Feb 25, 2025 Zoning Board

[OPENING STATEMENT ]

[00:00:06]

AND WELCOME TO THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD. IN MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 25TH, 2025. THE TIME IS NOW 7 P.M, AND IT'S THE ZONING BOARD'S INTENTION TO CONCLUDE THIS MEETING NO LATER THAN 10 P.M. IF WE HAVE TO, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT, NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS. CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? BLODGETT? YEAH. I'M HERE. ROSENTHAL. HERE. ABU DHABI. HERE. LEVSKI. HERE. BRUNS. HERE. WALMART HERE.

WOULD. URBANSKI. SHAH HERE. YES. HERE. DELANTY HERE. AND HERE. RODRIGUEZ. HERE. DARCY. PRESENT.

FISSINGER HERE. AND THE RECORD SHOW THAT MR. SHAW IS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE TONIGHT AS WELL. MISS LOZOVSKY, CAN YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE? PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE 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. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, MISS BLAZAWSKI. THIS IS THE TIME NORMALLY SCHEDULED IN OUR IN OUR MEETING. THIS IS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOW. BECAUSE WE HAVE A RELATIVELY LARGE AUDIENCE, I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS RESERVED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR GENERAL MATTERS OF THE ZONING BOARD. THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSION FOR ANY ISSUES THAT ARE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA UNTIL THAT APPLICATION OPENS UP AND WE START THE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS. SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE ZONING BOARD, PLEASE COME AHEAD. BUT IT'S ONLY FOR TOPICS THAT ARE NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. NOBODY AS NORMALLY WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE ANY. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO

[V. APPLICATIONS]

AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION WAS REQUIRED AND I PRESUME THEY'RE IN ORDER. YES, THEY YES THEY ARE. YES THEY ARE. ALL RIGHT. TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO CLARIFY FIRST. TONIGHT. SO WE HAVE TO GET HER SWORN IN ON THIS APPLICATION FROM CCH. CAN YOU STAND UP? YEP. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD. YES. ISABELLE RODRIGUEZ, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN? THIS MATTER WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH. NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. I DO, YEAH. THANK YOU. AND WELCOME TO THE ZONING BOARD. YEAH. GREAT. THANK YOU.

CHAIR. GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS CHRIS MURPHY.

WITH THE LAW FIRM OF MURPHY, SCHILLER AND WILKES HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, REYNARD MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED. AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT SEEKING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ALONG WITH BOTH D AND C VARIANCE RELIEF IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1026 COUNTY ROAD 518. MORE SPECIFICALLY, BLOCK 29 002 LOTS 59. EXCUSE ME, LOTS 49 AND 50. AS YOU WILL HEAR TONIGHT FROM OUR PROJECT PROFESSIONALS. WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS OF BOTH THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC. THESE CHANGES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING. FIRST, ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AS TWO TWO BUILDING PROJECT. THE APPLICANT HAS ELIMINATED ONE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS. THE NEWLY DESIGNED MAIN BUILDING HAS BEEN

[00:05:02]

AND THERE WERE ALSO SOME CHANGES TO THE DRAINAGE PLAN, UTILITY PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND LIGHTING PLAN. AND WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THOSE TONIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP THREE PROFESSIONALS THIS EVENING. JOSH SEEWALD FROM DYNAMIC ENGINEERING IS GOING TO PRESENT FIRST. THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LOUIS VAN DELOUCHE FROM GMA ARCHITECTS. AND LASTLY, CORY CHASE FROM DYNAMIC TRAFFIC. WE'VE ALREADY PROVIDED PLANNING TESTIMONY REALLY TO THE VARIANCE RELIEF BEING SOUGHT. IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION TO CALL OUR PLANNER TONIGHT, BUT WE WOULD WANT TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CALL BACK ANY OF OUR EXPERTS TO ADDRESS ANY, ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE OR COMMENTS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION. BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO STICK TO OUR THREE PROFESSIONALS IF POSSIBLE TONIGHT. OUR INTENTION IS TO REST YOUR CASE AFTER THE THREE PROFESSIONALS, BUT YOU WANT THE RIGHT OF REBUTTAL. THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU COUNSELOR.

SO WITH THAT, JOSH SEEWALD IS GOING TO PRESENT TESTIMONY RELATED TO CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR THE PROJECT. AND HE WAS SWORN IN ON JANUARY 23RD, 2024. ARE YOU REMAIN UNDER OATH? CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY, GREAT. HE'S BEEN QUALIFIED. THE BOARD STILL ACCEPTS HIM, CORRECT? YEAH, HE WAS QUALIFIED. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DONE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BUT I THINK HE'S STILL LICENSED, STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. YES. OKAY. OKAY, GREAT. JOSH. SO WITH THAT, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PROVIDE TESTIMONY RELATED TO THE NEW COLORIZED SITE PLAN. COUNSELOR, I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT. IT WAS PROVIDED BEFORE TO THE BOARD YESTERDAY. LET ME JUST SEE WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF EXHIBITS. I'M LOOKING AT MY NOTES FROM AUGUST. THEY HAVE EXHIBIT A 11. SO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY BEYOND THAT. A 12. SO THE NEXT EXHIBIT I BELIEVE IS A 13. AND I ASSUME THAT THE BOARD SECRETARY HANDED OUT TO THE BOARD A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO THIS 11 BY 17 IS WHAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN. YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO DO YOU HAVE I ASK THE BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU HAVE AN 11 BY 17 YOU CAN MARK AS EXHIBIT A 13.

YES. EXCELLENT. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU COUNSELOR. JOSH GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. AGAIN. JOSH SEEWALD FROM DYNAMIC ENGINEERING. IT'S GREAT TO BE BACK IN MONTGOMERY. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A FEW MONTHS SINCE WE WERE LAST HERE. THE IMAGE THAT'S BEFORE YOU, THAT'S CALLED SITE PLAN RENDERING. WHAT THAT IS THE SITE PLAN SHEET OF THE RECORD CIVIL DRAWINGS OVERLAID ONTO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THEN COLORIZED FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES. SAME ORIENTATION THAT WE'VE HAD ON THE PREVIOUS EXHIBIT. NORTH IS TO THE TOP OF THE PLAN. BOTTOM IS TO THE SOUTH. WE HAVE WASHINGTON STREET RUNNING IN THAT EAST WEST DIRECTION. THE ORANGE BLOCK WILL BE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SELF STORAGE FACILITY. THE LIGHTER GRAY COLOR IS THE ACCESS AISLE, THE PARKING, THE LOADING, ALL THE DRIVE AISLES, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU SEE IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF GRAY IS EITHER EXISTING WOODED AREAS THAT ARE TO REMAIN, OR NEW LANDSCAPING ASSOCIATED WITH OUR RECORD CIVIL DRAWINGS. MR. MURPHY DID A GREAT JOB SUMMARIZING AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. WE WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. WE TOOK A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, AS WELL AS SOME FROM THE PUBLIC, AND WE WANTED TO COME BACK AND REALLY HEAR THE BOARD'S CONCERNS ABOUT SCALING SIZE OF THIS TYPE OF FACILITY. SO IT'S THE SAME CLIMATE CONTROLLED CLASS, A SELF STORAGE FACILITY. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM OUR ARCHITECT ABOUT HOW WE'RE KEEPING THE SIMILAR FACADE ELEVATIONS, NUMBER OF UNITS. THE LOADING IS STILL IN THE BACK. THE MAIN CHANGE IS THE SCALE, SIZE AND SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO. THE DRIVEWAY IS IN THE SAME LOCATION ON WASHINGTON STREET, SAME MOVEMENTS THAT WE'VE ALWAYS DISCUSSED. WE SLIGHTLY REDUCED

[00:10:02]

WHAT DOES THAT DO? IT ALLOWS US TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE OUR BUFFER TO THE SENSITIVE AREA OF THE PROJECT. AS WE HEARD THROUGH ALL OF THESE HEARINGS, WE HAVE RESIDENTS SITTING BEHIND US WHO I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT WE ESSENTIALLY TOOK OUR 25.9FT RESIDENTIAL BUFFER TO THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AND TO THE ROCKY HILL MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY, AND WE TRIPLED IT, AND WE MOVED IT UP TO ABOUT 78.2FT AT THE NARROWEST PORTION. AGAIN, THE 25FT WAS COMPLIANT THROUGH ALL THESE DIFFERENT BOARD PRESENTATIONS AND PRIOR ITERATIONS OF THE DESIGN. BUT IN HEARING SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD DESIGN PRACTICE TO TRIPLE THAT BUFFER. THE NEXT THING WE DID WAS WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO REDUCE AND SCALE DOWN THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN FAR, WE SUBSTANTIALLY WERE ABLE TO REDUCE THE ONSITE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. THERE WAS A LOT OF TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD THAT TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING SITE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AT 65.3%, IT'S ESSENTIALLY A REDEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, CAN'T YOU COMPLY WITH THE 55% THAT THE ZONE ALLOWS AND THE HCA ZONE? AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT TONIGHT THAT WE'RE UNDER 40%. WE'RE ABOUT 38% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU HAVE OVER 60% OF THIS LOT DEDICATED TO OPEN SPACE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON EXHIBIT 813, IT'S ALL LANDSCAPING HERE. THE DARK GREEN COLOR IS EXISTING WOODS THAT WE INTEND TO LEAVE ALONE. AND THEN ALL THOSE LITTLE CIRCLES OF LIGHT GREEN AND MEDIUM GREEN WILL ALL BE BRAND NEW LANDSCAPING. AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT ALSO REMOVES THE BULK VARIANCE CRITERIA THAT WE HAD ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THE TOTAL FAR WE ARE SEEKING NOW IS 59,000FT■!S AND CHANGE, WHICH AGAIN IS 0.46. LIKE I MENTIONED, THE REST OF THE SITE DESIGN IS PRETTY SIMILAR. DRIVEWAY OUT ON WASHINGTON STREET, 30 FOOT ACCESS, AISLE 1419 BY 20 SPACES. WE STILL HAVE ADA. WE STILL HAVE THE EV SPACES. THE TWO COVERED LOADING SPACES WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN SIDE, UNDERNEATH A BUILDING CANOPY AREA, SO THAT ACTIVITY IS LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING. AND WE ALSO STILL KEPT ON SITE OUR TEN BY TEN TRASH ENCLOSURE AND A TURNAROUND AREA FOR FIRE EMERGENCY ACCESS FACILITIES. SO FROM A SITE PLAN STANDPOINT, WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY DID WAS WE LOPPED OFF A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDINGS, CONSOLIDATED IT AND CENTRALIZED IT ON THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE AS MUCH GREEN SPACE ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THIS BUILDING. FROM A SIGNAGE STANDPOINT, EVERYTHING. STAYS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS THAT WE WERE AT. FROM A GRADING AND DRAINAGE STANDPOINT, ALL THE TESTIMONY REMAINS THE SAME. IF ANYTHING, IT JUST GETS FURTHER IMPROVED, LESS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND REDUCTION OF ON SITE PAVEMENT THAT'S OUT THERE TODAY ONLY ENHANCES ALL FOUR PRONGS OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. WHAT WE HAVE TODAY ESSENTIALLY IS OVERLAND FLOW THAT WILL GO DOWN INTO THE NATURAL GROUND LIKE IT DOES TODAY. ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE HAVE IS UTILITIES ALL STAYING EXACTLY THE SAME WATER, SEWER, GAS, ELECTRIC, ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE LAST PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD. LANDSCAPING HAS SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED AND WE WERE ABLE TO INCREASE IT. AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE THAT WE HAVE NOW FOR LANDSCAPING. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE 171 DIFFERENT TREES SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY, 136 SHRUBS AND ANOTHER 77 VARIOUS PLANTINGS, GRASSES, FLOWERS FOR A TOTAL OF 384 PLANTINGS SPREAD NICELY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PARCEL. AND I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT I BELIEVE THAT WE COMPLY NOW WITH ALL LANDSCAPING DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THERE ARE NO WAIVERS OR VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LANDSCAPING. LIGHTING IS DIFFERENT, AND THE REASON IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE IS BECAUSE BEFORE WE HAD TWO BUILDINGS FACING THE INTERIOR DRIVE AISLE. NOW, IN ELIMINATING THAT BUILDING, I NOW NEED TO HAVE SOME AERIAL LIGHT POLES INSTEAD OF WALL PACKS. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS FOR AERIAL LIGHT POLES. THEY ARE 20FT TALL MAXIMUM, WHICH COMPLIES WITH YOUR ORDINANCE. WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN WALL PACKS AND THEY ARE LOCATED ON THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN FACADE. THE GOOD NEWS IS THERE ARE NO LIGHTS ON THE EASTERN SIDE, SO THERE IS A TRUE BUFFER BETWEEN OUR BUILDING AND THE ROCKY HILL MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AND THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE FURTHER EAST ON WASHINGTON STREET. THE AVERAGE ILLUMINATION ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS LESS THAN ONE FOOT CANDLE, AND THE AVERAGE ILLUMINATION IN THE PAVEMENT AREAS AGAIN, JUST THE PARKING AND THE DRIVE AISLE IS LESS THAN TWO FOOT CANDLES. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE DESIGN WAIVERS, WHICH WE'LL TOUCH ON, ASSOCIATED

[00:15:04]

CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO DIRECT QUESTIONS FOR MY WITNESS, BUT OKAY, I THINK IN THAT CASE, THEN WE'LL MOVE DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE THIS THIS THE ENGINEER I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE PUBLIC AND THIS JUST AS AN INSTRUCTIVE, YOU KNOW, MOMENT, THAT THIS IS THE ENGINEER, THE TESTIMONY THAT HE JUST GAVE IS PERTAINING TO ENGINEERING MATTERS OF THE, OF THE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. SO ALL THE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE ENGINEERING OF THAT BUILDING. AND, YOU KNOW, TO THE SPECIFIC TESTIMONY THAT HE PROVIDED. SO YEAH, I'M JUST I'M JUST SETTING THE TABLE HERE. AND AGAIN, YOU WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOUR OPINIONS OF THE PROJECT AND ASKING QUESTIONS OF A MORE GENERAL NATURE AT A LATER POINT.

BUT THIS IS FOR HIS IF WE WANT TO. I'M TRYING TO SPEED THIS UP TO FOR EFFICIENCY AS WELL. JUST SO GO AHEAD AND PLEASE AS YOU AS YOU COME ABOARD, STAY STATE YOUR NAME AND WHAT TOWNSHIP YOU RESIDE IN AND WHO YOU REPRESENT. IF YOU REPRESENT SOMEONE, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. DREW, MY NAME IS ANDREW SCHRAGER. FOR THE RECORD S H R A G G E I REPRESENT MONT PENN SC LLC AND HILTON MANAGEMENT, THE OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR THE MONTGOMERY SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS DIRECTLY NORTH OF THIS THIS PROPERTY WHERE THE SHOP RATE IS THE SHOP FOR EVERYONE'S UNDERSTANDING. IT'S THE SHOPRITE SHOPPING CENTER. SO WE JUST HAD REALLY TWO REALLY KIND OF TWO OR MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO CALL THEM THREE CONCERNS. JOSH AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS VIA EMAIL.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, FOR THE RECORD, WE IN ONE OF THE DESIGNS, IT LOOKED LIKE UP IN THE NORTH WEST CORNER THAT THE CURBING WAS DEPRESSED. SO THE WATER WOULD FLOW. AND WE HAVE A GREAT AS A AS THE NEIGHBOR BECAUSE THERE'S A STEEP SLOPE THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE, INTO THE. WE HAD SOME, SOME REAL CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER YOU COULD DIRECT THE WATER TO CHANGE THAT.

AND I THINK WE TALKED TO MR. MURPHY AND THERE WERE SOME EMAILS GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH OUR ENGINEER. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO KIND OF DIRECT THAT WATER TOWARDS THAT INLET, WHICH IS, I BELIEVE, STILL ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT FLOWS INTO FLOWS INTO OUR, OUR PIPE AND UNDERNEATH, ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR BUILDINGS. CORRECT. AND THE DESIGN WAS HONESTLY TO ELIMINATE THE CONNECTION ORIGINALLY BASED OFF OF PRIOR PRESENTATIONS. BUT IN WORKING WITH HILTON REALTY, WE WILL CONDITION ON ANY APPROVAL THAT WE WOULD DIRECT THAT STORMWATER BACK TO THE INLETS THAT ARE ON OUR PROPERTY. AND AS PART OF THAT, WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU AGREE TO SOME SORT OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WHEREBY WE WOULD AGREE TO MAINTAIN IT JOINTLY. YES. OKAY. SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GO ABOUT DIRECTING THE WATER TO THE INLET? ARE YOU GOING TO GET RID OF THE DEPRESSED CURVES AND PUT IN RAISED CURBS? SO THE DEPRESSED CURBS MAY STAY IN SOME PLACES? THE REQUEST, I BELIEVE, WAS TO DIRECT ALL THE WATER TO THE INLETS THAT ARE ON OUR SITE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO YOU DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION IF THEY LEAVE SOME DEPRESSED CURVE? NO, NO, NOT AT ALL. IT'S JUST THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THAT DEPRESSED CURB, IN ESSENCE, BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING AN INCREASED AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, YOU'RE GOING TO YOU COULD HAVE A LOT OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE FALL, AND THAT COULD BACK UP AT THE AT THE DEPRESSED CURB COULD GET BLOCKED AND THEN CAUSE THE WATER TO FLOW. AND BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT EROSION IN ESSENCE. SO WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT SOMEHOW YOU CAN DIRECT THAT WATER TO THAT INLET, WHETHER IT'S A DEPRESSED CURB, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY NOT AN ENGINEER. THAT'S WHY I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL. IT WASN'T MY THING.

SO WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT YOU CAN WE CAN AGREE THAT YOU'LL DIRECT THE WATER FROM THAT AREA.

NOT ALL I WE UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ALL OF THE WATER IS GOING TO FLOW TO THAT AREA. SOME OF THE WATER IS GOING TO FLOW ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, OUT TO 518 OR OTHER SEWER SEWER INLETS. BUT THAT'S WHAT THE ANSWER IS. YES. YES. THE ANSWER IS YES. AND THEN AS OBVIOUSLY AS A CONDITION OF

[00:20:04]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK. HI, I'M CANDY WILLIS, KNICKERBOCKER DRIVE, BELLEMEADE, NEW JERSEY, AND I JUST HAVE A QUESTION TO ASK. KNICKERBOCKER DRIVE BELLEMEADE. I CAN'T SEE HOW THE FIRE TRUCKS CAN TURN AROUND. I WASN'T HERE FOR ALL THE OTHER HEARINGS, SO WHY DON'T YOU ASK THEM? ASK THEM. CAN YOU SHOW YOU HOW THE FIRE TRUCKS TURN AROUND? SO AS PART OF OUR RECORD CIVIL SET, WE HAVE TO SUBMIT A FIRE CIRCULATION PLAN. SO CAN YOU PUT THE FIRE CIRCULATION PLAN UP ON THE SCREEN? YES. OFF THE LOG INTO THE WEBSITE REAL QUICK. BUT LONG STORY SHORT, IF YOU FOLLOW MY CURSOR THAT'S ON EXHIBIT 813, THE FIRE TRUCK IS ABLE TO GO NORTH ON THE ACCESS DRIVE, MAKE A RIGHT WHICH IS EASTBOUND CIRCULATE. THEY CAN ALSO BACK UP. AND THEN THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS EXTENDED TURN AREA SO THAT THEY'RE ABLE THEN TO PULL FORWARD AND GO OUT TOWARDS WASHINGTON STREET. SO THEY HAVE ACCESS ON TWO SIDES OF THE BUILDING. THE BUILDING IS FULLY SPRINKLERED AND THEY HAVE A TURN AREA TO BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND.

OKAY, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK US THEN WHAT'S GOING TO KEEP A BIG TRACTOR TRAILER TRUCK FROM DOING THE SAME THING? SO THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNED FOR TRACTOR TRAILERS TO COME ON TO IT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION ON ANY TRACTOR TRAILER SERVICING IT OR LOADING SPACES THAT ARE FOR THE BUILDING ARE NOT TO ACCOMMODATE A TRACTOR TRAILER, WE CAN PUT UP WAYFINDING SIGNAGE THAT SAYS NO TRACTOR TRAILERS TO ENTER THE SITE. BUT I MEAN LIKE A MOVING TRUCK, YOU KNOW, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT WE WOULD DO AS PART OF MARKETING AND LEASING THIS BUILDING AND FACILITY WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE A TRACTOR TRAILER. IT'S DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE BOX TRUCKS, MOVING VANS, PICKUP TRUCKS. THAT'S HOW THE SITE IS DESIGNED, AS WELL AS THE LOADING AREA WHERE MY CURSOR IS PLACED. THAT'S ABOUT 15 BY 40FT. THE TRACTOR TRAILER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GO THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. DRAWINGS. HAS THAT FIRE CIRCULATION? YES IT DOES. WHAT SHEET. GOTCHA. I JUST GOTTA GO TO CHEAT FIVE. SORRY. 21 821. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

MR. CHAIRMAN. WHILE WE'RE ON THE FIRE SUBJECT, I BELIEVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ISSUED A MEMO TODAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT. NOW, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRE TRUCKS.

SURE. ARE YOU PREPARED TO SPEAK TO IT OR. EITHER YOU ARE THE ENGINEER. SOMEONE TAKE THEM.

I'M. I'M JOSH HURST. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS MEMO? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? I DO, YES OKAY. THERE WERE THREE ITEMS IN THE MEMO. ONE WAS REGARDING LOCATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE MEMO WAS NOT DATED. I BELIEVE IT WAS. WE'RE GOING TO PUT A DATE ON IT. WE'RE GOING TO PUT TODAY'S DATE ON IT. FEBRUARY 25TH, 2025. SO THERE WERE THREE ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE WAS REGARDING LOCATIONS OF FIRE HYDRANTS. THERE'S THREE ITEMS. YOU WANT TO JUST ADDRESS THEM ONE AT A TIME. YEAH I'M JUST PULLING IT UP ON MY PHONE. BUT WE GOT IT AT LATE AFTERNOON AS I WAS TRAVELING TO THE HEARING. HERE. JUST TAKE I'LL GIVE IT BACK TO YOU. CAN YOU JUST TAKE THAT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THEY WERE HANDED OUT TO THE BOARD ON ALL THE OTHER CHAIRS.

NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO THE FIRST COMMENT ASKS US SIMPLY TO PUT A FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. WE'LL COMPLY WITH THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THE THIRD ONE IS THE FTC LOCATION. AND THAT ALSO WE CAN COMPLY WITH. THAT'S PART OF BUILDING CODE REVIEW. THE SECOND ONE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO CAN YOU READ INTO THE RECORD THE SECOND ONE? CERTAINLY DRIVEWAY OR PERVIOUS SURFACE DRIVEWAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE. AND I BELIEVE THE FIRE MARSHAL IS CONSIDERING THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING OF THE BUILDING TO FURTHER ASSIST WITH FIREFIGHTING OPERATION. THE CURRENT PLAN SHOWS A BOTTLENECK ISSUE, WITH SINGLE ACCESS AND FIRE HOSE BEING LAID FROM THE FIRE HYDRANT ON 518 TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, LIMITING ACCESS TO ONLY ONE FIRE TRUCK ON THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, WE GOT THIS MEMO ABOUT 5 P.M. BEFORE WE WERE ABLE TO COME HERE. IT IS THE FIRST TIME ON THIS APPLICATION THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL IS LOOKING FOR ANY DRIVEWAY ON THE EASTERN SIDE. I CAN'T SAY THAT WE CAN COMPLY WITH THAT COMMENT. I WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL. MY TESTIMONY, SIR, AND TO YOUR PROFESSIONALS, IS WE'VE DONE A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT DO NOT HAVE FULL CIRCULATION AROUND THIS TYPE OF FACILITY. I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE WILL MEET WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, EXPLAIN THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO DO AN FTC AS WELL AS A FIRE HYDRANT. WE'LL SHOW WHERE THE TRUCKS CAN STAGE ON THE PROPERTY. WHAT WE CAN ALSO DO ON THE EASTERN SIDE IS MAKE A

[00:25:01]

BUT THE FIRE FIGHTERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO WALK AROUND THE BUILDING. SO WHAT WE WOULD TRY TO DO IS SHOW THAT THERE'S ENOUGH CLEARANCE AND SPACE SO THAT IT CAN RUN A HOSE AND CONNECT TO THE FTCS AND THE DIFFERENT FIRE HYDRANTS ON SITE. THANKS, JOSH. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS GREG KAGANOVICH. I HAVE BEEN I RESIDE ON GRIGGSTOWN ROAD IN BELLEMEADE. YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME, SIR? YES, SPELL YOUR LAST NAME. COULD YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME, SIR? K A G A N O W I THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THIS TOWNSHIP FOR 43 YEARS, AND HAVE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN THE TOWNSHIP, BUT NEVER HAVE I SEEN AN APPLICANT WHO HAD THE AUDACITY TO PUT A STORAGE BUILDING THAT SIR, THE. THIS IS A TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE ENGINEER WITH. WITH ALL RESPECT, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOUR OPINIONS. IT'S JUST NOT NOW. YOU'RE NOT NOW. YOU HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION TO THE ENGINEER. SO I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT THAT THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME. NO, NO, NO, YOU WILL HAVE PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY. BUT YEAH, RIGHT NOW THERE'S QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE APPLICATIONS ENGINEER. NO I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS. THANK I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD. OF COURSE YOU DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THEN WE'LL DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR THEM. ARE THERE ANY. YES PLEASE. THANK YOU. HI, JOANNA. LEONARDO. I'M AT TWO WASHINGTON, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR. MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE DISCUSSED ACCESS TO OUR BACKYARD. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THE LAST TIME. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU ARE AMENABLE TO? AGAIN? BECAUSE I JUST DON'T SEE IT THERE. YEAH. SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE LEFT SPACES BETWEEN THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. I'LL ZOOM A LITTLE BIT MORE OVER HERE.

YOU'LL SEE ALL THESE LITTLE CIRCLES ARE MUCH CLOSER, TIGHTLY PACKED, BUT NEXT TO THE BACK OF YOUR DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS JUST FOR RECORD. BLOCK 101, LOT 36. WE LEFT SOME GRASS SPACE THERE TO BE ABLE TO GET OVER, I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION AND I'M NOT SPEAKING AS ATTORNEY, JUST AS AN ENGINEER, THAT THE OUR NEIGHBOR WAS LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO THE BACK OF THEIR, THEIR BACKYARD TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS OUR SITE, IT WOULD NOT BE A PAVED DRIVEWAY, IT WOULD JUST BE ACCESS. SO WHAT WE COULD DO AS POTENTIAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL, DO A SEPARATE EXHIBIT, MR. MURPHY. I'LL DETERMINE HOW THAT GETS WORKED INTO A SITE PLAN. BUT OVERALL, I BELIEVE AT THE LAST TIME WE TESTIFIED THAT WE WOULD WORK THAT IN. SO WE LEFT GRASS SPACE BEHIND THERE SO WE CAN WALK TO THE PAVED DRIVE OUT BEHIND US. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO MORE ENGINEERING STYLE QUESTIONS. WELL, YEAH. DID DOES THE PROFESSIONAL THE PROFESSIONALS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ENGINEER? JUST A FEW. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE APPLICANT HAS ANSWERED QUITE A FEW OF OUR OUR COMMENTS BEING THAT THIS IS EITHER THE THIRD OR FOURTH HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION. JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOUR MEMO IS DATED. OUR MOST CURRENT MEMO IS DATED FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025. AND LIKE I SAID, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED QUITE A BIT OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HAD REQUESTED IN THE MEMO. THE I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE DID ASK IS REGARDING THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, NOT JUST TO THE ADJACENT PARCEL AS, AS THE LAST PUBLIC PUBLIC MEMBER HAD GOTTEN UP AND SPOKEN ABOUT. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT ACCESS TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE SHOPPING CENTER TO THE REAR. WHAT NUMBER? OH, I'M SORRY, THAT IS ON PAGE FIVE OF MY MEMO, NUMBER 16. GOT IT. THE APPLICANT SHALL DISCUSS WHETHER ANY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING PARCELS. CORRECT. PLURAL. THE LAST MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAS DEALT WITH HER PARCEL. SO I ASSUME WHAT YOU MEAN IS THE SHOPPING CENTER? YES. YEAH. GOOD QUESTION. RAKESH. SO ONE OF THE COMMENTS ALSO IN YOUR I BELIEVE IS YOUR LETTER OR THE PLANNERS LETTER ASKED ABOUT A CONNECTION FROM WASHINGTON STREET TO THE FRONT

[00:30:04]

THAT DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED AS PREVIOUSLY. THEY WERE OBJECTING. NOW, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORING SHOPPING CENTER ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, SO WE CAN CONDITION THE APPROVAL ON WE CAN DO A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE DESIGN DETAILS FOR IT. OKAY. AND THEN AND I'M SURE COUNSEL FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS HERE, THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL. WHAT WHAT KIND OF. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT A LAWYER EITHER. I WENT TO ENGINEERING SCHOOL. I JUST WASN'T SMART ENOUGH FOR LAW SCHOOL. I STARTED IN ENGINEERING SCHOOL, MADE THE SMART MOVE TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL. YOU'RE SMART ENOUGH TO GET OUT, RIGHT? SO THE WHAT KIND OF LEGAL MECHANISM WOULD WOULD WE BE TALKING ABOUT TO FACILITATE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY TRAVERSING YOUR PROPERTY TO THE SHOPPING CENTER, YOU CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT, CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS. BUT BEFORE I GUESS WE GO INTO THAT, I BELIEVE COUNSEL FOR OUR NEIGHBOR. AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, ANDREW SCHRAGER. MR. CHAIRMAN MR. DRILL WE ACTUALLY ARE OBJECT TO THAT ANY ANY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. IT'S A SLOPE. IT'S A DOWN SLOPE. IT WOULD NEED TO BE ADA COMPLIANT.

IT WOULD NEED TO BE STEPS AND OR RAMP. IT'S AND IT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO MAINTAIN FOR US AND FOR THE APPLICANT. IT IS OUR OPINION. IT'S SO THIS IS A CHANGE OF POSITION BECAUSE YOUR PRIOR POSITION WAS YOU WANTED A CONNECTION NOW. WELL, WE WANTED WE THOUGHT WE WOULD WANT A ROADWAY CONNECTION. WE HAD NEVER AGREED TO A SIDEWALK OR STAIRCASE CONNECTION. OKAY. SO YOU, THE OWNER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, WOULD OBJECT TO ANY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SHOPPING CENTER SITE AND THE APPLICANT SITE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD.

SORRY, I JUST I JOSH THE IF YOU COULD SHOW YOUR CURSOR IS THE GREEN WHERE IT STOPS. IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPERTY LINE IS IN BOLD. MY CURSOR. YEP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE PLAN THE CORRECT WAY. THANK YOU. DO YOU KNOW BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITE, HOW MUCH FURTHER THE SLOPE GOES DOWN INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER BEYOND YOUR PROPERTY LINE? IT'S NOT FLAT. I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT FLAT. THE GRADE OF THE PARKING LOT IS APPROXIMATELY ONE 41.5, AND THE GRADE OF YOUR PARKING LOT IS 130, SO IT'S 11FT LOWER.

OKAY, HERE'S HERE'S THE QUESTION. WHERE DOES THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY LINE STOP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL OR THE TOP OF THE HILL? HALFWAY DOWN, HALFWAY DOWN, HALFWAY DOWN.

WELL, MORE THAN HALFWAY DOWN, ACTUALLY. IT'S ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY DOWN THE BOARD COULD REQUIRE, IF IT WANTED TO, IF IT WAS GOING TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT PUT A PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK STAIR WHATEVER UP TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE. BUT THE BOARD CAN'T ORDER, CAN'T REQUIRE THE SHOPPING CENTER TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THE SHOPPING CENTER DOESN'T HAVE AN APPLICATION IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. SO IF THE PROPERTY LINE ENDED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL THERE, NO PROBLEM. BUT IF IT ENDS ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN, BIG PROBLEM. YES, THAT THAT THAT'S THE REASON. THAT'S IN ESSENCE THE REASON FOR THE OBJECTION. OKAY. JOSH, CAN YOU CONFIRM WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE ENDS JUST SO WE HAVE IT FROM YOU? YEAH. MR. DODGE IS CORRECT. IT'S ABOUT TWO THIRDS THE WAY DOWN. AND AGAIN, THAT IS A STEEP SLOPE AREA AS WELL. SO THERE'D BE FURTHER DISTURBANCE IN THAT, THAT AREA. THANK YOU. I CERTAINLY WILL DEFER TO THE BOARD TO LISTEN TO TESTIMONY FROM OBVIOUSLY THE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AS TO, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS WILL PROCEED. I WILL SAY THAT WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT HILTON REALTY WANTED THAT CONNECTION. SO I FOUGHT REALLY HARD FOR YOU GUYS. YEAH, BUT WE'VE CLARIFIED

[00:35:03]

YEAH, NO, I'M WITH YOU. THAT'S FINE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST TO GET BACK TO. THANK YOU.

SORRY. I'M SORRY. NO, PLEASE. IF YOU FINISH JUST TO GET BACK TO THE ADJOINING THE OTHER ADJOINING PROPERTY, WHO DOES WANT THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION? IF WE COULD GET THAT PATH ACTUALLY DELINEATED ON THE PLAN AND HAVE IT SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THERE IS A RIGHT FOR THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO TRAVERSE THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC. NO PROBLEM. HAPPY TO COMPLY. I DON'T HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE, MR. CHAIRMAN. JOSH, FIRST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE EPA TRAILER THAT'S ON THE SITE NOW IS THAT REMAINING AND IS IT SHOWN ON THE COLORIZED SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN? IT IS TO REMAIN. WE DID NOT COLOR IT. THE BOUNDARY OF IT IS ON THERE. AND YES, IT IS TO REMAIN. CAN YOU JUST SHOW US WITH THAT CURSOR WHERE IT IS? OVER THAT SIDE? OH. I WENT TOO FAR. OKAY. I WON'T ZOOM IN TOO MUCH, BUT WHERE MY CURSOR IS, THIS IS WHERE THE TRAILER IS LOCATED. IT'S UNDER A TREE. THAT IS A DRIP LINE OF VEGETATION. YOU CAN SEE IF I ZOOM IN A LITTLE MORE. UP THERE. AND TRAILER. YEP, THAT'S RIGHT THERE, I SEE. OKAY. IS THAT THE THING? THAT'S IT. THIS IS WHERE IT IS LOCATED. THERE'S THAT'S THE DASHES. AND X'S ARE A FENCE. YES. OKAY. I JUST AT THIS SCALE, I COULDN'T READ IT. NEITHER COULD WE. AND THEN JUST I'M LOOKING AT MY FEBRUARY 11TH REVIEW LETTER. WE'LL LEAVE THE TRAFFIC STOPS TO YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER HOME. THEY'RE FINE. CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM? IS THE ADA SPACE HAVE ACCESS TO THE EV CHARGER? IS THAT. YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST SHOWING A MAKE READY EV SPACE. BUT I WOULD ANTICIPATE THE CHARGER TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THOSE TWO SPACES, BECAUSE MOST CHARGERS WILL HAVE TWO LINES. SO IT'LL GO BETWEEN THE MAKE READY EV SPACE RIGHT NEXT TO THE ADA SPACE. OKAY. AND THEN HOURS OF OPERATION. HAS ANY OF THAT CHANGED FROM YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY? NO. CLERK MAINTENANCE DOES A NICE JOB SUMMARIZING THOSE OPERATIONS ON PAGE 20 TO 28. SO THAT I BELIEVE IS STILL PART OF THE RECORD. YEAH. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION IN MY REPORT FOR YOU WAS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S TWO DELIVERIES OR SU 30 OR BOX TRUCKS AT THE SAME TIME? CAN CAN THEY MANEUVER WITH CAN ONE MANEUVER WITH A SECOND ONE ALREADY IN THE LOADING DOCK? ABSOLUTELY. THOSE TWO SPACES ARE 15 BY 40. THE REAR ACCESS AISLE IS 25FT WIDE, AND THEN THE WESTERN ACCESS AISLE IS 30FT WIDE. SO PLENTY OF REAL ESTATE FOR TWO BOX TRUCKS TO GO PAST EACH OTHER. COULD COULD YOU ALSO ADDRESS ITEM 12 IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE THREE, THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE PAGE? YOU SAY UNDER THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 14 SPACES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, WHEREAS THE IT PARKING GENERATION MANUAL SIXTH EDITION INDICATES SIX SPACES AND 19 SPACES FOR THE 85TH PERCENTILE RATES. YOU CONTINUE TO RECOMMEND TESTIMONY BE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF A PARKING SUPPLY BELOW THE IT PARKING GENERATION. 85TH PERCENTILE PARKING RATE. I WOULD STILL LIKE TO HEAR THAT. I ASSUME THAT WOULD BE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT I'LL LET THEM ANSWER IT NOW IF JOSH IS THE RIGHT WITNESS, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT OR DO YOU NEED YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER? I'M GOING TO ANSWER IT FROM AN ENGINEERING AND A SITE PLANNING STANDPOINT, IT WAS OUR PRIOR POSITION THAT 14 SPACES IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR THE OVER 100,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE THAT WAS THERE, BASED ON INDUSTRY STANDARD, WHAT WE KNOW THAT COMES TO THE SITE, HOWEVER, WITH THE AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE THAT WE HAVE NOW, SHOULD THE BOARD TRULY BE CONCERNED THAT 14 SPACES IS NOT ENOUGH AND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO GET UP TO THAT 85TH PERCENTILE, THERE IS ROOM FOR IT. HOWEVER, I DON'T RECOMMEND IT FROM A PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STANDPOINT BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE NEVER UTILIZED AND IT IS BETTER TO HAVE MORE LANDSCAPING ON THE FACILITY. I WILL LET MR. CHASE, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, TALK ABOUT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ADDITION OF FIVE SPACES. YEAH, WE HAVE THE REAL ESTATE. WE CAN CERTAINLY DO IT. IT WOULD NOT TRIGGER ANY VARIANCES IF WE NEEDED TO ADD FIVE MORE. AND DO YOU NEED A VARIANCE IF YOU ONLY HAVE 14 SPACES? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IF YOU PROVIDED THE 19 SPACES YOU WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE. WE DO NOT NEED A VARIANCE RIGHT NOW FOR PARKING OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST THIS IS AN IT PARKING

[00:40:04]

ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT TO NOTE, JOSH, YOU DID SAY THAT WE WOULD LOSE SOME LANDSCAPING.

WE WOULD. AGAIN WHAT'S I'LL LET COREY TALK ABOUT IT. WOULD YOU PUT THE FIVE SPACES. CAN YOU WITH THE CURSOR SHOW US ON THE PLAN WHERE YOU PUT THE FIVE SPACES ALL OVER THERE? I WOULD PUT IT ON THE WESTERN SIDE TO BE COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE OF WHERE OUR 14 IS. RIGHT? SO YOU'D LOSE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING, NOT PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO NOTE ALSO IN THE BOARD TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT, HE CLAIMS THE AVERAGE IS SIX SPACES. SO WE'RE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE AVERAGE REQUIREMENT. BUT AGAIN WE IF THE BOARD IS TRULY CONCERNED WE WE'RE HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH 19. BUT WE THINK 14 IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR 59,000FT■!S OF SELF-STORAGE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, JOE? NO. NO, I WILL SAY MY QUESTIONS AFTER THE ARCHITECT'S TESTIMONY SINCE. AND I RECOMMEND THAT WE GO THROUGH OUR LETTER POINT BY POINT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING. OKAY, GREAT. AFTER THE ARCHITECT, WE'LL DO THAT. I DON'T PRESUME THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. YEAH, PLEASE. SORRY. ITEM NUMBER 23, ALSO ON PAGE FIVE OF OUR MEMO.

JOSH, WE BASICALLY RECOMMENDED VIDEOING AND CLEANING THOSE EXISTING PIPES. DO YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? CORRECT. WE DON'T. WE ACTUALLY DID IT PREVIOUSLY FOR HILTON REALTY. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU OKAY. PERFECT OKAY. ITEM WHAT ON PAGE FIVE. ITEM NUMBER 23 FOR. WHERE IS IT. TALK ABOUT VIDEOING THE PIPE. WELL WE TALKED ABOUT RIGHT. THE CONDITION OF THE OF THE PIPES. SO THE VIDEOING WOULD BE THE BEST WAY OF, OF DETERMINING THE CONDITION IF THE BOARD IS GOING TO GRANT AN APPROVAL TO IMPOSE A CONDITION, VIDEOING THE PIPE TO CONFIRM CORRECT. AND APPLICANT TESTIFIED THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THAT AND THEY'LL SHARE THAT WITH US. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. ON THE COVERS OF THE RECORD. SORRY.

OKAY. MR. MURPHY, I AGREED MONTHS AGO. I AGREE THAT THE PIPE WAS WAS VIDEOED BY. YES.

YOUR THE MR. MURPHY'S CLIENT DOWN TO KIND OF HALFWAY THROUGH THE SHOPPING CENTER. OKAY. YOU WANT A COPY OF THE VIDEO OR AT LEAST A REPORT? I DON'T I DON'T NEED THE ACTUAL VIDEO. I'M NOT I'M NOT SITTING AROUND LOOKING AT PIPE VIDEO. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A WRITTEN REPORT. I DON'T RECALL SEEING A WRITTEN REPORT. I DID RECALL THERE IS A IT'S NOT AN ENGINEER SIGNED AND SEALED REPORT. THEY WRITE A MEMO OF ANYTHING THAT THEY FOUND. SO WE'LL ISSUE THAT REPORT. YEAH.

NO OBJECTION ON ON OUR NO OBJECTION TO THAT ON OUR BEHALF. YOU ASKED FOR IT. YEAH. THAT'S ALL I REALLY NEED IS, IS THE EVALUATION REPORT THAT THE VIDEO COMPANY DOES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ONE, CAN ANY CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO EITHER PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICLE ACCESS THROUGH THE PROPERTY TO THE SHOPPING CENTER? I'M DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THERE'S NO ACCESS TO THE SHOPPING CENTER. SAYS THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE ACCESS OR. NO, I WOULD HAVE TO REPEAT MY TESTIMONY FROM THE PRIOR MEETINGS THAT DUE TO THE GRADING OF THE PROPERTY, THE STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCE AS WELL, SIR, AS THE SUPERFUND SITE MONITORING WELLS THAT ARE LOCATED AND DELINEATED ON THE PLAN, MY CURSOR IS RIGHT OVER THERE. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CUT INTO THAT SLOPE AND DO AN ACCESS OUT. WE ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE A NEGATIVE FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT. ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF 59,000FT■!S OF SELF-STORAGE. IT DOES NOT GENERATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC. YOU JUST HEARD ME TALK ABOUT HOW 14 SPACES IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE OUR USE. WASHINGTON STREET IN 206 IS BUSY, AS EVERYONE HERE KNOWS.

ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU CREATE ACCESS TO THE SHOPPING CENTER TO THE NORTH, IT'S GOING TO CREATE A CUT THROUGH AND GENERATING MORE TRAFFIC. SO IT'S OUR POSITION THAT DUE TO STEEP SLOPES CREATING THE SUPERFUND SITE PIPING AS WELL AS THE NEGATIVE IMPACT FROM TRAFFIC, WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE CROSS CONNECTION. RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS. SURE. OUR ARCHITECT, LOUIS VAN DER. THANKS, JOSHUA. I MIGHT CALL YOU BACK UP FOR THE TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AGAIN. I THINK YOU HAVE. INDUSTRIES. YES. THANK YOU. LET ME GO ON THERE. SO WE DON'T KNOW. GET TO THE

[00:45:08]

THERE. 24 HOURS, YOU CAN SEE. THERE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR PLANS, RIGHT? YES. THE PROJECTS. SO. THAT'S A LITTLE MORE. MOUSE. I'M NOT SURE WHERE SHE'S GOING TO GIVE YOU. YEAH.

SOME ASSISTANCE TO ASSIST. IF YOU GO TO THE RIGHT THERE, SCHEDULE UPCOMING EVENTS. YEAH.

AND THEN YOU'LL BE. YEAH. SO CLICK ON THE AGENDA. YEAH YEAH YEAH. AND CLICK THERE YOU GO FILES. NOW YOU GOT IT. THERE WE GO. RIGHT THERE. SO WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO. YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN. AND YOU HAD I BELIEVE SOME RENDERINGS AND WE HAVE RENDERINGS. THOSE WERE ALL SUBMITTED PRIOR. CORRECT. SO WHERE ARE YOU. WHAT IS HE. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO, GET THE RENDERINGS OR GET THE PLAN? I MIGHT GET THEM BOTH HERE IN JUST A SECOND. NO HE DID. HE'S GONE TO ANOTHER PAGE. HE'S GOT HIM. HE WANTED TO GET MORE THAN ONE UP ONE. THERE YOU GO. THERE'S THE RENDERINGS. OKAY, HERE'S THE PLAN. OKAY. SO MR. VANDALISM, WE'VE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, JOSH HAS JUST GIVEN TESTIMONY. MR. SEAWALL HAS GIVEN TESTIMONY RELATED TO CIVIL ENGINEERING ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT. SMALLER BUILDING. IT'S ONE BUILDING NOW INSTEAD OF TWO. PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH SOME AN OVERVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT. I GUESS FIRST, WALKING US THROUGH THE FLOOR PLAN AND THEN THE RENDERINGS THAT WERE PROVIDED. THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. SO THE SHEETS YOU'RE SEEING HERE, THE FIRST SET IS THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED JANUARY 30TH OF 25, I BELIEVE. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN. THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE, OBVIOUSLY, IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S LESS BUILDING. LOADING SPACES ARE STILL ON THE BACKSIDE AS AS JOSH MENTIONED, THE OFFICE IS STILL IN THE KIND OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE FACILITY. THE LOWER LEFT CORNER FACILITY IS AS IT WAS BEFORE. STAIR TOWERS REMAIN. THE EXACT SPOT IN THE UNIT LAYOUT IS GENERALLY THE SAME, SLIGHTLY MODIFIED, OBVIOUSLY FOR THE SMALLER BUILDING. SECOND FLOOR, SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE, IT KIND OF CARRIES ITSELF ALL THE WAY UP, MOVING THE SHEET THREE OR A 5.0. THIS SHOWS THE WEST AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION, THE WEST ELEVATIONS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME HEIGHT. ALL REMAINED THE SAME MATERIALS ALL REMAIN THE SAME. FENESTRATION ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION REMAINS THE SAME. MORE RETAIL LOOK, THERE'S JUST LESS OF IT. WE KEPT THE CORNER ELEMENTS AS THEY WERE BEFORE. WE KEPT KIND OF THE CENTER ELEMENT THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE. SO THE PORTIONS THAT WE REDUCED WHEN WE SHRUNK THE FOOTPRINT WERE THE KIND OF THE LONGER AREAS BETWEEN THE CORNERS AND THEN THE CENTER ELEMENT FLIPPING, THEN TO SHEET 5.1, WHICH SHOWS THE EAST AND NORTH ELEVATION, EAST ELEVATION REMAINS THE SAME AS WE HAVE BEFORE. THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE HERE IS WE ACTUALLY INTRODUCED A SLIGHT RECESS INTO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING TO MIMIC WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE WEST SIDE. AS I STATED BEFORE, ALL ALL HEIGHTS ARE THE SAME. FLOOR TO FLOOR ELEVATIONS ARE THE SAME, MATERIALS ARE THE SAME, AND THEN THE NORTH ELEVATION SHOWS THE LOADING AREA THAT IS IN ROUGHLY THE SAME SPOT, AND AGAIN, JUST LESS BUILDING THE DASHED LINE YOU'RE SEEING HERE, THAT KIND OF GOES AROUND THE SIDE ON ALL THE ELEVATIONS, ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION THAT WAS DONE, KIND OF SHOW THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF HOW WE REDUCED IT FROM FROM WHERE WE WERE THEN TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. THE LAST SHEET IN HERE IS A 6.0 AGAIN, MATCHES THE SAME CROSS-SECTIONS THAT WE PROVIDED WITH THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS. AGAIN, TAKING THE TAKING THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT, SHOWING WHERE WE WERE BEFORE AND THEN ALSO SHOWING WHERE THE ORIGINAL OFFICE BUILDING WAS, YOU KNOW, AS IT SAT KIND OF IN THE TANNISH BACKGROUND OUTLINE. SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT AS WELL. FLIPPING THEN TO THE RENDERINGS. YEAH, SLOW DOWN. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT. STILL NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. SO, LEWIS, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THE BOTTOM HALF OF THAT PAGE, THE BROWNISH

[00:50:11]

YES. IT'S THE ONE HERE. THE SECTION CUTS THERE ALL THE WAY ON THE END OF THE PROPERTY.

YEAH, YEAH. OKAY, OKAY. YEP. MR. CHAIR, ARE WE OKAY GOING WITH THE NEXT. YEAH. OKAY. THE RENDERING. THANK YOU. FLIPPING THEN TO OUR RENDERINGS, THE FIRST SHEET I'LL SHOW HERE IS OUR LOCATION PLAN. REALISTICALLY THIS AGAIN THIS SHOWS THE CIVIL PLAN WITH THE SINGLE BUILDING MATCHING JOSH'S LAYOUT ON THE SITE. THESE RENDERING ELEVATIONS AND VIEWS SHOULD MATCH THE ONES WE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. WE TRIED TO MATCH EVERYTHING ALONG THE SAME LINES AS BEST WE COULD, SO VERSIONS ONE AND TWO KIND OF LOOKED FROM THE LOOK FROM THE WEST TOWARDS THE BUILDINGS.

THREE AND FOUR LOOKED INTO THE SITE, FOUR OBVIOUSLY LOOKED AT THE SECOND BUILDING THAT WAS THERE. THAT'S NOT THERE NOW. FIVE LOOKS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CENTER, ACROSS THE STREET, LOOKING AT THE FRONT TO SEE THE TREES. SIX AND SEVEN LOOK GOING TO THE EAST ON WASHINGTON AND EIGHT LOOKS BACK FROM THE BACK PROPERTY, LOOKING INTO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

PAGING THROUGH THESE REAL QUICK. SO THIS IS WASHINGTON STREET LOOKING EAST. YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THE SECOND BUILDING SITTING RIGHT HERE. SO YOU GET THE SAME ARCHITECTURE THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY. AND THEN YOU KNOW, THE REVISED PARKING IS IT CAME THROUGH THERE WITH THE LANDSCAPING. SITE. VIEW TWO AGAIN, SAME VIEW SHOWS THE CORNER OF THE OFFICE WHERE THE OFFICE WOULD BE. AND THEN THE REVISED PARKING WITH THE, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL TREES OR THE TREES THAT ARE THERE. OFFERS VIEW THREE LOOKS BACK WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHERE THE SECOND BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN. SO KIND OF WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. VIEW FOUR SIMILAR VIEW AGAIN AIMED MORE AT WHEN WE HAD THE SECOND BUILDING ON THERE BUT SHOWS THAT SHOWS THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT IS THERE. VIEW FIVE WAS THE PHOTO MONTAGE. WE KIND OF TOOK THE EXISTING PHOTOGRAPH AND OVERLAID. YOU CAN SEE WHAT YOU WERE SEEING FROM THE PRINCETON NORTH SHOPPING CENTER. VIEW SIX WAS LOOKING DOWN THE KIND OF THE EAST CORNER, SOUTHEAST CORNER LOOKING TOWARDS THE NORTH. SO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE EAST ELEVATION HERE, AND THIS IS THE REMAINDER OF THE SOUTH ELEVATION. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, IF WE COULD STAY ON THAT FOR A SECOND, WE MOVE THAT OVER APPROXIMATELY. IS THAT 50FT. YES. OKAY. TO THE LEFT. SO THIS THAT BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN 50FT FURTHER TO THE RIGHT WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS. YEAH. THAT PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT WHERE MY CURSOR IS OKAY. VIEW SEVEN LOOK DOWN FROM KIND OF FROM ROCKY HILL LOOKING TO THE EAST. SO WE AGAIN DO DID A PHOTO MONTAGE FOR THE EXISTING TREES LAYERED IN SOME OF THE NEW TREES PROPOSED. SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THIS BUILDING WOULD BE AGAIN, 50FT FARTHER TO THE TO THE WEST AT THAT POINT. AND THEN KIND OF THAT NORTHEAST VIEW LOOKING BACK FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY OR THE PROXIMATE NATURE PROPERTY, LOOKING AT THE NEW LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND OBVIOUSLY THE BUILDING PUSHED BACKWARDS AND THEN THE KIND OF THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT WE APPLIED ON THE EAST SIDE WAS APPLIED TO THE WEST SIDE. FROM A MATERIAL STANDPOINT, THE

[00:55:04]

HELLO, MY NAME IS MARGARET QUIRK. I LIVE AT 179 WASHINGTON STREET, ROCKY HILL. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF CHANGE IN UNITS SINCE THE BUILDING IS SMALLER? YEAH. SO BACK WHEN WE WERE HERE IN AUGUST, WE HAD 739 UNITS. NOW THAT DID INCLUDE THE SECOND BUILDING. AND CURRENTLY WE'RE SITTING AT 433 UNITS IN THE ONE FOR 34, 33 FOR 33. AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE TREES. ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TREES? IF IT'S IN TERMS OF THE HOW THEY LOOK ON THE RENDERING? YES. IN TERMS OF THE LAYOUT NUMBERS TO LOOK THAT WAY. BUT WHEN YOU DO PUT TREES IN, ARE THEY GOING TO BE LITTLE STICKS OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE SEMI DECENT LOOKING TREES THAT I COULD SEE IN MY LIFETIME? SURE. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I, I THINK THAT QUESTION IS PROBABLY BEST SUITED FOR OUR ENGINEER, IF THAT'S OKAY. HE'S STILL SWORN IN. HE'S STILL UNDER OATH. I THINK HE CAN COME. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM NOT BE TINY, TAKE FOREVER TO LOOK LIKE A TREE. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, ON OUR LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE, THEY RANGE BETWEEN 6 AND 8FT AT INSTALLATION. OKAY. THEY ARE GENERALLY BETWEEN TWO AND A HALF AND FOUR INCHES A CALIPER DEPENDING ON ON THE TYPE OF TREE. OKAY, SO 68FT IN INITIAL. YEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS, JOSH. THANK YOU. OKAY. JEFF YORK WASHINGTON STREET I CAN'T HEAR YOU. CAN YOU GO INTO THE MICROPHONE I JUST NEED TO REPEAT YOUR NAME. JEFF YORK, WASHINGTON STREET, ROCKY HILL. SORRY. SO THE QUESTION IS, SO THE TREE THAT WE HAVE UP THERE, THE BABY TREE ON THE LEFT, ON THE CORNER, LET'S CALL IT, IS THAT GOING TO BE THE ACTUAL SIZE? I HAVE. IS THAT THE. IS THAT THE HEIGHT AT INSTALLATION OR THE HEIGHT. IS THAT THE HEIGHT OF INSTALLATION, OR IS THAT THE HEIGHT AT HOW MANY YEARS OF MATURITY? THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO KNOW. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE SOME OF THE IT'S DISGUISING A LOT OF THE BUILDING, A LOT OF THE RENDERINGS HERE. AND I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, I SEE A COUPLE OF TALL EXISTING OAKS, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHERS. ARE THOSE GOING TO BE, LIKE PLANTED LIKE THAT WHEN YOU OPEN UP JOSH SEEWALD AGAIN? YEAH. SO THE OAKS ARE PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL IN SIZE.

THEY'RE THEY RANGE AT 30IN IN DIAMETER. YEAH. AND THEY'RE HIGH. SO HOW HIGH? I DON'T KNOW THEIR EXISTING HEIGHT, BUT I KNOW THEY'RE SUBSTANTIALLY TALLER THAN THE 25FT THAT'S OUT THERE. WE HE ASKED ABOUT THE SMALLER TREE ON THE CORNER. YES. WHEN THAT WHEN THAT'S INSTALLED.

WHAT'S THE HEIGHT IT INSTALLATION OF THAT TREE IS 6 TO 8FT. YEAH. AND HOW MANY YEARS WILL IT TAKE. HOW MANY YEARS WILL IT TAKE FOR THAT TREE TO GET AS HIGH AS REFLECTED ON NUMBER TWO OFFICE VIEW. THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO KNOW. CALL IT 2020 FIVE FEET. SO EVERGREEN TREES COULD GROW AT A FOOT A YEAR, DECIDUOUS SIX INCHES. SO WHAT'S THE MAJORITY? ARE THEY DECIDUOUS TREES? YOU SAID YOU'RE DOING A LOT MORE PLANTING OF TREES, LIKE 160 TREES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, 171 TREES, 171 TREES, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. LIKE A VARIETY, LIKE CHERRY AND HICKORY. AND THERE'S A LOT OF VARIETY, A LOT OF NATIVE AMERICANS. THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL VARIETY OF TREES THAT ARE BEING PLANTED. AND I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS. I DO KNOW WHAT'S THE MAJORITY. IS IT CONIFEROUS, BY THE WAY? THANK YOU. I KNOW THE COURT REPORTER IS GETTING THIS.

THE BOARD CAN'T HEAR A WORD YOU'RE SAYING. SORRY. SHOULD I TILT IT UP OR SOMETHING? SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THERE ARE OVER TEN VARIETIES OF SHADE TREES, THREE VARIETIES OF ORNAMENTAL, AND OVER TEN VARIETIES OF EVERGREEN TREES. SO WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC ONES? YOU KNOW, LIKE NAMES? NOT THE LATIN NAME. THE AMERICAN NAME. UNDERSTOOD. SO FOR EVERGREEN WE HAVE ATLANTIC WHITE CEDAR, JERSEY KNIGHT, AMERICAN HOLLY SAYER HILL HOLLY, EASTERN RED CEDAR, RED CEDAR, EMERALD. CENTRAL RED CEDAR, IDLEWILD RED CEDAR NORWAY SPRUCE. EASTERN

[01:00:07]

WE DID NOT HAVE THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR. MR. STAY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BY THE. I HAVE. PROFESSIONALS. YEAH QUICK ONE AND I MAYBE THIS RENT VIEW IS THE APPROPRIATE ONE. IS THE SIGN SHOWN IN THESE RENDERINGS. AND THEN HOW VISIBLE. GOOD. GOOD QUESTION. AND THEN HOW VISIBLE IS THE SIGN I MEAN THE, THE PHOTO RENDERINGS THAT YOU HAD JUST SHOWN UP IS THE. YEAH. I DON'T BELIEVE THE, THE SIGN FOR THE PROJECT SHOWN. AND HOW VISIBLE IS THAT SIGN WITH ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING? I DON'T BELIEVE IF YOU GO BACK TO VIEW NUMBER SEVEN. IS THE SIGN ON THAT PLAN AND WHERE WOULD IT. IF NOT, WHERE WOULD IT BE? THIS, THIS, IN THIS, IN THIS VIEW, THE SIGN WOULD BE HERE BEHIND THE VEGETATION. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE I'M SORRY I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FACADE SIGN. THE MONUMENT SIGN.

IF YOU SCROLL UP, I THINK ONE OF THEM SHOWS LIKE A MONUMENT PEDESTAL. KIND OF. IT'S ESSENTIALLY RIGHT THERE. YEAH. I MEAN, THE NEXT ONE UP RIGHT THERE, RIGHT THERE. SO I GUESS THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY REPRESENT WHAT THE PLAN REPRESENTS AS FAR AS THE SITE PLAN UP AND SHOW WHERE THE MONUMENT SIGNS ARE. YEAH. THE FREESTANDING. THERE. I'LL MOVE THE CURSOR. THAT'S WHERE IT'S LOCATED. CAN'T HEAR YOU THE MIC SORRY MR. DREW. YEAH. THE MONUMENT SIGN AGAIN IS ONE SIGN. 75FT■!S, EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT, D IT COMPLIES WITH THE SETBACK OF 20FT. RIGHT. BUT THE SIGN FACE, IS IT PARALLEL TO THE STREET OR IS IT PERPENDICULAR WITH SIGNS ON SIGN FACES ON BOTH SIDES OF IT. PERPENDICULAR. AND THERE ARE SIGNS ON BOTH SIDES. OKAY. SO NOW GO BACK TO JOE'S QUESTION. SO THAT REFLECTS SO WHAT SIZE OF THE SIGN. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY TEXT ON IT YET. IS THAT CORRECT. AND THE ONE THING IS TO BE FULLY TRANSPARENT. I'M PROBABLY A LITTLE SHORT IN PERSPECTIVE HERE FOR WHERE THE SIGN WOULD BE, PROBABLY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IF YOU PUT ANY TEXT ON IT, IT WOULD BE COVERED UP BY BUSHES. YEAH, THE SIGN IS SUPPOSED TO BE JUST ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN. IT'S A EIGHT FOOT TALL SIGN. SO THAT THAT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT MAYBE TWO FEET. SO YOU'RE TALKING THAT MIGHT BE THE BASE FOR THE SIGN. YEAH. AND THEN THERE'S, YOU KNOW, PILLARS GOING UP AND THEN THE ACTUAL SIGN ITSELF. AND THEN ALONG WITH THAT, CAN YOU COMMENT ON HOW VISIBLE IS THAT SIGN THROUGH THE LANDSCAPING? WHAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID IS SHOULD THIS GET APPROVED AND BUILT, ARE THEY GOING TO BE COMING BACK TO ASK FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE? IF YOU HAVE A SIGN ON THE BUILDING, DO YOU NEED A FREESTANDING SIGN THAT REALLY WHAT. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT GOING TO COME DOWN TO WITH EVERYONE. SO I'LL ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION ON THE MONUMENT SIGN. SORRY. AND THEN I'LL LET LEWIS TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING SIGN. SO THESE STREET TREES ARE GOING TO BE PRUNED AND LIMBED UP. AND THEN AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A LOT OF GREEN SPACE AND GRASS AROUND IT. AND THE POINT OF THAT IS SO THAT AS YOU'RE TRAVELING EASTBOUND ON WASHINGTON, I'M SORRY, WESTBOUND ON WASHINGTON STREET, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH A COUPLE OF. OF TRUNKS TO LOOK AT THE SIGNAGE LOCATED THERE SO IT COMPLIES WITH THE SETBACKS. IT'S 20FT OFF THE LINE. IT'S A MONUMENT SIGN. IT'S 75FT■!S, EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT. O YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT UNDERNEATH THE TRIMMED CANOPY. AND THEN THERE'S LOW LYING SHRUBS AROUND IT. SO I THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO EASILY SEE THE IDENTIFICATION. IF YOU CAN SEE THE GROUND SIGN, THE MONUMENT SIGN. WHY DO YOU NEED A SIGN ON THE BUILDING. WELL, THE ORDINANCE. NO, I UNDERSTAND JUST WHY. WHY NOT THAT IT COMPLIES. BUT IF YOU CAN SEE THE MONUMENT SIGN, WHY DO YOU NEED A SIGN ON THE BUILDING? IT'S COMMON FOR COMMERCIAL FACILITIES TO HAVE IT ON THE BUILDING. IT SHOWS YOU WHERE THE FRONT DOOR IS LOCATED. THEY HAVE NICE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS THAT ARE UNIFORM ALONG THE FRONT. SO WHEN YOU PUT THE SIGN OVER THE OFFICE AND THE FRONT DOOR, YOU SHOW THAT SOME RENDERINGS SHOWING WHAT THAT SIGN LOOKS LIKE. ZOOM IN. AND

[01:05:04]

WE DON'T HAVE ANY SIGN SHOWN THOUGH. IF WE DID, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT HERE BEHIND THE TREES, IN THIS CASE, BEHIND THE TREES. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE COULD DO. THAT.

ONE ON THE DOOR OKAY. I'LL GET RIGHT DOWN TO THE DETAIL. OF COURSE. NO CHANCE. YEAH, RIGHT.

YEAH. NO, I THINK OUR PLANNER HAS A SERIES OF QUESTIONS TO. YEAH. YEP. IF WE TURN, I FEEL IT MIGHT BE EASIER IF WE JUST LOOK AT THE PLANNERS REPORT AND WE CAN ADDRESS THE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS ON A POINT BY POINT BASIS. AND THE PLANNER. FEBRUARY 24TH. THAT'S THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES. FEBRUARY 24TH, 2025. ARE OUTSTANDING. COMMENTS. BEGIN ON PAGE 16.

BEGINNING WITH 9.8 VISUAL BREAKS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES SOME VISUAL BREAKS ALONG THE FRONT FACADE. HOWEVER, THE SIDE AND REAR FACADES, EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL BE SCREENED WITH PLANTINGS, THERE'S STILL A REQUIREMENT FOR VISUAL BREAKS THAT STILL GENERALLY APPLIES. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS TECHNICALLY REQUIRED, AND AT THIS MOMENT IT DOESN'T APPEAR. THAT THE APPLICANT MEETS THIS REQUIREMENT. THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IF THE APPLICATION WERE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL BY THE BOARD, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A VARIANCE OF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE GRANTED. REQUIRED. THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, RIGHT.

YOU'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE GRANTED. YOU'RE SAYING THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. YES. SO WHAT'S THE WHAT WOULD BE THE REASONS TO GRANT THAT VARIANCE. AND WHY COULD YOU NOT COMPLY.

WELL FIRST OF ALL I'M LOOKING AT THE WEST ELEVATION NOW. AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE BECAUSE WE HAD THE VISUAL BREAK RIGHT HERE, THE BREAK UP THE LONG WALL ON BOTH THE EAST AND THE WEST ELEVATIONS. IT WOULD BE THE NORTH ELEVATION, THE REAR. THE REPORT 9.8 SAYS THAT ALTHOUGH THE FRONT FACADE ELIMINATES THE WRAP AROUND THE FRONT CORNERS, THE SIDE AND REAR FACADES CONTAIN WALLS IN EXCESS OF 80FT WITH NO VISUAL BREAKS. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY REQUIRES THE VARIANCE. YEAH, BECAUSE KIND OF WHERE WE WENT AND AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS ONE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION, IS THAT WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW. GRANTED WE FACE THE SHOPPING CENTER BEHIND US AND WE FACE THE REAR OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. UNDERSTAND? IS IT PER PLAN? I'M AT 70FT RIGHT HERE. THIS IS 36FT RIGHT HERE. AND THIS IS 86FT AT THIS. JUST THIS ONE PIECE RIGHT HERE. RIGHT. SO THE ONE IN EXCESS OF 80FT IS THE ONE THAT IS REQUIRING THE WHERE THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. CAN YOU PUT A BREAK IN THERE OR IF NOT WHAT YOU NEED A VARIANCE. SO IF YOU NEED A VARIANCE WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE VARIANCE. THAT'S WHAT SHE'S ASKING. WE CAN ADD A BREAK IN THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE TO AVOID THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU. WITH REGARDS TO 9.9 WALL OFFSETS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE FRONT FACADE THERE IS A FAUX ENTRANCE. AND WE WOULD LIKE WE WOULD RECOMMEND SOME CHANGES TO THAT IN TERMS OF EXTENDING AND REPEATING OTHER MASSING ELEMENTS TO GIVE IT A MORE OF A REALISTIC LOOK IN TERMS OF FUNCTION, SINCE THERE'S NO ENTRANCE ACTUALLY PROVIDED THERE. WE WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU JUST EXTEND, FOR EXAMPLE, THE RED BRICK MATERIAL ACROSS THE ENTIRE SIDING, THAT IT WOULD GET RID OF THIS FALL ENTRANCE APPEARANCE. AND WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND DARKER COLORS BE PROVIDED. THERE WOULD BE LESS REFLECTIVE AND THEY WOULD FADE BEHIND THE PLANT MATERIAL. SO THIS FOCUS WOULD BE ON THE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE OF THE SOUTH ELEVATION. SO YOU'RE TALKING RIGHT THROUGH HERE. YES. THIS ONE. YEAH. IS

[01:10:03]

SORRY. GO. THE ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE HERE. RIGHT THERE. YEAH. THAT ONE IN FRONT OF YOU. YEAH. I'M WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE ON PAGE 16. WE, WE OUTLINE THIS AREA IN BOLD TYPE. READ THAT AND TELL US WHAT CAN YOU DO SOMETHING TO ALLEVIATE THAT CONCERN OR NOT. YEAH. WE CAN, WE CAN WE CAN DO THAT. YEAH. SO HOW WOULD YOU DO IT? I MEAN, ALL I WOULD PROBABLY DO IS I'D IDEALLY I'D ELIMINATE THIS WHOLE PIECE RIGHT HERE AND I'D RUN THAT CANOPY ALL THE WAY ACROSS. AND I WOULD PROBABLY PROPOSE TO DO THE SAME THING ON THIS SIDE. SO THEY MATCHED. YEAH. YEAH. THAT WORKS. OKAY, OKAY. FOR 9.12, WHICH IS THE NEXT OUTSTANDING COMMENT. WE DID RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT PROVIDE PHYSICAL SAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED MATERIALS DURING TESTIMONY. I WE I CAN BRING SOME. WHEN I GOT THE LETTER YESTERDAY I COULDN'T GET SAMPLES HERE TO BRING WITH ME. OKAY. I MEAN COULD WE DID YOU HAVE WERE THEY THERE WERE SOME COLORS OR SOME MATERIALS ON ONE OF THESE. YES, WE HAVE IT ON THE SHEETS BUT ON, YOU KNOW, DO PHYSICAL I MEAN WE CAN CLEARLY WORK WITH THE, WITH THE BOARD PLANNER TO, YOU KNOW, DO THAT I WOULD. SHOW YOU SO SURE. I MEAN, THESE ARE THE SAME MATERIALS WE'VE BEEN PROPOSING BEFORE. I MEAN, IF IDEA IF WE COULD. YEAH. OKAY, I DON'T REMEMBER. DID YOU BRING PHYSICAL SAMPLES OF THE STUFF BEFORE? WE KNOW. THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT'S UP TO BE UP TO THE BOARD. IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME PHYSICAL SAMPLES. WHAT DO YOU HAVE NEXT? YOU GOT 9.15, I ASSUME? YES. SO TAKE A LOOK. 9.15 IS THE FLAT ROOF. YOU SEE WHAT'S IN BOLD SAYS WHILE THE CHANGE IN MATERIALS IS PROPOSED ALONG THE ROOF LINE ON ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING, THE HORIZONTAL CORNICE PROJECTIONS ARE ONLY PROPOSED AT THE FRONT CORNERS OF THE BUILDING. YOU NEED A VARIANCE.

SO THE QUESTION IS WHY? WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE VARIANCE? CAN CAN YOU COMPLY TO GET RID OF THE VARIANCE? WE HAVE A CORNICE A PROJECTED CORNICE THAT RUNS AROUND THE ENTIRE BUILDING.

OKAY. I WILL CONFIRM WITH OUR OFFICE WE JUST HAD NOTED THIS BEFORE. IF IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED, I CAN AGREE ON THE RECORD THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT. YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT YOU NOW COMPLY. YEAH. I MEAN, THIS IS THE SAME ONE WE HAVE WE'VE HAD THE LAST COUPLE ROUNDS. BECAUSE ALL WE CHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS. YOU'RE SAYING ALL FOUR OF THE ELEVATIONS SHOW THE CORNICE? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. YOU'RE UP TO 917. YEP.

917. IT'S THE PROPOSED LIGHTS HAVE A CONTEMPORARY APPEARANCE. HOWEVER, THE PLANS DO NOT INDICATE THE FINISH OF THE PROPOSED LIGHTS. IF YOU CAN PROVIDE SOME TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE LIGHTS WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. I'LL JUMP IN. THAT. JOSH. AND DYNAMIC, FROM THE CIVIL STANDPOINT, OUR PLAN SHOW THAT TYPE OF LIGHT FIXTURE. THERE'S VARIOUS DIFFERENT FINISHES YOU CAN ADD TO A LIGHT, DIFFERENT PAINT COLORS, BUT IT'S SMOOTH IF IT'S ROUGH. WE DIDN'T PICK ONE. USUALLY WE DEFER TO THE BOARD AND THE PROFESSIONALS, SO IF

[01:15:04]

ARE THE PAVEMENT MATERIALS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL SITE DESIGN? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE THE SIDEWALKS BLACKTOP OR ARE THEY CONCRETE? NO, NO, THAT THE ROAD IS ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND THEN THE SIDEWALK IS CONCRETE. THANK YOU. 11.1 MAYBE I'M JUST LOOKING AT WHERE YOU HAVE BOLD TYPE IN THERE. SO THAT WAS I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WAS OUR SECTION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. I DO HAVE SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE ANSWERED BY BOTH. THAT CAN BE ANSWERED BY ENGINEER, OR IF WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE REPORT JUST TO GO OVER THE OUTSTANDING PORTIONS THAT ARE EMBOLDENED, JUST DO THE OUTSTANDING ONES THAT ARE IN BOLD. YES. SO STARTING AT 11.1, THE PLAN SHOULD DEPICT ANY EASEMENTS OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO CONTAMINATION, ONGOING MONITORING OR REMEDIATION. THE MATTER WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH DURING THE HEARING ON JANUARY 23RD, WHERE THE APPLICANT TESTIFIED TO SITE DESIGN IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE REMEDIATION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SHOWED BEFORE SOMEONE ASKED YOU, WHERE IS THE EPA TRAILER YOU SHOWED? AND THEN I ASKED YOU, WAS THAT A FENCE AROUND THAT? YOU SAID, YES. IS THERE AN ACTUAL EASEMENT FOR THAT OR THERE'S NO EASEMENT, THE SUPERFUND SITE, THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTATION FOR IT. WE HAD TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE EPA BEFORE WE PRESENTED ANY PLANS TO THIS BOARD. ALL PRIOR TESTIMONY AT THE PRIOR HEARINGS ARE STILL VALID. THERE ARE MONITORING WELLS AND PIPES ON SITE. AGAIN, ALL THOSE MONITORING WELLS AND EVERYTHING. THEY DON'T NEED ANY EASEMENTS OR ANYTHING. THEY'RE JUST THERE.

THEY'RE THERE. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. 12 .1.1 ON PAGE 20. THIS YOU ALREADY COVERED. THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THE SITE IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE VEHICLES NO LARGER THAN A BOX TRUCK. SO THAT BEGS THE QUESTION. I ASSUME THEN THE APPLICANT HAS NO PROBLEM IF THERE'S A CONDITION IMPOSED SAYING NO TRACTOR TRAILERS IN THE LARGEST BOX TRUCK SHALL BE WHAT? HOW MANY FEET? 38FT. NOW LET'S ASK OUR TWO EXPERTS THE 38 FOOT BOX TRUCK. CAN THAT CAN THE SITE ACCOMMODATE THAT? JOSH WAS SAYING 38FT. YOU'RE ASSUMING AN SU 30 SIZE VEHICLE, CORRECT? YES. THEN THAT'S A 38FT. IS WHAT, AN SU 30, WHICH IS A 30 FOOT TRAILER IS, WHICH MATCHES THE PLANS THEY'VE PROVIDED. SO THE CONDITION WOULD BE THE LARGEST TRUCKS GOING TO BE AN SU 30. SU 30. YES. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR BOLDED STUFF. THAT WAS A. YEP. THAT WAS OKAY. WAS IT? UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. FROM THE BEGINNING, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GO OVER. LET ME JUST GET MY BEARINGS. THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED ITEM 3.1 REGARDING THE DRIVEWAY. YEP. ON PAGE FOUR. AND THEY ADDRESSED 4.5 ON PAGE SIX. THAT WAS THE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION. SO NOW YOU HAVE. AND THEY ACTUALLY ADDRESSED FOUR POINT. WELL CAN YOU ADDRESS 4.7 I IT WAS RAISED BY MR. SCHRAGER. YEAH. SO THANK YOU MR. JOE ON ON ITEM 4.7 PAGE SIX OF THE PLANNERS REPORT IT

[01:20:02]

THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE DISTURBANCE OF NATURAL FEATURES. YES. SO PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES TALKS ABOUT VARIOUS DIFFERENT TYPE OF FEATURES. WE'VE TESTIFIED TO THIS PREVIOUSLY. IT IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THESE ARE NOT STEEP SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THEY EXCEED THE RATIO OF HEIGHT TO LENGTH, HEIGHT TO VERTICAL, I'M SORRY, VERTICAL TO WIDTH OF THE GRADING, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED PROPERTY. THE REASON THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT CONNECTION IN THE BACK IS STEEP SLOPE. IT TECHNICALLY BASED ON THE GRADING IT IS A STEEP SLOPE. HOWEVER, A STEEP SLOPE IS USUALLY A NATURAL FEATURE THAT WAS NOT MANMADE. THESE STEEP SLOPES ARE MANMADE, SO IT'S NOT AS BAD THAT THEY BE DISTURBED.

THAT'S YOUR POINT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S NOT A PRESERVATION OF A NATURAL FEATURE. IT'S A STEEP SLOPE BASED ON THE GRADING. BUT IT WAS MANMADE WHEN THEY REDEVELOPED THIS PROPERTY. THE WE ARE ONLY DISTURBING LESS THAN 300FT■!S TO RECONNECT TO THE SANITARY SEWER MAIN THAT ARE ALREADY THAT IS ALREADY LOCATED WITHIN THE STEEP SLOPES. SO THE REST OF THE STEEP SLOPES, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE IS A NATURAL FEATURE, WILL BE COMPLETELY LEFT ALONE DURING THIS REDEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION. OKAY, 5.2 EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN THE PLANNER'S REPORT, THAT'S TOPSOIL REMOVAL. SO MAYBE YOU WANT TO READ WHAT'S IN BOLD AND YOU CAN ASK THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. AT 5.2 AND 5.3. YEAH. AND THAT'S CORRECT. SO AS FAR AS THE REMOVAL SOIL FROM THE SITE, CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT YOUR YOUR EXPORT IS GOING TO BE FOR THE SITE? JOSH. AND WE DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT AS FAR AS REMOVING TOPSOIL FROM THE SITE ALTOGETHER. SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE BOTH TOPSOIL AND ALSO THE ACTUAL FILL EXPORT? ABSOLUTELY. SO FIVE TWO TALKS ABOUT TOPSOIL.

WE'RE REDUCING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. SO I DON'T EXPECT ANY EXPORT OF TOPSOIL. ALL EXISTING TOPSOIL WILL REMAIN ON SITE TODAY. SAME THING WITH OFF SITE SOIL REMOVAL. I DON'T ANTICIPATE REMOVING ANY SOIL FROM SITE. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO KEEP ALL OF THAT ON SITE DUE TO THE SUPERFUND ISSUES THAT ARE THERE, SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE IT REMOVING ANY SITE. THE ASPHALT MILLINGS RAKESH WILL BE TRUCKED OFF SITE APPROPRIATELY, BUT I DON'T EXPECT ANY DIRT TO BE LEAVING THIS FACILITY. OKAY. 6.2 THE SLOPES TABLE ON SHEET 23 SHOULD BE REVISED TO 268FT■!S. U AGREE WITH THAT FIGURE OR NOT? YES. OKAY. AGAIN THE 6.2.1 IS ASKING FOR TESTIMONY ON THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE STEEP SLOPE VARIANCE, WHICH. YOU JUST GAVE. CORRECT? YEAH. SO WE CERTAINLY NEED THE VARIANCE. AGAIN, WE'RE DISTURBING 268FT■!S OF THE NATURAL MAN MADE I'M SORRY OF THE MAN MADE. NOT NATURAL STEEP SLOPES. AGAIN, ONE OF THE REQUESTS OVER THIS MANY

[01:25:04]

IS IT? PUT IT THIS WAY. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WAS IN THEIR PLANNING REPORT FOR A VARIANCE OR AN EXCEPTION THAT'S NOT ON THE CHART THAT YOU SUBMITTED? I DON'T HAVE ANYMORE, BUT YOU HANDED THEM ALL OUT. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE? AND I WANT TO HAVE THE CHART MARKED AS AS EXHIBIT EIGHT. 14. YEAH, THAT'S MY HIGHLIGHTING. THAT'S NOT YOURS. IS THE FLUSH CURVING THING ON

[01:30:05]

OKAY. SO. OKAY WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT. WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU TO REVISE.

THAT WAS THE IF I COULD. YEAH. PLEASE. YEAH. THE PURPOSE OF THAT EXHIBIT WAS NOT TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF OUR VARIANCES. IT WAS TO LIST THE ITEMS THAT WERE MODIFIED FROM THE THREE MAJOR REVISIONS AND ALL THE HEARINGS THAT WE WENT THROUGH SO THE BOARD COULD SEE ON A BULK CHART THE YIELD AND SCOPE AND THE DEVELOPMENT SIZE FROM THE BEGINNING ALL THE WAY TO THE END. THE INTENT AND WE APOLOGIZE, WAS WAS NOT TO LIST EVERY SINGLE RELIEF OF DESIGN, EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE. WE WOULD REFER TO YOUR PROFESSIONALS FOR THAT. IT WAS PURELY TO ASSIST WITH THE BULK CRITERIA AND HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT. OKAY. SO FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE WAIVER SUMMARY, THE EXCEPTIONS. HOW HOW DOES THE BOARD KNOW WHAT IT WAS BEFORE YOU MADE THIS REVISION? IF THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS, READ THE THREE YOU HAVE THERE AND MEANING YOU DIDN'T HAVE THEM BEFORE OR YOU HAD THEM BEFORE, BUT THERE WERE LESS THERE WERE MODIFIED. YEAH. SO BUT IT DOESN'T SAY HOW IT'S MODIFIED. I KNOW THE CHART ON THE TOP. YEAH. I GUESS MY I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ASK COUNSELOR, IS I WOULD JUST SAY DISREGARD THE IT HASN'T BEEN INTRODUCED AS AN EXHIBIT. DISREGARD IT. OKAY. WE WILL WE WILL NOT HAVE. THANK YOU. LET'S NOT HAVE IT ENTERED AS AN EXHIBIT. DON'T ENTER IT AS AN EXHIBIT. PLEASE DISREGARD IT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD. GREAT. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR IT DOES OR ARE WE HAVE OUR TRAFFIC EXPERT THAT WAS GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF BRIEF TESTIMONY RELATED TO TRAFFIC. NO. YES OKAY. GREAT.

THANK YOU. THANKS. SIT DOWN. NO. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE COREY CHASE CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT SIR. AND YOU WERE SWORN ON JANUARY 23RD, 2024. ALSO CORRECT. I WAS, AND YOUR LICENSE IS STILL IN FULL FORCE IN EFFECT. AND YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH, RIGHT? UNDERSTOOD, SIR.

OKAY, GREAT. COREY CHASE. MR. CHASE, CAN YOU JUST PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES IN TRAFFIC, IN YOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AS IT RELATES TO THE SMALLER BUILDING? YEAH, CERTAINLY. SO AS WAS PROVIDED TO THE TOWNSHIP PREVIOUSLY, WE PREPARED A REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THAT WAS LAST REVISED JANUARY 30TH, 2025. AND THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THIS REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WAS TO ADDRESS THE OVERALL REDUCTION IN THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE AS WE PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. BASED ON THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE, THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC GENERATION AS A RESULT OF THE REDUCTION IN BUILDING SIZE THAT REVISED THOSE. REVISED TRIP GENERATION NUMBERS ARE SUMMARIZED IN TABLE FOUR, WHICH IS LOCATED ON PAGE SEVEN OF OUR REPORT. AGAIN, FOR THE PROPOSED 59,504 SQUARE FOOT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY, IT'S PROJECTED TO GENERATE A MAXIMUM OF NINE TRIPS DURING THE WEEKDAY EVENING PEAK HOUR AND TEN TRIPS DURING THE SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR. AS I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AS A THRESHOLD FOR A SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, WHICH IS 100 TRIPS DURING PEAK HOURS. SO WE'RE APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THAT THRESHOLD. WE DID UPDATE THE CORRESPONDING LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON AT THE ADJACENT INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON STREET AND ROUTE 206, AS WELL AS THE SITE ACCESS POINTS ALONG WASHINGTON STREET, AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO RESULTING CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AS A RESULT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE PROPOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. WE ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT THE REVISED ON SITE CIRCULATION, ACCESS TO THE LOADING AREA AND PARKING SUPPLY.

BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH SOME ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PARKING SUPPLY AND WHY WE THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT. AS MR. SEEWALD INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, IF IT'S THE BOARD'S REQUIREMENT THAT WE ADD THOSE ADDITIONAL FIVE PARKING STALLS TO ACCOMMODATE THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 85TH PERCENTILE PARKING DEMAND, WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO SO. SO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, I'D BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY. IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY,

[01:35:04]

AND WE WERE ABLE TO ADD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING, WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS MORE BENEFICIAL. AND COREY, IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE WERE SUFFICIENTLY PARKED WITH THE AMOUNT OF SPACES WE HAVE? YEAH. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, BASED ON MY PREVIOUS TESTIMONY AS WELL AS MY CURRENT TESTIMONY, IT'S MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THE 14 PARKING SPACES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ALONG THE WESTERN BUILDING FACADE IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THIS USE. AS MR. FISSINGER CORRECTLY NOTES IN HIS REVIEW LETTER, WE WELL EXCEED THE AVERAGE PARKING DEMAND, WHICH WOULD BE SIX VEHICLES FOR THIS SITE. WE ARE SLIGHTLY UNDER THEIR 85TH PERCENTILE PARKING DEMAND, BASED ON THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD SUGGEST 19 VEHICLES, WHEREAS WE HAVE 14 PROPOSED PLUS THE TWO LOADING SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF 16 SPACES ON SITE I, I RESEARCHED EIGHT EXISTING FACILITIES THAT I MOST RECENTLY WORKED ON THAT ARE ACTUALLY OPEN AND OPERATING, AND FOUND THAT THEIR PARKING RATIO. SO THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING SIZE RANGE FROM 0.6 TO 0.15, AND THAT'S SPACES PER 1000FT■!S. AND WE'RE PARKED AT 0.24 SPACES PER 1000FT■!S. SO WE ACTUALLY EXCEED ALL OF MY RECENT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY APPROVALS AS FAR AS PARKING SUPPLY GOES. SO AGAIN, BASED ON THAT, BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THESE FACILITIES OPERATE, I THINK THE 14 SPACES INTO LOADING SPACES IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE SITE. GREAT. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL FOR THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. YEAH. MISS WILLIS, ANDY WILLIS AGAIN, I HAVE I READ YOUR REPORT AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE BANK OF AMERICA ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S WHAT YOU COMPARED IT TO THE EGRESS AND INGRESS TO THEIR. YOU DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE WAWA, HAVE YOU? ARE YOU FROM THIS AREA? I'M NOT FROM THIS AREA, BUT I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA. OKAY. WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING WEST ON 518 AND YOU HAVEN'T CROSSED OVER 206 YET, THE TRAFFIC IS A NIGHTMARE AND EVERYBODY LIKES TO SOMETIMES THEY LIKE TO STOP AND LET SOMEBODY OUT. YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. THERE'S A LEFT TURNING LANE. THIS ISN'T A QUESTION IS IT. OH I CAN I CAN SEE HOW IT'S HEADED TOWARDS A QUESTION. GETTING THERE. WE'RE WAITING. YEAH OKAY.

MY QUESTION IS WHY DIDN'T YOU TAKE THE WAWA INTO CONSIDERATION? THE TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF THAT WAWA. AND CERTAINLY THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, MA'AM. SO YOU ARE CORRECT. AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE 813, WHICH IS THE EXHIBIT THAT'S BEFORE YOU, THE WAWA DRIVEWAY IS LOCATED JUST TO THE WEST OF WHERE OUR PROPOSED ACCESS POINT IS. SO OUR TURNING MOVEMENTS ARE GOING TO OCCUR TO THE EAST OF THAT ACCESS POINT. SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE OPERATIONS OF THAT DRIVEWAY. I AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE MONTGOMERY PROMENADE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND THOSE ASSOCIATED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I WAS PART OF THAT DESIGN AND APPROVAL MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. SO THAT'S GOING TO DO A LOT TO ALLEVIATE THOSE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS THAT THE 206 INTERSECTION WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THOSE TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN ROADWAYS, THE RECONFIGURATION OF THAT INTERSECTION. YOU KNOW, MR. FISSINGER AND MYSELF HAVE SEEN MANY ITERATIONS OF THAT ANALYSIS, AND IT'LL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT OF THOSE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AT THAT INTERSECTION. AND ARE YOU WILLING TO HOLD OFF ON YOUR PROJECT UNTIL THAT JUGHANDLE IS INSTALLED? I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S INSTALLED. ARE YOU WILLING TO HOLD OFF UNTIL IT'S OPERATIONAL? BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE STILL MAKE THAT LEFT TURN ONTO 518 GOING EAST, AND THEN PEOPLE ARE COMING. IT'S A NIGHTMARE.

UNDERSTOOD, MA'AM. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THREW THE COUNTY REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL? THEY REQUESTED THAT WE ACTUALLY RESTRICT THE LEFT TURN EGRESS MOVEMENT OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY. SO VEHICLES EXITING OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ONLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE RIGHT TURNS. THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GO WEST ON WASHINGTON STREET THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, AND USE BRECKNELL WAY THAT FAR SIDE JUGHANDLE TO EXECUTE A U-TURN, COME BACK SOUTH ON 206, AND THEN MAKE THE TURN AT THE INTERSECTION TO HEAD BACK EAST ON WASHINGTON STREET.

SO THEY THEY ALREADY TOOK THAT INTO ACCOUNT. YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AT THE TIME WE ORIGINATED THIS APPLICATION, WE WEREN'T 100% SURE AS TO THE TIMING OF THE PROMENADE IMPROVEMENTS. SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY PROPOSING TO MOVE FORWARD. AND WE THINK THAT WE'VE DESIGNED THE SITE TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING ACCESS IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION, AND CERTAINLY IN THE IMPROVED CONDITION WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE PROMENADE IMPROVEMENTS.

OKAY, I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS LATER. THANK YOU, MISS WILSON. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? JOE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M COREY, JUST ONE BRIEF ONE IN YOUR REPORT YOU HAD A

[01:40:06]

GOT IT. OKAY. I BELIEVE EVERYTHING ELSE IN MY REPORT WAS COVERED EITHER BY HIM OR MR. SEAWALL. GREAT BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. YOU'RE NOW RESTING YOUR CASE, SUBJECT TO YOUR BEING ABLE TO CALL REBUTTAL WITNESSES. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. COUNSELOR. THANK YOU.

EXPERTS. OKAY. I THINK I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER EXPERTS IN THE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WANTED TO MAKE A TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE PUBLIC MAKES COMMENTS, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR ANY ENTITIES OR WHATEVER HAVE ANY EXPERTS THAT WANT TO TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER? THERE'S SOMEONE APPROACHING THE PODIUM, I SEE THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MR. DRILL, MY NAME IS MICHAEL DAVIS, BOROUGH PLANNER OF ROCKY HILL. I FEEL LIKE I PROBABLY FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY, SO I FIGURED I'D. YES YOU DO. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THE TESTIMONY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO I WANT TO GET YOUR SWORN IN. YEP. ALSO, I WANT YOU TO TALK SLOWLY FOR US AND INTO THAT MICROPHONE. OKAY. CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH? NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. I DO. OKAY. AND YOU ARE MICHAEL DAVIS. YOU'RE THE ROCKY HILL PLANNER, CORRECT. CAN YOU QUALIFY YOURSELF? YES. MY NAME IS MICHAEL DAVIS. I GRADUATED RUTGERS. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, BLOUSTEIN SCHOOL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN DEGREE. I'VE BEEN OUT WORKING AS A NOT LICENSED PLANNER FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS NOW. I GOT MY LICENSE LAST YEAR, LICENSED ACP AND RP IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN GOOD STANDING, OKAY. IN YOUR IN YOUR LICENSING, DO YOU TESTIFY IN FRONT OF ANY OTHER BOARDS OR ANYTHING? YES, I'VE, I'VE SERVED AS BOARD PLANNER. I'VE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF BOARDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE THIS EXPERT? YOU ACCEPT THEM I ACCEPT, YES, I ACCEPT YOU. YOU HAVE ANY ANYONE WANT TO ASK ANY QUALIFICATION QUESTIONS? NO, I ACCEPT HIS QUALIFICATIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YEP. NO PROBLEM. SO I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE MOSTLY THE D ONE VARIANCE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED. I KNOW THE PLANNING TESTIMONY WAS PROVIDED BY MR. RONNENKAMP EXTENSIVELY AT A COUPLE PREVIOUS HEARINGS, BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE SITE IS NOT PARTICULARLY SUITABLE, IN MY OPINION, FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS FOR THAT. THE APPLICANT HAS HAS WORKED EXTENSIVELY TO LOWER THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES REQUESTED IN THIS APPLICATION, AND THERE'S STILL EXTENSIVE. SO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SITE IS SUITABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF USE THAT HAS BEEN SHRUNK IN SIZE AND REWORKED A NUMBER OF TIMES BASED ON BOARD COMMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT DEEMS THE SITE NOT SUITABLE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL HERE WITH ALL OF THIS RELIEF, ALL OF THESE REQUESTED PLAN REVISIONS, ALMOST 3 OR 4 MEETINGS LATER. SO THAT'S THE FIRST POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE. AND ADDRESSING THE POSITIVE CRITERIA OF THE MEDICI STANDARD.

SECONDLY, THE SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES, AS WE DISCUSSED, WERE CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP ZONING CODE. THEY'RE PERMITTED IN THE RIO DISTRICTS. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THAT THERE'S NO AVAILABLE LANDS IN THESE DISTRICTS ANYMORE. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP GOVERNING BODY CONTEMPLATED SELF STORAGE FACILITIES, WHERE TO PUT THEM AND HOW TO REGULATE THEM. AND WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY PUT THEM IN THE RIO AND THEY HAD A CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS, WHICH ARE IN SECTION 16, DASH 6.1 S, AND I'M JUST GOING TO READ SOME OF THESE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS. READ IT SLOWLY. THIS BOARD CAN UNDERSTAND. GIVE ME THE GIVE ME THE ORDINANCE SECTION AGAIN 16 DASH 6.1. S. AND JUST SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS. THESE ARE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS. SO IF YOU WERE IN THAT ZONE AND YOU WANTED TO BUILD A SELF STORAGE FACILITY, YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS. OR AD3

[01:45:01]

YEP. F A R F A R OF 0.175, WHICH IS LOWER THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THIS HHC DISTRICT. THIS ONE AND 1000 FOOT SETBACK FROM ROUTE 206. I JUST WANTED TO READ THESE STANDARDS TO THE BOARD SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE SELF STORAGE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THIS TOWN, AND THEY'VE BEEN CONTEMPLATED WITH THESE DRASTIC STANDARDS THAT ARE WILDLY NOT MET BY THIS APPLICATION. AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T NEED TO BE ADHERED TO BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CONDITIONAL USE IN THAT ZONE. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A D1 VARIANCE. BUT I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY HAS CONSIDERED SELF STORAGE FACILITIES AND HAS IMPOSED A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE ON THOSE USES IN THAT ZONE, AND ALMOST A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THEM ARE NOT BEING MET BY THIS APPLICATION. TO JUSTIFY THE SITE SUITABILITY ARGUMENT, A MARKET STUDY WAS PROVIDED. I'D ARGUE THAT THAT MARKET STUDY DOES NOT JUSTIFY THIS SITE SUITABILITY. THE MARKET STUDY WAS CONDUCTED ON A REGIONAL AREA. SO YEAH, THERE IS A NEED FOR SELF STORAGE FACILITIES WITHIN THE REGION.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS SITE, NEXT TO A HISTORIC DISTRICT IN ROCKY HILL, IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TYPE OF USE AT THIS SCALE. IF I COULD, IF I COULD, I COULD ACTUALLY STOP YOU THERE. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF ROCKY HILL A LITTLE BIT MORE, JUST TO GIVE THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP THE CONTEXT THERE? ABSOLUTELY. SO I HAVE SOME ACTUALLY SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE MASTER PLAN THAT DISCUSS HOW IMPORTANT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF ROCKY HILL IS TO THE BOROUGH. EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THERE A MAP THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE TO US TO SHOW US WHERE THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT IS? I DON'T HAVE IT ON ME, BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO PROVIDE IT TO YOU GUYS. IS IT THE PROPERTIES BORDERING OUR PROPERTY? OH, WAIT A MINUTE.

LET'S. DOES ROCKY HILL HAVE THIS UP ON THEIR WEBSITE BY ANY CHANCE? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

IT'S A IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THERE'S HISTORIC DISTRICTS ALL OVER THE STATE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS A NATIONALLY. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. YEAH. OKAY. DOES ROCKY HILL HAVE THIS UP ON THEIR WEBSITE BY ANY CHANCE A MAP OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? YEAH, IT'S ON THE ZONING MAP AS WELL.

I'D BE GLAD TO. CAN WE? LET'S GET A LET'S TRY TO GET ON TO THEIR THE ROCKY HILL WEBSITE, ONTARIO ZONING MAP AND PUT IT UP HERE. IT SHOWS UP ON THEIR SITE PLAN. AND. I'M GOING TO ASK OUR ENGINEER TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AND SEE IF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT SHOWS UP ANYWHERE ON THEIR SITE PLAN. I'LL TAKE A LOOK RIGHT HERE. WHICH ONE SHOULD I BE LOOKING AT HERE? ZONING MAP? YEAH. ZONING MAP. OKAY. SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS. OKAY, SO HERE'S THE ZONING MAP. I DON'T SEE IT ON THE ZONING MAP. WHERE IS IT? IT'S ONE OF THOSE DOTS. OKAY.

THIS ONE. OKAY, SO JUST JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, OUR PROPERTY IS IN THIS AREA HERE WHERE THAT SAYS TOWNSHIP. YEP. AND WHERE ARE THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT, I BELIEVE FROM THE THESE DOTTED AREAS NOT NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY. CORRECT? CORRECT. IT DOESN'T ABUT YOUR PROPERTY. THAT IS CORRECT. IT DOES NOT ABUT OUR PROPERTY. THAT'S CORRECT. IT LOOKS LIKE IS IT ONE LOT AWAY FROM THEIR PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET? LOOKS LIKE IT'S ACROSS THE STREET. AND TWO LOTS AWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WASHINGTON. WITHIN 200FT? YEAH. OKAY. I SEE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT IS A SMALL DOTTED LINES. LET'S THERE IN YOUR ENGINEER'S WRITING BACK. YEAH. HOW MANY FEET AWAY FROM THEIR PROPERTY IS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? WITHIN 200FT OF THEIR PROPERTY. I'M ASKING, HAVE YOU FOUND IT ON THE SITE PLAN? OKAY, I'M. I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE. IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE SITE PLAN, BUT COMPARING IT TO THE MAP THAT THAT YOU HAVE THERE, IT DOES FALL WITHIN 200FT OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. THE ACROSS

[01:50:01]

OKAY. KEEP ON GOING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO DISCUSS THE AS REQUESTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. THE BOROUGH ZONING REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN CRAFTED TO COMPLEMENT AND STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING SLOW. THE VARIOUS ZONING REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN CRAFTED TO COMPLEMENT AND STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT. FURTHERMORE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND VILLAGE CORE IS WOVEN THROUGHOUT THE BOROUGH'S MASTER PLAN. ARE YOU READING FROM THE MASTER PLAN FROM ROCKY HILL, OR IS THIS JUST YOUR TESTIMONY? NO, THIS IS TESTIMONY. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO RECITE FROM THE MASTER PLAN. JUST A SMALL EXCERPT. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF WHAT'S TESTIMONY AND WHAT YOU'RE RECITING. YEAH. SO AS STATED IN THE BOROUGH'S 2001 MASTER PLAN, LIFE IN THE COMMUNITY REVOLVES AROUND THE VILLAGE CORE AND HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN EVOKES AN EARLIER TIME IN OUR HISTORY. NOW YOU'RE READING FROM THE MASTER PLAN. CORRECT. AND WHAT IS THIS, A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT OF THE MASTER? THIS IS JUST THE BOROUGH'S 2001 MASTER PLAN. OKAY. AND WHAT PAGE? I DON'T HAVE PAGE ONE, ACTUALLY. YEAH, OKAY. KEEP ON GOING. SORRY. AS THE BOROUGH IS ESSENTIALLY A FULLY DEVELOPED COMMUNITY, THIS MASTER PLAN SHOULD PRIMARILY FOCUS ON STRATEGIES THAT WILL PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE BOROUGH, AND IDENTIFY AREAS THAT SHOULD BE IMPROVED TO MEET THE FUTURE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THE HISTORIC VILLAGE CORE IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. IT SERVES AS THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF CULTURAL LIFE IN THE BOROUGH, WITH COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED SCALE AND TRADITIONAL BUT LIMITED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK THAT THAT EXCERPT FROM THE MASTER PLAN PROVIDES A GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE PEDESTRIAN LIKE NATURE AND HISTORIC. THAT'S ALL PAGE ONE OF THE MASTER PLAN, OR IS THAT OTHER YOU'RE READING FROM OTHER THAT THAT EXCERPT WAS JUST PAGE ONE. OKAY. COUNCIL. I COULD I WILL ALSO LIKE TO JUST LIST SOME OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MASTER PLAN. CAN YOU JUST TELL ME GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE ON WHAT PAGE OF THE MASTER PLAN? PAGE TWO. FIRST GOAL BEING PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE VILLAGE. I THINK YOU JUST HEARD WHAT THAT VILLAGE IS, WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. AND I THINK THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT A USE VARIANCE APPLICATION ADJACENT TO THIS DISTRICT IS PRETTY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PURPOSES AND GOALS OF THE OF THE BOROUGH OF ROCKY HILL. THE OBJECTIVE UNDER THAT GOAL 2.1 ALSO ON PAGE TWO, A DEFINING FEATURE OF THE BOROUGH IS ITS HISTORIC VILLAGE DISTRICT AND ITS SURROUNDING UNDEVELOPED AREA. THE PERPETUATION AND PROTECTION OF THIS CHARACTER IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO THE PLANNING GOALS OF THE BOROUGH, SO I DON'T WANT TO READ THE WHOLE MASTER PLAN OF THE BOROUGH, BUT JUST JUST WANTED TO READ A COUPLE EXCERPT, JUST TO PROVIDE A BACKGROUND TO THE BOARD OF HOW IMPORTANT THIS THIS DISTRICT IS TO THE BOROUGH OF ROCKY HILL, AND REALLY WHAT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACTS OF AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS SO CLOSE TO IT? OKAY. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE MASTER PLAN MUST BE ON THEIR WEBSITE SOMEWHERE. CAN YOU LOOK FIND THEIR MASTER PLAN? I JUST WANT TO SEE WHERE IT SAYS THAT STUFF IN THE MASTER PLAN. WELL. WELL HE'S LOOKING ANY. DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING WHY IT'S CALLED WASHINGTON STREET? I DO NOT, I HAVEN'T DONE ANY SORT OF HISTORY RESEARCH ON THAT. I DID NOT SEE IF YOU CAN GO. YEAH. SEE IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THEIR RIGHT WEBSITE. THERE WE GO. I WANT TO START THERE BECAUSE HE SAID IT'S IN THE 2001 MASTER PLAN. LIKE THIS PAGE. DID YOU WANT TO KEEP ON SCROLLING? PAGE ONE. WE'RE ON PAGE ONE AND PAGE TWO. OKAY. HOLD UP. OKAY. KEEP ON SCROLLING. RIGHT. THE HISTORY OF MASTER PLAN IN ROCKY HILL. JUST KEEP ON. SCROLL UP SO WE CAN READ THAT PART. YEAH. OKAY. KEEP ON SCROLLING, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

WHERE'D YOU. THE LIFE REVOLVES AROUND THE VILLAGE CORE AREA. HISTORIC VILLAGE CORE. WHERE? WHERE IS THAT? REMIND HIM OF. I'M NOT SEEING THAT ON PAGE 1 OR 2 OF THE OF THE MASTER PLAN.

THERE IT IS. NOW, WHAT PAGE IS THAT? NINE. PAGE THREE. OKAY. LIKE I KEEP ON SCROLLING,

[01:55:18]

AND HE SAID IT WAS 200FT AWAY, AND IT WAS TWO LOTS AND ACROSS THE STREET. SO WE SO WE'LL CONFIRM THAT. SO. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS YOUR OPINION ON THIS AS A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER. SO WE'VE MOCKED UP AFTER OUR LAST HEARING, WE DID SOME ANALYSIS TO SEE WHAT WE COULD GET ON THIS SITE BECAUSE AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THIS SITE IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED FOR SOMETHING. AND WE LOOKED AT A FULLY CONFORMING CAR WASH, A CAR WASH THAT COULD GENERATE PROBABLY 200 TRIPS A DAY FOR CARS FULLY CONFORMING. SO WE'D BE IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD WITH NO VARIANCES. AND ESSENTIALLY AN AS OF RIGHT APPLICATION. DOES THAT CONFORM WITH THE VISION OF THE VILLAGE CORE PLAN? NOT NECESSARILY, BUT YOU WOULDN'T OBJECT TO IT BECAUSE IT ALIGNS WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE TOWN. NO, I MEAN, WE WOULD LIKELY STILL HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THAT. YEAH. OKAY. BY THE WAY, I MISQUOTED IT'S 2D. IT'S NOT TWO Q 2D IS TO ENSURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL WELFARE OF NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES. THAT'S MY BAD. THANK YOU. SO TO GO BACK, SO THE

[02:00:02]

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE QUESTIONING HIM, NOT MAKING COMMENTS RIGHT NOW. UNDERSTOOD.

THAT'S IT COUNSELOR. THANK YOU MICHAEL. THANKS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? BOARD MEMBERS. BOARD MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THAT'S PRECISELY YEAH. GO AHEAD. PRECISELY MY QUESTION. OKAY. GREAT. WHAT? THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. IT WAS ANSWERED. OKAY. GREAT. GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE STILL IN. WE DID OPEN FOR A POLL. WE'RE STILL OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS POINT. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS OR THOUGHTS. YOU KNOW, PART OF THIS PROCESS FOR THE ZONING BOARD IS TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS CONFORMS WITH THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW. SO ANY EFFORT TO HELP US DIRECT INTO THAT THAT DIRECTION WITH THE POSITIVE CRITERIA OR NEGATIVE CRITERIA WILL BE OR WILL BE MOST HELPFUL. CAN I SAY TWO THINGS, PLEASE? SO I'M GOING TO SWEAR EVERYONE IN BECAUSE OH, I'M ELIZABETH, I WILL GET I'M JUST TELLING EVERYONE I'M GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. AND NOW AND YOU DON'T GET TO QUESTION THE BOARD. THE BOARD ARE NOT WITNESSES. THE BOARD ARE THE JUDGES. SO YOU CAN POSE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS AS PART OF YOUR COMMENTS. BUT DON'T EXPECT THE BOARD MEMBERS TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS POSED, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. CAN YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? YES. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY OR COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO MAKE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? AND EVEN THOUGH I PROBABLY KNOW YOU FROM OTHER HEARINGS, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YOUR NAME? NAME? MY NAME? YEP. I'M ELIZABETH PELEUS. OKAY. AND YOU'RE THE TOWNSHIP YOU RESIDE IN. AND WE'VE LIVED IN MONTGOMERY FOR 40 YEARS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MORE OR LESS. OKAY. I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. THE FIRST TEST TO DO WITH STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, AND LOOKING AT THE PLANS AND LOOKING AT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS BUILDING, THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT ADD TO WHAT IS ALREADY A PROBLEM OF FIGURING OUT IN IN THE BIGGEST COMMERCIAL SECTION OF MONTGOMERY, WHICH HAS A LOT OF BUILDINGS AND OFFICES AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHAT MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WILL DO TO THE ALREADY EXISTING PROBLEMS? AND THE SECOND QUESTION THAT I HAVE, WHICH ALSO ASTOUNDS ME, IS TALK. TALK INTO THE MIC. DON'T TALK TO THEM. DON'T TALK TO THEM. TALK TO TALK TO THE BOARD. RIGHT STRAIGHT AHEAD INTO THAT MICROPHONE. THE MICROPHONE PLEASE. SINCE THIS LAW IS CHEEK BY JOWL WITH ROCKY HILL, IT ACTUALLY THE EASTERN END OF THE LOT IS THE WESTERN END OF THE NEXT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. ROCKY HILL IS THE MOST CHARMING, DELIGHTFUL HISTORIC AREA. IN FACT, IT'S THE REASON WE MOVED TO MONTGOMERY BECAUSE WE WERE ENCHANTED BY ROCKY HILL. SO DESIGNING A BUILDING WHICH IS SO COMPLETELY STYLISTICALLY INAPPROPRIATE WITH WHAT EXISTS BEYOND ME, I MEAN, IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE LISTEN, MAN, MAN. MA'AM, THE COURT REPORTER CAN HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THE BOARD'S NOT HEARING ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING TO THEM. KEEP FOCUSED ON US AND THE MICROPHONE. THEN WE'LL HEAR YOU. OKAY? YEAH, THAT MIGHT COMES OUT. SO MY QUESTION IS YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN. YOU'RE TALKING TO THEM. TALK TO US. STRAIGHT AHEAD. THE MIC OUT. MA'AM. YOU GET TO TAKE THE MIC OUT I THINK TAKE THE MIC OUT FOR HER PLEASE. JUST SO THEY CAN HEAR YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU COULD. OKAY. IS THAT OKAY? CAN YOU. THANK YOU. YOU DON'T WANT IT? YEAH. JUST WANT

[02:05:06]

HOWEVER, ONE QUESTION WAS KIND OF. LEFT ALONE AND THE QUESTION WHY THIS BUILDING IS HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? THERE ARE CERTAIN RULES IN MONTGOMERY THAT ARE CALLED ZONING RULES. CERTAIN THINGS ARE PERMITTED. CERTAIN THINGS ARE NOT. WE CANNOT BUILD WAREHOUSES IN MONTGOMERY. WE CANNOT BUILD SKYSCRAPERS IN MONTGOMERY. WE CANNOT HAVE HEAVY MANUFACTURING IN MONTGOMERY. AND WE DON'T HAVE CANNOT HAVE STORAGE FACILITIES IN MONTGOMERY. WELL, YOU DO IN A PARTICULAR ZONE. YOU DO. AND NOT TO CUT YOU OFF AT ALL, BUT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR A USE VARIANCE WHICH THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO. I UNDERSTAND THAT OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ZONING CAN GIVE USE VARIANCE OKAY. ALL KIND OF VARIANCES. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE VARIANCES ARE GIVEN WHEN IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE TOWNSHIP. THE BUILDING THAT IS PROPOSED HERE IS NEITHER NEEDED NOR DESIRED BY MONTGOMERY RESIDENTS. THERE ARE TWO OTHER STORAGE FACILITIES WITHIN TEN MILES FROM THIS AREA, ONE NORTH AND ONE SOUTH, SO THERE IS PLENTY OF STORAGE FACILITY. WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THE APPLICANT BOUGHT THIS LOT. THIS PROPERTY, AND AT SOME POINT DESIGN DECIDED THAT THE PERMITTED THAT WAS THE PERMITTED USAGES THAT WILL THERE WILL NOT MAKE BUSINESS SENSE. THERE WILL NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY. SO THEY ASK FOR SOMETHING ELSE, SOMETHING MORE. OKAY. IN ORDER FOR US TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY, LET'S ALLOW US TO USE SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. GIVE US THIS VARIANCE AND THAT VARIANCE. AND THE LONGER THE LIST OF VARIANCES IS VERY LONG. SO MY QUESTION TO THIS BOARD, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT, IS WHY THIS BOARD SHOULD GIVE THESE VARIANCES TO THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO BUILD HIM, BAIL HIM OUT IN ORDER TO DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE ON HIS BAD BUSINESS DECISION FOR BUYING THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY AWARE ABOUT THE

[02:10:02]

AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO KNOW WHAT I THINK THE RIGHT LITTLE THING IS WOULD BE LIKE A NICE LITTLE HOUSE THAT'S TURNED INTO A MEDICAL CENTER OR A, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE THING THAT. SO WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN EAST ON 518, IT'S LOOKS GREAT. I AM A BIG PROPONENT OF SELF STORAGE UNITS.

I HAVE A SELF STORAGE UNIT. I HAVE A UNIT THAT I AND I GO THERE ALL THE TIME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WITH HOW THIS WILL WORK IF YOU'RE CARRYING. I MEAN I'M GETTING OLDER. I CAN'T CARRY LIKE 50 POUNDS ANYMORE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE COMING WITH A BUNCH OF TUBS, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET THEM TO YOUR STORAGE UNIT, SOME STORAGE UNITS, YOU CAN DRIVE RIGHT UP TO IT. THIS IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO IN. IT'S ALMOST LIKE THEY THINK YOU'RE GOING TO COME ONCE, STORE YOUR STUFF AND THEN GO AWAY FOR A YEAR. BUT MOST PEOPLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE COME AND GO TO THEIR STORAGE UNIT ONCE A WEEK MAYBE, AND THEY BRING SOMETHING. THEY SAY, OH, I FORGOT TO GET THIS OUT. I TOOK MY SUMMER CLOTHES, I TOOK MY WINTER CLOTHES. I JUST THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO GENERATE IT'S GOING TO NEED A LOT MORE THAN 14 PARKING SPACES. PEOPLE WILL BE COMING AND BRINGING THEIR STUFF AND TAKING IT BACK AND GOING BACK AND FORTH. AND I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THAT, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF DOORS THAT PEOPLE CAN GO IN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RIGHT. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO COMMENT ON IS THIS IS A LITTLE BIT PERSONAL, BUT MY MOTHER RECENTLY MOVED UP FROM FLORIDA, AND THE TRUCK THAT CAME TO MOVE HER STUFF WAS GIGANTIC. THEY SHOWED UP AT MY STORAGE UNIT AREA. THE THING JUST DROVE IN THERE. I WAS LIKE, WHAT? SO TO SEE A TRUCK THAT SIZE DRIVING IN THERE, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP IT OUT. AND I THINK YOU SHOULD ASSIGN IS NOT GOING TO DO IT. IF THE TRUCK DRIVER WANTS TO SHOW UP AT THE LOADING DOCK, HE'S GOING TO SHOW UP AT THE LOADING DOCK. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS WILLIS.

RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY OR COMMENTS YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE? WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH. NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH I DO. AND CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AGAIN? FOR THE RECORD, CLERIC, CAN YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? YOU U E R E C. THANK YOU.

I, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE HOW IMPORTANT I ACTUALLY AM. WAS BORN IN THIS. I LIVED IN THIS TOWNSHIP ALL MY LIFE, SO I LIVED IN MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP FOR 21 YEARS, AND NOW I'VE LIVED IN ROCKY HILL FOR OVER 50. SO. AND MY FAMILY'S BEEN HERE FOR TEN GENERATIONS. I'M ACTUALLY FROM THE OPIES, WHERE THE MILL COMES FROM AND FROM. MY FAMILY ACTUALLY OWNED CHERRY VALLEY

[02:15:02]

I'M JUST A PRACTICAL GUY WHO DOES PUBLIC SERVICE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS WHAT'S HAPPENED IN OKLAHOMA IN A FEDERAL BUILDING FROM JUST RECENTLY. THIS MORNING, I HAD TO TAKE MY 94 YEAR OLD DAD OVER TO PRINCETON MED TO SEE A VASCULAR SURGEON. AND I HAD TO GO THROUGH SECURITY AT THE PRINCETON MEDICAL BUILDING THERE AT THE HOSPITAL. AND THAT'S SOMETHING BRAND NEW NOW, I DON'T KNOW. AND I WAS TALKING TO A COUPLE OF THE GUARDS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. I'D LIKE TO TALK TO THEM, YOU KNOW, ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, MY NAMESAKE, NOT TOO LONG AGO. YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST ALL KINDS OF RIFFRAFF GOING ON. AND, YOU KNOW, HAVING, AS I SAID, BEEN A RENTER OF STORAGE UNITS. THERE'S A LOT OF TRANSIENT POPULATION GOES IN AND OUT OF STORAGE UNITS. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT YOU CAN'T CHECK EVERYTHING, YOU CAN'T CHECK EVERYONE, THAT KIND OF THING. AND THEN THE LONG TERM, YOU KNOW, AND THESE GUYS ARE GREAT GUYS. YOU KNOW I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THEM. YOU KNOW I WISH THEY COULD BUILD 500 OF THEM AND LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER. BUT I THINK IT'S JUST THE WRONG LOCATION FOR THIS. I JUST. THAT IS MY CONCERN. I'M LOSING MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING THROUGH SOME MEDICAL ISSUES MYSELF, BUT I GUESS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT'S JUST AN INAPPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS.

[02:20:06]

SUSAN. BRISTOL, WASHINGTON STREET, ROCKY HILL. AND BEFORE I GIVE MY COMMENTS, I WANTED TO PRESENT YOU WITH A PETITION THAT WAS SIGNED, WAS MY ADVICE WITH THE BOARD. RULES SAY THE BOARD DOES NOT ACCEPT PETITIONS. IT CANNOT. THERE'S CASE LAW THAT SAYS THE BOARD CANNOT ACCEPT THE PETITION. IT DOESN'T COUNT HANDS AND VOTES. IT LISTENS TO WHAT PEOPLE SAY. AND IF SOMEONE HAS IF SOMEONE IS SAYING SOMETHING IN A PETITION, THEY HAVE TO BE HERE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED SO YOU CAN KEEP THE PETITION. SORRY THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTS HAVE PARTICIPATED. YOU'RE NOT THE YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE THAT THIS APPLIES TO. YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING ANY OTHER RESIDENTS. YOU'RE REPRESENTING YOURSELF HERE TONIGHT. IF THEY WOULD HAVE HIRED YOU, MAYBE YOU'RE NOT AN ATTORNEY, RIGHT? NO. THE RESIDENTS DID THIS ON THEIR OWN, RIGHT? AND IT WAS HANDED TO ME. I UNDERSTAND, SO TELL THEM THANK YOU. BUT THE BOARD ATTORNEY PUT THE KIBOSH ON IT. I ADVISE THE BOARD NOT TO TAKE THE PETITION. YOU. WE UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS THERE IN THE CASE LAW THAT THAT SUPPORTS THAT. AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT. OKAY. WELL LET ME GET ON WITH IT THEN. JUST REGARDING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT IS A NATIONALLY REGISTERED HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT IS AN OVERLAY ON OUR ZONING MAP. WE ARE SO SERIOUS ABOUT IT THAT WE HAVE A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE THAT SUBJECTS EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT IN THAT DISTRICT TO ADHERE TO VARIOUS DESIGN GUIDELINES, PRINCIPLES, AND MATTERS OF SCALE APPROPRIATENESS AND TO UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THAT DISTRICT. WASHINGTON STREET IS NAMED FOR GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON. AND AS YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE CELEBRATING OUR 250TH ANNIVERSARY SOON. AND THIS WILL BE STREET WILL BE A MAJOR PART OF OUR ACTIVITIES. AND VARIOUS WALKS, RUNS, PARADES, ETC. YOU ALSO NEED TO KNOW THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON DISMISSED HIS TROOPS FROM ROCKINGHAM AND ROCKY HILL. SO I JUST WANTED TO CONNECT THOSE DOTS FOR YOU SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE AND 300 YEAR SORT OF VIEW OF, OF THE CONTEXT. SO BACK TO MY INTENDED COMMENTS. I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS. USE VARIANCE AND THEREFORE ANY OTHER VARIANCES IN THIS APPLICATION OR ANY OTHER DESIGN. WAIVERS AND VARIANCES ARE INDICATIVE OF THE MISMATCH BETWEEN THE PROPOSED USE, THE ZONE AND THE CONTEXT. THIS IS A DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. THE DETRIMENTS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS WITH SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONE PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS USE IS NOT INHERENTLY BENEFICIAL LIKE A SCHOOL OR A HOSPITAL. IT OFFERS NO PUBLIC GOOD, SO THE REASONS TO DENY THE USE VARIANCE IS THE DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD, BECAUSE THE DETRIMENTS OUTWEIGH ANY PERCEIVED BENEFITS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR DE USE VARIANCE. THE IMPAIRMENT TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONE PLAN OR ZONING ORDINANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH DECADES OF MONTGOMERY AND ROCKY HILL PLANNING. THE SPECIFICS OF THIS SITE, ITS HARMFUL HISTORY AND LEGACY, THE ITS ADJACENCY TO A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND

[02:25:09]

BY SCALE, ESTHETICS, MATERIALS, YOU NAME IT. THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU KNOW IT, BUT IT CAUSED ENVIRONMENTAL TRAUMA FOR MONTGOMERY, PRIVATELY OWNED WELLS AND OUR MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY, THE WHOLE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY FOR ROCKY HILL. AND THAT TRAUMA IS NOT REPAIRED IN ANY WAY WITH THIS USE. IT IS A HARMFUL ASSAULT ON OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH HAS ALREADY SUFFERED ENOUGH BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES ON THIS PROPERTY. EVERY TIME WE HAVE A NEW CANCER DIAGNOSIS IN TOWN, PEOPLE CALCULATE BACK TO HOW OLD THEIR CHILD WAS WHEN THEY WERE DRINKING THE WATER BEFORE THE SUPERFUND SITE STARTED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT PROBLEM. THE PROJECT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INTENT OF THE ZONING. IT WOULD ACTUALLY IT DOESN'T JUST NOT ADHERE. IT PREVENTS THE FULFILLMENT OF MONTGOMERY'S GOALS OF MUNICIPAL PLANNING. AND BOTH MUNICIPAL MASTER PLANS. ALSO, THIS PROJECT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO FLOODING IN AN AREA WHERE MONTGOMERY PEOPLE ARE STILL DISPLACED FROM RECENT FLOODS. THE BEANS BROOK AND IDA.

AS YOU SHOULD KNOW, ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS IS A DISPLACED PERSON FROM THAT FLOODING EPISODE AND IS RENTING IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE ALL KNOW THAT EXISTING OLD INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THE 1960S, LIKE THE ADJACENT SHOPRITE PROPERTY, IS INADEQUATE FOR TODAY'S CLIMATE, ACTIVITIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE EVENTS. I ALSO FAILED TO SEE THAT MONTGOMERY'S ENHANCED STORMWATER ORDINANCE WAS EVEN MENTIONED OR REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS. THERE IS AN ENHANCED STORMWATER ORDINANCE IN MONTGOMERY THAT'S STRICTER THAN THE DEP REQUIREMENTS, AND IT IS APPLICABLE TO REDEVELOPMENT SITES, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH SUSPENDED SOLIDS. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE TECHNICALITIES. THIS USE DOES NOT GENERATE SIGNIFICANT JOBS NOR ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY. THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SCALE WOULD BE INTERRUPTED AND DIMINISHED WITH THIS PROJECT. THE LOSS OF THE MATURE TREES IS A SHAME, BECAUSE THE MATURE TREES TAKE A LONG TIME TO BE REPLACED, AND THEY ARE ALSO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. THIS USE WOULD ALSO NEGATIVELY IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES, ESPECIALLY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS. THIS USE MIGHT CONTAIN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. THE RISK OF FIRE IS ALSO HIGH WITH THIS USE. AS WE HEARD, THERE WAS A NEW FIRE MARSHAL REQUEST, BUT ONE OF THESE FACILITIES RECENTLY CAUGHT FIRE IN HILLSBORO AND WAS A REGIONAL EVENT. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AMPLE TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT A REJECTION OF THESE VARIANCES, PARTICULARLY THE USE VARIANCE. THE APPLICANT WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT IT FITS HERE, WAS UNABLE TO SHOW ANY BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC, AND MADE NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PAST ENVIRONMENTA THIS SITE ON THE C. THE APPLICANT CANNOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC EXPERIENCE OF THE SITE. THEY MADE NO EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND, NO RECOGNIZE OR RESPOND TO THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE STREETSCAPE. EVEN THE PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET THAT ARE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL SCALE BUILDINGS. SO IT'S IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. IT IS NOT. IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. EVEN WITHIN MONTGOMERY'S BOUNDARIES. THE APPLICANT WAS IGNORANT OF THE PROXIMITY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH IS IN FACT WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTICE AREA, AND IT IS AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE

[02:30:07]

[02:35:08]

DISPLAY CORRIDOR IS PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS. IT'S NOT A CORRIDOR AND HAS NOTHING TO DISPLAY. THE USE CANNOT COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONE THAT IT SITS WITHIN. I MEAN, THE BUILDINGS IN THAT ZONE ARE ACTUALLY ACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE A MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE SCALE THAN THIS EVER WILL HAVE OR CAN HAVE BECAUSE OF ITS USE. THE BLANK WALLS THROUGHOUT INDICATE A WAREHOUSE, INDICATE NO HUMAN USE, INTERACTION, OR CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC GOOD, AND THEY'RE ONE OF THEIR EXPERTS ACTUALLY TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY THAT ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WAS INVISIBLE. I'D LIKE TO TESTIFY THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INVISIBLE BUILDING THAT IS ARROGANT, AND IT'S INSULTING, AND IT PROVES THAT THEY'RE PROFESSIONALS ARE REALLY NOT PROVIDING. LEGITIMATE TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS BUILDING. THE ROOF LINE IS NOT COMPATIBLE, WHICH IS ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK MONTGOMERY'S ORDINANCE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. AND. AND THAT WOULD WRAP UP MY ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS. AND THEN I HAVE MORE COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS INSERTED INTO THE MIDDLE OF MY GENERAL COMMENTS. WE GENERALLY LIKE TO KEEP COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES, AND I THINK YOU'VE EXCEEDED THAT. BUT I MEAN, I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, WITHHOLD FROM REPEATING YOURSELF. THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW CASES THAT I MEAN, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE ALL RIGHT. I'LL JUST HIT THE THINGS I HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON YET. YEAH. SO ALSO THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS USE BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO LOTS. THE CONSOLIDATION CREATES THE CONDITION THAT AN OVERSIZE PROJECT WOULD BE ALLOWED HERE. IT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF THREE OF THE LOTS ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. AND IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR REDEVELOPMENT. THAT IS, TO IMPROVE AND RECONNECT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALSO, CONSOLIDATING THE LOTS DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOALS OF MONTGOMERY AND ROCKHILL. THE RECORD THE ROCK. NO BOARD APPROVAL IS REQUIRED TO CONSOLIDATE OR MERGE LOTS. THEY DON'T NEED APPROVAL TO DO THAT. PARTICULAR USE REQUIRES IT. SO I'M POINTING OUT THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THAT. WE ALREADY TOUCHED ON THE STORMWATER, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY AND THE FLOODING. BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT APPROVING THIS USE AND THIS VARIANCE WOULD ALSO BE IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES THAT THE STATE, COUNTY, AND MONTGOMERY MASTER PLAN ARE BASED UPON. AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT A LOT OF THE DENSE HOUSING WAS PUT IN THE VICINITY OF THESE NODES WAS TO INCREASE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO SERVICES. IT ALSO VIOLATES GUIDANCE FROM THE STATE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND AN APPROVAL WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR GUIDANCE, WHICH IS TO ENCOURAGE MUNICIPALITIES EMPLOY A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY AND DISCOURAGE TOWNS FROM ALLOWING UNDESIRABLE USES, WHICH THIS IS TO PUT THEM ON YOUR BORDERS WITH NEIGHBORING TOWNS. IT'S VERY CLEAR ON THAT. ALSO, THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH MONTGOMERY'S CIRCULATION PLAN AND GOALS, AND. THE SITE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP AS A WALK SHED AREA OF INTEREST. SO PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT SOME OF US HAVE ATTENDED OVER THE YEARS EVEN EMPHASIZE THIS. THEY EVEN CALL IT A WALK SHED. SO THE POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF A NODAL PLANNING SYSTEM ARE IN THE TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN. NOW, YOU'VE HEARD ROCKY HILL PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS BEING THE GATEWAY POTENTIAL. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GATEWAY SITE. THIS ISN'T JUST CREATING HARM AND NEGATIVITY AS YOU APPROACH ROCKY HILL. THIS IS

[02:40:01]

WE WANT TO HAVE OUR OWN TOWN. SO WHAT IS THE MAJOR INTERSECTION OF MONTGOMERY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW WASHINGTON STREET? 206. AM I CORRECT? YOU'RE NOT? LISTEN, THESE ARE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS.

THEY ARE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE ALL LISTENING. OH, THEY'RE LISTENING. AND SO WHEN YOU APPROACH THIS MAJOR INTERSECTION OR PEOPLE DRIVING UP, GOING, GOD, THIS IS BEAUTIFUL. THIS IS A CHARMING, BEAUTIFUL TOWN. THIS REMINDS ME OF THEY HEAD. THIS REMINDS ME OF WHEREVER YOUR FAVORITE TOWN IS. OR ARE THEY GOING, WOW, ISN'T IT SHOCKING THAT THERE'S A WAREHOUSE AT THE CENTER OF THEIR TOWN, THEIR PROPOSED TOWN, THEIR IMPROVEMENT? THIS IS WHAT THEIR GOAL IS. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE. YET IN ALL OF THESE MEETINGS, WE HAVE NEVER SEEN A COMPLETE SET OF DRAWINGS THAT REPRESENT THE FINAL PRODUCT. NOT ONCE DO YOU REALIZE THAT. I'M SORRY TO FIND IT. IT'S NOT THERE. THE TREES.

OH, WE'RE CUTTING DOWN TREES. IS SOMEBODY GOING TO GO MONITOR HOW THEY PRUNE THOSE TREES WERE REQUIRING THEM TO KEEP. THEY SAID, RIGHT NOW WE'RE TAKING OFF WINDS. BUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE TWO STALKS AND EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GO, WELL, THEY LEFT THE TREES. THERE'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT, BUT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MISSING ON THESE PLANS WITH ALL THE INFORMATION. AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD EVER APPROVE ANYTHING BASED ON THAT. AND I WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO NOT APPROVE ANY VARIANCES IN THE ZONING, BECAUSE CLEARLY, PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD PRIOR TO YOU THAT THIS WAS NOT IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU. NO RACE. CAN SOMEONE HELP PUT THAT MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF HER, PLEASE? OKAY, YOU GOT IT. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE

[02:45:02]

AND THESE PEOPLE KNEW THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS NOT ZONED FOR A STORAGE FACILITY WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT. AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY KNOWING THAT IT WAS NOT. THEY SAID, OH, NEAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHAT CAN WE PUT ON IT THAT WILL MAKE MONEY? AND MAKING MONEY IS A GREAT AMERICAN CUSTOM, SO THAT'S GREAT. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE IT HERE.

AND THEY CAME, THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND THEN THEY SAID WHAT CAN WE USE IT FOR? WELL, IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW, IT DIDN'T ALLOW STORAGE FACILITIES WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, THEY WERE PRETTY DUMB TO BUY IT. THEY SHOULD HAVE CHECKED BEFORE THEY BOUGHT IT. SO THEY BOUGHT IT. NOW THEY CAN'T USE IT FOR THIS. THEY JUST SAID IT'S EMPTY. LET'S USE IT FOR SOMETHING. LET'S MAKE MONEY.

OH, THERE'S NO NEED FOR THEM TO MAKE IT HERE. THEY CAN MAKE IT SOMEPLACE ELSE. IF THERE'S NO HARDSHIP. IT'S NOT A NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T NEED IT AND THEY DON'T NEED IT. THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE MONEY. AND I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A VARIANCE.

JUST SO THEY CAN MAKE MONEY OF VARIANCE IS BECAUSE THERE'S A HARDSHIP OR A NEED, AND IT MEETS NEITHER OF THOSE QUALIFICATIONS. SO I SAY VOTE NO, THANK YOU. YOU LIFT THAT MIC UP, THAT'S IT. YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE TRUTH, THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH. NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. YES. CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? FOR THE RECORD, VALERIE PETRAITIS. P E T R E D I S OKAY. GOING TO BE A LITTLE POETIC FOR A MINUTE. WHEN I DRIVE THROUGH OUR TOWNSHIP, I SEE THE FACES OF MY NEIGHBORS, THE TREES THAT HAVE STOOD FOR MANY GENERATIONS, AND THE PROMISE OF WHAT WE COULD BECOME. WHAT I DON'T SEE IS ANY OF US LYING AWAKE AT NIGHT THINKING, IF ONLY WE HAD MORE STORAGE UNITS. LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THE LEGAL STANDARD AT STAKE. A D1 VARIANCE IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT TYPE OF LAND USE VARIANCE UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW. THE. THE DDC DECISION ESTABLISHED THAT APPLICANTS MUST NOT ONLY PROVE A SPECIAL REASON, BUT ALSO PROVIDE ENHANCED QUALITY OF PROOF THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF OUR TOWNSHIP'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND MASTER PLAN. THIS PROPOSAL FAILS THE STANDARD ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THOSE REASONS BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD MANY OF THEM TONIGHT. BUT THIS SITE HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A GATEWAY FOR MONTGOMERY TO MONTGOMERY AND ROCKY HILL, WHERE OUR TOWNSHIP HAS CONSISTENTLY REAFFIRMED ITS VISION FOR A VILLAGE ATMOSPHERE WITH MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT. I IMAGINE SOMETHING MORE CREATIVE IN THIS SPACE INSTEAD OF A, YOU KNOW, IMAGINING INSTEAD OF VIBRANT COMMUNITY FOOD HUB WITH STANDARD SHARED COMMERCIAL KITCHENS WHERE LOCAL ENTREPRENEURS CAN LAUNCH BUSINESSES WITHOUT STARTUP COSTS, CREATING JOBS, SHOWCASING LOCAL TALENT, BECOMING A TRUE COMMUNITY ASSET. THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IN THIS SPACE. MORE CREATIVE THINKING, MORE OUTSIDE THE BOX IDEAS THAT WOULD PROMOTE COMMUNITY GATHERING AND IMPORTANT SPACES FOR US TO GROW WITH INTO THE FUTURE. I URGE THE ZONING BOARD TO REJECT THIS D ONE VARIANCE AS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR COMMUNITY VISION, AND UNNECESSARILY GIVEN AND UNNECESSARY GIVEN OUR EXISTED EXISTING MARKET CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. SO. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE

[02:50:06]

LEONARDO. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, YOU SEE IT'S JUST A HOUSE ON A MAP, KIND OF OBSTRUCTED BY SOME FOG. BUT BUT THAT'S MY HOME TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, PLEASE, WHEN YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSING THIS, BUT HERE I GO, HOPEFULLY THE LAST. ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, I HAVE SEVERAL LINGERING CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY. FIRST AND FOREMOST, WILL I STILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS MY BACKYARD, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED SITE? WHILE THERE WAS DISCUSSION, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND PROOF OF CONCEPT FOR IT. THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF MY PROPERTY, AND I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS PROJECT MIGHT IMPACT THE ACCESS TO MY BACKYARD. ADDITIONALLY, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FACILITY MAY INCLUDE ADDITIONAL FOLIAGE, WHAT GUARANTEES CAN BE PROVIDED THAT THIS WILL NOT? ESSENTIALLY THE BRIGHT LIGHTS? HOW WILL THE HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE BRIGHT LIGHTS WILL NOT OBSTRUCT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE AGITATING TO MY NEARBY HOME, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF VISIBILITY FOR THE LANDSCAPING DUE TO THE YEARS OF CHEMICALS THAT WERE DUMPED INTO THE SOIL AND LEACHED INTO THE EARTH, COMPROMISING THE SOIL FROM GAMMA TECH IN THE 1980S, WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED. AND YES, IT'S BEING MONITORED BY THE EPA, BUT WHO KNOWS HOW EFFECTIVE THAT FEDERAL AGENCY IS CURRENTLY ACTING RIGHT NOW. AS A NEIGHBOR, I WATCHED THIS LOT BEING USED FOR A PREVIOUS BUILDING, WHICH BECAME VISIBLY DERELICT. IT WAS ALMOST WELCOMED BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC LESSENED. WE GOT USED TO THIS AND THE LOT BECOMING AN UNINTENDED AFTERTHOUGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PURCHASERS OF THIS LOT DID SO WITH THE INTENTION TO BUILD SOMETHING. BUT PLEASE THIS, NOT THIS AND NOT HERE. LET'S GET CREATIVE. THERE'S HYDROPONIC FARMING CENTERS, THERE'S PRIVATE BOXING GYMS, PILATES GYMS. THERE'S A OPPORTUNITY FOR A SPACE FOR A POP UP SHOP WHERE THE GUY FROM VERMONT CAN SELL HIS CHRISTMAS TREES, THAT MANY OF US IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY ARE FAMILIAR WITH. WE COULD DO A MINI EDUCATIONAL CENTER OR A MUSEUM DEDICATED TO THE HISTORIC CONNECTION BETWEEN MONTGOMERY AND ROCKY HILL, SOMETHING LIKE THE WATERSHED INSTITUTE, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR. I ALSO KNOW THAT THAT THE VETERINARIAN ACROSS THE STREET WOULD LOVE TO EXPAND. I MUST ALSO EXPRESS MY FRUSTRATION THAT I NEED TO RAISE THESE CONCERNS IN WHAT SHOULD BE A PEACEFUL SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. IT SEEMS INAPPROPRIATE THAT THIS PROJECT IS EVEN BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIS LOCATION. WHILE IT'S BETTER THAN A CAR WASH, THIS FACILITY DOES NOT APPEAR TO ADD VALUE TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND INSTEAD IT FOCUSES SOLELY ON GENERATING MONETARY BENEFITS FOR THE OWNERS. FOR THIS PLAN PASS, WHICH I CERTAINLY DO NOT HOPE, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE TWO HAVE THE CONTACT NUMBER FOR THE BUILDING MANAGER, BECAUSE THE LAST FEW SNOWFALLS THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY TENDING TO THE SIDEWALKS, WHICH HAVE MADE MY TRIPS TO WAWA PRETTY DIFFICULT. AND I WANT TO THANK THE ZONING BOARD ULTIMATELY FOR TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER MY FAMILY IN YOUR DECISION. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? YOU WANT TO MAKE A CLOSING ARGUMENT? YEAH. THANK YOU COUNCILOR. THANK YOU CHAIR. THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS. IT'S BEEN A SOMEWHAT OF A LONG JOURNEY. WE STARTED HERE, SEE? MAYBE OVER EIGHT MONTHS AGO.

NINE MONTHS AGO. AND WHEN WE FIRST CAME IN, YOU KNOW, WE CAME IN WITH THE PROJECT THAT ALL DEVELOPERS WANT, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS THEY CAN GET, REALLY, YOU KNOW, 132,000 SQUARE FOOT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET WANTS. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GIVE THEM. AND I THINK THROUGH THESE MULTIPLE HEARINGS, THERE'S BEEN A THERE'S BEEN AN, YOU KNOW, AN ACCEPTANCE FROM MY CLIENT, FROM THE DEVELOPER HERE THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH THIS TOWN TO GIVE SOMETHING AT THIS LOCATION OR TO PUT SOMETHING AT THIS LOCATION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. IS THIS BUILDING THE SIZE THAT EVERYONE WOULD WANT? IF YOU'RE LOOKING AS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF

[02:55:03]

HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRETTY HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES AT THIS SITE. AS I SAID, WE WENT BACK, WE LOOKED WITH THIS DEVELOPER WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS SITE IS GOING TO DEVELOP FOR SOMETHING. AND WE SAID, LISTEN, LET'S, LET'S PLAY OUT ALL OF THE SCENARIOS. WHAT DOES A FULLY CONFORMING SITE PLAN LOOK LIKE FOR A CAR WASH AT THIS SITE? AND AS YOUR COUNSEL WILL TELL YOU, A FULLY CONFORMING SITE PLAN WOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND THERE WOULDN'T BE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CRITERIA BECAUSE THERE IS NO POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE CRITERIA. WE WOULD GO UP WITH A FULLY CONFORMING PLAN. SOMEBODY MIGHT MENTION TRAFFIC FROM THE 200 CAR WASH TRIPS THAT WE TAKE. WE TAKE IN A YEAR. AND I WOULD SAY THE BOARD'S NOT TO CONSIDER TRAFFIC. IT'S A FULLY CONFORMING PERMITTED USE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HAPPENS AT THE LIGHT DOWN THE STREET. THAT WAS FOR THE THAT WAS FOR THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHEN THEY PASSED THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE FOCUS ON NOT JUST THE ALTERNATIVES. WE'RE NOT SITTING HERE SAYING LIKE, GIVE US THIS OR WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, BUT THE SITE IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED FOR SOMETHING. WE BELIEVE THAT WE'VE GIVEN THE BOARD EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN GIVE TO HAVE A PRODUCT THAT STILL WORKS ON THE PROPERTY, BUT IS AS LEAST IMPACTFUL AS IT CAN POSSIBLY BE, AND I WOULD JUST END BY SAYING, I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WHEN SOMETHING'S A VACANT PROPERTY, IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO WRAP THEIR HEAD AROUND THE FACT THAT SOMETHING'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED THERE. BUT AGAIN, WE THERE'S A RIGHT TO DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN USES THAT ARE PROBABLY LESS DESIRABLE. AS I SAID, CAR WASHES, AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS, MOTELS. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE FOLKS THAT TESTIFIED TONIGHT WOULD BE UP IN FRONT OF A PLANNING BOARD SUPPORTING THOSE APPLICATIONS, SAYING HOW WELL THIS FITS INTO THE MUNICIPAL PLAN AND THE COMMUNITY VISION. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN. SO I THINK WITH THAT, I WILL JUST END BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DO RESPECT YOUR TIME. WE RESPECT THE COMMUNITY'S TIME. INCREDIBLY WELL PREPARED RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT WE PUT ON PROOFS AND PUT ON TESTIMONY THAT SUPPORTS THE VARIANCE RELIEF BEING SOUGHT. TONIGHT, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD DOES GRANT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE AGREED TO THIS EVENING AND THROUGHOUT OUR TESTIMONY, ALONG WITH THE VARIANCE RELIEF, BULK RELIEF AND WAIVERS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED. AND WITH THAT, I JUST I WOULD SAY THANK YOU TO THE B1 AND THE D6, THE D1 AND THE D5, FAR D1 AND THE D5 VARIANTS, ALONG WITH THE BULK VARIANCE RELIEF BEING SOUGHT. YES. WITH THAT, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR CONCLUDING IT. YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE BOARD DELIBERATIONS. I KNOW I SAID I INTENDED TO, TO FINISH AT TEN, BUT I, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO, TO DELIBERATE AT THIS POINT. YOU'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING FOR

[03:00:03]

ANYBODY WANT TO DISCUSS I CAN TAKE THE FIRST STEP. GREAT. THANKS MIKE TO THAT MICROPHONE.

NICE AND SLOW PLEASE. YEAH. SO I HAVE SOME CONCERNS. FIRST OF ALL I HAVE SOME NOISE CONCERNS WITH THE TYPE OF TRAFFIC THAT THAT COMES IN AND OUT. AND YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE TESTIMONY IN THE TRAFFIC. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF UNSIGHTLY TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, WITH LOUD BOX TRUCKS AND MOVING TRUCKS. AND I IMAGINE A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC IS AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE DAY AND ALL THE LIGHTS THAT WOULD BE BOTHERING THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SO THAT'S ONE CONCERN. THE ESTHETICS. SECONDLY. I DON'T THINK IT FITS. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A FLAT ROOF WHICH BASICALLY HELPS THEM MEET OR AT LEAST REDUCE SOME OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIOS. IF IT WAS A PITCHED ROOF, THAT WOULD BE MORE IN KEEPING ESTHETICALLY, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD VIOLATE OTHER OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL VARIANCES. I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S QUITE A LARGE SIZE AS WELL. SO ESPECIALLY RELATIVE TO THE BUILDINGS AROUND IT, OBVIOUSLY IT NEEDS A VARIANCE FOR, FOR THAT. AND THEN THERE'S JUST A LOT OF VARIANCES HERE IN MY OPINION, THAT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS OVERWHELMING TO ME RELATIVE TO THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. MR. WALMART AND I GUESS MY MAIN CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS THE POSITIVE, THE BENEFIT OF THIS STORAGE FACILITIES MAYBE NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD GRANT THAT, AT LEAST NOT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO THAT THERE PROPOSING. I WOULD SAY I WOULD NOT GRANT A FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE. BUT I'LL JUMP IN. MISS BLAZAWSKI. I'M NOT SURE THAT. THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR AD1 VARIANT. I THINK THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED. A LOT OF NEGATIVE FACTORS. THAT WERE REALLY NOT DISCUSSED FULLY. AND I THINK THAT THE DESIGN DOES NOT FIT INTO THE LOCAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA, AND IT. DOES NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE MASTER PLAN. SO I WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR ALL THE WORK THEY DID. THEY LISTENED AND THEY HEARD US, AND THEY MODIFIED EVERYTHING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THEIR PROPOSAL, INCLUDING ELIMINATING A BUILDING, CHANGING THE FAR, THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, THE BUFFERING, ALL OF IT. I GREATLY APPRECIATE IT, BUT NONE OF THAT HELPS ME GET PAST THE D. ONE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE BENEFITING THE GENERAL WELFARE. I MEAN, I'VE LIVED HERE 25 YEARS AND I DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL LIKE THIS BUILDING FITS WHERE WE ARE, AND I DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL LIKE PEOPLE NEED NEED MORE STORAGE FACILITIES IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU. MR. DELANTY. DID YOU BUT THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO TALK, RIGHT? YEAH. I SHARE A SIMILAR OPINIONS. NEITHER THE ARCHITECTURE NOR THE USE ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARCEL. I BELIEVE THAT THE DETRIMENTS FAR OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH GRANTING THIS VARIANCE. IT IS AN IMPORTANT GATEWAY PARCEL BOTH IN AND OUT OF ROCKY HILL AND MONTGOMERY. AND THIS. AS MARILYN SAID, WE APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK AND ALL THE ITERATIONS,

[03:05:09]

SO THOSE TREES, HE SAID, PIN OAKS ARE GOING TO BE THE NEXT ASH TREE. HE MENTIONED THAT IN THE MARCH MEETING. AND SO EVEN THOSE TREES, WHICH WOULD HELP TO REALLY SHIELD THAT THIS, THIS BUILDING FROM THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE GONE. AND THOSE OTHER TREES ARE JUST NOT GOING TO BE BIG AND SHIELD THE BUILDING FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS TO COME. IT'S GOING TO BE JUST, JUST SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. OKAY.

I THINK, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THE IS THE STANDARDS FOR THE D1 VARIANCE. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ARE WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE PLANNING TESTIMONY OF THE PLANNERS. I'M NOT MYSELF A PLANNER, SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE PLANNING TESTIMONY. AND I'M VERY HAPPY THAT ROCKY HILL PROVIDED THEIR PLANNER HERE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS I LISTEN TO THE PLANNER FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN THE PLANNER FOR THE FOR THE TOWNSHIP, I, I'M COMPELLED THAT THE PLANNER, THE TESTIMONY FROM THE ROCKY HILL PLANNER TAKES PRECEDENCE AND CARRIED MORE WEIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ROCKY HILL'S MASTER PLAN IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S REGIONAL AREA. I THINK I THINK THAT'S PRETTY SAFE TO SAY UNDER THE STANDARDS, THE WORDS GATEWAY SITE IS CERTAINLY APPLICABLE. I THINK IT'S EXPLICITLY APPLICABLE HERE AS A, AS A SITE, YOU KNOW, SO WE HAVE TO JUDGE THIS. THE ASPECTS OF THE PLANNERS TESTIMONY THAT I, THAT I THINK ARE IS MOST COMPELLING TO ME IS, IS THE FACT THAT THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN DOES CONTEMPLATE A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A SELF STORAGE UNIT. OH ONE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS IS SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES. ALL OF THE LIKE, WHICH YOU KNOW, IS NOT MET BY ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS. AND BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S A PROHIBITED USE IN THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE, YOU KNOW, THE D1 STANDARDS FOR BURDEN OF PROOF HAVE TO APPLY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE APPLICANT MADE COMPELLING TESTIMONY AS SUCH. OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE DELIBERATIONS. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE NOW PEOPLE HAVE BASICALLY DELIBERATED ON THE D ONE USE VARIANCE AND THE D FIVE FAR VARIANCE. MY LISTENING TO THE DELIBERATIONS, I ANTICIPATE SOMEONE'S GOING TO BE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.

PEOPLE HAVEN'T SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE C VARIANCES OR THE EXCEPTIONS OR SITE PLANS. SO I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THE REASON PEOPLE HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT IS BECAUSE BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T GRANT THE D ONE AND THE D FIVE, THOSE OTHERS ARE MOOT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

THEY'RE NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THE BOARD MEMBERS WAVING SHAKING THEIR HEADS. YES. SO SOMEONE WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION THEN TO DENY THE APPLICATION. SO MOVED. SO YOU'RE DENYING THE D ONE AND THE D FIVE. AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THE OTHER RELIEF IS MOOT. CORRECT? I'LL SECOND THAT.

YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. YES, SIR. MR. WALMART MADE A MOTION AND MR. WOOD SECONDED IT I HEAR THAT. CAN I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, DARA? ROLL CALL. SO WE'RE WE'RE VOTING. YES. THIS

[03:10:01]

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. D4 NOT A D5. WRONG NUMBER. GOT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ROLL CALL. YOUR ROLL CALL, PLEASE. BOBBY? YES. LIZA. LAZOVSKY. YES.

BLODGETT. YES. BRUINS. YES. ROSENTHAL. YES. WALMART. YES. WOOD. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SEE YOU AT THE PLANNING. PERMISSION IS DENIED. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS TO ADHERE TO. THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 25TH REGULAR MEETING.

MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. WALMART. AND THEN I GOT A SECOND BY THAT BY AMY ROSENTHAL. WHO WAS IT? WHO WAS THE SECOND MISS ROSENTHAL? OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. ABU SABI. YES, LOVE, I CAN'T SEE BAZOVSKY BLODGETT. YES. BRUINS. YES. ROSENTHAL. YES. WALMART. YES.

WOOD. YES. URBANSKI. YES. SHAH. MEHTA. YES. YES. THEN THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 20TH,

[Additional Item]

WASABI. YES. BLAZAWSKI. YES. YES. BRUINS. YES. WALMART. YES. WOOD. URBANSKI. STAIN. I WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING. YEAH I CAN'T YEAH OKAY. AND MISS ROSENTHAL WAS IN. SHE VOTES. YES. YES.

YEAH. ALRIGHT. FUTURE MEETINGS. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING THIS THURSDAY. THIS IS OUR MEMBER TRAINING MEETING I, WE'VE BEEN WANTING TO HAVE THIS MEETING FOR A WHOLE YEAR. AND SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO SHOW UP TO THIS MEETING. SO YES PLEASE, PLEASE SHOW UP ON THURSDAY.

IT'LL BE FUN. WE'LL BRING SNACKS. ALRIGHT. MARCH 25TH AT 7:00. AND THEN MARCH 27TH ALSO AT 7:00 IF NEEDED. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.