Franklin planning board reviews draft master-plan changes to limit high‑impact warehouses

The Franklin Township Planning Board reviewed a draft master‑plan reexamination and matching ordinance March 26 that would reshape how the township allows warehouse and light‑industrial development in the Business and Industrial (BI) zone.

Dave Roberts, director of planning for Brightview Engineering, told the board the project pairs a zone‑wide traffic study with land‑use rules intended to limit truck impacts and keep the heaviest warehouse uses away from residential areas. "Some of these intersections are on their way to failing," Roberts said, summarizing traffic modeling that compared existing conditions with partial and full build‑out of pending applications.

The draft ordinance would sort light industrial and warehouse uses into three intensity levels. Low‑intensity warehouses would be limited to roughly 50,000 square feet or less and a low ratio of loading docks; medium‑intensity warehouses would be allowed up to 400,000 square feet but only within one road mile of one of the township's two Interstate‑287 interchanges; and higher‑intensity operations (including parcel hubs and fulfillment centers) would be prohibited. The ordinance would also require conditional‑use review and site‑plan conditions such as a 100‑foot vegetated buffer where a site abuts residential zoning, a 200‑foot minimum building setback from residential boundaries (with at least 100 feet planted), limits on where loading and service areas may face, and truck‑routing, gate management and queuing plans.

Mark Healy, Franklin Township director of planning, said the draft ordinance and the reexamination report are intended to give staff and boards clear, defensible standards to apply to speculative “shell” warehouse projects that now come in without an identified tenant. Healy said the standards translate Brightview's traffic findings into measurable zoning and development controls: "If they come back with loading doors higher than the ordinance permits, you've got a second bite of the apple," he said, referring to subsequent permit review.

Board members pressed the consultant and staff on the data and legal defensibility. Planning board member Theodore Chase asked how the chosen loading‑dock ratios and square‑footage thresholds were derived and whether they might be challenged as arbitrary; Roberts said the guidance started with Institute of Transportation Engineers trip‑generation data and was then adjusted to match the township's existing applications and the steering‑committee review. Chase and other board members noted that many existing or approved warehouses would need to alter plans to comply and that about a third would comply as written, a third could comply with modest changes, and a third likely would not meet the proposed standards.

Members also raised operational issues that the draft does not yet fix. Charles Brown asked whether hours of operation should be an explicit intensity factor; the board discussed requiring tighter hours or other constraints where facilities abut residential zones and noted that a separate township noise ordinance provides an enforcement route for existing facilities. Board attorney Peter (last name not specified in the transcript) explained New Jersey's time‑of‑application rule: applicants who file a complete application are entitled to the zoning in place at that time, which affects whether pending applications would be judged under current or new rules.

Members and residents stressed local traffic and safety concerns. Roberts summarized how the study examined 14 originally identified intersections (later expanded to 16) with counts taken in September‑October 2023; he said the study modeled trips from already built, approved‑but‑not‑built, and pipeline applications to estimate impacts under several scenarios. "We know we have these applications that have already been approved that are likely to be built," Roberts said, noting that trip generation from online‑commerce‑driven uses accelerated during the pandemic. Residents and speakers at the session called attention to congestion, emergency‑response delays, noise and air quality near neighborhoods in the northern BI zone and Ward 2.

Planning staff noted several implementation items the board requested: producing a GIS‑based, definitive one‑road‑mile map around the Interstate‑287 interchanges (the draft already contains a graphic), clarifying table headings and ratios (several board members asked that the ordinance and report state ‘‘square feet per loading dock’’ consistently rather than mixing inverses), and adding clearer checklist items so an application is not deemed complete without the required narrative and studies. Staff also agreed to add proposed noise‑impact study triggers and to consider whether hours‑of‑operation limits should be added as a conditional standard where a site abuts residential zoning.

No formal vote was taken at the work session. Roberts and Healy said the traffic study and reexamination report would be part of an upcoming public hearing on the master‑plan amendment, then the board would forward a recommendation to the Township Council. Healy said a revised ordinance incorporating board comments would be circulated for the board's next hearing and that materials and a comment form are posted on the township website under the Planning Board "BI study" page. "You'll get that revised draft at the hearing," Healy said.

Public commenters, and the Environmental Commission chair, urged stronger protections for nearby neighborhoods and suggested adjustments including expanded solar‑readiness requirements, additional anti‑idling signage near loading docks, and bicycle amenities. Jan Brandt, a resident, urged the board to consider measures adopted elsewhere that limit speculative warehouses; Roberts and the board attorney said blanket bans or ad‑hoc limits have proven legally vulnerable in other jurisdictions, so the town's approach emphasizes intensity‑based standards tied to traffic and location.

The board will return the draft ordinance and plan language to staff for revision and set a public hearing on the master‑plan reexamination. The work session closed after public comment; no final determinations were made.