##VIDEO ID:qVGED4RZxBo## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e stand unit States of America it stands Nation indivisible justice for all you turn me off Adam secretary has the sunshine laws been uh applied yes chairman it has all right can I have a roll call please Mr kandell Mr algra here Mr Bolton Mr Elm miss larmen here Mr Mueller here Mr Shaw here Mr vosen councilman zabowski chairman Tai here we have a quorum thank you um memorialization of resolutions we don't have any I need an acceptance of the minutes from August 7th from 2024 do I have one motion to accept the minutes I have a second second any question any questions of that all in favor the eyes have it um communication agenda we don't have any site plan subdivision the first hearing we're going to have is the Andrew Deborah wtin wallentine sub minor subdivision uh 43 person place Parlin New Jersey block 83.7 lot 12 Mr ban it's all yours thank you uh good evening ladies and gentlemen um let me just briefly state that uh this is obviously an oppos uh an application for a minor subdivision the uh three lots fully conform in size to your ordinance it's in an r10 Zone there are uh uh more than 10,000 square feet um I might add that across the street from this property is an R seven Zone uh and at the end of the street is an R seven zone so these Lots will actually be bigger than the lots that are in the immediate neighborhood on on the hering Avenue also known as Bailey Avenue the uh plans were developed uh providing for dedication of a 13 foot rway uh to the Barrow as I believe suggested by the barow engineer when this dedication if it takes place and my client is okay with that um it would create a variance of a setback for the existing garage um which right now at point where if if we dedicated the 13 ft the existing garage would be 20.3 ft from the the the line of the road um so that creates a setback variance uh the distance setback in that zone r10 is 30 ft uh however there are other alternatives to that if we don't dedicate we don't need a variance um I thought it was already an existing setback when I did the plans who did the application uh another alternative and I'll I'm I'm mentioning it now so that you can think about it as the testimonies going in so you can decide which approach you would like to take um is that we could dedicate 3.7 ft and created 9.3 ft easement to the barrel for the traveling public and therefore we would comply completely with the setback of 30 ft so those are there's three choices as the plan State uh create a a variant situation on setback uh two do nothing and not have a variance at all or three not have a variance but dedicate only 37 ft with uh 9.3 foot being an easement which we could only be used for Road purposes so that that's are the three Alternatives um I also want to say up front that we have no plans for the vacant lots to build um we're just trying to plan for my client's future down the road it's a big piece of pro property and they look into try to subdivide it so that down the road whether or not it's sold for Lots or whether it's sold as one parcel who knows my client my Deborah Valentine's father used to own the property and deed it over to her he had built the house originally so at this point in time I'd like to call our engineer uh William CTS hello pleas give us your credentials sure actually let me chairman if I may just swear them in first please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and truth yes I do can you please state your name and spell it for the record William ctz K rtz thank you and uh uh if I can call you Bill during this proceeding sure uh would you please give the board your educational background your engineering experience your qualifications I'm I'm uh a licensed professional engineer planner and land surveyor in the states of New Jersey and Delaware uh I'm principal of the firm kurts engineering uh based in Wall Township and I've been um graduate of lafette college BS in uh civil engineering and uh have been um representing cents accept his credentials we have a second thank you thank you very much all in favor go ahead sir all right bill you had an opportunity number one to draw the draft plan lands that's correct you want to describe what what's involved here yes um basically Mr uh and Mrs wallentine they have a a property on persing Avenue the uh south side of persing Avenue it's a a 1.1 acre piece of property wooded as mentioned in uh the your engineers um review letter heavily wooded and it also has uh some steep slopes uh there's an exist dwelling on it that has been there for many many years um and it's been uh it's the Valentine's wish to subdivide that in conformance with the zoning in the area which is r10 10,000 ft minimum Lots uh these Lots uh I should note are are well in excess of the 10,000 ft minimum uh lot which is called proposed 12.01 is 16,000 ft 12.02 is is also approximately 16,000 ft and proposed 12.03 is uh 13,000 ft so they all exceed the um the requirements of the r10 Zone um uh frontages uh setbacks with the exception of the uh setback that's being created or the variance that's being created uh due to the rightaway dedication it it is free of any variances the uh the plan that you have on the board and that you're referring to that's the one that has been submitted to the board that's correct I don't know whether you need to mark that one in evidence or the ones that you have no if if that's exactly the same what has been presented to the board in its submission then we don't have to mark that as the exact same one absolutely absolutely okay you had an opportunity to review the report of Jay Cornell of CME Associates I have and uh can you really go through that report and comment on the various sure I I I just uh recently he has a technical engineering review attached to uh his uh review letter to the board um I call your attention to one uh number one in that uh technical engineering review that that is uh what we were just speaking of with regard to the front setback that's been created as a result of the request for a rightaway dedication um as uh Mr Bame indicated there's ways to address that if that variance is an issue um um but uh as it's is right now there's the plan is as it's shown there's a 20 foot uh front setback variance um he notes excuse me there a 10- foot setback variance oh 10 foot 10 foot 20 foot is yes yes yes I'm sorry I apologize um he uh mentions in uh number two that uh we have not proposed any sidewalks along that road and as he know majority of the streets in that area do not have sidewalks um there is curbing Belgium Block curbing along the um along the frontage entire Frontage of uh of this property so that is in place already however no sidewalks are proposed and it would be we would seek a waiver if uh if it's the pleasure of the board um there is an existing driveway not located 5T off the proposed property line and and um that could be addressed if it's an issue um however there's probably going to be some discussion as to access to lot 12.03 which uh if that was the case and there was a shared driveway access to both 12.03 and 12.02 I don't think that would be an issue uh to leave the D the driveway where it is however we could move that driveway to the 5 foot requirement if necessary uh number of bedrooms as Mr B indicated uh there's no plans to develop this property yet um but it would uh uh it would um be incumbent upon the Valentines or whoever was to develop uh the vacant lots to meet the requirements of rsr rsis with regard to providing the adequate amount of parking for uh bedrooms in the proposed dwellings if I might uh the number of bedrooms in the existing house can you just state that number and confirm that you have the required off street parking for the existing bedrooms three bedom three bedrooms so I I I'm not You' require two two two parking space yeah we have two parking spaces yes we have right thank you um uh should number five should the board act favorably on this uh application meets and Bounds descriptions would be provided for all new easements and New Lots um I believe this would probably be filed by deed correct um uh as I mentioned previously the existing grades on the property there are some steep slopes they note there's an 45% slope on 12.01 12.03 has approximately a 20% slope um there will have to be some uh some great in to be done to meet the recommended uh 10% uh driveway requirement in the burrow and that would be reviewed um should this be approved by your engineering and building department to make sure we we would conform with that requirement but based upon your review of the property there would be no problem with the proper grading to comply there there will we we definitely can comply with that requirement there will be probably some retaining walls required and some uh uh grading in the area of the driveway but yes we could comply with that mrman so the shared driveway on the Westerly side of that proposed lot that would be an acceptable option right okay thank you well I'm saying that that's acceptable I it is acceptable to the applicant um there's an existing chain link fence that runs along the uh Frontage of the property probably halfway from uh the the turn off from persing Avenue to what's called belly Place uh so there's a chain link fence that would be in the RightWay if this dedication was to uh go forward and uh that would be removed as a condition of the approval um number eight and this would be important from uh from my standpoint as well uh that a drainage uh design and Report be submitted for review Once the uh dwellings are um uh proposed uh I would I would recommend that the client um engage whether it be myself or an engineer another engineer to do a drainage study to ensure that no uh adverse impacts occur off site or down below uh below the property um I I number nine we as I as I just mentioned soil erosion settlement control plan will be required a treat preservation plan would be required and a site grading plan would be required once the applicant uh decides what dwellings he would like to construct on these two not two New Lots um that's that's Mr Cornell's uh letter um you also had an opportunity to review the report of the planer yes I have okay and you have any comment with respect to saying no no not not at all um I don't I don't know if uh any um anything other than what we touched on from an engineering standpoint obviously uh I I would um I would commit that uh we could address his comments as a condition of any approval all right I have no you have anything else You' like to add no sir okay I have no further questions of this anybody on the board have any questions of the uh engineer Mr chairman if I might Ju Just a comment on the front yard set variance that's created by the RightWay dedication your master plan calls for rightaway dedication whenever you have a development that fronts on a road that doesn't meet your current rightaway standards this one does not actually the adjacent property has the required right of way and the far Westerly side of this property has the required right away you have kind of a a sliver of property in between that does not so that's where the recommendation was that we kind of connect together those two points which created the need for a variance for a 20 foot setback as opposed to a 30 they could provide the 30 if required but as was indicated across the street is an r s Zone which allows a 20- foot setback so that's similar to what's permitted on the adjacent properties across the street and the house has been there for for years uh you're you're you're trying to bring it more to compliance with the RightWay withth that's required by your master plan and with regard to the waiver for the sidewalk as was indicated majority of the area doesn't have sidewalk our office has no objection to that and same thing with the 5- foot driveway uh waiver more than likely what's going to happen is that waiver is going to be combined with the adjacent driveway so it's going to go away once you come up with a plan for developing lot 12.03 and then finally with regard to the vacant properties there are concerns with what's going to happen with those properties in the future at the present time there's no plans for development but you have steep slopes that is going to be concerned with grading you have properties that are down below that are going to receive storm water runoff when these lots are developed so there's concerns would so what we're requesting is that any action taken by this board require as a condition that there be a soil erosion plan a grading plan a drainage plan a tree safe plan also submitted before any permits are issued that way at least you're getting to see what's going to happen and make sure that nothing adverse is going to happen the surround the properties uh if the chairman I'd like to just call uh Andrew Wen to indicate as a property owner that he consents to all of those conditions Andrew you just want to be sworn in first yes raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do can you please just State and spell your name for the record yes my name is Andrew wallentine uh spell w l n t i NE okay thank you uh Mr Valentine microphone thank you um you heard the testimony of Mr CS yes yes I concerning his indication that agreement to all of the conditions is set forth in Mr Court El's letter and in the planner's letter Mr fman fman fer okay um do you as the property owner agreed to those conditions absolutely do and you further you you yourself have no plans to do any building on the not at all not at all okay not at all and I do agree with Mr Cornell okay I have no problem with that thank you I have no further questions I don't know the board has any oh excuse me anybody have any questions of the owner if not we're good thank you very much this is basically our our case um I'll reserve the right to sum up at at the completion of any hearing at this point I'd like to open this up to the public I have a motion motion open up to the public second all in favor any opposed the eyes have it is there anybody in the public that would like to speak good evening members of the board my name is Robert mcgaan I am an attorney I'm here representing Mr Bailey who is the neighbor at the end of Bailey place um his primary concern is that there be no driveway closer to his house than the existing one the recommendation that there be a shared driveway coming off the existing driveway would satisfy that concern and would make him feel that you know his property will not be disturbed as a result of this application I just like that to be affirmed that that will be the closest driveway to his property I might clarify in our report we indicate that the drive would be shared the west of the existing utility pole which is uh beyond the improvements of of Mr Bailey's driveway so I would I believe that would be sufficient that if that condition wested existing utility I would think that would address Mr Ba's concern well that's how the report break I just want to make sure I appreciate that J what I want to clarify is that where the driveway exists now is that going to be the entrance to the shared driveway of the two homes because there there's also a fire hydrant there so you have the telephone pole and another 8 feet to a fire hydrant and then you have that driveway so if that driveway serves as the common driveway into the two properties that would be fine and it would seem that with the slope and everything else that that would make sense because in coming up to that driveway and we have an engineer here who can testify to that um the slope of coming up to that if it's too steep you're not going to be able to see anybody coming in or out of Bernie's house I just want to make it clear that you still need to have two off street parking spaces for the existing house that shared driveway can't impede on having those two spaces so I think the intention is to have as a shared driveway and that approxim location but I don't I don't want to say that where it is now it may not be shifted maybe Shi up a little to the east so you can still spaces but not approach farther than the existing utility po well will it not I think of more importance is it won't encroach further than the hydrant so yes yes okay so if we could just have that confirmed would appreciate that we have no objection all right Mr wtin you would agree with that as well yes all right thank you how just a question on the parking if I may ask Mr CTS um the parking for the existing house uh how much you need two spaces the two spaces are accomplished in what way garage I thought rsis said you only recognized one garage if you had two car garage only one space is counted so you just need a second space I think that's what you're addressing Jay yeah even there is a garage want to make sure that you still have enough room to park cars outside of it without encroaching to a common driveway to the adjacent block all right so they so they would have to make some parking improvements on the existing house area in order to accommodate is that correct there is 20 there is 24 25 ft between the property line and the house so technically you have a spot but but with the eement you only have 16 ft 18 almost 20 feet but it's supposed to be 20 feet isn't it for rsis I would say I would say we could certainly provide evidence that we have the ability to park one car on that driveway without ening without encroaching yes okay thank you I think there may be some other people I don't know anybody else from the public like to speak good evening good evening can you hear me okay yes can um please state your name Daniel Taylor and your address resident of nine creamer Drive so I have a a a brief statement I would just like to read um and then I'm not sure if we're allowed to submit it to the to the board or how that works um but I did type it up uh as a formal letter if if that's possible so um but I'll start by reading it so uh as a resident of nine creamer Drive which abuts the proposed subdivision uh I have great concern about the future uh Division and construction on the site uh the lot proposed for new lot 121 will directly abut my property line following a steep downhill slope with a Max slope uh estimated about approximately 51% uh I heard the testimony that it's maybe 45 but 45 to 51 I'm happy with that difference but an average slope towards my property across the entire run of 14% um destruction of the trees and the Shrubbery in this would uh area would dramatically increase the risk of flooding to my property as well as my adjacent neighbors as we are approximately 21 feet below the biley play street level as it is stated in the buroughs ordinance chapter 30 uh purpose statement uh it is further recognized that trees are not only visually pleasant but serve as a Haven for Animals stabilize the land reduce soil erosion screen off noise and moderate the effects of sun cold and wind accordingly the conservation of these natural resources and the preservation of erosion uh prevention of erosion and pollution is in the public interest and for the public good and Welfare and that is ordinance 242 d92 subsection 1 construction on this land would increase soil erosion destabilize the land and further displace Wildlife that has already been relocated from the Hercules Redevelopment project such as the foxes we have running around and such that have now relocated to those woods reviewing the slope of the land also indicates that for future construction to be viable uh and have egress access to biley place that substantial leveling of the land would have to occur we did hear that uh in testimony that uh retaining wall may be necessary following the 51% slope again I'll accept the 45% that was proposed by the engineering team new lot 12.01 drops 15 ft down from Bailey place in just a distance of approximately 50 fet assuming that the required 30 foot setback from the property line this would place any future construction directly on that grade and require significant modification to the land the result would likely be a two-story structure approximately estimated in the engineering report to be 35 ft in elevation two-story building plus roof uh 35 ft um uh two story building 35 feet uh being constructed on top of an approximate 7t elevated surface with an approximate 8ft basement meaning properties that a but lot 12.01 will have an approximate 15 foot wall of concrete with a 35 foot structure immediately behind theirs in total for residents of nine of creamer drive not just my residents but any Resident on creamer drive it would appear as though a 50-foot dwelling had been constructed Rising above their trees I know it's hard to tell that just from the overhead views but if you're street level that is what it would appear as in previously cited ordinance 24- uh 24292 in subsection 7 under standards it is stated that trees may be removed and permits granted accordingly under the following circumstances and that is part two if the trees are in areas that are to be occupied by buildings driveways and Recreation areas or within a distance of 15 ft around the perimeter of the building this implies that should the lot be subdivided and sold for construction of a property for which it is Zed trees would have to be removed for the construction to occur for this reason it seems that tree removal and Remediation plan should be required as part of the application as sewer easements driveway variances and the like are discussed uh to imply that future construction of residential housing is the objective intent of this application for minor subdivision for these reasons I respectfully object to the approval of the submitted request to the planning board regarding Valentine minor subdivision block 83.7 L 12 AKA belly Place uh and again again I have um just two presentations of uh one being the the measurement of the line that I did to come up with the sloping and the grading uh This was done using arcj uh uh geospatial tools from the company ezri a world-renowned uh geospatial company that shows the slope and Grading at distance from the belly Place Street line down to my property corner with seven creamer drive so nine cre drive and S cre Drive uh showing how the Steep drop off is and at at 50 feet that that new any future property would be directly on grade um and then the second uh the second attachment I have uh is part of cites the tree conservation and reforestation um elements of uh Chapter 30 uh which clarifies the purpose of the of the the tree conservation and reforestation purpose uh indicate at the top that the tree impact would likely be greater than 10 the remediation proposal is none and that the average grade of slope with trees on it is approximately 13% which the ordinance says that anything greater than a 10% uh grade with trees on it requires substantial remediation so I'm not sure if I can submit these or uh what we'll do is we'll mark those as 012 as uh exhibits being presented by you uh but can you please give them to the uh applicants attorney first so they can take a look at it see if there's any uh objections to them um being marked uh and they're being received just so uh the the applicant understands being received received as being presented you have not been qualified as an expert in in in any of these Fe in engineering or you know but we are going to consider them from the as you know based on your present I've been a a geospatial uh professional for the Department of homeand Security under TSA for the past eight years so I do have some experience but I'm not a certified engineer nor am I a conservationist and that's fine but I just I just want to make sure that that the the applicant understands we're not we're accepting these just as for what they are being they cite myself as the as the Creator at the bottom so I'm not claiming any expertise that I don't have and that is all those 01 and 02 for the record any questions of the president if not anybody else like to speak about this matter evening hi my name is John Vick um my property is three Jensen road which is directly to the southwest of 12.01 and my concerns I wholeheartedly concur with the concerns that were set forth by my neighbor Mr Taylor right thank you anybody else Roberta fita five Jensen Road um I'm not going to speak as eloquently as Mr tayor there but I can tell you that uh from experience um there was a property built I think it's on Lena um behind my house a couple years ago uh when that property was built um when they were putting the foundation in um I had flooding in my basement my basement had never flooded before I had a problem with this and I'm very very concerned about about um storm drainage and making sure that that's taken care of um when I read the reports um and I didn't have a ton of time uh to take a look at them um I don't feel like they're addressed uh with any kind of certainty that I'm going to feel comfortable that my house is not going to flood you know um at the sign of them ripping down trees and putting in foundations I also think that it's going to devalue my property because of looking at this unsightly probably I'm thinking it's at least a 15 foot retaining wall that will be my backyard from now on so thank you thank you very much anyone else have any input on this go ahead my name is Chad D Lorenzo with Midstate engineering I was hired by Mr belly to speak you got to be sworn it one second my note okay raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony going to give this evening it's the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay and um we're gonna need your as you're testifying on beh engineer gonna have to be qualified I am for the record my name is Chester D Lorenzo 82 Walnut Hill Lane freeold New Jersey I'm professional engineer state of New Jersey licensed 1983 professional planner 1984 professional land Sur since 1987 uh I've been practice I was going to mention I me I've testified here before but thank you I want to indicate that I've read okay go ahead I'm sorry that's all right go ahead you're good no I've read Mr Cornell's report and largely I agree with it I I think uh he brought up some good points uh some of the same points I was going to bring up so I made my testimony a lot shorter however I think there's a couple things we need to talk about is that uh perhaps we should move forward with the drainage study uh in the tree location plan because there's an aw lot of forest on the property and I'm having difficulty in my mind's eye and I'm not the design engineer making 10% driveways work now the applicants uh decision to make a combined driveway between Lots 123 and the existing dwelling takes away some of that problem and that's great but he's still going to have a problem with the 10% driveway on lot 121 I think we need to see that so we can understand I say we I mean you I apologize I think J needs to see that to understand it can work before he's he's ready to uh put his signature on it uh the storm water was spoken eloquently by the uh contiguous Property Owners Lots 9 10 11 are going to have problems with storm water on the east four five and six on the west we have severe slopes and again I'm not saying it's impossible I'm saying it needs to be looked at before we get too far down the road um and uh I didn't see any soil logs I'd like to know what the permeability is of is of that soil because the reality is is that the the detention basins or I'm using the word DET term loosely each lot's going to have its own recharge Basin uh will be we'll be relying upon uh the permeability to re uh recapture the water and put it back into a groundwater surface uh the other thing I want to point out and it's really I don't really have a problem with the roadway width or the RightWay width with cars it's not a big it's a couple of feet short of what what rsis says but it's close enough where I think it works I'm my biggest concern is going to be is that they're gonna need some pretty big equipment to move that dirt and the big equipment comes on a big lowboy uh last time I had a low boy like that was 12 feet by itself you get a wide track caterpillar off of that uh that lowboy it's going to tear up a lot of road I I think we need to talk about at least Jay needs to talk about uh getting the construction equipment off loaded near lot 1201 where it can maneuver and get onto the property and then track around the back and do do what they got to do because if you try to offload it by the other end of of biley place you've got the curb you've got the existing dwelling you've got the pole you've got the hydrant you're going to make a mess just trying to get in there I think that that's something needs to be thought about in advance again I'm I'm not really opposed to the application but I think it needs to have some kind of serious thought before we uh go ahead and and take the next step again that J I'm pretty happy with your report thank you anybody have any questions of the engineer I have no questions no questions okay thank you anybody else like to speak about this matter what's your pleasure make a motion to close open uh public all in favor all right from what I understand we're just making three lots everything else that has to be done that's been talked about has to be done when somebody buys that lot and comes back and wants to make it conforming so all the studies for the water the drainage the trees will be done at that time and that'll protect everybody Downstream of what's going on am I correct yes that's correct okay and even the engineer uh uh that just testified said uh he's not saying it's not possible because I Rely obviously for many years uh Mr Carnell has been the Baro engineer and I know he won't approve anything that's not appropriate Mr chairman if this for an application that proposed two new houses we would be looking at this totally different than we are now we'd be asking for those reports on tree removal on drainage we'd want to make sure that we had soil borings done to make sure the water's going to park into the ground unfortunately they're not proposing that they want to create three lots to potentially to be developed in the future and a study done to show a a house at one location would could change if that house has moved another 15 feet in either direction so to have a study done now without a specific house plan really isn't going to solve the problem for you it would tell you that it'll work but when somebody buys it they may want to build instead of a a rectangular house they may want to put an L-shaped house in they may want to go through and have different amenities it's really going to be a function who wants to buy that house and what they want to build that's why we're saying these are all issues that need to be addressed and and they should be addressed before any permits are issued by the building department and I might add that if I were representing a buyer I don't think I'd let them buy a close title without going through all those reports are knowing what needs to be done because that might might affect the purchase price of the lot probably would through through you to your clients they don't have any um any difference that that's all put on the the deed of those New Lots well I under the condition they're they're willing to well I assume your resolution would provide all those conditions uh that's I think would be appropriate place to have that confirm there's no tree theing so no there's going to be a ton of trees taken down n none with this application oh not under this application future house that would have to be applied for uh if the tree Bank applies that would be applied physical improvements associated with this application or for there's a fence in the right of way that's going to be dedicated to the burrow which is along Bailey place or persing Avenue that fence is going to come down so what's there is going to be removed the existing encroachments from lot 12.02 onto lot 12.03 the driveway currently encroaches so that encroachment is going to be removed and the same thing on the opposite side there's a section of sidewalk that encroaches on 12.01 so you're not taking trees down you're you're eliminating encroachments to allow those lots not to have any encumbrances from lot 12.02 that currently exist before any houses are constructed there'll have to be a plan that's submitted that shows the tree removal that shows whatever contribution has to be made to the B Tree Bank that'll have to be made before any permits are issued so it would all be covered once there's a specific development application for either of those two lots so the chain link fence is coming down the chain link because it's private Hedges private fence well the the hedges I don't believe are going to come down the fence is a physical encroachment that why that's why that was recommended to come down as well as the driveway in the curbing areas adjacent to it Jay will there be any for for the neighbors to address their concerns will that Happ there there will not be unless whoever wants to build a house there's a twostory or two and a half story requirement a 35 foot high requirement if they want to exceed that it would need a variance so residents would have to be notified there's a 30 foot front yard setback but they want to build house with 25 ft they would be the various residents within 200 ft would have an opportunity to ACC so as long as they build in conformance with the ordinance requirements there would not be another public hearing but somebody wants to build a house that doesn't meet those requirements in any aspect needs of variant they would appear before the zoning board residents within 200 Fe would had a chance to come in so the burrow that approve any trange plan Etc well I I believe what would happen is they would submit an application to the zoning officer who would sign off as conforming with zoning he wouldn't be able to do that until all these plans are submitted he would submit them have no reviewed by our office as the engineer we would make sure that everything in the resolution has been addressed and then we would sign off and then he would issue the P there be an opportunity to give these jent neighbors a chance to in instruction on these lives if it doesn't come to a public hearing that they have some way but I I if approved in the resolution I would make sure it's very clear that the what the approvals are required so it wouldn't slip through it would have it' be very clear in the resolution that the the board or burrow engineer has to approve them that the the engine the zoning officer won't mistakenly just sign off on it it will set forth that these plans have to be submitted and approved by the board professionals so um while that you know I will make sure that that's very clear there in the resol if the application is approved all right anybody else have any questions about this uh application what's your pleasure it's tough I want to just add commentary where it's not necessary but I don't think there's anything app up it meets all the requirements people live Downstream have Woods as your backyards I I to was in a similar situation where the wood PR my house 10 years till they're gone and now there three houses had opportunity to buy not to it's always an option for people don't want to uh St at build well but thises everything required to SPL a lot you have three conforming Lots with the exception of that 20 foot variance that's being created by the rway dedication which is basically an existing condition that that's being created by dedication which is requested by the burrow so they're not no variances on the existing house you're not approving any future variances for any future developments they'd have to comply 100% with the ordinance if not then they have to make an application for VAR and I think to follow up on that I think you're going question was is it then becomes what is known as almost an as of right application yeah it's it's the the board would not have the jurisdiction just to deny it without substantial justification for it because it meets all of the zone requir have weedi you have as far as the variance uh yes you typically want to try to go through and have a right away that meets your ordinance requirements this is an opportunity to to meet that you're addressing that issue and and you have approved other subdivisions in the past that have had similar conditions where they have to submit grading plans in drainage plans before they receive any permits and that be tired this the recommendation is that would be a specific condition for my report and as the attorney indicated spelled out in the resolution of approval so before anything happens all those plans have to be submitted and approved okay my concern is that there's no for for Jason property and I understand that there currently isn't anyway but is there any way to tie approval to providing notice to these neighbors that they can see the drainage reports have reviewed by their own experts if necessary that's more a question to your attorney as whether legally you can do that it's really in this case you have lots that have constraints it's no different than if you had a conforming 100 by 100 lot on a flat P property in residential Zone that's heisted for years somebody can just walk in and get a building permit application no notice to surrounding properties in this case because of the issues you're at least requiring certain items to be addressed like the dra the Tre soil of those draing drainage you're putting conditions on it make sure that's yeah yeah I mean the my thought is to on the notice it's something that you know in theory yes it could be placed on it but as Jay was saying there's really no input at that point it's it's not a where there will be a public hearing so they could be provided notice but there's would be no area for them to actually provide comments and objections or not it's still just an internal review and the other concern I'd have is just enforcement of that because yeah we can put it in the resolution but we don't know they might not get developed for 10 15 20 years from now um you know to keep that you know it's just it's a logistically it might be difficult I'm trying to avoid a situation where they have to run into court to stop destruction because they're concerned about drainage issues at least there's a dialogue beforehand where someone's going to come in buy the property here's our tring right we're looking at it we agree with it we don't agree with it try to hit that off at the past and give people an opportunity so I understand the rationale that if we had a b l so we build that but right now we have one lot with one structure on it and no other structure they're are permitting right now so we're actually creating what they L yeah so I just didn't know if there was any way we could in approval to at least providing notice they would know someone app for building my head on this I age that it's almost as a BRI right toide the lots I'm just a little concerned about some of the things and I I understand what your concerns are and I'm just literally think trying to think of how we could make that work in what what way it would even you know really be be any meaningful you know uh way of doing it um any restriction on building that we put into it that would re to come back to the board for hearing whoever want the opportunity come back whether it's small building structure that um I mean yes I I I think the board could as a condition of approval retain jurisdiction um and [Music] um have the then the applicant would have you know have to come back to the board for you know review of the submission of the updated or the the drainage plans that time um but the problem is I'm not sure what the board would be granting at that point because it wouldn't require site plan approval because it would be a residential development uh and if they were if they were exceeding any of the variance or creating a variance condition at that time they'd have to come back anyways and get variance approval and give notice at that um it's ju I I could you not Grant the variance for the 20 foot easement or whatever it was with the some properties have to come back give that Vari picture see that that variance relates to the existing law there nothing to do with the future development of either of the two new parcels and and if there's concern with that 20 foot variance as was indicated the applicant could dedicate less property and not need the variance so you're you're actually not getting the right away you would with current proposal if he did not go through and provide that dedication if I might add I I'm aware of other properties in town where subdivisions have been granted with severe slopes um and they've been granted period with no conditions that would require anybody to come back um so I think there's precedent for this as well plus we could totally conform I don't know Casper if you could ask Mr wallentine if he sells that piece of property would he be um willing to notify that people within 200 ft of his property that that it has been sold so at least they have a heads up that it's being sold and that all the other things have to kick in um it's a public record but you have any objection to that I I have no I don't plan on selling the lot so I just subing the proper but I I'm not oppos anybody we have no objection that um we would notify those people that appeared here tonight that those lots have been sold uh what we would not just them people anybody within 200 feet of the property because well that's that's a couple hundred dollar expense I suppose we could do that if it's certified and and the property might change hands um so it would be the then owners at that time the only thing I'm trying to do is protect you know I understand what Andy wants to do and I we're all we're all from serval here what I'm trying to do is we have a piece of property that isn't the most convenient thing to build on and we have people that are down below it and what I'd like them to do is be part of this process okay so if you know if fine if you make that a condition we'll do we'll get a property owner list at that time from the tax assessor and we'll notify them by certified mail that the property has been sold is that that's what I'm hearing better better sense it could change hands a couple different times trigger in here we don't want people to find out that this is happening they get water the basement and what oh yeah Mr chairman just an question for you first Beth if you don't mind does the burrow have the program you know where you can sign on to the website and then you go into the construction department and look to see if there's an active permit on a piece of property um I don't think so some I some towns do have that you know where you can sign on you could go into construction you put in the block and lot number you can see there's a permit on the property but the other thing would be Mr chairman you know and to and Barry is and and to Mr Cornell if their lot is sold and they're going to be applying for a permit there'd be a lot of survey work being done on the property a plot plan preparation so most likely you know the residents would see surveyors on the property you working and know that something's to the happening and that would happen before the building permit application came in because they would have to have a plot plan right they they'd be doing a survey for the the deed when they transfer title right you're going to see the surveyors after that how they going to know that right I don't think anybody's going to see any surveyors walking around up there because the property is it's pretty it's pretty isolated and it's pretty it's pretty rough ruged PL planed for location of the of the trees and drainage I think there'd be a lot of surveying done on the property but and also as was indicated by the objector engineer there's going to have to be soil borings done to determine the percolation rates in the soil so there there'll be some activity on the property in advance of an application being submitted uh but that that doesn't address the notice issue people would would probably see activity before someone comes in for a building permit but they wouldn't necessarily be notified so I'd like I'd like to change my thing where it's a building where they put in a building request not just the sell the lot when somebody whoever owns the lot they could sit on it for 10 years but once they go for a permit to build something on there that's when it triggers everything else and that's when we want the people to be noticed sorry the concern would be Mr wallentine could sell this property to person a who could sell to person B who could sell to person three who makes the building permit application right so when he makes the building application that's when they have to contact everybody and say hey look at this is gonna this is GNA move forward I'm just afraid that that's going to get lost over the time frame I'm wondering if there's a way to put that in a deed possibly deed restriction that at that point we can um my my and I think that makes more sense to what the concerns of the board is to be addressed would be not not what being sold because as was just stated it could be sold multiple time and never be developed um the at the time of the building a permit that I think would be the more appropriate time to address this board's concern to give the public the notice of that um my only thing and not to say it's impossible to do but we'd have to work out language as to what is actually what is the building permit that would trigger it because you could have especially if we going to put it into you know say it has to be put into a deed because because if does that mean every single building permit ever if they develop it and it works out fine and they're able to develop a resident and then they decide they want to put a deck in and they put a or if they want to you know change their bathroom interior and they need to get a building permit now that they still have to give notice we'd have to come up with that language is is it just initial is it major dwelling is it anything over Square script footage we'd have to put some type of caveat on that to trigger it otherwise it could just it would wouldn't make sense um it would require notice on any type of building permit um I'm chairman I I would think the initial permit would be the area of concern because that's when you're going to have the major construction the major tree removal grading work Need for soil erosion tree removal somebody puts a deck on in the future that that I don't think as much a concern for the residents because their concerns will be addressed with that initial application right so we just have to come up with language what what is that trigger right because the the applicant could decide they don't sell it and they want to you know put some type of other type of structure on it that isn't you know could be you know a playground or something that you know they're going to use with the manger does that trigger it I'm just throwing ideas because you never know what's going to happen in five 10 15 years from now uh so we definitely we'd have to just work out what that language is but I think what I'm hearing is the intent would be that it's a major structure a developer of a dwelling essentially anything else or otherwise or subsequent wouldn't be it but it once they're really going to sell it or build it their own and build a dwelling on one of these units then they would have to provide notice before Pro filing that application and it would have to be you know including with the building permit would be proof of providing notice similar to what they do before the land use board and then that gives the public notice of of that they can then opener the information seek out the information make any file any objections they want there won't be a public hearing because that's not what the format is so won't be a opportunity to actually come and and and have a hearing on it but they still could file letters they they would be aware of it going on and I think that is what what this board is discussing um and if that's correct then we could work out if that the applicat is acceptable to that and what that how that language would be Mr fer and the notice would be just from the lot in question not from all three lots correct there'll be a lot smaller area of notice correct Mr chairman yeah go ahead want to throw cold water on this a bit I just see this thing as a potential engineering nightmare I think between the engineering of the site clearing uh the structural Integrity of what would have to be put into this building plus retaining walls and drainage I believe the site is almost impossible virtually impossible to really develop just my opinion on that no know I I went down and looked at the property and I'm telling you I I didn't think much different than you Danny but I've seen them build retaining walls that are 80 ft all I mean the cost to make that property buildable is going to be enormous that's what I'm saying it's virtually so my opinion having seen the site and seen the grades I think it's going to be actually an engineering nightmare to I'm not I'm not disagreeing with you but that doesn't mean that like both um engineer said that it's not improbable to do whether it's practicable now I don't know if the price range you know to me there's $2 million worth of getting ready for that site plus paying for the trees so um all we're doing tonight is making two New Lots correct and that would be I mean and all do regard Mr Bailey's house on the end of the road is built into the hill because it had severe drainage it a severe slope problems it was done uh not saying it can't be done depends on on money I I think um I can work with the attorney to work out the proper language to the restrictions deed restrictions I think probably the deed restriction ought to contain reference to your resolution the date of adoption so that this way any buyer when he when the title company sees the deed they're going to see hey I better look at that resolution before I go forward okay so we're back to square one what's your pleasure I'd like to make a motion go ahead accept the application the stipulations and the Restriction to be worked out between the two attorneys I think yeah could be worked out consistent with what we have the concern I think that's the best we have a motion on the floor do I have a second second we have a motion made in seconded roll call Mr kandal yes Mr Allegre yes M Lamar um M lman yes M Mr Muller yes Mr Shaw yes Mr volosen no councilman zabowski yes chairman Tai yes thank you thank you very much for your time and look forward to working with your attorney thank you very much I'll hold I'll scan them for you okay Mr chairman and board if I might just ask one favor please could I be co uh provided a copy of the resolution after you after the attorneys agree on the wording i' just like to see it before the next meeting thank you do you mind just send me an email I will definitely do that send it to you tomorrow thanks very much all right next on the agenda cpmd Journey Mill Road LLC major preliminary and final site plan Journey Mill Road srael Block 58 lot nine block 58 lot 2011 if we could please take it outside like that Mr Smith Mr chairman Bob Smith I'm a licensed attorney in the state of New Jersey and I'm here tonight representing cpmd Journey Mill Road LLC I've provided the jurisdictional documents to board secretary uh and hopefully uh somebody can State for the record that you have jurisdiction yes Mr chairman I've reviewed the the public notice and uh for this the application this evening and uh the board has jurisdiction to hear the application terrific thank you very much property that I'm here uh tonight to bring before you is block 58 Lots 2.01 and n and they are in what is called the Eco industrial Redevelopment area ra a-i zone or overlay on the site site is 46 A5 acres and the most interesting about the site is it's your property it belongs to the burrow of cille uh we're here tonight for preliminary and final major site plan in order to construct two coal storage warehouses approximately 27,886 120 square ft respectively with trailer storage and Associated site improvements the majority of this site is located in the former sville Municipal landfill number three and the project before you tonight is proposing to clean it up repurpose uh this site uh put it on your tax roles provide new jobs uh and also to assume the liability that's associated with a legacy Municipal landfill when we purchase it it it's ours Soup To Nuts um we are not here tonight seeking variances design waivers because we've gone through the sville Redevelopment process and as a part of that process there were literally years of negotiation about what the criteria should be on this site and we uh ended up with a Redevelopment plan we designed the site according to that Redevelopment plan and earlier this year we appeared before Sarah for what they call a consistency review to make sure that what was proposed was perfectly in line with the Redevelopment plan and I'm happy to inform you that uh we were successful before the Sarah board and they voted unanimously that this is consistent with the Redevelopment plan that was developed for the former landfill so what that does it makes us a by application everything that's in our plan uh before you tonight comports with the Redevelopment plan that um the Redevelopment agency adopted and that's proved by again the consistency review now that being said no variances no deviations nothing but we do have some waivers we're requesting and we only a couple and we will give you the reasons why they're appropriate and we're asking and that's the only relief we're seeking that you consider the design waivers so the three design waivers we're going to ask for tonight are sidewalks between parking areas and principal structures along aisles and driveways where uh ever pedestrian traffic occurs and by the way we're going to absolutely work with your professionals to make sure we're going to put in as many sidewalks as we can but that being said it's good to have the waiver if it's needed number two the maximum allowable grade for landscaping and the reason for that is there are going to be parts of the the site which will be allowed to grow naturally there'll be no reason to maintain them so there's no concern about a a mowing person flipping over on a on a grass cutter or whatever and then finally driveway width less than 30 feet we're asking for 26 feet this is a driveway that is cars only and we'll provide a justification to you so that's the three design waivers that we're seeking uh for anybody who wants to find them ahead of the ahead of time in the CME review letter dated August the 21st uh if you take a look at the eighth page undated uh we're asking for design waivers for items 7 12 and 18 of the updated review with regard to our the plannner report dated August the 16th um again we're again talking about one of the design waivers the Center Drive is 26 where 30 ft is the design standard we're requesting uh planner is requesting that we widen it to the extent possible and provide center line striping we agree to provide the striping but we want to keep the width as is and we'll provide you with the justification while that's appropriate and then on um page five item four of the planner's report planner is requesting shade trees on all parking islands and we have no we love trees but there are some islands that are above the storm water basin and planting trees on top of them is not preferable from an engineering point of view again we'll provide you with that justification so our plan to uh provide exhibits tonight an aerial of the site elevations for the for the uh project overall site plan colorized and a rendering of the building it's my intention Mr chairman to call five witnesses first one will be Mr Jeff bastow who is the representative of cpmd Journey Mill Road LLC second witness is Dan Bush our licensed professional engineer from colar engineering who prepared the site plan third witness is Corey Chas our traffic expert fourth witness uh Dave melow our architect to tell you what the thing is going to look like then finally Jim Kyle our planner even though there's no variance of deviations requested we just think it's kind of the cherry on the Sunday to hear why this is a great idea for the burrow of sville so with that being said Mr chairman I'd ask to call my first witness so that he can be sworn and give testimony go ahead Mr Jeff bastow I'm actually G give you this oh see if that's working hello good good evening you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the TR the testimony going to give this even evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you could you please state your name and spell it for the record Jeff basto b as a boy a as an apple s is and Sam T is and Tom o w thank you and you are a representative cpmd Journey Mill Road LLC yes okay and your principal obviously partner in the uh in the company that is purchasing the site as well as a partner in development company all right and how long have you and your partners been working on this project uh since probably 21 we started working work looking around sville for property okay and as a part of that process did you meet with the bur officials the Redevelopment agency tell us all about it yeah we originally were uh seeking out land in the area we've got projects in Middle sex Boro Perth Amoy South Amboy Oldbridge and we're this is obviously the sort of the center of the donnut for where we've been doing projects and we're seeking some opportunities here and ultimately met with B officials and uh ultimately the RFP for the sale of the or Redevelopment of the seral landfill 3 came up and we responded and were able to secure the rights to purchase the property all and as a report and once you secure uh this uh acceptance of you as the possible redeveloper of the site did you go through a negotiating process with Sarah extensively for the both the purchase and sale agreement uh or Redevelopment agreement Redevelopment plan so ex many many hours and uh years frankly of of work on this project get to the point where you are so we're thrilled to be here that's great and if you don't mind and not to be too fully disclosive but a little bit is always a good thing why is this a win-win for everybody yeah often I mean we do pride ourselves in trying to be win-win with municipalities um we take sites that are blighted this is our fourth landfill we're working on uh We've developed we have a warehouse under construction South Amo right now on a landfill uh we are fortunately I'm fortunately good at figuring out how to work with these and uh have had a lot of success um this project with the win-win brings ratables brings jobs takes sort of a blighted uh isore in town and makes it a revenue producing job creating entity for the burrow um and you know obviously we can uh hopefully make a few bucks along the way well we certainly hope so you do understand that when you buy this you buy the any liability that's associated with this Legacy landfill yep that's all in the purchas and sell agreement that we negotiated okay is there anything else you want to add no hope we have a positive outcome Mr bastow is available for questions anybody have a question of the owner um yeah actually we're we're not the owner we're the contract purchaser contract okay is there anything that contract purchasing said yes yes to guarantee that vote for local hiring maybe accept some kind of local I'd have to go back and look honestly with the Redevelopment agreement I don't have it in handy but I believe there's probably uh some I'm looking at my partner requirements in there for seeking no on we way people feel they're getting something more out of it than just well let's talk about that what does the burrow get out of this $23 million that should go into your thinking as well I mean this is it is a two-way street just to clarify we're not averse to this I I want to check what's already in the documents that we've agreed to um we plan I mean we are doing 100% union labor another project there are certain elements of this that will be uh uh union labor there's given the height um so we are we will work with uh if we can find Subs that are that are local absolutely we're not averse to it at all we've done it in other municipalities yeah but I think the Mr Al algor ALR is saying we want some guarantees that it'll be seral residents that are employees and the problem with that I'm I'm going to be least the attempt of course right now this Federal guidelines and places for local hire programs right yeah not everyone it's it's fairly new not every contract Bo with but there's at least we maying to be done said yes we tried to hire local with I mean we can C let me go back and look at the documents and and clarify we can table this for now uh I we don't actually hire we hire the that we we hire general contract contor right as the owner who then hires subcontractors and hire the laborers who work for them so are you talking about contractors either one nice to have local contractors working on it there I mean given the scale of this project I mean so I think your comment I want to focus more on the people who work there permanently okay that I think that comment has been addressed in the sense that Mr bastau can say to his tenant whoever is going to operate the coal storage facilities that you should make your best effort to get seral employees so I but I don't think he can say that he personally can guarantee that where that c cpmd can personally guarantee that because they're not going to be the operators as I understand it well will ultimately have a least to attendant who will hire I mean I'm sure best efforts C some that's certainly reasonable honestly I don't know what I'm agreeing to other than to say yes we would we will job boards will be posted where they are I mean are you asking for like as part of the approval to have us hire I I don't even know how they're tied together no I think I think what he's saying is whoever is going to be operating the facility you want to make the as the landlord the comment to them that sville has been very good to us and you should try your best to hire sville residents but you're not bound to a number you just ask you're asked to make best efforts as I understand the comment I have no problem telling people to do that I mean whether we're going to have to provide documentation back to the board of of certain things I mean that to me is is we is I can't agree to that but you don't have a problem asking board approval this is okay let's move any other questions for Mr Pasto okay let me get the micro phone from you uh i' like like to next call Dan Bush our licensed professional engineer from colar engineering to be sworn so they can give testim ony do you raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth can you please state your name and spell it for the record so it's Dan Bush bch licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey um senior senior principal with the College engineering design testified before this board on a number of occasions over the years you've been previously accepted by the board yes in fact on testify on this particular property in the past I have a second all in favor I thank you ahead sir thank you thank you Mr chairman welcome back thank you good to see you and just for the record uh you uh as the engineer on this project were intimately involved with the design of the site correct that's correct okay so uh how about we talk about what's there and what we're proposing to put on where and the location GNA mark this uh yes please okay so this just for purpose of description this is an aerial exhibit of the existing site how about marking at A1 in tonight's state so just briefly the cleared area the green area in the center that's the old landfill that's sville landfill number three um you'll see a Contractor Yard that's the lot 2011 that's the only piece that the burrow doesn't own It's A Small Piece it's less than two acres um the balance of the property is all owned by the burrow um you can see it red oak immediately to the east um we have um Pond Creek to the north Duck Creek to the South and then this the South River to the to the West um you know it's between Washington Washington Road and uh wtown Avenue um the site with the exception of the landfill area is all in a title flood Hazard zone so if you as you look at the pl you'll see a lot of retaining walls things of that nature because the site does have to be filled and raised out of that flood plane um we do have Wetlands on the on the site which are basically adjacent to the um to the landfill um we have perits pending with d to allow for the project to occur with those uh with those constraints there is the only other significant constraint is basically bisecting the middle of the site there's 100 foot wide um mcua easement um which has two pipes that flow from south to North um so we're working with mcua to be able to build on the site obviously you'll see that the buildings are not located over said easement it's all just parking and loading associated with that um with that this is the colorized site plan yep so this is the colorized uh Landscaping uh site plan overlaid on that same would you mark it as A2 in tonight's State this will be A2 yes sir okay just from um just to orient again same thing South River to the west and you can see Red Oak Lane here to the right so same orientation as the as the uh the prior exhibit um so we have three access points on Journey Mill Road um North End is a entrance only driveway for trucks um the middle is a uh passenger car vehicle um entrance and exit and that's directly aligned with Red Oak Lane and then at the South End is the truck um egress driveway um in conjunction with um uh since we filed this application we've met with the county on a couple of occasions um and as you know there's existing improvements that are going on associated with the Culvert just north of the site um you know it's a on Lane Road out there now so we've gotten those plans in the course of meeting with the with the county we're going to cor do certain improvements on Journey Mill Road across our Frontage to tie into those improvements that they're currently constructing so just briefly they're constructing they are going to be constructing sidewalk on our side of the street basically partially across our Frontage we're going to pick that sidewalk up and continue it South across the balance of our Frontage um they are they're not widening um Journey Mill Road but what they've asked us to do um to provide for um better access not only to our site but also to Red Oak is we're going to be adding left turn lane so there will be a left turn lane here at our Central driveway the for the uh passenger vehicles to make a left in and there will be a corresponding uh left turn lane southbound to get you into Red Oak and then there will be also a left turn um Ingress uh Northbound to get you into the site for trucks so those are significant improvements which are not on the plans you as you see now they're conceptual and we've got to come up with that but that is required as part of um as our approval with the county um just one clarification um since we filed the application we had noted on the application that we needed a sidewalk waiver because the intention was not because there was no going to be no sidewalk around the site we were not going to put sidewalk in now that we're putting sidewalk in across the front edge of the site we'll make those not only provide that but make the connections within the site so you can access that now what will be public sidewalk so that eliminates that one design waiver for the for the sidewalk we think it eliminates it but for the sake of safety we want to ask for the design waiver but we're pledging on the record to work with the burough profess professionals so that they're satisfied with the sidewalks internal to the site but there may be places where there's a reason not to put in the sidewalk so we are asking for the waiver all right did I get that wrong Mr chairman I think that's accurate because your ordinance requires sidewalk adjacent to every parking place on right both sides of an access aisle and it's not really practical for this type of application so I think they they're going to require a waiver but they're going to go through and put sidewalk in where they and now to connect it out to Journey Mill Road in order to meet the sidewalk to be I think the the point is we're going to meet this maybe not the letter of the law so to speak but we're going to certainly meet the spirit of the of of the law um and then just touching on this this Central driveway because that is the subject of of um one of the other two design waivers um this driveway is in fact it's actually 24 ft wide um we we intend to maintain that at 24 ft which is is the design waiver where 30 is required only because it's passenger vehicles only um there's two components of your planner's letter which speak to adding a Centerline stripe which in fact got added to the exhibit although it's not currently on the plans and then also making some adjustments to the pavement and the curve line as you enter the site and we're agreeable to th to make those two changes that does not eliminate the the the waiver for the driveway width at 24 ft we intend to keep that because it's passenger car only we don't want to invite trucks to actually enter at this driveway because it is not set up to handle trucks whatsoever um sure okay um storm waterer wise um we have you can see them throughout the site there's five bio retentions basin one to the West South um two in the front and then one here on the south side of the building as well um just briefly touching on the the grading because the sight's in a in this flood Hazard Zone and we've got to tie our grades into the landfill without disturbing the cap because it is a lined landfill and we cannot disturb the cap it does require us to raise the site significantly um and you'll note on the plan you'll see some of these white lines on the exhibit on the North side South Side um harder to detect here on the West side but there's a series of retaining walls around the site to to be able to uh come close to the wetlands without disturbing them but in addition to those retaining walls there are other other areas of the site um particularly on this north side where to to not disturb the wetlands and and catch grade we need to increase the slope from our normal 3 to one to the 2:1 um but these are in areas that wouldn't be maintained on a regular basis um certainly a 2:1 slope is perfectly safe it's just a matter of from a maintenance standpoint you want 3:1 where you're not doing maintenance 2:1 is certainly acceptable which is the basis for the request for that waiver cor correct correct um and then the storm water oil conforms with with State Rags the seven seven colon8 requirements um you can see that the sites you know landscaped throughout um there is the the One requirement with respect to the uh tree shade trees over each parking Island and you'll see note here on the south side of the phase one building that there's no trees in those two and that's because there's an underground basein in there and then also here there's another underground Basin on the east side of the building and there's no um there's no shade trees that's the only location every place else has shade trees so that's the basis for the request for the second waiver um I believe that's correct that's correct and then just just to get on on the record with respect to the to the the two buildings so you'll see a dark heavy line here kind of bisecting the site that's our phasing line so to the right of the on the exhibit is Phase One to the left is phase two um it's Our intention that we can build phase one without um needing to have necessarily all the permits in place to build the phase two building because it's more complicated permitting in that it's a it sits on top of the landfill um what we would do is stub utilities out to the west to provide for the opportunity once at a later date that we could then build the phase 2 building so it is it is important to understand that this building would come first and at a later stage we would then be able to build the phase 2 building um just just for the record it has this is the phase one building the front building has 88 uh parking spaces including four EV spaces there's 30 loading bays at the back um and then we have 76 trailer storage spaces at the rear and then the phase 2 building uh has 58 parking spaces and again those are located in the front um uh including four EVS 26 loading bays at the rear and then um 40 trailer uh storage um here located here and then on the South Side as well um let's see lighting uh just to touch briefly on that um we have they're all LED fixtures throughout uh efficient all cut off type of fixtures so you don't get the light the light spillage off site and also you don't get the the the sky glare off of that um just one one thing across the frontage you'll note that we're we've constru we're proposing to construct retaining walls in the front to allow us to retain as much of the existing mature tree vegetation that's out there because that's the best way to screen um screen the project from Journey Mill Road so we're we're preserving as much of that vegetation as possible and then we will supplement that existing vegetation at the time of clearing to where where there's gaps that we would then be able to come back and put additional vegetation and their additional trees in the to supplement that screening um and then just briefly um signage wise you'll note that there's no sign details in the plans having said that we've looked located we've identified we that we would propose two conforming Monument signs at the two entrance entrance driveway so one here located in the center and one located at the North and then we would have two building signs one on each building conforming um so when there was a tenant identified we'd come in and they would we would get a we would get signed permits consistent with the what the ordinance requires So the plan right now is to conform to whatever the signed ordinance says and obviously if we need a different sign we have to come back and get a variance for it correct correct correct um and just kind of touching on briefly the the the operations so this would be a 24hour um operation um from an employee count standpoint we're anticipating a maximum of 40 to 50 employees uh for the for the front building and an 18 to 20 in the rear building um there was a comment of you know the the the basis of the parking standard um here for the cold storage building is based on experience with other cold St similar Cold Storage type of facilities um so the concern is how do you control the and ensure that we're not going to have a parking issue and what we would do is we would advise the tenant as to that maximum employee count um so that we would not run you know run a foul of having not having enough uh vehicle parking um all the loading would be at the rear as you can see here on the West side of phase one building and on the west side of the phase two building um all the refu and recycling is inside the building and then it would come to compactors and then be carted away by a private Carter um let's see I think I've touched on all three of the design waivers um yeah we want to go through we want to go through the the letters brief well let me ask if that's appropriate Mr chairman that we go through the CME report maybe the planner's report planner report first and then which one first planner report and or the engine you can either either one the engineers all right and then then the planners all right let us do c report dated August the 21st 2024 have you had an opportunity to review it yes I yes I have all right so before I'm gonna just ask you to make I think there's some points in the planers report or in the engineers report that should be reemphasized actually a thousand times um I direct the board's attention to page three at the top says the plan satisfies all bulk requirements do we agree with that yes all right uh down the bottom it says the plan satisfies all parking requirements do we agree with that yes all right on page four at the bottom it says the plan satisfies the off Street loading requirements do we agree with that comment yes all right and then um on page five the bottom third of the page the landscaping and basing design requirements listed in the Redevelopment plan have been satisfied do we agree with that yes at the very bottom of the page the plan satisfies the requirements of the Redevelopment plan do we agree with that yes and as a matter of fact Sarah agreed with it when we before correct consistent consist we wouldn't be here tonight if that wasn't take a look at page six oneir From The Bottom the building requirements appear to be consistent with Redevelopment plan do we agree with that yes all right the second from the bottom paragraph the redeveloper is responsible to maintain the landfill in compliance with all environmental laws do we agree with that statement of fact yep okay and that was the body of the CME report and then the CME report listed uh a whole bunch of particular comments as an an attachment and we'd like to go to that at this point um with regard to section A there's a list of possible permits that may be needed and we agree to get any permits of course if needed of course yep yes okay um I I I think you know I've had an opportunity to review the letter and speak with Mr Cornell there's nothing in his letter that we cannot not agree to okay uh so I think we've made the comment about signage um with regard we we pointed out that there were three way we requested if you take a look at on page two of the CME attachment item seven they they have the comment about uh the bur ordinance sidewalk should be provided between parking areas I think that was covered in your testimony and also responded to by Mr Corell which is we're still asking for the waiver but I think what Mr Cornell said was that there may there are appropriate modifications that may be required all right that the ordinance may be a little too inflexible so we're we're asking for the waiver but we agree to comply with the it's a lesser waiver than we had originally requested because there will be sidewalk across this the site Frontage and we're certainly meeting the spirit of of the requirement on page is internal that you're not yes internally internal sidewalks right with regard to item 12 on page two which we indicated was another waiver that is the maximum allowable grade for uh for landscaping is 3 to1 slope and we have two to one and you explain the reason why but just repeat it if you would mind sure it's in it's in some areas just to be able to C because the site is in such amount of filled to be able to catch grade before we are into Wetlands or Wetland buffers offers okay and item 18 in accordance with the burough ordinance driveways for non-residential uses would be a minimum of 30 fet in width the proposed Center site driveway does not comply with this requirement the applicant is requesting a waiver that was the question about the 30 foot width versus 26 24 just just so I want to get the record straight it is 24 and why is 24 feet appropriate is this is for this is for passenger vehicles only this is not for this is not for trucks correct okay and I think those were the issues that we wanted to address in the SEI other than that we're pretty confident that we can comply with everything that SEI is requesting correct absolutely yes Mr chman I I did speak with Mr Bush and uh majority of the other items are technical in nature They Don't Really warrant discussion by the board he's agreed to comply with those in future plants and metals all right and if that's uh satisfactory of the board will go to Mr Fowler's report there you go dated uh August 16 2024 have you had the opportunity to review that yet yes I have and I had an opportunity to discuss a a a handful of these comments with Mr uh with Mr Fowler earlier uh today okay and and in general we can agree to everything yes correct just just for clarification on on on page four that's where we speak to to the to the to the driveway and there's item two item two thank you and there was there was three components of that it was the widening of the driveway which we're going to stay with the 24 feet but there was two other good suggestions related to changing some of the geometry and adding some striping that we're agreeable to that makes that makes quite frankly makes sense um and then if I can direct your attention to the next page page five there's there's one more on onage there's one on page four number seven which speaks to U banking some of the parking which we're we're amable to to doing the bank parking um it's a question of we don't know who the tenant tenant is so as I indicated earlier is like we're going to disclose to our you know our potential tenants is you know we have a we have a maximum amount of parking available if they were to need less we certainly are meable to banking some of that parking it would be something as I would see it that that would be subject of review and approval of your professionals at the time that a tenant was selected in other words we would have to prove that yes we can afford to say Bank 20 spaces or something along those lines that would be the intent it really becomes a tenant specific issue and we're not looking to add more asalt are we no no I me if we could Bank it we're happy to do so all right I direct your attention to page five item number four four which is uh shade trees should be provided at all landscape Islands within the parking Fields we've talked about it a little bit during the presentation but what's the issue so those are those are the on the east side of the of the building one and on the south side of building one where we have two separate underground detention basins and we can't place shade trees over the top of those that's that's what that is about that's what I was speaking in my in my direct and being Captain Obvious the reason for that is you're worried about the roots of the trees damaging the underground Absolut correct correct and then number six on on page five again under Landscaping um there's discussion about providing some means of um uh uh space outside for people to gather so what what Mr Fallon and I discussed was adding a couple picnic tables specifically we can identify for the phase one building and I'll just point to it on the exhibit so you'll note and it's hard very hard to see but there's a dashed line in the southwest corner of the building that's where the office space is and there's a green area outside of that that that would be where we would propose to put some some some picnic tables for the you know for the people that are working in the office because we don't know exactly where that would be in the phase 2 building we would still agree to provide it we just don't I couldn't sit here and say it would go in this precise location that's that's the only distinction um and then the only other one just uh speaking to um number seven was because these are LED fixtures that are that are the full cut off we don't need to have the house side shields that was the only other one I think I don't I don't think there was other ones that we needed to discuss but not aware of that's was that thank you Mr chairman uh our engineer Mr Bush is open for questions anybody have any questions Mr Bush I do go ahead did did you say that there were going to be left-hand turning Lanes in the middle of Journey Mill Road that's correct without widening it there'll be some some minor widening to get to get the left turn Lanes in but it's it's actually not a lot because there's actually some striped shoulders on the on the side there so we've got a concept plan there may be some minor widening on the on the east side to be able to get it in and the trucks will be using those left-and turning Lanes as well they they'll only be because there's only one way to get in they'll only be using the the norly one right because I don't think Journey Mill Road is that wide I can't imagine a leand turning lane I mean let's this is this is subject of review and approval by the county so it's going to to meet the county standard okay and it's in In fairness we haven't worked out the precise details of what that that cartway with would need to be able to fit all that right but we're obligated to do it okay part of that's been C Away by the new the new work going on going up towards your your they've made it wider already right in fact you know ironically you can start to see some of the clearing actually got picked up on the on the on the aerial is that because they want to keep the traffic flowing in both directions so that the truck would kind of be standing in the in the turning lane instead of waiting to turn yes okay Mr I was on the calls with the applicant and his engineer in the county and and he's correct in what he's saying they are requiring full improvements along the front edge with sidewalk as well as the left-and turned Lanes as indicated so that's something the county is going to require as a condition of their approval anybody else have any questions one more go ahead um and with like the drainage of the water from the site there's going to be strict requirements on that draining into the river correct so yes is a simple answer to your to your questions and we are in with applications to D with respect to that and just simply we we've had to use the green infrastructure so that's why I was speaking to bior retention these and not just your normal you know sand bottom basins like you used well you're used to seeing or we're all used to seeing these are bio retention following the green infrastructure requirements okay thank you yep Mr chairman on the drainage if you look at our report I had said a lot of technical items there's approximately 30 items that relate to drainage in our report that the applicant is going to have to take care of right okay thank you anyone else Mr Smith you're next uh Mr chairman if appropriate I'd like to call our third witness Mr Cory Chase who is our traffic expert I I asked he be sworn so we can testify do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do would you please state your name and spell for the record certainly it's Corey c r y last name is Chase CH thank you senior principal with the firm Dynamic traffic located in Chester New Jersey uh Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from University of Massachusetts licensed professional engineer in of New Jersey licens is currently a good standing uh previously testified before this board and over 100 others in the state of New Jersey second Mr Jason all in favor Mr Chason in preparation of this application uh did your client ask you to perform a study of this area and the traffic that might be generated they did uh we prepared a traffic impact study it was previously submitted to the B B last revised June 28th 2024 all right so what did your what did your study come up with and just to add a little bit of color on what Mr Bush just testified to relative to the the site access circulation and the improvements that we're proposing along Journey Mill Road uh as you're aware the county is currently uh installing improvements along Journey Mill to the north of Red Oak Lane they're actually widening it to a 40ft wide cartway um so and that's what they're asking us to continue to the south of Red Oak Lane in addition to providing the sidewalk and other amenities along the frontage uh what that'll allow us to do is have three 12T travel Lanes so a through Lane in each Direction plus a 12ft left turn lane and then a twoot shoulder on either side so there will be sufficient width uh with the widening that the County's proposing and the additional widening that we'll be providing to the South the Red Oak Lane to again accommodate two travel lanes and dedicated left turn Lanes um it wasn't part of the County's project um but what they wanted to do was you know have us in conjunction with their improvements provide something that they felt would benefit the overall uh roadway Corridor and addition to just the improvements of the Culver that are going on to the north of subject property so the the county improvements again coupled with what we're proposing there'll be significant roadway improvements along the site Frontage it'll provide uh improved site access and circulation um as Mr Bush mentioned we are providing an Ingress only driveway to the north of subject property which will accommodate uh passenger vehicles to the rear um po storage building as well as all truck access to both buildings uh a centralized access point which will just be for employees only um for the uh Eastern cold storage building so passenger vehicles only at that Central driveway and then an egress only driveway at the southern end of the property which will again accommodate all truck traffic exiting the subject property as well as employees from the building located along the the Western portion of the subject property um as Mr Smith mentioned we did prepare traffic impact study was previously submitted to the bureau um what that does is it provides a pre and post-development Analysis along the adjacent roadway Network to determine if there be any detrimental traffic impacts as a result of the development of the subject property um to calculate the traffic that expected to be generated by the proposed cold storage facility uh we utilize data published by The Institute of Transportation Engineers it's a national and state recognized standard for developing trip generation projections for variety uses um something that's new to the data published by the it is they've BR broken out Warehouse land use categories uh in the prior addition to the trip generation manual they just had one general warehouse land use category that we had to apply to all types of warehouses that we were proposing Cold Storage is actually its own dedicated land use category now so they've studied existing cold storage facilities and that's how they developed these trip generation projections uh which are summarized on table three which is located on page four of our report and we provide a breakdown between the two buildings the traffic associated with each one as well as a breakdown between employee vehicle traffic and truck traffic associated with this development uh you can see that the overall facility is pro projected to generate a maximum of 43 trips during the peak hour so it's less than one trip per minute during those Peak periods uh as Traffic Engineers we study the weekday morning and evening Peak commuter hours is our critical hours to assess the impacts on the adjacent Network the New Jersey Department of Transportation has set a threshold of 100 additional trips during a peak hour is what they term a significant increase in traffic so the the fact that this development is only going to generate 43 trips during a peak hour it's less than 50% of that threshold of what would be termed a significant increase in traffic so overall uh not a significant traffic generator we did analyze the proposed s side access points as well as the intersection with Red Oak Lane to confirm that there'd be acceptable operational conditions upon the development of this subject property those results are summarized on table four which is located on page five of our report and again both the set access points as well as the existing intersection with Red Oak Lane are going to operate at acceptable levels of service after to the development of the subject property uh as Mr Bush mentioned we do provide compliant parking uh from both an employee electric vehicle charging station and ADA compliance standpoint uh you know in my review of the site plan and through consultation with Mr Bush we feel that there is adequate site access circulation to accommodate both the employee passenger vehicles emergency vehicles refu pickup as well as the delivery vehicles which will be associated with the site uh Mr Smith that's all add for direct be happy to answer any questions that the boarders professionals had well just before you do I'd like to direct the board's attention to the CME report uh the August 21st report page five second paragraph has the comments from CME and I'm going to read them the proposed Cold Storage Warehouse buildings are projected to generate 29 four trucks entering trips and 10 seven trucks exiting trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 11 six trip trucks entering trips and 32 five trucks exiting trips during the evening peak hour that are quote new to the adjacent Road way Network the nearby intersections of Journey Mill Road uh and Red Oak Lane the proposed driveways are project projected to maintain a minimum level of service B and you agree with that comment I do uh with new trep generator from the co storage facility next paragraph one sentence the traffic generated from this site is projected to have minimal impact and no significant degradation in operating conditions to the adjacent Street system from the construction of this project and we certainly agree with that comment we do okay and that by the way is the great news about cold storage facilities compared to other types of warehouses the level of traffic is it's certainly from when you compare as I mentioned the fact that the it has five Warehouse land use categories now Cold Storage generates the least amount of traffic of the five Warehouse land use categor so your typical Warehouse would generate slightly more traffic and then obviously you know when you get into the upper echelons of the the FedEx and UPS Amazon type facilities those generate substantially more traffic than what we're proposing this evening Mr Chase is available for questions any questions Mr chairman just a comment uh our office our Traffic Engineers did an initial review of his report we had asked for additional information additional traffic counts he provided that information in our latest review I think there's only four comments that some minor striping revisions that are still required so he's addressed all the traffic issues that we originally raised and you're U as was indicated by Mr Bush we're amenable to addressing those remaining comments on the the striping and the signage onsite any other questions all right if appropriate Mr chairman I'd like to call our fourth W witness Mr Dave melow our architect I'd ask you to be sworn so that we can get take testimony do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name and spell it for the record my name is David Melo m l o Mr Melo for the record by whom are you employed and in what capacity um I am the principal and head architect at rkb Architects out of brain tree Massachusetts okay and you are a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey I am licensed in the state of New Jersey in addition to approximately 18 other states in the United States okay and have you testified before other land use boards in our state yes I have done mult mle projects in the last couple years in the state of New Jersey Newark Elizabeth Lindon Woodbridge Kerney Sunny me uh in The Last 5 Years for similar type projects I'd ask to be accepted as an expert in this field I have a second all in favor I yeah I have it go ahead Mr Melo in a nutshell what is it gon to look like so in a nutshell as as recently mentioned this is a single story 250,000 257,000 would you mark that as A3 this is the elevations of the building so um tonight State what you see there is a perspective rendering of the proposed building from the street uh from the axis uh row that's being proposed what you're seeing right now is the backside of the freezer building uh the building basically has uh two heights to it uh it's 75 foot tall freezer from average grade to the peak of the freezer which you're looking at the backside and then there is a smaller story approx proximately 36t tall uh on the West Side uh which includes loading dock office and mechanical areas for the project um by Design what you're looking at there is pretty much what you're going to be looking at these buildings uh typically do not get any mechanical equipment on the roof especially of the freezer due to their access but we are designing the building to be uh provided for future solar we're increasing roof loads all the electrical requirements that are required day one to take on the future solar loads Up on the Roof uh also by Design um we purposely put all the refrigerant equipment all the loud stuff that you typically hear for these freezer buildings inside the loading dock we purposely provide uh mezzanines uh for electrical service all the refrigerant equipment all of that is located internally uh the only thing that you will see on the roof and it'll be on the lower roof will be whatever rooftop equipment exhaust fans things like that that you might see that might serve the office conditioned area so you will not see so and basically what you're looking at there for the freezer building uh it's going to be an architectural metal panel uh in the lighter colors you're looking at white and gray um the smaller story building will be uh um loadbearing uh pre concrete wall panels uh that you typically see in a loading dock area that'll be painted the interior of the loading dock is also going to be refrigerated due to the nature of the product being moving maintaining coal chain um and the interior of the uh loading dock also gets lined with a similar type architectural panel um I think as previously mentioned you know trash and things like that are all taken internally there's no external trash will be either uh taken care of inside the loading dock and then fed into the compactors um sure what else so well I'd like I'd like you to try and sell are we doing anything for the environment or for Energy Efficiency good point yeah so these buildings by Design do the to the temperatures that are required in the buildings uh we we over insulate the walls and the roofs of these buildings uh they greatly exceed the minimum code standards from the energy code in the state of New Jersey um so that's something that we're taking into play we're also making the building um solar ready for the future solar uh the floors in uh in the freezer also get uh heated with a gly call system we have to heat the floor so they don't heave the heat for that gly call is actually recaptured from the refrigerator equipment inside the freezer so one system helps heat the other um and due to the height of the building the 75t height that we're proposing um with these type of buildings the taller the building uh the more uh critical the refrigeration system comes it actually becomes more energy efficient uh so you know having this height also helps maintain the uh energy levels for the building for the refrigeration system great Mr Mel is available for questions any questions of the architect chairman if I might just just one item there weren't detailed plans submitted for the second building will that be similar in appearance to the the the intent uh because of the nature of these buildings because it's going to be a cold storage building it's going to be an insulated metal panel insulated panel uh freezer or cooler whatever temperature they decide to do and the loading dock areas will most likely be very similar architecture concrete panel painted to you know similar colors as we are proposed they'll look similar in in style anybody else all right if Mr chairman if appropriate I'd like to call our last witness uh our anchor person Jim Kyle our planner I'd ask to be called so he can be sworn and give testimony sure oh not not a problem I'm I'm gonna get out of your way oh okay right you have okay uh do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do state your name and spell it for the record sure first name is James last name Kyle KY l e and it's Kyle mcmanis Associates in hopeall New Jersey all right so you're the Redundant man here well should I give my qualifications you okay go ahead press that because I have not appeared here before um so I have a Bachelor of Science and environmental planning and design from Ruckers which I received in 1996 BR practicing planner for 25 years our office currently has about 24 municipalities that we represent as their Consulting plan planner have also appeared before 250 boards in the state qualified as an expert in planning also three visages of Superior Court in New Jersey licensed by the state as a professional planner also aicp certified so while you look very young you got a lot of Milestone I'd ask he accepted as a licensed professional planner all in favor go ahead thank you let me set the stage for you if I can sure we don't need any variances we don't need any Dev ation this is a byright application what the hell are you doing here right so tell us why this is a grand slam out of the park home run for SVO certainly so I was retained by the applicant to review uh the planning issues associated with this proposal so I've reviewed all the plans and materials that were submitted to the board I've been by the site um looked at the operations that are proposed here as well and reviewed of course the B master plan as well as the Redevelopment plan that's applicable to this area um as was stated earlier this Redevelopment plan was amended earlier this year to allow Cold Storage warehouses of permitted use in conjunction with that the minimum maximum height was increased to 75% uh there was also some changes to the uh parking requirements addition of parking requirements specific to this use so the landfill and Melrose Redevelopment plan is the one that's applicable here and as I said it was amended earlier this year uh there are also some underlying requirements of the zoning ordinance that are applicable here so while we do not need any variances or deviations from the Redevelopment plan itself we do need design waivers from some of the what we'll call them design standards in the Burrow's ordinance uh we've gone through those Mr Bush summarized them there's actually uh four because we talked about the uh shade trees within the parking Island so that would be the fourth one um but Mr Bush did address all these in his uh commentary so as Mr Smith had noted at the outset this is Lo at in the eco-industrial Redevelopment area um the use is permitted uh the site complies or the site plan complies with essentially all the bulk standards in the Redevelopment plan so we're seeking no relief from that um so this district has a purpose statement Mr Fowler kind of summarized this in his memo but I did want to address it in direct testimony because he did state that he'd like to hear a little bit about how the project complies with that so the purpose here is uh to establish an industrial zoning District where multiple uses and buildings are permitted on one lot that Fosters the development of innovative industrial uses which utilize a high standard environmental and economic performance these uses will promote an approach to Industrial Development that involves connecting within and across Industries throughout the central New Jersey region and demonstrate well thought out practices that result in waste energy being used as resources so this proposal while you know there was an idea in this development plan was written that we have landfill that produces methane gas and back in 1996 when this plan was written there was this idea well you know can we capture that is are there innovative ways that we can kind of reuse that energy um through the businesses that we're going to have in this eco-industrial area so to some extent that has not been fully realized but this business does tie in uh nicely to businesses within the region so cold storage is um it's an in demand use as we've seen the industry you know the transition with Amazon now we have grocery delivery well those groceries and and those products have to be stored somewhere and preferably somewhere within the market where they don't have to travel a great distance to get to different places so cold storage users are trying to locate these uh strategically within regions so that they can have potential distribution points this might be a different tenant it might be someone that um you know has a manufacturing operation and then stores product here but that's kind of the general idea so this type of use is in demand I recently worked on a project in North Jersey where it was a Redevelopment plan and this this was kind of seen as an upand cominging use in the warehouse industry something different than a you know typical Distribution Center or you know just dry good storage so it does fit in that regard um the design standards the purpose of those was to promote adaptive reuse in the raei district that recognizes existing environmental constraints wetlands and flood plane influence existing environmental cap and NJ DP remediation requ requirements a need to improve existing infrastructure and sustainable site design should address water quality and quantity issues shared connections and services so um as Mr Bush had gone through you know obviously we have a lot of constraints here the primary one being the landfill we're working through with the DP to to redevelop the site lift it so that development that's here is compatible um you couldn't really have any residential use on this it's really an industrial site we're squarely in an industrial area of the burrow um you're obviously all familiar with the uses that we have around us so this is a good fit from that perspective and the author of The Redevelopment plan was very insightful back in 1996 essentially talking about things that the DP is now implemented in the storm water management requirements um you know reduction of of structural measures green infrastructure bior retention so even though this was envisioned back in 2011 it's all part of the DP regulation so we will be complying with that and reducing storm water impact from the site even in the post-develop condition so just getting to the waivers that we need um as I said the proposal largely complies so we have the sidewalks along driveway Alis uh to the principal structure as we've talked about there will be new sidewalks on Journey Mill we will work with your professionals to connect those sidewalks to the interior of the site should anybody want to walk to the site um and then we'll add some sidewalks in areas in consultation with them uh maximum allowable grade uh with the the center driveway and then shade trees in a limited number of parking islands where we have storm water facilities that are underneath those parking Islands so the Redevelopment plan does permit the board to Grant um waivers from design standards as long as they're within the general purpose and intent of the Redevelopment plan and we have to demonstrate that it's either impracticable or it will create undue hardship uh there's really no factors here that would lead to a conclusion that it's causing undue hardship uh and really impracticable is a confusing word used here it's used in the ml it doesn't mean you can't do it it just means it wouldn't be wise to continue to do it so we're going to focus on the impracticable standard um here for that and there's a court case b gof Lovie Burlington Township where the court said design waivers simply have to be reasonable under the facts and it's just an acknowledgement by the board that the condition that's proposed is satisfactory relative to the requirement in the ordinance so here on the sidewalk waiver um as we said the majority of the parking area and when you look at the site plan um now this is not the type of use where we have massive parking Fields uh for employees most of the parking is located in close proximity to the building so you can see we have a single Bay parking along um the Western Building and while we do have a a double Bay here on the south side of the building any any employees that are parking in these spaces have reasonable access to a sidewalk that Rings um the Southern and Southeastern side of the parking area so really most most employees will have almost direct access to a sidewalk that will take them into the principal building or they will only have to cross a single Drive aisle uh to get there based on the number of employees that Mr Bush had quoted before not a significant number um you know when you think about the size of these buildings so it's not as though there's going to be a constant flow of cars and trucks through those Drive AES will there be a lot of potential for pedestrian conflict so I think here um you know it wouldn't make a lot of sense to put sidewalks on on the other side of the parking Bay to just connect when we have reasonably safe access and allows us to reduce impervious coverage in certain areas but again we've committed to work with your professionals to make sure we're getting sidewalks in the right locations on this site um for employees and pedestrians the grading waiver uh we're proposing two to one slopes where three to one is required um as Mr Bush had testified to that is really happening um around the perimeter of the site where we have these retaining walls on the south west and North Side uh those areas will not be maintained landscape areas they will allowed to be naturalized so they will not need to be maintained um and it allows us to better tie into the existing grades with the retaining walls that we're proposing and then obviously avoiding those Wetland and buffer areas that were required to stay out of so here um that two to1 slope will work because the areas do not need to be maintained and it's a more efficient use of of the property and a better sight Des alternative uh given the use for the driveway withth waiver um as we've talked about that's going to be a a vehicular access only no tractor trailers as Mr Chase had upon the 24 foot width is certainly sufficient for for vehicle access there uh and Mr Bush also made an important point that leaving that driveway at that width is really going to discourage any tractor trailers from trying to enter that because they'll immediately see that it's a narrower driveway and it'll really discourage any truck access there here this is impracticable in that we can greatly reduce the impervious coverage associated with the width of that driveway and having to taper back to the 24t width if we have the 24t width out at the street so here we think that makes a little more sense uh to reduce that impervious coverage uh finally the the tree in the parking Islands as Mr Bush had pointed out that's really happening on in two areas I believe on the south side of of the main building um in those areas we do have storm water management features so the planting of shade trees there uh and The Roots would not be compatible and could potentially damage that infrastructure so here it's impracticable on that basis and and we think it is warranted and and makes sense so and again it's only in those two very limited islands that we have at the front as Mr Bush pointed out all the other Islands do have shade trees in them so I think overall based on the testimony that we've offered this evening uh these waivers that we're requesting are reasonable and and Justified and I I believe the board U would be within its right to grant them based on the standards in the Redevelopment plan Mr Kyle is available for questions anybody have any question okay thank you all Mr chairman that concludes our case quick summary this is a great thing for sarbo I mean that's at the end of the day you're taking a legacy landfill out of your ownership you have a PRI the private sector willing to take the environmental responsibility for that property and you're turning a property that is totally underutilized making it into a rable providing new jobs tax revenues and at the same time you're also selling it at a decent price so it's a really Grand Slam out of the park home run we hope you'll approve it make a motion to open up the public all in favor any OPP post anybody from the public like to speak on this matter anyone like to speak on this matter going once going twice motion to close get a second all in favor what's your pleasure Mo to approve the application do I have a second second I have a motion made and seconded to approve the application Mr candell yes Mr alra yes M lman yes Mr Muller yes Mr Shaw yes Mr B yes Council zi yes chman K yes Mr chairman just a point of clarification that does include the granting of the three waivers yes thank you thank you for your attention tonight and your courtesy thank you for succeeding in cble our pleasure uh next meeting is September 18th and it's not here it's at Main Street that's correct um at the Active Adult Center at 423 Main Street what is that's it a motion to adjourn I have a second okay all in favor I have a good evening thank you