Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Please stand and salute the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT IT IS HEREBY ANNOUNCED AND SHALL BE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING THE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE FOLLOWING POSTED ON THE BOLTON BOARD OF THE OFFICE OF THE TOWNSHIP CLERK POSTED ON THE BOLTON BOARDS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX PRINTED IN THE HOME NEWS TRIBUNE AND CRANBERRY PRESS ON DECEMBER 26, 2025. posted on the Monroe Township website and sent to those individuals who requested personal notice. Laura, please take the roll.

Vice Chairman Rothman?

Here.

Ms. Brodsky? Here. Mr. Manesh Patel? Ms. Damiani?

Here.

Mr. Slavichek? Mr. Weiner? Mr. Butensky? Here. Councilman Markell? Here. Mayor's Representative Mr. Patel?

Here.

Chairman Gaffrey?

Here. Okay, Laura circulated earlier in the week that the minutes from the last meeting, which was two months ago. Does anyone have an application to accept the minutes? Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? Abstentions. Okay, we have two applications on the agenda tonight, and we're going to take them in the order that they're listed. So the first one is PB1274-26, Kings Road Developers LLC.

It's a request for a preliminary.

Oh, split up.

Yep. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Jared Pape. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Heilbrunn Pape. Our office has the privilege of representing Kings Road Developers LLC. The application before you seeks preliminary site plan approval with bulk variance relief and design waiver relief for an approximately 80,000 square foot conventional warehouse facility on property fronting State Highway 33. The property is located in the Highway Development District where warehouse use is permitted as a conditional use. And as you'll hear in testimony, the proposed There we go. The proposed development complies with the conditional use standards, making it a permitted use in the zone and properly placing this application before the planning board. The application does include limited bulk variance and design waiver request, as I mentioned, which is primarily a function of the existing lot shape and existing site conditions and is not meant to increase the intensity of the warehouse use. And it is worth noting that the property wallet, Front State Highway 33, the warehouse building itself is situated nearly 1,000 feet off the highway. This evening, we intend to call four witnesses. We'll hear from our civil engineer, Sharif Ali, regarding the overall design and elements of the site plan, traffic engineer, Frank Miskovich, our architect, James Franco, and our planner, Mark Remza. And I'll also acknowledge our client, Steve Rubin, is here as well, representing the applicant. So with the board's permission, we'll proceed with our first witness.

Please proceed.

You could raise your right hand for me. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Okay. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address for the record, please.

Sharif Ali, ALY 757 Ridgewood Avenue, North Brunswick, Ameritech Engineering. Yes. Thank you.

Just for the record, your license remains in good standing. Yes. Super duper, thanks. Oh, good.

Mr. Ali, we'll ask that you perhaps provide an executive overview and then walk through the elements of the site plan.

So I do have a color exhibits.

Call that A1? A1. Yep. And if you could just describe that for the record, Mr. Ali.

Yeah, it's a color exhibit of the landscaping and the site layout. So, Mr. Chairman, board member, you heard the brief description of the application. We, in block three, lot 10, And we happen to be along the eastbound of Highway 33, a mile plus away from the intersection of Abu Garth Road, Butcher Road, going east, going to the shore area. So we're on the right-hand side. It's about 11 plus acres, 11.35 acres. And you heard that we're in the... Highway developments, the HD zone, the site as exists right now, and you see on the color map, has some improvements, has a two-story building. It's an existing residential building that has been in existence probably since the 50s. A large garage and a large shed with some outdoor structures. The back of the site, wooded. was a nursery mainly for Christmas trees and a very large portion of the site in the back also it's been farmed for crops so along with that the west portion of the site you see that it's not developed as well as the back area when they changed the flood hazard regulation by adding three foot to FEMA, it just took away quite a bit of the land. So we do have onsite environmental constraints, wetlands and related buffers. the flood hazard, reverie and buffers. We also have DRCC. We happen to be also in the DRCC land. So we also have their buffer. So it's quite a bit of constraints on site and limited the ability of the site to be designed the way you see it. So our proposal, a footprint on the ground of 82,000 plus, it's 82,396 square feet, that's the footprint. Within the footprint, you have close to almost 80,000 square feet of a warehouse, to be precise, 79,896 square feet, and also has the office component, 2,500 square feet. And you see the office, that's the front area of the warehouse at the end of the parking lot. So along with that, just like any general warehouse, you have parking spaces 9 by 18 for the employees. We have 38 spaces. With the EV that we are providing on site for spaces for EV, we get on paper credit of four spaces. So on paper we have 42 spaces, but just keep in mind 38 spaces is the hard spaces. With that also, like any other warehouse, you have a loading docks. We have 10 loading docks. What's permitted, the minimum in the ordinance permitted is five. We have 10, so we have no variance there. We meet the requirement. The trailer parking, the permitted maximum is 16. We have 13. So again, we're not seeking a variance there. We're only seeking variance for the 9 by 18, the 38 spaces. The ordinance required 10 by 20. That's mainly for retail, and you have heard that before on previous applications. And what is required, 113 spaces, we only have 38. The ordinance have very stringent requirement is one per 800 square feet or the number of employees divided by two or the greater of the two. So we end up having 113 is required, but you will hear from our traffic consulting that it's not needed. As a matter of fact, I appeared before the Environment Commission and they were saying, 38 spaces everywhere house out there is just blacktop sitting there. Can we bank some of them? No, no, no, no, no. We want that 38 spaces. So the 38 spaces, if you play the numbers as far as the number of employees per ordinance, that will bring you up to about 78 employees. So we're not asking for any more than that. So that as far as the building and the supported parking loading dock and the trailer parking. Going to zoning requirement, you heard that we in the HD zone, the highway development zone, we do meet, as far as the lot zoning requirement, we meet in the area, the lot is short on the frontage in the zone. It's required 300 feet for lot width and lot frontage, which is the same, and we have only 200 feet. That's an existing condition that we deal with. As far as the building setbacks and bulk requirement, we're meeting all the requirements with the exception of the site yard setback, and that is due to the environment constraints on site. And we can talk more about that with our planner, Mr. Ramsey. But when you look at the overall site and the building coverage and in previous coverage, you're going to see that we're really not using that much of the site. So with the building coverage, we're only using 6%. what's allowed in the zone is 85%. So that's quite a bit of difference there. In previous coverage, allowed in the zone 60%, we have 35. It's a little bit above half. So that's as far as that. And the side yard is required is 40. And just for the record, and Mr. Rosamud, as well as Chris, the witness before the zoning board, the application for the site just to the east of what you see, that site was approved before the zoning board preliminary and final, and they're ready to put the building up. I think the building is about $28,000. Plus, I can't remember the number, but also it's the same thing. It's a small warehouse by definition, a small-scale warehouse, just like the one we have. So we're going to be tucked in behind that building, and you won't be able to see that building from the highway unless you stop and you're intentionally looking for the building. But the side yard was given also to the building in the front. Again, that's because it's a small lot. um so uh with that said as far as the uh i'm gonna touch base on some of the variances and mr remsa will elaborate more on that so i talked about the existing bulk for a lot width and a lot frontage i talked about the side variance that is needed we do have in our ordinance um The 100-foot buffer along the highway, you heard that we're about 1,000 feet away. To be precise, we are about 900 feet away from the highway. It depends on where you dig the distance. So we do have the 100-foot buffer shown on the plan. We are providing the 100-foot. We have 900, actually. But it's designated and shown on the plan. But within the buffer, there is a requirement there that you have to have a berm. a berm, earth berm, eight feet high, as well as the landscaping. We do have the landscaping, but we do not have the berm. And that is due to, again, you know, the site frontage is only 200 feet by the time you put the driveway and you put the recharge system before you get to the highway and it's needed, it's required by the stormwater regulation to capture every run off on site and treat it and send it out. But on the other side, too, of the drive, we have wetlands and buffer. Given that the site is in the building, the parking lot is quite a bit back in the middle of the site, the building 900 feet away, the parking lot is probably about 700 feet away, we have quite a bit of also evergreen year-round landscaping to hide the building and to hide uh the parking lot from uh motorists you know it's been seen along the highway so uh that is as far as the term uh requirement so we'll be able to provide that um and mr ramsey will talk more about that We have in the ordinance number of variants that design, I call them design exceptions, and they keep on coming on every application, the driveway width. The ordinance only allow, I think it's 35 feet of a driveway width, 15 to 35 feet, which is more of a retail shopping mall, not for highway development. We have 122 from the tangent of the curve all the way to the tangent of the curve. It's not just the opening itself, it's also the return. We also have a design waiver that, or a design exception that you've been hearing about it too, is that The parking lot to the building, it's a warehouse, so you have loading docks and you have the building right there. You have the parking spaces. So we have a variance that is needed for that. The ordinance required 30 feet. And I believe that the distance that we have. But we have a lot less than that about 8 feet or 10 feet. As far as that. So, along with that, we have some design exception for a stormwater management. I'll get you the number. We have some design exception for stormwater management. Monroe ordinance only recognize concrete pipes.

That's it.

So what we have with the modern technology now, we have the high-density polyethylene pipes. That's what we are using, as well as ductile iron pipe. We are using that. So we're asking for a design exception on that, as well as... again the ordinance only recognize concrete headwall they don't recognize flaring section you see flaring section all over the you know the town so we asking for a lighter structure which is the flaring section so that's as far as the variances and the design exception So I'm going to slow down here a little bit. The site will be, as we all know, along the highway, that corridor of 33. There is, as soon as you leave Abagar through it and you go east, there is no sewer. There is no water. Thank God there is a gas line out there, you know, along the highway. But you have just gas and electric. So our proposal here is a septic. So we are talking about 2,500 square feet of an office, so a septic would be suitable for that. We already tested the soil for septic suitability and it works. And obviously it would work because we have about three recharge stormwater systems, so it definitely would work. As far as water, we're going to have a water tank just like everybody along the highway here. So that will address the utilities on site. Stormwater, big thing. That's the, you know, the stormwater is everything now out there uh so you hear me talking about wetlands wetlands we have we do have and secured a lot of interpretation from from the state wetland section dep wetland section we do have a flood verification from the state from the flood hazard section we do have that we also confirmed with the drc ced 100 foot buffer that is needed so The constraints as far as the environment constraints on site is all being confirmed. So with the stormwater, we do have one, two, three open recharge system as well as underground. So the recharge system that you see on site, the recharge facility, they will be addressing the water quality and recharge and the green infrastructures. the underground will be taking care of the water, the runoff and the quantity reduction for the two and the 10 and 100 year storm. So we do have all that, we have addressed that. We at the state, we at the DRCC for certification review of the stormwater. And believe it or not, the same person that would be reviewing the, he's the same person at the state. He's going to be reviewing the flood hazard. And again, 1 more time, the storm water for whatever it is, as well as all the permit that is needed. So. we ahead of the game here we had the state we had the soil district we reached out to d.o.t also for a meeting and mr frank miskovich our traffic consulting uh will be talking about that we do have a landscaping plan that made the ordinance requirement uh is being reviewed by our planner as well as will be reviewed by mr blabalo so um we'll be waiting for his input on that as well as the tree removal and replacement he's the guy for that um so uh we're waiting for our review we uh as i said before i appeared before environment um environmental commission and we have their flossing um We do have a bunch of reviews by 911, police, various aid, fire department, and we have the review. So we're way ahead of the game, and we're here for, I believe, just preliminary until we get the approval. So we have a landscaping plan. We do have a lighting plan that meet the ordinance. So I think I said enough. So the distance to the building is, someone here needs to help me out. 8 feet sorry about that so it's required 30 feet is needed we have 8 feet I think that will we don't have a review for Center State our down chip engineer Mr. Rosamunds and we'll be addressing all the items in the review. We have no issue at all. One of the items, the request of a sidewalk along the highway, we'll reach out to DOT, and if they will permit it, that would be great. If it's not, Mr. Razumura and I, we talked about maybe we'll put it behind the right-of-way, we'll leave it up to the board member. In the review, also, I'm asking for the two design exceptions as far as the headwall and as far as the pipe materials. Other than that, we'll be addressing most of the items. And most of the items here is all related to stormwater regulations. And like I said before, you know, we at the RCC for review and we at the state for review. So that's all I have.

We've covered everything I had in my notes, so pass it off to you, Mr. Chair, if there's any questions or comments for Mr. Ali.

Mark, do you have any questions or comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. They've agreed to the comments in my June 2nd review letter. So let's talk about the pipe, the waiver on the pipe. You're proposing ADA, ADS pipe? I'm sorry.

Yes, we're proposing HDPE, which is similar to ADS, as well as ductile iron pipe because it's a shallow structure.

And the HDP pipe you'll provide will be watertight? Yes. Watertight O-rings or the like?

Yeah, that is a requirement in the ordinance and will apply by the requirement.

Mr. Chair, I have no problem with that design exception and the headwall for the storm. You know, this site's more appropriate to have flared end section, but it is a design exception. So, again, I don't have any objection to that. With regard to sidewalk along the frontage, at this stage, I know you say you're going to speak to the DOT. But at this point, my recommendation is to install sidewalk. If the DOT doesn't permit it or has other alternate plans, I think they should be addressed at the time of final. So I would not seek to have a contribution at this stage. This is only for preliminary. So it would be install the sidewalk. And if you get pushback from the DOT, then that can be addressed at the time of final. And you could seek the design exceptions at that time. And then Mr. Chairman, you know, traffic comments, but we'll save them for the traffic engineer.

Chris, do you have any questions?

Thank you. Just a couple of questions. You had mentioned that perhaps I didn't quite catch everything that you said. One of the variances we had called out was the lack of a six-foot berm along the frontage. Did you say you're going to comply with that?

uh no we asking that's one of the variances we are seeking that we are providing the 100 foot or more okay we provide in the landscape i'm sorry i thought i heard you say you're going to comply i must have misheard you all right yeah not the earth burn yes all right a few questions

The lighting, can you clarify me the height of the proposed pole-mounted lights? The detail you have shows a 20-foot pole, which is compliant with the ordinance, but then if I'm reading these correctly, I think I see several fixtures that say they're going to be at 25 feet.

No, it is 20 feet. 20? Yeah, comply with the ordinance.

Okay, it just looks like the labels for A and B and a few of the Cs on the lighting plan say 25 feet, but if you're going to be at 20, then no relief is required, and that's compliant with the code. Thank you. Okay, let's see. Is there gonna be any mechanical equipment on the roof of the building?

Uh, we do have, do you have an architect here later?

Yes. Okay. Then the architect can address that. I'm sure. One last question about the, um, garbage storage and recycling. How many containers are you going to have there? Do you have sufficient space for the recycling and garbage needs of the property?

It's a, uh, it's a warehouse. We're going to have a compactor and, uh, we have, um, a sizable, uh, a dumpster just for the office. Um, The dumpster is 15 by 20. It's pretty large dumpster. So yes, we'll be handling the trash as well as recycling. All right.

Thank you. Those are the only questions I have. They're engineering related. Thank you.

Um, just one, just one, uh, it's a warehouse. Do you have a specific client that the warehouse is going to be for?

There's no end user at this time. So the answer is simply no. Um, yeah. What's proposed is a general conventional warehouse.

Okay. And I just have one comment. Looking over on some page, it talks about getting permits or approvals from 16 different sources. Extensive. Many of them are Monroe Township, which is fine. But when you get to the county and the state, I would like our engineer, Mr. Rasmowitz, to be joining you to hear what they have to say firsthand.

yes so we did secure all the ones from the township uh county uh we submitted to the county right on the state highway so the really um it's it's pretty much an exemption um as far as sole district we already submitted that JCP&L will work on that. DOT, we reach out, we ask them for a meeting, and Mr. Rossimo will be part of the meeting. And as I stated before, we already applied to DRCC as well as NJDEP. If there is a meeting that will be taking place, we will absolutely be inviting Mr. Rossimo.

I'm assuming we're going for preliminary this evening. Yes. And with that in mind, if Mr. Rasmus is there, that'll help as we move on to final, not only for us, but for you as well. So end of comments.

Got it. Thank you.

Anyone else for this witness?

Turn your mic on.

There you go.

They're seeking a variance for the size of the parking spaces, 9 by 18 instead of 10 by 20. Do either of you have an issue with that?

I don't have any problem with that. The 9 by 18 is pretty standard.

Chairman, I don't have an objection to it either, but if we can just get on the record, there's no retail here where the public would be coming to this facility on a daily basis?

No retail. There's no retail component composed. It's just the warehouse that has the office spaces meant to support the warehouse.

Thank you. And I don't have any objection to that either.

That's it.

Anyone else? Okay. You can call your next witness.

Thank you.

Mr. Miscavige.

Oh, I forgot to give you your present. Geez.

You can lay a dollar short. If you could raise your right hand for me, do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address for the record, please.

Justice, can you hear me? Okay. It's Frank Miskovich. It's spelled M-I-S-K-O-V as in Victor, I-C-H, 16 Carson Avenue, McCutcheon, New Jersey. It's been quite a few years since I've been before this board. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is current. I have a bachelor's and master's degree in civil engineering, majoring in transportation, more than 50 years experience in that field, and served 15 years as Middlesex County's traffic engineer, and went on to And other private practices where I've represented enough for municipalities and zoning boards and planning boards throughout the state and traffic engineering. Also before a number of boards on the private side.

Thank you. And your credentials are accepted. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have seen this man before.

And not on a poster, I hope. Thank you. Thank you. But I'm going to take this a little bit out of context, if you mind that. Yeah, we did submit a traffic report where we conducted traffic counts. We did analysis. We included a number of developments that were received from your planning board and zoning board as far as approved or pending improvements. We added that all into our traffic projections. So we did a full analysis of all that data. We counted traffic for over a week period at 15-minute intervals. And we included trucks, buses, everything in those counts. So we have about 9% trucks on that roadway passing our site today in the morning. In the evening, obviously, it's less. We're down about 2%. So there's trucks on that highway right now. That's as far as the capacity analysis shows. We show that our site operates at level of service C, which is very good. The left turn lane, which is the contention at Bentley Road, currently has U-turns and left turn movements being made. It operates at level of service F now. That stays the same. We don't change that in the morning. And that's primarily because there's a heavy westbound traffic heading towards the turnpike. In the evening, that's a level of service D. Obviously, there's lesser volumes that it's opposing, but the volumes are still relatively low. But that's on the level of service issue. I understand some of the comments and concern for that left turn lane, whether it should be there or not be there at all. We were asked to go to the DOT at the TRC meeting to set up a meeting with them. I want to back up one minute. Our site does not require a DOT pre-application meeting. It's a minor permit. The access design complies with their criteria. So the reason we're going to this meeting is primarily to talk about that left turn lane and what DOT will allow, not allow, or what suggestions they may have. I submitted a package to your, to the, we made that application April 15th. I provided the copy to the board so they would have that. Mr. Rasmus is invited. So we will have that meeting and hopefully it'll be soon. As I'm told today, we're number two to schedule, but it does take DOT quite a while for meetings. But I will also add this, either whatever happens at that meeting, I think it's still, in my experience, the township council's decision to close, not close, or what to do there, only because there's a number of residences and there's businesses that could be affected by that closure. So I don't think it's just a simple, let's just do it, but it's something that will have to be flushed out with the town and DOT. But we're willing to work with the town and go through that process. But not necessarily required, in my opinion, by this particular development, but we are going forward with that. Excuse me. Just talk about parking for the moment. Your ordinance has two parking requirements, one based on square footage, one space for every 800 square feet, or number of employees, it's one space for every two employees. The plan proposes 16, has indicated 16 employees, which only requires eight spaces. But if we go by square footage, it's 113 spaces. We think that based on employees is probably the more reasonable measure for this size warehouse. One per 800 covers all types of warehousing. Big box, you know, to fulfillment centers, to everything like that. So I think that's all inclusive, which is good for the board to understand. But the experience for kind of general warehouse might be down to the order of one per every 5,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet, et cetera. So I think we're going to be okay on parking supply. But I wanted to at least look at demand, which is the other side of the equation. I looked at the IT data. And I looked at three scenarios because we have an office component, small office component, part of the warehouse, which is used for their operations. I looked at warehousing in total. I looked at warehousing and office as individual uses. I looked at square footage and I looked at employees for each of those distinctions. What I found is that if I just look at warehouse, including the office, that's 13 occupied spaces at peak time. So the 38 is more than adequate. If I consider both warehouse and the office as individual uses, whether it's employees or square footage, I'm looking at 29 to 35 spaces. So I believe the 38 spaces is more than adequate to support this size warehouse in this location. We have tractor trailer parking and loading space requirements. The tractor trailers require 16 spaces. We're showing 13. On the other hand, the loading requires five. We're showing 10. That totals 21, but we have 23 providers. I think there's some flexibility on that operation that they can use either the loading docks for parking or vice versa. Also important is the fact that we have the truck operation area and parking removed from the employee parking. They're two separate areas, so there's very little conflict between those two. I think that basically covers everything. I think the biggest issue, obviously, is the DOT. And we're, again, willing to work with the town and the board as far as seeing what could be done at that intersection.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the way I understand it, you looked at different types of warehouses for this and you analyzed the traffic that would be generated. Correct. So I want to get on the record. You are not proposing a data center, correct? Correct. Okay. And is the applicant willing to have that in the resolution, restricting it from being a data center?

That's a condition the applicant is willing to accept. We acknowledge that data centers are permitted uses in this zone, but that's not what's being proposed this evening. So that's a commitment that the applicant's willing to accept.

Thank you. Just wanted to get that out of the way. Let's see. With regard to the traffic on 33, Frank, did you take a look at Perrineville intersection, Perrineville-Prodden Way on 33?

No, did not. Primarily because our traffic numbers are relatively low. That, in my opinion, wouldn't add that much impact to that intersection uh we assign traffic all trucks heading towards brianville road but we're only estimating about two trucks heading that direction which i thought was minimal our traffic numbers and here's a good distinction the ite will estimate About 22 movements in and out, total combination. So you're sending maybe half of that, let's say, 10, 11, 12 to that prime builder intersection over an hour period. I don't think that's going to add significantly to that particular intersection. That's why we didn't look at it. Number two, DOT doesn't require an application with a traffic report unless we have 100 peak hour trips.

I'm sorry.

100 peak hour trips. 100 peak hour. So if we're under that, they don't require any type of study. But for the analysis, I want to point out DOT is still using the old IT trip manuals, which actually results in 50% more traffic than ITE. So for our analysis, we use the DOT's numbers, which are 50% higher. But again, this is a relatively, when I look at lower traffic generally, you're talking about 22 trips total in and out over an hour period, one every three minutes. You divide that, let's say, in half. It's much less. And when I distribute that either heading east or west, and I could have through traffic or making the U-turn at Perrineville Road, I think those impacts are very minimal. That's a long-winded answer that we didn't do it.

Well, my concern is we hear applications here and, you know, the traffic engineer states what you just stated that, you know, it's not required an access permit because it's less than the 100 trips. But you come in, the next guy comes in, everybody's 100 trips and nobody, you know, the state's not looking at this intersection. And the intersection has, you know, maneuverability issues with tractor trailers to get through there, driving over the curbs.

I don't disagree with that particular issue because, as my experience in DOT, a lot of these highways, they built the gel candles too close to the roadways. So any kind of U-turn, any traffic, it's a queuing issue, not necessarily a capacity issue, if you will. They do have left turn arrows, which helps that left turn movement. But what we're adding, in my opinion, you have eastbound traffic or some of those making the U-turn to go back towards the Turnpike area. I think that's why we assign some of that employee traffic into that left turn lane at Bentley Road. If that doesn't happen, obviously, we're going to add another maybe 15 trips the peak hour heading towards that intersection in my opinion that's minimal but you're right it's become cumulative but all i can do is look at this particular application and anything that wants to be done long range just like we're talking about that we rode closing it is a dot issue because the jug handles and a lot of the places are too close to the intersection really handle the cueing from the lights so it's a much bigger issue if you will.

Yeah, with regarding to that U-turn on Bentley Road, do you anticipate any of your traffic making a U-turn, particularly trucks?

Not trucks, because I looked at tractor trailers can't make that U-turn. Even the box trucks make very difficult to make the U-turn. So we don't see that happening. The estimates that we have are very low, so I don't think they'll go that way. We did assign employee traffic that is coming from the West, would probably use that to make the U-turn. So that is in our calculations and into that level of service. So we did anticipate that.

And just FYI, for your information, the township did request the DOT to close that many years ago. And, you know, it was denied at that time. At that time, there wasn't as much development on 33 or proposed development happening. So, again, so that's why the township is looking to revisit that. You know, I think it came up on another application as well on your adjacent property here.

I understand. And that's something we'll discuss with DOT because... If the township council feels that fill closure is maybe not proper, there's probably other measures that could be done to accommodate that, whether it's signing, restricting trucks, restricting traffic, making it an emergency-only vehicle type thing. But that's something we'll have to work out. I don't have any opinion as to what should be done because I think it involves more parties than just... the applicant for this board. I think everybody has to get to the table on this.

I look forward to, you know, when they schedule that meeting, you know, going down. Hopefully. Mr. Chairman, that's all my comments. Great. Thanks.

I don't have any comments for the traffic engineer. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody from the board? Hearing none, you can call your next witness.

Thank you. Our next witness is James Franco, licensed architect. Rendering, which we'll have to mark.

Sure.

You can raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please.

My name is James Franco, principal at JVF Architects. The address is 1937 Washington Valley Road. My last name is F-R-A-N-C-O. that's that you provide your credentials i'm licensed in various states new york new jersey pennsylvania a few others um i've been before this board and several other boards throughout the state thank you okay your credentials are accepted thank you uh mr frank i'll just ask that you provide an overall description of the building we have the rendering up i'll pass it off to you um so the building is a insulated precast building the height of which is uh 44 feet We've got 10 loading dock doors and one drive-in door. We're approximately 79,000 square feet of warehouse and 2,500 square feet of office, depending upon the tenant. The building is going to be a stained light gray and dark gray precast panel. That's really about all you can say about it. The thing about the building is the size is such that it's not going to require a lot of vehicular traffic. It's a very small warehouse compared to quite a few others, so you don't get as much traffic as you do with a lot of the online companies.

It may already have been stated, but just for the record, could you identify the height of the building? The height is 44 feet. That's all we have of Mr. Franco. He's open for... Oh, thank you. There was a question about mechanicals.

We will have mechanicals. And typically, for line of sight, we keep the mechanicals deeper into the building. So from the ground and from most distances, you won't be able to see the mechanical equipment. Keep it more towards the center of the building. We'll have some probably in this area, but set back again for the office space and ducted down.

And since you're on the record, you said this, and you would describe verbally what you just pointed to?

Oh, I'm sorry. Pointed to the office portion of the building on the front ring.

Mark, do you have any questions? Chris?

Okay, so just to confirm, mechanical equipment on top of the roof was very unlikely to be visible from the nearly 1,000 feet away at Route 33?

yeah for line of sight okay thank you the mechanical equipment for these buildings are not very tall and for the small office space the ac is very small units thank you anybody from the board hearing none do you have any other witnesses just our planner

Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please.

Yes. Good evening. Mark A. Remsa, last name spelled R-E-M-S-A, address is 10 Dewberry Court, Mount Laurel, New Jersey.

And you've been before this board a number of times. Just a few, yes. And your credentials have always been accepted, correct?

Yes, and both my license in planning and landscape architecture.

Accepted for this application. And I can confirm, I've seen this man before. Definitely.

So good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members and members of the public. You've heard the application. It's it's a permitted permit conditional use because we meet all the conditions. And I do agree with Chris's review that we are for the correct board because we need all those conditions. And the proposed use is a conventional general warehouse, the long-term storage of items, and then it's distributed. It's not fulfillment centers or any other of those high-volume type of warehouses where product is coming and going constantly. It's just too small for that. So that's why it's classified as a a general warehouse. And that's also why the parking demand is so low for this type of operation because the number of employees is relatively low. And I do agree with Frank that the typical ratio is usually one space for 5,000 square feet because there just aren't a lot of people working here. So in this case, you heard Sharif describe the property. I will describe it as, I want to go back to the, yes, the colored rendering. I describe it as an unusually flag-shaped lot where the frontage is rather narrow and then it enlarges in the back. And also, I also want to highlight the fact that the property has effects from wetlands. And I'm gonna go over to the drawing and show you approximately where the wetlands are and that affects where the building could be located. So the wetlands run along the western boundary of the site. And this is why you see the access road looping up towards the west and then coming back down in. So this whole western property line is affected by wetlands. And if we didn't have the wetlands, the building could be shifted and centered a little bit better and we wouldn't need the side yard variance on the western boundaries because we would have more than 40 feet on each side, which 40 is required. So, the current zoning is HD zone and also the back portion is the flood hazard conservation part I'm going to point to the southern end. And nothing is being proposed in that area because that's also where wetlands and floodplain are. What surrounds the property? Well, to the north, across the highways that use car automobile. automobile dealership. To the east is that property where the warehouse is going to be built.

I'm pointing to this vicinity of the property and then farther back, it's all farm field.

To the south, it's woodlands. And then to the west, you have some vacant land, woods, and then some truck trailer parking storage. So you can see that it's not a fully developed area surrounding the property. Now, in terms of the variances, we have... The variances are really related to the C1 variance hardship because it's due to unusual shape or conditions of the property. The property is a flag shaped lot and that affects the frontage and the width. Frontage and width are supposed to be 200 feet. The frontage is 200, I'm sorry, 300 feet is required, but we only have 200 feet. And then the lot width setback at the front yard setback line is just a little over 200 feet. So there's no way to increase that without affecting adjoining properties. We've had that side yard setback that I talked about, and I'm gonna point to it again. The reason for that is the building has to shift this way a little bit to keep away from the wetlands and the wetlands buffer along this area. Now also the berming, which is required, it's affected by the fact that it's a narrow frontage, but also the wetlands pushing the driveway to the created S-shape curve, and also because of stormwater management. I'm gonna also point out to you where the stormwater recharge basin has to be. So you can see that the frontage. That area is the northeast corner of the frontage. And the southern part has the wetlands. So we have really limited space where we can possibly put any kind of soil up to berm up. But the good thing is so much of it is being maintained in its natural state, as you can see. in this vicinity along the western side. So entering in, curving up, staying away from the wetlands. So all of this will be a natural buffer. And I believe that relief for not having the berm there, but maintaining that extensive buffering should be sufficient. Also, the parking space size, you heard a little discussion about it. Typically, the 10 by 20 is what's asked for commercial operations where you need a wider swing of the door or in sometimes medical operations where patients need wider swing of the door to get in and out of their vehicle. Here, these are employees, not retail, not medical, and nine by 18 is standard for this type of operation. Now, in terms of separation from the building, 30 feet is required. In this case, the proposal is to keep everything compact rather than spreading it out. And so there's no need to have a 30-foot separation from the parking because you want people to get into the building as easily and efficiently as possible. And the minimum number of parking spaces, we heard a little bit of discussion about that, that one per 800 square feet covers a wide variety of of industrial type of uses in this one case this is a very low uh has very low demand for for parking and i believe uh uh that the uh spaces that are provided the 38 and then there's extra for the uh electric vehicle credit that brings it up to 42 but i i believe we have a more than adequate number of parking spaces Now, also, I notice in Chris's report, he says there's a variance for the tractor-trailer parking. What's unique about that provision in the ordinance, it's not a minimum requirement. It's a maximum. Monroe Township designed it so that when you had large industrial buildings, it didn't want an oversupply of parking for tractor trailers. So if you read the ordinance, it's actually the maximum that's permitted, not minimum. So we're below that maximum, which is 16. We only provide 13. So we don't need a variance. It's an unusual requirement because most people think it's a minimum. You gotta provide at least that many, but actually the ordinance is written the other way so that you can't provide more So they want to keep the number of trucks down on a piece of property. So those are all the variances. They're all really related to the difficulty of developing the property with relation to shape, size, and the wetlands that are affecting it. And the design exceptions really are minor, but the other variance that we have is the front Entrance right so the ordinance requires a maximum of a 35 foot wide driveway entrance So I'm going back to the plan We have a one lane in and a one lane out and then we actually have an island Separating it so by all of that is pushing it extra wide. And so that's really a c2 variance. It's a Flexible seed meeting does the design end in better planning and zoning? Well, it does because it separates the ingress and egress much more efficiently and safely. So that's why that variance is necessary. So in terms of, I think I went through all the proofs in terms of the hardship, and then I just touched on the C2 variance for the driveway entrance. And then also the change in the pipes and the flared end section also are appropriate. And we heard Mr. Razamowitz agree that those would be reasonable design changes for the property. So in summary, I believe you can grant these bulk variances and the design exceptions for the proposal. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Chris, do you have anything to add?

No, I don't think I have any additional questions or comments for Mr. Remsa. I think he covered everything that was in my report.

Anybody from the board? Yep.

There it goes. Okay.

I have a question. There was a letter from our Monroe Township Sergeant at the traffic safety was his letter included into any of this? Like, cause he was concerned about the grass median. at the cutout of the intersection of Bentley.

Yeah.

You addressed that?

Yes. Frank actually talked about that it's under a DOT jurisdiction and that the applicant agrees to work with the town. They're going to invite Mark along with the meeting with the DOT. It's a state asset. The state owns it. The state has jurisdiction over it. And You've heard that the town in the past has requested it to be closed. DOT said no. Things have changed, so we're meeting with DOT again. And Frank and Sharif will be leading the charge, and Mark will be accompanying them to discuss that.

Okay. I just wondered if it was addressed. Maybe I missed it. That's all.

That's OK. No, we have to follow through with the DOT and see what they're going to say about it.

We didn't address that letter during this presentation, but we had a TRC meeting with the professionals, I think, a couple of months back. And it was a topic for discussion and one of the reasons that led to the request to have that meeting with the DOT. So that was the origin of that.

And we're going to report back to Sergeant. Well, to the sergeant and also with Mark to the township for the outcome of that meeting.

Okay, good.

Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody else? Thanks.

Sir, either you or Mr. Alley can answer. What is the width of the wetlands buffer?

It's 50 feet. 50? Yes, sir. Thank you. You're welcome.

Anybody else on the board have any other questions for any of the witnesses? Hearing none, I'm going to open it up to the public for any comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Anybody wish to be heard? If not, I'll move to close the public portion for this application.

So move.

Second. Okay, so is there any further discussion amongst the members of the board? Do I hear a motion? motion motion for to approve preliminarily this application with the bulk variances and it's not going to be a data center is that the is that absolutely yes second second any discussion vice chairman rothman yes sprotsky yes damiani yes

Mr. Butinsky? Yes. Councilman Markell? Yes. Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel? Yes. Chairman Gaffrey?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair and board members.

I know, it just suddenly... okay um i'm just going to announce the next application it's pb1275-2630 abeel road sg llc and when you're set up i just want to confirm that the agenda states it's a preliminary but i understand it's a preliminary and a final that's correct mr chair literary and final Okay, council, whenever you're ready.

Sure.

You're either freezing in here or you're sweating in here.

It did get warm.

I thought you were just trying to sweat me out. Good evening. My name is Christopher Hopkins. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Valence Goldman & Spitzer, and I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant 30 Abeel Road SGLLC. And Mr. Chairman is right. This is a preliminary and final site plan hearing and bulk variance approval for 30 Abeel Road. Block 55, lot 19 in the LI zone in town. The applicant's property is currently occupied by a tenant who is in the near term going to be leaving. And so the applicant is in anticipation of securing a new tenant, is looking to make some certain capital improvements to the property that's designed to appeal to a new tenant and increase the marketability of the property. The property consists of approximately a 26,274 square foot building and 69 parking spaces. The interior of the building consists of office and warehouse space, and the exterior now contains outdoor space used for company vehicles and employee parking. So the applicant is looking to remove some of those existing parking spaces. is looking to add four overhead doors to the existing building to create a new paved area in the vicinity of those overhead doors, add new car and parking and van spaces, and install upgrades to the existing stormwater management system. And in order to accomplish that, we're looking for preliminary and final site plan approval here tonight with several C2 variances, Flex C variances, that we've requested, and the property currently contains some existing nonconformities, and so that sparks a need for some of these variances moving forward. So we are looking for variances with regard to the minimum parking space size, with regard to the parking within the front yard area, with regard to requiring a minimum number of trailer parking spaces, although I just heard from the prior testimony that it's a maximum number of parking spaces, not a minimum number. With regard to parking within 30 feet of the building, and with regard to the requirement of a berm along road frontages, and if necessary, with regard to maximum fence length. So with that, I have the testimony that we plan to put on tonight. I have Blake Croman, who is a principal for Sitex Group, who is the parent of the applicant. And I also plan on presenting Joshua Seewald from Dynamic Engineering, who's going to testify both in an engineering and planning capacity. And then we do also have our architect, And we have a traffic engineer that's available should there be additional questions, but given the nature of the application, I mean, we're not planning on really presenting any of that testimony unless the board deems it necessary. So with that, I'd like to call up Mr. Grohman.

Good evening. If you raise your right hand, you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please.

Lake Croman, C-H-R-O-M-A-N, office address 10 West Forest Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey, 07631.

Mr. Croman, can you explain to the Board and speak a little bit more on what you're trying to accomplish and how the improvements or the proposed improvements are going to enhance the marketability of the property? Sure.

First of all, can you guys hear me okay? Do I need to adjust this? Is this good? It's good. Okay, thank you. So as stated previously, our company just acquired the property a couple of months ago. The tenant at the property, first onsite, who's been there for plus minus five years, is vacating in the near term. And the capital improvements that we are hopeful to make to the property are to sort of make it a better version of itself. We're not looking to make any substantial modifications to the construct of the building or the site in general. It's just a little bit disorganized and messy around that property. We had nothing to do with that. We bought it and it's been that way for some time. we're looking to sort of make some improvements. We think by, first of all, adding some loading doors to the south side of the building. Presently, there's one overhead door that supports the whole building, which is, I think it's sort of, you know, underloaded. I think that's both an opinion and a fact. And by creating some pavement around the property, it gives full circulation, not just for a future tenant, but more importantly for the town and emergency vehicles. And just sort of like repaving and restructuring the rear of the property makes it more organized, professional, and sort of in line with the rest of the properties in your town. We're just looking to make it a sort of a more updated, bring it to 2026 standards, not what it has been.

Is there a need for trailer parking currently on the site or do you feel like there's a need for any trailer parking for a future tenant?

Notwithstanding rules and restrictions as to what is required for these sites, this building, again, we've only owned it for a short period of time, but I've got a lot of experience owning and developing and redeveloping properties like this all throughout the state. This is a pretty small building. I know that's not a technical term, but it's 26,000 feet, and it's got one overhead door, zero loading doors, and thus, To my knowledge, certainly since we've owned it, but even before that, it's never really been the kind of a building or an occupant that has trucks, not even a lot of trucks, any trucks. Having said that, none of us know what the future tenant is going to do or need. And so you want to sort of be thoughtful to what the future is and set the property up sort of in the best way possible. But it's a small property. It's a small building. And it's not the kind that typically attracts companies that have a lot of big trucks.

That's all I have for you, Mr. Crumman, unless the board has any questions. Do our professionals have any questions of this witness?

I do not.

Anybody from the board? Hearing none, you can call your next witness, Mr. Hopkins. Thank you, folks.

I'd like to call up Joshua Seewald from Dynamic Engineering.

Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

If you could state your name, spell your last name, give us your address, please.

Josh Seewald, S-E-W-A-L-D. I'm from Dynamic Engineering Consultants. Our business address is 1904 Main Street in Lake Como, New Jersey.

Do you want to mark those now? Can we mark them up front? Yeah.

So the first one we'll mark is the aerial map exhibit. I believe that'll be exhibit 81. It's an exhibit prepared by my firm, Today State. I'll go through it shortly in greater detail. The second exhibit we're going to have in a little bit is the site plane rendering, again, prepared by my firm and today state.

By the way, I love the cameras so I don't have to creep my neck every time. Joshua, can you kind of run through your credentials for the board from both the engineering and planning?

I certainly can. Good evening again, everybody. I have a Bachelor's of Science and Master's of Science in Civil Engineering. Both my licenses for professional planning and professional engineering are in good standing and active. I do this on a nightly basis. Tonight is number 20 in 2026, and I'm a partner at Dynamic Engineering Consultants.

Thank you. Your credentials are accepted.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. So I think we'll start with exhibit A1 that's on your screen before you so we can go through some of the property. The applicant that you just heard, Mr. Krohman, recently acquired the parcel. And the exhibit that's before you, the property is actually outlined right now in the bolded yellow line. The dotted yellow line that you see around it is approximately the 200-foot property owner's list. So to the right of our project is actually the Jersey Turnpike. Located to the west of us is Abeel Road. To the north of us is the hotel complex. To the south of us is another light industrial warehouse office facility use. This is actually in the corner pocket of the western side of your municipality, not too far away from us. If you'll see the purple line a little bit further to the to the west of our property is actually your municipal boundary line that you share with South Brunswick. So it's kind of tucked in this corner over here between Flores Gate Drive and the Jersey Turnpike. So as Council mentioned in the opening, again, it's 30 Abeel Road, Block 55, Block 9.6. It is located in that LI light industrial zone. The property in size today is 5.2 acres. Like we talked about, it's about 26,000 square feet. It has about 8,000 square feet of office today, fronting where Abeel Road is, and about 17,000 square feet, which we'll call Light Industrial Warehouse Storage Facility. And as Blake correctly identified in his opening, the whole building today is being serviced by one overhead door. And just quickly for the record and the board, an overhead door means that it is at grade of the existing paved area and parking lot. When you hear loading dock in some of the other applications, that is a sunken four foot lower facility so that the truck can back up and it's at the same elevation of the finished floor of the building. Again, this property, everything is at the same elevation and there's only one overhead door. Out there today has two full movement driveways servicing the existing facility, has 69 parking spaces, and has a stormwater management facility located right up on Abeel Road. And overall, the one major change, which you'll see shortly, is that on the north side of our project, so between us and the hotel, there is no driveway right now. So one of the major improvements you're about to hear from us shortly when we go through Exhibit A2 is how we're providing that full circulation throughout it. And we have been through the TRC process when we presented to your professionals and a couple of you were there. And we came in to talk about and making some improvements to this property. The feedback we immediately got was, hey, listen, there's a corner pocket in the northwestern corner back along the turnpike that's kind of broken gravel, pavement, dirt, and some outdoor storage that we, if you're going to come in, let's clean this up and formalize it. And that's what we've done here and what we're excited to show you on exhibit eight today. So exhibit A2 is the same orientation zoomed in. This is the site plan overlaid onto the landscape plan. And also we have an aerial map in the background. So exhibit A1 with some improvements that we have from the overall record civil drawings that we've provided for you. So to orient the board, the light orange color is the existing building. As you heard from council in the beginning, we're not modifying any component of the building. The building size is staying exactly the same.

How many parking spaces are there existing?

69 spaces and you also see some light gray hatches those light gray hatches that you see are all the existing pavement areas part of those 69 spaces that remaining again exactly the same so what we tried to do is we colorized uh in a dark black color the new pavement areas that is currently not out on site and you'll see that to the south side of the existing building and more formalized uh to the east between us and the jersey turnpike So again, the two driveway curb cuts that we have on your municipal road staying exactly the same. What we're really doing is we're taking the south side of the building and we're putting four new overhead doors. Again, going from one to a total of five now. And you heard from Blake and it's really to just modernize and cast a wider net of what this potential tenant's gonna come here. Again, not formalized sunken loading docks, Just five total roll-up doors so that we can have more box trucks be able to utilize the warehouse space of this back portion of the building. And in the middle of the orange block, you'll see there's a line that cuts in between the building. That line truly separates the office component, which is out there today, and then to the east of us, the warehouse component. When we decided to put in these four overhead doors on the south side of the building, there's some existing parking facilities there. And we wanted to make sure that we had adequate parking for our future tenant. So we added another double row of parking right along the frontage of our office facility. Lastly, as we go to the east side of the property, you'll see that we have this formalized space and this is to allow full circulation around the building, not just for us, our employees and our trucks, but also for the facility to be able to manage by any type of fire EMS. On the backside of the building now, where today it is currently some, again, dirt outdoor storage, we're removing that, paving it correctly, performance with your standards, and basically having some van parking facilities in the back portion. Overall, as we continue to redevelop the property, one of the things that we did was we took a look at the existing stormwater management basin that's located between the existing building and Abeel Road. And we were able to... tweak it up and bring it up to current standards today. So instead of one existing detention basin, which is a little bit more a legacy style of how we used to design stormwater, we've now converted that to two small scale infiltration basins that fully complies with today's state standards, as well as your ordinance. We're not seeking any waivers or design exceptions associated with that. So one of the nice parts of the redevelopment and revitalization of this property now is you get a brand new stormwater management system Compliant with all four prongs, quantity, quality, groundwater recharge, and of course, green infrastructure. From a parking standpoint, we are going from a total of existing 69 spaces and we are providing 80 spaces. That is compliant with your ordinance. Again, as you heard, we don't have a tenant yet, but with a little bit of real estate and reconfiguration, we're able to increase some of that onsite parking that we have.

What does the current mix require in terms of parking?

Are we over? We are compliant with both. Compliant, that's what I meant. Yes, yes. Another improvement in, of course, bringing this to a more modernized site improvement package is we are bringing in additional landscaping. And what I'm happy to say, and a lot of times I'm up at different boards or talking about various variances, we are fully conforming with your landscape ordinance, as well as fully conforming with your tree removal ordinance. So as we provide this Northern full circulation driveway, which I see as a benefit to the overall site design, we are removing a couple of those trees inside of our civil package that we provided. However, though we are replacing those and installing an additional 47 trees throughout the property. So, I think the site is well landscaped today. If you drive past it, it's well maintained professionally. But now we're able to add additional deciduous ornamental and evergreen trees. And beyond that, more shrubs in both deciduous and evergreen matter. It might be a little difficult to see, but all those little new green circles, that's coming straight from our landscape plan that we presented in front of the Environmental Commission and are part of the regular drawings.

And is impervious still going to be below the ordinance requirements?

Substantially, yes. Yes, we're not, and you'll hear from my planning testimony, but I'll give you a little sneak peek into it. Some of the variance relief that we have tonight, we think it's de minimis in nature because the property itself could be developed beyond what's out there. We're substantially under building coverage, impervious coverage, all setbacks to all the different facilities. So the site isn't being overdeveloped. We're keeping the building, we're keeping a lot of that gray space out there. And as we just modernize it and hope to get more of a more modern tenant for that, It comes along with the good stuff. It comes along with stormwater management as well as new landscaping. Finally, one of the benefits of being here tonight after going through the TRC process and getting your board professional review letters, we were able to go back and forth a couple of times and try to reduce any questions, comments, and concerns they had. And we did end up providing a lighting plan to show that we were compliant with those standards. A lot of the lights on site are remaining because it's a good working order site. But we are adding a couple of wall pack lights as well as area light poles just to make sure that we illuminate correctly the new pavement areas. I do believe we're compliant with all of your lighting standards. They will all be LED fixtures, environmentally friendly. They can shut off whenever the applicant needs it. It's downward facing forward throw, not screaming up into the light sky like old school car dealerships. So overall an improvement from a lighting standpoint as well. Which is a good pausing point before I get into variances and I take my engineering hat off and throw on my planning hat. But that was the main message. We wanted to explain to you that the existing building today staying the same. It's in good working order. And with the applicant purchasing the property and hoping to modernize it and bring in the next tenant, we're looking to provide four more. overhead doors. And with that, clean up the back portion of the property for some maybe parking for their vehicles, their fleet, and just modernize the overall facility.

Mr. Chairman, would you like to take questions with him in his function as an engineer first?

Why don't you go ahead and speak on your planning side, and then we'll open it up to questions for both.

Sounds good. So the first variance that we have is 10891B1. That is essentially talking about the size of the parking space. The ordinance calls for 10 by 20. The existing spaces onsite today servicing the building are 9 by 18. And all the new spaces we have are going to match at 9 by 18. The existing tenant today has had no issues. We don't anticipate any issues. And without copying prior testimony from your professional at the last application, essentially when you have this type of use, you can go down to a nine by 18 because it's not what we call a high turnover use. When you have more of a retail component and you have the public engagement, you want more real estate around their car. Maybe they have a shopping cart. Maybe they're going in and out of a gas station convenience store and you want them to have a high turnover space This is not that. You're going to come in, park your car, go to work for your day in the shift, and then later you're going to get back in your car and leave. So that's our first variance. We believe with the low turnover use, there's not a negative impact with that. The second variance we have is to permit parking within the front yard area. Today, there are 19 existing spaces, as you can see on Exhibit A2, all colored in light gray between the existing building and Abeel Road. And these spaces are a minimum of 80 feet from the right-of-way line and behind the existing detention basin that's going to be improved with those two smaller infiltration basins as well as the landscaping. We do have the 12 space parking lot that's on the south side next to our new loading area. And there's four of those spaces that are now technically slightly in front of the front building line. Overall, we're not modifying and encroaching any closer to Beale Road. We respect, of course, the ordinance that they're looking to maybe buffer some of that parking, but it's been in existence today. We're not changing the building. the actual upfront parking areas staying exactly the same. And one of the benefits of this project that we hope can offset some of the potential detriments of this variance is that you're getting new landscaping right along the front, as well as landscaping around of those two existing buildings. The third variance we have is parking within 30 feet of the outer walls of any structure. Now, your ordinance specifically allows this to happen as long as the board and the fire department are OK with it. Now, a few of the spaces, as you can see on exhibit A2, are located within 30 feet of that building. What I will say is that this application is improving on-site for fire. Again, we now have a northern driveway so that any type of fire truck EMS police can fully circulate around the building. That is not the case today. So even though we're adding a couple spaces closer to the building facade than that 30 feet, overall substantial improvement. And again, due to the nature of the use being light industrial, our trucks back up right to the building. So we think that there's no substantial difference. The fact that a truck can come up to the building, unload, do its business, but then have the cars for our employees be parked a little bit closer as well.

So is your belief that there's ample room for emergency vehicles to access and traverse the site?

Absolutely. The next variance that we have is, I believe, the minimum number of tractor trailer stalls. And we'll be correct if we need to. But essentially, it talks about total gross floor area, one tractor trailer for 5,000 square feet. And we don't have any tractor trailer spaces for the site existing. And we have none proposed. And really, it comes down to operations. This site is 26,000 square feet. We don't have any sunken loading docks, so we don't anticipate an articulating, very large wheel-based tractor trailer to come on the property. So we're not proposing any. You'll hear shortly when I close in my planning testimony about the efficient use of land. And we have real estate to keep paving over for more loading, but we just don't need it for this site. And I think green space, landscaping, and stormwater is a better use of the overall property. My final variance, I believe, unless Mr. Dockney corrects me, is essentially the required buffer. The ordinance asks for a buffer along all road frontages, as I'm sure this board's aware. Berms have to be six feet high with a width of 10 to 20 feet on top of the berm. The existing berm that's out there today is not compliant with these requirements. There's a small one, we'll call it between two, two and a half feet along the existing frontage. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and it is squeezed between the New Jersey Turnpike and a municipal roadway. In our professional opinion, the existing site is being improved in all regards we've talked about that a bunch tonight we talked about stormwater lighting and landscaping and again even though we don't comply exactly with how the ordinance dictates the real estate with we now get two brand new basins with a lot of landscaping around it so trying to meet the intent of separating this development from our public right away All of these, in my opinion, fall under what we call the flexible variance, the C2 criteria of the municipal land use law. We must show that the positive criteria outweigh the negative. Doesn't mean that there's not any detriments associated with the project or any detriments associated with some of the variances. It just simply states that does this project overall greatly and substantially outweigh those detriments with the positive. And we talked about, I want to summarize them real quick. We talked about improvements to an existing facility by adding a more modern and full loading area. We talked about modernizing that same site for the tenant. Substantial improvement to stormwater, bringing in today's current regulations and standards. Enhancement of landscaping, full circulation around the building, and completely within the character of our neighbors within the LI zone. And lastly, we touched upon it a few moments ago. From a planning standpoint, We are under impervious coverage of this site pretty substantially. Under FAR, under building coverage, and we don't exceed any of the bulk criteria. Yes, we just went through a handful of variances with some ancillary site features, but the actual facility on this five acre property is not being overdeveloped. opinion actually with these slight enhancements we're still leaving a lot of it to remain as landscaping and grass area so I believe that we advance several purposes of the municipal land use law purpose a G I and M and M in my opinion being the most important which talks about the more efficient use of lands this board is an active board you see undeveloped land being turned into other types of projects throughout your community all different residential commercial industrial and What better to take an existing facility that's working well right now and simply improving upon it and keeping a good asset building and bringing now a new modern tenant to your community? Again, it's also located in a great spot, in my opinion, for the municipality because it's on land. west side of the turnpike it's in the very last corner before we get into uh south brunswick so in my opinion it advances multiple purposes of the municipal land use law but truly focusing on the more efficient use of land purpose m um we talked about some of those deviations we talked about in our opinion that um the relief is is minor um Again, I don't see any detriments. In my opinion, if anything, there's substantial improvements that come along with this facility. So again, no substantial detriment to any public good, no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. This is the use that the council and governing body contemplated that they wanted in the LI zone. And it makes total sense because we're right along the New Jersey turnpike.

If anybody's familiar with the property, it's basically where Beale Road dead ends into the Doubletree.

Okay. Okay, Mark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've reviewed this a couple of times. You have my second review letter from June 16, 2026. They've cleaned up the plan very well, in my opinion. As far as my comments, the only comment I'll talk about is the sidewalk. There is an existing curb along the frontage. We require a sidewalk. Are you in agreement to provide the sidewalk?

There's no existing sidewalk as well. Is what you're saying? There is existing or there's no existing? I'm sorry. There's no existing. There's no existing, correct.

There's existing curb line. Right. But you're required to have curb and sidewalk. So you're agreeable to the sidewalk installation and if it's not installed to provide the contribution towards installation of sidewalk throughout the rest of the municipality.

So... Like I said, this is where a Beale dead ends into into what is the parking lot of the Doubletree and across the street from the parking lot, I suppose, of the Hyatt. The applicant is willing to to to discuss dedication, but they are not going to be putting in a sidewalk.

So in lieu of installation of the sidewalk, you're agreeable to the contribution.

Well, I don't know, we can. Yeah, can we sort of hear the balance of the commentary and questions before we move to things on a peaceful basis?

Part of our board. And Mark, just to add, from an engineering standpoint, we would be leaning towards the other side because there's that existing berm that's out there and we're adding to it. And then right after that, it drops off into the basin. So you could, in theory, put a sidewalk there. But from our standpoint, we thought it would be more functional to have that smaller berm and add landscaping on top of it.

I mean, if you kind of look at where you're at, you're in that little piece that's right in front of the stormwater basins there. Yeah.

Mr. Chairman, it's, it's an item that's up for the board discussion. It is an area that there's no sidewalks out there. I don't envision sidewalks coming to this area. However, under our ordinance, and as this board has done in the past, if the sidewalks are not being installed, they accepted a contribution for the in lieu of the sidewalk installation. So yeah, I'll leave that up to the board.

But you're going to speak to your client? We'll speak to that at the end of the testimony, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.

Do you have any further questions?

No, they've agreed. Well, if I can get on record that you agree to the remaining comments in my review letter? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing else. Chris?

there's one comment really a bit of a clarification on the tractor trailer parking requirement the ordinance is kind of written as both a minimum and a maximum it says there shall be one parking space for tractor trailers for every five for each five thousand square feet of gross floor area then it says that should be a maximum so you have to hit it exactly which in this case is 5.25 tractor trailer parking stalls so can you elaborate a little bit more on why you can't provide not just five but 5.25 that extra quarter tractor trailer parking stall is very important.

It certainly is. I haven't seen a quarter of a cab of the back of a tractor trailer. Just a smaller tractor trailer, that's all.

Let the record reflect that I laughed at that.

In reality, Mr. Dockney, there is real estate in the pavement area located between the building and the truck.

I'm actually just joking, really. You probably didn't even need to answer that. You've already talked about why you don't feel the tractor trailer parking is necessary on the site that's okay otherwise i think they've hit every the few points i did have in my review letter outside of the four variances required i will note just for the record in my review letter the second review we had indicated they had addressed in their plans two variances we had originally called out that are no longer necessary but we i forgot to cross them out they're still on the list of variances in the report so the Number of loading spaces and then the fencing. The variances are not required for that, but that is noted on page eight of my report. So those are addressed. Those aren't required. Otherwise, I don't have any additional comments or questions.

Okay.

I'm going to open it up to the board to assist with this.

If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I did lie. I am going to call the architect real quick just to testify as to the placement of the overhead doors, if you don't mind.

So you want to call the architect? I am going to Okay, then I'm going to open up to the board now to ask this question questions.

Just quick comment. And this is to our engineer. It mentions in one of the variances that parking is not permitted within the front yard area. Do you have any concern in terms of safety at all? If they do put parking in front?

Mr. Chairman, the parking exists in the front of the building. What they're adding on the side of the building is four spaces that literally poke out in front of the building a little bit, poke out in front of the line of the building. So the new spaces are not necessarily directly in front of the building. But there is an existing parking lot that's there. So essentially, it's an existing variance.

yeah i i just want to make sure i'm creating any issue on that in my opinion the reason for that provision of the code is not really a safety issue as much as it is just a visual impact that in certain areas of the town you prefer to see the parking behind the building rather than in front of it uh in this case it's an existing building in an industrial area so i don't have any problem with it okay thank you we have a

two stipulations if it's approved or whatever, like the new tenant is not going to store any hazardous material inside. And is there a place for a tractor trailer to stay overnight and run or would that be a problem or?

So we don't anticipate, again, any tractor trailers staying overnight. Could a tractor trailer circulate through this facility? They could. We ran your fire truck, even. It's in the back of the civil drawings. Based on now having a road going throughout it, you, in theory, could circulate should, for any reason, they go to the wrong building and now they need to get out. So they can get out there. But at this time, we don't anticipate any overnight tractor trailer storage.

With respect to the hazardous substances, the applicant's lease is going to address that because the applicant and its insurance carrier are not going to want any storage of hazardous materials.

Since you didn't have a tenant, right?

We have no specific tenant. Right.

That's what I mean. So have that in mind that no storage of hazardous material.

Yes. I think the applicant and the board are aligned on that point.

Thank you.

Okay, anybody else? Now, do you want to speak with your client, or do you want to call your architect first?

The architect's testimony would be extremely limited, but if you don't mind, I'd like to just call him up.

Did you have an over-under on the number of exhibits we were marking? That's...

I don't even know. I mean, we could just mark one if you want. Do you want to mark it?

Is it color on the packet? This should be identical to your packet. Okay.

So if you could state your name.

Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please.

Robert Varengia, V-E-R-R-E-N-G-I-A. Business addresses 10, Will C. Square, Ridgewood, New Jersey. I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. I have a Bachelor of Architecture and a Master's in Civil Engineering. My license is in good standing and I've presented before similar boards.

Thank you. Credentials are accepted. Thank you.

Mr. Barangia, I just wanted to call you up to testify as to the placement of the loading dock doors. I know throughout the TRC process and some of the comments that we got back from the professionals, it was asked, the question was asked as to why that those loading dock doors were not placed in the rear of the building and why they were placed in the side of the building. Can you explain as to why that placement is there?

Yeah, so when we were asked to design for additional overhead doors, we did look at the back of the building. However, given the existing configuration and infrastructure, we didn't see it as a viable option. This area shaded in blue on the side of the building, which is the rear of the building, that houses the main 1200 amp service for the building, the electrical service. So you have the 1200 amp service, you have electrical panels, transformers, there's also some air compressors in there. so we didn't see that as a viable option the other bay which is on the north east corner here there's existing structural steel x bracing that is part of the main structure of the building which limited the ability to put overhead doors so because of those two reasons the um the south side was the most viable option for us

So it's your opinion that it would be a hardship for them to have to move the electricals and the equipment around in order to put the door docks in the back?

Correct, yes.

That's it? Okay. Any other professionals wish to ask any questions?

Hey, just one clarification. The mezzanine area, is that a proposed mezzanine area or is that existing?

That's existing.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

Anybody else on the board have any questions? Before we take a quick break, I'm going to open it up to the public. You're about to say something.

I was just going to let you know that the applicant is willing to make a small contribution to the sidewalk. I don't know what that contribution would be, but to address your question, they're willing to make a contribution.

Okay, I'm gonna chairman, just for clarification, you know, we will contact, we will calculate the sidewalk contribution. It's based on the, you know, the sidewalk that would be required along your frontage. That's essentially the calculation. If it's 100 feet of sidewalk and whatever that square footage is at the current rate. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. I'd like to make a motion. I assume we're going to go preliminary and final because it's a small site. Mr. Rasmussen?

Mr. Chairman, yes, it's an existing site. They're making some small modifications to the site, but essentially, you know, the site is remaining as is with the additional of the four storage doors. So so getting in keeping with this board's typical requirements in these cases, they did entertain preliminary and final on the same night.

And I would recommend that you'd recommend it. OK. I recommend preliminary and final approval, which will include the full the cost as provided by our engineer for putting in the sidewalks that are required. And the reason I say that is If we don't do that, and the next applicant comes here, and we require sidewalks, they could say, you didn't force your previous applicant. Why are you doing that to us? So I'm not going to create that issue going down the road. So we're approving it preliminary and final to include the appropriate cost of sidewalks. That's my motion.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPROVAL BEING CONDITIONED UPON PAYING THE SIDEWALK CONTRIBUTION TO WHATEVER THE CALCULATIONS WOULD BE.

YES.

YEAH.

ANY DISCUSSION?

JUST AS AN ASIDE. When I practiced law in Ocean County, we were all about mini warehousing. So I have to tell the board and everybody here that this has been a storage education for me, where 26,000 square feet is small.

Yeah, it is.

Vice Chairman Rothman?

Yes.

Ms. Brodsky? Yes. Ms. Damiani? Yes. Mr. Butensky? Yes. Councilman Markell? Yes. Yes, mayor's representative Mr. Patel. Yes. Chairman Gaffrey.

Yes. The application.

Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

That time now is 815 PM. We're off the record.

We have this one more piece of business tonight. We have a referral. 1, 2, 7, 2, 5, Harris, a R. Yes, or. Over to number three, Acquisitions, LLC.

Is there any discussion on that? Thank you so much. Is there a motion to accept this?

I make a motion to accept. Second.

Question? What happens in here for two years from now? Vice chairman Rothman. Yes. Miss Brodsky. Yes. Miss Damiani. Yes. Mayor's representative, Mr. Patel. Yes. Chairman Gaffrey. Yes.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Make a motion to adjourn. Second. Aye. Aye. See you in July.