e e e e e e e e e e e e e e hi good good good evening everyone um we're going to call to order tonight's meeting of the township of Bernard's uh Zoning Board of adjustment the first uh item on the agenda is the flag salute so please if you can stand flag United States indivis in accordance with the requirement of the open public meetings law notice of this meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulton board in the reception hall of the municipal building colier Lane in Basking Ridge New Jersey it was also mailed to the Bernardsville news in whiy New Jersey The Courier News Bridgewater New Jersey and it was also filed with the Township Clerk all on January 8th 2024 and it was also mailed electronically to all those people who had requested individual notice the following procedure has been adopted by the burnard township Zoning Board of adjustment there will be no new cases have heard after 10 o'clock tonight and there will be no new testimony heard after 10:30 p.m tonight um Miss kefir can you do a roll call for us certainly uh Miss Balman and Miss poar are accused 's see and Mr crafts had called in to advise he's unable to attend this evening chairwoman here Mr Cambria here Mr pavloski Mr tanky here Mr helverson here miss Herrera here Mr Fishinger here uh Mr seski here Mr Quinn here Mr SCH here and for the record Miss keeper is present U Madam chair you have a quarum you may proceed thank you Miss keeper um can we entertain a motion to excuse Mr Krauss who who did contact us in advance that he would be unable to attend tonight so move second thank you all in favor I opposed estain thank you thank you Miss kefir um so our public hearing tonight is continued uh from last month it's for Signature Acquisitions which is ZB 22028 welcome back Mr there thank you madam chair thank you you want if I sit no see some other familiar faces here tonight as well so good evening uh Madam chair members of the board members of your professional staff and members of the public my name is Jeff larer as you know I represent uh the applicant signature Acquisitions um before I begin um I thought that Mr pav would be here and I wanted to just wish him well in his move uh so if you have the opportunity can you just convey that signature appreciates all of his patience and and time that he put into this application thank you m sure pass I will not waste any time resumming the application but I will provide a brief recap of where we left off last hearing at the last hearing on March 14th um signature presented the expert planning testimony of Mr Hughes we then requested through the chair uh to conclude the presentation of our application that night we indicated that changes were imminent and that these changes would significantly impact and possibly eliminate some of the relief the variance relief that we sought therefore it was deemed prudent by the board and by my client to return in April to present the changes uh this approach would allow Mr Hughes to conclude his testimony based upon the variances that were either eliminated or reduced in intensity as a result of the changes which have been made signature submitted revised plans more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing copies of which have been provided to the board and to the board's professionals uh I'm pleased to report that signature followed through with its representation that changes were coming while we haven't been marking exhibits uh submitted 10 days in advance of the hearing for the record I'm I'm referring to the exhibits entitled preliminary and final major site plan site plan rendering consisting of one sheet prepared by Gladstone Design Inc and dated March 14 2024 and the exhibit entitled site plan consisting of five sheets a12 through a16 prepared by Paretti sjin Architects dated March 14 20124 Madam chair's signature has been listening uh intently over the last uh well we've had 10 actual hearings to the board uh as well as to members of the public and opposition Council I am uh I am also pleased to announce that signature has entered into a settlement agreement ment with an attorney with Rob Rob Simon attorney Rob Simon and his clients who are uh William and Carolyn Knox uh Jeffrey McBride Browns dorf Insurance Group Inc and jlj property Investments LLC it is for this reason that Mr Simon will not be present this evening uh his clients have waved their right to object or to come ment on this application in under the terms of the settlement agreement I want to be clear that while this settlement agreement has been executed between signature and Mr Simon's clients we recognize that the terms of the settlement agreement are not legally binding upon this board the parties to the settlement agreement wanted to resolve their differences in an amicable and reasonable Manner and it is signatures hope that the board and perhaps even the public will re view will view this settlement agreement as a signal of signatures good faith and recognize signature's sincere attempts to address many of the concerns raised throughout these hearings in a reasonable manner uh the revised plan exhibits I referenced earlier reflect the changes that were negotiated I'm sorry can you repeat the last couple of sentence that you said in I can remind everyone um in the public here to be respectful and not make comments while we're listening to testimony I I missed the last sure two sentences not not a problem the parties uh to the settlement agreement wanted to resolve their differences in an amicable and reasonable Manner and it is signature's hope that the board and perhaps even the public will view the settlement agreement as a signal of signatures good faith and recognize that signature has sincerely attempted to address many of the concerns raised throughout these hearings in a reasonable manner the revised plan exhibits I referenced earlier in my introduction reflect the changes that were negotiated and agreed to with uh in the settlement agreement many of which have limited the the actual marketability of the project but in the interest of moving the application across the finish line and in consideration of many of the concerns raised thus far signature agreed to make changes to its application and those changes will be identified by Mr mosello our site engineer in his testimony there is one other significant change that the Board needs to know and that the public will not see uh on the revised plan exhibits presented by Mr Mello but it is included in the settlement agreement signature believes the last change is critically important for the public to know for many months certain charges have been leveled by members of the public that signatures proposal for two light manufacturing buildings was an application in Disguise that the application was really for warehouse uses that were masquer in as light in uh manufacturing buildings well signature has repeatedly refuted these claims stating over and over again that the application was for light manufacturing uses which is a permitted use in the zone District so as part of the settlement agreement signature has agreed to deed restrict its own property following an unappealable approval signature will record a deed restriction that prohibits the property from having any principal Warehouse uses I repeat prohibit the property from having any principal Warehouse uses this deed restriction should put to rest any lingering concerns about what this application is really about for example signature cannot go back to the board in 10 years from now and ask for a use variance to convert the uses on the property from Principal light manufact facturing to principal warehouses nor can it come back if the town rezones the property to allow Warehouse use with that as a summary of the changes made to the application I would like to address certain procedural issues if we could Madam chair as mentioned Mr Mello will very briefly present the plan exhibit changes we will then have Mr seckler our traffic expert briefly uh explain impacts to truck traffic as a result of the plan revisions I would then like to recall Mr Hughes to finalize his planning testimony in light of signatures plan revisions although Mr Hughes has already gone through the planning proofs he will take this opportunity to briefly speak about how the plan revisions impact the variant reliefed being sought so to be clear signature intend to call three Witnesses all of which should provide very brief testimony Mr michelo Mr seckler and Mr Hughes I have three requests that I respectfully ask of the board and through the chair all of which are very reasonable and purely intended to move the application along with any without any further delay first I request that the questions and cross-examination from the public regarding Mr Melo and Mr seckler be deferred until all three Witnesses have concluded their testimony there is a reason why I'm asking this which I will get into right now this explain second this will explain my rationale I I ask that once questioning and cross-examination is open to the public all questions and cross-examination first be directed to Mr Hughes this request is made out of pure necessity it is not intended as a strategic Advantage for Signature there is a strong likelihood that Mr Hughes will be unable to attend future hearings on this matter since he has taken an in-house position with a private developer to ensure that the public and the objectors have the opportunity to question and cross-examine Mr Hughes it makes sense Madam chair that Mr Hughes be made available for questioning by the public and objectors first this evening lastly I ask Madam chair that the questioning and cross-examination of Mr mosello and Mr seckler be strictly limited to the new testimony that they present this evening that the opportunity to once again question and cross-examine Mr michello and Mr seckler not be exploited or used as a tactic to delay signatures application I appreciate the board's time and its patience in allowing me to make this somewhat involved introduction and without further Ado I'd like to present Mr michelo Madam Madam chair U if I could just point out real quickly for members of the public for your edification um just because of settlement has been reached between the applicant and a third party objector um that ultimately has no bearing on uh the board's analysis of the merits of this application um because there are obviously other objectors other members of the public that have to make case and make comments and uh additionally in the context of any application even where there are no objectors uh the applicant always Bears the burden of proving um an entitlement to the all items of the relief that they're requesting whether that be site plan variants design exceptions Etc so just so everybody understands that settlement has no bearing on whether or not the board is going to approve her [Applause] tonight wasn't looking for Applause Just point out the law but appreciate nonetheless so that's that's what Mr L S to interject wanted to and I just add on that just just so that you know that the board actually hasn't even seen that settlement agreement it's irrelevant um to us but it's important that we know it's there because it's it's the Genesis for why we're seeing a a different or a revised application and from a board perspective you know we listen to all the testimony based upon the application that's before us which is changed as of tonight um with respect to your requests I I think they make sense I have uh a question though how long do you think each of your Witnesses um will take because that I think is relevant with respect to the ordering and holding all the questions it's going to be you know somewhat you know somewhat fluid um and we can get through it and then I think it makes a lot of sense but if we think we're going to span multiple you know meetings or it's going to go you know hours then maybe it doesn't well I've told the uh the bosses for each of the witnesses that if they go more than 10 minutes each more than 10 minutes then they get fired okay so well I won't be that strict but if if if we're talking about you know relatively short periods of time then I think it does make sense for efficiency to do it all at once let's hear all the changes and all the aspects of that and then with respect to Mr Hughes I'm fine with that we've gone out of order before for both objectors and and other Witnesses that's fine I'm I'm fine doing it and uh him uh with Mr Hughes first great Mr Michelle you've already been sworn and you've been qualif qualified uh correct yes I have and you've already undergone cross examination have you not that is correct okay and uh your qualifications were accepted by this board that is correct and I'm not going to take the wind out of your sales I'm just going to let you go excellent thank you Jeff um do we want to put up the the uh board just so we have it up there so while Mr Sly is doing that just for the record this is um exhibit A4 are we up to there you go is exhibit A4 for the record correct we're up to A4 so for A4 for the record it's entitled site plan rendering um dated March 14th 20124 that we have up here on the board so just going to use this plan just to talk about the changes that we uh that Mr Lair referred to um this evening the first change that we um made of course was the reduction of the floor area of the two buildings um previously the buildings were in total 25852 ft of floor area and that was spread across both the light manufacturing and the office uses we've now reduced both buildings down in size by each approximately 7,100 sare ft to now a total floor area of the project to be 244,000 square foot reduction in floor area for the project that takes the F that was being requested from 21% down to 19.83% for the project still variance but it's C it's been reduced by over one by over 1% now the other change is that by reducing the buildings we reduced the primary light manufacturing portion of the building which is the larger which is the grated area on the building if you see the exhibit here there's these green strips now on both I'll say the western side of the building where we reduce the length of the building by about 34 Square 34 linear feet by doing so the total square footage of light manufacturing shown in the dark brown on the plan now is 14.99% under the F and Mr Michelle of 15% % is the maximum correct correct allotted for the zone so to repeat what the light manufacturing component of this application is at 14.99% that is correct okay then further along um we also reduced the number of loading Bays on the buildings on the originally submitted application there were 12 loading Bays on each building for a total of 24 on the site we've reduced both buildings down to eight loading Bays per building as you can see on the rendering here the um we now have um uh eight on one building and eight on the other and by doing so we actually reduce um the amount of impervious coverage that's on the site as well because the footprint of the building was reduced and the amount of loading area shown on the plan was also reduced so the the loading Bays go from a total of 24 down to 16 for 30 33% decrease in the number of loading Bays on site and because of that change in lock coverage it goes from 39.99 per that was on the originally submitted plans down down to 37.47860 leaving the property there was discussion about um Vehicles leaving the site and preventing trucks from making a right-hand turn to go across Lot 4 to Lots 1.06 and lot 1.10 so as part of the application we're proposing to restrict trucks making right turns onto the adjacent driveway that goes to the adjacent lots and they will have to exit the site at the main driveway on Allen Road with the restrictions that were put in place there by the previous testimony that it's that's via signage via signage at that T intersection inside the site that will restrict trucks now box trucks FedEx trucks small delivery trucks can certainly make that turn to go to the other to go to the other Lots U and then the other restriction um that we were disc that we are proposing is that we'll restrict the time that tractor trailers can leave the site um therefore there will be no outgoing tractor trailer traffic from the site between the hours of 900 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. again that doesn't include box trucks single unit trucks and vans But it includes tractor Trail trilers restricted from leaving the site from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. those are the modifications to the site plan itself we do have one modification to the to the building architecturals besides the footprint change that I talked about and I'm going to go to exhibit A5 which was the architectural set that was submitted and even though there were five sheets submitted here I'm really just going to go to sheet for the record um the last sheet in the set which was sheet a actually the last two sheets sheet a15 and sheet a16 and these are the building elevations that were that were revised we are proposing to eliminate the height variance request that we put on the record for height variances of I believe just over 50 feet and 52 feet for the previously proposed buildings and they were they will now comply with your height requirements of 48 ft per the zone so the basically what's happened is the architectural elevations were revised to just modify the height of the building the the the look The Colors everything else has remained the same just the building got slightly lower to come into compliance with the 48t height requirement that that's per your Zone and therefore that eliminates the the height variance Mr Michelle you're referring to the plans dated uh March 14th 2024 um I believe so yes that is correct the architectural plans yes consistent of five sheets so that concludes the uh aspect of my direct testimony thank you Mr michella uh Mr seckler Mr seckler you have already been sworn and qualified correct yes I have and you've already uh been cross-examined by this board and the public correct yes I have have you reviewed the changes to the plans that have been made yes particularly the reduction in the number of loading bays and the reduction in the F for the light manufacturing space space for both buildings to meet the 15% as allowed under the ordinance correct correct and it was your opinion during your prior testimony that you had no concerns from a traffic perspective with regard to this application correct correct do you have an opinion as a traffic expert as to the impact on tractor trailer traffic as a result of the changes to the site plan yes as was discussed in my earlier testimony the calculations that project car and truck trips are based on the square footage of the building as the square footage of the building has gone down incrementally the number of trips and truck trips will go down incrementally as well based on those formulas again that results in a reduction in in truck traffic from what was previously testified approximately 89 truck trips per day being reduced to about 83 or 84 truck trips per day um so we've seen an approximate reduction of 7% because that's the amount of square footage that's been reduced said 83 the the calculations 89 original but a truck that comes in also has to leave so I'm going to round that to 90 same thing the number is 83 when I recalculate it but it's probably 84 just because if a truck comes in it's got to come out and that percentage decrease just goes down with whatever the just the decreases in square footage correct if it went if the square footage noted by the P correct if it went down 10% then the trucks would have gone down 10% it's a linear it's a linear reduction yes thank you Mr sathler y uh Mr Hughes I'm keeping to my word Madam chair you are indeed um Mr Hughes you were previously sworn and you gave direct testimony did you not yes I did and um you did not have an opportunity to be cross-examined correct correct uh you've gone through the changes made to the plans have you not I have and do you have an opinion do you have an opinion with respect to uh the re removal or Andor uh reduction in the variances as it relates to your planning testimony well I think with the changes that have been made to the plans um the findings the conclusions of my testimony have really just been bolstered um I think first and foremost we've all together eliminated the requested height variance um I would say with respect to the f variance what's really important to note is that the reduction in the square footage is all in the proposed light manufacturing space and as you heard from Mr seckler the light manufacturing space is what generates the truck traffic the applicant is well aware that truck traffic has been a concern certainly of the community um and also focus of a lot of questioning and discussion from the board as well so with this change uh the truck traffic will be reduced and in terms of the the justification for the variance why that is particularly relevant is that the reduction in floor area ratio for the the light manufacturing component is now below 15% and 15% is the limitation that the governing body placed on light manufacturing and all the other permitted uses within this zone so to the extent that the governing body contemplated light Manu ufacturing it envisioned it up to an F of 15% which means that any truck traffic associated with that use was permitted and envisioned by the governing body um at that intensity of development so we're now sort of meeting uh I would say more fulfilling the purpose and intent of the F limitation on that particular use and that helps the Board on the negative criteria in demonstrating that there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance as well as the ma the the master plan as well um and then finally I would just highlight an additional benefit is the reduction in impervious coverage um which as you may recall while we were conforming in the prior it iteration of the plan there was a slight increase in impervious coverage uh from the existing condition now it's going to be reduced uh by more than 2% % but you're still going to get you being the the community as a whole is still going to get all of the benefits in terms of storm water management um so that's an important benefit under the positive criteria of the overall application um so with that said uh that would conclude my remarks on the proposed changes to the site plan thank you Mr Hughes Madam chair I am not certain how you want to conduct or allow cross-examination of Mr Hughes in what order but I leave it and I turn it over to you thank you um I have a question because we didn't hear anything about the deed restriction the way to think about the deed restriction is just like a voluntary stipulation if the board asked for it you would be willing to do it is that the right way we should be thinking that's correct and um you know it was heavily negotiated and um took a while because as you may expect it it it does affect marketability of the project um but it it it was a major concession on on my client's part and it is a um a deed restriction yes that Pro prohibits Le uh Warehouse use on the property for a a period of time and if you want to know that period of time I can certainly tell you period of time it's it's 25 years and and the 25 years runs from the date of non-appealable approval so I just want that to be clear okay so for the board that that is something that we may or may not ask for but it's kind of out there so thank you for bringing that to our attention Okay um so in terms of cross examination I I assume we have um still some objectors who want to do cross examination um so why don't we start with that so miss Philips okay sorry do you have questions do you want that you want to ask first I I did yeah okay go ahead is that okay yes okay I um I just had a couple questions and maybe you you mentioned it last time um so I'm looking at I just had a couple of questions and you may have answered it last time but I just want to be sure I understand before you leave on um I think in mr's memo page five and six there's like a planning variance that's being asked for in addition to the variances in in addition to the exceptions I believe that's a section 35 uh variant um but I I just want to understand what it is that you're asking for and why you think we should approve that I it's my I just don't understand it and I was hoping you can explain it to me um so actually I mean my testimony was that this variance is actually not required um it's required where a property does not have Frontage or access from a public Street uh this lot has Frontage on a public Street um its access happens to be coming from an adjoining lot via an easement uh but in my opinion that variance is not required so is that something we need to decide if it's required or not and then make a determination after that is it I think so based on advice of our professionals and uh legal counsel as well okay can can I make it just a brief argument yeah actually can I just interrupt you for a second I see Mr pavloski out um is he able to join if there's no objections at this time no I would love for to just tell him the best of luck and I have no issue no concern Mr pavloski would you like to join us okay thank you thank you of course if Mr pavloski was going to act on anything he would I don't think we're going to vote on anything tonight Mr Lair we would have him obviously watch the tape and can I just say again what I was going to say to him yes I I just would like to take a moment to acknowledge tonight that this is Mr Pavlov's last meeting um on this application and um as a member of the board I want to express my S sincere gratitude for his time and attention to this application and and signature wishes you the best of luck in your move and your future endeavors thank you thank you thank you Mr Mayor so I would just like to return to where we were a section 35 variance under the municipal land use law is is a variance that is required where there is no lot Frontage and where you have to get access through either another property or through an easement that is not the case here there is lot Frontage on this property and um uh it exists so the section 35 variants confused me and it confused Mr Hughes so um uh perhap perhaps Mr SCH can just you know uh clarify what he meant yeah looking at my comment number four which starts on the bottom of page five of my review memo um I was asking for the the need for the variants to be addressed the um here we have an interesting situation a unique situation where the the property has Frontage along the street but the uh and that same street gives access to the property but not through the Frontage that that property has it cuts through in this case the site is lot three lot three has Frontage on Allen Road however the driveway access to Allen Road doesn't go through the frontage of lot three it goes across lot two through that Frontage so that um I mean by the wording of the uh the statute uh the lot AB buts a street giving access to the building or structures it is a buding the same street that provides access to it it's just the the situation in this case it doesn't actually the access goes through another lot um so I'm not I'm not arguing against the um what's been expressed the applicant's opinion on it um just thought it was unique enough that it it needed to be addressed well it's our opinion then we don't need it so if you if you want to continue the questioning Mr Cambria will we'll certainly we're here to answer your question uh no that that answers the question I was asking and um Mr Sly on page two of your memo number seven is that the same issue or is that a a different issue that is a different issue so what that also I am not unclear of what it is that we're being asked to Grant and why you're asking us to to Grant it so for that particular provision and just for the benefit of the board and members of the public uh it's referencing section 21- 21.5 of the ordinance which is that private access to non-residential uses shall not be through a residentially Zone lot um so you will recall that the adjacent lot two is Zone residential it will continue to provide access to the subject property um it has for many years um and so that's ex essentially an existing non-conforming condition that will continue uh we're going from one permitted use to another permitted use uh so to the extent the board uh would like to technically grant that variance um we feel we've Justified it and that um it's essentially an existing condition that will continue and we're not exacerbating it in any way if I might Mr Hughes if I can just elaborate upon that you're aware that that easement uh on lot through lot two has existed for over 40 years correct yes and it didn't have a limitation on the type of use that went through there but it was all giving access to the properties that are currently owned by signature not just this site correct correct and um in fact all of those applications were granted by the planning board were they not that's my understanding right so the issue only came up as a result of a question raised by one of the objectors whether you know that access is um is a permitted access but it's been there for 40 years years and it and it's provided access to all of the buildings that are owned by signature and others correct correct so that that was our logic and I know it's been 10 hearings and this may have been in hearing I don't even know how we're counting maybe zero or negative one um so excuse me if I U conflate some things but is is this the the question of the magnitude of the change and it would be a D1 or a D2 variance is this that issue it's you are right on it's the question it's a D2 question whether the the S whether the by making this light manufacturing you're intensifying the the the access easement and that was really what I believe was the question that the that the the opposition was Raising and um I I'll let Mr Hughes answer the question okay yeah I mean I I I believe I've addressed it I mean this particular provision of the ordinance is more of a bulk requirement in my opinion there's sort of a separate discussion about whether a d variance is required to to also provide that access through lot two as that access becomes theoretically a principal use on that lot two property and I did it in the course of my direct testimony address why I believe uh the applicant satisfies the proofs for what I think is probably a D2 variant because there's no record of any use variant being granted in the past I think it's an existing non-conforming condition that's going to continue um you know theoretically to the extent it's being um expanded in some way um we believe that the use of the driveway will not be intensified because the overall traffic generation is actually going to be less than the existing building um and the driveway of course constitutes a very small percentage of lot to too I get the pre-existing condition if you can just walk me through the intensification and what it is that we should be considering when we're thinking about intensification is it intensification to the the um size of the the driveway intensification to the use of the driveway what is it that we're being asked to consider that it's the use is not being intensified so I think those are all relevant factors for the board to consider as you know the driveway is getting slightly larger as result of some required um improvements particularly um close to the the intersection with Allen Road um the traffic testimony was that the actual traffic generation as compared to a fully occupied existing office building will actually be less so I think in terms of traffic generation you know in my opinion um there's not a significant intensification of course one could also argue that there is more truck traffic being generated now um so I think conservatively we're requesting the D2 variant and we've put the proofs on the record to to support it um and I guess I I would defer to the board as to whether it feels uh that variance is necessary um and whether we meet the the requisite proofs and whether or not we feel it is intense or the Minimus uh whether we meet the requirements for the D2 variants um yes I think I had just one other question last time you said that each variance that you were seeking was integral to the application but at the same time it would promote the the general welfare um of the public of the community can you just reesh my recollection on why the F variants are seeking is integral to this project so it it's clearly part of the applicant's proposal to redevelop this property so in order to implement its Redevelopment project um the applicant believes that the F variance is necessary in order to accommodate the floor area um that's needed to support that effort um and I cited a number of benefits that would come from the overall project um including uh as mentioned earlier the reduction in lot coverage um the reactivation of a mostly vacant property that's poised to sort of Wither away on the vine unless there's some form of intervention either by the municipality or the private sector um and um a number of other benefits would include the significant enhancements to storm water management on the site um the architectural quality of the project um yeah I I understood um all the benefits that you were talking about it was the the part about it being integral to the project like why why this F variance was so important to these buildings that I was asking more on that because I don't remember I I got the benefits but why this variance is so important to this project as it is is is what I was asking more I believe when I used the the language integral to the overall project I think I was more referencing the the bulk variances that are tied to sort of the the proposed site layout so things like the retaining wall relief that we're seeking the building canopy based uh variants I mean these are all sort of in my opinion more minor issues but they're sort of integral to the overall site plan that's before the board okay so it wasn't specific about the it wasn't specific to the f variance okay and then lastly and this is lastly I you said a number of times that the traffic or the overall traffic would be um greater if this was an office building than uh light manufacturing and and so you talked about that a bit I don't think you spoke about the the truck traffic though in your in your testimony and there's been a number of um you know conversations about truck truck traffic and so when we look at the truck traffic and we're weighing um the the positive and the negative and there is an increase to the truck traffic um how is how are you asking the board to consider that I understand the overall traffic picture you're saying well if it was an office there'd be more but when it comes specific to the truck traffic I and if you did then I I missed it but I I would like to hear how you're asking or how you think the board should be considering that aspect of the impact traffic sure so um in terms of truck traffic obviously there's a difference between the existing office use and what's being proposed in terms of light manufacturing but light manufacturing is a permitted use in the zone and when the governing body developed this zoning it placed a control of 15% F on light manufacturing use presumably with the understanding that light manufacturing is a use that could generate some truck traffic and so now the application before the board with respect to the light Manufacturing component is within that 15% limitation so my opinion is that the truck traffic that is now being generated by the proposed development is within the realm of what the governing body contemplated when they placed an F control of 15% on light manufacturing and other permitted uses within the Zone thank you thank you m thank you Mr Cambria any other questions at this time for Mr Hughes to add on to Mr cry's question I think there's also an issue of the the impact of truck traffic on the intensification issue itself was that answer I believe so um I I would acknowledge that office compared to light manufacturing there's a difference in terms of truck traffic generation but my point is that the application that's now before the board is less than 15% in terms of the floor area ratio for the light manufacturing component and the light manufacturing component was what generates the truck traffic so in my opinion from a truck traffic standpoint what's being proposed is essentially conforming to the ordinance in terms of what was contemplated what was anticipated ated for truck traffic generation within this particular Zone thank you so my understanding is you reduce the amount of light manufacturing space in the building correct correct but it doesn't seem like the overall size of the buildings was reduced that much so if you are planning to use the spaces for light manufacturing why do they have to stay so large if that's the concentrated use in the building I I I know that there was a lot of testimony from the applicant about why they believe from a a market perspective the the office SL light manufacturing use is appealing and um appropriate from from a market standpoint um you're correct in pointing out that the buildings have been reduced and that reduction is all in the light manufacturing space so the the office space remains as is but really the intent of reducing the light manufacturing space was to address the concerns about truck traffic essentially because the office is not going to generate truck traffic the testimony is that that's really being generated by the Light manufacturing component so we think we're addressing that concern mitigating that concern by this reduction I understand that portion of it but we there was a lot of discussion about possibly reducing the size of the buildings so if you're going to have tenants that are going into a smaller light manufacturing space do you still think they would need that much office space because you're likely to either have smaller tenants or fewer tenants correct I believe based on a light manufacturing space available yes so yeah the office space has not changed so from a marketing perspective you know these buildings will be marketed as sort of the hybrid light manufacturing office use in with a significant office component so the buildings have been reduced um but I think the applicant believes that they'll be able to to Market and and Lease up these buildings as designed may I ask one question um Mr Hughes under the Coventry Square standard the question really is can the site accommodate the the the increase in the F irrespective of the the the 15% overall is this whether the site can accommodate and you you testify that it can and it's really the massing of the building and and based upon its location and its and its uh distance to from from uh the the entrance would you would you agree to to Alan Road would you agree that the the um the the standard the Coventry Square standard is has been met absolutely um and that was my initial presentation it's only been bolstered I think by these changes to the site plan um but it's worth reiterating that all of the other sort of key bulk parameters that are placed on this property by this particular zone are essentially conforming you know so if we were exceeding on impervious coverage um for example or if we had significant setback variances for the buildings those might be indicators that there's some over inif of the development that's proposed but um essentially were working within the previously Disturbed portion of the property were conforming with now Building height coverage setbacks but for the the minor building canopy variants um and so I think that's why I've been directly addressing truck traffic because as I see it that was really the only one concern related to the F variants in connection particularly with the light manufacturing use and now that that's now conforming within the 15% limitation um I believe that we can clearly satisfy the the Coventry standard of review thank you sir I'm sorry it's not time for public questioning We're Not Gonna Take questions we we will give you an opportunity hopefully tonight to ask questions um of all three uh witnesses that we heard uh tonight but you have to hold it if you can thank you um any other questions from the board at this time yeah I do have follow up on that one so the Coventry you're saying says can the site accommodate it and if the answer to that it is yes don't we the board still have to look at what the impact to to the community um it has whether or not the site can accommodate it meaning just because the site can accommodate it doesn't are you saying covantry says that we have to approve it whether it's 1921 even if it could have if the site could accommodate 23% um are you saying that Coventry says that we then need to approve it and we are not supposed to look at the impact Visa V uh truck traffic or or other things that it could cause I I think what Mr Camry is trying to ask is is is the board to consider whether or not the um whe regardless of whether or not um it satisfies uh Coventry s I'm sorry the Coventry Square standard and that the site can accommodate the the proposed changes um I guess I think what you're asking is whether or not um The Board needs to consider whether or not it poses a substantial detriment to the to the public good absolutely the Board needs to still address the negative criteria and there's two prongs to that one is whether there's any substantial detriment to the public good and we provided a lot of testimony about the potential impacts of this project and why we believe there's no evidence in the record that there's any significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area and then the second part of it is the question of whether there's any by granting these variances would there be any substantial impairment to the township zoning ordinance and master plan um and that was an aspect that I touched on in my testimony this evening in terms of the the reduction in the light manufacturing and why that's relevant um in connection with the F variants um because I think it it goes right to the governing body's intent um in terms of placing controls on light manufacturing use which is a use that can generate truck traffic in the E2 Zone thanks and thank you for the assess councel my pleasure anything else from the board um there's been a they suggested reducing the hours of truck traffic and in your opinion can you just give us a little summary on that how that will impact the site since the hours are being uh restricted I from 9:00 a.m. to yeah I'm not sure Mr Hughes would be the right person it's it's in the settlement agreement it doesn't B it doesn't bind the board but we have agreed uh with Mr Simon's clients in the settlement agreement to restrict truck traffic tractor trailer traffic from exiting the site from um 9 a.m. to 6 a 6 a.m 9:00 pm. to 6: a.m. will that be a stipulation well that that I think what he's saying he's proactively telling us that if that was important to the board that they would be willing to corate to that correct so the board can ask them for that not ask them for that ask them foring they are they are so we can need it not need it or whatever but I guess that that's separate in a settlement agreement but separate from what we may or may not ask for but it's he's throwing it out there irrespective of what you decide we've already agreed with Mr Simon's clients to that and that's not in the deed restriction just the principal purpose concept is in the de the deed restriction is purely about the warehouse use settlement agreement addresses a number of other concerns and and just for the board's purpose we did not see that settlement agreement we thought it was in the best interest of the board not to see that settlement agreement because you know we don't want to be unduly influenced by it so we could ask for those things we appreciate you bringing them to our attention but we could ask for that or something else or Nothing questions from the board okay so if we have um objectors attorneys who who would like to cross-examine starting with Mr Hughes I guess we're going to do ladies first up to you are you comfortable I'll stay here that's fine evening everyone thank you can everyone hear me okay back there okay great so just for the record again I am Jennifer Philip Smith and I do represent uh Fellowship Village Inc which just for Mr Hughes uh clarification is the owner of property along Allen Road and the operator of a CCRC community so Mr Hughes we're going to start with a few questions largely related to whether certain variances have changed or not changed and before we do that I have a question about the overall use you testified earlier that the use is a light manufacturing use is that correct the proposed use correct and according to the definition in the Township's code does a light manufacturing use allow for the processing of raw materials raw materials no the definition reads shall mean an 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 okay so I'd like to go through some of the variances now so previously the applicant was requesting a variance related to the number of parking spaces and I believe you're at the place now where you're still required to have 610 but are only providing 328 when you count for Ev credits is that correct that's correct so the applicant still requires a variance for the differential between 610 spaces and 328 spaces is that correct that's correct the residential Zone setback you were requesting a variance due to the a portion of the building being too close to the residential Zone it's required to be 100 feet are you still requesting that variance yes and what is the dimension of the variance you requested 95 is there any reason why when you were revising the buildings and changing them that you did not eliminate that variance by designing the building to be full 100 feet from the residential zone no we think the canopy over the entrance is a nice feature of the building and since the variance is limited to that feature of the building um there's really no need to make that adjustment could the could the canopy be moved to the rear of the building that's now been made smaller I don't know on the height you were requesting two variances before one a c variance and one a d variance you want for each of the buildings I believe or was it C variances for both C variances for both now you've eliminated those variances what is the height of the building of each building now they will be less than 48 ft do you know what the exact height will be no do you know if there's any structure me that are going to be above the roof line that extend above the 48 ft uh to the extent there are they will be conforming with the ordinance requirements with respect to Rooftop apperances but will they be there um I I don't know does the applicant still require a variance for the maximum disturbance of slopes that are between 20 and 25% yes and where on the site is that variance required um I Mr michelo gave detailed testimony um with the support of an exhibit to to show the board and the community where the steep slope areas are I don't have that at my fingertips when you reduced the size of the of the buildings did any of the areas of disturbance of the steep slopes change no has the location of the Ring Road changed based on what was testified to by Mr Melo and now no I believe that the the applicant requires a variance for the disturbance of slopes greater than 25% where that is not permitted at all uh do you agree yes based on the changes that have been made to the plans it does that variance still exist yes and do you know on the site where those slopes greater than 25% are being uh changed yeah those were previously presented to the board remain unchanged the applicant requires a variance for the maximum height of a retaining wall being above 8 ft in at least three locations is that variance still being requested by the applicant yes and have the locations of the those variances where it exceeds 8 feet changed at all based on the new plans no the applicant requires a variance for private access to a non-residential use through residential lot is that variant still requested yes the applicant requires a variance for no construction within a buffer area previously there was testimony that a variance is required to allow the retaining walls fences and Grading to occur within the buffer area is the applicant still requesting that variance yes previously the applicant requested a variance for removal of existing trees and vegetation within a 50 foot buffer is the applicant still requesting that variance yes is there any reason why when the building sizes were reduced that the applicant did not decide to reduce any of those other bulk variances that are being requested is there any reason why those were not eliminated because uh they were not part of the changes to the two buildings and as testified um in my direct testimony we can clearly meet the criteria for each of those bulk variances the applicant requires a design exception for minimum size of parking spaces in a garage being 9 by8 rather than 10 x 20 are you still requesting that relief yes the applicant requires a design exception for the height of the parking area poles being at 16 ft where they're permitted to only be at 12 is the applicant still requesting that relief yes the applicant requires relief for the maximum spacing of light poles to be uh 80 ft whereas you're proposing greater than 80 ft are you still requesting that relief yes the applicant requires relief for the maximum average illumination which is required to be 0.9 foot candles and and previously in the plans it exceeded that in at least three locations is the applicant still requesting that relief based on the revised plans yes the applicant was removing 4177 trees under the prior plans is the applicant still removing those 417 trees yes and is the applicant still requesting relief under the the ordinance uh tree replacement requirements to allow for the removal of those 4117 trees yes the applicant was requesting relief previously for fire lanes that are required to be 25 ft wide and at least 20 ft from a structure was identify that the plan was not compliant has the plan been revised to become compliant not to my knowledge is the applicant still requesting that design exception then yes you mentioned in your testimony that state law had been changed that would allow for municipalities to designate areas in need of Redevelopment where offices had been vacant for a period of time has this municipality chosen to designate this site as an area in need of Redevelopment not to my knowledge let's turn to the driveway going through lot two you mentioned before that you did not see any prior relief that had been granted for that driveway is that correct correct how did that driveway come to be there um I don't know the particulars uh based on Council statement earlier there was an easement granted many many years ago several decades ago which provided access to lot uh lot 3 through lot one answer it's actually I'm sorry it was not a legal question I'm asking about the prior approvals in zoning and so my next question to follow up on that is if a private party grants an easement does that automatically mean the use is permitted under a Township zoning no it would have to be subject to any required approvals in terms of back to the question have you read have you read the easement document I mean before you ask a question like that have you read the easement document Mr Hughes already testified to the easement in his prior testimony including testimony this evening question about the language of the e have you read the document have I read the document yes yes I have okay so why are you asking a question about it when you already know the answer my question to Mr Hughes was whether an easement generally if granted by a private party would make it such that a municipality would not have zoning control would a private party if they just grant an easement automatically make something a permitted use no that would still be subject to any applicable Municipal zoning and other regulations so do you have any evidence of when the municipality approved this particular driveway uh we did not find any um prior approvals noting any D variance relief for that for that driveway you noted that you believe it's a pre-existing non-conforming use is that correct correct in order for something to be a pre-existing non-conforming use do you have to first establish that it was at one point permitted um that it pre-existed a zoning change that made it not permitted and that it was permitted at the time that it pre-existed a zone change that made it not permitted correct um I'm not sure about that do you have any evidence that this driveway was ever permitted to service light manufacturing uh I did not see any prior approvals that expressly permitted the driveway um in the form of use variance or other relief on lot too M chair been through this at the beginning of hearings I'm not sure where this is going but there was a resolution where the board expressly required required the easement as part of the approval so for her to ask this question of a planner is somewhat unusual for me to hear when I had talked about all of the resolutions where the planning board had approved the application and the planning board had actually required the easement yes and my questions are twofold the first at the outset of this hearing we objected uh based on the fact that we believe that the driveway requires a D1 variance and at the time the board indicated that it would make a determination as to what relief was required after testimony at the end of this proceeding now granted that was many months ago but we are still here to move forward with our objection that we believe a D1 use variance is required now along those lines the reason I'm asking these questions is because if there's been an assertion that there was a prior approval that specifically allowed for this driveway to be light Industrial that should be on the record but but to date the easements that have been to date what has been provided or resolutions that do not specifically identify this driveway as being allowed for light manufacturing now Mr Lair can assert that there's been prior approvals one more time please I I don't understand where she is going the question is ultimately to the board whether you believe that a d variance is required I have stated time and at the beginning of these hearings before we we had a doover so to speak that there was a resolution that that actually required that there would be an easement over lot two for access to the the building that was going to be placed on lot three yes and along those lines the reason I'm asking these questions is because there's been an assertion and a stipulation tonight that a D2 variance is required for that driveway as a pre-existing non-conforming use if there is a resolution that specifically identifies light manufacturing as the permitted use that would be relevant the resolutions that have been produced to date do talk about the driveway but not as a driveway that's servicing a light manufacturing use so my question to Mr Hughes was whether he had seen any other approvals that identified the driveways being previously permitted as a light manufacturing use or servicing a light manufacturing use I believe he indicated that it was no and so we can move on if that's okay with with the board I'm okay to move on thank you Mr Hughes just other questions about the driveway unrelated to the prior approvals uh under the code would this driveway be considered an accessory use particularly the I'm sorry particularly the portion that's on lot two the portion on lot two I mean this is a this is a very technical zoning consideration which is if you look at this driveway in isolation on lot two technically theoretically it becomes a principal use um which is why the the D variance is being requested um it's clearly functioning as accessory to the project which is located on lot three and I think that's the way the board should view this driveway uh but from a very technical perspective if you're narrowly looking at only lot two um it would be deemed a a principal use and is a light industrial use permitted in the R2 zone no and lot two is within the R2 Zone correct correct is the driveway remaining completely unchanged from its prior condition or current condition no is the driveway physically getting larger on lot two than its current condition if this application were to be approved um there are some modifications particularly closer to Allen Road um to accommodate certain changes um requested by the county so would the square footage of the driveway be increasing uh I believe so are there modifications to the driveway on lot two specifically designed to prevent tractor trailers from making a left-hand turn yes why was the driveway not designed designed to have such restrictions when it was serving in office use I don't know does an office use have the same level of tractor trailers as a light industrial use no in your opinion has the driveway on Lot 2 been redesigned in this application specifically to accommodate the anticipated increase in tractor trailer traffic generated by a light manufacturing use uh my understanding of the changes is well some of them are partly due to changes to Allen Road that the county has undertaken um since the original construction of the driveway um I would defer to the engineers with respect to whether other changes are directly related to the anticipated truck traffic generated by this use I'll Reserve that question for Mr Seer then turning to parking I believe you testified that the Bernard zoning code requirement for the number of spaces required for light manufacturing was Antiquated is that correct yes and why did you come to that conclusion well because um for one thing the it data which is pretty recent with respect to light manufacturing and assembly tenants um recommends roughly one space per thousand square fet um some of that is due to just the ways in which manufacturing has become more automated and mechanized over the years so there's just uh lower employee generation than light manufacturing uses dating back decades ago do all businesses that are in light manufacturing have the same level of technical ability Define technical ability oh I think you said Technical Resources or technical ability what language did you just use to describe more aut at and mechanized so are are all light manufacturing uses at the same level of Automation and mechanization no of course not are there some that might be more mechanized than others certainly do you know whether the tenants for these buildings will be more or less mechanized than the average for light manufacturing well the tenants that select this property will select this property because it works for their needs and that includes the parking Supply will there be multiple tenants in these buildings possibly will they all know what each other's needs are when it comes to parking when making a decision whether to move here well that's just a that's a function of the marketing and leasing of these properties and ultimately Property Management as well so will each tenant be aware of the level of mechanization or automation of other tenants on the property well I think there will be an understanding of the available parking Supply when a tenant selects this building and how would they know that just by doing their due diligence and understanding who the existing tenants are perhaps doing their own parking studies of demand and Supply on site the only way to know whether each tenant is going to have enough parking is if they each do their own parking study is that correct no that's not what I said okay have you personally studied parking usage for constructed light manufacturing buildings to personally studied have have you gone out and done parking counts for various buildings L manufacturing no but I have worked on other similar projects and when you work on those projects are you relying on the traffic of the sorry the testimony of the traffic engineer yes okay and in this case uh what did the traffic engineer what stand standard did the traffic engineer use under it to base his testimony and report on I don't recall the specific category but it was generally light manufacturing if I told you that they use that Mr sear used manufacturing would that jog your memory I don't recall specifically what category he used so Mr seckler did use manufacturing and if I told you that in it that manufacturing is designed as a an area where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished products are you aware of that definition no okay did you base your testimony on whether there was an impact on the surrounding Properties or this property based on traffic based on Mr seer's report yes is the conver verion of raw materials permitted in the E2 Zone when associated with light manufacturing Define conversion of raw materials the it standard is conversion of raw materials can you do in late manufacturing are you in this town are you allowed to do the processing of raw materials no when you testify earlier that traffic was improving under the current application over what had previously been on the site in office what did you mean I meant that the overall traffic Generation by the proposed use is less than the existing use and is that testimony limited to the peak hours um I don't know I mean that's the ultimate conclusion of the traffic engineer there's details and nuances with respect to you know various hours during the day but overall in terms of peak hour traffic generation it's less than the existing use that's my understanding if Mr seckler did not study or come to conclusion about traffic generation outside of the peak hours then is your testimony based on anything outside of the peak hours I relied on his traffic testimony and his study which I believe was reviewed by the board's Traffic Engineers as well and I see no reason to question the the findings of his analysis but you are not making an independent traffic analysis that goes beyond his report is that correct correct are there impacts caused by tractor trailers that are not caused by passenger vehicles I think the the testimony from Mr seckler was that yeah there's trucks have different operational characteristics than Automotive Vehicles is it possible that trucks have a greater noise level than passenger vehicles generally that's possible is it possible that trucks have cause greater air pollution than passenger vehicles it's possible but there are regulations in place to address those issues is it possible that trucks can cause different traffic congestion than passenger vehicles I would defer to the traffic expert when you came to your conclusions about the impact of traffic and how they relate to the variance criteria here did you study the truck routes that trucks tractor trailers would take as they left this property I deferred to the Traffic Engineers detailed study on that issue so you did not independently study whether the truck routes would go by downtown centers or residential areas no that's not within the realm of my expertise and you not independently study whether the truck routes would go past school zones or increased pedestrian areas or daycare centers or places of worship or sensitive communities meaning communities that are sensitive to unhealthy levels of air noise or environmental stressors no we had a trained and licensed expert that did that analysis I believe he testified that one of the reasons why this application a did not um impair The Zone plan had to do with certain criteria in the master plan right there are two portions of the master plan that you highlighted as reasons why the variance should be granted do you recall what those two purposes of the master plan were um I think I referenced a couple of goals and objectives of the master plan yes was one of those a goal or objection objective that the application would not have an impact on environmentally sensitive areas yes are there any environmentally sensitive areas on the property yes and what are those environmentally sensitive areas well there's some existing Wetlands areas there's some I think the answer was there are some existing Wetlands uh does the applicant require a permit from the njd in order to undertake this project for disturbance of Wetlands I don't think that's an appropriate question for then I'll re askk it to the engineer okay thank you are there is there any development that you know of that's occurring within the wetlands the project will be fully conforming with d regulations with respect to Wetland that's okay okay just if you can speak right into the microphone certainly we could say it once and the project will be fully conformed ING with all applicable D rules and regulations any additional details you'd have to ask the civil engineer when he determines that this project would not have an impact on environmentally sensitive areas did you take into account whether or not there would be disturbance in Wetlands yes okay and is there disturbance in Wetlands to the extent there's any disturbance it's in conformance with all applicable rules and regulations would you consider steep slopes to be environmentally sensitive areas not in this property or anywhere are steep slopes considered environmentally sensitive anywhere certainly steep slopes are can be environmentally sensitive think the testimony from both the civil engineer myself is that the the steep slope areas being impacted here are man-made and not your typical natural steep slopes so youve concluded that the steep slopes on this property are not environmentally sensitive correct does the zoning ordinance differentiate between man-made steep slopes and other steep slopes I don't think so but that's why there's a provision in the municipal land use law that lets the Board review and interpret such a condition to make a reasonable determination as to whether such features are natural and important to preserve so is it that the steep slopes are not environmentally sensitive or that you believe the disturbance of the steep slopes here is Justified both you testified that part of the reason why these variances should be granted had to do with the Aesthetics of the building is that correct uh that was one factor that I referenced yes do you know what the changes to the submitted elevations are uh just a very small reduction and Building height to make the buildings conforming were there any other changes to the submitted elevations nothing that I'm aware of do you know for sure uh the intent is to simply not change the architectural design of the building so that the elevations will remain as previously presented to the board and as the board saw again tonight um and the only change will be a reduction in the absolute feet of the height of both buildings I believe you testified earlier that you weren't sure what the Mechanicals on the top of the roof would look like is that correct what they would look like or what they would cons consist of well I don't I don't know that that design has been fully fleshed out at this point uh but as I testified earlier any Mechanicals on the roof of these buildings would be conforming to the Township's regulations with respect to to Rooftop mechanical coverage height Etc are the rooftop Mechanicals as proposed currently the same as those were proposed to and testified to by the architect I believe so do you know for sure I do not storm water believe you testified that part of the rationale for granting the variance here is that the site would be upgraded to conform with all current storm water requirements is that correct that's correct if the applicant decided to propose fully conforming buildings buildings that conformed with the F would they still be required to upgrade their storm water system to meet current D regulations I don't know that's a question for the civil engineer okay I'll save that then when it comes to F youve testified that the light manufacturing component of the f is now under 15% is that correct correct are the overall buildings under 15% no in the zoning ordinance are there different F standards for the portion of the building that that's dedicated to late manufacturing and the portion that's dedicated to the office component no so overall do the buildings still require an F variance yes when you indicated that you thought the light manufacturing had been designed to conform you were allocating all the excess F to the the office space is that correct correct is there anything in the ordinance that directs you to assume that the EXs f is the or is the office component and not the light manufacturing component no my point was simply that to the extent truck traffic has been a focus of concern and that truck traffic is generated by the Light manufacturing use the light manufacturing use now being at a conforming 15% f um addresses that particular issue why wasn't the office space eliminated I don't know do you think the applicant would be willing to eliminate the office space to have a ful and conforming F no and why not you'd have to ask the applicant but this is the proposal that's before the board and I know that the applicant has previously discussed why both the office and light manufacturing space is desired so this is not a situation where you'd eliminate the office and build a fully conforming 15% F light manufacturing well that's not the application before the board have you ever seen a light manufacturing building constructed that did not have an office component um I don't know usually there's some Administrative Office component do you believe that the township committee when they decided to have a 15% limitation on F presumed that at least some portion of that would be dedicated to office it's possible uh but that typically is is quite limited did you I think I've hit everything in my notes have questions no no go ahead go ahead Mr L we're gonna three questions yes um Mr Hughes uh M Miss Smith talked about the um the standard about the design exceptions that are still being required and you're are you aware of section 51 of the municipal landuse law yes and and that that provision reads that the board has the right to Grant design exceptions if the literal enforcement of one or more of the provisions of the ordinance is impracticable or will exact undo hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question correct correct and do you believe that that that the designed waivers that are being sought meet that criteria I do particularly based on the testimony that the board previously heard from Mr Melo and um I think he's demonstrated that all of the requested design rivers are reasonable and appropriate Mr um Mr Hughes would you be um would you be surprised if I told you that the resolution that granted the original approval that Prov Ed for Access had light light manufacturing was a permitted use at that time I would not be surprised okay and um in terms of the steep slopes the encroachment into the steep slopes you're aware that it's it's it's less than 1% of the overall site correct correct and are you also aware that it's because of some minor grading uh of the Ring Road and has nothing to do with the buildings that's correct I have nothing further do you know why the Ring Road is being proposed for the location it's being proposed in I think that's a question for the civil engineer so when you indicated just now that the variances for Steep SL had nothing to do with the buildings what was that based on it was based on the fact that the the areas that are impacted by The Ring Road um the steep slope areas are impacted by by The Ring Road as opposed to the buildings and do you know if the Ring Road was proposed for the location it's being proposed in so that it could accommodate the location of the buildings I'm sure that was part of the consideration thank you uh one last question in the resolution that approved this complex as an office use at that time was there any light manufacturing that was approved in that resolution to be part of this complex not to my knowledge so at the time time the driveway was proposed was there any concurrent approval that specifically allowed for light manufacturing anywhere on lot two or three or four I don't recall the the details of that resolution so I can't answer that and other than that specific resolution that I believe Mr Lair was referencing are there any other resolutions that you were aware of that pertain to allowing the use of this driveway for any particular purpose um not as I stand here this evening not off the top of my head thank you thank you redirect Mr no okay thank you do we have additional go ahead I apologize I just going to say my understanding is I'll be given an opportunity to cross-examine Mr michelo and Mr sea later so I'm leaving now on that assumption that is correct thank you that is correct we're going to try and get through Mr Hughes because we don't know if we'll have him again and I think we have more across from Mr Berlin is that correct we do inde okay on up Madam chair I just want to say one thing before mrin proceeds I received an email this morning from Mr berin saying he anticipates that he will be more than two meetings for for the cross examination of the plan I I would hope that the board would impose some reasonable limitation I didn't say to it would take me two meetings I said the odds are I might not finish at this meeting okay well um let's see what we do yeah let's see let's see how we go it is um a little after 9 uh right now I think Miss Philip Smith took about an hour hopefully you can do um your cross examination thoroughly in that time frame as always I'd like to give an opportunity for the public who is here um to also ask questions of Mr Hughes so I'd like to get that in before 10:30 if we can so let's see how we go let's see what we can do all right um first of all congratulations on your move thank you uh what state are you moving to irrelevant okay it's completely irrelevant let's just be mindful I'll just you know use your time wisely I I want you to get through all your questions let me um let me give you a hypothetical all right a developer owns a 28 acre lot in Basking Ridge and desires to construct a light manufacturing facility on the lot the light Manufacturing is a permitted use according to the town zoning code the 28 acre lot is abutted on the south by interstate 78 on the east by three Office Buildings two of which are owned by the developer on the North by Allen Road and on the west by several large residential lots the one that abuts the sub object lot is undeveloped across Allen Road north of the property are residential lots assume that the developer wishes to construct a light manufacturing facility on the property that is 125,000 uh Square fet which is also its footprint which is also it's footprint previously the property was occupied by an office building that had a footprint of 58,183 and excuse me 75% light manufacturing and 25% office space the code would require approximately 305 parking spaces the applicant amended its proposal and sets forth a requirement of 610 spaces for the if there are two buildings on the premises a building floor plan entrance submitted by the applicant indicates approximately 80 parking spaces within the building area thus 225 spaces would meet the required outside uh of the building in Prior application in a prior application applicants set forth proposed 328 parking spaces uh for the two buildings since only one building now uh of 125,000 Square ft the required 305 parking spaces could be accom accommodated on the building right because we're eliminating one building of approximately 130 squarep hypothetical yeah is just one question or is this just G to go on for Pages it's going to go on for as long as it takes me to finish without your Interruption just be mindful of the time because I I will carve out time for the public to ask questions I understand I understand I don't want to have to cut I understand all of that okay just trying to help you but my my clients are entitled absolutely I just want you to be mindful of the time and we will allow for a reasonable amount of time but not an interruptions by Mr Lair don't help since the floor space in the proposed building will be 125,000 uh on the 28 acre lot property the F requiring will be met correct on the on my hypothetical the applicant indicates the proposal reduces the height of the building to comply with the code the $125,000 uh $125 5,000 a building uh can be located so that the proposed canopy is within the Zone setback the one building can be located so that a retaining wall fence and Grading uh shall be within the 50 Foot buffer zone uh adjourning the uh from the adjourning building lot in light of that aund 30,000 square building uh has been uh suggested by the applicant uh is being eliminated the number of trees to be eliminated 173 can be substantially reduced and the parking areas can be enhanced as present with trees and foliage between rows of parking to avoid a blacktop look the amount of the disturb of slopes can be minimized still the issue of height and retaining walls access to the uh thorough the residential Zone neighborhood of uh light poles the spacing of U lights maximum average of Illumination of Lights uh in vehicle areas and parking areas under a building uh will require variances but there is no significant opposition to those requests are you of the opinion that a light manufacturing building of 125,000 uh square feet can be built on the 28 acre lot as described that conforms to the code except as I have just set forth um I'm I provided test testimony about the application that's before the board and I'm prepared to answer any questions about the application before the board the hypothetical that you just laid out I had trouble following for one but even if I could follow it I'm not here to answer questions about a hypothetical that I haven't had an opportunity to review and analyze so I'm again here to answer questions about the application that's before the board as a not what you're here to do but as a planner you can't answer that question is that your answer that's correct all right thank you now there's an issue in this matter of trucks especially uh tractor trailers going through residential streets the testimony of the vice president uh of development that tractor trailers will uh deliver products to light a light manufacturing building once or twice a week and requires two or three hours to unload all right did you hear that one um I don't recall the the specifics of his testimony I represent that that was the testimony now in the hypothetical that I set forth assume that the building will have eight loading docks of which only one will be sized for tractor trailers and thus will allow tractor trailers to deliver products uh not only uh one or two times a week but five times a week is this another hypothetic oh yeah yeah the remaining seven docks are available I think he he already said he's not going to answer questions about hypothetical so if we can tie it to the current application in front of the board I think it'll be more efficient this has to do with traffic so maybe it's a little different okay if you could make the connection sooner it would be helpful all right the remaining seven docks available for shipping uh uh uh completed products uh by smaller trucks now the the hypothetico will bar trailers from making a left turn but allow trucks to turn either way is is that reasonable planning I don't know because it's a hypothetical that I haven't all right evaluated all right now if I told you as a result of what I just described the bottom line is there will be an increase in tax revenue to the township there will be an in increase in employment there'll be it will reduce the impact of tractor trailers Less trucks not 69 per day uh which will reduce noise and reduce poll pollution uh that there still will be a storm W storm water management benefit are you still talking about your yes I am Council I don't understand we doing this well that's a shame that you don't understand I hope this board understands well well it's not a shame because he said I'm not going to answer a hypothetical he answered he said he's not going to answer the first part I'm now asking him you continuing at nauseum the the hypothetical that you started and you're asking another hypothetical is is that am I right do you have an objection I I just put it on the record I didn't it sounded to me like a speech okay you know what Mr Berlin you have a limited amount of time I want you to use it in whatever way you feel is is the most impactful for your clients and I want it to be focused on questions for Mr Hughes based upon this application I think if we can do those two things then we can kind of keep it moving forward and we'll have time for the public to ask questions and and also on on on the testimony he provided all right please now it will have the it will have a storm waterer management benefit all right um by not reducing the number of trees uh and foliage and providing trees and foliage in outdoor parking areas it avoids a blacktop appearance of parking areas and it reduces the density of use of U proper is that not would that not be correct on the hypothetical I gave you again it's a hypothetical that I have not evaluated so I'm not going to provide you with my professional opinion let's talk about the um 69 trucks each day 89 trucks I'm sorry each day I think okay I think you said 83 well it's been reduced I'll get to that in a minute okay thank you well let's let's get to that now um I don't remember it was either your testimony or Mr Le's statement that um you the um applicant has been sensitive to uh the wishes of the opposition uh as to the number of uh uh truck uh trucks that uh uh truck trips uh and that you the new proposal reduces it from 89 truck trips to 83 or 84 does that answer the sensitivities of the opposition to the number of trucks reducing it by three or four so my testimony was that with the revised plans the light manufacturing component has been reduced to just under 15% F which is the control on light manufacturing that this Zone imposes on this property and the light manufacturing component is the use that generates the truck traffic and therefore the truck traffic is within the realm of what was in ipated by the zoning what what's the basis of that I thought that the figure four of then 899 now 84 883 was a result of surveys made by the it isn't that correct uh yes I'm I'm I think we're all ref we're referring to data on truck trip generation from the traffic engineer who prepared a traffic study now there's a that that's the average isn't that correct again I'm I'm not the traffic engineer so I'm not going to address detailed questions on trip generation or the traffic study I'm just simply referring to the data that Mr seckler provided in his testimony earlier this evening well you're not personally familiar with that data no oh all right just give me a moment since he's since he's not familiar with the data I can skip a lot of questions now is it possible there are three other Office Buildings uh within uh this Zone adjacent to the one we're talking about U and um my Ari is off because it's not now 89 it's now 85 U but is it not possible that and I understand that each application stands on its own uh but is it not possible that this town could end up uh with each of these other three uh facilities uh making application for uh light manufacturing and that this town could be inundated with approximately 250 uh truck trips every day I don't see how that's Rel maatic isn't it I I provided testimony with respect to a pending site plan application on a specific property to this board I I did not analyze the potential build out of surrounding properties well it's not relevant to the just to the variances that we're seeking let me ask you a question as a professional trainer planner I'm sorry um uh is it good planning to have a situation where in one day one can have 250 truck trips through a residential area objection asked and answer I mean properties are allowed to devel velop in accordance with the zoning that the township places upon those properties and they're also equally entitled to request variance relief from the board so it's again I'm not here to talk about the potential buildout of other properties in the area I'm here to talk about a site plan application buildout I'm saying is it good planning to allow a situation where one has 250 truck trips a day through a residential area it might be you're asking me a hypothetical that I haven't evaluated oh so it it might be good planning I haven't evaluated it it's not it's not a real application that I've evaluated and provided testimony on well as a professional planner you C you can't answer that question no okay now you have planned commercial developments is that correct have I planned commercial developments I I've been involved with other applications for commercial uses and have you been involved in the development of those commercial uses Define development planning so they could be built yes all right right and in doing so uh what consideration did do you give to the local zoning codes well you give quite a bit of consideration to the zoning codes because those are the controls that the municipality has placed on the property to control their development are you of the opinion and I'm talking again generally that trucks going through a residential area every five or six minutes will not have a substantial effect on the residents in the area as to noise pollution and value of their property the testimony that I provided relying upon on the traffic study that was conducted by our traffic engineer allow me to conclude that there's no substantial detrimental impact with respect to traffic on the surrounding area I'm not asking about this specific one I'm asking generally as an expert on planning are you of the opinion that trucks going through a residential area every five or six minutes will not have a substantial effect on the residents in the area as to noise pollution and value of property I object to the question uh he can only answer the question as it relates to this application and based upon the testimony of the traffic expert he's asking a general question he's not here to answer it's not his job I well well he's a he's he's a planning expert that is his job to render these opinions either either you are of the opinion or you're not of the opinion um your question is too vague and hypothetical for me to answer let me just refresh your memory in terms of the scope of my work and my involvement on this project so I evaluated the application that's before the board from a planning viewpoint with an emphasis on the variances that were requested and whether the applicant meets the burden of proof for the requested variances So within that scope of work I'm prepared to answer any questions you might have with respect to the the testimony that I provided to the board based on that scope of work you were asked by Miss Smith about the effect of U uh noise from trucks um do trucks make can you say that trucks do not make sufficient noise to have a significant effect on adjacent landowners to the extent trucks make noise and trucks do make noise cars make noise the truck traffic generation that's anticipated by this development is what the governing body anticipated when it crafted The Zone and placed a 15% control on the F of all permitted uses what about pollution yes all automobiles trucks now I'm not asking you automobiles I'm asking you trucks trucks have air pollution and there's regulations that control for it now I represent um the resident Council of Fellowship ship Village and I also represent myself I'm a resident of Fellowship Village and I live in the cluster that's the closest to the intersection of Fellowship Village and um Allen Road now are are you familiar with Fellowship Village yes all right and you're familiar with that intersection yes are you aware that it is only one entrance exit from Fellowship Village and that is Fellowship Road onto Allen Road I'm aware of that intersection yes are you aware that there is a flashing stop sign at the intersection can you tell the board not that stop sign but generally why a flashing stop sign rather than a plane stop sign uh would be installed at an intersection I think that's a more appropriate question for graic engineer well as a as a planner you can't tell it may be more appropriate but I'm asking you you don't know why a flashing stop sign would be put up rather than a regular stop sign I think I answered your question already well your answer is you can't answer that correct it's outside the realm of my expertise oh all right um we said that we would give him about the same time as Miss Smith that will take us to about 10:00 so as a check-in it's 20 about 25 minutes okay I I will stop by 10 o' I promise you no no that's okay I mean the way he's answering questions I might as well stop now but um I'm going to go on for the record you have read the reports of the traffic engineer and reviewed his testimony correct yes you testified that you relied on his reports and testimony in forming your opinion isn't that correct yes am I correct that it is his opinion that the traffic generated by The Proposal before this board as to 150 Allen would not cause any traffic problems at the intersection of Allen and Fellowship Road yes are you aware that there's a theater with a 240 seat capacity at Fellowship Road I'm aware that there's Fellowship Village I'm sorry I am aware that there's a theater in the village are you aware that in 2022 there was an application before the Bernard's Township planning board for certain approvals including preliminary and final major site plan plan uh including the the no all right well let me inform you that on October 18th 2016 there was a hearing before the planning board forite plan approval which was granted to certain conditions and Mr Berlin will there be a question associated with this because he said he's not aware of it pardon he said he he was not aware of that so I'm informing him okay and and then you're going to ask a question yes okay but I have to set a foundation right one condition was there shall be no weekly Monday through Friday paid public performances in the multi-purpose room theater before 9 P 700 p.m. the intend the condition was intended to keep performances out of peak hour traffic times and was superseded by at a subsequent hearing sub Subs subsequently there was an application to modify the condition that was heard by the planning board on June 7th 2022 and by resolution dated 6722 certain conditions were modified condition 22 is modified to State there shall be no tickets for the events that are open to the public on on weekdays between the peak hours of 4: to 700 p.m. I bring to your attention that the amended condition makes reference to one events that are open to the public and no theater event between peak hours of SE four to S I refer you to the board's findings and conclusions there is still traffic concerns at the intersection of uh Fellowship Road and Allen Road are you aware that there was applications to the county of Somerset and the burut town I'm going to object to these questions because H case stands on its own merits and Mr Mr Hughes has said time and time again he testified about the planning testimony was based upon the testimony from prior experts and he's now talking about this application I am just completely confused where Mr Berlin is going by asking a question about an application that he doesn't even know about Mr Hughes and yet he goes on and on atuse him to talk about it when he doesn't even know what it's about Mr blind to be fair you did state that there was you were just laying a foundation when there's been testimony by Mr 's adopted through the uh by the traffic engineer that there's no traffic problem at the intersection of fellowship and Allen Road as a result of this application okay may I go on do you have a question for I I will eventually if I can finish okay let's get to the question are you aware that there were applications to the county of Somerset and the Bernards Township Police Department about a traffic problem at the intersection of Fellowship Road and Allen Road as a result the flashing sign was installed and other actions were taken the intersection is still a problem as a result of your investigation did you form an opinion did you determine whether there would be any noise problems to Fellowship Village as a result of the then 96 more uh tractor trailers um so again I mean the test is whether there's any substantial detrimental impacts on the surrounding areas we've noted the truck traffic generation is typical for uh 15% F light manufacturing use obviously the trucks have to conform with any applicable rules and regulations with respect to noise generation what about pollution same bear with me can you tell the board actually not hypothetic let me take that back to your knowledge has signature Acquisitions U entered into any leasing agreements with any manufacturing facility for this property yes not to my knowledge okay your answer is to your they have not correct I answered your question yes that that's what we that's what I that's the one to be sure that's what I heard he said not to his knowledge okay can you tell the board actually not hypothetically how many light manufacturing tenants will occupy the proposed light manufacturing fac facility no can you tell the board actually night hypothetically as to each tenant of the facility whether they are doing light manufacturing by using automation by using robots or by using employees who are assembling uh by hand the old-fashioned way all of the tenants will fall within the definition of light manufacturing is set forth in the zoning ordinance um if they do not and are not otherwise permitted then they would have to seek a use variance from the zoning board please answer my question my question is can you tell us whether any of the tenants who are using the pr light manufacturing will be doing light manufacturing by using automation or by using robots or by using employees who are assembling by hand well we we've established that it's a specul project and that there's no tenants that I'm aware of and all I can say at this point is that any potential tenants will fall under the definition of light manufacturing use and that may in fact include some mechanization or automation so your answer is as I understand it that you cannot tell us whether they'll be doing automation doing robots or using employees who are assembling by hand correct sorry I think I've answered your question well you you didn't answer the question you know he's badgering my witness I wish he would stop doing this he's asked an answer the question four times Mr BL could you please move on to your next question I think you I I think I think he answered it was a I know in arriving at an approving of the opinion of the traffic engineer as to the number of parking spaces proposed uh for the facility 328 spaces which is about 50% of what the code requires did you consider the need for flexibility I'm not sure what you mean by flexibility in this context that's a fair answer um do you know whether in U coming up with 328 parking spaces um there was consideration of spaces reserved for visitors yes and it was considered yes all right whether the assembled Parts would be sold from the premises yes whether the customer will pick up their orders rather than having them shipped well I mean to my knowledge this is not proposed as a a retail operation so um you know that that type of operation was not contemplated you are aware are you not that the office facility that had been on the premises previously uh and which has been now demolished had 850 parking spaces yes all right so we know that under the right circumstances 850 parking spaces will fit on that piece of property yes all right now in approving of the um opinion of the traffic engineer that 328 parking spaces are um sufficient are you aware that the traffic engineer relied upon the it parking generation manual yes now are you aware that that manual has a section are you U are you familiar with that manual generally all right uh is your general familiarity uh recollect that the manual has a section purpose and it says that its statistics are presented for informational purposes only no right are you aware that the manual uh does not provide parking Supply standards or recommendations on the preferred application of the data yes are you aware that the manual has a section labeled cautions and it has a subsection that says preface data contained in parking generation manual are presented for informational purposes only and do not include itt's recommendations on the best cores of action or the preferred application of the data yeah I don't recall that specific language but I would assume that you're reciting it accurately I am all right the manual has a section setting forth uh parking statistics for manufacturing 14 that is not light manufacturing is that correct I don't know again this is an analysis that the traffic engineer provided so you're asking me details about an analysis that I'm not familiar with directly so you don't know whether the studies that it and e used um conformed any of them conformed to the municipal zoning code code AS to parking um I do not now You testified U last month that um in fact the uh Bernard's Township Code requirement as to parking requirements is Antiquated do you remember that yes and um is it not correct that that code would apply to all manufacturing facilities in Bernard Township not only the lot that we're talking about yes and is that not a decision that must be made by the town governing body not not by by the board of adjustment no the board of adjustment can clearly under the municipal land use law Grant a variance to provide relief from those parking requirements but they cannot decide that the code is Antiquated can they well they could certainly make that finding as part of their rationale for approving a specific variance so they can make a decision as to this slot that it's Antiquated and yet next door lots that it's not Antiquated yes can you bring to the board's attention um you you you testified again last month that to some extent the number of parking spaces depends upon the need of the U light manufacturing facility correct yes all right can you um when you bring to the board's attention to the part of the code that says that the requirement can be Rel can be relaxed according to need no right you are familiar with New Jersey's land use statute correct yes all right will you bring to the board's attention the part of the statute that says that the requirement for parking can be relaxed according to need yeah would be the the C2 standard of review for a variance request no no my question is is there is there part of the statute that says the parking can be released according to need answer the question no he hasn't yes he has can you restate the question just so that we make sure we're talking about the same are you familiar with New Jersey's land use statute will you bring to the board's attention the part of the statute that says the requirement for parking can be relaxed according to need it's a Vance C2 she talked about C2 that's that's the section that what is the section um 40 colon 55 d-7 C 70 70 C2 722 70 C2 C is in Charlie I'm sorry I that's okay C is in Charlie to oh 75 72 c no 70 C2 70 C2 okay 40 55-7 C I got it okay just making sure and Mr Berlin I just I don't want to cut you off but I got 10 more minutes you do I'm just giving you a warning so you can manage your time I'll quit I'll stop at 10 minutes you're good you got 10 minutes I was just giving you a courtesy heads up of time is there is there any other reason besides the park parking requirement is Antiquated and the tenants do not need 639 parking spaces that would lead the board to Grant a variance as to the 639 parking spaces uh that are required cutting it in half those are the reasons correct I think one important consideration that I made in my direct testimony is that you want a right side the parking for the need and there's no from a planning perspective it's counterproductive to oversupply parking to build too much parking paved areas that increase impervious coverage when there's no real need for that parking all right that's not my question we I understand that but my question is are there any other reasons besides the need and besides the fact that the uh parking requirement is Antiquated I think I just gave you one reason yes sir that requires a yes or no either there's other reasons or there's not other reasons there are other reasons and I just reasons I just provided one very significant example you said NE I I included that no I actually said that it's a better planning alternative to provide parking that's reasonable and appropriate based on the needs of potential users as opposed to oversupplying parking and therefore increasing impervious coverage which could have a detrimental impact in terms of storm water management Aesthetics and other considerations so that is a very important consideration that the board should consider um in evaluating the parking variants that's need correct no it's not need all right if you say so for oh what last thing you mentioned Coventry versus Westwood is that correct yes all right um to what extent did you rely on the language in that case and forming your opinion well it provides the the standard please what extent did you rely on it and I'm telling you that it it provides the standard of review for an F variance so I I did rely upon it can we agree that the zoning code allows the building of a light manufacturing that the zoning code allows the building of a light manufacturing facility is it in allowed use not a conditional use that is correct are you familiar with h b Bernard's Township zoning code yes does it have a provision for conditional uses um I believe it does does it set forth areas and types of usage that are conditional uses I I don't know it intimately but that's a that would be a typical organization of a zoning ordinance do you know whether light manufacturing is listed as a conditional use I don't I just know that in the E2 Zone it's a principal permitted use do I understand correctly your testimony that all the applicant must do is show that the site will accommodate the planned facility as far as the F condition well that is a consideration of the board that that's really the board's Focus under the positive criteria at the same time as I noted earlier the board has to make findings under the negative criteria well they could they could find then that a fivestory manufactur facturing facility uh could be accommodated on this lot this 28 acre lot correct again I hypothetically yes are you aware that Justice garabaldi wrote in country as the majority opinion in this appeal we establish the standards for granting a variance for a deviation from a specification or standard pertaining so only for conditional uses yes do you agree that the application that this application does not involve a conditional use I do but if you read the case law for a D4 F variance the courts have found that the Coventry standard of review is equally applicable and appropriate in the D4 context I'll give up my additional five minutes okay thank you Mr br can redirect Mr okay um at this time we'd like to ask uh the public if they have any questions for Mr Hughes I just remind everybody that the questions um should be based upon the new application or at least the revised application and Mr hughes's testimony um this evening um it is not the time for comments just as a reminder we'll have a time for that later um not tonight so it's only questions at this time for Mr Hughes also as a reminder if you are represented um by other of our attorneys here miss Philip Smith's or Mr Berlin or you were part of Mr Simon's group that that was involved in a settlement um you are not allowed to ask questions at at this time they come through your attorney there's also I think a list Miss keer we have a list over there is there is a sign up sheet um sitting on the table to the left of the podium excellent now on the podium excellent with a pen and I ask that anybody who speaks write your name clearly and your address clearly so great when I'm doing the minutes thank you so please help Miss kefir by making your name clear um on the sheet you can sign the sheet after you ask your question just in the um Spirit of efficiency here cuz only have a little over a half hour I'm Bruce shandler from 1114 Fellowship Road basting Ridge um you testified last time that you were familiar with the town's master plan and its zoning ordinances correct yes among the master plans um goals it says land use policy should strive to maintain and enhance community character protect the environment of existing neighborhoods and prevent the intrusion of incompatible new development is it your opinion as a professional planner that this is compatible new development yes it's a permitted use within the E2 Zone another goal of the master plan is to protect neighborhood and Community character and to retain and improve on the attractive Street Scapes throughout the township do you think this development will improve upon the street Scapes of the town uh I did not offer that as a a direct benefit of the proposed development so no I would not say that that's a a purpose that would be directly Advanced by this project I thought you testified that the town would benefit as per its zoning ordinances but let me go on do you believe again these are goals from the master plan that one of the goals should be to retain the rural and agricultural character of the township to the greatest extent practical practical do you think this is trying to the greatest extent practical to retain the rural and agricultural character of the Town well I don't think this application in any way impairs that goal because this is a previously developed property within the E2 Zone within which light manufacturing and office are permitted so it would makes sense to redevelop this property it makes sense from I'll go on it also says that one of the objectives of the master plan is to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts open space energy resources and valuable natural resources in the state and to prevent urban sprawl and degradation of the environment through improper use of land do you think this project fulfills those objectives I think so because it does not directly impact some of those considerations and at the same time uh by redeveloping an existing commercial property um under the the state plan and widely accepted planning policies uh the the real intent is to focus growth and development on areas that have been previously developed and that have the infrastructure in place to support same so again even though you're cutting down as many trees as you're cutting down and creating Less open undeveloped space you still think that fulfills to the extent possible these objectives I do from your understanding of the town's definition of light manufacturing could a company be involved in making cement mixes bringing in Portland cement sand and other ingredients and producing sand mixes cementitious sand mixes no I don't think so because the definition expressly excludes the synthesis of chemicals or the processing of raw materials the processing of raw materials would be to make the raw materials but Portland cement is is already an existing material that's not processed in the mixing the other chemicals would not have to be processed couldn't someone interpret that definition to say I can produce cement mixes I can bring cement trucks in mix them blend them put them in bags and ship them back out again look that's a it's a fact sensitive analysis that ultimately the zoning officer is going to have to make that determination um I just know that the the definition clearly excludes the synthesis of chemicals or the processing of raw materials does the definition in any way prevent someone doing a 24-hour a day operation not that I'm aware of last question generally when planning boards in towns adopt zoning ordinances do they adopt them with the intent of having them changed well that's why we have a z adjustment we do for exceptional situations and properties um when they can't be um used is that a comment or question okay well so my answer would be the governing body changes the ordinance and the zoning board under the municipal land use law has the jurisdiction to Grant relief from the use requirements set forth in the ordinance so they have the authority and they that's part of their responsibility so let me ask in this case since the applicant is asking for approximately nine bulk variances Each of which are not just asking for slight variances but up to 50% increases in light poles slopes Etc not just little increases light was not Vari it's a bulk variance it's a design yeah design the fact that they're asking for these design variances bulk variances Etc do you think it's a keeping within the intent of the original zoning laws to be asking for such a a variance constantly not just once or twice but more than nine times is that keeping with the intent and letter of the original planning board's zoning ordinance I believe it is um yes and I think we've provided all the reasons and justifications for all the relief that we're requesting um and I would just say just based on my experience working with municipalities and private clients throughout the state a site plan application of this scale often requires certain design exceptions and in some cases bulk requirements ments because um sometimes it's just well frankly because you can meet the justification that's provided under the municipal land use law what should this board consider to be more important in granting a far variance the economic needs of the applicant which would require a larger far in this case more than is allowed or the interest of the public in trying to maintain the agriculture Al rural suburban character of the town which takes which which is more important for this board to consider well we're not asking the board to Grant a variance based on the economic needs of the client we're asking the board to Grant a variance based on the justifications that are required on the municipal land use law and that's the testimony that I think we've provided during the course of these hearings do you think the applicant would be asking for an increase in far if it was not for economic reasons I don't know I'm I'm finished thank you thank you yeah just as a reminder right into that microphone you can yeah thank you okay I'm mad cha I reside at for Gordon Place basking in the Hills uh um I'll write the spelling for you down on the sheet don't worry um so uh was there an emergency services impact study completed as part of your application I've been uh at this at these meetings for a year now I don't think just the question okay okay because we can't get into testimony because it goes down a different path all right um I'm not aware of any um report of that nature but of course I believe the application was referred to the various service providers as appropriate within the township Who provided comment on the application uh should an application of this nature require an emergency services impact um conducted um I don't believe that that's required under the ordinance and it would be atypical in my experience okay my questions are around the fire department are you aware how many fire department service the site I am not and I I'll just maybe stop you there by saying I I did not do any analysis of the impacts on the fire department okay um so do I continue with my questions just for the record or if if they are specific to the to the fire departments yes he is says he is not um the person to ask who would that be uh who would be the person I would be asking those questions too well I know the application was I believe it was referred to the the fire department Who provided comments which I believe we're in the process of addressing if we haven't already so perhaps the civil engineer uh is the civil engineer still due for Testimony M have you reviewed the the review letter from the fire department there was a review letter no I have not so that's why I'm asking here if make make it easy for me spell it out for me I'm not going to go through that now but if you look at the file you see there there's a document that's available that you're okay get okay okay and uh I have a couple of traffic questions as well they should be saved for the traffic expert you'll have an opportunity to ask questions the questions that we're hearing today are specifically just to the planner based upon his testimony tonight we will have an opportunity to ask questions to both Mr michelo Mr Seer at another time so be tonight thank you then those are my questions for thank you you can save your questions for future meetings black I I got okay yes come on up yeah that's okay yeah um first thing I have an objection to this uh dismissing her questions it does look like time out first off name address pleas Amit Singh 15 Willington Drive Hills if you want to make comments no no it's not comment it's a question it can only be a question to Mr Hughes yeah it is related to that okay so ask Mr Hughes your question that the questions that she asked was indeed related to planning I don't understand why that was dismissed it is related when it she's asking about the fire department related planning question Emergency Services related planning question I don't know why she was dismissed I didn't mean to dismiss her I'll just say yes and with respect to the variance that we're seeking one of the ings that the board has to make is that there's no substantial detriments to the community and what I'll say is that if you're concerned about impacts the fire department they have commented on the application and we've addressed their comments I'm just not intimately familiar with those details so to my knowledge that there's no indication from the fire department that there's unresolved issues or serious impact concerns that have not been addressed she had series of question and she was dismissed saying that this is not the right forum she should be asking civil department so I would request that this should be lodged as a formal issue that this looks like this I think request is that she review the documents that this it's very difficult this is our 10th or 11th meeting there's been a lot of information that's been covered and it's difficult we can't recover information so if you're unaware of information that was already covered um we ask that you review those documents I don't know if for sure it was covered she's been referred to some documents that would be maybe a stalling approach as well it's not definitely not a stalling approach all the documents are on I as a resident I want to claim that you can okay you can't make a comment now no not a comment it's a claim I hope this is record it's the same thing ESS the same thing let me go to the question uh when he had asked you about a statement that signature made that the traffic will be more less now with the light manufacturing versus uh regular office uh it seems to me that you evaded that direct answer can you clarify will the traffic be less on truck traffic with the light manufacturing versus a regular office uh I think I was very clear in that I was just reciting the findings of the traffic engineer which is that yes there's a difference in terms of truck traffic between office and light manufacturing use there's no question about that the overall traffic generation is understand it is is actually less with light manufacturing than it is with with office as existing so the truck will actually be more not less as compared to the existing condition yes okay the second question was that uh you had mentioned that you are simply asking the approval for the uh Private Road access to be just grandfather not worsening uh but upon the cross questioning from the other lawyer Mr Smith uh it looks like that road never had the permission for light manufacturing related driving it looks like there was some Miss in transparency here could you explain why was the case it's more of a legal issue I can tell you that I've acknowledged that um a d variance may be required and we've provided the the proofs through testimon is to the support for that requested variance um no it looks like there was some other reason why because of uh a misstatement was given that we are simply asking to grandfather when there was no proof that it was ever approved so is there other plans because of which this was misinformed um I'm not sure that I follow your question um all I can tell you is that I think we're taking a conservative approach in requesting a d variance to permit the access through lot to uh because there's no evidence that that was previously granted uh that doesn't answer my question you know it looks like there was it was not answered accurately and when I just want to caution you please don't make anything statements you know you can understand trying to set a foundation for a question but you know and you could save all these thoughts for the comment period and you're you're able to say anything you want within reason during the comment period so you can save these thoughts for them um I think he did answer your question question but if if you think there's a specific part that he didn't answer I'll give you one more shot to ask him I think he did answer but he mentioned when he was presenting again you mentioned when you were presenting that you have simply asking your grandfather approval and this word was never approved for light manufacturing related driving so I don't see how this was just grandfathering it's really a legal question because as I said when the uh when that road was permitted when the application came in 40 years ago it light manufacturing was a permitted use as well as office use so the implication was that the the approval was only for office use but at that time the board imposed the requirement to use to create that access but like manufacturing was a permitted use at that time as well so you can't tell me and I can't tell you whether it was envisioned at that time well if you're saying that it was approved for light manufacturing use I cannot say that I can say that it was approved at the same time that light manufacturing which is a permitted use in his Z was allowed I don't understand okay okay um as a resident uh when should I have a comment uh at the comment period so I can't tell you it will definitely not be today I promise you that so we always announce the meetings when there will be the Cadence of this is tough to predict as everybody here knows so be on the lookout that's all me thank you thank you my name is j PR Boger I live on three Rosemont courot Mr Hugh very easy question for you so I learned today that you have changed the number of loading docks for from 12 to 8 per building is it is is each one of those loading docks able to have an 18-wheeler Truck 18 wheer 18wheeler truck yes I believe so so obviously there was a thought process on how you guys change from 12 to 8 can you share what kind of calculations went into can can you share like some insight into how what the T process was um it was really in the context of a a legal settlement so I'll have to defer to legal council on that it was all based upon a settlement it had nothing to do with traffic it all just had to do with the number of voting days we agreed that we probably wouldn't use more than eight so per building so it had nothing to do with his planning testimony purely thank you thank you very much thank you hi thank you for this opportunity my name is Alisa Naru I live at 37 Sentinel Drive in Basking Ridge I live in the Hills okay my questions are how many variances have you requested believe the number is nine just nine variances I thought I heard many things that you're asking for variances on it felt like more than nine so I just that's why I'm asking also those were the Varan okay because there seemed like a lot of things that when when I talk about I don't know about variances I don't not everything falls with under the definition of a variance there are some other requests that there are lots of requests I'm seeing yes so like maybe like these requests are what would you most categorize them at for a Layman like me like a law like a rule like what do you I mean okay so yeah or like things to be ignored or asked to asked to be granted relief for you need relief for things I see um what would happen if no variances are granted what would happen well the application could not move forward okay do you feel entitled to the variances for what reasons well I believe the testimony that we provided um that I've tried to kind of summarize in the context of the planning testimony addresses all of the standards that are applicable to a D4 variance the bulk variances and the design exceptions and those are kind of the the three tiers of the relief that we're requesting I heard about light Manufacturing and I keep hearing attorney the attorneys say that light manufacturing was permitted or or something 40 40 years ago did you say that 40 years ago 40 years ago 40 years ago I've lived in the hills for 20 years many of the homes in the Hills we can't get into a comment I know this is a procedural thing know when you say 40 years are you aware that the hills wasn't built 40 years ago are you aware there was no Fellowship Village 40 years ago are you aware are we aware that this wasn't going to stop you if we don't ask questions you can definitely make all these comments we're going to let everybody make their comments thank you very much one last question do you know what a bully is okay thank you stop everybody please stop we're trying to get through this the most efficient way possible you wouldn't clap in a courtroom Please Don't Clap in here please thank you um Dan con 118 Patriot Hill Drive in Baskin Ridge I'm sorry Patriot Hill yes Patriot Hill Drive um I'm going to ask a yes or no question and um please just answer yes or no um have an environmental study been conducted as a result of the truck traffic for vulnerable populations for so I'm sorry what populations vulnerable vulnerable that's my knowledge okay um based on your professional uh experience do you think is necessary again based on the vulnerable population that we have sitting here no I think there are rules and regulations in place including the local Municipal zoning ordinance that control for the impacts of um uses that generate truck traffic okay thank you thank you got to sign up yeah please sign please sign the sheet thank you just before you start can I just get a a a show of hands of how many more people from the public have I'm sorry can I you're very tall can I okay a couple more questions we'll get to you tonight go ahead may I yes please thank you can you move that microphone you can move it up thank you we just need to hear so sir I want to zero in on uh s I'm sorry name it Address Allen M shapy 19 Dickinson Road Basking Ridge in the Hills I want to zero in on a couple of answers you gave on a number of occasions where you were talking about the old plan with the 24 loading docks had an anticipated truck traffic of about 89 trucks a day is that correct yes 89 Trips Trips Trips a day based on a study yes all right and you said that by reducing the capacity of the building and the loading docks that we'd be down to somewhere around 84 trips a day correct yeah so the testimony of Mr seckler the traffic engineer was that the reduction in the square footage of the light manufacturing use would reduce the anticipated truck trips from 90 to approximately 84 all right and then you said uh you believe that the governing body anticipated that much truck traffic would exist when they decided to Zone this area as light Manufacturing correct you said that a number of times yes okay when was it zoned for light manufacturing um I I don't know the specific date but it was decades ago all right we we've heard 40 years ago was it at least 40 years ago yes was it more than 40 years ago quite possibly all right do you have any idea how much truck traffic existed in this area 40 years ago I do not all right do you know that the hills development which of over 11,000 people didn't even exist 40 years ago yes so you have no idea when you say that the governing body anticipated 89 truck trips a day 40 years ago when they allowed late Manufacturing in this area you have no idea whether that's true or not correct well I I think the point that I was trying to make sir do you have any idea whether that's true or not yes or no no no no let let let him answer we're letting you fully ask I'm trying to respectfully answer your question which is that when I made that statement what I'm referring to is that the governing body the council controls the zoning ordinance in town and typically um and actually required on the municipal land use law is that the planning board prepares a master plan it reexamines its master plan at least every 10 years the zoning board prepares an annual report every year on the relief that's granted and makes recommendations to the governing body so that zoning decisions that were made 40 years ago are intended to be reexamined they required to be reexamined on a periodic basis and the governing body has not made any changes to the Zone over the course of that time to address what you perceive as changes in the area that may be relevant do you have any idea how much truck traffic if any the governing body anticipated would occur 40 years ago ago or even further when they allowed light Manufacturing in that area do you know one way or another yes or no sir well it placed a limitation of 15% in terms of the F which was a a certain you know generation in terms of truck traffic maybe that has evolved over the years but my point is that the governing body the planning board and even the zoning board to some extent has a role this is really the the function of planning in a municipal context if things are changing and there needs to be adjustments to the zoning ordinance those are recommended they're implemented um that was not um that did not occur in this in this case have you seen any study that even suggests that this Township anticipated 89 truck trips a day 40 years ago when they allowed light Manufacturing in that area yes or no sir I guess my point is I'm referring to what the governing body intends today in the modern era not 40 years ago because it can always change the zoning ordinance in fact the study you're basing these projections on didn't even exist 40 years ago correct correct thank you no no stop please everybody please we've done so well up until now if we can just ask for everybody's patience and respect through the rest of this process hi hi mon um I live at um 58 car Road Basking Ridge in the Hills um your traffic engineer provide report saying the the truck traffic has no impact on the residence do you truly believe the report is objective and reflect truth yes do you accept another report conducted by an independent traffic engineer be presented to the board for the decision making no I I I would point out that the board has its own traffic engineer who has reviewed and commented upon Mr seer's report and testimony I think so IT addresses that need in my opinion do you accept uh traff report from aine a traffic engineer representing the residents from basing rage I'm sorry the the question was do I accept an expert that yes I think anyone's entitled to produce their own expert and the board weighs the evidence um and I'm I think I've answered your question okay thank you okay thank you just just a comment ment on that and anytime we get an expert in front of the board we always hear the qualifications and we make the determination on whether we accept them or not accept them as an expert in their field thank you hello my name is Derek smick 57 Shannon Hill Road bking rich I have a question in just in regard to a statement that you made when you were responding to Mr Berlin and uh you stated that we have determined that 83 truck trips a day is a typical typical traffic generated for this type of light manufacturing facilities so does the named word typical imply that you are aware of many similar size facilities that generate similar number of truck trips no what so what do the basis for my response is the Reliance Upon Our Traffic Engineers report and testimony he's the one that made the projection of 84 trips based on his analysis which like all traffic studies tend to be based on averages that are based on a body of empirical evidence so instead of typical you should have said our forecast theoretical for forecast is that this is it's going to be the number of truck trips is that correct again I don't recall using the word typical I'm relying on Mr seer's testimony got it so he provides the the projection which is what it is my point okay so it was not based on observations based on the forecast just quoting Mr Mr Seer got it that's correct so no F question thank you can you please sign the the list for us uh suit Singh 14 Sentinal Drive uh so I just have a concern and then two questions okay just stick to the two questions if you can uh I I have to give a little bit of a background that's okay as long as it's a question based upon the ter testimony and it's not a comment on the application no no it's not okay so the key concern from the residents have always been about the trucks you know and again key concern well the tracks and TR right right into the microphone it is hard to hear in here and then there's also people who review the tapes so it's really important uh so the key concern uh from the residents have always been about the trucks and the trailers which is which will be going up and down on the road the residents of the Baskin and it's school you know if you're not from here you know you wouldn't be familiar with it but they come here for really the you know the peaceful living the school district so there's a lot of you know uh parents here with kids and the elderly so that's that's the you know main composition of the of the neighborhood uh if you see a truck turn on the island road you know and you have done all the traffic studies so you would you would know about it literally the entire traffic stops sir I'm coming to the question just give me just one minute and wait for 2 and half hour time it's about testimony and you're not sworn in so it's really important that we stick just to questions I appreciate there's other stuff you want to say yeah so if you see a truck turning in you know it's pretty detrimental to the passengers from both the sides uh really the question the overwhelming number of the residents really feel that this development will be dangerous kids and elderly that's the question is coming next give us a reason why you feel that the residents here should do anything to support this you know what we we see all the the the bad aspects of this Development coming to us what do you see in from your perspective that you know it going to mies up for everything that we see bad coming our way that's the first question okay well you know that's not really a question that's relevant to my scope of work it's not that I don't care it's because the proofs that we need to demonstrate to the board is that there's one of the proofs is that there's not a substantial detrimental impact to the surrounding area I believe we've done that we've provided a lot of testimony that's at a high level of summary my analysis on the first prong of the negative criteria so that's just not a question I've directly addressed you've heard that the applicant is even settled with one objector so there have been efforts to adjust the project and make modifications to address concerns um that I guess that's all I can say I know I knew you would dismiss my question that's why I said if you if you see a truck turning literally you know it takes the full width the entire traffic from both Sid stops if you try to go from the side you'll be overrun we have young kids you know who graduate they learn how to's not even a question yeah I'm I'm sorry I actually agree with Mr lar I I know a little bit tricky but we need to keep this session just specifically on questions on his testimony that you need clarification on you're where you're getting in is your own views that we will hear the board will hear and we're going to give the public enough time for everyone to make their comment but this is just wanted to hear his view in his mind you know with all the detrimental effects that this will do for the residents here what is even one thing that he feels like you know the residents will get you know like as a as a so I think he's positive criteria so I I think he's shared that but do you want to answer the question look I think I've I have just earlier this evening recited some of the other benefits of this project in terms of one redeveloping an existing vacant site um that will fall off the tax rols if it's not redeveloped and activated again um secondly would be significant improvements in terms of storm water management management um there will be aesthetic improvements um improvements to the visual environment on the on the property um and um obviously you know bringing a new use to town which will create new job opportunities is yet another benefit so for the record all of those are benefits to your own property it's not for the residents sir I think just want to that's okay you can save that for a comment um if that's your view okay was there one more question just one more is everybody okay staying for a few more minutes I think we have just one more question I know we're past 10:30 are we good any we see her wait thank thank you thank you one more question questioner one more questioner not witness that's that's a whole different okay everyone good board professionals good okay we're going to extend it um please if you can I'm quick no that's okay take your time we're going to listen to your questions I just have to check cuz we're going Beyond 10:30 you can state your name address Ellen Pinson 99 Allen Road Liberty Corner uh right and just as a reminder you're not represented by anybody no thank you um you you have the I just want to know about the interface between the um light uh manufacturing and the office in is is it your experience how is there a situation where the office you know managerial function could be handled in some space on the manufacturing floor so that no actual separate offices would be required and if that's the case what would be the normal amount of office that would go with um a given amount of manufacturing space um so some of this might be getting a little outside the realm of my expertise um but from a marketing leasing standpoint Point as you heard testimony from Mr travalini a representative of the applicant what's anticipated is tenants that would be both uh seeking the light manufacturing space then utilizing um the office space and connection with that use um so this is a it's a speculative building so we don't have any specific tenants lined up um so I can't tell you a specific percentage or square footage that's anticipated per tenant but that's the basic but is it is it possible from your experience that that they might not need any office space or that they might need a very minimal amount of office space and that again like with the parking it could be a question of how much is suitable for that particular use yeah I suppose some tenants may me may need less office space than others uh but similar to the parking situation here I think the tenants that will be attracted to this particular property will be ones that have a higher demand for office space um than Maybe some typical industrial type tenants um so you know a tenant that's sort of right siiz for this for this layout and building thank you thank you m CH I would ask that um based upon um that was the last question that thanks so Mr closed by the board and that his testimony thank you yes I think we got through all the public thank you for your patience tonight thank you Mr Hughes um for coming back and now we can say good luck your next although I'm sure you're going to miss this going out with the b h that's right okay so um so it's 10:30 Mr Lair yes I just ask that the board continue um uh that without further notice uh I not sure what the date of the next hearing is can we keep the volume down please we still have a little bit of business to take we still go here for a little bit so people are free to leave but if you can please keep the conversation for outside um the door that would help us um to the extent that the Board needs an extension of time I just need to know what the what the next meeting would be M keeper U May 16th okay for those who are leaving May 16 is where we just called the next meeting for for Signature and uh Mr soes saski can we just put on the record that there's no need for any further notice and that um we Grant an extension through the 17th of May absolutely Mr Lair as you just noted yes this meet everybody in the public this matter is going to be carried to the board's uh next meeting on May 16 2024 7:30 here at one Coler Lane and uh Basking Ridge uh as Mr Lair stated they're going to give us an extension of time to act through May 17th 2024 and uh there will be no further public uh notice provided either by mail or by publication so that's about it than and M Smith I I think um our plan would be uh to ask you if you have any additional cross-examination for the other two witnesses that were um here earlier I do I have cross-examined for the other two witnesses based on their new testimony that they gave I figured you would okay so we'll probably pick up there um on the 16th yes thank you thank you okay um any comments from Members Mr pavloski is this a for you Mr pavloski yes my last meeting is tonight well thank you for your service this is um we really appreciate it it's been a um it's been a pleasure working with you and I think you were very um additive to the thought process of the board so I really appreciate that thank you for accepting my opinions yeah you're welcome to stay buddy no it's too late okay um any not tonight no the public comment will only be at the end so we we need to hear everybody's testimony we need to hear all the cross examination so all of that needs to be over then we will will open it up for comment then and so you know if you follow along um you should be able to anticipate when that public comment period will be and we'll try and make that public aware when that is okay um are there comments from staff Miss keeper any comments over there I'm comments thank you no comments I just want to wish Joe good luck definitely you all wish you good luck May 16th will be the well we have a meeting before then but May 16th will be spec yeah signature not be heard until May 16th okay at that time we're going to pick up on the cross examination of Mr Seer the traffic engineer and Mr michelo um who's our civil engineer I assume they're going to be back here and they'll take um cross-examination for objective uh attorneys like we did tonight and then we'll also ask the public if they have any questions based upon what they heard we'll move on from there after we get through all that I wish I could tell you um but it will at the end okay we'll try and make that as public as possible and transparent as possible so that everybody knows I don't think so you cannot I'm just trying to be who are you trying to ask questions you no but you can you can make a public comment that we will listen to yes it's we don't dismiss anything we listen to all the questions all the comments all the testimony when you go to comment it is sworn testimony under so it's testimony the board is you kind of obliged to cons okay Miss keer anything else for us I have nothing for you to thank you Mr camri a second second thank you all in favor thank you everybody thank you for