Nora do you have the uh you're on record I'm on record the meeting of the township of precip Troy Hills planning board for Monday February 26 2024 at 7:30 p.m. uh announcement is made that adequate notice of this meeting has been given and that it is being conducted in accordance with njsa 10 4-6 at SEC of the New Jersey open public meetings act nor would you call the RO Please Mr dich here Mr deero here councilman mcgr here Mr mey here Mr ma pres Mr Shaw here Mr stanel here chairman dmore here we have a board planner miss winter our board engineer Mr kiano and our board attorney Mr Lana very good we could stand for the Pledge of Allegiance please I Al to the flag of the United States of America to the repic for which it stands one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice all right this meeting is open to the general public is there anyone here who has something they wish to bring to the attention of the board that is not on our agenda tonight hearing and seeing none we move on first item of business is a resolution for application 23 col 518 P talk uh Lake hawaa realy LLC is there somebody willing to move the resolution Mr chairman Mr move the motion to approve application 23 col 518 the talk late the LLC 102 North bck Road Block 519 part 24 minor site plan with variance to construct a deck and facade improvements do I have a second second math all right nor would you call the role please did each yes G yes mcrath yes math yes d more yes all right the next item on our agenda is uh application number 23527 Alpha Investments LLC 52 Navajo Avenue block 525 Lot 21 minor subdivision with C variance for a two lot subdivision Mr chairman members of the board Larry C on behalf of the again Alpha Investments LLC thanks for having us here this evening the chairman members I think we intend to be relatively brief on this application there's some relief we'll offer the testimony and approves to it and we'll answer all the board questions of course but just to frame what we hope to do here tonight on this matter um it's a minor subdivision on behalf of alpha Investments LLC this board and the board of adjustment has seen Alpha here on a number of projects uh the principal of alpha is a longtime resident property owner harsany Troy Hills and uh rehabilitates a lot of properties within the township uh proudly and and this is such a site at 52 Navajo it's an oversized property it's almost twice the size lot area as the Zone calls for um it's a remarkably large property with a structure that's there now in in in pretty to call it this repair will be polite um right smack in the middle of the property so the applicant's proposal is to subdivide this property which is nearly twice the size as what's required in the zone develop two new structures one on each lot single family dwelling on one lot single family the other rais the existing structure of course and put two homes on this 10,000 ft of property where right now you've got one um house that is um hurting very badly right smack in the middle of this double- siiz property there's some bulk relief in compor with this uh there's a lot front edge deficiency 60 FTS required 50 is proposed so along with that comes a lot area deficiency for both Lots uh the structures are right size they're in keeping with the neighborhood you'll hear planning testimony shortly that the neighborhood composition I is such that we're in compo with the lot area that you would see the lot Frontage that you would see on other properties um and the structures themselves meet all the setback requirements all the coverage requirements and the like the applicant is not trying to fit something here that doesn't work it just becomes a slight lot Frontage deficiency of 10 fet on each lot um with that Mr chairman members we going to have three Witnesses this evening our project surveyor Steve Smith he's up here with me now our project architect Kei Chambers will testify second and then John MCD our project planner we'll wrap it up with the planning Tes money in the proofs we hope to do that Mr chairman within the next hour we have a couple of waivers just two today uh requesting wavers for the traffic study and environmental assessment um the environmental assessment is not technically required for a minor subdivision and we don't have take issue with the traffic study either all right do we need to vote on it yes all right is there a motion to approve the waivers discussed in the uh arh uh demo of 125 23 we been opposed to that need for discussion or have I got a motion to approve I'll motion to approve the waivers do I have a second second all in favor say I I all right any opposed hearing and seeing none sir thank you chairman so our first of three Witnesses yeah we're going to swear you in our project surveyor Mr Steve Smith he's also a licensed professional planner he will only be testifying tonight his capacity as a license surveyor there right hand do you swear affirm the testimony about to give be the truth the whole truth and but the truth to help you God I do name and address for the record please follow your last Sten Iris Smith distance address 20 10 West Grand Jersey I'm a principal of J Engineering Associates I can associated with the firm for over 45 years a licensed professional land of a licensed in the state of New Jersey since 1984 for a licensed professional planner licensed in the state since 85 my LIC is about Curr us be the typical next question I've testified before planning boards and Jo of adjustment through middle this board all right any questions on his uh expertise hearing and seeing none sir your witness thank you Mr chairman I think that you did all the testimony for me I I tried to help I tried to help you Steve I did the best I could but if you would in mind Steve briefly you know walk the board through the lot we have today what's there today and how you proposed to divide the property up If This Were approved all of the maps I have Ma on board this evening are the plans that the board has before them there been no modifcations on uh as Mr C indicated we have an existing lot that's 10,000 square ft what I'm going to do is turn to sheet two which is the existing condition we have a paved driveway that comes off of Navajo on the southerly end of the property again a one-story frame dwelling that to say is in disrepair is kind of being kind describing what it's like there are also uh additional uh sidewalks and patios and stone fireplaces on the property uh the uh proposal is to remove all of that there's also a railroad Ro TI retaining wall that's uh in along the front of the property actually in the Navajo Avenue right of right as part of The Proposal that world is coming out we're planning to uh regrade that area which I will explain to you when we go to sheet to now sheet 2 is the grading and subdivision geometry plan land we are proposing to subdivide this property into two lots each containing 5,000 uh Square fet it's in the R4 Zone which is Mr Cy mentioned requires 6,000 squ ft of lot area and 60t of lot width we're proposing 5,000 square ft of area and 50 foot of lot width but in going through the other bulk requirement uh we do comply uh with all of those we will comply with all of the setbacks front rear and side we comply with Building height building coverage and uh lot coverage that what we are proposing are two single family dwellings they will each have a driveway entering off of navaja a and what we are proposing is driveway that will come straight into the garage for the proposed dwelling plus a driveway that comes along the side of the house what that will allow us to do is have three off street parking places one in the garage one along the side of the house and one in the driveway in front of the uh Garage in doing this what it does is it creates an additional variance that we're seeking uh the ordinance requires that driveways be 5 foot from a property line we have this set up where the proposed driveways will be 1 foot off of the property line but what's happening is the grading between the two homes uh is going to be uh level between the two homes so that there isn't an issue grading between the the two driveways there's an addition variance that we're requesting which is for the height of a retaining wall uh in the front yard on proposed law 2.02 we are proposing a retaining wall along the uh as an extension of the uh Northerly side of the proposed Welling back will that retaining wall meets the proposed structure uh the retaining wall will have a height of 6 ft now why are we looking to do that the reason that we're looking to do that is that presently the entire site slopes from Navajo in an easterly Direction so all the run off from the property is going on to the neighbors to the east of us what we are proposing with our application is that from the front of the homes to na we will be pitching the grade towards the street so there will be less runoff to the homes that are behind it in order to accomplish that we need to have a retaining wall of six footed height at the building now we could reduce that to 4 foot but if we do that then the drainage is going to flow uh in an easterly direction to the homes behind us we felt it was more prudent to have it sloping out toward uh Navajo as part of The Proposal we are also uh showing the installation of dry Wells for each of the proposed dwellings you turn to sheet four of the application it is a soil erosion and stimy control plan that if the board should decide to act favorably on the application we understand that will require Mars County Soil Conservation approval uh as well when we go to uh the uh following uh sheets those are our our detail sheets for the application now the uh property is presently serviced by public water and sewer we uh are proposing that the uh new dwellings will be serviced by public water and sewer as well I have a report from the board engineer dated January 9th 2024 uh in going through the six items uh and his report for recommendations um the short answers number one um okay number two we should consider connecting the drivew Well from proposed 21 proposed 2102 out to the existing uh Inlet in front of the property uh that it's something that we will uh look into if the invert of that Inlet is sufficiently deep we have no issue tying the Overflow uh into that uh item three affirming the lot numbers with the tax assessor we have no issue the plan should be amended to indicate the location of water sewer in the street we have no issue on number five the plan is to um file this minor subdivision if approved uh by deed and the uh we agree again with the six comment that the dwelling should be removed uh prior to perfecting the subdivision dates Mr chairman that's all we have on direct from Mr Smith you're going to hear from our architect shortly we'll show you the structures and then our plan on the Varan proofs that Mr Smith laid out for you but as far as layout and design relatively straightforward and simple two lot subdivision with two new structures proposed where where one dilapidated structure sits on an oversized property we make Mr Smith available if any questions you folks might have does the board have any questions of Mr Smith on this testimony I will but I don't anybody else first all right Mr Smith uh I noticed the property has a fence along the RightWay right now um probably because of that retaining wall right that is not going to be replaced correct there will be no fences micros I'm sorry we're not proposing the uh installation of any walls or fences in the right of FL okay next question has to do with the two driveways and I you're you're seeking relief from our requirement to have 5 ft separation between driveways correct correct I mean how wide are the driveways proposed 12 ft well okay the the driveways proper are more than 5 foot from the property line the parking spaces that are uh in the driveway if we want to call it or the parking area if we want to try to play some Antics is a foot off of it the driveway coming off of Navajo is proposed to be 12T wide the uh parking along the side of the proposed dwelling is 10t wide okay um yeah I mean I'll just be I'll be frank I'm not crazy about having the 10 foot uh parking spaces next to the building that are shown why not just make the driveways 18 ft wide and so so that people can park so you can actually probably fit four cars if you had to because I think you're about four the driveway is about 40 ft off of the road right 25 yep the back at off of the right of light or off of the pavement off of off of the the right the pavement the actual road yeah well let me say the the house the proposed dwelling itself um the garage portion is actually 28 ft back from the uh from the right of white that from the pavement it's back another 10 approximately 37 38 ft okay I mean I live in this neighborhood I live 500 ft away from this property and I don't I can't think of a single house that has a driveway beside their house in this area but I can think of plenty of people that have basically what I would consider a fourcc car driveway with where you you pull into the driveway why not just do that I you you should probably be able to fit in you may have to widen an extra foot on one side but you can have the 5ft offset and have two 18t driveways right next to each other and still have one of them aligned with the uh garage couldn't you let me say I I don't have an issue with it if that's something that the board would prefer we to say the applicant can do that and is willing to okay does that change anything about your relief Steve that you could I mean I know it's engineering on the fly now but is that changing anything about relief otherwise that we need to seek new relief for tonight just so we can get on the record that if what we're talking about is widening the driveway com off of Navajo um now and we would be able to hold the 5 foot off of the property line to comply with that but now we end up with a significantly wider curb cut for each of the the homes it works I have no issue doing it if that's the board's preference does that affect the impervious coverage but uh actually it's probably going to be less less I like that better yeah that that was the question I was getting to what's in changing on the on the metrics okay and then the applicant is more than willing to make that accommodation and plan changea members of the board have questions on this testimony at this time Mr kiano do you have any uh uh just on Building height and I understand your testimony no issue with it about trying to get the drainage away from going to the rear of the property the the the property slopes away from the road now um the app you are not asking for any relief on Building height is that correct that is correct so the building that's being proposed will meet the criteria for Building height yes I I went through and did the the building height calculations I don't like to to get caught with oops it doesn't work yes okay thank you um that's it any other members questions uh just just one more Mr deero um to to make the property slope towards the road do you need fill yes how much that we were it's approximately 500 cubic yards that we were previously uh in before the board and were approved to import 500 cubic yards to the site it's actually could be a little bit less it's not more than what was previously approved okay good question I thought about that one also all right any members of the public have any questions of this witness on this test testimony at this time if you could come forth and identify yourself please I'm loud so I looking I the microphone yeah you do for a record or tape sorry for our tape we need it it's beinged uh good evening my name is Margarita n Meer um my husband and I family we live in Lake since 2000 and my prop our property is block 525 lot four right behind this house and more house yes our concern about the two building behind and racing the property that is already been going because we saw trucks throwing a dirt on it is the run out water as it is my house is full of water coming from behind uh when we move later on couple years we have to do a French drain trying to keep up with all the water that is coming from that propery to us so with more construction less dirt to absorb that water uh we want to know if we're going to have to put a boat instead of a house because I don't know how bad this can you know get house absolutely understand and if you if you'll stay here then I can show you what we're doing okay uh right now everything uh from Navajo to the rear or to the east runs onto your property that's the okay what we're proposing to help remedy that is two different things the first thing is now what we're proposing is from the front of the house of the proposed home all of that is going to be regraded so now instead of running towards your property it runs out to Navajo the next thing is that for the proposed dwellings we're putting in dry Wells to pick up the runoff from the roofs so you should actually have less water that comes to your property after we get done than you have going on to it now that that means that you don't have a system where the water is going out the street that's why you said correct they drop well the two two that all of the in when it lands on the ground now I said everything runs to you from the existing driveway the house all the sidewalks all of that goes together I need the mic right so what we are doing is we are raising that so now it's going to slope out to the road so that all of the driveways pitch out to the road instead of back to your house the run off from the homes are going into these dry Wells or seepage pits in the ground so that that also Now isn't running to your house right now everything from the roof on the existing house goes to your property that isn't going to happen when we're done that goes into the dry Wells so you should have less should be correct that is correct that is correct so all of the leaders from the roof are going to lead to the dry wells in the front that is correct so front and back of the roof yes okay the back no no that the the dry Wells are not proposed in the back dry Wells are proposed in the front that any of the rear yard is going to consider tongue do is going to continue uh to slope to your property as it does now but again significantly less is going in that direction after than it is now and the backyard level is going to be the same that it is now yeah no the the back no no the backyard uh from the property line up to the whe of the home which is about 41 ft that's staying right where it is that is isn't changing so what what we're really proposing is the fill was proposed from the front of the house to the road and we're then trying to hold the existing grades from about the middle of the home going back so that ground doesn't change the front is being changed so the water goes out to the street but we're not we're not raising the ground in the backyard you're going to be looking at the same level after we're done that you are now so you say it's not gonna be more water coming out the that is correct there's going to be there's going to be less less water L everybody use the microphone everybody you can take that out you can pull it out like so uh that means it's not going to be more water coming to the backyard again there is not there will not be more water running onto your property there will be less water when we are done than there is now are you proposing Landscaping the rear yard so that it doesn't add any extra speed to the water flowing under her property it does not we're not we're not regrading the rear portion of the property that's staying the same so it still slope towards her property it it still slopes to the property correct could you potentially look at putting a burn in well if you now put a BM along the back now you're going to you're going to trap the water really it's it is going to significantly improve the condition with what's running there now but to be perfectly clear if you're having a problem now I can't tell you that you're problem is going to go away I can tell you it's going to be better you're thinking about not to make it worse it's not going to make it worse that's that's all our concern yeah I say with less dirt less trees less everything to sck to help to suck the water I mean the only way it would be assistent that all that construction building that they have now they can take all that water somewhere right not to the backyard of their houses and then to my backyard CL my house that's what we what we okay leave it to the archtics and the experts to to make the decision thank you thank you anybody else from the public that has any questions of this witness on this testimony at this time hearing and seeing none all right counselor thank you Mr chairman thank you Steve our second witness our project architect Mr chairman and members Keith Chambers Keith has been before this board a number of times but we we'll square and and qualify him momentarily when he gets up oh sh you around you didn't see oh I did Mr Chambers please raise your right hand you you swear airm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you guys I do name and address the record please follow your last yes ke Chambers c h m b RS and it's p box 1058 lemington New Jersey 08822 and Keith I proper that you're a licensed architect um testified in this town before and around state New Jersey can you confirm for the record that you are in fact a professional licensed architect you've testified in New Jersey and your license remains current and in good standing in the state of New Jersey yes I am my license is up to date um licensed in New Jersey for 23 years and Pennsylvania as well I've testified before many Board of adjustments and planning boards and I've been before this board before any questions by the board on the uh witness no thank you Mr chairman so Keith the sheets you're going to be showing the board this evening these are all the sheets that are identical to the ones that are on file already is that right that's correct okay so people wouldn't mind Keith I know you want to walk the board through the floor plan Loop briefly and then we'll go to the the elevations yes basically we have two smaller scale homes rather than having a large lot and putting a large house on it with the subdivision we have smaller scale homes they're roughly 32 feet wide and the the base is 333 long and as it goes up we have a twoot can of lever out the back to give us some more square footage so we have four bedrooms up at the second floor and one car garage family room kitchen guest bedroom bathroom downstairs and then we also have a walk out basement um behind um with the smaller scale homes if fits in with the neighborhood better than a large structure that some of the houses that you see going up today would you know DWF some of these Bungalows that are currently there these are more to scale with you know the smaller homes that are out on the street now um we have two-story structure and broken up with roof lines and fitted in with some stone veneer siding and and both the back with the walk out so that what they were discussing about water we would be concerned as that as well with not having any water in our basement so I don't think we're going to have any problems with what we have there now and the second house is just exactly the same just in Reverse so it's the same same layout just a little bit different facade maybe some brick veneer some siding to match the houses that are in that area the scale and house materials nothing overly modern or anything like that that fits in with the scale of what's there Keith you've designed a number of projects for this applicant is that right yes I have always well appointed good construction nice design yes and good quality materials and he cares about what he's putting up and that it looks nice and lasts it's not Construction in a word Keith as an architect you've got an eye for Aesthetics in a word how would you describe the existing structure that's on the property today uh needs needs some help and in lie of developing a large oversized house on this lot as of right you thought the more appropriate measure was right size lots for the area as you described them so the structures are proposing are not out of character with the composition of the neighborhood I would imagine is that right that's correct and a lot of the ones up and down the street have their by levels so they have like eight steps up to the front door and then you go in and you go down or up these are you know we have more in relation with the street line where you're coming in at you know a couple steps up and you know it it brings the scale down on the structure and just to confirm what Steve Smith previously testified to the top height of the proposed structures conforms to the Zone standards is that right that's correct yes thank you Keith Mr chairman what is the height from the street side to the peak which I believe is what our ordinance is looking for not the mean slope roof mean height you have to the ridge you calculated the the height of the ridge on your sheet from the from the average right to the ridge line let's see what Steve has on here sorry I should be on it's from the you see our ordinance requires that we know from the peak not from this no it's from the midpoint it's from it's from the mean the mean on a sloped roof it's from the mean for a flat roof it would be the highest point right okay but the applicant is going to comply with the code there's no relief whether whether it's C height relief or D height relief right and we have uh 30.5 ft to 35 ft from no 30.5 is what he's got right that's the slop roof mean height right slop roof mean height what I'm actually get trying to get at is a streetcape well this this shown here is the streetcape I I understand that and and here's what I did I calculated from the street height to the mean height I have 29.89 so there is a little difference because he's using the mean grade elevation where I used you know the street elevation to give you what it is so it's even less at the front of the street the plans I say show 30 and a half do you saying that says 29 I believe the two houses are different the two houses are different okay sure here sorry here's the other one that's the one I was looking at yeah sorry could you give a little testimony the the curb height is is actually what higher than the average perimeter grade that's correct it's up you know it's you're coming down you know currently other members of the board of questions on this witness on this testimony Mr Ken question going back to the uh question about getting all the the roof run off to the front of the property and to the dry Wells um I just asked as a condition of approval that you provide proper detailing of downspouts leaders leers cleanouts and everything going to the front because the perimeter grades yes along the side of the house drain toward the rear so we want to make sure that the roof drains and the leaders and the downspouts all get so there's no question out in the field when they're building this get to the dryw dry out of the property yes understood Mr M just one question you said there's an overhang designed with these houses correct like a twoot overhang you said I didn't say um but there is no on the floor plan right um oh the can lever out in the back the Canever that's yes is the building coverage calculated including that or based on the foundation it's based on the foundation right where it meets where it meets the ground because I thought our code requires that if you have an overhang you have to include that as building coverage include the can lever as a building coverage only it's only if it's over 2 feet oh if it's over two feet right we're not over two feet oh so you g the system thank you we kept it under all right any other members of the board have any questions on this testimony at this time any members of the public have questions in this testimony at this time hearing and seeing none counselor thank you thank you Kei our Final witness Mr chairman members our project planner Mr John MCD if you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so God yes I do picking me up should be name and address for the record please hi everyone John MCD MC Capital do o u business address one jalta drive for New Jersey and I'm the project briefly John for the record your your credentials and qualifications I know you're you're here every few weeks but just for the record for this case please yes I am a licensed professional planner here in the state of New Jersey that license is current and in good standing I have the uh Good Fortune of getting to do this throughout the entire state from the north the south east and west I do it on a nightly basis and I've been here many many times um I'm also a member of the American Institute of certified planners that's a national certification uh which is also current and in good standard I testify in courts and and before Bo any questions on the experience or qualifications no counselor thank you Mr chairman turn over to you John pretty straightforward application here before the board I know we've seen a lot of them we see them a lot in the planning world as well we call it a textbook calman case or a CQ case where we look at a better zoning alternative and interestingly the calman case which is the The Benchmark C2 case that Define the newer standard in our land use law uh knowing that if we go outside of New Jersey or up until 19 1984 the C2 standard did not exist and it does not exist outside New Jersey and African would have to show hardship the C2 test looks at whether an application rep represents a better zoning alternative for the property we look at the benefits of the application as a whole and we weigh them against the potential impacts of the potential detriments here as the calman case tells us we have an opportunity for improved neighborhood Harmony those of the exact words that came out of the calman case again it was a case that involved splitting one oversized lot into two I'll say normal size lot that were consistent with the character of the neighborhood we know that lot size is the defining element that defines building size and where we have certain masses established here this is an opportunity to rep replicate that or complement that with lot sizes that are similar uh to the surrounding neighborhood your planner has given the board a good basis or a good list of the relief that the applicant is seeking here from the R4 Zone District none of the I'll say heavier D variances obviously are needed here in terms of the use the density the height the floor area of the light but properly in front of the planning board to create two undersized Lots in the context of your R4 District where we presently have a substantially oversized lot so the relief is for the lot are area where 6,000 is the minimum required and each lot is going to be 5,000 square ft uh we're also looking at a lot width of 50 ft where the minimum required would be 60 ft again that goes for both Lots likewise for the lot Fage as well so the main relief that the applicant is seeking is dimensional relief and interestingly we took a look at the street if you look at Navajo Avenue between minihaha and hawaa Boulevard there are 18 lots that presently face the street and over 40% of them actually have a lot width that is less than or 50 ft or less which is what the applicant is proposing here or a lot area of 5,000 square ft or less or less so again substantial variation in the nature of the area interestingly I don't see a single lot on Navajo that is a 100f footer except for the subject so the subject lot is unusual to the extent that number one it has a significant land mass and a very small building on it that in its current context is not much larger than what would be a typical shed in in today's uh environment certainly not conducive to an appropriate or modern living environment in the context of what we see new construction here in the in the community so again the anomaly is the existing condition a super siiz lot with much smaller sized Lots in the neighborhood which could result in a building that is completely out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood uh back in the 80s and 90s we saw the introduction of floor area ratio controls that would prevent mcmansions or Monster houses which would overpower a neighborhood that could be the case here given the substantially oversized condition of the lot and that's where we look at the calman case which found substantially substantial reasoning where two smaller Lots two smaller buildings were a better alternative than one overpowering house here and again certainly an opportunity for improved neighborhood Harmony in terms of the positive criteria and the purposes of zoning that are Advanced here we look at the advancement of purpose a the promotion of the general welfare because the project is going to deliver new housing stock that is appropriately scaled for the neighborhood and meets today's contemporary standards for new housing to replenish the older housing stock here clearly the house that's on on the property now has outlived its useful life and doesn't serve a practical purpose this is an opportunity for improved zoning likewise we look at the advancement of purpose ey the promotion of a desirable visual environment not only in terms of the aesthetic of the building itself but the overall mass and scale of the building as well being complementary to what's envisioned under the R4 zoning standards and what's established on the street additionally we see the advancement of purpose M which is the planning goal for efficient use of land because this is going to take an oversized piece of property that is presently being underutilized putting it back into productive use again in a mass and scale that's an appropriate for the neighborhood so that would go could purpose them our planning goal for efficient use of land finally the advancement of purpose G the planning goal to provide for a variety of uses in appropriate locations according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens this is on car with new housing stock in the community new construction in the community a much better alternative than a supersized house on this supersized lot uh so again those are all the project positives we counterbalance them with the impacts or the potential impacts associated with two lots that are undersized in terms of the literal requirement of your ordinance I think you have a good predicate of testimony before me from an engineering standpoint that these buildings are not going to be appeared as overcrowding the setbacks in terms of the buildings are going to comply with your ordinance coverage is going to comply with your ordinance and really we have two buildings that in terms of the edge of those buildings are exactly what could be realized under a performing plan as well so not violating the light air the open space of the site or the Privacy the use the enjoyment of the neighboring properties as well you also have good solid testimony from an architectural standpoint that these buildings are going to be designed to be comfortable they're going to be safe and in accordance with all applicable building codes so you've got again a good predicate for the planning conclusion that belief can be granted without any substantially adverse impacts to the public likewise this is not going to substantially undermine the important purpose of your R4 Zone District as we look at the way this neighborhood has been platted when this is ultimately platted out with these two lots it's going to look more consistent with the neighborhood than the current condition uh with that said we think the C2 test is met here are the exact same rationale um as the C case there's some subsidiary relief as well related to the driveway offset uh I'll pull back on the engineering testimony that that's designed to function safely and efficiently and certainly not uh impede the use uh or the functionality of the adjacent properties and I think I'm also seeing relief related to a front wall or a front fence uh related to six feet being proposed where 4 feet would be the maximum required again that's to work the site into the grade and we think a better zoning alternative than a steeper driveway at this location it's a step down cutting into the streets we don't think the sign is going the wall rather is going to overpower the neighborhood in that regard as well all said this is a really good application we think the relief is relatively modest in the context of what the app and is seeking here who will complement the neighborhood uh and again provides and meets the statutory requirement as a better zoning alternative to the property I'll pause on direct and open up any redirect thank you John chairman you have any questions uh the only comment I have is regarding the driveway I believe we've eliminated that variance with the suggestion of um yeah doing the double I don't think Mr MCD had been in the room yet when we did that so that's nice no testimony required on that one let erest keep any members of the board have any questions on this testimony Mr math Mr McDonna um you said that 40% of the lots are have uh substandard lot wids on Navajo you're you're only measuring from minihaha to Hawa the boulevard we did did there are four across the street immediately across the street in a row that are 40 and 50% Footers proposing a 50-footer here so if you live here you're looking out at 40 and 50 foot wide L The Proposal is 4 50 foot wide boock okay so how much does that math change if we Grant this if we Grant uh variance relief for this lot does that make it 50% I don't know I think thought you said there were 18 homes yes my numbers are showing eight out of 18 homes that face Navajo which is 44% so I can do that math without being an engineered 9id by 18 is 50% wouldn't you have 19 then well' be 19 there' be an extra home that's true so just under okay um what's the width of the Lots adjacent to this so the subject is Lot 21 if you're standing on the street and looking at the subject to your left lot 22 is a 4 foter okay to your right lot number 20 is a 60o okay but beyond that two lots to the right Lot number 19 is a 40-footer and then lot 18 has a angled Frontage but it's a 22t segment and a 20ft segment so let's say 42 ft okay all right thank you Mr dipiero well Mr mcdonal might remember I don't really like taking a conforming lot and subdividing it into two non-conforming lots that's not been my my favorite thing to do um we established the Zone being 60 foot wide so that we don't continue to increase the density in already in density area high density areas that was the purpose of having 60 foot we keep making exceptions and keep reducing and increasing density I also don't like the mcmansion aspect if we turn it town and they build one big house it's that doesn't conform to the to the neighborhood so I'm I'm I'm going going to go along with this one because I think to make mansions is a is is a bigger evil than two non-conforming lots other questions by members of the board Mr stanel do you okay just couldn't tell if you were raising your arm and just his nose z Mr kiano do you have any uh no all right are there any members of the public who have questions on this witness on the planning testimony hearing and seeing none sir thank you John that's all we have Mr chairman I want to thank you folks for your time again tonight this is relatively simple and straightforward significantly oversized lot with dilapidated structure that can have a Resurgence of life with two lots with structures that are in keeping with the the um style and size of the area two lots that are in keeping with what's around us not not withstanding the fact that there's a 10-ft frontage efficiency and overall we think the proofs are there Mr chairman and members so we put it before you folks to deliberate at this time all right this closes well not quite are there any members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to this application are there any members of the public who wish to speak in favor of this application hearing and seeing none this closes the evidentiary portion of tonight's hearing is there a member of this board who would like to move the application for a resolution and subject to what conditions conditions Mr CH all right we've got a couple of conditions that our counselor will walk us through and then uh look for a motion first condition is that the applicant will comply with the engineering comments in the engineers report number 2 through six and the other is that the applicant will provide uh calculation data for the seafish pits and leaders uh in detail to ensure that the the water runoff from the front of the property and the roof leaders themselves will be flowing towards Navajo and that will be done at the satisfaction of the board engineer all right now nor I believe that our numbers tonight make it so that every member up here is eligible for all motions and all voting yes all right do I have a motion to approve uh oh I'm sorry one more condition oh okay um Council you have to submit revised uh plans showing the driveway reconfiguration right which is going to have an 18t width correct as well just for the record yes or our survey will submit those as well as the calculations y all right now somebody willing to move Mr chairman Mr dich motion to approve application number 23 col 527 Alpha Investments LLC 52 naho Avenue block 525 Lot 21 minor subdivision with variance for a two lot subdivision do I have a second the conditions as mentioned yeah second mey thank you Mr meley nor would you call the RO please yes Pier yes MCG yes yes M I'm going to vote Yes because with the variance relief on the basis that the 50 Foot lot width is not out of keeping with this neighborhood Shaw yes yes yes all right thank you folks yep appreciate it is there a desire to have a brief uh break or should we just move right into the next move right into the next all right all right why should we give Mr Cali a break brought a Gatorade all right so then we're moving on to the next case which is listed as a continuation of application number 23 col 5 11 Sur Paran LLC 299 Jefferson Road Block 736 lot 7.3 carried from five from February 5th chairman members nice to see everybody again Larry call on behalf of the applicant so we intend to conclude this evening Mr chairman and members I'll tell you shortly who you're going to hear from it's it's a slight dock deck of our Witnesses this evening at the last meeting a few weeks ago you heard from um our acoustic engineer who gave the for we hope some assurances as to Conformity with the sound levels of the lot line that is the implementation of the sound wall that we also presented to the board at the last meeting with our continued civil engineering testimony and then we had also a recall of our our project traffic engineer to confirm that as modified everything about his report remains uh accurate and current and up to date um we deferred two witnesses for this evening Mr chairman and members our project architect the floor plan is not much to see it's a warehouse you know there's warehouse space there's going to be some offices we'll walk you through that that should be relatively quick we want to show you folks the elevations and the rendering we've got so you can see the skin the articulation and penetration of this building it's pretty impressive looking for a warehouse so we think the board should see that you're going to want to know what you're going to see Street side and from the abing properties and then from there Mr chairman members we're going to go into our Final witness our project planner Michael toia will testify as to the bulk variance proofs that we have you know recall and you folks all know this as members of the planning board there's no use for relief here the warehouse is a permitted use in this Zone um everything about the use meets the parameters of the code land use standards and general ordinance standards no relief from that at all the relief is limited on the bulk side of it if you recall also following previous iterations and res submissions and plans the relief has tightened up significantly the largest item we had of relief was our encroachment into the sensitive area buffer to the residential buffer at the rear that is fully conforming on the prior plans that the board has seen so there is no more relief to the rear uh the structure is right size there's no impervious coverage deviations building coverage setbacks with the exception of the front yard setback to Jefferson Road because that's where we started activating the warehouse when we tried to slide it away from the residential areas there's other ancillary relief that we talked about at the last meeting the Wall height now which is a new addition the slope disturbance man-made slopes as our project engineer testified to a number of times but the relief is relatively slight for this conforming use on this property that does need an Adaptive reuse from the office that it still is vacant and once was as thriving the warehouse is the more appropriate use and the code seems to be aligned with that um so you hear from our project planner last on that Mr chairman I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions perhaps even from some of our neighbors we'll go through all of them but our goal and our hope is to perhaps conclude this evening Mr chairman I will note one more thing um the there has been another fire department review uh it was an email transfer Nora might have it um our understanding is that the Fire official has no issues with the plan as previously proposed the bells and whistles that bowler has since added on to that responded to the board's recommendations which is how do you identify the fire lane getting back there how do you identify the geog grid areas how are you going to demarcate it bowler has added all that you know just sort of gratuitously to sort of be be a good citizen on behalf of the applicant um with that Mr chairman our first two witnesses we'd like to get to now subject to your approval we don't don't have any new waivers no no waivers didn't think so and we're going to Mark a few exhibits tonight in Council so you know I think we're starting at A6 tonight once we get there okay you're going to see three renderings I think um and you might see something else but we'll mark them sequentially we'll identify them once we get to them okay CL coming up we'll swear you and we'll qualify you raise your right hand you swear affirm the testimony about to give would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God name and address of the record please spell your last audio R the business address is Ed I apologize I need you to speak into the mic and your name again oh sorry clauda last name BR da thank you okay claudo for the benefit of the board your background and credentials in the field of architecture and your licensing as well please sure so I'm been in the field of architecture for over 21 years now I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey Jersey as well as several other states here in the the east coast and have appeared before multiple planning boards from Bergen County all the way up to Mammoth County your license is currently in a good standing it is yes thank any questions on this qualifications hearing and seeing none counselor thank you so Claudia if you wouldn't mind you heard my introduction to the board as to what we hope to do here this evening if you wouldn't mind walking the board around sure the floor plan loop I know it's going to be relatively slight and brief given how we're developing the interior the structure and then we'll go to the elevations from there council is this a new exhibit no this is a file this is a file with no changes yes so just to walk through the the way the land if you will um as previously not on on the previous testimony the overall footprint is 106,7 square ft um overall building length is 440 ft with the depth of 280 uh ft um typical warehous have you typical com spacing for the various uh racking requirements um this is being designed for uh in an ideal Ro for one tenant but it is it could accommodate up to two tenant hence why we have two offices on each Corner uh the the two officers here are also act as the main entries uh to employees into to the warehouse in the plan South we have a total of 16 uh do doors Two of which will be used for uh trash compactors and we have to uh Drive in uh doors for Vans and uh small uh box trucks here on the plan East we have um our utilities coming in from jeffson Road hence why we have here the electrical room and the fire pump room on this side and then obviously we have all the typical doors throughout the perimeter of development for Life Safety uh requirements and erass um and the perimeter walls are being being constructed out of Precast uh concrete panels so as I noted that the walls are pre-cast uh concrete we have developed two tones a lighter gray and a darker uh gray with uh some reveals uh throughout just to break up the the scale of the overall building uh we have overall height to from a finish uh floor to the the highest parit which is 42 ft 6 in uh that's the highest parit um and we have some uh uh dark anodized aluminum storefronts uh flanking the the two Corner offices uh with a canopy uh just designating the the main entry points um as I noted before here on the North elevation you have all your dock doors with the two Drive-In uh ramps uh for the small box trucks here you can see the the sign facing um Jefferson Road which is uh complying with all the the zoning ordinance and we have shown here also the the lighting uh which would be mounted on the building just giving some general lighting around the building which is mounted up uh between 18 ft and can I make a suggestion yes stand on the other side of the drawing so the rest of us can see the drawing thank you yeah of course um that's pretty much the elevations before we go to another sheet that elevation as colored was the same it's on file with the board as well is that right that's correct yes okay just to confirm now I think we're about to Mark something so this is the last exhibit I have so if you can identify this by name and date we'll ultimately mark it today's date as exhibit A6 I believe we're up to if you can identify for the record qu start we're calling this as a design design rendering and is dated uh December 7th of 2023 C we call it the colorized entrance elevation yes is that fair enough perfect so again this is the last exib I have is just a 3D U photo realistic rendering showing the the view from uh Jefferson Road looking into the build you can see here the corner of the building which is one of the office components you can see other one in the the far background uh which again is the main entries to visitors and employees into the building as I noted preast concrete with two tones of uh gray uh various reveals on the concrete and just a canopy designating the main entries into the building and as I noted here the the signage facing the the road would you please speak up that's it just speak a little louder oh so you have for the moment I believe right claudo that again that's all you have for the moment that is all I have yes you make Mr Brett available to any questions you folks might have Mr chairman members members of the board have any questions on this witness on this testimony at this time all right anybody else okay nobody else Gordon is there any reason why this building has to be 106,000 Square ft could it be less in theory yes anything could be less but this is really Market driven you know to truth be told this is actually the smallest Warehouse I ever testify P Bo in New Jersey um all the warehouses that come out of our office of to be hon are much larger than this okay I mean I do appreciate that you've moved the location of the building to the bare minimum you can do without variance relief for the back but you're looking for a 40% variance relief for the front yard on a road that does not have from what I can tell any buildings closer than 100 ft from the RightWay I know you're not part of the witness to talk about that but you are the witness to talk about the size of the building and the design so I guess my big question is would this building still be viable with three less loading spaces and 8,800 less square feet of space probably not from a financial perspective probably not okay so interestingly enough finances are one of the few items we're not allowed to consider on this board um all right but there's no technical reason why it can't be smaller is there from a technical perspective technically not okay thank you members of other members of the board have any questions on this testimony at this time I have a question on the signage yes um so you propos two signs presumably for two different um tenants exactly with having the two signs on either side of the building um my concern is that one side is for cars and the other is for trucks and that there could be some confusion in accessing the site would it be possible to put both signage on the I guess the car side of the building no the one M of signs the applicant would like to leave it as it's currently proposed and the idea through the Civil testimony and the way finding is that the street side signs the monument signs are going to help you get into where you need to go and and eventually become sort of just a matter of course the trucks know where they're going the cars know the employees certainly know where they're going um so it's a very quick educational process we think in addition to the signage but the well amounted signage the plan is for the tendency to have one on either side okay how do you identify which unit goes to which tenant how would you do it I don't think we identify that this point I mean this is a speculative building but depending let's assume now we're assuming a few things but let's assume we've got two tenants based on the lay of your floor plan how you enter the building is there any logic as to how and where you would locate which sign versus the other right or is there the numbering of the units um how's that going to be shown just just I'm you know it's my first day on the job going in for an interview how do I get there yeah it's it's a Val point I think the sign probably have to come up with the clever 299a versus 299b for example just to designate each tenant if it is in fact two tenants okay for internal identification purposes you're saying okay anything else other members of the board have any questions on this witness at this t on this testimony hearing and seeing none I'm going to say this for the public that is here that is interested right now I'm going to ask if there are any questions on this witness on this testimony at this time after that is done we will then when the counselor has a chance to sum his case because I'm assuming this is your last Witness our planner oh your planner I'm sorry we'll have the planner come up he will testify then you'll have a chance to question the planner after the planner is done anybody who has any statements they wish to make in either favor or opposition to this application at this time will be granted sufficient time to make those statements so that'll be tonight so are there any questions of this witness on this testimony at this time if you please come up and identify yourself this is this is strictly on the architecture of of the building very good thank you my name is rames n I'm uh at 43 R Drive in the in the residential community so I have a question currently uh the loading base 17 loading base are facing uh um you know to to one side which is the ADP building um that's there so is there any uh you know from architecturally or design wise to turn that around so the base facing uh je for Road rather than to the side is there anything that you lose in terms of you know the space or something what is the uh you know is it possible to turn it around and facing that loading base of your person so I'm hoping so I can help out here because Mr Brea did not design that our civil engineer did and at the last meeting we came back and our civil engineer Ben Crowder a bowler engineer and testified at length that they've undertaken reviews as to the rotation we calling that the rotation plan as opposed to Sliding the structure forward and the rotation plan was not deemed as feasible from various standpoints from design standpoint from a marketability standpoint and shortly you'll hear from a planning standpoint so um it was considered um it was not pursued this was pursued as the better alternative which was structure loading on that side towards ADP and structure slid towards Jefferson Road to get it out of the activated buffer are in the rear um but Mr Brett I don't think can really testify much as to that because this was civil engineering not architecture yeah so we'll we'll then come back later with our our our objection on it so let's thank you any other members of the public who have questions on the architect on this presentation at this time hearing and seeing none councelor thank you thank you so now we're going to call our project planner Mr chairman members Mr Michael tobio you swear affirm a testimony about to give be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so H you God yes I do name and address of the record please please play your La o t o b i a I'm the applican planning consultant and I'm at 92 Overlook Road in marown Michael for the benefit of the board and the record you're backgrounding credentials in the field of professional planning sure I'm licensed professional standing licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey license is in good standing um I hold a bachelor's degree and a m master's degree exclusively in this field urban planning um finished my grad work in 1981 I've been practicing continuously in the field since then that makes about 40 three years and found it the same uh with appearances now before over 200 zoning boards and planning boards throughout the state including um many appearances in mors county and multiple appearances here in oury any questions on the uh applic on the uh qualifications hearing and seeing none counselor thank you Mr chairman so Michael a few background and Baseline confirmation before we cut you loose here you're familiar with the property surrounding area in the zone is that right yes you're familiar with the code the master plan I am and you're familiar with every iteration of The applicant's Proposal from inception of filing through the current iteration which now includes the slit plan the reduced relief the acoustic wall and the like is that right yes and you're certainly familiar with the relief that's being requested now into the current plan corre yes so Michael if you would please benefit of your analysis and conclusions as to the relief and the appropriateness of what the applicant is seeking here for this permitted use so we'll start with some Basics here uh as you heard this is a 10 16,400 ft² Warehouse that's being proposed um it is in the scd5 zone um zoning metrics that are Me by this application include height the use of the land impervious coverage building coverage sidey yard setback re yard setback minimum floor area as well as now the buffer off the back of the property you'll recall when we started back here in September on um September 18th we had a 75 ft buffer in the back now it's 150 ft and now it's 150 ft with a sound wall as well that we'll talk about in a minute uh but it's a largely compliant site plan okay most notably the uses permitted the height actually gets a foot and a half down uh lower than what building than the building you now see on the property uh the variances we're now seeking are pretty limited and I want to emphasize the two major variances um namely front yard setback that Mr meth talked about and our height of buffer wall um are driven entirely by our do dialogue back on September 18th when we realized the highest priority of this job for the board and the public was an adequate buffer in the back we thought we had that at 75 ft uh after uh many plan iterations and discussions with this board we went to a fully compliant 150t bumper we did that through doing two things pursuant to board suggestions we simply slid this whole building module up closer to the street it didn't change more or less the height of the building didn't change the size of the footprint there were only minor changes to the overall building and layout um but the big takeaway was we got to 150 ft once we did that and recognizing that um acoustical impacts were a major concern of the board we added a sample you heard from Mr Norm D at the last hearing that that sound wall is 238 ft F feet in length or 258 I'm sorry 16 ft high and his testimony established that with that wall up and his multitude of studies it would result in compliant acoustical impact even at night with his building operating as we expect it would as a warehouse these two variances front yard set back 60 ft versus 100 ft proposed and a 16t wall um with um six feet proposed are driven entirely by our attempts to be a better neighbor for Maz the benefits of each clearly outweigh the detriments now Mr meth I've been up and down the street 20 times since I started case you're correct most buildings out there reach 100t front yard setbacks or even more in some instances uh but the 60 fot setback um suggested here on our site plan still works bear in mind Jefferson Road has a 60ft right of white um the nearest building across the street is the Liquid Church which has roughly a 100t setback our building to building setback here then if you do the numbers quickly is something like 220 ft okay of front wall to front wall of the proposed building I think it's adequate um the Landscaping sensibility along Jefferson will not change change we have a big front yard a front lawn in front of the building some existing trees will remain more plant material will be added we deem the 60t buffer the 60ft front yard um more than adequate given that we're achieving 150 ft in the back note please that our neighboring U land uses the man office building to the South um ABP uh to the um North only have 60t buffers off the back this is how these buildings were built years ago and they're their parking lots they're only 60 ft off the back up against other sections of Mazda we're now at 150 ft more over our sound wall gets 211 ft away from the rear property line not 150 but 211 moreover the loading behind the sound wall the nearest loading spot is approximately 238 ft from the rear property L uh we're getting close to a football field in length between the noise generator on the site namely loading and the rear property line um I want you to balance the front yard setback also with our Landscaping plan you heard a lot about that at two meetings now um 61 plants are proposed in the back of the property most of those are evergreen few are deciduous uh we have 20 White Pines we have 16 red ceders we have four pin oaks seven sour gums our deciduous plant material we know will reach 50 ft uh in height or more uh and I'm going to show you some buffering uh renderings in a second we also have 14 holes across that rear property L importantly for our neighbors in Mazda every single plant that now exists along the rear property line uh will remain so our limit of disturbance for all construction is in front of the existing tree line that means everything remains and right now if you go out in the field in the summertime there's an amazingly effective buffer between us and Mazda problem is it's all deciduous so our leaves fall after about a 7mon window and and right now if you went back there you'd see a lot of bear trees this applicant with its Landscaping plan has gone as I said to a mostly Evergreen supplement to what's out there now together with a 4ot BM across the uh sound wall portion of the property and they've killed it okay they're going to make a buffer that is um so dense that we estimate 5 years out you won't be able to see the sound wall the or will you'll be able to see uh our building from the town outsite so you heard Mr McDon earlier the test is really easy here in our claiming hardship we're saying what we're doing here presents a better zoning alternative than um a lesser buffer or a larger front yard setback I want to go to two exhibits which we do need to Mark um these are dated uh February 24th they were collaborate efforts by everyone on the the team um and um what we're going to do is try and illustrate what you would see from two perspectives um that's so much better that way um the whole meeting we're going to try and demonstrate uh what you're going to see from two perspectives five years out and um where are we'll start with A7 so we'll go A7 A8 go our dated I'm sorry 222 222 okay um February 22nd um first one's up we'll turn this around once I explain it to the board so the audience can see it this is what we did to illustrate the um view from the north um east corner of the site um looking toward the building and toward the Sall in this area you have approximately um eight Eastern red Cedars 10 America Six American holly a couple deciduous trees um and a new Pino in the background of the photo if you look closely you'll see the um deciduous trees now with no leaves on them this is a photo simulation it's not a rendering okay so I went out shot a photo because we knew where all the existing trees were and then we added the Evergreen plant material in front of it we estimate these Evergreens like the ones probably in your own yards grow at 1 to 2 feet per year we wanted to illustrate 5 years out what it would look like assuming no real growth of any of the existing plant material um when you look at A7 moving left to right you'll see a tiny glimpse of the sound wall That's 16 ft incidentally the sound wall has been color coordinated with the building so it matches and it's kind of an Earth Tone soft color it won't jump out when you look at it um and you'll see a great deal of Evergreen plant material at this point we're probably estimating 15 to 20 ft in height just 5 years out these things can grow up to from 30 to 50 ft high at maturity uh the proposed building shown off to the left um is equally well buffered okay buffers are never supposed to achieve total blockage of everything just a mere softening um and an effective physical barrier between residential uses and non-residential uses the conclusion here on A7 um is um a very effective buffer has been provided thanks to the 150 foot uh buffer Suggestions by board members to move this building closer to the Street I point out also on the right side of A7 if you look closely you'll see some contouring here that also created a BM about 4T High uh above the parking lot to get the trees even higher that's just a little grading exercise we can do to further block the sound wall so you have a 16t sound wall folks which is it sounds High um but with our acoustical studies and buffering it physically creates a really really good barrier or noise impacts heading back toward mus I'm going to turn this around um and I'll I'll leave it here if you all want to look at it and then A8 um is again a photo simulation if you look at the top of A8 you'll see all the deciduous trees um that I photographed um on say January 17th so we have no leaves on the trees um and yet come springtime you'll see it's almost impossible to see the tow houses from the site and vice versa this shop is taken more or less dead center on where the new building will be located so we're only shooting at about a third of the common property line with mber okay we've Illustrated in this case um in the foreground here all the Evergreen plant material is new um we have about eight Eastern cedars in the center of the illustration moving off to the right you have an additional uh eight um there's a new PIN o uh deciduous tree to be added to the site that's slightly left of center and um you have a series of White Pines behind this this uh buffer um that will also provide additional Bufford White Pines as you know in The Cedars are extremely aggressive growers okay we're showing these things again 15 20 ft High maybe a little more they really rock once they get going and white PES can easily exceed 50 ft right the conclusion on A8 also is that um the buffering will get dramatically better especially in winter time than um what's out on the site now um in the foreground here by the way you see our proposed um fire Lane more on that in a moment that's why we give you that different color um the fire lane technically Mr meth is a physical structure and I know last month you said well it's in the buffer should it be a variance well we don't think so the physical Improvement is all Subterranean it's planted so you're going to see grass not our our our papers um and we would submit to you this is a it's a physical and emergency safety issue that the fire department wanted and B it's completely innocuous from a vis visible visual standpoint okay uh so that's A7 and A8 the conclusion is the buffering will be as good as any buffering I can imagine given that we're 150 ft in depth okay so couple smaller variances we need to talk about oh you know what I'm going to do first if you don't mind is um uh February 15th um we did um some homework with our fire department after our last meeting um we're way ahead of the game here this is normally something that would be imposed as a condition of approval but we've had more contact with the fire department um and we went around this site um pursuant to their input and we did a few things um this is the new sheet yes Michael so we have it was not filed no we Advanced a copy but that's it so we're up to after I'm not good at math 9 let's try a n is revised site plan layout sheet 301 um like I said dated February 15 um and what we did here this other the audience um this was just checking boxes with the fire department KN Knox boxes were installed front and back on the building they asked for additional uh striping around the fire connection on the south side of the building red light uh for the connection is has been added to the plan a sign down on the bottom that says no entry fire access only has been added where the Fire Road Begins the fire department ultimately said we don't need a second turnaround in the back which we did at our last meeting here okay and after talking it over further with them it was deemed that we only needed the one way at the back northeast corner of the site okay and um what this did because they asked for a little bit extra striping was reduce our parking count to 98 stalls from 99 at the last car uh with the EV credit we're now at 102 stalls proposed and you've heard testimony from our civil engineer and our traffic uh witness that really we need set 70 to 78 or so to be adequate and we're well over at that number we're at 102 okay these changes were minor um I believe in your file now should be a sign off email style from the fire department okay um so I want to talk about signs for a minute if that's okay um we heard a little dialogue before about wall signs um what we didio can you put up your ring please um what we did here recognizing that we might have two tenants that we have for offices front and back do we show a sign on there we show one of the signs okay um we looked at your ordinance the ordinance permits one Wallside the ordinance permits 150 ft with that one one wall sign all we did was divy it up and go 75 for one sign 75 for the other we put one at each end of the building they be separated by roughly 220 ft and we just decided to use the permitted sign area more economically than one big sign um if they're two tenants great it does help more with identification of the driveways um meaning we'll have one on each side near the two driveways and if we get two tenants everyone wants to Brand their building everyone wants to Brand their building right at least our big tenant um so we think this is fair and reasonable it's not over signage it's not sign pollution um and what we suspect this winter is probably you're going to have directional signs on the individual office units maybe little window signes PLS we don't know there might be more wayf finding signs on the site at 4 Square ft each that will provide additional Direction um and we feel um given that we're not going up with the 150 ft threshold this cannot be reasonably argued to be over sign issue note also um and that's A6 I'm talking to uh right now we um on the plan as you may recall we um are reusing two freestanding signs out at the street that were approved by variance in 2012 we're not changing the size of those we're slightly relocating one the same rationale to the variance in 2012 is evident here with have two driveways we want two signes they're compliant in size and they will provide benefits of way finding for our driveway for passenger cars as well as our trucks coming in the other side previously approved we want to continue it I just wanted to mention that so the records clear on the the free standers um Mr Crowder our civil engineer explained his dimensioning of our loading uh dock spaces that was a variance he explained as to size um your ordinance requ re Ires drastically oversized loading spaces I don't know that the basis for it going back to its adoption but what we have here with size of loading space plus size of drive a was uh deemed consistent with standard engineering practice for this type of facility if you wanted to make the required loading space 147 ft long as required by ordinance it would extend from the building all the way over nearly to the side property line makes no sense that's what we call hardship and a practical difficulty it would require us to remove our 17 storage spaces on the other side of the site which are really vital for queuing and stacking and staging um so we think what Mr Crowder expressed here with size of stalls and proper dimensioning is that um for the S plar Miss slop but about that height of wall sign um your ordinance requires 25 ft the wall sign that Claudia showed you on exhibit A6 upper left on the two of them get up approximately to um 33 to 36.75 ft I don't want to do too much architectural testimony here but our wall signs almost always go up to the upper band of the building you rarely see these signs move down to the middle panel or a low panel just doesn't look like beyond that uh you maximize visibility when you're up higher I want you to look at that sign I think we'd all conclude it's not over signage it's not Up on the Roof which we definitely don't like um and we think it's a practical appropriate spot for that sign with no detriments to it whatsoever um those are our variances I do want to say uh for the purposes of the record and based on what I said they Advance goals a CG i n m of the municipal Landry s um your master plan adopted two months before Co started as I recall recognized that the office Market was weakening it said it's appropriate to find other suitable non-residential Alternatives in the area to still maintain viability and usefulness of properties that was in January 200 2000 2 months before Co goes Bonkers on us all that's happened with the office Market since then is even more bad news what this applicant is doing with this proposed use is um recognizing market trends the near impossible um ability to rent older office space the way we once did and adding a brand new useful permitted use to the land to wrap up um nothing here I deem uh to be a substantial detriment to the public good I think we've really really been good neighbors to Mazda Brook in the back with all the buffering and sound pooping we've done I told you we meet nearly every zoning standard in the sc5 zone um building coverage importantly is two plus percentage points below what's allowed um lot coverage is 8 percentage points below what's allowed and it's even gone down a little bit with our our latest plan um we've told you traffic would be um a minimal impact on the area and vastly lower than what the office building generated when it was in full operation um we've talked to you about acoustical impact um we've covered signs um and I think the conclusion has to be this is an approvable application uh well thought out now for many many months um with a lot of sensitivity to our number one pressure point which are the homes to the rear of us I have to stop talking because I'm losing my voice do you have any questions on the plan not at this moment not at this moment back all right are the members of the board who have questions of the Planner on his testimony at this meeting Mr kiano you have um I had a question on the planner's testimony uh sheet A9 or the exhibit A9 that you brought up I just want to understand and then the Landscaping you discussed um the grass PA system that's below the ground we'll have grass growing through it all intents of purposes you won't be able to see it what is the plan to identify that location so that the fire department knows where to drive and where not to drive yeah I'm sorry I forgot to mention that and it is on our plan um we call this A9 okay and I'm sorry about that we show on A9 12 so-called delineators flanking the Fire Road in the back for and a and there's a detail sheet that's shows what that is on sheet c901 this was requested at the last meeting um additionally on the plan there's a note that says if fire department does not like our selection of delineator will go to whatever color and brand they want okay in fact there are a couple couple notes here that say particular specs will be subject to fire department preference okay I'm sorry that and I this is I was going to sa to the end but this one is is again uh comment on the site plan um if I recall the site plan did not have the detail or specific information of the specific sound wall that was testified to by Mr doy so that just as a followup same idea that the plan must have that specific sound wall that was that's designed for this site we uh you're correct um we'd accept the condition that that be reviewed we know what color is going to be now I think we even know the the model all TI now right here and um we'd accept that as a condition of approval so you all can review it okay that's all I had okay thank you all right Mr math Mr toia so the front yard setback is 40% of as a 40% variance correct right is there any planning reason why the building could not be smaller and eliminate the front yard set back variance so um I'll give you the same answer claudo gave you you know it could be smaller but quite frankly um we did exactly what this board said back in September there were a lot of ideas kicked around and one of was why don't you slide the building up the remarks at that time were we're not concerned about Jefferson Road and it wasn't a careless remark it was a remark that we all said we're more concerned about the back of the proper all you got to do is your weighing here okay the benefit of this is half a football field of separation from the back I don't speak football I speak hockey so so football is a football field goal line the goal line is 300 ft we can go and play catch sometime if you want I'll show you how to do it okay uh 300 ft half of that's 1 15 um so lot of elbow um and it could be um reduced in front um but we have a specific proforma here we got a gorilla project in terms of demolition okay we're knocking down 150,000 ft of space to build 100 ,000 ft of space 106400 106,000 if it was 100,000 I might be okay and then you know the other thing I want to share with you um front yard setbacks um and their routine across a given Street are really important in single family neighborhoods right where we we like to see our homes pretty orderly across the whole front of the street we like to see lawn depth roughly the same this is what gives a single family neighborhood character go to a place like where I live like lawren toown you also want to see your bu business buildings pretty regimentally lined up right it helps PE Shoppers get from one building to another very quickly it matters much less in an area like this uh meaning an industrial area these buildings are several hundred feet apart um this lot is 500 ft wide the continuity building to building here matters much less than the other illustrations I gave to you um so we think it works I'm being straight with you if we drop this back it there's no planning reason but there's a real practical reason there's a proforma reason and in the balancing of the front yard setback is the fact that we killed the buffer in the back 150 to 211 ft with a tremendous amount of additional P material other members of the board have questions on this testimony at this time nobody else I now you have your now I'm ready um I'm go back to the signs and I have no problem with the the size or or the height I still have that question of safety and as Mr CI said you'll make that mistake once and you won't make it again it it's that once that could be a problem um that being said the freestanding signs don't and as far as I remember there's no way finding this this is a truck entrance um we'd just like to see that added somewhere that it it's designated as a truck entrance yeah we would totally agree with that okay maybe we put it on the main song the main you know on the main free standards on the main free standards I think that would be a good compromise um and the only other variants that you didn't really address was the driveway width I believe for the truck uh so I want to talk to you about that if you look at the ordinance what I I forget is it 20 I can't remember 24 ft um yes but and we're at 30 ft but what the ordinance says is the driveway width exclud ining turning radiant in the right ofo can only be 24 ft if you look at this plan we have no driveway within the right of way other than the Turning radi my position is the orance provision doesn't apply what this provision is supposed to do folks is make sure your driveways don't get too wide when they get too wide people start like exiting behind the car in front of them and two people trying and make left turns at the same time and it gets too messy but here all you have at that right ofo is turning Radia meaning wide lefts and wide rights to permit truck movements if you disagreed with me um all I would tell you is we did add extra driveway width here within our property because we're moving trucks on that side of the cyle trucks are big they need more room to negotiate if you look at our driveway on the opposite side of the site that's the the 24 ft in compliance just reading through I'm trying to find the correct orance part we're doing a little research at the moment so on on that section is that I'm sorry on the yeah I wrote it down here someplace and I agree some of the language there regarding the um I do remember the radi and I guess that's just a matter of yeah I think if it's the right section it's 43275 uh H 43275 H size of driveway dve shell a driveway exclusive of curb radi Curby turn radi to your point shall not be led Les than 12T or more than 24 ft wide so it's doesn't doesn't include the doesn't reference right away it's just the the driveway I I read it as the driveway width beyond your curve return right but read on I mean it says in the right of way correct no exclusive of turning radi in the right of way well the copy I have doesn't uh say right away so listen we're not you know argue with you on this the the the Practical proof is we have big vehicles coming in that side and we want more whip for them to negotiate the target okay okay fair enough any other members of the board have questions on this testimony at this time hearing and seeing none are there members of the public who have questions on this witness of this witness at this time hearing and saying none uh oh one more thing um what what we did uh Mr chairman commiss list yeah we were we were taking notes for the last three meetings we wanted to stipulate the following um to make your attorney jobs easier going back to meetings we said no outdoor storage on the site uh no hazmats on the property I think you recall a stipulating to that a maximum of two tenants we mentioned at our first hearing there was a question about the sound wall and how we would get I believe over a drainage pipe um and we would design it uh subject to your engineers review to make sure we have that right the building will not be used for Cold Storage consequently there will be no refrigerated trucks on um uh the site Outdoors SW Outdoors there's a noise concern about those trucks um the other thing that came up at the last hearing which was a good suggestion from the audience is we'll do everything we can along the back of the property to install Evergreens before we start construction which means we'll give that plant material a head start on its growth but we'll also uh provide buffering early on in the construction process process um that will be seasonally dependent on the planting Seasons at a minimum we'll put um construction fencing out there as well as maybe a construction screen to help soften the view looking into the property um and finally um we'll comply with hourly limits of construction and dust control measures during demolition uh consistent with Township ordinances we can give you that list if you like Mr chairman I believe there's a question I I I understand that I'm just I'm just waiting for the attorney to tell me where he is that well at this point Mr chairman we know there's got to be public comment uh and at that point we'll probably reserve and maybe ask for a few minutes of break uh to speak to my team before we allow the board to deliberate but at this point our our witness deck has concluded on this case you've heard from civil traffic acoustic architecture and planning now so our our witness testimony our case in Chief uh will be concluded shortly we want to hear what our public comment portion might yield and then we're going to go from there Mr chairman so let me tell the public what's going to happen now I'm going to ask for questions on this testimony at this time but then we're going to go to public comment after that they'll two two separate things all right so if if if people have a comment to make now is not the time but in a few moments it will be the time so I'm going to ask first if there is a if anybody has any questions on the testimony of this of this witness at this time if you could come forward and identify yourself into the microphone and give your address please hi uh Rakesh sha uh 102 Jillian Boulevard in the M Community uh question there was a discussion of the burm uh towards the back of the property that will line up with moner uh if that BM is raised 4T I know we've got decent amount of water just cuz I live in the kind of the far side of it I'm just wondering what we're doing to control that that that water doesn't flow into our neighborhood are you I follow that I thought and then I'm not the engineer on the job I thought there was a discussion that would be controlled in the back by us can you use the microphone please sorry I thought there was a discussion with our civil engineer about that being handled with inlets and other contouring in the back not my thing understand regardless the law requires that there be no new runoff thanks uh any other questions of this witness at this time please come forward and identify yourself and hi everyone uh wkat chukla uh uh 72 jillion uh being 20 years resident in the community U one question regard exit he said two tenants yes so do you have like I come from a warehousing uh project back in my career so when you share the facility with two tenants do you have cross do feature you going to have a cross docking like for example in Airlines right United Airlines can share with Delta so if you're going to allow that did you plan for that so we plan for offices in the front and in the back at some point there's going to be a partition through the building to separate to one unit from the other okay okay okay that's that's what you ask yeah basically if you to entrance is you going to have like a one entrance for one parent and like it's like two units in a in a rental apart right one entrance yes yes yes okay so there's not going to be a broken like theut tenant in between uh sharing right inside the warehouse structure got it got it one another question I have from the Mazda book uh uh you know for this exhibit is that I saw the the the the the buffer right so did you plan for any we have lots of wild life in the area so that picture what I see is that do you plan to build any like uh maybe nests for the geese or no I don't okay okay okay because we we we foresee that because to come it's seem sound silly but definitely we have a proper proper wildlife and 80% uh like I say 20% of our ook dealers have pets so I would see the pets can use this area so remember between you and us is a fence it's on your property okay 6 high fence sure everything we're doing here we have no absorptions to Wildlife movement it's going to be habitat for certain species um you're not going to be able to come on this property and walk around unless you're going to work something out with some tenants in the future okay okay okay okay thank you thank you very much any other members have questions on this witness of this witness on this testimony at this time hi I'm dmes perala uh 169 Emily Place uh my home is right uh so I can see the uh ad building right now right uh so I saw a lot of comments about uh sound pollution uh but uh none about uh light pollution like if there is going to be huge uh uh flood lights or something that's going to be there and I suppose this is going to be 24/7 so that also is a concern that uh from myp so there's no guarantee it's going to be 24/7 okay we don't know the tenants yet okay U beyond that our lighting um on the um the parking lot is so far away from your rear property line that we're going to be at 0.0 ft candles meaning minimum impact in the back I want you to remember something else the building that's up there now last I counted has 54 Windows facing your property 54 okay um three stories you know and um this building has some minimal number maybe a half dozen facing the back so lighting impact from The Building compared to what you had before cleaning Cruise in at Night the Lights are all on will be great reduced uh from that that level uh what about like a flood light facing so that facing should be away from we don't have any flood lights on the back of the building we're lighting the L pars but they're now being used with down firing um plates that are designed not to uh flare out onto other properties okay thank you're welcome questions on this testimony at this time yes please come up identify yourself and your address hi my name is prti Desai and I'm living in 228 M so my question is um there is a maybe there is a possibility it's 24/7 operation so the trucks come at night so usually sometimes they take a RIS so and I have seen on the highways and everywhere that they are like Idol and running so is it a possible that there might be two three trucks running at night and like idle and they are resting because they need to run to keep the temperature properly when they are resting inside because there there will be 24/7 so they will be truck at night also so I understand we had a traffic witness who said our truck traffic at night would be extremely light extremely light um and then what we're saying now is we're not going to have refrigerator trucks because the building won't be called storage um I'm I would imagine also there's a state law about idling right that would apply here mean you can't let your truck run idle all night long it's got to be shut off okay um so um that's where we're at and we did study sound on this very carefully that's why the the wall went up to protect you all in the back I understand that you put the W on that but is there any precaution that you going to put any sign that there is no idle truck running at night or something because people are sleeping right behind that right because because you there should be some signs that they don't leave the truck running and rest in the because it's already night time so they might be tired too so so as the witness IND again man that there is or there are state are federal laws against idling for certain durations concussive right right repeatedly non-stop we can put a sign out there as needed saying no idling in comport with njsa whatever the state statute might be or the regulation might be we have no problem doing that for the drivers we don't suspect this is going to be an issue um but to lay your concerns we're glad to put a sign out there to educate any drivers in a loading area yeah you can't idle in violation of state laws that wouldn't be a local regulation it would be a state wouldn't be a policy it would be advising of what the state law what they can and cannot yeah I will really appreciate that because it can possible but that two or three trucks might be idle and running at night it is possible so I would appreciate thank you last question so you're talking about def that's a main road right which leads to the warehouse so typically in New Jersey when you have a a double yellow dotted line right that is for both oncoming and going but for for a vehicle as big as a truck there has to be a buffer buffer Lane so have that been planned or it is not the responsibility of this uh it's your responsibility or it's responsibility of the township are you saying on the Jefferson Road changes in Jefferson yes we need a buffer Lane where where truck or can when by turning waits for the both sides to wait and I I see that for a town or scho as par there is no buffer mean unless it is like a big road as 46 and 10 it's only there in few sections it's not there everywhere and I we have seen in Bal Ro L accidents because of that this is just talking about the I think I don't we're not planning any change to Jefferson Road I think the gentleman might be talking about a left turn lane into the site I'm not sure but we're not proposing any changes to the street and their trucks on the street all the time making the same movements we'd be making all right if you have a question on the planning testimony at this time we're going to have time for opposition later but if you have a question on the planning testimony please come forward yeah use the mic yes sir hello everyone my name is sain R I live in the man of to community uh I know you said you don't know who are the users right now but how many trucks do you anticipate in a day and per hour so I I don't think I don't think Mr Toby can really answer that question this was part of traffic engineering testimony there was a traffic impact analysis that was filed and our prior witness who was here twice testifying John Harter of Atlantic traffic that was his wheelhouse his baileywick Mr toia you candid didn't speak to that tonight so it's not a proper cross- examination question but but even more than that he really is not the person to ask that question too okay but as you are attorney you may know right I'm not a witness so I can't I can't tell you either all right okay we I was not present I was just asking curious to know how many trucks will be coming in every day or during that 8 hours period all right okay thank you thank you any other questions on the planning testimony at this time hearing and seeing none all right I'm assuming everybody wants to get going with the opposition discussions before we make a break so that they can have a chance to talk if we get that far uh so what I'm going to call for right now is is is there an attorney who has been no hired to discuss yes I'm I'm Council for all right I'd like to start with you all right okay so that we can then perhaps speed the process all right so you are an attorney representing the the Mazda Brook homeowners association if you could come forward identify yourself and begin the process if you can give him a seat and a microphone I can stand that's fine um good evening um sure he's going to talk longer if he Michael take that R uh good evening uh board members uh I appeared here a few weeks ago uh but for the record uh my name is David dackery last name is spelled D o c k r y and I'm from the law firm of Becker 67 East Park Place s a00 Morristown New Jersey um our firm is legal councel for the mbrook homeowners association and just to be clear for the record um I am only counsel to uh the corporate entity the association I am not representing any individual owners who may be here tonight they are free to uh make comments outside of my purview um but in general um you know my client has asked me to to make a few comments uh with regards to the application uh my client fully understands uh that the ordinance does permit the warehouse use uh of this site and so far as that goes we are we are not objecting to the application per se but I think that there was conversations going back to September and comments from the board and also from my client about as to whether pushing the building forward is the best solution uh for the site um you know there's a very big difference between having uh an 9 to-5 office building uh that violates the buffer um AB buding the proper property line uh versus a warehouse that has potential for 27 24/7 um uh traffic um you know my clients have to live behind this project they have to sleep behind this project and um to that point uh to Mr meth's comments uh there was only testimony provided that the only reason why first of all the warehouse is 10 16,400 ft is due to economic reasons um there was not testimony given as to why the building could would not comply fully uh with the bulk standards so one of the asks um first of all of my client is while we appreciate all of the effort that's gone into sound attenuation buffering and and and whatnot is there's still going to be a warehouse with you know approximately 16 loading Bays of trucks coming and going and being within 200 approximate you know plus square fet of that sounds like a lot but when you really think about the Practical implications of living next to a warehouse I don't think you know my client their position is that that is not a desirable use particularly with the trucks Froning and loading on the side what was also lacking uh from the testimony is why this project could not be turned around obviously the applicant filed the application as they did and they weren't required to provide this testimony but there were suggestions from this planning board in September that uh that alternative be considered so that the trucks would be entering and loading straight along Jefferson and using the building itself as a natural buffer there was testimony provided that in doing so that the side parking for employees would then be moved to the back which would then violate uh that that buffering requirement so as crazy as it sounds my client is okay with that very thing of a variance to the back with employee parking just as the basically is on the site conditions today they believe that that would indeed provide for Better Sound attenuation light pollution overall pollution of diesel trucks uh coming and going and that would be their their preference alternatively they would ask for some sort of conditions of uh operation which I know many were agreed to which I think my client is very pleased to hear um but but one of those is um the 247 operation and I know there's been testimony that says that um it's not guaranteed that there's going to be 247 but that's not guarantee that there isn't going to be uh 24/7 you know operation I understand that Mr VY did provide testimony as to the sound decibel levels that are in compliance with the ordinance uh but at the same time again while the applicant wasn't required there wasn't testimony as to whether the sound attenuation wouldn't be better suited for trucks along Jefferson sort of again rotating the building versus uh the current building so at this time my client is requesting that uh their opposition uh testimony be carried they do have an expert that would like to testify to certain elements of of this design and so we would like to reserve that right tonight um and I think the expert testimony that they're prepared to provide uh would be um you know obviously um suited for you know whether the sport wants to carry uh further opposition testimony for a few weeks from from this evening you wish to respond I I do um so you know Mr do has been engaged for some time now his discussions in mine go back I think well over a month uh when he was having difficulty I think obtaining documents expediently I forwarded him site plans and reports and everything immediately uh their expert should have been here tonight uh it doesn't take too long to engage an expert uh especially one in opposition of a case it's easier to poke holes than it is to design um at this point I see this is nothing more than a typical obor delay tactic so uh I think the expert should have been here ready to be called and offer the their limited testimony and contention of Our Testimony and I I think that was here and now Mr chairman in my opinion so you know I I I can't in good faith say that there should be carried to another meeting for that testimony I'd like to hear an explanation as to who that expert is specifically what their field is expert by name what their field is what their availability is and why weren't they called here tonight and were they already engaged to even provide testimony I think those are all relevant inquiries to see whether or not the rubbers met the road with this so-called objecting expert well we'll see what the board's pleasure is with regard to that at that point uh that is you what your wish to start your presentation uh should we go to members of the uh Community who wish to speak and or do you wish to continue I mean from a very practical matter um it is surprisingly difficult to obtain experts who aren't already doing Warehouse projects um to No Surprise these are hot um to to Mr C's comment but I do think it would be appropriate at this time if other members of uh the public would like to speak and if the board wants to revisit my interment request uh at the conclusion of that uh that I would be happy to to to yield to the public well I'm going to take a moment find out what my board thinks I person personally because of all these Warehouse projects would actually like to hear a witness speaking who is not uh on the warehouse t as side uh so I'm going to ask my board if they have any comments on this and if they would either object or be in favor of a continuance and frankly at this point it's late enough that we'd only have a little time for comments from the uh the public public Mr deero yeah I was going to make a statement later but this seems appropriate I'm the one that originally recommended that the building be rotated 90° counterclockwise um by the sound engineer Mr Do's diagram his own diagram showed that the sound on the opposite side to the truck terminals was dark green which meant there was no sound in the back of the building if the building had been rotated 90° counterclockwise no sound at all you wouldn't need the fence um in the 26 years that I've been on the Plenty board my number one priority has always been to protect the quality of life of the residents and that that's still today my concern is the quality of life of the residents now I know this sound wall is supposed to protect them to some degree but even on Mr Do's diagram um the sound behind the constructed barrier sound barrier was not dark green it was stages of light green and yellow um whether it's acceptable levels okay I'll accept that he's an expert when someone's trying to sleep um not too far away nighttime noise when you're trying to sleep is a lot different than daytime and I'm still concerned about the quality of life of those residents however if we were to reject this application because the building wasn't rotated the way I suggested if the application was turned down um round four of affordable housing is coming in a short time and I would much rather see this Warehouse in that location and not apartments with affordable housing which were were popping up like mushrooms thanks to the court system so I I'll I'll go along with this and hope that your sound W works as well as you claim it will but I still believe rotating that building 90° counterclockwise was the better solution now do we need someone else to come here and tell us that I don't think so I'm not in favor of delaying if we if the members are willing to make a decision tonight I would go along with that okay any other comments by members of the board on this I kind think Mr meth we we more or less go to 10 o'clock at night right I find it hard to believe that we're going to be able to get through all of the uh neighbor testimony between then I mean I would say you know if we make it to 10: and you know it's 10:00 and we can vote then vote otherwise we have to carried anyway fair enough Mr Ming the gentleman has the right to provide testimony to this board that's why we're here we should not just cut it short and deny him the right to testify thank you all right well I I like the idea of getting the neighbors a chance to make their comments and if that gets as past 10:00 then we're going to be continuing anyway so wait wait I I got to make sure the attorney is is stepping aside and letting the neighbors talk now yes yes all right this is public commentary now yes public commentary and and that means that you have to identify yourself uh and you may be asked questions which usually requires that we swear you in correct so so I'm going to swear you in I'm going to ask you for your name I'm going to ask you to speak slowly because I am taking down your testimony so I'm just going to ask you to to speak slowly and please spell your name for me okay okay and your address okay do you swear or firm do you swear or firm the testimony you're about to give be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do name and address for the record please name Ben R Chula address 72 Jillian Boulevard okay you're going to have to spell that for me please uh 72 j i l l i a n slow slowly sir j i l l okay I'm trying to hand right here so please slowly uh first name a v n k a T last name Chi v u KU La okay and your address address 72 Jillian j i l l i a n bouevard okay sir you can go ahead so the one of the biggest concern that I have is whenever you talk about Warehouse over residential Community my experience based on what I have heard or learned in the world is that it it is for the business it it is it is a part of the chain but fiscal or economical chain but definitely the concern I have is it encourages crime it encourages crime at to that extent that you know there is no control there's definitely we need to have more law enforcement um you know all other things have to be prepped up before a warehouse can be approved that is the first concern I have and I think that's the last concern that it imagine like U there are so many over drug overd deaths in New Jersey it's all rock is fully with legal marijana which is approved here and a warehouse is just one extra factor that we are allowing in Township for for our coming generation to uh you know uh to take on the effects of what we decide today that's all nothing else I have to say thank you any counselor you wish to no no sir do you swear affirm the testimony about to give would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God yes I do name and address for the record please spell your first name and your last name sure my first name is Sachin s a c h i n last name is brah b r a hme my address is 66 Emily place pareni it's in the maab town home so I would like to say that I would like to oppose this construction I would like to give you some small um facts uh I'm living in our community since last 15 years and I'm the one of the board members since that time almost our community is very peaceful very loving there are almost like 150 homes in the vicinity of this back of the warehouse 150 means there are almost like 300 kids and almost 5 to 600 total population this construction of the warehouse is directly going to impact our day-to-day life I know you're going to construct a sound wall and this and that but just imagine there are hundreds of kids playing what about the pollution Factor I don't know how many trucks are coming in but I heard from last time of one of my friend it could be 50 60 trucks a day imagine 60 trucks means every hour there are eight trucks um and um approximately and then every uh every 5 to 10 minutes there is a one truck coming there are kids playing around 100 150 kids playing in our community there are elderly people also now moving in our community and I'm I'm pretty sure the won't be pleased or the quality of life will be affected so considering all this uh my request is to just like stop the construction or I oppose the construction all right thank you any questions uh my name is raise your right hand do you swear airm the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth shall help you God I do name and address for the record please uh rames r a m e s first name last name n n a i r 43 Ryan Drive RH y a an Ryan drive I'm sorry say it again RH y n Ryan Ryan Ryan and what was the number again 43 43 thank you sir go ahead yeah so um again I I just wanted to reiterate the fact that one of the major concern is the nighttime operations and I know that we had sound Engineers came in and a number of board members Express their concerns to 4045 DB even in the night and most of in in in our residents all the bedrooms are upstairs that's where people are leaving so daytime operations general office operations not a big deal but in the night this is a major concern for all of us and and potentially all the computer simulation on the time you know the sounds it's great but it does doesn't really uh count concurrency you have three trucks coming in four trucks coming in there is no limit on how many trucks that can come in so that is a total different things that how much deciel it can generate when when multiple trucks operation coming in rather than a a best case scenario computer simulation so the night operations is really going to affect uh the quality of the life and you know uh there's a lot of kids studying there elderly people this is going to be a major concern uh for all of us so that is uh that is one thing that I would like to um uh you know and I I really uh object any nighttime operations that is there and I totally agree with the many people um mentioned here if the um uh if the warehouse is rotated if that is in the front that will make uh life a lot easier there's a lot of barrier there um that will help us to uh reduce the noise and the sound so that is definitely something that we want to consider otherwise um I request the board not to approve with that um without that um you know either there is a limit on the night operations or without that um you know uh changed uh not to uh approve this uh application thank you any questions can I add one more thing there so so um the other thing we requested a sound engineer to um to come and and uh represent us and coming with the expert I I heard that the attorney objected that but we we still need we are not expert we are you know regular people we still need to get that time uh for us to to uh engage that sound light expert to uh understand that impact especially that concurrency especially the real world track and and the noise coming and so we request to allow that to thank you other members of the public who have questions not questions but who wish to uh State their objections in this particular case Mr chairman have a quick quick question was that then two requests so you you had a request because you're not representing them and then he had a request also for an expert I think it was through the attorney but he said he's not representing them and they it sounded like he had a separate he said he's representing the homeowners association but not the individual homeowners okay so it's one Quest yeah if you wish to come up and speak in opposition to this case this time please come up identify yourself get sworn in sure do you swear affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth so I help you God yes I do name and address for the record please spell you first and last my name is moan first name m o h he is an apple and is an nany last name is krishnaraj k r i s h n a r AJ and 1137 Ryan dry P the first and foremost thing is as Mr dep said that that it has to be the the docking loading dock has to be in the front side that he proposed it I don't know why the town or the developers didn't agree to that so so that should have been a better one for the the residen who lives in the master community so having said that i' would like to really you know V to consider this and accordingly to do quot if anything to be done tonight and um please do so for any of this objection even as a community resident so I'd like to object that as well and the other point is about in terms of the the operations the timings of it it should it should not be 24 by7 so please do consider that also in terms of the because you guys are all for the people so make sure that also consider in the mind and accordingly do vote of that okay thank you that's all I have anyone else s to speak on this at this time your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do name and address for the record please uh PR Desai 228 Emily pleas Please spell your name pry p r i t i this i d e s a i okay and I'm sorry your address second 228 em pleas thank you thank you uh so I would like to do the same request that we live there since 15 years and um uh whatever the house is that's our property so first of all who would like to leave when we we wish to sell our house property value is definitely going to go down because nobody's going to wish to buy their house be behind the there is a warehouse plus our kids are studying in a schools or colleges uh bedroom windows are right behind I live right behind the building I see clearly what is going on there they can see what I'm doing here so it looks on the paper that oh this is 200 ft away and all that stuff but if you visit the place then it's totally different because I I really see everything going in there so we don't want like a and if there are two buildings and people are working at night they would be definitely going to see in our bedroom what is going on there too so I don't think that's a good idea they should have a where on the other side like a um what I mean I'm totally opposed the warehouse actually I like the idea of having a affordable housing over there but um even though there is like even I really request that you consider not to have a warehouse over there but still I would as a second like option for me I would go for like okay drive uh parking in the back so that way the building go little I mean trucks go in the front so we get less pollution and less uh noise so I would really request you guys to consider about our request thank you all right any other members of public wish to speak that uh please don't repeat yourselves please raise your right hand do you swear air the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do name and address for the record uh d uh d h a r m e s h last name perala p a r i a w a l a address is 169 Emily Place e m i l y thank you sir yeah so uh I just want to mention that we are not trying to delay the process uh the request to you know expert look at the give us the opinion is uh reasonable and saying that uh since we are not experts we did not know exactly how this is going right uh so this is all we're figuring out and not trying to delay the process and we should have the opportunity to have the expert give his comments thank you all right other members of the public El first yeah uh you already under yeah yeah just say who you are again wut Chula 72 Jillian buard uh what ProMed me uh dear friends uh today to come all the way because I never came to this kind of meeting I had to come because morning I observe one geese Run Over By by the by I don't know which car it was on right on the near the warehouse that really ticked me off second one is that I went to drop off my water daughter daughter to the uh College know rgar University and I was coming back somewhere around the Summerville 287 northbound there was a warehouse truck that dropped by accident it was not a big semi triler but it was like a normal like trailer and it Dro plastic plant pots it littered out of highspeed traffic and everything fell on the on the road and there was a chaos and there were like so much like I can imagine that that I see that coming so it's a true happening today so around 2 2:00 afternoon coming back it happened on 287 it it basically standed the traffic it created a traffic so that's that's something we want for this our town that's the last closing comment I have I really sincerely uh know know wish you take all these you know fellow residents comments into consideration before you make the final vote thank you so much you wanted to make some comments for some time hello okay sir please raise your right hand do you swear fir a testimony about to give be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you guys I do name and address for the record please spell your name um Bala d a l a last name Sund s u n d a r e s a n address 186 Jillian bolard j i l l i a n thank you sir so uh my idea is that uh this Warehouse is not going to help us much it's going to affect the quality of our life uh I have a schoolgoing kid uh who who who will definitely find it difficult during the night to sleep and uh although there are barriers that they say that will come but I don't think that's going to help us much so I would like you to consider this and I oppose this Warehouse coming into that please I'd like the board members to take a rightful decision thank you more members of the public hearing and saying none do you wish to respond no Mr my only comment and thought is that I realiz it's 10:00 I realize that it's at the point where we're not getting to a deliberation in a vote regardless of the pleasure of the board to carry for an obor's expert witness my only request is I would like to ask Mr docky again if they've identified at the very least the expertise area of that witness if not the witness by name at this point I think both are are appropriately put on a table if he knows them um I want to confirm that his witness if he's going to submit any written report it's going to meet the statutory requirements of 10 days out so we have an opportunity to review it as well and once that expert is known we need to know who it is because I might need to recall one of my clients expert exp witnesses as well to be in the room and it could be one of several witnesses that are not here with us tonight it may not be in a future meeting so we we need some context and more information on on who this witness might be even if not by name their area of expertise in addition obviously to confirming they're going to make any submissions with the statutory deadlines copying the applicant of course and uh and then I guess we're looking for for the next date so they can prosecute their case and chief well before we do that I'd like to ask the pleasure of the board we have an opportunity here because it's just 10:00 as far as I'm concerned is the pleasure of the board that we should go to a vote at this time or we should continue and allow the uh opposition to present further information Mr chairman I've already commented on that so I think I I made myself clear I think we should get as much testimony as we can regardless of the time Mr chairman I agree with Mr Mia I think I'd like to hear more from someone opposing this and again I agree with what Mr DPR said is we've seen some of this but I'd like to understand more about the impact of it and I think even the town's people brought up a good point some of the standards of which they built the sound and how the wall would work how will that work against against 16 loaded up trucks I don't know if we Dove that deep into it fair enough any other comments from members of the board Mr chairman I would also like to hear from the from an expert from other's perspective so yeah that would be a good to all right sounds like we're going to continue this um before I ask for a vote on continuing this uh Nora what would be the the date that we would be able to have that we could continue this to where there the opposition would have a chance to get an expert and give proper notice I don't know how much time they need my next opening is March 18th March 18th I've got to ask the two attorneys if March 18th would work for them applicant can be ready that night Mr chairman okay we've got a yes so now I'm going to ask my board um to vote uh Nora would you call the role on continuing this case to March 18th did yes yes yes yes n yes yes D yes yes all right chairman if I could just make a notice announcement to the members of the public here this matter is going to be carried to March 18th 2024 7:30 in these Chambers you will not receive new notice this will serve as your notice you're not going to get get another letter in the mail okay so Council your notice is preserved and carried to March 18th thank you I do think Mr Call's for purposes of of um Expediting some of this it makes a fair point with regard to the expert expertise uh field so we know Mr CI doesn't have to bring back all of his Witnesses so we can know at least Council what kind of expert field you're looking to to bring Cola expert in so we have that ready to go yeah certainly and that that's that's fair um happy to comply with Mr C's request both as far as submission eventer reports 10 days prior uh and and and whatnot so uh the intention is to uh utilize the expertise of the firm of arch forensic um they have a few uh professionals that I intend to call one of them being a professional planner and professional engineer uh specifically to testify as to sound and overall uh planning testimony and possible uh light and also uh uh truck pollution uh topics as well so that will be the limited scope of of expert testimony uh known at this time all right I would just ask if if that is going to expand that you contact Mr cie ahead of time and I don't want to be put in a situation at least the board having to then further delay where say Mr then has to redirect his his Witnesses and if the board can consolidate those those types of hearings that we can do that and try to you know be efficient as as possible no I certainly understand and and and respect that uh and we'll we'll definitely um abide by that thank you Council thank you I just for my own information because I've not been put in this position before we've heard from the public but now the attorney is going to make make a a case with experts at the next meeting would we expect to hear from the public again or just from the uh attorney make the case I typically let the objectives Council put on their case and chief first because there may be situations of cross-examination of their Witnesses by both Council and the public and as well as redirect by Council so I would hate to say that we may have jumped a gun on the public portion this evening and it would be prudent to hear the Public's um comments one more time after all testimony has been provided because apparently we still can to have more testimony to be heard and I think it's fair that the public be given uh second to last final word Mr Cali will have the final word but the public will have one more opportunity after all testimony has been provided okay just was interested in knowing how the next meeting should be run yes yeah we still have evidentiary portion is going to essentially be reopened right for for Council to present his objection so it makes um good procedural sense then to have the public uh have the opportunity to weigh in one more time okay so we've voted to continue this case to March 18th um is there a motion to adjourn the meeting motion to adjourn do I have a second second all in favor say I anybody else can talk to nor