Excellent. Stand with the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with the open public
meetings act, it is announced and shall be minutes of this meeting that >> that adequate notice of this meeting. I I'll start over. 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 of the within the municipal complex. Print print printed in the home news trabune and cranberry press on
December 26, 2025, posted on the Monroe Township website and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice. Laura, if you call the role, please. >> Vice Chairman Rothman >> here. Miss Brodzky >> here. >> Mr. Manesh Patel
>> here. >> Mr. Damiani >> here. >> Mr. Slavichek >> here. >> Mr. Weiner >> here. >> Mr. Butinsky. >> Councilman Markeel. >> Mayor's representative. Mr. Patel >> here. >> Chairman Gaffrey. >> Yes. >> Here.
>> Okay. Earlier on the 23rd of this month, Laura circulated the minutes of the last meeting. Uh, is there a motion to accept the minutes? >> Motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Is there any discussion? >> Okay. All in favor?
>> I abstain. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. The minutes are accepted. We have uh one application this evening. It is PB1272-25 Aries QR the third Acquisitions LLC.
It's a request for a preliminary and a final site plan with bulk variances council. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John Machowski, Feedgrew Drinker on behalf of the developer Aries QR3 Acquisitions LLC, an affiliate of Aries Management. We are very happy to be here tonight to present
this application that if approved would clean up a largely dilapidated track of land located on the south side of Route 33 near Primeville Road, Protoolinway intersection on the on the border with Milstone. The property is identified as block three lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 2404,
and 2405 in the township. It is located in the HD highway development district. We are seeking preliminarian final site plan approval for a warehouse and distribution facility, which is a permitted conditional use on this site. In that regard, at the outset, I'll note
that this warehouse is being proposed as speculative development with no enduser in mind. Uh I can confirm that this facility will most certainly not be used as a data center uh given its design and lack of electrical infrastructure for such a use. As you will see in a moment, in compliance with the ordinanc's buffer
requirements, we're proposing a heavily vegetated 6 foot high burm along the entire route 33 frontage that over time will largely screen the proposed warehouse from public view on Route 33. On the boards of either side of me are images of the existing conditions of the
site. The board to your left will mark exhibit A1. And to the board to your to your left, we will to your right, we will mark exhibit A2. They depict the former automative repair shop and the existing landscape business and partially constructed and now overgrown
retail center. To give you a brief history of the site, in 2012, the Monroe zoning board granted a use variance for construction of a retail center on a large portion of the overall track. The retail center was to include two retail buildings, a standalone bank, office building, along with parking, storm
water, and other related site improvements. Thereafter, the owner of the site constructed the parking, lighting, and driveway improvements between 2015 and 2018. And since then, I'm sure you probably have noticed it sat stagnant and over has become overgrown. As you can see on these display boards, the retail project,
parking areas, and drivebys become overgrown with vegetation, and an old construction trailer and materials remain. In addition, the former auto repair business located on a portion of the track has broken down vehicles that are visible along the route 33 frontage. There's also a landscaping business in that is in disrepair with debris and
broken down equipment throughout the property. Simply put, this track in its existing condition certainly does not present a welcoming visual to people traveling into town along Route 33. This is not pristine farm or woodlands. Rather, this is a track that is an eyesore. Without significant investment
in the site, the existing improvements, including the parking areas, light poles, drive aisles that were constructed almost a decade ago, will continue to fall into disrepair. Not only does your zoning allow a warehouse and distribution facility on this site, but we believe this is an optimal location for a warehouse project as has
direct access to Route 33 with easy access to the turnpike. And this project would clean up would result in the cleanup of a stagnant and dilapidated site on the border of your town. I should also note that this project includes the merger of six separate lots which were assembled by ARIRS through purchase contracts with separate
property owners. This was not an insignificant hurdle that Aries had to clear to facilitate the redevelopment of this track. We believe this project presents the perfect opportunity for both the township and my client to equally benefit from this redevelopment. This track will be cleaned up with a strong ratable for the township that as
you will hear tonight will blend nicely with the surrounding area while preserving approximately 15 and a half acres of 31 and a half acres as undeveloped. My first witness tonight will be Joe Fiero, a principal of AR's management who will provide you with some background information on himself
and his company. I should point out that this project is very personal to Joe as Joe was the one who personally selected this site as he is a resident of Milstone Township and after driving by this track for many years thought he might be in position to help clean it up. I also want to point out that we have three we've had three TRC meetings
on this project to fine-tune our proposal and address any comments and concerns that the board professionals might have before we brought this site layout to you. We first met with the technical review committee over a year ago in March 2025 to present a concept plan. From there, we re reworked the
site layout in response to the comments received at that meeting. After submitting this application, we met again with the committee in February. And then based upon the comments received at that meeting, we flipped the loading docks from the northeast side of the building to the southwest side of the building and reworked the site
layout. We then met with the committee again last month to review the revised site layout to see if any additional finetuning was necessary. I just wanted to highlight this to show the board that we've been very methodical in taking professional comments very serious in order to present optimal site layout that not only meets the needs of our
perspective of a prospective tenant for this site but also satisfies any concerns that the board's professionals might have or that they believe the board may have. We hope that we have achieved the desired result from that hard work over the past year and hope that you find our plan to be one that you can support. As for our presentation
tonight, in additional in addition to Joe Fiero, var's management, who I mentioned a moment ago, I do plan to call the following additional witnesses to testify. We have with us tonight our project engineer, Andrew Smith from Langan. We have a project architect, David Schmuck, from Wolf Architects, and our planner, Shawn Moransky, from also
from Langan, who will uh wrap up our testimony. We also have with us tonight our traffic engineer, Eric Valeri of Langan, as well in case we have any traffic questions that need to be answered. Uh lastly, I'm going to acknowledge that we've received the following review letters. We've received an engineering review letter from Mr.
Asamoitz dated February 25th, 2026 that was updated April 20th, 2026. Our project engineer has met with the board engineer's office and based upon those meetings, we do feel comfortable in stating that we'll comply with that letter to the satisfaction of the board engineer. Uh we have received a review
letter, CME planning review letter from Mr. Doy dated February 12th, 2026, updated April 20th, 2026. We have no issues with the comments in that letter. Uh we received a letter from the Monroe Environmental Commission review dated March 19th, 2026. Uh the only issues
that we have with that is we cannot comply with the request for pvious concrete. Um and our proposal does not comply with the request for motion sensor exterior lighting as we need flexibility for the prospectives tenants use. We've received a letter from the Monroe Police Department dated December
9th, 2025. There were no comments, so we have no issue. uh Monroe fire official review dated April 22, 2026. Our engineer worked with the fire official on his comments and we have no issue with the comments that we received and we uh comply. We've received a review
letter from Monroe EMS and there were actually no comments there. So, we do comply with that and historic preservation commission review February 3, 2026 uh indicated there's no no known historical significance. So, we have no issue with that. So with that, I re
reiterate that our team is really excited about this project and really look forward to making this a reality. So unless there's any questions at this point, I can move on to Mr. Fiero. >> Proceed. >> All right. Uh if we could have Mr. Fier, >> if you could raise your right hand for me. Do you swear the testimony you're
going to provide is the truth, all truth, and nothing but truth? >> Yes. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. >> Uh Joe Fiero, F as in Frank, I E R R O. And ju just before Mr. Pharaoh starts, I'm going to move one of the boards to
your right and we're going to mark that A3, which just is a um a rendering of the building building entrance. >> Go ahead, Mr. >> Pharaoh, if you could just give us your address. >> Yeah. Uh 9 Scott, >> can you pull the microphone up?
>> I'm sorry. >> Nine Scott Drive and that's in Milstone, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Um so good evening everyone. Uh thank you for your time and uh for the opportunity to be here and present our
application. Uh by way of introduction, I'm Joe Fiero uh with Aries Management. We are a large publicly traded global alternative investment manager with approximately 500 billion of assets under management across several business
sectors. Uh one of which is real estate. Um, within real estate, Aries has a long-standing focus on owning, operating, and developing industrial real estate. Um, I am a principal at the firm, uh, where I sit on Aries's
Northeast Industrial Development team, um, and serve as the lead and day-to-day point person for this project. Our Northeast Industrial Platform is based here in New Jersey. Uh we have offices in East Rutherford and my role primarily
focuses on site acquisitions and navigating the local and state approval process for new developments. Um as a firm, Aries has been active industrial real estate for more than 25 years. Nationally, we own and operate approximately 200 million square feet.
In New Jersey alone, our portfolio consists of approximately 15 million square feet, including approximately 6 million square feet, which were groundup development warehouses. Our regional team is fully integrated. Uh we have in-house acquisitions,
development, asset management, and property management, which allows us to control quality and operations over the long term. our facilities are professionally maintained and thoughtfully landscaped and that stewardship continues beyond construction.
One point I always like to emphasize is that Aries is not a merchant builder. Uh meaning we don't build and sell. Uh we develop projects with the intention of holding them for the long term, being a responsible owner and becoming part of the community.
That long-term mindset strongly influences how we approach design operations and our relationships with municipalities. On a more personal note, as John mentioned, uh I am a New Jersey native, born and raised locally. I grew up in
Manalapin Township and currently live in Milstone. Uh very close to this site. I drive past this property every day. And because of that, this project is close to home for me in a very real sense. Uh, and it is important to me that we
propo that what we propose here is something the community and the township can be comfortable with and proud of for many years. When I initially identified the site, one of the reasons it stood out to me is that is not a farm or a wooded track that should be preserved. It is a property that has sat stagnant
and underutilized for many years and in its current condition, it is not serving the community well. My view has always been that thoughtful redevelopment of a long stagnant property is preferable to consuming open space elsewhere, particularly in an area where preserving
that character matters. In terms of what we develop, Aries focuses on highquality institutional-grade warehouse and distribution facilities. These buildings are designed to to attract strong, well- capitalized corporate tenants and to
function efficiently while presenting visually well. Architecturally, our buildings typically feature concrete wall panels with detailing such as reveals, canopies, clear story windows, and articulated facades. Office ent office entrances are
designed as true front doors, often incorporating significant glazing to create a clean and professional appearance. From an operation standpoint, the buildings are designed for modern users with appropriate clear heights and industry standard life safety systems.
At the end of the day, our goal is to deliver a project that functions well, looks appropriate in its setting, and remains an asset to the township over the long term. for clarity and as John mentioned uh this this project is a traditional warehouse and distribution facility.
I want to emphasize that the project will not be a data center. The building has not been designed to accommodate that use and furthermore we we know for a fact there is not sufficient power infrastructure to support data here.
Lastly, uh I want to reiterate that as someone who lives nearby and considers this community home, this this project genuinely matters to me on a personal level and this project means more to me than any of the other projects that I have managed for Aries.
Thank you very much for consider for your consideration this evening. >> And Joe, with that, I just have a couple follow-ups. Um could you just give the board um an idea of we're we're dealing with the speculative development um the the hours of operation and number of employees anticipated.
>> Yeah, hours of operation will you know very very much be a a tenant driven uh demand. Um it's possible it could be a 247 operation. Um it's possible it could be a 9-to-five operation. Um, as far as
employees go, um, it could be anywhere, you know, post completion, not talking about construction jobs, but full-time employment at the completed building, somewhere between 50 and 150 full-time employees. >> And if it's 150 employees, how would that work with shifts in the current
parking configuration? >> Yeah, for it it technically could be up to more. Um, you know, we would, if it was a 24/7 operation, you would typically have three shift changes, three eight hour shifts. Um, I would anticipate anywhere between 50 and 75
per shift. So, on the high end of the range, it could be, you know, 225, but in reality, I would I would envision 50 employees per shift or 150 in total. And you know, we are seeking the variance for parking tonight. Um that we'll get into in a moment, but can you just give
a background on on how you know this site will work from a parking perspective from >> Yeah, >> definitely. Um so I I you know, part of my introduction was you know how big Aries is and and and the size of our portfolio. Um and so 200 million square feet, you know, nationally we have a
really good sense of what these tenants and users need as far as car parking counts and etc. our our standard is 0.8 per per 1,000 square feet where we have proposed one per thousand. So on the
conservative side um and what we what we feel will allow us to cast the widest net possible for potential tenants. >> And is it fair to say that if a a ultimate tenant needed more parking than we're providing that that just would not be a lease that would they would not look be looking to lease your facility? Right.
>> That's correct. >> I have no further questions. Thank you. Any questions from the board to this witness? >> I'm glad you brought up the data center because it's in the news a lot lately and that was my one concern was about
this becoming a data center or AI, you know, and the turbine power thing. So they're producing a lot of um pollutants in the air and that was my concern about
that. Um so you say definitely no data center. >> This will not be a data center. Um aside from the power and and JCPNL um in my experience data centers need a ton of water and as you will see in our application public water is not
available to the site. This this site cannot be a data center. >> Okay. And what type of occupant uh are you looking for? >> This will be a traditional warehouse distribution user. It could be, you know, a Fortune 500 company. It could be
a local business that needs to distribute locally. Um, this will most likely be someone who takes product in, breaks it down and and distributes it elsewhere. >> And there's so the loading docks can
accommodate all that. correct delivery in >> yeah so I think I mentioned you know we developed these things to hold for the long term um so we we put a lot of emphasis into the site design and there are things that you know I mentioned we're not a merchant builder there are
things that a merchant builder would sacrifice to be greedy in a sense and grow the building to as as big as the building could possibly be on the site and we have not done that. Um, as an example, we have opposing trailer
stalls. Uh, how many we have? >> 27. >> 27 trailer stalls, which again, a merchant builder wouldn't put those stalls in. They would increase the depth of the building another 60 ft uh, and increase the square footage. So, we we actually sacrifice building square
footage to make sure we have a site that is super functional and meets the the needs of the modern warehouse user. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Welcome, Jim. >> Yeah, just question with all of the testimony, which is greatly appreciated
about the data center and how this wouldn't work for a data center and that wouldn't be the intention. Would the applicant be agreeable for that should this board ultimately if we consider this to make that a condition of any such uh approval? So this way it would
be a permanent record that it would not be a data center. Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Good work. >> Thank you, council. You want to call your next witness? >> Yes. For my next witness, it'll be our project engineer, Andrew Smith from
Lyman. >> If you could 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 for the record, please. >> Andrew Smith. Smi T. It's an easy one.
Uh my address is one Dominion D O M I N I N Drive, Jackson Township, New Jersey. >> And And Andrew, if you could provide the board with your credentials, please. >> Sure. Uh so I'm a project senior project manager with Langan Engineering. Uh I
have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of Delaware. I've been practicing land development engineering for approximately nine years now. Um, I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey and my license is active and in good standing.
>> Thank you. Approved. >> Thank you. Uh, Andrew, would you please walk the board through uh, our application, please? >> Likely going to stand. >> Take the microphone. >> Take the microphone. long enough. No, >> no, >> thank you. So, I am going to start uh by
introducing exhibit A4. This is an aerial image of the existing site conditions. So, Mr. Machowski and Mr. Foh set us up with um kind of the the what what we're looking to do and why we're looking to to do it. I'm going to kind of provide
more context um to the development as it relates to the existing site and some more detail as far as the proposed development goes. Um so to start I will introduce the property. The property is identified as block 3 lots 20 21 22 23 24.04 and 24.05
um as identified on the Monroe Township tax map. The site in total is approximately 31 12 acres. It is bound by Route 33 to the north, Milstone Township, Mammoth County to the south. There is also a portion of the property that's bound directly by uh
Bentley Brook. On the southern edge, there's adjacent properties to the west and then to the east is a portion of the jug handle to Prolan Way which intersects with Route 33. On the site is currently there are a few residential properties on the western
boundary which front Route 33. There is American Pond and Garden which is situated in the center of the site which is a landscape uh contractor yard. Uh to the west of American Ponding Garden is the partially constructed
Danberry Commons which was approved a number of years ago. Construction was started. It was never finished. It sits in somewhat of a state of of disrepair and unfinish. And on the western boundary of the site is AOK Auto which is a closed uh auto body or m auto
maintenance shop again which is closed and sits in somewhat of a a state of disrepair. Um lastly as far as the site goes I will point out there are environmental constraints that exist on the site. Lang and wetland scientists have mapped wetlands on the site. We
have submitted and obtained a letter of interpretation from NJD verifying the extents and any associated buffers with those wetlands on the site. Additionally, associated with Bentleybrook, there is a flood hazard area boundary tied to uh
that body of water. We have we being Langan have delineated the flood hazard area boundary and also obtained a flood hazard area verification from NJD. There is a DNR DNR Delaware and Raritton
Canal Commission uh stream corridor also tied to Bentley Brook which encroaches on the site and then there is a 150 foot wide JCPNL transmission line easement which runs to the site. So um as you will see
when I flip to the next exhibit, we do have a reduced footprint that kind of operating and development develop within based on the constraints that exists on the site. So I'm now going to transition to exhibit A5 mark.
and exhibit A5 is the a rendered site plan overlaid on an aerial image. So to start um I would like to note that we are proposing a lot consolidation as part of this project as coordinated with the
Monroe Township Tax Assessor. The comprised lot will be known as block three, lot 20.01 with a common street address of 818 Route 33. The development proposes 140,000 146,000
square ft of warehouse space, 141,000 of which will be warehouse space uh and 5,000 of which will be uh separated into two office spaces. The site has been designed as I had mentioned kind of to operate within the footprint of the
unconstrained areas and also provide um as Joe had mentioned optimal flexibility for a multi-tenant use while also um not sacrificing functionality for building yield. The site is situated in the HD uh
district which has a uh condition that warehouse is a permitted use so long as the project has frontage and direct driveway access to Route 33 and which we comply with. The proposed building complies with
applicable bulk standards and also uh namely the the building height requirement of 40 45 ft. we do comply with. At the southeast corner of the proposed building, there is a an accessory structure which is tied
directly to uh water usage on the site. So that structure will be a block pump house uh for fire suppression to feed the building and behind it will be a water tank um to feed the water supply system in the event there is a need to um suppress a fire within the building.
The accessory block structure will be anywhere um in size from 10 x 10 to 20 x 20 depending on the final um mechanical design of the building with a height of approximately 13 ft. The fire tank will
be approximately 150 150,000 gallons is what we're estimating right now. uh and it could be approximately 30 feet tall. As an overall development, we are um reducing impervious coverage on the
site. We are going from a we're going to a total net reduction of 2 and a half acres and taking that a step further. We are reducing the impervious vehicular impervious footprint by 4.1 acres. to speak now to traffic and circulation.
We are removing five existing curb line openings along Route 33. So there are five driveways essentially along along Route 33 which we are intending to close and we are proposing one single right in right out driveway um which will provide
access to the site from Route 33. As Route 33 is a New Jersey state highway, the uh application an application is required to be made for a minor access permit from NJ DOT which we were actively working through. The site
uh improvements along the frontage in the driveway included but the entire frontage have been designed in compliance with NJOT and we're actively pursuing a minor access permit from DOT. Lastly, just to touch on circulation, the site has been designed in compliance
uh to accommodate the vehicles that are intended to access the site, namely uh Monroe Township specific firet truck, uh a title 39 tractor trailer, passenger vehicles, and trash trash hauling vehicles. We do have a trash enclosure
at the southeast corner of the building situated near the uh water uh firewater pump house and and tank. and trash will be handled by a private hauler based on the anten uh agreement.
I'm now going to transition to A6 which will be on your right hand side. Exhibit A6 is a perspective rendering um from Route 33 looking into the site. Um so somewhere in this vicinity looking
through the driveway into the site. Um this provides context as to what you would see if you're in Route 33 once the final landscaping um is is installed with the six foot high landscape. So as part of the project we are proposing the removal of
approximately 127 trees of varying size, species and condition. We are proposing to install 244 trees and 396 shrubs. 76 of the trees are proposed as evergreens and those are
mainly on top of the landscape burm. And then we have shade trees at the toe of the burm, the downhill side of the burm. Uh we are we are complying with the municipal tree replacement requirements uh through a combination of our planting scheme and a contribution to the
municipal tree fund. And we will comply with the New Jersey do not plant list um as I'd mentioned earlier in my testimony, we're proposing uh landscaping on top of the burm. The burm
is situated along the entire front edge of route 33 which is 100 ft deep uh with a slight deviation uh where we neck down to 80 ft adjacent to the building chamfer and that is simply because of the situation
of the building. So we are seeking a variance from section ordinance section 108-6.18HH1 which requires uh a 100t landscape BM through the frontage of the site. We have the minor deviation for a 20ft
encroachment at the building chamfer. Uh but over the majority of the site frontage we are maintaining that 100 foot distance. In addition, um to help screen the site better, we are proposing 10- foot tall day one plantings on top
of the burm uh which exceeds the minimum requirements. And then I I will also note and you will see in later testimony from our architect, we are providing an enhanced um building facade at that chamfer that directly abuts Route 33.
I will then speak to parking and then I will get into site lighting. So we are proposing 147 car parking stalls all of which are proposed as 9 by8 while the township ordinance requires um
a standard dimension of 10 x 20 of the 147 stalls five of which are proposed as ADA and eight of which are proposed as electric vehicle make ready stalls. Parking is situated on three three of the four sides of the building. It's not
situated on the loading dock side. So, it's situated north, east, and south of uh the proposed building. We are proposing 24 loading docks and 27 trailer stalls. Um we do have some variances as it
relates to parking, which I will briefly explain what those are and um why we're requesting them. So variance one is from section 108 9.1B1. This requirement is for a car parking stall to be a dimension 10 ft x 20 ft.
We are proposing 9 ft by 18 ft. This is an industry standard. This is further a standard of uh the applicant's portfolio across the US. And I would also like to point out as you know an engineer that designed storm water, it does reduce your impervious coverage footprint and
your disturbance footprint. You know, keeping the uh the dimensions while they're functional a little less um than the the requirement. Second, we are seeking a variance from section 1089.1G. This sets the standard for the total number of car parking stalls. As Mr.
Fiero alluded to earlier, we are proposing 147 total stalls. The requirement is for 202 um based on ARIES data and their design practices which are based on millions of square feet of warehouse across the US.
We feel that we are sufficiently parked. Um, IT standards also back this up. And again, um, reducing the part keeping a functional count of parking but not meeting the 202 required does keep our disturbance footprint down and
it keeps our impervious coverage uh, down as well. Similarly, we are requesting a variance from section 1089.1G. This is a requirement for 29 trailer parking stalls. The language in the ordinance I believe
um the way it reads sets a maximum and a minimum in the same number. So you have a single number to target where we are seeking a minor deviation for two trailer parking stalls which again based on the applicant's extensive portfolio they feel that the trailer parking
stalls uh the quantity of 27 versus 29 is sufficient um for an end user or end users. We also require a variance from section 1089.1E1. This is a requirement that parking shall
be located uh no closer than 30 ft from the building. Um we are request requesting a a waiver from the standard as some of the parking is situated closer to the building. Um again this is due to site functionality design which is a standard of the applicant's
portfolio to have parking directly adjacent to the structure. It also takes into account placing the ADA parking stalls directly adjacent to the anticipated office spaces located at each at opposite corners of the building. Um, and on that note, I will
note that the fire official, as Mr. Machowski alluded to earlier, has reviewed the application and did not have uh any exception to what we're proposing with the exception of adding some minor uh striping to to the design. And lastly, tied to parking, um, or
related to parking, I should say, we're seeking a variance from section 108.2A. This requirement sets the max fence height at 6 ft tall in a sideyard. We are proposing a fence on the backside of the trailer parking stalls. Directly
adjacent to the trailer stalls is a retaining wall that's retaining grade one to minimize our um disturbance footprint and to not impact environmental constraints. So the way the fence height is measured is from the bottom of the wall to the
top of the fence. And the reason we're installing the fence is for uh fall protection as the wall is taller than 2 and 1/2 ft. IBC international building code has guidance uh section uh 1015 has guidance for fall protection
and therefore the fence is acting as fall protection against the wall which then triggers the the need for uh relief on that standard. So that is a summation of all of the parking and the variances associated with uh car parking. I will now speak
briefly on lighting and storm water. Um so we are proposing lighting across the site. We are proposing 11 LED polemounted fixtures and 15 canopy or building mounted fixtures. The light
poles are proposed at 20 ft tall and the building mounted fixtures are proposed at 20 ft above the first floor elevation. All fixtures are that are proposed are um LED and dark sky compliant. The lighting design has been um designed
to meet the local ordinance for lighting requirements as to not have spillover onto adjacent properties. Um lighting will be dust to dawn to meet perspective tenant needs. And we do request a single waiver from
the design standards for lighting, specifically ordinance section 10812.13. This has a requirement that the minimum light levels at any location in the parking area be 75% of the average.
So our phototric phototric ratio does not meet the standard as our average light level is 1.6 foot candles with a minimum of 0.5 foot candles whereas the ordinance requirement would trigger a need for 1.2 two uh foot
candles, which essentially what it means is the the lighting plan that we're proposing provides safe and adequate lighting for for pedestrians, emergency access, and circulation around the site. Um while not creating hot spots, it it provides an even distribution of
lighting across parking areas. Um, if we were to comply, it essentially would generate some hot spots throughout the parking, which we feel is it's not a uniform look and is also not necessary based on the fact that we have adequate, you know, we're proposing adequate um, lighting throughout the parking areas.
Uh, lastly, I'll speak to storm water and utilities. So, as far as storm water goes, I mentioned earlier in my testimony, we are reducing impervious coverage as a result of the project. We are propo reducing a net total of 2.5 acres of
impervious coverage and further 4.1 of vehicular impervious. However, we do disturb more than one acre of land and therefore we are considered a major project as far as storm water definitions go and are required to meet local and state standards for storm
water quantity, storm water quality and groundwater recharge. Accordingly, we are proposing four bio retention basins across the site. two to the northwest of the building and two to the east.
And we're also proposing seven green infrastructure manufactured treatment devices situated along vehicular surfaces to provide for additional water uh water quality treatment um for water that does not drain directly to to the basins. Um all of which has been designed in
conformance with D's best management practice manual NJ uh D BMP manual for short. Um and lastly, I'll just speak to utilities really quickly. So we are pro, you know, required gas, electric, water and sewer. Gas is provided by PSENG,
electric by JCPNL. Um and we are proposing on-site water and sewer as there is not publicly available utilities along the site frontage. So we will have a single well for domestic water, a single well for firewater, and then a small septic
disposal field um for sewage discharge. And with that, I will conclude my testimony and turn it back over to Mr. M. >> Thank you, Andrew. I have no questions, so if the board does. >> Mark, do you have any comments?
>> Okay, chairman. So, uh, they agreed to meet the comments in my April 20th, 2026 review letter. I did have the opportunity to meet with the uh applicants professionals to go over the review letter in detail. Um I'm
comfortable that they can uh they can meet all the comments in my review letter uh including the storm water. Uh just for the board and for the record and just a couple things I want to touch on from my letter. Um curb and sidewalk
improvements along the frontage. >> Yes. Yes. >> Can you elaborate on on uh if you're installing curbing along 33 and sidewalks? >> Um so where there are existing curb cuts along 33, we are proposing to close those with curbing and we are proposing
um to connect there are segments of sidewalks along the frontage. We are proposing to install uh sidewalk to connect those segments so that you have continuous sidewalk. All of which is done in compliance with uh DOT standards. >> Thank you.
I have traffic comments. I guess you're going to have a traffic engineer. >> Well, we we weren't going to present unless there was any questions that we had bring him up for. Uh >> I bring it up now or >> Yeah, if Andrew can answer it and if not, then we can bring up the traffic engineer. So, uh, so I have some comments in my letter with regard to
the, uh, jug handle at 33 in Pinville and Prodalyn Way and the maneuvering of tractor trailers through that jug handle. Um, can you elaborate uh, any meetings with the DOT and uh, if there's going to be improvements to that jug handle to accommodate the tractor
trailers? >> I think it's Glennus to allow our traffic engineer to to speak to this. >> Okay. Yeah. Could we swear him in now and have them answer the questions? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> If you could raise your right hand.
Perfect. 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, for the record. >> Eric Valoria. Vas Victor. I L O R I A um 1 University Square Drive Sweet 1110 in
Princeton, New Jersey. And Eric, if you could provide your credentials, please. >> Yeah, I'm a traffic engineer with Langan Engineering. Um I've been preparing traffic impact studies for well over 12 years now. Um specifically in the state of New Jersey. Um, I've been in front of
this board before and um, I'm glad to be back and yeah, my license is in good standing. >> Okay, accepted. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, regarding the jug handle, um, as Andrew had mentioned already, we do have a NJ DOT minor access permit that is
currently being reviewed. Um as part of that we um looked and as part of our traffic impact study that we conducted we looked at the product and way jug handle connection and we analyzed that too. We also coordinated with DOT and
found out that there is an active um permit that is being looked at for improvements at that intersection for an adjacent development um in the area that is significantly improving the intersection specifically with the jug handle. They're widening the opening to
allow for the trucks to maneuver and make their way into the left turn lane unlike their current situation where they are utilizing the existing lanes. That being said, in the current condition, this site being such a a
smaller warehouse um is going to look at um generating about two exiting trucks per hour, which on average is one to one every 30 minutes utilizing that intersection, which can as it's in its current condition make the turn, but it
will during that period have to utilize the two lanes. That being said, the the permit that is being reviewed by DOT is anticipated to be approved and those um con or those improvements will be constructed. >> You anticipate those improvements to be
complete uh by the time assuming you get approved here by the time your warehouse is complete? >> At this time, we're we're not we don't know where their uh review stands when it comes to being constructed, but uh we we're not aware. >> Thank you. Uh I would just ask uh that
if there is additional NJ DOT meetings uh with regard to the jug handle that you're part of that um that you invite uh me and uh and and the township to attend those meetings um so we can uh you know so they so they can hear it from us looking for.
>> Thank you. Um, jumping back to my letter. Uh, let's see with regard to some of the variances. Um, give you a little bit of the history of this. As as the, uh, the attorney had spoke about, um, this originally was designed, the warehouse was flipped the
other way where the, uh, all all the doors, the tractor trailer doors were facing Route 33. that that eliminated or or it did not generate some of these variances that they're asking for. Now, in uh in some of the TRC meetings, we we
discussed um flipping the building so that uh all the tractor trailers and the doors were not on top of 33 and they were facing toward the wooded area um and uh and would not be an eyes sore to for route 33. So in turn and and and due
to the um configuration of the existing lots sort of like a triangular shape area and those restrictions when they flip the building to uh move the tractor trailers away from 33 that sort of triggered some of these variances. Um
they they are accommodating the landscape buffer by additional trees and providing that though the setback is is 80 feet as opposed to the 100. Um but but they are uh you know adding additional trees to offset that. Uh some
of the parking and and I'll let our planner talk on it. I obviously um some of the parking stall that the engineer said from a standpoint of storm water uh management it reduces the uh the impervious area. Uh just one comment uh re one question retail there's no
proposed retail where the public would be coming to this facility. >> No. >> Thank you. So, so with that, uh, again, I have I have no objection to the parking stall sizes and the reduced number of parking. Um, I think that's all I have at this point.
>> Thank you, Chris. Anything? >> Thank you. Uh, Chris Stocky from Arthon. Our planning reviewer, updated planning review letter, was issued on Monday, which was April 20th. Want to quickly go over a couple of things just to list them neatly in order here. The variances
required are there's 151 parking spaces proposed 147 plus the four credits they get for the EV spaces whereas 202 are required. Um I don't have any objection to that. If the the testimony we heard before is
they estimate what was I think 75 or so employees max per shift then 150 or 140 parking spaces should be enough to cover even two shifts coming at the same time. variance for the size of the parking space as Mark just said 9 by8 instead of 10 x 20. I don't have any objection to
that. Another variance for the parking being within 30 ft of the outer walls of a structure in order to provide access to all the buildings in case of fire emergency. Uh again, I would defer to the fire official there and they apparently have no take no issue there. The tractor trailer parking they're required we had calculated 28. I believe
they had said 29 and they're at 27. Again, that's I don't have a problem there. They're only off by one or two. Variance is required for the height of the fence because they have it on top of a small retaining wall which triggers the variance there. For safety purposes, I have no objection to that. And
finally, the variance for the width of the buffer along the frontage where 100 ft is required. They are down to 80 to the building and 50 if you include the drive aisle. Uh, and I really have no objection to that. That was their initial design, their initial design. They did have the full buffer, but we
had actually asked them at the TRC to flip the building to get the loading in the rear. So, that's not facing the right way, but that did trigger moving the building forward a little bit. I do also have to note there there's a little bit of a um quirk in your code and that the actual building setback that's required is only 60 ft, but a 100 foot
buffer is required. So, hypothetically speaking, they could put the building at 60 ft and not require a variance for the building, but would require a variance for the buffer. Then a few questions here just to make sure you're you're okay with everything that was in our review letter. So we're we're clear on what we had asked.
Um we have a note here about the tree replacement calculations. You would revise those but you didn't revise any of the details on sheet LD 100. Would you make sure you revise your details to be consistent with your tree calculations? >> We will. I think it actually puts us at less dollars.
>> All right. And there's not going to be any like permanent storage of materials outside. It's just going to be the trucks that are coming to load, unload, and then uh temporary storage of a tractor trailer will park for maybe a day or so, but not not permanent truck parking here. Okay. Thank you. Uh we'd
requested that you increase the height of the dumpster enclosure fence from four 4 and 1/2 ft to 5T. Do you have any issue with that? >> No. >> Thank you. Uh your signs, you're okay. And I think you had touched on this, but maybe I didn't catch all of it. Mechanical equipment, is there going to
be any on the roof of the building? Yes. >> Yes. >> And it'll be adequately screened by by a parapit or set back far enough that you won't see it from the road. >> Correct. >> All right. And then the other mechanical equipment is in the rear of the site, it looks like. Okay. Um discussed
operations, the trucks, lighting fixtures. And just to be clear, since we had made it a recommendation on our letter to have the lighting levels dimmed during non-operational hours, your testimony was you prefer not to dim the lights or that you just don't want to turn them off entirely. Just so we're clear there.
>> Um, repeat that. Sorry. >> Oh, our review letter, we recommend lighting levels be dimmed during nonoperational hours. Do you have any objection to dimming the lights later at night and so that they're still there for safety purposes or you want to keep them >> fully operational 24/7 if there's a 24/7
tenant? >> Yeah, I think that's the issue is that we don't it's a prospective tenant. We don't know what their needs are going to be. I think that if ultimately there's a way that it makes sense for there to be a dimming, they would do that, but it depends really on what the tenant demand is. >> Okay. So, you're requesting that waiver
then? Definitely. Okay. Well, just can we would the applicant be amendable too if they got attendant in who didn't require 24/7 operation to dimming the lights during non-operational hours? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Uh I don't think I have any additional questions or comments. They've otherwise addressed everything that was in our
reports. Um and you have the six variances we just went over in the the waiver for the lighting. >> I'm going to open up to the members of the board. Um, this was approved by the zoning board
ways back. So, in uh what year? 2014. Is this building the same uh footprint or is it smaller than the original uh approved warehouse? Is this larger?
>> No. In in just for corre clarification, in 2012, the zoning board approved a use variance for a retail center and they partially constructed the parking lot area of that retail center. Um this there was not a previous approval for a warehouse.
>> Oh, okay. And um you said there's going to be an office area. Do you know where where is it going to be? And do you have a handicap parking spot for like >> you know employees for the office? >> Correct. We are showing two two 2500 square foot
offices at opposing corners of the building which is also where we are placing um our ADA compliant or handicap parking stalls. Um so they are at both offices. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes.
>> Anyone else? at this point. >> Thank you. How many more witnesses do you have? >> Two. I have my architect real quick and then the planner to wrap up. >> Okay. Once all the witnesses um come up and speak um and the professionals in the board ask questions, then we'll open up the public for everyone.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh then next I will call up our architect, David Schmalt. Good evening, sir. If you could 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, for the record. David Schmalc, S
C M- AUK, 2330 Geneva Avenue, Glennside, Pennsylvania. >> And David, could you give the board your credentials, please? >> Yes. I have a Bachelor of Architecture from the Pennsylvania State University. Uh, I've practiced architecture for 26
years, um, and CARB certified, registered and in good standing in the state of New Jersey along with uh, six other states. >> Thank you. Cuz thank you. And David, if you could just uh describe the building from an architectural perspective. >> Yeah, this is going to be relatively concise because everyone already said
things that I was going to say tonight, I think. Um, the one thing that actually hasn't hasn't come up, which I think is interesting, is it's worth considering, we've all driven down, you know, highways and seen warehouses and, you know, 500,000 square feet of frontage
parallel to the street. In this case, the building's at a 45 degree angle to uh Route 33. So, it really has as minimum as a visual impact as it could possibly have. And I think that's um a really nice a site placement and should
be uh should be um noticed. The um the two corners or the corner of the building that uh faces directly is parallel to 33 is a chamered edge and it is actually it's not the image that we're looking at here, but it's uh directly adjacent to it. That's actually
the shortest face of the building. Uh this is the this is a view through the entrance to the building into the uh the main entrance. Uh the main entrance uh along with the chamfered corner uh are the two portions that would be mostly visible by from 33. Although as we've
talked about before once the vegetation matures they should be largely not that visible. They have uh full height glass and spandrel glass. They have uh canopies at the corners here landscaping at the entrance and uh stone accents.
the stone accent water table at the uh at the entrance here as well. Um >> just for the record, what is the marking on that exhibit? >> This is A3. We said >> A3. Yes. Um
we um we do have one area of relief that we are requesting um and that is ordinance section 108-6.18.1 section 1. uh and that's in HD zones that there be a unified commercial village that they be a unified
commercial village with a single architectural motif consistent with um with the characteristics of the surrounding uh resident res residential neighborhoods. We understand that in this type of construction that's something that's often not enforced. And again, I just wanted to point out that
the visual impact of this building from the public right away is limited by the due to the building placement and the uh the buffer and the uh plings that are going to take place. Uh just to hit on another couple points, all of which have already been said. Um
from Route 33, we do have an exhibit. But I don't know if we need to show it or not, but we do have an exhibit that demonstrates that the mechanical units are not visible. They're set back far enough that they're not visible. >> That's exhibit A6 to my So they're right. >> Okay. So to your right, exhibit A6, uh
shows that the mechanical units are not visible from Route 33. Um the building heights, again, we've talked about this already, but it is 45 ft at the highest point to the roof and uh 41 feet on the other side of the building. So they are
all in conformance and um building and uh we talked about the two corners of the building which have a speculative space that we've currently assigned of 2500 square ft for offices on either side of the building. Of course that's speculative. Uh but there's room in
this. We've we've assumed space for two two offices. >> All right. Thank you David. But I have no more questions of him >> from our professionals, Mark or Chris. >> Just one brief comment. I I never thought I'd hear an architect say that it's a good thing that a lot of your
building won't be visible from the streets. That's interesting. >> I thank you for that that that honest testimony that the landscape screening will help screen the building. But otherwise, it's okay if you have some pride in your work and you want everybody to see it.
>> Nice. Anybody? >> No other comments or questions? I have a quick question. Is that the name Monroe Logistics Center? Is that what that's going to be called? Could you add Township in there? Monroe Township because there's another Monroe in in New
Jersey. >> So, I want to see Monroe Township >> getting data centers >> in the title. >> Okay. >> I like >> I would like to see that. Thank you. >> Anybody else?
>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Um, after seeing the the displays here, is there any anticipated remediation uh needed on any of the uh blocking lots? >> Thank you. >> Anyone else hearing? None. Then you can call your
final witness. Okay. Thank you. I will call Shawn Moransky, our planner. Evan, if you could grab the microphone so we can hear you when you talk. >> Yeah. >> Super. Uh, if you could raise your right hand, 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, for the record. >> Sean SASky M O R O N S KI Lang Engineering and Environmental Services, 300 Kimble Drive, Arcipity, New Jersey. >> Uh, Sean, if you could provide your
credentials, please. Sure. Um, I'm a master of urban planning from New York University, uh, New Jersey licensed professional planner since the year 2000. License is current and in good standing. Member of the American Institute of Certified Planner since 1999.
I've been qualified before many boards in this area and throughout the state. Um, the last time I was in Monroe was when we were all meeting online, so this is my first time actually being in the building. >> Thank you. So, >> welcome. >> Your credentials are accepted. >> Thank you.
>> Sean, if you could just walk through the planning testimony in support of our variances. >> Sure. >> U I'll start I'll broadly speak about the variances that I and then I'll go into specifics. I believe that can be granted obviously under the C2 justification
where the benefits of the overall project which have been discussed by our professionals and the applicant um outweigh the deviations. many of which were um due to recommendations to make the design better whether it's
aesthetically or functionally speaking and in overall enhancing this site. We also have um I believe in the C1C an extraordinary exceptional situation. Um we have a flood hazard area. We have significant um significant wetlands uh
letter of interpretation that was approved for this site. I think all these factors uh combined with the uh unique shape, the somewhat triangular shape of the site um all contribute um
to the conditions where in in an attempt to get the most efficient design possible that the that we're seeking the variances. I'll start with the 100 foot minimum buffer from the right ofway. We're proposing 80 ft, but it's only a
small part of the length of the buffer. At most, approximately 200 feet, probably less of the buffer. Um there is an encroachment. Uh but the buffer itself, as has been discussed in testimony, um substantially enhanced
with landscaping, more plantings than trees that are being removed. and over a period of time as was noted um in the renderings and in the plans that the there will be a substantial landscape screen. Um, also even with that minor 20
foot encroachment, you're able to have a site design that provides 360° circulation around the building, a placement of the um of the loading docks that is away from Route 33 toward the um
the wooded area in the southwest part of the site. Um, terms of the number of parking stalls, 202 required, 151 proposed, that's the 147 plus the four PV credit spaces. Um, the traffic impact
study um, indicates the peak parking demand is around 54 cars. A further testimony talked about that even if there were three shifts uh you would be talking potent a maximum of 75 employees that even when you had changes in shifts
there's more than sufficient parking um to address uh concerns about the capacity of the parking lot. Uh the parking stalls uh we're proposing 9 by8 which is much more common. You see it in residential site improvement standards.
It's more more common than other other dimensions. I understand the concern with retail with constant inn and out carts that type of thing. We don't have that here for the most part. If cars are coming here, they're coming because they're employed here. They'll stay here. They might leave once or twice
during the day, but that the circulation is not uh constant uh constant in that sense. So the 9 by18 spaces in addition to uh minimizing the impervious coverage are certainly adequate for efficient circulation. Uh the no parking permitted
uh within 30 ft of the outer walls. Uh we're parked within 5 ft. Again that brings the parking closer uh concerns um certainly with the handicapped accessible spaces not having a great distance but also all of the parking.
And if you had the 30 ft, you would potentially spread things out, encro potentially encroaching into more sensitive environmental areas. Um I believe at 5t we're talking about a more efficient design. Uh the trailer stalls,
the number we're providing, uh 29 we're um 29 is required, 27 proposed. Um the trailer parking is operationally efficient. Uh we have more than a 1:1 ratio of trailer stalls to loading docks. And again there's the question of
additional uh coverage and we have existing site constraints where we want to minimize encroachment into sensitive areas. And then the the maximum six excuse me uh the sixt high fence from the ground. Uh we're proposing the top
from the top of the retaining wall. When you measure from the ground that's 14 1/2 ft. That's at the back side of the trailer parking stalls. Um it it's about safety. um if you're greater than 2 and 1/2 ft, you have to comply with the international building code um requiring
fall protection. And just from a practical safety point of view, um it it it makes sense uh at this location uh to have that fence. Uh we advanced several purposes of zoning uh purpose a uh promoting uh the public health, safety,
and general welfare. We're allowing for the development of a site that's remained dormant despite the approvals in 2012. Uh this design balances the warehouse design needs with environmental considerations. Um the net reduction in imperous
coverage uh by 2.5 acres and vehicular pavement by 4.1 acres. Um we're reduced by reducing the impervious coverage um securing safety reducing the impact um potentially from flooding with less impervious coverage also promoting the
conservation of open space. uh purpose eye promoting desirable visual environment uh good civic design arrangement. Uh that speaks to the configuration of the loading docks not facing Route 33. Uh through our uh
professionals working with your your professionals and coming up with a solution that minimizes the aesthetic uh the aesthetic and functional concerns and to purpose M to encourage coordination of procedures and
activities shaping land development for more efficient use of the land. This application um is symbolic using using the area within that tight envelope um minimizing or where possible eliminating impacts on sensitive environmental
areas. There's no substantial detriment to the public good. I mentioned about we're replacing a dilapidated site with a new design. We're maintaining drainage patterns and meeting the applicable storm water regulations. Uh the lighting will meet the regulations with no spillover to adjacent properties. The
sites being designed to NJ do standards with minor access permitting pending. The car parking spaces are an effective size. They meet circulation standards. Uh the parking distance um by the 5- foot separation
um is is safe. Um there are robust sight safety fight fire features um that will minimize that risk. The trailer parking and the car parking are sufficiently segregated will not cause queuing. So you will have minimal interaction mainly
at the at the driveway entrance uh to the site. There's no substantial impairment to the land development ordinance or the zoning plan reconditional use in this district. We meet the condition of having the frontage along Route 33. And in terms of goal number two of your
master plan, promoting industrial development in appropriate areas of the township, uh meeting your conditional use requirements, um the nature of the variances, taking into account the need for efficient industrial site design with addressing environmental concerns
certainly is consistent with goal number two. Uh we have the design waiver requests of the light level um 75% of the average level the lighting as testified to by our engineer provides the necessary visibility in the parking
lot and the the lower light levels than what your um site plan regulations would require. They reduce any risk of of lighting spillover. And with regards to the design um of the site as a united
commercial village, um our architect noted um this is not typical for this type of industrial project being a class A warehouse um in terms of design features. He noted the building, but also the landscape
features that over the long term are going to provide certainly a more beneficial and more aesthetically pleasing frontage and the literal enforcement of these um requirements is really impracticable given the isolated
nature of the lot, the landscape burm and so for the reasons that I've outlined and request you grant the relief we requested. Thank you, >> Sean. Just one question. Um, you had talked about the purposes being advanced under the MLUL. You identified purposes
A, B, I, J, and M. I just want to clarify that, uh, you do believe that those purposes being advanced, those benefits advance, um, substantially outweigh any potential detriments. >> Yes, they do. >> All right. No further questions. >> Thank you, Chris. Any comments?
>> Uh, no. I don't think I have no objection to the testimony provided. >> Thank you, Mark. I open it to the porch. >> Quick question with the wetlands and the flood hazard. Uh the lights issue. Um you said there's no lighting spill over
into would it be into that area because my concern is about the wildlife and the lights being on. Well, and is there a possibility for motion sensor lights? I know it's a crazy question, but uh I
>> and I'll let the engineer answer in a second. One thing I'll say is because we've encountered the motion sensor issue and it goes back to the dimming. One is, you know, it will depend on the ultimate tenant and what their needs are. But you also want to watch out with the level of dimming of the on and off because sometimes it gives that kind of
strobe effect which is actually more impactful to the area than if the the lights are because again as our engineer testified, we're dark sky compliant. Um you know, we do minimize the light impact. So, I just want to point that out, but I'll let our engineer answer that question.
>> Um, so specific to where the light um spills over to it, it's generally contained within the development footprint. So, which is limited to the constrained areas, meaning we're not proposing light spill over generally speaking into >> they're going to be directly down like >> Yeah, they're downward facing dark sky
compliant light fix light fixtures. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Any other witnesses, council? >> No further witnesses. Okay, I'm going to open it up to the public. If anyone wishes to be heard, they can come forward.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my name is George Conman 5 Court Monroe. >> Hold on. >> Councilman, if I could just have you raise your right hand. Do you swear that any uh comments you provide will be the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> And state your name and address? George
Gungkelman, five Kelly Court, Monroe Township. >> Thank you. >> Um, I would like to stay in state that I'm in support of the project. I think it's a a good use. Um, but I have a
couple of questions. Um, who would be the builder here? Is uh is the developer self-performing or do they contract out? In other words, who would township officials be interacting with
during the construction? Um, let me go through my questions and they can res answer them when I'm done. Um, you know, so and if if they're going to have a a contractor built for them, the
question is uh how will the township interact with the owner developer? If is there going to be someone on the site, if there's an issue uh with the contractor that is there, uh who will they resolve that with?
You know, there's going to be work at the curb on the on the highway. So, there's going to be police requirements and that has to be coordinated smoothly. Obviously, um
I have a question about the the the water issues. They said there going to be two wells, one for fire and one uh for for potable use. Um question is
uh have the wells been identified? Do do we do we know uh what the gallon per minute their system? They've said there's going to be a water tower there. So, the replenishment of the water in that tower and a related question is
what type of sprinklers are being used. Um, and which has a lot to do with the volume of water required. Uh typically warehouses in modern times are ESFR systems which are high volume which
basically means the fire department doesn't need to go in to suppress a fire which is a safety issue. Uh can an unknown we don't know yet what kind of materials are going to be in there. So that's a question. So, um, and as far as
the potable water, um, uh, we don't know if they're going to find a source that has, uh, the correct quality. Typically, uh, that's a a struggle. Our our own
water department struggles and and our potable water comes from very deep sources. Uh, one of the things that wasn't mentioned during all the discussion is location of dumpsters on the site and how they're going to be screened or not
screened or where they're going to be. Um, and and I think that that's um the the only questions I had at this. >> Thank you. And I saw Mr. Fiori taking notes. So, do you have all the questions?
>> Yes, sir. Okay. >> I don't want to enter to answer water. I can handle. Okay. GC. >> Go ahead. >> Owner developer. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um, so as far as general contractor >> microphone, >> sorry. >> Uh, as far as general contractor goes,
uh, we are a developer. We typically hire a general contractor to build the building. Um, the contractors that we use are national name brand GC's. Um, the most qualified in in the country in my opinion. Um, as far as our
involvement during construction, I mentioned we are a completely vertically integrated company with in-house acquisitions, development, asset management, property management. I sit on the development team. Uh, within our development team, we have in-house
construction professionals who will be responsible for overseeing the GC. we will be directly involved throughout throughout the development the construction of the building. Um I'm not going anywhere. The township can find me. Uh there will be representatives
from my team on site weekly. Um we will be part of the construction of the project. >> And Andrew, if you could answer the uh questions regarding the water and uh the dumpster, go through the dumpster location again.
Uh so there's two wells fire and domestic >> how many gallons remain >> what could you just repeat the question about the wells you you were concerned about the size or or just like the >> so we can we've >> what is the the gallon per minute
required to make the system because obviously you've designed a water tower which is assuming a certain uh amount of capacity capacity and and assuming also a recharge capacity of that uh in the
case of of a fire. So how many gallons per minute do you need from that from a well to make the the entire system uh viable as a fire suppression system? >> So as far as that domestic well goes that's a low capacity well there there's
not a ton of occupancy as far as the warehouse goes. As far as the firewater well goes, the intent is the tank is servicing the sprinkler system. The well is simply to replenish the tank in the event there is a is a fire occurrence within the building.
>> We're not drawing from the well to feed the sprayers. >> You don't need to replenish it during a fire. >> No, that the tank alone is going to be sufficient for this determined size fire. Correct. in a building of 147,000
square feet. >> That's the intent. Yes. >> And And how many gallons is that? >> 150,000 approximately. >> Okay. And if if the entire building was under fire and all these ESFR sprinklers
were open, how how long would it take for that to to be used up? >> I don't know the answer to that. >> Thank you. Let me ask this question. This is designed and in compliance with all fire codes, correct?
>> Yes. I mean, the the MEP systems haven't been formally designed just yet, but the the tank size is estimated based on the size of the building, which is what we're here seeking land use approval for, is the the size and the location of of the tank.
>> Understood. Um the only thing I would say in addition to that is at some point um >> George talking to the miners >> at at some point the near completion please invite our fire officials in uh
to show them the system so they know what they're going to be going into in the case of of an event. Yeah, we we will pull through applicable permits from from fire and sub code officials, you know, during and prior uh excuse me, prior and during uh construction.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, additionally on that, our fire officials have to sign off on the construction permits as well. So, they'll be reviewing that as well as, you know, having the opportunity to see it after it's constructed. when they'll
get the design ahead of >> Good evening. Do you swear any testimony you're going to provide is 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 record. >> Michelle Arminio. A R M I N IO 9
Nathaniel Street. Um I understand that this this land is in a water and sewer a public water and sewer area. Is that correct? It's zoned for that. >> Yes, this is in the sewer service area.
>> Okay. So, do we have any issues with septic and well in water service areas? is there >> if if we could just answer there. Can you some clarity on that real quick? Can you just speak to that >> here? You can use this. >> I'm not going to use >> sorry just speak to why we're doing well
septic. >> So, as as Mr. Pharaoh mentioned, this site is within the sewer service. It's mapped within the sewer service area. However, >> no. Um there is not public water or sewer uh I believe within a mile or a mile and a
half of the site publicly made uh available utilities which is why we're we're proposing on-site solutions for both water and sewer there and there's no issue installing a septic within a site that's mapped as
within the sewer service area if that was your question. >> It that was the question. Okay. And when the time comes for when when ultimately so water will probably come down the road. I I don't know where it is located at this point. Um will the township will
the uh project be hooking up with that? And who will pay? Well, sometimes we have the developers pay for the water and sewer links as they come down the road and sometimes they don't. the township ends up paying for it. That's
my concern when I know it's septic and well at this point. I'm talking about maybe the near future, not I mean >> I'll speak on behalf of the applicant in the event water and sewer becomes publicly available in close proximity to
our site. We will connect to publicly available utilities. >> Okay. >> As to timing that that's not up to us. Well, actually the question is not necessarily connecting because I know most people are sort of compelled to connect once once it gets down there.
I'm talking about the cost from a reasonable place to the site rather than the taxpayers pay the pay the movement. I'm sorry. >> Fair share contribution. >> Okay. Oh, so the fair. Okay. Well,
someone can answer that. Fair share contribution. I I think the bottom line is whatever they're legally obligated to do and comply with as far as paying for connecting, they will do that. But it's a matter of we don't know when the line's going to be extended down our way. When it is, it makes more sense for the project to be connected at that point. And if whatever they have to pay
for connection fees, they would do. >> Well, sometimes the legal, and this is my personal comment, sometimes the the legal aspect doesn't consider the taxpayers. So, that's fine. um the brook the buffer to the brook how much how much buffer is there around the brook
and I know in your documents it says that you're not the project is not near um environmental things but is there a buffer between the brook and everything else >> there are various buffers uh which are
regulated by NJD and and the canal commission off of Bentley Brook >> and is any of the groundwater discharge going into the brook or how approximately >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? >> Are they done?
>> Um the uh the groundwater discharge from the basins and other places, the parking lot, anywhere else. How close is that to the brook? >> The storm water facilities discharge to Bentley Brook >> into the brook. >> Yes. It's where it goes today.
And that that includes >> okay the storm water dischar so >> so salt salt and and >> we are the storm water is cleaned before it's discharged there's the 80% t total suspended solids TSS removal requirement to provide water quality st to meet
water quality standards for storm water before it discharges your site um to that end the water that would discharge from our site regardless of where it goes is treated to an 80% % level. >> Okay. And is there any um enforcement or
regulation or review of that as the project goes on and or when it's finished that the water remains I mean it's a brook. >> Well, so the project requires not only uh municipal approvals but it requires approvals from NJ which will include
stormwater management review and compliance. Okay. And um let's see. So I guess and I guess the the jug handle situation is sort of up in the air at this point. That's it might be widened because that is a tough that's a
tough turn for cars >> to get into the left lane to get into the right lane even. Some of the cars have to back up and go around just to get in. So I mean that has to be changed. before before we see big traffic there.
>> I think the applicant's testimony was that there's another project that is before the D that's most likely going to result in an improvement to that junk handle in intersection. >> Most likely no guarantees. >> I've learned in life that unless the D's approved it, I'm not going to say that it's guaranteed. And even then, you're
never sure. So, >> well, it would be guaranteed that those trucks would have a serious problem if it's not changed. I mean, that is a guarantee because like I said, just right now the the cars can barely make that turn. I think there's two cars at
the light in the left lane and a third car coming in to try to turn has difficulty getting into the lane. And it seems like I would imagine all the trucks are going to be or for the most part going back to the turnpike rather than going east. They'll probably be
going west. I think that is what is going to occur with respect to this. I don't think there's traffic that's going to leave here and go east. I don't think there's no I think I think I think the applicants materials that they submitted in connection with their application indicated and an assumption that most of the truck traffic would be going
westbound uh ultimately from this site >> and can one more question. What is the size of the trucks anticipated? Are these big 12wheelers? >> I'm not gonna answer that question. >> That that'll ultimately be dependent on the antennant. However, uh the site's
designed to accommodate a title 39 uh >> and that and that is translated into >> 53 ft uh trailer >> tractor trailer. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, can I jump in on this intersection improvement? There is a lot of development in the area across the street. I'm aware of this the entire
intersection Pinville Proud Way and 33. it's going to see some significant changes out there and improvements um through another developer who's who's on the uh north side of 33. Um so so that is coming. I I I know the it's
complicated because it's two counties we're dealing with. Middle Sex County, Mammoth County, state of New Jersey, Monroe Township, Milstone. So So it so it is tricky, but you know, there is another developer on the hook. uh I don't know the contribution breakdown so this applicant may be you know on the
hook for a contribution towards that that that's really through the state but but there are plans and you know there will be improvements coming there it's really just a matter of the timing um you know and how how fast it happens >> and that's why I wanted to be part of any any DOT meetings that this applicant
has and and and you know we've said it for everybody on 33 we want to be part of the state meetings to to make sure everything's in sync together. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Azimo. It's I think it's important because when we talk about the public good and you know the quality of
the applicant improving for the public good, that's a serious that would be a serious impact negatively if that doesn't happen against the public good. There'll be a lot of accidents there. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Anyone else from the public that want to come come forward? >> Hearing none. Is there a motion to close the public portion of this application? >> Second. >> Motion. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Um, do you want to wrap up?
>> I'll just say in conclusion, thank you for your time this evening. Um, I hope we've uh answered any questions you have. Um we're really excited and looking forward to moving along with this project and we would uh hope that you would uh act favorably tonight on on our application. Thank
>> Okay. Um is there a motion to be made with respect to this application? Main. >> Mr. Chairman, I would move uh that the board approve this application with the conditions as indicated and agreed to by
the applicant. Um, and uh, overall I uh, like uh, a lot of what I've heard. It seems like the applicant has spent a lot of time over the last year working with the boards. >> Okay, we'll get into discussion. We just want to formulate the motion first. So,
>> I move, as I said, I move to uh, approve the application with the condition. >> Um, and there's another another condition that the name change include township. >> Right. >> Okay. If if I may modify your application, they're asking for
preliminary and final, and this board has always done preliminary when we first have an application. So, I would recommend that we do as a preliminary for a preliminary approval and then come
back later for a final approval or final discussion. >> Mr. Rasmos, >> Mr. chairman. Um, as as it's been testified and as Mr. Rothman even pointed out or uh Mr. Weiner, you know, this application goes back, you know,
quite a ways a year. Um, there's been a um there's been changes that they've elected to make to come before this board with the application the way it's been. It was originally fully designed with the warehouse 180 degrees the other way. They redesigned it um based on some
suggestions that we provided and they're before this board. Um the site has an has an approval that it's partially under construction uh and and the construction stops. So it if they showed up for retail, it' be an amended site
plan and uh so uh but having said that they're they've added properties and they're with a warehouse. So it's a it's considered a new site plan application. I'm I'm comfortable if this board chooses to do amended uh I'm sorry to do preliminary and final major site plan uh
tonight. >> Um they have they have got a lot of their outside agency approvals already. So they have done that where um you know and I know the practice Mr. Rothman as as you point out we've had applicants that haven't even gone to any of the
outside agencies or even had discussions and this applicant has has got their approvals on on most all of them. So >> understand, but we have uh 13 uh anticipated outside uh agency approvals. I don't know that they've had all 13.
Have they? >> We do not. >> Not not all 13. >> Um I'm Look, I think this is an excellent application between giving us fewer parking spaces than required. Flip the building so the parking's in the
back. That's why it's 80 rather than 100. no unreasonable variances. Um, uh, let's see, uh, substantial landscape, uh, uh, screening blocking it from the street. And they even agreed to the
request to make it Monroe Township rather than Monroe. I'm good with this, but I'm still saying, do we want to have that little space in the event that something comes up from one of those agencies that has a minor change? Do we not want to have
that little bit of space to be able to review it? Uh I see this as a very favorable application. Uh a great addition to Monroe quite frankly, but that's what I'm leaning on. Give ourselves that little space. I
>> I guess my response to that, Mr. Rothman, would be that if if outside agency approval resulted in a change to their plan, they'd need to come back because they'd be changing their plan. So, if they go through outside agency approval and secure the remainder of the approvals um and it doesn't result in a
change in the plan, then it's going to be what you've already seen. If not, they're going to come back and they'll need to tweak their plan for you so that they can address that. Um, you know, typically when we bring someone back on final, there are items open that we would like to see. They're going to change the parking. They're going to do
something significant. You say, "We want to see those plans. We want our professionals to see those plans." I don't think this application has any of those. uh types of concerns that you would typically have. >> I I don't disagree. I'm just saying this has been the tradition I've seen in this on this board for decades.
>> Well, understood, but there's a motion that was made. And Mr. Weiner, do you want to amend your motion to include preliminary and final? >> Uh yeah, I believe the application was for preliminary and final. So, I was my motion was to approve the full
application as as applied for. Um, and I would just uh as a caveat to our council, my understanding and if I'm wrong and for the edification for everyone is that those things such as the outside agency approvals would be conditions of
approval regardless. So they're not going to complete their project, get their building permits, cos unless all of those approvals would come in after the fact in any event. So there's still that little bit of buffer or gap as as Mr. Roin was talking about. Um but
>> so that's the purpose and in light of what Mr. Rasimovic uh indicated um and council that it seems like this is the type of a application where there's no glaring need to come back uh for additional review of plans which is why
my motion was uh for both preliminary and final. >> Okay. And is there a second Mr. Weiner's motion? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion on the motion pending? As long as they add township,
m Mr. Chairman, >> I I promise to make that that update. >> Thank you. >> You don't have to promise that's going to be in the resolution. >> Location, location, location. >> I promise. You know my address. I'm not very far. >> Can you clarify? The other the other Monroe is a Monroe Township. Can you
clar Monroe Township, not Williamstown or Gloucester County? >> Monroe Township. >> Not Williamstown or Gloucester County. All all that in the title. >> It's a very long name. Mr. Chairman, just clarify this includes the bulk variances as well. Correct. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> And Mr. Chairman, the one thing I was starting to say before when I moved on the uh motion was just simply I wanted to from my among all the aspects of this, I appreciated uh the applicant as I said working with
our staff for uh a long time over this application as well as uh what they're doing with regard to impervious coverage uh that uh in that they're trying to attenuate it and um I
also the uh angling of the building I think uh gives a uh a visual aspect that I think is beneficial. Um rather than traffic driving by and seeing a broad side of a warehouse type structure, >> it attenuates it, sets it back and it
makes it at least more visually pleasing which I think is something that is beneficial as well. >> Good. >> Thank you. Any other discussion? Then I think we can put it to vote.
>> Vice Chairman Rothman. >> Well, I was about to abstain because of the preliminary only, but since David is a graduate of Penn State and my son is a graduate of Penn State, I've got to go with yes.
>> Miss Baratsky. >> Yes. >> Mr. Manesh Patel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Damiani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Slavichek. >> Yes. >> Mr. Weiner. >> Yes. >> Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey. >> Yes. >> Okay. The motion passes. >> Thank you very much board. We really
appreciate that. >> Thank you everyone. >> You got it. >> Just wait for a minute and then we'll continue. Yeah. Okay. Moving down on the agenda. Uh there is no resolutions to be adopted.
I'm going to open up the public portion for any other issue other than the application. Does anybody from the public wish to be heard? Armeno9 Nathaniel Street. Um on the agenda it says that the next there's going to be a discussion about
the affordable housing ordinance. Now is an action may be taken. Is that going to be a hearing on that particular or >> we're going to move to that is that's the next agenda item and we're going to have Chris discuss that and if you have questions after that you can
>> okay because that would that would be uh you know I didn't know if it would be closed to the public comment after that discussion because it doesn't say >> just sit there >> just sit there >> that's going to be quick >> it's the next item unless there's another member of the public who wants to come up and offer
>> correct if if anyone else I anyone >> then then I'm going to keep the public portion open until after the discussion item and then I'll close it >> when you're going to have a public portion for the discussion item to close this public. >> Okay, then we'll close this public portion. Move to close this public
portion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> Okay, then the discussion item is is as Michelle indicated, review and recommendation of ordinance number 0-4-2026-007. Chris, do you want to address this? >> Yes. This one is relatively simple. This
is very minor changes to your existing VC2, the village center overlay within the HD highway development district. Uh this is I I guess and I wasn't behind the the drafting of this, so I don't know its origins necessarily, but appear it's very minor changes on one particular block and lot within that
district for block 4, lot 14.01 01 to make minor amendments to permit the projects that were proposed as part of your housing plan. So this is to ensure that the uh affordable housing inclusionary developments in that area that come before this board eventually assuming a developer wants to move
forward would be by applications which is required under the fair housing act to comply with your affordable housing obligations. uh as well as the uh agreements that were recently approved by the court and with Fairshair Housing Center to uh lift a few requirements. One is
that the uh residential dwellings be 500 ft from Route 33. That won't apply to this particular piece of property. They can they could have houses a little bit closer to the to the highway so they could fit them in and get the unit count that the developer needs in order to get the affordable housing units on site the township needs to meet its obligations.
The other minor requirement is the landscape buffering requirements are repealed from that particular piece of property and that an access road be permitted where previously it was not permitted uh subject to approval by NJ DOT at least. That is uh that being said the
the purpose of this review we're not going over any actual development application. We're not looking at the specifics of a of a site plan or a subdivision there. This is your role as the planning board to determine whether or not you feel this ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with your master plan. As I just said, this is
completely to um implement specifically the projects as called for in your housing element and fair share plan, which is uh deacto an element of your master plan. So this I would find this this is consistent with the master plan because this is to advance the projects as proposed as as your housing plan that
was adopted by this board just a couple of months ago that uh Avakian came Christine came and presented to you. Uh so that being said your role here is to find consistent or inconsistent with the master plan and my recommendation is that this is consistent with the master plan but also you can provide any any comments back to the governing body as
as you see fit. Uh I don't necessarily have any comments. uh if you do, you can enter that into your motion or any resolution, but the the primary purpose is the consistency or inconsistency with the master plan. And I I don't know if I can be any more clear. This is
specifically to advance the the master plan uh housing element. >> Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? >> Open up for the public. Uh do you wish to be heard? >> Yes. >> Okay, please. Michelle Armin09 at Daniel
Street. >> Um, do do I have to swear? >> No, you're making >> because I tell the truth. >> You remain under oath. How's that? >> Yes. My credentials should should follow me just like these guys do
as often as I've said it. Okay. So, my you you are a great audit order aertor sir. However, I still am confused. Um, is this specific to a particular
application and a particular lot and area? >> Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in there. >> Let me finish the question. Sorry. >> Or is it or the overall change in 108? >> Well, everything here is a specific block and lot within the larger VC2
overlay area of the HT district. So, it only applies to block 4, lot 14.01. Is this this particular change? >> Okay. So, so in other words, something else in a different area would it will not apply for >> would not would not be impacted by this.
>> Okay. My question and the only reason why I would ask you to maybe reconsider is that uh I thought that is this a fourth round? >> Yes, >> it is a fourth round. Okay. And I thought that um we have sort of advertised and publicized that in the
fourth round we're going to try to do 30% residential dwellings provided for affordable housing and I see once again we're back to 20%. Can this be moved to 30%. For this ordinance for especially since
it's a specific >> location >> well that I I was not part of any negotiations with the developer there. I'll let Mark jump in, but 20% has been the standard throughout the state. >> Correct. And we >> many developments have been 30, but that that all was predicated on a developer
>> and and the may and the mayor and >> jump in here and clarify this because you'll understand. So, this property is the is the property that was always called the Eagle Nest property. >> Eagle nest property. Okay. >> So, you know the history of that. There's an eagle buffer. So, so in order
to build the residential units due to the eagle buffer, they can't set it back 500 ft from the road from Route 33. So, that's why that's getting changed because they have to move up into the un unrestricted area uh closer to the road.
>> With regard to the percentage, that was the percentage that was approved for this property in the prior round. So part of um part of this to to move it into the fourth round now all that stayed the same. So so that yes the
fourth round we we pushed for the 30% on everything. This be has an asterk next to it because of the lawsuits and all the history of this property. Um so so that's the reason this one's at 20%. >> Okay. But what happens to this property
having been a third round and where does that leave us with our obligation if that's a if that is now pushed to a fourth round? >> So you can't have it both ways. >> So So it so the third round um I forget where the number I we made
up the numbers on another parcel for the third round. Okay. Because this was denied by the board. Um you know they went through the courts and all that. Um, so now this comes into uh the fourth round, >> right? >> Um, >> and it does it doesn't that's fine and
we get credit for it in a fourth round obligation >> and it doesn't hurt us in the third round because that's been adjusted. >> Just just to be clear there any any third round site that was unbuilt still as part of the plan just because we're in the fourth round now the prior obligations are all still there. No, but
we're moving this particular site into the fourth and I didn't In other words, it's not calculated any longer in the third rounds. Correct. >> That's my understanding of this one. Yes. >> I believe the veteran units made up for the short ball on this one. The
additional >> I believe it was 43 units of veteran housing or veteran preference, >> right? I think it was 36 out of >> Yeah, it was 37 veterans and 43 were were the preference. So the 43 was the number that came from this site
originally for the round three. So that that was the the swap. >> So have so this is what would would I be correct in saying this is part of the settlement from th those lawsuits or an agreement or how I don't know if it's legal statement.
>> I believe it is but I I I don't know. I can't say for sure. I think this is an attempt to allow this site to provide us with an affordable housing component uh in light of the restrictions based on the Eagle's Nest being located on the site. I don't know that it's a ne
there's no negotiated settlement because that litigation was completed that the township >> won on appeal that there's no longer litigation pending. Yeah. So the township was successful in overturning the judge's decision to overturn the denial by the zoning board. So
ultimately the township prevailed. Um and >> did that go to the appella court? >> It did. >> Who was the judge? Do you remember? >> It was a panel. I >> Oh, panel. The three judge panel. >> Yep. Three judge panel. >> Okay. >> We argued it a 14 months ago, give or take. >> Oh, I missed that one.
>> Mhm. >> Um nice. >> And and the ch the the numbers that were in the third round, are they are they the same in this one? >> Do we know? This this ordinance doesn't spell it out in here what the number is.
Um but >> this isn't changing the number of units or affordable units on this particular site. >> And we're still protecting the Eagles even though and that's why we're pushing it closer to >> that's Yeah, but there protection for the Eagle is entirely separate from affordable housing. That's that's maybe
even federal or or just NJ. I don't know the specific. >> We should all be concerned about >> I think it's actually >> okay. Um, and it's not going to be as close as the Manalopin ones are to the road, are they? Is it? I mean, have you seen the Manalapin
condos coming so close to the road? I mean, when they do if a a horrible, Mark, how close to the road is this? Uh, I'm sorry, chairman. How close to the road is this? M
>> Mr. Chairman, there's no site plan application to, you know, at this point. It's just amending the ordinance to allow these these two minor changes. That was it. >> I will readress this when it comes up. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else from the public
wish to be heard on on this discussion item? Hearing none, is there a motion to close the public portion? >> So, there second. All in favor? I >> I >> Yeah. Okay. Motion passes. Now, do you
have to present the resolution as to how >> Well, no, we have to have a motion. >> A motion to >> resolution. >> Yeah. So, it would be a a motion to determine that the ordinance is consistent with the master plan and to refer it back over to the council. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman,
>> I'd uh I would uh like to make a motion that it does stay consistent with the township's master plan. And I would make the recommendation for amendment to uh township chapter 108 land development ordinance section 108-6-18 the highway development district uh subsection 108-6.18
um K in the VC2 village center overlay. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Okay. >> Vice Chairman Rothman? >> Yes. >> Miss Bratzky? >> Yes. Yes. Mr. Manesh Patel.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Amiani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Slavichek. >> Yes. >> Mr. Weiner. >> Yes. >> Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffrey. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Chairman, in in light of the fact that under the municipal land use law, this board has a a finite amount of
time to make its recommendation back to the council, and you will not meet again before the council would consider this ordinance on second reading. I've prepared a resolution memorializing the board's determination that this was consistent and referring it back to the council and I would ask that that resolution be considered for adoption tonight.
>> Is there a motion for >> second? Voice voted? >> No. >> Vice Chairman Rothman? >> Yes. >> Miss Brosky? >> Yes. >> Mr. Manesh Patel? >> Yes. >> Miss Damiani? >> Yes. >> Mr. Slavichek? >> Yes. >> Mr. Weiner? >> Yes.
>> Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel? >> Yes. >> Chairman Gaffford? >> Yes. And the motion passes. Okay, there's no correspondence. So, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So, move. >> Second. All in favor? >> I
got the history. You got the knowledge.