i aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands One nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all Good evening Call to order Burl serville 2000 April
20 April 2nd 2025 Beth has this meeting been advertised in accordance with the open meeting act Yes chairman It has Uh can we have a roll call Sure Mr Kandell here Miss Lman Mr Mueller Mr Shaw here
Miss Sataka Mr Veosen Mr Williams Councilman Zabrowski here Chairman Tai we have a we have a quorum Oh and um we'll put on the record that Danny is here and u Mr Memorialization of resolutions We don't
have any done this evening Uh can I have a motion to accept the March 2nd minutes Do I have a second Second All in favor I Any opposed The eyes have it commun communication agenda Uh this
evening we uh the board secretary received a letter dated 318 2025 from the law office of Mc Mcernney and Nance regarding Main Street 1 LLC Main Street 2 LLC block 249 lot one block 250 lot
one block 251 lot one extension of a preliminary and final major site plan approval No action on that I'm here on behalf of the of the developer if you'd like to hear I mean yes we the uh Good evening Mr Chairman
and members of the board Uh my firm represents Main Street South One LLC and Main Street South 2 LLC the designated redeveloper of the Fulton's Landing Redevelopment Project Uh in September 2022 the board granted preliminary and major final major site
plan approval to the project Uh we recently submitted a letter to the board We're here tonight requesting a two-year extension of the site plan approval Uh my client is moving forward as quickly as possible with the project but given the size of the project it requires a
great deal of extra municipal approvals including a substantial number of environmental approvals some of which can't be applied for until we finish with the county Uh we we are moving as quickly as possible with that but the point is we don't know exactly how long those processes will take And so we are
asking a for a two-year extension of the site plan approval Yeah it is available Okay So they're asking for an additional year two years Typical extension request is for one year They're asking for an additional year since for the board now
anyway And that they think they may need that Anyone on the board have any questions of the engineer I'm the lawyer If not does anybody want to make a motion to accept that I have a second I'll second Having
a second Do we have anybody that opposed Any questions If not we'll take a roll call Mr Kantel yes Mr Shaw yes Miss Sataka yes Mr Veosen yes Mr Williams yes Councilman Zowski yes Chairman Tai Yes
Thank you Can you send me an email afterwards so we can just look everything up Certainly Yes You have his contact I'm going to ask for it Okay They'll send it to you
Okay Type plan and subdivision Yes This evening we have application BP number 25-02 CPMD Journey Mill Road Urban Rene Renewal LLC preliminary and final site plan subdivision Journey Mill Road block
58 lot 9 and block 58 lot 2.01 Senator Smith you're up okay Mr Chairman uh it's always good to be in Saraveville Um I am the uh attorney representing CPMD Journey Mill Road Urban Renewal LLC
and it's good to see again You may or may not remember that we were back in front of you last year in September and you were kind enough to give us a preliminary and final uh site plan at that time And you as everyone in this
room knows as time passes some things change and we are back to seek from you an amended preliminary and final site plan as well as a subdivision Uh there are there there haven't been variances
requested from us but your planner uh made a good suggestion that maybe we should seek two from you And that was in their in their planning letter which was very recent Uh planner said you might want to consider a one foot height variance We're currently at
75 The planner's reasoning is that as the these things go sometimes you need that extra foot of uh of uh leeway And then secondly the planner also pointed out that even though your redevelopment
agreement says that we do not need to ask for uh what's called a planning variance It's 45D uh 35 and 36 And what it talks about is access to a lot So and the planner
reported as well that uh you know quite frankly it's irrelevant as long as there's access from fire and ambulance which there is absolutely access But we're thinking you should be cautious And while it's true your redevelopment
agreement says it shouldn't apply to this development why not ask right Just cover our bases in case somebody somewhere sometime in the future says "Did you get that variance?" even though the redevelopment document does not does
not require it says it's exempt from it So those were uh we're going to ask for those two variances uh and they are all properly noticed because in our notice we said in any variances which in the opinion of the board may be needed So
we're taking the planners report as a statement that maybe this is something you should look at Um we're also seeking uh three waiverss one of which is related to the intensity of lighting foot candles A second one of which is uh
concerning the height of our uh light poles and then a third one a discussion of the maximum number of monument signs and we're specifically asking a waiver for two So with that being said it's my intention to call two witnesses Our
licensed professional engineer Mr Dan Bush who is not only a PE but a planner as well a PP and secondly Kevin Savage who is our traffic expert Just to confirm that this is not going to add anything more than the original proposal
that you you approved So with that Mr Chairman I'd like to ask that Dan Bush be called and sworn so you can give testimony No problem with that here at hand You swear to tell the truth the whole thing is nothing but I do this
application Sorry Sure Uh Dan Bush B USCH I'm a licensed professional planner and uh professional engineer in the state of New Jersey I've had the pleasure of testifying before this board on numerous occasion as both an engineer and a planner
Anyone going to accept his credentials Make a motion to accept the credentials Have a second Second All in favor All right sir The floor is yours Thank you Mr Chairman Thank you So Mr Bush um I'm hoping you have the old exhibit and
maybe the new exhibit Yes I do Good A series of old exhibits for that matter Yep So uh what it would be great as an NA site plan application describe the area that surrounding our property and our property describe our
project and particularly talk about what's different about the amended preliminary and final as opposed to the prior approval Sure So what I have up here on the board is uh what was exhibit A1 at the prior hearing It's just an
aerial exhibit of the existing site Um just very briefly as I know most of the members of the board are familiar with this this is Red Oak Lane uh which is on the east side site fronts on Journey Mill Road contains about 46 acres and is
the former landfill number three um site Um most of the site is in a is in a flood plane uh with the exception of the elevated portion of the landfill and the wooded areas in the front and then on
the north side are both encumbered by um wetlands Unless there's question on the existing site I'd like to move on to the old plan and show you what we're proposing Everybody good We're good Thank you Okay So this is exhibit A2 from the
September um hearing So this shows the 50 excuse me 257,000 square foot building um we'll call it was building one in the front and then we have the 99,520 ft building um at the back um you
know with the access ingress on the north side egress on the south side for the trucks and then for passenger vehicles um you know a two-way access point directly at uh Red Oak So the plan before you this evening is
for building one only It is the exact same building in the exact same location Um there's some small differences inside the building um which uh relate to some additional dock office things of that
nature Um the and there's some additional trailer storage at the rear The yellow line which you see on the exhibit is the the proposed subdivision line which generally follows if you look at the at A2 from the prior hearing it
generally follows the phase one phase 2 line which was part of the prior approval Dan just for the record that the building that we have on uh the the exhibit for tonight is a spec smaller than the one got approved first time
around Right it it only relates to ex interior components of the building So the mezzanine the law office is a little bit different than what was on the prior but the footprint is still 250,000 square feet just as it was before
but the actual square footage that we're is 255 right and change correct 255 466 right which is a smidge smaller than the first time around all right the obvious question board's looking at the picture and say I can tell the
difference between these pictures The other building's not there Why is the other building not there So we filed our application with NJD in June of 2023 and that's 2023 as
in almost two years ago Um at that time um they they were reviewing they stopped reviewing the land use aspect of the application due to the landfill They subsequently picked it back up last fall
after we received our approval from this board Um they identified that at this time land use the part where we need to get our wetlands permits our flood hazard permits from could not at that time approve the rear building So in
order for us to move forward with the front building we had to remove the back building off the plan and then we can go back at a later date to deal with the phase 2 portion of the site Right And we're not we're not giving up hope on phase That's correct So
um the reduction is one building The build the the second building is off We'll see you at a later date hopefully with the proposal for that once the D gets its act together Um why do I want the subdivision
Um the applicant is going to be purchasing the front lot to build building one Okay And from the point of view of financing the project it becomes so much smarter Correct And if you I don't know how many times you've read the redevelopment plan but it's
specifically mentioned on numerous occasions that it's understood that there'll probably be a technical subdivision or a financial subdivision So we're literally following the directives of the redevelopment plan The the redevelopment of plan when it was
amended in 2024 last year um actually specifically wrote into the redevelopment plan to do the subdivision and the language which speaks to not needing a C variance for the real excuse me the rear lot fronting on a on a
public street It doesn't ex exolve us from having to comply with the municipal land section which simply says in order to approve this lot in the rear that doesn't front on a public street you have to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles We're going to
provide access easements on both the north side and the south side for not only access but also utilities Obviously you'd have to get utilities to the rear of the site And as the plan is set up we've stubbed out utilities all the way to the back roughly adjacent to the
subdivision line Right All right And this is a coal storage facility still That's correct Okay No no change there All right Mr Chairman would it be appropriate for Mr Bush to start addressing the reports I would appreciate that Let me see if anybody has any questions first Anybody
have any questions of the subdivision right now I want to go over the reports That's fine All right Uh Mr Bush can I can I cover just two just two quick things The the one the one thing is with
respect to Sarah Sarah has um previously uh determined that the plan is in conformance with the redevelopment plan and they have reaffirmed that I I've got communication from the Sarah's engineer confirming that the plan is still in
conformance with the redevelopment plan I just want to get that on the record And just a couple clarifications on um design waivers Um there we had a couple design waivers previously
Sorry And I just want to just get them on the record again So previously we had a design waiver for slopes greater than 3:1 And that's in the same situation as we had previously Basically on the edges we have retaining walls and we need a
little bit steeper slope to be able to get the grade um down to tie into existing without touching the wetlands Um this center driveway you may recall um that needs a design waiver for it to be 24 ft We're keeping it narrower to 24
ft where 30 would be required because it's only for passenger vehicles So we don't want to entice a truck to utilize this center driveway We want them using the north and south driveways And the other um uh which is a
new design waiver is since we last um appeared before the board in September we have come back for the county's request um and added sidewalk on the west side of Journey Mill Road Um there
are um existing street lights on Journey Mill Road Um however they don't they would not meet the burrow's standard of one foot candle along all that sidewalk and that does trigger a design waiver Everything within the site does comply
with the ordinance requirements It's just that piece on journey mill And I think that's it for yeah for the waiverss Okay So I draw your attention to uh report dated March
the 26 2025 from Morgan Municipal Engineering Services Are you familiar with that memorandum I am Okay And as a generic statement 95% of everything that's in there is absolutely acceptable to us But
we need a couple of clarifications And also there was a request for some testimony So we're going to try and cover those bases All right I direct everybody's attention to page three of 12 of that memo All right Uh you you have list of
the v the the uh design waiverss that we're requesting Um and I think you just justified all of them But double-cheing is there anything you need to further that that's correct I think the the the
um the one area of clarification is related to the monument signs Um the board previously approved two monument signs Um we believe the two monument signs signs as proposed are still consistent with the redevelopment uh
plan and that that does not require a variance Um the but we are requesting a continuation of the waiver Correct Correct If you look at the if you look at the general ordinance the general ordinance would say that you can only
have one freestanding sign in this in this zone in the SED zone But if you read the redevelopment plan it I certainly would argue that provides for the opportunity to provide for two monument signs at the same uh 25- ft
setback as previously proposed So to summarize your waiver testimony you're requesting a regranting of the waiverss that were provided the first time around That's correct And then you're requesting the the design waiverss that are listed in this report
That's not entirely the case because for for example the the light fixture height um there was a change to the redevelopment plan last year that where previously it was capped at 25 ft and for that matter for most of the burrow
it would be capped at 25 ft the redevelopment plan was amended to allow for 35 ft and that only applies well it's only required in the rear of the site because we have such a large area to spend span to cover and adequately
illuminate the loading area So that's why the that that the ordinance was in fact changed But we are requesting the waiver or or saying we don't need a waiver We we do not need the waiver Okay Then fair statement we're not
necessarily requesting number two That's correct Okay Number one yes Number two no And number three is the is the signage stuff we just we just discussed Good All right Take a look at the bottom of the page
Engineering comments will be there's a request for testimony and AB and C but I think you may have provided it except for ABC You've already provide test uh testimony on previous approvals and the testimony on existing and proposed
easements And then if you would uh address number C where are with the rest of approvals So as I indicated we have a pending application with NJD We submitted um I believe it was February 7th we resubmitted um back to
NJD with the plan as you see before you this evening And we are awaiting comments and feedback from D to get that approval the other the other applications will will be pending the approval of the of the board or hopeful approval of the
board Right And um item A is just anformational comment to they want the planner says don't make sure you look at the aesthetics and is there a change in the architecture there
There is not And when we get to the end I'll I'll show you two ex identical exhibits showing the prior exhibit and the new exhibit and they're identical right From an aesthetic standpoint I think an F we're in the same boat We
have not signed a tenant at this point So in the first application we couldn't give you the hours of operation or numbers of employees but we we did we we did it is it is 24 hours There's no there's no change There's no change to that Good All right I direct everybody's
attention to page four So on the on the parking there is one minor change we need to um make to the plan So um the there's an additional,000 square ft of office of the dock
office,35 to be precise which adds a requirement to add four additional parking stalls Um we have a location as you come in at the front access point that we can fit four additional parking spaces Um so that would bring us to a
total of uh 92 parking spaces Um one of the things the board did in the original approval we discussed with the board was giving us the flexibility depending on the ultimate tenant to bank some of the parking We believe ultimately we do not
need 92 passenger parking spaces for the site Um and what we had done last time was subject to the review and approval of the board's engineer we would reduce and bank some of that parking So we would ask the board to grant that relief
this time as well And the reason for the additional four spaces if you take at comment 1 A1A it says the office use is 7705 ft The office space is now projected to be
8740 And that's what results in the four new spaces Yep And that doesn't change So in one breath you're you're giving us four spots and then you're asking us that you might want to space uh bank some parking Correct We we still have to design the storm water system We
actually have to raid for that And it's just a matter of when we get a tenant if we don't need 92 spaces which is what we envision the case to be we would like the latitude to be able to bank them and leave them green That's that was my next question You're
not going to park out trailers there Correct Mr Chairman Correct Okay Going down the page Um the next item all the items that are in between we agree we'll provide or we agree First
place where we have any uh something new perhaps is 2B It appears that at several locations the truck circulation mode for the five firet truck requirements turn wheels from stop or turn on spot truck circulation should be revised to exclude
that That's all that's all okay and we're we agree to that Correct Yep Okay The um next one is C Yeah this refers to I had a chance to talk to Mr Wilder This refers to the the center driveway Um and
that was the discussion regarding it leaving it at the 24 ft versus the the 30 ft to again reduce the ability for a truck or desire for a truck to try to make that entrance there So um we're going to leave it the way it is And I had a chance to discuss that with Mr
Wilder and he can affirm that And I understand that main reason for that is this is egress only It's one direction The the southern driveway is egress only The middle driveway is the one that has both ingress and egress only for
passenger cars Right And this was discussed with the township engineer and he's okay with it with the board's engineer Yes Board's engineer Yes sir Okay Item D we agree Make sure the fire offices happy And there was a when you get to the top
of page five E the the question is there's a rectangular box at the top of the on the north end of the loading dock area And just for cl just to the clarification or the request is to clarify that is in fact a trash
compactor and that's how trash will be managed for the site So that's my test It's answering the question Yes Yes sir Take a look at 3A signs Uh we note the applicant proposes two freestanding monument signs in the front of the property along Journey Mill Road and are
within the 20 required 25 ft setback from the eastern property line Uh they're right on the they're right on the 25 foot setback So they they are at so they meet the 25 foot setback So you're saying we meet the requirement
That's cor that's correct Okay All right let's take a look at the tree preservation plan down the bottom You have one 1985 remainder Yeah Let me let me just explain to the to the board what we're So there's a change from the plans
that are before you Um we had originally on the plans that are before you shown extensive landscaping along the west side of the development adjacent to the trailer storage Um we kind of relooked at that and looking at the opportunity
to to build on phase two in the future It doesn't make any sense to plant that plant trees and shrubbery along that line That would really inhibit the ability to build phase 2 at a later date Um so what we propose to do is and as you can see on the exhibit is take that
landscaping off we would pay the the tree replacement fee to the borrow and it doesn't change or create any variance conditions or waiver conditions Um it just does make it more feasible to build
on phase two in a later date And just in terms of orientation people who are passing by the uh coal storage facility are they even going to be able to see the rear of the property No they wouldn't be able to see it In fact the the the landfill
actually still continues to go up So even if you were out here in on South River you're not going to you wouldn't see it Yeah Yes sir Okay Bottom of the page 58 I want a little more on the landscaping side of it And we're agreeing to provide
it Correct Correct Okay Turning to page six of 12 Um testimony shall be provided to confirm the proposed pools and light
fixtures are aesthetically compatible with the surrounding and they're exactly the same as what was previously proposed with the exception of the as I indicated the 35 ft poles at the at the rear that provide adequate lighting for the loading area When we put those 35 ft
poles in you're not going to be able to see that light from Journey Mill Road right That's correct Because it's all Mr Chairman It's all behind The 25footers are all in the front Nothing there but the landfill and the river That is correct Mr Chairman
Uh take a look at B which refers to that design waiver on the height of the pole which for the record we no longer believe That is correct So we're not requesting six 6B Yep C is the design waiver for the foot candle of lighting
on journey on the journey mill only sidewalk and that's we've already requested and testified to it Correct That's correct Okay Um number seven we agree is just a statement Yes Right And looking at storm water management
uh it says we note the applicant has submitted a geotechnical investigation report that details the methods used and results found as noted in stormwater management And that's just for the information of the board But in the next two two and three there's specific requests are and what's our response to
those specific requests So just to kind of go back to what I said in the beginning is the project is actually grandfathered under the rules prior to July of 2023 which means that we only have to
provide green infrastructure So that's why you see bio retention basins We don't have to route what is the so-called future storm events Um so the way it's designed as is meets those
meets those standards Um and that's within comment or on page seven So that's I just need to clarify that we are grandfathered That's why we don't have to comply with number four And the rest of the comments on
page seven are all fine We will comply All right Page page seven as you just said will comply with all items Correct Correct Okay And going to the top of page 8 for
14 15 and 16 will all comply Um all of section D storm water quality we will comply Section E is just affirming that we don't need to meet groundwater recharge because this is a
this is a landfill remediation site right Um letter F we will comply Um letter G um one is just asking for testimony that this has u the grading has no impact on adjoining
properties and that's a that's a yes it does not have any impact on adjoining properties And then two is a will comply is will comply All right Flipping to page 10 of 12 that uh first so yeah so
everything through 12 is a will comply 13 is just a comment with respect to one of our storm water outfalls on the south Which page are you on I'm on page nine comment
13 which speaks to the outfall located at the edge of the uh MCU easement and it's actually in a location where there's an existing discharge from the the contractor yard This is the edge of the property that's currently developed
out there Um we we need to maintain that existing location I had a chance to speak to Mr Wilder and his concern is to ensure that MCU approves that and provided MCA approves that which they've raised no objection to They've seen
these plans Um so we propose to just leave it in that location The rest the rest of nine page nine is correct We agree to do everything Correct All right Page 10 Uh top half of page 10 We agree to
all the comments Uh however at 25 testimony should be provided correct regarding the number of exterior doors proposed along uh with how many of these doors will be handicapped accessible The applicant shall confirm that the sufficient of the doors will be
accessible in accordance with the ADA So I I first of all we have accessible entrances for the office which is the public space I did have an opportunity to um reach out to the architect to get more information So all the by
definition all the entrances are accessible They don't all need to be handicap accessible So that's per the building code So you meet the criteria That is correct Mr Chairman Okay And we agree with every
the rest of the page as well There is a comment under 11 A3 which says we recommend that the applicant strongly consider implementing solar panels of on the roof of the proposed building Number one the law in New Jersey now is that of
any new buildings The building has to be pre-wired for 40% of the roof so that it can take solar But uh you have a couple other forces going on here you have rate increases electricity rate increases are going to start July 1st And this is a
coal storage facility So we think the tenant is going to be considering this and wanting it But at the end of the day we have to do what the tenant wants That's correct So it's designed to to handle solar panels should the tenant
want to do that And we do believe that they will want to do that for as Mr Smith just described 90% of the work All I have to do is put the panels up That is correct Mr Chairman So flipping to page
11 the uh at top of the page again number two and three we will comply Number four planting should be provided around the outdoor mechanical equipment is screened from view Uh Dan if you'd respond to that Yeah so
the mechanical equipment is located in the northwest corner behind the building Um we do not want to plant landscaping around that mechanical equipment We we want to leave it open to the air So we do not propose any plantings in that
area So we prefer our request is to not plant around the mechanical equipment and it's not visible from the public As you can see it's all the way in the back behind the building And is there any downside to putting plants around mechanical equipment I
mean they can have leaf debris you can have issues with ventilation things of that nature right And since there's no aesthetic impact this is a reasonable request That That's correct Okay So that's the only point where we're disagreeing so far We're we're at
99.9% So take a look at number five Plantings are proposed over the top of two over the top of the underground stormwater basin in several locations While plant the plantings proposed and generally small plantings or are
generally small plantings we recommend that those plantings uh that they be shifted so they do not uh they are not in conflict with the underground stormwater system Would you respond to that Yes It's just for some shrubs There's no
trees that are over the over the underground basins It's just some shrubs in these little islands that are over the basin We want to we want to continue to landscape them and and leave them with with bushes Um noting that the underground basin is actually
significantly deep It's about 5 ft of cover So there's plenty of soil for those plants to to thrive Um and we do have um uh cleaning ports and means to access to be able to clean the underground basin
as well Our request is to leave that the plants as as proposed So that's the second item we're resisting With regard to the lighting we're okay with that comment Item C Yes Okay Let's go to D site layout Uh we note that the
applicant proposes site distances along Turning Hill Road as per ASHTTO guidelines Applicant provide testimony confirming the site triangles proposed to comply with county requirements Yes the the the the application is subject to review and approval of the
county Um I not that we've got full county approval at this point but they've raised no concerns And just speaking to when this project was approved back in 2016 a similar project when it was a power plant we had basically driveways in almost identical
locations and they approved them in those locations with those sight triangles So you're not expecting the county to dis That's correct and ASHTTO is the the the national standard that would be utilized Number two applicant to provide information regarding
relative to trash collection and pickup and it'll be by a private quarter from that um trash compactor area previously identified Okay And then we're fine with EF Yeah I think the next one is just G1 and that where that's the
request to record the the subdivision by plat and we we agree with that Right Number two is fine Going to the last page conditions of approval We're good with everything but I do think a note should be added to
item five on uh outside agencies And you say as applicable I'd use a word maybe if required All right Um there there may be some approvals that are not not needed For example the Freehold Soil Conservation District the Burough
Seville has its own That's correct conservation district So that's a Burough Save approval Yep Yep Yep Yep Yep And we have we have no idea whether EPA is requiring any approvals but we're certainly going to kick those tires
Um and posting all vines Number six we have no problem with that So in total members there were only two items that we're resisting The rest of it we we agreed to Any questions on the engineers report Anybody have any questions of the engineer or the attorney
So we got one more report Excuse me We have one more report Okay And Dan is going to respond to that one as well The second report is from Acuity Consulting Services dated March the 26 2025 Dan are
you familiar with that report Yes Okay So uh and again we don't really disagree with very much Um I would like to point the board's attention to page 3
11.6.1 which does point out that um um the uh technical subdivision is provided for in the redevelopment plan and that's a justification for the subdivision
Uh take a look at page four The top of page four Uh the planner mentions the planning appearance NJSA40 col 55D-35 and also section 36 uh saying
that it's in the redevelopment plan first that it has no application And then secondly we have no issues We the planner have no issues as long as there's access for emergency vehicles That being said and in the in all learners is supposed to be
conservative I don't know if you knew that but we're all supposed to be conservative So we're requesting that variance the the planning variance because planner did bring it up And if the planner brought it up that's enough for me to say you know what somebody else may have have a about that So we'd
like the 40 55D-35 variance uh from the board if you would please consider that And then um we still have the I guess it's still to come That's 7576
ft That's the next page All right Uh there's a the one other comment second paragraph on page four While proposed lot B will not have frontage on an approved right ofway However a series of easements will be necessary to allow the two lots to function seamlessly as it
relates to cross access utility maintenance and shared And I thought you already made a comment on that That's cor that's correct Yeah we'll provide any we'll provide the access easements necessary to preer utilities access storm water And if everybody turn
to page five Yeah I think we get down to section three on the comments Yeah 3i was Sarah's approval We talked about that I think 32 I done a sidebyside
comparison And you've also discussed the plot plan for the subdivision And the plan uh their plan should set a separate plat that shows the subdivision line easements and along dimensions We're going to which will be required in order
to record the the subdivision by plat So yes of course Okay I direct your attention to the last page which is page six Just just one thing on on three uh seven which is that landscape area There was a question about the landscape area
between lot A and B and we are removing that So that obviously that comment goes away Last page Uh I given the volume of the building coupled with various substandard subsurface conditions it is
recommended that the applicant consider requesting a 1-T high variance or other similar flexibility for relief as it pertains to the construction of the 75- ft building This would be a dimminimous exception and would allow for some flexibility in grading around the
building's perimeter So for the record we are requesting we think the planner suggestion is a great idea We're requesting a 1 foot more height variance to 76 ft Okay Um building design The applicant
should describe any significant differences in building design and operations versus the building included in the existing approval That's not going to work So the exhibit on the on your right is
A3 from the September approval and the exhibit on the left is dated March 3rd 2025 They're identical That's the front facade of the building So it's there's no changes So that's just to quite frankly illustrate the ch that there are
no changes Okay I'd like to save XI 11 for our traffic guy He's going to come up for 30 seconds but that's really for the traffic expert Mr Savage And then uh
Xi the applicant should provide testimony regarding pedestrian circulation improvements Depending on the testimony provided it may be necessary for the applicant to work with more professionals to reasonably reasonably enhance sight pedestrian elements as a condition of approval Yeah
there's one piece of sidewalk that does need to be added to the plan to specifically address that comment So now we have sidewalk on Journey Mill Road We have sidewalk within the site connecting our parking lot to our entrance here in the southwest corner What is currently
not on the plan is a piece of sidewalk to connect the Journey Mill Road sidewalk to our site sidewalk So we need to add that piece of sidewalk and that's I believe the reference to the comment and we agree to do that Work with the engineer
make sure he's happy with it Okay that's I think that's u all the comments or the two reports Is there anything else you want to add Uh no that's it Mr Chairman Uh Dan uh Bush is available for questions from the
board Anybody have any questions to the planner or the engineer You going to bring up the traffic guy Yep Okay Thank you Thank you All right Mr Savage Um uh let's get you sworn right
I do Mr Savage were you ever uh accepted by this board as a traffic expert I have not but give us the short version of your credentials Sure I'm employed as a principal at Dynamic Traffic I'm a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey and six other states and have testified before boards throughout the
state of New Jersey I get your first Kevin Last name is Savage S A B A G E Anybody want to accept his credentials Make a motion to accept credentials Okay Second All in favor Any opposed The eyes
have it Okay Mr Savage uh I'm I'm going to uh ask you the standard question You were retained by the applicant here to evaluate traffic aspects of this site That's correct Okay And and your company
did that correct And what'd you find out So um in reference to the the previous application the proposed access remains exactly the same There's a proposed ingress only truck driveway at the northern side of the site Uh a full
movement passenger car driveway in the central part of the site opposite Red Oak Lane And there's an egresson driveway on the southern portion of the property Um really just two changes to note um in reference to the previous application The first is with the
removal of phase two removal of about 100,000 square feet of of building there's a corresponding reduction in in trip generation and traffic impact That would be about 25% less than the the previous application Um the second as the engineer had mentioned um there's
been further coordination and and review by the county In addition to the sidewalk added along Journey Mill Road the county's also requested that left turn lanes be added into the central and northern sight driveways which are reflected here on the proposed site rendering Um so that that design is is
ongoing and reviewed by the county is ongoing So um summarizing in your professional opinion the traffic aspects that were approved in the la last application will now be substantially less in this
application That's correct All right So turning your attention to page six of the uh planners memo Uh there's a section XI The applicant should address whether any of the general operating procedures for the proposed building may change such as hours of business
operation number of employees on a maximum shift the type of items stored delivered and shipped the frequency of the truck traffic and types of trucks most often on site And again we have not signed a deal with the coal storage facilities so we can't give you actual
numbers but the numbers last time were accepted based on um IT calculations Correct Yeah The the previous application based on it which is a a national publication that collects um
trip generation data throughout the country we anticipated about 40 peak hour trips for the site With this uh revised application we anticipate about 30 So again that uh that those are peak hour trips Again that's that's a decrease of about 25% And for reference
NJ dot considers a significant increase in traffic which is a perceptible increase on in traffic on the surrounding roadway network as 100 trips So we're about 30% of that threshold under the old calculation which had more
conservative numbers Uh so it' be 40% under the old calculation and 30% under under ours So either you made it current Correct Either way it's it's significantly less than you know that that threshold sent set by NJ DOT Terrific Mr Savage anything else you
want to offer No that's all Mr Savage is available to the board for questions Anybody have any questions about the planner Having none that concludes our case Mr Chairman And I don't know I assume you have to open to the public We're going to open to the public Do you want to
make a closing statement first I should wait to see if there's any public first Okay Just to see Take a motion to open up to the public Second I Anyone from the public like to speak 30
seconds Great project working through uh Sarville's boards commissions redevelopment for years The great news is the burrow will no longer have responsibility for any legacy
environmental impacts It all lands on my client who has evaluated the site You know he's not going into it unknowingly but it's a great thing The burrow is going to hopefully get a good slug of cash for the purchase of it
the project is kind of uh uh nit nichy It has its own niche Coal storage facilities are different Okay So u and I'm making a bet you're going to hit the solar on the roof The price of electricity going up Solar
could be the best bargain in New Jersey And you had you've had a client you've had my client has worked with the bureau for many years to get this just right Uh and it this is a redevelopment project so you're going to do very well on the tax side too as the future goes on But
don't think about money Think about the good jobs that are coming to Sierraville with this project So we hope you'll approve it Anybody from the public like to speak Anyone from the public like to speak Seeing no one from the public I'll
take a motion to close Second Second All in favor Any opposed The eyes have it Gentlemen and ladies what's your pleasure Mr Chairman I make a motion to approve the uh application uh including the
variances and waiverss uh that were requested Second of the roll call Mr Can Mr Kandell Yes Mr Shaw Yes Mr Sataka Yes Mr Mr Williams Councilman Zabrski Yes
Chairman Ty for choosing Yes Thank you for the user friendly approach of your board and your town Thank you very much Appreciate it All right Where are we Next on the agenda is old business new
business administrative matters Our next meeting is April 16th take a nap before is that Main Street Uh yeah So yeah this will be the mosque We uh had a meeting today We have everything or they they will have
everything in in by Friday So we we meet the deadlines for the 16th What we're planning on doing is this meeting um Mr Sax said he's probably going to take the whole meeting to go over the rest of the stuff that he needs And we're gonna the
first weekend uh first meeting in May we're going to offer to uh have the public speak on this matter May seventh Okay that's where we sit Anybody else need a motion to tojourn
Oh we have to open up the public Need a motion to open up the public Second All in favor I Anybody from the public like to speak Anybody from the public like to speak Hearing none I'll take a motion to
close the public portion Second All in favor All right Need a motion to adjurnn Boy I got a lot of them Second Second All in favor Thank you very much for a great meeting Have a great night
everybody and a nice vacation Enjoy your vacation Thank you