Planning Board - Regular Meeting

This is City of New Bron Planning Board meeting of April 13, 2026, 7 p.m. New Brun City Hall, 78 Street, third floor. Roll call. You look here. Carlina Melendez here. Corwick here. Alexoros here. Anthony Cameoni here. Diana Lopez here. Zack Wright. Mike Blackwell. Megan Conini here. Partica here. Sean Cox

here. Public announcement. Please be advised that the notice requirement public meeting actively satisfied that the annual notice should be submitted not to find place in conflict all public meetings in the planning board of the city of New City appropriate to the board city hall 78 street New Jersey official newspaper city to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So I sent them out this morning when I got the transcripts from the applicant. Um but we got a chance to look at the eligible voting members on these pres

resolution. Memorialization 259 Street St. Elena

Lopez. Yes. Yes. Um now on the agenda we're able to update it. There was a request for a extension of time that I also circulated for uh I think it's two homes row approved for subdivision last year. Uh they need an extension of time to wrap up their subdivision because they are it's a subdivision and a site plan application and site plan application component sometimes takes a while and they're working to submit everything together. Um, they are asking for an extension. Probably the shortest extension anybody's ever asked. Okay.

Czech. Yes. Melendez. Yes. Corwick. Alan Torres. Yes. Lopez. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Minor site application. Sun Investors LLC PB-202610149 William Wilmington Avenue. The applicant Sun investors LLSA seeking approval from the planning board for minor site planning. The property is located within the C3A community office professional zone. The applicant proposes construction of an elevator entryway addition to the existing building of seven parking spaces parking lot to the rear of the existing building. Please one second. Any member of the board have a conflict with this application? Seeing

y evening members of the board. Matt Flynn from Saddle Shop Law on behalf of the applicants on Investors LLC. We're here tonight as noted by the chairman seeking minor site plan approval for an elevator entryway addition to the existing building as well as installing a dedicated parking area to the rear of the site. Uh no additional variances uh have been identified as part of this application. Um the property is known as block 168 lot 4 tax records and also known as 149 Livingston Avenue. The intention is to occupy uh the structure should be receiving approval tonight with a uh uh pediatrics office which is permitted in the subject zone. Uh with me tonight I have two witnesses. I have our engineer and planner Frank Antisel as well as our architect Mark Yarington. And unless the board has any preliminary questions, I'd like to have Mr. Antel sworn in.

Go ahead. Can you please state your name last name for the record? Sure. It's Frank Anticel. A N T I S E L L. You swear. Do you swear or tell the whole Yes, I do. Mr. Anticel, can you give the board the benefit of your professional corrections, please? Sure. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from Widner University. I have a master's degree from Stevens Institute of Technology. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey and also a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've testified before this board, the zoning board in New Brunswick and numerous other boards in the state over the last 30 years. You've been accepted as a professional. Yes, we'll accept you as a professional engineer

and both of my licenses are current. Thank you. We'd ask him to be also be accepted as a planner should planning testimony be planning and we'll accept as expert in planning and engineering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Frank, do you want to mark any exhibits for the purposes of the record?

Um sure. The first exhibit I have here is a colorized version of the existing conditions plant which would be A1. Um the site currently sits on the corner of Livingston Avenue and Seaman Street. It's known as block 186 lot 4. Uh the properties in the uh C3A community professional office zoning district. The lot is 40 ft wide and 150 ft deep. Um, it's a corner lot, so there's actually two front yards, but since the building is oriented toward Livingston Avenue, the main front yard is on Livingston Avenue. Um, currently the site has a building that's approximately 2,639 ft. It was built in, 1900. And in the back of the property, there is an existing garage and a driveway which the applicant is looking to remove as part of this application. And what I like to call a as a two is a colorized version of sheet three of the site. And in the colorized version here, what what the applicant is looking to do is construct a parking lot in the area where the garage and driveway were removed and provide parking in uh for the uh pediatric office that's moving into this space. Um there's no changes to the front of the building or the side of the building. The only changes to the back. And as the chairman said when he announced the application, because of the change in grade on the property, we're putting in an elevator lift here so that somebody who pulls into the handicap spot can then come to the

elevator lift, be brought up to the lobby area and enter the building. We had looked at trying to use a ramp except in order to get a ramp to work back here to meet ADA. It would require several switchbacks and it would eliminate one whole row of parking. So, we thought the elevated lift would be a much better way of accomplishing it and allow us to provide the additional parking on site. Um, there's no new variances that are caused uh that are created by this proposal. Um, there are two design waiverss. The first design waiver is your ordinance says if a driveway um width for lots that are 30 to 49 ft in width can only be 12 ft. Now this property line is considered the width of the property because it's 40 ft. Our driveway is on the side of the property that's 150 ft long. So we and we're proposing a 20 foot wide driveway which if this wasn't a corner lot and this was the front of the property would be compliant with your ordinance. So the only reason why we have this variance is because we are this design w is because we are a corner lot. Um the second one design waiver is the drive aisle. Our 20ft driveway has a drive aisle of 20 ft. Your ordinance requires 24 ft. Um when you look at the IT, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, they recommend drive by a list of 20 to 24 ft. So we do meet the minimum per IT and we believe that given the small size of the lot here, the 20 foot would work. And it's

not going to be a very busy lot. If this was a a shopping center or a more high turnover parking lot, we could see the reason for a 24 foot wide um drive aisle. But here we believe the 20 foot will work. And the nice thing is we're creating seven parking spaces in an area town where parking definitely is needed. Any member of board have any questions to this? Seeing any professional seeing on their next

just for purposes of the record, Mr. ASL, do you take exception to the two memos that we received, the TRC memo and the memo from Mr. Martinez, assistant city engineer? Um, no, I don't. I talked to Mr. Martinez and and we've had a conversation and we agree to comply with um all the other comments in his memo. The only two is Betty has put testimony on were the two design waiverss that he correctly pointed out. Okay. Thank you. Other than the pediatric office, what are the other uses in the building? I'm going to let the architect go over that. He's going to talk about the interior space.

Mr. Yarrington is our second If

we could have them swear, please. Can you please state your name, say your last name for the record? Yep. Mark Yarington. Y A R R I N G T O N. Do you swear or refer to the whole truth, nothing about the truth? I do. Excuse me. And um Mark, before we get into your credentials, I just want to make sure the sheet A1 and A2 that you have on the board there, are those identical to what was submitted to the board days in advance? Yes. Mr. No. What's the revision date? The latest February 3rd, 26. And Mr. Arington, why don't you give the board the benefit of your professional?

Sure. um degree in architecture from NJIT. Uh in practice for 43 years uh had the privilege of testifying for a number of boards over the years in including uh here I think most recently the board of adjustment for a church uh about 10 or 12 years ago. And your licenses are current in good standing. Yes. You've been accepted as an expert before other planning and zoning boards in the state? Yes. We would offer him as an expert in architecture. We'll accept them as an expert in architecture.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Harington, why don't you start by responding to Mr. Solomon's question, which is uh the other uses and then you can go over the floor plan that we're proposing for this application. Yeah. So, the uses uh currently are office business and will be maintained that way through this owner in the pediatric office. Is it on the doctor or or accounting or do you not? No, just the PDF. Correct. Yep. Sure. Okay. Do you want to go through just generally the floor plan and then specifically the modest change we're making to the rear of the building?

Sure. Thank you. So, uh, Livingston Avenue is here. Uh, parking lot would be with approval constructed back here. Um, The interior which was a law office is most currently being converted into a pediatric office with waiting room exam rooms uh doctor's areas kind of traditional pediatric office. Um and as Mr. Anisel pointed out the um need to get from the parking lot level at the back was problematic with a ramp. Um so we introduced the uh small elevator edition with the vestibule. Uh ele the enclosed space is about 105 square ft. Uh the new stair with landing is about 75 square ft. Part of the landing is has a weather cover over the top. Um, and that would bring people from the handicap parking space or or others uh into the elevator up into the entry vestibule and right into the waiting room.

And this addition to the building does not exacerbate any of the existing non-conforming conditions on site that is related to setbacks or lot width. No, it does not does not trigger any additional variances. No, no, I have no other questions. Any any member of the board of work professionals have any questions on this? Will the only entrance be in the rear of the building? Uh there is a front entry uh also, but that would not be for patients once the the rear entry access is activated. Okay. Thanks. Seeing none,

I have no further questions of the witness and nothing further in my direct if you want. Thank you. Anyone here from the public which should have any questions or comments on this application, please come forward. Seeing none.

No, I just a quick summarization. Um, we've gone through the the site plan and the architecture. It's a minor site plan. or some existing non-conformities, but we're not creating any additional variances as part of this application. We'd look for your approval. The only technical relief that we need are those design waiverss, and I would put forth the justification given by Mr. Anticell in furtherance of those. Thank you. Board discussion with conditions.

Yes. Should the board act favorably, the following conditions shall apply. Compliance with terms of the city engineering report dated in February 8th, 2026. Payment of a site performance bond that an amount was united approved by the city engineer. Uh submission of a site inspection as per deposit for engineering inspection fees and amount calculated pursuant to title 16.24.160. Issuance of a road opening permit if required. applies to the terms of the city planning report dated February 16, 2026 plan of US funding all anticipated post approval reviews payment of any other fees due to project related to development or use of this project payment of all outstanding taxes and water sewer fees. Joseph County Planning Board approval or waiver. Freehold conservation district approval or waiver. That uh execution of a title 39 enforcement party enforcement agreement. All utilities and other site improvements to be maintained by the applicant at their expense. All insight utilities be constructed underground. All temporary approach to the public right away shall require city council approval. All construction staging shall be done on site unless approachment allowing to the public right of way is approved by city council. Streets shall be kept clean of sediment and debris. The applicant shall cause the streets to be cleaned if directed to do so by the director of public works. Track and path shall be installed on all construction exits. Replacement of damaged streets, curves and sidewalks as per the direction of city engineer.

And that would be acceptable. Motion to approve the check. Yes. Melendez. Yes. Yes. Also, yes. Lopez. Yes. Yes. Yes. Great. Thanks for return. Thank you. Next, you turn your mic on.

Thanks. Yeah, I was never told I had a little voice. want it the other way. Yes.

We're good. All right.

Uh AS New Brunick LLC block 144 lot 14.016-19 20.01 22.01 101 3744. The applicant as New Brunswick LLC is proposing the construction of an 8-story office building located at block 144, lots 1401, 16 to 19, 20.01, 22.01, and 37 to 44 in the city of Nebraska, Middle County, New Jersey. The site is bound by the to the north by New Street, to the south by Redmond Street, and to the east and west by residential and commercial buildings. The property is currently occupied by a surface parking lot. The project proposes the construction of an eight-story building. The building will contain approximately 218,000 gross square ft and will have an atgrade footprint of approximately 27,000 plus square ft. The project will also include surface parking, new pedestrian sidewalk, landscape areas, and utility infrastructure. The project site is located within the new Redmond 2 redevelopment uh plan. The project is fully conforming with the redevelopment plan and it's not seeking any variances. Any member of the board have any um conflict with this application. Seeing none, please.

Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Tyler Spur. I'm attorney with Kyro Harrison Nelson. I'm on I'm hearing on behalf of the applicant as team New Brunswick LLC in connection with property located at New Street. Uh the property is located in the redevelopment area of the new new Redmond 2 redevelopment plan and as New Brunswick is the designated redeveloper. The applicant is seeking the approval to consolidate and subdivide 15 existing lots into two new parcels lot 14.03 03 containing 47,453 ft and proposed lot 14.04 consisting approximately 47,364 ft. The applicant also seeks preliminary and final site plan approval for the development of an 8tory 218,000 square foot office building for use in the Middle Sex County uh together with associated um parking and site improvements. Uh additional off-site parking will be provided in accordance with the redevelopment plan. It's a fully conforming application. No variances requested or relieved required. And this evening I have representative KST New Brunswick Shane Son. Uh and I also have our engineer Christian Ro, our architect Matthew Jal who will present the details of this application. Unless the board has any questions for me, I'd like to call on this. Mr. Ro.

Anyone have any questions for the attorney? Seeing none, go ahead. So Christian, you have to get that sworn in. Can you please give your name your last name for the record? Sure. It's Christian Roach. R O C H E. You swear to tell you the truth. I do. Mr. Roach, you have been before this board before. Correct. I've been before this board 50 to 100 times and I think the last three months. And we remembered your name though. But uh have your credentials changed anyway since the last time? 25 to 30 days old. Yes, we'll accept you as a expert in engineering.

Thank you. Much appreciated. So, as others have noted, the project site we're here to talk about tonight is identified as block 144, lots 14.01, 16 through19, 20.01, 22.02, and 37 through 44. In total, those 15 lots comprise approximately 2.2 two acres and they're bound by New Street to the north, commercial and residential uses to the east, Redmond Street to the south, and primarily residential uses to the west. The site's presently vacant and generally occupied by asphalt and gravel areas. There was formerly a building on the site that was demolished in the summer of 2023 to pave way for this future development. Vehicular access to the property is presently provided off a number of driveways from New Street and Redmond Street. And I will point out there is a grade change across the site. The site's highest in the western portion around elevation 61 and then slopes down about 10 ft to the eastern portion of the site which is around elevation 51. Most importantly, all of the lots are within the new Redmond 2 redevelopment plan area and we're not seeking any deviations from that plan here this evening. Um, I should just note for the record this was exhibit A1. It's entitled site aerial with today's date.

Was that previously submitted as part of It was not today's date.

Yes. Moving to exhibit A2 which was also not submitted as part of the application. It's entitled subdivision figure again with today's date. The applicant is proposing to consolidate those 15 lots and then subdivide them into two new lots. Those two new lots will be identified as block 144, lot 14.04, also known as lot A, which will be 1.09 acres. That'll be in the western portion of the site and it'll ultimately be where the proposed building is located along with 18 parking stalls and a dry aisle. The second lot we're proposing will be identified as block 144, lot 14.03 or lot B. It'll also be 1.09 acres and that will primarily be occupied by a future surface parking lot. Most importantly, both of the lots are fully conforming with the redevelopment plan requirements. Moving on to my last exhibit. This will be entitled A new Street plan rendering. We'll mark that as A3 and then again with today's date. This exhibit is just a colored rendered version of the site layout plan that was submitted as part of our site plan application package. What the applicant is proposing to construct on the property is an 8-story office building with a footprint of approximately 27,000 square ft and in total the building will provide approximately 218,000 gross square ft of office space. The building is proposed on the western portion of the site and it's going to be accompanied by a surface parking lot containing approximately 139 parking stalls on the eastern side of the site. Just diving into the parking in a little bit more detail. The parking is compliant with the redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan requires one parking space per 700 square ft of gross floor area. Doing the math with that

total of 218,000 square feet. we'd be required to have 312 parking stalls. Prior to any reductions for EV stalls, we are proposing 34 EV stalls on site. So when that credit is factored in, that parking demand calculation drops from 312 stalls to a total of 278 stalls. We plan to meet that parking requirement with half of the stalls being on-site and the remaining half of the stalls being offsite within the new street parking deck. We did provide with our application package a ledger from the parking authority confirming the capacity to handle those 139 stalls within the new steer deck. I'll also note that in the future there is the ability for the redevelopment plan to provide 100% of the parking offsite if a future parking deck were to be constructed on the Mayfair property. Depending how the timing shakes out, this being the building built and the garage, there is the possibility that all the parking would be provided offsite. Again, both of those options would be fully compliant with the redevelopment plan. The last thing I'll just touch on with the parking is we're also fully compliant with the number of ADA parking spaces required. Five are required. We're proposing five. We are meeting the EV parking requirements. And lastly, we're proposing 30 bike racks to meet the bike parking requirements within the redevelopment plan. We're proposing site access to the parking area off of both New Street and Redmond Street. However, we anticipate the vast majority of people accessing the site will do so from New Street. At both access points, we're proposing concrete driveway aprons, which translates to we're going to continue the pedestrian sidewalk with the concrete across the driveway. One, I think it's better from a pedestrian perspective, but two, we did have some conversations with the city's consulting engineer who raised the potential. Would this be considered a cutthrough for vehicles in the area? I don't think it's a highly desirable cut through movement, but we both agreed that putting the concrete aprons in

makes it look less like a roadway or makes it look more like a private driveway. So, we think that concrete aprons help eliminate the concerns with that issue. Loading for the building will be done at the southeast corner. We have a on-site loading area that's been designed to handle SU30 box trucks. We're not talking tractor trailers. It's going to be an office building. We anticipate that the deliveries will be limited to the FedEx, Amazon um delivery type vehicles. Trash operations are going to be handled at the southwest corner of the building. We do have a proposed trash enclosure which is going to be surrounded by an 8ft high vinyl fence for screening purposes. We anticipate that trash will be brought out of the building by building management and maintenance staff, brought over to the trash enclosure area, and then pickups are going to be handled by a private trash provider, and they will be scheduled as needed depending on type of demands. This could be three or four times a week that they'll be making the trash pickups. Moving on to most exciting stuff, storm water management. Um, we did work with the city consulting engineer heavily on a stormwater management design over the last two to three weeks. The design is going to be fully compliant with the state and the city standards. The way we're meeting the requirements is we're going to install a proposed underground detention basin beneath the portion of the surface parking lot to provide detention. We're also going to add in green infrastructure radiated mechanical treatment devices. It's a highly technical term, but it helps treat the water the water quality before it leaves the site. I mentioned we did work with city consulting engineer on that and we have no objection to complying with the stormware comments in their letter. Utility services will be provided off a new street for water, sanitary, sewer, and gas. And then we'll be providing electric service off of Redmond Street. We're proposing a new transformer to the southeast of the building. We are proposing a significant amount of landscaping with the project which will include a total of 64 new trees and 419

new shrubs. Looking at the rendering, you'll see that most of these are proposed along the perimeter of the site while also proposing a considerable amount of landscaping within the parking lot islands. We do have three waivers on the landscape front um which I'll just identify them now. Um the first waiver deals with a landscape strip requirement between the parking lot and the property line. Typically the ordinance suggests 10 ft. We're proposing 5 ft. The reason for this is just to meet the required parking count, but I'll know most importantly, although we don't have the full temperate depth, we are meeting the requirements relative to the number of trees and shrubs in this area. The second requirement that we're asking for a slight deviation on is the amount of landscaped area within the parking lot. The ordinance requests 10%, we're very close. We're at eight or nine% depending on how you do the calculation. The reason we have that is just based on the desired layout for the parking stalls. And then lastly, this is not from the ordinance. It's from the city engineering standards. They request foundation plantings on all four sides of the building. We're showing them presently on two sides of the building, the north and south side where they make the most sense. We don't have them on the east side because we have a pedestrian sidewalk along the full building frontage. And then on the west side, we also don't have them because that's where the trash enclosure is and kind of a back of house area where we're proposing gravel plantings there for maintenance purposes. The application will be fully conforming with city requirements from a lighting perspective. We have six new light poles going in along with five new building mounted um fixtures. The most important part about that, we have zero spillover onto adjacent properties and again hitting the minimum lighting level requirements. Um, the architect's going to talk in more details on the signage. I'll just mention we are proposing a monument sign near the new street entrance which will be fully conforming with the setbacks and requirements of the redevelopment plan. Specifically, it'll be set back 10

ft from the property line. It's going to be 12 square ft, which is three feet wide, four feet tall, and there'll be no internal illumination with that monument sign. So, that was the general outline. I know I went fairly quickly through the project. It's all right. I'll just touch on the review letters quickly. I think with the city engineer review letter, generally, we have no issues complying with it. I mentioned the storm order that we worked through together. I mentioned the potential cut through. Um, and then Jamie, I think there was just one other relative to the EV charging locations. We had proposed 34 of them on site. We're willing to work with the city on the final locations of those 34 stalls. So, we'll definitely provide 34 where they go. We'll work with the uh consulting engineer and city professionals.

I concur. All right. Thank you. Uh, I have nothing. If there are any questions, any questions from board or board professionals? Seeing none, you're next. I'm sorry. Oh, just I never know who the proper person to ask these questions. So, if if you're the wrong person, you I'm sure you'll let me know. But that there are some lots that are peripheral to the development um that are occupied by residences. I believe restaurant and there's some historic um house also. They unaffected by the by this development. Yeah, if they're outside the extents of development, they should be unaffected by construction activities.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, your next witness, please.

Good evening. Can you please state your name? Spell your last name for the record. I'd be very pleased to. My name is Matthew Mil initial B. Jarl, J A R ML. Do you swear or tell the whole truth? I do. Uh, Mr. Jal, can you take us through some of your educational background?

I'd be very pleased to do that. I hold a uh bachelor of architectural degree from the New Jersey Institute of Technology in 1990. I also have an MBA from Ruckers University with a concentration in real estate development and urban land use. I've been a registered architect in New Jersey since 1994. In total, I have uh 36 licenses throughout the United States as a registered architect. I'm also board certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards uh through in New Jersey. I've testified hundreds of times before municipal planning, zoning boards, and superior court. I've testified before this board, but it's been many years. I'm the uh the architect for Plum One and Plum Two, which you may be familiar with.

We'll accept you as a expert in planning. Thank you. I'm sorry. Architect. Thank you, Mr.

All right. Um you've heard from u my colleague, Mr. Ro, that what we propose to build is an eightstory office building. What I've put up right now is drawing A1. This is part of your packet, so I'm not going to mark it as an exhibit. and it represents the first floor of of the building. Tell me the revision date on that February 23rd, 2026. So, what we're showing you tonight, what we're here for approvals for is the porn shell. So, this is the first floor of the building. It's oriented the same way it was on the civil engineering plans where to your right is New Street or North and to the to the left is Redmond Street or to the south. Parking lot that Mr. Ro just described is at the lower part of the part of the uh drawing. The rail would be to the upper part which which is to the west. Um we've heard some numbers this evening. The the overall building is in round numbers 218,000 ft, but it's in exact numbers it's 217,976 square ft. The first floor is 26,799 square ft. And the floors two uh 2 through 8 are slightly larger actually. They're 27,311 square ft each. And the reason for that is over one of the entries there's a overhanging canopy that makes the upper floors larger. I'll show you that in a moment. The the site or at least we'll have two main entries. Um one that will call on the northeast elevation. This is strictly for the first floor. Uh as as we've you've heard this evening is a county administrative building. Some of the functions on the first floor will be public facing where where citizens can come in and uh do business with the county. The upper floors are strictly administrative and they have a dedicated entrance also on new street but the other side of the building. You'll note

that on this side or the western side is where we show four elevators or all four of the elevators are sized appropriately to handle a uh ambulance stretcher. There are three stairs within the building. Two stairs uh that I'm pointing to, one on the south side and one on the uh western side go eight stories. The one on the western side by the elevator co core actually gives roof access. The third stair uh only goes up to the to the fifth floor based on the occupancy of the building. There there was uh some testimony by the civil engineer about where the loading dock is. I'll point out that there's a stairwell exit, service exit on the southern side of the building where deliveries can take place. Also, trash will come out this door and then go to the uh dumpster location that is on the western side. Drawing I just flipped to is drawing A2. Again, part of your packet. This has the same date, 223 26. This is a typical floor plate. This is floors 2 through um 8. And you'll notice where I'm pointing, there's a curved area here. This is what overhangs that first floor entry, making this floor slightly larger. As I as I testified, uh, first ground floor is 26,799. This floor is 27,311 square feet. It's about 560 ft in round numbers larger. Uh, again, wide wide open floor plans to show you today. This is uh design, this building's designed to be very flexible in terms of layout and use. Turning to sheet A3. Uh you'll notice in the lower right hand corner there's a key plan that sort of shows and these are the building elevations. We propose to use a combination of materials but uh combination of what we

call curtain wall which is all glass as well as metal panels and spandrel glass. But basically uh the lower level of the building to the second floor will be defined with a base and a slightly gray slightly different color metal panels in gray. And then we get up to above that floor, third floor to eighth, we have we have ribbon windows. So all the facade materials on all four sides of the building, there's actually more sides because it steps in and out are consistent and uh of high quality material. The building uh has a height height of uh 116 feet from the first floor to the flat part of the roof. The zone allows for a height of 280 ft. So, we're well be below the allowed allowed height. Uh there is approximately a a five- foot parapit around the building which is designed to both provide safety as for anyone that lands up on the roof but screen all the mechanical equipment. And then there's some penthouse areas above the the elevators that would extend to approximately 127 ft in round numbers. So we comply with all the all the height requirements of the building. The floor to floor heights first floor uh is 15 ft. The remaining floors are 14 feet floor to floor and then the upper floor is also I'm sorry I misspoke. The first floor is 20 feet high. So it has a higher lobby and then the remaining floors are 14 ft floor to floor except for the eighth floor which is 15 ft to the roof. That's to allow for uh the pitch of roof trusses to allow for for adequate drainage. We we propose two signs as Mr. Ro mentioned. There's a monument sign that will be at the uh new street entry to

the facility. It'll read Middle Sex County uh administrative building with the address. This sign is allowed to be uh 16 square ft and it's 12 square feet. It's 4t high by 3 ft wide, not internally illuminated. And then there's a sign over the building that will say Middle Sex County Administrative Building. This sign's allowed to be 16 square feet. It's 16 feet long, 1 foot high. So it's 16 square ft. Signs comply with the ordinance. I'm sorry, the sign drawing, I didn't call it out, is A4, also dated February 26. Final drawing that was part of this packet is A5 dated February 26 is a roof plant. Uh I'll just point out that this area over here to the top of the page which is the western sides is the bulkhead above the four elevators. The stair tower that comes up to the roof and there's a roof hatch on the other stair towers. It'll be be a ladder up. But this parapit that I'm circling with my hand, it's approximately 5 ft high depending on where you are on the roof with the pitch and it'll be ample height to screen all the mechanical equipment. I know it's come up. What's the material? So, we propose to use a white EPDM membrane. So, it's a a rubber single ply membrane. It's white, which is great, especially in urban areas because it helps reduce heat ion effect because it reflects the uh the sun's rays.

Thank you. Um, we have two exhibits. This wasn't part of your packet. This is exhibit one. It's uh dated April 13th. A4, I'm sorry. I'm going to write on it. What was the date again? April 14th, 20126. So yesterday. Tomorrow. No, today. Tomorrow's April 13th. It says 8:30. It says 8:13. I apologize. Yeah,

it's been a long day. Um, this is just a rendering. Uh, this is looking at the building from the uh norththeast corner. So, what I'm pointing at here, this is that first floor level for the public where the sign would be. You can see nice eightstory building kind of defining the base at the center of the floor and then metal panels and uh ribbon glass around it. And then on the flip side, A5 today's date 413 um is an elevation colorized elevation looking at the building from New Street. So the elevation I just showed you was sort of looking here. You can see this curve here, but this is the flat part of the building that faces New Street and the secondary entrance for the for the county employees that work on floors 2 through eight. And with uh sharing these exhibits, I've completed my testimony. I'd be very pleased to take any questions the board or public has. Thank you.

Any member of the board or board professionals have any questions? Seeing none. I think there's one correction to the first floor. Okay.

My client has corrected me. I testified that the first floor floor to floor height was 20 ft. It's actually 16 ft.

Okay. Any member of the board of board professionals have any questions? Seeing none, any other witness? No, no, no other witnesses. No other direction. All right. Thank you. Any member of the uh public which come forward have any questions or comments on this application? Seeing none, close the public portion um for discussion. No, I would just like to thank you and your team for a very professional, detailed um presentation for tonight. Thank you. Okay, Dan, can we have the conditions? Make a motion.

Should the board act favoring conditions shall apply?

We didn't include an issue. or what was your original

March 17, 2026 complies with the terms of the brand new View Engineer report dated March 17, 2026. Submission of all necessary easements and/or cross access agreements for review and approval by the board attorney and city engineer prior to filing the same. Payment of the site performance bond and an amount reviewed and approved by the city engineer. Submission of a site inspection escro deposit for the engineering inspection fees and amount calculated pursuant to title 16.24.160. Payment of all water and sewer connection fees pursuant to title 13.04 and 13.08. Issuance of a road opening permit from city engineer if required. Compliance with the terms of the big planning report dated April 9th, 2026. Payment of a redeveloper fee to the city of New Brunswick. Planning review escro funded for all anticipated post approval reviews. Payment of all other fees due to the city of New Brunswick related to development or use of this project. Payment of all outstanding taxes and water or sewer fees. Middle sex county planning board approval or waiver soil conservation district approval or waiver. Filing a subdivision in accordance with the map filing act. application shall provide documentation. Actually, wait a second. This is a minor, right?

Applicants shall provide documentation confirming that they have contacted the city's tax assessor to obtain new block and lot parcel designations and street addresses that will appear on the city's tax map and tax list if the application is approved and implemented. Applicant shall provide proof that the copies of any required new deeds have been reported with the county clerk and that copies of the reported deeds have been provided to the city's tax assessor and the tax assessor satisfied with the form and content of the deeds. Submission of engineering site plan to comply with any changes required by the planning or engineering memos or plan amendments offered at the hearing. Submit architectural plans to comply with any changes required by the planning or engineering memos or plan amendments offered at the hearing. Execution of a title 39 parking enforcement agreement. All utilities and other site improvements to be maintained by the applicant at threshold expense. All insight utilities to be constructed underground. All temporary approaches in the public right away shall require city council approval. All construction staging shall be done on site unless an approach allowing to the public right away is approved by city council. Streets shall be kept clean of sediment and debris. The applicant shall cause the streets to be cleaned directed to do so by the director of public works. Tracking patch shall be installed at all construction exits and replacement of damaged streets, curves, and sidewalks as per direct city engineer.

Motion to approve of the inclusion of the affformentioned provisions. We'll second. Yes. Melendez. Yes. Lewig. Yes. Also, yes. Lopez, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Congratulations. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Total 16 Land Development Code Amendment.

He's going to read it.

I know we sort of did this to some extent. Um we uh have run into some minor issues with uh with applicants uh with the escrow calculations and the application fee calculations. Uh we thought we had resolved uh those issues by simplifying it but perhaps we didn't simplify it enough while also adding complexity changing it. So instead the escros and the allocation fees we ripped off about 99% of the math and we just said if you fall into this box this is your escro fee or this is your fee. Uh just made it very straightforward. Um so you don't have to plug in what your square footage or whatever is how many units of whatever are fast that additionally uh while uh they would be able to get some of the benefits from uh a microvision or minification if they have variances such as notice requirement or possible use of the uh my check plan committee and my vision committee if we ever bring those back um we find that there is probably no issue we're allowing applicants to come forward uh with divisions to this board provided they don't have any voting board the purpose being essentially that if somebody has a very small application that they should not have to be subject run the same grouping but also the same level of fees and submission restrictions that uh that they would have just one technical variance here and there

and that's sort of related to the structure that applications of smaller Um and lastly, um adding two cycle exemptions, one for pipe that doesn't increase area beyond what's already allowed exemption. Uh for Yeah. So like if you give you an example would be there's a building with a flat roof. Uh let's say it's a one story commercial building with a flat roof and they want to switch to sort of like a gabled roof but they're not adding any floor space. They're just changing the pitch of their roof. Um it makes it taller presuming that they have no variances if that would be except they do that administrative have no variances and that signage applications should not be uh required to have a site plan requirement. Uh well one we do them administratively but uh this is so that if they even have a variance and they have to come before this board that they or the zoning board as applicable that they would not have to have they wouldn't have to get major site plan fees. they wouldn't have to produce a full site plan for the whole site just for sign variance which is animal and this also creates a separate fee structure for signage variances not necessarily to encourage them but to create a framework that's workable that's not you know charging somebody you know $10,000 $20,000 for sign varianes because they're on a lot and that's kind of the the change it's broadly uh the fees structure and a lot of the other changes kind of are not directly fee structured but they stem from the free structure changes just to create a more simple and fair structure for allations.

Anyone have any questions or comments on it? The only thing that came from for us previously was the fee structure. Everything else is new today. Well, I mean I changed the free structure that we did back in December. Yes. Um but we the minor subdivision, minor site plan changes and the uh site plan exemptions are different things than we dealt with late last year. Okay. Yes. Any questions, comments? Dan, I have to open it to Yeah.

At this time, I'd like to open up to the public. Anyone from the public have any questions or comments on this uh code amendment? Seeing none, close the public portion. Um, do I have a motion? Motion to recommend approval to the council. I'll second. Sorry. You want to talk to No, you didn't. I thought you did. I didn't. Oh, wait. Oh, then I did. Oh, you did. Okay. Okay. So, I just Jeremy threw everybody off. He was Melendez. Yes. Lewick. Soros.

Lopez. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Other matters of interest to the public? Anyone have any questions or comments you want to bring before the uh board? Please come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to close public portion. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? All in favor?