##VIDEO ID:cpbHED96IXY## the meeting in accordance with the open public meetings act P1 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the board of adjustment the township of Franklin has been provided board members applicant professionals members of the public please speak directly into microphon so our recording secretary can properly process minutes applicants and professionals please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony thank you and let's call the rooll please Cher beia Joel Reese yes Gary Rosenthal here Robert Shephard Bim verdos here Alan Rich here Rich panic canalia Faraz Khan here Michel here chairman Thomas here minutes regular meeting July 11th 2024 we have a motion I move to accept a second this for July 11th so um charia Joel re Gary Rosenthal Bim veras and chairman Thomas can uh can vote so we have have I'm sorry so who did the uh motion I did and who seconded I okay so those eligible to vote uh I guess all in favor yes yes any opposed okay there's no uh resolutions there are no resolutions we we have uh nothing for discussion hearings Charles the Philip filipo zba 2412 C variants in which the applicant seeks to construct an attached twocc car garage at 28 Gates Road Somerset Block 368.81 in the R40 zone is going to be carried to October 10th 2024 a notification to the newspaper is needed so anybody here for that will not be heard the first application will'll hear is Gregory Booth zba 2413 the C variants in which the applicant seeks to replace the existing garage with a larger garage at 33 Washington Avenue Somerset Block 17 Lot 12 in the R40 Zone and I know Mr Booth is here okay uh yeah Mr chairman I can give a just a brief factual background um so this property is uh at 33 Washington Avenue uh it's in the R40 single family Zone it's currently occupied by a um a dwelling as well as an existing uh garage um I'll show the location it's basically in the griggstown area uh of the town uh location there is shown on Washington Avenue uh outlined in Blue uh this is basically an aerial of the property um you can't really see the garage here because it's uh on top of it in red is the um approximate dimensions and location of the proposed garage um site plan shows it a little bit better so you can see in this uh plan here there's an existing garage it is uh located within the um required sidey yard this is a very uh older portion of the Town developed um before zoning even came into place um the applicants proposing a larger Garage in the same location uh on story garage 13 fet in change in height 24 by 24 uhet in dimension it's uh again located basically in the same location uh requires a sidey guard variance because it basically be a larger structure in the required sidey yard setback um so you can see outlined uh in the black black here that's the existing garage and then in red basically extending back into the side uh is the proposed garage and the aant provided some architectural renderings uh and floor plans of of the two-car garage that's proposed that's the background the side guard variance isn't being uh affected in terms of the distance right the current setback is 5.7 ft and they're they're undering at 5.7 ft and going back and but again since there's more structure in that required setback that's what that's what's generating the need for the variance so it's kind of an extension of a variance extending a variance toward the rear of the property is uh well let's where are you in and then Mr boo raise your right hand do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth you just rest spell your last name for the record my name is Gregory boo and I live at 33 Washington Avenue thank you is is what Mr Healey described basically what you agree with yes sir and is there any way that you can think of it doesn't look like it on the on the uh screen over there that you can alter any of the shape or construction to eliminate the variance not without putting it basically right in the middle of the backyard which I think qualifies as a kind of undue hardship is that mic on is mic on press the mute button that's also a power I don't know it sounds the same is that better there go sorry um there's not an obvious way to alter the um the plans that we seek without essentially putting the garage in the middle of our backyard which U would be far away from our driveway and cause other hardships okay is there anybody who wants or needs any more information what do you store in the garage cars just cars yeah and Lawn Equipment you know no flamels though no no no you going to have electricity yes Plumbing no I'm fine no further questions and we'll open to the public if anyone would like to make a comment or ask a question there's nobody I see so we'll close to the public uh and I'll entertain a motion for resolution here move to except zba 2413 in which the African seeks to replace the existing garage with a larger garage at 33 Washington Avenue in Block 17 12 I second second we just don't have Christine calling a r here yep I so we'll have uh okay so I'll go down the vote Joel ree yes yes Gary Rosenthal yes Bim verdos yes Ellen Rich yes forz Conan yes Michael Dy yes and chairman Thomas yes good luck with it and thank you all you're fortunate not to have to wait until after the next one on the agenda next would be Somerset property zba 2316 D1 variants preliminary final site plan with variance C variances minor subdivision in which the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two lots and construct a 54329 ft Warehouse including nine loading stalls at 415 Weston Canal Road and 91 cottonil Lane Somerset block 51702 lot 8.13 in the B1 Zone and you can when you're ready evening Mr chair members of the board is this can you hear me okay um I know there's a witness list which is not our Witnesses do I need I think we're on yet any better I think you got it too okay in any event my name is laye Miller I'm here on behalf of the applicant Somerset properties realy LP and this is at least our second time in front of the board we were here sorry about that we were here a number of years ago at which time the board granted an approval for the current building on the property at the time the property was a 15 acre slightly more property that we ended up having having to combine within a joint actually there were two properties one was 10 acres one was five we had to combine them to satisfy a requirement of the Delaware R Canal commission and the D concerning a conservation easement the reason that was done at that time is the applicant was not able to locate an offsite property for the mitigation bank had to do it on the same property they were developing and as a result there was a requirement to combine the two lots do the conservation EAS we are in essence today seeking to undo that combination and that conservation easement you'll hear testimony from our engineer as to why that's required but we've approached the drcc and the D about the idea we have now an offsite mitigation property and the indication is they would be willing to do that we're in front of the board to achieve that we're also in front of the board because since the original application there has been a change in the ordinance as you're aware where Warehouse use is no longer permitted in this Zone we're seeking a use variants to permit that so with that being said I'm going to start with our engineer who's going to describe the nature of the application the project unless you have some questions of me about that background anybody you go ahead okay thank you our engineer Jackie jordano of dynamic M jordano good afternoon can you hear me all yes I'm just swear you in real quick um do you swear that testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do can you just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record please Jackie jordano g i o r d a n o thank you we we acceptor okay I'm sorry thank you that's no problem thank you sure so to start I'd like to introduce you some more to the site and the existing conditions of the site so I wanted to bring up my first exhibit is the aerial map exhibit do I need to mark this if we can mark this is a 1 a so this is the aerial map exhibit it's dated July 11th 2024 prepared by our office and for orientation purposes North is to the right of the page with Cotton Tail Lane located towards the bottom of the page running North to South and this is an aerial map of our property and the surrounding uses with our property specifically identified and the surrounding zoning uses so specifically our project is located at 91 Cottontail Lane it is block 5171 lot 8.13 and consists of 15612 Acres it's located in the business and industry Zone where as noted warehousing is not a permitted use looking first at the surrounding area to the site to the north we have Weston Canal Road with the Delaware and riton Canal and raron River beyond that to the east is Cottontail Lane with other industrial and warehousing uses and then again to the South and West we have other industrial warehousing uses all these uses being located within business and industry Zone specifically on the site as was mentioned on the west side of the site as you can see up here is the recently constructed Warehouse building um approved and built in 2019 on the site the property is essentially bisected and traversed by the Randol Brook you can see here in this darker line Randolph Brook traverses the site ultimately discharging to the ritton river um in which case the remainder of the property is is presently wooded um and that compris of about five acres on the east side of the the Brook on can I just interrupt real quick can you adjust we do have at least one member of the public and sir are you a member of the public or are you with uh this group okay just wanted to make sure so would you like me to rotate it still yeah I want you rotate it just a little bit maybe move it back just and just in the future and we did put this in our materials that we gave you we we've been asking applicants for for years now to bring laptops because we have these four much easier for the public and the board to see it than on that small board sure to repeat away I do have a USB if that would be helpful um yeah I think at this point you can move on I don't think we really we really have one member of the public here but just again since if you come back before the board just please remember that if we had a big crowd here it' be a problem certainly I I do in fact have a laptop and we could do it with the USB if the board propos I guess I would just defer to the board considering we don't seem to have a large crowd if if you can see this or if you need if you need something larger so you can see it on the screen maybe you could ask a member of the refer to what the board thinks I don't have well the Board needs to see it too defer to the board if they if they can see that board everybody okay with it yeah yes thank you okay can you go on with it sure so in addition to to the woods that exist on site there is an existing Township storm sewer line that runs along our Northern property all the way back to an existing head wall that discharges to the Randol Brook today uh the project for site plan review will be limited to this area on the Eastern portion of the site looking at the topography today on the Eastern portion of the site we're sloping down from Cell Lane over towards the Randol Brook Randol Brook is considered a regulated water with a 50ft repairi and buffer and Associated flood Hazard area that has been verified with the njd with a flood Hazard area verification permit the stream also has an Associated Township stream Corridor buffer and a DRC stream Corridor buffer that has been identified with this application on the property along the stream as well as within a low-lying area on site there are freshwater wetlands that have also been Buri ified with the D with a freshwater wetlands letter of interpretation permit and additionally as part of the development of the warehouse as was mentioned previously there was a conservation easement placed on the portion of the site for the drcc which is in the process of being vacated and relocated as a part of this project application we are preserving the corridor and supplementing the property in the drcc review Zone as was me mentioned um with mitigation offsite so moving into the proposed development and the application this will be exhibit A2 it is the overall site plan rendering also with the date of July 11 11 2024 and prepared by our office it is a colorized version of the overall site plan sheet that was submitted with this application with our Landscaping components superimposed on top and with the aerial background so as it was mentioned we're seeking preliminary and final major site plan and use variance approval for a proposed Warehouse building we are also proposing a minor subdivision application as far as the subdivision goes we're proposing in coordination with the township lot 8.14 which is the previously approved um and constructed site consisting of the warehouse development on the western portion of the site that consists of 10.11 acres and then proposed 8.15 is the presently vacant site where the proposed improvements are shown that property is 5.1 acres and it's important to note that the proposed subdivision LW areas will conform with all B standards including lot size building setbacks and coverage requirements Mr Tano those New Lots were proposing they basically reinstitute the prior Lots before the property was unified in a u consolidation D correct that's correct and just to get a little bit closer this would be exhibit A3 it is called the site plan rendering and it is a colorized version of the site plan sheet submitted with this application with our Landscaping um superimpose on top orientation Remains the Same we're just zoomed in a little bit here um so in regards to our project we do have an architect here to walk you through the building a little bit more but we are proposing an approximately 51,000 foot building with a height of 49 feet which complies with the maximum permitted height of 50 feet consists of Lo nine loading stalls and two Drive-In ramps proposed to walk you through the site site layout a little bit further it's worth noting that the initial proposal consisted of approximately 61,000 square fet and after meeting with Township professionals we've revised the layout reducing the footprint in order to preserve more wooded areas provide full sight circulation and align the circulation with a signalized intersection that's located along our property Frontage here um with Campus Drive as such the site design was designed with consideration of the township Franklin zoning code in mind meeting the standards for lot coverage impervious coverage building coverage building setbacks Building height and parking standards the building was specifically situated as close to cental Lane as Allowed by setbacks to ensure that we would have minimal disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas associated with the r hand off Brook access to the site will be provided to the development of two full movement driveways from ctail Lane the northernmost driveway Shall Serve as the fourth leg of conton Lane and Campus Drive intersection as I noted um designed to accommodate both passenger vehicles and tractor trailers the southernmost driveway shall be limited to passenger vehicles only as designated by signage both at on both ends of the drive aisle as well as the design design of the truck Court in the rear and the size of the curb radius at the the entrance of Cottontail Lane the circulation through the site otherwise will be provided by two-way Drive aisles within the parking areas per ordinance the proposed development complies with the parking standards for warehouses the number of parking spaces must be one per 1,000 square F feet for the first 5,000 ft and one per 2500 ft for space thereafter therefore 20 3 parking spaces are calculated to be required and we are proposing 24 parking spaces the parking stalls uh also comply with the the dimensional criteria of the ordinance 17 of those parking spaces are located along the northern side of the building here with the seven remaining spaces in the rear of the site adjacent to another building entrance additionally we are proposing two Make Ready electrical vehicle charging uh spaces with this project and a total of three Ada accessible spaces additionally pedestrian sidewalks and Ada accessible routes are provided throughout the site and around the building providing access to parking areas in accordance with Ada regulations we've also Incorporated a bike rack into our project near the entrance per comments from the board engineer in regards to the Loading and trash pickup it's located at the rear of the proposed building screen from view of Cottontail Lane it consists of nine loading stalls adjacent to the building with two Drive-In ramps we are seeking a variance for the overall length of the loading area the ordinance requires two times the overall length of the largest vehicle anticipated which would be 147 ft here whereas 130 ft is proposed it's important to note that 130t width of a a truck core is an industry standard Warehouse uh for warehouse loading to allow for adequate maneuverability and circulation within the loading area uh vehicular circulation plans were submitted as a part of the site plan application and as noted in the engineers report he takes no exception to the granting of this variance we do also have a 10x 20t trash and recycling enclosure located at the rear of the site adjacent to one of the drive-in ramps that is a sufficient width for two containers one trash and one recycling the containers will also be screened with a board on board fence to provide screening from view of the neighbors and certainly from Cotton Tail Lane to touch a little bit about the grading design of the project we've designed it in accordance with Ada regulations and additionally we design it to maintain drainage patterns as much as possible we've designed the site with the re recess loading docks at the back of the site to take advantage of the existing drainage condition or conditions on site however as it is not a presently developed site to accommodate appropriate slopes needed for parking circulation and site access retaining walls are required along portions of the development along the sides of the property as well as the back of the development in order to minimize disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas as mentioned in the board engineer report these walls as required by building code will have appropriate guide rails and safety railings as necessary we also have a wall proposed in the front of the building in order to maintain appropriate access to all the building entrances in regards to our drainage design this project is considered a major development and so is designed to comply with the storm water runoff quantity quality and recharge standards set forth by the state storm water code as well as the Franklin Township storm water ordinance using green infrastructure techniques the storm water system system consists generally of prvious pavement systems for the majority of the motor vehicle surface and that will discharge to an underground storm water system ultimately making its way to the Randol Brook the storm water runoff from the roof is also directed to this underground system the project proposes to remove that existing storm pipe on site and relocate it and resize it um with adequate capacity to to service the existing flow to the the pipe as well as from this project in coordination with the board engineer an additional maintenance access ramp at the back of the truck court has also been incorporated into the design so that the downstream Connection locations would also have vehicular access as necessary storm water design of this project is approval is required by the township the county the drcc the SD and the D it's worth noting that the stormw water design has already been reviewed and approved by the D and the project has received the necessary development permits from the D for freshwater wetlands and flood Hazard area disturbances I mentioned we have also reviewed the storm water comments outl in the engineer's review letter and take no exception to addressing and complying with his comments briefly touching on the utilities we have water sanitary sewer gas and electric services available for connection along the ctail Lane right away Water Service being provided by the Franklin Township Water Department sanitary sewer from the Franklin Township sewage Authority and electric and gas service from the P from psng going into our landscaping and buffering design existing vegetation will be removed for the proposed improvements and supplemental plantings and screenings are proposed consistent with the landscape aesthetic along the industrial Corridor of Cottontail Lane for comments received by the board professionals we did do an additional site inventory uh performed performed by the project surveyor and as such in accordance with the tree replacement requirements for the site 148 trees greater than 4 in are being removed which calculates to 217 replacement trees being required and 86 trees are being proposed with this application accordingly the applicant intends to address the 131 tree deficit via payment to the township tree fund as permitted by the township ordinance an updated tree replacement plan will be provided to the township as requested by the board professionals as far as the landscape design goes um it includes enhancing the aesthetic along the front of the building along Cottontail Lane around the building entrances and within the parking Islands the rear of the site is to remain a wooded buffer as part of the stream Corridor buffer requirements as noted previously per comments received by the board professionals the site plan has been revised to preserve the township 150 foot stream Corridor with the exception of the disturbance for the upgrades needed to the existing storm water discharge which is a previously Disturbed area in total we have 86 trees 234 shs proposed all Native species to the area as required by the drcc the site lighting design in the parking areas will be illuminated throughout the with wallmounted LED fixtures in compliance with the township lighting standards no variances or waivers are being requested for the on-site lighting and lastly in regards to signs we do have one Monument sign proposed to comply with the ordinance requirements located out by the contel lane Frontage at this time we don't have details confirmed but we will comply with the township sign ordinance facade and directional signage will need to be determined further with the building designs but is intended to comply with the township sign ordinance as well so in summary the project is designed in conformance with the both criteria within the business and industry industry Zone and through coordination with the township professionals we have received and reviewed comments by the board engineer the board planner police Fire official health department and utility companies and take no exception to addressing their comments so at this point if there's any other questions as far as the site design I'd be happy to answer them at this time you no exception to you know abiding by what they say then right so you you will do that then is that we will comply with the recommendations is that correct you'll comply with the recommendations and and requirements and you will comply correct was all the board professional letters all right um this this property is not considered a t property is it we had trouble with a t property at one time with one of our other applications came up and was an issue I can't remember where and when I'm not I'm not I'm not familiar with that term a te property yeah like the letter T yes yeah this is not a flag lot or the like umot maybe that's what Mr Jano this is a essentially we are there was a consolidation of two separate Lots in the prior application before the planning board we are now seeking to separate again to the old existing lot lines correct that's correct one lot is on Cotton Tail Lane and the other will be on and of course now I'm losing Weston Canal Road Weston Canal Road thank you um so they will have separate entrances directly onto each of the properties from a separate roadway is that correct correct does that address the concern Mr Rich okay thank you and then just to be clear you're you're saying that you're going to comply with all the comments in the report correct okay Mr chairman I just have one question just to clarify I'm over here um so just to clarify with regard to the stream uh preservation ordinance um which is a Township ordinance basically you have to uh prove that the disturbance is is is necessary that you can't you can't avoid it and you have to demonstrate that it's the minimum necessary to achieve you know what you need to do so my understanding it's related to a storm water outfall and the piping associated with it so can you just describe to the board why and and on the plan I can kind of see it looks like you're showing kind of the tree removal going along with that pipe to the outfall near near the stream is that correct that's correct and to reiterate what I was saying before the location of this head wall and this storm water discharge we were proposing is in the exact location of where it is today and we are reconstructing it and improving the condition um as a result of this project okay but does is there I mean at least from here it looks like there's a a um an extension of that disturbance going down towards the stream is that is that is that what I'm seeing from here that's the existing Stream So the disturbance will stop here okay and then the rest of that is the existing stream correct okay all right thank you that's all I have any other questions I have a few questions so uh you did mention about uh wetland and uh streams permits and I would assume that storm water permits were also receive flood hazards uh could you specify which permits and when did you receive these uh letters from the V certainly so for the D we have in regards to Wetlands we have a freshwater wetlands Loi which will verify the the limitations of the wetlands and buffers that are on site and then we received a general permit to fill an isolated Wetland located here and then a a permit for disturbance with our storm water outfall up here another General permit um those were I think the wetlands permits were received in January of this year as far as flood Hazard goes flip we received a flood Hazard area individual permit in September of 2023 and that and I do want to correct that was for the initial application that I spoke about at 61,000 Square ft so they've reviewed the storm water in that regard um additional applications for the modification of the permit will be required based off of reducing the footprint and essentially changing the layout that was stamped approved so you will be going back to DP for modific minor modification correct I I think it's still just it's still a major because minor I believe is like a typo consideration but we'll need an additional DP permit and and um you had mentioned about the regulated areas of wetlands and uh how D sees it the streams and um buffer areas the transition areas is that and then the area that you conserving is that in addition to those regulated area by the state or is that um you know the same thing for the town so there they you're conserving some areas right mitigation that you had mentioned about um are these two different areas or are they the same areas I would say they're all associated with the Randolph Brook tributary but they are different diens criteria and they're governed by different agencies so the conservation restriction that's requiring the mitigation is imposed by the delor riton canal commission I see and then the local Township uh is that also part of it too the local Township has an ordinance that prohibits the disturbance within certain distances of the rol Brook it did not there's no uh conservation restriction with a town thank you any other questions okay if that finishes questions of this witness we can proceed with the next witness sorry can can I I'm sorry can I also ask right here certainly just one last one could you please just show me the limit of disturbance maybe what like your if you could just point it out where is like where would be the vegetation removed like that limit so this dark green area that's existing Woods to remain this light green area is Disturbed and being revegetated so where you see that wood line go is what's necessary to be disturbed with the project okay thank you okay okay um we have architectural testimony we also have the um planner to testify with regard to the use variants typically I'd be putting the architect up first the plans are in front of the board I didn't know if the board referred to hear from the planner as the use R first typically we hear a planner last architecture because that's one of the big issues I was throwing it out there for the board in that case I will ask our architect to come on is there going to be traffic testimony Jackie traffic is from okay and we'll put that up after the architect did you prefer the architect before the traffic or the traffic before the architect or you're you don't care it's fine okay perfect I was just killing time only got his acceptance thank you okay our traffic expert is Brendan Le um well do you want to swear him in yeah why don't we swear you in uh raise your right hand please do you swear the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do can you just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record yes it's Brendan leer leer is l e a d b a t e r thank you and Mr leat you are a licensed architect that's correct can you tell the board a little bit about your licensure training and experience sure uh so I've been licensed in uh the state of New Jersey as an architect um my license is current um I have a uh bachelor's degree of architecture from NGIT I've been practicing architecture for the past 15 years um in the past five years I've primarily been focused on buildings of this sort um so I've attended many uh meetings throughout New Jersey Pennsylvania Connecticut uh regarding Warehouse facilities and I have actually been in front of this board previously and has your testimony been accepted as that of an expert yes okay we're fine would submit thank you okay Mr Le better can you explain the nature of the project and your diagrams right so I'll just be brief um in referencing this floor plan SL combination uh roof plan uh just for conservation of uhal maybe we can mark this as an exhibit too this should be A4 yeah great um so looking at the plan um as previously stated uh one-story Warehouse roughly 51,000 Square ft of building with a 40t clear uh height um it's really not going to exceed at this point 49 ft uh as we're showing in the elevations it's 472 um basically the building is going to present primarily as the front of the building to the northeast of the of the facade but we've sort of treated the entire elevation and building as if it would be um you know face frontting uh along any uh roadway um obviously towards the back portion which is the west of the building uh we will have our nine uh dock doors H in combination with two Drive-In doors uh providing access into those buildings with you know via forklift or van um we are potentially proposing a future tenant um and as you show here uh to the Northeast uh we're primarily focused on that area but again we are treating various corners of this building as if they are face fronting um additionally I'd shown rooftop uh units on these plans uh for mechanical purposes they'll you know to properly uh semi Heat this space um just showing that they generally and primarily are located centrally on that rooftop to avoid any uh visual um disturbances either from the sidewalk or for patrons driving by um that's just generally dealt with by viewing angles excuse me Mr H do you want each page separately marked as an exhibit no I think we can just mark it as one exhibit that's thank you uh regarding elevations uh colors aren great great representation here as to what they are but they will be uh muted Earth Tones um just sort of to not really cause attention uh to the the specific facade or building uh within this specific location um as you can see here in the top left uh called that as North elevation you can see uh you know that main entry with the with the um depressed area W ramping up into that uh you know glass storefront filled facade we just sort of tried to also break down the overall scale of this building uh just just through a series of vertical and horizontal grids and also color patterns um looking down to the bottom left which is the left uh the west elevation you can also see uh these Drive-In dock doors uh and the the dock doors that are also being provided for uh for the tractor trailers um and again as you can see uh referring to the East Elevation and the South elevation again we're providing lots of glass storefront just generally to provide a better uh atmosphere for the uh both patrons or you know having to uh you know move around this building but also for the individuals uh inhabiting these buildings uh so basically we're just trying to drive some light deeper into that space and make it more of a nicer environment for the employees and that's essentially it regarding these uh drawings if you'd like I could refer to the renderings that we also provided um as you can see here I don't know if we want to mark them out as other exhibits or maybe these we should Mark separately as exhibits sure just do serum what's that just do them serum in order yeah sure so this will do as A5 so A5 is generally just showing uh that that um angled portion of the building which we are kind of treating as that Main entry uh and presentation of the building um and and really obviously I think showing that as where the you know people would access that space generally um particularly again you can see the storefront glass windows highlighted also by the um sort of muted color tones vertical and horizontal uh accents just trying to reduce the overall scale of that building excuse me is just is that a view from within the site is that correct uh it's as your access ing the site uh right as you turn into uh the facility okay so that so those those stop bars are basically yeah you're almost standing or you know sitting over here in your vehicle looking essentially South this exhibit I'll label a six uh as you can see in this one it's also you know another image looking towards that angled portion of the building um just presenting with the vegetation uh and the storefronts uh Ju Just giving a more aesthetically pleasing I believe uh feel to the building this A7 uh is looking towards the dock uh positionings and uh really just showing how uh the plant of vegetation will help to you know at least semi hide some of that activity and uh you know I think uh provide a least some barrier to to that specific area and again these are these are all you know because we did treat all of these portions of the the elevations as if they were uh fronting a roadway um again a similar look and feel uh at the corners of these build this this portion of the building uh with the the storefronts high up um and just just really you know treating that again as a main entry uh and that that's kind of it and just to be clear we'll call that AA right yes okay any questions to the board anything I see sidewalks there can can you tell me about sidewalks um I believe that's probably more likely a question that should probably be answered by civil yeah yeah I can call Miss jordano back up she'll testifies as to the sidewalks and I also see cars but I don't see places for bicycles and stuff yeah I mean these aren't you know photo realistic uh there will be as I previous previously stated positions for uh bike racks okay and charging stations I believe they will be provided yes in essence these renderings were designed to show the exterior of the building not necessarily all the unfortunately you know we don't work for Pixar so I can't uh the site plan speaks for itself as far as landscaping and things like that correct correct um Mr Dano can I just call you up for a moment to address the question to the board regarding the bike racks in the sidewalk thank you and I assume she doesn't have to be re now there had been a question from the board as to the sidewalks for the property are there sidewalks shown on the site plan there's sidewalks around the building only there's no sidewalk along the front edge is that what you're referring to which exhibit I I think um the question from the board member just to guess was about sidewalks generally and whether they're actually provided yes so we have ADA compliance sidewalks along the parking areas and along all building uh facades make sure that we have appropriate access points okay and are there in fact bike racks and there's a bike bike rack proposed near the building entrance thank you any other questions to the board from Mr Dano regarding those issues or any others Mr chairman I have a a few questions um is for the architect is there a user identified for the warehouse no not at this time okay um so the board both of planning board and Zoning Board are becoming a little bit more familiar with the different types of warehouses um is this can you describe this uh as any there's fulfillment centers distribution centers different types of warehouses can you characterize this is it being designed in a certain way for a certain type of warehouse for a certain type of Warehouse tenant I think that would probably be up to ownership to uh potentially answer uh with regard to uh the functioning of that but being that we have nine dock doors and two drive- IND doors I do believe it's going to be uh you know a fairly um you know fairly minor activity in terms of How It's functioning but again I think that's more for the ownership to to respond to I I think you'll also hear a little bit of that from traffic Mr Healey um given the size of the building so for example you mentioned a fulfillment center they're typically much much larger buildings so that is an unlikely use yeah I I appreciate that I assume the traffic engineer would address that as well but I you know if if I believe you had mentioned that you had designed previous you know other applications for warehouses so have you been asked to design for another client a fulfillment center or some other type of like for example could this accommodate even though it only has nine loading docks for the larger Vehicles could this could could this accommodate a warehouse user where it has a whole bunch of box trucks going out all day long I mean would it be designed in a different way that this site and building couldn't accommodate yeah I mean typically a building of this is uh size would be for more long-term storage I believe um usually fulfillment center would be you know 200 to a million square feet in size um so typically again I'm not entirely sure who the tenant would be uh nor am I entirely sure of the you know the intentions generally you know again a facility of this size would have lower activity levels all right well thank you for that and I guess we will ask similar questions of the traffic engineer so I appreciate that I have a question is the is the roof Sol ready typically yeah we would we would account for 5 to seven uh pounds per square foot uh to allow for uh solar to to be installed later on and and are there plans for electric charging stations for yes there is how many electric charging stations I think that's back to M jordano so M jordano if you can could you please repeat the question okay EV charging stations yes so we have one Tower proposed servicing two electrical vehicle charging spots okay is is that within our allocation I'd have to look but I think I heard the testimony was that there were 23 parking spaces so that about 10% so I I'll check but I on the face of it I think that's what it would require okay and also Mr Hy as to the nature of the use while a tenant has not yet been selected or proposed because the building's not up I spoke to my client they anticipate having a use similar to the one that's in the existing larger building which is a familyowned operation doing its own production and distribution okay thank you okay any other questions I will bring up our traffic engineer Andy jafa from Dynamic hello good evening sir if you can raise your right hand we'll swear in uh do you swear the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do can you just repeat your name and spell your last name for the record please sure my name is Andrew draa last name name is j a f as Frank O L A thank you yeah you have to talk yeah they want you to use the handheld I think maybe you just have to you just have to really speak right into it the mics are very sensitive that way there you go you got it okay perfect so Mr jafa you're a licensed traffic engineer yes I'm a registered professional engineer uh in New Jersey I'm a senior principal with Dynamic traffic I've been practicing traffic engineer since graduating from Ruck University in 2007 U I've testified in front of numerous boards throughout New Jersey this board included um this is what I do yeah that's fine thank you thank you okay Mr jafa you had an opportunity to review this application and do some traffic studies I did yes and Excuse me while I make sure my paper doesn't slide off here um uh yes we prepared a traffic impact study for this project it is dated uh March 15th uh 2024 it was submitted to this board and reviewed by the board professionals uh in there I didn't note any comments uh at all on the traffic study but it was listed as something that was reviewed so I'll just kind of Step you through what we did as part of that traffic study and then and relate that to this application um we uh we evaluated this project um you know it's really a multistep process uh the first step is by looking at the land use and kind of what we expect the traffic to be related to this project and there was a question about you know is this a distribution uh is this being designed by by you know to be something other than maybe a warehouse and what I can tell you from my experience is that a distribution center would require a whole lot more parking because you would have a whole lot more employees uh the loading docks would be designed differently that' be a little bit lower if you have um Sprinter vans and and delivery vehicles that are coming up in short this is very consistent with what I've seen on other projects as there very kind of run-of-the-mill Warehouse uh type of use and and that this this project really fits that um that mold uh to the size of it again the distribution would be much larger um because they want to um they really want to get a accomplish a lot within one building um when they bring all those employees to one spot so this really does not fit the mold for those higher types uh Warehouse uses or distribution of fulfillment centers and for example it's not cross stocked or anything like that correct yes um so as part of our traffic study uh we projected the trips uh for this Warehouse project we did that consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers methodology as well as NJ doot uh and we run the square footage of this project through that we're looking at about 30 trips in the AM or the afternoon Rush Hour um that's about one trip every two minutes uh to put that into perspective if this was on a DOT State Highway we would stop here we would say the trips are 30 it is less than a do significant uh trip threshold of 100 uh and we would document that and we would move on uh for this project we did take it a step further we took counts uh at the adjacent intersection at Cotton Tail and campus um we looked at the pre-development analysis we looked at the post-development analysis and what we also did was contact the uh Franklin planning board uh to identify any other approved projects that are in the area or projects that are under construction and we made sure to include those in the back traffic as well um the other thing to note here is this project is proposed at the intersection at Cottontail on campus um the primary driveway is going to end up functioning as the fourth leg to that existing traffic signal uh currently that traffic signal uh is a three-phase intersection uh with three legs so we would be installing the fourth leg to that traffic signal as part of that the traffic signal will need to be modified uh due to the physical impacts of the traffic we would not be changing the phasing of the intersection but we would be upgrading uh certain components of the traffic signal not only to accommodate this site but to really bring it into compliance um for the vehicle indications to the latest mut city and what I mean by that is uh for Cotton Tail Avenue you have a left turn lane from Cotton Tail to campus but there's no left turn arrow so you're going to have a left turn arrow when you do this modification because that is what meets um the latest standard stand and when we touch this signal we have to do that um so that's an improvement that really does not relate to this fourth leg of intersection but it is going to end up being a public benefit um by by installing that Improvement um couple other things you know there's a couple traffic signal heads out there that don't have visors not sure how they went missing but they will you know they'll get new traffic signal heads um so over and all you you're going to accommodate the fourth legs to the intersection and and more or less spruce up the signal to me the latest standard in terms of vehicle indication um when we run all of this through when we do the pre-development project uh pre-development traffic analysis and post-development traffic analysis this project does not move the needle at all in terms of level of service the level of service today for the overall intersection is level service B uh postd development level service B um again and this is makes sense this is consistent with what you would expect when you have such a low traffic generator um at 30 trips you know versus what I mentioned earlier which would be the the 100 trip threshold for do to even start looking at analysis um that really you know summarizes what I have to say here um you know we've heard testimony about parking EV stalls and circulation I really have nothing to add to that I agree with all the testimony that's been previously provided so if there's any questions I'd be happy to answer how far out did you extend your research in terms of other projects and how you fit in with them because they're Cotton Tail Lane and that intersection and as it goes to Canal Road is a pretty major throughway for that V business industry section and there have been any number of approvals in the last 12 months there so you know are you did you do a study about how you what you're adding to it well how will mesh with a tremendous actually a tremendous amount of development that's in that area so I mean as of we we did this traffic study in March of this year so the traffic study is current as of that time frame the way we actually contact the planning board to find out what projects are approved and what are under construction um and they came back to us with four projects um that we included at 200 Cottontail Lane 401 Cottontail Lane 110 to 130 Belmont Drive and one Wy Drive these projects range in size from um to 240,000 Ft Warehouse 100,000 ft Warehouse uh another 160,000 ft office building um just so these are significant projects I think which you're alluding to that are included in the traffic so when we analyze the predevelopment vment condition those projects are considered pre-development so they form the Baseline of our analysis now um yes does that answer your question well I understand you they gave you the ones that are let's say your immediate neighbors uh but almost I I can't put a number on a tremendous number amount of traffic from that whole area uses Cotton Tail Lane and the intersection at Wesson Road as there access to 287 and it goes well beyond uh your immediate vicinity Amazon for instance is not included in that but you're going to be meshing with Amazon traffic on Canal Road right the Amazon facility uh um Rand right the Rand one we that's just one there's any number of other ones that are contributing traffic to that portion of canal Cotton Tail that intersection and the intersection on Canal Road so I'm wondering if any of that was figured into it well we we contacted the Franklin Township planning board and we included those tra those projects that were provided to us there's always ongoing development that's happening in the area and that's that's so that's one prong of it we did look at it um by contacting the planning board and SEC obtaining those studies and making sure they're included the other part of it is you we're evaluating this project and the incre incremental impact of this specific project um normally the the scope and the breadth of your traffic study is going to be conasur with the the amount and the magnitude of traffic that the proposed project that's being evaluated um when we talk about a project that's generating 30% of the threshold of of do even requiring a traffic study it's very very low in terms of traffic generation which is why we're comfortable just looking at the intersection um at the site driveway once that traffic exits that strike driveway it's going to start being distributed throughout the network while you're going to have um you know trucks associated with the site are going to go down to Western canal and use 287 employees they may come from all sorts of different directions they're not necessarily all going to be geared towards Western Canal so when you distribute that traffic to those area intersections they become much less than that 30% threshold maybe it's 20% and then 10% and so forth if this was a much larger project um maybe it was generating 200 trips or 300 trips I think we would need to start taking that step and looking at Weston canal and looking at those further um uh more Regional intersections um but not it's not appropriate for this project based on the size okay I understand what you're saying and then and it all depends and that's also somewhat based on the size of the facility uh on what your who your end user is and what they what their uh operations are like yeah Mr chair was your question directed in part to the impact at this particular intersection or other that there's been at least a an examination of how even as small as you are how you fit in with the big picture because the big picture there is getting very big every much bigger every day I understood and you know yes it's your little piece the action but now we have about 20 or 20 different additions to that general area and unfortunately the one one of the major routes to 287 is hotton tail Lane Canal Road and that those two intersections yeah and in that regard though I I think am I correct in understanding your testimony um Mr ja that ja po my mistake um that while we're adding a little by way of additional traffic there is a major Improvement of that Western Canal hotton tail Lane intersection traffic light uh no we're we're improving the the traffic signal rate at our site driveway which is campus and and and Cotton Tail so fishing Conta we're we're installing the fourth leg but by installing that fourth leg um we're going to be making um improvements that intersection that are going to improve uh just traffic moving through the intersection again for instance um uh traveling uh along Cotton Tail to make a left on campus you don't have a left left turn arrow um there you'll have a left turn arrow and it seems like a minor variation but it adds organization to the traffic signal um because you know you can go you know you can make that left turn and you can keep moving you're not wondering if the opposing traffic is going to come through um and you're going to impact them that is why the mutcd requires that left turn arrow and that's why we would end up putting in it as part of this project so um areawide I I you know this project really doesn't rely us to the level of looking at but for this little SE um yeah we're accommodating the fourth Le that this project can come in but there's also going to be other incremental positive improvements um with the improvements that signal yeah you use using that campus Road myself I don't I don't see that forth Lake helping right now when I come down campus to to cottonil most of the time I can make a right turn uh because the traffic the traffic signals allow me to it's going to restrict me because there's going to be opposing traffic coming out coming towards campus Lane on the other side you you as the individual making the right turn legally you would have the right of way and that right turn era that you're used to today that's still going to be there and and and also in late afternoon uh cottonil is really backed up with the truck traffic going towards Western the Canal Road and and and unfortunately when when the trucks turn from from cville onto Western Canal Road a lot of times maybe one or two trucks can make the turn by by by time they do it and the light CH changes so the the backup last for a long time on on Cel I've experienced it myself so yeah yeah for instance is the intersection that you're involved with going to be improved enough that trucks can make these turns and stay in their own lane yes so as part of uh you heard the civil engineer testified so as part of the site plan application um truck circulation diagrams were submitted inclusive of a WB 67 I also reviewed them I was concerned myself with those at traffic signals they are able to turn in and out of the driveways without crossing over stop bars um sometimes you worry about that if if um you know some does someone need to back up slightly and allow that truck to come come out and make the left or the right um this is designed in a way that that would not be necessary so those Tru turn movements can occur here so the intersection will be designed so that the trucks will fit it comfortably the way they should that's correct yes I have a question um so you're proposing to build a 55,000 square foot Warehouse here in this subdivided lot so what is the size of the building that's already there in the original lot comparison the um if I may miss beia I oh m p p um the agenda says 54,000 it's actually 51 just minor correction we had to change that to meet some of the Town criteria but as to the existing building it's a I believe and M jordano correct me if I'm wrong 797 13 sare ft and I think you said something about you don't know who the tenant is but it's probably going to be similar to the existing use and so what is the existing use the the existing use is an apparel business 10 West apparel um and they manufacture and distribute their own lines of product correct have to look to my client make sure I'm not misspeaking okay so so that is just for the distribution correct now now getting back back to to the traffic part it's it's not part of your your property but in order to make the trucks turn faster you you really need to to the the corner of Cotton Tail and Canal Road versus Canal Road that that curving has to be more rounded because the trucks part part of the problem is is they have to go in into the opposing L when they make a right turn and and you're going to just add more more trucks to that to that burden and that's a problem we have all over the town with all the new warehouses our roads and intersections aren't designed to put trucks trucks take over the entire intersection in many cases to to to make a turn and and and that's unfortunately that's not your control because it's not your property but that's a big problem we have in this town yeah understood I think um you know what I can say about this project and this intersection that we do have control with we're aware of those types of things and we're designing to make sure it doesn't happen in the areas that we touch like you said that's an existing um that's an existing issue that we don't have control over okay any other questions I have a question I have a question for you sir um so can you tell us about the initial process when before you when you were looking at this property and doing your studies did you look into some of the other neighboring Properties or maybe the traffic studies that have been done and documented here in the township for kale and and reviewed that as the part of like the initial review or was there just like this this study was done and that was it pretty much well I mean as a professional New Jersey we we've prepared those studies throughout New Jersey we' prepared some of those studies within Franklin Township um we did we found those adjacent developments and we obtained those four traffic studies that I mentioned um and in included them um specifically as it relates in due diligence no typically you you wouldn't do that in that stage you would do it in the preparation of the study by obtaining the traffic studies for adjacent projects including their background traffic and did you find anything that stood out as like different from what you were you know your initial thoughts or initial ideas for going into this no um and and one of the you know one of the things that I really look at is I try to I make sure to get out there um and I look at when we evaluate the existing we take our traffic counts in the existing condition and then we run our analysis um and I look at it just visually am my looking at in the brush hours is it generally consistent I end a lot more weight into that because every other traffic study um is going to be projection much like mine is um so I really try to base it on on those observations and and looking at this site comparing the the volumes looking at it out there it's all very consistent sure and and this study that you conducted um did it have this understanding of you know the summer traffic nuances and then the spring or fall when the schools are closed and when the schools are open yes yeah in this area especially we would always look to perform our traffic study uh when schools are open um we have a very rigid policy on scheduling traffic counil we check the individual school calendar um to make sure there's no half day closures full day closures um so that we're counting on appropriate days that's very important to our process I appreciate it thank you any others okay next okay um I think then we are going to call our plan and this is Mr Paul gral hi Paul uh do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth I nothing but the truth I do and just repeat your name spell your last name please yes good evening it's Paul GLE g r y g i e l thank you Mr GLE you're a licensed planner here in the state of New Jersey yes I am I have been since 1999 I can give additional qualifications if you like for the bo if you would please consideration yes as I mentioned I've been a licensed planner for 25 years I also am a member of the American Institute of certified planners uh currently I'm a principal of a planning consulting firm Philips price GLE Laney Hughes uh we're based in Hoboken but my practice takes me throughout the state and sometimes Beyond I have appeared regularly before boards uh throughout New Jersey over 150 of them qualified me as an expert planner never here but I have been in New Brunswick North Brunswick bcad in a number of surrounding towns where I've been accept I think we can move forward thank you Mr chair Mr grel have you had an opportunity to riew the local ordinance the site and this project yes I have and you reach a conclusion based on say yes I have and I will I provide testimony in support of the use variants which in my opinion I do believe can be granted as well as the D2 variants for expansion of a non-conforming use and the one limited bulk variance we have for the uh loading area Dimensions before I start my testimony I do have one exhibit I think it might be easier to put it up now and refer to it and I do have handouts of it as well make it easier A9 I believe uh yes A9 and would you like me to assist with a hand out that terrific you sir and I guess before I start my testimon I'll identify the exhibit it's uh titled aerial and Zoning exhibit 91 Cottontail Lane in vicinity Township of Franklin New Jersey it was prepared by my office under my direction uh it's based upon Google Map Aerials and we have overlaid uh the location of the subject property shown roughly in the center outlined in Orange and then the zoning districts uh of the subject property and surrounding area and I guess we'll start with that just because uh we've heard testimony previously from other Witnesses uh and I don't want to rehash what Miss jordano described in terms of the surrounding area area the board is certainly familiar with it uh but we are dealing with a property that is already partially developed and the applicant as we've heard is seeking to subdivide off a portion of that uh which was previously separate lot and to allow for development that would fill in the Gap within the development context uh just to be clear it's a privately owned property this is not public open space or preserved land so uh we do have a right to look to try to develop it within uh the parameters of your zoning ordinance and we do need some variances as we recognize uh but the area is characterized in my opinion as a planner and as shown on exhibit A9 by a wide range of non-residential uses and know I point that out because I'll come back to that in a few minutes when I get to the the meat of the testimony that there are concerns about impacts on residential uses we're in an area here with a number of commercial uh office industrial Warehouse type uses in the immediate vicinity um a bit further field you do get into residential but again there's nothing nearby uh you do also have some again older Office Buildings and hotels um that have existed here for some time but there has been a trend as the board is well aware of transitioning of some of those uses to other non-residential uses there's also an exhibit of Mr Healey's uh June 3rd 2024 memo which has a similar map so I think we can agree on what the context is it's just a matter of how I interpret it for the use variance request uh so the applicant as we've heard is seeking to to um construct a warehouse building of around 51,000 square feet on the subject property on the subdivided portion fronting on Cotton Tail uh we've heard the description of the of the use generally um it is typical by pinza planner to have uses you know to have a use category such as Warehouse that's not defined uh but again over time that would be addressed as there's if it's Pro first of if the potential user comes in to make sure that the uh property is appropriate for it and actually in this size building it's generally self- selecting you're not going to have a use that is going to not be able to be accommodated with the number of docks with the amount of parking spaces with the amount of uh traffic improvements they're being constructed uh the property is in the bi business and industry Zone which has a wide range of various commercial and other non-residential uses permitted um the board I'm sure is aware that in March of 201 23 uh warehouses were removed as a permitted use in the bi District uh the applicant did submit its application prior to that ordinance being adopted but unfortunately for the applicant it was not deemed complete that's again why we are seeking this use variance uh the D2 variant is being requested to expand what's now a non-conforming use on the somewhat recently constructed Warehouse on the portion of the property fronting on Western Canal Road all that said in the bi Zone we comply with all bolts standards so coverage height setbacks uh all those standards as well as minimum parking and loading spaces are met so it's really more the use that the Board needs to consider whether you you can grant the variances uh just one other variance was mentioned by Miss gordano was the um depth of a loading area it's required to be twice the length of the longest vehicle so 147 ft is required uh 130 ft is proposed what I'll do now is turn first to the proofs for the use variants and uh offer them for your consideration uh as you again as a board of adjustment you're probably well aware of these so I won't repeat the criteria but essentially we have to demonstrate first the positive criteria that a site is in this case particularly suitable to accommodate the proposed use and also need to address the negative criteria there's no substantial detriment to the public good or to the master plan or zoning ordinance in this case I do believe the positive criteria is addressed uh due to the size of the property and proposed Warehouse being rather minimal compared to other you know uses of this type as well as the setting and location uh so we'll start with the setting uh the property is in a non-residential section of the township as you can see on exhibit A9 the context is essentially all other types of non-residential uses many larger in scale uh the abing properties to North South and West are developed with warehouses or similar type uses as well as many of the properties in the surrounding area I understand the concerns that the board and the township and residents and others may have about Warehouse development in areas where you're closer to residential but this particular property actually has no such issues uh secondly with regard to the location uh the property has Frontage on and access from a road that seres similar uses I know we've heard concerns about the um traffic from those but the reality is there's existing conditions there today and that's because you can access an interstate highway interchange a short distance from here without traversing through residential areas so any concerns about the limited truck traffic that'll be generated uh can be mitigated by the fact again it's a direct shot right over to Route 287 U you know if I was being asked to justify variance of this type elsewhere in the the township that was closer to residential or farther away from Route 287 I don't think I'd have the same opinion or be here before you uh the road Network actually um also is adequate to handle employee trips and we actually even have bus stops in front of the site so there's the ability for public transit for the uh users of the facility again the employees who'd be coming and going lastly in terms of the size again this is again what's the opposite of a mega Warehouse I wouldn't call it a micro warehouse but again we're not talking 200 400 million square feet here it's just over 50,000 square feet that's proposed with nine loading docks so this is very modest in terms of the standards of what is being seen in the business today and being seen throughout New Jersey it's certainly not a large scale Warehouse that would have the types of impact effects that um you know that are being the concern of many people who live nearby such facilities so I think for those reasons the positive criteria can be met that the site is suitable you know just the last part of that is again just looking at what's out there this is literally kind of the last piece of property that's available along Cotton Tail and Campus Drive in the vicinity it's undeveloped today uh it's not going to be left undeveloped you could put other uses there potentially but it's something that you know I think we as an appropriate user or use to fill in this last piece of property along this stretch of roadway uh so I think for those reasons we are providing for the health safety and general welfare purpose a by providing for a development that is similar with the existing character of the surrounding area it's a modest use uh that can fit on the property due to its location its size and the other factors I cited uh likewise I believe purpose G of the land use law is met as an appropriate location for this type of use before The wareh the warehouse zoning amendment was made the township allowed such uses and the area is developed with them so I still think despite the change in the ordinance this area is appropriate as a setting for this modestly scaled warehouse and lastly uh purpose J of the municipal land use law promoting the conservation of historic sites and District open space and other areas I paraphrase a bit but essentially by providing for development where you already have infrastructure in Place Road Network utilities and development can be accommodated here in a buil bu up area versus in a more green field type of site with regard to the negative criteria first I don't think they may substantial detriment to the public good uh the new lot that we're proposing with the warehouse again not to rehash but it's essentially surrounded by similar types of uses I think it's uh reasonable to assume this property is not going to sit vacant forever it is again privately owned uh we have a use that is viable and realistic it's similar to the use on the other part of the property it would not have a substantial NE impacts compared to a larger scale Warehouse um it also we can accommodate and in fact upgrade the intersection directly adjacent to the subject property that is a benefit to the surrounding area to modernize or upgrade that intersection and the um traffic signal serving it uh in terms of the area of disturbance on the site it's not the use itself driving it if you were to put an office building you know again if there re even was a market for it or a hotel or other type of use on this property a cannabis cannabis facility you'd still need to develop parking areas you'd still need to develop a building so it's not that this use is going to have any impacts that are beyond what you would have for any type of other permitted use uh so I think that again we're dealing with a a no substantial detriment compared to development as of right on the property we're also in fact um you know addressing all environmental concerns we've addressed the plan to lower the size of the building somewhat uh to adjust certain things with regard to parking and circulation to make this site work as well as it can in its setting uh lastly I think it's important to note we do comply with all the bi Zone bulk standards so it's not going to be a taller building than is permitted it's not going to be larger it's not going to essentially have any type of overdevelopment compared to what could be built otherwise on the property in terms of potential impacts on the Zone plan and zoning ordinance I recognize again as a planner that the township has had a Master Plan update and Zoning amendments that have changed the permitted uses in this area uh the zoning was amended just um again in the last couple of years uh but looking back before that it's interesting that the township did think that this property was appropriate for warehouse use and other than development help happening elsewhere nothing has changed in the immediate vicinity of this property again looking at its sort of very localized context that would make it less appropriate you're still close to 287 you're still on roads that have similar types of uses um I would even note that the Township's own strategic zoning and economic development recommend a plan from 2020 recommended consolidating the M1 M2 and CB zones into one bi Zone this site was actually formerly in the M1 Zone which permitted warehouse and similar uses unlike the former CB zones you had two multiple zones put together and I think in trying to address a concern you know that's a valid one potentially elsewhere in the township there's a kind of a broad brush that painted this area to be you know in the same way that even though the factors here are much different we're farther from resid presential we're closer to the highway we still are in non-permitted use unfortunately um so I think again this there's some factors in this report uh as well as the Master Plan update dealing with Warehouse development that can be considered so there's some R excuse me some rationale cited the bi Zone specifically mentions access to Route 287 and also to avoid nuisances upon adjacent residential uses I note with regard to residential the closest one to this property is about 12 00 ft away to the east looking on A9 I believe you can see some of the houses that are farther away uh they're actually non-conforming uses within the bi Zone uh the nearest residential zone is actually a 1third to 1 half mile away to the Northeast on the opposite side of 287 so you're literally to get to a residential zones you need to go across acres and acres of land uh that's developed with warehouses and light industrial and many thousands and you know upon Millions of square feet of warehouses and other types of industrial non-residential uses we are well separated from any residential uses that could be directly impacted um on the flip side again the driving distance to Route 287 is we're talking, 1600 feet roughly linear feet uh to get to the 287 South ramp and an extra 600 or so feet to get to 287 North so you're about as close as you can get to the highway so I think we're really mitigating any concerns that you have with regard to warehouses uh compared to again other areas that are differently situated uh the master plan does indicate that property still have the ability to request a variance as we are uh in the vi Zone and we need to address the proofs including suitability again in my opinion as a planner I think there are a number of reasons that warrant considering this one particular site and its particular suitability uh for a warehouse use uh just lastly I want to touch on the D2 variants for the expansion of non-conforming use that's the existing Warehouse next door uh we're not introducing anything different nothing is changing on that property fronting on Western Canal Road uh the context there is well established where it's located uh the circulation won't change access won't change uh nothing else is going to be done to make that property different other than this rear portion of an irregularly shaped lot being cut off and to actually be developed in a way that would be consistent where it's located but again looking at A9 you know there's it's essentially the shapes of the lots are are two that were melded together previously so we're just going back to a condition that existed in the past uh so I don't think that there's any issues with regard to the positive criteria being met for the expansion of the non-conforming use um with regard to the potential negative impacts from that D2 variance they're roughly the same as everything I've mentioned already on the suitability of this site and the surrounding area but again the public good there's no changes to what's out there today taking away a piece of property that is actually fronting on different roadway that's separated by a brook and environmentally sensitive areas uh is not going to have any substantial negative impacts on the public good and likewise on the master planner zoning ordinance uh we are just again due to zoning change we have an issue here that wouldn't have uh been the case if we had filed our application a bit sooner or been deemed complete a bit sooner so I think that Tech it's a technical expansion of the use it's really not a physical expansion of that property and lastly we have one C variants with regard to the Loading area uh again M gordano touched on that and I think I can defer to her uh that it's a standard to have 130t deep loading area uh for that type of use uh we're not looking to provide excess pavement for the sake of it we think we have a safe and appropriate layout of the property to accommodate trucks in the rear of the site uh so I think that that that variance can be granted under the C2 criteria the benefits of allowing uh truck loading to occur safely and efficiently without additional pavement or improvements being put in Place outweigh any detriments and there's really no substantial detriment from having a slightly shallower loading area than is required by ordinance uh with that I'd be glad to answer any questions first from Council or if the board would like to uh ask questions thank you I just wanted to clarify for a moment about the intensification of the existing use and you touched upon it but essentially the only intensification is that the lot is now smaller it's not that there's actually a larger or more intense activity that's correct maybe i' glossed over that stated at the outset this was a larger lot we had to mitigate for offsite we are doing in a different manner now but nothing changes about the layout of that structure the layout of the circulation patterns access anything else and in terms of the separation of that undeveloped portion it's actually separated by the Brook which means that the two properties could not have been used in conjunction with one another because you've got a wetlands and a stream yes we have an existing condition that precludes the ability to have a unified access or development even if it make more sense it just as really you know without violating environmental concerns or ordinances you could not do that okay okay thank you that was all I had Mr chairman if I can before we ask questions I'm just going to ask another follow-up question on the or or provide some clarification on the D2 because we don't get a lot of D2 variances before the board so as it's been explained a D2 variance is uh for an expansion of a non-conforming use so that's one of the variances that can only the D variances that can only go before the zoning board so the existing Warehouse that's on Western Canal Road is now a pre-existing non-conforming use if you want to take a use that's that's uh that's pre that's um pre-existing not conforming and expand it just kind of like a use variance you have to go before the board the reason why this is why that D2 is before you is when when Technically when you have non-conforming use and you're going to make the lot smaller that's technically deemed to be a D2 variance so what they're doing here is uh Mr Gro could you point to just so the board understands where the existing Warehouse is that fronts on Western Canal so that's the existing warehouse and the the one thing that they're proposing to do in addition to the site plan again is to subdivide that property and they're going to create that new lot that fronts on campus and that's where the new Warehouse is going to go so right now that 79,000 ft Warehouse exists on a you know property that again go is on Western Canal then there's that the area that they're going to build a new one that's a certain amount of acreage they're going to subdivide it and now that 79,000 foot Warehouse is going to exist on a smaller lot so that that's what the D2 is um it be helpful to show A1 sorry Mr just to give the shape of the overall property today okay so it's again this is oriented differently right the warehouse referred to over here the properties are regular because it was essentially melded together for a specific reason and then can you point to where the news the the property line is going to go on that roughly it's not marked down here but again roughly by the Brook yeah so you so you can basically see again it's it's a certain certain size now that lot that houses the 799 ,000 foot Warehouse is going to be smaller so that's technically a D2 variance um and Mr greo provided testimony about it but so one question on that so the lot that's being created for the existing 79,000 square foot are there any variances associated with that or does that lot fully comply and the and the building comply in terms of coverages and F and all of that it I believe that testimony was from M jordano that it does fully comply if you want her to verify that we can okay so that again I just wanted to clarify that because again I'm not sure we've had a D2 variance in 15 years to tell you the truth thank you for that Mar I guess the part I'm still not very clear on is uh so at some point the two lots were melded together because of some uh requirement which no longer exists I guess that's or are you're doing something the requirement would still exist and I can give the background on that again because I was involved we went in front of the planning board not this board I misspoke beginning when we were going in for the original building the 79,000 building that's been constructed we needed to move some wetlands and get approval from the drcc actually it was stream encroachment not Wetlands get a stream encroachment permit they said you can do that but only if you give us a new conservation easement somewhere else you can do it offsite where for every 100 feet that you're taking away you give us 200 offsite or you can do it onsite and I forget what the ratio is but it's smaller Jackie can fil me in but we couldn't find an offsite that compli because there are rules about where it can be how far away from the Zone we could not locate a property so we had to do it onsite we've got two separate Lots we said hey we'll put it on the other lot next door the five acre lot they said you can't do that you must combine the Lots because even though you own both Lots because it's not on the same lot we treat that as a separate lot you have to give us the higher ratio so we combine the lots to meet their requirements now we have located someplace offsite that we can meet the higher requirements we would like to move that drcc requirement there they're okay with it but it means coming back to the board and saying you know those two lots we bandid together we'd like to take them apart again and that's what we're here doing okay thank you that that explain it thank you any other questions if the board doesn't have questions I'll just have two more um um so the um particular suitability you had mentioned the access to the proximity to 287 um does and the fact that you can access this site either to or from the site from 287 without going through a residential area I believe you touched on this but could you address whether that affects your opinion on the particular suitability of the property yes yes thank you uh I'd be glad to try to elaborate on that point I may have gone through it rather quickly the there were concerns raised throughout the Township's planning documents about um trucks and other traffic passing through residential areas that are adjacent to Industrial and in non-residential zones and that was a concern that's specifically cited so when I look at this property and and show on exibit A9 yes certainly thank you certainly I suppose you could take a well cars definitely but even trucks if you really want you go right out the property or straight the reality is if you're trying to get to the interstate Road Network or other state highways you have the ability within again 1,200 feet by driving out down Cotton Tail yes the intersection has some issues today but it exists and you're not passing any residential to get on to 287 South or go extra 600 feet to get on to 287 North there's no residential that would be impacted by that additional traffic it's limited traffic but still there's no residential uses that are there okay and then my second question is is is is similar and then I'm going to ask you to kind of summarize your testimony because I think you did address it but just if you could summarize so the the negative criteria there's basically two prongs of the negative criteria one is the impact to the public good and a lot of times you know you you addressed a lot of the things you just talked about the the Pro the nature of the surrounding area the consistency of this with with with with with that particular area the the distance from residential Etc um so in my opinion that's addressing the public good the second prong is addressing no substantial detriment to the The Zone plan and the master plan uh and he did speak to it but you know the fact remains that the town made the decision to change the ordinance to specifically prohibit this use yes so how would Grant of this variance not uh be a substantial detriment to that intent it's a very good question and that's you know what the Board needs to Grapple with if they're going to consider approving the application uh I did cite that there were the basis in the planning documents of the township rais some specific concerns so even though they tie to the public good the truck you know traffic and the impact and residential they're actually master plan issues isues as well and there's language in the um amendments that say you know an applicant still has the ability in this bi Zone to come in improve suitability so I think in this case the master plan and Zoning provide in out by saying okay in this specific case we have one very you know Limited in size lot that is surrounded by other similar uses so that suitability and the proximity to the highway without residential uses being nearby you know is not going to cause concerns that are those being most you know addressed by the master plan and Zoning updates um I understand you know the other thing I guess I would add with that though is that there are other uses permitted but you'd have similar size buildings or impacts anyway whether it's self storage uh offices data centers uh cannabis uses would still require the site to be developed but the impacts in terms of traffic would be similar or you know we may even have less in this case um the impacts in terms of you know any kind of tree removal or other development would be similar I I just don't think that a 51,000 foot Warehouse is you know what was being targeted by that change in zoning um it's you know you may disagree the board May disagree it's my opinion as a planner that we're dealing with a different type of scale of use different type of you setting than what was the intention of that ordinance change yeah let's go follow up to that Mark of course yeah um I I think what I'm hearing you say Inc correct is given the particular area of this part of the bi Zone where it's almost entirely built out around this property with other warehouses that this is such a small Warehouse use and its proximity to the roadways makes it consistent with the grant of the approval as opposed to the other parts of the bi Zone which are differ differently situated and may have had more those concerns because of the proximity to residential distance from the roadways need to go through residential and the like hate the hammer the same points but yes that's a maybe a cleaner way of putting it that you know this is not a we're really focused on a very specific area here again if I was asked to justify a variance of this type elsewhere In the Zone on a lot that was five times the size of it or even twice the size it' probably be a different answer but given the context that it's you know the last piece of property that's essentially developable right there um that is within this setting I think it makes sense you know to consider going back to what was permitted previously just in this one instance I don't think I precedent just because it's a very unique situation and I think as you mentioned the fact it's a 50,000 foot Warehouse as opposed to a 250 one million square foot makes a substantial difference yes and that was you know Mr heale had questions about that too again we don't know the end user but I again in my experience would say that we're not looking at something that's a 247 operation with you know the trucks coming and going this box trucks versus you know long-term storage of materials that type of thing thank you any other questions to the board well I'm not sure when the uh this is the I think the first application that we've had since the ordinance was passed where uh any other applications for warehouses have been grandfathered I believe yes that and I my recollection this is the first Warehouse before this board since that organization I think you opened the door for the first time application like this that for a dis a little bit of a discussion that you've had that we need to have I wasn't aware when the council passed the ordinance they were concerned about the size of the buildings they were concerned about the numbers of trucks pure and simple and also it's kind of been not accurate uh it's not that warehouses are are non conform or non-permitted uses in bi zones they're not permitted uses period which is a little different and I was looking for a little bit of a compelling argument with some strong support as to why we should be going against the expressed wishes of the council and again it's not the size of the warehouse I think you in my mind you've gone a a long way to uh giving me some things let's say that that I might be able to hang my hat on in support of this but uh why I was talking about uh with the traffic expert you know your your place as small as you are in the big picture uh no matter what happens you're adding to the big picture and the council has decided that they don't want this use period in this town and I think that when that decision was made we have to have really strong reasons maybe I don't know our attorney can tell me that I'm wrong I would think we need a little maybe we can't legally do this but a even little more compelling reason to Grant a use variance than we would normally where the use is permitted somewhere else but you're looking for a suitable place in a zone that not permitted uh I think without getting ahead of myself I I don't know that honestly that you can find a more suitable site for a warehouse and I think you have gone a long way uh with the idea that there doesn't need to be any truck traffic through any residential area in order for this place to function which might make it more powerful able under in the circumstances that they're actually banned everywhere and they went out of their way to do it so legally or not I think I think that since this is our first application everybody on the board should think about whether a compelling enough argument has been made to do that to to to Grant an approval because this is a use that was taken away and specifically taking away so if we approve it in a sense you could say we are impacting the master plan may I address some of those concerns Mr chair based on some of the testimony that I think I and the board heard but addressing particularly some of the comments that you just made okay first I think we probably are the first application asking for a variance after that um change by by the council and one of the reasons as was alluded to by Mr gel is we had actually filed before the change but unfortunately were not deemed complete until after the change went into effect so unlike those who were grandfathered we missed by a little which makes it likely that we would be first because we'd filed before it went into went into effect as to the intent of Banning and you talked about you know size not necessarily being as important as trucks as I our traffic expert addressed and Mr Vel addressed the size of the building does impact directly on the trucks because it's a smaller use nine loading docks as opposed to 100 loading docks because it's a 50,000 s foot building located so close to the highways you're going to get minimal truck traffic and when you look at the permitted uses as Mr gel also referenced it's not necessarily different from truck uses that would be for other permitted um uses Self Storage uh cannabis I don't know what the other facil um Mr gel was going to add light manufacturing you could have a light manufacturing use which is essentially what the existing building does light manufacturing with a Association distribution you get the exact same number of truck traffic of trucks generated I am not in the council's mind but I think looking at what they did it is like and the concern about the trucks they were concerned about the larger warehouses and perhaps as Mr ryel suggested painted with a broader brush in terms of how can we go against the wishes as Mr gel also pointed out there is the exception that allows the board to Grant variances including use variances depending on the peculiarity of the circumstances I agree 100% with what you said Mr chair you have to consider the proofs in front of you and I suggest that the proofs that have been presented through the testimony the size of the warehouse which is quite modest as warehouses go the location and proximity to the roadways nature of every other existing use there in this location all argue strongly in favor of granting the use variants because you're not going to see another situation another property presented that's anywhere close to this if we were coming in as Mr GLE had said with a 250,000 foot Warehouse it'd be a different situation 50,000 ft warehouses very small not many many and is it it is consistent with light manufacturing and other uses which may well end up being there so I understand I just brought I brought this up this this is an intelligent board but just to as a reminder uh that the circumstances are a little different in that disuse is totally banned and you know vote however you feel the fact lead you but uh be comfortable that uh you're satisfied with the proofs one way or the other that this this is just me you know a month from now or a year from now we hear more of these things this probably not going to be I'm hoping it wouldn't be a concern but uh you know normally for a warehouse this place is packed and it's not tonight and I'm sort of wondering why but I I think it's part of the what the testimony you heard people who are warehouses next door don't aren't concerned unlike some of the areas I think the town fathers were concerned about but I take everything you said about needing to consider carefully what you've heard the nature of the application the nature of the property into consideration is all accurate you have to vote your conscience you have to do what you think is right but I do think we've made a compellent case okay any other questions do you consider this a hardship issue the U I did not cite that is hardship as a basis for it that is you know certainly one for SE one or bulk variants and in relatively extreme circumstances you could do that for use variance too we recognize other uses are permitted so it's not that this is the only possible use of the property so I'm relying more on the suitability versus the hardship anything else I would think that uh that that concludes your testimony that concludes her testimony unless the board had other questions okay then we'll make a quick open to the public if there is any public who want to make any comments or ask any questions doesn't look like there are we'll close any board questions for anybody anything you want to say summarize well I I think in response to your questions I probably gave what was essentially the closing argument I do think the testimony you've heard has made a compelling case for this particular property in in this particular property in this particular instance the size of the use the nature of the property its location to the major roadways the surrounding properties and the fact that as a 50,000 ft building it's not going to generate more truck traffic than the other permitted uses in the bi Zone most likely there's no guarantees but most likely and reasonably it's not if this were light manufacturing which it may be be the exact same cannabis uses are permitted that I have my own opinions about um storage you'd have similar traffic if not necessarily the same truck traffic we don't know at this moment exactly the nature of the use but we know that being a 50,000 fot Warehouse I would suggest you haven't seen an application for 50,000 foot Warehouse probably in the past year year and a half and you probably won't see one in the next 10 years but that's me probably true any other comments questions motion okay I make a motion we approve uh Somerset properties zpa d23 D16 um the um they already agreed twice to the staff comments and I don't know if we have any other conditions that we need to they need to U sorry they need to get a modification for D permits so that's that was mentioned by their Engineers yes we would get all of their outside approvals that required including the D permits and we have to get a sign off by the drcc I I I I second the motion before just one second another do we have to formally get a commitment uh concerning the intersection or is that part of the I I believe that's in the staff reports and in compliance with the staff reports is what they've agreed to one of the conditions they've agreed to okay I believe that's correct one one condition the board may want to consider is again the the the type of Warehouse you've heard you know good amount of testimony about what type of warehouse this is going to be how it's been designed to be a certain type of Warehouse not cross docked not designed to accommodate the box trucks and and smaller trucks to be you know I was reading the the state report um and there is such a thing as a smaller fulfillment center for more local deliveries that's not the proposal that they're putting forward um it's not designed for that so I can't imagine the applicant would would be opposed to a condition that it's not going to be a small scale fulfilment center it's going to be long-term storage for you know we AG storage use it is a real use as opposed to a fulfillment center I I don't know how elsea characterize that um it is not going to be a fulfillment center so I think I I think you know if the board was to was inclined to approve it that there should be clear language in the resolution explaining what the what the applicant testified to you know what what you know what their use is and we would be okay with the condition that it is not going to be used as a fulfillment center thank you okay then we can I I I I second and accept the the explanation you amending your motion for that yes so we'll add that in the motion and Joel Second it okay uh Joel ree yes Gary Rosenthal there's no question that this is a difficult decision for us because of all the recent warehousing situations and the the uh meanings that that that we have or we're going to have and everything else but uh I think that you have met your obligation with the understanding that as Mark just indicated it's important that you uh continue to concentrate on the type of Warehouse which has been indicated so I'm going to vote Yes Bim FAS yeah I agree it's a difficult decision because it's the first time you know to go sort of against what uh the ordinance that was just passed but that is kind of what the board does and I think there's been a compelling case made that it uh that it's better you know and with all the you know with all the conditions some going to vote Yes Alan Rich yeah I don't want to set of precedents here either I think this is a one one time thing hopefully we won't have to deal with something like this again um so I'm I'm going to vote for it let's see can I uh Leia oh wait I'm sorry FR o Khan um I'm going to vote Yes and uh if I've seen more people here or any anybody from the public or the case that has been made about you know residential avoiding that area um maybe I would have looked at it differently but I'm going to vote Yes okay Michael dty I am going to vote no I do not think that um um there was a compelling enough argument that clearly um should disavow the clear intent of the council and the ordinance okay did I call on you all yes you did okay you're you were a yes vote Yes okay and uh chairman Thomas uh I'm going to vote Yes I think uh I might have sounded a little bit host and I probably am in terms of warehouses but I agree with a couple of the comments made previously but also just repeat I I don't know I don't know and I don't remember where there's been a a more appropriate site uh I think that's the maybe the most compelling thing uh for me it fits where it is where where it is fits it's surrounded by the uses anyway there's no sense beating a dead horse good luck with it yes and I've called on everybody it's not usually my thing so I have a 6 to one uh in favor of it thank you thank you Mr chair members of the board um you're welcome and we'll entertain a motion to close I I I move weour second oh thank favor close meeting adjourn