Franklin Township Board of Adjustment Meeting – June 18, 2026

The Franklin Township Board of Adjustment met on June 18, 2026, in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. There were no items under the discussion portion of the agenda. The board approved three extension-of-time resolutions, then heard public comment and closing arguments on three related applications for 135 Davidson Avenue, Somerset (Block 469, Lot 1.06) in the B-I zone: a minor subdivision, a use variance and site plan for retained Ukrainian Orthodox Church and seminary facilities, and a proposed 258,150-square-foot warehouse. All three hearing applications had been carried from May 7, 2026, with no further notification needed.

Consent Calendar / Resolutions

• Approved an extension of time for Sai Datta Mandir, Inc., ZBA-19-00037.
• Approved an extension of time for 64 Casa Esencia, LLC, ZBA-21-00027.
• Approved an extension of time for Lochiatto Hardscapes, LLC (f/k/a Fischer Realty, LLC), ZBA-22-00018.

Public Comments & Testimony

• The board adopted a five-minute per-speaker limit for public comment, with the timekeeper stopping the clock during attorney interruptions or objections.
• Vadym Azarchuk (16 Dortmunder Drive, Manalapan, NJ) raised concerns that the application did not explain what would happen between the new facility and the retained seminary building, including shared parking, and that the new facility is very close to the remaining seminary building, leaving a narrow separation.
• Jim Johnston (34 Norwich Place, Somerset, NJ) asked whether the proposed building would be a warehouse or a data center, noting that the Township Council had passed an ordinance banning data centers. Applicant's attorney Peter Lamford replied that the application is for a warehouse; a future data center would require a new application for a use that is now prohibited.

Hearings, Closing Arguments, and Board Discussion

• Applicant's attorney Peter Lamford advised the board of two additional staff reports dated June 11, 2026, from Mr. Healy and Center State's Engineering. He said the applicant had reviewed them, could comply with all items, and therefore would not call additional witnesses.
• Peter MacArthur, attorney for objector Svit Nok NYC, argued that all three applications should be denied. He contended that the D1 use variance for the warehouse did not satisfy the particularly-suited standard under cases such as Cole v. Fairlawn and Medici v. BPR, that the negative criteria were not met because regional impacts were not analyzed, and that the application was not reconciled with the zoning ordinance or master plan. He also argued that notice was defective because the prior cemetery use variance approval had expired, lot 2.01 was not included in the notice, and owners within 200 feet of lot 2.01 were not notified, depriving the board of jurisdiction. He raised doubts about whether the church contract had been authorized under the church constitution, and he argued that the 66-foot driveway width variance exceeded the 36-foot requirement without community benefit, citing Kaufman v. Planning Board of Warren. He further alleged that his clients had been threatened and had suffered property damage, including slashed tires.
• Lamford responded that the subdivision creates a 15-acre parcel and a 17-acre parcel that meet all bulk requirements; that the church site plan includes buffering and landscaping developed with the Historic Commission; that two of the three C variances were eliminated by the vacation of Executive Drive; that the truck-court width variance reflects normal standards and drew no objection from the municipal engineer; that the 66-foot driveway is not access to a public roadway because access will be through an easement on the IDI property; that the 2026 Master Plan calls for warehouses in the B-I zone; and that the church's contract and authorization issues belong in court, not before the board. He noted the nearest residence is more than 600 feet from the warehouse property line and that loading docks face away from the church property.
• During board discussion, a board member questioned whether the objector had identified what would make a warehouse site suitable; MacArthur replied that it was not the objector's burden to prove suitability.

Key Outcomes

• Approved ZBA-25-00008, a minor subdivision with a D(2) variance, subdividing the existing lot into two parcels, with no dissenting votes.
• Approved ZBA-25-00007, a D(2) use variance and preliminary/final site plan with C variances for the retained church and seminary facilities, with no dissenting votes.
• Approved ZBA-25-00009, a D(1) use variance and preliminary/final site plan with C variances for a 258,150-square-foot warehouse, by a vote of 6 to 1. The sole no vote stated it was not clear that the variance was for a benefit and particularly suitable. The motion included a condition that the property shall not be used as a data center or a place of detention for citizens or non-citizens.
• Approved the three extension-of-time resolutions listed above.

The meeting adjourned after the votes.