e e e e e e e e e e with liberty and
justice okay in accordance with the open public meetings act it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that adequate notice of the meeting has been provided by the following posted on the bulletin board of the office of the Township Clerk posted on the bulletin boards
within the municipal complex printed in the home News Tribune in Cranberry press on December 27 2024 and posted on the Monroe Township website and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice Laura please do the roll call Mr Rothman here
M brosky here Mr Manesh Patel here Mr amyan here Mr slavich here Mr weiner Dr Kenzie councilwoman Cohen here mayor's representative Mr Patel yeah chairman Gaffrey here okay Laura circulated the
minutes I believe this morning and uh and if you've all had a chance to read it um is there a motion to accept the minutes I'll make a motion to accept second okay any discussion okay all in favor I opposed
abstain okay on the agenda tonight the first application pb11 9417 700 Highway 33 LLC that has been adjourned to May 27 2025 and there will be a notice um
provided for that application then the remaining application tonight is pb1 1264 d24 meno Route 33 Associates uh Roman numeral 2 LLC Mr
Smith Mr chairman Bob Smith I'm a licensed attorney in the state of New Jersey and I am here tonight representing the applicant which you identified as uh menow Route 33 Associates LLC um
the property that's before you tonight is uh two lots on Route 33 the common address is 853 Route 33 it's designated as block 6 lot 21.05 and 22.02.20 Acres with approximately 1244
ft of Frontage along Route 33 the site is irregular shaped with wetlands in the rear which limits the area that's available for development our engineer will go into more detail on the specifics of the wetlands and the buffer requirements as
we go forward current use of the property both lots have commercial structures to be removed as part of this development and the the structures are old and not in the greatest shape so uh just getting an early advertisement in
this will be a significant Improvement to the looks of that property uh what we're proposing tonight is a permitted use this as we said this is the highway development Zone that we are proposing to construct about 22,100 square feet of logistics SL
Warehouse which consists of 196,197 also includes 108 vehicle parking spaces 30 loading docks at the rear the north side of the building and 40 tractor trailer storage
spaces at the west side of the building additionally there is significant grading Landscaping lighting drainage improvements throughout the site uh the applicant is at this time proposing a septic tank on site with sufficient
capacity for any sanitary waste from the from the operation but we do have the intention to connect to a sewer service line uh when and if it is available in the future we are seeking as I said we're a
permitted use but we are seeking a number of uh bulk variances and the overall reason which our planner will describe we start with a difficult site in terms of the irregular shape um and
as a result uh bulk variances become necessary but he'll go into that in Greater detail so what are the bulk variances first a minimum buffer with Smith I understand you're seeking both a preliminary and a final tonight that is correct
chairman uh minimum buffer with from the right of way where required is 100 feet proposed is uh 23 feet and the relief that we're proposing is what was suggested in the CME planners report
number two minimum parking size where required in your ordinance is 10 by 20 parking spaces we are requesting 9 by 18 number three the number of parking stalls where required is 275 stalls
we're proposing 118 which consists of 105 spaces and three EV spaces um number four Drive aisles for perpendicular parking required is 25 ft we're proposing 24
ft number five buffer shall consist of a 6ot high sculpted undulating burm that has a top burm with ranging from 10 to 20 feet we're requesting relief we'll describe it we think we have some pretty good
Alternatives number six no parking shall be allowed within 30t of the outer walls of any structure proposed as 12 ft from the outer walls number seven off streak parking areas which ab a residential or institutional use on any side shall be
set back a minimum of 50 ft from the lot line proposed is 33.5 ft we really don't have residential structures nearby there is some question whether we need that variance and we'll discuss that at the appropriate time uh number eight all
parking areas for 20 or more Vehicles shall contain grass or landscaped Island areas of at least 6 feet in width separating rows of parking spaces and Island area shall occupy a minimum of 10% of the area formed by the outer
perimeter of the pave parking area we're requesting relief from that requirement we think we have very decent Alternatives uh number nine the height of the landscape screen shall be measured in relation to the elevation of the land at the edge of the adjacent
area to be buffered and the height of the screen shall be increased in an amount equal to the difference in elevation and we're in relief uh and our engineer and planner will discuss it in great detail and then number 10 when a parking area of three or more vehicles
or a loading and unloading area joins an adjacent residential property a plan buffer screen shall be provided between the parking area in the joining prop property the buffer shall be no less than 12 feet in height and again we're requesting relief with some very we
think a very desirable alternative and then number number 11 not on the list but suggested in uh uh M ap's uh planning report that we should all also request from you a one foot
height variance she that that we should go we we requested 75 she's suggesting that we request 76 and we'll develop this concept when we are at that point in our testimony it's my intention to
call Four Witnesses uh the applicant is uh June Choy who is a principal of menow Route 33 Associates uh our engineer is Chris leay from menow Engineering Associates our architect is Zack Webster associate
principal of M&H Architects and then our planner who I think you've known for many years Mr Jim Higgins uh a principal with Jim Higgins Associates and for the record Mr chairman I'd like to acknowledge the receipt of your professionals report we have had the
opportunity to review Cent State Engineering report dated March 14 2025 and the CME planning report dated March 19th 2025 with your uh permission Mr chairman I'd like
to call my first witness June Choy so they can give testimony Mr Joy if I could just have you raise your right hand do you s here we go do you swear the testimony you're going to provide us the truth the whole truth of nothing but the truth yes
I do perfect if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address for the record please sure my name is uh Jun Choy last name is spelled Chi uh our address is our Corp address is at PO Box 326 Short Hills New
Jersey okay Mr Choy for the record uh you are a principal of Route 33 Associates to LLC correct that's correct and how how long have you been working with that organization uh I've been working we started uh Menlo Realty ventures in
2018 and uh I'm an industrial real estate developer with projects throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania all right and that goes to the next question I'd like to know what your experience is uh so the board can evaluate your ability to put together a
good project sure well I think uh some of you may know that uh I previously I spent about half my career in public service four of which was as an elected representative mayor former mayor of Edis New Jersey um uh I I think you probably heard about
me in the news back in 2006 2010 time frame so in that capacity we reviewed hundreds of applications uh that came before our planning board and I have attended numerous planning board meetings so thank you for your service because I know what all of you go
through and thank you for the professionals Mr chairman uh and how much how many square feet do you have under your uh control at this point well we have we have in the pipeline um five separate projects
toing roughly 1.5 million square feet um all of them are in New Jersey except for one okay and would it be fair to say that you are community-minded developers the community interest is primary when we consider a project uh
Menlo is inspired by Meno Park um Allah Thomas Alva Edison Spirit of innovation and um every time we we come to a new community we like to sit down with the professional so even before we applied I think many of the
professionals here know Laura knows we requested a pre-application meeting so we can understand your community interest first before we submitted an application and why Monro oh it's a beautiful Community why not
Monroe um I think through 33 um the exit 8 caror is going to be a growing area for economic development um the New Jersey New York Port of course drives a lot of the work
that we do it is a major logistical Center the largest port on the East Coast um Savannah Georgia is catching up rapidly I might add so I think uh we we do face some real competition but Monroe we've we've always respected and
appreciated not only as a great quality of life wonderful Public School System but also um you seek the balance between economic development and uh and and doing what's right for the community and the quality of life and would you describe our
intended use for this property in your own words the intended use is to choose a location on the major Carter so that's Route 33 Our intention is not to interfere or create congestion in any
other part of mroe Township but to really focus on the location of this building out to the Turnpike exit a Carter it is a strong Market it will continue to be a strong market and I think it's a it's a great location for long-term investment we are not uh
short-term investors we look to make investments for decades not you know six months or three years um we have no intention of flipping this we want to be part of this community and in that spirit I also like to introduce uh my
partner uh John drum John runs one of the largest steel companies here in the state of New Jersey um and uh he's also an iron worker he we like to set Roots interestingly John and I both grew up middle County John grew up in South
River I grew up in Edison and later served as mayor so we're making a long-term investment in midix County um so maybe the last question do we have a tenant we do not have a tenant we are
confident that this location is so uh marketable in a very strong industrial uh logistical Market that Our intention is to build a spec uh generally speaking we like spec buildings because we only choose good locations and we think that
we will have strong interests once the building is mostly completed when we put it out on the market um our intent also is to choose a tenant that's again longterm most likely Fortune 1000 strong um credit worthiness strong
financials those are the types of tenants that we like to choose great anything else that we may have list that you want to say John you want to say something no I'm good no um John also has a daughter who teaches in the Monroe
Public School System she's a math teacher at your high school terrific so we are we are local guys and you know we're not at of sters uh looking to flip a property quickly and move on Mr chairman my witness is available for questions if the board has
any any any questions anybody from the board I'm good all right thank you then I'd ask that our engineer Chris La be called so that he can be sworn and give testimony
thank you Mr chairman thank you good evening if you could raise your hand do you to the testimony going to provide us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address for the record please yes my name is Christopher CLE last name is ESS is and Sam Z is and
zebra a a y I currently work at men L Engineering Associates located at 261 Cleveland Avenue in Highland Park New Jersey uh I received a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from University of Rhode Island and 2008 and I've been a licensed professional engineer in the
state of New Jersey since 2013 thank thank you credentials are accepted thank you thank you Mr chairman uh if you would Mr Zay how about giving us a brief description of the uh property layout including the existing conditions
structures and surrounding site features and if I could just jump in real quick anything that the board already has that's been submitted doesn't need to be marked anything that is new for this hearing would need be marked okay uh I do have two new switch to this one I do have two new
exhibits that we will be introducing this evening would you mark them A1 and A2 in tonight's State yes so the first exhibit is entitled Monroe Route 33 existing conditions exhibit dated March 27th 2025 prepared by uh my office metal
engineering we'll mark this as A1 and this exhibit is an aerial exhibit uh aerial image background depicting the existing conditions of the site and the property boundary uh highlighted uh to
orient the board with the property and the second exhibit which I will Mark as A2 is entitled overall plan exhibit uh also Monroe Route 33 dated March 27th
2025 this is exhibit is a colorized rendering of the submitted overall plan uh over that same aerial background with the Zone table uh Landscaping shown and the proposed improvements colorized into a uh
rendering um so back to exhibit A1 again this is an aerial exhibit of the existing conditions of the site the property is as stated an irregularly shaped lot uh has a uh Jagged rear property line again creates uh an
irregularity to the site it's known as block six slots 21.05 and 22 as shown on the tax map of the township of Monroe it's located on the north side of the Route 33 Corridor which is a four-lane divided
highway uh the property has approximately 1,243 ft of Frontage on the north side of Route 33 and it's located approximately 3,000 ft from the intersection with Pineville Road uh to the to the west of that intersection
overall the property is approximately 18.34% Highway uh development dis or the highway development District um that's to the to the west north and east of the property uh there is some commercial properties to the east there's the
DeFalco Towing uh company and uh there was a residential property to the lot immediately to the east of the site which my understanding has since been uh a demoed and is no longer uh occupied and then across route the Route 33
Corridor to the South uh again you can see it's undeveloped it's mostly cleared fields and wooded areas uh the pro the subject property is currently partially developed uh two former
commercial uh properties and and businesses existed uh it was about 5 Acres of existing disturbance with compacted dirt gravel uh multiple buildings that that used to be uh used for businesses and and stored
vehicles um the the site was separated into two lots which will be Consolidated as part of this application access to the two businesses were separate so there were four to five uh access points along Route
33 uh along the frontage of this property there's a significant grade change from the front of the property to the rear of the property 20 25 ft uh so it gives this property in addition to
the irregular shape uh the environmental constraints of the property which consists of wetlands that run along the rear property line almost parallel with the rear property line um again another difficult uh feature of this property to
to develop into a viable uh single project um again the the s's encumbered with the wetlands along the rear property line approximately 100 to 200 ft off that rear property line the wetlands uh vary and there's a an additional isolated
pocket of wetlands near the middle of the site all of the wetlands uh also include 50 foot Wetland buffer so uh this application will we'll have some d uh requirements and and uh permits that will be uh applied for off the rear of
the property you'll see there's a a slight environmental feature it's in a tributary an unnamed tributary to the millstone River so there is a a flood Hazard area associated with that that runs off the rear of the property with the new regulations the new 2023 uh
flood Hazard regulations the flal flood elevation does actually inro croach onto the property now which it didn't prior to 2023 so again the site has DP features that will be applying for uh the appropriate permits
so moving back to exhibit A2 and the proposed improvements um again as you can see the regular shape lot the the Wetlands has discussed the buffers it does reduce the developable area of this property if you
look actually from the furthest point to the north from the the front property line the development is is closer to more like the front 50% 60% of the property if you're going from the furthest point uh uh back on the site so what the
project is proposing is a 22,100 sqare foot Warehouse with including approximately 6,000 square foot square feet of office space the office space split at the southeast and
southwest corners of the property uh the The Zone permits business uh office uh shopping centers auto businesses and storage and distribution warehouses so this is a permitted use so you can see the Zone
really encourages uh you know business Commercial properties such as as this property the building as located meets all of the building setback requirements um but there is an additional uh landscape buffer that's
required for property in this highway district uh with a a 100 foot landscape buffer so that actually exceeds the building setback requirements so this building is setback uh over 100t at the middle of the the building approximately
10 19.9 ft and then uh uh about 96.27 at its uh closest point to that front property line so we're providing a substantial buffer uh on average it is about that 100 foot buffer but we we don't meet that entire uh 100 foot
landscape buffer along the front I'll touch on what is being provided uh as we get to the landscape portion because it's a little it is a little difficult to see actually the the entire landscape enhancement that's being made we're we're providing a substantial
burm along the front property line which in a 2-day view is not uh you know that easy to Envision but the the burm itself meets the intent of the ordinance to provide a uh an undulating burm to
enhance the front of the property uh and then there's a substantial landscape offer provided along that Route 33 Corridor at the front of the building uh to really kind of beautify the site and often the uh Warehouse uh
Frontage so in addition to uh the setbacks that the the building meets and the landscape buffer um there is associated parking with the facility we're providing 105 parking spaces uh about is it
80 82 spaces along the east side of the building that kind of wraps around the rear of the property and then an additional 23 three spaces on the west side again with the office spaces split between the two sides of the building we have parking on both sides it allows us
to potentially have two tenants in the building although the intent really and the goal would be to have uh one tenant as uh Mr Choy uh described uh the spaces uh are size 9 by8 with 24 foot
wide Drive aisles and they uh both of those require a variance the the spaces uh by the ordinance standards require 10 x 20 and the drive AIS should be 25 ft uh to comply again 9 by8 and
24t is pretty is standard in many uh developable uh ordinances and um I think for a warehouse use such as this it's it's a justifiable uh variance for for each one of those we'll have some additional uh
justification by fire planner uh later on but um I think both the the 9x8 and 24 fo wide Drive aisles are safe design standards that are that are followed in many uh many zones uh to provide access to the building we do have a six foot wide
sidewalk along the parking fronting on the building with an additional six- foot Green Space uh this provides a 12T parking setback from the building face um one thing that that came up in one of
the review letters was that we're providing three EV spaces which is accurate four spaces are actually required per the EV statute so we're going to increase the the EV space to four and we can actually at the same time reduce the number of handicap spaces from 10 down to five spaces um
that that will provide a a better better flow more even uh development 10 spaces 10 handicap spaces I think is is overkill for facilities such as this so we can reduce that and uh one of the variances as discussed was providing a a
landscape Island in parking aisles with over 20 spaces and by reducing number of handicapped spaces we could provide that additional landscape Island which would eliminate that variance if uh the board would like to see that uh variance eliminated but we feel we can justify it
all the same uh the facility also includes 30 loading docks located along the North Face of the building and 40 trailer storage spaces both of these uh meet the the township ordinance so we comply with
the ordinance uh where a maximum of 41 trailer storage spaces are permitted and uh 30 uh only 11 loaded docks are required again we're providing uh more than more than what's required by the ordinance
and we're meeting the uh size requirements 12x 50 is required and we're providing uh 12 by UH 60 I believe along the the back uh North Face of the of the building 15 of those trailer storage spaces are angled as you can see
along the west side of the property line so this leads into uh access and circulation so we have access uh at two points of the facility right in right out at the southeast corner and right in right out at the southwest corner this provides for a uh cter clockwise
circulation of the site which is really what's the desired uh circulation so that when uh tractor trailers can enter the site they can then back into the loading dock spaces looking over their left shoulder that's kind of a that's a
design standard that's desirable for for truck drivers so at the same time we have this angle trailer storage spaces when trucks enter the site they can uh circulate counterclockwise pull into the the loading dock spaces and then continue in the counterclockwise Direction and back up into those trailer
storage spaces before uh leaving the site in the future so uh just a little bit of a Nuance for for this facility um in addition to the trailer storage spaces and the loading docks we do have two drive up ramps one at either
end of the loading area and then adjacent to the drive up ramps there will be uh refuse compactors that will be installed um we don't have dumpster enclosures shown on site but those compactors are a nice way to keep trash
enclosed in a compactor don't let you know trash uh uh leave the facility it keeps it nice and clean and and keeps everything sorted and uh and organized um one thing you'll notice again kind of a Nuance of this site we
do have a bit of a bump out at in the rear loading area it's one of those things again the irregular shape of the lot the wetlands the buffer uh requires this this jog in the loading area we ran the truck movements and and it doesn't
create any issues we we located the loading docks and the trailer storage spaces so it's not an issue but again it shows that this is uh an oddly configured site that has some environmental constraints that uh you know
causes uh and and kind of leads the design of the project so just something to uh to notice there um again so now working to the outside of the site that that landscape buffer
that was required along the front of the site is also required from the sides and rear of the property um the the C the circulation drives on the outside have about a a 31 foot setback to the sidelines and then a 25 foot setback
from the Western property line at the rear of the property near the basin again with the site being squeezed the way it is with that jog in the property it kind of pulls everything towards the Route 33 Corridor and then we have to kind of spread it out towards the sides
which is uh part of the reason that we are not meeting that entire landscape buffer setback but all the same we are providing a a heavy uh landscape planted buffer along the side property lines which will uh enhance the the view the
the beautification of the property and provide that buffer that uh is intended uh as written in the ordinance um staying along the rear of the property we have three bio retention
basins uh surrounded with retaining walls again we're Limited in the the developable area of this property so with that large grade change that that I touched on uh from the back front of the site to the back of the site we're trying to limit our disturb area and
we're really cut off by those environmental constraints so we have retaining walls surrounding those biob basins uh we have post and rail fence at the top of those retaining walls for safety and then we provided a guide rail along that the rear loading area so that as the that slope drops off we're
providing a a safe design uh for vehicles and pedestrians that uh circulate around the site really one of the last improvements that we're providing is a uh free standing sign at the front Southeast Corner it'll be hard to see on this
exhibit but we're providing a freestanding sign that meets and complies with the ordinance requirements we currently show it as setback 10 ft from the Route 33 Corridor um it's required to be 20 feet and we don't have an objection to moving that sign back an
additional 10 ft to comply uh with the ordinance um so moving on to that storm water as I started discussing the storm water management design is designed to uh comply with all local state and Outside Agency requirements
providing uh water quality groundwater recharge and uh runoff reductions from the site with using utilizing green infrastructure uh standards as outlined in the D dbmp manual so you can see we
do have three bio retention basins that will provide uh runoff reduction and water quality uh by allowing runoff to infiltrate through a soil medium clean the water provide provide 80% TSS
removal as required before discharging to the rearo of property the goal of storm water management is to meet those three requirements as well as to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site and we're accomplishing uh both those requirements with the storm
water design conveying all runoff to the the rear of the property and then uh one additional groundwater recharge is by being met via uh bi or subgrade infiltration basins uh that are proposed under the loading dock that takes the
clean roof runoff conveys the runoff to the infiltration basins and uh recharges the the groundwater um for sewer water there's actually not sewer and water currently available for the site we're providing a
SE field uh off the southwest corner of the building along the frontage uh that septic field can handle up to 2,000 gallons per day that's a a maximum limit that's that's permitted um and that is driving another piece of this
application which is the number of employees uh on the site per the D requirement you can only have up to 80 employees per day um either one shift of of 80 employees two shifts of 40 employees however you want to break it down um but you can have a maximum of
2,000 gallons per day so that limits the number of employees on site which again will go towards justifying our parking variance of 105 spaces provided with only 80 employees per shift maximum uh that that variance I think is
easily justifiable um in the future as uh Mr Smith stated we're hoping that there is sewer and water available along the western property line so the design was uh thought out to have that septic field
at that southwest corner of the building because there's potentially a future tie in the public sewer system which we do intend to uh connect to when and if it should become available uh with no water available we
are proposing a well which will feed uh domestic and fire water uh for the building to provide fire suppression a water tower a water tank will be provided uh off the the northwest corner
of the building near uh bio retention Basin one uh this would be an above ground Tower to store water um which will then provide pressure to feed the the fire loop around the building and and provide pressure to a uh sprinkler
system inside the building um all calculations all required designed documents will be provided for that and applied for uh with the D with the township and all local uh and outside agencies um and then again Gas and
Electric will be provided uh from infrastructure uh along the the Route 33 Corridor um onto landscape again I I know this is a uh important topic we're really providing a
nice buffer along the front of the site with that 10 to 20 foot wide uh burm uh the the grade from the base of this burm along the front if you can imagine is 10 feet from bottom of berm to top of berm
and then it has a width of 20 to 40 feet from the the bottom of the BM on each side so it's really a substantial uh you know landscaped uh feature that will provide soften of the warehouse building along
Route 33 really meet the intention of the ordinance to provide uh a nice screening of the warehouse then on top of that uh 10 foot burm we'll we'll have a you could see there's about a triple row of Evergreens and flowering trees
and shrubs to really provide a nice landscape uh view from the Route 33 Corridor and same thing along the sides again we don't have the space to provide that that undulating burm like we do along the front of the the site but we
do provide uh multiple multiple row of flowering trees and Evergreens and deciduous trees to to provide a nice landscape along the perimeter uh of the site in total there's uh 70 shade trees 281
Evergreens uh 22 flowering trees 371 shrubs and 926 ground cover this meets the a tree replacement requirement it meets the number of Street trees that are required uh and that actually doesn't include any plantings that will be in the bio retention
basins uh and then lastly really it's the uh lighting which has been designed to be safe and adequate utilizing LED fixtures uh there'll be 17 pole mounted LED fixtures mounted at 20 ft high and an additional 11 wallmounted uh fixtures
at 25 ft high again LED low maintenance uh energy efficient fixtures to uh to you know have a a green friendly uh design and to not interfere with surrounding properties we really don't
have light spillage there's an average of one foot candle throughout the site and a minimum of3 foot candles uh along the perimeter of the the drive AES so it's not you know a big highly lit Warehouse that'll interfere with the surrounding area areas it's designed to
be safe and adequate but no more uh no less and just going back to the to the Green Design one thing I didn't touch on is that the building will be structurally designed to handle solar uh solar panels on top of the building our
architect will get into that more but um I think it's important to our applicant to provide a a green friendly site again beautified with with a lot of landscaping and then capable of handling solar uh on the roof do we have an
application into jury Central Power and Light on that uh I don't know if it's in yet but I know that the intent is to uh apply for that solar not just provide a structural building that can handle it but is to actually apply for the solar any other anything else you want
to mention uh I I don't believe so if there's any uh questions in regard to the review letters um we can get into that that's probably a pretty good idea Mr chairman would be all right if we address the review letters sure okay so why don't we try
uh Mr razim moz's uh memo of March 14th and the overall concept that I'd like to throw out there is we agree with just about everything all right there there's like four or five items that we need clarification on and with your
permission you know if I don't indicate we have some concern we've agreed to any anything else that's in the report so let me uh direct your attention to page eight of Mr rovi's report and uh we're specifically talking
about item 32 A and B uh and this is with regard to soils testing and we're all for soils testing and that's actually page six sorry I'm sorry all I six of six of 10 uh yes so there is a couple comments
regarding soil testing and like the other comments in the report we we agree to comply um the soil testing we either will provide the additional soil testing to satisfy the requirements or uh I did take a look at the design it looks like
we could reduce the number of infiltration basins on site while meeting the ground the groundwater recharge requirement and if we can reduce the infiltration Basin um and kind of relocate it I think we can use the existing soil testing to actually
satisfy uh the requirement but again that's kind of more on the the technical side so um we're happy to work with your office to to satisfy those comments we'd like to work with the the request is to work with Mr rim movitz and his staff to see if the reduction in the infiltration
basins solves the issue under any circumstances if Mr AO moitz wants more tests we're going to provide them but we do think some flexibility in that that's acceptable all right uh one more soil
item if you take a look at number 35 uh on the bottom of page six um again there there may be some variation in the soils would you describe that particular issue and again it's we want to work with the engineer
yeah in certain situations soil groups are listed as two different soil groups uh ad which are like opposite soil groups but it could be either one and it really deter is determined by the Geotech engineer when they go out and they do the soil testing um and if the
soils can have two different soil groups they will test and then determine on the site specific soil uh results will determine what what soil group it is so we we'll reach out to the Geotech engineer either have them provide the additional tests that are required or uh
provide an additional statement in their uh Geotech report clar if Ying the solar groups that that's fine um Lastly lastly almost lastly the um if
you take a look at page eight of 10 the the comments D1 D3 and D6 are are better best addressed by the traffic expert so I'd like to hold those three items for the traffic expert Mr canel
uh lastly I believe if you take a look at uh page nine of 10 there's a list of um approvals uh that may be required and the only thing the only caveat we're putting there is if needed may turn out that some approvals
aren't needed happy to provide them we'll get them all if they're needed that's the only amendment and other than that we agree with uh the report in its entirety yes that's correct
okay so let's take a look at the planners report dated March the 19th from CME uh engineering and again we agree with all of it but maybe a little
clarification on page four uh there is a comment about uh the bottom item item which is d i landscape plans appears to include
three large swales to be planted with Turf within the front yard between the proposed burm and [Music] the [Music] proposed Warehouse office building
um you had a comment on that yeah um yeah when I originally was looking at the design I I didn't necessarily consider that to be a burn but more of a low point that just happens to kind of be configured in more of an oval like long oval shape but um we don't have an
issue working with your office provide more as you stated moisture loving plants to kind of soak up some of that uh you know runoff that's leading to those inlets you know if we need to provide Stone to reduce erosion kind of around the inlets at the low points we're happy to do that as well um so
again we we don't have any issue with the statements and we're happy to work with your office to to satisfy your comments I direct your attention to page five under parking e parking um it says the table below indicates the calculated requirements
for parking based on Section 108-99 oneg sub18 the ldo provides two options shown for warehousing the required parking is highest of the two calculations only floor area information has been
provided in the submitted materials applicants shall clarify the potential number of employees if this information is available applicant must also justify the variance by showing how the parking provided is suitable for the warehouse operation yes so the two different
calculations are either per employees which is one space per two employees or based on square footage which is one space per 800 squ fet of warehouse and one space per 600 ft of office space um given that we had an idea that we would
only have a maximum of 80 employees the breakdown of per office or uh per square footage was the greater of the two so 275 spaces are required per that breakdown and we're providing 105 so we're requiring a a variance but adjust
105 with the credit for three and then with the credit for actually what we're going to provide is four EV spaces so we'll have um you know 108 109 basis okay director attention to page six very bottom comment V says
um no parking shall be allowed within 30 ft of outer walls of any structure in order to provide adequate access to all buildings in case of fire or other emergency parking spaces are proposed at under 30 ft from the building variances required applicant should provide
testimony as to how intent of this requirement that is emergency vehicle access to the building shall be met even though strict adherence to this requirement is not proposed right and um I I'll leave some of the justification for the planner but
essentially what we're providing is is very standard along warehouses where you have the six foot of sidewalk the six foot of open space that provides room for firefighting but also it's not typical that you know a fire truck is
going to want to pull up right next to the building and and utilize that 30 ft of space right next to potentially a fall zone of where the building could collapse so um we're happy to work with the Fire official if they have any concerns and and address those uh
concerns I direct your attention to page seven at the top it's uh listed as VI section 108-99 c sub1 the driveway width at the curve line shall be between 15 and 35 ft
the proposed driveway widths of the access drives are between 60.87% Ft a variances required yeah and I think given this use being a warehouse and having larger tractor trailers maneuvering the site that driveway
opening is really uh required due to the the size of the vehicles we did not identify that that was identified by planner who doesn't miss anything and uh we we believe that it it should be required and we're
formally requesting it in our notice we indicated that any variances which in the opinion of the board may be needed so we think we're properly noticed on that but we would ask that that variance be included in our request to the board tonight
uh take a look at um Monument signs down second from the bottom it says uh no sign should be located closer than 20 feet to any lot line proposed sign is 10 feet from the lot Line This is not complain right that's what we agreed to we agreed to move the
sign to 20 feet so we're not re we will not be requesting a variance on that we will conform to the ordinance at the 20 ft uh distance all right so um direct your attention to page8
there's a comment about design requirements I'd ask wait for our U architect to come forward so he can answer that um Jay asks for a clarification which is vehicle storage is limited to tractor trailers and we
can save for a fact we will comply with that right and it's only tractor trailers um in K under refuse and recycling a written refuse and recy narrative statement should be provided by the applicant detailing what solid
waste will be disposed of from the warehouse building and what will be recycled the days and timings of trash pickup and the uh location of exterior trash receptacles a refu storage area is not identified on the plans this should be clarified you please clarify that I
think I touched on in my testimony that will be utilizing compactors that'll be located within the loading area uh the compactors will handle any waste inside of the compactor keep it clean around the site any recycling will either be stored within
the compactor or bailed inside the building and again it'll be organ or coordinated with a private hauler um depending on how much waste is actually generated by the future tenant to to or you know coordinate how many days it really needs to be picked up we need direction from the board take
a look at sidewalks it says per section 108-112 point21 A sidewalks are required within all residential IAL developments this the proposed is not a residential development the applicant is not proposing any sidewalks along the
frontages this shall be confirmed the board during site plan review would consider whether a sidewalk along Route 33 Frontage should be required whatever you want us to do we'll do is is is there a specific recommendation or do you want to hold
that in advance Mr chairman um frankly you agreed to do the curbs and sidewalks in my letter I didn't hear you take exception to you didn't take exception installing curb and and sidewalk so is that is that what your question is now yeah we're just making
sure so again uh our ordinance requires a curb and sidewalk improvements along the front edge it's U State jurisdiction um but in keeping with our improvements along Route 33 there there's been a sidewalk or a uh or a
walkway of sorts uh in that area has the state objected in any of the other cases you know n that I'm aware of okay so so maybe we could just put the caveat as long as there's no objection from the state of New Jersey can't hear you we'd like to put a little caveat in there the
caveat being that we're happy to put in the sidewalks the curb Etc as long as there's no objection from the state of New Jersey it's their road so you we got to check got to make sure they're not going to object to the sidewalk in the curb to do it Mr chairman I would just
say you know the the I would I would say the township wants a sidewalks and and and we should be you should be going to the state with that in mind yes um they have not denied any of the other uh projects that have gotten approved along
Route 33 for that sidewalk or walkway um of sorts it may be like more of an asphalt walkway um as opposed to concrete um but again I haven't denied it anywhere else so I I wouldn't expect it here and and we're not unhappy
putting it just want to make sure we're not breaking any laws and using anybody's property over their objection so we'll check it out the engineer will check it out with the state of New Jersey uh down the bottom of the
page uh under environmental impact M subi it does not appear that any development areas proposed in Wetland areas they shall be confirmed would you please confirm it right yeah the only disturbance that is within the DP areas
for uh buffer averaging so we're not disturbing actual well we are we are feeling isolated Wetlands which is permitted under the DP uh statute so we're we're filling isolated Wetlands we're permitted to fill up to an acre
that is in the the DP standards there's no uh you know chance of that getting denied so so then it'll just be in addition to that buffer averaging right and the item below at II does not appear that any flood zones are located on the subject properties
applicants Engineers should confirm right and and that's what I touched on as well the the flood zone is off the site or the 100-year flood is off the site per the FEMA map um with the 2023 regs where it's FEMA plus three it does
encroach onto the property so again we'll be applying to the D for verification and any permitting okay I direct your attention to page nine and two uh item n and with your permission Mr
chairman that's an architectural question we'll save n for the architect um O app should discuss of any green building techniques including green roof solar panels or other site design techniques are being proposed and I think you answered that in your testimony
right and I'll leave the architect to any other techniques other than like I stated the the solar panels which the applicant intends to uh apply for all right and planning comment D the Avent must provide additional details on the proposed operation of the building including number of shifts number of
employees hours of operation numbers of expected truck deliveries and pickups and I think you partially provided that we have a li limit of how many employees on the site it's uh limited of 80 as long as we are utilizing the septic field it's a limit of 80 employees if in
the future we are able to tie into a public system because that sewer is installed that could lift I guess that number of employees per day um but as long as the septic field is utilized we can have a maximum of 80 and then again number of shifts hours of
operation um are unknown are unknown because because there's no tenant in place we don't have a ten identified at this time all right and I think that may be the the last item there uh in any case we're open for
comments or questions not only to the board but to the professionals okay we'll turn it to the professionals first um I just have one question uh based on your testimony today regarding the um water tower that's being proposed at the back what would be the proposed
height of that structure it's it hasn't been designed yet so um I don't have an exact answer for you okay um we would we would not be going beyond the height permitted in the zone correct right if if for whatever
reason the tower had to be had to exceed what's permitted we'd be back before the board okay thank you um other than that I think uh you already testify you'll comply with all the Landscaping like comments and anything else yes Mr chairman U they've agreed to meet
the comments in my March 14 2025 review letter uh I just want to touch on a couple items with the exception of traffic which we'll get to when you you have your traffic engineer up um the uh the property to the rear is
residential um what's the distance of from your Warehouse to the proposed homes on the property behind you you have a you have that information I don't have exactly where those proposed homes are from the warehouse to the closest jog on site is over 200
feet and then it's an additional 200 feet to the to the far furthest jog so we're about 400 ft before we leave our property I beyond that there's a flood Hazard Corridor so and and that's an
additional you know 3 to 400 ft so I unless those homes are on within that flood Hazard Corridor Zone I think it's they're probably in excess of 800 to 1,000 feet okay so Landscaping uh buffering in the
rear um there's none proposed as far as Landscaping so how do we provide some buffering um for for those posed homes that are already approved by the way um I know you're saying the distance is could be 800 could be th000 ft plus or
minus um the property does drop off uh into those flood plane areas so there's frankly nothing really blocking these um the the trucks and the the overhead doors from uh or in the loading docks to those homes so how do we get some
buffering in there with this application yeah I mean like I stated we're we're really right up against that wetlands and wetlands buffer um we have retaining walls along there so even planting beyond that loading
area we falling within the geogrid of those retaining walls so it it is a challenge uh to provide buffering on the back there I know because those are bio retention areas will'll have plantings within the bio retention area so we could take a look at what type of
possibly taller landscape materials we can plant within the bio retention areas and anywhere where we're not restricted by the geogrid we're happy to take a look at providing some additional plantings but are you able to put any bming in there in that area again to
block the loading docks or or give some buffering of the sound to the uh to those residential we currently have a bur in there but for storm water purposes again I think with the the the limits of that Wetland buffer I I can't say that we're going to put it be able
to grade anything in there that would have a substantial impact on so I'm throwing things out there maybe a sound wall of some sort um to sort of dampen dampen the noise M um so something to
consider you know should should this gain preliminary approval um for you to consider between preliminary and final yeah um should you get approved you I think uh the applicant wants to make a contribution here Mr Choy if you would so our understanding uh regarding
the wetlands at a rear of our property separating the large housing project behind us is that there is at least a 30 acre Wetlands mitigation plan now the DP has not provided the details of that but we do believe there's going to be significant natural buffering and all
ask is that um we uh wait to see what those plans are from the DP could be it could be very natural in scope um and our estimate is about it's about a th000 feet away with DP natural buffering so until we see that it it was difficult to
sort of speculate as to what we should be doing to provide additional buffering beyond that that's the only caveat I would ask is that uh d uh Landscaping at they're proposing is that on your property or no it's it's off our
property but there's a significant wetlands area behind our property that separates the housing project and and uh so um we just asked you know we can we can get in touch with the DP to see exactly what those plans are but I think you can expect that there will be some natural buffering that will grow over
time um but we're happy to work with you to figure out what additional buffering may be required beyond that um with regard to those buffers in the rear and and the front um you said uh did you do any kind of vertical
profile to see um you know the height of the buffer how it how like if you stood on a road and you looked at the building would you see the building would the front buffer block the road um did you do any kind of um our Architects did do
a profile even views just to show screening of the uh rooftop apperances um we didn't do one specifically showing the the burm but I know the the top of the burm is uh approximately 10 to 12
feet above the uh finished floor of the warehouse and then the landscape that's on top of that BM can grow in excess of you know 20 to 30 feet so but I don't have an exact cross-section showing that the architect will be providing that when yes we have an exhibit that the
architect will show the uh hold off comment on that um with regard to the outside agencies um and and this ties in with the traffic a little bit uh and I know um Mr Smith you said you know as applicable whatever outside agencies are are applicable so
my concern is uh middle sex County planning board um and as well as Mammoth County concerning the intersection um which we we'll get to on we start talking traffic so that isn't comment in my review letter as well as
far as getting approvals from NJ do middle County and Mammoth County regarding the uh intersection of uh rinville and Route 33 um and any improvements there all right bear with me chairman that's all I have at this
time okay I'll open up to the board um how close to the residential homes is this you don't know to the rear of the property I st at minimum 800 to 1,000 ft before we even get to that uh flood
Hazard Zone which will not be built in and then the homes will be beyond that to the sides uh further away from us to the North and then to the sides as well so excuse me with the um the parking lot and the wetlands is
the wetlands are right there like where that dip is in the back where the um parking lot is excuse me is the wetlands right up against where your uh parking lot starts yes so
not not as much to the to the size because we stay out of the wetlands and the Wetland buffer there's a dark line that runs it's not exactly parallel but it kind of runs parallel with the uh rear property line and off of is a 50ft
buffer so the retaining wall really runs along that 50ft buffer where this jog is in our property we're closer than that 50 ft so that's actually where we have to do some averaging buffer averaging and then
where we stay outside the 50 buffer as we get closer to the uh western edge of the property and so pushing doing any development within that buffer you have to mitigate that somewhere else and since we're kind of running along
that along the entire back of property there's only so much that would you say like if um because we get a really wet season flooding and everything and the the
trucks the the weight of the trucks collaps that you know that would is that a possibility with the wetlands no I mean it no it's designed to to handle you know wet season the soil again we'll have a Geotech involved who
will analyze the existing soils make sure it's compacted appropriately the retaining walls will hold up the site to make sure there's no potential of collapse um and and one of the things you know that makes the site difficult again with
the slope of the site sloping so much to the rear we have a lot of area that is required to be flat so we are bringing in uh an amount of fill which will kind of lift the site out of that that wet area
um and uh and you know provide some protection against the are you planning U like a outside seating area for the employees or we don't currently have one shown um again we do have some of the Green Space along the front and some green space along the building on the
sides but uh we we don't currently have a uh an area designated all right thank you that's it um I was reviewing I guess it's the Land Development application that was done last
September uh and it mentions in there about water and sewer going before uh mtud Monro Township utility uh Department have you applied now that was back in September that's 6 months ago have you you applied for them for this
application no no we haven't we've been waiting to get before the board um before we really apply to any outside agencies thank you Mr reso let have one followup question uh NJ D Loi you have your Loi
yes did you get permits yet for uh buffer averaging no we haven't uh applied for any of the the Outside Agency departments yet because one thing I'm looking at it looks like the way it's drawn you your buffer averaging line is at the retaining wall so you
know how do you construct the walls and the amount of fill that you're bringing in um you know without doing more buffer averaging more disturbance to the buffer averaging something something more to take a look at yeah and again you know the DP will review that and if they have
comments on on that we can address it just one quick question I know you've indicated that the maximum number of employees you can have presently is is 80 is that the intention of the applicant to limit the number of employees to 80 just while with the septic field yes
but we don't want to I think we don't want to hold the application in the future if we can tie into the public sewer then that rest seems like the the intimation was that the the justification for the parking variant is going to be the number of employees so
well we do like if that's going to change in the future some application to the board should be necessary one thing we did discuss one we have about we have 105 spaces so we could justify 105 employees potentially also we could have
multiple shifts where it could be 100 employees at the morning shift 100 employees at the the later shift with the septic field we can't do that we can only have a maximum of 80 per day so that's a couple reasons why we were hoping trying to figure out the number
of employees then okay anyone else hearing none Mr Smith call your next witness just before you leave this topic let me consult with my client minut break okay uh we're going
to take a fem minute break then so how you doing good how's everything with you okay so cute e e e
e e e e e e e e e e
e e variant at that time all right maybe because we are justifying our parking variant with the 80 limitation so we talked to uh our clients and said there's a legitimate concern could we agree that if we do
connect with sewers in the future that we come back to you to justify parking or occupancy or utilization of the building and they said that's not a problem so if you want to list that as a condition hopefully that deals with that issue in an appropriate way
does my next witness uh Mr chairman is Scott canel uh who is our traffic engineer I'd ask to be called and sworn so they can give testimony good evening if you could raise your right hand for me do you swear the testimony you're going to provide us the truth all truth and nothing but truth I do if you could
state your name spell your last name and give us your address please for the record yes it is Scott Kennel k n NE L with MCD and Ray Associates located at 1431 Lakewood Road and you've been before this board before before this board as well as the zoning board on
many occasions okay you need not go through your credentials all right thank you thank you Mr chairman uh Mr uh were you uh commissioned to perform a traffic study of this project yes all
right and if you don't mind would you tell us the benefits of that traffic report sure yes our firm was uh retained to prepare a traffic study the traffic study submitted is dated September 11 2024 and the uh first phase of our
investigation was to inventory existing conditions as far as traffic controls speed limits and things of that nature as well as the conduct of traffic counts traffic counts were conducted in June of 2024 for the morning and afternoon peak
hours which were 7: to 9:00 a.m. and 4: to 6:00 p.m. the morning peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 with approximately 1960 Vehicles passing the site in the westbound Direction and then the afternoon peak
hour occurs from 4: to 5: PM with approximately 130 1130 vehicles in a westbound Direction along the site Frontage the next phase was determine how much traffic could be generated by this site the proposed use and The
Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual was consulted and it was determined that the development of this size the use would generate approximately 50 trips in and out total during the
morning hour and 52 in the afternoon in our table one of the report we also break out the number of trucks and the the truck projections are based on data collected by The Institute of Transportation engineers and we utilize that where we anticipate during the morning peak hour there'll be seven
trucks and eight trucks in the afternoon once we have established the the traffic projections then it was necessary to analyze the future build year when the development would be completed and we utilized a design year of 2027 consulted in New Jersey Department
of Transportation traffic growth rates and determined that uh a traffic growth of 10% was applicable when considering the bill Jer for this development the next phase was to analyze the how well the driveways will
operate and basically we took a conservative analysis and and based it on a single driveway coming onto Route 33 so again the the results we provide in my opinion are conservative not taking advantage of two points of access
but during the morning peak hour the um exiting um level of service will be at dle service or the average delay per vehicle be 30 seconds and that's you know appropriate when you consider that the peak commuter traffic flow is in the westbound Direction and then in the
afternoon it was determined that the driver weight operat level service C or approx or an average vehicle delay of 17 vehicles uh 17 seconds um exiting the site all within except the parameters by NJ
do as Mr slay had testified this site's been designed to provide two driveways two right in write out driveways it is expected the easterly driveway will be utilized primarily for entry of passenger vehicles because the majority
of the parking is located on the east side of the building as well as the truck traffic because of the um as he discussed the way with the loading docks on the North side the typical pattern will be a counterclockwise so they would
enter in the easterly driveway and the trucks would prbly enter exit out of the Westerly driveway as far as passenger vehicles we'd expect the majority of the passenger vehicles to exit the easterly driveway again given thec location of the um majority of the parking for
passenger vehicles uh there was testimony as far as a number of parking spaces proposed in my opinion based on my experience in doing dozens and dozens of these types of facilities the 108 parking spaces are more than adequate
they're also consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Park and generation manual as far as the supply uh again my experience is a building of this size may have anywhere from 30 to 40 employees on a shift um and as it relates to some of the
other um design waivers on on the parking stall size the 9 by8 in my opinion are appropriate these are low turnover parking spaces it's not a shopping center where we a high turnover as well as the in my opinion
the the 24t wide park and aisle widths are appropriate all the main aisles are 30 ft but for in the internal parking areas for the passenger vehicles the 24 foot two-way aisles are appropriate and consistent um with other design
standards um so in summary the um the access to the site uh I meant to mention before we have excellent sight lines exiting the site we meet and exceed the recommended site distance
standard so the site driveways in my opinion will operate safely and efficiently um the on-site circulation has been properly designed to provide positive on-site circulation and um the other Ament to mention is as far as um New Jersey Department
transportation given the type of use and the size disqualifies as a minor access permit and should the board vote favorably on this application then we will proceed to file for that application to deal with NJ
do that concludes my testimony well not yet well my direct yes so you may remember there were a couple of traffic items in Mr rovi's report that we said we'd hold for the traffic expert so I direct the
board's attention and your attention to page eight of Mr rovi's report uh D1 says trucks traveling East to the site need to take The Jug Handle at the intersection of Route 33 and ptle in w
SL Pineville Road it appears that trucks are driving over the curb at this location in order to make a left turn to travel West onto Route 33 additionally there appears to be a truck stacking problem due to the limited left turn
lane space available the plan shall be revised to include improvements to this intersection as required by NJ do middlex County and Monmouth County would you respond to that com comment please yeah is it is it regard to yes I've been out at the intersection you can see
where there are trucks that have rolled over the curb and trying to make that left term movement that is not DOT does not require us to analyze that intersection again we are the the criteria to analyze intersection would be 100 peak hour
trips we're adding anywhere from 30 to 40 peak hour trips to that intersection uh and I think also I've reviewed the marketplace proposed improvements which I understand they're going to look to start those construction improvements uh say within
12 months that anybody coming to this site or trucks particularly would not be making a direct left onto Route 33 there would be a through movement going past the restaurant that's on the right side there on the corner and then making a
left turn into the new slip ramp that will connect to Route 33 um and I discussed the uh intersection improvements uh for the marketplace with their traffic engineer and he indicated
that dot did not require them to do any improvements to the souths side of 33 where those um where that island is and the near side Jug Handle but there are no requirements from Mammoth County again we're below their threshold which
is 50 peak hour trips um and I'm not aware of middle sex County requiring us to analyze that intersection as well and the reason for that is lack of impact correct correct because of the amount of
traffic to be generated right uh I direct your attention to item number three the traffic circulation plan shows trucks entering on the Eastern portion of the site and exiting on the western portion of the site will
there be restrictions for trucks uh to exit on the Eastern portion of the site I don't expect that to be the case I mean the site has been designed where it can accommodate if trucks so choose to ENT to exit the easterly driveway but it's expected that a majority of trucks
will exit out onto the Westerly driveway okay and item six uh the traffic study indicates trucks will mainly use the Western in Ingress ESS of the site where the vehicle circulation plan
demonstrates trucks on the Eastern port of the site the plan study shall be revised accordingly yeah our our traffic report on page five stated that the site has been designed to segregate passenger
vehicles basically the parking areas with truck traffic and basically stated that it's anticipated that they would utilize the Easter access as I described earlier in my testimony so again I would expect the majority of trucks the majority of the vehicles utilizing the
site would utilize the easterly access to enter uh as far as exiting the majority of trucks will exit through the Westerly driveway and I would expect the significant portion of passenger vehicles would exit the site from the easterly driveway so that they would not
have to Traverse through the loading area okay I and and again if if necessary I can expand upon that further in our traffic report and edit the report okay uh Mr chairman uh Mr canel's available for
questions chairman yes uh with regard to the driveways I'm just looking for turning templates you only have one for the one driveway give it to show me the other driveway Works um the one you do show it it looks like the truck is G and I'm not sure if it's your plan or or the
engineer's plan we'll work with we'll work with Mr Cay on it and and we want the trucks to stay in their Lane so the one you do show the truck is going into the uh erass Lan we will provide that correct and that and that is something also the NJ do will review as well when
you make that application thanks with regard to the intersection uh traffic signal intersection um you I do request you go to the middle seex County planning board and as far as a review of that uh I understand what you're saying with
regard to the state my concern is you're introducing tractor trailers now to that traffic signal where they're not not now or there's few that are going into that signal but you're adding to that um so so I would like to see that analyze and
and possibly be part of any meeting that you have at the state to review that so uh so the township can have some input with our concerns all right I mean we can indicate that in our in our transmission to dot I mean this given it's a minor
access permit they now handle all the minor access permits um electronically instead of hard copies but um we can provide um acknowledge your requests in the transmission of the
uh application well cut to the chase how how many trucks can stack at that light if if trucks are coming to your site and making a left turn how do they stack and and I'm not sure I know you said you spoke to the uh traffic engineer for Marketplace I haven't seen a plan that
shows that maneuver of of if you're making a left you're no longer making a left on to 33 you're going through the signal and using some offramp so I I haven't seen that so I can share I received them just today myself um but
though those plans as I understand that they're pretty close to having final NJ do approval um but um and that may address the concerns that that I have you know with with the trucks getting to your site um so if you can share that
and and I let me just also state that as far as number of trucks during the peak hours it may be two or three over an hour so it isn't as if we're going to have two or three at the same time at the intersection it's going to be one every 15 minutes or one every 20 minutes
so um I think the impact there yes there's going to be additional trucks but I don't I don't expect it to be a significant impact on the intersection with regard to the impacts um your traffic studies said you did not take into account the marketplace um traffic that that it's already been
approved and you indicated there was modifications coming to that signal you know why because that seems to be a significant number of vehicles that are going to be put into the same intersection with your trucks well to that point uh there was a TRC meeting that by partner attended and
we're advised that we didn't have to include that and my sense is is because of the significant improvements that Marketplace are doing for example at prod and way they're adding an additional through Lane in the eastbound Direction and they're doing substant you
know doing the other improvements that are going to provide substantial capacity um and so all I can relate to I wasn't at the TRC my partner was um and but I would suspect because of the significant
improvements um required by Marketplace including the new traffic signal west of our site that also provides U-turn opportunities with jug handles for example anybody leaving the site that wants to head back East will not have to go to Applegarth Road they'll be able to
make the u-turn at this new traffic signal uh that is going to be funded fully by Marketplace so I I was at all the trc's I believe okay the other professionals are in this room so uh so that information didn't come from us um so I
would like to see the the report updated to include uh whatever those improvements are at that traffic signal and uh you know the traffic Counts from Marketplace we can do that and again I have I have their traffic study and it'll include all the improvements that they're looking to do I mean beyond what
you see out there today I think that would answer a lot of the concerns um and Mr chairman that's that's all I have any anybody on the board uh yeah quick question if there's
no tenant you don't know about any a tenant how do you know how many trucks are going to be coming in what you know how how are you determining how many trucks at that light at the traffic well again it's consistent with data that is
published by insute Institute Transportation engineers and my office has cons uh conducted extensive research at other uh large Warehouse developments in Middle SE County and they are those that data indicates that they're
consistent with what's recommended by it and also recommended by the New Jersey Department of Transportation so in my opinion I'm comfortable with the fact of what our projections are based on what NJ do accepts as well as the research conducted by my firm over the last five
to six years in Middle sex County okay thank you you're welcome so the um traffic study you did it was in June last year June when schools were in session yes okay June 6th I'll give you the exact dates it
was Thursday June 6 we did the afternoon and then Tuesday June 11th and as I understand it schools were open until June 14th okay else none then M Smith Mr chairman I'd like to call Zachary Webster our
architect to be sworn so he can give testimony Mr Webster Wester good evening do you swear the testimony you're going to provide us the truth the whole truth and not the truth yes if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address for the record please Zach Wester and I'm with M plus h Architects our address
is uh 12747 Olive Boulevard St Louis Missouri okay Mr Wester have you ever been uh accepted by this board as a architect not in front of this board but I have in other uh well we're going to ask you to do the short version of your credentials please Ty I uh have a MERS
of architecture from Kansas State University I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey in good standing um and I've I've personally been involved in about 12 to 15 million square feet of projects similar to this in the state of New Jersey and about
another probably 25 million square feet nationally so thank you accepted thank you Mr chairman um would you uh you know the easy question I give to the AR what is it going to look like absolutely I have two
exhibits we're up to3 I two exhibits and I'll need to Mark both of them or I'm sorry I'll need to Mark the second one the first one is a is a rendering which should have been included in the submitted material um and the second one
is a sight line study now Mark this exhibit as A3 and tonight's date if you don't mind right I'll start with the the building rendering so this is a view taken from the the southeast Corner um looking at
the the main office entry um the building will be constructed of of concrete wall panels um and it will be painted in a a neutral gray color scheme of of warm gray tone colors um the the wall panels will feature reveals that
are cast into the panels to um really to separate colors and to um to Prov provide additional texture to the wall surface um the colors applied really in blocks to to help minimize the scale of the elevation um especially the long
elevations on the south and north sides of the building um and they also help to provide sort of an aesthetic Rhythm down the elevation um the elevations feature both recessed and projected panels um along
the building so the the lighter panels you see here are are reset from from the main wall surface to provide texture and relief and then the the sort of tote or kind of lighter colors you see here are
projected panels from the the main wall surface which again provide additional relief and Shadow lines along the the long elevation um and all of these recess panels along the elevation feature a sort of a tightly spaced reveal pattern which again provide some
additional texture along the elevation to to to break up sort of a flat wall surface um all of the the glazing is planned to be a gray tinted glass um and all of the the window frames will be a clear anodized aluminum so they'll be
they'll all be sort of a silver color U all of the parit copings so all of the the tops of each of the panel that that metal will be a color to match all the adjacent panels so where where you see a much darker
that likewise where the panels are lighter it'll be a light color um the entry elements at the office Corners include a a projected metal canopy to protect the the entrance and to Pro provide uh really a nice
entry into the front door at the offices um and the entry Corners are all or each both of them they're they're marked by this sort of darker color with a a lighter color setting against it um a contrasting color that helps draw attention to those corners of the
building um and the entry storefront uh this entire storefront entry element that glass is all again set back as well and recessed within the the lighter color to provide some relief and and sort of a more inviting
entry um the North and South walls uh both feature clar story Windows to provide access to natural daylight for those employees that are working in the warehouse space um and let's
see the um the maximum the proposed Building height is 45 ft and that's measured from the uh the average grade at the front of the building so the south side to the top of the proposed roof surface and um none of the parapets
will Ex ceed 4T above that that line um and I will move oh signage I know there was a a comment related to signage so right now we're proposing two building sign or two facade mounted
signs um and should there be two tenants that would be the case if there's only one tenant it would be reduced to to only one sign and that those signs would not exceed 100 square F feet in area um the actual sign design would be submitted under approval or for approval
under really a separate tenant Improvement package um but no deviation from the ordinance is requested related to signage and I'll move to the Seline study to show
um the um any questions related to visibility of hbac equipment um that's A3 Cor correct that's A3 correct so we we studied three points
within the site um really points at the property line to see whether or not um to analyze the the parit Heights and whether uh rooftop units would be visible from those points at the property line so the first the top view
here is a view taken from really the furthest point um to this adjacent proper property um and there's a a dash line here show indicating a you know the height of a person and the view um to
the building and we deliberately will set mechanical units back one structural Bay from the exterior wall and in in doing so that that in this case effectively means that the the parit
will screen those units from view in in order to be able to actually see this unit uh you would have to be approximately 30 ft above uh what the the grade actually is at that property line so it's fairly significant in
height that you'd have to be to really see it um and then we took two other views one one at Each corner on the south side of the building um to show at those corners of the property line um
the to show the same thing that the the parit wall will effectively screen all of the units on the south side of the building and from uh Route 33 and I think that concludes my direct testimony and well no one other
item there any we deferred on the uh in the planers report an architectural comment the comment was uh found on page nine item n and it says all Air all air conditioning units HVAC systems and
other mechanical equipment should be screened and inconspicious from the public View and adjacent properties applicant should clarify where mechanical equipment will be located what screening is provided I think you've just gone through that yes but in a nutshell sure are people going to be
able to see the the mechanical equipment or no we don't believe so how far back are they set sure so they're they're set back approximately uh probably 50 ft or so on the south side and then roughly 60t on the North side so any units that that would I can
go to the I'll move back to the rendering really quick um so units would run um there'd be a unit over each one of the offices uh it should there be an office at the other corner but you they'll run sort of along the long side
of the building so any units on this side of the building will be set about 50 ft back from the wall and on the loading dock side they'd be set about 60 ft from the wall so they're outside of the speed Bay so you're confident this they will not be visible to the public
cor yes okay um Mr Wester is available to the board for questions okay anybody from the board okay thank you thank you our last witness Mr chairman is our uh licensed
professional planner Mr Higgins I'd ask that he be called and sworn so that he can give testimony good evening evening sir if you could raise your right hand you SAR the testimony going to provide us the truth all truth and nothing but truth I do you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address please for the James W Higgins hi GG i
ns 14 Tilton Drive Ocean New Jersey I am a licensed planner in the state license is current and I've testified before this board and the Zoning Board in Monroe on a number of occasions over the years okay your credentials are accepted by the by the way you know what
thinking about this one thing we didn't address with the architect we had the suggestion from the planner that we should ask for a one foot variance on the height to 76 feet uh do you think that's a good
recommendation for a building of this size is probably go ahead yeah next to the microphone it's I would say for a building in this size it's not necessary yep got it all right for a
building in this size 70 6 feet or 75 ft is it's not necessary to be that tall all right if you don't mind can I ask the planner why she thought it was a good idea it was just a
suggestion all right thank you very much and sorry to interrupt the flow uh Mr Higgins uh we're asking for not 11 bulk variances now but 10 um would you uh from the point of
view of the municipal land use law who over this but also provide the justification for the bulk variances requested yeah yeah surely well the board is well aware that there are two types of bulk variances there's C1 which is a hardship and C2 is where the benefits of the granting of the variants
substantially at weigh the detriments I think in this case the variances are really most of them are driven by the fact that the site is incumbered substantially by Wetlands the North End of the site in particular which drives
all of the development of the site as Mr Zay said towards Route 33 and spreads it out on the site uh the the way I'm just rough calculation anywhere from a quarter to a fifth of the site is
encumbered by wetlands and Wetland buffer and also now flood plane but that's all within the wetlands so I don't think that's that's an additional incumbrance so I think you know when you look at it there's a certain C1 component to the graning of the
variances but in addition there is a C2 component when you look at the site and let's see can we have uh the site plan yeah not the site plan but the the aerial of the
site yeah yeah when you look at the streetcape one Route 33 here the site is be polite it's unattractive it's got the uses are not permitted the it's the use is halfhazard
where you have the one uh commercial facility there the parking is basically all over the place it's out on the street out near the street it's really not well organized and it's very very unsightly and this application is going to provide significant
improvements to the site in terms terms of Aesthetics in terms of use in terms of the function and which by function I mean by the fact that the site will operate in a in a reasonable manner there will be drainage facilities that
don't currently exist on the site and also the applicant is proposing to utilize as much of the roof of the building to put solar panels on it as the uh uh the electric company will
allow now um and I understand that's a minimum of 40% up to 100% of the roof of the building will be utilized for solar uh there is a court case back that's a 1995 court case pollen versus versus South planfield which states that a
board can look at the totality of the improvements on the site in in regard to justifying bulk variances on the site need not look at every individual bulk variance and I think the board could do that in this instance given the
substantial improvements to the site but at the same time I will go through each of the variances and talk about the justifications for them uh the first would be the provision of the 100 foot buffer along Route 33 uh the ordinance requires 100 foot buffer along the
street line uh the applicant is proposing at the point of the septic system a 25t buffer because the septic system system is set back 25 ft from the street line and that's 45 ft wide of the 45 ft
of the 12200 plus feet Frontage of the site so that's about 3.7% of the width of the lot is 25 ft the balance of the buffer area is 100 feet with the screen heavy screening and
the birming along Route 33 which meets the intent of the ordinance the two corners of the line because Route 33 does Bend or the two corners of the building are 3 to four feet short of that 100
feet but that's in my opinion that's the Minimus I don't think anybody could look at that without looking at a plan and seeing the dimension on the plan and know that it didn't meet the 100 feet so basically the I think the substance of that buffer is the location of the sewer
of the of the septic system and that's 45 ft again of the entire 12200 ft Frontage and it's also in an area where when you see the the exit to the site the Westerly exit to the site it provides better site
distance down Route 33 by not having any Landscaping in that area so I think that can be justified for a number of number of reasons I think it really meets the intent of the ordinance with regard to the number of parking spaces again 275
are required by your ordinance test testimony has been that because of the septic system only 80 employees are permitted to be on the site during the course of the day and that the 100 as I understand now it' be 109 spaces with
the four bonus for the EV it would be more than adequate to meet that need and the applicant has agreed to come back to the board to revisit the parking variants if in fact they are allowed to hook up the sewer in the future which I
think is I think that's a very very reasonable accommodation and clearly the 80 employees for this type of use which isn't going to have many if any customers coming to the site with with
the 105 parking spaces physical spaces and the 109 that's that they're with the credit is more than adequate to meet that need um the parking space size I think Mr Kettle summarized it very well for this
type of use it's not a retail commercial use it's not the type of use where it's lot it's not an office use where people are going to come a medical office where people are going to be coming to the site that aren't familiar with the site and that there's going to be a high turnover the employees are going to come
to the site park at the site uh leave their cars there for the bulk of the day and then leave so the 9 by8 stalls I think are more than appropriate that is the current standard right now in my opinion in most municipalities and the 24t wide aisle also for the for the
parking area for the for the cars I think again is is adequate um there was some talk about the parking being set back 50 ft from the side property lines where it's adjacent to a residential or institutional use I don't
see the need for that variance I don't see any residential or instit tional uses on either side of the property or the potential for residential or institutional uses on either side of the property and the applicant has provid provided substantial Landscaping in
those areas and the minimum setback for the parking is 33 feet which I think it's much more than adequate so I don't see I think that really what's being proposed here no no variance in my opinion is necessary and the landscaping that's being proposed is consistent with the intent of your ordinance with regard
to providing efficient and AD adequate Landscaping along the side property lines there's no parking within 30 feet of the walls of a building that again M Mr SLE talked
about the fact that it's with a building this size that the uh fire vehicles emergency vehicles aren't going to pull up right next to the building they're going to want to be away from the building in an area where if there is a collapse of a wall it's not going to hit the vehicles
in addition there's actually a conflict in your ordinance if you look at section 108 d9.1 A1 that's where there's a requirement that there be a 30 foot setback for all
uses but if you look at another part of section 9.1 108 9.1 A4 it allows parking to be within 10 ft of residential or institutional uses and and quite
frankly I think it should be the opposite the the residential or institutional uses are more vulnerable to to problems with fires and so on so if you're going to provide more space to provide better fire protection you would want it for those types of uses not for
the industrial uses for the warehouse uses but quite frankly I think what's being proposed here is typical of Warehouse uses and I think it's safe and I I think that I don't see where fire Vehicles would pull up right next to the building and the other point is that
this building will be sprinklered it'll be sprinklered so that the fire dangerous is substantially less than if the building were not sprinkler so again I don't think there's any substantial negative impact to that and I I think that variance can be granted
uh the driveway width at the curb line the ordinance limits that to 15 to 35 ft and what's being opposed is 6.87 ft and 68.75 ft but when you look
at it real it's both driveways are right in right out and the area between those driveways is a triangular area large triangular landscaped area the intent of the ordinance is that you not have a massive a very wide asphalt
area that is very unsightly and you don't have that here you have a about a one twoot strip from the way the islands are designed that extends that full length about one or two feet deep but the rest is landscaped and you only have
22 to 24 foot wide aisles that so I think it really meets the intent of your ordinance again that where there is the intent not to have a very very wide Drive wide paved driveway at the street line um the applicant is offered to eliminate
the variants for uh parking for landscaped Islands within areas where there's more than 20 cars and and that's know I I looked at that and I felt really with the two areas that are
impacted have 23 parking spaces rather than 20 and there's substantial Landscaping being provided on either side and along the building and the the island in the middle of 23 spaces is
going to cause more problems there I think then it's going to solve aesthetically functionally it's going to get in the way during snow removal in particular so so the board may want to consider granting that variance and quite frankly if they don't if you don't
want to consider it I also I don't have a problem with that from a planning standpoint I think it can go either way I think that would be at the uh at the pleasure of the board uh the landscape screening along the property line where you have three or more
vehicles uh for loading and on-loading uh again I think that has been discussed uh I know there Mark had some concerns about the properties to the north and I just don't think there's enough
information as to what's going to be ha happening to the north as far as how close those residences are going to be what's going to happen to the wetlands area uh and it's clear that there's not much that can be done on the subject site there might be some some minor
changes that could be made um I know Mark suggest that a sound wall I don't know if that's functionally possible or not it might be but it might also be aesthetically less pleasing than leaving just a natural vegetation again that's something the board board has to
consider uh the width of the drive AES I think I discussed and basically I I think that's the thrust of the testimony with regard to the to the individual variances and to the overall site plan I think they
can be granted without substantial detriment I think there are reasons both C1 and C2 for the granting of those variances uh so if there's any other questions I'm any questions I'd be glad they answer Mr Higgins just one clarification
so the testimony as it stands right now you are seeking the variance for the Landscaping Islands or what are you going to comply with it the applicant is offered to eliminate that so I don't know if he's saying he absolutely wants to eliminate it or whether he was
leaving that up to the discretion of the board I think we we've presented a very aesthetically pleasing alternative he you I think we we've presented a a an aesthetically pleasing alternative I think we'd like to have
the variance if we can but we're we're at the pleasure of the board it's what whatever you want if the board seeks not to approve that variance there's an alternative okay um Mr chairman it just
we'll have to see the alternative to understand if there are any issues with it but other than that I would leave it up to the board so thank you Mark anything I my comment on the variance is if the board's got an opportunity to eliminate a variance then eliminate the
variance that would be my recommendation any questions from the board sorry good okay thank you okay we're gonna um Mr Smith any other Witnesses this actually concludes our
case but we wanted to talk about some other Alternatives you know we're concerned about Mr rovi's comment we don't know what the property a th000 ft away uh is going to do and he's concerned about the
vision ual impact of our uh project I guess on the new Housing Development that's a, feet away and the the it's a concern for anybody who deals with the D
it's always of concern because first of all you never know when they're going to act finish a review Etc so we wanted to come up with another alternative to see if we could satisfy the concern about the uh visual impact and the the
suggestion was that we do a very decorative fence at the rear of our property which would would screen the they're a th feet away I can't hear you maybe I'm going de well you know what I I am too I have to worry about hearing
myself but what we're what we're trying to do is suggest an alternative for Mr razim moz's comment about being concerned about what the visual impact would be on this Housing Development that's going to be built about 1,000 ft
away so you know what's kind of normal is offense and we're wondering if we could talk about that and see if that might ameliorate Mr rasov his concerns but I thought his concern was also the the noise from the loading and unloading in
the trucks does well I think one of the things you heard from our traffic guys this is not going to be Transportation Hub Central they they um I forget actually the number of where is our traffic
gu okay what were you talking about in terms of TR peak hour trips coming in and out of the facility I had testified that during the morning peak hour would be seven uh truck trips that's total in and
out and in the afternoon be eight but obviously there's other trucks during the day but but it's it's something that is on a low scale okay so one other question and I may be getting you out of your comfort zone the housing development's at least
1,000 F feet away the inverse Square law applies the inverse Square law says that the intensity of radiation sound decreases inversely with the square of the distance so and if I knew that was going to be an
issue we'd have a a sound engineer I don't know if uh Mr zle feels confident confident enough to deal with it but at a thousand feet distance what kind of sound levels are you talking about that it be come on over to the mic if I
have to talk to the mic you do to I don't know that I could confidently give exact numbers I know that we would be required to comply with the sound standards of the D which is I believe 75
Deb during the day 60 DB in the evening nope 60 and 45 no I'll do it we read into these issues a lot so the New Jersey noise Control Act is kind of embedded in my brain the new Jersey noise Control Act says during daytime
and daytime is 7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. the sound levels uh at the residential property line can be 65 DB after 1000 p.m. to 7 a.m. it's 50 DB
that what that means is 65 DB is our conversation 50 Debs is kind of like is Whispering that's the the the the difference and at a th000 feet and again I wish I had my sound engineer here at a
th000 feet the the sound levels first of all we have to meet the law so I mean if if there's any issue with that any Resident can call the middlex county health department and they'll send a guy out with a decibel meter who will measure it we have to meet the law at
the residential property line we have to meet those standards and if you put the fence up sound wall the only problem with the soundwall is you're not talking about maybe $10 of linear foot you might be talking about $300 a linear foot you
know concrete plastic whatever but a very attractive fence a th000 feet distance I think we take care of the Aesthetics and the sound issue so I'd like to submit that as an alternative to think about Mr chairman
um you know certainly I you know that that is an alternative alternative that we can look at um my my suggestion is you know there there's other items that are still somewhat open and somewhat vague that we need to get clarified you know my recommendation to this board would be to entertain preliminary uh
site preliminary uh major site plan tonight uh only uh not final and then these items can be worked out you know between preliminary and final and perhaps they have a tenant by that time when they come back for final and and some of the other items uh will be
resolved the njd permits that they need um and and Dot access permits um that that would be my suggestion can I consult with my client okay but I also want to give some time public I'm sorry we we're interrupting yeah yeah I I want to give some time for the public to
speak so why don't why don't we open it up to the public to come forward and have any comments is there anyone that wants to come forward and speak okay yes yeah yeah and and understand um try to keep it within the five minutes oh
yeah I'm not gonna if I could just com inuth yes your name Michael beckus B K A 211 Valencia Drive Monroe
okay um I wanted to just briefly talk about the traffic issue from a different perspective I live in Renaissance at Monroe which is on 33 I see the traffic go by all day every day and the cars and
trucks are flying by uh when they're flying anywhere between I don't know 65 70 M an hour in and that's just a guess um sometimes I have to wait 5 to 10 minutes to get out of my driveway and
and get on to 33 um my concern is the uh oh they were on the other thing the driveways for the trucks and uh cars to get into into the that
place cars are going this it's two lane Highway cars and trucks are flying down the highway and you're going to have trucks and whatever whatever other vehicles that need to get into this place and need to slow down in order to
do that because I see the access they have to slow down a lot in order to make the turn into the property and what we did was we applied to the do it took us 10 years to get it but we have a lane for uh reduction with
sen we you know we don't see that well or drive that well or whatever it is and I think that these very big tractor trailers I don't know how big these things are going to be that are going to enter your property uh but they need a
lot of room to stop and cars are flying behind them that they're going to need a lot of time to stop and get out of the Lane and go around these vehicles so my my sense is they need this speed reduction line I forgot what we call it
uh so that all these trucks and cars and whatever that that are visiting your property have room to stop without um having impacting the TRU the cars and trucks that are on 33 that are driving
at highway speeds or whatever else and avoid acccident that's my main concern is avoiding these accidents other than that you know it's fine thank you thank you thank you sir shall arm min9 Nathaniel Street in
Monroe you certainly may going to as ath as far as I can tell I'm just going to read off what uh the testimony has been so as long as that's the truth I'll be asking that a yes that is a yes thank
you okay um actually the gentleman put up a an interesting comment um that there's no dedicated Lane going into this project is that the case chairman i' I'd asked their traffic
engineer to comment um the resident does bring up an excellent point we did fight hard to get the deceleration Lane for Renaissance and I believe it cost the township after the fact over a million dollars so um if if they traffic engineer to comment because I I agree it
should have a DEC acceleration Lane I I don't believe there's enough shoulder there to to provide that yes I mean that is something subject to NJ do I mean based on the number of trips in and out of the site I would not expect it to meet the warrants
that do would require but it again that type of treatment is the um subject to NJ do review um there are other uses along this Corridor that have higher traffic that don't have spefic specific deceleration Lane so I mean I would not
expect do to require it and because it's subject to their review and approval since it's their roadway I would just add that you know the Township's preference is to have it if you can uh relay that or again if if uh we can get an invite to any meeting at the state
we'd appreciate it I mean I I I take uh Mr rimo it's a suggestion because again after the fact if it costs the taxpayers of Monroe uh over a million dollars just just to be safe and what you're saying is the state doesn't require well we
have some conflicts of interest in my opinion I'm not going to get into it on the record but um if the state doesn't require it maybe Monroe should ask for it as a matter of safety so um thank you for that um are did I hear correctly
that there at currently there are no D permits issued for this application at this time I heard someone say correct but that's not I don't want to we have an Loi at
this time but no permits Li of the wetlands but we don't have any permit okay and in terms of relying on the wetlands I I have an objection to relying on the wetlands as a justification for a hardship uh for this applicant because I think that uh we
have to protect our Wetlands as much as possible and if if you're going to use it as a hardship and then fill them in um I have two questions one how much fill is going to be necessary to fill in the wetlands and then what's going to happen to the recharge we know we have a
lot of flooding in Monroe and I'm also cons so I have like three questions and how close and what impact could this have on the millstone River come on up grab a mic is a substantial amount of wetlands that runs along the rear of the property
square footage of it I don't have in front of me um we're permitted to fill up to an acre of isolated Wetlands we're filling much less than that um okay when it comes to groundwater recharge we're meeting the DP requirements for
groundwater recharge so what exists today how much water gets into the ground today in the proposed conditions we are meeting at least that if not more than that so we'll be providing storm water infrastructure that will maintain
the same amount of existing groundwater recharge And in regards to um impacts of the millstone River um I could say out there today there's plenty of compacted pavement gravel that's been utilized by
a previous business that did not provide any water quality to run off from that motor vehicle surface in this condition we're providing 80% TSS removal to all runoff leaving the site that's on the motor vehicle surface so if anything I'd say we're actually improving except that
it's a larger square footage right so there's not going to so there's less permeable soil it's more impermeable well there was about 5 Acres of impervious coverage previously um now we are uh I I don't know the exact acreage we have
it in square footage up here it's about 400,000 but all motor vehicle service will be treated for water quality uh through a bio retention base okay and um I have a few other things about ordinances and and and
variances um as as we all know that variances are requests they don't have to always be granted by the uh board I would ask um at least to go uh with Mr resmo a suggestion make this just a preliminary I think there are a lot of
things especially if there is a oh thought I hit somebody um especially if there's some um confusion as to what was said at the TRC which is of course is a private um and although it's people they can do it it's it's a private meeting
and it's not something that the public is is you know aware of so there seems to be some confusion as to the kind of um concessions that were discussed at the TRC so I would ask this board to once again remember that we are the
people and please uh take care of um take you know doing the right thing and uh considering the the community when you make your decision thank you thank you m Mr chairman can I just jump in and get clarification the wetlands along the
rear of property that runs along the stream you're not proposing to fill those Wetlands there's a small pocket of isolated Wetlands further closer to the highway okay that wasn't clear so that's why I wanted to clarify that that big large open area in the back is not
getting touched that's the stream Corridor and that you know that provides the buffer for the stream those wetlands are not getting touched there's a small pocket somewhat up front like where the warehouse is sitting um isolated Wetland so that's the difference thank you so much because that's important thank you
yes it is um and and other thing I'll clarify there's no concessions giving at a TRC meeting I mean I don't want to get into a debate on TRC and there was a misunderstanding that maybe his his other professional who may have been in attendance but we've been clear all
along the traffic studies need to take into account the approved developments and obviously the marketplace is an approved development right there so so that's all well as long as we hold true to that that would be great thank you thank you were you quickly sure Lino on you spread
any testimony to provide truth truth whole truth nothing but the truth state your name give us your last name Lino the Avo 160 disb Hill Road okay so I guess this is so that property
that we're talking about I acquired about 15 or 20 years ago my family's lived in Monroe Township for close to over 130 years years on Bentley Road the corner of Bentley Road and Route 33 Corridor was my
grandfather's Farm it was sold 1970 to the bridgew properties due to financial reasons um that particular property actually I do have a storm water runoff
permit from the D when I originally subdivided the property I farm all the land there I farm all the land on both sides of the highway farmed a lot of land in Monroe over the last while since I was
14 so I just wanted to come up here to to clarify a couple of things um the reason why I'm selling the property is uh it's coming to a point where uh it's a health issue type thing so that was one of the reasons uh being living in
Monroe that long my grandfather my father me um 1970 when the highway was built it took all our green houses out and uh I moved to disbro Hill Road to build a a facility there and
um we um we've always we've always been a great part of this community and I felt that if I was going to do this I wanted somebody that was going to be good to the community that's the reason why I picked
these people to do this property because I I know their experience I know what they are I know they're environmentally sensitive and I know that uh they were going to do a good job and I want to be proud about what's on my property coming down the road so I just thought I'd add
that to it and um like they stated with the wetlands the actual Wetlands permit that is needed is for a very small pocket what happened was DP because of the pandemic was backed up 18 19 months 20 months finally when they
came out to do the LOI she came out she done the LOI of course at the wetest time of the year in January and uh there was a ttin actually it's not even a Wetlands what it is is one piece of the property actually is
higher than the other when it rains it comes off it doesn't it doesn't even uh stay it dissipates so uh at the time um it was uh I forget her name but she was retiring and it was probably a quarter
of an acre but she didn't want to come back out there so she took the whole one acre and plotted on a piece of paper and that was it that's what actually happened on that property so th those are the reasons why uh like I said um I chose June and and
his company just because I know what they've done I've inspected uh some of their buildings and they do do a nice job and I just wanted to add that to uh what we're doing here thank you okay thank you very much I appreciate your time thank you anyone else uh one other thing one
one other thing just real quick I'm sorry uh when when they were talking about the traffic that traffic is slow in fact where he's talking about where he lived I used to farm that farm too that was where Bobby D Bor was that traffic's slow every day 7:00 in the
morning you you don't move really The Jug Handle that we're talking about where the the the uh tractor trailers go over the curb Amazon uses it every single day but they they they didn't have to fix it so that was another
thing um and then also uh those properties that are are also being built already have diesel Lanes chairman if I can just asked the resident a question since he brought something up about Amazon are you saying the Amazon warehouse there and their
trucks are coming through that Jug Handle yes sir and going up Pineville Road and making right on farington and they're not supposed to they're supposed to go to the traffic light make a left go into the facility come back through but that's that's part of it thank you
Mr CH I'll just speak to our zoning officer and you know we'll take a look at that because the trucks are not supposed to be utilizing that portion of farington Boulevard so that okay thank you sir thank you thank you so much anyone else uh from the public want
to come come forward and forward and speak hearing none is there a motion to close the public so move all in favor I okay oppos okay public portions closed Mr Smith did you want to wrap up uh yes
I would the uh I would ask you to look at the site as it currently exists which is not a jewel in Monroe's crown and look at the proposal which
uh is doing its very best to present not only a good economic uh engine for Monroe but also rehabilitating that site and Route 33 is as you know is a major thoroughfare in
your town got an awful lot of people traveling through it's a major Improvement to what that site currently is and you've heard uh our engineer and our traffic eye and our planner go through all the
justifications for what we're requesting and there's good solid reasons for for what we're trying to do there's also the enhanced complication that this is a state highway and as a result as Mark and I
will both agree the end of the day NJ do is in charge of what happens on Route 33 with respect to that we've tried to be very responsible with the right in right out with the wider driveways so that you know it's clear that the
entrance and exits are going to be safe we are going to provide a template uh for the driveways as Mr rasimov it's uh requested so it's not it's not unreasonable for this site and this is what it's zoned for I mean we're not
saying let's take a one of your housing zones and build a warehouse in it this zone for it all right so it's an improvement to the site you have good justification for the variances we would really uh like to if
we can go forward with the preliminary and final tonight the only and I think we've answered the noise question and the Aesthetics question all right I mean waiting on the D is not it's not fun so
uh we think that the decorative fence and the um thousand foot of distance is we're and we have to meet the noise Control Act of New Jersey it's the law so we think we've kind of covered it but uh I
know Mr Rim's had some concerns I don't know if he's heard enough to to to feel comfortable with the final approval tonight well we'll leave it to the board M our engineering professional has suggested that the board consider an
applic ation or a motion for a preliminary and not a final I'll leave it to the board members to make a motion in a second I am going to make the motion to just address the preliminary tonight and because of all
the open issues that a lot of the agencies are have to address and we're not really confident in everything that we're hearing so I would um only I make a motion to approve but only the
preliminary uh Miss tomani would that include the bulk variances well okay okay may I comment without this is something the board I think we need to discuss and I I'll tell
you why what I'm getting out of it I saw the building very attractive building that's a plus I also heard you're 800 to 1,000 ft away from residential another plus we had to address that in a
previous case and this is a lot better and solar panels are environmentally very favorable but here's my concern we don't know who the client is we don't even know if it's one client or
two clients so when your traffic specialist talks about traffic it does doesn't hold up if we don't know whether it's one client or double that amount okay we don't know that so we have a traffic concern of how many we can see
we cannot look at do and say Here's what the average is and project that on it because we don't know your clients or two um sound levels depending who the client is we don't know how much noise
they're going to make or the two of them make the noise so I'm at a crossroad do we say let's continue this application till we they have a client to propose to us that this
is who they're recommending or do we approve preliminary now where we're pretty much obligated once there we do a preliminary unless there's a change not to give them a final
so I'm discussing this with the board and basically saying I'm not sure what to do so I throw that out for the board there was one more issue too about the stipulation of um if they get water
and sewer then they're they'll have to come back yes for more employees great can we continue this application carry this till we hear from them who they who
they're talking to or are recommending just I kind of interject they're entitled to create a warehouse they do not need to have a tenant in order to come forward and request the board to take action so you have you have a land use ordinance it's not a
land user ordinance so you don't necessarily need to know who the ultimate user of that is your regulations for warehouses are what is turn on the mic can't hear you I'm sorry but that raises the issue of traffic and
and how many decibels Etc i i would support a approval of a preliminary application uh I have listened carefully I tend to respect Mr aim moz's opinion and I hear your concerns but they are in
an approved district for warehouses yes we have a one of our speakers commented we should care for the residents we do and one of the things we do need are tax ratables that will enhance agreed the
the community of Monroe so I would certainly support a preliminary application at this time so you're seconding the application okay any further discussion yes yeah just does that include the bulk variances is this
for preliminary with the V the bulk variances that are being requested yes I'm sorry okay thank you any any further discussion sir any further discussion okay then there a second micophone class
okay Mr rman um yes Miss brosky yes Mr Manesh Patel uh yes Miss damiani yes Mr slavich yes councilwoman
yes mayor's representative Mr Patel yes chairman Gaffrey yes thank you Mr chairman the preliminary is approved so what what we're going to do next is meet with Mr rovitz and make sure we get whatever the rest of the concerns are resolved and hopefully we'll be seeing
you very soon for a final thank you for your courtesies what is well okay just just for the record Mr Smith it's a new application for final it's
not the the logistics of the the board is my understanding is I think we put in both applications no but I think the board's taken action to Grant preliminary I think my understanding just what I'm being informed is that
You' still have to do a new application even if you have it file I I acted only on preliminary on this application so a final application would have to be filed that's what I I we so not to be argumentative I understand
all right but maybe we should think about that policy I mean you decided to only do preliminary tonight it's not that you've decided not to do final and we've paid fees put in the application why would you require a new
application if it just carries forward and again I'm not trying to be crazy or argumentative but because there's no answers to a lot of the questions I think this really for the board decision I defer to our attorney but they can meet with the you know the director planning and you know outside
of this meeting yes discuss that okay yeah we will do that thank you everybody have a great evening okay good job okay um the one final item is we
have a resolution to memorialize and it's uh pb1 1265 d25 Costco Wholesale Corp and and the resolution was part of the packet
materials okay is is there any discussion on the uh on the resolution is there a motion to approve the resolution make a motion to approve motion second second all in favor I I opposed abstain okay the resolution
passes I'll I'll abstain because I wasn't here at last meeting okay Mr Rothman abstaining okay okay um I see no discussion items I see no corresponden does anybody want to speak
up on not hearing none is there a motion to adjourn second all in favor I I all right I m