by the filing of an annual notice with the local source and the sore ledger newspapers of general circulation within the township of union and posted on the bulletin board of the township of union municipal building. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander
>> here. >> Mr. Cohan >> here. >> Miss Espinosa >> here. >> Mr. Frame >> here. >> Mr. Miller >> here. >> Miss Perkins >> here. >> Mayor Bowser >> here. >> Committeewoman Terrell >> here. >> Miss Khan >> here.
>> Miss Calid. >> Chairman Lelay >> here. >> Can we swear in the engineer? >> Raise your right hand. Swear the testimony about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you.
>> Uh, next on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes from September 25th. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Alexander. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Cohen? >> Yes. >> Miss Espinosa? >> Abstain. >> Mr. Frame? >> Yes. >> Mr. Miller? >> Yes. >> Miss Perkins? >> Abstain. Not present. >> Mayor Bowser.
>> Not present. Committeewoman Terrell. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan, >> abstain. >> Chairman Lei, >> yes. >> Uh, we have uh four resolutions on our agenda. The first one is application
2024-07 for chestnut 367. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Moved by Mr. Miller. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Frame. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander. Yes,
>> Mr. Cohan. >> Abstain. Not present. >> Miss Espinosa. >> Abstain. Not present. >> Mr. Frame. >> Yes, >> Mr. Miller. >> Abstain. Not present. >> Miss Perkins. >> Yes. >> Mayor Bowser. >> Yes.
>> Committeewoman Terrell. >> Yes. >> Miss Khan, >> not present. >> Chairman Lei, >> yes. Uh, the next resolution pertains to application 2025-10. Control Back 2232 Route 22 East. Can I
get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Alexander. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cohan. >> Yes. >> Miss Espinosa. >> Abstain. Not present. >> Mr. Frame.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Miller. >> Yes. >> Miss. Perkins. >> Abstain. Not present. >> Mayor Bowser. >> Yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell. >> Abstain. Miss Khan >> abstain. >> Chairman Le >> abstain not present.
>> Uh the next resolution is application 2025-13 PC New Jersey 2500 Route 22. Can I get a motion to approve the resolution? >> So move. >> Moved by Mr. Cohan. Seconded. >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Frame. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Alexander. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cohan. >> Yes. >> Miss Espinosa. >> Abs. >> Mr. Frame. Yes, >> Mr. Miller. >> Yes, >> Miss Perkins. >> Abstain. Not present. >> Chairman Bowser. Mayor Bowser, I'm sorry. Committeewoman Terrell,
>> abstain. >> Miss Khan, >> abstain, not present. >> Chairman Lei, >> abstain, not present. Uh, the last resolution is application 2025-18 Diane Atwell 17 Atoria Place. Can I get a motion? So, we'll move by Mr. Cohan.
Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Refrain. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohen, >> yes. >> Miss Espinosa, >> abstain. >> Not present. >> Mr. Frame, >> yes. >> Mr. Miller,
>> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> abstain, not present. >> Mayor Bowser, >> abstain, not present. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> abstain, not present. >> Chairman Lei, >> uh, yes. >> Yes. Okay.
>> All right. So there are several items under new business and um just to run through this list very quickly. There is an ordinance uh that uh the board will be reviewing. We will then um we do have a couple applications that we will
actually hear tonight for American Landmark and Diana Euan. Um there are three items that are on the agenda that will end up being adjourned for 811 Chestnut Street, 700 Liberty Avenue, and 1508 Bernett Avenue. Um
if I could start off with 811 Chestnut Street, we have a correspondence from uh repres representation, Mr. Hail. >> Yes. Uh thank you very much and we appreciate the board's time and attention. Yeah. Uh un unfortunately our earlier this week our engineer fell and
broke his ankle had surgery on Tuesday and unfortunately couldn't be here. So uh we respectfully request that the matter be carried uh to I think it's November 17th without further notice. We apologize but can't control things like that and he uh that's on Khan. He didn't
have another representative from available to cover his testimony. So >> Well, we hope he gets well soon. >> Yep. We we do too. So, >> uh Okay. Uh can I get a motion to carry uh 811 811 Chestnut Street to the November 17th meeting without further notice?
>> So, moved. >> Moved by Mrs. Perkins. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Miller. Roll call, please. >> Okay. Mr. Miller, excuse me. Okay. >> Mr. Alexander? >> Yes. >> Mr. Cohen? >> Yes. >> Miss Espinosa?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Frame? >> Yes. >> Mr. Miller? >> Yes. Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Mayor Bowser, >> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Chairman Lei, >> yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you. Um, the next application 2025-17. Um, we haven't had any correspondence with regards to 700 Liberty Avenue. We do have it for an adjourment. So, um, unless there's representation here.
>> Yeah, actually that we have that. My my client is here and his professionals are here. He said probably won't get reached, but uh that's an important redevelopment project. If you recall, it's one of the old Bed Bath and Beyond buildings that's being developed by uh
ownership of the of Koo stands on Rowway Avenue. So, I think he's Serge is willing to sit here and see what happens. Uh but uh >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> I I I think the board will likely not hear it tonight. We we've we've told them, but uh again, they they purchased
the property and and I think this board was involved. You actually uh worked on the redevelopment uh plan for for that for that property and look forward to proceeding. If we don't reach it tonight, uh they're well aware of that and your uh both council and and Vince
let us know that. So, appreciate your time. So, great. Thank you. >> We'll sit tight. >> Yeah. And then the other application application 2025-16 um there has been some correspondence put forth um by their representation. Uh is there represent? Yeah, please
approach. >> Good evening. Uh Ailen Brennan with the firm of Prime to Bell and Melli. Um we've received late yesterday uh letter from um township engineer and um we there's been some back and forth and we
do have um some ongoing talks with uh the redevelopment attorney and the town uh as to the redevelopment plan and our plans and we respectfully request that this be adjourned without notice without further notice rather until November 17th.
>> Okay. All right. Can uh can I get the motion moved, please? >> So moved. >> Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mrs. Khan. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohan, >> yes.
>> Miss Espinosa, >> yes. >> Mr. Frame, >> yes. >> Mr. Miller, >> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Mayor Bowser, >> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Chairman Lei, >> yes. All right, we have three remaining items. I think the first item will be
quite short. It's a presentation of the ordinance on chapter 170-1209 prohibited uses amended prohibits massage and body work services. And I think we'll refer to our engineer. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um this
this ordinance uh was omitted with the last inadvertently omitted from um when Kristen was here going through a whole list of ordinances. It's something that uh the governing body wanted to move forward. So it is simply uh adding the
massage and body work services which had been permitted in certain zones uh into the prohibited uses. All right. So it's no longer going to be permitted. So it's adding it as a prohibited use in chapter 170-1209
and then in two locations of the code it's going to be eliminated. uh one being the definition section, the other being where where it had been permitted. So um it's simply just prohibiting that use in in our zones.
Are there any questions from the board? Questions from the public? Comments from the board. Comments from the public. Oh, please come up. You um ma'am, you would just have to approach one of the mics and identify yourself and just
provide a comment. Yeah. >> Christine Williams. >> Christine Williams. >> Christine Williams. Okay. >> I just wanted to I'm coming in towards the end of your comment. So, I hear massage and you know, I'm just trying to figure what the whole detail is about.
>> Do you mean why not? Why is it not going to be allowed? >> Why not? Why? Just going to clarify. >> Yeah. So there in each zone there are a list of prohibited and permitted uses. Um so what they're doing is they're
making the massage and body works a prohibited use in town. >> So they're prohibiting that which means essentially no new applications that allow that. They they'll have to go to the board of adjustment as a non-permitted use um as opposed to going
to the planning board as a as a permitted use. So, um, it's a it's a taller order to to get into town if you're if you're not a permitted use. >> Okay. Thanks. >> You're welcome. >> Any further comments from the public?
Hearing none, uh, can I get a motion to concur with the proposed ordinance and refer it back to the township committee for final adoption? >> Yes, I'll make that motion. >> Moved by Mrs. Perkins. Is there a second? Second.
>> Seconded by Mr. Alexander. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohan, >> yes. >> Miss Espinosa, >> yes. >> Mr. Frame, >> yes. >> Mr. Miller, >> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Chairman Mayor Bowser,
>> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Chairman Lei, >> yes. Um, we have two items left. I just had a question for Mr. Hail. Has your traffic engineer. Um, >> no. Not yet.
>> Okay. Would you mind if if we start with the Diana you and uh the other application? >> Well, we should Well, we we have all of our witnesses here to begin. So, >> what's that? Yeah, but it doesn't make sense to hear the traffic until you hear the site
plan, architectural layout, and then our traffic consultant will address that after we lay out. You don't you don't put traffic on before you put your your case on. You get your site plan and what's going to be built there. How do you have traffic go before that? Does I
I've never I've never seen that in my 40 something years of practice. Wait, so is is the traffic engineer here in attendance right now? >> He's not here yet. He's probably looking for a parking space. >> But I but I'm telling >> Speaking of careful,
>> frankly, we have the right to put on our case with the witnesses that we have that we've prepared for and can present. You don't put the tra It's like having your planner testify when Mr. Shiger's here. It's like having your planner testify at the beginning of a case before you have the >> Mr. H. If he's here, then let's proceed.
>> Okay. >> So, um I'm going to call your application first. Uh 2025 11 amendment American landmark. Would you like to proceed in introducing the application, please? >> Yes. Uh let me just give a brief overview of of our case. So, this is uh
what's been known as phase 4 of the uh the development of downtown Union. uh this project phase four uh has been received preliminary and final site plan approval and what's proposed uh this evening and I was here at last month's
meeting with just a a brief overview of of this project but it's um it's minor amendments to what's been approved by this board and when I talk about minor amendments it's adding 38 units it's um providing larger commercial space to
increase that commercial space to attract what we believe would be uh more beneficial commercial tenants in the development. Uh it also helps shield the the parking area which wasn't in the
previous four uh from view from Styverent uh Avenue. Uh it adds a an additional floor which again is encouraged in your amended redevelopment plan to add that additional floor. And I know at some point uh the the
development of the corner will be done and that's important because this goes to work with that ultimate development of the corner property. But uh so that's an overview of what our our application is. As I say, it's a very limited application. We've received the approval
from from this board. Uh and and also I think the board is aware because I believe it was at the last hearing at when Kristen Russell gave her presentation that they've actually now expanded the redevelopment area to include the corner of Mars and Stson. So
again, very limited changes that are proposed uh on this application uh and uh again essentially the additional units, a larger commercial space and the blocking and shielding of the parking area. So,
all right. >> How many total witnesses do you have? >> We have We should have uh our four witnesses. We have our uh architect who go first, our site engineer, uh our traffic engineer, Mr. Siger, and our
professional planner, Nicholas Graviano. And we have had an opportunity to review the reports from Kier's engineering. and for your fire department. We'll have no problem addressing any of those comments. >> Okay. So, so I'd like to start and I know you want to hear chat, but we let's
and I don't think these other witnesses will be that long because again it's it's the project was approved and these are the amendments and we're just going to focus on the amendments to the uh the plan the proceedings. >> Okay. Why don't I call upon you first
and we have all the plans and everything to show on the exhibits. And if you want to I don't know if you want to spin that around. Whatever's easier. >> Okay. >> You're going to be sworn first. >> Can you uh state your name for the
record and spell your last name, please? >> Lorie Shabarazzi. Last name is S C I A B A R A S I. >> Miss Sabarazzi, would you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I've held a license for over 25 years. Um, a graduate. Can you hear me? >> I was going to say you have to speak right into that mic. So, I'm a licensed
architect in the state of New Jersey, uh, where I've been practicing for over 25 years. My office is in Newark, New Jersey, where I'm the vice principal of architecture at Kamo Associates and a graduate of NJIT with a bachelor's degree in architecture.
>> The board stipulates. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, right. Uh, Sean Barasi, if you could please take the board through the architectural aspects of the changes from what's presently approved to what's being sought. >> Okay.
>> And we I believe if there's any exhibits that have not been previously submitted to the board, we'll mark them as an exhibit this evening. >> Okay. >> Just try and expand this a little bit. Okay. So, this first exhibit is a
exterior rendering of the project. Um, this is looking uh from the north side of the project on the uh which is the rear of the building. Uh this small um
leg here is the expansion area is of of the footprint that we've um we're proposing tonight. This long wing here is already uh that's from the previous approval. Basically nothing is changing here. We have the covered parking. Um we
previously the lobby was um at this area of the building. We're moving it into the corner of the building just to um take it out of the main circulation, pushing it back where it's protected from the weather, a safer drop off area
for residents. And uh to the left and right of this building lobby entrance, we have amenity space now, expanded amenity space for the residents. So this um small piece here that's being
expanded. Ground floor is basically amenity space. Behind here there's some commercial space and the upper area is residential. Um also we've added the fifth story uh which I can expand upon more when we get to the the floor plans,
but basically it's just um the same layout on on every floor. And just briefly, and I know it'll come up when you go over the the plans and and the engineering plans, but that area is when my in my opening indicated help shield
the parking area. Before that building wasn't there and the parking area is correct, was visible >> before, right? This space was visibly all open to the adjacent property um which was the old movie theater um site and there's a law office in the back.
>> Okay. Sorry, I need my glasses. Okay, so this is the site plan. The two purple buildings are the existing buildings. The one at the top of the page in purple here with the curved shape uh front on Banell Court, that's what we call phase
one. Uh the shorter building that faces Stybos Avenue uh in the purple is phase three and this orange building is phase 4. This entire uh building footprint here in the orange was the previously
approved plan. This small piece here is the expanded footprint. Uh why we're here tonight for the amendment. Um not much has changed here. Uh covered parking at the back. Like I mentioned
before, amenity space. We move the residential lobby into this corner. This expanded area, uh this face that faces the parking lot side will be more amenity space. And then this is uh an
expansion of the commercial space uh which goes out to Styverson Avenue. So um like previously we had about 10,000 ft of retail commercial space. We're expanding that to about 14,000 square ft of commercial space and the amenity
space has also been um expanded uh by more than a,000 ft. I think we're up to 2500 on the ground floor and we have some other amenity spaces on the upper floors. This wing you can see um that's highlighted here is the portion of the
building that will shield this parking from these other adjacent lots. And from the front we still have our prominade uh between phase three and phase 4. So nothing really else nothing has changed besides that.
This is just a blow up of the floor plan. You could see this purple area again this on the left side is the amenity space. The right side is the expanded commercial space. This in this corner is is the residential lobby where we've
moved it to. Um and to the left here we have uh I know one of the questions was about the trash. Uh we our our trash holding is all inside. We have a trash route that goes uh to all the upper floors. On the upper floors, we've added uh five
units per floor which are within this uh purple area. Uh again, lobby is here now. It was in the center of the building. We took it out of the center and just moved it into the corner. Okay, this is the building elevation
from Styus. just expand this a little bit. So, um talking or talking about the points in Kier's report about uh the architectural design standards, we're in compliance with the design standards still. Uh not much has changed. We have
the ground floor um ceiling heights are a requirement. We have 11 to 12 feet in commercial spaces based on the slope of the property. The upper residential floors we have um 8 foot 10 close to 9 foot ceilings which are requirement of
the redevelopment plan. Uh building materials really haven't changed. Ground floor base is cast stone units. The upper floors are combination of brick and hardy. That top floor is all Hardy which sets it apart. So the building is
comprised of the base, the uh the body and the cap which uh is a requirement of the uh redevelopment plan again. Um and all all faces of the building, all sides are continuous, all the same
materials. So the front is not going to look any different than the back or the sides. All the the finishes are continuous around the whole building. These are the other elevations which just show that uh
same uh bay windows are being used to to articulate the building facade. So it's not uh flat. Transparency uh requirements have all been met. So the architectural design standards have been
met. Uh we are not introducing any roof deck or roof terrace. we comply with the flat roof requirement uh through the design standards. I don't think I have any other more points, Mr. Hail, if anybody has any questions.
>> Great. Thank you. I have no further questions at this time. >> Questions from the board, >> Mr. Cohan. So, um, when you're when we're looking at the elevations from the Styson Avenue side, are there any, uh,
portals of egress from the residential space or is that all commercial? >> That's all commercial space. >> So, the only way the residents from the the residential, uh, apartments on the upper floors would be to go back to the back of the property and then walk around the building. >> Correct.
>> Was there any consideration given to giving direct street access to the residence? Uh we we have done that on other projects. I don't think that space or that entrance get used is used too often. Um we do have the prominade uh
between the two buildings. So that can also be used for uh pedestrian access. >> Thank you. >> I have another question then. Um >> this is Perkins. >> Thank you. Sorry Joe realized. Um, so
the proposed commercial space obviously is not uh planned for yet. It's just only being architecturally presented. Do you know will you do you will the back will people be able to enter that from the back as well? Certainly not from upstairs. So I'm not coming down
for a donut. >> Correct. >> But can I go in the back? But how do I how do I get there? >> Yeah, there are rear entrances as well to the commercial spaces. Um, they're obviously entrances from the street side. Uh, >> but I'd have to come out of my apartment
in the cold and go around through the walkway and then go into the front. >> They do. I I think it's going to be up to the retailer if they allow people in from the rear. Um, they do have rear entrances so that they can also, you
know, get out to the trash for the for the tenants. >> Thank for ease of you know access there. Thank you. >> Ma'am, where's the uh loading dock? Loading dock or a loading zone? Where was that?
>> The the loading would be from the the parking lot. Um you know, we >> is a designated area is my question. I'm sorry. >> We do not have a designated space. >> Okay. Within this plan, is there a freight elevator then for folks to move their
their items in or accept deliveries? >> No, we have two large passenger elevators that will be can be used for deliveries. You know, one could be, you know, keyed off for a time period, but no, there there's two elevators in the
lobby. >> Do you know if a tractor trailer would be able to get through that parking lot? I'd have to defer to my traffic engineer on that. I know we can get the fire truck through the parking lot. >> All right. Thank you. >> Had a trash trash vehicle.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other question? Mr. Miller, did you have a No. >> Any other questions? >> Had a couple questions on my end. Um the first uh actually for this exhibit here on this page, how many re retail spaces
are dedicated to the first floor? >> We have we have it broken up into seven right now which are flexible depending on um you know how the space becomes occupied as it's being constructed and
leased out. So, but we do have it broken into seven at the current time. >> And is the square footage um equal amongst these or is there variation in square footage for each of the dedication? >> There's variations. >> Okay. Um
can you just summarize in terms of uh the retail spaces, their square footage, what comprises of that almost 15,000 square feet of commercial space? How does it break down between the seven? >> Okay, hold on. I have a I have a chart here. someplace.
So we have a a variety of sizes from 1,400,500, 1900, uh,300, and then a few larger 4,000 and 2500.
But typically what happens is the demising walls usually aren't put up during construction until the spaces are leased out. So the walls could always shift for a bigger tenant or a smaller tenant. >> And how would that
how would it affect the doors that you've placed on the frontage uh on the front um end of the property? >> So worst case scenario is if we needed to add more doors, they could be put in
where we have windows. If you know we didn't have enough doors. Let's say if we were to get more smaller tenants, but I mean it we have a good variety of I think of doors here or amount of doors, but worst case scenario is we can always
add a door where a window is. >> Okay. And with the square footage that you listed, 1400,500, 1900, 1300, can you just kind of give a a good feel for the board in terms of what type of
businesses would would would um be established in in those types of um sizes? >> Might be >> just examples. Uh I think the larger spaces we probably uh
and I know even architecturally we plan for restaurants. Uh so we leave shafts typically through the building if if cooking is going to be done and we need to have any type of cooking equipment and ventilation in the building. So we we plan for that ahead of time. And the
other spaces, it could be food service, it could be, you know, any any variety of things, dry cleaners, a cafe. Really, these are very flexible spaces.
>> Okay. Um, I want to focus actually on retail number seven that you have designated on this plan here. >> Okay. um it sticks out for me because it's not um it's not imper it's not uh aligned to the six others. So just just
for my clarity, how would a patron enter and exit out of retail 7? >> Right now they would enter from the parking lot side which is the north side of the building. There's doors shown there >> facing Bonell Court, right? >> Yes. Okay. Yeah.
>> With the idea that six and seven or a portion of six could be expanded. So these spaces could be combined because in between each one of these we show dashed lines which is where walls
could be if they needed to be. But six and seven could clearly be combined or a portion of those. You'll see on six we have two sets of doors that go out to Styus. So a wall could be
added right down the middle of retail six and that could be combined to retail 7. What's this? >> So that could be expanded. could be expanded but as as you indicated now right now the only way to get into
retail 7 is through um the area that is facing Bol Court >> at this time. >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um building height can can you remind us what is the building height of of this application? >> Yes. This application the building
height is 66t 6 in which is permitted under the ordinance. Um, the amended redevelopment plan allows for a fifth story and a building taller than 60 ft if you run on Stson Avenue. You have more than 2500 square ft of amenity
space, which we do, and more than 7,500 square ft of commercial space, which we do. >> And just as a frame of reference, I'm not sure if you have this number off the top of your head. Um, how does it compare to phase one and phase three?
>> The building height, are they the same as phase one in phase three? >> I'm sorry. The building height. >> Yes. >> Oh, yes. Um, it's probably almost exactly the same as phase one. Um, >> that's five stories. And I think our
floor heights are pretty much identical. Phase three is four stories. So I think with the parapit um I think that was 60 ft or close to 60 ft. So this may only be like 7 8 ft taller. Okay.
>> The reason why I asked about building height and comparison with phase one and phase three more so with phase one and a little bit with phase two is that I know now with having um basically um two four
to five story buildings opposing one another. Sometimes as you have taller buildings right against each other across the street, you can have this canyon effect. I'm sure you're well aware of of this as as an architect. Um,
with having two tall buildings like that, what are reasonable measures that you would have to mitigate a lot of those effects due to the canyon effect? So I know what you're referring to on phase
one and phase five. That street right ofway is 50 feet. So those two buildings basically are 50 ft apart face to face. Here for the majority of the distance between phase 4 and phase 1, the
building is 90 ft apart. the two the two faces of the buildings are 90 feet apart except for this one back corner which is I think it's 50 feet 9 in uh that's the distance at this one you know corner so
there's actually more space between these two buildings phase one and phase 4 than there is between the phase one and five building on panel >> I guess I guess to kind of drill down a little bit is that in the area between phase one and phase 4 because both of
them are the same height around four to five stories. Um what is the potential for that area just to be under shaded or under diminish lighting um for an extended amount of time throughout the
day? the well the sun will be moving from obviously from east to west which is the right side of the drawing down around so when the sun is high in the sky you're still going to be get you still will have sunlight in between these two
buildings like I said you're going to have twice the amount of space between these two buildings that you have on the panel court street right now So if if if I pose to you maybe if the sun was
let's say um on the east side >> right here >> up here. >> Mhm. >> What kind of to what extent and may and obviously you don't have the calculator or whatever right now but approximately how much of that parking lot would be
shaded. We'd have to do a a study to to actually, you know, show you that, >> but this is twice as wide as any street frontage, including Styverson. Let me
just see how what's the right way on Stson. I don't know off the top of my head. 86 ft. So the distance between these two buildings will still be larger than any bu two buildings that front on Ston
and I believe there's sunshine on Stson Avenue in between what what I'll call phase two the right at the Raid property and and this building >> also a part of the canyon effect is the potential I would want to say like the
containment of noise within that area as well. Um can you describe in terms of the material of the buildings and ensuring that who whomever would reside in these buildings would not have um their quality of life be affected by
amplification of noises within that parking lot area? >> Well, the only activities I really see going on out there, there's no green space right in the center there where the buildings are closest to each
other. It's parking. Uh so I don't know how much noise I don't I don't think the amount of cars here is going to generate that much noise. Okay. Um, and then lastly, just to go
back on the whole sunlight shading, is there any scenario in which the sun is oriented in a way where shade is casted onto the parking lot from both phase one and phase 4
>> at the same time? >> At the same time. >> I don't think so. No, the No, I think the the sun, you know, will be coming up on this corner of phase 4.
So, as it moves around, it's going to come over phase one, I mean, I'm sorry, phase four, phase three, and it's going to work its way over here to this open side of the site. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Any further
questions from the board? questions from the public. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks, >> I'd like to now call upon our site engineer, Daryl Daryl. Who's this guy? Who's this guy? >> Sir, can you state your name and uh
spell your last name for the record? >> Daryl Alvarez. A O V A R E Z. >> Mr. Alvarez, would you raise your right hand? >> He's a regular. >> You swear the testimony about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> All right. Mr. Alvarez, I know you've testified before this board on many
occasions, but if you could briefly give the board and the public uh the benefit of your credentials. >> I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. I've been practicing architecture and engineering for over 40
years. I graduate with a uh engineering degree from Vermont University of Vermont. I have a masters from NGIT. I am the vice president of engineering for Kamo Associates and my license are active and current
and as you said I've been here many of times before >> board stipulates. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. All right Mr. Alvarez, I know there's minimal site changes uh from an engineering standpoint, but if you could briefly take the board uh through that and
address any any items that uh require testimony under the Collier's review letter. >> Well, that's correct. There's very minimal uh changes that were on to the site plan that require engineering uh concerns. The site again has the same
circulation coming in from Vanil. You have a interior uh parking lot that wraps around. We have not changed yet. It's exactly the same way it is. The uh site current coverage we have 95 uh%
impervious that happens to be exactly the same as the original uh plan we had previously approved. What happens is that new addition is actually occupying an area that was paved over. So there's no increase with the impervious uh
surfaces. There currently is a the storm water retention system that's already in place that accommodates the entire uh lot as build out as shown. uh there really isn't any engineering
concerns and uh it's fairly simple uh application here with regards to uh the the layout. Uh Mrs. Shabarazzi went over all that explaining where the
entrances are, the court area. Uh so basically that's the uh engineering comments I have. I I reviewed Collier's engineering report. I have no uh concerns of what he has uh
indicated on the report. We will comply to all of his uh comments and I'm happy to take any uh questions you may have. And in particular that includes uh grading and drainage in item five on
page eight and sanitary sewer on also on page eight and item six. Great. Uh I have no further questions of Mr. Alvarez at this time. >> Questions from the board. I >> have a very um practical question sir.
The parking lot will be maintained and by the building owner. I assume >> the owner will be maintained in the parking lot. Yes. >> May may ask a practical question. How will you remove snow and ice? Well, ice we can melt. Snow we got to get rid of.
>> Snow will be moved to an area. There's a couple areas within the uh site. You have an area over in this area in this corner over here uh where you can uh plow the snow into that area,
stockpile and let it uh let it melt like you would in any parking lot. >> Yeah, I can't see my my vision. Um is that area sufficient to still allow parking during those times of storm? >> Yes, it will.
>> Snowtorm. Yes. Okay. Thank you. It's a very practical question, but I think you're practical. >> Makes sense. Your answer practical. Thank you. >> So, all the cars would have to be out of there for it to be plowed. >> That is uh always a concern with any
parking lot. Uh you're going to have cars parked there. >> It's going to be uh a coordination with the maintenance uh people of the >> uh units. Mhm. >> And they'll have to work around them or set up some uh scenario where they would
get part of the parking lot cleared out when they do the power. >> It's a task. >> Excuse me. >> It's a task. >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Frame, did you have a question? >> Fire department connections.
>> We have fire department connections in the front of the building as required. Uh and bill is going to be fully sprinklered and that complies to your uh ordinance and we'll have the traffic engineer testify about the circulation of the
fire truck. He has he reviewed he did analysis of that and reviewed the uh maneuverability of the fire truck and a garbage truck. Any further questions from the board? Mr. Davik,
>> Mr. Alvis, just one one question regarding the uh the storm water. Uh were you the engineer on this site previously for other other phases? >> Well, the phases. Yes. >> Okay. Um your design is based on a a 2-in uh per
hour percolation. I know we're going to do perk tests on site. Previously on all the you know the soils are similar out there. >> Yes. >> And and you've gotten that perk previously. believe when we initially put in the retention system for the
phase for the building on Benil Street, we did Burke tests and I think they were submitted to the the city. >> Okay. So, you feel comfortable we're going to be >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions from the board,
>> Mr. Gohan? So, even though this is not proposed, I'm I'm curious, would there be any engineering concerns or restrictions should there be um an elevated parking deck built uh above
the current surface parking? Are there any structural issues that would preclude that? >> You you're talking about a single deck over the open parking area that's here now. single or multiple,
>> it's feasible. The uh problem with that is the ramp portion of it takes up a significant amount of that parking lot to get it up there. So, it's not a attendant parking where people can go do go up there and drive themselves. So,
you're going to lo lose a significant amount of parking by elevating that structure just for the ramp to come up. So while it's feasible, it is impractical. >> Thank you. >> How many parking spaces would be gained
by such a elevated unit though, you know, speculatively? I mean, I can understand the ramp uh process very well, but if in fact there's a whole second deck, wouldn't that offer an awful lot more parking? >> So, you're looking around 60 spa uh
spaces six would be good. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> But again, you also have to realize too when you put up that second deck from the first floor down, now you're covering that first floor. So, whatever amenities or whatever you have down
there now, uh you >> it's less of an attraction because now you have this big you have this parking deck in front of it. So, that's another reason why it's not that feasible. Any other further questions from the
board? >> Questions from the public? >> Okay, we have no further questions. >> Great. I'd now like to call upon Joseph Stiger, our traffic engineer, and we appreciate the board letting us put. I thought it would be helpful if we heard someone about what was being built and
the engineering aspect. So, Joseph Stiger I'm sorry, Mr. Stiger. Can you uh >> spell your last name for the record? >> Yes. >> Joseph Stiger. S T A I G A R. >> Stiger, do you raise your right hand? Would you swear the testimony about to
gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Thank you, sir. >> Uh Mr. Stiger. Again, I know uh you've testified before this board on many occasions, but again, if you could confir confirm your credentials and licenses. >> Yes. Um I have a bachelor of science and master of science degree, civil
engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, where I've also been an adjunct professor of traffic engineering courses. >> Okay. Um I also professional planner but I'll be here tonight as a u professional engineer in this specializing in traffic engineering of which I've testified
before this board I'd say at least two dozen times in the past but throughout Union County and throughout the state of New Jersey >> board stipulates. >> Great. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. All right Mr. Stiger I know you uh firm
prepared a traffic uh study and uh evaluated the site. if you could please give an overview of the findings and uh comment including site circulation. >> Yep. Yep. Um I I think Mr. Alvarez pointed out the the changes are are
relatively minor and and um I I would I would consider them um insignificant in terms of having any impact. Um first of all, we took a look at how much traffic. Well, the big difference between what was approved and what's being proposed
and I there there's 38 additional units uh that are being proposed and the question would be well what impact does that 38 units uh have uh using the same trip generation that we use uh for for the rest of the development uh using the
Institute of Transportation Engineers 38 units would generate 18 trips maximum in any peak hour and uh access to the site will be from Benel Court and uh and Benel Court is a oneway uh going from uh
I guess it would be north to south or or east to west um and uh and and exit out to Johnson um uh place um and and entering from Mars Avenue. So once you
get to the uh the access points uh it's dispersed in two in two other directions. So for for example going out to Johnson uh you can either make a left to go to the circle or a right back to Mars uh Avenue where there's a traffic
signal uh for further uh leaving the site. So there's good dispersion in that aspect. And what we're talking about, what would be leaving the site is one vehicle for every uh 42 seconds of of time through the hour and relatively uh
uh minor in terms of having any type of uh impact. Not 42 seconds be much less than that probably uh three minutes one for every three minutes I should say in that order of magnitude. So again just give you the in layman's terms how
insignificant the 38 um uh units would generate. We had done um uh capacity analyses at the two ends of the um of Banel Court and we're in good level service of A and B and levels of service
range from A to F and that AB range just as in grade school is a good condition of uh of fairly free flow in terms of being able to make the maneuvers. So the impacts would be minimal if not
negligible. Um the second big aspect is parking and how is the parking going to um uh be accommodated as well. Um we what we have with the additional 38 units
um is a need uh for um just go through my notes here. Uh I want to make sure I got the right numbers. uh 199 parking spaces for the for for the the three phases that we're uh looking at. Um
phase one requires 80 um 80 spaces. Well, it's one per one for for the residential. So, whatever number of units are in each phase, you need the same number of uh of parking spaces. We are providing 199 I'm sorry, we are
required to have 199 spaces. is we're providing 130 onsite. So the question is where is the other 69 parking spaces to get us back up to 199 spaces and of that
um the the applicant has control he owns uh the phase five um project which um I don't if I can point to it is in the uh I'll say right in the u uh inner inner
circle uh to the top of the the page. um in that uh site on that site in that development there are 22 spaces in excess of what's required for phase 5.
In addition to that there are lands to the I'll call it to the north of the site. Um the the buildings existing buildings and existing municipal parking lot of which he'll have control over as well. There's a there's an office building uh to the north side, parking
lot to the south side. Uh office building has 23 parking spaces and the municipal lot to be uh to be uh uh to be um controlled by the uh applicant will have 37 parking spaces. So 22 plus 23
plus 37 gives you uh 8 82 spaces. We only require 69 to meet the requirements for the parking. >> And Mr. Siger, I assume uh based upon what you just testified to, and I'm
looking at the top of page seven of the Collier's report where they say based upon the 13082 says the minimum parking requirements are exceeded and the peak parking demand will be sufficiently accommodated. Uh so
I assume you concur with that. >> Yes. >> That conclusion. Yes, that >> okay. >> Yes, that exactly. Yeah, we can't we came to basically the same conclusion in our amendment to our traffic study that we did that analyzed the parking and then colleagues through their review
confirmed and andor um came up with the same conclusion as well that we actually exceed the amount of parking that's required per the redevelopment plan. >> Okay. And if we could touch on perhaps uh site circulation other aspects. So
site circulation as you can see you accesses from Benell uh court come into the parking lot circulate and uh throughout the parking lot. The parking lot has 24 ft aisles which is typical of a parking uh layout. Um it technically
can accommodate a tractor trailer but we don't anticipate any tractor trailer movements on this site. And in fact, your redevelopment plan uh states that tractor trailer loading docks and and circulation aspects are not required for
for tractor trailers. Uh if the retail a single retail unit is less than 10,000 square feet, these will be less than 10,000 square ft. Um so again, we are in compliance with the uh with the um uh with your redevelopment plan as well. I
think the more important aspect is can the fire truck get into the site? Can the garbage truck get into the site? In other service vehicles, other delivery vehicles, they certainly can. And the uh the uh circulation plan that we provided
to uh to the board and to your engineer indicate indicates that we use the fire truck from the union fire department, the actual specifications, wheelbase and and turning radi and so forth uh to make sure that the circulation for that fire
truck can uh be accommodated. And again, you concur with any of the comments that are set forth in the in the Collier's letter. Any problem complying with any of those terms? >> No. No, not at all. I I I think there were some u comments that um uh that the
Kier's letter wanted some discussion about certain aspects of it, trip generation impacts and so forth. I think I provided that and it didn't hit it point by point but if there aren't any further uh explanation or answers I'll certainly be happy to
>> thank you I have no further questions to Mr. Stiger at this time. >> Questions from the board. >> Committee woman. >> Um so um speaking about Johnson and you said uh the traffic that additional
traffic it'll be one car every 3 minutes. >> Yes. >> Do you know what it is now? Um the the traffic that flows through Johnson. So this will be one additional car to what is flowing through there now. the the the volume on on uh on Johnson uh is 400
two-way two-way 400 vehicles per hour uh in the morning and 500 vehicles and I'm rounding off 500 vehicles per hour. So this uh this additional traffic from 38 units would add 18 actually uh it less
than that because uh in the even in the morning peak hours and the afternoon some of the traffic will be coming into the site off of Mars won't even touch Johnson and only in the morning would be the uh exiting movements that would go
out to Johnson. The the important aspect again to to uh uh evaluate the impact is that the traffic volume on Johnson is at least 100 vehicles per hour less in the morning peak hour than the PM. Obviously
in the morning residents will be leaving out to Johnson when Johnson is lower. In the evening minimal traffic will be coming out of the site to leave out onto onto Johnson. So it kind of works nicely. Uh the roadway network in that sense.
>> Yeah. I just Johnson is really busy. Um so >> Yep. >> Any addition is you know. So all right. Thank you. Um and then um with regard to the parking, so you said the uh phase five, there's 22
spaces that are they currently available or will they be available when once phase 5 is completed? >> Well, once phase 5 is completed, they will be available. >> So So these units will be built before phase 5 is completed. So >> I'm sorry, the park I'm sorry, say
>> the parking, right? the 22 spaces that you said would be available uh during phase five additional >> phase five has and I don't know the exact number but phase 5 has a specific number of parking spaces that it's going
to be uh built on that >> uh what it is there's u 22 spaces in excess of what's required in phase five so that's excess of of of
22 uh spaces can be utilized for to accommodate the 69 that were deficient on this property, >> but they won't be available until phase 5 is complete. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. It be condition of approval that that it be phased appropriately as well.
>> Okay. >> Because we wouldn't want to see uh this phase four built before phase five is finished. >> No. >> Okay. Actually FA just to clarify phase five >> including the complete parking garage will be done finished in approximately a month. >> Oh okay.
>> So that will be in place long before >> Okay. >> Phase four probably need to get started before resolution is uh >> and and then uh one last question. And I know uh the question about tractor trailers came up and we don't anticipate
tractor trailers being there, but what about box trucks and what's what's going to be the impact to the parking if if the retail spaces are having deliveries during during the day? >> Yes. Well, what we showed uh was how the movement of the garbage truck when
larger single unit garbage trucks can circulate the site which is going to be equal to or or greater or larger than box trucks that are be doing their deliveries. the Amazon trucks, the uh uh typical box trucks that would be um bringing product let's say into the
retail. Even the movement uh these types of uh units typically one and twobedroom use and there's much smaller trucks obviously than maybe the box trucks that we see. U >> yeah, I guess my question is where are they going to park?
>> Yes, that's but we don't have a specific loading dock um uh on this site. Uh but during the day when the residents, not all of them, but at least half of them are out doing what they're doing during the day, whether they're working on
weekdays or whether they're out running errands and shopping elsewhere on weekends, >> empties out the parking lot. So what will happen is if there is a specific delivery, let's say unit 101, they're moving out that day, management will go
down and make sure that those uh a certain amount of parking spaces, let's say two or three parking spaces are coned off and utilized for that that uh that moving uh vehicle. So moving moving are pretty easy because they're scheduled. Typically the the tenant will
uh um uh uh uh provide the information or will get a reservation I'll call it uh for those parking spaces from management in terms of um of u deliveries the same more or less the same thing they'll use a parking space
or a series of parking spaces to stage there and whether it's 10 minutes 20 minutes half hour empty out their vehicle uh their truck and and load up whatever product is there. So, it's going to be during the day when much of the parking spaces are going to be empty
and accommodate that uh that activity. >> And I might add that and uh our planner could touch on this too. There's already 187 residents I believe there now and it in the other phases and it's it works fine. >> Are there are the spaces going to be
assigned to the the residents? Will they have assigned parking? >> Okay. >> Yeah. And again, I believe that's also one, two, and three, and five. >> Mr. Chairman, can I Yeah, if I if you
don't mind. Um Joe, um I know you've been doing this for a long time, and I I struggled when I was doing the review. Um because this shared parking ordinance that that the township has um
and and what actually occurs out there don't seem to line up, right? Um we have a lot of residents that indicate that there's no parking out there in this vicinity and they have a lot of difficulty. So approving an application that's deficient 69 parking spaces um
has has raised some level of concern. Now, if we use the shared parking analysis and you say there's 400 some odd parking spaces within this zone, you come up with a number that says that there's parking. But I think that the
question that keeps being asked to me from board members and other folks familiar with this project is where are those spaces really? Um, one of the one of the things that I struggle with is we're looking at the the adjoining lot which is in what's considered phase
phase six. That lot's kind of being utilized now to a certain degree. So, but we're going to count that as part of the parking requirement. Um, you know, we're talking about a parking garage that has certain amount of spaces open,
but that's being looked at for many other people to be utilizing that. So, so from a practical standpoint, I know what the ordinance says, you know, I know how the calculations are done. I'm I'm wondering if in in practice, if we were to go out there, can we really
identify 69 spaces in the area that are that are open? Um, and I know that's kind of a vague question, but it leads me to another question. And I'm I'm going to take advantage of your knowledge here a little bit when I ask you, have you run into shared parking
ordinances that are similar to this and and do you see that in practicality when you look at the area outside of this site whether they work? >> I'd have to say yes. I I have uh utilized and seen uh shared parking
arrangements as your ordinance uh uh points it out. I think Bloomfield is one that that utilizes it in uh in some other towns and and it does work. Um but I think so if I understood
the looking at it from a shared parking analysis um we don't need a variance. So we don't need any we're not deficient. And what what we've I think t taken it a step further saying that okay you know we we are 69 short of what your
ordinance requires the one per one for for residential um do we have that total of 199 including the 69 and we can provide those so I don't know if that answered your question because I think what your
other portion of your question is if we're relying on those other lots and people are parking there today and now they're going to be displaced to allow for the 69 parking spaces for the residents. Where are they going to go?
Is is that is that your question? I >> Yeah, it it kind of is because we keep we keep moving around the parking like when phase six gets approved, you're taking out all the parking that's on there and where's that going? Oh, >> you know what I mean? So, you keep you keep moving the parking around. I think
that the folks in this town have been have been uh displaced from their traditional parking many many times and are struggling to find parking and and it's just not isolated to this area. I think this is a very much a town issue, but this is another application that
comes in front of this board with parking deficiencies that are saying we're going to solve it through some shared and a lot of people are are uh saying that it's kind of voodoo mathematics that we're using here to come up with with parking. And and I I can't really point at a spot for each
one of those 69 cars. Where are they going to park? And then they say, "What about their guests? What about the the retail spaces?" I mean, there's more than just the one for one that could realistically be needed uh that that is really concerning to this board and others that I've spoken with. So, you
know, and I think that that the administration is trying to tackle it with with some of the studies they're trying to do, but I think the board struggles with an approval of this application because they don't uh necessarily see, you know, is there
anything you could do to give them uh comfort in with your knowledge that that these 69 spaces are there are are physically going to be there? there's a lot of, you know, will be there, but it won't be there, and then they'll be over here, and then it'll be over there. Uh,
so there's almost a leap of faith that that they're asking for here. Um, so I just ask you to kind of go through it one more time with as much specificity as you possibly can. >> Yes. And, uh, so the 69 spaces are in three the three locations. They're going
to be in phase five, of which there's in excess of 22. Mhm. >> They're going to be in the office building uh that's off Banell that uh that the uh applicant owns. Uh it's not going to be an an office um uh building or require parking for the office. Uh
it'll be utilized for parking for this uh this phase. Um and then you have the uh the municipal lot as well. So after phase 4 is finished, we'll you and I will be able to go out and here are the
69 spaces that will be utilized by the I say that I say we'll be able they're real spaces. They're actually going to be on the ground and and available to the phase 4 residents. when phase six happens, I agree with
you, they get taken away and now we're back to the deficiency for phase four, but that will be dealt at the time when phase six becomes comes before this board. But but here's the argument that that I get a lot. Um you're saying that you're using that
whole parking lot for phase 4 that's in phase six right now, but there's parking there currently. >> Yes. >> So what happens to the people who are there currently? So, are those really spaces that are available to four if they're currently parked up? Now,
>> it you know, it's it's a a point of who's going to be allowed to park there. If if the applicant goes through the process to purchase that parking lot from the municipality, he has the right to use it for however
he needs to use it. And if the need is for phase four, he'll need it for phase four. >> And I think it's something that that he has to work with the with the town. Okay. But we but the town lose those spaces for the public. Where are they going to park? I don't have the answer
to give you at that point. But that's where that would that's where that this motion is going and before this board that parking lot will be utilized for >> right >> for >> so so I just have trouble and I I understand the math and I understand
that that you what the ordinance says but when someone practically comes to me and says well by the time this is under construction phase six is going to be getting approved so they're being taken away. So by the time you're trying to occupy these, the phase six spaces really
aren't there. So what are we doing? We're are they going next, right? And so we're counting something that if everything goes well for the developer is really not going to be there by the time occupancy is there.
>> Yeah. So, you know, do they have to come back in front of the board and and prove that they have those those some those so many spaces before they're allowed to to take away the spaces? >> Well, or or it can be a condition of disapproval that those 69 spaces be
provided for phase 4 at either there or or somewhere else. >> Right. I mean, it would almost I I think there'd be there'd be more of a comfort level, and I don't want to speak for the board in any any way, if we were able to designate 69 parking spaces within a
certain radius, and these are exclusively for this building, right? And I know that's a difficult task, but if if you have it, whether there's when phase 5 is open, whether that means that we're putting 69 in there or you know,
you only have 22 extra or you can designate these somehow. I think that would go a long way and and that if they were to get taken away, it would have to come back in front of that board and be replaced with something, >> right? But I think that can be handled
at during the application for phase six. I mean those 69 spaces will be there and won't be lost until phase six is approved and construction start. But the process to get phase six approved will be before this board and at that time
the question is well what are you going to do with the 37 parking spaces and the 23 and the 22. So realistically, I'm just trying to wrap this wrap my head around this from a timeframe perspective. Get assuming approval
today, break ground in the in the spring, right? Two years before they need these 69 parking spaces, right? Before you have occupancy, right? Is that a a fair a fair time frame just for the argument sake? So in two years,
we'll need those. I believe that you're under you're hopefully this developer has approval on phase six and has taken those out. Right? So those 69 they're definitely not there at the corner that that's under construction as well. Right? I think that would be as ideal.
So I think we need to find at least those spaces as well to give comfort that there are really spaces for the people when they need them. Right? And this may not be an argument for today, but it's an argument before this
building gets occupancy that you you have a problem. And it may be two years from now that you have a problem. But we h I I believe that if things go well for the developer, which I think everybody wants, you're going to have a parking problem at some FA point here when you have two
of these under construction at the same time. And there will be overlap. um and you will be spaces that you're counting today will not be there when you need them. So, I think that's that's part of the issue, practical issue that we're counting stuff that's not going to
be there that we need to know where are they going to be. And I'm sure phase six is going to have its challenges, too. We're going to have to make that accommodation. But I think the board is is trying to draw a line saying we need real answers, not answers, you know,
like don't worry, it's going to happen. Um or or yeah, it's someplace out there. I think we need a little bit more concrete. Where is that? And if that means, you know, can we mark them off someplace on a plan? Can we mark them off some some way or have some kind of
condition that they're there at a certain point? You know, I don't know what they I I don't I've been wrestling with this and talking to board members and trying to figure out what that answer is. So, anything you could do? I think you understand my concern at this point. >> Absolutely. and and and it makes a lot
of sense and but I I think I don't think we need to to determine where those 69 spaces are going to be when phase six is developed at this point in time but determine it when phase six becomes
comes before this board where are they going to be when construction starts and then it's a timing of the two phases phase four and phase six as well to make sure because if phase six is is is being constructed while phase 4 is not occupied. Yes. Where are those 69
spaces? They can't happen at the same time. The two phases. I think that that answer really can be brought up at the uh at the phase six application hearings. I I don't know. I don't think it needs to be done before the phase 4
because we're guaranteeing that the 69 spaces are going to be there and we can show you on paper in the field there are the 69 spaces. Yeah, >> it's not until six happens. >> And you've confident that that phase uh
phase 5 parking is going to be available within the next month or so? >> Within a month? Yes. >> Yeah, >> within a month. And those so those are 22 of the spaces that are right across the street. >> Reserve for phase for four. >> Yeah.
I I I I if anybody at the board or or you need to see where the where on where those spaces are talking about, we have them up on the plan. Uh >> I and I think that's an exhibit that should probably be >> is that A2. >> So FA phase 4 is down here. This is the
corner, the new corner. Here's the parking space at the at that at the building uh um on on Benell back here. the 23 spaces and the 37 spaces are in this uh municipal currently municipal uh lot that'll be acquired by the uh
applicant. >> So right next door of each other >> but those are not >> lot. >> Yes. Yes. >> Joe, is there is there an agreement with the town because that is a town lot currently. >> That's what I believe. Yes.
>> Yeah, we're working on on that. Yes. >> So, there's no agreement at this point. >> Is that something you're trying to work on? So, so that they can have exclusivity >> matter of the paperwork for it. >> So, so there's exclusivity there for for for phase 4. >> Correct. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. And that that's something that's
being negotiated with town. >> Yes. >> Okay. Right. That's all I have right now. I just wanted to tell you what some of the stuff that we've been I'm sure there's going to be additional questions regarding that. Thank you. >> Just want to that as part of that
parking lots, it's it's we need to improve the applicants taking on the responsibility to improve that parking lot because the present time it's not in good condition at all. >> Further questions from the board. >> Lots of questions.
>> Mr. Go ahead. >> Uh, so I have a a a threshold question first. In in your expertise, in your experience, how often does the the predicted trip generation and flow vary from reality? >> It here in New Jersey, it's conservative
because the the uh trip generation rates are based on rates either very regional, you know, I say I call I'll say the, you know, Midwest or the Northeast, if not national. So it's throughout the country. And when you think about where
we are in the most densely populated state in the United States, we have trains, bus service. I mean, we have uh Ubers. We have the ability to utilize mass transit and other forms of of um of
uh commutation and transportation than let's say in more rural or or heavily uh suburban areas and states as well. what we've done and particularly for multifamilies, we've went after the fact. So, we were
up here telling board members, oh, you'll see 20 cars in, 40 cars out, go out after it's built and go counts. we consistently we found it actually being lower than when we use that I those IT rates and the reason being is I think
because in New Jersey we have those other opportunities uh for for other forms of transportation that you don't have in other most all if not most uh mo uh most other states. >> All right. Some other other questions
regarding traffic and and flow. Have you done do you have an opinion regarding how easily it's going to be for cars traveling westbound on Mars Avenue to turn left into Banel Court? >> How easily it's going to >> Right. I mean, there's there's
significant traffic on Mars Avenue. It's a state highway. >> Uh there's not going to currently there's no turn signal at that intersection. Is there going to be a backup because of the the density in this in this development on Mars Avenue uh in the
left lane of Mars Avenue westbound with cars trying to turn into this development. >> One of the difficulties of Mars Avenue and I travel it quite quite often is two lanes in each direction. Once somebody wants to make a left somewhere that
closes down that that left lane and now you got people jockeying in and out of the right lane. Uh that's a common nature of what Mars Avenue is. Is it going to make it is this going to make it easier? No, it's not going to make it easier. We're going to make it more
difficult anytime you increase traffic. Yes, there's going to be have more difficulty of getting uh on that on those roads. Um it's you know what I was not part of the
redevelopment plan. Redevelopment plan allows for this development and took into account what the effects and impacts would be on the roadway. So at that point in time that question was was answered and with this we're with this
application we're just utilizing the redevelopment plan as our basis or our guidelines of what we should be developing here. So, I can't answer that question because I didn't specifically study it, but I have to uh tell you it's
not going to be easier, but with this development, but then you have to weigh the benefits and whatever detriments there are of allowing for this development. I believe all that has been vetted out with with the development of the redevelopment plan.
>> Another question regarding u traffic. Did your analysis um take into account, study, consider any kinds of backups on Johnson Place for uh people turning right out of the
pro out of Benel Court or left out of Benel Court. So the uh the number of vehicles that could stack up backed up to the red light at Bars Avenue or to the C the stop sign at the circle going in the other direction. >> No, the queue queuing analysis. No, we
just did what what happens at that intersection of Johnson and Benell. So how the lefts or rights could be made, but the Q lengths u coming from from Mars Avenue or from Johnson, I'm sorry, from the circle, let's say, uh I did not
look at No. And I get Yeah. And you know, and the only response I have to that again that should have been if or was vetted out when the redevelopment plan was established. The one thing that the redevelopment
plan says is that no access would be shall be provided by through Styverson Avenue. That that just leaves Banell. So we were given that requirement when we were given the redevelopment plan to
prepare the plan that's before you. So again, we didn't establish that rule or that that's that standard in the redevelopment plan. it was given it to us and they said this is what you have to do and that's what the plan has
>> and and one other point about I would rather see any backups happening on Benell than than Cyverson Avenue due to traffic movements and driveways on Styverson also. So this the lesser the lesser of the two evils this certainly is than other access points.
>> All right, one last question. My understanding is that unless it's already changed that that currently there's parking allowed on Vanel Court. >> Yes. Or or there has had been I'm not sure if today I didn't go by today but I
know there was a movement to take get rid of the parking on >> correct. So that would further exacerbate the parking need in in this general area. >> Well, that's something that I mean bell court's a a municipal road. I mean we have no no rights to to do anything. That's that's up to the municipality and
either way it works for us. So it's a oneway. So could we allow one lane of traffic and and two lanes of parking? I think a lot better than if it was remain two two-way. So >> I don't have any further questions right now. Thank you,
>> Mr. Stiger. Um it's my understanding that the existing uh parking that is now on Benel Court um may come from the fact that as we built as we are building the Centurion building as well as the
parking deck, the people who occupy the current Centurion on Banell were allowed to use 19 spaces in what used to be our flat senior center parking lot. It may be, it's my speculation, that
those cars have no place to go and therefore they're using that, which could explain some of the problem. I'm hoping that when we complete and do this full redevelopment, that those kinds of issues won't continue to exist when
we're still talking about shared parking. >> All right, that's my question. That was one statement. Now the second portion that I wanted to ask you about is um the parking layout was assessed based on accepted design standards um and
demanded exper experience demand experience at similar developments. Can you name or show a pictorial rendering of some of those developments that this was based on? >> Where you reading that from our report? >> Uh your report sir it's >> that sound familiar? Uh
>> yes it is point three under how you explain the methodology analysis and findings. >> The parking layout and supply was assessed based on accepted design standards which of course we know and demand experienced at similar
developments. Is there a similar development to this that you have used and can you tell me where it might be and I could look at it myself? It it was talking about the the uh the parking. Can you you mind can you show me? I >> Of course. I'm sorry. It's on page one.
>> It's the the last sentence on page one. >> Okay. >> Yes. Um well, well, we are in compliance. Our layout of our parking and u parking lot is in compliance with the RSIS, which is a statewide standard
as you as you know. Um, so anything similar, this is similar to at least 99% of of all the developments of of a civil similar n residential nature. >> So in fact, you didn't use anything that could be identified for our understanding. >> Wow. I
>> a town, a place, a space. >> You're saying actual developments >> possibly. It says similar developments. I don't know of any similar developments. I live in Union. >> Yeah. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Well, we you know, we we we've done traffic studies in the developments in Jersey City and
and and and in in cities that are much more intensely developed, higher buildings, uh uh and and and layouts, tighter layouts and so forth. So I can certainly can't do it on the spot here today of examples that look like exactly
like this but the way they operate are very similar in terms of access to them circulation in the parking lot. >> Talking about um you know do they have loading docks? Do they need loading docks? As Mr. Hale pointed out u the other the other develop the other um
building centurion and all that operating without loading docks work very well and we've seen that throughout when the multif family developments as well because the loading and the moving of of the tenants happen during the day when the parking lot is let's say half full and you have that ability to use
that space rather than have an empty loading dock somewhere that sits 99% of the time just empty pavement. So it's a much more efficient way of of utilizing the parking lot. So in that sense it's very similar to many other developments that are of the same relative nature
that's being proposed. >> I understand. Um well there's also an area of the which wasn't has not been addressed at all relative to the commercial space only these possible sizes and the flexibility
portion. Um do we know what kind of commercial space will be there? because there is zero parking um allowable. >> We have we have zero parking planned for those new commercial beautiful spaces that everybody's going to want to go there. >> Mhm. >> And that's a concern to me, sir.
>> Well, um I foresee that this this is going to be a comp comprehensive uh retail center in in aspect. So it'll operate where you're not just going to one store, but you
utilize the whole and that's the whole I believe the whole purpose of the redevelopment plan and the design that you want walk-in traffic, you want pedestrian movements, you want this to be your town center >> and uh and you in order to do that, you need to densify and concentrate
particularly the retail. So you go from one store to the next and it becomes a nice pedestrian uh thoroughare. Totally agree and I want this to be wonderful. Um would you speculate or can you help me speculate? Would I need to walk a quarter of a mile from these um shared
parking spaces to get to the center to go to a restaurant there? >> Can I just like to add one? Sorry for interrupting, but in the parking garage in phase five, there's 105 public parking spaces that would if someone wanted to >> uh to utilize
>> and and would you say that's quarter mile from uh >> No, the parking >> I understand. I know it very well. Thank you. I do. >> I plan on using it. Um it I believe again I'm trying to be practical and and
cooperative. If I have a toddler, if I am elderly and can't walk well, um those parking spaces are available to me, but in 95 degree heat or with ice on the ground, I am very reluctant to use them even though
the town's been generous enough to provide them after I pay for it, but we'll be there. Um I'm trying to be very practical and uh I have a concern obviously question. Um,
>> okay. Just check and see. >> That'll do for now. >> Yeah. And I just wanted to clarify one other item. Uh, when I referred to that quote unquote parking lot, uh, back behind that actually isn't that's an area where the movie theater building
used to be. And what people have been doing is going through the applicant's property, jumping the curb, and parking back there. >> What is that telling us? Well, I'm I'm just saying that it's not a parking lot. It's that it's landlocked
except for the applicants going through the applicant's property, which again ultimately when that gets approved as a parking lot for uh phase 4 uh again will be within the exclusive control of the of the applicant. >> I understand. I think what your
statement spoke very loudly here. Thank you. >> What's that? I think your concern and your observation about people jumping and trying to find their way, I don't want that to be a problem on in a consistent manner going forward.
>> Mr. Cohan, >> so Mr. Mr. H, I want to follow up on a statement you just made about the the parking deck. Is that the deck that you're they're referring to as part of phase five? >> Yes. So there will be 22 excess spaces available for this this project. There
will be 105 spaces open to the public and there will be sufficient spaces for the building for the resident res residential units in phase 5. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So how many total spaces are going to be available in the deck >> in how many spaces are in that parking
garage total? >> Yes. >> Do we know that? Just getting clarification. There's 105 public parking spaces and 107 dedicated resident spaces. >> So 212.
>> Yes. Thank you. >> And and out of the 107, that's there's 22 in excess of what's required for phase 5. Any further questions from the board? >> Followup question to what Mr. Cohan just
asked. How many units are in phase 5? >> Sorry. >> 85. >> 85. Okay. Um I'm going to turn my line of questions uh more into the traffic flow and and what you've calculated in the
trip generation. Um on page two >> is this the um May 5th or >> Yes. May uh May 5th. >> Yeah. >> June. Okay. >> Yeah. uh in on page two and let me point
you to the paragraph right before the header site access and circulation. So that last paragraph. >> Yep. >> It states the letter states it should also be noted that NJ dot defines the significant increase in traffic as an increase of 100 or more trips in any
peak hour and that the generated trips fall below this threshold. you calculate 134 as the peak PM uh the number of trips for a peak PM hour. So isn't 134 bigger
than 100? >> Yes. But what what table one compares is what was previously approved with 161 residential units to 199. So we're this application is to assess well what's the difference of what was from what was
approved and that that is the the increase of uh of seven trips in that same uh that same peak hour >> but as a followup to that nothing has been built on the property correct nothing has been built on the property correct >> correct
>> so there has not been any trips generated thus far of what has been approved so I don't know how we can make the comparison of 127 to 134. We're basically going from 0 to 134. >> Well, yes. Um that's true, but um
what what we tried to do in this study was what what does the 38 additional units generate and how does that compare to be an impact of what was already approved? that I know what you're saying. Started
zero because there's nothing on the property and there's going to be 134. Well, there was actually what was approved was 127. Now, that's that's more than 100 as well. But when you go from 127 to 134, it's really only seven.
And it's just to exemplify that it's really just another little increment in it that's not really going to have a great impact. And that was really the the point. We're not comparing 0 to 134. We're comparing 127 to 134. >> Okay. I I just want that established for
the record. >> Sure. >> Because when you go from 0 to 134, it is 100. >> It is more than 100. And that is a significant increase in traffic based on NJ DOT. >> Correct. And I guess my line of uh questioning in the second part of that
paragraph too when you state about the multimodal transportation impact analysis that a transportation impact study be conducted whenever a proposed development will generate 50 or more added new trips during the adjacent
roadways peak hours or the development peak hour. So you have 90 and you have 90 for the morning peak hour, 134 as the evening peak hour. I would think that would trigger that kind of need, wouldn't it?
Again, I make the same point that what we're here before you is not 0 to 90 or 0 to 134, but it's 76 compared to 90 and 127 compared to 134. And what is that impact? And that's the less than 50.
It's less than 100. >> So you're going from one you're you're comparing one projected to another projected. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Rather than what's current state right now compared to what you're projecting >> for this proposed amended application
>> because that scenario was vetted out when the redevelopment plan was presented and approved. So that's the basis that we're looking at not zero. We're looking at what the de redevelopment plan approved and that
approved those first numbers 72 and 127 >> but and and just to clarify for the record that redevelopment plan had been had to be amended in order for us to hear this application tonight. Correct. >> I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. >> Okay.
Um I also want to go to a statement that you put forth and I think it is um the second paragraph after table one. So um >> it should be noted that one.
>> Yeah, it should be noted. It's the final sentence. So you state that trip generation shown in table one will also be lower in reality due to internal trips between residents of the building and the ground floor commercial space.
>> Mhm. >> So I know you didn't incorporate it in this table but how many trip reductions for AM peak hour would that be? >> Yeah, we don't we don't know. But >> same thing with PM peak hour, right? What what that pointed out was if this was an entire entirely a residential
development, there's going to be people leaving in the morning or coming back in the afternoon that want to go pick up a quart of milk, a loaf of bread, a donut, and a coffee. They may not need to leave the site, get in their car, and leave the site because you have that retail potential down below. and you're going
to have residents who go shopping in the retail that's down below rather than get in their car and go on onto Route 22 to do that shopping. So, that was the point that it's going to be internal trips in the development itself, which happens all the time in in mixeduse development.
This was a single-use development, you wouldn't have that. In fact, it's a mixeduse development. You're going to have synergy of of of u internal trips. So the numbers the numbers that are in this table are is if this was a single develop actually this was entirely
residential. This was entirely residential this would you would develop but the fact that we do have commercial much of this traffic in table one is going to be internal trips in on the site itself. Yeah, I understand that you make the state you made the statement
but uh but didn't generate any um >> numbers to supplement uh what's in table one. But I think it's a a statement that should be further examined because, you know, table one focuses on peak hours. AM peak hour and PM peak hour. And so I
think anyone would naturally assume when we talk about a peak hour, let's say, for example, A.M. peak hour, it would be associated more so with commuting to work, um, dropping off your child at school. So, I'm trying to reconcile in
my head your claim and basically what do internal trips between residential and commercial space have to do with trips between residential and workplace. >> Well, many people work at home. All right? They're not leaving this
development at all anyway, but they want to go get a cup of coffee and a donut and they don't have to get in their car and go somewhere. they go down below and they walk down the stairs on the elevator and they go there. That's one less trip. And you take the one less
trip off of the off the numbers in table one, the numbers go down. So the differential of of uh seven seven vehicles in the morning, maybe six vehicles in the morning or five vehicles in the morning. The point of this is just that this table is conservative and
if we can demonstrate that there's really no insignificance to what the potential impacts will be well they're actually we're we're based on conservative numbers because in reality they're going to be lower because you're going to have those internal trips in a
mixeduse development. But I think as well, and this is my follow-up question, then you know, if you have, for example, AMP car, where they're dropping off their kids, how can you say a an internal trip between residential and and commercial would
replace um a parent dropping off their kid at school? That would be part I'm not following. >> Well, wait, wait, wait. If you want me to clarify here is that part of AM peak hour would probably trips generated for
AM peak hour would probably be generated as a result of a parent dropping off their kid at school, driving and dropping off their kid at school. You're making the claim that internal trips between residents of the building and the ground floor commercial space would
contribute to reduction of trips in reality. But those two scenarios are different. So, how can you make that claim when there's also another scenario there to contribute to am the trip numbers that we projected in
table one are not entirely comprised of parents dropping their children off of school. Are you making that claim? Is that a 100% of these trips or kid are kids going to school? Or could they
possibly be someone who works in at home and and and wants to go get that cup of coffee? Or could it be someone who goes to work? There's going to be a multitude of reasons why people leave in the morning and people come back in the evening.
>> So, it's not just the child going to school. It's going to be people who like I said who work from home who who don't need that you there definitely going to be a captured customer audience of the
retail are going to be the re the the first people are going to go going to utilize that retail are residents of this of this development rather than go to the 7-Eleven or the or the Waw Wa a mile or two away where they going to go
for the the staples that that quart of milk, that loaf of bread, they're going to go to a store if if there is a store of that nature here or a sandwich or going out to dinner, let's say, they're not going to get in their car to go on to Route 22 to go out to dinner. They'll
go down below. So, they're you don't you'll be able to conduct much of your daily activities by walking or taking the elevator downstairs rather than take your car and leave the site. And that is based under the assumption that those no
no it is and that is based on your assumption that those type of places would exist right below in that commercial space. >> Yes. And it it's proven by actual studies if you need to see those studies are happy to provide them but the it has documented that there when you do have
mixed development such as this there is a factor of internal trips. I did not itemize in here because I didn't feel I had to because we have a low enough uh increase in traffic that if I lowered it more, what am I proving? I'm just saying that yeah, it's actually lower than what
I'm telling you what it is. So rather than seven, the number is six or five. Okay. Um the next area that I want uh actually it's the same paragraph that I'm going on. You did touch upon a little bit of uh public transportation.
Um and you noted here that within a/4 mile of the site there is access to New Jersey Transit bus lines 52 65 66 94 95 and 114. How many of them actually go into New York City?
>> Well, I don't know. I I I I probably did know, but I can't tell you. >> I know for sure the 114, but I don't think the others are. >> Okay. Right. >> Not everybody commutes to New York City. >> Okay. All right. Um and and and Mr. M leave, like again, the numbers are based
on no trans mass transportation factor. So again, it's just a point that this put in this paragraph that these numbers are conservative, >> right? >> And that goes to Mr. Cohen's I'm sorry. Yeah, >> that goes to Mr. Cohen's comment about about uh how how does it compare how
does developments the IT developments uh or I'm sorry the IT trip generation rates uh compared to reality and >> they're much lower in New Jersey as I said before. So with 199 proposed units,
would you be able to estimate before this board how many uh would generate commuters that let's say would take the 114 bus to New York City? I'd have to look at the US census data
to get that information. uh but it's in the US census data because the census data tells tells you what commutation uh relationships to in Union and particularly the census track.
>> Yeah. And obviously right now if if well in the center you only have really the 114 bus that takes you into New York, the only way that you would be taking the train if you would have to drive down all the way to Union Station to take the train to go into New York. Um,
in terms of the line 114 bus, are you aware in terms of the capacity of that bus during morning peak hour or evening peak hour and whether or not the addition of potential commuters from the
property um would be sufficient to to hold those passengers in the line 114? No, I don't know that. But like I said, I didn't take any credit for that mass transit. So take the table one for face
value. If you believe that nobody from this development is ever going to use a bus or that nobody's ever going to go downstairs and buy something from one of the stores below, then just look at phase one, I'm sorry, table one for its face value. I don't believe that's true.
I disagree with you. I believe there's going to be people that utilize buses, maybe not just the 114, they may be using the other buses, okay? >> And there's going to be residents who go downstairs to to avail themselves of the store as well. So, I believe that these
numbers are going to be lower. And that's my only point. So, I I didn't give you the numbers. I'm not I'm not using credit for those numbers. I'm just saying that I don't I can I can substantiate that there's no impact based on these numbers and they're
actually conservative based on what I just pointed out. >> I I completely acknowledge that uh and and appreciate that. It's just that the statement has been put forth and I think it needs proper scrutinizing as a result uh with with that statement being made.
But to follow up in terms of the uses of buses, you know, according to New Jersey policy's perspective, a recent study indicated that more than half of NJ Transit bus passengers earn less than $35,000 annually. The board knows that there is no affordable units in this
application. So, how likely would a family or an individual making $35,000 a year be likely to rent an apartment at the site? >> I can't answer that. I'm I'm the traffic engineer. Okay. But just to note on the record,
>> good good point though. >> Also, I did note here and just just point of information because I do think a correction needs to be made here. Um, line 95, the uh the NJ Transit bus line
that has been discontinued um since April of 2018. >> Okay. >> So, just to point that out there. Um, in addition to what you have for table one, with this as a mixed use with 15,000
square almost 15,000 square ft of commercial space on the first floor, why does your report not include a Saturday peak hour? >> Well, the what we find is that the traffic volumes on the roadways are less
on on peak during peaks. their peaks are less on Saturdays because that traffic is pretty much spread out over a number of of hours uh throughout the day. Weekday it's really uh home to work, work to home, schools and so forth. So they're they're always condensed within
a shorter peak hour and typically higher. So we don't really look at um at uh at at those peak hour to analyze and assess the retail. Now this parking in this site is not going to be for retail.
uh primarily if if anything um re the parking would have to be utilized on on street. There's no there's no point access that we could look at. Okay, all the there's going to be 50 retail cars in and out here, 30 over there and so
forth. That'll be spread out through the area in terms of where there'll be parking and or coming I don't know people coming uh and and walking there. So the point being is that how can I establish where those cars are going to be coming to. So A I don't believe that
uh the Saturday is is going to be a um is a critical point in analyzing uh uh traffic. B again I point out again that listen we we we're we're given the redevelopment plan. We're
using using that as the basis. the redevelopment plan took took a look at what the impacts would be at that time. So we did we skip through it and not include it because of that reason in and partly we did partly we did but I
believe that we were had the right to do it and we it was the proper thing to do in order to analyze it that we rely upon the redevelopment plan. >> Okay. I do want to um do a followup in some of the questions on that left turn
from uh Morrison to Bonel Court. Um and I think we opined a lot of that already. Right now I think we could establish for the record and you you are aware as well that there is no traffic light, no stop bar, no stop sign at that intersection
of Bonell and and Morris. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And I know you provided some level of service grades at the moment. Can you tell us what is the current level of service for the stretch of Morris Avenue from that intersection of Morris and
Styverent to Morris and Bono? >> Not that we analyze it. The uh levels of service are analysis. They're they're the results of doing an actual analysis, a model, computer model of that roadway and intersection. Something we had not done.
>> Okay. And I think it would be fair and just to to build on on some of the questions that that Mr. Kahan have is that when you take in consideration of that PM peak hour and I know you have 75 in trips going into the site.
If you are a commuter and if you are coming from the Garden State Parkway or Route 22 and you're basically working out of town coming trying to come back through mainly those two places, maybe Route 78, but Route 778 takes you to to
the Parkway. Anyway, would it be fair to say that a lot of commuters that would reside in this proposed site would have to travel northbound to the intersection uh northbound on Morris to go to the
intersection of Bonell and Morris and have to take that left turn as their only option. >> Uh westbound. >> Well, yes. The only way to get into the site is through a Benell and Mars Avenue. That's because it's because it
was changed to a oneway or will be changed to a oneway. >> No. >> So the only way in is through Mars Avenue. The only way out is to Johnson >> through through Bennell. And if if you are a prospect or to be resident of that
property and if you you know work out of town where where if you had to take 78 22 oh we already talked about 22. Are there any scenarios in which a commuter would actually travel eastbound on
Morris Avenue to make the right on to Bonell? >> Any sure why why not? I don't understand. But >> can can you site some several >> would the majority come from? Yeah, I think logic would be yes. It'd be coming from the major uh interstates and and
Garden State Parkway probably from the east. >> Okay. >> And a lesser volume would be coming to and from the west. >> That that and I think that's my understanding as well. Um, and just had a curiosity, have you assessed the current levels of service between that
stretch of Morris Avenue and let's say from the intersection of Johnson Place, Morris to Bonell and Morris? >> No, we again I pointed that out and we did not study uh that intersection or that roadway at that point. You know, I
might add I I I know you're asking a lot of questions, but it's a permitted use under the redevelopment plan, and I'm sure your council and college off-site traffic impacts are considered when the municipality zone something and in particular in a redevelopment. So,
off-site traffic, ingress, what's within the jurisdiction of the board is ingress and egress from a from the property itself, not from the public roadways. That's part of the redevelopment plan and there's established case law I think we've coded it the Dunkin Donuts case
that offsite where traffic may come in the redevelopment plan dictates that the ingress and egress from this this site must come off of Bunnell and not off styin so that's established in your redevelopment plan and and asking for
studies beyond ingress and egress to the site where empties out onto we've we've done above and beyond, but how they ingress and egress off of Mars, whether they coming east and west on Mars, unfortunately,
that was already gone through and vetted by the by this board and the governing body and your consultants when they adopted the redevelopment plan. >> Yes. And Mr. >> Let me give you a mic. >> Thank you. With respect to your um
logical presentation right there, I believe that Mr. Dave issued a sort of a broad-based question based knowing well the redevelopment plan and having been part of the the negotiations that at
this point in time when there some buildings have been built and some are being proposed that there's a general concern that a reexamination of the current our current situation I won't say the redevelopment plan we've
it was based on that of multiple uh findings but we always speak of and we all love to speak of quality of life and I do believe that there's some questions from the from the general public and even from Mr. Jav's remarks, I picked
up, I may maybe mistakenly, but I picked up that there's a serious question about circulation in this area. And yes, I understand and agree with what you said. I respect that. Um, so we won't go so far as to say that, but what I did notice, and I think that it's somewhat
significant, is that you did testify, Mr. Stiger that there were 400 vehicles u on Johnson Place and 500 per uh per hour I guess >> am and pm. Yeah. Now that's that's a lot of vehicles. And the reason obviously we
I think we obviously can see the reason they're going to that place is because the only other way to get to the parkway or any of those major arteries is to go through Styverson Avenue. Um and then you're or the cannon and you slingshot yourself around. Um
this traffic and parking assessment is based on statistics. I understand that it's based on the calculations and formulas that you must use. And yet once again in the practical sense I don't in my personal opinion it
doesn't satisfy the problems that we have now exhibited in town. Um, Mr. Dave or or Mr. Pasquali, can can you provide some clarification on this board in terms of the redevelopment plan regarding deviations?
>> I I didn't hear one question. >> Yes, sir. >> That anything that deviates from the redevelopment plan, there is a specific clause within the redevelopment plan. >> One more. >> Yeah, we're not getting the full question. >> I'm not getting the full. You're just talking to the mic cuz we I lost
>> deviations from basically if there's any deviations being put before that deviates from what is determined in the redevelopment plan. For example, I know that there's no ingress egress on styosent per the redevelopment plan.
However, an applicant can propose that based on the fact that there are deviation clauses within the redevelopment plan itself that allows a board to hear it and potentially consider. Correct. >> It's correct. I mean, I I I believe
>> that there's a general clause in there that says you can deviate from this plan. Um, if you know, now we've talked about this a few times, but there are are layers to that deviation. I mean, it's something I'm sure the governing body would have to also be in
favor of, but um uh I believe that that probably would be acceptable deviation if you made a modification to the traffic. You know, that's it's a guidance document, right? So, you're giving guidance to the to the applicant on how to how to proceed. It proceeds in
a certain way. If the board feels that it's not the proper way, uh and you say it, but for this issue, we would approve it. and you say if you were to come out to Styverson, uh, we'd approve the application. I think that could that could be brought back to the township
committee and they could probably give a deviation uh or say that's acceptable to us and a deviation might be able to be granted by the board. Um, I don't know how they react to that going out Styus and I know that that wasn't something that the planner thought was a great idea,
>> but I imagine it depends on the configuration where exactly it it it entered sty. um stuff like that. But you know, I do believe that it would be acceptable as a deviation traffic, you know, modifications would be acceptable.
>> Sorry, M. >> Yeah. I mean, they certainly could ask for deviations to the to the plan. question is, you know, what the extent would be and and obviously the board has a concern uh about um how this the impact of the study and whether the
studies um takes into account the actual impact on the on the area. Uh and I know um the expert is relying upon uh a study that was done without having looked at it. That's a concern. Um >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just just a
followup regarding >> um regarding the the parking. It kind of dawned on me that you know when we're talking about the the parking that you have on site and as we're talking through all the parking indicated that there's 105 public parking spaces that
are going to come online. >> Right. >> Correct. >> That's under the control of the developer. Is that correct? So that that's going to be paid parking and the developer is going to have control of that. So he's going to received the revenue from that uh from that parking garage. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Will that be twohour as in centered parking? >> Probably. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, have the standards been set for that? Has >> whatever. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I imagine you're going to coordinate with the township on on the pricing and the and the hours and stuff
like that. >> Um cuz I know that they have their own parking metering and stuff like that. So, it dawned on me if you're deficient parking and I think that that's a rolling question depending on where we are in in the development process. Is
there an ability, this may again be in discussion with the township, so I don't want to put you on the spot here, but would it be possible that if let's say you're deficient, and my count would be you could be deficient up to
69US 22, that's a 47. Is that my mathematics, my specialty? Um, could you take 47 spaces, if they find that there's a problem, out of that public parking and designated to these folks
until other alternatives were were seen? >> Yeah, that that wouldn't be a problem at all. >> So then that could be at least maybe not ideal for the for the applicant because he's taking we're taking away revenue. But if there were a parking problem, he
could designate those of those 105 could designate to his folks until which time a better alternative or phase six is built. So it could be temporary, but it could go in that parking garage. >> Not a problem. >> It could be done by permits, you know,
are you saying um Mr. Davi, you're saying that you would use u some of those parking spaces for the residents of phases of the development? So, one more time, Joe. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. So, I'm sorry. So, it
could be done by permit. Let's say they rather than putting coins in the meter that he's losing, you could sell a permit and give that to >> No. Or just designate it for resident parking, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I don't I don't believe it's ideal because you want to you want to have as much public parking as possible,
>> right? But but I'm saying there is the ability to >> in close proximity to this >> put those put those residents there during any transition period until I believe a study's going to have to be done of the whole area. >> Yeah. >> Right. And that I believe that the the
developer as as part of this is going to have to bear some of the responsibility because he's he's creating some of the parking issues. Right. So I think that that's a developing story and that'll be addressed in phase six. it'll be addressed going further. But it is an
alternative because he's in control of that parking to say if there's a problem, you have to designate some of your spaces that you're going to make profit on for your own residence until which time some other alternative sought. >> So I'm just throwing that out there
because I, you know, I think that he's he's in control of that parking that if there he creates a problem that that could be a solution to the problem, albeit maybe short term. >> Okay. not an issue. >> Thank you. >> It just seems um somewhat
counterintuitive to say that we're uh announcing to the town that there will be 105 parking spaces and now that by that temporary process we're taking away almost half of them. Just thought >> I just had a a few remaining questions.
Um, so your letter states that you utilize the 11th edition of the trip generation manual. There's a 12th edition. Why wasn't that used? >> Because it was May 25th is is a date of the letter and the 12th and the 12th
edition came out in August of this year. And the difference is really there's minimal dis distance between the two. Well, it's interesting that you say that because it when they announced it, they said they removed all pre-1990 data
for improved relevance and accuracy. So, have you done any calculations for this based on the 12th edition? Yes, we we did to compare it to the 11th to see if there was we at least took a look at the trip rates of the 12th edition to see if they match the 11th
and there and the the magnitude of seven additional trips didn't make a difference if you use one or the other. >> So why weren't they presented tonight? >> I'm presenting them now because you asked a good question and I'm presenting now.
>> Okay. So what is the amount? >> The same as the table in one >> even was removing all pre190 trip data. >> Yes. Yes, that's correct. >> And what is the PMP peak hour?
>> Same. It's the same. >> Again, just to confirm, even removing all pre190 data that is used in the calculation of that. >> Yeah. And and yes, that's correct. I honestly find that hard to believe
because traffic volume before 1990 is significantly different compared to today. You take a look at the Federal Highway Administration National Trends report. 1970 there were 80 million vehicle miles. Today 251 million.
>> And what was the population in 1990 versus what it is today? It grown also of course. So, it's based not it's based on you can't base it on the total number of vehicles that are on the road. You have to look at specific uh uh uh development. And let and I'll say
another thing. I never heard of work from home in my life in 1990. I went to a job 9 to5 every day every day. And every one in my office did, every one of my friends and every every uh acquaintance did the same thing. You
don't see that today. So trans commutation uh practices are very much different and very much lower than they were in 1990. >> Well, I'm glad you mentioned that because part of the 12th edition I do believe was that they factored postcoid
uh transport um traffic trends as well. So I would think that it would be much better that what we were presented tonight is based on the 12th edition rather than the 11th edition. Correct. No, because the difference between the
it seven vehicles or five vehicles or nine vehicles doesn't make the difference in in the in the results in my in my opinion of what the impacts would be. >> Okay. All right. Um I think that's it for my questions. Are there any further
questions from the board? >> I just had a quick question. Um if you've done the analysis, can you supplement your report with that? >> I'm sorry. Did I do anything? I said if you've done the analysis between the 12th and the 11th edition, can you supplement your report for the board? >> I can do that. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt, but I I don't think there's any chance we're going to get to 700 liberties. So, my my client is patiently waiting with his experts, and I if we could uh respectfully request that that formally
be adjourned and carried to the November 17th meeting with no further notice. >> Make that motion. >> Yeah. Sorry about the interruption. I just >> moved by Mrs. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Cohan. Roll call, please. >> Oh, >> all in favor?
>> All in favor? >> All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose say no. >> Any abstensions for the record? >> Okay. >> Sorry for interrupting. Just one. >> I know we're in kind of in the middle of a very deep conversation here. Um, when we conclude Thank you. They gave me a
new one. When we conclude this uh immediate discussion, I'd like to ask for a 10-minute precess. >> Sure. Sure. >> Uh any further questions from the board questions from the public? >> Okay.
>> Thank you, >> Mrs. Fergus. You have to go. Oh. Um, board five minutes >> board will recess for 10 minutes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for recessing.
board meeting will now resume. Um I do believe well before that I would just want to state the record that Miss u Miss Espinosa um had to leave early for the meeting just for the record for um >> Miss Espinosa. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Um second Mr. Hail just to do some housekeeping. I know that there's the second application from Diana >> Yun. Yeah, actually that unfortunately >> she's disappointed but looking forward
to next month >> the battery died. Okay. >> So on so on any of the applications, I don't think we're close to the 120 time period for decision, but if any extensions are required, we stipulate to
those. >> Okay. Um, can uh can someone make a motion to uh carry over the um 2117 Springfield Avenue application to um the November 17th >> 17th meeting without further notice. >> So move
>> moved by Mr. Cohan, seconded by Mrs. Khan. Roll call, please. All right, I'll use this in the meantime. Thank you. >> Okay, >> Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohen, >> yes. >> Mr. Crane,
>> yes. >> Mr. Miller, >> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Mayor Bowser, >> yes. >> Committ Terrell, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Chairman Le, >> yes. >> Thank you again. Is this working? >> That belongs to Jeff. >> I think where weed before
>> I think where we concluded before recess is um we concluded um Mr. Ster's uh testimony and we we're going to proceed with the planner. Right. >> We have our professional planner, Mr. Nicholas Graviano. >> Okay.
Oh, Mr. Squalid. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> It's way in the back over there. >> Can you Can you state Can you state your last name and spell it for the record, please? >> Yes. My first name is Nicholas with an H. Last name Graviano. G R A V as in Victor. I A N O.
>> Mr. Graviano, would you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony about to give the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. >> Thank you, sir. >> Uh, Mr. Graviano, as with I think all of our previous witnesses, you've been before this board on many occasions, but if you could provide your credentials
and confirm that your licenses are in full force in effect. >> Yes, hold a bachelor's degree from Ruckers University, a master's degree in city and regional planning from Ruckers University, a law degree from the Temple University School of Law. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey, hold an AICP certification. and
I've been qualified by this board and the zoning board on dozens of occasions over the years >> or stipulates. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Chairman. Always a pleasure being here. >> Mr. Graviano, I know you've been working on the various phases of uh this
development in downtown Union. If you could please provide an overview of the planning uh the result of your planning investigation in consistency with the redevelopment uh plan and amended plan. Certainly. Um, as the board knows, the applicant uh is before the board this
evening requesting amended preliminary and final site plan approval as well as two C variances for a specific piece of property known as block 2903 lot 10.01, 11.01, and 25.01.
That is a 2.31 acre parcel in the Styson Avenue redevelopment plan. The project is part of phase four of the project. Uh the applicant as stated previously did receive previously approval which uh granted the one
variance that the applicant is requesting this evening for the excessive imperous coverage. Uh whereas 85% is permitted, 95% is proposed and is the governing uh impervious coverage for this site as we exist today.
You heard the applicant's proposal. This evening, the applicant is seeking to add additional dwelling units and additional floor to the previously approved dwelling. Both scenarios are permitted by the redevelopment plan. Additionally, the applicant seeks to add roughly 4,200
square ft of commercial space and an additional thousand square ft to the amenity space uh for the residents. The second variance being requested by the applicant this evening relates to the building separation and it's really
a technicality because the design of the building does meet the spirit and intent to provide building separation. Um in the redevelopment plan you as you saw previously it's really the two corners of the building which require this variance. Uh the facades of these
buildings meet all um required air and open space as per building code. Building code only requires a 30 foot building separation as per the applicant's architect. Uh the applicant is providing 50 and 1/2 ft. So this is in excess of minimum building code
requirements. And as I stated, it meets the spirit of the light air and open space because it's corner to corner. The front of these windows are not facing on other buildings. Relief in this scenario certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria.
And as all the time away from your family and friends have taught you, C2 variances do not require hardship. There is a fiveprong test uh for the granting of a C2 variance. The first one, the first prong is that it relates to a specific piece of property. Here you
have a 2.31 acre parcel. Uh it's within the Stson Avenue redevelopment plan. It was previously granted site plan approval. Second prong relates to the purposes of zoning of the municipal land use law. This proposal meets three purposes of
zoning of the municipal land use law. Specifically, purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of lands in a manner which will promote the public health health, safety, morals, and general welfare. This is the strengthening of the township's commercial and
residential base. It furthers not only the master plan objectives but the objectives of the redevelopment plan and it's a project with effectuates the redevelopment plan for phase 4. Moving on, it advances purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate
location for a variety of residential and commercial uses to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens. Uh these are permitted uses as per the redevelopment plan and the master plan. Uh the previously approved project did grant
the impervious coverage situation. Uh so this has certainly been deemed to provide sufficient space for the use that's before the board this evening. And then lastly, this project promotes a desirable visual environment through creative development
techniques and good civic design and arrangement. That's purpose I of the municipal land use law. And you heard in the architectural testimony and the engineering testimony the benefits of this building addition uh in that it shields the parking lot uh from views uh
from not only this site but from offsite properties adjacent to the site. The third prong relates to the variance being able to be granted without s substantial detriment to the public good. As you heard in previous testimony,
there's adequate drainage designed for the site. Two professional engineers have determined that as per the municipalities parking regulations and the redevelopment plan, there is adequate parking to serve the community. The residents will be assigned parking.
Each resident will have their own dedicated parking space. And there's adequate light air and open space uh between the buildings. and is actually a improvement to established development pattern uh of the neighborhood. The fourth prong states that the
benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriments. Uh the improved aesthetics as well as the improved living situation for the proposed uh residents certainly outweighs the the minimal uh relief
being requested for building separation. Then the last prong relates to the variance not substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. And here the deviations do not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the redevelopment plan or the master plan.
When looking at the master plan, um, it states that the downtown center district is characterized by highdensity development and a variety of different uses located at the heart of Union Center where living spaces are located within walking distance of daily needs.
Goes on to state that the downtown core is contains a diverse mix of residential and commercial uses designed to spo support both day and evening activity. Now getting to the part in the master plan about this specific area in the
parking. It says parking or automobile activity should not be the visual centerpiece of the development and is located either behind the structure or through shared arrangements between other property owners. Here you have a request by the applicant to shield the
parking as per the master plan. The redevelopment plan addendum in 2018, page 8, also makes that same desire to shield the parking through buildings and retail frontages. This is an application that accomplishes both the objectives of
the master plan and the redevelopment plan. So, this is a proposal that actually advances the purposes and goals of the master plan and the redevelopment plan. So in summary, these two very uh minor deviations from the redevelopment plan can be granted under the C2
criteria advancing purposes of zoning AG and I without substantial impairment to the redevelopment plan or the master plan of the municipality. >> Thank you, Mr. Braviano. Mr. Chairman, no further questions at this time. >> Questions from the board.
>> Mr. Graviano, in your assessment of the property, can you Do you have any estimate as to number the number of children that might be resident in these properties that would then the uh students in the public schools?
>> I don't have calculations. It's a very valid question although it's not relevant to the analysis before the board this evening. Uh the applicant is not requesting any density relief in this. Um it is a scenario which is permitted by the redevelopment plan.
>> I can I can answer that. However, we did check it. Out of the 187 apartments at the present time, there's six school age children. >> Of the current 18 >> 187, there's six children. >> Thank you.
>> Any further questions from the board? Questions from the public? >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, we have no further witnesses this evening. Obviously, anyone that has testified here before is uh available to answer questions from the board.
>> Okay. Uh would would you like to sum up? >> Yeah, I'll I'll briefly sum up. Uh and uh Mr. Chairman, board members, and we appreciate your time. board professionals and staff um said this is a very minor amendment to what was
approved by this board and uh codified in the redevelopment plan, the amended redevelopment plan with the input from this board and and the adoption of the re original redevelopment plan and the amended redevelopment plan by the uh by
the township committee. Uh what we're looking to do here, as I said, is add 38 more units. But the benefits of adding those units we described were shielding of the parking area. It meets it meets uh other than those two minor deviations
all of the criteria of the redevelopment plan. I understand the concerns about parking and traffic, but that was all taken into consideration when you developed the redevelopment uh you you in conjunction with the township committee developed the redevelopment
plan. Uh the benefits of of this this small addition again shielding the parking, adding the additional floor which was encouraged under the amendment to the redevelopment plan. uh it's helps pave the way for the redevelopment of
the of the corner parcel and that's all part and parcel of that and part of this this uh extension uh of the and shielding of the parking and I think we we showed some of the the designs when I was in the conference session last month
about the development of the corner this is an important uh piece of that and uh we feel that uh again the benefits and the larger commercial space attracting hopefully attracting better tenants. Uh
it's a minor change of request and just as far as timing, we know that this has been on the agenda for quite some time. Uh the applicant already has his building permits for what's been approved by this board. Footings have been started and uh we would hope
certainly appreciate if the board would entertain and approve the application as submitted. If there's reasonable conditions that you want to impose and we can discuss those, uh, that's understandable. But we, uh, we have to get moving on this project. Like I said,
construction has already started. We think that amended four is better than than original four. Very small change. I know there was concern about parking and traffic and the like, but realize all of it's approved except for an additional
38 units, which again is contemplated under the amended redevelopment plan uh for this section. This board, I think it was at yes was at the last at the last hearing, endorsed the expansion of the redevelopment area into the corner of
Mars and Styent, which will pave the way for uh phase six. But again, this amended phase 4 blends right into into that and will play a part at I think when I showed some exhibits of that corner, you saw how that extension
building fit right in and was part and parcel of that and again helped shield the parking from the development of that end. So very minor change. Mr. Chairman, I I truly respect the questions that you had for our traffic engineer, but again,
the focus is the 38 additional units and the minimal impact that has both on parking and on traffic and on uh yet an important piece of the development of this of this uh area of town. So, with
that said, we would look forward to the board granting this application. again if you wanted to have it uh some dialogue on reasonable conditions that the applicant may agree to. But we want to get rolling on well he's rolling on this already and we want to roll with
this amended plan as opposed to what this board previously approved. So thank you for your time and consideration here to answer any additional questions. >> Thank you Mr. Hail. Um we'll now go uh to comments from the board. You want me to start?
>> Okay. Well, listen, let me let me preface um my remarks by saying I was not seated on this board for the redevelopment plan nor the original approval of the the first phase 4 application.
Um so I'm just going to make my judgments based upon what I've seen the application, what I've heard in testimony tonight. Um, but I also want to make some general comments. As a planning board, I think we have a
responsibility to think about long-term implications of any development in this community. And any one application can't be considered in a vacuum. I've heard the testimony about this. This application
is consistent with the redevelopment plan. it's consistent with the overarching goals of the community and I'm I'm sensitive to the the economic factors and needs of the applicant. Our goal is was always and you know
frankly I I recall this is probably a 30-year project can recall arguments about the vitality of Union Center from the '9s. Um, but one of those overarching objectives
is also to make sure that we not only have residents from a mixeduse development, but res people from all over the community. There's 60,000 people in this community. And if we want to attract them to the center, there's got to be a place for them to park, right? They're not going to take public
transportation to come here if they live in the Townley section or the launch section or Battle Hill. they're going to drive their vehicles and there has to be someplace to put them. Um, the testimony from the traffic engineer was compelling, but it doesn't satisfy
my concerns about the the total number of spaces. There may be an adequate number of spaces for the residents in the application. But if we take up any spaces from that deck uh of the 105 parking spaces, that means there's no spaces for the public
and there needs to be. Uh and I just think that it's it's disingenuous to say that we, you know, we can meet the requirements of this application with some spaces that are going to go away in phase six and we'll deal with
them in phase six. We're not going to deal with we're not going to have only phase four and phase six. We're going to have them both. And we have to think about the parking for the entire Union Center area in the context of our deliberations on on this uh application.
I heard the term earlier. I don't know whether it was one of my colleagues on the board or one of the expert the witnesses uh say that, you know, it's a leap of faith. I'm not prepared to make that leap of faith yet. Personally, u I want
to see more to make sure that if we approve this application that down the road we're not going to be faced with with an exacerbation of some current very real problems. U
just at the beginning of this meeting, three of my colleagues on this board were a little late getting into the room because they couldn't find a place to park. Right. Driving through Union Center an hour before the meeting start, I encountered gridlock on Stson Avenue
in one of the adjacent streets because in one instance there was a a truck making a delivery with blocking a lane in Stson Avenue. And in another instance on a side street there was a car waiting to to occupy a a soontobe vacant parking
space. It stopped all traffic. So, if we're going to add another 199 units or in in terms of this application, another 38 units, it's only going to make current
conditions worse. And I just feel that it's a it's incumbent upon this board to make sure that we think about all those issues in the context of our approval of this application, which I think is in the interest of the community, but as
it's currently presented, I'm I'm not ready. I need to see more. >> Thank you. >> Are there comments, Mrs. Perkins? >> Well, I think perhaps uh Mr. Cohen, piggybacking on what you're thinking and saying, um, I would like this board to
ask for an independent study done by the township of the current traffic and parking conditions as they exist now with the understanding that this application numbers apply as well. Um, I think that, you know, the
situations that we've all encountered are we're seeing, I believe we're seeing more backup traffic trying to get through to to various places through Union Center. Um, they very much want to
occupy and help look into those nice new stores that are now there. With this application, it's my understanding that there are zero parking spaces allotted for those fine commercial units which will surely be there. Um, so I'd like to
ask for an independent study and I don't know whether the rest board would like to agree to that or how that would be done. Um, perhaps you might help us. >> I guess the question would be the would the applicant be willing to to provide that study um
that she's requested? Well, I was going to ask for an independent study done by township. >> So, >> we can we can request that >> not for 38 units. >> I I I think let's let's wrap up on this and we can we we can then revisit after
whatever action this board takes on this application. >> Okay. >> Is that fair enough? >> Um, further comments? Mr. Fra, did you have a comment? Mr. >> Thank you for your time tonight. My question is, is there any way humanly
possible that there could be some type of means of egress on Styverson Avenue? Anyway, >> well, you're asking me that question. Uh, and it came up and I don't mean to interrupt your deliberations, but uh, while there was discussion of that
deviation, you that redevelopment plan clearly states there shall not be an ingress and egress from Styver. And I think when Kristen Russell was here last month and was discussed when you look at at the
ultimate development of the corner parcel, you don't want you want to make that a pedestrian thoroughare. You don't want people walking down Styverson Avenue and having to stop. Look on look at when you had when Unity Bank was there and you
had cars coming across. Especially in this downtown, you want that to be walkable. the applicant doesn't feel that it it works with the redevelopment of of downtown, especially, and you saw some of the some of the photos or
renderings that we had for that corner. The last thing you want is somebody walking along Styverson in front of the the brand new facade and having cars come and go, even if possibly the county and the state would even allow a curb cut that close to Mars. that. So I
respect that question but that was fully vetted out during the redevelopment process. >> Now your client owns the I call them the Fran Meta buildings. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. There isn't any development going on over there as far as you know. Okay. >> Not at this time. No. >> Okay.
>> And I know the last I think I don't know if it was in conference or out here. You may have asked now. Could I think it was out in the public session? >> Could there be out Johnston? No, it's it's out of the redevelopment plan area and not owned by the applicant.
>> So, you got it. >> Any any other further comments? >> I'll be brief with my comment. First, um we know that this is an important investment
into the town center. And so I I even though we kind of battered you guys tonight and we do acknowledge that I don't think should take a firm uh interpretation of our direction as a board in a decisive decision on where we
stand. So I I want to make that clear. I think it's just because the magnitude of the development and for where it is at and where it's located that we want to do our due diligence that we want to establish as clear as possible
what kind of impact it will be and to reiterate the negative criteria to ensure that there is not det substantial detriment to the public good right so I don't think that this board is here yet
to make a decision based on I think clarifications that we need further information and data that we've established for the record. That's my feeling. I know it's Mr. Cohan's feeling. I think a lot of other board members share in that regard. I don't think we're here we're here at the
moment to make a decision just yet. Um and and that's all I have to say. and and I believe the uh traffic engineer had indicated he would supplement his uh his numbers to to provide us the updated detail. >> If you want I could maybe take
>> No, it's 10 o'clock. >> It's 10 o'clock. We can't hear any further. >> No, I just wanted to talk to them for a second. I'll take a break. You have to come back. Cider testified that there was there was no no substantial change in 11 to 12 and
it and uh while the applicant as I said in in my closing statement if there's reasonable conditions that the board wanted to put if not we're prepared to hear the board's decision and if it's in the negative we're prepared as I said we're already starting construction on
four is approved and we we'll just move ahead that way. So we appreciate the feedback though. Yep. Thank you. >> Well, at this point in time then, um, who who you motioning to? >> Will you try to get hold of Mr. Tabi?
>> No. No. I I think you >> Yeah. I just think that I'd like to carry this to the next meeting uh so that we can look further review and consider all the testimony that was here tonight um and any additional data that
can be provided or that the township could vet for us. I would love to see a full study done by the township that would allow for a study of parking and circulation. Um because as as we've heard in testimony,
uh Mr. Styer's fine remarks were based on a like condition, not on our actual conditions and to to be um to stand on integrity. I I believe that's I'd like to have it carried for >> more time. So I think the motion is just
to carry this over to the next >> Yeah. I'm sorry. Just just one important clarification. I did you indicate that you're going to withdraw the application? >> Yeah, the applicant if if if the decision is to carry it, we'll simply withdraw the application and proceed to construct as approved.
>> So, >> and I'm that's not we've got to get going on this. No disrespect months. >> But but let me just ask if he withdraws the application, he'd have to resubmit the application. Is that correct? >> No, they wouldn't. We're It's already approved. We already started construction on board. >> All right.
If you wanted to go back to this, you'd have to resubmit. >> If you wanted to come back to it, but you're saying you're not you wouldn't come back to it. >> No. >> The um >> the reasonable conditions that the board wanted to impose. Um, but I think we should have time to think it through and
and construct uh with negotiation perhaps um reasonable conditions that everyone could live with and accept that would be responsible to our constituents. >> Are there conditions >> Yeah. >> Are there conditions that you would re
that you having heard the board's concerns are there conditions that your you your client would agree to? >> Yeah. I mean, >> before we start asking for >> talking about having a a regional traffic study, a regional parking study, that's all done as part of your
redevelopment plan. And unfortunately, my instructions for my client are uh he's got to he has to go get moving on this application. and and no >> and you understand that your own traffic engineer testified that when Fe 6 comes
along you the as it's as the application is currently designed you don't have enough parking and is there a resolution >> if that if that moves forward cross that bridge at that time >> so Mr. Hell, if if you withdraw the if you
don't withdraw the application and we were to continue to the next meeting and at some point during that next couple of weeks, you decide that you're going to move forward with your your app, you know, you're going to move forward with construction, what's the difference? Why would you withdraw? I mean, it would give them opportunity. I'd like to have
the opportunity to talk to the administration and see if there's anything that they could do with a a study or something that they can give to the, you know, whether it be talk to the traffic uh their traffic department. Unfortunately, we're under strict time
constraints with our financing and the lender is waiting to see are they going to finance for us approved or amended for and my client we simply can't wait and I know it sounds like it's only another month but uh
>> so consider special Then be less than that perhaps I'm not here. I'm not here.
>> I'm not here. 4:30 night intend is a holiday. Have to be another night. The 11th. >> I've talked to my client. Um, if the board wants to carry the application to next month, we'll uh agree to that. But
we we may be in short order based upon our discussions with our contractors and our lenders unfortunately need to submit a letter withdrawing the application rather than me doing that it this evening. repeat that. >> Yeah, it's not so clear to to
>> Okay. That we won't withdraw the application >> tonight >> right now. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh but uh and we will consent to the adjournment guess at this point to the uh November 17th hearing. But depending
upon our discussions with our contractor and our lender, we may be forced to send a letter withdrawing the amended for and just proceed with >> the approved for >> and I'm not I've been doing this for some years.
>> One of the things that we must um acknowledge among all of us is that we certainly don't want the current um undeveloped underdeveloped and using a very harsh term, the blighted area that's not quite finished to stay
that way. We we want a beautiful center. We want a center that's functional. We very much appreciate the investment, the time, and the u significant processing that has already occurred. So, this is not to be harsh and off with anyone's
head, but I think that if there were a little more time allowed to carry, um, we want to see him stay as our developer and I believe that we can negotiate and work together to come up with something that will reflect the good of everyone
and agree again though you've testified agree with the development redevelopment plan. So, I do I would ask that you uh grant that carry. If a special meeting would assist should conditions change for the developer
relative to contracts and so forth, we can I would certainly request a special meeting and we could have those further discussions, but I would I would request that you we all continue to work together to make the what's good for our town good. Let's hope that we can get
some cooperation from our construction financing. >> So I think with that let's move forward with the carry motion. >> I think I might have said it might not have said it clearly but you did assist.
So that at this point in time I would like to make the motion that this application be carried to our next meeting with the understanding that should situations develop which require a special meeting that could be requested rather than withdrawal the application.
>> Okay. Is there a seconded by Mr. Cohan? Uh roll call please. >> Mr. Alexander. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cohan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Frame. >> Yes. >> Mr. Miller. >> Yes. >> Miss. Perkins. Yes, >> Mayor Bowser. >> Yes,
>> Committeewoman Terrell. >> Yes. >> Sorry, Miss Khan. >> Yes, >> Chairman Le. >> Yes. >> I want to say thank you for your patience. >> Uh, and this is not an easy application.
And I just want to commend you for advocating for your client and doing it so well. you know, you there's a reason why you're before this board a lot because um you you do your job very well. So, I just I just want to know that >> to all of you. >> Yeah. Um Mr. Chairman,
>> Mr. Cohan. >> Yes. I'd like to move that this board request that the township uh administration contract with a a provider to do a comprehensive study of traffic flow, parking, and the
implications for quality of life for all residents in the community uh as soon as possible. >> Is there a second on that? >> Yes, I'll second that. >> Seconded by Mrs. time. Uh any discussion
on this motion >> to clarify? >> Yep. >> Traffic o overall but focused on the union center corp. >> Okay. >> Any discussion on this matter? >> It has nothing to do with this in general.
>> Can you speak in the >> Oh, sorry. >> It has nothing to do with this. It's just in general you're asking. >> That is correct. It is a general study. It is not to be a dependency on the application that we just heard.
Any further questions? >> No. >> Okay. Uh, roll call, please. >> Okay. And the one ordered. Okay. Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohan, >> yes. >> Mr. Frame, >> yes. >> Mr. Miller, >> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Mayor Bowser,
>> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> Miss Khan, >> yes. >> Chairman Le, >> yes. Move to a word. >> Move to adjurnn. Is there a second? Seconded by Mr. Alexander. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed.
>> Meaning adjourn.