accordance with the open public meetings act PL 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the township of Franklin has been provided if everyone could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all if you just call the RO Chris [Applause] um Rebecca hbert here here Jennifer ragnell here Theodore Chase here Mike chairman Orsini presid Robert Thomas here Rafi here Robert Lort here uh Charles and um Rah asked to be excuse this evening thanks Christine you're welcome so um an announcement um we will not be hearing the on 01 Route 27 in Somerset New Jersey on April 17th at April 17th 2024 at 7:30 p.m. uh it will be noticed on the website and there's a link that will also be appearing on the agenda that will show you all of the applicants documents thanks Christine and U given that the deadline for Action is 229 um I will just for now ask for an extension till April 30th uh John you have to say it into the mic just so we can hear you what then we we consent to the extension to April 30th and we'll provide that in writing thank you John thank you give it I can't look at the room no because be a lot more than 30 I think no here exact everyone out there is disappoint agenda oh yeah you you know I'm getting ready I can find out before I will get you an answer oh my name's so if if everybody can who L out that's actually a healthy number traffic controls we get okay like I just looked over I'm like show your I'm going to put it all in my get some input all right so the the perfect is the enemy of the good so let's just uh do this um the minutes for the regular meeting of January 3rd need a motion for those move to approve I'll second Jen is that you Jen for January oh Jen no you can't no I can't either uh it just Jen Bob Lor and Mike Orsini cannot second so somebody else has to I second okay M here thank you okay Ted uh Theodore Chase yes yes I'll just mention that I emailed several very minor changes to Christine and she said she incorporate them it's like not capitalizing Genesis yeah that's already been done thank you uh Sammy Shaban yes Mahir rafik yes Robert Thomas yes Rebecca Hilbert yes all right so um there's no discussion items no resolution so uh 131 are two and three bedroom apartments does that mean school buses uh the traffic estimates generated by the land use code 220 I'm sorry can I I need to ask a our attorney a question the pending application Mr Thomas so it is a pending application uh should I leave the room am I allowed to stay here or what is the it's it's it's before the zoning board yes my mic is on now so I mean it's it's a public comment I I would rather not have comments on pend if if you would like to step out of the room for Comfort because you're going to actually hear the ultimately the application I would probably prefer that um and we can wait till the end of it um oh the question I would have though is if it's a matter before the zoning board I mean people are allowed to come make a comment on anything non before your board you I would say that none of you should make a comment regarding a pending application before the board so someone can essentially say words in the air is really what it comes down to based upon the fact that we're required to have a public comment section it's just not our jurisdiction it's going to be before this I just wanted to get on the record I mean I there was nothing there at all I used to walk down to C Le Brook so I've been there a long long time as I was saying uh 200 units 131 of them are going to be two and three bedroom apartments so I'm assuming they're going to be children which means you're going to have an impact on the school the traffic estimates generated by the land use code 220 is for low lowrise housing and it's done by The Institute of Transportation Engineers they say that weekday Peak will be 85 cars leaving assuming only one vehicle for apartment which is highly unlikely and excluding school buses only about 35% of the cars leave at the peak time are you assuming a lot of stay-at-home moms or work from home or Flex hours seems to me there' be a lot more cars leaving than 35% of the apartments uh the traffic estimated uh estimates generated by the um land use Engineers 820 uh for a fully functional shopping center is 38 leave and 273 enter there are no real life measurements and there can't be because kmore has been closed for a long time but there are showing what the estimates would be if there was a fully functioning department store there uh anyone in this room could make another right and then try to make the left hand turn on to JFK it's almost impossible at this point to make the left-and turn out of that shopping center onto JFK so can can I just um interrupt you for a second all of these details are things that this board is not going to be able to do anything about in terms of this application when I said General planning comment I mean they're they're traffic expert I mean we're not we're not even going to hear this application as you know it's going to be the zoning board so if you have a general planning comment in terms of like a high level uh you know General like maybe what the you would prefer to see there or what kind of use or you know larger planning comment we we'd be happy to hear that well the one thing that I'm very concerned about is that one thing they said in their application was they we're reducing the per the impermeable coverage all the way down to 73% we have regulations that's supposed to be 70% I would like the buing board if they have an opportunity for development to hold to that 70% we're having too much flooding in Franklin also when the planning board looks at these things take a look at their data so then when somebody gets up and says oh well you know the state says we only have to have this many it doesn't say that's all you can have you can have more than that okay just general things like that and also when things come before the planning board and they talk about the public transportation in Franklin realize it's virtually nil almost every week I get a notice on my email saying that one of the roots has been cancelled I was in the diner last week and a girl was complaining she couldn't get to work on time because the bus didn't come and this happens very frequently so just keep in the back of your minds that when these applications come in and the people who are preparing them are just doing stuff on paper they see we have a scoot system they think it functions we know it doesn't Okay so I have a lot more of this and I will do it at the appropriate place I'll bring to the zoning board because I know Mark told me to bring it to the zoning board anyhow thank you very much thank you okay good evening uh Shirley tomman and I live in Canal Walk on tomman L so that's the first one the second one is the scenic Corridor which we're all very familiar with because uh we had so many meetings on B9 uh what I'm wondering is uh the progress or lack thereof in completing the commitment that was made to put the cameras up uh to uh monitor the semis that are still illegally coming down the scenic Corridor uh it happens uh unfortunately or fortunately I am situated right at the corner of um Weston and the scenic Corridor and on a sun Monday when I'm sitting there and taking a break and having a real breakfast I have counted as many as six to eight semis that take shortcuts uh off of AMW I assume and come right down that Scenic Corridor some of them can't even make the turn some of them go on Weston Road some of them come straight down Schoolhouse hang a right I assume and go over to maybe Amazon a AAL um this is an informal presentation as we are referring to we will not be they were not asking for uh an approval or a vote tonight um and and nor nor will we give one this is really just input on what the planning board directed the applicant to do the last time uh at the last hearing that's right thank you Mr chairman uh as a reminder my name is Shawn mcgaan I'm a partner at the law firm of greenbound Maro Smith and Davis uh and tonight I am representing L'Oreal products USA uh with regard to their uh pending ongoing application uh for their property at 100 Commerce Drive uh that's block 86.0 3 lot 10.32 um on December 6 2023 uh L'Oreal appeared before this board with a proposed plan to expand its existing manufacturing facility at 100 Commerce Drive that met the bulk and use requirements of the B1 Zone at that hearing Orel was requesting preliminary approval for one section of the building improvements that were part of the proposed plan and preliminary and final approval for the landscaping and storm water management improvements proposed to be made on the property however during L'Oreal's present L'Oreal wanted to take the opportunity to review their plans and internal operations upon review L'Oreal determined that changes could indeed be made to the proposed plans to further reduce potential impacts to the surrounding community on January 9th lri Al its site engineer and myself met with the board's planner and its Consulting engineer to share a revised concept plan that it had developed at that meeting Mr Healey suggested that we attend this evening's hearing and present the revised concept plan to the board on an informal basis to gain Insight before proceeding to develop a a fully engineered site plan based on the concept plan accordingly L'Oreal is proud to present its revised design for the expansion of the existing facility it is important to note however that L'Oreal is not requesting that any formal action be taken tonight rather tonight's presentation is to hear comments and elicit discussion from the board on the revisions that L'Oreal has made to the plans to address the board's earlier concerns if the board is generally receptive to this plan L'Oreal will proceeded to develop fully engine to the proposed changes from the original plan presented to the board L'Oreal has worked hard to develop a plan that will move the expanded building further away from the residential setback line and to screen the loading Baye and truck traffic from residents to the rear of the property additionally parking has been removed from the northern side of the building and the proposed access driveway and the rear of the property will be for emergency purposes only thereby further reducing impacts to the residents on dmer road and Gary Court the plan remains fully compliant with the Township's zoning ordinances and therefore it is not anticipated that any variances will be requested from the board should this plan be fully developed and presented at a future meet hearing uh also important to note is the drainage basins on the western side of the property have been removed uh that was a concern of the board and further details on on how they the plan has been amended uh will be provided um so with that I would like to call our first witness this is not a hearing um although you may want to uh swear or he's still sworn in from the last hearing it's up to you uh but first Mr chairman I'd like to turn it over to you to see if you have any questions no that sounds great um look forward to the details great um I could SAR you in real quick to you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth all truth and nothing but go through you know the prior plan that was presented uh as well as the changes that are being proposed osed and will uh potentially be developed into a fully engineered plan certainly so I'll go over a little bit of the details that Sean has indicated um early on in the design stages we uh came in the board with a plan that had full buildout for the site at that full buildout we were proposing a total building area of two a little over 231,000 Square F feet which include the building shown on this plan but also included the addition of the building uh in this grein area that was not developed uh further discussions with l'oral they decided to phase the project and just come in for the initial early phases which shows the building uh presented on the screen this building has a total area of a little over 149,000 Square ft um this building um is 493 um feet long and 292 feet wide and just to be clear so that there's no confusion the plan on the screen now is the plan that was presented at the December 6 hearing right correct okay um and the Basin was in a 50 foot buffer so we took all the comments and the concern by the board and um we went back to the drawing board and this is takes a minute to load so this is a comparison that side by side of the previous application the December application on the left side of the page and not want to do that and the um proposed new application um zooming in onize just keep moving the page the new building is on the right side of the application so the new design the building total area is 200 a little over 219,000 Square ft um that is a reduction of 12,000 Square ft from the 231 ,000 square foot with the full build that but about um 60,000 more than what was previously presented presented the building is 400 ft long um previous roughly about 68 ft and 130 uh 130 ft further away from the property line because everything was brought back closer to the existing building um no Basin on the west side of the building we maintained all the existing vegetation within the 50 Foot buffer and all the existing vegetation within the residential buffer on the nor Northern side and we supplemented it in with Evergreens uh to provide better buffering and and um visual obstruction we eliminated the parking along the north side of the building we are only providing a 24 foot bve driveway for emergency access with chains on either side of the axis so will not be open to the traffic um and we are honoring the 150 ft buffer on the Northern side side of the building additionally what we have is um we have two representative views this would be one views uh from dama Road and then as you go to the next page these uh existing evergreens about 8 to 10 foot high at planting they grow about a fort a year um and this to the right of this um is the proposed basing and the proposed building so these were the majority of the concerns that the board had um brought to our attention at the last hearing we produced the employee parking on the North side that is um eliminated completely um it's not open to the employees anymore just in case of emergencies um and that was requested uh I Believe by the fire department they need full circulation of on the building the sound barrier or the sound wall will provide additional acoustical buffering from the residential homes um but also uh as stated we move the building further away from the residential homes by 100 to 200 feet it depends on which side of the building you're in um we feel that should address the majority of the concerns of the board as Sean mentioned this is um an informal meeting just to get um further feedback solicit feedback from the board and to see if this would address some of the concerns brought up back in December so I had a question you yeah well the new one yeah that so the the sound wall that's on sort of the northeast corner what was the L IC behind just that sort of bit of putting the sound wall there so the sound wall is at the location of the loading dock this will be the heaviest operations and it just buffering the operation of the loading dock there is no operational no cars other than emergency vehicle traveling um the north side of the building and um similar application that would be um something that would or should address the buffer the noise a little that's primarily to mitigate the noise then from the actual loading dock the trucks that are parking there and so on correct and and and the the trailers but in terms of the noise that sort of originates from the the overall Warehouse that that that M there's that wouldn't be mitigated by that wall then no and then the chains are there to to signify that this is only for you said what is it emergency or it's for fire fire department access and um going back to the noise the site you know it's a state requirement that we need to comply with this site ordinance it's DP regulated and if the site violates that that is that the yeah that yeah so you know if there's any Wildlife or anything in there that is that a just a stream or is that just a part of a detention Pond this is um the look is is deceiving when you zoom in on it this is just some lay down branches and everything else uh based on our knowledge in this area there is no uh any regulated areas there's some regulated area further along the west side of the property um some Wetland and that's a result of localized ponding uh because um there's a depression that's causing the that's going to be alone loan that that would be uh eliminated eliminated correct we have DP permits um that was approved reviewed by the state and approved to eliminate that ponding uh it's it's breeds mosquitoes and and it's becoming a nuisance so um it does not have any buffer associated with it um and it's for the lack of a b w it's just a depression that holds War so there's no like frogs or small fish or between the emergency axis in the building and we have a fourth Basin which generally speaking that was in the general location uh from the previous plan so in total we have two basins and and two small depression and these are more than adequate uh to address the sore management and the technical comments in in intership engineer letter as well the the small depressions where will they receive water from say uh down down spouts from that side of the building building um that that's a great question so these depression when you look at the building the building is setting higher and then you have the road is sing a little bit higher as well the emergency axis so naturally you're creating a about a one foot depression and to alleviate that we just turn it almost into like a a drainage sale with couple inlets the roof leaders location that will be piped underground so it will not be visible and that will be carried to to the Basin well these will essentially just have the water that falls from the sky on it correct may ask the board does the board have any questions about that make sure the board understood what he was he was showing you yeah thanks Mark I mean I said a lot about this in December so I'm really more interested in hearing what the rest of the board thinks in terms of you know did they hit the mark yeah I'll go first I'm really pleased that you did address our concerns you know it's um thank you thank you and Mr chairman just as a reminder we have uh a brief architectural present presentation as well so um by all means we welcome the questions and comments now but uh there's also further information to be provided yeah I mean in my opinion you did take largely all of the substantive comments we made and Incorporated them into your plan the one thing that I would like the board to just think about is the sound wall is just the sound wall by the loading docks going to be sufficient in your opinion I mean last time they didn't want to have a sound wall at all now they have one where the loading docks are um I assume that sound from the loading docks could go around that wall so I don't know if the board would favor a contiguous wall that's you know mirrors the building the entire building and I'm trying to buffer it and um um also uh very sympathetic with the residance and everything else so what I would ask the board is based on the aerial photograph of the site the last residential home is roughly I would say like halfway through the building which is roughly in this location um would the board be meable to extending the wall the sand wall sand barrier up to this location basically where the existing residential home stops um and then the remainder area is wed um there is further vegetation and that hopefully will address the board concern I mean personally I think I I would like that um you know do as much as we can to minimize any impact on the residents um the fact that there is not a full movement driveway back there and parking and and basically it's only emergency access now helps a great deal um but yeah I mean I think the residents on Gary Court would probably appreciate having at least that extended taken uh so that in the future if it's necessary to expand the wall to contain noise it would be an easier process without actually making the expenditure at the outset in case it's not necessary yeah I mean this is something we would have to look into the one concern um you know the minute you extend this wall to the middle of um the residential or the proposed building you your Basin is on the opposite side of the wall you know you want you want to be able to access these if you take the wall and move it further back closer to the residential home you're you're cutting significant trees so and and so and and that's why we like to just take a closer look at this um if we can extend it a little further uh we would do that but we want to maintain access to the basin is going to be maintained and we really don't want to be in a position where you have a wall and then you have the Basin on the other side where you don't know if it's working um it you know we would like to have that visual so um we'll try to extend the wall as much as we can um but I don't know where that's going to stop you know we will look to um did we discuss hours of operation as well it was um stated under the original application so what are they refresh my memory I remember hold on if if we're intending to have this sort of very very early or very very late that also sort of exacerbates the concern so with with the beeping on the trucks beeping and opening the doors l' have control over that I mean they can regulate it and um they've been president or uh in in the uh t for a long time and I don't believe that that concern has been brought up um we'll take a another look at the sand wall see what we can do to improve it um we believe what we are showing is adequate to address the noise associated with the F with the U trailers and the loading area um if uh if the trunk noise is is the biggest concern that noise is coming from all along the right side correct correct the right side so does you you've agreed to extend the wall quite a bit does extending the wall any further actually going to have any effect on it might be inefficient but I am not a acoustical expert so I cannot really speak to that well I I don't know maybe maybe you can look at that in a little more detail but I do believe that your other suggestion and buffering the mechanics and shielding them on in place on the roof has to be also helpful I think that should be done okay and and there are measures I'm sure that L'Oreal about the existing mechanical and we will have to consult with the mechanical engineers to see what measures can be undertaken to muff the the the noise of the existing equipment uh the um so we will take a look at that for our um full applic appliation when we come back in front of the board did we ever hear what the hours of operation were Sam's question yeah there's currently no limit on the hours of the existing facility and there's not expected to be any changes okayo in terms of of practicality though does do Trail tractor trailers are are they anticipated to come at all hours of the night or no I think tractor trailers are typically only arrive uh and unload during normal business hours so can we make that a stipulation that they will do that let let us it's something I we can't we can't make that stipulation now anyway and you know if the applicant would agree that you know that's not going to be a concern and it's not really a true 247 operation then then that's something that we'll have to weigh you okay okay thank you so so why don't we move to your architect and um we'll see if the board has any questions for M and then we'll open to the public actually Mr chairman can I ask just two questions sure um is there a fence proposed along that Northerly property line yes um we will be proposing a Shain link fence with the slats in it privacy slats which consistent with the previous application Okay the reason I ask is that the ordinance requires it so it wasn't clear on the plants and then um and there also is a fence along dmer um you proposed it pretty much right up on the street um I think you might want to you might want to look at doing the opposite having the landscaping and the fre the existing generally I think the board wants to see the trees and the public and put the put the fencing behind it I think there's an existing fence as so you might want to align it with that existing and have a connect to it yeah that's fine right thank you I'm as an expert in the field of architecture and there's been no changes to your licenses or uh credentials that's correct yes thank you uh so in your own words could you please uh describe the building I think a lot of it is the same but there's been some major changes to the shape of it sure so starting off with the first uh page uh just to offset what uh Mr Thomas said on the the Civil joints this joint shows the overall building uh uh shape uh the gray tone is the existing building and the lighter tone here with the crosshatches the proposed addition with the with the new footprint uh second sheet just really uh an enlarged view of what the addition uh would be uh obviously the interior is has not been designed and fully developed at this point going over to the third sheet just shows the proposed uh elev ations uh similar to the last heing we had um the building height has remained the same we have 50 ft from the finished floor to the top of the parit uh it's the same preast uh concrete panels uh to match uh the existing building uh with typical um uh the finish and that's compliant with the zoning reg uh zoning ordinance correct correct so no no variances on the height chairman um turn it over to the board I don't I have anything I think from what I can see it probably looks fine maybe when you come for the formal hearing you could bring a colorized representative of it yes of course sounds good um so um I think right now we'll just open to the public for any comments the public may have so um I'll move to do that all in favor meeting is open to the public for any comments that they would like to make realizing that there will be a subsequent hearing as well but we'd love to hear your in input now good evening everyone my name is uh jari Powell 11 Gary Court Somerset uh just like to say thank you to the board uh for all the questions reduced by the wall okay noted early tomman again from 57 tomman Lane in Canal Walk and I have a question for uh L'Oreal uh how do you how do you feel about the um future development with more warehouses still being proposed and the competing traffic that uh your traffic patterns will have to uh deal with have you thought about that um first of all I am not L'Oreal but I'll undertake an answer I mean I'm an attorney that represents L'Oreal uh you know lauel is this is a mean you're being paid by them so you know what we're talking about here young man don't you thank you for calling me a young man noise well you're younger than I am uh when we um appear for the formal hearing there will be uh traffic testimony provided a traffic study was provided already as part of the application um and uh you know there's not a whole lot of impact from this expansion of an existing manufacturing facility uh Township right am I right yeah I mean it's a massive undertaking because we didn't have one and I don't know that that's complete and it might be but I'm not up to date on that but what I'm saying to you is are you thinking about that for future business L'Oreal has been at this location for about 40 years uh and they're a long-standing uh pillar of the community and they are committed to this location they're committed to the residents of Franklin Township they're committed to their employees who live in Franklin Township in the surrounding areas and what's most important to them is to be able to expand at this location to continue the positive uh impact that they've had on the surrounding Community uh when it comes to traffic offsite I I don't think they've put a whole lot of thought into it and it's not overly relevant to them as their main concern is to expand this facility and to continue to be positive citizens of Franklin Township understood but my point is that you should be thinking about that because it could impact the corporation and their strategic plan could change on a dime if they can't get to where they want the revised plan that you've shown we would like you to um investigate the extension of the sound wall um more to the I believe West towards um to the residences um and also be able to um testify as to a little bit more um to the hours of operation um and some sort of sound data that would show us like an estimate of what the noise would be expected to be from those 11 Bays um and what it would be um with the sound wall the way you've proposed it and with an extension I think that's the data we need chairman if I may add I like this suggestion around the Mechanicals as well yes yes definitely anybody else have anything to add that I might have missed uh I just appreciate the comments from the folks who live in in Gary court and I'd love to hear more about what the existing sound is like for you and your neighbors at the next hearing so just you know if they want to come out encourage them okay uh thank you very much uh this has uh had its intended purpose to elic just fine yes uh yeah Miss woodb I mean we can talk about this not uh at the meeting but if you could give us a date for submission of fully engineered plans at your earliest convenience that would be helpful I can give it to you right now hold on so if you're going to be heard May 15th the packets have to go out the week of May 6th the staff members need at least three weeks to review things so we're looking at no later than like April 15th the week of that okay thank you you're welcome all right thank you very much um thank you thank you for your time today I appreciate it if there's no other business tonight move to Jour all in favor so I can get