There we go. >> All right. Ready? >> I already did the wings span. mind you. >> Congratulations on being 40 under 40. >> Oh yeah. >> Oh yeah.
>> Now we're just >> congratulations. We'll say back in another era. I was too >> those first couple of >> those first couple of portraits. >> It already looks like it's from a
>> I don't know if they did digital the first few years. the pterodactyl. >> All right. >> Ready? >> Okay. >> All right. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Hillsboro Township Planning Board meeting of December 11th, 2025. Please
join me in salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Please be advised, this meeting has been
duly advertised according to section 5 of the Open Public's Meeting Act, Act, Chapter 231, Public Law 1975, otherwise known as Sunshine Law. Notice of the 2025 annual meeting schedules been provided to the officially designated newspapers. Township clerk posted on the
township's website and available here at the township municipal complex. In addition, application documents, plans have been made available on the township civic clerk website and at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting. Complete application files are available
in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the open public meeting notice. That may have a roll call of board members and also board and township professionals. Please. >> Mr. Flag, Miss Smith, Mr. Deb, and Mr. Smith are absent. Mr. Wagner
>> here. >> Mr. Radawitz >> here. >> Mr. Vitali >> here. >> Committee >> preselli >> here. >> Vice chair pen >> here. >> Here. >> Present. >> Ball >> here. >> Bernstein >> here. >> Smu >> here. >> And myself and the videographer are here. >> You sure?
>> I check. >> Okay. Welcome everybody. We have a few things before we get to our application this evening. First up, we have a number of meeting minutes for consideration. First one is regular minutes of July
10th of 2025. Mr. Bernstein, >> Mr. Wagner, committeeman Leani, Mayor Chikarelli, Vice Chair Pson, and yourself are eligible. >> Okay. May I have a motion to approve? >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Second.
>> Okay. Comments from DES. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Wagner. >> Yes. >> Uh, committee pan. >> Yes. >> Mayor Cherelli. >> Yes. Yes. Vice Chair Pen. >> Yes. >> Here. >> Yes. Next up, regular minutes of October 9th, 2025.
>> Mr. Vitali, Committeeman Leani, excuse me, Mayor Chikarelli, Vice Chair Pson, and the chair. Okay. Thank you. Motion to approve. >> So move. >> Second. >> All right. Let figure that one out. Comments.
>> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Vitali. >> Yes. >> Committee Leani. >> Yes. >> Morelli? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pen? >> Yes. Yes. >> Saraji. >> Yes. >> Next are the executive session minutes of June 5th, 2025. >> No, February 13, 2025.
>> Oh, I skipped. >> Okay, we'll do February 13, 2025. >> Mr. Wagner, Committeeman Leani, and the chair. >> Thank you. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Any comments from the day?
>> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Mr. Wagner. >> Yes. >> Committee. >> Yes. >> Chair Roi. >> Yes. Now, June 5th, 2025, executive session minutes. >> Mr. Wagner, Mr. Radoitz, Committeeman Leani, Mayor Cherelli, Vice Chair Pson, Chair.
>> Thank you. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Any comments? Hearing none. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Wagner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rowitz, yes. Money, >> yes. Mayor Chelli, >> yes. Vice Chair Pasen, >> yes. >> Sarra, >> yes.
July 10th, 2025 executive session minutes. >> Mr. Wagner, Committeeman Leani, Vice Chair Peace, and Chair. Thank you. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Any comments? Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Wagner, >> yes. >> Commani, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Bon, >> yes. >> May, >> yes. And last week's December 4th, 2025 executive session minutes. >> Mr. Wagner, Committeeman, Leani, Vice Chair Pson,
Chair. >> Thank you. Roll call, please. And now roll call. Boy, I'm skipping ahead. Is there I know I'm trying to come up. We got to get moving here. Is there a motion? >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Second.
>> Thank you. Comments. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Ragner, >> yes. >> Committani, yes. >> Vice Chair Pen, >> yes. >> Mayor Sarra, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Mr. Chairman, just for the board's uh edification, that will bring um all the executive session minutes uh
up to date. And as far as the regular minutes, it is only going to be uh November 13th, December 4th, and today's minutes that are not yet complete. We anticipate that January or February possibly.
>> We can't get them done by 10:00 when we're done. I >> if you wanted to reopen after >> you're >> Thank you. >> No, thank you and thanks for all the work for you guys this past weekend and these all caught up. Okay, we do not have any resolutions for
consideration. Uh we do have planning board business. You want me to announce or you want to announce? I guess I will. >> No, I'll do it. I'll take care of this. I'll let you do the second bullet. Okay.
So, seat number nine um was a resignation this week by uh Patty Smith, our board secretary that will be effective January 1 of 2026. I know she wasn't able to be here this evening. Um
but uh you know, life is moving on for her. We wish her well and do appreciate all of her time, you know, the years that she's has served here. Hopefully, we may be able to recognize her in the new year at a future meeting.
>> As one who got her involved, that's how it happens. seems like I'm always the bad guy, but uh I wish um her all the best and obviously she probably would have um with her lives moving on, but she had to stay for the the Fab Five because she made the quorum. So, she finished what she had to do and and it
was time for her to uh to step down. Thank you, Patty. Smith. >> Okay, next item is an alert. I think we all saw it in the newspapers about cyber fraud emails, Mr. Kis. >> Yes. So, um, earlier in the week,
there's a series of, uh, emails that are going out to applicants u posing as the the township's planning zoning department. Um, so we're just want to let the public know and especially the applicants that are here.
Um, you know, please please be aware of that. uh please make sure that when you are getting an email from us that you're uh checking the email address. Uh we're never going to be asking you to uh to wire money to us. That's that's not what
we do. So just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention and the newspaper was very fast with getting it out. >> Yeah. >> So >> no that that definitely appreciate that. And you know always when in doubt just phone the office. >> So >> Mr. Chair, before you get to the last
item, I'd like to remind the planning office that the approval of the executive session minutes tonight does not make them public. >> They are all pending litigation matters. So, I'm just for the record. >> Thank you. >> I'm assuming you know that already, but
>> we do. But thank you. >> It's good for the public just so they're not asking us for them. >> Not knocking on your door wanting to know where they are, >> right? Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. And final uh business item, the amended Sunnyme Landfill
redevelopment area preliminary investigation report. Uh we're having it adjourned to the January 22nd, 2026, planning board meeting or it's actually our business meeting, you know, with renotice. And it look like you want to
add, >> Mr. Bernstein. Did you want to weigh in on that? I can if >> I'm not I'm not allowed to use the word because it's not a legal word but the beacon and you can fill in the blank.
Um it was unfortunately published in the wrong newspaper. It was published in the packet packet is not an official newspaper of the municipality and because of same our office determined that we did not come into compliance. No fault of the planning department. In
fact, they did everything they were supposed to do and then some. So, I want everybody to understand that part just because they sent something and it says put in the be in the packet. No. Um, it was supposed to be in the beacon.
There is no, we have to this day, correct me if I'm wrong, no understanding from them as to how it got into the wrong paper. >> Uh, they admitted it was a mistake, >> but no idea how. >> And they'll give us a refund. No, the Yeah,
>> don't spend it all in one place. >> We're unfortunately responsible for the, you know, the personal notices, but >> right. So, um, we will renotice. It will be on the January 2nd, 22 meeting, assuming it makes the red paper,
>> right? They'll there have to be the notices and the personal notices. All that's going to have to be redone. >> So, sounds good. We will pass the candy along. Reload.
Okay, we do not have any ordinances for consideration. So, I will move to business from the floor for matters not on this evening's agenda. Anyone like to come up to provide any comments to the board? Please come up and state your name and address for the record, please.
And you get more. Good evening. Maria Janusk, 720 East Fick Avenue, Manville, New Jersey. I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner, block 86, lot 32155 Camplain Road. Um, in regard to um
tree preservation, there had been an ordinance um adopted, ordinance 2024-16 regarding tree preservation. And then at Monday's Hillsboro Township Committee meeting, there was a
presentation in regard to um sustainable Jersey gold standard in water and it talks about among other things uh community forestry management plan and New Jersey urban forestry uh program
accredititation. So with with clean um healthy water, trees are very important and and apparently uh it's it's important because there's an ordinance regarding tree preservation. But one of
the applications that came before this board, Glengarry, um they had submitted a waiver because they want to um cut down over 2,000 2,000 trees. And not only that,
they want to cut them down, but also they um do not um intend to uh replant any any uh any trees. And that's an area where there are new uh freshwater
wetlands and that's an area where there is a a flood hazard area. Uh that application was approved. So that uh applicant got a waiver to cut down 2 thou over 2,000 trees.
>> I don't recall the specifics. >> That applicant got a waiver because it's part of an inclusionary affordable housing development and therefore that's why they were granted the waiver. So once an applicant gets uh approval or or or uh uh has an a settlement
agreement with the township then a lot of the um requirements or ordinances of the township can be bypassed because of that aspect that it's affordable housing. >> You got that right. >> They can't be an obstacle. If you recall, we were ordered by a judge to
rectify an ordinance regarding um not that application stream war. We we had an ordinance and we rejected that application initially and went to court and the judge basically told the township committee make that problem go away.
>> The Glengary project, >> no, it wasn't Glengary, but I'm just trying to say when it comes to >> the courts have held on multiple occasions, and I'm not talking Somerville. I'm talking the appella division and the Supreme Court that municipal ordinances which impact
affordable housing developments cannot be used to stand in the way of an affordable housing development. And this in that case was one of them. So, they they they got permission to cut down over 2,000 trees, and they do not need to replant, and they don't have to
apply, but they don't have to uh go by any of the um requirements of the ordinance where in cases where the trees can't be replanted that they can uh um >> That's correct. That's correct, ma'am. >> Nothing. that they can just do basically
they can >> because it's an affordable housing development they can if you believe that that's a problem I would suggest that you contact your local legislators and tell them that because that's the law in this state not because this governing this planning board or the township
committee allowed it it's becau or any municipality is because the courts of this state and the legislature have said that's how it's going to be. So the settlement agreement >> is in accord is in accordance with the court's determination.
>> So so so that judge who who was involved in that settlement agreement, he's the one that >> No, that judge who enforced the law relative to that settlement agreement. It all goes back, Mr. Janisk, to the legislature and prior court decisions.
Not Judge Miller, not the planning board, not the Hillsboro Township Committee, but a series of case decisions that have basically said municipalities can't enforce certain ordinances when it comes to dealing with
affordable housing. >> So even though there are huge huge issues with flooding, so what what what what is what is the recourse then? Uh we we we actually have a local assemblyman that you could reach out to. >> And who is that?
>> Assemblyman Fryman. >> Fryman. He has an office, Assemblyman Fryman. He's a Hillsboro resident and he also has an office here in Hillsboro. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public before we
move on? Okay. See no takers. So, moving on uh to applications. Uh the first one, 303 Mwell Road. I'm just going to say file number 21-PB-17- MSPV. Uh the applicant has provided an
extension of time through March 31st of 2026 and has requested the issue to be adjourned to a date to be determined by the board without further notice. For the purpose of the record, this is a property the township is in the process
of attempting to acquire which had a proposal for a warehouse on it and there are some outstanding um issues that need to be resolved and that's why the extinction is coming through. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any action we need to take? Well, other than to grant
>> We need a motion to to do so. You need a motion, Mr. chairman to extend the time of decision on this application through March 31st, 2026 >> and be adjourned to a date to be determined without further notice.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Any comments? Okay. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Wagner, >> yes. >> Mr. Rowitz, >> yes. >> Vitali, >> yes. >> Mapani, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Pee, >> yes.
>> Chair Sarra, >> yes. Okay, now we're here for the main event, so everyone can take their seats. Dukes Parkway East LLC, Crane Form LLC with file number 24-PB-11-
MSPV. Um, there's a reference of file number 86-PB-05 SRV with time decision of December 31st, 2025. It's for block 58, lot 67.02.
2 and it's commonly known as 236 Dukes Parkway East and I will let the applicants attorneys to introduce themselves and to provide overview. >> Good evening. My name is Robin Wright.
>> You can a turn it on and b move it close your counsel. >> Okay. >> How's this? >> Okay. >> All right. Um my name is Robin Wright. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Lands and Lands in Flemington, New Jersey. Um we represent Dukes Parkway East LLC and
um Crane Farm LLC. They're the owners of the property at 236 Dukes Parkway East, which is the subject of the application tonight. The applicants are seeking amended site plan approval with a C variance. Um the property is a commercial property. Uh it's in the I2
light industrial zone. Uh it had a a site plan approval in 1986 that the applicants are now seeking to amend. Um there are two uh businesses that operate on the property which you'll hear more about from our witnesses. One is Moy Handling uh which is um one of the
premier operators of um uh distribu uh uh uh crane service companies in the northeastern United States. They provide cranes to um New York City for their subway system. They've provided overhead cranes for um their Chernobyl site in Ukraine. Um I have Russ Chilac here
who's going to describe that business. Uh the other property on the site is SNR Pools. Uh this is a property. This is a business that um services and repairs pools throughout the Northeast. They've constructed about 300 pools here in Hillsboro. I have Kevin Levenitis who's
going to describe that business. Um the the principal issue with the original site plan has to do with the buffer to the rear of the property. Uh this is a commercial property that abuts a residential zone to its rear. The 86 site plan was approve approved a 20-
foot buffer to the rear of the property and over the years that buffer has degraded. Um our applicants are here with a proposal to restore that buffer. Uh they're not simply seeking to restore it but also to widen it to expand it. Um
they're our uh the plan that we submitted shows a 25- foot buffer uh between the property and the the rear uh residential zone. Uh but as you'll hear our our engineer discuss today, we're actually proposing making it even wider than that. Um we uh we do need to see
variance. We are proposing outdoor storage on the property and an ordinance that was passed in the township in um 2008 or 2009 uh requires um a 60-oot buffer where a non-residential property abuts a residential property and proposes outdoor storage. Uh we can't
provide a 60-oot buffer because of uh conditions on the property. Um but the proposal that we are making uh is something that will um satisfy the needs of the ordinance uh you know the the concerns that underlay the ordinance as well as the needs of the businesses and the needs of the properties to the rear.
Uh there are some other changes to the uh site plan that our engineer will discuss. They have to do with adding a a small 250 foot shed, rearranging some gravel areas and some of the parking. Um, there's also a um there's a a building on site that currently serves
as an office building with uh plumbing and heating and a bathroom. It's designated as a shed on the 1986 plan. We're proposing correcting that so that it's an office. Um I have um uh a number of witnesses here tonight. Uh James Mance is our engineer and surveyor. He's
going to describe the 1986 plan. uh the plan that we're proposing and the amendments that we're proposing as well as um he's had some subsequent conversations with Mr. Mayhew and he's going to discuss the result of those conversations and uh how he is proposing to modify the plan as a result of those
changes. We also have Russ Chileac from Moy Handling here and Kevin Levenatus from the SNR pools. We have Thomas Bureau who despared the um the landscape design. He'll address any landscaping issues that anyone may have. And we also
have Mark Remza, who's a professional planner. He's going to describe um and explain why you should uh support the amended uh site plan and how the uh the amendments that we seek to make satisfy the criteria for C variance relief. Uh so with that, I would ask uh the board.
Does the board want to swear everyone in at once? >> Swear everyone in over. Okay. One time my first witness will be Mr. Mance. >> Okay. I do. >> My name is James J. Mance, MA N TZ. I'm a licensed professional engineer and land surveyor in the state of New
Jersey. I graduated uh from Retuse College of Engineering in 1977. I received my uh professional engineering license in 1982. uh my surveyor's license in 1992. Uh since graduating from college, I've uh
been involved in the land development uh aspects uh for applicants um and also uh road construction, various uh other projects and so forth. I've actually testified before this board, although it's
probably about 20 years ago. Um I and I have testified before other uh planning boards in the area, most recently Warren Township. >> Mr. Mans, by whom are you employed? >> I am self-employed. >> Thank you. Okay.
Any objections? >> Okay, we accept. >> Please proceed. >> Um Mr. Mance, um why don't we start with um >> I get closer to the mic, council. Okay. Um
uh we uh in my exhibit list I proposed the application documents that we previously submitted as exhibit A. Is that um >> we don't normally don't need to have we what we mark is what is introduced at the hearing. >> Okay. Then uh we're going to uh start
with our first exhibit which is going to be uh the 1986 site plan. >> Will you indicate Mr. Mance, uh, who is the author of this plan and the date on it and what it represents? And we're going to mark this as A1.
>> All right. Um, now we're a little bit different than what I have these exhibits marked as, but um, let me get >> I'm just when I'm marking them, I'm marking for purposes of of the transcript and also for the resolution.
>> Yeah. This This is a uh a site plan that was dated last revised. I just lost it. Maybe scroll up a little bit. >> Yeah. There it is.
>> Keep going. >> I know. I just >> You want to look at a copy of this >> little further down? Okay. Okay, I'm I'm sorry. Um, the site plan was dated last revised 61186.
It was prepared by Richard P. Russ PE uh license number 18665. And it's was stamped approved plan uh 51 of 86. Although this the plan has also a stamp on it received Janu uh June 12th, 1986. But this this was the approved
site plan. And uh these were uh provided uh with the uh uh we did submit I believe 18 hard copies of these so they should be all in your packet. Um Mr. Mans can you describe uh some of the conditions on the site plan and particularly the
buffer to the rear? Well f first of all the um the property is located in the I2 light industrial zone. It's a 5.79 acre prop property on the south side of Dukes Parkway. Uh it's the access is via a
driveway which runs along the common driveway uh common lot line between lot 67.01 and 67.02. Um that's that's what I'm running my mouse over is that is that property line
the um property when this site plan was proposed had gez had contained an existing workshop. Um and then the uh proposal was to build a
6,000 square foot building on the west side of that workshop and a uh another building to the uh front of that workshop along with the um proposal for those buildings expansions where was to uh create a driveway and I'm I'm going
we created a driveway with access to Dukes Parkway uh with coming around the buildings uh pretty much in a uh circular motion with some parking at the rear of the uh existing workshop. Uh
and the driveway extended then around the front of the building and provided a loop around the uh the buildings. A detention basin was constructed to accommodate the storm water uh runoff from this particular project. the uh there was a buffer. It's shown on
another plan of of this uh was show is was a 20- foot buffer to the rear of this property in uh along the common line which was then lot 72. in the front of the property. Uh there was there's a
flood hazard area shown on this particular uh plan and there's were probably wetlands also. Uh the the buffer was shown on sheet two. This is just
sheet two of the plan. It it shows plantings to to the to the rear of the the property. And as discussed that the plantings have been um have disintegrated to to
excuse me not done as well as they expected over the the period of time. >> Okay. And um you're we're proposing certain uh modifications to this 1986 plan, correct? >> Yes, we are. >> And you submitted a um a proposed site
plan uh last revised May 19th, 2025. Correct. >> Yes. >> Could you explain uh some of the changes that you're proposing on this plan um compared to 1986 plan? Um >> okay. We're going to mark this as A2.
>> Yes. A2. A A2 is entitled site plan block 58 lock 67.02 tax map sheet 12. Uh it's stated revised 51 1925 prepared by myself. It's a one
sheet site plan. It shows the the property. I went out and surveyed the property. I located the existing pavement as it existed in um July of 2003 and
I also located in the the rear of the property, I I located existing uh trees and so forth. And our landscape architect used this plan to uh prepare an additional buffer plan. This particular plan shows a parking buffer
of 25 ft to the rear of this property. And in conjunction with doing that, we were going to eliminate some of the impervious areas which had uh encroached on this buffer. This plan also shows possible parking
spaces. There are no really delineated parking spaces on this particular property. Um the the two occupants uh park, you know, where it's convenient. Um but we went through the the
calculations and determined that based on floor areas and your ordinance that uh 29 parking spaces would be required and this plan shows 31 parking spaces. >> Okay. So it's an excess of the requirement that
>> it is we don't we don't plan on delineating these parking spaces but they could be done if if necessary. And I just like to point out those those parking spaces are to the the the SNR building is shown as well condo A that
that's that's the one addition to the original site plan. That that building was the addition. There are seven spaces to the west of that. There are four spaces to the south of what called the masonry uh office building. Uh that's
that was shown as a shed on the uh two uh 86 site plan. And then there's parking spaces that could be created to the rear of the what was then the workshop area and to the uh east of the
masonry building which was also an addition uh shown on the 86 site plan. >> And uh there's also outdoor storage shown on this plan. This this plan shows outdoor storage. There's a shed to the south of the SNR
property. It's a 250 foot square foot shed. There's an area designated as outdoor storage. Um there there's various um equipment uh associated with the the
pool uh business stored there. There's a storage trailer located on the site. And then to the south of the building and then to the west of the near the west side east side
of the property there's there's also a s storage trailer and um your this uh this plan also shows um a uh a masonry office building of 726 square feet. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And it the uh the plan indicates this building shown as the shed on the 1986 site plan. Can you uh discuss that as well? >> Well, I I I think um well, it it I don't know why it was shown as a shed. It probably was, but it
was taken over and and converted into into an office over the period of time. As a lot of times happens, especially with the older site plans, uh things get done to properties, uh and it may or may not have been done according to the code
and and with local approvals. So that particular property or building is now being used as an office uh for moy uh handling. >> Okay. Um, I'm gonna uh Is there anything else you want to say about the uh the changes on
this uh May uh 2025 plan before I get to the engineers review memo? >> No, I I I think it's self-explanatory. Again, the thrust thrust of our application is for the buffer in the rear. Um I would like to notice note too
though that the um the we are out anything we do pretty much is on this site is outside the flood hazard area. Again with my mouse the D in their infinite wisdom has raised the u flood hazard elevation uh along the Ron River
and all rivers in the state of New Jersey by 3 feet above their previously determined flood elevations. So, the flood hazard line on on this particular property is at elevation 50.3
and runs pretty much along the front uh driveway and it actually includes the the detention basin now and it did not do that before. >> Okay. But the uh what we're proposing doesn't impact that. Correct. >> No, I I just wanted to make that clear
that we're we're outside of environmentally sensitive areas with what we're doing. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to direct your attention to uh the the engineer wrote a memo dated November 24th, 2025. Um, and he made certain comments about
storm water management. Um, he wrote upon review of the provided project documents and historical aerial imagery. It appears approximately 423 acres of lawn area has been removed since 2004, replaced with gravel mode vehicle surface. As such, the additional regulated impervious surface constitutes
a major development per 262-2. Um, and he talks about uh the need to comply with storm water rules for major development. Correct. >> That's that's his comment. Yes, >> his comments. And you've had discussions with him uh since reviewing those comments. Correct. And
>> Yeah. Yes, he has. Um my initial look at this um site, I calculated the impervious area compared to the uh approved area and I did make a mistake uh in the area as shown on the original site plan. So, uh, and as as you can
see, if you remember the 2006, um, site plan, it it just showed a circular driveway coming around the rear of the property, uh, to along the south property and then coming around the front. That that driveway is still there. However, the area between the
buffer and the building, the S&R building and what was shown as the workshop area, it has been um really filled in with uh millings and stone uh for additional space. So, that is the
area that was uh that Mr. Mayhew picked up as being over and above the original site plan. And I agreed with him that the uh 0.43 43 acres was probably a a very close number and uh he and I had some comment uh informal discussions
about that and I had m I have a proposal on how to address that. >> Right. And the the uh the zone allows 60% maximum impervious surface. Correct. >> It it does and right now we're at 36%. So, we're we're still below the
allowable coverage in this zone, but we're beyond what was approved in the uh 86 site plan. >> And so, you're uh proposing uh reducing the impervious coverage from what's shown on the plan that we submitted. Correct. >> Yes, we're we're close to 20,000 square
feet over the uh imperous area shown on the 86 site plan. What I want to do is I want to take out about 10,000 square feet of that. So that in essence the uh increase in impervious area will be less than one of one quarter of an acre. And
by virtue of doing that uh we're no longer a major site plan. We're we're storm water um project. Uh but we would be a non- major project which has a you know we still have to control our runoff but not to
the extent that we would uh if it was a major. So you're going to reduce the amount of impervious coverage so that there's less than a quarter acre added and then you're going to propose a storm water plan to the satisfaction of the board engineer. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you've uh you've met with the engineer and had discussion about that.
Correct. >> Yes. >> Do you want to um should we uh show the uh the proposed plan that uh that you're okay proposed to uh to address those issues? And I'll mark that as uh exhibit uh A3.
>> Yeah. And this is a um A3. >> And I'm going to um pass these out because these were not previously uh provided uh to the board. Um but these are uh uh 125.
Thank you. So, um, this plan marked A3 also, uh, shows a further modification to the buffer to the rear where the residential properties are. Correct. >> Yes. A A3 is really my my plan that was submitted to the board. However, I've
gone beyond taking some of the area uh impervious areas uh that were within the buffer and I I show areas to be uh taken out and re uh put back into lawn area again so that we're below that one
quarter acre threshold. So just what I'm showing on A3, the uh hatched areas or the darker areas are where we would be removing pavement uh on the site, putting back grass or other pvious areas uh plantings
if if necessary, but uh essentially grass and then I expanded A3 um but I also in rem reducing the impervious area I'm expanding the buffer area from 25 ft
to 35 ft. And then A3, it really is a two sheet set of PL uh plan. Now, the second sheet of A3 um again shows it's a little bit larger
scale. It shows the 35 foot wide buffer, but what it really shows is that I'm taking roof leader roof there are roof leaders now uh draining to the south of the property from the SNR um building
and from some of the other uh portions of the uh what was the called the workshop building. So those roof leaders I am collecting into a pipe. I'm taking that pipe around the building and putting it into a dry well that would be located in the island uh that that's
created by the uh the parking there uh access road coming to around the front of the SNR building and to the uh west of the uh Moy uh what I would call office building. So we're proposing a drywall there. That dry well is intended
to infiltrate the runoff for from the roof uh for storms up to a 100year storm frequency. >> And the you said the buffer is 35 ft. Now >> the buffer will be 35 ft. >> So in 1986 our approved site plan is for
a 20ft buffer. >> Correct. >> And we're now proposing a 35 foot buffer. >> Correct. to provide and that would provide screening from the residential properties, you know, for the property including the outdoor storage. Correct.
>> Yes. I I'll leave it up to Mr. Ber, our landscape architect, to discuss that a little bit more, but I think what that uh additional 10 ft does is allows us to push the the plantings a little bit more into the property and away from the fence. There's an existing 8 foot high
board on board fence along our southerntherly property line that was installed as part of the uh the subdivision behind us. >> And that fence impacted the existing plantings, correct? >> Yes, it did. >> Okay. Because it prevented a sunlight from getting to them and >> that's my understanding. Yes. and cause
some deterioration and there and um uh what other uh changes um in terms of uh lawn area or gravel area or in this plan compared to your uh you know >> well again I'm I'm taking out about 10,000 square feet of of area and this
this plan well sheet one of the plan shows it a little bit clearer but even sheet two you can see the the darker areas are the areas of pavement that that we're taking out And this this used to be, as far as I know, a um a dairy farm. There are two
silos uh still on the property. Uh so we're taking out some of the improved area around the silos. Uh some of the uh parking areas have were expanded over a period of time and we're sort of cutting them back to look more like the original approved site plan especially in the
area of the detention basin and around the uh southeasterly corner of the property where they the parking uh has expanded. >> Okay. There also two concrete pads on this plan. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and that's for uh for loading
and >> Yeah. Yes, it is. Okay. Um, going back to the engineers memo, uh, there are comments about landscaping, but we have a landscape expert here, so we'll defer that to Mr. Bureau. Okay. And then there's, um, a section on tree
preservation and mitigation. Um, one was that we prepare a demo plan showing existing conditions proposed to be removed, including but not limited to trees 6 in uh, DBH or greater, and the mill driveway. Do you have any issues with that? No, we we would comply with uh the tres tree preservation and
mitigation section in uh Mr. Mayhew's letter items 1, two, three, and four. >> Okay. And he also made comments about lighting. Uh can you address lighting? >> Lighting was shown on the approved
site plan. It was shown on the first sheet, not as clearly as maybe necessary, but the uh there's triangles shown uh located on the proposed 6,000 square foot building. And there's there's like a radius a radi around those things.
Those were iso foot candle uh lines to to show the extent of the lighting. So, it it shows one on the front of that building, one on the one on the front of the building, one on the rear, and it also shows two
outdoor lights uh one on the proposed uh building on the the easterly side of the property and then one uh by that what was supposed to be the uh the parking area. It was lighting for that area. Now, if
we go, I didn't necessarily show all the lighting on my site plan. However, I've taken a look out on the property, and I'll tell you that there's right now over the there's a man door right be
between the the or behind the on the south side of the S&R pool building by the shed. There's there's a light over that door. There's a garage door near the center of the building. There's a light over that. Uh it's located approximately 15 feet high. I just uh
approximated that by counting blocks. I don't know if it's 15 or 16. Um but it is not a shielded light. It it's it's more of a area spotlight. Um so I in discussions with the applicants uh we
would agree to replace some of those that those lighting. Uh, and actually when I was out there uh a little while about a week ago, uh, the area is very dark. I I think that they should have some sort of security lighting and I think they should really upgrade their
lighting with uh LED lights and uh shield them uh in accordance with the ordinance and I think we would do that. >> Uh, can you explain why we're uh not uh providing the 60 foot uh buffer uh why that's not possible to provide that on
this on this plan? Well, if there there's only there there's 93 feet between the the rear of the the building, the original building and I'm calling masonry building uh to the the property line. If
we give a a 60oot buffer that that really it allows only uh 33 feet or so in in the rear and the uh the applicant feels that it's not sufficient room to maneuver his uh equipment and and be
able to uh perform his operation efficiently. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh do you have anything else do you want to add, Mr. Mance? >> No. Okay. I have no more question for the witness. May you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'll refer the board to the letter that the applicant was discussing from our office dated uh 11 November 2025. And I just wanted to either
comment on a few items or confirm uh what I understand the applicants agreeing to. Um, first if you can turn to page three, uh, at the top of the page, item number three is a condition to receive outside
agency approvals. >> Yes. >> Are you in possession of the county planning board letter dated 29th September? >> Yes, I am. >> And I guess two issues come to my attention on this review letter.
Uh, one of them is the clear sight triangle easements that apparently were shown on the 86 drawings, but according to the county, uh, deeds do not exist for those sight triangle easements in the county review letters requesting an
approval be conditioned upon obtaining those sight triangle easements and filing the easements with the county. Does your applicant agree to meet that condition? Well, first of all that we have to deal with the county on that particular
condition. The the 86 site plan shows site east triangles uh 60 ft by 36 ft which really are are old style uh sight triangles. the the current uh thinking
in terms of site triangles follows the ASHTO uh regulations and theund um the Somerset County uh land development ordinance as um suggests that you should be able to have a site uh line from 15
ft behind the edge of traveled way to a point uh westerly or easterly uh that's uh at least 10 times the uh posted speed limit. So you'd have to be able to see 400 feet up the road and down the road.
Um, first of all, so I I don't really agree with dedicating the sight triangles as they're shown here because it it just doesn't make sense in the current uh
thought of of what site triangles should look like. Second of all, the Westerly site triangle is on a piece of property that was originally um controlled by the same owner of uh as lot 67.02
um but currently is not uh the same owner. So that would necessitate us purchasing a a site triangle on that property. Um I'm not sure if we want to if we can or will not be able to. Uh my
initial investigations into the site lines suggest that poss probably the site distance that we need to the west will would be located completely within the ex the existing right ofway. Uh
because there on lot 67.01 01 there was additional dedication to uh about 36 ft off the uh the center line. So there's sufficient there's there's more area that the site triangle could uh be located in. Uh sec to the east of the
property. Uh we we control most of that area and I think we could um we would clear the trees and so forth. But again, I think uh in dealing with the county, I would opt to suggest to them that the site triangle be uh configured more
appropriately to in accordance with current standards. >> Well, it is a county road, Mr. chairman and our office would be comfortable with whatever the county agrees on, but I want to make sure there's a condition of approval that you're agreeing to receive
county approval, pursue it, and adjust your drawing to reflect whatever easement the county is required. >> Yes. >> And then further, as the county stated, whatever final easements agreed upon, your applicant will clear those site tracks. >> Yes. Yes, we will. On so
>> that's that's fine with our office. Um then under stormwater management um Mr. Chairman uh as Jim has stated we have had informal conversations prior to this meeting to discuss
um what our office had uncovered that there had been uh increases in impervious cover over the years. Uh our office is comfortable with the applicant's revised suggestion in that um they would remove
whatever amount of impervious cover is required to remove based on their revised calculations to limit proposed increases to less than a quarter acre from what was prior approved. >> Correct. And as the applicant mentioned,
if they do that, then they would fall under the township's non- major stormwater management criteria. Um, and our office is comfortable. Certainly, we haven't reviewed the second part of the applicant's plan, which is talking about collecting roof
runoff to a dry well. Um I'm confident that working with the applicants engineer we can come up with a or they can come up with a plan that our office will find approvable. Um preliminary analys preliminary analysis shows that these soils are a
soils. So there should be some really good infiltration available on site to do some kind of underground dry well or other BMP. I don't want to limit the applicant. I just want to make clear that if we do approve this, I would highly suggest a portion of the drywall
include a perforated pipe or plastic arch product to provide some clear area for inspection and review over the years instead of the whole thing being stone. >> I I I would agree with that. >> Okay. I would also request that a soil test be done and witnessed by our office
prior to the design. >> Okay. and >> we had to do the witnessing, but I I'll contact your office when we do the testing. >> And I would request that uh your office provide an appropriate design of the basin overflow.
Um with those type of conditions, Mr. Chairman, I I believe that we could come to an agreement on an appropriate design to address that. Um as far as landscape comments, I understand the applicants agreeing to address our review letter. And then
under lighting comments, our major concern is the lighting impact to the adjoining neighbors. Um, but as I understand it, you're agreeing to adjust as appropriate existing lighting to provide cut offs if they don't currently have cut offs.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Um, >> when >> I'm sorry, >> when when's the cut offs? Well, I our office would suggest that that's part of the it would go on to
your plan and you would do that work at the time you're doing any other proposed improvements. >> Yeah. Yeah. Any any revised plan to to show the drywall and and so forth would have to be submitted to your office to the planning board and it will show uh proposed lighting. It'll show the iso
foot candles um for for the lights that we the applicants will place on the building. If it's okay with your applicant, we'd like to have one of our lighting um engineers from our office at least do at least one nighttime inspection just to confirm what impacts
there might be currently that should be addressed. >> Okay, we would agree to that. >> Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, thank you. Mr. Quice, >> um Miss Wright, the uh maybe this
question is for you. Will will there be um someone providing testimony as to the nature of of the outdoor storage and any noise associated? I just wasn't sure to ask this witness or not. >> Yeah, I have the um the uh the two uh property owners who also uh run the
businesses on the property and they can address uh those issues. Uh Mr. uh Mr. Chileac and Mr. Levenatus can address that. >> Okay. And then I believe Mr. Mayhew's report is also requesting that the con conservation easement be put into place
for the 35 ft now buffer. >> Yeah, it's required. >> I just wanted to make sure that that's being agreed to. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. I no further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> board members. Okay. So then I have a motion to open
the public, please. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> If there's anyone in the public that would like to come up and ask questions of this witness on his testimony, please come up. State your name and address for the record, please.
>> Hi, good evening. Uh Paul Bowski, 30 Campbell Road, which is uh block 58, lot 72.08. Um, in relation to the size of the property uh and the shape that is provided on that site plan, have you developed plans for alternative locations for the current non-compliant
outdoor storage which allow the current ordinance 60oot buffer requirements to stand for example other areas on the property? >> No, I have not. >> Just speak into the mic when you answer, please. >> No, no, I have not.
>> Okay. So there's no other uh additional um options that that you have proposed outside of the what's currently in this in the site plan? >> No, we didn't look into that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I'm Mike Hullen. I live on block 5801,
lot 2, 12 Dickerson Road. And um I think I want to follow on the question but from a different angle. So Miss Wright um >> oh I'm sorry Miss M right >> you can also remove the mic from the stand or move it up. >> Oh I don't want to do a drop mic drop
here. Okay. Um so to follow on that question um this um variance calls for it's a C variance on ordinance 188-69A and is this this ordinance as I
understood it only permits um it doesn't permit um it only permits storage in the sides and the back is the way I understand it. Is that correct? >> I think Miss Wright >> No, the uh it it permits outdoor storage
as long as uh requires a 60oot buffer. Um >> well, actually the way I read it was that our ordinance only requires that it will require it only on the side and the back which prevents to follow on the question that was last asked which
prevents it from putting in the front without a variance. We're actually here seeking a compromise. >> I'm not sure that I understand your question. >> We would like it in the front. >> You want the uh >> spoken to the mic counselor?
>> Um the um we would like the storage in the front, not the back, but I believe that would require a variance also. So all you did a lot of work. Let me I I want to acknowledge that but it's all
constrained to the back. >> Yeah. The the back is the um you know as our experts will explain the back is uh the appropriate location for the storage that we're proposing given the circulation and >> because the ordinance building let her let her answer the question. You know,
the issue is will there be appropriate screening? And we are proposing, you know, we uh we're proposing a a 35 foot buffer for the uh you know, for the storage uh in the rear of the property, which you know, um and we'll have our landscape designer uh discuss the the
trees and the staggering of the vegetation that's being proposed back there. Um, and that's an appropriate uh uh way of dealing with the storage and one that um serves the purposes of the uh of the ordinance and the uh and of the business needs of the uh of the
property owners as well as the uh the concerns of the properties to the rear. >> Okay. Let me return to my question for you. Mhm. >> Is is your read of the ordinance such that it requires you to force this to the sides and the back of the
property? >> Is that a question for the engineer because the attorney is not on not under oath? >> Okay. Engineer is is that what the ordinance does? Does it require >> the mic sir?
Does is the ordinance such that it's require you to um do this improvement on the sides or the back and because of your constraints with with the depth of the property it's asked it's forcing this variance that you've come to the
board for. I'm not going to interpret the ordinance. I'd just like to say that because of the development of the property to date, there is not very much room on the side of the SNR pool
building to put storage. Uh >> I agree. >> There's a little there's not much room on the easterly side to put storage. >> Let me let me stop you all. >> Okay. >> This is not a back and forth what you agree with or don't agree with. This is testimony for purpose of a transcript.
>> Sorry. >> So if you want him to answer the question, >> I'm hoping we will. >> Thank you. >> There is an a grass area uh to the front of what was called the workshop uh
between that and the uh the uh storm water management basin. However, that is where the uh septic system for the property is located. So, that's not a viable area for storage. The um island
uh to um that I'm going to put the the um detention basin in uh has a lot of trees on there. I've configured the um drywall to save trees. Um but other I do not see putting storage in that
particular area either. and anything further to above, you know, into the um flood hazard area is is not a viable op option also. So, in my mind, that leaves the rear of the property as the most viable place to put
the uh storage. >> Okay, I think that's the best answer I could ask of at this moment. Thank you. Hi, thanks for the opportunity to talk. Um, Paul Canden, block 58, lot 72.05,
24 Campbell. Uh, my property is one that directly is adjacent to this one. Um, one of the questions I had is if this variance were approved, what uh noise would be allowable to be generated from
it? Um, so what are the hours and more particularly what kind of operations would be allowed? What kind of noise are they allowed to generate? Um because I think one of the concerns of the neighbors has been like the amount of noise, particularly backup alarms that
have been going all day long. So I was just wondering what um this variance would allow for as far as um noise generating operations with >> I'm not sure if the engineer you prepared to comment on that. >> No, I'm not. I the the owners of the
property I think would be a better um source of uh information. Folks, just for everybody's edification who's here tonight from the public who may or may not be familiar with the process, uh, when the board opens it to the
public, it's to ask questions of the witnesses relative to the testimony they gave. I don't believe the engineer gave testimony relative to the variances being sought. I believe council has indicated she's calling a planner and
possibly members of who owners of the business who may be more able to answer the question you have at the appropriate time. So I understand everybody's coming up with their their questions. Be aware at least at this
portion of the the hearing that the questions are to the witness as to the testimony the witness provided. >> Got it. It had come up before so it made me think. All right. Not a pro. Not a problem, but we'll >> And then they get a last bite. The apple.
>> Hi, Paul Vicowski again. 5872.08. Uh, this question is about the shed, the 250T shed that is being requested. Uh, is this shed currently on the property today physically? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Uh, was that shed approved in any
other site plan prior to this? >> No, it was not. So is does that uh shed if approved sit inside of that 60 foot um uh buffer that would be required as per the or ordinance 18869A.
>> It it would be very close to that line. I don't have an actual dimension. >> I could scale it Mr. May. >> Okay. So it wouldn't be clear as to what the impact is today of what of that of that building.
>> Maybe I can help out. Um are we Mr. Mance, it might be helpful to put the site plan back on the screen because there's a lot about Are we talking about the shed that's labeled 250 foot in the upper left corner? >> Yes, sir.
for the public and board's its notice that's approximately 70 71 feet off the rear property line. Does that look >> that that that looks reasonable to me and I located that shed by field survey.
>> So it' be outside the city. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the public of this witness? Okay. May you look like you wanted to. >> I did. >> Okay. >> If if I may,
>> please do. >> Uh and in order to be proactive, I've I've heard what may not be the last of concerns about noise. And when the applicant continues to have more testimony on it in the board's deliberating, I wanted to bring to the
board's attention that generally a 20 or 30 foot wide landscape buffer is not going to have a significant effect on noise um mitigation. uh if it's a serious enough issue, one
thing to consider is recently we approved a PSENG metering station um in the southern part of town. And to mitigate the sound to the adjoining residential unit, PSCG
um placed a sound um padding on their fence along that line. And I believe there's fencing along this line now. So maybe that's something to consider. It won't 100% eliminate it,
but it can have a positive impact on the sound transition, >> but I don't know. I don't believe the property owners own the fence. >> Yeah, that fence might be the >> because I said it was erected when the development went in. So I'm assuming it's part of perhaps a homeowners association.
>> Could be. just throwing out that idea that that may be >> they may need to erect their own fence to >> Yeah, I I was going to point out that you know it's a give and take and if the owners you know and everybody agrees to it that's fine but the fence is on the adjoining property.
>> Okay, thank you. >> Hello again Paul Vicowski 587208. questions regarding the lighting that is being proposed. >> Uh what is the height of the lights? >> As I mentioned, they're 15 or 16 ft high. The ordinance requires 15 ft high.
So, we're going to most likely replace the existing lights with LED lights and they will be 15 no higher than 15 ft. >> And uh would these lights then clear whatever landscape buffering is being proposed?
>> I don't know what you're asking. Does it clear the landscape? >> Meaning, are they higher than the trees that are going to be planted in the buffer? >> Well, they'll they'll have cut offs so that the the light shines down to the ground and not out. >> I understand, but I'm asking about the
height. Whether when they are on, will they be shining over the tops of the buffers of the trees? >> No, >> not No, you're not going to see direct light over tops of the trees. >> Okay. And that would be how how would
that be enforced or or controlled? >> I don't think he understands what >> if I could help. Y we're going to our office will review the lighting proposed by the applicant and this happens on every single application. So our office will make sure it's appropriate height,
appropriate cut off and appropriate illumination. >> Okay. And by cut off you mean hours of operation for that. No, cut off meaning how it affects the throw of the illumination. So when you hear the term cut off, it means it's blocking it from
whatever direction you want to block. >> Okay? And this would take into consideration that the residences are two stories and there's upper level living quarters there as well. >> Um the simple answer is no. home and we we're going to make sure the lighting
meets the ordinance criteria which doesn't really take into effect what adjoining properties look like. >> Okay. >> Now, the the plantings they're proposing are not going to be 15 ft tall the first year. So, the fixture itself will be above
>> the landscape but the the projection of the illumination will be such that it is not projecting over the landscaping and that our office will make sure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> I I do have one comment or question or since we were asking about this the out outdoor storage area. The only dimension there is is 350 ft. 350 square ft and oh no that's a I'm sorry that's a storage
container. So, I don't see the dimensions on that storage area to know if if 60 foot is an issue if it's if it's at 55 ft right now or uh so I just don't the dimensions of that area. Can
they be can it be adjusted to meet that variance? I just don't see the numbers on the drawing. >> I I didn't place numbers on that drawing. Uh let me scale from my full scale drawing and see what I had drawn. >> Yeah, I don't see it much.
It's pretty damn close. It's pretty damn close. It's really just here, right? The outdoor storage area as drawn on my plan, exhibit uh A3, I believe, uh is 65
ft to the rear property line. the that lower lowest corner to the to the property line is >> 65 65 ft. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's all I have.
>> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Okay. We can move to your next witness. >> Okay. Um my next witness is >> Russ >> and we're going to swear you in. >> I do.
Russ Chellock. C H E L A K. >> Mr. Chelock, you're the owner of um Crane Farm LLC. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that's one of the owners of the property at issue, correct? >> Yes. >> And you're also the owner of one of the businesses that operates on the site. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And what's the name of that business?
>> Moy Handling Systems. M O Y. And um Moy Handling Systems operates towards the front of the property. Correct. >> Correct. >> And can you describe your business? >> We're a distributor of overhead cranes and hoist for factories, power plants,
military bases, uh water treatment plants, things of that nature. >> Um and and describe your operations on the property. What you're doing on the property, >> right? Um we're not open to the public. Uh our business hours are 7 to 3:30. Uh
the guys arrive in the morning and they leave in company vans to uh service or install equipment at our customers facilities. >> And how many employees do you have on the property? >> Uh currently have 17.
>> Okay. And how long have you been operating at that site? >> Uh 2013. >> Okay. And you've you leased the property and then bought it, >> correct? >> Okay. around 2015 or 2016, correct? >> Yes. >> And you have an office on the property? >> We do. >> And that's the uh it's designated as a
shed on the original site plan, I believe. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh when you bought that property uh when you bought the property or when you started leasing it, was that office already heated and plumbed? >> Yes, it was. >> Okay. So, you didn't It was used as an office when you moved into the property. Correct.
>> Correct. Um, I share the engineers uh thinking that uh we're not sure why it's called a shed. This was actually the original office for the farm. All the power for the farm came in through
this building. It's a uh block and uh uh it's a block construction building with concrete floor and uh it had electricity, it had plumbing, it had office areas, it had shelving. Um
and uh I saw photos quite a few years ago of the interior. Uh it had thick uh insulation uh windows. Uh it was the office for the farm facility.
>> And uh and when you bought the property, you applied for a zoning permit, correct? >> Yes. >> And you received the zoning permit, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And um you uh you currently um uh require some outdoor storage, correct? >> We do. >> Okay. And could you describe that? Well,
we have our our vans uh and pickup trucks uh that our employees take to the job sites and then we have uh specialty tools required to do our work. Uh during the course of doing OSHA inspections and
OSHA uh load tests on cranes and hoist, we use a variety of lifting beams and lifting weights. Uh these basically tools of the trade are uh loaded onto trailers and trucks with
forklifts that are also stored outside and uh that's about it. >> Um and and you understand that the buffer is going to be uh 35 ft correct property and that's and you're that's acceptable to you, correct?
>> Yes. And um uh do you have any comments about uh the concerns about noise on the property? >> Uh the noise consists of uh people getting into uh the vehicles, 90% of it uh in the morning and then uh
dropping them off in the evening. Well, uh afternoon 3:30 is punchout time. And uh I would say twice a week we have a delivery or shipment where we're uh loading stuff onto a trailer to go to
our customers facility. >> Right. And um you um you have um oper um >> right and it's it's necessary to your business to have I mean that's the way your business operates. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> And it's a it's a light industrial
business. Correct. >> Correct. which is permitted in the zone. Yes. >> And it's a commercial property and it was commercial when you bought it >> and has an existing site plan on it. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um >> I have uh I have no further questions for the witness.
>> Mr. Mayhem. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um is your operation We heard some concerns from some of the um homeowners about noise and activity and storage in the rear.
Does your uh operation currently store material in the rear? >> Uh yes, we have our company vans. We have low test weights and low test lifting beams. >> Um, and I can add to the uh noise
question if you like. >> Sure. >> Uh, specific mention was made of backup alarms. We used to have a tenant and uh when they moved in uh there was several weeks of deliveries
of their equipment and uh that's when the uh backup alarm complaint was lodged uh when the tenant uh moved in. Uh they have since since moved out and uh there
will be no more backup alarms. So in your normal daily operations, you are not using a piece of equipment that triggers a backup alarm. >> Correct. >> I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Good evening, Mr. Chillock.
>> Good evening. The area that you would be having your outdoor storage is it's the one area in in the rear of the building. Correct. >> Correct. >> And it's the same area that the other business would also be keeping some of
their outdoor storage. Is that just for your business? >> Uh they're separated. Correct. >> They're separated. >> Yes. >> Okay. And could you go more into the nature of what you're storing that's associated with your business in terms of of the
height of them of of the materials and anything like that? >> Right. Uh the average low test weight is approximately 14 in tall maximum. Uh the lifting beams are 18 inch height maximum pretty much.
>> Okay. So you won't have anything that's that's uh taller than the building or in this area. >> The only thing taller than the building would be the uh storage container that is used by uh SNR, the shed used by SNR.
And then we have a uh a regular trailer on wheels that is uh taller than uh the 8oot fence. >> Okay. And then the equipment that uh how do you move the equipment? What kind of
equipment do you use to and like is there noise associated with that? >> Well, uh these are uh fork trucks with very small relatively small engines 60 65 horsepower far less than the average automobile. Uh they're they're quiet.
>> Okay. And then is is there um is there a specific time that there might be you might be using those forklifts to move materials or is it any time during your business hours? >> It's usually uh in a oh 15 20 minute
maybe a half hour span uh in the morning um or at the end of the day closer to 3:00. >> Okay. >> 3:30. >> Thank you so much. Thank you, >> board members,
>> Mr. Chilac. Um, so I'm looking at the plan here and I'm just trying to understand which building is yours. Is your building the one I guess the furthest to the west? Um, looks like a big flat building with like maybe some solar lights on the top or something or >> uh Well, I guess it's best to describe
us as being uh the front buildings or the front portions of the buildings. >> Okay. Um, so it would be in front of the uh parking lot in the lower left corner.
>> Okay. Where the the uh where the masonry office building is. That one is your office, right? And then the big building behind it, that big square building. I don't know. >> Okay. Uh >> on the plan, they're referred to as condos. >> Condo A, B, C, D. Is that what we're
speaking about? >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yes. And >> so we're condos B and C. >> Condos B and C. Okay. So you're on that side of the property. Okay. Um, so is it
fair to say that you're basically your your people come in, load up their trucks, and then they're gone. Then the buildings are pretty empty during the day. There's not a lot of activities. Just your your crews come in in the morning, get loaded up, leave, and then come back at 3:30, punch out, and leave. >> Correct. 95% of our activity is exactly
that. >> So, you're not really manufacturing anything on the site or bu you're just have storage there. You get ready to go do your work and come back. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, are you a Monday to Friday? >> Uh, Monday through Friday. Yes. >> Monday through no weekend hours. >> No. Not open to the public.
>> Okay. And now obviously no evening hours because you're just going out on doing all your work is on site somewhere. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you're using regular passenger vans and that kind of stuff like trucks. >> Pickup trucks. Yes. >> Okay.
What do you do for and I don't know if you guys share this for for snow and when you have a snow removal and stuff contractors come in and plow where do you where does all that material go >> um >> generally because it looks like there's
a lot of stuff on this site so I can imagine if it's a snow plowing nightmare >> well u given the nature of uh the climate recently ly uh we've basically only plowed the uh
fire truck lanes and uh after a day or two or three uh the rest of the snow is melted and uh we have access to everything that we need. >> So just enough to get in and out. That's all you really to worry about. >> Correct. And uh
it it's suited us fine ever since 2013. >> Okay. There's not an issue of having to accumulate piles of snow like on a, you know, a large parking lot or something like that. >> Obviously, the winter time the pool business is pretty slow. I'm sure not a
lot of people show up. All right. Uh, and do you get deliveries during the day that people have to be there? It's like UPS or anything or they you guys because you're basically go out and stuff, there's not a lot of receiving being done. Uh UPS,
uh Amazon, Walmart. Uh they'll come in about once maybe twice a day. >> Just drop and leave. >> Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Yes. >> You mentioned earlier that you were renting one of the units
>> um earlier. >> Yes. >> And uh that that's where the >> the noise are coming. >> Yes. the noise is coming from. Is that unit currently occupied now by by your company? >> Correct. >> Do you intend to lease it out in the
future or keep it occupied? >> Uh we have no present plans to lease it out. It it was a it was just just wasn't worth it. >> All right. Thank you. >> We're open to public. So, I will anyone from the public that would
like to question this witness on his testimony. >> Again, please come up. State your name and address for the record, please. >> Mr. Lane, I'm at block 5801 lat 12. >> Closer to the mic. >> Oh, I'm sorry again.
>> You're rockar. >> All right. Yes. U Mike Cullen, >> we just have to use your address. You don't have to block him. >> Okay. Thank you. 12 Dickerson Road. U Mr. Chalk, um you had mentioned about your prior tenant. Um they were the
source of the noise. So um and there's no noise now from your point of view because we have nothing backing up or whatever. So in the future though when we have a storage shed, do you will you be using um the forklifts or any kind of
equipment like that that we couldn't expect noise to come from? Uh that storage shed is uh belonging to uh the other company that's on the site. I wouldn't have any >> I thought you said it was shared >> information on that. >> Okay. I'm confused by that.
>> Um but you're confused. >> I believe you said it was shared. Did I misar you? >> Is it shared? >> No, it's not shared. No. >> Okay. So, that question would have to go to SNR. >> I can I can hold I think Excuse me. I'm
sorry. I think what I heard we were talking about the storage pad, not the shed. >> So you said shed, which I could see being only SNR, but the storage pad. >> This building in the back here. >> Ask him again. >> Okay. Yes, sir. So, yes, what I was asking about is the
>> this part of the diagram right here. >> Right. >> Right. Yes. >> My understanding was that you know that's the storage setting question. We're and what I'm asking about is in the future you're going to have materials in here. Um um I thought I understood it that it would be Moy using
that. >> Uh no, that's uh my my statement was that uh our storage areas are separated. You're pointing to the SNR storage area. >> So you have no dog and hunt with the
storage in the back of the building, which is really the main issue that we're concerned about. >> Right. If you're speaking of the uh the lenade storage area there, uh we do not store any materials there. >> Okay. I do thank you uh John for asking
what the dimensions are because it's ambiguous and hard to hard to judge. Thank you. >> Paul Beckowski, 30 Campbell Road. Mr. Dr. Chilac, thank you for coming here and having this conversation with us. Um, >> thank you too. >> So, part of the dis uh to follow on to
Mike's uh question about the storage area and the use of it. Uh, just for clarification, is this a shared storage outdoor area or is this going to be only an outdoor storage area that will be used by SNR? Uh, our storage areas are
separated. The uh delineate delineated outdoor storage area is used by SNR exclusively. Okay, thank you. Um, so I'll I'll defer that other question then. Uh, the other question I had was around uh your
loading and unloading practices. Uh, currently we have noticed that there are a lot of idling trucks back there during the uh loading and unloading which causes uh diesel fumes and other particullet to come up and come into our uh the residents backyards. Um
especially during the uh the warbor months when we try to have our doors open or windows open, we smell the fumes in the morning. Um and and during closing time, um is that your standard practice to idle your trucks as you do as you unload and load them?
>> Uh we don't have any diesel uh trucks. >> Well, okay. Maybe not diesel, but any kind of fuel. Do you idle your trucks uh that you're unloading and unloading because we smell some sort of fumes? All our vehicles are uh state inspected for emissions. Um I'm not aware of any
vehicle that we have that uh has a fume problem. >> That's not my question, Mr. Chilac. My my question was, do you idle your trucks as you load and unload them? >> Is the engine running while you're loading and unloading them? >> So, uh we don't have any trucks. Uh we
have >> your vehicles then >> vans. Uh our vehicles are gasoline vehicles and uh yeah they're idling at some point. >> Okay. So they idle as you load them and unload them.
>> Sure. >> Okay. And is that a permitted use in the I2 zone? >> I don't understand the question. Is that a permitted use of are you allowed to idle them uh as you're
loading unloading? Is that part of the start and standard operations? >> It's a a legal question. Um, Mr. Chillock is not a lawyer, but um, you know, the the use that is occurring is a permitted use in the I2 zone. Uh, we're not here to uh evaluate the use. Uh,
it's a light industrial zone. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying. >> Um, if I may, Mr. Gac, um, could you just clarify fully exactly where your storage is on the property? 100%.
>> Right. >> The outdoor storage. >> Yep. Uh, that would be the area marked as concrete pad and also the uh storage trailer. >> Okay. So, the concrete pad that is 1,60
ft and then the storage trailer that is 310 square ft. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Excuse me. Is that also the concrete pad uh by the silos that is 390 square ft?
>> That is primarily a access for a double width door. >> Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of the site plan, it's going to be really important if uh the board goes forward and approves this that
there's no question as to where the outdoor storage is delineate delinated. So, it's going to be really important that it it's noted on the plan exactly where all outdoor storage is. Uh because in the future it's going to be very difficult uh to know from an enforcement
standpoint of where the outdoor storage is unless it's unless it's indicated because you know right now showing the concrete pads and that's just not going to be enough information and perhaps your planner will will
address that as well. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, >> if I could. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I understand the concrete pad in the
rear that's 1,60 square ft is your storage. And then as I move around the site near the silos, that trailer is yours. What about in front of the masonry building, condo C, it says concrete pad 168 square ft. Is that storage or is it
just access to the building? >> Uh, that's storage also. And that's your associated with your operation. >> Correct. >> As as Mr. Kois was saying, I think it's important for the board and and also for his office to know what they're
regulating. Are there other exterior areas that we should label on here that you're utilizing for exterior storage? >> Uh, no. That would be it. Instead of putting you on the spot though, I would just have the engineer
double check and and give Mr. Mayhew anything that you should change for our records. Okay. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Because I think Mr. Kois's office is going to want the next plan that comes in that these are labeled on the plan. >> Correct. And as we
well it kind of came up before, but uh looking looking at the code, there is a prohibition on storage in the front yard. So if storage is going to be proposed in the front yard, that's that's a different that's a different variance that would be requested. That's not something that we would have been
able to pick up in our review to know. Uh so the applicant needs to make it clear on what they're on what they're really asking for and if it's covered within what they've already requested. And >> maybe this is going to come up between
the neighbors and the board at some point. Can any of these currently >> uh exterior storage areas in the rear in particular, could any of those be relocated um away from the residential areas and bring them forward?
>> Uh not that I'm aware of. And is that because of the location is necessary in relationship to say doors or other loading areas associated with the buildings. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Paul Beowski 30 Campbell. Mr. Chilac, uh
just one last question around just getting getting some more clarity around your storage trailer that you have on the property. Is that something that is meant as a permanent storage or is that something that will be moved around uh on the property like loaded and unloaded, moved on and off the property?
>> Uh that's its parking spot. >> So will it so it will move over time and come back like leave and come back and get unloaded and unloaded >> in that parking spot? In that parking spot. Yes. >> Okay. And so we can expect operational noise during that time when you're
unloading and loading and moving that that semi-tractor trailer back around uh the roadway there. >> Well, it hasn't been moved in 8 years, so um I can't anticipate it'll be moved anytime in the near future. >> Okay. Thank you.
Hello, my name is Marish Gravski, 32 Canbor Road, and I'm going to ask question on behalf. My mom had a knee replacement um so she couldn't make me she asked me to ask a couple of questions. I have a question, Mr. Kilak. Have you I mean, from the testimony, it seems um
everything's so organized um on your property. Have you had any um complaints from the neighbors about disarray up at the property? Have you have have you any have you had any uh municipal complaints
complaints over the last few years? >> Um I am there virtually every day from 7 to 3:30. We have never had a single neighbor come in and complain about anything. I have received phone calls
from a neighbor that complained about a tree that fell onto their property. Uh but it was from the adjoining lot. We directed them to the owner of that property. Uh and perhaps we had another
complaint about a tree falling um towards the east end of the property. uh that person called and asked for our insurance company and we gave that information to them. Those are the only complaints that I can recall.
>> There was no complaints from the township. >> We have had complaints from the township that have been resolved. >> That's what I'm uh Can you can you explain the nature of the complaints? What were the complaints that that were eventually resolved? Uh it was the uh
backup alarms. >> Um um because um how about the the way the things the uh you know the the large piece beams and they were like laying all over the property. Have you had any
complaints about the dumpster ro uh rottens? Have you had any Have you heard of any of those complaints from the township? >> We have not. >> You have? Uh and uh I I agree with the gentleman here that um my mom uh well
there was at one point now everything's clean up with the property but one point to the right of the uh warehouse there was a lot of um uh beams uh dumpsters and it was for long period of time it
was like a you know uh it was like a a disarray and um my concern is and And I agree with the gentleman here uh m Mr. David um K uh that there should be a restricted area where some of the
storage is allowed. Um and uh I it's it's hope I'm hoping that's not the back of the property. If it was if it was the front of the pop property would be a lot better uh for the residents because
sometimes those pieces of equipments were there for months and months and um uh if it's if it's you know 25 ft uh behind the uh behind somebody's fence, it's really it's it's really uh
detrimental to the to the property value, especially since taxes have Excuse have gone up. Um, and my parents are paying $20,000 or $19,000 from for their property taxes and they have to look at
large piece of equipment in the back of their property. And I I I I agree, you know, you have to have you have to store it somewhere, but maybe there could be some kind of resolution to the side of the property the way it's been for the
last few years. um or the front of the property closer to the road because there's some trees and and and and that really that really I think I think I think the excuse me I think the the variance would
really um negatively affect the the property value in the back and as I said um you have to keep it somewhere but maybe move it farther away from the fence and uh keep it front of the building or maybe side of the building.
Thank you. That's right. Mike Cullen, 12 Deckerson Road. Um, Mr. Chilac, um, so my understanding is your business basically your your folks come in, they they check
in, and they they go off site. Um, in planning for this storage space, was there any consideration for making room in condos B and C
because there's no one there are. I mean, it's a big building. I I'm been your neighbor for 31 years. I'm just saying it's a pretty large building. >> I'm I'm sorry. The question is, >> have you considered the outdoor storage area on the inside
and on any of these these condos A, B, or C? >> Did you say that the inside is vacant? >> Well, I was asking you was it considered that was I didn't say vacant. >> We have no vacant room in any of the buildings. >> So there there was no
possible way of doing it on it on the inside. It's all office space. Yes, the inside is full. There's no vacant area to uh bring in the outside materials. >> You didn't want to convert the silos or anything like that. >> Uh convert the silos
>> for storage. >> Well, are they are they used? >> Silos are just trying to be creative. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm just trying to be creative. >> Creative. They're >> right. Silos are used for storing flowable
materials and we don't deal with any flowable materials. >> Our tools of the trade are very large uh or very heavy uh low test weights and uh lifting beams.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. Marius Grabowski again, 32 Camber Road. Um, I do have pictures uh of uh how the property looks uh directly from behind my parents' house uh from the deck uh if the board wants to look at these
pictures. And you know, from the from the um from the testimony, it seems like the areas like behind the warehouse is so narrow that there's like literally no place to turn. And if if you look at these pictures, there's plenty of
>> can. Sorry. Right now, it's just questions of >> Okay. Okay. So, >> unless he wants to show Mr. Sherlock the >> pre Mr. Sherlock, do you agree with me that there would be place on the side uh to
um you know um uh to accommodate some of some of your equipment on the on the side where it used to be closer to here rather than moving it to to closer to the fence? >> Can it can it be accommodated? Madam, >> you asked him a question. Let's
>> I believe uh this is a picture of the adjoining lot. It's not a picture of our lot. >> Oh, yes it is. No, this is this is your warehouse in the back. >> The property adjoining this fence appears to be the next lot.
>> Well, but but to the right of here, this is is is this your warehouse here? Is this your warehouse here with the with the cars next to it? No, it is not. >> So, that's property that doesn't belong to you that he's referring to.
>> Right. The lot uh adjacent to the fence of that house uh is the adjoining lot, not our lot. And the building that can be seen in the distance is SNR's uh
building. So, >> it's not our building. >> So, we're in reference to this. Where is your where is your lot in reference to this point of view? >> Uh, our building can't be seen in this photo. Well, but but but
um my but as you can see here, it's it's would be very detrimental if you either way if it's if it's not your building. If you move it, if you if if you can if if you move your equipment literally 20 25 35 feet from the from the from the
fence >> he's over here looking this way. >> Block 58 >> here. Okay. So, uh, block 58, lot 6701 is not your lot. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Uh, your photo appears to be from block
58, which uh is uh opposite the adjoining property. It's not our property. The buildings that can be seen in the distance are SNR buildings. It's
not uh my building. So, your building's to the left of of that building. >> No, it's in the it would be in the back of that. It can't be seen in this photo. >> So,
we're in in a back moving towards the towards the road or moving toward the properties here. >> I don't understand your question. Well, so where in reference where would your building be in reference to this picture? You said in in the back of the
property it would it be here or >> you show him on the map there? Maybe it's just easier just to show him on your map there where he's he is. >> Well, in your photo it would be behind what can be seen here. What can be seen here is SNR trucks and I believe the
corner of the SNR building. So our building would be in back of that out of the site. >> Why don't you show them on your plan there where he is where you are? >> So I think you're here. This is SNR and we're over here. >> So this is here
>> and this is a commercial property. >> See this is somebody else's property >> and this is S SNR. >> That's SNR. And our buildings are in back of that. I think the two trees that you're
pointing to in the corner of the photo are these trees, but most of your properties, the lot next door. >> We don't have We don't store any materials here. >> Do you have another copy of this? >> I don't.
>> Um, I have one And the the properties adjoining are commercial >> correct? >> So make sure so I just want to make sure. So okay this is and your building would be
>> there's no record there. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Aldicowski third at Campbell Road. So, Mr. Chilock, um first of all, we want to be cooperative as your neighbors, right? We want to make sure that you are you
have the sufficient space and the capabilities to run your business how you'd like to run it. Uh we on the other side don't want to see the storage from the south side. >> So, the question, sorry, let me get to the question. Um what I what we've done here from a community perspective is
develop some alternatives as to where we think some areas should be considered on the property itself. Uh Mr. Chilac, this if you could take a look at this uh picture right here, would you agree that the uh area circled in black is your
storage area? >> And I could hand this out to the rest of the board if they would like to. >> I guess I'm going to object to this. >> Good idea. And we can mark this as P1 for the public. Okay. >> But does he need to
>> Should I come Should I approach him? What >> do we need to swear him in? >> Mr. Just asking questions. >> Not until we see what we're >> Why don't we You provided a copy to the council, Mr. Chill. You now need to provide it to the board so they know
what we're all talking about here rather than having these private conversations. Unless you want to have an off thereord private conversation off this record. >> Michael, how you doing? >> All right. You know what? I may suggest
we're going to take a break. Why don't you guys have a conversation and then we'll reconvene and see where we're at. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So we'll rec what is it 9 o'clock? I can't even. So we'll reconvene at 10
after. >> You can send it to me. >> It's all your fault, Michael. Do you live in There we go. Now it comes back. >> All right, wingspan time again. There we go. >> So, um, >> okay, we're back in session.
>> Uh, yeah. >> Who did we lose? >> Yeah, Mr. >> He took request. Actually, we lost our planner. >> All right. Well, >> that's right. Sam's
>> the 40 under 40. Let's go. >> Um, I was going to ask to bring back the engineer to discuss this document P1, which is a proposed alternative method of storing uh on the property. And uh he'll explain his thoughts on that.
>> And just remind you're still under oath. >> Okay. And actually my first question though was I have a copy of P1. Yes. >> Okay. So, may I ask the question now? >> Thank you. So, Paul Dowski, 30 Campbell
Road, just so we have it on record. Uh, originally this question was for Mr. Chilock who was up here um but he sat down. So, um I'm not sure if the engineer can answer this question, but the area that I had circled in black with my black pen here, um is that
currently the outdoor storage that is utilized by uh Mr. Chilag's business or is that used by uh SNR pools? >> The the black is uh Mr. Chilac's business.
>> Okay. And the red is SNR pools. That is correct. >> And each of those two storage areas will be exclusively used by their respective business. Meaning there will be no mixed storage. Some of Mr. Chilac's stuff in
the red square, some of SNR pool's stuff in the black circled area. >> That's my understanding. Yes. >> Okay. Now again based on what we see here, are there alternative devel are
there alternative areas that can be developed in order to move the storage out from view of the adjoining neighbors and put on the other side of the building given that the lot is not in irregular shape pretty wide and over
five acres in size. >> Sir, why don't we stick to the question? Is there a available area outside where there's >> Yes, sir. Yes. Is there available area outside of what is currently being used as outdoor storage? >> There is available area, but I don't
believe that is viable. The exhibit P1 shows alternate area one which is located as I'm indicating on my plan. This is u exhibit A2 I believe. Um, we the septic
system is located here. The loading the doors and so forth for one of Mr. Chilac's buildings are are in the front. Um, and there's also doors in the back. It's to for him to bring materials.
Well, he stores materials in the front now, but we don't want to store materials on the septic system. There's possible small area here, but I don't think it would I don't think moving his weights and so forth to the um area just
to the west of the where the septic system is is viable uh because he has to use uh forklifts and so forth to get the uh material to his trucks. Uh alternate area A2 is the
island area uh west of Mr. Chilac's office building. Um, first of all, there's a fire hydrant in that area. Uh, I think if we go to the um >> A3
>> exhibit, I forget which the exhibit this >> A which one are you looking at there? >> The proposed >> that would be A3. >> This is A3. >> A3. If we go to A3, uh the island where you you're suggesting that the alternative areas are um we have a bunch
of trees. We have storm water proposed in that area. Doesn't say that we can't move it somewhat, but that area is way outside of where the uh the buildings and everything. Uh although the work is concentrated,
we don't believe that it's viable for the operation to have to move store stuff in the front of the building and then come back and so forth. >> Okay. So would you say that while technically viable options exist, the
it's a matter of convenience or less convenient area for their operations. I would say it's not I don't I I don't believe it is less convenient, but I don't believe it's a viable uh solution. Okay. But we haven't there have not been
any studies or additional designs or or planning done in order to determine whether those are truly viable or not viable. >> It's it's more of an operational issue. I I think that you have to ask the owners of these two. Um
>> Okay. So, >> I I I was asked to address your exhibit P1. In my engineering uh judgment, the the areas that you've outlined, alternate A1 and A2 are are not viable.
Um again because of the septic system location and because of the the uh what did um uh island >> okay so I I guess again the my original question was for Mr. Chilock but he's
not up here so um you've answered my questions. Thank you. >> You planning on recalling Mr. Chila? >> Yeah I would if there's no further questions for Mr. No, I I I've got a >> You go first. >> You sure? >> I'll defer to you. You may say my
question and I want to ask >> what I'm trying to compare. What I see on the plan is I see a lot of parking spaces, >> but it appears we're going to be using it for the storage. So, I'm a little confused as to what's going on here because to me
those are parking spaces. They're not storage designated storage areas. I I as I testified, we showed parking spaces to show that the um amount of parking that was originally approved on the 86 site plan could fit on this particular site
if we needed to delineate those. We don't plan on delineating those spaces. So, they they uh they're used for storage or or other operations in lie of parking. If we needed to provide parking, that's the
areas that they would be in. >> Mr. Hoist, do they need to delineate these parking spaces? Is that a requirement of >> Yes. I I mean, um, does >> Go ahead. Sorry. I'm concerned because the plans that we have if going forward
as to how site plans work, if you're going to delineate and show where the parking spaces are, they could be gravel and that's fine, but for site plan purposes, that's an area that would be used for parking for parking only. On the prior plan, uh it shows where
employee parking is. It gets into a little bit more more detail. Uh, but I'm concerned that there's areas that are now being proposed for outdoor storage that were not clearly delineated on these plans and when we were doing our review,
we couldn't advise the board as to that. And as we're getting testimony right now that this area showing the parking lot is not really a parking lot. So, I have some concerns here. Is what's shown on the plan the minimum
required parking spaces? >> I believe what they're showing >> or is it an excess? >> I believe what they're Let's see here. I could look at their calculations, but they could show it on the plan, but if they're testifying that they're not actually going to use it for that,
>> then they're deficient in parking. I I'm saying that we're not going to delineate those parking spaces. If we need them, then we would delineate them. If if you want us to exclude that area uh storage from those areas, we can
let's go back a question. How many parking spaces are necessary for the site? >> Our calculation >> No, I'm I'm asking Mr. Kois that question or Mr. Mayu. It's going to depend on the square footage and of each of the uses.
>> Based on the current uses and the current square footage, how many parking spaces are necessary for the site? >> Let's see. Mark, >> Mr. Of course, there's a tabulation at the top center of
a >> a two >> two mark if you can answer the question. And the tabulation shows that 29 spaces are required and there's a note that 31 spaces including two ADA spaces are provided
>> and of those 31 delineated spaces how many of them are really being are going to be parking and how many of them you propose for storage. >> Well, you asking me Mr. Bernstein asking you based on the testimony you've
heard and where they've delineated, >> how many spaces appear to be based on testimony in the plans, how many parking spaces are in fact not parking spaces? Well, based on the testimony,
the uh 10 spaces delineated to the rear left um are also being co- described as outdoor storage. And the aerial exhibit shown as P1 also shows it
currently being used as outdoor storage which would be blocking those 10 spaces. >> We also be blocking the seven behind the 10. >> Um >> because I see you know you know 10 and seven in that corner.
>> You're correct. Mr. Mr. Chairman, there was an exhibit um A3 submitted tonight where some porc pavement would be removed and lawn provided and and in that activity, the seven spaces proposed
at the front left of condo C would be removed and placed in the rear again in an area that currently looks like storage. Mhm. >> And then also based on the aerial P1 and the aerials from our office, those seven
spaces at the front is currently occupied by storage. Um, and we find that to be true as well as the seven spaces shown on the far right where the plan north are. >> We require parking spaces to be
delineated on plans, do we not? >> On plans. Yes. >> Okay. So this is based on what's delineated on the plans that both of your offices reviewed prior to this evening.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. Well, it would be it was our office's understanding if the plan shows parking spaces, those areas would be cleaned up, paved, and utilizes parking as part of the approval. >> Right. That was that was that was our
assumption. >> That was our impression >> because parking as an accessory use, you have that on a site plan. That's the expectation that everyone would have from the town to the neighbors. If an area is designated for parking, that that's what would take place in those
locations >> and nothing else. >> And that's what we're proposing. It's uh being used for parking. We don't know the date of the uh the photograph. >> Let's not worry about P1. Let's talk about the existing situation. This is B3. A3 is up on the screen right
now. >> Must testify that his storage is here. >> Are there are there uses being proposed here that are not Well, we had it up there a minute ago that are now no longer going to be used
for parking spaces. >> I think the testimony had to do with the concrete pad, not the parking spaces. But but I do believe your prior witness testified that where the 10 and seven spaces are is is
outdoor storage. >> That's what's raising our question right now. >> And there's no way there's no request for a waiver for parking. >> Correct. >> Or a variance for parking. our or uh you know
parking no storage. >> We're we're not proposing um storage on the parking spaces on the site plan. Um, the storage is uh, >> no, but we have testimony that says just the opposite.
>> Mr. Chilac testified that that p concrete pad, the 10,60 square ft was storage. The front concrete pad was storage. uh as far as his operation was
concerned. >> Mr. Mans, can you indicate on A3 exactly >> where the proposed parking spaces are? >> A3, which is the >> which is right which is right which is up right now. >> No, pardon me. That's A2, but I'll use
A2. >> A2 shows seven parking spaces to the west of SNR. It shows three parking spaces north of SNR. It shows four parking spaces south of Mr. Chilac's
office building. It shows 10 parking spaces uh south of Mr. Chilac's uh condo B. And it shows seven parking spaces west of Mr. Chilac's condo C >> and they're all going to be paved and
delineated. >> They're showing the parking spaces were changed though, right? >> When you discuss the per surface issue >> it. So there so the parking spaces to
the east of the building by the silos are coming out and headed seven >> where the 10 is in the back of the property. >> I addressed that on on A3, but you asked me to to talk about A2. >> There was a reason I asked for A2
because that was what was supposed to be the delineated spaces. My question relative to day two before we get day three is are they all going to be under the plan proposed at the time were they going to be paved and marked?
The plan indicates that they are not were not to be paved and marked if the board so desires you know the applicant may agree to that but the plan was not to do that. >> Okay. Now let's go to A3. >> I'm sorry Mr. But our office reviewed
the plan under the assumption the proposed spaces would be spaces. Did I miss a note or something that says here's the spaces, but we're not going to really build these spaces. Is I missed that somewhere? Oh, maybe I'm looking now at a note
four. The parking spaces and directional arrows on this plan are only shown to indicate that sufficient parking spaces are available on this site. The spaces and arrows are not proposed to be installed at this time. Well, I apologize to the board and to Mr. Kois's
office. Our office missed that and was under the assumption the plan we're reviewing would be a plan that's going to be built. >> You want to read that note again? >> I'm looking at note number four. I just found >> you like to for the record read that note again. The parking spaces and directional arrows on this plan are only
shown to indicate that sufficient parking spaces are available on this site. So, can can maybe I misunderstood engineering, but basically I put a bunch of lines up on a plan to show you where parking could be, but we're not
necessarily going to provide that parking at the time when this whole thing is approved. That that that's correct because the thinking when I prepared this site plan was the thrust of this application was the buffer in the rear
not to make parking is uh not to formalize the parking because they don't have formal parking now and they had they haven't had formal parking for years. The problem is, correct me if I'm wrong, is once you put this before
this board, everything's in play. You want to make changes from a previous approval. It's now in play. You're here for
things have occurred since the 1986 approvals and therefore they all become viable discussions by this board separate and apart from what's been previously approved because you're seeking things that have been that no
long either no longer exist haven't existed or have come up throughout the period. So once your client decided they wanted more more storage, etc. or whatever, all
of these items that may or may not have been approved in the 86 plan now become potential issues here in 2025. I I can't speak for my clients clients. We could have have a brief discussion with them, but I believe that they can
work with the not storing anything in the areas that are shown as parking on these particular plans, especially A3. >> Put up A3, please. >> I can bring Mr. Chilac back. >> No, why don't we put up A3 before we
bring anyone back? That's still A2. A3 was the plan you provided tonight. A A3 as I mentioned before is really A2 with the um areas of pavement to be removed.
The seven parking spaces to the west of SNR remain. The three parking spaces in front of SNR remain. The four spaces south of the Mr. Chilac's office building remain. The seven parking spaces
uh >> don't remain >> east of condo C don't remain, but they they were pushed behind um the uh the 10 parking spaces that were originally shown. So >> So you moved seven you move now instead
of 10 parking spaces closer to the residence, you now have 17. I'm I'm not I didn't follow your calculation. >> Seven and 10. Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yes. >> That's my my my simple math. 17. >> Lawyer math.
>> Lawyer math. Yeah. >> Lawyer. >> Actually, lawyer math would get you 34. It get you 34. >> But Mr. Chilac in testified that he used the concrete pad in the rear and in in the
front. the the other stuff that's shown on P1. I I can't testify to that. I think that's You'd have to talk to Mr. Chile because he's already testified that he doesn't use that for storage.
>> That's correct. >> Um so on note four, it does say that it doesn't specify which parking spaces are actually not existing. Um, so can you repeat just one more time that which
parking spaces are actually real parking spaces and which are just on here just because >> there are no real parking spaces. There's there's nothing delineated. M in front of Mr. Chilac's building there are in an area where you can park four cars.
They're not delineated as such. Uh the SNR operation tends to park some cars on the Westley side where I show those uh seven parking spaces. Those are really the only parking spaces I know that are really
used at the present. >> And is that ADA spot actually existing and actually usable by somebody with mobility issues? >> It's not existing. Okay. Mr. Chilac, um, in P1,
this, um, is this representative of the condition of what we see on this? Is this the way it looks now? >> No, it's not. >> Okay. Can you explain is it cleared or or are you just using the concrete pad and the affformentioned
um container that's been there for I think you said eight years? >> Yes. Uh, I believe this photo was taken when our tenant was moving out and uh, all the rectangular shapes you see there and I think there's a a large crane
there that was used for moving this stuff out. All that is gone. >> Okay. So, that's >> the only thing we have in that black area uh, pickup trucks and vans >> like parking. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now to the left there is that
concrete pad and and that's that's our storage. The uh trailer next to the silos is our storage. >> Mr. Chairman, can I suggest because it doesn't look like we're going to finish this application tonight that before the
next application, the applicant provide us with a picture similar to P1 of the current situation on the site so the board can attempt to determine
the viability of P1 versus what's going on right now. I think that would be fair. But also, should we also ask for outdoor storage markings >> besides what's being asked for, but
what's really being what's occurring today? Well, I I think I think a picture delineating exactly what's on the site now will also address some of the issues that we've had testimony on as to what's parking, what's being used for parking
versus what is since there are no delineated parking spaces, >> right? >> And I think also we're going to need to address the ADA spots. >> Well, that because >> that along with a number of other items starting >> No, but but as as a minimum, it can't be
gravel. I'd like to submit this photo of a current condition. >> Um, well, we're going to come back. My understanding is that the board wants us to come back and provide. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> But you can clearly see it's only vans and pickup trucks.
>> Um, counselor, if that's the case, provide it. Let us know when. We're going to get the gentleman up here in a minute to deal with P1. >> Okay. Um, yeah. My understanding is the board wants photos of current conditions on the site. >> Board wants current conditions.
>> Which Mr. May you want anything else? >> Well, I think um that's two out of three guys. >> I think Mr. of course would agree that the we would suggest that the um site plan which was a two should be updated
to deliminate where the planned parking is going to go and where any planned outdoor storage is going to go. >> Correct. >> Agreed. >> Okay. >> Can I can I go >> to be clearly delineated? A3.
This is a the purported proposed site plan. >> Correct. I I would update I would submit A3 with the um storage clearly designated. >> I think what we also need not only a
picture, we need an A4 which is a site plan design. I'll leave the two of you as to the current situation as well. because we have an approval for this site dating back to ' 86. In the absence
of any further action by this board, that 80 that that site plan should look a lot like the 86 plan. I have a feeling it doesn't. But I think the engineer should provide
to to the board engineer and the board planner in in advance of the next meeting a site plan, not only a picture, but a site plan that also shows the current situation on the site to allow both Mr. Kois's office and Mr.
Mayor's office to compare that to the 86 approvals. >> And we provided a survey the current conditions on the site that Mr. Mans did. Yes. >> And I would also suggest putting more additional dimensions to show the
distances off the back. >> Well, but let me let me because >> sir, >> the gentleman who who who's the author of P1 and I apologize since I don't remember your name. I don't want to >> that's okay. Paul Beckowski, 30 cable
road. >> Profer Mr. Bowski as to where when this picture was taken and who took it. >> That is a picture from Google Maps satellite vid uh image and it was taken this week as a screenshot by me.
>> It taken as a screenshot but you don't know when it was taken. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> 2005. >> Okay. Okay. >> I believe it was I believe it was newer than 2005, but >> I I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for
semihijacking, but >> Okay. But I think also to help everyone to get setback lines to some of the key components >> because we have a few but they're not we
don't have any going to the proposed outdoor storage area. Might be helpful just to have a reference for the 60 foot mark so that we can see where everything is relative. No. >> And from the public's perspective, if I may ask, one of the things that again we
would like to see is alternatives developed. >> Time out. Okay. >> Um, >> we are way way ahead of where we belong. This is the applicant's application.
You've been allowed to introduce P1, but this is not the time nor the place for a discussion of alternate opportunities. However, if you would like to talk to council and
her client at the end of this meeting and possibly set up a time to talk between now and another hearing to in the hope that you might be able to come to a mutual understanding, the
board won't stop you, but the time and place for having a discussion of what about this versus what about that comes at the end of this hearing, not Now, >> understood. Thank you. >> And we're open to uh to uh hearing people's concerns and working with them. >> Um
>> Thank you, counselor. >> Uh I I also just wanted to point out, as my client pointed out, the um the parking lot is gravel now. And so when we say parking lots aren't delineated, we mean that they're not um striped because it's gravel. It's not pavement. And that's pursuant to >> I believe that's a testimony. The
question is whether uh I have I think and I can't ask Mr. Mayu or Mr. choice to go back and look at A1 versus now. But I think some of that's got to be we got to look at A1 and see what was approved versus what's being proposed.
Not right now because, correct me if I'm wrong, David Mark, there has been no additional changes to this property in terms of a board action since 1986. >> Correct. Thank you. Correct.
>> So the 1986 plan is still the governing plan. >> That's correct. And what I believe we've heard testimony, we've had a certain amount of what one would call the legal doctrine of creep. >> Creep.
>> Creep. Things have sort of crept >> into into not just the application into the site itself. Okay. Or do we Is it worthwhile to hear from any of the other witnesses?
>> Well, Mr. Schiller has anything else he wishes to add or the public has anything they wish to inquire of him. That might be the way to go. At this point, we're at 9:45. >> Yeah, that's true. >> Time flies. Then the question is how you
council I believe correct me if I'm wrong has three more witnesses. >> Uh yes. >> I don't know if it's worthwhile for the other business owner just to kind of give an overview of the operations or no. >> You don't want I >> Okay. >> I I would hold off on that because it I
I think the other business owner is the one that primarily is going to be using this outdoor storage if I understand the testimony correctly. So, I suspect that the gallery is going to have a lot of questions about his usage of that outdoor storage >> and we're clearly not going to finish
that in 15 minutes. >> My suggestion we bring Mr. Scholik back if council has any more questions of him or the public has any more questions of him and then we'll see where we are. >> Okay. >> I'd also point out, Mr. Chairman, while
we're having change of the guard, the only date you currently have on the calendar is January the 8th because that's the only date you have for next year right now. >> Okay. >> And I don't know what's on the agenda. So, >> Mr. Bernstein, I did some research. I
know when the picture is from if we you guys want to know, you know, it's from it's from August 2023. You can backdate it to Google Earth. >> Okay, we'll confirm Miss Mr. Vitali will
advise >> that. We'll anybody on see what happened. GIS expert as well. If you also go on to Google Earth and click 2025, you will see a different image than the photos that we
are looking at currently. There is a lot less of what is looking like, >> right? And you could go all the way back to 1995 and we could see it nearly from year to year, sometimes every two years, and you could see the history of the property and how the site plan may have
um well, how the existing conditions may have changed from from what is on record. >> Google Earth is not a witness before this board and cannot be questioned. So, I appreciate Mr. Vitali's
research and he will advise the planner and the engineer about it and we'll let you all deal with it accordingly. Okay. >> All right. So, with the remaining time we have any additional board questions?
>> Well, I know but I just want to make sure here because we tend to trigger more questions. >> Okay. Anyone from the public? Yes. >> And wait. Oh, sorry. Just going to remind that you're still under oath.
>> Yes. >> Marish Grabowski, 32 Camber Road. Um, more of a comment if I may. >> No question. >> Question because we're going to continue >> this. Okay. So, um I guess uh are there
any parking spaces which are currently marked? I think we went over this. So I um the uh parking areas are gravel. It's not possible to paint white lines delineating the individual parking
spots, but as you can see in this current photo, >> the no no photos. Um we'll come back and we'll photos conditions. The cars are
arranged as is on the latest uh drawing. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um can I uh if there's nobody else, can I just ask Mr. uh Chilac a couple of questions? Just following up on P1. >> Mr. Chilac, you see the area that's
designated as parking on A3, correct? >> Yes. >> And that would be used for parking, correct? >> Correct. >> Wouldn't be used for storage, correct? >> Correct. In fact, that's how we're parking right now. >> Okay. And uh the the photo the uh image on uh on a uh on P1 um uh that's an
aerial view, correct? >> Correct. >> Uh not necessarily the view from uh the rear houses as they're looking through a >> correct satellite buffer. And in any event, it doesn't reflect current conditions. Correct. >> It does not. >> Okay. current conditions look much like
the latest drawing with uh two rows of cars uh one in back of the other. >> Right. And so just to again to clarify the storage areas which we would uh clarify on the next uh on our revised plan it's this the storage trailer the concrete pad
>> correct >> for your property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So we need to >> public have on those on those questions, >> right? >> Yes. I um Marish Grabowski 32 to Cumber
Road. Uh Mr. Chilock, um just would you be willing to >> No. >> Question on what he testified to. >> Okay. >> About the parking. Yeah. >> I I do have question about parking. Uh this question about parking. Uh would
you would it be possible to um either pave or asphalt the parking spaces and mark them accordingly? So so from somebody from outside it looks like an organized place. Everything is in in in place. Would it be possible to uh u
designate those parking and either pave them or asphalt them and mark them number them? >> Uh not to my knowledge. No. Okay, thank you. >> Doesn't mean the board can't
>> I think we should try to find a date and get the date of extension. >> Well, at the moment, Mr. Chairman, the only date you can give is January the 8th because it's the only date this board currently is constituted to meet.
>> But we have a January 22nd hearing that we're praying for. we have anything on for the agenda for the ETH? >> I don't believe so. Or >> I don't believe so. Let's just give us a moment.
>> Right. So David, is there anything else besides the ETH that we could hypothetically and then I guess we then reschedu first meeting of the year >> because we've done >> you don't have any applications right now that I'm aware of unless he tells
you've got them pending on the ETH that are that are carried to the ETH. >> Um >> well I think we need to go beyond the ETH. I saw a lot of shaking heads. >> Part one then we're going to get to part two. Um just >> that that was that was about to be part two which is are your witness is available.
>> Yeah. Um our planner Mark Rem is not available on January 8th. >> Well, >> but I think >> if you want them all together then this is the best I can recommend. The board's reorganization meeting is January the 8th. just the business.
>> You can come and make your pick for when you want to be placed back on the agenda, but the board cannot schedule a hearing beyond January 8th. Right now, >> Right. Right. >> Unless you want Unless you want to put some of the witnesses on on the night of
the ETH. >> No, he shouldn't. Um Yeah. So, we would ask to be put on the agenda for January 8th so that we don't have uh to have any further notice. And then on January 8th, we would either proceed with witnesses or perhaps uh uh
request an adjournment. But we do uh we are uh letting the board know that our planner >> if if you are planning on providing additional witnesses, you need to provide to the board at least 10 days in advance any and all exhibits you plan on including,
including the ones the board has asked for this evening. Um, if I may, we currently have a firm hold on that day for an extension of requests of relief um for another application. >> It could change, but it's an extension.
Yes. >> About that much time. >> Should be. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, if you're going to at least 10 days in advance of January 8th, we would like
to see all the exhibits that the board has asked for andor you think you may want to consider having people testify to because frankly A3 is in violation of the board rules.
>> But we're we admitted it >> and and my understanding is that you can't give us a date beyond that because you haven't set your calendar. >> That's correct. Okay. >> But also, I'm just wondering how much can we get done on the ETH other than to ask for an extension because you we've
encouraged them to get with the neighbors with the holidays. >> Well, if I would assume council to try to get council's going to come back either on January 8th and one of the following and I don't want to speak for her. One, they have come to an understanding with the residents and
plan on either coming back at a future point with an application that meets all of it. Two, they're still talking and want more time, >> or three, they're going to come and continue the testimony on the application. Or four, none of the above,
but she still has to come. All right. >> All right. I just want to set expectations what's going to happen on the ETH. >> The likelihood is we'll ask for more time. We'll show up and we'll say, you know, we need more time. >> Okay. What this means, ladies and gentlemen in the audience, is you will
not be getting another piece of paper telling you there's another meeting. If the board agrees to this request and also the granting of an extinction on the time of decision and grants it to carry this to January the 8th at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard because your reorg is at 7, you will not be getting another. This is it. This is your notice for the ETH. Beyond that maybe the same thing. It's quite probable you will not get another piece
of paper setting forth another day. Extinction till when? >> Uh what when would you uh is the board asking us to grant an extension for through uh February March 31st? >> March 31st. >> Yeah, let's do March 31st.
>> Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, also the meetings are uh published on our website so you can tell when this is going to the agendas do get published ahead of time. >> But it's the early Christmas present. We select Santa's not bringing another
notice. No, we need a motion to carry this application >> to January 8 >> to January the 8th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard as well as a extension of time of
decision to March 31st, 2026 without further notice. >> I'm making a motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> All right, I'll second. >> There you go. Okay. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Wagner, >> yes. >> Mr. Adawitz, >> yes.
>> Vitali, >> yes. >> Money, >> yep. >> Mr. Carelli, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Pson, >> yes. >> Chair, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Happy holiday. >> Thank you. >> And with that, it's a wrap.
>> Well, it's a wrap for the year. >> So, just to remind everyone, first, thanks for another great year. And right and Mr. as Mr. Bernstein indicated this board
>> folks the meeting still going on. >> Sorry. Um we have this board will be reorganizing on January 8th 2026 about 700 p.m. followed by the regular meeting which will be 7:30.
>> Well I figure it will start sometime thereafter and I'm assuming Mr. is planning the extension request relief to start >> right so with that I will entertain a motion >> just
>> okay let's go >> just to give you all a little heads up for those of you who are back next year I don't who knows who will be and who won't be um we're going to be busy >> and it will not start with the word warehouse it will start with another word that has
house in it Mhm. >> We're we're going to be you're going to be seeing ordinances at the beginning of the year that we are required under law to review and approve so that the township committee can do so before
March 15th. So just make yourself >> and a new plan as well. >> Correct. >> And anything and everything that we need to do in the first quarter will have to going to go come through here. >> Right. just a >> and enough time to give the committee
the opportunity to adopt it >> and get approval from the court, >> fair share and god knows who else. >> So, okay. Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion for group photo.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. For the year. >> Done. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? All right. I see everyone next year. >> You got it. >> I've done enough photos. >> No photos.