The notice requirements of the O >> sorry, you're good. >> 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 Courier
News and the Trenton Times. May I have a roll call, please? >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings, >> here. >> Vice Chairwoman, Miss Donna Drews. Zoom >> here. >> Miss Robin Fatu >> here. >> Mr. Bob King >> here. M Miss Michelle Capakuri >> here.
>> Mr. Dennis Pankan >> here. >> Mr. James Miller >> here. >> Mr. Joseph Lane >> here. >> War professionals board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Vakarella >> here. >> We have Mr. Ryan McCarthy on behalf of township engineer Mr. Aesh Stargy
>> here. >> Township landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas >> here. >> Traffic consultant Mr. Jay Troutman has asked to be excused and board planner Miss Jessica Calwell, she has also asked to be excused.
>> Okay, very good. I'd like to invite everyone to please stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for our men and women in the armed services. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under
God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. >> Hey, first up, comments and reports. I don't have any reports this evening. Anybody on the board have anything they'd like to offer for the good of the
order this evening? >> No. Okay. Engineers comments. Ryan, you got anything for us? >> No, thank you. Okay, Jeff, planners comments. >> Yeah, so for I just wanted to mention it now for uh next meeting we're going to have reserve some time for the circulation plan discussion. Uh we're
going to notice that for the public and then beforehand discuss with this subcommittee and prep a document to be handed out and Brett Harris from ERRI will be here um uh discussing it. So >> Oh, okay. >> So you want to make that announcement
now? >> Okay. Thanks, Jeff. >> Y >> Okay. Attorney's comments. Mr. Dor. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh, one brief comment. I I would ask if we can at the uh conclusion of tonight's hearing, we can have about 15 minutes executive session
for um uh attorney client discussions regarding resolution preparation. I think that would be helpful. >> Yes, it would. Sure would be. >> We'll do. >> So, we'll do that after the application this evening. All right. Correspondence. Uh, we have
an ordinance of the township of Rariton amending section 296-110 entitled AR-2 Agricultural District. I won't read the rest of that for you, but we did receive this document. Jeff, there's not a whole lot of change to this. It's pretty minor.
>> No, this is consistent with all the other residential single family zones. It was more of an oversight. >> It's just something we missed when we >> Yes, correct. >> Or not. It is not inconsistent with the master plan, consistent with all the other zones. >> I see your choice.
>> Those are the key words. It's not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Okay. Very good. >> So, I think with that we need to vote that this goes back a letter gets sent back to the township committee that we have approved this and that it is not
inconsistent with the master plan. >> So, is there a motion? Have a motion to approve. >> Make that recommendation. >> Make that recommendation on ordinance 26-15. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Chairman, Miss Eric Gettings.
>> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drews. >> She's trying to say yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Concan. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes.
>> And Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. Very good. Thanks everybody. We have an item on the agenda rescheduling the November 2026 meeting. >> Yeah, it was brought to my attention that we did schedule our first and only
meeting in November on the 11th, but that is Veterans Day and the building will be closed. So, I'm not sure if right now you guys want to make a decision, but we would just have to reschedule so that we have one meeting in November. It's our options.
>> Just also with the League of Municipalities. >> Yes. We >> So that's the week of the 16th, but it's >> it's usually the week of the 16th. So we'd have to do the fourth because otherwise we're the Wednesday of Thanksgiving week. >> Yeah. >> So which we just don't have the fourth
if we could make the fourth work. >> Yeah. See option. Yep. >> The fourth the fourth Wednesday. >> No, no. is the fourth. >> The fourth, >> but I don't know if you're free with your name. >> Uh, Wednesdays. Uh, Wednesdays. I'm good. >> Okay. The fourth,
>> I can do the fourth. >> Yeah, I should. >> Okay. >> You have a date, John. >> Um, point of clarification. >> What >> if that would have been Tuesday, we won't have a township committee meeting. Do we usually defer that to the
Wednesday or I I forgot how that worked. >> Not that week. Oh, because it's election day. >> That's correct. >> Yes, sir. >> And we haven't moved that one as a committee yet. >> You're welcome. >> But what we could do is make it the 10th
as a committee. >> We could do that. >> Okay. And that doesn't conflict with the league, right? >> Correct. Because the league is on the 16th week. So, let's do the 10th. I I'll shoot Karen a note. Okay, we're good. >> But it seems like everybody's go November 4th. >> This group. Yeah, >> this group. Y
>> Okay, then I will just have to make a notice and send it to Oh, excuse me. Publish it on on the township website. >> Yeah, >> don't care. >> Thank you. >> That's great. Thank you.
Uh there are no minutes for us to act on this evening. And although there are two resolutions noted in the agenda, we will not be dealing with those this evening. And gets me to citizens privilege. If there's anyone here from the community
who would like to address the board on anything other than the public hearing, which we will start momentarily, now would be the time to do so. I do not make note I do not see anybody from the community here with us this evening. So we'll move on to extra space storage.
This is preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances for one-story self- storage facility. >> Hi. >> Hello. Hey. There we go. Almost started out incorrectly. Good evening everyone. John which is Scala on
behalf of Extra Space Storage Inc. It is my pleasure to be back before the board this evening. Uh it's actually been a bit of time since we were last here uh uh back in the fall. Uh just to orient everybody, give a quick kind of synopsis. Uh um the property that's the
subject of this application is located at 10 and 18 Royal Road. It is identified as block 36.03, lots three and four. Uh and it's located in the township's I2 major industrial zone district. Uh you're all familiar with
the property. uh lot three the lot three portion of it currently developed with a four-story climate controlled self- storage facility uh it was originally life storage and you may recall when I was back here in the fall I had explained the fact that life storage and
extra space uh had a had a corporate merger uh and actually all of these the life stoages are are rebranded under the extra space name um it's going on you'll still see life stoages out there but uh just uh it's what's been been happening.
Uh back in 2022, uh Life Storage actually came before this board was granted state plan variance approvals to permit the development of a uh of a second fourstory self- storage facility on lot 4. That self- storage facility uh was approved at about 40,000 square
feet. Um when we came in uh with this application originally than that fourstory project uh we presented to you back in the fall a one-story uh self storage facility approximately 29,555
square ft you know again on that lot 4 uh site and we're proposing to merge both lots. They're still they're currently um you know separately designated obviously, but ultimately uh we would work to uh to merge the lots. They're under common ownership
um and will operate uh together. Um you heard testimony actually from from all of our witnesses with the exception of our professional planner uh at the prior hearings. You heard a couple times from our project engineer Matt Kunsman. uh from our project architect Rich Ben
Svena. Uh our traffic testimony uh was offered by Paul Going. Uh we concluded his testimony the last time. Uh but I think I can I'll be just blunt and saying, you know, we had we had one big issue. Uh I believe that was really the
main issue and that came down to impervious coverage. uh under our proposal that was before you originally we were at about 50% impervious coverage and that would have actually matched up with your ordinance that was in effect
several years ago but uh uh the municipality uh I don't know within the last year or two uh had modified uh the impervious coverage limitations in this area to 40% uh and the board understandably had concerns uh relative
to the coverage I know I heard from at least one of the board members of flooding in this area generally and so forth. Uh so we certainly got the message loud and clear that we needed to do better uh than what we were uh proposing. Uh we actually
looked at a number of things uh using you know porous pavement uh grass pavers uh which of course you know helps but it uh it's still considered impervious coverage anyway uh under your ordinance. So so really what did we do? We went back to the drawing board uh so to speak
worked with the uh the building design that we had. uh we reduced the building uh from that 29,000 and change number down to I'll let my engineer confirm around 24,000 uh square feet plus uh and
um we also reduced pavement uh and through the through all the workings we had uh including meeting with fire officials and so forth uh what we were able to achieve is what's before you this evening uh and I am happy to report
uh as to the lot course site and the design we have here we are actually below 40%. So uh we are we are compliant in that regard uh we're still over if you consider on a lot merger basis because the existing uh because of the existing building. So technically we
still have a variance. We'll talk about that. Uh but we brought down uh the coverage on this uh under this plan to uh to to you know below 49%. So, uh, what we want to do tonight is, uh, is present that, uh, that revised plan. I'm
going to call Matt Ksman, uh, to to come back up. Uh, we've got some exhibits that he'll put up. We we're going to show you what we had before and what we have after, uh, on the board. Uh, Rich Beno's back as well, too, because there are modifications obviously with the building reduction and some of the
changes from an architectural perspective, not significant. Uh, but he wanted him to present. Uh and uh we also have Christine Capone here tonight and uh she'll go through the planning testimony. Uh the variance relief we have uh one of the other advantages we
have relative to uh to these plan modifications. We also eliminated uh some other variance relief that that we had. We're able to do away with a retaining wall and some other things with the modifications. actually significant improvement, you know, from
our perspective uh relative to to what we're proposing before you this evening. So, >> uh there are there any new players tonight that will >> No, Christine Capone, she didn't you didn't testify. Yes, >> sworn in. >> Sworn in. So, >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, there you go.
>> Good question, chairman. Yes, they So, everyone's been sworn. Clint Kleppy's here as well too with extra space. He's been at the prior meetings. He was also sworn uh previously. Uh I don't intend to call him on direct, but if any questions come up uh may call on him >> and
all of our folks have been sworn in. >> Ryan, were you here for this for the last time? >> You are too. >> That makes it easy. >> Okay. >> Before Mr. Cman goes ahead, I would just like to note for the record that Mr. Bob King and Mr. Joseph Lane were not here for your initial meeting in September of
2025, but they have listened to the recording and they are eligible to vote if a vote is taken tonight. >> Thank you, Taylor. >> Uh Mr. Consman, I think you have to push that uh button. Um Matt, I remind you uh
you are still under oath. Uh you were previously uh sworn and qualified. Uh can you just confirm that your uh your professional license as a provincial engineer is still in good standing? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Uh with that, I'm going to turn the floor over to you to uh to present
the new plan and give the board the overview of what we're doing here and >> Sure. I did the whole exhibits. >> I have them. So, just let me know which one is which. Yeah. Uh there should been one titled rendering exhibit.
Honey, they ain't labeled as that. >> I have. Sorry. >> If you want just just bring it up if you have the hard copy. >> Mhm. Is that the one you're starting with? >> Yeah. >> A2 is the original color rendered state.
Hold on. By the way, >> we're looking at this is a >> This is A2. >> We're going to mark this one. No, I just I just wanted him to announce him. No. >> So, this is this was not at the last year. This is vote. >> This will be A3. >> This is going to be A3. I thought we
were I thought that's where we were. I did want to confirm usually write the exhibits down. So that's while that's being brought up, I'll just name the exhibit. It's called a rendering exhibit prepared by Bowler
stated uh May 11, 2026. And uh just for orientation what comes up north is towards the top or towards south. So um what you see on the screen um is the colorized version of the site plan that was submitted um as part of
application um has the landscaping also superimposed on it. So I just wanted to highlight some of the key changes that we've made to the plan uh versus the original uh um plans that were submitted. So the hard
surface cover for the uh for the slot if it was an individual lot would be uh 40 or sorry the prior design was 50.12% current design would be 39.49%. We also reduced the building size from
29,544 ft to 24,62 ft. Uh we also pushed the building back uh the 77 and a half foot set back in the front yard along Royal Road and we
increased the sideyard setback to be compliant with code to be 55 ft on the one side and a total of 118 points ft where previously we're requesting our variance of sideyard setback 35 ft. Additionally, we were able to eliminate
the rear yard setback by uh pushing building uh closer to the world road, shrinking the footprint and having a rear yard setback of 106.2 ft where compared to 88.7 ft before
uh accessing the site from Royal Road. Um the prior design had two one full moving driveway. Uh we're now actually proposing two one uh one ingress driveway on the eastern side and
then egress driver on the western side. And then between the existing self storage building just off the page to the left. Um there's a crossaxis aisle between the two buildings. Uh we reduced that drive aisle width from a two-way
operation to a oneway um going east to the city. So with all those changes, we we're able to reduce the impervious coverage on um this lot to 39.49%.
But once we consolidated two lots because the existing lot had a greater purpose coverage um than what's allowed permit today, the total consolidated lot will be 45.17% hard surface.
So those are the major changes. Additionally, we were able to eliminate retaining walls that we have proposed along the eastern property line that required a variance for the height of fence. So we're able to eliminate that variance and we did eliminate retaining wall in the rear um for that basin as
well. Um so those are the major changes um that we made >> and the overall storm water management and and those details that all remains the same. >> Uh correct the intent was to have a the
bio retention basin in the back for a green structure and it's designed in a similar manner to what was previous. >> Okay. Terrific. Um you had an opportunity to review the uh the various reports received. Correct.
>> Yes. >> So why don't we uh why don't we go through those? Um I know some of them are are prior reports with just you know additional comments and so forth the extent you can. I guess really just focus on on new comments and what's been
addressed and hasn't been addressed. If you would preference to wish reviewers first well why don't you start with the engineer reflect. So the review letter from dated May 7.26. So it's starting off
page three. Uh you want just say what's relevant. So there's some variances of waiverss that I just went through that were revised for this plan and which Christine can also touch
on too soon. So >> yep. >> Um on page four on number five request to add a note to the um so we will comply with that note. Thank you. Hey, could you identify what
I'm sorry Joe? >> Comment one on page three says the lock consolidation plan should be provided for review and approval. I look at that as a condition, right? So, correct. >> You agree to that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep.
>> And we would uh you know, we'll have a lot consolidation indeed. Mr. Toriel, I don't know if you review that. >> The township township attorney will so yeah, we would submit that. that would obviously have a meets of bounds description and so forth that would match up with the consolidation plan.
Okay. So then going to the next comment additional comment that was the testimony provided 75 which added or is requesting a note to add um developer township um any repairs and
replacement are various materials that may require on the site. So we'll divide that in one so I can um number seven uh there there will be a trash enclosure provided for the
existing facility. Uh we we do have to relocate it. We're not going to add any service coverage. We're not going to add any variances, but that is something we request as condition approval to work with professionals uh to find a spot that doesn't incur any additional uh
previous coverage or any varian wage >> and are you able to achieve the goal as as uh pulled out in 7A? Is that possible? Yes, we'll we'll do your best to your ability uh to locate as close to the office.
Uh comment number eight, uh we are no longer posing a incomeat liner for the basin. We revised the grading plan for 3 month slope. We're in all our request that waiver >> number I I just would number nine is
satisfied. We do have a fire report that came out. We'll we'll speak to that momentarily. >> Number 11, it it's just a condition of approval as well. So, I just wanted to acknowledge that one. Um
number 13 we will provide uh detail for the EV charging stations. >> Sorry pen ran in. >> All you applicants, you have so much to say going to the rink so fast. Sorry about that. >> We're just trying to hit the highlights.
literally have my third pet. >> So, go ahead. Thank you. >> Uh, comment number 14 will add an additional uh mention for the fence in the sideyard. Uh, comment number 16, I we did send
over some exhibit I can present if you would like to show additional box truck turning templates uh for the site. Um, they all they all work. >> They all work. Next one is comment number 20 requesting
additional ballards at the exterior doors. Uh we can add some additional ballers for the exterior doors. Uh com number 23. Uh we'll add the note um regarding the existing solware system on the property and working with each
other engineer on that. uh com number 29 easement uh for the storm water that's that proposed development is going to be utilizing uh we can provide that um easement agreement
comment number 30 u will add some additional information about the cleanouts for his homeowner uh similarly to comment number 31 we'll also add some additional labels for the perforated pipe the solar basin
32 similar we'll add some additional labels for cleanouts same thing for comment number three 33 the next comment I have it is number two on page seven We'll supply the geotech report. It was
included in the appendix of our very long storm works, but we'll supply that as well. Uh comment number 44A. Um we'll additional note about uh post
construction testing for the swar basin. And then for you B, we'll add additional information about the filter fabric for saltwater basin. Climate C we'll add some additional information and we're confirming that
the under will be 6 in in diameter and similarly we'll add some additional information for common D about the gravel layer and the thickness of that as well. the locations of the inspection torch for the fire extension base. Oh,
>> you didn't hear what we said. >> Uh, comment 44B. Um, we'll identify the location of the inspection for the bas. The next comment is page nine, comment
55. I had 45D as the next one. So, >> agreed. >> Yeah, agreed. Okay. >> Yeah, we generally prepare that. I usually do it by way of like a deed notice also. We'll submit maybe you review that or the township
attorney. We'll also provide that to the engineer and so forth and that'll be recorded uh with the county. Um number 55 uh we would agree to the restriction on the 18 wheelers approval.
Uh number 56 we will add additional spot grades throughout the site um as requested. Number 57 will review the We'll we'll review that manhole to make
sure that the um that fits the structure fits within or the pipes fit in that structure and also according to JCPL that is in the easement and comment number 58 will revise the u
the slope for the bax to 10% rather than the team and comment 59 will provide the pipe cross detail or information on the plan and then
um go to comment number 60. We'll add some additional we'll add an inset that will show exactly where the storm water discharges. Um there any comment similar to that in the environmental report as well
environmental missions report which I can touch on but just addressing this one request information a similar to B as well we'll add that C we'll add the grading information on that lot
of the bits and D we'll we'll we'll show that the existing pipe has capacity for closed development um you know we are reducing flow that is going to out hole and compared to existing conditions today. So we're confident that we'll reduce that flow
going there to that pipe and we'll uh provide additional information on that. Uh common number 61A will provide additional label for the emergency spillway and uh
61B. Um the bio retention basin does meet the current standard for um major development criteria for BP. We have met reductions for current and
future storm event. we is about approvals and permits. So we will provide all that's show as well. >> And we agree on everything on the administrative comments obviously 63
through 66. >> Next Why don't you jump to the uh Mr. Vakarella's report of May 11th? >> He has other reports attached to it that you alluded to some of them. >> Yes. >> The environmental commission and the fire. >> Correct. >> Sure.
>> Marshall in particular. >> All right. So um sorry it's in page two believe the first five or national
um number six we're actually not proposing any improvements within the steep slope uh area so we're not requesting a variance for that one
and then the signage Um are tech rich specify that comment number seven and comment number eight. Yes, we are requesting a variance for this side yard transformer.
Uh we did move it back from what was previously proposed. So >> can you show where that is? >> Exhibit 83 the northeast corner of the building in the grass area just to the east. That's the location of the transformer.
We weren't able to fit it within that tiny little area between the grass pavers on the eastern side and uh the side setback. So just beyond um so we are requesting that variance. We are you providing some shrubs um along the side
and on north side from Royal Road and also from the adjacent uh property. So we are providing you know a good amount of green space between uh the transformer and the property to the east. It's greater buffer than what the
um adjacent user provides art as well. >> I'm sorry Matt. Um I'm looking at Jeff's report. Paragraph 2 was was stricken in terms of the C variance relief, but there's a bold underline about asking for
uh um setback on >> Yeah, that's true. >> I'm sorry. >> It's no longer needed. >> Never mind. >> Yeah, it comes up, doesn't it?
>> Never mind. Yep. Oh. Uh, I'm sorry. It's paragraph three. >> Three. The Yeah. The bio retention basically. >> The applicant shall provide a setback from the property to the struct structure. I didn't hear any discussion about that. >> Okay. Yes.
>> That's what I meant. I was looking at the >> um guess what's that problem? But um yes, we require request a variance for that bio retention basin that's within the rear yard. Um, I believe it is beyond the
>> Matt, you can take that thing and walk over to it. >> This one. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> I think that would be best too in front of them. >> I'll be near your hockey. >> Sure. So, the outlet structure is
located in the southeast corner of the basin. Um, take my scale. I'll give you the exact measurement, but um, one thing to note is parking is allowed in the rear yard and um, the structure would be
behind the the parking setback. Um, and we do have a fence to provide um, additional buffer for some additional landscaping along the bottom. Um, let me just get a scale so I can give you an exact measurement or the variance.
The outlet structure is approximately 45 ft from the uh rear property line. So we would require >> Thank you. Um I believe the next comment is comp number 11. >> So that's just about the impervious
coverage um variance that we're requesting. >> I just interrupt you for a minute. Uh Jeff on your lot three though your percentage and Matt's percentage are two different numbers. So, you're in agreement with the
45.17. >> I believe that's Matt has, right? >> That's what Matt has, but your report has 50.73. >> Oh, no. So, there's two It's broken down. There's And I believe I have the same numbers as you all, but it's it's
There's two different lots at this time, and I just broke it down. So, >> combined. Yeah, combined they're at 45.17 which is consistent with what they're asking we're requesting for the variance. >> Okay, got it. Thanks. >> The next comment number 16. Uh so we
would add the footnotes to zoning be the fire resolution number. Um, comment number 18, uh, red will testify to the matching color scheme for the building. Um,
comment 20. >> Agreed. >> Yeah, we agreed to the lot numbers. We'll add that on that comment 22 and 23. It's about the architectural again. It's similar to 24 and 25.
Uh comment 26 the RTMUA. So we do have an email saying that there is allocation and since we are consolidating the lots um the email states that we do not need additional allocation for sewart. >> Thank you. Could you just provide that
email? We'll do. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, um, will there be there'll be a restroom in the new building or is there an existing restroom in the Elm because it does show sew sanitary sewer lines going to the new building?
>> There will not be a restroom for the um new building. Richard Arctic can testify to some of the internal workings of why we need a sand during line for the new building. Is there a restroom in the existing building?
>> Uh yes, sorry. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. We agreed to comma 28 for the conditioning that there would be no outdoor storage of fallacy materials
29 and that could be a condition then. >> Yes. and uh 33 number 30 for that condition. Uh comment number 31 is about the the
fencing. So uh on the left that side the the screen the property um it's going to be two existing extra space lots. >> Wait, I'm sorry. Just on comment uh on comment condition 30
um we do have we do have an ending hour operation at least for access to 10 p.m. Um I know this condition read for 900 p.m. probably make more sense for the sign to go off when the the operation is no longer is is shut down if the board
is amendable to that. >> Oh yeah, number 28 says 6 to 10. >> Yeah, 30 is nine. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> All right. Right. So, going back to comment 31 about the fencing proposed.
So, the uh there's a JCPNL easement that bisects the two why don't you show them on the plan Matt and you can just explain it. >> Sure. So, there's a JCPL easement bisect the plan on the western side of the
existing lot. It's 100 ft wide. Um, so under that easement, we're we're not allowed to provide or propose like a a metal fence, so aluminum or other material. So we are proposing a wood fence in that easement area and then it
would transition to aluminum fence outside of it. And then we are proposing sixoot fence in the front yard in front of the building. Um and then the rear it's 8 ft and that matches uh what's proposed or what's existing on the um
existing self storage building. >> What's the purpose of the wooden sound inside just to more decorative than the wood? >> Serving a functional purpose. >> Bob, can you use the microphone? >> Sorry. >> Is it serving a functional purpose? >> Uh
for security as well, >> but it's combined with the the lot to the >> Sure. So, is that lot to the to the left of this is that lot already fenced? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm just confused as to why there
would be a fence down the middle then if that's what I heard. Or is it just across the in front of Royal Road? The wooden part. Where's the wooden fence going again? The wood fence is uh
it it starts at the corner of the property and then it hugs the drive on the west inside the those building. >> Okay. >> And then connects the existing fence along the drive. >> I see.
>> Yeah. Just for the record, an 8ft fence is permitted in the zone. It's just different materials and and inconsistencies is not common, but the applicants testified. >> Thanks, Joe.
>> So, the height of everything is okay. >> Yes. >> It's just that the materials are not standard. >> Correct. >> All right. I'm 33 architect Rich will uh testify to that
and then I'm 34 um it will also testify to that as well and comment 37 will'll provide that information we'll provide the path files
GIS shape files and um the HC the outside agency reviews for comment number 38 will um provide initial approval and you agree with 36 yes
don't you go to the uh since we're coming down go to the fire marshall report which actually goes Ober second, 2025. I think so. >> All right. So, going through the fire uh letter, it say October second, 2025. I
believe that's that's typo, but uh just going through it. Comment number one. Um we'll add a note for the uh the driveway gate box on the plan to be Knox 3501. Um
similar to common room two we'll add that note as well number five uh we'll add notes the plans in the hydrant is private a will add fire lane striping on the
western driveway and then Commodore 11. That's uh it notes the plans for the radio uh test station. >> Your office actually already did a markup on this and did provide a copy of it to the fire marshall, albeit
yesterday after receiving a report. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Obviously, they'll confirm it's acceptable. >> Can I just ask a clarifying question maybe Dennis? >> Huh? Yeah, I know. So on C303,
it's the second page of the fire truck path. I'm not sure what it's trying to depict. Is that showing how a fire the ladder truck would go in from the other location and out through the other one?
Is that the point of this? bridge. >> Yeah, >> it's coming it's coming in from Royal and exiting out the existing building in that iteration.
>> I mean in the new and out the old. >> Yeah. In Yeah. In that iteration. Yes. >> Okay. Because the arrows don't match up to show. >> I think the arrows are radio. >> Yeah. That's the general direction of travel. Okay. But the fire truck would
have to go out that way. >> They can they can navigate from both directions. I've seen iterations of the plans that >> show both ways. Okay. >> Um I do just want to mention that >> I find it a little troubling that after
a year of these comments being present, we're just kind of addressing almost half of them on Monday afternoon. uh when these could have been addressed much much sooner. Um particularly with the amount of phone calls, meetings, and
emails we've had discussing this. >> Understood. Uh well, on these drawings, are these going to have the key gates as was pointed out in the previous sessions? I think there was a comment about the keypads, right?
>> And are do are these still going to be a keypad to get in and out? Uh yes, we we will provide a keypad um on the ingress driveway. So on the ingress driveway on the northeast corner um just uh when a you know a car or
vehicle enters into site uh they'll have a there'll be a small pedestal with a a little keypad for uh you know a customer to use to access into through the gate into the site >> and that would be driver's side. Correct. Correct.
>> And not obstructing at all in the road pathway. Right. >> Correct. >> I can't I don't >> the the the gate set back um from the property line. >> Okay. >> Approximately 30 ft and then that's the property line and the property line. It's it's even further. So there's
there's room for uh two card. >> So these keys are can get in. How is getting out? Is there some other mechanism that triggers the gate opening? Is that automatic or do you have to it would automatically open as a car breach the exit key?
>> So following up on C3, I guess in an emergency situation, they would be open anyway because I'm looking at this. They wouldn't be able to get in or out or out through the indoor if that were necessary. >> Well, in the end there would be a box at the gate
>> on the out. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. So anybody so anybody can leave but only people with access can get in. >> A new customer would utilize the
existing facility uh get their card or whatever to access that keypad and enter it on their second trip. Nothing. >> When that when you were talking about C-1 before, you made reference to there
being parking between the building and the retention basin, but that's really not parking. That's strictly emergency access. >> I was just referencing that the outlet structure is behind the parking set back in the rear. Just for reference. Okay.
>> Yeah, I remember you saying parking, but it's definitely not that. >> Yeah, parking setback. All right. >> More comment or review letters. >> Yeah. Environmental commission. >> Environmental commission.
>> Uh sure. So environmental commission letter April 25th, 2026. Uh comment number one. Um we are proposing a bio retention basin that is in the rear that is green infrastructure complies with
the NDP criteria um that reduces flow um from the site. The site does have clay soil, so we're not able to infiltrate into the subs soil. Comet 1A. U we're not proposing forced
pavement. Uh it is in the the legend. Um but we're not proposing any forest pavement since we are reducing the impervious coverage on um the pre-ubdivided lot um for development. We can comply just on the individual lot.
Um um two so there is an easement as previously mentioned for the storm water discharge. Uh the storm water is reduced in the bio retention basin goes into an outlet
structure then is piped in the rear of the property east. Um, and then there's an existing a storm pipe uh between uh the post office building and then there's another facility that has a a crossfit gym and
maybe some other users. So there's a a storm pipe between those two lots um that connects into King's Court and then um from King's Court it's piped south towards the Culdeac at the end um of
King's Court and then ultimately um into the Bushkill Brook tributary um with via flared end structure. >> Matt, I think just to put it on for the record. A comment 1A regarding the porse asphalt. We'll just make it a condition that the that be removed from the legend
on the plant. >> Yeah, that's >> that's fine. >> Is that pipe that it's tying into does that have the capacity to take on this additional flow? >> There would be less flow leaving our development.
So yes, it would have. >> I think Bob to your point because we had that same comment in our letter. I think that the question is there's nothing tied in now from the site. So, while it's still I think that's what we'll need to get from you to show I know that you you testified that you're going to
provide some information to show that that pipe has the capacity. Um if if the immediate if the eventual discharge for the site does eventually get to that area, it would make sense. Um and this is a typical thing to have it where it overflows into it. Yeah, certainly we're going to need some kind of
>> that's a gener that that if I'm not mistaken, I remember looking at these plans earlier when I was on the environmental committee that there it's a common right away that >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It it appears that it's near the post office and it's just a manhole that's over there that'll be tied in. Um
that the point of the basin again is it's it can't actually infiltrate. So it's bio retention. So it just controls the rate at which the water leaves the site. Um, but yeah, we certainly need a little bit more information just to to make sure that it can actually take that flow.
>> Great. Comment number three is just about the easement. Um, John, there's no there's anything done for you. Uh yeah, I'm not aware of any any uh neighboring notices, but we'll comply with the easement requirements and
that documentation has been provided. >> Number four, uh we can substitute the plant species. Uh um >> yeah, we would agree as a condition of approval and presumably work with your your engineer and planner to make sure
it's suitable mix. And if the envir I don't know if the environmental commission re-reviews it, but we'll follow. I'm sorry, John. You apologize. I'm sorry. >> We have to rock
you. I apologize. >> And lastly, comment number five, uh, we can reduce the Oh, we will reduce the light fixture uh temperature to 3,00 uh Kelvin. And then additionally the the lights that we are proposing regard SC
>> just just comment I just want to make sure because we had a similar comment before. Do you know what the lighting color is of the neighboring property because I think it would be more beneficial to have kind of a low between the two where they have the same color. So maybe we make the
condition that you'll provide us some information about what the color is of the neighboring property and just match that color instead of two separate ones. I think that makes I think we can agree on that. >> Okay. >> You mean warm versus white light? >> Yeah, I think consistency makes a lot of sense. >> That's Yeah, I I think that the warmer
color is nice, but I I think it would look worse if you have the sightes right next to each other and they're good. Obviously, we agree to the non-residential fee which is in one of the reports uh dated March 3rd, 2026.
We have an RTMU8 report dated March 4th, 2026, which I believe is just marked as acceptable. >> Acceptable. >> Obviously, we'll deal with the RTMUA with uh waste flow. We're going to provide that email confirmation as well.
>> Maybe three more letters right. >> Yeah, I think uh there was one I think there was one comment to address. >> Yes. Uh you're talking about the traffic. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It's paragraph five. He's looking at the testimony and then he's proposing conditions one and two at the bottom
which we'll agree to. >> Okay. >> You just need the testimony on paragraph five. >> Yes. The the keypad allard. Um again that's number five. We'll pull a
keypad uh on the ingress driveway from oil road outside the gate on the driver's side and then comment one condition uh that ask sign for do not
enter um and then provide all comment number two. The last the landscape report is March 3rd. So
only comment was about number one uh new comment to add a note to the plans. um say that all plantings on lot three should be reviewed for plants landscape plans and that any missing dead or
diseased plants already removed the place. So we'll erase that and then p uh paragraph four the first few paragraphs. >> Yeah, the blue text says uh asking apply. >> Oh, okay. I don't have blue text.
>> I I printed mine in black. You went sheep. You're paying the price to tuck corners. >> So, John, despite what the environmental commission said, calling out species I cannot pronounce, >> whatever they have on their plan are New Jersey native. You're good with the
proposed. >> We reviewed the plant list and yeah, >> you know, current ordinances that will be the individual plants. I think we're saying 80% is what the ordinance says. There may be a few nonative, but that's allowable under the
ordinance and sometimes it's appropriate. >> Okay. >> I'll I'll I'll take a look at the what's in the environmental commission report just to just to follow up on if I have any issues on the public. >> Any any recommendations we agree with? Uh just to change
>> I did agree to >> Yep. Well, >> are there any plantings in the existing building that have to be replaced? >> That's what his comment about. My comment was just just so we'll we'll review the line as well as that, but
that's just it's landscape plans in the original buyer retention banks and so we'll we'll review and they can they can replace it. >> Sounds good. Great. Sounds good. >> Okay. Well, any more any other board
comments for Mr. Ksman >> here? No. I should note that there's nobody from the community here to question you on your testimony. So, thank you. >> All right. Rich, uh, Miss Pencea, I remind you that, uh,
you are still under oath. You were previously qualified as a licensed architect holding a license in New Jersey. That license is still in good standing. Is that correct? >> Yes, it's still good standing. >> Uh you have revised the architectural plans um to be consistent with this
amended uh uh site plan. Is that right? >> Uh I know that you have also uh provided um Taylor uh with copies of your exhibits for this evening. >> Yes. >> Uh why don't you just let her know what you want to be brought up and I'll turn
the floor over to you. Uh, our next exhibit is going to be exhibit A4, uh, with today's date. Let me get to it. It's going. Yeah. Finance page four
You know, keep getting laid out Well, they can't find it that much. It's on the floor. >> I got it. >> Yeah. You want to just huddle around mine or you want me to put it back? >> That's what I said. >> I think that's it, Rob. >> There you go. >> Yeah, it's pretty.
>> Yeah, that's it. >> The color rendering. >> Yeah, that's good. >> By the way, what we're putting up is is that actually exactly what the board has? >> Yes, it is. I don't know if we necessarily need to mark it as an exhibit, but if you
>> Well, if you're good. No, it's part of >> copies. >> No, no, it's part of the submission. No. No. >> I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure if there was some added color to it. I was asking, Mr. Ben. >> Well, right. >> Yes, we have the color drawn.
>> Perfect. Yeah. Um, so the covered all of the environmental resolution comments. I don't have any here address. I'm going to look at the township planner
comments. There's a few there for me. We'll start with item number seven, the variance request for wall signage. We're proposing uh a new wall sign on
the building u of 52 square feet whereas if it exists only on a non uh unconsolidated lot that's a yes um it would be in compliance with the ordinance but once we consolidate the
two lots the existing lot has 54 square ft of signage which pushes to 106 Was there one other smaller sign that >> well it's in the total of the 54 square ft. So there's a small sign that says
office >> and then on the >> on the other side of the building um this is an extra space sign. >> That's on the existing building. >> That's on the existing >> Okay. >> Yes. Where our our sign is going to face
uh Royal Road. >> New building has one sign. >> Mhm. that on its own would be uh compliant. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> Yeah. Um item 17 uh yes, we did change the color palette
of the building to match the existing building. So, uh we initially came in with a gray tone scheme. Uh we're now in an earth tone which the existing building is. Great. Item 22. Um
the various types of storage units that will be u here in this building they'll range anywhere in size from 25 square ft to 300 square ft and there's a blended ratio based on the market demand and they they vary in sizes and
increments of 5t. >> It's a labyrinth. Uh item 23 confirmed. We're just proposing one wall sign address number 24 already square footage of the signage.
Number 25. I personally visited the site um to to review the work that was done before we showed up and we have submitted an application for a building permit to correct that situation and I
believe our permit is ready to be pulled if not already pulled. So you can go. >> Yeah. To confirm on the zoning side, they did um submit a permit. They did some work without >> um approvals and it was inconsistent
with where entrances were and where uh access was from their from their uh facility. So they've they're they want to correct that and they've they've pulled permits and I haven't I haven't followed up with the construction per uh permanent process but um at least the
zoning has been pulled >> and we're agreeable to that as a condition of approval as well that that work is performed >> will be >> yes work will be performed work is required. You got to go ahead to
>> 25. >> I think next up is 33 >> 26 to talk about the toilets in the new building. There are no new toilets in the proposed in the new building. >> So was there a comment earlier?
>> Yeah, I think so. in the on sheet A101 in the top left corner it shows water room and on the civil plant it shows that there's water and uh sanitary sewer going to that corner of the building. So just you could provide some testimony about the >> water room is actually our sprinkler
riser. >> A what >> sprinkler riser fire sprinkler riser >> that's where the fire suppression line go through things >> and it tends to leak. That's why we need a floor drain and pick up. >> So there's no sink or any basin or
cleanup whatever. It's just for that. >> It's just that. >> Oh, okay. There we go. Thanks. That's Thank you. >> Yeah. But you did affirm that there is a restroom in the other building. >> Yes, there are. >> Great. >> I used it personally.
>> I like to hear a business that's taking care of their employees and their clients. >> I think used or private for just employ. >> Oh, okay. So, if you're at this one, then you have to walk over and access the other building. Uh New Jerseyy's uh
recognizes the national plumbing standard as this plumbing code and that plumbing code has an allowance for multiple single storage buildings to have the common toilet facilities at the administration space. >> Okay. >> You wouldn't want the slop sink in this
building though uh just for mopping floors, things like that. >> Um the facility is equipped with a doll cart. it. Um, if we're not if I don't have toilets in the facility, it's unlikely we're going to need a mop
unless someone stole something. But then again, the facility has stall parks and they that's how they can get their equipment in. Item number 33 of how energy conservation standard will be incorporated. Currently the building
we were building will be destructially designed to uh have solar panels installed at some point in the future. That's been a standard for extra space. Uh we also uh will be heating and cooling the building with high efficiency
HVAC equipment as well. Uh all the say all not like 90% of the lights are on motion sensor top. >> So will the equipment be on top uh roof mounted? >> Uh no ground mounted.
>> Okay. Behind the building. Thank you. which you don't I believe is >> um >> unless you have something. >> No, I think you I think you covered it. I don't see anything else or you
>> uh just a side comment for the buying marshall. Will I have notes on my construction drawings for the BDA testing? >> All right, perfect. So we we stipulate that contract should provide BDA testing after the probability because it's not
it doesn't make sense yet this type of bill. >> Yep. >> That's it. Any other questions from the board members? >> And once again there's nobody from the community here questions. >> Thank you chairman. Right. >> Uh, at this time I'd like to call our
final witness, Christine Kaf. >> Miss Capone, you were previously sworn. Um, if you would mind to please provide the board with a brief summary of your educational, professional background and licenses you hold. >> Yes, gladly. Good evening, chairman and members. For the record, Christine
Nazaro Kabone, business address is 52 Street Breakfast Place, Red Bank, New Jersey. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been practicing as such for about 30 years now in the state. I've been qualified here in Rarden and hundreds of other boards. My licenses are current
and valid. I teach planning and zoning courses for the Ruckers Center for Government Services and a courtappointed affordable housing special adjudicator. While the bulk of my practice is appearing on on behalf of applicants for planning and zoning boards, my firm also
represents the CRDA at any city where we provide reviews. >> Is that all? Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I bet you're not >> most qualified witness on the team. >> I don't know about
this is a relatively straightforward application. The use is completely conforming. It's in I2 zone and were limited in use. Mr. Varela in his most recent May 11th, 2026 review letter went through all the variances and Mr.
Kinsman identified them earlier tonight, but I'll just go over them again because there's only four. We've eliminated quite a few variances by eliminating the rear setback. We eliminated the retaining wall and we've also reduced the size of the building. What we're left with as far as variance, if you're
following the wrongs and you go to Mr. Valella's report on page two, number three, he refers to the rear outlet structure requiring a rear yard setback variance for the detention facility and Mr. Kunman testified that
that was at 45 ft. We do need the lock covered variance. Mr. Bakarella does properly site it at 45.17 in comment four in his report. After he does the aggregate of 45.17, he goes down and
breaks it out of lot four having 39.49 and lot three having 50.73. When those lots are merged, that's how we get to our 45.17. We are additionally seeking a variance for the aggregate of the wall signs. Um
we have 54 existing per on the building with the um extra space storage together with the office and we're proposing a 52 square foot sign on the new building. The last variance we're seeking is for our transformer in our eastern side of setback which Mr. Queensman identified
earlier and also Mr. Bearella identifies and then he indicates in his review that we are providing screening around that. So statutoily the board can grant these variances in my opinion under a combination of the C1 and C2 criteria. I
think at least with respect to the coverage and the signage, the board can rely on the C1 section of statute. The reason I say the C1 section of statute is because the municipal land use law allows you to lawful pre-existing
structures when granting a C1 variance. So both signage and the existing conditions are contributing to that. I think the other two variances an outfall structure and a transformer in the sideyard setback are properly identified under the C2 section of the statute
where in the absence of any hardship that the board finds that one or more purposes in the municipal land use law is advanced. The board can grant the relief requested. Statutoily only one purpose would be required to meet our burden of proof. But I think the board can rely on criteria G here as well as
criteria M. Criteria G talks about sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses. And criteria M talks about an efficient use of the land. This is essentially an existing developed and industrial park.
Um, so I think that both of those two criteria are applicable regardless of the section of the statute that we applied. The board has to find the negative criteria is advanced. And the negative criteria is very clear. It doesn't ask you to hold us or any other applicant to a standard that there be no
detriment. The standard in the test is that the benefits of the grant of the variance will outweigh any detriment and there's no substantial detriment to the zone plan or to the public good. Right? The ordinance here in Rarid is the stated purpose of the IG zone and it reads as follows. It is the purpose of
this zone to provide areas suitable to the use of industry and related uses with controls necessary to ensure sound industrial development. I think that that's absolutely on point to this application. In addition to that, in your 2019 master plan
re-examination report, there are a number of goals that you cite to limit growth to existing roadway capacities, to permit additional non-residential development, and to provide for uh limited residential and encourage commercial growth to um provide tax
producing ratables. So, I think this application does all of that. As far as the signage at section 26296-159 of your ordinance in the intent of your sign plan, one of the things that are related in there is to promote signs
which are compatible with surroundings and expressive of the identity of individual proprietors in the character of the community. So here I think you have a master plan and a sign section that is talking about encouraging for additional non-residential development
aimed at stabilizing your tax base in an area where it's specifically zoned for this and I various is what I would consider essentially dimminimous in conjunction with this application. So it is my professional planning opinion that statutoily we meet our burden approved
for the relief requested and outlined by our engineer as well as your planner and engineer in their board reviews of this application. Then we meet both the positive and negative criteria and the variance can be can be granted with no substantial detriment to the zone plans
for the public good and in fact have the effect of implementing both the stated purpose of the I2 zone as well as some of the stated goals in your most recent outination report. >> Nothing further on the practice.
That's as clear as an explanation as I've heard in a long time. So, >> yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. That was that was great. >> I just have one thing to add and it and I apologize for just bringing this up now. The condensing units um they appear to be within the setback uh rear yard
setback. So, if that could just be uh addressed and then um I guess requested or confirmed. >> So, if that relief is requested, I certainly trust Mr. Wasala has that catchall trade. >> I certainly do. Yes, I would imagine there is no way he doesn't have that.
And I I'm confident that we can work with your board of professionals. If the landscaping on our plan isn't sufficient to address that, I would I'm certain in that rear yard that we could we could put more landscaping to the satisfaction of your professionals to make sure that we mitigate um any of those structures.
>> Was there a note in your report that references that compress would >> Yeah. Are you saying there's additional var >> So so it's not >> it's not five. >> Yeah, it's now five. >> Okay. And the fifth one is what? >> It's the setback to the condensing units
within the rear yard setback if that could just be confir confirmed or uh >> setback to condensing units. >> Yes, there's >> they encroach on the rear yard setback. Yes, because any um in in commercial
zones there is no distinction between accessory structures and uses. It's it all must be treated. >> It's treated like the building. >> Yes, correct. Got it. >> Unless they can be reloc. >> Yeah, I think usually it's on it's a rooftop mounted unit so this doesn't
come up. >> What what's what's the section? uh 296-131 uh section one or schedule one and it's going to reference the uh where you set back. Okay. >> Is the is this condensing unit on their
plan you saw? Yes, it is. Okay. So, it's on there. It's just Okay. >> We didn't call it out as a variance, >> right? >> I believe our engineer is getting mentioned. >> Okay. Oops.
required. >> 97 and a half or 100 required. So, >> okay. So, >> almost there. >> 97 and a half or 100 is required >> for a rear yard setback. And that would apply to the principal structure because you're indicating ordinance doesn't
differentiate between. >> Okay. >> 975. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> One yard per now. >> Yeah. >> Probably imperceptible. So
>> missed it by a yardish. >> Yeah. Must have moved. >> Yeah. All right. >> Pull the chains out. Joe, any advice for us or guidance? Good. >> I'm assuming your your testimony with the relief for the CT relief applies to
this as well. Yes. >> Same same same positive, same negative. >> G&M. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Okay. Well, if there's no more questions and once again, there's nobody here from the community, just for the record. Uh so
with that, I'd like to ask for a motion to approve Extra Space Storage, Inc. the preliminary and final site plan with the bulk variances that were discussed for one-story self storage facility, >> including all of the conditions at the African stipulated. Mhm.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> We're not making the whole chairman. Miss Eric Gennings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. But I I just want to add something. I want to thank the applicant for listening to the board um and coming
back with what was essentially a compliant um lot addition. um you know, we don't see many applicants that really work as hard as you guys did to really try and reflect the the desires of the board. So, thank
you and I vote yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu, >> yes. >> Miss Bob King, >> yes. >> Mr. Dennis Concan, >> yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri, >> yes. >> And Mr. James Miller, >> yes. And I also would like to reiterate Miss Donna Drew's point that uh want to
thank you for putting together a really good revised application. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> We really appreciate everybody. Thanks for the time. >> Thank you. >> Have a good evening. >> You too. >> Hey, >> are we going to make a motion to go into
close session? Can I make a motion to go into executive >> close and then I got to do roll call. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> All right. No offense everybody stop talking. >> Miss Robin Fatu.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Dennis Conan? >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri? >> Yes. >> And Miss James Miller? >> Yes. >> Okay. Just give me a few minutes. That said, no. Do I get to go home? going back in >> session. >> I just want to go home, man. I want to
go back. >> Okay. >> Okay, we're back in. >> We are back in session. >> All right. Okay. >> So, yeah, I'd like to just make an announcement that the Diamond Nation application that that was heard uh two weeks ago on what day was it? >> April 22nd.
>> April 22nd. It was carried to tonight uh without further need for advertising. The board is gonna carry again to when April. >> Do you want just our >> sorry May? May >> our just our next May meeting in general
that's going to be May 27th. >> Is that enough time? >> And Ed, don't forget you won't be >> When's the time of dec when's the time of decision? >> Oh, I didn't bring it. I think it was June.
The end of mid or m June? It's June 30th. >> It's June 30th. >> June. Okay. So, you want to carry it through the first June meeting? >> That would be June 10th. >> Okay. So, we'll carry it to June 10th without further need to advertise. >> That's going to be a long night.
>> It is. >> Well, we'll get through what we get through. >> Yep. >> All of the high school projects and 18 highway 202. And the high school has about 10 projects. >> Yeah,
that's enough for one night. >> So, I mean, we got to carry it to some date. I mean, we could always tell Steve, "Oh, well, and then carry it again." But I I would >> What? I missed it. What do we >> There's two other applications. I'm
saying that, but like Don said, get >> Yeah, correct. And we have a rule. We give each applicant certain time and then we stop it and move on to the other one. >> Yeah. The first one is just they're just capital review. So I mean we'll probably have like basic comments but >> be less than 20 minutes
>> 100%. >> Yeah. >> 18 highway 18 highway 202 will be >> what is it? >> Is that the storage? >> That's the old Yorkshire >> turn. Okay. So
>> it will be carried to June 10th. >> Yes, >> they're doing it >> hold on >> without the need for further notice. >> Yes. >> Thanks. >> And we are good. Anything else? >> With that we are journed. >> Thanks.
>> Call New York for the old days. >> Okay. >> Let me know how you get to have with Steve Bloomberg tomorrow. Taylor.