TOWNSHIP OF MONROE

ZONING BOARD MINUTES

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

January 25, 2022

Meeting called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chairman Vincent LaFata who led the salute to the Flag.

Chairman Vincent LaFata read the Sunshine Law as follows: In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following:

Posted on January 1, 2021 on the Bulletin Board of the Office of the Township Clerk, Municipal Complex, 1 Municipal Plaza, and remains on file at that location for public inspection;

Posted on the Bulletin Board of the Office of the Township Clerk;

Posted on the Bulletin Boards within the Municipal Complex;                                

Printed in the Home News Tribune and Cranbury Press on December 31, 2021;      Posted on the Monroe Township website; and                             

Sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice.

MEMBERS PRESENT:          Mr. Vincent LaFata, Ms. Carol Damiani, Mr. Marino Lupo, Mr. Louis Masters, Mr. Gary Busman, Ms. Rajani Karuturi, Mr. Donato Tanzi, Alternate #1 Mr. Richard Lans, Alternate #2 Mr. Arnold Jaffe, Alternate #3 Mr. Nicholas Morolda and Alternate #4 Mr. Manmeet Virdi.  Also present for the Board were Attorney Peter Vignuolo, Planner Mika Apte, Engineer Mark Rasimowicz and Director of Planning & Zoning Mr. Joe Stroin.

MEMBERS ABSENT: (All present.)

NOMINATIONS:

Motion to appoint Mr. Vincent LaFata as Zoning Board Chairwoman made by Ms. Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Gary Busman, nominations closed, and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to appoint Ms. Carol Damiani as Zoning Board Vice-Chairman made by Chairman Vincent LaFata and seconded by Mr. Donato Tanzi, nominations closed and passed unanimously by all members present.

Motion to appoint Peter Vignuolo as Board Attorney made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Chairman Vincent LaFata, nominations closed and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to appoint Mr. Mark Rasimowicz as Board Engineer made by Mr. Gary Busman and seconded by Mr. Arnold Jaffe, nominations closed and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to appoint Mr. Rob Russo as Board Planner made by Chairman Vincent LaFata and seconded by Mr. Gary Busman, nominations closed and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to appoint Ms. Laura Zalewski as Board Secretary made by Chairman Vincent LaFata and seconded by Mr. Gary Busman, nominations closed and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to appoint Mr. Rob Russo as Planning Administrator by Chairman Vincent LaFata and seconded by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani, nominations closed and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to adopt the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Board made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Donato Tanzi and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to adopt the dates for 2022 meeting for the Zoning Board made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Chairman Vincent LaFata and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

A motion to approve the November 30, 2021 Minutes made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Donato Tanzi and passed with Ms. Rajani Karuturi abstaining.

BA-5185-20                            Monique Smith; Request for Bulk Variance; Block 34, Lot 4; Located at 621 Buckelew Avenue, In the R-3A Zone

Ms. Monique Smith was sworn in.  She stated the current house is one floor, one bedroom, one bathroom.  And would like to add a second floor and add 10 feet in the back.  It will go from one bedroom to four bedrooms. 

Mr.  Tyron Smith, Monique’s Smith’s Father was sworn in.  He stated it’s a single story, very small house, pretty ugly.  We’d like to make it beautiful for her, add a second floor, additional bedrooms, larger kitchen.

Ms. Mika Apte, Board Planner stated as the applicant pointed out, she is looking to expand the existing structure.  Currently, the dwelling floor area is about 750 square feet.  With the proposed second story addition and the number of the bedrooms, the total dwelling unit would be something around 2,500 square feet.  They are proposing an expanded porch, a new paved driveway.  They do need a couple of bulk variances, specifically the front yard setback.  They need a side yard setback and the combined side yard setback.  They do need a driveway variance as well as there is no garage proposed so they will be parking their cars in the front yard which would also create a variance.  Overall, there are a couple of questions she has to the applicant in terms of their usage for example.  Ms. Smith do you plan to use the basement as well as the attic space or is that not to be used?  (Ms. Smith answered, it is not to be used.  It is basically for utilities.)   We would like your professionals to confirm the building lot coverage which currently was measured from the plan they provided.  The architectural plan has been submitted by a licensed architect as well as a survey has been submitted by a land surveyor, so we just need them to provide me with the calculation that this is correct.  Do you plan to put in any curbing or sidewalk in front of the property and deferred this to the Board Engineer to determine the compliance standard because that would be a waiver and generally, we have required capital contribution funds in this case.  There is an existing tree in the front of the property.  The applicant just needs to confirm that it is in good health and that it will be maintained.  That will be the Shade Tree Commission’s criteria of the existing shade tree on the property.  In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman and Board Members on page 3 and page 4 of my report, the variances and waivers are listed that the applicant would require should the Board look at this application favorably.

Mr. Rasimowicz, Board Engineer asked if the applicant has his review letter dated February 10, 2020.  They had a chance to review that.  Some of the items have to do with the plan that was provided if they can talk to their architect and surveyor to clean up the plans that were provided.  Particularly, demonstrate the off-street parking requirement.  They need 3 parking spaces in that driveway and a turn around.  He doesn’t know how that can be accommodated.  They’ll have to speak to their professional to see how they can demonstrate that on the plan.  Also, freshwater wetlands.  If they did any wetland investigation on the property through their professionals or others.  That was done as part of the survey.  We would need to see if they went to the NJDEP and got an approval of the wetlands line or determine that there are on wetlands line on the property.  We would need that determination from their professional.  The plan would have to show the grading, the contours, and how you’re going to propose how to grade the property once you have the driveway installed.  Their professionals should be able to handle that without a problem.  As our Planner had said, we have an ordinance that requires curb and sidewalk across the frontage of any application before the Board and if the waiver is granted, there is a contribution that is provided in lieu of installing those improvements.  However, this is a county road, so we have to defer to our attorney.  They would have to go to Middlesex County Planning Board he believes and see what their requirement would be.  I am not sure we can take a contribution since it is a county road. 

Mr. Peter Vignuolo, Board Attorney stated that is an interesting question that he doesn’t know the answer to presently. 

Chairman LaFata asked do we have the authority to waive that?  Should that become something that we need to discuss? 

Mr. Peter Vignuolo stated yes.  If the Board were inclined to waive that as an obligation, they could.  If the Board is inclined to impose it, it is a question of whether or not they can impose based upon the fact that it is a county right of way and, it is not really our right of way to dictate what goes in there or not. 

Mr. Rasimowicz, Board Engineer agrees that it is not an area for sidewalk.  He is not sure if there is curb across the frontage of the property right now.  (Ms. Smith said there is a curb.)  They have to defer to the County if the County feels differently though. 

Mr. Peter Vignuolo stated they need either an approval letter or an exemption letter from the County so one of those things will happen.  If the County is inclined to want sidewalks, as we all know, the County will tell them they want sidewalks. 

Mr. Tyron Smith stated if they want a sidewalk, the tree is going to have to come up.

Chairman LaFata stated, Mr. Smith, you’d be surprised by how they do things in New Jersey.  They’ll go right around the tree.  The tree is going to remain there probably.  Do we have the authority to waive the contribution, however, that does not carry over to the county.  So, if there are on a County roadway, even though we may have the obligation or we have the authority to do so, something can still be imposed by the County, is that correct? 

Mr. Peter Vignuolo, Board Attorney stated the County’s going to control whether they want to see a sidewalk in front of there. The question is whether or not you have the ability to request a contribution if the sidewalk wasn’t being provided but ultimately, we really don’t know because they haven’t gone to the County yet.  So, this is one where we say let the County do whatever it wants to.  (Mr. Rasimowicz agrees with that.)  With regard to the tree, it seems like the tree may be in the way of the proposed driveway.  Were they planning to take it down? 

Mr. Smith stated it is right on the edge of where the driveway would be.  It would make it more convenient if it could be removed because it makes the driveway entrance somewhat narrow. 

Ms. Smith stated it is hard to see the road with the tree being so big to get out of the house.  You look both ways and it is hard to see the one side with the tree. 

Mr. Rasimowicz said you’re going to have to remove the tree.  You have to have clear line of sight to get out of your driveway.  You’ll have to speak to the Shade Commission first.  Are proposing an asphalt driveway or stone driveway.  (They prefer asphalt, but can do either if the Town has a preference.)  Our preference is to have an asphalt apron at a minimum so that the first ten feet of the driveway is asphalt.  An asphalt driveway is in accordance with our ordinance, so that is good.  Stated he doesn’t have anything else.  There are some outside agencies, not sure if you are seeking relief from all the outside agencies at this time.  As far as the DEP, that would be subject to their professional determining if there are wetlands on that property.  Freehold Soil, he doesn’t believe they meet the requirement to go to Freehold Soil.  It depends on their area of disturbance.  And again, their professional will have to look at that.  County Planning Board we discussed.  Health Department would be for your septic system.  They are providing septic out here.  They have already had that engineering done and approved by the County.  Monroe Township Utility Department – there is no city sewer and no city water.  Shade Tree – if you are removing trees, you need to seek the tree clearing permit from our Shade Tree office.  Environmental Commission – he has no objection of a waiver of Environmental Commission.  You can get a letter of no interest from them.  Typically, they provide their input in advance of the application and if they get the application in time.  This one has been pending for a couple of years.  He would imagine if they had something to say, we would have hopefully heard from them by now.  Historic Preservation – that is not needed.  You’re not knocking down the home.  Fire, Police and EMS – it is not a site plan, so there is no reason to go to them.  Any performance guarantees would be to the County if the County requires improvements. 

Mr. Chairman LaFata asked if the Board members had any questions.

Mr. Gary Busman asked for some clarification.  He wants to know if this dwelling was going to be completely destroyed and a new one built in its place.  (Mr. Mark Rasimowicz stated he believes the applicant indicated that no, they’re adding on to it, a second story.)  The point of the information is if they’re adding on a second story, why do they have a setback and a side variance necessary? 

Ms. Monique Smith stated the way the house is now, there’s no room for a staircase, so for us to be able to put a staircase and still have room for living they had to make it a little bit bigger. 

Chairman Vinny LaFata had one other question, please clarify that this home is being remodeled for her to live in there and it is not going to be a rental.  (Ms. Smith replied yes, it is her first home.)

No other Board members had questions. 

PUBLIC:

Steve Hoehler, 619 Buckelew Avenue has a question.  When this driveway is put in, which way is this water getting diverted?  Because he has water issues coming down his driveway and if it is not being diverted another way, and it is coming toward him, he has an issue with this. 

Mr. Rasimowicz, Board Engineer stated that it is a legitimate question.  It is one of my comments in my review letter; he asked for the proposed grading.  It hasn’t been demonstrated yet.  Right now, the general grading is from the front of the property to the rear of the property. 

Chairman LaFata stated that’s something that we’re going to get in the future before they proceed with building permits, is that correct?  (Ms. Smith:  Yes.)  So, Steve, basically how this works, if we proceed with this application and give it approval, there will be a condition that they need to provide the documentation requested by the Engineer of the Board prior to them proceeding to do any type of work.  So, nothing can be done, again, until they provide us with everything and it meets with our Engineer’s and our Planner’s approval before they proceed.  So, hopefully, that will put you at rest with regards to the question.  The Engineer is aware of it.  It was something that was raised in his review letter, and it will be addressed.  Mark pointed out that the rear of the property does grade currently towards your driveway and towards your shed in the rear.  That’s the general flow of surface water today.  That is something again to be answered by their professional prior to them proceeding. 

Mr. Mark Rasimowicz, Board Engineer stated we will address the proposed improvements.  However, the rear of their property is grading from left to right onto this gentleman’s property currently.  He doesn’t believe that can be modified. 

Mr. Koehler stated his issue is if it is graded at the beginning of the fence, it starts coming under his fence and starts coming into his property.  I had to put in three drains to get the water out of his yard when it rains because he gets all the water from the street because he is the first driveway coming down the street.  I understand it can’t be modified.  That’s the way it is now.  It’s just, when they do the re-grading, he doesn’t need it before that point, is what he is saying. 

Chairman Vincent LaFata asked Board Engineer what would a solution be to eliminate the blacktop and go with the gravel?  (Mark Rasimowicz, stated. no, I don’t think it’s a solution.  He thinks if the applicant is willing, he would meet out there with the neighbor at some point and the applicant to review this and even the applicant’s professionals.  He thinks we can work this out.  Make it better.  (All agreed.)

No one else from the public wished to be heard.

Motion to close public portion made by Mr. Gary Busman and second by Mr. Louis Masters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Mr. Mark Rasimowicz, Board Engineer, has no objections subject to applicant’s compliance with report dated February 10, 2020.

Ms. Mika Apte, Board Planner, has no objections subject to applicant’s compliance with report dated November 17, 2021.

Motion to approve made by Mr. Marino Lupo and seconded by Mr. Louis Masters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

BA-5212-21                            Automann, Inc.; Request for Amended Final Site Plan; Block 81.8, Lot 2; Located at 251 Docks Corner Road, In the R-30 Zone

Mr. Michalski represents Automann, Inc. the tenant of the property located at 251 Docks Corner Road, Block 81.8, Lot 2 in the R-30 district.  This Board previously granted a use and height variance among other variances to permit the existing 382,400 s.f. warehouse building now located on the property.  They are back to seek amended final site plan approval to permit the installation of a roof mounted solar and gates at the two entrances to the property.  This past June, this Board granted an approval for installation of flag poles at this property.  Automann now intends to install a solar panel system and entrance gates if the Board acts favorably tonight on the application.  Besides the solar panel system and gates, Automann is proposing no other changes to the building or general site layout.  The purpose of the solar panel system is to provide a renewable energy source for the existing warehouse building.  The gates are being proposed due to recent thefts of catalytic converters from vehicles parked in the onsite parking lot amongst other reasons that we’ll get into in a few moments.  They have received the following review letters from the Board’s professionals.  They received a Planning review letter from Mr. Russo and Ms. Apte dated January 13, 2022 which was revised on January 14, 2022.  They also received an Engineering review letter from Mr. Rasimowicz dated January 14, 2022 and in addition to that the project planner, Bill Hamilton has spoken with the fire and police department and received feedback from them and they are in agreement on those requirements as Mr. Hamilton will address shortly.  He can say that they will comply with all comments in the review letters that he just stated.  With that, there are three witnesses tonight that he intends to present.  The first is Dennis Singh from Automann.  Next, his second witness will be Richard Gibbons, a licensed engineer from Seppi Solar who will be testifying with regard to the solar paneling system.  We’ll conclude with Bill Hamilton who is overseeing the project and our planner from Bowman who will address the overall site plan and the gates.  Unless there are any questions, he’d like to introduce his first witness.

Mr. Dennis Khanduja Singh was sworn in.  He resides at address 1890 Mountaintop Road, Bridgewater NJ.

Mr. Michalski asked Mr. Singh to remind the Board of his role with Automann.  Mr. Singh replied that he is the founder and the president of the company.  They built this facility as the company was growing.  The company was started by him in 1994 and it has come a long way.  They distribute heavy truck and trailer suspension and brake components and they have six facilities nationwide. They distribute their products in North America.  Mr. Michalski asked for a brief overview of Automann’s motivation for installing the solar system and the gates.  Mr. Singh:  The solar system was initiated since they first made the building in Monroe Township, and then the second facility they built in Chicago and the third facility that was built in Dallas that based on green energy and environment friendly requirements as well as the scales of economies that this brings.  Personally, he has been traditionally on environment and he thinks it’s a great contribution to the environment as well as the scales of economies that this brings.   With regard to the gates, they have had several incidents.  They’ve had vandalism.  They’ve had a situation where somebody came in on bicycles and they stole computers out of the facility and second, there was a group that came in and took off all the catalytic converters on their cars.  Almost 40 vehicles without catalytic converters when the drivers came in.  The third was when there were people that were coming into the facility and sporadically made running donut circles with their cars so vandalism continued so they had no choice but to add the gates on.  That concludes the questioning. 

Chairman Vincent LaFata stated we’ll let his professionals continue and if any Board members have any questions, we’ll swing back and get them.

Mr. Richard Dobbins was sworn in and stated Address 2341 Providence Court, Santa Rosa, California.  His qualifications are as follows:  his is a state licensed engineer, licensed in the state of New Jersey.  He has been a licensed engineer for 5 years now and has done numerous electrical, solar specific installation and designs in the state of New Jersey and all around the country.  Chairman:  we will accept his credentials.  He was before us before.  We will give Mr. Dobbins control so that he can present his solar plans that were submitted with the application.  He has free reign.  He can put anything up he wants. 

Mr. Richard Dobbins was asked to describe the solar plans that were submitted.

This is the solar system that’s going to be installed on the Automann building.  It’s a 1.5A megawatt DC solar system.  The purpose of the system is to offset the loads on the site so the machinery, the lights, the things like, the power that’s being used as the building that will primarily be offset by this large system.  The system is going to be installed strictly on the rooftop.  The modules, as you can see here in sections, each section has a dedicated inverter that converts the power from DC to AC.  The inverters will be aggregated together on the rooftop to a location here on the south side of the building where they will be interconnected with the existing onsite electrical equipment.  All of the equipment will be mounted on the roof with the exception of a ground mount disconnect switch that’s required by the NEC as well as by the utility company and that will be housed here in between two doorways.  It’s just a piece of equipment with a disconnect switch and the appropriate labeling added to it.  It will be adjacent to the existing utility meter and utility transformer that provide power to the site presently.  The building is 49 feet high and the solar system on the roof, the panels themselves only add about a foot of clearance above the roof.  They are low sloped, low tilt mounted panels.  In addition to the panels, the inverters and combining equipment that exist on the roof will sit about two or so feet off of the roof so the highest piece of equipment that we’re adding to this building will be about a couple off feet off the roof.  The equipment we’re adding isn’t going to add any additional height to the building that the existing HVAC equipment doesn’t already add to the total height to the building.  We’re allowed to exceed by approximately ten feet.  There’s an additional ten foot rooftop allowance for that type of equipment.  That’s right and we’re not going to be anywhere near that ten foot.  The ray is going to be tilted slightly towards the south so any potential for glare will be mitigated.  It’s a very low tilt system.  Any glare from the panels would only be seen by someone standing on the rooftop.  The visibility from the ground is going to be very minimal if not at all visible.  The panels themselves are set back at least 15 feet from the roof edge and due to their low height above the roof, there is almost no chance that they can be seen from the ground.  I know there is a neighborhood to the north of the building, and since the panels will be titled towards the south, the fronts of the panels will not be visible to the residences in the neighborhood.  In addition to that, between the neighborhood and the building there is a large berm with some trees and a fence on it.  Looking at the line of sight from the ground to the building is not really possible to see the top of the building in any case.  So, we don’t think adding solar to the top of the building will create much of a visible difference, before and after.  The installation of the system is going to take place so the staging area will be on the south side of the building, in the parking lot.  The equipment will be raised up to the roof on a set of scissor lifts and a boom truck.  That’s where all the staging will be.  The access to the rooftop for personnel, the break stations, the porta potties will all be located on the south side in the Automann parking lot. 

The solar system will be maintained throughout its operational lifetime, bi-annually.  Bi-annual visits will be made to the site by authorized personnel.  They can access the roof through the existing indoor ladder that currently goes from the ground floor of the building up to a hatch in the roof.  The only equipment they would need to bring with them will be handheld devises to just measure the radiance of the panels, measure continuity of the wires, if necessary.  Nothing that can’t be put in a backpack or carrycase and taken up the ladder by an individual. 

Chairman Vincent LaFata asked if they will they be entering the site at night or during the day? 

Mr. Richard Dobbins stated during the day.  They’ll need to come during the day because they will need to measure and verify the irradiance of the panels as the sun is striking them.  The last thing I’ll add is, as far as, other outside agencies approvals they have received for this solar system.  They have been working directly with Jersey Central Power and have gotten approval from them on the design of the system and approval for interconnection into their grid.

This solar paneled system is not a utility scaled solar application, its only going to be owned and operated by Automann to energy to this building.  That’s correct.  That’s the conclusion of our direct with Mr. Dobbins.  With that, we move on and bring in Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. William Hamilton was sworn in.  His address is 54 Horsedale Road, Cedar Hills, New Jersey.  He was asked for his qualifications.  He is a principal in Bowman Consulting.  He is a licensed professional planner, a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and also a licensed landscape architect in New Jersey.  He has testified to boards throughout New Jersey.  He has testified on a previous application for this site.  His credentials were accepted.

He was asked to show and walk the Board through the site layout with the gates.  In addition to the solar energy project they just heard testimony on, the applicant is proposing two gates at the drives out to Docks Corner Road.  This is a reproduction of sheet number two of three of the drawings that were submitted as part of the application.  His cursor is down at the first gate which is on the western entrance drive/exit drive out to Docks Corner Road.  This is proposed to be a mechanical gate.  It’s a two-armed lift gate and it will open in any type of alarm that goes off within the building.  If there’s a fire alarm of any type, it will open up.  The second gate is to the east, here by my cursor.  It is going to be a single cantilevered manual gate that will provide security for the facility.  As you heard, there has been some issues with regard to theft and vandalism and we’re hopeful that this will help deter those people.

He did reach out to both the fire department, and he spoke to Lt. Solomon of the police department with regard to what they would like to see and to get their OK on what we’re proposing here.  And at the fire department, he spoke to Fire Marshall and he indicated that he would like to see on the left most gate, the mechanical gate, some sort of quick to enter button, which is typical on these types of facilities, he tells me.  On the eastern gate, the slide gate, he would like to see a notch box so that if there’s any type of emergency, the fire department can come in and utilize that notch box.  He recognizes that there’s also an existing emergency access here on the northwestern potion of the site out to Cranbury South River Road but he indicated that if we provide those two mechanisms, they would have no problem with the proposal and we did confer with our applicant, Automann and they did say they would have no problem in providing that. 

In addition, in his opinion, the approval can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the plan and zone ordinance.  That is because, as you heard in the previous testimony of the engineer, there’s going to be no impact of the solar system on adjacent residences or adjacent properties and will have a positive impact in that it will provide for powering of the building with a renewable energy source.  In addition, the gates themselves will offer security and that certainly promotes public health and safety in this application.  That’s the extent of his testimony. 

That’s a key factor because this property was subject to a prior D variance, or multiple D variances under 76.B of the MLU, a standard that we need to comply with, and we do comply with.  That is correct.  Also, we previously confirmed during the TRC but we’ll confirm again now that the heights of the gates will be three feet.  That is correct.  So, no variance will be required for the gates. 

As far as outside agency approvals on this?  The only one that we recognize is the County and that is a letter of no interest.  We received that on the previous application of this site on the flag poles and we’re going to pursue that and get that letter as well for this application.  No other outside agency approvals are needed to my knowledge.  That concludes their direct testimony.

Chairman Vincent LaFata asked if the Board Engineer had any comments regarding some changes that are being done here.  Mark:  There are minimal site changes.  All conditions of prior approvals as they relate to the site plan, they must still abide by.  They clarified the height of the gate issue and I just want to ask a question.  You have a lot of trucks coming in here and you’re modifying this to a three-foot-high gate and I understand you want to eliminate any variance situation.  Does a three-foot-high gate provide the needed security as opposed to something four or five foot high?  My only response to that is, the applicant has indicated that three feet would be sufficient so maybe they can speak to that better than me.

Mr. Jim Whitney was sworn in stated he resides at 155 B Concordia Circle Drive, Monroe Township, N.J

His role with Automann is facilities manager of this building.  With regard to the need for the three-foot gate, they feel that it would be sufficient because they rarely get any truck traffic through that entrance.  He is 100% right.  If a truck decides to go through it, it probably will but even a four-foot gate or a five-foot gate they would do the same thing because of the aluminum construction of it.  But primarily our truck traffic is through the opposite entrance and we feel that the electronically controlled are a better solution in that case.

Ms. Mika Apte stated the applicant has agreed to comply with their letter; no further questions.

Mr. Marino Lupo to Mr. Hamilton:  how far off of the street are the gates going be set at?  The westernmost gate is going to be located 80 feet off the right of way, so probably about 90 feet off the curb line.  The easternmost gate is going to be around 120 feet from the right of way, again around 130 feet from the curb line.  The one with the three-foot gate, is that going to be about 90 fee you said?  The one with the three-foot gate is going to be 120 feet the other one is going to be about 90 feet.

Mr. Gary Busman:  as a resident of the Township of Monroe, I want to commend the applicant for considering the residents and the property adjacent to behind the berm that currently exists.  Its commendable again that they are taking into consideration the nature of their construction in a manner of which is affects our residents.

Mr. Mark Rasimowicz, Board Engineer stated he just heard something about the gate heights.  It’s my understanding that they’re both going to be three feet.  They other gate is 500 millimeters.  He has to convert that.  Yes, it would be three feet as well. 

Mr. Marino Lupo to Mr. Hamilton, the drive where the truck traffic is going you said primarily is a drive primarily where the majority of the truck traffic goes through.  Again, what is the length from the existing road to where the gates are going to be installed?  90 feet.  Do you feel it will be a problem where a tractor trailer is 53 feet plus the cab, you’re talking about over 75 feet.  Say there are two trucks that are behind each other, will one of the trucks be sticking out in the roadway?  Is that sufficient enough?  We believe it is sufficient.  It’s as far back as we could locate that gate without encroaching within an existing sanitary sewer easement and certainly one truck can easily fit off Docks Corner Road as they wait for the gate to open.  It’s a fairly quick process.  So, if two trucks happen to come at the same time it’s going to be very limited in terms of how long that second truck is out on Docks Corner Road. 

Chairman Vincent LaFata questioned Mr. Dobbins:  there’s a disconnect for the solar panel.  Is that also provided or in conjunction, if I’m reading the paperwork correctly with the generator.  It is a separate disconnect that’s dedicated for the solar.  So, it only disconnects the solar.  It’s going to disconnect the solar from the generator and utility service so there’s going to be no back feed.  That’s correct.  I’m assuming under the building codes, which I’m not familiar with but the appropriate signage along the roof border will be posted for firemen, even though the disconnect is down on the floor they will be aware that there is potential of electricity on the roof?  Yes, there will be signage that will be applied to the utility meter that will say that the site is receiving power from a source other than the utility and it will be a map placard that will direct them to the disconnect for the solar so before they go up on the roof they’ll be directed to the solar disconnect.  Do we have any battery backup system for the solar system established?  No. You mentioned there is an internal ladder to get to the roof.  That’s correct.  If something needs to be done during an emergency and the building’s not open, is there an external ladder to get to the roof for the purpose of the solar panels or anything of that nature?  There is no external access that I’m aware of.

What are the hours of the facility in the event something goes wrong and they need to get into the building to get to the roof?  Mr. Whitney is the best person to ask.  We currently have security at the building 24/7/365.  So even with the security, there’s been that much theft?  Yes, unfortunately.  We do have some cameras, too but they’re not there to stop it. 

No other Board members had any questions.  Meeting was opened to the public. 

PUBLIC:

Mr. Matthew Donnelly was sworn in and stated he resides at 33 Woodcrest Circle, Monroe Township, NJ.  He just has one general question.  The building is open, they have security onsite 24/7.  He just wants to make sure the implementation of the gates wouldn’t be backing up traffic or preventing traffic from getting in where trucks would be parking on the side of the road while they were waiting to come in because they have had some issues with that from other warehouses.  Mr. Whitley spoke to that.  On a normal business day, we’ll receive about eight trucks with product inbound and on a normal day we have about four trucks outbound.  So, we actually have a limited number of trucks serving our building.  He would say its very infrequent that you would have two trucks coming in at the same time.  Generally, inbound trucks, we schedule those apart, so we have time to unload them.  They are generally a live load, so we unload as the truck arrives.  So, we try to have those spread out.  The outbound trucks, of course, would all be scheduled at different times because they’re going to different places.  So, scheduled trucks, it will not be an issue.

Mr. Donnelly:  Thank you for your time.  I just want to make sure.  I don’t know how your operation works.  That’s why I just wanted to confirm.  Because there have been other warehouses around that have caused that backup.  That’s fine.  Thank you for your time.

Mr. Mark Rasimowicz, Board Engineer stated on previous approvals for this warehouse, this Board put a condition on that there will be no standing or stopping signage along Docks Corner Road on both sides.  That has been implemented by the Council when the construction first started out here so there’s a restriction from stopping on Docks Corner Road so that would be an enforcement issue should a truck stop out there.

No one else from the public wished to be heard. 

Motion to close public portion made by Mr. Louis Masters and seconded by Chairman Vincent LaFata and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Mr. Mark Rasimowicz, Board Engineer, has no objections subject to applicant’s compliance with report dated January 14, 2022.

Mr. Mika Apte, Board Planner, has no objections subject to applicant’s compliance with report dated January 13, 2022.

Motion to approve made by Mr. Gary Busman and seconded by Mr. Louis MAsters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

BA-5210-21                            Guru Nanak Sikh Heritage Inc. (Phase II); Request for Preliminary and Final Site Plan with Bulk Variance; Block 13, Lot 2; Located on Wyckoff’s Mill Road, In the R-60 Zone

(See attached transcript.)

MEMORIALIZATION

(No resolutions to be adopted.)

DISCUSSION

A motion to enter into executive session made at 9:04 pm by Mr. Donato Tanzi and seconded by Mr. Louis Masters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

A motion to enter back into public meeting made at 9:31 pm by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Donato Tanzi and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to approve appointment of Peter Vignuolo attorney in the matter known as Hotel Investors, LLC vs. Monroe Township Zoning Board ET AL. made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Gary Busman and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

A motion to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. made by Mr. Donato Tanzi and seconded by Mr. Louis Masters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Respectfully submitted,

LAURA ZALEWSKI

ZONING BOARD SECRETARY