Franklin Township Board of Adjustment Meeting – August 1, 2024

The Franklin Township Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on August 1, 2024. The board approved minutes from June 20, 2024, and conducted two hearings. The first hearing resulted in unanimous approval of a C variance for a single‑family home. The second hearing, for a major mixed‑use site plan, continued with public questioning of the architect and traffic engineer; the matter was carried to the next meeting on September 19, 2024.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The board unanimously approved the minutes of the regular meeting on June 20, 2024.

Hearings

Jayant Gokhale / ZBA‑24‑00009 – C Variance for Single‑Family Home

• Applicant Testimony: Mr. Gokhale stated he purchased the property at 18 Acken Lane in Somerset for retirement, planning a single‑story house to accommodate aging and his mother. The design includes a covered central courtyard inspired by Indian cultural tradition. The house seeks variances for lot size (a few hundred square feet under the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum) and lot coverage (impervious coverage exceeding 10%). The existing garage was already demolished under a permit.
• Planner Testimony: John Chadwick, licensed planner, noted that all neighboring lots are also non‑conforming, so no need for a use variance. The building is angled to the street, avoids long flat walls, and setbacks exceed requirements. The tree removal is limited to three trees in the front yard. He concluded the project meets C variance standards and benefits the neighborhood.
• Board Questions: Board members confirmed that no significant tree clearing would occur and that any recommendations from township professionals would be followed.
• Public Comments: No members of the public offered questions or statements.
• Decision: The board voted unanimously (all present in favor) to grant the requested variances, with the condition that the applicant abide by any suggestions from board professionals or other township experts.

Levin Properties / ZBA‑24‑00001 – Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan with C Variances (Continued)

• Architect’s Testimony (Continued): Mr. Minnow, the architect, noted that the Historic Preservation Commission provided recommendations on architectural design. He requested time to prepare a formal response and would address them at a later meeting. The board agreed to defer questions on that topic.

• Public Questions for the Architect:

  • Kiki Anastasica asked about environmental sustainability and extreme weather resilience. Mr. Minnow replied that construction documents are not yet complete; the building will meet all applicable codes and typical multi‑family standards, which often align with LEED basic certification.
  • Terry Thorsen asked about fire safety: the building will be fully sprinklered, with internal rated stair towers, no exterior fire escapes. Regarding sewage capacity (29,665 gallons per day) and signage, Mr. Minnow deferred to the engineer and planner.
  • Arnie Eisen (public speaker) queried the architect about the height difference: existing Kmart is about 22 ft; proposed building is 46.72 ft. Mr. Minnow stated no balloon test was performed, but a photo‑montage from the canal towpath shows the building is virtually invisible due to grade rise.
  • Elizabeth Tools asked about visibility from JFK Boulevard and the walking trail. The architect showed exhibits: from JFK, landscaping will partially screen the building; from the Park at Franklin apartments, the building appears about 1.5 stories above a garage structure.
  • Lorraine Suarez questioned what advantage the project offers the community (a planning question, not architectural).
  • Alex Strauss asked about amenities (no playground, dog run, garden plots, or basketball court). Regarding storage, the basement has ~3,580 sq. ft of rentable cages. Affordable units are distributed throughout the building, including units overlooking the pool courtyard.
  • Another speaker asked about balconies: only Juliet balconies on the street side; ground floor units have no private patios but access to two large courtyards.
  • Board members raised concerns about pedestrian safety and requested a crash analysis for the driveway on JFK Boulevard.

• Traffic Engineer Testimony: Carl Pankey, P.E., presented the traffic impact study (dated October 2023). He explained the methodology using ITE Trip Generation standards. Key findings:

  • Removing the hypothetical 106,000 sq. ft of retail and replacing with 200 residential units reduces peak hour trips by 90–100 in the morning and 400–500 in the evening, with over 5,000 fewer daily trips and nearly 7,000 fewer on Saturday.
  • On JFK Boulevard, residential would generate about 20 morning two‑way trips vs. 55 for retail; in the PM, residential generates about 22 trips vs. 166 for retail.
  • The driveway on Easton Avenue would continue to operate at Level of Service C; the left‑turn exit on JFK Boulevard operates at LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the PM (with queues of about 4 vehicles). A traffic signal warrant analysis was requested but Mr. Pankey stated the peak hour volumes do not nearly meet the warrants, and a signal is unlikely to be justified.
  • The internal site circulation plan includes realigned driveways, improved pedestrian connectivity, and crosswalks.

• Public Questions for the Traffic Engineer:

  • Melissa Ido asked about the assumption for commercial comparison (general shopping center data) and requested a statistical analysis linking accidents to residential travel. Mr. Pankey confirmed accident data will be obtained from police reports and reviewed for patterns.
  • Kiki Anastasica questioned whether the study accounted for Easton Avenue’s status as the most dangerous road in Somerset County and whether Rutgers traffic was considered. Mr. Pankey acknowledged the study was done in June 2023 when Rutgers was out, but maintained the comparative analysis is unaffected.
  • Elizabeth Tools challenged the parking projection (387 spaces for residential) and the 65‑vehicle morning exit rate; she noted that multi‑vehicle households are common. Mr. Pankey explained the peak hour rate, but the board encouraged a broader community impact statement.
  • Catherine Sports asked for a new traffic study during Rutgers session; the board did not require that. She also raised concerns about illegal turns and road rage.

• Board Discussion: Members emphasized the need for a warrant analysis and crash history, which the applicant agreed to provide. The board also noted that the comparative traffic analysis shows a benefit (less traffic) compared to the permitted retail use.

• Next Steps: The hearing was carried to September 19, 2024, at 6:30 PM, subject to an extension of time from the applicant. The next witness will be Chris Otto (auto evaluation) to discuss the economics and demographics of the project, followed by a response to the Historic Preservation Commission recommendations.

Key Outcomes

• Jayant Gokhale Application: Approved unanimously with conditions to follow professional recommendations.
• Levin Properties Application: Continued to September 19, 2024, at 6:30 PM. The applicant is to provide a crash analysis and a response to the Historic Preservation Commission, and will present an economic/demographic expert at the next meeting.