So this guy's slight helps a lot. Good evening. It's [clears throat] 6:30. Tonight is the session for the Paintport Township Joint Land Use Board. Tom the chairman. First order of business will
be the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisibley justice for all. >> Thank you
sunshine law notice. [clears throat] We we have no business to start after 10:30 to finish matters that begin before [snorts] 10:30. Can I have a roll call please? >> Mrs. Tori >> here.
>> Mr. No, absent Mrs. Le >> here. >> Mr. Morali absent Mr. Miss Costal here. Mr. R. Murphy here, >> Mr. C. Murphy >> here, >> Mrs. Gilmore >> here, >> Mr. Holden >> here,
>> Mr. Mcai >> here, >> Mr. Porto >> here, >> and Mr. M >> here. All right. Uh, we have a number of items for business today, tonight, but I'm [clears throat] going to take
them out of order uh because certain people are present and I want to move those people along. There are other issues that where no one is here suspect and I can shove those down. So the first
matter that we'll take uh is number 6C on the agenda. Um Mr. and Mrs. Chen, are you here? >> Yes. Would you come forward, sir, to the podium and be sworn and then we'll ask you some questions.
>> Could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm testimony you give tonight will be the truth? Whole truth? Nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right, Mr. Chen. From the paperwork submitted, we understand that you and your wife seek to uh gain a bulk
variance to replace a 4ft high fence with a six foot high fence in order to accommodate a pool that you intend to put in your backyard. >> Correct. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Just
even though I've stated the the issue, just explain to us what you want to do with that. Um, so I currently have um well, we're in the process of building a pool, so it's we're midway through the project. Uh, we currently have a fence around the yard and a portion is uh only four feet high, a pick a fence around
the uh the street side. Um, so with the pool, I I do have a 13-year-old son, you know, who's primarily this is who the pool's for. He's going to be in there all the time. Uh, he may have friends over. So, we wanted to uh raise the 4ft portion of the fence to six feet just to uh provide some added privacy and
security uh for for my child. Um again, the fence is there's already a pre-existing fence there. Wouldn't we wouldn't change the position or anything. It's just we just want to raise it up, you know, two feet just to um create a little bit more privacy. >> All right. Is this a like a solid vinyl fence? >> Uh yes. The cur the current fence is
like an open picket fence, the 4ft fence. I'd like to create a um a six foot high privacy fence, line fence, >> and it would be white. >> White. Yes. >> Um I want to just ask um Kathy um have you looked at that in terms of site
triangles and other potential issues. So, [clears throat] in the past, we um have had these situations before, and one of the things is that I make sure of is that, and I don't know if you have any pictures or not, but um because if he's on a corner property, and then he
has a neighbor behind him, I've made sure that with this 6ft high fence in the exact location that the existing fence is, that there's not going to be any issues with the neighbor coming out of his driveway. We've gone through this through the years before where we want to check to make sure that that
neighbor's not going to have a problem coming out. Where this fence is going is not all the way to the corner of Welden. And is it Heather? Heather on there is that it's actually set back on the Weldon and the Heather side. Um at
there's no it's not in any form of sight triangle. He has an existing uh six foot high fence all around the rest of the property. Um I feel that this is no negative impact just because of the
location of it. If he was asking for any further for the uh closer to the street, I would have to say that that would have caused a problem with the sight triangle. But if you need any pictures, I do have some if you want to take a quick look. I have them in color uh to
give you an idea of where the existing fence is versus the neighbor's yard um that it would not affect. >> Yeah. Let's mark the bundle of photos um exhibit one for today. Circulate them around. We'll have the witness identify
them as photographs of your property. Okay. >> How many photos are there? How many photos? >> Uh, two >> about six. >> So, six color photographs of the
property exhibit. >> Well, just have the witness go through all six and just tell us the record what they are. Then we pass the bundle around everywhere. >> Okay. Um, the first picture is just uh a view from the side. Um, and the uh the street
on the right side is is Heather uh is Heather Lane. So there's uh and the and again where the fence is now uh there's a temporary fence there too, but that's again where my um the higher fence would be and the pictures are similar. Yeah. And
then there's one of the map um that is that's my house on the corner there. Um, and I don't know if you can see just the the fence again doesn't go all the way to the end of the grass um or to the street. And again, it's going to stay in the same location.
>> That's a Google shot. >> And then the other there's a picture with a straight on shot. This is when the uh and if you can see uh the back of the yard already has a six foot high fence. Um and it's just the part on the outside with the with the 4ft pick fence that we want to replace. And then I
think the last one is just sim similar views. Yeah. From the other way. >> All right. Could you just pass that bundle around to to everybody? And while we're doing that, um members of the board are questions of this witness.
[clears throat] >> Correct. >> Anywhere. Yes. The HOA also >> they've already approved. Yes. >> I have a question, Mr. Chen. I think your application said the pool was under
construction. Is it completed or still under construction? >> The pool part is basically complete. We're waiting for the patio part. So, we can't use, you know, so it's >> it's uh essentially the pool is built already. It's filled water, but there's no patio. We can't use the, you know, approval yet.
>> Yeah, he's under construction right now with our construction office. Um, so, uh, there's still quite a bit to do, right? Would you be in agreement with that? >> Yes, this is a lot. I guess there's there's a I guess a concrete girder frame that still hasn't been done yet. So, the the frame is up, but we're kind
of midway through the project. There's a neighbor across the street that's in a similar situ. >> Yeah. One of the big things is that we always want to make sure, Mr. Chen, is that your neighbors not affected with any type of sight triangles or anyone on
the road turning into your project uh into your road, I should say. And you can clearly define in those pictures that that's not an issue. >> All right. Um I didn't hear any other uh board member questions. Are there any any questions from our professionals? No,
>> sir. Any questions from the uh the public? I'm going to open it up to the public at large. Hearing no questions. Close that. >> Can council frame uh resolution for us for this schedule.
Mrs. Jen's request for a varian is requesting a uh fence height setback variance in accordance with the survey he submitted to uh be in the same location as the
existing fence. members all understand the uh proposed motion. Uh any questions on it? May I have May I have a
a an offer of a motion, please? >> I'd like to make that motion. I've been past your house many times, so I know exactly what you're doing there. Um I'm a son that lives on Newton Place, so I'm very very aware of what you're trying to do and I'd be happy to do that.
Wonderful. May I have a second? >> Second. Second, Chris. A roll call, please. >> Mrs. Tory, >> yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy, >> yes. >> Mrs. Leven, >> yes. >> Mr. R. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Miss Costco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mrs. Gilmore.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Holden. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Mcai? [clears throat] >> Yes. >> Mr. McKay? >> Yes. All right. You have your variance. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I also I wanted to um ask I guess permission for a waiver to proceed at risk possible.
>> It is at risk as you point out. If there's a problem, >> we should take a vote on that. >> Yes. If you're going to grant him a waiver, you need to vote on that. >> I have a motion. Offering the waiver. Requested motion. Have a motion. Second
roll call. Mr. Holding. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mai. >> Yep. >> Mrs. Tory. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Le. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Gilmore. >> Yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. R. Murphy. >> Miss Costa. >> Yes. >> Mr. McN.
>> Yes. >> All right. So, good. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Have a good night. >> All right. Um, let's let's move uh 26-07 the U exit Industrial Berry Owner LLC.
I think that's Are they prepared to go forward? >> Mr. >> No, I move you next. >> Next. Um, please come up. Introduce yourself. Let's [snorts] figure out who you're going to use as
witness. witnesses in >> absolutely >> you have exhibits pass those around charts to be put up. >> What I'll do is um Thank you. I'll pass
handout size copies of our exhibits around. Those will be circulated while I am introducing the application of course introducector. You haven't bundled in one packet. >> They're labeled [clears throat] A1
through A2. Council, if you would identify yourself and your firm. >> Absolutely. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Richard Wells from Archer and Grinder here on behalf of the applicant NJ exit 5 industrial berry owner. Thank
you for hearing us this evening, especially after the holiday weekend. I know everyone would probably rather be at the beach than out in this rainy weather. So, thank you very much for hearing us. >> Oh. Or if you have another copy,
>> Mr. Wells, this uh very nice of you to put this exhibit list together and witness list together. >> See, seems you have three witnesses. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, our witnesses are exhibit uh identified on exhibit A1. If you'd like, we could have them sworn now.
>> Yes, please. Mr. Clemens, Mr. Dardy, Mr. Gentlemen, raise your right hand, please. You swear or affirm the testimony we give tonight will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, >> we'll uh introduce them each before they're testing.
>> Yeah, I will. And to the extent uh you have an engineer or engineers will qualify them at the time of their testing. >> Yes, absolutely. Now, would you um would you help the board uh by giving the board some history of this site, please,
as an introduction before whatever other [clears throat] remarks you have planned? >> Yes, I' I'd be happy to. Thank you, sir. Um so, what we're here requesting this evening is the board's consideration for use variance and preliminary and final site plan approval. Uh this tenant or
this this operator was here before this board in around 2011 for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Uh the applicant here is uh NJ exit 5 industrial barrier owner, but they're basically the applicant on behalf of their tenant. Their tenant is Pods. I'm
sure you've all seen them or had them at your own homes. uh Pods was here back in 2011 for an interpretation from the zoning ordinance as to whether the use or storage of these empty pod units outside of the warehouse facility was
considered outdoor storage. Uh this is in the the town's industrial zoning district where outdoor storage is not permitted and pods was requesting an interpretation due to the nature of these units being similar to empty tractor trailers. Back in 2011, the
zoning board's interpretation was so long as these pods units are empty and not stacked, they can be treated as trailer storage and no use variance is required. Uh at the time, pods anticipated about 115 of these units
being located on site. Uh but that was back in 2011. So their operational needs have since changed and PODS is now requesting to stack these units and because the stacking as the board's interpretation was requires use variance
relief or is considered outdoor storage that is what we're asking for permission to do. Now in uh in addition to that rather than just keeping them in the same place we're also proposing a site plan expansion. So, as you'll see, and as we'll testify from our expert
engineers here, the proposal is to enlarge a loading area in the rear of the building for this exact use, for the stacking of the pods. That accomplishes both additional space, additional screening, and improved functionality,
as you'll hear from our witnesses this evening. So, uh, again, really we're here this evening because of a followup to the 2011 interpretation to request use variance relief to allow for stacking of these empty pods units outside.
>> Now, uh, the previous resolution passed by the board back in I think it was 2007. Is that correct? >> Uh, 11. Yes, >> 2011 limited the number of
calls Sure. These trailer boxes uh to uh to a certain number. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. Uh the anticipated number was 115. [snorts] >> Now president
um what is status box at the site? If I were to go out there now, what would I see? Uh, I think it's I should call our first witness then just so I'm not presenting testimony. Mr. Chairman, if you'd like. >> That's fine. That's fine. Thank you.
>> That can be my first question to the first witness. >> Absolutely. I think um hopefully once I question our first witness there, he that question as well as several others will be answered. Mr. Clemens, [clears throat] >> sir, would you raise you've been sworn
but give us your full name, your position. My name is Steve. I'm a territory manager for Philadelphia. >> So you manage this support territory manager. We have market managers in
Philadelphia and market. >> Now you heard my question. >> Yes. There's they're single. They're single. They're not stack. They're single. And there's probably about 90 I'm going to say containers in the back area.
>> All right. Uh now, um what is the increase that you want to get from this board? >> We're looking for probably about another 200 containers. I mean for the for that
area. So your limit by law would would go from 115 to 315 the Mr. Clemen. So what I'll do Mr. Chairman I also have a little bit out of order but we'll just
answer your question is our proposed staffing plan. >> Now Mr. system was prepared by the team. Correct. >> That's the the engineers that help for
lack of a better term organiz this this stacking plan at our exhibit A4 uh shows two different size containers. We have the 8x6 and 8 by 12 containers. Right. >> Yes. >> And we are showing on this A4
306 of the 8 by6 containers. Correct. and 33 of the 8 by 12. Correct. >> So that would be a total of 339 and in terms of the stacking that would be uh at most they would be stacked
three high that's these are typically 8 ft high. >> So that would result at most height of 24. >> How high is the building more or less? >> I'll have our engineer confirm that that's All right. Explain that diagram to us if you
would have a witnessable that >> so Mr. This diagram shows what would be the most possible capacity of >> does keep a back stop of 300 pods on site at
all times >> each season. Everyone's moving in spring and summer time you will see you know that amount of containers are off season >> and uh the goal again is to keep these
things off site right you want to keep them in the customer's homes keep them in circulation um if you're at capacity and customers return additional pods to the site what happens how do you manage when you're at capacity the movement of
these podsite We load them onto a track and it has either go back to the hub in Riverside before it go to our sister center. So that's Philadelphia's sister. Well, Philadelphia market consists of
Newcastle Delaware and sport. >> Now currently that has to happen pretty frequently since you're limited to states. Correct. Roughly how often do you have to have one of these trailers take pods off site or alternatively bring new ones on site?
>> Probably I mean maybe two two a day um you know of shipments and things but um in off speed you know if we hit get overloaded with empty containers we'll have to ship them you know to Newcastle
probably do you know 10 loads of meat. 30 containers. >> So this proposal then would allow you to meet that existing demand without having so many shipments all. Now let's talk a little bit about the stacking process itself. What type of
equipment is used when stacking? [clears throat] >> We have that capable of 20,000. We have 210 and Honda 80, but they're capable of lifting over 20,000 pounds
and stacking three high. >> And indeed the I mean these pods when you stack them, they're empty. >> Correct. I mean, we do stack loaded ones inside the building. So, our loaded containers are inside of the warehouse.
All empty containers are outside. >> Never store loaded containers outside. contract, >> sir. Mr. Clemens, in terms of the procedure, obviously for safety reasons, it wouldn't make sense to just stack a pretty high column on its own. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Does your clip operator have a specific process or just a general order of operations that they follow when they do stack these? >> I Basically, we, you know, start from the back. We we have, you know, line
we'll make a bin line and then we'll build out that bin toward, you know, for as many as we need. Um, we always, you know, try to keep high. >> And in terms of capacity, we're talking about stacking free high. Uh, is your
team evaluating just the structural capacity for these units as to whe status. >> Yeah. [snorts] Yes. The structural integrity is you know stack five corporate did a you know study and you know the structural integrity of
container with five on top of each other and that's loaded. >> So these can hold five loaded containers on top of each other. You're proposing three entities. >> Do the structural issues that you just
described to us apply equally to the small uh boxes as well as the large boxes. >> What about storm protocol sir? So we just experienced some rain, some wind. Are there anyations where you look at your your current setup, look at the
forecast, you think we might need to adjust this? Yes, there there are definitely times, you know, we have, you know, hurricanes or, you know, there's a storm event, we'll take down those three containers and we'll take them down too high. >> Any issues that
no >> in terms of the operation itself, uh again your testimony was that this existing correct? >> Correct. >> Uh let's talk about that existing demand then. What are your hours of operation?
>> We're Monday through Saturday. Uh 6 a.m. to whenever the driver's routine operations. >> No. >> And uh what about customer access? So you mentioned that some build units are stored inside the warehouse. Does this
function like a self storage facility where people are in and out all day? >> No, customers aren't allowed in the building. Uh we have a access area. Um our hours are open 8 to 3. Um customers we need a 24 hours advanced notice for
for them to access >> how often just roughly how often does that happen? >> I mean we might seek one one or two a day. It's not >> um the employees. So days a week 6 a.m.
to about 4 p.m. said uh how many employees does that take to run an operation? >> We have we have eight drivers, one store center worker and assistant. >> And those eight drivers, what what does
their schedule look like? How often are they coming? >> Uh they're schedu the trips. What are these trucks? How long do they depart? >> Uh they each truck. So if we run six
trucks in one day, each truck probably package the center two two times two >> average of maybe 12 to 15 trips a day. >> Correct. >> And is that anticipated to remain roughly the same?
>> So uh you mentioned how the pods removed outside the What about the pods that are inside? Do you have any uh special equipment or how those are inside? >> Same same equipment same. >> And what about them getting them between
the building? So from inside outside >> uh right now we have I mean it's a 9 foot wide so it's really difficult. We have um we have to keep the driver behind. Um, so if we're moving containers that are shipping out, um, we
have to put them on a truck back down those small door back down that ramp for the driver has to follow offload that when the drivers back up into the building a second and so on [snorts] so
really that's another aspect of the proposal We're adding proposing to add a loading door to the rear that would allow better. >> This is a new This is a new door that didn't exist before or expansion of
existing door. >> A new a new door that exist currently. If we look at our exhibit A2, Mr. Cle, that's the area. >> Yes. [clears throat] And there's there's no parking or
loading area behind the building. >> Correct. >> So this this new door behind the building would then be closer to the proposed storage area and would allow for better inside. >> Yes. >> Can can your your engineer can he just
explain to the board relate the diagram he has in his right hand? Right. That one with the photograph we're looking at just to relate the two. So we know exactly what's what. >> Sure. >> Sure. Jesse Dr. Lic professional
engineer in the state of New Jersey standing licensed for the last 14 years practicing the last 20 bachelor and a master degree from university. Um say I have not presented in front of this board but I have done a lot of surrounding towns.
We'll accept you as a as a qualified engineer to testify on >> so two exhibits number A2 the photograph existing site is the essentially the site of building and parking area with this
proposed storage area with it we are proposing building it would just be a large ramp to bring it up to the existing building and then down about 20 by 20.
in between. >> All right. Now, on the diagram that you have in your left, there's a line [clears throat] down the center rectangle. >> No, the one move it over >> No, the main building. >> Main building >> line down the center.
>> This building is actually split in two tenants. Uh when you're looking The structure itself on the left hand side is the pods tenant space on the right hand side AC dealer installation.
So on this we're only looking at this side. >> So the same the same would be true in the photograph if we drew a line down the middle. >> That is correct. You can see the ridge line that runs down the center of the photograph. >> Point that out. Point that out to us.
This is right. >> Now, you're going to testify, I take it, in a little bit, on the expansion of the parking area, drainage changes and that sort of thing. >> Yes. >> Well, when you get to that. >> Yeah,
>> absolutely. Just a few questions for Mr. H. Sir, the the exhibit here that we have >> [snorts] >> 201 better safer maneuverability and access
again to meet that exist. No plans to change employee count. No dramatic changes to the operation at all. Anything else that you'd like to answer? >> Anybody has any questions? >> So, I I have a question. So, you guys
have a construction permit with us right now, my construction office, and you're renovating the inside. You're making the office space much lower. So, the question that I have is that are you looking inside this building to store
more storage uh pods that are filled, >> loaded? Correct. Yes. >> Okay. That's so okay. Thank you. >> How many loaded pods can be stored inside?
>> I believe the plan is 300 inside. >> That's the plan presently. >> Yes. I'm thinking about 500 capacity. I think it's around 340 >> in the present configuration.
>> Yes. And do you what do you do if you uh suddenly have maximum storage and you get more where do you put we sent we sh we actually had that this year we sent them down to
where um that's the sister center it's a 213,000t building um we move you know 30 containers 10 at a time trailers come in load the loaded containers and take All right, Mr. Wells, continue.
>> I have no further questions for Mr. Clemens. >> Well, I'm going to ask professionals if you want to you want to take this witness questioning now or hold it until the end maybe ask the questions at that point.
>> Um, I have And it it may be for Mr. Clemens or somebody else um or Mr. Doerty the So down when you looked at the exhibit A4 I think it was the 339
pod units are in that paved left hand side of the rear blue. >> Yes. >> But the entire including across the York site is also being fully paved as well.
>> So, We were contracted by the current building owner to add an additional trailer on site. So if pods need a site future, it would be designed for double stack trailer along the area, not necessarily pods.
They're able to use that area because trailers in the future. Um but with the configuration position we may have discussed down the road after this but it's designed to essentially max
out. >> So what is the board approving from a use standpoint at the rear of the right hand side of the building? >> It would be limited to for storage
of the area shown blue area. >> Well, that's on the left hand side. >> Correct. The other one would just be an open parking lot for for future. So, the stormware has been designed essentially to maximize the pavement area now. The site does back
to portion of it at the time. and any future changes. >> So right now just open. >> So we we think of the parking lot as two halves. We want to build the whole thing because
it's more efficient. Do that >> instead of building one half now and maybe one half later. Correct. >> From what I understand, York doesn't need the space either at this point, but It's easier to get this one.
>> So, so if if you if you did get permission to build out the whole parking lot, both halves, how uh or what do you plan to do to divide segregate
your half from the unused? >> It would be constructing the fence down the center line. building space. The rest of that lot will be fenced in security
as well. So, no one will be able to use it. We are proposing the gate into it access to it, but right now, >> but it would be paved, correct? >> Correct. >> And the drainage flow off of it would go into the newly proposed drainage basin.
>> Yes. So, we did essentially infiltration based expanded area. So this is exhibit A3. So with it collecting the run. >> So if we can get back to the right hand
side. >> So this area. >> Yeah. You're constructing a a vehicle parking area. >> It would be it would be an open area. It wouldn't be necessarily dedicated for anything. Um all the site plans that
were submitted shown streng >> your site plan showed trailer striking. No, we left it as an open. But if you see the size, it is set up for the rest. Yes. Would you please
>> not so dept dry down the center and two 60 foot stalls on either side of that 70 foot drive storage. But that's not the subject of this application.
>> But it was designed for that. So >> but >> so I'm going to ask a question as the zoning officer here is that where I see this as an issue is that through the years I've been always having to deal with the pods issues. That's the reason why
they're here tonight because they've outgrown this and I didn't give them any choice but to make the application. My understanding was it was strictly for the pod use itself to expand the use of
it. Um, in regards to that because we've dealt with the other side of the building as a separate application for that tenant that was there that is there. What was it called? Um, You're right. Is that
I I just feel a little I feel it's interesting that we're going now for an additional parking lot for future use when this was strictly supposed to be a pod application for them to increase the amount of pods that they wanted to use. Um
>> I I don't want to put words in the mouth, but >> I'm not either. I'm just I'm a little stunned to see to be honest with you to see what I'm seeing here >> and that's why and I'm not prepared to advise the board on whether or not additional trailers
trigger any other ordinance implications that was not included in the application. So I'm really not prepared to evaluate that adequately. >> The u the building itself is not devised into condo units. It's one lot and one
building with two operators. The relief that we're requesting here is is for outside storage. So the the relief is specifically identified on 4 to where that outside storage take place as part of the application secondary request was
site plan they wouldn't have an issue not just the expansion for the area and the future come back in addition So that wouldn't be Jesse just
on that. So the site plans for the improvement of parking lot again changes leaves a new tenant comes in leaves comes in the operation changes in a way that requires more.
There's no question about the the proposal to approve the building or future doesn't change the use period still have to abide by the limitations of zoning ordinance
and again that use trailer the necessary to use the site as described future But there was prior use variance relief granted on the York site. >> Correct. >> That had specific conditions and that
site plan showed a a gravel fire lane and showed that whole rear area as being long. Correct. >> Correct. And similar to this application, your approval had a specific area identified on their plans where outside storage was permitted and
that is not being altered at all. But by changing the character of So you're saying you still want to pave it as part of this application. I think Mr. Doerty said they'd be willing to not pave it because I think it calls
>> I'm sorry I didn't catch that. Well, it wouldn't be it would be taken off as part of the change to be as far as submission goes would just be the area for the pot storage. >> The basin could be fully constructed to accommodate the future
>> and the and the portion behind York that you originally post proposed to pay, would that remain grass? >> It would remain area slope towards the proposed base and essentially collect.
>> Did that would that require work on that grass area to to slope it or is it >> No, right now it runs >> probably >> but to make sure we properly have some >> Mr. Chairman question.
>> Yes. Go ahead. So in 2011 they were they were granted outdoor storage approval. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. So that's what I'm seeing what they >> but not in this >> not exact >> exact it was they were granted the
interpretation that it's not considered outdoor storage as long as the pods are not stacked. >> Well the picture >> in other words the photograph here just looks like some of them are stacked. >> Yeah. Well, we'll get to that. >> All right. >> But
the board back then guess looked at pods as if they were tractor trailer bodies. >> Okay. If they just parked them, what would be the difference? >> Yeah. Bodies of tractor trailers without wheels. Containers.
Seek like seat containers, >> right? [clears throat] How you? >> Uh, good. Um, I'm looking at A3 and >> the rain is so small.
>> Yeah, unfortunately that scale. >> So, can you explain what the dark green is? >> So, the dark green area is just it'll be long area when it's done. It's existing lawn area. Now, it'll into the proposed basin. It's actually a
sand line basus for just >> you mentioned that two things. Uh one there was I forget the exact word used but there's some sort of cleaning that goes on of the water in the basin. >> So that's before the secondary question.
inordin it goes to a sandline basis which will give you at least 80% TSS removal which would be a clean discharge that any discharge we are basically the run
state so we have to reduce 10 and water. >> Well, the second part is as water discharges >> as that surface or you have a pipe. >> So, this would be all sheet flow from
the rear of the building to the bas. >> There is an overflow. So, It discharges where it does discharge out but also the capacity >> right towards the battery. So the batteries are here, the water's
off >> and and the basin was designed in accordance with state standards. We had some design comments related to the storm water facility. Uh the applicant's response letter, the engineers response letter, [snorts] he was going to comply with all our storm work comments. So
once he meets those revision makes those revisions to the plan, he'll comply with the state standards. >> Okay. So they need to make a couple >> Absolutely. Yeah, there's some modifications that need to be done to the plan, the calculations, but I'm confident that they can do that and meet the state standards. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Y the um the parking green bar, basically what it looks like from my vantage point here, that's grass. >> The dark green bar would be grass. The light green bar would be a sand line. >> Yeah, I'm not sure I can make out the my
eyes are not good enough to make out the light green bar. The sand basins. Maybe you can show that. >> It's the center. >> Yeah, it's even hard to see. [snorts] It's this area. >> Yeah, I I I can I can make out the
slight color difference. Yeah. >> But with that essentially we're taking anything. So u at least according to the diagram A3 the this this drainage area that is grass
and sand bottom would extend behind the York half path build correct so it's designed to take as proposed right now it's about 50,000 ft of additional across both sides for both tenants
with it. It would collect from the building and flow into that basin. So it would collect runoff from the entire pavement area that's being proposed. If we would reduce the pavement area just what is left area the base would
still be construed as shown. We still take from this area into it. Most of it would wind up in the ground, but we'd still take any any large. >> The building today, everything. It was designed at the time that you could essentially just shoot everything
off that runs out to the existing ground. >> Yes. Those are the existing inlets on each side. This is also designed back
of those inlets. colleipping our range essentially from anything that we're proposing additional but we pulled back into site so that the street flows across the site but we only provided essentially the analysis flows that
reducing the paper from the proposed. >> All right, Mr. Walls, any you have any other questions for your engineer? >> Yes, Mr. Conifir. So, the building is presently at 38
tall. in terms of storm water just general. So as proposed we are still currently building% site entirey is about 11 acres just a hair over this zone is allowed 70% coverage across
the zone even with the proposed additional So we still be >> and we're proposing a mixture of building mounted lights and pole mounted lightsing 25 foot tall pole lights
at We are requesting as well. You just describe that to the board where that's along the edge. There's existing um existing parking areas is with the
existing setback. So again, no exacerbation of the existing condition. It's just keeping the existing. >> That's right. You want to extend setback variance into the new paved areas?
>> Yes. I thought it was previously granted at 9 ft and you're showing eight feet at both ends and then there's a dimension in the middle that says seven feet and I'm not sure if that's to your fence line >> or to the paving the property line is on
a slight >> yes I think nine was previously approved so that would Yes. >> So you're proposing that it be changed to eight >> sevenist.
>> So I have a question on the fencing. So it's kind two threefold here. is that if the board were to approve this application with just the pavement on the pod side,
are you still looking to put a fence up at the end of that pavement and not over onto the right side of the property? We would have the fence essentially provide a back stop so we know where the limitation would be with it and keep
everybody out of that one area some sort of fencing so that >> so what type of fencing are you proposing in regards to the middle of the property between both of them
>> okay um with inserts or without inserts. >> Uh well, it's it's inner property, so I I don't know if you have to screen it more than your coat that point. The rear fencing believe on this one has inserts only just because
nature outside storage material for equip anyway. So I don't know that would help it at that point. >> What's the fencing in the parking area from Berry Drive up to
New that fence is >> uh there's no in the outer parking areas. >> No fence there. >> It is only when we move into >> And would the fence run from Berry Drive? >> No, it run from the new pavement area. >> Just from the new B.
>> But there's no gate across the >> correct >> access. So it's just the left side around the basin and then down the middle. >> Yes. >> Between the two sides >> and around >> around the basin and then down the middle separating the grass from the pave there. [clears throat] You put a gate in so you could
>> do final few questions here shows that you move into drive down the driveway as possible. We're proposing obviously trees on the left hand side.
>> Correct. So the site's bound by large status not only >> and the units that we currently see again would not present there. >> They'd be moved back in the rear of this
This is the warehouse constru. >> Well, before you do that, when you're on that the evergreens on that on that guess it's the west side property line, we're looking down trees. Um, do those
those trees extend beyond the building? Do they do currently extend past the building a little bit more maintain >> or add
add or replace? It looks like that rear grouping of evergreens is shifted inward from the site from the aerial. We had recommended that those trees be located preserved if possible and if not then then they should be replanted.
>> The initial survey for the site >> looking at this photo again the hedge row to the back back property line. I called a hedro but I don't know what it is. Can you tell me what the state of that
>> that's been removed with the new warehouse that was installed right now? there's evergreen planted along that edge >> on the warehouse property. Not >> but there's the makings of a
>> So that's actually the new warehouse that we're looking at the far end. So, the the trucks that you have on here, and I've been on the site a million times, how many trucks do at the end of the day after their shift, how
many trucks are on site? >> Between six and seven, depending on availability, we transfer them between Delaware and United. >> And then you have, and I I apologize, I don't know the name of the piece of equipment, but there's something that I
guess moves these pods. What is it called? >> Cobzilla. >> Okay. >> So, I I know that I notic that you've had several of them out there, too. What's the average that they stay? I mean, how many stay on the site >> outside?
>> We did um remove a bunch of them. I think there was eight that were there, but they were older. We took them to Newcastle, strapped them. Um right now, I believe there's only one closer to the building. It's a likelihood that we're
going to be getting rid of shortly possibly. >> So, with having much more pods on the site, how many of these Podzillaas are you planning on getting? >> None. >> None. >> I mean, we would have We normally have one for each truck and there may be one
as a spare just in case, you know, something happened. >> Okay. >> The trucks. So what will be stored in the parking spaces? Trucks, podzillas, and >> and
six or seven parking spots, >> but no pods at all will be placed in the front parking area. So if we put up that diagram with the blue the the two blue sections on this
diagram. What and what is the number on that exhibit? What >> that is? >> A4 >> A4. So on A4 the narrow blue stripe on the right left side of the diagram as we
look at it those are for the smaller pots. So the same located would be along this edge which would be the essentially south.
>> So what what is what does that narrow line represent? Just >> deep >> one road deep or two deep. >> Two roads deep. So they're about 18 wide. So be about 16 ft wide. And that's still
parking space. >> So they two deep and three high potentially. >> Just just the main section is three high. >> So it would still be a single single stack top. >> All right. Well, that's so that section you can circle it with a pen or
something like that. So we're clear We can revise the plans. Um, that would be even that would be even better. But let's circle it for now. That circle spot that we just did on the a7
um would just be single pods, not stacked at all. Just >> a single height. >> Single height. Just back back in like like And then on the other side of the
parking lot, that's where you're stacking. You're proposing the three high stack. >> So that's that what you just did is that's three high and the others are just one. And the total
does this does this just so we can visualize does this diagram try to depict what I'll call a full load of pods. That is the maximum number that you could put in there by any
grant this gives you. >> That is correct. contemplated. >> So during the course of the day when I'm out on inspections and I see things and understanding how the world works with moving things and Godzillaas and podzillas and all them things moving
around by the end of the night because this is what I've witnessed for many years. This area here are they cleaned up and set back at the end of the night because I know they have to
drop him to get in the building. >> Sometimes I'm going to say no. Uh, you know, it's all up to the storage center worker. If he's, you know, he's punching a time clock, you have to have something to do and then he doesn't do it, you know, he's going to take care of it the next day.
Well, that's what I want to make sure of because one of my contentions was is that there through the years is that there has been a lot of storage of those pods out there at all variable times and again during the day in the course of
action I I don't really care just due to the fact is that's how the world works. you got to move them, everything else. But at the end of the day, are those spaces that you have as parking spots, what are they why is that defined with spaces? What is supposed to be there? If
everybody's parking across where those spaces are, are they being used at the end of the night or like I've seen many of pods be left there overnight? >> Mr. talked about earlier constraints of the
site for activities small you have not exactly easy to maneuver again that's exactly why we're proposing this layout is to keep those units in make it easier and more efficient for your employees to put those back to go
>> it's not not the intention to use that parking area >> okay thank You're saying that question? >> That's a great name. >> There's Podzilla on the back of every truck. >> Yes. >> And every podil off of every truck has
the ability to stack. >> No. No. To stack it is just for our delivery system to deliver them in the driveway, but they can't stack. department that's inside.
>> Can you guys touch on three stack high five? That's ter. >> All right, let me let me turn to our professionals. Mike, you talked about meeting basically all your issues.
>> The storm board. Yeah, they they engineer provides letter dated May 28th to my report letter dated May 2, April 27. He basically said he's going to comply with everything in our report. >> Do you have any unresolved issues of an
engineering? >> Uh the requested a design waiver for submission of an EIS just like a little bit of testimony indicating substantiating why request that waiver. Um we're also requesting a waiver of
impact study which I have no objection to based on the anticipated trip generation to the site. Again, we just some testimony of why the should absolutely the the submission requested waiver of an environmental impact
statement primarily due to the limited nature of improvements here. Uh the only potential impacts are storm water and our storm water analysis basically covers those impacts. So we felt that you know given the only potential impact was storm water we have our storm water
reports and our design that would be compliant uh there was no reason for a duplicative uh state. So that was the request for an EIS w >> how does the environmental committee react to that >> um
that sort of answers what do we know about how much additional water we expect to add into the pond that's down there. It's >> in the future condition. We're actually reducing the runoff going to runs there.
Now we have to get to reduce it by 50%. So in the future we are actually reducing that today because we are putting some ground in this location doesn't get there now for
so that we're infiltrating the ground here and we're also red. So the answer it'll be less than most >> and I agree with that. Yeah. Once they comply with school requests >> uh just a couple uh from our report um
this can be for anybody on your team Mr. Wells. Um, there was a an emergency fire lane around the rear of the building shown in the prior site plan approval. How is that being accommodated with the new pods?
>> We uh we don't show one of those uh fire lanes here on the plans, but uh one of the responses I believe it was might may have been in the engineers letter, but we are coordinating this with the fire marshal. So if he has any um questions or you know requests a little bit of a different configuration for fire safety,
we're going to abide by that. >> But there was one shown on the prior plans. Are you looking to eliminate that? >> Uh I don't believe >> it'll be adjusted. We'll still circulation adjust that and still access essentially
>> right. So you will maintain a fire. >> Yes. >> And with the site too will adjust. And then obviously because the and the site plans didn't show the the dividing fence between the two halves. So I think that it was on your exhibit you
presented tonight. I think that'll need to go on the site plan. >> That green bar through the pot stacking that's that's intended to illustrate a lane. >> Uh right now it's intended to illustrate there is two differentiz pods is the
smaller of the two that they offer. But we'll make sure we clearly define the fire. I guess the question is these are theoretically empty pods but if fire breaks out in the middle of the in the core of the stack pods
>> how do you deal with that >> theoretically there would not be fireless something >> would be accidentally left >> but with it there would be with configuration make sure the fire access through it
There is sufficient room for a fire disp through the pods going to line up with the gate to access the grass area. Other words, we'll make sure it's it allows
360 degree traffic. Yes. That's a question. >> Yes. >> Just these guys weren't here today for this, but they were here for a full building extension. Heightwise,
would we be approving the height of this building going back as far as >> uh they would they would just need site plan approval? They wouldn't need a use variant. So, the building is permitted. They could store countless numbers of pods inside. I mean like if they wanted say they
wanted to extend the building height I mean I'm sorry extend the whole building height as far as would that be approved you know that something
>> I see the question would we need a setback variance for the for the rear and we're far clear >> the answer be no sites allow 70% coverage across the site proposing and change. So,
>> and they're allowed 70% building coverage. So, this entire rear area and what the ordinance really technically requires with is that this would be building and that's why outside storage is expressly prohibited and why they
need to use variance. >> I was coming from a perspective of of your neighbor behind you, right? >> You know what I mean? what he should expect from us as a board. >> M Mr. Well, our expert just touched on the issue and
that is outdoor storage is not permitted use. >> Correct. >> The ordinance and you guys have lived you guys slang for pods have lived uh with the interpretation
uh to in effect get some outside storage for many years. interpretation being that pods one high on the ground are essentially the rough equivalent of a tractor trailer. So
your your outdoor storage was was permitted. You're taking it to a whole new level with this application. Essentially, one could argue that
[clears throat] you're requesting something that basically blows away the outdoor storage, prohibit prohibition in our code. I mean, that's a massive amount of outdoor storage. So, you know, you're
not coming back and and saying to us, well, you know, we we have permission for 115 and you know we'd like to increase that to 150 one eye sort of stretch the interpretation a little bit more but
you're asking us to basically throw the interpretation away and basically basically grant you as much outdoor storage as as you need or as the site will take maybe that's a better way to put it
because you described the site Can you address that problem that that I have personally as one member of the board with this application? >> Understood. Absolutely. Fair, Mr. Chairman. And I'll just I'll summarize some of the the testimony that was presented on that topic just to help
clarify that. Uh you know, the main goal here was to meet the needs of the existing tenants. So, do they move or do they stay? Um recognizing that they were provided some relief, some ability to use the site as is, that's just no
longer feasible. Uh so the proposal here is to improve the site in a way that makes sense for this tenant. Uh exactly like you said that the relief is larger. It's outdoor storage and the um pods witness that we had provided testimony saying that we're not using this storage
all the time. It represents the maximum potential capacity at the site. Uh our engineer also confirmed that we do have more room. So we could have proposed a larger outdoor storage area. We could have proposed a more intense use, but this is what pods foresees is their
demand for the near future in order to maintain the site as viable. Um, everything that you've heard this evening and our our planner will touch on this a little bit as well, but everything you've heard this evening has to do with minimizing the impact of this, getting these units behind the building, keeping them stored in such a
way where they're not going to be visible. They're shielded behind the building. the whole operation can move behind the building uh in a way that again is is minimal in terms of impact. So, we're not trying to fly in the face of the ordinance. We're not trying to, you know, take as much as we can get, grab and go here. Uh the testimony that
we've presented really says that this tenant wants to stay in the building. These are the needs in order for them to do so. And this is the best way that we have to present that to minimize the impact of our proposal here. Um I'm sure I can have some some supplementary uh
testimony from everyone. >> Yeah. >> One additional thing with storage fence along the front drive so you don't see and around it neighbors as a whole
with this proposal a little bit. We do have excess soil on site constructed. We could install a BM behind the storm water based neighboring properties of the rear of the building. So
>> help us help us appreciate that by using the photograph. >> So this is a number right here are two properties with it. So essentially any fuel this the building would help soften that out.
>> Would you would you add screening vegetation? >> Depending upon the height, it could be planted with evergreens. Um, but we could constru >> right now this would be lower than the surrounding area. So, as you're looking the site does raise up to the property.
So, it would sit kind of in some area. So, visually with a That's the back of the warehouse. >> Yes, >> that would stop the sheet flow. >> You said was coming this way.
>> I would think the flow of the water might be more important. Um the storm water basin is that proposed any plantings at all around there or just the grass >> right now it's just grass planting bas >> I think it'd be good to provide some and
and although the ordinance may not expressly require it I think we're all working outside of our ordinance right now. >> All right. Um, Mr. Wells, are you going to provide any other testimony and as a comment on my comment?
>> Yes, sir. I think the person most suitable uh for that testimony would be our professional planner, Mr. Mancini. >> Sure. I was wondering why Mr. Mancini was here. He wasn't testifying. I just like I just like being here, Mr. Chairman. >> We like having you, Mr. Mancini, but
we'd like to put you to work. >> Yes, sir. Got to earn my money. Uh, again, Joseph Mancini with Tri State Engineering Surveying. I'm a licensed professional engineer and professional planner. More importantly, I'll be testifying as a planner tonight. Been licensed since 2007 as a professional planner. Uh been qualified uh in that
regard through throughout South Jersey throughout New Jersey. Um including at this >> and we accept you as a professional witness for purposes of that testimony. >> Thank you, sir. Uh so so you hit the nail on the head sir that we are the
reason why I'm here is is because um we're operating outside of that initial interpretation which we we can see um now clearly constitutes outdoor storage and therefore clearly needs a deep one use variance. I'm also going to touch
briefly on on the bulk variance for the parking setback again which was roughly 7 feet uh 9 ft existing versus 15 ft is required by um so for D1 use variance as the board knows uh demonstrates special
reasons um that would allow the deviation or departure from the zoning regulations. There's three ways that could be done. Uh, is is the proposed use apparently beneficial, which I don't think is the case here? Would denial create undue hardship? I think that'd be
a little bit of a stretch. Um, or in the third case, does the use promote uh purposes of zoning? And is the site particularly suited uh to the proposed use, which is what I'll present. So, looking to those purposes of zoning in the statute, identified a few that would be advanced by allowing this deviation
that we're calling upd storage. So purpose a statute talks about encouraging municipal action to guide the appropriate use development of all lands. I think the proposed expansion allows this existing and established uh industrial tenant to formalize uh and
improve an outdoor storage operation. So we acknowledge that outdoor storage has been permitted here um under some somewhat of a technicality. So now we're formalizing that. We're adding storm water management, but there is none and we're bringing the site closer to
conformance with the industrial zone site standards in my view. And I'll get into that more a little bit. Um, it approves the currently non-compliant condition which Kathy has observed uh and hopefully replaces it with a properly engineered and border roof
configuration. Uh, and also paving of the storage area is affirmatively required by your ordinance which mandates that all vehicle standing areas be over the fall weather part surface. So right now some of the pod storage happens in the grass gravel area outside of the existing
paid drive. So making an improvement there. We're also adding storm water management not just for for um for the proposed pod storage but for for uh for that part service in general. Purpose G the statute talks about providing sufficient space in appropriate
locations for a variety of uses. Again, I think the site provides for uh nationally operating commercial storage and logistics business within an established industrial zone. I think it's a kind of use that fits in the eye district and it's intended to accommodate the outdoor staging of the
pods is as we heard before visually analogous to the trailer which is why the board ultimately granted that interpretation previously. Um and that outdoor storage of trailers
uh happens uh on every campus industrial campus throughout this area. Uh so with regards to the stacking again I'll touch on this some more later. That's primarily the reason why I'm here. As you heard the stacking is primarily occurring behind the building. We'll talk a little bit about why that's
important. Uh purpose eight of the statute talks about encouraging location and design of transportation routes which promote free flow of traffic and discourage uh facilities and routes which result in congestion or blight. You heard testimony from from um from
the pod representative that uh the expansion of on-site storage capacity reduces the number of truck trips to and from the site. So greater inventory on site means fewer vehicle movements required to restock or retrieve containers or or jockey them around to
the Delaware facility. Uh the trip generation and traffic letter that was submitted also confirms there's no significant traffic creates associated. Um and lastly purpose I of the statute talks about uh promoting desirable visual environment through creative development techniques civic design and
arrangement. I think the proposed improvements replace an unimproved area with a paved curved lit uh and fenced area that's consistent with the surrounding industrial development. The majority of the stack units as you heard
will be located behind the building which is 38 ft high versus the maximum height of 24 ft. So effectively they're screened from view Berry Drive which I think is the most important view we're concerned with. Frankly, I'm less concerned with what the impact is to 100 Lawrence Straw behind us because they
have similar loading and trailer storage. Uh not to be dismissive of their view of it, but it's sort of like to like there and I don't think there's a significant visual impact. And again, that perimeter fencing that existing vegetation and proposed vegetation we talked about
tonight provide additional screening from the adjacent properties. two Berry Drive, 8 Berry Drive, 100 Lawrence in the back all have different means of screening that due to the extent that it's deemed necessary, but they are essentially compatible use. Uh so looking then to the site
particular site suitability, we need to look for reasons that this specific site makes it especially appropriate for the use beyond just the general characteristics of the zone which I think Mr. chairman speaks to why the deviation we're requesting does not
create any precedent for outdoor storage because we're we're looking at how this particular site suitable to accommodate what we're asking for. Um there is a long-standing uh history of of the pot being stored on site since 2011 roughly.
So this site makes it unique uniquely suited to formalize and and move that storage behind the building. As we said, um I mentioned that the surrounding properties, Tubbury Drive, April Drive at 100 Lawrence Boulevard all conduct
similar uh storage of trailers, loading uh they're all industrial facilities. There's no residential uses within medium vicinity. Uh the functional necessity of the outdoor storage I think is important uh as for this specific use in this specific location. So
uh it's important obviously that that only pods are stored outside. The stacking and loading of the units uh requires a special uh open air maneuvering clearance and equipment that uh that Keith mentioned that can't be replicated based on our conversation
within the 38T building. So to do that inside effectively and productively would require stacking them to a height that doesn't work within the 38T building, which would then mean they if they did a building expansion, they would need to go higher, which would exceed the maximum height of 40 ft. So we'd be asking for a different kind of
relief potentially also use variance for building height uh where we think this is much more functional and appropriate and eliminates that issue of trying to jockey inside the building which is less safe from their point of view. Uh also as I said the reduce uh on-site storage
uh or increase the on-site storage directly uh impacts truck movements to and from the site. So essentially we're we're improving rather than exacerbating traffic and operational impacts. Um, and as I said, only empty units are stored outside. That'll likely be a condition
of approval, I'm sure, as it as it was before. So, there's no goods or materials stored outside. Eliminates concerns about uh outdoor storage consort property. Um, also I think particular to this site is the site depth in the buffer from Berry Drive. The storage loc area is located uh
roughly 400 feet uh behind Bur Drive and is significantly shielded by the building uh the site's depth by the natural visual and operational buffer that site specific uh the mature vegetation along the shared boundary of two drive to the southwest. Uh again
provides natural screening from the for focus expansion area along that joint property line. uh the northwestern buffer to 100 orange Boulevard um maintains 157 feet. So the basin plus the additional 80 ft behind that is roughly 157 feet between the edge of the
pave storage area and the property line with Barnes Boulevard uh which itself is a loading and a trailer storage area. As you heard there's some new vegetation there plus proposed vegetation that'll be on our plan that'll uh start filling in that visual effect there. Um with
regards to the pre-existing non-conforming park in the back that there's an non-conforming condition of roughly 9 ft for about 323 feet along that boundary line and the proposed variance just extends uh slightly increases but extends that uh linear
condition along the back of the new paving area roughly 190 ft. consistent with although not exactly the same but consistent with pattern that's only [clears throat] uh and the relief also uh allows the
established industrial use to continue operating successfully in place which furthers the re-examination report stated goal of retaining existing industrial warehouse distribution uses within this area rather than displacing it. Um, as with many variants, we need
to demonstrate that the variance will be granted without a substantial impact of the public good uh and without substantial impairment of the intended purpose of your zoning plan. Uh, again, with regards to public good, no residential proximity, the site's entirely with an industrial campus
environment. No residential uses will be impact by approval. Granted, uh there's no increase in the uh number of employees or the intensity of the use here. Um there's reduced truck movements that I mentioned a couple times. There's improved storm water management that
includes a new infiltration basin. Um that existing outdoor storage area right now provides no storm water storage. So one could opine that right now the outdoor storage creates new impervious services but wasn't treated that way at the previous approval because when we
group all these together it effectively creates some impervious uh surfaces. That's not being treated now. Now, we're creating a a paved parking area that's going to be collected and treated under the new Stormwater rules, and that's a significant improvement from my point of view. Uh, and as you heard from Jesse,
that results in a net improvement of the storm water leaving the site. Um, the proposed pavement uh rectifies an existing non-improvement condition with regards to the gravel dirt area where the pods are some of the pods are placed now. that improves site maintenance, eliminates tracking of dirt
or gravel potentially drive visual screening. As you heard, the building blocks both the stack units from Bur Drive and units are on the on the left hand side as you heard are uh still analogous to to the trailer that was
previously allowed. Uh the fire access is maintained as you heard. So we're maintaining the connectivity for fire access uh to east and west sides of the building. Uh, and the hours are still limited to what was otherwise contemplated. Uh, I think 6:00 am to 4
pm for the site. So, there's no noise or activity impacts associated with uh with the daytime industrial activity. Uh, with regards to the zone, plan and zoning ordinance, um, you know, outdoor storage has been contemplated and
approved in some form or another. The 2011 approval recognized unstack pods as equivalent to trail parking. 2023 approval allow for some outdoor storage. Um, so the prior approvals establish that pattern on the lot and we don't want to take advantage of that, but we
think this is sort of a logical extension of that, not not an overreach as, uh, as Rich said. So, uh, the stack configuration is we think more of an incremental step beyond what was already accepted as compatible and supportive of the permitted uses. Um again the
stacking height's partially screened by the mass of the building and the setback. Um the visual impact I think of that additional height um is is absorbed by the building and and that setback. Um generally I think that the the use
continues to be consistent with the surrounding industrial context. Right? So I think uh this is not something that will look out of place generally to to the neighboring properties. Uh I said there's no operational expansion. It within uh the impervious cover limits
that are permitted. So there's no additional impact there and therefore I think that the zone plan intent is preserved. The industrial district is intended to provide areas in the town for a variety of industrial and manufacturing uses granting the relief
for the stacked pod storage at this specific rear location screened in part by the building bounded by industrial uses on all sides and approximately 400 ft from a public street. I think it is reconcilable with that intent. Doesn't create a precedent for a stacked outdoor
storage in other locations unless they have sufficient context to make it make sense to you. So for those reasons, I think it'd be reasonable for to allow that expansion allow experience. >> Thank you, Mr. Board members. Questions of Mr.
Scott. Um, any comments that you have on any of the expert? >> Um, I had a question for Mr. Clemens. Um, how are you guys stacking inside now? >> Yes.
>> How high do they go inside? So, Mr. Manini just testified that they can't be stacked three high inside. >> They're they're voted containers that are inside of the warehouse. >> I'm just let I wasn't I wasn't
completing my testimony. That's my fault. What we what we discussed with with the deposit ownership is were they to do a building expansion, it wouldn't make sense for them to do a building expansion that only allows them to free. they would look to stack five high to make make sense for them financially,
logistically and that would require a larger building height. I think some of it is is that the uh uh not just how high it could be stacked but also the maneuverability inside right so outside you can stack the trucks up you can stack you can stack unstack them much
more efficient you can if you were to try to do that incessor that's what I was trying to say >> cost >> but they can be stacked three high inside [clears throat] >> yes >> they can be stacked inside the cost of a expanded building would require
five stacking in order to be economically viable. >> Correct. >> That's your position. >> Yes. And and the maneuverability the reason why second high >> so if the zoning were modified and you
could construct a building expansion that you could go five high that that would actually be considered or feasible. >> I can speak to that. That's part of the owner owner question. I think that's a that's also a tough
hypothetical because it's it's not you know we're stuck with what we have. So we're proposing the best end result based upon what is >> I was just basing on your your experts testimony was that it would be
economically feasible if you went five high for a building expansion. I just I want to be so we have a situation here where you're with this proposal you're going to have more outdoor storage
>> than indoor storage area correct >> Mr. Doc, can you give us the >> empty building construction never to make the footprint of the building
inside the area up to the existing storm that runs along the property would have to be containers of brass outside with it. Though construction wise, it never is more economic constru.
So they just want to stack them outside because it's cheaper. consistency. >> I I just wanted to make sure that the testimony was clear from your side so the board understood sort of the magnitude and and the actual >> footprint,
>> right? So even if that were possible, it it wouldn't be the direction the applicant wants to go. >> What uh Mr. Wells, do you any of your witnesses know the length of the current lease
that has for >> Yes. 2032 renewable I'm assuming >> that and you've been in that building since when
>> that's when I came to the board >> I'm not going to hold it to the precise but rough All right. Any other comments from the board? One of the professionals. I do need to open it to the public. >> And yeah, just one briefly. Mr. Clemens, you um when you started your testimony, you had said that there's there's
roughly 90. >> Right. So, you had said that there are 90 on site now and they're not stacked. Um Have they been stacked continually over the last several years? But today >> they have been um Stony, you know, sent
an email to our real estate department. Um let us know the issue. Uh we corrected the issue. Um we actually we've been to a couple different masters at that location. Um so we did correct
the issue, but yes, they were set. Okay. And is your exhibit is that a photograph that you guys took? >> A5-1. >> All right. It references photograph. I didn't see it.
So it does show the site. >> Yeah, that was all I had. Mr. Chairman, [snorts] I just have one question. When one pod is stacked on top of another, is it linked together in some way or is it just gravity that holds them
together? It's the weight of >> there's a skirting system like Lego >> four corners edges. Am I correct? >> Yeah. Lock the top one into the top of the bottom.
>> Yeah. They're essentially lack >> right. Same thing keeps it on the trailer. Extra stress. >> All right. No further comments from anyone. Going to open this to the public. Any members of the public here wish to
comment? No comment. No one's here. No one's raised their hand. made a comment. Close the public meeting. So now we have to deal with resolution. >> Mr. Wells, you have anything else to
say? >> No, sir. Uh just uh reviewing my notes uh on the conditions just so I'm I'm prepared for that. That's it. >> So first thing, um how many votes do we need to approve the resolution? Assuming
the board was inclined to approve the request, >> you need need to have two votes. Um the first vote because the the number of votes required is different for each standard, >> right?
>> Uh you the first vote would be whether or not to grant a use variance to allow the stacking of the pods. If that outdoor stocking, if that passes, then we would move on to site
plan issues. Uh if that doesn't pass, then the site plan is new at that point. And the site plan issues are the u the drainage areas, the trees, buffers, that sort of thing. Other engineering comments that
have been approved. The site plan issues are the um the issues raised in the planners letter and the engineers letter mostly related to drainage
screening those types of issues. There's also both variance for parking setback which would be part of it >> part of the potential second resolution. Yes. Park >> as part of the second uh resolution
possibly. I my understanding was there is no proposed use for the new pavement [clears throat] behind York. Uh so there is no use intended. Um so I thought as through these discussions that was going
to be eliminated. >> Yes, my understanding and uh Mr. Well, you'll correct me if I'm misstating it, but I thought the applicant has acknowledged that uh they would agree to leave the
half of the back area left in grass as it is presently. >> I I do have a clarification. So, the preference of the applicant would be to allow for phasing. Uh, understanding the
board's concern about the potential use for that area, the applicant's preference would be to have at least the area approved as a phase two. So that if a user comes in and requests uh use of that, this board would then retain
jurisdiction and we would have to get approval in order to commence that construction, but the plan would be approved as a two-phase construction. So again that we're just trying to address the board's concern of the use but recognize that the plan has been
designed accordingly and u allow for some efficiency there. Efficiency understood but some members of the board might think that essentially we're approving
you know pick and a poke. We don't know what's coming, but we're asked to approve it and uh then we come back in a year or two or three years and uh we're saddled with that previous approval which didn't have a whole lot of or any
information presented as to what was going to be constructed exactly why this board would retain jurisdiction. So in order to commence that construction, we would have to satisfy this board as to how that's going to be used and how the plan will accommodate it. But you'd have
to come back for the board anyway. >> Yes. Uh we'd have to come back for then for then a site plan. So we'd have to fully redesign the site plan, represent that whole section of the application. Whereas right now we we have it fully designed and complying with storm water
regulations. So it would um >> but things could change. >> Things could Yes. >> Storm water requirements could change. Everything could change. >> Exactly. Ordinances could change as well. So that's um just one of the reasons for a phased approach keeping in
mind the board's concern for the use. >> You stuck on the phased approach or >> well that that's our that's our preference. Obviously if the board votes another way then you know we we go >> but so it's basically an approval with no validity because you can't build
it unless you come back to the board. >> The site plan would be approved condition upon approval of the use. Yes. >> I would advise the board against doing that. Uh well maybe you could tell what my view was questions I >> which is why we asked the question
before not understanding what that is. It wasn't part of the application. It hasn't been evaluated by either professional from a use standpoint. There was no testimony about the reduction in green space or how it was going to be used relative to the overall. And I think it
was agreed early on that that would be eliminated. And I think the board moved forward hearing the rest of the testimony assuming it was only left side. >> I'm not just expressing the applicant's preference. That's all.
>> Well, I'm expressing this member. >> Understood. >> Dislike with that approach. So you know where I stand. >> Yes sir. >> Question you know with our past history storage.
We've had some other things in the past. [clears throat] If you see a set the precedent though in the future being able to save us as a board. >> No, you don't set a pre the board doesn't set precedents because no two
properties are in the same location. Each stands on its own. So it's not a preced precedent setting decision that you would be making. >> So nothing to do with commercial one commercial
resident versus commercial is different. I think so we're saying we can handle one commercial lot totally different than another commercial. If somebody could come in with another commercial lot and request the same thing, but you wouldn't be bound, if you
approved this tonight, you wouldn't be bound to grant that because you approved it for a different location. Each location is different. >> Yeah. >> And we're approving storage. There's no outdoor storage.
So currently the zoning is you can't have outdoor storage unless you get a variance approval. They were given variance approval only in 2011 2013 for one level of storage containers
specified that gather >> yes that's right >> because I wasn't >> and we weren't here either the board >> as an interpretation considered that the pods were akin to a tractor and
trailer. We can have a separate discussion of that. One's a registered vehicle and used for transport. Another is a mobile. But that is the essence >> and these are going to be >> said it was and this is permanent
stacked moving rotating >> and there's no sunset >> like the way asked for five years this is a permanent approval that they're requesting 39 units outside >> but that runs with their use
>> that runs with their use or if not necessarily proprietarily to pods. But if pods was bought out by SPRS and it's an identical type use, they would be covered under that same
approval. >> So I notice in our packet we received resolution 2023-03 which was the board's the resolution of the board approving York's expansion. Was that put in our packet just simply because it's the neighboring
>> because it's all the same property? Yes. We put that in just to show the history of the property. Okay. >> Correct. >> And the board approved that expansion for their outdoor storage. >> Which was also demonstrated in the one exhibit that you provided of all the
pictures. >> Correct. >> The business growth has it following a trajectory and is this see this being something that five years year over year up%
Philadelphia market we're always about 100 to 120 jobs in peak season um slow season we're way less than that you know we have a issue with our space constraints basically
All right. I think we've discussed this much as we can. Bob on the initial vote. Would you frame a motion to approve the variance for outdoor storage requested?
Tell How many members of the affirmative voters of the board would have to pass to approve that? >> In order for this motion to pass, it would require five yes votes to pass out of seven.
The motion would be to grant a use variance to allow stacking of outdoor ponds as proposed by the applicant. So, I'm going to make that motion for a
vote. If I can have a second, we have a second. >> All right. Uh, let's have a roll call, please. >> Mr. Mai, >> no. >> Mr. Mai,
>> you said no. >> I said no. Mrs. Le, >> yes. >> Mr. Ry, >> no. >> Mr. Cur, >> no. >> Miss, >> yes. >> Mr. Holding,
>> no. >> Second motion is unnecessary. >> Sorry, Mr. Wells. >> Mr. Chairman, to be clear, was that um the plan as proposed with the other parking area or was that to incorporate the reduced parking area? Basically, the
phase 2 request that I made, was that incorporated into this vote or was that going to be with the the site plan vote? >> There is a good point and I'll take I'll be a fault for not making it clear in the request for the motion. Um
I thought in our back and forth discussion that you on behalf of the applicant had agreed to, shall I say, cut back parking and leave the one half behind your
grass. Simply reduce the parking to just behind your half building, the fence dividing that paved area where the stacking occurred to grass. That's what I understood. Uh and if we have to make the motion
again with that be clear. Uh that was my understanding that that's where you were. You you had essentially backed off your position of a complete uh development of the rear and your fallback position was was that uh that
you still wanted the approval of of the whole thing, but you would only build out half of >> correct. So, so and the reason why I'm asking is if the vote was a no because the those members voting no were not in favor of that phased approach, then I
would request uh that the board entertain a motion to consider the application with the grass area as originally requested by the board. So, no phasing, just pavement of the left side for pods. So, that that's why I wanted clarification. >> Were you you're talking about a site
plan issue. >> Well, exactly. That's why I wasn't sure the reason for the no votes if the no was understood that they're voting on the application in the site plan proposed or with the modification that's requested by >> well my advice to the board was that if
the the use variance did not pass the site plan was loot so and the board can interpret their vote as they want but my understanding was that They simply voted no on the
stacking issue and that puts a stop to everything else. >> That that's fine. May maybe I um if I may then the board could entertain a motion for reconsideration. Just to clarify that issue that the vote on the
stacking would incorporate the reduced pavement, no pavement on the York side if >> I thought that was the proposal for use because we didn't get any testimony. We we specifically said there was no use variance testimony about the paving of that area. We have a site that already
had a D1 that was not part of your application. I'm not comfortable even letting the board consider that right-hand side paving because I didn't get a chance to evaluate it from a use standpoint. We had no testimony about that from a use
standpoint. So my understanding was that before the vote, the paving that of that area was completely withdrawn from the use variance request and from the site plan request. And if if that's not clear from the board, then maybe another
motion and another vote should be done. But I I'm if if that was going to be considered, I was going to suggest that we carry to another month because we we didn't get anything for the right side paving from a use standpoint. So, I don't know how the board could even consider that.
>> Understood. And that's why I'm asking for the clarification is just to confirm that that pavement is removed from consideration. Well, that that the second motion I think that our
council had described. We were simply voting on the D1 variance request. That was the intent I believe of the vote. As I understood it, it was my my intent to vote no because
this requirements of the D1 had not been satisfied in my personality. So I I think I think you're you're covered in that sense and we never got to the issue of sight
plan. So that what you're talking about bing behind York is a site plan issue. >> Understood. I I just again I didn't hear that from anyone. So I wanted to ensure that that was the reason for the vote was just the stack.
>> So um >> I think you need to come back for a reconsideration or a new application for what you're talking about because I
don't think our professionals even are able to comment on that issue. I mean the board voted as they did and that ends this particular application. If you've got something else in mind >> you want them to vote on, I think you've
got to present that at a different application. >> I think the only other ask that I would um potentially be able to make at this point would be to consider uh the same application with a limit to two stacking, two height instead of three if that would be a condition the board
would consider. But um that's that's about the extent of what I would be permitted to ask for this evening. >> I think the board's vote tonight is definitive on what they are presented. If you got something else in mind, I
think uh Mr. Taylor would like to review it from a different perspective. Maybe the engineer, but you're certainly allowed to come back. If you want to come back and present a variation,
then it should be accompanied by all of the evidence that you want to support that. >> Understood. I rather than refiling the same I'm not permitted to refile the same application, of course. So that's why I asked for two two layers instead
of three since it's the same testimony but reduced height. You know there a lot of things might change. >> That's up to you. >> Understood. >> Thank you everyone. >> Good.
>> Gentlemen, we're done with this. The next matter on the agenda is EM Motorcars and their request by letter from Mr. Galia dated June 16, 2026, which should be in the packet for
an extension of time. Now, as part of that, I ask Paula to catalog tell us what how many times this matter has been a journ. >> I'm sorry.
>> This was their already asked for twice. This is the third. >> This is the third. >> This is the third. And this the last one you allow. Bob, did you prepare a draft resolution on this extension?
>> I believe I did. >> You did. >> Are they already doing something there? >> How do you mean what are they doing there? >> It looks like they're excavating. I don't know. >> Well, they're not excavating.
They're in violation with us on the building, >> but they're not. I mean, I was out there today. >> You were. >> They cut the grass, >> which they were supposed to. They didn't cut the grass in the back. >> Uh, but they um they are in violation
with us under our construction office for the building. >> It just looked like there was stuff going on outside, but >> No. Well, the next door neighbor, the house that's to the left of them, they are putting dirt down on their property. Okay. >> But that's not part of EM Motors. Okay.
>> All right. Well, let me just deal let me just deal with this request for an extension ramifications of it. >> I I did prepare a resolution. Do you have that, Paul? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um >> it was extending it to August 5.
>> August 5. But no further extensions at this will be >> this is the last >> this is the last last one >> according to resolution we pass >> um I presume that Mr. was aware of it
>> I will probably should put it in the resolution >> I can add that >> all right so can I have a motion to grant Mr. extension request for the third and last
time the uh the ordinance >> and it's use the question >> Bob the question remains Did Mr. Morelli leave the board or
>> what was that Tony? >> I'm just confused. Did Mr. Morelli leave the board? >> Like he was the mayor's appoint >> okay >> uh appointed by the mayor. So when we have a use variance whoever's sitting
that position >> oh >> has to be removed from the board. >> So if he's not here then >> then we put the alternate in. >> I see. alternative and happens to be Mrs. Gilmore this evening. >> Okay. >> So that is why >> I was just confused why Leela couldn't
vote on >> Don't worry. I was confused too in the beginning >> because we only we only get seven votes for use. >> Okay. >> And that's why the two of them need the rest. >> Okay. >> Back on back on this extension.
Um, we'll put in the agenda. Put in the uh people of the the resolution [snorts] that no further. >> I um the other question No, the other question is um Bob, do you recommend you re notice?
>> That's up to the board. Uh it's not legally necessary for the board to require that but the board can require that as a condition of postponement. Uh this matter has carried for as you know this is the third month. So does
any me member of the board want renotice or think renotice to the public at large given the postponements is a wise idea or the original notice. >> Well, since they're not in good standing,
>> I don't think it's a good idea to let it go. >> So, you noted >> you're suggesting notice. >> Excuse me. >> You're suggesting renotice. >> I'm thinking then just end it. >> Yeah, you can't. The point is is that
they have the opportunity. This is >> they're asking whether or not they have to renotice in the paper again to come to the board. just a >> sounds like it might be good. >> It's a favor to the it's a favor to the public who may have forgotten about this
with the passage of of time due to the the various adjournments >> from maybe I'm not understanding properly >> when was to deny the request the application is essentially dead. >> No, correct. >> No, they
>> they're not here to present anything. >> No, they they asked for an adjournment. Um this is the motion is simply to grant the adjournment for 30 days. This is the last adjournment given
rule requirements. >> And then the question is as a condition of the adjournment you want to require them to give notice to the public again since the passage of time has been so great.
Maybe the public has forgotten and the notice will remind. >> Understood. [clears throat] >> No, it's not. >> So that I think that's what Tom's saying. >> But I have a motion on the table. There's already a motion that's been
made to to >> and I seconded it, >> right? To grant the adjournment. So [laughter] >> we can finish that. We can vote on that. You can vote against it if you want, but it's it's it's the motion on the floor. It has to be voted on, >> but I agree with you. We should not we should require them to re notice. So,
I'll amend my >> So, will you amend your motion to to >> the condition that renoticing the public is required? >> And I amend myself. >> Okay. So, now we go forward. >> M. Yes.
>> Mr. R. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mrs. I'm sorry. [cough] >> Yes. >> And Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> See, >> um B on the agenda, which is case 24-9, Verizon, New Jersey. Um, I asked Paul to put this on because of the somewhat
surprising letter that we got from Cooper Levenson, attorneys for Verizon, dated June 18, 2026, saying that Verizon had withdrawn the current development application which has been journed and adjourned and
adjourned at Verizon's request because of various because because Verizon is simply unprepared for various reasons to go forward and suddenly he says Verizon was instead implementing it minor site plan approval memorialized
and adopted August 10th 2017 which frankly I don't remember just too long ago and my question I wanted to bring it before the Because my question, General Bob and
Ford is what's up with Verizon? What's going on? They're allowed to withdraw the application. They can't uh they don't have to be here if they want to withdraw, but that puts them
back in violation. >> Well, that's that's right. And and I'm a little bit uh I'm a little bit unclear as to what they mean when he says they will
instead implement minor site plan approval from 2017. Not even sure what that entails. How does that how does that interface with with the violation notice that Kathy has
that violation notice issued approx approximately when >> so this site has been a issue with zoning since technically 2014 okay for everything that they put out there and then they remove it and they
put it back and it's um it's a quite interesting site if you haven't been out there. Um, >> trailers trailers were there for ages long past their >> they we gave them >> and then they were removed, >> right? And then they came for the approval. Remember they had because
Verizon was doing their >> big thing what was it called? Yeah, bio. So we gave them we granted that for the uh construction trailer that came back several times. Um
the issue is is that There's always I'm going to be there. I'm I'm going to come there. I'm going to I'm going to come to the board. I'm going to get this that and the other. And just from my notes, just from 2021 is technically when this
last time has really started extensively with the amount of items and storage and lack of respect for the town. uh and the excuses that we have been given for all this time and now from what I understand
is and correct me if I'm wrong is that Verizon is now changing and they're getting rid of people and their the staffing is going away. But what has that got to do with the site in Hannesport Township that when you take a
look at it is beyond violation. They have not been good neighbors. >> What What is the status of your violation notices? >> Well, one of the things that technically it still stands where we kind of got hit
was when CO hit us that put a lot of stuff on hold and what the state said about extending applications and violations and not taking them to court. But we have proof through our professionals letters
um that they have been trying to work with them and all we keep getting is from Cooper Leon and their team is that yeah we're going to we're going to get there and we're going to extend it but there's an excuse
for every time that they are supposed to be here. >> They don't own the building did they? No, the building is owned. A lot of these buildings like Verizon, AT&T, Bell, Bell Atlantic remember in the day, they're owned by a separate person. This gentleman is an attorney, I believe, up
in New York, possibly. >> Why aren't we going after the >> Who's that? >> The attorney >> because he makes rent every month. It's much like
>> Well, I think now that they don't have an application pending, Kathy can move back to that other avenue through the on the township side as as a violation. >> Yeah. >> Um but no judge wants to hear that while there's an application pending. So, they've been dragging this out like a
lot of them do for 18 months or longer. >> And sometimes these large entities, and I know Mr. K and I have spoken is that some of these they think they're autonomous >> because they're so big and they serve the public good and they're, you know,
they're beyond a local town like Kesport for approval. Um, >> well, I mean, I don't want to get into categorizing whether Verizon is a good citizen or a bad citizen or mediocre citizen, but I guess the question is
this. Um they've withdrawn uh pending application as Bob said they can do that. I don't know what they're talking about when he says implement site minor site plan approval
that was adopted in 2017. I just don't know what that what there there was a building addition for storage and there were a handful of other things um that were part of that. It happened before we were working for the township, but we
did research it briefly in conjunction with that application. They didn't want to build the building edition anymore, but they had numerous violations, which is what got them before us, and they dragged their feet, as Kathy said. Uh, >> so is it so is the the supervision of
the implementation of that resolution been before us? >> No. No. So that's So that would be purely enforcement. Your action is already done here for for 2017. It's now at the township if they go to pull a permit. Um I think that they're I don't
think that the COVID permit extensions uh went far enough. So I actually think that that approval may have expired. >> I would agree. >> Um yep. So they will be back in violation and presumably this process will either go to court or right before it goes to court they will file some
other application before this board. We will start all over from scratch. That's my crystal ball. >> So Bob with the withdrawal we're we no longer have jurisdiction. It's back in >> That's correct. >> It's it's a violation. It's an
enforcement issue. >> What was that again Bob? So, and here's one of the things is that, you know, I know I've been here a long time, but you know, and I make statements, but I I really need to kind
of vent at this point in the sense is that the amount of violations that I have outstanding in this town are a little mind-boggling to be quite frank with you. And I have been in a court as well as my code enforcement officer on
several of them. The court system today drags their feet with land use. They don't want one ounce to do with it. All they do is postpone it, postpone it, postpone it. I one which I won't mention, but again got another 60 days
on it. The fact is is that I go through the proper channels. I do all the work that we are, you know, to do. And then the court ultimately goes back and says, "Okay, Mr. Defendant, you are going to
make an application to the board again. Sure. Here's your another 60. Here's your another 90 days. Come back and we'll see when you've made an application to the board." It's like the prisoners running the prison. is that these violators at all
times have the most amount of power compared to myself and the town until it gets to the point 6 8 10 12 16 months later the court finally gets disgusted because the applicant isn't doing anything and then they get punished.
I've asked for violation fees on applica applicants. The the attorneys, the prosecutors say no, we're going to let them try and work. I've asked for fines per day for not doing things with Verizon. We're going to go I have
no problem put them in violation again. That's not even an issue. But I all want you to understand is that we're going to be seeing this another year later down the road because of how the system works for the violator.
>> I think you're preaching to the choir. Again, I'm venting because of the fact is that after 24 years, I realize is that we all do a great job here, but it doesn't seem to work in our behalf all the time.
>> So, I'm going to go ahead. I'll do my my due diligence, but I want you to be aware of what you're going to go through again all these years that has this been has been going on. I've been in municipal court enough to know that she's right. Um maybe this
will be a different circumstance since it it can be argued that they conned the board into getting a delay and uh when they just simply withdraw the
application, I think the judge has got to take that into consideration. So maybe it would get a better result, but You might want to keep this Cooper Levenson letter in your code. >> Yeah, all for one. Yep, I'll get it.
>> All right. I don't know if there's anything else that we can do on there. >> All the prior adjourns. >> All right. Um All right. We have two other matters besides the general correspondence issue. Two other matters. One is 6E and that's
that's a review of a proposed ordinance amending the code of the township to add a definition of data center and also to prohibit the define data center. Um
Bob, we have the the draft resolution of town. >> Sure does. I believe so. >> And our review consists of uh of what and what should be what should
we be voting on tonight? >> It's not inconsistent with the master plan. >> I think that that is it actually in the resolution. >> Yes. At the end of the resolution, I can find my copy.
>> You have I have a copy. >> Thank you. >> Should be in the packet. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, if you go to the U, it says that it's not inconsistent with the master plan and the board does not
recommend any additions or modifications to the ordinance. >> Right. So in effect, the board is saying that the the proposal um is is deemed to be [clears throat]
appropriate by the joint land use board consistent with the town's zoning and planning. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, um you all had a chance to to
review this question like >> did a professional come up with the 2,000 square foot threshold >> for the uh accessory data facilities just to make sure there's no existing facilities.
[clears throat] >> My guess is that this was a form of order that have been adopted or pursued by a number of accounts. >> [clears throat] >> Do you know the origins of the author? Has this been circulated around?
>> I'm just wondering if 2,000 square foot threshold came just to make sure we don't have a property that has 2,100 square ft and then there's an issue with them being a violation. I just
>> data centers >> that's disallowed. So if if we do it's potential that there could be a data center above that they would be upon the passage of this they would be considered an existing non-conforming use and continue on and
not be in violation but no new data centers could go in. >> Okay. >> So there could be an industrial center where there is a suite of 4,000 square feet that has a bay of servers in it that is small. It's not using water. It's not making noise. And that would be
essentially they use the term grandfathered in but it would be an existing non-conforming use >> but a a new one could not could not go. >> So um [clears throat] I have a motion to approve
the formal ordinance. >> You're approving the resolution reporting to the res approving the resolution uh that the town uh has already drafted and
is um is in the process of >> you're approving the ordinance. from the >> board's perspective. >> 2611 >> or No, this is Yes. 2611. 202611.
>> So, we're we're voting to state that the board determines that this ordinance is not inconsistent with the objectives of the master plan. >> Correct. Right. >> Or is not consistent
>> with the objectives of the master plan and does not make any recommendations for it. >> So not inconsistent is different and I can explain that small distinction and much like cannabis our data center data centers are relatively new
technology. Most municipal master plans do not address data centers at all much like cannabis uses. The statute says on referral a land use ordinance to the planning board of the joint land use board, the board has to find whether any
provisions of that ordinance are inconsistent with the master plan. And because our master plan doesn't talk about it, there are no provisions that are inconsistent. It doesn't have to rise to the level of being consistent.
>> It just has to be. So there's a little gray area in between the two, but this one is not inconsistent because It's not mentioned anywhere. Um, and it'll be stricken from the permitted uses. Uh, it was not permitted anywhere in the municipality with the exception of three redevelopment areas. They've been
adopted several years ago. This ordinance will make them nonpermitted uses in those zones. Scott, just for my own knowledge is when we say our master plan and comparing our master plan in the state's master plan,
but what is do we know the distinction there between the state's master plan on this and what we're doing tonight? >> So, the state's policy plan doesn't really address specific uses like this. Now the the state is currently looking at how data centers are operating and
what responsibilities they will have for infrastructure upgrades and potential changes to some of the taxation. I will say that you know the water use is a concern historically. All of the nextg data centers all use a closed loop
water system or aircooled systems. Um, but there are noise issues and there are energy consumption issues. Um, especially with the large two, three, 400,000 square foot AI data centers. Some towns are working on
um some modified conditional use standards because a 10 or 20,000 square foot data center that's really sort of edge computing may be appropriate because it doesn't have the water consumption. It doesn't have the noise issues, but nobody wants I think we've a lot of us have heard some of the horror
stories of the Vinland facility and some others that just have this incredible buzz or hum and water consumption. So this is a lot of municipalities are adopting as prohibition. And then um I think as the technology and and some of
that gets addressed a little bit better, I think you'll see some towns um come up with some more come up with some smaller conditional use standards because the right size data center in the right location
um can make sense. And whether that number is 2,000 square feet or 4,000 um you know It's it's a needed use, but it [snorts] needs to be accommodated properly. All right. So, um,
we have a motion on the floor. We do. >> Yes. >> To approve. >> Yes. Make a motion. >> I think we have on the floor. >> Yeah. You want a second? I think [clears throat] All right. Roll call.
>> Miss. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. L. >> Yes. >> Mr. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Gilmore. >> Yes. >> Mr. Balden. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mai. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes.
All right. On 6 E, [snorts] um, we have, >> excuse me, say 6F, we have a resolution from the authorizing and directing Hport Township
to do a preliminary investigation to identify areas in need of redevelopment. Um, and Bob, I think that requires us to have a put it on the agenda.
>> I I don't think I prepared a resolution on that. We don't need that. >> Okay. It's not ready yet. >> We don't need a >> No, this is just that the governing body
>> has asked the planning board to undertake a redevelopment investigation of those properties. So that will >> Are you generating a report on discuss? >> So we will begin initiating the studies and the discussions on that. >> So we don't have to we don't have to put
this on an agenda in the future. >> Until your report comes out. >> We are we are ways down the line. um before this will come back to the board and there's super notice required for this investigation.
Um we've had those hearings before most recently to my memory we had one on Mount Laurel Road to Route 38 the area that's now being constructed of
town houses single family houses back And then also the Nissan Black Creek site was another investigation. That's right. Just by way of office. All right. Um let's deal with um
approval of minutes. Um we have minutes for May 16th, 2026. >> Doesn't does the board have to formally authorize Scott to to do the stud. Well, you can. That's a good question.
>> Yeah. And then Bob will generate a resolution for the next meeting for the board to formally approve. >> Is that how we've done it in the past? >> The boards directed Scott to conduct the studies. Yeah. >> And authorized the investigation to
occur. since he's our planner. >> We can certainly do that. [laughter] We'll see how the summer goes. Uh the board >> you want to you want to look at the prior resolutions
uh on this and then put it on as a resolution for next meeting. Well, the board can uh this is something the governing body has requested, I believe. Right. >> Right. Yeah. They're requesting that the board undertake the study. And I think what Paul is suggesting is that the
board just pass a resolution requesting our office to undertake the investigation. >> We do a vote now and then Bob will generate the resolution for us to just like we do all the other matters at the next meeting, but to actually vote on it now >> tonight.
>> To move it along. Yes, please. That's a good >> I'll do a resolution for the next meeting. >> So, is there a motion to um to authorize um
pursuant to the township township committee request >> the investigation um into the property specified in the request? We made a motion. We have a second.
Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Roll call. >> Mr. Holding. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mrs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ry. >> Yes. >> Mr. C. M. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Gilmore. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Mai. >> Yes. >> M. >> Yes. >> And Mr. McD. >> Yes. >> All right. Now getting to the minutes of the meeting. May 6th. Motion to approve is drafted. >> Anyone?
>> So move. >> Second. >> I'm sorry. Second. >> Nobody. Nobody. >> Men. >> Yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. R. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Gilmore. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mai.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Porto. >> Yes. >> And Mr. McKay. >> Yes. Um, same issues with regard to approval of minutes for June 4, 2026. Motion to adopt is drafted.
>> I'll make a motion. >> Second roll call. >> Miss, >> yes. >> Mrs. M. Yes. Mr. McCain. >> Mr. Mr.
>> Yes. Okay. Then we have a series of resolutions. Um motions to approve uh as drafted would be in order. First resolution AA on the agenda 2026-14
Kramer Family Farm LLC. Um I recuse myself from that. I recuse myself from the vote on it, but we have a motion to approve as drafted. Motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> Roll call.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Holding. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> More. >> Yes. >> Mr. Porto. >> Yes. >> Uh, EM Motorcars. Uh, we've actually we took care of that early in the in the
session. Um, so we can skip over that. Um, 8 C. Uh Bob, it's a little bit late. We may maybe should have gone over this before we actually heard resolution, but um
>> that was to memorialize something was done at the last meeting. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Just so you'll have a record of it. >> Yeah, that's u so resolution 2026-16, the postpone application for
the Berry Owner LLC, also known as PODS. Motion to grant. [clears throat] Motion to approve is drafted. >> Anyone? >> Second. >> Eligible voters are
>> second. I'll first it [laughter] >> yes um D under eight resolution adopting findings and recommendation Hport Township regarding ordinance 2611. Um well I think we just did that didn't we? We did that.
>> So fine there. On correspondence, does anyone have a burning desire to review any of the three pieces of correspondence listed? If not, a motion to receive and file will be in order. >> Second.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? Hearing professional comments along that I have nothing
board comments. >> I I would like to say something please. Um at our township meeting coming up on Tuesday, we are recognizing HK as our our
resident of the month. So, um if anybody would like to come and be with D and um recognize him that night, um that would be really nice. >> That would be at 6:30. >> Uh any public comments being no public no comments.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Never move. All right. Paula um >> Steve is not here. So
come in. Yeah.