plan um that was submitted to the board. The the beige area is the the concrete pavement. Um the the the gray colors are the the the asphalt pavement areas or the gravel base and the green is all the the uh lawn or landscaping and existing trees
that are on site. Um and you can see the aerial background with all the trees surrounding the property. So it's pretty well screened along the you know the left top and right side of the site and our objective was to provide better screening along the frontage where Route 27 is um at the bottom of the page. So,
the first uh change that we've made to the site plan layout is uh eliminated some of the storage area that's located closer to Route 27. Um if you will recall, there were um a number of stalls striped just uh to the top of Route 27, closer
to the roadway. We've elim eliminated that storage area. So, we pulled the pavement back roughly 55 ft um to provide extra buffer uh screening area um to provide a better visual impact from Route 27. So, that's 55 ft of new
lawn area that uh placed there. Um we've also eliminated some of the uh existing concrete on the very top end of the site. Um so with that we did effectively reduce the impervious coverage down to 71.1% which gets you closer um to the
conforming impervious coverage. Again this was already in an non-conforming condition. Um whereas the existing site was at 78.6%. We've reduced it down from the initial submission uh to the last revision we presented at the last meeting it was
74.5%. So we've taken it down even further to 71.1%. over a 4 acre site. Um it's uh you know not a little bit of impervious. So and the important part is that we pulled it away from Route 27 in my opinion and provide some landscape screening along
the frontage so it's um effectively screened from that corridor. Secondly, we heard some questions uh concerns about site security. Um, so what we show here, and it's hard to see on the screen right now, but on the left
property line going up to the top of the page, we are proposing an 8 foot high fence um that'll attach to the building um you know, the left building, run along the left property line to the top and connect to an existing fence that's essentially at the the pinch point um at
the top of the page. Um so that effectively provides better security um especially from the north um and and west. The rest of the site again it's it's you know especially to the left of the page it's wetlands um heavily vegetated and to the right you have the
you know the public works and and other industrial uses but you also have um a fair amount of vegetation between those two uses as well. So um I believe this provides a nice secure site uh for the applicant to operate in the future. Um, next you'll see the colors that
we've denoted here. Um, again, this is just a visual representation, but we wanted to represent how multiple tenants could operate the the site cohesively. So, the the green uh the blue and the red areas are are where the applicant
might have a a a different tenant operating in each of those areas. Um, and you'll see in the next few exhibits, I'll show examples of the different types of materials and equipment that they'll they'll store on site. Um, so that'll make it nice and organized. Again, there's um vehicular circulation
is cohesive through the entire site. Um, the vehicular drive aisles will be paved. Um, and we'll work on that detail with Mr. Mazi as a condition of approval. The storage areas themselves, since you know, the original proposal was to have also tractor trailer storage. Now that we are not having
tractor trailer storage on site whatsoever, um our proposal is to keep those as that compacted gravel uh base which um I believe there's some concerns with the impervious surface. So with the storage of materials, equipment supplies, believe that compacted gravel base is is a good use for that and it's
it's the same type of base that the applicant operates on, you know, well over a hundred of their sites throughout the country. And uh a few other minor changes. There was a comment about, you know, the water me installing a water meter. Um they'll there'll be a fire service that will run
from the Route 27 corridor with a hydrant um into the site to provide uh fire suppression service. Um we are placing that water meter in the in the island between the two travel lanes so that there's some sort of protection uh from vehicular uh traffic coming into and out of the site. before it was
placed more in the aisle where the where the water man was located, but we're we're shifting that underground uh meter vault so that it's out of vehicular uh lanes. And lastly, um we're talking about uh a little bit of storm water management and and I just want to
reiterate as a condition of approval, we'll work with with Mr. Mazi um to make sure that the conveyance system um is adequately sized. We'll place um you know additional inlets if needed or oversized inlets to be able to handle the capacity for runoff that's tributary
to that area and we'll analyze that um pipe that connects into that wetland area as well. That will uh conclude my testimony on this exhibit. If we could please move to the next three which suppose we could mark as A5 through A8 or it could all be
A5. They're however you prefer. I don't know. Or A5 through A7. Yeah. >> Why don't we mark it uh A5 through A7? >> Great. So, these next three exhibits show different scenarios of equipment,
vehicles, other items that could be stored on the site. Um, and this could be any it could be one tenant that could take the site, which is the preferred option, I think, from an operational perspective. Um, but it could be split up and it could be any one of these examples that we're showing here. So,
this first exhibit shows uh vehicular vehicular uh or vehicles that are stored on site. The I forget what the colors were, but essentially the the orange vehicles there are buses, which was part of the prior approval. Um to the bottom of that, the the blue vehicles are
sprinter vans, and to the left of that are pickup trucks. So, um you know, pretty uh all vehicles that could maneuver the site effectively. Again, no tractor trailer storage in that area. The next exhibit we'll show here is for materials and supplies. Um there was
question actually about the the landscaping and and how it would be contained. Right. So what we're showing here on the top the top area is uh landscaping material. So mulch um uh salt items of that nature. And what the applicant will be doing if that is who
they indeed tenant is um having pre-cast concrete boxes essentially and they'll put the materials in there and that way they have the ability to put tarp over it or something as well in case you have a heavy wind um you know a tropical storm or whatever you know anything over 50 miles an hour it could end up blowing
away so I think that that would be an effective solution for a landscaper that might want to tenant the site. Um below that is um you know similar it's insulation for housing. Um it's one of their tenants that they have. Uh again it'll be you know contained. Obviously
it's lightweight equipment. Want that contained so it doesn't blow away. Um and then to the left of that in the middle just right above the the the family dollar store is rebar. So if um contractor wanted to store their rebar material for construction they would put it in that location. Again, it could be
in any one of those three, but uh just as a visual representation to give the board some comfort on what tenants they might attract. Um the last exhibit here is essentially construction equipment, um vehicles, um lay down equipment. Um here we're
showing in those two areas to the right, uh essentially, yeah, just construction vehicles if contractor like a contractor's yard. Um and then to the left of that, the green colors right above the f the the family dollar are um examples of air compressors or other
types of uses similar to that fashion. So again, you know, could be a mix of these, could be one tenant that could uh you know, hopefully they would be able to lease to one tenant, but it could be a mix of all any any of those types of uses. So wanted to give the board some
comfort. I know there's some many questions being it's it's a it's an I don't want to say unusual but uh unrecognized use in in many municipalities throughout New Jersey and and um I believe this helps to clarify that from a visual perspective but happy to answer any questions you might have
on both the site plan changes that we've effectuated here and that we plan to effectuate as a condition of approval um for during residential compliance if we're granted approval here um and also answer any questions operationally to the applicants here tonight as um if you have any questions for him.
So, appreciate your time. >> I have some questions. >> Yes. >> When you start operating the facility, what what happens? You I come in and I want to store landscaping materials. Do
you assign me a space? Is are the tenants assigned spots? uh and and if so, how are they delineated? And what I'm trying I guess in the to make
sure of is it all doesn't become things just piled all over the place. I'd also like to see some kind of a plan where there's access some type of vehicular access to
all the different areas of of the facility that's kept that way so that if there would be some kind, you know, I don't know what it would be, but if there were an emergency or a fire or something like that, you could
>> function or some responders could function and have circulation on the site. You know, I I I want to be comfortable that you're not telling me you take this site >> and I pull my truck in and I just dump
everything and then leave. That you know, each site or storage site has some sort of containment. >> You know, I I would want that as a as a tenant. I wouldn't want somebody next to
me putting all their material where mine was. But how do you I'm I'm kind of I guess asking too how it operates. >> Sure. So to answer your first question um yes when they they and and Johnny could step
in, but they would they would lease tenants tenants would would sign leases for the site. They would have specific areas that they could store materials. Um, in terms of delinating those areas, uh, one question I believe came up at the last meeting was that we would be working with the fire official to stripe
a fire lane around all the vehicular drive aisles. So, that's something that we do have to perfect as a condition of approval. So we'd have that yellow stripe, you know, around the vehicular aisles, go around the storage areas so that there can be no storage whatsoever within areas that would be accessed by,
you know, fire apparat apparatuses or just general vehicles that would come into the site to pick up their equipment. Um, so in terms of delitting those three separate areas, we could work out some type of I mean the goal is to have one tenant, right? But if you do
have the case where you have two tenants or even three tenants, um the applicant would be in charge of making sure that it's operable and they're like to be frank, their tenants wouldn't be happy if you know they had one tenant bleeding over onto their their store specific
storage area that they're assigned. They want to keep their tenants happy, right? So that's an operations um uh that's an operational uh you know component of of their lease agreements. Um >> would they Would this facility be
building storage racks? >> Storage racks? >> I've observed one that's at least that's got it almost looks like a warehouse facility, but it's outdoors where you have these steel shelving
stacks and things are piled, you know, on it. Which brings up another question I have about uh height the height of ho how high can the mulch pile get and and the uh
stack of bricks or cement blocks. >> Sure. I know there was a really great questions and discussion on the height um how how high items can be stacked. So I'll let the applicant okay >> answer some of the operational questions. I believe he's more um attuned to that.
>> And Mr. chairman. He was previously sworn in at the last meeting. >> Thank you. >> Uh so just to answer some of the operational concerns, so from a leasing standpoint, if we go the multi-tenant route, how we do this across the country, across a bunch of the different
sites that we own, each tenant has a lease agreement where it specifies exactly what those premises are. So, if somebody has the building, how much square feet um for the yard, how much acreage typically or land square feet, and then at the end of that lease agreement, you have an exhibit that
outlines exactly where that tenant is going to operate. Similar to the site plan, how we demarked it in green, blue, and red. Um, and to answer your concerns about the circulation, uh, with the striping in the middle of the site, that gives you some, you natural progressions
when it comes to the vehicles coming in, whether it's fire or safety. But, as you can see in each one of these exhibits on the north side, we have a kind of a transfer station, if you will, where I know we talked about in the last hearing, there's going to be no idling
of vehicles. And let's say there is a situation on site where you know emergency vehicle needs to come on and there somebody's dropping off materials. They can maneuver north to the site, park there temporarily and then whoever is responding can go and and handle the
situation at hand. Um, and then you can even see like for the equipment, there's aisles within each uh tenant premises where you can maneuver and go in and and address um the situation if it were to arise. And then when it to answer the
question on racking, that is not what we're proposing. Um there are sites nationally where you'll have a open canopy and some racking. That's not something that we're proposing for this business plan. Um, and if a tenant were to come when we're going through the final site plan approval uh to be able
to get a certificate of occupancy, we would present that. But that's not uh what we're intending for the site. >> And how about general height of materials? >> Yes. >> Up an 8ft fence, you said, right? >> Yeah, I think uh in the last hearing we said it was going to be a maximum of 8
ft. Um and just to um I don't know if we can go back to the uh material supplies. Um, I just want to address I know there was concerns about flyway of materials. Uh, that's not going to happen with these materials. The only flyaway really
is if you have leaves on site just because of the weight. Um, but yeah, what we're proposing with mulch or um salt that it's contained in these pre-casts uh concrete uh you can call them cubbies. Everything's going to be consolidated in there. Um, and yeah,
unless you have, you know, call it a tornado, those aren't going to be going off site. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Just for the record, sir, what what's your name again? >> Um, John Grip. Okay, thank you. >> Anybody else?
>> My question is going to be more for the engineer. So, Can you go back to the first exhibit areas? >> So, what is the intended finish material for the red, blue, and green areas? Is it going to be asphalt or
>> the intended uh material is the gra the compacted gravel? >> Okay. Yes. >> Have you done I know this came up at the last hearing. Have you taken an analysis of your lo disturbance to see what the project limit is? >> I'm sorry. the what our final limit of disturbance would be.
>> Yeah. For the project that one of the board members had had that question where you' be able acre under an acre over an acre. >> So that's something we had mentioned on call. >> Yes. >> So I'm assuming the gravel is going to stay in place discussed. >> So have you done any calculation for
that yet or it's the yeah the asphalt pavement itself um where we're proposing to pave would be under an acre. So, um there's other, you know, landscaped areas, gravel, which, you know, such as removing the stock piles, but they're not really truly considered limited disturbance because you're not
disturbing the underlying soil. Um, and we'll represent that in a package when we submit it for resolution compliance. Okay. >> Um, but yeah, the the actual paved area would be um under an acre. >> Okay. And uh since now that there's that blue area that's right before the the
basin area, we talked about potentially a filter strip. >> Yes. >> 5 foot. I don't you want to touch on that? You don't want to have any stone or debris end up back into those wetlands and basins. >> Yeah, that's that's a great uh great reminder and a great uh comment there.
So, um naturally we have we're grading the site to drain towards the inland infrastructure so that it drains properly in in an underground storm water pipe into that low-lying wetland area. U but the event that you don't want any materials that you know come over from the storage areas come into
the wetland area. So, we're proposing to have some kind of a a blockade, if you will, or um I forget Mr. Mazi we were speaking to. Um >> it was more we were discuss more of a rip wrap filter. >> Yeah, like a rip wrap. >> Five foot wide. >> Yes. That be maintained and cleaned out over time. >> Yes. Yeah. Like a a five foot. So
essentially stones that will place in like a 5ft wide um section along at the bottom of the blue area um in case there's some runoff that comes off there or um any other materials that could be captured in there and maintained and cleaned um really in perpetuity as long
as they operate. So we'll be happy to to solidify that on on the site plan as a condition of approval. >> And my last comment would be just depending on where the board goes where you show the meter pit uh the water department's not going to accept in the middle of the that but I just ask that
there be condition approval if it were to go this route that they were awarded upon the final location. >> Yes, absolutely. We will. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Any other witnesses?
>> No other witnesses. Mr. Chairman, >> we'll open to the public. Is there anyone who'd like to ask any questions or make any statements? All right, then we'll close. You want to summarize? >> Yes, please. I'll be brief. Uh, Mr. Chairman and board members, we
appreciate all of your comments. Um, from the last meeting, a thank you to the board professionals who have worked with us handinand from pre-application, really as recently as LA last week, calls with our professionals to get here tonight. Um there is a clear need for
this use in the township as confirmed by your longtime board consultants and this site is particularly well suited for it. Um the impacts are known. They're not speculative. Um and if approved, our proposal will bring the property into better alignment where the prior owner
fell short with their buildout um for that prior approval of the bus depot. The applicant is a wellestablished national operator with a strong track record of successfully running these type of facilities. Um that is identical
to that which is proposed in your township. And um they look forward to becoming a responsible and contributing member of your community. And with that um we would respectfully request that you act favorably on our application. And thank you very much.
I have a now I have a question. Um, is this facility going to be open 24 hours? >> Yes. Well, there will be material stored there 24 hours. >> But what I'm asking is, are uh trucks or
uh people going to be on site 24 hours? And the funny part about it is is, you know, that we talk about mulch, but there's probably going to be some fairly expensive equipment and maybe some materials of significant value that are
going to be stored here. And we have a good fence up, but the the question that I have is um is there a lock on the front door? How does that all work?
Um so to answer the first question uh we testified that this will be 247 operations but as you can imagine most of the um operations are going to be going during the you know prime business hours and not you know early in the morning late at night. Um and then from
a security standpoint yeah we're still putting in the 8 foot high um gate um and that will have a a padlock on it. And so there there will be a time during a 24-hour period that that it's
closed that there's no one there. >> I would imagine if the tenant doesn't want people going on the site and taking their equipment that they would lock when they leave. >> Well, what happens? Oh, okay. So, there is no there's no gatekeeper. It's just
people who have rented there get a key to get or or they don't use keys anymore. They have cards now to get in and out. Right. >> Uh correct. So yeah, we're not proposing to have a security staff on site. Yeah. Um but I would say we do have security
cameras that we put on the site. Um and at night it has a light as well, so it floods and and illuminates the yard uh to to a degree. Um but so there's extra security precautions for the the tenant. >> Did we uh
touch on any need for lighting and what that might be? >> Um uh we are installing uh light poles along the perimeter of the site. Um and it's in compliance with with the municipal code. Um I don't recall if I touched on that in my direct. I know
there were questions asked intermittently and it might have been, you know, flashed over, but there are um LED lights that are proposed along the perimeter of the site to effectively provide especially during your winter hours when, you know, they still might be operable at 4:30, 5:00 at night and
and they need to have proper lighting for, you know, vehicular traffic. So, >> right, other questions? >> Yes, one just one question. U Mr. Chairman, just make it clear and if this was addressed at the last meeting, I
apologize. Um, these spaces in the back here, what what is that again? >> Sure. So, that's um Mr. Gri was touching on it um a little bit, but to to clarify, it's more like a transient almost if if a vehicle came in to unload and load their materials. We don't want
them sitting idle in >> sitting idle in in any vehicle, you know, in any actual traveled ways. So, we we are going to stripe those out specifically so that a vehicle can park there, turn their car off while they're unloading materials onto their storage
yards. So, >> and then um the only other, you know, I guess reminder for the board, I'll say it depending on on uh if the board was inclined um to approve it, uh you know, we discussed it the last time, every time there's a new commercial tenant, uh
it has to get reviewed by staff. Um, so, you know, certainly as tenants come and go on this site, staff is going to want to look at the plan. Um, you know, they'll have to submit for a zoning permit for a change of tenant. And we'll have to see what they're proposing. What
type of use is it? A landscaper versus truck storage, whatever. And we're we're going to see how that basically manifests on this plan showing that they're you know maintaining those fire lanes and if it's going to be something like mulchure leaves or something like that that they're properly containing
it. Uh and they'll have to address that you know over the years as the tenants come and go. Again that's assuming if the board was to approve it. >> Okay. Anything else? I'm going to do a uh
um a resolution, but I have to say that I want everybody to listen to what I say because I expect that there'll be some additional things uh that go go on here. I also am a little bit troubled by the
idea that um they just testified that they're here to get a a final site plan, but they didn't really have the chance to prepare one yet. How does that all work? >> We did prepare, you know, a site plan
package. I in my professional opinion, we made some minor changes to the site plan layout to reduce impervious coverage, which I think is beneficial in proposing a new fence along the property line. >> Yeah. And during the course of proceedings, we're
allowed to present an exhibit showing those changes. Yeah. And then we have to perfect that and submit it to the engineer to the board planner and they have to sign off on anything that we agree to at this meeting um before they can pull any building permits or anything of that nature. So,
>> well, that's why I'm glad our engineers here. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Right. Okay. >> Yep. >> All right. I um I move that we haven't even got the name of this thing.
Don't have anything. There we go. Uh, I move that we grant uh JCIOS uh Acquisitions LLC uh a uh the the following uh variances
and um uh also uh requirements to allow them to uh build and operate a um a materials storage facility. Um on uh uh
Route 27 uh block 8801, lot 701. Uh the uh varants will they will um construct a an 8ft high fence on the left side of the property. Uh they will
uh work with the fire department to establish traffic lanes uh with the uh uh unre unreovable uh striping. Um the goods that will be stored on the
facility will be no higher than 8 ft tall and everything uh will be uh if there is any potential for um uh dispersement uh inadvertent dispersement
such as with mulch or uh other uh light materials. Everything will be contained in uh in storage um uh containers. There will be no idling of vehicles on the
site. Uh the um uh there will be no racking uh used on the facility. Um the um uh there will be flood lights that will
comply with the uh township requirements uh including brightness and uh location. Uh there will be no tractor trailers stored on the facility. Um as uh uh once the business is um
pardon me, once the uh facility is constructed, uh the uh township uh construction and um um zoning officers will tour the facility
to make sure all of these things have been accomplished. And uh after uh a tenant uh when a tenant leaves the facility, uh the applicant will be required to submit a
new application for uh a new tenant and um the zoning board will again have the opportunity uh to inspect the facility uh before uh the new tenant um is
allowed to proceed. Uh the uh the um uh zoning office will also have the right to contact the owner to um uh make an appointment to uh inspect the facility
at a time uh convenient for the town. Um that's everything that I have, but I I feel like it's it's not entirely complete. That was pretty complete. >> That hit all my notes. The the one
question that I had is I think you had mentioned that when there's a new tenant, I think you said they would have to come back before the zoning board for a new tenant. Is that what you implied or >> No, that's not what I wanted. I want them that they just have to apply for whatever kind of a license from the the
uh >> the process that I had described a few minutes ago where they have to go through the change of tenant and have >> that's why I'm wanting everybody listening. >> Okay. Gotcha. So then yeah, they'll have and that'll get what the process would be in that scenario frankly is our technical review committee which is
engineering and fire prevention and all the different uh departments that frankly do reports that go to you. We meet every single Tuesday morning. So if there was a new tenant and they had a plan for a new tenant, we would present that to the full TRC and make sure every all the different departments are okay.
>> So just wanted to clarify that. But otherwise, I don't know, uh Brian, if you have any other additional notes, but he had every single note I had. >> He covered it pretty comprehensively. >> Any board members have any other additions? You sound look like you're
coming up with something. Okay. And we'll That's the motion. We need a second. >> I'll second. >> Cheryl Bethia. >> I'm going to vote yes. I'm going to also say that I wasn't here for the initial
testimony, but I did certify that. Um but what I heard today in addressing the issues um that were raised by the board and as well as the stipulations that we now are um putting in place um I think it's
a good application and so I I vote yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Richard Brokanic. >> Yes. >> Alan Rich. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosenthal. Um, I was here for the initial and I really
believe that you've answered a lot of the concerns that I had. Uh, I only want to indicate to you that if there's anything flammable that I should come into this
property to please take a note of that and and I'll vote yes. >> Robert Shepard, >> yes. >> Michael Dohy, >> yes. >> Chairman Thomas, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions
about anything? Have a need a motion to adjourn. >> I move that we adjourn. >> A second. >> Second. >> Meeting a journ.