When I ever have to get our situations together, please start conversations. >> All right, I'm going to call to order the uh planning board, zoning board of adjustment,
sorry. um for Tuesday, December 9th, 2025. This in person and virtual meeting is called pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act. Both adequate and electronic notes of this inperson and virtual meeting will be provided by way of publication in the health council
democrat and career news newspapers on about January 23rd, 2025 and January 19th, 2025. In addition, notice of the meeting was posted on on the door of the boat for municipal building located at 38 Avenue and any handicap accessible entrances
there too posted on the municipal website provided for the municipal clerk and distributed to all persons if any requesting copies of the same. This meeting is being recorded with both audio and video and may be rebroadcast. This meeting is a judicial proceeding.
Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and a forum. Appropriate judicial judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please rise
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with the forian >> here. >> Whitesman here. Miss Wangle
>> here. Mr. Show >> here. >> Mr. Swinganger >> here. >> Mr. Josh >> here. here. >> He's here. >> Confirm your attendance, please. >> Here.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Sorry, the questions. Attorney Kenski >> here. >> Engineer Clero >> here. >> Manis is on her way. Engineer >> here. >> All right. Before we get going, can I um
have a motion? I want we want to amend the um agenda slightly. >> What if you have a copy of the agenda right now? What we're going to do is move the current items eight and nine into position seven and eight and the
current item seven into item nine. So in terms of works fellow we're just here for a little discussion ahead before the public hearing which will go on. Can I have a motion to do
>> we do that? Everybody vote >> all in favor of that. >> Anybody? >> Okay, we'll take that as Thank you everybody. So now I'll move along with uh item one which is an time for public comment. This is a a time for
comments from anybody from the public but not on anything that's on the current agenda. So if anybody has online has anything please raise a hand in the room raise a hand. All right. Seeing none we'll move on to item two. May
comments please. Um, the only thing I want to just uh report on is that last night the council uh adopted into law the um resident parking only around the Union Square
project for all of Spring Street and uh Bloomfield Avenue from Spring to Broad and Maple Avenue from uh Broad to Spring, William Street from Maine to broad and
Court Street. Um, so those are going to be resident only except um I think I'm probably going to look to do an amendment after talking to Jay at our next parking committee meeting next year um about making Court Street
only residential only after 5:00 p.m. in case the businesses need more parking based on whatever happens on the street. And I think we had originally talked about uh eventually putting in meters and having the angled parking on Spring
Street for the businesses in the plaza um as well. So that also might be talked about in our next parking committee meeting. But for now um whenever the roads are supposed to reopen um or place needs to be redone. It is a
disa. It's like a bombed out. And they're scheduled to do that sometime this year, this month, if the weather warms up enough to do that road, but they're going to got to get it done. Um, we can't open up that project without Forester being open. And at which point,
Spring Street will be returned back to traffic. Um the council did approve in 2024 a new road plan um which I did report to the planning
board in 2024. I'm just going to repeat what the plan is that Jay or traffic engineer designed which is um one way on spring the entirety of it going uh north
to south. So from Bloomfield Avenue to William Street, that entire street will be made one way. Maple Avenue, which is currently one way east to west from Spring to M to Maine, will become one
way east to west from Broad to Maine. Williams will stay one way the way it is. Uh Corer will stay one way the way it is. And then um there were are weight restriction
limits to 4 tons on Bloomfield Avenue from Spring Street uh to Broad, forcing all traffic and deliveries from Maine to Bloomfield onto Spring. And then at Maple Avenue, Spring
Street also is weight restricted to four tons, forcing all traffic that's heavy up to Main Street. So, um, we're trying to put the majority of the traffic on Main Street. Um, and you know, or if
people want to get on to 202 down to William Street to take a right on Broad. Um, so if they're going to want to head north, we're trying to push traffic on Maine. If they want to head south, um, it'll be easier for them to make the
right turn onto Broad to 202 at Church Street. Um, at some point traffic is going to become very difficult to make a left turn onto Main Street on Maple. So, I think I got all that right. Right, Jay? >> You got that right. That was very well done by
>> So, just So, that's all the signage is all ordered. Mike's got it all. Mike Campion has all of it already ready to go. So, as soon as spring is ready to open, the signage will go up. Um the chief of police is working on the uh on
the uh permits and visitor permits for the residents which already you know this isn't that drastic because for Main Street east of all of Flemington is already restricted school days uh where
it's resident only from 7:30 to 4:30. So this is just one little more step for those those few streets. And um the goal is is to put this in place as soon as we can so that the residents that are here um know what the new traffic patterns
are. The road has been closed for four years. And of course, we've had a lot of new residents moved in who don't know what the traffic patterns were. And then there'll be 205 new or more residents moving into the apartments. And they also won't know what they've
lost or missed. And that's really the goal is to not take away anything from new residents um but you know push them into into taking parking spaces out. Um also um Beth in conjunction with Chris
Corsini the municipal uh um attorney has been working on a new parking ordinance for privately owned parking lots. um in the
DD areas um with the parking committee that will allow through use changes landlords or owners of those parking spaces who have extra parking spaces to enter into private leases with anybody.
So they can set their own price. They can undercut parking lots. Um and they will be able to lease out, you know, uh based on the usage of their current tenants or owners. They'll be able to lease out extra parking spaces to
residents who who you know need more parking to businesses who don't have enough parking for their own tenants. Um whoever they want. And Beth just sent me an updated draft which I've not had a chance. I mean, she just said it right very fast, but I'm hoping to get through
that in the next day or two. Um, of course, that would have to come to the planning board and it would be a great thing because the landlords will be able to, you know, make a little extra money and people will be able to rent parking spaces, you know, for that extra car or their kids coming home or or whatever
they want. So, um, so that's my update. All parking and driving in the town. So, that's it. >> Oh, very. Thank you very much. All right, then item three, council comments, please. >> I also serve on the parking committee
with the mayor. She did an excellent job in getting that through and I'd like to uh thank Jay first time the mayor for keeping that happen as I live in that area and I've heard enough feedback from our residents about concerns. So, it is
already been wellreceived my discussions. Thank you. >> That that's it. Perfect. All right. Thank you. Um, item four, HPC comment, please Dan. >> Our HPC meetings next week, so I have nothing to report tonight.
>> Okay. Since our last meeting, did you have the um the thing go through the council though? Was that in or has that happened in between or was that before our previous meeting, your CLG or did that go?
I'm not aware. I don't I'm not I'm not aware of the status of that one. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Item five, professional reports. Anybody um anyone have anything to report today other than
what we're talking about on the agenda? Okay, then let's move on to new item six, which is the update. >> Actually, I think it's the minutes. >> I mean, it's all of the minutes. I my eye is being sorry. Approval of the
minutes. Um they were issued. We have to go through them in turn. Um September 16th, 2025 regular minutes were distributed. Anybody got any comments or amendments to make to those as they saw them? No. Then can I get an um
motion? >> Motion. Thank you. To approve those minutes, please. >> So move. Sorry. Okay. >> And we >> Yeah. Yeah. Just because certain people may not be able to vote.
>> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Weissman. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Fasar. >> Yes. Mayor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Miss Griffin. >> Yes. >> Miss Wingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Da. Stain >> Mr. >> Um, yes. >> Is all
that's good. All right. So, same with October 7th, 2025. Anybody have any comments or amendments to make onto those issues? >> All right. Can I get a motion to approve those, please? >> Move. Sor second. >> Mayor Cara.
>> Yes. Council move. Yes, Mr. Campion. >> Yes, >> Miss Gin. >> Yes, >> Mr. Weissman. >> Yes, >> Mr. >> Yes, >> Mr. Schwinger. >> Yes, >> Mr. D.
>> Okay. And the October 7th, 2025 executive session minutes issued separately. Any comments or queries on those? All right. Motion, please. >> Second. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Counciloman Fisaro. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Griffin. >> Yes. >> M. Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Swinging. >> Mr. Sch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schlanger. >> Yes. >> And Mr. D. >> Abstain.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. So now we will move on to the new item seven which is the update on work road properties. Actually we want to just do spark first which I think was seven. >> Was it?
>> Oh no. >> Okay. Sorry. >> They can stay where they are. They can stay here. >> Um >> yeah. Oh yeah. This is a simple one. >> Yeah. So I just want to make the announcement at the last meeting we adjourned uh the spark car wash application or we advised it would be heard on December 16th once we went back
and reviewed the uh prior adjournments it was technically adjourned by way of public hearing to tonight's meeting. So we're just going to make an additional announcement. So for anyone that thought they were going to be here for tonight's meeting they're actually adjourned to next week's meeting of December 16th
same time 700 p.m. without further notice. So now new item eight is quotable road properties update. >> Good evening all the chairman, mayor,
council, members of the board. Thank you for taking us a little early tonight. Uh my name is John Lans and I have the privilege of representing the owners of certain properties on Parker Avenue identified as block 45 lots 11, 12, and
15. We applied for preliminary site plan and subdivision approval with variances to subdivide those three lots into 19 lots and construct 18 town houses on the lots as shown on the file plans. One of the critical areas as pointed out by uh
board engineer was getting a access permit for route 12 and we've been we filed for that access permit back in January and it's still being under being reviewed and we're still having technical issues with it and our
engineer brought our engineer up here uh to further explain what he's done if you choose to hear that and the status of the application at this point. Uh it appears from what we have so far that we're going to need to extend at least
until the end of February, excuse me, the end of March to uh uh get the permit and proceed further with the application. >> Right. Status. Well, we've been continuing to adjourn
the application and I think one of the reasons why we wanted them to appear tonight is so we could understand why we were continuing to make the adjournments. >> Um, if the board has any other questions they can certainly ask. Um, I think one of the questions and and I apologize this may
have been dealt with before and I just I just don't recall. Um, we need to make sure we know what the access permit will entail so that we can make sure the plans properly reflected that are being presented to the board. Is that the reason why we want to do that? >> That's one of the issues because uh, as
I understand the DOT wanted us to purchase or to get an extra 50 feet towards the car wash, which is an impossibility. So that's why we have uh revised our plans for the application and uh asked for a waiver for that from
that requirement. But as I said the engineers here can explain exactly what the status is, what he's done and where we are. >> So you as for a waiver from the DOT for the length of access >> uh for the uh that is 50 ft but then for other technical things that that needs
to be done on the fans. So we can we can't do our plans until we get those plans as the attorneys pointed out. >> So >> yeah, just to remind everybody where we are with this, we haven't really we haven't had a full public hearing on the plans because we haven't had the full plans. So we're it's a very early stage
in this. We have it's not like this is just dot and an eye. >> That's perfect. So, one one of my questions when you came in for completeness and I asked um I think I've asked this question at least three times um over the last two
years is why you also haven't applied for the D which was something I suggested you do when you came in originally not just the DOT but because you're in a flood plane you have a very complicated drainage scheme planned for
this site and you know we've been waiting waiting for over a year for the DOT and now is this going to be linear? So now we're going to wait for another year for the D to review why it hasn't been done simultaneously and let the D
weigh in on the drainage plans. >> Money >> money >> money because it takes a we to invest in that and not get a road opening permit. The road opening permit is key for us to continue. If we don't get that, all this work would have been for no. So, this is
the key to the whole project. If we can't get a road opening permit and uh to be quite frankly frank with the mayor on that question, that's why that hasn't been done because then that's a lot of work that would go down the drain if we didn't get the road opening permit. So, we're working on the road opening permit
and we had no idea it would take this long to get it. >> You mentioned a date you wanted an extension till March. What's driving that date? Is that just a guesstimate at this point of whether DOT is going to respond or not? >> This is what the engineer has explained to me that we need. I know they had
supposedly so many days to respond to our last submission and uh we have a little maybe another 30 days in that request. >> They have to respond to you within 30 days from today. >> Uh I think it was when when is it Eric?
>> Within. So they have 90 days to respond when they receive submission. Um I think 90 days puts us sometime in I believe the end of February March time period. >> Wait 90 days puts you then but we adjourn this in January.
>> No we've made revised plans and resubmitted to the DOT. So every time >> you when did you submit those? >> The revised plans were submitted last week based on comments that they provided to us earlier in the year in August. >> I think the first response was in
August. So, we've been working on this since August with the do submitting revised plans and working with >> Right. What does the board want to hear? >> Go on, K. >> No, no. I'll you let the board make sure
it has all of its questions answered and and comments and then I can let you know. So if the board doesn't grant you the waiver, >> the extension, >> no, the waiver on the 50 ft that the DOT's >> that's not for us to grant
for the waiver unless they need an extension currently expires at the end of this year. I'm correct. >> I mean what what I would think makes sense. I mean, this has been going on for a while, and I think it under other circumstances, the board may have
dismissed it without prejudice, allowing the applicant to come back later as opposed to continuing to grant extensions. But I think one of the reasons that we wanted the applicant to appear tonight is to explain the reason. And the reason right now seems to be
they're waiting for the DOT, and they expect the DOT to come back um sometime late February, mid-March. So I think it makes sense to grant an extension until that time and then if they still don't come then it's up to the applicant to say if they want to continue to move
forward while they simultaneously deal with the DOT and the D or to withdraw and then reapply at a point in time once once they have that a little more in place. >> Can you can you just remember can you be
clear on the date that the DOT had to respond to you at this point? What was the exact date? >> That's why I brought news on your >> um I don't have an exact date but based on >> 90 days. >> Sorry. Go back. >> It is 90 days. Um
I believe it's going to be March March 4th. >> Okay. So because it's a case that if we if we if we allow extension to the end of March
the chances of them having that DOT um whatever it is whether it's an approval or not an approval or an agreement is likely to be here and then we would we will know the way it's going more more than and if it's not if they don't have
anything at that point then we really can reassess what is truly going to happen with this again. Um, but it seems I don't know how I'd like opinions of others. It seems reasonable to allow them to at least wait for that decision to come forward on that 90 days. I don't
know how >> if I may, it's important to Flemington also to know what DOT is going to allow for this site and what can be developed at that site if they're what restrictions they're going to put on this, if any restrictions. I think
it's important for everyone to know that not just the applicant but for the town for any future development. We I mean like like co says we actually it's been going on so long we we actually have every right to just say that's just that's it but um and we
don't have to grant anything but feel as that there's an active application into the DOT >> and there is also conflicting case law on the issue of what leeway reasonable extensions would should be be granted. Um, it's
different. >> I get I get all that with the deacon deacon. Again, you know, the the original plan that they brought us showed this vast open space with 18 houses and very very very few trees and
landscaping with an underground mesh of pipes to take water off the site. And they were test they testified to us that the HOA would not allow any trees to be planted. No shade trees, whatever. it's in complete violation of our tracing ordinance um of the of state law on
trees now. So like without them going to the D as well, I don't know how we proceed to hear it regardless of whether we wait for the DOT >> because it's in a it's all flipped. >> I I I don't I I understand what you're
saying. Um the board however can condition its approval on um other entities that have of higher jurisdictions than the board. Um but they can't require
that to be provided prior to them making the decision. Now in a lot of circumstances just it to your point where I know where you're going with this. It's about the time. >> It it makes sense to understand those things so that you don't have to come back for an amended approval. Um but we
we can't require that higher jurisdictional approval before granting ours. However, in proceeding without that, they do run the risk of that higher entity, the D, whatever that may be, coming back and saying, "Well, what
you got approved by the board doesn't work according to what we're willing to grant or based upon the permit you submit. You have to go back and get amended approval." >> And then they run the risk of doing that. >> We have a number of new members. I mean, just so they all understand, this application was made in July of 2023.
They came before us the first time I believe it was early December, late November of 2023. So this has been going on now for two and a half years. So >> and to that point, one thing I wanted to say, we got right now D's been getting a DOT permit
approval. >> As the mayor mentioned, there's also the D. >> Doesn't have approval from us yet. We're we don't have we haven't done an approval at all at this point. No, so
we're we're at a very early stage. So >> the fact that even if you get a DOT approval, there's nothing to say you'll get a D. And there's nothing then we're not nobody's saying here that you'll get approval from this board either at this point because we don't know what the site plan is at this point. We only know
what you did two years ago. So I don't want anybody who's new like you say to think, oh wait for the DOT comes and it's there. It's a done deal. It's not. We've still got a lot of hoops to go through. This absence still has a lot of hoops to go through before we get to anywhere near that. And I don't want
that to be assumed if we allow them to wait and see what the DOT says. It doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere at that point even if they give approval because there's still lots of hoops to go through. I don't mean you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying >> We have a very detailed review with you
from the engineer. We understand that, >> right? But I'm also I've also got to protect the the town's money in terms of spending our professional time on this application too. There's also >> well it's all escrow at this point but that's another thing too is your client
needs to maintain the escrow. We had a lot of trouble with that in 24. So when you guys really haven't been here in 25. So, um, we don't want our attorney having to call you
and ask for more money. And I'd like to propose if we allow an extension to say sometime in March, everyone we agree that that is we expect to have an honest decision at that point about where this project can
possibly go. them out to come back on the first or second meeting in March. That's all. >> Yeah. >> Well, and and at that point in time, what we could say is they either proceed on that day or request a further extension that they're
being told right now isn't necessarily may not be granted. Right? >> So, it's either proceed or that's where we are. And I think we're give we the 90 days that we have right now is um notice that again since there is conflicting case law on the issue I think it
satisfies that I think it's reasonable and gives the applicant time to get the decisions from the DOT that it needs. Um and the board now understands why it's taken so long and what the reasoning behind that is. But you know we're letting everybody know that this is
where we're going. >> One more question. I'm not sure if it's for Mr. Lanza or the engineer. Is this anticipated to be the last back and forth with the DOT or could there be more? >> There may there could potentially
technical issues, but I think ultimately the DOT will say that the intersection configuration is acceptable or not. And that's really the answer that we need. >> But if they say not, are you is there going to be another >> you're going to another request in
another 90 days? Um, it's a waiver from the separation from the car washes property or their driving. >> This is this is what you're this is all that's this is all that you've applied now for. >> It's a full access program, but that's the where it's included. So, it's either a go or no go
>> is I think pretty much what it's going to come down to. >> And what so I think what we're hearing is whatever decision you get from the board. Maybe it may contain a condition, but maybe a condition of changing a plan like making a revision of changing a date, but things you know that you would
be able to comply with or not comply with in order to advise the board of whether you proceed. >> Correct. >> Yeah, I think that's what we're expecting. If we it was to the last meeting in March the second meeting in March given to >> that would be what we were expecting at that point. I mean we it's not a
guarantee that we provide extension but it would depend on what is presented at that point. >> So I think what we would do if the board is open to that we can't give them an exact date right now because we haven't done our meetings for next year. Um, I would recommend that they renotice for
whatever date that is, but we can let you know what date that is once we do our our dates for 2026 notice for that date and then be able to either proceed or again they can let us know where they are and and go from there. >> Right. Yeah. Anybody else have any
thoughts on that or any we move forward that way? >> Works. Okay. >> Point of observation is going to require votice. >> Yeah. I get in the impression there's going to be some substantial changes to the plan. At least that's the impression I'm getting.
>> Um, so you're going to need to if you're going to establish a date for a public hearing or allow them to notice for a public hearing, I think you need to back that up by at least three weeks or so that the plans are actually submitted so they can be reviewed for that public.
>> Right. But well, my thought car is the end of March is to ask them to come to another update, not schedule in any public until we know where we're at. would like to do that that's fine as well. >> I think that's I will that the end of March would be for an update and
dependent on what comes at that update whether we schedule a public hearing or not to call >> or you have to apply for another extension. >> Understood. >> That's fair enough. >> Go with the first meeting. >> The well said I was thinking too close to that date. It would give a few extra
leeway of weeks to do at the end of the March the second meeting of March. Just in case they're like he wasn't quite sure that day was >> Yeah. Is that right? One more meeting. We haven't set the dates. I think that's
>> we haven't but that would So if we stick with the second and fourth >> would be the 24th of March. >> Think was that did I send that one? Yeah. I did some preliminary ones for those up next meeting. >> All right. So you have
>> so the motion and I'd like to do this by way of the motion just so it's clear we have it on the record. Um that the applicant shall come back to the board at the board's second meeting in March which we anticipate will be March 24th but I'll let you know which one that is for sure. Uh to give you an update on
where they're looking to go. >> Um with regard to the DOT application they made >> Yep. And then uh from there the board will make a decision to let her schedule public hearing >> or require that the application be
withdrawn. >> Right. Okay. We have can make that motion. >> Yeah. >> Missurum. >> Yes. >> Mr. Champions. >> Yes. >> Gen.
>> Yes. Mr. Show. >> Yes. Mr. >> Schwinger. >> Yes. >> Mr. Der, >> I'm abstaining from this application. >> Okay. So, you can go to one more. >> Um, yes.
>> Thank you. >> Happy holidays. >> Um, all right. Okay, let's move on to the new item. Is it nine? The next item >> well
47 application 2025. This is an extension of a previous public hearing. Um, all your um, all of your people were um, were sworn in at that time.
>> No, we don't need as long as everyone that has is going to be testifying tonight has already testified before. >> Um, just for purposes of the uh, continuation of the application, the last time they were here was September 16th. Um, for purposes of marking the
exhibits, the last exhibit that we marked for the applicant was A8. So, anything going forward would be A9. The last planning board exhibit was PB5, and I have a few more I'd like to mark tonight. Before we continue, I'm going to mark as PB6, um, Mr. Clerico's
December 2nd review letter. PB7 will be the Bureau of Fire Safety's December 4th review letter. And PB8 will be Mr. Troutman's revised December 8th. >> I also issued a memo on December.
>> One more PP9. I know I saw it, but >> yeah. >> Uh the board planners memo of December 5th. >> Everybody else on the >> December 6th. >> December 6th.
I'm so >> it was at some point in the give us a prey of it as >> Okay, so that's just all the preliminary stuff and uh take it away. >> Thank you so much. Good evening madam
chair mayor, members of the board. My name is Nicholas Whitaker. I'm welcome to Striville. I'm here on behalf of applicant plus wellness LLC. We are continuing this hearing u from our previous hearing. When we were previously here uh board expressed
concerns relating to the variance relief we were requesting since uh the board hearing and you will see tonight we have removed majority of the variance relief we are seeking and we are only seeking this one judicial use variant assigned variants um and whatever relief might
come up at this meeting. Um, without further ado, we'd like to call to our engineer to further his testimony relating to the revised plans and your >> David again. Mitch Harman with the Reynolds
Group. Uh, we prepared the site plans. Uh, the first exhibit we have was presented at the last hearing. It's the aerial exhibit. Uh, it's M1 with a sheep. by basically from a cover sheet in the Senate. But just to reorient,
>> was this I'm sorry, just for the record, was this submitted to the board in connection with your amended application or your amended submission, I should say. >> This was the original plan. >> Okay. Okay. So, anything new and you just guided through it. Anything new that hasn't already been submitted will have to mark
>> and and this was uh I testified on this plan last time, but just to make sure everybody's um oriented, I think, you know, he thought it well. Obviously, the The circle is on the uh the northwest of the property. The property is outlined in blue as I have on the plan. We have
South Main Street comes into the circle route 12 and up to Ray Avenue. Uh north is basically uh right left on the plan. Uh what we have on the property is block 47, lot 8. It's approximately 1.35
acres. It's a largely developed property. There were two banks on there. Uh first one is more on the south side. The second one is more on the north side of the property. Basically connected through to the shopping center. Much
larger shopping center to the east uh just to what I'm calling our rear of the property. You can see the large expansive parking roof from the building there. uh for access to the property. As you come around the circle, it's a one way into
the property uh in between two banks and then there's a one way out the south street. We're also access points for connections between our lot and the shopping center lot. Those three locations. Uh for the
non-existing bank, there's a drive-thru to the right. And for the um other um building which is as I'm pointing at is proposed um cannabis retail center uh on the left. There was an overhead um
canopy there that had that's since been taken down but that's the location of it and that's the drive-thru location. So that's pretty much the existing conditions and again at the last hearing we talked about the proximity or well knows the the neighboring
properties as was stated we're not we're a permitted conditional use on this property and in this zone was Nick said we came in and there was definitely some changes to the plan and so this is the
new exhibit. So what this is our plan >> this is our convention plan sheet three >> and this was submitted already to the board. >> That is correct. It's color rendered. It was revised 10275.
Uh but I guess we mark this because it's um color rendered and it has some post changes on it as well. >> Okay. So this this particular exactly colored exhibit >> not but this plan
>> colorized sheet three of the plan last revised October 27 2025 and we will mark that as exit A9. But the orientation of this plan is the same as the aerial. It's just a blown up
section. South Main Street on the bottom again the circle Reville Avenue. Yeah. The difference some domain changes. Uh originally uh bank center of the property building was going to be removed. That's now proposed to stay.
That's that the existing bank building with the drive-thru location. There's a parking lot to the south which will remain as well as parking lot to the west which is the south main street. Uh the proposed bless Wellness cannabis
retail is in the darker brown is on the north end of the property. That's basically the configuration of the building and the front of that is really what we presented at the last hearing. This you should remember some discussion the building basically phased at the
east before uh but it is now oriented to the west internally. Just a reminder which has been a critical point with this whole project that the property line on the east side is as I'm showing highlighted here. So, while it would
have been great for us to have some more property for everybody united it, we just do not have that property and are not able to do work on the other side of that line. We'll get to that when some of the other staff comments uh do come up on the plan.
So, as as we show and as I said, uh both those buildings will now be remaining with the reconfigured parking lot. We'll have two spaces in front of the glass wellness, one standard space and one PDA accessible space with accessibility
straight into the building. Uh again, the reconfigured parking lot has 28 parking spaces. Uh per the ordinance, you'll hear traffic testimony aside from just straight ordinance, but per the ordinance using your uh retail standard
and your bank view standard. uh combining those two only 13 spaces are required and we're providing the 28 spaces on this plan as I noted uh to address some of the prior comments
also circulation was an issue this that's part of where we got 50 variance situation before with impervious coverage um so again coming in with a nonvariance application which the
related to disturbance on the property. Um, as you come into the site, we're striping out this area. There are three parking spaces along the circle. We're getting rid of those spaces, striking that area out. Uh, there's an island here in this basically in the center of
the parking area and we're striking to expand that island area as well. The purpose of that is brought up by your staff comments to uh direct the flow in a better pattern. So, we'll get uh people obviously away from those three
parking spaces and come in and make the right turn to this parking area. Come if there's spots right in front of the property, continue through to the bank drive-thru. We've uh if you pulled in here and weren't coming for those, you
can still continue to the east of the main shop there. That's kind of the circulation directions that that's on this plan. Uh, one of the other things that's shown on this plan, the rendering that wasn't on the
submitted plan is a crosswalk for pedestrian access. Comment by some of your staff members. Basically, to get to the uh proposed bless Wellness building, you have the bulk of the park from this area. There's a handicap space that exists to service
uh center bank building and it's the stripe out area with a cut through of the island. So what we're doing, we're going to continue that so pedestrian access can come through the island, continue to that corner to either proceed to the bank. We've continued the
uh hatched crosswalk as well uh to tie into the uh basically striped crosswalk area for the ADA space and into the building. Now the difference on here um Mike picked up to make this alignment work. We just flipped where the ADA
space was in the plan in your set versus this plan because it made for the mobility watching the pedestrians better with this layout. So that's really the only change on this rendering in front of you that's uh not in the site plan.
Again to address staff comments regarding landscaping that was issued came up uh the digital hearing around the bless wellness building. We were always pro providing a nice enhancement of the landscaping that's basically
stayed how we had shown. We have shrubs along foundation to plant things along the building along the walk. We have shade trees we can be placed in the islands that we're keeping there. We understand this is a visibility point
along the circle. So we're interesting. We thought also along South Main Street physically what we could do there. We knew there were comments from Beth and from staff about wanting to get more
trees there and and we have provided. So there's one existing street tree. That's about all there is out there. Maybe two or three other trees on site. Uh so we're providing additional uh six street trees along South Main. Uh along with
that the uh the southerntherly parking area behind those street trees we provide a hedro and that location wall to screen those trees. So we think that combination provides nice buffer. Um fortunately on the north side here again
with the property line and the narrow strip there was only room for one additional planting in this northwest corner of the property. and we try to pick a species that matched some of the other ones up your road there. That's what we're showing for the enhanced
landscaping on the facility. Um zoning on the property really as we testified at the original hearing conditional use. Um there are existing pre-existing nonconformities on the property. We're not changing any of
them. that dealt with a lot of area, a lot of depth, front yard setback and rear yard setback. We had test point hearings. No changes from this plan to the prior hearing. They all really deal with the
position of this existing building that east property line as well as the north of the property line. So no changes for that on the plan or as I said from the prior application. So, that's really
what we're presenting. If tonight, um I keep my initial comments to the point. We can go through staff comments to um you know, address more things that have come up. Uh we have, you know, a full lighting plan is in the set. There are a few comments. Willing to work with staff
to make any amendments or any changes on on those. you >> is that yours? >> Yeah. So, I don't know if you want me to go through or ask staff to go through their >> own comments and then people can comment.
>> All right. So, we wait on testimony as the engineer, right? >> Yes. >> Let me just start by saying uh we had a fairly lengthy discussion Michael, we had a fairly lengthy discussion um at
the prior hearing with a number of recommendations relating to traffic circulation, relating to expansion of uh landscape islands and related to improvement of pedestrian access within the site itself. as presented. The major change
you have here is that previously you were removing the bank and using that area for parking and now you're basically trying to keep the bank which is which is fine. That's that's your current proposal. What was the reason why you you didn't follow through on any of the prior recommendations uh like
relating to traffic circulation relating to expansion of islands all of which look to be feasible or possible. I don't see anything here that would clude you from doing that. >> Right. um even the striping of the uh expansion of expansion of the islands by striping pavement. That was a
recommendation to actually expand the landscaped islands in that area. What what's prohibiting you from from following those prior recommendations? >> Main issue honestly is it kicks us into a variance situation >> and what would the variance be? um for the imperous coverage. But right now uh
with your zone, it's a 70% maximum impervious coverage and we're 61% change and with a slight reduction with this uh proposed project. Um once you've disturbed um more than 2,000 ft or more
than 200 square ft of new impervious um then it kicks in a basically a reduction of uh 20% of the impervious cover. So it' be down to 50. So there was a lot of discussion at the last meeting adding islands in and not there were areas
where we had discussed where we potentially could or would add them in. I'm not saying they weren't reasonable suggestions. It's just that it kicked us into a variance situation and decision was made to come, you know, variance free with this application. >> But that particular provision also has
an allowance. It you're correct. You go over a certain disturbance, it triggers the standard, but the standard is either to reduce down to 50 or to do some on-site storm water man. Are you saying you you there's no ability to do any storm water management on this property?
>> Uh, virtually none. And I did have some testimony. So the options and again um due to existing site limitations. So there's basically no existing drainage system on the property or on really the
directly adjoining site. There's only one inlet in Main Street which is unfortunately on the uphill end of the site. So if we were going to provide some storm water management, it would be difficult with a kind of standard bio retention basin detention basin to
pipe it to get into that system. Um other options as dry wells, you know, we could potentially do the roof of the uh plus wellness center and find us a home. uh the soils in this area are not known
to be good soils for for draining for a drywall where there's no overflow option to provide. So that that's a limitation. Um and um any other features that we could provide um
with the where the flow in the one area even to provide um with a a prior design there was potentially an option for um some enhanced plantings for sheet flow across some of the areas. But at at this layout that really none of the pavement
will be sheet flowing over a large enough area of uh green space that we could enhance that with native plantings. If I recall the private plan that you were there was a and this was all conceptual to last because you didn't have a detailed design but there
was a proposal I thought to that back parking lot area I guess on called the subway side of of the property um that that drains right now off into a grass area and there was a proposal or at least consideration proposal to put some sort of a feature in that particular area. You're saying that's not possible?
>> Um we can look at that one. The one I recalled is that when there was parking in this center here, it was going to sheet flow over native plantings now location, but we I mean that's I can check the drainage pattern again. >> Again, we're y
>> I don't want to compare apples to oranges because you the main difference here between this plan and the prior plan is in the prior plan, you you you weren't retaining the bank. You were you were expanding parking where the bank currently is. in this plan, you're preserving the banks and trying to
utilize uh other parking uh on on the site. >> Um again, you you're going to need to make your case to some extent before the board, but I know a lot of the Ruth had the comments in my report. I believe Beth picked up on a number of these comments and I believe Jay did too. uh
is that there was like I said fairly lengthy discussion on narrowing up driveways, improving pedestrian access to the building, improving landscaping as part of that restricting or controlling better traffic circulation
uh on the site uh and uh all that came with adding to disturbance. uh with any consideration given to doing that and and seek if you did need variance relief, seek variance relief in the impervious coverage, at least make an attempt to uh reduce some of the
impervious coverage to the best of your ability. Uh and then ask the board for whether on the presumption that you have no ability to do on-site storm water. I'm not sure that's been documented yet, right? >> Uh ask for, you know, the the relief there. it I mean I I I said I mean I'll
just say it now I said in the report it seems like we're sacrificing if that's the right word a lot of the prior improvements to the site uh for the basic sake of just avoiding the need for a variance >> sadly we're against we are not the
property owners for this property um everything has to go through the property owners we are just cleaning the tent um there is two property owners for this site so uh that decision made by the property owners and we are just a tenant for this site trying to approve it. >> But you're the app.
>> Absolutely. And that's why we're compliant with the code. We're trying to stay completely with code compliant uh that the board has set for >> not that matters, but I I assume the reason the amended plan to include the bank had something to do with the owners.
>> I was not involved in >> just for clarity. Is that the property owner's position that they is it the property owner that wants a compliant application or that there will be that they're not supportive of improvements to the parking area or both?
>> I can't speak for them. They are not my clients, but from the conversations that I had um they want this to be a compliant application with the code. >> Well, again, which is what this is. >> The code gives you options. You know, if
you can't if you make an attempt to reduce if in the process of making an attempt to reduce impervious coverage, you're triggering that section because you're disturbing, which is which is true. The code gives you an option to do storm water to compensate for that. So,
you don't you're not obligated to go down to 50%. >> Again, I I don't represent the owners. I represent the applicant. Uh this is the application that we have set forth with minimal variance relief. uh we tried to do our best efforts to uh make this
compliant. I think we've done a good job and um we're continuing to work with the board to make any such improvements that we can without tripping any further varian. >> Um I have a question I think triggering from what you've raised.
>> Sorry for No, I I have a question. I think it's the you two trigger from what Bob has said. From what I'm understanding, Bob is is suggesting that so that the applicant has chosen to keep
the disturbance to a point where it doesn't trigger the their requirement to consider um storm water management works to be done. is
they have that right to do that. They they they have they have a right to choose to present a project that doesn't do that or I I the implication seems to be really that because the site would
allow those storm to management they should ask for a variance and do that. They have a right not to ask. >> They have a right to present the application and the relief that's necessary based on the code to this
court. So they have chosen despite the recommendations of the force professionals to present a compliant application. >> They have the right to do that. Um I think the board needs to understand number one specifically ma'am. all be
clear on what relief is being requested. Number one. Number two, what recommendations of the board's professionals they're not going to comply with because usually one of our conditions is that they comply with all the recommendations and we'll spell out,
you know, but for those particular ones. Um, and then the board's essentially going to have to weigh whatever recommendations they're not willing to comply with. and the impact of those recommendations on the relief
that they're asking >> because I must I must admit my memory of what we were why did we ask them to come back and why we asked them to re look at the site plan. Anybody else jump in and forgive me if I remember this >> I thought they were looking at the
landscaping to get themselves over the to increase the impervious coverage by opening up some of the landscaping areas. So that it was increased the pvious >> the pvious coverage so that they were triggered over into because we were so I
felt like the previous application was so close to this percentage that we needed and we said if you just expand these areas >> you'll get there now am I remembering that >> you wereing it correctly >> but once they disturb to create that curious coverage it triggers and then
they have to do storm management also is that >> right and what we are hearing The testimony that's been given is that they spoke with the owner who is not in front of us, but >> the applicant is in front of us. >> The owner, they must have had some.
We're not going to infer, but like there was obviously there's been a representation that a conversation was had and whatever the the whatever cost or whatever would ever have to be incurred by the owner of the property to do the things that we
were talking about theoretically >> in how to get them there. >> Um they've decided to go this way. And the problem is as I see this is that we're all they're asking for is conditional
is for the conditional use >> and as long as they meet the conditions >> and the side >> and the side and as long as they meet the conditions for the conditions they're not we we have I mean my opinion >> Beth but I I think that we have very
little we can say or require of them in terms of landscape because they not seeking relief from the impervious stuff with the landscaping plan or any of the rest of it. They are simply asking does what they present meet the conditions for the conditional use and does do we
want to grant them relief on the sign ordinance. They're not asking us >> and so so we're kind of like as much as we I think everyone in the room and everyone online knows what we were hoping they'd come back with. I I I mean this is what they're presenting and they have every right to
say >> this is a we are asking for conditional use and the sign relief. >> Well, I'm not I'm not sure >> I'm not sure that this was the owner because the attorney said that he's
can't he's not representing the owner and he wants it to be compliant. The engineer said, quote, "We're prop it's proposed to leave the the bank building." Proposed is the word he used. >> So proposed means we're leaving it. It's
you know, it's a proposal to us as is anything else. It's a proposal. >> So I don't know. >> You're not disturbing the grant. So that mean you don't have to for the fairness. I mean I like I'm trying to understand the parking like >> well they have
>> well I mean the bank building is proposed now to sit there basically as an empty building because the landlord was presumably willing to let it be removed a month and a half ago and now it's going to be
sitting there. Is the proposal to use those parking spaces for bus wellness? Well, certainly since we don't know what the future use of that bank building would be, I would suggest that what they've represented is they're providing
28 parking spaces, which they can certainly show the board exactly where they would be located and if they would be a portion of the bank parking spaces. 13's required. Um, but a condition could always be once that is that building is used, come back and make sure that the
parking either stays the same or is exceeding the requirements for what that used is for. >> But if it's but if it's existing, but if it's a bank use, let's it's a bank use that's not being used as a bank at the moment. But if a bank were tomorrow to come in, >> there is no change in use. There would
we can't condition it only would be conditioned if the zoning officer got a change in use application. Well, or if the parking associated with that use. So, right now the 28 and correct me if I'm wrong and I might have missed this. The 20 the 13 parking spaces required is
calculated just for bless wellness or for bless wellness and the bank. >> Okay. So, yeah, you're absolutely right. >> So, withstanding our everything we heard before and what we thought was coming, we just we can only consider this based on what they're asking for and what they
brought in. power is the attorney. She'll tell you that. >> Yeah. >> I mean, and that's kind of what we won't. >> Absolutely. And that's why I think the board needs to be clear and understand what the relief is that they're asking for, >> what what recommendations they're not willing to comply with. And again, the
correlation between the two, >> right? Um because as much as it might be very nice and applicants typically do agree to comply with recommendations um they do have the ability if certain
relief is not required to say no it >> correct. >> Okay. >> I mean you know speaking as mayor of the bureau always looking at taxes. this building, the bank building has been empty for a while already. And you know, if the
landlord, this is just to make this site plan compliant and he has no intentions of renting out the bank building, which we do or don't know he is. Um, you know, I I I don't see anybody coming in looking for some kind of tax abatement on the bank building because it's an empty building, you know, in the future.
Um, I'm really disappointed in a site plan. I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am. So great. Well, is everybody clear where we're moving forward now? Because confused
about where we were, what what I was looking at. >> Yeah, it is what it is. >> It is what it is. It is what it is. I'm not happy. >> I know you're not happy because I know you well enough to know the look on your face right now. You're not happy. >> But we can only consider the application
before. And so we do it on that basis. I do want to comment on the sign though when we when you get a chance I want to comment >> we previously gave testimony on the sign um the moving of the sign to remove the second sign variance will be addressed by the planner
>> right we're going to look at that in a little bit Dennis will come up >> I would like to put on the record exactly which recommendations we're not complying with just so the resolution is perfectly clear because again usually we just say >> you know all recommendations and we're
No face. >> Yeah. Yeah. So I mean it might be easier just to kind of go through and and whichever I don't want to tell you how however uh whichever expert you want to deal with but um if we go through the planners and the
traffic engineers and the civil engineers reports and just you know say which ones were not and the burough fire safety reports to the extent applicable. >> Sure. So we can start um just at the top
report. >> Yep. So the looking at PB8 which I guess would be the revised one for December 8. >> Correct. >> And we do have traffic engineer for testimony as needed but just because for site plan compliance items
>> that would be great. Uh just in regards to get on the record for uh item four is deliveries. It's not a compliance item, but we did have testimony at the last meeting specifically for the blessed wellness that these come in that the
larger engine size there would not be a loading zone needed and it would just be one of the parking spaces for that delivery tonic um that that delivery would be made. And that's difficult for um
uh projects that I've worked on in the past. Uh item five that's just um both removal of the concrete island. Yeah, that actually was meant >> I don't know graphically where that come but that island would be removed there.
But we are complying with five. >> We are complying with five. I drove that again today. I actually thought it might have been removed with the old but it's not. So that will be done and um and the do not enter signs will be
provided. So five at this time we were not showing uh maybe have a further discussion. Item six, a one-way pattern on the the south side. A one-way pattern on the south side. So, we do have do not enter signs
there. So, we're complying with that one. Item seven, I believe by the striping. I believe we're complying not with an island but with striping to remove the three parking spaces in seven. >> Can I just excuse me
>> on item six? That was um actually referring to the north side of the building to complement the oneway pattern on the south side. So you're not doing that because that's going to be a two-way aisle still on the north side. >> On the north side. >> Yeah.
Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, right now we're keeping that as a two-way. >> Right. So, we're not complying with six. >> Correct. The number seven are the three parking spaces. We are complying.
Strike those out. Uh number eight, we have do not enter signs and if additional signage is needed, we will comply with eight. >> Um number nine, >> I just I'm so sorry. Sure. Going back to six. Yeah.
>> The reason we can't comply with six, I mean, that doesn't seem to trigger a variance, does it? >> That does not. It's it's a traffic flow situation. Maybe maybe we'll take that one offline. I'm sure there'll be one one or two things offline and we'll circle back to that's okay. when we say
offline >> and a brief here. >> Okay. >> These tie into some of Bob Clerico's comments as well and I think hand inand with that the idea was I think something that's off the table now which was to
narrow it when it becomes one way and get landscaping in there and that was the same idea but the one on the south side none of that can be done. That was eight. >> No, that was We're in five and six. >> Still five and six. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> And and nine is really just a statement about the signage that's it's there. And it there is relief needed for that sign to be above the uh two square foot minimum. Uh
two square foot is permitted. We have 4.58 square feet again to provide better direction for the public. So I think you're in favor of that. >> Yes. Those are the slight ideas from J's letter
talking about five and six which he'll talk about. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> What's next? >> This is letter of revised December 5th I think.
You can start with section four comments. >> Section four. Y >> and just for the for the board's edification for those of you that might have my old memo, this new version, it simply updates the old version of the fraction just so the number is the same.
Although there are few items towards the end. Well again 4.1 uh that's uh we will not be eliminating pavement in uh A and B 4.2 two. We will comply
that's eliminating the old island in the drive group. The directional signs is 4.3 and again Tra was satisfied that CO was okay. So we would ask for that uh 4.4 four. I believe we have the do
not enter, but if there's any missing, we will add those. So, we'll agree to work four under um 4.5 A um we will make sure that they're native plantings. I thought my landscape
architect up close to maple native maple, but that's that's not an issue. >> So, you also stated that you we're going to match the one tree closest to the entrance to other trees on the site, and none of those trees on site are worthy trees. >> Okay. So,
>> none of them don't do what they >> We'll pick a species that's everybody's in agreement with none of this. Um B, again, I think should where we where we added uh additional plant.
>> Yeah. Without converting areas to landscape unless you see any other locations. >> Yeah. The the intention of item B was uh was really in reference to the hope that some of these areas be converted to landscape islands. I do think that you Florida planted those areas which are
islands today. So B is unnecessary >> given the that they're not converting at rates. >> Same with C. >> And the same with D. You were satisfied.
And then uh around the bank building that if you're talking about some additional um shrubbery and and plantings to complement what we did around um the less wellness building.
>> Yes. >> That we will comply. >> And there was testimony last time given relating to the shade trees and any excess will be donated to the fund. 4.6 be clear on that point that 3.7
>> you mentioned that um spaces require nine four so therefore let's just be clear that then five the equivalent of five trees will be donated to the shade trees >> seven >> seven sorry
>> they're providing six shade trees >> sorry >> it says here they require four and so I I was thinking >> 28 parking spaces proposed required nine >> trees. >> Those are those are partner trees. Is
that >> okay? I need to add to that then five. >> I just wanted to get it on the record. How many >> trees? Yes, they're missing six. >> Yeah, you're missing. There are 13 street trees required. You're proposing
six. Okay. Thank you. We will indicate on the lighting plan there will be some security lighting provided uh on the mounted infection we share. So we'll identify >> what was the can you remind me of what
the hours for letting tested today? The permitted hours are 9 to 9, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. We'll gauge it, you know, as we figure out, you know, what's necessary. >> An hour. So, typically an hour after close, often the lights go down to
security levels on. >> Correct. Yes. So, but I I do know that the lights are programmable. So, we put them on schedule. So 10 10 p.m. away this um
regarding the trash. Um really for for placement um again with our property line cutting through the site here. Uh again testimony that last time bless wellness
not it it comes in in prepackaged it goes out prepackaged there's not a lot there's some cardboard that goes there's some straight paper garbage this staff may generate so there's really not a lot of garbage so we looked at this in placement so yeah real his staff is
going to walk where they need to walk um obviously we didn't think it needs we definitely don't nobody wants in the front front here. So, we have in the corner. I know you had noted that it might be in the front yard. Does that mean just because it's in front of the building line? >> Yeah, there's it's technically because
there's no building between the dumpster and the street. >> Yeah. >> Uh that it sits within the uh the front yard. I think the an alternative that would be compliant is behind the bank building in the
bank parking spaces. problem outside of >> Yeah, that's on your >> the same with the three behind the less wellness. Again, those are over the property. >> Do you need a dumpster? >> I >> And I don't want to step on the board's
toes. They would like to have one provided, but the testimony is that there's so little trash generated. >> Where did the bank where did they have theirs? It was removed, but it was on the 14 parking spots was here.
>> It was previous, right? >> There's Yeah. So, there's there's the >> trees in the new hedro. There's a you probably seen this is a 20 foot plus high evergreen screen to the neighbors to the sit. So, does have good screening
in that location. They'll have So you utilize one of the spots there >> or is it a spot sectioned off for it? >> Yeah, we've stried it out to fit in that parking area with again with so a car is not right up against it. There's a
striped out area even next to it. >> I guess one question. The five parking spaces that are on the adjoining property that are immediately adjacent to where the existing bank is, which has the handicap space and the sidewalk access into the bank. You have no rights to those spaces.
This property owner has no right to those spaces. >> Not we we've checked it there. There has been common use, but as far as rights, nobody's produced anything to say that they they have rights and we definitely can't do anything over the line that
triggers. >> So your your customers can't use those parking spaces. I can't testify that they can't or won't or haven't in the past, but um we just don't have we can't physically do anything on those spaces and choose
them. It's another lot and that triggers a technical another burrow issue is that unfortunately went down that road once before another township issue. >> Did you include those in the 28 or not? >> No.
>> No. So used potentially but that's why we made sure we have one ADA space which is striped which can so there's still ADA access to the bank. Could we technically share this one?
Well >> that that ADA space you're showing is existing. >> Yes. Yes. There was always a kind of cut out in that concrete island there. There were actually two there. >> Are you maintaining?
>> We're maintaining one. It's all that's required. Now that we got two on site, one we put just moved, if you will, right from the >> You're modifying the parking in that particular area. >> Correct. Just by striping. >> By strike. Correct. >> And you're eliminating an ADA space in
the process of doing that. >> Correct. >> And we know do we know that in the process of doing that, you still have ADA compliant access to the bank building? >> Yes, that all that's a flat area there. Um in that whole parking lot area, there's no >> Do we have any mentation on the plan
adopt that that stipulates that >> uh I can provide that and I can add grades but that's not an issue. Um, sticking with that 4.8. I think we had some discussion on the flight rack. Um,
was that? >> Yeah. >> Is it shown on the plan, but perhaps I overlooked it and I did not see it. >> I don't think that got added. I think to be honest I don't remember if word is in favor of that but yeah you know we can definitely add that that's fine
uh the architect um had testified previously 49 and 410 I think his testimony was that the rooftop equipment was hidden in that um man roof section there. So be nonvisible.
We did look at the uh 411 the reduction in impervious. It the number was off by few square feet one way or another but it's still rounded basically to the same as we had on the cover sheet. the change of the overall uh percent that we have
>> the numbers were were the same. I just wanted confirmation to make sure it wasn't over. >> I think I had a similar comment about document. It wasn't clear to me where the impervious area around the building that we said was would remain would remain impervious the landscaped area. I couldn't I couldn't come up with the
same numbers you were coming up. >> Yeah. >> So your plan needs to note what those areas are and document what those square points are. >> Yeah. We can provide a separate obviously we have a color-coded one so I can get that to >> well in this particular case I think you have to be very specific because you were only 200 ft away from triggering
that other requirement understood >> the 412 again that's where we're not going live >> for the board if this is any comments And I had uh suggest speaking very consistent with their testimony. They're
not reaching that change. >> 413 pedestrian circulation. So we have included the crosswalk that I presented this evening. >> And where is that crosswalk again? >> So that's just it's not on the plan in front of you >> existing. No, no, we're we're proposing
that based on reading both your comments before I came tonight. That's the crosswalk which we're showing just on my rendering on the board here. >> Does the crosswalk connect to other areas or is it just across the pavement? So here it's across the pavement to the
existing depressed curb and landing at the corner of the bank and then it crosses over to um the ADA striping for the ADA space in front of the bless wellness. >> You want to show it again on there how you're doing that. It's a strip crosswalk going from where going from
the handicap space that we just talked about for the bank. >> Right. So circulation for all pedestrian circulation is standard. They would cross an aisle, but from that point we'll have they can walk through the stripe area for the ADA space. Walk through there. There's the uh a landing
basically that's this thing going through uh the island. >> Right. >> Go across there. This will be a new strip crosswalk with the sidewalk on the other side. >> Correct. Sidewalk the bank on the other side where there's the press curve. Then that can continue to the uh striping for
the ADA space in front of the bus wellness. They can continue on >> that crosswalk going across the exit driveway doesn't connect to a sidewalk. >> Yeah. >> The exit driveway. >> This exit drive. >> No, the one used to be where the drive
where this building was. >> Yeah. So yeah, this walk around the bank building goes to there's two doors. So there's an existing walk that goes >> I'm not talking about the bank building, but that's all existing and you're not touching it. >> Correct. >> Correct.
>> But I'm talking about the the new retail facility. >> Yep. >> So you're putting a crosswalk across and you how are you getting people from there over to the um you're providing a very nice sidewalk coming out of the uh ATL facility. You're providing that sidewalk along the front to the ADA
space and then it stops. Yeah, I'll make sure what the >> Have you considered extending the sidewalk right there to the driveway and then connecting the crosswalk to that essentially on the other side of the tree? >> So, they were going to they'll connect and that's just the difference in your
plan. I testify we're going to flip those two so that the striped area is on the edge here. So, you come across and basically to that stripe and the landing will be here. >> You can continue. Why not?
>> We're not really getting any of this on record, >> right? We will make sure it gets on the run. >> Do we want to take a break? This milk was given to us a few weeks ago or it was new. >> Crosswalk is new because it was a
response to staff comments that we received. >> Would now be a good time to maybe take a quick break if they're going to >> chat >> chat. So we know what the heck's going on. >> Yeah. All right, let's take a pause for
you chat. Let's keep it to 10 minutes. >> All right, start with again as we usually do. Um, can you call the roll again? Make sure this >> should be it is I see things mayor. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Poro. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Miss Griffin. >> Yes. >> Yep. Miss. >> Yes. >> Miss Wingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cheryl. >> Mr. Schwer.
>> Oh my god. >> My tongue. Mr. Josh had a swear jar for echo. See? >> Yes. >> We're putting out a square jar for you for every time you get a name wrong. Put in a dollar.
>> My tongue just goes the other way. >> Okay, that being said, let's resume. We have some discussions during the break that were useful for the proceedings. Do we have to report anything that was discussed or are we continuing on?
>> So, we have we've had some discussions. Obviously, we've come before the board tonight with a nearly compliant application that doesn't have any variance rel. Um, if the board is willing to entertain some sort of impervious coverage
variance, we have some proposals that we can draw on the signs. We have done the calculations uh for the board to review. But if if the board's not willing to entertain that, we have no problem proceeding with the other application. If board wants to see our proposal, we
could show you right now. >> So you're you're proposing to do what? >> We're proposing to give you more greenery on the site, but the problem with that is it triggers the variance.
We want to go to a vote tonight, which is why we have a client application right now. Um, >> it triggers what variance would it trigger? >> The impervious coverage varian more greenery >> because they're going to be disturbing more than 200 square feet and they're going to
think that they might be willing to do some of the some of the landscape islands that would trigger that provision that would require them to go down to 50%. But they're indicating they can't get to 50%. And I think I think I don't want to speak for them, but I
think they're saying that the board might be willing if they give their best effort to make improvements to the site in landscaping and circulation that triggers that provision. If they don't get down to 50%, the board would be willing to give them a variance
for it's going to be less coverage from what you're seeing today. >> Better than what it is. >> Better than what it is. But if they can't get the 50% which you're indicating they can't, they don't want to even propose that >> unless they know the board be willing to grant that. >> So they're not going to insist on them
having the storm water management system that would be triggered by that. >> That well that's the other I said that's the other component of it. >> We got testimony that they said already that they looked at that and that because of existing >> conditions and where the the inlet is
and all the rest of that there there was not a feasible way to do that is what I'm hearing. is that we heard that we did. Yeah. >> Again, I don't want to speak for them, but that's what I heard. >> Is that what you're saying? >> That was Mr. >> I don't want to waste the board's time. >> No, I understand, but I'm just still
trying to understand. >> Forgive me. Isn't that where we were at the meeting in September? We asked you to basically draw up exactly what you just said. And we we asked you that. said, "We're at the we're almost at the bin." And we couldn't be clear exactly where it was because you you were drawing things by hand on the drawing
and we said, "Okay, this doesn't quite work cuz we're not quite understanding. So go away and draw it up knowably and come back. >> We chose you chose not to do that and then now you're saying let's draw it
on the picture like we did in we were doing in September." Well, >> my understanding again in fairness to the applicant, it's a different plan because the prior plan they were getting rid of the bank. >> Yeah. >> This plan they're not. >> Okay. >> But maybe it'll show it now. >> It may be
in principle that's effective. >> I would see what they're proposing >> and and I don't think it's going to be as as complicated because >> areas are striped. So I we could go there. So >> I would like to see what you're proposing. >> Certainly. >> I understand. And also >> I'm just trying to I'm just trying to
>> iron control because >> I'm sorry you're saying we're also not going to >> we're not going to calculate a percentage totally tonight then because that's what the drawing was going to do before as well. So we're we're we're agreeing that we're not going to come to a percentage. We're just going to come to a >> a feeling I think we can and we can talk
about the percentage and >> that was but you are correct. That was the issue before because we didn't feel comfortable granting a percentage variance. While in theory we were okay with the concept of granting a variance, the problem was we were even talking
about do we do it between this and this and we didn't feel comfortable doing that time working with professionals and creating this joy that we were then going to see and know that. And so now >> I think at the last meeting though it was a real push to get us to the 50.
Correct. And it just >> you can't get >> you can't get it. >> Okay, that's much better. >> All right. >> Okay. So again, yeah, we didn't expect you to understand right away until you have the presentation. So understood. So, two of them are easy because they're
on the plane and basically it's the island that we have next to the five parking spaces in the middle and the island that we have on the north end where we took the three spaces out that were referred to and again according to Mr. Clerico's report instead of stripe
islands those will be earth landscape islands. So, not only will they be green that will now give us the opportunity to add and we'll see sight distances, but at least one if not two, you know, sh uh street trees along there as well
as we can continue some as we had here some uh um buffer plantings or some shrub plantings. We can continue those in the island as well. So I think those two areas are are pretty clear >> and those areas are in what portions of
the property? Just >> so referring to my my exhibit which is A9. Uh they're on the uh north side of the five parking spaces in the U center of the site and on the north side of the
eight parking spaces along South Main Street uh and Route 12. and and basically it would be the striped areas which are on the defined on the site plan that was submitted will not now be uh landscape areas.
>> Yeah. Do the people online understand where that is or can we is there do you have like a literally red pen and you can like draw a box that you're going to out landscape out landscape and then we can turn that to the camera so that they
can see it in real time. So we have red orange highlighter >> that's going to stand out. So this will all be landscaped will be >> obvious >> with some nice acer maple sugar >> as agreed with the shade tree commission
>> not not not our current list of really crappy choice >> we have just wanted you to know that we did pay attention >> nothing pairs >> things not on the shade tree >> list
you updated your official figure >> that you don't build furniture out of >> Asia rubs. That's what we have on the planet. >> That would be fine. Thank you. >> I thought you list I listen architect. >> However, you do know they do attract lantern flyest >> which are hopefully on their decline at
this point. Okay. It seems to be face rooms are one of the favorite places for them to like land. So, and and those are clear and I have um square footages for those areas as well which we can which
we can put on the record. So I think would be closer to an impervious >> let's say as agreement with our planner administrator commission right have to go into the detail >> I'm just talking about square footages
so uh the area the end of the five uh spaces we call that area one >> and then area the second is area two. >> Okay. So area one >> is approximately 375 square ft
>> and area two is approximately 1,000 square ft. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Right. after much other deliberation understanding that that's a start but
uh to give basically the street trees and other improvements along with the one-way circulation They'll convert that area to one way as well. >> That we got approval for that for one way. >> So that checks several of the boxes that
we were planning. >> Are you essentially keeping the same width you have up above and just carrying it that around? >> So changing what's that one? >> Yeah. >> Or you are you narrowing that driveway up a little bit? Yeah, it's gonna narrow. It's going to
come. Let's see where Excuse me. >> I'm only I sort of middle. >> Yeah. Right. So, it's it's not going to be as it's going to come up. >> Oh, you Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, you're going to narrow that driveway and extend extend that extend that around to this. >> Yeah. And I'll bring it on so you guys
can see closer there. So that area again a rough is um 1,250 square ft. >> And what would go there? >> Uh same street trees. >> Street trees and strawberry. >> Yes,
there's room for there'll be some room for strawberry. Yeah, >> you may not need to make a street tree payment as a result of that. >> That's what we figured that we had to discuss. >> Understand? >> I always feel free to do more by law. So >> we're not gonna complain with this law,
right? >> If you're adding those three areas up, >> we get and you know we can set it no more than again sites approximately
uh 61 coverage. Now um no more than five >> would be the coverage. >> Say that again. >> Happy with this. So we would bring the coverage down to no more than 0.55 and I believe it would be lower but to
go on the record with staff we'll make the now that'll be a function of making these driveways wide enough for traffic >> that will yeah that won't change the landscape number it'll be a swap.
less than not not more than 55% less than or equal to >> you're taking out the island >> on what was the the drive-thru for this building which was a bank at one point time >> can can you incorporate an island uh in there
>> that's the only area where >> the owner applicant is not comfortable doing to be honest with you just with the traffic coming through here and keeping motion going >> but it is it is you are making it just one it is one way, it's going to stay one way. But that one we really just
want to keep keep how it is with the with that old concrete island got >> what direction >> it goes into the site goes west goes west into the other shopping center. So, how many square feet of disturbance is that if you add it all up? Because you
did that because you're 45%, right? >> So, we have it on the record. >> Almost almost 26. >> Yeah. 263 square feet more. >> More green space to add more disturbance. >> Right.
>> So, so again, just make sure that we have this on the record. The testimony is that for a disturbance of approximately 2630 ft plus or minus whatever um which would then trigger, >> excuse me, an additional >> an additional service.
So the total now is >> so that disturbance. >> No, I was asking the disturbance number, not the total landscaping number. >> Understood. Yeah. >> Approximately >> 4,400 square ft >> of disturbance. >> Disturbance >> which then triggers >> 2,000 is the max
>> or 2,000 is the max. >> But it's disturbance that we want, >> right? >> It's just different. But >> I'm not I'm not commenting on the like or not like I'm saying that for the record that car has exactly what I need. Right. So that we are total disturbance of approximately 4,000 square feet which
then triggered the need for >> storm water management >> the storm the storm water and we are they're reducing the impervious to no more than 0.55 >> and are unable to meet the 050 that the ordinance would require. So we are what
they are asking for is relief uh for that gap between what that 0.55 maybe less but they're not going to get to 050 and what they're asking for then is relief from our it's not it's not
it's it's variance or is a design standard I don't get to ask >> but it's whatever but they're seeking relief from that >> varian varian relief from that provision >> where 050 would be required. They are
proposing no more than 0.55. Is that right? >> 050. >> Yeah. 050 in previous cover. 50% cover. They're at 55% in previous cover with various deductions >> that requires >> that's a variance relief, >> correct?
>> Can we do we notice for that? >> I'm in the chat. I want to make sure we we have to >> he said at the beginning and where we're coming in and any other variance that we may as part of this >> we also therefore need to have variance for not doing the storm water management system that would be triggered or is it
not triggered on these numbers? I just want to be clear on that. >> I think the storm water provisions of the impervious cover ordinance is triggered. I believe those are variances as it relates to how the
imper the impervious cover section is subject to the zoning ordinance which means it's a variance. There may be other storm water provisions in the stormwater ordinance which I'm not >> but we don't we don't need to provide a variance of that aspect but not
>> no no right and because they're not meeting 050 they are also the testimony is not availing themselves of the >> uh green infrastructure other ways of that that are provided for in ordinance so that's why they need the variance is
what is right >> grant from the state requirement It's a local mentioned before that we're some of it we're not allowed to give, but I wanted to check that we are what? >> All right. So, as long as >> Do you have the numbers you need? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Goodness. Thank you. >> I don't know if I'll be able to say it that way. Definitely write it that way, but we'll get >> transcript. >> Right. So I guess that is now added to the testimony for us to consider. Correct. >> We should probably then it means then
that you are sorry some of the provisions of the letters that they said they were not complying with they are now actually saying they are going to >> correct and I apologize for the confusion but we would be complying with all those other conditions. >> All right. So if we go back I don't
think that well we we're not compliant with all traffic all planning and all engineering. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Sorry but you want >> no I was gonna say you didn't as much as
I didn't want. I was going to say >> okay. >> All right. So, we had five and six on Jay's report and we were not compiled. >> The only thing they're not doing on five is narrowing the pavement on that aisle where they're taking out the concrete
island. I had all in there to tie into Bob's comment that the pavement should be narrowed and they should put landscaping in there. That was the only one they said they weren't. >> Okay. >> And we're still not doing that. >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. Can I also be clear on
the drawing underneath the bank building? I said underneath. I don't know which went north and south from here. Um on the low what is below the bank building. Those concrete lines uh >> next to the crosswalk. >> Yeah. There. Are they staying?
>> Yes. That's the drivethru. >> Okay. >> For the bank. >> For the bank. >> For the bank that won't be used, but we have to leave those in as per Right. Okay. I'm just check. Thank you. And just while we're talking about straight points, we can work again since we're not worrying about triggering anything
else. The uh the crosswalk uh I can work with staff if they if they're like it here. Good. If they want it going straight across, that's that's fine also. So that's not a >> you could wrap that side. There's things you could do. >> Yes. make that in agreement with the
professionals before >> and still no voting >> zone. Correct. >> So that was J's report. >> I'm sorry. Uh six that we still need or don't need
>> on the that report. >> Six they're doing. Yeah. >> Okay. So six is done. So all we have is five and only with the exception of uh the narrowing. We're doing other we can talk about that.
>> Right. First one I had was uh 4.1 A and B. I would say they're doing it. >> Doing it. >> Yes. >> Not. Okay.
4.5 ft. >> We are doing adding plantings per portion. So we're doing B, C, and D, I believe. >> Okay. >> 410 I just have it's not necessary because it's not visible. Not necessary and that
you didn't want to do that. at 4.12 I had that you're not doing >> no well 4.12 they are doing they are going >> I'm sorry I don't have the report that's okay in that part >> okay okay >> in 4.7 they're not doing
>> yeah I don't know that we Okay. All right. Five. >> I don't think we need anything or five. >> No, there's it's only 74. >> All right. >> You're all in agreement. You all
understand what we're doing. >> All right. Now, I've got Bob's letter, which I think we skipped. write a letter under general comments one sub item or a new comment one uh under one they're going to give us some
details on the the crosswalk in and the ADA space they're going to say it's compliant and they're just going to give details >> correct >> yes correct um two is just a com for the record comment three uh a um well here again
now they're doing something. So, that whole thing is they weren't doing and now they're doing something. And you heard what the testimony was. They're going to do those three areas and the target is they're going to get this down to 55% uh purpose coverage. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> 55% max. Um, again the all it's all come was talking about what they were doing but they're they're getting it down like you said 55%. Um, okay. And and see they're they're asking
for variance correct because they're not getting the 50% and they're not doing storm work. Um, I don't know that motor vehicle service is much of an area, but you are increasing motor vehicle service, but you're reducing another area. So, that will definitely be
>> gone. >> Um, and the other one is gone. >> B1 and two are gone. >> B1 and two are gone. >> Y and uh 41 talked about the the required again. They're they're providing they're required to have 13 spaces. They're
providing 28. Um I was deferring to to to Jay's report on that. Um uh >> again, I was just commenting on the nature of the parking in relationship to the building, but they're providing
islands or crosswalks or islands that that serve. Yes. So to the extent that they're doing the crosswalks and whatnot, again I'm not speaking for the board. I'm just saying to the extent that the they're doing that that you can consider that that's being I just put
crosswalks in here. Um and they indicated that they >> where we went to the next page, page five. U subtitles A 2A >> 4. Yeah, 4 A.
>> Um, they're indicating that they do not have they do not have any rights to the parking on the adjoining property. was item I said item was not addressed AC spaces immediately adjacent to the rear of the building. >> Yeah,
you have existing ADA spaces but they're off your property to the rear. You're closing that back door. Correct. >> But you have no right to go in the adjoining property. Correct. >> So there's going to be a useless ADA space there. Correct. that was addressed by testimony. Yeah, it's a backup.
>> Correct. >> Uh five a they had a dress or no longer was applicable that prominent uh pointed out the three part um well the two parking spaces in front they're going to correct with dimensions and you may or may not shift that thing around. I'm not
sure if you're going to do that or not, >> but they'll comply in one way. >> They'll comply in one way or another. Um, >> public issues >> dumpster notable. >> Okay. Dumpster. Okay. And the dumpster was at the request of the board. That's
where they're putting it. The testimony was they really they don't really need it. Uh, but if the board wants it, that's the best place they could put it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I was just observing that it's as Beth did it's in a pretty remote location but
>> it's not something they're going to basically use. Perhaps a new tenant for the bank the other building is their key might be using it. So is that accessible for the company picking it up for the people putting stuff in it? >> Uh
so you can basically scratch see six uh six test. I can I can talk about this. You you were asking about a existing cross access ement with the shopping center.
Yeah. >> So I believe you were talking about here and here. There is no recorded easement as I stated. We're not the property owner but I have gone back in the history of this. This configuration has been this way the farthest back I can
find is 1988. So at that point it's >> prescriptive rights. >> Exactly. But we know it's not recorded. They're indicating by by default through prescriptive rights that it's somebody planted their flag there more than long enough.
>> Yeah. >> But that's not formally determined, right? That's just our assumption at this point. >> I do have an aerial photo of the >> Oh, no. No. That I know. But you don't have a court document saying prescriptive rights to use that. >> No, I have no nothing of that. >> Yeah. But that's when First Community Bank opened. Oh,
>> of course you know that. >> You're the court in that circumstance. >> All right. B they're not going to me suggested uh this is where the old drive-thru was on the on the what this building which was a bank. Um they're going to get rid of the island, but they're not going to narrow the driveway
up. The the comment was consider considerations be given the reducing the width of this but they're not they're not going to do that see they are going to move to the north side the um
the route 12 driveway currently is enter and exit but you're going to convert it to an entry No, it's an entrance. >> Yes. Okay. I guess they must >> exit is the other one. >> And they're I was just commenting they're getting rid of those three
spaces that are next to it. And then they're not they're going to do a they're going to provide enough >> correct >> and c uh something on the east side. Um they're doing that too.
>> Yep. >> Was saying deferring to Jay? Eight was >> eight. I think there was a you getting out there was to get from the sidewalk into our site. Is that where you were? >> Yeah. Some somewhere you need to show how you're getting from from the street
into the building with ADA access. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> And you said you have a crosswalk there. So that would have to be ADA compliant. >> Yeah. So we can we've provided a cutout here so we can provide >> you you're you're now you have the opportunity. You're wide that island. You can do a sidewalk thing in there.
You could you >> that we'll add a >> but you're only going to do it up at that location on the eastern side of the site. I was suggesting you do something on the lower side of the site. South Main. >> He's a little further around the circle.
>> He's on the way. >> Keep going. Keep going. Yeah. I was Am I looking at this? >> These two for >> all I was I was suggesting two potential locations. One up here.
>> You're meeting where? Um, but closest to the bank on the eastern side of the site on the entrance >> on the on the north end of the property closest to the bless Wellness. >> Is that where Bob is that where the uh breaks in the circle from Prestige
Wealth happened? >> There is a there is a crosswalk from there's a crosswalk. >> You're saying near the crosswalk across 12 crosswalk line up there and >> that's the one I was drawing on. If that
work 81 is is okay. >> Yeah. I think I was also recommending one on the the the western side of the site that crosswalk there, but they're they're not they're not doing that. >> No. >> All right. So, where it says the additional connection that you're not
doing? >> Yeah. Yeah. They're doing one a join at the um cross. >> Yeah, they're not doing the second part of this. The one that runs along the five car parking >> and draining or utility
drain. They're doing they're they're asking for relief. So all of nines It's it tied in with the the 10%. >> Yeah. >> 9 10 11 everything >> 13
some of probably some of this is in some of this out modifications. Yeah. They're doing some of >> so just this they're going to do 10 to the extent that it's compliant with the other items we just talked about. >> Okay. because this is sort of a grab all
kind of stuff and there's some of it they're doing, some of it they're not. >> All right. So, can we say that they will comply with the recommendations of 9 through 14 to the extent consistent with the relief that's being granted from the impervious
coverage? >> That is actually the 55% variance they're requesting from the 50 11 essentially is the same thing. That would be inaccurate. >> Yeah, that's at section two. That's the section we're talking about. Section 2637.
Uh even shows the location of the roof leader discharges. That was 12. >> Sure. >> That's sort of a >> Yes. Yeah. Uh we're asking to show the location of the sewer line easement the extent that there are no recorded
easements and the next table but you defer to the burrow to establish ements that are necessary to maintain facilities. You have se lines that go through this property and apparently have no recorded ements. >> Correct. >> That's correct. Again, we don't have the ability to execute
easements. >> No easements of record. They can't they can't show. >> Well, there's the burrow physically has pipes that go through the property, >> right? But if there's no easements, we can't them to show ements. >> Well, they're burrow pipes, so
presumably that would have been >> an ement that the burrow would have required. >> Oh, no. Yeah. They're there. >> We could if I mean are you asking Bob that they were that they accurately show on the sh location. So which they
>> show the location of the pipes. They just can't show the location of you. They can't find >> because it's possible that they were never done. >> Correct. >> They were done and never recorded. Yeah, that's also possible. >> I mean to the extent that we have the
locations on the plans, we can always go back and >> do easements. I mean, >> be nice because otherwise our guys have to work out in the f street >> brand new. But but if but are we because of the nature of the ownership?
>> Yeah, we >> are we is that something that we can condition on approval or no? I have before. I mean, we're asking for site plan approval. This is something I think that would fall within that. Um,
we can say if the applicant has, you know, an issue with the property owner, I mean, I wouldn't think you would. All you're talking about is preparing meets and bounds descriptions and easements that comport with those meets and bounds descriptions and having everybody sign them,
>> right? But the applicant doesn't have the ability to help the property owner to sign that. >> Correct. The applicant will make best efforts and if they can't, they'll have to explain to us why. >> Well, it sounds it sounds based on what happened in the brief, the the owner is
>> very willing to try to make things good. that he might be open to giving us direct that he might be willing to entertain giving us an ement for purposes of fixing tourise. >> Maybe we don't say giving the easement but acknowledging the existing
conditions >> working with the bur to do what car said. >> I have no problem with the best efforts language. >> That's fine. Um, but >> but if the owner refuses, >> if the owner refuses, I don't want that to hold up any sort of >> understood and I I think we understand that it can't. I mean, the reality of it
is there could be more damage to the property if it's not given and there could be language in there that establishes responsibilities if it is necessary. That could work to both parties favors, but we can I hear what
you're saying and like perspect the >> water. Yeah. Well, here's a reverse situation. There are the burrow has water movement rights through the property that haven't been utilized or there was some testimony last time they utilized but not to the full extent of where the uh where the easements are.
So, that's just an observation. >> So, we have water but not sewer. Well, there there's no >> the plan notes that there's there's recorded water easements to the burrow on the property along Route 12 frontage uh around the circle frontage and there and there's a line in there but it's not
doesn't run the full extent of it whether the burrow needed that to do something in the future or whether I don't know I just >> reverse of the source situation here we have an easement that the burrow has not yet utilized uh and on the sur we have a physical improvement we don't have
recorded easement Well, I don't think there's an issue if we have these in place in the burough. They've chosen not to utilize it yet, then they haven't, but it's so less concerned about that one. >> We said that's what I it'll now remain as part of the it remains. We're not getting rid of it. >> Yes. So there's nothing to be done with
14 >> and we haven't done 15. >> This was a suggestion to kind of once this is done to kind of reseal the parking lot. Is that something that the applicant have the ability to do or any consent from the owner? I mean, you're
going to be restriping stuff. You're going to be changing stuff around. We >> still be fully restriped. Is that part of the plan? >> No. Right now. >> No restra
point. >> Did it need it? >> Yeah. What's the condition of it between >> We did answer that. >> Thank you, Lord. Thank you for fixing that problem. >> I did it. Not land. Thank you so much. I can't even tell you how many people
>> have said something to me about that pot fixed who never verbalized a complaint, but we're so grateful that it was done. >> Thank you. >> We won't ask you for a resurfacing. We I was just suggesting >> what you would do to your driveway.
Yeah. Receal it. >> Sometimes we've said it's it's it's deteriorated to the point that it needs it, but that is not is that that's not the opinion on it. >> I wasn't suggesting that. I mean, look, if an old parking lot, anything could, you know, be, you know,
>> to benefit from that, but you are you are putting striped arrows on here. You are going to be digging up for islands and stuff. you're arguing when you're doing stuff and and and you're going to be restriping parking spaces which means you got to kind of grind off the the
paint that's there and um as the applicant has shown he he tends to maintain propert it's a maybe well noification of the application No,
>> then we need to go out there. >> All right. Official, which >> we'll get to that. All right. Um, I don't believe >> that was your old one. That was Jay's old one. So, I think all we have left is five safeties.
>> I'm not sure that I've seen that to be honest. Nor do I >> since these are all safety related items, I would strongly recommend that the applicants do all >> Yeah. You're pushing it. You always push it.
Oh yeah, Steve. >> Yeah, we're fine with all the questions. >> I don't >> Yeah. No, I finally did. >> But I don't not helpful. Do you want
>> I think we have it. >> Yeah, I think >> my question is does the board want to hear advice? That's my the traffic engineer, but the board's engineer just told me. You're happy. Yes, you're happy.
>> Um, but >> mention though, >> yes, that will be that'll be addressed by the planner. >> I thought I >> But if there's no further questions for the engineer, I'll call the planner. >> I think we covered that. >> Thank you.
>> Call Um, and I Mr. Sil did not testify before I think he was sworn in. >> No, I think No, he did. We heard about Simon. >> No, we heard the architect. >> We never got to the plan. >> You never got to >> We never got to the plan. I guess we told him to go home.
>> Please. I apologize. >> What's your name? What's your last name again here? >> It's Jeff Styles. S I L S. >> I think we're all sworn in. >> Yeah, I think you were all sworn in. You were here last time. Last notes I have
were Rihanna's testimony and then we No, we didn't recently. >> I know. Yeah, I don't remember.
>> Let's not give the hour. Let's get back. >> Can I Mr. House, can you give the board the qualifications? >> Sure. my um bachelor's degree in in urban planning from the University of Denver. I'm licensed professional planner been so licensed continuously since 1988 with the state of New Jersey
and I've testified all over the state uh many boards and this board a couple of times over the years involved with representative municipalities all have any concerns with this person as a
>> Thank you very much. >> Uh Mr. start asking you to come your thoughts on discussion. >> Yes, I'm I'll be brief given the hours and the discussion and I think we've gone a long ways tonight of a project. So, I'll start with that. But yeah, as you're all aware, we're here for site plan approval, conditional use approval,
and now we have two variances. One for what is termed a roof sign, which I'll talk about in a minute, and then the one related to the impervious surface coverage where we're at 61%. We're bringing it down to 55, but the ordinance requires 50. And we've had a lot of discussion about that. So, I
won't go into that. As Ward understands, this project, this site is in the highway retail district. This is a permitted conditional use. Um, so therefore, is is an allowed use subject to meeting all the conditions, which there are seven. I'm happy to report that we meet all seven of those. And I
think there was testimony provided at the first meeting about those conditions and how we meet all of them, hours of operation, all the requirements of of the licensing and all that. Um so we all practical purposes are a permitted use based on that. Um as indicated we are
seeking two variances. One related to what's been termed a roof sign. If you recall um in the architects plans I thought we're going to do here and they are not but I can describe. We have a a proposed sign on the manser part of the roof. As you recall it's a maner roof. It's mount on the side of the of that
manser which is really more like a facade than it is a roof sign. Traditional roof signs are mount on top of the roof. This is not um and in fact the plants report indicated that you that is a variance that's required but then also required us to have a variance
for two facade signs both facing the same direction. We've taken care of that. You may recall previous testimony that we had a a sign above the front door for identification purposes. We have now moved that to be on this wall so it's actually facing the other
direction and really that's a better situation. It provides better visibility both. So we no longer need a variance for two facade signs facing the same street. That that's been eliminated. So the only sign variance we need is for that identical roof sign for that sign
being mounted on the on the facade or on the mastered part of the roof. If you recall in in the images that were presented that that's on really on what's not on the roof, it's on the side. Um, and the reason we've done that is to drop it below that mantra roof
would make it useless. We'd only be about four and a half, five feet above the ground and you wouldn't even see it with any landscaping or anything else. It's really important from my perspective to have good size to the site being it's located on the roundabout. There's a lot going on. As a driver going through that roundabout,
there's a lot of different signs and all. We want to make sure that people see the facility well in advance so that they can make proper decisions on getting into the access lanes and doing the right thing without causing traffic problems. And as this board is aware, you know, one of the reasons for
granting a C variance like this is is what I call a betterment to the plan. We're really about how do we advance the purposes of your municipal land use law andor your zoning ordinance. And one of those is provide for safe traffic routes and have that identification of things. And I think that's a very important
thing from the positive criteria here on this application that we have good signage. It doesn't it meets all the size requirements. So we're not asking for anything oversized. It's just that physical location on the mainstream part of the roof that triggers that variance. I have 300 architects that work in my
offices and I've asked every one of them is that a facade or is that a roof? >> About 5050 split up what the architect says. A lot of them will call it the facade, others call it the roof. We'll concede that it's a requirement for variance under the roof, but we do think this is a much safer alternative and
from the positive pri criteria does advance purposes municipal land use law and relative to the negative criteria there's no significant impact upon the neighborhood or your zoning ordinance. This is related to a per particular circumstance with a man roof. If this
property had a typical slope roof to it, it'd be totally different. So, not a lot of roofs used anymore, but there are a few floating around. So, I think we're really specific to this site as as necessary now for not on storage buildings.
>> Yeah. Yes. Um, then we talk a lot about the the variance for the impervious coverage. Um, and really that's a technical variance again that comes out of trying to do something better on the site than we had. If the site has ex existing 61% coverage the board was very
desirable of reducing that providing additional green to that and I compliment you for that. That is a really good thing to get more trees on site even though we're willing to pay for offsite trees the site could use. I think what we've proposed here the
additional landscaping has two benefits. One is we're reducing the improvous surface coverage which although we're not providing you know drainage facilities here it is a reduction in coverage and therefore it is a reduction in runoff so it does provide some limited benefit there but I think even
more importantly is that ability to provide landscape screening around this building a little bit more again it's a very visible site right now you're you're driving around the roundabout or on any of the roadways all you see is pavement and buildings whatever we can do to soften
is clearly of benefit. Um, and again under Mr. Lanu's law, providing improved aesthetics and other conditions out there is a is a general purpose that that meets that positive criteria standard. And then again on the negative side of things, neither one of these variances will result in any negative
impact to any of the adjoining properties or any of the neighboring area. These are minor variance relatively dimminimous and actually are beneficial to this life and to the surrounding properties and from your own zoning organs and plans there really is
no substantial impact by granting these variances again specific sites specific uses and we're dealing with what's important to consider this is a site that's been developed for 20 plus 30 years and what we're doing is trying to improve it. So I think as for my
perspective as a professional planner both of these variances are are warranted and the board would be well within the rights to grant the variances based upon the positive and negative criteria standard. >> Thank you Mr. Styles up to comment from the board
professionals first. >> I have no uh no additional comments or questions. >> My question I I guess it's a question. Can you confirm? So the discussion the the the thing between it being a roof and land side. Can you confirm the sign
you're proposing does not break the current roof line? >> No, it does not extend above the current roof line. Really on a mansion roof, you have a flat roof on top. Right. >> Right. Then you've got the sides come down. We're on those sides and it does not protrude above. It's probably a good two feet yet above that before we hit
that flat roof. So it really 99% of people look at it and say it's a facade sign. >> Yeah, I remember that accurate. That's accurate. >> That's still accurate. >> What what has changed? I hope you see the sign on both.
>> If you recall, there was a proposed sign here. We're now showing it on this facade. >> Okay. And and again from a dimensional standpoint, all the signs meet the ordinance requirements. So, so, so just again, so one is going to be facing South Main Street and then
now because it's not over the entrance, it's going to be facing Rayville. Correct. >> There's also a freestanding sign right by the circle. Is that correct? >> Freestanding sign that that's going to be refaced with the with the applicants, the the business that you saw. So,
that's an existing sign that's just being refaced. So we have rights to be able to do that. >> I have a question actually with that the drawings that we had. So you have your name on the top then you got because
it's a 40 foot by 104 or 40 inch by 104. So the top you got bless the bottom is that going to be white where if a bank goes in there that's where the bank's name would be. >> I don't think there's been any discussion about any other use on the
sign. So is it going to be like the whole thing will fill be blessed or will it still be two and two and 20? >> I think as the plan shows it's going to be like the way in show with that white space below it. >> So the qu is that and these are not lit
>> or that's >> so like if there's nothing there on the bottom is there a way to have the my opin it's just like the the brown on the bottom that's just open instead of white. Yeah, we could do something along that structure. Yeah. >> Yeah. Are they Is it two separate panels
or like that's for >> it? Probably it probably is two separate panels, but they could be the same color. That's >> No, that and then just on this enter sign, uh, your name's on the bottom of it. I guess the same thing. If a if the
bank or somebody else goes in there, would that then be altered to have both names on there or right? There there is no plan for that because we there is no use being proposed to that building. So it's kind of hard to to say that. I think if you know when when something happens that ought to be addressed if
there is >> I think logic speaks that there's two tenants on the property. There's two panels on the side. They use >> No, this was on the on >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about >> Well, this one Yeah, this one they they said they would do, but it's not >> it's a general question. Got it. Okay.
>> That would have to come up something. It's not for this. Yep. Yeah. No, that's all I had. >> Okay. Anybody else got questions about that pesto that sign they charge? Dennis, >> yes, you do. I I do. Um, was there any
consideration on putting the sign on the wall though? Um, given that you have the one on the corner, the freestanding sign um above the windows. >> Yeah. Ju just bringing off the manser part of the roof down to the to the facade itself, the formal facade, just
makes it so low. It's you wouldn't even you'd see pieces of it. You wouldn't see the whole sign. We think that's, you know, doesn't provide the the visibility that we need as a business and also provides more confusion for the driver trying to look between hedges or whatever to see what that sign is. So,
we think that this is really necessary. There was a sign there years ago um that we're size-wise replicating, >> but but the freestanding sign, isn't it 13 feet high? Yeah, the freestanding sign is. Yes. >> So I I think they're going to see the
sign from with the freestanding sign, aren't they? >> Depending on the angle adventure as a driver. Yes. >> Okay. >> We're trying to cover both of the major roadways and a freestanding sign is existing. So we want to reuse that.
>> Any other questions, Dennis, on that? >> No, don't have any other questions. >> Okay. Anybody else on that on this this wetland? >> I'll just say to Dennis's point that those two trees that are going in in the front of the building there eventually
you won't be able to see the sign anyways. Does it really make sense? >> These Yeah, those could be trimmed to maintain so that they're I mean maybe that's something you think about what type of tree those >> I'm willing to vote in your sign big
trees. Eventually it'll be above the community. >> All right. >> If the balloons say west from >> All right. Thank you. Does that concludes our >> That concludes our testimony. If there's any further discussions come forward
wrap up or is that the >> I just I just want to make sure have we technically on the record asked if there's any public that wants to ask questions or make any comments. >> Well, don't Yeah, you're right. questions first. >> Let me just check. Um I'm going to ask if there's anybody in public or in the
room. If you have a question or comment, they can do comments or questions >> questions for the witnesses. Please raise your hands. And I don't actually think we brought anybody. >> Oh.
one one of the other business owners. >> She commented already. >> She doesn't have it. So, I'm seeing none. There's none. So, we >> All right. So, no comments either from anyone in the public and then we don't let the applicant up, >> right?
>> Yeah. >> Well, he wants to sum up. >> Sum up. >> Then we can close. >> Then we can close. >> Okay. >> I'll be extremely grateful. I want to thank the board for its time this evening. We think this is a great application for the community. We're trying our best to work with the board
as shown tonight. We believe our changes will impact me in any positive way. Thank you so much for your actually question. >> Yes, >> you we do apply for both permits for digital retail. Then wasn't that a
question before? >> I have condition. >> We can put as a condition. >> We put that in here as well. >> Thank you. You're already ahead of me. All right. So, that's that. >> All right. Now, we can have a motion to second. >> Yes.
>> Mission. >> Yes. >> Yes. Miss. >> Yes. Mr. >> Mr. Yes, there. >> Yes. >> All right. Well, discussion.
>> Oh, well, we need a motion or that's enough. >> Well, I think >> however you want to do it. >> I can give you your thoughts on some solutions that we've talked about, kind of sum things up. Things have changed a little bit, but I think we've heard
enough tonight that we've got site plan approval. Uh we've got conditional use approval. All the conditions are met. Uh we have the roof signage and the directional size signage variances. And we have the impervious coverage
variance that uh hoping we all kind of understand where that's coming from. Um, bear with me on the conditions because they're going back through September. So, some things may have changed. Um, but first, as always, compliance with all the reports except
as otherwise set forth in the resolution or on the approved plans last revised October 27.5. We've gone through each one. I will specifically reference in the resolution the ones that the applicant has agreed uh that they're not going to comply with, otherwise everything else will be complied with.
Um, obviously they have to comply with all state uh payment act requirements. Uh, they have to obtain a retail permit. Um, I have here a split dumpster with recycling, but we've had testimony about dumpsters since then. So, has that
changed? >> I don't I don't think that that's it's only from the earlier hearing, but I don't think that the conditions proposed by the applicant have eliminated the need for that. >> Okay. Um
uh rooftop equipment noise shall comply with the maximum local and state noise requirements. Um I have will ensure that any rooftop equipment or proposed root rooftop unit is screened by the manored roof. I'd like to include keep that as a condition. Um the testimony has been
that it will not be visible but to the extent that ultimately it is I think we should keep that in there so it needs to be screened again to the satisfaction of the court professionals. um clients that we did uh I have a
question mark here is the this condition a uh to impose no loitering signs. I think we talked about that. Um >> that was a public comment. >> That was a public comment. Okay. So that was a question and then a night light test. I had question marks next to both of those. So those are things board may
want to consider. Um windows will be frosted or tinted as required by the state. No logos, any plain of frosting. Um, okay. I think we should keep this as a condition just in case. Um, but the applicant shall pay any money required by any ordinance to the bureau regarding
the shade trees they cannot comply with. There's been revised testimony that there will be trees again to the satisfaction additional landscaping types of trees, the satisfaction of board professionals. So, we think that we'll be able to comply with all the requirements uh for the 13 trees, but to
the extent that they can't, then they will have to make that payment. Um I had a condition fix the pothole, but I can cross that off that been done. Uh letting will be dark sky compliant. Uh amend A7 to reflect. All right. So,
this I think is all off. This is when we talk about reduction in square footage and all of that stuff. Um the plans will need to be amended um to comport with the testimony concerning the increase in square footage uh increase in impervious
square footage >> and that sorry >> you talking about the landscaping. >> Yeah. Yeah. So the the additional disturbance is a total of 2,630
ft. New total 4,400 approximately 4,400 square feet. Plans have to be revised to depict that as well as the additional landscaping expand landscaping adjacent to both sides of the entrance driveway. No, that
we talked about. I'll deal with that later. Um things out trash enclosure shall be vinyl and not wood. sign off from the burrow of water and sewer.
Um I have we'll install New Jersey deciduous trees work with the board planner that's going to be an overarching you know again work to the satisfaction of the board planner uh to work on whatever additional landscaping is going
to be installed. Okay. Um please again um security lighting will be on an hour after closing 1000 p.m. the latest grading will be added on the plan to show that the property is 88 has ADA
compliant access to the bank building. The revised plans will be shown specifically on exhibit A9. the additional green curb landscape islands on the north side of the five parking spaces in the center island. That's going to be
an additional 375 ft. We call that area one. And on the north side of the eight parking spaces along South Main Street, call that area two. That's about another thousand square ft. Talk about landscaping is greasy red professionals. Um, we're going to change
the drive aisle between the bank building, no, between the proposed retail building and Rayville to one way and expand the adjacent drive uh span the adjacent landscape aisle of three. Yeah.
>> Um, and then make the bottom panel of the pylon sign the same as the brown color as the bless sign until such time as they may return for another tenant to come and utilize that panel.
And I think we should have something in there that basically says that that they need to return once the bank building is occupied if there are any site plan changes. um we can't, you know, really require
them to come back or if any site plan changes or if there's any change of use. I think if we incorporate both of those because if they there is a new bank that's in there and they just basically come in and reoccupy, there's nothing we can do there. But the minute they make some site plan changes or the minute is
another additional a different use, uh then they would need to come back. We don't we you don't want to say it in terms of a different use that would impact parking or do we want or do you want to leave it as because I think the use question was parking and circulation. >> Well, I think doesn't our change of
doesn't change of use trade site plan approval. But but if it's a permitted use within the HR zone, it's not going to so provided parking spaces were for them and the bank and they're over >> we can say to the extent how about to
the extent because I think that if there is a change of use >> if it's a permitted use within the HR zone and they don't do any it's just a use change and it doesn't trigger any site plan issues. It's the zoning officer's chain, you know, terms of if
it's a permitted use within the HR zone, it's not going to trigger side. >> So, one thing I do want to say is unless it's a bank that goes in that building, I think they're likely to remove the drive which will change the further site plan. >> Right. That's >> right.
>> Uh let's see. But minor site plan. Yes. Um let's see uh to try to par paraphrase a development uh plan of one or more lots that does not involve planned
development and new street etc. and is one of the following uh a change in use involving no building construction other than interior modifications only. No need for additional parking road drainage improvements. So if if they are
truly just uh inside the building uh the change of use will not trigger site plan. I think in my mind what often it gets confused is any uh >> is that is a minor >> that's what I'm saying it is but they
have this language we're going to have the other signs often which triggers almost everything. Okay. Number 11. Um any building addition of uh 100 square ft uh or accessory buildings uh would require minor site plans as well.
>> So >> and minor site plan approval is from the board. So >> correct. Okay. All right. I just >> I'll seems like we don't if I mean if if it's >> we want them to come back if it's something that is going to impact the testimony that's been given and and in
terms of traffic circulation and all the rest of it. And obviously if they if something else if a restaurant wants to go in here which permitted in the HR zone it's going to have a whole slew of >> parking circulation questions which would >> obviously trigger site plan. Um
>> I just I'm trying to like make it as if it's something that's not going to impact those things that we were talking about that I just want to >> No, I get I understand what you're saying. Trying to see if we have a change in use definition but we don't.
While we're looking at that, one more question for the engineer Mitch and and all the rush we have at the end here. You have a sheet nine that shows construction details for ADA work, sidewalks out on the highway that's part of this project.
>> Um that's on the I believe the county road, not the not DOT. irrespective you're you're proposing this this is work that has been completed or you're you're client's gonna client >> the county required that >> the county required that okay
>> so you have other agency approvals here and that's going to be something they're reviewing correct And it's mine. or not. If it is, they become a major. >> That's how I took it. >> I don't know if that's what you said, but that's how I
>> I'm a little confused. >> Thank you. Uh I'm sorry about that. Minor site plan is a development plan that is not a variety of things, but is one of the following. It is a change of use involving no building construction other than interior modifications.
So I think when I related that to the board I looked good essentially minor site plan is required for a change of use that require that has nothing other than interior modifications. So to the extent the existing bank building
does change of use and only does work within the four walls of the building so to speak. It still requires a minor site plan application which will spring it back before the board. Correct. >> Correct. The only thing
is if a bank comes in >> if a bank comes in and keeps the drive-thru and doesn't change anything and doesn't do any Yep. Yep. then >> I mean I think to your point Jeff thinking that should be an exception to
site plan approval not only a minor site plan definition versus a major site plan. >> If the ordinance says if that's what the ordinance says in the HR then that's what it says and that's the end of it. I just >> I mean what we can do if the board feels that I mean we could say
>> as required by the ordinance now or at that time >> no I don't want to start getting it was more it was more of >> make sure that's what it says >> are you are you the come back or the new >> the new tenant the new >> okay I just want to make sure that the
applicant itself doesn't have to come back >> yeah no >> I just want this meaning what goes with the property I get that. >> And since originally the building was going to be demolished and now the building technically part of the application. >> Understood.
>> We want to retain rights with that building in the middle of your >> varian but not anybody else. >> Yeah. >> So wants to come in and open up a don donut shop then they have to come in and >> in the middle of the donut hall.
>> All right. So those are the conditions that I had to the relief that's been requested. So we need a motion and a second and then to have a discussion on motion and those conditions. The only two I think that you may want to
discuss in a little more detail. My question marks were no loitering signs and a nightlight test. Sorry. Can I get a motion for somebody to approve this application? >> And
now we're not motion. >> Now we have to vote on motion. >> No, we have discussion. >> We move to grant approval. We're not voting on that yet. >> Oh, I understand. Okay.
Sorry. Discussion >> on the items. Do we want discussion on those? Can't remember what she said there. >> Andy have something about the sign. on the sign. You know, I'm really concerned about giving them a variance
for the roof sign. It's a roof. Um what they're proposing, you know, there's no sign facing Main Street today on the roof. They have a freestanding sign that they're going to have and it's going to be extremely
visible, this roof sign from Route 12 going east, as well as anyone going around the circle. And I don't think we should be given a variance for that. They have a freestanding sign. They could put that one on the wall. And I'll be honest with you, I support everything
with the landscape plan, but I don't support this by giving them a variance for the sign, the roof sign. That's my two cents. >> Yeah. >> My my two cents on the sign is I'm I'm okay with it personally. But but that's
that is my opinion. I I feel I feel that it's more of a facade sign. I understand it's different from what the bank had on the wall, but um in consideration of what's around it and the fact that behind it is a staple sign that is in a similar situation. It's massive and all
those ones in the rest of the development, it doesn't it's not going on top of the roof. >> It's going on a mans roof to me is basically covering up a flat roof and it just makes it look pretty. I think if this >> because it's shingled it looks like a roof.
>> I think if this was a 150y old building four stories on Main Street like the Union Hotel that had has manered roof, >> it's a very different conversation than something that was clearly built in the 1980s. It looks like meaning that they they probably put this manered detail on
it to make it look like it's older than it is and look like it's oldly tiny Flemingtony. And it's >> in France. >> What? >> In France. in France and not actually if it was I I I would I I would not be in support of it if it was a historic
structure in the district contributing whatever and that there was an architectural reason for the man group. I think that if we were to actually find one was originally designed this was a flourish to to make it look more Flemington and it's not act it's facade really even it's a flat roof with
something slapped on so it's really a facade. >> Yeah it's it's a flat roof. Yeah. And certainly what I can reference in here is the dialogue that we're discussing that this is you know while another roof quote unquote sign may not be accepted
by the board >> in this particular situation with the manor roof being what it is with the height of the building being what it is uh you know I feel that the variance is acceptable if that's what you're what I'm hearing >> it is because I I also feel they come
with a for a variance for a roof But I think it sort of equally argued that it wasn't a roof and argued that they didn't even need the bare choice not to argue that >> well except by our ordinance it is a roof and so right that's if they were >> I'm actually I appreciate that they argued it this way and not the way
you're proposing because this is more accurate. >> I do I was going to say I appreciate them doing that rather than trying to argue that it's not approved but I'm just saying it's so it is like like you said 5050 and I think it it can be seen either way. Um clearly it is even on the
board so it's fine. Um but yeah any any what about the um no light trace? >> Tara, what's the nightlight thing? What were your notes on that >> nightlight test? So I guess there must have been some discussion at some point about the existing lighting probably
when we were looking at the lighting plan. Um and I think there was a comment from maybe a public is in my public section um that they were concerned about the visibility of the lighting. So I said in those situations sometimes the board can require that a nightlight has
to be done >> around the area. Not a lot >> I mean but up to you. I don't know if they were more concerned about it being later at night like how like the hours of the time like and then there whether or not it was appropriate because I that's when
>> but isn't the circle >> security and parking lot like dimmed it was right around that >> I was a little bit more concerned it was mostly more about like they were concerned about the loitering aspect I think >> then wouldn't you want it lit so that people didn't loiter >> I don't understand >> they were more concerned about
>> you want it lit so people can't hide behind busher I mean they have requirements from the state about security. >> They doable >> from what I heard. So like you know like huge lights up >> and and you've got testimony about the kind of lighting on the building and
night sky dark. So in consideration of where the plot is, what is around it, behind it to one side, and a circle to the other side, >> insisting on testing light levels would be impacted by those other areas, too, would
>> I wasn't super concerned about. >> No. >> Okay. >> No lawyer in sight. Um >> I I think that's what what is it like we have for the police whether it's law or useful or
What was the intention of that? >> Yeah, I think there's a public it's like kind of the public section is concerned. >> Yeah, they were concerned that it was going to be like an attractive nuisance >> essentially like >> I mean
>> providing like a seat in >> thatable area >> and it's very state regs are very clear about consumption of the product on site. >> Correct. >> So I don't know. So I have seen some towns that will require that. Clearly this was a suggestion because of the
issue. >> I thought we had that issue with the the other suspensary that is located in town. I'm not aware of a lawyer. >> No, there is not. >> There is no law. >> Right. >> I'm saying no. We don't feel the need to
impose that. Anybody got any other things they want to sneeze? >> Oh, okay. >> Anybody got any other I'll go to the side of the base. Any other things they want to raise and discuss between us on
any aspect of this application as it is right now? >> I think they've discussed it all. >> I think we've I think they've listened to they've listened. >> Yeah. >> All right. Then we'll call the motion as it was already expressed
>> to a total question >> on the one you just did >> motion motion to grant cycling approval and out >> it was moved by
Miss >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> And >> yes, >> yes. Mr. Campion left at 10. Miss G. >> Yes. >> Five minutes. >> Mr. Schwang, please. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Dash. >> Yes. Do I have to do Apple? >> How many? Well, you didn't do >> Oh, yeah. Mr. Apple. >> Uh, yes. >> All right. So, I got eight.
Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. When we can do it, we have these next week. So then we don't have a date yet.
We'll be discussing those next time. We'll submit you as soon as we >> have the reorg is now. >> Yeah. Is that the >> reorg the reorg is always is always noticed in the prior year's already
noticed. Well, you might be right. But I didn't issue it now. Say, >> I just I just noticed >> those Can we just um we keep forgetting when we get the
>> um let's do bills first. >> Um >> sorry. There's a couple issues with the bill. Okay. Um there's >> if they're open for discussion, >> I don't even couple of the bills. I think we had this
issue before where um I believe inadvertently that there's a couple items on there that should have been for council rather than >> Oh, I'm sorry. So, if you could just review those. >> Yeah, I will. I think it was on two of those.
>> Let's order all the ones other than Clark. >> Okay. >> I think all but >> Clark all the bills except >> I shouldn't be laid out. So I put my champions other than that
I'm sitting I am and I have to be up at 5:15 as well as two hours to fill in. Let's go. >> Oh um so yeah other than that so we have to go through the role. >> Yes. >> Miss >> yes. >> Uh Councilwoman Fisaro
>> yes. >> Miss Griffin >> yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sanger. >> Yes. Scott. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Now, we're not going to do executive
session, but I will quickly mention the dates. I did throw some dates out for meetings for next year, but given that I haven't sent them around, I just want to give notice and I'll we'll send them out after this meeting. Think about for next week. Is that phone? And we'll do a
resolution. >> You can't do resolution. >> Well, we can get prepared. >> Yeah. Do the reord. Yeah. Hey, no, but we can agree the decks and we'll go on a resolution. Is that fair enough? >> Send that out tomorrow. >> We can get as we don't know who's going
to be on the board yet. >> Yes. Just let you know. I was thinking about it. We've got some dates that look about Okay. that tie in with council, etc., etc. Um, I'll send those out tomorrow. >> All right. Do we ever need to go into executive session? Cara?
>> We do not. >> Good. Do we have a motion to adjourn? >> All in favor. >> Okay. Excellent food. >> Thank you everybody. Don't forget
to find what to