returning on. >> Okay. >> Calling to order the zoning board of adjustment R and Township regular meeting October 16, 2025. Notice of meeting the notice requirements of the open public meetings act has been satisfied by the placing of
a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building filing same with the township clerk and transmitting same to the Hun County Democrat, the Courier News, the Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. Roll call, please. >> Chairwoman Cynthia Schaefer, >> here. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Russell Damji
>> here. >> Mr. Steve Farcio has asked to be excused. Mr. Randy Block >> here. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero >> here. >> Miss Lindseay Karnell >> here. >> Miss Lorett Cina >> here. >> Miss Don Miss Donna Drews
>> here. >> Miss James Miller >> here. >> Professionals board attorney Mr. John Dill >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Varella >> here. Uh we have Miss Jacqueline Long on behalf of township engineer Mr. Aesh Dargy here.
>> Traffic consultant Mr. Jay Troutman here >> and township landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas >> here. >> Can I get a um sorry >> motion motion to excuse Steve Fario?
>> Second roll call please. >> Chairwoman Cynthia Schaefer. Yes, >> vice chair Mr. Soni. >> Yes, >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes, >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes, >> Miss Lindsey Corbringel. >> Yes, >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes,
>> Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Okay, moving on to um comments, announcements, distribution, correspondence, and minutes. Having none, moving on to resolutions. There's no resolutions for this evening. We'll move to the first application of this
evening. BOA case number 26-20, Pioneer Developers, Inc., block 36, lot 13, 180 Pennsylvania Avenue. Application for time extension request for obtaining zoning and construction permits. Condition number 16 of BOA resolution
2021-16. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Robert McN from the law firm of McN Yos Kazinski and Lime. We represent uh Pioneer Developers Incorporated and as you know, we're here tonight to request a one-year extension of the time to obtain uh our
cert final certificate of occupancy. This site was approved back in 2021 by resolution 2021-16 in which condition number 16 required issuance of a final certificate of occupancy within two years of the first
building permit being issued which occurred on August 4th, 2023. Since that time, my client has appeared before this board for an amended site plan approval, which by resolution 2025-03 was granted on April 17, 2025. Uh during
completion of work and uh the request for a temporary certificate of occupancy, it was brought to our attention that the extension request was needed. Additionally, uh when we reviewed resolution 2025-03, we recognized a deadline of October 17,
20125 tomorrow uh for compliance. Um now, it's my understanding that there were only two remaining compliance issues, one being storm water uh management plan, which Mr. Ryan McCarthy emailed Chris Nuser this afternoon. I believe that the
board granted an extension of October 17, 2025 to I just don't think I did that resolution or maybe I did. I don't even know. >> I don't remember the date. >> We'll take it. Okay.
>> Um, do you have the file with you? We should try to get the right data. >> Well, here's looking at that condition 16 gave you until August 19, 2023 to get the final CO is
that no has to get the permit two years from there. So what was the date by which you had to get the final CO? >> August 4th, 2025. >> August 4th, 2025. So you want that modified to extended till when?
>> August 4th, 2026. and what has to be done in order for the applicant to get that final CO. >> So to my left is Mr. Steve Pataki from our client. I'll let him address. >> You know what? Let me get you sworn in. First of all, how do you spell your last name?
>> Uh Pataki. P O T A K I. >> Okay. And your relationship to the applicant? You're a managing member or just a member? >> Um vice president. >> Okay. Vice president of of >> of DMR Construction. Okay, you raise your right hand. And I'm
also going to ask Jeff to raise your right hand. You two swear or affirm the testimony book you're going to give in this night will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. So Jeff, you are the board, the township planner. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, Mr. Pataki, what needs to be
done for you to get that final CO? We're working with the township now to resolve some open punch list items on site. We're also working through resolution compliance
uh which as of today we we believe is actually complete. There was two open items which we spoke with ERRI's office today and it sounds like they are both both resolved in terms of resolution compliance. >> You know what? Let's get
Jackie Long sworn. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm testimony? You're going to give in this matter with the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And you tonight are you go by Jacqueline or Jackie? >> Jackie. >> Jackie Long. You're tonight the board's engineering expert, correct?
>> Do you know anything about what he's talking about? >> Unfortunately, I do know. >> Okay. So, we've been speaking with Ryan McCarthy. >> Okay. >> So, we we did send some correspondence earlier today. There was some further conversations with Ryan and our engineer.
>> Okay. So, what I'm trying to figure out is just first of all, do you have the date by which resolution compliance was supposed to take place? They say in the Okay. And where in the resolution you're talking about getting the plan signed off on? Are you talking
about something else? You said that there was an October 17, 2025 date. >> So, that's from the amended site plan approval. Is that's from resolution what what's the number? >> 2025-03. >> And what did that say?
>> Condition number what? >> Condition number one. The applicant shall have until October 17th within six months from the date the within resolution is adopted to revise the amended site plans and obtain sign
off on the amended site plans. >> Okay. Now I believe that you are correct that the board granted an extension of that October 17th date. >> Have we found out to what date it was extended?
>> I don't I don't have the amended file. >> I just don't want to mess this thing up. Obviously you guys don't want it's messed up either. No, no. John, you you did a time extension for it, but that was just for the tree remediation.
>> That's it. >> You didn't do for the the resolution. >> We have until tomorrow. I mean, >> do you know anything about what he's talking about? Those two items, that's just between him and Ryan. >> Yeah, there was no official correspondence unless they were just
email. >> Listen, let's play it Let's play it safe. Why don't you do an audible at the line. And besides asking for a modification of condition 16 of resolution 20216
to extend the time for this final CO from August 4, 2025 to now they're asking August 4, 2026. You might say you don't want to give them a year. You could talk to them about that. But I want to talk about resolution 202503, condition number one, which gave them
until October 17, 2025, to get the amended site plans signed off on. Can I suggest that they that they ask for an extension of what to get them signed off on? I know that the dates
tomorrow, but just in case. >> Yeah. 30 days, 60 days, 90 days. 90 would be max, but how many? >> Yeah, we understand it's been agreed to. Okay. So, what are you suggesting? >> In my opinion, I'm going to ask for 90.
>> Yeah. >> I'm I'm swamped right now. >> Okay. So, November, December. You're going to ask for 90 days. November, December. You're going to ask till January 17, 2026. What day is
January 17? Is it a Monday through Friday? I hope >> January 17th to 2026. >> Mhm. January 17th, >> the Saturday. >> January 17th is a Saturday. >> So, they're going to ask till the 19th, which is a Monday. >> Okay. So, you're going to you're asking
to modify condition one of resolution 202503 to extend the time to get the amended site plan signed off on from October 17, 2025 to January 19, 2026.
>> Sound good? >> Yes. and and then let's talk about how much time do you think you need from from tonight to get the final CO if there's two items that you think are
left with Ryan. Is it another 90 days or do you really need a year? >> Yeah. >> Well, there's the CO but then there's also zoning permits and construction permits that last and and the reoccupies.
I thought this issue popped up because they were asking for a temporary co. >> No, there it was it was that and there's also a zoning permit for a uh dividing law for tenant. >> Right. So Jeff, do you have any do you
have a suggestion? I mean >> it's unclear as to what I mean if a tenant comes in what kind of other permits are required for that specific and then cos I mean we have we have a
list of three to four um >> we also need to review it our TWWA confirmation so it's it's a lot it's a it's a likely process not talking about days >> they're going to suggest
that that you give them the year that they're asking for for the final cos because they do have like they do have tenants that they're going to have to deal with. >> Okay. >> So, could I just have one thing clarified for this final CFO? Is that
complete occupancy and complete fit outs for all tenants? >> What's the criteria? >> I have no clue. >> Yeah. to the site and something that we would have to discuss at least the the buildings themselves but that's a discussion I'd like to have with
engineer construction okay the the complete fit out of the buildings is is tied to the edu capacity we might not be able to fit out the entire buildings so I'm just trying to understand this deadline that we're stating right now
>> the shell the shell of the building oh >> the shell of the building okay >> not any of the fitouts That would be a they would they would require their own co but >> but it's not covered by this. >> Okay. >> If that's the case that the year we expect
>> the the applicant has always been Pioneer Developers. >> Yeah. >> What's your relationship to Pioneer Developers >> or owned by the same company? >> So Pioneer Developers Inc. is owned by DMR or DMR and Pioneer are owned by somebody else? >> Yeah, Richard Rodishi owns both
companies. Okay. What's your capacity, office, whatever, with Pioneer Developers? >> I'm their vice president of development. >> Okay. >> I'm going to list you as the vice president of development of the applicant, Pioneer Developers. I'm not going to mention DMR. That's the
contract. No. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, that's the relief they're seeking. Does anyone have any questions for >> Does anyone have any questions? Go ahead, Laurette. speaking in the mic. >> Right into that microphone. >> Thank you.
>> So, um I understand this is spec and that you don't have all your tenants figured out yet. Um but do you have any kind of update on the equivalent dwelling units that have been um
utilized so far by your existing current tenants? >> Yeah, we're tracking that very closely. I don't have the numbers on hand. I think we're around four of the seven edus have been uh applied and we have gotten
approval from our TMUA along the way. We've been submitting the information to them and getting their acknowledgement of the allocations as we've been going. >> Thank you. And so it's looking pretty good that you'll stay within that seven uh capacity.
>> Um it's it's going to be close. We we don't think we're going to be able to lease the entire space with the seven edus. So, it's something we're managing. It depends on the the actual tenants and their use. So, we're we're hoping we can
do that, but but right now it's it's questionable. >> And what's the status of the landscaping >> and the trees? My question, >> the the onsite reforestation trees are
I'd say 80 to 85% done. >> You agree with that? >> Yeah. >> John, raise your hand. >> John Thomas, board landscape expert. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter too with the truth? >> I do. >> Do you agree with that?
>> Yes, that sounds that sounds right. We haven't been out to the site recently, but within the past few weeks. So, >> so just to clarify, that's the on-site or the offsite? >> On-site. So, the on-site planting consists of what we're calling reforestation trees and then the
landscape trees and the 85% I think maybe the landscape trees on site are 100% complete uh landscape. So, we were we've been working on the offsite trees. >> Okay. >> Not in the ground. >> Okay. But we had I thought we had a
deadline of the fall for the offsite So they're not in compliance with that. >> What's resolution? What's the condition? >> We're still within time. >> Is this the Is this the tree remediation
>> resolution extension? It says until August 30th, but I'm not sure if that necessarily >> Can I Can I clarify? >> Yes. that that um that date was for the remediation work which included the air spading and some related work to take
care of trees that may have been impacted. >> That that that's correct. That's for the on-site work. >> So which resolution and which condition has the date by which the offsite trees have to be finished? That was a resolution issued, I believe
it was in April of this year, which gave us through December 15th to complete >> offsite reforestation trees. >> Anyone? >> I'm looking it up.
John, my question for you is >> John. >> No, >> John. >> Mr. Drill. Um, by granting an extension for a whole year to the final CEO, you know, how do you know?
>> That's what I want to see. >> Yeah. because we have things they need to finish >> off site deforestation. I believe they're that that page correct. I just want to find that resolution read if that's covered by that resolution. They're not seeking to modify that date.
>> There is no date for that specific condition. >> Does it say planting season? >> So that has to be completed. >> Can I see that? So that's before they get a CO. So I guess the board could put a condition on these two modifications
that the offsite tree reforestation has to be complete by Bill and Glenn. Do you think you'll get it done by December 15th? >> We we need to work with with John on that. John, I I believe you have sites. >> We have this we have this we have the
sites selected and you should have the the final plans at this point. So we we definitely need to talk. Okay. >> I mean my my it I would anticipate that since we have a planting season that'll run, you know, basically to the to the
end of December that we can get a significant amount. But I at this point I would not expect all. Uh so this fall, next spring we should be done. I mean there availability issues, weather issues and
so forth involved. So, >> so if the board asks you to craft assume that the board grant there's two modifications that they requested modifications of
condition 16 resolution and modification of condition number one resolution. They want to impose a condition that says they have until X to complete X
percentage of the OI restoration trees and they have until Y date to complete Z percentage% of the site restoration. What was the date fee that you would put in and what was the percentage that you put in?
I would say 50% December 31st >> 50% what's the next >> by by May 15 >> first by the board by the board assuming
the board grants to two modifications. The two extensions you seek tonight a condition saying as a condition of these extensions, you have until December 31st to complete 50% of the offsite restoration trees and
then you have until May 15, 2026 to complete the remaining offsite tree restoration. Can you do that? Is that doable? I'd say based on whether and availability, it's
a question mark. If we could put a final deadline of next spring on the entire process, I think that would that would avoid us coming back again. It is bonded. >> What do you think? >> I mean, I I agree some flexibility
because I'd hate to get to the point where we had it made when they have to come back that gives them the incentive to get this we just grant these long extensions because we want to make it so they don't
have to come back even though you guys might not want to see them back having a deadline by which that they may have to come back generally gets things done faster that's just the way I see things >> and and and just just so everybody is aware we're talking about and I think I
I I agree John, I think we're talking about about 600 trees would be required to go in before December 31st and the remaining 600 trees. >> Oh, it's not 300 600 >> approximately
the total is about 1,200. >> Let's note that other applicants in the audience don't complain when they get to your application. >> I have a question. Uh if there are 600 for the remainder, what's the planting
season? When does it start next year? And is it practical to get it done by 15th of May? >> The the the planting season can basically start as early as >> So then uh 15th is very reasonable from what I'm hearing. >> The May May 15th. I just don't want it
to go past May 15th. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Okay. >> It it has to be done if they if it's if it's beyond May 15. You want to go beyond? Yes. >> No, no, no. I'm sorry. I I I it it needs to be done. >> Everything needs to be done by May 15th
of 2026. >> Everything we've discussed so far sound to sound to the board. >> It's fine. >> Why don't we stroll Paul and make comments? Good with him. Good with you. Comments >> regarding landscaping. Good with me. But
do we need another condition about um making sure that the EDQs are adequate for the >> that's part Yeah, that's part of the part of the react that's already >> Jim.
>> I can't hear. >> That's a By the way, it's a perennial problem with him. You just let him know better. >> Just keep yelling at him. >> John Thomas. >> Going to go along with John Morgan Thomas. >> Yes. >> Randy, the same. >> The same.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Did you hear? >> She gave a thumbs up. >> That's a line. Okay. >> Okay. So, will someone then make a motion
to modify 16 >> of resolution? >> He's still reading it, Lindsay, but I'll make sure you're the one who made the motion. >> Okay. So, Lindsay, >> here's Lindsay's motion. You just sent
it to me. >> Put the word down. I can't say it. Telepathically. telepathically. She sent me the motion. >> I can hear you now. >> So, her motion is for the board to modify condition 16 of resolution
2021-16 to extend the time for them to obtain their final CO from August 4, 2025 to August 4, 2026. Also, the second part of the motion was to modify condition one
of resolution 202503 to extend the time to get the amended site plan signed off from October 17, 2025 to January 19, 2026. And a condition of this approval
besides incorporating all the other conditions unless modified from from by this motion and resolution will be the applicant shall have until December 31, 2025 to complete 15% of the offsite tree
reforestation and then till May 15, 2026 to complete the remaining off-site tree restoration. That is the motion. Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Who's seconding the motion?
>> I second it. >> Randall. >> Randy. >> I thought part of the conversation was we were moving the trees to May 15th. >> 50% by December 31, 15% by May 15th. That's what the motion is.
>> Yeah. We We were looking to have May 15th for all trees. Just I thought that's what was said >> that. Yeah, that's not what the board >> No, that's not. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Are we still going? >> Uh John, before we do that, do you want
to clarify anything so there's no misunderstanding about that point? >> No, there's no Yes. >> into a microphone. >> As many trees on the ground as well as >> what we agreeing 50% by December. >> I thought it was 60%.
>> 50% by December. 31st 2025 and the remaining offsite tree risk reforestation by May 15, 2026. That's what the board that's what John suggested. That's what the board wanted. You know, the applicant wanted the whole
thing until May 15, 2026. But unless someone unless I'm misreading someone, the board wants update. >> You got it right. >> Okay. Well, we got a motion and a second. So roll call.
>> Chairman, Miss Oh, Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Russell Odami. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindseay Kringle. >> I think she's saying yes. >> Lindsay.
>> Yes. Can you not hear me? >> You didn't first. >> You trust yourself when you're here. You trust yourself when you're there. >> Damn. >> Sorry. Miss Lorett Cina, >> yes. >> And Miss Donna Drews, >> yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Moving on to the next case of the application for this evening. BOA case number 22-2022. Applicant is Executive Snow Control LLC
at 68 Route 31 LLC. Location block 35, lots 5, 5.01, 1213. 68 Highway 31 N 120 124 126 Pennsylvania
application time extension request for obtaining final site sign off of plans condition number one and of BOA resolution 2024-14 good evening >> madam chairperson members of the board
Steven Gruinberg Gruinberg Law on behalf of the applicant um just want to say as I'm sitting here Really hope John Dill can't read minds telepathically. Drill. You know what? That's not nice. >> Um, this is our request, our first
request for an extension of uh the time period in which to have sign off on the plans. Um, we submitted the plans and we're waiting for responses back from the board's professionals. With respect to the plans, I did note um that in
addition to the sixmonth request in case there's any things that come up um that condition uh it has the the condition dealing with the perfection of the
>> listen start from just lay it out. The resolution at issue is 202414, right? >> Correct. So what's the main condition in there that you're seeking for the extension? >> C1 and that is the applicant shall revise the site and subdivision plans
referenced above um blah blah blah and the applicant shall have until October 17, 2025 within 6 months from the date that within resolution is adopted to revise their plans and obtain sign off. Condition one
and you want from October 17th until when? >> Six months. >> Okay. Which comes to when? >> November, December, January, February, March, April 16th. April 17th. >> What day is April 17th? As the board
secretary, >> April 17th. >> 16th is a Thursday. Friday is the 17th. >> Friday. >> Okay. So resolution 2024 seeking one October 25 to April 17, 2026 to obtain
sign off. Now what's the status of that >> right? So let's in this application >> okay what is the status of that? of the revisions. It's on board professions or um I know I haven't done a review. Um >> so it's in review. It's it's not it's
not complete. Okay. He's asking for April 1726. That >> yeah. >> Okay. What's the next >> The next one is um the condition two on
page 29 of the resolution. perfection of the subdivision by recording the subdivision plat. I just noted that that referenced the 190day statutory time period, but we need that to be signed off on by the board
professionals, too. So, we would ask for the same >> what 190 days from >> the date the within resolution was adopted. >> So, what's 190 days from October 17, 2024? I'm sorry. Say that again.
>> Is it 190 days when the resolution was adopted? The resolution was adopted in October 27th is the date that it needs to be recorded by. >> What date? >> October 27th. >> October 27th. Now, what's the status?
That's >> the same as your plan, right? >> Yeah, that's the same thing. Needs to be signed off on now since it's October 16th. I think he's right out of the bundle. What kind of extension on that? You want
the same? >> Yeah, probably. >> I was going to ask for the >> What does the statute say the board should do? >> Time period um caused by the delays or something like that.
Okay. Doing this as an abundance of motion in case it's delayed. >> And right and it's less than 190 days. It's 180 days is the extension request. >> Okay. So you're seeking to extend the
October 27, 2025 date to the same April 17, 2026 date. >> Correct. Okay. So, does anyone want to have questions about this? >> No.
Someone want to make a motion to modify condition one resolution 14 to extend the date to obtain sign up on the site plan from October 17, 2025 to April 17, 2026
to modify condition number two of resolution 2024-14 to extend the date by which they have to record the subdivision flat from October 27, 2025 to April 26. 6, 2026. >> John,
>> before we do that, >> April 17, sorry. >> Uh, October 17, 2026. I believe it's Saturday. >> Yeah. Till April 17, 2026. >> How about the October? >> It's going to be extended from October
27th, 2025 to April 17, 2026. >> Okay. >> Yeah, they're both going to be April 17th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'll make a motion. I second it. >> Okay. Can I get a roll call, please? >> Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer.
>> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Oodi, >> yes. >> Mr. Randy Block, >> yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero, >> yes. >> Miss Lindsay Cool Brinkal, >> yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina, >> yes. >> And Miss Donna Drews, >> yes. >> Okay.
>> All right. Moving on to the next application for this evening. BOA case number 08-2023. Applicant is Hunter and Storage, Inc. Location is block 63.01 lot 13 177 highway 20231 south application
preliminary and final site plan with Dvariance and bulk variants for expansion of existing storage facility. >> Evening Steven Grinberg on behalf of the applicant in Storage Inc. Um, you may recall that we had started this
application um with the intention of doing outdoor storage in the area where one of the uh pads for self storage uh structure had been located. Um after we had that public hearing hearing, we went
back to the drawing board listening to some of the concerns of the board with respect to that outdoor storage. And what we decided to do and what the applicant decided to do is actually to bring this site back to what had previously been approved by the board
essentially with some changes um that don't affect the footprint of anything. So um the very I'm going to make it this really long story shorter. >> But this is a start from scratch tonight.
>> Correct. I reviewed the notice. I found that the notice the uh from the notice was sufficient. I asked the board secretary did you review the uh >> yes everything was satisfactory.
>> In my opinion the board jurisdiction of the application whatever happened on this application 2023 started ignore it forget it. We're starting discuss tonight with manual fun. Correct.
>> Correct. We eliminated that D1 variance which we had asked for before >> for the outdoor. >> Correct. So um essentially we are bringing this back to what the improvements on the site other than the two self- storage buildings
that weren't constructed. Um what the intention of the board was. And as part of that, um, I'm going to be presenting the testimony of Jessica Nicholson, who is John's niece and who now has an ownership and
control of the property about what her uh, operation of the site is and intended operation of the site is. And then I have Kelly O Such who's going to be presenting both the engineering and the planning testimony. Um the variances
that are required are the 17 the floor area ratio of 17.7% where 15% is required and that's what was previously approved. That's the the so-called D4. >> Correct. >> AR varants.
>> Correct. And the history of this was it was approved at 17.7. It was later approved at 20 something. Then it was later reapproved back down to 17.7 and we're sticking with the 17.7 and going to actually
build the building. And just procedurally the the board granted a microcated D4 variant to allow mini warehouse facility with a non floor area ratio of 17.7%
via resolution number 2002-13. Correct? >> I believe so. There are many resolutions. >> That's the first resolution. And then that was not attached to Jeff's memo, but the board secretary put that out as everyone's desk.
Attached to Jeff's memo >> dated October 10th, 2025 is the initial final site plan approval resolution 2003-10. And the history of this thing is
without going into all of the details, Mr. Aldridge came back to the board as there was a condition in resolution 134
bearing which said that there was a whole bunch of trees in the front of the property and that had to be after the site plan approval. show the tree being so show the trees being preserved.
>> Mr. Aldridge came into the board and asked if he could eliminate that condition and remove the trees. The board told him no. There was a resolution and then he went out and he cut some trees down. Then they gave some municipal court summones.
There was a trial, a three-day trial and municipal court down in Lambertville because a bunch of the municipal court judges all had conflicts that they couldn't handle it. Mr. Aldridge was found guilty. The township then settled
with Mr. Aldridge on the fines that and again I'm not testifying. I could give you all the documents to support all this, but it wasn't a settlement with the board of adjustment. It was a settlement with the township and Mr. Aldridge and I think he was fined $7,000. They said, "You don't have to
you pay the $7,000 and you reimburse all the attorneys fees that it cost for the trial for for everything." And that's what they did. And then one provision in the settlement agreement said you have to apply to the BOA for an amended D4
flare floor area variance to allow after the fact those trees to be removed and to put a some kind of landscape plan in and the board granted that application and that's memorialized in resolution 2011-12.
So I want to make it clear that while the initial variant for the D4 that was granted in 2002 had a condition saying you had to preserve the trees. The board in 2011
removed that condition. It was after the fact but said that you have to do some landscape planting. So you're going to hear from John Thomas later. He issued two memos. I'm going to be instructing you to disregard his second memo of the
day that considered resolution 2002-13, but it didn't consider 2011-12. And I'll take that on myself for not catching that, discussing it with him or whatever. Mr. Grubberg made me aware of this actually on my car ride out here
tonight. And that's why we had a little delay in the beginning of the meeting. We all put our heads together to figure out what was what. So, John, >> what's the date on the memo which we should consider? >> Okay. So, they're both dated today, but
his first memo >> 14th. >> Yeah. >> Oh, pardon me. Right. October 14 is the memo you should consider and the memo that you should disregard is dated today, October 16. >> Got it. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. With that as an introduction, you
want to give any other history? >> Thank you. No. Um, [Laughter] >> talk to my real quick. >> What you got? Get that in there. >> I called Jessica.
>> Okay. Well, one thing's for certain. She tells the truth. >> Doesn't we need everybody sworn in? >> Yeah. I have to swear with >> I'm going to swear everyone. Jessica, how do you spell your last name? >> N I C H O L S O N.
>> Okay. So, Jessica Nicholson, Kelly, Such. Who? We got Jeff and we have John on this one only. Correct. Okay. So, >> Oh, everyone. Oh, I'm sorry. Everyone raise your hand. >> So, all six of you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to hear tonight
in this proceeding to be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Start with Jessica. I do. >> I do. >> I do. >> I do. >> I do. >> Okay. They do. >> Jessica, are you the principal of storage?
>> Yes. >> Owner. >> So, she has she has to answer so we can hear. And what is your formal? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Just just so you understand. Okay, our court reporter here tonight.
>> No, she was also partially trained by Jackie. >> Oh my god. >> Okay, >> I'm just saying. >> Yeah, this is Jackie number two. >> So good. Now, the only difference is she'll yell at you. She won't throw a book at you if you're not talking loud
enough. >> It's not as bad. It's not like the eyes are going to go, >> right? >> Yeah. So Jessica, why don't you tell the board how you acquired Hunter Storage? >> Yeah. But first, what's your formal affiliation with Hunter Storage Inc.,
right? So you're president. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Into the mic. >> Yes. >> If you want, you can move that mic if you want to look at. >> Definitely not. >> So, and um how long have you been president of Story? Steve, >> John, I got to get a question out.
>> You're getting too close. How long have you been president of Hun and Storage, Inc.? >> I guess officially when my uncle passed away. >> And you've been >> November 18th, 2021. >> And you've been in control of uh Hunter and Storage site since then.
>> Yes. I also ran the business for 10 years prior for my uncle. >> Okay. And um what type of business is it? >> Self- storage facility. And what is presently on the site in terms of a self- storage facility on the property?
>> An office building and four storage buildings. >> Like >> how many? >> Four. >> You got to talk louder. >> Four storage buildings. There's 171 units. >> And there's two empty pads. One pad is 20
or 10. I can't remember the exact. And the other ones the 30 foot wide. >> And what's your understanding of where those pads came from? What were they intended to do? >> Put a storage building up. >> And those those approvals, they just never got built by your uncle.
>> My uncle got sick and didn't want to build something different. >> Okay. >> So, he let it stay kind of empty. blamed the landscape issue
on not renting, but it really just competed with the other one. He didn't want to do anything different. >> And what do you want to do on those two buildings? >> I want to put up climate control since we don't have any at all three of our locations. Um, the first building that would be
closest to the highway would be all climate controlled. The second building will have 10x30, which we have a lot of people call and ask for a bigger unit than a 10x20. And then more climate controlled. And that like half that building would be climate controlled and then not climate
controlled. >> And will these buildings have exterior garage doors? >> Not the first one will only have four one four man doors. The second one will have I don't know the exact number of garage doors, but the 10 by30 units will
have garage doors. And then the climate control part again has three doors. >> Okay. And um how will people access their storage units on the building closest to the highway? >> They have to go through the mandor. >> And so it's their interior units.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Tell me about the operation. How do you um how do people gain access to the site? I think since we're starting a new the board may have heard this already, but let's refresh them. How do people gain access to the site?
They either rent by calling us. We either send them a contract online and unlock the unit and that way they get in. We give them a code. There's a bunch of forms they have to sign their life away.
Um, and they rent. We give them a code. They get the code. They can access it from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. And they go in and they leave. Same way with a code. And how do you handle refues
>> garbage? >> I have a dumpster in our Ringo's location. We probably make about two garbage bags every two weeks at Flemington one and Flemington 2 and I bring it down to the enclosed dumpster in Ringo. >> Okay. So, um
>> any garbage that's left outside, I drive there personally, pick it up. It's usually a box or if it's something big I just put it in and it like one of our units a pallet or something someone leaves and then eventually I bring a truck and go move it and put it in the dumpster. >> So no nothing is stored out no
>> Can you repeat louder and slower? >> No no no garbage is left outside of the units? >> No. >> Yeah. Um >> is there a dumpster enclosure on site? >> Not on Flemington one or Flemington 2. I have it in Rangoes >> because I think at the last hearing it was specified that there was and that
the location wasn't on the site plan and it was going to be shown. >> So explain again you take off some dumpster. >> I take it to the 100 in storage in Ringo's location. I have an enclosed dumpster there.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, let's talk about um how people actually get access to the gate and the signage on the gate. >> What do you mean? >> How do they get in there? It's a locked gate. Correct.
>> They have a code or during business hours the walkthrough gates are open >> and >> walk through gate. Yeah, we have a walkthrough gate that's manually, you know, the oldfashioned thing. >> And let's talk about the traffic on site. How how often do you uh have
people coming to the site and do you ever have any parking issues? >> I have never really run into a parking issue. Um the most traffic we have comes from people either missing DMV or
turning before. That's most of the traffic at Flemington 1 and 2. Um there might be two cars in a parking lot if that. I've worked there since ' 07 and cannot really remember having a traffic issue. If they have a big box
truck or something that needs to be in the way and they're moving in, we just let them through the gate and they park in front of the office. Both both places have ample parking to allow something to just park for 10 minutes while they fill out a contract, look at their unit, and
be on their way. >> Okay, I have no other questions. So, hi. Thank you for coming. >> Hi. >> Um, as far as you said the climate control unit, it's my understanding you don't have them today. >> We do not have any at any location.
>> Unfortunately, is there any difference? >> No, no difference. It's the same thing, same contract. >> And I'm sure it's going to get testified whatever the engineering and all that requirements later so we can but operationally there's no
>> no different. And the other thing about this dumpster, uh, Jeff, is that a requirement or do we have or what is it? >> I mean, >> so, >> well, there's two ways two ways of looking at it. One way of looking at it
is if you have a dumpster, the ordinance requires an enclosure. The other way of looking at it is the ordinance requires an enclosure. If she doesn't have a dumpster, then they would apply for an exception from having to the have the enclosure. And the reason for the exception was because we're not going to
have a dumpster on the site. >> And correct me if I'm wrong and I'm not testifying, but I'm just asking >> another application basically had it in the con their contract. Is it in your contract that >> no >> that somebody cannot leave that that
they need to take their every single thing is taken away or they don't get their deposit back or we charge a fee for disposal. >> Is it in their contract? That's the question. They're they have no they are not allowed to use our dumpster anyway. >> Yeah, but it didn't when when I if
someone were to sign up for a unit, they're not allowed to leave garbage. And that's in the >> Wait until they're done with the question because you're answering the wrong question. >> So when I when I sign up for a unit and I sign the contract, is there context in the contract that says you are not allowed to keep you are not allowed to
keep to leave garbage there? You have to take it with you. >> Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. >> Yep, that helps. Thank you. >> Okay. If it's any help, I have a twoyard dumpster in Ringo that all three locations go into and
there might be five bags of garbage. Every other week I get picked up. >> Okay. >> That's how little unless somebody passes away and we clean out the unit for him. That's the only way. >> Okay. I just want to ask Jay uh you
testified to the um the traffic. Jay, I I didn't get a chance to to look at your report in detail. Uh with the two additional buildings, do you see any um uh concern? I I don't think so, but I'm not a a storage person, so I don't know. >> No, I I don't see concern. And I did run
the numbers and put them in my memo memo, and they're very low. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh as far as parking um >> you're short of >> where requirement is seven and you have four today correct?
>> Yes. >> And you said how is that getting used? Are you going to answer that? >> Okay. Then we'll wait for that. >> All right. I don't have any other questions. Does anyone have any questions for this witness? >> Go on. just confirmed hours
>> 9:00 a.m. 6 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> is the gate access hours. >> Uh yeah, >> yeah, I saw somewhere >> condition 6 to 11. >> Okay, but then I saw in somebody's report 24 hours and I that's not correct. >> Good. Okay,
>> so what is it? Now I'm confused. Is it 6 to >> 6 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. That's when we're open. Okay. >> And those are business hours or >> No, that's what are your business hours? because that's when the door is open. >> 8:30 to 3:30. >> Gotcha.
>> If we build, it might go 8:30 to 4:30, which is what the Flemington location is. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And just to confirm, that means that if I was uh if I owned a unit, if I came up to the gate at 9:01, it would not open. >> It would not open.
>> But if I was in my unit at 8:30, I could get out. >> You can get out. >> Just clarifying. Yes. >> What kind of >> You're there till 6:00 in the morning. What kind of security do you have? Do you have cameras? >> We do have some cameras >> all around the site. >> Not all around the back of the
buildings, just around the office, the gate, the license plate reader, and not one aisle. Main aisle going down. >> Okay. Anyone else? Jeff? Anyone? >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Go sit there. By the way, Jackie always need a break. If you do, let us know. >> Jack Jackie Jun, >> let us know. >> She's not afraid of letting her needs be known.
>> Steve. Steve, quick. Well, I guess I'll >> Sorry. >> I'll wait for him. I'll wait for the >> chief. >> So, so Kelly, can you please give the board the benefit of your qualifications? >> Sure. Uh, I have a bachelor of science
in civil engineering from Virginia Tech. I graduated in 2012. Uh, since 2012, I've been practicing professional civil engineering in the state of New Jersey. Um, I've been before various boards, including this board as a professional engineer. Uh my license is still in good
standing. Uh I am also a professional planner and I've testified as a planner before various boards and in front of those boards. >> And your licenses are in good standing. >> Yes. I offer him as an expert engineer and planner. >> We'll accept. >> Thank you. I'm going to do the
engineering testimony first and then we'll go into planning. So, uh, Kelly, why don't you orient the board to the site, and if you put something up there that hasn't been submitted to the board, we'll have to mark it. And if it has been submitted, um, then we won't have
to mark it. >> Uh, yeah. So, I have a plan in front of you that has not been submitted. Um, it is entitled Aerial Imagery Exhibit dated March 19th, 2024.
Uh, and it's prepared by John Hansen for my office. >> Aerial imagery exhibit. Correct. Dated March 19, 2024. Correct. That's going to be marked A1. Today's date.
>> John, are we legitimately starting scratch? >> Yep. >> I was [Music] 17. >> 16. 1025. [Music]
Okay, the image in uh on the the plan, easy for me to say, uh has an orientation where north is up, south is at the bottom, west, east. Route 31 is running through the middle of the property, north, south. The
subject property is this particular property. It's block 6301, lot 13. Uh it's 6.79 acres and it's located within the B5 low
inensity highway district. Uh and within that district, self storage is a permitted use. As you can see on the image, uh the property is surrounded to the north uh by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission property with Hunter in Storage or Flemington Storage One beyond that. To the south by a building supply retailer, Marvik, to the east by Route 31, and then
commercial properties, a car dealership. uh and to the west by uh the Blacken Black & River western railroad and then some farmland beyond that. Uh so the property is currently accessed
and is not changing on the uh proposal off of 31 with a right in and right out access point. As people come in, there's a gate that Miss Nicholson was referring to. And that gate has a pin pad that's roughly in this uh grass island right
off the left. As you come in, as Miss Nicholson noted, you punch in your code, gate opens, and you can get into the property. Right off of the entrance, prior to getting into the gate, there are four parking stalls. Those parking stalls are
outside the gate. So, it's really for anybody visiting to go into the office, which is in this particular location, or as Miss Nicholson said, people that make a wrong turn and need an area to turn around. Very rarely from her operations do the four stalls ever become full. One
of the parking stalls is striped as an ADA compliant stall. Once you get into the property, you can see that the um property has four structures. one on the northern section, one here on the western section, one on
the southern, and then one kind of in the middle. And then in between these two is a concrete pad, and then closest to 31, there's another concrete pad. Uh, and those concrete pads going back to the original subdivision or original site plan and variances were envisioned
to be self-s storage units similar to the other units that are already >> Kelly. Let me I just gave Steve Bluenberg a copy of resolution 2002-13 and I said that I'm going to want him to go into paragraph 2 and ask you what's
different. So, paragraph two says it's the site plan depicted six proposed mini storage warehouse buildings on the property. Two of the buildings, buildings one and six are proposed in an eastwest direction along the northern and southern sides of the property. Four of
the buildings, buildings two through five are proposed in a north south direction in the center portion of the property. Is that still the same? >> That is still the same. Um the plan depicts associated parking areas and location of the the detention basin. Uh site plan appears to conform
to all zoning requirements of the B5 zone except F. Now we'll talk about any other variances or exceptions later. Um so the only thing that's changed is two of the of the six buildings weren't constructed. Now they're being proposed
to be constructed, but they're going to be climate controlled rather than not climate controlled. Is that correct? >> I believe only one of the buildings would be climate controlled. >> Thought one of them is going to be climate controlled and the other one's going to be like half climate controlled. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> But originally one
[Music] is also a separate office building. Yes. easel didn't want to stay up. >> So, so I I have a basic question. Um, what's the number today of the storage
units versus what's going to be the number after you guys finish everything? >> I believe Miss Nicholson noted the current site has 171 total units on site. >> Correct. >> I do not know the number proposed on the additional units.
>> Yeah. Um >> I'd have to read through the architectural plans on the number. >> I passed by there yesterday. >> Yep. >> Okay. And uh what you're saying is all correct about my concern is when somebody tries to
access to go in, it takes some time to board. In fact, there was somebody trying to get in. It took them couple minutes or whatever. This was in the morning, right, Jeff? When I stopped by and ask you where it is, that's when I went. So, it was around 11:00 or whatever.
My concern is first of all, does it get backed up and then is it going to hit uh 31? So, why don't you ask that question to Jessica? Jessica, why don't you come back up to the table? You said that even though you took over for your uncle in
November of 2021, you would work there for a prior 10 years. Is that correct? >> Yes. So, you worked there since 2011, right? >> 2007. >> 2007. Okay. Have you ever had a problem with cars backing up onto 202?
>> No. The only the major problem I had was when the only problem I've ever had in my entire life with traffic backing up was when the DMV shut down for CO. >> I had to be police escorted into the driveway. >> So, I can understand that that nothing
has happened. But I was curious about increase in storage and if that's going to have any impact and based on your experience. >> I worked in the Flemington one office. If you sat in that office all day and you saw how many people actually came in and entered versus how many people pull
in and turn around and leave like there's we have hardly any traffic. Got >> thank you. Just want to clarify. So thank you for that. Might >> just stay in the front row just in case they have any other questions for you. Good. Okay. So, going through the
dimensions of the existing structures, uh, structure to the north here. >> So, put it this way. I don't want to shorten anything. >> Okay. I'm fine shortening it. >> Do you guys want him to go through all the details or the plans show all the dimensions, correct? >> Yes. So, my suggestion is if they have
questions on that, they should ask you about it because other than that, you're going to be basically reading the plans and telling them what the plans. Anyone, right? Okay. >> So, so Kelly, do we um conform with all of the ordinance
standards um other than F? >> No. So um hard surface coverage there is a the site exists with 39.7% hard surface coverage. 35% is permitted
within the B5 zone. However, when the original site plan was designed and approved, the zone allowed for 40%. So they were compliant at the time of site plan approval. >> This is a new application. >> Correct. So it's an existing non-compliant.
>> They're they need a variance. It's going to they're going to argue for a C1 variance because at the time of the 2002 approval, 40% impervious was allowed, they had 40%. They're not seeking to increase the
impervious on the site any. Is that correct? You're seeking to put a building on top of a concrete pad. Correct. >> That's correct. There's no change proposed. >> Are you increasing the impervious footprint even by a square inch? >> No. So, they are seeking a C1 variance,
classic hardship. They had an approval. They installed it. There's two pads there. The ordinance was changed. If you don't grant them the variance, they have to rip the pad out. >> Okay. So, that's the C variance, the C1
variance for hard surface because the ordinance changed. What other relief do you need? Uh there was questions to I understand um signage. I don't believe we need relief for the signage, but I'll introduce an exhibit and we could talk
through it and if we need to ask for relief, we can go that path. >> Are you proposing a better sign? Because that was the other thing. >> No, it's it's not a polemounted or building mounted sign. Miss Nicholson has signs on the gates for warnings that
are akin to uh an ADA sign that you'd see at a parking stall, but it's basically so people don't get in front of the mechanical gate and get hurt. >> They're they're no bigger than the three square feet that are allowed for directional signs. >> I think it's good for safety. >> Yeah.
>> You have any or any issue with that? >> Hold on for one second. Okay. Mr. Grunberg has just noted the ordinance change in impervious from 40% to 35%
was prior to 2011. So when they came back to the board in 2011, they made that argument about the C1 and the board granted them the C1 variance for the 39.7%
in 2011 by virtue of resolution 2011-12. Therefore, that variance run through the land. They don't need >> the new varian. >> It says 39.8. >> It says 39.8.
>> Is it 39? The variance granted was 39 88. >> That was granted. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> And what is the hard surface existing? Is it 39.8 and not 39.7?
If it was granted at 39.88, yes, it was then it's 39.88. >> No, what's the existing condition? That's what we're asking. >> My notes have it at 39.7, but if it was granted at 39.88. >> Well, it's previously granted at 39.88.
>> Yeah, I think that's how we deal with that. Uh, so the the signs I'm assuming what I've heard is there's no relief required. >> Was that was safe the signs? >> Um, so I think there were a couple signings. There was one on the handicapped um
>> sign which didn't have a a permit and then there was one there was a couple on the gate. Uh the ordinance doesn't permit signs on the gate. Uh so I think they were going to come back with exact dimensions and either request it or it
>> what what is the sign on the gate >> here? Let me introduce >> let's introduce this exhibit >> to describe it. >> I guess this be A2. Okay. >> What is exhibit What is exhibit A2? Uh
it's entitled photograph exhibit A. Uh it is dated March 20th, 2024. >> Okay. And that shows the signage. >> It shows two signs that are located on that mechanical gate at the entrance to
the site. Uh the first on the left hand side here is a warning sign to um my understanding from the operator uh it's required by her insurance company to provide this sign to uh >> so you don't get hurt by the gate.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. Safety. >> And there's a a >> 8 and 1 half by 11 piece of paper adjacent to it with the emergency contact number for the operator which I believe is Miss Nicholson's number. Off to the right where there's a man
gate, there's a walking gate sign. Again, not more than the three square feet that's allowed per the directional wayfinding signs. >> So, let's find out from Jeff what variances, if any, are needed for those signs.
>> So, there's a variance section 296-161 prohibited signs. Those signs shall be constructed, reconstructed, erected, or maintained. which go down at J is located on trees, rocks or other
natural features or on fences, dividing walls or other accessory structures unless it is a directional sign. >> Okay, so the walk-in gate is a directional sign. The warning one is not. So I assume that the walking gate
sign would be allowed. It's directional and the other signs would not be allowed and the basis of the variance would be health, safety, general welfare. Is that correct? >> That would be correct. >> Okay. So the variance for the sliding gate warning sign and the
emergency contact sign, right? >> Yes. Okay. And that's going to be a C2 variance where the zoning benefits are going to be safety and uh health and
your testimony that is there any detriment from having those signs there? >> No, they're not visible from the general public. They're not against the zone intent master plan. So, >> no substantial detriment. >> So, Jeff, I have a question regarding
the walk-in gate sign. Does that comply with whatever >> connection >> the size >> requirements? Yeah, >> I think it's it looks like it's less >> It's less than They're both They're all less than three square feet. >> Okay, good.
>> Were there Was there any other outside or >> Those are the only ones that I know of that I saw. >> Okay. You said no detriment. You can't see them from the road. You only see them when you get close to the game. Yes. >> And that's the intent.
>> That's the intent. >> Any other variances needed? >> Uh the parking uh we have four existing stalls that are striped and based on the uh floor area proposed that we would require nine parking stalls for the ordinance.
>> I'm going to ask Mr. Gunberg to go back into that those two resolutions and see if a prior variance was granted for that. While he's looking at it, for those four parking, is any one of them used by employees or
>> all my employees inside? >> So, those are strictly for the new clients who may want to come inside. >> You park inside the fence where in an assigned parking spot or not. Jessica, before you answer that, can you please go in front of a microphone? Go to that one.
>> Where the employees park where? >> Um, inside the fenced area, >> but in in strike parking stalls or not? >> No. >> Yeah. So, that we got to got to formalize that. Go show your engineer on the site plan
without saying anything that the board can hear where you're parking. >> I don't see a parking variance. You don't see. >> Okay. [Music] >> Do you want to take a break?
>> Are you okay? >> Okay. Why don't you Why don't you take a take a fivem minute recess? They have to get their act together. >> Okay. All right. >> Steve, do you need a break to figure this out or not? >> Okay. Nice to meet you.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Calling meeting back door. >> So, what did you find out about the parking situation, Mr. Groomberg? >> So, we reviewed the parking situation and we're going to eliminate the variance and Mr. Ouch will explain where
we'll put the parking spaces to that. >> Get this on on an exhibit because you're going to be adding parking spaces. Correct. Correct. >> Correct. >> And this is also where the employees will be parking presumably in striped spaces. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, um, what sheet do you want to
use? >> Uh, I have sheet four of six entitled site plan. And these are the the plans that were filed, but now it'll be an exhibit since we're marking it. >> Right. So, I want you to just rip that one sheet out. Sheet four of six. And what's the last revised date? That's the
site plan sheet. Why don't you just draw on it and then rip it out? >> I can't hear you. >> Why don't you just let them draw on it and then rip it out after >> Okay, Mark exhibit A3. You can draw all over it and you'll rip it out after. It's a good suggestion by the board
secretary. That's That's why she gets the big bucks. >> What? >> Nothing. >> What do you say? >> Yes. >> Fluff. I said fluff. Fluff the duck. >> Say less. Say less.
For the record, the last revised date on it. >> Yeah. May 23rd, 2025. >> Okay. And you're going to draw What have you drawn on sheet three 406, which is
exhibit A3? Uh, I haven't drawn anything yet, but there's a 52 1/2 foot wide aisle between the existing and um Okay, >> Jeff and Jay, can you walk down there to see what he's >> Oh, okay. All right.
>> So, there's a 52 and 1/2 ft wide aisle. Um and nearest the proposed buildings and the existing building, there's an area where we could stripe in these locations to provide the >> the additional five stalls that are required to get to nine.
>> So, can you mark that in on that exhibit? Mark in the five additional stalls. >> Okay. >> Because then I'm going to ask Jay to look at it and render an opinion if that's a good place for it, etc., etc.
The stuff that He does as a traffic engineering expert. Excuse me. The intent would be to have stalls here, here, and potentially here. And with the 52 1/2 ft wide aisle, we
can accommodate two stalls and still provide an adequate drive-thru in both directions. Can we take another fivem minute recess then and have you guys sit down and draw them onto that exhibit so there's no question afterwards?
>> Okay, we take another five minutes. >> Okay, taking a break. >> Know it's becoming a little bit of a work session, but don't norally do that. But >> yeah, this good. >> It'll be worth it. >> Yes, >> baby hanging in there. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, >> in the other room calling the meeting back to order. >> What have you done during the five minute recess? >> Uh, we spoke with the board's professionals. We've agreed we're going to have two perpendicular stalls nearest the first building, two perpendicular
stalls in the nearest the middle building, and one perpendicular stall nearest the third building. >> And are they marked in on that exhibit? >> Yeah, >> they are. >> Okay. So there would be a a condition if the board grant approval that the site plans would be revised to incorporate
the changes shown in exhibit A3. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So that works. >> Really? >> That's good. >> And then we no longer need a parking variance. >> That's really good. >> Any other relief that we are requesting
of the board? >> Yes. You need an exception from having a trash enclosure. >> Not having a trash enclosure. >> H >> from not having a trash enclosure. >> Correct. From not having a trash enclosure. And the reason for that
exception is because you're not going to have any dumpsters and the trash is being taken off site. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything else in terms of relief? >> That's all I have.
>> So, let's go through the board's professionals. respondents and we'll start with uh Mr. Varela first and I'll skip to my highlighted and if there's anything that I'm skipping over that you want to address please let me
know. So Jeff Varela's memo is October 10, right? >> Correct. He asked a question on number four and applicants shall confirm that there's phasing to this proposal. There is no phasing to this proposal. That was
previously with respect to the outdoor storage and that we had planned, but there is no phasing to this proposal. Plan on building them both at the same time. Um I'll skip over the DA the
number five. Um applicant shall confirm if the floor area ratio is calculated on net acreage. >> Uh >> yes that is how we calculated it. [Music]
>> Number eight. Um we are planning the on matching those colors as closely as possible. So that is the intent to um match those colors.
Number nine to clarify the hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 900 p.m. not 11 p.m. [Music] We'll make the change for uh the zoning table on 11 >> number 11. We'll make the change on the
zoning table. Um number 12, there was a question about the east elevation for building two showing no units on the east side facing Highway 202. Is that because there are no garages, garage doors on that face of the building? Because it's the internal
lit. That's why you're not seeing that on the architecturals. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We'll update the number 13. Um the architectural plans are updated. >> Okay. >> So, what's the condition? >> The site plans will be changed. >> Okay.
Number 14, we we address the signage. 15, we address the dumpster location. 16, we'll address the landscaping when we come to Mr. Thomas's. >> Right. So, we're holding seven for your planner. 16 for John Thomas. Right. >> Correct.
Um, we'll reor number 17. We'll reorient the >> that box. 18. You took care of >> 18. She's here >> and 19 >> and u letter of no interest. >> Right. >> And I understand that there's no agency
reviews to for us to address. >> They're all acceptable. Um no additional comments. >> Okay. So do I the standard condition listing the we don't you don't have any has to be in that condition?
>> No the only I have a question. Um which one is this one? Yes. Yes. C Ah is required. >> Yeah. So it's um she puts a fee. It's a it's a non residential
fee that's happen. >> So I am going to list it. The the reviews have come in. And they don't have to make changes, but they do have to comply with >> Okay, we're that was not required.
>> Yeah. Um I just wanted >> microphone. I just wanted to go back to how the ratio was taken because I don't I don't know because you have the total acreage and then you have the total proposed
floor area but uh number six >> number five and six because the the n acreage must include exclude easements which development cannot be located and there's a couple easements that I I don't know
if there was a the calculation the calculation provided doesn't incorporate any other deductions >> right so the way the ordinance is at least the way I read the ordinance is it says net lot area is excluding any
master plan roads or or roadways and or any easements that preclude structures from being installed in those easements. Your ordinance defines a structure as a curb, an underground detention basin, a basin,
bunch of other things. So the easements that are on the property do not preclude structures from being installed in them. So that we would not have to take out that area as part of the the net lot area. So the net lot area is the lot area.
>> Wouldn't you think that wouldn't you the F is only floor area. So >> yeah, so the floor isn't changing. The the area of the lot is the net lot area and the net lot area isn't changing because the easements do not preclude
any structures from being installed in them. They allow structures to be installed in them. So you don't have to take away that area. >> Give me the ordinance provision. So floor area ratio the quotient >> this is a definition of Floor area ratio
was in section 296-3. >> Yes. The quotient achieved by dividing the gross floor area by the net area of the lot. The sum of the gross horizontal areas of all includes enclosed floors of a building including sellers, basement,
mezzanines, pen houses, corridors and lobbies. from the exterior face of exterior walls or from the center line of a common wall separating two buildings but excluding any space with a floor to ceiling height of less than 7
ft. See also gross floor area. >> So if you go to the net area Net area of lot >> three area of >> net area of lot >> net area of >> C net acorage.
So now you get an acorage the acreage of a lot excluding the area of existing or planned street right ofways and excluding the area of any easements which would include the development of structures there's no
structures you're [Music] is does that definition mean you say you couldn't put a structure over or does it mean you only excluding this if you're putting
>> the the way I I read it or the way I understand it interpret that you're right that The calculation has to be based on net bridge excluding the board in 2002 did not
>> did not exclude >> correct. >> So even if their percentage goes from 17% to like 18 something >> we're still talking about the same area. >> That's correct. It's just the calculation. My suggestion which I don't
normally suggest something like this is just ignore this issue this application wasn't treated that way back then some other application >> it it hadn't been treated that way in any of the
>> it hadn't been treated that way in the history of this application >> correct >> we're going to leave it like that and I'm going to suggest we just brush out five and I can't hear you, John. >> I can't hear you, John. >> Cuz Jeff didn't give me my microphone
back. >> Here comes the bus. I said that my suggestion is that's a joke. I'm not blaming Jeff. It was my fault. I didn't take the microphone. >> She can't hear you telepathically then.
>> There you go. >> That's good. We're going to cross out Jeff's item five and six because in the history of this application dating back to the very first bifurcated D4 variance granted in 2002,
the planning department has never raised this issue. So even if Jeff is correct, and I think he's probably correct as he is on most things, he just catches things that people in the past didn't catch, which is a good thing. But even if we did that
and the percentage went from 17.7 to like 18 point something, the fact is they're not adding any impervious coverage, any hard surface coverage to the site. They're just putting buildings over these two pads that were previously
approved to have buildings. And once you put a building over the pads, it converts the pads from just pads to floor area. And so it's the same it's the same exact thing that was approved in 2002. So
that's why I'm suggesting we just ignore it by crossing out five and six so all the numbers jive with the history of all the resolutions in this application. That's what I said. Okay. >> So I like that idea.
>> Can I move on to Mr. Dar's report? >> Yes. >> Which is dated October 6, 2025. With the understanding we're coming back to Jeff's items seven and 16, right? >> I already we already did this. >> We did. >> We did everything. >> No, you didn't. You didn't do special
reasons testimony, which is item seven. >> And you didn't do 16, the landscaping. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah, we're coming back to those reports, >> right? I'm sorry. >> Okay. This is Mr. Dar's report dated
what? October 6, 2025. >> Okay. And I think I can skip to um the general comments. >> Yep. >> And um
the said that we should address the comments of the prior board engineers memo of October 27th, 2023. That all dealt with the prior application on the um outdoor storage. So, I don't think that's relevant unless there's anything
you want me to specifically address in that correspondence. >> Jeff, do you have anything you think should be addressed in that prior correspondence? >> I think he mentioned >> I mean if it's on the other new report, >> if I may.
>> Yeah. Um, some of the comments can be removed. Um, however, I wanted to call attention to certain comments that were under section B on page two. >> Okay, this is being on page two of the old memo or this >> memo. May I continue?
>> Jeff, show me where that is. >> We We can do B. I'm sorry. It's B site plan comments. >> Um, I I just got to see where we are. >> It's the previous letter >> from Ferrero. It's the Ferrero report of
October 27th, 2023. Okay, got it. Ready. Um, number one, hold on. I think if I'm understanding, I
think you guys are still looking at the ERRI letter, right? >> We need Heer. He attached the Ferrer letter. >> Yes. So this so what we're going through is the Paul Ferrerero letter
>> dated October 27, 2023. >> Correct. >> And which item >> under section B one, two, and four. >> One, two, and four. >> The rest are not applicable to this application. The lighting plan will include the color temperature for the
proposed light fixtures and the schedule of lighting operations should be included on the plan. We will do that. Um detail of the lighting fixtures will be shown on the plan. >> Put it this way. If the board made all those conditions, you would agree to
comply with them. Is that correct? >> One, two, and four. Yes. >> Okay. So, hold on. I'm going to keep this. >> Let me just look at four again. >> See if you wrote anything incriminating on it before I take it from you. Four is more a recommendation, not a requirement, >> but we'll we'll take that recommendation.
>> Yes, it is also noted on sheet four of the plan set that existing cracks and pavement will be filled and parking lot will be sealed after construction. >> Yep. So, anyone who says should consider should should, it's going to be shall shall shall. They're going to be conditions.
>> Can you email this to me tomorrow? >> Can I go make a copy? >> I'm keeping this. I just want a digital copy. >> This is Ferrara's October 27, 2023. >> It's probably in the file.
>> Anything else in this report? >> No, not in that report. [Music] >> So, item B, numbers one through four are going to be conditions. >> One, two, four, not three. >> Not three. Oh, right. Okay, that's it.
Because that was from the old plan. Okay. numbers one, two, and four. Okay, going back to the uh environmental resolutions report of October 6, 2025.
Um we just addressed number one. Number two, um we confirmed that it's not being phased. Number three, it's not applicable. Yep. Um well actually Mr. Well um it's been confirmed.
>> He's he's confirmed >> right. Yeah. Number four um we will do that. We will add all the variances and waiverss on the plan set. So but when we we're adding the variance in waiverss these are the >> of the prior resolution
>> right the variance in waiverss previously granted and the variances and the one the one variance and the one C2 sign variance >> exception >> the D4 variance the C2 sign variance and
the exception that would be granted tonight correct >> five six and seven are no longer applicable because it's the dealing with the outdoor vehicle storage. >> Yep. >> Number eight, I think we already
testified as to uh A and B and I think we need testimony to suggest the pavement condition and concrete. >> So, as uh the the current condition of the pavement is there's areas that are
adequate, there's areas that need maintenance and replacement similar with the concrete. Um, but as has been testified, there's going to be no change in the impervious coverage. It's just routine maintenance that any property that's been operating for 20 years is
going to have to uh take on. I'll put it this way. Does the engineer have a recommendation of what parts of the pavement have to be repaired and how that's going to be done? In other words, crack repair and
asphalt ceiling, other distressed areas of the pavement. If that's going to be the condition, um I don't know how you guys will work that out in the field. >> We I mean we I think part of uh the
condition or part of the approvals is typically like pre-coming and at that point we can walk the site with the town's engineer and flag any areas that >> that's a good idea. So we got to repair the cracks asphalt seal to be determined
at time of >> pre-construction meeting. That's a good idea. Okay. Now, what about the concrete? Is that concrete also? The concrete's part of the the foundation pads of the um structural units that are the storage
units. So a structural engineer and or the architect is going to have to review that internally. And if there's any structural repair, >> they'll have to take care of that. >> Unless you guys disagree with me, that's inside the building. That's their problem. Correct. The pavement the board
would be concerned about. Okay. So, I'm not going to say anything that concrete. That's up to them. Right. >> I have a question about will there be arrows painted on the pavement? There currently is ARP and if we need to
replace them when we seal and fix the um the cracking condition >> that talks about maintaining parking and pavement and um signage and striping. So that that'll be picked up in the standard condition.
>> Number nine, the fire marshall didn't have any comments. Number 10. Um, please provide testimony regarding the existing storm water facilities and particularly the oil traps. >> So, I went out to the site and I
reviewed the property. Um, the storm water basin was built. Um, there does look like there needs to be some maintenance done to get it back into full compliance and operating um condition. Uh, so that
would have to be taken care of. Um, and the notes about the oil traps, the original design had the last two inlets on the driveway in line to have oil traps installed. Um, I did not witness
those when I was out there. So, they may still have to be installed to become in compliance with the original storm water design >> and we would agree to do that. So, what kind of condition? So what the what kind of condition are you guys
looking for me to put in a resolution? >> I guess upon inspection if the applicant's engineer is correct that they were not installed that they will the applicant agrees to install them as a condition of approval. The oil traps >> if not installed
oil traps shall be installed. >> Okay. do whatever maintenance to bring the bases. >> Yes. Continued maintenance. >> If oil traps were not installed, the oil traps shall be installed. [Music]
>> Oh, I thought you said John. >> No, >> that's why I repeated it. I thought I was doing you a favor. >> Did you get that on the record? >> It's recorded. I will wear makeup. >> So, um,
>> you better talk. >> Yes, I will. >> Um, just confirming what the engineer said that the basin will be brought back into operational design as according to the original design. >> Yes, agreed. >> Okay. I just have to
>> um, so what do I say? Based on the applicant's inspection of the basin itself, it appears that it could use some maintenance to bring it back to the intent of its original design >> and that would be an addition to installation of the oil traps.
>> Hold on. >> Yes, >> good point. Yeah. That would be prior to CO, correct? >> And that's also with respect to the oils prior to CO. Yes.
>> Okay. Got it. >> Number 12 deals with lighting. Can you address the lighting comments? Um, so our plans incorrectly noted that there would be no lighting improvements at the site. We were under the impression that
there weren't going to be, but after talking with the applicant, we understand that the intent is on the new structures to mimic the locations of the lights that were previously approved by the board and the mounting height of the lights on the buildings. uh they were
designed to be um mounted at 9 ft high and 50 feet on center on either side of the structure. So the intent would be or or the design would be to install um the lighting at that level with that spacing uh with the only exception being they
would now be LED lights instead of the old um lighting to be more uh energy efficient and up to today's technology. So what you're saying is the lighting to be added to the two new buildings to match the heights and locations of the
existing lighting, but the light fixtures are going to be LED compliant with the ordinance. Correct. [Music] >> Okay. 13, 14, and 15 are note corrections that are requested on the plans which we will make.
>> Okay. >> And um 16 is outside governmental agency approvals. >> Yep. Got it. >> And 17 is the regular stuff that we agree to. So now we'll deal with Mr. Thomas's
report of October 14th. And um he has made a request for street trees in accordance with section 296-75D4. It says I, but I think that should be L
when I took a look at it. um and it's for 17 street trees and we would agree to do that um to his satisfaction and augment that with the um ornamental trees that we already have on the plan.
>> October 14th memo you agree to do correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And >> and Mr. Entropman's report I think we addressed it because um we took care of the parking space was think was really the only comment
>> correct >> and other than that we can do planning testimony to the extent that we need it. I think we've already kind of addressed it. Correct. I think that you addressed it. Okay. Well, no. You've addressed the
C2 sign variance and you addressed the exception, but you actually haven't addressed the D4. >> Let's talk about the D4. Yeah. Um, that's >> Before you go there, can I just ask John, >> um, will there be a pre planting
inspection? Will you be working with the applicant on where the plant on where the trees will be planted? >> Yes, we we'll I'm sorry, I'm answering for him. But yes, we do agree. >> Well, what I was going I was going to have a a condition that the site plan
has to be revised to show these on the site plan. >> Thank you. >> That way then all you've got to do is go out and look. Okay. Are they planted where they were shown on the site plan? I think under the circumstances that's the best way to do this. But the existing the existing planting is I think where the the inspection
>> and and honestly we'll have to sort out what the actual approved plan was. To my recollection, the planting that's out there. There's planting out there that's probably very consistent with what was approved. Okay. >> Maybe a few dead plants which won't be
replaced and then we'll add the new planting, the street trees. So, we're going to add that the existing planting that's going to be a note on the site plans. The other two will be actual >> changes to the plans to show planting.
>> So, we'll have an actual planting plan with species and sizes. >> Thank you. Mr. Gber, could you just could you just recognize that the traffic report there was nothing to this? >> I think I did, but um >> there's no conditions, Mr. Troutman,
coming out of your report. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Um >> D4 variance. D4 variance is a little bit different than a D1 variance. Correct. >> Correct.
>> And what what's the standard for a D4 variance as opposed to a D1 variance? >> The board has to find that the site can accommodate the >> Okay. Can I Can I just do this? Can I read what the board said in resolution 2002-13? the standard
>> just have him do that but I was just asking >> so read paragraph yep B1 on page four that's the positive criterion that the board found applies to a need for variances read it slowly all right so provided that the
conditions set forth below are imposed no no page four paragraph B1 okay the board has the power to grant the D4 variances to permit an increase in the permitted floor area ratio pursuant to
NJSA 405D-70D4 quotes in particular cases and four special reasons. This is a so-called positive criteria for of a D4 F variance. As pertains to the positive criteria,
the EL division of the superior court has held that a D4 F variance is more akin to a D3 conditional use variance than a D1 use variance. So that board's focus must be on whether the site will accommodate the problems associated with
the proposed permitted use, but with a larger floor area than what is permitted by ordinance. See Randolph Town Center versus Randolph. >> You don't have to put the citation in there. >> Okay. And held that the standard annunciated in the
Coventry Square case, which is the Supreme Court's D3 variance case, applies to a D4 variant. So this means the standard is whether and this is the key. This is what the board has to find. Will the site remain appropriate for the permitted use despite the deviation from
the ordinance at issue? So the D4 variance applicant does not have to show the property is particularly suited for more intensive development and the the board has found subject to the imposition in compliance with certain conditions which again as I said
the history in the beginning was that landscape preservation which the board later lifted and said it's a landscaping plan that the site will accommodate the problems associated with the permitted use but with a larger floor Basically the board found yeah no
problem as long as you comply with the conditions and if you comply with the conditions you also satisfy the ne the negative criterion. So Mr. Sut your testimony is the same thing applies today that applied in 2002. >> That is absolutely correct >> and the difference in conditions is the landscaping is going to be different.
2002 it was preserving an area. 2011 the board lifted that but the board said you got to put together a landscape plan. Now Mr. Thomas, correct me if I'm wrong, said that, "Yeah, the landscape plan you think is basically out there. There might be some dead stuff, but you've also recommended they add stuff, and they said yes, they will."
>> So, in your opinion, the landscape plan now would be better than the one the board approved in 2011. >> Yes. >> That's your case? That's my case. >> Okay. Anybody have any questions for the planner
that was the engineer? Any any professionals have any questions? Okay. Hearing none, we can close for Okay. Anybody want to go? >> Thank you. >> Uh so I'm in support of the application.
Uh I think uh first of all, thank you for your honesty. >> Yes. You started off on a very good foot. >> Yeah. And also you saw that it helped you with also the parking spots and how things got resolved and that was because of what you just said which normally was
a wrong thing to do but you did it and it got sold. So thank you for that and uh thank you for the team as always. You guys do a great job. So appreciate that. Um I will support this application. I think there are a lot of positives.
First of all, um based on you and the applications that you've come here and what we see out there, there's a big demand for especially climate control storage and that's what you're going to do. And so that will bring value to the
community and all the uh improvements which are going to happen in that place and above all and we're very serious about that is landscaping. So very disappointed of what had happened in terms of cutting stuff, but
I think the new plan is even better than what it was before. So that's also positive. So thank you for that and I will support I'll support the application. >> Anyone else want to go? >> I I I'm going to support it and um I do
think this plan is I I like that they're reusing what's there and can build on it. I think the previous um application was a little problematic. I mean, not that there isn't a need for outdoor storage of vehicles, but I think
the site was just a little too tight for it. So, I'm going to vote for it. >> Okay. Uh I would be in favor of this application. Um thank you for uh for presenting tonight. Um, I have to say, um, when when when this application
came in with what happened before, um, it's hard to sometimes, um, not have an opinion. And so, it helps to come and to talk through it. And I think um our change in our format
where we're trying to get the application on one night instead of all this peace meal I think worked very well here because the working session uh helps us get through it and help makes it um a complete application. So
hopefully um that helped too. Uh thank you for for presenting and I think you guys did a good job. >> All right. Um, Jim. >> Yes. >> Loud. Jim. Loud. >> Can you hear me now? >> No. >> Press and hold the button.
>> Closer to that thing, man. >> Just a little bit closer, Jim. >> No. Say something. >> Um, I will support the application. >> All right. There we go. >> Glad she's back to his original intent. [Music]
>> She can't, Jim. She cannot hear you. >> Yeah. Sorry. I can't see. >> He has to hold the button. >> Count. Count. One, two, three. >> One, two, three. >> No. Louder. >> His microphone. >> That microphone's always been a problem.
Can you get him another microphone? >> One, two, three. >> There we go. >> Let me pick up. Uh I'm glad to see back, you know, it's back to its original intent when when it the facility was developed originally and not in the
alternative uh plane of parking. I'm familiar with that in another state and it looks like a junkyard after a while with vehicles uh with flat tires and sitting odd and stuff like that. I I think there's a need for it and I think
that you you've actually improved tremendously uh over the original design. So I will support. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> All right. Chairwoman Miss Cynthia
Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Mr. Osul Damji. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindseay Kubangel. >> Yes. Miss Lorette Cartina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes.
>> Thank you all very much. >> One more question. See? >> Yeah. >> New glasses. >> Um, actually for a little bit longer. >> It's the beard. >> It's the beard. I was right. It's the beard. You said >> my wife is already saying no. You going to keep that thing like all that.
>> You should. It's almost November. No shave. November. >> Thank you all very much. >> Oh, thank you. Thank you. did a good job. >> All right. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> All in favor? >> I
[Music] I mean,