##VIDEO ID:hw5uE1YxGYU## [Music] has good evening and welcome to the township how planning board meeting for Thursday December 19th 2024 and it is the last meeting for 2024 um okay opening statement I hereby declare this meeting of the house Township planning board to be open adequate notice having been given pursuant to the New Jersey open public meeting act in the following manner first on January 5th 2024 a copy of said notice was emailed to the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger second on January 5th 2024 a copy of said notice was hand delivered to the clerk of the township of Howell third on January 5th 2024 said notice was posted in the office of the planning board and on the bulletin board in the Howell Township Municipal Building 4567 Route 9 Howell Township New Jersey in accordance with the fire prevention code and your safety please be advised that this facility is designed with two emergency exits which are at the front and rear of the meeting room furthermore smoking is not permitted in the municipal building please take note that this meeting is being videotaped for possible future broadcast on Howell Township TV 77 thank you thank you roll call Mr Cristiano has been excused Mr Greenfield yes Mr leio has been excused Mr tanhouse I have not heard from Mr Withers I have not heard from Mr Rebel here councilwoman fiser here Mr Carbonic here chairman huster is excused and vice chairman Mercer is taking over the meeting and you are here so you have a quum thank you okay let's you arise for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for the men and women here and abroad in uniform here and abroad I pledge to the flag the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all thank you all right first order of business approval of minutes uh reg from the regular meeting November 7th 20124 two eligible voters councilwoman Fischer and myself do I have a motion I'll make a motion I'll second it Mr uh councilwoman fiser yes and chairman Mercer here yes motion carries thank you correspondence yes I have a letter from attorney Michael Herbert he is the attorney for case number SD 3013 basad LLC he said Unfortunately they haven't gotten their revised plans done yet and asked if we could please uh adjourn this for tonight to a future date I told them it would have to be carried to January 2nd for scheduling purposes says that's the only other date we have and he was okay with that and we'll have a future date after that so that will not be heard this evening just announcement on that the application of badar LLC case number sd-3 013 be carried to the boards uh January 2nd 2025 meeting that is a live meeting beginning 7:00 here in the main meeting room at Town Hall this will be for scheduling purposes only it will not be a substantive application um there will be no further notice to property owners and I also have an email from Matthew bada he is the attorney for SP 1127 Diversified Acquisitions LLC there was a question about dates when they were here last so we carried them to tonight for scheduling purposes he asked that we please carry it again to January 2nd for scheduling purposes with no further notice and he'll take a future date at that time okay so the application of Diversified Acquisitions LLC case number sp11 127 we carry to the boards January 2nd 2025 meeting is a live meeting beginning 7:00 here in the maid meeting room in town hall there will be no further notice to property owners and that will be for scheduling purposes only that's all I have unless anybody has any comments on the draft meeting dates that I handed out at the last meeting no no okay we can discuss it with the reorg so that's um resolutions I have no resolutions this evening um this as far as transparency so the January 2nd I know that's you know the voting in the new board does um well we're not voting in the new board the board gets appointed appointed yeah thank you so and then then so January 2nd we'll you know regardless of whatever is being heard we'll still have a meeting so that the the board can be revoted correct that's when the voting if there are matters that are in progress and that's not the first meeting then new members if there are any would be responsible for listening to the tapes in order to be eligible to vote but they could still sit and participate okay thank you MH okay I have uh submission waivers uh first one for case number sp130 Vander industrial Partners LLC minor subdivision and preliminary and final major site plan with ancillary varant and design waiver relief good evening Mr chairman board members and board professionals Kenneth Pape of the firm hurn Pape on behalf of your applicant and I defer to your engineer's comments on the Wafers as they are set forth in her report report yes sir you swear or affirm the testimony we have provide this board is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do so Mr chairman members of the board we have a November 8th 2024 review letter the submission waivers are specifically outlined in item three um I take no exception to the granting of them with the exception of checklist item 60 which is drainage conveyances within 2,000 ft Downstream of the property as well as providing a soil erosion and sediment control plan just because that's going to ultimately be required so I recommend those be required uh in order to deem the application complete understood and accepted by the applicant okay anybody else we would just need a uh a vote on it Mr okay all right make a motion to approve the um Sub sub submission waiver from minor subdivision preliminary and final major site plan I'll make a motion to approve second thank you a motion by Mr Greenfield and a second by councilwoman fiser Mr Greenfield yes Mr reel yes councilwoman fiser yes Mr Carbonic yes and chairman Mercer yes motion carries and the next one too next one okay all right case number sp131 vanir industrial Partners LLC preliminary final major site plan and ancillary design waiver relief go ahead on behalf of the applicant and again Mr chairman and board defer to your your engineer you swear I refer on the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do so Mr chairman similarly we have a report dated November 19th 2024 with a submission waiver specifically outlined in item three um I take no exception to the granting of these waivers with the exception of checklist item 60 which is the drainage conveyances within 2,000 ft Downstream as well as the soil erosion and sediment control plan which is item 90 I would note uh I would have otherwise also requested a Woodlands management plan but they do have no tree removal proposed um so with that and the balance I take no exception of the granting of the waivers with the exception of items 60 and 90 um the application would need to submit those in order to be deemed complete thank you on behalf of the applicant understood and accepted okay take a motion to approve the submission waiver for preliminary and final major site plan for Vander industrial Partners LLC SP 11131 motion okay second to approve I'm sorry who was the second Dan oh Brian thank you Mr Greenfield yes Mr Rebel yes councilwoman fiser yes Mr Carbonic yes and chairman Mercer yes motion carries thank you all good night thank you happy holidays thank you you're done for the night happy holidays [Applause] okay and then application before the board is case number sp123 SMC Properties LLC preliminary and final major site plan with ancillary variance and design waiver relief before I get started I'm just going to hand out copies of our PowerPoint presentation if that's okay well why don't we just get started by entering your appearance and then we can do that problem good evening members of the the board Alex cvido with JJJ Law Firm on behalf of the applicant SMC Properties LLC Council just before we get started this up to you and your client obviously you see we have five members you know you would normally be entitled to nine members voting it's up to you if you want to proceed tonight you would need three of the five to uh to get an approval that's okay we'll proceed tonight okay thank you okay so now um You can distribute the power point do we have that marked I I'm marking it now as A6 okay so we'll mark this is we'll mark this is a16 yes [Applause] I have one for myself you want the rest I'll take them we have to cancel this meeting which one you all the show Windows the two uh I thought I'd put it on and walls okay okay we're just waiting for the screen to turn on Counsel but you you can get started okay good evening members of the board like I stated Alex cido with JJJ Law Firm on behalf of the applicant SMC Properties LLC with us this evening is Steve mados in the audience the the developer of the project we also have with us Richard DeFalco professional engineer and professional planner as well as Scott Kennel traffic expert for the project we're here tonight seeking variance and waiver approval to construct a 20,000 square foot flex space building which is a permitted use in the hd4 zone which the property is situated in the proposed building will consists of eight individual units with garages and office space as well as other ancillary site improvements as you'll about this evening we comply with all relevant bulk requirements but are seeking two buffer variances and a sign variances variants as well as some waivers as Mr DeFalco will go into this evening you'll also hear from Mr kennel regarding the traffic and circulation at the site um touching upon the new striping and designated left turn only lane within Route 33 which will provide safer access to the site at this time I'd like to call Mr DeFalco professional engineer and professional planner you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do please State and spell your name for the record Richard DeFalco d f o l c okay Council if you could qualify Mr DeFalco Mr DeFalco could you please provide the board with the benefit of your background education and experience yes a graduate of Ruckers University licensed engineer since 1977 and a planner since 1982 state of New Jersey Mr video you can sit at either table if you want because those are their'll be have to stand go yep and we ask that the board accept Mr DeFalco as an expert in the fields of professional engineering and professional planning we accept thank you thank you Mr DeFalco can you please start by describing to the board the site plan touching briefly on the existing condition and then touching upon the proposed site improvements and Miss Newman I'll ask could you please click to the slide number slide number 11 of our PowerPoint which is the landscape plan great thank you Mr DeFalco I have the landscape plan up here so you can go ahead and and identify the existing conditions as well as the site improvements identified on this plan all right well the the site is known as 985 Route 33 block 183 lot 22 it is across the street from The Cabin Restaurant if you're familiar with the Cabin Restaurant a brief history of the site the application was approved by this town's zoning board about five years ago for a medical use and during the building process there was some difficulty with the the state of New Jersey and the health regulations and that project never got built it got started the applicant posted bonds inspection fees cleared the site and then during construction we hit a roadblock and it was stopped can I just interject for a minute this is not the plan we have this is an old plan [Applause] yeah that's the right one but the balance of the sheets are not consistent so just go to the site plan sheet then the PDFs that were submitted uh a couple of weeks ago were the correction PDFs these might have been an older set that got somehow mixed into the file okay continue now that we have the updated okay so so in a nutshell the site was cleared and if you drive by it today it is still cleared and the applicant rethought the process and it's coming back now with a flex space application since the original application the town rezoned this to hd4 so that's a new Zone that he took advantage of it allows Flex space and that's what he's proposing to do we meet the bulk requirements there several variances that he is seeking on the buffer as a breef brief overview the site as I mentioned is across the street from The Cabin Restaurant to the west of the property is do rway and a farm field to the top of the map or the north of the property is a residential use to the right side is a commercial yard and the uh the fire department has a fire station that to our property as well the applicant is seeking to build 20,000 Square ft of flex space a loop driveway with a 30 foot width two dumpsters a stor water basin and a divided entrance out to Route 33 to improve Route 33 with a dedicated left turn lane into the site for eastbound traffic and to walk in Route 33 across the site Frontage the applicant is also proposing parking on this plan which shows the most intense use that we believe would be on the site to show that there's adequate parking on the site with respect to the variances that are required both the engineer and the planner called out the variances that are needed in their in their correspondence we require a variance for disturbance of the landscape buffer which is in the area to the north of the property it's actually forms a inside corner so the buffer that's proposed runs along the entire Westerly boundary 5 wide buffer and along the top of the property a 50ft wide buffer at the very top of the northeast corner there there's a rear dwelling which has access through an existing easement out to Route 33 across to this lot which presently runs the entire length of the sideline that long easement is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with the angled driveway easement which a 45 degree angle approximately to enter our access driveway minimizing the amount of disturbance within the buffer area to provide access from that residential lot out to Route 33 and where the existing gravel driveway exists that will be landscaped has be it'll become part of the Farmland buffer to the West and'll be landscaped also on the North to be part of the residential buffer so there's two buffers but we're minimizing the amount of disturbance by relocating the driveway from where it is now along the entire sideline to just that short piece it's about maybe 20% 25% of its present length we believe that you know because of the situation with the existing driveway and the minimum iation of the new access and and the Topography of it we believe that would be a hardship for the applicant not to be able to cross that easement and we're seeking see1 variant relief for the driveway to cross the easement and provide access to the lot in the back at the shortest distance possible and we basically have between the residential lot and our property 50ft wide buffer with the exception of that short driveway cut through which exists today also to the to the the characteristics of the buffer easement to the residential do not have four of two of the four required elements we have landscaping and we have a fence but we do not have a burm there is a portion of that existing buffer that has trees within it and to build a burn would be detrimental to the remaining trees we can place a shallow burm 3 or 4 feet but a 6ft burm we could not do and the elevation of the property where the easement ends is about 6 feet higher than the property where the driveway enters so there there's a 6ft grade change in that area and we could add more to it and add about 3 or 4 feet but we can't get a 6ot burm in that area because of the trees that are in that the West I mean the Eastern portion of that existing buff so rest so my only my recommendation and this has been in our report it's also been brought up at trc's one this site was cleared based off of plans that were done at the zoning board and it didn't appear that that was maintained and we had recommended a site walk with our office specifically with Sherie as the CTE and we also questioned why this area wasn't burned and recommended that a field visit be scheduled so that we can review this material so while I understand that the board is hearing this tonight for preliminary and final and should we advance I would not recommend um final approval because we haven't had the opportunity to do that to visit it right okay I have a question um this you're saying this was approved 5 years ago was this design is this designed the same now it's a different driveway different building a different use different okay similar but different I don't think any of us were here five years ago so and it was the zoning it was Z oh it was just zoning okay I'm gotcha was not a permitted use gotcha okay all right so we agreed to do that s sidewalk at any time uh with Sher but I think the solution would be to put a shallow burm perhaps 4 feet and increase if we need be the uh the buffer material and again Mr chairman just because this is a variance it's hard I mean the board should be able to understand it can't be I think we can do or we can do it's a variance so the board should understand what level of relief is necessary MH so the level of relief necessary is to not build a six-foot BM we have offense respectfully we've been asking you to meet with Sher for months Laura's letter was dated April we're in the end of December the meeting should have taken place and I agree with Laura at this point you know if you want to proceed with preliminary that's totally fine but I would also not recommend final until you complete the actions that we had recommended and meet with Sher and that's not something unique to this application we actually make that recommendation at every single TRC unless there's like absolutely no trees on the site at all so like the back and forth is is I don't think it's productive so that would be the recommendation and the board can choose to act one way or the other but this should have been done in the past 10 months well the board can consider that you know when it when it's considering the totality of the of the evidence um I guess my only question moving forward at this point council is is the applicant going to voluntarily seek only preliminary tonight or are you still seeking preliminary and final and the board will decide how it wants to proceed can we have just a brief conference with our client yeah we could we can uh take as long as you want Mr CH do you need five minutes minutes would be good okay take five minutes thank you thank you or we'll now take a recess until 7:30 were you on the zoning board were you on the zoning board when when when five years ago okay the board will now convened go ahead we've discussed with our client and we will proceed since we are this even evening seeking just preliminary approval and we'll return for final once the site walk has been completed well I don't think that's what they were asking they were asking um that there be a meeting with Sherry in the field so that whatever is going to happen is depicted on the plans not post site work that's what I meant the site walk with the team to make sure everything properly do you want to move forward with the plinary but not final correct tonight we are just seeing preliminary the site visit correct okay so Mr also when you were testifying with regard to uh the variance relief you mentioned specifically the C1 hardship variance I think it would probably be advisable to place C2 flexible uh variance testimony on the record all right so for the C2 variants I believe that this would be a better plan for the township because the amount of the existing easement would be drastically reduced to a smaller amount more like Landscaping would be provided and it would be a benefit both aesthetically and appearance-wise for the visual the visual impact would be better with a larger buffer by moving the driveway out of the easement and creating a short easement through the through the buffer because the easement exists today so we'd like to eliminate it from the buffer and angle it through at a shorter distance and have more trees and less gravel Mr DeFalco can you touch on the signage variants that we're seeking as well yeah uh section 256 5B says that each legally existing business shall have its own freestanding and its own freestanding building shall be limited to a total of two signs and we have more than two we have one Monument sign at the highway and we have the plan is for eight different tenants so above each door we have a a small placard above the door right there yeah and that would identify the tenant within the space that is being allocated for the tenants uh the ordinance allows a sign area equal to 25% of the facade we're nowhere near that we are much lower than 25% although it we wouldn't want to have one large sign across the whole front of the building but we have eight small signs aesthetically pleasing it's also not directly visible from Ruth 33 uh we're kind of turned at an angle because of the way the property situated so we're we're at an angle to the highway and it's only visible to pretty much those that park in front of the building as you're traveling down the street it's difficult to see a that angle any of the signage on the building and the side the side facing Route 33 will not have any signs on it so I don't think it'll be uh aesthetically uh unpleasing I think it'll be a benefit aesthetically it'll it'll be benefit to the visual uh environment the way the signs are laid out I think it's not it's not detrimental to the town's plan or the master plan so I think it would be helpful if you gave us the actual square footage so you said that 25% of the facade would be equal to X and then What's the total sign area right is that on that plan plan right here so that's like a 2 by 10 that's 20 * 8 [Applause] 2 29 [Applause] all right so the building facade is about 2300 square ft facing that side of the building so 25% of that would be about a little shy of 600 square ft that's allowable and we're proposing eight signs that are about 20 20 to 30 square ft each so we're about 240 Square ft where 25% would be about 600 square ft so we're like less than half of what would be an allowable sign area are those signs like 2 by 10 3x4 like what are they they appear to be like 2 by 10 those are 24t wide units we're not quite half a unit we're about 10t wide by 2 feet high so 20 * 8 is 160 I'm grounded it to 200 and we're allowed like 600 so we're less than a half maybe even a third of what's allowed and if we have one tenant that takes two spaces he'll still have a sign but he won't have eight signs it'll be seven signs or six signs depends on how many tenants take how many of those modules each 24 ft wide so if one person takes two there'll be seven signs not eight signs but as it is now with eight signs it would be about a third or half of the allowable sign area and like I said it's not facing the highway it's facing the side yard pretty much not really visible from the street Mr DeFalco can you please touch on the uh fence variance that's mentioned in both the planning and engineer review letters um and provide clarification for the board as to whether we are still seeking that variance yeah the revised plan eliminated the wall from the front yard and there is no fence that's higher than 4 feet within the front setback so I believe the variance request is not there anymore because of the revision to the plan this was revised and some of the comments in this letter had carried over to the new review letter but I think if it was looked at again you'll see that there's no fence higher than 4 feet and no wall within the front setback so I don't think we need a variance for fences and walls I don't think the note on the plan says four I think the note on the plan says six which is why we issued the comment my plan says four 4 foot high rail fence along the front the 6ft fence is behind the building and along the Northerly property line it stops at the dumpster the six foot high fence does not approach this front setep back on sheet three you look at cheat three on the screen I can see it this is still the wrong plan um which see right here that doesn't say for so it's a plan that shows the relocated but this here to show a six foot fence again it's hard to read the I was gonna say it's very F the updated plans that were submitted reference for feet on them that were submitted to the board presentation yes just go to that one well I'm on there go to our exhibit can do let me find [Applause] we go the latest definitely show I can zoom in on that that's the latest plan with the striping on the highway so these are the plans in Li of doing the presentation why don't I go off the apparent plan that'd be great thank you Laura so to clarify uh Mr DeFalco we are no longer seeking the variance for a fence higher than 4 feet in the front area correct correct and the walls have been pulled back to behind the setback line so correct no variance request for that Mr DeFalco can you please walk the board through the waivers that we're requesting this evening that's in Laura's letter all right so the first waiver is the width of the driveway exceeding 24 ft we have a bifurcated driveway at the entrance and to pass a tractor trailer truck into the site the radius warrants a certain width so that we don't drive over the Curbing and stay within the aisle and that's the width that's shown in the plan I believe it's uh it's around 40 40 fet at the driveway the curb cut because of the flares is in excess of uh 70 or 80 ft but that's at the curb line Mr DeFalco can you speak up a little bit we're having a little trouble hearing you over here yes the driveway opening I just measure for you driveway opening is approximately at the curve line 100 ft the driveway width is about 46 feet at its narrowest point at the entrance leading to 30-ft driveway it has a six a 6t concrete Island and an in and an out driveway the in is narrower than the out no the other way around sorry the N is double width for the tractor trailer but that's the VAR press the ordinance says 24 ft and we need the width for the do approval the next waiver is curb ramps along the parking area the plan was revised to comply with the ordinance again this is a letter with some carryover comments we move this so that we don't exceed 65 ft to the ramps between ramps Landscaping between the parking area and the building shall be provided we have no Landscaping in the back of the building where we have the employee Park and garage doors right up to the building so we wanted a waiver from the back the back has no Landscaping except we have Landscaping behind the parking between the fence and the parking area we have Landscaping but not at the building loading is the next comment d we don't have any dedicated loading space we see the need is not a heavy loading here there might be a UPS truck it's designed for WB 50 that's a very infrequent occurrence and depending upon who's getting what is the use that you're that you can say that you know you don't have loading yeah now we have loading but the well you made a con kind of loing that you're going to have so what are you basing your conclusion on we're we're planning to have Trade Services here MH in some of the buildings and the Trade Services they may get if it's an electrician for instance he may get a delivery of of uh conduit or whatever he's going to get on a truck or if is a cabinet guy he may get cabinet is delivered but the frequency of that might be once a week it's not going to be every day we're going to get trucks going to eight units here I I just don't see that happening so that's one use and we discussed that that wouldn't be the exclusive use of the building so what are the other prop we have a proposed use of a of a uh private school which could be a dance studio MH and that's going to be mostly teachers with students probably don't get any deliveries there and we have indoor Recreation as possible use for two of the units again mostly patrons and instructors uh with some kind of a sport activity that wouldn't be heavy on the on the truck delivery usage uh and the Trade Services will have we have a lot of banked parking on the site and their Vans may be more the traffic will be their Fleet Services coming in parking if need be they have Mr defala did you say banked parking banked like it doesn't exist we we have it shown on the plant to be built if needed well but if you're not planning on building it then how can you rely upon it with regard to this testimony no I'm saying it was requested by the by the board planner that we Bank parking we had it all to be built now parking and if we don't need it we don't want to have extra black top yeah but what I'm saying is if the parking doesn't exist right you can't say that the loading is going to work because we have this parking that doesn't exist so you can Bank the parking what my question is is I I don't see how you can rely upon non-existent parking to support your argument for the loading that's all okay I understand what you're saying I what I was referring was that if these Trade Services come to fruition and if they need those spaces most of the traffic that you're going to see is going to be the trade service the plumbers trucks or the electricians trucks or the landscaper trucks not going to be delivery trucks bringing supplies to these units that's all I was saying I didn't mean it it will take the place of places for loading to take place so where would the you so I'm an electrician or whatever I'm getting my my UPS or FedEx delivery where's the truck going to stop when it unloads toing it to my door stop along the edge of the 30- foot driveway and and that driveway that's the one that's also an easement to access the other lot yes but it's it's sufficiently wide for a truck to park and for another truck to pass it it's not a narrow driveway 30 ft is very wide to have it truck it's almost three lanes wide of a okay of a Highway 30 ft there's also a driveway at each garage door which will take loading for a smaller vehicle but the tractor trailer you parked a trade how did you park I'm looking at your parking calculations the trade business trade contractor where ordinance Rees one space per each fleet vehicle or trailer in addition to the requirement for an office and warehouse space looks like your calculations are 5.8 spaces per unit so where did you come up with that we took the number of spaces on the site 73 subtracted the indoor Recreation parking requirement for two of the units and the private school calculation for one of the units and the leftover spaces would be what the trade contractors would be sharing but that's not based upon our ordinance which is the area our ordinance says it's one space per fleet vehicle in addition to the requirement per office and Warehouse use offices one per 300 square fet and warehouses one for 5,000 square ft right so each unit is not even 2500 ft so half a space for warehousing offices are very small maybe there's a space there so you're going to have two spaces for the people in the office in the Mr chairman I can't even understand where the I we would need a breakdown so for the record I want it broken down office warehouse so that that's what the plan should should show that's what our ordinance requires um do you anticipate vehicles that again depends on who rents the building so again Mr chairman again aside from even the trees I don't think the board is even in a position to entertain a final approval if we can't understand what potential trade contractor could be in here whether or not they would have fleet vehicles because that's another standard that we have in our parking calculation well I think so they've agreed that they're only going to proceed with preliminary however with regard to the testimony that you've heard tonight and correct me if I'm wrong R Laura and Jen you would not be voting on The buffer tonight because that would await uh additional information um after the meeting with Sherie on site and I guess there's an issue as to whether a parking variance would be necessary l so that would that would wait as well I don't have enough information to to tell and and that's what I'm saying we don't know the 73 counts into a fact the banked parking so I think we have to understand so really I think you only provide 57 spots on site and then 16 banked so it's unclear as to whether or not maybe the bank are necessary or not um can I ask a question um each of the spaces I'm just I this is so small I can't read the square footage I I think one of them is 1488 which which are you looking at um this is four on these the architect plan the architect yes each of the building spaces square footage 1988 1988 is unit the top one 19 1988 then 2141 2141 2114 2335 2548 2920 and 2960 30 31 is the biggest one and on the architect plan it shows about a 300t office for each unit which would require one parking space Mr DeFalco would you stipulate based on the recommendation of the board engineer that pending our return for final approval that we amend the plans to incorporate the caling parking calculations based on the ordinance so that it's more clearly defined for review yes we asked that question specifically so that brings us to e of this m [Applause] letter section e for a waiver primary entrance shall be oriented towards streets parks and plazas and our building faces the side yard of the site which is at an angle to the street next section is sidewalks along the street we have proposed sidewalk along the majority of the street from our intersection to the East and we'll pay the fund for the sidewalk that we not building to the West as it leads to the right of way of the State Highway with no pedestrian access and Mr defala the applicant has reviewed and acknowledged the stipulation to provide into the how Township sidewalk trust fund in the event that waiver is granted correct correct 1988 yes the uh the other waiver is the facade should have a the building facade over 50 feet should have a 3- foot indentation and on the north side of the building that's the unit number one it does not have that so the Tech plan would be revised to show a threefoot jog at the proper interval accordance to the non-residential uh design standards of the township that was also mentioned in the planner letter so I given the fact that we're only here for preliminary and you know if we get through everything typically we defer architecture to a resolution compliance item um and the architect works with my office to come up with a design that may not 100% comply but complies with the intent and I would in be instead of just unilaterally granting the waiver since there are going to have to come back anyway I'd like a commitment of the applicant to have the architect work with our office to come up with the design in advance of the next meeting um they may or may not still need a waiver I don't know yeah we agreed to that and also Jen in your letter you mentioned more than one there's other architectural features that must be addressed and those all those points would be agreed to meet with you and go over all those architectural issues great all right so just briefly let me talk about utilities on this so there's going to be a well and a septic system there's no public water or sewer here uh we did septic test pits witnessed by the County Board of Health and we are confident that we can get an approved system for the use that's going to be here we did a demand calculation on the plan and we believe that we can get a septic permit and there will be a well in front of the building separated more than 100 ft from the septic and just to confirm the septic design takes into account the potential first school I'm sorry the potent the septic design took into account a potential School a potential school oh yes it does calculation on the grading plan shows that how many students based on indoor Recreation commercial at 0.125 gallons per square foot per day that's not a school standard right you said it's on your grading plan I'm looking for these calc on the lower left corner sheet four R sheet four above the scale well just with regard to to the school issue Jen you might know is that how we Define School in our ordinance that it would include a dancing school or is it something more academic that our ordinance refers to our ordinance permits indoor Recreation and it also permits commercial schools which is like a daycare you know what I mean or like a silven Learning Center or something exactly okay so would in your opinion a dance school would fall within that broad definition it would fall under I would I would say it falls under indoor Recreation okay and for clarification we're not seeking to commit to that use we're using as an example as for purposes of calculations and intensity but we would ensure that it is something that is permitted and Falls within the definition of indoor Recreation we're not locked into any specific type of uh school or facility just for clarification right so just for for uh clarification we did speak to the zoning office about dance school and they told us that the dance school would be a commercial school because we said why isn't an indoor Recreation and they said no would be a dance that's why we put dance school on on the site plan if that falls under the indoor recreational use then we're not looking for a school we're looking for indoor Recreation for a dance school both are permitted well I think Laura was just asking in terms of how you arrived at the conclusion right for the uh the septic that that was the purpose of the the question yeah Bas on calculations did you receive anything from uh the zoning officer with regard to that decision no it was a phone call okay the site has a h storm water basin to handle water quality and quantity and recharge accordance to the town's and state ordinances and regulations all the roof drains are piped directly to the Bas in underground there's a fence surrounding like I said before the north side and the east side of the property up to the end of the dumpsters 6 foot solid fence for both security and to block any views from the East which will be from the firehouse lot or from the commercial lot to the East and also from the residential to the to the north the the residential lot to the north that owns the rights to the easement through the site has agreed to the realignment of the easement to come into our access driveway and to abandon the rights to the easement that run along the Westerly property line the plan show the restriping of the highway in front of the site in both East and West directions with a center lane being striped except for our left turn in and our widening of the of the state highway on our side of the of the uh Highway by about six or eight feet it varies it tapers right out only the other fence around the property is a 4T rail fence right out right in right around the stor water basin I don't believe that no fencing is proposed along the west side of the property Mr defco I want to take you through the engineer review letter um I'm on page six number three which has items to address with the board we have already addressed a majority of these items on here so I just want to touch on the ones that we have not already addressed um so that would be 3B I know we discussed we haven't yet selected or the applicant has not yet selected the exact tenants that will be in here um but can you provide general information based on whether the hours of operation Refuge management Etc will comply with the local ordinances in the area once the tenants are uh selected yes they will of course as far as the trash collection dep depending on the use we have two large enough dumpsters that can be picked up more than once a week if need be and then I draw your attention to threei uh regarding the screening view of air conditioning units from the public right of way can you provide testimony that any um air conditioning units will be properly screened and where they're proposed to be located yes they will be on the roof and they will be screened from view from all directions but there'll be roof m Ed units screen from view with the screen on the roof and then moving to 3j can you confirm compliance with ordinance section Article 4 um regarding noise glare pollutants Etc they will comply with the town's ordinance yes and K EV parking we will provide two EV charging I can make ready spaces or regular spaces I I have to check on that but two spaces are required for Ev electric vehicles and those would be on the west side of the building adjacent to the building and then I want to move through the technical engineering review number two if you could uh just point out if there are any items in here um in this technical engineering review number two um that we cannot comply with um and stipulate as to the remainder of the items that we can comply with okay briefly yep uh second GRE yes with regards to uh A and B we we can comply and address those items we agree to comply with those with regard to C I think if I meet with uh the engineer at Laura's office we can resolve the storm order and whether or not some of the items will be addressed verbatim or they'll be subject to looking at the way calculation were prepared and maybe there'll be a revised comment but we agree with storm water we know the bottom line is to meet all the codes and we will meet with them and take care of that we agree with that again same with Landscaping the Landscaping talks about changing some of the species Mr DeFalco can you agree in totality to our technical engineering comments I believe so Laur okay I just didn't want to to say yes if there's one thing that I didn't agree with but I'm I'm reading it and they all look if need be we can address that when you return for final okay that's fine yes Mr DeFalco I think you know we need to get a little more specific and we talked about it a little bit but with with regard to use because the application has evolved when it was originally proposed you or the applicant was proposing a trade contractor business which is a conditional use in the zone it did not satisfy all the conditions which would have divested this board of jurisdiction so the evolution was that it then became a flex use building which is permitted yes and a uh trade contractor business is one of the permitted uses within that uh umbrella of a flex use yes but I you know we discussed this during the uh the TRC I want to place it on the record you can't simply build the same thing and call it Flex so this building would not be permitted to be 100% uh trade contractor correct correct and I think there was a proposed uh distribution that uh that was discussed wasn't there there was 60% yes 60% is the the Restriction under the definition of Flex for any one user 60% so when we had the TRC I think that's what Mr CER is referring to that 60% of the building can be used for trade contractor and the balance 40% other permitted uses in the zone to make it Flex otherwise we would have an issue and that's the applicant's understanding correct it is the applicant's understanding that it was discussed at the TRC obviously if the board is inclined to otherwise Grant the preliminary relief subject hold no let's let's back up I didn't ask if you agreed that we discussed it I don't I mean that that obviously happened I'm I'm asking whether the applicant is agreeing that that is how they're proceeding tonight with that 6040 split that was not our initial intention to be locked into the 6040 split but if that is the recommendation of well there's no this isur this is jurisdictional nature because now I am unsure what it is you're proposing what what is it that you're proposing then as I was stating that was not our initial intention this evening however if that is the recommendation of the board engineer the board planner no I'm asking what was your initial intention this evening then I'm trying to understand what the applicant was requesting our initial intention was to not have a specific percentage we would comply with the ordinance but he proposed the two indoor Recreation spaces and the other three potentially for contractor uh trade contractor offices we just didn't want to be locked in to a certain percentage but again if that is the recommendation the applicant would I don't think it's a recommendation I think it's a requirement in the I'm a little I have to tell you frankly I'm a little bit surprised because I thought this was absolutely discussed and agreed upon and you know we moved on and were able to tackle a thorny issue but I guess we were not well as I just indicated the applicant would agree to comply with the stipulation that no more than 60% um be trade contractors units that's kind for clarification and that's and that's not 60% of the tenant spaces that's 60% of the square footage of the building so the building's 20,000 Square ft 12,000 can be trade contractor 8,000 has to be something else correct okay um so that's how we're proceeding with that with that understanding all right I just wanted to make sure before we got any further that that that that was clear did you have anything else Mr DeFalco I don't no all right then I have another question um with regard to the driveway easement um I mean you sort of touched upon it before but I want to make sure we have some very clear uh testimony on the record that emergency Township emergency vehicles can all access that rear lot using that uh that driveway easement yes they can have they reviewed it like the uh Fire and Fire and traffic safy we're gonna have Mr kennel testify as to the traffic testimony as well so that may be in his testimony okay that's fine next and then I would uh if there is an approval I would recommend that the board require that the easement agreement and maintenance responsibilities be submitted uh for review and approval of the board's professionals yep okay that's all I have Mr chair so we'll do that yeah um yeah I just have uh one question you're you're designing the driveway for tractor trailer this is um there's no loading docks this is just uh surface loading right in and out of the buildings so it's most likely going to be box truck lift gate We Believe s30 would be the typical unit bringing supplies or materials mhm but as a worst case scenario we want to make sure that if a tractor trailer did have to deliver something you get a large truck bringing a box this big sometimes but if that case we want to make sure the traffic driveway would would work so it was designed for a large large larger right inste of30 though that's what we have turning movements for say that again it was designed for an s30 not for a larger truck wheelbase to come through I mean you're I'm on your turning template no the revised plan was designed for this is your revised plan I mean these are the plans that were just submitted to the board 11 125 2024 so this is the plan set that the board most recently received this is sheet 10 which shows an s30 correct so for final we would stipulate that as I mentioned to Mr Rizzo in your office we would give you the template for the WB 5050 which was what the split bifera driveway with the island in it which is not that plan would show we would provide that as a condition of final Mr chairman I I'm just concerned because you're also still giving a preliminary and it's information we don't have um I know I have some questions for the traffic engineer as to whether or not his report is reflective of the max 60% on the flex use um so your professional opinion is do we need more information yeah right I just I'm getting more and more uncomfortable as the night goes on and more and more information is is up in the air it's just making me it's it's making it difficult for us to provide you with guidance on how to proceed if I may suggest we are going to have thought Ken will come up he could potentially address his report that was submitted as well um that may provide some clarification before the board renders its ultimate decision on you know how they want to proceed on that item um but obviously that's up for the board just a suggestion that he will be coming to testify next okay um you're done with your testimony any questions none okay I'm just going to open it to the public just for this testimony right here okay and I see none closed to the public and thank you thank you at this time I'd like to call Scott Kennel our traffic expert to testify do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please St and spell your name for the record sure Scott Kennel k n NE L with MCD and Ray Associates located at 1431 Lakewood Road Manis Squan um I'm a principal with McDon and Ray Associates with over 35 years of traffic Transportation Planning experience I've appeared before this board as well as the zoning board on many occasions and testified in over 2,000 site plan applications as well as been qualified by New Jersey Superior Court as a traffic expert we met before and we accept your credentials thank you uh first I'll address what was in our traffic report and then I'll address some of the other questions that were raised uh during Mr DeFalco's testimony do you want to sit down or you I'm good right here okay uh the report the latest report submitted is dated November 26 2024 and that took into consideration traffic counts that were conducted in November of 2022 to develop the a and PM peak hour traffic conditions along the S Frontage and as the the board I'm sure is aware as well as the professionals this section Route 33 has a heavy traffic volume where in the morning peak hour is approximately a two-way volume of 1900 vehicles and in the afternoon peak hour it's approximately 1,700 Vehicles the um Pro predominant direction is westbound in the morning heading towards Freehold and then eastbound with the return commute based on the site plan proposed here with 20,000 Square ft of flex Bas the uh Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual was consulted which is also considered by NJ do and we determined that uh 20,000 Square ft this site could develop could have as many as uh 26 a peak hour trips and 29 PM peak hour trips and again that's representing just 60 minutes that's what we focus our analysis on there's going to be traffic in and out of this site it could be for a 3 to four hour period in the morning which is typical with this type of use with multiple tenants uh we determined based on the area roadway Network location of neighborhoods and the traffic patterns that traffic could really be distributed 50% to and from the East and 50% to and from the west and we consider a design year of 2025 by utilizing the New Jersey Department of Transportation background traffic growth rate which was um a 2% per year that we utilized and then once we superimposed the um site traffic onto the expanded traffic volumes as detailed on table three of our report we we conducted an analysis to determine uh the levels of service for vehicles entering and exiting the site uh we considered the improvements along Route 33 which show restriping along the site Frontage as well as widening to provide a dedicated left turn lane into the site basically a refuge area which given the volume of traffic on this section Route 33 given the fact that uh just to the west of here traffic is merging from the freeway and from business 33 so in my opinion this is a um significant Improvement to to provide a dedicated left turn lane this is something also recommended by NJ doot during our review so um so with that um and the exiting movements they're going to operate a level service e basically the delays in around 45 seconds per vehicle that is consistent with other commercial uses along this area so basically the level of service for exiting traffic is consistent to what what you see at the um Autotech Car Sales the Bobcat facility or even the cabin um and so as far as this type of use which is kind of on the lower end as intensity um the operational aspects will be consistent as with other driveways along this section 33 the only difference is obviously we're providing a dedicated left turn lane into the site Scott is that level of service based primarily because it's going to take a while for left turn movement that's correct and is the I know you kind of have a Boulevard kind of access is the exiting movement wide enough to have a car being able to make a right while there's a car waiting to make a left it's really set up to have um is is a wider single Lane and again we're working with dot dot has criteria as far as curb line openings so the the island there is is really the int the um intent is to provide a wider or a longer curv line opening so we can accommodate the larger vehicles um that Island will be mountable so I mean again if you have a larger vehicle WB 50 tractor trailer and frequent they can still ride over that and still get off the get off the highway so basically the design is driven by the type of vehicles utilizing site as well as the dot driveway design criteria um could we have it as a two-lane exit yes um but again subject to NJ do because now we're widening or lengthening the curv line opening and if you the balance but if you increase that would you obtain a better level of service you would have a better level of service yes because you wouldn't be holding up the right turning Vehicles can you explain to the board what a level of service e equates to and again levels of service go from a to F so if you could just explain what a level of service e is for an unsignalized intersection such as this or stop sign control a level service e is delays from 35 to 50 seconds 50 seconds is considered an f- level of service and and we're at 45 we're showing 45 to 47 seconds of delay um and again that's primarily attributed to the high volume of traffic along the section um and that is something that you know is reviewed by dot as well but they take into consideration the nature of the roadway um you know this this site is not a candidate to in my opinion to prohibit left turns out because there are no u-turn facilities to the west to accommodate um larger vehicles um and again you have you have a just to the west of here there is a contractor's yard or contractor that has similar type vehicles and they have full movements permitted out of that driveway and that's to the west of our site and they also have a dedicated left turn in a refuge area so it's kind of a similar type of driveway configuration we're proposing here as that what exists to the to the west of the site when you modeled your traffic what land use description did you use I used um warehousing and that is um and use the equations which generated a higher traffic generation if I use the average trip rates which is usually utilized for larger buildings but for this we used equations um I if I recall there was a question of using Contractor's Warehouse trip rates when you re when I review the NJ the it data on that those facilities are less than 10,000 square fet and there were only three try remember three or four different data points where there are more data points with the warehousing land use so that's why I use that and use the higher trip generation with the equations rather than the average trip rates are you concerned at all that we're that it's not going to be in fact that type of user but that it's a 60% trade and then 12,000 ft of other permitted uses which could include dancing schools or indoor Recreation facilities or other commercial schools like a daycare well there's there's a couple things with that I mean um obviously there are other uses permitted within this Zone that are not as high traffic generator as uh a dance studio or Recreation um recreation facility or dance studies usually are later in the in the peak hour and evening so they you know they wouldn't be overlapping um and again as far as a recreation such as batting cages things of that nature they take up a lot of space so I don't think the traffic generation be much greater than what we're projecting here obviously a dance studio is something different that could have a higher traffic generation but my understanding is those uses were being considered just from the parking perspective as the worst case but not that they have a tenant or they're really committed to do a dance studio yeah so Mr chairman I I'm back to being concerned even on preliminary because one I'm concerned that we're at level of service e so we're we're talking about a new driveway that's near capacity I'm concerned that we're choking in so the exit is only like one lane of traffic and that's what's causing that increased delay and I'm concerned that what the traffic we modeled may not be indicative of what we're going to have here so couple of things there and then the other thing is and again I would certainly defer to Mr kennel why haven't we done updated traffic Counts from 2022 to 2024 I mean I I just think that hearing what the use is understanding those representations I would prefer to see the traffic report reflective of that I would prefer to see um the level of service reviewed I understand that the do is jurisdiction but we are tasked with site Ingress and egress and I'm concerned with it being at a level of service e specifically the exiting movements um and the and the timing of the traffic counts if if I could just follow up as far as a level of Serv Serv when you have it as a shared driveway as as depicted here it's an averaging of the right turn and um left turns as a two-lane approach it's expected that will show it as an f- level service just just the way the modeling Works uh obviously the right turn is expected to be somewhere on level service C so just advising the board there's an averaging that goes on with with the left and right turning Vehicles when you consider the analysis as a single Lane but there are benefits if if do approved with a two-lane approach where right turning Vehicles would not be held up by left turning Vehicles what's the status of your review of the at the dot we had comments back over the summer we are waiting for to have this hearing to get some other comments before we go back to the to do so we're in the midst of our application and you know based on some of the comments you've heard tonight we'll we'll take that back to NJ do and the only thing I would I also want to just call your attention to is it's not just am it's am and PMP are at the level Services see yeah I want to go back to my original you know with this tractor trailer concern the driveway wider on the inbound narrow on the outbound could a tractor Trail in your opinion could a tractor Trail it potentially be exiting and having to turn into incoming traffic temporarily to get into a right turn lane I don't know so we talking about entering traffic or or truck exiting truck exiting well exiting trucks the way that's been designed at least for the tractor trailers is they would Circle in a counterclockwise position MH uh pattern so that they would be exiting and coming down the the west side of the site the drive a so they' be perpendicular to um Route 33 when they arrive there so there's one way no it's not it's two-way but they it's been designed so that you can accommodate the tractor trailers to be able to because there was a comment raised earlier in one of the reviews that if tractor trailers were going clockwise that they may block the entering traffic okay so that's I'm not you can't stop it really okay with the left the left turning lane it does the existing roadway have enough width to accommodate the left turning lane for a shift or do you have to widen the pavement there and if so is it how much if any is it encroaching on the other side of the roadway where the cabin rest we're we're not widening at all we're holding that southernly curb line and widening on the on the sight side and adjusting the the tapers um so it occurs on the sight side I mean one is we were we took that into consideration because you know they have pave parking and such right close to Route 33 there's also utility poles on that Southside so basically design is taken to account to hold the existing edge of pavement on the cabin side and do all the widening on the site side to be able to accommodate the left turn lane okay nothing that completes my test any questions um did you look at um there was a question earlier raised about like emergency vehicles being able to access the lot in the back to the easement did you look at that at all well going to that first of all there was a question whether the fire department I'm not aware of it I haven't been involved in aspect I my understanding is that the plans are distributed but um I I have not had any conversations with the fire department but my review of that is is that that the driveway connection design could accommodate fire emergency vehicles back to that site and that's even with the uh testimony that UPS or box trucks would be parked on the side of that driveway while they're making deliveries the fire truck could could proceed past a parked uh delivery van yes I mean that those oil widths and that's consistent with what's required by how is 30 ft in width a UPS truck uh would have a a width of approximately 8T 8 and 1/2 ft so there still be plenty width for an emergency vehicle to bypass and you know again of emergency vehicles coming on site I would it's likely the driver will be in the vehicle and they could move their UPS vehicle but I mean you could have also have UPS deliveries towards the rear of the site again these units go from west to east well but the testimony was they're going to park on the side of the driveway well uh they could but they could also park in the back too because we have a 30ft drive a on the east side of the building but that's not a I mean that's not part of this application that that's going to be the designated parking area right or or is it now I mean if that's I guess it could depend on the tenant because we have garage spaces and and and tenant spaces Drive driveways on the east side of the building um it it depends I guess on the UPS driver and the and the tenants and they do they function in the front of the building or the back of the building but for purposes of my question you're saying it doesn't matter it doesn't matter it's it's a 30 foot width is is sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicles to get around a vehicle that's staged for a quick delivery along that drive AIS and and uh could you testify relative to parking again I think your report last had it at 67 spaces 18 of which were green banked um can you just talk about that especially given the change in users as well as um well if there's a a a dance studio or something more intensive than um I'll say traditional Flex space business oriented uh contractors or office or some type of other um uses permitted then those Bank spaces would have to be provided um and just the same as if we had a contractor with fleet vehicles depending on what their their number of uh vehicles are so so is it is it fair for you to say that even you might need additional information given the users you've heard tonight as to the parking plan and whether or not it's adequate not knowing who the tenants are yes that's it's a I I think the thing the key thing is is that the site's been designed to accommodate those spaces from a drainage perspective which is always a critical aspect the thing is if you Bank spaces what what's a time what's a trigger for it correct I do have a copy of the uh fire Bureau site plan review there were four comments um some of them may have been done I don't know but the final plan would have to depict all this um the proposed fire Lanes would have to be depicted on the plan I don't know if they are are they I think Mr deaco has indicated yes yeah I think they're shown by um and then that would have to be subject to the review and approval of the fire Bureau uh the and I think the that 30 foot wide roadway um is depicted going around the entire building right that's correct okay and then also I think most significantly the fire Bureau wanted to have a fire truck circulation diagram uh depicted there was a plan provided by Mr DeFalco if it's I know for s30 if it needs to be a PRI emergency if I could ask what's the date of that too it's from March from March so it does not consider that driveway connection to the back property because I think that's more of an a recent more recent addition okay well then that then that needs to get those plans I just haven't gotten any addition okay well then that would be important for them just to confirm you know that they're okay with the access understood also um Mr kennel when you did your analysis of uh you know peak hours and traffic volumes traffic counts it took into account whatever the traffic is that's generated by that rear property correct from what I understand it's infrequent that maybe one vehicle during a peak hour what's the use of that of that property uh my understanding it's a single family but there may be they may have a home business that operates out there it's it's identified as residential but I don't disagree if you look at the aial and we've had this conversation r on other sites that just because there's commercial vehicles doesn't necessarily mean there's a business but I do agree that there's some stuff back there that makes you think it's more than just a house is that what it's zoned for or is that just like an older use that has continued to exist I think it's zoned residential behind you all right oh no I it's h H4 behind that lot is own residential and me also state that I did I should qualify that in our traffic projections we also includ included because they weren't occupied the three warehouses one that's already built and two others that have been approved on Fairfield Road just south of 33 so traffic generation from those approved warehouses were included in our analysis just for the board's benefit okay that's all I have any other any questions from the board I had another question I thought I heard you say before that if that exit Lane were to go to two lanes that that the service level might drop to F is that true it it then analyzes as a specific left turn lane and right turn lane so then the left turn would would likely have um delays in excess of 50 seconds uh because again what we provided here is usually an average of the delays between left and right term movement so I would expect the right term movements to be in the range of 25 to 35 seconds and then the left turns are higher so that's when you know I come up with a single Lane Approach at 45 seconds it's because it's the the software is averaging out between okay the two type of movements so there were to go to two lanes you're saying the right turn would be like a level C and the left lane would be like a level f f correct yeah but F would require mitigation correct you wouldn't you wouldn't propose an intersection with a movement there's no I mean that's not it's not a a a a um situation that's mitigated it's it's it's a situation that's common with many of the other businesses in here because of the traffic volumes the the the mitigation is if you provide two lanes because you're you're improving the delay for the right term movement out but there's really no other mitigation Beyond making it a two-lane approach that was going to next question is is there like once it drops to service level f is there something that's needed because of the the poor service or the the long service I mean time obviously people think okay a traffic signal but one you're not going to signalize a private driveway and two the traffic volumes don't even meet the warrants for a signal even if this was a public public street so but I think is board members we would certainly want to review the S the safety of that Ingress egress Point seems preferable to have two lanes right am I wrong on that I I yes CU like if I'm someone like six cars back waiting to make a right and there's five cars in front of me making a left I'm waiting like an insane amount of time correct particularly if a dancing school lets out then you have Ang that's what I'm saying right gymnastics dancing school whatever yeah yeah any other questions okay I'll open it up to the public just for the traffic and I don't see anybody from the public okay thank you thank you thank you closed on the public next we have no further testimony this evening so I think Mr chair yeah yeah because there's a been writing down a lot of exceptions here so so I just want to um and you know we still have to hear from the public in terms of uh testimony if if we're going to bring it to conclusion tonight but I just wanted to read to you as a standard for a preliminary site plan approval when they're just coming in for preliminary and this is section uh 46 of the municipal land use law and it's a quote says the site plan and any engineering documents to submitted shall be required in it uses the word tentative tentative form for discussion purposes for plinary approval so there's case saww that talks about you know certain minimal information that's necessary though when you're seeking plinary that goes uh essentially towards feasibility of the drainage and storm water management also availability of water is one that the courts have said should really be addressed at preliminary but with the Statue talks about you know like as as I said tentative and discussion form so I think you know it's really the discretion of the board tonight and your comfort level with how much information you have whether you think enough you know has been given for preliminary understanding there's no work that's going to be done and all these things need to happen at final right everything needs to be depicted or whether you think you still need more information even to reach that tentative uh and discussion purpose Comfort level yeah I mean you know with the with the buffer right the buffer exception I I know you agreed to the 60% trade um easement agreement condition you know the final is a whole separate thing the fire bu Bureau review I mean the architecture as well and the architect correct yeah waer with you know meeting with the architect correct and and then the site visit and I think Laura Wanted U they were going to break down a little bit more the parking calculations I think for you right correct yeah so do we have enough information to move forward or is that up to us to that that's up to you uh what I would recommend I guess is um maybe members of the public have thoughts on it if there are any members I would recommend open I can open yeah I can okay anybody from the public that have anything any comments please move come forward okay I'll close it close it to the public when you're phone making your decision Mr chair members of the board the board could also decide you know what some of these unknowns May impact any number of variances so you could decide if you want it just to give a plinary approval and not give any Varian relief and defer it all you know till find out when you have greater information if that provided you with greater Comfort level as well but so I would say you know all those things are on the table one just telling them look I think you got to come back right and give us more because the final is going to be the final and that's when they're going to get the the go no go or or to say look all right we have enough for preliminary but you got to come back for f on there's going to be a lot of conditions and we're not granting you variance relief that's going to be something that you're going to have to address it final when we have the totality of of all the information okay may we have five minutes to just briefly absolutely thank you yep the board will take a five minute uh provide sufficient plans and proofs at least for preliminary approval this evening although we initially applied for preliminary and final um we would like to go ahead and seek preliminary approval tonight um and then return for our final approval subject to the items that were discussed this evening the site visit with regard to the buffers and the clearing um the turnaround plans Etc we would agree to um work with the engineer the architect in the interim and come back uh for our final preliminary approval is granted this evening there's a lot of unknowns right so I don't know that you know if we put it to a vote you know In fairness to everybody you know I just don't think there's enough information for us to want to put it to a vote for us to move forward so you know there you've got the the architect review they got the fire be review they've got the the buffer um there there's just just a lot in here and and and I haven't captured anything that's you know a lot of the exceptions so and I'll I'll ask the board you know whether that's enough information that we move move forward with the vote or have them come back with more information I would ask that they come back I mean I agree as well the packet needs to be updated too that we received I I would say they come back okay so if that's Mr chairman if that's the board's um feeling then what we would do is again um we haven't adopted the official 2025 calendar yet we have the reorganization meeting scheduled so we can carry this to the reorganization meeting for scheduling purposes janary what I would ask Council and the applicants team is between now and reorg if you guys can just you figure out how much time you think you need on your side to get all of that information together then you know we'll select a date um at reorg that fits Within and you know your your time frame absolutely we'll regroup tomorrow and come up with a general time frame and and advise so then let me just make uh announcement the application of SMC Properties LLC case number sp123 be carried to the board's January 2nd 2025 meeting it is a live meeting beginning 7 o'clock here in the meeting meeting room in town hall uh it will be for scheduling purposes only and there will be no further notice to Property Owners before you go can you just grant on the record an extension of time for the board to act on the application yes we grant for the purposes of the record um an extension for the board to act on this application through me a date uh through January 31st 31st thank you okay thank you thank you thank you all right what do we got master plan uh nothing at this time but I just want to remind everybody that we will be working on the housing element and fair share plan of our Municipal master plan next year as the regulatory requirements start to kick in in January yeah executive session is there any recommendation to Executive session tonight Mr chair all right thank you just need a motion have a motion to adjourn Mo to adjourn thank you