e e e e e e e e e e e e e e thank you Mr s good evening everybody we're gonna um call to order tonight's meeting of the township of Bernard Zoning Board of adjustment the first item on the agenda is the flag salute so if you can stand we'll ask you to stand to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all in accordance with the requirement of the open public meeting laws notice of this meeting of the board of the adjustment of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building Coler Lane Basking Ridge New Jersey it was also mailed to the Bernardsville News whiy New Jersey The Courier News in Bridgewater New Jersey and it was also filed with the Township Clerk all on January 8th of this year and it was mailed electronically to all those people who had requested individual notice can speak the microphone please sure I thought I was is that better okay um um the following procedure has been adopted by the Bernard's Township Zoning Board of adjustment there will be no new testimony um heard after 10:30 tonight and no new cases will be heard after 10 P p.m. Miss keber can you do the roll call please certainly uh chairwoman janers here uh Miss Balman and Miss pockar are recused so they are not here this evening Mr Cambria here Mr kuss here Mr pavloski here Mr tankr here Mr hon miss Herrera here Mr Warner here Mr Fishinger here Mr Quinn here uh Mr schy here and for the record Miss keer is present Madam chair you have a quarum you may proceed great thank you Miss kefir um at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to um excuse miss poar and miss Balman who are recused from this case so move second all in favor hi opposed abstain thank you thank you um next on the agenda is our public hearing which is continued from uh last week February 15 2024 for Signature Acquisitions which is ZB 22028 and Madam chair with your permission just to let the record reflect that this matter is continuing it was carried without further notice uh from our February 15 meeting uh to continue this evening March 14th 2024 uh board continues to have jurisdiction and uh we do have in writing from applicants Council an extension of time to act through March 15 2024 so if we do not finish this evening we'll certainly be requesting uh a further extension and writing Beyond tomorrow thank you madam chair thank you Mr Warner signature it looks like you're here Mr La thank you yes Madam chair uh thank you uh good evening members of the board members of your professional staff and members of the public Jeff larer on behalf of signature Acquisitions LLC I'm sorry yes can you hear me now okay uh Jeff larer from signature Acquisitions LLC as you're aware Madam chair we appeared here last month and as I believe and I have spoken with Mr Warner about it we left off with um that um Mr seckler there were some members of the public that had some remaining questions uh that we were I'm bringing him back to answer those questions um I then will bring on Mr my last witness would would be uh Mr Hughes to offer planning testimony right thank you and thank you for bringing Mr seckler back so I think that's a good place uh for us to start I think last time we were hearing questions for the public that were specific to the testimony of our um uh of Mr L's traffic expert Mr seckler so if there are additional questions from the public again I'd like to focus on on members of the public who have not yet asked questions of Mr seckler so if you haven't asked questions of Mr seckler or specifically if you have something very unique um um that you feel you need to ask um we will um we will try to facilitate that so first if I could ask members who haven't asked questions of Mr seckler who have questions at this time um to raise your hand and we'll start there are there any members of the public who haven't asked a question yet who um want to do you want to come up yes thank you and as a reminder um if you're asking a question if you're represented um by one of the objecting attorneys here we will ask the questions to go through those attorneys if you are not represented by one of those attorneys here um please uh state your name um and address for the record and I think Cindy are we also having a list do we have a list there for I do um sign in but yep go ahead there um but Mrs Pinson yep go ahead I got the you not represented by an attorney even if you were prior you were no longer I wouldn't be uh Ellen Pinson 99 Allen Road um at the last meeting Mr L stated that a limited uh parking on the site uh would discourage certain tenants who needed more parking from even considering the property um so and that that in a sense would be part of their justification um for choosing the lower rate the lower rating and predi in predicting um the traffic offsite that would be generated and so um since we know that um the applicant um owns other property in the area with in that very location with an internal driveway which is accessible to all three other buildings I just wonder if the um traffic parking expert uh would be uncomfortable if the applicant were asked to forwar any use of any of that area for off-site parking in other words there's a tension between the F that they're asking for and the parking that they're asking for and so if if they're saying well we we're only going to be attractive to people who can live with less parking and therefore less traffic um why don't they just put that in writing yeah um I'm Madam chair it's I'm not sure whether that's in the form of a question or whether it's a statement but I I'll I'll interpret it as a question and and um I'm going to let Mr seckler respond because I think there will be nothing in in what what you say in writing because for the reasons that Mr seckler will identify and for the record I'm still under oath you will throughout these proceedings you will remain under roof say your license remains a good standing yes so you'll remain accepted by the board as an expert in the field of traffic engineering thank you and again based on our analysis and I think um the uh member of the public uh alluded to we've determined that this site does have sufficient parking for this type of use uh obviously not per your zoning but per other uh industry Publications such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking generation publication um so I don't believe there'll be any need to have any parking on any of their lot so I I agree with that um I can't however promise or foretell any agreements between this and any of the other block and lots in the area um because that's outside of my realm as a traffic engineer but as far as you know would such an offsite use be legal acceptable whatever whatever the legal part of it Mr SEO can't answer and and and if my client owns all of the other properties and he wants to enter into a shared parking arrangement with them he certainly has the right to do that let me finish Mr I'm sorry go ahead thought the testimony that you're hearing from Mr setler is that it's not necessary yeah and I think you know a legal question wouldn't be the traffic engineer with all due respect you picked a a better profession traffic engineering than being a lawyer saying that self-deprecating okay well I am I supposed to sign in some yeah but but um I guess the answer ma'am I guess the answer is the applicant at least at this stage of the game is not going to enter into any waiver of their right to allow for offset parking on hope the board would consider that a factor yeah oh there we go thank you are there additional members uh from from the public who have questions for Mr seckler all the way in the back please and and as the chair stated first of members of the public who have not yet asked Mr seckler any questions In fairness to those members of the public thank you um my name do I need to sign you can sign afterwards but if you can state your name and address right into the microphone because we we do record this for people who are in here so it's important that we hear you I'm pry Shaw I live at 41 Sentinel Drive can can you spell your name please p is in Patrick r i TI last name is sha s sh a thank you so I'd like to ask um since the business is on Allen Road most of the people who live here are on Allen Road and um concerned about what happens on Allen Road you chose to do a study not on Allen Road but on slay mountain and Somerville so that doesn't make sense of why you would not do the actual study on Allen Road which normally has far fewer cars traveling on it so when we did our traffic counts we did traffic counts at a number of intersection can you speak into the microphone for everyone to hear when we did our traffic counts we did traffic counts on a number of intersections that included Allen Road and Liberty Corner Road Allen Road in the site driveway Allen Road and Somerville Road in addition to Liberty Corner Road and the Route 78 ramps so we did do analysis on Allen Road proximate to the site I can you speak into the microphone please yeah I I you did the studies but you you did that at off times not really representing what truly happens at the on Allen Road and we did counts during the rush hour time periods for the counts that were done in August we increased them based on the difference in traffic that we saw on the roadways between January 2023 and August 2022 all right thank you thank you thank you additional questions from the public if we if if we can ask people in in the um in the room please to not have private conversations it's really hard to hear we're trying to hear each other come on I did ask question okay thank you I just have a followup questions it's specific and unique and has not been covered exactly thank you it's triggered by the memo by Mr finger dated February that's the first one yes you got it my name is wait and and uh no objection correct Mr Lair I'm not sure what is happening because I thought we were going people who hadn't asked any questions right we we seem to have exhausted although there may be more uh we don't know yet but uh we didn't see any others at this time so if we said if there was something specific and unique that wasn't covered we were going to try and facilitate that okay you name my name is Derek it's first name is spelled D a r e k smick s SM YK 57 shanon Hill Road Basking New Jersey so following up on the memo that was written by Mr Fish Fishinger I would like to ask Mr seckler what chart what it chart did you use to for your forecast of the number of truck trips per day for truck trips per day yes I utilized The Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual the land use of manufacturing and then I use the truck tables which utilize the variable of per th Square ft and for the am um adjacent roadway peak hour and PM adjacent roadway peak hour and then the weekday which was the total day counts of the truck traffic I have questions regarding the chart that you mentioned would it be okay if I projected that chart on on the board so this way we can refer to particular observations in that chart that chart was actually referenced by Mr Fishinger memo that's okay yeah I I believe so if I may Madam chair though Mr Fishinger you uh provided a supplemental review memo which included it charts if I understand correctly maybe you can address that remaining on yeah um so first good evening everyone again Joe Fishinger with bre viw engineering I believe this gentleman's referring to my February 23rd 2024 review memo which um there were we were we started to receive some questions I believe at least in part from this gentleman as to where the trip generation was coming from so instead of trying to answer them individually over email we I provided this memo which includes excerpts from the 11th edition of the it manual so that everyone has the same information and these These are E I provided the entire section of the manual for land use code 140 which is manufacturing that both my reports and I believe Mr seers are based on and that was from it uh uh 11th Edition that's the correct it trip generation manual 11th Edition and thank you very much for want to have that on the screen for reference purposes in connection with asking questions of Mr seckler the traffic engineer based on his direct testimony is that correct Mr samic yes okay if Mr Smith has been provided with that I'm I'm unsure why we're presenting as an exhibit or presenting it on a on a screen well it doesn't technically have to be presented as an exhibit in my opinion because it was part of a report of the independent traffic engineer retained by the board uh presenting it on a screen I guess is is to help everybody follow along I don't see any NE any downside to that I see some I see some upsides uh it help everybody follow along including uh uh Mr seckler although he may not need it but but uh so assuming there's no objection and if there is an objection my advice to the board is to allow it anyway uh the uh let's put it up on screen and just so I'm clear Dave you have the whole that whole section the whole memo with the entire 140 was the section can I ask you a question that that memo was not provided to me oh you received it I don't remember receiv receiving it do we have an extra copy c i I have the memo but if there's something recent that he did February he said February 23 oh that I have yes okay I think it was a couple weeks ago I don't have the I have the cover sheet to it I did not let's bring it up and then Mr lar can see if he yeah seen it I think he has and I think let the record reflect Mr seckler has yours okay well we you have to ask you that's the same thing so so I have exactly the same slide sorry I need you to speak into the microphone and so Mr Fishinger is it prop sorry M Mr Fishinger added some additional drawings onto the chart that's from it I wanted to just show original chart because that presents the observations versus additional additional additional things so hang on I think that's a little different than than what we thought so you're not bringing up Mr Fisher's report you're bring you're suggesting something else the chart that he used but he just added additional red so let me clarify this a little um what I provided the the first two pages of the appendix so to speak are what the software program generates and the computer program I enter a square footage into the software it it puts the the line and the numbers on the graph I also included the entire section for land use code 140 which does include those charts without any site specific annotation okay so so it's only those first two pages we could and he wants to move beyond that and so is is in essence is is what this gentleman is using uh after those two pages he's using the rest of that unadulterated land use 140 manufacturing is that what he's using I I have I'm assuming so yes but why don't we get it up so we could see it and if it's the same thing that's in your report absent those couple of pages then that's fine is that the it's notra stff you add to just the title see just trust me let play the fr the I have a copy of what it's just the same chart okay all right so then find that chart whatever no no because I no sorry for taking so so long I have that chart handy Mr samic you're not a traffic engineer correct I believe he's referring it's about smick sorry my name is SMI uh it looks like it's probably about 10 or 11 pages from the back if you flip through my entire memo the first one that shows a watermark truck I believe is the one he's looking for unfortunately these Pages aren't the excerpts aren't numbered it's entitled manufacturing 140 truck trip ends versus 1,00 sqare foot GFA on a weekday believe that's that it yes that's I believe that's correct make it so it fits in the screen okay is that the chart that you used sorry yes okay could you tell me what the diagonal line represents on this chart whoa need to put brakes on those uh the diagonal line represents the average rate so that is the if you take the average of the all the points um what you would get if you utili it's basically a slope l line to get the average of what all these data points are saying so so does it really represent your model forecasting model excuse me does it represent your forecasting model is that that's what you use when you map the manufacturing space to the number of truck trips yes this is what we utilize especially on a spec building where there's no known tenant thank you so uh and the points on this chart represent individual ual observations by do the points on this chart represent individual observations of uh traffic generation sides yes the x's on the chart represent individual data points and the x coordinate is the what is x and y coordinate the x or bottom of the table is the square footage and the Y uh which would be the going up and down on the page that's the trip ends that's the number of truck trips um what is the total manufacturing space for the proposed site at all Road the total manufacturing space is uh nearly 200,000 Square F feet I think it's 198,000 so if you look at the chart at The X uh coordinate it that that site would be represented somewhere around 200 approximately yes okay so if you look at the two points above it uh the at the very top the there is a left one and the right one could we label them as point a and point B I have a chart with this labels if you allowed me to use it it would be easier but if you don't then uh I follow we follow you follow okay we're good for now okay okay so so now also look please look at the point all the way to the right uh which is that the side that's like double the size of the uh of the proposed site the site all the way to the right is about 373,000 sare ft so it's about double the size of that now if you look at this groupings of points on the left side would you uh say that 15 out of 19 observations in this chart pertain to much smaller sites the sites that were 110,000 Square ft or less well again I'm not going to use the word much but if you want to ask how many sites are 110,000 ft or less um it looks like about 34 of them around about 15 because you can count the other points that are it's exactly four so 19 minus 4 would be 15 is this correct uh yes okay so 110 is about is about 50% 55% of uh 200 um okay so there are only three observations then are there only three observations that are really in similar to to the site that is being proposed for 150 Alan wrote again I I think all these sites are can be similar because the use inside this building may be similar to any of these we also have two buildings on our site not just one so if you look at each building individually they would fit you know right around that 100 ,000 squ foot line which has a lot of data points around it but but other the two building only 51 ft apart share the same parking lot share the same Ingress and egress don't they anden they the same site for this similar studies they're the same lot for this application but they also may not be the same tenant or may may not be the same user okay but let's consider the scenario when there's a same tenant occupy occupying both buildings so can we then look at this two sides two two points that are the closest in size to Observation that are closest in size to the proposed site they are I I label them as a and b could you please like roughly approximate tell me what the coordinates of these two sites are so is a the one that's closest to the left yeah again if we were allowed to use the labels so a would be about 166,000 Square ft and have 180 truck trips a day okay B would be 228,000 ft² in 194 truck trips per day we also have again other points that are below that line and well below the truck trip average you said sorry you said 180 on one and 192 on the second one so so I said 194 194 sorry I one at a time one at a time please 194 and 182 okay and true there is some some another point to Observation C which is much lower I would say 150 square ft and 50 truck trips or no I believe it's 155,000 squ ft and 29 truck trips okay 29 okay so but we can see that two of the nearest observations to the site proposed site have double your production is that true is that true yeah he he's In fairness if I may Madam chair he phrased in the form of a question it's the conclusion to what he was sounds as though he is making a statement at the end he said isn't that correct the the uh and Mr seckler has the opportunity to either say it is or it isn't and if it isn't why so I think it's a question in fact I'm certain of it so the question was what you know what I'll just get to straight to the point that's one of the things we attorneys do right we talk so much that everybody for get the question go ahead goe with your question no that go ahead with your question okay how do you justify that your theoretical forecast of 90 truck trips per day is correct given that it recorded the number of truck trips about twice as large in both study site that are the closest in size to the total manufacturing area of the proposed development meaning A and B right yes meaning A and B and and I would say that the reason why is that I utilize this formula that looks at all the data points all 19 of them and not just two of the 19 data points and when you utilize that calculation the average is about 045 uh truck trips per thousand square feet which is how I got my calcul my numbers again we observed that most of those questions is it isn't it true that you just said before that 80% of those Point observations were about half the size of the manufacturing so isn't it true that generalizing uh generalizing observations for smaller is a little bit D smaller sides is a little bit dangerous to extrapolate that to to larger size I would also say that utilizing just two data points when you have a sample set of 19 maybe extrapolating in a in a a incorrect manner as well also I would state that um when it comes to utilizing these formulas the it for this use utilized a linear formula for coming up with the truck trips per th square feet there are other instances within this manual that may have a log logc no a lametric calculation may not have a linear relationship and that is not what the it chose in this case with this data okay we if I'm allowed I I I will ask question about the linear regression that they did but I think it's more important to M make this right now ask the question is it possible that the manufacturer represented by either observation A or B studies become a tenant at 150 Allen Road well again we utilize the average here so it's possible that the site May generate more truck tra traffic and it may generate less truck traffic than the average that we utilized I also so not knowing these sites and again that's the downside with this data is that I have no ability to look at the site and understand what their parking Arrangement was how many loading docks they had things like that that it's possible that those type of users would not take a site like this because of other um limitations on the property so if if if manufacturer represented by observation a received additional 30,000 square ft of space do you think that that TR track trip generator by them would go down by that user yes no I don't think it would go down okay so so it's so it is possible then which I just said that there will be a tenant that will generate uh 82 truck trips per day which is just as likely then they would be one of the data points below the line that we'd be generating 29 truck trips per day yes true so now I have a question regarding uses of averages when safety is concerned when you bring a child to a pool do you ask what is the average depth of the pool or what's the deeper end I'm not sure that's for the traffic okay then I I'll I'll rephrase it uh when you did your when you did your uh analysis uh about possible traffic at different hours of the day what why did you focus only on peak hours and you did not write anything about the other hours because in the traffic engineering industry when you're looking at capacity on the roadway you're looking at the time period when capacity may be the most constrained and that would be during the rush hours when the volume on the road is the highest right makes sense so you looked at the worst case did you look at the worst case because if you prove that the impact is acceptable the worst case therefore the impact would be acceptable on all the other hours of the day why do you abandon this approach when we are considering various manufacturers type that could be possible tenants why do we not look the same way that the worst case and the worst case I just showed you could be 185 182 truck trips per day Madam chair um I think we've answered this question at nause actually Madam chair if I may I I don't think he has yet answered this question I think we have to let him answer it if he can I don't think it's War I I am going to make an objection you can object to the question what's your objection to his question let me let me finish my question my my statement he's he's looking for an answer that is not going to get he wants us to say that the highest A or B example which are 300 and some odd thousand square feet or whatever they are the worst case scenario we agree it'll be the worst case scenario we've said no that's not how you calculate it and yet he continues to press and say isn't it the worst case scenario you're done I'm done okay it's a fair question and and and it's a cross-examination uh and Mr seckler is an expert tra traffic engineer and I suspect he can answer the question uh and I think he did well I don't think he answered that one so I'm following the policies and procedures that every traffic engineer in the industry follows when we do projects on the state highways we follow these same formulas that are outlined in this manual we do not the Department of Transportation the county reviewers they do not require or ask us in as part of this industry to find the highest dat of point and run our analysis based on that they utilize the it because that is the average when you're dealing with um unknown users have another question then uh do you agree that if you look at the data hold on a second uh can you please confirm that if you look at the it obser that actually observed that the sites of similar size can generate drastically different number of truck trips per day there is a wide variation in the amount of truck trips that can be generated based on the user on the site exactly so it could be like you are you saying like three times as much would be okay because you if you look at this chart if you look at point A and C that we labeled one of them you said is 20 29 is 29 and the other one is 182 that's about five times as much so it's really pretty big variation I think he said there's a wide range okay but why why is some some definition of what's why okay okay searching for an answer Mr Mr that was he's two questions ahead don't try to go back to the other one the uh now I think you you you may made your point but if you have more questions another question is uh if did you notice that if you look at this chart the larger the facilities get the more variation the larger the range of possible of possible number of truck trips that's generated for that site if you look at the on the left side uh let's say around 60,000 Square ft you will see Five Points and they are pretty close to to each other when you look to 110 there's much more variation and when you look like 160 then it becomes even wider so that variation is to be based on this trend what to be expected isn't it true Mr War Mr can I ask you to speak into the microphone so we hear your objection you know it's it's interesting that Mr Smith is you he's attempting to cherry pick data points to make the them statist to make them statistically invalid and I think that's an inappropriate way to handle questioning I think Mr Mr you asked Mr Fishinger you ask Mr seckler it's the same analysis the same analysis and yet he's trying to get you to understand or to adopt his point that you have to use the worst case scenario for this site I think that that is a wrong way to for the board to understand that he's attempting to cherry-pick data he's Madam chair he's using the source material that was provided by Mr Fishinger that I understood Mr seckler uh uh uh relied upon at least in part if not in whole for his his traffic study uh it's fair for the board to allow him to to question Mr seckler on that Source data and Mr seckler is more than capable of answering what Traffic Engineers do and why they do it and what they don't do and why they don't do it uh and if it becomes harassing at any point or repetitive that's one thing that's objectionable uh and an objection that should be sustained um but it's fair game to question him about the source data and what the approach is and isn't Visa Traffic Engineers uh and and that's what he's challenging I think it's relevant I also now have forgotten whatever the question was you know Mr Su can I can I just ask you one question because I just want to make sure I understand the data um for these data points a singular manufacturer would be represented by one data point if it had multiple buildings or would it show up as two data points so for example if signature had two buildings totaling 200 would it be two data points on here or only one it depends on how the data was collected if you were able to delineate where the trips were coming in and out then it may be but we can't tell from this we can't tell from this if this is if the 300,000 foot one could be three buildings it could be one building don't know correct okay thank you do you have any other questions just following up on that so if that site at 150 Allen Road was started by would someone stand in front of the igress and Ingress and ask everybody are you going to building one or building two well it depends on how You' collect the data if you collect the data from the loading area of let's say building one you'd be able to see the amount of trucks coming in and out of building one you could also collect the data from building two count the number or You' count it just at the driveway at Allen Road and then you'd have the total so again from the data points I can't tell what was done okay so we we don't we don't know exactly so now now just last set of questions because statistics was brought up so just about statistical work that was done here so did you confirm that you used the linear regression for for this model well again I believe that the average rate formula here is basically 045 truck trips per thousand square feet so although there's not a formula printed on this one there's obviously a linear relationship that was what does the range of rates mean the next to average rate that's basically there are sites that have generated zero truck trips per th Square ft all the way up to 5.5 truck trips per thousand so that's another measurement of how widely spread the PO potential number of truck trips are correct that's the overall range of all the data points could be even 10 times more than what what the 4.5 is or zero or zero yes if we're lucky okay now is with Statistics so so the so that was a line that was fitted into all the data that's available here right correct all right did you uh perform an analysis of the data do did you realize realize that the two points on the right the most the most on the right are outliers static outliers I I did not run a statistical analysis to determine if those are outliers or not so so you don't know that Z score is 2.7 3.5 for the points no okay so the outliers so we did not any special Pro also you did not take into account that outliers by drawing this line I think he answered that okay the okay just clarify I didn't draw the line I I understand but you're using that line beyond the beyond the area where it was devel most influenced by the the smaller one and using it in the area where there's very few observations and say this is my isn't it correct yeah I use the line that was drawn by the it as my average rate line okay I have no further question thank you very much thank you thank [Applause] you okay has anyone um is there anyone from the public who has not asked a question question yet of the traffic engineer before we get to people who have additional questions okay seeing none as long as they are specific and unique and haven't been covered yet um I'm going to take in the back first we'll ask you to please um state your name and address again for the record uh my name is uh ranan gurum morti 66 Liberty Ridge Road Basking Ridge yes it's r a n g a n a t h a n that's the first name last name is gurum morti g r u m o o r t h y thank you thank you so I have similar questions and also questions on the peak cover traffic based on the statistics right uh Mr Sackler U you are familiar with the diagram that was shown and the diagram actually shows a standard deviation associated with this right now I sorry did he did he answer yes the sheet shows a standard deviation that's correct the standard deviation is 34 the average rate is 45 right based on the0 45 and 200,000 Square ft you have come up with about an average of 89 truck trips right correct now the thing is that you have not yet determined who your client is going to be and you can see the standard deviation is 34 and you if you look at the range of rates a huge range of rates in fact your average rate of 045 is kind of sitting at the bottom of the range of rates your rate range of rates is 0 through 5.5 right you have a standard deviation of 34 okay now sir yes you're asking a lot of questions I'm not hearing mr's answers I'm just making a couple of things I'm going to ask him a question after let him answer because because if the answer is correct then it makes sense for you to proceed okay is that correct whatever I've stated about the data so far the average rate is 045 the range of rates is 0 to 5.5 as I mentioned earlier right and uh standard deviation right and the standard deviation is 34 so B based on this right since you do not know who the tenant is going to be right I computed a 95 percentile traffic amount right that is at about 1.645 standard deviations I calculated what the truck traffic would be right I come up with a number of 200 like given that you have no idea who the customer is going to be at this point right that's what I heard based on that it could be anywhere on the Range and I calculated a 95 percentile value of 200 I can show you my calculations sorry I I just want to make sure I understand what what is the question that you're so the question is that you have used an average rate do you agree that given that you do not have a particular client identified it could very well be in that 95 percentile range which is in the range of 200 truck trips per day per per shift I would think I not even sure can you tell me also wait you already asked him a fairly lengthy question okay it's not going to mean anything unless he answers it sure so I utilize the average not a 95th percentile um confidence interval sorry um which is consistent with what is done in the traffic engineering industry so we use the average but you here you're planning a facility is it sufficient to go with the averages especially when you have such a huge range such a large standard deviation remember that the standard deviation is 75% or so of your average rate so in other words it's a huge standard deviation so again I don't want to get into the planning aspect of this application but no no it's a straightforward question right okay sure because your question was how come what would if we had 1.65 times this number of trucks what would it why didn't I study that that's your question why didn't I study case haven't you taken a conservative approach because this the the whole question is about the amount of traffic that could be on the road depending on the kind of customer who actually runs the place right so so it brings up two good points one again I'm consistent with what is done by the traffic engineering industry this is what's done on all applications that I worked on for planning boards uh Dot County applications in addition this is a use that is permitted in the E2 Zone that generates trucks this is contemplated as part of the Zoning for this property so in terms of the impact of trucks on the roadway Network that was a that's a planning question not necessarily a traffic engineering question for permitted uses no it is a hope I didn't go to far field there it is aaff witness who the professional planner for the app but it is a traffic question right because based on the numbers that you are using based on the standard deviation the range and everything else essentially the 95th percentile lands you in the arena of around 200 trucks trucks per whatever the time period is per shift or whatever this is per day 24 hours well is that what the is that what the the the accounts are based on is it 24 hour or is it per shift this is per weekday it says on a weekday which is for the entire day on that table so how much of truck traffic do you anticipate if you have one shift two shifts three shifts I've indicated that we we are calculating 89 truck trips whether it's one shift two shifts three shifts on a single day um how how is it possible that regardless of the number of shifts you're running you would have the same amount of traffic because the number of truck trips that we project as Traffic Engineers is based on this average rate formula it's not based on the number of shifts for a site let me move on to another U topic which is the P cover traffic right now if you look at the P cover statistics youve used an average of 0.03 right so times 200,000 you end up with six uh movements in the P cover right however if you look at the range of rates it's again from 0 to14 and in this case the standard deviation is 0.04 right so again at the 95th percentile I'm calculating that you'll end up with 19 truck movements in the PE cover I can show you the calculation do you agree I agree with your calculation I don't agree that's how Traffic Engineers would analyze this site from a traffic impact perspective you're using the average in all these cases but the fact that is it correct for a traffic study to not take into account the huge standard deviations that are involved in these numbers I'm telling you someone who prepares over 100 traffic studies a year that this the average rate is what's utilized as part of traffic studies okay I'll move on to my next question you used a land use code of40 right manufacturing now there's also a code of 130 industrial park right which is 130 is industry Industrial Park Industrial Park which is defined as a plan development that typically includes a mix of light industrial office and sometimes commercial uses so my question is was that considered because my and my related question is wait wait ask one question what is it considered it was considered but manufacturing land use was deemed more appropriate based on the two definitions and the data points available well actually if you look at the manufacturing definition doesn't it talk about raw materials and all whereas the definition of industrial park isn't it closer to what you're going to be doing I think the commercial aspect that industrial parks have uh is very different from what is happening on this site uh industrial parks per the it definition doesn't include uh cases in which you may have um you know for sale items for members of the public which is not a case on this site but that's not what the definition seems to indicate and based on the read of the this particular of 130 Industrial Park actually you would have ended up with a higher average because if you look at the average instead of0 45 it is 57 do you agree again I I don't believe that's the appropriate land use to use in this case your own reviewing traffic engineer has concurred with the fact that we utilize land use code 140 again your calculation may be correct but that's not the appropriate land use for this site okay I'll move on to the next question given that there is the potential for a lot more traffic right like I calculated the 95th percentile right so given that shouldn't you your traffic study take into account a bigger radius of impact right now it looks like you're looking at the corridor between Somerville Road and uh Martinsville Road right shouldn't you be actually expanding it to include Mount Prospect Liberty Corner School albrook Etc no why not because as I mentioned the study area and the trip generation rates that I utilize it is what is used by the industry so the range of locations again was also reviewed by your board's traffic engineer and they can in fact they added an intersection to make sure that we had a wider range of area based on what is utilized in the traffic engineering industry but once again do you agree that right now since you do not have a client identified the amount of traffic could pretty much be anywhere in that range and that's why uh you know the calculation do you agree that the calculation of a 95 percentile is reasonable no I think I made that case okay next question why is the number of truck Bas not a relevant factor in these considerations the data collected and provided by The Institute of Transportation Engineers includes three variables as it relates to truck trip trips it can be calculated based on square footage of building number of employ employees and Acres of the site there is not any statistical data or any data collected on the number of truck Bays compared to truck trip generation that is publicly available in that case what is the implicit connection between the square footage and the number of bay for example in this particular case if it is 200,000 that question was answered by our Mr travalini that question was answered by Mr travalini it's not a traffic question it's really an operation question which was answered by Mr travalini if you all recall so I I don't think it's an appropriate question for the traffic engineer and I'll be candid I don't know exactly what you meant by what is the implicit well what I meant was like when you say it's 2,000 square ft what is the implicit number of Bays that that are being assumed by the model because I think the first question might be do you know if the it even considers uh uh uh in its calculation the number of Bays to be implicit with respect to square footage well I could ask that but it looks like the model does not use it so answered that yes and he just answered it so we should move on okay the other question is I think previously you have mentioned that essentially the GPS usage of GPS would ensure that uh whoever the truckers would actually not not take certain routes which they should not be taking for example coming down Allen Road and so forth right but my question is you are aware that uh GPS routes dynamically right given this is that a valid assumption that the GPS will always sort of ensure that people do not come on those particular roads the GPS software that you and I use in our cars yes they dynamically change I imagine trucks also have GPS that can dynamically change however some of them have ones that can keep them off of roadways they're prohibited from that said the other roadways that we're talking about I don't believe there's any truck prohibitions but if it's not the fastest route that's obviously not the route it's going to dynamically change it too no I'm talking about situations where let's say that you have a traffic jam right on 87 or something right in that case is it not going to be the case that their GPSs will reroute them I imagine it would reroute them as long as they have the GPS types that me and you utilize yes okay nother your question was your question was is it still a valid assumption right that's what I heard well that I didn't hear him answer that question okay so I do think it's valid that the trucks can be rerouted onto other roads that said when we perform our analysis we are looking at what is happening on a typical day on a roadway we're not doing our analysis what happens if a bridge is out on 287 what would what would change the traffic patterns this area would be completely different so Mr SEC you're saying it's still a valid assumption is that what you're saying I don't think it's I think that the traffic engineering industry utilizes reasonable traffic conditions when doing their analysis so I believe our assumptions that we made are reasonable I also think that his point that you know there could be a condition where something may reroute is also reasonable as well but when we analyze our data do our impact analysis that's not a condition that we look into thank you thank you no further questions thank you I think we had another question over here you can start um Sher Nelson 195 smok Rise Road um Sherry Nelson um I just have some questions from the last hearing uh there was testimony about um peak hours and the peak hour and Peak months um so the traffic counts you did were from 7: to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. and you said that was the peak hours but then when you look at the report and carry over that data you you use the peak hour when you're talking about the capacity and the level of service when it switches instead of 7 to9 it's like 8 to 9 in the morning is that correct yes we look at the peak periods and then we narrow it down to the peak hour so that's the difference between the two we start our counts not knowing what that hour will fall in within and then we narrow it down to the hour after we collect the data okay so I just have some questions about how that relates to school traffic in our community um you did three different I think traffic counts now I don't remember the months and whatever but the first one was August and then it was like well they wanted to capture School traffic so you did January um are you aware of what the school start times are in burnard's Township for the public schools or what times they dismiss I know they dismiss again various times but I I do know it generally occurs between 2:40 and 3:30 in the afternoon the morning time period again I think there's variation uh but generally you know in the uh 8:00 to 9:30 period is when most of the schools would open okay that's not correct is it okay if I just State the school start times just so he has like a reference if you have a question specific to them so is your question why didn't he use the actual times I mean I would think if you were asked to capture School traffic that would be the first thing to find out is confirm how many schools we have where they're located where that traffic's coming to and from I know I'm not saying a question I'm just kind of rationalizing why I'm kind of not understanding how that was not captured so am I allowed to State our times just so I think her question is why why didn't you look at when where the school times are specifically before you picked your Range hours so we pick our Range hours we're looking for when the volumes on the road would be at their Peak just because the school may be starting or ending at that time period does it mean that the overall roadway volume is at their highest especially on Allen Road in this area obviously as you get closer to a school that may change but in this area where our site driveway is where the uh Corridor to get to 78 is that Corridor has a peak hour that is not tied to directly the school arrival or dismissal right so Mount Prospect school which is the other direction but just for your general knowledge um that dense population that lives in the Hills um we have four elementary schools in town but we only have one middle school and one high school so the traffic concern that would be generated would be Crossing town you're getting into some testimony so we're either going to have to swear you in which I would like to avoid doing or we need to be specific with your question I can see where you're going but I I guess can I just ask is it reasonable as a traffic expert if there's only one high school in the entire town that traffic is going to be more traffic is generated getting to one high school than to four Strate strategically uh strategically located elementary schools does that make sense like an elementary school you go to the school closest to your house but the high school you got to drive a lot further to get to your travel may be longer but I can't speak to the number of people in each school but yes your travel path would be longer if you have one school versus neighborhood schools okay so if your traffic studies didn't happen to capture those times is that significant even with those schools or a school that is a regional or larger radius School in the area the volumes that we counted specifically on the intersections that we were studying are higher during the time periods we counted than all those other times you counted the whole day we have data that the dot has along um Martinsville road that is counted the entire day so I could look at that data and determine when is the general peak hour time periods okay that's all I was trying to understand thank thank you sorry okay so you picked your Peak range of seven to nine based upon the dot data yes is that correct yes thank you Miss Nelson 69 door Chester Drive um so following that line of questioning a couple things um you had mentioned the do study uh regarding Martinsville Road are you are aware of uh the Mountain View um Housing Development that's being put in yes and did you account for the traffic for the schools coming um down Martinsville road with that in the future we've accounted for a general growth rate factor that traffic on all these roads would be increasing a little under 2% annually compounded on top of itself which would account for a general background growth okay and did you um uh also account again following up from the last qu set of questions for the other developments off of Valley Road going to Liberty Corner Road through that intersection Valley and Liberty Corner again we utilize that growth rate of about a little under 2% compounded annually each year okay thank you um question on the the truck size uh I believe is W WB 67 that's the largest truck yes okay and that was the one that you testified with last uh last time is that correct by testified with uh you talked about the size of the vehicle and the type of vehicle yes um do you know how many C lengths uh approximately that truck uh would be equal to a little about three truck link uh three car links maybe a little more okay um and did you study the um length of the traffic light at Allen Road and Martinsville Road yes and so how many trucks and I'm sorry if these questions have been asked please let me know um have how many trucks could turn from either Direction coming to or from Allen Road um in the time of the the light uh the timing of the light hold on so are you referring to Turning from Allen Road actually in every direction so turning into Allen Road to go to the facility and from the facility onto um Martinsville road to either 78 or 287 so if you're coming from uh let's say 78 going to the site in the morning um that turn arrow that you have could last up to 21 seconds of green time uh which probably will get you about three trucks two to three trucks being able to make it through on that green light um when you're leaving let's say Allen Road in the evening uh you're coming down you're making a right turn to get back to 78 that has a green time of up to 35 seconds um that's making a right turn so it's a little slower for the truck to make uh but that would be probably between three or four trucks um three trucks probably could make that um within that green cycle and again when we're looking at peak hours we're in the range of eight over the entire hour and these are lights that could make get two to three trucks in a cycle okay and um and how many trucks do you anticipate in that peak hour that would be coming and going I believe we testified previously it was around eight total so some mix of coming and going okay um you had also mentioned in a I think previous testimony that there could also be box trucks um I guess regular deliveries like a FedEx but uh could it be possible that a tenant would have a mix of box trucks and uh the W WB 67 very possible yes and with those box trucks they can make a left onto Allen Road yes and so therefore if there was a um a a fleet of box trucks for a particular tenant there could be potentially more TR trff making a left on onto Allen Road is that correct uh what do you mean by Fleet uh more than just a handful maybe during the day making local deliveries perhaps I again I don't I don't think that's what the manufacturing this type of manufacturing facility would be doing I don't think they'd be delivering to individual let's say residential customers out of a site like this okay and then um uh you discussed the um and I know it's been brought up in regard to the potential redirection of GPS um are you familiar with the number of incidents on the interstates surrounding uh Bedminster basing Ridge exits on either Interstate uh in terms of lane closures and delays on a regular basis again I I drive these roads I don't have any statistics about how often there's delays on on the interstate highways okay that's all I have thank you thank youor did you sign in please yes we we'll get our assignment I I'm sorry I missed missed one thing there about the 35 seconds um you said 35 seconds in the evening does the the seconds change throughout the 24-hour period of the green hour yes the it's it's time of day adjusted and can be further adjusted by the county who governs the signal so when you said 35 seconds in the evening when when were you referring to the 35 seconds uh between 4 and 6:00 p.m. uh that runs with a 35 second green time on alen Road thank you okay thank you are there additional questions from the public at this time okay seeing none Mr laar uh did you want to continue with your um next I I assuming Mr Simon is not here today you is that correct that's correct Mr Simon is Mr Simon is not here okay um I'm going to present the affirmative testimony of Mr um Hughes and then I my my um my goal is to just conclude at that point okay Madam chair may I ask good sure the the is there anyone here from Mr Simon's firm if Mr Simon is not here okay okay do you have any questions for uh Mr seckler before we move on to the um planner here observe okay I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said my understanding that Mr s notam okay so he's not cross-examining so Mr lar you're free to proceed just just so I'm clear I just want to be all of us very clear Mr Simon is Mr Simon waving his right on behalf of his clients to cross-examine Mr seckler or is he not cross examining Mr seckler this we had this conversation and the answer is that he's reserving his right to cross Mr Mr seckler in the future he's reserving his right to cross-examine Mr Hughes in the in the future right and none of that was on the record till you just said it notwithstanding the fact that Mr Simon's Council was of Mr Simon's colleague was here that's that's why I kept asking the questions okay now it's on the record for the benefit of everyone so that was important I'm sorry we have a court report on something uh maybe there's no mic I believe his name is Jonathan Kaplan correct Mr Kaplan it's just John Steve John okay John Kaplan yes Harold h e r o l d Mr okay so we're moving on to the planner okay already already corre not yet please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you Mr Hughes uh can you give the board the benefit of your uh educational and professional background please yes my name is Keenan Hughes I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey and a member of the American Institute of certified planners I a principal of Philips price which is a planning consulting firm based in Hoboken I work with municipalities and private clients throughout the state on Planning and Zoning matters and frequently appear as an expert witness and I have previously appeared before this board Madam chair do any of the I'm sorry was that it on the Vader that's all okay and uh do any objectors council's object to the board accepting Mr Hughes as an expert in professional planning seeing and hearing none excellent so we we will accept you we we've seen you before so thank you um Mr Hughes uh uh you you are familiar with this application correct I am yes in fact you've um attended a number of the hearings in this application have you not that's correct all right can you start uh to talk about the scope by telling the board the scope of your work sure uh so the scope of my work was focused on evaluating the application from a planning perspective with a focus on the variance relief that's being requested by the applicant um as part of my due diligence I visited the site in the surrounding area um I reviewed all of the application materials before the board I reviewed the Township's Land Development ordinance and its master plan um and also reviewed the correspondence the applicant received from uh various agencies as well as uh Township professionals and officials I'm not going to go question by question so if you're okay with just proceeding uh and giving your testimony uh I've been through uh this with you you know and so why don't would you just proceed and provide your testimony certainly thank you um so at this point in the application I know the board is quite familiar with the property and the proposed development but just very briefly 150 Allen Road is a roughly 28 acre property it's located within the E2 Zone it is improved with an existing three-story office building that consists of approximately 175,000 Square ft um and a very large surface parking area with approximately 855 parking spaces the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing improvements and constructed and construct two light manufacturing buildings on the property building a a would be approximately 127,000 ft and Building B would be approximately 13,558 Square ft each building will have 12 loading spaces and there are a total of 328 parking spaces proposed which includes 14 electric vehicle uh make right spaces in accordance with State Statute and the parking spaces are both um located under the buildings um and within surface parking lots located on the site so from a zoning standpoint as I mentioned this property is located within the E2 Zone the proposed use of light manufacturing is a permitted use in this zone so any future tenants of this facility will fall within the confines of the definition of light manufacturing which per the township ordinance is a use that shall mean the activity which involves the Assembly of products from previously prepared materials and which does not involve the synthesis of chemicals or the processing of raw materials so this is a speculative development as the board is well aware um any future tenant is going to have to obtain uh some determination from the zoning officer that it indeed Falls within the category of light manufacturing the variances that are required for this application are for f 21 is proposed and 0.15 is permitted so this application is for the zoning board because we're requesting what is known as a D4 variance it's an F variance and that D variance is what brings us before this board um likewise there is um a variance relief requested for Building height 48 ft is permitted within the E2 Zone 52.6 Ft is proposed for building a and approximately 5050 ft is proposed for Building B relief is sought for the setback of the building canopy from a residential zone so 95 ft is proposed and 100 ft is the uh requirement the number of parking spaces um 639 spaces are required and the applicant is proposing 328 there is a variance for the disturbance of steep slopes on the property So 20% is permitted and 41% is proposed relief from the retaining wall height limitation so 13 1/2 ft is proposed for the wall south of the Ring Road um 12.2 feet for the wall Northwest of the Ring Road and 11.5 ft for the wall south and west of building a the E2 Zone permits retaining walls up to 8 feet in height um the residential Zone setback to lot two 100 ft is required in 95 and a half ft is proposed the applicant is also proposing access to this property through a residentially zoned lot which is an existing condition is all discussed that being lot two um and there's a provision in the ordinance that requires uh private access to a non-residential use shall not be from a residental Zone lot and then um also there's no construction within any buffer area uh permitted and here portions of the retaining wall fence and Grading are proposed within 50 ft a 50ft wide buffer adjoining lot two um and there's several other design exceptions um that were noted in Mr SCH sl's report and those have have also been discussed and addressed by both the civil engineer and the traffic engineer so so that being the list of relief that we're requesting um I'll now discuss uh and provide a justification for the requested variances um and actually before I do that um in talking about the F variants I think it's important to just pull back for a moment um because from a planning Viewpoint this property is a really textbook example of a trend that is evident throughout the state probably really throughout the country which is this concept of stranded Assets in the form of office buildings built in Suburban contexts many decades ago which are struggling um at this point to attract new tenants new investment and have essentially been stranded you heard testimony from Mr travalini about the challenges they faced in marketing leasing up this property and this has really become a Statewide issue to the level which the legislature has actually amended the Redevelopment Statute in the state of New Jersey the local Redevelopment and Housing law to actually Empower municipalities to designate commercial properties like this that have had significant vacancies for two or more years as an area in need of Redevelopment and allow the municipality to intervene provide more powers to municipalities to effectuate the revitalization of these properties um so in this case the municipality has not taken that step it's certainly an example of of of that type of stranded asset so the applicant is advancing this application to the zoning board to convert this existing mostly vacant office building into a new use that's more in line with uh today's market demands um so for the F variants again D4 variants the boards Focus under the positive criteria is whether this site will accommodate any problems associated with the exceedence in floor area because again this is a permitted use so the board doesn't have to find that the property is particularly suited for this use it already is the governing body has determined that light manufacturing is a permitted and appropriate use on this property the question is are there problems that are created by the exceedence and f that are not somehow mitigated through the design or operations of the property um that pose a substantial detriment to the public good um so from a planning perspective the typical concerns for a board in evaluating an F variance would be visual impacts environmental impacts traffic impacts parking infrastructure capacity things of that nature because f is really control on the intensity of the use of the property so is there any evidence that the proposed deviation f is creating substantial impacts along those lines you've heard some significant testimony from all the prior Witnesses based on the record to date it's my opinion that none of these rise to the level of being substantial impacts in this application um and I'll just summarize my opinion along the following observations so this site is essentially isolated um the buildings themselves are not very visible even from Allen Road or any neighboring residential homes um that's due in part to dense vegetation that surrounds the property as well as the psng easement um which serve to mitigate potential visual impacts um here of the additional F also the Light manufacturing use is actually a much less intensive use of the property in terms of anticipated employees per square foot foot than a conforming office development so while the F exceeds what is permitted there will actually be fewer employees than a full office buildout occupancy of this site and that actually as you heard from Mr seckler translates to less overall traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway Network um in addition the F deviation does not result in any impacts to sensitive environmental areas on on the property there is a deminimize in impervious coverage on the site but this is being mitigated by new storm water management facilities that will be constructed as part of this proposal um and this is a full out modernization of storm water management on site per the the recently adopted green infrastructure regulations and part of that is actually going to be reducing the amount of vehicular impervious coverage on this site so where you have now in the current condition in office building surrounded by a sea of parking we're conving converting that to a much more aesthetically appealing development but also one that serves the interest of storm water management in a more responsible fashion um nonetheless we're still subject to to the new rules so that's a yet another benefit of this particular proposal I would also add that to the extent um the f R is being exceeded that is due in part to the proposal to cover a portion of the surface parking area under the office space so aside from the storm water management benefits as I mentioned I think there's aesthetic benefits to that as well because uh we're creating more of an enclosed covered parking area as opposed to a completely exposed surface parking condition similar to the existing facility um and that's consistent with current trends in the field of professional planning we're really trying to move away from that traditional Suburban pattern of development where you had buildings surrounded by parking lots um so again as I as I noted um in summarizing Mr seer's testimony the traffic generation for conforming 0.15 F office use would actually be greater than the proposed light manufacturing use at 21 um overall adequate parking is being provided and I'll discuss that a little bit more in the context of the parking variants and then finally based on the renderings the elevations you've seen this is a very attractive project from a a visual standpoint um particularly in the the industry of light manufacturing Flex industrial type buildings this this is a very high quality design in terms of the architecture um and it contains a high degree of glazing and transparency and facade articulation really around all four sides of the building so moving on to Building height in that particular variance the actual height from finished floor elevation to the flat roof is approximately 44 ft which is in fact conforming here the variance is really triggered by by the Topography of the site and the depressions and gray that are needed to accommodate the loading docks to the rear of both buildings now those facades are of course oriented towards i78 away from any surrounding properties won't be visible and also the building actually steps up in height from east to west both buildings so easterly portion of the building lower in height and then it steps up in height to the rear which further mitigates any potential impact of the height variance on the surrounding area um so the height variance is addressed through the changing grade vegetation on the site and also the significant setback from Allen Road such that these buildings won't be very visible from either the roadway or neighboring properties now the Township's General requirement for parking here for a light manufacturing use is 1 per 500 square ft which is Antiquated based on how these users have evolved in recent years I think you heard some of that from Mr travalini also from Mr seckler light manufacturing has become more automated and mechanized which has resulted in fewer employees per square foot certainly less than uh conventional office development and today a common rule of thumb for this type of use is approximately 1 per 1,000 square ft um and I think that's borne out in some of the it te data that Mr seckler shared with the board um and in addition some users in my experience will even go to one per 1500 square F feet so from a planning standpoint it's a better alternative for the board to build parking in the associated impervious coverage that's right sized for the market for the supply that tenants actually need as opposed to building to the ordinance which simply increases coverage on site um and results in a less aesthetically appealing overall development Mr Hughes can I just ask you a question because I I don't want to interrupt you but I sense that it's going to be a lot of testimony um the one per 1,000 square feet and you said or even some going to one to 1500 square feet it is that uh dependent on tenant and use in your opinion um or or is it just an average that people use yeah so I I noted it was a a rule of thumb and I think it also comes from the it data which as you heard from Mr seckler it is an average right so it is very much tenant specific and the next point I was going to make is that as speculative buildings tenants will evaluate this site based on their needs you will not have a tenant take a uh make a huge investment in this property if they know the parking situation is not going to work out so I think there's a self selecting Market aspect to this as well uh but that's supported by the data that we have from both it and experiencing the industry um and the way the property is situated there's really no potential for spill over parking or impacts to the surrounding area this is not a situation where we have adjacent roadways with on street parking where you might have concerns about spillover um so I don't think that's a possib in this situation um so for all those reasons I believe the proposed parking supply of 328 spaces is adequate and right sized for this uh particular light manufacturing development if I could just add ask a quick follow-up question Madam chair and I was just curious because I didn't I lost track of the square footage when you did the uh rule of thumb one per 1,000 square ft one per 1500 square ft can you equate that to the parking uh uh a supply that would would correlate to those numbers well for 1 per th000 it would be roughly 258 spaces whereas we're proposing 328 um so for the building canopy setback uh to the residential zone so this is the distance from the Northerly of the two buildings to the adjacent lot to the residentially zon lot um this is literally for the entrance canopy over the entrance to the building itself um this is oriented towards the PSG easement the distance is 952 ft um really a a minimum a minimal variance that we're asking here the actual distance to Residential Properties is more like, 1500 square ft um so there's really no potential detrimental impacts to the residential Zone and again it's just it's not the building itself it's just the canopy above the entrance um as for the retaining walls um first of all these are completely internal to the site they will not be visible from Allen Road or any neighboring properties um and limited portions of the retaining wall will actually exceed 8 ft um as you heard from Mr michelo from an engineering standpoint the retaining walls here are necessary to avoid impacts to utility easements um Also Serve to minimize disturbance to some of the existing trees and vegetation particularly along the southernly side of the property along i78 um the steep slope areas are minimal on the property they're also man-made and um in the existing condition believe uh 0.243 acres are considered steep slopes Which is less than 1% of the lot area and of those areas just 0.029 Acres will be disturbed so this is a very minimal area of the property that's being disturbed um this is necessary to accommodate the parking and circulation for the project including the Ring Road and what's important is from an impact standpoint there's no impacts to runoff or other slope areas um no potential erosion issues resulting from the impacts to these man-made steep slope areas and again the whole project itself will be subject to um a whole new storm water management system uh which will address any runoff concerns on site so just moving into the negative criteria the first aspect is for the board to find that there's no substantial detrimental impacts to the surrounding area I think I've addressed a lot of these concerns um in connection with the F variants already uh but just to summarize from a visual neighborhood character perspective because of the somewhat isolated nature of the site and its substantial separation from residential homes um and also due to the quality of the proposed architecture I don't believe there's any significant impact concerns relative to visual impacts um from a traffic standpoint based on Mr seo's testimony the traffic that would be generated by a conforming office development actually greater than what's proposed under the uh proposed development with the F deviation from a parking standpoint what's being proposed is consistent with industry data and sufficient for the site uh we're complying with all applicable environmental rules and regulations and there's really no significant disturbance to any new Environmental sensitive areas of the property we're basically redeveloping a previously developed site um the storm water management system that's proposed will help mitigate any concerns relative to runoff um and finally just to the extent there's any concern about impacts to the budgetary finances of the township this is a non-residential use which will actually go towards keeping this property part of the tax base revitalizing it and bringing it back to active use and then just finally the the last finding the board must make is that there's no substantial impairment to the Zone plan and again this is a permitted use the requested variance relief that we're seeking is appropriate given the characteristics of this particular property and the proposed light manufacturing use such that the board in my opinion can grant relief without undermining the Township's Planning and Zoning efforts and I would note in support of that statement that the applicant application would Advance several goals and objectives of the Township's master plan goal number seven is to limit development to densities and intensities that can be adequately served by existing and planned private Municipal Capital facilities and the natural and built infrastructure and not purchasing additional wastewater treatment capacity to permit collection line extensions and the testimony has demonstrated that the essentially the existing infrastructure on site is adequate to serve uh the proposed Development Goal number eight is to limit development to densities and intensities that will retain the remaining natural areas of the township and protect sensitive environmental areas this project is not going to impact um any previously undeveloped lands or any sensitive environmental areas it's completely compliant with all applicable Environ environmental regulations um a related non-residential objective of the master plan is that non-residential development should be planned for appropriate areas where it will be compatible with and not adversely impact residential development within the township and this being a permitted use within a non-residential Zone um I believe this applicant application is consistent with that objective as well so for all those reasons I think the board can find that granting the relief for the variances would not substantially impair either the zoning ordinance or the master plan of the township um finally just before summarizing I I do want to address um an issue that was raised during uh the course of the application which was the access that's being proposed through lot two which is an existing condition um and to our knowledge in researching the history on the site um there's no record of any variance relief being required for prior applications prior site plans for this overall site in connection with that driveway that traverses lot two and serves the uses on lot three um in adjoining properties um here we're going from one permitted use to another permitted use in my opinion this does not trigger a use variance um I suppose one could argue that to the extent and F variants is being requested there's some intensification of the use uh but again from a traffic standpoint the overall traffic generation is actually less than uh conforming office development um as for lot two the driveway itself constitutes approximately 1.2% of the area of that lot there's no other change in use of lot two proposed as part of this application um and while there are certain improvements proposed within the driveway um and within the adjoining right of way along Allen Road um it's essentially not changing the fundamental purpose of that driveway which is to provide access to lot three for another permitted use within the E2 Zone um likewise I think there was some question raised as to whether what's known as a planning variance is required because lot three or the overall property does not have Frontage on a public Street um however lot 3 does have Frontage on Allen Road um and its access is also coming through an existing easement across lot to uh to a public road I don't believe a planning variance is required for this application uh so with all that said um to summarize that so the positive criteria for the D4 variants this is under the the Coventry standard of review that's the the case that basically says the board's focus is not really on the use itself and whether it's appropriate or suitable for the property but whether the property can clearly accommodate any problems associated with exceeding the proposed f um that was established by the governing body in the ordinance and I believe the C bulk variances that are being requested meet the C2 test in in that each of the variances is integral to facilitating the overall Redevelopment of the site which will advance the general welfare and also Advanced purpose G of the municipal land use law um to accommodate a permitted light manufacturing use uh within the E2 Zone and bring this property back to active use and those public purposes those public benefits associated with the proposed Redevelopment of the site substantially outweigh any potential detriments and as I've demonstrated I believe the negative criteria have also been satisfied the board can find that there's no substantial detriments to the surrounding area in connection with the requested relief and um the applicant or the the variances can be granted without substantially impairing the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the master plan so with that Mr Lair unless there's anything further that would include my direct testimony thank you um thank you Mr Hughes I appreciate your your patience I appreciate the board's patience I appreciate Mr Hugh's patience and the Public's patience I really have nothing further I'm I'm requesting respectfully that any questions from the board uh any questions from opposition councel any questions from the public be held uh and there is a there is a a reason why I'm I'm doing that that that will U uh we've we've heard over the course of these hearings many things and so it is it is theoretically possible rather than putting Mr you know Hughes through a lot of cross-examination that maybe one or more of these variances before the next meeting may may actually be eliminated or decreased in in intensity so rather than put Mr Hughes through a lot of cross-examination we thought it best that we just stop here and then come back um and and we we do appreciate it and we always appreciate the fact that you you provide us with the the most time possible and try to give us the most as many meetings as you can but in this particular instance I I believe it would be productive and beneficial for both the board the applicant and the public if we just stopped right now okay do do you feel based upon um um what has been said up until this point that there is a material chance that you may be altering your requests from a variance standpoint yes you think there's a material chance yes for sorry back okay I I actually agree with you just in in the spirit of being productive and efficient if there's a material chance that based upon the variances that have been in front of the board could change somewhat um that I I agree that we should uh we should stop here by stopping here um we will uh still make sure that the uh other attorneys and the public have an opportunity to ask questions we will still leave that open um but I do think in the spirit of being efficient uh we should stop here because otherwise things are going to change and uh we're going to end up wasting everybody's time and Madam chair for the record then to to reiterate um as Mr Lair said earlier and Mr Kaplan confirmed on behalf of his clients uh Mr Simon and Mr Kaplan are reserving their right to cross examine Mr seckler at a later date if deemed necessary and everyone has uh the uh their rights reserved board members board professionals members of the public all three obors count councils uh to cross-examine Mr Hughes should they so decide to do so at this later date all which may be the next meeting perhaps which is a segue perhaps to the fact that we have an extension of time to act only until tomorrow and we're planning on at least one more evening uh so we have to address that uh Mr uh Madam chair we Grant an extension through um April 12th to the to make render a decision and we're well aware that if changes are made that we have to provide you know the board with uh information about that in advance and we're well aware of that okay that that would be helpful I think April 11th right is our next scheduled um meeting uh are members of the board uh currently available we think for April 11th if we if that's Mr Krauss and that's the SEC same second Thursday that we've been having our meetings as by Design sequentially that's our regular special meeting date sound sounds a little oxymoronic right regular special but Mr pavi we may not have you for April 11th M Herrera Mr Cambria April 11th April 11th thank you um and I I take it that no further notice is requ ired because we've provided sufficient notice but I believe we have one of the council here making his way to the podium so I how could you go a meeting without hearing from me uh in substance I don't oppose the application except I want to point out to the board that I arranged for a meeting of all Council and their representatives some time ago in order to try and see whether we could reach a Meeting of Minds and it was absolute waste of time uh Council have had discussions with excuse entirely because you know you'll get your chance to object Mr Mr B Mr Belin we have a chair and a board attorney who could with the board can make those determinations all go ahead uh now you can finish what you were saying I I think you were saying you were yeah we have also approached council with an attempt to see if we could reach any agreement well but before you go on I'm I'm concerned so I want to hear Mr Lair Madam chair well he might be pleased if he heard the rest of what I'm saying but but I don't want this if if the board is uh May well be rendering a determination in this matter and I don't know if what you getting towards is settlement negotiations the board should not in my opinion be privy to that so that's why I'm I'm not going to discuss the merits I don't I'm just going to suggest if Council really thinks that progress could be made in disposing of this uh let's again sit down with councel and see if we can work something out yeah that you can have that discussion I I asked him he if there was a material chance he said yes I believe him um and so we'll leave it there but thank you Mr Rin it's good to hear from you tonight I have nothing further okay thank you thank you um okay so we will close this portion of the meeting for tonight on the signature hearing the next meeting um for the board is going to be April 3rd that is not the meeting that we will hear signature that will be on April 11th correct April 11 730 p.m. the same location without further notice time to act has been given till April 12th and uh Mr Lair will send an email to confirm okay thanks and and Mr Hughes will be back and Mr seckler will be we be back um yes okay next on the agenda is comments from Members any comments from staff no ma'am okay motion to adjourn motion second all in favor I