Franklin planning board grants preliminary approval for 681–685 Hamilton St. mixed‑use project with conditions

The Franklin Township Planning Board voted unanimously to grant preliminary site‑plan approval and limited variance relief to Hamilton Street Management LLC for a three‑story, mixed‑use development at 681–685 Hamilton Street (Block 218, Lots 1–9).

The project calls for about 4,605 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and 18 residential units above (six one‑bedroom and 12 two‑bedroom units). The board’s approval allows the developer to return with final plans after the applicant modifies screening, parking‑layout details and several architectural elements the board flagged.

Why it matters: The site redevelops a roughly 0.52‑acre parcel in the township’s Hamilton Street business district (HBD) with ground‑floor commercial frontage, new stormwater controls and on‑site parking that the applicant says improves runoff compared with existing conditions. The board’s action clears the way for continued design work and coordination with county and state reviewers before construction permits are sought.

Attorney Francis Pilanes, representing the applicant, introduced the project and the applicant’s witnesses, including architect Ashraf Raghab of Amark Design Studio, civil engineer Adnan Khan of AWZ Engineering and planner John Taikina of All Things Planning and Development. Raghab described a three‑story building with retail storefronts on Hamilton Street, a parking area behind and underneath the building, and a mixture of fiber‑cement panels, masonry and cement‑fiber materials on the facades. Raghab said the roof is “ready for solar panel installations” but that the owner will decide later whether to install them.

Engineer Adnan Khan told the board the application was delayed while the applicant and the township’s consulting engineer (Darren Mazai of CME) worked to resolve an off‑site stormwater issue. Khan said that work is complete: “It has been resolved,” he testified, and that the on‑site stormwater design will reduce existing runoff and meet review comments from outside agencies. The application is still under review by several outside bodies, including the Somerset County Planning Board, the state Department of Environmental Protection (referred to in the record as DNR/Canal Commission) and the Somerset‑Union Soil Conservation District; Khan said the applicant expects to respond to their comments after the board’s action.

Parking and EVs: The plan shows 38 on‑site spaces, including six electric‑vehicle (EV) charging spaces. Khan explained that an EV credit reduces the residential parking requirement so the residential portion exceeds its required parking while the full combined commercial plus residential requirement would yield a shortfall relative to strict code counts. He said the applicant agreed to a payment or other mitigation for the remaining required commercial spaces. Board members and consultants discussed placement of EV chargers and asked the applicant to disperse chargers or otherwise design them so charging opportunities cover more stalls, rather than clustering all chargers together.

Buffering, screening and design changes requested: The application requests two bulk variances: a reduced parking‑lot setback (the ordinance requires a 20‑foot parking setback at the north property line but parts of the site were shown at 0.5 feet) and relief from a required five‑foot buffer in a Schedule 6 screening zone adjacent to a residential property. The board asked the applicant to pursue a combination of: (a) reducing sidewalk width along one internal pedestrian path from 6 feet to 4 feet, (b) slightly shortening parking stall depth where needed (applicant proposed 16.5 feet for some stalls), (c) adding masonry screening at the property edge and (d) planting islands/trees in the parking area to create layered screening. Planner John Taikina said those measures, properly detailed, can produce a layered and durable buffer and recommended the board grant relief now subject to final design details.

Board members and the board consultant repeatedly urged changes to the fence/screen treatment and to the building’s corner treatments and colors. Several members described the proposed metal slat screen as “sterile” and asked the applicant to explore masonry or mixed‑material walls with decorative caps, plus additional landscaping so screening will be durable and protect adjacent yards from headlights and noise.

Public comment: One resident, Carl Wright of Fuller Street, asked whether the stormwater work would stop existing runoff that flows downslope from the site toward neighboring properties. The applicant’s engineer said the proposed underground detention and new grading would capture and reduce the development’s runoff and that the design reduces 2‑, 10‑ and 100‑year peak flows compared with existing conditions.

Board action and next steps: The board voted to grant preliminary approval and the variance relief described above, subject to the applicant providing revised final plans showing the 4‑foot buffer in lieu of the 0.5‑foot condition at the north side, the revised parking stall lengths (where necessary), masonry screening details, revised landscaping/“diamond” planting islands and further refinements to corner architectural treatments and lighting to minimize off‑site glare. The applicant agreed to continue coordination with Somerset County on the Hamilton/Bayer/North Dover intersection radii and with outside agencies on stormwater and regulatory comments. The applicant will return to the board for final site‑plan approval; board members said a new public notice is not required for final so long as no new variance relief is requested.

Votes at a glance: The board recorded a unanimous vote in favor of preliminary site‑plan approval and the conditional variance relief (recorded votes: Councilman Embarson — yes; Theodore Chase — yes; Robert LaCourte — yes; Shaw Keller — yes; Jennifer Ragnell — yes; Mahir Rafiq — yes; Charles Brown — yes; Robert Thomas — yes; Rebecca Hilbert — yes; Chairman Orsini — yes). Earlier in the meeting the board also voted on routine housekeeping resolutions (minutes and several local resolutions) and appointed the planning board attorney firm Clark and Envinoam; those matters were approved by voice or roll call at the start of the session.

The board left the record open for the applicant’s revised final submission and directed staff and consultants to work with the applicant on the items the board identified.