all right let's get going uh call to order um the notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bolon board at the municipal building filing the notice with the Township Clerk and transmitting the notice the hund in County Democrat The Courier News the store Ledger and the Trenton Times good evening can we have a roll call please chairman Mr Edward gettings he has asked to be excuse used Vice chair Miss Donna Drew here miss Robin Fatu here Mr Scott McDade here Miss Judy djn Domenico here Miss Michelle kakiri here Mr Dennis conanan here Mr James Miller here Mr Glenn Sosi here board professionals board attorney Mr John Bardo here Township planner Mr Jeffrey ferella here Township engineer MREs Dari present Township landscape architect Mr John Morgan Thomas here board traffic consultant Mr J Troutman here and on behalf of board planner Miss jusica pawell we have Miss Allison kopsco here thank you could we all please uh join me in the reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag and remain standing for a moment as silent to remember our men and women serving in the armed forces and in particular those serving in troubled areas around the world I pledge alce to the flag of the United States of America and to for it stands one nation God indivisible with liy and justice for all thank you all right um on the agenda first item of business we have no minutes this evening um next item is Citizens privilege this is a time where we invite anyone uh in the audience this evening or joining us online to uh come to before us at the mic and address the board on items that are not on the agenda this evening um would anyone like to come forward under citizens privilege anyone online there is but there's no comments or anything all right thank you moving along um we have no resolutions before us tonight so we'll move right into the public hearing um the first item of our public hearing is um Monique and Jo Joshua Robinson a minor subdivision block 70 lot 20 267 Rayville Road application number s144 5m good evening Steven Gruenberg attorney in Flemington New Jersey on behalf of the applicants Monique and Joshua Robinson this is our application for a one lot um minor subdivision to create one new lot so there is a proposal to have and approximately six acre lot World there'll be a new single family residence and the remainder of 26.8 five will remain in Farmland at the present time that's the intention to keep that right now that farming continued on the remainder lot but allow um Mo'Nique and Josh robinsson who are the cool family to be able ble to have a single family residence on the property that they've owned um we don't need any variances so it's a minor subdivision and in accordance with your ordinance 29622 A1 there's no notice of hearing that's required so I have um I plan on just really presenting Mr benedetto to testify with respect to the plan and to address the comments and your board professionals reports and if he could please be sworn sir do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in connection with your testimony tonight by Otherwise affirming or by saying so help you God you're sworn our board professionals were previously sworn and remain under Ro thank youto why don't you give the board the benefit of your qualifications uh sure um my name is Robert benedetto I'm a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey and about a dozen other states uh I've been practicing ing for over 10 years um license isn't good standing in all states uh and I've appeared in front of a number of boards in New Jersey including this one I offer Mr benedetto as an expert in field of engineering where' you go to school University of Delaware all right I always like to ask that was there a bad answer I'm looking to see if there's any Lehi Engineers oh there you go we we'll accept you as a as a engineer thank you okay thank you um Mr Bena why don't you Orient the board to site and we have an exhibit up here and this is what was already submitted to the board not colorized in any way correct correct so I don't think there's a need to mark it you can just identify what sure um so uh as uh Steve discussed the uh project is a minor subdivision it's currently one lot going to be split into two it's located at the corner of reville Road and cool Road um the area in general is a mix of farmland and there's residential land across reville Road uh it's currently block 71 lot 20 and we're proposing to divide into Lots 2.01 and 2.02 uh at present the lot is currently vacant uh Farmland um the project proposes a single family home on the subdivided lot towards the southern end and I'm pointing to the subdivision pla right now sheet uh four um just one other item to note there's a uh uh NJ uh njp andl eement at the northwest corner of the property it's a 250t RightWay won't be affected by the subdivision or as a part of the uh improvements flipping over now to the typical grading plant um for the project site uh kind of shows the improvements more uh you know just on the southern lot uh it includes the construction of a single family home with a two-car garage the house will be about 2600t footprint including the garage uh we have the building situated uh along the front setback at about 50 ft uh and then located a little over 250 uh I'm sorry 200 ft east of the proposed property line uh on the West Side um we have a 12 wide asult driveway on the west side of the house access will be from cool Road uh as Mr grenberg said there's no variances specifically to setbacks um we will be adding a concrete walkway to uh the front of the house um which will appear on the next iteration of drawings and um the uh we're proposing um just Landscaping and Lawn you know in the vicinity of the house um the subdivision itself uh as we mentioned earlier will be split between um the the 20 the currently 32.9550 that's this lot and the larger lot will be 25. 748 Acres as well um from a grading perspective the high point is at the southeast Corner the site generally slopes uh to the Northwest um anywhere between 4 and 8% uh we're going to maintain most of those grades while you know some slight regrading around the building and the proposed septic area in the back uh no Ste than 3: one um for the utilities they're we're proposing a new septic design in the rear of the site uh water there's a well proposed uh just south of the building uh the house will not have any uh natural gas there there is no natural gas to connect to so it'll be heated electrically um and the electrical service right now we show subsurface to meet with u a utility poll along cool Road we're going to have the contractor coordinate with service provider as required for that one um again no variances uh from an environmental standpoint there are two uh water courses identified on the site uh both have been identified as Wetlands with an intermediate resource value 50 foot transition area uh the original plans uh incorrectly had 150 ft we confirm that with the environmental scientists it's been corrected on our plans and it's going to be corrected with uh the DP submission um the water courses do not have any riparian zone or flood Hazard assoc area associated with it as they don't drain 50 acres um and both of those uh observations are outlined in the LOI report that was submitted to DP um so that's kind of concludes my testimony on design uh Mr Bella in his report Steve can you speak into the mic I'm sorry I like to look at people when I talk to them Mr Bello in his report um raised the issue on our original drawing that we didn't have the Lots Circle noted and that issue that you just talked about in terms of the um the transition area buffer we're we're clarifying that it is a 50 foot buffer and you've indicated the lot Circle on the revised plans correct yes and we we don't therefore require any variance for that correct did copies of those were copies of those revised with the lot surle provided they were provided to um to Jeff uh two days ago I don't know if they were circulated to the board just can I just ask though that a copies of those this was not this was provided to Jeff uh two days ago again electronically but that's not that's not a submission to it wouldn't this be marked as an exhibit yes it be because that's not something that was in part of the original set of plans understood so that sheet should be marked as exhibit A1 with your permission and could you please uh highlight it's kind of hard from here to see where the lot Circle is I think we have it also available on the big screen if that helps you there yeah traditionally lot circles are drawn in the location where the home and the improvements are going to be uh put in place we've always done that as our practice because in other zones but not this one we have a minimum um buildable lot area of non-critical um lands so I'm just perplexed why the lot circles over there and the house and the improvements are someplace I understood I I took a a bit of a dive into that because I was curious about that myself and the the circle doesn't specify that the improvements have to be within it in the ordinance it just was more of a lot shape designation and as long as the improvements in the house fall within the setback the correct setbacks and everything they don't necessarily have to be within the circle according to the ordinance that's yeah it's very it's not very clear consist past practice where we've actually gone to litigation and one that the buildable lot area had to be contained within the lot Circle we now have now we have an open space parcel there um for that property um was I telling what was the this this was raised a couple days before the meeting and I've been too busy to even dive in and address this so I can't offer I can't offer an opinion on it I mean this I think the intention I can't speak to past practice of this board I'm still the new guy uh but the the intention really for for the lot CES because I um a few planners in the past have implemented this it's really the intention of that is to to ensure that developers when they're when they're creating Lots but they're not creating these long thin Lots or or oddly shaped Lots uh they they'll create you know a lot of times because I used to work for a lot of development work where you know you'd have a minimum lot size requirement or or developable area requirement and you would put maybe a 50 foot wide long SWAT somewhere and maybe carve at a little to tuck a house in and that's not what towns really wanted that's not what that's really not good planning so uh a lot of these requirements for these lot circles came in so that you have uh a requirement that says listen we want a minimum developable area of x amount one acre 3/4 acre what have you and you have to be able to put a circle of this diameter in your developable area to to ensure that you at least have a good shaped lot uh there's no at least in my past experience there has been a requirement that the house has to be placed in that Circle it's just that you've created a lot that has the ability to have this unencumbered area of this size uh if if there is a spot on that lot where you can tuck a house that's not inside that Circle the intention of the the of that circle is really just to make sure you're not creating these oddly shaped Lots just to create just to get some additional density or additional defel yeah and and we would agree with that analysis and also from a practical standpoint um given the shape of all of these properties the Robinson's don't want to be right up along Rayville Avenue they they want their their house to be located on cool Road and and um it's still in an appropriate location set back from all of the uh the stream there with the 50 Foot transition buffer so I I don't the ordinance does not require the house improvements to be within that lot Circle were you able to relocate that Circle to try comp I'm happy to try to move it over even further just to get it closer I don't know if we're going to fit all the improvements or the specifically the house within it um we could certainly get a closer you know it's it was more of a um practice of the board in the past had been that we we always had the lot circle with the minimum improvable area generally where the soil logs and perks were done indicating that's where the home was going to be because it says in the ordinance sections what those criteria so I agree on this lot there's a lot of flexibility appreciate that but we may need to clarify our ordinance so that yeah I mean the ordinance is what the ordinance says that you can't change an ordinance by pass practice and we we don't require any variances with this particular proposal where that's something that we could talk about does the last Circle have to be within the setb too no just the right yeah you might be a I know that's I think you actually could when I played with um let me keep going going through Mr Bella's report um he indicated the concern regarding the proposed front tie-in set back to the dwelling we can move that back a little bit correct uh yes we we'll push the house back uh we're thinking 5 feet just to make sure it wasn't directly on the setback no uh setback encumbrances oops on one second apologize so that was item number five on Mr vell's uh April 4th letter you just address and going to item number six we understand uh with respect to the co-op payments due with the time of zoning permit and the other half at the time of Co number seven um I think the there's been a deference to um Mr dargy but we understand that we're a minor development we'll have to uh comply with the minor development storm water standards correct yes um number eight we can provide the AutoCAD then number nine um the proposed well and septic on site I think you testified to number 10 please provide an update on the LOI can you please provide that update it's pending under review by D number 11 we un number the question yeah oh I'm sorry yes conservation easements we understand we have to provide so the conservation easements for the wetlands the buffers on both areas yes and I because the uh the remainder lot's going to be in agriculture the language of that conservation easement is going to allow for agricultural activities to continue to take place as appropriate which I've worked out with this board before on other conservation ements um number 11 will confirm with the tax assessor but I think we already did correct yes um and then now we go to Mr dar's report I think everything else and Jeff's report we're okay with and Mr dar's report um do you need us to deal with the checklist items that we're happy to no if you're you're agreeing to comply to them then we don't need to go through all you want to about the percolation test and number four and soil I I I think we sent them actually separately uh via email and I have a copy tonight if uh I can give it to you or if it has to go through Jeff that's F okay um can we go back to the checklist items for a second sure uh number two the trees um no trees are proposed to be disturbed as part of the application there's they're not actually really within the limited disturbance at all uh so we were kind of requesting to not go have to go out and Survey the trees on the site if we're not we're agreeing to not knock any down as part of the application okay um that that's that's okay with me can you show maybe we can approximate the location maybe a note that says because right now the development that you're proposing is isn't near them so if in the event that the at the time of building building permit things change um you want trees protected you can provide tree protection at that time done great thank you for catching that um we'll do the markers the corner markers in number one under Administrative Code uh yes and number two Street uh Street and street names and locations plan should clearly show the paved area of each Street and width of the traveling way yes and I think we're okay with the recordation law and doing all the permanent ements uh on the plans and the marking of the um certification at the map complies with the provision of your Recreation law and a minimum of three corners correct yes anything on subdivision plan comments that we can't do um no we agree to update based on all's comments I have to ask just CU a PO must be specified for the proposed new lot 20.02 what's po point of beginning in the in the description thank you I was just curious anything else in Mr dar's report that we can't do or clarify or that you need clarification for uh no just in the storm water and flood Hazard section I mentioned the water courses drain less than 50 acres not subject to FHA rules um the uh 18's noted 19 the proposed lot 20.02 the remainder of the lot will continue to be used agriculturally as it currently is and um number 20 will comply with minor development St water okay just one one thing go just going back to comment number 19 and this is a little minor subdivisions have gotten a little bit more complicated with the storm management rules being updated and and the way DS enforcing them um essentially right now uh the development is a minor development because you're proposing a single family home with less than one acre disturbance and less than quarter acre net increase in impervious on the one lot the remainder lot is going to remain as agricultural however uh future development on subdivision of lot 20.02 and I'm not asking you to D District because I understand it's a uh an ongoing thing where maybe another family member may want uh to build a home and they may come in for another subdivision and they have every right to but the when that does happen or if that does happen this lot actually gets counted in that stroll M so I guess the only only concern I would have is the storm water management then has to be treated differently on this lot even though it's been developed upon let's say for a few years um water quality and water quantity then have to get addressed you may you may depending on the design have to construct something on this lot at that point to address storm water so is there uh that willing to accept that kind of restriction on the lot yeah I'd prefer being called a notice as opposed to a restriction yeah I'm engineer not a lawyer so as long as Mr Bardo and you can agree on that that's fine with me yeah would we would like to have like a notice that that there would be the potential requirement for Access for storm water management purposes in the event that lot 20.02 is is developed in the future yeah for my whatever Mr the town attorney does all the easements and things like that whatever Mr s is comfortable with I guess I can work it out with Mr s but we're we're agreeable to that but we we wouldn't be like you said agreeable to a deed restriction from further development for lot 20.0 my whole thing is I just as long as the F the future occupant of that home whether it's the applicant or if they want sell the home in the future as long as that owner is is is notified that there may need to be some sort of improvements construct on their property to handle storm water that's F understood and I think we addressed your report and I think we addressed Mr beell report and we're happy to answer any board questions that you might have just a clarification solicitor um your point was that this application may need to H this the the the lot with the residents on it may in fact at some point in the future have to install storm order management yeah to comply with because it's part of the original aggregate correct so yeah currently it's a minor development so they have to address the minor development uh section of our ordinance which really just says putting in some dry Wells capable of retaining anding a 3 inch per hour storm I'm sorry 3inch total 24-hour rainfall storm um if if the project let's say the the remaining lot gets developed and now you have more than an acre disturbance more than a quarter acre net increase in perace coverage you have to address the stor quantity standards and Stor quality standards of the D which may require a rain Garden or some of additional storm measure on this property in the future so it would almost it's not an easement it would almost seem like you work it out with the attorney yeah we can't like forecast where it's a tomorrow problem that we just need to let people know about today correct okay thank you probably put it in one of the minor subdivision Deeds that's what I was thinking is not notice that in in the event that lot .02 is developed in the future lot 20.01 is placed on notice of the possible requirement of storm water management easy like that and I'll pick up in the chain of title yeah good thank you all right were you I think you were down to approvals and permits on your I think we just agreed to do everything else okay could we go back to Mr V 's um report for a moment please to the appended committee comments could you address the points that are raised I'm sorry I can't hear you I'm sorry could you address the environmental commission's comments that are appended to Mr zarella's report we've already talked about storm water management but he uh note specifically that there are a couple of bird species that are uh endangered or protected species and he questions what's going to be done to protect them yeah I don't actually have that in attached to Mr Bella's report on the one that I have I'll give you another copy but yes thank yes the issue of the birds is actually also included in the report that you submitted the freshwater wetlands letter of interpretation verification I'm sorry this [Music] is so um we the LOI has been submitted to DP we are waiting for approval and we are also not proposing any disturbance within the wetlands or within the buffer um we're actually staying a good distance away from both of them and with respect to the endangered and threatened species the we're not proposing any uh destruction of tree habitat that would impact those correct and the minimal the disturbance that we're proposing there is minimal for the single family lock correct and the property is already in Farmland right correct um I believe the issue would be for when you're building or when you're constructing better sorry you isn't the issue regarding the endangered species have to do with the of constu yeah and that would you're right when when they're breeding that does have to do as the timing of when when you're actually going to be doing disturbance and that would be addressed as part of like the D um Loi or any permits that the applicant uh submits for they will actually specifically write that restriction into the that approval or Le to the LOI that these are the uh species that are impacted by development in this area and give the timing when you can do that work so they'll have to comply with they'll have to comply with that so we would Mr Bardo would we write that into our resolution assuming that there's approval that they have to address this issue you put it as a condition of approval with d we have to comply with the outside governmental agency approvals including the LOI okay prior prior to building permit okay anything else any questions of the applicants witness from the public anyone online thank you this is a fully conforming minor subdivision application with no variances and um it's a good thing because local family is staying in Maran Township and and wants to raise their family continue to raise their family here so we would ask for your approval subject to the conditions that we've discussed great any uh any additional questions from board members all right uh I would entertain a motion to approve so moved second with and that uh I would assume was with all the compliance with all the reports and everything transcript will pick everything up and it'll all go in the resolution Scott was that Scott was that you okay Vice chairwoman Miss Donna Drew yes Miss Robin Fatu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis conanan yes Miss Judy djn Domenico yes Miss Michelle kakiri yes Mr James Miller thank you all very much enj the rest of your evening right our next application uh this evening is F3 development Inc preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances for a manufacturing facility Brock 27 lot 30 .03 to Foster lane planning board application number SP 717 p [Music] oh yes yes um wait wait do she want to stick around for the um the um master plan consistency on the DP tree ordinance that should take just a couple of minutes um HB up you're gone all right thanks all right we'd like to uh put on public record that um Michelle Cavalier is recusing herself because of a conflict of yeah whether it's a conflict or not she feel she can't sit and should if she does feel that there's a possibility of a conflict so he's recused from this application and didn't on the the first hearing and I'd like to also put on the record that I also missed the first hearing but I did review the transcript and watch the video and as sign an affid in accordance with that thank you you're eligible all right all right solicitor wonderful good evening everyone uh carria kazinski of MCN Yos kazinski andl back here again on behalf of F3 development Inc uh concerning the property two Foster lane block 27 lot 3.03 uh you remember we were here at the last meeting we got through some significant testimony uh you heard from our applicant with regard to the operations and some general information concerning the site the proximity to the rail line and how the two were going to interchange with each other at possibly some point in the future uh you also heard from uh Steve chick who's our architect and gave you a little bit of information with regard to some changes in the way the internal square footage of the property was going to be used and answered some other questions that your board professionals had with regard to the um application and you got some partial testimony from Crystal Edgars who's our engineer she got all the way through storm water management which was pretty far and I think we covered a lot of things um but at that point we decided to adjourn for the evening and turn here tonight so what we have to start you off is the continuation of Miss Edgar's testimony she's going to start with her comments concerning utilities get into some lighting Landscaping the performance standards that were requested in your uh planners report uh and some out outside storage and outside approval uh issues that were also raised in your professionals reports um then we'll go through all of the comments that your Professionals in those reports uh some of which were previously testified to with the last hearing some which we'll cover tonight and then we'll move on we have our traffic engineer here uh he could testify if you have any questions um I think his report's pretty straightforward but of course he's here uh and available at your convenience and then we have our planner who will testify as to the relief that's required and we'll address all the items within your planners report and uh tie everything up together to give you the information that we believe you'll need in order to Grant the relief that we're asking for tonight so unless there's any question questions um I'd like to let Miss Edis know she's still on the RO and let her continue with A tes one question you'll also address our Landscape Architects report absolutely we did I know you weren't here well it was I believe he only addressed one issue in it relating to the depth of the soil yeah that was the only one that we would not comply with but my plan tonight just so we don't leave any stone unturned is to go through everybody's report say what we did testify to and what we didn't okay um but I think the testimony was that we would comply with everything with that one little change thank you good evening okay Miss you're still on roof yes ma'am okay so why don't you continue with your testimony um starting with your utilities certainly uh the site will be the site will be served uh with sewer by Bren Township Municipal Utilities Authority and Water by New Jersey American Water um as stated in my previous testimony RT mua has allocated three edus equivalent dwelling units or 900 gallons per day to the site um this is sufficient for the tenants needs uh and we have uh as previously stated proposed to limit the number of total parking spaces uh proposed in order to limit the the number of people on site to an amount that equates to that number of gallons per day even in the future um we have obtained a hydrant flow test from New Jersey American Water showing that the existant hydrants are expected to provide more than 4,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual that's a very good pressure um very good flow the on-site hydrant system will be designed to provide at least 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi residual pressure as requested by the fire Marshall's review letter uh hydrants on site will be will be equipped as requested in that letter um one item is that during ongoing consultation with the mechanical engineer and the utility company njw we have learned that the proposed heated enclosure for the water uh backflow preventor may be relocated to the northern Frontage of the property currently it is this white box on the western Frontage it may be moved to the northern Frontage um that would result in a further setback from Foster uh Lane and uh it would be further into to the industrial park so if it were to move that way it would have less even less of an impact than it has here um for lighting we are proposing pole mounted and building mounted lights all at 25 foot mounting height which is compliant with the ordinance in the truck Port area um due to the large area being lit and a relatively low mounting height 25 ft is a little on the low side um we are proposing a maximum to average ratio of 4.5 to1 whereas the ordinance requires 4:1 uh as the highest on that um we are requesting a design waiver for the max to average ratio requirement uh at the culdesac adjacent to the Truck Port we do have light trespass onto the right of way of 1.0 foot candles whereas the ordinance requires a maximum of 0.25 foot candles this is caused by the required light placement to light the truck court but I do think that it is an added safety benefit to have a little extra light in the right of way there um and I'm we are requesting a design waiver for the maximum light trespass in the right of way Landscaping uh Landscaping is proposed throughout the site as required for screening storm water management and aesthetic purposes uh we are in receipt of the review letter from the board's landscape architect uh from that review letter I understand that there may be an opportunity to reduce the number of Street trees that need to be removed for driveway site distance and also an opportunity to reduce the number of replacement trees required on site uh we will gladly work with the board's landscape architect and engineer uh on those items as noted in both the Landscape Architects and the board Engineers letter landscaping for the proposed uh for screening the proposed banked parking was not shown on the plans that were submitted uh we will revise those plans to include screening landscaping around the banked parking area as shown here on exhibit A2 so those will be planted both the Landscape Architects and board Engineers letters had minor comments on the plantings in the storm water management basins again we'll gladly work with the board's professionals to make minor revisions to the Landscaping in the basins and we will comply with the remaining recommendations in the Landscape Architects letter um the board uh the board planners letter requested testimony on how the project complies with the performance standards of article 20 or XX of the ordinance air pollution section 296-1166 the project will not emit any substances into the air including smoke solid particles or odors uh wastes liquid wastes from the site will not be discharged into any water course nor into the public sewage collection and Disposal system Solid Waste will be regularly collected stored and removed from the site in accordance with the recycling plan that was submitted for the project uh the project will comply with section liquid and solid wastes uh regarding radiation noise and vibration sections 296 d171 172 and 173 respectively the project operations will not create radiation noise or vibration uh regarding glare section 296-7438 regarding heat um and fire fire and explosion hazards sections 296 -175 and- 176 respectively the project operations will not create heat discharge to any water course nor will it create any fire or explosion hazards uh regarding buffers section 296-7000 per table one in section 29675 e non-residential uses in the I2 District are not required to provide buffer yards and regarding outdoor storage um outside storage is only proposed for refuges in the trash enclosure area we previously discussed uh in compliance with section 296-1234 outside of the drcc review zones and the New Jersey D freshwater Wetland Loi has been approved and will be provided uh in uh along with our responses to the review letters that completes my testimony okay um just a couple questions on your testimony and then we'll move on to the professionals letters um you were talking about outdoor storage um there was some discussion in Prior test testimony the last meeting with regard to the tanks that are going to be storing um some of the uh liquid on the site and there was commentary that they could be considered outdoor storage um are those going to be screened they will be screened with an 8 foot high board on board fence okay and that is what's required by by the bo screening screening and fencing which that takes care of both yes perfect okay um all right so unless anyone has any questions on a testimony I'd like to go on to the review letters a question um just to go back to noise um um the manufacturing of the material inside U the process used creates no noise that would be discern to from the outside of the building that is my understanding yes okay and then um the LOI that's been approved was there any requirement or noted for buffers for the Wetland no it was determined to be an ordinary resource value Wetland with no buffer okay thank you any other questions before we move on I'm not sure if it was you on the storage tanks are you replacing ballards around them to protect yes we will be adding those they could stop a truck yes we've learned this is important right it's a great idea we are definitely adding them to the plan and if that stuff spills nothing happens right it's just like water hitting the ground correct it's maybe more like sweat hitting the ground based on the chemical makeup of it but yeah is there an intention to put any kind of a um containment tray for lack of a better word under those um storage units secondary containment is not proposed um I'll just go back to uh when I had discussed that in the last one um but basically because the material the DF and the Ura uh neither one is on any hazardous materials list uh in New Jersey it it's not required to be reported as a spill if it does spill and it doesn't require secondary containment just surprise Ura because that's high-intensity fertilizer right I think boms with that in other words huh isn't that what they make bombs of yeah to put it in like it is that's another another use of it Ura they found out in Oklahoma City yeah yeah huh yeah so I Fire Marshall it's also in our Blood Sweat and Tears not a regulated material okay okay it's the the makeup of it is is very similar to to sweat and during okay as the name would suggest okay that's our Fire Marshall that's right thank you all right any other questions on the testimony at this point before she goes forward with the professionals reviews okay so I'd like to start with the Landscape Architects report um I think I represented and she did as well that we were willing to comply with all of the comments in this report uh with the exception of the one change with regard to the uh mulch uh depth in uh the planting Islands um so I don't think we need to go through anything else certainly I can we can go through it step by step uh if Mr uh Thomas would like us to or the board would like us to but I think that covers everything there clarification it was the soil depth correct I'm sorry yeah uh it was it was the soil depth and that's fine I think think we determined that there really aren't any places where the 18 Ines would be required anyway and that the 12 in were for the small landscape beds that are there that's appropriate so I think that's where we I think that's where we landed thank you thank you just one followup regarding the item number five on Mr John Morgan Thomas's report um where he um asked for some assessment of the trees to remain in sight triangle um did you do any um estimates of visibility and site triangle issues absolutely um yeah the site plans do Show Site triangles for uh both the passenger vehicle driveway and the truck delivery truck driveway um those assessments do show that the trees are within the site triangle and would generally need to be eliminated um however uh in discussion um I understand that they could perhaps be limed instead I've not discussed that yet with Mr dargy to confirm that that's acceptable to him but uh if we can save the trees by liming the bottom of them I would prefer that okay we would certainly agree to any sort of condition working with both Mr Thomas and Mr dargie on that issue and that was an item in my report as well to show the sight lines but with Mr uh Thomas's requirement to trim them up I'd rather keep the trees and have them trimmed up so we're all in agreement on that sounds like like mind always makes it a little bit easier anything else from a lance gate perspective questions for that report you're good Mr Thomas thank you okay great then I think I don't believe there's anything other than what we just discussed um that our engineer could bring to the table with regard to Mr troutman's report um so I'd like to move on to um Miss Caldwell's report uh I'm looking at page six starting with item 10 10A um Miss edar did go through extensively the performance standards uh and there also was testimony with regard to the other items in uh a so I I believe that is satisfied but of course open to any other comments or or questions um moving on to 11a um there was testimony with regard to the setback and our planner will certainly provide more information with regard to the relief that's requested and the proofs for that I think the next one after that would be I'm I'm sorry I I need a little clarification are you talking about the plan of report number one or planner report number two the most recent one number two thank you yep if there's any in one you would also like us to address I think that that's incorporated into two it's just not uh whatever is new is bolded I'm not mistaken that's correct uh so if we move on to um 15 uh would be the next one oh well actually 14 um we did discuss uh the impervious coverage uh the requirements as well as what's proposed our planner will provide additional discussion with regard to the proofs required for that issue uh I'm sorry can we pause there one moment um and again maybe I missed it on the plan so you're asking for 42.6 but that's including the banked parking area imperious coverage correct um the plans say 42.6 but that is not including the bank parking so we would like to request uh 44 9% impervious coverage which does include the banked parking so 4 4.9 with the bank yes okay sorry no please thank you I appreciate that clarification okay moving on to 15 parking and loading um there was testimony with regard to the uh breakout of what is now 3,00 ft of office uh and the remaining 51,100 ft of man ufacturing uh there was also testimony as to what that breaks down to by way of parking uh that is a total of 76 required we have 37 proposed uh 18 of which are banked um our planner again will provide some additional information in support of the proofs for that item um moving on to I think 15c uh testimony with regard to uh sidewalks parking are Isles and driveways uh Miss egis did testify with regard to that at the last hearing moving down to 15f the S plan design waiver for the buffering she also discussed that and again any relief that we're asking for a planner will provide additional testimony uh during his uh portion of the presentation moving on to 16a uh there was testimony from Miss ERS concerning the parking uh numbers and that will also be supplemented by our planner um I'm sorry you're going quickly um parking number G um I don't recall hearing testimony about the parking stalls not being the det are you are you compliant with our requirements there it's 8 by 23 and it says your dimensions are 9 by8 I have according to I don't see that there's any relief required there I see according to 296 is3a the parking space should measure measure not less than 9 by8 and we're proposing 9 by8 okay that correct yes the the 23 by8 would be if it were parallel parking which we are not proposing okay thank you uh okay moving on to lighting uh which you heard this evening I believe that we've covered all of the items there uh testimony confirming the fixtures the height of the fixtures the only thing that I would like to clarify um is is the applicant willing to abide by the comments with regard to 17b uh closing off any non non-essential lighting after the close of business or reducing it as necessary I think that would be probably a better question for Mr crer okay I'm sorry I thought you had discussed that okay um Mr would you like me to address that now or call him up after we finish the engineer Engineers testimony um since he's been sworn before should we get it addressed now and then why not okay why don't we let him address that Mr crer just remember your s o yes hello good evening there was a comment in the planner report concerning um non-essential outdoor lighting fixtures uh and and request that that be turned off after close of business in accordance with the ordinance unless needed for safety or Security in which case it would be reduced to a level as determined by the board and its professionals are you willing to comply with that requirement yes is there any reason why uh the lights would need to stay on at all no not to my knowledge okay um and if there was any uh lighting that was necessary for safety as determined by the board professionals you be to comply that absolutely thank you thank [Music] you um moving on to 17c you heard testimony tonight in support of uh that particular issue and again we need a site plan waiver that our planner will testify to uh 17d same thing you heard testimony tonight from Miss edas concerning that issue our planner will sub U supplement that with testimony there is a variance for fencing noted in 19a in 20 we are uh going to address the issue with regard to the ground signs um if you could just explain what is the issue with regard to the ordinance uh pertaining to the ground signs on the property certainly uh for this project we are proposing one Monument sign and two directional signs um however the ordinance appears to state that on two properties who are under common ownership and are adjacent only one Monument sign is allowed um my understanding from Mr Vella is that that may not be actually the case here because these are separate uses so we may not require that variance so what we'd like to do just get a little Clarity on that certainly we can provide the proofs uh to support the variants if necessary but there seem to be some differences of opinions among the professionals as to whether was necessary so we'll leave it up to you guys I did not have a comment on that maybe I'm recalling wrong um I think thought it was both it was it was from one of your completeness memos not from your uh final report at the end here I think the only one the only report that indicated was a variance uh was Mr Georgie's report so again just want to make sure that we decide whether or not it is relief that's necessary um based upon the conflicting information and then we can certainly proceed accordingly yeah I would defer to Mr V and not M I'm sorry so I'm guessing it's not going to be one yeah typically there's two separate Lots you're allow yeah it's like when we had a large shopping center go in that had multiple tenants that's when the one ground signed rule applied but okay great which makes a little more sense you can have a real big one right these are entirely separate uses even though they are under common ownership okay thank you for that clarification thank you um and I think that uh concludes Miss Edgar's testimony concerning uh the planner's report and then we have Mr dar's report um so there were obviously a number of comments here I'd just like to go one by one and indicate whether we believe it was Satisfied by way of testimony and certainly Mr Georgie can jump in if he needs anything else um I'm starting on page five under uh General comments uh under number one that testimony was provided by the applicant at the last meeting same thing with regards to seven under nine the engineer testified with regard slow down a bit I'm sorry I'm having a hard time even getting to that point in the agenda I'm sorry please you let me know when you're [Music] ready okay what was the first one you addressed so the first one was one so I'm just focusing on you do have the one uh the latest one dated March 22nd correct correct yes okay so then I'm just going to starting with General comments on page five just going to the bolded items okay um so under number one um the applicant did testify at the last hearing with regard to that information if we go down to seven same thing the applicant testified as to that as well if we move on to nine uh Miss Edgar's testified as to uh that information under nine we have no objection to dealing with the recommendation under number 10 uh with regard to the signage of those spaces the applicant also testified as to 11 12 and 14 you can pause a moment absolutely okay is everyone caught up uh and please if I need to go slower let me know I I I tend to go fast usually the stenographer slows me down and you're doing a great job tonight um Jackie usually tells me I'm going too yes uh so moving on to page seven item 24 um our engineer did provide testimony as to those issues same thing with regard to 25 and 27 29 uh the product and the manner was testified to both by the applicant and the engineer I'm sorry could you back up to 28 absolutely if you'd like her to reiterate her testimony she could certainly do that need a copy of certainly um so the the question is uh the site plans show that discharge from both basins enters an existing Swale Wetland area just south of the applicants site testimony should be provided regarding the condition of this Swale or Wetland and if it can accommodate the additional concentrated flow um my first response would be that it will not actually be receiving additional concentrated flow because we are meeting the flow rate reductions required by the D and njac c78 um however the ditch is in good vegetated condition uh it is it is in good condition to receive to continue receiving flow from the proposed development as it is receiving flow in the existing conditions I'm satisf that t item number 29 I guess um in reviewing the transcripts and listening to the testimony um viewing the testimony I'm still a bit confused about the timing um so these product lines so that they can come in from the railroad at some point in the future are going to be installed as at some point in the future we're going to use these kind of things yes H how how is product going to get to the site I didn't recall hearing anything in the testimony until that point in time when the railroad siding comes in gets the appropriate approvals the actual connections if anything changes gets a final approval and sign off Rich testify you know what what how is product going to get to the site because you obviously need the product and how many tractor trailer loads a day are you going to get in there was some testimony about product going out but I don't recall hearing anything about that yeah talked about you talk about 10 box drucks they delivered to local deliveries that the inbound would be coming in Hopper car or on the rail right but my my question is until the rail connection is there and constructed how will prodct get to the site said yeah the the majority the uh that's correct so the combination of inbound and outbound uh was the um what I mentioned last time up to 10 that were coming in and out uh but the uh intention is is that the majority coming inbound of the raw material uh is going to end up coming in uh VIA Rail and having that completed prior op the uh facility being open um okay so your representation to the board is is that this operation will not start until the rail sighting comes in and gets approval and everything happens I I don't know if we're making that representation because we are providing for the trucks to be able to come in and out but were they included in the traffic counts because yes yes yes so all all the trucks in the traffic counts are are correct the total inbound and outbound going in the um the majority of the inbound it's going to end up coming in through the rail the supply of the rail uh of that uh higher concentration of that uh Ura or the de and that's when it's diluted within the facility okay I guess that's where I was just confused with timing that because we still haven't seen plans for the rail siding and approval of that and you want them to both happen and launch at the same time I didn't know if there was an interim plan that if the rail siding isn't approved how do you get product on Raw product the rail siding would fall under um King banga uh within his RightWay uh is within his own siding and whatever is necessary to get the approval uh for him to do that uh the additional rail spur and that uh additional rail running parallel to the existing track will be worked through him I have yeah I understand it's an adjacent prop it's a it's an off-site improvement that you're counting on in order to commence production on your this project for this project that's correct So within here all we're doing is looking to get approval for the piping that would go from the our site to the within the RightWay of U Mr baranga's uh Western uh Black River and W Western Railroad if that signing um approval does not come to fruition could this facility continue to function using um trucks to deliver I'm not sure if the um the rail road uh the approval of that what that process is uh and if that would fall under the board here I believe that's something the railroad itself uh manages on their own and care of getting whatever approval is needed for sidings and door the intercommerce for the uh the railroad I but I'm asking if that doesn't happen for whatever reason he doesn't get the approval can this continue to function it would not be able to operate the way it's intended to operate that's correct again the applicant does feel comfortable based on its research and discussions that uh that will not be an issue obviously they are taking that risk coming here before the board and getting getting the approval um but it's a calculated one that uh based upon everything that we looked at should not beern well one of the things you know to to kind of take a few steps back before we came to this point where we are even before I pulled together the team uh to design this site uh we had Keen banga who owns the rail uh line uh involved with what you the TWC meeting or TRC TRC meetings and other meetings with other um Town Representatives at the site and also on the premises here to discuss how this would interact and King duranga was with us every step of the way right but that I I was at the TRC meeting and that's why I'm asking questions about the railroad siding because it was presented as an integral part but yet it's unclear at least still in my mind I I guess the way I understand the representation to be is that there is a slim opportunity for anyone to reject that type of develop so that's so you're representing it doesn't come before our Township it does not for approval all that's coming here is the infrastructure to get us to that point what's that do you do you know I'm just okay I I yeah okay and and certainly we would not be opposed to having a condition in there a to the extent required by state law as that would be a condition regardless because we would be subject to the municipal landuse law as well as all other state laws so if there was by chance any reason why we would have to come back to this board for approval be that either for approval of the development or in the event that there was some kind of change so let's say for argument sake there was something that needed to be done that altered this site plan that you're approving tonight uh excuse me this site plan we're presenting to you tonight and hoping is going to be approved at some point um we would of course be back here so that would be again a a requirement regardless of whether that was in there or not but you know it's it is our understanding much like any other public entity doing any sort of development that there's a very slim chance of that not happening the way that they wish for it to if if I could add one thing um and Rich please correct me if I'm wrong my understanding is that the facility that the the manufacturers that will be moving in here are currently operating in another location that does not have a rail sighting correct that's correct so for the current operation as it would move in immediately we wouldn't necessarily have to have the rail immediately when you say that the rail siding is necessary for it to function as intended that is so that they can grow and be prosperous uh beyond what they're doing right now but in the immediate term the product could be delivered in a truck right correct where they are currently uh they do not have Railside why in the relationship with them and getting in touch with me was through Mr banga uh who they approached early on this process to help them find some property uh that has rail access and has a good access to the main Rail lines that can move uh the product or bring the product in uh so that was the desirability of this site uh could they do the the um um the intention is is to have that rail bring in the raw material uh and then do the the uh uh diluting of that material on the property that's also to address you know one of the questions that came on earlier on about noise or or whatnot the it is technically manufacturing but all they're doing is diluting the material as it comes in either in a concentrated form which what they're doing now very concentrated or I diluted form which comes in via the r the other um items in that the proposed um the more technical details of the PIP material and all that you're agreeing to put all that detail on the plans yes yeah certainly any representations with regard to uh information that's not on the plans that should be we would certainly be willing to do as any conditional I know what that material is yeah I did testify to it last time it's it's 3inch PVC uh at a schedule 80 pip schedule 80 correct at a 42 inch burial depth but yes uh and the slope uh it's the it's pum yeah it's going to be pumped so the instead of slope I'm giving you the burial depth that's just going to be consistent okay thank you uh okay looking at um item 30 all under drain should be depicted on the plan we're willing to do that correct uh item 31 uh testimony concerning the pipe between manhole 3 and four uh testimony concerning whether any specific permits are required Construction in that location uh manholes 3 and four let me just grab the plant through the corner of the existing drainage and conservation right so down here uh yeah correct I testified to that um the uh Mr creeder is responsible for the maintenance of this Basin in that drainage uh and conservation easement already um and he would be responsible for the maintenance of our proposed pipe as well um and we are not aware of any additional approvals that are required uh in order to put that pipe in um again if by chance there was one that would be covered in catch um item 32 testimony concerning the grading proposed in the drainage and conservation these same yep um moving on to 33 no please I think this was I think all the storm water was covered last time okay just make sure miss I enjoyed it [Laughter] I'm for I just want to make sure and you I just want to have the record show that each one of these comments was addressed so I mean we could move forward then to uh Landscape and Lighting which is on page 11 unless there's something no I think I think all the storm water testimony was provided y okay so moving on to the Landscaping um the only issue there was with regard to item 46 which was deferred to the to the landscape architect which we've already addressed um item 49 um a table similar to that in the spillway d detail be provided uh we are of course willing to do that there's a follow-up comment to that further down which we'll address as well and then the final ones are the additional comments um and uh I believe we addressed each one of those if we just want to look at 54 to the end and just provide any additional comments that you to to those uh I don't think that I need to provide any additional comments I'll just say that we will comply with them any question okay so I don't have any other questions from the ERS any any other questions from the board members any questions go ahead I thought we did that with yours but let's go through that so uh heing County planning board um that is a conditional approval not to construct um the fire department's letter I don't think there's we're willing to comply with all comments with regard to that with concerning fire hydrant and uh Etc fire department connections I think the only other one was the uh I know we addressed this because we talked about the fact that the only difference between the two was that there were two fire hydrants requested and we indicated last time that we would be willing to do that um the next was the um environmental commissions and uh by way of testimony I think we've addressed each one of those concerns and and testified to with the exception of the planner's testimony which we'll kind of wrap all that up together y RTM provided that information so really I think the only thing that remains is testimony concerning the relief that's required that's wrapped up in the environmental [Music] commission right any additional questions from board members professionals anything remaining in your reports solicitor any advice at this point Mr berardo well we have their planner still right oh yes we do and we have our traffic engineer here as well I don't know if Mr Troutman has any questions um I apologize no please no problem um I think the only comments I would make with regard to that is item four talks about that figures five six and seven are missing some percentage and trip numbers we would certainly make that revision um testimony concerning the process for accepting deliveries by way of the rail line you heard that this evening and again tonight um item eight the ordinance parking requirements you heard testimony previously and that will be supplemented with planning and uh items nine and 10 uh we would certainly address both of those as a condition of any approval Jay any yeah I I would I'm satisfied um I don't think there's any need to revise the the report I was just pointing that out in case board members were looking at the little arrows and seeing missing numbers you know we're happy to it's not a problem um and we've heard the testimony the parking uh it turns out that I guess our ordinance and the it is extremely high compared to what this operation is going to be in terms of parking and they have banked parking to fall back on if for some reason we see twice as many cars as they've testified out there we can always move into the bank parking if that were to become an issue the 25 foot radi were already actually put on the revised plans so that's already done and the site triangle we discussed earlier keeping the trees and trimming them up okay all right we have our planner left all right I don't know if we want to open it up to the public for any questions uh any questions of the traffic Professionals of the public or so any member of the public on there is but there is no comment or anything I've received all right and there's no public here right that's well yes yes your mom mom do you have any [Music] questions I'm looking back there as well so all right just so the transcript reflects we gave the public a chance to ask questions of witnesses Andor testify at the end it does not seem to be anyone here except someone online all right I guess we can move forward with the planning testimony wonderful thank you very much so uh with that I'd like to call Kelly o such we didn't swear you last time no was why you introduce him with name like that elsewhere okay Kelly uh you want to me it last name spell just for the report yeah Kelly o such k e l l e y o apostrophe Su CH raise your right hand sir you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you got in connection with your testimony tonight I do your SW okay Kelly can you please give the board the benefit of your education experience uh yeah good evening everyone uh I have a Bachelor of Science and civil engineering from Virginia Tech in 2012 uh I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state as well as other states and for what I'm bearing testimony or providing testimony to tonight I am also a wi professional planner in the state um all in good standing and I testified before various land use planning and zoning boards throughout the state in this capacity have you been accepted as an expert in professional planning before any of those boards yes you haveall if you testify I don't believe I testify before the planning board but I have testified before the zoning board and I testified actually in front of the township committing on a discharge issue and I believe Miss meeting thank you we' accept professional thank you so much um okay U Mr O you've heard the testimony from the uh other experts uh or listen to or read the transcription of Prior hearing correct that is correct okay um I think what we want to start out with is let's outline for the board uh the relief that's required in connection with this application okay so miss ERS went through U kind of touching on some of the variants Rel as well as the design waivers uh so for the design waivers I'll just read them off based on our plan we have section 29675 D which is the off street parking lots uh designed to accommodate more than 25 Vehicles shall be landscaped so that landscape equal to at least 15% of the parking areas provided in a manner specified uh section 29675 D or uh U all parking area shall be screened from the street and adjoining to or to adjoining adjacent properties 29675 G 20 C uh the minimum illumination shall be 0.25 foot candles and the ratio of the average illumination and minimum illumination shall be 4 to1 and then last on the design waivers is 29675 G9 which is a light trespass or where maximum illumination at 5T inside of the property line uh or the right of leg is 0.25 horizontal foot candle U where we're exceeding that and going into the right this was uh for the variance relief uh we have a few different sections um section 296 the overall attachment one which are the setback or the both requirements uh there's front yard setback relief from the principal structure that we're seeking uh in in two locations um minimum sidey yard setback uh where 50 FTS required uh this is the principal building would be compliant on this but we're asking for it to a fence that's adjacent to one of the property lines um minimum rear yard setback of 100 ft is required uh and we are um encroaching on that uh on one side of the building and we go into that and that's the principal building just for the record uh correct U maximum hard surface coverage where 40% is the maximum permitted and as testified to with the bank parking uh we're asking for 44.9% uh next section would be 296 140e where no accessory building shall be permitted in a front yard as we noted that the proposed uh hot box for the water structure or for the water utilities is proposed within the front yard I believe we're looking to relocate it to be further away from the the front yard than it's currently proposed but it would still be an accessory structure within a front yard uh 296 155f which is the minimum amount of parking stalls required uh as they went through uh in their testimony based on the uses as defined in the ordinance the requirement of 76 parking stalls would be required however we are seeking or we're only proposing 37 parking stalls where one of those is an extra stalled due to an uh electric vehicle charging station so really there would be 36 physical stalls but you could count for one with the EV and then of those 36 physical 18 of them would be Bank parking uh so they would only be constructed if and when needed um and just kind of reiterating what was testified to on how they got to the parking number um this goes back to the Sewer flow that the site has capacity to which is 3 edus which is roughly or is equivalent to 900 G per day and they backtrack that into the total amount of people that could be on this property if it remained as a manufacturing andw office use uh of 25 gallons per day per person which would get you to 36 STS And if every single person was ever here or 36 people sorry if every person was ever here and the full Bank paring was built out that's where I get from 36 I think that makes sense from plan perspective just on how they got for the number of 36 okay and and that then correlated to the square footages that were ultimately determined for the office versus the manufacturing correct corre um and then so I I had listed but I believe we just through the conversation before the round mounted sign where one is allowed on the lot is no longer being sof VAR not see okay so thank you for that um so I think we've uh essentially laid out what the relief is that we're asking for um so now I'd ask you to go through and utilizing the testimony that you've heard and the um requirements of the municipal land use law please identify what section we're applying to these variances um and provide the uh information to the board uh in schort sure yeah so before I get into it I think I want to just kind of bring up a couple important points as I kind of see based on the previous testimony of what is being proposed want to sit here yeah might easier sorry [Music] please the site is uni in that CR FR two Sid property the property does have two front yards or one multiple sh or multiple two two front yards and two rear yards no not a conventional and with that l in addition to the way the site lays out there also a right away for the railroad in Southern and that right away also is going to a overhead right over uh and I think this is important these features kind of Def how structure site to get the most efficient use of the site you really want to lay this building out and in doing that because of the a shaped property the road there are but as you can see kind majority over site generally meets what I some of features on off um additionally I think it's it's worth noting that um the proposed Building height is at 40 feet or about 40 ft whereas within the I2 Zone 50 ft is allowed so they are proposing a building that's significantly less than what is permitted in the zone approximately 20% less than permitted in the zone and I think that's important because while we are encroaching on these sets the mass of the building is significantly less than what it could be um again I think it's also worth noting that the site is really limited on end users of this property based on the restrictions of the Santa Z flow 38 for any manufacturing or industrial use is really really low and it it takes a very specific user to kind of move that think is beinged specifically here the Eng that is being proposed specifically here they can operate the site with a very low uh flow sanary superf flow with only nine employees of 10 and they meet that requirement in addition site of the rail line which they're clearly using as a Advantage strategic location site as Mr crater said uh to utilize that that ra um and then lastly with the the hard surface I know the zone is 40% allowed however when we started designing the property previous Orin or the coordinates previously permitted up to 45% and was recently change in a perfect Road you know these site plans could be designed a St of thing but realistically it doesn't happen that way so there was a lot of planning involved and design involved prior to that ordinance change and there's only so much and even still 40 to 45% in an industrial zone is relatively low in the state you typically would see anywhere from 50 to 75% hard surface coverage around the state for hard surface so I just try to throw these things out there just by way of kind of understanding some and kind of how they were designing or how we're designing the site so Cara sorry to go back so now kind of what I think we believe the best way to to for the board to understand and to be able to vote in favor of this application is by using the C2 criteria where the flex um while there is and I did testify some of the hardships OB features of property realistically I think more importantly we can use our flexib C and or and way the benefits or positive criteria versus the negative and really show that the overall use of this profit the over development of the property advances the purposes of the zoning and meets those criteria uh specifically from the purposes of the ml I think purpose a purpose G purpose H and purpose I all are Advanced um specifically with the site location being this uh Railway which will be utilized strategically located for the actual IND as was testified too there's very very few uh available industrial properties in the county and even the state that are adjacent to rail Lin so the fact that they can find it and it's relatively minimal development I'll call it uh relative to that I think this particular property makes a lot of sense uh purpose G where um you know sufficient space appropriate locations of industrial uses and environmental requirements meet the Jersey meet New Jersey citizens or to meet New Jersey citizens it is positioned uh within an existing development specifically if we look at the overall bual Mr I'm sorry if you could just speak a bit closer to the microphone the members online are having a bit trouble hearing you it should be it's just when you turn around yeah so specifically I have an aerial of the overall site and the surrounding property before you here um and if you're looking at the subject property which is in the center of this image highlighted yellow it's located within an area of similar development and similar like uh lock coverages to what's being proposed so while we're over the 40% permitted I think it it fits in very nicely with the actual development that's surrounding it and is similar type of use and similar type of development to what is around so that's the general benefit to the community under the cman versus Warren Township 1988 Jersey Supreme Court case that by having this this here it's not located somewhere else within the township that would have a more negative impact I I believe that's correct because that's what we have to really talk about as opposed to just positive negative we've got to talk about the general benefit of the community as opposed to just a particular benefit to the aete correct just making your record I I understand um and I I think it was spoken to as well as public Ben that with the use of the rail line there's going to be less traffic going through the general public on the actual public roadway so there's a reduction there and again this is an industrial Zone and they find a site that has it along the railway that can provide that traffic um so the negative criteria I think the opin must show to the bo that they must find that there's no substantial detriment to the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance and there's no substantial detriment to the public good uh the proposed deviations that we're showing in my opinion are minimal um and the deviation that we have I think they're proposing some mitigating uh improvements to try to reduce some of that mainly with the height of the structure uh being less than what is permitted the additional land landscaping that's being proposed around the site um banking a lot of the parking rather than just installing it immediately only proposing 36 total stalls rather than the required 76 per the ordinance where we could start where the the hard surface would significantly go up and that number is proposed because that's really what the needs are in fact it's more than the needs of this particular us correct um so again I I I think a positive significantly are outweighing the negative thre here um so then from a a conclusion standpoint I think there's the Poland versus Township of South lanefield case where really the board should look at this as as a whole and really weigh the positives of the overall versus the negatives of the overall and not look at each individual variance that's being asked but rather everything in totality um again I think this site uh ultimately the development provide a clean rateable for the I2 Zone the use is compatible with the sewer flow that's very limiting um it will require very little parking comparative to other industrial uses that helps us to keep the the hard surface coverage down as much as possible um with appropriate landscaping and the banking of the 50 uh per proposed parking site will not look over develop again if you're looking at it in totality with the remaining properties around it it's a very similar type of development to what surrounding the property uh the hard surface coverage setback is more than twice the minimum per from the RightWay so we're trying to keep the hard surface away from the road as much as possible um and again again the building height being 10 feet less than what is the maximum allowed I think is also a public or positive um things you can appreciate from this this picture here just let the record a microphone just want to reflect that this is uh Mr one of the things you can't appreciate from the the photo here the aerial is where you have Pennsylvania Avenue and you have the proposed property in site there's a tree line that completely hides the site from Pennsylvania Avenue so you really don't even see the site until you go across the rail and you come around on the other side of PA Avenue in the industrial area by the old not on my that's all right it stands there is a very large vegetated buffer between Pennsylvania and which would be carrying the majority of the public um The public's General flow of traffic nobody's going down Foster ad unless they're going to these proposed or these the existing development and ultimately proposed development it would be following down Pennsylvania um and then last I think that the 2008 master plan one of the goals was to permit additional non-residential development which this certainly does um and then the I2 District's purpose is to provide areas suitable to use the indust to use to the use of industry and related uses with controls necessary to ensure sound Industrial Development uh I think the project does a very good job of meeting that as we [Music] discussed okay we covered the cofman case uh which is probably the last little item that I had in uh the planner's report uh concerning that the proposal is a better zoning alternative to that which is allowed by the ordinance and benefits of community as a whole um so I don't have any other questions uh from Mr and I believe it certainly go through each item um but I believe all the testimony and all of the uh items that were needed to be addressed in the planers report have been addressed by way of of such as test thank you um any member of public want to ask any questions for the planner for members of the public online is that your um case M kazinski that is my case um the only thing I would say um let me let's let's just do one formality since you're arresting are there any members of the public now online that wish to testify seeing none thank you uh I will be brief you've had a long night I do appreciate you uh giving us the opportunity to come here tonight to finish up our presentation um the only thing that I would like to note is we've been here twice um there have been a number of other people that were here on the applications when we were here uh in the middle of March um there was no one that was here for our application similar to this tonight and I think that goes through the testimony that this really is a property that is not not seen by your public it's not anything that's have a vast impact and to the extent that there is any impact I think provided you with the information the testimony that we' mitigated it as much as possible this is a very good project that will bring a lot to this town and uh we hope we fa on the this is for preliminary and final site plan approval correct correct along with all of the VAR design wav correct thank you all right any last asked questions or discussion points from the board um yeah sum up yes this is for preliminary and final site plan approval with the variance is so noted and the design waivers uh design waivers are a lesser criteria than variances uh design waivers are whether they're reasonable to be granted under the circumstances the variances were um the set forth is being justified under uh the Kaufman versus planning board of Warren Township case which was 110 NJ 551 1988 where the Supreme Court for the first time considered the C2 variance and kman said at 563 speaking to the general concept of the C2 variant that quote by definition the no C2 variant should be granted when merely the purposes of the owner will be Advanced the granted the approval must actually benefit the community and that it represents a better zoning alternative for the property the focus of the C2 case then will be not on the characteristics of the land then in light of the current zoning requirements create a hardship a hardship normally being a C1 variant on the owner represent warranting a relaxation of Standards but on the characteristics of the land that present an opportunity for improve zoning and planning that will benefit the community and as usual as in all Varian cases the applicant Bears the burden of proving both the positive and the negative criteria you heard testimony from the applicant's planner regarding the uh Coffman criteria and the planner's opinion that the cofman criteria had been met you heard him mentioned several of the um what's known as the section 2 ml you a positive criteria that in his opinion Justified the grant of the variance and also with respect to the negative criteria that there was no in his opinion substantial detriment to either the zoning ordinance or the master plan and as I always say it must be a substantial detriment uh not a minimal or di Minimus uh detriment and then all cases it is up to the board way The credibility of all Witnesses uh including the planner's testimony um in rendering its decision um there have been a number of conditions that have been testified to and of course the applicant has agreed to comply with many uh if not most of the conditions in the um reports of our professionals as always uh the stenographer is taking all of this down and should the board uh approve the uh application those conditions will be set forth in the uh resolution ution of of approval thus stands your charge thank you very much Mr Barda for summing that up all right at this point I would entertain a motion to approve Vice chairwoman Miss Donna Drew yes Miss Robin Fatu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis conanan yes Miss Judy djn Domenico yes Mr James Miller yes one right thank you very much everyone again your time and assistance [Music] and good [Music] luck all right uh we have a few more things tonight UMES quiet let's give them give them correspondence there's nothing for us to look at Taylor no ma'am okay okay uh discussions and recommendations um I could probably help with this um in its Infinite Wisdom as always um the NJ d as part of the uh Municipal storm water permit requirements has required that certain model uh tree ordinance removals be enacted for uh Residential Properties they're required they're they're not they're not optional um uh I've seen this in my other municipalities that I uh represent essentially it'll put the Township in the position of being um somewhat tree police uh if you want to expand your yard now have a larger area for your kids you're going to have to get a permit our our only charge tonight is since this is codified with in I think your land use section chapter 296 is to make a determination and a report back to the planning board uh that this is not inconsistent with with the master plan and um we have our planners here tonight so I'll certainly defer to them um to opine and add additional comments above beyond my observations yeah oh they haven't did I I thought that's why it was before us yeah at the last meeting um we actually had discussion on it and I can we reviewed it said yes I will just comment though that there were questions about it but we have to pass it as it is because the timing so we did but some of the questions in here feel a little omous so I think there was a request by to once it's approved we have to meet the obligation of timing we will kind of be looking at this again and um we'd appreciate expert you know commentary on this too it felt own to like a homeowner yeah I guess we don't have time to debate it we had I actually I actually have the regulation here because I said to my Township engineer in burnard because this came up last night there I said I want you to send me the actual permit requirement if I can find it here so my concern is we're mixing apples and oranges here this regulation applies to the removal of Street trees so trees just along the rate of ways all trees all trees yeah yeah and typically and I'm looking at why we have to do it and when you get I'll defer to our engineer but it says uh I'm looking at a letter to encloses a final New Jersey pollutant discharge elimination system the Gypsy permit minor modification which has been issued in accordance with NJ ac7 14a the tier a municipal storm waterer General permit and and apparently the updated final tier a ms4 and the Gypsy permit and supporting documents are on file um let's see apparently a requirement of these nypi permits is that you adopt these tree ordinances is is is that correct yeah as far as your every town TV iel I'm I'm just beginning to get up to speed on this but my understanding is the trees have to be a certain caliber yeah certain size the idea and then you have to replace them or or if you can't replace them pay money and and I was as we were walking our dogs around the block I guess my one neighbor got lucky because they had a very small backyard and they have three little children we thought putting in a swimming pool and so we said oh you're putting in a swimming pool because they had cut some trees down and leveled a lot and they said um no we're we just want the kids to have a little more room to kick a soccer ball do certain things like that um and I said congratulations you just won the lottery because we haven't adopted it yet in in in our town but I I would imagine that those folks would now have to apply for a perit to remove the trees and I I think the general concern is while everyone is in favor of tree conservation and Greenery and things like that that this is another Trenton based regulation that that is turning New Jersey into a a a a nanny State um along with affordable housing mandates and um with respect to affordable housing I was just sent an article where an Essex County Superior Court Judge revoked milburn's um immunity for failure to comply with with building a portable housing and now essentially is said that you know they're going to appoint a special master and portable housing can be built wherever the special master and fair share decide it should be built so um um yeah some of these regulations are frustrating but apparently you have to adopt them because if you don't they come after you just going to add context the concern that we have while we know that we introduced it as it is we have to move this one timing perspective we do want to revisit on page three the regulated activities that was the section that we felt is particularly onerous to a residential homeowner who has to map and all that stuff I don't know the laws in terms of what flexibility we had to revisit but that was the point being made with that particular section my guess is there's probably no flexibility there very little flexibility the there C op I wasn't invol I'm sure that at it took took all that consideration ones that I've done we basically it back wherever we could up about it advice that I've been given by the attor basically you have I think what it's really going to come down to is is are towns going to have tree police because a lot of people are not going to be aware of this and are not going to comply with it if they have to cut a tree down they're going to cut a tree right Riv take preent over trees so even if jcpnl puts down no they're exempt jcpnl is exempt they're regulated utility yeah yeah it's going to be a nightmare private property yeah I guess my bigger question is like how's this blow up our our tree removal ordinance well and and I had a chance to review this over yeah with Mr sordillo while he was trying to okay Cobble the ordinance together you know in a short period of time yeah and handed off the our current protection associated with with Land Development so we were trying to get those so that they were reasonably close and I think that's that's about as as far as we got I mean I think we can make those two things work together but as Jeff said I mean my biggest concern was it it's it's a pretty signif the way it is now a pretty significant administrative burden it requires to meet the letter it requires a fair amount of knowledge on the person who's reviewing the material I mean you you pretty much need an arist yeah because because because someone's got to bring this information before you and you say well it's the tree got dying can it be taken down and there's thisy it's pretty awful in that and I'm the tree guy right here here here's the deal and I put on my Township attorney hat because there was there was a case in the 1960s where somebody was parked on a street in nework New Jersey and a tree fell and and and and hit the car and injured or killed the person and a lawsuit was brought saying hey you should have been out there inspecting trees and you should have seen that this was a a dead tree and and you should have cut it down and then this person would be alive and the New Jersey Supreme Court or Appel division said no the municipality had title 59 immunity because a municipality has limited budget and limited resources so a municipality has great discretion in how it decides to expend those resources and budgets in terms of enforcement activities and I I think a similar argument could be made here that although you have to adopt this ordinance to what extent do you have to use your your your budget and Municipal funds to enforce that ordinance and and that's the question so it doesn't mandate that you have to appoint someone to do it just that you have to adopt it at least that's the opinion I'm giving to towns where I'm wearing a town attorney hat as opposed to a planning or zoning board hat and so I would I would I would suggest that that gives you a certain amount of comfort and and solace in terms of what you decide to do or not do with this for example you might decide you might decide that if someone cuts one or two trees down to like expand their yard that's fine on the other hand you might see someone that goes out and decides for no rational reason that they're going to clearcut their entire property and and in that case you might decide because you could pick and choose what enforcement actions you take that that you're going to site that particular person because that's egregious conduct that doesn't work that way doesn't work that way I'm saying you can or can't do that you know because a a municipal prosecutor will tell you there are certain things known as prosecutorial discretion what is prosecutorial discretion somebody could Dre walk across a road you don't have to issue him a ticket in terms of what you prosecute or don't prosecute the bottom line is I'm I'm telling this got it you you got it you understand what I'm saying without me saying it because I kind of just said it you send email no not it got yeah Ju Just as an aside there are townships that have had been operating where they have a Forester or an orist that's part-time fee based that reviews these permits for tree removal and manages it is not ever typically done through a Planning and Zoning officer type of role or function it's through a professional that has the background to evaluate the health of the trees and if they're a risk tree and then they can just take them down what about right to farm law someone going to go on a farm and tell a farmer you can't cut down trees they're going to argue on right they're going to argue on right to farm they have right to do that yeah they would be what I was wondering would be my question you go in same thing you've got all this technical arborous Ts that it's very difficult and then you get into generic well over mulching and improper muling and then you even go to soil compaction I just saw water on off compacted on my neighbor's old tree it's so compacted he can't even dig anything so who's going to make those DRS you only can do so much with your budget so you have to pick the fights you're going to fight and those that you're not going to [Music] fight Jeffrey speak into the microphone figure it out I think where the the figuring out will come in is when when townships see how the D is going to track implementation through your ms4 permit what per your stor Municipal storm water permit because that's what's requiring you to right so they there may be something in there how many permits did you get you know that's to be seen so what does the township committee need from us with respect to this not not inconsistent with the master yeah I just that it's not inconsistent with your your master plan and while we have some reservations about it we understand the requirements all the things that we some towns some towns have separated it they've had land use applications my one toown has a they've amended chap CH 21 which is their land use application section to do this their General regulation which with respect to residential property owners is not in land use so that's not going to go to the planning board in that town apparently here it's it's all in your land use so it's coming to us can you speak into the microphone Jeffrey please speaking to the microphone so 29675 site plan design standards are also included with this yeah and those are recommendations that you had based upon most of your comments withs yeah basically we what I spoke Mr he just wanted to make sure we could make them as consistent as possible since they would both app and as an example one of we talked about was the tree removal there is a fe of that needed to be updated within the land ordinance and that was discussed um so that's really kind of as far as we got with that but they're reasonably consistent with what's already in land use orance um and in some ways on the land use ordinance side we we have some more Str requirements right than this so it wasn't an issue it's just when you get down to the individual trees I mean there's there's there's less re you know obviously when someone comes in with a development application you know you hold them more accountable it's a lot easier you know they got provide all that information right as opposed to you know Joe and Jane Smith coming in and saying they want to take down a couple trees to you know they won't even know they need to they they're not going to they're not even going to know that they're going to go and cut them down and that's it and nobody's nobody's going to know otherwise so and of course or they're going to say it's a dead tree I mean with with you know you know the beetle bore Ash man I had to take down 12 dead trees they were dead as anything so all right all right so uh can I have a question night it says the tree removal is to cause irreparable damage so when Kevin Gilbert hit that tree over on the road and that tree died and was cut down did he cause irreparable damage well if the tree's dead or dying cut it well well this says matter it's still regulated but it says the person is going to be punished that caused the irreparable damage a tree your car so there a car cause irreparable damage they drive away I haven't read it that CL a tree Rider now all right but now they're all right all right so um would like to someone like to put forward a motion that this is not inconsistent with our master plan so move a second second all in favor go ahead I'm sorry roll call Vice chair Miss Donna Drews yes Miss Robin Fatu yeah Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis quanan yes Miss Judy djn Domenico yes Mr James Miller yes Mr Glenn solowski yes all right comments and report I one thing I'll do on behalf of of Ed Ed and I did meet with Jeff and we did do a quick review of our planning board rules and regulations and we will be coming back with some proposed revisions to that one of the procedural things that we're going to try and do at every meeting is um put some language on our agendas reminding everyone that we won't accept new testimony past 10 o'clock and no test all testimony will end at 10:30 so and that's already in our rule so we're just going to remind people of it um but there were a couple other minor revisions that we think need to to uh happen to the bylaw so when we get a EDS away enjoying some time away so once he's back we'll we'll work to get some revisions and share that with the board and the attorney everyone to look at and I want to say goodbye to Judy this is her last meeting where are you going Pennsylvania see all of these regulations are forcing our residents to move out of the state of New Jersey and and there goes another one I just want to personally say Judy that you've been such a good board member I mean you I I would always know you do the editing you would catch things in minutes you would no but that's that's a really important role to have now but that's that's such an important role and function for a board member to to do and take the time and we app appreciate your consistency and attendance and your good nature and we're going to miss you and since Judy is so modest and she could correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here you clerk for a New Jersey Supreme Court Justice correct yes I know she's a and she was an editor for the New Jersey Law Journal yes so she's she brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the board and we thank you so much in my resignation letter I said I can't believe it's been almost 12 years wow that long and I really think stand in awe of all of you and your predecessors I know how much time you all put in to do to take care of the township that we love and it's been an honor to serve with you I hope in some s way it made a difference and when I said idiotic things I thank you for your letting me get away with it you can still watch Us online yeah right that's not going to happen playing pickle ball my grand where Pennsylvania man is a Pennsylvania where is that Montgomery County um Collegeville not too far from Valley Forge oh okay sure my grandkids are here so it's important thing well well thank you so much for all everything that you've done yeah all right any uh any other board comments given the discussion today is there any desire to look at the ordinance related to the lot circles or we was that yeah actually there were two things I think when jefff and I were looking at those definitions one we don't have a minimum developable area for the AR zone right it's kind of missing from the chart so that's one thing and then the language because we really have as past practice because it was mainly because we have lot we had some developments come in with really steep slopes and they tried putting Lots the houses on the Steep slop so that's where we said no the lot Circle needed to contain the developable area and in practice and we have to get our language clear that that's where the house was going to go because it was mainly because of the steep slope areas and then failing perks they were lots coming in at one point we had a development which still has some problems where they did like 40 perks yeah they got two passing and the house and the lot Circle wasn't anywhere near that you know so we we started that's why the lot that was the history of why it came in in the ordinance years ago because it worth doing oh I I think we need to get some language yeah it would be a that'd be a kind of a minor fix but yeah you initiate that initiate Jess would work on that yeah I I mean I think at this yeah yeah we can I think it's I think it's a pretty quick fix kind of a thing so it might be something Jeff could do just because it's a quick one so yeah it was kind of like the old moment when we were looking at the ordinance all right any anything else engineer planner attorney landscape archite okay you we have Woodmont May 8th and I'll see you then and there is at this point nothing on April 24th no no okay so will the meeting it will hold it but it may be canell or it will be canell hold it okay all right because I'll be out on now I'm assuming we're not gonna have a hearing April 24th yeah okay all right we are adjourned w