temporarily serving as chair until we elect a a chair proem and a vice chair proem this meeting is being held in accordance with the open public meetings act adequate notice of this public meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act formal action may be taken salute to the flag I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic stands indivisible indivisible with for all and a roll call please Dory Joan Ferman present Michael josec Ken Lowry here Michael Leoni here Ernie rstat here Mike Sylvester here Brian Zimmerman here we just confirm for the record that the u o of office for all of the new and temporary members of the planning board have been signed and notorized and our are in our files uh we also want to congratulate Joan Ferman and Brian Zimmerman for their appointments and to thank uh the temporary members from the zoning board Ken Lori Mike josic and Michael leandi Mike josic is on vacation um we're here tonight on a court ordered hearing that has to be held in accordance with the court order by May 12th 2025 we also are here to make sure that we have reorganized the board with membership to fill the disqualified uh seats and we have that we have accomplished that we have some objections to the uh to the appointments but I'm satisfied as board attorney that the appointment of Joan Ferman as a design of the mayor is proper and she is not in conflict of interest and has never been associated with um Sparta responsible development Facebook group in addition we have a new alternate member R Brian Zimmerman who also is qualified to be a alternate member of the board and is eligible in order to achieve a quarum as authorized by the municipal Landes law the board is calling upon the temporary appointment of Ken Lori the most senior member of the zoning board to be a member temporary member for this diamond chip application and I'm satisfied that Ken L is eligible to be be a member for this application we also have appointments or senior members from the Zoning Board of um Mike jovic and then Mike leandi and I have proposed to the attorneys of record that these people be treated as alternates uh for the board because without any alternates five people would have to be here exactly every night of every hearing and that is a hard thing to accomplish for a five member board that being said uh the first order of business is to seek and nominations for the position of chair proem are there any nominations for the position of chair Pro I'd like to nominate Ken Lori is there a second I second that there any other nominations there being no other nominations we'll treat that nomination as a nomination to nominate and appoint Ken Lori as the planning board chairman for the diamond ship application and a roll call Joan Ferman yes Ken Lori yes Michael landi yes Ernie rinstead yes Mike Sylvester yes Brian Zimmerman yes now I turn it over you Ken and if you would please solicit nominations for the position of Vice chair and Mr KH I can make a nomination too upon soliciting the other members for vice chair I nominate Mike Sylvester if there's any other nominations please forward and is there a second for second second and uh that'll be treated as a motion to nominate and appoint Michael Sylvester as the chair Vice chair protm uh for the diamond chip application and a roll call vote please Joan Ferman yes Ken Lori yes Miche yandi yes Ernie ragat yes Mike Sylvester yes Brian Zimmerman yes congratulations Mr Lor um glad it's your job um Mr Lori now we turn to the U regular agenda and before we get started um i' just like to uh recommend to the board that you uh we have a hearing scheduled for Diamond ship realy i' like to recommend to the board that you allow the uh attorney for the applicant and any attorneys appearing for objectors to make opening statements so that they can address whatever issues they want to address I've already decided that you you are all eligible and so I'll respect that they might have differences of opinion on that subject and about whether people can be alternates in this unusual setting of a disqualified uh Quorum uh but but I and any other issues that they want to address that are relevant to this case in their opening statements so that the board can be aware of where they're headed in their cases and what their objections are including objections as to notice then just one note if everyone could please respect everyone when they're speaking professionals the other people in the audience your peers and Hope hopefully no outbursts with cheering and booing Etc and we'll try to get through this at a professional level thank you okay I guess it's my turn um great to see everybody again uh some some new faces um just by way of a little bit of a recap of how we got here um so obviously we appear appear before the planning board on five hearings on this application back in 2022 um last hearing was in July of 2022 the board at that time had identified some issues that it wanted to see incorporated into revised plans um we worked over the next well now it's been over a year um on revising the plans and coming up with a proposal that we think addresses those issues um you know obviously we had um some procedural uh issues in the interim as well which is why we have the board constituted here that we have have but really um Tom I don't have anything further to say on the on the items that you brought up before we're just excited to get move forward with our application start our testimony okay and I think Mr it's not this one's not working it amplifies but not as well as the other one yeah I I'll I'll use this thank you Mr Goan now now we'll turn Mr um Steve Warner is here representing a non Dash and he and his client may use this table because we have extra seats on the D Das and uh they can take a moment to get settled are there any other attorneys representing any individuals or other parties who are appearing for some other party any other attorneys appearing for some other party is Mr Cohen here for the next door neighbor don't think I I I think Mr Cohen is no longer representing the next to our neighbor based upon an email I saw from him but I haven't spoken with him just want to make sure that he's not here and he's not so uh Mr Warner please go ahead just for the record no new testimony after 9:30 p.m. and we adjourn at 10 p.m. sharp thank you thank you Mr chairman thank you Council board members my name is Steve Warner I'm a partner with the firm of savoo shock corini and Warner and it's my privilege to represent the gentleman to my left an on dash a resident of Sparta uh and an interested party in this application uh I did want to address several matters uh I'm not going to address them right now I was going to list them and with your permission and with your council's permission I'll address all of them at the appropriate time the uh first there was a letter April 29th uh submitted uh by Council for the applicant some of those issues have already been determined by the board I am pleased uh that the uh board uh through its Council uh has made a determination uh that all the duly appointed uh planning board members both temporary uh borrowed from the zoning board as we say and otherwise we're duly appointed and are qualified and eligible to vote I'm also pleased that the pool from which officers could be uh uh uh elected by their fellow board members was not restricted uh as Council for the applicant requested uh and I do want to address a couple of other items in his letter there was a suggestion more than a suggestion uh that this board only has 90 days uh within which to complete its application in the event that the applicant does not Grant an extension of of time to act respectfully that's incorrect uh you have at least 120 days because as your board planner has already determined there is at least one bulk variance at issue along with the site application a significant parking uh deficiency uh as I think you and probably everyone in this room knows uh it is our position that there are other variances at issue not the least of which would be a d variance that would require uh this proceeding to proceed before uh a zoning Board of adjustment uh to get such relief I'll address that further later um but with respect to the extension of time uh again you have 120 days uh I submit uh because there's a variant set issue and more importantly frankly I would hope applicants Council will afford this newly constituted board the vast majority of whom have not heard any testimony yet a full and fair opportunity to hear all the testimonial and documentary evidence from all parties and to give the members of the public behind me a full and fair opportunity to uh uh afford them their right of due process under the state and federal Constitution uh and the rights of Confrontation to participate fully in these proceedings another matter that was addressed in my opinion unfortunately in the April 29 letter uh by applicants Council was the suggestion that my co-counsel and I appear here as co-counsel to Robert Simon of the herald Law Firm who also has been retained to represent Mr Dash um for reasons outside the control of Mr Simon he could not be here this evening and for reasons outside the control of Mr Simon uh this matter was unable to be adjourned past this evening uh so I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to be here in his stad the uh he represents Anand Dash as do I a resident of Sparta and by definition an interested party under the municipal land use law uh I think it's a thinly veiled attempt at best when applicants Council tries to suggest that Mr Simon actually represents a broader group perhaps anyone who ever clicked on the Facebook page for Sparta responsible development um because as the board and its professionals know and perhaps members of the public know but if they don't let me tell them right now that's an attempt uh to prevent members of the public and a vast number of them as I understand it an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses of the applicant uh Mr Dash is required to ask questions through me and Mr Simon when he is here I respectfully submit every other member of the public has the right to ask questions of each and every witness and they should not be afford uh uh their constitutional rights should not be encroached uh on by trying to limit or restrict or prevent them from doing so those are the items that uh were addressed in Mr and I apologize if I'm pronouncing it Goen go Goen Go's uh uh that's why I said applicant Council goens uh uh uh uh letter of April 29 I also intend uh to argue uh uh in support and supplement uh Mr Simon's letter of April 24 wherein he pointed out uh one in particular deficiencies in the content of the notice uh by the applicant as this board knows notice is jurisdictional meaning it's a predicate for this board to act if the notice is bad you can cannot proceed um I can make that argument now it probably makes sense to make it now it's a predicate argument uh and it's no surprise that applicants Council who I suspect will argue to the contrary uh the uh the applicant however failed to provide adequate notice uh the ml's fundamental requirement is that the public must be fairly apprised of the application in any related hearings uh in order to consider it that's section 11 of the municipal land use law and the seminal case is the Pearl Mar case I often like to say is most of the time I'm a board attorney I usually fall back on Peart and its progeny peart's the case that is is uh almost universally relied upon uh for content of notice and sufficiency of notice the public notice requirement ensures that members of the general public who may be affected by the nature and character of the proposed development are fairly apprised thereof so that they may make an informed determination as to whether they should participate in the hearing or at the very least to look more closely at the P plans and other documents on file there's four items that must be in every notice uh date time and place of the hearing they got it right on that one uh an accurate identification of the property proposed for development by street address uh actually technically it's or block and lot and it actually is or you can get away with one or the other under the case law they got them both here uh so they're two for two thus far uh and the location and times at which any maps and documents for which approval is sought are available and that was done as well the problem is with the content of the notice and specifically the requirement that the nature of the matters be considered and there's a plethora of case law on the issue not only when the matters considered are not specifically enough identified but also when they are identified in a way that can be can be to the members of the public misleading to properly put the general public on notice of the nature of the matters considered and the character of a proposed development it's imperative the notice of hearing contain an accurate description of the what the what the property will be used for on under the application and where the notice fails to give a reasonably accurate description adjacent land owners may be misled notice is fundamental to the board and it's a matter of jurisdiction my client has originally raised a legal issue before the board as you're well aware and it's been before the courts uh and uh to summarize that issue uh it's uh the issue of whether or not this proposed Al is as purported to be a project A Ware for a warehouse use as defined by the sparta zoning ordinance or I should say Land Management code or something different perhaps a truck terminal which is not a permitted principal use but a conditionally permitted use and as this board particularly the Zoning Board of adjustment temporary members know if you violate any one of those conditions for that conditional use uh that is a D3 variance that is required and only the Zoning Board of adjustment has jurisdiction to hear that application or it may be that it is some other uh non-permitted Argo prohibited use that requires D1 use variants be it a combination of uses principal uses or a single principal use all of which frankly there was evidence in the prior proceedings back some two years ago uh and no doubt will be more uh to support those contentions but regardless of the outcome of that issue that is an issue and the Court ruled that the planning board can make that interpretation of that issue what is the correct use is it truly a warehouse or is it something else that might have ramifications as to jurisdiction of the planning board excuse me um however that did not appear in the notice and in fact the notice misled the public by affirmatively stating in essence that issue's already been resolved why do I say that and first let me let me go back to the judge's decision that I was referring to because the board to consider testimony and evidence submitted by the applicant who per the appell at division's decision that came out just days ago the the applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the purpose listed in its application was for a permitted use in the Ed Zone as a warehouse that's their burden as board members you know the applicant has all the burdens appr proof that's one of them the Appel division stated on page six of its decision and recognized this as it sent this case back to you when I say you as a planning board in essence DCR Diamond chip realy has the burden to show the purpose listed in its application was for a permitted use in the zone as a warehouse and the planning board would decide whether it met that ordinance if the planning board decided the the application was not for a warehouse the zoning board would then have jurisdiction to hear any further applications by DCR that's a quote from the Appel at court the notice fails to notify the public that the board will determine if the proposed use for the subject property is permitted conditionally permitted or prohibited instead the notice misleadingly states that the applicant is proposing quote a rail served warehouse storage facility a permitted use in the Ed Zone end quote as if you've already decided that issue that the appellant division directed you to decide in these proceedings that's not just failing to include something that's required to be included that is actually affirmatively misstating the facts and the issues before this board and leading members of the public to conclude that the issue's already been resolved that when we talk about and I don't mean to analogize this to fraud but there's two types of fraud under the law you can make a material uh Omission fail to State something that's material or you can affirmatively make a misrepresentation here it was an affirmative misleading I do not accuse anyone of fraud but the notice nor do I have to the notice was deficient because it not only failed to state that this issue is before you but it affirmatively misstated that it's not before you that it's already been resolved P division told us no it hasn't it's your job further the notice fails to mention that prior public hearings on the application took place approximately two years ago whether the proceedings that took place at such such time are still to be considered a part of the record before the board in considering the application notwithstanding the fact that we have almost all if I understand correctly new board members to hear this application as planning board members or the extent to which the applic has been revised since that time which I think we all know is very substantially amended since two years ago in fact it's been amended twice since the uh the prior proceedings for the prior application without clearly and accurately setting forth the nature of the matters considered as identified accordingly the public notice is both procedurally and substan ly deficient divesting the board of jurisdiction to begin to consider the application at its May 1 2024 meeting there's no close counts in the law of notice if it's deficient as I just described you can't proceed you can't begin because everything you do thereafter will be a nullity will be void and you'll have to do it again I want to reserve my right to argue further including respond to applicant Council who I have no doubt will say that the notice was sufficient um but I do want to end by urging you and reminding you you got to do it right from the start I think we've all learned that uh uh uh as doing board work particularly those of us who do it nightly week nightly the thankfully only week nightly the uh want to do it right from the start so you don't have to do it again on that issue I do have other issues but I'll I spent a lot of time and I think it's only fair that I give applicants Council an opportunity to respond uh uh to my argument sure so wait a minute Gentlemen let's let's do all of Mr Warner's objections and then to U Mr Goan and then both of you get a chance to address anything either says but also if there was a hidden issue in what Steve was talk Steve Warner was talking about which was something about the prior meetings uh all the board members except Mr leandi have reviewed the entire prior record and so certified so just putting that on the record but I want to know whether the objector Mr Dash and Mr Warner his attorney contend that the prior record is not part of the record of this application amended application now and then I'll want to hear that from Mr Goen as well well before I make uh the argument as to why uh it is our position that the record uh is such that the proceedings must as a matter of law start a new with this new board uh given that among other things and I'll make the full argument uh uh assuming we don't have agreement um but the uh well I'll I'll hold for now my my my position my client's position is we must start a new and I'll explain the half a dozen separate and independent reasons why the law requires that um U excuse me Tom maybe should explain that now yeah I think I think go ahead and I need to hear what Mr Warner's position is and then I need to hear what Mr Go's position is on on the record for okay I respect this is a very important issue so let's air it out I hear both sides on this very important issue certainly what is the record uh the proceedings must start a new uh for multiple separate and independent reasons first the unique circumstances that we all find ourselves in I can assure you I've been doing this for 30 years uh primarily very primarily as a board attorney candidly uh uh and Municipal attorney um this is a new one uh virtually the entire board as I understand it uh one Steve there is one member Mr Sylvester who was here for the prior applica entirety of the prior application Mr rad was appointed after the prior application so so everyone except one and then some of the zoning board members were here for the interpretation application by Mr U Dash uh but that's different and not that record thank you Mr Collins and and and and that's exactly right and and that's what I was referring to as virtually uh that's what we attorneys do right when there's one you say virtually everyone uh uh wasn't here before uh they they the uh that is unique uh what's also unique let's take them in combination uh is the fact that there were five hearings that took place approximately two years ago and and uh let's also take uh into account the fact that the plan substantially changed and I'll get to that more in a moment twice since then in fact when I say it's a unique circumstance or an unprecedented circumstance I'm not alone in fact uh applicants Council one of them uh Mr Garcia uh who was an attorney for jordano howerin and cisla who handled the litigation uh correctly in my opinion characterized in a April 9th uh law news article such a large scale and I quote such AAR large scale the article I assume the article quoted Mr Garcia correctly such a large scale disqualification appears to be unprecedented now the under such circumstances the board's Reliance on dry stale transcripts from two years ago dealing with essentially a different project as the project that's before you tonight cannot supplement uh or or compensate for what you're missing when you're reading those transcripts you cannot see and hear particularly see the testimony coming in as you know you are finders you are judge and jury if you will and you know among other things your job is not to just read what people said but to see them in real time say what they're saying particularly under cross-examination and assess their credibility you can't assess The credibility of a bunch of pieces of paper so much for the dramatic portrayal of what a bunch of pieces of paper look right right they they uh I think you that you can do you can picture that but you can't judge The credibility in fact I was part of the group that when Co first hit we tried to figure out how we going to do these remote meetings I apologize for digressing a bit but I think it's relevant we had to come up with rules that ultimately turned into regulations for handling remote proceedings you're all we're all familiar with them well not long ago uh that we were all doing them right uh and there was a separate set of regulations permitting remote proceedings for land use boards I'm sure uh Mr Collins taught you uh or Mr keen's on the zoning board taught you uh that it's a different set of regulations for land use boards hearing applica development application hearings different than any other public body why because you're you're here you're performing a quasi judicial function your judges and juries and you have to be able to see and hear and assess credibility that was the whole point of it a whole different set of supplemental regulations that we had to create and weave our way through to make sure what people had full and Fair Hearings and due process rights under the state and federal Constitution or afforded and this is not the typical situation that we've all experienced and that's provided for in the ml under Section 10.2 which allows for a board member and in our experienc right one or two board members might miss one or two meetings in a multi hearing process right happens and you're entitled in that circumstance to read a transcript or preferably watch an audio video uh recordation of the hearing I know you didn't have that opportunity unfortunately here uh in order to qual ify yourself after being absent absent from a meeting or two that's what that statute was uh uh enacted for to be able to handle that efficiency to keep the process moving not for as Mr Garcia aptly characterized it this unprecedented situation to substitute for you as new board members hearing a new application and not an old one reading about it from from two years ago that's just one reason why legally I submit we have to start a new separate and independent reason the prior five hearings by virtue of judge mtz's ruling on March 28th are void as a matter of law because he determined that any member which effectively as I understand it was any follower if you will of the SRD Facebook page had to be disqualified from the proceedings and it's my understanding and I have documentation demonstrative of such that the former chairman of the planning board Andrew Raina who presided over I believe all five hearings was at the time a follower member so to speak of Sparta responsible development there's a case on this when was the last time you heard a lawyer say there's not a case on this right there's a case on this Randol e Brigantine planning board 405 NJ super 215 the appell at division in 2009 the court determined there that the chairman the Chairman's recusal from the application before deliver liberating and voting the chairman didn't deliberate and vote recused but had participated prior in a prior hearing that recusal tainted the whole process requiring a doover and I quote from that case in some because of Roberts chairman Roberts participation at the December Board hearing the boarded ings in their entirety must be voided and set aside similar case Hagerty versus Red Bank buau Zoning Board of adjustment also an Appel division decision in 2006 cited at 385 NJ super 501 also set aside the decision of a board of adjustment because of a conflict of interest on the part of the board's presiding officer could have just said chairman but the court said presiding officer those cases are on point in my opinion and respectfully to former chair Raina his participation in those five proceedings two years ago tainted them as a matter of law doover as the court ordered the pellet division ordered in the Randol case third separate and independent reason this project and the plans as I alluded to earlier have been substant excuse me substant I need my I substantially amended since the prior Hearing in 2022 you don't thank you the the um uh and and done so twice as I understand that the both thank you both the application went from two buildings and at one point uh shrunk to one building that was somewhat smaller than the combined two buildings in square footage gross floor area and now is back to two buildings and back up to about well 698,000 square feet in to in Gross floor area it's well settled law that where an amended application is substantially different from the original it may be treated by the board and any reviewing Court as a new application and I'm citing not from the Appel at division the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey 10 stary D partnership versus Morrow 216 n j16 a 2013 decision in such a case the court said new notice must generally be given of the filing of the amended application uh and a similar case Lakeshore Estates V Denville getting a little closer uh geographically uh 255 NJ super 580 that's an Appel at division decision in 1991 affirmed by the Supreme Court at 127 NJ 394 in 1992 where an amended application sought approval for a substantially revised site plan the application was deemed a new application and new notice required and that rule holds even where the application and the project are amended such that they require less relief or relief of less of a magnitude or Andor it got smaller the court doesn't say well it's a new application if there 's a substantial change increasing but not decreasing a substantial change is a substantial change whichever direction it goes and for that I cite Macedonian Orthodox Church V Randolph planning board the first one Randol was a gentleman by the name of Randol now we're in Randol uh 269 New Jersey super 562 pellet division 1994 the Court held that even though the plan changes eliminated the need for some variances where the changes themselves are substantial the application can be treated as a new application and re reviewed a new start a new as I said as I understand it Diamond chip applied in November 2021 to build two warehouses with about 880,000 Square ft of space the size was later reduced to about 660,000 Square ft in one building if I recall correctly and now it's back up to two buildings and back up to 698,000 square feet with more than one 100 Bays more than 100 doct doors as we call them fourth separate and independent reason why we have to start a new why the board as a matter of law has to start a new again judge minkowitz in his March 28th decision already found that diamond chip reality's newest plan constitutes a substantial Amendment under mlul Section 46b and I quote from page six of Judge mtz's March 28 2024 decision in Diamond chip the township of Sparta planning board Mr Collins and Mr Garcia are familiar abolutely njsa 40 col 55 D- 46b provides as follows if the planning board requires any substantial amendment in the layout of improvements proposed by the developer that have been the subject of a hearing on amended application for development shall be submitted and proceeded upon and the judge relied on that provision and other facts to determine and to reject the first count of the complaint by DCR against I guess I could say this planning board because you're the planning board now this planning board the lawsuit they bought count one was dismissed uh that was the count whereby they sought to compel this board to hear and decide the application within 30 days they'd love to get it done quick quick right never met a developer applicant who didn't so I I don't fault anyone I get it Pages 5 through nine of that decision go through that analysis and based thereon the judge rejected that count and afforded you and the members of the public and the applicant a full and fair opportunity to have a full and fair hearing what this is all about and started a new the time frames including the 45 day time frame for the board to deem the application complete so what am I saying if I was succinct I would have said it to you just like this judge already ruled it's a substantial Amendment the application and the hearing should start a new unique unprecedented facts and circumstances under the law the transcripts don't do it the case has to start a new there former chair's participation in the five hearings that they would like to say are in and done and we could jump off from there we could uh springboard from there to get this done quick their void as a because of the former Chairman's participation pursuant to judge mtz's decision their void as a matter of Law and this is a substantial Amendment as the court found for those four separate and independent reasons I respectfully submit to you you have to start a new and by the way let me throw one more in you should want to start a new so that you get a full and fair opportunity to see and hear and judge this case and all the testimonial and documentary evidence on behalf of the applicant and on behalf of all interested parties and the members of the public I suspect you do and so I'll add that as a fifth reason the first four you must the fifth I I respect you because I know you want to because you know it's the right thing and I'll stop there for now and reserve my rights thank you Mr Warner on on that issue I don't know if Mr Collins wants me to go through every issue yeah I think I think In fairness but no but I think it's good Mr Warner to at least you said you would summarize them at least summarize every argument you're going to make as if at your opening in case the applicant has a counter position that we should hear about as to their opening I'm not not doesn't mean you're wetted to you're limited from future presentations or Witnesses certainly well but I the other arguments that I have are not in my opinion predicate arguments meaning they're not jurisdictional nor are they do they require the board to decide them now such as what is the record are we going backwards with dry transcripts or are we going forward with a live case what is the record okay uh those are the predicate issues the other issues I have which are I'm sure are no surprise relate primarily to what I alluded to before there's more than just a bulk Varian at issue here but I think In fairness that needs to play itself out uh throughout the course of the hearing so so that's all I have at the front end thank you Mr Warner Mr Goen please give your opening sure um so I guess I'll respond to the notice argument first I mean obviously you know as I stated in my April 29th letter we disagree that the notice was defective um you know I'm very familiar with the Lacy case as well um Lacy case has the holding that uh the notice has to include a common sense description of the nature of the application such that an ordinary lay person could understand its potential impact upon him or her um our notice very clearly indicated what we are here applying for um you know the the uh obors make a big deal about the fact in our notice that we said that we are making an application for a warehouse which is a permitted use in the Ed Zone um I don't think it's in dispute that a warehouse is a permitted use in the Ed Zone it's listed among the permitted uses it is a permitted use in the Ed Zone that's what we're here applying for um I think where the mischaracterization comes in is the appell division holding is not saying that we have to advise we don't have to advise all of the public of exactly the nature of how the board deliberates or um what is necessarily considered in front of the board we have to give a common sense explanation of what we're seeking uh what kind of relief we're seeking in front of the board we're seeking site plan approval the board's decision is to determine whether or not our application meets the requirements of the site plan ordinance we are asking for approval of a warehouse the board is going to determine whether or not we meet the requirements of the ordinance we very clearly lay out in our notice exactly what we're applying for we give a very common sense description we're applying for two buildings we give the square footage we outline the parking anybody in the public reading that notice would not have any question as to what this application about we also know we also do put in the notice that this is a continuation hearing that the board is going to um continue its consideration of this application and so I just find that the argument that our notice is effective for that reason and that we somehow have to include in our notice um I'm not even sure how that would work and if you logically play it out that we have to give some kind of General description of what we're applying to do a building with employees with boxes and storage and then we're going to leave it up to the board to tell us what it is that's not how anybody notices for a land use application in the entire State you you you put in your notice what you were seeking approval for what permitted use you are seeking you don't say I'm coming in and I'm applying for a square building that has a drive-thru and a kitchen and we make food and you know we're going to let the planning board determine whether or not it's a fast food restaurant right I mean that that's essentially what the objectives are saying that we needed to put in our notice and we're not required to do that we're asking for approval of a permitted use the board here is going to determine whether or not we meet the ordinance requirements for that use so relative to the notice um I think I'll leave it there our notice was perfectly adequate under the ml well and I think maybe we should decide Tom I up to you if you want to decide that issue before I move on to the record um I think I think it's good to go ahead and address these what these issues that Mr Warner has highlighted and make maybe we'll deal with all those well I'm going to try to I I'll move to to our our notes on the record I mean I I think it's really important um that the full record of this case be considered when the board is adjudicating our current version of the application I mean even if you're reading the transcript there's a lot of information in the transcripts that's relevant to what we're going to present before at what we're going to present uh tonight um and you know part of the reason why we are here with an amended plan is because of all of those five hearings and the comments that we got from the planning board and the comments that we got from the public and particularly at that July 6 2022 hearing um my client taking the microphone from me and saying you know what we've heard you and we're going to make all of these adjustments to our plan and we're going to come back with a new plan that hits these requirements I mean I I think that it's I I don't see what purpose it serves to exclude um all of that prior testimony and all of those prior facts from the board when when considering this application I think it's all relevant and I'm not sure what fact finding purpose it serves to exclude that I also I don't quite understand the argument that the entire past proceeding is a nullity because because the former board chairman was was a member of SRD um I mean the court just ordered that eight members of the eight members of the planning board had to be disqualified because they were members of SRD we objected to those eight members um we never objected to Chairman Raina and now the objectors are seeking to essentially take advantage of the fact that they had a member of the planning board before as a member of their group to disqualify five hearings worth of evidence that the board can consider in hearing this application again I'm not sure what kind of fact finding or um just judicial determination purpose that serves I don't see why excluding evidence from the record serves any purpose we are going to present new testimony we're not standing here tonight saying we're going to rely on those first five hearings we're going to show you a plan and that's going to be it I have my architect here is going to take you through the plan we're going to present engineering testimony we're going to present a professional planner the board is going to hear plenty of testimony about the new plan we're not just simply going to rely on the prior five hearings but the fact of the matter is those hearings are all part of this case this case has been going on for two and a half years um but all of that information is relevant I think to the board's decision and I just disagree that you know as a matter of law it needs to be excluded or anything like that I also disagree with the characterization of Judge Mink's decision that he somehow made a holding that this was a substantial Amendment he quoted the ml um I I don't know that that was really relevant to the holding in that case whether or not the application was a substantial Amendment the fact of the matter is it is an amended application we filed an application to address comments that we heard by the planning board which is very commonly done um but I don't think that changes the fact that all of the prior testimony and all the prior facts that the board elicited should be part of the record so I I disagree that the application needs to proceed or needs to begin a new um I I guess I'll rest there Tom Mr Warner anything Mr just let's just make sure Mr Warner has no rebuttal no I do thank you go ahead M the uh again with respect to the notice the key issue is what was excluded as well as what was included uh and it's one thing to leave out an item that everybody including the court ordering this board to consider as an open issue in the context of these proceedings that interpretation issue ultimately is this a permitted use or a conditional use requiring a D3 variance or some other use or uses requiring perhaps a D1 use variance a predicate issue is that something that's important and part of the nature of the matters considered to reasonably apprise a a resident member of the public to look into this but also the misleading nature of saying in effect it's not it's already been decided this is a a a a a permitted use uh and in the zone um it's misleading H and as I said with notice it's a jurisdictional predicate if it's bad it's bad and by the way as we know with the disqualification of a board member I don't look I all I could say I all I go back on when I teach this One Bad Apple spoils the whole bunch right that's what we learn from our board attorneys you cannot have a board member I'm on the record now that meaning what is the record the fact that and and respectfully uh I suspect applicants Council does understand the argument so uh if the chair of the board was effectively conflicted and disqualified I mean let's look what happened uh sorry to be so colloquial but the applicant decided they wanted to go after a certain number of board members they picked them they went to courton said they got to be disqualified because they were on that Facebook page they didn't go for everybody didn't matter if the applicant was on the Facebook page didn't matter if uh people in favor of the application were on the Facebook page this day and age and I'm guilty too we're on Facebook pages when we're not on Tik Tok but that's a different issue the the but the fact of the matter is now you get your just deserve you got it you got the Court ruling anybody on the Facebook page can't sit it on the deis well guess what chairman Reena on the Facebook page not only sat on a deas he shared all the proceedings whoops oh we don't want him off or he's off we don't want that to count don't listen to what the randor E Brigantine case says don't listen uh to the fact that if a chairman presides over one hearing and is Tainted you got to go back and start it all over again pretend that's not the law let's get the people off who we want to get off but we don't want it to have to pay a price if we want to move forward and and not and uh uh quicker and not have to go you know and and want to rely on five hearings from 2022 thank you Mr Warner anything further the rest I I just reiterate those same arguments and and I'd respectfully request the opportunity whether it be 01 uh for these new proceedings or not uh uh to uh present Mr Collins the uh page that shows that Mr Raina as uh is a longstanding or member of water a responsible development since early 2022 uh I have these for the board uh to demonstrate the factual predicate for my point that could be 01 yes that's and with you're offering show show it to the bring them up applicant attorneys uh let's just make sure Mr go any objection to this being offered as an exhibit by Mr Warner no objection thank [Music] you yeah anything further anything further from Mr Goen or to real quick so I mean relative to this relative to this issue of of chairman Raina I mean it's you know I understand the case law cited but the the conflict the objector cannot benefit from the conflict the conflict has to the taint follows to the objector so you know you can't use that conflict now as a sword I mean we were we were using it's a shield for us the objector can't use that as aured we can't have members of the deis who were inherently prejudiced against us the objector can't now use that as a sword to say the entire five hearings of this prior proceedings are somehow tainted and you have to start all over again and disclude any of that evidence that's that it's fundamentally unfair so that's all that's all I'll say about that issue and then um you know again relative to the again relative to the record we have review letters that we're going to talk about tonight uh they identify this application as um you know the same application all the way through application number 689 and the review letters also rely substantially and have a lot of discussion about the prior plans that we've submitted um so you know that's something that we're going to talk about I think it is relevant the the prior plans that we've submitted versus the current plans that we're going to talk about tonight so I would ask that the board not exclude any of the record in this proceeding if I may Mr chairman just to be clear um what Mr go just said is not the law uh and I challenge him to tell me a case that supports it if there's a taint if there's a disqualified member participating the hearings are void you start a new uh no matter who raises it uh it's not it's what's good for the goose is good for the gander and uh excuse me Tom this board will decide if we going to hear a testimony from the prior application or this is going to be new who makes that decision the board is going to make that decision uh and tonight probably I just want to make sure we're done on these procedural arguments both attorneys are done any are there any other attorneys representing a party in this proceeding who wants to make an appearance there are no other attorneys and it's about 8:00 pm so very interesting uh arguments okay and one of the interesting most interesting ones that you should probably uh maybe address first is really the issue of whether the case should start a new whether the hearings in the past from the past should be uh should not be part of this record and whether the application as amended should start new hearings and that issue is a very important issue in the entirety of this these proceedings including the Appel division decision and including the um trial Court's decision and the DCR versus part of planning board case because part of planning board won that part of the case and actually contended that the amended plans were a substantial Amendment to the application and that does not mean that there needs to be a new application or a new number assigned it just is a determination that the board can make that the case should start a new because it is substantially amended and Mr uh Warner is correct that the case law actually that was the case law cited by the sparta planning board to judge minkowitz inerting that under Lakeside Lakeshore Estates versus Denville and the star 10 case the Supreme Court entered basically the courts have found that if the board finds that it's a substantial amendment to an application then the hearing should start over and that's your determination um if we go to that first it actually helps to narrow the issues a little bit um there are a lot of reasons why it should start a new um the name number one one is the substantial Amendment uh another one could be this alleged uh conflict claim as raised by Mr Warner this evening um he is correct and it's ass erting that uh any taint of a record uh could at any point in time result in the entire record Being deemed null and void which unfortunately mean Starting Over Again years from now which I don't recommend to you so so you have to sort of weigh uh what to what extent is it necessary to even consider the prior record and if we decide that we're not considering the prior record we will be requiring um new testimony the reality is there was going to be substantial new testimony um on this matter because we never got through anything more than about four Witnesses for the applicant and no Witnesses for Mr Dash and no Witnesses from the public it just questions so you know starting a new is although although sounds like it will take a lot more time it might actually take less time because we'll focus on what is the application as amended presently before the planning board so I think that's going to be the first issue I'm going to want you to rule on I I think that actually might narrow some of the other issues too Tom can can we uh take a motion now in regards to that yes I would chair entertain a motion if this application should now start with new hearings do I have a uh motion on it second second second um Dory Co just uh just the five people not Mike leandi dor can you call the role please John Ferman yes and Lori yes Ernie rat yes Mike Sylvester yes Brian Zimmerman yes all right thank you so the board will not be using the old record for the uh continuation or the ex for this application this amended application now there was another issue raised about notice and I will go over that now um this one is my determination because it is jurisdictional and it's important to realize that any application for a any use requires a notice and requires to state that the applicant is seeking something that does not mean that the board agrees that that is a permitted use or that the are not issues that just means the applicant is noticing that a hearing will be held on an application so that's true in every application the objection by Mr Warner although well argued is really not a sufficient basis for determining that the notice is defective Mr Warner and Mr Dash and any members of the public will still have the opportunity in the hearing to contend that the use is not a permitted use or to contend that the proposed use does not conform with uh certain ordinances it will always be in every single planning board case and is is a case in which the applicant in this case Diamond chip has the burden of proof that they comply with the ordinances and it is not their duty to ask for interpretations or to take up the mantle of the objector case and to state that this will be an issue in in the case and in their notice that that doesn't mean that Mr Dash or members of the public don't have arguments that they can make in the hearing they absolutely do and they absolutely will make those arguments in their portion of the hearing but I'm satisfied that the notice is compliant with the municipal L law and the case law and to adequately describe the proposed application and that it met the standards of the case law including the Pearl Mark Case but I respect that Mr Warner has a different opinion and Mr Goen has a different opinion and that may be a very important issue in future proceedings but this case is a case which is a court ordered hearing within 45 days of a court order and this planning board has reconvened and accomplished the huge task of of actually reading and considering that prior record and actually being able to be ready to hear the case we we I agree with Mr Warner that you probably do have 120 days from the date of the uh this hearing to arguably to hear the case but I suspect that we are going to be having multiple more meetings going well beyond 9 90 days 95 days 120 days so much so that we will need extensions from the applicant and they will probably be granted as long as the proc the case is being processed reasonably and that is what we do here in spartus process applications reasonably so that being said um I think you should start the hearing now if we have some time tonight uh we won't have a lot because we end at 9:30 to 10: so so no no testimony after 9:30 um and that's that's the process that we're going to undertake Mr Collins if I may um since the decision's been made to start a new does the applicant and their professionals have a change in their presentations affect your presentations if we proceed to move forward uh well yeah a little bit but we're still prepared to move forward tonight okay now I gu the question Tom I mean you know one of the things that we were going to refer back to obviously was the changes that the planning board had requested we're not going to talk about that you can you can talk what you want to talk about you just can't use the old record fair enough okay um fair enough and that goes that goes for Mr Dash and for Mr for the objectors as well and that's fine so that that's not going to affect our presentation tonight we're preparing forward okay so uh Mr Collins we're ready to go I'm sorry Mr chairman I don't believe there's been a determination by the board on the issue yet correct Mr Collins no I believe we're going to go forward with the hearing Mr Warner we we are not going to use the old record but we are proceeding with the hearing's talking about notice Tom I I was referring to we're to proceed with the notice as it was done okay does would the board be voting on them no board will not be voting on the notice because boards don't vote on the notice there a question of law so okay and we understand that you object Mr Warner and Mr Dash objects so okay very good uh so I will begin our presentation with uh Mr Richard saunderson he's the project architect and um I suppose at this point we should swear Mr serson in and and redo his qualifications serson please raise your right hand do you swear Fromm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God please you have to hold the mic you'll you'll hold each other hold the mic in the middle and you both can speak into it yes and uh please state your name spell your last name and give us at least a business address the my name is Richard saunderson the last name is saunderson s a u n d r s o n the business address is 5458 Avenue New York New York I'm a principal with margan Le Hosley architecture at that address thank you okay and Mr serson could you please explain to the board your professional qualifications I am a registered architect in New Jersey amongst other states I attended the City College of New York have a Bachelor of Science in architecture as well as a bachelor of architecture and have been practicing as an architect uh for about 30 plus years now and I would ask that the board accept Mr saunderson's professional qualifications any questions from the board on qualifications Mr chairman may I respectfully voar uh Mr serson with respect to his qualifications before the board makes a determination on accepting him as an expert AR that is appropriate Mr chairman thank you Mr chairman thank you Mr Collins Mr saunderson uh what is an AIA an AIA is a member of the American Institute of Architects in order to use the AIA after your name you need to be a registered architect in one or more states are you an AIA yes okay and you're a registered architect in New Jersey yes and is your license in good standing yes and have you been accepted as an expert in the field of architecture by land use boards in the state of New jerse Jersey yes including this one correct okay but not this board forly reconstituted board correct the sparter planning board correct no further objection Mr uh chairman thank you thank you we'll accept Mr serson qualifications as a registered architect please go ahead gentlemen thank you um so before we start with the testimony we do have an architectural exhibit that we should Mark so I guess um Mr Collins we're going to Mark each one of these individually starting with A1 that's fine and um they were some of these were previously marked um you start start with new numbers with today's date so so we can know so I'm G yeah we show the old one I'm going to start this with um A1 now these are not exhibits in your plan set they're not exactly the same as your plan set they're rendered somehow or are they exactly the board on the left was actually presented approximately two years ago with the original scheme the board on the right and the other boards are the recent set of drawings which was submitted as exhibits I believe um by by I guess what I mean is I was just trying to see if they're already in the plan set so you didn't have to separately mark them but if they're they look a little different in that they have a color on the I think I think we we could just separately mark them I I believe that exhibit A1 um is part of the current architectural plan set that was submitted but we'll just mark it as a blown up version of whatever plan was submitted um and then as Mr saunderson said A2 is the prior concept scheme for the buildings um so Mr serson you were involved in the original design of this project correct yes that's correct and you prepared the plans associated with both the original concept shown and A2 the revised design shown on A1 correct that's correct so um looking at the um the prior design um and on A2 and the current design on A1 um can you explain to the board the changes between the prior design that the board saw and the current design the prior design consisted of two buildings um the smaller of which was adjacent to the rail siding the rail serve building the two buildings consisted of approximately 56,000 Square ft and 373,000 ft for a total of just over 880,000 sare ft um there are the building on the left which is closer to the street actually was a double loaded building and the building on the right side with the rail serving building was a single loaded building in terms of the dock doors the previous scheme actually had dock doors facing the street which was noted by the planning board as a request to actually uh change furthermore the previous scheme had storage in the front yard which was noted in the three letters as something which we should reconsider the current scheme is a smaller total square footage it's approximately 698,000 Square ft the larger buildings adjacent to not one but four rail sidings which are used for storage of rail cars the building on the left which is the smaller building uh is also a warehouse building and that's what we would consider a flex forare ourhouse building the building on the right is a roughly 43 fo5 uh height building um the building is designed as a storage warehouse and the adjustments to the plan in response to the board's prior comments were to actually make this more of a campus like setting that's the general overall all description of the changes so and these changes were um I mean obviously they were prompted uh at our last hearing before the board but um the items that the board was asking us to consider were outlined in a letter dated November 3rd 2022 issued by Ed Hawk is that correct and you're familiar with that letter uh yes that is correct uh and what were the items listed in that letter that we were asked to consider in revising these plans uh we had five items actually in that letter uh one of them was eliminating the front yard storage the second was uh had comment on the proximity of the building to the rail line the rail dependent use the third comment suggested that we reduce the overall size of the warehouse the fourth comment had to do with the retaining walls the prior scheme had a retaining walls within 25 ft of the front yard and the fifth comment had to do with reducing the number of dock door positions that are on the buildings and further it suggested that we provide a more campus-like setting basically buildings are related to each other um and so looking at this revised concept can you just explain to the board how you um took a look at those five items and and tried to address them well first first and foremost was the idea of of a campus-like setting and what we did is we we put the larger building further away from the street and the smaller building closer to the street we actually narrowed the smaller building so that the length of the building is actually shorter than the long building so that you can actually see the corners of both buildings as you approach from the street furthermore we have removed the storage from the front yard and the dock doors are now basically on an inner Courtyard between the two buildings that's where all of the truck loading bays are the only the only parking at the front of the building is vehicle parking car parking furthermore we have I can can I show the rendering at this point sure okay so this is A3 yes could you first just describe so now this is a rendering of the corner of of the building as seen from the street the the second part of that exhibit is an aerial rendering which shows both buildings overall so part of the camp let's identify them first so A4 A3 is so A3 is actually our drawing number a002 and A4 is drawing a003 and and Tom those are part of the architectural package that was submitted with the revised application um but obviously we're marking them because these are blown up copies of those okay they they'll be part of the record um A3 and A4 please go ahead okay so so we talked about the campus L response we talked about the front yard storage elimination I'm not going to address the comment on the retaining walls the retaining walls is not really an architectural issue that's really a site civil engineering design issue it's my understanding those retaining walls have been reduced although we're going to leave that for the testimony uh for the site civil engineer I believe that that summarizes it uh you went over the the reduction in size of the warehouse we did the the total between the two buildings is 698,000 Ft which is which is which is down from the 880,000 sare Ft so essentially a reduction of approximately 200,000 square feet um and also the number of doct doors has been reduced correct that is correct we currently have 102 dock doors for truck truck dock doors 51 on each building on the inner Courtyard previously we had 192 at the first scheme um and then just quickly can you go over the um you know in terms of the proximity to the rail line and we'll talk about it a little more later um but how that impacts the height of each building well the building that's adjacent to the rail line is the primary storage Warehouse that's the larger building that is the building that can be higher than 35 ft because it is a rail dependent use as such we've designed to be 43 foot approximately to The Ridge of the building why 40 why 40 ft High because it's a storage warehouse and in addition to trying to maximize the flat floor level we want to maximize the the bulk we're storing stuff basically it's a building that's designed for what we call High pile storage essentially storing items on racks that um just to clarify one point in the um Ed ordinance the requirement for a height is 56 fet for a rail dependent structure correct uh it's 56 feet as a maximum height that's correct our proposal is 43 feet and smaller building how high is that building the smaller building is 35 ft which is the as of right height for a nonre dependent structure okay um so let's referring to uh I guess you can refer to both A3 and A4 if you want to give us a general overview of the architectural design of these buildings so these buildings are essentially um they're storage warehouses so they're basically boxes but what we do to articulate the the building and give it some interest is we provide a pattern which actually reflects the concrete panels these buildings are basically pre-cast concrete structures on the exterior wall That's typically how these are built that is the proposal here as well the buildings are basically don't really need Windows because they're storage warehouses but what you'll see at the corners of the buildings are essentially curtain wall areas and glass doors that's because these buildings are planned to allow accessory offices in the corners of the buildings and in the case of the building in the front a third area of curtain wall and entrance uh as as basically as a key entrance to the building so again they're designed primarily as storage so there's there's not a lot of windows um except at the corners where we design for future uh flexible office space so tell I'm going to Mark these is A5 and A6 okay please please identify them through the witness so the exhibit marked A5 is our drawing a007 the exhibit marked A6 is our drawing a006 the the first exhibit A5 is a floor plan showing the smaller of the two buildings and the second shows the larger of the two building and let's start with the um larger of the two buildings the building is 570 ft Deep by 1,000 ft long or 570,000 Square ft approximate area it's a steel framed building with a 50 by 54t Bay why a 50x 54t bay because that's sort of the industry standard for a spec warehouse It's a dimension that that uh has been proven to be most flexible for a variety of tenants we're basically racking and storage of of materials the building is designed with what we call speed bays in other words two bays at the outside along the long sides of the buildings is designed basically with a larger Bay 60 ft because that's where the circulation will happen that's where the unloading from the trucks and the rail carss will happen and the queuing up of the material for storage inside the building will happen the smaller building is 150 ft Deep by about 980 ft long the reason being that this is intentionally shorter than the large building so that you can actually see past it and see the large building from the street again this is what we would call a flex Warehouse building because it's meant for smaller scale storage and or the office space which would support the warehouse use basically the the front office or the um accessory office it also is a concrete panel building uh with in this case three areas left and right Corners at the front and in the center designed as what we call storefront areas or curtain wall areas uh to to allow uh light and an office entrance um let's bring up the elevations we're going to go to uh A7 and A8 could you just let's just stay on the the larger building and just try to would you explain you you described before the four rail sightings and you described them as rail storage well there there's one rail siding which has a a platform adjacent to it approximately 950 ft long which is for the immediately immediate loading and loading of rail cars the additional three sightings are really for queuing up of cars to be loaded or unloaded that are basically on site what does that mean queuing up how how are those going to be they're not accessible to the building right they're they're not adjacent to the building they're not adjacent to the building that is correct um what they they're basically there because after one set of cars is unloaded they can be queued out of the the platform and the other set of cars moved in actually unload does that mean that the the contents of the rail cars might be full of Goods during more than the day that they're delivered I suppose so although that's not really an architectural question I can't really mean you even called it you said storage that's right so it's really think do you really think storage is allowed Outdoors on rail cars I mean again I don't where did where did you come up with that idea you didn't have that before or I don't think there's outdoor storage of rail cars and or contents in rail cars that wasn't  about well I think the comment Tom was outdoor storage of the rail cars themselves not necessarily storage of materials in rail cars but if they're queued there the way I understood it is you you're going to receive deliveries of rail cars and they're going to be adjacent to the to the building that's rail adj allegedly rail aent but yet the the three rails in that picture are not adjacent so they're they're not really delivery they you can't even take a delivery from the second third and fourth siding so I have my suspicions but that doesn't seem consistent with the concepts of the ordinance so I'll just throw throw that out there right now and I'm I'm really having trouble with you having rail cars stacked queuing I I that seems like more that's more like a it's more like a trucking it's more like it's really more like a rail yard and that's not something that's for for our ocation can you just walk through that issue again where the storage of rail cars is is depicted on that site plan just with your hand just show just show us with your hand where the four sightings are and is this an architectural discussion or it's on it's on his architecture plan and he did describe it as rail storage okay I think there'll be more testimony by the end there should be more testimony to that or maybe operational testimony where on the map again I'm sorry where on the map was Tom referring to 1 two 3 4 thank you can you define a set of cars I'm sorry I didn't hear question can you define what a set of cars is I'm not sure that question is for this witness um I mean any operational questions relative to the rails really for a different witness from an architectural perspective he could explain where those uh sidings are but in terms of how they operate nature of the cars and things we'd have to have a different witness for that and just a note after the applicant a professional is done a testifying then we'll open it up to our board professionals who might have questions and then to the rest of the board members after our professionals certainly all right all right yeah certainly thank you sure um okay so now we're going to now we're going to shift over to the architectural elevations Richard we have to Tom what were we up to I have uh no I think you're up to nine now let me just check I'm sorry yes now it's A7 A7 A7 and 88 Richard if you can explain what these are so these two boards A7 which is our drawing a009 and A8 which is our drawing a08 show the building elevations of both buildings as well as on the bottom of the board on the left A7 it shows a building section A cross-section through both of the two Warehouse buildings I'm sorry for clarification which one is which building okay good question starting on the left board at the top which is exhibit A7 is the west elevation of building a so this is the Courtside elevation of the larger building the next drawing as you go down the sheet is the East elevation of the smaller Warehouse building so these two drawings represent the court side elevations the inside elevations of the of the property the bottom drawing on this first sheet is a crosssection through both buildings so on the left hand side is the street demerest road first you see the small building then you see the court between the two buildings and then you see the large building and then on the far right you actually have a section through the rail siding that's looking so essentially you're looking North the drawing on the right hand side has the north elevation of both buildings together okay so this is the large building the north elevation and this is the smaller building North elevation in between is the court okay so the street Demis road is to the right the west elevation is the next drawing down the west elevation is actually the street side elevation facing Demis road so what you see is essentially the three entrance Bays of the smaller Lex Warehouse building okay so this is what you would see from the street you call them Bays but you mean doors and glass like they're not they're not garage Bays right no they're not Bays they're they're structural Bays not garage bays and they're basically entrance Bays for again huge potential office space on the inside of the building Okay the third drawing as we go down the botom the right is the South elevation so the street would be on the left demerest Road the small building the court and then the large building on the right the last image at the bottom of the second board is the elevation at the rail siding so this is essentially the East elevation of the large building basically the back of the property um looking at these elevations I think that will be an appropriate time can we talk about um some of the design elements and building materials that you utilize so what you see when you look at the buildings is basically the pre-cast concrete panels that's what forms the the side of the buildings it's the joints between those panels which provides the vertical lines the articulation um the finish on that concrete is typically a painted concrete finish and again what you see at the corners on the first drawing on the board on the left you see basically the truck docks which again are facing the courtyard and on the left and right hand side of the building you see the potential office entrances definitely and one of the questions that came up we'll get to the review letters in a minute but one of the questions that came up in the review letters is the location of H AC units and other uh building equipment can you explain where that would be uh well we're really at the site plan submission stage not the building submission stage but typically what we do in these buildings and I think what we had said two years ago at the prior testimony was that we typically have rtus rooftop units which are small packaged units um they're typically set back from the facade so that you don't see them from the facade and they're typically typically m multiple units multiple small units rather than one large uh unit those those we call them basically Cambridge units is is the industry term and one of the other questions that was raised in review letters is uh whether any generators are proposed can you speak to that there are no generators proposed at this time this is a spec Warehouse building then there were no generators proposed that's correct um one one question that um I think is important for the board to know is whether or not these rofs are going to be solar ready uh pursuant to state statute can you speak to that issue uh they have to be under New Jersey Law they need to be solar ready which basically means for us building in a little extra structural capacity so that you can add at a future date the solar panels the photo PV panels um all right so just turning to we did get two review letters um on this application and I think I just want to reference them so that we're clear out what we're talking about um we received a review letter from Dave Simmons um and also a review letter from Katherine sarmat a stack of paper Mr Warner you could have used this binder when you were doing that paper thing right now you tell me yeah um were you when I needed you all right so the the um the review letter from uh Katherine sarmad dated September 13 2023 um the review letter from uh Mr Simmons dated July 20th 2023 so when we're talking about planning and Engineering reviews that's what we're going to be referring to um I'm sorry I'm sorry yep you had uh clarifications Mr chairman with your permission dad's report of what date September 13th 2023 okay and what was the date on Mr Simmons July 20th 2023 oh we might I'm sorry we had a more recent one September 22nd September 22 that's the one September 22nd 2023 right d correct yeah September 22nd 2023 thank you thought heard a different dat and you're welcome thank so all right those when we say when we say planning and Engineering review letters those are two most recent planning and Engineering review letters that we've received so that's what we'll be referring to um I think you know I I we just walked through most of the architectural comments um that are in those review letters uh basically both review letters had the same comments which was building materials location of hbac units height of buildings which we talked about earlier generators um the last question was office space I know you've touched on it but what is the plan for office space in these buildings these buildings are designed primarily is storage warehouses however we know from experience that there will be a need for some accessory office space with the warehouse or you know HR it um front you know front of house office space that's typically less than 10% of the gross floor area um in some cases a lot smaller and what we do typically and I'll bring the floor plan back just to make the point is that we plan the building so that the entrances are at the corners where the where the most likely logical entrance will be for a an office the office is probably no more than a bay or two perhaps two by two bays you're pointing to an exhibit what exhibit is that I'm pointing to exhibit A6 thank you that of course allows separation of the warehouse use from the office use and you're not mixing the the front of house with the storage use so to answer your question again Steve there is no specific office Place Spas planned out at this time however it's anticipated that most tenants will have one or more accessory offices okay and then I think last exhibit will be 8 and nine A8 and N I'm sorry just A8 so this is our last ex can you explain what A8 is please sure this is um two images on this exhibit A8 which is our drawing number a004 the top image is a photograph from Route 15 or Highway 15 looking towards the Southwest in other words you're looking across um another property towards the tree line the tree line is approximately our rear property line so and that's approximately 1,000 ft from Highway 15 to the property line the image below is a photo realistic rendering on which we superimposed the proposed building so if you look closely you'll see bits of the building visible through the tree line although uh from 1,000 ft plus because again it's 1,000 ft to the property line and then our building is further set back from our rear property line um you get an image that that that represents what the view would be and how it would be impacted with the new building from Highway 15 um all right so moving forward in um designing this building you had a chance to review section 18 of the Township's ordinance which is the spart comprehensive Land Management code uh yes and um you are familiar with section 18- 4.29 of the code which includes zoning standards for the Ed Economic Development District correct yes that's correct from an architectural and design perspective what requirements of the Ed Zone did you consider in this design maybe we should go back to one of the earlier exhibits okay so we're looking at exhibit A4 which is the aerial rendering and again Steve your question it was question question is what what requirements of the Ed Zone zoning requirements the Ed Zone did you consider in this design well the Ed Zone has the uh it permits a taller building for rail dependent use so the larger building which is at the rear of the site could be up to 56 ft high again we're proposing 43t 5 in high uh and that again that additional height is permitted by the rail dependent use the building at the front of the site is limited to 35 ft High because that's the as of right uh height for the uh non rail dependent use um um I just want to clarify one point on the uh um the bulk requirement relative to height the height bonus is is permitted for a rail dependent structure rather than use correct there are there are requirements that are applicable to rail dependent use but the height specifically is for rail dependent structure correct yes we're talking about the height in this case correct um so and then relative to that uh what is the intended use of these buildings uh storage warehouses again this these are designed to um literally house Wares they're they're designed to store uh products most likely on shelves but possibly on the floor um for a period of time which could be a week or day or longer uh it could be a year uh it depends upon the tenant and the actual end user but they're basically designed to store products uh and you are familiar with the definition of Warehouse in the sparta Township ordinance correct uh yes uh specifically it says it shall mean a building used for temporary storage of goods materials or merchandise or later or subsequent distribution delivery Elsewhere for purposes of processing or sale and were these buildings designed from from your perspective as the lead designer architect uh with this permitted use in mind uh yeah definitely that's this is why we have a building that's 500 plus feet deep 1,000 ft long and has a volume that's 40 ft high it's basically to uh maximize the storage volume in one structure um we talked about the height standards already and um in addition to the uh in addition to the zoning standard section of the ordinance there's also a a design standard section of the ordinance uh and you're familiar with Section 18- 5.5 which are the designed standards for industrial buildings uh yes and did you have an opportunity to review section 18- 5.5 in um preparing this design of this amended submission yes in your opinion does this revised submission comply with the design standards in section 18-55 yes um I I really have nothing further for Mr serson but I'll turn it over to board professionals thank you uh Mr it's the board's in agreeance we'll take a f minute recess and and after that we'll have our board professionals Katherine smart and um and Mrs Simmons comment at uh any issues they may have very good okay e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e so we can start without Mike uh wait until he gets back take that as a message or what an open public meeting we can't lock the door sorry no problem mik okay chairman no problem we're uh we're back in session I guess Catherine would you have questions and comments to go first then yeah thank you I'm like blocked off are we starting over are we starting now yes okay we're ready right Dory yes you ready Mr Goen Mr go I'm ready sorry ready Mr yeah yes thank you Mr chairman I know I'm hidden over here I'm G to be asking questions the board uh K do you want me to move these while you're if you want to move just the one that would be great thank you so I just have I have a few questions um related to um the architect's testimony um first you mentioned that the materials largely pre-cast concrete or concrete finish what's the um the maintenance like on that type of material the maintenance really would be limited to periodic repainting because it's uh it's basically concrete whether it's site cast or pre-cast either way it's concrete okay and how does it hold up to um like discoloration does it need to be power washed frequently is it you know stain easily I would say generally no I mean but like any other painted surface eventually will need to be repainted okay thank you um and how durable is that kind of material the concrete itself is is durable and this is you know this is concrete thank you um what what sustainable design practices have been considered in the design of the uh of the buildings um well we haven't again these buildings are not fully designed we're at the site plan review stage preliminary site plan review stage uh again one of the questions which came up earlier was the Readiness of the roof to accommodate future uh solar panels and that's really not even an option for us anymore that recently became a law a couple of years ago in New Jersey that buildings of this size buildings of with a roof of this size are required to actually be stole already so that that's kind of a given basically have any other considerations been made to sustainable design of the building from from your end have you made any recommendations to the client uh we have we've talked with the client about it but again this I think we're kind of early in the stage to make that kind of detailed commitment can you give some examples of what kind of su sustainable design practice would be incorporated in a building of this size or or you know a typical Warehouse we we've talked about various lead type uh Provisions lead meaning uh the usgbc uh standard for leadership and energy um efficient design um we have had done another many other buildings actually which recently have including industrial Warehouse buildings which have gotten a lead status um we're working on a couple right now and uh actually in Pennsylvania nearby thank you um I know you mentioned the the building height for Building B the smaller building is shorter because it is not in the rail dependent area that's correct um this may be a question for another professional but um I I appreciate that that distinction was made between the two buildings for the height but as far as any of the other kind of um rail dependent bonuses that are given in the bulk conditions for the zone um you know they were taken cumulatively was there any was there any kind of conversation or in your design of this of the two buildings was there any consideration to um how the impervious coverage might be impacted um by the separation of the buildings I think that's more of a site planning question so I think we'll we'll defer to the site civil engineer on that one that's fine I know you mentioned before um the Ed Zone does require under its purpose that um it it provide the type of uses that are permitted in a campus like setting um I have you know in the past been questioned and I think it was brought up probably the well we're not about to bring up the last hearing but um it's been brought up that that is not something that's held to or has standards within the ordinance but you did mention that you believe that the design of the building and the site now does achieve a campus like setting can you just describe sure what what you put into the plan that you believe meets that that purpose so part of part of the campus like concept is that the buildings relate to one another uh meaning that they're they're the same language architecturally so these buildings are intentionally designed sort of as a big brother little brother kind of a building um so they use the same materials the same pet Etc uh furthermore and maybe I should bring this up to show this is exhibit A3 which is is the ground level rendering so this shows a view which actually shows both the buildings in one view from the ground level and the intention here and I think we were successful is that they appear to be related to one another they're not unrelated buildings they're the same language the same style so to speak uh with with a similar pallet and the same materials or you could you take that the board you have and if you could push it back so Katherine can see it while you're testifying you can still aim it towards the public what she say I have them electronically on my laptop and so we're we're looking at exhibit A3 which is sheet a002 I have that thank you so it's the it's called Ground view as a title thank you I think to further answer that question if you look at sheet uh a005 which is exhibit a A1 which is the overall site plan for the current scheme you'll see that the the front building is intentionally shorter than the rear building so that you can actually see the two buildings and if you look at the corners of the two buildings you'll see that they're intentionally articulated with a step pattern so that you actually Define the scale and relate the buildings to one another by that pattern do you did you uh consider anything besides the design of the exterior of the building the relation between the two buildings in in um the purpose of a campus like setting the situation of the buildings the setback of the buildings the attenuation of the buildings I think I think it's important to remember that what in response to the comment on the front yard storage part of the site planning here was to make sure that the truck loading bays are on the interior court and thus minimally visible from the street basically between the two buildings so I think that's key it's not necessarily a campus issue but I think it's part of the the idea that we want to make this you know a cohesive project and in response to the the comments of the the ward thank you um just some you know feedback on my part um and I do think this was a very it is a very important part of the zone is intentionally includes the purpose to talk about a campus-like setting it doesn't say business park it doesn't say Office Park it says campus-like setting and I think there's probably some intention behind that you look at the word campus the atmology of Campus it means field or uh uh an expanse around it in Latin so it's it's intended to show that it's not supposed to um I think be uh imposed upon I think there's supposed to be something about it that is intentional in the Ed Zone despite allowing for uses that are warehouses and and Industrial and Manufacturing um and so that's why I kind of included that in my memos throughout um the past 18 months or two years just to to say that it was it was a very important part I think Landscaping I think building size I think building Mass I think Building height I think number of buildings it all plays into that and while there are no standards I think you definitely can elucidate that it was put put there for a purpose and and an ordinance has a purpose intent that's fair to say I think the other point we should point out is that the building is now set back further from the street from deest road so there is now more green open space in front of the building that's actually visual that something Throne on the street and the public can actually see so it's it's again it's the mass of the building is removed from the street side would would you say that approximately 850t long building provides uh an openness it's a it's an 850 ft building that's several hundred feet back from the street in most cases behind actually an existing tree line so I don't think there's any point on demor drill where you'll actually see the entire building and do you I know that the so your sheet a003 which is kind of the bird's eye view I don't have the exhibit number if you want to exhibit A4 A4 so if you on that sheet which I'll bring up so exhibit A4 sheet a003 the rendering does show the existing tree line which is along demerest Road and that's existing today and it can be um enhanced by the the new trees which is as you drive down the driveway towards the building those are new trees did you have any input in the in the additional Landscaping at the interior of the site uh we talked about it with the site civil engineer um although we're not Landscape Architects okay and the you you mentioned something about um you know the bu building not being fully visible from demerist um because of that existing tree line that's correct you believe that the trees that exist there um in all seasons will help to uh mitigate the visual impact that the building has the linear length of the building has along Demmer Road I would say yes in fact I drove by there tonight I was here several years ago a couple of times several years ago and it was more of a winter time at that point it was still the trees provideed screening there's no question about it but they obviously are deciduous trees and they would they're not Evergreens so and is the site uh higher than demerest Road would the buildings be located at a grade that's higher than demerest uh I would say the answer is generally yes although the site undulates quite a bit okay thank you very much I have no further questions and thank you so much Katherine um David you would have any comments on the architectural just a few Mr chairman again referring to the report that I prepared dated September 22nd 2023 uh the applicants attorney and their Consultants address several of the comments in that report that I prepared but just a couple just to make sure the board is aware of what the general intent is uh in general for this complex is the applicant still talking about several tenants or one tenant for the whole campus I don't think that's determined at this time I think in an ideal world it's one campus one tenant but in the reality it may be multiple tenants and so is it possible then if there were several tenants you alluded on especially I think to the front corners of the building they might be separate office spaces for different tenants separate tenants could be accommodated with this plan yes is there an upper limit on the number of tenants I think we we would defer to the applicant on that I think I don't know if there's a hard limit because we could obviously with some articulation add additional entrances if necessary uh with regards to those office areas I'm not sure if it was shown on the plans or not is there any proposed mezzanine area um the answer to both is no the office was not shown on the plans and no no mezzanine was shown on the plans as well no mezzanines at all that's correct I know you have you mentioned that you haven't designed it which I understand for the HVAC as far as those rtu rooftop units just looking at what exhibit is that again I'm sorry it's on the board now the one that's up there is exhibit A4 just looking at the area of view A4 that as far as I can tell from here doesn't show any rtu units on it and I just want to make sure everyone has a good picture of what they're looking at do you have any approximate estimate not holding you to it but approximate EST estimate of the number of RT units that would be needed for building this size I would say it could be anywhere from a dozen to two dozen it depends upon the size of the units which obviously is going to be dictated by the end user and what the conditions they need are inside right and I know you're proposing for storage is there any consideration or possibility in any parts of these buildings to be used for Frozen storage in other words a freezer units a freezer building would be a very different building it most likely would not be a pre-cast building it would most likely be what we call an insulated metal panel building um the program here is not for a freezer building at this time and and you mentioned that uh no generators are proposed nothing for Life Safety or anything in the whole building that's correct that's all I have Mr chairman thank you David uh dorby we'll open it to the board members now if you could call on each member to see if they have any questions don't fman I have a question between building a and Building B where the docks are okay and with regard to it's it's difficult to get a scale because it's so large um but the distance between A and B so you're going to have trucks coming in and they are going to be parked a into Building B and building a correct and there needs to be a space in between obviously for travel what is the distance the distance is not actually shown dimensionally on the drawing but I I can tell you from experience it's approximately 200 ft so what is the lengthen of the tractor in the trailer we typically allow 60 ft for the tractor and the trailer fora so 120 um and those trucks would be parked there um for how long in other words would there would there be that's a function of operation uh they could be there for a couple of hours or they could be there for longer it depends upon how they need how long they need to actually do the unloading operation all right I'm just I guess I don't know how to frame the question but as the trucks are coming in and you have all these other trucks lined up H this takes into account for all the proper turning to get into the bay with trucks that are already lined there yeah that's an engineering question but definitely we we planning is there for the circulation of the vehicles yes okay I don't have anything else thank you Bernie R I just had one question I I I see on here you have uh yeah S I was going to break it um on on each of the warehouses you have in addition to the trailer docks you have two drivein docks what would be the reason for them that's usually more typical of with distribution center right well you you need to get for example forklifts into the building that's how you would bring uh equipment into the building you probably would bring the actual shelving units in through those doors as well when you're setting up the warehouse um whether or not they actually need two or not is going to be dependent on the tenant we do many buildings where there's only one because it's not something that's used every day that's it Brian not at this time me just one quick question when you go back to sustainability um is is the walkways and the connection between the buildings um to and from each other like is there circulation with the walkways that you depict on that drawing are they connected to go from both both buildings and or they just kind of individual walkways to get to and from in each building separately from the parking lots so you're asking you have like CC walkability in circulation circulation uh I think that's that would be a detail on the site plan so it's not something I really should comment on I should leave that for site civil engineers and I think the other one you answered I'm good thank you no further questions only the architectural question I have is the the 102 dock doors is the plan right now to install all of those doors and packages speculatively are we going to do a half that that's a very good question because in many cases the uh developer may not install all doors on day one the provision is there for up to that number of doors but obviously until they have someone in place that's going to use all of those doors it doesn't make sense to put them in so they may be onethird of that number after of that number day one that's kind of a business decision that they they'll be made when we're construction any dialogue yet in that regard to inform your plan set okay that's fine that's the only architectural one I have thanks Dory um yes what about the snow roof loads on these buildings well the buildings need to be designed to to not only have this the snow load but you know all the other loads that are required by code so again we we don't have a structural design for this building but the base bands which we show are typical for this type of building across the industry and in addition to snow load there's also the future solar load solar panel load as well as live load and there's wind load Etc so wind load too okay yeah so obviously the building will have to be designed structurally to code now do you have any fire safety zones within these buildings too well this is this building is designed is a high pile storage Warehouse so there would be a fire suppression system basically sprinklers as part of the building typically it's what we call an efr system which is basically a fast acting sprinkler system which is what's required by the state fire code uh for this type of building for basically High piled storage then when do you think you'll have the structural the structural drawing available I think that's a little bit down the road I think we're kind of at the site planning stage right now site yeah but they they'll be coming down the lad down the line certainly we'll have to submit full we'll have to submit full architectural structural mechanical whatever you need for a building permit all right that's it Dory thank you any other questions from the board if not it's now open to the public and please keep your question s um pointed at Mr Suson the uh architect at this point and please give your uh sir please give your name and address to our board secretary Robert AO 41 Northshore Trail and Tom would you want to swear in yes Robert please raise your hand do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you guide I do thank you Robert um I was just curious about the high pile storage um you mentioned that sprinklers required do you anticipate additional permits do you know what kind of I know this is all speculative but combustible storage is that anticipated are you planning for that so the answer is that high pile storage which is basically any storage over 12 feet high requires a certain type of fire protection system and I'm not a fire protection engineer but I can tell you that that s system is typically the answer um the intention here is what we we consider class one through class for um storage there's no hazardous storage intended here this is meant to be uh dry storage and it could be anything from you know paper food you know anything that you use in your you know daily lives things that you we bottles of water who knows so class one to four no all right and then uh just curious because when you do the the graphics it is hard to tell scale so obviously for the aerial you had to do a virtual camera at a pretty high altitude do you know how high that was to just capture the the scale of that in the surrounding I I know the the exact height of the camera for the rendering no I mean probably would you say at least 80 to 100 feet or no I would say at least and remember really the intention of this rendering is to give an overview of the whole project no one's ever going to see it from that angle unless you C in the air but it's to give a basically a bird's eye view yep just to give a scale and perspective to the whole project as it would sit in the context understand okay and um with the fire suppression is the intent to control the fire to save the structure even with class 1 to four as the intended storage um would would the goal be to save the structure or just kind of let it burn out I think the goal of the sprinkler system is to contain the fire okay no again I'm not a fire protection engineer but this is this is what's typically done in these buildings all right and then I mean this is this is a little backand but you brought up the architecture I'm not not an architect I'm just curious so would it be fair to class this as kind of like a brutalist type I mean it's just basically a huge box I wouldn't call it brutalist no okay what would you call it because it's showcasing it's an industrial Warehouse building okay all right but you did you tried to soften the corners as you said and try to we did articulate the corners because again we want we have we have a uh desire to create a campless like feel as well as a a building which is which is attractive to the community again it's not just a warehouse there's also going to be accessory office space as well so so it's relational to itself in situ but it's not necessarily designed to embrace the greater Sussex County people in nature together per se just because it's industrial it has to be the way it has to be okay all right thanks thank you sir hi Mark Scott 9 poblo Parkway Mark please raise your right hand you swear affm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you g yes please go ahead thank you you indicated that the sprinkler system was state-of-the-art my research suggests that the sprinkler system is really only to give the employees an extra 30 60 90 second to get out of the building it's not to protect the building or the goods what's your opinion on that sir um the sprinkler system is required by code that's just code yes and again I'm not a fire protection engineer okay um but this is a non-combustible structure protected protected mean meaning that there is a fire protection system prot which includes sprinklers to protect the employees yes all right an average fire the the best fire truck can shoot 100 ft vertically I mean I'm sorry 100 ft horizontally and approximately 100 ft 150 ft vertically okay m furman's point was that you're going to have trucks 60t long trucks parked in in the middle Courtyard of the building so a fire truck that pulls up is only going to be able to put water into 40 ft of the building right 100 ft horizontally 60t building truck can't get past the other truck it can only get 40 ft into the building how what are the dimensions of this building the large building is 570 ft deep 5,000 ft long okay so we'll be able we'll be able to protect with our our fire department we'll be able protect the Outer 40 ft of that so approximately 5 5% of the building is that the reason that you made this concrete panels so that when this is fully engulfed in flame that the fire trucks can push the the walls in and then put millions of gallons of water which is today's technology Fire Technology for several weeks to put out the fire so Mr chairman I think we're ranging a little bit into commentary here and not question by the way no I was just wondering why hold on I for for your benefit Mr Scott I just want to point out that we do have a letter from the sparta Township Fire Prevention Bureau dated September 27th 2023 in response to this submission which it says that so long as all work complies with the current building code requirements the fire prevention buau has no additional comments or concerns of the plans as presented so I don't think we need a whole lot more commentary about fire prevention we've gone through that review with this set already um so if there's other questions if there's other questions for the applicant we'll take them but we've we've answered the question there's going to be a fire suppression system in the building but it's more more on questions so okay so that was a one sentence letter by the fire department by the way um it's of concern because if you're if you do have a fire you're this building will be 14 ft above the aquifer the Germany Flats aquifer which supplies 70% of Sparta's water but Mark excuse me it was more questions of his testimony how will we is will this will this be building be put in a bathtub how are we going to protect the runoff from the fire to get into the aquafer I don't believe that's a question for this witness frankly okay I'll come back thank you Mark please give your name and address to our secretary sure Caitlyn gagnan Summit Road Kaitlyn please raise your right hand do you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you gu I do um so I had more of a clarifying question you had mentioned that the uh in between the two buildings A and B the approximation of space would be about 200 ft to accommodate um and you say that's the average so it actually has a potential to go up from there correct okay um if that's the case and scale especially for us to understand as the public is important what do these Renditions show in terms of spacing in between those buildings currently so again it shows approximately 200 ft between the buildings which includes the length of two stalls basically for the for the trucks backed up to the dock doors plus the circulation aisle down the center of the of the building so that's what I'm referring to in between the two buildings as shown in these Renditions it's 200 approximately 200 ft of space yes okay thank you give your name and address to the uh board secretary Margie Murphy Pueblo Parkway you swear from the tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you guys I do uh you had said well this rendering there believe I'm there every day and there aren't that many trees I wish it were but it doesn't look that nice but uh the you said that the building would be level with demist Road no I'm not I'm not saying that I think it actually be slightly uphill from demolish Road slightly uphill because the site essentially it slightly goes up as you move east of deis right but right now there are piles and piles of contaminated dirt back in there that since they've been digging out there for years are they going are is it you are the applicant going to be using those piles to fill in where they've been digging and again there's a lot of wetlands in there that are not shown on your diagram how are they how are they going to even that out and what are we going to do with the wetlands again affecting our aquafer which is our main water well I'm going to just point out that that's not a question for this witness um but it also gives me the opportunity to point out that we do have uh njde flood Hazard area and wetlands permits for this project um all that we need to build this version of the project we have received from NJ DP and that went through a comprehensive uh Wetlands FHA and storm water review and we received those permits in October um but those are pasted uh that is for this version of the plans that you're looking at now with this application so um that is an effective permit that is recorded and and again not a question for this witness we'll address it more when we get to engineering so if it's not level it's going to be above demist Road the begin the base of this plant or Warehouse correct it's going to be up above again I don't think that's a question for this witness we'll address well he's the architect right I think you're asking engineering questions you're you're asking for and Engineering okay how high are the air conditioners going to be above the the roof uh the typical rooftop units on this type of building are four or 5 ft High and so it's going to be 45 ft and with another 5 ft it's going to be 50 on the large that that's correct but and keep in mind that those units are typically set back from the perimeter of the building they probably would not be visible at all from the grade but they'd probably be visible from Route 15 as well I I don't think so but uh again that's something that's about okay you know 1,000 plus fet away uh and parking parking I can basically tell you is really a site planning question okay the site civil engineer will address the parking count and planning of the parking okay um all right then I guess we'll have to talk to the other people about the wetlands and our water thank you thank you uh Jennifer dereck's tap into Sparta one quick one question where are the connectors Jenifer right hand you swear firm that tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth s be God I do thank you please go where are the connectors between the two buildings in previous in renderings there were three skis referred to as ski ramps between the two buildings is that still the scheme for this I'm not sure what you're referring to Ste ramps connecting the two buildings it was how how how are Goods coming from one building to another I guess there previously may have been some demarcation on the pavement or a circulation out between the two buildings so can you clarify then how our Goods or are Goods expected to move from the larger building once it's just taken off the trains and moved from one into the big build into the larger building and then into the smaller building or is it just another question I think the short answer is is no that that's a tenant dependent use if the same tenant uses both buildings okay in the past it was I understand we're on a different unit different but the the um there's no expectation of connection between the two buildings going to a Catherine and saying you actually testified about the bringing the two buildings to a cohesive Vision that's true but that's I think that's more of a visual connection it's not meant to be a physical con there's no physical connection that's correct thank you please give your name and address to the board secretary Kathy EV cow scutters Road Kathy please raise your right hand do you swear airm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do and Kathy I hate to do this to you but you do have to spell your last name ABB i n k hu y s n thank you all right first question um does this architecture does the architecture of the building support both loading and unloading of the rail the architecture of the large building does because it has a loading platform along the entire rear length of the building approximately 950 plus feet long and how about of trucks same question does the architecture support both the loading and unloading of trucks it does on a different side of the building okay can you describe how the architecture supports the negotiation of traffic between these buildings with the truck base I I'm not sure I understand the question well this Courtyard right the architecture of this building supports the negotiation of the traffic of these um tractor trailers right how does the architecture support that I would say the the site plan supports the circulation of the tractor trailers the architecture is really the buildings okay what is the material of the courtyard the pavement material I'm asking is it pavers is it uh typically on a truck Court we would we would have concrete under the actual uh parking aisles and asphalt elsewhere but that hasn't been discussed in detail with the owner and again that's really not an architectural question that's really a site engineering question what is the pitch of the roof pitch of the roof typically is 1 inch per one4 inch per foot minimum I think I heard the answer to the question for hbac meaning um the how tall the buildings will be U but I didn't hear it for solar what is the expected um height of the buildings after solar solar panels typically only add a few inches to the height of the building uh will trucks be visible from Route 15 based on your rendering trucks in The Bays from Route 15 I would say no and the courtyard is not visible from TR root Route 15 what is the material of the roof typically we use a single ply membrane roof it could be what they call TPO which is a u polymer type of roof it could be something else so that's not determined yet that's not determined yet um you mentioned efr is that effective for plastic wrapped Goods I'm not a fire protection engineer but the answer is to a certain degree of plastic yes there's a quantification which the engineers use to determine what classification it is and there are limits on combustible material okay can a rendering be provided of the courtyard it seems to be missing from all of the artifacts I would we can discuss that with the client for a submission to the board thank you thank you Eisenberg 128 Sussex Mills Roads spida um please raise your right hand do you swear fir to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do I do um question for the board or for Tom Collins I guess does the ordinance require a campus-like setting I'm I'm going to go further on Katherine's question line the question we don't answer your questions but you can ask questions of the applicant okay does the ordinance require campus light setting the request was made in the engineering review letters that we consider that and the applicant agreed so we did pursue that as an answer okay these buildings are not brutalist they're industrial modern you know Trucking terminals or Warehouse whatever the board decides um we all know campus setting and Princeton is very lovely and there's Madison and other places with beautiful buildings I think a question comes up and then I'm leading to a question um does a building like this belong in Sparta if we want campus like settings um and the building is part of the setting how would you define a campus like setting Mr Sanderson saunderson I think the the intention here with the capitalist like setting has to do with the relationship ship of the buildings to each other and to the open space on the site does it not have to do with how it all looks from the road or from someone walking by I'm thinking of Princeton which is the epitome of a campus-like setting with a campus-like building I'm not sure Princeton is a fair comparison well but this is Sparta and the board gets to decide what goes in Sparta and where so I I look I'm not sure I can answer that any further I think I think our Our intention was to respond to those comments those comments did inform the refinements to the design and I think uh it does meet that goal this is a question for the lawyer perhaps um does the board have the right to reject the this proposal this this whatever it's called um based on that it's not a campus-like setting based on the building sir just try to keep it to the Ural question it's a Building architecture but they almost testifying versus asking questions of this uh Prof Catherine was going in that direction which she's qualified Tom she has questions if you have any more questions they for the a thank you no I don't thank you just give your name hey Ryan cruso West short Trail Ryan please raise your right hand you swear airm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth always yes Ryan seriously just yes pleas no commentary thank you uh sir in your I think 30 years experience how many warehouses have you designed uh architecturally over the past seven years probably between 12 and 20 okay so you're well experienced in vered with these structures and how they're put together and ultimately all the nuts and bolts that go into it hypothetically right and so piggybacking off of Mr Scott here I'm not going to get into a fire suppression system but in your years's experience if a fire suppression system is inadequate and the response is necessary what architectural design is put into this building in order to extinguish the fire again I'm not a fire protection engineer but I can tell you as it relates to architecture the fire code requires what they call Ingress doors or access doors which previously was 100 ft along the facade and in the newer code it's 125 I believe those doors are not just for the egress of the tenants of the building in in an event of fire they're also meant to be for the fire department to access the building so that they can attack the fire and evacuate people from the building so to answer your question there there are man doors or person doors roughly every 100 feet along the facade mhm which are for that purpose but but structurally I think you mentioned before this is a steel building with concrete walls is there any tactics or or ways that this building could be used to extinguish the fire other than Manpower and hoses from an architectural perspective in the way Aral perspective it's a non-combustible building so the building itself will not actually be adding fuel to the fire sure not not the building not adding fuel to the fire right but in the sense that you have potentially a hundred different trucks that surround the building the goal is to not let it burn but to extinguish obviously fire could lead to other combustibles which would be alongside the building and so prevention of fire Andor extinguish needs to be done as quickly as possible right and so what would be the quickest way architectually to extinguish this fire if the fire suppression system was not adequate I'm not sure I can answer that question I don't think that's an architectural question so there's nothing in the building itself either the walls or the way the roof is architected that could help or Aid in the suppression of the fire again the building is is designed to be a non-combustible building okay thank you all right anyone else from the public Mark Scott 9 P Parkway do you have a rendering of the side of the building where the trains will set there is an elevation drawing yes can we see that yes you may so on this exhibit which is exhibit A8 the bottom image is the East elevation of building a which basically is the rail siding faade how do the goods get from the building into the cars there is a platform alongside the rear wall and parallel to the rear wall the rear wall is approximately 1,000 ft long the platform is approximately 950 ft long so if we take a look at exhibit A1 what I'm referring to is actually along the right hand side thank you so there's a a fulllength platform essentially at the back of the building but there's nothing on the the smaller building right the small building is independent of the rail line I thought this was all based on an approval [Music] the large building is a rail dependent building apparently yes yes the small building is not how did you get the big imperious cover all these well the height the height of the larger building is within the limit of a of a rail dependent structure but the coordinates 21101 I believe which is the is that the impervious question well that's the ordinance that was designed to allow this building that ordinance indicates that the rail dependent use AER that building on the side the smaller building is not not I I understand I understand what you're asking and again I think that the impervious coverage is a site planning question and it should really be uh address to the site civil engineer but how can we give you an approval when that's not a real dependent building I I think you're going to potentially give us an approval not just on my testimony but on the testimony of other professionals as well once again the goods come in on the trucks and then they go into build the big building and then they go onto another mode of transportation the train uh I don't know if that's necessarily true this building is designed to store product it could come in and out on truck and it could come in and out on train I don't think that in and out truck in and out on train it's again I I can't tell you exactly how it's going to operate okay it's designed that either one could load the building okay so so both trucks and trains will be used here interact potentially the two could be used thank you thank you Moore any other questions from the public please come forward and just an announcement we have 10 minutes left to the meeting your name and uh address to the secretary please Adrian mman 12 Brook Drive Mr mayman please raise your right hand do you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God just question for the architect uh you mentioned the two buildings one you refer to as a storage warehouse and the other as a flex Warehouse is there a categorical difference in how these two buildings are used or is that just n nomenclature it's really industry nomenclature they both would be an S occupancy category for storage as the primary occupancy okay uh you mentioned that the smaller building the flex Warehouse is for smaller scale storage is that a different category of storage or do you just refer to fewer Goods uh again they both would be storage classification but just by the very physical nature of the building the smaller building there's less volume and so when you mentioned smaller scale storage that was not an industry term that is just how you refer to it that's correct it's in other words it's more likely a smaller tenant so for the larger building you mention it on the perimeter of the actual storage are area so so the the interior there the base are 50 by 54 ft that is the optimal size for a storage base and then on the in the um the perimeter of the uh storage Spas is a 60t logistical area is that on all four sides of the storage that is along the bay immediately behind the truck unloading docks and immediately along the rail loading platform oh so that refer to an exterior component not the setup of the actual storage capacity inside the building well I think I think what you're asking about is the speed Bay typically that bay is left open for circulation not not actually used for storage the reason being you need to get to the storage correct and you need to unload physically the uh the trailers or the rail cars so the right so but but wait a minute he asked the question he Ed the word exterior and I don't think you're talking about exterior at all actually my initial question was for the interior wait wait I don't I just want this last question it resulted in a confusing answer because you use the word exterior he's talking about interior I just want to I want that to be clear my understanding of your question tell me if it's incorrect is that you're asking about the outermost Bay on the inside of the building correct and that would be a logistical area to move goods from one from the the the uh the loading area to the various storage modules that's correct in fact let's bring up the floor P plan and show this this speed area so the typical Warehouse user will actually leave this Bay and this Bay open or largely open because that's where they will actually cue the unloaded material and actually access the long aisles of the storage racks and then left and right would not be used for that culation pattern I've seen it done both ways some some users will actually store all the way to the exterior wall more likely there'll be some kind of an aisle that really is up to the individual user thank you uh how would that same system work for the smaller building yeah the skinny building because if you have 60 logistical area on both sides of the large building you still have 450 F feet left but how does it work for the small building in the smaller building we have the bay only on one side so the first Bay would be a 60 ft Bay the other two bays are 50 ft Bays which would be used for the storage or potentially the accessory office bace okay and then no access from the opposite side to the uh the building that's correct because you're actually doing the loading and unloading into to the warehouse from one side only okay um excuse me Tom Tom is your first name Adrian I how many more questions do you have one all right actually it's it it's a um I would like to introduce my question by referring that several residents have mentioned that the architectural style the language that you call it doesn't quite fit in Sparta and Prince and maybe a bridge too far but I would like to just mention that my business is is in New York City the city that never sleeps hard noosed no no no mercy for anybody who cannot make it and yet in New York City large building complexes are given architectural relief on the exterior they can be made to look like city blocks they may be made to look like what used to be there before it can be a large cor Edison electrical distribution station and the exterior is given architectural relief now I understand from your qu from your answer earlier that such a thing is not possible for this building I would like to ask you can you look at the exterior of the building again and provide relief along that 1,000 long wall a foot long wall the 570t long wall and give that building a appearance through materials and Architectural articulation that it doesn't appear like a monolith the color rendering I think the greatest feature of the color rendering are the clouds but on the more typical renderings where you just provide one after the other or one above the other it really does look like a bunker the way parking garages used to look so I I think it will go a long way if you make that effort could you do that we'll discuss we discuss it with the com just just an announcement uh hopefully Mr Su could potentially come back or we know what other questions from the audience and so because I'm very adamant about how many more questions are in the audience that haven't asked the question going to have to come back we want them to come back I'm very adamant about ad Journey at 10 p.m. because we're all volunteers so hopefully we can we're adjourning we're adjourning in a few minutes and um we are not taking any more questions tonight yeah the witness the witness has to come back the case is still ongo it Tak months and mon I think applicants Council was kind enough to acknowledge and and and stipulate to that so should I ask you but hopefully you he will so all right all right the hearing closed to the public we're going to be carrying this case until June 5th make sure we want to make sure no no comments no comments or questions no no I'm very Adam again he's gonna come back to the next meeting no chairman is in charge what time is it up there now should we get sheet we have four minutes four minutes can you do it in four minutes yeah and I have one you don't have to because you can come back next month and you can do it then U please give your name and yeah Patty ask in Maple Parkway use SAR firm that tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do I have a really hard time visualizing space so looking at these it's difficult for me you said you've designed other um warehouses can you tell me like where they are that is there one this size that you've designed that's in New Jersey that I could maybe go and see and then see how it operates and or or my firm because I'm not the only one in the firm designs warehouses but we which fine if you I'm sure if you Google our firm's name you'll see a number of warehouses on our on our website so we could go you're in New Jersey so next to highways so if I'm correct people are saying that this is about one and a half times the size of like the Rockway mall are you familiar with the Rockway Mall just to give me a idea I would say I'm not that familiar with the Rockway mall but there many years ago so okay I couldn't compare it to the Rockway mall but the building is it's a large building but the reality is that many buildings of this use are actually larger we've done a few actually in Pennsylvania that that are significant okay just one more one more well just quick cuz I know we want make this quick two minutes to go you're saying the the building the non rail use is 30 ft high is that correct the zoning ordinance basically the zoning limits the the industrial buildings in this Zone to 35 ft in height where there's no rail dependent uh okay sport is a small town and it's been here a long time time and I don't think at any point they imagined that there would be a large Warehouse going in I'm I'm trying to wrap my head around this 50 ft how long has that ordinance been on the books that you have a height of a rail dependent structure for 50 ft is this something that they've had on the books for years and years is this all right yeah I I don't think this is a witness for that question so we'll leave that one alone okay I'm just I'm just curious it just seems very unusual to have such a now just make sure you think we're going to hand a um paper out with the the names and you want to Mr chairman so he'll be at the next meeting he'll be here again great and all the questions can be asked at that time yeah I'm new to all this and I wasn't I wasn't here for all the other hearings and all the other things so I'm just kind of and then catching up okay Mr you're welcome you have more time for question no 10 o' no there's no more time 10 o' quick question 10 o'clock we adjourn we're adamant about that because there's no way in the past all just curious if that's a rail depend we'll take your name and address and uh put it on the uh sheet it's just it's just for the architect rail dependent question he's coming back is there rail dependent building or not before before we adjourn may I just ask a procedural or process question um Tom of course um there seems to be a lot of concern uh verifiable concern regarding the fire safety is it possible that we could request the Fire Marshall to come and address some of the questions you can ask the Fire Marshall to come but he did write a report so okay but we can ask him because I he's never battled fire 10 times the size of three people died on the Mr chairman yeah Mr Warner you'll be back the next time in terms of questioning yes uh your questions with the uh with the professional and everyone in the audience please whoever uh wants to follow up on the architect at the next meeting we'll hand out a sheet of paper with your your name and so forth who want to ask questions of when is this car to we have to go over meeting yes we're going we need to go carry to a date certain the date of the next meeting the next we need all back June do it again please announcing the actual date for the next meeting this this hearing on the diamond chip application will be carried without additional notices to the June 5th 2024 meeting of the board at 7 p.m. at this meeting room there'll be no further notices bring all your friends no than you Tom now chair I'd like to make a motion to adjourn have a second second all in favor hi thank you for all coming e e