5 2026. Uh, please stand and salute the flag. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. In accordance with the open public meetings act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting. The adequate notice of this 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 and Cranberry Press on December 26, 2025. Posted on the Monro Township website and sent to those individuals who requested
personal notice. Laura, please take the role. >> Vice Chairman Rothman >> here. >> Miss Barsky >> here. >> Mr. Manesh Patel. >> Miss Damiani >> here. >> Mr. Lavichek, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Butinski >> here, >> Councilman Markeel
>> here, >> Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel >> here, >> Chairman Gaffrey >> here. >> Okay. Laura circulated earlier in the week that the minutes from the last meeting which was two months ago. Um, does anyone have a um an application to
accept the minutes? >> Is there a second? >> Second to second. Any discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Any abstensions? >> Okay, we have two applications on the
agenda tonight and we're going to take them in the order that they're listed. So, the first one is PB1274-26 Kings Road Developers LLC. It's a request for a preliminary Oh, >> hold it down.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Jared Pap. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Hybrurn Pape, and our office has the privilege of representing uh Kings Road Developers LLC. Uh the application before you seeks preliminary site plan approval with bulk
variance relief and design waiver relief for an approximately 80,000 square foot conventional uh warehouse facility on property fronting state highway 33. The property is located in the highway
development district where warehouse use is permitted as a conditional use. And as you'll hear in testimony, the The proposed there we go. Uh the proposed development complies with the uh conditional use
standards making it a permitted use in the zone and properly placing this application before the the planning board. Uh the application does include limited bulk variance and design waiver request as I mentioned which is primarily a function of uh the existing
lot shape and existing site conditions and is not meant to increase the intensity of the warehouse use. And it is worth noting that the property while it runs state highway 33, the warehouse building itself is situated nearly a
th00and ft off the highway. Uh this evening we intend to call four witnesses. Uh we'll hear from our civil engineer Sharif Ali regarding the overall design and elements of the site plan. Traffic engineer Frank Mskovich, our architect James Franco, and our planner Mark Remza. And I'll also
acknowledge our client Steve Rubin is here as well representing the applicant. Um so with the board's permission, we'll proceed with our first witness. Please proceed. If you could raise your right hand for me, do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> Okay. If you could state your name, uh, spell your last name and give us your address for the record, please. >> Uh, Sheree Ali, uh, Aly 757 Richwood Avenue, uh, North Brunswick, uh, Ammerch
Engineering. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Just for the record, your license remains in good standing. >> Yes. Super duper. Thanks. >> Oh, good. >> Mr. Ali will ask that you um perhaps provide an executive overview and then
walk through the elements of the site plan. >> Uh so I do have uh a color exhibits. Call that A1. >> A1. >> Yep. >> If you could just describe that for the record, Mr. Ali.
>> Yeah, it's the uh it's a color exhibit of the landscaping and the uh site layout. So, uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, um board member, we um you heard the um
a brief uh description of the application. Uh we in block uh three, block 10, and we uh happen to be along the eastbound of
Highway 33, a mile plus away from the intersection of Avularth Road, Butcher Road, going east, going to the shore area. So we on the right hand side um
it's about 11 plus acres 11.35 acres and you heard that we're in the highway developments the HD uh zone uh the site as exists right now and you see on the u
on the uh color map um has some improvements as a twostory building that's an existing residential building that's been uh in existence probably since the uh 50s. Um a large uh garage
and a large uh shed uh with some outdoor structures. Um the back of the site uh wooded uh was uh a nursery mainly for uh Christmas trees and a very port a very
large uh portion of the site in the back also. it's been uh farmed for crops. So uh along with that uh the um the uh west portion of the site you see that is
not developed as well as the back area uh when they change the flood hazard uh regulation by adding 3 foot to FEMA it just took away quite a bit of the land. So we do have on-site environmental
constraints uh wetlands and related buffers uh the uh flood hazard uh riverian buffers we also have uh DRCC we having to be also in the DRCC land uh so we also have their buffer so it's quite
a bit of constraints on site and limited the ability of the site to be designed the way you see it uh so our uh proposal um a footprint on ground on the ground of 82,000
plus it's 82,000 396 square ft that's the footprint um within the footprint you have close to almost 80,000 square ft of a warehouse to be precise 79 79 uh 896
square ft um and also has the um the office component 2500 ft² uh and you see the office that's the uh front area of the uh warehouse at the end of the uh parking lot. So along with that just
like any uh general warehouse you have uh parking spaces 9 by8 for the employees we have 38 spaces uh with the EV that we are providing on site four spaces for EV we get on paper credit of
four spaces so uh so on paper we have 42 spaces but just keep in mind 38 spaces is the hard spaces um with that also So uh like any other warehouse you have a loading docks we have 10 loading docks what's permitted the minimum any
ordinance permitted is five we have 10 so we have no variance there we meet the requirement the um the trailer parking uh the maximum maximum is uh the permitted maximum is 16 we have 13 so
again um there is uh we're not seeking a variance there we only seeking variance for the 9 by8 the 38 spaces the ordinance required 10 by 20 that's mainly for retail and you have heard that before on previous applications um
and what is required 113 spaces we only have 38 the ordinance have very strange requirement is one per 800 square ft or the number of employees divided by two or the greater of the two so we end up
having 113 is required but you will hear from our traffic uh consulting that is not needed. As a matter of fact, I appeared before the environment commission and they were saying 38 spaces every warehouse out there is just black top sitting there. You know, can
we bang some of them? No, no, no, no, no. We we want 38 spaces. So the uh the 38 spaces if you play uh the numbers as far as the number of employees per ordinance that will bring you up to about 78 employees. Uh so we're not
asking for any more than that. Uh so that as far as the um the the building and the uh supported uh parking uh loading dock and the u um the trailer parking.
So um going to zoning uh requirement you heard that we in the uh uh HD zone uh the high uh highway develop zone. Uh we do meet um as far as the lot um zoning
uh requirement we meeting the area uh the lot is short on the frontage in a zone it's required 300 ft for lot width and lot frontage which is the same um and um
we have only 200 feet that's an existing uh condition that we uh deal with Um as far as the building setbacks and bulk requirement uh we meeting all the requirement with the exception of the
side uh yard setback and that is um due to the environment constraints on site and we can uh talk more about that with our planner Mr. Ramsa. But when you look at the uh overall uh site and the
building coverage and in previous coverage, you're going to see that we're really not using that much of the site. So with the building coverage, we're only using 6%. What's allowed in the zone is 35%.
Uh so that's uh quite a bit of difference there. Uh in previous coverage allowed in the zone 60% we have 35 It's a little bit above half. So that also um what but the um so that's as far
as that uh and a side yard is required 40 we have 20 and just for the record and Mr. uh Razamodess as well as uh Chris uh the witness before the zoning board. The
application for the site just to the east of what you see um that site was approved before the zoning board preliminary and final and they ready to put the building up. I think the building uh is about uh 28,000
plus. I can't remember the number but also it's the same thing. It's a small uh warehouse by definition, small scale warehouse just like the way we we the one we have. So, we're going to be tucked in behind that building and you won't be able to see that building from
the highway unless you stop and you intentionally you're looking for the building, but the sideyard uh was given also to the uh building in the front. Uh again, that's because it's a small lot. Um so
uh with that said as far as the uh I'm going to touch base on some of the variances and Mr. Ramsay will elaborate more on that. So I talked about the existing bulk for uh lot width and lot frontage. I talked about the side uh
variance that is needed. We do have in our ordinance um the 100 foot buffer along the highway. You heard that we about 1,000 ft away. To be precise is we are about 900 ft away from the highway.
Depends on where you dig the distance. Um so we do have uh the 100 foot buffer shown on the plan. We are providing the 100 foot. We have 900 actually. So but it's design it's designated and shown on the plan. But within the buffer there is
a requirement there that you have to have a burm a burm earth burm 8 ft high as well as uh the landscaping. We do have the landscaping but we do not have the burm and that is due to uh again you know the
site furnage is only 200 ft by the time you put the uh driveway and you put the um recharge system before you get to the highway and it's it's needed. It's required by the storm water regulation to capture every runoff on site and treat it and send it out. Um but on the
other side too of the driveway you have wetlands on buffer. So given that the site is in the building the parking lot is uh quite a bit back uh in the um uh in the middle of the site. Uh the building 900 ft away. The parking lot is
probably about 7 700 feet away. Uh we have a quite a bit of also green um evergreen year round landscaping to hide the building and to hide the u uh the parking lot from uh motorists you know being seen along the highway. So um that
is as far as the durm uh requirement so we be able to provide that um and Mr. ramp. So we'll talk more about that. We have uh in the ordinance number of variance design I call them design exceptions uh and they keep on coming on
every application. The driveway width uh the ordinance only allow I think it's 35 ft of a driveway uh width uh 15 to 35 ft which is more of a retail uh shop and
mall not for uh highway development. uh we have 122 um from the tangent of the curve all the way to the tangent of the curve. It's not just the opening itself is also uh the return. We also have uh a
design uh waiver that uh or design exception that you've been hearing about it too is that uh the uh parking lot to the building. It's a warehouse so you have loading docks and you have the building right there. Uh you have the parking spaces. So we have a variance
that is needed for that. Uh the ordinance require 30 feet and I believe that uh the distance that we have uh okay am I going to uh that but uh we
have a lot uh less than about uh 8 ft or uh 10 ft uh as far as that. Um so along with that we have some design exception for storm water uh management. I'll get you the number.
We have some uh design exception for storm water management. Um Monroe ordinance only recognize concrete pipes. That's it. Uh so what we have on the uh uh with the modern technology now we
have the uh uh the um high density polyethylene pipes that's what we are using as well as ductal iron pipe uh we are using that. So we asking for uh a design uh exception on that as well as
again the ordinance only recognize concrete head wall. They don't recognize flaring section. You see flaring section all over the you know the town. So we asking for um a lighter uh uh structure which is the flaring section. So that's
as far as the uh um uh the variances and the design um exception. Um, so I'm going to slow down here a little bit. The uh the site will be as we all know along the highway that corridor of
33 there is as soon as you leave Abagar through it and you go east there's no sore there is no water. Thank god there is a gas line out there you know along the but uh you have just gas and electric. So our proposal here is a
septic. So we are talking about 2500 ft² of an office. Uh so a septic will be suitable for that. Uh we already tested the soil for septic suitability and it works. Uh and obviously it will work
because we have about uh three recharge uh storm water systems. So it definitely will work. Um the uh as far as water, we're going to have a water tank um just like um everybody along the highway
here. So that that will address the utilities on site. Storm water big thing. That's the you know the the storm water is everything now out there. Uh so you heard me talking about wetlands. Wetlands we have we do have and secured uh a letter of interpretation from from
the state wetland section D wetland section. We do have a flood verification from the state from the flood hazard section. We do have that. We also confirmed with the DRCC 100 foot buffer that is needed. So the constraints as
far as the environment constraints on site is all being confirmed. So with the storm water we we do have um one two three open recharge system as well as underground. So the recharge
system that you see onsite or recharge facility they will be addressing the uh water quality and recharge and the green infrastructures. uh the underground will be um uh taking
care of the water the runoff and the quantity reduction for the two and a 10 and 100 year storm. So we do have uh all that we have addressed that we at the state we at the DRC we at DRCC for uh
DRCC for certification review of the storm water and believe it or not the same person that will be reviewing DRCC. He's the same person at the state. He's going to be reviewing uh the flood hazard and again one more time the storm water for whatever reason uh as well as
all a permit uh that is needed for wildlands. So we ahead of the game here we at the state we at the soil district we reached out to do also for a meeting and Mr. Frank Niskovich our traffic
consulting uh will be talking about that we do have a landscaping plan that meet the ordinance requirement uh is being reviewed by our planner as well as will be reviewed by Mr. So,
um we'll be waiting for his input on that as well as the tree removal and replacement is the guy for that. Um so, uh we waiting for a review. We uh as I said before, I appeared before environment um environment commission
and we have their plusing. Um we do have uh a bunch of reviews by 911 police um uh first aid uh fire department and we have the review. Um so we way ahead of
the game and we here to uh for I believe just preliminary until we get the approval. So we have a landscaping plan. Uh we do have a lighting plan that meet the ordinance. Um, so I think I I said
enough. Um, so the distance to the building is uh someone here needs to help me out with that. >> Do you remember for the parking? >> Yeah, I think it was 8t.
>> 8t. Yeah, 8 feet. >> Speak up. Yeah, 8 feet. Sorry about that. So, it's required. 30 ft is needed. Uh we have a fee. Uh I think that will um we do have a review for
center state our uh township engineer Mr. Rosa Moz and we'll be addressing all the items in the review. Uh we have uh no issue at all. one of the items request of a
sidewalk along the highway. Uh we'll reach out to D and um if they will permit it then we'll be great. If not uh we uh Mr. Rosa and I we talked about maybe we'll
put it behind the right of way but we'll leave it up to to the board uh member in the review. Um also um I'm asking for the two design exceptions as far as the head wall and as far as the pipe uh
materials. Other than that um we'll be addressing most of the items and most of the items here is all related to storm water regulations and um like I said before you know we at the RCC for review
and we at the state for review. So that's all I have. >> You covered everything I had in my notes. So pass it off to you, Mr. Chair, if there's any questions or comments for Mr. Alli. >> Mark, do you have any questions or
comments? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, they've agreed to the comments in my June 2nd review letter. Um, so let's talk about the pipe. Uh the waiver on the pipe
you're proposing ADA ads pipe I'm sorry. >> Uh yes uh we proposing HDP uh which is similar to ADS as well as uh ductal arm pipe because the uh it's a shallow uh structure
>> and the HTP pipe you'll provide will be watertight. >> Yes. watertight O-rings or >> Yeah, >> that is requirement in the ordinance and will abide by the requirement. >> Then, Mr. Chair, I have no problem with that uh design exception and the head
wall for the storm. Um, you know, this site's more appropriate to have flared end section, but it is a design exception. Um, so again, I I don't have any objection to that. With regard to sidewalk along the frontage at at this stage, uh I know you say you're going to
speak to the DOT. Um but at this point, my recommendation is to install sidewalk if uh if the DOT um doesn't permit it or has other uh alternate plans. I think they should be addressed at the time of final. So I would not seek to have a
contribution at this stage. This is only for preliminary. Um so it would be install the sidewalk and if you get push back from the DOT then that can be addressed at the time of final and you could seek the um you know design exceptions at that time
and then Mr. Chairman I you know traffic comments but we'll save them for the traffic engineer. >> Chris, do you have any questions? >> Thank you. Just a couple of questions. Um you had mentioned and perhaps I didn't quite catch everything you said. Uh, one of the variances we had called
out was the lack of a sixoot burm along the frontage. Did you say you're going to comply with that? >> Uh, no. We asking that's one of the variances we are seeking that we are providing the 100 foot or more. Okay. We providing the land. >> Okay. So, you are seeking I'm sorry. I thought I heard you say you're going to
comply. I must have misheard you. All right. >> Yeah. Not the earth burn. Yes. >> All right. Few questions. The lighting. Can you clarify me the the height of the proposed polemounted lights? The detail you have shows a 20ft pole which is compliant with the ordinance, but then I
if I'm reading these correctly, I think I see several fixtures that say they're going to be at 25 ft. >> No, it is 20 ft. Comply with the ordinance. >> Okay. It looks like the labels for A and B and a few of the C's on the lighting plan say 25 ft. But if you're going to be at 20, then no, no relief is
required. That's compliant with the code. Thank you. Okay. See, is there going to be any mechanical equipment on the roof of the building? >> Uh, we do have >> Do you have an architect here later? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Then the architect can address that, I'm sure. One last question about the um garbage storage and recycling. How many containers are you going to have there? Do you have sufficient space for the recycling and garbage needs of the property? >> Well, it's a uh it's a warehouse. We're
going to have a compactor and uh we have um a sizable uh a dumpster just for the office. Um the dumpster is uh 15 by 20. It's pretty large dumpster. So yes, we'll be
handling uh the uh trash uh as well as uh recycling. >> All right. Thank you. Uh those are the only questions I have. They're engineering related. Thank you. Um just one just one uh it's a
warehouse. Do you have a specific client that the warehouse is going to be for? >> There's no end user at this time. So the answer is is simply no. Um >> yeah it what's proposed is a general conventional warehouse.
>> Okay. And I just have one comment looking over on some page. It talks about getting permits or approvals from 16 different sources. Ah, extensive. Uh many of them are Monroe Township, which
is fine. But when you get to the county and the state, uh I would like uh our engineer, Mr. Rasmoitz, to be um joining you to hear what they have to say firsthand. >> Yeah. So, we we did secure all the ones
from the township uh county. Uh we submitted to the county. We're on a state highway. So, they really um it's it's pretty much in exemption. Um as far as soul district,
we already submitted that. GCPNL will uh working on that. DOT, we reach out. We asking for a meeting and Mr. Rosmo will be part of the uh meeting. And as I stated before, we uh we already applied
to DRCC and as well as uh NJD. If there is a meeting uh will be taking place, we will absolutely will be inviting Mr. Ros. >> Um I'm assuming we're going for preliminary this evening. >> Yes. >> And uh with that in mind, uh if Mr.
Rasmoitz is there, that'll help as we move on to final, not only for us, but for you as well. So, end of comments. Got it. Thank you. >> Anyone else for this witness? >> Turn your mic on.
There you go. Again, >> there you go. >> Uh they're seeking a variance for the size of the parking spaces, 9 by 18 instead of 10 by 20. Do either of you have an issue with that?
>> I don't have any problem with that. The 9 by8 is pretty standard, >> Mr. Chairman. I don't have an objection to it either, but if we can just get on the record, there's there's no retail here um where um the public would be coming to this facility on a daily basis.
>> No retail. There's no re retail component composed. It's just the the warehouse that has the office space is meant to support the warehouse. >> Thank you. And I don't have any objection to that either. >> That's it. >> Anyone else? >> Okay, you can call your next witness.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Misitch. Oh, um, forgot to give you your present. Jeez. dollar short. >> If you could raise your right hand for me. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is 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. >> Just happened to justice. Can you hear me? Okay. It's Frank Misovich. It's spelled M I S K O V as in Victor IC. Uh
16 Carson Avenue, Muchen, New Jersey. It's been quite a few years since I've been before this board. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is current. I have a bachelor's and master's degree of civil engineering majoring in transportation.
More than 50 years experience in that field. I had served 15 years as Middle Sex Countyy's traffic engineer and went on to in other private practices where I represent a number of municipalities and zoning boards and planning boards throughout the state in traffic
engineering also before a number of boards on the private side. >> Thank you. And your credentials are accepted. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um Mr. Chairman, I have seen this man before >> and not on a poster I hope. Thank you. Thank you. But I'm going to take this a
little bit out of context if you if you mind. Yeah. We did submit a traffic report where we conducted traffic counts. We did analysis. We included a number of developments that were received from your planning board and zoning board as far as approved or
pending improvements. We added that all into our traffic projections. So we did a full analysis of all that data. We counted traffic for over a week period at 15minute intervals and we included trucks, buses, everything in those counts. So we have about 9% trucks on
that roadway passing our site today in the in the morning. In the evening, obviously it's Celeste, we're down about 2%. So there's trucks on that highway right now. Uh but that's as far as the capacity analysis shows. We show that our site operates at level of service C,
which is very good. The left turn lane, which is the contention in at Bentley Road, currently has U-turns and left turn movements being made, uh it operates at level service F. Now, that stays the same. We don't change that in the morning, and that's primarily
because there's a heavy westbound traffic heading towards the turnpike in the evening. That's a level of service D. Obviously, there's lesser volumes that it's opposing, but the volumes are still relatively low. But that's on the level of service issue. Uh I understand some of the comments and concern for her
that left turn lane uh and whether it should be there or not been be there at all. We were asked to go to the DOT uh at the TRC meeting to set up a meeting with them. Uh I want to back up one minute. Our site does not require a DOT
pre-application meeting. It's a minor permit. The access design complies with their criteria. So, the reason we're going to this meeting is primarily to talk about that left turn lane and what do allow, not allow or what suggestions they may have. I submitted the package
to your to the we made that application April 15th. I provided the copy to the board so they would have that. We Mr. Rasmosa is invited. So, we will have that meeting and hopefully it's be soon. As I'm told today, we're number two to schedule, but it does take DOT quite a
while for meetings. Um, but I will also add is either whatever happens at that meeting, I think it's still in my experience the B the township council's decision to close, not close or what to do there only because there's a number of residences and there's businesses
that could be affected by that closure. So, I don't think it's just a simple let's just do it, but it's something will have to be flushed out with the town and DOT, but we're willing to work with the town and go through that process. but not necessarily required in my
opinion by this particular development but we are going forward with that excuse me uh just talk about parking for the moment uh your ordinance has two parking requirements one based on square footage one space for every 800 square f feet or number of employees it's one
space for every two employees the plan proposes 16 as indicated 16 employees which only requires eight spaces But if we go by square footage, it's 113 spaces. We think that the based on employees is probably the more
reasonable uh measure for this size uh warehouse. One per 800 covers all types of warehousing big big box you know to fulfillment centers to everything like that. So I think that's all inclusive which is good for the board to
understand but the experience for kind of general warehouse might be down to the order of one per every 5,000 square feet 3,000 square feet etc. So I think we're going to be okay on parking supply but I wanted to at least look at demand which is the other side of the equation.
I looked at the IT data and I looked at three scenarios because we have an office component small office component part of the warehouse which is used for their operations. Uh, I looked at warehousing in total. I looked at warehousing and office as individual
uses. I looked at square footage and I looked at employees for each of those distinctions. And what I found is that if I just look at warehouse including the office, that's 13 occupied spaces at peak time.
So the 38 is more than adequate. uh if I consider both warehouse and the office as individual uses whether it's employees or square footage I'm looking at 29 to 35 spaces so I believe the 38 spaces is more than adequate to support
this size warehouse in this location we have tractor trailer tractor trailer parking and loading space requirements the tractor trailers require 16 spaces we're showing 13 on the other hand the loading requires five we're showing 10 that totals 21 but we have 23 providers
so I think there's some flexibility on that operation that they can use either the loading docks for parking or vice versa also important the fact that we have the truck operation area and parking removed from the employee parking they're two separate areas so
there's very little conflict between those too. I think that basically covers everything. I think the biggest issue obviously is the DOT and we're again willing to work with the town and the board as far as seeing what could be
done at that intersection. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so the way I understand it, you you looked at different types of warehouses for this and you analyzed the traffic that it would be generated. >> Correct.
>> So, um, so I want to get on the record, you are not proposing a data center, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And and is the applicant willing to have that um, you know, in the resolution restricting it from being a data center? that yeah, that's a a a
condition the applicant is willing to accept. Um, we acknowledge that data centers are permitted uses in this zone, but that's not what's being proposed this evening, so that's a commitment that the applicant's willing to accept. >> Thank you. Um, just wanted to get that
out of the way. Uh, let's see. With regard to the traffic on 33, Frank, did you take a look at uh, Pineville intersection, Pineville, Proud Way, and 33? >> No, did not. primarily because our traffic numbers are relatively low. That
in my opinion wouldn't add that much impact to that intersection. Uh we assign traffic all trucks heading towards Brianville Road. But we're only yesterday about two trucks heading that direction which I thought was minimal.
Our traffic numbers and and here's a good distinction. The IT will estimate about 22 movements uh in and out total combination. So you're sending maybe half of that, let's say 10, 11, 12 to
that primed over intersection over an hour period. I don't think that's going to add significantly to that particular intersection. That's why we didn't look at it. Number two, DOT doesn't require a permit, an application with a traffic report unless we have 100 peak hour trips.
>> I'm I'm sorry. 100 peak hour trips. >> 100 peak hours. >> So if we're under that, they don't require any type of study. >> But for the analysis, I want to point out DOT is still using the old IT trip manuals. Uh which actually results in
50% more traffic than IT. So for our analysis, we use the DOT's numbers which are 50% higher. But again, this is a relatively when I look at lower traffic generally, you're talking about 22 trips total in and out over an hour period,
one every three minutes. You divide that, let's say, in half, it's much less. And when I distribute that either heading east or west, and I could have through traffic or making the U-turn at Pineville Road, I think those impacts are very minimal.
>> That's a long-winded answer that we didn't do it. Well, well, my concern is we we we hear applications here and you know that the traffic engineer states what you just stated that um you know it's not required an access permit because it's less than the 100 100 trips.
But you come in, the next guy comes in, everybody's 100 trips and nobody's you know the state's not looking at this intersection and the intersection has u you know maneuverability issues with tractor trailers to get through there driving over the curbs. Um,
>> I I don't disagree with that particular issue because uh as my experience in DOT, a lot of these highways, they both the jug handles too close to the roadways. So any kind of U-turn traffic, it's a queuing issue, not necessarily a capacity issue, if you will. Uh, they do
have left turn arrows, which helps that left turn movement. Uh but what we're adding in my opinion, you have either going to have eastbound traffic or some of those making the U-turn back towards the turnpike area. I
think that's why we assign some of that employee traffic into that left turn lane at Bentley Road. If that doesn't happen, obviously we're going to add another maybe, you know, 15 trips in the peak hour heading towards that intersection. In my opinion, that's
minimal, but you're right. has become cumitive. But all I can do is look at this particular application and anything that wants to be done long range just like we're talking about dentally road closing it is a DOT issue because the jug handles and a lot of the places are
too close to the intersection to really handle the queuing from the lights. So it's a much bigger issue if you will. >> Yeah. With regarding to that U-turn on Bentley Road, do you anticipate any of your traffic making that U-turn? Any particularly trucks? not trucks because
I looked at tractor trailers can't make that U-turn. Even the box trucks make very difficult to make the U-turn. So, we don't see that happening. The estimates that we have are very low. So, I don't think they'll go that way. Uh we did assign employee traffic that is
coming from the west would probably use that to make the U-turn. So, that is in our calculations and into that level of service. So, we did anticipate that. Um and just FYI for your information, uh
the township did request the DOT to close that many years ago and you know it was denied at that time. Um at that time there wasn't as much development on 33 or proposed development happening. So again so that that's why the township is looking to revisit that um with you know
I think it came up on another application as well um on your adjacent property here. I I understand and that's something we'll discuss with DOT because if the B if the township council feels a full closure is maybe not proper.
There's probably other measures that could be done to to accommodate that whether it's signing restricting trucks, restricting traffic, making it an emergency only vehicle type thing. Uh but that's something we'll have to work out. I don't have any opinion as what
should be done. uh because I think it involves more parties than just the applicant or this board. I think everybody has to get to the table and just >> I look forward to you know when they schedule that meeting you going down soon too. >> Yeah. Hopefully.
>> Um just see Mr. Chairman that's uh that's all my comments. Okay. Great. Thanks. Good. >> I don't have any comments for the traffic engineer. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody from the board? Hearing none, you can call your next witness.
Thank you, >> Franco. Our next witness is James Franco, licensed architect a rendering which we'll have to mark. Sure. >> You can raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear 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, please. >> Uh, my name is James Franco, um, principal at JVF Architects. Uh, the address is 1937 Washington Valley Road and my last name
is F RNC. >> Ask that you provide your credentials for I'm licensed in various states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, a few others. Um, I've been before this board and several other boards throughout the state. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Your credentials are accepted. >> Oh, thank you. Uh, Mr. Frank, I'll just ask that you provide an overall description of the building. We have the rendering up. I'll pass it off to you. Um, so the building is a insulated pre-cast building, the height of which
is 44 ft. Uh, we've got the 10 loading dock doors and one drive-in door. Um, we're approximately 79,000 square ft of uh, warehouse and 2500 ft of office depending upon the tenant. Um the
building is going to be a stained um uh light gray and dark gray um uh pre-cast panel. Um that's really about all you can say about it. It's the the thing about the building is the size is such that it's
not going to require a lot of vehicular traffic. It's a very small warehouse compared to quite a few others. So you don't get as much traffic as you do with a lot of the online companies. It may already have been stated, but just for the record, could you identify the height of the building?
>> Uh, the height is 44 feet. >> That's all we have of Mr. Franco. He's open for >> Oh, yeah. There was Thank you. There was a question about mechanicals. If you touch >> uh we will have uh mechanicals and typically uh for line of sight, we keep
the mechanicals deeper into the building. So, from the ground, from most distances, you won't be able to see the mechanical equipment. keep it more towards the center of the building. We'll have some probably in this area, but set back again for the uh office
space and ducted down. >> And since you're on the record, you said this. Can you would describe verbally what you just pointed to? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh pointing to the office portion of the uh the building on the rendering.
Mark, do you have any questions? Chris. >> Okay. So, just to confirm, mechanical equipment on top of the roof was very unlikely to be visible from the nearly thousand ft away at Route 33. >> Yeah. For line of sight. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The mechanical equipment for these
buildings are not very tall and for the small office space, the uh AC is very small units. >> Thank you. >> Anybody from the board? Hearing none. Do you have any other witnesses? >> Just our planner.
Who's this guy? >> Do you swear the testimony you're 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, please. >> Yes. Uh, good evening. Uh, Mark A. Rema. Last name spelled R MSA. Address is 10 D
Newberry Court, Mount Laurel, New Jersey. And you've been before this board a number of times. >> Just a few. Yes. >> And your credentials have always been accepted, correct? >> Yes. And my license, both my licenses in planning and landscape architecture >> except for this application. >> And and I can confirm I've seen this man
before. Definitely. >> So, um, good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members, and members of the public. Um, you've heard the application. It's it's a permitted um permit uh conditional use because we meet all the conditions and I do agree
with Chris's uh uh review that uh we are before the correct board because we we we meet all those conditions and the proposed use is is a conventional general warehouse. The the the long-term storage of items and then it's uh
distributed. It's not uh fulfillment centers or any other of those high volume uh type of warehouses where product is coming and going constantly. Uh it's just too small uh for that. So that's why it it's it's a a classified
as a general warehouse. And that's also why um the parking demand is so low um uh for this type of operation because the uh number of employees is relatively low. And I do agree with Frank uh uh
that the typical ratio uh is usually one space per 5,000 square feet because there just aren't a lot of uh people working here. Um so in this case uh you heard Sharief describe the property. I will describe it as um
yeah I want to go back to the um yes the colored rendering I describe it as an unusually uh flagshaped lot where uh the frontage is rather narrow and then it uh enlarges in
in the back. Um and also um uh I also want to highlight the fact that um the property uh has um uh effects from wetlands and I'm going to go over to the drawing and show you approximately where
the wetlands are and that affects where where the building could be located. So the so the wetlands run along the western boundary of the uh site and this is why you see the the access road uh
looping up towards the the west and then coming back down in. So this whole western property line is affected by by wetlands. And if we were didn't have the wetlands, the building could be shifted and centered a little bit better and we
wouldn't need the um uh sideyard variance on the western boundaries uh because we would have more than 40 feet on each side which 40 is required. So the current zoning is uh HD zone um and
also the back portion is uh the flood hazard conservation uh part. I'm going to point to the um uh southern end and nothing is being proposed in that area because that's also where wetlands
and flood plane are. What surrounds the property? Well, uh to the north across the highway is that uh used car automo automobile dealership. Uh to the east uh um is um uh that property where the um warehouse is going
to be built I'm pointing to this vicinity of the property and then farther back it's all farm field. To the south it's woodlands and then to
to the west you have some vacant land woods and then some uh uh truck trailer uh parking storage. So you can see that um it's uh not a fully developed area surrounding uh the the uh property.
Now in terms of the um variances we have um uh variances that are really related to the C1 variance hardship because it's due to unusual shape or or conditions of the property. The property is a flag uh shaped lot and that affects
the frontage and the width. Frontage and width are supposed to be 200 ft. Uh the frontage is 200 uh uh I'm sorry 300 ft is required. Um but uh we only have 200 feet. Uh and then the lot width set back
at the uh front yard setback line is just a little over 200 feet. So so there's no way to increase that uh without affecting uh adjoining properties. Um we have that sideyard setback that I talked about and I'm
going to point to it again. That's reason the reason for that is the building has to shift this way a little bit and to to keep away from from the wetlands and the wetlands buffer along this area. Now also the Birming uh which is
required um it's affected by um the fact that it's a a narrow uh frontage but also the wetlands pushing the uh driveway uh uh to the um create an S-shaped curve and also because of storm
water management um I'm going to also point out to you where the storm water um uh recharge basin has to So you you can see that the frontage >> describe that >> that area is the um uh north uh uh east
corner of the frontage and the southern part has the wetlands. So so we have really limited space where we can possibly put any kind of soil up to burm burm up. But the good thing is so much of it uh is being maintained in its
natural state as you can see um in this vicinity along the western side. So entering in curving up staying away from the wetlands. So all of this will
be a natural buffer and I believe that um relief for the not having the burm there but maintaining that extensive buffering should be sufficient. Also um the parking space size um you heard a little t discussion about it.
Typically the uh 10 by 20 is is what's asked for commercial operations where you need a wider swing of the door or in sometimes medical operations where patients need wider swing of the door to get in and out of their vehicle. Here these are employees not retail not
medical and 9 by8 is is a standard uh for this type of operation. Now in terms of separation from the building, 30 ft is required. Uh this case the the proposal is to keep everything compact
uh rather than spreading it out. And so there's no need to have a 30-foot separation from the parking uh because you want people to get into into the um uh uh building uh as easily and efficiently as possible. And the minimum number of parking
spaces, we heard a little bit of discussion about that that uh the one per 800 square feet covers a wide variety of of industrial type of uses. In this one case, this is a very low uh has very low demand for for parking. And
I believe uh uh that the uh spaces that are provided the the 38 and and then there's extra for the uh electric vehicle credit that brings it up to 42. But I I believe we have more than adequate number of parking spaces.
Now, also I I notice in Chris's uh report, he says there's a variance for the tractor trailer parking. What's unique about that provision in the ordinance? It's not a minimum requirement.
It's a maximum. Monroe Township designed it so that when you had large uh industrial buildings, it didn't want an over supply of parking for tractor trailers. So, if you read
the ordinance, it's actually the maximum that's permitted, not minimum. So, we're we're below that maximum, which is 16. We only provide 13, so we don't need a variance. It's an unusual requirement because most people think it's it's a minimum. You
got to proide at least that many, but actually the ordinance is written the other way so that it's you can't provide more. So they want to keep the number of trucks down on a piece of property. Uh
so those are all the variances. They're all really related to the uh difficulty of developing the property with relation to shape, size, and uh and the the wetlands that are affecting it. Um and uh the um uh design exceptions really um
uh are are minor, but the other variance that we have is the uh front entrance. Right? So, the ordinance requires a maximum of a 35 foot wide driveway entrance. So I'm going back to the plan.
We have a one lane in and a one lane out and then we actually have an island separating it. So by all of that is pushing it extra wide. And so that's really a C2 variance. It's a um flexible
C meaning does the design end in better planning and zoning? Well, it does because it separates the uh uh ingress and egress much more efficiently and safely. So that's that's why that that variance is necessary.
So in terms of uh I think I went through all the the the proofs uh in terms of the hardship and then I just touched on the um uh u C2 variance for the uh driveway entrance and then also that change in the um pipes um and the flared
end section um u also are appropriate and we heard Mr. Razam uh agree that uh those would be reasonable uh design changes for the property. So in summary, I believe you can uh grant these uh bulk variances and the design exceptions for
the uh proposal. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, >> Chris. Do you have anything to add? >> No, I don't think I have any additional questions or comments for Mr. Ramsa. I think he covered everything that was in my report. Thank
anybody from the board. Yep. >> Oh, there it goes. >> Okay. Have a question. Um, there was a letter from the our Monroe Township U Sergeant at the traffic safety. Was his
letter included into any of this? like cuz he was concerned about the grass median at the cutout of the intersection of Bentley. >> Yeah. Can you address that or >> Yes. Um um uh Frank actually talked about that uh that um uh it's under a
DOT jurisdiction and that uh the applicant agrees to um work with the town. They're going to invite Mark along with the meeting with the DOT. Um it's a it's a it's a state asset. The state owns it. State has jurisdiction over it.
Um uh and you've heard that the town in the past has requested it to be closed. Do DOT said no. Things have changed. So, we're meeting with DOT again. Um and uh Frank and Sharief will be leading the charge and and Mark will be accompanying
them uh to discuss that. >> Okay. I just wondered if it was addressed. Maybe I missed it. That's all. >> That's okay. No. Um, uh, we we have to follow through with the DOT and see what they're going to say about it. >> Yeah, I don't we didn't address that letter during this presentation, but we
had a TRC meeting, uh, with the professionals, I think a couple months back and it was a topic for discussion and one of the reasons that led to the request to have that meeting with the DOT. So, okay, that that was the origin of that
>> and and we're going to report back to um Sergeant >> well to Sergeant and also to with Mark to the township the the for the outcome of that meeting. >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Anybody else? >> Thanks. >> Uh sir, either you or Mr. Alli can
answer. What is the width of the wetlands buffer? >> Uh it's 50 feet. >> 50. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. >> Anybody else in the board have any other questions for any of the witnesses?
Hearing none, I'm going to open it up to the public for any comment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank anybody wish to be heard. If not, I'll move to uh close the public portion for this application.
>> So move. >> Second. Okay. So um is there any further discussion amongst the members of the board? Do I hear a motion? >> A motion >> motion for to approve preliminarily this
application >> with the bulk variances and it's not going to be a data center. Is that the is that >> absolutely yes >> second. Is there a second? >> Any discussion? Vice Chairman Rothman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Spratzky, >> yes. >> Mr. Damiani, >> yes. >> Mr. Binsky, >> yes. >> Councilman Markeel, >> yes. >> Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey, >> yes. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and board members. Good.
>> I know. I just It just suddenly Okay. >> Okay. Um, I'm just going to announce the ne next application. It's PB1275-2630 A bill. AB Lel Road SG LLC. And when you're set up, I just want to
confirm that the agenda states it's a preliminary, but I understand it's a preliminary and a final. >> That's correct, Mr. Chair. Limitary and final. >> Okay, council, whenever you're ready. >> Sure. You're either freezing or you're
sweating. >> It did get warm. >> Thought you were just trying to sweat me out. >> Good evening. My name is Christopher Hopkins. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Wentz Goldman and Spitzer. and I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant
30 of Road SG LLC. And uh Mr. Chairman is is right. This is a preliminary and final uh uh uh site plan uh hearing and and bulk variance approval um for 30 of
Road, Block 55, Lot 19 in the LI zone in town. Um the applicant's property uh is currently occupied by a tenant who is in the near term going to be leaving. And so the applicant is uh uh in
anticipation of of securing a new tenant is looking to make some certain capital improvements to the property that's designed to appeal to a new tenant uh and increase the marketability of the property. Um the property consists of approximately a 26,274
square foot building uh and 69 parking spaces. Um the interior of the building consists of uh office uh and warehouse space and the exterior now uh contains outdoor space used for company vehicles
and employee parking. So, the uh applicant is looking to remove some of those existing parking spaces, is looking to add four overhead doors to the existing building, to create a new paved area in the vicinity of those
overhead doors, uh add new car and parking and van spaces, and install upgrades to the existing storm water management system. And in order to accomp accomplish that, we're looking for um preliminary and final site plan approval here tonight
with several C2 variances, Flex C variances that we've requested. Um and uh the property currently contains some existing nonconformities. Uh and so that uh that that uh sparks a
need for some of these variances moving forward. Um, so we are looking for variances with regard to the minimum parking space size, with regard to the parking within the front yard area, um, with regard to requiring a minimum number of trailer parking spaces,
although I just heard from the prior testimony that it's a maximum number of parking spaces, not a minimum number. um with regard to parking within 30 ft of the building um and with regard to the requirement of a burm along road frontages
uh and um if necessary with regard to to maximum uh fencing. So with that I have um uh the testimony that we plan to put on tonight um I have Blake Croman who is a principal for Scitec Group who is the
uh parent of the applicant. Um, and I also plan on presenting Joshua Seawald who from dynamic engineering who's going to testify both in an engineering and a planning capacity. Um, and then we do also have our architect and we have a
traffic engineer that's available should there be should be additional questions, but given the nature uh and the the uh of the application, I mean, we're not planning on really presenting any of that testimony unless the board uh deems it necessary. So, with that, I'd like to call up uh
Mr. Croman. >> Good evening. If you raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is 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, please. >> Blake Roman, C H R O M A N. office
address 10 West Forest Avenue, Anglewood, New Jersey 07631. >> Mr. Kman, can you explain to the board um uh and speak a little bit more on what you're trying to accomplish and how the improvements or the proposed improvements are going to enhance the marketability of the property?
>> Sure. First of all, can you guys hear me? Okay. Do I need to adjust this? >> Is this good? >> Good. Okay. Thank you. Um so as stated previously uh uh we just our company just acquired the property a couple of months ago. The tenant at the property
first onsite was been there for you know plus minus 5 years is vacating in the near term and the capital improvements that we are hopeful to make to the property uh are to sort of make it a uh better version of itself. We're not
looking to make any uh uh substantial modifications to the construct of, you know, the building or the site in general. It's just a little bit disorganized and messy around that property. Uh we didn't we had nothing to do with that. We bought it uh and it's been that way for some time. We're
looking to sort of make some improvements. We think by uh first of all adding some loading doors to the south side of the building. Presently there's one overhead door that supports the whole building which um is uh I think it's sort of you know underloaded.
Uh I think that's both an opinion and a fact. Um, and by creating some pavement around the property, uh, it gives full circulation, not just for a a future tenant, but more importantly for the town and emergency vehicles. And just
sort of like repaving and restructuring the rear of the property makes it more organized, professional, and uh, sort of in line with the rest of the properties in your town. Uh, we're just looking to make it a sort of a more updated, bring it to 2026 standards, not what it has
been. Is there a need for uh trailer parking uh currently on the site or do you feel like there's a need for any trail uh uh trailer parking for a future tenant? >> So, um notwithstanding rules and
restrictions as to what is required for these sites, this building, again, we've only owned it for a short period of time, but I've got a lot of experience uh owning and developing and redeveloping properties like this in uh all throughout the state. This is a pretty small building. Uh, I know that's
not a technical term, but it's 26,000 ft. Uh, and it's got one overhead door, zero loading doors. Uh, and thus, to my knowledge, certainly since we've owned it, but even before that, it's never really uh been the kind of a building or
uh an occupant that has trucks. Not even a lot of trucks, any trucks. Um, having said that, none of us know what the future tenant is going to do or need. And so you want to sort of be thoughtful to what the future is and set the property up sort of in the best way
possible, you know, but it's a it's a small property. It's a it's a small building and it's not the kind that typically attracts companies that have a lot of big trucks. >> That's that's all I have for you, Mr. Croman. Unless the board has any questions or professionals have any
questions of this witness? >> I do not. Anybody from the board? >> Hearing none, you can call your next witness. Miss Hopkins >> like to call up Joshua Seawald from Dynamic Engineering.
>> You swear the testimony going to provide us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth. >> I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, give us your address, please. Uh >> Josh Seawald, Sew. I'm from Dynamic Engineering Consultants. Our business address is 1904 Main Street in Lake, New Jersey.
You want to mark those now or can we can we mark them up front or Sure. >> Yeah. Uh so the first one we'll mark is the aerial map exhibit. I believe that'll be exhibit A1. Uh it's an ex exhibit prepared by my firm today's date. I'll go through it shortly in greater detail. The second exhibit we're
going to have in a little bit is the site plan rendering again prepared by my firm and today's >> by the way. I love the cameras so I don't have to creep my neck for you.
>> Uh Joshua, can you kind of uh run through can you run through your credentials for the board from both engineering planning? >> I certainly can. Uh good evening again everybody. Um I have a bachelor of science and masters of science and civil engineering. Uh both my licenses for professional planning and professional
engineering are in good standing and active. I do this on a nightly basis. Tonight is number 20 in 2026. Um, and I'm a partner at Dynamic Engineering Consultants. >> Thank you. Your credentials are accepted. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I think we'll start with exhibit
A1 that's on your screen before you, uh, so we can go through some of the property. Uh, the applicant that you just heard, Mr. Croman, uh, recently acquired the parcel and, um, the exhibit that's before you, the property is actually outlined right now in the bolded yellow line. The dotted yellow
line that you see around it is approximately the 200 foot property owners list. So to the right of our project is actually the New Jersey Turnpike. Located to um the west of us is uh Ail Road. To the north of us is
the hotel complex. To the south of us is another light industrial warehouse office facility use. This is actually in uh the corner pocket of the uh western side of your municipality. Not too far away from us. If you'll see the purple line uh a little bit further to the to
the west of our property is actually your municipal boundary line that you share with South Brunswick. So it's kind of tucked in this corner over here between um Forsgate Drive and and the Jersey Turn uh Jersey Turnpike. Uh so as council mentioned in the opening again, it's 30 of Bill Road, block 55, lot 9 uh
9.6. It is located in that LI light industrial zone. The property in size today is 5.2 acres. Um, and like we talked about, it's about 26,000 square feet. Um, it has about 8,000 square feet of office today fronting where a Bill
Road is and about 17,000 square ft which we'll call Blight Industrial Warehouse Storage Facility. And as as Blake correctly identified and is opening, the whole building today is being serviced by one overhead door. And just quickly for the record and the board, uh, an overhead door means that it is at grade
of the existing paved area and parking lot. When you hear loading dock in some of the other applications, that is a sunken 4 foot lower uh facility so that the truck can back up and it's at the same elevation of the finished floor of the building. Again, this property, everything is at the same elevation and
there's only one uh overhead door out there today. has two full movement driveways servicing the existing facility. Has 69 parking spaces um and has a stormwater management facility located right up on uh a road and
overall the one major change which you'll see shortly is that on the north side of our project so between us and the hotel uh there is no driveway right now. So one of the major improvements you're about to hear from us shortly when we go through exhibit A2 is how we're providing that full circulation throughout it. uh and we have been
through the TRC process when we presented to your professionals and a couple of you were there uh and we came in to talk about and making some improvements to this property. The feedback we immediately got was hey listen there's a corner pocket in the northwestern corner back along the turnpike that's kind of broken gravel
pavement dirt and some outdoor storage that we if you're going to come in but let's clean this up and formalize it. And that's what we've done here uh and what we're excited to show you on exhibit 8 today. So exhibit A2 uh is the same orientation zoomed in.
This is the site plan overlaid onto the landscape plan and also we have an aerial map in in the background. So exhibit A1 with some improvements that we have um from the overall record civil drawings that we've provided for you. So to orient the board, the the light
orange color is the existing building. As you heard from council in the beginning, we're not modifying any component of the building. The building size is staying exactly the same. >> How many parking spaces are there existing? >> 69 spaces. And you'll also see some light gray hatches. Those light gray
hatches that you see are all of the existing pavement areas. Part of those 69 spaces that remaining again exactly the same. So what we tried to do is we colorized uh in a dark black color the new pavement areas that is currently not on on site and you'll see that to the south side of the existing building and
more formalized uh to the east between us and the Jersey turnpike. So again the two driveway curb cups that we have under municipal road staying exactly the same. What we're really doing is we're taking the south side of the building and we're putting four new overhead
doors again going from one to a total of five now. And you heard from Blake and it's really to just modernize and cast a wider net of what this potential tenant is going to come here. Again, not formalized sunken loading docks, just five total rollup doors so that we can have more box trucks be able to utilize
the warehouse space of this back portion of the building. And in the middle of the orange block, you'll see there's a line that cuts in between um the building. That line truly separates the office component, which is out there today, and then to the east of us, the warehouse component.
When we decided to put in these four overhead doors on the south side of the building, there's some existing parking facilities there, and we wanted to make sure that we had adequate parking for our future tenant. So, we added another uh double row of parking right along the frontage of our um office facility.
Lastly, as we go to the east side of the property, you'll see that we have this formalized uh space. And this is to allow uh full circulation around the building, not just for us, our c uh our employees um and our our trucks, but also for the facility to be able to
managed by any type of fire EMS on the back side of the building now where today it is currently some again dirt outdoor storage for removing that, paving it correctly, conformance with your standards, and basically having some some van parking facilities in the
back portion. Um overall as as we continue to redevelop the property um one of the things that we did was we took a look at the existing storm water management basin that's located between the existing building and ail road and we were able
to tweak it up and bring it up to current standards today. Okay. So, instead of one existing detention basin, which is a little bit more legacy style of how we used to design storm water, we've now converted that to two smallcale infiltration basins that fully complies with today's state standards as
well as your ordinance. We're not seeking any waiverss or design exceptions associated with that. So, one of the nice parts of the redevelopment and revitalization of this property now is you get a brand new storm water management system compliant with all four prongs. quantity, quality, uh groundwater recharge and of course green
infrastructure. From a parking standpoint, uh we are going from a total of existing 69 spaces and we are providing 80 spaces that is compliant with your ordinance. Again, as you heard, we don't have a tenant yet, but with a little bit of real estate and
reconfiguration, we're able to increase some of that on-site parking that we have. >> What does the current mix require in terms of parking? Are we over? Uh we are over we are compliant with both >> that's what I meant. Yes. >> Yes. >> Um
another improvement uh in of course bringing this to a more modernized site improvement package is we are allowed uh we are bringing in additional landscaping and what I'm I'm happy to say and a lot of times I'm up at different boards we're talking about various variances. We are fully
conforming with your landscape ordinance as well as fully conforming with your tree removal ordinance. So, as we provide this northern full circulation driveway, which I see as a benefit to the overall site design, we are removing a couple of those trees inside of our civil package that we provided. However,
though, we are replacing those and installing an additional 47 trees throughout the property. So, I think the site is well landscaped today. If you drive past it, it's wellmaintained professionally, but now we're able to add additional uh deciduous, ornamental, and uh evergreen trees. and and beyond
that more shrubs in both deciduous and evergreen matter. It might be a little difficult to see but all those little new green circles that's coming straight from our landscape plan uh that we presented in front of the environmental commission and our part of the uh regular drawings. >> And is impervious still going to be
below the ordinance requirements >> substantially? Yes. Um yes, we're we're not uh and you'll hear in my planning testimony, but I'll give you a little sneak peek into it. um some of the variance relief that we have tonight, we think it's it's dimminimous in nature because the property itself
could be developed beyond what's out there. We're substantially under building coverage, impervious coverage, all setbacks to all the different facilities. So, the site isn't being overdeveloped. We're keeping the building. We're keeping a lot of that gray space out there. And as we just modernize it and hope to get more of a
more modern tenant for that, it comes along with the good stuff. it comes along with stormwater management as well as new landscaping. Um, finally, one of the requests as one of the benefits of being here tonight after going through the TRC process and getting your board professional review
letters, we were able to go back and forth a couple of times and try to reduce any questions, comments, and concerns they had. And we did end up providing a lighting plan to show that we were compliant with those standards. A lot of the lights on site are remaining because it's a good working order site, but we are adding a couple
of wall pack lights as well as area light poles just to make sure that we illuminate correctly the new pavement areas. I do believe uh we're compliant with all of your your lighting standards. Uh they will all be LED fixtures, environmentally friendly. They can shut off whenever the applicant
needs it. It's downward facing forward throw, not screaming up into the light sky like old school car dealership. So overall an improvement from a lighting standpoint as well. Uh which is a good pausing point uh before I get into variances and I take my engineering hat off and throw on my planning hat. But
that was the main message we wanted to explain to you that the existing building today staying the same. It's in good working order and with the applicant purchasing the property and hoping to modernize it and bring in the next tenant. We're looking to provide uh four more overhead uh doors and with
that clean up the back portion of the property for some maybe uh parking for their vehicles, their fleet um and just modernize the overall facility. >> Mr. Chairman, would you like to take questions with him in his function as an engineer first or
>> Why don't you go ahead and speak on your planning side and then we'll open it up to questions for both. >> Sounds good. Um so the first variance that we have um is 10891B1. That is essentially talking about the size of the parking space. The ordinance calls
for uh 10x 20. Uh the existing spaces on site today servicing the building are 9 by8 and all the new spaces we have are going to match at 9 by8. Um the existing tenant today has had no issues. We don't anticipate any issues and without
copying prior testimony uh from your professional at the last application. Essentially, when you have this type of use, you can go down to a 9 by18 because it's not what we call a high turnover use. When you have more of a retail component and you have the public engagement, you want more real estate around their car. Maybe they have a
shopping cart. Maybe they're going in and out of a gas station convenience store and you want them to have a high turnover space. This is not that. you're going to come in, park your car, go to work for your day in the shift, and then later you're going to get back in your car and leave. So, uh, that's our first variance. We believe with the low
turnover use, there's not a negative impact with that. The second variance we have is to permit parking within the front yard area. Um, today there are 19 existing spaces, as you can see on exhibit A2, all colored in light gray,
between the existing building and uh, a road. Uh, and these spaces are a minimum of 80 feet from the rightway line. Uh, and behind the existing detention basin that's going to be improved with those two smaller infiltration basins as well as the landscaping. We do have uh the 12
space parking lot that's on the south side next to our new loading area. And there's four of those spaces that are now technically slightly in front of the front uh building line. Overall, we're not modifying and encroaching any closer to a road. Uh we respect, of course, the
ordinance that they're looking to maybe uh buffer some of that parking, but it's been in existence today. We're not changing the building. The actual upfront parking area is staying exactly the same. And one of the benefits of this project that we hope can offset some of the potential detriments of this variance is that you're getting new
landscaping right along the front as well as landscaping around of those two existing buildings. The third variance we have is parking uh within 30 feet of the outer walls of any structure. Now, your ordinance specifically allows uh
this to happen as long as the board and the fire uh department are okay with it. Um now, a few of the spaces, as you can see on exhibit A2, are located within 30 ft of that building. Uh what I will say is that this application is improving on
site for fire. Again, we now have a northern driveway so that any type of fire truck, EMS, police can fully circulate around the building. That is not the case today. So, even though we're adding a couple spaces closer to the building facade than that 30 ft, overall substantial improvement. Um, and
again, due to the nature of the use being light industrial, our trucks back up right to the building. So, we think that there's no substantial difference the fact that a a truck can come up to the building, unload, do its business, but then have the PARs uh for our employees be parked a little bit closer
as well. >> So, is it your belief that there's ample room for emergency vehicles to access and traverse the site? >> Absolutely. Uh the next variance that we have is I believe the minimum number of tractor trailer uh stalls. Um uh we'll be
correct if we if we need to, but essentially it talks about total grass uh gross floor area, one tractor trailer for 5,000 uh square ft. And we don't have any tractor trailer spaces for the site existing and we have none proposed. And and really it comes down to to
operations. Um this site is 26,000 square feet. We don't have any sunken loading docks. So we don't anticipate an artic articulating very large wheelbase tractor trailer to come on the property. Um, so we're not proposing any. You'll hear shortly when I close in my planning
testimony about the efficient use of land and we have real estate to keep paving over for more uh loading, but we just don't need it for this site and I think green space, landscaping and storm water is a better use of the overall property. Um, my final variance I
believe unless Mr. Dne corrects me um is essentially the required buffer. Uh, the ordinance asks for a buffer along all road frontages as I'm sure this board's aware. BMS have to be six feet high with a width of 10 to 20 feet on top of the burm. Uh the existing burm that's out
there today is not compliant with these requirements. There there's a small one, we'll call it between two two and a half feet along the existing frontage. Um the property is located at the end of a culde-sac and it is squeezed between the New Jersey Turnpike and a municipal
roadway. Um in our professional opinion, the existing site is being improved in all regards. We've talked about that a bunch tonight. We talked about storm water lighting and landscaping and again even though we don't comply exactly with how the ordinance dictates the real estate with
we now get two brand new basins with a lot of landscaping around it. So trying to meet the intent of separating this development from our public rightway. Um all of these in my opinion fall under what we call the flexible variance the C2 criteria of the municipal land use
law. We must show that the positive criteria outweigh the negative. doesn't mean that there's not any detriments associated with the project or any detriments associated with some of the variances. It just simply states that does this project overall greatly and substantially outweigh those detriments
with the positive. And we talked about I want to summarize them real quick. We talked about improvements to an existing facility by adding a more modern and full loading area. We talked about modernizing this that same site for the tenant. substantial improvement to storm water bringing it today's current uh
regulations and standards enhancement of landscaping full circulation around the building and completely within the character of our neighbors within the LI zone. Um and last and we we touched upon it a few moments ago from a planning standpoint we are under imperous
coverage of this site pretty substantially under F under building coverage and we don't exceed any of the bulk criteria. Yes, we just went through a handful of variances with some ancillary site features, but the actual facility on this 5acre property is not
being overdeveloped. In my opinion, actually with these slight enhancements, we're still leaving a lot of it uh to remain as as landscaping and grass area. So, I believe that we advance several purposes of the municipal land use law. Purpose A, G, I, and M. And M in my
opinion being the most important, which talks about the more efficient use of land. This board is an active board. You see undeveloped land being turned into other types of projects throughout your community, all different residential, commercial, industrial. What better to take an existing facility that's working
well right now and simply improving upon it and keeping a good asset building and bringing now a new modern tenant to your community. Again, it's also located in a great spot in my opinion for the municipality because it's on the west side of the turnpike. It's in the very
last corner before we get into uh South Brunswick. So, in my opinion, it advances multiple purposes of the municipal land use law, but truly focusing on the more efficient use of land purpose m um we talked about some of those deviations. We talked about in
our opinion that um the relief is is minor. Um again, I don't see any detriments in my opinion. If if anything, there's sub there's substantial improvements that come along uh with this facility. Um, so again, no substantial detriment to any public good and no substantial impairment to the
intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. This is the use that the council and governing body contemplated that they wanted in the LI zone. And it makes total sense because we're right along uh the New Jersey Turnpike. >> If anybody's familiar with the property, it's basically where Beal Road dead ends
into the Double Tree. >> Okay. Okay, Mark. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we've reviewed uh this a couple of times. You have my second review letter from June 16th, 2026. Um, they've cleaned up the plan uh very
well in my opinion. Um, as far as my comments, the only comment I I'll talk about at the sidewalk. Um, there is existing curb along the frontage. Uh we we require sidewalk. Um are you in agreement to provide the sidewalk? And >> there's there's no existing sidewalk is
what is what you're saying. >> So >> there is there is existing or there's no existing. I'm sorry. >> No existing. There's no existing. Correct. There's existing curb line, right? >> Um but you're required to have curb and sidewalk. So are you agreeable to the sidewalk installation? and if it's not
installed to provide the contribution um towards installation of sidewalk throughout the rest of the municipality. >> So like I said this is where um a bill dead ends um into into what is the parking lot of the double tree and
across the street from the parking lot I suppose of the of the Hyatt. Um the applicant is willing to uh to to discuss a a dedication uh but they are not going to be putting in a sidewalk in in on the property.
>> So in lie of installation of the sidewalk you'll you're agreeable to the contribution. Well, we can >> Yeah. Can we sort of hear the balance of the commentary and questions to things
of our uh our board? >> And Mark, just to add when from an engineering standpoint, we would be leaning towards the other side because there's that existing BM that's out there and we're adding to it. Uh and then right after that, it drops off into the basin. So you you could in theory put a sidewalk there, but from from our
standpoint, we thought it would be uh more functional to have that smaller burm and add landscaping on top of it. >> If you kind of look at where you're at, you're in that it's that little piece that's uh uh right in front of the storm water basins there. M >> Mr. Chairman, it it's uh it's an item
that's up for the board discussion. Um it is an area that there's no sidewalks out there. Um I don't envision sidewalks coming to this area. However, um under our ordinance and as this board has done in the past, uh if the sidewalks are not being installed, they accepted a
contribution uh for the in lie of the sidewalk installation. So, um yeah, I'll leave that up to the board. >> Okay. >> But you're going to speak to your client. >> Yeah, we'll we'll speak we'll we'll speak to that at the end of the at the end of the testimony if that's okay with
you, Mr. Chairman. >> Actually, do you have any further questions, Mark? Uh, no. They they've agreed uh well, if I can get on record that you agree to the remaining comments in my review letter. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Chairman, I have nothing else. Chris,
>> there's one comment really a bit of a clarification on the tractor trailer parking requirement. The ordinance is kind of written as both a minimum and a maximum. It says there shall be one parking space for tractor trailers for every five for each 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. Then it says that shall be a maximum. So, you you have to
hit it exactly, which in this case is 5.25. 25 tractor trailer parking stall. So can you elaborate a little bit more on why you can't provide not just five but 5.25 that extra quarter tractor trailer parking stall is very important. >> It it certainly is. Um I haven't seen a
a quarter of a cab of the back of a tractor trailer. >> It's a smaller tractor trailer. That's all. >> That's Yeah. >> Let let the record reflect that I laughed at that. >> In in reality um Mr. Docney, there is real estate in the pavement area located between the building. actually just joking really. Probably didn't even need
to answer that. You've already talked about why you don't feel the tractor trailer parking is necessary on the site. That's okay. Otherwise, I think they've hit every the few points I did have in my review letter outside of the four variances uh required. Uh I will note just for the record in my review
letter, the second review, we had indicated they had addressed in their um plans two variances we had originally called out that are no longer necessary, but we I forgot to cross them out. They're still on the list of variances in the report. So the number of loading spaces and then the the fencing the variances are not required for that but that is noted on page eight of my
report. So those are addressed those aren't required otherwise I don't have any additional comments or questions. >> Okay I'm going to open it up to the board to assist with >> if you don't mind Mr. Chairman I I I did lie I I am going to call the architect real quick just to testify as to the
placement of the uh of the overhead doors if you don't mind. >> So you want to call the architect? >> I I am going to >> Okay. Um then um I'm going to open up to the board now to ask this what his questions. >> Uh just quick comment. Um and this is to
our engineer. Uh it mentions in one of the variances that parking is not permitted within the front yard area. Do you have any concern in terms of safety at all if they do put parking in front? >> Mr. Chairman, the parking exists in the
front of the building. What they're adding on the side of the building is is uh four spaces that u literally poke out in front of the building a little bit. Um poke out in front of the line of the building. So uh so the new spaces are
are not necessarily directly in front of the building. Okay. >> But but there is an existing uh parking lot that's there. So uh so essentially it's an existing variance. >> Yeah. I I just want to make sure I wasn't creating any issue on that. >> And my opinion, the reason for that
provision of the code is not really a safety issue as much as it is just a visual impact that in certain areas of the town, you'd prefer to see the parking behind the building rather than in front of it. Uh in this case, it's an existing building in an industrial area. So, I don't have any problem with it. >> Okay. Thank you.
We have two stipulations if it's uh approved or or whatever like the new tenant is not going to store any hazardous material inside and is there a place for a tractor trailer to stay overnight and
run or would that be a problem or >> So we we don't anticipate again any tractor trailer staying overnight. Um could a tractor trailer circulate through this facility? They could. We we ran the um your fire truck even it's in the back of the civil drawings based on now having a road going throughout it.
You in theory could circulate should for any reason they go to the wrong building and now they they need to get out. So they can get out there but at this time we don't anticipate any overnight tractor trailer storage. >> With respect to the hazardous substances, the applicant's lease is going to address that because the applicant and its insurance carrier are
not going to want any storage of hazardous materials. Okay. >> Since you didn't have a tenant, right? So, >> we have we have no specific tenant at the >> right. That's what I mean. So, have that in mind that no storage of hazardous
material. >> Yes. I I think the applicant and the board are aligned on that on that point. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? Now, do you want to speak with your client or do you want to call your architect first? >> I I the architect's testimony would be extremely limited. Uh, but if you don't
mind, I'd like to just call him up. >> Did you have an over under on the number of exhibits we were marking? That's >> I you bet the >> I don't even know. I mean, we can just mark one if you want. If you want to mark it. >> Is it is it is the color on the packet? >> This should be identical to your packet.
Okay. >> So, >> if you could state your name and >> do you destroy the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Okay. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please. >> Robert Venia, Ver Ren Gia A. Business
address is 10 Wilc Rididgewood, New Jersey. >> I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. I have a bachelor of architecture and a mers in civil engineering. My license is in good standing and I' I've presented before similar boards.
>> Thank you. Credentials are accepted. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Bangia. I I I just wanted to uh to call you up to to testify as to the placement of the uh loading dock doors. Um I know throughout the uh the TRC process and and some of the comments
that we got back um from the professionals it was asked the question was asked as to why that those loading dock doors were not placed in the rear of the building and why they were placed in the side of the building. Can you explain uh as to why that placement is there?
>> Yes. So when we were asked to design four additional overhead doors we did look at the back of the building. However, given the existing configuration and infrastructure, we didn't see it as a viable option. Um, this area shaded in blue on the side of
the building, which is the rear of the building, that houses the main 1200 amp service for the building, the electrical service. So, you have 12,200 amp service, you have electrical panels, transformers, there's also some air compressors in there. So, we didn't see that as a viable option. the other bay
which is on the norththeast corner here. There's existing uh structural steel x-racing uh that is part of the main structure of the building um which limited the ability to put overhead doors. So because of those two reasons the um the southside was the most viable
option for us. >> So it's your opinion that it would be a hardship for them to to have to move the uh the electricals and the equipment around in order to put the door docks in the back. Correct. Yes, >> that's it. That's my >> Okay. Either of us professionals wish
>> ask any questions. >> Hey, just one clarification. A mezzanine area, is that a proposed mezzanine area or is that existing? >> That's existing. >> Okay. Thank you. Clarify. >> Anybody else from the board have any questions?
Before we take uh a quick break, I was I I'm going to open it up to the public. You're about to say something. >> I I was just going to let you know that the applicant is willing to uh to make a small contribution to the sidewalk. And we don't I I don't know what that contribution would be, but to address your question, they're willing to make a
contribution. >> Okay. Then >> chairman, just for clarification, you know, we will contact we will uh calculate the sidewalk contribution. and it's based on the um you know the the sidewalk that would be required along your frontage. That's essentially the
calculation if it's 100 ft of sidewalk or whatever that square footage is at the uh current rate. >> That's it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody wish to
>> Yes. I'd like to make a motion. Um I assume we're going to go uh preliminary and final because it's a small site. Uh Mr. Resmo, >> Mr. Chairman, yes, it's an existing
site. Um they're they're making some um small modifications to the site, but essentially, you know, the site is remaining uh as is with the additional the four storage doors. So again, in keeping with this board's typical requirements, in these cases, they did
entertain preliminary and final in the same night. And I would recommend that. >> Fine. You'd recommend it. Okay. I recommend preliminary and final approval, which will include uh the full the cost uh as provided by our engineer
for putting in the sidewalks uh that are required. And the reason I say that is uh if we don't do that and the next applicant comes here and we recommend we require sidewalks, they could say you didn't force your previous applicant.
Why are you doing that to us? So I'm not going to create that issue going down the road. So uh we're approving it >> preliminary and final to include the cost the appropriate cost of sidewalks. That's my motion.
I'll second it. Thank you. >> Um, we'll open up for discussion. Anybody wish heard >> Just Just to be clear, we we're acceptable to the to the uh the approval being conditioned upon paying the sidewalk contribution to whatever the calculations would be.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Any discussion? Just um as an aside, uh when I practice law in Ocean County, uh we were all about mini warehousing. So I have to
tell the board and everybody here that this has been a storage education for me where 26,000 square feet is small. >> Yeah, it is. >> Vice Chairman Rothman.
>> Yes. >> Miss Brodzky, >> yes. Miss Damiani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Binsky. >> Yes. >> Councilman Markeel. >> Yes. >> Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey. >> Yes. >> The application preliminary. >> Thank you very much. Have a good
evening. >> The time now is 8:15 p.m. Off the record. >> We have just one more piece of business tonight. We have a memorial for numeral three acquisition LC. >> Thank you so much.
>> Is there a motion to accept? >> I make a motion to accept. >> Second. Vice Chairman Rothman. >> Yes. >> Miss Bronzky. >> Yes. >> Miss Damiani. >> Yes. >> Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey. >> Yes.
>> Is there a motion to adjourn? >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. >> I >> I see in July.