Okay, good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you to those who are joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on November 5th, 2025 at at 7:01 p.m. in
the Sparta Township Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey. And the live stream can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.com/ youtube.comspartatwp. Please note that adequate public notice of this meeting was given in accordance
with the open public meetings act. No new business is to be conducted after 9:30 p.m. and the meeting will end at 10. Let us begin with a salute to our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Dory, would you please call the role? >> Net Burke >> here. Bernie Ryad. >> Brian Zimmerman >> here. >> Ronda
>> here. >> Chairwoman Celesteiano >> here. >> Vice Chairman Robert Otto. Councilman Mark Scott >> here. here. Bobler >> here. >> Christine Dunar >> here. >> So before we begin tonight's proceedings, I would like to extend this
board's congratulations to our newest councilman, Michael Sylvester. We look forward to continuing our working relationship with you. Now, let us move into our public hearings. We have before us PB number 25 737
Sparta Holdings LLC 11 and 13 Aaron Way block 16001 lots 16 and 17 ED zone preliminary site plan carried from 9:17 2025 and uh extension of time to act
okay was granted until today. So gentlemen if you wouldn't mind joining us. Oh, okay. >> Perfect. >> Yes, absolutely. Yes. gentlemen, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you very much.
>> And I'd just like to remind you both, please utilize the microphones for uh recording purposes and for the people at home. >> Thank you very much uh for your attention this evening. My name is David Gray. I'm an attorney at Gray Law Group. I represent the applicant. The applicant
uh is Sparta Holdings LLC, the owner of the property located uh on Aaron Way. There's two lots, 11 and 13 Aaron Way. Uh this is a uh this is our second session on this preliminary site plan
approval uh application and uh there's been testimony uh back on I believe it was September 17 and we are here continuing this evening. Uh we uh prior to this evening uh some additional plans have been exchanged. Our
professionals have met. We'd like to explain some of those changes. Uh and we have uh our engineer is here to testify about that. We expect that our architect will also testify this evening. Uh we have uh our environmental consultant as
well to testify. We have a representative of the applicant entity here to answer any questions. Uh and I look forward to uh getting this presentation going. So with that uh I will either turn it over to Mr. Simmons as he normally gives an intro or write
to our engineer Owen Dystra uh to uh present uh some information about the amendments to our plan. >> I'm assuming as Owen's been duly sworn that he doesn't need to be sworn in again. >> Yes. Thank you. We're just reminding you you're still under oath. Thank you.
>> Got it. >> Want to say something Dave or just >> Madam Chair and board members? I did have a meeting with Mr. Dyster at our office to go over some drainage issues, parking impervious coverage, that type of thing. And my suggestion, if it's all
right with you, Madam Chair, it' probably be more beneficial for Mr. Dyster to outline the changes that they made in response to that meeting. And then if you want, I can go into more detail later on. >> Sounds good. So, Mr. Dyster, just please hold the microphone up. Yeah, they they
don't catch as much as as the others. So, >> Got it. Okay. Um, as Dave said, we had a meeting about a month ago after uh the previous meeting on my birthday. Great night. So, uh, this time at least, uh, we did
have a lot of progress. Me and Dave, we went through the meet through the plans. We came up with a a scenario that he was comfortable with. Um, Dave had recommended we provide a layout that would keep us below a 50% imperous coverage utilizing pavers at an 80%
impervious speculation. So they kept only as 20% would be imper permeable and the rest would be considered imperable. So as a result this was day one what we had initially come up with um it was 154 parking ss which was far more than the
applicant requires. So we went back to the drawing board based on that meeting put up the alternate plan. This was submitted I just this. So, I'll label it.
>> Well, you were modifying A1 from the last meeting. >> This is an ultimate plan to A1. >> So, council, this will be A3. Great. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Could I just ask the date of that just to make sure we're all looking at the same thing? This is the alternate layout plan. It's dated. It's the plan that was submitted to you. The only difference is the alternate layout
overall pavement surfaces significantly. We went from 154 parking SS to 63 SS. In Lindsay's assessment, she indicated that we were short parking and she had calculated as she had calculated the
office at one space per 200. We had looked at as an industrial building. Industrial was based on the number of employees or one for 500 our option. I put together an exhibit of an alternate parking calculation to make sure we're compliant.
>> Mr. um engineer Dyster, could you please um speak? It's really hard um because I was just listening to the previous session, >> but you have to keep it right below your chin so that the folks at home can catch every word.
>> Okay. >> Oh, much better. >> I think that wasn't >> Yeah, that one may not have been >> working appropriately. >> Thank you. >> So, I'm going to provide exhibit A4. >> Yes, please. Um, this is a Sparta Holdings LLC
alternate layout parking calculation out to everyone so everyone has one actual >> good with a microphone. I can do that for you. >> Thank you. Okay, so this exhibit is Sparta Holdings LLC alternate layout parking
calculation. Um, on our proposed plan, we have 63 total stalls provided. We get two bonus for having two EV spaces. So, we have 65 total available parking space credits from an ordinance perspective.
And the parking required based on the office space of 2,282 square feet at one per 200 is 11.4. So we've given two 12 spaces to the office. That leaves 53 spaces for the warehouse and we'd be limiting the um employees in
the warehouse to the 53 spaces. So that would make it compliant and it eliminates the need for the parking waiver. Um as well her report, she indicated that she'd like a condition of approval that contained in there. So, we would
agree to a condition of approval that the number of warehouse employees would be no more than the spaces remaining after subtracting the office space requirement. So, if the um office space were to change in the future, you know, when the tenant actually shows up, it's
shrunk or it's bigger, then the numbers would be adjusted accordingly. So utilizing the alternate plan and the parking calculations on exhibit A3, the application now complies with all the ordinance requirements. We're requesting no variance relief or waiver relief for
this application. At the September hearing, there was some discussion with regard to the intensity of the use. The intensity of the use is directly tied to the traffic in my opinion generated by the site. a traffic to
impact statement was submitted as part of the application. That study was based on the IT um 11th edition of trip generation manual. Um the building per IT is considered a warehouse which is
land use code 150 and based on the calculations utilizing the IT manual the morning peak hour trips would be 33 total trips of which two trips would be trucks. The evening peak would be 36 trips of which two were to be trucks as
well. The total daily trips for the site would be 159 of which 46 would be trucks. So it's a very low impact use in my opinion based on the trip counts and the numbers. Um the state highway access
code sets a limit of 100 trips as where it becomes significant for in the peak hour and we're significantly below that. Our morning our biggest peak hour is 36 trips. So that's kind of the overview. I kind
of will show you how we've made the modifications. We've moved the entrance a little bit to the east. The entrance now comes through the site. This area to the north and west of the building will be porous porous um pavers. Then there's
the darker gray is the pavement area and the light gray is the concrete pads. We believe we have a compliant application at this point and it meets the ordinance requirements. >> Mr. Dystra, I'm just going to ask a couple of clarific clarification
questions if I may. Just to confirm, uh, the applicant is not requesting any variance relief or waiverss. That's your understanding. Correct. >> That's correct. And uh to your knowledge, there's no covenants, easements, or deed restrictions that exist on the property. Is that correct? >> There's some easements, but they would
not restrict this development. >> And uh your office uh performed a survey on the property. Is that correct? >> Yes, there is one easement for the snow removal easement. We'd request that it be relocated, so it's not where our entrance is. Um if the township did not
want to grant that, then they'd be entitled to push snow onto our driveway. And could you just point out for the board where the existing snow removal removal easement is right now? >> Sure. This is Aaron Way on the lower portion of this the map. Um at the end
is our driveway. The slow snow removal easement is this area immediately adjacent to the culde-sac. It it's about a 35 foot deep area by about 50 feet wide. So, it allows for a culde-sac creates a lot of snow because it's a big area of pavement and it
allows for a space to push off that snow. Um, we have a lot of additional space where it'll just be lawn that we could move that to. So, we'd request that we do that. >> Additionally, what's on the south part the south parcel uh to the bottom of the
drawing there? >> The southerntherly parcel is the township lot, which is a uh storm water basin. So, they theoretically >> they could push snow right there. snow down that driveway. >> Okay. And I there was some testimony uh at our last hearing about this, but your
understanding is where there's no request for outdoor storage to be utilized on the site. Is that correct? >> There's no outdoor storage proposed. >> Okay. And again uh with respect to the number of parking spaces and the number of employees were uh the applicant is uh
agreeable to a condition to limit the number of employees to what was it 63 total >> the >> for 63 parking spaces >> 63 spaces plus two bonus for the EVs. So we have 65 total parking spaces. So if you take off the office space which is
12 or 43 >> 12 yeah 53 and 12 >> 12 that leaves 53 for warehouse employees. >> Okay. >> Okay. I have no further questions for the engineer. >> I did just want to mention the waterline
easement. There is a water line that runs through the rear of the property. Um me and Dave had met. Um, in that easement, it requires if there's an issue with it that the town relocates it. Um, Dave asked for some additional easement so that if anything ever happened to it, they could come across
instead of run parallel with the track and we would be amendable to that. >> Thank you, Mr. Dra. >> So, we will bring it to our professionals. Mr. Simmons, do you have anything to add to meeting or that testimony? Madam Chair
and board members, uh, as I indicated earlier, we did have a meeting at our office with Mr. Dystra and his son and our staff. Uh, and in response to that meeting, we did repair the October 31st, 2025 report. And specifically, if I
could draw your attention to the end of the report on page on page number nine, item 16, the alternate layout plan, uh when we discussed the application, we were, as Mr. Dyster indicated we were really
looking at the number of parking spaces and the parking area and imperous coverage that it would generate in addition to the storm water uh requirements and trying to get 50% or less impervious coverage so that it matched the township's ordinance and
they didn't require any variance. So in response to that, the alternate layout that Mr. Dystra just outlined to you is what we came up with if you will. It does meet the it's less than the 50% impervious based on how we were treating
the porest pavers system that they're proposing to use and based on their testimony u and their interpretation of the current ordinance that for a industrial warehouse the choice is one
per employee or one per 500 square ft of area u as they presented it that does not say whichever is greater it just gives is an option. So in my report I before this evening I had it as 63
spaces for 63 employees but because of change to the calculation as shown on exhibit A4 they've changed that taking into consideration the one per 200 for the office area. So, what's listed on page 10 of my report for 63 employees,
if the board were to act on the application, that should be changed to 53 based on their testimony tonight. So, based on the revised layout u and the discussions we had as far as impervious coverage and storm drainage, we're
satisfied in our office with what they came up with as far as meeting the township's ordinance from that standpoint. Um, I also we discussed the uh water main easement. Uh, my concern was based on my
conversations with Corey Long, the director of utilities for Sparta Township that uh if if the water man ever had to get replaced or relocated or repaired, it would be significantly more
involved to try and do that underneath the railroad siding. and it would interfere with additional time and effort on the applicant's part. So, what Mr. Dyster was alluding to was I said it would be nice to have an easement where
the township if they decided to relocate or had to relocate because of damage to that main, they could basically go perpendicular to the exist or the proposed track to minimize the amount of area under the railroad siding and then basically go parallel to it so that it
was much easier construction for the township to undertake and less cost involved, less interference. Um that was the idea with that whole thing. Uh that's the line that if you'll recall basically takes water from the Germany
flats wells and it pipes up to White Lake. That was a requirement of the water allocation permit from the D for that particular water man. So, we were trying to get it set up so that a it was ready if and when it ever had to take place and be constructed and b,
bless you, and b so it didn't have to cause any uh inconvenience or conflict with anything the applicant had planned on their property. In other words, everybody was working together at this point before a shovel went in the ground. So it would be possible with a
minimal amount of cost to the township and a minimum amount of interference to the uh applicant. So those were the main items that we talked about. >> Great, Miss Knight. >> Yeah. I um I just want to call attention
because on my report it does say non-conforming for the parking. However, given Mr. Dystra's um testimony this evening and clarification on the number of employees as well as putting that condition on approval. Um I would change that to conforming given the the
ordinance and the number of employees being confirmed as well. So just wanted to clarify that just so in case anyone does see that there's no questions about it. >> Yeah. Real quickly, Mr. B. So as far as the uh statements and review by the board engineer and the board planner,
they seem to be in line with uh dice I assuming the application is approved. I would put uh that the application would be subject to the analysis of the board engineer and board planner. I think that would be acceptable. >> That is acceptable sir. And then just so
the it's clear on the record we have the condition we're discussing uh limitation of employees as discussed on the record. Uh there would also be the snow removal easement which will more than likely be subject to the mayor and council
approval but uh that being understood uh with the specifications noted by the board engineer. No outdoor storage was discussed and also a water main ement as per the board engineer and again may be subject to the mayor and council.
That's all I know. Thank you. >> Okay, we will bring questions up to the deis. We'll start with Councilman Scott. the uh the uh number of employees the limit on the number of employees that will go with
the land that will go with the property. Well, the limitation is the the resolution. And if let's say there's a violation and the property owner does not comply, the zoning officer or the uh
enforcement zoning enforcement officer would uh give a letter to correct uh and if they did not, there would be a summon. It would go to the municipal court. Uh my experience is when it's brought to property owners attention, they do cure or address it. Uh but so
does it the approval runs with the property. Uh the number if but as far it's not like a variance. It's not that that running with the property. It's a condition of approval. So it's more of a condition. Uh does it
run with the property? Mr. Gray, what do you think? >> In a way it runs with the property. And I respectfully remind the board that when a tenant does come in front of this board that the the teny and their use would have to be approved by the board and there would be another opportunity
to vet who is going to be a tenant in this building in your town. >> Thank you Mr. >> No further questions >> Mr. Day. >> Uh yeah just one uh one quick one maybe two. Um, relative to the uh pvious
papers, is there any type of a maintenance plan that's required to for those >> for for a project like this? Um, the applicant would prepare an operation and maintenance manual for storm water and
that would depending on the brand manufacturer that they have for that type of paver, that would be presumably included in that manual. And that manual would be recorded in the Sussex County Clerk's Office. And that way it's in the
chain of title for the property and as time went on uh if this particular owner sold the property to XYZ Corporation, it would show up in the title search and they'd be made aware that in fact those maintenance obligations were present on
this site. >> Thank you. Um the last question maybe more of a curiosity question but you know so there's going to be a maximum number of employees for for the site. So so does that go into a lease so there's no misunderstanding before this goes for
I mean how does that how do we flow that from this room to any potential applicant? >> My respectful suggestion would be when a tenant comes before the board for approval that it be addressed as a condition of use at that time. Uh I
cannot um speak to the privity of contract of the lease between a landlord and a tenant. Uh seems to make sense. Uh but most importantly, I think there needs to be a meeting of the minds between the landlord and the tenant because the tenants's use is going to
need to be approved by the board and certainly the number of employees should be a topic of conversation. >> Okay. Thank you. I will I will say that uh it's common in commercial leases certainly the ones that I prepare that the tenant complies
with all local uh zoning ordinances and laws and as Mr. Porro correctly noted if there was a violation uh then your zoning enforcement officer could issue a notice of violation. >> I'm I was just my thought was just how do we avoid even getting that far down the road?
>> Right. I I I think the practical uh aspect would be upon approval of the tenant. >> Thank you, >> Miss Buler. >> So, the facility operator will be the tenant. That's what you're looking for
is a facility operator to actually operate the railroad sighting. Right now, the expectation, and I say this because the applicant provided testimony at the last meeting, and we have an applicant representative here, is that yes, the site would be rented
out to a tenant with the idea that they would be utilizing the rail and utilizing the building as warehouse storage. Uh, so that means that a tenant would be occupying this property. If the landlord chooses to occupy the property,
they would be bound to the same conditions as any tenant. And I don't want to preclude the landlord from occupying their own building. But right now, the expectation is that a tenant would occupy. >> If the landlord chooses to occupy, does
he have active business with New York Suscuana and Western Railway? >> Yes. uh the the the uh applicant testified at the last hearing that he had extensive meetings and I'm personally aware of this with the president of the railroad and works with
the railroad currently has contracts with the railroad uh provides maintenance and construction support with the railroad uh and is an active uh also has owns other properties that are rail adjacent uh and is very familiar with the railroad. In fact, uh they work
together uh even to find tenants. >> Thank you, Brooke. >> I I have no questions. Thank you. >> I have no questions. >> I I have a question. Um looking at the table for the traffic flow that you went
over with us, u Mr. Dystra, it says here that a traffic increase of 100 new peak hour trips could have an effect on operating conditions on adjacent roadways and intersections.
I know that the folks that I have heard from um the public I have heard from um are really concerned about traffic, right? And the flow of traffic and the even the pollution uh in the area
because the whole valley is kind of a bowl shape that traps um pollution. But anyway, what I'm wondering is is if something like um I don't know how you would enforce it, zoning, I guess, or somebody would have to enforce it, but
if we could be assured that we wouldn't go over the 100 new peak hour trips as a condition, is that at all possible? Because we really don't know who is going to come into that facility.
um and you know what traffic issues will emerge. So I feel like I need some guarantee. I think the public might want some guarantee on that. >> I think the legal guidance respectfully uh is not appropriately to be testified
about by our engineer and I would defer to uh council for the board as to being able to make traffic flow a condition. That being said, I remind the board that this site was designed specifically to
utilize the rail. We have fewer parking spots because this is not a truck trucking terminal. This is not, you know, a docking station. This is warehousing and designed to utilize the rail in a zone that was specifically
designed for this by the township. And utilizing the rail in and of itself reduces trucks on the road, reduces the traffic. We have modified our plans to cut the parking in half pretty much. Um
so uh I cannot opine as to the legality of uh instituting a condition of traffic flow. I I personally have never seen it, but Mr. Porro has more experience than I do in that area. Uh but I don't know that it's something that the engineer
should really be testifying to. >> Yeah, it's an interesting uh issue. If you recall, we've had the issue with uh traffic, the case of Dunkin Donuts where the uh Dunkin Donuts was in a strip mall and uh there was concern that that
tenant would cause an increased traffic and the board did deny the uh Dunkin Donut case went up on appeal and the appellet court said, "Look, if it's a permitted use, it anticipates traffic or it wouldn't have been a permitted use. We are the planning board. this is a
permitted use before us. Uh but very good question and that when we get the tenant here uh we'd be able to look at that more closely as far as tonight the application seeks preliminary approval. So I think at this point uh uh they have
to comply with the law. Uh so as far as traffic uh and the tenency and the intensity we can wait until the tenant for that. >> Uh will the tenant need to come before the board? Yeah, the applicant had had said that uh it's anticipated. >> I believe I I I did listen to that. And
then the other thing I wanted just to confirm with you is the flow of goods. Is that coming from the train always into the uh warehouse and then being picked up by a truck and then moved out
or is it also coming in by truck being put in the warehouse and then going out by train? >> That is a great question. one which it hasn't happened yet. So I don't know the answer. It's anticipated that legally it would go both ways. Some
some would come on truck, sit in a warehouse, ultimately go on a train car, some would come off a train car, sit in a warehouse, ultimately leave, maybe go back on a train car, different one. Um, and I don't uh want to limit the use of
the rail coming in or going out. Sometimes, like I said, it comes off the rail, sits in the warehouse, goes back on the rail on a different train. Uh so, uh it's it's hard to say without that tenant actually operating. >> So, the table that we're looking at,
table one on page three, is that uh what is that an example of inflow or outflow or or how does that work? because I think if you had a lot of trucks coming in to pick up things that would change
the table values quite a bit. >> Madam, may I ask if you are referring to our traffic impact statement that we had supplied or is that on the neglia report? This is the um this is table one on page three of the
>> that's on ours >> traffic impact statement Dolan and Dean consulting engineering. >> Yeah. So this this report is based on it manual trip generations and it's a function of uh statistical analysis of
existing um similar type uses. So based on that this is what you would anticipate in a typical warehouse. This excludes the the train because the it does not analyze warehouses with trains. So likely it would reduce the truck
count below what's here assuming that the train is used um significantly. So I don't see it. Um these are uh the values are created based on the IT
statistics and these are really overestimated based on the IT manual has been updated since then and it actually reduces these numbers by about a third. >> Thank you. Does our town have its own traffic uh engineer report? Uh do we
have a traffic report coming from the town? because I don't think I looked at that yet. >> The traffic engineer reviewer >> Yeah. >> was dated September 12th, 2025. >> Yeah. And he was present last meeting. >> Yeah. >> He was also the original meeting.
>> Okay. Um All right. Thank you. Um so my sole question actually based on that report one of the things that we we I don't know if we uh had mentioned last time but definitely want a a answer on
this one this one this time. So uh one of the the elements here uh says tractor trailer stalls shall not be utilized as overnight quarters. Um testimony required from applicant. So, we just want confirmation that there's going to be no
>> We confirmed that last meeting. >> Okay. I just wanted I was I didn't have it in my notes. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we will move to questions from the public for this witness. >> Jenny, where is the um impervious? Where are
the impervious pavers and what's going to be parked on top of them? >> The impervious pavers are the parking areas up front and the driveways um on the northwesterly side of the building. >> That entire section. >> Yes. >> And in the last hearing, and I'm I
apologize if I missed the um update. In the last discussion, in the last hearing, there was a discussion of banking spaces. Is that still in the plans? >> We've eliminated the spaces. >> Eliminated that. Okay. Thanking them. >> Okay. Thank you. >> One more quick question about the the uh
pvious pavers. What what what's the weight rating on those? I mean, in terms of parking, I mean, are we talking about just car weight or or are we talking truck weight? >> Truck weight. >> That is all I have. I had one question, Wes.
>> Um, at a previous town council meeting, we had a discussion about, you know, Route 15 being at its maximum. And I don't understand. I I I just wanted to ask the professionals, how does this how does this addition of these trucks or
these hundred 100 vehicles at at peak peak times, how does that relate to the fact that we've had traffic studies done that said 15 is at its maximum. Now, this is only to make it worse or is this
to make it better? Uh I I'm not sure I understand the variables here. >> Well, I think you have a situation where it it's going to add additional traffic. No question about it. Uh I think the the the significant part about this location
and this particular development when I say development Aaron way as commercial area uh it's going to come to a T intersection with White Lake Road and then it's going to go from White Lake
Road in all likelihood towards Route 15 and it's going to end up at a signalized intersection. So, as far as the traffic being able to be controlled safely at that intersection, you're with a traffic signal. So, that's going to help that
situation. And then you're going to be going in all likelihood south on 15 uh through another signalized intersection and then eventually onto the four-lane traffic. Will it add more traffic? Yes. Uh is it a relatively quote unquote
short distance to the four-lane section of 15? Yes, relatively. Um, and that's basically the answer. Do I think they're going to adjust the traffic signal timing or what have you
just for this particular operation? I don't think so. Um, but again, I think from a safety standpoint, going through signalized intersections as opposed to local municipal streets under Sparta Township other than Aaron Way, uh, this
what this is what it was set up for. And I I I would anticipate, especially with the fact that they're probably going to be box trucks or tractor trailers predominantly, I think the outline of where the vehicles would be going, in my opinion, is probably the safest way to
get them to the four-lane section and then further down below depending on where the destination of the trip is. Okay. So, this is already obviously uh a property in in a that's being proposed
in a already approved use. >> Yes. So is that to say that we can no longer take traffic into account >> when we say that route 15 is at its
maximum. We just have to ignore that because we've already this has already become zoned as a as a industrial space. >> If I could uh coun you have the ability of time place and manner. So, let's say
the tenant uh I think we saw this last month with the Mediterranean deliveries on off hours. So, there's areas of which you can help. Uh let's say you wanted to uh do a special assessment to widen the
lanes or put in a light. Uh those are methods of generating revenue that the uh Aaron Way commercial property owners again a special assessment on Aaron Way. If you put a traffic light there because impacting just them. I'm not recommending that. I'm just saying there
are mechanisms that you can address, but as you had said a couple minutes ago that it is a permitted use in a recognized zone. So, uh again, time, place, and matter is your power and we'll see it with the tenant. That's
when we're really >> I also believe the schoolmakers had mentioned last time that they're going to find the appropriate tenant for this facility and they're going to do their due diligence to make sure that happened. And we also had Brian Andola here at our last meeting to opine on
traffic issues. And that that was the whole purpose of having him here was to um to testify or assert what needed to be asserted with regard to traffic flow which I think was the result of of how we you know came to reduced parking and
and circulation overall. Uh, I have no more questions of this witness. If we can move on. >> Yes, madam chairwoman. If I may, I would like to uh introduce Richard Saunderson, our architect, to the board and have him sworn in as our next witness.
>> Mr. Bal, you mind? >> Yes. on the do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give that is the truth all truth and nothing but the truth and the penalty of perjury self you've got >> I do >> good and uh can you spell your last name please?
>> Sure. Saunderson. S is in Sam. A U N D E R S O N. >> And your professional address, please? >> Uh 545 8th Avenue, New York, New York. >> And uh you currently hold a New Jersey license for an architect?
>> I do. >> And it's in good standing. >> Yes. >> Have you ever testified before the board before this board? >> Yes, I have. and and uh based upon those representations uh the chairperson that I'd recommend you accept Mr. uh Saunders as an expert in architectural
>> planning. >> So accepted. >> Thank you Mr. Saunderson. I see you have some boards uh up on the on the podium. If you could please walk us through uh the material boards that and color renderings that you have. So there are
three boards that I will be presenting and I guess entering as exhibits. The first one is an aerial rendering showing the building from the southwest of the building.
>> Why don't we mark that as an A5? Council >> A5. >> A5. Okay. The second board is a schematic floor plan which shows the architectural layout of the building >> A6 >> and the third board are rendered
exterior elevations of the building showing all sides of the proposed building. >> A7 So, starting with the aerial rendering, I'll just give you a quick overview. Again, this is the view from the southwest corner of the building looking at the
building. The rear of course is the rail line and the rail access on the far side of the building. This is the approach from uh Aaron Lane or Aaron Road and the culde-sac existing at the end of the
prop of the roadway right now. The building is a singlestory building. It'll be a steel framed building with concrete pre-cast concrete exterior walls with punched windows. And you'll see further on the elevations
that the elevation is articulated with the pattern of the panels as well as changes in color. Quick overview on the floor plan. Again, it's a singlestory building. The predominant use of the building as a warehouse, storage warehouse with the
accessory use of office space. And the third board shows again the how the building looks like from the exterior as well as a cross-section through the building. The building is designed to have a clear height on the interior of 36 feet clear, which will
result in a building with a maximum height of approximately 45 foot 11 above the 00 elevation. Again, all sides of the building are pre-cast concrete panels and articulated
with the intent that it could be used by uh different types of tenants because there's no tenant at this time. >> Mr. So understand, can you uh explain if if rooftop mechanical equipment should be required whether or not it would be screened or
would it be viewable from the ground? Can you talk to that issue? I could I mean uh generally in a in a storage warehouse many of them are actually ambient temperature so they're not air conditioned. Uh if in the event this building needed to be air conditioned based upon the ultimate tenant, uh it
would likely be an RTU rooftop unit system, those units can be placed uh away from the edge of the roof, usually at least one column bay end. And therefore the the parapits on the building which where
the where the wall extends above the actual roof line as well as the line of sight when you're within a few hundred feet of the building would essentially naturally screen most RTUs which are in the four or five foot high range. Um or could be screened if they were large
units. But again that's only if the building was an air conditioned warehouse which is atypical. Council, if uh if the building does require a rooftop HVAC and assuming there was approval, would it be okay if
the reser resolution reflect that if there is rooftop HVAC will be screened as per the board engineers specifications? >> Mr. Pora, I would suggest to add if it's viewable uh from the ground because if it's centralized in the building, you might not be able to see it anyway. may
not need to be screened, but certainly if it's viewable, we can agree that that would be a condition. >> And even if it's uh not viewable, subject to the board engineers review. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I would be satisfied if the board wanted that.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Sanderson. Can you flip back to A1 for a moment? Actually, you know what? Let's leave it on A2. Can you put A2 up for me? >> We'll keep A2. >> And if we take a look at A2, uh we see
the office uh area is on the western portion of the building. >> That's correct. >> And on the eastern portion of the building, could you uh maybe just show where the rail would be roughly? So the rail is on the right side of the drawing essentially the east side of the
building where there would be a platform for uh rail access essentially loading and unloading the rail cars. >> I see. And those uh those dock door uh drawings there. Can you explain where the dock doors are on this building? So
facing south towards the uh Aaron Lane or Aaron Road, there are two dock doors at the front of the building or the south side of the building and there are seven dock doors at the north side of the building. >> And when we use this term dock door,
this is actually defined in Sparta's zoning ordinance section 18-2.1. Are you familiar with the definition? >> Yes. >> Of dock door. Can you read that for the record? Sure. So a dock door is a type of sectional door used on the building facade above grade which allows tractor
and I suppose other trucks to basically load and unload their materials and goods directly into the building. >> Okay. And how many total dock doors are on this building again? >> Uh nine total. Two two plus seven. >> And how many sides of the building
contain dock doors? >> Uh there would be two sides. The south side and the north side. I see. Uh there's nine on the north side, two on the south side. >> Uh seven and two. >> Seven, I'm sorry. Seven and two for a total of nine. Okay. Uh
the architectural plans for this building is for what? It says warehouse right in the middle. Is this a warehouse? >> That's correct. >> And are you familiar with the definition of warehouse as it's defined by Sparta Township in its ordinance section 18-2.1? >> Yes. >> Could you read that for the record,
please? The definition is a building where raw materials or finished goods are stored where the primary purpose of the product and typically have a low volume of tractor trailer and non-tractor trailer vehicle traffic. Uh
product is the primary use that contains docked doors on not more than one and a partial second I guess it's facade is cut off considered a warehouse not a distribution center. >> So Mr. So Anderson, based on that definition, does this building meet the
definition of a warehouse as is defined by Sparta Municipal Ordinance Section 18-2.1? >> Yes. >> I have no further questions for Mr. Saunderson. We'll bring it to our professionals. >> Uh madam chair and board members. Uh
just a couple questions. You had indicated that uh other than the office area, the warehouse would just be at ambient temperature and air conditioning nec might not necessarily be required. What about heat? >> Yes, there typically would be some heat
in a warehouse. Yes, >> it it'll definitely be heated, right? >> Yes. Correct. So as a result of that they'll the units for heating would be on the roof also. >> Uh they could be it depends upon the type of system that is put in. They sometimes are actually wall mounted or even on the ground outside if it's a
heat pump type of system >> and if they were ground mounted you could provide landscaping screening. >> I would say yes. That's a sight civil question but I think the answer is yes. >> Uh the answer is yes. And we would uh we would certainly consent to that being a condition of any approval.
>> Okay. Uh the other question at this point, do you know and this may be a function of what the tenant is. Do you know if there will be any generator or generators at the site? >> There is no generator planned at this time for this building. There's no code requirement for a generator. A tenant
needed one. I think that's something that would be addressed at the tenant time. >> So it's a function of the tenant. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the last question I had, if you could go back please to the aerial view was one of the first exhibits. So, I'm not sure which one it is. A four,
five, whatever. >> Just so it's clear, and I I I don't know, but I just want to make sure it's clear for the board. Was this rendering done before the number of parking spaces were changed, or is it a reflection of the 65 some odd parking spaces?
>> That's a good question. And the answer is the the rendering was done several months ago before the parking change. So, I just wanted the board to understand that what they're looking at has more parking than what we're really talking about with the revised layout.
>> Correct. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Is the old number of parking spaces 100? >> That's all I have, Madam Chair. >> Miss N. Um just some questions regarding um kind of the context of the neighboring
properties and kind of the design and materials that you've chosen and how those might impact the adjacent properties or how they are maybe in line with them as well. >> Well, there there is one existing building to the west of this which is another commercial building. Um I don't
think it necessarily needs to mirror each other. They're they're actually quite a distance apart from each other. There's a good amount of open space between the buildings. Yeah, sure. Can you just kind of give more context regarding the kind of the neighbor neighborhood area?
What kind of the heights, the size of the property, the size of the other warehouses? >> The buildings that exist along this this roadway are also all existing uh commercial andor industrial buildings. >> Uh I think this building would be of the same language or the same character as
those buildings. >> Thank you. I have I have nothing. Thank you. >> Hey, we'll bring it up to the deas. Miss Dunar, we'll start with you. >> Um, could you just with your finger, can
you just kind of show us the flow of the uh the uh truck traffic? >> I could, it's really more of a sight civil question, but I think the other I can definitely show you the the main truck circulation would be around the
back of the building here. >> So, in other words, you would turn left before you actually get to the building and then go completely behind the structure. >> The truck court is actually at the rear of the building, the farthest from the street.
>> Okay. And adjacent to the rail. >> And then the exit. >> So, the exit is actually the same way. There's no runaround here. Correct, Owen? There is a runaround. Okay. So that would be actually on your drawing. >> So what we're talking about is this area
here >> right here. >> The truck traffic come in this entrance. The >> Can you use the mic? I'm sorry. Thank you. The truck traffic could come in the westerly entrance, but more than likely the trucks are going to all come through
the um easterly entrance around the back, do their turn around here, and come back out this way. That's how we anticipate most of the trucks moving. So, so the truck I I'm a little confused because because um originally you said
it would come in through the office and around and then does it go around the eastern side of the building and then out uh by the uh culdeac. >> We anticipate the bulk of the truck
traffic will come from the culde-sac into the site. We'll go to the truck area and then we'll return that way. So not where the office area is in that the employee parking >> it's not procluded but we anticipate that's the way okay >> we would direct traffic.
>> Thank you. >> I have a question for uh it's more aesthetics when these pre-cast walls do they come with like colored cements or do you put a coating on them >> or do you anticipate this building being like raw? Typically they are actually
painted on site. >> Painted on site >> and they're and they could ether be sight cast or brought in on a truck pre-cast. >> Okay. >> My guess on a building like this it would be pre-cast. >> Pre-cast. Okay. >> That's only an educated guess. >> Thank you. >> I have a simple question. What what
what's the purpose of this other road going through the back of the building? If the if what we're what we're saying is that the trucks are going to come in through the culde-sac, go to the right and go around. What's the purpose of that back road?
>> Um the ordinance requires two entrances >> ah >> for this use. So we have two entrances. Um and it's also a safety issue. If there's an issue, you can get around in another direction >> other way. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, that's correct. Miss Bulgar,
>> um I'm not sure if this has to be part of your drawings or uh where are the bathrooms going to be? >> That's really more of a detailed design question. >> So that
>> certainly they would have to be um within code required limits. There's, for example, there's a 500 foot maximum travel distance to a restroom and of course the quantity would be based upon the ultimate population of the tenant.
>> Okay? >> So, the bathrooms are not laid out, >> right? >> But they would have to be required by code and that would it's really a building design issue, not a site plan issue. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh just one question. Um and this is more of a clarification on what was discussed before. So when I look at the
ordinance for the ED zone and it talks about HVAC equipment and and other other type of mechan equipment u the ordinance requires that it be groundbased and screened. So if there is going to be a rooftop uh I think right now your
requirements is it there isn't any um is is that correct or where where I can take to if to go to the ordinance under par section 8 design standards and paragraph uh four
right now uh the we're not seeking approval for that equipment. Um, and it it'll be, you know, it certainly be in compliance with the code, but we're not seeking uh approval for it at this time.
>> That's what I So, I just wanted to make sure it was clarified that we weren't approving um rooftop equipment at this time. >> I don't expect, Mr. Day, that there will be a need for this type of a warehouse to be air conditioned. It might make a
lot of sense to roof mount it if indeed it's going to be there's a need for it to be air conditioned. Unlikely. Um but we're not seeking approval for it now. >> Okay. And I think it's reasonable to have a condition that if it ever does come up, it must be screened.
>> That's why I was going Thank you. >> But yes, we're not looking for the approval at this time. Councilman >> Scott. Yes. So, I just want to be clear, the dr the rendering that we were looking at is not the picture that we're looking at right
here. >> The the site plan has changed and been updated. The building is essentially the same. >> Okay. So, now we have an exit and an entrance. One of those the entrance or
as Mr. Dyster just indicated the the entrance would most likely be uh at the circle at at and and right now the adjacent
property owner parks his trucks in the circle and you know I don't know if a that's that's legal b if we enforce that or won't will this add to
I mean there are trucks being parked in that circle right now. >> Yeah, there there's a uh >> that a concern of yours. >> Yeah, it's a concern in that there's a township ordinance I believe prohibiting street parking on Aaron Way. Uh that
being said, I would imagine a conversation between adjacent property owners could resolve that issue. Uh but uh there's an expectation that that the trucks would come in through uh the uh entrance closest to the rail
towards the on the circle if you will, Mr. Scott, the way you said it. >> Okay. Thanks. I just want to go back for a second. It was Mr. Simmons that that really said uh six months ago that 15 was at its capacity.
Um, you know, we have traffic that's backed up making its right hand right hand turn onto White Lake Road. That that intersection that that light, we've got the tractor trailers parking
on the circle. At what point do we just say, you know, enough is enough? I mean, is this a master plan question? I mean, I I asked Celeste as as a member of the master plan committee, is this uh something we
take into consideration when we when we work on the master plan? I mean, it seems like the the hen has left the left the barn. >> There is a circulation element to the master plan that will act that will address these issues. I mean, understand
that Route 15, as much as we would all like to see traffic eased on on that particular roadway, that's a state road. That's not something that we have any purview over. We would have to get um the DOT in here to help us with those problems. Um outside of that, when it
comes to circulation in this particular site relative to this particular application, there are two remedies for what happens on that culde-sac. One of them is a conversation in between the the land owners so that they can they can come to terms. The second is if they
can't come to terms then they contact the zoning office and it's a matter of enforcement. So we do have remedies in place to to facilitate the property in in terms of the actual site plan itself. Um but unfortunately 15 is out of our
jurisdiction. It's out of our hands. That's a Department of Transportation issue. even though we'll try to address it um once once we work on the master plan and and see what we can work through with the Department of Transportation once suggestions are made. But until we get to that place,
these are the issues that we're going to have to continue to deal with. That's why completing the master plan process is so important and why I started that process two years ago. >> Right? So that goes back to the question, does the master plan
encourage additional traffic in this area or is it trying to change the the area so that it has less traffic? >> The circulation component will address whatever issues that are there and then once we get to the point where uh you
know what I will I will let you continue. Um so the circulation element so aside from it not speaking about this application just speaking about master plan the circulation element will detail areas where there are issues with
significant traffic um areas where there are um common accidents. It'll identify issues within the township. Um a master plan though the circulation element is not a regulatory document. So that is what you base your regulations off of.
So writing something within your master plan will give you kind of the blueprint to create ordinances to change that. So looking at the circulation element and the land use element, you may be able to identify uses that are not appropriate or that are going to cause higher traffic that may not be appropriate in
areas where you've just seen that there are heavier um traffic patterns. So that's kind of what we'll get from the master plan and that's where you'll start kind of creating your ordinance. amendments based on those assumptions from the master plan. >> Okay. Thank you. I didn't mean to
sidetrack us. I just wanted to, >> you know, ask when enough is enough. >> Thank you. >> Understood. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh I will open it up to the public for questions for this witness. Jenny Olsen. I'm sorry.
Jenny Derek's tapped into Sparta. I don't know what that was about. Little uh holy crow. That's my maiden name. I've been married 35 years. Anyway, um so just a couple. You should be worried
about me. Um, >> this might be for Lindsay, but while we have the architect here, um, what are the campus like setting elements of this design as required in the ordinance? >> Well, it is set back from the road.
>> Microphone, please. it is set back from the uh >> and maybe if we're looking at the rendering instead of the >> so the the structure is actually set back from the public roadway and there's a fair amount of open space and landscaping between the roadway and the
actual structure. Um, and again there's there's also a good amount of open space clear of the building between this building and the neighboring property. >> So, >> I'm sorry. Continue. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
>> And that's it. Again, then this, of course, this landscape design is not the ultimate design. This is for the purpose of the rendering. I'm sure the landscape architect will do a more detailed planting plan. Are there architectural elements that should be seen in this or
the construction methods that been described is that sufficient to satisfy that requirement? >> Yeah, I think given the um context of what's the neighboring properties as well, which are fairly all consistent in the industrial setting. I think that
what has been described by the architect this evening is in line with kind of the context of the the surrounding uses and the architectural details that they've given this evening I think are in line with the design of an industrial warehouse. >> Thank you.
>> Um will there be a new a new you did address briefly the rail siding and maybe this isn't for you but um I have a couple questions about that. Will there be a new sighting added for this facility?
>> Yes, we had gone over that at the last hearing. >> Sorry. Okay. >> There's um a siding being added um to attach to this building. >> And how does this building as it's designed, how does this how will there be interaction between the building and the rail?
>> The rail is attached to a platform. the siding is adjacent to a platform that they can access the rail cars. >> So the platform will come out of the back of the building or what the the facade of the building that is adjacent to the rail and then because all the tra
all the truck doors or the the doors are on the other ends. >> Yeah. Exhibit A1 this was our original plan on this one. >> Right. But the uh the beige colored area is the loading dock where the rail is into it.
>> So the from the loading dock you're saying there are there is ingress and egress into the building. >> There are doors. Okay. I didn't understand that there were doors there. Thank you for clarifying that. Um and how far is the rail from the building? >> Approximately 25 ft.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um and then this this again may be back to Owen. I'm sorry. I'm um but the this is a discussion of the of the pavers because um I just want to make sure I have the
right number here. 18 this is in the ordinances design ordinances uh land use ordinances 18-3.4 for um provisions applicable to both planning and zoning. And this is under definitions J section J6.
Impervious surfaces shall mean any structure surface or improvement that reduces or prevents absorption of storm water, excuse me, storm water into the land, including but not limited to porous paving, pa blocks, gravel, crushed stone, decks,
patios, elevators, blah blah blah. So, how does the plan to have porous pavers uh align with the definition of imperous surface in the code? >> What section is that? Is that in the
>> That's in 18-3.4 for provisions applicable to both planning board and zoning board of adjustments under section J six definitions. Yeah, I think we went over this last hearing and
it was >> I didn't hear a discussion a full discussion of >> yeah the poorest pavers are more permeable than the existing surface and that's the definition if you get into the definition that's how it's defined
>> okay because that that's not in here that I'm just reading you what's what's in the ordinance okay >> the ordinance definition of impervious coverage specifically ally reads I mean I don't have it >> it says I just read it to you but not limited to porous paving pa blocks
gravel and so forth >> correct >> so you're saying that what you're proposing is in line with and Mr. Simmons agrees that what you're saying the impervious pavers the pvious pavers
are not in contradiction to the impervious as the defined in the ordinance Mr. Simmons. I guess it's a discussion for him. >> Give me the citation statute. >> Certainly. It is 18-3.4 and the title is provisions applicable
to both planning board and zoning board of adjust adjustments all the way down in J six definitions. That's all my questions. Thank you. >> J only has one and two.
I can show you where I am right here. J6. Oh, not yet. My mistake. It's K6, I think. Yes, K6 definitions. While they're looking at the
definitions, if I may, um, basically the 20% that the PA system was giving credit for for being porous was in line with our reading and understanding of the current D storm water regulations as far
as this type of u treatment for a surface under the best what they call the BMP manual, the best management practices manual. That's why we we had a discussion at our meeting and Mr. Dystra agreed to use the 20% as the poorest
part and the 80% as the u impermeable part of the PA. So I'm satisfied that was in line with what we were discussing at our meeting. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. So, I think we can move on to your next witness.
>> Thank you. Uh, and for our next witness, I'd like to present David C. Krueger, our environmental consultant from, uh, Environmental Technology, Inc. to be sworn in. Cruiser Krueger, will you raise your
right hand, please? You solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of perjury or so help you God. >> I do. >> Good. >> Uh name and spell your last name for the record, please. >> Sure. David C. Krueger. K R U E G E R.
>> And your professional address, please. 460 Main Street, Chester, New Jersey. >> Councelor, >> thank you. Mr. Krueger, you provided a report copies of which were supplied in connection with this application dated August 29, 2024.
Uh can you uh can you address uh can you address uh this environmental impact statement that you've provided? >> Um sure. We um prepared the statement based on the uh township checklist for preparing same um went through all the
existing conditions. um the impacts of such. Um I can kind of give a summary of as you already been pointed out the site um has been most of
it has been used for agriculture um was recently planted with corn this year and I believe the year before that. Um, in general, from an environmental standpoint, the lot is
um was chosen for good reason to be this kind of a use because there are not any critical areas on the site for environmental. There's no wetlands, there's no transition areas, there's no regulated waters within proximity to the
site. So I think in general this um development was was picked out for a reason um when this was when this was planned out to be developed in this way and also in proximity to the you know to the roadways that are nearby um but the
site itself does does not have any does not contain any environmentally sensitive or critical areas in itself. So >> so Mr. Krueger based on the method methodology uh method methodology
accepted by the DP and the studies that you have performed. There are no areas within the site classified it as wetlands or a transition area. Is that correct? >> Correct. The nearest water body is White Lake. It's about 350 ft from the northern corner of the site, but most of
the site is much further away from that. And the development area is over 700 feet from that. You mentioned something, Mr. Krueger, about environmentally sensitive areas, and I happen to be from this area. I'm familiar with the groundwater in this
area uh and the aquifer underneath the ground that is relatively close, the Germany flats uh aquafer. Can you speak a bit to that and how this site sits with relation to the underground aquifer?
>> Yes. Well, this was also pointed out in Mr. Simmons letter um that the Germany flats was there and basically the state has um a wellhead protection zone for the Germany flats um well this site is
actually considered in tier three. So they have different tiers and it basically is set up um for time of travel. So for instance, how long it potentially would take anything that gets into the groundwater to reach the wellhead. So in tier three, um this is
basically a 12 year time of travel. So the point being that um while it needs to be protected that it has a longer period for dilution and for attenuation of anything that might get into the groundwater. But at the same time um I
believe the applicant has agreed that um they would comply with the requirements for not storing or having the use of certain hazardous materials that are on a list. The township also um passed a resolution in 20 about adopting these
restrictions for this zone uh that they could um not allow these types of uh chemicals and uses to be on the site. So I think the applicant is totally on board with not allowing that. And that of course would also be looked at again
when a site plan for the specific site was presented um to ensure that there was no use that was contradictory to those restrictions. Thank you. Mr. Krueger, is there anything in your professional opinion that uh negatively affects uh the uh the
site with respect to wetlands or uh environmental impact? In your professional opinion? No, >> I have no further questions for Mr. Krueger. >> We will bring it to our professionals. >> Madam Chair and board members, Mr.
Krueger pointed out the main item that I had uh in my report, item number 13 with regards to the Germany flats area and the wellhead protection area. Uh and he did touch on that and the restrictions against hazardous materials. I believe
in other applications for site plans that we've had before the board, there's also been a condition put in any approval that the board might consider that there be no floor drains uh in this type of building where inadvertently some hazardous materials could be dumped
into the floor drains and either discharged towards the uh storm water system and or towards the septic system. So I would recommend a condition like that if the board was going to act favorably on the application be incorporated into the uh condition. The
other item that has come up in the past based on recommendations from the previous township engineer on site plans because all a lot of the storm drainage in this site and this overall development ends up in the storm water basin at the end of the culac is that a
sump bey uh constructed in the last inlet before it's discharged into the township storm water system so that any storm water and material that gets into that basin at at that point could be tested uh in order to determine, god
forbid, if there was some hazardous material discharged, which particular lot it came off of. And I believe I discussed that with Mr. Dyster at our office and I believe they're in favor of that or in agreement with that. >> Yes. Uh the applicant consents to both
of those conditions referenced by Mr. Simmons. >> David, how would you uh describe that? the the drainage. The last part for testing purposes. >> The last part. >> Yeah. How would I word that? >> That a uh sump area be constructed
in the last storm water structure prior to entering the municipal storm drainage system to facilitate any soil andor water testing of the materials in that basin that may be necessary.
Thank you. >> I have no comments. >> I have no additional comments. >> Okay, we will bring it to the deis. Councilman Scott. >> Where's the septic system going to be here?
Owen can show you exactly. >> Okay. >> Nope. You're still on duty. >> I'm sure the septic is proposed to be on the westerly end of the property. >> That would be underneath.
Pervious or impervious? >> Um, it's under lawn. >> It's It's under >> it's under pvious coverage. >> Pervious >> pvious. So water would flow
from the runoff of the parking lot through the previous coverage down towards that septic system. >> Septic system is at the highest part of the lot. >> The high Okay. And
>> no, no, it just it's for the obviously the effluent from the from the bathrooms that would be the facility, right? >> Yeah. It's a septic system for the people utilizing the facility, >> right? Totally separate from the storm water. >> It wouldn't be for the same
>> chemicals being put poured down the drain or something like that. Uh well, >> septic and storm water are two separate systems. Right. The septic is from the facilities. >> This is for the the toilets >> essentially.
>> So I mean yeah theoretically right was no one's putting anything in the toilet. You're fine. >> And tier three that's could you tell me explain to me what that mean? Does that mean it mean >> in other words what the tier three area
is it's based on how long it's based on the models it would take for the water and anything in the groundwater to reach the wellhead. So in tier three you're basically on average about 12 years. So it's like 10 to 15 years we're probably
in the middle or the outer section of that. Um and the point being that and this is what's discussed in their um model and in their reports. If you know there was something that got into the groundwater, you've got a lot of time to
ameliate that situation and it's also has more time to dilute and to be attenuated with other groundwater. So um you're not right you're not in that close zone to the um wellhead. You're on the outer edge of it. You go a little further north and you're completely out
of what they consider the wellhead protection area. So >> So this area this area Aaron way and excuse me that I don't know the answer is is this going to be there's going to be no red label chemicals here right?
>> Yeah there's a list and that those chemicals cannot be you know not supposed to be stored or used on site. I think there are some for certain materials there's exceptions that the board can give but that would be during a site plan review for certain limited things if it was in a certain use or
needed for that. >> Yeah. When the tenant comes in if they have any of those issues they would have to go through that. >> Right. But unless it's approved otherwise there's a list that would not be allowed to be used on the site. It's quite a lengthy list of things.
>> Okay. And it and the rail cars that are going to be parked here, they would not have red label red labels on them. Right. >> On our rail siding. Correct. >> Right. >> Excuse me. >> The ones on our rail sidings that we can
control. Yes. They would not >> because across the street we have the same regulations and we have red labels over there, but we don't seem to enforce that. But I just want to know how this is going to work out here. So,
under your control, you won't be allowing red red labels on there, >> correct? >> Great. Thanks. >> I have no questions. >> I just have a quick question regarding the septic system. What's the What's the size of the septic required for a
property this size? >> And does it matter who the tenant is >> um with storage? No. Um the function is a function of the number of employees on site and it's >> it is a it is a number uh a requirement
on the number of employees. Is that what you said? Yeah. >> 15 gallons per day per employee on site and five gallon per visitor. It's the function. And >> so it goes so that would go with the applicant, right? >> We will design it based on the size of
the building and the available number of employees. And based on that, we'll from the from the health departments. >> Okay. So, if we design it for what do we say 53 employees? >> Yes. >> And somebody came in with
70 employees, >> they'd have to get a new permit and they'd have to come back here because they'd be over your threshold. >> Okay. So, that would be a condition, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Ryan,
yes. Thank you. Do I have a few things? Um, all right. Well, um, I too am, uh, very concerned about a few things. Um, one thing I'm sure you're aware of is this is an aquifer, a
surficial aquifer, and it has absolutely no protection at all except for what we give it for our drinking water. And um I think that that is critical for all of us to to keep in mind because
what we have going on here is we have cumulative effects from all of the development concentrated in this area. And when you say that it's a 12-ear time of travel
and you talk about attenuation, there's really no attenuation or pas. They're going to be in our uh aquifer and they're going to be accumulating.
And attenuation is only as good as the concentrations that are coming into the aquifer. If they're less, if they're more, then pollution will build up through time.
So, I'm very concerned that this is not being emphasized um in our discussion because um and I'm sorry that I didn't mention it a year or so ago when we were talking about a four 40
um thousand I believe it was square foot uh smaller warehouse down Aaron Way just a little bit. Um, I guess I didn't really see this other development
coming. Um, but but we really um have an opportunity to uh rethink what we're doing to this area with this development here. Um because it is going to add a
considerable amount of uh potential for for pollution here. even though you have graciously put in the the pavers and arranged, you know, that to cut back, I can't stress how
critical this area is. Um, so that was one thing that really popped out on me at first. And are are you aware I'm just reading from you were given um the environmental commission uh
suggestions. I'm just following through on some of those now. Um, and they we are concerned of course about several things and that is a uh a nearby um the
wellhead protection area and also the category one stream uh that's on the northn northwest of the site. uh concerned about um the lake, the
white lake there receiving. If you're pumping from the surficial aquifer um to the lake, then the lake will be receiving through time more contaminants. Um so that was something that um you
know is out there for us to really think about. Um there's two rivers nearby. There's the Pollenkill River. This is actually the headwaters of the Pollenkill River. This whole area that
drains through the other side of 15 and it it goes um out to the uh Sunset End Road and forms a main channel. Um so anything that we do to our aquifers there, it's a complex aquifer. I know
there's there's a lot going on there, but has a potential of sending pollution downstream to Lafayette, our neighbor, our good neighbor. Um, this is also the exact site of the connection between the Walkill River
watershed which flows northward to the Hudson River and um then of course the pollen skill that flows out to the Delaware basin that supplies drinking water for 5 million people. So all of these things should be in the back of our mind in the front of our mind right
now since we're looking at this you know application. Um, we made a request and um, I believe that um, there was a little bit of a discussion about the lighting situation
and that we recommended 3,000 Kelvin or less in lighting, but there was a safety issue and you felt that it was uh, four 4,000 would be the safest um, lighting. Uh perhaps a compromise could be reached
um on that. Uh really impressed by um the list of native plants and the owner I believe discussed how it would be a beautiful looking property and with native plants.
Um when I drive down Aaron Way now, what do I see? I see barberry. I see the flame bush. I don't see any that I think we recommended, you know, they're just and there are um
alternatives like um the Virginia Oh, there's a Virginia sweet spire plant um that gives a red foliage. So, I would really stress that we need to really take care of this area. I don't know whether it'll ever be anything close to
a campuslike setting that our master plan suggested originally, but we need to have some way of um insurance. I would hope that you would follow through on our wishes on native plants there because that also is going to attenuate
a lot of the pollution, right? And I don't think that was mentioned in the the report, but that's going to uh it's going to take in a lot of the the pollutants and prevent them from going down to our surficial aquafer
we're all trying to protect here in our community. Um I just had a um a thought um about noise community impact. I did visit Trafalar
um area. I don't know there's anybody here uh from that community that will be up against um but greater than 500 ft from the railway. Um and I was concerned
uh about the noise because I know that there's a lot of metaltometal screeching when you talk about rail cars grinding together. Um, so, uh, I was hoping there'd be somebody here from that
community that might want to bring that, um, that item up, but I'd like your input on on the banging of the rail cars coming uh, through there. Um, what else?
And um one of the concerns was um if there is an extended warehouse development being prepared for an adjacent area. I don't this is put it out of the context of our application I know but but this is what um I'm
concerned about because um this is the accumulation of impact and effects through time with the increased development of that area. And what else? Yes, that's
that's it. >> I I apologize. So, you just went through a lot of information. Can you can you translate how how that those questions should be answered by the applicant? Um, I just would I would just like your
reflection on it because we have an expert sitting in front of us that is, you know, is an environmental engineer type of a person and these are concerns that we have and and if you have any um,
you know, calming um, solutions to our concerns um, you know, that would be great. And I just wanted to say this because this is something that we need to keep bringing to the forefront when they have have these applications
uh in terms of environmental concerns. >> I'm going to try uh to take what you said and quantify it into some questions if I may. >> Yes. >> For Mr. Krueger, our environmental consultant. Uh Mr. Krueger. Uh, one of the
questions, uh, that Miss Dunar had was, um, there's an aquafer nearby with no protection. Uh, can you please speak to the protections that are there for the aquifer, the laws that are in place that pro protect the aquifer, specifically
with respect to wellhead uh, regulations, and how this property is impacted by those specific laws and how we're following those laws. >> Right. It just work. Okay. Yes. So um obviously the um septic system is being
designed in accordance with all the septic standards and is tested and has to function uh properly based on the amount of flows so that by the by the time the water goes through the groundwater it is it is it is um
acceptable and meets the standards. There's a storm water system that's been designed to meet the storm water regulations and that is set up so that um you are minimizing any any pollutants being transferred to the groundwater.
We've agreed to not um allow a list of certain hazardous um chemicals and other um chemicals to be used on the site to to eliminate the chance of any of that getting into the groundwater. Um, so it's following all
of the standards that the state would require of us in this situation. It's it's exactly following what they acknowledge is required in a wellhead protection area. >> Mr. Krueger, uh, Miss Dunar raised a concern about a C1 stream, a category
one stream on site. Can you speak to that? >> There's no category waters on the site or within 300 ft of the site. And um none of our none of our storm water system is draining towards White Lake anyway. It's all controlled on the site.
It's going in infiltration system on the site and also to an off-site infiltration system. Um so uh Miss Dumbar raised a question about lighting. Uh we had we're proposing 4,000
uh nits or Kelvin knits >> Kelvin >> Kelvin >> Kelvin and uh M Dunar suggested 3,000 maybe a compromise. I Mr. Krueger I don't believe that was referenced in your report at all. You're not you're noting >> as to light that would be a more design
specific as we get closer to the um actual design standards >> uh and that could be addressed. Um, I think the only comment was the safety of the people there >> that was brought up by Mr. Dyster. I mean, inside of the warehouse, you of
course you have to have as much lighting as possible, but we're uh concerned also about um the migration of all sorts of wildlife through our area since we're part of the Atlantic Flyway.
>> Um, and understood. Understood. And I think there's going to be another opportunity to also get into the specifics about lighting and the outdoor lighting and how it could impact um the environment.
Um council, if I could uh recommend if uh the board so chose to approve, if we put a condition, I'm looking at the August 29th, 2025 Spartan Environmental Commission suggestions. Uh three
suggestions on here. uh if the applicant would use best efforts to uh utilize 3,000 Kelvin or less lighting and uh another point was if the applicant would use best efforts to plant in the bottom
of the basin and another category if the applicant would use best efforts to plant native plants uh would that be condition the developer would be comfortable with? >> Yes. And when we got the environmental commission reports and those recommendations, I sat with the
applicant, went over those, and you heard the applicant's testimony with respect to the native plants. All those conditions can be uh agreed upon by the applicant. >> Thank you. >> Um Mr. Krueger, can you can you uh speak to
water usage on site? Was another question that came up. >> Um right. So the the site is on public water, right? We're taking we're taking the water out of the public system. U there's no well or anything. >> Okay. >> So we're not not affecting the
groundwater on the site or impacting the recharge on the site based on the storm water system and the design. >> I have a couple more things. >> Uh can I just interject on the public water? You're going to need to heat the
water. Is it possible maybe to consider using solar hot water because I read in your report you mentioned something about under energy you said you know solar might be a possibility >> be explored right there's yes it's
probably not part of this approval but can certainly be considered um on a forthcoming site plan. I had a that on my list also. Um, you know, our buildings uh out there, there's no solar panels um on
them, you know, and it's it's a shame that we can't encourage that within our community. >> Mr. Gray, if I was to put uh best efforts to utilize solar uh panels if if applicable. >> Just one thing also just to clarify. So
the only hot water is for literally warm water in the sinks. It's a 50 gallon like you would have in your house. It's >> pretty minimal. >> Yeah, it wouldn't probably make sense. >> I'm sorry it wasn't quite following. >> Yeah. Well, I'm just saying explore the
idea of those. >> No objection. >> Right. Yeah. I don't know why that is there's such a negativity about that whole entire area getting on board with solar energy. Uh but that um some people think they're
ugly. I think they're efficient and I think they they help our our air and our weather and our climate. Um, so I mean we all have to do our little part, even our township, and getting on board with
that. I would think. Uh, somebody mentioned uh electric or a generator if they needed a generator. Would that be an electric generator, right? That wouldn't be a a gas generator. Um, so if
they needed the heating, I mean, that was brought up. Um, >> there's no generator proposed at this time, but it would be most likely natural gas. >> Okay. And what else? Oh, uh, did I mention, uh, the Suzie Q fuel,
the New York Sesuana, and Western fuel? Um, so the engines run on it's they're not electric trains, right? So they've got to have some carrying some sort of fuel load. And we don't have anybody from the railroad here to ask about the
safety of of that. But I would be concerned that we have a trains coming through with a fuel load in this very fragile area we're trying to protect.
>> To your point, same rail line 2013, we had a derailment there and carbon dioxide was released. So it's so it's not >> it's not you read about it all the time, >> right? >> Yeah. So we have to protect this this
water source. >> So that's a major concern. >> Any comment on that? Well, the Federal Railway Safety Act of 2025 would basically preempt our ability to tell
the railway what what and when what types of trains they're using and when they're using them. I really uh don't think the applicant is in a position to speak to that, >> okay? either himself or through his professionals.
>> But it is a possibility that an accident could could happen there and there could be a major catastrophe spillage of the fuel that the engine uses. >> I I cannot uh give an opinion on that
myself. Uh but >> a remote possibility a risk that we would have to take. Yeah. that increased. You know, if if this was a facility that did not use the rail and used more trucks, it would be more
likely that trucks would get in an accident before a rail car given. >> But that certainly doesn't minimize any concerns that these are very heavy things. You know, trains are used >> to transport very heavy things very long
distances. That's the benefit of utilizing the rail and that's you know what the concept is for this warehouse. >> Okay. One one last thing that I have is um that I was wondering if our
environmental consultant consulted the Rutgers climate change center for um climate resilience uh which needs now to be built into our townships in terms of uh construction of this building and
considering this site because we all need to be thinking in that direction. now from from from this point forward and I'm looking forward to seeing what our master plan has to say about that because it's a
it's a critical issue and I would hope that um that you took a look at that because they have advisement for inland areas as we know you don't have to be at the ocean to be concerned with the
impacts you know from any type of extreme weather events, right? Look at what happened in Vermont, in Planefield, Vermont. Look at what happened in North Carolina in the woods. So, nobody is exempt from the impacts of extreme
weather events. And we all need to keep this in mind in our design of our buildings and um our master plan, which I'm looking forward to to reading. Yeah. So, was there any work done on uh
looking into resilience for buildings or or uh this area from the Rutgers Climate Change Center? >> Um I don't think so. >> Okay. All right. Just a just a suggestion. Uh
Miss um >> I think it's a very valid suggestion to look at that. Um I'm curious whether cast concrete buildings would um be impacted in a certain way but
certainly something that uh really should be taken into consideration because I don't think anybody wants to be impacted by extreme weather events which unfortunately >> we're flying buildings around you know in in extreme wind events like we're
going to be having supposedly when is it is it Tomorrow night it starts or is tonight? Um, do does our our town engineer have any comments on on resilience building and resilience for these warehouse
applications in terms of climate change? I think in a situation like this, uh, the applicant's going to have to ultimately go to the construction department and meet all the current code requirements, uh, both on insulation,
uh, for energy efficiency and for wind load, uh, to make sure that for this particular area, they do meet all those requirements. So I think that will come into play uh with the construction officials review of the plans for the
building. And with regards to resiliency, I know one of the things uh that we referred to now because of the last 20 years or so with the number of hurricanes and major storm events, uh you want to make sure that the drainage
systems and what have you are sized appropriately to provide the resiliency versus failure of any basin or what have you. So with the basin that they're discharging into for most of their drainage area, that is taken into consideration with the basin at the end
of the culde-sac of Aaron Drive with the other basin on this particular set of lots because it's over the beyond the original drainage area. Uh Mr. Dyster's office has included another infiltration basin and that one was sized
appropriately as also. So with regards to storm drainage, I believe they have uh sized things appropriately based on the township's current ordinance uh to address that resiliency. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um one more question for um Mr. Dyro.
What is on the if you look at the uh diagram there um the schematic um right a little bit north of where uh yeah farther north. Yeah. What is that? Right. Is I thought that
was the septic system. No. What is that? >> That's a drainage basin. Okay. >> That's the other basin that I was referring to. >> The other basin. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. So, we are going to open it to the public for this witness. Okay, seeing none,
>> I have another question. >> You know, about 20 years ago, Lake Mohawk started requiring that septic systems get pumped every 3 years. And the lake quality got better and they
continue to do that. Wouldn't it be a good idea for us to require septic systems get pumped in properties that are directly above the aquifer on a regular basis?
>> Do we have that? >> We're trying to protect our water. >> That's through the health department. And I happen to know that because I asked Dory I asked Dory this when we were going through a previous public hearing and I specifically asked Dory.
Uh residential homes and buildings less than like 5,000 square feet have to go again uh with the residential rules for pumping, but everything else goes according to the Sussex County Department of Health. [Music]
>> David, is that your understanding? basically yes. And when the applicant uh if it's approved uh has to go to the county health department for a septic system permit, usually they'll have a set of guidelines and recommendations in
that permit. Uh and as best management practices for the preservation of the septic system, uh the applicant would want to do that as well. Um, it's not necessarily applicable to this particular application, but for example, one of the things you run into with a
restaurant are grease tanks, grease traps, and they'll make recommendations as far as the pumpage of those and inspections just to make sure you don't have a premature failure of the system because of grease going out into the disposal bed area, that type of thing.
I mean, but the point is that rather than leave it up to the county and their rules, maybe we should have those rules, right? >> We're not a regulatory body, so that would probably be something that you would need to discuss at the council level.
>> Okay. But you're developing the master plan. Maybe this that's part of the master plan, >> Lindsay. Um, so master plan's not a regulatory document. It's your blueprint of how you create your regulations. So while you
could put it as something that could be considered, ultimately the governing body would be the one who adopts ordinances. >> All right, we'll get on that. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> And if you wouldn't mind crafting a motion. I think we're at that point.
>> Just real quick, uh, council, I was looking at the, um, uh the other documents from uh the other agencies here from the department of utilities uh on September 17, 20125 and you may
have addressed this already. Uh it references the uh water connection detail, Mr. Dra, do you recall that? >> Yes, I think we responded to all >> if if you could it satisfi you're satisfied you'll comply with the uh the requirements.
>> Yes. And as far as the requirements also set forth by the fire of prevention, you'd also comply with their requirements. >> Yes, we've negotiated with them already. >> Okay. Uh we we're done with the public. Uh uh are you concluded, council?
>> Yes, we're concluded. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Uh uh board if you recall we uh you have before you an application on PB25-737
Sparta holding 11 and 13 Aaron Way block 16001 lot 16 and 17 ED zone uh uh primary site plan is sought. This was carried from our September 17th and the extension of
time was granted until tonight. Uh, also real quick, the tax assessor had said uh the recommended the merging of the lots. I'm sure there's no objection to that. >> No objection. We'd prefer to do that. >> So again, tonight was a continuence of
the hearing. Tonight we had the testimony of uh the engineer for the applicant, Mr. uh Owen Dystra. uh he talked about the prior exhibit A1 and the alternate exhibit we talked about A3
tonight with its coloring uh depictions. We also uh in the testimony uh talked about uh exhibit A4 which is also Mr. Dyer's office uh the memo on the parking calculations.
Uh we then talked about uh conditions of approval. uh the uh stormwater maintenance plan manual would be provided. We also talked about the limitation of employees that's set forth on the uh parking calculation and again
that's set forth on the record clearly. Uh we also talked about uh the tenant or prospective tenant would come before the board as to intensity of use and we would be able to address any additional traffic flow time, place and manner at
that time. We addition talked about conditions dealing with uh the snow removal uh easement and its relocation uh subject to the board engineer and the mayor and council approval. Further, we talked about a condition of no outdoor
storage. We talked about u a condition dealing with the water main easement as per uh the uh board engineers recommendation and ultimately the mayor and uh councel. We uh in addition talked about uh the concluding plan would have
uh render an asis uh plan subject to the board engineers approval incorporating the conditions that we set forth herein. Uh we also talked about there would be no uh overnight parking or quartering or
bedding of the particular uh delivery workers or any overnight u bedding uh facilities whatsoever. Uh further we had a second witness by way of the architect
uh Mr. Saunderson uh who talked about the uh site and exhibits A5 the building rendering, A6 the four plan and A7 the building elevation. Uh the architect also uh discussed the
future possible HVAC. There was a good conversation and the ordinances so far as whether it would be a ground mounting screening or roof screening and that's also set forth on the record and acknowledged. There was testimony received with regard to the uh nine dock
doors, their location, and the definition of warehouse and the satisfaction of the ordinances. In fact, there was also testimony of uh the applicant on the site plan addressing the campus-like setting of
the project and uh comments from the public as far as section 18-3.5K. Uh the third witness, Mr. Krueger, the environmental consultant, uh talked about his environmental impact study and u uh the prior uses at the property as
well as the limitations that are acknowledged by ordinance and the uh the chemicals that which may or may not be utilized. He also talked about the site uh environmental s sensitivity level and
that uh in his opinion there's no uh critical area or area of environmental sensitivity that is not being addressed pursuant to law. Uh we further talked about again the prohibition of certain chemicals uh which was clearly set forth
on the record. We also talked about that there would be no floor drains. Uh we talked about um there will be a uh uh a sump uh area constructed at the end of the storm water structure. So there
would be uh the availability of testing if need be uh in case there was a specific problem and the board engineer gave me some language as to that. Um your uh board again based upon those
three witnesses in the request for preliminary site plan approval. Uh it would be uh proper if someone was to make a motion to approve the application for preliminary site plan approval subject to the conditions I cited in
case I missed any. uh as noted on the record, >> I would like to also include any concessions that were made originally at the 917 2025 uh meeting relative to the platform that were that was going to be
closed in um jumbo block curb that sort of thing. So, anything that was that was in conceded to in that meeting as well be brought into the resolution. >> Good point. Thank you. >> So, if someone would >> I'll make that motion. I have second,
please. I'll second >> Bogler. >> Yes. >> Janette Burke, >> yes. >> Ronda Day, >> yes. >> Councilman Mark Scott, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Christine Dunar, >> no.
>> Okay. >> And chairwoman, >> yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much for your time tonight, everybody. Have a nice evening. >> Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for answering our questions. >> Huh?
>> It's my favorite thing to do. >> I'm sure. >> Yes. We're going to have a small short recess while everyone turns over space. I think we're ready to bring it back. >> Okay, we're live. >> Okay,
>> on to our next hearing. >> PB number 25-738, Messor LLC, 20 Dearest Road, block 12010, lot one ED zone, minor site plan. Uh, time to act is by 11:205.
We are well within that time frame luckily. >> If you wouldn't mind. >> Good evening chair, members of the board. My name is Michael Ctori of the law firm Day Pittney LLP. Here this evening on behalf of the applicant Messer LLC regarding property located 20
Dearest Road designated as block 12010 lot one on the township tax map. This parcel is approximately 12.7 acres, is located in the ED economic development district. The property currently developed with and utilized as a carbon
dioxide distribution facility. Um the subject application is fairly straightforward, at least relative to the prior application that you just heard. Um, the applicant is uh here tonight seeking minor site plan approval to permit construction of a 15x3.5
foot concrete pad to support a pre-fabricated accessory structure that that houses carbon dioxide analyzers. Um, that structure is approximately 8 ft high, 6.6 ft wide, and 10 ft deep,
including an air conditioning bumpout. um that analyzer will replace the existing outdated analyzers. Uh no variance relief is generated by the subject application. Building coverage which was referenced uh in the board professionals review letters is uh
approximately 0.2%. Which is uh negligible compared to the 25% maximum permitted in the zone. Uh you'll hear testimony from applicant surveyor planner shortly regarding the landscape design waiver referenced in
the board planners review letter. Uh for the record, the application was filed on September 3rd. Notice was provided in accordance with all legal requirements. >> So council, you have your planner testimony. Uh and who's next to you? >> Yes. So, uh, this evening we intend to
present the testimony from applicants rec representative sitting next to me, Todd Riel, uh, the zone production manager and, uh, our land surveyor and planner, uh, Peter Borbus, who's sitting right back there. >> Uh, council, if you wouldn't mind, since
it's getting late, uh, Todd, would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth? Hold solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth. Hold the truth, not double the truth. Uh, so happy God. Okay, good. Uh uh spell your last name, please. >> Uh it's R E I C H E L.
>> And uh your business address? >> Uh 1011 East Market Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. >> Okay. And what is your role with the company? >> Yes. Sorry. >> Um I am currently the zone production
manager for uh the New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania areas uh specializing in industrial gases. And not to cut off your attorney, but uh what are you trying to do here tonight? What's the >> uh Yeah. So, we we're we we're trying to add a small building, a a small
structure um uh to upgrade our analytics suite uh that we currently have. We're not looking for to do anything new um except just upgrade obsolescence. Right. So, uh um if you if I can quickly tell you a little about what we do um at 20
Demerest Street. Um so uh this this site is specifically uh what we call uh a CO2 depot. Um it's operated uh in on this site for 20 years. Um uh like think of like a transfill. Uh so we basically
rail in liquid liquefied CO2 that we that we purify somewhere else. Uh we we we bring that in by a rail car. We offload it into holding tanks uh located right here. Um, and then trailers that are parked here uh throughout the day
come and they fill uh off of these CO2 tanks. Okay. Um, and then they test and this is the this is where we get into what we're trying to upgrade right now. We have a building that has an analytic suite that tests the CO2 that we're sending out of our property. Um, and that's that analytic suite is just
aging, right? It's just obsolete. You can't get the parts for it anymore. So, we're just looking to um you know, bring in a new system of analytics and that's that's we're going to put that kind of right next to the proposal is to put it right next to the current uh analytic suite. Okay. >> If you could, you're pointing it just
for the record, maybe your attorney can help us. I marked that as A1. Uh >> this is on the record. We can also mark it. >> Good. Uh yeah, A1 and today's date 115, please. And then if you could uh just
u for the record tell us what you're looking at reading off of and the date of that document. >> I'm reading off exhibit A1 uh dated 115 2025. >> I'm sorry in the your turn to help you in the box. >> Yeah. So we're looking at the existing
condition survey and container plan prepared by Borba survey and mapping. Uh the drawing is dated uh 8725. Thank you, council. And as far as the improvements you're putting on, uh is that a licensing
requirement or some what's the public health safety benefit of what you're doing? >> Uh so, so the CO2 that is is um that leaves our property by a tractor trailer um is tested for various uh uh things in
the CO2. Um the CO2 does go to mainly bottlers like uh Coke and Pepsi uh to add the carbonation to the drinks. Uh so we are regulated by the FDA. Um and that'll that this is like which will be a new validated system that that that uh
you know gives us our analytics to make sure we're not shipping off anything uh bad for our health. Right. So, >> and I do recall the minor site plan uh committee was concerned about uh liquids flammability, public health safety. Sure. Can you address that?
>> Oh, absolutely. So, CO2 is an inert an inert gas. Um it's it's safe uh uh to the point where they put it in in uh fire extinguishers to put out fire. So, um so the the main product here, the only product here is CO2. It's
liquefied. It turns back to a gas to to bottle. But yeah, >> council, go ahead. Any other questions you >> I'll just stand up with you. Um, yeah, I think we hit we hit most of the main points. Um, real quick, is is the moving of the analyzers in any way going to
intensify the operations on the site? >> Uh, no, it will not. >> And you said, I'm sorry, you're replacing some. Are you getting rid of the old system or is that >> It's a great question. Um because we are keeping So we're we're adding a building
and why aren't we getting rid of the old building? Uh and the answer that question uh so eventually we will kind of remove the analytics out of the older building and use it as a driver interface building for them to um you know be more efficient loading and get into a computer station in there. But
the other reason is because uh for validating purposes, we have to run both systems in parallel for a couple weeks to validate for the FDA. >> Yeah. Sorry, you took the wind out of my sales there. >> Yes, that's no more uh direct testimony,
but we're happy to answer any questions. >> I have no other questions. >> Bring it to our professionals. >> Yes, madam chair and board members. I did prepare a report dated October 6, 2025. Uh basically,
um I agree that what the applicant represented, this is not uh causing any additional variances that I'm aware of as far as the site goes. Uh with regards to parking and circulation, as the applicant indicated, it's basically
equipment that's replacing obsolete equipment. It's not bringing any additional employees or anything in that's going to generate additional parking requirements. With regards to the uh storm drainage, the area of the proposed pad is less than 500 square ft.
So, the amount of additional storm water runoff would basically be dimminimous. Uh as far as that's concerned, u I'm not aware of any additional lighting that they're proposing. >> No exterior lighting there. I think will be there will be a small light inside
the analyzer shed. >> So, no exterior. >> Uh, as far as the uh unit that is going to the container that's going to house the equipment, uh, is the applicant indicated it is, as I understand it, going to be air conditioned. >> That's correct.
>> Have a unit on it to maintain the temperature for the proper functioning of the equipment. Uh, there's no additional landscaping proposed around the unit. Again, it's in the middle of an existing developed site that they use for the carbon dioxide uh transfer and
what have you with there's no water or septic additional requirements for the proposed installation. Uh with regards to any signage, I'm not aware of any unless there's any warning signs required by code on the structure.
>> I don't believe there'll be any warning signs on the structure. >> Okay. I did make a recommendation on the plans for a detail to be provided to show the trench repair for the connection piping. >> I I do take back what I just said. There will be an atmospheric warning sign.
There's an atmospheric alarm inside the structure. Um since we do bring CO2 in as it's an exfixiient. It's an inert exfixiient. We will be putting a sign on the building on the door that says, you know, atmospheric warning, check lights before you go in kind of thing. So it'll
it'll have any warning signage in accordance with all applicable codes. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh with regards to the uh environmental impact statement, one wasn't provided. Again, much like the previous application, this is also in the Germany Flats wellhead protection
area. And I would just suggest that any uh approval that the board might consider have a condition restricting against the release of any of the hazardous materials into any drains or septic on the site uh just to make sure the aquifer is protected.
>> We are 100% would do that anyway and are agreeable to that condition. >> Okay. Then as far as approvals go, uh we've got the fire prevention bureau and the township construction official. And as usual, what we recommend for a facility like this or any of the site
plans upon completion, if the board approves it, that an asbuilt plan be prepared by the applicant's land surveyor. >> We'd agree agree to that and the uh fire protection. We did receive a letter and no comments. >> And that's my report, Madam Chair.
>> Thank you, Lindsay. Um so just kind of a this is just for my own this wasn't on my um letter but so the proposed building in comparison to the existing one is it about the same size smaller. Okay. And
then so what is so you just update the analyzer every x amount of years as like the I guess like it gets antiquated in in the technology. >> Sure. the the the equipment gets obsolete to where you can't uh rebuild or or have spare parts for any longer.
>> Got it. >> They just the companies just don't make them. >> Okay. And you said that they'll run you said for 3 weeks at the same time where after about 3 4 weeks the other one will be >> two weeks roughly. Yeah. >> Okay. And then the other one would be taken down and you would have just the new one on the site. >> Right. So the so we will have the new
building um and then the old building we're going to remove all the analytics out of it, ship that stuff out and then use it as a driver interface building to where we put a um a a uh almost like a an ATM looking machine that interfaces with the uh the new skid we put in.
>> Okay, got it. That's it. That's all. Thank you. >> Um any other Let's see. Any other um your you have a letter here from November 4th. Any other points based on this letter? >> Um no. I had basically similar to David
I had asking about landscaping improvements which there will not be any of um a lighting plan which they are not changing any lighting. Um ask for kind of protective measures for the wellhead protection area similar to what David said as well. And then um finally if signage is proposed. The only item that
I do have a question on will be for the other um >> witness. >> The other witness. Yes. Thanks, Ken. >> Okay, we will bring it up to the dember. >> Yes. Um carbon dioxide is a gas that can
combine with water in the atmosphere to produce acid rain. But um what I really want to find out is how do you produce your carbon dioxide or do you just package it under pressure or or um yeah
that that was my question. What and what chemicals could there be uh that you use that could possibly get into the well water? >> Uh so the only chemical or the only um molecule we're bringing in is CO2. Um the the CO2 that we're shipping in on
rail um and have been for 20 years is um it comes from our other plants like Brandon, Mississippi or Lima, Ohio. And usually we stage a plant next to um a refinery, right? So we'll take feed gas
off of a refinery. So instead of that refinery venting and you know uh that CO2 to the atmosphere um you know Messor recaptures that cleans it refrigerates it to a liquid and then we we ship it off to customers and bottle and stuff
like that. >> Okay, great. The the measure process, >> what's that? >> The measure process is is that a process that you use for extraction from the um from refineries? Yeah, that's the the
the ma the the main way we uh receive our CO2 is is from refin is from off gasing of other other companies that would it would otherwise go to the atmosphere. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you for your question. >> Yeah.
>> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No question. >> Uh yeah, just a quick question. So this is a min site plan to an existing site plan um that was uh previously approved. So there's nothing um in this u minus
site plan amendment that would modify any of the approvals or anything that was given in the original approval? >> No, no modifications. The only modification is um is the is the pad and the shed on top of it and inside the existing building where the analyzers are. Those are going to be taken out.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Uh >> thanks for answering all those questions. Um, two two questions. Um, so when I crack open my Pepsi, I could
say that the gas and it really came from some refinery possibly. >> Yeah, there's I mean there's a scrubbing and cleaning process, but correct. >> Just running out. >> That is correct. Yeah. >> How I'm helping um >> and uh when was the last time you pumped
your septic? I don't have that answer with me with me tonight. I do not. >> Okay. No further. >> I can certainly get it. I can certainly get that answer. >> No further questions. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh we'll open it up to the public
for this witness. >> No, no questions. Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Riel. I'd like to bring up Mr. Borbis. >> Yes, please. Good evening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Do you swear to tell the truth or affirm that the truth is at the best of your ability and the penalty of perjury to his best of your ability? So I hope you got it. >> I do. >> Good. Thank you. Spelling your last name for the record, please. >> First name is James. Middle name Peter.
Last name is Borbis. B O R B A S. >> Borbis. You're a licensed uh professional planner. I'm licensed professional planner and a licensed professional um surveyor in state of New Jersey. >> Both lightness licenses are in uh good standing. >> Yes, they are.
>> Have you ever been accepted as a witness before the Sparta land use boards? >> I don't recall being in front of Sparta, but many boards across New Jersey. >> I'd recommend we accept Mr. Boris as an expert and surveying and planning. >> So accepted.
>> Council. >> Yeah. So, I don't know if we need to um belabor any points that we've already made. Um if it may be a point of order that if we could go straight to uh any questions from the board professionals,
but if you'd like uh Peter to make a quick presentation. >> Yeah, Peter, maybe a quick overview and uh that waiver issue council you mentioned. >> Yes, absolutely. So the quick overview is that uh which you've heard before is an area of um 12
uh 12.7 acres. Um there is an area that is developed for their operation which is fenced and security fencing around it. Um there's an impervious area of um 19% which leaves about 81% of the um lot
to be uh wooded um brushed and uh lawn. And I will comment that the uh I'd like to comment that the um that Messer maintains this um this property. It is very clean, neat, and tidy. Um
the uh as was mentioned before and there's a question uh as to the um the building coverage. The building coverage was in the square footages but the percentage wasn't shown there and that existing building coverage and the proposed building coverage are both less
than 0.2%. Um the uh imperous right I said the imperous coverage uh we had a m there's a maximum per permitted of 40% and we're running 19% and we are not increasing the um impervious coverage as the
concrete pad and um new unit will go on an existing paved area. Um Mr. Boris just to focus before the engineers. Uh there's uh an issue as far as possible waiverss on proposed signing
details also on uh uh protective covenants or deed restrictions uh land reserve for public use and also in the White Deer Plaza history district written confirmation association that the plan complies with the Lake Mohawk
design approved standards. that was in uh our planer engineer review. Do you recall those issues? >> I don't recall that. I did see that. >> Maybe uh David or Lindsay can focus what uh with regards I'm sorry with regards to
the completeness issues, proposed signs and details. Uh my assumption based on the previous uh witness is that any particular signage that's required by building codes for the proposed installation will be installed.
And with regards to any protective covenants or deed restrictions, is there anything involved on this particular piece of property? >> No. And in our search in the deeds, we did not see uh easements or covenants or restrictions on it. >> Okay. Uh, with regards to land for
reserve for public use, as I looked at this site plan, basically you've either got the railroad or have you got your client's property. That's it. >> Okay. And with regards to White Deer Plaza Historical District, this is not in the White Deer Plaza.
>> Okay. Maybe Lindsay. And >> yeah, I think maybe the waiver you were speaking about was noted in my letter, which is just that there should be a 10- foot wide of landscaping strip for parking areas in the front yard. Um, it's an unusually shaped kind of area.
So, um, anything that is there is most likely an existing non-conforming condition. However, if you can, it would be >> Yeah. And so, I'm I'm trying to understand that. And the way that I read this is as to the item of peripheral
parking lot landscaping a budding a budding a rightaway requiring 10 ft of width of landscaping strip for parking areas in front yard and that's the way it was read and the front yard
is um is there's deer road and um here's a an office building. So, this is our front yard. Um, and the parking that we do have, there are six spaces right in front of the office building for car
spacing. And that office is uh a little more than 500 ft set back from um from Deeris Road. And therefore it would be in my opinion that we I don't know that
the the landscaping for 10 ft along Demer Road if that's the way I understand it is really not worth doing anything for the screening for the parking spaces nearly 500 ft away from the road. >> Yeah. So thank you Peter. Um I think at
the end of the day we'll we'll ask out of abundance of caution to seek the waiver although we do not think it's necessarily required based on interpretation. >> Sure. Do you have fencing >> around the property? >> Yes. So the the fencing >> um as you come up the access uh roadway
um everybody can see you've got the access roadway coming up. There's a security gate and around all their parking area and their infrastructure and their tanks there security fencing around that developed area. >> Yeah. So I think the intention of the ordinance, right, is for some kind of screening and I would assume that the fencing would kind of suffice for
screening of the area. >> I would say so. >> And as councelor said, we we'd note it as a waiver if applicable. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Pora. I think that's all we have on direct. >> Any other questions from professionals?
>> No, that's it. >> That's it then. All right. So, we'll bring it to the DAS. Uh, Councilman Scott, any questions of this witness? >> No, I'm glad to have learned a lot about this property. I always thought it was an immaculate property and it and this
is exactly the kind of properties that we want out there and uh thanks for being a good citizen. >> Thank you, >> Mr. J. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> The only thing I'll add to Lindsay with the screening is I drive by this
property almost daily and you can barely see it from the road. >> So even when you're up on um on Limerest looking down through the woods, you you can't see it. maybe in the winter a little bit, but >> yeah, I would agree. >> It's not visible. >> And having driven by the property recently, as uh as it was stated
earlier, it's kept in really good shape. It's not a it's not a problem area. >> Thank you. I drove by this evening and I agree. >> Miss Dumbar, >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have no questions, so we'll open it up
to the public for this witness. >> Jenny, I can't see you. She's shaking her head. >> Okay. Seeing none, >> seeing none, I think we are uh ready for the crafting of a motion. >> Okay. Board, uh you have before you
application PB number 25-738 Messor LLC, 20 Demerse Road, block 12010, lot one, ED zone minor site plan approval. uh applicant had two witnesses, a corporate representative
and their professional planner as set forth in on the record. There was discussion as to possible waiverss as set forth on the engineer and planners report and they are uh set forth as depicted. Uh as far as conditions of approval uh construction pursuant to the
plan uh we had ex exhibit one on the site plan and and it's the board's customary uh uh we would get an asbuilt plan at the conclusion. Is that okay council? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then the uh we also had
exhibit A1 as we discussed and we discussed the 2003 site plan conditions would continue. Um, that's basically all I have on my notes. If someone would move for an approval of
that site uh the minor site plan with the conditions and representations made on the record. >> Mr. Por, if I could just uh prior to the motion um we have something there about you know prior approvals remain in effect or is that not needed or >> Yeah, I I did say 2002 three. Yes, you
are correct. Yeah, Ron. >> And I will make a motion to approve as as not as read. >> I'll second. >> Janette Bogler. >> Yes. >> Janette Burke. >> Yes. >> Ron Day. >> Yes. >> Councilman Mark Scott. >> Yes. >> Ryan Zimmerman. >> Yes. >> Christine Dunar.
>> Yes. >> And Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. >> Yes. >> All right. Now, board, uh, we have something different tonight. Uh, what happened was the applicant has kind of a timeline to get through this. Uh, council's a very good attorney. uh he
had sent me uh yesterday a proposed resolution of approval which I did not hand it out in any way, shape or form to give an illusion or an appearance that you would prejudge this application. Uh I am satisfied though with the resolution that he gave. I did also some
revisions. I sent the copy to the ch lady chair and also to Dory. uh it has in the resolution which I'm I'm handing out uh now compliance with the board engineer and board planner suggestion uh
you uh what the applicant is asking is if we memorialize their approval today so they can go forward. Here's your options. You can say uh no, we gave you the approval. You'll have time to look at the resolution app and approve it at
the next meeting, but they can proceed at their own risk, which means they can go to the construction department and get a a permit uh let's say tomorrow or you have no objection to that, assuming they comply with all the uniform
construction code. Or you can take a moment and take a look at this resolution. If you look at the last page which is the uh or the last two pages page four uh on the conditions I have number one uh the development of this partial subly implemented in accordance
with the plan submitted and approved. Number two applicant shall strictly adhere to the plan submitted approved except as amended on the testimony of the hearing. No deviations of any kind shall be permitted except of minor field changes which are required by the board engineer. The board further agrees to
retain jurisdiction as to approve terms and conditions regarding board engineer and planners post-hering interpretation of the same. Number three, payment of all fees, cost, escros, um, and any monies to be paid within 20 days requested by the board secretary. Number
four, certification that the taxes are paid. Number five, Suxus County Planning Board approval if necessary. Number six, the applicant shall be bound by their representations made tonight and incorporated into the record and shall be enforceable representations. And then
the last page, subject to any other uh rules and regulations, we did put on the record as Ron had pointed out that I would add to this the compliance with the 2003 resolution shall remain
and uh let's see and the asbuilt plan. and I may already have in here. So, if you wanted to pass this resolution with those uh amendments, you have the authority. Uh what's your pleasure? >> It's open for discussion. I'm fine with
it. >> I'm fine with it. >> Yeah. We do a roll call vote or a yay or nay? I I think we should do uh uh the resolution as uh proposed with the amendment as I said incorporating the
2003 site plan will continue and I and an asbuilt plan >> and this will be given resolution number 2025-23. >> Good. Thanks Dory. 2025-23 uh that's the last I think a motion and uh
second. >> Okay. So, if uh the motion has been made or will be made, I'll make second. >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Bogler. >> Yes. >> Janette Burke, >> yes. >> Brian Day, >> yes. >> Councilman Mark Scott, >> yes.
>> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Christine Dunar, >> yes. >> And Chairwoman Celeste Luciano, >> yes. >> Council, >> we highly appreciate the accommodation and uh hope everyone has a safe drive home. >> Thank you. Thank you. Have a nice evening.
the board real quick. If uh if this ever happens again, the protocol is that there should be a resolution approving it and a resolution denying it. Uh so that to have complete transparency. Uh when I spoke to council, I said I'd take the approaches I will not pass it out in
advance so there's no prejudice. Uh and that's the protocol that we followed here tonight. Again, this is uh due to their urgency. It's not a normal course. Thank you. >> Okay, I'm going to jump down to the
resolution so that we can get that um passed for resolution 2025-22 for PB number 25-736, Sparta Smoke Shop and Mediterranean Cuisine, 514 Lafayette Road, block
120008, lot 17 PCD zone for the smoke shop and the Mediterranean cuisine. So, um, >> yeah, if you could. The, uh, the resolution here is it's got a lot on it because there's a lot going on on the site. What I mean by that is you've got
the resolution that the the applicant is the title owner. 514 Lafayette Road LLC is the title owner. Then they have an operating entity called Papa for Rentals LLC. But the application was really for
the Sparta Smoke and Sparta Mediterranean Cuisine tenency. And I think the the nice thing about the resolution, it's really specific to those two tenants and the way the site works with them. If you look at the resolution, it's uh pretty detailed
going through the uh conditions that we talked about. And again also the uh uh also there was a prior uh resolution that's also carrying here and we have quite a bit of oversight by our engineer and our planner. So I'm comfortable with
the resolution as proposed. >> Open for discussion. >> Okay. So motion to accept the resolution 2025-22 for PB number 25-736
as written. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> That would be Christine Dunar. Who's seconded? >> Dunar. >> And Dory. Roll call, please. >> We're going to do the smoke shop first, correct? Because we have two different roll calls. >> Uh, good point. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, the smoke shop is first. So that's Berg Bogler. >> Yes. >> Janette Burke. >> Yes. >> Ron Day. >> Yes. >> Joan Ferman. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Christine Dunar, >> yes. >> And Chairwoman Celeste Luciano. >> Yes.
>> And we'll do the Mediterranean cuisine. We'll need a a motion and a second. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> And we have Bogler. >> Yes. >> Janette Burke. >> Yes. >> Ron Day. >> Yes. Christine Dunar. >> Yes. >> And chairwoman.
>> Yes. >> And just for the record, Dory's right. If you look in the resolution, uh, paragraph number seven, it says the board vote was six to two on the Smarter Mediterranean and 8 to zero on the tenant smarter smoke shop. That's why,
for the record, there were two separate votes. Uh, so we're good. >> Okay. So, I'm going to move back up to other board business. So before we get into ordinance uh 25-9, um I want to briefly talk about um our
upcoming plans for next year. We've had a I've had a conversation with our current professionals uh specifically our planner and our attorney. Um we'll be moving into a fair and open um segment which means that we will have an
application out for 20 days. Um we'll be accepting applications. We hope that our current professionals will provide us their applications well as well and be part of the process. Um at which time the board will then uh take whoever has applied and we'll review those documents
and those applications and make plans for next year. Um, that having been said, we can now move into the ordinance 25-9, excuse me, which is uh an ordinance of
the Township of Sparta, County of Sussex, State of New Jersey to ban smoke shops and vape shops as a permitted use in any zoned district and to regulate or restrict the sale of cannabis derived products within the township master plan
consistency review. Excuse me. So, we will open this uh this topic up to discussion. But before that, I I would really prefer to hear um what what our professionals may have to say about this particular topic.
>> I don't think it's very much engineering oriented. >> Right. Exactly. But as it relates to master plan review, we we do have Lindsay and we do have Ken. >> Yes. >> Um so
I mean it's been previously a permitted use, right? With there are permitted uses already existing within the municipality. Um those would then be considered grandfathered in, I guess, under the current existing uses. as we start looking at uses for the new master
plan, which wouldn't necessarily deal with this. Um, you would have to go with what is currently existing in your master plan. And I don't think it necessarily touches specifically on the use of vape shops and smoke shops. I think these have become more prevalent
in the past few years and probably were not contemplated in the previous re-examination report. Um, obviously this is something we'll look at in the new master plan, but at this time I don't think it's a specific use that has been contemplated. Definitely not in the
comprehensive master plan because that was written in the 80s and babe shops most definitely did not exist in the 80s. Um, and the re-examination report that was most recently done really just is looking at your objectives and if they are still um, valid today. So, um,
in many cases they are still valid, but the use in particular hasn't been spoken about. >> And just real quick, the, uh, the ordinance contemplates, uh, a zero milligram per serving acceptable. Uh,
I'm just going to clarify with, uh, what our planner said. Whether it's someone's grandfathered or not is not really within our scope right here. We're looking at the ordinance and if the mayor and council pass it and they have retroactive not not retroactive but if
they they want grandfathering uh it's my professional opinion would be left to their determination or a court of law if the mayor and council uh decide not to grandfather and someone believes they're vested. Your function here is to look at the ordinance as referred to you not
making a legal opinion whether or not someone's grandfathered or not. That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Okay, we'll bring it to the Dis for discussion, questions, comments. Um, how how does this ordinance relate
to the fact that the state of New Jersey made cannabis legal and there are categories that are very tightly controlled as to uh what types of shops you can't no
delivery services that sort of thing. I mean, I'm sure you know a lot more about that than I do. How does this relate to that? Because this also includes tobacco. Um, so cannabis is um based on licenses that
are issued by the state. Each municipality can determine whether or not cannabis is permitted. Um, and they can also determine whether or not what type of licenses and how many licenses that they would permit in their municipality. So that would be kind of
step one. this um is dealing also with kind of tobacco which is also legal. Um so I I think that that kind of it creates an interesting situation because
while vape shops are not going to be permitted wholly as just a vape shop, right? Your 7-Eleven can still sell tobacco products. So, it does create a little bit of not necessarily an issue, but there are going to be the ability
for tobacco products to still be sold in other places that are not just solely a vape shop or solely a smoke shop. So, it's not going to be completely removed from the township. What sort of legal challenges do you foresee with smaller
businesses coming and saying, "Well, 7-Eleven is a very wealthy entity, produces a lot of revenue, and you're preventing me, small business owner, from establishing
a tobacco shop, for example, because it also includes tobacco." >> Sure. Um, Mr. Porro would probably be better suited to answer the legal question regarding that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Ju just quickly the uh and I've been down this road in uh a number of
other municipalities. Uh the the power of the municipality is pretty strong and as uh the planner pointed out the licensing through the state really uh the checklist you have to get approval of the town. You have the uh referendum that you just passed that does give you
uh directive of your community. But to answer the question uh raised the tobacco you could not prohibit tobacco in uh by the ordinance in uh uh a mom and pop store and say 7-Eleven is okay.
It has to be uniform. Uh so here in the proposed ordinance it says compliance with and they call it here New Jersey smokefree uh air act and also other ordinances permitted municipalities to act. And here's important which provides
restrictions on or prohibits against smoking equivalent or greater than. So uh the municipality again has uh vast power the mayor and council. It's just here for you whether or not this proposed ordinance is in compliance
with uh uh our overall master plan and other ordinances. And again, the referendum that just passed, I think, uh, uh, sounds volumes on you have authority to do this if you wish. >> Um, so we have a cigar shop in town.
Cigars are made out of tobacco. If a another person came in and said, I want to open up a cigar shop, >> you can't discriminate. If if we allow cigar shops, uh I I I feel pretty
comfortable. I'll defer to the uh burough attorney. Uh but you can't discriminate one against the other just because 7-Eleven or the the other. So uh I good comments. I think uh we can incorporate that to the mayor and council that uh if this is passed that
it should be uniform and uh if you're going to grandfather somebody that may be improper uh for the future. So those are very good questions. >> So I'm I'm thinking about this in terms of of what what the ask is, right? The
ask is is it consistent with the master plan, right? What I've heard here so far is that vape shops weren't conceived of in in the master plan, but tobacco obviously would have been. But if we
look at this in terms of um retail, right, let's let's put it under under the retail umbrella. Um there are other types of of establishments that we prohibit.
But other than cannabis with its legalities, what else is it that falls under the retail umbrella that we prohibit? So this as you had properly said if we
scope it what they're what is the ask you have an ordinance before you that says to ban smoke shops and vape shops as principal permitted uses in any zone district and to regulate restrict the sale of cannabis derived products within
the town. That's the ordinance that's before you. >> Right. So, so um you know within the confines of this and the reason why I'm asking the question is because if we if we have a um a scope of of retail items that that we normally like, okay, we we
prohibit gentleman's clubs, we prohibit tatto, but those aren't along the lines of retail, right? If there's something else that's retail that we prohibit that I I can't think of if somebody else knows of who, you know, um,
>> adult bookstores. >> Okay, >> there you go. >> Okay, >> that's one. >> That's That's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for something else that falls under the the retail category that's potentially prohibited. >> Anything else that we can think of?
one one question I had um along those I think along the same lines. So let let's say a vaping shop wanted to come into town. Um and they're going to sell products uh but they're also going to sell a membership. Um,
>> so that membership is it's a I imagine it's a retail and if the bulk of their if the bulk of their sales come from the membership as opposed to the sale of the products, would they then be allowed? >> Interesting because I believe that the I
believe the the tobacco shop has that >> and that's and they're pre-existing. >> So if I use that same model for vaping, >> are we really, you know, are we leaving that door open? But I >> was that not a question we have to address here?
>> Well, I think that that is proper to say to the uh the mayor and council that the ordinance, let's say, is acceptable, but you have concerns over the uh the scope of uh you know, applying to a 7-Eleven
versus a mom and pop. you have concerns over lounges and that those type of issues should be clarified in the mayor and council's final product. >> Well, I mean, it's it's very clear here. It says that their principal use is
tobacco and 7-Eleven's principal use isn't tobacco, but I was alluding to the fact that there are some entities that have a heck of a lot of money to to to
challenge this and say this is our uh principal use and like Ron said, you know, we're we're we're selling memberships. I I'm I'm not good I'm not convinced that this ordinance is gonna >> say hypothetically a restaurant came in
and said we're going to have a cigar lounge in our restaurant separate >> right what if it's a cigar bar >> system and everything >> where they're primary sale is liquor >> I mean listen we we can we can I guess really what we what were charged with
doing, right? The ordinance is written. It's as written. >> Mhm. >> So, the determination needs to be is is what's sitting in front of us consistent with the master plan? If it's not,
or if it is, um are there any uh other outlying things that that we think that might give it more validity or more connectivity to the master plan? that that's the way I'm seeing it. I
mean, I don't know how, you know, anybody else sees it different. >> I agree with you, Celeste. You know, I I think one area that again, it's a recommendation um because I think I I know it sounds like what they're trying to do is really stop that standalone shops, the standalone businesses, >> right? But but um I think another
concern that they may want to consider and this is just this is more of a recommendation is the window advertising you know like you know you know THC available here for for entities >> that don't have it as a primary
function. >> I think that's an important thing they they'd want to consider as well. >> Yeah. Mr. Porro, can you address the fact that the resolution I'm sorry, the ballot question that was passed is non-binding
and how that affects this? I mean, what I'm just confused because I just don't understand the purpose of this ordinance given the fact that the ballot question is nonbinding. >> No, that's a good question. the if an
ordinance is uh binding, the mayor and council basically said that whatever that determination they determination is, we'd be bound by it. A non-binding means that they take that recommendation. But as far as our purpose of whether it's in conformity
with your community and what your goals are, that referendum, I think, is important uh here. And if you were to I'm scoping back to the ordinance before you. If you were to say you're okay with
the concept but concerned over the scope and other issues such as time, place and manner which you have. What I mean by that is should there be window advertisements? Should there be lounges, time, place and manner? Should there be
memberships? So that the the uh the concept of this ordinance before you you may find to be in conformity with your community values and master plan, but you are concerned to the mayor and council that they may want to clean it
up as to the scope and addressing issues such as window advertisements, such as lounge memberships. I hope that helped. And as I understand it, Burgett, the reason that it was nonbinding is because you can't take a vote on a land use,
as I understand it. I don't know if that's if that's the correct way to say it, Mr. Blur. >> I'm not really an expert. I I have a common sense approach to it, so I I can't speak to that. I'm sorry. >> Okay. I have a concern that if towns around us
put together membership clubs, retail spaces, that people in Sparta are going to drive to to do what they might want to do because it's legal in the state of New Jersey. And then they're going to
drive home because we all know that, you know, we live in a place that is car dependent. So then they're going to drive and get back into their car. And even though, you know, like it's a big problem. It's a very big problem of
people not only driving under the influence of THC if they have literally just ingested it, but we have big problem with people driving after having ingested alcohol. And
you know, I I I'm not sure that this ordinance is going to create the the safety to our residents
that we think it it should >> or that it was in possibly intended to do. So, here's the thing. The purpose of this ordinance, right, this this ordinance was incepted based on the fact that we had three locations that were
were gifting cannabis and selling cannabis illegally. And they have all since been shut down. And the purp the the driver of this ordinance is to make sure that those types of facilities aren't there or aren't able to to crop
back up because that ancillary uh uh side hustle business has has a tendency to exist in in those spaces. Um so that was the driver for this. Now do
all of those other issues need to be addressed? Yes, need to be addressed by the governing body. That's what we rely on Mark for. Um, but what we're charged with right now is looking at this ordinance as written for master plan consistency. What I've heard right now
is that there are other types of retail that we prohibit. Is it within our purview to to say, "Okay, you know what? It's it's consistent to prohibit certain types of of facilities. Yes, we can do this." or
no, this doesn't make sense because vape shops were never conceived by the master plan. So, how can we prohibit something that wasn't conceived by the master plan? Right? These are the ways that we need to think about it. And when we vote, it's about consistency with the master plan. It's not about what the
governing body needs to do on its end. It's what we need to do on ours. >> Okay. >> What are we voting on? Whether it's consistent with the master plan or not, that's correct. Okay. So, that's it. >> That's that's our purview. >> And Do we have a master plan that
mentions it? We don't. So >> I think well they're referring to the the original master plan. >> We haven't seen the new master plan. >> That's kind >> Well well if I if I could you know there is a level of in any master plan and I'll defer to Lindsay. It has the the
concept of goals and social values. And so therefore you have your existing master plan and I'll ask Lindsay to address that. But the referendum that just passed, your applications that been before you,
is this in line with the standards of the master plan and the recent developments? By the way, again, the referendum and approvals that you've come here and the direction you want for your municipality. I think you're all saying yes, but that you have some
concern over the scope of this. And again, I know I'm repeating myself that if I was to put together a response to the mayor and council that you're okay with the consistency, it's in the social norms of the community, but you're concerned on public health, safety, and
welfare of uh individuals under the influence. You're concerned about uh the lounge memberships, window advertisement, again, time, place, and manner. And um that is the way I would shape it if you so directed me. Yeah, I think some of those things are outside
of the scope of what it is that we're looking to do. I mean, we we have a leaison to the council sitting here and he's hearing us. So, I I I I feel that he can expand on that on the council level. I I think we need to stay in our lane. I think we need to to do the do
the job that we're here to do. Um Lindsay, you had some >> Yeah. So while it will not say specifically in your master plan, right, smoke shops, there are pieces of your master plan that talk about kind of um economic development and finding
businesses that help your economy and there's there's things where you say you want certain businesses in certain areas and those types of things you can say are are not in line with your master plan. I think that's kind of what Ken was alluding to is there are pieces in
it where you know whether you you don't think this is necessarily a tax ratable that's going to really help the economy in in a really progressive way or vice versa. Right? There's ways to go about saying the consistency. While it doesn't
say smoke shop specifically, it could just not be in line with the goals of what you've wanted for businesses in Sparta. that clarify it for any does anybody else have any questions out there?
Yes. Yes, it is. But >> but does it need to be in here? >> It really really to me it comes down to simply is if I was to say it's not in conformance, what part of it is it not? Can I point
to that section says it's not in conformance to this? if I can't I I believe it's it's conforming, you know. So, so unless unless unless I can find here's where it doesn't I don't know how I could vote anything but yes. Um but I also want to say in terms of we've had this discussion with town council
members in the past and I think one of the things they asked us is give us your answer and if you have recommendations let us know. Um and I so I think bringing the recommendations forward I I think is kind of answering the mail to what they've asked based on past discussions but we you know give give
them a clear answer that we either believe it is or it isn't and then they they can do what they want. >> I am with you there. >> So I can give you an idea of like just some of the um kind of goals and objectives. So like 1997 the town center
master plan amendment goals to establish a balance of land uses appropriately distributed based on identified need. Um something like in the 2000 master plan re-examination report there's examine the economic and commercial zone to provide for a cluster provision for open space opportunities and buffers between
land use designations. Um 20 uh 2002 amendments to the master plan goals and objectives maintain a sound fiscal balance of managing residential and commercial growth. So those are just kind of ideas of things that are within your goals and objectives of the previous master plans
that could be used towards kind of different uses like that for retail purposes. >> Okay. I think in the interest of time, um, we we should either decide whether or not we're going to vote on this or if uh if we're gonna >> I make a motion that we vote on
ordinance 2519 and indicating that we believe this is consistent with the master plan of Sparta, New Jersey. >> Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. Roll call vote. >> Bogler. >> No.
>> Net Burke. Do we need to clarify? Do we need to clarify on what we're voting? Okay. So, the the motion as presented >> is that we are determining that 25-9
is consistent with the master plan. So, if you vote no, you're saying you don't believe that it is consistent with the master plan. If you vote yes, you're saying that yes, you do believe it's consistent with the master plan. >> Okay. So, another way back to what Ron said, is there anything in there that's
inconsistent? >> Right. You can't you can't point to something. >> So, I believe another way of saying that is that if we walk out of here to our cars and we see blinking lights and we see tattoo parlors and adult bookstores
and uh you know, well, we do see liquor stores. plenty of liquor store, cannabis shops, and we see all these things blinking and this is what our town is, >> then maybe then maybe this this type of store is consistent with our master
plan. But we walk outside and we don't see any of that. Okay? And so this is consistent with our master plan with the health, safety, and welfare, with the morals of Sparta. And it was said yesterday two to one that this is not
what we want in our town. So I believe it's consistent with the master plan whether it be the 1968 master plan or the whatever it was 2002 whatever I'm sorry >> 84 okay whatever it was right okay so I
believe this is consistent with the morals and values of this town and the master plan that everybody is working for >> with Ken's recommendations for signs >> with Ken's recommendations absolutely and you know the >> not my memorialization of what you guys
to notice >> with the understanding that it's it's Mark's job >> to make sure that you know those recommendations are are >> discussed and and you know brought forward that's that's you know that
that's council discussion >> but you know the unfortunate circumstances the council's going to do what the council's going to do >> right so um all right so do we understand what we're voting on now >> I got it I apologize I have one more clarification and we've said it but I
just want to hear it one more time is >> so what this says is any any any business out there now that has received a proper approval this will not affect because they're all grandfather >> all right now Ron the that
I'm not giving a legal opinion on that it's not that it's above our whether or not there is a grandfathered of certain stores versus I haven't made that legal or factual determination. So your decision is not whether other
stores are grandfathered or not. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's tough part, >> right? That's again that that's council issue up to them to decide. >> Yes. >> Yes. The only thing we have to worry about is whether it's consistent with the master. >> Correct. We stay in our lane.
>> That scope is irrelevant to us. >> Okay. I think I'm ready. >> We got it. Let's go. >> We have our first our second bure said no. Now Janette, >> yes. >> Ron Day, >> yes. >> Councilman Mark Scott, >> yes.
>> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes. >> Christine Dunar, >> yes. >> Chairwoman Celeste Luciano, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> And thank you for the clarification. >> Yes. >> Okay, >> one more question.
Okay, we are going to open it to the public really quickly just in case anybody has any any questions for items that are not on the agenda. And we're gonna I'm going to make a very quick update for our subcommittee master plan after we're done.
>> I go real quick two things real quick. First of all, on the on the um CO for the vape for the tobacco shop, it says handwritten big block letters not to be used as a
lounge. So, the function that is going on there right now is illegal in terms of how it was approved. If that helps anybody to feel more comfortable about what you just said. >> The vape shop. >> No, the tobacco shop. tobacco cigars.
>> The cigar tobac >> says right on the approval for their CO, their application approval and their CO big block letters written across. You can't miss it. And the other thing is can um
it's actually township of Sparta versus Spalain that established that a referendum can't overturn a land use ordinance. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sparta was the case. >> Interesting. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Oh, very interesting. >> But it but it does give a basis for the
mayor and council to do an appropriate Yes. >> Yes. Good point. Thank you. Yes. >> I have an easy question. This might be more of a Dory question than anything else. I had Sorry. I had a question about
getting notes about landing board meetings that the county was at back in 2002 and in that area. I did an open request and it was my understanding that they were reaching out to the planning board
to get all of the documentation that I requested. It got punted to traffic for some reason. Should I just email you directly for what I'm looking for since it's notes and minutes and stuff like that from 2002 and a couple
>> did an open request already? >> Yeah, I did. And some and the answer I got >> went >> the answer I got was well our traffic bureau says that they don't have anything. I don't know why I got routed >> through us. But let me let me go back and look at the Oprah you're referring
to but if you could send me an email as a reminder and I'll look into it. >> Okay. and it's for a couple of different meetings and I'm looking for minutes plus also documentation that the county would have submitted regarding the change in traffic flow for Sparta Avenue
between Quick Check and 181 the 517 bypass as well as um anything that would have been sent to Lake Mohawk regarding the impact on Pine Terrace and Northshore Trail and Southshore Trail. If they're application
specific, they should be in our files. But if they're not application specific, you have to go to the county. >> The county I've already gotten documentation. I've already reached out to the county. The county in their documentation said that they appeared before the planning board and that there
was a subcommittee formed with through the planning board of Sparta regarding the change in traffic. >> Okay. Email me tomorrow as >> and I'd be I'll attach the the documentation that I already have from the county that says that you guys were involved. >> Okay, let me look. >> And what's the average turnaround for
that? Is it like 10 days or something? >> For an open request, we have seven days. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, very quickly, um master plan subcommittee uh had their large scale stakeholder meeting on October 29th. Um we had just over 50 participants which
was amazing. Um and we we discussed every aspect of of Sparta um and what you know what people would like to see. We uh we did an overarching what is the master plan then broke into subgroups um and and had smaller conversations. This
way every participant had the opportunity to really um expand on on their opinions. Um all of that uh data was was put together in notes. Um, a lot of those notes, uh, that we went over at our last subcommittee meeting, which was
this past Monday, um, were very well in alignment with, uh, with the survey results, which, you know, wasn't wasn't really a shocker. Um, but, uh, we will be going into a larger presentation for all of the stakeholder meetings at our
meeting on December 3rd, which brings me to um, so the agenda actually says that our next meeting date is November 19th. that meeting is cancelled because of the League of Municipalities. So, um our next meeting date will be the December 3rd meeting date where we will be
discussing um the or presenting the results from all the stakeholder meetings that we've had thus far and uh and the next steps in terms of uh goals and objectives and and land use element and so on.
Um, and unless there is anything super brief from town council and environmental, >> um, I've been away. There's no report. Okay. >> So, >> uh, real quick, anyone going down to the league, I will be speaking, uh, Tuesday
morning at the convention center on land use. So, if you're there 9:00 a.m., please stop in. >> Thank you. >> See you there. Okay. Ernie's not here to to give us our motion for adjournment, so I'll I'll leave it up to A motion to adjourn this wonderful
meeting. >> I will. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Thank you. >> So December 3rd is our next meeting, >> correct? >> Okay. Good. Same time. >> Yes. So save that.