e order adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways notice published in The Courier News no notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the Township Clerk notice sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger Miss Buckley will you please call the role mayor Waller present councilwoman K here miss corkran here Reverend Kenny pres Mr Atkins Mr Foster Mr ahed and Madam chair here Mr Barlo would you please read the open public meeting notice certainly this meeting is being held uh via this virtual platform in Conformity with the Department of Community Affair guidelines um anyone that's here um with regards to an application when that application is called um at some point the chair or the board secretary will um open it up for comment at that point if you could raise your hand and the board will um allow you to speak uh in the order that your hand was raised thank you madam chair thank you the flag can be seen over my right shoulder can we all uh recite the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all uh can we swear in the professionals Mr Barlo certainly Ron if you could raise your right hand where the testimony will give before this support will be the whole truths up you got I do oh I just saw uh well uh Jim Clark and we can swear you in when we get to the area in need if you want sounds good all right okay are there any changes to our agenda tonight Mr Barlo yes madame chair item number thir 23 pv2 2324 V is the spark Car Wash preliminary and final site plan and bulk variant that has been carried to the May 8th 2024 meeting their notices were in order therefore if anyone's here for that matter you won't receive another notice just note that the matter will be rescheduled and heard on May 8th 2024 that is the only change I am aware of Madam chair thank you may I have a motion to pay our duly audited bills please chair Reverend Kenny I make a motion to pay our bills do we have a second a second thank you roll call Mayor Waller yes councilwoman kahill yes M corkran yes Reverend Kenny yes and Madam chair yes item number eight adoption of resolutions to memorialize action taken at the February 14th 2024 meeting oh I see it's not applicable did we do that already Mr Barlo or we don't have any we don't have any Madam chair okay item number nine adoption of minutes from the February 14th Madam chair keny I make a motion to adoption of amendments for February 14 2024 thank you can I have a second I have a second please thank you roll call Mayor Waller yes councilwoman kahill yes M corkran yes Reverend Kenny yes and Madam chair yes item number 10 discussion KD Capital Ventures LLC application 22 pb27 28b Madam chair this is a a subdivision that the board granted um the resolution was adopted the applicant has previously been before the board um back on December and asked for some additional uh time to perfect the subdivision and I see Mr Dash their attorney is on the meeting he's forwarded a letter um setting for the appropriate time um he would like an additional exension in order to perfect the subdivision there were some back and forth with the municipality and the applicant that I believe has been worked out um he's asked for an additional 30 days frankly I think out of an abundance of caution my recommendation to the board would be to Grant a 90day extension just to let him dot his eyes cross his teas and that would um put the extension to May 20th of 2024 and that should give the applicant enough time um to perfect it is that okay with you Mr Dash yes it is I appreciate the board's consideration and I concur with every statement Mr Barlo just made so if that's acceptable to the board it would be appropriate for a motion granting an extension until May 20th 2024 to perfect the subdivision Madam chair thank you do I hear that motion Madam chair I make that motion second do I have a second Reverend Kenny I second that motion R call please mayor wall yes councilwoman K yes M Corran yes Reverend Kenny yes and Madam chair yes thank you very much I appreciate it and have a good evening quite welcome thank you item number 11 23 PB 3031 VZ and Victor Q TS Investment Properties LLC um Mr C would you like to enter your appearance yes thank you madam chair nice to see everybody this evening Larry C on behalf of the applicant qts investment properties the SCLC uh Madam chair members we intend to be pretty brief this evening it's a relatively straightforward application this is I think our third time here probably in as many years for improvements to this property uh the applicant's got a 38 acre property it's an existing Data Center large facility uh in the li5 zoning District about 10 times the size of of what's required in the zone the data center is existing uh we were here a couple years ago for an expansion to that data center this is more akin to earlier applications which is accessory improvements to the far rear of the property adjacent to the 287 right of way for additional uh generator and container space essentially the equipment um that Services uh the engines that service a lot of the uh Power required by the data Center operations itself no changes are proposed to the data center itself hours of operations what we do inside the data center uh the comings and goings uh that's all staying the same as it exists today this is just a very limited uh new accessory Improvement but it does uh pinch the rear yard setback a little bit so we've got some relief for the setback and as it turns out when this application was made it was pointed out that prior relief granted by the board for encroachment into the setback uh was actually developed in the field about 2 feet closer than it was approved a prior approval allowed the applicant to develop structures about 39.4 ft into the 50 Foot setback they were actually developed in the field 37.7 feet so we asked the board to take notice of that and ratify that as part of this application as well Madam chair you're going to hear from two witnesses shortly our project engineer Mike Marinelli of meno engineering and then you hear from our project planner I believe Matt Flynn is on with us from John mcdna Associates um both applicants um experts have gone through through the reports we generally have no issues just one matter I'd like to head off before our Witnesses start testifying to give it some context we saw a handwritten note um from a uh board staff member um indicating the requested installation of PVC piping along the frontage of two frontages of this property uh the applicant has looked into the ability to do that we're talking about over 2,000 feet of linear Frontage between Pome town and um the abing street our site terminates at the 287 RightWay and to imp ment that would be about half a million dollars the applicant estimated the engineer can go through that in further detail uh it really has no connectivity to the relief we're seeking tonight we appreciate the the request and we understand it as a data center we understand the goal of ultimately in installing um I think it's fiber optics maybe as the goal for this area but that's the one recommendation that we're going to have to discuss this evening and uh the applicant really cannot accommodate that one our our experts will go into it further as to the Nexus as to the pragmatic issues with implementing that the balance of this pretty straightforward Madam chair we think we can accommodate we think we can accommodate all the other items um and with that Madam chair I'd like to turn it over to our first of two witnesses certain we call your first witness thank you very much so we'll call Mike Marinelli civil heing there you are Mike hello Mr Marinelli if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your professional address please sir sure Michael Marinelli m a r i n e l l i of meno engineering located at two 261 Cleveland Avenue Highland Park New Jersey you raise your right hand you swear the testimony give before this board will be the whole truth I do you're witness Mr Cal thank you sir so Mike you heard my profer to the board if you wouldn't mind Mike um reorienting the board briefly with the property the existing conditions and then the limited areas of proposed Improvement along with the Belta of relief that those improvements will create all right uh Laur I can share my screen yes okay everybody see the exhibit I have up Mr Mr C Mr Marinelli what we'll do is we'll just Mark any exhibits you use as A1 and then just keep going and if you could just as you put them up um describ for us what the exhibit is okay perfect thank you sure so the the exhibit I'm showing on this screen right now we'll mark As exhibit A1 entitled qts Piscataway site plan exhibit dated 3:13 2024 uh this is a we decided to keep it simple and just do one exhibit for this evening I do have others available should questions come up uh but to kind of show the magnitude of what we're doing here uh for the record we're talking about uh block 4102 lot 3.01 and block 4202 lot 6.02 on the tax maps of PCAT Township property is commonly known as 101 posam toown Road uh it's located on the Northerly side of of Pome toown Road uh Circle Drive is off to the left and as you can see on this exhibit uh 287 is uh on the right for the purpose of my presentation even though north kind of heads in the uh upper left corner I'm just going to talk about plan North southeast west excuse me sir yes sir yes um could we get your qualifications on the record please of course what we proceed we skip that sure uh again my name is Michael Marinelli I'm a professional engineering in the state of New Jersey uh I have testified in front of this board on many occasions uh including the last application when we came in front of it for the proposed uh data center Edition and uh utility art uh I've been practicing I'm a graduate of Ruck University uh class of 99 and been practicing for I guess almost 25 years now uh in land use and uh planning and i' as I said I've uh provided professional testimony in front of hundreds of boards including this one on multiple occasions thank you sir you may proceed thank you CH so uh the site has two access points one that's uh near the the bottom of the exhibit that's their main access point with security gate uh and guardhouse uh off to the left off of the sheet is these uh an emergency egress off of Circle Drive uh the property is 38.1 two acres and is located entirely within the LI live Zone um if you're familiar with this area it's Mo 287 is immediately to the east but the rest uh property boundaries are are uh occupied by other industrial uses within the li5 Zone um so as it exists today what we did was we we use utilized the exhibit uh that we used us back in 2022 uh showing the uh proposed data center at the time uh this has all since been constructed uh per that approval uh unfortunately an updated aial uh only showed it under construction at the time uh so I wasn't able to use utilize that uh but what we're here this evening to to discuss is some additional and I sometimes I enjoy these virtual meetings because it allows you to kind of really zoom in on what we're talking about so talking about scale you know this is the existing data center this is the addition off to the right or the Eastern side uh with the Loop Road and um generators and cabinets that we had proposed last time but in this rear uppermost right corner uh the applicant is propos proposing more of the same uh you'll note that you know uh as a previous phase the more gray and and and Light tan silhouetted uh containers and generators those were approved some years ago uh off to the right uh these are the ones that were most recently approved uh back in 2002 and what we're proposing this evening is to add one more of the same a proposed generator a container that has direct access to the building and two Transformer pads uh as you can see it's it's consistent fairly consistent with with its setbacks off of that rear rear property line at that it that it abots to the North uh it doesn't other than creating the pads to put in these uh generators and containers and and Transformers uh there are no other site improvements being proposed this evening uh so the generator is 40.340395 uh setback now the the um all of these are new variances but as as I stated they're very similar to the variances previously granted by this board as uh through prior applications uh what Mr C had been speaking about uh with respect to clearing cleaning up the record is when we had proposed the expansion immediately to the east of this uh we had gained approval from the board to provide a an accessory structure uh setback of 39.4 feet where 50 ft is required for the second to last most eastern uh Transformer Pad during the course of construction and and building when this was as built the uh this generator um I'm sorry uh Transformer Pad was also supposed to be at that setback but it was built a little bit closer it's at 37.17 ft uh it has no real impact to the site plan again this is all within a a secure Utility Yard for the data center uh and it doesn't interfere with any access as it exists today uh and has no real impact on the overall site plan um Michael what is it what was it built at 34 is that 37.7 where we. yeah where we were approved for 39.4 okay thank you uh but as it relates to what we're here this evening uh again it's if you see it's just a continuation of the proposed generators and containers uh that already exist along the rear of this property uh and then the trans the Transformer pads that are associated with them as you see each uh pair of units uh needs its own uh because the last existing uh unit had a Transformer Pad where the new proposed generator would go it's being relocated a little bit further away uh but as you can see there are no additional site improvements being proposed the use within the building is not changing the number of employees is not changing this is just simply for a believe it or not an existing uh client within the building who is looking for some additional uh capacity uh in this area of the [Music] building does anybody have any questions as it relates to what we're proposing this evening um members of the board do you have any questions of this witness um Madam chair it's uh councilwoman kill just a quick question um of Mr Marinelli so was there um some uh is M breaking up for everybody else yes okay Reon why they hadn't thought about this additional capacity at the time when this Easter councilwoman kahill um you cut out for most of the question so maybe if you could ask it from the beginning yeah that internet I believe the question she was asking for the bits and pieces that I heard was that you know was any consideration given during the last phase to include this as part of uh the the expansion and development uh but at the time no this particular tenant uh or um client who owns data within the building uh had not contemplated this actually data at the time that I'm aware of uh and therefore uh because the the data center portions that were added as part of the last phase back in 2002 uh were already accommodated and supplied for for other users within the building uh they need to find some additional space for additional uh generator and uh data container did that answer your question Miss K hello have we lost everyone I just think councilman K's coming in and out oh I heard a yes I think that was her I'm here so okay are are there any other questions from any other members of the board Madam chair D corkin if I may um hi Mike um question with regard to the conduit line I know that that um Mr Callie had made mention of the cost for the installation however are there any is there any reason that um is there anything that prohibits the conduit from being installed are there any um I don't know is there anything like there's no Wetlands or can you again well I'm not sure the the quick answer is I'm not sure yes I mean as as the board probably is aware of immediately to the southeast all of this is a Creek and and uh Wetland complex that that has uh buffers uh onto the site that we've had to include as part of previous development uh there are three driveway connections from the subject property that would have to be somehow crossed whether it's ripping up um Asphalt in order to provide the the conduit uh additionally if I and unfortunately I don't have the exhibit but on the Circle Drive Entrance if you recall as uh one of the prior phases uh the applicant was Reed to put in curb and sidewalk uh there was very limited space due to grading so there are uh it's literally you know uh the curb line a sidewalk and then a retaining wall uh that that uh holds up the land uh on the sight side of of this Circle Drive North accessway uh so there in order to put the conduit through that area a sidewalk would have to be RI ripped up Andor the retaining wall uh adjusted in order to fit this new conduit so it's a it's a little bit more than just you know digging a trench and throwing a conduit in the ground in this particular case but you could technically get there could be an easement on the on qt's property not within the RightWay where the conduit could be run correct potentially but again I don't know what implications that has to existing Wetland areas and buffer buffer requirements uh to provide that uh what I'm what I'm assuming is a private utility across the frontage so and the reason and the only reason I'm asking like is that the township recently adopted an ordinance requiring you know the installation of this fiber um of all applicants I mean this may be a question for Mr Callie maybe not necessarily for you but the township were willing to say give you some time say two three years for the installation is that something that qts would consider I don't think it's is I mean they they the cost of it alone is um I'm going to cut Mr C off here um I my advice to the board is they enter into a Redevelopment agreement otherwise I'm voting no on this application and I'm the mayor okay so I'll continue Miss Cork and you're answering your question thank you Mr Mayor um the case law is very clear on this I'll cut to the chase then in that case um there's got to be a rational Nexus between the implementation of a condition of approval and the relief being sought it's a 38 Acre Site with the status CER CER being one of the number one taxpayers in the township this is the extent of the Improvement being proposed it's incredibly small in this 30 Acre Site there would be no rational Nexus under the case law under the statute under the Treatise for the implementation of such a condition for this type of site plan it's onerous um and it's incredibly cost prohibitive for the applicant so so no if Mr C if I may to the board the applicant the the attorney for that doesn't know that he's not even willing to have the can enter into a Redevelopment agreement with the town with a condition of approval and if they're going to play that route card uh um I think we should just vote no on this but that's up to the individual board members the Redevelopment agreement requiring what what's what's the sub no I I think he meant a developers agreement not a Redevelopment agreement yeah that that's for one it's it's a developers agreement not a redeveloper but I mean maybe Mr Barlo can can Enlighten us as to what would be the substance of that agreement because if it's implement this in the future I know the property owner is is not willing to do that at the moment I mean the developers agree I I I mean at this point we're spinning wheels let the applicant finish his application you know where I stand on this one I don't know where the rest of the board members are but you know we treat the the reason that ordinance is that's that you have an application there's an application being heard before this sport coming right behind you and the same conditions going so if if you're not going to do it that's fine I understand your client's position but I'm going to vote no Mr Barlo can certainly echo my understanding of the relevant Cas on the matter okay just and if I could just put a little number I keep getting asked questions but I don't get to answer them I'm sorry Mr bar I just wanted to I just wanted to say the calculation is we're adding 0.009% of impervious coverage to the site that's the it's a 38 Acre Site that we're adding four small concrete pads to just to put it into you know a level of magnit ude of what is being proposed and sorry for cutting you off no no problem just just so it's on the record Mr C in answer to your question I would Envision a developer's agreement that instead of having the applicant immediately put in the conduit there would be a time frame of say two or three years in which to do it um could bonds for it just to make sure that uh there's a time frame in which it would be done and that's a condition of approval that the applicant could agree to you've indicated on the record that's not something they're interested in but I just wanted to answer your question in terms of what I Envision or what the board envisioned so just so that's on the record so you can continue the the application because obviously all the board members are going to listen to all the evidence before there's a there's any type of vote taken on it Mr C but continue your presentation uh I don't know if you have anything else for Mr Marinelli not on not on Direct um okay there might be more Cross of Mr Marinelli and then we'll move to our project planner okay so well before we do that do we have any other uh questions from the board if not uh I'd like to open it up to the public uh for any questions from the public if any member of the public wishes to ask Mr Marinelli any questions related to his testimony or the engineering you could raise your hand and and miss Buckley will um identify and let you in or allow you to do you see no no one Madam chair okay it's closed to the public all right Mr Marin now you can call your next witness thank you madam chair so we'll call Matt Flynn our project planner discuss the variant proofs and we're going to put further testimony on the record relative to that condition item thank you okay Mr Marinelli could you unshare your screen just for a minute thank you um oh there he is okay Mr Flynn if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your professional address please yeah Matthew Flynn f l YNN business address is one1 Gibralter Drive Morris Plains New Jersey bear with me I gotta write that fast Morris what Morris Plains New Jersey raise your right hand you test when I give before this board will be the whole truth I do your witness Mr call thank you sir so Matt uh for the record the benefit of your background and credentials as a licensed professional planner sure my education comes from Ruckers University I have my master's degree in planning and public policy I have my professional my professional planners license in the state of New Jersey as well as my national licensure for planners which is the aicp license I've testified before over a 100 boards across the state and both of my LIC are um in good effect thank you you may testify as a planner please thank you [Music] ma'am so mat a few Baseline items before you get off to the races with your findings and your proofs um you're familiar with the filed project the plans on file and the release and collected is that right yes you're familiar with the underlying code and the zone and the master plan yes as well as the existing conditions on the property and the Delta of proposed conditions as testified to by Mr Marinelli just before you yes so if you would Matt would you take the board through the variances and the proofs justifying same and then we'll discuss um the reports and the items sought in them sure and I think a nice uh backdrop maybe uh if Mr Marinelli wants to put that exhibit back on the screen just while I go through my uh my my testimony I think that would be a nice way for the board to to get a glimpse of kind of what I'm talking about so just at a high level just to Echo the points made by Mr marinell uh Mr Marinelli just a few moments ago we're looking at an already developed piece of property we're looking at um a permitted use in the li5 zone um that was granted approvals for everything that's out there today minus the um the the setback that we that we're requesting this evening and then the the ratification of that other setback that Mr C mentioned um but at a high level you know we are looking at a pretty large development here and like Mr Marinelli mentioned we're talking about a very small percentage of the of the development that's actually up this evening for consideration of the board um and again that uh small percentage that we're talking about is to continue the existing use of the property for what's already happening out there today so really no significant changes from a land use perspective or even from a mass and scale perspective when we're when we're looking at again how small this this change is um in terms are the C variants for the rear setback I think it's pretty clear um when Mr Marinelli zoomed in on the on the piece of the property that we're looking at but this really is just a continuation of what's out there today it's continuing that pattern um it's really not going to stand out again as anything new or obtrusive in the context of the existing land use pattern that's out there today um again we are in the li5 zone we have a permitted use uh and I think that the purpose of that zone is is bolstered as a result of this application um which is to reflect existing Industries and promote non-hazardous operations um the proposed uh generator that we're proposing this evening is going to bolster that use that's already out there today it's going to help that use continue and Thrive and which I think is in line with what the Zone wants um here to keep existing businesses up and running and and doing the best that they possibly can um so again Rel for rear setback 4.34 ft is what's proposed 50 ft is what's required again that's consistent with the with the line with the pattern of generators that's out there today keeping that pattern and extending it a little bit farther out um I think that the relief is justified by virtue of both the C1 hardship test as well as the C2 balancing test uh to start with the C1 hardship test I would say that the relief relates to the land and the structures lawfully existing there on again we're looking at an already developed piece of property we're looking at an area where these generators already are and continuing that pattern um so this is an approved area that has that equipment yard with similar structures and again that continuation I would say we don't have much choice to put it somewhere else on the property that's already uh there there already are setback variances there um that we're continuing the C2 balancing test the benefits of the projects as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments I think in this case this is a a clear uh the weight of this project is clearly on the positives um in terms of the purposes of the municipal land use law we'll look at purpose a promotion of the general welfare all of the improvements that we're proposing are going to facilitate the continued operation and services um of the existing uh uh land use here with backup power in the event of any outages um I think we can also look at purpose G um a variety of land uses in appropriate locations seeing that this accessory utility structure is in a is in uh an already existing Utility Yard uh so I think this is an appropriate uh place on the property for that um and finally I think we can look at purpose M which is efficient use of land again we're looking at an area that's already approved for utility function uh and so I I believe that this is a a good location for this and again from and scale perspective this is an an infimal uh I would say stamp on the property that's not really going to be noticed in the public eye which I think brings me to the flip side to that the negative criteria I believe there would be no substantial detriment to the public or to the Zone plan uh first in terms of uh public impacts this is concealed at the back of the building which is a very large building it's visually imperceivable from the street um again a very small fraction of the the property that we're talking about this evening uh the location is secured from public access and dysfunctionally innocuous um and based on all of that I believe the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public or to the Zone uh and I think all of that goes towards that one uh setback variance that we're requesting again that's 4.34 feet um as opposed to 50 feet uh and just to I guess go into the the the testimony regarding the PBC piping I'll Echo what Mr C mentioned uh there is substantial case law on this uh notably at the at the uh Federal level there was a Supreme Court case which is known as Dolan versus city of Tigard which basically says that in order for there must be a reasonable relationship between a development that is that is uh required by the township and and the the project that's being proposed by the applicant in this case again we're talking about a land use that's already there and we're only seeking to modify a small portion of it I think that the this the Township's efforts to do this are audable but I would say that there would be an opportunity to fulfill this purpose in the future perhaps but I think that maybe for this particular application this wouldn't be the most appropriate time for that again considering that this is an already developed piece of property and in order to get that PVC piping there would need to be perhaps substantial uh uh changes to the to like Mr Marinelli said the asphalt um utilities or the like uh perhaps in the future when we're looking at a clean slate or Redevelopment of the property something like that would be more appropriate but again I would say that in this case um there is not a rational Nexus between what's being proposed um um and that that initiative so with that I think unless there's any redirect or questions um that's pretty much my my testimony thank you Matt Madam chair we make Mr Flynn available to questions of the board and your staff yes uh members of the board do you have any questions of Mr Flynn I have one question Madam chair Mr Cali is Mr Flynn going to address the variance for the um pad that was built closer than the previous approval yeah we could certainly bolster testimony on that point I mean it's I didn't know if he addressed it if I I think he globally did as part of his proofs but but Matt if you could specifically speak to what was implemented in the field at 37.7 feet as opposed to 39.4 feet the asbill condition that's being zoomed in right now Matt thank you right so as we can see on our screen here we're talking about uh just about two feet of difference uh and Council yet we are going to we are seeking to ratify that that existing condition as opposed to what was approved which is again just about uh two feet of of of of Delta there um and I think that the rationale for that comes directly from the testimony that I put in for the the newly sought uh C variants for rear setback uh again continuing a pattern that's out there today and making the most efficient use of space thank you thanks are there any other questions from any other members of the board hearing no questions we could uh I'd like to open it up to the public for any questions of Mrs Glen any members of the public who wish to ask Mr Flynn any questions um if you want to raise your hand and signify that you have a question no one Madam chair uh therefore I'll close it to the public Mr Martin Elli Madam chair is Larry Cali um I've had an opportunity to confer with the app I'm sorry Mr C I've been called worse even today Madam chair not a problem um the applicant um while they are are steadfast in in our proofs on the condition that's being sought uh following the mayor's few comments um the applicant said they would be a good neighbor be a good citizen continue to do so and enter into a developers agreement with the municipality as a condition of approval to implement this in the field over a course of time and and perhaps Mr Barlo and I can discuss that period we think it's probably more appropriate that the implementation uh be associated with actual implementation in the field of a budding sites as opposed to just a two-year window otherwise you've got kind of that sidewalk to Nowhere reality so um the short of it is the applicant will be amendable to enter into a developers agreement for a the development of that new ordinance requirement on a protracted basis uh with a time to be determined uh with some reasonable measure in there and the terms could be worked out between Mr Barlo myself post approval and if they can't be worked out we can come back before the board that's fair enough Mr Barlo okay I would be amenable to that just as a quick question Mr call because I'm I'm not sure as to the other comments in the board's professional report were there any issues I don't believe there were but like to double check with Mr Marinelli any issues Mike with the other comments in those reports no we agree to comply with all the additional comments received in those reports the majority of them were related to um the zoning table not being updated per the current phase uh but of course with revised documents should the application be approved we would we would correct those zoning table okay perfect I just wanted to get that on the record and I'm sure we can work out the Developers agreement between the municipality and Mr Cy I have no doubt thank you very much okay then um I would like to have a motion that includes and incorporates uh an approval uh with uh as long as they have a developers agreement Madame chair John corpin I'll make the motion that we approve the application subject to the board professional reports also subject to the applicant entering into the developers agreement the F fiber conduit line installation which will be the time period of which will be determined by the attorneys do I have a second Madame chair Reverend Kenny I'll second that motion thank you roll call please mayor Waller yes councilwoman Cahill yes Miss corkran yes Reverend Kenny yes Mr Foster yes and Madam chair yes thank you thank you very much folks have a good night good evening Take Care thank you give me one second to grab my file next file and clean up my mess from the last one all right all set thank you hey item number 12 23 pb29 pepsic Co beverages North America Mr attorney David P uh good evening Madam chair uh this is actually Tim art from Bob Smith and Associates I'm filling in for Dave in tonight um I'm an attorney licensed in the state of New Jersey uh and I'm here representing uh pepsic Co this is a site located at 2200 New Brunswick Avenue um and this application tonight is for um the installation of uh some Chiller units uh that are being upgraded from um ammonia chillers to glycol chillers which is a more modern and efficient um technology as well as for the installation of a CO2 uh Silo to replace uh an a an aged Silo that's on the site now is about 30 years old and is uh and is basically at the end of its useful life um and with that there's going to be restriping of some additional loading spaces uh and uh and other site improvements um the variances that we are seeking tonight there are two that uh have to do with signage uh the first uh involves a freestanding sign um and it's a location to the uh to the right of way we are 20 feet from the right where where 50 feet is uh is mandated um that's an existing freestanding sign um uh I don't know if it was previously um approved as part of a a previous site plan but it's been there and it's been in that location for quite some time we're not uh we're not anticipating changing that at all in addition to that there's also um uh signage um directional signage um which is set back uh supposed to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line ours are 7.7 feet 9 fet and 9.5 ft respectively uh and I believe those signs were actually installed when the sidewalks were in insted at the direction of the township um so again existing this is existing signage we're not proposing to change it at all but these are existing conditions that we just want to mention for the uh for the completeness sake of the application uh essentially the only new variants that we're asking for is uh related to accessory structure height um the CO2 Silo uh that I mentioned uh that's replaced in the old CO2 Silo is uh 38.8 3 ft in height um where normally accessory structures are only 25t in height so that is relief that we are uh that we are requesting um we do have four reports uh tonight that uh we'll be making reference to one is Miss corran's um zoning report uh the other is uh we also have Mr herrera's U memo uh related to the uh to the fiber optic conduit uh request uh that was the subject of much discussion on the last application as well as a memorandum from uh from Mr hinterstein and a memorandum from uh CME uh Associates um I will I have two direct Witnesses uh tonight um first is going to be uh Scott Turner from men low engineer uh men men low engineering and then also we have Jim Higgins who is our professional planner we do also have a representative from uh Pepsi that is here Miss Lauren gillo uh who is available in case the uh the board has any questions that would be more appropriate for ownership to answer um but uh unless there's any uh direct questions for me um I think we can proceed with our first witness I like the Pepsi Witnesses because they have the logo they're easy to find on the screen uh so our first witness would be uh Mr who did I say Scott Turner from uh from memo engineer all right Mr Turner if you could state your name spell your last name for us and give us your professional address sir uh sure good evening everybody my name is Scott Turner t n r I am a princip engineer with men low Engineering Associates at 261 Cleveland Avenue Highland Park New Jersey you raise your right hand you swear the testimony give before this boort will be the whole TR I do Mr arch your witness sir uh Mr Turner I'm going to turn it over to you if you can please just take us through uh the site and uh if you want to touch upon any of the reports that you think are uh relevant sure credentials oh I I thought he already put the credentials on the record but but I will uh no I can do that my apologies Mr Turner put the credentials on the record please sure we'll do that I am a graduate of the New Jersey Institute of Technology I have a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering I am a principal engineer with men Engineering Associates with over 30 four years of experience in the field of civil engineering Land Development I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey my licence is in good standing and I provided testimony as a professional engineer throughout the state of New Jersey including being in front of this board many times before I would ask that Mr Torne thank you is he' be approve he's approved thank you madam chair uh all right Scott APR propo to my last question if you please take us through sure Madam can I share my screen would that be okay yes you may okay what I put on the screen is an exhibit that was prepared by my office it's titled PepsiCo PCAT away overall plan exhibit dated March 12th 2024 uh we can uh for the record mark this as exhibit A1 with today's date of March 13th uh this is a very basic rendering uh more black and white than anything else there are some green rectangular areas to identify um the areas of discussion uh throughout the application uh anywhere else beyond the limits of those areas are really um areas that are existing and not being um uh you know not being touched with respect to anything we're doing on the property with this application so for the record quickly it's it is block 1301 lot 2.04 the property contains 36.7 Acres it has approximately 2,000 ft of Frontage along New Brunswick Avenue and Lake View Avenue Lake View Avenue being up at the uh top of the sheet uh to the north New Brunswick Avenue running uh perpendicular to the right of this exhibit along the easterly side uh the property is surrounded primarily with a mix of commercial industrial and residential uses um the property itself again is the pepico beverage uh company around uh three of the sides the South Side the west side and the north side they are primarily uh service related areas uh service driveways trailer storage uh loading do Etc uh the Northeast side uh which is the primary area of work uh proposed with the application uh is also existing uh developed service areas where we're just going to be uh slightly increasing some of the coverage for some additional trailer storage spaces on the east side of the property there's a large parking field car parking field for employees and visitors and in between that parking field and New Brunswick Avenue is a uh a large lar open area that has U some landscaping and existing uh tree cover uh the northwest corner of the property uh which is up in the upper left corner here with access on the lake VI Avenue uh has an existing structure accessory structure building with again additional service areas some additional car parking really nothing going on with respect to this application in that area uh the property is located in the li5 the light industrial zoning District and uh we are here seeking preliminary and final site plan approval to uh provide 10 additional uh trailer storage spaces on the northeast side of the building uh they would run adjacent to the existing trailer storage spaces that are in that location uh in addition to that trailer storage area uh we would uh also be installing uh 17 additional uh Eastern red uh Cedar uh plants uh to uh EX and the existing buffer that's out there currently uh I know there was in the staff reports to add some additional Landscaping on the what would be the easterly side of the new trailer storage spaces and we would certainly agree to comply with that as well as to uh raise the height from 6 to 7 feet on planting to I believe 7 to8 uh whatever that letter had indicated and we'll go through that uh we will agree to comply with that there there's no issue with that so in addition to that we're also proposing to extend the uh the fencing to again secure the new trailer storage area match what's there existing today which is a uh we believe a six foot high uh galvanized uh chain length fence uh to secure the new trailer area in addition to that uh the proposal is to provide three new chillers uh that are located in uh this northeast corner again that's uh where I'm circling uh they will be installed on three new conrete pads that were part of a previous uh permit uh and uh that that CH those chillers there are again uh needed for the functioning of the uh facility itself and to U uh to replace uh some of the uh aging um equipment that's currently out in the property now uh we're also proposing to install a new uh CO2 Silo pad with a proposed Silo again in that very same corner already is an existing horizontal uh Silo that's located within a fenced area directly at the northeast corner of the building that that horizontal Silo will be removed and replaced with this more modern uh 38 uh foot 38. 83 foot tall uh vertical Silo uh which again is needed to replace some um some aging material out of the site and adjacent to that silo existing is another Silo at a height of 35 ft so uh this Silo that we're proposing is 3.83 Ft taller than the existing Silo that's there currently today so all of the improvements we're proposing are within that northeast corner uh there's no impact on the property to the uh on-site circulation or existing parking areas we're not proposing any building additions no changes to existing utilities or Drainage Systems whatsoever uh there is a slight increase in in is coverage under the trailer storage uh of 6,491 square ft existing on the property is 48.3% in previous coverage will that will be increased to 48.7% uh which is well uh within the 65% permitted within the Zone uh as as pointed out by uh Mr Arch we do U require variances for the height of the accessory structure which is this new uh uh tank itself which again is approximately 30 years old and it does need to be upgraded for safety reasons and it's it's the size it is uh in order to U uh you know to have enough capacity to meet the needs of the uh you know from the manufacturing uh perspective and it is a standard size that comes from the manufacturer itself uh The Silo tank will be white in color to match the tank that's there today which is adjacent to it which will remain uh um and uh so it will blend in with the existing condition is and the white color is a uh is a Pepsi standard color for a bulk Silo storage uh which is why everything out there is in white uh that silopad is approximately 300 feet from New Brunswick Avenue and uh you know if you're if you're looking at that silo or the existing Silo from new Bruns Avenue you do get a filtered view from the existing vegetation and trees uh that are in between that area and New Brunswick Avenue itself the variances required for the signs are existing non-conformities uh we have two conditions out at Lake View Avenue two directional signs one is at 9.0 ft at the one driveway which is the most North uh West driveway at Lake View Avenue and then the easterly driveway on Lake View is 7.7 ft both existing conditions and along New Brunswick Avenue we have another directional sign at the southerly drive uh and that sign is set back 9.5 ft from the right of away and then the uh the freestanding sign um which is also the variance requested another existing non-conformity uh is set back uh 20 uh feet I'm sorry set back 12.5 ft uh from the RightWay line uh where it needs to be set back 50 ft so uh those are the existing I apologize I there's there's more directional signs in this area here the freestanding sign which is the variance request that this driveway is 20 foot set back from the RightWay whereas 50 F feet is required so the free standing is 20 versus 50 and then the other three signs are 7.7 9 fet 9.5 feet as opposed to what's required at 10 ft uh for the um to to meet the requirements we have review letters from uhi Associates uh J dated January 22nd 2024 from Mr Reardon uh we have no uh issues or any items in here that we need to discuss we can comply with all the conditions within that staff report again most of it is dealing with the zoning and the zoning table and some testimony in regards to the uh the variances that are required uh we have a review memorandum from um division of engineering and planning dated January 23rd 2024 uh we have no issue with the majority of the items within that staff report other than item number seven that is dealing with the proposed chainlink fence that indicates that it should be entirely black the details should note the entire fence post rails mesh and Hardware shall be black uh we would request that we allow to match the existing condition that's there currently which is a galvanized uh you know just a chain link fence um it is set back significantly from New Brunswick Avenue really can't be seen uh so we would you know recommend to the board that we be allowed to uh build its new fence around the new trailer storage area at the same type of material that's out there uh currently and on that same memorandum on the the next page number eight just a comment in regards to complying with the uh Statewide model EV ordinance uh that that ordinance is not applicable to this particular application uh we are not adding any new additional parking spaces or any modifications to the parking Fields uh so that that is not equal to what we're doing here we have a review letter from Mr Herrera which is in regards to the installation of the 4in PBC conduits along the frontage and I believe Mr Arch we agreed that uh we would be uh amenable to that condition as long as again we have some time in order to implement that uh in the field yeah one of the things that I will will add to that uh Scott is that I just for the for the completeness of the record um uh just so that everybody is aware we did send a letter um uh requesting relief from that uh from that conduit condition um citing the same reasons that I believe Mr CI cited in the previous application which is the uh the lack of a causal Nexis under the ml for the requirement uh to put that in I just want to make sure the record uh reflect that that we did request that if the board um is uh is insistent on having that be a condition associated with approval and all cander we would uh agree to that uh similarly as the last application did we would ask for an opportunity to enter into a developers agreement to uh set forth the specifics as to when that would be implemented um but I just want to note that uh uh that we we had the same request for Relief if the board um I know the board was not uh was not extending that at the last application um but I would be remiss if I didn't ask uh we would we would ask that the board uh not impose that as a condition of this application however if the board again does uh uh does request that that be uh maintained as an application we will agree uh to to uh address it by way of a developers agreement similar to the last application mad chair I have no further direct testimony at this point just Mr Arch first of all thank you for placing that on the record just Miss Coran with regards to the Mr hinterstein Chanel can you maybe un share your screen Mr Turner uh Mr hinterstein January 23rd 2024 report do you have any um issue if they match what's out there in terms of Defence around this one particular Edition I don't have any issue with that uh Mr bar okay and similarly with number eight of Mr hinterstein report no I agree with the applicant and I also believe that um Ron had mentioned that in his report as well that this is not applicable to the the the requirement of the EVS is not applicable to this app okay so I think that addresses the applicants agreement to all the reports absent Mr hen's number seven and eight with the addendums that have been placed on the record and Mr barley the only other the other only other Port uh point I might want to mention is that in Mr hen's report his uh his number three indicates that the CO2 tank is not part of the application and should be removed I think that's an artifact from from an older um uh submission we did submit with the CO2 tank we revised it so I think that that is also not applicable the CO2 tank is obviously that's the accessory structure variance that we're asking for so I think that's just a hold over from a correct answered my question because when I first got this you would I had read their application and basically he said we're here because a lot of the signage we were off by a few feet there was no mention of it all these other uh improvements so it's already covered by the other staff uh reports and I'm fine with it but that this is why I was a little confused because I really thought that this was just a a signage application that that that things would placed a little little closer to New Brunswick Avenue than what was initially approved approved and that that's what you're initial uhh submission said but if it's been changed since then that's fine uh yes Mr R and and I apologize if you didn't uh if you didn't get access to those revised plans of the robot all good I'm sure Mr Higgins will cover it I'm sure he will uh and unless there's any uh questions like uh for Mr Turner members of the board do you have any other questions of of this Witness hearing none I I'd like to uh open it up to the public for questions of this way any members of the public as in the last application if you wish to ask Mr Turner any questions about his testimony if signify by raising your hand and Miss Buckley will identify Noah Madam chair uh hearing no response from the public it's closed to the public Mr Arch do you have another Witness uh yes our next witness is uh James Higgins he's our professional planner good evening Mr Higgins if you could state your name spell your last name for the record and give us your professional address James W Higgins hi GG i ns I am a licensed professional planner my address is 14 Tilton Drive Ocean New Jersey uh Mr Higgins if you can please give us a little bit of your background give us wait wait I got to swear them in but I can't write as fast as it's talk 14 tilon yes Drive Ocean Ocean Township New Jersey okay Mr Higgins if you raise your right hand you swear the testimony you'll give before this Bo will be the whole truth yes but before I raise my hand I want to advise everyone it's not as serious as it looks and you should have seen the other guy oh my goodness I was like what the heck is he talking about sh your figured it out he set us up tell tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you your witness Mr Arch and and uh Mr Higgins if you could please uh go through your uh credentials uh briefly so you can be accepted as a I'm I'm a licensed professional planner I have a Bachelor of Science degree in landscape architecture from rers University I've been practicing a license planner for 45 years in the state and my license is still current I've testified before hundreds of boards throughout the state been accepted by Superior Courts in at least five counties and been recognized by the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey as an expert in the field of planning you are accepted you may proceed thank you uh Mr Higgins if you can please just take us through your uh your analysis yeah surely um well the application was explained pretty good by Mr Turner so B basically I'll just go through the proofs on the variances um there are are three types of variances two two different sign variances and then one for the height of the uh accessory structure with regard to the height of the accessory structure which is really the uh the what I consider to be the mo most uh the newest and most relevant uh variants in the application the applicants proposing a a silo that's going to be a little over 38 feet high it's going to be set back over 230 feet from New Brunswick Avenue and well over that from Lake Avenue uh the intent of the ordinance in having restrictions on the height of accessory structures goes more towards buildings than very narrow conle type structures like The Silo and also it takes into consideration the fact that the front yard setback in the zone is 50 feet and what's being proposed here is a narrow Silo that's actually set back 200 I think it's 237 ft from New Brunswick Avenue it's only going to be three and a half feet higher than the existing Silo that is on the site now and it's going to be the same exact color and it's going to blend right in very nicely it's also going to be screened by by existing and proposed vegetation so there will be no substantial detriment there is a need for the applicant to have this new structure and the height of the structure is dictated by the fact that it's a a standard size for this type of Silo for this function and that to have it be lowered at all it wouldn't function as well and also it would cost much more to construct because it would have to be something that would be constructed from scratch rather than one as as a standard size so when I look at this I think first of all there's no substantial detriment it's visibility is is very limited won't look any different than what site looks like today and it's necessary for the function of the site and for the Improvement of the function of the site so that the applicant can continue to utilize the site in an effective manner so I think really it fits the C2 criteria where the benefits of the graning the variant substantially outweigh the detriments with regard to the signage and I just want to correct uh one thing Mr Turner said is that the required setback for the freestanding sign is 30 feet 50 feet is the setback for a building and what's what's proposed and what exists is a sign that's setback 20 feet uh the ordinance permits a 30 foot high sign a sign that exists there somewhere between five and six feet high I didn't go out and actually measure the height but in looking at it it's shorter than I am and I'm six feet high it's also enclosed in a landscaped area that has Stones around it it's very very attractive and was my understanding and I may or may not be correct on this it was actually previously approved at 20 feet with a prior application but I don't see any substantial detriment I think it's a very attractive sign in fact at 20 feet because of the way it's situated the size of the sign it's probably more attractive than it would be if it was set back to 30 feet so again I don't see a significant problem with that with that variance as far as the variances for the Mr Higgins can I just stop you there for one second just to to clarify something I I believe the requirement for a freestanding sign is no closer than 50 feet from the right away and I thought you saying you're correcting that the the 30 I'm just looking at the staff reports which indicate 50 fet so I understand the proofs for your variance probably are identical whether it's 50 or 30 but I just want the record to reflect and maybe Dawn can just chime in yeah the um the ordinance does required a 50 foot setback um how however I do believe there was a prior variance granted for a 30-foot setback um s somehow along the line the sign was um installed at 20 ft so um that is the reason why it was called out in our report um simply because it wasn't it's not where it was supposed to be yeah that's cor for some reason I just read the CME report I thought it said 30 it says 50 okay yeah I mean what I had was that it was I mean I concurred with Dawn it says 50 feet required yes and I think I think it was supposed to be 30 um 20 feet exist 30 feet was propos 30 feet was initially approved okay so that got a little quirky there and I'm looking at it I could have phrased it better so my apologies just want to make sure we if if the V fa that the right variance is granted well yeah I mean because that's what Mr archers uh text said that it was supposed to be 30 ft but they actually built it at 20 ft so it's basically recognizing what's already there yep gotcha I just want the record to be clear all right you go on Mr Higgins and as far as the uh the directional signs again they were placed there at the direction of the municipality when the sidewalks were built they're very small they're two to three square feet in area and I I think all three of them are actually situated so that they're parallel to the street rather than perpendicular so somebody driv down the street would only see them when they're directly opposite the sign so I don't see any substantial detriment I think to move them away from the sidewalk I think the intent of those signs was as much to advise pedestrians that there were driveways there that were loading for loading purposes and so they should have been as close to the sidewalk as possible so I don't see any sub substantial detriment I think there is a benefit to having them where they are um it's not a big deal to move them back to 10 feet but I don't think it's necessary and I think that's basically the extent of my testimony thank you Mr Higgins Mr Higgins is available for questions from the board uh board members do you have any questions of Mr Higgins hearing no response from the board uh I'll open it up to the public again forgive the sirens in the background but if any members of the public wish to ask questions if you could raise your hand no Madam chair thank you um therefore uh it's now closed to the public you have any other testimony Mr parch no direct testimony as I mentioned before I do have Miss gillo is uh is here she is a representative of Pepsi so if the board um had any questions uh uh that could be directed to her she's certainly here for questions but uh that would conclude our uh our case Okay uh members of the board um if you have have no questions of these two witnesses or the owner who is here what's your pleasure on this motion on this application I'm sorry madam chair Don Corin I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the board professionals reports and the staff report um also subject to the applicant entering into a developers agreement for the installation of the fiber conduit lines um the time frame uh for which the installation shall take place will be outlined in that agreement and seven and eight of Mr henin's report a three s and eight 3 seven and eight yes you're thank you Tom do I have a second Madam chair Reverend Kenny I'll second that motion thank you roll call please mayor Waller yes councilwoman kahill yes Miss corkran yes Reverend Kenny yes Mr Foster yes and Madam chair yes thank you thank you have a wonderful evening everybody you too you too Mr Arch good night don't shave that goatee tomedd that goatee is as good as gone he said don't shave that goatee 100% right the beard Club um item number 14 uh discussion Madam chair that's an area in need um that has been referred over by the council I believe Mr Clarin is here yes I am Mr Clark we could just get him sworn in Mr Clarkin if you could stay jate sorry yep no problem James clar CL RK foresight planning this is address at 320 East Rumford Road in Philadelphia PA okay you raise your right hand you s test want to give before the board will be the whole truth I do your the floor is yours Mr excellent okay you may proceed all right sharing my screen and we'll get started so tonight uh good evening board members I'm presenting on the area in need of Redevelopment today for Block 571 Lots 11 and 12 this is 1700 South Washington Avenue um this is actually just across from the Halper Farm property um so I'll just report on my investigation of these Lots if I if I can correct uh Mr Clarin it's the ecological Park sorry thank you eological par my apologies M Mr Mayor um uh yeah so I'll just report on the my findings for this investigation uh I do the typical look at zoning building records environmental constraints um your master plan uh and your zoning ordinance as I usually do um and then we'll compare those condition against the statutory criteria found in the local Redevelopment and Housing law so I'm going to start um by describing the area um there is a aerial map at the end of my report if it's easier for you to see the physical area but we're talking about two lots and together they Encompass Encompass about 56 Acres so it's quite a large area uh lot 11 is the bigger of those two tax slots uh that's about 42 acres and it's owned by fields of corn LLC and then Lot 12 is just below it uh they're contiguous and it's bit smaller at just shy of 15 acres and that is owned by Deo hzu so um as you can imagine it has extensive Frontage along South Washington Avenue and it actually extends all the way back to study Avenue which is part of an established residential neighborhood um as you can see in the aial the entire study area has never been developed with the exception of Lot 12 which has a single family home I'll get to that but most of it is currently V land and it has a lot of wood shrubs Meadow and Forest on it um and you can uh once I get to the photographs you'll be able to see the nature of the site and in terms of um its vacancy but aside from the home there is uh electric utility Towers um that actually bifurcate or um split the study area in half um which is obviously a utility easement that's in place um with respect to the home it is currently occupied it's two-story single family home you can see it on Lot 12 and was bit built back in 1956 and has approximately 4,300 square feet um of level space um and I would like to note that the current opin is open to relocation without Township assistance if the study area is redeveloped um so back to that utility is I just want to note that it is 100 feet wide um and it's just big overhead Electric lines with the massive support towers and in addition to that on Lot 12 towards the southern border um it is encumbered through its entire depth by a Texas Eastern transmission use um so as I mentioned other than the single family F no other uses um oops um have been developed in this study area uh after reviewing all the different building and Zoning records with um except for that one house um so you're talking about two tax Lots in the study are located in your SC zone so that's your senior citizen housing Zone um in terms of environmental analysis uh typically I use ngd's GIS mapping tool and um the only thing that really came up was Wetland so both Lots actually have Wetlands over an acre in area present on each lot lot 11 has the most with 19 Acres of wetlands and Lot 12 has 3.4 Acres of wetlands so that's total combined of about 22.4 within the entire study area um excuse me and may be and that condition May attribute to the lack of utilization and development of those lots um so other than that there are no other environmental concerns no known contaminated sites nothing of that nature just the wetlands um uh in terms of surrounding land uses uh as mentioned is the ecological Park Environmental preserve to the east on the other side of South Washington to the West is an existing residential residential neighborhood and then there are some homes to the South as well on Woodland Avenue close to Lake Nelson um that border the Redevelopment area or the study area I should say um further the land use to the north I believe it's on lot two of this block it's currently being developed as a warehouse use um and as you go further north to the intersection of Centennial Avenue you'll find the um the Town Center uh so with that I'm gonna jump to the photographs which I believe start on page nine of my report so I'm going to start with lot 11 as I already mentioned this is 42 acres and entirely comprised of vacant uh undeveloped land um also when I did my search I found no police or building records for this lot so this is a view of lot 11 um from the other side of South Washington um and then as you continue you can kind of see some close-ups um there really was no need to walk the entire property as you can see in the aerial um the entire site is pretty much like this uh wooded Meadow uh you can see those large massive utility easements or um electrial line structures and actually on this bottom photo you can see see where that uh Texas Eastern transmission line is but really uh the rest of the photos show the foresty nature of the lot and this is the northern border where I mentioned that the construction is taking place on lot two so now moving on to Lot 12 as I mentioned it has that one single family residential home on it uh it's actually at the end of a culdesac but the rest is just like a lot 11 um it's got the overhead electrical utility lines and it's mostly forested in Meadow so this is a good shot of how it bifurcates the uh both Lots so that continues North Northwest um and then the remainder of the property is pretty heavily forested all the way to s Avenue uh there was water flowing under a culvert uh you can kind of see it better here South Washington goes over this Culvert um I believe it just strin to the other side and probably part of the wetlands and then this is more forced undeveloped nature of Lot 12 and that's a good view of the utility lines as well bifurcating both lots and here's the home so as you can tell it's in good condition um after my investigation I did not find that the structure itself did not meet any of the criteria um found in the local Redevelopment Housing law and you you could also tell that the inside is you know it's a it's a home that's being lived in and being taken care of um so now that I've shown the conditions I want to touch on what criteria it does uh that does apply to this study area so my finding was that criteria e and H apply so the reason for e is for two main factors so the first is the condition of title which discourages the undertaking of improvements so as I mentioned that huge utility ement is cutting the two lots in two um and it's really creating an additional development challenge with respect to location of potential improvements whether it's on either side of the easement um area and also you cannot build obviously underneath the ement area as well further I would say that the overhead lines and support structures are aesthetically displeasing and might raise health and safety concerns for segments of the General Public uh possibly particularly the senior citizens who is exactly the segment that this property is zoned for um so that could be a development challenge but when you combine the utility easement with the extens of wetlands on the property I believe that's the main reason that improvements have been discour and there really is no proper UTI utilization of these two lots so I think that accounts for the vacant nature um uh with the exception of the single family home but both Lots over the last 60 years uh have been mainly vacant um which is kind of the opposite of where nearby area saw substantial residential development so I think this finding shows that uh the combination of the utility easement and the wetlands um shows a lack of proper or is the cause for lack of proper utilization of these slots now the second Factor that's specific and important to the E criteria is the diversity of ownership and that was found as a fact for these two lots so we looked at the title ownership and there is a distinct separate owner for each lot so the so that diverse ownership was what is really doing is um impeding land assemblage which is another hurdle that's um stopping development or even Redevelopment so I think Redevelopment would pave the way for both laws to be developed together into a more integrated and productive use um and can reverse the you know non-utilization that we see today day um so not only does it impede land assemblage but um it's really discouraging the undertaking improvements that we need for senior citizen housing um so to kind of put a bow on it the lack of proper utilization improvements and investment is having a negative social and economic impact on the community um as you probably know these lws were fairly re fairly recently rezoned in December 2020 to the zone um there's no other land zoned anywhere in the township for senior housing except for Sterling Village and there really is a significant need in demand for senior housing uh there's a lot of Aging residents and they either have to leave Piscataway because there's no um senior housing options or they have to age in place um because they want to stay if they can so I think that's a negative social impact but further the lack of development is a negative economic impact because without uses improvements we obviously know that it's not the same tax value to the township um and not fully productive Parcels so therefore I found that both a negative social and economic impact can be rectified and reversed through Redevelopment of this lot lots I should say 11 and 12 so in my professional opinion the E criteria does apply here um to the conditions cited above um and I think uh designating it as an area in need of Redevelopment will open up more opportunities for land Mage and Redevelopment to reverse these conditions um oops apologies wrong page and then finally age criteria applies which is the Smart planning criteria um I believe the principles of smart planning are furthered in that um we're on a major Suburban arterial that that is South Washington and it directly connects to Interstate 287 less than a mile away so if it would be redeveloped it would be able to promote development using all the existing infrastructure around it you know the the good roadway systems the sewer service area the utilities are all there so um the Redevelopment of the study area is supported by the smart growth principles in this case so I believe the age criteria can be applied as well so in summation uh I recommend that this board and the township Council determine that the study area is in area in need of Redevelopment because it meets both the E and age criteria um and I think moving forward with a plan a Redevelopment plan will help reinforce the Township's goals uh found in his master plan um but also the state's smart growth planning principles um so yeah it's my recommendation to designate as a non-c condation area in need of Redevelopment and I'm happy to take any questions members of the board do you have any questions question I would like to have Madam chair regard go ahead Mr uh re Ken uh in regards to the property you did you state that you can't have a senior housing uh project being put up on that property so the logic that I'm trying to apply or the conditions that I found are that the combination of the wetlands and the utility easement is causing conditions that make it difficult for development um and also the diverse ownership so it's zoned for it but nothing has happened yet and I think it's because of these conditions that I just cited so I think the intent is if it does become in need of Redevelopment I think um we would look at uses that are currently found in your senior citizen housing uh Zone yeah because that's what I was looking at because I know the tower lines are there but they do build in regards different areas for Towers even Edison and certain areas you can build on it okay that answers my question thank you no problem any other questions from the board uh Madam chair just one quick question so I'm I'm just s of looking at the map because the the that areial view is easier for me to see um where is the access to that house uh let me zoom in it's off Woodland Road yes oh okay correct uh let me get down there yeah yeah the the law lines are kind of hiding it but um there is a driveway I believe right is it right here yeah it's right there right at silvin and Woodland okay so that house is tucked away back there yeah so you can kind of see it's just vacant all around and just this well not tiny house but this house sole single family house on it is it occupied yes it is currently currently I believe so yes but as I stated they would be open for relocation without Township assistance should this move forward to Redevelopment that would be between the developer then and the owner I believe so could you point out where that high uh intensity with that wire with that Tower is yeah so I think there's a tower here and you can kind of see the two lines cutting across so you know if you develop on the South Washington side you're kind of limited and then there's also the wetlands so um having them together might open more possibilities on the west side that would need access either from Woodland or St are those uh wires removable or are they still in use still in Ed so that they would have to remain so yeah so Madam CH don't think that the if if a senior housing were to be built the the access would not be from Washington Avenue I know I get it I don't think I don't think no there there there would be access from Washington Avenue there would have to be there's actually paper Streets back in there also yeah you would just m Madam chair if I may as far as the map if I remember to call the Wetland Maps most of the areas where on the larger lot where you see the trees down but where the single family homes are that's where the wetlands is so where all there's existing homes are buding both properties a lot of that is the Wetland so they would not be impacted they would they wouldn't be able to build there is what you're saying that's correct correct um all right well Reverend Kenny we still don't have any place to move okay uh any other questions um any more questions from the board should we open it up for the public sorry I was muted yes Madam chair uh anyone in the public have any questions or comments do raise your hand hands uh gother you need to unmute gother um okay I have several questions um one can I just stop you for one second okay if if you could uh state your name um spell your last name and just give us your address okay uh Rosalie Guth g t h r i live on 130 Woodland Road I have two I have two questions and one kind of comment comment kind of questions the first is there is a pipeline also in this property that you can see it's right at the edge of Lot 12 um it's in between Lot 12 and the lot 11 so it looks like a big cleared area but there's a gas pipeline there can they build on top of that pipeline no I don't believe so no no they would have to move around that or develop assuming there's an easement that would not allow that okay um my second question is it's designated right now for senior housing if this plan should go through would there be any way for them to change that to a different type of housing can they rezone this after it's been approved so the if I may the process after this is if the board accepts my findings for the study we move to the Redevelopment plan stage um and and in Redevelopment plans you can designate specific uses um however I think the intent is to keep the underlying Zoning for those types of uses for senior citizen housing is that fair that's if I may Mr Clark and that's a part of the master plan already that yes that senior housing correct okay so hopefully they will keep it as senior housing because I'm I really am okay with senior housing I am a senior myself um the last thing is the wetlands um the last study that I saw on the wetlands was done in 2021 we have noticed um a significant increase in water puddling in the area since they started building those uh warehouses further up the road would there be any way for them to I I guess I I don't really know where the wetlands are I did see the the um the chart for Lot 12 from 2021 but it was unreadable when it was sent to me so it was a little difficult to uh tell where you're saying the wetlands are but specifically behind my house it has gotten wetter and I don't know I don't think we've gotten any more significant rain than previous years but it definitely seems wetter since this year specifically since they started doing I mean it was wet up by where they just put in those new um uh warehouses but I don't know if the water was channed towards us or what but it does seem to be wetter Mr Clarken if I may uh all I know is that we've had received within the last year a lot of precipitation I mean the fact that where I live I only had to run my irrigation system uh five times during the entire summer because we had so much rain and I think if you go by what the National Weather Services that we've we're running a surplus of water in this general area because of the because of the clim and I think part of the issue up there right now is that some of the storm water retention system hasn't been built yet where the current construction is going on right now but I think the Wetland Maps if I remember um from seeing it last year most of it is where the trees are that backup towards burn Park and that that area uh over by uh s and um sewart over there Woodland yeah s and right around where the park is is where it's wetest but there is standing water now and we haven't had rain for days but well we had rain all weekend yeah we had a lot of rain we had a lot of rain this weekend you have any questions or comments mther nope that's it for me thank you looks like Miss bass has hand rais yes Kathleen bass Miss bass you want to unmute I am unmuted hello there my name is cathl bass and I live at 112 silven Avenue my house was built in uh 54 so we have seen the change of the neighborhood I should say my uh in-laws uh owned it and now uh uh their son uh Michael and myself own the property um we do have uh over the past uh 20 20 or so years we have a lot of flooding uh in our basement um because of the high water table and also the different hurricanes that come through but I I have a question in your um I guess uh planning of this whole property saying that the high tension wires are um bisecting the property the PIP line is bisecting the uh two lots I believe um 11 and 12 and again that goes straight down through all the way over I do believe it uh even hits the uh mayor's area over there but anyway um it does it does go through um and if the wetlands are on the western part of the property I do believe it's also a lot of wetlands on the um a lot 11 uh near the Washington Avenue um I do believe when that study came out there's a Wetlands down that area as well I don't understand how you're going to be able to build in there there's just a small [Music] section so as I mentioned in my testimony it's about 22.4 Acres of wetlands compared to 56 Acres of the entire study area when you put the two lots together so that that's a net 34 Acres or so so believe it or not there is some area that can be developed and um any redeveloper definitely has to follow ngdp requirements for Wetlands prop proper buffers um and all those different things so that would be that onus would be on the developer right but I mean it looks like there would be a small triangle in the center that's developable developable because of the wetlands because of the tension wires because of the pipeline so um also you can see from your picture uh that it's um lot 11 is um a big tree uh portion or Big Forest portion um uh unfortunately uh we had uh the I guess the benefit of uh curbing put in but in putting in that curbing on uh Woodland Avenue we lost 20 uh huge oak trees because of that um and then we also had the uh wonderful addition of a uh Oak blight that took uh at of my property we lost uh Seven Trees um because of that uh blight on the oak trees I would be very disappointed to see the loss of these trees on on lot 11 and also in the uh area by the park um the other thing that I'm concerned about was the uh remark about the unused uh land um we have used that land for hiking and for uh just enjoyment of the birds uh the nature we've had Fox we have a very large flock of turkeys that use that property um I would hate to see the loss of all the uh nature and the animals on that property um and then also you know in regards to Smart planning um there's nothing better than nature to uh be surrounding your home so I do believe it is very smartly planned and we have enjoyed that property uh with the nature all these years so I would hate to see it uh developed thank you Miss there's one more Carrie balloon you could state your name and please identify your address uh yes uh my first name is Kerrie uh last name is falloon addresses 138 Woodland Road bway New Jersey what's your question or comment Miss um I have more of a comment um I moved here in 2022 What attracted me to the area was the woods and the nature and um basically and that's quality of life um I moved from a very high water table area um Union Beach which was more than half destroyed uh by Hurricane Sandy um I have to concur with my neighbor on Woodland um that I've never seen so much water in my backyard there is a the cul um right behind my house about five feet behind my fence um and I would say in the last I have three Winters to basically look at 22 23 and now 24 um half of my backyard is now being flooded on not even a norter but um like an old Day storm I wake up daily um to Deer to foxes um to I hear coyotes in the evening um and I don't know if that was part of the study that this is also a habitat for Animals the ecological part across the way it does not have the wooded area that they would need um to basically survive um my other point um is that quality of life and um with the trees quality of air um when I did move in here I also had very poor water quality um I had to put a water treatment system in um so I'm I have many concerns and uh one of the reasons why I did move to the area was you know um the wooded area um the access you know um to the lake Etc so this would definitely change my quality of life um and I'm sure other people who have spoken you know on this um I guess the only question I do have in that Lot 12 uh it is a privately owned residence yes the access is from Woodland is there any Wetlands on that in particular um because um again if if you develop land and you put concrete down it's there's just nowhere for water to go and my feeling is is that my next step is just to get water in my house already um my neighbor next to me one door down which is right next to uh burn Park they get flooded all the time um their renters they're leaving there I believe she's moving but these are just some of my concerns I'm a new Resident as of 2022 I come from a very high water table Union Beach and uh area prior to moving here and I didn't have half as much water as I have here so more of a comment uh my only question was on that lot 12 where the house I believe it's Lot 12 where the house is is that considered Wetland that's all thank you so sure to answer your question I think I believe I said 3.4 Acres of Lot 12 is Wetlands but uh it's all the way towards the re rear closer to burn Park in the wooded area Okay so not near the residence it's it's it's further back to like West okay and that's um almost two houses from burn so that would be probably directly behind my house possibly okay okay thank you believe um there's a Mr rack has a question y yeah hi can you hear me state your name sir and your address yep Brian rack 1247 Brookside Road what is your question or comment sir what which way What lands Maps were you using for this what year so um DP has kind of like a data clearing house and it's a GIS map so I'll have to look at the data later but it might be 2018 but I was able to dig into the records a bit more and I believe they were verified in 2021 so basically the process is you know in 2021 that was the verified border um if there is a developer they would have to confirm that with DP um and possibly reverifying at the the DP RG site right now and the latest one they have is 2012 and looking at the 2012 one most of lot 11 I would say at least 50% is wetlands and for Lot 12 even more probably 60% so I'm not quite sure what the diff I don't know if there's a I mean I'm just looking at the public side I don't know if there's a different Wetlands map that I'm not seeing here but there might be a different layer uh I will have to check but the the most recent one I had as I mentioned in my teson showed 22 Acres of wetlands so it might have been revised okay I guess they the 201 that or something MH uh that was it thanks MH that's all Madam chair thank you um it's now closed to the public members of the board um you've heard the testimony from um can't think of his name right now um Jim Jim Clarkin Mr Clarkin sorry uh do I have a motion of as to what how we should proceed um that we would it would go to a motion would go to the council that this is an area in need of development Madam chair Reverend Kenny I'll make a motion that it goes back to the council for further study for redevelopment I thank uh Mr Clarkin for that thorough report and on on this two lots thank you Jim very much thank so Reverend Kenny just so I'm clear the motion is to recommend a non- condemnation are new Redevelopment referral back to the township Council correct that is correct thank you sir non condemnation in area of Redevelopment okay uh do I have a second I think Miss K councilman K's speaking but her but she's she's muted I second this is Mike Foster I second it Mr Foster thank you Mr Foster um roll call roll call please mayor Waller yes councilwoman kahill thumbs up thumbs up yep Miss corkran yes Reverend Kenny yes Mr Foster yes and Madam chair yes Madam chair if Miss Saunders was here um she would indicate that uh because of the time frames involved in making sure the council has enough time to consider the board's um decision it would be appropriate for the board to adopt the resolution um to be sent to the council recommending the non-c combination area need to Revel so if there's someone who wants to move the resolution um would someone like to move the resolution Reverend Kenny I so move the resolution second I second Mike Foster thank you Mike Mr Foster roll call please mayor Waller yes councilwoman kill can you hear me yes yes Miss Corran yes yes Reverend Kenny yes Mr Foster yes and Madam chair yes you Mr Clarin all right thank you thank you everyone great presentation I believe we have completed our agenda for tonight we need a motion to adj and we have a motion to adjourn so move Madam chair r thank you all in favor all in favor signified by saying I thank you everyone have a good night everyone great evening e for