Good evening. The Rarent Township Planning Board is now in session. Please call to order. The notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building, filing the notice with the township clerk, and
transmitting the notice to the Hunton County Democrat, the Courier News, the Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. We are happy to have a new member joining us on the planning board this evening, Mr. Joe Lane. if you would step up to be sworn in by Mr. Toriello.
Can you please raise your right hand? I, Joseph Lane, I, Joseph Lane, do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the State of New Jersey and the State of New Jersey and that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States and to the governments established in the United States and in the state of New Jersey and in the state of New Jersey under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and that I will faith faithfully
that I will faithfully impartially and justly impartially and justly perform all the duties of alternate 2 planning board members perform all the duties of alternate 2 planning board member to the best of my ability. to the best of my ability. So help me God. So help me God. Congratulations.
Very good. Thank you Joe. You can take a seat up here when you're ready. Joe Okay. And with that, roll call, please. Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings, here. Vice Chairwoman, Miss Donna Drew, here. Miss Robin Fatu, here. Mr. Scott McDade here.
Miss Michelle Kavakiri here. Mr. Dennis Concan, he has asked to be excused. Mr. James Miller here. Mr. Glenn Solowski here. And I mean, now we can say Mr. Joseph Lane here. Board professionals, board attorney, Mr. Joe Toriello, here.
Township planner, Mr. Jeffrey Varella here. Township engineer Mr. Reesh Dargy present. Township landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas here. Board traffic consultant Mr. Jay Troutman here. And board planner Miss Jessica Caldwell here.
Very good. Thank you. I would like to ask everybody to please stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for the men and women in our armed forces. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. Okay, next up, uh, chairman's reports. I do not have anything to report on this evening. Board reports. Anybody have any comments this evening? I'll just mention
the um affordable housing subcommittee met and we are continuing to go through the state guided program to address any questions that are um brought up. So we're moving along on that and uh and when we have an update I will advise. Excellent. Thank you. Engineers
comments. Okay. Thank you. Planners comments? Not at this time. Attorney's comments. Anything Joe? Nothing. Okay. Correspondents. This is the annual report we have this evening from the zoning board of adjustment and uh we are
happy to have two members chair and vice chair who would like to address us on the the report. [Music] How's it feel to sit in those seats? That's what that's what he was doing. Now you know
you better grab that mic before you better take it to that microphone. Does the mic work? Does it work? Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Good evening and thank you very much for letting us present this evening. Under
the provision of the municipal land use law and the ordinance of the township of Raridan uh as you know the board of adjustment is pro is required to provide an annual report and this is based on the applications and appeals that we have heard over the year on the
variances against the zoning ordinances. We are to um review them and hopefully uh if we find anything to provide recommendations which we do have tonight. So uh we'd like to go over that. Um I have a I think you have all have a copy of the board of the annual
report and um so what we'd like to do tonight is go over some highlights maybe read directly from it and also add some commentary and uh I'll turn it over to Russul to uh start. So first of all thank you so much for having us here for
inviting us and I'm talking on behalf of uh chairperson as well as rest of the board members who some of them happen to be there but on everybody's behalf I want to thank us for this time. Uh what I'm going to do like uh uh chairwoman
mentioned uh we're going to provide highlights. We're not going to read through the document. We appreciate some of you have already read and for those who haven't we would urge you to do that because this was uh it provides a good uh understanding in terms of what
happens and and the complexities and intensity of the board. So to summarize in 2024 um we had convened 22 times. Yeah. So
every other we we don't take breaks. Okay. Uh so it was throughout and there were some even special meetings because this guy makes us do those special meetings. Um there were 29 hearings
uh over over that period. uh applications. We heard 29 applications we heard and uh during those 22 meetings and um of that the breakdown was 14
residential, 15 commercial and commercials usually have more complexities as we all know and we'll go through some details of explaining uh the numbers of how everything broke down.
uh the hearing uh process was not completed for four applications and uh so when you look at the numbers a lot of them uh we'll talk about instead of 29 25 and then we'll go through how
many resolutions within those 25 we were able to get to. The number of necessary public hearing sessions is directly linked to the scale and complexity of the development and redevelopment proposals involved.
Most minor residential variance hearings were accomplished by one BOA meeting. Okay. while more complex development and redevelopment proposals required two or three uh BOA meetings to complete
uh the public hearing. The BOA recognizes the board of adjustment recognizes the significant number and growing complexities of these applications that were submitted in
2024. consistent with the trends that have emerged over the past few years. So this has been going on for now at least 2 three years. Um at the close of 2024 the BOA began discussions on how to best
manage the workload and increase proportion of commercial and industrial versus residential applications. So with that uh I may ask the chairperson to go over our resolutions and then I'll take over from there.
Okay. Yeah. So moving on to the resolutions. As uh I'm sure you're not aware um we uh were able to have a a new member join uh Lorett Cina. Uh she is a retired planner
from Somerset County uh which greatly helped. Good addition, right? And so, um, she was able to and wanted to, uh, review the resolutions and help us provide this report. And so, with her diligent assessment, this is what we
have. So, I just want to I'll read some of it and we'll talk through some of it. Okay. So, 25 of the 29 applications heard involved resolutions that were approved by the border adjustment. Of the approved resolutions, 18 involved
variances. Six of the 18 resolutions granting variances involved land and contain regulated environment features conservate conservation areas adding to the complexity and time involved in
hearing from some applications. The remaining seven were resolutions memorializing modifications, time extensions, certifications and interpretations. So in the report you will see um two charts in on the report and one of them just
breaks down the type of uh variances just to give a picture. Uh the other one talks about the number of conditions for those who don't um might have limited knowledge of the board of adjustments. when we talk about conditions,
you're basically talking about um conversations, working through issues. Um so during the during the process the presentation process and especially on the residential side which as Russell will mentioned we have
reconfigured and now take the residential um application separate from the commercial which allow them to hopefully get through one meeting rather than several meetings which can be very challenging to the residents. So when you look at the conditions you're
looking at how we're working with them. Now, some some residents might think that's a lot. They're not used to the process. And so, when we have conversations between the board professionals and the applicant, it seems like we are I don't
know if their expectation is they're just going to come before the board and get stamped. You know, I agree with everything you said. So, so the conversation may be frustrating for some of them, but in others, it's educational. And so, uh, I believe that we have, it's been helpful. Uh, but as
you can see, um, when you see less than 10 or one at 50 or 60, that's a lot of conditions. Um, and so it's, uh, usually on the commercial side, but again, I just want to highlight the residential side because sometimes, uh, they don't understand what what's, uh, happening.
So, I just want to move over to the attachment, which is the rest of uh, what Lorett had provided. And I'm going to skip over the first uh uh chart first. The second chart uh provides a breakdown of the type of variances. And
as you can see, there were 45 C and 13D. And then the next charts uh break down those variances. Uh first C and then D. So it's really just a count just giving you a picture of what goes on. F there's followed by ordinance exceptions,
demolitions, prior inconsistencies, and non-conformances. I want to talk a minute about the prior cons cons inconsistencies and non-conformance. So half of the resolutions fell into this. So what happens is when
an application comes in our professionals obviously do the assessment and what we're finding out is that as they do the assessment what was planned previously agreed upon against the asbuilt is not is not in
sync. there's gaps and so what happens is people have to come back. So it causes a lot of churn and a lot of conversations about what the board of adjustment does and it's it's we are not
the police but it seems like we are um stopping things. they have to come back, they have to apply, they have to, you know, so the whole process is uh new to them and so it's sometime laborous. So I just wanted to um talk through that,
give you some context there. The first uh chart is really only summarizing what the board of adjustment has accomplished um this year and I just want to highlight the reuse of existing buildings and indoor storage facility. It gives a context of what we've tried to acco what we've accomplished through
the applications and I'll turn it back to Sure. Yeah. So, uh, one other comment about reformatting uh, last year. In fact, uh, Mayor uh, Scott Cipos at time
was getting lot of complaints from the residential applications. that's taking too long uh for we're waiting for a long time before we're heard. So what Cynthia mentioned uh in before that before we
made the change we would uh have residentials and industrial applications commercial together and uh sometimes uh they would only get hour or half an hour and we couldn't finish residential
because we would have to jump into commercial applications. So by reformatting not only we are completing those pretty quickly uh during the session but also we have accelerated so the wait time for residential
applications as you will see in the 2025 report has gone down significantly so that's a very positive thing uh for the citizens. Uh moving along uh the other thing which you have seen in the document is about zoning districts and
there are numbers there broken down. The only thing I would highlight there of the 18 resolutions you will see uh five of them were for our three single family residentials. And so BOA and the planning board, some
of you, we work together, uh have evaluated the need uh for clarification of this uh R3 zoning district provisions based on the information which was provided. So I'm not going to go into those details, but at least just wanted
to make sure uh that uh we we do take these numbers. It's just not numbers. It's like what do we do with that? Um, one final comment I would want to make about concerning the 18 resolution that were granted uh, variances adopted by
the BOA in 2024. This is pretty interesting data is there were 88 and he'll vouch that 88 individuals provided testimony during
the associated public hearing. 88. And so why I mean if you think about the complexity on average six individuals uh per application provided testimony and it would be ranging from as low as 2 to three for residential
uh applications minor residential applications to 7 to 10 individuals uh for the major non-residential application heard uh during uh 2024. We asked Loretta but she couldn't figure out how many hours those was. So we're
going to leave it at that. I won't give you that number. It must be very big number. Uh these individual uh individuals included any combination of property owners, developers, professionals
uh such as attorneys, engineers, architects, planners representing both the applicant and obviously our township uh professionals. The number of individuals that provided testimony is directly linked to the
complexity of the proposed development and the amount of time needed to complete the hearing process for each applications. So with that in mind, I think we're going to move into key accomplishments. Cynthia, would you want to take
So moving on to the key accomplishments, there are uh several. I'll cover the first one which is the Raran Township land development ordinance and revision. Uh we are not here to take credit. We are here to just highlight our partnership and participation.
Um so I guess Ed and Donna can take credit. So I'm just highlighting our willingness to volunteer and be available when needed on this. Um, so if you don't mind, I'd like to read uh the revisions
into the record. Um, so what we were able to accomplish with Jessica and Jeff's um, direction and guidance, uh, a revision, a revised bulk standards table, a revised, updated, and moderized definition section that helps to clarify
permitted use and requirements of ordinance. Update site plan design standards for landscaping and tree replacement to help clarify and simplify requirements. Update home occupation standards to address many work from home businesses.
I would just like to add some context here. So as you know times have changed a lot of home businesses and so what we attempted what we attempted to do is be flexible uh but provide limitations and to attempt to keep the neighborhoods as
they are but also to expand where people are. I I think the only um situation where we were was not viable was based on um a home business being a retail where that would consist of many
deliveries at during the day uh to deliver product to this home if it was and then also for customer pickup. So so again most everything was viable but that type of situation we were um we discussed.
Moving on. Um, so update accessory apartment standards to address an aging population and to provide a variety of housing types. And I would just uh like to speak to that uh a little bit later. Update uh permitted and conditional uses
in commercial zones to simplify, modernize, and clarify uses allowed. Again, just have additional information. Revise conditional use standards to permit clarify and modernization conditionally permitted uses and administrative approval processes for
home occupation, accessory apartments, outdoor dining to provide simple applications and to appro and to be approved by the township zoning officer. If you don't mind, I'd like to read the next two paragraphs which speak to the um apartments and the additional use
variance. Many of these updates will reduce the work of the board of adjustments through revised of design and use standards that result in applications coming before the board of adjustment. Some of the updates are focused on ordinances pertaining to
residential properties and should provide greater flexibility to residents. For example, accessories apartments are now permitted in the use in use of the majority of the single family residential districts in the township. Previously, a homeowner would
have been prohibited from converting a freestanding garage into an apartment. The update also also modified the square footage to allow apartments up to 1,200 square ft. Residents desiring to construct an apartment can now do so
through an administrative approval process as long as all the ordinance standards are met. Again, they would not have to come before the board of adjustment. Secondly, other updates are focused on ordinances pertaining to the commercial properties and will provide
additional clarity. One issue the one issue the update addressed was the applications where a commercial business or industrial property owner sought to have more than one permitted use or structure on the property. Our previous ordinances allow only allowed one use
and one structure. The updated language now specifies that multiple permitted uses and structures are allowed eliminating the need for applicants to seek variance. Thank you. And I'll let Yeah. So basically that has streamlined
uh the process and it has helped us uh accelerate with more clarity with that initiative. Uh there are two more uh significant accomplishments in 2024 and for those I want to thank Taylor and Jeff. uh they did most of the heavy
liftings. Uh the board members kind of helped uh comment and improve on those. So thank you for all your good effort. Uh those two initiatives are namely uh accomplishments namely board of adjustment pamphlet which is a very very
popular item especially with the residential applications that had provided lot of thank you Robin. Uh that has provided a lot of clarity and Donna James where's yours? Taylor gave math to us. Okay. I just want to make sure
but uh uh so to better support right the Rton Township residents during the application process. So u we've developed a six panel which you guys have now available at the front desk uh of the township zoning and planning
department. The pamphlet outlines who we are, why an applicant may need to appear before the board, required documentations, an overview of application process and required steps,
the hearing procedures, and what to expect after approval. what to expect after approval, especially when you don't have a very expensive lawyer like Steve and you're a residential person.
He's my buddy. It's it's uh and you're a residential person, you usually don't. When you get an approval, you think it's rubber stamped. I'm done. And then they would show up and stay to Jeff and tell
her and say where is why why are you stopping me? So we go out of our way. Cynthia does a great job in the end of saying now here's the pamphlet and this is what you need to do after to follow up. And quite frankly I'm joking about
it but the feedback we've received from the residents about that has been extremely positive. They really appreciate. So thank you guys for doing that. And the last one is the website that also has brought a lot of u information. I'm not going to read
through these bullets. You guys have the document. You can read through what it has done. But it has provided more information and more clarity in terms of how we perform. And in the end our job as we always mention especially when a
lot of crowded people here to tell our job is to see how we can ma protect and make better our neighbors. That's why we are there. We're there for our own neighbors. And so these two initiatives
have really helped uh bring that clarity and we hope if we get any more feedback about other initiatives which you guys can think about please let us know so we can see what we can do with those want to go through next
litigation. Oh litigation I didn't want to go through that. Um so basically as you all know I'm not going to go into details of that and I'm not supposed to but both both of us uh have been so that it's not
Steve so thank you for that. Um but uh just so that it's in the notes that it's there. Okay. Um so with that I'm going to hand over to chairwoman and she can close this. Okay. So just moving on to the board
membership. I don't know if you are aware um at the beginning of the year we were in um not a good position. We had six board members and no alternative alternatives, excuse me. Um as I mentioned uh we were lucky enough to get Lorett Cina as a full membership. Uh but
I also want to thank uh James Miller and Donna Drews because uh I asked them very nicely to if they would consider being our alternates. Um, when I spoke to them, I asked, you know, look, we don't need you for the residential, we just need you for the commercial, the big
ones, the complex ones. They have been so kind in showing up for 99% of them and and between them and Lorett being joining, it has improved greatly. Um, a lot of experience, a lot of knowledge.
So as much as I didn't think we needed them for the residential, they have been they have been great to be there. One more point about that also it kind of brings the continuity and Robin we had spoken about this offline uh they've
been very helpful of bringing that bridge and even though we keep it very strict with the BOA but there's value there and it shows. So thank you for that. Yeah. And finally, that I just want to go over the recommendations. Like I said, we had a few. Um, I'm going to
read them and then, uh, I'm going to ask Donna or James and Russell if they want to add to them. Okay. Uh, improve residential and business owners knowledge of existing building permit requirements to reduce the number of applications appearing before the board
after the fact. So, um, again, just to mention, talked about it. um we have residents coming back which is not and so we're trying we have the pamphlet we have the website uh we will continue to try and figure out ways to help educate
and help them and if you want to add anything just jump in and if not I'll continue on you guys look good I would just say it you know saves a lot of time for everybody and a lot of hassle and you know when people have to come back it makes us look like the bad guy when if we could have just gotten
made sure everything was done straight and correct the first time then it would free up more time for other applications. Yeah. The second item is recommended the parking lot landscape provisions be evaluated and updated to consider additional options to include
landscaping within parking areas. Provide clear technical guidance on the total landscape area required in ordinance provisions. So again, we've had some applications. We um in fact two um where their thought process from
their side was it's a parking lot. We'll just level it. And um you know, I always say um we're kind of a tree people. Um and we're so thankful that we have John Morgan Thomas to help us with that. Um not understanding, you know, again,
silly context is I a tree a tree an island is an island, right? Well, no. if they don't build it right and they put garbage in the island, the tree doesn't grow, but they've satisfied it the uh the condition. So again, having his experience is extremely helpful.
Evaluate options that would address improper construction of accessory structures within lot setback area. Ordinance updates could require the stakeout and inspection of accessory structures prior to construction. You think this is this is nothing, but I'll
tell you, we had one application uh where it was a twostory addition to a home and they were close to the side setback and the construct and they we approved it. The construction company came in and guess what? They pushed it back 5T. Now, they had a reason and I
can't remember the reason, but when they pushed it back five feet, they put it right in the setback. They had to come back. They had to stop work. They had to come back. They had to redo. Now, we obviously didn't make them knock down the building, but they had to redo the back entrance, which they were going to
have some kind of a porch or something, and they had to recon rework it, which is a lot to ask. And and again, we're trying, as our attorney tells us, we are the most approval board that he works for. And and I always look at it like
I'm here to help our neighbors do what they want to do with limitations. And so I look when we when we have an application, I always go with the thought to approve it uh and
not to just knock knock it down. So um and John tells us we're we've done a lot. So um that was extremely painful. Um so yes, stake out and inspection I think would be greatly uh improve that situation. And I think Cynthia, that's one where we
saw residential accessory structures built in the wrong place. Exactly. that a couple times. So, you know, because they thought they were building it at the right spot, but now by requiring corner stakeouts, which Yeah, we had a whole development
that their lines are incorrect. Every single application coming in from that development, their their property lines are incorrect. Wow. So, they thought they were within set, you know, and they're not. The last item, the approval of some large complex construction projects
yielded site plans that require largecale soil import and export from projects. Recommend that a new soil import export ordinance be developed that would apply at both the site and plan and subdivision. An additional ordinance that addresses soil import
export into the township should be considered. Um, first of all, these recommendations were all basically what Donna had put together for us, but this one in particular, um, I don't know if you know the last application we applied hundreds 500 trucks
will be going through our township. Township. So, soil removal. Yeah. So, it's big. And so, we want to make sure that the traffic is, you know, when are they coming, when are they? So it's a lot. So
I know this is this is up for discussion discussion at the township and we would just encourage that process to be accelerated because we keep seeing applications both at BOA and at planning board with lots
of cut and fill and people moving soil around the township. Yeah. So Rakkesh U Ryan there were certain specific items of when and what. Yeah. And so we made sure that he was aware of those.
You mentioned something in the report under zoning districts where you've evaluated the need for clarifications in the R3 zone, but I didn't see a recommendation. That was actually implemented in the land development regulation ordinance
that we updated. I got it. Well, I just wanted to commend you and please let the rest of the board of adjustment members know at least on behalf of the township committee that you know we're when the land use ordinance was revised, we realize the
hours of additional dedicated time and energy and thoughtfulness really um to ensure a lot of the character and integrity of the area that we live within was taken into account in those recommendations and the partnership that was done to come up with that. So, I know we're very grateful for it. said I
would be remiss if I didn't yet again state that and let you both know that in representing the board of adjustment here. Um and I am aware that we are taking some actions at least with some of these recommendations already. Um but I will I will hold myself accountable
with the township committee and the planning board um with chairman to address the um parking lot. We can do that right here and make a recommendation. Um and then the other two would be addressed through the township committee. Perfect. Okay. Thank you.
Um one uh last comment uh we would not be uh we would not be able to do all this application except for a very very good and most of them are here today. So I want to thank all our professionals
and Taylor for being a very very supportive for us to do this many. So thank you for all the support you guys provide us. Okay, thank you. Excellent. Cynthia Razul, thank you. Yeah, thank thanks for taking the time to come tonight. Thank you.
[Music] Okay. Uh, next on the agenda are minutes and then resolutions. We do not have any minutes or resolutions to approve this evening. Next up is citizens privilege. If anyone is here with us this evening from the community who wants to address
the board on anything other than the application that's coming up in a few minutes, now would be the time to do so. Would you want to address the board? Come on up to the microphone. Okay. There being none, we're at the public hearing. Diamond Nation LLC preliminary and final site plan
construction of a 126,672 ft self-s storage warehouse. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Recuse myself. Okay. Yes. So, if we could just have on the record that Mr. Scott McDade is going to
recuse himself and that our new alternate member, Mr. Joseph Lane. You're welcome, Steve. I had him look back at the previous recording of the meeting from 2023. So, in the event
there is a vote tonight, he is eligible to vote. Just one more side note. If anybody needs any of the reports from anybody tonight, I have them all here on the table and I do have extra sets of plans and that goes for you guys too if you need them. Mr. Chairman, before we get started, Steve, do you mind if I just say a word before we get
started? Uh, regarding this this application, just uh wanted to apologize. There's a little confusion regarding with our memo. Um I've been out of the office for a couple weeks here for some personal reasons, but uh the um my office actually had reviewed the other Diamond Nation ball field
application when today they found out that we're having this application on on our agenda. Then there was a little bit of a panic to to do the review, not realizing that we had actually done the review for this application on July 1st. So I say all that to just say you can ignore the memo
that was dated today's date. So throw that away. Okay. Uh, and we'll rely on the July 1st memo, okay? Which is a comprehensive, thorough review of the what you're hearing tonight. So, just wanted to get that in case in case you guys got that tonight and we're panicking on whether
you should review it or not. You can ignore that memo. Just I talked to Steve and his professionals uh just now as well. So, we'll we'll go with the July 1st memo from my office and that'll be the memo of record. We'll we'll retract today's memo. Great. Again, I apologize for any confusion. Thank you, Resh, for clarifying that.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Steven Gruinberg, Gruinberg Law Office. On behalf of the applicant, Diamond Nation Properties LLC. Um, the property is located at 110 116 River Road, block 16.03, lot 1. I appreciate
uh the new board member actually listening to the meeting of the prior or reading the transcript and being eligible to vote this evening. This is a continuation of our public hearing that actually happened in December 2023.
Um, and I think everybody else here is either participated in that proceeding. Um, at that meeting we presented three witnesses um, and went over a substantial portion of this proposed development. Um the way it left off when
I read the transcript uh in preparation for this evening was that um at that time we had the overflow parking for Diamond Nation still as part of the self proposed self storage and we were requesting an impervious coverage
variance and board members had questions regarding soil testing and storm water in relationship to our imperous coverage variance. And what we have done is we have removed the proposal for the overflow parking to remain on that site
and we have committed uh first we've amended our application this evening to only be for preliminary site plan only uh subject to the conditions and one of those conditions is as set forth in Mr. Bakarella's correspondence of July I
believe where uh he gave us three options to proceed forward and one of those options was that any approval by this board would be conditioned upon us establishing um a a commitment of where the overflow parking will be and we agreed to do
that. That would be a condition of disapproval. Um, we were set to go in July for our public hearing and um, one of the issues that came up in the board professionals review was a concern that Mr. Troutman hadn't had the opportunity to evaluate what that overflow parking
would be. And um, since that time, we appreciate him doing the report and evaluating the situation. And he came up with a I'm going to digest it for the board. um an a parking requirement for the board uh for diamondation of 525
spaces and ex what's um on site right now is 300 spaces plus 15 which means that our overflow parking would be a minimum of 210 spaces and um
we would commit as a condition of this approval to providing the 210 spaces uh as a condition so that would meet that traffic requirement or that parking requirement were close and I I wanted to wait till the appropriate time to jump
in. Okay. And I spoke with the board's professional as you know there is a board of adjustment resolution and in that resolution they retain jurisdiction on the parking issue and if you total the parking spaces and the 50 bank
spaces that leads to a number of 533. So, while we have a board professional report of 525, it's my legal opinion that the number has to be 533 to avoid you having to go back for relief before the board of adjustment. So, we're
close, but so that's fine. So, I didn't think that would be an issue, but I just wanted to at least Yeah. No, I appreciate put that on the record. We'll agree to the extra eight spaces as an overflow. And
Steve, Steve, before Yeah, Steve, before you go any further, unfortunately, Michelle Cavakiri will have to recuse herself as well. [Music] Okay. So, she's not eligible to vote for tonight.
You um I'll defer to Mr. Toriello, but just because you weren't at the other meeting doesn't mean that you can't participate this evening. just means that if we go to a vote, you wouldn't be able to vote, right? You you can you can certainly you could
certainly participate and not All right. Sorry. I I didn't want you to have to recuse yourself if you could actually participate. Um so we're we're willing to provide the additional aid spaces. So I I think that
um actually takes care of the recordkeeping in terms of where we are and how we got here for this evening. Um we did pres uh present uh significant testimony at the last meeting about the architecture and the site and how it's going to work. None of that's going to
change because um the only thing that we've removed is the overflow parking. So for this evening, what I pres uh propose to present is to have Mr. Ken McKenna come back up and go over the site changes and how that happened. And
then u we'll present uh Mr. John Taikina with his planning testimony. If there's any other questions that board members have with respect to it that I need to call anybody else, I'll bring them up. But right now, I'm only proposing to call those two witnesses. And just for just I just want to keep
this transcript clean. So, you indicated in summing things up from the um December 23 hearing, there were three witnesses that testified. Those three witnesses were uh Kyle McKenna, Kevin Bolter, and Perry Petrillo.
Okay. So, Mr. McKenna, who will be testifying tonight, I don't have to swear in again because he's still under oath, but uh Mr. Tya, I do have to swear in. Yes, John Takina would need to be sworn in. Okay. So, if you want if you think that's all
you're going to need, I would just ask that whoever the applicant thinks is going to testify, if you want to come up, I'd like to swear everybody in once just for efficiency, including the board professionals. I'll just call Mr. Taikina up and then if I have to, I'll bring That's fine. That's fine. Okay. So, if
everybody could raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Okay. Uh, starting with applicants witness, if you could please state your name and spell it for the record. John Tyena. T is in Thomas. A I, K is in
Kelly, I N A. Thank you. Rakkesh Dargy with Environmental Resolutions. Uh, board engineer. Jeff Aarel. I'm the township planner. J McDonald Associates Township Traffic
Consult Thomas landscape architect. [Music] Steve, Steve, can we get something in writing about the preliminary? Um because the latest that we have is preliminary final. Sure. Okay. Thank you.
Yeah, we're only asking for preliminary. Um so I'd ask Mr. McKenna to come forward. Mr. McKenna was previously under oath and he was previously accepted as an expert by the board. Are your licenses still in good standing?
They are. Um, and you were charged with amending the plans to remove overflow parking and dealing with other concerns raised by the board at the last meeting. Why don't you take the board through our changes to the plan? Sure. So, I'm going to introduce um my
next exhibit. I believe it's A6. It's going to be a colorized rendered version of the latest site plan that was submitted with the application. And this was provided to Taylor before the meeting. This is uh it's a colored version of
site plan sheet C301. It's dated uh September 24th, 2025. And if you have if you're familiar or you have sheet C301 in front of you, this is the same plan. We just colorized it and put an aerial in the background to help
make it a little more visually uh helpful. So, as Mr. Greenberg stated, um the primary change with this plan relative to the prior is the removal of the overflow parking uh area, which was 183 spaces. So looking at the site, you can
see the northern the northern half of the site is um is now mostly open space with a proposed bio retention basin there. The southern half of the site is still the um previously proposed self- storage facility approximately 127,000
square ft. We have also, in addition to removing the overflow parking area, we've also shifted the proposed self- storage facility approximately 30 feet to the north to center it a little bit more in the site and actually conform with the setback requirements along uh
River Road. Other than that, um it's very similar to the previous the previous uhly presented plan. I'll provide a brief just kind of over overview of operations just as a refresher. Um, vehicular access is
provided uh to the south of the site along the old the old river road alignment. Um, vehicles would access at the point it's it's the exact same location as you'd access the overflow overflow parking lot today. Vehicles would traverse north um
accessing the lot again in a similar location to the um current current overflow parking area and then you would be able to circulate um self storage. the self-s storage facility um via the outer drive aisle um to the front of the
site where the main lobby and office area is. Um otherwise operationally no no significant changes. So we have on the north and south side of the building you have your uh rollup doors for direct access to the storage facilities. Your main access point is going to be along
the the western side of the building where there's the two interior loading areas. Um, also the office area, um, and access to the to the interior of the facility. At the rear, again, no change. There's a door to access the facility
along with four, um, parallel style um, parking areas. They're a little bit oversized parking areas um, to help facilitate unload and load for customers. With respect to variances, there there was a removal um, of a lot of impervious area here. So we now conform with the
impervious coverage requirement. So that variance has been eliminated. We do still have variance for proposed parking for the self storage facility. We're proposing 16 spaces whereas uh 60 64 are required per the ordinance. Um we
previously testified to this the appropriate nature of the spaces. Um given the IT actually recommends 0.1 parking spaces per thousand square feet that would fall in the range of approximately 13 spaces. We're proposing 16. We're also proposing the required
make ready uh electrical vehicle uh space as well. Very similar to the previous application. Uh signage for the uh proposed building remains the same. We're proposing one sign on each of the frontages um on the
north, west, and south sides of the building. We are requesting a variance for signage uh for proposing the three signs whereas only one is required. We do have a a planner that's going to provide some further testimony on the justification for the sign variances.
However, um you know, given the unique condition of this this site, as was previously testified to, we have basically four uh front front yards, um we're on uh a corner and there's some typographic change between um River Road
uh in the north south direction and then um River Road uh or 523 heading towards the towards the east. Um, do you have an exhibit that would show what that would look like? We we have the
That's quite a variant, no pun intended, quite a variance from this signage. We do have the exhibits that were pre presented previously, the architectural uh elevations. So, we could we could bring those up. Um, they're over. Um, you know, I I might be convinced
that the three signs is appropriate, but is there was there any effort made to conform closer to given that you don't even know who's going to operate the facility? At least I'm assuming that's still the case. if they were each 100 square feet versus
183 or 93. Mhm. Um, you know, was there any any discussion or thought to reduce the size so that the variance that you're requesting is more in conformance at least with the sign uh of on the building?
We're still proposing the same same size sign which is 194 square foot size. I know we did provide testimony previously um and prevented presented the exhibits for the elevations to show um scale of that size relative to the the wall of
the building. Um you know we we again given the size of the building we felt that was an appropriate sign to help guide customers to the to the facility. Um so that that's we're still proposing this. I I'd like to see that again because just
in reviewing the notes and looking at where what relief you're asking that kind of popped out to me. So if if that graphic with the signs Yeah, we'll present that through different different testimony. Um
so yeah uh sim similarly with landscaping. So, we have some more landscaping now, open space. Um, landscaping plan is quite similar. We did change and I'll I'll touch into the storm water because I know that was a point of discussion last at the last
hearing. But we do also have two bio retention basins, one on the south side of the site, one on the north side of the site along with the perimeter landscaping for the parking area and the proposed street trees. And um, you know, I'll be happy to go through the um, landscape architecture review letter as
well. Uh with respect to lighting again really no change with that respect except there's removal of the lighting for the surface parking overflow lot that was removed. U we are still requesting we're fully conforming with respect to lighting standards with the exception of
the lighting level near the driveway access near the southeast corner of the property. We are exceeding the halfoot candle requirement. We're proposing a 2.7 foot candles at that point. Again, that's sort of the the interconnection between the uh perimeter access road and
on-site access road. So, we do think that's an appropriate light level, but it's uh it is it is a waiver technically. Could you point that out where exact and that's the only place because when you look at the plans, it seems like there's lots of places where the numbers are really high.
uh within the within the interior of the lot there are they are higher than the 0.5 but at the at the property line I believe that's the only location where we really have an exceedence is in this general vicinity near the southeast corner of the property if there's another area that you were concerned about I can I can touch on
that but the just to clarify too I'm sorry much time to look at these between the last testimony At this point, there's no plans for a light at the driveway entrance off of River Road
off off of our site within the county right away. Right. There there's not. So, our proposed lighting is limited to the site um site lighting on-site lighting only. Okay. Well, then I'll follow up with a question. the existing county rightaway
in their review letter mentioned that the applicant should request a vacation of the rightway and then it could be added to the applicant's property. Um so what is your proposal for fixing that road because it's in
pretty rough shape. Um, and there's also some um when I sat there today trying to get out of the driveway after 23 cars. Um, there's also a lot of shrubs and trees right at the end of the
driveway, which if I was stopped at the stop bar, you couldn't see north. that it's basically they've obviously overgrown um from what was was planned by I I assume the county.
Sure. So the our improvements are to uh widen the portion of uh highlighted on the exhibit A6. So the portion of the um I'll refer to it as Old River Road because it's you know it's technically not vacated but it's no longer in use.
Um so the portion from our proposed access drive down to uh River Road, you can see there's a there's like a a gray hatch um showing that we are proposing um an expansion and repaving of a port that portion of uh the roadway to bring
it up to standards um and improve improve that section of the road. Uh we did submit this application to the county planning department. We did receive a conditional review uh conditional approval from the county. Comments were fairly or the conditions
were pretty benign. It was primarily uh operation maintenance agreement for storm water things like that. Um, but they didn't have any notable, what I would consider notable significant technical comments and they were they were comfortable with the uh, but that letter did
talk about a process to get that road vacated so that you the applicant could have have them built a road. Copy that letter. Yeah, we have it was submitted. My apologies.
I have is it the June 12th, 2023 letter? Yes. Yes. Yeah, we did submit a copy. Yeah, we have it. It's just that if I guess my concern is if the applicant's going to eventually
have this roadway vacated and merged with their property, then we probably want this built to counter standards for the road. Good point. Do you know do you know do you know which comment specifically and then which number
I don't I don't I know there's a you may be referring to comment number two in which they they do indicate that it's it's kind of an eitheror option that would need to be discussed. So I think the preference of the applicant at this time would be to to just seek a maintenance agreement um rather than a
vacation. the the problem with the vacation is that we don't own the adjacent property along that road all the way to that intersection. So, by entering into a use and occupancy, a a use agreement and
maintenance agreement, it would allow us to use the property, but we would never own that if there were a vacation took place because that's county property adjacent to it. Yeah. The I'm kind of I'm in agreement with with Steve on that. when you look at the what what's on the screen right
now that the southern that southern tip where there's a drainage basin that's county property right uh so if they were to vacate the rightway the only portion that the applicant would actually have on their property would be the the portion along their frontage uh so that
small portion of driveway would you know would be on on their property at that point so then if they would still require a use and operation are we approving a project that's not on public road. No, it is on a public road. It's it's access comes off of a public road,
but it's a vacated rightway, right? It's a vacated rightway, but it but they also have the other public the new river road is a public road. So, they do have frontage along that road and they have along the access, but they're not accessing it. So, they So, we're not approving something that's not on a public road. They're getting
access from a public road, which is the old the old right ofway, which is not vacated, right? It's it's still current rightway. It's not vacated and it's also currently serving as the access point for the overflow parking lot as well. And there's no requirement of a planning
variance because the property does front not only on one that was my original. Yeah, I concede on that. But I guess my my point is that the if the applicant were to seek uh vacation of the old right ofway, they would be entitled to
half the width along their frontage of the old uh old river road. They would still require an agreement to go through go off of uh the stem that that stem. So in in essence, I it wouldn't be uncomplicating things. It wouldn't complicate things anymore. It
would be a little bit more cost for the applicant to write up the deeds and everything, but you would still have a county property that they would have to be accessing off of, whether it's the rightway or the county property. Follow what I'm saying? Yeah. I guess I'm just struggling with how do we get a road an access road
built that meets our standards and kind of like right now the road that's there is potholed in a mess. So the applicant can and they are widening the roadway and they uh the existing roadway should be evaluated and any improvements made.
So if the existing roadway needs to be repaved rather than just added on to, I imagine the applicant wouldn't have an objection to that. No, I I think that's part of the use agreement and and the maintenance agreement is to be able to do exactly that. Yeah. because this is what the mechanism is whether it's a
vacation or a use agreement to the satisfaction of the county. It's really a county issue. It it is but I understand what what Mr. Drew is saying. Uh since this is a preliminary only application uh it it does give us an opportunity to maybe have the applicant and and our office at
work to address your concern uh between now and final. Does that sound like a reasonable uh idea? Yeah. Okay. So I I I I heard a yes. So then the condition of approval will be the applicant will work with the engineer to
address maintenance andor repair. Really I think Mr. Drew's concern and it's it's again it's my concern as well uh that the the access driveway meet current standards which I think the applicant would want to do as well. So we'll we'll make sure that gets done between now and final.
And as far as the vacation, well, we'll we'll discuss that further, but I I don't know that the vacation really is going to decide anything. I think it's really the condition of the roadway that's concerned based on what was said. I agree. And Joe, can we also include in there uh that they would uh trim that vegetation
on both corners right there? I saw the same thing. And it's just a matter of maintaining bad overgrown vegetation that would clear out that sight line. I think we can do that. [Music] So, have we gone through the variances
and design waiverss? Yeah. Yes. So, not not quite yet. Um, so you we touched on the lighting waiver which led us to that discussion. Um and again just to clarify so the the exceedence of the 0.5 at rightway or property line is generally limited to
the southeast corner. You'll see u you refer to sheet C07 that it kind of bumps bumps out just near that entrance area. Is that the only design waiver we require for lighting? For lighting correct. Yes. I'm sorry it's kind of difficult to hear with these microphones. So you're saying
the only place where you exceed the the lighting requirements of the township is in that southeast corner. Correct. Adjacent to the access. Earlier you said there were some other places. No, there was no I think Miss Drews commented that the light levels were higher in other areas on site but the my
understanding is the ordinance requirement is 0.5 at the property line and that's the only place where we exceed. Correct. That is correct. Thank you. All right. And just to close out um on the summary of the variances, uh we do
also still have the setback variance. Um like I said, the building was shifted approximately 30 ft to the north to mitigate the the setback variance along the current river road. Um, but we do still have the setback variance in
what I would generally look at as as the rear, but it's it's along that uh old river road uh on the east side of the site. And and what is that? Uh it's 100 ft whereas 50 ft are proposed
and that's to the the access to the rear. Correct. That's that's the setback from the for the rear building for the for the building. Uh it's all front they're all front yard uh setbacks, right? And we'll present the planning testimony
on the reason why we already submitted about the site actually having multiple front yards. Correct. Correct. The only other thing I really had that I wanted to touch on in my direct was the storm water. I know that was a point of discussion at the original um meeting.
So since since the meeting in 2023, we have performed supplemental storm water uh testing and investigation um within the wet season as required by the D. I know that was a a comment that was brought up at the prior hearing. Um
we have reduced significantly the impervious uh and motor vehicle area proposed on site with the elimination of the overflow parking area. Um so there's been a a bit of a change in strategy on the storm water uh management for the site but we do conform with all D
standards with respect to water quality and quantity reductions uh in the green GIS. Um we addressed warm water um quality and quantity via uh two bio retention basins with under drains. One is located on the north side of the
building and one is located to the south of the building. Um and that those those two BMPs address the the requirements for water quality. Couple other design waiverss that I had that might need to be addressed. Maybe
they are no longer applicable. Um the off- streetet loading in the minimum required front yard. Has that been um eliminated? the um the off streetet loading within the minimum required front yard uh has
been eliminated because the building is now located along uh the two loading spaces in the front of the building on the west side are now within the uh required 100 foot setback area. So um I I would interpret that as being
eliminated. Council, if I if I can. Um, uh, I don't think I don't think the board would mind me speaking on their behalf. Um, we have a a preferred way of of hearing
applications. It it ensures that we don't get lost while things are jumping around. if we can follow um with as much fidelity as possible the planners report and the engineers report in the exact
order that it's presented so that we ensure that we're not missing anything. So for example um the record was sprayed with C variance relief and there's like four that are missed that um that the planner had called out on right on page
two of his report. So, if we can do it that way, I know for myself, I can't keep notes of this and there's no way I'm going to be able to prepare an accurate uh resolution if we don't follow uh the planners report. And then the engineers, please.
That's fine. We we'll go right to uh Mr. Varela's report dated um July 3rd, 2025. Yeah, we actually have two planners reports. He hits it twice. I'll I'll start with Mr. Varela's if that's okay. um
the he identifies the variances and if you want to go through them which ones still apply and which ones don't if any certainly. So this is um the section variance relief. Uh item number one uh just outlines that the following
variances. Item number two is the set building the front yard setback requirement for building which is proposed at 50 feet. As I noted that that 50 foot uh encroachment is at the east side of the building along the old
river road. Uh so we're proposing a 50ft setback whereas 100 ft is required. As I noted the interpretation is that all the entire uh all frontages are front yards on this particular site which is a unique condition given the regular shape
of shape and condition of having rightway all around it on this particular lot. The next uh is when you're speaking about excuse me for the variance is that that northern side I guess going against river the old river road. I'm sorry I couldn't hear. It's actually the east it's actually
east side but correct. Yep. East with along old river road with the the railroad beyond. Correct. And he also calls out a twoft retaining wall is the requiring the same variance. Correct. So in that in that area along Old River Road there is a a small two-ft retaining wall as well. You know the
setback on that? [Music] I can concur confirm for you. Can we please just make sure we speak into the microphone directly, please? It's the the setback of the retaining wall is 5T.
What's the purpose of the retaining wall? Uh it's it's really just to provide grading differential between the existing county road. There's some utilities along the existing county road and that area. So, we're proposing again it's it's approximately 2 feet just to
uh facilitate the grade change between the drive aisle on the perimeter of the site and um some existing utility infrastructure within the old river road right away. And technically a two-ft retaining wall is a structure that requires a variance.
Correct. Um the the next item number three is uh variance for lot area. Whereas the minimum required lot area in this zone is 5 acres, the lot existing and proposed is 4.89 acres which requires a variance.
That's an existing condition that we're not changing. Correct. Correct. That's an existing condition. Number five is the the signage which we had previously identified. So we are proposing a total of 582 ft of signage
whereas 100 square feet is permitted. The next number six is for the number of signs which is proposed at three wall signs whereas one is permitted. Um that 582 still 5 that 582 still applies.
Correct. Those are still occurring. Thank you. Uh the there's uh item number seven on the letter is for a variance for the height of the sign um because there are portions of the sign at an elevation
higher than the second floor and the item number eight on that letter is for the number of parking stalls which I did previously identify as we're proposing 16 parking stalls whereas 64 are required. Um I provided some brief
testimony on uh supporting that variance and uh item number nine is for the um the size of the loading spaces. So um this was uh this is unchanged from the prior uh testimony provided initially
but we are proposing a 12x4 foot loading space interior to the building um along the uh the western side of the building or what would would function and serve practically as the front of the building
whereas 12 by 50 ft is required. Um again I think this is appropriate given the nature of the self storage use. You're not really going to have your traditional commercial uh retail loading operations. This is going to be, you know, small U-Hauls and and uh passenger vehicles and things of that nature.
That concludes the variance release section of the planning report. I believe that in this report, I believe Jessica's also listed some variances. Now, if you want us to move to to her report, I'm just saying if you're representing this as the complete list of variances.
Okay. Well, we'll you can deal with those when you get to hers report if you'd like to finish with Jeff's report. And then as you go through Jeff's report, you could see where he's indicated that items are satisfied and where he's pulled out in bold where either all we need to hear is that you
agree to that condition or if he's asking for testimony, then that could be provided, but that can streamline it. I could probably help streamline that. Um, thank you. I I think we can move down to
um 16 16 which we already agreed as a condition of approval that a truck rental business would not be on site because that would require a dear. So that's fine. Going down to
um number 19. I think we indicated that we're going to provide additional testimony on the wall signage from another witness. Going to number 20, ground signage or directional signage. Will there be
permanent or temporary signage pertaining to Diamond Nation installed? And the answer to that is no. Correct. You said no. Correct. Correct. or or this facility. Well, you asked for permanent or
temporary signage pertaining to Diamond Nation be installed. Yeah. So, that was comment, but I'm I'm asking just in addition to that. Any ground signage or directional signage proposed? No. Okay. Thank you. Um I think we can skip down to number
23, county planning board approval, which I think we already testified to. We have conditional approval. 24. Um, we agreed to provide the AutoCAD geo referenced AutoCAD.
25. Um, we will address the county agency reviews when we get to them at the end of this report. 26. Historian Commission review mentions an archaeological grid on the site. Um, would you provide testimony with respect to that?
Sure. So this I believe this comes from a reference in our in in the uh environmental report that was submitted with the application. So there's in the maps we did identify that this area falls within historical area and a specific grid for archaeological
um study, but as far as I'm aware there's no requirement for that. It's really just an indication that um it's it's on the map. There are some historic properties in the general uh area nearby. Um but there's, you know, the majority of the developed
sites in the area are are all within the same grid and um district. So I'm not I don't think there's any implication on that restriction. There's no historic structure on this site. None that none that was identified or that we're aware of.
Right. And there's no requirement to prevent us from uh doing any type of development on this site. Correct? No. Um number 27. We'll give everything in PDF
format, which we did. Um 28. And we have our stenographer here. Um going into the new comments, can I uh just interrupt you for a second? I'm going to bring you back to bullet number 23 on the county planning board.
It's really not our place to interpret the language here. Maybe you can offer an interpretation on their letter of June 12th, 2023, the Hunter County Planning Board says that uh on June 1st, 2023 and was granted conditional
approval not to construct. Can you clarify in your words what that means? It it means that they gave us approval, but we're not allowed to construct until we meet all of their conditions, and we're only seeking here preliminary approval. So, we can't even
construct with whatever relief we get from you people until we get final approval. So, that satisfaction of the outside governmental agency approval of the county would be a condition of this approval as well. It's a little in artfully written, but
it is. Yeah. I don't I don't like the way they do that, but not how I would have it. Not my choice either. Yeah. Um, moving on to um
number 30. We'll get to um the other planners review. I But I think we're we already talked about the parking 31. um piles of concrete, rock and soil on the property or on county road up rightway, please
see attached the applicant shall address. I can tell you that if it hasn't been removed, in total, it will be. Um it it as of two days ago, it was almost all removed. It's gone. Okay. And Miss Drews confirms that it's
gone. So, that's a good thing. But if it to the extent that it isn't, it will be um proposed lawn area to the northwestern portion of the site. Applicants shall testify to the area this area of the site. Yes. So this is the area um where the
current overflow parking area is and we're proposing it to be a the seated lawn area with the exception of the the portion that is uh functioning as a bio retention basin. So we're not proposing any parking on that area. Correct. So the fences get closed up and the
crosswalks get painted over. We're not proposing to change the I mean, we all know it, right? As hard as you try. And I know you do try, but people get creative when they're there in the car and they want to drop off Bobby and uh they pull in pretty much
anywhere. It's going to be a curbed area. There's landscaping on the perimeter, so you'd have to drive over a curb and some shrubs to get over there. So, I I think that's it's kind of self-regulating and again, we're going to be proposing an alternative solution that's hopefully more convenient as a condition of this
approval. But there you wouldn't have any objection to closing that fence off so people can't go out. Uh I can't agree to remove the striping within the county, you know, intersection signal. Um
but extending the fence, closing the fence within the interior within this site. Yeah. Because there's a gap where people walk out on where you want them to walk. Yeah. On your plan the chain link fence. It kind of stops.
Okay. Okay. Everybody on microphone if you want it on transcript please. On the plans the chain link fence ends at the crosswalk. Right. So there's northwest corner. So the request would be to extend that up and around the corner. close it off so people aren't tempted to park in the
self storage place and walk to that corner to get to the the diamond facility after this is built. So it just closed the fence off. Yeah. The um
the existing fence isn't drawn in on their plans. Yeah. Yeah. There's it's it's drawn in. Um there I think looks like about a 50ft gap up up in the corner K.
[Music] And [Music] so did they propose to remove the fence along the top of the property because it's Did they propose to remove the fence along the top of the property? No, we're not proposing to remove it, but
there it does. It does not on the plans. That's my point. So, the existing chain link will remain. The existing chain link fence is is already proposed to remain there. It's on It's on the plans. It is. I think the request is that it it terminates
at about the crosswalk. Um, beyond the crosswalk, there's actually a slope up. So, I don't know how far we could actually continue it, but I think that's being discussed right now. Yeah, it's it's to use Ed's porative to keep Johnny's
dad from parking at the the self storage place and walking mom. Yeah. So, I mean, it's almost 8:30. Usually, we take a break at 8:30. Do we want to? I don't think they know what they're even doing.
Okay. I mean, you could go to the site issue, too. Why don't you just [Music] take a minute? Steve. Would you like to take a break?
We're going to take a five minute break. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're going to go to a five minute break. Okay. Rest now. Guy, we're back in session. Microphone. So, I think the question was whether we would agree to extend the proposed fence
um along the um where that crosswalk area is and we we'd be willing to do that. We can't. The county controls the crosswalk itself, but we'll extend the fence uh a little bit past that crosswalk. Limits the temptation.
Correct. Right. That's fine. That was a detail. How far do you want to go? Thank you. Like I like how you did that. My first time getting in trouble. She was so polite though, wasn't she? That was the Robert Dairo. Are you talking to me?
That was that was that was uh very very nicely done. Um well, I I I heard um Mr. Grubberg say we'll extend it a little and I heard conversations up here on the deis uh that to me I heard
more than a little so I want to make sure everybody's on the same page. So how about we say to the satisfaction of our traffic engineer and engineer to assure pedestrian safety but it needs to go. You guys don't want people parking there and crossing the road. Correct. That's fine. We we'll work that out.
We'll go past the crosswalk. Yeah. Yeah. around the corner. [Music] Sorry. [Music] Back back to
We're on to 33 33 33 um which is the EV stalls. We we were providing one make ready stall. I think Mr. Varela is saying we need to provide two according to the ordinance.
I think that was with the 64 spaces. Yeah, because Yeah, the 16 spaces. I I can't I'm sorry I can't hear you. I'm sorry. It's with because it was two required with the 64 spaces, but we're not doing the 64 space requirement. You're doing
this. You're proposing 16, but you're required You required 20. You required 64. So what you're saying is although there's re is it your opinion then Jeff? But what you're saying is although there's relief for the parking spaces
it's not with the EV. No it would be for the EV. It would be so it would be one required one. Okay. So we're we think that we're we're going to provide one. Okay. Okay. and you really don't need to
for a self- storage facility. Um, we already dealt with the county conditional approval and revised agency reviews were attached which we'll go through now. I think the first one is
the fire. Is that right? uh RTMUA is in my packet as the first one and we we have the will serve for the uh RTMUA and we'll we'll apply for the one edu. So do do you have is this the latest correspondence from RTMUA?
Yes. So it says that the owner of the property will need to apply to the RTMA for sewer service capacity. That's the one that you provided. Okay. So you we will do that. So they it require so do you have it or
you need to apply? We need to apply. Okay. So that but we have we we do have a well serve letter from the RTMUA. So I think that needs to be done prior to final. Right Joe. Correct. That would
that'll be that'll be needed before final. will serve. Yes. [Music] That's fine. The next one is the environmental dated March 20th.
Um it it seems like the environmental report dealt with the overflow parking as if that plans hadn't been revised. So, I'm not quite sure how to address this. I don't think so
because it talks about 40% coverage. Not before your application was I believe 60 something% coverage before your application uh in the imperished coverage was much higher. [Music] Well, I think note number two
was sort of doing their calculation of impervious and they're arriving at 425 versus 40 and that I don't know we we Yeah. So I I don't know that that
[Music] Yeah. Um, if there's anything you want to address in here, but I I thought that this was all dealt with as um, you know, it seems like it's dealing with the overflow parking as the primary
issue and we've removed that. Is there a minimum lot size requirement that they're calling out? Is that still Yeah, that's one of the that's one of the that's the relief they're seeking. I I would also respectfully
say that I I think the environmental commission is overstepping their role here in terms of evaluating the application not from an environmental standpoint but in terms of um the number of signs. Um I think that's in the
purview of the planning board. um the relief in the magnitude of the variances in the is in the planning board's venue. Um we would agree. Okay. Thank you. I do want to note that that's only number eight and nine on the report. Right. I do want to note that some of
the stuff you think they're overstepping on is also things that eventually lead to things like impervious coverage. The parking leads to imperous coverage. So yes, they comment on all these things that they see as being an issue. if I
and I understand that maybe they might be a little off because they're not experts and our experts will correct that. I I and I'm just pointing out that I think a number of these items are the jurisdiction of this board and not the environmental commission. I'm not um
disparaging their enthusiasm. I'm just saying this is the jurisdiction of the planning board and not the environmental commission. Yeah, it's really it's an ad. It's not to actually when these are reviewed, I'm there and these aren't
they're to bring attention to certain things. They're not expected to be a official report with testimony or expertise. [Music] Uh unless there's anything else, I'll move on to the fire.
Uh on on the fire um we agreed to do everything. Correct. Correct. You'll agree to all the conditions that Okay. We'll make all those changes. Correct. Correct. Um recycling coordinator
um is the next one. it will cooperate. Um, and we provided testimony previously as to how uh the interior of this space will have uh for the limited amount that
happens. We'll have uh recycling and trash recepticles and they'll be uh taken care of um as needed. And you'll provide the report to Kayla every February 15th as required by state law.
Sure. We already addressed the archaeological. That would be it for Mr. Bakarella's report unless he has anything else. No additional questions. Thank you. Then I'd like to go to um I should go to the second planners
report. Second planners report which is over here is Calwell's report. And I think I can skip to her page under proposed project which I don't see a number
proposed project number eight. Um, and the variances that start there, are there any that we missed? The sign waivers that we missed. So, we did call out the um skipping through a lot of the variances
Jeff and I called out were the same. I I think one thing was the loading spaces in the front yard. Uh based on the ordinance, the definition of front yard is in front of the building. Even though I know you're
outside of the setback, it's still considered to be in the front yard. If it's in front of the building, between the building and the the front yard line. Okay. So, if if um since we have three front yards, we would request that variance because we don't have
anything but front yards, right? I think there was just your engineer was mentioning maybe it was in the variance and then I'm not sure that you mentioned that five loading spaces were required and two are being provided
and then we just had a question about the number one is that Jessica I'm sorry um that's under number 15. Looks like my page numbers disappeared somehow. So,
apologize for that. Unless it's just online. [Music] Wait. Yeah. What about 13? Is that a design waiver? And for under the signs we have No, I'm sorry. What number were you
saying? Uh to back up. Number 13. 13. Um I you call out a is that a design waiver? A design waiver for the parking the uh sidewalk width.
Right. A five foot sidewalks proposed between the self- storage building and the four parallel spaces on the eastern side. Yeah. I I just see if this complies on it does comply. Um it's just it's all the underlying comments are new comments
because it's a second report. So it's a 4 foot clear um area is required. So they have five foot. So that's that's complies, right? That's correct.
I apologize. Yeah. Yeah, that's all right. I like the words this complies. That's just my thing. Yeah. So, the underlines were for the new comments and the changed comments. So, we did make a comment about the EV
spaces and that if you um build 16, you have one EV space requirement. If for some reason you had to build 64, you would have to that was under 14. Under 15, we have the loading spaces
where you're proposing two but five are required. We noted that they were in the front yard in between the building and the front rideway line which obviously you have four front yards. Yeah, I think we already provided the
testimony that the spaces are essentially loading spaces for smaller trucks and cars and that's why we don't need the four the four parallel ones. Correct. So I think those the the question about that was just that they would also fall under that loading
spaces in the front yard versus parking because they meet the parking setback for parking spaces but they're in the front yard of the building. Obviously, all sides of the building are in the front yard, but that's that would just another variance.
And the nature of the of the use is a self- storage facility where you're going to need some parking available to have um some loading and unloading. And just as a a point of clarification, those on our plans, th those four spaces are actually
uh counted as parking spaces. So just to they're included in the 16. If you if you want to categorize them as loading, I just want to clarify that that would change the parking space requirement. We we propose them as parking spaces or just a little oversized considering the nature of these. Thought they'd be convenient.
Yeah, that was a question. Are they oversized parking spaces or undersized loading spaces? Yes, we're calling them oversized parking spaces. Okay. So then we'll keep it at the two loading spaces proposed where five are required and then those would be those
would meet the parking space setback and you would stay at 16 parking spaces. Okay. So before we proceed I just I want to make sure my notes are correct. So all the way from item 1 to 15 in Miss Cordwell's report. The only thing I have
to include is that there's variance relief requested for proposing two loading births where five are required. Is that correct? That's correct. Otherwise, everything else is the same as what's in uh Mr. Vakarella's report that has already been addressed up to
this point. If he raised the loading spaces in the front yard, I didn't hear that one, but that might be another one. I thought it was, but loading spaces in the front yard. That's just because which is where in the report? It's under
[Music] 15. 15 B1. 15 B1. Yes. Or 15B I B I Yeah, that's that's also a condition. I'm
sorry, a variance. Yes, I believe you covered everything else. Okay. I thought so through Jeff's report. Yes, that technically that's a design waiver. The parking spaces in the front area. Yeah, it's under 296-75
C which is under site design. Okay. So, B I and um I guess double I and 3 I those are all design waiverss. Yes. Next would be Mr. Darg's report of July
1st. Wait, I I don't recall Mr. Vakarella talking about uh fence heights and I'm seeing 18 fences. Is there any relief needed for that? They're all under eight feet, correct? Yeah.
So, we're okay. Yeah, you're okay. She also mentions the signage going into that or waiting until we we um we're going to present additional testimony with respect to the signage. Y but with it's the same variances that uh
Mr. Bakarella called out. That's that's correct. Can I go on to Mr. Dargy's report? Yes, please. I think we're going down to the design waiver for the parking lots and access drives. Is
that on page two? Waver number two. That's correct. Number two on at the bottom of page two. July 1st. Yes. July July 1st is the memo and it's page two of six at the bottom.
We don't have an item. This is page three. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We're missing We're missing page. Trust me, there's a page, too. Okay. Okay. I have it. Joe Joe's got it.
That's the only substantive thing on page two. Wow. Well, so you agree with you agree with the three design waivers that are called out enumerated as two, three, and four. Don't read that.
I'm asking the applicant if he agrees with the design waiverss that are called out in our engineers report. Uh items two, three, and four. Two and three. Four is there's no design w I'm sorry. Right. And we already talked about three.
The only additional one would be two. Right. Someone say what it is. Certainly. Um actually, do you want me to do it? Sure. Uh it's uh a waiver or waiver from section 29675 C2J uh where parking lots and access drives
are to be set back 20 ft from the street rightway lines and at least 15 ft from all all other property lines. Um the drive aisle is set back 8 and 1/2 ft from the old river road right away. So that that's that's what that waiver is.
Then going on to general comments. I think we've already provided this testimony in the past. Yeah, I I and I'll certainly defer to uh to the other board professionals who were present. I I would actually this dates back to before me being your
engineer. So if this testimony was provided, I certainly don't need to hear it again if you don't need to hear it again. And on the site layout plan, we will do all of those things. I think everything else we will do.
Correct for site layout plan. Yes, we would agree. What about storm water management upgrading drainage and utilities? Uh, I would agree to to to 16 and 17. Yeah, we would agree. Um, I'm not sure if there's further
testimony requested on those, but we would agree to address those as needed. What's that 161 17? Yes. Um, can you read what they are? Yeah. I I I don't see those conditions.
I see those as you needing to satiate our engineers concerns. Yes. And and for for committee women's benefit, yeah, I I agree the uh gradient the comments are 16 and 17 in the grading drainage utility section of our memo. Uh one is I think just a
typographical error. Uh that elevation I think is just wrong. It says 135.95. It probably needs that creates a low spot. If it was 136 136.95 it would work perfectly. So, I think it's just a demographic error uh which will be fixed, I imagine. And then the other is
a little bit more substantive. Uh there's a head wall that comes off of uh the highway uh in the northeast corner of the site which is then drained around the site to a storm water inlet to get piped down the the the system to go where it was normally going towards the
big drain the drainage basin that exists on the corner. What we were asking was that for that to be piped directly. Um I don't imagine there's any any issue with that right? No. Okay. And that and that is um we did consider
and describe and account for that in the storm water management report as well. Yeah, that's understood. The calculations are fine. It's really just from a stability standpoint. I think it would make more sense to pipe it. Uh storm water management. Is there anything in there that we need to address or um or can we uh do that as to
the engineer satisfaction? I'm sorry. Before we move on, is there a condition for 17? Is there something that you want them to do to address that? Uh 17, I think they agreed that they're going to do it. Agreed to do what? It's to pipe the U storm water that comes off the highway through the head
wall. Uh rather than letting it go over land through their site, uh they'll pipe it to the inlet where it's Okay. Thank you. Anything on storm water that we can't address? We talked about 19. We'll provide the report.
Yeah, I'm I'm happy to dig in on any of these, but yeah, we would agree to address the the comments under storm water management. Okay. Unless there's anything you need us to talk about, we'll we'll address all your comments. No, I think they said the magic words. So, unless the board has any comments
about any of the or questions about any of the comments in my memo, I'm sure they're agreeing to everything. I'm happy to discuss them. The like I said the magic words are going to make the changes. So there, just to clarify, so there's
nothing in the additional permeability and the bio retention um things that are referenced in that part of the memo that are going to impact their ability to meet the standards. No, I believe that the design meets meets the standards. We we ask for some
additional, you know, details and and and things like that which will provide. I'll move on unless you stop me to landscape and lighting and um we ask for testimony regarding the highly moisture sensitive soils found in the geotech
report and if there's any impact on proposed landscaping. No, the the comments on the moisture sensitive soils in the geotech report are more so tailored towards um treatment during construction uh and the
structural stability of the soil. So, um, from a landscape perspective, there's there's no concern with with that. It's really more of a construction matter and for structural stability of the soil for the for the foundations. I'll move on to 24. Uh, that's county
planning board again, correct? Because it's under their jurisdiction. Uh, correct. Um actually he's asking if he'll restrip uh to the satisfaction of him. Correct. And we can't do that because
it's under the county's jurisdiction. So what which kind are we talking about? Uh number 24 under landscape and lighting the restriping of the pavement. We previously testified that the the corner of Bartles's corner and River Road it's a county intersection.
It is a county intersection. I think um if we could look at that. I mean the county will permit it if if we discuss and they agree. So I'd like to at least get leave that option open. If if the applicant, our office, and the county agree that there's some revisions that can be made to make things safer, we we
do that. No, it's not repaving. It's really striping. It's getting rid of the crosswalk. Can we include getting rid of the crosswork? [Music] It's it's it's
faded and it doesn't look great in the in in the as long as we've come to an agreement for the county. It is sometimes it's really just about refreshing it because it's all it's kind of faded and and old, right? So, it's going to be your main entrance. My recommendation, one of the things we talked about
earlier, uh, when M. Drew, Miss M Drew's concerns about the condition of the road was, um, you know, we're probably going to be looking at asking the applicant to not just widen it, but to widen it and repave it. So, you're going to wind up restriping at that point.
Well, we're talking about the intersection. We're not We're talking I apologize. Hold on one second. Let me go back 24 River Road. Oh, we're I I apologize. Yes. Um, I misunderstood. I thought we were
talking about the the access coming into the site. No. Okay. Yeah. I don't think there's a whole lot that's necessary there. Um, but again, we're going to be cutting off that pedestrian access, too. So, we do need to look at creating some sort of
safe harbor because you don't want people coming across to a spot where now you're cutting off the access to the site. So, we're going to need to look at that. We can look at it at so because it's the county Yeah. jurisdiction on it. They're going to have input on that. So, we'll have to meet with the county to deal with.
Yeah. I I'll write the condition that's subject to the county's approval. Then you'll work with the with the township engineer. 25 the landscape plan about grass papers. We're willing to do correct. Correct. And everything else is outside
governmental agency approvals and the usual stuff. I think we can go to John Thomas's landscape report. I will skip through number one. He says we've complied.
Number two, want to talk about the tree protection. Well, we're willing to show that area. Correct. Correct. Yeah, we'll show uh tree protection fence and um I I can touch on
it in the next comment about comment number three. Uh there there's going to be no trees removed and we agreed to um adjust the sil fence in such a way that it would not impact the existing trees. Okay. Um
the existing free being the existing case. Correct. Correct. Right. Along river road more specific. Number four, words to my ears comment no longer applicable. Same for number five.
Um six buffers. Again, no longer applicable. Seven, street trees. Um tree should be removed in the vicinity of the building and moved away from the overhead lines to the north of the building. Um better location would
be outside of the basin burm at the south end of the site. We willing to do that work with him? Yes. And and those are the trees that are I I called it north probably the east. These are the street trees that were proposed along the
right of way that that exist. There's no street tree. So my opinion is they're not necessary there and they're actually not even feasible there because they're overhead wires. So we we agreed we we I spoke with the applicants engineer this afternoon kind of agreed those trees could at least some of them could move
to another location on the site where they would be of some benefit. Number eight um we've complied or it's no longer applicable. Number nine has complied and 9A has complied.
N Yeah, 9B we agree to address and 9B will do or it says house complied. Number 10 I think we've agreed. So you agreed to under wait uh 9B 9b indicates that we added notes
but there were some comments regarding um consistency with details. So we would agree to address that aspect of 9B. Okay. So you're going to add you're going to update the general notes so they they conform with ours.
Correct. Number 10. we're willing to do. Correct. The number 10, there's a few different pieces uh components to this. So, we we um we we discussed this comment this afternoon as well, and I'll give my interpretation of where I think it
landed. We agreed to uh to work with Mr. Thomas to um adjust the density um of the plantings within the bio retention basin. I'm sure he can articulate it much better than than I can. Um So I don't know if you want to just
touch on that first and then there's a second component to that too. Uh yeah so the first the first what what he was mentioning is that the the proposed planting was generally consistent with the EMP manual's
requirements. They have a stem count. However, the BMP manual also talks about coverage of the bottom of the basin at basically 80% when all is said and done. And the stem count really doesn't get you there. So, it's a re in in my
opinion, it's a recommendation. So, what we're going to discuss is some reasonable approach to getting some more planting in the bottom of the basin so that when it's inspected in the future, it does have 80% and we're not kind of revisiting it or re replanting. So that's that's that component and I think
we're they've agreed to work with us on that. That's correct. The next area we it's indicated has complied and will update the note or modify the note regarding multiple cutings during the first season
and all that stuff. The next issue is the request for a freestanding hydrant near the basins. You want to touch on that? Yeah. So um our request is so the request is to provide a freestanding frost proof hydrant adjacent to the
basins to help water the plants and get established uh establish the plants within the basins. Um the applicant agrees has already agreed to the 2-year guarantee of all the plants on site. So our preference would be just that we leave we appreciate the
recommendation but leave the method of watering the plants and ensuring the healthy growth of the plants on site up to the applicant and and how they um see best you know at the time of construction to do that whether it's you
regular maintenance from the the maintenance company watering for establishment irrigation high yard hydrants we just prefer not to have that locked in as a condition and just leave the watering and maintenance of the plants on site up to the applicant's
discretion because they are guarant they are required to guarantee uh two-year uh um to your guarantee for the ordinance. How critical is watering during the establishment period when plugs and
smaller vegetation is used? Would it be would it be beneficial to have access to the hydrant so watering is not so problematic? I would say watering during establishment is critical. Whether having a yard hydrant is the best approach to that because there are other plants on site that need to be watered
for establishment as well. There's I've seen it done you know multiple different ways whether it's if there is irrigation ultimately proposed you can do kind of a quick connect to help facilitate watering. Sometimes they they use watering as part of the maintenance. If you get a dry spell they'll actually water. So there's different
methodologies to accomplish that. The applicant has to meet the performance requirement. So we're just requesting that we appreciate the recommendation, but leave the kind of means and methods of that open to the applicant. But in the past, you've recommended irrigation for vegetation establishment.
In the past, I've recommend I I always recommend that there be a method to water during the establishment period, not necessarily a permanent irrigation system. And the recommendation is simply to, you know, say this is a much easier way to do it
instead of dragging a hose across the pave surface to access the area. I mean, I think that's I'm not recommending an irrigation system, but again, it's a recommendation is it is up to the, you know, it is up to the applicant that how
how they want to accomplish it. Um um but but we're going to be inspecting it and okay you know again in the past we we've particularly and it's sort of counterintuitive that these natural bio retention areas with small plugs
tend to dry out very quickly and you lose a lot of material. So that's that's the recommendation and we appreciate the recommendation, but I I think we'd like to keep that in our purview as to how to make sure that
it gets watered and and you know this isn't a this is a self storage facility that won't have a lot of traffic and a lot of concern if somebody for a short period of time or a longer period of time has to put a hose across the
driveway and water Is is there a hose will there be a hose bib on the building? Because again, we've I've seen this. We've had we've had projects that's on and there's not even a hose bib on the building and then it becomes a water truck issue. So that would be my that
would be the next best thing. I understand what you're saying about the the use of this. So you agree to water bids? We could agree to provide a hose bib. We would expect that there would be on each side of the building. Yeah.
Okay. I'm not familiar with storm water regulations, but if it dries out and we are now right, that becomes problematic, hence the watering. Okay. So, it's not a a requirement and we
appreciate the recommendation, but I think we we can handle it the other way by making sure that there's water access to that side of the building to be able to um make sure that the maintenance bond is the further protection to make
sure that everything grows. Uh, number 11's not applicable anymore. Right. And I and I think in number I'm sorry, I want to make sure I'm picking up number 10 because related to the planting in the basin, I had a comment
uh when we spoke about this this afternoon about the configuration of the infall and the outfall on the basin. So could you discuss that? And I've also had a conversation in the interim with with Resh, but it is I I did comment on it here. So Sure. Yeah. So there was a comment about
the the inflow and outflow of water in the basin, natural water, not irrigation or you know uh water added to to supplement the growth. Um and my comment on that was it's it although it appears and I'll
just highlight on the exhibit A6 here. So what the comment was is that water enters enters the basins um in one location and then discharges the basins in another location. So, um, just the way that these basins operate, those discharges only become engaged
once the water actually reaches a certain level because the whole concept of the basin is that water inflows to it um during what we call the water quality storm, which is one and a quarter inch over a 2-hour period in New Jersey D code. Um, so water runs into the basin,
it fills up and we want to promote the water to infiltrate through that bio retention basin into the subsurface into the under drain and out so it cleans the water. So during that period when you have a light rainfall, there really is no outflow. It's through the basin bottom. So, I was just trying to clarify
that it's not really going to kind of short circuit and and traverse right to the outfall because there really is no outfall until you reach a certain threshold and then the outlet structure actually is is activated. Um, so it's it varies between each basin, but it's typically about it's about 6 in to a
foot of water in that basin before you actually get a discharge. Um, does that is that does that make sense? And that's and that's fine. I don't know if I could ask because I you know I I I defer to Rash and he's kind of the decider on these on these issues but if you could confirm that
yeah in in short that that's that's correct the the way that uh Mr. McCann is describing it is correct. I think what um what uh John was saying is is true uh is in cases when you have a detention basin where there's a out outlet at the basin bottom
uh the design uh methodologies that you put the inflow on the far end and that way the water has to traverse through uh the filtration and the vegetation to get to that outlet. But that's when you have a detention basin where the water's coming in going out at the same
elevation. In this case, the outlet is actually set higher up. So water actually has to fill like like Mr. McKenna was saying, water has to actually fill in the basin for about a foot or so and then it leaves the basin. So the basin all the vegetation will actually serve to filter the storm water.
So the whole issue here is just we want to keep these plants alive and if the water isn't being retained for a certain period, we have a problem and and we've seen it. So this this answer work this is all satisfying. Okay.
So John, your note regarding um the mowing that still is applicable. Correct. Correct. So you agree? Yes. The last issue is fencing and it says the applicant's engineer has
indicated that testimony will be provided with regard to the fencing. There's so um there's two types of fencing proposed on site. Uh the first is chain link fence. It's essentially exactly the same as what's out there today. A portion of the fence on the
northern half of the site would actually remain and we already previously discussed that it will be extended to a point past the crosswalk. Um and then on the southern half of the site, we're simply just replacing in kind areas, the portions of the existing fence that are being um impacted by the proposed
construction. The second type of fence is um standard for BMPs in the DUP MA BMP manual. Um, we're proposing just a post and rail fence around the perimeter of the basins and that'll be post and rail with um like a mesh uh fencing
material over it. Is there any conflict between the detention basin fencing and the exterior fencing? Uh, no. No. Is that all you need? I I think that's all I need. It was just a question on that lower part of the
site and it looked like the chain link was being retained in front of the detention basin fencing and was it all that fencing this was an this is an aesthetic issue and was it necessary to overlap it or could you just clean it up
by having the and maybe I'm not a and there was a way to join the one to the other and eliminate kind of a double layer fencing with a space in between. Maybe I wasn't interpreting where that those fence locations were correctly. So that's why I asked her
explanation. Yeah, that's certainly something we would be willing to look at to eliminate fence if we have two fences in close proximity to each other. But um yeah, there there may be 15 or 20 feet um or so apart. And the one purpose of one fence is to is to well the existing
fence is really out there to keep pedestrians out of the county right away um and for security purposes. And the purpose of the bio retention basin fences is to keep folks out of the actual bio retention basin. And that's fine. Well, let's let's just take a look at it on the final plan. And
it it really applies to that lower corner of the site below the building. So, it's not a That's fine. I think that's it for everybody's reports, unless I missed something. Oh, well, I talked about Mr. Troutman's
report and I already agreed to do everything that he wanted to do, I think. Is there anything else that we need to do? Just going to look real quick here. Um, the only thing I had was a uh to increase that radius comes out to Old
River Road from 15 to 20. It was comment number 11 in the July 7th memo. Sure, we would agree to do that. That's it. Okay. Okay. Unless anybody else has any questions uh of our engineer, I'll call
our planner up. Well, I'm going to ask if there's anybody here from the public this evening who would have any questions for Mr. McKenna's testimony and only his testimony. Step up to the microphone. Identify yourself.
Nope. There being none. Any other Just make sure. Any other board comments? I think we've all been participating. Okay, thank you. I call Thank you, Mr. Tyina forward. [Music]
Mr. Tyena, can you give the board the benefit of your qualifications? Hi, my name is John Ty. It's pretty good. My name is John Tyena and I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. I have been since I completed my studies at Ruckers University in 1992. I've
spent the last uh 32 years doing this, testifying before planning and zoning boards uh across the state and around the country. On behalf of applicants just like this, I've appeared before more than 175 boards around New Jersey. I've been to your planning board. I've never been here.
Board of adjustment. Excuse me. Your board of adjustment. I've never been to your planning board. I've never been here. Okay. You're acceptable to the board. Thank you so much. Thank you. Your license is in good stand. It is. 5298. Why don't you tell the board what you did in terms of uh analyzing this site
for purposes of the variances and design waiverss that we're requesting and what your opinion is. Certainly. We also had an opportunity to review obviously the plans uh that were provided all the reports uh review your ordinance and your master plan um as it relates to the site and uh had the
opportunity to visit the site on several occasions. Uh in this instance uh we need a few uh C what are called C variances. Um in terms of our C variances there are certain uh findings the board would need to make. uh first
and foremost that the variances relate to a specific piece of property. Secondly, that um we advance some of the purposes of zoning. Third, that either we have a unique site condition that
relates to this specific property that presents a hardship such as um we only have, you know, 4.899 899 acres, not the five acres that's required because that's all the county left us when they
took the rest of the land from us. Um, and the fact that we have uh unlimited front yards and we don't have anything else. So, we have certain things that in your ordinance that can't be in front yards but have to be on a site. So that presents somewhat of a hardship to us or
that um the benefits of granting the variance outweigh outweigh any detriments that may be uh present by those variances. And uh that is a a kind of a benefit detriment analysis that looks at the benefits of the overall
project versus the detriments that are imposed by those variances. And the simple thing is is it a better plan because we have the variances uh that we're that we seek from a C2 standpoint. And then finally with all of our variances as you know we need to satisfy the negative criteria. Are we going to
have a substantial detriment to the public good? Are we going to be harming the general public in some way? Are we going to be detrimental to our neighbors? Uh or uh and and and we cannot uh have a substantial impairment to your zone plan or your master plan.
So what does your I2 zone talk about in terms of use? What does it talk about in terms of its uh in terms of its standards and does the relief that we're proposing uh you know so fracture those standards um that it substantially impairs the zone? So first and foremost
um this uh this relief relates specifically to 116 River Road. Uh no other property um it is this unique property with our we keep calling it three front yards. Is it three or four? um all of our front yards. Uh that's that is our case. We're kind of left on
an island out there between Old River Road, New River Road, and um Bartles's Corner. So, um it, you know, that's that presents a unique challenge for us. Um any relief that you grant here doesn't convey any precedent to any other applicant. Um so, again, everything has
to stand on its own and that is a critical component of any your of any of your findings. So in terms of uh in terms of the variances that are requested, our lot our lot area variance again is 4.89
uh 9 acres versus uh 5 acres. This is a C1 uh variance to continue that existing condition. That's all the that's all the land that the county left us. Our front yard setback of 50 ft proposed where 100 ft is required. That'll be a C2 variance. uh where it is a bit of a
hardship that all we have is front yards. Um but we had to make the best of of that bad situation and when you do that uh you kind of fall back into that C2 criteria in terms of parking. Again, it's a better plan with 16 spaces instead of 64. That'll be a C2 variance.
In terms of our two loading births versus five required, again um that is specific to this use uh and the particular requirements of this use. So again, it's a better plan with two loading spaces than with five. That'll be a C C2 variance. Our loading location
in the front yard, I'd submit to you that is a C1 variance. The only place we can put anything outside the building is in a front yard. So uh by by definition that is a hardship to us because we need certain elements to operate a site um
particularly a site for permitted use but to operate any site uh any of those things that are prohibited in your ordinance from being in a front yard um particularly things in the I2 district like loading which you would totally expect to be here um that would be a hardship. So again that's a C1 variance.
um our signage uh for our three wall signs totaling 582 square feet where one sign of a maximum of 100 uh square feet uh is permitted. Uh again that is a C2 variance. Um and then finally our lighting uh relief where we're seeking
2.7 uh foot candles at the property line uh where a maximum of 0.5 is permitted and again that is at our um that is at our driveway location and again that's a C2 variance. It's better plan because we
have the right amount of lighting at our entrance driveway. It's interesting you know I've been I've been doing this for 32 years. I've written several ordinances um back when I was uh a municipal planner back in in 2000 and I'm actually proud to say they're still
in effect today. 25 years later, they're still using them. But I made the same mistake. I had to, you know, at the property line we had to be zero.5 or something like that and you have to seek relief every time you go for uh for the driveway. You think we' we'd figure it out after after a few years. Um, so in
terms of our our positive criteria, again, uh, I kind of hit them when I talked about them. C1 versus C2, we are permitted use. Our lot areas and existing nonconformity, our frags are needed for functional circulation. Um, we did make the best of a bad situation.
We kind of called uh, Old River Road our uh, our minor front yard, if you will. And um, you know, that's where our 50 ft uh, 50 foot setback is. And again, the unique condition there. We have the railroad then we have an industrial use behind. So we're not really having a
negative impact at all on our neighbors or the general public. Our parking reduction again is uh as Mr. Troutman's memo points out appropriately. Um it is uh would be 13 as a as the right number. We have 16. Uh we think that's the right
number. We're out on an island. We're not going to overflow anybody else. Um we'll be in a goodstead in terms of parking. These uses are extraordinarily low impact. Um, and you've heard that many, many times by the several self-s storage facilities in town. Um, so
again, in terms of parking, we're much better off having the right amount of parking as opposed to having too much impervious surface, uh, etc. Our loading relief, again, we have loading spaces that are appropriate for the types of uh, trucks that are going to use the site. Um, they're much they're much
smaller trucks that were not to accommodate a big 53 ft trailer. um they're typical single unit trucks uh 30 ft and below. Uh and then in terms of our signage size um it is proportional to building scale. So your ordinance is
like most ordinances where you permit 5% of the building of the building facade to be uh as your sign and that's that's appropriate. I've seen them range anywhere from 5% up to 15%. Um, and that's appropriate, but then
unfortunately, um, we all then put this cap on it and, uh, your cap is 100 square feet. I've seen caps as low as 48 ft. Um, and that just, uh, it doesn't work and it's inappropriate in terms of just a bigger
building. So we have um we have you know a large building at 127,000 square feet that has relatively large facades that are all conforming in terms of all of your bulk standards etc. Um but we're only we're proposing to have uh either
on the long sides of the table on the long sides of the building 2.3% of the building covered uh at at 194 square ft. And on the short side, which faces west, um it's 2.8%.
So again, it's significantly below the 5% that is set forth in your ordinance, we're just above the 100 square foot um cap that is imposed in your ordinance. And I'd submit to you that um it when the signs are too small in a building,
it kind of looks funny. Um and that's, you know, that's kind of a a challenge, you know, when they're kind of things get out of scale. Um, and uh, you know, it's just better to have a sign that's kind of the right size uh, for your face. I was relating to the team. I
broke my nose when I was little and they fixed my nose and my mother will tell you today, 45 years later, my nose is too small. So, um, I think that it's it's important to have something that's the right proportion and we think the 194 square ft uh, certainly is that. Um,
in terms of how the sign breaks up, the word uh storage, self- storage, that's about 100 square feet on the facade. And then the word routin is about uh a little over 30 square ft. Um the rest of it is kind of the air of the box that we
circumscribe around the words um for the total of 194 square ft. So again, we think it's tasteful. We think it's appropriate. I think it's appropriate given that we have the three front yards um and the three exposures that we have. Um and it's it's going to it's really at the right size. And then lighting, we
think uh in terms of lighting, we think the higher levels. Can we just stick with the signage for a minute? Sure. Because please interrupt me. I I really please I think I think I just did. No, I did. I I always I usually invite that at my beginning. I get I get this clearly you want the business to be identified. I understand
that. Bartles's Corner Road. Certainly the long side of that building. I could see a sign. I could certainly see it coming up River Road. I don't see the need for the third sign facing the ball the ball fields. The principal reason advertising to the people coming to the ballpark.
No, the principal reason. Um No, we're not. I'm just trying to get you back into as close to the township ranks as as we can. No. and and I I understand um the principal reason for the sign on what we're calling the west facade is that is our quoteunquote front door. That is
where the principal loading um spaces in and the principal entrance in and out of the building is going to be. Um so that's kind of why we that's why we put put the sign there and I agree that but they're already on your property right at this point figured out where you are. I concur, but um I don't want
to say it's architecture 101, but it makes good sense to have a sign over your main entrance. It's kind of good uh good for your customers, good for all of it. Um and we think it's appropriate again because we are on that facade at 2.9%. So, um it's, you know, it's
relatively small in relation to a relatively large facade. We've just spent a lot of time on signs and regulations for signs and it's this kind of jumped out. There's a lot to this. Can I ask that question? So, sure. Didn't they say earlier, and correct me if I'm wrong, they don't know who the
client is that's going to be running this? So, how do you even know what the signs are going to look like? Well, um, refer and because you're talking about the the lettering and what exactly the square footage of those letters are, but say extra space wants to come in and they
have that big green sign and they want to put that up. Well, how does that work? Well, it would work one of two ways. Either extra space would be happy with 194 square feet on three facades or they'd come back before you and have to make their own case. Um,
and you you'd see what the what the case is. In this instance, again, we proposed a sign that is in proportion to the facade that is there. Is is it also a function of the way the roadway and the traveling public goes
around the building? If you take a look at it, somebody traveling um on River Road when they're driving up to the site, they're seeing the the side of the building that if you follow the
chairman wouldn't would have a sign, but as they go around, the front wouldn't have a sign. And then you would only have another sign on the other side. But it it the way the road travels, you really need a sign up on each side of
the building in order for it to be visible. Correct. The unique exposures that we have and given that you can come to this site from several different uh directions and and directions that are significant roadways. It's not like, you
know, one is an A and a B. You're really coming at it from two directions, right? You're coming up River Road or you're coming so east or west on Bartles's Corner Road. It's that third side that I'm questioning. And and I understand who's seeing that, but the people parked at Diamond Nation and that's not your
audience, right? That's not Agreed. It's it again, it's it's there principally because that's the main entrance. That's it's putting over the main entrance. Well, I mean, there's other ways to deal with it. Cut the building on a 45 and there you have one sign.
But my point is like Well, we we typically wouldn't we wouldn't take GLA out to to satisfy that, but um again, we think we think the way we propose it is appropriate and we're going to listen to the we're going to listen to what the board says. We're going to, you know, we're going to
listen to you and you're going to tell us what you think and we'll respond accordingly. I'm certain of that. I think we had asked earlier this evening and we were waiting for this testimony on the signs. Is there any mockup that you have of Yes. You know what? That's good. I'm going to
put the one on TV. What you're handing out was previously submitted and marked into evidence. Correct. Correct. They're A5. Thank you. Next Okay, this is from their December 2023
meeting. So, this was already marked as an exhibit. as before and A5. Why don't you describe the the A4 and A5 in terms of the scale and mass of the signs in relationship to the building? Certainly. So, um
looking at A4 and A5 and I guess A4 is um is perspective west from uh west of River Road. Um, and this shows really the north side of the building on the left, uh, which would face BR's Corner and then, um, the west side of the
building that would face Diamond Nation. Um, so again, it shows that in terms of overall scale of the building, they don't look out of place. They're not um at 194 square ft on 127,000t building,
they're not very large at all. Talk about the lighting on these. I can't tell looking at it. You know what? I can't tell either. Yeah. So, there be internally internally illuminated individual letters.
You don't have any details. No, no, no microphone. There's no details. This is this is just the schematic, correct? This is the schematic. [Music] Then referring to A5, that would show
what we're talking about from perspective view south. So you have the south side of the building on the right um which you'd be looking at coming up from uh River Road. And then again the left side is the west side of the building that would face domination. And
again you see that uh in terms of overall scale um they're in in relatively good proportion. None of this parking in the picture is here anymore, right? That's in the parking in the picture. It's in this area is here anymore,
right? That was all taken out. Correct. That was all taken out. The only parking that remains is parking along the west side of the building and then the four parallel spaces along the east side of the building. as as as you're traveling along River Road, if
this uh sign on the front was missing or on the side was missing, would the building look out of place? I think so. I mean, again, I think um we're we're used to we're used to having
a sign on facades that face streets. That is the the norm. Your ordinance is interesting that for a single user building, you only get one, no matter how many front yards you have. Um, but for a multi-user building, you get more
than one. Um, and again, it's appropriate that uh that you would have um you would have signs that, you know, that face, you know, every direction. And again, in terms of of scale on 127,000t building, this amount of
signage is not is not unreasonable to put it. And again, to put it in different scale um and only because I I work from around the country, a use that is relatively nearby that you're familiar with that's a little bigger 150,000
square foot Costco. Each of those signs is 590 ft. So it is and there's probably three of them on the on the building that's over there that are all 590 ft. So again, on these large buildings getting hung up on
a on an actual square footage, it's more appropriate to look at it in terms of size and scale relative to the facade that it sits on. We we really think that having the three signs is is appropriate in in terms of
the percentage of the sides of the building and given the configuration of the roadway. Um we're we're requesting the board's uh um agreement on the variance relief with respect to those three signs because if you look at that exhibit, I think it's it's appropriate
in terms of size and scale. And it's a very unique piece of property and a unique size of a building. It would look look out of place if those signs were any smaller. And they are a significant distance from the from the roads. I mean, from Bar's
Corner, we're probably uh over, you know, over 200 plus feet to that road. Uh from our entrance at the south end on River Road, we're over 300 feet. And again, we have the full 100 ft on River Road to the west. So again, we have
substantial setbacks and distances there to address for each of them. Okay, I get your argument. I I I'm trying to think about what's the brightness of this. That's why I was asking you how these things went. Well, they'll be internally illuminated typ and again letters like that are
typically you know a halo light where it's literally just behind it's just behind it. Um I think if uh you know looking at them they're not white and if the board were to make that a condition that the letters not be white that's probably a good condition to make sure
it's not too bright. I think the main concern at least from my point of view I was wondering the same thing is you don't want it to be distracting to the drivers. I mean, you want to draw their attention, but not so much that it's distracting and cause someone to maybe veer off the road. No. And I think with this, particularly with this color scheme, it certainly
does not do that. Is there no monument signs like none? You know, the like the land ones that none. Wouldn't that be better? Um, then you could have one. Well, we act we actually think given the
exposure of the building, Sure. the building itself can be designed and it's and it's approp and we think it's appropriate the way we've laid it out. But from a wayf finding that's a good thought. I mean at this point people how are they going to know where how do you know that that that's the
driveway for the property? Well, there's no sign proposed at that driveway entrance. That is correct. Um again, I think you'll um we're all typically directed by our uh by our directions and our and our way finding. that's, you know, on
the dashboard of our car. And then and then beyond that, it's um these are going to be, you know, tenants. So once you find it the first time, you're there's there's also we don't own the property by the entrance. So we can't do
frontage along the road where Great point, Steve. a sign could be put in that said the name and then next left or next right depending from which I'm just people are going to go blowing by that driveway because they're not going to know where to turn. Yeah.
And 100 100 square feet is allowed for ground sign. Yeah. So in addition to what's on the building. Yeah. Or instead of what's on the building? Yeah. For compliant in addition. Yeah. Maybe
I mean, I agree the one over the entrance I I do think the one over the entrance makes sense even though the entrance is facing that way. Um, I think you might be better off to have like just that one in a ground sign or
like I don't see how this is a a variance that is necessary when there's other ways to solve it. Well, the I mean I get I understand aesthetically you don't want it, but
that's not a reason for a variance. I don't think although I don't vote so for I mean from an aesthetic standpoint again I think having appropriately scaled sign that's between two and 5% is
better than having limiting it to 100 100 square feet that would be you know 1%. um again I think would be too small on the facade that would kind of look funny. But then you're also proposing three where one is permitted, right? Correct. Because there are three
distinct um views and exposures on the site. Um again, we have north to Bartles Corner, we have south to River Road, and we have west over the main entrance there. True, but your front of your building is
going to be the one with your entrance. better answer cuz they come around. The front of the building is the one with the entrance that you're saying is the front door. So why would you want it on the sides? I mean, I guess I understand you want a billboard where you are, but is it
necessary? But when you're coming in the entrance road, you want a sign on the entrance road part and where the front door is. So maybe you don't need the third one that faces 523 because that's really
redundant. Yeah. But if you feel like it's a concession to say take that one side off and then put you're saying directional signage. Yeah. I I think the problem with the directional signage if you look at the site plan is there's a big sight
easement right along the front of the property. So it limits where you could put a site plan, a monument sign to that um detention base.
Where are you proposing? So could a monument sign if you put your site plan where the site easement ends now. Uh heading towards Bartle um Bartles.
That's Bartle's Corner. Yeah, that's Bartles's corner at the top. Right where the brown ends right across from the driveway to Diamondation. Why would you put it there? Because people that have made the turn are now a directional sign would say
driveway next level. If you're heading if you're heading south, we're we're sitting here trying to design it for them to make it work. And if they don't want to make it work, they don't want to make it work. So, well, we absolutely want to make it
work. Let's let's No, I mean existing restrictions. I'm saying is not make it work. I mean, obviously it's either a variance or not, right? And and what we're requesting,
which we're allowed to do under the municipal land use law, is under these unique circumstances, because of the size of the building and because of the multiple road frontages and because of
um the uniqueness of this situation that it's better to have a slight deviation to allow uh an addition the additional signage and the additional area and um it is because of what Mr. Tyena
testified to in terms of the percentage. Usually it's a 5% on a face and we're actually at less than 3% on each 2 and 1.5% on each that this is an appropriate signage for this type of use on this
type of building in this configuration. And we're not asking for a monument. We're not asking for a monument sign, which would have been an additional signage because I don't think that would be appropriate given the site easement and the way that the uh the the um road
travels around the outside of the building. So, um we we think it's an appropriate signage and very minimal under the circumstances. We can discuss it once they've done their planning testimony. I can't hear you. We can discuss this as a board when
you're done your planning testimony. Yes, certainly. And I but I appreciate you discussing it with us as well. Yeah. Um so many board just let me go right through and don't say anything. So it's uh it's nice to know what you're
thinking about. Do you have any anything else to testify with respect to the positive criteria on all the variances and design papers? Certainly. Let me uh let me wrap up here. So, um in terms of uh the municipal use law purposes that we'd advance, I'd submit to you there are
three. G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses in accordance with their environmental requirements. Uh I to promote a desirable visual environment um through good civic design and arrangement and M uh to um encourage the
coordination of the various land use procedures affecting development with a view towards lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of the land. Again we think the site is appropriate in terms of its location its permitted use in the district. We think what we are provide it provides
for sufficient space. Uh for the overall improvement, we comply with your building and and impervious coverage limits and but for our one front yard setback all of your setback and F requirements. Um we are meeting all the environmental requirements in terms of
storm water. um in terms of uh you know to provide for the appropriate water treatment uh with the two bio retention facilities uh we do think is an ATR it is quite frankly one of the more attractive self- storage buildings that I've seen um and it's uh you know it's
certainly going to be an improvement uh over a vacant um overflow parking lot. Uh and then M we think that uh this this is another application that really shows all the various hurdles you need to jump through. Um whether it be county soils
um it's storm water etc. And the applicant is has done that very well has done it in a way that's cost effective um and in a way that we think is providing for a high quality development. So when you put all those things together, it is certainly an efficient use of the land even though um
we're below the 40% uh total coverage uh for the district. Um this is a unique use um that allows to provide for a good return uh for the property but can be done so with very very very few external
impacts. Um those very few external impacts take our negative criteria. Again, we're not going to have any substantial detriment to public good. Uh we provide for nice buffers all the way around the building. Our parking supply is adequate. It's not going to spill anywhere else. Um loading and operations
are minimal. Um you know the building's going to fill over the course of its first year and then it's going to sit there full for the next 30. Um tenants check in, they rarely check out. Um and you typically will show very good um very good occupancy and uh over the
time. So again uh it's a very very low impact use. our lighting is controlled um on the site. It'll be very low impact and it's a low impact use overall. Um in terms of your zone plan um again the uses permitting the district um the
relief that we're seeking relates specifically to the site and to the unique um characteristics of this use being less intensive than your typical I2 use. So we need less loading, we need
less parking and those things th that's some of the relief that we're seeking. We are seeking the signage relief again because the unique condition of the site with our uh multiple exposures. Um we're certainly willing to listen to the board in terms of uh your suggestions for what
you think uh the appropriate level of signage and and we'll uh work to coordinate that with you. um and it supports township stated policy of directing growth into service non-residential areas. Um to permit
additional non-residential commercial and uh commercial development uh limiting growth to existing sewer and roadway capacities. um this is an existing site within your sewer service district with uh onto county roads that's going to provide for uh good
access and to preserve preserve farmland and open space elsewhere by again directing your non-residential development into these service commercial areas. Um so for all those reasons I believe you have the ability to make the requisite findings to grant the relief requested. I'm available for
any additional questions. Anyone? Just a Yeah. Um, in your testimony, you talked about the aesthetically pleasing nature of the proposed development, but as I recall in
testimony, the applicant doesn't know who's going to build this and what color scheme they're going to provide and what color or lighting. So, you're not affirming that these are the colors that we will get when this building is built. you're just saying
that is that is correct but but it would be appropriate and Mr. Troy could certainly chime in on this that it it needs to be consistent with what is with what has been represented. So if if an applicant comes in and um they don't
have the tripartite division where they have a a masonry base, a differentiated uh middle of the building and a cornice line at the top that doesn't have the specific corner treatments and the specific entry treatments. That's not
going to be consistent with this approval and they're going to be forced to come back to you and and have to reappear before you. And do not underestimate the power of that hammer that your that your staff is going to is going to
carry. They're going to say, "Well, you can match pretty close to what's this and make me happy, or you can go back to the board and spend a year as opposed to a month." And it's a very powerful tool for your staff to be able to utilize to
get some to make sure that you get something that is consistent with A4 and A5. I I just we have we at one point had the really ugly I shouldn't put it that way but in my opinion the orange self
storage building with the lighting and blue it aesthetically blend the most recent one that was approved at board of yeah we got commitments on color schemes what
extra space do was an extra space just Are they here with this board? No, the one the one I'm talking about was a while ago that was orange. Because there was one like two weeks ago. So that must have been adjusted. That was extra space. I know what you're talking about.
But but we also got one that's a barn. No. And again, the the asset class is one um that can support. It doesn't need investment in its facade. Um but it's
fortunately an asset class that can support it. So you are not building this. You're seeking approval of plans and then Yeah. And then someone else is going to build it. Yeah. There's going to be an ultimate
user that is going to it's going to be built in accordance with this. My recollection of the testimony was that the exact color scheme of the top we may not know but the basic um color scheme
of the base of the building will be that um but the exact color scheme will be up to the ultimate user. Right? So if you were to bring in a user, you'd say, "Okay, your base color scheme, you, you know, you have the base earth tones in your in your stone base and some of your architecture elements.
Maybe some of the highlighting details might be the thing that comes forward." What what I'm thinking the easiest thing to do would be to add a condition where uh the colors would be earth tone subject to the final approval of the board's professionals.
I don't think a blank check would be appropriate. Agree. Say in terms of the building that's probably okay that again signage and signage and branding details would be the things that might vary from when you say with
the building. Yes. What what do you what is your intent to exclude the signage? Signage and the signage may not be earth tone is what I'm saying. Yeah. Okay. So, but that's was your intent when you said the building in your mind, you were excluding the color scheme of the sign. Correct.
Color scheme of the sign and the logo or whatever they might have. And you know, I could see certain users, they have certain accent colors um that are that are consistent with their branding. Understood.
So, I get the branding. It's the I mean, is there a way for what you've got here? At least in my Is there a way for them to find out more information and then before final present it? No, we would go with the condition that was suggested by Mr. uh Mr. Toriello.
So if if you guys are I mean it's going to be a discussion if look to the extent that that the board is not satiated with the you know concerns of the sign that goes back to the conversation you're going to have to have as to whether or not you're going to grant the relief requested with with
respect to the sign. Any other questions for um well we should open it up to the public too if there's anybody here from the community. Yeah. whatever whatever they should might have questions on Mr. Tyena's testimony. Now would be the time to do so. Okay.
Just want to recall briefly Mr. McKenna on a ground sign issue. Okay. Can I just ask a question real quick? Um by granting this is only preliminary, right? So does that mean that when they
do go for final that comes in front of us again or that just gets approved by Jeff? or the the office in order for us to um we have to come back before you on final approval. So as long as our final
there's going to be another but we don't presentation you'll get another shot. We don't get another shot at this. Well that's the variancept that it's you you review the application to make sure that we've complied with all of your conditions of preliminary approval. So,
so to get what I think you're any issues that this board has, the conditions need to be called out today. Okay. If that's where you're go, we cannot do it at a later date. Today is the day come. Yeah.
So, um, you heard the conversation regarding a possibility of a ground mounted sign in lie of the third building facade signage. What's your analysis with respect to that capability? Yes. So, I just wanted to add a little bit of testimony here because ground
signs are something that we evaluated over this project. So, I don't want to I didn't want to present that it wasn't considered. Um, so as was previously noted, the area in brown, uh, it's kind of a brown hatch along the river road frontage west of the building is a is a
sight line ement. So we're not permitted to propose any signage within that area. Um, we would be permitted to propose signage north of that area. Um, however, I would like to note that the max sign height permitted is 10 ft 100 square ft
area. Um, to provide s a line of sight to Bartles Corner Road. So Bart's Corner Road actually sits like if you're looking at the area kind of center of our frontage on Bart's Corner Road, that area sits approximately 10 feet above the area just identified as potential
location for a monument sign. So you wouldn't really be providing any benefit. You you would actually be sitting above the top of the sign in your car coming down south uh you know towards uh Flemington on Barl's Corner Road. So that location we really don't
feel is advantageous and or a benefit rather. And then furthermore, as was previously noted, we do not control the area near near the what is really functionally our access point is um near the southeast corner of our site along
the old river road um rightway. However, the more practical point where I think folks are are focusing on is the um intersection between old river road and current river road which we don't actually control that area where we we can't propose a monument sign there. Um
so again the only we're really feel that we're limited on the locations of a beneficial monument sign. we didn't really feel that one exists um that would provide a benefit which I really think further promotes the um you know irregular nature of this of
this location and supports the the request for the variance for the additional sign we really functionally could provide a sign but it wouldn't really benefit in our opinion. So we really feel that the building sign is a
is more of a benefit to offset that detriment that we're we're dealing with with the the shape and topography of the site. Okay. So I just wanted to clarify that we did look at it. Those those were some of the challenges. Yeah. Just a clarification though that the um exhibit that we were provided on
second page of it. I don't know which a it is. The location of that sign is the re towards the rear or the railroad of the property, but your site plan that was submitted and your signage plan shows that sign being in the front of the building. So, which are you asking
for? Because they're they're conflicting locations. I was looking at uh C302, which is your signage plan. Yes. And then the correct that one, the exhibit that you have in your hand. So,
I'll just clarify the locations of the signs. So, there's there's one sign located in the center proposed in the center of the western facade facing River Road. There's one sign proposed on the northern facade facing Bartles's Corner Road and there's
one sign proposed on the southern facade facing uh River Road to the south. Yeah, that's not what your exhibit this exhibit. So your um signage plan shows the
it shows that sign towards the front corner they just pointed here. Oh, I see right here. Okay. So you're you're correct. It is slightly um based on the elevations of the building, it is a little bit further to the east, but it is on that same
facade. So you're you're correct on our site plan the arrow points closer to the western portion of the building. Um so if that fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair fair point but yes uh it is on this other facade
and the window display is only on the west I'm sorry on the east side of the units the window display on the architectural plan it shows that there's a window display showing all the
interior uh units So I I think the wind I think the window display that's being referenced or it would be the um portion of the site facing Diamond Nation to the to the east. Is that
storefront entry area? I think I think that's what you're referring to. No, there's a if you go on the on the on the east, there's another I believe it's another storefront and then there's window display. I don't think I don't think it's on the
schematic. Yes. [Music] Yeah. That you were asked about you were asked about the signage um towards the rear of the building on I guess that's A5.
That's where the people actually drive in towards the site on that area. Correct. Correct. And the idea of having a signage there was to provide identification as people drive into the site on that area. Correct.
Correct. Yeah. We can uh update the label on C302 to better reflect that. Yeah, I understand. So, there's no sign on that side. There is no sign facing the uh
east, the east, but there's an entry on that side. Andre, and if if a future tenant wants future display on any of the other sides, that could affect a sign. uh they would have to come back. Correct. We're we're not proposing any signage on that
side of the building. We're only proposing signage on the three sides identified. And Miss Drews is correct that the one is towards the rear as opposed to being in the center where the other side were,
but it's not facing the what we'll call the rear of the building. Jeeoff, you're saying there was a window wall like those other self storage things where it looks like the glass but the doors. They have one on the east side. It's not on one of the schematic drawings, but they have one on
on the architectural on the on the architecturals. Yes. That faces the railroad. Yes. So, I don't know if in the f Okay. Yeah. So, it's strange because usually that's meant for an advertising
to Yeah. to say, "Hey, look, this is what we are." Yeah. Self storage, thus decreasing a sign size potentially. Yeah. We're not proposing any signage on that face. So, if anybody wants to, they'd have to come
back before the board. So, are we counting the window wall thing as a sign or not a sign? Is that part of it or not part of it? I mean, it hasn't been viewed as one. Okay. um in the past. There's other applications
that it hasn't been. That's what I wanted to clarify. Yeah, that would conclude our testimony. Um I'd like to sum up if uh you have the opportunity. Sure. Um I think we've beaten everything kind
of to a dead horse except for maybe the sign issue, which I do want to address because that seems to be the the main issue. Um, I think this the side of the building would look silly if you didn't have a sign on there. And I don't think I think
Mr. uh McKenna's testimony with respect to the in unfeasibility of the ground mounted sign is persuasive and we want to have site identification. It's a huge building in relationship to signage
ordinance and that's why it's unique. Um, we uh we think it's appropriate. Um, we have worked with the board and its professionals to try to come up with the best project here. And your major concern in the beginning was storm water
and the traffic coming from um the the safety of pedestrians going from this site for the overflow parking onto uh Diamond Nation. We've uh agreed to address that by removing that overflow parking and that impervious coverage and
to make this a safer situation for the traveling public. Uh we've agreed to the condition dealing with uh the overall parking standard to increase additional parking in the future. I think as a result of this combined effort um it's
appropriate to grant um relief in order to bring this uh project to fruition. And if that means granting the sign variance that I know you've spent a lot of time implementing uh signed variance overall this project calls for the
ability to have some relief particularly with respect to signage which I think is really the only major remaining issue that was of a concern from the board. We would ask that you grant the preliminary approval subject to the conditions that we've all discussed.
Am [Music] I allowed to comment still? Yeah. You have other discussions from any of the board? I just think if when it comes to the signage thing, if
you wanted on three sides of the building, you should have made them smaller than to accommodate at least getting it closer. Yeah. I like if you took one sign and divided that. I mean one
there's a reason sign. One thing that we could discuss as a board and see if we have a general feeling for where we'd like to land on the signs and as our attorney solicitor suggested we could do a straw poll and just see where people are landing on it.
We we do that on board of adjustment all the time to get to get everybody like kind of the feel for where folks are on that variance. if someone wants to make a suggestion. I mean, I think the things that we have to
think about with the signs and and the building in general or the color scheme which was brought up and how we want that to be reflected, the number of signs and size of the signs and the lighting of the signs um
that that you know we don't want. So my initial thought is I understand the mass and scale of the building and I'm willing to compromise or or you know consider um maybe two signs that are at
the larger size but I still think the one facing Bartle's corner what if it was 100 square feet and it just complied. It's basically just helping people understand where the building is. So when they turn around the corner, they, you know, then are using the other
big signs as the bigger I, you know, that's just, that's just one thought. I mean, if others have another suggestion about what we could consider. Well, they don't want to consider that. They don't want us to consider that. Well, then we could we can deny their
variance then on the science. So, we have the ability to just pick that one out and say yes or no, right, solicitor? That's correct. Because you can you can you can either deny the request as it is or you can or
you can offer a modification and approve it that way. It's it's the ball is in your court. All those other ones that they're asking that they're asking for. So, there's the size of the lot. There's the size of this versus the size of the lot is going
to be significant. It's 40 almost 40t tall. So So are there other variance requests that are at contention here or is it only the signage? I'll chime in. I'm good with the other
variances. It's just the signage problem. Well, I actually I'm gonna disagree. I don't have a problem with the three signs. the signs on the three sides, especially Bartles's Corner because that's a higher speed road. So, I think it's important to have a sign that you can read at a higher speed. Um, and in
my opinion, it really does kind of have three faces. So, if you whether you're going either direction on River Road, I can understand wanting to have signage that people can see from both directions and from Bartles's Corner. And I agree with appropriately, I'm going to use air
quotes here, appropriately sized signage for the size of the building, but that's a pretty vague term. I realize that there's a lot of leeway there. And everybody's going to have a different opinion about what appropriately sized is. I do have concerns about lighting, about how bright it is, as I mentioned before.
Um, what else? What was your other point about science, Donna? Colors. Yeah. Yeah, I do have concerns about colors. I know it's nitpicky and I don't like to be that guy, but you know, we have kind of dug our toes in over um or I should say to prevent gaudy color
schemes, but um it does feel kind of nitpicky, but it does make a difference. So, but my main point is I don't have a problem with the three signs mainly because I think it has three fronts and I think they have a fair point that it's important to see it from all angles that
you're coming from. I think that's reasonable. I agree with James. I I own three signs on the sides and then if I look at other buildings around the areas, they retailers that have ones on all four sides pretty darn big retail.
That's not there. And I can see the distraction off 31 often times on the the signs that are lit up and are bigger. So I think we have to this color schematic looks visually appealing. It's not
distractful. It's not distinct. I don't I don't have a problem with three sides. Three sides. Okay. I agree with you, Glenn, on the colors. I'd go back to what Joe summarized here a few minutes ago about how he recorded
this. Well, well, again, um the proposed condition that I had the applicant agreed to with respect to the building in terms of keeping it in earthtones subject to the final approval of uh the board professionals. The problem here is there
is a variance relief that's sought for signage, but we don't know what the sign is going to be. You don't have all of the information. You don't know if it's going to be purple because the applicant who acquires the property, they have to
have a purple sign because that's their that's their brand. And maybe if it was an earth tone, you'd be inclined to grant the variance for the larger, but you wouldn't be inclined to do it if it's purple. So, you know,
in some respects, the the relief saw it as almost premature because you don't have all of the facts. The other issue is the what the building looks like if they're not the ones building it. It's basically maybe it'll look like that. I mean, yes, we can specify
certain colors and stuff, but you can't tell them, you know, you have to have masonry up the first floor and then beyond that because well, there there are plans. There is there is an actual plan that you're that you're approving. So, I I don't think
they can deviate uh and and and build something that wasn't put before this board for approval. You're you've got architectural plans that that's what you're approving. So that is the building that they're that they're
say the materials and things. Yeah. If they were to apply for a zoning permit and presented something else, I would deny it and they would have to come back. Okay. So there is like a check there is my point. There is there is and we're and we're adding the extra check by talking about
earth tones. The problem is with respect to the color of the sign, certain companies may right need their brand may dictate that it has to be a certain color. I mean the other thing is that the sign presented it's it's it was 194 square ft
and it's raritin and self storage. It could look completely different. I mean the same square footage but it could be different, right? So you can't really Yeah. the logo on the lighting of the signage. It is it
lit or back lit? I think he he specified halo lighting. So, it's back lit kind of and it lights around it. I said, I'm sorry, what? Internally illuminated. I think they were internally illuminated single channel letters.
Yeah, he had said halo lit. So I thought that meant like it's like back lit so that you get the um No, I think I think internally illuminated is what they said. So it's not it's not the halo thing. Okay. It's basically in each letter is a channel letter on it own and it has a lighting element
inside. Yeah, that's Yeah. And I I think I think if the if the lighting is a concern to the board, you can put as a condition that the applicant will work with the engineer to establish an appropriate candle. Is it
foot candle? How how do you refer to that? Whatever the the and then you know you can have some control over that. I think the issue is the coloring. Well, the issue is not knowing what the sign's going to be because you don't know who's going to be building it.
So, well, stroll vote. What do you what are your I mean everybody kind of if if if people aren't if people still want three signs then we'll but we need to hear what you guys think about the number of signs.
Well, I can't vote. So, Oh, three. Yeah. I don't like it, but I would go with I'm okay with Okay. So, it looks like Okay. Okay. You're okay with three. Are you okay
with the sizing? Because that's a separate variance. Go to the next question. Now, the size of the sign. I'm actually surprised that our ordinance is by a square footage given that it doesn't necessitate a scale. So,
you know, that's where I was kind of like, well, the square footage is a cap. It's 5% of the building or whatever, but then it's also a cap of Yeah, I already wrote down things to revise,
ordinances to revise. Yeah, for this is only for single tenant structures. For multi-tenant structures, it's just the scale. Yeah. Then it doesn't go to like as restrictive. Yeah, if we're all chiming in, I don't think
the scale of what they've represented here, not that that's what it's going to be. I don't think it's it's bad. Given the side of size of the building, I agree. I think it's I think it's an appropriate and reasonable sign size, I guess you could say.
No, based on the drawing or I should say based on the um rendering presented, whatever you want to call it. What are the other just the colors? We can't I don't Nobody had any issue with the
size of the lot. That was the one. And parking thing that's another but the parking thing was because didn't Okay. Jay had said that it should be calculated as 13 in his letter. Correct. Parking is based on a warehouse
standard. It the ordinance they had to apply a warehouse standard which has nothing to do with this use. So we went in and did looked at all the research for this use. Okay. And so you have you have an appropriate amount of parking based on a self- storage use.
So that makes sense. Okay. So the the it sounds like maybe the additional conditions that emanated from our discussion like Joe started with was the color scheme and that the board would like to review
board professionals review and approve the final lighting design and lighting standards for the building. Yeah, I'm good with that. For the signs. Yeah. But again, the color scheme is just for the build. Just for the building. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. And then can I just clarify what is the mandatory number of offsite parking spaces that need to be constructed with a final CEO before the
applicant can pull. I I am going to go through every single condition and waiver as part of the motion. I have all I have I have all of my notes done. He's ready. Okay. Okay. Just I think we're ready. Just I just wanted
just for the facade. Does that include the the units? The color of the units. Yeah, the doors. Unless everything. Okay. Yes. I would think the doors count as the part of the building. It's all part of the color scheme. Yes.
So, they can't be orange doors and say it it complies. That was such an ugly self storage. No, rendering wise, this one's actually rather nice. council 10:30. Okay. So the relief requested is uh set
forth in the township planners report dated July 3rd 20125 specifically 2 3 5 6 7 8 and 9 as well as um Jessica
Caldwell's um report item 15A design waiverss called out in Miss Cordwell's report 15B B uh lowercase I triple I in um the board's engineer
report of paragraph 2 as well as candle light level 2.7 by the driveway entrance [Music] condition of approval
um it as set forth in Mr. Mr. Varela's report dated July 3rd, items 16, 23, 24, 25, 31, 33, 34,35. Uh, and number three in Mr. Varela's report dated April 17, 2025.
Uh, which, um, I will include the specific number of 533 parking spaces. a condition. Um, uh, a certificate of occupancy for the new parking spaces must be issued prior to construction
commencing for any approval this board grants. Uh, also conditional approval engineers report items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17. And I'm going to just do a general regarding storm water which
covers paragraphs 18 through 22 as well as paragraphs 24 25 and 26. Landscape architect report items 7 and 9b and we added the additional
condition of hose bibs in both the front and rear of the property. uh recycling coordinator uh condition yearly reporting by uh February 15th. Fire marshall report dated March 4th,
2025 conditions 1 2 4 5 6 7 and 9. uh also the condition that the applicant will work with the board engineer regarding a level of light for any signs and will I'm adding to retain
jurisdiction to uh to ensure that once it's um uh constructed that it it to verify that it it's as um contemplated um
that the building will be constructed uh and limited to earth tones uh subject to the final approval of the board of professionals and I think I got everything. Although jump in if I miss anything the fence
uh oh yes I did forget that. Okay. and that the applicant will um continue the fence to block the pedestrian pathway and and uh proceed to I guess a level to the satisfaction of the um township
planner. John Morgan Thomas, what John Morgan Thomas, what conditions did you have? Sorry, I called out uh 79B and the hoses, which was not in the report, the hose bibs, that was not in
the report. That was as a result of discussion. Yeah. Um but being that we don't know what the front and rear of the building is, it's the north and the south base. Okay, I'll add that. Yeah. Number and number 12 was also to
the satisfaction of the the fencing issue would be resolved. Oh yeah, the like landscape and fence thing with the southern thing. The southern the two fences around that's it's a number 12 in his report.
Seven and 12 and I think the number 10 which is probably incorrect. Yes. review the plant, right? Yes. Yeah. To increase the plant density.
So, so the resolution is with with other conditions discussed during the testimony that may need to be further clarified. I I've I've added it. I got it. I'm just giving us a little wiggle here. Mr. Groomberg will correct me where I
make my mistakes and that's okay. We'll work together. So, that's the motion. With that summary, thank you counselor. Do I have a motion to approve Diamond Nation LLC's preliminary site plan? Motion.
Second. Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. Yes. Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drew. Yes. Miss Robin Fatu. Yes. Mr. James Miller. Yes. Mr. Glenn Solowski. Yes. Mr. Joseph Lane. Yes.
Thank you all very much. Appreciate working here with you and board professionals. I appreciate all their review and coming up with a better project is always the goal. Thank you very much. Thanks everybody. Thank you everybody. Thank you.
Yes. We are journed. Thank you. Release. the release.