##VIDEO ID:E088j8SBO4U## e e e e e e e e e in accordance with the open public meetings act it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following host posted on the bulon board of the office of the Township Clerk posted on the bulon board within the municipal complex printed in a home News Tribune in cranbery press on December 29 2023 posted on the Monroe Township website and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice FL please take the role Mr Rothman here miss Bry here Mr Patel here M Amani here Mr slavich here Mr weiner Dr Kenzie councilman banora here mayor Delina here chairman Gaffrey here okay uh L circulated the uh minutes of the last meeting September 26 2024 um I'm sure you've all had a chance to read it do I have a a motion to accept the uh minutes motion to accept is there a second second any discussion all in favor n opposed abstain okay we're going to go right into to resume the pending application pb1 1250 d22 Federal business centers Inc uh there are two members of the board that weren't here for one of the two prior uh um hearings on this application I'm just going to have them State for the record that they uh have reviewed the the video of of the one or more of the uh the hearings they missed you could just state your name and and indicate that you uh reviewed the uh the record Roslin brodski I did watch the um the meeting on YouTube while I was sick at home so I was I know what's happening thank you Mr chairman Greg slavich I have reviewed uh the testimony uh from the July's meeting as well okay um we last time we were here we heard many insightful and informative and articulate comments from the members of the public um we appreciate all those comments but the board at this point since we haven't heard from the applicant since July so three months U Mrs Smith we'd like you to update us on the uh on the application thank you Mr chairman uh appreciate the courtesy uh as you know for the record Bob Smith my wife is attorney in New Jersey and I'm representing Federal business centers uh I think we've now had two hearings on this or am I I think we're in two right we had a first one and the second one with the public comments and we have a continuation of public comments tonight so by way of update at the uh I believe it was the last hearing one of the board members said that they thought that the traffic uh report might not be as valid as it could be because we're using where Warehouse traffic statistics for warehouses that were not in Monroe and I'm happy to report to you that our traffic expert has now conducted additional studies on four Monroe warehouses and you should have those uh uh traffic numbers and by the way they were very consistent with the other numbers uh but four different warehouses in Monroe you will have that uh supplement to the report either by tomorrow or latest uh Monday secondly we have been trying to get a meeting with uh NJ doot you may remember that councilman vanzora suggested that we have a meeting getting a meeting with the dot is like trying to get a meeting with the president of the United States of America but we're we're seriously working on it and then uh thirdly um for the second time as you know we requested an adjournment to December 4th and the reason for that was the hearing that we had last month we thought the hearing was also insightful and we thought that the residents came up with some pretty good ideas suggestions how the application could be made better and we've tasked our Engineers to revise the application to take a lot of the suggestions from the public into account and to also make the application uh absolutely uh consistent with the zoning such that would be variance free right now we are permitted use but we have a number of bulk variances in fact quite a few bulk variances there's 10 to my understanding yeah what's that there's 10 variances uh it might even be more in fact to make it easy if I might because I don't know if if if you saw the details of the letter but it take and the the attachment to it lists every variance and how it's being eliminated so with your permission maybe I can give it to the board secretary so that everybody can see what it is that we're going to be presenting let let me ask you question it just appears to me if you're eliminating all or most of the variances from the application isn't that a substantial change in the in the application requiring a new application and I'm going to defer to the uh town uh planning board attorney and the and and the planning board engineer for comments on that but it would appear to me that that would be a substantial change required in new application if we change the you I agreee by the way as the attorney for the board I agree and uh if you make it substantial changes it really creates a new application I respectfully disagree actually we if you remember we had that discussion another application about four years ago Francis Parker and that the bottom line that in New Jersey it is routine practice before planning and zoning boards to amend an application in response either to public comments or in response to board concerns and we got the message we really did get the message with the three hours of testimony we're we're going to make this a better application and I I I would respectfully disagree with Jerry although I try never to disagree with Jerry that it is not only common practice but it's pursuant to the land use law why have hearings if you're not going to modify an application to meet the Public's concerns and that's what we're doing we're just modifying the application to meet the Public's insurance we ask for the adjournment so that we could get it to you in time for your staff to have reviewed it by December 4th which would be the next hearing uh so the how many of the variances are you uh seeking to remove from the application we're hoping to remove all okay variances and make it uh a no variance application which again in terms of the purpose of the municipal land use law as a board and I'm not telling you how to do your business but generally you want people to have perfect conforming obligations that makes life easier for everybody and we're also incorporating a lot of the suggestions that the uh residents had about uh buffering Landscaping lighting you know other things that they thought were important to make to address their concerns and I think that's absolutely consistent with the municipal land use saw I would agree with Jerry if we were changing the use if we came back to and said we want to build a beauty Beauty Salon here that's a substantially different application this is still uh a logistics Center all you're doing is modifying a few of the the parking lighting Landscaping in order to conform to your ordinance that's not a substantial change that's a change that that is pursuant to the municipal land use law because you do these hearings in order to get the public input and to find out what's important and what should be modified so I respectfully disagree with Jerry and the only reason I have to defer to our planning board counsel for his comment and and wise advice as as to that issue well you haven't gotten the plans yet but you will be you should be getting the plans the first week of November and you can make that determination if you wish I would suggest you might want to do a little bit more on the investigation side on that issue because I think it's pretty clear actually Mr Smith is there anything else you want to addite Yes uh there is uh uh and that is that um uh number one I would like the board if it's acceptable to you we sent this in it's the letter that's already in your file for Mr mwan to actually see what it is that we are doing we are continuing doing the stuff you've asked us to do like more traffic Cs and try to meet with NJ doot so that again we can have an application that you can find favor with uh and finally uh we would like the opportunity to speak at after the actually two final wishes we' like to speak after all the objetives have finished so that we can respond to their comments and then uh uh lastly we're asking not to take a vote tonight because obviously you can't consider the revised plans if you arbitrarily in my opinion uh and preemptively take a vote on this application tonight we we asked for the adjournment in writing about 10 days ago we got the response back just like we did the last time we requested an adjournment that you you that's not possible you have to go forward we're doing it we're going forward but you don't have to take a vote tonight if you want to continue the objections and by the way we might hear some other really good suggestions that we can incorporate into the plans but what we're asking is to not take a vote be it's just not fair quite frankly the most significant concern that I heard was traffic and traffic concerns and the and the um entrance and the exit way and and all the way up to 33 where do we stand on those issues you will have a new a supplemental traffic report based on the traffic uh generated by four existing Monroe warehouses you'll have have that either by tomorrow or by Monday they finish the traffic count uh and these are new traffic Huns I mean we're not like looking at something that they submit we did it on our own we have four new sets of data for you to look at and I think you you may be pleasantly surprised at at the traffic counts in that report but you'll have them very shortly that's why we're asking that you defer taking action tonight take you know get the get the rest of the public testimony but give us our opportunity to provide an application that you'd be much happier with I I think Mr rimot has something to say Mr chairman I I would just also agree with our attorney um some of these variances are substantial that this is not eliminate a minor variance you have substantial variances here the entire plan would change I don't see how this even looks like the plan that's before us to eliminate these variances um you variances for parking in a front yard that means that the entire parking layout will change um variance 254 four spaces are required and you got 161 impervious coverage you'll change um maybe the building gets smaller I mean we don't we don't know what these changes are but whatever it is it it it appears to me to be a whole new application I mean this is the application that's before the board here toight well as Mr rasimov has points out he hasn't seen the plants you know it's Our intention to eliminate as many of the variants as possible but why don't we actually let him look at the plans to see if it is in his opinion a substantial change the plans will be in your hands by the first week of December anything else um anything else no I let me if I can leave cop a letter for your board to take P thank you for thank we're done right Mr chairman if I could be heard at this time um we have to rely on the advice from our councel also our uh expert engineers and it would appear to me based on their um review uh What uh the app applicant seems to be talking about as a totally new application so at this point we've heard from the applicant based on what we've had on the current application we've heard from more than 30 or so Witnesses from the neighborhood who have clearly expressed their opposition to the application it would appear to me that uh the record at this point is sufficiently complete where we can uh make a determination and quite honestly I don't see the need to continue to hear the same testimony over and over from people although we certainly care about where our citizens come from and and what they think um I think when we consider this application and I'd also remind my my fellow board members of this the decision to approve or disapprove must be based on the factual testimony regarding the application it does not depend on the number of witnesses it should not be based on any political considerations or sympathy how long people have lived here what their expectations may have been needs to be based on the facts of the application so when this first came forward about three months ago I expressed serious concerns about issues in the application including but not limited to Traffic Safety and other concerns turns heard nothing since that time that would change my opinion based on the record we have at this point so when we consider the totality of the circumstances I believe at this point it it it seems pretty obvious that the negative criteria is going to far outweigh the positive criteria and at this point we I think we pleas at this point um I think we've we've taken enough testimony we've heard enough and at this point I would ask the board to consider a motion to deny the application is there is there a second for the the motion uh I will second that I have a few comments if I may um this area had been zoned for high development but that was in 2011 since that time 13 years later this area has become a neighborhood you've got single family residents Apartments tow houses South E north and west of the property we still the applicant Federal business centers has not identified whether will'll be one tenant or two that will be in the building but they have talked about 18 18 wheelers coming and going anywhere from 7 7 to 9: in the morning and also at 4: to 6: in the late afternoon they've requested even though now that's coming off the table widening the driveway uh from 35 ft to 65 ft in order to allow traffic of trucks every 9 minutes now when you hear that you suddenly take a look at what is the neighborhood to today in 2024 there are hundreds of homes hundreds of residents you know what that means a lot of kids and if there are a lot of kids please a lot of kids anywhere like we were when we were kids I can tell you they're going to be outside playing tag playing touch football even playing stick when you think about that the question in terms of safety is not if there's going to be an accident with a kid it is when there's going to be an accident so when I look at safety and I look at what has happened in this neighborhood I will certainly second the motion to deny okay um be before we move on to a voting is any member is there any discussion to be had any member of the board wish to be heard thank okay then then we're going to put this to vote and just so the record is clear a yes vote will be to deny the application a no vote would be to oppose the motion that's pending to deny the application Mr Rothman yes to deny Miss Bry deny yes yes Mr Patel yes Miss damany yes and it's because I think it's doesn't belong in that neighborhood Mr slavich yes councilman vanzora yes to Mayor Delina yes to deny chairman Gaffrey yes to deny okay for for the record uh the application is denied okay um we're gonna we're gonna take a a five minute break because there are some additional items on the agenda that we have to do those that wish to leave can do so at this point e e e e e e and just go down the remainder of the uh the agenda um under memorialization there is no resolutions to be adopted on the public portion is there any member of the public that wish to be heard on any issue other than the application which was decided tonight hearing none I'm going to see if is there a motion motion close second second okay um next item is discussion items there not is there anything to discuss heing none correspondence there are no correspondence on the uh um pending on the agenda and is there a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn is there a second second second we're adjourned good night e