Now, good evening. The Ronin Township Planning Board is now in session. Call to order. The notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building. Filing the notice with the township clerk and transmitting the notice to the Hunton
County Democrat, the Courier News, the Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. May I have a roll call, please? Chairman Miss Edward Giddings here. Vice >> Chair Miss Donna Drews >> here. Miss Robin Fatu here. Mr. Bob King >> here. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri
>> here. >> Mrs. Dennis Conan >> here. >> Mr. James Miller. He's currently not here. And Mr. Joseph Lane >> here. >> Board professionals board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello >> here. Tasha planner. Mr. Jeffrey Fakarella
>> here. We have Miss Jackie Long on behalf of township engineer Mr. Reesh Dargy here. Township landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas >> here >> and traffic consultant Mr. J Troutman >> here.
>> Very good. Thank you, Taylor. I'd like to ask everybody to please rise for the pledge of allegiance followed by a moment of silence for the men and women in our armed services. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with indiv. Thank you everyone. Terms of comments and reports tonight, I don't have anything to report on. Anybody else on the board have something
>> for the good of the order this evening? No engineers comments? No question. Jackie, you got anything? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, Jeff, minor's comments. Any comments? >> Okay, Mr. Toriello. >> Nothing. You know, you know me. I like to keep it quiet.
>> I know that's >> that's you. Okay. In terms of correspondence, discussions and recommendations, we had two items to discuss. One is the cancellation of the July 8th, 2026 meeting, which is our next meeting. I don't know that there's much to discuss
other than we have to cancel it, right? So, >> it's just essentially announcing it >> that yes, the July 8th, 2026 plan meeting is canled. I will be placing a notice on the township website tomorrow morning and just advising on the front
doors of the building. Okay, no problem. And the rescheduling of the November 26 meeting, there's a lot of going back and forth because of the league meetings, Veterans Day first and foremost, >> correct? >> Um, and the township committee meeting,
so that's already been rescheduled. Correct. >> Yes. And my apologies. In the previous discussion on this topic, I did not have confirmation of the movement of the township committee meeting which conflicted with what we had tried to move with. Yeah, >> that comes first.
>> That comes first. So, what day is that, Robin? >> I have that as Wednesday, November 4th. Correct. And Monday, November 16th are committee meetings. >> Correct. Yes.
>> Is the league what week is that? the league is on the 18 the 17 181 19. >> So in my head, I don't know if it makes sense, but if we just had a quorum just
to meet and say we met and if Joe was able to do it by Zoom just to have a meeting, say there's nothing on the meeting and then that's it. From a process perspective, are we required to have a meeting like that if
there's nothing on the agenda? >> Since we have once a month, >> we're only required to do once a month. >> Once a month, right? >> And that is our only because we don't have >> because of Thanksgiving. We don't >> The 25th of November is being cancelled then schedule it because you guys are usually
never available that week. >> Okay. Okay. I'm following now. Sorry. Should we try like the 24 go to a Tuesday? I you know I don't I don't >> I'm good with that.
>> Do you are you guys available? It's do >> as long as we have a quorum to Taylor's point then we'd be good, right? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Do you think you're available Rob and Bob? >> A Zoom quum. Yeah. >> Whether it's here I dial and I can be available. >> Yeah. It's t that would be a Tuesday.
>> Tuesday the 24th. Yeah, that is. >> Yeah, >> that was a good idea. Joe, you're good. >> Yeah, it should be all right. >> Even via Zoom. >> Yeah, I >> like that makes it easier, right? >> Yeah. >> Does that give you the quorum you need,
Taylor? >> Yeah, I think we're good. >> We'll pressure James into being >> kidding. He's always here. >> Okay. So then just to announce on the record, our November meeting would be
held on Tuesday, November 24th at 7 p.m. And then again, I will make a notice and place it on the township website and then once it gets closer to that date, just having it again on the front doors of the building. So is the intention to not have an
application heard that >> essentially I mean it would >> just being clear on like that meeting minutes resolutions >> okay right normal course of business but without an application being heard because I feel like that would be difficult if everybody's on Zoom >> yeah I think so too
>> okay then then I'm yeah >> okay great problem solved a good idea. >> Thank you. Sorry to put that on you. >> I tell you what, we're going to uh Thank you. We took care of that item. Minutes. We do not have any minutes for approval
this evening. And resolutions. We have resolution 10-2026. This is Walmart Real Estate Business Trust at 150 Highway 31, block 1601, lots 35 36 38. We just met with them
very recently. And thank you, Joe, for the resolution. >> And that was circulated by Taylor prior to our meeting for review. >> Does anybody have any comments or concerns or questions about the
resolution? I do not. I received input from the applicants council as well as work professional. So those edits are all >> Yeah, that was all included in >> Okay, >> one James is not
>> we have enough. We have six. Okay. do that. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Mr. Miller will not be joining us this evening, but we still have a quorum, so we're we're absolutely fine. Thanks. Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion that
resolution 10-2026. This is Walmart Real Estate Business Trust. Uh be approved. >> Motion. >> Second. Chairman Miss Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Dennis Concanan. >> Yes. >> Okay. Citizens privilege is next on the agenda this evening. If there's anybody in the room who would like to address
the planning board on a topic other than what's coming up in the public hearings, now would be your time to do so. Please approach the microphone. and introduce yourself. Okay, there being none, we can move on. The first public hearing item we have isn't so much a hearing, but a status update on
18 US Highway 202 LLC. We do have a letter that was provided to us when we got in here this evening from their attorney, Miss Carrick Hazinski, >> and she is asking to for the board to
carry the June 24th, 2026 meeting to the September 23rd, 2026 meeting. >> Is that available, Taylor? >> Yes. So there was just correspondence of me and Miss Kis Kazinski going back and
forth just to confirm if she was going to be or the applicant of course I will be revising their plans. Yes, they will and they need to meet the 21day deadline for you guys. And so we offered the second meeting in
August but she did not choose that one. So now she's choosing September 23rd, 2026. Um, and she also granted a time extension to October 31st, 2026. And so then if the board is all set,
again, the announcement would just be that the application is being carried to September 23rd, 2026 without the need for further notice and a time extension granted for October 31st, 2026.
>> Great. Thanks for summarizing that. Um, I'd like to make a motion to approve that request. >> We have to >> I think we really need to, but >> yeah, that's fine. >> I would I would just like for the record to note that she was offered an earlier date >> and she declined
>> declined. >> Correct. Okay. >> Okay. Next up, we have a time extension for Dancowski Minor Subdivision. This is Raren Township, block 77, lot 5. Good evening.
>> Good evening, everyone. Um, >> you don't look like Steve Groomberg, but >> I am not. No, I am his uh I am his better half. My name is Ted Carroll. I'm an attorney in Flemington, New Jersey with the Grubberg Law Office here on behalf of the applicant, Katherine Jenowski. Um, just by way of brief
background, um, as you know, pursuant to Mr. Gruinberg's June 11th, 2026 letter that he submitted to the board requesting this extension. Uh the applicant was uh previously granted a six-month extension of time to June
30th, 2026. Uh and now we come before the board asking for an additional uh 6 months extension of time to December 31st, 2026. Um Mr. Grubberg's uh letter to the board is pretty self-explanatory,
but um you know, just by way of further background, the NJ tends to move at a pace that is uh slower than anybody here, I'm sure, would like. Um but, you know, we are moving as as quickly as possible to make sure that uh the
subdivision uh deeds are recorded and approved. >> They move at their own pace. >> Yeah. Mercy. >> Very good. Does anybody see an issue with the extension that
>> No, >> I I do not. It's pretty much pro for >> Okay. >> With that, we need a motion. >> Yes, we do. >> Make a motion that we extend to December 31st, 2026.
>> Second. >> Chairman, Miss Edward Gettings. >> Yes. Vice Chair Miss Donna Drew. >> Sorry, Michelle. Miss Robin Fatu, >> yes. >> Mr. Bob Kang, >> yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri, >> yes. >> Mrs. Daskan, >> yes. >> Mr. Joseph Lane,
>> yes. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thanks for coming in. >> Coming in. >> Okay. Next up is the public hearing for 14 US Highway 202 LLC. This is a preliminary and final site plan on the construction of a 15,800
ft self-s storage building on lot 97, excuse me, lot 97, lot 25 again at 14 highway 202. >> Good evening. Good evening. >> My name is Rich and I'm here to have the applicant. We are here again.
I'm gonna ask you get closer microphone. >> Sit down. We even bought new microphones so they they're better >> to an extent. >> No one's ever told me I don't speak loud enough. >> It's a first. >> Uh again, Rich Mandeli here on behalf of
the applicant. Uh we were here in April and presented a bunch of evidence. Uh the board uh and I remember my colleague Joe said, "I can't do a resolution with 58 plus conditions." >> So I think that was the last number,
Joe. and and we don't disagree with that conclusion. So, we have submitted revised plans. Um, and we're here to present them this evening. I'm here with my team. Uh, the LLC applicant is represented by Bob and James Maloy. Uh,
Bill Wayne from Menllo Engineering is our engineer. He's with us. Kristen Shepard is our planner and she'll be our cleanup hitter this evening. So, our plan tonight is to have Bill present to you the revised plans we've submitted,
walk you through those, answer any questions the board has, but we're then prepared to walk through uh all the reports that the board has to address point by point each issue that was raised. Uh we'll of course answer any questions the board or your professional
team has. Um, and then we'll call in our cleanup hitter Kristen to provide what we know is going to be compelling proofs to support the variances required. >> I do believe and correct me if I'm wrong, all the witnesses sworn in the
last time 100%. So I think we're just continuing. >> We have our engineer not sworn in, but I think everybody else has. So you just want to read your writing. >> Yep. It's affirm that the testimony you've provided this hearing is true. All true.
>> Yes. >> Statement for the record. >> Jackie Long. >> Thanks. >> Melly, before you begin, I would just like to note for the record, Mr. Joseph Lane was not present for the April 8th meeting. He has listened to the tape
recording and he is now eligible to vote if a vote takes place tonight. >> Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it's okay, can I take off my jacket? It's a bit warm in here. >> Warm in here. >> Welcome to summer. >> Well, I I have a black Volvo that hasn't
had air conditioning for eight months. Nobody can seem to fix it. So, I think I'm just always warmed up. So, thank you. >> All right, Bill. The floor is yours. Um, we have a new uh site plan exhibit over
here to my left. Um, I guess we want to mark that. There's an exhibit. It's entitled goal plan exhibit dated June 24th 26. Just >> this will be if this is marked an exhibit it's A4.
>> Yes. So thank you. >> Okay. On the plan you'll see that um we revised everything to one central building. Um it's 15,800 ft. There's approximately 122 units inside the building uh self- storage
facility units which range from 5x5s to 10 x 25 units. We still have our four parking spaces to the north which include uh one easy space and one handicap space. We also still have our access driveway up at 202 and now we have one central loop uh driveway around
the building to access all the units that face the exterior. Um what bringing everything in allowed us to provide the uh minimum 50% transition buffer rounds uh to the south
and to the east. Um so to the east uh where we have uh have a 75 foot buffer we have a minimum of 37.9 ft and the buffer area in that uh set side we have
86% of the buffer yard area provided. Um to the south we have 50 foot buffer where we're composing a minimum of 25 ft and in that area we have we're providing 66% buffer yard area. Um our basin is still up to the north.
Uh still a bio retention basin. It still function as it previous was designed. It would shape a little bit different. Um and uh we we uh actually up the plantings now. So there's 140 shrubs in there along with 202 ground covers. Uh the utility is still the same. We have a
uh a water tank to provide uh fire service. We have a well to provide service to the tank and also the building bathroom. And uh we have a septic field to the north which was on the previous plant still there. Um for landscaping we uh as you can see
by the plan we definitely beefed it up a bit because we're looking to buffer also to the decent south. Um so right now we have 66 ciduous trees, 67 evergreen trees and 20 flowering trees which we added approximately 87 additional trees
from the previous plan that we presented to the board. Um, also we have 355 shrubs, which is another 94 shrubs that we had added from the previous plan. Um, with that we have 210 ground covers uh to help fill in some of the low spots.
Um, in addition, we we are short on replacement trees. So, uh, there's agreement to do 172 replacement trees at one half inch caliber based on wherever the town's going to look to to demo site. You can see from here there's really not much room to add any more plantings on here. Okay, we I think you
know this. We really do like it if you go through the professionals reports >> because there's a lot in here for this meeting this evening. Now, you're touching on some of these items which is great. If you want to continue as an overview,
Mr. Chair, we're just a couple minutes and then we're going to go paragraph by paragraph of every >> Excellent. Excellent. Thank you. I mean, the only last thing I wanted to cover was the lighting. Uh we we these still pretty much the same lighting pattern, but now we have uh 12 wall units and three light poles on site. And that
pretty much covers um the changes on the on site. >> Okay. So, Mr. Chair, do you have a preferred order? My thought was we'd start with the uh planning board engineers report. Yeah, that's fine. then the planning uh planners report and
then Mr. Thompson's report as our third one and the fire as well. >> Okay, very good. So, we're going to start with that report dated June 22 22nd. Um your engineer starts with some introductory uh information lists of items he
reviewed. He identifies on page two the zoning and the bulk variances. And so then we get to page three. Okay. and uh variances um deferring to the board planner. So we go to the waiverss. Um
paragraph two no longer applicable. Um paragraph three the board is asking about the number and size of spaces required for these this use. Bill, if you could speak to that. >> Yeah, we're asking for a waiver on the loading spaces. This isn't a typical
building other than people coming here with their car or van or box truck to load unload. So, we're not looking to provide a specific voting zone on on the property >> and parking spaces. >> We have four parking spaces to the north.
>> Ahead of any further testimony, is there a limitation on the size of trucks that would be allowed to come into this property? >> I I think we're looking at box trucks mostly as a large and or any fire vehicles that would need to access the
site. I mean, as a self- storage facility, we don't anticipate anything large. So, if there was some limitation, the board thought was essential. I mean, this is not going to be 18 wheelers coming in because there's no >> in the past we've had some issues with
the turning radiuses wouldn't accommodate if someone bought a moving van, a full scale moving van, 18-wheeler. Correct. >> Right. And they agreed to prohibit tractor trailers at the first hearing. I have that comment nine in my review that
that's a proposed condition in the event approval. Tractor trailers shall be prohibited. >> That's what I'm looking for. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jud. >> Thank you. >> Um we're going to go to paragraph four. Um on paragraph 4 subb
uh your engineer notes the dimension is not noted on the plan. It should be identified. the applicant will certainly do that. Uh that's the buffering and the screening. Um and then 4 C testimony shall be provided regarding the type of
screening provided and how it meets the township ordinance. >> Yeah. Um and we have uh another exhibit um which produces a handout that shows the cross-sections. They tell how those rents. Okay.
>> So, we've prepared a cross-section so that you'll have an idea visually of how it impacts from the adjoining properties. But can you identify June 24, 206?
If you could give her a moment to pass that out and then Yes. Fantastic. if you can explain what A5 is. >> Yeah, these are cross sections from to the east and to the south uh from the
proposed building across the driveway and then across to the property line with the proposed landscaping and the I guess the wooded areas that offsite. >> Could you show us approximately where on the site plan these cross-sections are? That would be helpful. Section A is to the south.
>> Okay. >> And then section B is to the east. >> Okay. >> And these are taken where we're reduced the most is other areas where the cost of buffer gets a little larger. Um and the A section goes towards the church.
Uh we have the building. It's about starts about 10 ft high. It's very minimal slope. So it's it's the building is only one story. So it's very low. Um we come across the driveway. We have like a 3 4 foot wall, the fence on top and then the grade continues to slope up
across the property. Um, so you can kind of see if you're standing on the other side of where the landscaping is in the fence. If you go look over the plantings, it kind of goes over the building. So you really won't even see the building from over there. So if you're on the other side further into the woods, the existing woods on the other property, it's pretty well
screened and hidden down because it's not a it's a very low low building. Uh section B goes to the east. Um little opposite there. We have the building, we have a driveway, then it starts to slow down a little bit and then it kind of flattens out and then it starts to grain
back up towards the existing house that's further out for on that property. Um and again, same similar situation where if you're standing out on this side of the landscape and looking at the fence, your eyes going to like probably pretty much go just above the building. So um well screened and visual uh
visually uh covered from looking at the building. Um what what our landscaper did was uh they took a uh type E buffer from the ordinance and uh they did a little bit of error some deciduous some shrubs um because they thought they tie
in better with existing landscaping trees that are in the area walnuts um that we could do a type A where we do a little bit more additional evergreen but we could work with your landscape architect professional or if has any preferences but we thought this is
probably the better route to go with this uh design and layout. Speaking of cross section, this is kind of what we designed and came up with. >> Do John, do you want to comment on this now, John, or do you want to wait till your report?
>> I I'll wait. >> Okay. >> Question. Um the building itself um are there are there exter exterior doors around the entire build perimeter of the building around each side but not like
every bay? There are some gaps in it but like on the on the south side there is there's several on the east side. Same thing on the north it's all the way across and then a couple of them are depending on which way think the buildings turn. But yeah, pretty much but there are doors.
>> Yeah. And then there's an interior card for the interior. >> And so what color are the doors supposed to be? >> Um we we have the uh that exhibit too on the uh you can tell you can hand that out if you want. It's the elevations and the floor plan. The building's sort of
like a beige right now with with brown doors. >> I simply because we have a lot of storage units around the state of New Jersey with with bright orange bright blue. We prefer earth tones. Yeah. >> Yes. We're happy to agree to have no
>> we we prefer it blend in >> one of the conditions that agreed. We're fine as a judic. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Uh Mr. Chair, we're going to move on to waiverss paragraph five. Uh, paragraph A
has uh uh been accepted. Paragraph 5B, applicant shall provide testimony regarding the sizing of the pipe and whether 15 in could be appropriate and further testimony as to the suitability
of the pipe size based on NJ dot standards. Bill, >> yeah, and we can increase it to 15 in. That's no problem. >> Awesome. You just knocked on 86. >> Oh, it it's a elevation color. I guess is that >> it's architectural elevation of the
floor plan? >> So, the applicant has no objection to a 15inch pipe >> for number five. >> For number five, 5 a 5 B. >> Sorry. Paragraph six, uh, no longer applicable. Paragraph 7 is just a deferral to our
planner. Uh, general comments number eight, testimony was already provided. Paragraph 9, uh, comment is no longer applicable. Paragraph 10, uh, testimony was provided at the April 8th hearing.
Um, paragraph 11, fire marshall indicates the issues were satisfactorily addressed. Comment 12, paragraph 12, comment was withdrawn. >> Can I just stop you there for a minute, Susan? Is that is that correct? Because that's >> No, that's that wouldn't be correct.
There's a whole separate letter that was provided. >> Oh, just going through this one. We're going to go through the attachments to the planners report. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, you got to come back to the March. >> We We're going to go through every report, every paragraph. Great. >> I just wanted to hit this one and it
said um satisfactorily addressed in this letter. We're going to go to the fire inspector's uh fire department's letter and go through that as well. Thanks. >> Uh paragraph 12 uh comment was withdrawn. Uh sub paragraph site plan
paragraph 13 has been satisfied. Paragraph 14 testimony was provided on April 8th. Paragraph 15 uh has been satisfied. Pariff 16 partly addressed. Um, a dimension should be provided
between the curb and the proposed charger and the applicant is happy to do that. Um, paragraph 17A comment is no longer applicable. Uh, 17 B, C, and D indicated as
satisfied. Paragraph 18 in the site plan subsection. um concrete pad is depicted south of the drive entrance. Uh this should be dimensioned on the plans. The applicant is happy to do that and uh we've been
asked to provide some testimony uh on the concrete pad bill. >> Yeah, it's for the uh entry gates. Uh it's a pad that we uh access mechanism that sw. That's where it sits on the concrete pad. So which which part of the plan should
we look at to know >> that is at the you know so the entrance driveway where you start the tree is there's the gate right there on the side >> so there's two or one
>> yeah there's one side a we sit on >> okay the the comment says a concrete pad so it's really Okay. Paragraph 19 comment is no longer applicable. Uh, next subp paragraph is
grading drainage utilities. Paragraph 20, uh, your engineer indicates no longer valid as it related to a building that's no longer proposed. Paragraph 21 has been satisfied. Paragraph 22 indicates it's partly addressed. Uh the
engineer recommends an accessible route to the building be depicted on the plans and the applicant will certainly do that. Uh and that covers 22 A and B. 23 comment no longer applicable.
Comment 24 and 25 are satisfied. 26 and 27 no longer applicable. 28 has been satisfied. 29 is no longer applicable. Paragraph 30 satisfied. Paragraph 31
acknowledged. Uh engineer is uh deferring to the county health board department for review and approval which the applicant uh is certainly going to do. >> Has has the approval been granted by the Hunton County Health Department yet? Not yet. >> Pending. >> Okay. Okay. >> We have lots of things pending on this
application. lot. >> Yep. >> We're we're we're testing all of New Jerseys uh ancillary bodies on this application, but they're all submitted in in the process. >> 32 and 33 have been satisfied. Paragraph
34 testimony was provided on April 8th. Uh storm water management uh indicates acknowledged. Um and I think uh that paragraph has been addressed. >> I'm sorry, council. Can I go back to 34? where it says testimony on Everlines.
>> Yeah, it was provided. Yep, >> I I see headline. >> And I think 35 is acknowledged. Um with the storm water management 36 um we have a whole bunch of par sub paragraph next. I'm going to I'm going
to stop you because it's storm water and this is critical and I really want to make sure that we're going through the various comments that the engineer has had. >> Yeah. So, Mr. Sheriff, if you look at a um again for the record, uh your
engineer has uh put in bold uh new comments or addressing the revised plans. So, if the board goes to the bottom of of 35 sub, >> uh we're proposing a buyer retention basin to reduce the peak rate of runoff.
>> Calculations for current and future storms have been provided. subb. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm gonna interrupt you again, >> Jackie. Yeah, it's one thing to have them provided. Are they correct? >> Yes. Uh the design and so the calculations in the storm water report
and the design of the basin do comply with the requirements of NJAC78 for storm water management for a major development project. >> Perfect. >> That's a good answer. That was great. I could have done >> that's what you want to hear, right? >> Yes. Exactly. So, if it's okay, I'll
jump to 36. >> Okay. Um smallcale bio retention basin the following is noted. Sub paragraph A has been satisfied. Subb partially satisfied. The details should be revised. Grades and inverts
depicted for the proposed inspection ports and the applicant will certainly do that. Sub C has been satisfied. D E and F satisfied. Subg statement. Um
the basin proposed is to be utilized as sediment basement basin. The bottom of the sentiment should be at least 2 ft above the final design elevation and a detail for the floating sediment riser has been provided. So I would understand that to be satisfied.
Um and then let me stop you there again. I'm sorry. Jackie, you have anything more on that? >> No. Um it's the just to clarify the bio retention basin in the proposed condition is being utilized as a sediment basin which which relates to soil erosion and sediment
control while construction is undergoing. That's all that statement is. Um so it really should just sayformational. So all good. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. >> You're welcome. And then 36 subh an operations and maintenance manual shall
be provided and the applicant will provide that. Um and I think that addresses 37 as well. I think that's just an elaboration on the operations and maintenance manuals. Um 38 has been indicated as no longer
applicable. Uh, new sub paragraph, soil conservation and settlement, sediment, excuse me, control 39 has been satisfied. 40 partially addressed. Uh, it's recommended a note be provided stating the conservation needsment will
be stake out staked out prior to construction activities. The applicant will comply with that. Um 41 grading and construction activities are located outside the limits of the proposed silt fence particularly along
conservation easement. This should be corrected and the applicant will comply with that. Um details on page eight of nine paragraph 42 par sub A is satisfied. Applicant in
subB is not proposing Ballards. C and D are satisfied. E is not applicable. And F has been satisfied. Um 43 a detail shall be provided. A building 3
has been removed so it's not applicable. B is not applicable. Uh an E inlet is no longer proposed in sub paragraph C. And then paragraphs D, E, F, G, H, and I have all been satisfied.
Um and then there are new additional comments um parenthetically noted as June 2026 paragraph 44. Uh if the board were to approve it's recommended a condition B that the lease that for each of the
units be provided to the board for review to confirm we comply with the conditions and of course the applicant will do that. uh 45 um the sistern will be connected to the existing well connections to the well
and the proposed discharge should be depicted on the plans. We will add those to the plans 46. The inverts for all roof drains into the storm water structures should be noted. We will note those on the
plans. >> Just to interject real quick, I apologize. Going back to number 45 related to the sistern. Um it's my understanding that the test pits that were performed on this site um there was no uh seasonal high water table elevation information obtained during
those test pits because of machine refusal because of the soil conditions. Um so in addition to showing any connections to the well any information to um regarding float securement to ensure that the sistern you know doesn't float from a high seasonal high water
table any calculations related to that we recommend be required as condition of approval as well just related to the sistern. >> No objection. >> Thank you. Uh item 46 we addressed. Item 47,
the conservation easement should be staked out in the field prior to construction activities. Silk fencing should be provided along the easement to prevent accidental impact from the proposed property improvements. The application applicant will agree and comply.
Paragraph 48. Uh the basin detail shows one 4 in perforated pipe under drain. Um the detail should be revised to be consistent with what is depicted on the grading plan and the applicant will provide that
49. Uh the information on the pond summary is not consistent with the outlet control structure detail. We will revise and make it consistent. Paragraph 50 uh dealing with peak
elevation for w water quality. Uh this should be reviewed and the detail revised to provide what is required by BMP and the applicant will do that. 51 the inverts of the.5 FT we
40 years as a land use lawyer. I have no idea what that means. Wer 15. Oh, we appreciate. >> Um, the applicant will update the plans to reflect that. Paragraph 52, the invert of the pipe
exiting the outlet control structure on the basin detail is not provided. Uh, we will add that to the plans. 53. The detail for the basin should be consistent with the design of the basin as depicted on the grading plan. We'll
update that. You make that >> just to let the board know, uh, comments 49 through 53, we revised the storm water calculations and the plans. We missed the detail. So all the detail wasn't updated. So that's why he's comments with the >> Thank you. And we'll comply with all um
paragraph 54 on page nine of nine, a detail for the parking lot pavement should be provided. The applicant will provide a detail for the boulder retaining wall should be provided. Applicant will provide um the call outs paragraph 56 for the
retaining wall. The conservation easement should be relocated point to the wall. Applicant will do that. Their hairpin parking in paragraph 57 should be visually depicted on a plan to avoid confusion during construction. Applicant
will do that. Um, paragraph 58 approves the permits. We have previously testified that paragraphs sub A through G are all pending and they should be provided to the board on receipt and of course the
applicant will do that. Um, a nightlight function test should be perfor sorry administrative sub paragraph paragraph 59. a nightlight function test to be performed by the township engineers office. Uh we don't disagree and we're
fine with that. Uh applicant will pay all taxes fees required. Of course, we'll do that. Um of course, the board has the right to raise any further issues as addition submissions are presented to your professionals and we
understand that. Um, and any submissions will of course have revision dates and a point bypoint response letter as we provided tonight. >> There's no more questions on that. We'll proceed to the planners report for Jackie. Anything that further questions?
Um, I'm satisfied by the testimony provided so far. It sounds as though the applicants professionals will make the necessary revisions to satisfy our review letter. And just to go back to that, the compliance with the stormwater regulations that we talked about earlier, any of these revisions
necessary that may modify that design, we will of course do another review to ensure compliance with the storm water regulations. >> Great. Thank you. >> I had a quick question because I just heard a comment about uh Mr. Lane.
>> Oh, sorry. The microphone is okay. I had a comment about the uh uh I had a question about the retaining wall. Um uh so this is a modular block retaining wall. Is that correct? >> Yeah, except for where the septic is there, the the septic designer with the
boulder wall, but everything else is modular water. >> Okay. But the the wall on the um south side of site, the retaining wall adjacent to the that's also a modular block of walls. And uh I usually those aren't completely designed and and that
they would be designed later. I just wanted to make sure that if we could have as a condition that whatever the design of the modular block wall that it would not require any additional excavation behind the wall. In other
words, an overdig that's going to extend past the proposed limit of disturbance because they're they're walls that require almost no disturbance and they're walls that require a great deal and a great deal would impact on your limit of disturbance. So, it add that as a condition that would be we'd have no
objection today. Thank you. >> Ready for the next one? >> We're going to proceed, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Varela's report of June 19, 2026. Um, so page one's just background uh parties
history of the project. I'm going to proceed to page two. Um, paragraph variance and site design exception relief. Paragraph one just identifies what's required. Um, paragraph two speaks about a steep slope
analysis was provided with calculations to 35% and the applicant shall confirm those >> just like paragraphs one through 10 or one through nine you don't disagree with the simply with the statements that that accurately reflects the relief requested
correct I think we're prepared to answer everything um I don't I don't know that we have any dispute with anything >> yeah because he's just calling out what the regime is that's that's requested No. Item item two. I would like some some testify. Okay. >> Yeah. There there are a couple of
paragraphs we're gonna um some of it will be for our planner to speak to. Um but we'll our engineer will speak to the engineering issues if that's okay. >> Yes. All right. Um
so paragraph two steep slope analysis provided with calculations 35%. Accurate. >> Yes. Okay, good. Um, and then the applicant must use the total area of the steep slopes on site for reduced maximum allowable hard surface which we're aware of.
>> We need on that one. >> That'll be part of our planner speculative or is that something you want to address? >> I should probably address it because it it could affect please. Um, so thanks to Jeff setting over this chart, we finally got the steep slope calculation aligned
with the inverted carpets. So based on the chart and how we played it out, we're currently as this plan is about 800 square ft over what's allowable. So we took a look at the plan and what we could do is either request the 800 ft.
We have 27 ft driveways for the most part on the building or we can bring it in a foot and a half to go 25 and 1/2 ft and we'll comply with the requirement. >> So the impervious coverage is usually in a percentage though, right? So I can't
convert what 800 square ft equivalent is in I think you're talking about steep slope which is >> I think he's saying 800 over 35. Correct. Well, when we do the uh maximum allowable based on flow, we're allowed
32.78. >> And we come up with um >> So that's the area of the steep slope that's getting disturbed, not the impervious. Thank you. >> Thank you. Correct. >> That's right. And so we could either ask
for a variance on that or what our engineer is suggesting is the driver width could be modified slightly to avoid the need for that variance and we would proceed as the board thought best. >> Just curious, some of this deep slope is
the result of the NJ do embankment and roadway. Correct. >> Yeah. Because when you come right off the highway, it comes straight up. So they're they're made >> the requirement is causing a bit of this. Yeah. >> Right. And it and they were created by
NJ do you know? I mean it's not like it's it's not like there's naturally a lot of steep slopes on this problem. I mean maybe if you put the steep slope map up I think that would help people understand >> what's everybody has that already. If you uh
decrease the width of the driveways a foot and a half, it might conflict with the turning radius. >> Still be okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, should we be focused on the 202 part of the >> Well, I think if you could just explain
the steep slope and where they are and kind of how some of them got there. Perfect. We have we have some a good chunk of the south property line which were kind of allowing
them sight not system but along 202 we have some steep slopes because right after the curve it comes up and then the site flattens out. Um there's some disturbance. There's very little over in the
wetlands, but and you can see like internally there's very little. >> So it's still on the fringes and along 202. >> So is red 13% to 90% and yellow is over 20. >> Correct. >> Yeah.
>> And is it over 20 where you're exceeding the allowable? >> Yes. Not 20%, right? Because you're not allowed any. So we're looking at 653, >> right? >> I don't have a heartburn. I mean, >> that's the opposite of what my brain
thought. I think red means bad caution. So the legend is actually reversed in my brain. I have to recalibrate to your definition of >> I mean, Phil, hold up. You grab that microphone. I didn't even realize you didn't even have it with you that whole time. Sorry.
>> Don't worry. So, we're prepared to to address the variance that our planner is prepared to meet. >> I think that's is is 32.78 is the modified acquired hard surface count for the for the site. Yeah.
>> And you're you're at 35%. >> We're at We're at 33 and a half right now. >> Yeah. >> So, we're 73% over >> less than 1%. >> I mean, we prefer the wider driveways, but we can make it work by bringing it
in. I think we're good with that, right? I prefer the lighter drive. Exactly. >> I would think agree. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think we're okay with it. >> Yeah. It seems like, you know, >> so leave the relief. >> Okay. >> Sounds like >> Yes. >> We're willing to grant that prop probably. >> Yeah. Right.
>> Dennis wants wider fire trucks to get in there quick, but not have any problems. >> For sure. >> For the benefit of the property owner. Joe's one of our firefighters who he needs the space. I've been >> I've been stuck after a scene. So
>> there is there's an extra hour of >> trying to get out. Yeah, it's not easy. >> Stuck on a skinny little driveway. >> Power ladders are not easy to maneuver. >> Okay, I'll move on to paragraph three on the variance and site design exception.
and we're speaking about uh sea variances for the bio retention basin at 27 ft and the underground water tank at 19.3 ft. So, Bill, if you could just share with the board uh where that's located and and where the relief is needed.
uh for the the detention basin. It's along uh 202. We have a retaining wall that follows the detention basin. So that's 27 ft into the property. Um with for the water service tank to fight fire, 15,000 gallons about 19 ft off the
property line down in the southwest corner of the property. We could move it in under the pavement, but we pro we rather keep it in the grass area just in case for any maintenance or access to it. >> Good. >> Um, you're going to come back to the fire marshall's comments.
>> We are. That's sufficiency. >> Absolutely. Um, so paragraphs 4 through 8 and 10 are mostly going to be addressed by our planner, but I'm going to ask Bill to speak to
um, let's see, four, five, six are all planner testimony. Seven site design exceptions for providing a transition buffer of 75 ft from the proposed uh medium intensity to adjacent
residential use to the north. We're proposing 37.9 where 75 feet is required. So, Bill, if you could just explain the buffer area to the east and Kristen can address the planning testimony after. >> Yeah. along the eastern side of the building where the driveway curves
around um because it's coming back around the north on the back side of the building. Um that radius is 37.9 ft uh to the property line. As you get further away from inside, it just continues to widen out um as you go to the west down
to the south of the property. Paragraph 8 refers to John Morgan Thomas's uh review. So, we'll pick that up in addressing that report. Paragraph nine, we just go back to eight real quick. Um, the old plan had uh where it
talks about 20.5 ft proposed. Uh, we're at 25 ft now. We'll be correct that at least 50%. So, that that was under the old plan, but we're 25 now. >> Thanks, paragraph nine. Um the applicant is requesting a waiver for a loading area
simply because the nature of use. Um I've done so many storage facilities in my career and I always say our entire economy is based on us buying a bunch of stuff we don't really need. Then we put them in self storage. Um and uh a
loading area is just not a requirement. Any of us who have ever used a self- storage facility, we kind of pull in, put the old stuff in and go buy new stuff. And so there really was no need in so requesting a waiver for that. >> Yes. So this is actually it's a it's a waiver and a variance. The variance
requires the the um the item be addressed through the site plan design standard. So it's it's one of the same but just two different reliefs and our ordinance doesn't differentiate um the it's it's the generalized uses of
it. It doesn't go into depth as to to the specifics. is just relays on to the uh the square footage of the buildings. >> Okay, thanks Jeff. And paragraph 10 is just noting our planning testimony which will follow shortly. Um and uh planners
comments um see where request. So paragraph 11 is just an explan explanation. Um so is paragraph 12 the addition. Uh, paragraph 14. Um, floor plans. Uh, originally we
submitted floor plans for the three buildings we were proposing, but updated floor plans were provided for the single building. So, that uh comment has been addressed. Um, 15 properly noted uh that this has already been agreed by the
applicant as a condition. Um 16 notes that the error was corrected on the plans uh as we're requesting site design waiver for landscape buffer from adjacent lots. Um 17 uh no outside storage is proposed. Uh that remains
accurate. Um floor area ratio is 15%. Bill, can you confirm for the board that uh the F is at 15%. >> Yes. >> Okay. uh 19 total area of easement was provided. The detail must be consistent
with the township conservation conservation easement signage and shall be updated and the applicant will certainly do that. Uh paragraph 20 asks a simple question. Uh there are vending machines proposed and those will be
internal not outside any structure. 21 um has already been resolved. 22. Um, the revised plans provide a ground sign detail for internal lighting. Um, and we can confirm for the board that
the external sign will be internally lighted. There'll be no external lights. 23 indicates that has been satisfied. Um, I'm going to ask uh my client James Mroy. Uh we're not proposing a lot of uh
disposal, but James, if you could just explain what you're intending, >> rip something >> here. Come over here. >> Either way. >> Okay. So, good. So, we're just going to do like a 95gallon trash so that customers when they're, you know,
utilizing it, it's just for the office use or the bathroom and it'll be like a weekly pickup. won't be like a trash bin to prevent people from, you know, throwing out couches and cluttering up the place. That's the plan for the the trash. >> Yeah. It's being placed internal.
>> Yeah. In the building. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, James. >> 95. Just notes there is Hunter County Health Department approval, which of course is in process. Um we have 26 provided the exhibits in PDF. Um and our
stenographer is here as per 27 uh 28. Um the board had asked for these renderings that were previously shown uh the the sites from the different locations how they would impact neighboring properties. Those were subp
paragraphs A and B on exhibit A5 cross-section dated June 2426. So those were provided. Um the applicant is not proposing other than the one internally lighted sign any
building signage. The only indications will be unit 13, unit 14, unit 15, but there'll be no other signage proposed >> even from the roadway. >> Well, just standing side. >> Okay. >> That that one with the internal
lighting, there'll be no exterior lighting on it, just internally lit. Um and then 30 uh the conservation easement must incorporate um the new wetlands line extending and we'll do that.
>> Is there a buffer associated with that? >> No, it's just the state open waters. >> Okay. Thank you. >> State open waters. >> You've asked us to incorporate a truck plan and steep slope plan into the site plan for a consistent plan set. We're
happy to do that. Um, and 32 the 8 foot fence and chain link fence and it is a coated fence that the applicant is proposing. >> The color of that is just going to be steel. Is it going to any
>> black gray? >> Black. Okay. >> Yes. >> Like in the renderings. Yeah. The renderings look like they're all >> steel fence. I don't see chain link in the renderings. >> So, so where is the chain link versus
>> the the steel? >> Yeah, the decorative steel will be like in the front coming from 202 and then the sides in the back. So, southern starting northern ends of it will be the black coated chain. >> Okay. A6 doesn't really depict it that
way or somebody correct me. >> All the fencing architecture whatever those >> correct 86 shows >> are all >> they they all show the same kind of fencing. >> Yeah. So so A6 does not reflect what you
just testified to. >> Yeah. A A6 is really for the building purpose. They they the the architect really didn't know what they put in. So you're saying the steel fences where again for the record? >> So the decorative would just be off of
the like highway 202. Okay. As you're coming into the facility. Okay. >> And then the chain link coated black will be around the edges and back of the building. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is there because there's a there's a detail on the plan stating that there's
going to be some uh privacy slats. Is that also incorporated with it? It's It's calling out a residential. >> Okay. So, it's going to be chain like >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I think I'll now turn to the
exhibits to the planners report. Uh and we'll begin with uh Mr. Kanan's report of May 28, 2026. Um Mr. Canon in paragraph one says a Nox 3200 series key box to be installed in
addition to the gate switch and we have no objection to that. Um plans list and show a 15,000galon sistern. Uh we instead refer as a rainwater equipment manufacturer specs need to be provided detailing this is
suitable for the fire department drafting use. Um and no pertinances or pertinances are shown to allow for filling drafting or tank level gauging. The attire assembly needs to be detailed and approved by the office and we'll certainly do that.
And building numbers shall meet township standards and placed according to township uh 911 coordinator. We certainly agree with that. Uh will provide adequate responder radio coverage under the New Jersey Administrative Code, the bane of all
lawyers. but we're happy to do that. Uh, no fire suppression or sprinkler systems are proposed in paragraph five. Paragraph six, fire lane signage or strip striping shall be provided along the outside edge
of drive aisles and we're happy to do that. >> This is what I was referring to before when we were going to Dennis's report. He says at the at the end of paragraph 5, utilizing the proposed 15,000galon sistn for sprinkler supply will not be
acceptable. Are you using it for the sprinkler? >> We're not having a sprinkler system. >> Okay. >> I would double check with your architect to see if a sprinkler system is going to be required depending on the use group of this. It's falls under. >> We were we were planning to build
>> I think we had spoke and talking with like the architect. We can do firewall. Um so we were going to do firewalls. >> Okay. Yeah, you might >> to break the building up. >> Yeah, that that's going to be something that's approved by the building department because that's all part of the building code. Y >> but generally for something that's
15,000 square foot, you would need a suppression. >> Yeah, we I talked to the building department always speak. Yeah, he said that uh you know I could break up the sections of the or break it up into two uh under 12,000 square foot and uh the painting
with the firewall should be sufficient to to meet his requirements. >> All right. I just don't want to see you guys run into a situation where you go and you're trying to get, you know, your permits approved and then find out you have to put in a sprinkler system which is going to increase the size of your
system and you got to deal with a fire pump and all of that stuff. >> Yeah. No, >> that's why we had the conversation with the the building department to verify that. >> How do we get like documented confirmation though that the plan that you intend is in fact okay
>> building the won't issue. >> Yeah, the layout. >> We don't want you to wait to the point of that evaluation to Mr. Ken. >> Well, I think that was the conversation James had with the village department. So, they they indicated we'd be okay with that. It it has happened in the
past. We've had that confirmation and then something has changed. But uh as far as we understand now between our architect and your construction official, we're fine with this. >> We also depict where the firewall is going to be in the layout. >> Okay.
>> Um on the exhibit A6, I think that the box package. >> Yeah. I mean, we didn't get anything from the construction official regarding this review. So I don't there's nothing that I could pass on to the board. >> So just so could we just say that they
have to comply and satisfy the fire requirements of the construction code. >> Yeah. Yeah. They would have to meet the requirements of the building department. >> That comments really I just don't want to see them get stuck >> right >> after a precon they're about to break ground and then they have then you find
out that oh gee I got to put in a bigger tank in the ground. >> I'm looking out so you guys get stuck. >> I'm looking out for you. I don't want a verbal conversation of like, "Yeah, that should be fine." to turn into a problem for you mid construction. >> You suggest I talk with the building department.
>> I I would I would definitely talk to the building department, talk to your architect and get that in writing. >> In writing is what I'm advocating for on your behalf. >> Thank you. >> I think he did. So, I mean, I'll have to double check and I will we'll do that in in any event. We confirm in writing. So
that >> yeah that probably has less to do about me and more about protecting. >> I appreciate it and and I've had a bunch of conversations prior to that because knowing that we would have to get a larger system and it would change the plan and everybody's pointing me in the direction that the firewalls would be
sufficient. That's why we depicted it on the layout. But I'll double check and see if I can get something in writing. >> So if you get it in writing, is there anything that we as a board need to ensure is made so that we satisfy the comments here? and just double check. >> We're happy to provide you with a
confirmation from their Yeah, that's fine. It would be part of their review, but it could be a condition and then put it file. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Making it easier on you. >> No, I I really appreciate it because >> conversation is only as good or there. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Thanks everybody. >> Um and then seven on Mr. Fan's report uh is acceptable. So that I think addresses everything there. And finally, um,
no, not finally. I'm sorry, John. Um, environmental commission comments dated June 18, 2026. Paragraph one. As we said, uh, the NJD, as my prior colleague indicated, they move slowly, but those, um, applications
and determinations are in process. >> Are you going for flood hazard or just the wetland? >> Just wetland. We we we examine the site out there. There's a little over seven acres that go to that. So there's no repairing associated with the or flood hazard necessary. >> Okay.
>> I think paragraph two is just a um comment. Um the letter of interpretation uh will be provided. Um paragraph three, the plans still show an outlet pipe and scour hole discharge to the wetlands.
bill. Is that accurate? And why is that? >> Yes, it's for the uh currently it's for the future storm water discharge. So we don't go to the highway, we go out back towards the wetlands, >> did the drainage run that way previous? Naturally,
>> the majority of it, pretty much the whole savings from south to north and some of it went out to the DOT, but a majority went to the wetlands and then that Ging. So, yeah, a lot of it did go that way. So, now we have our basin and then we discharge most of it out to this
the highway and then some of it out that we provide that. >> Yes. Uh, paragraph four. We're happy to provide the section through the septic wheel uh field and wall.
>> Are you have the separation of >> is it over 100 ft between your septic system and the detention basin? >> Yes, we we have a we we have a septic design or we have full set plan. We'll submit those along that >> but that would be the main factor. Correct.
>> Yes. Paragraph five again. Paragraph five falls back to what the engineer had. Again, we missed changing the detail. So once we change update the detail, we'll match this the report and the plans. Forgive us with the bathroom.
Paragraph six, uh, access to the bathroom, uh, from corridor or from office or both. And the, uh, answer is it's from both, uh, locations. And then invasive invasive species
um uh the EC recommends controlling removing on-site invasive species as part of site development uh and including in the stormwater management plan control of invasive species and we're fine with that. Is
that consistent with your report on um just wondering >> I'm sorry I didn't I didn't catch your comment. >> Is that going to be consistent with John Morgan Palmer's report? >> Yeah. Uh there's a lot of different planning options that John has presented
and we're going to address those as well. >> So the environmental commission's comment with regard to invasive species control. Are you okay with their >> No, that's fine. Oh, it should it would happen uniformly within any reportation areas and I specifically address some of the existing vegetation along the
eastern boundary. >> Okay, perfect. >> Um, perfect segue. We'll we'll move on to John Morgan Thomas' report of June 226. And as John indicates on his report, his new comments are indicated in red bold.
Uh he indicates paragraph one tree removal applicant has complied. Paragraph 2 pre- protection applicant has complied. Three replacement applicant has complied. Paragraph three. Um we've
acknowledged 172 replacement trees will be planted at or an offsite location selected by the township. >> Does that say what size of tree for the replacements? What's the right >> Yeah. the the our our standard
replacement tree is is an inch to an inch and a half caliper. So that's that's calculated into the the uh the to caliber in size of trees that are being removed. Okay. According according to this the schedule.
>> All right. So that'll be documented in terms of that. >> That that'll be documented. I believe it is indicating all the plants replacement trees. They're an inch and a half. Yeah. But I Well, we've got that covered. Perfect. Okay. And then we go to paragraph four
buffers. Paragraph three there's uh details. Paragraph 4 includes the new items. Um paragraph one just isformational indicating the uh depiction of the transition buffer area. Um
I think paragraph two isformational. Um paragraph three landscape planning. as a required slot there. >> I think that first line of paragraph 2 isn'tformational. He John's asking for some testimonies. >> Oh, I'm sorry about that, Mr. Chairman.
Uh, driveway encroaches into the buffer approximately 20 ft on the southern boundary and a driveway in the building encroaches into the 75 ft eastern boundary. Bill, can you speak to that? Yeah, we we we pulled the uh I think before we had a 20 and a half, we pulled
it down to be a minimum of 25 ft. Um so we do have that uh 25 foot block to the subway property line and then over uh the building to the east. Uh we have that set the building was 64 ft off the
property line and the closest point to where the back of the curb gets is 37.9 ft. And again, that gives us at least another 50 foot of the buffer to the east. >> That answer your question? >> Yeah, I mean that's fine. And just to just so that the board is is clear, you
know, that the the required buffers in these instances are 75 ft and 50 ft. Mhm. >> And it does permit, the ordinance does permit the board to reduce the width of the buffer yard if the proposed buffer planting, excuse me, if the proposed
screening is increased by 50 increased proportionately. And I I did have a conversation with the uh with the applicants landscape architect this afternoon. This is a little bit of a fuzzy number. It's not x number of
plants that we're doubling. It's because the screening could be a wall. It could be a fence. It could be additional planting. Um so that was some of the discussion and I in general I'm in
agreement with the approach to the planting. The other issue that came up in my report that Mr. Angel we'll get to and I'm getting ahead of myself. But uh one thing I had to point out was that the required buffer for this instance is
a type A planting screen, not a type B. The type B was brought up, as I understand it, by your landscape architect because there's there is a bit more of a numerical equivalent when you have a a type B. The difference between
the two is basically the type A screen is basically a green wall. It's mostly evergreen. It's intended to be a complete screen. The B is something a little bit more of a softening condition. Um um
given what the existing condition is where we have a lot of existing trees on the property line and on the border where actually I think it would be physically impossible to have that green continuous green wall because we have overhanging large trees. We don't want
to require somebody to try to stuff in evergreens where we know they're not gonna we know they're not going to f. >> So I think the the the overall approach is I don't know if I would call the the the the
reducing it in half the minimum buffer width I mean I think the minimum buffer width here is 75 and 50. We're just making an allowance for a compensation. So that that's kind of where we >> But John, you feel confident that they can
either the planting plan that was provided or one as modified or approved by you will serve the purpose. >> I I think we can. Yes. The the short answer is yes. We need to work on some of the particulars because mostly because we're dealing with a condition
of existing vegetation that's not precisely delineated on the plants. And I can't even I think I already made a comment here that says um uh in with the vegetation on the eastern side of the site. Would you please put a note on
here that says let's evaluate it in the field. We'll leave what we can. Again, remove the invasive vegetation, leave the native and infill. And I think I would maybe extend that note based on this conversation to include, you know,
let's look at some of the actual sight lines. You know, we have we have one single cross-section from either direction and we kind of don't know where the adjacent houses are, but I with the amount of plant material that's shown and maybe some modifications, but
I feel we can we can we can we can cover that. So the condition without being very specific in the resolution would be that the applicant would work with the board's landscape architect uh and any
modifications of of the plan. >> No distraction. >> Okay. >> This sounds like micromanaging and a resolution. It's not possible. >> It's not going to work. >> No. >> Because it sounds like we don't disagree with that. >> Game day calls on site, right? Okay. But
lawyers aren't very good at naming all the vegetation. So >> yeah, that's definitely. >> So John, the the condition I mean the wording you had put in, do you want do you think we also need to put in something around about the field verifying? Yeah, I think I think as simp as simple
as the the location of existing vegetation should be uh verified as well as sight lines to adjacent residential uses and the uh uh proposed planting can be adjusted in the field to
maximize the screening effect. >> So you'll write that and give it time to >> Yeah, there's residential to the north and then church to the south. Yeah, >> thank go and the the one the one item I had to bring
up and I think it's I'm looking for the exact comment in here but um uh and it had to do with the specific kind of plants and usually I'm the one who well and the ordinance now states makes the your unique use 80%.
>> Is that under seven? Your plant selection >> native native species. Yes, I'm sorry. Under plant selection and and just to jump ahead, John suggested one of two options and applicant is fine with having that conversation and deciding
based on your review whatever the best path is, we're fine. Yes. >> And the and the two options were move the fence closer to the property line, keep the vegetation inside where we could keep more of the native species. >> Uh or the other way around. And
honestly, I think I prefer that version because I I think it's going to be a hard place to maintain between the fence and and the property line on the hill. So, >> I think that's with with very little increase in the length of the fence. >> That doesn't trigger any other
variances, does it Jeff? If the fence >> is outside. Yeah. >> Move back. >> How much are we? >> No, the fence is the fence can be the fence can be within the um property line. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> So, you do we need to note anything about moving the fence to accommodate this? >> I think that would probably part of John's planting recommendation, which we're we're happy to agree to. Move the fence and we get native and
they grow and deer don't eat it. >> That would be great in the resolution. >> I can guarantee that the deer won't eat anything. >> Yeah, right. >> I like your reference to deer brows. That's it. When I go out tonight and I
yell at the 10 of them that are sitting in my front yard, I'll say stop browsing. >> Is it a technical term? I I I don't know. I don't know how >> you coined it a phrase. Yeah. Say like personally my first half hour of the day with a can of deer spray.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. Me too. >> Um it's so moving forward. Uh I think paragraph three John just did a great job of explaining uh what he was speaking about on the type E planting.
Um, I think paragraph 4 was also addressed. Um, um, we're happy to add anything if the board wants, but I think this conversation in the condition that John review and approve, I think covers that. Um,
uh, same thing in the next paragraph. Um, the the buffering we've provided, unless you'd like any further detail, but I think it's going to remain to be determined based on John's assessment. Moving below that uh chart there in the middle, uh no tree inventory information
has been included uh presumably because there are no large tree large trees located in the area. And that's correct. >> Okay. Um and then um you've asked that a note be provided on the plan uh prior to
the planning. Um and again that's what we just agreed to that it'll all be confirmed with uh the board's landscape architect and again the applicant agrees to that. The applicant shall address in testimony the visibility of the uh facility. Uh
the simple cross-sections may be helpful and I think uh we've already presented that to the board. We're happy to answer any questions on that if there are any. Um, the basin area planting in paragraph I'm sorry, paragraph five, plan
requirements. Uh, John notes that the applicant has complied. Six, the basin area planting. Uh, the, uh, John has asked that the township engineer determine whether the planting poses a potential risk to the basin structure.
It's just the the the trees are planted on the burn back and usually >> don't want that. >> Have to don't want that. And it's it's usually a lousy place to try to grow a tree in on top of play six inches of soil. So I think the
ones that are total slope are fine. >> Good. Uh and again paragraph 7 we just addressed the plant selection. Uh John has indicated u a variety of the non-native species or another solution with planning along the eastern and
southerntherly property but I think uh applicant agrees to that and that'll be part of the dialogue with John going forward. >> I I think that covers all of the reports point by point. Um >> my only question and I may be
misrepresenting from we've had so many applications. You you did uh new water quality testing I believe for the site. >> Um could you summarize that because I think it was good news. if someone could just, you know, >> trying to remember exactly what u the
results were. I think it um >> yeah, unfortunately I can't find my copy of the report. >> Anything that it it it needed remedy for we're going to remedy. I was think and it did was something else. I can try to find a report real quick. Um but anything that it did need remedies for.
>> Yeah. So I think you were well >> we did provide a wealth of testing report. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um that was prepared by Richardis consulting geologist. Uh this is back in November of 207.
>> But then there's updated appendix. I just wanted to get on the record that you you were pretty good >> and and I want to thank you for doing the new testing because the issue of PAS is something that the township is
starting to think about and I think you actually came up clean for PAS but I may be misrepresenting. >> Yeah, I'd have to I have to double check. >> Okay. But you agree that any parameters that don't meet the state water quality standards that you'll put the appropriate in uh treatment system in? >> Absolutely. >> Yes. Okay.
>> And this will be reviewed by the board's hydrogeeologists, >> right? >> And do you have traffic review memo number two dated May 29th? >> You have it. >> You want a copy?
>> That's it. >> Yeah. Okay. So, we're looking at that report from Mr. Troutman, May 29, 2026. Um, paragraph page one is just information.
Um, traffic impact analysis. Paragraphs one and two areformational comments. Paragraph three is anformational comment as are paragraphs four, five, and six. Uh, site plan. Post site driveway will require a driveway access permit from NJ
DOT. And of course, we'll submit that. Um, we understand it will be a condition. It's in the DOT pipeline, D pipeline, the HCPCB, the >> pipelines, right? All the acronyms, >> all the acronyms that I
dream about in my sleep, but we'll certainly provide that when it's available. Um, paragraph 8, the trapment notes the comment is addressed in the revised plans. Parag refine, tractor trails shall be prohibited. Uh we have agreed with that. That will be a
provision in our lease. Um paragraph 10 testimony has been provided. Revised plans show proposed keypads on the passenger side of the vehicles that are entering and exiting. Um James, if you could just share with the
board how your guests or your customers will uh enter the property. Yeah. So, based on the feedback last time with the firet truck, you know, uh not having something on the driver's side, we moved the the the code box to get in as a secondary
use should uh somebody the primary use would be there would be an app that the the tenant, you know, or customer would come into the facility, enter in their code, and that would open up the key. That is just for if their, you know, code doesn't work, kind of like a backup
uh to that. >> Okay, that's good. That that's a backup plan. Somebody can get out of the car and use that thing if they have to, but the majority of the traffic has an app where they don't have to get out of the car. >> Yep. >> If not all. Okay. Thank you.
>> And Okay. And then paragraph 12, testimony was provided. Paragraph 13, uh, I think those issues were addressed in our response and testimony to the comments from the fire official. And I think that addresses all the
reports. We're happy to answer any questions. Um, and our planner is ready to plan when you're ready for that. Are there any other board questions? But Mr. Lane >> on uh exhibit A6, are these drawn to
scale? I see the vehicle and then I see >> I mean there's no scale that we can measure. Well, this is really just more colors and elevation building.
>> Uh, and you addressed I had a question here about the scale and the signs and you said there's no signs anytime >> just the one out front. So that's good. >> That's okay. And with that, I should note that there's nobody from the community here this evening to question
Mr. Lane's testimony. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> Before you get started, we're gonna We've been at this for an hour and a half. We're going to take a five minute break. Of course. Excellent. Thank you. Yes. Whatever.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We are prepared to prevent our planner and if you would share with the board your education, your licensing, and so they know you're an expert. >> Sure, >> please. >> Uh, yes. So, I am a licensed
professional planner in the state of New Jersey. My license is active and in good standing. I have been before dozens of zoning and planning boards across the state and I've worked on dozens of master plans, ordinance requirement suggestions and changes. Uh so yeah, for
the past for the past three years. >> Okay. Thank you. You're acceptable. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Four years. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate uh the time today. And as you know, uh, the application before you
tonight has the self-s storage facility, which is a permitted use in the B5 low inensity commercial zone. Taylor, you're good picking me up, right? The the microphones again. Okay, just want to make sure. >> Uh, so there are several bulk variances that are associated with this application as well as a a waiver. So,
um, our engineer gone into detail really about those variances and I will weave them through in my testimony, but I really believe that since the original submission, the applicant has substantially revised the application to meet a lot of the comments that were given by the board and some public. And
I think that the revised plan really consolidates the development into this new single building which increases the um the vis or the increases the positive impacts that are associated with this application. So I think all of the variance relief in my professional
opinion can really stem from the C1 hardship criteria. I believe this is a text one textbook C1 hardship given that the relief here is driven by the exceptional characteristics and uniqueness of this lot. Now these characteristics aren't created by the
applicant which is why I believe this to be a textbook C1 relief here. Uh the steep slopes obviously are located throughout portions of the site. There's a conservation easement which really influences the placement of some of the storm water facilities and other infrastructure and the configuration in
a regularly shaped lot also kind of also really restrict where the development uh envelope can be. So therefore, I really believe the C1 criteria is acceptable here. However, if the board does not find hardship, I will also put proofs on the record for the C2 flexible standard
as I believe that the benefits of the application outweigh any substantial detriment. So to satisfy the positive criteria of the C2, it starts with uh ensuring that there are municipal land use law purposes that are are advanced by the application. So I believe
multiple are uh advanced in this case. I'll begin with purpose A which is to promote general welfare. So the applicant is proposing an expressly permitted use in the zone which inherently has its uh advancing the general welfare intent here and I
believe it's bringing a currently vacant and underutilized property into productive use which also inherently promotes the general welfare here. I think purpose G is also advanced by this application. Purpose G is allowing for appropriate locations for a variety of
uses. And here the applicant is proposing a self self-s storage use in a zone that specifically contemplates having that use there. The commercial use is also surrounded by additional commercial commercial uses within a commercial cluster and it's uh with
compatible use types. So it's in a in a great location for that. And I believe that the variance relief here allows this operation to function in a way that still respects the intent of the ordinance in this constrained site. And lastly, I believe that purpose I has is
advanced its application. So as you can see from the exhibits that were prepared, I believe this building to be aesthetically appealing and visually attractive and its enhanced site landscaping is also adding to that visually attractive um site. And given
the fact that there is buffering and the placement of the site elements that have been discussed, there is really going to be no adverse impact visually from surrounding sites. And if it is an impact, it's quite dimminimous in nature and is not rise to the level level of
substantial. So moving into the negative criteria, um as I believe the positive criteria have been satisfied, there's a two-prong test here and the first prong is that there's no substantial detriment to public good. So the permitted use here is compatible with the surrounding
uses in the immediate vicinity. As I stated before, we've our company has done a number of self-s storage facility applications. And this use is really low intensity in terms of its operational nature. There's no noise, minimal
traffic as it doesn't thrive on passi traffic and there's no peak times and there's really no outdoor activity associated with this use. So I I believe it to be quite low in intensity and if you look at the other permitted uses that are in this zone certainly uh those uses could even rise to a more
substantial impact. Um so I believe this to be one of the low in probably the lowest intensity use that is allowed in the zone. Um and while the buffers are reduced uh the uh buffer yards I know that there's a condition that is going to be um moving forward with these
application that the buffer yard is looked at to ensure that the additional plantings that could be planted are going to be met to the satisfaction of the board um professionals. uh the property that is impacted obviously by the steep slopes there is that
disturbance that is associated with that and there's also the impervious imperous coverage excuse me that is triggered by that and I believe that to be dimminimous in nature and it really has no it's a technical variance I would I would argue it has no real impact to the
site and the impervious coverage is not really being exacerbated it's it's a it's triggered by the steep slopes and again I believe it to be dimminimous in nature Um and I believe that we are now confined with the uh fire marshall and engineering comments. I believe they
have been adequately addressed. Um and then moving into the second prong of the negative criteria that's no adverse impact on the zone plan or the master plan. So as as I as I've said multiple times, this use is expressly permitted in the B5 zone. So it's contemplated in
the zone. The use is low intensity and it's in an appropriate location. And from a planning perspective, as I also mentioned before, I believe this used to be a low intensity use compared to the other uses that are in the zone like child care centers, uh, office uses,
institutional uses, professional offices, and retail establishments. Those have higher traffic and, um, volume and parking demand and customer activity that's associated with them inherently. So, I believe this to be, uh, consistent with with making sure
there's no adverse impact to the zone plan. I also believe there's consistency with the 2019 Rididan uh township master plan re-examination report. There are a number of elements in that report that I believe this application is is advancing. So uh to limit growth to
existing roadway capacities, to permit additional non-residential development, and to recognize the historical growth and land uses of the area. I believe those are all goals of the township's plan that are being met. And furthermore, the 2025 Rarden Township Fair Share Plan has looked at the 2025
to 2035 north fourth round housing obligation and that along with the unmet need from the third round is looking at about 299 units that will be coming to the township and the obligation that needs to be met. So as the township continues to address those housing
obligation and accommodate future growth, I believe that this self-s storage facility use is obviously supporting land use to that. So for lastly, I'd like to put on the record the Poland township uh case and that's the balancing test for Poland Township
or South Planning uh Planefield Planning Board. It's recognized that the board consider the application as a whole when weighing any uh variance released uh against any potential potential detriments. And in this case, it's my professional opinion that there uh that the application meets its burden of
proof that all variance released can be granted in its entirety and there's no adverse impact of the zone plan and master plan or substantial detriment to public good. I know that was a lot. So that that concludes my uh testimony directly to answer any questions.
So be because this is B5 and it's low intensity highway district, you don't see anything inconsistent with having a commercial property low intensity fitting in between residential properties and then seeking a reduction in buffers.
>> That that's where you kind of lost beyond part of your argument. >> Yeah, I do believe it fits in. I believe that the site itself really allows for the additional buffering and visual impacts to be minimized and I think it's a use that fits in here given the fact
that there are other uses permitted in this site that could be put in the site and this really would be a a low inensity use here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the boards? The board, excuse me.
No. Uh, once again, we have nobody here from the public to question you on your testimony. >> This is when I do that dramatic closing argument. Um, I think my team has done a great job presenting the facts, um, answering the board's questions,
addressing the concerns raised at the April 8th meeting, and we'd ask for your support of this application. >> Would anyone like to make a motion? Joe, I should ask you first. Anything we should consider here? >> I think it's >> okay.
>> You want a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Second all the conditions that replace. >> Thanks for that. >> Go through that. >> There weren't 58. There's too many of them. >> I'm sure you'll get a copy as will
everybody else. So if I miss anything >> okay >> chairman Miss Gettings >> yes >> vice chair Miss Donna Drews >> yes >> miss Robin Fatu >> yes >> Mr. Bob King, >> before I say my answer, I just want to commend you on the feedback that you
received at last meeting and made the amount of changes that you did. It's significant and very much appreciated. So, yes, >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri, >> yes. >> Mr. Dennis Punkan, >> yes.
>> And Mr. Joseph Lane, >> yes. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thanks everybody. Thank you. >> Uh Bob Monkey second. Okay. And I think with that, well, before we adjourn, I want to wish
everybody a very happy and safe 4th of July. I'm not going to try to say semiquestential. What a semi >> semicentennial. >> Good. Now, see, I'm glad you said it. been trained by committee men >> for at least eight months.
>> So, so it's a big day for our country. >> It is >> everybody. I hope you all enjoy it. >> Be safe. With that, we're ajourned. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Good night, everyone. >> Good night. Thank you. Good night all. Thank you. Good night.