Good deal. Thank you. Good evening. The Rarent Township Planning Board is now in session. 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 Hunington County Democrat, the Courier News, the Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. I have a roll call, please. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings, >> here. Vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews here. Miss Robin Fatu >> here. >> Mr. Scott McDade >> here. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri, she has asked to
be excused. Mr. Dennis Clinkan has also asked to be excused. Mr. James Miller >> here. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski >> here. >> Mr. Joseph Lane >> here. >> Board professionals board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Varella >> here.
>> Township engineer Mr. Reesh Dargy >> present. >> Board traffic consultant Mr. J. Troutman >> here >> and all other board professionals have asked to be excused. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to ask everybody to please rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for the men and women in the armed
services. >> 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, comments and reports. I do not have any uh chairman report this evening. Any board comments? >> I guess the only >> just really quickly um at the last meeting the board of adjustment uh
shared with us their report their annual report with some recommendations um that we for ordinance changes and revisions. Um, you know, it might be good maybe at at our next meeting to have some discussion about if there's any additional things that, you know, I know
at the last meeting we talked a lot about signs and sign size and things like that and then maybe um task Jeff with coming up with some drafts or some things for us to look at and recommendations to the township committee. >> It's a good idea. This way it doesn't get lost.
>> It doesn't get lost. It's like I have this running list and it, you know, good if we could address it. That's good. Good idea. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Engineers comments. >> I have nothing. >> Nothing. Thank you. Planiff's comments. Jeff. >> None at this time. >> Attorney's comments. >> Nothing.
>> Okay. There is no correspondence that I am aware of this evening or other topics that we have. We do not have any minutes or resolutions this evening. If we have anyone here from our community who would like to address the planning board on a matter other than the application this
evening, now is the time to do that. >> So, I'll make note that there's no one here this evening and nobody has taken us up on that. >> Hey, hey, we got one. >> Well, there's >> one member of the public. >> You don't count. >> That's right.
>> Okay. So we're immediately to the public hearing which is F Greek Development Inc. This is an amended preliminary and final site plan approval construction of an addition for enclosure of tanks. >> Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board, board professionals. My name
is Cara Kazinski. I'm with the law firm of McNal Yaros Kazinski and Lime here tonight representing the applicant F Creek Development Inc. Uh we're here tonight with regard to the property located at two Foster Lane, lot 27, lot 30.03
and this is an approximate 5 acre parcel in your I2 major industrial district zone. Uh the owner of the property is Flemington Concrete Products and you may recall we were here and received an approval on April 10th, 2024
uh for the development of this property which is currently underway. Uh just for purposes of the record, that was approved by way of resolution number 08-2024 on June 12th, 2024. And that development involved the
construction of a 54,13 square ft building on the property which would be utilized as a manufacturing use with accessory storage office and employee parking and other ancillary site improvements. The resolution that I
referred to granted preliminary and final major site plan both varants and design waiver approval back in 2024. and that manufacturing use is permitted by the I2 zone. And you may recall that the building will be utilized by a
tenant known as Blue Sky. Um during construction, Blue Sky identified the need to make some plan amendments. And specifically, as identified in your planner's report, uh what we're here by way of the amended application for tonight is a 42 4,275
square ft building addition. the building that was approved. It's about 57 feet by 75 feet and that will house some tanks um of which at the last hearing we had a great deal of discussion on as to the product that they will contain. And this building is
solely to enclose those tanks and you'll hear why during testimony. It does not involve any additional employee area. It does not trigger, as the RTMUA noted in their review letter and their approval, does not trigger any additional um
usable work area and therefore no additional EDUs. Uh we're also seeking approval for the addition of two additional exterior tanks measuring 30 ft in diameter and 33 feet in height. a utility tunnel, which you'll hear some
testimony about tonight, a relocated dumpster enclosure, and the need for that relocation is due to the other improvements that I just previously discussed, and some curbing, some ballards, and some additional impervious surfaces. So, as a result of these changes, we
require amended preliminary and final major site plan approval, and also some additional bulk variances, which Mr. Varela identified in his report dated October 3rd, 2025. Specifically, we need a C variance from
the rear yard setback for the addition itself. Uh a rear yard setback of 100 ft is required and we are proposing the addition at 69.17 ft. The current setback of the building that was previously approved is actually
at 69.2. So, this addition will be just slightly more encroaching into that sideyard setback. Uh, we need a variance for a structure at the rear property line, which is this underground utility tunnel that you're going to hear some testimony
about, which is essentially to enclose the underground lines that were approved in the original application. And that variance is required because a 100 foot rear yard setback is required and zero foot setback is proposed. Again, these
will be underground, not something you're going to see on top of of the uh property. Um, but we need that variance nonetheless. And just for reference, that underground tunnel will not encroach onto the neighboring lot 100, which is the railroad, solely on our
property line. Uh we need C variance relief for the two proposed 30 foot diameter tank foundations and the tanks. Again 100t rear yard is required. We are proposing 69 ft. And we need C variance relief for the relocated dumpster
enclosure. Uh 100 foot again is required. Uh 65 ft was previously approved and 65 ft is also proposed by way of this application. Uh two more. We need C variance relief for some additional imperous surfaces.
That prior approval granted a imperous uh surface of 42.64% where 40% is required and we're now requesting a minor increase to 45.02%. And then finally with regard to the
parking spaces, 73 parking spaces are required per the manufacturing use standard and we are proposing to continue the 38 spaces that were previously approved by way of the uh prior application. Um and I just want to
note just for purposes of the record and Jeff can feel free to uh expand on that. There was one more variance identified in his letter and that variance is under item two with regard to the front yard setback. Um but he did indicate that that was deemed excess acceptable
because that front yard setback is actually less encroaching at 51.9 ft versus the 51.6 ft which was approved by the board in the initial resolution. So I have for you tonight unless you have any questions three witnesses. I
have Mr. Creater who you heard from at the original application who is the owner of the property and he will testify with regard to the operational need for these amendments and answer other questions that have been raised in review letters on behalf of the tenant.
We have Mr. Benadetto from AKRF our project engineer and he will go through the specific plan amendments. uh he will present some exhibits that will help you understand what is was originally approved and what's now being proposed and also he'll speak to the variances.
And finally we have Mr. Steven Chick who is also an engineer. He's the construction director from the contractor development and he will testify as to any remaining issues uh and questions that the board and boards professionals may have. >> Mr. Benadetto will also be providing the planning testimony.
>> Yes. So, I don't know if anyone has any questions. Um, >> the one thing I would I would like to do, council, is um the board has been discussing applications over the last several months in terms of how we can we can better streamline things. What um
what this board's preferences is to start with the board's planners report then move to the engineer report then you can move to the traffic report and then the fire report and with respect to each report what I would like uh you to
do for example starting with Mr. Aarella's report dated October 3rd. He calls out um he calls out conditions paragraphs 11, 12, 14, 16, A, B, D, and C. If you
can look at those, if you agree to those conditions, you literally don't have to comment at all on them other than to say you agree. With respect to the engineer, he calls out conditions 9, 13, 14, and 16. And again, if you agree with those
conditions, you don't even have to address it. Then you can streamline your testimony on all of the other items where the report says testimony shall be provided. And then you can utilize the planners report and then the engineers
report literally as your outline of how to present because it helps all of us because we have the reports in front of us and we can just follow down the line and then at the end I'm confident that the board members are going to have questions as they usually do.
>> Thank you. I appreciate that. And I can tell you that that's exactly how I've structured my outline tonight with just maybe one clarification. Uh, first of all, we will agree to do all of the comments within all of the reports. And what I have focused on by way of each person's testimony is the specific items
in each report that pertains to that witness. So, for instance, when Mr. Peter comes up, I'm going to have him give the general testimony that I've outlined for him and then I will have him address the items in each one of those reports that he could testify to. And then we would move on to the
engineer. Again, same thing, same order of reports that they would testify to unless you would prefer >> Well, the only thing is I heard you say give testimony and then get to the reports. That causes confusion. The general testimony should be the reports
in the exact order that the reports are. That would be the board's preference. You don't need to comment generally on things. what what the board needs to hear is the testimony that is asked for in the professionals reports. So this way we could just go to item two where
it says testimony. What I would suggest is your witness you could just say with respect to the planners report item number two can you please provide your thoughts and comments write down the list. It's so much easier. It really is. Um, and then
before we start that, I just need to place on the record um whether or not you agree to the conditions and then I can put that in my notes so when a resolution is prepared there's no ambiguity. >> Uh, yes. I don't believe there are any
conditions that we do not agree to. I do know that there was one comment with regard to additional green infrastructure that required testimony that we will address by way of testimony. It was kind of phrased in both ways as far as providing it and requesting testimony. That's the only one that
>> Yeah. And on behalf of the board, I I apologize that our landscape architect did not get a report to us in time, but he did express in an email. Uh a cons two concern, well, one concern and one comment. The one concern had to do with
prior plantings consistent with the prior approval. there were some items on the property that either had died or weren't planted properly. So, he would like those addressed and with respect to the basin, um he wants to weigh in on
what plantings would be involved in that and how that would go. So, what I would suggest if you're agreeable to it is just add a general condition that the applicant will work with the landscape architect to address his concerns. And I see for the record, I see
collective heads nodding yes. So that I I saw about five heads nodding yes. So we're good on that. So again, we didn't have to take any testimony on that. >> I guess I can be the nudge. We do we did have I have one question. There's an old detention basin that's part of this
property that wasn't subject to any changes from the last. >> In fact, going to testify that we will make sure that that is maintained on a regular basis. I have that. >> Okay. Yeah. Because that that has not been maintained in accordance. So that
would be an additional issue within the landscape architects report that needs to be addressed. >> Okay. >> Okay. So with that, I guess if uh we can have all of the witnesses stand up and I can swear them in, including the board professionals. Everybody could raise
your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. >> Okay. Starting from left to right, if you could state your full name and spell it for the record, please. into a microphone.
>> Uh, Robert Benadetto, BN E D E T O, and I'm the applicant's engineer and planner. Richard Crater, C R E T E R, and I'm the owner. Stephen Chick C H I C K U and I'm the
pre-construction director for um F Greek Development >> planning board traffic consultant >> Resh Dari pl engineer >> Jeff Aarel I'm the township planner >> and just for purposes of the record I had forgotten that the owner of the
property has changed it's still owned by Mr. Crater, but it's to Foster LLC. >> Two Foster Lane LLC. Thank you. >> Okay, so bear with me. Um, I think I have it pretty much set up in connection with the uh questions of each one of the
reports, but uh think I can do this on the fly. So, if there's no questions from the board or the professionals, I'd like to call Mr. Let me just say for the record if everybody could please remember speaking to the microphone loud and clearly
especially for the transcript and the recording. Thank you. >> Good evening again. My name is Richard Crater. I'm the property owner. Uh I'm also a resident of Raven Township and I have been for for 40 years now. I guess
I'm getting old. 40 years uh and the property owner uh that we're discussing this evening. >> Okay. So, looking at the board planners report first um and if I'm saying too much, Mr. Toriel, please let me know. Um
but item 11 we would agree to. Um obviously item 13, uh we have a synographer here. >> Um so the first thing that Mr. Crater would >> 11 and 13 what? Uh, no. I I mean I can go through the items again. The the
items that were listed as conditions were 11, 12, 14, 16, A, B, D, and C. >> What about item 10? >> Yeah, there's you. >> Did I miss one? >> Yep. >> Well, just as a not as a condition, but just as a combo test. >> And I don't think 12 is a condition
either because we're going to have our engineer provide the updates, right? >> 10. All right. So, uh, item 10 in the planners report, uh, can you confirm whether or not any additional signage is proposed?
>> It is not. >> Um, the next one that you would be able to testify to uh would be 16 C. So, could you please describe for the board the uh current and proposed operation of the materials uh delivered from the
rail? 16 C is >> Yep. C. Sorry. So, basically in in the beginning we had we were having you describe how the material comes in, goes through the tunnel and and gets to the site. Um, if you could >> So, I address the tunnel here.
>> Yeah, I I think that's I think that's fine. There's also some commentary in the engineers report uh which is why I wanted you to do do it generally to cover both but um just describe for the board the operation of how basically how the material comes in on the rail and how it gets into the facility.
>> Great. The as was as discussed prior um with the prior approval uh there's a uh a number of lines uh three u prior approved were three underground lines going from the building to the rail. uh what's being proposed here and what
we're asking for is is that to have that put with what's called a tunnel a uh that's described as a 4ft wide by two foot deep. Essentially, it's a concrete uh trench u trench with a lid. The
dimensions interior to that are 1 ft high by 3 foot wide. So, the 6 in around is actually the thickness of the uh the concrete. uh that's to be flush with the the ground. Uh the purpose for the initial approval on the underground
lines and the approval and seeking approval for this was to keep the the lines um underground because there is a rightway there with JCPNL. Uh so if they need to have access to those lines, they'll have those lines.
And uh the design and and um configuration and capacity of this tunnel was uh set up and worked with JCPNL and and Steve to make sure that we had that uh we're putting the right system in for them to be able to service
and maintain those those power lines. Uh again the the purpose for that is to have those lines um the within the tunnel and to encase them. Uh what this does essentially I look at it as an improvement uh that allows with any um
assists with any maintenance or servicing of the lines if need be. Um the lines themselves are a uh seamless welded stainless steel. Uh so there's no seam in them, there's no joints. It's one continuous weld that's connected
through and within the u the trench. Um again, this utility trench will not go beyond the property line. It will stop prior to the property line. Um the um and there's we went in about the tanker.
We address that now. >> Uh no, let's just address that. Mr. Toriel has asked just for us to address each item as it as it comes. So unless there's any other questions with regard to that operation of how it comes in, how it comes through, uh we can move on to the next one.
Um will there be I'm looking at item 16E. Will there be any washing of trucks permitted on the property? >> The No. and the um
No, that will not be permitted. >> So, what would you categorize what we've observed? >> Okay, I can I get there? I'll help. >> Sure. >> Thank you. Uh so, there was a photograph that was outlined in the planners uh report um that did show some washing of trucks. Um have you seen that
photograph? >> Yes, I have. the um that will not be taking place and I I did speak with the owner about it. Uh I think what was done is is that they were rinsing off the the uh not the washing the truck but rinsing
it off. It will not be done again and there won't be any liquids that are going to end up being um no washing a truck or any whipped liquids that are going to be um um on the site or washing that off. And you made that very clear to the tenant.
And would you be willing to impose a condition on any approval granted by the board that would specifically prohibit that? >> Yes. >> I guess I'm perplexed by this because I've been by the property three times now around 5 between 5:30 and 6:00 in
the evening. Most recently this evening, and observed a runoff pattern from where I saw them. Actually, I have video of them spraying the trucks down. So, it's just
perplexing that you say you've told them not to, they're still doing it and our engineer says if this is happening, I I would feel more comfortable if you say it's happening and we'll go for the appropriate permit from the state. Um, that's required. There's
there is going to be and I was the and I'll bring that back reiterate with the the tenant no washing of any trucks or washing of any tanks or any equipment or anything that's that's out that's out
there on the site and if there's needs to be a condition in terms of approval for that as um Cara mentioned uh then that will be the case uh the if there is some for some reason in the future that
they would want to go down that path and and and seek that I guess there is a there was a permit that would be needed for that. Uh but they said there was no need to do it. Uh that it is being done is and you know I believe what you say is
upsetting and it's going to they're going to hear about it. >> Yeah. It's you know the the permit It's just perplexing and and frustrating um because this runoff goes directly
into the bio retention basin which while the product is water and ura ura it's still not supposed to under go into the storm drains. So >> yeah obviously they didn't change
behavior once you made the request if it was observed today. So that's I can't I don't know what it looked like today. I know it rained today. I don't know if that was any part of what what was there today. Um the um I also know
the tenant has, you know, part of them being in there and operating uh on the basis that they are. I've only been in there for a month. Uh they had to you move out of the building that they were in uh and and move over here. So, I know they have some new people that they're
bringing in. Uh they're training new people. I know the the concrete work over in that area isn't finished yet. Uh I don't know if there's a low spot on the on the slab where there, you know, a puddling spot. I I I don't know.
But the again I will speak the tenant and if it's a condition that that needs to be um added or you know if there's a a uh if it's something that comes up in the future that they want to have done uh certainly a permit or whatever is
needed to to do for that but the I will go back and make sure that there doesn't uh this is not going to be an occurrence. I guess I'm more comfortable as a condition that they get the permit because if this is this if this is the
behavior, you know, I I the board we can discuss it later, but that's it's just problematic and and it's frustrating. >> Um >> you know, >> did you already sign a lease with the with you already signed a lease with this tenant?
>> Can you put an addendum in the lease that says if they're washing trucks, there's a fine? >> Would you be willing to do that? I don't see a problem with that. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I you know this is a regulatory issue that we have to be careful that
that if a applicant if we're if we know an a operational method is >> it's on record in here. >> Right. >> So it's documented that it is observed. >> I mean I guess >> I'm sorry. I was just going to say the other I mean the other thing that could
happen and you know while I I hope it's coming across to this board that that my client's doing everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen. I certainly have seen the prior photos. I have no doubt that it may have happened again today as well. Um but my client's definitely willing to do anything. The
only concern I have with agreeing to amend the lease is I don't know what that lease says and as we all just let me finish. I think I have a suggestion. Um, if the lease requires mutual consent to be amended, then we've got a bit of a
problem. So, I don't want to make that representation to the board. However, if there is a condition placed on the approval, violations can certainly be issued, and those seem to have a much more uh effect on actions of of tenants. So, that's that's
another possibility. I just I just want to make the record clear that, you know, while my client may be willing to amend the lease, I don't know what the terms of that lease are. I don't know if it's sense. >> One of the other concerns is that the activity that's taking place is is at night. So any violations, it's it's
going to be it's going to be hard to to really prove that it's it's in violation. >> I don't know if it's appropriate for me to weigh in. I'm going to do it. You can't ignore it. Um uh with respect to amending the lease from a legal
standpoint, the problem is you need additional consideration to support the change. And without the additional consideration, um the amendment has no legal effect. I'm not saying there can't be additional consideration, but um and with respect
to the fining, again, that doesn't stop the behavior. I I think Donna's suggestion and what I would propose is that the condition of approval states that there shall be no washing of trucks on the
premises and the applicant shall apply for the necessary permit. And this way you can take care of both issues. you say no and then say, you know, the applicant shall apply for the permit and then upon if the permit is granted, they
can go ahead and do it because presumably whatever the board's concerns are, that's in the D's whale wheelhouse and they will address those concerns and that should satiate any worries that this board has. >> It's it's not our regulation, it's the
states. >> So all we can seek is compliance. But okay, >> the one thing I just will add to that is is that the although I I have not been out by the site much the last few weeks
I've been traveling. Uh I am a neighbor right to the site. So my property's right next to the site. I drive past it. Uh I can guarantee you, you know, this will be an item that I'm going to not just talk with the owners, but you know, make sure that's going to be uh done the
proper way. uh and this activity not to be done. >> So just just to clarify a little bit because I'm I'm the one that has to sort of I'm the one that Jeff calls to
discuss these things. Um what we're saying then is from a certificate occupancy standpoint, I'm I'm going to articulate what I think and you guys tell me yeah >> that I'm full of it. That's okay. uh that that basically the applicant will
proceed with construction and they'll get a certificate occupancy, but no truck washing can take place until such time as they obtain this permit. And they'll they'll pursue the permit, but no truck washing can take place until such time as you get this uh and and the
the we say the permit because the this area is a little bit of a gray area. Uh because there's no like there's no truck washing permit that you apply for the D, right? It's it's a industrial stormwater permit and all that. So So there's discussions with DP that have to be had.
What we're saying is we don't necessarily want to, you know, hinder the operation of the facility. They just can't do truck washing until they get this permit. Is that more or less what we're saying? Just making sure. Okay. I just wanted to make sure because you I want to articulate that. >> That's exactly. >> Okay.
>> They don't have to pursue the permit, right? But if they don't pursue the permit, >> well, the the idea is they'll pursue the permit. >> They're allowed to use the facility. They just can't no >> wash trucks, but they'll pursue a permit for for whatever permits are required.
And we'll work that out with with the applicant and their professionals. >> Yeah. >> That way we're not that way we're not hindering their operation. We're not we're not >> handcuffing the the their their use of facility. We're just saying pursue the permit if that's what you you know, you guys are going to go watch trucks, pursue a permit. Makes
>> sense. Thanks. >> Okay, >> I think we're good. >> Uh, no. F is is going to be a condition we're willing to put additional ballards around the tanks. Um, so I think we're
done with the planner report by way of your testimony. If we can move on to the engineers report. General comment 3 a little I. How often are deliveries made of the product from the rail to the
>> You're talking about from the rail. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. The u the rail >> that's where Excuse me one second. This is where we were generally going to talk about that initially, but now we want to go point by point. So, >> okay. Uh, so the, um, the rails run by,
uh, Black River and Western Railroad uh, service runs through that line uh, three times per week. Um, the um, >> so three times a week, that's how often deliveries are made.
>> Well, no, the service runs through the line three times a week. Although the deliveries themselves it may only be one day or it could be two days. It's all depends upon the um the uh what's needed either to be taken away or to be brought
to the site. >> Uh so >> no I want to council asked us just to go point by point. So that's that's what I stick with. Um, so it could be anywhere from one to three times a week depending on need
>> deliveries. >> That's correct. >> And is the rail line for on-site delivery via the tunnel or will the tunnel also be used for off-site shipping? >> No. All the material coming in off of
the the rail through the tunnel is for only on site and it comes into the building. Does not go any directed any other way. >> Okay. Let me rephrase that question. I I sort of struggled with how we phrased it and >> and that's 3A little two and I still didn't get it across. So engineer, not
an English major. Uh I guess what what we're asking is are you using this just for receiving or are you also shipping out from uh for receiving >> just receiving? >> Just receiving material coming in >> right okay that's >> it comes in through the tunnel and it goes out on trucks I assume.
>> Well it it comes in it will come into the building. >> Yeah. Uh and that's where it would get uh mixed and then it would be it could go out on various trucks or it be put into um um two gallon containers. >> Is that the deaf flow?
>> Yeah. So it's packaged. >> It's packaged. >> Yeah. It's inbound from the rail through the tunnel in the manufacturing process. It's processed. It's packed. It's mixed done whatever and it's packed out in different various forms and shipped out in a truck. >> Correct.
>> But not tanker truck. Just It's in packaged format. >> No, it will go out in tanker trucks. >> Okay. So, tanker truck and packaged. >> Thank you. >> Okay. 3 little V. Um, how will the tunnel be cleaned after delivery or will
product remain in the tunnel? The so what happens is is that after they offload uh and it's the time it takes to offload is a uh two to three hours to offload
the the the the car. Uh once that is completed, they'll run a back flush and they black back flush the lines out uh and um we'll close off any balance. Okay. >> Okay. And then the last one in the
engineers report would be uh a portion of number five. Um can you please testify as to what is proposed to be stored in the outdoor storage tanks? >> Uh that will be uh the out the the
outside tanks will be deaf and it will be at that uh 22 and a half% um grade which is what's sold retail. What numbers >> and and the other percentages the other
>> remaining >> it it's outside tanks are only 22 and a half% >> I'm just saying what's the other it's 22% the rest of it is >> 50% to 22 and a half% coming back but that's what's 22 is what's used in in
the >> so then moving on to traffic engineering report. Um I think there's only one issue and Jay, correct me if I'm wrong. Um testimony should be provided to confirm that the 18 uh parking spaces
and bank spaces are adequate for the expanded manufacturing building. Um is this additional 4,200 or so square feet, is that going to be additional manufacturing work area or just storage for the tanks? >> No. Okay. So, is there any additional
employees associated with that additional square footage? >> No. And to add to that is is that once the tanks are in place and you know providing and these the tunnel and other improvements are made that absolutely employee council to come down to what it
is I believe it's currently at eight. >> So, do to Mr. Troutman's question, do we need any additional parking spaces as a result of the addition? >> No. Uh, one other thing in the planner's letter, my apologies. I had it at the end of my outline. Um, there were
attachments. Um, and I'd like Mr. Creeder to respond to the attachment from the fire marshal that's dated September 8, 2025. Um, have the materials to be stored in the tanks changed at all from the previous appearance before the board?
Specifically, it'll be ura, uh, water and the death as as testified to, right? >> No, it has not changed. >> Um, and the tanks that are enclosed within the proposed structure, are those tanks designed to be enclosed? >> Yes. So, they're Yes, they're designed
to be inside. >> Okay. And is there any concern with regard to ventilation or what the fire marshall calls ammonia monitoring? >> No, the the with deaf there's going to be no ammonia that's that's coming off. Actually, the only and there's no
ammonia within the building. The only time there's ammonia within the process is when deaf is injected into the catalytic converter, which is the exhaust system of a truck that's under pressure and it's under heat and that's when the uh there's ammonia within the process. That does not happen here at
all. >> Okay. And then just so we have it on the record, Mr. Toriello has indicated that uh he'd like representation that we will comply with whatever additional comments landscape architect has with regard to what was discussed since we don't have
this report. >> Yes. >> And uh Miss Drews talked about the detention basin. Um how often is that detention basin monitored >> and maintained? I mean maintain that monitor. Sorry. >> Yes. It's it's twice a year is when the
landscaper will come through and cut the grass down. From your comments um last week at the um the uh TRC meeting >> uh the uh uh that work was already done and I confirmed it was done uh today. So
by the site you would have noticed it was cut down and we'll maintain that at least twice a I think they just haven't gotten to it yet and they were just waiting for another few weeks or so. It's done. >> Yeah, I think what Don Morgan Thomas will do is look back to the original
approval and see what was called for under that resolution. So >> um actually I haven't that that basin wasn't built in >> subdivision. >> It was part of the subdivision. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. >> Uh that's all the questions that I had
Mr. Peter test with regard to the reports. Any other questions from the board members? >> I just want to be clear. We want >> want to make sure that that other old retention basin is kept.
>> We just want to make sure that the old retention basin is maintained as well as >> that's correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah, sure. Normally I would ask if anybody from the public has a question but there being none here this evening
we can move on. >> Thank you very much. Uh I'd like to call Mr. Benadto. Uh, okay. Could you please uh give your qualifications for the board? >> Sure. Um, my name is Robert Benadetto. I'm a licensed professional engineer uh as of 2019, licensed professional
planner as of 2025. Uh, licensed in New Jersey, New York, about a dozen other states. Um, I've appeared I don't believe I've appeared before this planning board. Uh, I've appeared before the Ragan zoning board. However, both as an engineer and a planner. Uh, and dozens of other boards across the state.
Uh, license is in good standing in all states of which I have it. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. You're acceptable to the board. >> Thank you very much. Um, so just for clarification, normally I'd have them go through the proposed changes. Um, should we just go again right to the comments
and the letters? >> I think it would be helpful for the board to understand the changes. I I appreciate going addressing, but without context, it's >> it's hard to follow. >> And we have a new member who >> that yeah doesn't hasn't familiar with
the application. So, >> okay, >> move over to this microphone. >> Um, okay. So, uh if if you guys could all see, um we have the original building is the rectangle here. The uh
the new building edition, uh is the 57 by 75 ft rectangle here. In addition, there's also the two outdoor storage tanks. Uh and the three basins on site and the existing basin that was discussed previously. Um
>> Rob, before you go any further, just because that's an exhibit, I'm going to hand this out. Sure. >> Can you just >> lay it out as to what it is so that Joe can put it on the record as well? >> Sure. Should we call it A1? Just a a site rendering.
>> Y >> my apologies. I thought that was with the application. anything. >> Okay. Um, now I understand as we have a new board member, do you want me to give a quick background on the previous approval or just kind of go right to the
the changes a little bit uh more in depth? >> I think a quick background. >> Sure. >> So would be good. >> No problem. So, um, you know, as we all know, the application included a new manufacturing facility, a little over 54,000 square ft, uh, asphalt parking
lot in the front with the bank parking for employees and visitors, and then loading, uh, on the east side of the building. Um, originally there was a fenced in area over here, uh, where in the new addition is located, uh, with outdoor storage tanks that were all 12
ft in diameter. Um, that's obviously part of the big change. Uh the trash enclosure was right about where the uh new large tanks are proposed outside. That shifted a little bit and as I mentioned we have bio retention here. We have infiltration. We have infiltration
as well for the storm water. Um as the project moved into construction the tenant decided it would be >> sorry it's okay. go back. >> Uh, >> the project entered >> as the project under construction. Oh,
okay. Not that far. Um, the tenant decided that the layout would be more efficient to have most of the tanks indoors in addition to the two outdoor tanks. So, here we are. Now, the new uh the new changes itself, obviously, the addition um little dots here. You can
maybe see it better on the rendering. And I have the site plans with me, but those are ballards around the corner of the the new addition to protect it from truck traffic. Um, proposing two new 30ft diameter tanks, each holding 144,000 gallons. Uh, they'll be on top of a foundation that extends about 6 in
outside of the tank itself, kind of like a a curb. Um, and I know we'll get to Resh's letter, but we do agree that we can put ballards in front of the tanks for protection. Um, or was that Jeff's letter? Either way, same thing. Um, the trash enclosure
has shifted east towards the corner a little bit. Uh, we do have a truck turning exhibit in our plans that shows that the, uh, trash trucks can still access that area with no problems. Um, there's a rip wrap apron basically just that it collects the water running off here into the bio retention. That's
shifted a little bit. Uh, as Rich said, there are no changes to signage. Um, While you're doing that, it was commented on earlier that the addition includes only tanks. Is that a true statement? >> Tanks and pumps.
>> Yes. >> I thought it was >> and equipment. >> Tanks and equipment. >> I'm going to let um Steve speak to that uh when he comes up. Okay. Yes. >> I don't know if we stated for the
record. This is exhibit A1. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, this is now an exhibit we just put together as well. >> Okay. So, we're going to mark this as A2 and this has been distributed uh to the board secretary and smaller copies to the board as well. Could you give us the title of that yet?
>> Sure. Uh, site grading south of the building exhibit. >> Is there a date on that? >> Uh, no. Oh, yes. >> October 7th, 2025. That would have been a huge miss. >> Um, just quickly to back up, uh, A1, did
that have the same date? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, revis. >> Bottom right. Oh, revised seven is a pretty good >> getting me nervous again. >> So, uh this exhibit here uh as
construction progressed originally for uh the sake of um minimizing the storm water impact, we really tried to limit the disturbance uh south of where the building is uh to just really the the storm pipe trenches. Um as construction
went on, it kind of became abundant that that area was needed for staging. So this first exhibit was the original grading that was proposed where it kept the contours tight to the building and then everything basically was existing kind of in front of the building and um with the contours tight it basically
means it would slope down quickly and then meet existing grade. What ended up uh being done um and what's being you know applied for as part of this application is to kind of make it flatter outside the building more practical use. Uh, and then when you get away from the building a few feet, then
you kind of hit the steeper slope, still within soil conservation standards, but that was kind of the adjustment in grading. Um, part of that included an increased limit of disturbance. We've just received approval from soil conservation district for that increase. Um, it also uh
required some adjustments to the storm water calcs. Luckily for us, we got a great engineer who overdesigned the basin initially and uh when we redid the calcs, everything was good to go uh for the increased uh disturbance area. That excellent engineer was me in case nobody picked up on that. Um
>> did you also prepare a a third exhibit um part of which includes the uh a table uh that outlines a land disturbance? >> Yes. Um, so that uh >> mark that as A3 that's been distributed to the board as well
>> and that's entitled initial site plan versus amended site plan variances. >> And I know um if you look at it, land disturbance isn't necessarily a a zoning issue, but I threw it in the table anyway just to show the increase in disturbance.
>> And that increase is um >> a little little less than4. a little less point for us >> point of clarification. So on your exhibit A2 where it shows kind of the second pipe stem where the limit of
disturbance head headed down towards the railroad. That was where the pipes were originally approved by the board. >> Could you ask that one more time? I'm sorry. So in the in the diagram there's a limit of disturbance that comes down to in the
old plan. >> Oh yes. >> The second area was where the the in in fact the the pipes were originally proposed. >> Yeah. So actually they were both proposed. So um you had one trench coming here to a head wall that's built and there's another one uh over here uh
that was built as well. Um, >> but I thought >> was talking about where we >> where where the original pipe location going to be. >> That's correct. Yes, these were the original locations for the uh the diesel mission. >> Okay. So, the pipes were moved substantially.
>> Correct. >> Okay. So, we didn't approve them in this location as was inferred earlier. They were improved conceptually but in a totally different places in a different configuration. >> Correct. You be me to my next point.
Um, so from a utility standpoint, um, can go back to the first plan because it shows everything a little better. From a utility standpoint, um, the none of the exterior utilities uh, shifted except as um, Stu mentioned, the utility
tunnel, which was more towards the middle of the building, has now shifted uh, over towards the new addition with the, uh, the tunnel that, um, Rich was speaking about before. um gas, electric, sewer, no changes, no increases in the
uses. Um and then storm water. There were some slight modifications because we had a roof leader coming out here. Uh we tweaked that to be the corner and we have now one coming out here as well. Um just minor tweaks to kind of run into what the infrastructure that was already built. Um
the again the basin sizing was not changed in any way. Um from the landscaping perspective, there were slight shifts to the landscaping as required, but we kept the shade tree number uh the same. Um there was uh I think one wall pack from a lighting
perspective was added to the addition here. Uh and I know um Resh had a comment about uh a fixture down here being directly behind the tanks. We'll relocate that and u make sure the loading area gets lit uh according to the ordinance. >> Okay. and we'll go through each each item on on
>> um and I think that kind of concludes the general project overview unless there was anything else you guys wanted to ask before we dove into the letters. >> Sure. A2 um is that dark line directly
adjacent I guess it would be east of your property the elliptical long circle that's the wetlands >> that's the D delineated wetlands. Yes. >> Okay. So when the grading was changed, kind of looks like the wetlands disappeared.
>> So the wetlands, the property line is right here. Um, so most of the wetlands with the exception of a tiny little piece right here is off of our property and I can't speak to what's going on next door. Okay. >> Um, but you know, there was no
disturbance done to the wetlands in that specific area. Any other questions or to the letters? >> Joe, did that help, Joe? >> Yeah, I got you caught up. >> Y good deal. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions for anybody? Okay. So, let's go through let's start with the planners report and let's go to item 12. Um, updates with regard to Hunter County soil and
RTMUA. Now, RTMUA was one of the attachments to the planners report and that was deemed approved. So, I don't think we need to deal with that. Um, did we receive a response from uh County Soils? Uh yes, we received the approval uh a few days ago and I believe it was
also sent to the board. >> Okay. I I do have it here. I don't know if we'd like to mark it as A4, but it was submitted. Taylor, you do have a copy of that for the application. >> So, it's the board has a copy in the fi in the file. It was just it was a
>> letter dated October 7, 2025, and it references the latest plan revision of August 1st. >> Is it the letter of uh certification? >> Yes. Letter >> Yes. Yes, we did. Yes. Okay, great. We don't need to mark that. Okay, so that was item 12. Uh let's move
on to item item 16A. This is the exhibit that we have marked as A3. Um >> uh A3
the plan which depicts the approved and proposed grading part. I guess it could be A2 and three together. The approved and proposed grading. Um parking and impervious surface. Um so if you just want to go through the additional information on A3. >> Yeah, sure.
>> For the board. >> Um so uh yeah, just kind of a quick little table showing the differences between the previous approval and what's proposed uh under this application. The increase in hard surface from 42.64 to 45.02.
Um the the layout from a parking standpoint hasn't actually changed. However, the uh EV charger covers two spaces. So, we get credit for an extra space from the previous application. So, we went from 37 to 38 spaces. Uh also to speak to that, the um the requirement
was uh incorrectly calculated initially because we had uh separated out office space. So, the initial requirement was 76 spaces. We're now only required 73 spaces. as has been coordinated with the board. Um, still a variance obviously,
but uh less intense of a variance. Um, and then I included the rear setbacks kind of for all the new features here. The uh the tank foundation is going to be 69 ft away from the rear property line. That's with the railroad. Uh, the trash enclosure is going to be 65 ft
away. Um, and then the utility tunnel is going to go up to the property line but not proceed past the property line. um where it'll be picked up by the uh neighbor uh for use together. Uh and then the land disturbance again originally was a little over 4.1 acres.
Now we're right at 4.49 acres. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh 16B uh would be a condition adding a note showing the wetland wetland delineation. Um I think that takes care of all of your testimony with regards to the planner
report. Uh moving on to the engineers report. engineer to engineer. Um, item 3B. >> Oh, before sorry, just just because it's it's attached to the letter and it
sometimes gets forgotten. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. >> Environmental commission. >> Yes, actually Mr. Chick's going to address that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. uh in the future if this is how we're going to do it, I'll put those with your letter so I don't forget them at the end
of my outline. Um okay, so 3B is the first one that I have here and uh I think you've described that unless anybody else has any questions. Uh we're not depicting any off-site improvements because that's not within our purview. Correct. >> Uh
see, you testified with regard to 3C. Um, however, what is the status of any uh D permitting that's required? >> Uh, there shouldn't be any change to the D permitting for the previously approved LOI. Um, the at that point again it's on it will go to the property line and at
that point the wetlands is off of uh the subject property. So any wetlands coordination would be uh not under our jurisdiction. >> So basically the construction you're proposing on site is is not in a regulated area. >> Correct. That was a better way to say
it. I should have done that. >> Um 3D uh details regarding inverse of the tunnel to determine depth. Could you just give the board a little bit of testimony and obviously we could provide the details and a condition of any approval? >> Sure. The uh the utility trench itself
is going to be uh at grade. The lid is going to be at grade. Um the outer dimensions are four feet by two feet. Uh as uh Mr. crater previously testified with the inner dimensions at 1 ft foot by three foot. Um, you know, we can provide spot inverts at a couple of
different locations, but it's not really a gravity line that requires inverts. It's more of a a pump line uh in either direction. Um, so with it being at grade, I I didn't feel the need to put the inverts because I felt that the grading plan would dictate that. I guess
what we would be looking for is is construction details because right now on on the plan it's I think it just shows the location of the tunnel but there's there's no cross-sectional view giving unless I missed it. >> It's on sheet 13 top left utility tunnel
detail. >> May I miss that? >> 13. >> Oh 13. I have sheet 11. My more >> I mean I have one. >> This is what I'm looking for. >> All right.
>> Satisfied. >> Yeah, that is satisfied. >> Okay. Okay. So that was 3D. Um do we want to wait the next item is item six with regard to uh variances. We want to wait for variance testimony to
the end or just keep going to the end. >> Yeah, you can leave that to the end. >> Okay. Um, next thing we have are u item 10 uh with regard to uh
and whether or not there are any floor drains proposed uh in connection with the addition. >> Um let Steve speak. >> Okay. So and Steve's going to do the rest of that one as well. >> Is who's going to do 5B? >> I'm sorry. >> 5B.
>> Uh Steve. >> Okay. Okay. Item 12. Um I don't know if you feel that there's any further information with regard to the uh grading plan. >> Um I I can uh work with Resh on this. Uh
I I think the comment was coming from uh an outdated set of plans because the plans that we have now chose that. So I think that would kind of eliminate that comment. But if there's a concern, obviously we'll address it again. I I think that's correct. >> Okay. Number 13. Just to clarify, how
many uh roof drains uh two roof drains are depicted? How many uh cleanouts are proposed? >> He can testify. That's the case. That's fine. I'll let Steve do that. Item 14, the concrete cradle. Can that
be relocated? Actually, >> I'll clarify that. I think we're good with that. Okay. I think it was really the labeling made it look like you were only doing against AC across a part of the tunnel, but I think it's the whole tunnel width that you're doing it, right? >> So, we were proposing the concrete
cradle just above the pipe crossing. >> That's that's what it is. Not the length of the tunnel. >> Not the length of the tunneling. Just where the issue would be. >> Yeah. And that's fine. Okay. Awesome. But on the plan, like I said, at least the plan that I had, it looked like it was just a portion of of the width, but I I assume it's the whole width. No one would do a partial width.
>> Correct. Yeah. >> I think the the revised plans will will satisfy that. Yes. It's it's more of a graphical thing than anything else. >> Item 15. Um any additional testimony you'd like to give the board with regards to the piping?
>> Um yeah, it's the 15inch AGP has been uh installed already. Um, you know, it is outside of the tank foundation. Uh, we don't anticipate it being a conflict. If it is, we understand that we we'll have to do some pipe rerouting or >> Yeah. You might have to abandon it in place.
>> Yeah. So, >> uh, item 16. >> So, so is the pipe under the tank going to require a cradle? the I don't believe there's the pipe actually the pipe that we're talking about was in between the two tanks. Um
and it's it's already in place and I believe the foundations have already been constructed as well. >> So the the I again I think the plans you're looking at this the foundation shifted uh east a little bit. >> Okay. >> Um the pipe is outside of both
foundations but it's tight. Um, and it's one of those that if if in the field that they're going to fully install the foundations and it becomes an issue, then we understand we're going to have to relocate. Um, dig up and relocate. >> So, the plans need to be revised to show what he's describing.
>> Yeah, I actually need to look at the plans that he's talking about because the plans that I have are previous iteration here. So, >> but but we we I believe that's something we can work out with with the applicants engineer. >> Okay. So, the engineers can work together to address those concerns. uh revise the plans accordingly and
understand that if something needs to be relocated then that will be done. >> Yep. >> Um item 16. Could we do a uh asbelt uh lighting test to address that issue? >> Uh we'll we'll move that light that he's discussing um in the design plans unless
is it was it installed already? the light post behind the the big tanks was all installed. >> So So then yeah, we'll we'll perform the light test and if it's inadequate, we'll uh we'll go from there. >> Okay. And just for clarification, this is just make sure that there's
sufficient lighting to for the trash enclosure to relocate the enclosure. Uh I think the next is 18. We address soil um soil control. We addressed RTMUA and D. The other any other approvals we're waiting on?
>> Uh Hunter County Planning Board really shouldn't have much of a say in this one, but uh we submitted a reertification application anyway. >> And we'll submit that to the board of pharmacy. >> Um and then I don't have any other
questions review letters for Mr. Bento. Any other questions from board members? And again, there's no one from the public here this evening to uh ask questions of your testimony. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. And then our first witness is Mr. Steve Chick. Come on up. Steve, could you give the board the benefit of your qualifications, please? >> Um, so I'm actually a professional engineer uh licensed in the state of New
Jersey since 2020. >> Okay. And have you testified before boards previously? >> Yes, all across New Jersey. >> Ever testified before this board? >> Uh, yes, I have. um in connection with the original application.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, let's go back to two of the items uh that Mr. Benadetto uh was unable to answer. First of all, what is going to be located in the proposed addition? >> So, the um activities and the equipment
that will be in the addition are very similar to what was originally planned. So, uh, to give everybody the the benefit of kind of why the the tenant and the owner have decided to to make these improvements, the um, while it is
an addition and we're calling it an addition, um, in reality, it's I we like to liken it almost as a lean to U, right? So the the purpose of the uh of the three walls um and the roof is
really to protect the tanks and pumps and equipment piping that um were always planned to reside in that area uh from the weather from any of the elements. um because it one it will um it allows them
not to have to worry about heat tracing or insulating any of that equipment um and allow them to keep that that building heated u but it also allows for better lifespan of all of that product um all the tanks and equipment. So that
is why um they decided to enclose that. >> Okay. And just for purposes of the record, that is item number uh 10 with regard to uh at least a portion of item number 10 uh with regard to the uh engineers letter.
>> Could you just explain what heat tracing is a little? I don't know what that term is. >> No, not a problem. Um so heat tracing of um any piping is usually just a uh like an electrical like heat line. You can actually see it like if you maybe have
like an um an exterior hose bib that's far away from your house um that has the potential of um being frozen, you can buy them. I mean the they would be using much more sophisticated ones, but you can buy one at Home Depot, right, that plugs into an outlet and it really just
it's an electric resistance wire that heats up to prevent the pipe from freezing. So now the buildings are going to be fully conditioned. So he >> Yes, they they will have um heaters that maintain 50 degrees within that um that
space similar to um the building itself, the main building. And then just circling back on item 13 uh of that letter uh with regard to uh the number of roof drains uh the inverts and the cleanouts
just testify to that. I don't know that right there. Um I I without the plane in front of me, I can't speak to the specific quantity. Um I thought there were one. There might be two. Uh but um in any event, there is
uh I think the one I think the reason why there might be showing two I think one roof talking about the roof drains. Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. I think one roof drain might be from the existing building. Um and it had to be relocated because of the addition. There was a roof drain that was going right where the addition is.
Um and the uh the the addition itself slopes to a gutter and then that gutter picks up all of the um all the rainfall into one pipe and there will be a clean out prior to going into the that pipe going into the ground.
>> So if there is an extra roof drain depicted on the plans um as a result of the addition, you can work with the engineer to remove it as necessary. >> Yeah. Yeah. That'll that'll that'll get cleaned up. But um my my guess is that's why there's two Okay. And then um
before we move on to the environmental commission, which is the last thing I have for you, there's a couple comments uh in the report. >> Yeah, I think isn't that what we did on 10 floor drains? >> No, I can um I could talk about that though. Um there are no >> I'm sorry. Yes, you're right.
>> There are no floor drains proposed in um in the addition. >> Okay, that was also in item 10. Um so before we move on there were a number of sections of the report uh specifically 3 A three that discusses uh
environmental factors with regard to uh requirements relating to cleanup and training. uh 5B uh and I think really the only one all relating to
essentially uh oh I'm sorry yeah and 5B um all essentially relating to uh requirements for uh cleanup and whether or not there's any containment that's required. Can you testify for the board as to that issue? >> Sure. Um so our testimony doesn't change. they'll reiterate a lot of what
we had had previously testified to, but the product still remains the same that's being stored and blended um and shipped out. Um and uh Rich Creater um also testified to that earlier. Um however, the um URA and any of um the
DEF um solutions are not regulated substances um through any agencies, federal or state, and um they are not considered hazardous. um and they do not require um any type of containment or um
spill protocol or notification protocol in the event that there is a spill. Um that's u consistent with what we had testified to. Um it's also consistent with all their facilities um across the country. Um they have uh just to name a few another facility in New Jersey u
facilities in I believe in like Kansas and California and um the treatment of the liquid is the same across the country. >> Okay. And you you referenced uh Miss Edgar's testimony. Uh she was the engineer that was involved in the approval back in 2024.
>> That is correct. >> Okay. And uh for purposes of the record, the resolution itself at a number of different places uh specifically right now I'm looking at paragraph 14 on page 8 um incorporates said the the testimony
that she had provided that you reiterated for the board. >> That's correct. >> Um okay. an environmental commission letter which was attached to the board planners letter
indicated um that's dated September 22, 2025 um indicated that there should be additional green infrastructure uh or the use of pvious pavement to mitigate the excess impervious coverage and improve the overall hydraology at the
site. Uh could you just give the board some testimony with regard to that issue? >> So um uh Rob Benadetto uh spoke a little bit about this and I'll I'll elaborate on that. So the site already incorporates green infrastructure to
offset the impervious pavement that's there. Will we have aspects of bio retention basins as well as porous to treat any of that impervious and we continue to do so. As Rob had um
elaborated on, we actually had an excess of treatment than what was originally needed. And so the additional impervious, which is minor, does not actually require any additional green infrastructure under the state or town
regulations. >> So essentially, you're already complying with the comments within the environmental commission's report. >> That's correct. >> Um I think that's all I have. I guess I I have a question related to
um why construction began before you applied for permits or any approvals from the board because it's that's kind of problematic especially if you're an engineer yourself and you did the design work. So I guess
you could provide some feedback on that to the board. I think you know >> it's a fair question. Um and and I do thoroughly apologize for that. Um that was a miscommunication on our end. We had a meeting with the board
professionals and at following that meeting I I misunderstood the um what our direction was to be and and since then we have done everything we can to rectify the
situation um short of ripping out items that we had incorrectly installed. And I can promise that that will not that will not happen moving forward. And to Miss Drew's point, all of the work that has there there's nothing happening right now. Is that correct?
>> We we ceased Yeah. We ceased all operations that were construction activities that were identified um as part of the stop work order. >> Okay. And everything that was included in that stop work order is incorporated into this application before the board.
>> That is correct. And are there still outstanding? There's we've been led to believe there's a punch list of of things. So that anything on that punch list would be still a valid condition or or need to be addressed. Correct.
>> So um we did have a we did have a punch list of items, construction deficiencies and things like that for the original approval. Uh the items were addressed. Okay. Uh so the only items left on that punch list would be uh items that are being addressed as part of this this
site plan. So as far as COS go, the applicant has a CO to occupy the facility. They've addressed all the con construction deficiencies that are not on the punch list that could be addressed. Uh the only thing left now is again the items that are halfway
constructed at this point that they're asking for permission to have uh to construct this evening. temporary temporary. Sorry. Yes. >> What you mean as far as the limits of the construction and everything? This is a great teachable moment. I
agree with you. Uh so the the st the procedure for uh construction uh is typically that you mark out the limit of construction uh prior to um any any actual clearing activity. So and then that's defined and that's what the
developer stays within. Um and then in this case I think it was it was probably a little bit beyond that. I think there was just a misunderstanding. the applicant met with uh you know the divorce professionals Jeff and I and I can't remember if there's anyone else on the in the
meeting but uh to discuss this and I think there was a mis just a misunderstanding on what the directions were >> yesually >> yeah absolutely yeah >> that's that that is correct
you are 100% correct moving forward. Um and and we just had this conversation today uh about about the inspections moving forward. You know, my office is going to be involved with the construction inspections. And one of the things that we and and we do this as part of a pre-construction meeting, we
direct the the the contractor to stake out the limit of clearing first before they're given the authorization to start clearing. We def we determine that the limits are what's on the plan and then they're given the authorization to proceed. And then there's periodic checks to make sure that you know everything's being done in accordance
with plans and that that's what's going to happen going forward. >> Thank you. >> Back to you. >> I don't have any other witnesses. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, we're still going to need Yeah, we're going to need the testimony from the planner regarding the positive and negative criteria.
>> Correct. Yes. I'd like to call Mr. Benadetto back up. >> Okay. Mr. Benedo, did you have the opportunity to take a look at the variances that are outlined in the board planners report on page two? >> Yes. >> And some of those have been incorporated
into the exhibit that has been marked as exhibit A3. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Can you just give the uh board some testimony uh posit to the positive and negative criteria that will enable them to grant these varants? >> Sure. Um and and if uh everybody's reviewed the resolution, a lot of this
is going to sound similar, but um few important things to bring to the board's attention. Um most of which again was previously testified. The addition will not hinder the building's appearance from the streets is it will not be uh screened by landscaping. The tanks will be screened as well uh and will be
shorter than the main building height. The height of the addition itself is less than that of the previously approved building. Um the amount of workers using the facility is limited by the available sewer capacity. That's not increasing from the prior approval. Uh and the maximum hard surface for the
zone is 40% uh which was recently lowered from 45 I believe about two years ago. Uh and when compared to uh industrial zoning across the state, it's pretty low. So, you know, um that's kind of why we're we're asking for that variance. Um the variances associated
with this uh specific addition and the associated improvements would be the rear yard setbacks um for where 100 ft required. We're uh requesting 65 ft. Uh uh I'm sorry, 69.2 ft to the edge of the
building was previously approved. Um >> we're requesting 69.17. >> Yes, that's correct. Sorry. Okay. >> Um for the uh utility tunnel, we're requesting zero. Obviously, we'll go to the property
line. Um and for the uh trash enclosure, we're requesting 65 ft, which was uh I believe consistent with the previous application. Um and discussed the maximum hard surface, we're now requesting 45.02%.
Um, from a parking standpoint, um, the, uh, requirement requests one, uh, parking space for 800 square f feet of floor area, uh, which means 73 spaces required. We're requesting 38 spaces, which includes 36 physical stalls plus
two EV stalls, uh, for a total of 38, 18 of which are banked. Um, uh, 18 are banked, sorry. Um although the property has such a unique shape, I think the relief is most
appropriately granted under the C2 criteria for flexible C. Um in the flexible C case, the positive criteria is met if the applicant demonstrates and the board finds that the purposes of municipal land use law would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and that the benefits of
the deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements would substantially outweigh any detriment. Obviously, we need to meet the negative criteria as well. Um, and it shall be demonstrated that there was no substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Um, the word substantial is important
there. Um, the biggest one for this specific uh part of the application is uh advancing uh purpose I to promote a desirable visual visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design arrangement um by moving the field of outdoor storage
tanks within the building envelope. Not only operationally is it beneficial, but it'll further minimize any outdoor visual impacts um from a field of 12t diameter tanks. Uh furthermore, consolidating to two larger tanks outside the building will visually organize the site while also maintaining
its screening from both uh Pennsylvania Avenue and the infrequently traveled Foster Lane. Um for the negative criteria, we're required to show that uh there's no substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. And in my opinion,
there is no substantial detriment to the public good. Uh the deviations are minimal. They don't rise to the level of substantial. The 2008 master plan goals is to permit the additional non-residential development. So, it's consistent with that as there's no impairment. Uh both the addition and the
outdoor tanks will be buffered by Pennsylvania Avenue with very little public traffic expected to go down the culde-sac. So the minor deviations will not impact the public good as far as traveling public or the adjacent properties are concerned. Um in conclusion, the Poland versus Township
of South Planefield case is the appropriate case for guiding the board in the analysis of the application where the C2 criteria is the relief. that case. The courts find the board should look at the project in its totality when looking at whether the benefits outweigh the detriments instead of focusing on each individual variance and proving the
positive and negative criteria through each one. In my opinion, the benefits here outweigh the detriments for the following reasons. And again, just the visual impact traveling down Foster Lane and Pennsylvania Avenue will be lessened by both the landscape buffer along Foster. I was I knew you were going to say that. I heard I'm getting faster and
faster. >> It's just it's just so boring sometimes. I'm sorry. Uh the >> sure the visual impacts to vehicles traveling down Foster Lane and Pennsylvania Avenue will be lessened by both the landscape buffering along Foster and the south side of the property and the removal of the outdoor
storage tank field. Furthermore, it's my opinion that the project proposed project will provide no substantial detriment to the public good. Any questions from the board members on The variance testimony open items for discussion proposal.
>> Would you please >> and then you guys will jump in when I inevitably miss something. So just to confirm the I can. >> Yeah, he's on the record. >> It's just so weird when somebody says
they can't hear me. >> So, the re the relief requested is set forth in the planners report items 1 3 4 5 6 and seven that will be the relief sought in this application. I have as
conditions in the engineers. Uh one condition is that the engineer uh will review with the applicant the revised plans and that any items that need to be incorporated will will um be done. Uh, another condition is that the applicant
will work with the landscape architect to address maintenance with respect to the existing basin as well as um plantings for the new basin and to address any existing plantings that need remediation. Um I also have from the
engineers report as conditions number nine number 16 and submission uh to the Hunter County Planning Board as terms of outside agency approval with respect to
the planners report item 11 and 16B uh that there's a condition that the there shall be no washing of trucks on the property and that the applicant will make an application to the DP for a permit
uh >> if they want to pursue washing. >> Okay. If >> isn't that the way you phrased it? >> That's not the way I had it in my mind. I I had them as they're not going to wash and they are going to apply because I thought I heard this board concerned
about how do you address non-compliance. So, I thought that the I thought I heard that the board's hammer, for lack of a better word, was they have to apply, but but you guys want to discuss it. >> What do people think?
>> I I think they're going to have Don't you >> microphone? >> Don't you have to uh collect the water that you're washing the trucks with to get that permit? >> Is that Is that true? I I don't know what the requirements are. I mean, up
until this point, our intent was not to allow washing. Now, I know there was some concerns. Obviously, we're doing our best to address the concerns, but I don't know what the requirements are. >> Yeah. I I just don't want to have to see them come back as a condition to get a CO
>> because they have to get this permit to wash trucks because then they're going to have to come back for coverage. It's going to be another hearing for them. So then do we go with Donna's suggestion that the language is should you wish to wash? >> Yeah. I mean originally I liked Joe's
original proposal then Marqueesh modified that not throw you under the bus. >> I'm not a member of the board, >> you know. Um the simplest thing is say no washing and go for a permit, >> you know,
>> if you want to. >> Yeah. But we don't but then we don't that's where we got ourselves into a corner. We don't have any leverage then if they >> I I think the leverage is that they're not allowed to to do it right. >> Yeah. But they were watching today. Yeah. >> No, I know. But after being told not to.
>> But that would be in violation of of the resolution of approval at that point. You know, it reminds me of Animal House. Like you're on double secret probation. You know, it's >> Yeah. I mean that I agree, Joe. That's that's the concern. But Joe, your point
is like if that's that's a problem. Yeah, that's a problem. >> So could we structure it that they they >> Yeah, cuz >> So I don't want to cut you off, Donna. I think the um
you Mr. Le Joe's point is is is is well taken, right? if if the Afghan pursues a a permit and there's, you know, some facilities that are required to allow for car washing, they're going to have to come back for a siphon approval. But that's part of their that's part of the gig, right? If
if you want to wash if you want to have a uh a wash down area for the trucks and all that, they're representing that they're not going to do it. I think the condition uh that hey, you're not allowed to wash trucks. If you're going to you need to get the permit and if should that permit require improvements
that require you to get a site plan approval then that's what you'll have to do at that time. You have to come in for site plan approval for this >> and then it's any violation is handled like any other violation with respect to that. >> Okay. So then to be clear my verbiage in the resolution is going to say no
washing of trucks unless they get and then it's up to the applicant whether they want to do it or not. Okay. Um, let me just look through my list to make sure that I haven't missed anything. >> Uh,
>> there were other agreed to like the on the engineer. No, >> I think I've if I'm missing some, somebody needs to call it out because there were a lot more on the reports, but I heard Rakesh and I uh with respect
to several of them saying they were satisfied, so I crossed them off. Yeah, quite a few of my comments are are satisfied and >> okay, but number 12 on Resh's they agreed to clarify the plans to reflect what they really were going to
do because there was the question. >> Yeah, I I have a overall uh a catch all that the applicant is going to work with the engineer on the revised plans to address >> all of his concerns. So >> yeah, 12 and >> right it's going to be a global >> drains, the inlets, the catch basins,
all all those items. Yeah. Okay. >> We'll paint them when it comes to the conformance review. >> You're good at that. >> Thank you. >> So, if there's no other additional conditions, that's the mo that's the motion with the approval with the conditions I've called out.
>> Did you pull the ballard? >> Uh, yes. I believe that's item nine in Reesha's report. >> Okay. Yes. >> I'm going from memory, but >> No, you're right. That was that was good. Do you? Okay.
With that, can I have a motion to approve the F Creek Greek Development, Inc. amended preliminary and final site plan? >> Second. >> Miss Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. Miss Robin Fatu.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joseph Lane. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you everybody. >> Um, first of all, I just want to say uh
I love this organization and I'm going to use it with my boards. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it streamlines things. I think it keeps everyone very organized. So, I thank you for that. I think it's great. Um, another question that I had is the now
that we have this approval, is the applicant allowed to continue the construction before we get the resolution to further the the process? Um, there's there's nothing we can do >> because the the answer to to me that's
an that's an easy legal answer. If you had not started without permission, the answer would be like any other application, you need the actual app approved resolution. So, the answer to that is no, unfortunately, >> but he's been turning them around quick.
>> I was going to state for the record and because the applicant is here and many of the gentlemen in the audience are gentlemen that we see at the office that you guys understand the next steps that go with this. So a resolution will be
drafted by Mr. Toriello. It'll be circulated to your professionals. Then it'll be scheduled to be adopted. Once that happens, then resolution compliance begins. Mr. Benadetto will be revising plans, providing it to our office for our board professionals to review. Until
the board professionals say it's satisfactory, nothing else can be done. And those are the steps I'll go for you guys. Now, if you have any other questions about the steps, you're more than welcome to contact myself, Jeff, or Resh.
>> Otherwise, >> if any work begins and we find it, >> technically, there's a stop work still in effect, but this application was going to rectify the violations and to >> get on the right track. >> But we already we already gave them a lot of leeway.
>> There's a process under the MLUL. It's pretty clear. >> Yeah. Excuse me. One second. Yeah. for purposes of clarification. Um there's no problem proceeding with what
was previously approved that that we have resides on. That's not >> Yeah. Anything that was part of the previously approved site plan in in accordance with that plan. Yeah, that's that's not a problem. It's it's amended >> incorporated into this new approval can
be done until we get That's correct. Yeah. Thank you. >> Hello. >> All right. What else we got? Uh >> I don't think we have anything else. >> Nope. Uh if anything, our next meeting is the 22nd and that is extra storage.
They did revise their plans on time and I just handed out the hard copies to everybody tonight. >> Okay. >> Extra space is our next meeting and I gave everybody the hard copies. >> Professionals, they should have mailed it to your offices. >> Is it October 22nd?
>> Yes. So I came to the Taylor, I will not be here for the November 12th meeting >> motion to adjurnn.