Franklin Township Planning Board Meeting - August 6, 2025

The Franklin Township Planning Board convened on August 6, 2025, under the Open Public Meetings Act. The meeting began with roll call and approval of minutes. The main agenda items were the adoption of a resolution for HSU Property Holdings, LLC and a court-ordered discussion of conditions for the B9 Schoolhouse Owner, LLC warehouse application. After hearing from the applicant's attorney, the intervenor's attorney, and limited public comments focused on conditions, the board voted 4-1 to adopt the 30 conditions recommended by staff.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The regular meeting minutes from June 18, 2025, were approved unanimously (5-0).
• Resolution – HSU Property Holdings, LLC (PLN-23-00014): A resolution was adopted unanimously (5-0). No further details were discussed.

Discussion Items

• B9 Schoolhouse Owner, LLC (PLN-22-00011) – Consideration of Conditions of Approval: This item came by way of a remand from the Superior Court, which reversed the board's prior denial and ordered the board to impose reasonable conditions. The board's attorney, Mr. Bernstein, clarified that the board was acting under court order, not voluntarily. The applicant's attorney, Peter Landford, objected to opening the public hearing on conditions and specifically opposed conditions #11 (regarding a post-application ordinance) and #22 (restricting H-use under the Uniform Construction Code). He stated the applicant agreed to 28 of 30 staff-recommended conditions. The intervenor (Citizens Warehouse Action Group) attorney, Michael Gann, proposed three additional conditions: (1) linking the site to any adjacent development would require a major modification, (2) requiring soil testing to be redone in January–April per stormwater rules, and (3) specifying that no work commence until all approvals are received. Mr. Bernstein advised against adding these conditions, noting they are either already addressed in litigation or belong before the zoning board. Chairman Orsini stated that public comments would be a courtesy and would not alter the staff recommendations.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Applicant's Attorney (Peter Landford): Objected to public participation and opposed conditions #11 and #22. He argued #11 is redundant and violates the time of application rule; #22 was never agreed to and relates to construction code rather than land use.
• Intervenor's Attorney (Michael Gann): Proposed three conditions noted above; argued the board should include them to address interrelated projects and stormwater concerns.
• Anthony Riccio (resident, Canal Walk): Proposed a condition requiring actual truck traffic counts after construction to validate traffic impact.
• Vikram Bhargava (resident, Canal Walk): Requested four conditions: no shared access with adjacent warehouses, a physical barrier, noise limits at 70 dB, and a strict construction timeline. Many requests were ruled beyond board jurisdiction.
• Ivy Roberts (resident, Canal Walk): Expressed concern over conditions #2 and #15 about outside agency approvals potentially stalling construction.
• Vimal Sudhani (resident, Canal Walk): Requested a $10 million bond for tree replacement; attorney noted landscaping bonds are standard.
• Frank Bitteto (resident, Canal Walk): Asked about noise mitigation for truck backup alarms; told that noise ordinances apply.
• Bhambraj Maheshwari (resident, Somerset): Suggested surveillance cameras to monitor truck traffic and penalties for exceeding limits; board stated they cannot impose fines.
• Dr. Stephen Brandt (resident, Somerset): Emphasized health risks from noise for elderly residents; urged keeping condition #11 (noise ordinance) despite applicant's objection.
• Jeffrey Green (resident, Canal Walk): Recommended that leases prohibit hazardous materials; board responded it cannot dictate business contracts.
• Michael Brien (resident, Canal Walk): Proposed emission standards and anti-idling conditions; board noted state law and jurisdictional limits.
• Wendy Park (resident, Canal Walk): Asked for air quality monitors near residences; board ruled beyond its purview.
• Brad Ferenz (resident, Canal Walk): Supported retaining conditions #11 and #22.
• Shauna Collidge (resident, Somerset): Asked about emergency plans for chemical spills; board said it is a township building plan matter.
• Roberta Henry (resident, Canal Walk): Questioned diesel fumes as hazardous and asked about Somerset County Health Department approvals; board noted conditions require future compliance.
• Harish B. Dev Lamb (resident, Canal Walk): Stated residents do not want the warehouse; chairman ruled comment out of order (not about conditions).
• Nancy Byrne (resident, Canal Walk): Requested an air dispersion model; ruled not a condition.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on B9 Conditions: A motion was made and seconded to approve all 30 conditions as recommended by the Technical Review Committee (July 29, 2025). The motion passed 4-1, with Robert Thomas dissenting. (Members voting yes: Chairman Orsini, Theodore Chase, Mahir Rafi, [Councilman Barrison/Arsenal]; dissenting: Robert Thomas.)
• Rejection of Additional Conditions: The board did not adopt the three conditions proposed by the intervenor, nor did it incorporate any new conditions suggested by the public.
• Next Meeting Scheduled: The next regular meeting was set for September 3, 2025.