We're starting >> there. >> April 15th of the regular planning board meetings called to order. This is to advise notice, time, date, location, the extent known, agenda of subject meeting was prominently posted in the public place reserve for such or
similar announcements on April 6, 2026. Transmit to the times and the Princeton packet on April 6, 2026 and filed with the township clerk on April 6, 2026. Uh Trish, please call the role. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes.
>> Mr. Shaktel >> here. >> Mr. Panco. >> Mr. Bade. >> Yes. >> Miss Bar. >> Miss Apple >> here. >> Councilwoman Jvers >> here. >> Mayor Marte. >> Yes.
>> Vice Chairman Hoverberman >> here. >> Chairman Karth >> here. Um, we have a quorum. Thank you. >> Okay. First order of business. Um, I'll open it up to the public for any
comments on non-aggenda, non-pending items. Please step up the microphone, state your name. As for the record, you'll be sworn in. >> Seeing none, let's go to the minutes from February 25th, 2026.
>> Are there any changes, amendments, uh, explanations necessary? Anybody >> move to approve the minutes of February 26th? >> Okay. I have a motion to approve the very extensive and detailed minutes from
February 25th. >> By Curtis, >> second. >> Second by the mayor. Uh um all in favor that are eligible to vote, please say I. I. >> Okay. Uh Trish, you have the people that are eligible. Thank you. So yeah, happy.
>> Okay. Next up, resolution PB25-10, Montasuri Kids Universe Contional Use and Minor Site Plan. Jerry, do you need to kind of just um quick summary of that? Yeah, this is a um an application that
was made by um Montasauri kids for the uh a Montasuri school in the Avalon project. Um and uh it's pretty straightforward.
There are several conditions um and they're set forth on the uh on page six of the resolution um because it was school conditional use approval was required. It was granted
and minus plan approval was granted as well. >> Okay, great. I'll entertain a motion. >> Uh one small correction. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Very it's very minor and I know you'll tell me it's a typo and I shouldn't have said it. uh page seven um in the in the
um the the flock we do certify and put it make sure it's today's date instead of a March date. >> Yep. >> In the middle. >> Yeah. >> You see what I'm saying, Trish? You see what I'm saying? Page >> second paragraph under the heading inclusion on page seven.
>> Uh the word March for the date should not be there. It should be today's date. Today's whatever today's date is >> today's April 15th. >> I know. >> And I s I already signed the resolution. >> Oh, you already signed it with the wrong date. >> I signed it with today's date on it.
>> Oh, good, good, good. >> So, they'll >> they'll correct it. >> They'll correct uh the p they could just take the page or figure it out. >> Okay. Uh, as I said, I entertain a motion to
approve PV uh resolution PB25-10. I have a motion to approve. >> So moved. >> Moved by Curtis. Second. >> Second. >> Second by the mayor. Please call the role for for the resolution for who's eligible to vote. >> Mr. Patel.
>> Yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers. >> Well, I wasn't um there. Jas is not listed as um on the on page eight. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. And uh and that's it. Okay. >> That should be marked, I guess. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Where am I? names not listed. >> Yeah, I should I guess my name should be
listed. >> Okay. >> Okay, I'll entertain a Well, um resolution PB24-08, which is the trustees of Prince University, the baseball ballpark amended final site plan with waiverss.
Any changes, amendments, uh comments? No. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve PB24-08 for all um a motion to approve. >> Anybody? >> So move. >> Moved by Linda. >> Yes.
>> Second by by the mayor. Please call the roll on all those um eligible to vote. >> Councilwoman Jvers. Yes. >> Mayor Mart. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Hoverman. Yes. >> Chairman Park. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Resol motion passes for that resolution. Thank you. Um there's not going to be any environmental commission. Jordica is not here, right? >> No, she's still here. >> Okay. Okay. Next up, application PB19-13,
third amendment for senior living at Bear Creek, also known as Exxaria, Inc. Amended final site plan. Jerry, >> yes. Proof of publication and service are in order and the board has jurisdiction. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Give me one sec. Merry >> need help carrying that. >> What? >> Need help carrying that? It's kind of heavy. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> My hands. >> Yeah. Christ.
>> Now each person gets >> I think this the same as this, right? Are they both? >> Are they the same? >> I don't know. >> Each take one. He's handing out
something different. I don't know what be >> I think. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know. We should obviously I should be halfway done, right? >> Yeah.
>> Good evening. >> Um what you handed out is is different than what's in the package that we received. >> Uh >> it it is different than Well, it's different than what we have here. No, >> it's the same. >> Yeah, but it's
>> We don't We didn't get rendering for >> Well, it's uh >> they're smaller. It's just smaller. >> Okay. Okay. >> I didn't know you had all I think there 20 >> 24 sheets. There's a lot of material that we know.
>> So, for the record, my name's Frank Petrino. I represent the applicant and uh as Mr. Muller indicated, the board has jurisdiction to hear this. The property we're talking about is in the PRRC zone. U
it's located off the village road. It has an entrance. The entrance road is Espenard Drive. Uh that serves the premises and the existing assisted living facility in 209. The overall site was um
submitted to the condominium form of ownership. We're back tonight again. with tweaks to our October 2025 approved plan. We're now seeking the third amended final site plan. Uh related to
the senior independent living condominium unit IIL. Uh I'm going to briefly explain the changes. You'll hear more from uh the professionals um design professionals. So, we're proposing a 1.5
increase in the uh first floor with the basement garage area being reconfigured and lowered so that there's no longer an intermediate floor. They'll explain exactly what that means. Results in a reduction in the lower
level garage area, more efficient circulation with a reduction of two parking spaces. The courtyard area has been modified, replacing the pavilion and adding fire pits and barbecues and
other other amenities. The overall coverage has been reduced a little bit from 11.5 acres to 11.46 acres. Uh minimal changes to landscaping and lighting. Uh minimal changes, some
changes to storm water piping. Um the entrances have been extended uh over the driveway and drop off areas. Uh and there's a a depression of the garage which will result in higher
ceiling in the common areas of the first floor with a reduction in the building building height by uh 4 in. Um the last time we were here or the first amendment, I'm not sure which. Um we we
received a uh setback variance from a side door requirement. We also received a parking waiver. Uh both of the deviations that were previously granted the variance in the waiver have been reduced. So there are uh no new
deviations, no new u variances or design waivers uh requested. None of the none of the review memos indicated any additional uh waivers or variances. So, but for variances and waivers uh
previously granted and Jerry may dispute this uh it's basically an as of writing application. It's it's within uh the zoning requirements and the two exceptions have already been granted. Now,
we have received uh five review memos. One from Mr. Guzzek dated April 7th. One from Ed uh I'll never snip. Okay, close. >> Uh dated April 7th. Uh we also have a
memo from uh Fire and Emergency Services dated April 7. We have a memo from Mr. Novak dated April 6th and we have a review memo uh prepared by the traffic
engineer dated um March 30. Um we have tonight in attendance um several individuals not all will present. They're here to answer
questions if there are any. For example, Carl Panki is here, a resident of West Windsor, I might add, uh who's our traffic engineer. There are no traffic issues in the traffic engineers report, so he's here in case a question comes
up, but uh otherwise he'll he'll be just listening to the presentation. Our our engineer is Daffhne Glavin. She's here. She'll provide testimony regarding the conditions of the uh um uh the she'll
talk about the prior approval briefly and the changes. Now, I've told her like the famous architect once said, less is more. So, I'm hoping we can get to Allan SL. Uh um I think she can take you
through the changes fairly quickly. Our second witness would be Steve and I'm not going to pronounce it. I'm going to spell it. K O N I U K. He's a licensed architect and he can talk to you about the architectural changes. Mr. Panky is
here if you have any questions on traffic. Uh uh I'm sorry. Uh yes on traffic or any of the circulation issues. Uh but I think the your professional was uh satisfied that he had satisfied all the st township
requirements and our landscape architect is here. I he may have to provide testimony, but there really wasn't much raised about landscaping and lighting. So we'll wait to see if your if your team wants to
hear from them. So unless you have any uh additional or have any questions for me, I'd ask that uh Daphne come forward and be sworn in. >> Why don't we swear in everybody that's going to testify at this point?
>> Everyone know except if you okay just in case in case. >> If you could raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give me the truth? So wonder why don't we go around starting with Anthony and give your full name spell
your last name. Anthony MCC UCA Daniel Reeves Resenting CS >> Sean Edwards E D W A R E D S representing student
in Engineer. >> Okay. >> Uh, no, I don't testify that. >> Well, I do, but >> but not really. >> Sure. Um, we had sent all our all those
materials uh electronically um to Lisa to Lisa, but Lisa's not here. >> She Lisa's here. >> Yeah. She's making sure you look good on TV. >> Oh, Lisa's here. Okay.
>> All right. So, you can put up the Oh, so Okay. Thank you. Uh Daffany, by whom are you employed and in what capacity? >> Do we have a a mic? >> Partner engineering. I'm the director of land development.
>> Okay. And what's your educational background and what licenses do you hold in the state of New Jersey? >> Sure. I have a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from Lafayette College and a graduate certificate in project management from NJIT. I obtained my professional engineering license in New Jersey in
1989. Have over 40 years experience in all aspects of land development. >> Mr. Chairman, we offer Daffy as your license card. >> Okay. Yes. Accepted. Thank you. >> Okay. Now, Davney, did you prepare or
supervise the preparation of the amended final major site plan for independent living 1.022, 022 block 33 consisting of 18 sheets dated uh last revised March 18,
2026. >> Yes. >> Did you prepare or supervise the preparation of the sanitary sore engineers report last revised March 18, 2026? >> Yes. Did you prepare or supervise the
preparation of the title 39 exhibit uh last revised March 18, 206? >> Yes. >> And did you prepare or supervise the preparation of the response letter to the township review memoranda uh dated
March 18, 2026? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now remember less is more. Can you go through and tell us the changes, the differences between the approved U site plan for this
>> facility and how we're proposing to change it now. And this is uh >> exhibit A1. >> A1 um >> and it's um page four of 18 I think. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Let me just check something. page four. >> So, page four of 18. Okay. But that it can come up electronically. Uh >> I think you have a computer to hook into
it. So, >> no, we sent it to uh >> Yeah, but I think the the hookup is through other computer that >> All right, we're good. >> We're good. >> And and we and >> you have it.
>> We have it. We have it in in copies in front of us. I think we're good. >> We're good. We're good. >> Okay. You're good. >> Ready? We're ready. >> All right. I'm going to shut up and you're going to go. >> So, as Mr. Patrino mentioned, there's been some refinements to the building from an engineering standpoint. The most
important refinement is the fact that now the building is going to be all at one level. The first floor is all at one level. We don't have any intermediate levels anymore. And also the other change uh is the fact that the lower level which is the garage is now limited to just the main wing or the main leg of
the building. It was previously proposed in these two shorter wings also that's been eliminated. So now there's just a single wing along the long wing here with a single parking lot. >> Um >> how many sp how many um spaces were reduced from doing this? There's
previously 168 spaces within the garage. The lower level garage is now 166. So it's a reduction of two spaces and overall the reduction is from 392 to 39. >> And Dany, as you explain the changes, can you please explain the reasoning of the why of the changes?
>> I'll let the architect talk about the why of the change. Can I can I um how are you able to reduce all those spaces underneath the these two and only go down by two spaces >> the in the previous configuration there
was no parking in the main right here. >> Okay. Okay. >> So now we can park throughout the >> whole thing. Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> Understood. Thanks. Okay. >> Um, also one of the other benefits of modifying the configuration in the lower
level is the fire department preferred access at both ends with a straight through connection as opposed to the the winds of the previous. So that was a requested that was also positive from fire department standpoint. >> Um, see in addition to those little
changes, there's been changes in the courtyard area. The pavilion building itself has been reduced in size and there's also been additional amenities added including fire pits, barbecues, and enhanced seating. Uh there's bike racks composed within the courtyard. There's four bike racks here. There's
also four bike racks in the back here for a total of eight bike racks outside, 30 bike racks inside for a total of 38, which is what was previously approved. >> Where the entrance is to the garage? Where the entrance to the garage? >> Excuse me. >> Entrance to the garage. Where to >> the entrance to the garage? Yeah. So,
the entrances are actually at the same location as previously proposed. They're right at the end of the wing. It's two-way entrance at both loca at both ends of the building. Okay. Um, as Mr. Patrino mentioned, all the bulk standards for the PRC zone are still met. No, no issues there. And
also, all of the other ordinance bulk standards are met with the exception of the one variance that was previously granted. And with this application, we're actually increasing the dimension of that setback. So, we're lessening we're we're better than the variance that was
>> deviation. >> Yeah, we're reducing deviation. Um, with respect to landscape and lighting changes, there were some changes obviously in the courtyard area and also throughout the site to address the review comments. Um, in Mr. Snikus' letter, the April 7th letter, he
requested confirmation that the venting associated garage would not conflict with the proposed landscaping and there is a note on the landscape plans to that effect. Um the only other outstanding or the only outstanding comment from a lighting standpoint was raised by Mr.
Gusk uh regarding lighting of that lower level garage. He had requested that that be addressed as part of the site plan application, but we think that's a building permit issue. So that'll that we recommended that that be addressed at the time of the building permits.
>> Anything more? >> No, you told me not to say too much. >> Well, no, you did great. >> I'm done. >> Okay. Just one question. Um, uh, just I think we've already talked about this, but I want to make it clear. No
variances or waiverss associated with this application. >> Correct. >> Thank you. I have no further questions. Mr. Okay. >> I'm just concerned about the lighting because I think that's an issue that has been raised um by our township engineer. Um and that's something that we're often
very sensitive to especially being, you know, as a senior development too and it's a garage and there there needs to be proper lighting for security reasons. Someone doesn't trip, get hurt. Um, I see that more as the planning board should >> Well, Fran will address that when he
testifies because they they're they're saying they're going to address the lighting uh issue with the building permits. Fran will talk. I think Fran, you'll talk. >> Okay. >> You don't have to answer me because you're not sworn in yet. But, but um I
think you'll address it, right? Um I think Fran will address it when it's time for >> Oh, wait. We can address it after. I know there must be an ordinance. Yes, I wrote I actually I actually wrote it down that uh we need to focus on that. >> Okay. >> How what's the grass level is from the
from the ground level is how how deep it is. >> How deep is the the lower level relative to the surrounding grave? >> Um and what and what plan is that? This is sheet number five of 18 of the set of plans that was submitted. Uh the
basement floor has a constant elevation of 92.5 and the surrounding grade of the building varies a little bit but in general is around 102. So about 10 ft. >> So >> from the outside grade down to the lower level of the garage.
>> So full water can enter the garage also. Right. >> Excuse me. >> Fred water I mean rain water whatever. >> Right. We actually have uh drains at the garage entrances so that any water that or any storm water that lands on the driveway itself will be collected at the
bottom so it doesn't go into the garage. >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes. Um Mr. Muller, we don't have these are all um materials that are in the file. So I guess we don't really have to mark them as additional exhibits. Is
there? >> Yeah, if you >> they're in they're in your uh this is your testifiers. Just identify what sheet. >> Yes. So, so far it's been sheet four and sheet five. The only two that have been used >> and not six.
>> No, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Um do you want to raise the talk about the issue now that uh uh the council member >> raised rather than wait the council member raised um the issue regarding
lighting the lighting um your witness testify the lighting will be addressed at the building permits. I'd like to hear from our professionals >> whether that's okay to address um you want to swear them in and we'll address this issue now Jerry. >> Sure.
>> Okay. David Francis and Massud Quaza if you could raise right hand do you swear affirm the testimony about the case will be the truth >> I do >> so it's one firm just state your full name if you're right >> MS o traffic consultant
>> Francis Guzac township engineer >> David Novak NVAK township planning consultant >> okay Fran the uh the issue regarding lighting in the parking garage Linder to raise the issue. I I wrote it down noticing it too
that it'll be addressed during the building permit process stage SL stage. Um you cited in your your report is that okay to make it a condition to be addressed at the building permit stage or should it be addressed prior or how
how should we handle it? Well, um, part of the reason that it's coming up is because there is a lighting plan that was submitted at this time for it. I don't have a problem with removing
that lighting information from their plans and deferring it to building permit application. But I would like to know um what standards they would meet at the time of building permit if it is similar
to what's outlined in my report or is there some building or electrical subcode section that speaks to garage lighting that will be the subject of the building code review. >> I think the architect can answer the questions about the details and what the
design standards would be. >> Sure. So >> yeah, we can talk about that when they come up. >> Okay. When the architect um comes up, we'll we'll we'll drill down into it. >> Fine. >> Thank you. Say from my perspective, I've never seen that done by electrical
inspector viewing the plant. They don't review these plants for that lighting. >> Well, that can I make a suggestion? Isn't that more a resolution compliance item? And I think that's where Allan is
going. That's usually where if you're making revisions to address a comma comment, you could you do it at resolution compliance. So when the plans are signed, you know that the plans comply with the conditions of approval and and the
construction official can then >> can be done that way so long as we set the standard at this point at the planning level. >> Right. And honestly, I mean, the electrical inspector doesn't review the lighting levels. >> Okay. And Fran, in your report, you list
the lighting levels you expect to be in the garage, right? >> I list one prevailing associations guidelines for parking garage lighting levels. I'm just not familiar with the various building codes. If there's a building code that sets similar lighting
level requirements. >> So, is that usually in building codes or or is it in ordinance? >> Not will be in building code, right? >> Lighting level is not >> I personally would like that as a condition. >> It's going to be a condition
>> so that it's no no confusion and we we know what we're approving. We're definitely making it addition whether it's handled on the building code and on the resolution level or in part of the lighting plan. >> So, >> but but the standard should be addressed now by the board. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Absolutely. >> The architect is the next witness and he can >> Okay. >> provide a little additional information. >> Let's let's uh wait for the architect testify and then we'll drill into it and resolve. >> Okay. Anything else further this sort
can get managed site with these changes is going to be dedicated spaces in the garage or kind of come first. >> We brought Anthony just in >> to answer this question. >> Yes.
>> So parking will be assigned. Parking will be assigned. You'd be happy to assign parking. >> That That was a true. >> Thank you. >> Does the garage have security cameras? >> The garage will have security cameras and there will be uh there will be doors
at each end and everybody will have on their car some kind of a >> of a bob of some kind to to make it go down. >> Since it's only for residents, it's not for guests. It's not a problem. So,
>> where where do guests park outside? >> Guest guests with loads of parking outside. >> Okay. And there's at least one spot for each apartment. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Oh, yeah. There 300 and some odd spaces and only 220 apartments.
>> So, every apartment gets maybe almost two spots, >> right? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for this witness? No. Okay. Next. Next up,
>> it's our architect and Steven Ko. Now I know how to pronounce it. Mr. Kuck, by whom are you employed? In what capacity? >> Uh, it's Steven S. Cohen, Architect PC. I am the owner. >> The owner.
>> Um, what's your educational background? Uh, and what licenses do you hold in the state of New Jersey? >> Uh, I have a bachelor of science uh from civil civil engineering from Penn State University. >> Could you speak up, please? >> A bachelor of science of from CI uh from Penn State University in civil
engineering and I hold an active uh professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey as well as an architect license in the state of New Jersey. >> Okay. Except have you uh testified before this board before? >> This is the first time I'm testifying before this. We offer him as an expert in
>> accepted. Thank you. >> Um did you prepare or supervise the prep pres uh preparation of the architectural uh elevation and floor plans last revised uh March 18?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Can you quickly take the board through Well, let's deal with the lighting issue first. >> Absolutely. So if we go to our A1013 drawing, the lighting requirements that we've been in discussions, uh we
are identifying a minimum of a halfoot candle average throughout the parking structure as well as a three-foot candle minimum at the driveway intersections. And these are minimums that were identified. >> What sheet did you identify? What sheet
you're on? Did you identify what sheet you are on? What sheet are you testifying about? >> A1.3, >> which would be about >> A1.01.3. >> Thank you. >> Which would be about the six. >> He's got piece of paper on the board,
>> right? So, >> no, it's.3. >> That's a three. And that was jumping to our uh our previous lighting discussion. >> This one. >> So that plan is >> identified as parking garage lighting.
>> Parking level. Yes. Identifying the uh lighting as well as some structural elements in association with the lighting. >> Can you address Mr. Guz's uh >> concern? Yeah. >> Right. So, our plan identifies uh
minimums and we can provide more that exceed the minimum uh when we get into a full uh building permit submission. >> All right. So, my my thought this question is all related to what
standards are you meeting when you provide lighting for a parking garage? >> So, our office pulled them uh from the ordinances. >> I'm sorry. If you could speak up, sir, >> if you could please speak up. >> Uh, from the ordinances, I believe is
how we pulled these standards. >> So, you rely on the local township code to specify the lighting levels. There's no prevailing industry standard or >> there are industry standards. Um, and that would be a coordination that we would like to have with our electrical engineer as we fully complete our permit
level submission. So, it's not something you're prepared to speak about this evening. >> Uh, it is something that we can identify minimums. Yes. And comply to those min, >> right? But in reference to other
standards besides the township's ordinance because the township ordinance specifies parking, but it doesn't specify parking structures when it gives lighting levels. So when it talks about parking lighting
levels, it's assumed it's exterior lighting, not applied to interior garages such as this situation. >> And do you have a standard in mind that you want us to comply with because we'll comply with >> Well, there's the what's referenced in
the the comment 5.01. So if you want to indicate you'll apply with that unless otherwise demonstrated at the time of building permit application that there's some other prevailing standard that supersedes it.
>> Okay. So you're referring to 5.01 on sheet 8 of five of your um report and we will comply. >> That works for me. And you're gonna then have a tie up to
10 with candle average that you're saying, right? >> Yes. Yes, we can comply with that. >> I think that's certainly preferable five. Thank >> Okay. So, the condition um the condition will be lighting as spelled out in
Francis's plan as a minimum >> the bullet points the four bullet points. Five bullet points. What's >> that? Five bullet points. Oh, >> the five bullet points. There's one more. >> Mhm. >> So 5.01 had five bullets. So that entire
comment will be complied. >> Okay, >> perfect. Moving back, we'll start at the subgrid space of the building and work our way up. So originally we our garage footprint
was consolidated as >> what plan are you referring to? Can you >> We're referring to plan A1.01. So the first page. So our subgrade garage footprint was consolidated to be under the central
mass of our building segment. Uh as we previously identified our drive aisle was simplified uh into a single continuous through aisle through the structure. Uh we eliminated the subgrade
space at the uh extension wings and then as such we uh previously uh had either adjacent to or within the subgrade space uh common areas that we then relocated that common and amenity
space to the first floor. So during that process, our first floor was uh simplified to instead of being at different um top of slab elevations, we unified that first floor to have a a
more uniform topup slab uh to make accessibility um improved on that first floor. With those changes, we also extended our uh porterhare and which provided our main entry and
access points into the first floor. >> Uh keeping on that page, please. >> Um the applicant uh testified that parking space would be assigned to the residents. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Okay. I I see on the plan near both of the garage entries at both each of the garage entries for compact parking stalls. How do you deal with that in relation to the assignment when you don't know their car sizes?
>> I believe that is an operational uh question that they can speak to. >> An operational question. >> Operational question. So leasing agent will say what kind of car you have. You have a compact car. We're going to put you here. This spot number will be number one for compact. This apartment
number will be compact. Solve the problem already. >> Well, you solved it. I'd like to hear the applicant affirm that approach. Michael, >> is that does Michael's uh words correct? >> Is is Michael Michael said that the uh manager on duty would in terms of
assigning it would assign >> correct when suing comes in and rents his space to talk about the car as a detect. >> Fine. fine that end of end of discussion. We're fine on that. Thank you. >> Thanks, Michael. >> Thank you. >> Just trying to save time.
>> Moving on to A101.1. Uh we had our updated canopy lighting plan that addressed how we extended our port structure and how we took care of that. Moving to page A101.2. Uh once again, when we reconfigured the
subgrade space, we relocated the common and amenity portion of that programming to the first floor. And here is how we identified how we programmed that space. We've already looked at the next one. >> We've already covered this
sheet A102. Here we identified that the areas that we are discussing in amendment are our central core area of our large building mass segment as well as the uh port
share structures at each of our entry drive locations on each side. A103 there's no changes to >> no changes from the prior uh approved site and architectural plans.
>> A104 uh once again no changes to fire site plans. A105, our uh single uh standing pavilion structure, was modified to a footprint uh slightly less than 3,000 square ft.
The amenity space that was in this area was once again reprogrammed to the first floor of our main building. Our roof plan once again had no changes to it. Our elevations due to our reprogramming
of the building, uh remodifications of those lower um levels, we had trickle down effects that affected the exterior elevation. So, we've updated all of our uh elevations to reflect that. This is a
continuous comment from sheet A201 all the way through to A202 which had different uh elevation perspectives to A203 once again um additional elevation uh perspectives and A204 for it.
>> Thank you. >> Do you want to go through the um photographs just to indicate what they are? >> Right. So, those last several pages, we have uh renderings that help articulate uh how we made those modifications uh for the exterior.
>> What does that show? So, this shows right now the order share where we had it extend over out to the drive aisle as well as our building structure where once again our uh garage space was lowered to be subgrade and our
first floor was uniform throughout the entire structure. >> So, no, it's it was it's part of the package. This once again is a an additional perspective of that scene this
>> Frank was this submitted as part of the here planet. >> No this was not submitted as part of the plan set. It was just submitted tonight. Correct. >> No here. >> No I see that. When did we first get these? Did we get these before tonight? >> No.
>> No. I do not believe so. >> Lisa has them electronically but no. >> Okay. Let's mark them. >> Okay. So that would be A1. >> Yeah, >> I thought >> Oh, sorry. But like I they just came to me. >> Okay.
>> I thought that you use >> Yeah. >> Now you have to bring your computer laptop and plug it in to get on the screen. >> Okay. They didn't have computers uh when we started this, right, Jerry?
>> Probably not. this adaptation quilt working with pencils. >> Yeah. >> And I saw somebody with an abacus >> and we were using quil pens. >> Not quite that. >> Not quite.
>> This is the second photograph. A2 >> A2 right here is the second photograph with with an additional perspective. A3 gives a perspective on the courtyard. A4
another perspective of the courtyard. A5. Another perspective of the courtyard A6. The final perspective of the court. >> Mr. Sharon. I think uh I have no further questions for the architect.
>> Okay. Anybody uh any questions for the architect? >> Any these rentals or or condominiums for sale? >> They're they're all rentals or condos. Rentals. >> Okay. >> Rental. >> And and every um renter will get a spot
or two in the garage. Do they have >> They're assigned. Yes. Is it signed? >> Would be included. I don't have to pay extra for that. It'll be included in the rent, right? Nothing's for free, Linda, >> because sometimes you're going to have then you're going to have people >> they're paying for it.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, but extra, >> Linda, there's only there's only 168 I'm sorry, 166 garage spaces under the building. There's 220 units. So, not every unit can have a space under the building,
>> but at least they'll get a space. >> They said there was 300 something parking spaces. Say >> on site there's 390 total. >> That includes outside >> on the whole site. >> That includes outside and garage. >> Outside in the basement and there's two
garage buildings that are outside as well. >> Okay. >> In terms of the entitlement to the spaces in the underground garage, is there any distinction that's being made between the market units and the affordable units?
>> No. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, any other questions? >> Mr. J, just one question. Yeah. Um, can you just talk about the the way that the architectural sorry the architecture of the clubhouse relates to the architecture of the building? Are they using the same facade materials?
>> Yeah, the intention is to make them harmonious. >> Okay. And the reason I ask is that's one of the goals of our master plan at harmonious design there. So okay, anybody else? Anything? Okay. Next witness.
>> Um >> Mr. Panki is here if there are any questions. >> Okay. >> On his uh his >> Okay. Let's see. participation in this project and also uh our um uh landscape
architect is here. I'm sorry. >> You can do well already discussed it. So, >> okay, >> we have no further witnesses. Carl is here to answer questions. >> Okay. So, then we'll go through our uh our professionals and then see what we can >> Okay, David, you want to go first? Yeah,
>> I'll start off. Uh good evening everybody. We had a planning review memo dated April 6, 2026. Uh I'll be fairly brief. Uh we had a couple comments regarding what these changes that were proposed just tracked previously approved versus what
proposing now. Uh we did review this application. Um and I concur with the applicant. They have been granted a variance from the setback from the building to the internal roadway. As a result of this application, that setback is being increased slightly. So there's no exacerbation of that variance which
is good. Um the applicant through these changes is still providing an adequate amount of common area space. Uh based on the ordinance they're uh required to provide 1,320 ft common area. They're providing around 18,000 square ft or so. Um while the
number of parking spaces is being reduced, they are still actually over what they're required to provide. So in a way they're actually becoming more conforming by reducing. Um they address my comments regarding parking management as well as the design of the pavilion.
So other than that from a planning perspective we don't really have much to offer. Um we also I'm using the Royal Wii now because it's really Ed Snyus but we also prepared a landscape architectural plan um review dated April
7th 2026. Uh Mr. in this interview really had one question and that was relating to the landscaping near the vents that was addressed by the applicants engineer and just so the board understands he wanted confirmation that any vents that are associated with the
garage would not be interfering with the the landscaping around the building and they identified that it would not otherwise I did talk to Mr. Snikers today. He had no other major comments. Um these proposed changes do not really change the landscaping that was previously proposed. In fact, he was
actually a little bit more complimentary of this new landscaping. Um because in certain areas, it has a more of a natural design which he prefers over something a little bit more rigid. Um other than that, we don't have any other uh issues. So, if anybody has any
questions for planning or >> I have a question for you. On page three, you you have a chart there regarding bedroom distribution. >> Yes. >> Couple questions. >> First off, it seems like all the is it's 220 total units.
>> 220 total units. Yes. >> Okay. I don't know why I thought there was less than that. Probably confusing it. Okay. Um all the all the affordables are onebedroom. >> Yes, that's allowed for um so that was
something that was allowed for the third round as well as for the fourth round. Uh the board is probably more used to the inclusionary developments with you know that are non-agger restricted. With those you need to have a certain number of one, two, and threebedroom units. Um
or age restricted those bedroom distribution counts don't apply. So they're okay. Okay. >> Restrict. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That's age restriction. Got it. >> Yeah. Presumably because for the family project, you're going to have more school children. For age restricted, not what they're not going to have as many
hope >> if if something odd is happening. >> Tell my dad that. >> Okay. Um Okay. Any anything else? Um, yeah. No, I'm gonna get to the other
one. Anything more for David? Okay. Um, Quazi, do you want to go next? >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Michael. Yeah. Um, this is Guazi Misu, traffic consultant for the township. We issued a memo March 30th and of that memo, >> you speak into the microphone.
>> Sure. The applicant has addressed all the traffic engineering comments based March 30th memo. We do not have any outstanding comments. So there should be then they have required they have complied all the traffic engineering guidelines and transcript requirements.
So we do not have any further comments. >> No issues regarding >> no issues. Okay. >> Yeah. We did have uh few comments and they have addressed. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any questions for
no. Okay friends you're up. >> Sure. Uh good evening. So going through the April 7th memorandum uh it appears they've provided the testimony requested
uh where so requested and uh agreed to the condition outlined in comment 5.01. Uh the only other comment that requested a condition was comment 2.03 3 about the
Title 39 plan that if this project is approved that they submit a revised Title 39 request to the township for enforcement of traffic regulations
on private property. >> Okay. And does Yapton have any issues with that? >> No. And we did prepare a 39th plan. It might have to be modified and I don't know if Grant has comments on the plan
that is prepared but whatever on 203 will comply. >> Yeah. Normally what happens when we get the requests and after site plan approval we circulate it to police, fire, emergency services since they're not completely focusing on that for planning board purposes. And once we
have consensus on a plan, we'll send it to the council for action. That's all I had. >> Um, David, anything regarding Ed's um, memo? >> No. Uh, Ed's only questions regarding the, uh, the landscaping around the building.
>> Okay. >> Um, they did address that. Otherwise, he had no other comments. The the proposed changes really don't impact the, uh, landscaping plan too much. They changed the arrangement a little bit, make it more natural, but otherwise uh, nothing too crazy. >> Okay.
question. Yeah. In 5.02 >> um says a design waiver for hours of illumination was previously provided. The board attorney should confirm this design waiver remains valid or if it needs to be granted as part of this current application.
>> Yeah, I think it remains valid. I don't think we have to regrant. >> I just want to get >> Okay. Um, I I would like to read uh Chief Lynch's memo dated March 30, 2026 into the record.
Um, if I can find it was here a moment ago. um dated it's dated April 7, 2026. Uh they receive Chief Lynch received above noted application
uh for a three-story senior living facility at 220 220 housing units for a total of 3,00 327,451 ft. Accent regarding access emergency vehicle access appears adequate. Water supply applicant uh should designate
proposed location of the fire department connection and ensure that a hydrant is located within 100 ft of the proposed connection in compliance with NFPA14 miscellaneous items. Applicant has agreed to place lock boxes for immediate
access by the fire department on both on both at the front of the building and rear service entrance. Applicant has agreed with the installation of fire department stand pipes in each stair tower. The stand pipes shall have 2 and 1/2 ft national standard thread hose
outlets on each stair tower floor landing. The stand pipe shall be tied into the fire sprinkler piping so that there will be only one fire department connection. Applicants should be aware that under NJAC 570 comma 510.1
emergency responder radio coverage, all new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. And the applicant will be required by the construction official to
conduct a radio signal strength survey of the building while under construction and if deemed necessary, a radio signal amplification system would need to be installed. In conclusion, applicant has addressed all concerns raised by the office and
agreed to all requests made. We recommend approval. Okay. So, you've seen this and of course you've according to Chief Lynch, you've agreed to that. >> Yeah. For purposes of the record, we will comply. >> Okay, great. Thank you.
Um, okay. I'll enter um I'll open it up for the You have no other witnesses, right? >> Uh, no, I'm just kidding. >> Uh, open it up for the public to uh step up and comment on anything they've heard
tonight. Any questions they want to ask, step up to the microphone, state your name, and add for the record. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Moved by Allan. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> Okay. Public hearing is closed.
>> Um any questions? Any points of anything? Anybody? >> Um bicycles. It'll some will be in what's the number that'll be interior for the bicycle? >> No change. >> No change.
>> Is it 30? Is that >> 30? >> 30 total. >> 30 inside eight outside. >> All right. I just want that. >> Is there the there's storage facility on underground? Right. There's some kind of storage for people to store bikes.
>> It's on the first on the first floor. >> Oh, it's on the first floor. But it's >> back used to be in the middle parking area. >> It's in closed. You can It's closed, right? Okay. >> I have one last comment. Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
>> If you approve this, it will be built. >> It will be >> We're not We're not coming back a fourth amended site plan. >> What >> is that like a green
come back for the fourth amendment for the final? >> You can deny it. So, >> so when do you break ground? Tomorrow. What are you ready to ask? >> Hopefully hopefully by before the first
>> we have to go through resolution compliance get signed plans go to the constru unless the construction official would like to give us a courtesy review while he's waiting for the final >> second. >> Well, we can start second.
>> They're starting soon. The fin this will be the final of the final sir. >> Okay. Any any other questions? Anything to discuss? Any >> And there are no waiverss and conditions. Correct. >> There are conditions with this one.
>> No new waivers or conditions. >> There are some conditions and I could go over those if you want, >> but we we basically gone through them. Do you want me to go back over them? Ju >> just the new conditions if you don't mind. >> Sure. >> Not the ones that we've already >> Correct. Yep. >> Just the new ones.
>> Okay. So, we're carrying over the old conditions unless modified. Um then 2.03 of Francis is the applicant has submitted the revised title 39 plan reflecting proposal modifications to the previously approved site layout.
Submission of a request for township council action for the project is to be made. And then for the lighting 5.01 >> for the lighting 5.01 of Francis's um memo, there's four different subsections. I could read them if you want.
>> No, Francis 5.01 section moved as a condition. >> Yep. And then for uh it's Sneakas's uh um memo, I think we want to make as a condition that there'll be no the landscaping will be such that there'll
be no interference with the uh venting. >> And I think they might have already provided a note on the plans indicating that as well. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then for u fire and emergency services um Michael uh read all for the conditions
that were applied which was agreed to >> which were agreed to. Yep. >> And that's it. >> Okay. >> But you have amended preliminary final site plan approval and the conditions. >> Okay. Um, >> with that said, I'll entertain a motion
to appro final approval of application PB19-3, third amendment. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Sorry. Moved by who? >> And it's okay. Second by Allan. >> Right. With conditions as >> with the conditions as stated. Uh,
Trish, please call the role for the >> Mr. Patel. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Sheel. >> Yes. >> Mr. B. >> Yes. Miss Apple, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Jvers, >> yes. >> Mayor Marteek, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Hoverman, >> yes. >> Chairman Cart,
>> yes. >> Thank you. >> Approved. >> Thank you very much. Last time >> on this project, >> Michael, I have one question before we conclude >> them. >> No, for Francis. >> Oh, go ahead.
>> Yeah. So, Francis. >> Francis a question post. I'm not talking about the application. Okay. >> May I speak? >> Yes. >> Okay. Francis, how many uh structured parking uh do we have in West Windsor Township? >> There's there's a couple at uh Avalon
and several in Carnegie Center. >> Right. So, uh, my my quest my question is, uh, should should we as a township investigate having lighting design standards for structured parking? I mean, we used to avoid what we went
through tonight. >> Yeah. Now that I know that there's no prevailing standard out there, it would make sense to revise that design. >> So, uh, how can you explain how next steps would be generally how that we approach that as a township? Well, it
would be it would be a draft ordinance prepared for council action. Council would introduce it, send it to planning board for review and comment >> and then if it's okay goes back to council and adopted changes >> in the process you just described, does
it have to come back to us for review prior to going to council for their >> No. Well, that's that's it's really up to the board if they want to take the initiative of proposing the standards, but if you're comfortable with >> proposed standards, they could go directly to council.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. >> In any event, even they would have to be introduced for all back here for >> uh consistency with the master plan, which >> I'm assuming would be consistent with the master plan and then back to you guys. >> You guys work all of that out and just get the best version and then council
introduces it. It comes back. >> Yeah, it sounds like I was googling it. I think I found the same standards as you was like five to 10. >> No, I I just want resolution on this matter so we don't go through. >> I think that's a very good idea. >> Thank you. >> Wherever we can have standards that make
sense, we should have stand so that they >> interior parking garage minimum is this. So like >> be charged with friend and David
>> suppose so >> we need a post on it. >> How do we encourage that to happen? >> We just told them to do it and how does that >> Okay, the mayor the mayor's got it. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And all you would