Franklin Township Board of Adjustment Meeting - September 5, 2024

The Franklin Township Board of Adjustment met on September 5, 2024, at 12:30 PM to consider three applications. The board approved the July 11, 2024 minutes, carried one application, approved a minor variance for a garage replacement, and after extensive testimony, approved a use variance for a proposed warehouse by a 6-1 vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• For both the Gregory Booth and Somerset Properties hearings, the board opened the floor to public comment, but no members of the public spoke.

Discussion Items

• Charles DeFilippo (ZBA-24-00012): The applicant sought a C variance to construct an attached two-car garage at 28 Gates Road, Somerset (Block 368.08 Lot 66.01, R-40 zone). The board carried this application to October 10, 2024, with notification to the newspaper required. (Note: The agenda listed the continuation date as October 24, 2024, but the board announced October 10, 2024.)
• Gregory Booth (ZBA-24-00013): The applicant sought a C variance to replace an existing garage with a larger garage at 33 Washington Avenue, Somerset (Block 17 Lot 12, R-40 zone). The existing garage is located within the required side yard setback (5.7 feet), and the proposed larger garage would occupy the same footprint, extending toward the rear. Testimony established that no feasible alternative would eliminate the variance without undue hardship. The board approved the application unanimously.
• Somerset Properties (ZBA-23-00016): The applicant sought a D(1) use variance, preliminary and final site plan approval with C variances, and minor subdivision to subdivide the property into two lots and construct a 54,329-square-foot warehouse (later corrected to approximately 51,000 square feet) with nine loading stalls and two drive‑in ramps at 415 Weston Canal Road and 91 Cottontail Lane, Somerset (Block 517.02 Lot 8.13, B‑I zone). The property was previously consolidated for a conservation easement required by the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission (DRCC) and DEP; the applicant now proposes to vacate that easement and use off‑site mitigation, thereby splitting the property back into two lots. The existing 79,713‑square‑foot warehouse on the western lot (fronting Weston Canal Road) would become a non‑conforming use on a smaller lot, requiring a D(2) variance for expansion of a non‑conforming use. The proposed new warehouse would be located on the eastern lot, with access from Cottontail Lane. Key testimony included:
  • Engineer (Jackie Giordano): Described site layout, grading, stormwater management (including DEP permits obtained), tree removal (148 trees removed, 86 replaced, remainder paid into township tree fund), and compliance with bulk standards except for a loading‑area depth variance (130 feet proposed vs. 147 feet required by ordinance). The board’s engineer took no exception to this variance. The site plan includes 24 parking spaces (23 required), two EV charging spaces, three ADA spaces, and a bike rack.
  • Architect (Brendan Leadbeater): Presented architectural elevations and renderings showing a one‑story, 49‑foot‑tall building with muted earth tones, storefront glass, and rooftop mechanical units screened from view. No specific tenant was identified, but testimony indicated the warehouse is designed for long‑term storage, not high‑activity distribution or fulfillment centers.
  • Traffic Engineer (Andrew Jafolla): Estimated the project would generate about 30 trips during peak hours (well below the NJDOT threshold of 100). Traffic counts were taken during school days, and background traffic from four approved developments in the area was included. The primary driveway would become the fourth leg of the signalized Cottontail Lane/Campus Drive intersection; the signal would be upgraded with a left‑turn arrow and new equipment, providing a public benefit. Level of service would remain at B both before and after development. The board discussed concerns about cumulative traffic impacts, particularly at the Cottontail Lane/Weston Canal Road intersection, but the engineer noted that this project’s contribution is minimal and that the design accommodates truck turning movements safely.
  • Planner (Paul Grygiel): Argued that the site is particularly suitable for a warehouse use due to its location within a non‑residential area surrounded by similar uses, proximity to Route 287 (within 1,600 feet), and absence of truck traffic through residential neighborhoods. He concluded that the positive criteria for the use variance (suitability, health/safety/welfare) and the negative criteria (no substantial detriment to public good or master plan) were met. Regarding the D(2) variance for the existing warehouse, he noted that no physical changes would occur—only a subdivision of the lot—and that the existing use would remain unchanged. He acknowledged the township’s ordinance banning warehouses in the B‑I zone but emphasized that this specific, small‑scale warehouse (51,000 square feet) is not the type targeted by the ordinance, and that the master plan allows for variances based on suitability.

Key Outcomes

• Charles DeFilippo (ZBA-24-00012): Carried to October 10, 2024. (Agenda listed October 24, 2024.)
• Gregory Booth (ZBA-24-00013): Approved unanimously (all voting members in favor). No conditions were attached beyond standard compliance.
• Somerset Properties (ZBA-23-00016): Approved by a vote of 6 to 1. Voting in favor: Joel Reese, Gary Rosenthal, Vasim Verdas, Alan Rich, Faraz Khan, and Chairman Thomas. Voting against: Michael Dherty. Conditions of approval include:
  • Compliance with all board professional letters and staff recommendations.
  • Obtaining all required outside approvals, including modifications to DEP permits and sign‑off from the DRCC.
  • The warehouse shall not be used as a fulfillment center; it is limited to long‑term storage and distribution consistent with the testimony regarding low activity levels.
  • The applicant must comply with all conditions outlined in the testimony, including the upgraded traffic signal and landscaping requirements.

The board noted that this approval is specific to the unique characteristics of the property (small size, location, proximity to highways, and surrounding industrial uses) and should not be seen as setting a precedent for other warehouse applications in the B‑I zone.