good evening the r and Township planning board is now in session call to order the notice requirements of the open public meeting act have been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the Bolton Board of the municipal building filing the notice with the Township Clerk and transmitting the notice to the hund county Democrat The Courier News The Star Ledger and the Trenton Times thank you roll call please chairman Mr Edward gettings here Vice chair Miss Donna Drew here miss Robin Fatu here Mr Scott McDade here Miss Michelle kavak she has asked to be excused Mr Dennis conanan here Mr James Miller here and Mr Glenn Sosi is asked to be excused as well for board professionals we have board attorney Mr John Bardo here Township planner Mr Jeffrey Vella here Township engineer Mr reesh Dari pres and board planner Miss Jessica Caldwell here here and the following uh board professionals have has to be excuse Township landscape architect Mr John Morgan Thomas and traffic consultant Mr J Troutman okay thank you I just learned this evening that Mr John McKay I'm saying his last name right who was a a resident of Aaron Township who was frequently here at our planning board meetings he passed away just uh a week or two ago and uh and as we do the next step of this because Mr Bardo and I put in the Pledge of Allegiance in a moment of silence Mr McKay was particularly thrilled and commented to me and I think others that we had instituted that for some reason the planning board didn't do the Pledge of Allegiance in a moment of silence so I just want to acknowledge Mr mck he was here very very frequently um so he will be missed and with that uh please rise do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence for our our troops Ali to the flag of the United States of America and to republ for which it stands one nation God indivisible liy and justice for all thank you next up is any comments on reports I I don't have any report this evening we've got a number of other things on the agenda uh anyone have any board comments this evening no Engineers comments anything words of wisdom for us no planers comments no comments yeah we're going to hear from Jessica here in a few minutes and attorney's comments no thank you okay thank you terms of Correspondence we have the ordinance adopting a Redevelopment plan for an area of Redevelopment known as the mavro holding Redevelopment plan and supplementing an amending Article 13 entitled District regulations of chapter 296 entitled Land Development by adding a new section 296-301 to be entitled mhr mavro holding Redevelopment District so this is a master plan consistency review we had been provided some information yesterday that I hope everybody has had an opportunity to take a look at we received the draft of the ordinance and then we received uh part I think we got yesterday was the master plan the Redevelopment plan itself and Taylor thank you for providing hard copies for everybody but we got them yesterday so we had an opportunity to review those so with that I am going to ask our planner Jessica Caldwell to kind of walk us through uh your review on this Jessica because you wrote the report yeah absolutely what I'd like to do is just go through the report um briefly and then discuss master plan consistency and I can take questions as well um as as you mentioned this ordinance 24-18 would provide Zoning for Block 34 uh block 84 lot 34 which is located on on Route 202 and 31 99 US Route 202 and 31 which is currently a Redevelopment area so it apply new District regulations which would be known as the mhr mavad holding Redevelopment district and I'll just go through what the standards of this District are and then highlight some of the changes from what the current zoning is which is in the B5 low intensity highway district so under permitted uses the proposal is essentially to create um a somewhat more vibrant um type of Zone currently there's a retail permitted offices and then some uh limited recreational uh type uses so the proposal is to add um manufacturing processing producing and fabricating operations we'll also retain self- storage facilities which are currently permitted uh expand a little on the commercial recreational PES to include things like trampoline parks climbing gyms indoor sports facilities it would retain uh public parks and public uh use type facilities Child Care Centers uh solar and photovoltaic energy facilities and professional business offices as well as Agriculture and horiculture uh but also adding contractor trade storage with Associated office space and wholesale retail and storage Goods uh for retail sales provided that all operations and activities are carried with out within enclosed buildings and that is the same requirement also for manufacturing and processing and producing also with a limit of a maximum of 33% of storage of materials on the property uh as well as a prohibited uh use of proh prohibiting warehouse and distribution facilities so overall the intent was to expand uh permitted uses to allow for uh a variety of additional uses but also limit the capacity of um uses that would be uh too intensive for the site or have negative impacts as far as the standards for the Zone uh minimum lot area is 5 Acres where the current is 1.83 um minimum lot width is 500 feet where the current is 200 feet a front yard setback would be the same at 75 ft the rear yard setback is proposed to be increased to 130 F feet from 50 ft and that is to provide for a rear yard landscape buffer of 100 feet um to provide buffering from residential uses to the rear of this property uh on the other side of an existing Railway uh side yard setbacks would generally be the same however there's a A reduced internal setback of if um there's internally separate lots of three feet um maximum height proposed is three stories on 50 feet whereas two and a half stories and 35 feet is permitted currently maximum hard surface coverage is 60% where 35% is permitted currently um maximum floor area ratio is 040 where 0.15 is permitted currently and again we have the increased uh rear yard landscape buffer requirement of 100 feet uh where uh uses are not permitted to be uh included within that 100t uh SE ction parking standards are generally the same with a few exceptions uh the requirement for wholesale retail would be one space per 5,000 square fet where the current requirement is three spaces per th000 square feet and the parking requirement for self storage facilities would be one space per 15,000 square feet where the current requirement is one space per 6,000 square feet uh other standards would generally stay the same with respect to loading there is an addition of a maximum number of loading spaces again to uh try to limit impacts from the development or potential impacts so there's a a minimum um of one loading space for tenant but a maximum of one loading space per 20,000 square feet of building space um whichever is greater and then if there's a self storage use the maximum number of loading spaces would be two uh for General loading spaces there is a Mobility requirement that if there's a traffic study that shows a increase in traffic on the site that there would be improvements made to the uh Jug Handle uh adjacent to the property at Evers Road there's also requirement for a traffic uh study with any submission to the planning board as well as some additional standards proposed such as weight limits on everit road to be considered uh buffering requirements would follow the uh buffer fences and buffer yard standards of the site plan design standards however as the proposal is is written it would be a medium intensity but the requirement is to shift it to a maximum intensity which is the 100 foot buffer instead of a 75 foot buffer under tree protection and replacement would be required as it is today uh and all the Landscaping requirements would be the same except for uh Landscaping requirements for the parking area where those would be um shifted from 15% overall Landscaping interior Landscaping requirement in a parking area to 5% and then the number of islands uh would be reduce from one per eight spes to one per 20 spes uh otherwise the landscape standards stay the same and uh the other standards such as storm water management uh General design standards uh lighting and signage would follow uh the site plan design SE sections of the ordinance with respect to master plan consistency there is a review within uh the Redevelopment plan proposed and we found that the plan is consistent with uh several goals of the master plan uh which are listed on page four of the Redevelopment plan but include uh limit growth to existing sewer plant capacity The Proposal would be serve Bice septic system on site limit growth to existing school capacity there would be no skilled children generated by any of the proposed uses limit growth to existing roadway capacities uh there's a requirement for a traffic study as well as requirement that if um traffic capacities increase that there would be improvements to The Jug Handle at everetts Road uh reduce the potential for new single family residential development that's not applicable here uh permit additional non-residential development which this proposal does and then uh recognizing historic growth and land uses of the area which would provide for um some consistency with adjacent uh semi-industrial type uses to the north of this property and then promoting smart growth policies by promoting Redevelopment of an existing uh developed property with that I'll turn it back over to the board uh for any questions or comments okay I guess I thank you Jessica I guess I should note that this board had approved this parcel as an area in need of Redevelopment back in 2020 um yes yes but now I think we need to get into a number of questions and this is clarification for me and possibly for other board members as well okay uh this is not an application this is a master plan consistency review yet to me there's an awful lot in here that if an applicant came before us they would have to present and meet certain standards on variances does this then wave any applicant because we don't have an applicant at some point will does the applicant get a Buy on those variances in a future application by virtue of the fact if we if we are to agree to this this evening I'm not saying that we are so what well I would say this this establishes new zoning so it there wouldn't be any variances Associated what I was running through is what the differences are between yeah the proposed Zone and the existing zone so there there wouldn't be variances per se unless they were varying from the standards that we're proposing then they would have variances if that makes sense I'm trying to so it's not an application yeah right the committee went through a lot of extensive discussions about the designation as an area in need of Redevelopment so then this is conforming to what was agreed upon um in terms of specific to the site so if I have it correct right that what's in this proposal is stating specific to this property site right so it's just for this specific property and they would still have to come before the board for site plan approval and if they didn't meet any of these standards they would need to request variances so I guess I'll start I I have um extreme concern over this Redevelopment uh the the Redevelopment plan and the implementing ordinance um when Meritt Township developed that B5 Zone the business Zone it was really with the thought of we needed a transition to go from plumton Circle down through 202 and as we get into more residential and agricultural areas um respect that area and try and reduce the amount of development that takes place um give given that there's FAL preservation and Recreation and other things going in school going on in that area I'm just really concerned while I acknowledge we um bless the mo movement forward to create now an implementing Redevelopment plan after um saying it was in area in need of Redevelopment I am my Wildest Dream would have never thought we'd see something this intensive come back before the board um you know when I think about what our what we're trying to accomplish in our Township you know to go to a 17 acre parcel that can now have three lots on it 60% imperious coverage um we have had chronic flooding problems on Everett Road OEM uh and the SE team are out there all and the police out there all the time um putting barriers across that so to increase the impervious coverage from 35 to 60% plus um incre reduce the amount of landscaping in the parking lot and Landscaping requirements you know we fight too tooth and nail all the time to say we want one per eight um in the in the parking lots um the landscape Islands because it gives so many benefits to our community with Aesthetics with um increased impervious area I mean pous areas um the Aesthetics of the properties when they have that that increased um landscaping and then the 15% landscape requirement well yes I acknowledge that the buff there is now going to be a required 100 foot buffer in the rear of the property I believe this applicant would have been required to do a a 75 foot one anyway because if it was a business use adjacent to a residential so we're only getting 254 feet more so I guess those types of things along with the intensity of the new uses that are proposed just it it gives me some real um agida and um at this point I would feel really hard saying that this is consistent with our master plan so I just we we always get confused over this our role is not to determine whether it's consistent with the master plan our role is to to make a finding that it's not inconsistent with with the master find that finding that it is not inconsistent with our master plan because of all the issues that I brought forth I think you know I totally acknowledge this area is in need of Redevelopment I just question given that we've just had the recent history of going through applications that were a negotiated Redevelopment agreement and understanding what role then the planning board and the limits that the planning board has around those applications when it comes before the board um I just I guess I'm more hesitant about making sure we get this Redevelopment agreement right before we move ahead so that's where I would respectfully ask that this be additional further discussion um I know the chair and I had asked that the planning board possibly be looped in for some discussions um that didn't happen so I guess you know that's that's my piece I'll just you know that's where I am on so and in my opinion and I I concur with the vice chair I'm not walking back from what we did in 2020 this is an area in need of Redevelopment it clearly is but there are things here that I see as inconsistent with what we have been trying to do or concerns that we have certainly the storm water and the vice chair also sits on the board of adjustment and this has been a discussion item plumton concrete project when it came in you know they were sent back to do some additional um data assessment on the flooding issues along Everett Road um because they were proposing a very they were actually proposing one of the uses that's going to be permitted of a Contractor Yard um with a lot of vehicle storage and you know it may not be impervious now but it probably will be in the future so you know I just think it it warrants a lot of thought so I I I assume it's appropriate for me to mention this there was an applicant that was declined by this board two years ago after the area of need of Redevelopment the size of the building was it did meet the 35 foot height this is now allowing it to be 50 feet sitting up on a ridge with a residential area across the tracks and down the hill but it was uh it was a unanimous Judgment of this board at the time not to approve that application for reasons such as the height of the building and the lights that came with it and I know there's mention of Lights here as well and some forgiveness on lighting and uh it just seems like to me like it's an a step in a different direction I think it needs more work I guess that kind of sums it up for me anyone else on the board comments so are you making a motion to what is I Wasing let me let me let me actually read the law um section 26 says um within 35 days after referral uh the planning board shall have a report includ including identification of any provisions in the proposed development regulation revision or Amendment which are inconsistent with the master plan and recommendations concerning those inconsistencies and any other matters as the board deems appropriate so the law actually requires you to look at this particular ordinance if you're going to deem it inconsistent and specifically identify those Provisions in the ordinance that you deem inconsistent and which you wish the governing body or Township committee to revisit a general statement to the governing body that is inconsistent with the master plan would would not meet um the burden that section 26 imposes upon you and making that finding so it needs to be spec you've got you've got to look at things inance I could go through I have articulated I went through the proposed ordinance and identified those areas where I well someone someone should should do that and then if the board is inclined find those are inconsistency someone can make a motion after the specific Provisions were identified so she identify them well I I could go through based on the ordinance that we were given tonight and say page you know you know so um I guess the concern regarding the in inconsistencies related to the permitted principal uses specifically um and we're looking at page the ordinance item 1B when you start including that item of manufacturing uh processing fabricating is more intense the contractor trade and storage and the wholesale retail storage of good and retail sales those those areas specifically are much uh a higher level of intensity than the previous B5 Zone uh contemplated and warrant some additional um discussions uh the other area I feel warrant some additional under ITA page four item D the bulk requirements the concern with um the impervious coverage going uh of 60% when the Zone currently is 35% given the flooding that's currently experienced on ever Road um you know the height of the building it sounds like from what the the mayor mentioned I mean the chair mentioned was uh an issue in previous applications so we'd respectfully ask that the height the 50 Foot height be be looked at again um you know I we didn't get a chance to look at the internal three-foot stepback I've never heard of that in an application usually when someone comes in and subdivides it's a separate parcel so I'm not sure exactly what that means so we respectfully ask for clarification on what the minimum side yard internal setback is meant to be um there are some issues I think we we need to be um further clarification the modifications to the parking standards um you know we're currently under item E1 retail we require I believe it's 4 per thousand and this is now uh and for wholesale it's three per 1,000 and this is one per 5,000 so it seems like we're significantly reducing the parking and given that we had some applications where that's become an issue of not enough parking and we need to look at that as well um the other um major areas that I I I'll focus on um is the while we acknowledge that this does require uh 100 foot rear yard buffer our current ordinance would already have required when you have an high-intensity use next to a low intensity use Jeff is that a 75 foot buffer it would have previously required a 75 foot buffer so the compensation gained by the additional 25t of buffering to then not require the applicant under the L escaping requirements on page 7 I um 3A of one uh parking lot landscape aisle per every 20 uh when we currently have barely fought hard to protect the one per eight because of the Aesthetics Beauty the benefits of having Landscaping in the parking lot in along with the 5% uh Landscaping provision under that section 3A where we require 15% of the parking lot to be landscaped this is a highly visible property and if we're going to allow it to become caved over we just you know we want it to look good you know um uh those are the major areas there are some other minor areas regarding the loading spaces I find it very confusing when it said a minimum of one but a maximum of one um for the loading spaces I'm not quite sure how that would work seems like you only have to have one you know and and given that we um if there are proposed truck warehousing manufacturing processing with fabricating now being permitted and you're only going to require one loading space again it doesn't seem like it fits the use so um those are are the major areas where I just just with respect I I see that there's some inconsistency um and therefore this would um not be consistent with our master plan so that's the basis of your motion for a report back to the township committee concerning the inconsistencies correct before someone makes that motion where was where is the section about um the last item you were saying the loading the buffering Lo do is parking standards e well that was a park standards and then F3 is loow yes F3 where it says a minimum of one but a maximum of one okay thank you I think you'll have to also go to the audio on this tailor yeah oh I will if this is if this is adopted and I don't know if it will be or not so we do I would just clarify that it's a minimum of one loading space per tenant and a maximum of one loading space per 20,000 square feet whichever is greater so there're two different standards it's not a minimum of one maximum of one it's minimum one per tenant so you could have a 100,000 foot building with one tenant the idea is to limit the so there's not too many loading spaces where you would have too many impacts from too many trucks that's that's the reasoning behind that yeah I mean James just pointed out in the um Redevelopment plan it does say that a minimum one per 10 and one per 20 okay I it you know uh again I think it it could be clarifi I just Jessica I think it would have been helpful for us to say in an industrial building we currently would require X number of loading zones or manufacturing would have been this so that we understand where is where's the 1 to 20,000 fall within that range do you do you know um I don't have that with me right I could look okay so and I guess I have a a question I don't know if it goes towards the inconsistencies but we don't have an applicant for this we're requiring the applicant to deal with the Everett Road Jug Head which we all know is a problem uh not to mention School Bus traffic but it's it's a big problem with turning radiuses for trucks and all the rest shouldn't that be addressed first and receive Department of Transportation approval before we start giving or granting uh concessions from our ordinance I'm just throwing it out to the the other board members I mean it seems like one should be taken care of before the other so it's only for specific uses so if there's a wholesale re retail and storage use that would generate the level of traffic that would require improvements to that Jug Handle than it would be required and there is a redeveloper so that entity does understand what these requirements are it's not an application before the board yet but there's a redeveloper that's negotiating with the governing body thank you Vice chair you did a great job of catching the details there I don't have anything else so I guess I I'll put the motion out to say that this is not consistent with our master plan based on the the the items articulated it as set forth in your previous litany litany and and testimony which uh would would be incorporated into a report should the motion be seconded and passed I [Music] second sorry uh chairman Mr at work gettings yes yes oh yes means a finding of inconsistency and a report back to the governing body based upon Miss Drew testimony thank you Vice chair Miss Donna Drew yes Miss Robin Fatu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis quanan yes Mr James Miller yes very good so Taylor you get the UN aable task of writing that all up and I suggest you circulate it to us doing it before yeah okay and thank you for the detail okay next up then are the minutes from the May 8th 2024 meeting we had received those in advance do anyone have any comments or changes actually do have a recommendation minut page five eight um paragraph down um I just wanted to clarify where it says um fellow committee members are currently working um we're not currently working I would change that language and strike currently working to say looking into conducting a study okay thank you you did say that that's exactly how you said it okay any other changes or questions to this I have a motion to approve with the change on page 5 chairman Mr Edward gettings yes Vice chair Miss Donna Drew yes Miss Robin Patu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis conanan yes Mr James Miller yes thank you there are no resolutions this evening we have some folks with us in the room I don't know if we have any who are virtual no but if there are any comments that any citizens would like to uh come up and address the board on other than items further down in the agenda now would be the time to do it there being none we can move on to the first public hearing of the evening which is Cal Calvary Presbyterian Church evening good evening Mr chairman members of the board Steven Gruenberg Gruenberg law office on behalf of the applicant Calvary Presbyterian Church of Amwell um this is our application for minor site plan and certification of a conditional use that um has been long in in waiting for this family of the the pastor and his family um it's an application for minor site plan to allow for additions to the existing Parish house and the reason for the uh need for an addition is that Pastor Bush and his wife when they first started this process had a child with twins on the way now they have four children and they need a couple of extra bedrooms um the church is supportive of that um and um if this was just the single family house which is essentially what it was we wouldn't even be here but because it's on the church property um it technically requires minor site plan and because a house of worship is a permitted conditional it's a conditional use in the zone um and allows for a parish house technically we require minor site plan approval if it was a single family house they just go in for building permits but that's why we're here um I have three Witnesses this evening we have no variance relief that's required we did provide notice of hearing and I uh circulated that uh to the board uh in advance jurisdiction is is proper thank you I've reviewed that Council thank you and I have three Witnesses Pastor Christopher Bush um our engineer Eric rupnarain and uh our architect Ralph Benelli and if all of you gentlemen would stand and raise your right hand you s to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in connection with this application so help you God yes you're all sworn and our board professionals have previously V sworn and remain under oath through the balance of this hearing thank you um Pastor Bush why don't you tell the board uh who you are and your position with Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church sir you can sit in that chair and use that microphone yes good evening church almost years there I want you describe um what's on the property right now in terms of the church and the house there's a church building and and how many bedrooms are in the house right now there are upstairs there's two boms theom so you have four children ages four to six weeks in um one bedroom well you're in with you and your wife in two bedrooms yes okay and the purpose of our application is to add two bedrooms for your family correct um our initially our plan showed five bedrooms and we're um we're going to commit to only having four bedrooms correct and we'll have our architect testify with respect to that fifth bed room not being a bedroom but it will be um a an office correct um and the the twins just to answer the question for the four bedrooms will be sharing a bedroom correct yes so that works out okay um we submitted there was questions about the septic uh approval for four bedrooms and we provided a copy of that yesterday that we already received 100 County Board of Health approval for four bedrooms correct and the and the house of worship the church has its own septic system that's existing correct and that won't be affected by this project at all I think that's all I have for you okay any questions from the board no I'll throw it out to the public although we don't have anybody this evening so thank you thanks you must be very tired I'm tired tired just thinking about it you notice during the swearing in I didn't say or otherwise affirm yeah I figured I was safe with that one [Music] yeah Mr R will you please give the board the benefit of your qualifications oh he's been before this board any number of times so welcome back and slowly and slowly Eric why don't you U show the board the plan that what we have up here is what has been submitted without revision correct so it doesn't need to be separately marked again correct this is theor plan that my office submitted and you located building is located and it is this small building that's approximately Corner the two SE systems um there chated system EX system located what the ising no modification Church however we are going to abandon the existing system for and new system l laru um the board professionals had a couple of uh reports Mr dar's report um raised um I think we've agreed to do everything in Mr dar's report in terms of plan revisions there's two questions I think he had was the first was uh um number one on an ADA space that's not reflected can we reflect an AB space on on the uh plan and on 6 A and B he raised questions about the septic and the number of bedrooms and I think we answered that that we suppied that we provided the County Board of Health approval and um we're reducing the number of bedrooms to four bedrooms and not five so we're that approval I think everything else in his report unless he has a question about anything we' address or are willing to address no I I think with the applicant testimony this evening and with the information that was submitted yesterday it addressed many many of the questions that or comments we had in our review memo and the remaining comments are are some minor um detail uh matters that that they also agreed to to address I don't really have any questions for the and M and Mr Bell's correspondence of I believe July 3 raised uh a couple of questions the first was testimony regarding the septic capacity which which I think we addressed and that was on number four and number five um the applicant requested waivers regarding aquafer test and Wetland analysis and report I think we touched on that but can you address the well in the septic uh well the well situation and W PL this iest in terms of the white lands on the property ier conru only so with respect to the environmental commission comments about the uh stream and riparian buffers and Wetland delineation you have an opinion as to whether those are required I don't feel either one of those are necessary those and I think we addressed the other comments and the environmental commission comments um through the other board professionals testimony I think that's all I have for Mr Ru okay Jeff you have something questions I just had a few um questions and clarifications just based on the memo um if just part of the conditional use uh standard just providing testimony regarding the surrounding uses um and then as well as item number seven and eight we're obviously we're um willing to do everything else in your report including seven and eight the zoning permits and a found Foundation location required prior prior to Framing and I explained to my client that that was something that was going to be asked for in light of recent events in the township and that the township wanting location surveys before things are built to make sure that people don't have to come back before the board asking for variances so we understand that that will be a condition of approval um with respect to the conditional use standard I think that we adhere to all conditional use standards and don't require any variance relief or U design waivers in connection with the application and um I I think we satisfy that there something specific that you had mind no I was just I just gonna add that I guess the surrounding uses um there are any commercial or residential that are adjacent to the to the lot um just was wanting some testimony for that but it's it's just um it's provided on the plan okay um the other thing I just had the comment and as well as EC is just confirmation that uh storm order is not required just to address that for the record um sure okay any uh board questions no and just because we need to do this if anybody from the public has any questions on that testimony speak up now please there being none thank you ask Mr Finelli to come on down Mr Pell you you uh put something up is that identical to what's already been submitted to the board or are there any changes to it that's is that different is that what's there now or or is that on another you want to just go that one first and we'll explain it I'm sorry Mr Finelli qualifications or please give the benefit of [Music] your okay you're acceptable to the board thank you thank you you please the sheet that's up there it's already been submitted can you identify what the improvements are [Music] [Music] isect with really traditional spes K Liv on the second floor that translates into four bedrooms and one shair but but there are five bedrooms yes okay2 just to clarify bom we me the existing house there is room in the first floor that office and was kids so now we've got morees need a SP act private office speak to someone have some sense of privacy and it's just a plan Church dep notos this the rest of the ASAC so the what's labeled on the first floor as a a guest bedroom I think it what it was will now be labeled as the pastor's office correct [Music] is and that one we will have to mark As exhibit A1 different and it's very important that we condition have let the board know that we are only going to have four bedrooms and that our uh septic approval is only for four bedrooms and we don't want to have to go back before the board of that's why I question the five right that triggers because we need to get this thing built as soon as possible for this family so we're committing to only have um those are pretty pictures if the board has any questions about that I think you have a gist of what the improvements are I don't have any questions any board members have questions on the architectural plans gentlemen you have any questions chef they relabel anything so that it doesn't State Shi bedom then not in our copy but it is already is that is that is that in that copy before you that's A1 no the one in front of you those extra copies is that A1 yeah I'll I'll yeah I yeah just don't want to do the resolution I have it but that does address your question okay thanks Steve no you can just leave that I'll that is all our testimony this family is in desperate need of an addition for these bedrooms and we would really ask for your approval um this evening so that we can get going on well I have one more thing I have to again Ask if anybody from the public has any questions there being nobody here in the room or online this evening you're off the hook there's no questions okay with that I would like to have a motion on approval of the Calvary Presbyterian Church minor site plan for a two-story Edition motion chairman Mr Edward gettings yes Vice chair Miss Donna Drews yes Miss Robin Fatu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis quanan yes Mr James Miller yes thank you all very much thank you Pastor Bush best of luck to you good luck we need more babies yes yes [Music] okay next up is Magna power electronic syc minor site plan for 600 foot square 600 square foot mechanical shed and water cooling tank good evening Mr chairman members of the board stepen gruberg Gruenberg law office on behalf of the applicant Magna Power Electronics Inc this is a minor site plan evening um we are proposing a minor site plan to do some uh exterior improvements but very minor in nature over existing impervious coverage um that doesn't trigger any in into the Lea or actually any need for a notice of hearing so I didn't do one for this evening I was tempted to do this as a site plan waiver applications but thought it more appropriate to do this as a minor site plan um I have one witness this evening with which is our engineer Mr armman and I would ask that he be sworn so to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you got or otherwise affirm sir yes I do and our board professionals as in the prior hearing remain under oath thank you Mr artman need to present his qualifications yeah gonna say so please do sure good now very good um again Mitchell ardman uh a principal of the Reynolds group uh licensed professional engineer in the state for over 30 years over that time I've done site plan applications before uh townships throughout the state um I've appeared uh throughout hund County probably over 50 times it's been quite some time before this board uh last year was before your board of adjustment but on this particular property I did handle uh two separate applications for Magna power so I have appeared before this board over thank you Mr AR you're acceptable appreciate it thank you um Orient the board to the site and we have an exhibit this evening which we're going to have to exhibit A1 if you could identify that certainly so this is the plan that was submitted in the set um labeled a minor site plan M1 uh the difference here is just that we've color rendered it for the purpose of presentation tonight so uh we have Royal Road on the bottom of the site here uh North is basically up and to the right uh and we have the outline that's we have color rendered in in green so that's pretty much the outline of the property block 3602 Lot 21 uh it's approximately 7.27 acres and we're at the end of Royal Road where it comes down to Pennsylvania Avenue and then makes that excuse me right turn to head out to to the east um there's an industrial site adjacent to our property basically to the South uh across the lot here it's vacant and it's developed so it right across is bacon there's the property that Frontage is there but in the recent years there was a road that was punched through and back behind it's not visible really except for the roadways some light industrial buildings that have been built in that easterly direction but again we're at that North End of of Royal Road uh the site is in the I2 industrial Zone what we have shaded here it's kind of a l or you know upside down u-shape building there has been developed over time it was expanded over the years at this point it's pretty much built out to approximately uh 69,000 square feet and Magna power has owned and operated this site that whole time and they're um magnet power Electronics a high-end Electronics uh production and equipment company uh the owners are here if you need any explanation of specific operations but they operate you know an excellent uh facility here for many years I've been involved with them uh over that time so that's pretty much the existing conditions uh let me just say I'll add the parking is all shown here basically in the front of the site along Royal as you loop around the back of the property is where the loading dock areas are and some uh Warehouse parking space spaces are also in the back the present uh mechanical systems condensers Etc are also in the back of the building particularly in this South Corner which all get to which is where the proposed new mechanical equipment is shown to be placed so um why don't you uh direct the board to where our proposed improvements are and discuss how we're going to protect them with followers certainly so again uh the mechanical equipment basically the purpose is to support existing operations manufacturing and processing inside the building so that's the reason it's on the southernly side of the building and close proximity of the building because there will be utility connections from one to the other so it's a 600 square foot we have uh rendered in brown on the plan here uh shown on the building uh that shed portion of the project is just about 16 and a half half fet High um adjacent to that is a water tank and that tank will be elevated uh and it'll the top of that will be approximately 23 feet high there's a plan in your set and I'll show you an exhibit of that shortly and um those again will deal with the processing water so it will be will be pipes between the building mechanical equipment building uh it's a heating and cooling process building Bas uh so excuse me heating and cooling process that's associated with the building as that hot water temperature builds up it'll then get pipe to the tank which operates as basically a cool an elevated cooling tank and then it'll go back to the building so it's a whole closed loop process and again the purpose is is to support the existing operations in the building again both are on this southernly size of the building and they're going to be uh ballards around both the tank and the building for protection uh because as we stated there is still uh loading and and truck access in that part of the property so Mr Bella my client and I walk the site today and we notice that there's two uh dumpsters in the location yes and overhead doors that he's looking for some testimony about where we're going where they are now what we're going to do with them certainly so the overhead door and there is you'd have to look close but there's a marking on the plan and that symbol indicates areas on the building where there's no overhead door and I'm pointing to it now on a sub we Face the building so between the proposed shed and the curb line there's still 15 fet of driveway access so that's plenty of access the the main loading for truck loading are further to the West those are smaller box trucks sometimes other uh trucks that need to side load or offload inside the building and those aren't the tailgate uh type loading so that 15 foot wide is plenty for access to the building uh the dumpsters discussed are basically cited against that curb line right now and they're really going to be placed just um two places we're going to tuck them in basically in and around both buildings so they're two right now and we have a couple of locations that are possible really three locations possible work with the client in delivery operations so that they still around the same process pick up those that location of the dumpsters is there sufficient for loading and unloading at those Overhead Doors uh yeah would be also I want to point out that shape Building B [Music] straight driveway [Music] do we also meet the height requirements for both structures yes we do and as for f the site has always been well underneath when we show the board again what what the um the mechanical room and the tank look like this and I forgot to hand out I only have a one that what does say uh basically the ler cooling tank lower height 11 sh buing cont set now is this is this elevated for air flow just trying to understand I drawing is very clear that it's elevated is it for airf flow purposes to assist in the cooling thank you I don't have anything else for Mr artman unless he does yeah um Mr vella's correspondence I think we've addressed all of the issues we agree to do everything in here which is zoning permit required for the project number seven um he wanted to visit the site which we did today and I both like amazed at how cool the inside of that building was and what a clean operation this is um and uh Hunter and County planning board and Township Agency Reviews there were none so I think we're in good shape unless the board has any questions any board questions Jeff okay I'm not quite sure what you're asking us to function on the dump dump when I saw your com I back think [Music] here just you'll propose a location work with Jeff and everybody make sure okay good yeah we don't want to go back and yeah start modifying things I think we're all nodding the record shall reflect everybody's yes very affirmatively okay any board questions I think so I think we're good I have to ask the public there is no public here unfortunately this evening in the room are online um okay my stellar legal argument in summation is please grant our approve and thank you for carrying this to July 10th had you come in two weeks ago we would have had a 15minute meeting you're very welcome was B yes thank you okay can I have a motion to approve magnet power electronic syc the minor site plan for a 600 square foot mechanical shed and water cooling Tech motion second chairman Mr Edward gettings yes Vice chair Miss Donna Drews yes Miss Robin Fatu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis concanon Mr James Miller yes thank you all very much thank you and thank you for your patience appreciate it okay okay I think uh we just have one item that's coming up on July 24th we already have the materials for that right Taylor I know I do for William and Paul no the preliminary major subdivision yes that's yours Steve right yeah that's a discuss just on the cluster a concept was that a 101 concept plan it's the cluster concept so that's why he had asked whether we needed to do notice on that but I did okay so this is an informal concept under 101 when you say 101 you say it's just a discussion on the cluster if your ordinance provision has like an informal has a requ have to discuss whether to Pro forward oh God the r revising the pl it's not technically a concept right right I get it now thanks it's not an approvable either so but we know this got it appreciate it I know we've had people interested in this very good you want a court reporter for that no we're not going to do a resolution right right no I don't need one okay well I'm asking all meetings all all applicants should have one yeah we need so yeah bring one in bring it in then I do need you 2 how do you think I do the minutes that's fine I asked a question okay did thank you got thank you thank you good night everybody good night everybody Steve next week Steve and with that we're ajour you on the 24th I will not be at the 24th you