to the stands nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you everyone. Up tonight we have comments and reports. I don't, as chairman, I don't have any report this evening. Board comments.
Does anyone have anything they'd like to raise this evening? >> I was just wondering when we're going to put on the agenda the discussion of the ordinance about data centers. >> So, if we could get that scheduled
sooner than later, I think it would be good >> to provide feedback or need to do a subcommittee to come up with something and then share it with the board. We have a draft ordinance already and we have some people's preliminary research
on it. I don't know what more is needed to add it to the agenda as I've requested. >> Um yeah, I you know there were a couple edits I have for the model ordinance that was out there that are more technical in nature. So I you know I
wasn't sure the best way if other members had comments. >> Was that circulated to everybody? Taylor the the ordinance was it did you guys No. Okay. So >> no I had asked John drill for an example of him that's what I forwarded and that's what I sent to everybody to
>> think about it. >> So if everybody has that >> if the townships has a draft is it >> it's the same draft. >> Okay. >> So we're the township committee is asking for a recommendation from the planning board so that the township
committee can make consideration of such ordinance. You know, maybe we could if people are interested, we could have a few people that want to provide if everybody provides comments to a couple pe you know, one person. I'll be the focal point. If people want to provide
comments to me on behalf of the board, I'll put everybody's comments together and then maybe at the next meeting we can look at it and >> be able to provide a recommendation. Bob, you sent out some great research. I mean, there's a lot of good stuff out there and I think >> I just started to scratch. I was just
more interested and fascinated and wanted to put things in in terms that I think people can appreciate such as number of households that these kind of power consumes and I it just was a learning experience for me and I thought let's let's ground this so others as we communicate and educate are are grounded
as well. >> I've also asked the environmental committee commission >> yeah and I know there's tomorrow night >> to yes to provide their recommendation from an environmental impact perspective. So if if it's >> I think that's good. We can circulate make comments.
>> Something we'll circulate it and then uh comments >> people have comments or thoughts and edits then I'll get that back out before our next meeting and >> we'll have it as a placeholder on the agenda for >> the next meeting.
>> Okay, >> great. Thank you. >> Good deal. >> Okay. Engineers comments >> chair. >> No planners comments. No comments. Jeff, >> wait. We should at least just acknowledge this is Glenn's last meeting. >> What? >> What? Oh, that's right. I didn't know
today was the day. I did see your note. >> I thought you had one more in here. >> Yeah, I can't make it. So, >> I will be away for the next meeting, but uh >> since I'm moving out of township effective May, I won't be able to.
Thank you for your service and we'll miss you. >> Thank you. I thank you. I've learned a lot. I appreciate uh everyone's patience with me as I picked up on water table and >> but your expertise has been valuable over the years. Absolutely.
>> You know that kind of stuff. >> Thank you. Thank you. It's been my pleasure. >> No questions. Any comments this evening? >> Nothing covered. >> Nope. >> Okay. Correspondence. There is none this evening.
Let's move on to the minutes. Taylor had distributed the minutes from our January 14th, 2026 meeting, which of course was an involved meeting. We all had those for review. Does anyone have any comments or changes, questions?
I do not. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes, excuse me, of January 14th, 2026? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Chairman, Mr. Ever Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Concan. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Glenn Solowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you, Taylor. We have two resolutions for review. First is resolution 07-2026.
This is Johanna Farms, Inc. at 20 Johanna Farms Road, block 6314, lot 32. We have this. It's a resolution memorializing grant of waiver of site plan approval to allow the construction of a wastewater
treatment platform addition and two wastewater treatment tanks. You all know we want this to move forward. So we had the resolutions for review. >> Any comments? >> No. No.
>> Oh. Okay. Sorry. >> Any Sorry. Any comments or questions on the resolution? >> No. >> There being none, can I have a motion to approve? >> And I will second. >> Chairman. Mr. Over Gettings. >> Yes.
>> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. Yes, >> Mr. Dennis Kungan, >> M. James Miller, and Mr. Glenn Sakowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. The second resolution for approval
this evening is, excuse me. Resolution 08-2026. This is FACK Incorporated at 8 Bartles Corner Road. This is a resolution memorializing grant of waiver of site plan approval to allow
the Well, that's not right, is it? I didn't spot that before. The heading on this is not correct. The the first section is identical to the Johanna Farms, which obviously is
not correct. The number is correct. >> Yeah. >> And I did not focus on that. I don't think anybody else focused on that. >> My apologies. I did focus on the the body of the resolution >> which I I personally thought was okay. If anybody else has any changes or
questions on that, but clearly that heading to change. >> Agreed. >> Started reading it. I thought I was repeating myself. Never was. >> It's also the application number SP737W.
Mhm. Yeah, you're right. >> Minor change. >> Okay. So, if there's no questions or comments and I have a motion to approve resolution number 08-2026 for FAC, Inc. at 8 Barnold's Corner Road
with the notation that the application number and the heading on the resolution will be corrected. >> Yeah, I'll submit to Taylor tomorrow. Okay. >> Motion
>> and I'll second that. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Jennings. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bob King. Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Concan. Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. And Mr. Glenn Sakowski. Yes, >> there is an item here that was I'm
sorry. I'm sorry. Jumping ahead. Citizens privilege. If there's anyone in the room with us this evening from the community who would like to address the board members on anything other than what is further down on the agenda and that would be the public hearings. Now would be the time to approach the
microphone, give us your name in the press and you feel free to address the board. Okay. There being none, we can move on to the public hearing. The first one up is uh a special meeting request that we had received and you received the letter
from Troutman Pepper Lock, the law firm, Mr. Latizia, for a special meeting for Walmart Real Estate Business Trust. And uh I think the letter pretty much lays out what the issue is. Taylor, I'm gonna ask you to talk a little bit to it
because you've been trying to figure out where we can possibly fit this in >> because I should say Jeff and Taylor are extraordinarily busy. We've got a lot going on, right? So,
we we've taken these special requests before, but it's tough to fit it in. I do just want to point out we do have a representative from the attorney's office, Tropman Pepper and Lock or Lock here if you would like for her to step forward at all. >> I didn't realize that. Would you like to
address us and give us some rationale behind this? >> Okay, great. Thank you. I didn't know you were here. >> Yeah, my name is Nar here on behalf of Walmart from Chipper Lock. >> Okay, >> I'll just rely on what we submitted and just let you decide
for you. Okay. Well, this is just me. Um, I'm just thinking about how our board professionals can be sure to get a no offense good report for the
application within a a good amount of time. I don't truly feel comfortable scheduling this at all for April. I I don't see that being possible.
So, if we are already looking at May, I am not sure of everybody's availability. I did ask you guys if you could just take a look at your calendars to see. Um, I have here the calendar for, you know, which nights the courtroom will
not be able to be used. And the only true dates I could see would possibly be a Wednesday. Jeffrey has stated that in the past there's only been a few special meetings this board has had and each of those times they've been on a Wednesday. >> Yeah, >> it's been an alternating Wednesday.
>> Okay. So, if we're looking at that, the options would be May 6th, >> May 20th, and I'm not exactly sure if we are truly moving forward with our Diamond Nation application for May for
I'm sorry, for this April 22nd meeting. If they are on, then there's the opening for May 27th. >> Yeah, they're on. Mr. Grubenberg has Custom spray is postponed.
>> Diamond Nation is on for both applications. >> No offense, Steve isn't here, so you never know with Steve. >> Well, that's >> Well, that's what he said, >> I guess. So if if they would like either a special meeting
May 6th, 20th or if they want just a regular meeting and they wouldn't have to do the special meeting fee, then it would be May 27th. >> Both of those dates. >> Jeff, none of those. Oh Jeff, how
complicated is this application without microphone? I mean, it's it it shouldn't take more than a meeting. Um, it's something that the reviews it goes it's involving restriping some minor changes um throughout the parking lot
that's existing and the online pickup center is it's it's a minor site plan or it's it's really a minor project. It's a preliminary final, but it's a minor project. It's something that they're they're trying to um reinvision their online parking area. So, it's something
that the board a few years ago reviewed. So, it's it's an expansion. >> So, a lot of signage and things of that. >> Yeah, it's a it's it's a lot of detailed um review, but it's it's something that it's it's relatively minor.
>> I'm guessing they're trying to fix what's what they found out works and doesn't work. >> Correct. And then there's some um striping striping modifications on site. So um it may I mean some of the reviews may bring up a lot of issues that have
been um maybe that >> legacy issues. >> Yeah. Maybe display issues or many maybe other violations or anything that that maybe uh them they're operating right now may be uh discussed. So it's it's something that um
>> it's hard to say. The review should be um relatively minor, but it's it could go in a direction. >> Thanks, Jeff. And that being the case, do you see an issue with putting it on the agenda for our normal meeting on May 27th?
>> That's diamondation. >> No, this is May 27th. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. Damination is April, right? So, >> I don't I don't see an issue with an issue. >> We held that for diamondation. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, >> and so it's open >> trying to go on the 22nd.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Summit spray is cancelled >> and if he wants to change it, he's stuck with whatever is available. >> After that, >> we accommodated him to move it to April. So, >> unless he does a special meeting request, >> right, we'll handle that if that happens. Correct.
>> So, if the 27th, they don't have to pay the special meeting. Exactly. Right. >> Okay. >> They can afford that. >> We're hearing May 27. >> May 27th. 27 still too late for you guys or earlier >> possible. Yeah, earlier would be better. >> May 6th.
>> The I will just point out the issue is that they need to be done right >> by July. Not get approval or any type of denial from this board. They're looking to be done >> by July. >> Start construction at least. >> Start construction. >> Well, that means done. >> That's a lot
>> in our world. >> So earlier the better. >> So are we saying May 6th? Is that what you're recommending, Taylor? No, I'm just putting that out there so everybody's aware. >> Can the professionals be ready by May 6th?
>> I don't know the right way to 21. >> Yeah, >> they have the application. So, >> oh, >> okay. >> Sounds like >> special meeting that may not be three hours. >> Correct. Joseph, are you available?
>> I am available. >> Okay. 96. >> We got to make sure Joseph's available. >> All right. Okay. >> We don't. >> Okay. >> Right. We just make an announcement and then I have to notice.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I will be in contact with you guys tomorrow then regarding the special meeting fee. and making sure that you guys get that and then just be aware that you guys will have to notice 10 days prior to that date.
>> Well, thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Next up is our second public hearing of this evening. This is 14 US Highway 202 LLC. This is a preliminary and final
site plan for construction. at a self storage warehouse. >> Before we get going, no offense, we were not good on the microphones. So, let's just make sure that we are good on the microphones even though we still have a
synographer. >> Hello there. >> Oh, you usually sit there. >> Don't sit right. >> I will listen. I'm a good listener. >> Good evening. >> My name is Rich Mono and I am the
attorney for the applicant 14 highway 202-31 North Acquisition LLC. I have my own team here tonight. I have James Mroy and Bob Moy. They're the principles of the applicant. Bill Lane from Meno
Engineering, guy who looks like an engineer setting up all that stuff. And Kristen Shepard from Consulting Group is our planner. As you know, we're proposing, excuse me, it's allergy season. >> We're proposing See?
>> Yeah. It's awful. >> Yeah. >> I'm driving myself crazy. Yeah. Well, >> right. >> I'm not going to comment on that for myself. Look at my hand. As you all know, we're proposing 136
unit self storage facility at 14 highway 202. That's a 2.45 acre vacant parcel. It's also identified as lot 25 block 97 and it's in the B5 low density highway district. It's a permitted use in the
zone. There are several bulk variances. We've identified in our application two waivers guard waivers and a steep slope varants. The board's professionals have identified three additional variances
for this retaining underground system and the bio detention basin. I think our planner and our engineer will address all those. Um we've had the benefit of reading reports from Mr. Varillaa, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Dari, Mr. Trapman. We've also had the comments from the Ron Township NUA, Environmental Commission, DPW, the Historical Commission, Fire Assessor, and the Tax Assessor. Our team will address all of the issues and
questions they've raised during the course of their presentation. So, our plan tonight is straightforward. I'm going to introduce James Maloy. And as the applicant, I'd like him to introduce the concept from a high up standpoint
and to address some of the questions the professional team raised. How is this going to run dayto-day? How are people getting in? How do the gates work? Where do they go in? What are the hours of operation? Employees and all that stuff. >> If I can interrupt you. >> Yes. >> This board really doesn't like to hop
around. So we've got the benefit of the planners report, the engineers report, the landscape report, the traffic report and other reports that you already mentioned. >> We would rather that you go through that and ident, you know, and speak to the issues that have been identified.
Absolutely. >> And this way we're all ticking and tying the right way. So if you can plan your presentation that way, I would appreciate that. We all would appreciate that. >> Absolutely. When we start with James, we'll again talk about the operation. >> Yeah. If you want to do a concept first,
that's great. >> Good. And then we'll go. >> But when you get into the meat and potatoes, if you can go to the reports, right? >> And maybe I misheard, but I thought you gave a different block and lot than 97, lot 25. Um, and I want to confirm because I'm
looking at the professional reports and it's saying block 97, lot 25. I thought I thought I heard you say block 25, lot seven, but maybe I >> murder. >> Lot 97, lot 25. >> Okay. Right. >> Okay. Yep. Yeah, we're on the same page.
Okay. >> Okay. And then >> Yeah, we are. >> So, we'll go through each of the reports as likes. >> Yep. >> And then Kristen Shepard, our planner, will be our cleanup hitter. incorporate all the testimony to address the issues in the board reports and we're confident
we're going to provide you a substantial support. >> And if I could just have everybody who plans on testifying in tonight's hearing, if you can stand up, including the board professionals, I'm going to square swear everybody in together. Uh
if you raise your right hand, you swear affirm that the testimony that you're going to provide in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Okay. Starting from uh the applicant side across, if you could just state your name and spell it
for the record. >> Yes. Kristen Shepard. C R I S Ten. Sheepard is S H E P A R D. And I'm with uh Kafone Consulting. >> William Lane, LE. I'm with Menlo
Engineering Associates. James Mroy, MC EL R Y Resh Darie with environmental resolutions of engineering. >> J Assoc
architect back planner. Um, we're going to call our first witness, James Mroy. He's been sworn. So, James, if you would introduce yourself and share the board with the board an overview of our project. >> Good evening and thank you for your
time. My name is James Mroy. I'm here with my partner and father, Robert Mroy. We are the owners, operators, and developers of the proposed self- storage facility. Uh we both live locally within a few miles from the property and will be directly involved with the day-to-day oversight and maintenance of the site.
The facility will be virtually managed by us owners with no full-time employees on site. Customers will rent units online and access the property through a secured gate using individual access codes. The facility will operate daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. in
compliance uh with the ordinance. Customers will be able to drive directly up to their units for loading and unloading with four parking spaces available for longer stays if needed. From the operation standpoint, it's truly quiet use. There is no outside storage permitted. Everything must be
contained within the units and no tractor trailers will be allowed on site which will be enforced by the lease. In terms of the site management, uh trash will be minimal and handled by the tenants per their lease with a standard 95gallon container maintained by the
owners and and uh myself and my father. Security is a priority. The facility will be monitored 24/7 remote camera systems along with controlled gate access to ensure safe and secure environment. Overall, this project is designed to be clean, low traffic, and
well managed um with color tones to be neutral to fit the town. Thank you. >> Hours of operation, >> uh 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. >> And that'll be included in the terms of the tenants leases, >> correct? Yeah, it will be in the lease. >> And you said no outside storage. The
prohibition against outside storage will be included in tenant lease as well, right? Correct. Yes. Okay. Now, uh, words planner in their report had raised a question in paragraph 18. You address the first comments, um,
paragraphs 12 through 17. Um, can you confirm if you'll be selling any accessory products for or packaging for storage? >> We will sell um some packaging and locks and stuff for for storage use. >> And where is that going to be? That's going to be in the like office building.
Um, yeah. >> And that'll be a vending machine. >> Vending. Yeah. Vending machine. >> And talked about garbage. So, the leases we're going to provide, tenants cannot leave garbage or leave anything outside their units. Correct? >> Yes, that will be in the lease.
>> And the 95gallon drum you talked about, where will that be located? >> Uh, in the office. >> And that'll be for refu generated within the office only. >> Correct. And who will be responsible for dumping that and getting it out? >> Uh myself and my my father. >> Okay, good.
>> All I have to this witness if the board of professionals have any questions. >> Any questions? >> Couple questions. Are the units going to be climate controlled? >> Uh yeah, the one the one uh larger building on the site will be climate controlled.
>> Uh and for the remaining units, are they going to have electric? Uh each unit will not have electric. No. >> Okay. And um any means to prevent people from residing in the units. >> Um I think with uh the bathroom having
access control like uh individual controls to go to use the the restroom as well as the 247 monitoring and uh the you know no trash on the site I think would limit uh people from staying there. No, no lights in the units, you
know, no electric, so they couldn't like plug in or, you know, have a hot plate or something like that. >> Great. Thank you. And your lease will also, >> right? Yeah. And yes, >> you can't live in these units. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Do you anticipate allowing um or
permitting vehicles to be stored in these units? >> Um due to the size of the units, I don't I don't think a vehicle would sit uh fit in there. So no, we don't plan to to allow vehicle source, >> motorbikes, anything that would contain gasoline or oil or other types.
>> No, no, that is not the >> So no vehicles or motors, >> right? Yeah. >> Or lithium ion batteries like scooters, etc. >> Yeah, that would all be excluded per the lease. And >> so all of that would be covered in the lease. >> Yeah. Just for a quick question and then I apologize you already gave this
testimony regarding the refugees removal. >> Exactly how is how does that work? Like who has access to it? Uh do the tenants have like there's no trash enclosure. So right where is this the container you're talking about? >> So for for the uh tenants it would be
kind of take in take out for their trash that they >> So the tenants won't be using won't >> correct. Yeah, it would just be for the general maintenance of the facility and the office use like a 95 standard kind of uh trap uh trash bin. >> You're talking about like a roller one.
>> Yeah, like a Yeah, like your typical >> No, I understand. I'm just wondering is that is that typical of of the of the self storage business that that that you don't need a trash enclosure or >> Yeah. It limits from tenants being able
to kind of use it to throw out their old, you know, sofas and stuff like that. Yeah. >> So that's why you're going to keep it in in you inferred I think inside the office area, >> right? And it's small, you know, like a small trash bin. Okay.
Okay. Sorry, >> I just had one just clarification. Building number one uh includes lockers. You just >> those are those are like going to the thought is that those would be like like 3x3 or 3x5 kind of stacked up for
smaller uh storage needs of the community. >> Internal. >> Yeah. Internal. Yeah. Yeah. They call them like lockers, but they're just like really smaller smaller units. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there external access rollup doors or is there internal?
>> Yeah, the one building would be um external rollup doors and then the the other building would be internal rollup doors. >> Do the uh did the drivers have to get out of their car to use the keypad at the gate? I didn't see anything by a
driver's window or how that would work. >> Yeah, we we would we would do it so that it would have like a stand with the keypad so that they could just punch it in without having to get out. >> So, is that going to be in the middle the middle of the driveway so it's on the driver's side as they come in? Or
maybe the engineer will describe it. >> Yeah. Yeah, we can. Yeah, sir. >> That that's not depicted on the on the drawing. There's nothing in the driveway for a keypad. That's why I was wondering how the gate works. So that what we're talking about just
just to clarify what Jake can clarify himself too, but I guess I can mic the what we're talking about is typically, you know, if if you have a a keypad set up where people punch the code in, you would have to have an island in that center drive aisle, right, for the
keypad to actually sit. And that's not depicted on the plans, but that may also affect circulation for fire equipment and all that. That's why >> it's it's it's something that's kind of a concern for us or some of these places have readers and things like that. So they get very sophisticated. So I guess
the question is how do you plan on controlling access and how is that going to get incorporated into your site plan? >> We can get to it later. >> Okay. If you would like to include that in the engineers, >> right? >> Yeah. >> You don't have to address it. The >> engineer. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> There's a number of items that have been discussed so far. There may be more to come that will be very important to include in the lease as being prohibited. So, we would ask you, we would like to get a copy of that lease, that performer lease that includes all
>> We'd be happy to make that condition of approval of the board. Great. Of course. >> Thank you. We may have some I think we do have some folks from our community residents. Uh you are more than welcome to come up and ask Mr. Maroy any questions regarding his testimony. If
you have any questions regarding that and and and I'm going to ask this several times during the night with the different professionals who will testify. You can come up to the microphone, identify your name and address and ask them your questions. Okay. None right now. So let's move on
to your next witness. Thank you. >> Mr. >> Chairman, we're going to call our engineer Bill Lane from Menllo Engineering. Well, you've been sworn, but can you share with the board your education and professional licensing, please? >> Yeah. Um, I've been with Menlo
Engineering for approximately 40 years. Um, been licensed, uh, engineering state for 28. I've testified in probably front of a 100 boards out of the state of New Jersey including Ron Township not too long ago. Um worked on many of self storage projects. >> We're familiar with Mr. Wayne. So he's
acceptable to the board. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um let me start out by I guess reiterating a few things. The site's approximately 2.45 acres. Um it's currently vacant. Uh there was a house a few years ago but that was the model. It's a single family home. Um
surrounding the site is Route 202 to the west. Um there's the lot 40 uh 42 Flag Lodge Driveway just to the north and just beyond that is a commercial building uh that fronts Route 202 which is I believe uh vacant at at the current moment. Um then to the east is the
single family home that's probably about 180 200 ft back from our property line. Got that flag driveway accesses. to the south of us is the Lutheran church. That's probably about 350 ft. The building itself off the southern property line. Um what the the site lies
in the B5 zone which is the low inensity commercial zone and self storage as you know is a permitted use. Um what the applicant as you've heard is proposing a self- storage facility. Um but with three buildings. There's one large building in center of the uh property
that's 11,375 square feet. And then there's two additional buildings, one to the north, one to the south. Those are both approximately 2,300 ft². Um there's also four parking spaces just
to the uh west of building one. Uh in there, there's also a one EV spot and then one handicap spot. Um access to the site is off of 202. Uh there's also a uh adequate circulation in around the property around the large building for
pedestrians uh patron vehicles and emergency vehicles. We're also proposing a 100 foot sign out the front driveway for storm water. Uh the existing drainage there for a second. Mr. Lane, you haven't referred to either of the
exhibits yet. You're talking to things that you might want to reinforce with the exhibits. So, are you entering any of these? >> I might as well be helpful. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. >> Bill asked, "Did you bring hard copies of them?"
>> Yes. 11 by 17s. >> Just let me know which one you're referring to. I also have them to put them on the screens for everybody. What do you want to call A1? What do you want? What do you want to call A1? >> A1 is the existing conditions again.
>> Existing conditions >> and A2. >> A2 is overall plan. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thanks. Okay. Um, okay. The rendering to the left over here is
exhibit A1 which is known as ex existing conditions exhibit that shows uh the site the property and the surrounding area as well as an aerial view of what's existing today. Uh the rendering off to the right is called the overall plan
exhibit. That's A2 and that's basically the site plan. It's a combination of things that are on the site on the site plan package. A set of plans that were submitted. It shows the layout of the property, the landscaping, also a little bit of arrow in the background and its color just for to give it uh
differentiate what the buildings are, pavement and uh the greenery on the existing. What is that right north of it in block 9724? >> 24 to the north. That's a commercial. That's the empty commercial building.
>> Yes. Yeah, that's furniture. >> I'm going to continue. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, moving on to the storm water. Uh, the existing drainage pattern runs from the south to the north. Uh it flows down uh predominantly into the wetlands
pocket that's over in the northeast corner and then everything eventually ties down into the uh route 202 uh state storm sur. Uh with the proposed improvements, we're proposing a bio retention basin on the northern end of the property. Um this
will treat water quality and will uh reduce the storm quantities. Uh and we have reductions from 33% on the 100year storm uh down to 64% on the 2-year storm. Uh the all the storms will tie
into the route 202 storm source system with the exception of when we uh design for the future storm elevate storm event. A portion of the storm water will go out a discharge pipe that leads to the wetlands which is basically an overflow
line under the future 100-year storm elevation. Um the bio retention base will have approximately 105 shrubs and 175 uh ground cover plantings. For utilities, we have a septic field
behind building one to the north um as there's no uh sanitary sewer in the immediate area. Um for water service, there's an existing well in the uh southeast corner of the property that will will be utilized. And additionally, there will be a proposed underground
sistn tank uh for fire services which has been uh discussed with the fire marshall. Uh for landscaping, um we currently have 66 trees which are combination deciduous, evergreen, and ornamental and
261 shrubs. I I'm uh you referenced the sistern and I'm looking at the fire marshall's report of uh number four. He's raising the concern about the size. Is it still 2,000 gallons?
>> It's going to be increased to 15,000. >> Okay. All right. So, that is uh that is a condition of approval. Yes. >> And along with the system, there's a it calls for a hydrant on the plan. Um the hydrant wouldn't be the crack of >> Yes. We discussed that with him. We have
to we have to fix that. Yes. >> Yeah. >> He is the fireman. >> Yeah. But I'm saying we discussed it. >> Oh yeah. The sistern will hold will have water pump from the well that'll fill it up to 15,000 gallons and then there'll be a connection to it where I guess the fire truck will pull up and be able to
siphon water from the sistern not if there's a fire out there. >> Correct. Yeah. And as long as uh you're willing to comply with the design criteria, >> we're we're in good shape with that. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. For lighting, um we have a we have LED fixtures. Uh we have a combination
of raw fixtures as well as uh several light poles throughout the site. Um there's no light spillage off the property, only uh minor at the Route 202 entrance. For permits, uh, we have our Hunter County soil erosion permit which we
received in August of last year. We have our stormwater discharge permit which we received in September of last year. For Hunter County, we have conditional approval. We're just waiting for our NJD and NJ DOT approvals. Um, with the Hunter County Health Department, we have
our application in for the septic field. We're just waiting for that approval. Um, we have uh a few uh NJDP land use approvals that we're waiting on. We've had several discussions with them. Those are still pending and working through those. >> Can you explain those bill? >> Yeah.
>> What are we looking for? >> Yeah. Um there's NOI that we're still waiting for that uh the uh environmental engineer is working through with the uh with the D. Um there's a outfall permit that we need for the wetlands. So, those are the two that we're currently on
table right now that we're waiting on. Um, additionally, we have an NJ DOT access permit that we've had uh several rounds of revisions and comments from them. Um, the latest was a little bit change with the uh stormwater design.
So, that uh currently right now is we're looking at it. Uh we the retaining wall of the basin will get slightly closer to the uh route 202 rightway. Um, I prepared a sketch if that needs to be uh shown uh just for uh clarifications. Again, we've only been working on this
the last couple days as we've been going back and forth with the DOT for several months now. >> Could you show on the the rendering what you're talking about where what's DOT is asking for with the retaining wall. >> What we what's required is the the base
and size and scale are bigger. So, we needed to blow the wall out a little bit more. So we got a little bit closer to to 202. We can't really shift it further anymore to the east because we had a distance from the second field >> and then as well as our breaking from
the wetlands buffer. We can't move into there. So the only option was we actually push it a little bit more to the south and then a little bit more to the west. >> So do you know the distances because I believe you need setback. >> Yes, it's 21 ft right now. That's what
we're looking at. the the the revised plan. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um just another clarification. If if you got soil erosion and sediment control approval last year, I believe that was not this plan. >> Yeah. Once we're done with everybody,
then we'll go back to them with because they're going to want that anyway because inspections, they need that. So, >> okay. So, that approval really isn't valid. The one they gave you last year, >> what we're going to end up with. >> Okay. So you need that again. So that that was a good overview, but as
I said earlier, why don't you focus I'm going to suggest it's up to you >> going to go through each one >> to go each of the reports. >> Uh probably starting with the engineer report. That's up to Can I just go through the I guess the variance of waiverss then this way kind of sets up where where we've located everything on the property if you don't mind. I'm I'm
almost done. >> That's fine. >> Okay. Um we have a transitional buffer to the residential zone uh variance where 50 ft is required and we have 20 1/2 ft which is for that southerntherly building. Um, additionally we have a
transitional buffer to the residential use which is to the east where 75 is required and we have uh 28 feet to the proposed uh burm on the basin and 35 ft to the driveway location. Um, additionally has been pointed out that
for the stormwater basin front yard set uh 75 ft required. We're now with the modification based on the DOT um we're at 21 ft. um the retaining wall in the rear. This uh prevents us from grading into the wetlands buffer. Um 50 feet required. We
have we're proposing 28. Um additionally, the underground system tank is in the front yard setback where 75 is required. We're looking for a 50ft proposed uh setback. Um steep slopes of greater than 20% hard services where
nothing is allowed. We're proposing 592 square feet and that's basically because of the uh route 202 driveway. Anything along 202 the grade is 34 ft up. That's where the steep slopes are and we have to cut into that to provide a driveway.
So that's where anywhere along the front we're going to have to have to seek that uh variance. Um lastly on a design waiver uh the lighting average illumination to minimum illumination where 401 is required where 2.7 to1. Um, if you look at the lighting design,
everything pretty much in the parking lot is anywhere from 6 to 1.3. So, it's it's it's an adequate lighting and um it's not not overly intense. Um, with those variances and setbacks, um, I just wanted to discuss with the site improvements and where the building and
the pavement and driveways and everything fel fell out because we needed to push everything a little bit to the east and to the south. Um, one of the main reasons is the elevation difference from route 202 to the finished floor. Um, the low elevation on
the driveway is approximately uh 2 222 and our finished floor is 229. So we have a 7T grade difference to make up. There's basically a 25t flat spot as you come off of 202 and then about another 75 ft where we slope up to that
elevation 229. So that kind of pushed the building further to the rear and to the east. Um, and again, that's just the just the way the grades, if you've been out there, you could see when you're at the road, the grade the existing grade is already up right up right on the just within a couple feet of the rightway
line. Um, additionally, um, to the northeast corner, there's a wetlands buffer, wetlands and wetlands buffer that takes up about 6 acres of the site. Um, next to that we have our septic field. Um, and there's distances that
has to be from the building to the wetlands and to the stormwater basin. So, that takes up a little bit of area. And then we also have our stormwater basin, which needs to be in the northern end because that's the low end of the site. Um, so that's where that just logically goes. Um, and when you include
the the the basin, the septic field, and the wetlands, that takes up about 1.1 acres of the site. So, that's where it starts to push everything further down to the south. And that's why we're looking for relief on the uh buffers. Um it's just that's where it's leading to
it. With that, um we're looking at we're at 15% building coverage. That's what we're looking for. We're not going over. Um 15% is pretty modest. And the impervious surface coverage allowed is 35%. We're just under that at 33%. So
again, we're not looking to go over or anything like that. We're trying to be modest or it's a pretty reasonable design. We're just looking for variances on those uh buffers because that's where this this design has set this up to be. >> And I'm listening to you uh testify to the relief that that you believe the
applicant needs. And I'm looking at uh the board's planners report on page two. He calls out 1, two, three, four, five, six variances that this application needs. And I thought I heard in your testimony a variance with respect to
lighting. Did I hear you correct? design waiver. A design waiver. Okay. >> Okay. All right. >> But uh I I just had a a question about uh the steep slope uh variance. It's zero square feet of that classification. Were there was there any other analysis
that would um affect the the impervious surface because I didn't see that calculation being done. >> You're talking about for that. So, so in the township if you're disturbing um over 20% that doesn't get included
with your overall calculations and it's counted at zero. Same thing there's also a factor that's included with 13 uh% slope to to 19% slope. So I don't I don't know if you did an was there analysis being done because 30
33% that that's just based on that's that's not taken into effect the steep slopes. Correct. the reduction in the net lot area due to steep slope, right? >> Oh, no. That Yeah. Is there a reduction? No. >> Yeah. So, there's a factor that's involved for each CL classification.
>> Okay. >> And then it gets reduced to from that overall 33%. I I don't know if that's it's if you're close or or if it's have to look into it yet. No, I didn't. The exhibit they submitted with steep
slope areas shows the p the acreage correct of the original steep slope map. It has the other building on it, but it I'm just wondering the applicant might be able to pause and do the calculation to confirm if he complies or not and
demonstrate that >> they're close to 35%. >> Yeah, just just to make sure. >> Yeah, they're close to the 35% max. So, I would think they would want to check it to see if we need another variance.
Take a five minute break so Jeeoff you can explain what needs to be calculated. >> Yeah, it's a good idea. >> Jeeoff, I have the I have the map right here. Why don't we take a break? You good with that? Let's start again. Let's call it 8
o'clock. Thank you. >> Okay, we're back in session. >> So, Mr. Chairman, based on a clarification as to how we calculate maximum impervious coverage, uh, Bill will testify, uh, because based on the board's
engineer testimony, any disturbance in the steep slopes have to be subtracted from the size of the lot and then we measure the impervious coverage against the reduced lot. So, Bill, >> yeah, >> your calculation. Yeah, fortunately um when we calculate and take out those
steep slope areas from the lot area and look at a tuned purpose coverage, we're still under the 35%. >> How did you come to that calculation just >> um the roughly the disturbed area that's taken out over 20 uh% slopes that come
straight out. So that was roughly 0.05 acres. Um and then from the what was it the uh 13 to 19 um those were 50% and that was roughly another 0.1 acres. So that's another half 005 acres. So 0.1 acres came out we came up with a the
square footage of the lot was roughly like 102 uh 102,000 feet a little over almost 102,300 ft. And then with the appropriate coverage that we have we're still just about 34.4% so we're still under the 35.
Can you um provide a new steep slope analysis? >> Yes. >> Includes this. Okay. Thank you. >> I'm all good. >> So, does that conclude your overview? And yes, we'll go to the next. >> We're going to go now directly, Mr. Chair, to uh Mr. Darg's report of April
6, 2026. Uh the first couple of pages are really just a description of the application. Uh the zoning in general. Um and Mr. Dargy references the variances and waiverss on page three. Uh his general
comments begin on the bottom of three. The comments in paragraph 8 were testified to by Mr. Mroy. hours of operation, uh, trash and recycling, and anticipated employees. Um, so we're going to go, uh,
number 10. Those questions were also answered in the testimony, Mr. Mroy. So, uh, Bill, you've prepared. >> So, so let me try to stop you there. I mean, we just got found our way up to 10. Are you in agreement with everything that's here? >> Uh, they're just statements, but you're
agreeing that they're accurate >> up up to 10. Yes. So, eight, nine, and 10. We've provided the testimony answering the testimony that Mr. Jarg asked as asked and we have no objection to his comments there. >> So, does it meet? Does number nine meet?
Yes or no? >> Does number nine meet? >> Yes or no? >> Number nine. >> Yes. one more time. >> So number nine speaks to the setback of
of of the structures relative to the uh structures on adjacent properties. Uh and I guess what we're asking is if you could uh discuss whether you considered the existing structures or whe whether the location of the of the proposed structures meets that requirement.
>> Yeah. Um the the commercial building that's just to the north that's on the other side of the driveway of the flag lot that's about 45 ft off the rightway. >> The flag lot property which is behind us that's got to be you know it's like almost 200 ft off of our property line so that's probably set about like 400
ft. Um then when you go down to the church they're probably about 300 ft off the rightway. So there's an array of uh different setbacks with what's out there. Um and again the church is like 350 ft away from us. So, I'm not sure do we comply with because the the closest
commercial is 45. >> Mhm. >> And then the residential building is like 400 and then the church is like 300. So, it's you know, it's a little it's not like you're running down the road and everything's like par, you know, something to follow, >> right? I I guess that's what we're
saying is that there's the ordinance requirement and I guess we can just go through it real quick. Um the uh minimum building site shall be maintained in as in schedule one except where structures to be erected on vacant lot between two improved lots I guess.
So the first question is there you're you are in between two group lots, right? the one with the uh the church to the >> south and and then you have an existing I guess the flag lot really is the next lot over and those two those those structures are are set setback pretty
far the church and the and the house right so that would be the second part right where if a vacant lot's between two improved lots which structures are set back greater than the required setback I apologize I'm speaking too fast >> I I tend to do that if if a vacant lot
is between two improved lots upon which structures are set back greater than the required setback. The proposed structure on the vacant lot shall be set back along the average setback line of the two improved lots but in no event uh need the setback be more than 100 ft.
>> Do do we include though the flag lot property or do we go to the commercial piece? I mean either either way with the church being back like 300 feet it's already going to kick us back if we if we're averaging out what's along the rightway. Yeah, the church fronts on
>> the church fronts on Old York Road. >> Okay. So then I actually in that case then then this would not be applicable. Then if if we're if we're saying that the church frontage just counts on Old York Road, then then you're not in between two two lots of fronting. So >> I apologize for wasting the board's time
for the last five minutes. >> Rather be thorough. >> That was pretty quick getting through that language. Thank you. Um, paragraph 10, we spoke uh James Mroyy's testimony addressed those questions. So, Bill, if we could look at
paragraph 11 and I think you prepared a site safety and circulation. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I have a um fire truck circulation uh plan if that one be held out. But >> yeah, we want to see that. >> Okay. >> Let's let's address 11 with that, please.
>> Back to 10. Are are you um going to allow UPS or regular deliveries in and out into the facility or >> or will they deliver to the office >> if you go to that one?
>> No, I don't believe so. No. Okay. We can mark this as A3. >> It's a safety and circulation. >> Okay. Sorry guys, I do not have this digitally. >> That's all right. operate without Dennis. Is this the one you've seen and
reviewed? Yeah. So, I briefly was able to take a look at a smaller version of this yesterday. Um, though this the truck is uh depicted a little bit smaller than the largest truck that the township has, though this
is a dual axle and that's a dual axle. Um, >> so it's not the tower ladder. >> It's not the tower ladder. This would be uh more similar to the quint. >> Okay. point that works or the point that doesn't work right now.
>> Depends on the day. >> Yeah, exactly. >> So, could you testify to this? >> Fit the tower >> exhibit, please. >> Yeah, we would we would want them to be able to fit the tower ladder. Um, just looking at this, it it does look like there's some room to spare. Uh, I'd be
able to provide you all the turning radius and stuff for the larger of the truck. >> Okay. Um, so I would like to be able to see that and I would like to maintain the mountable curb for the uh center island. >> Yeah, the DOT is requiring that. So that
that's Yes. >> Um, the plan that's in front of you is is called the truck movement plan uh dated April 6, 2026. Um, what this depicts is a uh 35 foot long uh fire
truck. And as he comes up from the north along 202 shows him turning in the property and then circulating around uh the self the sub the large self storage building uh counterclockwise and then
coming back out the driveway onto 202. Um there's there seems to be a decent amount of room for them to be able to turn. we can adjust if we need to once we get the uh additional fire truck, but I think it'll still work plenty is we have the driveways set at 27 ft because we were anticipating to for a firet
truck to come through the parking lot should say the drive aisles >> and and you you're going to have to update this plan I guess bill for the that keypad island that we discussed earlier. >> Yeah. Um looking at this it's probably not going to work. So, there's probably
going to need some other kind of remote system out there as opposed to having a keypad down the center of the island because they'll just take it out. >> That's kind of what I was thinking. >> Yeah, >> this looks very tight. So, if just to follow on that thread
line of thinking, if the keypad in the middle isn't going to work, then there'll be you'll need to be able to pull your car safely over to be able for someone to get out to go do the pad. >> So, possibly. So there and I I don't want to speak for the applicant but my
experience with with other applications of this types there are alternate ways for for providing um tenants access to these kind of facilities. Sometimes there's a reader, sometimes there's some sort of like a remote that's that's provided so that there there are alternate ways other than getting out and typing in a keypad.
>> Okay. So, we'll need to >> Yeah. What you're gonna do >> like a a getting into an HOA or community where you have a sticker on your vehicle and it just gets red and the gate comes up. So, that we wouldn't want people getting in at night.
>> But you'll still need to have a scanner someplace. So, >> yeah. And it's a very easy way of of actually, you know, controlling access because if someone is no longer a tenant, they they deactivate that person's code and they then it doesn't work basically. >> So what I'm hearing in summary is this
plan needs to be updated to deal with the access but then also to support the larger fire truck. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Am I missing anything there? Those are the two takeaways I have. In paragraph 12, Mr. Chairman, U engineer references the site triangle is
in it. Um, and if that's appropriate, we'll certainly >> I think we we may want to revisit that. I'm looking at it right now. There's a very slight area where where the sight triangle um clips an uh an area on the within the Atkins property. And when I
say slight, we're talking maybe like two or three feet. I I don't think that's significant enough to to warrant recording an easement that you know that that probably is is not necessary. >> So you're you're withdraw. >> Yes, absolutely.
>> We were just being thorough. Paragraph 13 on the site plan, a dimension should be provided for the drive aisle. We'll certainly provide that. >> Could Could you >> and is that on an amended plan? Is that what you're looking for? Yes, that's how I'm reading it, but I just want to clarify
>> as a condition of approval. >> Is is it in fact now at least 25 ft? >> All drives are 27 ft wide. Yeah, dry balls are 27 feet wide and the parking space is um scaled to the to the proper
uh depths and dimensions. We just one of them actually dimensioned. >> And as far as maneuverability, do you have any concerns? That was the second part of that comment. Do you have any concerns about cars backing out or moving out of those spaces? >> Yeah,
>> I think we're good with that. Yeah, sometimes when when when there are when you have a when you have a corner like that, I usually try to separate it so there's some swing room. That's the only thing. Like you could possibly slide those two uh parking spaces that are perpendicular to the road maybe down a little bit to provide a little bit of
area for maneuverability. >> I could do that if that sound right, Jay. >> Yes, >> we have no objection to that. >> Okay. >> So, >> I like to step on Jay's too sometimes. >> What What is What is that condition? uh just modifying the the parking layout
such that uh there's a little bit there's more maneuverability provided and they'll work with Jay and and my office to do that. >> Is that 15? >> That is comment number 15. Yes, 15B. >> Okay. and 15A. We'll we'll certainly dimension
the parking spaces as you requested. >> Bill, if we can go to paragraph 16. >> Yeah. I mean, we could simply just slide the uh EV charger about 2 feet from the curb face. >> Yeah. And then there's some signage and striping and all that. So, we need those details. Okay. On the on the plan, that's all.
uh 17. Uh you're asking for some additional dimension dimensions and we'll certainly provide those as well. >> Correct. >> Now, Bill, we have a concrete pad south of the drive aisle. That's for the sister. >> That's the sister. Correct. >> Yeah. As far and that that system is the
15,000galon tank. It's the plan obviously depicted a 2,000gallon tank. Fire marsh asked for for larger capacity. So, you're going to provide that uh and we'll need the act the construction detail. I think the detail that was provided before was really I guess it's a manufacturer cut sheet on the on the dimensions of the tank which
is helpful but we actually need a construction detail that shows the strapping and if there's anchoring required and all that so a little bit more robust >> detailing especially now that we we have a much larger tank the buoyancy becomes kind of a concern okay for me as well I mean we don't have to have an indication
of exactly where groundwater is because I know you guys hit refusal on a lot of your yeah your test fits um so just some additional information on that okay >> and I would need a copy of that as well just to ensure that it meets the township standard. Um you likely might
not even have to put in that concrete pad over top of it. Uh generally I don't see the sistns installed with a concrete pad on top of them like that. Okay. Paragraph 19 will provide further labeling and a detail be noted with
respect to the uh other wall referenced in paragraph 19. >> Yeah. Yeah. It looks like you're using I guess the the wall of the building the back wall of the building as a retaining wall, right? You have there's some fill up against it. Is that correct? >> Yeah. The the site slopes from the south to the north. So in order to help with
the grading, the back of the building we made as a retaining wall. So it'll probably be sunk four or 5 ft into the ground and then the building will be whatever needs four, five, six feet above that. So that that'll hold back the earth as opposed to >> y >> you know cutting further into the grain back there.
>> Perfect. So that's kind of what what obviously we thought as well. We just would need a detail of that like a construction detail of exactly how that that's getting done. >> Okay. 20 is the 20. >> A tough time with all those initials.
>> This this how we make our money. Put a whole bunch of acronyms in and like a decoder ring. >> 21. We'll make the notes on the plan as requested. We'll provide in 22 the additional spot grades for the ADA parking to confirm we comply.
>> Correct. So, number 23, uh, the the conservation easement. Uh, I know that I didn't hear about 22V. I apologize. >> Yeah, 22V wasn't, uh, I heard about, uh, so that you'll agree to that, too? >> We absolutely will. >> Yep. At the door. Yes. >> Yeah, that's a good point.
>> Thanks. >> Um, so with regards to 23, it the conservation is not an existing conservation reason e. You're proposing a conservation as required by the town ordinance. Um but you are proposing to
uh construct this scour hole for the the future storm discharge. >> Yes. >> Into the into the buffer which you're the D you know permit for it and you said you applied for a D permit. Uh what I would recommend is that that conservation ement actually go around that scour hole. >> Okay. >> And maybe allow some space as long as
and that's something we've done in the past like we our preference would be to maybe pull it out of there but sometimes stability is a problem. So what we don't want is for you to get a permit uh for the scour hole and then have a conservation ement recorded that either you know once it's once it's built you
can't maintain. Right. So what we'd prefer is for you to actually carve the carve the scour hole out of that conservation ement leaving some room as well for maintenance. Maintenance. Okay. One sec. No problem.
>> 27. We don't have any objection to the comment. >> 28 will remove as A3 does not connect to A13. Yeah, a lot of our comments are are are detailed kind of comments about you know either some drafting issue or just some
detailed design comments. So as long as the applicant agrees I don't unless the board wants me to discuss the items I you know I think I'm okay with >> clear. Yeah. >> Yeah. 29 we can provide a larger manhole since there's a lot going on into that. >> Yeah.
>> 30 provide additional data referenced in paragraph 30 uh 31. As Bill testified we're currently before Hunter County Health Department on the septic. Yep. >> Yes. >> The well is shown on the plan.
>> So 32 and 33 are talking about the actual service lines where where they're running from the well to the to the building and from the building to the septic. So we just want to see where that those are going to be on the >> We'll add those. Okay. >> 34. Bill, could you talk about the
constructibility of the proposed retaining wall along conservation eastering any grading into the uh >> I'm sorry, could I interrupt? Could you please show the retaining wall that this references so the board knows which one
it is on the plan >> where the wetlands buffer is where it curves around the rear property line, there's a there's a wall that curves about 50 ft long. Okay. about how high >> it gets up to about three and a half
feet at the highest because as we come around the bend um rates up a little bit so and then it takes resol >> so the question is how do you construct that without disrupting the buffer >> right I mean and it is on the
I'll say luckily uh the way that this grades out it's the high side is away from the buffer so there is a possibility that that can happen. But we the answer I think that that at least I'm looking for is that that conservation easement will be will be staked out with a a construction fence
and not just silk fence, right? Some something that'll that'll be a a harder more um robust protection for that conservation easement so that so that we don't have um during the construction process that that fence being sort of disrespected.
>> Okay. That's and I think we can manage that based off the way that the grading is is is proposed. Um, Mr. Chairman, I think that can be done uh with with some care and I think that fence would ensure that care. >> You're in agreement with objection to that.
>> We'll submit it to the engineer for review and approval. >> Okay. John. >> Yeah. And and and Mr. Lane, that did I do I remember that that construction fence is super silk fence? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I mean that's that's certainly a big help too because that has the chain link embedded in it, >> right? That's that's what I'm getting.
>> And that's and that's so that would be in the in the past where the walls have fallen as Mr. Gari said on the downhill side on these uh uh uh interlocking block walls there's really no need to disturb >> right
>> on the down not that there's no there's no need >> thank you say it can be done as long as long as that line is is is delineated >> and and respected that's that's uh when when the slope is on the when the fence
is on the up upstream um ups slope Uh if we go to page six, storm water management. I think the engineer indicates that we've met all the requirements. >> 35 is just stating compliance. It's correct. >> Okay, good. And 36. I don't think we have any
disagreement with the BMP manual. >> Yeah, we're good with those. >> Comply with that. Um 37 the operation maintenance manual proposed deed restriction. Uh I would prepare that for the engineer and the
board attorney's approval. >> A township attorney. >> Township attorney. >> Correct. We'll do and we'll provide in 37B all items required and including final aspect plans and details for the
stormwater faculties or facilities. We'll show the 9-in orifice and noted in the stormwater report but not depicted on the grading plan. We'll add that. >> That's the one I mentioned that has the takes the 100 year overflow. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And I I noticed that and it
actually is labeled. So I think we're good. >> Yeah. It's a little difficult because it's bifrocated from the out of the control structure. So >> So 38's addressed. >> 38 uh is addressed. Yes. >> It's a unique and creative design. >> 39. We have no objection. We'll comply. Number 40, we have no objection. We'll
comply. 41. >> Correct. Yes. >> Yep. We'll correct that. 41 42 details. We'll provide the additional details in 42 A through F. 43 A throughI will provide a detail of
that as well. Uh and as I think Bill testified earlier in the approval permits approvals and permits uh we have several of them as he indicated and the restroom process >> and I have a standard outside agency >> addition of approval of course and we
>> um Bill let's go back to the planners report just want to clear up a couple issues raised paragraph 16 orary ratio is at 15% that's correct correct That's our maximum. >> Yes.
>> Where we're at. Okay. And what number 17? Um, we'll add the total area of the easement and we'll provide the local locations and details of the township easement sign and cap pins as well.
Um, Bill, if you turn to paragraph 19 of the planners report. >> Actually, can you go back to number 14? Wait 14 of the planners report. >> I guess I'm wondering why number 12. Do
we have updated floor plans? >> No, we don't. >> We will provide them >> generally. >> I mean, >> yeah, >> generally we see them as part of the application. >> There's a lot here that needs to be seen. and ultralizes.
>> Do you have the floor plans? If not, I brought extra copies of them by 17. So, if you want to hand them out. >> No. >> Yeah, we we never got them. We got the initial layout plans, but then when you resubmitted for the new layout, there were never there was >> the updated plans weren't provided to the office.
>> Would you like me to hand those out? >> It's up to the board. I >> I did send you those with the with the with the renderings. >> Yes. And you have renderings as well. >> I have the digital copies of it that I could put up on the TVs, but I'm going
to leave the uh final determination to Ed and Joe if they want them to pass it out now to review. >> So, you haven't seen any of this, right? >> No, that's kind of >> Yeah, >> there's a lot here to look at. >> There's a lot to look at.
>> So, that's an outstanding Yeah. I think we've covered everything else on that page if that's okay. >> So 14 you agree 14 will fix that. >> Okay. >> Uh I think paragraph 18 was addressed by James Maroy and the uh accessory
>> 14 please. >> 14. >> You kind of jumped over 14. >> Yeah we we >> 14 we will correct. Yes. But what does that do to your compliances if you now show the correct line? >> Is the line >> I think the lines are on the plan but they they don't have them
>> uh corrected. So >> one of the buffer lines ties into the setback line. It's just correct work. I'm sorry. >> There's nothing incorrect. It's nothing changes. It's just the line work on the plan was just tied in to wrong. Let set the buffer line turned the setback line where the buffer line should have turned
into the buffer line. totally lost it. >> It doesn't show. So, one of the buffer there's two sets of um setback envelopes and so they miss they put the 50 foot where it should be 75 foot. So, it doesn't show the full picture. The the
lines are there but it it's not correct. >> See it again >> if you >> So, how does that >> everything being built within these buffers and setbacks? >> Because they they show they show that the setback is compliant. So they have a
tie-in setback showing that it's that it's okay. >> Wait, you're asking for you're asking for variance. It's not Jeffrey. Is it on that? >> See, that's why this is so important because of the variances. >> If it's on that, grab that and go up to that.
There's no >> take that and go up to them. the application backs up. This is what they have and then this is what they should have. disconnects. >> So, what is the actual being asked for?
>> Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Tina, are you actually taking this? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm just making sure I don't want I just want to let you know when all of you talk, I just take one person. That's the person without it. >> So, that's usually me then, right? 50 foot is required for the rear yard
setback and 75 foot is required for the transition buffer. He just they just didn't show the connection from the 20 foot sideyard setback to the 50 foot side three yard setback even though it
it remains it's just the setbacks are shown. >> Okay. But building three is within all of those setbacks. Yeah, there's no variances for the setbacks. It's just the transition areas. >> I would think building three would be >> building three is entirely within
>> Yeah, >> the setback. >> It's a 20 foot set. It's 20 foot >> 75 foot. It's a transition. It's not a It's designer. >> So there's design. Okay. So it's not the
>> Got it. >> It's still a bus. >> Okay. So just so I'm clear the sideyard set back to building three and they're showing 20. So the rear yard set back to building three
is 50 ft and you're showing 55.2. So that >> so no variance there. >> So it's not transition. explain it. >> That's the That's the buffer, the landscaping buffer.
>> So, it has nothing to do with like structures being built within it or pavement going in it, any of that stuff. >> Yeah. No, but they didn't they didn't show the 50 foot step back connecting the really it's a detail.
>> Is there a variance at all in any of this? There are designs for the transition >> but the buildings are in conformance with the setback requirements from the rear yard and side yard.
>> Yes. >> But from the front yard are they? >> Yes. 75 is minimum. Building three, the long skinny one in the south. That's just past 75. The other two buildings are more than 100 ft.
>> Sorry for thatusion. >> Which one's the varian? >> No, but there was a variance. Which one is that? >> It's the the variances the exceptions are asking for related to the transitional buffer yard. >> No, those are the design reasons.
>> Those are exceptions. there. Oh, the steep flow steep flow. That was a very Yes, that's what we got. Okay, >> that was very helpful. >> Okay, while everybody was talking, I I just I just want to jump in here. Um I
have counted specifically as as we stand right now, this application has 57 conditions that I would have to include in the resolution. We have not gotten to the landscape
architect >> or or traffic. No, that's including planning and fire. So, I've looked at the fire. There's six conditions for fire. There's six conditions in planning. There are 44 conditions in the engineer report and we haven't even
started. I I can tell you right now, I have no problem drafting resolutions. I'm uncomfortable with drafting a resolution that's going to have over 75 conditions. To me that calls out that this application is not ready to be considered and that it needs to be
revised and resubmitted. I mean it's going to be a 75page like resolution. >> Yeah, there's a lot that again a lot >> we didn't have a lot of detail provided etc. And that's what I'm also hearing. >> Would it would it make sense Mr. Chair
to stop now revise and resubmit or >> Well, I don't know. I to me everybody else can jump in. We have the benefit of the rest of Jeff's report and we certainly have very important items in John Morgan Thomas's report on the
landscaping that really need to be talked about. >> So I would like to not move forward. >> Let's let's do that this evening >> and encompass this in the overall plan redo that you have to do >> and then whatever is submitted will be much cleaner and easier. The reality is
when you then go to pull >> your compliance resolution and your it'll be simple. >> Absolutely. >> We'll make it easier by spending more time tonight. >> Yes. >> Good. That's how I That's why I asked.
>> Um so then going to the final page of uh Mr. Marella's report. Uh James testified to paragraph 18. Uh paragraph 19. Um, can you just talk about the EV station, whether it's proposed as installation or
make ready, and maybe explain what that means? >> You want to put it in? Yeah. Yeah, it's going to be installed. >> Uh, paragraph 20. We're not proposing any other signage other than that which is shown on the plans. >> No, no directionary wall signs.
>> None proposed. >> Okay. Thank you. None for take your own garbage home. >> I'm sorry. >> No signs saying make sure you take your garbage home. >> Their lease will say it. It's a contract. You know what we do with signs? We say sure. >> Yeah.
>> When I made that illegal U-turn to get here tonight, I did that. >> They'll probably just have numbers. >> Did I say that on the record? >> Yes, you did. >> They'll probably have just numbers at each unit, but I don't know if that's considered a sign. Just a number. >> That's fine. >> Okay.
Um, we were proposing in 21 concrete curbing. Um, and we would hope the board would be okay with that rather than the Belgium block. >> Is there could you provide some context
or reasoning? I it's not really truly a cost consideration and >> we'll we'll follow the board's lead on that if >> you mean is is >> I put it in my report because it's it's actually defined in our ordinance that
this is this is a township standard that all >> uh commercial sites really do abide by. I don't I don't remember. >> Well, if that's how it's >> Yeah, it's divine. This is the township we should go with. >> We love Belgium. >> Uh paragraph 22 that goes back to the
trash we spoke about. >> Uh 23 the 100 health health department we agree with. Uh 24 and 25 our synographers here. We provided the PDF to Taylor in advance. So, um I think
if we could just turn to fire the fire report and just address we covered most of the issues. Um number one, the Knox gate switch or the Knox 3200 key box.
>> We'll add that. Uh we already acknowledge we'll put the mountable curb paragraph two. We're going to work with fire marshall on the turning template with the larger truck. Uh we've already acknowledged the 15,000 gallons will of
course meet this municipal standards. Um and six I think we already spoke uh that we're not using a fire hydrant but the sistern instead and we'll look at the question of whether we need the concrete path and if you don't think it's necessary we'll remove it.
>> Great. So Dennis, just to make educate me. Yeah. So the truck hooks up to the sistn and the pump is pumping the water out. Doesn't require any water pressure. >> Correct. So with the sistern, you would have a suction pipe where the truck
would be able to suck water out from. Um with a pressurized water source like a city water mane, you would have a fire hydrant. Um you just wouldn't be drafting using a fire hydrant to to draft or or suck water out. Do they need the pump on site or is the pump?
>> No, the pump is in the truck on the truck. >> Yeah, they're just supplying the water supply. >> Michelle, she couldn't hear. >> Sorry, I asked if this pump needed to be on site or if it was in the truck. And he answered in the truck.
>> So, the sistern is obviously important on for that day that you show up. >> Right. >> Who's making sure that that sist is full? >> So, the is that regular maintenance? It's like level gauge um as part of the design for the >> sistern and that would show the water
level of the tank and it would be the property owner's responsibility in this case it would be the property owner's responsibility to maintain their tank. >> Got it. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. We're going to turn to to John's uh landscape report address those
questions. There's also agency reviews, other agenc Yep. We're going to get to those next. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Before you start to address the individual items, Bill, could you just
give a a a little description of the vegetation on the site because I don't think you covered that in your introduction. And it's because it speaks to not only the buffer, but woodland management and so forth. And if you could maybe have um uh if we could pull
up that original existing conditions exhibit because I think it's helpful to to look at that while you're describing the woodland the characteristics of the site >> because quite frankly when you look at
it's it's this plan that was up >> A1 honestly for the board if they hadn't looked at this you look you look at the exhibit and it looks like the site's entirely wooded and I just would like to
address that prior to addressing my >> Yeah, there there are several large trees. Um it's more individual trees in and around the site. They have pretty good canopies. Um, you can see there's a really good uh tree uh gathering on the
south side on the on the church property and then also uh just to the east on the neighboring property where the single family home is. Um, but like I said, there's there's several trees in and around. Um, there's decent amount that in the wetlands buffer area. Um, but you
know, majority of the stuff's being removed in around for our improvements. Uh and and it's your testimony and I think it's reflected on the plan that uh there's no issue with woodland removal because in in your opinion there is
nothing that meets the criteria for woodland under our ordinance. Is that is that correct? And why and why is that? >> Correct. Yeah. cuz it's it's more sporadic on the site as opposed to a gathering of trees like there are like I said on the neighboring properties whereas you can kind of see across the street there's a lot of sporadic uh
empty area in on the property from the tree canopy >> and and I'm not and I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that when you when you look at these aerials, you would you would ask like what's going on and and also just the the uh I guess that would
be the northeast corner of the site where the where the uh the uh that are the delineated wetlands that's actually fairly open in that back corner. >> Yeah, in the wetlands it is in the buffer there's more plantings than in the wetlands itself. >> Okay, thank you. You could go ahead but
I just wanted to for for background. Thank you. >> Okay. That's not a woodland. Yeah. So, we're on page two of John's report, paragraph 2, tree protection. John
indicates there is a detail provided for protection, but the tree protection fence has not been located. We'll certainly add that, make that 58 on the list. We'll also comply with the next paragraph
with respect to delineation of tree protection. All right. and and compliance. That's that's basically um in this case the it it wasn't exactly labeled on the plan, but it was uh the limit of
disturbance is shown on the property line and the limit of grading is is inbound of that. So unless Mr. Gargy has an objection, I think the the limit of disturbance should be that limit of grading because it has a big impact on
the large trees that are on the property. >> Yes. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. >> John, are you concerned? I mean, there's some pretty big trees along the property line. Are they in fact going to be killed because of the construction of
that building number three? >> They're they're they they're going to be impacted. If the limit of dis if if the limit of disturbance remains on the property line, they would probably be killed and they would and and some of them are kind
of are they on the property line on the subject property line or just on the neighbor's property line is is part of part of the issue here. I think if the the limit of grading is used and respected as the limit of disturbance,
then I I think we're okay with the exception of the tree that's in the kind of in closest to the northeast corner. And what I'm asking for there is basically that the grading plane be modified to get the disturbance out of the root zone of that tree. So that
might require the construction of an additional retaining wall or or something because the the disturbance shown on that tree is is pretty close to 50% and that that tree would be gone. >> And that would be a lot of trees to replace
>> and and that's another you know and and again when we get above 24 in it's an inch per inch caliper replacement and that was another that's another comment further down the line. So uh again there's there's nothing to uh uh trees
may be removed but then they have to be replaced on a caliber per inch caliber per inch basis under the so that's >> yeah and we we we looked at some of these trees to try to bring back the grading or make it comply especially that 29 inch wet that's closer to 20 202 we can we can modify that grading to
work. Uh, you know, we'll have to get creative with the with the 40 inch. Um, but we will we'll modify the grading to try to keep the the root systems from being disturbed. >> Okay. And I and what I requested was specifically no more than 20%. So, you should be able to work to that.
>> Okay. >> Is that correct? You'll be able to >> Yes. >> meet that requirement. Thank you. Yeah. >> And and again, I know like in the past, we'll work with you if there's an issue, we'll have to discuss it and provide the additional replacement trees. Okay. So, that gets us up to three, I
guess. >> Up to number three. Tree replacement. >> Yes. Yeah. If we if we have to remove, then we have to replace. So, we're going to comply with tree replacement windows to the extent trees are removed, we have to
comply. And that's that just has to do with the the the basically the calculation and I think you were kind of using the last iteration of the ordinance where uh and now we're we're requiring it's a combination of the state ordinance and
the and the uh and our ordinance that always required the replacement of the specimen trees in a caliper inch. So that just ups the number of replacement trees. >> So John, that would that whole calculation needs to be redone then? correct
>> to the new ordinance. Okay, >> it's it's correct on the smaller trees. Once you get to the 24 in category, that wasn't calculated correctly. So, that has to be recalculated and I think we gave an approximate amount there, but
that that needs to be recalculated. John, did you do a recalculation on your estimate of what that would be? >> And and and is there going to be enough room to put those additional trees? >> U I I we did we did recalculate. I'm just
checking checking the number here. it and there the short answer is there's not enough room on this site to do all the replanting. There's uh there's some open areas between the canopies of the existing tree in the transition area.
There was no proposed planting. So that would be the first choice. And then the second choice would be to those trees would be planted by the applicant on the township open space parcels. We've developed a plan for a lot of the different open space parcels. So, we'll
be able to say this is where we'd like trees to be planted. >> That's it. Thanks for that. >> Your buffer plantings will increase as you uh stated in the letter. Yes. >> What did you just I I
>> The microphone is >> I didn't understand what you said. I apologize. >> Yeah. Um John's asking for additional buffering um in in the in the uh we're asking for the exceptions on the on the uh buffers. So we're going to provide
the additional plantings in those areas. >> Are you going to increase your buffer width to what's required? >> Not the width. will increase the amount of plantings we put in there. >> And can you explain, Bill, why we can't comply with the 50-ft buffer?
>> Yeah. I mean, as I mentioned earlier with where the site falls out because of what's on the northern end and what we have to propose there with the septic and the basin and we have the conservation easement and then of course with the driveway coming in, it kind of shifted everything towards the rear. Um, so that's why we're asking for a little
bit of relief and we'll provide additional plantings or whatever we need to to uh to screen it from the neighboring properties. >> And I think he Bill testified earlier that the neighboring property which is the church >> Yes, the church >> is approximately 3 or 350 ft south of
the site. So when we buffer, we buffer to protect the neighbor and there's already a natural 350 foot buffer. So, I think you said to me, Bill, that it's unlikely that the church will even see this structure. Is that correct? >> Yeah, because the grade keeps sloping
down and we're already putting the first building sunk into the ground four or 5 ft. And these buildings are only one story. They're not big over intrusive buildings. Uh they're one stories. Uh there's a pretty good uh buffer planting as you can see on the existing conditions plan to the south of us. So,
they do have a pretty built-in screen right now on their property. I just want to comment the yes the church is 300 something feet away but we don't know what will be built on that site in the future. They could knock
down the church and build some houses up closer. I don't know. But so we need to do whatever we can on your site to accommodate the other properties around you. >> Hence the buffers. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, it may be far away, but it's
still needed because you can't guarantee what anybody's going to build. >> That's why we have the buffer set at what we have it set at. >> The buffer set at what they're at. It's a pretty substantial difference.
And and could you talk also about the So that's the that's the uh I'll call it the southern property line adjacent to the church on the eastern property line. That's a residential I mean it's a commercial
zone. However, it is a residential use and then the same buffer applies uh to the residential use and there's an existing residential use on that property. So again, that's the the
>> the buffer zones and planting apply to both residential zones and residential uses. Do they have the ability to add more in that against that easterly lot line?
>> I I get I guess if we had a maybe if we had a plan that was that everybody could see. I mean there's there between the between the back of I believe building one. >> Which one? Which one you want on the screen? Um I actually the
>> bless you >> the >> A2 >> overall plan exhibit >> is probably as good as >> A2. Take two. >> Okay. So, so on the southernly southerntherly boundary that's the space
where there's there's uh the distance between the property line and the back of building one is what's that is that 20.5 >> building three I'm sorry
>> 20.5 feet and again 50 feet is required and I think I pointed out that the ordinance does have an allowance that you can reduce the buffer width up to 50%. If you increase the
planting or the buffering of >> Okay. So, they still don't make it. >> And so, they we're we're below 50%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's and um and the buffer on the eastern side. Um and there are a
couple things there. I mean, there's, as you can see on the exhibit, there's a narrow planting strip, and at that point, there's a I'll say a hill going up to the level of the >> uh and I think there's the wall in
there. So, there's certainly more space available for planting there. The fence that's proposed around the property is actually at the bottom of that slope. Um, and I think uh I don't know whether there's a reason for that, but if the
fence was at the top of the slope, we'd have a lot more space to utilize for planting. Uh, and unless unless there's testimony to the contrary. So, there's space there. There's also space in the
transition area, which is hard to see on this plan. There's another 75 ft along the property line that could be planted as a buffer. And the only restriction there is that planting would have to be native because of the these regulations.
But we could still put evergreens. >> But that's where the pavement is. So you can't plant anything at >> date. >> I'm I'm >> so I mean we're still not anywhere near the required width. I'm just saying there's there's there's a very narrow
planting strip proposed and there's there's >> I don't know what that distance is. There's I think we might get up to the 25 ft between the property lines and what's where there's no planting shown
at all is within the transition area and that's where things start to open up between this property and the adjacent residents. >> So that's another area that could be could be planted.
That's what's available given the existing site plan that's before us, >> right? >> But but it's still significantly less than the transition areas that are required. >> Yeah. I mean, both exceptions, one is at
41% compliance at 20.5 ft versus 50 required, and the other is at 35% at 26.3 with a 75 ft requirement. So, I guess I'm looking at the design and it just feels like building three is the
problem in the design because without building three, you'd have better turning radius for the apparatus for the fire truck. We wouldn't be having as many problems with how significant the difference is. I mean, it if it was 75 ft and you were saying, "Well, we're at
55 ft. That's one thing." But it's 26 feet out of a requested 75 and a 20 feet out of 50. that that's significantly different. >> Yeah. I mean, we we again, we'd love to center this more and push it down to the north and to the east, but as I
described, we we need a driveway to bring everything up. So, that kind of pushed it back and then again, we need we need the basin on the northern side and we have the wetlands and the septic system that kind of this and again, it's this is what we're looking to it's sliding stuff back. >> Yeah. Your response is a movement of
what you've designed. My point is the design itself. If you look at building three, it's really the thing that if you removed it would make all things much easier and compliant. Well, I think building one or building two also has
because it has a big paved area all the way around it, which I'm guessing is needed for >> which I'm guessing is needed for fire trucks and all kinds of sight circulation, which we're not even sure the larger apparatus will fit until we see. Right.
>> Yeah, it's fairly close. Um, but I would have to see larger. >> Yeah. I just think the overall size of what you're trying to just shift around isn't working.
Like maybe you have to rethink how you're laying this out again. I mean, I know you already did it once, but maybe it's a two-story building instead of, you know, like a smaller footprint, >> right? >> We'll certainly look at that and see if
we can improve that. And I'd also like to just see some there's only been kind of a general discussion about visibility of this facility from the adjacent >> residents in particular. >> Yeah.
>> So I kind of like to hear that too >> as part of the evaluation especially the buffer screen planting that's going to be. So would a would it be it might be helpful to the board to have a perspective drawing that says
this is the elevation of a residence next door and this is the existing vegetation and this is kind of what's proposed on the property. I mean, we've had that for other Yeah, >> we we have had that for for other and and it's and it's important in evaluating screening, but part of this
is part of it the the the the buffer distance and part of it is how well >> does it >> does it screen >> a commercial use from a residential. So, that's sort of the >> just so I'm clear, the buildings in the paved area, they're
higher and everything slows down off of them. Am I correct? Like I'm just trying to get threedimensional here. >> That's what we're missing. Yeah. >> So everything like from the pavement curve slopes down and away
>> or is that sloping up to the property? >> So I think down to the north. >> The property slopes from from the south to the north. So everything's sloping down towards like the septic system, the wetlands, the basin area. So that long thin building
>> at the bottom building three >> is actually sunk in the ground a few feet. >> Okay. So that's the bottom. What's going on like in this area? Is it going this way? Is up. >> It all flows actually towards the north.
>> Yeah. Exactly. This is the high up here. So we need to see perspective. Donna, you were suggesting we get some sort of perspectives. >> Yeah. I mean, we >> we've done it before. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. And I think it just is helpful. Um especially when the amount of
concerns about the buffer compliance. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You know, what what are things going to look like and is it really going to do what we want or do we need bigger and less or Right. >> Building. >> Yeah. Yeah. I remember being concerned with the warehouse property making sure
that but yes for >> many of many of these commercial we have Yeah. >> Many others. >> Almost all. I think >> almost almost >> we have Yeah. >> And I mean the the uh the tractor supply facility not too far up the street had
very similar. >> Yes. >> Which I which I I think Mr. Lane's office might have worked on. This has been some time ago. Uh but uh uh >> we did a lot. >> It it has it has significant buffers in kind of similar condition significant
planting buffers in kind of similar conditions where we had adjacent residences in business zones. What I'd like to do, we've covered a lot of ground and I'm not Mr. Lane, I'm sure you're not done, but we've covered the engineer report. We've covered parts of
the planners report. We've certainly covered the landscape report. And John, thank you for all that that great detail on that. We have residents that are here. So, I'd like to take a pause and do and offer them the opportunity to come on up to the
microphone, introduce yourself, your name and address, and ask Mr. Lane any questions you have about his testimony. So, again, it has to be your questions have to pertain to Mr. Lane's testimony over the last hour or so or more at this
point. So, if you have any questions, now's your time to come on up and ask away. And then we're going to go back to Mr. Lane on other things we haven't yet covered. Right. >> And you don't have to give your actual address anymore. Just at least state if
you're a resident of the township. >> Good good evening everyone. >> Good evening. >> My name is Father Arthur Restia. I'm here with my nephew Angela Toro who's co-owner of the property at 16 >> Highway 202. >> And just before just make sure, do you know how to spell that? >> No, I was going to ask you.
>> Okay. >> In Australia. M A S T R O L I A. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our concerns. I did send a a written
statement into the board. Hopefully members received that a couple of days ago. >> No, I I will just state for the record and I will provide you also. We do have a brochure online that gives a brief explanation on how members of the public
can participate in hearings and unfortunately per the municipal land use law any type of correspondence letters that are addressed to the board they do not go to the board. You have to be here present to ask any questions of any
testimony that's provided or to provide any comments at the designated time by the chairperson. Understood. That being the case, can I submit two documents to board members to see? >> No. F. First of all, now is not the time for testimony. It is only to ask
questions. >> Yes, >> you can. You can testify and and and I don't know what the document is. You may or may not be able to submit it, but that would be after you would be sworn in and subject to cross-examination. But
now is not the time for that. It's just to ask this gentleman questions. Questions only. Well, the questions that we have really are related to everything you've been speaking about this evening and our biggest concern and thanks to the board for for uh being uh being concerned about it as well are the
buffers since some of the buffers uh have are being considered to be reduced uh especially along the um our property sits to the north and east. It's that residential uh home that you spoke about. And uh we have all along the
northern border of the proposed development, we have a dirt driveway that accesses our home in the back. Um and I'm sure that's going to be affected by by construction uh uh projects. Um,
so we have a concern about about perhaps the need to um black top that that driveway. Uh, and then of course uh the buffering with the uh shrubbery and the trees along the eastern border uh
specifically in the area of the wetlands there where there is no shrubbery uh listed in the design. So, while we're we're not at all against uh your project, we just want to be sure that I think is what what Mr. Thomas uh was
referring to the um the question of the buffer. So, I guess the question is as long as you can um let us know that you're you're concerned about that too, you know, we'll be fine with going ahead with your going ahead with the project and we're certainly not opposed to it. >> Thank you. and we are going to rework
the buffering and submit them to landscape architect and bring them back on our rep presentation. So you'll have an opportunity to see them make sure we've done that. We know the board's concerned, their team is concerned. So we're going to solve for that. >> Thank you. Thank you ladies and
gentlemen. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. When you say look at the buffering, is that inclusive of design change or >> we're going to look at everything and see if there's something we can how best to address the concerns that that you guys have clearly laid out.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Good evening. >> My name is Paul. I'm here with Pat. Um we were designated volunteers from Living Waters, uh the church in question that's at the property. Um the challenge
that we're faced with, just so everybody knows here, if something goes down for the next couple years, everybody's going to be complaining about those buildings that we couldn't see before. We couldn't see we had this beautiful line of property. You know, we can see here a
little bit from 202, you know, but where we're on, our address is on Old York Road. Um, so our suggestion would be is once we get this finalized, we'd like to do a lockabout. >> I'm going to interrupt you and ask you
put this in the in the context of a question. >> Could we schedule, sir, a walkabout? >> Sound like Jeopardy. >> As as you get these these plans get finalized that we can stand in our parking lot, a couple of us from the
church, and say, "Here's where this is going to be. Here's where it's going to lie and here's what you're going to see. Okay? >> Because what's going to happen if we can do that anytime. >> We'd be happy to have you. >> Perfect. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. And we we'll arrange the timing. We'll do it. But just so as we
get questions from the congregation, >> you know, how could you then? No, we did a walkabout. This is what we saw. >> Okay. And some of the things we talked about tonight in terms of direct question um no vehicles in the units. I I understand that, but I understand why
people are, you know, me putting in my my moped or my bike with a lithium battery. Who's going to know that? And all of a sudden there's a fire on the property and the congregation's looking like what? So that's what I would suggest and we we are available um to do
that and look forward to continuing this project. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, with that I'll put it back to you because I know you have additional testimony from Mr. Lane. Okay, I think we covered Mr. Varela's report though,
so I think we're through that. You good with that? I think we're through Mr. Dargy's report. >> Microphone. Yeah, >> agency are attached. I think you should address Okay. >> Yep. Um, we've gone through John John's report
adequately subject to additional work. Um, >> so we have the environmental commission. >> Okay. So, yes, let's start >> with the environmental commission. >> Bill, let's start with you have. >> So, number one, this discharge pipe and
scour hole towards the wetlands. If you could speak to that, that's for the 100redyear storm. Is that correct? >> Yes, for the future 100ear storm. >> So, if you can explain that again so we can address that specific question. it it's just an additional outflow because
once the future honeyear storm uh gets built up, we used a bifurcated system. So no more than what's being proposed into the state system. Um we're sending some of it to the wetlands and it's only under that 100year storm. It's
basically an overflow line for the future design. Anything currently? Nothing's going out that line. Okay. >> Can I ask a question real quick before you keep going? Um, so it's your testimony that that's allowed. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's what the clarification I
needed. >> One other thing real real quick. I I just want when you say future 100 year storm, can you explain what what what that's about, Bill? Because it's not proposed condition one year storm that there's a a design storm, current one hurt your year, your design storm, and
then the future one hurt your design storm. >> Yeah. The D came out with numbers that you design your basin to to today's current rainfalls and then they predicted in the future they go up significantly. So you have to also have to design to that and give adequate additional volume in your basin or
outflow from that. So you have to design the voltage slow zones. So basically what it's doing is any detention basin nowadays that's designed is overly designed just in case we get much larger storms in the future. >> Yeah. It's essentially the D's answer to when folks say,
>> you know, we're getting more and more, you know, intense rain events. Uh the intention for that that requirement now is there's a factor by which you actually increase the current 100-year storm uh flow or storm um
uh volume uh by a certain factor to account for climate change and so on so forth for a future uh storm intensity which goes out to 100 years in the future. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
>> So, paragraph two, Bill, if you just address that. >> Yeah, we currently have a uh wetlands application with the D for GP11 on that outfall. >> And number three, discharge the DOT inlet. And that's an application we have or is in the process.
>> We are in the process the DOT. >> Okay. um will include the areas of regrading in the storm water calculations. Uh the LOI is bill testified is in process. Number six, can you talk to that bill?
The multiple smaller green infrastructure. Yeah, nowadays the D requires you to have no more than 2 and 12 acres to any kind of uh water quality or green infrastructure. Um and with the size of the site um what's going into the detention basin, we only need one
detention basin. So we meet um the intent of the D regulation. So uh we don't need any more uh green infrastructure on the property. We comply. >> Number seven, I think as Bill said, the LOI and the flood hazard jurisdictional determination is in process.
>> Yeah, all D applications are in process. We're just waiting for uh answers back from them or coordination with them. >> Can you speak in number eight, Bill to if the capacity of the driveway pipes is sufficient to convey? >> Yeah. Um, currently under the existing
conditions, um, if we take the worst storm case scenario, which is the 100red-year future storm, there's about seven CFS under the 100-year going into that wetland's pocket into that pipe that crosses under under that driveway.
Um, all storms other than the 100year that's going to come out of that uh, detention basin will be cut down to 86. Um, and then with a little bit of overflow, we're definitely cutting down the air, the the volume and the uh flow
into that pipe. Um, making it uh a lot more efficient than what's out there now because it's probably well unders sized. Uh, paragraph nine speaks to uh existing on-site septic or underground tanks. as our d we did our due diligence with the
phase one environmental assessment and there was no indication of any underground tanks or any existing septic field um I think tree ordinance inventory and compliance we addressed with John's report uh including a tree plate replacement
plan to be revised um are the and I think as John mentioned planting trees in the wetland transition area is accepted. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Um and I think we already spoke at last
paragraph and two and John and Bill as to lift management plan. Um I think we that was Bill's testimony earlier on the existing conditions. Paragraph six, the commission doesn't like the steep slope. Um, but I think
we're going to provide with the revised plans and the testimony from our planner. Um, we certainly appreciate their concern, but I think we'll provide the board with the relief, the proofs needed to justify the variance. Uh we we would have no objection and
we'll get approval with John on the plantings um an invasive species being replaced with non-invasive and part of that landscape plan will identify as in paragraph 9 uh the species um and whether the site is
suitable for and we don't have any objection to paragraph 10 controlling on-site invas invasive species, >> right? We just want to keep it out of your retention. >> They want to keep it from spreading into
your >> construction. I'm sorry. Item number nine. >> Yes, I we will we'll identify the species we're proposing in our updated plan to John and obviously to the board as well.
Um there is a note uh co will be required if it's required we'll comply there were no comments from the public works um there were no comments historical
comments from the historic commission they weren't thrilled with removal of the large tree in the center but I think as Bill explained I don't know we have an option because it's in the heart of the property I think that's all the attachments. >> I ask a question. Um
the township municipal wellhead protection ordinance which um now that this site is going to have the bathroom facility with a restroom where there'll be consumption of the water. Um,
the ordinance requires current testing of the wellwater for the water quality. Has that was that has that been done? >> Yes. Yes. >> Or >> Okay. If that could be provided to our hydro geologist because we're seeing the
potential for the requirement of treatment systems to be installed. >> Yeah, it has been submitted. We'll follow up and make sure it was, you know, it was received and he could provide a report to the board. We think it was it worked.
>> Yeah, that's on us. >> Huh? >> That's kind of on us. >> Okay. >> Okay. But yeah, so that that will be something because we'll need to hear because one of our core elements of public health is safety. Um if the you know the water going into the the
restroom facilities and needs treatment just for safety of everyone drinking it. apply. Of course, >> we we didn't we didn't receive a revised um report to the board file though from the from the current design. We we received one in October and I think
there was comments going back and forth, but we haven't we haven't received anything additional >> on the water testing. >> Yeah, >> water testing. Yes. >> Okay. Follow up with that. >> More data will get done. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And and if there's, you know, mitigation that we have to do, we'll do it.
>> Yeah. So >> I we would just like to have that included because there may be some review that needs to take place on our engineer side and everything rel related to that. So >> Okay. >> Okay. So I think we've we've provided we
we found we have a couple of things we have to resolve >> and uh we're going to go back to the drawing board. Typically we'd ask to carry the meeting but I think Joe lost count at 75 or so. So, I think we're getting back to the drawing board. Revise and refile. Okay.
>> So, you're you're going to renotice as a you don't need to. >> We can continue. >> We can continue it. >> We can pick Well, we could as long as you give us a extension >> to, you know, to decide. >> Yeah. >> The extension's until May 31st.
>> Yeah. So we're we need probably an extension if it's only to May 31st, but we could pick a date and if you're not ready on that date, we can carry it again. Why why revertise? >> Step one, >> I love doing notices. >> I'm sure you do.
>> I go hang out with Willie in Stockton. >> Can I just interrupt one second? Are we touching on the traffic report at all? Like was there anything we need to get >> traffic report? But Jay, do you have anything that wasn't addressed that you would like them to?
>> No. Uh, my memo just takes you through for the board's benefit the the low traffic impact of this type of use. That's documented on page two. Um, item seven will be a condition which is
providing a copy of the NJ DOT permit for our review. And then I uh related to item nine will be a condition that there will be no tractor trailers accessing the site >> number eight as well. Right.
>> Number eight's important. >> Yeah, that's that's a significant one at that section of 202. Um >> what you already said. >> So item eight is they do have the sight line on the plan.
>> Okay. Um I I will verify compliance um with the ASHTO requirement. >> Can I ask a question on this traffic analysis? U the gate that's proposed and thanks for sharing this data because
I think it's very helpful. The volume is pretty low. So we're looking at two within a particular period of time. the gate that's going to be there. How many cars could be potentially lined up before it becomes a problem on Route 202?
>> Uh, it would probably you can comfortably fit two. Uh, and the third one would maybe start to go out onto the shoulder, but I guess with the with the expectancy of that ever
happening with this low volume overall, I I don't think you would you would ever have the probability of getting three. And you can certain you could hold two thumbs. >> We we had a 450 unit on 179 in Westwell.
and expert testimonials. There are three to five cars a day that come in at a 450. That's kind of the beauty of self storage. You don't visit your stuff very often is what I'm hearing. If you're putting out storage, you probably don't need it that often.
>> That's why they have those auctions every few years. People buy the >> storage wars. >> That's right. >> I'm a fan. Never know what you get when you buy the key. >> Oh, I did want to ask this earlier. Um do you so you you guys operate other
facilities like this? So you or >> No, this is this is >> this is the first >> their first first project. Yes. >> Just want to make sure we cover everything. Is there any planning testimony that you wanted to offer this even? >> So I don't think would be a good idea to do the planning. I'd like to because
it's going to change. I don't want to feel like left or right. Yeah, >> I think she fell asleep if she would admit it, >> but I don't think it would be helpful. >> Agree. I agree. >> Have some changes. >> Correct. >> And we're going to want to redo it
regardless. So, >> so dates, what date we want to put it down for? >> So, you need about 21 days in advance, I think. >> Yes. >> So, it's April 8th, so we probably think a June meeting would make sense.
um subject to Taylor's schedule, but I know you guys don't have a lot on the agenda. So, >> and if you could just shoot a letter saying that you've given the board an extension 90 days on May 31. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you. >> So, I can offer you guys and you're
lucky that you're looking for June because that's where we're already scheduling until. So the second June meeting is June 24th. And if you guys would like that day, then you must have um your resubmission in by June 3rd. And then if anything, I
would ask for a time extension until the end of August, please. >> We'll do we'll we'll we'll accept that date. >> Okay. >> June 24. Mhm. >> So then for the record that this hearing
will be carried to June 24th without uh the need to further notice >> and do you grant that time extension? >> We consent to that of course. >> Thank you so much. And one more item for the record. The the residents who were
here with us this evening had left >> after they had asked you questions before Mr. Lane. So that's why I didn't offer the community an opportunity to ask questions on the the testimony that followed. >> Right. Good call. >> I had set to let them know like there's
going to be another meeting so they should have likely stayed but you know they can always give me a call >> or check the website. >> Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thanks. This has been joyous.
>> I think with that we >> nothing else. >> Okay.