##VIDEO ID:gtOBofQhWl8## yes good to go good to go okay thank you we are back in session and with this I would like to ask for a motion to authorize Council to proceed as we discussed in the just concluded closed session for attorney Cent so move second chairman Mr Edward gettings yes Vice chairman Miss Donna Drews yes Miss Robin Fatu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis conanan yes m Michelle kakiri yes and Mr James Miller yes very good Mr manowitz and everybody thank you very much for your patience go to you in the public hearing this being the public hearing for Flemington Junction Associates 3 LLC preliminary and final site plan for the two Flex Warehouse Mr chairman members of the board R shimanowitz from the F of H Shimano and clocker on behalf of the applicant Flemington Junction Associates from three as the chair stated we are seeking PR and final site plan approval for the two Flex Bas buildings total of approximately 70,000 square feet uh included among the relief are two bulk variances you'll hear about I believe there's one design laer uh just by way of uh management of the meeting and preview we plan to call several witnesses we have David Gardner principal with the applicant Mike Ford our site engineer Michael Tesa is our licensed architect and Doug pincs our traffic engineer and last but not least we have our planner with regard to the Vance Mr John Leo cavalo unless there's any other housekeeping or concerns my first witness would be Mr David Gord has come forward let's just have a reminder for everybody speak it to the microphone please and clearly and can I just um it might be just easier we have everybody who's going to testify come up I'll s you all in and then you just state your name and spell it on the record okay so we'll do it once whoever's going to testify come on up okay we like efficiency here raise your right hand you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth okay and please state your name and spelling for the record David Gardner g a r d n e r Michael Ford f r d Michael Testa t s dougas PC p l y n i a k John Leon cavalo L O when CA V is invictor a l o and and again and the board professionals should probably be sworn into let's do that we usually remain sworn you remain sworn from from what oh from the done okay I'm sorry so we have one that needs to okay do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do yeah state your name I'm sorry spell last name is tetrol T is in Thomas e t r a l t thank you Mr Gardner you can sit next to um Mr Sam what I'm all right would you rather me said just make sure you speak loud and clearly please he didn't even tell me I was testifying extra time all right let's see I I don't think this be difficult or very long what I wanted you to do is just State your position with the applican which I think the board's very well known to you and you to them but I did want you to speak to the prior jobs that were built how those turned out and how this proposed development tonight uh compares to or relates to those part sure so I'm David Gardner I'm the president CEO of Larin Associates we're based in Branchburg New Jersey um and in you know in this area in Hillsboro we built a bunch of industrial Flex Hye space before and I've been in front of you guys couple times so the first project that we did is next to the baseball fields um and we call Flemington Junction one it was the four Flex industrial buildings and I don't know if you guys have been in it the project came out great um it's full we're 100% leased and 100% occupied now if interest rates would just come down maybe we can get some money back out of it but it's rented and it's doing great and um you know we whatever we're really proud of it around the corner that we call Flemington Junction to on minin road and I can pronounce minin now like that because when we first came here I was really struggling with Min onion but it flows right out now so so that's a 50,000 foot building it's basically the same thing you know we're after the same fish type of tenants you know uh where mostly really you you had that whole warehousing Zone thing going on and we agreed to it in SE in the first project and to our happiness we were able to lease it to mostly people that complied with the Zone with the warehousing thing then you guys changed it came back in you did the thing with resolution but anyway in general we've been getting big kind of bigger tenants doing distribution and warehousing mostly but we have some other ones that fit into the other category of uh so far there has not really been any Recreation or anything like that um so anyway the second one is that is on minak we just paved the part the parking lot and uh the shell of the building is is up and it's the same architecture more or less um and this is directly across the street and the owners of the of these two on minen with the same whoever you know so we don't really we don't even we don't own this this land yet we're in contract we're supposed to close in I think in June but um no so far it's been great and you know I I think I told the board the first time um you know we we've you know my dad started an a flex industrial building Park in Hillsboro New Jersey back in the in the in the early 80s and um you know so we were in Hillsboro and our main office was there and everything and for years Rob who's been with us for 36 years he was always saying you guys should find some land in in RAR in Township Flemington he there's he's always getting people that want to that have you know would they're coming to us but they would rather be over here and then we stumbled into these opportunities so um so far it's we're doing good um and uh yeah that's it we self-manage you know well we we manage the properties ourselves and uh we do all the leasing ourselves um and the proposal tonight will operate generally like the other two is that correct same thing same thing same thing yeah nothing further Mr Garden I just thought you'd give a little bit of background the stage any board questions from Mr Gardner I do not expect that we have anybody from the public with us this evening but I have to ask if anybody has a question from Mr Gardner based upon his testimony there being none thank you our next witness is our sign engineer Mr Michael f [Music] Michael you previously sworn and you've been accepted on prior occasions by this board but some of your qualifications yes some if I may in the interest of time we we've met Mr Ford many times okay and he's given us his yeah C and uh we he's a little suspect but we'll appreciate iici Mr chairman with that in mind I don't know what to say now accepted as a qualified site engineer I'm going to turn it over to you to introduce the site and um bring us through the development proposal sure okay um I we had submitted some color exhibits prior to the last hearing and then also uh updated proposed rendering for this evening's hearing I don't know if any of those can be pulled up I have one on the easel now which um is maybe a good segue from Mr Gardner's testimony because it uh we had a meeting uh with some staff and board members prior to our first scheduled hearing and it was suggested that perhaps we bring in a rendering that shows all three projects and that's what's on the easil okay and if who what's the signal of I'm going too slow or talking too much is it we need to yes so Mike if you want you could bring that closer to them if you want and do you want me to show the one that's revised or do you want the original one from the we don't need the the old one this um okay so we're gonna Mark that a yeah thank you all right um A1 is the the vicinity exhibit dated October 1st 202 four and this was uh previously submitted electronically today's the 18th yes and then if I just uh go quickly through the other two exhibits we can mark them um A2 would be the existing conditions exhibit dated April 19th 2024 last revised August 14 2024 and that was a color exhibit that would was again submitted electronically prior to the last hearing and then just the last exhibit that probably will be the focus of this evening's discussion is a proposed feature exhibit a dated April 19th 2024 last revised on November 29th 2024 and this is really the only new exhibit that was presented since the last hearing and it's a colorized version of our site plan with the Landscaping also shown on the plan so the in the interest of time I'll just go quickly back to A1 that I started with and just as a matter of orientation minien road is about in the middle of the page River Road is down the right hand side um route uh 31 would be off the page to the left and you see uh the first project Flemington Junction one with access from Mur Road and 150,000 s ft of Warehouse just off the page the top is the uh Diamond Nation complex and then uh on the south side or bottom of the page is Flemington Junction 2 which is a 50,000 foot Warehouse uh building that is under construction now the building is up but as Mr Gardner said the parking's been paved um so they're in the process of finishing the construction of that project including the building itself and then the subject of this evening's hearing is what we're referring to as Flemington Junction 3 which is two buildings totaling about 30 um about 305,000 foot each for a total of 70,000 square feet and it fills in that gap between project one and project two fronting on mini aen road with the minien stream to the rear the building be service by public sewer and water we are proposing three driveways from minen road with regards to traffic circulation um you'll see at the rear of the buildings we have truck loading docks on an angle so to facilitate uh appropriate circulation through the site for trucks and access to those angled parking or loading docks at the rear of the building we're proposing trucks to enter what is the West l or the left driveway here and be able to circulate through the rear of the site and then they would be able to back into those loading spaces a truck would also have an option of entering the middle driveway and again circulating in a clockwise fashion through the rear of the site and backing into those uh loading spaces and that would also include a truck entering uh from River Road direction that is headed westbound on Mini Yen Road would be able to make a left in the center driveway or a left in the Westerly driveway and circulate through the back of the site in a clockwise fashion one of the technical waivers we have as part of the application is in your ordinance with one-way access there's a Prohibition against or or a request that it be in a counterclockwise fashion in discussion with our traffic engineer we uh we're seeking relief for that because were're proposing in a clockwise fashion and we suspect that the ordinance was written around oneway circulation where there's a pick up or drop off window and that would uh Veil the access for the driver side window and we in discussions with the board's professionals have found no objection to this traffic circulation pattern and as Mr Shan would said we'll have a traffic engineer perhaps come with you know up later with some more details across the front of the building we'll be parking for uh standard vehicles with um doors uh to access uh the building both man doors and drive in like a a roll up door smaller door um we're proposing Landscaping uh to buffer the proposed parking across the front from minen Road um we're proposing our trash enclosures three of them along the rear of the site as I stated earlier there's uh services for public water and sewer in minen road we've proposed connections for that and both of the buildings would be sprinkled uh with regards to environmental constraints um we're familiar with the Min con Creek having done Flemington Junction as part of that application there was a detailed stream study that was submitted and reviewed and approved by njd for a flood Hazard area permit for Flemington 1 um we've filed for a similar permit for Flemington Junction 3 with an updated study because uh since the last approval for Flemington 1 the uh State Standards have changed that that's with regards to rainfall data used for those types of studies so there's been updated studies done and that's pending at D for both the flood Hazard area uh verification which um um approves the study and the flood elevation on the site and also uh there's a pending Wetland application there was a freshw wetland Loi approved for this site so the Wetland limits have been approved by njd EP and we have a small intrusion into the wetlands for part of the project uh construction while I'm speaking to the stream we're cognizant again having done Flemington 1 the Township's stream quarter ordinance so we've delineated the 100 foot buffer from the top of Bank from the stream uh and part of our application seeks and this is outlined in the ordinance as uh permitted but permitted with the request of a waiver that is we have um respected the 75 foot setback from the stream bank with the only exception being our discharge from the on-site stormw management and for the people that get excited about stormw management I'm going to go right into that right after I speak to this issues with regards to the stream so so one of our requests for Relief is that small intrusion in that 75 ft buffer for the discharge for the detention Basin but but for that intrusion there's no other impacts proposed to that 7 first 75 ft from the stream and then as your ordinance permits there's temporary um regrading or disturbance of the area from 75 ft to 100 ft so to facilitate the loading area and part parking area at the rear of the building there's some temporary disturbance for regrading uh in order to construct that Improvement within that 75 ft to 100 foot buffer setback from the top of Bank per the town ordinance and again that requires relief in the form of a waiver what I'd also like to point out is um again of course that stormw detention Basin discharge goes through that 75 to 100 feet as well but I'd like to point out at this time is um just prior to our last hearing we discussed which you know we wasn't was postponed till this evening and thank you for the special meeting um the uh uh board professionals both your engineer your landscape architect we talked about um the proposal and the activities within that 75t to 100 foot uh stream Corridor section of the Township Code and there was one tree by this trash enclosure uh behind our our Westerly building I'm sorry if I could interrupt could you use the larger exhibit oh sure hard with that yeah yeah are we doing a review right now then of all the reports or we just still getting the overview it's still the overview this the overview I'll give you overview and I'll go right into the reports right after storm drainage feel like you're calling out some of the elements in the report so I just will as I speak I want to at least address the portions in the ordinance that suggested testimony be provided I'm trying to hit those bases yes we'll hit it again okay all right um so I was just speaking to a one tree and the the existing trees were mapped and surveyed on the site plans and now I'm referring to A3 um and um I was just speaking to the intrusions into the township stream quar there was a suggestion um just prior to the last hearing that the applicant consider ways to preserve that tree it's a 24 inch caliper tree and the while the ordinance would permit its removal and regrading of that area and certainly with the removal of the tree comes the tree mitigation requirement so effectively if the tree were removed we we'd have to plan about eight or nine other trees it it it's a diameter calculation and I'll tell you that our tree mitigation plan is part of the site plan submitt includes the mitigation as if that tree were removed but what we've also done you know as part of those discussions which I think were very um you know positive and and helpful with the board professionals was the consideration of providing uh instead of regrading that area a small retaining wall around the drip line of that tree such that that tree could be preserved and we've included that on the plans that you're looking at this evening on our grading plan if you've you looked at it there's a actual like a inset or small view of an optional grading of that area which shows the retaining wall what the Board needs to know as part of that proposal is that that would include another structure within that 75 to 100 foot stream quarter buffer area which technically would require waiver for a structure within that area so in addition to the discharge from the detention Basin would be this additional retaining wall around that tree if the board were to um feel as the board professionals felt that it was a positive aspect of being able to preserve that tree and the applicant would do it either way way you know they would with the additional expense put in the retaining wall to preserve the tree certainly during construction there would have to be um methods utilized to preserve not only that tree but the other trees beyond the area of disturbance in the form of stake out prior to construction um super silt fence for our limits of disturbance and then tree protection in the form of snow fence or other construction fence to map out those trees that are be preserved which would include that tree if we did the retaining wall around it as well as some Street trees along our Frontage there's about three trees that we're being asked to try to preserve up there as well um perhaps I go to storm water now just an overview of how we're addressing that so it's underground basins there's an underground Basin at the rear of the property under the loading and rear access driveway that's our primary larger Basin if you will um it's large scale subsurface infiltration Basin that its primary function is for uh water quality uh again the new storm water RS require not only storm water management mitigation measures to reduce the quantity Peak flow discharge for the 210 and 100-year storm but they also require uh measures for groundw recharge and then water quality me measures so M Michael if I can interrupt I think it might be helpful to the board if you have um if you have Mr vella's report dated December 12th um I I think if you could use his report as your presentation outline and go literally in the order of items as he calls it out this way everybody can follow the bouncing wall and we can make sure that nothing is missed sure if you can provide that flexibility I think it would be very helpful yep thank you sir great so we're looking at the we have three reports yeah the December 12th 2024 we'll do uh the planning first y then then engineering and then Landscaping that yeah that'd be great okay all right um I'm going right to page two on Mr vella's report um with regards to the variance relief items one two and three I spoke to items one and two already with regards to the disturb es within Township stream quar and then with regards to item uh three at the top of page two uh We've uh updated our calculation and identified that there are no steep slopes that qualify per the Township's methodology of calculating steep slopes on the site so there's no requirement for any disturbance of steep slopes on the site so item three uh was a prior relief that we had ident identified that's no longer applicable could you just describe just um the the methodology that you did use versus what you did submit sure yeah and and the plans have been updated to reflect the current methodology in page two of the plans identify the section of the ordinance that we referred to for uh compliance with the town code and the method of doing the steep slope analysis and basically it's um that um if you have a steep slope area the way you calculate it is over a 10 foot contour interval so in other words and maybe this is the simplest way to describe it is you might have a slope that's a steeper slope or a strong slope along a roadside ditch that only is over a twoot fall that doesn't qualify uh for the Steep SL calculation or um critical area in the ordinance because what the ordinance is identifying is areas where those slopes those stronger slopes are over a much greater differential and vertical change like like a side of a mountain where the differential and elevation is 10 feet um and we don't have any those that qualify on this site we do have some steeper slopes but they don't um uh travel over a a vertical change in elevation of a minimum of 10t per the town code requirement uh back to Mr vella's report page two um there was a request for um testimony with regards to the multiple tenants or different uses on the site um we've identified warehouse and flex space in our parking analysis and we understand that if there's more than one tenant a building um the use has to be in accordance with the I2 Zone standard and any certificate of occupancy for that use and that tenant would be subject to review and approval by Mr vella's part of the zoning permit and certainly as part of a CO right now I would just add that we would keep open all of the uses in the I2 Zone um we kind of know what kind of tenant we're going to get for Mr Gardner's testimony but nevertheless whatever is allowed in the I2 Zone could be a potential user but again parking would have to be complied with for Mr Ford's testimony okay thank you number call out the numbers as well okay yes I was on number five uh number four is is just the statement of fact of the size of the two buildings and the size of the lot we're at 5.76 Acres on number four in Mr Bella's report where five acres is required uh so we comply and then the two buildings are specifically just slightly over 35,000 square fet each for total of just over 70,000 square feet total now back down to item six refers to the steep slope ordinance and that's been addressed by my testimony uh regarding item number three above um item seven we do show on the plans a conserv proposed conservation eement in accordance with the Township Code and would comply with the Township Code with regards to the establishment of that conservation easement over the critical area or the stream quarter portion at the rear of the site or the north side of the site we've identified that proposed easement that would include the monumentation and signage and again we're actually familiar with that requirement having addressed it on the Flemington Junction one site and and this includ this includes the 75 foot no disturbance buffer and not the no structure buffer 100 foot buffer correct correct and the only intrusion within the 75 foot buffer would be as I stated earlier the the discharge from the underground detention Basin I think item eight is just there's two lots today we combine them to one lot and we need a new lot number assigned by the tax assessor um so shall comply with that item two or I'm sorry item nine I think we've addressed that in our written response there's 142 parking spaces proposed as part of the application 32 of those spaces are being proposed to be banked so they' be constructed if and when needed for parking and this is similar I think I'll say a lesson learned from Flemington Junction 2 AC acoss the street where when we went through the process of that application there were there was board discussion that uh if you could you know you you design for full build out of the parking in accordance with the ordinance but if you don't think you need it don't build it Day One Bank it and that's what we've done that that said we've uh complied with the maximum impervious coverage allowable for the Zone even if all the bank parking is built and we've also designed our storm water management facilities as if all the bank parking was built and that also holds true for the Landscaping proposal as if the bank parking is built there's the board prefer that I continue one by one on these items well where where it's applicable so like for example item 10 it's been called out that you satisfied that so I think you can move on to 11 that would be an example of how I think like okay I just want to highlight that that was satisfied there we go um thank you all right item 11 I've uh highlighted a couple of waivers as part of the application already this is an additional waiver that is with regards to the placement of sidewalk on the site the there's a technical requirement that a sidewalk be provided between the building or between the parking in front of the building and the building in this case as I described earlier and I'm looking back at A3 the exhibit we're showing parking along the front of the building toward minen Road and then a paved area up to the building because there are some Drive-In doors uh for the flexible use of the space um and then man doors to enter the building so the front entrance you know the front of the building is established for uh pestan entrance and with regards to the walkway the the paved area if you will the parking area uh provides for a hard surface for people to access the site I think it's just really a sell I'll say a technical waiver request uh because it's not an official sidewalk if you will um same for item 12 um it was highlight to us that there there's a perhaps a code requirement that sidewalks be provided along the frontage uh the site fronts on minen road but there are no existing sidewalks on either of the properties to the east or west of this site nor were there sidewalks part as part of Flemington Junction 2 and we're seeking that re relief for Flemington Junction 3 as well item 13 I think has been satisfied we are providing for um EV charging stations as required in the parking area in accordance with the town code and the the governor's action about two years ago item 14 is satisfied item 15 uh there are no uh and this is a request for Testimony so I'll speak to it there are no canopies proposed along the front of the building the building is set at and this is one of the results of some recent zoning changes the building is set 10.5 feet back from the right away of minen Road um so the um building is beyond the front yard set back and complies and the unlike I'll say a slight differential between this site and Flemington Junction 2 across the street we're not proposing any canopies over the door entrances there'll be just a flat wall along the front of the building no canopies and I think your uh planner Mr Vella just wanted to make sure that we State on the record that that's the case here and then with regards to signage and the absence of canopies there's no signage obviously on a canopy because that's not being proposed but you'll see Mr Tesa has a rendering that uh shows that there are opportunities for tenant signage over the different unit spaces across the front of the building and um no relief is being requested for the signage the signage will comply with your code item 17 is identified or is been confirmed and satisfied item 18 I just spoke to with regards to the canopy and provided testimony again there's no canopies um item 19 is with regards to the building color and style and I don't want to steal Mr tesus Thunder here I'll let the architect speak to the color of the building and its look but I understand it would be similar to Flemington Junction 2 across the street item 20 has been satisfied item 21 um I think I just spoke to the uh tenant identification and it to the extent there's any um code requirement regarding building numbering or tenant uh tenant identification with regards to emergency uh um use we would comply um item 23 we're not proposing any outdoor storage with the exception of those areas where there's trash enclosures and to the extent that there's you know opportunities next to a dumpster where a a pallet could be placed and and that would perhaps address any concerns there might be but we're not proposing any outdoor storage exclusively for pallets so that would provide for an opportunity uh within the trash enclosure areas for pallets to be temporarily placed and then uh disposed of um properly Mikey M jumps over number 22 oh did I okay okay that's again I'll say I'll defer to the architect with regards to the building height and the placement of HVAC units 24 shall comply identifies that the site has um 31 edus attributed to it from the RT muua we've received a review report from the RT muua verifying that as well and um the applicant will comply with the restrictions and limitations of the 31 edus and we don't anticipate that that'll have any restriction on the use of the buildings that's more than enough uh sanitary sewer discharge allocation for the uh anticipated uses item 25 I'll defer to our traffic engineer with regards to the traffic report and then item 26 refers to a conditional approval review report that we received from The Hunton County planning board uh and it appears that in that conditional approval there was an erroneous request that a left turn lane be striped at the intersection of minen Road and River Road and a quick look and aerial view or even driving by that area you'll see that it actually already exists the the left turn lane is there a way for them to revise a report stating that or any additional we can contact the County and and point out the erroneous comment and ask if they could provide it for a clear record sure yeah item 27 uh we'll get to the architectural comments um shortly uh we agree to complying with the request for state plan coordinates under item 28 uh I item 29 refers to the proposed conservation ement I spoke to earlier which is you know um close to four acres um 30 we'd agree to providing the uh required as buils and um SE with the as builds at the time of uh Co issuance again item 31 is a Township requirement that the applicant would would comply with and and the same for item 32 and then with regards to item 33 we had received a report from uh the Fire official dated September 24th 2024 and we did as part of our December 6th submitt since the last scheduled hearing provided a response to each and every one of those comments and I believe we've addressed them all satisfactorily but again we would agree to addressing each and every one of those comments in that September report to Dennis's satisfaction thank you y can can we regards to knock boxes and can we just get a call out of all the elements where they're requiring a variance exception sure the only it's only one and two with regards to the 11 and 12 design right I don't think it was listed in the Mr Bella's report but I think in the engineers report we're about to go to there is that technical waiver that I uh spoke to earlier about the traffic circulation pattern for one-way traffic that's code section 29697 c2g should I go to the engineers report now um I'll go to page three of 11 this is a December 11th 2024 review memorandum to the planning board by um environmental Resolutions Inc uh Rices Dorie the board's engineer question December 11th or 12th I did I say 11th it's 12th thank you yes thank you yes December 12th I'm going right to page three of 11 and what I'll say is before I even go to each and every comment I think as we go through this you'll see that since the last scheduled hearing our December 6 submitt satisfied virtually all the comments um I think there's only one or two that have uh suggested testimony and then there were one or two new comments with minor changes that we would agree to address to Mr dar's satisfaction um as a condition of approval that the board May Grant but so back to page three um with regards to uh the zoning we're in the I2 Zone under variances we just spoke to those in uh Mr vella's report and then with regards to waivers here's that waiver I just spoke to with regards to um the oneway traffic circulation pattern it's identified as item number two Under The Heading waivers item three is with regard to the sidewalk waiver that I think we've already spoken to and then item four is uh I'll say something we haven't spoken to yet that is uh identifying a a restriction in your code that says uh you can have a parking area but no parking area with less than four spaces in a row and we've identified some small areas of parking along the rear of the building where there's as little as two spaces and the purpose of that is to provide for parking at the rear of the building um along the building but not interfere with the man doors or Drive-In doors at the rear of the building under General comments item five uh provide testimony the anticipated hours of operation are Monday through Friday 7:00 am. to 5:00 pm. and Saturday 700 am to 1M with regards to employees as we've identified on the site plans under the parking calculation for uh a warehouse type of facility we anticipate up to as many as uh 70 employees and that would be Max and with regards to a flex use 94 employees um waste generation and schedule pickups we've identified three trash enclosure areas at the rear of the building um they're um well a great distance from minen Road and uh the applicant is already proven his ability to um have those operate efficiently for the tenants it would be a private waste hauler picking up the waste and uh that provides for flexibility that if uh two dumpsters need to be emptied you know twice a week instead of once a week in order to provide for and and assure that that trash enclosure is adequate space they would do that uh so that's the I'll say the testimony with regards to the operation of the trash it's in those designated areas it'll be at a frequency as necessary to make sure those designated areas are adequate and while I'm on this the one comment I think will or one of the few comments within the technical aspect of the report was a suggestion that with these 18 foot wide trash enclosures we provide a little larger gate right now we're proposing a 12 foot gate with and we'd agreed to put a 16 foot gate that is two 8ft swing gates in front of each one of those trash enclosures so that provides even greater ability to access that entire 10 by1 18 area that's the designated trash enclosure area and then item D under item five in general comments uh refers to the types of trucks and deliveries I've spoken generally to that but I would defer to our traffic engineer to give you some greater information in that regard but what I will say to the board at this point is and we'll get to this in a moment but while we're on the topic of trucks there was a request that we uh do a we've done truck turning templates in the site plans there's a site plan sheet that illustrates how emergency vehicles can get through the site how garbage trucks can get through the site as well as tractor trailers and we've identified h wb5 5 tractor trailer can circulate adequately through the site with all the Turning movements with more than enough area to make those movements but we've also tested the WB 67 as Mr dargy had suggested and we' found that there's some places on site where that really doesn't fit without say having to drive into oncoming traffic at a exit driveway so the applicant would agree to uh restriction that the site not permit the WB 67 tractor trailers and again with if there's more discussion with regards to traffic uh would defer to our traffic engineer item six uh just affirms that the two lots the existing Lots will be Consolidated their lots 16.07% and lot 16.08 and we just need a new Lot number from your tax assessor and those two lots would be Consolidated by deed there' be a new deed with a description for the two lots combined and the new I'm getting a signal Council I was clear my proo but um yeah I I think because the report indicates it's either it's it's satisfied or will be Consolidated the way I read the report I think you could jump to item 12 on page four that's the next item that the testimony yep Y correct and then you can go down to 19 would be after that and only the second half because the first half has been satisfied yes yeah there's abundance of satisfied comments with regards to chapter or item 12 I think I've actually already spoken to that as to the traffic circulation patterns and to the extent there needs to be some changes and signage on the site plan we would comply item 19 uh this is with regards to the alternate grading that I had discussed earlier as part of the introduction to to preserve the one tree by our northeasterly trash enclosure no this it's particularly second part because you did talk about the first part but I don't recall testimony with respect to the second issue in paragraph 19 regarding the lighting located by the stream Corridor that we did we do show all the improvements that is the curbing on the rear loading area as well as the sight lighting and foundations for the lighting are Beyond The Stream quarter the 100 foot satisfied yeah I'm I'm satisfied with that and the opin indicated that they'll they'll stake out the actual limited clearing with super so fence and all that um and the look the structures that are that are close will will definitely be staked out so as it's shown on the plan does comply our question was you're getting kind of close to that line so how are you going to ensure that you don't cross the on uh they've proposed uh survey control to make sure that does happen uh with regard to the alternate um grading with the retaining wall I think the it's great that it's shown as an alternate uh because I think that's something that maybe we can take a look at at the time of construction with Mr Thomas's office and and our office to make sure that um that the trees actually in the location where it's shown in the plan because you know sometimes things tend to move uh and and then also that uh there's enough clearance uh from the retaining wall to make sure the tree actually does survive we don't want for you to go through the this whole elaborate grading to try to save this this tree and then the tree you know dies anyway so that's something that we'd have to evaluate the time of construction okay and if you go down that road I believe a variant is loated correct wall in the preservation area and and I think I've talked to Mr Thomas and I think we're both in support of of that relief to try to save that tree yeah that that's that's correct and I would just I'm sorry sorry uh yeah that's correct I i' need support of it and and the other part of it is is I I did have a chance to I did walk the site I wasn't particularly focused on that Single Tree I think it's decent but at at the time of construction we can evaluate the condition of the tree and if it's not worth saving we can we can go another Direction but at least we have the flexibility we can save you a couple bucks on a retaining wall we we show both options I think what's being suggested is if the board were so inclined to um want to do the option of preserving the tree you grant us the relief but we still leave on the plan both options so in case during construction um it's determined that the tree is is not preservable then we would implement the other option yeah that's exactly right okay did you that's what I was trying to say was okay okay um um I was on page four of 11 item 19 I'll go to page five of 11 item 26a just to highlight that we've acquiesced and and this was actually part of our December 6th the middle that we would agree to the prohibition of the WB 67 trucks so I won't talk about all the other satisfied comments on that page and then I so I I do have there are a lot of satisfied comments you did you guys did a great job there you go Mike you you've been asking for that um I do have a question about the restriction on the WB 67s how is that going to be enforced and policed we could do it with uh our leases and our tenants okay I think I think the concern here W the largest trucks that are allowed on the road are WB 67s uh WB 55 is not a template that's even in the ashto policy and geometric design highways and streets it goes like WB w62 WB 67 WB 50 there's not a WB 55 template in there there you did you did have a template in in the plan so so I did see a template from what I could see it's a slightly smaller truck than a WB 67 my concern is how are you going to prevent you've got potentially truck drivers coming in from all 11 who could have a WB 67 Truck you know how are they going to be prevented from they got to make a delivery to the site uh you know you know what I'm saying how do you how do you differentiate in A semi- TRU between a WB 55 and a WB 67 it's a little difficult you're gonna have to specify in the sign no trucks over such and such length trailers it's going to get a little a little cumbersome probably to specify the difference between WB 55 and a WB 667 just just an observation would it be difficult to R the curving so that you can allow the well it's it's really the it's the it's interesting because everybody is what we're talking about is a a turning template um where the truck exiting the site doesn't cross the double yellow line in the middle of the road where minen road is a low-level traffic and how many of us please put your hand up if you've never seen a tractor trailer go through an intersection without Crossing into oncoming traffic or it's you know that's not uncommon um and we did test it we we can include the WB 67 worksheet that we did to show those areas uh where um there's slight intrusions to oncoming and then that goes for also going into our site like a a truck a truck making a left coming from R3 or I'm sorry Route 31 making a left into our first Westerly driveway if if we have a car exiting theoretically that truck May interfere that car and you I I sense from the nod over your head like that's not a it's not it's it's it's something we if we wanted to say it's it's a perfect world we wouldn't have any Crossing but to make that driveway wide enough um to provide for that type of flexibility it's great the applicant's point of view as was stated earlier I mean all we can do is you know accept the condition if board's inclined to approve this that would be a restriction on the the WB 67 and that condition could also require that we put those type of restrictions in our leases and advise our tenants uh and I guess is there possibility of signage to that effect I don't know if that's right we've already talked about Flemington Junction one and two this was all the truck turning templates we used for one and two were the WB 55 and the the issue never came up well I to be honest I I'm not saying history it's not like we ignored it like we knew about it before and we didn't ignore it here and actually what I'll say too having been famili I know with Flemington 1 and Flemington 2 both of the drive all three of the driveway entrances here are just as great if not greater than what we did on Flemington 2 across the street it's just my only concern typically when I see these sites they're designed for WB 67s so it's just my concern I'm seeing WB 55 which is a little atypical and you know how do we you know if if if it's limit I guess I'm I'm speculating here but I guess if the language is such in the leases that they're not supposed to have it that the tenants are not supposed to have their deliveries be a truck larger than a WB 55 guess that's it now you can put that in the language of a lease what's to prevent it that's that's the concern and and you know I mean it's one thing if that you get an occasional truck that goes over the center line it's another thing if the truck gets inside the site and there's not enough room for it to maneuver now you know you got a problem so yeah maybe it's a good idea if you if you show the WB 67 and see where to you know provide that information and we see where the incursions would be of a WB 67 that you know where where it goes off like if it goes over the curb um if it's got to go you know over the center line just to see what what the implications are of a WB 67 Truck going to the site you know coming to the site or leaving the site yeah we we can absolutely do that as I recall there was no issues like what you're describing where for example it goes in and it's it's traversing down this Westerly driveway you can't make the turn real concern it doesn't get stuck no no it's not it's more what I described earlier where you know our our our goal is to have absolutely no uh impacts to other Lings understood yeah yeah did did we not discuss it in the other plan I thought we had widened the exit and entry on points to minia conic to I think you're right I was just looking because we had this discussion about the intrusion upon the opposing Lane so again the type of truck was not discussed but the issue of encroaching in the other lane we did discuss and I thought we had widened the exit and entry to accommodate for that turn yeah yeah and we've done that here and we've actually done it in a fashion that's unlike across the street where we had um this is pavement the whole width not the manable curb if you will and these are as wide and as big a turning radiuses as across the street but so just to be clear so on injection to that was for the for a WB 55 though correct right right and that's that's the difference that was only to help a w55 get in and out yes wor okay I don't think we ever got specific about no no we did R we just had a truck turning radius we just looking at this first exhibit I'm not a truck driver this this is a whole lot more room in the site that's under construction or a truck to come in and come around than in the new one it seems like a sharper Turn Point s right sorry I Rec your name but the problem is once they get in there they it's not able to maneuver then right that's real it's one thing the CER line in here you know to go over is not that big of a deal and and too you know once you get the site if they can't maneuver because it's bigger than what they allowed for then you got a problem you know if you provides a template for w67 that that will answer the the question well we see what happens with the ballards oh yeah are no more that was a mistake a mess so if if would it be your recommendation that if the with the WB 67 turning radius if um the conflicts can be resolved that the Restriction be removed yes well not the Restriction being removed because we it still is not okay without splitting here here it's still a to get in and out of sight from the road still would require a WB 67 Truck to go across both lanes where WB 55 would not from what I'm understanding here correct right so it doesn't make the problem go away but at least if we see that a WB 67 can maneuver within the site then that takes away a lot of the problem the fact that you might I think you still want a Prohibition of anything larger than a WB 55 somehow whether that's specified by no trucks uh no trailers over a blank feet length or something like that which I think a WB 555 is a little maybe it's a 48t trail instead of a 53t I I I I don't have the 53 a WB 55 is a 53 correct a horrible name I'm I'm reading from the detail one sheet 16 of our PL but it is a little bit smaller I don't know if it's a smaller truck it's a little bit smaller getting technical here I know but it's a little it is smaller than a WB 67 and WB 67 is the largest truck that's allowed in the state of New Jersey on public roads so I just so you could get a WB 67 even though that you use a WB 55 template that that was my only concern here and if you you show provideed temp the wp 67 you can look at it I don't imagine it'll be a problem as long I think what we're saying is if you can provide your your illustration that shows that a WB 67 if it does get to the site doesn't get trapped on the site and can circulate through the site uh I think we that would satisfy our concerns uh we' still recommend a some sort of deed language that discourages that uh the uh WB 67s from from being used but at least we're assured that if if it does happen the only real you know crime here is that it may encroach on over the center line when it's exiting the site which on a low volume Road like this isn't isn't the end of the world so I I think that's what we're looking for it's just the illustration showing that w67 can do everything else except understanding that it's going to cross over the center line um and then we're good so so to recap it sounds like what the discussion is is that what what the board professionals are asking is for the applicant to confirm that an inadvertent entry of a of a WB 67 siiz Truck could actually get through that wreaking havoc right and then then but you will ultimately agree as a condition to nothing larger than the WB 55 which you will enforce by by uh lease agreements with your tenants as well as sign AG which will say trucks uh prohibited uh over 53t in length Okay that's correct thank [Music] you I'll go to page six of 11 just item 28 at the top since it's not identified as satisfied and I've already spoken to earlier the outfall for the Basin at the rear of the site being shifted to save some trees there was also an existing easement back at the rear of the site that it's been shifted to avoid and I think I stated earlier that we do have uh approvals pending with njz for that stream encroachment or flood Hazard area permit I'll go to page seven of 11 and I'm going to skip over acknowledged just like the satisfied and just so you know I'm interpretting acknowledged as conditions right yeah I I think acknowledged yes okay and and the the the item that's acknowledged uh specifically states that that we have complied with the storm water management rules um that I described earlier I'll go to page eight and say yay pass that page nine again but just to confirm we're on the same page page item 52 which says acknowledge you would agree that's a that's a condition right correct okay item 12 uh there is a a number of items satisfied the a knowledged ones would be agreed to as a condition of approval what page and item are you on Mike I'm on page 12 page nine I'm sorry I'm sorry page nine I said page nine yeah page nine items 56 and 57 correct right right and then the heading under traffic I'll leave to our traffic engineer to address I'm going to page 10 of 11 we're almost there uh testimony yeah we you provided that I did that already regarding 17 I'm sorry 72 and then uh on the last page 11 of 11 there are three administrative comments that I would believe would be you know if they need to be conditions of approval like responding to comments in a point by point you know obviously items 79 80 and 81 we agree to and then with regards to new comments items 82 and 83 uh we agree to address uh the last review memorandum to speak to this evening is uh December 16th 2024 memorandum to the planning board by Mr Thomas I'll go to the bottom of that page and highlight the comment uh responses are in red and it says has complied so I'll skip that I'll go to page [Music] two under comments in the Middle with a large paragraph starting with the words there appear to be and I'll say that that has already been discussed and refers to the alternate greeting to preserve the tree that we've had discussed I don't think there's any other comments that we need to discuss address on page two location the storm water outfall location you said that has been moved correct okay thank you item three or I'm sorry page three at the top of the page there's highlighted new comments in red this is with regards to the preservation of the three existing Street trees along minen road we've done some changes in the grade and identified limits of disturbance in tree protection and I think that what the the additional comment regarding that issue we'd agree to comply with is a modification to the tree preservation area um not just circles around the Three Trees but more of a larger tree preservation fence is that what you are suggesting Mr Thomas correct rather than just Rel some of the circles weren't quite big enough for the root zones anyway but there are groups of trees so it's better that we preserve preserve a bigger area with a tree and tree protection fences that includes I think there's a group of three trees and then two trees in a single tree and they should roughly coincide with the critical root zone areas that we require which which is a a foot of radius per caliber inch and I think it appears that the grading will that that'll be satisfactory right yeah we agree so the the premise is that the trees are identified to be preserved and the method of protecting them during construction not be an isolated fence around an individual tree but more a collaborative larger fence around a group of trees and we'd agree to make those plan changes to Mr Thomas's satisfaction at the middle of Page Three there are additional comments um at the end of the first paragraph that the words this is acceptable uh so I believe our proposal uh is acceptable so I won't discuss that and then um at the bottom of that middle section of highlighted red comments there's a a suggestion of modifications to the understory trees and if to the extent we can choose different species or identify different areas for those mitigation trees we'd agree to do that to Mr Thomas's satisfaction is that acceptable that's acceptable that's correct and the other comment there was just that uh we we'll provide we'll provide the reforestation planting detail there's a an official rare to Township detail that I needs needs to be included and we'd agree to add that to the plans in fact Mr Thomas has already graciously identified or given us that detail within the last 24 hours so it's just a new another detail that needs to be added to the pl that identify how trees are being preserved what's that a waiver for the detail the oh I'm sorry U uh yes the uh um it it is there is a waiver required but in in this case the the the or the way the ordinance is stated it is allows the board to consider um Landscaping adjacent to the parking area to contribute to the parking lot landscaping and and and I'm basically supporting they they provided a lot of landscaping in forms of buffer and and quite a few replacement trees near parking area so so would a waiver then not be [Music] required the waiver is required but I'm recommending waiver I'm sorry thank you and then uh can I go to page four item five is has complied and then item six at the bottom uh new comments six be there is mechanical treatment devices that are being proposed as part of our storm water management green infrastructure uh they would have plantings in them and we provide and these are these are actually already incorporated as part of the project across the street I think what the board suggested as a condition of approval there is that the plant selections be coordinated with Mr Thomas and that those mechanical treatment devices is actually be provided with irrigation to ensure that they get enough water to to ensure the survival of those plantings and we agree to do that okay but that's acceptable and that's a that's a turns out that was a requirement of a manufacturer anyway uh the the irrigation and um and uh we'll get a clarification but there's a a conflict in the notation on the plans one one where it states the manufacturers going Supply the plant and then not so we'll we'll we'll work through that that's acceptable all we have on letter with respect to Mr for right Mr for correct so all board members any other questions no and I'm required to ask if anybody is here from the public who has any questions on Mr Ford's testimony I know we don't have anybody online y they're being none thank you you Mr chairman our next witness is our architect Mr Michael Tesa yeah ask our court repor do you need a break or are you okay Michael you've been sworn previously and I believe u at least on our last uh application for fleem to you were qualified as an expert architecture correct yeah for both fim one and fim that he acceptable thank you Mr chairman Michael I'm going to turn it over to you to please give the board a summary of the architectural proposal and Mark exhibits as you okay so the board that I've placed up in front is a new exhibit it's a color rendering three-dimensional rendering of the two buildings located on the site which will be marked A4 okay thank you good evening uh I'd like to discuss that uh proposing two new buildings here as indicated on Mr for plan we have I call building one to the left of his plan building two to the right the buildings are almost mirror buildings building one is 35343 square ft building two 35294 square ft the buildings are subdivided potentially subdivided for maximum tenant locations this was decided based upon um our leasing uh operators that as far as what we thought would be the best way to subdivide the space there could be nine potenti potential tenants in building one eight potential tenants in building two that would be the maximum number of tenants you could have one tenant in each of the buildings but that gives a board some idea of the flexibility of the building as we go around the building the building has U storefront entranceways facing mini aning road and adjacent to storefronts are overhead doors the rear of the building has three Sawtooth um truck docks where the truck docks are uh depressed or actually lowered and gray and then in the rear on the side you have additional overhead doors for truck access can I interrupt you question you say storefront openings is that glass where I see the yes there's a small glass area part of this glass door it is almost identical to what you've seen correct small st fras that you see in Flemington one and two uh the building height is 37 uh feet 6 in that's the highest point the highest point faces man minining the slopes to the rear so o water would drain toward the rear storm water system the color scheme is the same as the other two um locations it's a light gr main building area dark gray accents and a blue um light a blue signed strip as we indicated the other buildings have canopies we've eliminated the canopies and we've basically taken a blue signage area that where the canopy would be and mounted it to the wall and that's where the signage would go if there was a tenant taking up multiple uh tenant areas there would only be one signage for that all rooftop equipment would be concealed we on the other two facilities we've located the heating and air conditioning units inside the building and put the condenser units on the roof which are a much smaller unit than if you had a rooftop unit for regular commercial building so we minimize the impact of anything on the roof and those will not be seen from the street Mr belli's letter of December 12th there are four items pertaining to architecture item number 15 on page one two three uh is regarding the canopy signage I just testified to that that we're not going to have canopies we're going to have a ww mounted sign with no um uh variance request it'll be in conformance with the signage ordinance it'll be similar color and size to the other two sites tenant signage we have one located over each of the tenant doors facing mini anading road again if there is more uh for tenant taking up more than one area they'll be lied to one sign they won't be limited to taken four spaces they won't get four signs they'll get one for the four signs item number 19 architecture of the building again I the color rendering speaks to the architecture showing the aerial shot um indicating the colors textures shapes and forms keep the building interesting colorful um from the roadway and then item number two discussing the height of the building at 37 Feet 6 in and then again the placement of the HVAC units located um on the roof out of sight from the street and surrounding areas uh the interior of the building for the fire department has a CD room CDU room for communication services for fire and Emergency Services located on the right hand side a noxbox will be provided for Access for emergency as well that concludes my overall view nothing further Mr T I just one comment number 27 that referred to the landscape architect uh John did you have any comments this this is Jeff's comment referring to you this is just this is just a memo comment for the applicant in general and I think that's already been addressed got it thank you um I just had one um comment you on the plan it says that it's uh 50 square feet is the allowable signage but you're stating that it would be 17 square feet per tenant signage area and per the tenant tenant correct so no other location uh with the tenant space would include a a sign signs will be located over the main entrance do same as Flemington 1 and Flemington 2 proper thank you any other board questions Mr Tes okay thank you very much anybody thank you from the public again we don't have anybody thank our next witness is our traffic engineer Mr Doug penia Doug you were previously sworn we do need to have you present your qualifications I think you're for this application yes um I'm a graduate of uh Lehi University in Bethlehem Pennsylvania uh with Bachelor of Science and civil engineering I acquired my degree in 1998 since that time I've been working in the field of traffic engineering uh I'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey for approximately the last 20 years my license is in good standing I've testified as an expert before over 10 Municipal boards in the state of New Jersey I have been um within Ron but it's been some time now thank thank you Mr chairman Doug if you could take us through a brief summary of your traffic study and then of course address the review letters yeah absolutely um from a traffic engineering impact perspective uh the application for this permitted use of about a 70,000 foot Warehouse Flex buildings it's a pretty light case um to prepare or to review the peak hour characteristics of the traffic associated with this development our office originally prepared in uh a April 12th 2024 traffic impact analysis and then we follow that up with a subsequent December 4th 2024 response letter that addressed the traffic related comments in the ER uh letter to go uh quickly as you heard before from Mike sit's located on the Northern side of minining road which provides one lane for each direction of travel in an East West pattern uh the signalized intersection with Route 31 is to the West the unsignalized t-shaped stop controlled intersection with River road is to the east posted speed Lim is 40 m hour and land uses are similar to that proposed here uh especially considering under construction across the street is the 50,000 ft fim 2 uh similar use uh two buildings are proposed with three access driveways along Min oping Road all three driveways will provide left turn in and left turn egress movements however the easterly driveway will prohibit uh tractor trailer entrances as the site uh is going to work in a clockwise uh rotation for those large vehicles to circumnavigate the back of the building larger tractor trailers will not be able to access and mix with passenger vehicles in the front of the building now to prepare our analysis we originally performed our uh traffic volume counts at Route 31 in minining on Tuesday January 31st uh 2023 from 700 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4 to 6:30 p.m. uh which is a standard commuter Peak periods now our original River Road counts were done back in March of 2021 however um we had updated those counts based on recommendations provided in ER er's letter those updated counts were done last month uh Wednesday November 20th from 7: to 9:00 am and 4 to 6:30 p.m. and we did find that the more recent counts were a bit higher than those that were taken in our previous report so what we did is update our analysis with those volumes we updated the analysis to do uh a no build in a build condition with and without the site traffic in the future and to establish those future volumes we took the existing volumes and we inflated them by NJ Do's growth factor of 1% for um this type of roadway in hunon County we applied a two-year uh growth rate uh for that 1% we also added projects in the area which include uh the 115 River Road Project which is operating the project that's under construction across the street and as well as potential self storage facility up near the intersection of River Road and Bartles Corner Road now to project the peak hour trip generation associated with this site we initially looked at the Institute of Transportation Engineers uh 11th edition of the trip generation manual for warehousing based on a 70,000 foot building during the morning peak hour the site we experience uh 25 entering vehicles and seven exiting vehicles for a total of 32 two-way movements in the evening it would be understandably the reverse with 10 entering 25 exiting for 35 uh total uh movements now that results to about one vehicle either turning into or out of the site every two minutes during the peak hour which is a pretty low volume with respect to traffic impact uh I I should note that both The Institute of Transportation engineers and NJ do consider 100 peak hour trips as significant and in need of a traffic study because there could be potential impacts at off-site locations this site based on that it data is about onethird of that significant uh imp significant level showing um the minimally anticipated impact another interesting thing is that we did as the board requested we went and out and did some research counts at the 115 River Road Site the fem1 site to determine what type of trip rate is happening for a similar use and whether or not the it data is appropriate for those uses and we did those counts back in November 12th uh from 4: to 6:00 p.m. and on November 11th from 7: to 9: in the morning when we did those counts the site was about 90% occupied so it's 150,000 foot development with uh 90% occupancy it was about 135,000 square feet and what we found is that it's only generating 23 morning peak hour trips and 18 PM PE hour trips so although the site's about twice the size of the proposed it's generating uh almost half the traffic or about two-thirds of the traffic so what we did is then we took that trip ratio from those counts for the 135,000 foot building and we applied it to the 70,000 sare foot building and found that this site using that trip rate from that building would generate about 12 a trips uh and 9 pm trips which is two and a half to three and a half times lower than what we included in our traffic report so I can safely say that our traffic report is likely conservative with respect to the impacts uh not only at the site driveways but at offsite locations so then we did a comparative level of service analysis uh at both the route 31 mining Road intersection as well as the River Road intersection using our new counts and using that conservative it data and we found that the levels of service will not change with the inclusion of the site traffic um the the site's only going to contribute about at maximum one and a half% of the volumes at those locations which is a a pretty low amount so it just demonstrates that using it data we found no degradations in level of service but I think in fact based on the data that we collected at the other site our projections are high and there'll actually be lower traffic at this site uh to touch upon that we also looked at the trucks that were generated at uh Flemington 1 during those peak hours and uh we found that there was only one tractor trailer entering during the morning peak hour and one exiting so we find out where warehousing and flexx space um while there are you know maybe six bays at this location it's not like you're going to have six cars coming six trucks coming in the peak hour it's kind of consistent over the course of the day uh with the employees coming in during those peak hours but trucks accessing the site maybe one an hour over the course of the day uh I also reviewed the site plan Mike touched upon most of it uh the levels of service at the three driveways uh will be uh be or better be exiting a entering uh parking spaces 110 proposed 32 of those banked which meets the ordinance requirements for either Warehouse or a um a flex type space parking spaces for the passenger vehicles 9t wide by 18t deep which meet standard uh typical design standards um the loading spaces will be in the back promoting a one-way flow in a uh clockwise circulation for those larger vehicles um so overall in conclusion of the S has been designed um to to allow for efficient flow segregate your tractor trailers and your passenger vehicles the driveways will operate safe and efficiently at level service B and using those conservative Vol uh volumes like I said will have very low impact towards any offsite impacts Doug just one question you heard the cqu regarding the concern over the WB 55 and the WB 67 any thoughts or comments on that topic yeah um uh quite a bit actually um like I said when we looked at the uh fem one site there's a very low truck volume coming into and out of that site during those peak hours so I I believe Mike's going to demonstrate that the WB 67 vehicle can navigate the site and that won't become an issue I I think while we've agreed to limit the vehicles to WB 55 as long as that vehicle can navigate the site I don't think that there's going to be many conflicts of passenger vehicles and trucks if a um WB 67 were to access the site and overlap inbound and outbound traffic it's just not that frequent of a movement also um I found that the templates for trucks are pretty conservative um just quick story I was with my wife taking my son to soccer a huge likely WB 67 Truck was at a stoplight making a a right turn bias didn't even cross a stop part my wife said wow I can't believe that you know that truck could make that movement and I said I don't want to bore you to death with stimul traffic engineering conversation but yes you'd be surprised at how sharp uh the drivers could make those turning movements so I'm pretty confident that even if Mike shows that the 67 can navigate the site it's going to do even better than that so um I don't necessarily disagree with limiting it to the WB 55 but I don't really foresee any kind of catastrophic uh issue if a um a w67 were to arrive at the site will be able to navigate it and like I said the fre frequency is so low that there'll be very little conflicts is the difference the trailer length or the cab like what is I'm such a Layman on what WB is wheelbase so it's the distance between the wheels is 67 feet so when you have a a wheelbase of 55 you're shortening that wheelbase which makes for the turns to be sharper so regardless of the cab or the length of the tractor trailer they're pulling uh could also be impacted but when they when you define when it's referenced as a wb6 and it's it's based on the wheelbase obviously if your wheelbases are certain lengths you could probably sustain larger um cabs or larger trailers nothing further Mr check Away by Adam this yeah um since you know we didn't have the opportunity to get reply to your letter there I just figured I'd just go item by item and thank you Doug I think you your your letter answered most of the questions but I'll just forties and show that everything's been answered uh item 62 about the uh the movements out of the site your answer is is fine I uh you know I just was some you know some clarification yeah yeah it need to be clarified whether it was a left only right only and it's clarified now that it's left or right I did notice on the site plan it's showing like out arrows so I guess that means it could be a left or right if there I would say probably if it were painted on the pavement it probably should be a left hour and right arrow coming out not just a straight arrow because you can't go straight anyhow uh but of course any of the signage that I questions had to come up get dis disregard those because now they can make a left or a right either way okay uh item 63 uh yeah you did the counts uh updated counts that that was much appreciated uh U you know we have something a little bit more current that way item 64 about the uh existing peak hours Great uh you're I think you're analysis answer answer the question there uh item 65 no response necessary that's correct you don't need you did take care of that um item 66 you did add the adjoining uh sites for the no build I guess now the sites you mentioned these were all based on these based on conversations with Township officials that these or yes and based on our office experience too with f one F so these are the only other sites in the area that are expected to come in before your site is built you know as as as the no build condition in I guess that's what I was aware of yes okay okay good uh let me just go out um that's 66 61 bear with me 67 um um okay uh you mentioned in there about under item 67 in your response latter December 4th you did mention about the level service a at the left turn Lan out of River Road yes um now I understand you did you have a submission to the count that's a County Road River Road right that is correct yeah 523 and I I may have been remissed to mention that we do have a conditional approval from the county okay good and and as I I think I heard from the early testimony they actually in their reply mistakenly said that there wasn't didn't recognize that there was already a separate left only lane coming out of the site um I guess from their reply to not asking for any kind of I mean you're taking a level service e making it I know it's it's it's not much but you're making it slightly worse uh by the book uh they're not asking for any kind of pra or anything for any signalization or anything there or no they did not includ so I mean if they're not asking for it I don't think we have the power to impose something on you just you know if they I guess if they were looking at a signal I guess they could impose a proa which would be not that much but correct you know okay um 676 if I can add when Flemington 1 was built there was a recommendation by Mr Dean to improve the sight line coming out of the new Flemington one and I travel that way all the time it makes a big difference for the people coming out of minia coning making that left turn because they never would have been able to see oncoming traffic before today with that Improvement because of Flemington Junction one you do see that so benefits of what Happ and of course none of this does anything to improve upon the Maelstrom that is 31 South I I hear all kind of stuff about 31 believe me one day it'll be [Music] dualized um I am 68 I don't think there's anything discrepancy okay um anything there um that's objectionable I think you've addressed all the comments there and item 69 I think you address everything there so I think in totality you know thetion you're pretty well taken care of most of the items here that you know that I previously brought up okay any have a board questions I just wanted to clarify just um item number 66 how it references other developments in the area was there a distinct timeline and area you were wanting or well it would what you're looking for is any developments that are going to occur between now or or when the counts were conducted okay and when the and now the counts are pretty much up to date so that's a factor too like if if you went back to originally the report had Counts from 2021 if something had come in between 2021 and now that would have had to been added to the no build condition but now that you have counts that are pretty recent I think the one was done a year ago and I don't know if anything's come in in the last year in this area and then and then the other counts at River Road were just done so nothing's been built since then um what we're looking to get is anything that's going to happen between those counts and when the site is built so the site opening date is key so it's anything between now basically and when site opening occurs any other sites that are approved and would be anticipated be in place that would become part of the no bill condition for whatever the this the the site opening year is and then they would add on top of that the build condition would be their site traffic added on top of that so okay you know it sounds like there's Apex on mining it was a the building is already there but it's a it's a it's a new use so I don't know if that was I I don't know I I just I just made a general question contact the township to determine if any other developments I haven't had a of a conversation um to answer you know it's it's just their new one number two well he's saying there's another one that yeah there's there's actually another development on maniacy as well within the last within the last year so oh but it's up and operating in the LA within the last year it's it's in the process of receiving uh it's in in in the final stages of certificate of occupany okay I mean it depends how how far I mean if there's nothing in there right now and between now and when this this site is open for business yeah I guess that would become part of your no bill condition but I mean if it's partially is it partially no it's it's it's empty it's it's empty right now okay so yeah I think you know we also apply that 1% growth factor which takes into account you know just general backg growth so you know 1% at this intersection is similar to the traffic that we'd be generating so if that development was similar to this you know it's kind of taken into account that background and it really would be adding that would be adding to the no bill condition so all it would take you know just to from their point of view it would just make the no bill condition worse upon which their bill condition only adds nominally I think that would be right right doesn't make them look better but it doesn't proportionally it really you know it doesn't you know if if if that site had a huge impact wouldn't matter because they s it has a very small impact so it probably doesn't matter in the gr grand scheme of no I just wanted to make sure that yeah that that yeah yeah I I you know I don't want to we can go back and forth on this a million times I I I think he's looked at it you know if this site had large traffic impacts I'd be concerned about that because it could take like if the existing intersection were level service D and this other site came in and took it to an E and then you know almost an affen his site like if his site took it from a d or an e to an F then I'd be saying go back and redo the analysis his his his site generary traffic's very small here so I I I don't think that's a big deal okay I'm assuming there's no questions from public okay thank you Mr chairman nothing further Mr kenc our final Witnesses our planner John Leo cavalo is anybody opposed asking for a bathroom break sure take bre thank you okay I'm sorry Ron so why don't we give it uh it's 20 after 9 give it five minutes 9:25 keep going okay 12 ready good for the record committee person committe excuse of the meeting yes she has left 924 person issues personal health issue yes was nothing you said Ron yeah going guy yeah would was go actually our our Final witness is Mr L cavalo he's been previously sworn uh John if you could just give your qualifications to the board as a plan so uh yes I I've been a uh professional planner in state of New Jersey uh for approximately 40 years a little over 40 years uh I've uh testified before multiple times between different municipalities over 300 municipalities testified of in Superior Court as a consultant L use planner all right thank you you're acceptable for board thank you very much sir I discerned three variances I think two are called out in Mr vella's letter of December 12 2024 as his items one and two and then there is this added variance in the event we're saving the tree and installing raining wall they all to me seem similar their encroachments into preservation are but they are variances and we need to present planning test so if you will I will go through that uh quickly right uh she's gone did she give you okay I'll just go through these quickly to give you a sense these Mark these as set yeah that sounds good to me y this is a um they're stapled so yep three page set and this would be A5 and John if you could tell us what these three photos on okay uh these were taken with a drone uh and uh the first one shows on the lower left hand side uh M uh MAA King Road uh and that's the uh the building that's in on the corner left hand side is the uh under construction now the 50,000 sare foot uh building uh in the Middle where there's four buildings that's uh Flemington Junction number uh number one uh this is number two and then the present application is number three uh and the U this is looking out towards the north at the Horizon towards the top of the page the next one shows the opposite on top of the page is south and then North is the uh two of the four buildings uh that was part of Flemington Junction number one uh and it shows the uh um features uh detention features uh and the uh the lot and uh the forested area in between uh the uh number two and the existing uh property that we're talking about tonight and then number three page three shows at the top looking East and W and the opposite page at the uh at the bottom of the uh situation here on this page is West uh so you can see the full length and breadth of the property in question okay um zoning considerations here are uh we're looking at an I2 uh major industrial uh District multiple principal uses will be proposed in accordance with the new ordinance that was U I believe believe about 18 20 months ago that was accepted based on the applications before with this applicant uh there is no use variance or use relief that is required from this application uh the zoning conformance the use is permitted in the zone and the project substantially complies with all bul controls the lot Dimensions uh Building height coverage floor areas setback on all sides Park and parking all comply with the uh the your zoning ordinances and regulations uh the relief again is uh the head wall structure is within the 100 foot buffer uh this would be a hardship in any case with anything built here because it's just unavoidable uh based on the use of of this site uh the second one would be of the uh structure uh for storm water within the 75 ft uh preservation area uh and the last one has been uh nullified slope differential or slope disturbance uh and I would defer to the testimony of Michael Ford who discussed that uh with the uh with the professionals on on the board um the legal basis for the relief is it's uh C variance uh under the uh flexible C balancing test and the benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh any detriment as per the New Jersey case law the Ben Project benefits here in my estimation of the project delivers a permitted use that is substantially uh conforming uh with the zoning code the uh use provides flexibility for Tradesmen contractors and small logistic and Industrial uses the project has a positive aesthetic uh that is there are contemporary buildings that are very compatible with buildings in the area and in the uh Industrial Park uh the project promotes efficient use uh by permitting utilization land to for productive reuse or new use um project propos uh promotes a variety of land uses in appropriate locations uh that are all compatible with the area and the project also promotes uh the uses of the New Jersey municipal land use law including AG inm which deal with a number of uh uh uses to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate development of all lands uh in the State uh to promote public health safety and uh General Welfare to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of industrial uses and to promote a desirable visual environment uh the uh potential impacts here are very few uh and will not cause a substantial adverse nature uh to this uh application the head wall is a a hardship for uh any use that is uh on the site only the encroachments uh for the tree or or the buffer area are are infrastructure related uh and the site if there is any stabilization needed will be mitigated uh to uh do away with slope disturbance impacts uh in conclusion my uh opinion is that the requirement here is minimal and the statutory criteria for uh the grant that such relief is met uh and the uh professional L use uh planning standpoint is that the approval is respectfully warranted for the by this uh board from this applicant if you have any questions be glad to try to answer them for you board questions I do not it was very thorough thank you we have nothing further Mr L cavalo and we have no further Witnesses okay so summarize what it is that you're looking for the board to approve yes sir uh we're seeking from the board preliminary and final site plan approval for approximately 7,000 ft uh Flex space use in two buildings uh you heard testimony that the proposed use is permitted use in the zone there is some specific relief we're looking to consolidate the two lots into one I believe there are uh three variances uh all basically encroachments into the buffer preservation area one for the head wall of drainage structure one I believe for grading of disturbance and the last one for the retaining wol if the tree is preserved and there were um I think three design waivers that are called out in u the ER letter and I believe there there's there's actually five five excuse me so you got you got two variants at relief which is one and two on page two of the board Planet report the waivers that are applicant is seeking is item 11 and 12 of the board planning report dated 12224 items 2 three and four of the board engineer report uh with the same date also a waiver of the parking lot Landscaping which is found on page three of the board architect report dated 1216 2024 thank you okay with that we would respectfully request the board to Grant the application with that can I have a motion to approve Flemington Junction Associates 3 LLC the preliminary and final site plan with the can I can I add conditions with the following conditions of approval items uh 8 21 24 26 28 30 31 32 and 33 uh item 33 specifically is to uh agree with the fire Marshalls report uh dated 9 the condition in the Fire Marshals report dated September 24th 2024 all of those conditions are found in the board's planning report dated um uh December 12 2024 also conditions of approval of the engineer report of the same date items 19 26a 26 C 28 44 52 56 57 67 78 79 80 81 82 and 83 I'm so sorry you are a rockar I forgot that you were in the room sorry I will slow down um and conditions of approval of the a board landscape report dated uh December 16 2024 specifically condition of a modification of tree preservation area to include large critical uh roots in the Zone area as well as condition of restorative tree planting detail and uh uh re reforestation planting specification should be provided consistent with the RIT and Township standards and more than 50% of the reforestation trees proposed uh are understory trees and maximum 25% understory trees would be desirable in this situation and that is all of the conditions Joe just so since we're being very thorough and specific did I hear you say two Varian is called out because I I think there's three uh I I reference variants one and two of the planning report but you're right there is the third one which is the wall right the wall if needed if needed thank you thank you Ron correct problem that should be everything hopefully very good thank you for being so thorough that's that's great thank you you're better not taker than I am so again can I have a motion to approve [Music] second chairman Mr ER gettings yes Vice chair Miss Donna Drews yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis conanan yes Miss Michelle kavaki yes Mr James Miller yes good thank you and thank you for coming back with the prettyn clean [Music] application Silver [Music] Lining okay and uh with that we're adjourned okay good work that's it yeah