There you go. Okay, we're all set, Jackie. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Good evening. This is a special meeting of Livingston's planning board, and notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with the Open
Public Meetings Act. Mr. Thank you. >> Mr. Ratner here. >> Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Mr. Duffford >> here. >> Miss Vishnu >> here. >> Miss Connor >> here.
>> Vice Chair Santo >> here. >> Chairman Fernandez >> here. >> We have our quorum, Mr. Reber, Mr. Diner, Miss F, and Mr. Bhutani are not present. We also have a board attorney or assistant township engineer in our board planner. Do we have a quorum, Mr.
Chairman? >> Uh, thank you. If you can just uh call the first matter, please. >> That matter is prelim preliminary and final site plan for block 103 lot 2 111 Dorset Avenue, application number 2026-30-P Across International LLC located in the
Izone. >> Thank you. Yeah, please come on up. Make yourself at home. [laughter] >> Yes. Yeah, that would be great. >> Or else you'll get yelled at from the guy in the [snorts] back. [laughter]
The wizard. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. James Weber of Alfonso and Weber, the attorneys for the applicants across International LLC. This is regarding property located at 111 Dorsa
and it is requesting permission in the form of a preliminary and final site plan for a 960 square ft storage shed. As part of that site plan, there are two variances that are required. Because a shed is set five feet from the rear lot
line and five feet from the side lot line, it violates a setback requirements associated with accessory structures in the non-residentidential industrial zone. One of those setbacks is from the rear yard where the height of the building determines the amount that it is set
back approximately 16 ft. There's also a setback from the sideyard which is not followed the same as the rear yard but instead requires that from the sideyard the accessory structure should be set back the same distance as the principal
building which is 40 ft. So in both of those cases we're 5t from the side lot line 5t from the rear lot line in that rear corner. Otherwise, if we were to put this uh storage shed conforming with the ordinance, it would be in the middle
of the parking lot in the middle of the uh loading zone areas. If the board has any questions of me, I'll be happy to answer them. But otherwise, I would call Mr. Mike Lonzafama, professional engineer, to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony in this matter.
>> Uh before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize member Bhutani. >> Thank you. Thank you. Oh, one more point, Mr. Chairman. Uh the uh corporate uh executive who was uh supposed to be here could not be here because of a
personal emergency and uh she did send her assistant Ling Xiao who is here uh but she does not have the decision-making power that that executive did, but we hope the board bears with us. She was planning on being here uh but it was an emergency that she
could not avoid. >> Certainly understand. Thank you. >> Thank you. Sir, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that testimony given this hearing is a truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. My name is Michael Lanzafama. That's L an Z A F A M A. I'm a licensed
professional engineer, Lance Surveyor, and Planner, licensed within the state of New Jersey. I'm a principal with the firm of Casey and Keller Incorporated, 258 Main Street, Milbur, New Jersey. My licenses are all still current. Um, I'll
be testifying this evening as both an engineer and a planner. >> Are there any questions from members of the board? Uh, the uh, you're accepted as an expert in engineering and planning by this board. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, what I have
up on the screen currently is an aerial view uh, of the subject property and the surrounding area. And as you can see from uh the exhibit
that maybe you can't see it. [laughter] What is going on? >> Scroll across the bottom. >> Scroll across the bottom. Ah, there you go. There we go. Okay. And we'll pull this down and get this property. There
we go. So what what we have outlined in in a blue color uh are is the property in question. It is uh tax lot 2 in block 103. It is a um 150 foot wide by 290t
deep uh commercial property in the I limited industrial zone within the township. Um it is on the southerntherly side of Dorsa Avenue about 300 feet uh east of Nalon Place. Um the application
is for us to construct a uh 960 square ft uh 24x40 outdoor storage shed. Uh it's going to be a metal pre-fabricated shed uh that would be used for the storage of uh
material that they currently have to keep in the building such as wooden crates, wooden pallets, things of that sort. There's no um vehicles to be parked in it. Um it's only used for storage. So it can open up more floor
space within the principal building. So let's move to um the site plan. Principal building >> the principal building is they supply um uh devices for laboratory research. Um
they don't assemble anything there. They receive them and then they distribute them to various laboratories uh for for sale and for application. They do some servicing of the equipment uh but there's no manufacturing actually
done there. It's just mostly distribution. Um what I currently have on the screen is the rear portion of the property. Um which there's two loading bays at the back of the property. You can see there's parking uh all uh around
the back portion. Uh access to the loading doors is available uh through the paved parking area. Um the surrounding properties as you saw from the aerial are all commercial uses. their parking areas as well as other
storage buildings in close proximity to the back corner. Uh parking is also located on the right side of the building. Um and there is access directly from Dorsa Avenue via a 24 foot
wide uh service driveway. All of the aisles are 24 ft as required uh by your code. The parking stalls are all 9 by18 with the ability to have a twoft overhang to meet uh the township code
which provides for 9 by20 spaces. However, if you have the ability to have a twoft overhang, you can reduce them to 9 by8 and these are all existing on site. Um the proposal uh as I said what I have up on the screen currently is the
24x40 storage shed. Uh the shed is uh 960 square ft. Its height is 15 feet 8 in which is compliant with the accessory structure height limitations uh within the nonresidential zones. Um to be able
to place the shed where we did we had to reconfigure the parking. So there was a loss of approximately nine parking spaces. Uh we lost seven spaces across the back and we also lost uh a parking space or two along the right side to
account for some handicap parking which currently does not exist on the site uh at the current time. The rationale behind placing the handicap parking spouts where we did is immediately opposite the driveway. There's an ongrade access into the building so that
um visitors have the ability to enter the building and then there's a carter that allows them to move down along the side of the building and get to the office space in the front. Um the grade is such that um if there's no direct
access or handicap accessible access at the front, there's a number of risers that exist. So, the best place to place them was at the rear. In addition to the storage shed, we'd also like to install a 4 foot wide concrete sidewalk. And I
know the configuration of the sidewalk might look a little unusual. However, um the corporate culture is that they would like people to enter the building from the east. So there's that orientation that this sidewalk goes uh due east and
west. Um we're also willing to install sidewalks along our frontage. Uh I know that was a recommendation within Mr. Maruchcci's memorandum and we would be happy to install a 4ft wide concrete sidewalk along our frontage. Um the uh
building itself, the addition is not the addition, the storage shed itself. Um the one of the rationale behind locating it where we did was to be able to access or continue to access the rear garage
door openings. Um the loading area is is available um immediately behind the building. Um the garage doors are at grade. there's no tailboard loading u because we don't really need that. Um so that's why we pushed the shed uh to the
um southeast corner of the property. In addition to that rationale, the property is also partially located within the flood hazard area. This also puts the storage shed at the highest elevation on the property. So, and uh it would be uh
located above uh the flood elevation. According to the FEMA mapping, uh the flood elevation in this area is approximately 175. Um so that would put u as I said the building is set at elevation 178.33.
So that puts it above uh the flood hazard elevation. Um, this would also qualify as a permit by rule number 14 for a technically open building. We're going to put flood vents uh on the base of the building uh to allow for free
movement of flood waters should the flood ever even increase beyond what the anticipated level is currently. Um, [clears throat] so based upon the fact that there are existing permitted
structures on the property and our need to be able to reutilize the parking area and the loading area, in my opinion, the setback variances that we are seeking could be granted under the C1 criteria for uh because we have certain practical
difficulties with structures that are lawfully existing on the property. In addition, the fact that portion of the property is in the flood hazard area also poses some practical difficulties for us. Um, and as Mr. Weber pointed out, uh, the extent of the variance that
we are seeking for the sideyard setback is 35 ft where 40t is required. We're proposing five. And for the rear setback, the setback requirement is equal to the height of the structure, which would be 15 feet 8 in. and and
we're setting back five feet. So, we would seek a variance for 10 ft 8 in. Um, [clears throat] I believe that covers uh the variances we're seeking and the rationale behind it as well as answering some of the
questions within uh the engineering memo. Um, we do also did receive uh a memorandum dated May 22nd uh from Harbor Consulting, your planner. Uh there were a number of comments that he raised um
in evaluating the site and wanted some additional information to determine whether or not any additional variances were needed. Uh one of the items as I attested to earlier is the fact that all of the drive aisles are 24 ft wide. So
they are compliant. I also attested to the fact that the parking stalls are compliant at 9 by 18 ft. Um the minimum driveway width has to be an increment of 10 ft in each direction. Our driveway
entrance is 24 ft. So that is compliant. There is no parking within 10 ft of the building which is also a requirement within the zone. So we're also compliant with that. And that the uh setback for the parking uh from Dorsa Avenue which
is currently existing is right at 50 ft. So we're again we're compliant there. There's an existing nonconformity with regard to the sideyard setback and a small nonconformity with regard to the front yard setback by about a quarter of
an inch. U but those are existing non-conforming conditions that are totally unrelated to the proposal of the storage shed. So, um I believe that um responds to the memos unless there's uh
something I've overlooked and haven't addressed. >> Mike, can you be more specific on the storage? >> What's going to be store? >> Yeah, wooden pallets, um plywood for the because they make crates when they ship
u the apparatus to to different facilities. Uh so it's basically wood materials that would be stored in there. There's also a comment about um >> Thank you. Uh uh an EV ready spot versus
um an EV spot. Was there any any thoughts or >> It's It's not required. We're not proposing any new parking spaces or they're all existing parking spots. So, we don't believe that that's required under state law and there's no desire to put any in at this time.
>> Okay. And the storage, you said mostly wood. There won't be any like combustibles or chemicals or going to set all those pallets on fire. Right. Right. That's where you're going. >> That's where I'm going. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> No. 55. >> I knew the fire chief was asking that question.
>> It's all we hear now. Um, [laughter] is it Am I reading this right? You only need 11 parking spaces for the use. >> No. >> No, we need 23. >> [clears throat] >> I think we need 11 for the office space, Steve. >> Okay.
>> So, I wasn't reading it right. >> So, but you have 33. So, you have more than enough. >> We have more than enough. >> Yes, sir. >> Are there any occasions where there's overflow parking? I'm where I don't know where you'd park. >> Um, not that I'm aware of. I' I've never been there where I've seen all the
parking spots filled. >> The the shed is this on footings and I mean, it's built in. It's not sitting on the ground. It's not going to float away in a flood. Okay. >> No, no. It's going to be mounted on footings. Yes. On peers. It'll be actually on peers.
>> Roco Gabe, do you have anything for Mr. Lafama that uh from your review letters that need to be covered? >> Well, I'm I'm looking at their review letters and there's a request to update the plans to delineate the flood area. You're willing to do that as a condition? >> Sure. >> Okay. And also you gave testimony
regarding the positive criteria for the C1 variance, but I didn't hear any testimony regarding the negative. If you can please provide that. >> And and given the fact that the the commercial nature of the property and all the surrounding areas, um I don't
see any negative impact uh to the neighborhood or the intent and purpose of the zone plan. Um, you know, the the simple fact of being able to take material that would have been stored outside and put it in a structure that
um is quite nice actually as you you submitted as part of the the uh application in my mind is certainly a benefit as opposed to a detriment. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any trees that need to be cut or trimmed to create this the shed space there?
>> No. >> No. And there were two waivers requested, environmental impact statement waiver and a storm water management plan waiver. Uh Roco, you were okay with those, right? >> Yeah, I'm fine with >> uh any any questions or concerns from the board about that?
>> A wa the requested waiverss. >> All right. So, so those are fine with the board also. >> Mr. Lans, can you just confirm is a D permit required with this application for the storage shed? >> It's a permit by rule. We qualify for permit by rule number 14. Okay.
>> Any consideration or thought or whether it'd be to paint a crosswalk from those handicap spots over >> Mr. Lewis? I >> a handicap like a crosswalk from the [snorts] handicap spots. >> We could do that. We could strike that across. Sure. >> Okay. >> You indicated there's a a a prior
pre-existing nonconformity. Any any consideration of amending your application to include that C variance released relief too so we can clean it up? Do a clean up in aisle six and just add that to this resolution? I I would defer to Mr. Weber. >> If the board is inclined to confirm the
uh setbacks of the existing building uh as variances, then that would protect that building in case of any destruction in the future. So, it would be appreciated. We appreciate that, Mr. Toriello. >> Any other questions from the board?
Any questions from members of the public uh for this witness as to this witness's testimony? >> Seeing none. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. >> Um then just to
um any members of the public wishing to make sworn statements for or against the application? Seeing none. Um any uh closing statements, Mr. Weber? >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. >> Any any closing statements that you wish to make?
>> Nothing further. >> Okay, great. >> Unless the chair wants me to say something. [laughter] >> No, that's that's that's that's quite okay. Uh so uh the parties having opportunity to make closing statements appears to the
chair that the applicant all interested persons and the board members have had reasonable opportunity to be heard that the evidentary record of this hearing ought to be closed. Absent objection in the absence of any motion for a continuence the evidentiary record is closed and no further testimony or evidence shall be heard or received. Uh the board members now shall have an
opportunity to state their views on the application. I make a motion to approve the application. Um I think the positive criteria you set forth and it's helpful to get the look at the pictures. There are some outdoor storage of pallets and whatnot hopefully
go away and uh ease their production which I think is something that we want to do in this area of town is facilitate this type of uh business. Um, it's what it's there. That's the industrial zone. And I don't really see any negative criteria. So, I would make a motion to
approve subject to the conditions that were put on. >> And is there a second? >> I second. >> Okay. Second, >> Jackie. >> Mr. Chairman, just for the record, uh,
member Wish will vote in place of member Reber and member Connor will vote in place of member Diner. >> Thank you. Mr. Santo, >> yes. >> Mr. Batani, >> yes. >> Mr. Ratner, >> yes. >> Mr. Lewis,
>> yes. >> Mr. Duffford, >> yes. >> Miss Bishnu, >> yes. >> Miss Connor, >> yes. >> Chairman Fernandez, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, M. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you for the presentation.
Get a big flashlight. Well, that would be nice as a flashlight. >> Jack, if you can please call the next matter. Thank you. The next matter scheduled for this evening is preliminary and final site plan. An
amendment for block 100 lot 3.01 630 route 10 application number 2022-9-PFSP amendment for Spectrum 360 LLC located in the R5L residence overlay zone.
>> Thank you. Welcome back. >> Thank you, Mr. chairman and good evening to you and uh board members, board professionals and all the members of the public that are here tonight as well. Uh Johnino from the law firm of Inglino Taylor representing the applicant spectrum 360 with respect to amended
site plan application and bulk variance relief. Uh the subject property is lot 3.01 in block 100 on the official tax map of the township of Livingston and known as 630 West Mount Pleasant A. The board may recall that the property
received preliminary and final site plan approval on July 5th of 2022 to operate the facility as a school for individuals with special needs. And on September 24th, 2024, the applicant received minor site plan committee approval for the installation of a
perimeter safety fence and gates at heights of four and 5t at various locations. >> [snorts] >> uh the school administrators have uh now sort of reviewed this again and concluded that 6 feet is really necessary to ensure uh the safety of the
students particularly due to the fact that the property uh uh borders u and fronts route 10. So as such we are seeking a variance uh in a minute plan approval for the installation of a 6ft high safety fence in the outside
perimeter of the parking area. There's also an automatic gate proposed at the main entrance uh from West Mount Pleasant A. Um fencing and gating is also proposed at each of the building doors on the Uker Parkway side of the
building. Um a variance is required again because the height of the fence exceeds the fence height limitation of 4T in a front yard. Uh and we're also going to be proposing some uh landscape modifications which will be explained by
our engineer. We have two review letters from the board's professional. One from Mr. Maruchcci dated June June 2nd and the other from Harbor Consultants dated June 9th. My only witness here tonight, Mr. Chairman, is Brian Conway of uh Casey and Keller. Uh although I do want
to point out that Spectrum's executive director, Ken Burgerer is also here this evening. although I don't anticipate uh that he will be testifying. And so without further ado, um call my witness, my one and only witness, Mr. Conway.
>> Mr. Conway, can you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Um Mr. Conway, you've appeared before this board in the past, correct? >> Certainly. >> Recently, you've been accepted as a
witness on numerous occasions. You're right. Your licenses are still valid and in effect. >> Landscape architect and professional planner. >> Respectfully uh submit the request to the board accept Mr. Conway as a expert in the area of civil engineering.
>> Any questions for members of the board? Uh thank you. And the board accepts as an expert in civil engineering. >> Thank you. Mr. Conway, if you would please um summarize the application uh to the board and in your affirmative testimony, if you can please address the
uh issues raised in the comment letters. >> Certainly, I'm going to pass by my uh introduction because John covered it all pretty uh succinctly. So, I'm going to go um get right into reviewing the plans and I'm
going to start um near the westbound Pleasant uh parking lot side of the project. So, the um parking lot fences that we have shown um which are shown in in red on the plan behind me um are the same um configuration around the parking lot
that we had originally had presented to the minor site plan committee and had approved at a 4ft height. We're proposing to increase the height of those fences to six feet. Um, it's going to be a similar Jarth aluminum fence. The 5-ft fence has three horizontal
rails. The 6ft fence has four horizontal rails, two at the top and two at the bottom for added strength for the additional height. Other than that, there'll be no changes. Um, the only thing that we've added um since then um is a little piece at the entry to that
parking lot. We have a 6ft high fence with manual gates that we anticipate will be manned and operated by security personnel to help um manage people coming into and out of that parking lot. Do >> you have a cut sheet of the fence?
>> It was part of the um original minor site plan. I could certainly um provide one, but it's um the jerith um I forget the it's on the plan. Does anybody have a copy of it? >> Is it metal? Is it wood? Is it chain?
>> It's a it's it's aluminum. It's going to be black. It's the same fence that we had specified and approved on our minor site. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just I'm sharing. So, it's it's a metal picket fence, black aluminum. It it what we had
approved on the minor site plan was a three rail fence because the three rail fences are up to 5t tall. For the sixoot fence, it's a four rail fence. So, it's vertical aluminum pickets. I think they're 3/4 of an inch. And then the horizontal rails, there's two on the
top, two on the bottom. And the extra rail is for additional strength for the 6ft fence. >> What's the spacing between the pickets? >> It's it's probably about 4 in, which is what um is required under building codes so that a child's head can't get stuck in it. Mhm.
>> So, the additional piece of fence on the parking lot in the front is perpendicular to the building at that entryway. And again, that will be a a manual gate that will be manned and operated by security personnel. >> The um next >> would you happen to have saved somewhere
on the computer the you know some sort of rendering of it or not? Am I in in in any of your anything that you brought with you today? No, I I I did not. I could I could probably go on their website and take a look at it, but if if anybody's familiar with the Verizon uh
building, it's very similar to the um metal picket fence that's I don't know that it's Jarrett that's a brand name, but it's very similar to the um metal picket fence that's >> that's ready up at the at the Verizon building then. Correct. >> Okay, got it.
>> So, what's the >> why do why do we need six feet instead of four feet? explain that. >> So, the the issue that they um were having at the Verona school was that um distressed students would get get uh
loose and climb over the 4ft high fence. And uh in Verona, it's much was much less of a concern because they were pretty well far away from any major street or intersection. Given the close proximity to Oakner Parkway as well as West Mount Pleasant, the concern is that
if a student were to get away in the front of the building, out of the building, and get over the 4-foot fence, it would be difficult for a teacher or other professional to get to the student's aid before they got out onto the highway. >> So, it's strictly a safety issue.
>> It's a safety issue. Absolutely. >> I wish I had a picture of the fence. >> I agree. So, is there room between the fence and the sidewalk to to buffer it a little bit? >> Um, I'm going to talk about the landscape. We we increased the landscaping um to help um improve the
the look and, you know, make the fence less conspicuous. >> Okay, >> I'm showing it. >> Thank you. >> Just I don't have any way to get on the screen. Is that the fencing?
>> This is >> so I just wanted to kind of walk through all the different areas of the fencing and then we could kind of regroup and um share any other conversation or discussions. >> So the the other area that we um had included in the minor site plan for the fencing were the four doors along um
Oakner Parkway and we created a small corral around each door. They were approved by the minor site plan at 5t in height. We're going to also increase those to six feet in height. There is a a outward opening gate so that there's egress available from the building. The
idea behind those fences would be to slow the students down so that um somebody could get to um help them before they get away. And we were locating the gates on the opposite side from Oaker Parkway, I'm sorry, from Route 10. So that if they were to get
out and go out of the gate, they would be heading away from the highway and not towards it. That's the four on the um Oakner Parkway side of the building. >> Um we had a fence on the playground area. That fence was approved by this
board at a five- foot height as a nine non-climbable chain link. We're seeking to increase that to six feet in height also of the same uh black non-climbable chain link material. And then in the back of the building,
um we have the employee parking lot and we have a 6oot non-climbable chain link fence that was part of our initial application that's unchanged. just wanted to get all the fencing out and discussed and reviewed.
The other thing that we had added um um for this application was a section of fence across the drop off area. So, it comes from the um corner of the property for the storage unit and it comes um perpendicular to our playground
area across both of the um entry drives and across that island. And the idea, we would do a manual sliding gate um for the upper driveway area that would be operated by security personnel and then do um a double double gate manual um for
the drop off area so that after all the drop offs were complete, the school could be secured with the gate on the front driveway and two gates on the back driveway. Um and to reaffirm, I think it might have been in one of the review memos, but we'll catch up on that. The
idea was that um during um non-school hours, all of the gates will be open. So there'll be free access for uh any emergency services to be able to access the site. So the gates would only be closed when the students are present um
to actively protect provide protection for the students. >> What do you have in place when the building is occupied for gate access for emergency vehicles? Do they open on alarm [clears throat] manual? >> The um the gates in the front along the
driveway are automatic opening um for when vehicles come in. They're they're closed to prevent pedestrians from leaving from the inside. But they'll there'll be a um a ground loop so that will automatically open. And then the ones in the front there's going to be
security operating those gates so that somebody will be manned for that. Are there any questions about the fencing? Because I'm going to do the landscape next. >> The one on the playground, the chain link. What's the distance between the
sidewalk and that fence on on opener? >> No, on opener. Um, >> it's similar to the setback of the building. No, I'm sorry. It's between the I would guess it's probably about 25 or 30 ft. We have an evergreen uh buffer
all through that area. I could show you on the um on the landscape plan, but that fence is um as it was um on the original approved plans, which we're just asking for the additional 1 foot in height. >> Right. Well, the ordinance caps the height at 5T. So that's why you're here
instead of this minor site. >> But we're saying the location of that fence hasn't changed, >> right? No, I don't think it's the location that's the concern. >> We got to have a fence around the playground. I don't think there's any question about that. >> I need to cover this. >> I don't have I'm sorry. I don't have the
landscape plan for that side because the only changes we did for this were um on the on the >> what's the land along Route 10? What is that landscaping going to look like? >> That's what I was going to talk about now. >> Okay. >> Um so, one of the things that we um
that's changed since we were here for our initial approval is JCPNL has done their uh pole relocations and wire relocations. And during that process, they cut down all of the existing trees that were currently along um Route 10 in
that area. Um and the way that they have their wires located and there's underground utilities there. Um we took another look at potentially not using the London plane trees that we had originally contemplated. Instead, we went with a smaller statue tree. Um
we're proposing colar Sergeant Cherries that could exist under the wires and in the restricted areas. we have spatially to be able to plant. So we have um those are the the circles um that are um every three or four parking spaces. If you can
see it um here >> here and here. >> Yeah, like a hedge. >> And then what we did, we we had a boxwood hedge along the fence and part of the minor site plan was to raise the height of the boxwood to I believe 30 to
36 in or 3 feet. Um and um in addition to that, what we did is we added in some columnar um evergreen juniper upright junipers um to be able to provide some additional buffering. So between the cherry trees, the boxwoods, and the
junipers, I think you're going to have a very nice um streetscape presentation and really help to u buffer and mitigate any visual impacts from the fence. We also added some additional plantings in the corners of the parking lot behind
the Canterly Place sign and near the building so that the parking lot was fully and completely um encased by plantings. >> Have you planted the boxoots or is that the plan? >> We have not planted them yet. Okay. >> The parking lot hasn't been built yet.
>> I'm just sharing it. It's uh probably slightly relevant. I heard I'm not a landscaper, but I heard that the boxwoods are not going to survive in New Jersey going forward. So just just check on them because you know you plant new bushes and they don't last and then we lose our green space. So just check on
that also. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So that um covers the fencing and the landscape. >> I I neglected to qualify you as a professional planner. So >> Okay. landscape architect and professional planner. I've been before
this board as both, I believe. >> And your licenses are valid. >> My license has just been renewed. >> Okay. >> So, in addition to civil engineering, uh for what also? >> Landscape architecture and planner. >> Uh any objections? Okay.
>> Got it. >> Thank you. So, if there's no questions on that, I just wanted to go through the memos. I don't think that there was anything on the engineering memo that um causes any concern.
Um I talked about how the gates would be open um when the school is vacant and only be closed when there were students at the school. Um we mentioned that the color of the fence is black. I believe that was on the original plans. We just did a very abbreviated application for these two sheets. And then we'll put a
signature block on the plans. Did you cover uh the sight triangles? >> Yeah, there's there's no issue with we haven't changed any locations of any fencing. >> No, the qu the question I guess that was raised in the engineering report, although I don't want to speak for the board's engineer, was whether or not the
increase in the height would have any impact on the site triangles? >> No. >> I just had a question. >> Um these fences aren't locked, right? They're always accessible like the gates to them. >> Correct. >> Like because obviously you're putting gates around, I guess, emergency doors.
I just want to make sure they're not like locked. >> Yeah, we would we would make sure that they were egress compliant. That was one of the things that we had discussed and reviewed internally, but obviously if they need to have a push bar, whatever they need to be able to be um accessible
and have be a to function as egress, okay, >> they will. And then um real quick, the the fencing that's in the parking lot, how does that tie into Cany Place? How does that work? Like like where are the limits of the fencing? If you can go to
that rear parking lot because I think they have access in the back of their building also there. I just want to make sure that's also maintained. So, specifically, >> are you talking about amenities? Yes. Which is at at the um
>> bottom right hand corner of the parking lot. There's a sidewalk. There's a gate there. >> There would be a gate. Okay. Yeah. Just wanted to make sure >> that was one of the things that we're coordinating with with them. >> Okay. Perfect. >> That was part of the original plans, too. So, for the planning memo, I don't think
there were any questions of anything that we were doing. I think I'll address if I haven't addressed in testimony, I'll address it with the planning testimony to come. Was there anything else for the landscaping or the fencing that you had questions on? >> Uh, just the only comment I have is in
terms of the chain link fence in the rear in the parking lot. Just what's the reasoning for that? And can it be consistent with the fence in the front? Well, the the the the fence in the back is going to be compatible with the chain link fence for the storage unit. Um the
self storage unit has a chain link fence that goes around their property. Okay. >> Okay. >> So that's different from the fence in the front. Right. >> Correct. >> And then this for planning testimony there is a variance for the height when
the front Yeah. Okay, there's no further questions on the landscaping or the fence. I will proceed with the planning. >> Uh, any other questions from the board? >> Yeah, I have a just a couple. So, I'm coming out of Canerly Place or my kid just played a soccer game and I'm
driving down opener and I'm going to make a right to go west on 10. First, I'm going by six foot chainlink fence, then these other six foot fences, corrals as you called them, and then make a right and there's a six-foot
fence all along Opener Parkway. I mean, I I question whether six foot is that much safer than 5 foot. We want the kids to be safe, but this is going to look like a like a mini prison at 6 feet in height with all these fences.
You know, I'm a little protective of the fence ordinance because I drafted it 30 years ago when I was on the town council uh when I didn't have so much gray hair. But I mean, is there any you you people know better than I know, but 5T of that black split rail fence
seems to me to be really safe as compared to needing six feet of it. Steve, I um sat in on several meetings with the administration um discussing the fencing and discussing the idea of 4T versus 5T versus 6 feet.
And every time I did, I got my ears pinned back. >> Well, I'm sure there were people in that room that wanted it to be 8t. >> Well, I'm just saying that some is good, more is better. the administration and the the staff that we were discussing it with had, you know, very severe um concerns about being able to contain a
student that got over the fence. >> What's the age group of the students in this building? >> That would be a question for um Ken. >> We should probably have Ken testify. >> Yeah. I mean, let's finish with this witness. And if there's a list of question, >> he's going to give planning testimony probably going to relate to Ken's testimony.
>> Well, but you're not done asking questions about the fence. I want I would like for Mr. Conway to answer whatever questions he can and then if there are questions left over that Mr. Burgerer would have to address and I'll bring Mr. Burgerer up. He can address those and then we can bring Mr. Conway
back for planning testimony if that's okay. I just >> Sure. >> I want to make sure that the questions that you're asking are questions that Mr. Conway cannot answer and that >> Sure. And we could always go back and forth anyway and bring them back if we have other questions as well. So I I anticipated this isn't I think our only
opportunity to ask him a question. So >> I anticipated the concern about the six foot high fences and I really um vetted it out with with the staff um and they were emphatic and insistent. >> So one more just from me on the chain
link fence around the playground. You're representing to us that there's a landscape plan that was previously approved. You don't have it but you're telling us there was landscaping here. Do you remember what it was? >> Yeah, we had evergreens. It was It was um well buffered from the street for the
approved plan. >> I'm sorry. I I should have thought to have brought the original approved plan set. How large are the the original, you know, the initial what's the size of the initial plantings that are going in? the evergreens. I have the plant list so I
can I can get that for you. >> You said you said you put the fence all the way down. >> No. >> Six to eights. >> Yeah. What are those things? >> That's the corral so that people can't get up. These exit doors on the opener side of
the building. There's an emergency. You have it fenced in. >> Can you turn your microphone on, please? >> Sorry. The exit doors on the opener side of the building. It's a a corral type situation. Is that panic hardware?
Alarmed. How do they get out of that area? >> Again, um we had discussed it. I don't know that we had an answer for that, but be some type of a push bar that would be similar to an exterior door to be able to get the gates open.
Right. >> So if a young person were to get out that door and hit the push bar, they're out. >> Correct. >> So that >> So what's the difference? [clears throat] >> The the idea was that they're going to be going out there. They're probably going to go straight out the door and
look to go straight ahead. The gates are off to the left. It's it's giving the staff enough time to be able to try to catch up to them to deal with them. >> That's that's what we're looking to try to do with those. >> So, you're >> because we can't we can't provide we we
had the idea to try to provide some kind of um electric locks on the doors and the doors all need to be freely openable to be able to get out of the building. I think that's why the chief asked the question, >> but that's allowed by code. >> Say it again. >> Those doors you can have access within
45 seconds of pushing on the door, the door will open, >> right? >> So a student that get to that door, push on it, and be out of the building. >> Correct. >> I I think the idea is not and and Mr. Burger can talk more about this. Um, is that this is going to be a very highly
managed area and it's a lot easier to manage students exiting one door as opposed to students randomly uh selecting a part of the fence where they're going to try to scale it. These are special needs kids. These these kids are high on the autistic spectrum, so
their behavior is a little unpredictable. Um, and Mr. Burger can certainly speak to that, but the idea is to try and protect the children while at the same time obviously complying with the code in terms of being able to exit
the uh the property. So that's going to have to be managed uh by staff. Um and I think again the applicant is deemed that the height of the fence is necessary based upon the experience that they've had in Verona at their Verona location.
So, you think the the extra foot of five to six feet is more likely to deter the student as opposed to making a left and hitting the bar and walking out? >> Well, again, I mean, Mr. Burgerer can speak to this, but again, it's going to be managed. So, it's not like students are just going to be able to run to the
door. The staff will be protecting the door from that. Um, >> it's a big building. >> No, I I understand. I understand. But the you know students being inside and outside is going to be regulated uh by the school as to when they're inside and
outside. So there will be an opportunity for that door to be managed much less so in terms of a student who randomly runs out to a fence to scale it quickly and that's what I think they're trying to protect against based on their experience in Verona.
>> Are those side doors on opener? Are those like alarmed like fire exit doors that are alarm or no? >> I I believe that whatever they are, I would I would imagine they have to have some kind of alarm on them to prevent at least notify people of what's happening.
But again, Ken Ken could speak better to that than I could. I really haven't been so involved in the building end of things. Okay. >> Only in so far as trying to help manage these accesses. >> Thank you. I've been to the Verona site. It's great. I mean, what you guys do is
great. Um, >> I think we're just trying to balance, >> you know, we try and keep our section of Route 10 as nice as we can. You know, like Route 10 is Route 10, but when you cross the
river, you kind of see the difference. And this is just, you know, it's it's these are big fences and it's going to be right now. I mean, that's trees and grass. It's going to be a parking lot with metal fencing right up to Route 10.
And people are going to look at us and go, "What the hell did you guys approve here?" >> Respectfully, I have to disagree with you on the route 10 side of it, Steve. the um the landscaping that we're doing there is going to really I think serve to mitigate the fencing in that area
around the parking lot >> and going along Oakner and I don't know if you can get back to that section of the picture. >> Um what's the total length frontage of the that frontage of the building? >> Um >> and then how much of those little corrals, how wide are each of those?
Maybe six feet, 8 feet out of So it's not like one continuous fence, right? It's just each little >> No, they're they're they're I believe they're 8 by 12 some They're they're reasonably small. >> And the property line along Oakner is showing is 1500 ft. Oh, it's >> big.
>> It's a long distance. >> Yeah, it is >> and a long and big building. We're really trying to come up with the least obtrusive way to help ameliate the concerns of the faculty and the staff um and pro provide them the tools that they
need to provide the protection for the students. >> And so in that example you have there the two different doors roughly how far apart are those >> how far apart? >> Yeah, from door to door there's like four doors go on the other side but I think they're they look like they're 100 100 plus feet.
>> I can't I can't measure it on the computer. I'm like a an analog man in a digital world here. >> 50 foot. >> Um >> if it's the scale, >> I would say they're probably 75 ft apart somewhere in that range. >> 50 foot.
>> Yeah. Well, one inch is 50 ft. They're probably 50 60 ft. Yeah. >> Is there any reason for the that students would be in the front parking lot? Right. That's not a drop off or pickup. >> It's not. So like the convers these are the same questions that I I asked the
administration and the staff. So but that would be where students who were coming to be interviewed or coming to see the school would be coming from and that you know there's the potential for them to be um frightened and or skittish being in a strange environment. And that
was one of the um one of the flags that they had raised for that because I said if if it's the front door um how are the students going to get out of there? But it was more um for the people coming to see the school than students leaving from the from parking lot.
>> Got it. So the bus and mom and dad pick up and all is in the rear, right? >> Correct. In the back. >> The front is just going to be for visitors and then potentially for new students to come. And theoretically students could get out the front door if there was a child that was in distress
and heading for any any of the doors. Right. Correct. Is is there anything that shows that you know a 4ft versus 5t versus a 6ft fence is better or worse than um
at keeping the child from not you jumping that. >> Again I could share my experience in the conversations I had with the administration. They said that the students at the um Verona school can get over the 4-foot fence very easily and
that was that was a concern that they had in Verona. It was much less of a concern because it was a a much more pastoral environment. It was you know it was a kind of a safe quiet street far far off of Bloomfield Avenue. >> Right.
>> Over here we don't have that same luxury. There's no question we do not want anybody to be able to get over that fence. It's right on route 10. It's would be terrible. And that that's one of the reasons why we had um I took another look at the
landscaping and tried to enhance and bolster it to really provide um some buffering, some screening and provide an attractive um streetscape so that um you know the fences will be less less obvious. Was
there any experience with a with a 5-ft fence at the other location? >> Not that I'm aware of, but I I I I shared the idea of the 5-ft fence and explained to them that we had the 5-ft fence already approved and they were they were animate about they needed six
feet. >> I mean, Mr. Burger will will testify as to the actual experience that they've had with children scaling the fences and can give you insight as to how they they made the judgment. And believe me, it's
it's a judgment that they wouldn't want to make, but for safety concerns, they're incurring additional expense uh with a project that they would certainly not want to incur if they didn't believe it was that important. But but he can certainly share with you the experience
uh that they've had with Verona and why they came to the view that the six-foot fence was is necessary. >> Would would you like to swear him in now? >> Sure. Mr. Burger. >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Mr. Burger, can you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And uh Mr. Burger, what is your position? Please >> Oh, sorry. >> Kenneth Burgerer.
>> B E R G E R. >> Mr. Berger, what is your position with the applicant? >> Uh chief executive officer and executive director. >> Okay. So, you're the you're the lead guy there, correct? >> Yeah, that's what the board tells me. >> Okay. And how long have you been
>> goes wrong? >> How how [laughter] long have you been? He's the guy they blame. How long have you been employed by Spectrum? >> Just about six years. >> Okay. And uh you're familiar with the matter. There's matters that are being discussed today relative to the height of the fence and the need to uh increase
the height from four to 5t in certain areas to 6 ft. Correct. >> Yes. Can you please share with the board uh what was motivating what is motivating that decision and why you and the staff u have come to the conclusion
that a 6ft fence is uh is is safe whereas a 5ft uh and 4ft fence not so much. >> Uh maybe I could start by making a humble correction to one of the things that Mr. Conway said that relates to the Verona property and I know Mr. Santo,
you've you've seen that us there. Um we have had students that have made it all the way to Bloomfield Avenue and have run across the street and uh so uh this Route 10 is so much closer than
Bloomfield Avenue. The children are from the ages of three to 14 or even 15 years old. And as you know, kids are a lot taller today than they used to be. and uh scaling a fence is is of concern, even a six-foot fence. But the point is,
we're doing everything that we can think of [snorts] to minimize any risk. Just to give you a quick, maybe this is a little sidebar, we spent about $400,000. We have cameras in every nook and cranny of that building. We have created man
traps inside before the door. So you get to the fence, you've got a man trap, then you've got the door, then you've got the fence. We are trying to do everything that we can possibly think of because we're so worried because we've seen this happen before of of kids
scaling. They're they're incredibly fast. And so that's really, you know, I mean, I'm partly guilty here because, you know, I was meeting with the planning board before and the t they didn't just box uh Mr. Conway's ears. I
also, you know, I've been out of the direct service for a while and there they was saying to me, we are so concerned about somebody getting hurt or or a driver, you know, it's so so that sort of is is why we think that yeah, you've pointed out some very true things
that yeah, none of these things are are locked. And so it's this the whole idea is you have to get through this and through this and through this and this is high enough that hopefully all of those barriers together combined collectively will mitigate the tremendous risk that we are concerned
about for the safety of the students. uh and you know some of them have profound autism so they may not immediately know that you know you put go to the side to push the to push to get through and so but in other cases higher functioning
students uh it's a real risk. That's part of the reason why we're also going to have security guards on the outside of the building and the cameras are everywhere and we have security guards roving the inside of the building watching the cameras. We're doing everything that we can possibly think of to make sure that everybody's safe. So,
we do think that adding to that that 6-ft fence will get us to the point where the the principles and and the teachers are comfortable as long as we add this additional element to maximize the safety for everybody. Have there
been any any safety studies done at other schools as to what's the most appropriate method, you know, to have kids not be able to scale, you know, these sorts of things. Most of our colleagues are not as close
to a major roadway as as this building. So, we don't really have a um I mean we've had conversations with Life Town and they have had similar concerns about and they've told us stories as well. So I can tell you that
and we've had some experiences with our our upper school but you know by the time the kids are in the upper school we've had enough years to work with them to address the issues of elopment. So we're less concerned about the old the the much older kids but it can take us
years to to work with the k the children to make sure that they understand that they're not to go out a particular door can take years. Mhm. >> Your fence your fencing in Veron is 4 foot high. >> Um
yeah, I think I think it's roughly 4 feet in various areas, but we're way back from the road and even then we've you know we've chased kids and >> you've had clients climb over that fence >> and they've gone all the way to Bloomfield Avenue >> over a 4ft fence.
>> Yeah. Oh yeah. the the um concern about the image, which of course is far secondary after [clears throat] the health issue, but by really beefing up the landscaping
along Route 10, I can't tell by this, but it doesn't look like a heck of a lot of stuff there. And at least that would um cover a substantial amount of that 6-ft fence >> uh from the traffic back and forth.
>> Yes. >> Maybe we should take a a look at filling that in more than maybe you have since planned. >> You're saying I >> understand. So, not to spend your money, but do you guys have like an AI function
at the office where you can put the landscape plan in and show us what it's going to look like in 3D as you drive route 10? >> Sure. >> Yeah. I mean, I could I could do a sketch. I could do sections. I mean, it's it's a there's a a full evergreen hedge across around the entire property um entire parking lot in the front of
the building. >> How high will that >> The minimum the minimum is 3 feet. I think 30 30 to 36 for the boxwoods and the junipers are four to five feet. And then in between those are the cherry trees which are going to be probably branched at 5T.
>> So, but in fairness to us, you're you're looking for a big variance of a fence that's right on route 10. Give us an exhibit. You know, help us out so that we can have some level of confidence and you know, Rocco can look at it and say maybe this one should be a little taller. You know, we we want to welcome
360 to town, right? We want the kids to be safe. We just we need a little help here and we're not nothing in front of us to give us that. >> I think the last thing that anybody on this board wants to see is anybody get hurt, >> right? >> Um you know >> and we don't want to spend your money on necessarily,
>> right? Um >> rather have it go to the to the kids. Is there a possibility? Can the fence the chain link fence that's on the parking lot, I mean on the playground, can that be the same fence that's on the front of the building or is that not code? >> Oh code.
>> It wouldn't be a code issue. be a cost issue. >> So maybe you think about that too because then at least when you're on opener, you're not looking at six foot chain link fence. You're looking something a little more aesthetically, especially with all your new neighbors at the apartments there.
Okay. Well, we we hear you in terms of preparing an exhibit that would enable you to better visualize um what this would look like. Is that something that you can do? >> Sure. >> Is there any opportunity too for the ones you have on the screen right there
to do a little like landscaping in front of each of those so it doesn't look like four cages or something down the street? >> Yeah. Okay. And maybe if you could bring back your exhibit from the the uh playground
and show us give us put maybe put it in color and show us what's going on there. >> For the playground >> for the playground fence the one on opener that you said that the subcommittee minor subcommittee approved that we don't have any copies of >> the playground fence was part of the original. >> Oh, he's asking for you to bring that
back. Yeah. >> And the landscape. >> Yeah. Sure. Correct. >> Who was on the minor subcommittee meeting then? >> Richie and >> Richie. Um, >> was I on that one? >> I'm at that one. >> You losing your mind?
>> I might have been. [laughter] >> It's a long time ago, though. >> Well, apparently there was a whole discussion on the heights of the fence. Do you? >> Yeah. Uh, but that's why that that's I don't remember what they look like, though. >> Well, the fence I showed you that >> Yeah, it was a it was a the We were asking for 5 foot high fences for
everything. And um we were um approved with a 4ft high fence that around the um route 10 side parking lot. Everything else was five. >> Then I don't remember that. >> I'm convinced that the four feet around
the front parking lot is not adequate. The testimony is, you know, made me comfortable that because if somebody gets over that fence, they're two steps from Route 10. That's so that's unacceptable. >> Yeah, I agree with you.
So, we should look at other ways to make it more eye appealing to the to the cars. Uh, height of the shrubs is one thing, then proximity. And I know that often we say, well, in 10 years it'll be filled in. I
won't be there. >> Yes, you will. >> [laughter] >> the trucks are going to be going in to cover more than half half of the height of the fence. >> So, and that was the >> give some thought to maybe like every 30 or 40 feet putting in like you know a
bat. You know what a bat is? Big ass trees. >> That's [laughter] like like an evergreen that goes planted at six or eight feet and you put one every 30 or 40 feet and it'll grow in a lot quicker. >> That was part of the that was part of the idea. We don't we don't also don't have a lot of real estate um north and south, >> right?
>> So the that was part of the idea behind the junipers was to create some some vertical element. We could certainly increase them. I put them in at four to 5 ft. We could certainly increase them to 5 to six or six to 7 so that they're going in kind of covering the fence as it was. I I think to have some variation
of plantings and not have it be a monolith would be a much nicer much nicer approach that if even if there was glimpses of the tops of the fences through some of the plantings I think that would still be the better way. And the other thing that was um determined in the uh minor site plan was to put the
plantings on the route 10 side of the fence so that they were providing some buffering. So that's all those things we had done. >> You know look I think what what what the board is saying is that you know you know, the the the the sixoot safety issue is obviously incredibly important. They just want to see aesthetically what
this is going to look like, >> you know, with a with a sixoot fence and perhaps, you know, changing, you know, the the the chain link to something that's a little bit more aesthetically pleasing. >> Not all the way around, just on the opener facing piece. >> Okay. >> And more landscaping on the opener side
also. Well, we haven't seen it >> for the for the corral for the for the playground area that's already been covered by the um evergreen trees that were >> on about doing an interior compartment exit on those doors.
>> I believe that there's a like an air lock if you would. >> Is that correct, Ken? >> Yeah. >> Where there's there's a door like get smart. >> There's a door to go through to a door. [laughter] >> We're old enough to get that right. That's good. >> We have
[laughter] >> I used to fake being sick. It's when I was young so I could stay home and watch get smoke. [laughter] >> We have 99 of those. >> And Mr. Santo had mentioned that as the traffic is making a ride from Oakner to route 10. So that's also kind of makes
me wonder that when you plan the plantings, it have we have to make sure that the visibility is not affected for the drivers making a right there. Yeah, the visibility. They're far enough back and there's also a traffic light there. So, [cough] there's no issue with that. The this the Canerly place sign is more
of an obstruction than any of the planting that we're going to be doing. >> All right. >> So, when you make the rendering, uh these four gates here as well as seen on the screen. I think it it'll be good to see that as well. >> Mhm.
>> Because from opener, the way it is shown, it looks pretty bare. I guess it's it's good to kind of see how aesthetically they look better as well. Otherwise, six foot there with four cages. >> I agree with Barry earlier. He mentioned that >> that's a very long part of the sorry
there's a very long part of the building and it's also lower than the street. >> Yeah, it drops down. >> It's set back quite a way. >> I mean, I did it on just Google Maps. I think it's 500 foot building with four doors, but still >> they're still going to look like cages. So if you could put some plantings in I
understand. >> All right. So I think I think we >> color that's more aesthetic than black. >> No, I think black's the way to go. >> Are there are there any other questions for did we decide to move forward with this and I guess you'll carry this to a
future meeting so we can get some of these renderings back >> and you'll do your [clears throat] planning testimony when we carry it with the right. >> After we see the new stuff. Yep. >> Of course. We're sorry to slow you down, but I think we're making good progress to get this right because we want to protect you and
>> Well, yeah. Yeah. The only the only other factor is just uh you know, the plan the scheduled opening date is September 1st. So, whatever we can do soon, we >> sure >> get to you as soon as we can. >> So, when when can we when can we bring
them back, Jackie? >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, we can bring this back on Tuesday, July 21st. And you could start the like the the parking lot and stuff, right? This is just >> right. Parking lot's underway. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Was that 21st work for for you guys? >> We we'll be able to cover it. Yeah. >> And you can get the the drawings in before [snorts] >> we'll talk we'll talk to the uh the contra contractor and let them know. >> Okay. No problem. >> And just try and get the renderings in
10 days so we can she can get them out to us and then we'll we'll all have seen it. we can have a quick conversation and hopefully wrap up. >> I will I will do the renderings and I will also do enlargements of each of the areas we talked about um doing some enhanced planting ons etc. And if you
want to pre-mark them A1 through however you're going to >> Well, they'll be they'll be submitted as new drawings, so they won't be exhibits. They'll be >> okay. Anything further? All right. So, this matters continued to July 21, 2026.
Uh no further notice of the applicant to the public uh is required. This is uh the public's public notice of the continuence of this hearing. Anything further? >> Thank you. Hearing none, if I can a
motion to journ. >> Thank you. Second. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you everybody. >> Terrific safe 4th of July. Big big one this year. It is