How do you change? What are you going to Okay, that's what was getting all confused. It's like, why can't I get this to change? Hello, Tom. All right, it's 6:30 and uh I'm Tom McKay, the chair of the Joint Land Use
Board. Call the meeting to order. First thing we'll have is a flag salute. I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. We meet can we announce the sunshine law notice that this meeting was published in accordance with the open public meetings act. All right. Um we have a short agenda tonight. I don't think this will be a problem, but we have a no new business
after 10:30 rule, which means we won't start anything after 10:30, but we will finish up matters started before 10:30. Can I have a roll call, please? Mrs. Tory, here. Mr. Novarita, here. Mrs. Luen, here.
Mayor Gilmore here. Mr. Tokosi, absent. Mr. R. Murphy here. Mr. C. Murphy absent. Miss Costco here. Mr. Holden absent. Mr. Mai here. And Mr. McKay
here. We have a quorum. Yes. Barely. But we do. We have eight. Um. All right. Uh, the first matter on for business is case
25-09 CVS Health. The preliminary and final site plan application. Uh, Mr. Pointer. Good evening, chairman, mayor, members of the board, board professionals. Luke Pontier, the law firm Dave Pittney, and
I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant CVS Health. Okay, you're all the way down from North Jersey, Mr. Pointer. I am. It was a nice drive. Great township of Hannesport. Trust it was a lovely drive. It was. Hey, it's a great night out tonight.
And I appreciate the 6:30 start time. Avoided rush hour a bit. No complaints. All right. So, as I said, Luke Pontier of the law firm Dave Pittney here this evening for CVS Health. Uh we are talking about the property that's located at 8 Berry Drive
and that's block 96 lot 2 on the township's tax map. We are in the I industrial zone. This property is currently occupied by a warehouse building with accessory parking, loading, landscaping, and related site improvements. The property has been the
subject of various land use approvals over the years. Most recently in 2024, uh the applicant did obtain preliminary and final site plan approval to install four HVAC units over concrete pads in place of existing imperous surfaces and
a lighting fixture set back approximately 5 1/2 ft from Barry Drive to provide lighting for the the crosswalk that is is there in front of the building to connect the Hannesport building to the Lumberton uh building. As part of that approval, this board did
memorialize pre-existing relief for imperous coverage and parking spaces. We are back this evening again seeking preliminary and final site plan approval to do three things. Uh first, we're looking to construct an approximately 2,375
square ft addition to serve as an additional break room for employees. We're also looking to uh add three add and utilize three previously approved loading doors. Uh they had been approved as knockout doors. We're now looking for the approval to utilize those to knock
them out and have them be uh usable and working loading docks. And lastly, we're looking to install an approximately 637 square ft uh generator above a concrete pad that'll go on the southwestern portion of the property. As you'll hear more about in tonight's testimony, uh
the building expansion will be fully sprinklered and conditioned. The new dock doors will include dock bumpers, bumper seals, and a smart chalk communication system. All so that these improvements can continue to enhance the employee experience at the at the warehouse and modernize its operations.
We did receive uh some letters of review from your board professionals. One from your planner that was dated September 24th of this year and one from your engineer that was dated September 22nd of this year. With me I do have three witnesses this evening to provide
testimony. The first is Michaela Schaver and she's a representative of the applicant CVS. We have Joseph Odenheimimer who's our civil engineer from Kers and we have Barbara Malowitz who's our architect from no. We do also have Robert Bra. He's a also a civil
engineer from Bowler. Uh his office submitted the plans specifically for the generator details. So if there are questions, you know, about the generator that uh Mr. Odenheimer is not able to answer, he is here as well for additional questions. All right, Mr. Pointer, do you have um
any charts that you want to use? Uh we do have a few exhibits. Okay. Should we mark those now? Um you can mark them as we go along. Great. Mark them ABC. Okay. Um, why don't you take all have all of your witnesses, all four, even
though the other engineer might not testify, uh, and have them stand up and we'll we'll just administer the oath to all of them right at once now. Sure, that sounds great. Raise your right hand, please.
Do you swear or affirm testimony you give tonight will be the truth, all truth, nothing truth? So, Mr. Pointer, uh, the only thing I'd ask you to do is with you with your questioning of the witnesses or in your
comments to the board, um, please try to cover the Alimo letter comments and the tailor design group comments. You referred to them earlier. Absolutely, we will do that. Uh we'll we'll largely cover it as part of their question and answer in the testimony and
then happy to kind of go through any additional comments in that letter. Very good. Thank you. Uh and notice was also published in the Burlington County Times and sent to property owners within 200 ft as required uh with the affidavit of service and mailing provided to your board secretary prior to this evening.
Um unless the board has any other preliminary items to address, we'll call our first witness. No, please do. Great. Ha. Our first witness will be a fact witness only. I come up to the microphone and you can speak into that. Okay.
Can you please provide the board with your name and the address name and address of your employer, please? Yeah. My name is Michaela Schaver and the address is 8 Berry Drive in Hannesport, New Jersey. And your employer is CVS Health. Yes. Can you please describe how long you've been with CVS Health and your role with them?
Yes. So, I've been with CVS uh since April of this year. Um and I am a project manager for them. Um, so I'm a project manager for the 8 drive facility and the project that we're doing there. Very good. And you you did hear me talk about the three things that during my introduction, but can you please
describe the three aspects of the application we're going over tonight? Yep. So the first one is that we are expanding um the breakroom for the employees there. Um the second one is to uh provide or have three new loading doors um in the knockouts that are currently there um for the operation.
And the third one is to install a generator. Great. Does the Does the expansion of the break room require an ex an expansion of the existing building or is it just a uh a reuse of interior space?
Um it's expansion of the existing an addition so to speak. Addition. Yep. Yeah. Okay. And can you just describe kind of the reasoning behind each of these three improvements and and how they're going to benefit the site? Yes. So um the first one um with the uh
new breakroom um part of the project is that we are expanding the automation within the building. Um so by doing this um we are bringing more jobs to the community. So we're going to be expanding the employee count at the facility. Um and because of this we want to improve uh all of our employee
facilities within the building. Um so we want to expand the break room so there there's enough space for all employees. Um the second one um last year there was um a HVAC project put in um and that blocked three of our doors. So we want
to add um the additional three doors to be able to provide um more spaces for the trucks to pull up so that we can handle the increase in capacity that we'll have next year with throughput. And then the generator um that is to ensure that we can continue our
operation in the event that there's a circumstance um beyond our control where we lose power or anything like that to have the backup there. The standby generator. Standby generator. Yep. Question for you just as a matter of public interest, not necessarily
relevant to your application. Um how many about how many employees um do you have at this facility now and what will he what will he rise to um when these changes are made approved? Yes. So currently we have um the two
shifts we actually just added a third but it's very small. Um so the two shifts right now we're looking at about uh 60 employees per shift at max on one of those shifts and in total it's 120 employees. Um and in the future we're going to three shifts. Um, and those
will on average have about 80 employees per shift and at max 100 um to total 240. So we're going from about 120 to 240 in the future. Thank you. Uh, and just kind of along those same lines, I know that you're going from two
shifts to three shifts. If you could just explain what those three shifts look like as well. Yes. Um, so the first shift will be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Um, the second shift is going to be from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. And then the third is 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
So you're you're going to you're going from a uh 3/4 a day to a full day operation? Yes. And is there any change in the anticipated size of trucks that will be coming onto the city? No. So, we're going to continue to have
the standard uh 53-footer um with the occasional 42 foot trailer coming onto the site. So, that is standard in what we have going there today. I have no questions for you on direct the board or professionals have any questions for the students?
Do you have enough parking for the additional people that you're thinking of hiring around the building? Yes, I believe we have those numbers later on. Yes, we did submit a parking analysis with the application and our engineer will touch on that as well. But from an operations perspective, you
know, is it your opinion that there is sufficient parking? Yes. Yeah. With the added overnight shift, will there be trucks coming in overnight um where currently there are? So, right now we're expecting um a 4020 split over those shifts. So, 40% on
first, 40% on second, and 20% of the volume on third. So, it'll be a lighter volume at evening. Um, following up on that question, do do you do your delivery trucks and other trucks that may take product out
of the warehouse um do do you know if they follow a required um route into and out of the facility? Yes. So, I do have the standard route of what most do. So 80% of the trucks um
currently travel down Barry Drive to the Mount Holly bypass and then onto the Burlington Mount Holly Road and then continue to the Turnpike from there or um I 295. Um but 20% of the volume actually just goes across the street to One Berry Drive. So
Oh, okay. Just a shuttle back. It's a shuttle. Yeah, shuttle across the street. So that's 20% of the trucks that we'll be loading. 80% will be following the first route. Okay. So, uh, according to instructions to drivers, no one is supposed to go out
Berry Drive, uh, to into Lumberton or out the other way to Route 38. No. Okay. Not based on what I was provided. Right. If you're if your drivers are following instructions, no, they shouldn't be doing that. No.
Okay. Any other questions from me board? I have one. So, hi, how are you? I'm Kathy. I'm the construction tech and zoning officer. I know that CVS has been doing an enormous amount of work with your AutoCAD type store and everything else. It's
pretty remarkable. Um is so is that the reason for the increase of why you need those dock doors is because there's more product now being sorted out and brought in because of this um auto store.
Yeah, we do have there'll be more product coming in and out. Um but really the need for these doors is because we put in a new HVAC system that blocked three of our existing corre um by extending um adding that third shift it holds some of that additional volume as
well. So we'll be able to use our existing doors that we have to handle the throughput. Okay. So really the driver of it is really that HVAC system. Okay. All right. Thank you members. Other questions? Professionals. Any questions of this witness? No sir. Nope.
Well prepared ma'am. Thank you very much. Thank you. This time I'll call our civil engineer, Mr. Odenheimer. Can you please provide the board with uh the name and your name and the name and address of your employer, please? Sure. Uh Joseph Odenheimer with Collier's Engineering and Design, 2000
Midlantic Drive in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Um qualify. Yep. Can you describe your education experience qualification, please? Sure. I have a um bachelor's degree civil engineering technology. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the
state of New Jersey and have been for 21 years. Uh my license is in good standing. Uh you've not appeared before this board I think as an expert if I recall. I have not. Correct. Okay. Uh but I assume you've appeared before other boards in the state.
Yes, I have. All right. Council will accept him as a witness in his field of expertise. Thank you very much. Uh Mr. Ordinheim, you've been engaged by the applicant as one of the project engineers for this site. Correct. Yeah. And your office prepared the site plans that were submitted to the board.
Correct. And did you prepare any exhibits in connection with tonight's application? Yeah, I did. We have one um exhibit market A, I believe you said. Yes. This will be exhibit A. Yeah, exhibit A with today's date 101.
Has the date. This is just an aerial image taken from Google. um I believe from Google and just has some highlights just for clarification. The only other exhibit I have is actually uh the site plan that was submitted as part of the set. No other rendering or anything
that accurately depicts the building as it is today. Correct. Uh and just to confirm, do you need uh the site plan exactly as it was submitted to be marked as an exhibit if they'll be referring to that as well? Uh no, that's submitted. Anything new
will mark as exhibits today. uh what you've already filed with the clerk. We have So, can you please take the board through the existing conditions and and surrounding properties, please? Sure. So, um outlined in red is the
approximate boundary of the 8 ferry drive, the CVS uh warehouse property. Um as you know, the the township line is kind of the front rightway line that we have. So, across the street, the the street is in Lumberton. Um across the
street we had referenced one bar drive which is another C uh CVS facility that's shown here at the bottom of the page and their parking and associated improvements with that. This is in the um industrial zone industrial properties. To the
I'll say kind of the north, the west and the south on the plan. To the east we have the shop right the commercial um shopping center. So, we're we're surrounded by the industrial and commercial uses and uh n there's 91 parking spaces existing today.
Yes, there's currently 91 uh yeah, 91 vehicle parking spaces on the site. Very good. Uh so then can you please take the board through the improvements that we're proposing this evening? Sure. As we've said, there's there's three kind of projects associated with this
development. As it's shown in green on the exhibit is the proposed uh break room addition. Right now, there is an outdoor patio that's fenced in as kind of a sitting area um that employees could use, but we're removing that, constructing this
2,375 square foot approximate um addition to the building. It's within the the setback lines of the building u of the property. So there's no variances required for any uh setbacks and it's
going to be a fully enclosed space. Uh the second one that we've discussed is is in yellow on the right. These are the loading dock knockouts that would occur. This is really just a a building improvement. All the site components associated with the loading space and
loading areas, ballet pads and all that stuff is already constructed. that's already there. This is really an architectural um building improvement to to do the knock out of the doors, add whatever bumpers and and other equipment that would be associated with it. But from a site plan standpoint, there's
really no change or no impact um to the site from that improvement. And then the third piece is shown in blue on the plan is the proposed generator. So this is is the the backup generator that was referenced, you know, getting it in in proximity to the
building. um you know in other in an area on the site that's not already developed that's not going to impact the current operations. Uh so that's to what would be planned west of the building. Um the generator it's it's about just
under 640 square ft on the concrete pad approximately 13 by 49 are the dimensions. It's um within the building setback lines. Um it's behind the front line of the building. So it's It's proposed to
have landscape screening in front of it with just make sure I give it the juniper trees that'll be planted. They go in, they're 6 to 8 ft tall when they go in, up to 15 or 20 feet in um in height of maturity. The generator is
about 16 ft tall. Um but it will have the screening from the landscape on the rightway. Um there's no real impacts to the site. It's not in parking spaces or anything like that. that it is in a grass area up along the front of the uh front of the building.
Couple couple questions on the generator before you move on. Um the dimensions you give me uh you given to us sounds in in my head as if this is about the size of a truck trailer approximately. Sure. Yeah.
Okay. Does the site presently have any other um standby generators that are installed? No, I don't believe it does. So, this is the first one, correct? And this is what to supply emergency power to the whole facility. Correct.
Or on that side of the road anyway. Correct. Okay. Um are there is there any need for mufflers or noise suppression on this unit? No, it's fully enclosed. Um and and we would I know there was a com noise and
complying with the noise ordinance. I believe that that it's measured to be at 75 75 dB at 21 ft away. So I think that would comply with the noise ordinance. Um if it were activated, you know, it's not running, right? So it's generally
not active. Um but I think it would comply with the noise ordinance requirements. Okay. What does it run on? Uh diesel. Is there a diesel tank that has to be installed? There is. Where is that going to be? It's within that. It's within the the enclosed uh generator.
Okay. So, it's all a package, correct? Question. Uh, you'll need a D air permit prior to installation for the generator. You said, do we? No, you do. Okay. Yeah, I'm sure.
I don't know that, but I'm imagining that they'll get all the permitting that's required. Okay. And that's prior to installation. Okay. And you may not be able to burn diesel. I don't know. Okay. Is there any reason why because I know the building has gas. Is there any reason why that it is not a gas
generator? Um I don't it's just something to possibly look into it because the the building already has gas uh to it. It might be a little bit safer so to say than diesel. Um but
again the the question comes up is that if it is then that's a prior approval in my office that would have to be supplied to me before obviously we can release any permits. Okay. So Mr. Point is is your prior witness perhaps able to address this gas versus
diesel fuel issue and the and the why of it. Well, he's asking well I was thinking oh I didn't know you can add a turn and it's no problem or um to or the project manager who I mean the applicant will certainly
agree to you know discuss and consider gas versus diesel to to my knowledge you know they they chose diesel I don't know that there was a substantive discussion about the pros and cons of each um that was just the the generator style that
that they had chosen to go forward with. Okay. Um, do our experts have any questions on this this diesel versus gas issue or the placement of the generator or anything surrounding the generator? Nothing in particular aside from any
application where they have these if gas is available. They typically connect into gas because you don't have to refill it. If we have a multiple day event, the gas supply remains consistent. So that that would be something to look into. Um,
how do we best deal with that as a um as a condition of approval? If the board were to grant approval, I I would think that is that in my construction office, we can take a look at that when we take a look at the architectural plans that come in as well
as um speaking with my sub codes. uh and the architect really needs to address that in the sense is that is that a manufacturer requirement for a diesel? Do they make a gas one? Uh a lot of these um you know
pieces of equipment are designed for certain things. They may want diesel because of the size of the building that they're having. Um what happens with the gas is that they have to obviously take a look at that and the meter has to change because now you're adding more gas to that meter or they do a separate
meter to it. Um if you if the board likes and the applicant agrees, we can make that a condition in the resolution that in in our office we would make sure that that was resolved before releasing the the u the permit.
What did the professionals think of that proposal? Yeah, and I think Mr. Pontier um suggested some lang. They will investigate that and coordinate the findings and if there's a reason why the diesel makes more sense.
Yeah, if I may. Would your client agree to that kind of condition? Yeah. that the applicant, you know, works with the board professionals and and zoning official, construction office to make sure that, you know, that the diesel versus gas decision is is made
that's best for both CVS and and, you know, as the town is desiring and the environment and the environment. Don't forget the environment. Yeah, we would make sure that the fire official as well as as well of this, you know, knows about this if it's not going to be gas. So, but I I think it's
something that we can work with internally for the applicant if the board and the applicant would agree to that. We can agree to that. All right. Um I may have sidetracked you a little bit on this generator issue, but please continue. No, no problem. And and just while we're
on the generator, I know there were some additional comments in the in the review memo on on the generator. Um so, comment number seven in the planning report asked about testing and maintenance. So, the applicant will agree to do testing and maintenance only during, you know, regular business hours. Correct. Correct. Yes.
Uh, and then on comments number eight and nine, uh, there are no changes proposed to signage or lighting on this application. Correct. Correct. And then comment 10, uh, I guess. So, sorry, that goes along with it. Comment 10, there's no uh, no new lighting.
Correct. Comment 13, we can agree to utilize mulch for soil moisture retention instead of the uh riverstone that was initially proposed underneath the Japanese holly. Correct. We would agree to all those.
Very good. Um and then in the engineering memorandum, did you have any concerns with the comments that were raised? No, I think we can agree with everything that's that's within that. Thank you. Um I don't have any more questions on
direct. Do you have anything you'd like to Yes. So um just to address the parking and and so um currently between 8 drive and one bar uh drive there is a kind of a shared parking that they do. They're
both CVS facilities. Um people for and employees for 8 drive do park across the street. There is a crosswalk and a sidewalk that connects on one facility to the other. and we had talked about an increase of employees. So in June of this year, we
went and did a parking assessment of both facilities. Um at the time, so let me just get the numbers. We have 715 spaces between the two facilities and we did parking counts every 15
minutes from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. to see what the the max parking uh scenario would be. So, at 2:45 p.m., there were 456. Let me take one step back. There's 715 spaces. At the time of our study, there
were 26 of them that were not usable for vehicles. There was some some equipment or something that had been been put there. So, we're we're working out of 689 spaces were available today of our study. At 2:45 p.m. on that day, 456 out
of the 689 were occupied. So 66% um through the entire day of the spaces between the two facilities um were were were utilized with the change in employees to be fair
drive. We're anticipating 20 new employees per shift on the on the day shifts with up to 40 at a peak. So we went from 60 to average of 80 max 100. So utilizing that number of a max
of 100 employees for the first and second shifts would require assuming just adding the numbers to it we would require 536 parking spaces out of the 689 that um were available that day. So 78%
of the spaces would be needed to cover all the parking for all the employees at both facilities. So it results in about 153 extra spaces that were not occupied or essentially needed during that max shift on that day. So from a parking
standpoint between the two facilities, the increase of employees in the shifts, we don't see that that um there would be an issue with the parking or to be a parking deficit for them to be able to um you know park open. While we're on parking, any questions
about the parking issue from professionals or the board? All right. Thank um just one sort of minor. It's kind of a logistical issue. Um are there any easements in place to
allow or facilitate the cross parking? And I only say that in case this building is no longer operated or the other building no longer operated by CVS. We're kind of relying on shared parking, but we only have this application before
us tonight and I'm trying to find a mechanism that can sort of protect this for the next 30 years so we don't we don't run into a problem. I'm not sure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there to my knowledge there is not currently an
easement in place. CVS is a a tenant on the Hannesport side of the road. Um, so they would have to work out any, you know, agreement with their landlord as well. I mean we could consider there you know there may be a way to say
you know if in the future the two buildings are not you know operated together both tenanted by CVS um if the applicant will return to the board for one or both sites for a modified parking
something that if you know Kathy hasn't retired 15 years from Nope. Well, as a as a condition of the approval, uh the applicant could be required to
return to the board for further proceedings on this issue. If there is a change in tenants uh at I suppose either
at either facility or if at any point in the future that inadequate parking exists if for some reason workforce explodes the shifts get even busier and crazier and cars are on berry drive the town would have a trigger to have you guys
come back in and talk about an overall mechanism. So I think if it's change in tenency for either building or if there's a demonstrated parking deficiency the applicant will return to the board because I think the relief that they requested and I think what's in the reports is not for the overall
site of the 689 and the 7 whatever but the 91 versus 244. Yes. Um, so I think the board should probably evaluate that, recognize some of those other numbers, and then have a condition.
Just one other thing to add to that. As part of a previous approval, the Ebury Drive site does have banked spaces. I believe it was 40 40ome, I don't remember the exact number. there are 40ome bank spaces that have not been built that are along um
the planned east side of the building that we had um had bank for future if it was needed. So just as another cover there there are some that have been approved spaces previously. Yeah. So we so we could add that as a condition because if there's a change in
tenency or adequate parking is not provided that the applicant will either a construct the bank parking to relieve the deficit and or b return to the board for a modified operations parking whatever.
But that way, if the board's okay, if there's 10 extra cars out there, administratively, the town could just say, "Time to build your green banking," without them returning to the board again for something that's already been approved. That make sense?
It made sense in my head. Sounded very eloquent. It's akin It's akin to the uh the three garage doors as as laid out. The applicant would agree to that condition. Are you okay with all the points on that
condition? It'll be in the resolution. Oh, got it. I'll make sense of what Scott said. Is the first we I think we I think we've finished the parking issue. I just wanted to Oh, we have another question. Okay, go
ahead. Is the break room itself the addition? Is that taking up previous parking spaces? No, it's grass area out in front of the building. So, whatever existed on the site before you guys want to build something else, the parking spots are the parking spots.
We're not taking away any parking spots. We're not taking away any space. No. as part of this application. I think the testimony was from the uh project supervisor that there was presently some sort of a a concrete pad there over which this this break room will now
be constructed. Yeah, it was a patio an outdoor patio area that was fenced in. That's that and it's it's a little larger than what that patio was. But yeah, it's not taking up any parking or there's no impact parking with any of the proposed emergency. Was the patio used as like a smoking area? like is there still a area for
smoking or is it um um being next to the diesel generator? May I comment? May I comment? Sure. So if you ever go out to Bur Drive at any time of the day during break time, you will notice that the majority of
employees from both across the street and here pretty much just hang out at the on the grass. They go across the street. There's um couple benches and things like that where they have their smoke breaks. Um in all the years that
I've been here and being on that, you know, road a lot is that they really never use the patio too much for smoking break. Uh they kind of congregate at the end of the grass. So I would have to say that I don't anticipate that changing or
affecting the break room in general. I'm not a smoker, but I just figured Well, I'll ask the question. Does the Do you know if the building has a a no smoking require a ban? In other words, smoking in the building is not allowed. We're going to bring the chaver back up to answer that for you.
Yes. So, CVS is a non-smoking facility. So, that is why they're going out to those areas. So, there's no smoking on the patio. Right. And you don't have a designated smoking law place? No, we do not. All right. Thank you.
And one of the things that I'll comment about the parking is that this auto store is just amazing. Um, in all reality, the fact is, if anything, there's going to be less employees than there probably has been
through the years, if if I'm saying that right, because it has it's an auto store. It's not as many people that need to run it and be in that warehouse as originally just a formal warehouse. So I
think in the future generation and I will be retired by 15 years, Mr. Taylor, is that uh I seriously doubt that far I mean that the parking is going to have to be coming a major issue. Not to say that it won't, but just on record
knowing how this um this improvement inside the building has taken away different employees and um I I just don't see that the parking is going to become a major issue in the future. Okay. I I don't know if the the tenant
agrees or not, but yes, I would just like to add that there is a major investment in the building and um at this point we're uh looking at about 60 million invested into the building for this project. So, we are uh very intentional in um having a good
relationship with the township and staying here for a long time. So, thank you. All right. Uh, I think we've uh we've covered parking as much as we can. Um, anything else for your engineer? None from me, but if if the board or
professionals have any questions, members, any questions of the engineer, otherwise we'll release them. None. Okay. Call us our project architect. Can you please provide the board with your name and the name and address of
your employer, please? Sure. My name is Barbara Malvich. Uh my employer is Nor. They're located at 1617 JFK Boulevard in Philadelphia. Thank you. And can you please provide the board with your education, experience, qualifications, and lensures, please?
Sure. I'm a uh registered uh architect in the state of New Jersey. Um I have over 30 years of experience. Um I am in also an industrial sector in in uh in the firm that I work for. And your your licenses remain active and
up to date? Yes. And you have you testified before? Yes, I have. We'll accept this witness to testify in the area of our expertise. Thanks very much. Sure. Uh, Miss Malves, you are engaged by the applicant to provide architectural services for this project. Yes.
Uh, and your office prepared the architectural plans that were submitted. Yes. Did you prepare any exhibits for tonight's hearing? Um, well, I had these exhibits, but I believe these are the same ones that were It's exactly the same as submitted. So, this is the cover sheet of the architectural plan that was.
So, we'll mark that as exhibit B. So, it is exactly what was what was submitted. Yeah. But let's mark it anyway since it's a poster. Can you please describe the proposed building expansion including colors and materials that will be used?
Uh so the building expansion or the addition will be about uh 2375 square ft. um it will adjoin the um the current one-story portion. Um so we're basically adding um extending that
portion. Uh the the intent is that the addition will match the existing building um exactly as much as possible uh with the colors and the finishes that are currently there. Uh and that the materials will be complimentary of the existing building.
The materials will match. I mean the the current building uh the bottom portion is a splitface CMU. Uh we'll continue that. Then there's a a section of windows uh with aluminum framing. Again, we'll continue that. And then there's a ribbed metal panel. So that would all be
continuous. The again, the intent is that it blends seamlessly with what's there. Great. And the expansion will be fully clear. Yes. Yes. So I have no questions additional questions on correct happy to have the board questions.
Our uh professionals questions members of the board questions. No questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. The applicant at this time doesn't have any additional witnesses. Uh you you did hear from our uh applicant
representative, the engineer, and the architect about what's being presented and proposed to you this evening being a building addition uh a generator and generator pad and knocking out three additional uh loading dock doors. And with that, we would uh respectfully
request an approval this evening. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I'd like to let you know that they've also already got their uh letter from the uh county engineers office that they are exempt from this. So, that will be that prior approval has already been
established already and taken care of. All right. Very good. Um any discussion by members of the board on this? Otherwise, um a motion to uh approve the application
would be an order subject to the conditions that we have previously discussed. Does the public need to Yes, they do. Yes, they do. Um we will have public comment uh at this time
and no one in the audience and there are many has raised their hand. So, I assume there is uh no public comment desired. What about online? There's no one online. There's no one online. No. So, there's no public online to comment.
All right. Um let's uh I'll ask for the motion at this point. Do we need to um state what the conditions are or? Well, we can go over it. Um we talked about uh Bobby maybe you if you got some
notes you can talk to us about it but there was the conditions that were um primarily involved in um in in parking uh but also there was the condition uh that involved the standby
generator and if you'll recall the gas versus diesel debate that we that we had on that issue. So those would be there's no variances involved. They're seeking approval for the building expansion,
uh new loading dock doors, the sidewalk connections, and the generator pad with the landscaping. The board may want to because of the increased building area um perhaps address the parking as a
variance and grant that in an abundance of caution because we are increasing the building area. Um, so the variance, put put the variance into words for us as to what it would be.
I believe the parking requirement is uh one per 750 ft. So with the additional 2375 ft, it would be four spaces. So that would be 91 parking spaces where 248 are required. Thank you for doing that math.
Must have been a math major in college. If only. If only. Can I ask is the guard shack still going to stay there too? You know the you mean on the left side of the building? Yeah.
If you go in there's a you have to check in is the lobby with the guards. The guards. Yeah, that's it. Is that still staying? Yeah, that's Yeah, that's okay. I just want to make sure of the building there stay. Okay. Where they sit
are going to be updated. Okay. All right. I want to get back to this resolution. Um Bob, do you have the variance proposal that has been suggested by our planner? We're talking about number of parking
spaces. Yes. I think it would be a variance to permit 91 parking spaces where 248 are required with the condition that if there is a
change in tenency between number one or number eight Berry Drive or if at any point in the future the township determines that inadequate parking exists, lists the applicant will be required to return to the board or to construct the green bank which was
previously approved. Okay, council, are you uh is that variance proposal? It's really no different than we talked about before. Correct. We agree. Yeah. Thank you. So now we have the resolution to approve
the application subject to the uh the condition regarding the diesel versus gas generator um with uh what is now framed as a variance for the parking issues.
Correct. and a condition that if the parking is deemed inadequate or if ownership changes or teny changes, they will have to either return to the board or provide a parking solution.
Right. Should that say though the ownership because this building just recently was bought by a new owner. I don't think that that really affects the site plan. I I would agree that the tenant I was gonna make the same comment.
Okay. Um I don't think ownership should because CVS is only the tenant. So I I I prefer not to have ownership in there. So it would be tenant space or tenant change of tenant or on both one and
eight but not ownership. on the theory that ownership could flip quite quite often actually with no change. Right. Yeah. And and as Miss Nikome said, it it did since we were here last. So, right. It has changed hands. Correct. Right.
Okay. With that subtle clarification, um Okay. I will word it so it'll all come together. We know you will something I have to work on. Uh so
members uh members of the board um do I have a a motion to approve uh the application subject to uh the conditions discussed and recently summarized uh and uh
granting as well the variance for the parking issue that we've just gone over. Again, this is for a preliminary and a final. Yes. So moved. May I have a second? Second. May I have a roll call?
Mrs. Tori? Yes. Mrs. Lutin? Yes. Mr. Novarita? Yes. Mayor Gilmore? Yes. Mr. Murphy? Yes. Miss Costco? Yes. Mr. Mai? Yes. And Mr. McKay? Yes. Thanks very much, board. Thank you for your presentation. Have a
safe trip back to North Jersey. Thanks very much. Could you come up for a second? Uh, I just want something to do with you. Mark two, so I just need the two. you uh you get to see him here. Uh not as much. He's not coming in as
much. When you see him, tell him tell him I said hello. We go way way back to St. Benedict. Oh, very good. Yeah. Nice to see you. You too. You're welcome. [Applause]
I used the one that was it. It's first I know it's purpose. Yeah, he did a great job. I got the gather. Yes. Um,
yeah. Okay. All right. Mr. Dia, ready to proceed? Yes, we are. Good evening, members of the board. Mr. Chairman, uh, I am Vincent Dia. I represent the applicant in this matter.
We have been here um more times than I can count I think and uh over the last uh a few months and again I apologize for my not being here last month. I was a little little under the weather. Uh but we are here today uh with our new
engineer. We've also brought the LSRP as well uh because there were a number of questions and concerns about the contamination on the property and I wanted to bring him here so you could ask all the questions you had.
Now we have three letters. We have uh the environmental commission letter actually two of them which I assume you've seen September one actually it's one letter two pages dated
September 1 2025 I don't know that I have that uh Mr. chairman. I All right. Well, we can certainly field it today if I I have it and I'll um I can or I'll ask uh our environmental commission member to discuss these with you.
Sure. As we go along when when it's when it when the topic is hit and is appropriate. Okay. So, we'll we'll deal with that that way. But then we have um the Alimo letter and
the tailor design letter which have a lot of they raise a lot of points and I would hope that you would be able to hit those points. We're we our new engineer is ready to right because if you don't hit them or he doesn't hit them I sure will. I know
you will and I I encourage you to. I I want I reason I brought that uh up is that I wanted to start with the LSRP because I felt that the last time I was here there were questions that I was asked that I I stumbled on terribly and
because I'm not an environmental lawyer and I didn't know the answers. But the LSRP is here and I wanted to bring him up. Why don't we swear everybody in the Yeah. Who are you? Who do you have besides the environmental engineer? Why don't you come up and state your
name and why you're here? Yeah, I'm uh Terrence Combmes. I'm a professional planner uh and licensed landscape architect for uh Pedic Group um in Suil, New Jersey. Thank you. I'm Henry Wigle, a professional engineer
and licensed site remediation professional in the state of New Jersey. Um, been professional engineer for about 35 years and an LSRP since the start of the program in 2012. Very good.
Brian Clearary with the Pedig Group licensed professional engineer. All right, gentlemen. Let me swear you all in at the same time, please. Ryan, stand. We also have the owner the uh the applicant. So why don't we have Yeah, Mr. Why don't we have everybody sworn in together? Yeah.
You swear affirm the testimony we give tonight will be the truth, old truth, nothing but the truth. I do. I do. So on the environmental issues, um let me just uh put a headnote on it. You know, we look and our engineers and our
profession our planner looks back at the history of this and we see as noted in the planners report um sort of three different versions of the situation out there. The first one
at the beginning of this uh application uh process uh we had one cost uh for remediation. Then later we had a much larger cost for
re for remediation which was like the second iteration. And then more recently, it was said not in a report, but that perhaps the plume uh and I think that's the accurate way to describe it was dissipating or would
dissipate in a in a in a short relatively short period of time. And so I think the question in the mind of our planner and the question in the mind of all the board members who uh has have
have experienced this case is what's the what's the real story with the plume? No. Yes. That's that uh in fact those three gradations that you just mentioned are mentioned in number seven of Scott's
letter. Exactly. and and that that's what I that particular comment is what I wanted to hit head on so we could get to those things. So, what is the story about the plume and where is it and what's it going to cost to clean it up if it has to be
cleaned up? So, I'll start. Hang on a second. He did mention some of his credentials, but I don't we haven't qualified him. I don't believe No, I don't believe you have. So why don't you tell us about your educational background, your experience in in this
in this area? Sure. So I have a uh bachelor's in civil engineering from Villanova University and went on to get a master's degree from Drexel University in engineering geology. Um, like I stated before, I've
been practicing uh civil engineering for about 35 years and have been practicing uh as an LSRP since the inception of the program in 2012. So, vast experience in investigating and cleaning up sites similar to this.
Licensed in New Jersey, I'm sorry. Licensed in New Jersey. Yes, sir. You are. All right. For how many years approximately? As a professional engineer, 35. and as a LSRP for the past 13 years. Council will accept him as an engineer,
an expert in the area uh for testimony. Thank you. You heard the board's uh questions and I wonder if you could give a narrative response to what your your analysis is and what you what what you think. So,
I've been given the opportunity to review the reports that have been generated for the site over the past probably 15 years. There's been a series of tank removal projects that have taken place out there. Uh, investigations that have taken place and right now there's
been five underground tanks that have been removed over the course of the project. Um, basically located around where the service station building is. Are there any underground tanks left? No. Not to the best of my knowledge. To the best of your knowledge, 100% of
the underground tanks have been removed from the site. That's correct. Thank you. Um there's there's also, as residents probably know, uh there were some above ground tanks that were out there during the use of the property as an oil distribution facility. They've since
been removed. Um, so what's left is soil contamination and groundwater contamination. There's soil contamination under where some of the above ground tanks were located and also in at least one of the areas where the underground tanks were. And in addition
to the soil contamination, there's a there's I wouldn't call it a groundwater plume, but there is groundwater impacts associated with the underground storage tank area on the east side of the uh building. So, the last round of groundwater
sampling that was collected out there, um, I believe was in 2023, and all the wells were quote unquote clean or meant the state standards with the exception of the one monitoring well located on the east side of the building, which is about somewhere in
this area. And what when you say east side of the building, there couple of buildings on that. Well, I'm sorry, the the gas station building or former gas station building. All right. Uh so that's um that's on a corner. Yes sir. Um does where does the plume extend if
you know? So as I was just mentioning in 2023 this is the only well that was dirty. All the other wells throughout the site and I believe there's one or two over
here. They all tested clean. And this is what year? 2023 I believe was the last round of groundwater sampling. several years before my involvement at the site and I don't believe anything's been done
since. Were the tanks all removed by that last set of sample wells 2023? They were removed prior to the Yes. So there would be no no further
source of pollution or contamination at that point since other than the impacted soil that remains in the ground. Okay. And that's as long as that soil is there it can it can the contaminants can leech out of the soil into the ground with an impact ground quality.
All right. Um but no more no more sources from the tanks itself. Correct. And that polluted uh or contaminated maybe is a better word soil. Um you said that's also in proximity to
the gas station. Well there were or did I hear you wrong? Uh no you didn't. Well let me clarify. There is contaminated soil I believe on both sides of the gas station building and then in at least one of the areas where the above ground tanks were
located. Okay. So there were I think two above ground tanks behind the building and maybe another back in this area somewhere. All right. And this and the only plume
that you're that you're able to discern from the records is by the gas station heading east. The only impacted moning well is located in this area on the east. Yeah. East
side of the garage building, right? And groundwater is flowing kind of in a westerly direction. Oh. Away from this. So it would be flowing across the site from this quote unquote source area. And how far do we know that that I'll call
it a plume uh extends when last tested? Well, it hasn't gone off site for sure. There was a clean moning well here. Like I said, there was at least two here offsite and I don't know the exact
locations of the other wells on site. Um but right now it's it's limited to this area where the service station was and the underground tanks were. So there are there are other test wells um other than the two that you just
identified, but but you say they haven't picked up any evidence that the plume has reached them. Correct. And you don't know exactly where those wells are? I don't off hand. There's probably 10
wells out there, give or take. Okay. Schematic could be provided if needed. All right. Um, continue please. See if there's anything else you have to talk about. No, I think that's really paints the picture of the current environmental
status out there. All right. And let me continue on then with Okay. What is the contaminant that is present in the soil contamination
and also in this plume as I've called it primarily gasoline related contaminants and they're referred to as BEX. So benzene, tuine, ethylenzene and xylene are the primary contaminants.
Now at one point the applicant had advanced a theory and I don't know who advanced it whether it was the applicant or through an engineer that the plume would dissipate
that's my word over time uh and and effectively no longer become a a contaminant or a problem what what what say you to that contention well what I would say is the normal process would be to
remove the source source which is the tanks remove the source material which is the contaminated soil and then groundwater will naturally attenuate over time and it's a process process that the state allows
and permits. Um I did hear or some hear someone say one year that it was going to be cleaned up in one year. The uh previous LSRP on the case had estimated a 10-year period for monitored natural attenuation to
occur after the contaminated soil had been removed or remediated. Natural attenuation is the phrase, the term of art for what I call the evaporation of the problem. It is. Okay.
So, which report was that? I I'm not sure. I reviewed five or six reports done over the course of the last 15 years and I believe it was the latest one, the remedial investigation report uh dated
2010 possibly. You need it on a break. We can look at that. I don't have it with me but I can certainly provide that information. So the last investigation that was done or monitoring samples was in 2010. No,
the 2023 around the groundwater samples were collected from the existing monitoring well network and that's the data I was discussing earlier where there was only only the one well on the east side of the station was dirty, right? And was that the active
environmental report? No, dynamic dynamic dynamics. It was dynamic earth dynamics. I think that they were only hired to do that one round of groundwater sampling.
So there were other professionals involved at the site. One was active um Paul Saxon Paul Saxon environmental was out there on several occasions during the tank removal work and I think he generated two or three different
reports. Did you evaluate the difference between the 2010 levels and the 2023 levels? I did not. So, you're talking about a trend analysis for groundwater impacts? I did
not. So, is it can is it possible that that additional well is clean at this point? When you say the additional well, the the well here on the cornering well that
you indicated was not clean, right? Would I estimate that it could be cleaned out? Could it be? It could be. I wouldn't expect it to be. And based on the trend analysis or
No, not just based on the concentrations that we detected in 2023. So the concentrations were high enough that it would not naturally in my opinion it wouldn't naturally attenuate over the past few years to to a concentration that's below the
standards. All right. Because there were two references in prior testimony that the 2018 active report um indicated I think it was November 1st of 2023 at
the use variance hearing Mr. Miller, Mike Miller indicated that the active report said that the site was 18 months away from being naturally disappointed dissipated. And then at the April 2, 2025 site plan hearing,
um the applicants team indicated that the 2018 report stated that the site was 12 months away from being naturally dissipated. So, what the board's trying to find out is
what study have you done because we've heard a lot of conflicting testimony. What study or analysis or trend analysis have you done that the board can then evaluate to determine what exists on the site today and
whether or not that's consistent with any of the prior testimony that the board relied on for the granted use variance and is considering now as part of the site plan? Well, with all due respect to the past persons who testified, I would say that the time
frames noted, it was probably premature, the the 18 months and 12 months, um I I wouldn't even guesstimate or do a trend analysis until that contaminated zool is removed because you
still have a source to the groundwater that's feeding that quote unquote plume. So in theory, the groundwater concentrations could be increasing. Now I I take it that you haven't done
anything to measure the volume of contaminated soil uh around where the old tanks used to be. I have not. From what you could glean from the previous
testing and the reports on that that you've read, do you have an opinion on the volume of contaminated soil? And to put it another way,
can you estimate the u length, width, depth of the problem and the cubic yards of soil that are part of the problem. Yes, that work could be done based on
the data that's available and data collected by others. I have not gone through that exercise. That's part of that part of the exercise would be considered like a remedial action work plan to put together not only to get possible approval from the D but you
know so the uh the applicant could put um budget dollars together for the actual cleanup. So, as part of that work plan, we would go in and review the data, make sure there's no data gaps, and then come up with estimates on
quantity of soil, what it's contaminated with, where it can be disposed of offsite, generate, you know, a cost estimate for that at the at the proper time. Um, because you know how trucking costs change with time, you know, disposal
costs change with time. Sure. So, to stand here and say it's $400,000 today. It might be $450 3 months from now because diesel fuel prices are going up. And you're giving that number, those two numbers purely as a hypothetical example
right now. I am. Yes. Okay. But I will say that I did review and I don't know how to reference it. Uh there was a three-page document that was called a planning level cost estimate that I think was shared with the board.
We have heard some estimates in the past. That's I mentioned those at the beginning of my remarks, right? The number went from something around 400 to 500,000 up to 600 to 800,000
perhaps or even a little higher. So, you know, the board was sitting there sort of styied wondering, well, which is it or is it is it a third number that we haven't even heard yet? My only comment was going to be that I've reviewed that planning level cost estimate
and I agree with the scope of work. So they were whoever put it together and I don't know who but one of the professionals. Um the scope is thorough. It discusses what needs to be done to investigate and clean up the site. And then they gave a budget range of 425 to
570, which to me seems like it's in the ballpark because there's a lot of variables once you put a shovel in the ground. Uh regardless of how many samples are collected, the samples are only a representative representation of
what might or might not be out there. So if you were hired to come up with a remediation plan for the soil, right? Um would you feel professionally obligated to do your own
uh plan of removal uh instead of relying on the plan of removal developed by someone else several years ago? Well, I am obligated to either confirm
that the the data generated previously is valid and if I determine that as an LSRP, I can use that data. But if I feel it's not valid or if there's data gaps, then I'm required by my license to go out and and kind of recreate the wheel
and come up with my own data set to generate the work plan. And what is your current view on the accuracy of the data set from the previous engineer? From what I've seen, there's there's a
great amount of data the underground tanks that were removed around the service station building, but I don't see a lot of information for where the above ground tanks were. So, I don't know if that data exists or where that data needs to be generated. Of course, that's the data that's key to
the soil removal, isn't it? Well, there's multiple components. The the major soil contamination is around the service station building. There's mention of other soil contaminants with the above ground tanks, but like I said,
I don't I haven't seen the detail on their estimates on scope, depth, concentrations for those above ground tanks. So as you stand as you stand here tonight based upon the work you've done you cannot
provide us with a uh an estimate for remediation of the soil around the tanks or around the gas station. Is that correct? That's correct.
Yeah. I think we're um it's premature to come up with a cost estimate to be honest with you. This project is not advanced to the stage where we're putting together a cleanup plan or a work plan and generating those types of detailed
costs. All right. I mean that's why this this previous submitter was kind of a preliminary conceptual cost estimate. I think there are other first of all, I'd like to have um our um uh environmental
committee u representative on the board speak, but there are a couple of other board members who have individual questions. So, let me let me just go around and see who else has questions. Go ahead. Hi. Hi, Tom. Hi. Um the wells that are to the north
and west, you don't know exactly where they are, but there are wells to the north and west. Yes, sir. Uh are there any contaminants detected? Not in the the last round of groundwater sampling that was done in 2023. Zero. Zero.
That's surprising being to plume is going that direction. It's not making sense to me. Well, I don't know if there's a real quote unquote plume and I mentioned that before. There is
groundwater impacts seem to be limited to this area and this area only from data that I've seen around the pointing to around the gas station. That's correct. I have a question. So when you talk about the above ground tanks, we're
talking about the above grounds that were behind the uh gas station, the big tall white ones. Correct. So because right now, and Mr. Livingston may be able to answer this, is that we I have two permits sitting on my desk for
what is that, Mr. Livingston? Two or three above ground tanks? Yes. Uh one is a a 2,000 plus gallon uh above ground tank as well as a couple of the smaller 250 to 300.
So, were they those tanks used for any of the out buildings or the house or the gas station? I think Tom would probably be able to answer that more than I, but I I think the the
2,000gallon tank that I'm talking about to get removed was a diesel fuel that served the diesel pump at the gas station. Okay. Well, Correct. Right. The reason why been removed or they have not? They have not. The reason why I'm bringing this
Mr. Wel's testimony looked that all the tanks have been Well, I'm sorry. I was referring to the larger That's why tanks, Mr. Taylor. That's why I'm bringing this up is because I want to make sure on record that we're recognizing what is
still there versus what the and they were very large ones behind the the gas station. big. But so I just want to put on record that 35,000 correct that the tanks that are there, would this be correct, Mr. Livingston,
in regards that they are disconnected from the existing buildings? Yes. Okay. But they are not technically removed off of there. Um, so I just want to make sure for the record that as he stated that all the above ground tanks are removed. No, technically they're
not. Well, there's nothing technical about it. They aren't removed. They're they're still sitting there waiting to be removed. And And so, let's get a catalog. How many tanks How many tanks are left sitting there uh waiting to be removed?
One. I think that would be coming from Mr. Livingston. There's currently uh approximately three with the exception of the homeowner ones. I mean, we're not dealing in approximations. We can count. Well, two tanks. Three tanks. There's one large tank and the other
ones are movable. They're not stationary. They They're small. Okay. But they're there. They're there. So, we're talking three tanks. Three tanks. One big, two small. Yes. One fixed, two movable. Yes. Empty. All of them.
Yes. And disconnected from whatever they serviced beforehand. Yes. But they have not been removed off the site because I have not given him the the permit yet because I still need permission because he's not the owner of
record. I need permission from the owner of record uh or their, you know, attorney, whoever the case may be, to allow me to go ahead and give Mr. Livingston that permit. All right. Well, okay. For the record, that's important information. Yes.
Mid, you had something? Well, I mean, I count four. This is the first we've heard from an LSRP in all of the however long many meetings that we've had. Um, and um it sounds like you've just read through the reports that are on record. Um
to um to bring us up to date as to what you believe was done. Um, so there's a lot of planned activity on that site. Where in relation to the soil that needs to be removed? We have trees
that are going to be planted, trucks that are going to be driving, trailers that are going to be put down. Um, how would you see this plan? Um, you know, what what needs to occur? Do we need the soil cleaned up before there's disturbance of um the property? It's
already being utilized for some of the intent. Um, so what I don't I'm not sure we have a full view of the quantity of soil that needs to be removed, the locations of the soil that need to be removed. I'm not sure if you have that information.
Um, and how can a site be approved and go ahead without this cleanup having some kind of quantitative measure to it? Well, like I I mentioned before, there's a work plan that would be put together
and that work plan would would be meshed with the site development project. So, and maybe Terry can speak to this, we've done a lot of Terry used to be my boss at my previous employer and we did a lot of residential projects where um I
assume that the board would make the approval condition upon the cleanup of the site. Um, but typically the way it would progress is that a work plan would be generated and obviously the applicant doesn't want to
paint an area where there's contaminated soil and he's got to go back 6 months later and tear up all his new asphalt. So, he would concentrate on areas those areas probably first, remove the impacted soil so he could then move
forward with the development in that area. So he knows where the contaminated soil is. I I would say that's part of the work plan that needs to be done. Seems like it needs to be done first. So it needs Right. We're going to look at the data, delineate the areas of impact that need to be remediated,
but that hasn't been done. No, that's not it's been investigated. So we're looking at not been put together. The soil was investigated in 2010. is that uh there's been a series of investigations and back removal work.
I mean what I what I was able to access and this was I don't know a year ago or whenever we were looking at this um it seemed like there had been a big lapse in any LSRP being involved in in this site um that there was work done and then there was negligence or or
abandonment in some ways. So it's been a while. Um, so the groundwater is a little bit troubling as far as um if if there's water that's contaminated here and you're saying it's it's dissipating this way is the belief that it's already
been dissipated before it gets to the wells in the back corner. Neighbors are not being affected by contaminated groundwater coming through their properties. Like where is this water that the soil is still contaminating just going? And why is it
not showing up and at least a diluted form down at these other wells? Does that Yeah, I mean there's a number of possibilities. The groundwater is following from what I've seen from the other professionals
in a westerly direction. The groundwater impact is limited to this area right now. So if nothing is done in the next 25 years, you're right, that plume is going to continue to migrate in a western direction.
Well, even if something is done, right? You said the water doesn't get clean, just the soil. So it'll stop being contaminated, but the water that's contaminated is contaminated. Well, I didn't necessarily say it doesn't have to be cleaned up. What I did say was after the soil is excavated
and remediated, there is a There's the ability to allow monitor natural attenuation of the groundwater impact and that's all based on concentrations. It's based on contaminant trends. So to allow that to occur, we have to
demonstrate over eight quarterly sampling events that we have a decreasing trend in concentration. Otherwise, we have to actively clean up impact. And the other well another component of that is to monitor for one off-site
migration and two any impact to offsite properties. So if we get into a situation and the state permits to monitor natural attenuation of the groundwater, we would be obligated or the applicant would be
obligated to continue to monitor the network of wells to determine if there is any impact off site and to confirm that we're continuing to see the natural degradation of the contaminants. And if anything changes in that, if there is
impact detected or we're not seeing a trend the states can come back and they can actively clean up the ground and that can be done a number of different ways such as such as there's chemical injections
which I think was proposed in that planning level cost estimate that I mentioned earlier as a component of uh the cleanup do we know who prepared that plan I don't is that the
the scope of work dynamics. Do we know what date that was? Because there's no date on it either. April 23. April of 23. Yes. In simple language, this is injection. I think
injection of chemicals into the wells to try to uh break down the u the contaminants. Yes. concerns like putting Dawn soap on an oil covered duck kind of. Yeah. I'm sorry. Did you say that was one of
the controls institutional a method of institutional control for groundwater contamination? No, that would be a method of active remediation. Okay. Thank you. So that's one that's one remediation method. What what are the others that come to mind? Well, well, the first one I mentioned
was the monitor natural attenuation, which is passive remediation, right? So, you're just monitoring the over time to make to make sure it's not getting worse, it's getting better. So, then either passive or active active remediation, there's like I said,
chemical injections, which are often times most cost effective. There's pump and treat methods where you pump ground water out of the aquifer, shallow aquifer and treat it with either carbon or discharge to treatment facility. Um, which is
really shown to be not cost effective over time. Um, and the states kind of moved away from that technology because you could we've had sites where we pump the groundwork for 30 years and you're still seeing high concentrations, you know.
So they're they're pretty much and there's numerous um types of what they call esco which is the insitu chemical oxidation there's different things you can add oxygen you can add peroxide magnesium per maganate depending on the
contaminants contaminant levels the soil conditions do you have any uh estimate of the approximate area of disturb disturbance on this site that would occur
if uh all of the contaminated soil uh was removed. The area of disturbance. So typically the area of disturbance would be the tank excavation footprint.
Uh and I don't have exact numbers. So you're there was around the service station the tanks, just to quote me, um, were between 2,000 and 6,000galon in size,
the underground tanks. So, a 6,000galon tank can be 7 8 ft in diameter by maybe 15 to 25 ft long depending on configuration. So, so what I'm hearing is that
the soil that's going to be cleaned up is near the gas station, the polluted water is near the gas station, and the rest of the site is actually clean. No, I don't think I said that. I I think I also said where the above ground tanks were this, but you don't know where those are. No,
I have a aerial photo here that shows them. Okay. From 2007. Uh they're not out there now, but I can point. If you want me to point, I can do that. Okay. So, there were right behind the building here, there were two large
elevated storage tanks. Um you had two others in this area, vertical elevated storage tanks, and then you had one kind of laid in here, a horizontal storage tank.
Okay. So for the plan that you mentioned coming up with the remediation plan right for the site roughly how much does that cost to have that done? Oh you're putting me on the spot roughly it's not a quote or an estimate that I
would hold you to say as long as there's not a need for data acquisition data acquisition. So part of the work plan development would be to see if there's any data gaps, meaning do we need to go out and collect more soil samples because we don't have this area defined horizontally or
vertically. If if we have everything we need just the cost to put the plan together, I'd say roughly $2500 to $3,500. Okay. Um Go ahead. Were you asked are the funds available for the uh clean
up? I'm sorry. I'm sorry for interrupting. Um are the funds available right now to do the complete cleanup? I think you're asking the wrong person. I'm asking you. U
possibly answer that question. Okay, I'm ready. My pockets aren't that deep. But um but it looks like it looks like a remediation plan would um use I I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. E you
said 2500 3500 even if it was $5,000 you you could you could get it done based upon the data you have and any additional data that you had to collect. Well,
what I said was the plan we generated for 2500 to 3500 assuming we don't have to go out and collect additional data. Oh, okay. So, if we have to go out and collect additional data, that number I can't really give you a number because, you know, you're talking
about a drill rate for $2,500 a day and you're talking about samples sent to the lab for, you know,$100 to $200 a piece. And so, it it starts to add up. They might they might cost another 5,000 to 7500 to go out and collect additional data. So you didn't evaluate the existing
reports to find out if there are any data gaps. No, I did not. I reviewed the reports to come up with an idea as so I could come in here and paint the picture of the existing condition at at the facility or at the at the site. You know, is there
soil contamination? Yes. Is there ground contamination? Yes. Did Did I hear you right when you said that there was wells on the north side or there was there was some wells that you don't we don't know. Nobody knows where they're at. Well, we know where they're at. They've
been surveyed. I just standing here. I don't I can't point to them on the map for you. So, you're saying all the wells that are on the property were part of a survey. Uh they have been surveyed. I don't know if they're on the on the survey plan that the engineer has, but I do know
that they were surveyed. The coordinates were provided in one of the environmental reports. Okay. If if you are asked to opine on the order of work for this site,
would you opine that before landscaping work is done, before driveways are reconfigured, before concrete curbing is put in?
Um before other site work is done that the first order of business ought to be determining the scope
of the remediation that has to be done and doing that remediation before any further site work is done. Well, I think the scope has to be defined prior to but I think the the
actual performance of the remediation would be done in conjunction with site developments. Like I said before, if you know if there's no remediation required out here, there's no reason why some of this site work can't be done. Referring to the uh street side of uh
what is that, Madison? Yeah. And I I'm just that's a for instance. So obviously he doesn't we don't want to do site improvements where we're going to go back and remediate obviously. Right. So that clarification would have to be made up front.
So there is a cohesive work plan that that dovetales into development plan. Do you have any information indicating whether there is any contamination, contaminated soil or any plume of
contamination uh that is uh at under or around the house that fronts on um Martin Highway? No, I've seen no information to indicate that there's an issue to the house.
In fact, in one of the reports done by the other professionals, they had looked at the groundwater impacts at the site with respect to vapor intrusion, which is vapors coming up off the groundwater that could get into a structure. Uh, and
they indicated the only potential would be at the service station building itself and there was there would be no issue at the uh at the dwelling based on the current data. How close does the plume come to the dwelling?
Again, it's centered on the west side of the service station building and there are clean wells in between this dirty well and the dwelling. Okay. And yet the plume is headed west.
It is headed in a westerly direction and and that's generally it's obviously not moving very fast. West is generally toward the house. Correct. It is. All right. I I I think I I don't have any further questions on this point for
the professionals. Um I have a couple questions. Yes, Paul. Mr. Mai. Yes. Um so bear with me. I've got a few some things I just would like for you to address. Um first of all, in Mr. Halbig's letter from September 21st,
2023. It does state concurrently an LSRP will be retained to complete an environmental site assessment. So, here we are two years later and I thank you for being here as an LSRP. This is our first experience with the licensed LSRP
um in let me see here 2020. Okay. activives fact sheet uh dated August 11th, 2020. Um it states a description of the actions performed to minimize impact to the public and if I just going to read this to put it on
record and if you can maybe talk about it. Uh the extent of soil contamination has been delineated and is confined to the property to remediate the soils. The responsible party at that point WL Reich is proposing engineering and institutional controls. The engineering
controls may include excavation and/or capping and the institutional controls may include deed restriction. The groundwater delineation is ongoing and appears to have migrated offsite. To remediate the groundwater, the responsible party is applying for an
institutional control measure. Um that is a classification exception area or CA well head restriction area WR to document and monitor the groundwater contamination and restrict access to that part of the aquifer on all affected properties. The institutional control
measure will include at a minimum additional well installation quarterly groundwater sampling and by annual reporting to D as necessary. The party may also implement engineering control measures to expedite the remediation of groundwater. These controls may include
enhanced fluid recovery events and/or NC2 groundwater treatment. In terms of the potential vapor intrusion hazard, the responsible party is proposing to conduct a vapor intrusion investigation in any structure within 100 ft of known groundwater contamination above the
applicable ND NJ standards. Now, I know you might have already discussed some of those measures, but is there anything in this fact sheet that has not been addressed or should be communicated with the board? No, I mean, not to my knowledge. I mean,
that's a pretty broad brush of Okay, we could do this, we could do that. Okay. So, is that relative because at that point it was wlif and now we're dealing with a different applicant, maybe a different engineer who might have different methods to identifying and addressing. That's pretty broad
brush. It would apply to this applicant as well. Okay. U the groundwater CA the classification exception area is a requirement of the state as part of the monitor natural attenuation process. Um and some of the
other things you mentioned the 100 foot vapor intrusion. Yeah. For the vapor intrusion. So that just may have been misdated. It's actually 30 ft destroying contamination just petroleum because there there are also metals detected in here. It wasn't just metals
the gasoline issue. Okay. So the 100 foot criteria is for chlorinated solvents something you would find as cleaner. Okay. So they're based on the level of contamination of the areas of concern that have been identified and I believe
those were in the 2023 um preliminary assessment the phase 2 AOC 3 AOC 6A AOC 6C AOC 6F and AOC13 groundwater and soil contamination. Um,
do any of those contamination levels warrant the need to do vapor intrusion reporting for any of the structures that are proposed to be used established the house? Should that be done? Uh, so vape vapor intrusion is only
triggered by concentrations in ground. So I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to as far as concentrations for those AOC's. If it's soils only No, there were a couple that were groundwater. So for instance, if it was groundwater,
we would look at each contaminant and each contaminate concentration versus the trigger level for vapor intrusion. And that's what I would call a vapor intrusion evaluation. Okay? And then based on that evaluation, you determine whether an an investigation's
required. So the investigation if it's required would actually be air sampling right within the structure. So for instance if it was a slab on the bra structure you would take subsurface air samples underneath the slab and then
also samples within the structure itself as part of your vapor intrusion investigation. Okay. And then based on the air concentrations um you determine whether there's an issue or not. there's no issue. Everybody goes on. If there is an issue,
it depends on the concentrations. If it's bad, if the concentrations are high, then you can actively put an active remediation system, a subslab depressurization system. So, should all that you would do for radon?
And would you do that while it's habitated or would Yes. Okay. It's not uncommon. I mean, the tenants would be notified, informed, and it would be if they didn't feel comfortable, they could move out.
But it's it's a pretty common situation. Safely schools, daycarees. I have a Domino's Pizza in Bridton. We have one running. Okay. Okay. Um, also on well, uh, the site also has a February
28th, 2024 regulatory deadline to complete a remediation. Are you aware of that? I'm aware that the previous or I guess I would say current responsible party missed many of their deadlines and I
think probably are facing some type of administrative order from the state. And how how would that affect the current use or or proposed use? Well, current use because it is being used and it has been for five years. But moving forward, how would how would that affect the
current the proposed use? Well, the state's going is requiring will require clean up of the site. I had a brief discussion with my applicant or the applicant as uh what the state
has right now is what they call pre- purchase administrative consent order. So he can separate if he moves forward with the purchase of the property, he can separate his liability from their liability. He'll still be required to clean up the site, but financially the
state's not going to go after him, right? Miss deadines. Okay. So the his administrative consent order would establish new time frames for various key documents. Is that like the spill act for municipalities protections? Yeah, I guess similar to
So does the state have the right then if either party has not met deadlines or anything such as that? Do they have the right to do a cease and desist on the business that is being run there now because they have not met any of these requirements?
That's a question for a good attorney. Exactly. I know they have the right to not only civil and administrative penalties against the party, the owner of the property, they can also go in, you know, the site
themselves and then basically charge the responsible party for that, you know. Okay. The only reason I ask is as Miss Costco stated is that the business has been running um and we're here for a preliminary and final site plan and at
this point it sounds that there's not just the board and the township but the state who overrides pretty much everything in my office for construction, you know, um we're kind of the low man on the totem pole
municipality, the D um the state of New Jersey, they override us and they have a lot more strong arms than we even do. So what I'm looking for is to figure out is that
does the state and when do they do that do they come in and say okay you guys are in penalty again I don't know who the party would be but the businesses no longer can operate because I I've seen it as a zoning
officer I've seen myself in another town where we did do cease and desist because of issues somewhat somehat like this. Um, but again, the state has the bigger arm in this if either party is not meeting those deadlines.
Like I state, I've never seen a cease and desist, but they will. I mean, that's not their goal to put people out of business. Their goal is to clean up the property, but how can the property be cleaned up with a business operating there? How can
they be cleaned up and get in a site plan approval with all these things that are required by our professionals? I I guess I'm a little confused in regards to how an operation can go on and the state the state allows a business to go on but
they wanted to get cleaned up. How do you I mean and again I'm I'm being facitious. I'm not expecting you to answer it. I'm trying to put it on record is that we have a business that's been operating and making money and yet all these things are not being met because of the contamination that's
there. So that that's my concern for the town, not for anybody else, but for the town. So um you've been to the site? Yes. Um, so you know, it's here's this industrial thing plopped in the middle
of a residential area. Um, there's residents on all different sides. Um, in your professional opinion, is is this contamination, groundwater, uh, affecting the neighbors in any way?
Not from the recent data that I've looked at. Groundwater sampling from 2023 shows that it's not impacting. Okay. And could you attach yet to the end of that sentence? I could.
I mean, that's just a guess, right? I mean, if I had a crystal ball, I could tell you, yeah, it's going to impact the neighbors in 27 years. But well, that's the point I'm making. There's a potential. Sure, there's a potential. Potential is there. The site's dirty and not being cleaned up. That potential, right? And again, it's migrating towards
Spruce. Correct. I believe I read somewhere that the the groundwater delineation is moving towards Spruce Lane in that area and that and that whole neighborhood is under American Water. Correct. They're on public water. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Okay. And there are there any uh wells
being used for landscaping or farming or gardening that you're aware of? Not that I'm aware of. It would have been part of the receptor evaluation. Okay. Previously. All right. Miss London, do you have any any other questions? Just curious about time frames and um so
to prepare your report roughly what what is that time period that that would take um to come up with the work plan for this particular site? Scenario A, all the data is there and you could have already maybe had it.
Scenario A, 30 to 45 days. Okay. And then scenario B, worst case, I can never say worst case, but I say scenario B where we had to to mobilize to the site and collect additional data, you're probably looking
at 60 days. So, so from my point of view, we've been looking at the site plan for I I can't tell you how long. Um before I think I came on to the board in January, definitely. Um, but for 35 days worth of
work and $5,000, it feels like this we should already have a work plan before we're deciding. Can this tenant is is he good for the the money for for for cleaning up this site? You know, we have his his word that it's going to get done, but yet the business has
continued. Um, this is drug on for a very long period of time. data has come to us in bits and pieces and you know I just I I'm not confident that that we're going to have a viable work plan that things are going to be followed as far
as the site cleanup with respect to when it's going to get done as a priority over the business continuing to run as is. Um um I just I just don't have that confidence that and my goal is that this site be cleaned up. What the whole reason it's continuing to be um this
thing in the middle of a residential area is because of this cleanup and we've been told that oh well it'll never be clean enough for residential and yet there is a house on the property that's going to continue to be used. So I, you know, I sometime it feels like we're
being um manipulated in some ways to believe that this there's there is a lot of contamination, but no, there's not a lot of contamination. And um and that, you know, can't be used for residential, but you know, it can be cleaned up. You know, the water's just going to go away.
And so I'm just, you know, this is the first we've heard from someone, you know, that has spoken directly to what's involved. And even that is somewhat vague. Understood. Noted. I The only thing I will say is that I think this is an
opportunity for the maybe for the township to get this property cleaned up. The the former tenant operator owner is all but debunked. Um the state's gone after them
financially for not for dragging their feet on this. And you have before the board who is willing to clean the site up. I feel like in good faith he could have presented us with a little bit more than
um you know I may be heard. I I understand exactly what you're saying. I think this was yours. I understand exactly what you're saying. And the catch 22 as I look at it is if we go and we do all this and then you
don't approve the site plan, what have we done? And the other side is if you didn't if you deny the site plan because you don't know about the cleanup, you're not going to get the cleanup. I want I came here on day one
and said the problem with this residential site is it's never going to be residential because of the contamination. There's a standard for you know this there's a standard for commercial and there's a standard for residential and
we have a unique applicant here who can fit his very light ind. really a very light industrial use on this site and it will give the opportunity to clean it up.
Bob, I don't know if you remember the case. I should have brought it with me. I should have anticipated. There was a case where uh and I hate to sound like a lawyer. the uh applicant had applied for the site plan and the
board told him he has to go and get approval from some state agency whatever it was the DPP whatever uh before the board would grant the application and the applicant went to court and said
that's the catch 22 if I go before the board and the board says go get approval from the DP and then I go to the D and the D says, "No, no, no. Go get an approval from the board." The application never goes anywhere
at some point to me. And I can get you the I get you the case. I know the case you're talking about. It's an old case. It's been around a while. So, it has upheld. I don't know the name of it. Yeah, I don't know the name of it
either, but I uh but it's out there. It's never been reversed. It's never been challenged that I know of. That's not the situation here. No, it that's that's not the situation. Go ahead. It's not the situation here. I has Has has the applicant been turned down by D
in this case and told to go back to us? No, no, no, no, no, no. But if you're telling us go and and do all the S lsrp work and do all the get all the requirements from the from the D in order to get an
approval from you as opposed to what the court said was you grant the application subject to the other agency whether it be this board or or the I'm making I'm using D as my example or EP and the
catch 22 for us is is just that yes we can go ahead and give you these uh reports. We can give you more detailed reports. I heard the cross-examination from the board. I was uh quite honestly I know you were a trial lawyer so you
your cross-examination was outstanding but uh I heard the cross-examination of him and they're all legitimate questions that we can answer. Uh, but you're telling us go and complete the LSRP work
before we'll give you a decision is the catch 22 for us. But that's what you asked for. I asked for during the use variance November 1st, 2023. You said it's going
to cost us 600 to 700,000 to clean this site up. a number that Mr. Wigel indicated it was premature to assign any numbers to this. Right. We I didn't say it. Uh you're saying I said it you you your applicant's team
the applicant at that time his best information was that and you indicated the applicant and their team that an LSRP report and LSRP testimony would be provided in conjunction with site plan approval. And this is maybe our fifth or sixth
hearing. At the June 4th, 2025 hearing, the board requested an LSRP status report to be submitted to July by July 1 to be on the August 6th agenda. Correct. I'm sure you're right. I'm positive
you're right. I was in the resolution. Do we It was It was in the resolution. I'm sure. Do we have an LSRP update status report yet? Not that I know of. So you ask the board to give you a use variance predicated on specific LSRP
testimony. If it comes out at the end of the day and Mr. Wiggo goes out there and says there actually is no soil contamination anymore. It has naturally dissipated. That invalidates your use variance. Would you agree? There's no contamination. I I would be
agree. So, how does the board take your word or the word of multiple conflicting points of testimony on the degree and the cost of contamination and ask the board to work with you in
good faith when the board hasn't really gotten what they asked for and been promised on multiple occasions? I don't I don't see how it's consistent with the prior case law for outside agency approvals like D. The case law is clear on that. The board
can't say go get your LOI and your other permits and then we'll hear it. I don't think that's even close to to the case here. So I I I don't know. My argument from day one was and one and one last point is and this
may be a question for Mr. Wel. Yeah. Can a residential use be occupied on this site? What I would say is that there's I'm not aware of any DP state regulation or DP guidance that would preclude
the occupation of this existing dwelling. If it was new construction, it may be a different matter, but it is existing. If it was new construction, it would be a different matter or it may it may be a different matter.
It may be but it may be the same. What I'm saying if it's new construction, for instance, I we can't go build a residential subdivision on top of a landfill without properly remediating the landfill. So
it's conceiting on the landfill. State in New Jersey is not going to make somebody tear the house. So then it is conceivable that this site could be used for residential uses with the cleanup. It is conceivable. Yes,
for new residential and obviously there would be protections. I mean new for new proposed residential there. It's conceivable if the site was cleaned up. I'm sorry. Say that again. If the site was cleaned up, this site
could be used for new residential uses. Could be used for daycare, could be used for school as long as it meets residential criteria. When did you begin work? I'm sorry. When did you begin work, you know, for this on this project?
Um, 30 days ago. 60 days. 45 days. That's not true. documents. All right. I don't I'm not sure because my vision is not that good. I'm not sure who that is in the back,
but if you have a comment to make, any comment. Oh, wait. Sorry. Thank you. You've been here before, I take it. Yeah. Then you know the rules and you'll abide by them, I trust. Thank you. Well, to your point, yeah,
I was retained by the applicant. as to provide LSRP testimony approximately 45 days ago. Was I privy privy to information about this site prior to that? Yes. Through a
different company that I worked for. So I had looked at this site um for another company maybe a year or two years ago something like that. I was provided with documents at that time. We took a look at it. I think we wrote a
proposal to do some work out here. It was never authorized and that's where that died. So, you're not uh and I've never been retained as the licensed site remediation professional for the cleanup of the site. You have not been? I have not.
And by no party. Wow. So, you the 30 to 45 days thereabouts. You sound It sound like that's about the same time frame as doing a work plan. You
weren't uh contracted to do that. No, I was contracted to review the existing documentation. Um do a site walk and stand here before you and Understood. Try to answer questions. I got it. Thank you. Can I ask you um
I'm not I'm speaking just for me now. I don't want to represent the whole board's opinion here. This is just my opinion. I kind of feel like as a board member on this subject, I feel like I'm being expected to absorb so much information
to make a good call for other citizens that live in this town or other people that live here. Right. So, I feel like it's so out of my wheelhouse and we have professionals that help us and you're a professional. We talked about the monitoring wells.
Isn't there a point to where a sample from a monitoring well would then trigger a bunch of alarms and then pass that on to other responsible parties that say, "Okay, hold on. We got a problem." Right? We haven't hit that.
Have we hit that where any samples from any monitoring wells that said, "Whoa, now they're going up the food chain." Kathy's brought up the state has more power than we'll ever have. So any samples that have been taken up till today in this property, have they like
set off an alarm with other agencies that are in the state that are here to protect us? Not to the best of my knowledge. And and one of those alarms would be the the vapor intrusion trigger that we discussed. So if we have elevated concentrations above a certain threshold
uh in a well located within 30 ft of a residence for petroleum hydrocarbons, that alarm would go off. the LC would have a responsibility not only to notify this the D but notify the resident and
then take a plan of action you know 30 60 90 days this is what needs to be done so Bob the question for you guys over there us as board members why why why couldn't we just say and I'm just spitballing here I don't
know what I'm talking about but I'm just I'm a little overwhelmed so bear with me why why why as board members, we just can't say, "Look, this let anybody do what they want on the property. There's no alarms going off in the monitoring wells." The minute the the alarms go off
in the monitoring wells, I would say have to come back before the board and we have to say, "Wait a minute. Where's the level of that alarm in the monitoring wells that's thrown off for the D to get involved or any other agencies?" I just kind of feel like we're being
I think we are already there and it's it's not a flashing red light, but there is also this is already listed as a contaminated site. There's al there's already a listing at D. This is identified as a site that we're then how can we as a board approve anything?
And and that's that's the point because the use variance testimony was you have to approve us. We can't put residential uses here. So, it has to be this commercial use and we have to spend so much money for cleanup that you need to give us a use variance to operate this.
And then a couple times we had testimony saying, well, the site may be naturally dissipating itself. So, maybe maybe there isn't any money. And now Mr. Wy has indicated, well, perhaps the site could be used for residential use. So, I think the board needs to determine does
it want to hear get more reports and hear more information or does this call into question random use variance? I would feel as a business owner that I would want to have some quantity on what I was getting myself into. And the fact that it's been vague that you haven't
wanted this report raises alarms in my mind because I mean, you know, we have to make sure that you can afford to do this and you know, your business has been operating and yet, you know, $4,000 or whatever it was to come up with a work plan. Seems like to me
that would be a good investment from your side to to to know what you're getting into. Um, it just seems to me um that I would certainly want that if I was I'd like to answer that. Sure. I've invested over $100,000 in the the
investigation. Okay. Um, simply put is is what's what's the result of what it's just the uh the the original the the testing all the all the well monitoring all that
the the the 500page document that I I gave to the board a couple months ago or several months ago. The point is is I' I've have over $100,000 already invested just in that process. So now now you're
asking me to put more out the it gets to a point where I you're saying I'm operating a business. That's a it's a storage facility is what it is. I'm not operating a business out of that. It's a storage facility. It's an overpriced storage facility. All right. I want to move this along. Um
Mr. Dia, you have anything further from the current witness? Uh no, unless there are other uh questions. Uh, I think I unless one board member or board members raise their hand, I think we we've asked all the questions of that witness that we
can. And the professionals have no further questions of No, sir. The last witness. So, if you have other witnesses, let's hear from them. Um, and move this along. What I wanted to do
was uh go through the review letters uh so that we could uh respond to the uh concerns of the professionals. Certainly, if that's the way you wish to proceed. Okay. Um anybody want to go first? Scott, why
don't we go through yours since we touched on on some of those and uh Would the board like me to go over? We may be a couple hours. Do we want to take a fiveminute recess? You're um That sounds like a request for
a recess to me. So, we'll uh we'll take a five minute recess and give Mr. Dele a chance to organize his presentation. So, uh, for the public, if there's anybody who's joined, uh, my watch says
it's, uh, 25 to 9. We'll be back at Excellent. We're back on. All right, we're reconvening at about uh 12 minutes to 9. Sorry for the longer delay. Mr. Galia, your the podium is yours.
Thank you. Uh, I was bringing up uh uh Terry Combmes to uh really review the site and uh exactly what we're proposing here and to uh also go through the uh Scott's letter and so we can move on
from there. So, why don't you take All right. We we need to qualify Mr. Holmes. Well, he testified last time and I don't recall him being qualified. So, why don't we play it safe? Yes. I wonder if Terry tell us about your I'm sorry I intervene at this point before we get
too far along. Um Mr. McCay I actually would like to make a motion at this point in time. All right. Um you are certainly free to make that motion. Okay. Um I would like to make a motion based on um the use variance that was granted in the uh conflicting
information that has been provided in terms of a promise of an LSRP during that time. the use variance was granted based on the acquisition of an LSRP. That has not happened until today. Um there was testimony that the residential property was not uh able to be utilized
for residential use. There's testimony tonight by the new LSRP that it may be able to be used for residential uses. Um based on those two reasons, as well as additional conflicting information, I would actually like to make a motion um to dismiss this case and to disapprove
it. All right. Um Bob, um any uh any comments on the on the form of the motion? Yeah. Can we That's a legitimate motion. Yeah. Okay. I can't hear you. Well,
I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I said it's a legitimate motion. I'm just confirming that council agrees that it's an appropriate motion to be made at this point in time. I have a second for the motion. Second.
Second. All right. Um, we'll take a roll call. Okay. May I be heard? Absolutely. Hold the roll call. Yes, you may be heard. Thank you. First of all, the record will now reflect that several witnesses did
not get an opportunity to testify, so I've been cut off without being able to make my full presentation. Number two, uh, with regard to the concerns about what the LSRP was asked, is it possible
to do residential here? And he said, "Yes, it's possible. It's not practical." You heard the realer who's been with this property since, I think, 215. And how many residential developers came
forward and as soon as they knew about the environmental problems, they walked away. It's not practical. Number two, when I first came here, the point I made was it is not practical that it's ever
going to be residential. If it ever gets cleaned up, it's going to be a commercial for a light industrial use. And we were coming in with a light industrial use. And we also committed to clean it up. Deny our application and we
walk. You're I'm respectfully submit you are not going to find someone else to clean the site up. I agree that we've hit too many bumps along the way. I'm not I'm not going to dispute that and I never
have throughout this. Uh we had an engineer that uh we kept tripping over. We uh uh uh we have uh submitted a a report that I think was about the size of the Manhattan phone book. Uh with regard to the LSRP,
if they have Manhattan phone books anymore, I was dating myself. I was kind of dating myself there. I guess I understand. Trying to inject a little levity. Yeah. Seriousness of this discussion. Yeah. So, I understand the the point is
if you want this property cleaned up, you're we're going to have to find a way to make it work. I'm willing to do whatever is necessary. I know my clients willing to do whatever is necessary to satisfy you that what we're doing is
going to benefit the town, is going to benefit the community, is going to clean up that site, which has not been a which has been a bit of an eyesaw from the first time I saw it. And we want the opportunity to fix it. I apologize for
all the bumps along the way. I I understand it. I understand your frustration, but I think at the end of the day, when you make the this approval, you're going to find that the property is going to be cleaned up
environmentally and aesthetically as part of our site plan includes substantial improvements in the appearance of that site. So I would respectfully request that the motion that has been made and
second be denied at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Um uh would the movement consider withdrawing the motion for the moment
um with the ability certainly to make it again uh later in the proceeding to allow Mr. Dia to finish his presentation. I know it's nine o'clock. I know we've been sitting through several sessions on this,
but um I I I don't want to put in a a a reason for Mr. Dia to claim prejudice or error on our part if he hasn't completed his presentation.
So would the would the movement consider that? Sure. I will withdraw my request. All right. Do we do we have a motion? Do we have a right to to know exactly how much money has been spent on the site to try to You said they spent $100,000.
Yeah, you were free to we're free to ask Mr. Dia can represent or the or the owner can uh do you have the right to ask what? Well, I want I want to you know you said you spent $100,000 on on the site. Do we have or how do we not disrespect to you, but how do we know that you did that?
Yeah, we don't we don't we don't have it obviously uh uh with us. Uh but we can give them an account. I don't see any problem with giving you an accounting just like the um with regard to uh you know what he spent in order to get to this point. I I
don't have a problem with that. The applicant we'll get we'll get to that. I I want to move this along. Mr. Dia, put your next witness on. Let's hear from your next witness and let's move through this. We were going at qualifying. We were. Yes.
Yeah. So, go ahead. Go ahead. I'm licensed professional planner, 35 years. Um, bachelor of science from Ruckers. Um, 45 years experience in land planning and worked for engineering firms uh through the through the course
of my career. I've testified over over 100 municipalities in New Jersey. Um I I'm also a licensed landscape architect. Both licenses are in are still in good standing. All right, Mr. Deia, we will admit the
witness to testify in his area of expertise. Terry, you were going to Yeah. through the site at the at the meeting that I did attend. I think the board uh requested we treat this like a new application. Given the the time tonight, do you want me to go
through everything or uh I want you to go through everything you think is relevant and but to be efficient in doing so. Right. Well, I won't I won't spend a lot of time. I think everybody knows where where the site is. It's cross St. Paul Luther Church on 300 ft of frontage on
Mar Highway. It's bordered by Maple Lane, Spruce Lane. Assume that this board is intimately familiar with the property and the surrounding neighborhood. Um that's our proposed site plan. That's uh
the landscaping plan out of the out of the site plan uh uh set that was submitted to the board. It it's uh we have two acres in the R2 zone. There was a use variance granted in January obviously uh since the
proposed light industrial use is not permitted in the R2 zone. uh existing improvements are single family residence which we've discussed the abandoned gas station which we've discussed and uh uh three buildings uh that were formerly
utilized by the uh WL Refe Company um and then there were circulation areas gravel areas that were part of that former um commercial use. Um there are applicants proposing to uh
reutilize the single family residence as a rental property. Um uh no plans currently for the gas station. That is not part of the uh the application that's before the board tonight. And then to occupy the uh the buildings that were formerly utilized by
Pete by uh Ralph uh Oil Company um for the his operations which is restaurant equipment restoration and and uh reconditioning. Um our our site plan basically as I said
utilizes existing structures. Um we are modifying the existing uh circulation and parking areas on the site. This exhibit shows how we're modifying the site. Um the plan that's
before the board now is a little different than the original plan that Mr. Nichols have presented. uh we've reduced the amount of cover on the site, pulled pulled the uh gravel areas, circulation areas in more to to provide
more perimeter buffering. So these green areas are areas where we're removing existing cover. Um the dark areas are existing cover that will be that will remain uh in use as impervious surfaces through the buildings and the existing
gravel areas. and this this light gray toned area that's what we are expanding on site. So net this this area here is the is the temporary truck storage that is that is uh will be in use till uh
2029 by one of property um ultimately that will be green space. So um when this site is in its final condition there's actually a reduction um in
a reduction in covert. So that's that's the site alterations that are proposed. Um the uh the large building um this area will be where uh will be
used for storage um workshop area and then a small strip office on the side. the other buildings the other buildings will be um just storage buildings
um used by uh the PEI services. There's also uh storage containers uh and these were all depicted on the use variance plan. There's there's eight storage containers um scattered throughout the property. Uh and then a
uh and then a 45 by 45 truck staging area where he'll he'll he'll uh park uh pickup trucks and that will also be used on occasion for unloading um trucks into the into the storage uh
building. Um there there are a number of uh variances uh that are that are requested. There is an existing variance for front yard setback where 30 ft is required, 24.6 ft
is proposed for the existing gas station structure. So that's a pre-existing condition. We're proposing uh two storage trailers um within the front yard area um of of
Maple Lane. um they're not in the front yard setback area, but the ordinance doesn't allow SE accessory structures uh in a front yard, which is everything in front of the building. So, um technically that's a variance. The built
the trails are actually 60 ft from Maple Lane where where 30 ft's required. um trash enclosure is proposed off of the the large building right this area. So
that's in the front yard area of um again that's technically uh a variance but it's 50 ft from the right of way where the setback requirement is 30 um but it's forward of the building so that that's a variance.
Um the maximum impous coverage in the R2 was 27%. Um we are at 57.8% with with the temporary uh truck storage area that will be uh converted to open
space uh in 29. Um existing existing coverage is about 47.5%. Um we uh have 12 parking spaces where the parking calculation based on the amount of storage and office area and
the residential uh the residential building the the parking requirement total parking requirement is 14. So um we're two spaces under the parking requirement but uh that's uh adequate
parking for uh PEI services. they only will have two to four uh employees on site. Um we're also proposing a 20 foot uh facade sign on the front of the uh in
the building which is where uh uh what Ralph Fo company had their signage. You can still see the outline of their sign. So um technically in in in the R2 zone there is there's no signage permitted.
So that is also a a variance. The uh there's buffer requirements in your ordinance that are sort of there's conflicting requirements but where where there's a light industrial use of light industrial zone next to a residential
zone. There's a 25 ft buffer required and then in addition 25 ft open area adjacent to that buffer. Um we're providing a 25 foot buffer area um without the 25 foot here
addition too much of the uh site. There are there's another buffering requirement that says where where uh industrial where commercial zone resident separated by street I can hear
was 15. So I mean worst case scenario we need the we need the variance for the 25 foot open area and then waiverss were asked for waivers from the curbing and uh paving requirement for the internal
circulation um theription the uh entrances will be you're doing a uh and the access school down the standards. Um
so I mean landscaping you can see the landscaping where we're we're providing per criminal landscaping with mixture of uh shade trees and evergreen trees and shrub plantings. Um in total there's 31 shade trees, 74 evergreen trees, and 38
shrub plantings provide perimeter screening. Um and uh I mean that uh I think in my review of the uh use variance, the the testimony was that you
know the merits of this application were that the site was going to be cleaned up um aesthetically. In addition to the site cleanup, the aesthetic improvements were an important part of the uh proofs for the use variance as well.
That that's the application in a nutshell. Um you know, your professionals want to go through their letters. We I I met with Scott uh earlier this week, went through his letter. See if any of the board members have any
questions based on your presentation. I have a question. So, Ripe Oil had a sign up there for their business because the public used to come in there to pay their bills and things such as that. Um,
what is the what is the point if if the public is not coming in here? Why do we have a sign on the building of 20 square feet? Yeah.
So the qu the question I have was is that when rife oil was in business, they had that small sign. I'm going to withdraw the facade sign. Okay. Application part of the application. That's why I didn't mean to be rude to that. I was giving you a time out. I just figured you were telling me to
stop. Yeah. Yeah. I I didn't mean to move. Um and then the other question I have is number nine where it talks about uh the materials and things such as that that have been outside that it would have to come back for an
amendment to the use variance. So the question is is that from an enforcement end I take a look at this. The storage has been outside forever. are we coming back for an amended use
plan? Because then as far as I'm concerned from day one, if this gets approved is that there should not be any of this outside storage there. Yeah. And the plans indicate that there will be no outdoor storage. Okay.
No outdoor storage. No outdoor storage. All right. Um the the matter has proceeded to the point of questions on your presentation by the board and Kathy had two. Uh anyone else have any
um just a quick question. I'm not sure um maybe for our engineer but um initially there was some question about the storm water management on the site and maybe the back corner was a bit soggy. Um and just with the contaminated
soils, um you know, is is there danger of water rushing over or coming over with all these different storms now the water's not being contained on the site and it's going over contaminated soils? Um
it um and has somebody looked at that back corner to confirm that um that that storm water is being managed properly currently. before this disturbance and is is there a plan for that? Yeah, I mean our engineers here too and
can address storm water management more specifically, but in general there there's a depressional area in the back and after storm events in this side, but that's actually that's actually a water quality measure.
So there there's a pipe that discharges but this pipe is back pitched. So before any water goes through that pipe is what I back pitched there. So it's pitched into the site. Okay. But that's where the water goes. I mean eventually it's in the corner and it goes through and it goes it goes down
the maple. But that it's like a holding area. So it infiltrates you know it wasn't designed I don't think for that but in a lot of ways it uh comp spirit of national regulation. So, so
what we're doing here, um, there's not going to be any runoff from from the improvements that are going to have the interface with contaminated soil. So, that shouldn't be an issue. And and the low area that exists back there is actually a positive as far as water quality.
Is it are trees not going to be removed from that back area? No, we're we're we're this this one of the changes we made to the original plans. The stone came very close to the corner of that property. We pulled it back. There are some there is some uh shrubs
and greenery that's been removed there, but no large trees. Okay. But no large trees are being removed from the back corner. Okay. Um and then just um looking at the selection for the this is very minor but
selection for the um the plantings um that um there's a couple that are non-native and we just request that they be replaced with like a the two that we would asked be replaced are the trident maple which is not a native and also the Japanese zova on the front street tree
would be replaced with some suitable equivalent and then just as a small suggestion that spyhea sometimes can be, you know, properly landscaped can be somewhat messy. Maybe aelas might be something that's more pleasing and easier to to maintain.
We'll pick something that might survive a little better than Iselas, but we'll we'll get your letter and I'll I'll certainly uh I'll certainly incorporate your recommendations. All right. Any other questions? Otherwise, I want to move on to have the have the witness uh deal with
um the tailor design group comments. You want me to go through it or you want to? Yeah, go ahead, Scott. Um, is she a report dated August 28th, 2025? The items under A have been addressed.
They'reformational regarding the nature of the application. Um the applicant did identify the variance relief uh for the new bulk variances um which include structures in the Maple Lane front yard. Um and presumably we'll
get uh planning testimony substantiating those at the at the end of the hearing this evening. U we can comment on that testimony at the appropriate time. Before I get yelled at by Paul, let me grab this.
I know how she gets. Um, we also identify the design waiverss uh that are substandard that um in the rear buffer area there's a driveway and only a buffer of 25 ft is
proposed where a 50 foot wide buffer is required. 25 of which has to be open and a minimum of 25 has to be uh planted through that area. And then also design waiver to permit structures and improvements in the spruce lane buffer
area including a driveway and three oversized vehicle spaces and a buffer of only 23 feet is proposed. Um and also uh to permit improvements in the maple lane buffer where a driveway and a buffer of only 25%
of uh 25 ft is proposed. uh sidewalks, loading areas, and others as identified, and we'll we'll comment on those um after summation. I think we've under D1 general comments, I think the board has heard testimony regarding the operation.
I don't have anything further on that unless the applicant does. Um I also think during the use variance and one of the first few meetings, uh the operation of the site was described in detail by the applicant. Um, item three is relatively minor and I assume
the plans could be updated to show the buffer lines accurately. Um, can I get a yes from somebody on the applicants team on any of those if you guys concur? If not, we can
which item D2. Yes. Um D3 recommending that all deliveries and trash pickup be limited to daytime hours. Yeah, there's a note on the plan to that effect already. Yep.
Um I think we've talked about the uh truck circulation. I'll defer to Mr. Miller on the adequacy of that. Um and we can also talk about uh the off- streetet loading under his as well. Uh
we also noted and questioned the need for the multiple access drives located on Spruce Lane uh to to justify those because they are located within the required residential buffers. The applicant's truck circulation templates do not show any scenario where those
large vehicles need to use those driveways which access onto Spruce which is a residential street. Uh recommended those be eliminated. um to provide buffering more consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the
residential uh character along Spruce. Yeah. Yeah. And I, as I said, I met with Scott rather this week and I I told we were going to look at this um these entries.
There's one in the back and then uh these are both existing actually. up against the property line there and then you know currently this is all open to uh spruce along here from where we
have this drive all the way to the back. So um we are uh proposing to limit this to a 25 foot drive and we had this at 15. We can actually I told Scott I look at trying to loop this back to eliminate
this connection. Um, and I was concerned we may not be able to make the turn around the building and keep out of the 25T buffer. We can we can do that. We can make we can make this turn uh
respect the 25 foot buffer and bring that right out here. We would like to we would like to keep that dry an existing curve cut there close to highway just you know just for
kind of we have trash pick up here and it just makes general circulation easier but we can eliminate the entries in the back. would request that obviously
buffers are always penetrated by you have to get out to the road usually. So that's the only penetration allowed into a buffer. They usually say driveways. They usually say driveways that are necessary. And I
think that's really what's a question here is because obviously you have sight circulation to get a tractor trailer in and out from Marne Highway and to the rear of the site. So the question of the necessity of those other two in justification of the
residential buffer relief that's required. Yeah. Like I said, it's been there for probably 50 years and we'll we'll eliminate the one in the back which you know brings I guess the most that has the most impact on Spruce. We would request to be allowed to keep the the
front one if you know it's up to the board. Can I ask a question? So on page one, Scott, of your report, it is site surrounding and land use proposal. Uh item A 3B
where it talks about the vehicle storage in area 6 was granted for a period of 5 years for the boats and the truck that's already there. Does that have an impact on your turn coming out
on Spruce Lane to come on the side? Well, this would have to occur after this is vacated. They the bringing this is Zoe talking bring after this is vacated. So that wouldn't come into effect until
February of 2029. Correct. I should have said that. I'm sorry. Okay, just it doesn't make sense to me then is that how is that going to operate for the next four years
if this is allowed to be here till 2029? How's that going to operate? How's going to operate? Your circulation of coming out and we would request that we be allowed to use this until until we temporary and then we'll bring it
through. Okay, this is just small for for small kids, pickup trucks with trailers that that bring equipment in. Um, this is not for large trucks. This is just for small single body trucks. What's not for large trucks?
That that northern spruce lane exit. Spruce lane, right? This is just for uh we showed it for emergency vehicle uh access and for single unit truck circulation.
General questions having to do with u you have storage containers and storage trailers. I assume that a trailer has wheels and you that that's going to be a movable
kind of thing. There there's two there's two trailers here that will will be used maybe twice a year. The rest of them are are containers. Is that right? Is that what you're saying? Yes. Uh there's there's actually four
trailers actually four containers and there's any number of cont and then there's containers. Now the containers are are are open. They're not closed. They're sea boxes.
They're sea boxes. Yes. Okay. So So they're open that they're open in the top. You put Are they empty or they they're going to store materials in them while they're stored there? Yeah, they're store they're storage boxes. They're they're solid boxes.
Yeah. They're not open up top. basically. Okay. So, if those trailers move in the next four years and that road is not made for or that access area is not made for a trailer, how is that getting
out off the site? There there's circulation templates in the we have we have a spur down here that the uh trail that backs it in and then pulls down on the last page of the we show how
the different areas are are accessed. So that rear drive really isn't necessary. It's not critical to the operation. It is for his daily, you know, his his small truck uh uh big up trucks and and how many trips a day is
that? Yes. I think we said no more than four a day. I think there's a note on on the plan, Scott, about that. Right. And is that four or five? And is that one way now? Yeah.
Which direction? Yeah, that's it's one way out, right? Um, moving on. So, we don't know. Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead. I want to know if we're down to building
design. No, we're I'm still on number six. So if if that is going to be eliminated, a phasing plan would have to be shown. We'd have to see a truck turning template that if that northern spruce lane drive does get eliminated in February of 2029, what that
configuration would look like um would need to be identified and that has not been submitted or reviewed. You're talking about the uh the back driveway? Yes. Yeah. It's only supposed to be small trucks, so
They should be able to get in and out of there. My problem is the is the uh other driveway where it's coming out is waiting for the engineer to uh address that cuz he doesn't have the turning
templates on the spruce street entrance. And I uh that's where the public is and that's where we want to make sure that they can get in and out without disturbing
either side of the road. So the applicant's going to going to agree to add turning templates. Yeah, we we we had the template coming out of here. So it'll be the same template coming out of here. And this is a wider drive, so it'll be an easier
maneuver. It won't be again, this won't be tractor trailer coming out here. Um, well, then the plan then the plan should probably indicate a limited use vehicle use for that drive.
Well, what was that? I I couldn't see where you were saying. We thought said that tractor trailers wouldn't be using this drive. They're not going to use that. So then the tractor and trailer is only going to be coming in and out of Martin Highway, right?
Big difference. And and I guess we can sign that, you know, sign that entrance so that uh trucks, tractor trailers know not to they will know because they'll they'll be familiar with the site. But we can
sign that. All right, guys. If we adequately covered well D7 I think we um we've seven seven I think we've we've covered already in the first hour of this hearing.
Um and then just the second or last paragraph we indicated that there was testimony that a um an updated report or the last paragraph an updated report would be provided which I don't which has not been provided
from an LSRP right um outdoor storage line we've covered well item number eight we still don't have the applicant indicated that they would provide documentation from an RS LSRP or D that the home can
be reoccupied. That has not been provided. Right. Right. That's that's a helpful comment, but we have covered in detail that discussion in the first hour. Yes. But the testimony from Mr. Wigle was
that he didn't see any reason why it couldn't be. And I I don't know that that means it can be or cannot be. So absent that documentation, I don't I don't know how the board um would view
that, but it was it was agreed that it would be provided previously the documentation and it has not been. All right. Uh the outdoor storage material 9 we've talked about.
Yeah. So so apparently that will all be eliminated. Yeah. In the plan there's no on the plan saying no outdoor storage. Right. Just proposed 10 and 11 dealing with um trash handling.
Yeah. The private hauler. Uh and Mr. Livingston will contract with a private hauler and make sure that pickup and delivery are within time frames spec specified. Does that include waste oil?
I don't generate any waste oil. You don't generate any waste oil in cleaning or refinishing metal products. No waste oil. Are there any waste liquids?
No. I have harsh harsh detergents that we use. Basically just a a harsh a harsh soap like it's not. And how are those disposed of? I'm sorry. They dissipate once you once you clean
them just dissipates. It evaporates. You mean on into the grass? No, we don't clean enough. So, we clean. Well, that that's what I'm asking. So, you use a a solvent harsh detergent
inside the building and that gets on the floor and then does it go into a drain? There's No, there's no drains. It just basically We don't use a lot of it and it's not we don't have like a power area. It just uh dissipates
the back, right? So, it's just left on the floor. um any buildings that are required to be accessible and accessible where it needs to be shown from accessible parking to each one of the buildings um as required
by the barrierfree sub code. Yeah. And I we discussed I think we provide accessible route to the to the main building office building. That's where employee activity would be. Um and we'll I think we need to add a first
floor elevation to show uh accessibility. We'll we'll do that. But there are multiple buildings where employees will occupy including including building employees, right? The only primary building is the
large. So employees will only go into one the one large building. Yes. Okay. So, how do things get in and out of the the storage area? Which which building?
Building four and your other metal. The one with the mezan. Yes. It's it's it's classify as the same thing as a storage container. It's go in there very very periodically.
Not trying to be classified just like a storage. That's all it is. Well, it's So, it's covered under It's covered under the building sub code though. Correct. Because it's a building. A storage container is not a building.
Correct. Right. It's a It's a temporary storage container. This is a a building that's covered by the International Building Code. So, Marty, are you requiring a handicap
parking space for this building? No. What I what I said in my comment was if the building is required to be accessible under the construction co sub code, the New Jersey barrierfree sub code
requires that an accessible route be provided from an accessible parking space to all buildings on site that are required to be accessible. That is a building. It's not a shipping container. If it's required to be accessible, if there are two buildings on site, three
buildings on site, and they're required to be accessible, correct, by the construction code, there has to be an accessible route from the accessible parking to each one of those buildings. Correct. So, you will provide the accessible route to the extent that the buildings
are required to be we'll meet the code accessible. Um I think 13 is relatively simple. Um sign is withdrawn. Sign sign is withdrawn.
15 is the parking issue. Well is a a parking discuss that a parking issue. You'll agree to that? Yes. E is a whole series of building design questions. Um, we have no architectural plans. Are they? Why? Why not? Why Why
haven't they been submitted? We're not modifying. We're just painting them. We have no plan. We're paying the building. Question of modifying. We have no plans. Well, usually architectural plans are for building building construction. We're we're just
painting the building and putting new doors on. So, we'll we'll provide details of the doors that we're we're going to install and uh provide color palette of of what the proposed uh colors will be. But at the
at the October 14th, 24 meeting, the applicants team agreed to pro provide floor plans and elevations because this is a site plan hearing and it's also necessary for the adequate evaluation of the park and that still
has not been provided. The floor plans are the building footprints basically. I mean I there's there's really no rooms the build the footprints of the building are the are basically the floor plan. Um
we provide the calcul the parking calculation based on the square footages. So based on your analysis then Mr. comes the the workshop and storage area of the main building,
building three. Um, which portion of that building is used for storage and which portion is used for workshop? It really doesn't matter because the parking is the same proposed. Where is that parking in your ordinance?
Um, industrial storage and repair is the is the use category. It's one per 750 square feet. That's that's what we are. What are the other categories? What this building was used for prior to
this? What was the the use of the building? Ralph, what what they used it for? Yes. What did Reich use it for? I I don't Reason I'm asking from my construction point of view is that this is a change of use, right? The construction official has a
right under the IBC to make sure that the new use meets the code requirements. The use from rife oil was not to do storage or for equipment and maintaining that. So that's going to come into play.
If this gets approved, then you're going to have to have an architectural set of plans for the interior side of that building for him to be able to occupy that. and knowing that where the storage is versus the use of
dealing with the equipment that's going to come into play, right? Just so just so you understand, if he if that's what he needs to do for his construction permit, then I guess I'll have to do that. But I'm saying for parking, it's the it's the same storage and repair.
So, you're requesting a waiver from the board from submitting the floor plans and elevations. Yeah. I mean, I think I heard, like I said, would be a photo. I think I heard he agreed to do that. I I I'll I'll submit details of the doors and then photos of the of the
buildings elevations. So, so what are the building improvements that are proposed? Mr. No siding repairs, repair gutters, fascia. Well, we're we're trying not to guess.
We've you you guys have offered you have you agreed to at prior hearings provide floor plans and elevations and detailed information about the beautifification of the site and the buildings that the board relied upon and the grant of the use variance. Our ordinance requires it.
It's been in all four or five of our letters. you previously agreed to provide this. We're at the last presumably the last meeting. It still has not been provided. So, I'm not clear. And frankly, your list of what
you've said you're going to do to the buildings has not been the same twice. So, I I don't know what I don't know what's going on at the building. So, I would recommend changing. What color? What color is it being
painted? Whatever you recommend [Music] are look the bottom line is when we deal with these building design issues. Do you agree to present architectural plans as described in the letter and
provide a definitive detailed list of any improvements to the building whether they be deemed structural or cosmetic? Yes or no? Simple as simple question.
So, those will be submitted to the board for review in advance of a future hearing. Yes. All right. Lighting comments. Number um number F on page six of eight. Scott, are you Will you comply? Will you Yep. Will you
comply with any of any or all or none of those, Mr. Combmes? Uh yeah, we agree with with all of them. Agree to all of them. Gee, landscape. One the one thing we talked about, Scott, was the house side shields where
we have house side shield on the one light, right? Would require that's already shown. All right. So four is okay as is. We we agree with and the landscape comments I assume
based on our meeting you can comply with those today. I I will do what we had discussed at our meeting and that includes the recommendations from the um environmental commission. Yep. Um how will you change with if you take
out those that row of offering trees or whatever in front of that one building and put the driveway that way? Um, that's your evalu trees. I don't know if they're Well, I didn't do the count. Scott asked us to have a phasing plan.
So, based on this change that we're going to make, we'll have a plan that shows what's going to happen before this is removed. And then what what will happen after you were you planning to put the trees in while it's storage or
you're talking about this area? Yeah, there's stuff parked there. Everything everything uh that's in these areas will step because that's in the buffer. Um we'll add additional plantings in this area where the the truck storage is. Okay. And then these trees will have to be
relocated or replaced with something else because the the drive will come around here and run right along the edge of the buff. So these will stay. These can stay but these two trees. Okay. So that one row of will stay. These can stay.
Okay. And what are those? I Which kind of were those shade trees? What were those? Are there ever these are shade trees? Small. All right, Scott. Are we done with yours? MF
the board if if we're returning for architectural floor plans and elevations, perhaps that phasing plan should also be submitted and reviewed by the board. Agreed. Do you agree? Council
slee, do you agree to that? Yes. All right. I All right. Are we going to um we're going to move on to the um move on to the Alimo report. Marty, you want to go through that and
let's see if what we have in terms of agreement? Oh, we uh when we did our our letter, we kind of uh shortened it up by uh
um outlining it like at each paragraph the uh ending uh thing saying where either you're missing like for Yeah, let's go through the one of the bigger items was the uh storm
water management report in 24. It says it's satisfied and then it says the submitted storm water analysis adequately addressed the comment that we had. So that tells you that that that comment was was addressed. We
we only need to go through all of them along Marty. We only need to go through the items that are um either uh partially resolved or uh not satisfied.
Uh or pending, let me put it that way. So, as I go through these, um, I may be missing some, but you'll stop me if I'm wrong. Uh, the number eight, we're looking for a parking waiver.
Yep. Parking wa. I think we've talked about the parking uh and um their request for 12 versus 14 and they've given testimony of the number of uh employees to justify
their requests for 12. Um if we go down to 12 on yours, that's a paving issue. You want to address that? Um we we have a design waiver on that issue and where we where you stand
on that. They're not paving anywhere. So they're not had they don't have any uh any uh details for the for the paving because there's there is no paving. Everything's going to be stone everywhere. Right. And is it was it your
recommendation as I understood your letter that with the truck traffic that they're having, they're asking for a design waiver for the paving. So, right, it's up to that that leaves it to the board saying yes or no. But your recommendation, if I'm reading this
correctly, is that there should be um appropriate paving as described in paragraph 13 because of the heavy truck that that there supposed to be pavement. Yeah. All right. So, Mr. Deia, is the
applicant willing to agree to paragraph 12 on the paving issue or not? No, he's asking for a waiver. No, no, no. The question is addressed to Mr. Delia. Yeah, he's saying areas of ingress and egress, loading and unloading.
Yeah, I know what they are. The letter says it. The question is, do you agree to it or you don't agree to it? I'm trying to discern what I'm agreeing to. Yep. Interior the major interior drives suggested by you'll agree to it. Yeah.
Agree to third to 12. What do we pay? What do we pay? Everything. the plan. We can we talk about it for we agree. Um the front like that this front area
is probably the heavy traffic area. So these drives everything in front of the building um you know all of the travel ways almost all of the all of the gray area that you're showing. These are just pickup trucks and
What? Trucks are coming down as well. That's where your travel is. Pave it off. Okay. All right. So, it's agreed that the uh that the board's engineers paving
recommendations will be accepted and followed. The where we're moving, we're going to change that driveway. We leave that sewn until until we do the final uh alignment and then then pave that part everything
up to where that means you don't have a co until you have all the everything all done. I'm not if it if it's approved that way, we should be okay. Or you could buy the phase two.
Yeah. Okay. All right. So, there's a limited agreement on a limited deferral of certain pave paved areas. Marty,
what was that? Is there an agreement that they that there would be a limited deferral of certain paved areas be done at to be done at a later time? Anywhere where they're doing travels
where it's going to be paved. It's like 50 ft of driveway that will be eliminated. Gentlemen, what what are we're working at counterpurposes here? I'm trying to get through this list. Uh we have the paving recommendation
from our engineer is to be blunt about it. Pave it all. And now you want to come back on that and pave less than all. Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah. Well, the the drive that we're going to relocate, I I thought it made
sense not to pave it, but we'll pave it all. Just rip it out then when we Thank you. Yeah. Will that change the water gun off a bit or minimally? It's like 0.98 versus 96.
All right. Um, Marty, your 26 is now satisfied. 26. That's just the test that indicate what kind of uh of pavement that you're going to have to have. Okay. So
would you agree to that as it seems to go hand in hand with the paving? Yes. Okay. General comments. Um they're primarily notations
on final plans that are standard. Yeah. Um that's 30 to 39. Yeah. I don't see anything in there that's Are they all agreed? Are they all agreed to?
Yes. Okay. Then we're into new comments. Well, you got number Did I miss something? Was a kind of a big thing. What did I miss something, Marty? You said number 40. Number 40. I haven't gotten to that yet,
but I will now. I was on 30 to 39, which are agreed to. number 40. I think we spent the first hour of this hearing on that issue and the answer is they haven't done it.
Um let's do with 41 uh pads under the uh under the sea boxes or the contain or the trailers. I'm sorry. Yeah. Um I'm trying to deal with 41 to 45. Yeah.
41 is pads under the trailers. Concrete dolls. Yeah. Agre 41 is agreed to 42. Yeah. Yeah. They said yes already. It's actually on the plan already. Yeah.
43 um temporary truck storage area. Yeah, that's that's in the uh I think in the use variance the date is February I think February 29th.
Okay. Agreed to. Yep. 44. 44 is that uh they said they're not going to have the tractor and trailers coming out on Spruce Street. So that kind of uh minimizes that. All right. That's the lane that the the
witness has described as being used primarily by pickup trucks and the like. Correct. Okay. So they've agreed to that by modifying the use of that particular driveway. and 45 is just an administrative note
that you would do anyway. All right, Marty, anything else that we need to cover on your letter of um August 28th, 2025? I think that's it. Great. Thank you very much. Um,
with regard to anything else, Scott, have we uh have we missed anything? Uh, no. I don't know if Mr. Crumbs was going to put any proofs on the record relative to the variances. Well, uh, I'm I'm I'm going to get to that, but I want to just talk about our
our letter, your letters, Marty, Marty's letter, your letter. We've covered everything. You've addressed everything. Okay. So, Mr. Deia, any additional testimony from your from your planner? Yeah. For for the variances, um the the
building setback is an existing condition. Um we're not making it any worse. Uh or changing it in any way. Um the the buffers is unique unique situation affecting the property that it's surrounded by three roads. Uh
imposing 50-foot buffers um on all those in all those areas would substantially uh you know be a hardship on the applicant. Um consuming a large uh portion of the property unusable for um
for uh making even the existing improvements uh unusable. um the uh uh uh waivers, you know, we've addressed u a lot of the waivers, but with regard to the variances, we we think uh that they can be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good. This application is going to result in significant improvements to the site. Um, we're providing the the 25 foot uh buffers, planted buffers uh to provide uh improvements and and
screening of the of the proposed use. Um, you can see the 25- ft cleared area as uh as a significant uh uh impact on on the adjoining properties. And as far as um
that substantially impairing the intent purpose of the zone plan um it was a use variance granted a plan was presented um for the use variance um I think at that time was clear that that relief relief
was going to be needed um for the proposed use. So, um, given that it's not a permitted use in the zone, it's an existing, uh, uh, non-conforming use that's that was on the site. Um, we don't think that, uh, you know, the relief that
we're requesting would impair the intent of the zone plan, which is uh, basically a residential based on residential uh, uses. um impervious cover. Like I said, ultimately we're going to be reducing impervious cover from the existing
condition. So, uh we think that's uh that's an improvement. All right. Thank you. I have a question. Do where does this stand with the county? Did you guys do any kind of preliminary or anything that we know that they are going to okay this truck coming out and all the the stuff
in the Okay. All right. The board members have any other questions? This witness professionals any other questions? Yes. Okay. Mr. Dia, you're back on back on
your feet. any other testimony you want to provide? Um, no, we're we're we're not we'll submit on that. All right. So, I'm going to ask for public comment and then you can make a final summation. Thank you. Is there any member of the public uh who
uh wants to make a comment on this application? If so, raise your hand and be recognized. I don't know. Is that a hand raised, sir? I I can't tell you. Yeah. Come forward to the podium to be
sworn and give your name. Sir, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give or give the truth to truth? I do. Randy Johnson, 11 Maple Lane, Paintport. I have multiple questions here.
Basically, hours of operation through Saturday. No Sundays like now. Okay. Uh, days a week and property maintenance once this get done because it looks like now.
Uh, we don't use that language in here. Time frame for getting this completion. I heard 29. That's utterly ridiculous. It's been that way for so long. It should be cleaned up quicker. All right. Let me stop you, sir. This is
a time for comments. Um but um please eliminate the sides any traffic going on into Maple Lane. Answer no.
There's a gate there now. That's what I'm asking. That gate will be done away. Okay. I did hear the fuel tank that's still there behind the gas station is going to be removed. Uh that's what the testimony says. Yep. Yes.
Okay. Uh and then site plans for the works and like I said 29. That's it. You're finished. That's it. Mr. Chairman, if I can just clarify one point raised by Mr. Johnson. He said
yes. 2029 for the implementation of the improvements. That would only be for the closure of the northern spruce lane drive to reconfigure it through the site. If if the applicant were to obtain an approval, all of the site improvements
would be required to be installed and completed prior to the business being able to res receive a TCO to be lawfully used on the site. Did you understand that, Mr. Johnson? Yes.
Okay. Any other members of the public wanting to speak? Hearing none, we'll close. Oops. Sorry, didn't see you. Come on up to the podium and give us your name and be sworn in.
Michael Miller, two Air Sound Road, Southampton Township, New Jersey. Miller, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give will be the truth all? I do. Mr. Miller, you've testified before this point on on this matter, correct? On a prior occasion, correct? Correct. Okay.
Yes, I did testify and I'm going to be brief because I know the hour and I appreciate the words that have to sit here forever. Uh the basic theme of this for me is uh 18 months working with the organization coming to a culmination
point maybe tonight. uh 10 years working on this property from the beginning through all of the environmental issues there, the books that you have that are this thick of things that were done, approaches that were made, I've come to
a conclusion. No matter what you do tonight, it's a mistake. The question is, is it a big mistake or a little mistake? And from my perspective as a real estate broker dealing with potential people that would look at this
site and buy it, the contamination is the issue. It's going to be the issue for him. It's going to be the issue for all you as part of the residents of this town. Most of you know, and I I'm reiterating
myself, there are a number of contaminated sites in this town already that have languished for many years. How are they going to be cleaned up? The state has a limited amount of money. Grants might be available to you. There
may be ways in which this can be done, but the local officed officials are going to have to make decisions about money. It's not about paint on a roof. It's not about that. It's about how do you bring safety to your town.
Eliminating the contamination is a thing. Now, I would sell this property on behalf of the estate that owns it to any one of you if you were willing to step up and take the burden of an unknown. Because that's what
contamination is. It's an unknown. When somebody steps up and says they're going to put their money up for me to clean up the town's contamination, I'd say listen to them. It's a big factor. Perhaps, and I see, as I say, a little
mistake. Yeah, we might make a mistake on the fence we put in the place or what truck goes in or out or how it goes in or out, but he's paying for the contamination cleanup. the responsibility is his, not the taxpayers
of the town. You have somebody willing to do that. All this other stuff tends to be manageable. Yes, it's not ideal. That's where the little mistake comes into play. Are you going to get it perfect? No, you're not going to get it perfect. It's not available to get it
perfect. There's no perfect solution. The big mistake is when that person doesn't take it up, this is going to end up on the township rolls in my opinion just as those other properties did because nobody wants uncertainty in
their life. Nobody wants to see how much is it going to cost me and at some point it's going to cost the township because at some point it's going to default into a tax sales uh situation. And when it does, the next thing you're
going to know is you're going to go out for bids to knock down the buildings because that's the first thing you clear the lot because it happened on Route 38. It happened in another couple spots. I guess what I'm uh appealing to is you can take and it's not is it the best
use? I won't say it's the best use. the the people that initially approached me probably eight years ago and came into the town and said they were going to put affordable housing up. Everybody said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's great. There's a place with affordable housing right
across the road." I'm sure they'd love to expand on that property, but if I say to them, and I have to disclose as a broker to any potential person, there's contamination issues, they say, "Well, uh, no, we don't think we want it."
That's part of your decision as this board. You're looking out, and I apologize for saying that in the context, the context meant correctly, that there's more than just this. There's the big picture on this. How do we look at the big picture for the town?
How do we take care of a safety issue? And that's where little mistake or big mistake is going to be made. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Any other I saw a hand go up. Please come forward. Give us your name.
Be sworn in. Alexander Barto 1402. Tasker. Sir, you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth. Full truth. Nothing but truth. Yes. Alexander, you've testified before this board on this matter before. Yes, sir. All right. Please can I present you guys with some
documents that Well, you tell us. You can first tell us what they are. Um, well, this is where he came from from Pottstown. And this is a news article came out April of last year. Um, you know, he purchased the property through
sheriff sale uh in 2015. Just to go off of what's here, it says after Livingston ignored the property maintenance citations for years, the burough took him into district court for violating zoning code and in 2021 won a $12,000 judgment. Uh the maximum allowed
by the law took him more than a year to clean up the junk. So he's been down this road before. He basically moved everything from Pottstown to here. And you know, I I there's pictures here. This is a news article from Pottstown just to give you guys an idea of what he
dealt with before. It's the same thing he's doing here. He's Well, we're not going to accept the the hearsay news article, but we'll accept your testimony. It's it's from Pottstown's website. I mean, I pulled off the township website. You guys can reference it and go on their website if you would like, but Right. I I understand. We're hearing
from you, though. Yeah. I mean, the the fact of the matter is is that um this has been druggone for so long and a lot of it's his own doing. You know, he says he's got $100,000 in his property. Most of that's probably to the board for all the delays over two
years, paying the taxes on the property for two years. Um I think we're just getting to a point and we've gotten to a point. I think everybody sees it. The writing's on the wall. Um he hasn't done what he said he was going to do thus far. Why are we gonna, you know, take his word that he's going to clean this
property up? Why is he going to take care of it now? Um he was supposed to sign an LSRP per his contract within the first 90 days. We're now two years down the road. He's only had one for 90 days. And those fines that um Mr. Wel had referred to, they were all his doing.
You know, the fines that have acrewed over the past two years from D were because there was no LSRP assigned. I testified in front of this board before that that was a problem. I stressed it. It's not like this man didn't know this was going on. I stressed this. The whole
LSRP situation was a nightmare. The D cleanup is a nightmare and it's mostly his doing. Again, he signed a contract. I have the contract. I've read the contract. Lawyers have looked at the contract. He's breached the contract. You know, we're on bar time now. We're delaying. We're stalling. We're You
know, I I think we're just wasting time here. and to move forward. I mean I again this isn't something that Hansport needs. That property has so many uses that be can done with it. It's just that I think you know the professionals that were involved were not the correct
professionals. You know who they hired um from start to finish. Everybody obviously he knows he hired an engineer he fired hired a new one. Um you know they're trying to push this as a commercial property but the wrong kind of commercial. They're going light industrial. I don't think that's the proper use for the property. I think
there's a million other things that we could put in there that could bring value to this town and that's just not it. What he's trying to do is not what this property needs. Okay. Thank you. I just have one question. What is your relationship to the property? Uh it's my my father, grandmother,
they're all part of the estate. So I'm just I'm related to them, but I'm not in the estate. You you don't take under the under the will? Nope. Nothing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other uh public comment?
Another Okay. Come forward, sir. Give us your name, your address, and be sworn. Tom Barto Spruce Lane. Sir, do you swear or affirm the testimony give will be the truth or truth but truth? Yes, sir. Name again.
Tom Barto. Spell the last name. B is in boy. A R T O. Thank you. Go ahead. And I am one of the inheritors of the property. All right. Well, that's good to know. Chief Spruce Lane is across the street.
It's my stuff that's in one section. Part of the D issue is that there's a test well on my property. Nobody has addressed that. It's still an open test well on my property. What do you think that does to my property value? This is a fairy tale. This is never
going to happen. This man referring to the site plan that we This is never he's this man is never going to do this. And I resent the hell that he's being held up like some messiah who's going to clean up this property. He won't even mow the grass. He doesn't even pick up the trash. Okay? He opened
one of his containers months ago and drug a bunch of crap out and it's still out all over the place. So you want to clean up the ground underneath? That's great. You're going to be staring at a junkyard until you go through what Pottstown or whatever went through to get rid of him. It will take years to do
it. I was talking to my mother today. She's going to step down as the executive tricks of the uh the state. And much to my regret, I'm going to step up and be the executive of it. So, at least there'll be somebody
making some decisions and trying to put some guidance into some of this mess. I mean, this has become an absolute mess. I'm going to have to hire a lawyer to sort through this stuff, but this is not the way to go. This is never going to happen.
Any questions? Mr. Bartau, do you The well on your property? Yes. Have you ever been given any results of any testing done on that well? The water the soil contamination came up
okay, but then the water was not okay. The levels were too high. That was years ago. I've never heard a thing about it since other than it's still an an open well, meaning an active well. Nobody has come back and said, "It's clean. We're going to close it up. It's not capped
off or whatever it is. Thank you, sir. All right. One more time. Anybody else in the public that has any comments?" So, I'd like to make a comment. Well, let me just finish this and find out if there's anybody online. There's no one
online. There's no one online. All right, we'll close the public comment now. Kathy, your question. So, I'd like to comment on Mr. Miller's comment. Me and Mr. Miller have known each other for years. So, this is with all due respect. This is also all due
respect to the uh applicant's attorney, Mr. Livingston, and his other professionals. This board and the members of this board and my professionals have been more than patient with this
application. There have been things in these resolutions that were put in there for a reason and they were expecting for the applicant to provide this testimony and all this
paperwork over the past two years. We met myself, Miss Costco, Mr. Taylor, we met the applicant at an EDAC meeting when this started. What was that? Probably a good three years ago, if not longer. And
the point of it is that we have been promised things from day one. These people have been more than patient. They have asked questions. They have been giving in this sense to extend things to help out and we're at the
point now where we were supposed to have things in July and we were supposed to have things years before. They were hoping that this application would go through more smoothly. They granted the use
variance based on the testimony. And here we sit today after literally four years and we're no better than what we started at. And the point is is that at what point do you expect the township,
Mr. Miller, and I understand your position and your comments were understood. At what point do you think that they should just allow this to keep dragging on and there's been not 100% given to
them as they are trying to give to the applicant. With that said, thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, no, it's not necessary. We don't we don't have a It's not a debating society, Mr. Mr. Miller. It's not a debating society.
Thank you. Mr. Deleia, give you five minutes to sum up. Thank you. Um, I uh share all that frustration. Um, I come out here and any number of
times thinking that uh we were totally ready to go forward and then I heard the cross-examination. Um, I have to be partial at least partially uh responsible for that. That doesn't change the fact that when the
first meeting we had before the variance was granted, my point was this is zoned residential. In my years of practicing law, I can tell you
that this property is not going to be built for residential. The point of Mike uh uh Mike's testimony was that he has been marketing this property for how many years? And he's
had residential developers who all ran for the hills when they heard about the contamination. You're going to have to find something if you want this to get back on the uh to stay on the tax roles and uh provide
something for the community. uh you're going to have to consider something other than residential. What we have presented to you is a very light what to me is a light industrial.
You take a he takes an oven, he takes it apart, he fixes it and and sells it. There will be no outside storage. I distressed by what I what I saw. But there will be no
outside storage or Kathy's going to be there every day issuing a issuing an a a a complaint. The this is the best use for this property because no matter whether the
cost of the remediation is 600,000 or 600, you're going to get it cleaned up. and you're not going to get it cleaned up with residential. I respectfully submit that. And I know you're not going to approve and give me
8,000 uh uh uh conditions of approval and nor do I think you should, but we've had the LSRP come in. We've heard your questions and concerns. We know we can answer them. Uh there are a handful of
issues with regard to the other professionals and to abandon this opportunity to clean up this property I respectfully submit is a mistake for the township as well as the applicant and on that I'll
submit. I thank you by the way. All right. Thank you Mr. D. Uh let me just say a few words. Um, we have listened to a lot of testimony in this case and I'm going to speak now as one board
member and not for the ward. But in my view, the township has had problems with this applicant for the entire three or five year period uh that this matter has been before this township as
a body and this board as a body. and uh getting cooperation from the applicant has been difficult uh and I think the record clearly uh explains the difficulties uh that
we've had over the years and um our code enforcement official has summarized them uh in brief just a moment ago. Um there are there are other
choices that we could make here, but one of the things that we asked this applicant to do is to cooperate with us. And I think there are questions in my mind and qu maybe questions in other
board members minds about whether we've received cooperation uh from this applicant. And to the extent we have, it seems to have been rung out of him uh by our persistent and
repeated calls for information, many of which are still unsatisfied. As we said here today, although we've had promises again tonight that they will be satisfied, but uh promises do not
satisfy the requirements that this board has and especially when the promises have been broken so many times and excuses made for non-compliance and the like.
So um I think the credibility of this applicant has been substantially damaged by his own acts in pursuing this. We granted a use
variance some time ago now based upon condition that there would be a successful application uh for a site plan and the necessary
waiverss and variances that would have to go with that site plan approval. And I think in large part the testimony and the evidence have not satisfied the
requirements for the site plan. And our grant of the variance is now in at least in my mind substantially in question because it was a it was a
uh it was a variance a use variance that was granted by this board based upon certain assumptions that we made in good faith that seem to have been
uh completely disproven, certainly undermined by the evidence and the testimony that's come since then. So, if you could put this board back into the to the day that we voted on this use
variance subject to the condition of site plan. Had we known then what we know now, it may be that that variance wouldn't have been granted at the time. And of course, this doesn't mean at the
end of the case if the act applicant could get his act together, and I'm sorry to use the colloquial, but it's frankly the way I feel. Um, then, you know, perhaps he comes back before this board with a new
application. But at this point uh this member feels that there are tremendous problems in satisfying the site plan requests uh application that has that has been made.
And so um if the motion is made uh that was pre that I previously asked to be withheld for the moment to hear the rest of the testimony pursuant to your request, Mr. Dia. Uh, and uh, I'm glad we did hear it because it was informational.
Uh, if that motion is made again, this member is going to vote uh, to grant the motion. May I just be heard on one thing. I believe and I what I was trying to present and
apparently I didn't do it and get it through is this is a use that is going to clean up the property. I agree with you. There's all kinds of bumps along the way. I said that earlier when Paula made the motion.
I I can't deny that. But to the extent that this is the unique use that is going to clean up this property, it's not an affordable housing developer. It's not a single family house developer. It's it it certainly isn't
going to be an intense industrial use. It's too close to all the residences. So you have a an industrial very light industrial use. No odors, no noise. Everything is done inside. Those were the things that justified the variance
and still do. We we get we we got into a discussion and I've talked with the LSRP and I I saw the same thing 600 400 to 600 uh 400 to 700. I mean we had all these other numbers and one of the
reasons for that is because you really don't know until you stick the shovel in shovels in the ground. you you have to do that. So whether whatever the number is, the extreme
probability that you'll never see a residential, you still have this kind of use that's light. It's quiet, doesn't smell, it's it's a it's a good use for this property, and it's the one that's going
to clean it up. That's my point. And I submit to you, Mr. Dia the phrase the end doesn't justify the means came into my mind as I was hearing
your the end product as you explain it is a worthy target to try to reach but the manner in which this applicant has gone about it is deficient in many many respects in my opinion and I you you know I respect that
opinion. I only ask you to consider that it's still the best choice that you have. I hear you. You listen, Mr. Dele. I I I want to tell you, I've tried a lot of cases in my career, which is now over, but uh I I got to tell you, you've done
an excellent job representing your client here. Um I think no one could have done better. Uh and I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. All right. Can I have a motion? Um, may I before I make my motion state my reasons? Sure.
Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah, I would also like to commend all the professionals here tonight. Um, it was a difficult case and I think you individually did a fantastic job. Um, so I just want to first address Mr. Miller's comments with regards to some of the sites in Hannesport. Um, as the
administrator I'm very well verssed on Brownfields. Yes, we acquired Paul's Tank Farm. Yes, we acquired HIPCO through tax foreclosure and we've been actively um doing testing, assessments, remediation. We've received HDSRF funding. We have
LSRPs. We have we're currently in an EPA pro uh grant cycle right now for remediation. Uh we've also been accepted into the BDA program. So, I'm very well aware of um all the intricacies and challenges and difficulties with uh remediation and cleaning up sites, especially because Hannesport did
acquire two of them in the manner in which you you said could potentially happen with this site. Um with regards to my original motion, I just want to continue to further um discuss that. Um you know, the extensive
various variance relief currently with this this application um also adds to my uh I'm not being convinced that these variances will subst uh will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of our zone plan as well as our
zoning ordinance. Um there's a significant number of variances here and I am not sure that uh the granting of these variances will not have a substantial detriment to the public good. Um I as you recall voted no on the
use variance. Um I do stand by my original request for a motion um based on uh the testimony or the lack thereof and the uncertainty that Mr. Miller talked about that we've endured for the past several years u with this particular application specifically the
promise of an LSRP which was made in 2023. We have testimony um we it was stated that the residential use was not going to be allowed. Um it's our job to protect the public safety and health of
our community. It's our job to ensure that applicants when they come in that their project is going to better the community. I'm not convinced that that's going to happen. Um concerned again about the health and welfare, you know, until there's further
testing conducted and a professional or a D certifies that um somebody can go back into that home is permissible. There's currently no documentation reflecting that that this vacant home which has been vacant for a long time
um is going to be affected by the property that it's on whether it's contaminated or adjacent property. We don't even know if it can be occupied and you're asking us to make a decision without having the facts. So again, um I again make a request to the board to
consider a motion um to dismiss this case. Okay. to be precise about it. Do you renew the motion that you previously agreed to postpone? Yes, in addition to all the other uncertainty surrounding it. Do I have a second?
Second. Okay, Miss Costco. Yes, Mr. Mai. Yep. Mrs. Tory. Um, yes. I just want to say that um I really pulled for you guys. I was really hoping that this was going to work and um I understand that you want to clean
up this property and I really really want to see this property cleaned up but I've been it's coming on two years almost for me now so I've seen the delays and I remember at the last meeting we believe we passed a resolution that this had to be finished
that we were going to extend it and this is have had to be finished and I and I was really hoping that um that was going to be the case But there's so many issues that still are not resolved and I just at this point I am going to um go
along with the professionals Paula's recommendation. They've been at this longer than me and so I'm going to vote in favor of her motion. So I will vote no right yes I'm voting voting yes to approve the motion.
I am voting yes to approve her motion. Yes. Yes. Mr. Novita. Yes, Mrs. Leen. So, I just want to be clear, we're we're dismissing the case, not voting no on the case. So, the case is just thrown thrown out as opposed to disapproving
it. Or is it the same thing? Well, I I think it's a denial. My concern is that the original use variance is not has no standing based on Okay. the testimony. So, it would be denying. Yes. My motion is to deny. And I would just
like to say that if we just had the the plan of just something in writing that showed that there was, you know, some action and I feel like if you spent the $100,000, $5,000 in 40 days or whatever it is would have been worth it to have come here, especially since there was a
delay from July to October. Um, so I'm going to vote yes as well. Mayor Gilmore, yes. Mr. Murphy, yes. Mr. McCay. Yes.
To be clear, this could only be a dismissal without prejudice. Bob, the original approval was contingent upon a site plan approval. Correct. So, I think you're back to square zero.
It's it's not I I can't say it's without prejudice or with prejudice because you would have to come back with something different or significantly modified from the presentation without prejudice. If it was with
prejudice, you're saying you don't want us to to work on I don't think the board is saying that. I'm sorry. I don't think the board is saying that. The motion was to dismiss.
Well, may I also add that I also for the record express concerns with the extensive number of variances with the current application that it doesn't satisfy the proofs of being a benefit to the community. It doesn't outweigh
the detriments. No, no, I'm not I'm not working. Mr. Deleia, the motion says what it says. um whether um you could start with a clean slate and come back before this board on with
another use application with site plan approval uh either separately or perhaps joined together. That's a decision you and your client have to make. Thank you. Board can't give you advice on that.
Understand? Have a good night. Good night. All right, gang. Let's uh finish up this agenda. Um we have meeting minutes from June 23, 2025. You'll recall that was the meeting
on the fair housing plan. And can I have a motion to approve the minutes as as written? So move. Second. I'm sorry, who said second? Over it. Air conditioner going. Can't hear that. I hear it. Mayor Gilmore, yes.
Mr. Novarita, yes. Mrs. Sporty, yes. Mutton, yes. Mr. Murphy, yes. Miss Costco, yes. Mr. Mai, yes. And Mr. McKay, yes. Uh, we have a batch of correspondents. Um, if anyone wants to address any
particular correspondents, we can do so. Otherwise, a motion to accept and file all correspondence listed is in order. So moved here. Second. Roll call.
Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mrs. Tory. Yes. Mr. Novarita. Yes. Mrs. London. Yes. Mr. Murphy. Yes. Miss Costco. Yes. Mr. Mai. Yes. And Mr. McKay? Yes. Uh, next item, professional comments.
Well, we've certainly had a lot of professional comments tonight, but is there anything brief that either of you want to add? I think I'm all out. I thought it comes as no surprise. And uh Marty, uh we may not we may not
see you at this board again. Yes, I have one comment. I'd like to thank the board for this experience I had for these last 14 14 years. And uh I
uh really thank you and I really appreciate it. We thank you for your service. Thank you, Marty. I hope you're keeping busy in your retirement. I have a feeling you are. All right. Um
board comments. One. One. Go ahead. Forgive me. Um not understanding the whole process. So, take a couple of minutes. When we go through these applications, um, our professionals are great. They
bring up all these issues and they agree, disagree. Can all that be done before we have a board meeting so that the board only addresses things that are uh not agreed upon and maybe a waiver or whatever. I could address that, but Bob, you want
to address that comment? Is that possible? I'm sorry, I didn't hear Um, we have these uh needs on applications, right? Um, I thought a long list of things
and all that time and they do a great job resolving most of the issues. So my question is can the board just focus on those things that are not in agreement and are waivers or call that
if there's I mean you get the the applicant agrees to the engineers report and the planner's report you generally don't have to go over those items because they agree. So whenever possible, I know Marty's
office and our office on any application if it's very small and there's a couple issues, we come in here, they say we agree to 13, five and seven, we want to talk about these two and it's up to their that's their prerogative. Mhm.
On bigger applications, we always try to urge them revise the plans, show us clean up as much as possible so the board can compartmentalize their discussion, right? Um it's hard to do that on on a very small thing because you don't want to
necessarily waste them with additional engineering revisions and stuff. So it's it's trying to strike that balance. We do push as you know we've had the same comment in our in in let me talk hypothetically there have
been applications where the same comment we've asked for the same thing numerous times and it is just not provided and sometimes they need to sometimes applicants need to be bludgeoned by the board members because I can ask till I'm blue in the face and
because I don't vote right but once somebody says provide this and if a board member is not satisfied and you actually want to see a certain architecture, a certain this, a certain that, say, thank you so much. Please
submit that and we'll come back next month and hear the rest of your application. If they think they can get away with a halfbaked thing and whatever, there are applicants that do that as a matter of course, but I know we try to get it packaged up as cleanly as possible.
Yeah. And I'm I'm just saying once you've gone through that process, can the board just focus on the things that are in disagreement or dangling. So you can and I I try to run through and basically say number three
and a good attorney and applicant will say we'll comply. Boom. Number four. I don't even have to read it, right? The very good applicants submit a written response letter that says item D1 will comply. D2 will comply. D3 will
provide testimony at the hearing. That becomes part of the record. It makes it go so smoothly. Wall Township, every application has that and they resubmit plans. Randolph because the hearings they limit to 50 minutes per night.
So the ops wants to come in, bang it out, and go. So we'll continue to try to push because we know that. Wasn't Randolph Estates like one of the best? Yeah. Randolph estates like you'll you'll you'll know. Well, we have had some
really good applicants come through and it has been seamless. The warehouses, all three of the warehouses were very clean. They had very good engineers, very good attorneys, very complex issues, but they actually went in one or two meetings.
Yeah. Um Walters Randolph was very concise, very professional. It was very seamless, I think, for us as a board. CB C CVS tonight CBS is a perfect example, right, of a of an experienced practitioner,
the lawyer, putting on what he has to put on because he has to put proofs on before us and that naturally leads to questions. But the proofs were were so well put together that there weren't that many questions. And when they went through
the professionals list, it was mostly agreed to. Yeah. And you know we we do get really really exemplary presentations where they will send a letter in
agreed agreed agreed agreed or where there's a disagreement a disagreement and a reason and then we can zone in on those which we have done. I don't know how long did it take us to deal with CVS? Half an hour. Yeah, something like that. And they took nothing out of it. They
sat here and listened to how it should have been done and you wanted to say, "Yeah, but that's how it should have been done." That's But it's a good point. It's a good point. Um, but we and we try to but by golly, I try
to do it keep it keep it down. But sometimes sometimes it's like hurting cats with applicants, you know, if the if the applicants attorneys or professionals aren't aren't prepared and a little, you know, little
little messy with their presentations. You got to you got to go point by point to get the uh the evidence in the record, especially if it's an application where this was tough. If I don't know which way the board is going to go and it might be a 34 vote or
four, three, five, two, whatever the number is, I want to make sure everybody is crystal clear that these are the things I still have a concern. This is the thing they haven't given us. They will do this one. So if for some reason a board were to deny an application,
Bob's job gets easier because the number of things was was really spelled out of the deficiencies. So if you if you hear a things that are in both of our reports that we both have a concern about, that means it's a more important thing. And
if and if I repeat it out loud a couple times, it means it's something I'm I'm probably close to around 4,000 applications that I've done over the last few years. Don't lie. 30 years. Um
that's all. And some of Yeah, I know. I know. But um cuz some of them are things that weren't a problem until they were. And that's why even the CVS thing, they're a great applicant and they're a great tenant to have. They're creating jobs. It's awesome.
They care. But so was writing 25 years ago and now we're all out of business. So trying to make sure that if that goes sideways 10, 20 years from now from now, we've got a little backup that we
can bring. I know how we can bring those folks back in. So, I'm trying to avoid not just the bad thing for the next 6 12 months, but where we've seen things go sideways for towns. Yep. Thanks. Yes, he does. All right. like to say real quick. We
had um I was going to say, do I hear a motion to I just wanted to say because I'm I'm new to the, you know, on the board and I just want to say that after this and everything we've done today that I'm proud to be on this board and I'm proud of, you know, I feel a little bad. I
know we all feel a little bad saying no to somebody. You know, you know, you want to know that somebody wants to do good and you want to you want to be behind them. You know what I mean? And I know everybody here kind of wanted the guy to be a winner. You know, we want we want everybody to be a winner when they come in front of us. And to say no to
somebody, you know, it it takes a little bit out of you. And I'm just I'm just proud to be part of a group of people that we all kind of felt the same. I think we all wanted him to be a winner, but we all won't we don't reach the limit. You know what I mean? There's a limit to things like this. And I think
we all reached it together. And I kind of feel proud to be part of a a board that we all we all got there together. You know, you know, I just I just wanted to say that's corny, but you know, I mean, but what happens to the use variance then if that was granted based on the
site plan? Does that go away? Does that What happens? That's a very good question. Just ask him. He has a use variance conditioned on a site plan approval. He doesn't have
site plan approval. It's been rejected. That's correct. Use variance evaporates essentially. Yes. That works. That's a good good answer. Right. Well, I think that's the question that Vince asked.
Well, Vince wanted us to do his research for with a new site plan that was half the size and met all the requirements. Does that prior use variance still carry forward?
So was my I tried to make it motion so that it it dealt with both the use variance and the site plan that there that there were too many variances there were too many relief too many variances for relief and that they
far they did not right. So that was denial. That's what I said, right? That it the proofs weren't made. I wasn't convinced that the proofs were there that that the site plan as it was presented and
all the variance requested was not consistent was not consistent with the but I don't think that it automatically rescended the grant of the use variance. It's just that this site plan was not consistent and the only other reason and I didn't talk to Bob.
We were functioning as a planning board tonight with the governing body members. So I don't know that we would actually have the authority to res the use varants which is granted by a zoning but it automatically walk out of the room so that
you take it right but it automatically negates because of the site plan the disapproved site plan. Okay. All right. Motion to adjurnn. Motion. Second. All in favor? I I negative. We're coming back here at 8:30 in the
morning. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, you can ask.