Evening everyone. Welcome to the June 24th, 2026 uh Lachon Township Planning Board meeting. Um would everyone please join me in a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance.
Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided indicating the time and place
of the meeting in accordance with chapter 72 of the public laws of 2025 by advertising a notice on township website www.paccontownship.com by posting a copy on the bulletin board in the municipal building by direct
hyperlink placed on the New Jersey Secretary of State's portal. members >> here. >> George, Hardy, Rollard, Nuchi >> here, >> here. >> Weeks.
>> Vice Chairwoman Deio >> here. >> Chairman Sansson >> here. >> Okay. Unfinished business. Did everybody get a copy of the minutes from the last meeting? We got the email. Anybody have any questions, comments?
revisions. Okay. Hearing none, would someone care to make a motion to approve the minutes? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Members, >> yes. >> Gucci, >> yes. >> Yes.
>> Vice Chairwoman, >> yes. >> Yes. All right. Next up, we have Prime Group Holdings LLC preliminary final site plan block 100 lot 12 uh completeness and hearing.
>> Good evening chairman. My name is Craig Bosong. I'm with the law firm Florio Peruchi Steinhard Capelli and Typton on behalf of the applicant this evening. were here. Um I don't if you want to go through completeness if it was the uh the issues there. I believe everything's
been satisfied. >> Certainly. Yeah. The only element that was uh basically holding up completeness on the application was the receipt of the Highlands cons consistency determination uh letter. Uh that was received earlier this month on uh I believe it was issued on June 9th and I
believe the the board secretary Beth received a copy of that. The highs typically issues copies to the board as well. So that was received and that was the only matter holding up completeness so the board could be comfortable deeming the application complete and allowing it to proceed the hearing. >> Okay.
>> Thank you very much. We've provided the notice and everything so the board has jurisdiction to hear this application this evening. Tonight we're here there's a self-s storage facility on Route 22. It's an existing site that has multiple buildings already constructed on the
site. There's seven buildings existing. The proposal tonight is to add one additional building, ironically to the the lacong portion of this property. The property spans both Lacat Kong and Green Witch Township. The
existing buildings are all in Green Witch. The proposal for tonight's building is actually in Lacong. We understand we need to get Green Witch's approval after, you know, hopefully the board acts favorably on this application and we'll go to them, you know, and get their approval as well as part of it.
In regards to this, we're located in the HB zone. The self storage facility is a permitted use in the zone. Additionally, on the site is a billboard that was pre-existing. It was installed in approximately the '9s according to our records that go back. Tried to get the
the documentation from uh both uh the board in regards to when that was installed and the approvals. However, it seems like nobody nobody has all that documentation. And so we looked at some aerial photographs and everything and determined that in the mid '90s that billboard was was installed. The reason
it's relevant is the billboard is technically considered a second principal use on the site. Now that is permitted in this zone as long as there's certain conditions that have to be met. All conditions are met with the exception of one. you have a condition
that there can't be two billboards within 300 feet of each other. Just north of this billboard, a couple lots away, is another billboard which is within 300 ft. That was constructed, we believe, after our billboard was constructed, but all which then creates
this 300 foot issue. However, all of this is pre-existing from the '9s. We're not touching anything. We're not going to uh exacerbate that or do anything to those. So you I believe you can consider it a pre-existing non-conforming use
that was probably approved by this board back then. The other issue that was raised in your burough planners letter is the fact that this is technically two lots. There's two separate lot numbers. One for the
lot in Greenwich and one for the lot in Leakcom. We've done title history searches and everything. They've always been transferred as one lot ever since the 19 I believe it was 56 when it was created. It's been the same property owner that has bought the entire parcel
or parcels I should say throughout the year. So this lot has always operated as one economic unit, one site. It's just for the fact that you had to have a lot number in Greenwood for tax assessment purposes and a lot number in Lacon for tax assessment purposes that there's two
lot designations. But for all intents and purposes, this is one economic unit, one site that's operated throughout the years as a single entity. Therefore, you know, when you look at the whole thing, there's there's questions raised about, okay, well, the
Pacong requires X number of parking spaces on the actual LA Paccom site. There's not those number of parking spaces, but when you look at the totality of the entire site, we satisfy everything. So, those are the different issues that we you'll hear testimony for tonight.
So unless there's any further questions from me, I will uh turn call my first witness who's our architect and he can go through the uh the plans. >> Thank you very much. >> Is there if I stay over here?
>> Yeah, I just have to swear in if you raise your right hand. >> Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. James Danovich from BWD Architects. My name is spelled D A N
K O V I C. >> All right, James, do you want to run through your educational background and your qualifications? >> Sure. I got my undergraduate degree at University of Buffalo um in 2006 and my master's degree from Virginia Tech in 2009. Um I've been at my firm for 20
years and I was became a partner in 2018. Uh I presented in front of many boards in New Jersey. most recently uh Pleasant Beach in uh Jersey Shore uh also for a self- storage project. >> Your license is current and good standing. >> Correct. >> Okay. Offer Mr. Dankovich as a
professional architect. >> Okay. Okay. >> If you can please run uh you prepared plans that have been submitted to the board. >> Yes, this was part of the submission. >> Okay. If you can please run the board through proposal. >> This sheet is uh P001, our architectural
site plan. Shows the existing facility. uh the seven buildings mentioned previously. Uh the new building is proposed to be on the uh adjacent to the existing buildings. It's all accessed from the same curve cut from Route 22. So there's no changes to
the access of the building. It's proposed to be a 17,000 square ft plus or minus building. It'll be type two non-combustible and fully sprinkler. This drawing shows uh is P 100 our floor plan. Uh it shows a combination of
interior and exterior access units. All the interior units will be climate controlled and have uh access control doors so that each individual customer will have a unique identifying code they punch into a keypad that opens the door so they can come in and access their
unit. The exterior units will have individual locks provided by the customer to lock the unit. Um, some of these may be climate controls. It hasn't been determined yet whether they want to climate control the exterior units as well. That's a new trend in the industry right now. Uh, there will be 24-hour uh
security monitoring with uh video surveillance cameras. We haven't designated locations yet, but typically they're around the perimeter to see people coming and going and on either side of entry doors so they can see who's who's entering and exiting. Next sheet is the roof plan. This will
be a low slope metal roof matching sort of the existing buildings out there with gutters and downspouts at the eaves. Um the mechanical units will also be positioned on the roof. They're typically smaller residentializ units. So there'll be an indoor unit uh with
some ducting to distribute the air and an exterior unit similar to one you'd see at a house for a condenser at the house. So, they're about 3 feet by 3 ft by 3 feet. Uh there's likely to be two, but there could be as many as four. Uh this next page, P200, are the uh
elevations. This lower elevation is the one along Route 22. It shows a combination of metal siding, um blue storage doors to match the existing facility. The upper elevation is facing the other storage units and has one of the entrances to
the uh interior storage units. It is also a combination of metal siding and storage doors. Uh this sheet P201 shows the remainder of the elevations. The lower elevation faces the rear of the property and the upper elevation faces the adjacent
neighbor. Again, it's a combination of metal siding and storage doors. And that is the proposed building. Do you have any questions? >> How many units is it? >> Uh, it's approximately 85 interior units
and 20 exterior units. >> 85. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> They're all different sizes. Yeah, there's a a distribution of sizes based upon uh Prime's market study and what they think is needed um and is going to
rent the best. And um you know, as as the project moves forward, they may decide to tweak one or two or you know, say some of these 5x10s, they decide, well, 10 x10 is an appropriate uh unit right now. They might combine those into one unit. So that's why I said approximate. There
might be some adjustments. Do they need storm water for this? They have to have a basin in there. >> There is a I think the engineer is probably going to testify. >> Engineers next. He'll go through all the storm water.
>> Does anybody have any questions? >> Thank you. >> Pro witness. for the overall application. >> Just questions. >> We'll call our engineer. He can run through the site plan. >> So, council just maintain there may be
questions the public afterwards. That's why we're going to >> Okay. After all the witnesses. That's fine. Yeah. Everybody will be here. We'll answer any questions anybody may have. >> Sir, if you raise your right hand, you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give this is the truth. the culture. I know nothing about the truth. >> I do. >> You state your name and spell your last
>> uh Andrew Derek Ranger. R A N G E R. >> Thank you, sir. >> Mr. Ranger, can you please give the board the your educational background, your expertise? >> Yep. Uh I'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey uh since 2018. Uh I graduated from the University of
Connecticut with a civil engineering degree. Um, and I've been practicing in uh, you know, civil engineering in the land development industry for 15 years. Um, and my license is in good standing. >> You've testified before numerous land use boards all across the state.
>> Yes, I've testified for this >> uh, for Mr. Ranger as a professional engineer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, Mr. Ranger, can you please walk the board through the proposal this evening of what's been submitted? >> Should I mark this? This is just a colorized exhibit. Was that previously
submitted to the board as part of the package? >> No, this does get >> the package was uh done under landscaping. >> So she for exhibit one exhibit A1 >> A1 with today's date. flip this. This is just the site plans
that were submitted just to to give an idea more. So, this is sheet two of the plan set that we submitted. Uh this is just a an aerial uh with showing the the boundaries of the property. Uh the
municipal lot line here. Uh so the light uh the lot is located uh to the east side of US Route 22. uh consists of uh two adjoining lots uh and functioning as one uh self-s storage facility. Uh block 100 lot 12 is on the north side that's
the Pacong Township uh side. It's approximately 70,000 ft or 1.67 acres. Uh lot tw or block 25 lot 5 in the Green Witch Township portion is 170,000 square feet uh or 3.903
acres uh for a combined total track of 5.51 acres. Uh the the lot is directly to the south of the BB gas station and uh to the I guess east of the old Philsford Mall. Uh the existing
improvements on the site include uh seven one-story uh self-s storage buildings uh totaling 54,000 square ft uh internal asphalt drives uh with one-way circulation uh throughout a parking area and a small
office in the front. Uh there is an existing septic system that serves this office uh in the tree line and there's an existing well along the frontage. Uh the existing billboard sign along Route 22 Frunge was seemingly built sometime
in the mid '90s uh and during the expansion of the self-s storage facility and there's an existing uh infiltration basin in the northeast corner that essentially is where all of these trees are. uh it was originally designed as an
infiltration basin and uh over I guess 40 years uh trees uh grew in the basin. Uh and the northern portion of the site uh is current well essentially the developed portion of the
lacon township has the billboard sign the storm water basin and a septic system. Everything else falls within uh Greenwich Township. Uh the property generally slopes to the northeast uh to this corner here and uh the site is all
accessed through a two-way driveway here. Uh and no modifications to this driveway are proposed and we've uh submitted a application to the DOT for a letter of no interest and we're uh we'll provide proof once we've received uh feedback from them.
So if we can A1 this yeah A1 which we've marked if you can go through what's proposed with the board. >> Uh so we are proposing a one-story self storage building totaling 17,043
ft with internal asphalt driveways uh surrounding the new building. uh a new access gate along the front and fencing that surrounds the facility. Uh we're also proposing 10 parking
spaces including two ADA stalls uh four outside the gated area and six internal. Uh a bio retention basin which is up here uh to treat the uh runoff from the proposed drive and modifications to the
existing infiltration basin. Uh we are also proposing a retaining wall that surrounds the northern and the eastern side of the building's uh access drive. Uh that will also have a guardrail along the top. Uh and we are proposing to
connect to the existing electric and the well in the front. Uh there will be a new septic system proposed as the current one is under trees. Um the septic system is only there to serve this office which has one
employee. And in addition, we are proposing a new trash enclosure which was never on the original plan. They uh currently have their dumpster right inside the front gate. Uh so we're proposing a new trash
enclosure on the east side of the Green Witch Township. Um this will be it's been angled so that it's easier to pick up and uh the self- storage facility gen has minimal solid
waste and most of the generation comes from the employee um in the office. They don't advocate for uh the tenants to use the trash. Uh the facility currently has trash and recycling pickup every Monday and this will remain the propo in the
proposed condition for the zoning and the bulk compliance. Uh block 100 lot 12 is located in the HB zone. Uh and self storage is a permitted use in the zone. For the bulk standards we for the
minimum lot area 15 acres is required where we have 1.607 607 acres and a 5.5 acre combined tract. A variance is going to be required for this. Uh the minimum lot width of 200 ft
required where we have 196.87 ft. Uh this is a existing non-conformity. Uh the front yard setback of 100 ft is required where 107 ft or 107.38 ft is provided. So this complies uh the one
sideyard setback of 50 ft where 51.02 feet is proposed and 0 ft is proposed along the mutant boundary line. Therefore a variance is required. Uh along the same line a sideyard combined
100 foot is required where we have 51.02 due to the municipal boundary line uh through the building. And that's if you measure to the actual municipal boundary line. There is some some console that says because of it being one economic
unit of the lot, you really have to look at the other side too. But this board only has jurisdiction for what's in their uh in their township. >> Yep. Yes. And then the rear yard setback of 50 ft required where 201.79 ft are
provided. This complies and for the maximum total lot coverage, the build the maximum building lot coverage and the maximum building height. Uh we all comply with these and this is all just calculated uh for the Lacon Township site.
>> Now there was one question regarding the buffer between the BB the BP property and the uh proposed structure. >> Yes. >> Can you speak briefly about that? >> The buffer here. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. So
the required buffer is 25 ft. It's a a landscape buffer requires 25 ft in zone. We are provided 20 ft. Uh the reasoning the reason why we were asking for variance in that case was for the alignment of this main driveway. Um if
we shift the building down 5t uh it it creates a weird angle for when you're coming in. Um, and this would, you know, we, so we're proposing it for safety and keeping everything, uh, you know, moving,
keeping traffic moving, >> better ingress, egress, flow of traffic. >> Yeah. And all of these drives internally are all one-way drives. Um, you can see it's very small, but there's arrows. Um, the proposed drive will enter on the
west side and circulate the building. Uh there's going to be loading in around the surrounding all all the uh garage doors on the building. Uh and that's approximately 10 ft of of space for for
cars to a loading truck to come in offload into the their unit and then uh leave which is um also justification for the the reduced parking area. Now
for the traffic generation that we uh submitted to the DOT, we had to uh prepare uh trip calculations uh accordance with NG DOT HAPS which they look at as the mini warehouse. Uh the existing on-site we looked at the
full property was 81 uh weekday daily trips where and uh 105 weekend daily. With the proposed expansion, it goes up to 101 weekend daily and 131 uh weekend
101 weekday daily and 131 weekend daily trips. So that's an increase of 20 trips in the weekday and 26 trips on the weekend and that's for the full day. Onsite on-site circulation is remain one
way and the the new drive aisles are 30 ft wide. Uh we reviewed the on-site circulation which you can see somewhat on this plan. The yellow is uh a trash truck moving through picking up the trash and leaving the site. This very
faint uh purple line uh is a box truck which is uh about 30 ft long. It's a typical U-Haul truck uh circulating the new driveway. uh for parking and emergency. Uh the
township requirement, we recalculated our parking requirements based on uh the townships and we calculated at 11 spaces uh required for the total building. Now
I calculated it out for the lacon portion of the building which was uh 11,900 ft of building in the pack and that's 11 for the interior space of the building
in La Pacong. It's 5,600 ft. So eight spaces because the outdoor or the outside units don't really need a parking space because they have one in front with a loading zone. So that is, you know, that's the reasoning behind it. I mean, we have the room to to add
additional parking stalls, but it's just additional impervious that won't get used. So we're we're trying to limit that. for the storm water management. We're proposing to maintain the existing
basin as much as possible. We're cutting into it slightly uh and reducing the area. However, this basin is over overbuilt when uh the building was f when this development was first uh built as a borrow pit. They used it to to fill
in here. And we are proposing a new uh bio retention basin above the main basin that will take all the roof run or all the runoff from the proposed drive uh clean it and drain it into the infiltration basin. All the roof area
which is clean will go directly into the basin and all the existing facility will continue to to either sheet flow or uh in sheet flow into the main basin or be conveyed through a series of inlets that
uh will ultimately drain into that infiltration basin. Uh we are meeting all the state uh storm water standards as well as the township standards. uh the the design was uh performed looking at the site as undeveloped entirely uh
as a conservative as or conservative way to look at it and then proposing all of the increase in impervious. We are under the assumption that we're located in the carbonate rock district. So the new system
it will be lined so that no water is being infiltrated in that in that section into uh the carbon rock. the old system. We are minimizing what we are touching in there to keep uh to maximize the existing trees so we're not removing
all the the the tree growth that happened in the base. For lighting, uh we are proposing wall-mounted lights around the the proximity of the building uh and one polemounted light in front of the parking area. These will be full cut off
uh directed downward uh to minimize glare and light spill. Uh the lighting plan uh in your your package which it's uh sheet seven it shows that all the light is is
essentially uh illuminating the drive aisle and the pedestrian area where the prop at the property line uh spillage is is minimized. Uh all these uh proposed lights will be
on sensors so that they won't go off uh unless there's people in the facility. So once the facility closes at uh 10 p.m. there won't be any lights going on. >> And the new building is going to operate functionally the same as the existing
buildings will operate. >> Yes. It's all going to be a part of the same facility. So all under the the there's no new office in this building. It's all just storage. This the office manager will be handling that building.
So uh I know that there were some uh variances identified. Do you want me to go through uh the variances or would you like to go through the the town letter or the engineers letter? >> What do we I was say let's let's go through the board engineers letter.
Okay. >> We received the letter on June from date of June 19th, 2026 from four years. >> June uh June 19th, right? Yes. >> Yeah. >> And we'll touch on some of them the
aspects, but everything identified in there, there's no reason why we can't to our best of ability comply with any of the comments, the notations, everything that the board engineer has requested. >> Yes, there's nothing in the letter that we we won't be able to comply with. One of the uh some noteworthy things were uh
he noted that we don't have curbing proposed. Um we were just proposing all of the water to just shoot flow off of the parking into uh a drainage swell that runs around around and then into this basin. Um >> and so with that he said he prefer to
show wheel stops then. So >> yes. So we'll add wheel stops in front of the the parking stalls and I we performed the touring templates to uh show that circulation on the the site will work.
>> There were notations regarding the storm water >> we'll comply with. >> Yes. And I I uh we had a discussion and we will comply with all that. coordinate with the fire department for the FDC. >> Yep. Yeah. We will we'll submit everything to the fire department or the
fire official and uh if they whatever they want comply with >> and then we'll have we have a landscape architect to go through the landscaping plan as well. I believe that's all for the uh for the engineer at this time. >> That's what I was going to ask. That was the other thing I was going to ask in
terms of tree removals. You know, you know, the applicant's going to have to uh provide a tree removal permit submission to the township uh and comply with tree placement requirements. I know there's a new landscape exhibit this evening to discuss that and review the tree removals and those trees that are
being preserved in the basin. So certainly we'll look forward to that testimony uh as well. Uh and then also you know just in in our letter in my letter as well we reference the Highlands consistency determination there's a number of uh conditions that that the Highlands has sort of imposed
and also sort of relies upon the township to to implement and enforce in any approval. Um so certainly there's some of those elements I can just briefly uh go through them. So certainly compliance with the storm water management rules in accordance with the New Jersey uh administrative code as
well as the township. So I know that Mr. Ranger has spoken to that already. Again, compliance with attached street removal and replacement ordinance. Um, there was a question about a letter of interpretation from the NGP. Um, I don't think Mr. Ranger referenced that, but I
know he and I spoke uh maybe a week or two ago when Highlands issued this letter. Um, and I guess you can just confirm. I believe you said your firm is >> Yeah, we're going to we already well actually we have the application prepared as of today but for a presence absence. >> So the the I think the understanding was
that there wasn't any wetlands but the high wanted to confirm there's no wetlands associated with that basin. >> Yeah. and and um so our landscape architect who who will talk about uh the revised tree location plan and the exhibit the landscaping exhibit also uh
performed the the wet or who looked at the wetlands out there um and you could speak to that. >> Yeah, the rest of the the highlights comments were related to trees and landscaping. So certainly we'll hear about those as well. So other than that, you know, certainly it seems like, you know, a lot of the the comments that we
had were related to specifics on grading or um lighting performance standards and I believe those will all be addressed as well as some of the minor revisions to the technical details and calculations for storm water management. But generally speaking, you know, I'm
comfortable with the design that's been presented. So >> thank you. >> Thank you. Steve, >> sir, if you'd raise your right hand, you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth.
>> I do. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> My name is Steven Hobs. H O BBS. Thank you. Stephen, can you give the board the benefit of your educational experience? >> Uh, yes. Um, I'm a licensed landscape
architect in the state of New Jersey. Um, I received my license in September of 2024 and I've been employed at French and Pearllo Associates since April of 2025.
>> You've testified before different land use boards. >> Uh, no, this is my first time giving testimony. Everybody's got to start somewhere. >> I offer Mr. Hobbs as an expert in landscape architecture. >> Steve, you can walk the board through.
You prepared an exhibit for this evening. >> Yes. >> This was not submitted previously. The packet, >> correct? >> Okay. So, we mark this as A2. If you can describe what it was marked, I I got it. It's your first time.
Thank you. And >> this is entitled existing tree inventory plan dated June 23rd, 2026 for the record. Okay, Steve, you can walk the board through that exhibit. >> All right. Good evening. Uh my testimony
this evening will address the Highlands Council and other landscape related review comments uh related to the tree inventory, forest determination, tree removal and replacement requirements and uh landscape plan as shown in landscape
exhibits one and two. Um I personally conducted the field tree inventory and site evaluation on June 16th, 2026. uh the prepared tree inventory. I
prepared a tree inventory plan, tree replacement calculations, forest determination, and landscape plan for this application. Um so I'm going to just run through the the Highlands Council comments. So uh
the first will refer to the tree inventory plan regarding the uh the comment regarding the tree survey including species, diameter of breast height and tree locations. Uh a comprehensive field inventory was completed within the project area. Trees
were identified by species, measured for diameter or breast height and located in the field with GPS. The resulting tree inventory has been incorporated into the application materials and the inventory satisfies Highland Coun the Highland Council
request for documentation of tree species, diameter, breast height and location. Uh the second comment I'll address also refers to exhibit one um regarding
the existing conditions. The project area consists of primarily existing unmaintained stormwater basin and adjacent voluntary growth woodland. Observed tree species include black walnut, black cherry, sycamore, box
elder, silver maple, mulberry, and other native woodland species. The understory contained multifllora rose, bush honeysuckle, blackberry, and other successional vegetation. Based on species composition and site characteristics, the wooded portions of
the property exhibit characteristics of a naturally generated successional woodland. Portions of the site contain invasive vegetation typical of previously disturbed storm water management areas. These conditions are consistent with the
history of the site as a constructed storm water basin that has remained largely unmanaged for several decades allowing natural succession and woodland establishment to occur over time. Um the next comment from the highlands
is regarding forest determination. Uh, a forest determination was performed in accordance with NJAC 738-3.9. Representative sample plots were evaluated utilizing the Highlands point methodology. Trees were assigned
point values based on diameter, breast height. The resulting analysis determined that the wooded portions of the property satisfy the Highland's definition of a forested area. Although portions of the site have previously have been previously disturbed and
contain invasive vegetation, the wooded portions meet the applicable Highlands criteria. Uh the next Highlands comment uh is regarding a list of trees proposed for removal. A removal inventory
was prepared identifying all trees proposed for removal. Species and diameter of breast height information are provided on plans. Proposed removals are clearly identified on landscape exhibit one. The submitted plans provide
information requested by the Highlands Council and necessary for review under township and and JDP requirements. >> And we'll comply with the requirements of Leak Kong in regards to tree replacement and everything along those lines. >> Correct. >> Okay.
The next comment uh is regarding tree removal, replacement and ordinance compliance. Tree replacement calculations were prepared based on proposed removals. You can see in this table on the top
uh calculations were completed in accordance with Latong Township Tree Removal Replacement Ordinance. Um the required replacement planting information is included with the application. The proposed landscape improvements have
been designed to satisfy ordinance requirements and any trees that cannot reasonably reasonably be accommodated on site will be addressed in accordance with the township uh tree fund provisions. >> Do you have the numbers of what we're proposing?
>> Yes. Based on those calculations, a total of seven replacement trees are required. A total of 90 replacement trees are proposed on the site and in accordance with the township ordinance, the remaining 17 replacement trees will be
satisfied through a contribution to the township tree fund. >> Do we have a do we have a plan to show this? >> This hasn't been submitted yet, right? >> Correct. >> This is update. This is update landscape exhibit two. We'll mark it A3 for the
record. >> All right. Okay. Highland's comment uh regarding native drought tolerant plant material. The planting plan was reviewed and revised in response to Highlands Council comments. Species identified by the Highlands Council as non-native were
removed from the planting plan. Native replacement species suitable for the Highlands region were incorporated into the revised planting pallet. The landscape plan was also revised to address Ford engineer comments regarding buffer plantings and plant material
sizing. The revised planting plan includes native canopy trees, evergreen trees, and shrubs appropriate for both upland and storm water basin conditions. >> Can you show on that exhibit like where these replacement trees are going to be
placed for the board? >> Yes. So, all of the proposed trees are shown in the uh solid dark lines. All the existing trees are shown in the lighter dashed lines. Um so we have a evergreen screen with some shrub
planting along the front and then uh canopy trees along the northern edge and then additional canopy trees in the basin. Existing mature vegetation and woodland areas were incorporated into the overall
screening design. More practical native evergreen and deciduous plantings are proposed to enhance visual screening along property boundaries. Species were selected to provide long-term canopy cover, habitat value,
ecological benefits, and compatibility with site conditions. Um the last highlands comment I'll address is uh regarding fertilizer notes. Uh references to fertilizer application were removed from the landscape notes.
The plans were revised in accordance with the highlands council recommendation. >> And then one comment regarding the buffer that we had spoke about earlier between our property and the BP property. We have a whole line of trees that are being proposed between those two properties. Right. >> Correct. Yes.
>> The reality is we're trying to screen between a gas station and our hoff in our site. So that's that's all for the landscape architect. >> That wasn't too bad, was it? >> Like a pro.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Do we want to talk about all these variants? Are there any more witnesses? >> That's all we have. go into questions where my question and I I guess I don't know maybe for uh Mr. song is
are you asking the board to treat this as one lot or are you asking for the variances as if these are two separate lots? I I I believe under the law there it gets treated as one lot. And so when we talk about measuring a sideyard, let's say a sideyard setback, um, and
you're looking at the site, the sideyard setback, this board, there really is no sideyard setback on the right side of the property because I believe the case law says since it's one economic unit, even though it's two lots, you would actually measure the sideyard on the far
right, which is in Greenwich, but you would have jurisdiction over, say, the sideyard on the between us and the BP property. like where the buffer would be. >> I believe that's what the the case that uh that you cited in your uh letter. That's what it speaks to to
>> Well, Lacon Township has taxed this portion of the lot as vacant. So, it's not taxed as a commercial lot. >> Yeah, but it's still a commercial lot. It is. So, there it's it's in the HBO district. So, it's amendable to
commercial development. So it may be vacant at this point in time because there's no improvements on it and that's a tax assessment issue more than it is a land use issue. >> Sure. So this lot is and I think that I
I agree with council in so far as that you look at that boundary line um as being a jurisdictional divide and things on our side have to comply with our specific
requirements, but things on the greenage side are going to be subject to their requirements and that's why they're going to have to get dual approvals. Um, so I think that to the extent that they
are within our jurisdiction, they have to comply with ours. But we also have to understand the board has to understand that this is a lot that is bisected by the municipal boundary, which does create an exceptional situation from a legal perspective when you're
looking at the variances for lack of a better term. But it is an exceptional situation because um I think the case law identifies that as being somewhat uniquely effective property >> and we have no no dispute that there are
certain things that just variances are needed for you know pre-existing lot area you know that we don't meet the 15 acres that you guys require in in the back you know >> and that's on a condition that's subject to change >> right
>> you know so It presents itself as you know amendable to to relief given the fact that it is kind of uniquely situated property as are often times boundary properties. >> So I guess for the applicant which
variances are you actually asking for? >> I think they're asking for all. I don't want to speak for that. >> It was and not for the sideyard. Well, this so we'll go I'll go through the ones you identify is obviously pre-existing condition. You require 15 acres. The combined lots 5.5 acres. So
that's you know obviously a pre-existing use pre-existing condition that we can't we can't change. Minimum rental storage area your requirements 80,000 square ft. What's in your area is 17,043 ft but there's approximately I believe
54,000 square ft of storage area in the other one. So we're just shy of your requirement of 80,000 square ft in your zone. So you know in reality I believe there would be a minor variance that we're less than the 80,000 square ft.
Regards to the sideyard setback that's the relevant one where the left sideyard complies we're 51 ft. There would be no sideyard variance because the sideyard variance would be in Greenwood. So there
would I believe there would be no sideyard setback required uh in your letters >> technically required because it's one functional unit without a side. >> Correct. >> So I think that's the way that the
analysis has to go is that it's a functional unit with an imaginary boundary line >> and if that boundary line is going to be the sideyard although it's not Yeah, >> the board has to appreciate that,
>> right? And I think the issue in uh the Franklin Lakes case was the first municipality only granted the two variances for front yard and sideyard. The other one did the other side and the rear. So it was split up.
>> So we're not asking for sideyard in this for the side that doesn't exist in lacon. I believe the Franklin Lakes case, the appellet division ruled that when you measure the setbacks, you have to ignore the boundary line of
the municip the municipal boundary line. The board determined that the pool in that case was there was a 25 foot setback to the requirement to the pool. The pole was closer than 25 ft to the
municipal boundary line and that's what the board denied the application on and the trial judge reversed it and said the functional equivalent of you can't look at that setback to the municipal boundary line. You have to look at it to the actual property line even though
that's in the neighboring town. But that's what and that's that's what I'm talking about in regards to this sideyards is that because this is a split municipal lot two two lots or you know you have to ignore that municipal
boundary line and look at those setbacks to the actual property lines. >> I'll leave that to write the resolution. No, I I see the point and I think that there's even another point another law that another case that actually kind of
talks about that >> we do need we do need to set back for the buffer uh without without a question for the 5T. You know the the testimony was you know we were trying to keep the drive aisle visually you know straight you know could we move that building 5t
over and comply with that 25 ft setback? Absolutely. But then the ingress to the property would be, you know, sort of shifted. You'd come in and have to go around the building then as opposed to keeping a straight a straight line in which >> So you're looking for variance relief for C2 on that.
>> Correct. for the five feet five foot puff and then for the parking spaces I don't believe there's a variance necessary for the parking spaces because when you look at the entirety of the site we're compliant with the number of parking spaces
>> what about the building orientation >> or the building orientation we're doing because there's there's no doubt that the uh the doors are facing route 22. So do we have any testimony as to why the building is oriented the way it is?
>> I can. >> So the building orientation building orientation is uh this way due to the basin. Uh we were just trying to uh limit the disturbance of the existing basin. Uh if you could see up in this
top corner here, this is the edge of the existing basin. Um so we're we're really trying to stay out of it. The originally designed basin was all in this area and we're entirely out of that just um due to the the basin. It it really limited
um where we wanted to disturb. >> So this is a C1 hardship because of the existing uh features of the lot. >> Yes, the existing bases. And as far as the buffer strip, I mean, I get you you don't want to move the
building to uh interrupt the driveway. I mean, the obvious question is why don't we just make it 5 ft smaller and pro provide the buffer strip that you're required. So, do you have testimony as to C1 or C2 on that one? Uh
I mean realistically we were we we've looked at it and if if the board doesn't want to grant that variance, we can shift it. It'll just be um >> you say shift the building or shorten the the drive aisles? >> Just shift the building down 5 ft. And
uh we can just shift the >> the facility. >> Mr. block is asking could you shorten the could you chop 5 ft off the building leave the building alignment where it is not to impose on the driveway but shorten the building so your buffer can
meet the width that would be the the change but then you're asking to remove 5 ft of the buildings >> yeah and I think the reality is we're buffering against a BP >> I'm not asking you to do that I'm just asking >> for testimony as to why you don't want
to do that >> understood Keep your mind 35T drive. Yeah, if we shift the I think we can shift the building down so that the buffer is at uh 25 ft and just realign
maybe the entrance and there still will be 35 ft between front entrance of this building and uh the building to the south >> and the minimum width will be 24 ft. So you're still exceeding the minimum drive. >> Yeah. which allows for there are some garage doors here which allows for some
uh loading in that area. Um so it's it's feasible and um I in terms of putting more shrubs or or even trees in that area. There's a a drainage swell that we were trying to avoid staying out of here to to try to just naturally
convey the water to that upper basin. So, it'll just be additional uh I guess lawn area or open space. I I leave that up to the board. I mean, the alignment you have now makes sense
because you're aligning with the driveway. Um, I don't know what it will look like to move that 5 ft to the It >> may look a little off, but because of the the entrance gate to the the facility, everybody needs to scan in. We
can just align the actual entrance 5 ft over. So, when they come in, they'll have to kind of shift over shifted over. Yeah, it'll it'll look a little weird when you pull in at first, but I think it's it's still a very wide area of
parking or pavement. As as far as the parking spaces, I know the way that the existing one works is people just drive drive up to their door. They park and unload or load or unload right by their door. This one's a little different because you have
interior spaces. So, people are going to park by those end doors, right? rather than >> Yeah. which which is why we were having 30 ft of width for the for the oneway drive aisle um to allow for people to so all the exterior units they can just
pull right up to their the garage door unload. So we don't need those those parking stalls. The total interior uh space was uh 8,43 uh square ft. So all of those people will need parking and uh for your
calculations that was nine spaces. Um and we I reviewed the IT uh parking calculations that they have uh you know studied um different self storage warehouses and their calculations essentially said that um only seven
spots are needed for the entire property uh for all 71,000 square ft of indoor area of storage. So, we we have room to put additional parking here if the board
uh decides they want us to to increase that. However, we're just trying to limit the amount of impervious. Um we can handle it. This this basin is so overdesigned. Um really large, it can handle it. However, uh any reduction in impervious is in my mind a good thing.
>> How many interior units? >> Uh about 85. So I guess my question is functionally who's using those parking spaces in the location that you have them >> uh the people with the interior units >> with the interior units.
>> Yeah. So there's the parking there and and walking >> walking around to the other side. >> Yeah. And um at least my understanding is if there's two people parking there Yeah. in the facility at one time, it's
it's busy. So, >> so if you want to go inside, you can't park next to the building. You have to park in those spaces. >> Yeah. I mean, that's I that would be >> You wouldn't expect the manager would expect it, especially since it's it's a smaller smaller building. They wouldn't
typically have more than one or two people there at any one time. I I don't think the manager would complain about them being there, but since it is actually managed, if they were in the way, they come out and ask them if they move the vehicle. >> So, the intent is to have them park there and go inside.
>> Yes. Yeah, that that's the intent of those those uh is it six parking stalls? >> Would it make sense to split those up and have some near the other door along the rear? Uh the only issue with the rear is that you get very close
to the billboard if we're um increasing any any I mean we could probably put um some parallel stalls maybe along the wall. Uh there is enough room um and then that wouldn't increase as long
as it doesn't conflict with the turning it would increase. So would would that conflict with let's say those were occupied. Would that conflict with possibly an emergency services vehicle? >> That's a great question. I mean >> the I know the box truck had no issues
uh turning and I did review and there is no issues for the fire truck without parking. I mean with a parking stall say here it may um encroach a bit. So, and obviously if we put in any parking
along this side, you're starting to encroach more into the basin. Well, the build the building generally I mean certainly this is an opinion and perception, but the overall length of the building is only 196 ft. So, it's
not an excessively large building. And when we think about warehousing, some of the things we've seen go on, those buildings are 20, 30 acres under roof. This is not that. >> This is, you know, this is less than half an acre. So, it's a pretty small
building to scale. You know, if you think about having to walk that far. >> Yes. So in terms of operational and emergency services, I think the parking in my opinion where it is makes sense as well
as proximity to the manager's office. So you don't have people parking on the other side and certainly the cameras everywhere. But and all the authorized people will be there. But >> you've already talked to the fire services here. >> We we have not, but we will be submitted. >> Okay. I mean, I I can't believe there
would be any need for a ladder truck with a one-story building, but we do have one. >> Yeah. I mean, if if uh >> you're talking about extra extra parking spaces in the back or whatever, the maneuver maneuverability of that apparatus would be >> Yeah, >> probably very tight. >> Yeah, you wouldn't be able to make it
through there. >> Yeah, >> I think it's a good good spot. Personally, it's out of the way, but certainly I would defer to the fire chief or fire official. I have one last question maybe for the landscape architect. The buffer strip that's required um for the ordinance
says um is supposed to be provided with two shrubs and one tree for each 500 square ft of area. Have we done that calculation to make sure we're complying with that? >> Two shrubs and one tree >> for 500 ft. 500 square ft
>> parking lot >> within this area or general >> within the buffer strip. >> The buffer strip. >> Oh, sorry. >> I haven't ran that calculation, but I'm sure it would meet that that requirement. You would agree to meet that? >> Yeah, we can. >> Yeah, we'll agree to meet that
requirement. >> Was it one tree and two? >> Two shrubs and one tree per 500 square ft buffer >> within the buffer strip. And that's just the side line buffer stripper also.
I think it's just along the northerly side there. Any further witnesses? >> That's all. That's all we have. Steven from board. >> Thank you. All right. Does anybody from the board
have any questions? >> No. Yeah, we'll take action on the variances and then it'll be all variance between >> and also you know yes vote will be that we approve and final.
>> All right. Does anybody from uh public have any comments, questions? Any of the witnesses? All right. >> So, do we have a list of conditions? Uh the conditions that I've noted uh include the um
the landscape in compliance, the compliance with the conditions attached to the Highlands area uh approval, uh obtaining a tree removal permit. Um not sure if they've conceded to shift
the building yet or if they're still seeking that variance. Um, and those are the conditions that I have. >> What about the fence in the back of the retaining wall? Is that Did we already
>> I thought I saw in the letter that they didn't have it. >> I believe it's the details need to be updated. >> Additional calculations and details, right, are going to be required and we'll we'll provide all that, >> right? We'll need engineered plans for the retaining walls that it's all captured in the engineering report. You're >> you're correct. uh Mr. Chairman. So
that'll be you know engineered plans for the retaining wall that would include the guide rail as well as the fencing on top um you know to confirm that you know structurally it'll be structurally sound and able to to manage a you know a vehicle uh hopefully not impacting but
at least manage traffic beyond it. >> What about the limestone drilling? I don't think I saw anything about that. Do they have to drill? I believe we had a discussion about that that >> we'll provide the geotechnical Yeah. >> part of the >> as part of the resolution compliance.
Yeah. >> So that will be it hasn't been completed yet but it will be completed as part of the storm water design as well as the foundation design and and retaining wall design all those elements needed geotechnical study. Okay. >> So that will be completed
>> until we meet everything that your board engineer is satisfied with. We can't get permits or anything. >> And the the parking spots, do we have uh all the striping in there and everything for the people to walk across the
sidewalks and all that stuff? Do we need anything like that? >> There's no there's no sidewalks proposed or provided at this time. I mean, it's sort of an open area. People walk. Um it's sort of typical for any sort of commercial use. you don't typically have like if you're at Walmart or Target,
there's not a sidewalk network throughout the parking lot. Usually, you're walking in the parking aisles. So, it's very similar here. And even even more so, I mean, it's it's not like a retail use. It's very limited in terms of traffic volumes and vehicles. But
yes, certainly this is not um it does not provide for for sidewalk circulation for but certainly ADA compliance is required and and those grades are provided on the plans and some additional details and notes will be added to confirm ADA compliance. There
are ADA parking stalls located and signed on the site. Um, so that will certainly be part of the the final approval plans. >> Okay. The required lot area 15. I thought we were only needed like
>> was it always 15 for uh self storage, right? >> I don't know what it was. >> 15. It's always been >> I don't know. I can't I don't know the history of it. That's >> right. HB for self storage 15 acres. >> Okay. All right.
All right. So, we'll take a vote now. >> So, yes. Yes. >> I was just going to say, do you need open to the public just for general comments? >> They did. >> Oh, we did that. Oh, okay. Sorry. You just need a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve, >> right?
>> Uh so yes vote is that we approve all the variances and final approval of the site plan. So would somebody care to make that motion at this time? >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second it. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Vice chair. >> Yes. Yes. >> All right. Thanks, guys. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Good business. Ordinance number 2606.
Ordinance of the township of Pacon County of Warren, state of New Jersey, amending chapter 243, the municipal code to prohibit data centers as a principle conditional or accessory use within the ROM research
office manufacturing zone uh review for consistency with master plan. So, Mr. Chairman, um we talked about at the last meeting um the ordinance that was to make data centers a conditional
use which we have discussed for a couple meetings. Um and that ordinance the board found was consistent with the master plan because 2012 master plan recommended data centers in the ROM zone. Uh so I think that the board would
need to make a finding that this ordinance to prohibit them is not consistent with the master plan. I have to echo um Mr. Lock's comments as to that the master plan those last iteration of the master plane
clearly set forth data center recommended for use and it was carried forward into the ordinance um to allow us to pass that. So, uh, the ordinance now before us to to prohibit them of
permitted uses. Uh, it has been introduced by the council. Um, it was not specifically consistent with the language within the existing master board.
Um, as also adopted by ordinance. So, it's directly contrary. So I think that the word is constrained to make a finding that it's in consistency. That doesn't mean that the ordinance in any ways fails. Doesn't mean that. What it does mean is that the governing body would have to adopt it with a
supermajority vote and specific reasons as to deviate. Um you'll also see on the agenda um the governing body is recommending or require a master plan re-examination to
occur and that can be a point that gets incorporated with that master plan re-examination data centers as well. So the board unfortunately is constrained under the land use law not to say whether it's a good idea, bad
idea or otherwise. It's to say whether or not the ordinance as advanced is consistent or inconsistent with the master plan. Okay. So yes vote on this is that it's consistent obviously. Uh no vote is that it's inconsistent. Somebody care to make
that motion? I I didn't really hear what you were saying about that contradicting ourselves from last time. They were having trouble hearing too, but >> yeah, it's probably because I'm sitting so far back from our vote from last
time. >> So, under the municipal land use law, uh the board is constrained in looking at a proposed zoning ordinance as to whether it is consistent with the master plan. In this instance, you do have a master plan from 2012 that did recommend the
inclusion of data centers as permitted uses within certain zone districts. That was actually enacted into law when you adopted the master plan. After that, the governing body made that so that it is a permitted use within the zone districts.
So that's currently the language in the master plan. And this particular ordinance is um in contradiction of not only the ordinance but the language of the master plan that recommended the inclusion of data centers within certain
zone districts. So with the constraints to the board as saying whether it's consistent with the master plan and without taking any position as to whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, it is inconsistent with the master plan. That's >> so but that as I indicated does not mean
that the uh >> the ordinance is inconsistent. >> Yeah, the ordinance but that doesn't pass the ordinance changes. >> That is correct. So the ordinance can still be passed the ordinance and if it is inconsistent with the master plan would have to be adopted by a
supermajority vote of the council and with a separate resolution as to why that they are adopting it as inconsistent with the master plan. And I just also indicated during that discussion further on the agenda, not that there's significant action that the
board has to undertake, but um the the governing body is requiring a master plan re-examination be undertaken and that can be a point that is addressed in a master plan re-examination and talked about in front of this board before adoption.
So there's a few ways to skin a cat. Um and the prerogative of zoning is the governing body. They have to do it consistent with the master plan or have good reason not to. Um sometimes the master plan does not catch up with
um uh ongoing concerns in the community and things of that nature because it's a planning document over the long term. Okay. So again, a yes vote for this will be that the ordinance is consistent with the master plan. A no vote is that it's
inconsistent with the with the master plan. The the ordinance >> the ordinance banning them is no would be it's inconsistent, which we've discussed. >> Yes. Yes. >> It depends on how you fashion the the the motion though, chairman. So somebody
could theoretically make a motion not to confuse the issue but find it inconsistent with the master plan. In which case a yes vote would be to support that finding of inconsistency. And a no vote would be to say no it's consistent with the master plan. Doesn't
matter. It's how you frame the motion. >> Okay. >> I always like to have motions framed in the affirmative, but >> that's just my preference. Okay, you're still not clear. >> It depends who wants to make the motion.
>> If a motion, and I'm just going to give a hypothetical. I'm not here to determine it for the board. You've heard the opinion of the planner. You've heard the legal opinion. It's up for the board to decide whether and the board alone whether to decide this ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with the
master plan. That's your your charge under the municipal land use law. Someone could theoretically or hypothetically make a motion to find it consistent with the master plan. And if that was seconded, it would proceed to a vote. And an affirmative vote in that
case would say, "Okay, we're finding it consistent with the master plan." And if it carried, it would be a consistent determination. If it did not carry because most people say no, it would be determined to be inconsistent.
Someone hypothetically could also make a motion and the alternative to say I make a motion to find it inconsistent with the master plan where an affirmative vote would be in support of finding it inconsistent and a negative vote no
would be to find it consistent. Either way, however somebody wants to fashion before we get confused. >> However, however a member wishes to fashion the motion, they can do it. Pay attention to how the mot the language of
the motion and a simple majority vote will carry. >> So, can I kind of dummy this down? >> Yes. By saying that >> just take the motion. This is is not consistent with the master plan cuz the master plan says yes.
>> This says no. >> So if you made the motion to find it inconsistent and it was seconded, people voting would vote affirmatively to be with you to find it inconsistent. >> So your could be agreeist to find the
ordinance inconsistent with the master plan. >> I'll second it. That's >> all members. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Vice chairwoman. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Now that we got through that >> hose changes that we were making to master. Well, those were provided to the council, but the council has elected from a policy perspective to reintroduce
an ordinance to prohibit them, >> right? >> Complete instead of making them a conditional use draft or >> now we're getting to the next part. >> So, now we're >> okay. Next order of business, resolution
number 26-96, council resolution directing the Lakhcon Township Planning Board to undertake a periodic re-examination and re-evaluation of the township master plan um pursuant to NJSA40
col 55D-89. And chairman, the only thing that the board needs to take action on right now is to make a motion to authorize um Collers and Mr. Block and and to the extent perhaps necessary the the board
engineer to undertake that master plan re-examination and produce a report that then will be subject to a public hearing and your input at a future date. >> We do that every so often anyway, don't we? every 10 years. >> It's required every 10 years. The last
one was done in 2019, so we're two years shy of having to do it, but you can do it anytime you want. >> Okay. Would somebody care to make that motion? >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> Members,
>> yes. >> Muchi, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman, >> yes. Miss. >> Yes. >> Now, just as to the finding of inconsistency with the master plan, I am going to produce a resolution. That
resolution is going to come out next meeting. I've spoken with the municipal attorney. Um I don't think that the the council's necessarily going to take action on that ordinance until that finding comes out next meeting. >> But just so everybody's aware, I am
going to provide that Uh, I noticed everybody. >> You may have to carry the meeting. It's up to It's going to be up to the council and between the council and municipal attorney. >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. >> Make a motion. >> Second. All in
>> favor. >> I rest.