[00:00:03]
YEAH. ALL GOOD. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. THIS IS THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD OF MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. IT IS OUR REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2026. IT IS OUR INTENTION TO CONCLUDE THIS MEETING NO LATER THAN 10 P.M.
AND THE TIME IS 702 ISH. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT AND PL 2025 C 72. NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND ON THE MUNICIPAL WEBSITE. DARA, MAY WE HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES. HERE. YES.
BATTLE HERE. HERE. ROBERTS. THANKS. HERE. DINA. HERE. LOCKLEAR. HERE. SHARMA. HERE.
CASEY. HERE. SORRY. OH, NO! HARRIS. HERE. OKAY. PLEASE JOIN ME IN. SALUTE TO THE FLAG! I 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. OKAY. OKAY, I'M GOING TO START WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA? OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE A RESOLUTION FROM CASE PB DASH. SORRY. SORRY. CASE PB DASH 04-26 IS FOR THE CNG SUBSTATION BLOCK 4001, LOT 26.01. IT WAS FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCE. AND KAREN, YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT? YES BOARD MEMBERS JUST A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS THAT I'D RECOMMEND ON THE RESOLUTION PAGE TWO. IT'S THE SUMMARY OF MR. SALAS TESTIMONY. WE NEED TO JUST CLARIFY THAT IT'S THE LINES COMING INTO THE SUBSTATION THAT WILL BE UNDERGROUND. THE LINES TO THE APPROXIMATELY 6000 RESIDENTS WHO WILL BE SERVED WILL NOT BE UNDERGROUND. AND AT THE VERY END. AND THAT CHANGE WILL BE MADE IN TWO SPOTS. AND THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE RESOLUTION, WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY THAT IT IS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IN THAT PARAGRAPH. SO OTHER THAN THAT, WITH THOSE CHANGES, I THINK IT'S READY FOR YOU TO ADOPT TONIGHT. GREAT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT? SO MOVED. SECOND. SECOND. ROLL CALL PLEASE. YES. YES. YES. YES.
YES. THANK YOU. DARA. NEXT IS A CASE THAT WE'RE GOING TO CARRY TO THE 28TH OF THIS MONTH. AND THAT IS CASE PB DASH 05-25GP ACQUISITIONS LLC THRIVE AT MONTGOMERY AND WE WILL BE MEMORIALIZING THAT ON THE 28TH. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE FLYING THROUGH THIS AGENDA.
NEXT UP IS A COMMERCIAL TRANSIT SITE PRESENTATION FROM LORI SAVRAN, OUR TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNING DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME BACK. PER, I THINK, CHAIRMAN CAMPUSES REQUEST BACK WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUBLIC MEETINGS, HE WANTED TO SEE REGULAR UPDATES ON THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING AROUND OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FAIR SHARE PLAN. AND SO AT THIS TIME, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK, GIVE YOU A LITTLE UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH ONE OF THE PROJECTS. I DID ADD A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT A LITTLE BACKGROUND TO IT.
JUST BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THINGS, AND I ALWAYS LIKE TO KIND OF ADD THAT IN WHEN WHEN POSSIBLE. SO GOING A LITTLE BIT BACK TO 2014, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO KNOW WHERE THIS NAME, TRANSIT COMMERCIAL SITE NAME CAME FROM. SO BACK IN 2014, THE TOWNSHIP ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COUNTRY CLUB MEADOWS THAT INCLUDED A VARIETY OF PARCELS WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA OF PIKE RUN, AND THE TRANSIT COMMERCIAL
[00:05:02]
SITE WAS ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES. THIS IS A DEPICTION OF WHAT IN 2014, WAS SORT OF SETTLED UPON BY THE TOWNSHIP, AND THEN WENT ON TO BECOME A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THEN FROM THERE, THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOLLOWED. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT SORT OF THE BOTTOM LEFT, YOU COULD SEE THAT'S COUNTRY CLUB MEADOWS THAT'S ALL BUILT OUT. NOW THAT'S 150 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THEN TO THE NORTH OF THAT ARE THE 96 SENIOR APARTMENTS THAT ARE ALSO BUILT OUT. NOW, JUST NORTH OF THAT, THIS IS ALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF 206 WOULD BE WHERE THRIVE, THE ASSISTED LIVING KIND OF CONTINUING CARE FACILITY WILL BE. AND THEN IF YOU GO OVER TO THE EAST SIDE OF 206 ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT WHERE IT SAYS ADD ON SITE, THAT'S WHERE THE I GUESS WE CALL IT A MONTGOMERY GROVE, RIGHT? THE GROVE AND WE'RE PLAYA BOWLS IS AND BABAS BAGELS. AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET JUST NORTH OF THAT IS MONTGOMERY PLACE, WHERE WE HAVE CASA MARKET AND DOGTOPIA. AND SO ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN BUILT OUT. SO THE FINAL STAGE OF THAT PLAN, AND WE KNEW IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BUILT MORE TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROJECT, WOULD BE THIS TRANSIT COMMERCIAL SITE. AND THE KEY TO THAT SITE WOULD HAVE WOULD BE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARK AND RIDE PARKING LOT. SO FAST FORWARD TO 2026 WHEN WE ADOPT OUR AMENDED FOURTH ROUND PLAN. IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS THAT REALLY FOCUSED. WE'RE ABLE TO FOCUS ON EXTENDING AFFORDABILITY CONTROLS ON 150 AFFORDABLE FAMILY UNITS IN THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS. SO PIKE RUN APARTMENTS IS ONE OF THOSE. IT'S 96 UNITS PLUS, WE RECEIVE 48 RENTAL BONUS CREDITS FOR A TOTAL OF 144 CREDITS. THE OTHER TWO PROJECTS ARE FOR SALE UNITS, SO THEY DON'T RECEIVE A BONUS CREDIT. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD SOME ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS FOR SENIOR RENTALS. SO IN GENERAL EXTENSION OF AFFORDABILITY CONTROLS, WE WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT IT, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE STATE ACKNOWLEDGES IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ESSENTIALLY PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT ALREADY EXISTS. AND THE BOTTOM BULLET JUST TALKS ABOUT HOW WE'RE MAINTAINING UNITS THAT OTHERWISE AFTER THAT PERIOD OF 30 YEARS, WOULD BE LOST TO THE REGULAR HOUSING MARKET. ANOTHER LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY IN 1997 IS WHEN THE TOWNSHIP ENTERED INTO THE ORIGINAL KIND OF DEED RESTRICTIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER.IT'S 210 PIKE RUN APARTMENTS FOR HAVE 30 YEAR DEED RESTRICTIONS, TIMING OF WHEN THEY COME OFFLINE IN THAT 30 YEARS IS BASED ON WHATEVER THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS FOR THE BUILDING, BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE BUILDINGS AND THE 30 YEAR RESTRICTIONS WILL END IN THIS CURRENT ROUND. THE FOURTH ROUND, WHICH RUNS FROM 2025 TO 2035, AND THERE ROUGHLY WOULD BE EXPIRING BETWEEN 2028 AND 2031. SO THROUGH THAT.
AMENDED FOURTH ROUND PLAN, WE IDENTIFIED THE TRANSIT COMMERCIAL SITE AS A VIABLE OPTION TO DEVELOP WHAT WOULD BE THE OFFSET TO THE EXTENSION OF THOSE 96 APARTMENTS. SO IT'S 189 MARKET RATE APARTMENTS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED AS BELLE MEAD STATION. IT'S 144 CREDITS, AS I MENTIONED, TOWARDS THE ROUND FOUR OBLIGATION, THERE WOULD BE NO NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTED. THE AFFORDABLE COMPONENT WOULD COME THROUGH THE EXTENSION OF CONTROLS, AND IT IS A GREATER THAN 20% SET ASIDE. THE PARK AND RIDE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER, AND THERE WOULD BE ACCESS TO THE RAIL LINE FOR A FUTURE REACTIVATION OF THE WEST TRENTON COMMUTER RAIL. WE'VE ALSO. THE DEVELOPER HAS ACTIVELY PURSUED OUTSIDE COMPANIES, SUBURBAN TRANSIT AND OTHER COMPANIES TO COME HAVE A LOCATION AND STOP IN MONTGOMERY. BUT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A PARK AND RIDE LOCATION FOR THAT. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMUTER. PARKING LOT WILL HAVE UTILITY BEFORE THE REACTIVATION OF THE RAIL LINE, WHICH WE KNOW IS, YOU KNOW, MANY YEARS AWAY AT THIS POINT. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE ALSO PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO MONTGOMERY PLACE SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, CRITICAL TO ANYTHING THAT WE DO. SO THE INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD PROVIDED, WHICH I BELIEVE WE HAD SHOWN DURING ONE OF THE LISTENING SESSIONS FOR OUR ROUND FOUR HOUSING PLAN SHOWS IN THE BOTTOM LEFT THE LOCATION OF THE PARK AND RIDE. SO IT'S CLOSE TO 206 PIKE RUN ROAD, WHICH IS NICE IF IT. IT BECOMES A BUS PARK AND RIDE FIRST HAS EASY ACCESS TO 206 AND THEN THERE IS A SIDEWALK CONNECTION. IF THE RAIL LINE WERE TO
[00:10:01]
REACTIVATE WHEN. NOT IF. WHEN THE RAIL LINE REACTED. YES. SO SOME OF THE INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM FROM STAFF AND AND MICHAEL SULLIVAN FROM CLARK AND HENCE THAT TOOK A LOOK AT IT WAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE. AND I'M JUST GOING TO FLIP OVER TO MICHAEL'S KIND OF MARKED UP DRAWING THAT WE PRESENTED BACK TO THE DEVELOPER WAS TRYING TO SEE A LONG PIKE, SORRY, TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, A THICKER VEGETATIVE BUFFER THERE AND TRYING TO REALIGN. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP LEFT OF THE PLAN SHOWING THE RED BOX, WHICH WOULD BE A SHORTER BUILDING, FLIP IT WITH THE BUILDING ACROSS THE ACROSS THE WAY. SO IF YOU COULD SEE HOW ONE WAS SHORTER ONE'S LONGER, THIS IS IN THE TOP LEFT PROVIDES FOR A LARGER AREA OF GREEN SPACE THERE THAT IF YOU COULD SEE GOING BACK AND FORTH, WE'RE FOCUSING IN THAT TOP LEFT. AND THEN ANOTHER COMPONENT WOULD BE A COMMUNITY GARDEN THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO.AND ACTUALLY THE, THE SENIOR UNITS THAT THE DEVELOPER OWNS ACROSS THE STREET HAS A VERY VIBRANT AND ACTIVE COMMUNITY GARDEN. SO WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN HAVING THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY AREAS. THE OTHER CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT, IF YOU GO TO THE TOP RIGHT, THERE WAS AN AN OUTDOOR AREA MAINTENANCE AREA, MAINTENANCE YARD THAT MICHAEL HAD SUGGESTED THEY ENCLOSE, WHICH THEY THEY ARE SHOWING ENCLOSED. THERE WERE SOME OTHER KIND OF CHANGES YOU COULD SEE WITH SOME, SOME PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS BEING CONSOLIDATED, SOME PARKING KIND OF SHIFTING AROUND. BUT REALLY THAT THAT ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE WAS, WAS THE FOCUS. SO THIS IS JUST SORRY, I FORGOT DID A SIDE BY SIDE. SO THEN THE DEVELOPER PROVIDED A REVISED CONCEPT PLAN.
SO WE HAVE THE IMPROVED OPEN SPACE AREAS, AN IMPROVED KIND OF PARKING DISTRIBUTION, THE ENCLOSED MAINTENANCE SPACE. AND THE DEVELOPER HAD PROPOSED SOME POSSIBLE DECORATIVE FENCE ALONG TOWNSHIP LINE AND AN OPTIONAL SOUND WALL ALONG CSX. SO HERE YOU COULD SEE THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN. THIS IS THE PROPOSED FENCING, THE BREAKDOWN OF THE. HOUSING WOULD BE MOSTLY TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS, 118 AND 71. THREE BEDROOM. HERE'S A SIDE BY SIDE OF THE MARKED UP PLAN AND THEN THE THE PLAN THAT WAS MORE RECENTLY RESUBMITTED. THEY PROVIDED A BUILDING ELEVATION. SO IT'S A THREE STORY, THREE STORY BUILDING. THIS IS SIMILAR TO A PRODUCT THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY EXISTING ON AMWELL ROAD AND HILLSBOROUGH, KIND OF CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH 206. SO YOU CAN DRIVE UP THERE IF YOU WANTED TO SEE THE PRODUCT IN ACTION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE QUESTION THAT SOMEONE HAD DURING OUR LISTENING SESSIONS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LOCATION, WAS THE FACT THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL, SO CLOSE TO THE RAIL LINE. SO I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN HILLSBOROUGH THERE'S THE HILL, MONT, JUST ACROSS THE BORDER, AND THAT'S CIRCLED IN YELLOW, AND THAT'S A RENTAL. COMPLEX. AND OUR SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE TRANSIT COMMERCIAL CIRCLED IN BLUE. THE RAIL LINE IS SHOWN IN RED. WE DID CALL UP TO HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS? HOW ARE THE RESIDENTS? AND THERE'S BEEN NO NO ISSUES WITH ANYONE THAT HAS MOVED INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO ALSO JUST TOUCH ON IS THAT DOT AND NJ TRANSIT DO HAVE FOR MANY YEARS NOW A SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE, TRANSIT VILLAGES, WHERE THEY DO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT. NEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT BOTTOM. I THINK IT'S THE SECOND BULLET FROM THE BOTTOM IS, YOU KNOW, THAT ADDING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING OPTIONS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF TRANSIT, TYPICALLY THIS HALF ONE HALF MILE RADIUS INCREASES TRANSIT RIDERSHIP MORE THAN ANY OTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S KEY BECAUSE WE KNOW IN SPEAKING WITH NEW JERSEY TRANSIT THAT NOT ONLY JUST TO KEEP WHAT THEY HAVE RUNNING VIABLE AND, AND FINANCIALLY, I MEAN, WE KNOW IT'S HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED. YOU KNOW, RAIL AND BUS IS HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED IN NEW JERSEY. THE 605, FOR INSTANCE, IN OUR ROUND THREE PLAN, WE DID A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT AND INFILL WITH OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN.
AFTER SPEAKING WITH NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, WHEN THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, THE MORE RIDERS WE CAN HAVE, THE BETTER AND THE MORE GUARANTEED WE CAN KEEP THE, THE, THE BUS LINES THAT WE HAVE GOING. SO THE NEXT STEPS ARE TO FINALIZE THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THEN DRAFT ZONING REGULATIONS BASED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. SO WE WANTED TO JUST, YOU KNOW, BRING THIS UPDATE, SEE IF
[00:15:03]
ANYBODY HAD ANY QUESTIONS. IF ANYBODY WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CONCEPT PLANS MORE CLOSELY, I CAN DO THAT WITH YOU. THESE ARE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT ULTIMATELY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE ADOPTS, AS WE KNOW. SO IT'S IT'S THAT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD IS ADOPTING SOMETHING, AND THEN THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE IS SORT OF EXECUTING THAT. BUT WE I DO FEEL, AS THE CHAIRMAN HAD SAID, THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO COME BACK AND KEEP THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, ON TOP OF WHAT'S GOING ON. AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. LORI. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY QUESTIONS FOR LORI? LOOKS GOOD. UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE 300 PEOPLE HERE TO HEAR THIS.YOU KNOW. YEAH THAT'S TRUE. THIS IS GREAT THOUGH. OKAY. THANK YOU. GREAT. HAPPY TO DO IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT UP WE HAVE AN APPLICATION. IT IS CASE PB DASH 09-26. THE APPLICANT IS MONTGOMERY PLACE BUILDING FOR IT IS BLOCK 5023, LOCK 2.01. THIS IS FOR A FINAL MAJOR SITE PLAN. THE EXPIRATION DATE IS SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2026 AND FOR THE APPLICANT WE HAVE. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, RON SIMANOWITZ FROM THE FIRM OF HUTCH SIMANOWITZ AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, MONTGOMERY PLACE LLC. AS THE CHAIR STATED, WE'RE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WITH REGARD TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS BUILDING NUMBER FOUR AT MONTGOMERY PLACE. JUST BY VERY BRIEF HISTORY, WE GO BACK TO 2016, WHEN THIS ENTIRE RETAIL SECTION WAS APPROVED AS KNOWN AS A SUBAREA. TWO OF THE SETTLEMENT THAT ACTUALLY LORI REFERRED TO IN HER EARLIER PRESENTATION ON THE AGENDA, THE THAT SUBAREA TWO INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 102,000FT■!S OF RETAIL, SIX TOTL BUILDINGS. THAT INCLUDES A 8000 SQUARE FOOT COMMUNITY OPERATION BUILDING. AND ONE OF THOSE RETAIL BUILDINGS IS BUILDING FOUR. BUILDING FOUR RECEIVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL BACK IN 2016. SINCE THAT TIME, THIS BOARD DID GRANT A SERIES OF APPROVALS AS TENANTS CAME IN. WE NEEDED A MODIFICATION OR A VARIANCE OR A SITE PLAN CHANGE. SO THIS BOARD HAS SEEN US SINCE 2016 AS WE HAD TENANTS COME IN.
THE IDEA IS TO GET FINAL APPROVAL ON BUILDING FOUR AND SHOW THAT IT'S IT'S IT'S REAL.
AND HOPEFULLY GET A STRONG TENANT IN THERE OR TENANTS PLURAL TO OCCUPY THE BUILDING.
WE DO HAVE SEVERAL WITNESSES WITH US TONIGHT. WE HAVE OUR SITE ENGINEER, MIKE FORD FROM VAN CLEEF, AND WE HAVE OUR ARCHITECT, LARRY APPEL. AND WE ALSO DID RECEIVE THE PLANNERS REVIEW LETTER AND THE ENGINEERS REVIEW LETTER AND ARE READY TO RESPOND TO THOSE. AND WITH THE CHAIR'S PERMISSION, I WOULD CALL MY FIRST WITNESS. OKAY, MR. FORD, MR. FORD, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES. THANK YOU. MICHAEL FORD, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND PLANNER IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY WITH VAN CLEEF ENGINEERING SINCE 1991, APPEARED BEFORE THIS BOARD ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU MICHAEL. THANK YOU. MICHAEL, IF YOU COULD TAKE US THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AS AS SUBMITTED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AS THE ATTORNEYS DESCRIBED, THIS IS SIMPLY FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WITH WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 206 AND BELLE MEAD GRIGGSTOWN ROAD. KNOWN AS MONTGOMERY PLACE, PERHAPS PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PIKE RUN PLAZA, IT'S VIRTUALLY BUILT OUT ALL OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH REGARDS TO PARKING, DRIVEWAY ACCESS, UTILITIES, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ARE IN PLACE. THE AREA AND PAD IF YOU WILL RESERVE FOR BUILDING FOUR IS ON THE SITE READY TO RECEIVE THE BUILDING. THE SUBTLE NUANCES THAT HAVE EVOLVED OUT OF THE DETAILED PLANNING FOR BUILDING NUMBER FOUR, WHICH. WHAT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS. THE EXHIBIT IS THE PLANNERS REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2026. ONE OF THE EXHIBITS WITHIN IT. IF YOU'D LIKE, ON PAGE TWO OF 12 IS AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE SITE. AND YOU CAN
[00:20:09]
SEE FROM THIS AERIAL IMAGE WHAT I'VE JUST DESCRIBED WITH BELLAMY GRIGGSTOWN ROAD ON THE RIGHT SIDE, ROUTE 206 ALONG THE BOTTOM, THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER BUILDINGS BUILT THAT IS CVS BUILDINGS ONE, TWO AND THREE THREE BEING THE DAYCARE ALL CONSTRUCTED. ALL OF THE PARKING AREA IMPROVED THE ACCESS TO ROUTE 206 AND BELLE MEAD GRIGGSTOWN ROAD, AS WELL AS THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES, WHICH INCLUDES AN ABOVE GROUND WET BASIN THAT YOU CAN SEE, BUT ALSO SUBSTANTIAL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES UNDER THE PARKING AREA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, THE LIGHTING IS IN PLACE AND BUILDING FOUR, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS EVENING'S APPLICATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL, IS ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF THE SITE. IT HAS PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH I'LL HIGHLIGHT HERE, AS WELL AS A DRIVEWAY ALONG THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. AND PERHAPS NOW THE BEST WOULD BE TO GO TO A MORE ENLARGED AREA VIEW OF WHAT WE'RE DESCRIBING. SO HERE'S BUILDING FOUR. IS THIS YOUR PLAN SET? YES. IS IT IDENTICAL TO THE PLAN SET OR IS IT COLORED? NO. THIS IS IDENTICAL TO THE PLAN SET THAT WAS SUBMITTED. IT'S ENTITLED THE BUILDING FOR FINAL GRADING PLAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, IT WAS JUST A QUICK QUESTION. MR. FORD DESCRIBED THE MAPPING THAT WAS ON PAGE TWO OF THE CLERK MEMO. HE CALLED IT AN EXHIBIT. YOU WANT THAT MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT? NO, I THINK THE FACT THAT IT'S INCORPORATED IN THE PLANNERS REPORT IS SUFFICIENT. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YEP.I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RESTART THIS SOON. YOU GET THIS MESSAGE. SO THE THE EXHIBIT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS AN ENLARGED AREA FOCUSING ON THE SITE IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE BUILDING FOR WHAT YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN BEIGE ARE SOME EXISTING WALKS, IF YOU WILL, A SIDEWALK ALONG IN FRONT OF BUILDING THREE, WHICH IS JUST TO THE EAST OR RIGHT OF BUILDING FOUR. THAT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING. IT'S A DAYCARE FACILITY. AND THEN WE ALSO SEE ON THIS EXHIBIT IS HIGHLIGHTED CONCRETE. PAD, IF YOU WILL, RAISED WALK AREA FROM THE PARKING AREA TO THE WHERE THE BUILDING WOULD SIT. THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING. RAISED AREA FOR WALKING IN FRONT OF BUILDING ONE. SO THIS IS AND THIS IS IN PLACE ALREADY. SO THE BEIGE IS IN PLACE IN EXISTING. WHAT WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ARE THE WALKWAYS TO SERVICE BUILDING FOR WHICH WERE PART OF THE PRIOR APPROVALS FOR THE PROJECT BUT HAVE NOT YET BEEN BUILT.
THE CURBING ALONG THOSE WALKWAYS, THE PARKING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THOSE PROPOSED WALKWAYS, AS WELL AS THE ACCESS TO THE ONE WAY ACCESS DRIVEWAY, WHICH I'M HIGHLIGHTING NOW TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, ARE ALL IN PLACE. THE TO TO MAYBE PERHAPS ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE IN THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED THE. LIKE I'VE STATED ALREADY, THE EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS, SITE LIGHTING, DRAINAGE, ALL PART OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL FOR THIS OVERALL PROJECT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED.
THERE'S SUBTLE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN THE PROPOSED GRADES AROUND BUILDING FOUR LITERALLY TENTHS OF AN INCH OR FOOT, JUST TO MATCH THE AS BUILT GRADES FOR THOSE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SITE. BUT ALL THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED AND THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE PART OF THAT PRIOR APPROVAL. THE PARKING FOR THE OVERALL SITE. THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING ON SITE. THE USE AND PROPOSAL WAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED FOR PERHAPS A MORE INTENSE USE, BUT AGAIN, THE PARKING IS ALL EXISTING ON SITE OVER 500 PARKING SPACES. ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED AS PART OF THE MEMORANDUMS WAS TO PROVIDE, FOR THE RECORD, AN UPDATED OVERALL SITE PLAN, NOT
[00:25:07]
JUST SPECIFIC TO BUILDING FOUR, BUT ALL THE BUILDINGS ON SITE, INCLUDING AN UPDATED PARKING SUMMARY REPRESENTING ALL THE TENANTS THAT ARE THERE ALREADY IN THE EXISTING BUILDING. AND WE WOULD AGREE TO PROVIDE THAT PLAN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BOARD'S PROFESSIONALS. AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THE BOARD MAY GRANT. WITH REGARDS TO. LOADING. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT HOW LOADING AND ACCESS TO THE TRASH ENCLOSURES WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. AGAIN, THIS WAS PRIOR PART OF THE PRIOR APPROVALS. LOADING IS ANTICIPATED WITH A ONE WAY ACCESS DRIVEWAY, PRIMARILY FROM A ONE WAY ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, AND I'M HIGHLIGHTING THE DIRECTION IT'S TOWARD ROUTE 206. SO VEHICLES PROVIDING SUPPLIES, MATERIALS TO MAKING DELIVERIES TO THE SITE WOULD PRIMARILY BE ABLE TO USE THAT REAR BUILDING BUILDING DRIVEWAY, ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY IN TODAY'S WORLD, THEY COULD TEMPORARILY PULL UP IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, MAIL TRUCK UPS, FEDEX COULD PULL UP IN FRONT, MAKE A DELIVERY. WITH REGARDS TO TRASH ENCLOSURES, THERE'S AN ABUNDANCE OF TRASH ENCLOSURES, REALLY FOR BUILDING NUMBER FOUR, THERE'S AN EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE TO THE EAST OF THE BUILDING, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE REAR RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE BUILDING. RIGHT NOW, THAT SERVICE IS PRIMARILY BUILDING NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE DAYCARE FACILITY DOESN'T ISN'T A HIGH VOLUME TRASH GENERATOR. AND EVEN WITH THIS TRASH ENCLOSURE, WE FEEL IT WOULD BE ADEQUATE FOR BOTH USES. BUT THERE'S ALSO A DESIGNATED TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA TO THE REAR LEFT OF THE EXISTING OR THE PROPOSED BUILDING, AND WITH ACCESS FROM THE REAR BUILDING THE TENANTS COULD WALK THEIR TRASH TO EITHER ONE OF THOSE TRASH ENCLOSURES. PERHAPS I CAN GO TO THE TWO MEMORANDUMS NOW AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THOSE. I'LL SAY I'VE ALREADY HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH THE BOARD ENGINEER, MR. RAKESH DARJI. HIS SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2026 REVIEW CONTAINS SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING TESTIMONY, WHICH I BELIEVE I'VE ADDRESSED ALL THOSE. AND WITH REGARDS TO THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CLARIFICATION IN THAT REVIEW, WE WOULD AGREE AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ADDRESS THAT TO THE ENGINEER. SATISFACTION. I THINK PRIMARILY THAT IS SOME MINOR CHANGES TO THIS FINAL GRADING PLAN THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW ON THE EXHIBIT, AS WELL AS PROVIDING A UPDATED OVERALL SITE PLAN REPRESENTING THIS PROPOSAL, AS WELL AS THE BUILD OUT OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS ON SITE. AND WE WOULD AGREE TO DO THAT. OKAY. WE'LL WE'LL GET TO OUR PROFESSIONALS AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. BUT THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS? SO ORIGINALLY THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A OR IT WAS THOUGHT IT WAS TO BE A RESTAURANT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT DO YOU ENVISION IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF TENANTS, PERHAPS IN THIS BUILDING? I THINK OUR NEXT WITNESS WILL BE BEST SUITED TO ANSWER THAT. I'M FROM THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING OUT, BUT I BET, YOU KNOW, I JUST KNOW THAT'S FINE.I'M SURE IT'S MARKET DRIVEN TOO. YES, OF COURSE, OF COURSE. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. MICHAEL. YOU'RE WELCOME FOR OUR NEXT WITNESS. YEP. CAN I HAVE LARRY APPEL COME FORWARD AND BE SWORN? AT? SIR, COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YES. LAWRENCE APPEL, A PPEL. AND, SIR, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES.
THANK YOU. AND, LARRY, IF YOU COULD GIVE THE BOARD THE BENEFIT OF YOUR QUALIFICATIONS.
SURE. I AM, LAWRENCE, AS LAURANCE APPLE A PPEL. PRINCIPAL OF APPLE DESIGN GROUP
[00:30:09]
ARCHITECTS. I HOLD A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING AND A MASTER'S IN ARCHITECTURE. I'M LICENSED IN NEW JERSEY SINCE 1992, AS WELL AS NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA AND CARB. I HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS MUNICIPALITY AS WELL AS HILLSBOROUGH, BRANCHBURG, LEBANON TOWNSHIP, FLEMINGTON, RARITAN, PISCATAWAY. MANY OF THE SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES.GREAT. PROCEED. THANK YOU. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, LARRY, TO TAKE THE BOARD THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL. I THINK THE ENGINEER DESCRIBED THE INITIAL PLANNING OF THE THE SITE. WE HAVE DESIGNED THIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BNP, THE. OR THE BELLE MEADE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBAREA TWO. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO FIRST START OFF WITH AND THESE DRAWINGS HAVE. I DON'T. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAG ANYTHING OR. IF THEY'RE PART OF THE SUBMISSION, YOU DO NOT. OKAY. THE. INITIALLY, I WANTED TO CLARIFY. AFTER READING SOME OF THE REPORTS, THE AREA OF THE BUILDING. THE. THE PRIOR BUILDING THAT WAS PART OF THE APPROVALS WAS 7200FT■!S. SOME OF THE REPORTS LIST THIS AS 6609FT■!S. THE ACTUAL AREA IS 6851FT■!S. JUST SO IT'S IT'S A LITTLE SEMANTICS. I JUST WANTED TO GET GET THAT CORRECT FOR.
THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD. AND AGAIN, THIS IS. THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF INTERIOR, ELECTRICAL AND WATER ROOMS TO SERVICE THE UTILITY POINT OF ENTRIES. THE. AGAIN, THIS IS BELOW THE 7200FT■!S THAT WAS APPROVED. THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT TENANCY. THIS IS SET UP AS A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OWNERSHIP IS THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY SIGNED LEASES FOR THIS, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THIS MULTI-TENANT CONFIGURATION IS, IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. WE ARE SETTING THIS UP AS WHAT I'LL CALL A GENERIC SHELL BUILDING THAT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED FOR VARIOUS TENANTS, VERY SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS AS WELL. OFF STREET LOADING WAS ALREADY MENTIONED. I'LL GIVE LET ME JUST CORRECT THIS. I'M GOING TO. JUST EXIT OUT AT THE TOP JUST SO I CAN I JUST OKAY, PERFECT.
JUST THE COLORED VERSION OF THIS JUST, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO LOOK AT THAN THE, THAN THE COVER PAGE. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE, THAT WERE RAISED ON THE REPORTS. I'M GOING TO TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE IN MY TESTIMONY RATHER THAN DO IT PIECEMEAL AFTERWARDS. THE BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 27FT TALL. WE'RE 30FT IS PERMITTED, AS I UNDERSTAND, ON THE ENGINEERING REPORT, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WAS FLAGGED AS A VARIANCE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THAT IS ACCURATE. I AS I SEE THIS, THE HEIGHT IS CONFORMING AND THE OTHER BULK REQUIREMENTS ARE SHOWN EITHER CONFORMING OR WITH A LITTLE ASTERISK THAT IT WAS A PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. THE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN. AS THIS IS THE FOURTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS, WE HAVE COLORS THAT PICK UP AND COMPLEMENT WHAT WAS DONE ORIGINALLY. SO THIS FEELS THAT IT'S PART OF THIS SITE AND INCLUDES THE THE SAME COLORATION AS WELL AS DESIGN FEATURES AS WELL. AND I THINK THIS IS SHOWN ON THE THE RENDERING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID DO, I DIDN'T BRING AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THIS, BUT I BROUGHT HANDOUTS TO SHOW PICTURES OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS. IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE PRIOR
[00:35:03]
CONVERSATION, MOST OF WERE ALREADY QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. WE'RE NOT BRINGING IN ANYTHING NEW. THIS IS BRINGING IN STUFF THAT BELONGS. WE BORROWED. WHILE THE BUILDINGS NOT IDENTICAL TO ANY OF THE PRIOR BUILDINGS, IT INCORPORATES THE SAME DESIGN AND VERNACULAR FEATURES, COLORS AND MATERIALS AS WELL. SO AGAIN, THE MATERIALS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS FLAGGED IN THE REPORTS WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EIFS EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYSTEM AND STUCCO. FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, WHILE THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, THEY DO LOOK PRETTY MUCH IDENTICAL AND IN OUR OPINION IS A WATER MANAGED STUCCO IS THE PREFERRED PRODUCT FOR THIS TYPE OF PROJECT. SO WE BELIEVE IT'S IT'S CORRECT. AND IT AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED BEFORE. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT DESIGN FEATURES AND BUILDING NUMBER ONE. AND BUILDING NUMBER TWO ARE CONSIDERABLY LONGER. BUILDING NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS BUILDING, WHICH IS THE DAYCARE, IS, IS VERY SIMILAR IN SIZE. AND THIS WAS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO PATTERN MOST CLOSELY FOR. SO THIS BUILDING HAS A PITCHED ROOF AS, AS DOES THE DAYCARE BUILDING. AND WE ALSO INCLUDED SIMILAR DESIGN FEATURES AS WELL.THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE MEDALLIONS ON THE ON THE BUILDING. AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MEDALLIONS ON THE, ON THE FRONT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ARCHITECTURE IS DEVELOPED WITH THE SIGNAGE AS WELL AS THE PORTICO ELEMENTS. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE THE MEDALLIONS ON THE SIDES AND REAR OF THE BUILDING. THE ARCHES FROM BUILDING NUMBER ONE AND BUILDING NUMBER TWO WERE NOT INCLUDED ON THIS. WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A LITTLE TOO FUSSY TO HAVE ALL THESE EXTRA ELEMENTS, AND THOSE BUILDINGS ARE FLAT BUILDINGS THAT WE HAD TO RAISE A HIGHER PARAPET. SO VERY, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES IN HERE. SO AGAIN, WE ARE MORE SIMILAR IN SIZE IN ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT TO BUILDING NUMBER THREE. AND THIS WAS THE SAME WITH REGARD TO IT WAS NOTED IN THE REPORT THAT THE BRICK ACCENT WAS OMITTED. WE THOUGHT FOR A BUILDING OF THIS SIZE AND WHAT WAS GOING ON. ADDING ANOTHER MATERIAL JUST WAS GOING TO MAKE THE BUILDING A LITTLE MORE FUSSY. SO WE WE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE, AS IT IS RIGHT HERE. ONE OF THE THINGS I DO WANT TO POINT TO. ACCENT. YEAH, JUST. THERE YOU GO. I JUST GAVE IT AN HOUR. HOPEFULLY. HOPEFULLY IT'LL IT'LL IT'LL IT'LL NOT BUG US AGAIN. SO I'M GOING TO LET'S SEE. SO WHERE YOU SEE THIS SIGNAGE BAND WHERE I'M WHERE I HAVE MY CURSOR.
NORMALLY WE WOULD PUT A ACCENT AWNING HERE, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN OTHER AREAS. AND THE INTENT IS WE'RE SHOWING SIGNAGE IN HERE, AND WE SHOWED SIGNAGE TO ALLOW AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THAT IF THERE WAS NOT SIGNAGE IN THE TWO AREAS THAT ARE IN BETWEEN THE END CAP ROOF TREATMENT AND THAT CENTER ELEMENT. SO THE JUST THE TWO AREAS THAT I'M POINTING TO ON BOTH SIDES IS THAT IF THERE'S NO NEED TO HAVE THE SIGNAGE THERE, THEN DESIGN WISE WE WOULD ADD THE AWNINGS. AND WE THINK THAT'S THE, THE, THE PROPER DESIGN INTENT THERE TO MATCH THE OTHER BUILDINGS. EXCUSE ME TO MATCH THE OTHER BUILDINGS. YES. YEAH THAT'S CORRECT. SIGNAGE. WE DON'T KNOW GENERALLY. WHAT THE TENDENCY IS GOING TO BE. WE'RE TRYING TO BE AS FLEXIBLE AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WITH THE DESIGN. THE WE WANT TO BE CONFORMING WITH THE ORDINANCE. SO WITH ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE BASED UPON THE REQUEST OF A TENANT IS NOT CONFORMING, THEN WE WOULD BE BACK BEFORE ZONING AND POTENTIALLY ONE OF THE BOARDS OF JURISDICTION HERE TO GET APPROVAL FOR SAME. SO AGAIN,
[00:40:06]
ALL OF THIS IS BASED UPON WHO THE TENANTS ARE AND WHAT THEIR, THEIR NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE. THE NUMBER OF SIGNS IN THE, THE, THE SIGNS TO BE CONFORMING BOTH IN SIZE, NUMBER OF SIGNS AS WELL AS ILLUMINATION HOURS WILL BE ALL PER YOUR ORDINANCE AND PRIOR APPROVALS. ONE THING I DID WANT TO MENTION IS ON THE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION. WE ARE PERMITTED TO HAVE THAT. THIS EXTRA SIGN, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE EXPERT REPORTS AS WELL AS WELL AS WE DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENT WITH REGARD TO THE AREA OF THE SIGNS TO GO THROUGH ALL THE MATH. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RELEVANT NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC SIGN, BUT WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT IS SHOWN RIGHT NOW ARE SAMPLES. WHEN THERE'S ACTUAL SIGNAGE, WE WILL GO THROUGH THE CALCULATION AND AND SHOW THE METRICS BOTH ON THE, THE, THE SIZE, THE STYLE. WHAT'S VERY GOOD IS THAT THE HEIGHT IS CONFORMING BECAUSE THAT NEEDS TO BE BELOW 20FT FROM THE TOP OF THE SIGN THAT IS ALREADY CONFORMING BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING IN HERE. THAT CONCLUDES THE INFORMATION I WANTED TO BRING UP TO REFLECT THE BOTH THE PROJECT AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS RAISED BY THE BOARD PROFESSIONALS. THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER, MR. POWELL. QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS. ONE QUESTION ON THE LIGHTING. THE ONE QUESTION WOULD BE ON THE LIGHTING. THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LIGHTING THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE THE THIS THE LIGHTING FOR THE SIGNS OR THE LIGHTING FOR THE PARKING AREAS? ACTUALLY, BOTH. IT WOULD BE ON THE ANYTHING THAT WAS ON THE BUILDING OR ON THE. I DON'T RECALL ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURES IF THE LIGHTING ON IT OR NOT, BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT, WHAT IS THERE TODAY, RIGHT.CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S THERE TODAY, AS WELL AS THE PRIOR APPROVALS AND YOUR ORDINANCE.
YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PARKING SPACES AND ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS.
WOULD THAT BE YOU? I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF IT'S OKAY, MORE, MORE ON THE SITE SIDE. YEAH.
BUT I, I PROBABLY KNOW THE ANSWER AS WELL, BUT I'LL, I'LL DEFER. OKAY. BECAUSE I, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY IF THERE ARE CHARGERS PLANNED TO BE NEAR THIS BUILDING AT ALL. I KNOW IT'S PART OF THE OVERALL PLAN. THERE ARE SO. RIGHT. YEAH, WE'RE NOT THE AS I INDICATED ALREADY, THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL ACTUALLY ALL BUILT. OH NOT.
YEAH I'VE SEEN IT. AND AND IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THOSE ELECTRIC VEHICLE THE THE UTILITIES WOULD THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT CONSTRUCTION. THERE ARE ON SITE ALREADY OVERALL EIGHT EV PARKING STATIONS. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY ADDITIONAL. AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. IN OUR OBSERVATION SO FAR IS THE. IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY'S MEETING WITH AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT OWNERS, THERE HASN'T BEEN A VERY GREAT USE OF THOSE. BUT THAT. THAT'S THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. IT'S EIGHT SPACES. YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR YOUR PROFESSIONALS. YEP. THAT IS BASICALLY OUR PRESENTATION. WELL, WHY DON'T WE GO TO OUR PROFESSIONALS AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT WE CERTAINLY WILL OFFER IT. AND THEN WE CAN HAVE OUR DISCUSSION. SO ERIC, DO YOU WANT TO BEGIN ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? EVERYTHING SATISFIED PER YOUR COMMENTS? AND BEFORE OUR PROFESSIONALS TESTIFY TO SWEAR THEM IN, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL, I DO THANK YOU, YES I DO. JUST A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION FROM LOOKING AT THE COLORED ELEVATION. SO ACROSS THE ACROSS THE MAIN FRONTAGE OF THIS OF BUILDING NUMBER FOUR, THERE'S FIVE SIGNS PRESENTED WITH, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE SECOND ONE AND THEN THE FOURTH ONE. DON'T HAVE A DOORWAY BENEATH. I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING. AND I, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT TENANTS ARE NOT, ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME AND THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE BUILDING AS FLEXIBLE AS POSSIBLE. I GUESS,
[00:45:05]
I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT THIS BUILDING WOULD HAVE UP TO UP TO FIVE TENANTS? IS THAT THE IS THAT THE IDEA BEHIND IT? NOT NOT YET DETERMINED. SURE. THE. WE JUST LOOKED AT MAKING THE BUILDING WORK WITH ONE TENANT AND FIVE TENANTS. SO WE JUST WANTED TO BE FLEXIBLE AND I. THE. THE SIGNAGE WAS TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE PLACES FOR SIGNAGE TO TO BE INSTALLED. AND THIS WOULD BE ADDRESSED WHEN THERE'S ACTUALLY A TENANT AND THE TENANT HAD SPECIFIC NEEDS AND GRAPHICS AND STUFF LIKE THAT FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR SIGN PACKAGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK MY ONLY, MY ONLY REQUEST, IF THE, IF THE BOARD AGREES THAT I GUESS EVENTUALLY, WHEN INFORMATION IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TENANTS TO SUBMIT SOMETHING LIKE A SIGN PACKAGE, JUST TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE SIGN STANDARDS. AND IF THEY DON'T.SINCE THE. THE ACTUAL STANDARDS CAN'T BE FORMALLY DETERMINED AT THIS TIME. RIGHT. UNDERSTOOD.
YEAH. AND I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANKS. ERIC. PRAKASH THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. OUR MEMO IS DATED SEPTEMBER 8TH. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE THE TESTIMONY THAT WE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE'D REQUESTED. SO I THINK MOST OF THAT STUFF HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. I ONLY REALLY HAVE ONE QUESTION. JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AS A WHOLE. THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, AT LEAST THE ONE THAT THAT THAT WE SAW HAD 91,220FT■!S OF RETAIL SLASH OFFICE AND 10,300FT■!S OF OF RESTAURANT. SO WITH THIS CHANGE, ARE WE BASICALLY JUST SAYING THAT IT'S THE 10,350 -7000. SO 3350FT■!S OF RESTAURANT AND THEN 98,000 AND CHANGE OF RETAIL. IS THAT THE STRAIGHT MATH? IS IT? I THINK THE EASY WAY TO DO THE MATH IS THAT THE PRIOR APPROVAL WAS 7200. SO YOU SUBTRACT THE 7200 OF OF THE RESTAURANT, AND THEN YOU ADD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE 6800 CHANGE TO THE RETAIL.
OKAY. BUT IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THAT THIS COULD BE RESTAURANT. IS THAT RIGHT? IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE. NOT LIKELY. THE WAY WE'RE HEADED RIGHT NOW IS FOR RETAIL. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DESIGNING FOR. BUT WE DON'T FORECLOSE THE POSSIBILITY OF A RIFLE. NOT LIKELY THOUGH. OKAY.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THAT, ALL THAT ACCOUNTING OF, OF, OF, OF FLOOR AREA WILL BE TAKING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THIS OVERALL SITE PLAN THAT WE'VE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT AS PART OF THE COMPLIANCE. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT THERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE BASICALLY THE SUMMARY OF THIS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE UPDATED ON THE NEW PLAN. WE WILL GIVE YOU THE SORT OF THE BIG PICTURE. PERFECT. THANKS, RON. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE THE REST OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE, WHICH WHICH I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THROUGH THE REVISIONS. AND THE OTHER TESTIMONY THAT WE REQUESTED HAS BEEN PROVIDED. SO I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. OKAY. AND REQUEST. AS THEY HAD BROUGHT UP NOT AN ISSUE. THE THE BUILDING HEIGHT DOES NOT NEED A VARIANCE. NO, NO, IT DOES NOT. OKAY, OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ERIC OR RAKESH DEPENDING ON THE ON THE TENANT. IS THERE A NEED FOR SPECIAL ACCESSIBILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR HANDICAPPED PEOPLE OR SOMETHING FOR THE BUILDING? I THINK YOU WERE YOU WERE ASKING IF, IF THIS BUILDING WILL BE ACCESSIBLE FOR NOT KNOWING THE TENANT, WHAT KIND OF TENANT YOU MAY HAVE THERE. I MEAN, THERE COULD BE LIKE PEOPLE WHO CAN ACCESS FOR LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, HANDICAPPED PEOPLE. SO RAMP THIS AND THAT CERTAIN ENTRANCE, SOME SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THAT, RIGHT? SO THE, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, IS IT WILL BE DESIGNED TO BE AN ACCESSIBLE BUILDING FOR ADA. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC? HELLO, BARBARA. BARBARA PRESTON, THE MONTGOMERY NEWS. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. I SEE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING FOUR, BUT MY QUESTION IS BUILDING FIVE. IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. IF THERE'S ANY MOVEMENT ON THAT, THAT'S ALL. YEP, YEP. DURING OUR DISCUSSION,
[00:50:04]
I WAS GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION. ANY THOUGHTS ON WHERE BUILDING FIVE IS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE PARKING. SO ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT? I IN IN THE WORKS, THERE'S NO SET PLAN FOR IT YET. OKAY. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT? SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. QUESTIONS. DISCUSSION THOUGHTS FOR THE BOARD. I MEAN, THIS IS VERY MUCH CONFORMING WITH THE OVERALL PLAN. AND SHOPPING CENTER LOOKS GREAT SO FAR. SO AND AND HAVING. SIGNAGE ISSUES NOT ISSUES BUT QUESTIONS. WHEN YOU GUYS CAME BACK WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THOSE. SO I ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME THING ONCE YOU KNOW WHO THE POTENTIAL TENANTS ARE. SO YEAH, WE WE DON'T WANT LIGHTS GOING UP. WE DON'T WANT BIG OTHER THAN CVS, I GUESS BIG, YOU KNOW, ELECTRICAL LIGHTS. AND SO THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS I KNOW YOU WILL GO WITH WHAT THE MARKET IS GOING TO BEAR FOR THE, FOR YOUR TENANTS. BUT KEEP IN MIND, WE HAVE A LOT OF YOUNG FAMILIES, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PLACE FOR THE PEOPLE TO GATHER, SO TO SPEAK. AND IF THERE'S ANY INDOOR SPORTS, LIKE KIND OF A VENUE FOR, YOU KNOW, FAMILIES AROUND HERE, THAT WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED IN WINTER. IT IS REALLY TOUGH, YOU KNOW, FOR FAMILIES TO, YOU KNOW, FIND A PLACE WHERE THE KIDS CAN PLAY, YOU CAN STILL EAT, AND THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF TO DO. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE AS A TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE WOULD APPRECIATE. OBVIOUSLY, YOU'LL DO WHAT THE MARKET BEARS, BUT KEEP THAT IN MIND. THANK YOU. THAT'S A GREAT POINT, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. THEN. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION BASED ON. THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE COMMENTS OF OUR ENGINEER AND PLANNER. AS TESTIFIED TONIGHT. AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THEY WILL PROVIDE A SIGN PACKAGE. ONCE THAT HAS BEEN FINALIZED WITH THEIR TENANTS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE ORDINANCES. AND OBVIOUSLY THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT AND WILL NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVALS THAT WERE RENDERED FOR THE VARIOUS AREAS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. VERY GOOD. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ROLL CALL PLEASE. TARA? YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.TAYLOR. YES. LOFFLER. YES. YES. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. SO MOVED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.
NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 27TH REGULAR SESSION MEETING. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE? SO MOVED. MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. TARA.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHO WAS FIRST? I COULDN'T HEAR. I'M SORRY. WHO, WHO WHO DID THE MOTION? YEP.
AND TONY WAS SECOND. OKAY. YES. YES. YES. SING. YES. YES. LOFFLER. YES. YES. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU. OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION NOW. WE HAVE A RESOLUTION TO BE READ FIRST AND THEN WE WILL MAKE A MOTION TO GO IN. CORRECT. CAN WE DO. I'M NOT SURE WHO'S GOT THE RESOLUTION, I DON'T. OH NO. I KNOW IT'S BEEN PREPARED BUT I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
SO I, I'M ALSO GOING TO EXCUSE MYSELF FROM THE CLOSED SESSION. SOME REASONS BACK THERE. I GUESS I WAS WONDERING WE HAVE A NEW PERSON LISTENING IN VERY. THIS IS THIS IS WHERE THE FUTURE IS. I WAS I WAS WONDERING IF HE WAS GOING TO STEP UP. HE DOES. HE'S BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, THOUGH. HE WATCHES US. THEN HE LOOKS DOWN. BUT THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL. I'LL STEP OUT WHEN WE ALL STEP OUT. I WILL READ THE RESOLUTION. WHEREAS NJSA TEN COLON 4-12.
THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT AUTHORIZES THIS BOARD TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC FROM THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING AT WHICH THE BOARD DISCUSSES CERTAIN MATTERS AND WHEREAS THE BOARD IS ABOUT TO DISCUSS, IS ABOUT TO DISCUSS SUCH MATTERS, SPECIFICALLY EMPLOYMENT AND OR
[00:55:05]
APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PLANNING CONSULTANT AND THE STATUS OF PENDING LITIGATION.ECON DEVELOPMENT CORP. VERSUS MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD, SOML96-26. AND WHERE IS THE PUBLIC MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM SUCH DISCUSSION PURSUANT TO SECTION SEVEN B OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD ON THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026, THAT THE BOARD NOW GO INTO THE MEETING S.
SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS WE WILL SKIP BECAUSE WE JUST HAD A VERY LONG ONE. YES, PLEASE. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS WE ARE NOT SURE, BUT WE DO HAVE A CON AT SOME POINT. WE HAVE THE STONEBRIDGE CLUBHOUSE ALTERATIONS, WHICH TONY WILL EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM, AND THEN THE FARMLAND PRESERVATION PLAN. PUBLIC HEARING. FUTURE MEETINGS. WE DO HAVE THE 28TH OF THIS MONTH SCHEDULED SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION OCTOBER 6TH, AND THEN OUR ONE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER WILL BE OCTOBER 12TH, UNLESS WE HAVE TO ADJUST THAT.
YES. IF WE WERE TO GET TO GET THINGS MOVING. WITH THAT SAID, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. OH. SORRY, SIR. ALL IN FAVOR? A
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.