What is this? >> Town of Edison zoning board of adjustment regular meeting of March 24th. and was posted in the main lobby of the missile complex on December 18th, 2025. Please join me. I pledge allegiance to
the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
>> Mr. Carly, >> Miss Knight >> here, >> Mr. Sammon. >> Mr. Aayat >> here. >> Mr. Chabra >> here, >> Mr. Cerrito >> here, >> Mr. Patel >> here, >> Mr. Schneider >> here, >> Mr. Mr. Det,
>> Mr. Sada >> here, >> Vice Chair Gorman >> here, >> and Chairman Gumbo >> here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Secretary. Uh, the first resolution is a resolution naming an attorney for the zoning board of adjustment. >> Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion to nominate uh Jordan, Miser, Sammon, Sprag, and Suser as the attorney. >> Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Sedata. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Chabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Schneider, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Det, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes to the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes. >> And Chairman Ka, >> yes on the motion. Mr. Sham,
congratulations. Welcome on board. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, Madam Secretary, uh, minutes for consideration, please. We have minutes of December 16th, 2025 for approval. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Motion by Vice Chairman Gorman, seconded by Mr. Sedata. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Cerrito, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Chabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Schneider, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Dvet, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes to the motion.
>> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion. >> And Chairman Gumba, >> yes on the motion. Okay, Madam Secretary, of the minutes of I'm sorry, the minutes of January 27th, 2026 >> for approval. >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman. Second by Mr. Sedata. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Cerrito, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Chabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Schneider, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Dain, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes to the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion.
>> And Chairman Kumba, >> yes on the motion. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. First resolution for adoption. >> First resolution is Z13205 Lake View Renovations for denial. This is an approval of the denial. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Schneider. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Cerrito, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Schneider, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion. and chairman Kumba.
>> Yes. On the motion. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Secretary. Next resolution, please. >> Then we have Z34 2025 Barav Chokski. This is also a an approval of the denial. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chair McGorman.
Second by Mr. Schneider. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Certo, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Schneider, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion. >> And Chairman Kumba, >> yes on the motion. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Next resolution.
>> Then we have Z27205 Barat Sakuran for approval. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman. Second by Mr. Sedata. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Certo, >> yes on the motion.
>> Mr. Schneider, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Dvet, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion. >> And Chairman Ka, >> yes on the motion. Madam Secretary, uh, final resolution for approval.
>> C29 2025 Bun Batia for approval. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman Ogorman. Second by Mr. Sedata. Roll call, please. >> Uh, Mr. Certo, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Chabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Schneider,
>> yes on the motion. >> Uh, Mr. Sada, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion. >> And Chairman Gumba, >> yes on the motion. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. We have one announcement. KZ24 2025 Vivian Pereira at 1651 Woodland Avenue has been
carried to April 28th, 2026 with no renotice required. If you are here for this case, Z24, 2025, Vivian Pereira at 1651 Woodland Avenue. It will not be heard this evening. It will be heard on Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 with a meeting
beginning at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is a regular meeting of the township of Edison zoning board of adjustment. The board is is composed of Edison Township residents appointed by missile council who volunteer their time and service to the board. The missile land use law requires that members successfully
complete a land use training course administered by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. This board also holds in-house training conducted by our board professionals. The zoning board abides by the provision of the Misville land use law in addition to our board's bylaws. The zoning board is a quasi judicial land use board which differs from the township planning
board. Under Miss Valanius law, board members are required to be impartial and are not allowed to discuss any case prior to being considered at a hearing. All applicants will have the opportunity to present their case case before the board along with the opportunity for board members and board professionals to question the applicant and their witnesses. At the conclusion of the
applicant's presentation of their case, the case will open to the public. Residents within 200 feet of subject property will be heard, followed by residents from outside of 200 feet. All residents will be sworn in. They'll provide their name and address and they'll be given six minutes to comment on the application being considered without the opportunity for rebuttal.
Residents may ask questions of the applicant, the applicant's professionals and board professionals. The board request that these questions are asked prior to any commentary being made on the application. Once commentary begins, the resident's timer will begin. The applicant will be allowed the opportunity for cross-examination of their witnesses.
Under the law, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary which is repetitive or an attempt to filibuster the board. Further, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary that is irrelevant to the case or prohibited from the board's consideration. Once the public portion is closed, all public comments are ended unless new testimony is presented by the
applicant. Following the closure of the public portion, the applicant will have the right of summation on their application. Following summation, the case will go to the board for decision. This procedure has been followed by the board and is similar to procedures followed by boards of adjustment statewide. The mun land use law requires the board to engage in a balancing act
and is not required to strictly apply township ordinances, zoning plan, or master plan. As a board of adjustment, variances are granted when appropriately necessarily following all legal considerations. As has been the case with prior boards, this board will see where we're at if we are still in session around 10:30 p.m. I ask that all
applicants, professionals, and residents show respect to each other and be civil throughout all proceedings. I ask that you withhold applause, booing, or erupting interrupting anyone while they are speaking. The chair will not tolerate outbursts by applicants, professionals, or the public. Further, since most cases are being recorded by a
court reporter, I ask that speakers do not speak over one another. Madam Secretary, first case on the agenda, please. >> Case number Z34, 2023, Muhammad Zubair at 106 James Street. Applicant is proposing preliminary and final site plan approval and seeking bulk and duse
variances to construct a three-story medical office building. Standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan. Parking required is 45 proposed is 20. Maximum height required is 30 feet/2story. Proposed is 32.83
ft/3tory. Maximum F required is 0.25 proposed is 34. Front yard setback required is 35 ft. Proposed is 32.2 ft. Affected property is located in the OS zone designated as block number 631. Lot
number 12.11 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening, council. >> Good evening. Uh for the record, my name is Lisa John Bosa. I'm with the law firm KZA Shahinian and Jen Tamasi on behalf of the applicant. As was stated, the
application that's before you this evening is for preliminary and final site plan approval along with variance relief. Some of the board members that were were here might recall that this application was actually heard on two previous occasions on February 27th,
2024 and June 25th, 2024, at which time the applicant actually completed its affirmative um case, but the application was not open to the public at that point in time. There was a holding pattern since about a year and a half ago. Uh
but the applicant recently asked for the application to be placed back on the board's agenda. We also provided copies of the transcripts from those last two um hearings. So if it's okay with the chair, what we like to do is con continue from from where we left off.
Um, and if you'll indulge me, I will give a pretty lengthy summary of the application, but then we do have all of our professionals here, uh, along with the applicant to address any questions that the board may have and any questions that the public may have as well. >> That's great. Please proceed. Thank you. >> Great. So, to refresh the board's
memory, the subject property is currently developed with a former residential home that was converted to a medical office. Dr. Zubar the applicant who specializes in pulmonary disease and sleep medicine acquired the property for his medical practice which is related to
breathing and cardoppulmonary systems. Dr. Zubar would be the sole practitioner within the building with assistance from one technician and two people working at the front desk. Dr. Dr. Zubar previously testified that his practice is affiliated with JFK Hospital and many of
his patients are residents of the township of Edison and the surrounding communities where there's a huge shortage of physicians trained in pulmonary and infectious diseases. Due the proximities due to the proximity of the property to the hospital as well as the need for
pulmonary care in the area, the proposed location was ideal for his medical practice. Dr. Zubar explained that after he acquired the property in 2020, he soon beca he soon came to realize that the building could not function properly for the postcoid world and with the new
protocols for patient care, particularly for the types of patients that he treats with infectious diseases. This is the driving reason behind the proposal that's before the board to demolish the current building and replace it with a three-story medical office building. As far as the building layout and use,
while this is one medical office practice, it essentially can be viewed as two separate components. Floors one and two is where the Pulman care offices are. There regular business hours are Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 400
p.m. with extended hours on Wednesdays until 7. There are five exam rooms on each floor for a total of 10 exam rooms. The reason for the 10 rooms is twofold. First, instead of a traditional medical waiting room, due to the contagious nature of the diseases of the patients
that he treats, patients are not placed in a communal waiting room. They are placed immediately with into an exam room. Second is due to ventilation. Through his appointment booking, the doctor ensures that there's at least 30 minutes after a patient leaves the exam room before a new patient is placed in
the room so that it can be properly ventilated. The second component of the practice is the third floor where sleep studies are proposed to occur. It's open only on the evening hours and three days a week. Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
The patients arrive around 900 p.m. The studies begin at 1000 p.m. and conclude around 6:00 a.m. Because of the infectious nature of some of the patients, the standard protocol now requires that the room where the patient is breathing and sleeping for 6 to 8
hours be properly ventilated for a full 24 hours before the room can be used again. The application that is before the board is for Dvar for DFA variance. The medical office use itself is permitted. The floor area ratio variance
is required for all the reasons just stated. The additional space is needed for the health, safety, and welfare of the patients to properly segregate patients that may have contagious diseases and properly ventilate the exam
rooms in between patients. All other variances that are being requested are C variances which would normally be be heard before the planning board. As to the parking, considerable discussions related to the requested parking variance were had in the past per the
township's parking requirements which are which were enacted approximately 25 years ago when the world was a different place when there was common communal areas there wasn't urgent cares there wasn't teoc uh there was a requirement to have 60
parking spaces based on Dr. Zubar as the medical practitioner and accounting for one tech plus the square footage of the building. Whereas the proposed building has 20 parking spaces. Testimony was provided that from a practical standpoint 20 parking spaces
would never be filled at this building with Dr. Zubar, one technician, two front desk people, and all 10 exam rooms being filled, which would be extremely rare. That would equate to 14 used parking spaces. We also heard the board's concerns that should the
application be approved for another medical office user may occupy the space that would have a more intense practice. And I believe we also appropriately addressed those concerns with the following. Our traffic engineer provided a parking assessment report to the board
that looked impirical that looked at empirical data collected through the the country relative to the parking needs of generic medical office buildings medical and dental for the entire building not specific to Dr. Zubar's practice. The data showed that the peak parking demand
was 2.63 per thousand square ft which would equate to a parking need of 20 spaces. That is what is proposed with the current application. The township's police department also issued a letter on March 12, 2025 indicating that it had
no concerns related to parking or traffic at the proposed use. Lastly, and for belt and suspenders, Dr. Zubar agreed that as a condition of any approval, the third floor would be limited to just sleep studies only. As for the height and the front yard
setback that is being required, the permitted height is 30 feet and what is proposed is po proposed is 32.83 feet as was testified to the additional height was required for the need to place ventilation systems in between the
floors. The height is also not out character with the surrounding area and buildings fronting along James Street. With respect to the minimum required parking front yard setback 35 ft is required existing today is 32.2 feet and
the proposed is 32.3 ft. So the proposal is essentially maintaining the front yard setback that's out there today. We also considered some mitigations and conditions of approval here. I'll remind the board that this property is
otherwise fully compliant with the bulk standards for development within the zone and the building coverage. It's well below the minimum permitted 25% whereas the proposal is at 11.47% for building coverage. That is also prop proposing mitigation measures on any
impact that the building may have to surrounding properties with a very healthy landscape buffer, 177 evergreen trees, uh, double planted, planting heights at 8 foot tall and an 8- foot tall board on board fence. As conditions
of approval, the applicant further agreed previously to comply with the review letters of the board, including engineering planning, lowering the lighting levels at the property at 10:30 p.m., providing a building mounted light to illuminate the driveway,
would also provide a security cameras on the exterior of the building, and agreed to limit the third floor to sleep studies only. So with that, that is a very long and detailed summary that I don't normally give, but I thought it was appropriate in this instance. We are available, like I said, to answer any questions of both
the board and the public. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Does the board have any questions for uh Miss John Basta, >> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dove? >> So the pure purpose of this facility is to be used as pulmonary and sleep study
only. Correct. >> Pulmonary and sleep study. Yes. And you are not planning to add any other medical use on this property. >> Correct. >> And it could be if you if you if you change the uh the um
um any other reason pulmonary or slip study add any medical use, you understand you may have to come back to this board for adding or subleasing this property. >> Understood. Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mavi. Anyone else? >> Okay. All right. Council, you good?
>> Yes. Okay. All right. So, we'll now go out to the public. Anyone within 200 feet of subject site want to be heard, please approach. If you're within 200 feet of the subject site, you received a notice uh via certified mail. Anyone outside of 200 feet wanting to be
heard. Last call, sir. Good evening. How are you? Uh Hanan4 Road. I just wanted to speak on behalf of the building that's being proposed at 106 James Street. as someone who's known
Drs. Bear for quite a long time. Uh he's actually probably seen me growing up. He's been a family physician for a long time, a family friend for a long time. Uh many of you might actually know my uncle Sam Khan, who you know was in the ICU at JFK for over a month. Uh to speak to the character and credibility of
someone like Dr. Zubar, he actually went to JFK when my uncle was in the ICU three times a day. Mind you, I work at Memorial Sloan. actually I saw him beat me to get to JFK for the third time in that day. So to speak to the credibility of a physician like that to the caliber
I would say there's not many physicians of his level. I wouldn't be surprised if one day he's actually awarded health commissioner at some point. Um a lot of the patients that he sees at JFK mind you I'm speaking as someone who is a comp from a competiting uh hospital
a lot of them go to see him in Woodbridge. So it's inefficient. It's inefficient for our roads. It's inefficient for his patients and he makes the trek out there. I think having this building would be very very efficient for those patients. He can see them easy. They can see him go back and
forth. He can be right there, right? He has all his resources there. He can jump right over to JFK hospital and they're not trekking out or giving an urgent call. And as we know JFK, you know, you're not there when you want to be. So having a physician of this caliber, of
this level, of all his experience, I think it's also good for us in Edison. You know, we'll take him away from Woodbridge and again it'll be good for us here in Edison. So I really do hope you support this and I hope that we see more physicians like Dr. Bear stay within Edison instead of seeing them leave to other towns and other areas
that where there might be more opportunities for a building like this. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Uh anyone else without with outside 200 feet want to be heard, sir? Uh my name is Praep Malhotra and I live uh I live at the corner of
Praep Malhotra. P R A D E P and the last name is Malhotra. M A L H O T R A and I live at the corner of James and Grove which is very close to where he bought the building. And >> sir, we're actually going to have our
attorney swear you in. If you could raise your right hand, we're going to have our attorney swear you in. >> Yep. >> Do you swear affirm to tell the the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, sir. May proceed. >> Uh I live at uh I live at the corner of
James and Grove and I've been living there for many years. I know I know Dr. Zuber for many many years and I've been to his clinic in in Woodbridge all the time. Uh, I think it'll be great that he's moving here because not only is he
close to to JFK, but he's very close to where the the whole uh community is where where I live and I think they all use him a lot and I think he's a great doctor and it would be really helpful to have him there. >> Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it. Anyone else outside 200 ft want to be heard? Last call. Can I get a motion to close public portion? Motion to close public portion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Mr. Schneider, seconded by Mr. Tell. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those nay. The eyes have it. Public
portion is now closed. Mr. John Bos, do you have anything to add before we go to the board? >> I think I gave a long enough summary. I would just ask for summary of your summary. >> The board please look favorably upon the application. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. And I'll go to the board.
>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dav, I make a motion to approve this application. The applicant has met all of the negative and positive criteria. The site is particularly suited for the intended use. The use is not detriment to the public good or public safety. Um, this
motion will also incorporate all of the testimony of the previous previous and current testimony of the applicant, attorney, planners, engineers, and members of the board as well as incorporate all of the conditions as agreed. Also the applicant agrees that
if uh for any reason this facility will be used for any other use but per pulmonary practice and sleep study then applicant agrees to come back to this board for the um further approval.
>> Second motion made by Mr. Dav seconded by Mr. Schneider. Roll call please. >> Sorry before that we go to roll call I apologize for interrupting. I just want to make sure are we including the other conditions of approval that were mentioned uh during the summary. Just I want to make sure the motion's clear. They include lowering lighting at 10:30, mounted the mounted light, security
cameras, and limiting the third floor to sleep sleep studies. >> Yes. >> Thank you, council. >> Madam Secretary, will go please. >> Uh Mr. Schneider, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Tabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes to the motion.
>> Mr. Det, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes to the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion. >> And Chairman Kambo, >> yes on the motion. Congrat unanous approval. Congratulations. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Good luck. >> Madam Secretary, next case on the
agenda, please. >> Case number Z27 2025 Vikas Chararma at 36 Rainford Road. Applicant is seeking a bulk variance to construct the seconds story addition and add a level to the existing attached single family home. The following standards have not been
met. Affected property is located in the PRD zone designated as block number 1240, lot number 17 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening, council. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
>> Uh good evening, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. My name is Peter Wagner. I'm uh with the law firm of Richard Lupo LLC. I re I represent the applicant Vicas Sharma. Um this application concerns a request for a bulk variance to construct a second story and side addition to 36 Rainford
Road, also known as block 1240, lot 17, the Edison tax map, which is a residential single family attached duplex. Uh the property is zoned PRD or planned residential development. Um we are requesting one bulk uh one D bulk
variance. um under section 3711.9 G3C uh where the width of the proposed sideyard is proposed at 5 and 1/8 ft and the required width is 15 ft. Um the
I would note that in this particular case the uh the proposed plans were specifically agreed to by the neighboring duplex owner. Um and we were previously heard on November 18th, 2025. Uh at that time a question arose regarding the floor area ratio and why
that was not on the uh on the plan that was submitted to the board. Um I think we've clarified that by reviewing the ordinance and and uh coming back for more testimony with the planner in this particular case. Uh, a review of section
37-11.9G contains the developmental regulations for single family attached homes in the PRD zone and no floor area ratio requirement is included in that section. Um, I have planner John Chadwick here uh
to present to the board. The remainder of our application is from a planning standpoint. U, Mr. Robert Hernandez had previously reviewed the plan with the board on November 18th. He is here to answer any questions or continue with
any uh sort of presentation the board would like. And of course, I have the applicant here, Mr. Chararma, as well who we can ask questions of. So, uh with that, uh I would ask Mr. Chadwick to to come up and make his presentation.
sir, before you begin, if we could if I could just swear you in. Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, do you swear affirm tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? Yes. >> Can you state your name and address business address for the record? >> Chad Chadwick, could you just go? You can take a seat first and then then
speak to the microphone. Thank you so much, >> John Chadwick. C H A D W C. My professional address is 3176 327 closer to you.
>> Route 277 Kendall Park. And Miss Chadwick, you have appeared before this board prior. If you could just give the board uh the benefit of a brief summary of your qualifi qualifications and background. >> Yes, I have. Uh I've been working as a professional planner serving
municipalities and private developers for uh several decades. I have an undergraduate degree from Rutgers, a graduate degree from Pride Institute with a master's in city regional planning and architectural
design and have appeared before this board and probably several hundred and qualified as a professional planner >> and your license are current and good standing. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. You may proceed. >> I don't know if everybody received a
copy of two aerials. I think this goes to the end of our session back in November. >> Mr. Chow, I'm just going to stop you one second. Council, you're going to submit this as A1. >> Uh, yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes, Mr. Chair.
>> And the top photograph shows the location of the site, the development in the immediate vicinity, and the configuration of the lot. One of the issues was the addition to
the side of this home. Would it make it appear to be crowded compared to all the other homes in the neighborhood? And you see the orientation of
Mr. Sharma's home and the home adjacent to the addition. And what you have there is a Y separation because of the configuration of the lot being on the inside of the curb. So where you have a
standard 15 foot sideyard requirement, in this particular case, the existing separation of the corner of Mr. Sharmmer's home and his neighbors is roughly 50 feet. And I did that just
taking a simple surveyor's tape and measuring it. So with the addition, you still would have a separation in excess of the minimum required sideyards. More importantly, what would be the
impact of the streetscape as you drove down and as you would see these homes and you can see the homes in this area for those who have had the opportunity to drive out there. Almost all of the homes now are two-story have been added
on to over the years. This development was created in the early 1990s. Mr. Chararma's home is one of the few remaining that is like a one-story home. Heard the testimony from the architect
and the applicant as to the nature of the occupancy of his house. It's him, his children, and almost year round one of the sets of the in-laws. So you've got basically a uh diverse
multi-generational household which is not uncommon in the this community I think in terms of both the configuration of the lot the resulting separation and the improvement to the
home to really match what is existing throughout this neighborhood. Now uh it meets all of the criteria for approval of under the C2 standard or in the case of C1 standard being provide
additional land. There is no additional land. So it doesn't apply. We can't meet that. Under C1, we're providing for a I think a a wellplanned solution given the configuration of the lot, its
orientation to the adjoining building and the meeting the needs of this particular household, which is not a unique situation in the township, but is a common situation. Mr. Chav, I'm going to stop you for one second. Gentlemen in the back of the room, can you please
take your conversation out of the chamber? You're distracting the board. Miss Chad, give me proceed. You You can proceed. Thank you very much. Yeah. Sorry. >> I wanted to hear you. >> I wanted to hear you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. Uh in terms of as I said in really my conclusion if if you've driven through the neighborhood you can see that almost all of the homes have been expanded and similar to what
the proposal is before you. What is a little unique is the configuration of this lot as I described it. And you have in the two um photographs the aerial showing the relationship of this house to its neighbor. And you can see it's
quite a bit larger separation than normal. And that's because it's on the inside of the curve. Consequently, the width of the lot, the streetscape is much wider than uh a house that's exactly perpendicular to
the street. And the accompanying photograph is just showing the space between the adjoining house and Mr. Charmer's home uh with some construction um debris in the front yard.
As I said, I believe this conforms to in the requirements for proof and approval of a C2 variance. And I ask your approval. >> Okay. >> Any questions if you may have? Does the board have any questions for Mr. Chadwick? >> Mr. Chairman,
>> Vice Chairman, >> so your testimony is you have not submitted an F. >> We're going to turn to We're going to turn to Mr. >> Oh, >> there's no F for the attached homes. Detached homes. Detached single family, not attached.
>> Thank you. >> Any other questions, Mr. Chadwick? Okay, seeing none. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Council, >> yes. Uh, unless the board has some questions for
the architect or any further questions for the applicant, um, I I would submit that as our application, I think that, uh, the I I I think it's clear that the testimony reflects that granting the sideyard variance will not be a
substantial detriment to the public good. did not substantially impair uh the intent or purpose of the master plan. Um and I I also think that in this particular case uh Mr. Chadwick's uh Mr. Chadwick's testimony makes clear that
the shape of this particular lot uh means that there are are many fewer other designs that would fit on the lot uh that would allow my client to be able to build onto the existing property in a way that uh that in the way that he needs to. So I would submit that as our
application, Mr. Chairman. >> Great. Thank you so much. All right. So we will now now go out to the public. Anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard. If you're within 200 feet of subject site, you received a notice via certified mail. Anyone outside of 200 ft of subject site
wanting to be heard? Seeing none, can I get a motion to close the public portion? >> Motion to close public portion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Patel. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I >> those nay the eyes have it. Public
portion is now closed. Council, do you have any other summation? Anything to add before we go to the board? No. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll go to the board. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Mr. Dav, >> I make a motion to approve this application. Applicant will comply with the current, you know, building
construction by laws and codes. This is a dimminimous request. It is not detriment to the neighborhood. It enhances the neighborhood and not out of character with the neighborhood and there are no objectors. >> Second motion made by Mr. Dav, seconded
by Mr. Sadata. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Schneider, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Chabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Zay, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Saha, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on the motion. >> And Chairman Cumba,
>> yes on the motion. Unanous approval. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Thank you board. >> Madam Secretary, Nick's case on the agenda, please. >> Next case on the agenda is case number
Z33 2025 NHDP LLC at 136 Floyd Street. Applicant is seeking bulk and deuse variances to construct a second story edition. The following standards have not been met. Max F required is 0.25. Proposed is 041. Affected properties
located in the RA zone designated as block number 956 lot number 8.01 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening, Mr. Prasad. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh David Prasad, licensed
attorney in the state of New Jersey from the firm Bob Smith and Associates. Here tonight representing the applicant uh NHDP LLC for properties located at 136 Floyd Street, Edison, New Jersey, block
uh 956, lot 8.01 in the RA zone. Uh tonight, the applicant is here seeking a second story add a level to the existing single family home. Um the addition will be approximately 1,490
square ft. The main reason we are here before the zoning board is because there is an F variance for the site where 25% is permitted and 41% is proposed. Uh the reason for such a high F variance is because this site is only 8,000 square
ft where the zone requires 20,000 square ft. Uh my client had purchased this site in May of 2025. The existing two-bedroom house is existing on that site. No other changes um have been done since the purchase.
Um as I mentioned, uh we are seeking an F variance uh for 20 for 41%. Um but there are also a number of existing uh bulk variances. Uh these variances have been existing with the site um since the
lot was purchased. Uh starting with a minimum lot area where 20,000 square feet is required and 8,000 square feet is proposed. Uh minimum lot width where 100 feet is required and 80 ft is proposed and existing. Um minimum lot
depth where 100 ft is 150 ft is required and 100 ft is existing. Uh front yard setback where 35 ft is required and 24.3 feet is existing. Sideyard setback where 15 feet on one side or 30 feet on both
side is required and 12.7 feet or 26.7 feet is existing. Rear yard setback where 60 ft is required and 31.5 ft is existing. Accessory sideyard setback where 10 ft is required and 4.6 ft is existing.
Accessory rear yard setback where 10 ft is required and 2 feet is existing. maximum lot coverage where 15% is required and 23.1 feet um 23.1% is existing and maximum impervious coverage
where 30% is required and 34% is existing. Now I did mention that this site is significantly undersized. It is an 8,000 ft lot where 20,000 ft is required. This is how the site was and this is how it was purchased. Um, a reason for all these existing variances
given the ex existing house on this lot um is because of the undersized nature of the lot. Um, as I mentioned, the the house the existing house on the site is uh a two-bedroom home. My client is um seeking to do a addition for a second
story to modernize the home, bring it into conformity with some other houses in the neighborhood. And frankly, the only reason we are seeking an F is due to the severely undersized lot. Um, I did hand out a exhibit A1 for you marked
and dated to with today's date that shows the existing home and then also a general rendering of what the home will look like with the seconds story addition seeing that is more modified and we have our architect here to discuss that in detail.
Um, with that, if the board has no questions of me, I do have our professional our licensed architect, Mr. David Dugis, here to answer some questions or to provide testimony as well. >> Does the board have any preliminary questions for Mr. Prasad? >> So, you know, you may proceed.
>> If I can call Mr. Dugas and have him sworn in, >> you raise your hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? I do. >> Can you say your name and business address for the record? >> Name is David Dugos. I am a partner at Duggasper Architects. I'm located at 24
Egan Avenue in Fords, New Jersey. >> And Mr. Das, can you please give the board the benefit of your credentials? Yes, I've testified here um and numerous boards throughout Milis County and a couple in Union County licensed since uh
1998 and worked on several projects, many projects in Edison. >> Your license are current and good standing. >> We'll accept you. You may proceed. Thank you. >> Mr. Dugas, the applicant uh hired you to generate a floor plan and elevations for
the home and the proposed addition to the home. Correct. >> That is correct. Can you please give the board a rundown of the architectural design and layout? >> Well, we first uh approached the home. The existing home is a a ranch style home with an attached garage and uh we
did some analysis of of the of the home itself. The home consists of a entry foyer, uh, living room, small dining area with an attached kitchen, a powder room, laundry area,
closed porch, and two bedrooms. Um, looking at the home and trying to see what the need was in the area, what's matching in the area. Uh we had formulated a plan to convert that home to a center hall colonial
uh with a new portico and entry. So you would have a a new portico. You would have an open foyer stair going up which is modern, a smaller living room which is not as needed, a dining room,
a new kitchen with a uh island and extra work area. and we would have a family room and the rear corner we convert into a a bedroom suite which seems to be needed in in the area. Uh we added a second floor to
increase the number of bedrooms. Uh we increased it to have a master bedroom suite with a um its own bath and a and a walk-in closet. three additional bedrooms, one with its own onsuite bath and then two would have a Jack and Jill bath off the master
bedroom suite. To continue, we added a small denoff area and we bought a laundry up to the second floor uh for ease of use. That's basically the rundown of the home
itself. And um the proposal tonight is not to expand the footprint of the home, but just to add a level to the home. Is that correct? >> Yeah, we we have a small bump out just for windows. It's really like 16 square feet. It's basically just to kind of make the house not so uniform to kind of
give it some character, but other than that, there is no additional space being placed on the property. >> I have no further question for Mr. Dugas. If the board does have any questions, >> does the board have any questions for Mr. Dugas? >> Mr. Sure. >> Mr. Chopper, >> I have a question for the um the
architect. >> Okay. >> Uh so you're the first story is staying the same. You're doing an extension to the second story. >> Yeah. Um there is a small bump out. We're going to have like a walk out a walk out bay kind of condition for the windows just to kind of break up the
flat facade, but everything is being built straight up except over we're not building up over the porch. >> So the frame for the first story is going to stay the same. >> It's going to stay the same. >> Okay. And I see that here the first story is getting it's gonna be nine feet. Is that accurate? Right now currently the house has nine foot ceilings on the first floor.
>> We're gonna raise that to kind of because because the back area is so large. You just kind of want to make it like um proportional to the space. >> Okay. Um second question is that I see that there is a sun room in the back. Um do we is there and you guys will be
converting that sun room into a bedroom. Is there any um existing permits or anything or any variances that has been on the record um making that conforming or >> I'm not aware of it. You know, we we proposed um what we have. So, I don't
think it's there's an issue with that. >> Okay. But there's no records. Does the current square footage include that sun three of season? >> Yes. The the square footage I'm showing includes that. Yes. >> I'm talking about the original like what's on the tax records right now. like is that permitted use that we're incorporating into the house into a
bedroom that sun room that's in the back of the house is that part of the house existingly that because according to that the variance is seeking it is non-conforming and it's there it's shown in the papers but I'm asking if it's been >> cleared I don't know if it's been
documented through the tax records now >> okay >> you're asking me if the existing home has been documented is that for an enclosure >> correct because that enclosure is being converted into a bedroom now. So my question is is that enclosure is it existingly on in the record as a livable
space or are we granting that because your your setback is going from 60 ft which is required I understand it's a small lot to 31 ft. So out of which almost 11 ft is that sun room in the back according to your survey. >> So I would my major concern here is that
you're going from a threeseason sun room into a full bedroom into living space. Was that previously approved or not? That was my question. >> That I can't testify to. I don't know if it was previously approved. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
Any other questions from the board? >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Uh for the for next for the testimony of our professional engineer and professional planner, Mr. John Dupont. If the board can swear him in.
that. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> I do. >> You state your name and address to the record? >> John P. Dupont, JPD Engineering, 756 Jackson Road, Stewartsville, New Jersey. >> Mr. Dupont, you have appeared before this board prior, but if you could please provide us with a brief summary
of your background qualifications. >> Absolutely. So I am a professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm also a certified municipal engineer. I've served as the bur of correct plane zoning board engineer and planner for the past 28 years. I've been in front of your board numerous times as both an
engineer and planner. All my licenses are currently in good standing. >> Okay. And just for the record, you're going to be you're going to be accepted as a engineer and planner. >> Both. Yes. >> Great. You may proceed. Thank you. >> Mr. Mr. Dupont, you've created the uh plans for this site uh and you've also
prepared planning testimony. I will leave it to you on which one you would like to do first, but if you can please give the narrative to the board. I >> certainly will. So, from an engineering standpoint, as you heard this project, the footprint's not changing. It's the existing dwelling now. No expansion of the footprint whatsoever. So, from an
engineering standpoint, there's no changes. There's no revised grading. There's no expansion. There's no swailes needed. There's no increased impervious. there's no increase in drainage areas or um any kind of runoff whatsoever. So, it stays exactly the same. Now, from an
engineering from a planning standpoint, so the property is, as you've heard, significantly undersized lot, currently developed, has a single family dwelling on it, and the property does have several pre-existing non-conforming conditions.
very quickly. Lot area, lot width, lot depth, front yard setback, sideyard setback, rear yard setback, accessory structures, issues with side and rear yard for accessory lot coverage for building lot coverage
complete uh impervious. These conditions are not a result of the current application, but rather outstanding conditions associated with the property. The proposed application, the applicant's proposing to construct a second story addition to the existing
dwelling. Importantly, there is no expansion of the building footprint. There is no increase in lot coverage. There are no further encroachment in any setback requirement. The only new variance required as part of this application will be for floor
area ratio for the applicant. The application is characterized as follows. It's continuation of existing bulk variances. One new variance which is a D4 F variance and we use the flexible C2 criteria
prove our case. Uh this positive criteria the applicant satisfies the positive criteria in my opinion under the municipal land use law. The proposed development represents a better planning alternative than knocking down existing house and building a large one and it does advance several purposes of the
MLUL. Purpose Ae and I. We're promoting a de um desirable visual environment through the improvement and modernization of an existing dwelling. We're providing appropriate living space for a residential use consistent with
the zone plan and the neighborhood. We're encouraging a rehabilitation and reinvestment in existing housing stock rather than demolition and potentially new development. The proposed second story addition allows the applicant to improve the functionality of the home without
increasing the building footprint or site disturbance which is a superior planning outcome. Critical aspect of the application is that the proposed development does not intensify any existing non-conformity related to setbacks, lot coverage or
building footprint. All existing deficiencies will remain unchanged and in that regard the application is inherently less impactful than many other types of expansions. Far as F goes, the F variance is modest
in nature and arises solely from the vertical expansion of a structure and the fact that this lot is so small. The requirement in the zone is 20,000 ft. This existing lot previously subdivided is only 8,000 square feet.
The increase in floor area occurs within the existing footprint only. The proposed improvement is consistent with modern residential living standards. The scale and masking of the structure will remain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood where two-story
dwellings are common. I do have an exhibit. I think we passed it out to the board. >> Yes, that exhibit is marked as A2. It's a pretty basic exhibit, but what I wanted to show the board tonight was that there are three other properties on
our block that received an F variance for builder dwellings, bigger dwellings. Now, these lots are almost all three of them actually are larger lots than we have and their dwellings are larger than we are proposing. They're all twotory and they've all been awarded F
variances. As far as the negative criteria, I think the applicant also satisfies that there is no substantial detriment to the public good. There's no increase in impervious coverage. There is no new encroachments into a setback. The improvement will not adversely
impact light, air, open space, drainage, or storm water. No substantial impairment to the zone plan will result. The deviation is limited to F only. The overall site layout remains unchanged. The proposal is consistent with the
existing development pattern in the surrounding neighborhood. In conclusion, the applicant the application represents a reasonable and well- balanced improvement to the existing residential property. It allows for modernization of the home while
maintaining existing footprint avoiding any increasing inconformities. advancing sound planning principles. The request the request can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without impairment of the intent and purpose of your zone plan and zoning ordinances. I respectfully
request that the board grant the requested variance and that concludes my testimony. Does board have any questions for Mr. Dupont? >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Mr. David, the um what is the current F the way the house is now?
it >> I'm sorry Mr. D could you please repeat that question >> the current F don't see >> over the existing house yeah >> it is 0.21 21 >> that includes the um the solar on the
back side the extension where you try to convert into bedroom including that >> one.20 20. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then you are proposing to finish the basement as well now. Correct. It is unfinished basement now.
>> Sorry. We have uh the architect coming up to answer that question. That's okay. >> It's partially finished, but it's not to code. So, we want to correct that and refinish it. And then it has the um step down from from inside or it has the
>> currently it's through the garage >> to the garage now. Now you're changing it to make it to go down to the basement. >> Yeah. To make it more functional. >> Now you have to go through the garage to get to it. And the staircase itself doesn't meet code either. So we're
trying to correct that. >> And you are finishing that basement as well. Correct. >> That's correct. And you are adding second floor on top of the finishing the basement. Correct. >> Not over the entire building though.
We're not going over the porch. We're just going over the main part of the building. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman. >> Yeah. in reference to exhibit A2 with the existing uh properties in the
neighborhood and you have um you your testimony is that there's existing properties that were approved with an F. Do you have those F numbers that were approved? >> I have the numbers based on the agendas
that were looked up for those FS. Give me one second. Uh for 903 Newover, the F that was approved was 35%. Um for 124 Floyd, uh it was approved for 31%.
And then for 870, I'm sorry, five Hollywood, it was also approved for 35%. And again, those lots are already much bigger than our lot. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Mr. Dup.
Mr. Dupan, I have a question. So 35.31.35. Your request is 41. >> They are significantly larger lots. When we put a second story on this building in this neighborhood, it's still going to be one of the smaller homes on the
block. It's just a smaller lot. It was subdivided I don't know how long ago, but if you look at that exhibit we submitted, it's significantly smaller. The home right next door is two stories and probably twice the size. The homes down the end of the block significantly
bigger. We're not overbuilding in the neighborhood. >> What about five not about five Hollywood? Just looking at your >> your exhibit. Five Hollywood looks like it's >> Let me let me let me let me finish. >> I feel like I'm at home. I'm getting interrupted. Let me finish. >> Uh Five Hollywood looks it appears to me
just from from you know that's the same size similar size lot. >> It's it's significantly bigger and the house is significantly bigger. >> Okay. >> Also that exhibit kind of >> cut off the size. >> Oh yeah. So actual size. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Any other
questions for Dup? Mr. David, >> Mr. Chairman, um let me propose this. You you have 0.20 FR now as as current, you know, house the way it is standing now. Correct. >> 021 >> 0.20.25
is required. You are asking for 41. >> Correct. >> You also have a lot of non-confirming you know existing conditions. The minimum lot area in this uh in this neighborhood is 20,000 square ft. You have 8,000 square ft small lot. You guys
recognize that. Um what you are asking is that the the first floor you are adding a onebedroom in the back of the rear of the property. Would you be willing to get rid of the onebedroom? That would better the F. It
will also improve the uh rear yard setback. >> If you can give me one minute, I'll just like to ask the first floor. You're not adding second floor on the first floor bedroom. Get rid of the bedroom. It would improve your F. Come close to what
we have in the neighborhood. Uh after speaking with the applicant, he he is willing to remove that bedroom that is currently going to be where the sun room is. >> Got Can architect just get me just if you get rid of that 14 by 10 12 square
ft on the first floor what the air would change to? Can you do some quick calculation? >> Do you want to take a few minutes? >> Yeah, if we can have a few minutes, please. >> Five minutes. Sure. >> You got it. Thank you. >> Thank you. See what it is. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. 32 question. It's okay. >> Let's get some pretty good ones. Yeah. Locked and locked and loaded on that one. Good. How are you? >> Thank you for sending me the email. >> Yes, I did. It was very helpful. I
appreciate it. >> Yeah. Yeah. I love it. Thank you. I know. I know. Doing good. >> Yeah. How are you? >> Oh, weather is terrible. I hate it. You just you
You Vegas or what? I'm working. No, I don't. I don't. Maybe. I don't know. I was gonna go to Florida next week, but I guess it >> Yeah. Move forward. I don't know. Wednesday. I don't know. >> That's nice. Go.
>> I think it's fine. >> They're paying the expenses. And the kids want to do it. >> Yeah, why not? >> Let them make some money. >> See what they can do. >> Yeah. >> Got to get some big players.
>> Got a producer next year. He gets one a year. That's it. >> That's what he needs. >> No, they have like million over 15 or 16. >> So yes, right away, not
LLC that money. Scott, we can't make it conditions too much. >> Making 250,000 a year. We can't just deny hitting second floor.
Come on for anything. >> It is just going to make the smaller lot look even smaller. >> When baby I'm ready. >> All right. You good? Let's wake up the camera guy.
Get the camera. where we return to session. >> Mr. Pad, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, we did some quick calculations uh for removing that uh first story bedroom um which was a converted sun room. Um and I'll leave it to Mr. Dupont to explain the
calculations. >> So, two things happen when we remove that sun room. One, the F does go down to 0.39. So it does reduce by 140 >> square feet 29 >> 39 >> 0.39.
>> It also improves the rear yard setback. The rear yard setback currently is 31.5. The rear yard setback becomes 41.8. So I think that's even a bigger improvement that another board member was asking about. >> So after speaking with the applicant, he is willing to remove that bedroom from
the floor plan. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh any other questions for Mr. Dup? Mr. >> Chairman, Mr. >> Compared to uh comparing the neighborhood properties where you have 35% 31%
30% um this being a small lot is there anywhere you can do better come in range of 32 33%. This is simply too small a lot. Now, let me ask you, who's living in the
house now? >> No, it's vacant right now. It is vacant. >> What's the purpose of adding this second story now? Is a hardship? What's a family issue? What why we are adding in such a small lot, second floor? >> Well, the existing home is only a two-bedroom house. Um, and as you know,
the homes in Edison have been growing and growing. And this is one of those houses that we plan for a, you know, a multigenerational house or actually a larger family home. a twobedroom home is not very practical. It's not very modern. It doesn't really suit the current living standards. Um, so the
idea is to bring it to match the other homes in the neighborhood and also just provide a new modern style home in a neighborhood that is full of updated homes. >> Yeah, but those houses have bigger lot though. >> That's correct. And unfortunately, this lot is just it's a small lot and that's
how it's been existing. And as you as we mentioned, all the bulk variances that are I will say plaguing this lot are due to the size due to the fact that it's unders sized. >> When did the applicant buy the property? >> Uh applicant purchased a property in May
of 2025. All exist all conditions were existing >> and it's still sitting there awakened since then. >> That is correct. >> So there is no hardship to add on second floors. Just want to add additional floors there. Well, it's it's more of to to modernize the home, enhance the
neighborhood, provide a provide a home in the township that matches most other homes in the township. >> It does not, though. F is not matching the other neighborhood properties. >> Well, if I can ask Mr. Dupont. Um, >> I'm going to leave it up to you guys.
Can you guys do it 3.32.33? >> I think that would take some revisions to the plan, but uh if you give me another second or so, I can talk to Mr. Dupont. You have That's taking so long. Um, we had a
conversation with the client. There we go. We had a conversation with the applicant. Um, he is willing to reduce the footprint um and the overall addition to the home. Um he's willing to make it bring it down to 35%
F. I feel like that is more compliant with the other homes in the area. Again, it's going to be a smaller house than all the other homes in the area because of the lot size, but I think 35 uh% F is is on par with what the other homes have been approved for. If the
board will accept that proposal, >> you want to come back with that kind of uh the plan for review. >> Well, I I would ask uh the board attorney if we agree to the condition that we won't exceed 35% F if we can and we submit building plans compliant with
that if that's acceptable. >> You need to provide at minimum some some detail as to how you would come you would do that. >> Understood. Okay. So, we'd have to come back with revised plans. >> I mean, yeah. I think we would just reduce the second story edition. That's how we do it. The
the first floor right now is 1688. I think we'd make the second floor addition to get us to a maximum of 2,800 ft, which will result in F.35. So, we reduce the second story edition and we will comply with your professional staff and your reports and
all, but we'll show that. So I would I would say with that with that little deal that it's up to the uh up to the board if they if they believe it's >> I think you would like to see >> we would like to see plans. >> Yeah. >> I think you would like to see the floor plans. >> Okay. >> How you going to bring it down to 335?
>> Okay. We understand >> Mr. Chairman. I would agree. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> How long do you uh would you estimate you need? >> I'll ask the architect very quickly. >> Yeah. Then what I'll also do is I'll ask the secretary to start looking at our calendar and see what works.
If possible, if we can be on the uh what's the next uh hearing date? I'm sorry. >> We have April 21st available. >> Or May 12th if that's better. >> April 21st. We can do >> April 21st. >> Okay. All right. Excellent. So, for
anyone here present, for anyone listening at home, uh this case will be continued on, uh Tuesday, April 21st with a meeting beginning here at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. You've received the notice, you will not receive another notice. This will serve as your notice. Thank you very much, and
have a good evening. >> Thank you, board chair. Thank you, members. Have a good night. Okay, Madam Secretary. Next case on the agenda, please. Case number Z25 2025 Hazabel Northeast LLC at 32 Parsonage Road. Applicant is
seeking preliminary and final site plan with used variances and bulk variances to demolish the existing structure and construct a new one-story with drive-thru restaurant. Standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan. Drive-throughs are not a
permitted use in this zone. Affected property is located in the GBH zone designated as block number 686, lot number 10.03 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening, Mr. Hail.
>> Good evening. Good evening, M Mr. Chairman, board members, and staff and board professionals. Steven Hail representing the applicant uh Hazabel of Northeast LLC. Great to see you all this evening and thanks again for your efforts. Uh this is an application to
demolish the existing T-Mobile uh building that's at the site and construct a a new Taco Bell facility. U Brian's handing out some exhibits here and we'll have those marked and identified. >> Secretary
and Mr. Chairman, I would like to to thank uh having the TRC's and we actually had two TRC's in connection with this application. Very helpful. Helps us uh address comments and concerns of that committee that we think makes a much better project. Uh we we
are before the zoning board. Uh this is across as everyone knows across from the the mall. Uh technically the drive-throughs are not permitted. uh their conditional uses in this zone, but they would have to be part of a shopping center. So, the standalone is what
triggers the the the Dvarian. We will have professional planning testimony to address that. We have received your planning reports, engineering reports and are prepared to address them and modifications have been made to the plans and Brian will explain those since
the initial submission and then ultimately what was is before the board this evening. So, again, thank you again for your your time and attention. again uh looking to demolish the existing structure, put in the new Taco Bell facility, and you'll see from the exhibits and the presentation, extensive
landscaping is being proposed now, providing significantly more buffer to the residential area uh behind the site and throughout throughout the area, new lighting, landscaping, etc. So, that's an overview of the application, Mr. Chairman. And uh what I'd like to do
first is to call upon Brian Ants from Bowler Engineering uh to take us through existing conditions and what's proposed by way of improvements. And Brian, you're going to have to be sworn. >> Yes. >> All right. Great. Our attorney will swear you in. >> Mr. Rahand, do you swear affirm to tell
the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> I do. >> Can you state your name and uh give us your business address for the record, please? >> Yep. Brian Andis B R Y an e hes. I work for Bowler Engineering. Our business address is 125 Half Mile Road, Sweet 207
in Redbank, New Jersey. Um, and I am a professional engineer. I've been a professional engineer for the last 10 years. My license is in good standing and I've with been with Bowler for about 15 years. >> First time appearing before us? >> Yes. This welcome. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We'll accept you. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you.
>> All right. So, Mr. transis if you could please provide the board as I mentioned with an ex overview existing conditions at the site and then what's proposed by way of improvements and he's also going to touch on because he's well familiar with it the operational information >> so if you want to speak to the board
that's speak to the uh exhibit that's fine just bring the microphone with you >> okay >> thank you very much >> um so I guess I'll just should I just go through each exhibit maybe mark them so it's easier to reference as I'm going through my testimony >> that's fine >> okay so what I'll do is exhibit A1 will be the aerial exhibit exhibit prepared
by Bowler Dated August 5th, 2025. And that is the first one in the packet that was handed out and the one in the bottom left corner at the easel over there. Um the second one is exhibit A2, which is a site layout plan sheet C-301, the second
one in your packet, prepared by Bowler, dated January 5th, 2026. And then the third one will be A3, which is essentially the architectural elevations sheets A-4.0
and 4.1 dated February 27th, 2026 prepared by Zelda Design. And that's the third two-page set in your packet. And then just going back to kind of orient the board with the project, the property, existing conditions, and then
move into proposed. Um the property is block 686, lot 10.03. The address of the property is 32 Parsonage Road and the lot size is approximately 0.52 acres. Um this lot
the lot has a width of 100 ft and a depth of about 225 ft. Uh the site has frontage along both Mason Street and Parsonage Road and Parsonage Road is also known as Middle Sex County Route 657. Um, the site, as mentioned, was located
is located in the G-BH, general business zone, where drive-thru uses are not permitted if unless they are in a shopping center. Um, and I think the board probably knows this area pretty well. It's right near Menllo Park Mall. But just some of the surrounding
uses, to the north is the Goodyear Auto Service and commercial and retail uses beyond. To the east is multif family apartment complex. To the south is Mason Street with Valvaline across the street and then to the west is Parsonage Road with the Menllo Park Mall across the
street from there. Um the existing conditions consist of a T-Mobile retail building with an area of approximately 1490 square ft. The current building does not actually comply with front yard setback to Mason Street. Um 34.1 is
existing and 50 feet is uh the requirement which the proposed application for Taco Bell will meet that requirement. Um it's also below the minimum gross floor area which is required for 1500 square f feet which the Taco Bell will also comply with. The
site has two paved access driveways. A one-way drive to provide ingress via Parsonage Road to the west and a full movement driveway to provide ingress via Mason Street to the south. The site has a total of 20 parking spaces under existing conditions, including 28A
spaces, um, as well as a trash enclosure in the northeast corner of the property, which actually does not comply with the accessory setback. It's essentially a zero foot setback along the property line. Um, the site also has an existing freestanding sign at the corner of
Parsonage Road and Mason Street, which is essentially the same location we'll be proposing the Taco Bell freestanding sign. Um, just to note, the sign does not comply with the required setback as 15 is required and 4.1 feet is what's actually existing. Um, as mentioned
earlier, the proposed project is to demolish and essentially reconstruct the entirety of the site. And having kind of said that, I'll move to what I marked as exhibit A2, which is essentially the site plan sheet that was provided in the package to the board um, for
presentation purposes. And the reason it's marked is it's colorized, rendered, landscaping is also dropped on the layout to kind of enhance the presentation and also combine some of the sheets in the package. Um, it was also mentioned briefly too, we did have multiple uh meetings with
the TRC. And just to give you a little bit of history of what was changed since the original application is we have reduced the building by 285 square ft. And this allowed us to enhance our width of the buffer to the residential set setback or the property line I should
say from what's existing today with the T-Mobile of about 4T. We originally came in with 10 feet and based on some feedback we received we actually made the building smaller and increased that 10 feet to 15. Um, it's still about 5 feet off the 20 that's required based on
the building height, but it is enhanced compared to what's there currently. And I will note that we have a significant amount of landscaping, which I'll get to in a little bit more detail, as well as an 8ft high board on board fence proposed along that rear residential property line.
Just to get into a little bit more of the layout, so the uh the proposed Taco Bell is a drive-through restaurant. Again, not permitted in this zone unless it's part of a shopping center. Um it's 2,114 square feet in size coming down from the
2400 that was originally submitted. Um in terms of setbacks, we comply with the frontages along Parsonage and Mason Street as well as all other bulk with the exception of the sideyard to the Goodyear to the uh north of the property
or top of the page. There's actually a 1 foot uh deviation. So the requirement is 15 ft from that property line. We were proposing 14, but what I would like to note is the 14 ft is actually to the overhang above the drive-through window and the building itself is actually
offset 18 feet from that property line. So the 4ft overhang for the drive-through window. Obviously, if you've been through a drive-thru, in case it's raining or something like that, the overhang is what's actually protruding into the required setback. Um, I would also like to mention a 25
foot by 11.3 foot trash enclosure is provided um at the rear of the building or to the east. And as mentioned previously, the existing trash enclosure for T-Mobile is essentially tucked in the northeast corner. And we're bringing this trash enclosure on the other side of the drive-thru or closer to the
building um again to just bring in the layout overall itself as well as provide a little bit more screening to the residents in the rear to the east. Um, as part of the improvements, we are proposing sidewalks, one throughout the
site, but as as well as reconstructing along the frontages of both Parsonage and Mason Street. Um, as I mentioned previously, there's an 8 foot high board on board fence that's propo proposed along the eastern property line, which again is separating the Taco Bell
property from the residential in the rear. and then a 5-ft board on board fence along the northern property line where there actually is an existing wall separating the Goodyear from the proposed Taco Bell. In terms of access, circulation, parking, things like that,
there's a 25 foot wide full movement driveway along Mason Street, um, basically tucked away in the southeast corner, a 15 foot wide one-way ingress and a 15 foot wide one-way egress. And another change that is made from the
original application is we did have a two uh not a two-way but uh one driveway combining both uh inress and egress that was going from parsonage into the site based on our application submitted with the county. They did have some feedback
of changing it for the orientation you see here this evening. So instead of having one driveway, which was again an ingress and egress in the northwest corner, they asked if we could separate them, which eventually led to in one of the professionals letter having a
deviation from a driveway curb um from the intersection of the curbing at the Mason and Parsonage intersection. So essentially um we're proposing around 18 feet which again was directed by the county where 25 feet is uh required
uh in terms of circulation on site. So once you enter from parsonage or Mason Street uh you could proceed through the drive-thru. The drive-thru is a 12t wide uh opening that can service and queue nine cars. The stacking starts at the
east of the building and ends at the northwest corner of the building. Um the payment pickup window is at the first car in the stack. A clearance bar is proposed which is typical for these type of operations um for entering the drive-thru which gives you the clearance for that overhead canopy I was referring
to earlier. And I would point out that the order point canopy is essentially located at the first car beyond the building to the east. So essentially the fifth car is where the ordering point would be. So, you would have the menu board as well as the speaker and that's about 87 feet from that rear property
line. And I would like to just point out in terms of operations for Taco Bell, um the ordering board includes a screen now to assist with ordering and hopefully uh limiting the back and forth in terms of conversation as well as a volume control that actually senses ambient sound
around and lowers or raises depending on the sound going on in the area. Would you mind just sorry to interrupt you, but would you mind just taking the microphone and just uh going over to the exhibit and showing us the queueing just because it'll you'll save me a question later on? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> So essentially, and if you can see there, there's actually numbering in the nine blue cars. So the first car, which is the one that's furthest to the west or to the left side of the page, that's car one, and that's essentially at the pickup window. So, moving from there,
the fifth car would be uh the first one that essentially, and I'll just point kind of to the top of the page here, that's where the ordering point is. And again, that's about 87 ft from the residential property line. And then as you kind of go through the rest of the queue, the remaining four gets you to the ninth car, which is essentially
shown just inside the clearance bar there. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> No problem. Um the site does propose 20 parking spaces where 15 are required. Um, this is based on operations for Taco Bell. This is pretty typical for this
size building. And I would note that of those 20 spaces, one is actually a van accessible ADA stall. Um, two are mobile pickup stalls, which are essentially the first two spaces to the east at the rear of the building. And then two
employeeonly parking stalls, which are the ones located in the southwest corner of the property. And essentially those are dedicated to employeeonly parking spaces. One for operations, but also if you notice they are the ones closest to the driveway uh that's ingressing into
the property. And the thought is employees will be lower turnover. Uh use those spaces more and know that they have to be on the lookout for a car potentially entering the site. Um based on township code, there's actually no loading spaces required for uh this type of project. Um, but
deliveries will occur on site based on a delivery from a WB40, which would enter the site from Mason Street, circulate, park in the drive aisle, unload, and then exit onto Parsonage Road. Um, deliveries occur about two times per
week. They're off peak hours, and again, entering from Mason and then exiting onto Parsonage. The route for trash pickup is this is the same route essentially coming off of Mason Street. Um, it would unload the trash from the trash enclosure, which is
again located directly to the west of the drive-thru, and then exit onto parsonage. And trash pickup typically occurs also twice a week, but can be done more as needed. And it is a private hauler, so Taco Bell does have control of when the
trash pickup is needed, should happen, things like that. A little bit more just on operations. The hours of operation are expected to be roughly 7:00 a.m. to midnight for the restaurant and then 2 am for the drive-thru, which is pretty typical for
Taco Bell operations. And the store will likely employ 15 to 20 people with the typical shift being about five employees. Just to touch briefly on utilities and storm water. All utilities are available to the site and we will attain approval
from all providers um both on parsonage and mason connections. And then in terms of storm water, the site is designed to maintain the current drainage pattern. It's a not a major development based on disturbance and impervious coverage and is about within 60 square feet of the
existing conditions with actually a larger building consisting of that impervious as opposed to motor vehicle or sidewalk. And as you can see there is a significant amount of landscaping on this uh property that's part of the proposal. So just kind of walk you
through what we're doing under existing conditions and what we're proposing. A total of nine trees are proposed to be removed on site. Four appear to be dead or dying and do not technically count towards a tree replacement calculation. And then five of the trees will be
removed and replaced in compliance with the township tree replacement code. The site does comply with the number of replacement trees, street trees and parking perimeter trees. So just to roughly go through those numbers based on replacement uh 17 are required 17 are
proposed. Street trees six are required six are proposed. Parking perimeter trees four are required and four are proposed. And then the one deviation we have is for the total impervious trees. A total of 17 are required whereas only
seven are proposed. Um so there is a deficit of 10. But what we're actually doing to propose here is total we have 17 canopy trees, 17 evergreen trees, which comes out to 34 total trees as well as 129 evergreen shrubs. So the
plantings while not checking the box of that final um requirement for imperous trees, the intention is really more evergreen trees and shrubs to kind of meet the screening and especially at that rear part of the property uh separating the residential um having
that denser planting in that area. As mentioned, we will comply with all township landscape standards except for the landscape buffer that I mentioned previously and imperous trees. Um, as I mentioned pre before, we have increased one from what T-Mobile has about four
feet of a buffer to the residential property line. Our original application was 10 feet and we are currently in front of you proposing 15 feet which is still 5T off of the 20 required as mentioned in the professionals letter based on the 15 plus the building height which adds another five feet to that
requirement. As I also mentioned previously, we are doing considering la considerable landscaping in that area in terms of that 15 feet has now the 8 foot high board on board fence as long as well as a number of evergreen trees and
shrubs planting to increase the buffer and the screening from the residential to the Taco Bell. And you can also notice just in general the the main part of the operation is pushed as far forward as we can for Parsonage Road. And again, that menu board is 87 feet
from the residential property line. And and I also would like to mention in the professionals letter, we previously were asking for a waiver for the minimum landscape strip along all property lines that was actually applicable to this zone. So, um, just as a note in the
professionals letter. And then just the last couple items. So, for lighting, the site proposes six freestanding LED lights, all with houseside shields. Um, we also have one wall pack at a mounting height of about 8 and 1/2 ft over one of the main doors.
And I would note that the lighting design does comply with all township lighting standards and has zero foot candle readings along the residential property line, both from the north and all the way down to the south of that property line. The final item I'd like to go through is
the signage. So, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, there is a freestanding pylon sign that's proposed. Um, it does comply with all requirements for the sign in terms of being under area, under height, things like that. The one aspect it does not comply with is it's not 15
feet from the front property line. We were proposing 8.8 ft. Um, and again, the T-Mobile sign is about four or so feet from that. And we did actually move the sign back three more feet from the original application based off of feedback we received from the township and the TRC.
But a variance is needed for the setback 8.8 where 15 is required. And then the final piece of this is the elevation which is A3 what I marked. And for the elevation I'll also kind of go through the wall signs that are
proposed. Um, the original application did have six total wall signs. The submitted application had four. And there was a fifth sign that I'm going to put and describe in my testimony that we would be looking for tonight that I just wanted to make sure the board was aware
of. Um, the building is also a mixture of black caviar colors, um, wall panels and siding with the touches of purple that you can see on this elevation. So, kind of just to walk you through each side of the building. Again, that
A3 exhibit is a two-page sheet. So, I'll go through this the facade in terms of north, south, east, and west, and what they face on the site, just so the board is aware. Um, the first one is the south facade, which is kind of the main entrance, faces the parking lot, and
it's what you would see if you're standing on Mason Street. Uh, the total area is about 30 square feet, and it's for the Taco Bell logo and the words Taco Bell. the north facade which faces the drive-thru or the uh Goodyear. Uh
the total signage is also about 30 square feet and that is the same Taco Bell with the Bell logo. The east facade is a 72 in illuminated bell sign which is 40 square feet also under the the maximum allowed of 42 square ft. And
then the west facade, which is what faces Parsonage Road, is uh 42inch bell sign as well as the additional sign is the wording live mass. Um that's about 23 square feet. And those two signs are still under the total allowed square
footage. So about 13 12 for the bell sign and 23 for Liv Moss. And that comes out to roughly 36.5 which is under the 42.7 that is permitted on that facade. Um, in terms of permitting, we obviously
have filed with the township and are here before you this evening for approval. We have received SEDD certification, soil conservation district. And we do have county conditional approval. And as we mentioned, we have had multiple meetings with the county um, for not only the layout, but the overall proposal as well
as what wound up being the driveway shifts that I mentioned earlier. And in terms of the professionals letter, I think I hit some in my direct testimony, but I would also like to mention that there is no issue with complying with the comments in either. >> So, we're going to go we'll go over each
of them individually. Um, so, uh, Miss Knight, we'll just start with the, uh, NGlia planning report. Sorry, he touched upon a lot of my uh questions in my report uh through his thorough testimony. Um
I think for the most part the last question would just be snow removal and how would snow removal be addressed on the site? >> Yeah. Um, I can check in terms of operations, but I do believe they have a private pl and we can certainly provide some type of diagram or sketch showing where we plan to either move snow or
place it in the event of a snow. >> Okay. And then you said there will only be a maximum of five employees during each shift or is that just kind of an average? >> That's that's an average. >> Okay. And then for the employees who don't have the two parking spaces on site, where would they park? Um, if they
do drive, they could use some of the other spaces on the property or they may get there a different way. >> Okay, got it. That's all. >> Thank you very much, Miss Knight. Mr. Carly, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Excuse me.
uh as was related in testimony uh the applicant did have benefit of a couple of uh technical review committee meetings in uh 2025 uh our office issued two review letters the most recent December uh 01 2025
in those review letters and I'm heartened to hear that those action items in the review letter that uh suggest uh plan revisions they would be addressed Uh, in my review letter, I do spend time talking about turning motions
from Mason on to parsonage. I do not expect, even though I do spend a lot of words on sheets two and three of my review part report analyzing uh the July 2025 traffic impact analysis
that the applicant submitted. Uh uh I do expect that gapping for left turns out on from Mason Street onto Parsonage and I'll rely on the engineer to correct me if I'm misspeaking in terms of your
discussions with the county. I suspect that the changes in the uh the uh the driveways that you had previously had on your frontage on parsonage, no left turn out of your site, it moves your left turns on to Mason. But I believe that's
that's appropriate. There's uh adequate gapping uh with Parsonage and Lafayette and then Parsonage and a Menllo Park Malls driveway a little bit further to the north uh to give you adequate turning motions off of Mason left turn
onto Parsonage >> and that makes sense >> in in terms of the county discussion. Yes, we do actually also have the traffic engineer here too that could speak a little bit more towards that. Well, if if it depend on how uh the at Mr. Attorney decides he's going to pro
provide his testimony, that's fine. But would you agree with that general thumbnail sketch? >> Yes. Based on my understanding of the conversation with the county as well as the traffic assessment, correct? >> And we do know you did the provide testimony relative to buffering with the the residents the residential property
to the east to the rear of you and you do have a significant uh landscaping package there. If during uh the construction of your project it is reported to Mr. Aayot uh by neighbors that you know maybe some understoring
plant uh understory plantings could go in to supplement what you're proposing. Would you be open to that as a condition if the board acted on this favorably? >> Yeah, I think we >> and Mr. Aoning officer. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Okay. The uh the other thing in your testimony you talked about uh and again
correct me if I'm using the wrong words. It seemed uh like you were talking about a dynamic the the ordering system in terms of volume is dynamic has some way to perceive background noise and adjust its volumes to the
background noises. Is there in your opinion any chance of that particularly uh the order board which is a little bit closer to the residences not terrible close as you testified 87 ft >> correct?
>> Is there any chance of that thing you know really becoming a nuisance to the residents that the volume of that order board gets jacked up by the machinery such that someone in the neighboring property hears that? I I can't speak to the actual operations, but it does have
its own volume control. So, if that were to happen, it would meet state regulations in terms of sound. And if that was to be exceeded, they can also manually turn it down if that would be the case. >> So, what you're talking about in every case, you'd comply with the state noise regulation standards.
>> Correct. that NJAC7 29 and that after 10 p.m. you wouldn't exceed 65 dB at your property line. >> Yep. And that should happen with the ambient sound, but also they will make sure that they control the values.
>> You'd be comfortable with the condition uh being written into a resolution >> uh to that to that extent that you'll comply with the laws that already exist. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Carly. Miss Knight, please.
>> And just confirming that you guys checked the condition of the sidewalks surrounding the property. >> We actually are replacing the sidewalk. >> Okay. Yeah, that was going to be Thank you. >> No problem. >> Is that the conclusion of your direct testimony? >> Yes. So, I have no further questions of our engineers at this time.
>> So, um so we'll go to the board and I'm actually going to uh kick things off. Um have you set a time? So, you're you're proposing garbage pickup uh twice a week. Um, have you any set time as to normally with with other uh Taco Bell
sites as to when garbage pickup occurs? >> It's typically off peak. I can check with the actual operator, but it's typically off peak and they do have control to change that with the private. >> Okay. So, I would ask to set a condition be that it be done uh early in the morning, but not done too early in the morning where you're going to be waking
up your your adjacent neighbors. >> Is there a time, Mr. Chairman? Uh I mean if you open at seven but I would say you know between six and eight. Okay. All right. So we'll set that as a condition. Um
and then through your research of other Taco Bell locations, do you feel confident that your queuing your vehicle queuing is sufficient? >> Yes. Typically nine is on the higher end of what Taco Bell is looking for. And if it does go beyond 10, it is still on the
site, which is a benefit as well. >> We we've previously a few years ago approved another drive-thru and uh it had does not work and it aggravates me every time that I go and pulling into it. So uh I'm very uh very conscious of
that. Um and then your landscaping, you have a very ambitious landscaping plan. Thank you so much for that. Um are you envisioning including a sprinkler system so as to maintain the uh landscaping? Yes, we'll be doing the irrigation system. >> Okay. And we we're going to set that as a condition just to make sure that
>> No problem. I think that came up at the TRC too, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh does the board have any other questions? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Schneider. >> I want to talk more about deliveries. So, you mentioned it comes on a certain type of truck. >> Yes.
>> What truck? You said WB40 or something. >> WB40 is what we typically use. >> Tell me what that is. So essentially it's roughly like a 40 foot long truck is essentially what it is. And in the package um I can refer you to a couple sheets. We do have truck turning. >> Yeah. >> Let's just talk through it.
>> So you're coming off of Parsonage Road. >> Yes. >> Making a right. And then it's in what you call the drive lane, right? >> Correct. And I actually have this on board so I can speak to it a little bit more. And you're specifically talking about the delivery operation, correct?
>> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Seems like a big truck. >> So, actually, if we can uh take care of two issues at once, just uh as in addition to Mr. Schneider's question, but also um the ability for a SU47 fire
vehicle so as to service the site as well. Uh >> yes, no problem. Just I can mark this but I would note it is actually part of the site plan submission. So maybe I can just refer to it to the board. >> Council doesn't need to be marked then. >> No, it does not.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So I'll start with the delivery first again off peak hours. And this is essentially the turning movement. So it would come off of Mason Street. It would make a left turn into the Taco Bell. essentially park at the crosswalk, unload, and then from there exit from
parsonage. And that WB40, we actually show a little bit larger of a truck just to be conservative, but typically the WB40, again, roughly 40 ft in length is the truck that makes the deliveries. >> How often do you get those? >> Uh, two times a week typically >> off peak hours.
>> And it goes through that little service door, >> the deliveries. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Thank you. No problem. And then >> let's do the SU47. >> So, while you set up, Mr. Hail, I have a copy of your police uh letter. We'll go
over that in a second, but did you seek anything from the chief of fire? Did you seek anything a letter from the chief of fire for his review? Did you receive one? >> We get I don't know. Do you have that? >> No, we only received police. >> Okay.
Um, so I think as long as we can we can cover the testimony that's suitable for the SU47, >> uh, we should be good and then we can we'll set a condition that, you know, we'll also leave it up to the to the fire chief of any conditions that he may set. Thank you very much. >> No, thank you. and referring to sheet
T-3 in the application package. That's actually the fire truck turning movement and again the 40 46 and a half overall length which was the template that was provided by the township and certainly if we receive any comments or feedback from the township fire official. We certainly work with him to address those comments.
>> Great. Thank you. >> No problem. >> Vice chairman. Mr. Chairman back to the delivery. >> Yes. >> So you show the barrier free with the where the van is. So, can you show on the drawing where that that 40ft truck
is going to actually park? >> Essentially, the the truck will basically just park along the frontage of the building there in the drive aisle. >> So, are you going to block the the entrance from the person u from the barrier free parking? >> It's twice a week, 30 minutes per week.
And Taco Bell does have full control over those deliveries. But yes, the truck will sit in that drive aisle for about a 30 minute period while it unloads, but can certainly move if someone's parked there if that is a problem at that time. And then the other item was the um
where is the um the other thing was you you the drive-thru is at 2 a.m. on a would you agree to a condition of 12:00 closing rather than 2 a.m. >> I think we would hold the 2 am which is
pretty typical for Taco Bell operations and in character with a lot of the operations in the area. >> Yeah, I understand that. But there's a neighborhood right there and and and um you know so the answer is no. You wouldn't you wouldn't >> I would have to we would have to take consult with our client. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> All right. All right. And All right. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Okay. And then just to put on the record before uh we move along, the uh board has received an August 21, 2025 uh
letter from the Edison Township Police Department stating that the proposed plan does not directly affect traffic flow and meets ADA parking requirements. Um so I just wanted that be on the record. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh Mr. H, your next witness.
>> We have no further questions over engineer. Would you like to hear from our traffic engineer at this time? >> Let's go. Okay, >> thank you. >> Thanks, Brian. >> You swear for to tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you state your name and business address for the record, please?
>> Gary Dean, Dean N. Professional address is 181 West High Street in Somerville, New Jersey. >> Mr. Dean, you have appeared before the board prior. If you could just please provide us with a u summary of your background qualifications. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have appeared before this board, though it has been
some time. I'm a graduate of Lehigh University with a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering and a former member of the faculty of Lehigh University in Lafayette College, having served as an adjunct professor teaching transportation engineering. I'm a licensed professional engineer in New
Jersey and I've been qualified before uh getting close to 500 different planning and zoning boards throughout the state. Um and the firm aside from representing uh private clients also represents a number of municipalities planning and
zoning board serving as their traffic consultant. Uh and my license is current and in good standing. >> Great. Thank you. Fortunately, since it's been a few years, we don't age, but we get better looking. Uh, and we'll accept you. You may proceed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, M.
Mr. Dean, uh, we know your firm prepared a a traffic impact analysis and there were some questions raised by the board as to circulation and the like. If you could please uh provide an overview of your findings. >> Certainly, just just by way of identification, that report is dated
July 8th of 2025. uh it addresses the the traffic impacts really during two primary peak hours, but we did include a third in that while the approval is uh or or should I say the application, forgive me, is is for
consideration of a Taco Bell, um in the event that Taco Bell does better with their breakfast or for example another entity were to take the space, we did look at breakfast time or early uh morning conditions.
So we looked at typical rush hour conditions during the morning and in the afternoon and then also midday on Saturday recognizing that's a peak time for activity particularly for shopping uh and proximity to Menllo Park Mall.
Our counts were done in May of 2025, miday, so schools were in session, good weather, you know, nothing unusual in the way of uh national holidays or uh atypical events. Um and of the three
different peak hours uh just and and all of this information is contained in the report. Uh the lowest overall traffic we observed was during the morning peak hour between 8 and 9. kind of makes sense in that the mall isn't
particularly busy. Um, in the evening peak hour between five and six, it's it's almost a thousand vehicles per hour on Parsonage Road. And then Saturday is the busiest recognizing the nature of the corridor and it's uh
around,50 vehicles per hour on Parsonage Road. By contrast, Mason Street carries what I would characterize as as comparatively low traffic and right around a 100 vehicles per hour, maybe 125. So, it's
not a particularly busy road by comparison. As you've as you've heard, our access points will permit full ingress, meaning both left and right turns from Parsonage Road. um as uh I'll
say addressed and approved by the county. But recognizing the challenges there are with with left turns, our driveway will be restricted to exiting right turn movements only onto Parsonage Road. Uh the driveway on Mason Street
will be located, as you've seen from the exhibit, or hopefully can see as as far from the intersection as we can make it. We we literally without having uh with room for buffers, we we candidly couldn't slide it any further from the intersection. Um I would characterize
the overall layout as conventional for a Taco Bell uh with counterclockwise traffic flow for the drive-thru. Um the entrance or to that lane as was described as in generally the northeast corner of the site and and then wraps
around the northerly perimeter. Uh and then the window located generally on the northwest corner of the building. Uh all traffic exiting the drive-thru is directed to stop before either continuing out to Parsonage Road or recirculating through the lot uh to
Mason Street. Mason Street obviously is a public street. We can't control its function other than um there is a driveway from the site to Mason Street today. And for obvious reasons with the left turn
restriction on Parsonage, uh we will continue to provide that secondary access. The intersection of Parsonage Road and Mason is and permits all movements. Um and and we were sensitive in the traffic study as to I'll say the
relative ease or difficulty particularly for left turn movements or traffic going straight across to Menllo Park Mall. And while we typically use a a a modeling software that's been revised and perfected over say the past 30 to 40
years, it doesn't always tell us and account for what happens. Um, and given that we have a traffic signal upstream of us at the mall and one south of us on Lafayette, we actually field measure
because we video record when we count. We look at the brakes and traffic and the sequencing of those signals create some opportunities on Parsonage Road that that the software really can't accurately emulate. So we as part of
this study we conducted what we call a gap analysis. that is we measure the distance in between two-way traffic on Parsonage Road during the the more critical evening peak hour from 5 to 6 and then on Saturday which was our
busiest time and there are times where there are almost no gaps. We don't record those. We need a gap of at least 8 seconds to to have one car safely turn from Mason Street. As we get into longer gaps as
drivers, we all tend to watch the car in front of us and if he makes it, we do a left and a right and we kind of shadow them. And that because of that, it requires a slightly smaller gap in traffic. As as we looked at that throughout the peak
hour, we found that on a weekday evening, we had I'll say the ability to safely process 229 left turns. And on Saturday, it's 164.
And and I share that number with you only because in our traffic study, the actual demand of that volume to either go across parsonage to Menllo uh Mall or to turn left is
between 40 and 50. So we have 164 minimum opportunities to safely make a left, but we only have a demand of 50 vehicles. And so as a result um we concluded that there are adequate and
safe opportunities for traffic from Mason to turn left onto Parsonage even when we add the additional traffic associated with the site. We're here tonight because of the uh proposal to include a drive-thru. Ever
since the pandemic, one of the things we've noticed with drive-through use in particular is more people use it than they ever did. I'm not sure why, whether it's social distancing, whether they just became accustomed to it over the year and a
half uh during that, but we've noticed it. And certain operators perhaps the township is familiar with the the two most egregious offenders of drive-through stacking are either Chick-fil-A or Starbucks.
Both of those typically have very long cues. Maybe because the orders take longer to make. I don't know the exact reason. Um, and those sites are designed to have adequate stacking 30 40 vehicles in some cases. Taco Bell, by contrast,
has a fairly limited menu. each uh item can be prepared very quickly and as a result their queuing or their stacking is I'd say in line with their competitors such as McDonald's or Burger King and Wendy's. As a result, the nine
spaces is more than we typically see for a Taco Bell. It's at a minimum six. We usually spec eight and in this instance we have nine vehicles safety with safely within the lane and can can accommodate two more before there would be any
spillover out onto a public street. And again as customers I I find that once the line becomes too long people tend to park and walk inside or they go somewhere else. So in this instance, knowing that we've met Taco Bell's own
design standards plus what we've observed in the field, I am very comfortable that the the overall layout and circulation uh will be safe and efficient. Um as you also heard, we have adequate number of parking spaces consistent with your ordinance. The
benefit of the drive-thru is primarily its speed and convenience. Yes, we'll accept that. But for certain segments of the population, whether it's uh people with ambulatory limitations or parents with small children or it's raining,
sometimes it's a real inconvenience to park and walk in. And the drive-thru does accommodate much in the way a handicap space accommodates certain uh individuals. It it is a benefit for that. and it does improve service and convenience and it does lessen the
amount of pedestrian activity in the lot where people are parking. So on balance we would have generally the same traffic with or without the drive-thru, but it does provide a benefit and it is a more efficient operation and candidly
requires less parking. If if a site didn't have a drive-thru, it would need more parking. And roughly, depending on the time of day, anywhere from 40 to 60% of the traffic will use the drive-thru,
except at I think it's after midnight when the lobby closes, and then the only component of the operation on weekends would be the drive-thru. Uh but in general recognizing that we are in a commercial zone, something inevitably
would go on the property. Um and Taco Bell is somewhat unique and that their their primary time for activity is at lunch, not so much breakfast, not so much dinner. They are a lunchtime use and that tends to be considered off- peak. Um, but in general, as as I said,
I find the site site to be wellconceived and designed and will provide for safe traffic movements and and I'd be happy to answer any questions the board or or your professionals may have. >> Thank you, Mr. Dean. >> Does the board have any questions for Mr. Dean? >> Yeah,
>> Mr. Chairman, Mr. >> So, this junctions Lafayette and Parson gets very busy. >> Yes. not only peak hours but during the holiday season between Thanksgiving and the new year Christmas shopping this
place gets busy busy busy my biggest concern is and I do not have what the dimension is the entrance to the from the parsonage to the property from Mason Street what is the distance how many cars can be stacked there
before they get into the parking It's it's exactly the same distance it is today for the T-Mobile store and it's our entire site frontage is 225 ft minus say the width of the driveway and a
little buffer. So we are I I would estimate it at 195 ft give or take almost 200. >> No, but the what about the distance to get into the parking lot from the Mason Street corner?
>> Sure. >> Garrick, you got you going to take the mic? Sorry. I I'm going to refer to the colored exhibit that was displayed and and I'm going to use my finger to point north is
to the top of the exhibit. Um the Mason Street driveway is all the way at the very eastern end of the property >> on the parsonage side. >> Oh, on parsonage. >> What is the distance? Right. >> The distance between Mason and Parsonage, >> correct? >> Is
I'd say about 25 ft. >> Roughly what? Three cars can be stacked there in case parking lot gets busy. >> Well, well, there's there's no stacking. A car would come right into the driveway and then proceed either into one of the
any of the parking spaces on the south side or continue in an easterly direction around the site to get into the drive-thru. So, as someone turns in, there's there's no stopping them. There's no reason to. But if the parking lot gets full
and this location during peak hours during Christmas holidays parking lot going to get full. My biggest concern is that and and if that uh entrance can be moved further down towards parsonage so
you have lot more car can be stacked on parsonage in case parking lot gets busy. One of the things we've we've designed are the first two parking spaces are employee only. >> I get it. >> Which which means there's no reason for
a car to stop until they're into the site a good 20 ft and then to another 18 ft before the first space. So we can get at least two cars into the site before the first parking space. My biggest concern creating congestion
at the mason and parsonage if the cars start start stacking on parsonage because they can't get into the parking lot. If you move that ants further down where your exit is move further down that side would make it little easier on a parsonate
junction. >> More car can be stagnant parsonate before they get Yeah. move that further down. Yep. My my concern with that movement is drivers then have to make a hard 180 degree turn to get in and that
would tend to slow traffic down on parsonage more than the design we have now which lets them come in at 90°. Um, anyone who's been behind a motorist making a U-turn, particularly in a in a larger, say a minivan, that U-turn
because it's a right turn, is is hard for people to understand where their wheels are and where the curbs are, and they tend to drive it very slowly. I it could be done. Um, I just don't advocate
it because I think it's less safe and I think it would create more hesitation and uh affect the northbound traffic on parsonage than the design we currently have. >> Yeah. Can you look into it? That's one thing. Second thing is because you have
an entrance from Mason Street exiting out on Parsonage Road. When that junction gets busy, I know many time people try to cut through. They're going to cut through the Taco Bell parking lot and come through Mason and go through
parsonage. Are you going to stop people going, you know, cut through your parking lot? >> I I I guess I have to look at what's been there um and and whether that's enough of a
temptation for people to trespass. I I think if that became a problem, obviously we'd have to engage township police. It is a trespass. It is one of the challenges of being a corner lot. I think the site design itself
makes it a little less accommodating for that cut through mostly because of the where we located the exit. So that someone can't just come in and go straight out. They have to come to the north, sorry, the southwest corner of
the building, stop, make a right turn, make sure no one's coming out of the drive-thru lane, and then come out onto Parsonage. By the time they do all of that, I I don't know that they've saved that much. Now, can it be done? I I it could be done. I don't know how to again
to address that other than stepping up some enforcement, no through traffic, things of that nature. So that >> Right. And and the other thing >> people aren't inconsiderate, >> right? And the other thing is your drive-thru has eight car can be stacked
um in your in your driveway. Correct. >> Right through. >> I know your operation at the Middle Sex Mall that Taco Bell And I tell you the eight is not enough in that location. >> So again
>> it's not that it's not that busy location. Sometime I have seen that car stacked all the way in the parking lot in the middle sex mall that that u that park that time >> on our exhibit which is a colored version of the site
plan. You'll see in blue each one of the vehicles in the stacking. Candidly, the ninth vehicle is is where I'm where I have my pen, but it's at the very eastern end of the building. You you'll note that we could actually fit a 10th car where where it's labeled
drive-thru on the plan and then an 11th, a 12th, and probably even a 13th and still be on the property itself. And >> at that part, at if more than 13, it's going to back up. >> Correct. >> On Mason. >> Correct.
Mr. Car, are you okay with that kind of condition? It's going to backed up with more than 13 cars on the I'm basing my Excuse me. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I'm basing my opinion previously upon, uh, the results of the,
uh, report that Mr. Dean did. also is back and forth with the great uh great county and middle sex jurisdiction of Parsonage Road. One of the elements that goes out of the conversation or has gone out of the conversation in this regard with
drive-thru and queuing is the amount of time uh that that car will be in that queue. I uh have every uh confidence that Mr. Taco Bell, whoever Mr. Taco Bell is heaven or in hell wants to get cars in
and out of that drive-thru line uh in two to three minutes. So, uh what you're looking at in that queue is the turnover of those parking spots. Most uh which well most ordinances
uh and Mr. Deans of 500 plus towns he's been in. Most ordinance will will either uh in code codified or uh just by uh practice will give uh credit for uh
drive-thru spots as parking spots. So with the parking spots you have there, the 10 spots at the driveway of the queue, I think they'll be able to keep the traffic on uh their property. that you won't have a terrible overflow on to Mason such that you'll have car five
cars trying to take a left turn. But I have confidence that up the street uh the uh which the the uh signal with parsonage in Menllo Park when Menllo Park put that signal and they want to put priority for Menllo Park Mall. So
there's lots of gaps in there. Mr. Deans talked about gaps in the traffic on Parsonage Road. So traffic on parsonage is stopped when parsonage on tra when traffic on parsonage is stopped up by that driveway or at Lafayette nothing's
moving in front of this space. So that gives gaps and I don't know Mr. Dean maybe you know maybe you know from talking to the county are those two signals synchronized Lafayette and the the Menllo Park Mall or they just random >> I don't think they're random. I think
they are on the same um there there's a timing program for each traffic signal. I believe they are on the same cycle length meaning um I'll have to check the the actual measurements >> but not frequently but just give a your
opinion doesn't have to be to the the microcond >> they they >> every five minutes roads close down >> it it's usually a 90 second cycle these are more complicated so they could be 110 which means each signal sequences
every 110 seconds what can be done very easily just because everything is GPS. They can be coordinated. Typically the county will do that. Um doing enough work in Middle Sex County, they're having us put it in in locations where
we're putting in new signals. So they are typically sequenced specifically and it allows whether it's us or Goodyear Valvalene it or even Mason it allows all the nonsalized streets a means to get in and out. So that parsonage goes and then
the corer basically stops and and the side streets go out and then the corer goes again. Um going back to the to to the stacking and and to a lesser extent parking the ordinance requires two different calculations either one based
on area or one based on seats. We use the higher which is 15 spaces that are required. We actually have 20 spaces. So we have 33% more than the ordinance requires and part of the reason for that
is we know that there will be peak seasonal times where volume is a little higher than normal. So that gives us the buffer, but also where the Taco Bell standard for stacking is seven or eight and we can easily fit 10, we also have
that extra buffer and capacity to make sure that this thing isn't backing out onto the public streets. And and that's why it's very linear. It takes advantage of the shape of the lot by by using stacking along the call it the long side of the rectangle as opposed to the short
side. we're using two sides of the site for stacking. So that that's why it's a very efficient and traditional layout. Um and in my opinion works very well. It's as conventional as as as I've seen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Dav. Any other questions,
Mr. Dean from the board? >> Mr. Carly, you're good. Your concerns were addressed earlier. >> Uh Mr. Attorney, correct me. I believe that uh in the previous engineer's testimony, you said you'd reviewed our December 1, 2025 report and that all
those action items that I'd uh offered as recommendations uh would be addressed uh uh going forward. Is that uh correct? Shaking his head up and down. >> Mr. Hail says yes. So, I'll accept that.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, M. Appreciate it. Thank you, Gary. Yes. And I'd like to now call upon our professional planner, Mr. Matthew Flynn. >> Do you swear affirm to tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> I do. >> Can you say your name and business
address for the record, please? >> Yeah. Matthew Flynn, F Lynn NN. Business address is 101 Gibralar Drive, Morris Plains, New Jersey. >> And Mr. Mr. Flynn, if you could please provide the board with uh a summary of your background and qualifications, please.
>> Yeah. Education comes from Ruckers, master's degree in planning and public policy, professional planners license in the state of New Jersey, uh AICP license, which is the national lensure for planners. I have testified before the uh Edison zoning board as well as
many other towns across the state and Middle Sex County. Is your uh masters of public of uh planning from blasting? >> Your ma your masters is in blat from blasting. >> Yeah, it is. >> Yeah, good good taste. So is my I have
an MPAP. All right, we'll accept you. Please. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. All right. Uh Mr. Fin, you obviously all familiar with this application, the site, and uh the testimony that's been presented so far. if you could please provide the planning justification for
the relief being sought in connection with this application. >> Yeah. So, at this point, the board has heard about the layout, the design, uh how the site is going to function, how people are going to move through it, the queuing, etc. Um, I'm going to shift the focus now to the use itself as a
drive-thru. Um, here we're talking about an experienced applicant that that knows what we need to take into account regarding, you know, what sites are viable for this type of use. And when we look at this this type of thing, we look at traffic circulation, we look at queuing, we we look at parking, safety,
compatibility with the neighborhood. Um all of those things have been taken into account here, and I'll go into that um momentarily. Um I would say that before turning to the statutory criteria, the relief that we're seeking here mainly is this D3 variance. We're allowed to have
a uh drive-thru as long as it's part of a shopping center. here. Of course, we have that shopping center across the street, but the property itself obviously is not part of that property. I would say importantly, just because something's a variance doesn't
necessarily mean it's inappropriate. The purpose of this board is to judge each application on its on its merits. Um, and we believe that in light of everything that we've uh showed the board, um, the the use does make sense on this particular piece of property.
Uh, finally, we also have heard that the applicant has participated in TRC meetings and we've made revisions um according to the the comments and concerns that we've heard there. Do you want did you want me to hand these out, Steve? >> Or I can do it if you want while you're
>> and what are we up to >> terms of exhibits? What are we up to at this point? A4 A4. >> Um, so I'm gonna just pass out an exhibit here. Exhibit A4 is a fourpage exhibit consisting of some drone
photographs taken by my office on uh well today, March 24th, 2026. Um, which accurately depicts the site itself and the surrounding uh area. I just have a quick question. You said D3.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. D1. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I I agree with you. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And uh just while that's being passed around there, um I stand corrected. It's a D1 variance. Uh so basically the essence of the test
is whether this particular property is suitable for the the proposed use which is again the drive-thru restaurant. So just to walk the board through this exhibit here uh the first page is just looking northeast. I wanted to just show the board uh these uses that we have
both to the left and to the right on this page. We're sort of sandwiched between two autocentric uses. uh the Goodyear on the left of this page and then the Valvolene instant oil change uh across Mason. I would note that despite the fact that
we do need some relief related to landscaping, if we look at some of these other uses on our block going from Goodyear back, uh we don't necessarily see properties that are characterized by by much landscaping at all. I think our proposal is actually going to stand out
as having uh some of the most landscaping on this block actually. And we could also see that multif family project in the back there. And I think I have a a view of that that that uh shows that a little nicer. So sheet two, now we're looking northwest. We're looking
across parsonage. We can see the Menllo Park Mall. Again, if this property were part of that, if it were an out parcel, um this would be actually a permitted use. Um so it's really just that distinction that is triggering the use variance, which is why we're before the
zoning board. Going to sheet three now, we can look uh pretty much the other way. Looking southwest across parsonage, we can see uh not only do we have some, like I said, autocentric uses adjacent to us,
but uh this is sort of situated in an area that has the these vast parking lots, uh pavement, uh and the like. And finally, sheet four. I threw this one in there just to show the
relationship of our site with that multif family development uh to the east. We can see the existing buffer strip that we have out there. Now, um we can see that we do have that existing trash enclosure that's right up on the property line in the back. Our proposal,
as we heard, is going to push all of that to the west away from that multif family development. uh increasing the buffer width and also of course adding some nice landscaping in that area. I think as of right now it's 4 feet and
we're going to be increasing that buffer to about 15 ft. So a pretty substantial improvement in terms of our relationship with that residential. So again the the essence of the use variance test is uh uh site suitability
here. When we look at the context that I just walked the board through, I would say that having a drive-thru at this particular location is not going to disrupt any established uh land use patterns that that a a drive-thru like this would would offend. We're right
across the street from Menllo Park Mall, which is significant because, as I said, this would not even be a use fair if we were technically a part of that shopping center. So, I think that proximity is important in that regard. Uh in terms of site suitability, again the massing uh
due to the the geometry of the property itself, the proposed building is actually substantially smaller in terms of building coverage and F than what we would be allowed here. And I would say that the size and shape can easily accommodate the queueing, the parking,
circulation, etc. The other thing we look at is the municipal land use law. uh the the positive criteria, the purposes of zoning, why do we have these requirements in the first place? Purpose A is promotion of the general welfare.
Our traffic expert stole my thunder a little bit. We talked about the benefits of drive-throughs. uh people traveling during inclement weather, people driving with kids, people that might be elderly or have disabilities, people stopping in on their way somewhere else for that uh
fast and convenient uh access to to food. Purpose G, variety of uses in appropriate locations. Going back to the site suitability testimony, I think that applies there. Purpose I is desirable aesthetics. I talked about the better
buffering to our residential neighbor, removing the trash enclosure, uh increasing the buffer width, and adding landscaping. And finally, purpose M uh is efficient land use. Here we're working with an existing developed piece of property.
We're barely increasing imperous coverage from 16,854 to 16,914. Uh so just over 100 square feet and again the building coverage and F is substantially compliant.
The flip side to that is the negative criteria. So just again just because something's a variance doesn't mean it's inappropriate. The board would have to find that there's a substantial uh detrimental impact to the to the neighborhood at large. In terms of zone conformance, we comply
with all the dimensional requirements for the zone. We comply with both of our front setback requirements. Um, which as was testified, we're actually eliminating an existing non-conforming condition to Mason Street. Accessory
building side setback. Uh, again, we're improving uh an existing non-conforming condition there. That trash enclosure is right up on the property line. Height, coverage, F, parking, all of that complies. When we look at whether this is a
substantial departure from what's permitted, again, the proximity to the mall, I would note that this is a highly permissive zone that permits restaurants, gas stations, retail, a whole slew of uh of things here, car dealerships, some more intense uses,
some uses that even have a drive-thru element to it. Um the operational aspects have been addressed in terms of employees, hours, refues, deliveries, lighting and security. All of that goes towards the negatives.
So all said from a use variance perspective, I think the use makes sense here. It can be accommodated here with no detriment. Um and I think it's going to be a positive addition. The C variances that we're seeking, I'll just go through that very quickly here.
Uh side setback. We're proposing 14 ft. We need 15 ft. We heard the freestanding sign setback of 8.8 ft. We need 15 ft. That's an improvement over the 4T that's out there now. Uh the signage has to face a right of way whereas we have two
signs on our side facades and then the landscape buffer. We have four feet in some places where we need 20 feet. So I think uh just to kind of hook some uh justifications to each of those. The side setback I would
note again the front setbacks are compliant. We're only one foot short um where we need that variance. In terms of the signage on the side facads there, I would say that the total facade signage is actually compliant from an area perspective. Even if we look at the fact
that we're only allowed signage on two facades, if we were to add up the allow the allowable area on those two facades, even though we have signage on all four, we're still compliant with that area that would be allotted to us. Landscape buffer. I talked about the fact that we
are substantially improving uh the landscaping and the relationship to that residential property. We're providing that fencing, the landscaping. So I think any activity on this property is going to be well buffered, well screened to that uh to
that residence. And I would note that if we look at my exhibit uh sheet four, you know, this is an area where we have this this big multif family development behind us which is sort of built into the zoning. We have this residential use
right next to non-residential. So the fact that there is that uh adjacency is not necessarily a bad thing. And I think that we are doing our best to to mitigate any potential impacts there. I talked about the freestanding sign
setback. We're improving it and we think that it's the best location for visibility. And there again, it's smaller than what we could have per zoning from a freestanding sign area standpoint. So, I tried to just rattle through all that real quick for you. If you have any
questions, I'm happy to to go back to anything. All said, I think that what we're proposing here makes sense from a safety standpoint. We talked about circulation, the layout. I think everything here works and is going to complement the the established neighborhood pattern.
>> Thank you very much. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Flynn? >> Seeing none. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mr. Chairman. We have no further witnesses at this time. Obviously, any of our witnesses that have testified so far are here and available for further
questions for the board. >> Great. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, >> yeah, I want to go over this uh this delivery and also the barrier free parking and the entrance into the building. >> Let me bring our engineer back up. Okay,
>> just to remind you, you remain under oath. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. So, you have uh three entrances into the building. >> Yeah. So, there's the two doors along here and then the third one in the middle. Okay. So, the two >> you have a delivery truck is 40 ft.
>> Correct. >> All right. and you testified you're going to block the entrance to coming in with that delivery truck. >> So what just here's my here's my question here's my comment. Okay. So really the question is on a condition of
approval if this got approved you would uh agree not to block the entrance for the the pathway from the barrier free. All right. And you would coordinate that with the the uh American Disabilities Act and the Uniform Construction Code.
>> Yes. And apologies if I was >> And wait, let me finish. And also, yeah, because the 40 foot the 40 foot truck, if you count the parking spaces, >> I'm not comfortable blocking the main entrance. It doesn't make sense. >> Yeah. And I misspoke. I when it was here, it isn't going to be like blocking
the crosswalk. It essentially use the crosswalk to unload while the truck's sitting there. >> So, apologies. >> Yeah. But a 40ft truck and then you have the the loading area. You're so >> it possibly and I I don't want to do your plan review, >> but you know, you might have to move it.
Okay. Or you might have to put it on the three spots next to it. Where's the other barrier free spot? You said there's two hand barrier free parking. >> Only ones proposed and required by code. There's actually two existing is what two existing? Okay. >> And we'd have no problem with that condition. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> No problem.
>> Very good condition. No problem with that. >> Great. Thank you very much. Anybody anything else? Okay, Mr. Hill. >> Yeah, we have nothing for this time and I guess after public comment if you want to sum up or I could do it now. >> So, no, we'll go to the public first and then then you then you can go back and
thank you. >> All right, so we now got to the public. Anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard. If you're within 200 feet of subject site, you received a notice via certified mail, sir. So, first we wanted to thank you for coming in. Thank you for your patience and bearing with us. No >> problem.
Just >> could you just raise your >> Sorry, this is my first hearing. I have no idea. Really not dressed appropriately, so sorry. >> It's It's all right. We'll be we'll we'll be uh you you'll have the the attorney will swear you in and then you'll have uh six minutes to uh make any statement that you would like.
>> Okay. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear or tell the tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? Can you state your name uh address for the record, please? >> Sure. Michael Petrillo >> and your address. >> 199 Evergreen Road. >> Great.
>> 199 Evergreen Road. >> Sorry about that. >> You can bring the microphone the stand up just so that you have um >> It's fine. Is that better? >> Thank you. Um, so I was listening to everybody.
Does Does anybody live in that area? This is a complete disaster. Do not pass this. I plead with with you guys, don't do this. There are so many negatives that are being overlooked. I live right behind here.
I deal with this day in and day out with the noise, uh, the trucks. Uh, you're basically you're inviting more noise to the area during the day, during the night, especially if it's open till 2 in
the in the morning. That's ridiculous. We're already suffering with truck noise, uh, people just, you know, talking. Obviously, you know, that's society, but yeah, they they just you don't live
there, you don't know. They they talk from parking lot to parking lot. Uh there's there's a lot of commotion. There's horns going off. There's motorcycles um that are just going to be stationed there running. Um
I live about maybe 100 to 200 feet away. But um yeah, this is not a good thing. I mean, we're not even talking about the health concern of Taco Bell. I mean, when are we going to wake up to society and the
health hazards of this kind of food that we're inviting into our neighborhoods? We already have Sonic. We already have IHOP, McDonald's, White Castle, junk food all over the place, and we're inviting more of it.
This is a tiny lot, Mason Street. Has anybody driven on Mason Street? No. You guys have no idea. Like, I don't mean to insult anybody. I really don't. But I've been here for about nine years. It's It's a tight street as it is. And
the residents of Margate where I live, we don't have enough parking as it is. We're already We don't even have designated parking spots because we have too many people and not enough spaces. So, we're already fighting for spots and
people on in Margate use Mason Street to park. What's going to happen is if you're under the delusion to think that everybody's going to use a Taco Bell parking lot and get their food and just be on their merry way, it's not going to
happen. They're going to go in there and people are going to park on Mason Street and they're going to hike it. They're going to park in our Margate parking lots and they're going to hike it. Has anybody thought of the the the disaster of like rappers all over the place and
the litter that they're going to leave behind? Again, I'm not here to insult anyone. But we do we really need to think out of the box with this. This is this is a money thing. Like
where's the health concern? Where's the concern for the people who live right behind here? Evergreen trees are not going to stop the noise. You know, there are so many levels that this is frustrating. We already deal with it with the Goodyear with the
Firestone. We hear engines revving all the time. They have no concern for the noise. This is just another addition to that. Now, you're going to also have people crossing the street on parsonage. They're going to to the Menllo Park Mall. You think they're not going to
walk right across the street and busy traffic just to get to Taco Bell? There's also a medical center right there, right behind Valvalene. They're going to park in there and they're going to hike it. There's also a school bus that drops kids off right there on
Judson. They're going to have kids crossing Mason Street and you're going to have more traffic. This is not even during the holiday season. How much time do I have left, >> Madam Secretary? >> Because I'm going to So, you're going to
have more health, more hazards of children getting hit by cars. And I can tell you right now what's going to happen. >> People are going to whiz down Route One. >> They're going to jump on that off-ramp where White Castle is. >> They're going to cut through Judson
as they do now to get to the mall. Now you're putting more incentive for them to cut through Judson to Mason and you're going to have heavy traffic in that area and you're going to have people crossing the street, toddlers,
not to mention other people coming from the medical centers, not to mention us trying to get to work and just to jump on parsonage. This is a horrible plan and there's a million other methods, million other things that you can do with that little
place instead of making it Grand Central Station for junk food. We got to stand up. Enough's enough of this of this stuff. This is insane. You guys don't even live in the area, but we do. And we have to suffer with this day
in and day out. But we're tired of it. Don't Don't pass this, please. Think of something else. Think of something that brings families together. I don't know. We can sit and and and hash it out, but don't just do it for
the money and don't just do it for the town's taxes and stuff like that. Listen to your residents who are here. That's all I got to say. >> Thank you very much. Y next president with resident within 200 feet.
You raise your right hand. Raise your right hand. Do you swear for him to tell the truth in your testimony here tonight? >> I do. >> Can you state your name and address for the record, please? >> My name is Eric Alvitz. I live in 27 Street. Elise. >> My name is Eric Alvitz. A L has Victor.
I Tes. I live in 27 Judson Street, almost 50 to 60 feet away from the lot. I had many concerns about uh about this meeting and it's a pleasure to meet all of you is the I see how many of you are concerned
about situation and I have a have three concerns um that were solved at the time that I discussed with these people. One of them was a 8t and a half fence on the east side that has been approved. Uh
there were flood gate float lights in the model right now that are facing towards the building which of course are going to be removed. So that's the signs of the lights that are going to be there and also one of the major concerns I have is with
the garbage. I drive has my neighbor said on Mesa Street and in there right now I see garbage from Burger King or McDonald's. Um my main concern is that I will not be
happy if I see Taco Bell wrappers on the street. So if there's a chance to put garbage cans in the parking lot to prevent those actions. But besides that, um those are my major most major concerns. I already spoke
with the u the people in charge of the project that they're going to try to keep the uh noise levels low. I'm also happy that all of your concern about the situation of the noise. Um see what everybody decides on this project. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Mr. H, would you
agree to add some garbage cans to the site if there are not already? >> No problem. Great. Anyone else within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard? Anyone outside 200 feet of subject site want to be
heard? >> Seeing none, can I get a motion to close public portion? >> Motion to close public portion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Patel. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Nay. The eyes have it. Public portion is now closed. And Mr. H, I'll go to you for summation.
>> Yes. Thank you very much. First of all, I do want to recognize and we're always sensitive to uh members of the public and their concerns and that's why throughout the development of this application, including TRC's and being reactive to the reports from the board
professionals that increase in buffering uh uh and other modifications that were made to the plan to address any concerns from the residents and we again have to focus on the fact that the use itself is is not what triggers the the variance
where restaurant uses are permitted. Other even more intense possible uses are located at the site. I think that having the steps that were taken again increasing buffering, reducing the size of the building and addressing all of the departmental comments and the
comments from the board uh that this makes for a good application. It fits in nicely in the area. Again, uh the concern about the type of food and things like that. It's a per the use again generally is permitted. It's the drive-thru and and the testimony has
been provided as to the justification and benefits that are provided for that. Uh you have a wellestablished and well managed company that has safeguards in place, regular inspections as the Taco
Bell does to make sure garbage is under control, that there's clean up through site. I think all of those factors and agreeing to the other conditions such as site layout, drop off, and pickoff have all been addressed and I think there's good justification for for this application and we look forward to the
board approving the application with the conditions that uh we've already discussed. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> I'll go to the board. Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application based on
meeting the positive and negative negative criteria and also for the um the aesthetics of the neighborhood and also the uh based on the engineering and planning reports and also the reference to the um which we discussed and on the
testimony in reference to u the loading. the truck will not block the uh entrance for the barrier free parking and they'll work that out. Thank you. >> Uh and I would add that the garbage pickup time as testified to between 6:00
a.m. and 8:00 a.m. twice per week. Um and the applicant agreed to add garbage cans to the uh parking site and also sprinkler system. >> Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Tel. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Schneider, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Chabra, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Det, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Salah, >> yes to the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman,
>> yes on the motion. >> And Chairman Kumba, >> yes on the motion. Unanimous approval. Great. >> Thank you very much and appreciate your time and attention. Appreciate the public being here, too. >> Thank you, Madam Secretary. Any further business come before the board this evening? >> That'll be all this evening. >> Seeing none, can I get a motion to adjurnn?
>> Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Sadata, second by Mr. Patel. Al all in favor signify by saying I. Oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. Board stands adjourned. Thank you everyone.