You let me know and we're on the air live. >> What the heck? Look, look at this screen. >> Nobody's there. We're all ghosts. That's great. >> This is I love this. What is going on?
>> Huh? It's Is it It's playing an old recording. Clearly that's not live. Okay. Was I the only one that told that there's cloaking devices this evening? >> Yeah. Like >> it's our magic. It's our It's our
superpowers. >> What is happening? >> Oh, there we go. >> Hey, we showed up. Okay. Ready to go. >> Everybody wave your hands. >> There's a delay though. That's interesting. >> Yeah.
>> All right. We are we on the record? >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. >> All right. We now call this meeting of the Delran zoning board to order. All meetings of the board are held in provisions of the open public meetings
act in a resolution adopted by the board's annual reorganization. Pursuant to the board's resolution, public notice of this meeting has been made in the following manner. Written notice with the secretary of the board, the clerk of Delray Township and on the official Bolton board of Delray Township. Uh, written notice has also been mailed to the official newspapers 10 days prior to
scheduling the hearing. The scheduling of the hearing. Written notice has also been mailed to all persons requesting a hearing before this board. Please note that unless otherwise modified by resolution of the zoning board. All meetings shall begin at 7:00 p.m. and shall take place at the township
building located 900 Chester Avenue in Delran, New Jersey. Pursuant to the board's adopted procedure, no new application will be started or witnessed. testimony taken after 9:00 p.m. and no hearing will surpass 11 o'clock p.m. All such matters will be
continued until the next scheduled board meeting. If the time limit for the board uh action is not extended by the applicant, the matter will be voted upon based upon the evidence before the board at the time such action is taken. Uh before we continue, would you please
join me in the pledge of allegiance? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, Kelly, would you take roll call,
please? >> Mr. Manda, >> here. >> Mr. Mo >> here. >> Mrs. Prento >> here. >> Mr. Ellesiac is absent. >> Mrs. Kuster >> here. >> Mr. Hermansky >> here.
>> Mr. Bay, he's absent. >> Miss Devita >> here. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next on the agenda, we have multiple applications listed. However, uh there's only one that's going to be active tonight. The first one listed was Tractor Trailer Depot storage 30005
Bridgeboro Road Industrial LLC 30005 to 30007 Bridgeboro Road 120 lots 48 49 and 50 number ZZ 2022-03. This was a use variance preliminary and final site plan approval. This is being
adjourned to December 18th, 2025 uh zoning board meeting and no further notice or publication is required. Uh the second application on the agenda was an amendment to a minor site plan with variance of Pbard uh Len LLC. That's L I
N A Y LLC 2925 Route 130 South Block 9 block 46.01 01 number ZN2025-02. Uh this was an amendment to minor site plan with variances of a poleb barn. Uh the applicant has requested an
adjournment to the December 18th, 2025 zoning board meeting and no further notice or publication is required. Finally, on the agenda this evening for applications, we have um replacement of existing building Barlo Chevrolet
Incorporated, 6035 Route 130 South, block 46, block 20, number ZN 2025-03, minor site plan with variances. I understand the applicant is here. Uh council, if you would uh identify yourself to the members. Real quick um
just want to indicate that I did review the notice provided by the applicant. It was uh published and served in a timely fashion and specific as to the release soft. So uh persons interested have notice of what is being sought and the board does have jurisdiction.
>> Great. Good evening. >> My name is Damian Deluka and I'm the attorney for the African Barlo Chevrolet Inc. and I'm with law firm Deluca Lewis and Bur. I have with me my client Barlo and just give away our engineer Bob Stout and our architect Nick Kazowski.
Uh the application tonight is pretty straightforward and we'll be happy to hear not not too lengthy. I'll give you an overview and then we'll provide some brief testimony. The property is the Barlo Chevrolet property which you all know well here on Route 13. The specific address is 6035
130 South. It's block 46 lot 20. Barlo Chevrolet consists of multiple tax lots but work that we're here to present tonight is occurring on lot 20. And on lot 20 uh is part of the overall dealership property I have on the screen
exhibit A1. I'll hand out a copy of the exhibits in a minute. Mr. Stout's going to talk about it momentarily. What's enclosed in yellow is the property that we're here for tonight and in red is the we call the detail garage
that's there today. It's 2750 square ft. The proposal is to de demolish that building. It's an old antiquated building, not super efficient. The shape and the size of the building are a challenge. And we're going to construct a new building in the exact same location, although it's going to be
larger. It's going to be 5100 ft. So, 2350 ft larger. And in that building, there will be new and used uh vehicles, detailing, reconditioning, and also some body work. The the reason we're here for the zoning
board is somewhat unique. Uh prior applications that I did not handle went to the planning board. The reason we're here tonight in front of the zoning board is the properties in the C2 zoning district. And in that zone, uh vehicle sales, no end use vehicle sales are
conditional use. And the conditional use, as you know, is a use that's permitted so long as the stated conditions in the ordinance for the conditional use are satisfied. And if that's the case, you go to the planning board, you get conditional use approval,
usually also site plan approval, and you go on your way. Well, here, I've seen this happen in a couple places. You list it as a conditional use vehicle sales and service, but you don't state any conditions. And I say you, your ordinance doesn't state any conditions.
And there's a case in the PEL division case called the Zaros that says when that happens, this is not the first time it's happened. When that happens, the law assumes that the use is prohibited, not permitted because you didn't state any conditions. Your ordinance states
that the use of the dealership like this is permitted if you meet the conditions, but there are no conditions. Therefore, it's not permitted. So, and that was something, by the way, and parenthetically I would ask you to consider in your year-end zoning report
to to to bring up with the governing body because this was not the intended result. Uh, the town didn't intend to identify this as a conditional use and not state conditions because if that was the intention, there would be no need to identify as a conditional use. But that's the situation in which we find
ourselves. Uh, prior council submitted this to the planning board. This issue arose during the review of it before the planning board and we were transferred over to the zoning board. So we're here tonight for a use variance specifically what they call a D2 variance which is a
reference to the land use law statute section 70 and that is an expansion of a non-conforming use. Now we're not expanding the use in the sense we're making the dealership bigger. Uh we're not expanding the showroom floor the amount of inventory parking. the change
that I just summarized isn't going to generate more customers, but the building is getting larger and so we're interpreting that as an expansion clearly of a building and the use is not conforming. So, it's an expansion of a nonconforming use. Uh so, we need a D2
variance. The standard for that really is the same as as a use variance, the D1 variance and that is we have to show that we advance we have special reasons i.e. We advanced on purpose of zoning on the positive criteria side. And here we would have to show one of the things we
could show is that we advanced public welfare or the general welfare because the site is particularly suitable for a car dealership. Um and if we show that then we satisfy the positive criteria. That's easy with all due respect because
it's been a car dealership for Mr. Marlo will tell you but many many decades. Okay. A long time. We're not changing that use. We're swapping out a building in the same place. There's little or very little site work involved as Mr. Stout will tell you. And uh we're just
taking out an old inefficient building and creating with a larger efficient building, efficient building. So clearly this site is particularly suitable for the dealership. It's functioned well as such for many years and what we propose to change isn't going to change the
suitability of that use. Of course, we also have to satisfy the negative criteria, which is that you can grant the variance without any substantial negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood or changing the nature and characteristics of the neighborhood. Clearly, we're not building that. This
won't create any dust, noise, or additional traffic. Uh it's just going to be a slightly larger detail building. And lastly, we have to show that you can grant this variance without substantially impairing the intended word to the master plan and for the same
reasons we think that's true. The the building complies with all the requirements. There's only one bullet variance we need and that is you require underground utilities and as I understand it Mr. Style can confirm we're proposing above ground utility which I believe is the existing
condition today and that seeks that that requires relief but other than that we requiring relief. Uh we also applied for minor site plan approval. We are making this change and that requires site plan approval and the zoning board has jurisdiction over that because you're
here we're here for hearings. So that's the those are the approvals that we require. We have a few exhibits. I'm going to hand out copies. I'm just going to identify them first uh for this guardian record. Exhibit A1 is on the board. It's an aerial photograph.
Exhibit A2 is an aerial photograph with the proposed building shown. In exhibit A3 are architectural elevations and floor plans. Uh the last exhibit are some photographs, two photographs of the existing building. That is exhibit A4.
I'll hand out copies of those. We have also large copies for the easel which we'll use in our testimony. Uh lastly, we had two review letters. One from Mr. for Trangalo dated November 17th uh and one from the board engineer dated
October 6. We have no objections to the comments in those letters. We will address the comments in those letters during our testimony. There was a request for some testimony. We'll address those. Um and including two design waiverss that we need that are pointed out in I
think both letters at least one. We'll address that in the testimony. So unless anyone has any questions for me, I'll hand out copies of the exhibits. We can have our witnesses sworn and we'll provide some brief testimony. Any questions for me? >> Anybody on the board? I'm sorry.
>> So at the at the beginning, I like to say um we do have six members present. Um you're entitled because this is a D2 variance to insist on seven voting members. I think that the applicant is proceeding and consent to proceed with six members.
>> That is correct. We were advised in advance. We appreciate that. We understand the ramifications of that and we're willing to proceed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else on the board have any questions at this time? >> All right, Mr. Deluka, call your first witness. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Barlo, you step
forward and I'll hand out while you're doing that. Do you swear or to tell the truth, the But we approve this word. >> Good evening. Uh Mr. Barl, uh what is your title with the applicant? >> Could you state his first name? >> Sure.
>> Good evening everyone. My name is Edi. Thank you for having me in the meeting. Um little background on me. My grandfather opened in Delhus in March of 1971. And I was talking to my father tonight. I said,
"You're here before the zoning board." He said, "No, you might be the first to stand up." So, here we are later. Are you a principal or officer of Chevrolet Incorporated? My official title is vice president.
>> Great. Do you have any idea how long this property has been a car dealership? whether or other you present to my introductory comments. >> Were they actually accurate to the best of your knowledge? >> Now I handed out exhibit A4 which is a
photograph. Does that show the existing building? >> Yes, that's the existing building. >> And what do you call this building? >> Okay. And uh we're obviously here tonight to propose to replace that with a new building. 5100 ft. Correct.
>> That's correct. >> Why is that necessary? >> We really just want to make it a more efficient building. >> And what services will you provide in that new building? >> Services are primarily going to be the detail services, new rec >> and will
the construction of a new building enlarge the amount or increase the amount of customers you have or increase the amount of vehicles you sell? I don't believe so. >> So, is it correct that the purpose of the new building is to have a newer, more modern, more efficient building
that will serve the needs of what you have now? >> Yes. How about the hours? What do you anticipate the hours of this detail garage to be? >> So, the hours are going to service hours, which are 7 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. every day. Um, I would say there will probably be one person working case spot delivering vehicles. >> So spot deliver is when vehicles drop off to your business.
>> Spot delivery is a terminology in our business whenever a customer comes in and wants to buy the vehicle delivery spot. >> Gotcha. >> Gotcha. Gotcha. So uh how many employees do you expect to be working in this building at one time? What's the most the highest number of employees to be
working at one time? >> I would say probably six at one time. Do you expect to have any customers in this bill? >> So, this is purely staff employees and vendors. I guess that's all the questions I have. >> Anyone on the board have followup
questions? >> Anyone? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mr. >> Microphone. Uh, hold the button down until it turns green. >> It's green. Give that a try. There we
go. >> Mr. Stout, do you >> swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this? >> I do. >> And Mr. Stout has has been accepted as a an expert in professional engineering
site designed by this board a number of times. >> Great. Thank you. We'll skip that. Mr. Stout, are you present to me in your director comments? I was. >> And were they factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? >> They were. >> Did you prepare the proposed minor site plan that we're here for this evening? >> Yes, we have.
>> And can you using the exhibits that you brought give everyone an overview of that plan? >> Sure. So, Mark, this one is A1 which was brought to all this is just showing location everybody's familiar with 130 Fairview Street. The area outlined in
yellow is a 6.22 acre parcel. Dead center. out in the orange is where we're doing the work. The plus with this is there's an existing site that has three buildings on it. This is dead center in the site. So, as far as location goes, it's the most remote from any of the
property lines around. It's a 2750 building here. This is the same 2020 aerial that's just been blown up. What we did on this was we superimposed the proposed building layout over top of
the existing building. So if you can see on your plan in front of you, the smaller building with the T-shape in the back yellow is the existing building. The big square is what we're proposing for. So as far as the site plan goes, as we just discussed, there's very little
site work on this. The site has no access to the public on this. There's no signage proposed. No additional signage for the site itself. As far as utilities go, we will be running a new sewer line into here. There's a small sewer line that just
connects drain into the existing building that will be removed and we'll be running a new sewer line along with the gas line for the building. Currently, it's electric. So, again, question came up on the utilities. Your requirement is underground utilities.
The entire site has overhead utilities and electrics to it connecting to all of the buildings. Currently, it comes off 130. There's a pole to the right that will be relocated and maintained as an overhead wire. There's a retaining wall
in the front. So, trying to do that underground will be quite cumbersome. There's no mechanical equipment shown on here. The mechanical equipment is all interior. So, there's no requirements for that and the lighting itself is
currently on site. We're not changing any of the lighting. What we are doing is the existing building has some building mounted lights on it currently which are actually flood light style. The architectural plans that you have shows the new lighting proposed. They
will be down lighting and we'll put those on itself. The uh site itself really has no impact on any of the surroundings whatsoever. It is centered in the itself. It's over
250 ft off any residential 15t back off the road. It's particularly well suited for this use. Obviously based on the testimony since 1971 this has been a car deal. Not changing that increasing it. Everything
is staying exactly the same and it is particularly well suited for this use. You heard earlier we have two designs or we're looking for this one is sidewalk for sidewalk. We're requesting a waiver
for this for a few reasons. Every time we've been here so far in planning boarding board, we have had those waited and part of the DOT study is they are looking to install sidewalk along this down the road. So there's not a lot of space out there
right now for us to do that and that is our inventory area. So we're asking for the waiver and we'll work with the DOT once they come in to do the sidewalks. And the second one is your requirement also has a buffer requirement have a 25 foot buffer along the roadway. Obviously
do not have any of that along any of the strip but we do have some areas when you come in here larger grass area. So we'll work with your planner to do some additional landscape. As you can see from the corner street it's already
pretty well done. So that was just redone that intersection in similar to that. So as far as that goes, very little site work, very little changes. I mean outside the only thing
our architects one thing, it's a pre-existing non-performing condition. >> That's correct. >> You're not impacting your projects. So I don't think you need something. >> Okay. I just my question in my letter was what are you going to do with
which I think you're willing to work with us. >> We will. Yeah. The corners the corner on Fairview Street. I'm sure you really they do a nice job especially in the summer get a lot of flowers in through there. So we're looking to address that
other intersection as well. Thank you. >> Just a few followup questions. Um few comments in the letters I want to make sure we address. Number one, there was a comment in Mr. Trump's letter about lighting for the building lighting. Have
you addressed that? >> There's a question as to whether any sign renovations are proposed. >> In Mr. Dear Mento's letter, he he he points out that there's a concrete pad with various utility components and he asks us to clarify whether that's going to remain
that will be removed. That's part of the side where the electric and is correct Mr. out that the relief we need for the above ground utilities we're proposing that not only because of the existing conditions but because it would be
create practical difficulties to put that underground that's correct and is that because of what's there today including retaining one that's all the questions I have for Mr. St. >> anyone on the board have followup questions
the above ground electrical um I don't know the height requirements per commercial side. Is it any higher or is that high enough that that doesn't affect the traffic? >> It's over 146 which is a requirement for fire truck safety. So everything is
above that >> other than the above ground utilities. Any other variances variances that we need >> the only thing we have which is an existing condition the impervious coverage which is about 68% that's current. We're not changing that. If anything, we're actually making the
storm water management portion of this actually better because we're using more rooftop. So we're not changing >> and the above ground is an existing condition as well. Correct. >> Yes. Just to clarify the existing impre
you want to speak to the the increased area building in terms of your grading how it's going to impact your runoff. >> Yeah, we've done a grading plan. It's been submitted as part of this application. Our drain patterns will not
change the property slopes from the back to the front. So, what we're doing, we're holding the finished elevation. So, when you come into the back section flat, weed the property around the building, which is currently what it does today, except it runs around the
building. So we'll maintain the existing drainage pattern without any changes. >> You speak to the minor development portion of our ordinance on the exceeding or not having to address previously discussed
>> as far as new. Well, there is no minimal number. Any other questions for Mr. St. real quick? You are aware that a sewer connection application will be required to >> any other questions. >> Okay.
>> Our last witness is our architect, Mr. Kazowski. We'll have some brief remarks. Mazowski, let's and score first, please architect New Jersey and you qualify as an expert for other languages. I have
So, Mr. Chairman, we ask the board accepts as an expert. >> Any objections? >> Seeing no objections granted. >> Thank you. Mr. Kowski, exhibit A3. Exhibit A4, the photographs of the existing building. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, that's that's what's there today.
That's the so-called floor, right? Correct. Bring up exhibit A3, please, which includes the proposed elevations for the new Now, does exhibit A3 accurately reflect what we proposed to build here? It does. Can you give everyone a brief overview
of the primary architectural features of this building? Sure. This building is a pre-engineered metal building, steel structure, exterior metal panels. You see the colors that we're using.
colors on another building and Chevy colors. Building the same materials, the same costs. Will this building be consistent with architecture of other buildings property? Yes, it will. Okay. Will there
be wall mounted lighting on this building? Yes, it will. Comply with all standards and The top elevation is what will face 130? Is that correct? That is correct.
And does this building meet the maximum and any other requirements? Yes, it does. Great. Thank you very much. That's all the questions I ask. >> Any questions for board members? >> I uh I have a question. >> Sure.
>> Hi, Mr. Kazowski. Um I see that the current building is in a kind of a southern facing direction which kind of makes it ideal for solar. This being a prefabricated building I think um is solar something that was part of the
discussions with this building inside the building. So this building will be will not be I guess the other thing we have is the water in the building is also going to be self. Thank you.
>> Any other questions on the board? >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, that concludes our plan presentation. I know your professionals will have some comments. answering the questions that any of you would have any testimony relative any testimony
relative to the >> Yeah. So, as I mentioned on my introductory comments, I mean the what we have to show as the positive criteria and it's it's in the the documents the exhibits that are here. Uh we have to show that the site is particularly
suitable for car dealership use even though it's not pered use. Uh and that's self-evident. exhibits and from your local knowledge as residents of Delan. It's the exact same use on the exact same parcel, the exact same intensity.
It is a larger building. Therefore, the D2 variance is being called out, but it's not going to create the intensity to use, the amount of cars that are stored on the property, the amount of cars that are sold to the public. It's just going to better serve the business more efficiently. That's been the
testimony. We think it's self-evident from the exhibits that are before the board that this site itself is particularly suitable for the dealership and has been for the last 55 years, 54 years. As to the negative criteria, there's no impact on the neighbors, 250
ft from residential. It's a larger building. There's not going to be any rooftop units that anyone's going to see. There's not going to be any noise associated with it. That will be awful to the residents. It's not going to generate any additional traffic. just going to give Mr. Barlo's employees a
little more room to operate and to work more efficiently within the building. It's a scrape and rebuild of what's already there. We're taking the entire old building and replacing it with a newer, larger building. So, we believe that there's plenty of evidence in the record to show that we need the positive and the negative criteria. As to that
last prong of the negative criteria regarding no substantial impairment of the purpose and intent of the organ and the zone plan. Uh again it's it's it's the same as it was just a little larger but what we are proposing meets all the setback requirements building
requirements. So there's no substantial impairment to the intent of the ordinance. Um let's face it we're here because we have an ordinance that doesn't have conditions. So the town said the town envisioned vehicle sales on this property. They
just didn't finish what they wanted and and so um it's not like this is inconsistent with the master plan. Um so those are your pros. >> Last question I had was um and perhaps it's for the the owner. Um this is a new
non-residential development so it will be subject to the affordable housing fee of 2.5% equalized assessed value of the and it is going to be a nice improvement. So, um I think there's no way around that. >> Uh I wish there was, but there isn't. Uh
the only thing I would say is that it's going to be 2 and a half% on the increase in because there's an existing building there. >> Correct. I would agree that and you and I can phrase that appropriately so that you're not going to be taxed on the whole or the applicant isn't going to be taxed on the whole part of it. It's
going to be taxed on the enhanced uh value. >> Correct. I agree with that. Sure. Kim, >> hi. I was just looking at the the photograph here. Um, it looks like there's some um supplies being stored
outside the building. Are there going to be any um outside storage of equipment? Are you going to be working on cars outside of the building? >> So, I see on page one of exhibit A4 one pallet with one box on it. Mr. Marlo, why don't you step forward and and
answer whether we intend to store product outside this building? >> That's certainly not the intention. I think from this picture here that was just sitting there temporarily >> and then cars aren't going to be being
worked on outside of the building. Everything all the work will be inside the building. >> Yes, that's correct. >> In fact, this is going to I guess further enable that to make it more an inside operation because you're going to have you're have the same number of
employees and it's just going to lend itself to more efficiency. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Any other questions from members of the board? All right, seeing no questions. Thank you. Um, >> thank you.
>> We'll uh we'll open it now to public. Um, anybody here, there's only a few people here that are not in the applicants camp. Anybody here wish to address the board concerning this application? >> Can we see the pictures? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah, sure. >> Why don't you come on up? There won't be a There won't be a bad rush. There's only one of you. or two of you. safe to assume you're coming down. >> Yeah,
>> you got you have to address the board. >> That's all right. >> You have to sign into apparently. Where's the sign in? >> It's up there. There's a there's a sign in sheet. Please put your name and your address on there. Thank you. >> And even though you've just signed in,
would you state your name and address for the >> My name's Michael. I live 23. >> Do you swear to tell the truth, hold truth about the truth and your comments before? >> I do. My main question is we're building out towards 13 as opposed to where I live.
Actually, we're keeping the same frontage exactly. You see that portion that sticks out the back? All we're doing is squaring off two corners. So, we're not coming towards >> it. Good. >> Any other comments? >> Okay.
>> You are released. Okay. Anybody else in the Anybody else in the public wish to address the board concerning this application? All right. I see no more um indications. So, I'm going to close it to the public.
And now we'll begin uh the board's uh conversation. Jay, I have a quick question. It looks like in your report uh all the questions are either a answered or b uh they've agreed to work with you on your recommendations with maybe the exception of one unless I'm
missing something. The sidewalk um requirement you had made um the applicant had indicated they they are seeking a waiver of that requirement. So I don't know if you have any comments on that testimony that you could guide the board uh members on. The applicant's
asking for a waiver install the sidewalk, but they've agreed to work with uh DOT who's actually in the process of preparing improvement plans along the front of the site and part of the DOT improvements will be to add
sidewalk area. So, I would bow them to my recommendation and allow them. >> Thank Thank you. >> Is there the justice jumbo but also the
applicant. Is there a way to phrase this so that it's the waiver is granted since DOT is in the area and they may insist or require installation of sidewalks down the road that that that's
waver subservient or lesser than what DOT may require. >> Well, my understanding is that DOT would actually install the cooperate and allow that to happen if they choose to do so. >> So it makes sense not to to install you
install your client install them pay for them over a foot >> and plus I don't know where the rightway line is off Mr. I'm sure he does, but we need to get a DOT permit anyway. So, so the idea is if they're coming down 13 should allow that to happen. So, it's more
my recommendation would be that a waiver would be granted with the condition the applicant agreed to work with. >> Thank you, Jay. Was there anything else? Any other comments? >> No, the the applicant is asking for the variance in the overhead utilities. That
variance is necessary. I believe they provided a legitimate argument with that retaining wall. You know, you'd have to literally open that retaining wall to put the buildings in. It's also consistent with the remainder of the site. So, I don't believe there'll be anything.
>> Thank you, Ed. How about you? Any comments? >> There's only one actual question about here. Has there been any discussions with the DOT about any access permits you can get to do your sewer protection? Is there most likely going to make you take there would be from the DOT
standpoint wouldn't be any access permit. It would be a construction permit to do opening that would be the only cont. >> So I know that Mr. Del is going to give us a a great summary as as he usually does. Um, and once you get a wind out of
your sales, there was a a question about, you know, the variance relief saw and usually the board does hear planning testimony. Um, which you're free to accept or reject, but here and many times you accept it. There's been one or two times which you have
rejected it. Um, but you can also use your common sense uh as to uh the conditions we're an existing site here and I think that is fair for the applicant board to consider the testimony of both Mr. Stout and Mr. Barlo in terms of the current conditions
the changes in terms of whether that meets the standard for uh positives outweighing the negatives and also the special reasons in that this is an existing site which operates well and their testimony is that it's going to actually increase efficiency uh help
with drainage and enhance the overall operability of the site. So I think from that you can make a conclusion that they have met the D2 variance from the I mean it's up to you whether you want for the testimony but don't feel compelled to
demand uh planning testimony because you can use your horse sense but they've also presented expert testimony. Um and I think uh Mr. Trungalow and Mr. have also talked about the um relief for the bolt variance and for the overhead
and the waiver for the sidewalk. Um and then they there's also a pre-existing non-conforming condition as to the the front buffer, but that's pre-existing. So they actually don't need a waiver for that, but they nonetheless agreed to um agreed to soften that by working with
with Mr. Trumbo on potential buffering. So they've agreed to soften some of the relief uh that may be necessary here and they presented sort of hardship testimony as the variance relief for the overhead utilities because that's an existing addition which would be
difficult to uh change. They've agreed to a number of the comments to make and add notes and design changes to the plans as identified by both boards professionals. Uh they've acknowledged the affordable housing requirement as the uh new new improvements, not going
to take it as to the existing building. Um they don't they they're going to follow the same patterns for um storm water management and the grading plan was submitted which is going to follow existing plant patterns. Um it does not
involve more than an acre of disturbance that much. So storm water management is not the new um requirements are not triggered. Um I think I've the conditions as stated including uh the conditions as stated in both
professional review letters you've addressed provided testimony and agreed to make certain changes or updates. Have I is there anything that that council you wish to add to the summary or argument in terms of >> No, I think you did a great job
summarizing it. I have nothing to add. >> Fair to say that uh you move to all the exhibits into evidence for the No objection. >> The one thing I don't misheard is you have the sewer connection application
>> that's in your letter and they agree to do that. >> Can I ask a quick question? >> Um just overlooking the just looking at the plans one more time. There's a there's a dirt area that has trucks parked and it looks like there's
some encroachment with some trees. Do we looking at this site, do we look at other improvements or encroachments that might have happened? Can we question that or bring that up? >> So, I mean, you just generally got to
comply with the boundary requirements of your property. You're going to park elsewhere. >> I'm not sure which questions you're referring to. >> There's a dirt. >> She's referring to the left side of the property near the near the property line. There's There's the clearing of
the single tree in center and then appears to be gravel and then I think she's asking if there's been an expansion proper. I did not hear that. So I don't I don't know the answer to that
question. I don't know if any of our team knows the answer to that question. I don't want you to guess it. The answer you don't know I'm not sure is the answer from my perspective. Mr. St. All I can say is we've done this survey for
>> I think 06 and this section in here has pretty much been consistent over those years. So I don't believe there's any expansion. The number that we gave for the various coverage includes this area as well. So that's all incorporated into that 67%
>> and I can tell you that it is outside of the residential buffer. So the resial buffer is required when your property line is 15 and the closest I measure. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from any board
member? Okay. At this point in time, uh we will begin our deliberation. Uh I'll just indicate that um thank you Mr. Deluo is a very wellprepared and um very well presented. Uh thank you to the witnesses and thank you to our professionals as
well. Um based on the summary that Miss Gardy has provided which mirrors the application combined with the recommendations of our professionals um you know it would be my vote to uh to grant the application. Um do I have a
motion uh to or any other comments for that matter? As to the conditional use variance, the bulk variance, the w design waver, the conditions as stated, and lessening of the pre-existing buffer
>> one point. It's a D2. It's not a condition. >> I apologize. >> That's okay. It's easily done just >> and approval of the minor site. >> Correct. So motion to approve a D2 use variance and minor site
>> with both variance and waiver >> and that is the motion that >> I think mayor >> and David was first right. >> All right. Would you take role on the vote? >> Mr. Miranda.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Moore. Yes, >> Mrs. Prento. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Custard. >> Yes, >> Mr. Hermansky. >> Yes. >> And Ms. Dvito. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you all very much. We
really appreciate it. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Ends. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, we still have the rest of our agenda. So, I'm going to open up the floor to the public for any other comments that are not related to that
particular application. Is there anyone in the public that would wish to address the board on any other topics? I see no indications from anyone in there's only two other people in the room and they're not coming up to the Vis. So, uh, with
that in mind, uh, we're going to close to the public. Do I have a motion for German? >> Who's that? Dave. >> Mary. >> All right. >> All those in favor? I >> I >> Thank you everybody.
>> Thank you everyone.