Right. Call to order the uh Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 planning board sting board of adjustment of Flemington Buron. I've got a new OPM statement. Thank you. This inerson and virtual
meeting is called pursuant for the updated provisions of the open public meetings act. But adequate and electronic notice of this inerson and virtual meeting has been provided by way of publication in the hunted and county newspapers beginning in January 2026. In addition, notice of the meeting was
posted on the door of the burough of Clemington municipal building located at 38 Avenue and any handicap accessible hands posted on the municipal website provided to the municipal foot and distributed to all persons
online. You can hear me right? I just got a message that you can't hear me. Um, 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. What the board may legally
consider decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please rise as if you're able to republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. >> Thank you. >> No, that's Here ankle heart here. >> Miss Gins >> here. >> Mr. Champion >> here.
>> Miss Whitesman here. >> Miss Swingle >> here. >> Mr. Sh >> here. >> Mr. Josh >> here. Mr. Eckle
>> here excused. Mr. Schlang is excused. >> Mr. Excusei >> engineer clerico >> here. >> Leonard Kyle >> engineer Trout >> here. >> Thank you.
>> Excellent. All right, here we go. Finally. A little late today. 710. Apologies for that. But here we go. So item one on our agenda as always is a period for public comment. This is a period of public comment for items not currently on this agenda. So if you have
a comment for the planning board in general, please feel free to raise it. Now if there's anybody online, use the raise hand feature uh you wish to be allowed to talk make a comment.
See no one online or in person. We'll move on to mail comments. don't have any comments and I have a question for our attorney. Um I hate putting you on the spot. Don't need it.
>> I was just following up just I know I was just following up on the um uh resolution compliance hammer or ordinance. >> Yes. So I had sent out my comments. I think it was to you and Susan after the last meeting.
>> It was just a very small red line. I just changed one section. I sent it via email. I don't remember. >> We're having trouble both of you experience. >> Why don't I another way I can send it to?
>> Try just try it again. Try again. Just try it again. And um uh >> it was very Do you remember getting any email from me? >> Okay. >> So if you send it again, text me and ask me if I got it. That way I can let Susan know it came in. >> Yep. That's exactly what they >> Okay, good idea.
>> Having problems. >> I've been getting them, but yeah, it's >> I get most, but not lost. >> I still didn't figure out how to get a little notification on my thing, which tells me it's a new thing, so I have to remember to go grab another.
>> Yeah, I don't have anything here for the week after the last meeting. Cara, >> I know I sent it after when I sent all the resolutions. I sent that out. text. >> Yeah. >> March 16th.
>> All right. So, maybe >> or maybe it was in it just like got dumped. You know, like >> you want to forward that to her. You want me to resend it? >> We'll get it down. No, you shouldn't your email.
>> Yeah. So, yeah, just send it again. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, no comments. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, I can get >> um so, okay, moving on. Item three, council comments.
>> Um, two things. Number one, I did report to the council last night um that we at the board are considering working on the escro ordinance, the tundra, and just kind of warned them um that that's going
to be coming down the pipe. >> You know, we don't want to necessarily nic people who want to make sure that we are similar to the other municipalities. So, just warn them. But that was coming down. Um the other thing that we had on
our agenda last night was a resolution to um consider um directing the I like I'd rather say requesting that the um planning board do
a study of the um in a little big long of block and lots um that's commonly known as turntable redunction. Um and so we have uh passed an uh resolution authorizing and
directing the planning board um to undertake a preliminary investigation of the V study area considered as turntable junction um in accordance with the uh local redevelopment and housing law. And
I wanted to I stressed this last night. It was passed unanimously by the council members. Um we have had a plate a lot. We've always had a lot of complaints about this site, but we've had a lot
more lately. And um it's been the three years that I've wanted to at least see where this could take us. So, you know, not everything's on the table. We're not we don't have any plans. We don't have any ideas. We really just want to gather
information and that's why we ask the of course according to the law ask the planning board to do the study. Um the um we basically just want to start sending smoke signals out to the uh general public, to the real estate
market, to the retail market um and say, "Hey, you know, this is an opportunity zone um uh municipality and encourage investment um in our community." So, this is literally just step a of years and years and years. We know it took 20
years for the Union Hotel. Um, and I just want to make sure that um, you know, that everybody knows that we're, you know, we're doing this in good faith and we really want to get everybody's input and this is just the first step of
the for the, you know, the law requires us to do so. So, I hope everybody will um support trying to get that site, no matter who owns it, improved. Um, that's it.
>> All right. Well, I need to just follow up on that if I can to my board because um apologize to you if you feel I haven't passed this information on, >> but um I was we were not given the respect being told this in advance other
than being on the agenda. Um, and I've only received the resolution after it was passed today. And um, there is actually um, I I I'm going to suggest there actually needs to be some you need to redo the resolution because it's not actually clear. Um, I can pass the red
line on to you want, but here for instance, it says condemnation and here it says non condemnation. So um, it's not the resolution doesn't give a clarity to exactly what you're asking. right now. Um we are of course open to doing what needs to be done. Um this
will be a thing that will be um we're going to have to put because we weren't given that advanced notice. It's not on the agenda. So I called them because it's not on the agenda and you don't have it. >> You're right. >> It'll be on >> I hate to correct you but this is a
condemnation resolution. >> Right. What this says is, and the way the law reads, is when you do a redevelopment area, you have to assert whether you're considering it for condemnation or non- conddemnation. Right? >> That's why that language is in there.
>> This is for this is an imminent domain. And although this was passed unanimously by council, Councilwoman Fisaro went on record stating she will never vote for imminent domain on private property, she did. Um but she supported >> um and anybody can watch the conversation. should have started like
10:30 p.m. last week. >> I think even later. >> Maybe later. >> Yeah. >> Um >> and and I want to make this clear. I I have no intention of this being on the agenda. This should take as much time as it should take. If it takes 20 years, it takes 20 years. I I don't certainly
don't want to see that happen again. There's no rush on your part. I This should be this study should be done thoughtfully, carefully, and and as much time as everybody needs. >> Can I just ask a quick question? So I I just want to be clear. So in the heading
it talks about whether it qualifies as a condemnation area and then it says the same thing in the fourth whereas but then when we get to the therefors on the second page it says any redevelopment area created shall be a non-condemnation area >> and then in paragraph three it
authorizes and directs the planning board to investigate whether it constitutes a non- conddemnation area. So is it the intention that should be investigated for condemnation or non- condemnation? >> Don't look at me. I had nothing to do with the
>> That's why it the intention was with condemnation in case we needed it, not the intention of doing that. That being said, if there's some sort of uh error in the resolution, let's let Chris Cini take a
look at it, right? And if it has to be done again, we'll have him fix it and we'll send it right back. Obviously, we are not in any rush. This is not urgent. >> Yeah. Stress that again. >> Absolutely. And starting off >> I mean, we we all know starting off with
the clarity and everything being right is the best way to get to the end of it. >> That's the only reason I I didn't send it to the board because I wanted out professionals expressed concern and we wanted to make sure it was right before I sent it out to the rest of the board. under >> and I wouldn't expect you to change the agenda for that
>> under point of law. >> Yeah. >> So if they send us an ordinance, we have 35 days to react, respond for consistency. Is there no timeline? >> There's no time for >> There is none. >> It's not like a referral for consistency where there's a 35day statuto
>> once it's referred. Um what I would suggest is and I and I think I agree that we have to change those non- conddemnations in those follow-up paragraphs of condemnation >> and then you know send it back to us the board um should acknowledge acceptance and I mean the resolution essentially
authorizes me to go forward with the study already but the board should acknowledge it and you know officially authorize me about the study. >> Yeah. So that's what to the board that's what we would do. Do we put it on the agenda next time and the discussion will
be do we um do we basically authorize our planner to go ahead with creating a report that's what we will be up for discussion at the next meeting basically right >> yeah and I think you know the the board is um
council president's correct I mean you're you're being directed to conduct the study >> we don't know what the outcome of the study is going to be but we have to perform the study >> the the law directs you to do it. So, it's not a matter of it's it's a formality. It's not a matter whether you
pan a pant. We need this information to be able to make educated decisions going forward. So, >> so first procedural status, >> it says shall throughout the whole status. >> It's a it's totally it's totally biz.
>> Um and then a procedural item on that Susan you can check with the board of council. I did hear a mention of my budget, but this wasn't mentioned when I put together my budget. Do I actually about that? We did recognize that. We
actually recognized that last night while we were talking about the budget. So, we respect that. And in fact, I um it it did kind of elongate my council report. We went through the planning board's budget and one of the things although I wasn't on the planning board the last couple years, one of the things
I reminded my council members is that planning board budgets because you know Beth is very was very good. Beth Herbert, our newest council member is very uh uh diligent about looking back and back and she's like, "Well, why is it up and down and up and down?" I said, "Because you never know how many
applicants we're going to have per year and how long they're going to take." So I said, "Yeah, planning board uh budget's definitely up and down more than the others." So I asked them to recognize that when we were reviewing the budget last night. >> All right. So we'll be open to that when we get a quote for how much and I'll
pass that along in full. >> Thank you. >> All right. So hopefully the board um is clear on that. Any questions feel free to ask um at any time. Um just to jump in on your comments. Do you have any other comments? >> No, that was it. >> Okay, great. Um all right, let's move on to item four.
HPC comments. I know you've got comments today. >> Yes. Yes. We had a very busy uh meeting on the 18th. Uh we had five applications, the most I've ever seen since I've been on the HBC. Um and uh
they were sent out to the planning board. Um 12 Kapner Street was a color change that was approved. 168 Main Street. New windows were denied with recommended solution that would be acceptable to the HPC. They will come
back after exploring the recommendation. Five Academy Street drainage catch basin work was approved. Um 10 Mine Street painting new door was approved. 35 Maple Avenue new windows were approved. Um, in
addition, John Hatch will work with Jim Kyle to put together the two lists that were requested at the last planning board meeting um, related to the historic district address listing updates. So, a public meeting can be
held after that's done. And then just a reminder, the HPC is sponsoring a house and garden tour on Saturday, June 6 from 11 to 5:00. Anyone interested in volunteering, they get a free ticket. Just let me know. That's it for me.
Thanks. >> Okay, great. Thanks. And um Caitlyn did a good job of passing on the HPC things, so everybody saw those. So, we're moving along a lot. That's great. Thank you. Um item five, environmental committee comments. Melissa, there anything?
>> Uh no, just that we're uh starting work on planning the cleanup day. It's still in the initial phases, but other than that, no comments. >> Okay. >> Can we can we change that agenda? You're a commission, not a committee. >> Oh, absolutely.
>> Commissioner. >> All right. Item six, professional reports. Do you have any reports other than what's on the agenda today? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, item seven, approval of minutes. We've got three
lots of minutes now that we catching up on. So, um, let's look at the February 10th, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Anybody any comments or amendments needed to be made on those? If not, can I get a motion? >> Can I get a second on that, please?
>> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman Engelhart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Miss Gifin. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Dash. >> Yes. >> Mr. Eckle. >> Yes. >> All right. Same thing for February 24th of 2026 regular meeting. Anybody got any comments or additions or amendments with
any of those? If not, can I get a motion for that, please? So move >> and a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Can we have a role, please, on that? >> Mayor Caro, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Angelart, >> yes. >> Mr. Campion,
>> yes. >> Miss Gen, >> yes. >> Missman, >> yes. >> Miss Swingle, >> yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Mr. Sh. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Can you hear me,
>> Mr. Dasha? >> Yes, >> Mr. Eckle. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And finally, same with March 10th, 2026 regular meeting. Any comments, questions, additions? Seeing none, can I get a motion?
>> I move. Angle moves. >> I just started to write that down too early then. Sorry. And can I get a second? >> I'll second. Who was that? Hannah, >> you threw me off. All right. Messed up. Messed me up. Keep her on her.
>> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Council womanhart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Miss Gin. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Swinkle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shob.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Dasha. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to item eight, resolution PV 202612, the resolution to this is to memorialize the decision, isn't it? This one. >> Yes. >> To amend the bylaws adopted that were
adopted. >> Were they adopted on July 28th? >> They were the original that was adopted. The amendments that we adopted on March 10. >> So now the new date when it's >> well that's when we first adopted it. So this is the resolution says to amend the bylaws adopted on July 28th. And I have
in here when the amendment was done, which was March 10th, and just wanted to have a resolution, so to speak, >> going forward, we'll refer to this date, but we we go to the plan on because they're amended as up to date. >> Um, I guess we can. I mean, usually,
unless you amend and restate, we usually say bylaws as of this date, as amended on this date, and on this date. But, you know, I'm not into making it more difficult. If you want to call it March 10th, we could do that. And they take them back tonight. >> Uh
they probably March 10th, but you seem very excited. So we have back tonight. >> I am. >> We pulled her up very late last night. >> So it took effect on March 10th. >> Okay. >> When we did the vote just memorializants
know when new testimony cannot serve. >> Correct. >> Good to know. >> Tried to have us getting out of here a little earlier. Up here tonight. I get it. I get it. I know last time myself. >> Respectable volunteers early start.
>> Motion by Car. >> We didn't do anything yet. I want I need to call for a motion to resolution. >> Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. And a second. >> Angel making the motion. Second punchy right
now. We're just exhausted. Okay. >> Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Councilwoman. Yes. Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Miss Gib. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Miss Swingle. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Sch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dashna. >> Yes. >> Mr. E. >> It just has to end with Dash because >> Oh, he wasn't. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you everybody. Very excited. Thank you to the committee that worked on that. Finally got that to a
resolution of a resolution. There we go. Um, sorry. I was trying to make public too early. >> Item nine, um, public hearing was an extension of the public hearing that was opened on December
14th. Correct. Was the date was that date? >> The first one was we had completed period July. No, >> final uh >> December. >> December 16th. >> We have December 16.
>> Yes. >> Then we then we're good. That is an extension of that public hearing. This is for Spark Car Wash LLC application for 20252 block 49 lot 6. Do we need to check that
we have notices and jurisdiction? All the notices were extended. The only thing I did want to put on the record, the last my last note said we had an extension granted to the end of February. >> Oh, >> we're obviously granting till tonight. We'll probably ask for another one for Steve, but I just wanted the record to have that be there.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I am going to be >> All right. >> So, I understand you did all and did we do all engineering testimony? Was that >> No, I'm going to give a quick wrap up just to kind of start up and good
evening everyone. My name is John Wescalic here tonight on behalf of Spark Car Wash. It is our pleasure to be back here in Plington. Uh this is an application uh with respect to property identified as block uh 49. It's actually
lots five or six. >> Thanks. >> Uh yes, the main property address is 294 Route 202. Uh and really the focus of this application is lot six. That is a property that's been developed at the
former TGI 5As uh which became a Ren Crab restaurant uh which became a vacant restaurant. Uh property's been vacant for a number of years. Uh but again the majority of the improvements are on lot six. The reason why like lot five came
into it is we've extended the lease line uh into lot five and the board may recall it's created a number of issues or a lot of things we had to deal with relative to lot five as a whole surveying information things that we went through that's why this Kazinski
had referenced July because we were here dealing with completeness back then um but anyway we were last here December 16th that's when we really started this case uh you heard detailed testimony from Matt Canali uh with Spark. He went through all operations testimony, how
these facilities work and what you can expect to see if this project is approved. Uh and you also heard from a project engineer seated next to me, Doug Wolf, uh who went through uh very detailed testimony. We touched in part on Mr. Clarico's reports. Uh board had a
lot of questions. Uh there were some concerns that were articulated uh along the way. Uh I can tell you some of the highlights. Uh the building setback out front. It wasn't really the building setback as much as the extent of landscape buffer and things of that nature. Uh the building as originally
designed. Um we actually had the building uh within uh the easement area. We've got an access easement that main driveway coming off of Route 202. Uh and it also benefits the shops in Flemington. Those were arrangements that were made for access between the
properties back then gosh well whenever TGI Fridays uh originally came on deployed board uh and we had a fair amount of discussion relative to to water recreation system watering etc. uh
and we were asked to address those and listen we are very happy to be back here tonight because that was December and it is now March 24th uh and honestly uh my client uh spent three months uh with their engineers uh and their other
professionals to to come up with a I won't call it a redesign but uh you know amending the layout uh with respect to this I do not want to steal Mr. wolf's thunder here. But, uh, what we were able to do and the revised plans that are
before you tonight, uh, we were able to push the building back. We were able to enhance that landscape buffer out front significantly. Candidly, I think it's probably one of the most buffering in this in this design uh, uh, sites that you're going to see along this stretch
of 202. uh we moved the building uh out of the uh extent of the easement uh and have been able to continue to maintaining the nature and extent of access that the shops at Flemington uh
enjoyed have enjoyed since the early 2000s as well as these benefit of TD Bank originally Palmer sent it to us. Uh so we really made a lot of even these were landscaping enhancements uh and the
like. Um one of the things that that we did early on and mayor you were probably the first to to comment as related to water reclamation systems. And by the way it's very easy wash operator to come in with a pamphlet from a manufacturer
and they say right in there it's you know this can accommodate 80% you know reductions and so forth. uh but equally important in that is you have to design to meet those manufacturer specs uh in
order to accommodate that uh spark on another engineer of course another engineer Brian Dorgan uh he's the director of the wastewater engineering um department division uh they met uh with some of the the manufacturers who
are the you know top manufacturers of these systems and so forth uh and what we've been able to do through that process uh is to to redesign the system a little bit about that from Mr. Wolf to achieve to achieve that those
reclamation numbers to bring down what our anticipated flows are. Uh we met with our professionals met with water and sewer uh just today and public works rather. Uh we today received a uh review
report from Remington Bernie uh regarding the overall design. Uh they acknowledge actually our discharge is going to be less than the allocation that presently exists for the uh uh going back to the original TGI Fridays and we'll get into that. So we are >> receive those.
>> I'm sorry. >> The letter I don't know >> I don't know if it was to the whole board though because >> it came in today. It was directed to the board. Yeah. So, uh, but we'll speak to it. Um, in terms of this evening, uh,
how we intend to proceed, uh, kind of recall, uh, Mr. Wolf to, uh, go through the plan revisions, so forth. Uh, we've got our traffic engineer, Matt Seckler, uh, who go through, uh, you know, his findings and so forth. Oliver Young is
our project architect who's here as well. Uh, and finally, we have John Mcdana. Uh, and we are joined uh, by Mr. Rogan who I referenced earlier uh he's also involved with Mr. Wolf relative to uh to to water and sewer uh discharges
that are associated with this project. Uh we also have a number of people from from Spark and actually everybody in the room follows at the moment. So it is here the Spark team or observing otherwise. So, >> uh, unless anybody has any other
questions, uh, I'd like to, uh, recall, uh, Mr. Wolf. I'll remind him that he's still under oath from back in December. It's a new year. Uh, Mr. Wolf, I assume licenses. >> Real quick, y >> we had three more reports that were issued by the planning board professionals. I just want to mark them.
Uh, PB10 will be Mr. Kyle's planning report dated March 6, 2026. PB11 will be Mr. Clerico's report dated March 17th and PB12 will be Mr. Troutman's report dated March 23rd.
>> Terrific. >> And if you guys need the next exhibit is A1. >> Hey, can you know I had an A9 as last one? I can't remember what A10 was, but we'll pick up an A1. >> I'll tell you if you want to know. I'll tell you what, >> yeah, we catch up later. All right,
we'll do it later. usually pretty good with jotting those down, but I probably missed >> I had to go back and look at notes. So, >> yeah, me too. So, >> and Mr. Wolf, uh you're uh you are still
a licensed engineer state of New Jersey, correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay, perfect. The floor is yours. We did uh I think we figured out the computers, so you should be able to bring the uh lands up on the screen. I'm looking to share screen for all those
virtually. >> I might have to give you permission. >> I sent a request. I'm not sure who that goes to. >> And John, just let me know if he does anything obviously that wasn't submitted to the board. Then we'll work. >> Yes. >> We're going to pick right up with the exhibit. >> Okay.
>> John, I'm sorry. How do you spell your last name? >> W Y C I S K A. >> Yeah. I thought we had daughter report that painful when they got we got the same I only have Jay's
>> no it's hard to see that's >> March 17th then when it sent to us to 18 but it looked like it was bowler but it was attached top
>> yeah you see there it looks like Yes, it does. The one with two says resubmit. It says resubmission sparks resubmission. So sparks, but it's not.
>> Yeah, they see it. >> Right. Was sent when? The 6th of March. >> That's when it was dated. Yeah. I thought they were going to be here on the 11th of March. So I rushed to get a report out and then learned they were coming on the 24th. So
>> there you go. lady, >> right? >> Copy now. >> Yeah, I know it. >> Oh, okay. I just I had a hard copy. I don't know if you wanted to see. >> I'll take it. >> Yeah, >> sure. These are always good. Those old
folks over there. >> Thanks. >> All right. >> Okay. Sorry. Sorry, we just want to make sure we're looking at the right thing so we can give it the proper >> respect. So, apologies for a few minutes. >> No worries. Can everyone virtually see? I want to make sure >> what what's up there is what is going
out to everybody. That's like going out to the inter. I'm sure he'll talk to it. >> Zoom a little. That is as big because we have to keep things on the side. Unless we get tools on the side temporarily, >> right? Oops. Wrong way.
You just got to navigate around. >> That's perfect. Here >> a little bit more. >> How's that? >> That better? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Awesome. >> All right. So, I'm just going to reiterate quickly what you're looking at
here. Um, postspark car wash, 4,432 square feet with ancillary parking, drive aisles, signages, utilities, now 23 vacuum stalls. >> And just before you continue, uh, just identify what this is. I know it's going to be marked as exhibit A1 with today's
date. >> Yes. >> If you can just, uh, just explain what it is, the date on the plan, revised by date, etc. >> Of course. Sorry, I jumped on there. Um, so this is the overall site plan rendering exhibit. I'll mark this one A1
prepared by Bowler dated 3:24 2026 >> and that's the original date not an updated date >> 324 2026 is the current date of the exam yes um what this is it's a colorized version of what was submitted to uh the
professionals in the board of law so what you're looking at here propos car wash 44932 ft ancillary parking drive aisles signage age utilities now 23 vacuum stalls. We did reduce that number from 25 down to 23. Um that is due to this
increased landscape buffer along Route 31, which I'll get into shortly here. And lastly, a kiosk and a drive-thru area. Uh quickly just walking you through the site. Layout's the same generally as it was before. As John mentioned earlier, we did shift the building up to the north about 6 and 1/2
ft to remove it from the easement area. We also shifted the left portion of the layout, which is where the pay station queuing is. There's two lanes, a member and a non-member lane. We shifted that to the right to create a larger landscape buffer as we discussed in the
last hearing. Um, additionally, what we did is we reconfigured the circulation on the top of the page there. You can see, uh, previously there was a cut through from north to south. Now, we blocked that off. We added a bunch of landscaping there and we more or less
redirected um traffic per recommendations of the board professionals. What that also did is that improved and increased the landscaping across the site. Also, the trash enclosure was relocated due to this reconfiguration as well. Um
you will see I want to focus on the buffer area a little bit here. We really spruced it up. We increased the width. We created more of a diverse planting per recommendations of the planner. Um so we made that point nicer than a the existing condition which doesn't have
any buffer and there's no plantings out there to even even greater than what it was before and I'll get into the planning numbers here shortly. Um other than that we did propose a new reclamation system. You're going to see that in the middle of the parking area
here. Previously we did a a three tank system. This is now four 2,000galon tanks. Um, and we are able to now achieve 80% reclaiming. I'll get into a little bit more of the details here and the new flows that we will be proceeding with, but other than that, the layout is
generally the same as what was testified to previously. Um, and we believe this is a much much improved layout than prior. All right, I'm going to get into the bulk requirements here. I'm going to flip to a new exhibit. This is going to be the overall site plan rendering
exhibit. We can mark this one A12. This is prepared by Bowler Engineering and is dated 324206 as well. I'll try to zoom in a little on this one. Um, it is the same sheet as before.
All right. In terms of bulk requirements here, I'm going to run through some of the things that did change from the prior hearing and testimony. Um, starting with block six, uh, minimum front yard setback is now 85.1 ft where 35 ft is required. This did increase
slightly due to that buffer shift. Um, also minimum sideyard setback is now 40.3 ft where 25 ft is required. This was improved from the previous site plan by shifting the building out of the access easement as I outlined earlier. Additionally, minimum rear yard setback. We have an existing non-conforming
condition of 37.8. We are requesting variance for 10.8 ft where 50 ft is required. This is really due to that interior uh property line for for lot six there. Additionally, maximum impervious surface area ratio existing non-conforming
condition of 0.81. We are proposing 0.72 and are requesting a variance for this condition where 0.7 is permitted. Uh note we are reducing impervious coverage on lots by approximately 3,431 square ft and providing substantial
green space and plantings throughout. Um also this this reduction in impervious was increased from the prior submission um due to that primarily that buffer increasing in width on on that front to the left.
Additionally in terms of accessory buildings we are requesting a variance for accessory building in the front yard with a setback for the kiosk and canopy that is equal to 29.9 ft. That's on this left side here. That also did increase from the prior testimonial plan because
we did widen that buffer area. We pushed everything back into the site to the extent possible there. I talked about the landscape buffer a little bit but just to reiterate um there's an existing non-conforming condition of 14 ft where 35 ft is required. Um currently there is no
landscaping in this buffer along that um frontage there. And we are proposing in this exhibit here a 25- ft buffer along with five canopy trees, four ornamental trees, five evergreen trees, uh ornamental grasses, and 64 shrubs. And
that is just within that buffer on the um north I guess northwest side of the page there. Sorry, north is to the top of the page just so everyone's aware. I didn't quite previously >> land north or actual north. actual
north. >> All right, moving on to lot five. Um, for the most >> all the trees you just described are going down on that northern border. >> The western >> it would be northwest to west right there.
That's in if you can see my mouse here. Right there. >> It's Yeah, I'll try to direct you as best I can here. >> You need a pointer stick. Um Brian Bundy Brian Bundy always had a
laser part. >> He has a laser actually. >> Well, will it work on a TV? >> Well, that's another thing. >> I think it'll work on this. get up and point it out. >> Yeah. Yes. Please feel free if you don't
know where I'm talking about. It's right here. If you have a question, I'm I'll get up and down all night. >> All righty. Um, so we talked about lot six. That's primarily in here. I'm just gonna get up. >> Lot six is here. That's we just described. Lot five is this other portion over here. Um in terms of lot
five, most of the bulk criteria really is to remain unchanged. Um the one item that is changing is the maximum impervious surface ratio existing non-conforming condition of 0.85. Here we are reducing this to 0.81. So that is going down and we will be requesting a
variance for this condition as the permitted ratio is 0.7. To reiterate, we are increasing the square footage of landscaping on lot five. Um, and this landscaping is increasing about 6,364 square ft, which is even more than we uh
testified to last time, and that's primarily because of this um increased landscape buffer area that was recommended by the the professionals there. Um, in terms of parking, we'll start with lot six. Existing parking is 22 spaces. We are proposing 23 vacuum
stalls with ADA and the required parking there is 18 parking spaces. In terms of employees, employees will park in the overflow parking within lot five. That's this area over to the right. Um, moving on to lot five, which is the
larger lot existing, there's 210 stalls. We are proposing 165 and required is 76. Terms of outdoor storage, just quickly to hit on this, all nonpermitted outdoor storage on lot five is to be removed. I know there were some questions
previously about this. >> Can you go back to the number of salt? How many there were and are existing? >> Yes. >> So for lot six there's 22 existing. We're proposing 23 and the required number is 18.
For lot five there's 210 existing. We are proposing 165. So we're vacating or removing about 45. required >> and 76 are required for lot five
>> in terms of outdoor storage. Um I talked about the non-permitted outdoor storage will be removed and most of it already is already. Um and then in terms of a secondary trailer, there is one permitted secondary trailer on the site. Let me try to pan up a little bit here
so you can see where that is. All right. So, there is a permitted outdoor secondary trailer up in this corner. It's currently occupying occupying six stalls. Um, >> that's that's associated with the motorsports uh business and you may recall back in
December we spoke to that and there was a was an email communication from the zoning officer that indicated that that was authorized. Yes, we have an email from um Dave Giuliani 1062025
which outlines this permission there. In terms of loading, uh we are not proposing any loading spaces. We're proposing zero and are requesting variance here. The use car wash doesn't require a loading stall. Um, one loading space is required in this
case, but just to make everyone clear, there's really just a sprinter van that comes once a month to deliver um, some small materials that they need. Any loading operations in Law Five are going to remain unchanged. Moving on here to drainage and storm
water. Uh, per recommendations from Mr. Clerico's office, a water quality unit is being proposed now. was not previously to provide TSS removal for the proposed vacuum area. That's going to be proposed somewhere in this area here. I'll try to zoom back in because I
know this is this is quite grainy. >> Maybe you go back to exhibit A1 unless you need to. >> Let's go back. >> Everybody needs to look at the bulk. >> I'm going to go back to exhibit A1 here to zoom a little easier. All right. Right. So, I talked about that water quality unit that's proposed
in this area. Um, other than that, there are a few grading areas Mr. Clerico is looking to further clarify and for us to provide additional information on regarding topography. Um, we do agree to provide a zoomed in plan along with any additional information he is looking for
there to satisfy these comments. Um, additionally, regarding any potential groundwater contamination, as Mr. Clerico noted in his letter, a phase one ESA was performed uh as well as a phase 2 being recommended due to historical spill at a nearby cleaners.
That was noted by D um research. We did perform a phase 2 ESA to further investigate any potential contamination. I did read and review this report. Conclusions are that contamination was not detected in soil or groundwater at concentrations
exceeding D's thresholds. Uh therefore no further action is needed in this case. All right moving on to utilities here. Um see okay so we heard your concerns during
the last hearing regarding water and sewer. Um, we we are taking it very seriously and we have put in, like John said, lots of work over the last few months to really nail this down and figure out what we can do to reduce
these flows, reduce our discharges to the extent possible. We had meetings with several reclaim manufacturers across the country to discuss what our options were and what we can do. We believe now we've come up with the best solution um for Flemington and for this
project. Um so after discussions with these reclaim manufacturers, we are providing a new and improved reclaim system like I talked about. It's four exterior tanks. There's another tank inside the building. Um but this system now does achieve 80%
reclaim in terms of wash water. We also met with public works and RVE, the reviewing engineer, over this past month to discuss this approach prior to submitting, see if they had any concerns or questions. Um, so we talked about it.
We got on the same page. They reviewed everything we submitted and they did issue and by they I mean RVE they did issue a new letter today um dated March 24, 2026 which essentially outlines that all
comments have been addressed uh while recommending allocation of temporary reservation for water and sewer service as well as a recommendation for endorsement of all TWWA forms. Uh furthermore, they have agreed that our proposed system will reclaim 80%
wash water and that the new proposed sewer discharge of 8,555 gallons per day, that's our new sewer discharge. If you recall, previously it was 11,553. So that number's dropped by a few
thousand there. Um that new discharge of 8555 is less than the existing allocation on this property. The existing allocation on this property is 9,600 gallons per day. And then just to go over the water
numbers as well, um the old gallons per day that we previously submitted and testified to was 15,894. Our new water demand for this project is 10,796 gallons per day. So we reduce that
number by 5,000 gallons per day. Um, we have a very detailed calculation that we submitted to RVE and public works that they reviewed and they agree with our analysis and backup information as well. Um, I have the details on that, but I'm not going to get into it unless
there are further questions here. Moving on to lighting quickly, we are proposing seven area lights at a compliant mounting height of 20 ft. Uh 25 vacuum lights are proposed in the vacuum area and will be shut off after operational hours. I want to make that
note clear just for for anyone questioning that. >> I'm sorry. >> What time is operational? >> 8 to 8 after 8:00. >> Uh we're also proposing three tape lights at the tunnel entrance exit in the office. Uh we are requesting a few
waiverss for lighting mainly due to uh the property line that cuts right through the vacuum area there. Um, one of those being maximum illumination at the property line where 0.1 is required and we're proposing 16.7. That's really because the lighting levels are measured
directly under this vacuum light unfortunately um at 5 ft above grade. So that's if you were essentially a foot or two away from that light looking directly at it. Additionally, we are requesting a wave for maximum illumination within veicular use area.
of high activity. Two foot candles is allowed where 15.9 is proposed. And lastly, maximum illumination within a general parking pedestrian area of 0.9 where 15.9 ft candles is proposed there. >> Those areas out >> point those areas out.
>> So the first one, maximum lunation at the property line, that's really only in this location here. That's because that property line cuts straight through where those vacuum lights are. Secondly, um the 15.9 that's within this
area. It's it's near the same calculation, but it's just a different criteria in the ordinance. >> That's correct. >> We allow >> two >> two poke candles. >> Yes. And that's only due to the vacuum
lights that are in this park so that when people are cleaning their cars out, they're able to see what they're doing. Is that like the equivalent of lights on like like a night baseball game? I mean, what is that equivalent to?
>> I wouldn't say it's equivalent to those type of lights. It's >> just a brightness level. Is it like >> it's 3,000 Kelvin. So, it's it's a yellowish white. I'd say uh yeah, something like this above something close to this level of light in
>> terms in terms of color. Yes. Okay. >> I'm talking about brightness. It's hard to give you a direct comparison and and brightness. >> Okay. >> It's proximity based. Um so it depends really how close you are. The I want to be clear though these light levels that
especially the one at the property line it's being measured from the exact point under the light 5t off the ground. And I'll ask you but I think the lights are between six to eight feet high. So if
you're measuring five feet off the ground, that's if you were to stick your head a foot or two from this light, that's why it's so high. >> Our architect go over the lighting details, too. >> Yeah. And >> yeah, >> it to be clear, you're having to ask for this waiver, if I'm correct, because of
the specific um this because it's two plots together. >> Yes. >> Like if you were just fitting this onto one plot, we would ask you to keep a zone around that is much lower. But because your operations cover two plots, then essentially your active operations
would normally allow that level of light within the plot because it covers two. Now it's coming up to the >> That is correct. Yes. >> So that's why it's like an issue. Yeah. Because two foot candles, it's like an a an exit light is you can't see anything.
>> We're ask normally asking for nothing on the edges, but because these two things are it's higher. So basically your your edges are really the center of your site. So that's an individual thing. >> So so basically where the center of your
property is lit up and height >> really the center of your property. It's actually two lot lines next to level is not it's not unusual to have that line of a plot. Correct. Because it's special and >> and to be clear the light levels at the
other property lines are near zero. We're going to make sure of that. All right, I'm going to move on to landscaping here. Um, as stated previously, existing site is majority impervious coverage. It's really all asphalt. Um, there is no buffer along
this frontage here with landscaping that is. We're proposing a very nice buffer along this frontage. We did increase it from the prior testimony and hearing. Um that's a 25 ft buffer being proposed along with a filtered buffer strip of plantings uh per planner's request.
Again, this was further increased to 25. Um as previously stated, we are requesting a waiver for parking trees being proposed on the perimeter of parking area and not within the parking area. And that's because plantings are proposed around here and not within.
Um however in total we are proposing 16 shade trees and this is for this is for the proposed development everything you can see in color here we're proposing 16 shade trees six evergreen trees
287 shrubs where 22 22 are required 71 grasses and 106 perennials >> how many trees are required >> in terms of trees 16 shade trees are required we're proposing 16 um six evergreens are proposed where six are
required. >> Say that 16 are >> 16 are required for shade and six are required for evergreen. We're meeting both of those requirements >> and the shrubs were cons considerably more than
in addition irrigation will be provided throughout the site providing adequate watering and vibrant plants and grass areas. So once this is done it's going to get watered. It's going to grow very nicely and it's going to it's going to look very pretty. Um, other than that, just to recap on
ancillary approvals, uh, we have Hunan SEDD certification dated 4125. We have Hunan County Planning Board approval dated 21225. We have DOT loan dated November 17, 2025. >> Letter of no interest, correct? >> Yes.
>> Correct. letter of no interest from the DOT. And additionally, we have a revised fire approval uh received February 27, 2026 based on uh this latest layout that I've shown here.
And that concludes my testimonial. >> Okay. Thank you. Um well, as um Mr. does explain to you less time. What we usually do is then take questions on this testimony from our professionals first then the board then the public and then so professionals any um questions
for this witness >> I don't think I have anything in the way of questions um I raised a number of items in my report I believe I heard testimony on most of them I have to go to each individual item but I believe I heard testimony on um pretty much all
the items on there are I did well in terms of the parking barriers I did raise the question maybe we're going to hear from the applicants planner um as to the fact that the under coverage varian as you heard we have 89 87
parking more parking spaces that are required basically the parking that's out there was constructed for the restaurant use >> restaurant use is being eliminated the applicants proposing a building albeit on one of the properties. Although in this particular situation, even though
they're two separate lots, they're in common ownership, they're non-conforming, there is a question of whether they there's a question of merger or not, but I'll defer to the attorneys on even that fact aside, they're leasing part of lot five. So in in reality, it's one homogeneous
project, albeit split on two different properties. um which again I' I've indicated they've generally addressed the storm water uh issues. Um I did offer some comments about grading indicate they're going to revise the
plan to address those. Um the probably the call substantial but under unre the issue that really kind of still remains here is the fact that we have all this excess parking with no use that um that
it's serving and and we're being asked to approve uh coverage varants for that's probably I would think the threshold question the board would have to you know kind kind of deal with uh I'm sure to the whole report. There's some other technical stuff in here. Applicants agreeing to comply with
whatever um questions and stuff. There's a number of things in here that I indicated should be conditions of approval. Um again, I tried to focus uh on the items that were have been resolved, the items that are still remain still remain for
consideration by the board. So, aside from going through my report point by point, I think in broad terms, they've they've I've heard testimony on most of the most of what's here. Um, again, the what I haven't heard here is the uh item
relating to, you know, parking, the fact that we have all this excess parking uh that's going to remain albeit we don't have a use anymore that that's associated with that demand for parking. >> Okay. And if I if I may just add in on this, you know, as I said at the outset
when we were here originally, uh you know, at the end of the day, uh this is a long-term lease. Um we've got a commercial landlord on this. We're not this isn't a property acquisition. Uh and the area that we control coming
in on this application is what you see here. Uh we do not have total sight control over about five uh don't know what their you know our landlord's plans are in the future. they've obviously got those existing
businesses uh and um you know we we can't control and I understand the point is like gosh you have all this excess parking why not bank it why not convert something back but that's not something we have control over you know at the end of the day it
really was the TGI Friday's lot and we bumped out a little bit you know into the you know into the balance into an area where we were able to actually reduce some coverage that whole landscaping island that you see on the upper right hand side doesn't exist
today. But that's a challenge that we have, Mr. Clark. We don't have sight control over that uh um to come in and say, "Sure, we can reduce it elsewhere on the site." Uh what we've done is to try to work to the greatest extent
possible and within our lease sold area with this significant increase in landscaping, storm water management facilities uh for a use that's that is a permitted use in a zone district. So that's as the board hears this and continues to hear
from our other professionals, just understand that's the backdrop. It's not for a lack of willingness on behalf of Spark. Um, but we don't we don't own lot five is in because we've got a quarter acre or whatever. I'm not sure what the
acreage is. About a quarter >> of lot five, two tents of an acre that is included uh within the development on a site that has traditionally been developed for restaurant uses. I think it was a diner originally.
>> Um, yeah, we met in December. this issue of compliance and that the adjoining lot would be part of this entire considerations. >> You and the law on that or look into it. Where did we land on that?
>> We were going I thought I was going to get something just kind of outlining the thoughts of locker and the um application of it here. Um there's a a couple criteria that need to be reviewed
and size of the lot, whether the lots are obviously in common ownership. Um whether or not they're developed. Um and those are things that need to be vetted. Um I I want to hear what you actually say about that before,
>> you know, I give the board my thoughts because it's kind of their case to put forth. So I'd like to see that. Um, I don't know if that's going to be coming as as we go. >> I'll just say in many respects it's form over substance. You got you've got you've got this building, you've got the
the other buildings. This is a lot six has traditionally been its own lot. It was developed with a diner. I don't know when they came in with TGI Fridays doctrine of merger. It was same size lot, same same lot area requirements. It was not viewed that that lot should
merge in. It has it has functioned in that. But I can tell you it is common ownership to NJN Associates owns both lots. Again, we are, you know, we're a leasehold interest. Whether it's even our option to agree, well, sure, just
just merge it in. The reality is if the two lots were merged, we eliminate the uh we cut out two variances, maybe a couple waiverss because we no longer have to worry about that lot line with the uh uh with the with the lighting overage. And we no longer have a a rear
what you rear yard variants. >> Rear setback. >> The rear yard setback variance because it's part of block five. So, you know, doctrine of merger. I guess the board at the end of the day says these lots should be merged and that's what the law says it is. I guess so be
it. Um, all I know is we don't own the property. NJ does. They've had separate tax bills for lot five and six since time in memorial with the prior commercial uses here. Um,
you know, and I think that's just about it. If they're merged, I'm still I my what I said before is still the same. This is the area that, you know, we have an entitlement uh to seek approvals for the permission from the property owners
uh to do. uh and what we've tried to do overall is you know through this project you know we have made certain conditions better we have brought down the improvous coverage albeit not you know probably what what everyone would like to see but it's been a developed site
for a lot of years mostly impervious coverage we're taking care of everything on our site and more >> both lots are and have been developed >> correct >> both lots are undersized according to current ordinance. >> Uh I don't I don't know what law five
is. >> I just want to get those answers. I think all that's going to factor >> I don't think lot five is. I think lawsuit says it's >> Yep. Correct. >> Well, no. If if one is undersized and non-conforming and the other one is not, I mean, it's still the same concept
because But would it make a dramatic difference? Probably not. we'd just be talking about bulk standards for one overall tract versus two. >> And it's actually, I think, probably safer for the board to grant the
variances based on the two lots um since they are already developed um as opposed to viewing them as one because that doesn't have as much of a paper trail and and comfort level I would say. >> Yeah. How does it because they're only
leasing part of lot Five, six, five, >> all of six and about a quarter, a little less >> five. Doesn't that complicate that? Because to Bob's point, if they were if they were joined and they were leasing
all of five and six, they wouldn't have an issue. They would be able to expl expand that area of landscaping. Basically, the red line is what they're leasing right on that on that plan. >> Yeah. They're making outside their lease area.
>> Small town. >> Yeah. >> You expanded the lease area to incorporate everywhere that you're making improvements. Correct. >> Okay. That's no longer an issue. >> I'm not so sure. Not exactly. >> Not exactly. >> Oh, I thought that's what the testimony was. Operationally, yes. So, this is the
lease line here. >> All operations are staying within that. >> Okay. However, there is some >> lease existing landscape. >> So, that's proposed. So you are opening up to Bob's point >> per request of the board impervious. >> Yes. Purther request of the board to
increase landscaping there. >> Yes. So they're they're removing about 3400 roughly square feet of impervious coverage on lot five. >> Right. So I guess to Bob's point, if they're doing it there north,
>> why don't they take out four or five more spots and and and get these 81 down to 7 or Well, actually more than that, but what Bob's point is >> just a point of clarification, the improvements coverage that you're removing is really a very large building
that pays a lot of taxes and you're replacing it with a smaller building that won't because parking lots don't pay taxes. Is that not true? True. I mean, that's where you're really using the impervious covers is you're removing a really good gradable. >> It's it's a building plus um asphalt
areas for parking that's being converted to landscape. operation. I'm just saying I'm just saying but it's >> you know where where they're making effective versus people >> right but is this something is this something we still have to clarify then
in terms of the lots or >> I I would like to get a little more information and for us to talk depending on where we are at the end of this meeting because I was kind of you know waiting for something to start the dialogue but I think we can >> we could do that. Let's see where we are. Okay, that's fair enough. Thank you
for your further testimony on that. Um, okay, Jay, you got any anything for this witness? >> I don't. >> Okay. >> Can I just clarify something for the record? >> Is it your testimony that every recommendation that's in Bob's latest letter you guys are willing to agree to
or have as a condition? But that's correct because I had that in. Perfect. Thank you. is is that all that parking all that parking on the east side is that everything like you're showing the entire site or is there more?
>> No, there's more. >> There is more. >> If I go back to my exhibit A to McDonald's, the area from there to McDonald's. >> So, this is A12. This I'll outline this quickly.
So, this is lot five all the way down to here. >> That's all parking. >> That's all parking lot. However, there is a portion of it that is leased by McDonald's >> that we have no control over. Yes. >> Um, but it goes all the way up here to this
building. Yes. So, we're removing the parking in this area here. And how many rows of parking go from your site to the end of on the west? I mean, how many rows is that? I mean, I can't from here.
>> One full bay and then half a bay on the east side. >> Correct. So, we we would be removing about you see this bay here that in the existing condition is essentially copied over. So, we're removing about half of a
full bay, I would say. which equate it's roughly 45 spaces in total >> John >> John is fine but I mispronounced name >> some of my dear friends still pronounce my name wrong
>> you said that this was a long-term lease how many years 20 based >> player base terminals. >> Thank you. >> All right, professionals. >> Matt, could you just go back to the zoomed in version? Um, I don't know if I
missed it, but could you just describe? So, you guys have essentially lengthened the queue by five more vehicles there and it took I guess it was Jay and Bob's suggestion that we reconfigure. Can you just describe that for the board? talk about the uh the only comment wasn't
addressed in our memo was any potential conflict between trash pickup and customers exiting. I mean, I'm assuming you guys can do trash pickup when you're not open. >> Sure. So, yeah, I'll hit that one right on the head. We are going to do trash pickup outside of operational hours. So, the pickup would come between 8:00 p.m.
to 8:00 a.m. in the morning. Um, so there no, there would be no conflicts for any passengers or, you know, employees in this area. Um and the the trash enclosure is here. We did run a garbage truck and it can absolutely make that maneuver.
>> Uh regarding this area in the existing condition, cars come page south and they can get through here. We block that off per recommendation. I think it was Mr. Troutman um and maybe Mr. where it goes well to extend this landscaping here to
essentially remove that conflict that enabled us to elongate the queue here down to this point. We can fit 23 vehicles in this queue up to the tunnel entrance. Um so yes, it did elongate it, I believe, by three cars and then it
does reroute that maneuver um this way and if needed they can make a right in. But it's it's unlikely cars are going to be coming from top of the pitch there. >> Okay. Um the only other thing for the board, maybe you guys know I I keep
trying to figure out if there's actually a resident living in that >> house. Yeah, I thought there was. I've never seen a car there, but there's garbage cans and there's curtains on them, you know. So, I think one of the things we raised in the prior review, there's if you see the lone tree that is
proposed on the bottom side of the page, there's a landscape strip that's on this property and there's a row of views that are probably three and a half ft tall roughly. Um, this is the only residential use in this area. I'm not
quite sure how it's still there, but >> so I think normally we require buffering between residential and non-residential uses. Um there was nothing proposed different than what's out there today. So it's it's just really a question. Do
>> look, it's not buffered. There's a fence along the TD Bank side, a solid sixoot fence. It's it's just a question of do we want to try and enhance that landscape buffer there or or not.
We're on a interstate highway and surrounded by commercial uses on all sides. So >> I don't know if it's really going to accomplish anything. >> There's a fence on the other side. >> It's on the south side on the TD side. There's no fence. Um but there's like a row of U's that along
>> there. There is a I think you are calling it hed hedro or something along that line right here. Um I want to note there is limited room um between the curb and our property line. We could improve that but we'd essentially have
to rip out what's existing to fit something new in there. Um so just just offering that as consideration >> like it's established kind of to provide them privacy. >> Is that on their property or your property? It's on our property.
>> Well established here. I I prefer all tree bushes in this. >> If they were all dead or something, I do it. But there's nothing wrong with that and and the resident is here to say that
they want new landscape. >> And I think the only other thing to be cognizant of is, you know, the state noise code is applicable here. So at the residential property line, you guys, I mean, you're you're not open past 8, so it's probably less of an issue, but it's
still 65 dB, you know, D, >> you know, we we have to comply, you know, with the state model noise code, which >> I mean, is that something you guys have looked at or not really? >> Yeah, our our architect is going to speak. >> We'll talk about it then. Okay, >> thank you.
>> It's a regular question. It's a valid question thing. professionals. All right. So, I'm gonna go to the forward now for the questions for this witness. Um question. Yes. I'm going to go online first. I saw um yeah online people.
Dennis Dennis raising his hand. I can just do it. Um >> I I have a question on the reclamation. Um, I probably need to be educated, but you testified that it's 10,796
gallons per day and the sewer discharge is 8,555. That's like 80%. So, I'm sure I'm missing something, but I would have thought the sewer would have been a lot less with the reclamation. So, can you
just explain to me how that works? um why such a high percentage is going into sewer. >> Yes, I I can touch on this and that is a very fair question because I asked the same thing um when I was reviewing these
numbers. When you talk reclamation, it more or less extends the usage time instead of a direct 80% comparison there. So, what it does is we're using less water per day um that
that goes out of the system. Um but I think if you want if you want more details on that, I would ask Brian from from my office as well to to really dive into that. Uh because it is very complicated and it's not it's not really
a onetoone in terms of if you're looking at the water versus the sewer. It's not as simple as a um you know multiply it by 082 scenario there. >> They'll be testifying tonight. >> I'll I'll bring him up to uh to address.
>> Okay. Okay. I'll wait. Thank you. That was it for me. >> Okay. Thank you, Dennis. Um, any Melissa or Jen, you have anything? >> No. Don?
>> Uh, no I do not. >> Okay. Hannah, head shaking. Um, Mike. >> Uh, no. They answered the questions during our meeting last week. Thank you.
>> Perfect. Good to hear. Um, and then who did I miss? I missed Melissa. >> I'm good. Dennis actually touched on the one thing that I was going to ask for clarification on. So, >> all right. Perfect. All right. So, in the mood, Susan,
>> um, and I apologize because I wasn't on the board in December, so you might have gone over this. I thought it was a completeness hearing in December, so you might have gone over this. So, I apologize for repeating. Are you guys reviewing the are you
presenting the signage or somebody else in the >> You are in fact >> I'll hold my question. >> That's all I have. >> You honestly although you still will have to look at it. They basically adjust. This is a revised thing anyway. So they testify to the revised layer. Yeah.
>> So you you know it's what they testif. We'll we'll get to that later. >> Anything that you didn't bring up yet? >> Uh so you talked to telling garbage trucks getting in. What about fire trucks? >> Yes, we ran >> we ran a fire truck turn. Um we asked
the Flying Tempo to provide us with their ideal specification that they wanted to use. That fire truck can make this turn. He can come all the way up and around all the way over to this point. He can also get in here and get
out. And we supplied that to the fire official. He did review it um and he agreed that he was okay with it. I have an email from him um with the date of the exhibit we shared which matches his plan as well. >> So we reviewed the new >> Yes, that's correct.
>> And rescue squad vehicles. If somebody's having trouble when they're in that queue or in the tunnel, >> he can pull through here and stop or he can get to the other side here or he can get all the way up at the top or these
two points as well at the exit. So, he didn't have a concern about proximity there. Yeah, I think everybody answer all the questions. So, so that's all for this. Oh, no, it's not. Anybody members of the public?
>> Very close. Um, any members of the public want to ask the question of this witness? Um, anybody who's online who wants to ask a question of this witness, please use the raise hand function and I will allow you to talk. see anybody online raising a hand
line. Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Terrific. >> Thank you. >> Well, I was going to go to Mr. Seckler, but uh one I'm going to call Brian Groen up. We'll even speak to that uh reclamation question that was just raised while it's
still fresh in everyone's mind. Yeah, we do need to start testimony about to get this for truth. The whole truth nothing but you spell your last name. >> Groin GR O G I N. >> Mr. Groin, can you please provide the
board with a brief summary of your educational professional background and licenses you hold? >> Sure. Uh I am a engineering graduate of Stony Brook University out of Long Island. I've been in practice uh as a professional engineer licensed in both New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and
various other states uh for the past 18 years. I worked for a local health department uh for 5 years of my career as well as then in private consulting for the last 15. >> Okay. Anybody got any questions?
>> Have you testify as an expert before the report? >> Yes. and in the field of just civil engineering >> civil engineering including wastewater accept him as a expert yet >> yeah concerns
>> so Men what is your role what is your role Ben and and you heard the question I'll just turn the floor over to you to address >> uh so I am the director of wastewater engineering with Boulder Engineering have been with Bowler for a little over
a year and a half now um I was brought on to kind of add some additional wastewater expertise as a Den House personnel. I was previous to that. Uh over the last 10 years, I was a a subconsultant to bowler on a number of projects uh regarding wastewater
treatment plants, pump stations. Um I have done a number of car wash systems um as well as uh one reclamation system for a gallor for fertilizer um washing of vehicles and things of that nature. Um so for this particular instance uh as
Doug touched on we have gone with the sobrite system uh we increased to the four tank they call it a filtermatic system which allows us to get to an 80% reclamation of the water within the car wash tunnel itself. Um so part of the
discrepancy between the sewer discharge and the water domestic water consumption is domestic water consumption includes irrigation um is the biggest piece of it. Uh we also obviously have a freshwater need for the car wash. There is some water
that in essence leaves the system on the car. So even though it's dried off, there's car there's water on the underbody underc carriage of the car that equates about three gallons car. So there is a little bit of a difference between what we're taking in from domestic water versus what is going
through the sewer discharge itself. Um but again the system of the water inside the car wash tunnel is an 80% reclaimed. So that water is in there. It is not reclaimed. It is being reused. Um but there always is need for fresh water for
evaporation and things that gets carried out on the car. But that's the the basic minor difference there. Um and again also that Doug um didn't necessarily mention is we do have a 10% contingency on both of
those numbers on sewer and on the domestic water as well. Okay. Is that all your >> Okay. The professionals have any questions about this? Okay. Anybody on or Dennis? Did that
answer your question? >> I I understand it. It it still seems like a lot of uh water that um we're we're not. So the 80 the 80%
is of the 10,796 gallons, right? So that's roughly 2,000 gallons um roughly that we're not reclaiming. And then there's another 6,000
that is from cars with water and irrigation. It is do I understand that correctly? >> No. So so in the in the one of the reports that we had submitted um there's
a an estimated calculation there uh which goes through a number of different sources for where the water consumption is coming from. Um so there is consumption for the car wash system itself. So we have to pull in some clean
water to I'll say further clarify it for in essence the final car wash rinse itself as well as to make up for those evaporative and carry out losses. Um there is a domestic component to the bathroom use of the employees. There is
a filter backwash portion that does get recycled back into the system but again there's water that comes out backwashes our treatment filters. Um and then there is the irrigation water itself. So we are not reclaiming the irrigation water.
We are not reclaiming the domestic sewage. Um those are items that are going straight through. So the again the 80% is largely focused on the car wash tunnel itself. um excluding things like the filter bath wash because we are we do need to bring
some water in to rinse our filters. That water does go back through our treatment cycle but eventually it has to leave our treatment process at that time. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Questions for this specific witness
here. Jeff is shaking his head. Hannah, you have anything? Nope. Don, don't see you. >> No, I don't have anything. >> No, I'm good. >> Okay, thank you.
Um the only thing I have and it touches on what somebody else testified but I think it's relevant because it was related to the system is um somebody said that um in order to actually achieve even the 80% it has to actually
be built as the man correctly as the manufacturer states. So what do we need to is there something what do we need to watch out for to make it make sure it's constructed to achieve that maximum number. >> Yeah. So again we're buying a a complete
equipment package from the vendor. So we're getting all the the pieces of it. Um the only thing that would be sourced locally are say the out the exterior below grade concrete tanks but they are pro the vendors providing us all the the pipe fittings internal parts the filters
are all coming from them. um they will also attend a startup. So the manufacturers representative will come out here, ensure the system's installed properly, start it up properly, ensure proper training of our staff on how to use the system. Um that's all part and parcel of the package that we're buying.
>> Um so aside from basic plumbing rules, there's not a lot that um the v the town need to look at and make sure that we've got the right thing. We are buying that enhanced package um from them. Do they provide you like commissioning report at that point and to show that
it's provided? >> Correct. They should be giving us a manufacturer startup after they go out and check the equipment, make sure it's all functioning properly. Um, they would give us like a startup report that's customary. >> Is that something that we can ask to like receive as part of that
>> compliance or something? We could ask if that's is a major thing that this board seems to be concerned about. Yes. >> So, I'm thinking if that can provide clarity on that to be sure we that we maybe make that condition of resolution the book and think about that by discussion
>> maybe the only way we could prove that it's working as we wanted it to. >> Yeah, but we need to figure out the timing because it it wouldn't necessarily be resolution compliance right just like an on&m manual. I mean if you report that >> like a quarterly type of thing does that
make sense or is that too soon? No, they would. Well, they would do it. Are you open? >> Yeah. Once it's all ready to go. It says it's working correctly. And I said maybe has to receive that as part of
before they open. >> No, they do a commissioning at the at before they like they do a commissioning because they they have to get warranties on this equipment. So they're that's like that's part of >> they have to run it. They have to run it and yeahing and then they get their
>> award. Wouldn't that be part of the the the final co we could get it to make sure we have that as part of the co so we could ask >> you could put that in the resolution possibly that the instruction official
receives the commissioning report prior to the co. It doesn't really >> that's what >> it doesn't really come back to the board. That's what I meant. It needs to go to somebody in the >> commission for the reclamation system >> or startup. Yeah,
>> start up. It's something along those lines, >> right? And uh the other the other point I do want to make uh is uh in in the RVE report I know probably I don't know that many of you have read it uh but they
were actually uh they're going to be well they say they're reserving the right to monitor cemetery volumes produced over a three to five year period. So >> so that's the burrows the burrows own engineers will be monitoring flows as
well. So the report that you got and those numbers assume a reclamation percentage >> and essentially they're going to be looking at your discharge numbers and they'll see well hey this isn't >> but I guess this is not it's not a one to one it seems complicated.
>> So Remington Bernick is also going to be looking at this issue even as this facility is operating into the future. >> Right. That's good. I I like that as well. But there seems to particular concern of this board. I know the last thing I had like to so that we could
that report is somewhere near 80% at staff whether it stays and how it gets looked at through your operational period. But I think that would seem reasonable right something that you can provide. >> Yes. Hold on a sec. I think
>> what Mr. Grogan is saying is >> it's not a one to one. So the amount of water that they use we're not going to see that 80%. In other words, the wash tunnel is segregated. I just I just don't >> I understand it's not going to be 80% of their total usage. 80% of what is used
within the tunnel, right? Is that right? Is that what the test was? Yeah. >> Is there going to be separate? Is there a way to separately monitor that? That's my point. I don't know that we can actually get that number on a regular basis. So, I just want to make sure it's feasible before we >> I think we can only get it at this when
they commission. Again, the the commissioning report would test would would attest to the functioning of the equipment that purchased that it was installed correctly operating. >> I had certification in essence no different than like an electrical
inspection. It's going to start up say all the pumps work, all the alarms work, all everything is functioning as it should. Then obviously there's ongoing maintenance that needs to be done on the system on you know recurring needs monthly leaking whatever we may need to do whether it's emptying filters that
kind of thing changing things. Um the flow monitoring is more for that we do not exceed the allowance um or if we did there would be to say sewer into those that nature in terms of the the long-term monitoring of the 80% that I'm
not 100% sure how we could monitor that. Again, there we have some detailed information from the the man manufacturer of it. Again, that's all dependent on exact timing in the tunnel and you know down to how many seconds
the water sprays on each individual car. Um, so >> we won't be able to monitor 80% through the >> I thought that's what you guys were asking. That's why just make sure to monitor that sewage output that is acceptable within and the in order to achieve that that has to be working
quickly. which is a total and I think >> I think I got what I >> what they've testified to is this is the the best type of design that they could purchase. They're going to do it. It's going to be included. They we can include some sort of certification that it's been installed as required by the manufacturer. And assuming that's the
case and continually maintained, >> it should maintain as close to that 80% as possible. >> Yeah, that's all I'm just putting to put that in for the for the um >> I just want to make sure that we weren't asking them to do something they couldn't do. >> Correct. >> Yeah. No, I get that. I just wanted it to be added into something that the
permanent officer can check for the >> reference startup report tip. >> Yes, thank you. >> Hey, um any members of the public have specific questions for this witness if you're online use the raise hand feature
and if you're in the room raise your hand or thumb forward. All right, see we move on. I'm going to say move on to your next witness. But as before, we usually have a break about 9. But I'm figuring if this is a natural break, do we take a
quick break now and then we'll start your next witness after that period. Seems to make sense. Does that make sense to everybody? >> Sounds good. >> All right, let's have a five minute break for everybody. >> Hold on. >> And then can we just to wait for the mayor to come back.
>> We did. >> Yes. >> She can't vote. >> No, I just I restarted the recording. Um, hey, can we pull the roll again just to make sure everyone's back? >> Mayor Carol
>> here. >> Councilwoman Englehart >> here. >> Mr. Campion >> here. >> Miss Gin >> here. Miss >> here. Here. Miss >> here.
>> Mr. SH >> here. >> Mr. D >> here. >> Mr. Apple >> here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. >> All right. At this time, I'd like to call Matt Sepler.
>> Oh, I think we need to swear in a new witness. >> We got Everyone, everyone but John McDonald. >> Mr. Sler, can you please provide the board with an overview of your educational professional background you hold? >> Certainly. My name is Matthew Secular.
That's S KL E. I'm with Stonefield Engineering Design. Address is 92 Park Avenue in Rutherford, New Jersey. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state. Also recognized professional traffic operations engineer by institute transportation engineers and accepted for over 150 boards as a traffic
engineer including this board on least one occasion. >> Okay. Any question concerns about Whitland all the professional standard not accepted as an expert in field of traffic engineer. >> Right. Mr. Cycler, you're uh you've been
involved with respect to the overall design uh and particularly reviewed this with a focus on uh traffic ingress, egress, generation and the like. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Uh why don't you please provide the board with an overview of your findings
with respect to this project? >> Absolutely. And as part of this uh project, we did prepare a traffic impact study. It was most recently revised dated February 19th, 2026. is essentially very similar to our earlier version which was from January 29th, 2025 except that the site plan changes
you just heard uh from the site engineer in terms of changing number of vacuum stalls, the way the uh access aisle or the queue uh kind of connects to the internal drive aisles, that type of text was updated within our report. But in terms of the trip generation analysis, anything related to that, it was really
essentially the same report as the earlier version. So just going into our report as part of this project. Uh first we collect traffic data. In this case we collected traffic data back in 2024. It was December 2024 while school was in session. But actually when we count on
Saturday it was during that you your typical heightened traffic volumes during like the holiday season especially on a commercial corridor like you have on route 202 here. Uh, so the counts were conducted on a weekday, December 19th, 2024 from 4 to 7 p.m., which is your typical evening rush hour,
and then December 21st, 2024, which was a Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to capture what a typical Saturday would be. Those dates are also somewhat significant in the fact that typically car washes see their peaks during two time periods before a right after snowstorms which typically December
might match up some years and uh you know during kind of pollen season and this you know in the spring when pollen's out just right around the corner you'll see car washes kind of ramp up a bit during those periods as well. So, we were able to capture one of their peak periods in capturing December, which again occasionally does
get snow this year. You know, we obviously got snow in December. Um, as well, in addition to counting or collecting that traffic data, we project how much traffic we expect a car wash would generate in the future. To do so, we utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineers uh trip
generation manual, which is a publication where engineers like myself have counted number of cars going in and out of car washes and basically submit that data to the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They review the data and then compile it and publish it as part of this publication which has
been accepted by the DOT and all counties in New Jersey as an acceptable way to project future traffic volumes. For this case, there is a U land use code or there's data specifically for this style of car wash, which is a automated car wash. Um, and based on the
size of the building and the size of the the tunnel, they can project how much traffic a site like this has projected to generate. Uh, when our report was originally published, they were on the 11th edition of that manual. Now they're on the 12th. The numbers for Saturday, which is when
you typically see their peaks, went up ever so slightly from 74 trips or 74 cars during their busiest during their busy Saturday peak out of it less >> to 78. So between the the 11th edition and 12th edition, there became four more
customers that were generated on a site like this. But I just want to put that on the record since that's the newest data that's out there. >> Is that per day? >> But that's per that's been the busiest hour in the Saturday. >> Okay. day. Uh the data typically shows between 500 and 560 uh cars per day
would be what you typically would see on a Saturday. Um so um which again we actually reviewed that with I know there was some testimony regarding the water usage and things like that. We made sure that our data um from our IT manual happened to match the data they utilize
for projecting their flows as well. So those those data points do match up. So, busiest hour, we expect there to be 78 cars on a Saturday. Let's say Saturday, uh, at 11:00 a.m. Um, that that be the expected amount of traffic we'd expect over that hour. Now, in terms of how
much traffic the tunnel could process, because that's obviously important thing. We want to make sure that the tunnel could process at least 78 cars so you don't see a queue wrapping around the site. Uh, for a site like this with about 120 foot long tunnel, the capacity is about 120 vehicles per hour can
process through that tunnel. basically at their normal processing speed. So again we if there is a surge in traffic if you know you have a really bad pollen day or a really bad snowstorm day even at a 100 cars even if we add you know 22 cars in an hour clearly that tunnel has
the capacity to process all that amount of traffic in an hour. In fact, during typical days, we would see uh about a queue about six or seven cars during the busiest time on a Saturday. Again, post snowstorm, postpollen, and in the spring, you may be seeing 11 12 cars in
the queue. And you heard earlier the testimony, we could fit 23 cars within the colorized version of the site plan. What's also important here is that backs up into basically another internal drive aisle that's rarely utilized as opposed to some other car washes where when you
reach the end of the queue, you're on a state highway or busier road. Here, you know, worst case scenario, you're backing up into basically a drive aisle that's rarely used. Terms of access to the site, this site, uh, you know, the closest access point, uh, is the right
in driveway that's located at the bottom left hand portion of the exhibit. That's a 12 13 14. This is I think we're looking at A1. >> A1 technically >> 11. >> A1 that's the rightin driveway that uh the first one that we put up that was
>> that's the rightin driveway um that uh we're looking to maintain exactly as is. We received a letter of no interest from Department of Transportation back in November of 2025 indicating that they agreed that there's no new permit needed. Essentially, the amount of traffic being added or the change in
traffic from a restaurant to a car wash doesn't create a significant change in traffic flow for the area. So, we are good and covered with the Department of Transportation. Obviously, leaving the site from here, any vehicles leaving, they'd either utilize the right out driveway to the Northland Motorsport if
they're going north on 202 or basically circulate within the center and come out at the light on rebuild um depending on which direction that they want to go. Uh but again it essentially operate very similar to the restaurant that was there you had the right in for customers right on 202 and then if they want to go any
other direction out they basically utilize the rest of the shopping center to reach those points. Um so again as part of this study you know one of our main focuses on was trip generation making sure that there was enough uh capacity in terms of the uh queuing on site and again as part of the study we
determined the pose cases the site's been designed it appropriately and efficiently and again department of transportation which is jurisdiction over access point it's down the site uh not in need of any additional permit. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any questions?
just um the the Q numbers you cited. How did you establish those average and max Q's >> um for observations but also um we have looked at um poison ratio like a random arrival rates based on the trip generation and um at basically our
existing or proposed trip generation of 78 cars in an hour there's a 95% certainty the queue would be six vehicles or less. So it kind of matches up. If we haven't did a hundred cars coming to an hour, uh the 95th percentile queue would be expected to be about 14 or 15 vehicles or less. Again,
clearly still within the, you know, the the portion of the site in which we have the queue. So, in both cases, either from field observations or the calculations of random arrival rates, uh it would be within the distance. >> I just had one signage item in my memo
of item third. If item 13 and my member with my conditions have relocated not as a >> son. Yeah. Or >> y that's still related with the new circulation outside.
>> Yes. And I mean I would just comment this circulation is so much better than the first plan we saw. It was kind of a bollocks in the back there. >> Right. is um and it's just much cleaner and a lot of storage. So,
>> happy work. Any other questions for this? >> N you're good. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll go to the board online. I'm just going in the order I see you.
So, I've got Jeff shaking his head. Okay. Mike, >> no. >> Okay, thank you. Um, >> Hannah, >> no. Shooting ahead. Melissa, you got anything for this?
>> Yeah. >> We only hear the last part of your online Dennis, you got anything? >> Nothing here. >> Sorry. I cut you off. Do I say that again? >> I'm good. Nothing here.
>> Excellent. Thank you. And then it's done. >> Uh, no, nothing. >> Keep changing around when I move it around. Sorry. All right, let's come to the room. >> No, I'm fine.
>> Um, couple questions. The people who bring their cars into the tune, they stay in their car. >> Correct. They stay in the car. They basically directed their, you know, guy onto the the the conveyor belt and basically they stay in the car and at the end of the tunnel, they're basically
told to then accelerate. >> And how long did it take to get through that too? >> This was a 90 seconds. >> The 90 seconds, >> right? >> And just refresh my memory back in December, this was like a kind of like a a club
thing where you buy and >> you have a me. Yeah. So, you have a membership. So, you have non-members members. So, I belong to one of them. It's a >> $25 a month and you get unlimited washes. >> So, how does that factor in the unlimited car wash? How does that factor
in to the average in your chart from the state of trips per day and per hour? >> So, the membership model is not unique to this brand. So, you know, it is widely seen in a lot of automated car wash brands. So, when we do the counts on existing sites, it's basically baked
into the counts we've done. In addition, what we found is when you do have, let's say, membership model, what you end up getting is more people that are in the area and already driving by the site today, like people will join the car wash that is basically closest to them. So, if they're driving, they happen to
be running errands every Saturday in this area, they're usually not making a special trip to the car wash. when they're a member, they're like, "Oh, I'm picking up something in the, you know, in the, you know, mattress. I'm going to the mattress store. I'll stop by the car wash since I'm already a member." So, in terms of the difference in traffic on
the road, it's very minimal, uh, because they're basically uh, they're picking this site because it's convenient to them. So, it doesn't really change the traffic on the road and the it basically accounts for that in the counts that we've done at existing sites because the membership model is widespread in this
style of car wash. What? And what's what's the average member? How often do they get their car washed? It once a week or three times a week? >> I per I personally don't know that. I am a member someplace and I normally go at least three times a month.
Question. >> Matt, why don't we just recall Matt Canali? >> Yeah, sure. >> Stand up. Matt, you're still on the road. >> Perfect. Uh, yes. So, uh, members on on average, uh, visit the the wash two to
three times a month. Um, >> month, >> two to three times a month. Um, non-members less proof for that. >> And you have no way. You did testify what your average membership was. I'm just trying to understand like if we have
this state this number that's been generated right that you'd use as a model and that's for non-member clubs or non-member car washes. >> No that's based on automated car washes
in general and again in the most recent versions of these car washes almost all of them offer some sort of membership model. So >> including the one that we approved a couple years ago on BAM started to really have a membership club. >> Yeah.
>> So, it's basically she paid a lot of >> wash before Christmas and I get a free wash on my >> So, um Okay, thank you. >> Okay, that's great. Um I don't have
anything for you either, man. Thank you very much. Oh, thank you. >> Laugh now. Um, public. >> All right. So, anybody in the public? Two people on here. If you want to make a question of this witness, please raise
your hand. Now, I don't see anybody in the room. Would you want to raise your hand? All right. Now, thank you. >> Bring your phones up. >> Oh, can we stop sharing? Oh, no. I guess we can leave it up.
>> Well, he's gonna he's gonna bring up his uh make sure next time. >> You might have to move the last time. >> Yep. Bear with me please. One thing
I was >> I don't have here today. I was very stressed. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Doug will figured it out. >> Younger people. >> That is what you >> So, Mr. Young, would you please provide
the board with an overview of your professional um backgrounds, education, so forth? >> Sure. Good evening everyone. My name is Olive Young NG. I'm a principal at GKNA Architects. Our business address is 36
Ames Avenue in Rutherford, New Jersey. I hold a bachelor's degree in architecture from Winsler Polytechnic Institute located in Troy, New York. Practiced in the field of architecture for over 25 years. I've been a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey for just over 20
years. License is current and I've testified over 70 planning and zoning boards throughout the state and accepted at all. >> Anybody have any concern that we should use?
>> Uh he is accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. Thank you very much. >> Mr. Young, you you uh have prepared the plans to report to the board in Dece. Is that correct? >> That's correct. I have up on the screen here just an electronic copy of the most recent architectural drawings that were
submitted to the board. So, I don't believe I need to mark them. >> Yep. >> As Mr. Wolf mentioned, the floor area of this building's 4,432 ft. The overall footprint is 34 feet 35t 4 in wide by just under 126 feet long.
Uh it's actually two shifted rectangles 21 feet by 125 ft and then 15 feet by 125 foot with an approximate 3 and 1/2 ft offset between them. The tunnel which is on land south the south side of the building is 21t width that takes up the
entire length of the building. Then on the north side of the building is all the support for the tunnel. Going from left to right which is west to east. We have an office, a bathroom, an employee break room, storage room, equipment room, and then the electrical room. And
just for reference purposes, the tunnel entrance, which is on the left hand side, is west facing route 202, which the building sits approximately perpendicular to, and the tunnel exit faces east, the interior shopping center, parking lot, and circulation.
I'm going to segue to the colorized elevations which again we had submitted to the board in terms of Can you just try and close that bookmark side there? >> Yeah, absolutely. Bear with me one second. >> Easier.
All right. >> Other one, too. >> Close. Let's close the left side. >> That's not going to make it any better. >> No, >> looks clean. >> This is a colorized version of all four
building elevations in regards to massing. The south side, which is top of the plan, is 17t 6 in to the top of the parapit. Then on the north side of the building, which is the bottom elevation, that's 18'2 in to the top of the parapit
with one section on the right hand side bumping up to 21'8 in above grade. The east and the west sides, the short sides of the building are where the parapit steps back, steps up and down that 8 in differential. Additionally, we have a prominent blade element on the building
on the west side. It's meant as a beacon, an eye catcher for traffic from the road and of course presents the opportunity for signage. You can see it on both the north and south elevations there. That tops off at 32 32 feet 6 in
above 30. We also have some 3D color renderings which I do believe I need to mark. It's a rendering package of four sheets. Sheets R2, 2.0, R 2.1, 3.0, 03.1
dated March 18th, 2026. It's two existing conditions views that we took last year and then we've super closed the site plan the site development and the building development. >> All right. So that was two R 2.0 2.1
3.0 >> and 3.1. I want to mark that as one one package exhibit or just each individually. >> Um, >> hold on one second. I don't have 3.1. I was just check. I knew we had a bunch of other ones.
>> Oh, yeah. We handed those out. >> Um, all right. So, since I don't have the one, let's do them separately and then that way I can make a note that I need a copy of that one. >> I might have extra copy. I'd be happy to give you. >> Okay, perfect. Um, all right. So, we'll do A13.
It's R2.0. A14 R2.1. A 15 R3.0. And then A16 will be R3.1. Yeah. >> Yeah. And we marked this as A3 last time.
>> Yes. However, those were we have since updated those views based on the new site. >> All right. So then give me that one. >> This is everything colorized including the color. >> So that's the old time you've got new on. All right, perfect.
So, R2.1 is a 134 15 A6. >> Okay, that's it. >> Yeah, >> great. The view you have on your screen right here is an existing street view looking from UX 202 looking east towards
the site. You'll see the existing restaurant building. That's sheet R2.0. zero. Moving to R2.1, we've superimposed site development here. Landscaping vacuums, and you'll see the buildings
blow that up. >> Sure. Bear with this. Right. >> Believe this captures enough of the view. I'm not going to try to pan around and lose the screening. This building itself is a sleek, modern design. and we've paid significant
attention to the detail on the building and there's a tastefully yet catchy use of color. There's two provable materials on this building. The first being an EPIS system in a blue color, a white color, and then a a gray corrugated metal finish. The second material we
utilize is an exterior grade porcelain tile in both white and gray colors. Additionally, we have an orange accent band on the building. It's prevalent on all four sides of the elevations. And this morphs into a sunshine canopy over
the tunnel entrance, the tunnel exit, as well as the office. With me one second, I'm going to transition to the next. You knew this is our 3.0. We took an aerial view again from route 202 with the least towards the site
and we superimposed the site development on this aerial view. The majority of glazing of the building is at the south elevation at the tunnel itself. Then we have one small glazing glazing element at the north elevation element at the north elevation where the where the employee break room is as well
employee break room is as well as the as the office area. office area. I'm going to segue into signage for the I'm going to segue into signage for the building. We have six total signs building. We have six total signs proposed for this building. All signs proposed for this building. All signs are internally illuminated except for are internally illuminated except for one. The signage breakdown is as
one. The signage breakdown is as follows. Segue back to the colorized follows. Segue back to the colorized elevations. I you can see them all here elevations. I you can see them all here relatively well. Then we have one small relatively well. On the south elevation, we have one spark logo on the building itself. It's 15.8 square feet. Then on the blade element, we have a combined
spark logo and spark car wash sign at 73.5 for the square. Going around the corner towards the west elevation facing the road. Directly over the tunnel, we have an additional spark logo. It's the same size, 15.8 square ft as the one on
the south elevation. Moving to the next building elevation, the north elevation. On the blade element, which is the opposite side, we have an additional Spark combined Spark S logo and Spark car wash sign on that side of the blade. Again, 73.5 square
ft. And we have a very small sign at an area called the Spark Park. That's the one sign that's not internally illuminated. It's 9.3 square ft. What that sign does is that identifies the people that are on site. It's an area where people can take their mats, both
carpeted and rubber mats, and they can take them for a wash, as well as they can grab extra bottles or towels as they need to. That area is designated the Spark Park, and we have signage to identify that for patrons that are at
the vacuum spaces. On the last elevation, which is the east elevation, it's the tunnel exit. It faces the interior shopping center circulation. We have a combined Spark logo and Spark car wash sign at 34.1
square ft. So that summarizes all the building signs. I'm going to touch upon one last thing with my testimony, then I'll be happy to answer any questions. I believe Mr. K, you had some comments in regards to noise. The elements on site that produce noise
are the vacuums. We have two rows of vacuums, plan north and plan south. Each row of vacuums has what's called a centralized vacuum producer which supplies power to all the vacuums. Each vacuum producer and we have two of them has two turbines. So four total
turbines. These are what are called variable flow diffusers. So it's not all on or all off. If there's only one vacuum being utilized, it's going to be a different level of the motor running and a different sound level than all
vacuums running at the same time. I tend to equate it with a Dremel tool which has the slide on it. We can go from zero RPM to 6,000 RPM. So, we've modeled that sound. We utilize an acoustical consultant that we work with on all these sites. We model that sound in the
worst case scenario, which is all vacuums on at the same time as well as cars being processed through the tunnel and the noise from the tunnel. And we found that this site will comply with the sto state noise regulations for the
adjacent residential property which is the worst case scenario during the daytime hours because we are not operating during the nighttime hours where the levels drop and we have a copy of that report. We'd be happy to provide provide it to you for your records.
>> John, that covers all direct. I'd be happy to answer any questions the board might have. You have that report to give us now as well or have to be provided later. >> I do have one copy. >> I do have one copy of it and I'd like to be happy to provide it to you and I'll
send it over electronically afterwards. >> Why don't we mark it as exhibit A7? >> Y >> and I will point out that this report was commissioned back in September of 2025. That was the old site plan design which utilized a couple couple
additional vacuum spaces and the building was closer to the adjacent residential property line. I we complying in that state the site plan I think if we reanalyze with a couple less vacuums and the building shifted farther away from the residential would give us
a more favorable result. I do not think we need that basic report. However, I'll defer to Mr. Kyle. >> No, I mean I would agree. you've the real concern is the residential property. So the building's farther away
it would be better than what they >> Okay. So professionals go straight to Jim. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. No, we uh and he covered all the relief that they need. They they do need
waivers for um >> residential. >> I don't actually know that we have a standard for that. Okay. >> Yeah. So, it it was really just, you know, we provided a summary of the signage. I think the one that I missed was the non-illuminated
spark park sign that's in the vacuum area. >> Did you give a size for that one? >> Yes, it's 9.3 square feet. We had the dimensions, the width and the length of it on our architectural drawings and we'll call those off.
>> Right. >> Yeah. I don't I don't necessarily have any questions about the architectural testimony. >> Can you just fill us in though what was in your report just for those who remember that detail? >> Yeah. So the so these >> what the relief are asking for.
>> Yes. So the signage um so they're allowed two facade signs here. ordinance does permit additional facade signs where you face you know corner lot on floor if you have a parking area that you face I mean really here you're almost facing four different
directions so >> um so they're proposing a total of five facade signs where two are permitted and then they have the additional spar park sign in the vacuum area so there's a
total of six signs um wall-mounted signs They have a 5 inch projection where we allow no more than four. So there's relief required for that. Um the maximum permitted area of each each permitted wall sign is 50% of the
total linear footage of the facade to which they were fixed or 100 square feet whichever is less. So here the total area of the facade signs and I don't think I included the spark park is 222 square feet
where basically 100 is permitted. Um and then these signs exceed some of the size requirements. They have a a total area of 82.8. Um sorry let me just go through this
here. Yeah, I mean essentially they have signage on every facade, >> right? >> So I think I guess really it's a question of since the ordinance does allow additional facade signage in portions of the building which face parking areas.
M >> I think reasonably the the parking area to the east obviously we would have potentially customers coming from the shops to the site that direction >> uh I mean in theory somebody could come from the north as well and the scout. I
mean if you came out of the TD bank you could go right into this area. So I I don't necessarily have a problem with the sign package proposed because you could essentially access this site from all directions around it. I think it's >> not unreasonable. Yeah, it's not unreasonable to identify the building in
that direction because they don't have any other freestanding sign. The only freestanding sign is going to be a 202. >> So if you're within >> existing >> existing freestanding sign, they're going to take one position on that sign as my maiden. So other than that,
there's no other ground signage proposed within the site to help direct people to the car wash. So, I don't I don't think the signage that's proposed is unreasonable because it gives them some sight identification from those other directions that we know people will be. >> You've got sparking,
>> do I? >> Yeah. Under >> Oliver said six signs and I only have five. So, I thought maybe I missed one, but >> yeah. >> Yes. But the total score, what did you call out encapsulates all >> one question if we look at C in your
report? So, and I didn't pull this section up. So, maximum perin area of each permitted wall mount 7% so the total linear footage or 100 square ft whichever is less is that 100 square ft per sign oral to >> that's total. Okay.
>> Now, the blade >> is that almost what's the technical word for the not the monument standing. Isn't it almost like their own in some would it read that way to you or
not? >> Do you know what I mean? >> It does. I mean >> architecturally it doesn't meet the definition of a freestanding sign. >> No, I understand it's attached but what I mean is like the effect is almost like a freestanding >> or effectively.
>> Yeah. But does it I mean if it's still under the height like is it is it still under the height of the maximum height allowed? So yeah, it's part of the architectural element. >> No, I I I get that just like to me like that different.
>> I will say that how big is the plaque that you're getting on the freestanding sign? >> Bear with me. I take a look at the one smaller strip. >> There's an awful lot of signs on that freestanding sign. So it's, you know, you're whizzing by that at 55 miles an
hour. So actually it's >> hard enough to read as it is that big that freestanding >> we don't have that measurement because it's we weren't able to to obtain that it's the top I believe it's the top panel
>> I believe we're getting to the top >> but it was shown in your um work in the first house >> but it's no than a 2x5 or a 2x6 or something like that. It's not very big
is the point, right? >> Does the freestanding sign sit on this property because it's like on the other side of the >> It's part of it's part of block six. >> The previous one um showed it better, I think, than the than the elev
this rendering view here. You can see it at the bottom of the screen. >> I see it. I was Is that part of W six? >> Yes. >> Bet. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I see it. to A1, >> I believe. Yes, yes or >> no?
>> 2.0. I think showed it better. >> Yeah, it's online. Yes, it is. >> Yes, >> we go to 2.0. >> If you go to that your two there, you see here, Susan, it's right there on the right side. >> Yeah, I know. I can see I can see it in all the pictures. >> You get the top ones. You do get the biggest one. They don't have You see
it's actually for me. >> Okay. The other problem is the trees on the TD site have gotten significantly bigger. That sign is even more and more obscured now. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's my concern. I mean, I
love the >> that also. >> Um Okay. Um anybody um any of our board members I'm into online have questions for this witness? Um Jeff, you're the first on my little list. shake his hand again. Okay, Hannah,
you have a question. >> Uh, I did have one um maybe small question just about like if you are ever offering like specials or deals, where would that signage be placed?
Is that something that would be along the drive? Is that something you would ever put like freestanding like blade blades along the sidewalk? Is that I'm just curious. I'm sorry if that's someone else. >> I think your question is do you have any temporary signing sign?
>> Right. Right. >> Questions. There is occasionally temporary signage and we would place that where it would make most sense to to capture you know the the eyes and attention of the public. So in this case it would probably be um I would say largely internal to the site to capture
the shop over your shopping area and in the surrounding shopping area. I don't think it would be um you know uh I think I think that would be the most likely place for it. >> Okay. Yeah, that was my question. Okay. >> We do have a whole signage ordinance
section pertaining to temporary >> sign a condition that you'll comply with. >> Well, we'll comply with whatever. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Maybe not to speak for you, but your main concern was things like flags and and and b and and blade things that
temporary blades on a roadside. Was it do you think? >> Yeah, I was just curious about like their intention and whether or not they were planning on doing that at all. Um or yeah, if they hadn't had they had a a plan based off of like their other their
previous businesses where they had done it before, >> right? as to as car said we have a we have an audience for temporary science so that >> all right thank you >> um >> I have one question sorry
>> the sign in the front we call the par sign that's how you refer to that >> we call it a blade element >> blade element >> this and the signs on both sides of that >> okay the sign on the on will be the north side of that who who who would be able to see that sign it seems like it's
blocked by the building on the adjoining thing And and it seems to me it almost have to be all the way on the other side of the circle before you have any I guess does it serve a purpose I guess is my question. >> Yes, it does serve a purpose to identify. We know that visibility in that
direction isn't as good as from the south. Although we do believe there will be visibility and you will be able to see it while you're internal to certain areas of the shopping center as well. However, you know, we do understand the
building has been pushed back though, >> right? Come back to the board. Mike, do you have any questions for this with us? >> I do not. >> Thank you. Melissa, >> no questions. >> Um,
Dennis, >> no questions. >> Okay. And >> uh, no questions. Okay, Susan. >> Um, who is responsible to like as far as owning and maintaining the existing
Shops of Flemington sign if it's on your property? You're a VC. So, >> we don't know that. >> Okay. So, um I guess um my concern is uh
the shops of Fleming is I don't need your word this in the form of a question. So it will come out at the end as that. Um the shops of Flemington has a lot of visibility issues. So your um
the probably the reason why you chose this site is because of the you know easy access but it also and it leads into the shops of Flying. So, I guess my question is who's responsible for
maintaining the trees on your parcel so that they don't lock the existing Shops of Flemington sign or are you willing to um uh uh agree to some sort of additional to the resolution to make
sure that um any trees that are in this nice extra um buffer um are maintained enough so that the sign the existing sign isn't blocked. >> So our our landscaping will be our maintenance responsibility.
>> Of course that's what happens. You put in a vibrant planting with an irrigated system is you want to grow and and create a nice streetscape and that happens. But we understand the comment we have no issue to you know part of our maintenance protocol is also to make
sure we don't completely obscure >> Yeah. free stand inside. >> We don't like to even obscure our building, but you know, you want to still want to be able to see into it, but >> uh but really come up with a with a really nice >> It's also in your best interest to have
that sign so they know where to turn to your business. So, just please good be good neighbors, >> your fellow businesses. >> That's all. >> No, I don't have anything else. something. Oh, public. >> Oh. Oh, I Oh, wait. I have one other
question. I'm not too sure if it's the architects or I might have missed my opportunity with the planner. >> You didn't miss any opport anyway. >> Oh, okay. Well, bike racks. Is that your responsibility or planner? >> Okay.
>> Is is there any bike racks planned for the And if so, >> we are proposing a bike rack on the site. Yes. and where you'll you'll you'll address that later. >> Why don't we just point it out now? >> See, there is a bike rack proposed right
here which you could access from this sidewalk that we added as well. >> Oh, I was going to go to the public. Um, anybody in the public online? If you're online, you want to raise question for this equipment. Anybody in the room?
Seeing none. Thank you. Um before we move on, ready to just remind me that part of thing is no business after 10:30. >> I'm sorry guys.
any consideration of the fact that we've been supervised to discussion or discussion which we're usually very chatty we have to um I think our planner's testimony is quite short but >> no I get it but when our experience is
we're at least we chat for at least half >> usually right on this um I'm open to polling the board members too we want to stick >> that's part of and our new rule also is are we willing forward. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I pull the board members to
see if anybody is minded to keep going or if we um got term money to use >> journal. Thank you very much. Um >> I'm willing to hear the testimony. >> And I gather.
>> All right. Somehow the people who everybody's online to let you know somehow how you're feeling. I'm gonna ask Jeff. >> Let's take a let's take the straw. >> Yeah. >> I'll be signing off but carry on. >> Yeah. Might leave at 10. So you would
lose a vote as well >> and >> um because he's sleepw so he needs to get up early in the morning. Dennis, continue or adjourn?
>> Uh, I'm fine with continuing. >> Okay, Jeff. >> Uh, if we adopted new rules, I'd like for us to follow the rules. >> Conor, >> I'm fine with uh moving forward.
>> You know what? I understand there's people that have an issue and and I understand it late night and so forth. We don't want to just follow the rule. Uh we can adjourn and we just come back and we'll bring Mr. McDonald back. >> Well, I think John, you and Karen need to talk about the merger issue. Let's
get that cleaned up. We're coming back anyway. So, that that probably makes sense. >> But you'll have plan and then wrap up and we'll have discussion or vote. >> Yep. I have my paper so I can actually listen to your September and be happy to be back. Plenty of people,
>> you know, having us think about it while we're super tired and we appreciate your certainly appreciate your consideration on that and also appreciate all your testimony everybody today forward on the agenda. We have to extend
Well, we're we're consider it extended till June just so we don't >> number one, >> you know. So, >> just in terms of time, what would what would the next meeting be? >> April time >> 14th is it? >> Is it? >> No, it's the 13th.
>> Tuesday the 14th. >> April the third. Oh, April the 14th. Sorry. Tuesday. >> Tuesday the 14th. >> You good job checking now? of private >> while John's uh checking his schedule. Um
I would say if there's any other questions you have of any of the other witnesses, let's ask and then let them know if they need to bring them back. >> That is a good point because usually we wrap up with any uh comments, questions for any of them. So, anybody, any board members if you've got or any members of
the public have any further thoughts because we don't want to have to have these people bring these witnesses back. They just want to bring their planner back next time. So, let's do them the service of raising anything we have right now. Dennis, I hand raised. So, Dennis, you got something?
>> Yeah, I I I just wanted to um I don't know the number of days of operation. Is it six or seven days? But um >> seven days um and so I I'd like for someone to confirm that the amount of
water usage, if I did my math right, 10,796 times 365 days is almost 4 million gallons a year. Could someone confirm that for next time?
>> Yes, we'll concern. >> Thank you. All right, Jeff, you have your hand raised here for something. >> Yeah, I just want to make sure that the question of lots that this legal question that was being discussed, I just want to make sure that there's a
some whoever >> I want to make sure there's testimony at the next hearing to answer that question. whether it's the attorney providing that information as as a brief or or it could could be the planner's
testimony, but it it's I just want to make sure that that we have something on the record for that. >> We'll deal with that offline and then make sure we have an answer and or testimony at the next meeting. Jeff, >> thanks. >> Perfect. Thank you. Anybody else from the board have anything before we release?
>> I don't think so. Can I wait? Could I ask a question of Melissa regarding the environmental commission's review of the site? >> We muted at our last meeting. There should have been the landscape plan and were you satisfied with the quality of
trees? And >> we did review it. There should have been a report sent over. If it was not received, I can double check and see why it wasn't sent. >> I didn't get a quote from you guys.
>> Okay. >> You're you're all okay with the type of trees they've selected, that they were native New Jersey, blah blah blah blah. >> Uh with the trees, I believe we deferred to shade tree to confirm that they were the correct trees, but we were happy with the additional plantings,
especially the excessive Or is that the train? Did that fall under the planner or >> that name? >> Yeah. >> Oh, I'm sorry, John. You're right. It's think
>> or no. >> Yeah, I mean I figure that out >> especially no it's it's another municipal meeting and John is working on that case um but I I'll figure I'll figure that out
on my end. We'll figure it out on this end, too. >> Do you want to let us know? We'll say you're on the 14th right now, but if you want it all 28, either one. >> Yeah. Why don't Why don't we announce for the 14th and you guys will figure out what it is and uh >> Yep.
>> Yeah. >> He's like, "Come on, Tom. This has nothing to do with this. >> It's only two cases." >> I had one silly question. >> Okay. >> Sorry. I don't I remember us talking
about it um in December I vaguely um and since we've had that fun snowstorm um did we ever determine whether or not snow was being we they had permission where they would put snow. >> I think we had testimony in that regard.
>> Yeah, I couldn't I sorry I couldn't find it if I wrote it down. So >> you want to nail it right now. >> Yeah. So we had limited snow storage areas before. Now that we've increased this landscape area, specifically page north there, that would be the primary snow storage area >> on site.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And that was just to the north of just give me a >> uh north of the you could call it the entrance drive aisle. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. So we did we make a formal announcement carrying this to the
>> not yet longer with it north of the entrance. Okay. So the spark application will be adjourned to the board's next meeting of April 14th without any further notice. Um you've given us an extension from
June and we will chat about that issue. Yep. >> And uh anything else that needs to be addressed. Terrific. >> Thank you so much. >> All right, everybody. >> See you next time.
>> Thanks for hearing us out tonight. >> Almost never. >> What year did you graduate from? >> 98. >> Oh, we missed each other by >> Oh, you are.
>> Yeah. I know. All right. Couple of things. >> Great. Thanks, John. >> Thank you. >> Have you taken Have you had a flash or anything? Did you take >> file taxes? It's gonna happen. I know.
>> Leave it to the last minute. >> One of them. I'm one of them. already. >> Oh, lord. >> Yeah, he's good at it. Um, okay. Right. We'll move on to item 10 on the agenda. We do actually we have chair it today.
So, um, one thing that we have, um, which we're doing this way because I totally dropped the ball on, um, Worksville. Worksville came in last year and, um, then they were they had to wait
for a de approval and they had no idea how long that was going to be. So, we said, but we don't want to leave it to being an open-ended thing. have come back on the 24th of March which they remembered and
I did not. So they came back so they chatted to us um to car and I um and explained what the update was but they're still looking for more time which they thought maybe another two months they're waiting for the could
would you speak to it because maybe I'm remembering it. Yeah, I I think they wanted a month, >> but and I think they said they were going to, you know, update us in a month, come back or let us know they need more time, then we can update the board again. >> And I shed some light. >> Yeah, please. >> That property has a very limited
frontage of the flag lot. >> Um, not enough frontage to comply with DO's edge clearance inside a property line to build a driveway. >> Right. >> So, it's a it's a waiver. They're waiting on DOT to give them the waiver
to build their road, >> right? >> I'm gonna reach out and ask just for something in writing to the board saying you appeared on such and such a date. Here's the status. We'll check back in in a month and we'll let you know where we are. They have to renote this regardless. So, it's not an extension of
notice or hearing or anything. It's basically just we had said we've been carrying this now for seems like years. >> Are we going to withdraw it or are you going to proceed? So, I'll just get them to do something for the file. >> Yeah. So, just so that the board know they did.
They they they remember the date. Um they did not. So, well then they came along and that's what they told us. So, >> in the beginning they've approached us. Um Yeah. And so, we just said we would pass on the update that they gave us
through the board. Um we'll just wait until they tell us. Hopefully, it won't be too long. Yeah. >> They But again, they're waiting for DOT, so they can't do anything. Um, and then my second item I just want
to remember, um, it will now you need to think about there was I said two of you written that. Um, following on from our discussion about the HPC list last time, we needed one thing we agreed with that we were going to get a list together so that we could just approve those items
that don't need a public hearing. the changes of designation and then also we need to start to think about the a hearing for um that maybe we'll talk about it next time about what we're going to do because we have to decide whether we're going to do a joint
hearing how we're going to run the the specifically the one that needed we need to do a public hearing for the >> Union Hotel change and a few others you're right so I want to get that I don't want to >> I just got I don't want to forget that.
So, I think we need to like just think about putting that on agenda the discussion or how we're going to run it. >> Yeah, I'll reach out to John Hatch, Dennis and myself and uh traded some emails and I think gentlemen, Dennis, your view is John has a pretty good handle on what needs to be done. So, I
think we need to coordinate um for a hearing date, right, and preparation of the materials that the board will need to review and that we need to have on file in advance of that hearing, >> right? and make sure we notice it because there was something when we did the joint meeting last time as well that we had to do everybody had to notice and
make sure the people were notified with all that. We have to make sure all that's done correctly. Right. >> Correct. And I would I think that we'll have to coordinate with John Hatch on that. >> Right. So maybe you can report back at the next meeting. We can either do the letter for the rest of them because I
think you were going to pull we were going to pull a letter together somehow. Right. Well, I think after John reviewed it, it was pretty clear to him which ones needed to go to a public hearing, which didn't. I mean, do you want that for the words information or >> Well, I think what we talked about is the the ones that don't need the public
hearing, >> right? >> Just something formal from the board to say, "Yes, we agree that these are updated, you can put them on your website." I thought it was just good to have something >> over that take a look at it >> so that they're clear and it's
designated and then So, we've got a point of progress for the future. I think that would be good. >> I say that backward. >> Yes, it's not recorded. It didn't get done. >> There you go. >> Um, all right. So then the other All right. Does anybody else have any other chair items they'd like to raise? Being
as it's not even 10 o'clock yet. >> It's not a bad thing. >> I know. >> I just had a question. Cara, anything new with the circle sign? >> No. Nope. I can I can talk about that.
>> Yeah, that's >> an executive session. >> We can go into executive session if you want. >> The last time >> Do we want to do the bills and stuff first though and then do that? You want to do an executive session quickly for
that? Yeah, let's do that then. I'll move on to the bills then. Um, so these were these were distributed, right? Yeah, because I did I did this online. I did it online and um you've made a note of these but what I'm going to say for the record is um
purchase order 2600331 is a corsini purchase order so that's council and then 26 no it's um not the 126270 there's um it's your um invoice 8196 and
it seems to be best for it. So um I just thought we double check it all looks different online. So I just wanted to state that if anybody else caught any other bits let me know.
>> I'm sorry. Did you repeat the Corsini? Um >> it's uh 2600331 is related to Corsini. So I don't it's very it would be extremely rare that he would be um >> what was 819
>> I said 8196 was your see because I did it on now I wanted them now I've got a now it's all that's >> yeah that that should have gone to the governing body >> yeah that's the rest of them are PB I
made a note PB PB PB PB and then that one that 8196 numbered from you is council. >> Correct. >> So other than that, everything else is planning in that packet. I can figure it out. Anybody else catch anything?
>> So I we have a motion to audit the bills with that. Those are ours except for those two noted. Um >> I'll motion. >> Thank you, Hannah. And then can I get a second on that, please? >> I'll second.
>> Second. >> Melissa was first. Sorry. Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Miss Gifin. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes.
>> Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dashner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Apple. >> Yeah. Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. So, with that
being said, do we ever need to go into executive session, Ka? >> If we want do, yes. So, we're going to executive session to discuss potential litigation regarding the Bloomington Circle development. Um, we will not be taking any formal action during
executive session. Um, and we will not be returning to public unless anybody feels otherwise. >> No. Okay. >> No, we will close the We won't make Yeah. So, I do have one attendee that's um in. I'm going to let you know. Mr.
Peter Glennos, >> I have to bump you out. >> So, good night. >> We need a vote in a second. >> Oh, sorry. >> You go into executive session >> and not return to public. Yep. >> And not return to public.
>> I'll second. >> I second it. We need to do it. >> All in favor? >> I. >> It seems like very positive. >> All right, Peter, I'm going to drop you
off. Going to say thank you for joining us. See you next time hopefully. I've dropped him off. And I also have to one of the owners of the property. >> Oh, >> one of the three families. >> Stop the recording.
the majority the two to three I have to close it don't I >> interesting >> you have to lock the webinar >> yeah now remind me where that is >> the it's under participants >> um the bottom there
should be some dots >> under the p oh under the participant section the dots at the bottom oh gosh yeah I'm getting there I'm getting there under the panelists there it Lock webinar, right? Lock webinar. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. That's locked. And I have to
stop recording, too, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. All right. Stopping recording.