I can't hear you. >> That's it. >> Thank you. Yeah, >> the Tuesday August 26, 2025 meeting of the Flemington Planning Board of Adjustment. Um, in this inerson and virtual meeting
is called assurance of the provisions of the open public meetings act and electrate notice of this inerson and virtual meeting has been provided by way of publication in the Hun County Democrat and Coen newspapers on or about January 23rd, 2025 and January 19th,
2025. In addition, notice of the meeting was posted on the door of the B of Flemington Municipal Building located at 38 Park Avenue and any handcap accessible set to distributed posted on the municipal website provided to the municipal clerk and distribute to
all persons if any requesting copies are 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 for the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and a
quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must commend. All right. Please rise as you are able to flag United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation
and justice for all. Thank you. All right. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Campion >> here >> swing >> here. >> Mr.
>> Here >> Mr. here. >> Mr. Echo >> here >> you were taking a sip, but I know you're here. >> I'm here. >> Sorry. Apologize. >> All right. Um before we start with the
agenda, what I will say is we've got a lot on tonight. Um so we're going to got a lot to get through. We all have jobs to go through. So we're going to try and do this as um efficiently and quickly as we can. This I will warn council for
each that this board likes to discuss. So please allow us enough time to discuss your application. That fair enough. Um uh so item one on our agenda, public comments. Uh this is a period for people that comment on anything that was
not on the current agenda. Um so I'll ask anybody online to raise their hand on raise hand feature or in the room. Seeing none, we'll move on to item two, which is mayor comments, please. >> Yes. Item three, council comments.
>> Thank you. Um >> thank you. Um, item four HPC comments. I know Dennis has got a few things because we got lots of things through from him. You're not you're on mute, Dennis. You did my trick. >> Sorry. We had our meeting on the 20th
and um we had a record six reviews. Uh 3133 Broad Street porch modifications made a recommendation on the vertical steps. Seven Brown Street renovations was approved. 38 East Main Street, new fence
was approved. 214 Main Street, rear modifications was approved. 53 Church Street, porch exterior and windows refurbishment was approved. And 10 Kapner Street porch
refurbishment was approved. Um, and then the only other item I have, my understanding is Councilman Aras is going to present the CLG recommended ordinance change at the next council meeting. Some minor changes that we had
to do for Shipo and so, uh, that's going to be coming before the council. That's it for me. >> Thank you. That's good news to move along. Excellent. All right. Um, items five, professional reports. Um, attorney, you want to do something in
executive session? Maybe >> very briefly, depending on what time we're done, but I do have an update on the um the billboard discussed. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Clico, anything beyond what we have left? Thank you.
>> Um, Jay, where was Jay? >> He's in a different spot. And um Beth, one thing I was going to ask you about is at the last meeting the Lone Eagle seating. We said we had more document review to do.
>> I didn't see anything through and I felt bad. I I've been away. I didn't trace it up. >> They had a uh they they had a request to discuss uh outdoor seating. I received the site plan, I think, Bob, from your office, like their original site plan.
Yeah, the original site plan. Um, and so I think we have enough information to start conversation >> with them or are we going to discuss it here? Do we need to discuss here first and then go with them or >> I think it's I I think the board's uh decision, but it seems that this is an
issue that it's certainly specific to this use, but it really is uh I think it ought to be discussed a little bit more generally because Stangle is such a a unique general, >> right? So, well, look at adding that to the agenda.
Depends how it is. >> Yeah, maybe it's on the night. >> Yeah, as long as long as the current things that are on there are the only things on there, >> I'm thinking. Um, okay. >> Thank you. Anything else? >> No.
>> Excellent. All right. Look at this. Number six, approve travel minutes. finally >> got those final ones through March through from our conflict attorney um and pulled those together. So, I know it was last minute um people received them,
but hopefully everybody had a chance to have a look at them and see if it's been through Carla Car and I um all the different ones. We've been tweaking them over the months, but um we will finally be caught up after losing our secretary, but that's for March 25th, April 8th,
May 13th, June 24th, regular meeting minutes. Does anybody have any thing that they saw, spotted anything flying? >> Nothing. >> Okay. I make the motion to approve March 25, 2025. >> I know each one
second. >> Wait, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Poro, >> yes. >> Mr. Campion, >> yes. >> Miss Gen, >> yes. >> Miss Weissman, >> yes. Swingle, >> yes. >> Mr. Tro,
>> yes. >> Mr. Yes, >> Mr. D. >> Mr. Langer was excused from that. >> Thank you. >> No problem. Swingle. Um, echo and dash. >> So, Miss Swingle. >> Yeah.
>> Can we do show? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Next. Is that >> uh Mr. >> Yes. >> And then Josh? >> Mr. Y. a motion from April 8th.
I'll second that. >> It's actually at the top of the minutes. So, if we look at who's there and who is excused, >> I have it. >> Okay. >> So, mayor, you can you can motion and
>> sorry. Second. >> Yep, that's fine. And uh Mr. Dashna and Mr. Kane cannot vote. >> Mr. Mayor Hara, >> yes. Council Sara, >> yes. Mr. Camp. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Swingle. >> Yes. >> Uh, >> yes. >> What did you say? >> Cannot. >> No, he cannot. >> Okay. Mr. Schlanger. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Eckle. >> Yes.
>> Motion to approve May 13, 2025. Second. Okay. Mayor Carol. >> Yes. >> Councilomano. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Uh, Miss Gifin. >> Yes. >> Miss Whitesman.
>> Yes. >> Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Joe. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schwinger. >> Yes. >> Mr. Josh. abstain. Huh? >> Actually, he can't even he can't even vote because an abstension would be a
vote. So, he was was not there. So, he's >> Mr. Eckle. >> Uh, Mr. Eko is not there. We've got Hill and Mr. Hill's no longer here. So, Mr. Hay, >> Mr. Hay, >> yes. >> A motion to approve June 24, 2025. Sar,
>> yes. >> Councilor, yes. Mr. Campy, >> yes. He wasn't there. >> He wasn't there. >> Was not there. >> Miss Whitesman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Miss Swingle. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Swingler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Josh. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> I don't think I was. >> You can't. >> Yeah. That's it. There we go.
>> Up to date. >> We'll get those posted on the website. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Item seven is resolution 202512 at Captiva Main Street. Um, hold on.
I've got it right. Memorialization of the granting of the extension of the land. I'm like, I didn't see. Was it in there? No, no, no. Was it I missed the part about maintaining property? >> It's in there. Yep.
>> There's still not. >> It's there. Yep. There's a paragraph before. Okay. >> The last paragraph. Yep. Applicant must >> hear from there. >> Continue to maintain the property including but not limited to mowing and debris removal. And two, provide contact
information from the owner agent thereof the broke. >> Did they do that? They give you the name of the agent or who's taking care of the property because they still have not opened up that game. >> Well, okay. Well, there are conditions of this approval. So, once we approve it,
>> well, the word continue is because they aren't now. >> I guess. >> So, we can uh >> we must maintain the property inside and outside the fence. Right now, they're only mowing outside the fence and the majority of their property is inside the
fence. inside and outside. >> Okay. So, the motion would be to approve resolution 2025-12 subject to the change in condition number one to say must one maintain the property including but not limited to
mowing and debris removal inside and outside the house. >> Thank you. >> So, who made that motion? >> I second. >> Okay. Mayor Carol. >> Yes. Mr. Dman, >> yes.
>> Council, yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Swingle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes. >> Yes. That's it. >> That's it. That's it. Okay.
>> All right. I had a question. Do I need to send that to them when I find out? >> Yeah. Let me make the changes. I'll include the voting and the change in the language. I'll send it to you and either you can or I found it. >> Can Can I raise one other thing? The
signature line on there has my name. >> Thank you. I just >> And they gave the resolution. >> Sorry. >> I didn't want you to sign it. >> I'll jump to >> All right. So, let's move on to item
eight, public hearing. Um approval of oh gosh can't say what um this is for Flemington Circle realy LLC block 43 lot 9.01 on 33 highway 31. >> Um can I just check where you are there
is um all the notices um yes >> the um what's the word I'm looking for >> all right >> okay >> okay if we set up right here it appears the camera's facing this direction is
that the best place to stop >> cameras That camera on the top is going to catch you. And so camera. >> So where where do you recommend we set up a easel? >> Where's
somebody? Yeah, this I mean you >> I think the camera is facing >> as long as it as long as it needs to be so they can see it on that there. We're done. I have to put this around.
Do >> you have a thumb drive? >> I believe so. Oh, this is German. >> So, >> so we might have to share it through. >> This is password protected though. So, just let me password. >> Hopefully that work.
>> I think I can spell If not, we'll pivot rounds. >> Well, we better do the swearing in because that's why. >> So, I'll let him do his opening and then we'll swear everybody. >> Do you want to do your introduction?
First, are we swearing with the witnesses? >> Let them do their introductions. We'll put them on the record and I'll swear everybody in. >> Uh good evening, madam chair, uh mayor, uh board professionals, board, uh members. My name is Jeffrey Chen, law firm of Fox Rock out of CO office. Uh it's my pleasure this evening to
represent Flemington Circle Realy. Um and thank you for confirmed legal acceptable the jurisdiction here this evening. Um the applicant is owner of a property located at 3 highway 31, New Jersey, also known as block 43, lot
9.01, uh tax maps. Uh it's about 2.19 acres in size. Uh located at the HR Highway retail zone, uh which permits retail and food establishments. That's also what our intended tenants will be. Uh and a bit more about that professional this evening. Uh we're seeking a preliminary final site plan
approval this evening with bulk variance and design waiver relief. Um there are about 22,391 square foot uh retail um building. Uh we're proposing 113 spaces for parkings where 101 are required. Uh and we're proposing like I said a mix of
restaurants and retailers to fill the space. Um and just to highlight some of the bulk variances that uh we're requesting. Uh I don't I based on the reports that received from your professional uh I think my request would be to um either reaffirm uh or testify
to uh to permit the following fouris. So one is max ratio.20 permitted uh 0.25 currently existing two po sorry 0.259 259 currently existing and we're proposing 23. Uh so it's
actually reduction of the FAR uh variance that's currently on the property. Also there's a maximum pvious coverage uh bulk variance that we're seeking 70 permitted 81 uh is existing and we're proposing 79. Um in terms of signage bul variances we have two. Uh
one is maximum facade sign area 100 square feet is permitted. Currently we're proposing 396 square feet uh of signage. um and facade facing northeast and 201 ft of signage facing route 31 uh southeast. Uh and the other one would be
maximum facade sign height uh 4 ft is permitted and 18 ft is proposed uh for the front facade. Again, we'll demonstrate all this and show the board what we're discussing uh through the architect this evening. Um I believe the following signs are also requested. Uh laying requirements uh maximum vertical
elimination of 5 feet from adjacent property line of 0.1 foot candles permitted. Uh we're proposing 46 foot candles. Uh also maximum average of.9 foot candles within park general parking pedestrian areas permitted and we're proposing 1.18 foot candles. Um those
are the design wings and both variances that we have received this evening. Uh, with that being said, I'm happy to introduce my uh, applicant elders too. Um, and have them sworn in. >> Yes. Okay. So, everyone that's going to testify tonight, if you could just stand
and raise your right hand, then once you go to testify, you could put your name and information on the record. Do you have the testimony you're about to give us? Is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Yes. >> Wonderful. And really quickly, just for purposes of the record, I'm going to mark as PB1 uh I'm sorry, as A1, the
applicant's application and supporting documentation. A2 would be the notice and publication proofs. PB1 will be the board engineers report of August 23rd. PB2 will be the board planners report of
August 22nd. And PB3 will be the board traffic engineers report of August 25th. Y complet Yep. Thank you. Okay. So, before we proceed, um at the last hearing, the board uh voted to allow the board
engineer to make the determination as to whether all information that was required was for purposes of completion. Uh can you update the board on what was submitted uh so that they we can have version? Yeah, the uh first page my report goes through the doc additional documentation that was submitted the
action the board previously took the items that have been addressed by the revised submission and basically recommended that you do a my recommendation issue you would the application to be complete noting also there's two there was two temporary ward two items in here that was various
temporary waivers waivers that prior to the end of the application we need to decide whether you did that information or you could uh for that Okay. So, do we have a vote to deem the application complete subject to the two temporary waiverss that are outlined in
Bob's report? And those are for checklist items B, S, and T. Uh, and checklist items L, 11 D, 18, 19, 33 A, and 36.
adoption. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Council. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Gffing. >> Yes. >> Miss Swingle. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Schwinger. >> Yes. I think that's it. One more. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so my first witness this evening is uh Tori Bloom then uh from Dynamic Engineering. He's the civil
engineer. Uh like to get you know you could discuss Tori your exchange to greatest u professional licensing confirm San New Jersey. >> Can you just spell his name for the record? >> Sure. Uh, B I N G A M A N. >> Y
>> and your first name? >> R A T O R Y. >> Thank you. >> Good. >> Thank you. >> Um, so yes, I'm bachelor of science and civil engineering from Lafayette College. I've been working in the field of civil engineering on various commercial, retail, and residential
properties. >> No, sorry. redo the whole thing. >> I'm just talk >> I've been told that. Yes. >> Okay. Better. >> Yes. Can Can you confirm, Dennis? Dennis, have you confirmed that you can
hear this witness now? We put a >> Yes, I I actually could hear him fine before, but yes, everything's good. >> If we do use this recording though, so we want to make sure we thank you. >> So again, in case we didn't get picked
up, uh, bachelor of science in civil engineering from Lafayette College. Uh, been working in the field of civil engineering on various commercial, retail, uh, residential, industrial projects for approximately nine years. I'm a licensed professional in the state of New Jersey since 2022. Um I've been
previously accepted as an expert in the field uh multiple municipalities in the state. This is my first time appearing for this board tonight. Um and again that professional license number 58133 if uh needed I would ask the board accept him as a conser.
>> Does anybody have any questions objection? >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh, so and I guess the easiest way would be in the narrative. Could you help bring the forward to what's currently out there um showing aerial describing what we're
asking to improve on this property? Um, highlighting the key elements I think that we saw in the reports um, you know, traffic, parking, landscaping, lighting, storm water. Um, and uh, just take us through that. I think I think for the
public for anybody who watches this later on YouTube, this is colloquially known as the tax plaza. >> Yes, there we go. Yes. >> Uh so for this we marked this >> Michigan >> that was part of but was it in color? >> This is this is a colorized rendering of
the aerial map. Um it's uh titled Aeronomat exhibit >> it's today's date so I can mark it as >> Yep. Mark that as A3 please. That'll be the colorized uh version of the aerial map dated 8265.
So now that I have I'm just trying to get your No, that's >> except members of the public in the room have to also stand. So if we put up on the screen, it'll satisfy the remote participants. All right. Which file would you like me
to share? The point is there's five files here. Plaza one with one >> Davidson dynamic above. this unplug for a second
run and I will get this up on the screen. You don't want >> I will but uses this much more often than I >> have.
>> We're going to get the laptop. and see who it >> can wait or >> Yeah, we just >> Yeah, you can keep going. >> Okay. >> Um, so again referring to this exhibit here. Um, again oriented with the north
for the top of the plan. Uh what you're seeing is the property in question outlined in yellow with a 200 foot uh offset to you know demonstrate proximity to those adjacent uses. Um property is uh Jeff described is located at block 43
lot 9.01 uh at the address 3 route 31 here in the burough of Fington. Uh we are in the highway retail district. Um and the site is approximately 2.19 acres. Uh looking at some of these adjacent uses, uh to
the north we have uh commercial uh or rather uh a Wendy's drive-thru. To the north, um immediately across Route 31, uh we have a a building supply commercial user. Um to the southwest, obviously we have the Flemington Circle
itself uh uh to or southeast rather. Uh south uh we have a commercial professional office development uh and a second one towards the southwest. bottom. Then in the top northwest corner of the property, we have a uh existing
residential to the rear. Um in terms of uh you know the conformance uh in this existing condition, Jeff already notes some of the existing floor area ratios, but um and increased coverage uh relief that's going to be discussed further. But uh also want to
note at this point there are some front yard and rear yard sepac um variances uh which are going to be remaining unchangedly part of this uh application. Uh again the site itself is a uh former
uh dance uh shopping center. Uh the property, you know, is currently vacant uh you know, run down um and uh you know, is generally, you know, unckempt as as currently uh as currently
exist. Um in terms of drainage, uh site generally drains towards uh Ruth 31. There's an existing storm sewer easement uh toward the rear of the site which again brings uh drainage from that portion of the site uh to the north and
ultimately back into that uh DOT system. Uh in terms of prior approvals, this board uh approved back in 2004 uh some of these existing uh non-conformities and variances uh which we will discuss further. Uh there's no further questions
on the existing conditions to move on to uh the proposed improvements. Now my next thing we knew was titled uh this one uh is titled site plan rendering >> and also that was not done in color.
>> Correct. Correct. It's a colorized version of the da site plan. Yep. >> Site plan sheet >> four. Uh but this is dated uh 84. >> Thank you.
>> Can you just confirm what I got on screen is the right one? >> Uh yes. So again as uh as was mentioned the proposed use is uh essentially saying the same between the permitted uh retail service development uh site improvements
include uh improvements to site circulation as well as a renovation of the existing building. Uh we'll touch more on that as we go through. But in terms of the bulk requirements for the zoning um the majority of which are remaining unchanged with the exception
of those uh floor area ratio and impervious coverage uh requirements which uh were ex were existing nonconformities are being reduced in the proposed conditions. The application also closes multiple
signages. Uh again, we'll provide official testimony with the architectural uh the architectural presentation, but um in general, proposed signage uh for the proposed prem or freestanding monet
sign, which is to be located north driveway uh you know, is similar and complies with uh the town's uh freestanding signage requirements. Um proposed s the proposed facade signage um has multiple uh
signage is proposed one along the uh route 31 side uh which was a you know combination of all the tenants will be uh detailed further by the architect as well as individual tenant signages uh along the uh what be the north side of
the building uh facing the parking lot. Uh again we'll provide more information on that with the architectural. Uh in terms of access uh there are no changes to the existing access. Uh the north one uh located uh you know has
full movement off of uh route 31 and the lower uh north or southern rather uh is an exit only uh which goes on to the uh bypass lane. uh of the 202 civil.
Um in terms of internal circulation, um you know, there's some improvements which are uh reducing the overall impervious coverage on the site as well as some of the site circulation. um specifically in front of the building where we've reoriented and
widened some of the drive aisles uh to convert the existing angles to perpendicular spaces which allow us to uh provide some additional uh parking for that that front portion of the site. Um for the rear again, we've consolidated some of the existing um
landscape islands and and concrete pads that were out there to provide uh a more uniform uh uh maintenance and access corridor in the back for uh employees and as well as a loading space uh which
complies with uh the bur requirements. Uh in terms of parking requirements, uh the current tenant mix uh as currently contemplated requires 101 spaces uh while this plan provides 113. So therefore, we're in compliance with uh
parking requirements. Um we also are proposing four electrical vehicle spaces which would uh provide uh additional four vehicle credit uh parking credit um the state requirements. Uh there's some restructuring involved as
well for ADA spaces uh to provide five spaces which uh meets the ADA requirements for that. Uh we have a uh trash enclosure located in the southwest corner of the property as
well. Um it's uh 2x 20, so anticipating having two uh dumpsters with that with pickups uh roughly three to four times a week. Um landscaping is provided uh intent to comply with uh the township
requirements. Uh this includes additional plantings along the frontage to attempt to screen that uh that front yard parking which is another existing nonconformity. Uh so you know what you're seeing here is uh you know multiple street trees as well as uh some
shrubs planting there to again provide screen there along the frontage between uh that parking and route 31. Um again we've supplemented some additional plantings uh in the interior parking islands as well as uh you know along the front of the building giving that uh a
refresh as well. Uh site lighting again uh is brought in compliance with the noted uh design waiverss uh for the uh property line and uh
sorry one second and the general pedestrian scenario. So the reason for the general pedestrian uh lighting requirement is uh that we are also satisfying the parking area requirement because of the uh you know proximity of those parking and
pedestrian areas to one another. It's not really a way that we can separate the two to uh you know make that fully compliant but uh we are we are compliant with the general parking requirement uh for lighting standards. Uh so this design incorporates four additional
lights uh the reflement of one uh existing pole which is uh fallen over um the remaining existing lights. We'll have the heads replaced uh to have a consistent light across the site. Um as well as uh proposing uh three new wall
packs along the rear of the property. Uh there's a cross access proposed um which is consistent with uh our requirements um on the rear of the property um which will provide access to lot 8 um
immediately to the uh west. Um this is you know what we felt was the most well suited spot. um you know in the event that you know a future development would want to promote that cross access uh between the two properties uh the
adjacent properties to the south and to the north are not as well suited for cross access uh to the south were uh you know balancing grade differential there's an existing timber grading wall or retaining wall uh it's roughly two to three feet in height uh which would make
you know the crossaxis there uh U similarly for the use to the north uh we have that existing drive-thru and bypass lane associated with the Wendy's drive-thru um which again we wouldn't want to be introducing traffic into those uh into those elements and there's
significant breeding difference between that property and ours correct there's a there's a great differential for that as well but overall the design intent is you know intended to meet the uh you know improve
the site. Obviously it's in uh a state of uh disrepair right now. Um and generally just looking to improve those circulation elements and you know enhance the the visual aspect. Uh some of the other items we have left, storm
water uh our office prepared a storm water management report which addresses uh the burough requirements for impervious coverage uh for developments over 2,000 square feet to provide uh
drainage uh design that meets the major development uh requirements um of the federal ordinance. Uh the report provided uh uses nonstructural strategies which in this case are the uh
reduction in imperous coverage and these meal planning as well um that provide uh the ability to reduce overall runoff rates and runoff volume uh below what's there now uh which is uh complies with
major development requirements. uh utilities for the site. Uh we have will service from the uh Burough Water and Sewer Department. Um for the water, we have a proposed 8 in fire service which will be located
off the southern driveway. Uh we have a meter enclosure proposed um with backflow preer and appropriate apparatus. Um we'll work with the sewers utility department uh for any necessary uh approvals associated with those
connections. Uh in terms of sewer uh new services will be provided for the new tenants um which will connect to an existing sewer main which runs along the rear of the property. Uh in terms of remaining outside agency approvals, our office uh received
waiverss from Hunter County as well as the soil conservation district uh for the uh limited disturbance associated with this project. >> Did you get anything from DOT? >> Yes. and do team received a letter of no
interest um for the development as there's no change in the uh anticip retail to retail. >> Can you just confirm apologies fire truck access location hyphens or are there any issues with uh turntables with
fire emergency vehicles on site? Uh now our office submitted um emergency vehicle circulation. So fire truck was run through the property and determined that it could move it through um proposed changes to the uh permitting
without any issues. Uh as well as uh you know running circulation for uh trash truck as well to confirm no issues with uh pickup and uh exiting the site. I have the summary variances again um
those existing nonformities that we noted and u signage uh which again just described >> yeah we'll describe that further with architect but I know they further direct our engineer uh I don't know they work professional professions we're happy to go through the bank report David August
help out as well >> just one clarification you said you had proven from the salt conservation district and you said we had water approval. >> We have those are records cuz I never got copies of >> uh I nearly misspoke there. We have world service from
>> file service. >> We don't call them serves anymore. They're temporary reservations. >> I think you said you had a waiver from soil conservation, right? A letter of no interest. And I have county soil conservation and do both of those.
>> Does the girl have copies that? >> We submitted copies of the uh county and s uh the learning was received July 25th. So may not have been resitted.
Make that >> Yeah. We'll um proceed because then we'll go to our professional who has questions for you and then question. >> I don't know that I have any questions. There's some comments in my report that
we could address or they can be done. >> Okay. include their comments if so there are a couple items in my report beginning on page uh page six section four there are a few inconsistencies I
identified which if uh it seems that they could be addressed as a condition of approval um although I'm interested if there's any feedback on uh correct figures one of them is addressing sign so that looks a better direct architect. The other one
is in regard to maybe disputed too, but it uh uh addresses the uh the acro area versus the interior floor area and so what the floor item 4.3 and 4.4 I had a handful of
comments regarding the landscape plans and lighting plan. >> Right. So for the uh we can comply with the requirements I guess for the parking buffer would be the uh
to your office. I mean we did provide the plantings along the uh frontage there uh for that buffering uh related to the uh that requirement for the front yard and the front parking. I'm looking at item 3.9 B.
>> Oh, take a look. I'm sorry. I I'd like to direct your attention to item uh item 4.3. So section three identifies items uh in terms of their compliance with the burough code but section 4.3 in terms of
landscape requ uh addresses recommendations. I have >> no we have no issues with the recommendations. >> Okay. And for the lighting plan as well. >> Yeah, we will uh confirm and uh address. >> Great. uh I had raised the issue in uh
item 4.5 in regard to the planting areas or maybe landscape islands however you want to refer to them along the southern property line which is essentially the rear of the building there these two I don't know triangular areas sort of slivers one holds the trash
>> uh enclosure and I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to connect those so that there's a more regular uh passageway for or carway for vehicles that are >> so >> yes >> for the board's reference uh she's
referring to this portion of wall this existing retaining wall um then we have no issue looking to provide some additional landscaping there >> item 4.6 six addressed the cross access easements and I recognize that you're providing both the cross access easement
to the west and I heard the testimony in regards to the south and the north. Um with the south I I believe the concern is the grade change in that area and to the north it is the presence of the Wendy's drive-thru and and I think to a to a lesser extent a grade change in the
drain. in terms of connection to the to the Wendy's parking lot. What I'd offer is I'm not recommending that there be uh connection between the parking lots at this time. So, the vehicles from this uh shopping center are going to uh enter into the drive-thru. It's in the event
that the Wendy's maybe redevelop or something that's not able to drive through at least in that area, there may be an opportunity to connect the lots to give whether it's pedestrians or also uh vehicles the opportunity to access the neighboring site without having to go up
the highway. Uh and so I wanted to raise that for the board's consideration for the applicants reconsideration about connecting to the north and and also to the south in the event that the site the plaza one presumably is redeveloped and and of course the grading uh is
redesigned to accommodate access we have two quick wave differential. So are we only talking about the front? >> I think they should be taken separately. >> Okay. So I mean Tori is the engineer. Do you want to address the first couple? Uh
Wendy's and where the >> right I mean there's a handful of incidents existing already. Um and we have to confirm any restrictions associated with those. Obviously to the rear again we worry about losing parking and that's
>> right that would be other concern right now we have we have additional parking on site but obviously with this tenant uh if we afford ourselves that flexibility here uh we've got again uh
you know reducing this buffering back here or sacrificing part of it um you know we're also conscious of the residential you users off on this northwest corner. So, uh and then again, as we move further to
the east, that's when we start to get really into the uh proximity toward that drive-thru. So, um you know, fall from stand point accomplished, you know, sacrifices parking and uh you know, again
with that uh that drive through, >> you know, I'll defer to the board. I I would just note that um you've got I think not less than 12 additional parking spaces and what's necessary given the current tenant next although I recognize that your tenants may change
over over time and I think the access you would probably lose perhaps three parking spaces as a result. Um and so I'll defer to the board. It's it's it's a recommendation of mine just to try to connect these parking lots. Uh it's a it's a long-term goal, but I think the
the board can weigh the testimony for the south access. I do understand the concern in regards to the grade change. And I admittedly, I will say I think that's less likely to occur because you would need a significant redevelop such redevelopment such that the grade is uh
is altered between the two properties. Um but to the north, it seems that there might be an opportunity in the future. I mean the board they can certainly respond trying to accommodate just it's we like to I really would like to preserve as many spots as possible for
the client to determine their tenant mix. Um it's just something that from a business perspective we want to have that flexibility and we don't necessarily know who the tenant will be and how their parking demands will be. You know obviously as you saw the reports we had to adhere to those spaces
um what are we having discuss >> we don't have to discuss >> but can I ask a question on this so it appears on the >> this if which is what I have on the screen it does appear that there is a
proposed 25 foot vehicular crossaxis eastment there on the left side right >> that's for the west >> for the west right so that's so That's that is just shy of three spots wide, right? Are you counting those three spots in your calculation? >> We are currently.
>> Okay. So, what I I think that I think I'm question time. Sorry. Is it possible to if you're to keep your count of parking spots to propose a similar kind of reservation um on the Wendy's line
your future cross access that would not impact your your parking spots would allow a future thing to happen if the tenant mix was sufficient. Okay. So if it's possible we could
we could try to fit something right here. >> I don't want to take away space but to that >> no but but but I I'm asking the can you >> without removing vegetation
>> allowing your ability to continue to count those spots as you are on the one on the west side. Is there something that would make sense from circulation perspective that in the future were there not a drive-thru where we didn't have that heating vehicular that we could in the future if there's another
use there like I don't know a LE shopping center I something um >> okay we'll we'll discuss it a little more uh if it's really the board's detention I'm sure we can accommodate it just I just wanted to make sure the record we we did give careful thought to
this and wasn't you know that's why we didn't have any issue that one or this one has obviously more significant engineering. So it's not that we're trying to be we'd want to work with town. We want to invest, right? But it's just I'm trying to preserve the amount of spaces because we are counting
113 with these three being could be income. We're down to 110. So all three I keep inching closer to the middle. But all right, we're happy to revisit this. Um you appropriate. >> I'm sorry.
>> That's ahead. Uh >> uh I think items 4.7 of which is in regard to science 4.8 is in regard to rooftop equipment. I suspect that's for your architect. >> Correct. >> And so the last three items that I think may be relevant is uh just simply
coloring the trash enclosure with something that a color that's consistent or complimentary to the building providing a detail of the fence and details of the EV chargers. Uh and those would all be conditions. Great. >> Okay.
just a couple. Um, if we're going to go through the uh board's reports just to kind of move it along. If there's if you're willing to do all of the recommendations, you can certainly just say we're willing to comply with all the recommendations. If there are certain ones that you're not, we can just focus on those and that way
it'll make it easy for record board. >> Sure. Um the so the 113 parking spaces that includes the four EV credits or that would go up to 1 cent correct. >> Okay. >> And just so I understand the cross
access because one of the things I was going to put in here was that you'd have to submit a cross access fees for the core professionals review but is that since you're including those three spaces in the 113 you're not really proposing the easement right now. But I
want I think it's whatever vehicle that you guys deem appropriate, we're okay with signing saying when there's an opportunity when this block to the west gets redeveloped, we will accommodate uh you know cross access located in this area.
>> Got it. That's fine. Um >> doing questions on testimony. >> Yeah. Um just could off one I thought of um in my report I noted that you had mentioned as part of your testimony that the site has 81% impervious coverage dropping to
79. Have you found anything in the record as to how you got to 81% as part of a prior approval because the documents at least the ones I would believe that you submitted >> would seem the last approval of 88 was 64%. >> Right. So we did find I think we have a
copy of it but the preliminary approval from that 2004 application noted u 77 uh% of previous coverage um since then there's been uh various DOT improvements as well as a taking uh that I don't
think was reflected on that those plans at that time are the increase in in percentages you cause DOT to plan >> relative for Dr. That's one of the things board's going to have to do. They're they're currently over. I mean, there's two issues here. they're
currently over the 70% allowed and I'd like to figure out for the record how we got there and they're slight they're indicating they're slightly reducing that and then there's the alternative issue of the uh section or is 27 36 um
about under storm water issues reducing much less unless you do storm water which essentially well we'll get into that discussion but this report I'm indicating effectively or not or at least the matter of discussion where >> the you know the percentage was of the
improve coverage prior to the DOT taking7 uh I don't have one >> so it was 77% at the time of the taking >> land up to 81% >> uh that's correct
>> have you say that it went from 64% to 7% >> there was a uh slang board application in 2004 um for the addition to the rear that that tiny unit on the back u and part of that
>> so that unit includes like California >> yeah the California application so uh I can pass this over but u not say max coverage trust
uh 76.9 uh where 70 is allowed. >> Was that prior to or after the DOT tech? I believe it's prior to based on the areas that were represent part of the documents you sub it should because we submit all past
resolutions and we can certainly get you >> wellend again I just think we need obviously prior apps here some go back quite a >> and I never thought of the issue if the D can't do So that would certainly have
affect but you know at some point I to any extent to you even grant on the 50% issue you do have the zoning issue and it would be good to just recognize what if you can if you think we need damage relief for pre pre-existing non-performing condition um they're
really two separate issues. So we're going to go through your report separately now because my one of my questions was the testimony was that they were going to comply with everything involved with but is that the testimony? >> So if to can you take us take the board
through what the everything that we cannot comply with or that you want to comment upon the things that you do not comment upon we may >> right that's best way. Yep. >> So with that being said, this is the report dated August 23rd, 2025 report
August 23rd. You can go through that tell us which you >> cannot or you feel that you >> go. So I'm looking on page three item one related to the for ratio of various coverages. I think about you know that
prior approval will uh clarify the uh how we got to that existing conformity. Um not that we go through here. >> You said that was 1 a or 1. >> Uh that would be one a
>> and yeah the size variance will be discussed. Just tell me what number it that would be 1 C itself that um storm water we've already outlined
our our approach this is too big this is too big so again the storms on the report that was submitted u you know basically outlines how you know what would be for non-structural strategy or low impact
development. Uh we're reducing the impervious coverage and we'll actually be reducing it further by the addition of those uh additional landscape areas uh that were requested by the planner. >> So you're standing by what you submitted as something in support of compliance
with that section 2730 remember 2736 >> 263 2637. based on our interpretation the the requirements for a major development u you know we meet those quantity and quality uh requirements by function of
the reduction of impervious which reduces both the volume and the rate of runoff >> right well I think there's nine if you're going to stay with that position and then I think we need to go again this is as indicated in my report um I'm p this is the first time I recall an applicant utilizing that one of that
options to address that particular section and he gets into a lot of nuance as opposed to just physically doing something to improve water quality or reduce uh uh the volume on the site. It's it's it's an analysis. I'm not even sure if that analysis in the current
that used to be in the old version of the storm water rules. I'm not sure it's in there at least verbatim because when we did that, we pulled that right out of the storm water, but I don't think that I'm pretty sure that's not even in the current version. But going through that uh you you need to properly list all the
various strategies. In terms of strategy number two, we talk about minimizing imperial service and break up with disconnected flow. Your response will be just related to reducing impurbating you have no option to break up or
disconnect flow on this site. Again, I'm trying to I'm I'm offering this only in the context of some of the other options instead of a curve having a swale along the edge um or the impervious pavement or became necessary for dry wells or
something like that. It's a two-part thing. You really only responded to the one part. It would seem to me I'm I'm not I'm not arguing that you've done given the nature of the site you've done what you can to reduce impervious coverage but I don't I don't
know you've made any attempt to break up or disconnect fall in a similar issue um related to that would be item four which was minimize the decrease uh in climate concentration which would be related to that uh and seven
introduction of low well maintenance landscape which may or may not be related to that. More importantly, I the providing some sort of a vegetative open channel conveyance system. It just it just strikes me there's some feasy things you could do
>> uh that would would go to that uh to that particular point. You know, if you're going to rely on those nine strategy, I think you have to hit the target on all of them. um and in which case I think hitting the target on the fund some of them I think would require doing
something more positive again thing I was going to defer to board since we haven't had this discussion before this is sort of an analytical response that first item um and obviously if this was a vacant site you
were building it today you would have all kinds of storm water facilities out there but it's not I mean it's a developed site and the whole and it doesn't fall under the uh stormwater regulations because it does fall rise to the level of a a major project. So
they're not obligated to meet the storm water obviously. Um but that other section I always thought was put in there as sort of a bit of a catchall on somewhat smaller projects sort of do something uh approach or reduce your
coverage down by 1% and we'll call that doing something. But obviously they don't have the ability to do that. Um so they they do something to some of the other items that again they're in the orities go out there. So I mean I think
it was we would we would review that I think you know uh some kind of bio retention either a swell or rain garden I think in one of these landscape areas you know in that in that kind of center island. uh you know we we can look into it I think from people to provide that or develop
>> you inclined to stay away from board's payment. Yes, just from a maintenance perspective. >> Sit down. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Sorry. Administration. >> Yeah, that's when you come to
>> Okay. So if you go through my report then if there are some things in the report I mean Storm you could possibly do. >> Yeah I think we can we can look into it. >> We're going through the report. Let's let's try to focus on what those items
might be. So thank you for that. >> Can I just ask on that? I know you just spoke for and so this these they don't these are things that they could do. They don't have to. That's under the
regulations. Is that right? That >> Yeah, I think maybe maybe if we look at and maybe I'm wrong. You tell me if I'm wrong, but if you look at page six of report >> um so we said this doesn't come under the state storm water management rules.
It comes under the burrows. >> And if we look at their three options for what they can do in order to get relief or comply with section 2637 of our ordinance, they can do one of those three things. We're suggesting I'm
suggesting not the I'm suggesting there are I think those are three options follow. Okay. They chose option one under the ordinance which was to do the analytical response and say we check off all the boxes go we met
that section go we're entitled to something we're not required to do the 20% reduction. Again it's a little bit odd here because you already have a site that's over your allowable >> and what the ordinance would say is you
have to be 20% below your allowable. So they're at the allowable is 70. This section of the ordinance would say you got to reduce it to 50 unless >> you can hit the targets on either some of these other categories. >> In this particular case, they're already
over that >> presumably by prior approvals or taking land or whatever. Um so um we're working on the I think very legitimate assumption based on what they just said that what's there today is there legally
u by taking of a land by a higher agency which reduced the land which didn't you know increase the percentage of purchase covers on the land that was left over uh and the um and uh and and the uh and and trying to deal with this other this
other provision of the order. And the employee was basically saying that they could provide some rain gardens. So that would be provide one or more >> specific talk a little bit more in detail just so we get a better sense of exactly what they would do. But that would sort of fall into the category of
um >> uh no 14. Uh yeah um 13 C uh number 3B at the bottom. I mean these along the lines of you know bio retention along the lines
but they stay those are straight and we can discuss these one by one and see if any of them are feasible. Um >> I guess what I'm just saying is it would be again if we go look at 13 A, B and C as you've easily outlined what their three options are. They're not going to
be able to do A because they can't get an under 50. They can do B in certain situations which would be something like the garden that they're position is they did B by doing the analytical approach. I'm questioning that if they did that
if they check all the boxes off they really qualify for that. And again I was throwing that out to the board because we haven't seen an applicant that just come in for that. Um >> and ultimately if they can't do anything then they could get relief from this board from those particular provisions. >> I think yeah I mean underlying this they
could always you know seek relief from the 20% reductions >> because the analytically they did that modeling so they can prove to us. >> Yes I think if if we're going to rely on that then I think we should go through the report and know what discuss each
one what it is. Did you really hit the target or is there something else you could have done? Um, again, >> it's a little it's a little bit of unknown turf here because no one no applicants ever tried to do that before. So, there's no history on on trying to
do that. Adam, >> regulations. I >> just want to be clear that we are our our initial position I think still remains is that we are complying with 2637. We have it's an or it's A, B, is A or B or C. Our position is that we
satisfy B. But in light of the comments from Mr. Perico, we're trying to see if we can offer additional accommodation right here. I mean, you can just >> I just have to theoretically argue all wrong. >> We can all walk away and let the
engineers do it. >> They're not seeking not seeking relief. >> They're not they're not seeking to do something. >> They're not seeking relief up to this point. They're trying to say we are doing it by choosing you. We gave them a we gave them a multiple choice,
>> right? >> And they chose an item that again we haven't seen before. And like I said, we're we're trying that was an analytical approach. We're trying to assess whether they really whether they hit the targets. >> The detail of how we
do >> we want to go again what I've heard again. >> I don't know if we're there yet. Perhaps quite sure >> they could elaborate some more but some I think I'm not experienced this they
weren't very you weren't very specific exactly what you were doing um but you know one of the suggestions of eliminate the curve along those the low side of those things and put some sort of a vegetative filter strip in. Is that along the lines of what you were thinking? >> That would be right out of the
ordinance. Uh that would be item um >> that's item eight in in the in the checklist thing that they did. But in terms of the ordinance we have that provision I listed under um under number 3B under number 15 the vegetative filter strips along the edge of the space is
listed above on the south side of the uh and along the exit loading area at the rear of the bill. Um but >> if that's something they could do then then they would then then they could present this. Oh we we chose that option we did that and again I think you have
to recognize and it's very difficult on this site to do a lot. So is that is that testimony you're proposing to which which item from with the CL codes from the well you're saying it's a possibility that you would look at or
you definitely going to do is that where we are at the moment >> 3B 3 some maybe not in that location but we'll work with with
the bro sanction area um public >> and the testimony is that you're not interested in doing paper because of maintenance concerns and dry wells is not something that you're considering but some sort of vegetative filter
position to be looked at or like is I'm reading that's what I'm hearing right >> you work like as a condition if assuming this gets approved as a condition approval work with your board your engineer to find a suitable solution uh consistent with section 3 baits. Uh
right now I think we would need a little more detailed engineering I think to to make the final commitment but I think we're confident we will find a suitable location utilizing the uh vegetative filter strips or something something that would satisfy your engineer and if that was your your the board
>> that so we can put that as a condition. Are you ruling out who suggestions I have or are you just saying you need them thinking about it? >> We would need to do the analysis. >> I mean, we we it requires some more additional time uh to try to make sure it's hard. The answer is we will make full commitment
to I'm sure we will find a solution with your engineer. Uh that'll be acceptable. Assume the board's okay with that. It's more of an administrative discussion um and decision- making. Uh I defer with the board to say that's okay. >> Well, we can discuss
That's appropriate point but it could be a condition. >> Yes. Correct. >> Can't go off about that. Okay. Was um moving with the rest were there others that you're not going through that you're not prepared to discuss and work
with. Let me just make sure. >> Okay. All right. >> Bob, did you want to raise any of those things at this point or is that >> No, there's some other things in there I
think that um require some discussion. Um, >> okay. >> The um item 19 only because the board hadn't seen this before. I mean, I've seen these in other municipalities, but I don't think I've seen one lington yet. Maybe you could describe uh on item 19
exactly what you're what we're doing there. >> Right. So, what's being proposed right now is for the proposed fire service. So, uh the architect will discuss more, but currently the building doesn't have any fire protection. So, we're proposing a
new 8 inch service um off of the main which runs along the frontage on Route 31. Uh and part of those service connections either require backflow provider and other uh mechanical purchases u typically house within an above ground enclosure beated enclosure
so that they don't freeze and run the risk of uh you know cracking and having leaks. Uh what the board needs to kind of put to put it into perspective and again we I I've seen these in other municipalities but I haven't seen one fly it hasn't
come up before yet but you're talking about an above ground structure across the size of your das >> um that would be four or five I think it scales about five six feet deep that would be how high would you say? >> Uh the ones I've seen are like six seven
eight feet high. >> Uh it depends. I mean, this is just this is just be a fire service, so there's not multiple lines in it. So, it might be slightly smaller than that, but uh >> where is that located on the front? >> It's located right back down here that
that rear ax >> in the front yard. >> Uh that would be >> the yard of Jason. I did see that. >> And is it within the set side setback? >> Yes. Yes. >> It's in the front yard setback.
>> It's just, you know, aluminum or or steel enclosure that >> I'm sorry, I'm asking a question. I'm sorry. >> Does it is it is is it close? Is it too close to the to the side? Was it is it conforming to the side door and front yard set back? It's not conforming.
>> Well, again, you're going to have to you're going to have to start dealing with this from a zoning perspective. Usually these things are all subsurface. Um if you don't even say it, but I'm not sure if this is a trends going to anyway, but many municipalities and water companies have gone to this. Uh it
avoids the whole, you know, um below ground access and whatnot. So um but it does risk raising some zoning questions as to what exactly are these things and do you have to treat it with some sort of, you know, are they some sort of an accessory structure of some sort? I mean
does this all the time. Usually the hot boxes are included. Yeah. Are included in the front yard setback. So they're cued as accessory structures and we do front yard setback variances for those. That's why I wasn't sure if it was front and sides. >> Um but you know certainly we should
include it as relief that's necessary. Just there >> was the alternative is that this this stuff has to go inside the building and I thought that takes up space inside the building. more likely it has to go underground. >> Yeah. And I don't even know because what I my understanding and this is you know
more your areas but uh that's where they're being required to be located in that fashion. So even if you required or the applicant preferred it to be underground they're not letting that happen. >> So it's a question where do you put it and do you how do you from a zoning perspective how do you start treating
it? Do you do you have an accessory structure setback criteria? you do need it. If you don't, it's considered, you know, a regular structure. You got you're going to need to find a way to deal with it because this is the first one you're seeing, but
I'm sure you're going to see more of them to come in the future of this plan right now. The size is not really identified, is it? >> No. And we don't And just for so folks know, our ordinance doesn't differentiate between maybe a utility
accessory structure or a a shed. >> So, it's something accessory principles. >> Stupid question. If this is an accessory structure that's being added, >> I categorize, you know,
>> if if one were to interpret this as accessory structure, does that at all impact any of the other calculations or relief that they're seeking? It's not because because the rest of the application was that they weren't building anything new
>> and that it doesn't trigger >> storm water. It doesn't trigger >> I don't think it it triggers necessarily. It's it's not that it's not that >> from the area perspective. Again, I put in my report only because it's not
dimension. I just scaled it. The question is no dimensions because if you said it's it might be 8 foot tall that's >> Bob is this a requirement by the department of community affairs for fire >> I well water department >> they're indicating fire protection is something they need to do with the
building apparently they're getting direction from the burrow that we don't want this stuff underground anymore we want it above ground >> in a structure >> the fire >> water company demands it they give you the details on
how it's laid out. >> You follow. >> That's not my my question is is this to the engineer >> is this a requirement to put fires precedence building at this point? >> Yes. >> So we have to do it.
>> It's on a question to do. I agree. Norm I just want to make sure how we're calculating and understanding if they because because if this is a structure they're going to need additional relief. house. >> Yeah. The accessory buildings for retail and service uses are prohibited in the front yard, 15 feet for the for the
sideyard. And this structure is in the front yard and it's uh maybe five or so feet off the not even a couple feet off of the side. >> Is that where could be? So you're gonna have to look at then as far you have to
look at the plans and you have to look at is there a place you could put this >> company >> that's >> that's my working on the private side that's my >> I think the utility company is dictating
they have one I don't know they put it in you know right on the >> property So just a clarification >> let's circle this back. Okay. So we've had we've got a couple questions. So first of all we've determined that this is an accessory. We've determined that there are setback
requirements for this. It cannot be in the front yard. So that would be another piece of relief. It has to be x amount of feet from the sideyard which it doesn't meet. So that's another piece of relief. Uh mayor, you had a question about requirements or where it has to be located.
>> No, my question was whether it was fired at all. Fire suppression. You got the answer that. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It was my question about whether it could be located elsewhere to help with the setback issue. >> Can we respond to that question about where the location is to go? >> Right. So the location's really kind of
also dictated by what the water purveyor is going to require. So typically they want it within so many ft of the right of way that they don't have to get access all the way to the rear of the site to >> which 31 in this situation. Correct. >> Have you actually presented this to the water department yet?
>> I know you filed a um this >> and and I'll tell you that again my private experience you can locate it where you think they're going to locate it. you can do your best to figure that out. But when they come out and they put it where it is, I've had clients that have had to go back for amended approvals because where they actually
put it was closer within the setback than what was approved by the board. So you're really subject to fair yeah to to what they do and sometimes they even >> do it without you even knowing >> which be helpful to pass an input on the water requirement.
>> That doesn't it's not always easy because they won't always do that until you have an approval. >> That's part of the problem. It's a chicken and the egg had a situation. >> It's hard. >> So, so hold on. So, so if if this is an accessory structure and it it's going to
need relief from both the pro prohibition in the front yard and the setback for the sideyard and the ordinance has to put a number in I'm sorry. Any resolution would have to have a number in it and the thing may move. Is that what I'm getting? So they're going to have to come back
for an amendment to >> unless we say no closer than and put a buffer in >> based on experience as to you know they'll never put it any closer than 2 feet or something along those lines and I don't know what that is and I'm not providing testimony. I'm just saying I'm
trying to reconcile the two because I've seen it happen and it's problematic >> because if approvals were given that we would kind of want them to have what they need and not have to come back, right? >> Agreed. Agreed. I mean, I think >> to approve something we don't know what it is.
>> Well, I think it's it has to be certain proximity to the water line which is it's on room 31. So, we have limited space that's outside of the parking area. It wouldn't be across the Wendy's property line. So, not there. The most logical location we believe would be
along that retaining wall area. Um if if we're so inclined to approve it, I think it would be helpful if your counselor says maybe not more than x feet to the front yard and almost like shading a box for us to work within the front yard. It's
prohibited entirely. So that's really relief. You're going to allow it in the front yard, >> right? >> Um it's the sideyard that's the issue >> and it's very close to the property line >> which which is a a wooden retaining wall with two to three feet in height. >> Correct. So there, yes, you have parking
there, but there's nothing adjacent. There's no landscape or anything like that on this uh I guess which grassy median area perhaps. >> And I think that that location that they proposed at least in that area is perhaps is, you know, for uh options that are
close to Route 31. It's probably the least visible portion of the site. you know, it's next to the secondary entrance. It's got some trees not in front of it, but to the side of it just to sort of filter the view of it. >> Right. Well, will there be restricted on
those because if they if there has to be access all around this box >> I don't know that they can plant shrubs all the all but my only point is it could be I guess it could be in a worse location be much more visible from building the other
right. Okay. back. Make notes. >> Making notes. >> And my notice does have a car catch all. So, uh any variances that come up if that's a question, people are happy in the back of their head. I did offer that two lines in there to make sure in event of the situation, >> I always make sure it's there. Correct.
Don't worry about it. >> Just making sure. >> Big list. >> Yes. >> Two other ones related that we should probably just talk about in nine and 10. uh nyling indicated that if we're going to do limited amounts of base um
reconstruction had to be a minimum of 6 to 8 ft wide but in the alternative I said given if you did that what you're going to have left over of trying to preserve it just pavement is going to be next to nothing and just take it all so you're going to go yeah okay >> okay so >> 12 n
>> no they're going to nine was an alternative to what they were proposing 10 is a sort of clean the slate and do it correct kind So they're going to detect detect. >> Yes. I'm trying to check off as many things here so it's not left to me to figure
out after the votes what what are you improved I'm going to um any questions from the board while you going through so let's start Stop. At this point,
>> uh, just a general question on the dumpster closure. You said you're going to have food stuff. Is is there like separated food waste recycling or is it because I think you said two of them and if there's different retails
in there for food waste and then where the is that in relation to like a storm drain? I think when we did five guys, we had they had to do something specific. >> Um that would ultimately be up to the the uh tenants and the the landlord on
how those operations work, but separate those uh you know they indicated you know payoffs multiple times a week. So I think you don't have to make concern about any you know food waste or or debris or or leakage. You know it's the fat frequency you know beable concern
>> because I I know when the five guys died when they had the they had oil drums that were outside of the enclosure. So something had >> people complained about afterwards. So it's just >> I mean our position is and and the landlord will have that control of the
property is to make sure everything is within that uh dumpster enclosure. Yes. Uh anything that's not is beyond that obviously will be we have to come back for amended because that would be beyond what's assuming recycle cardboard right? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Oh okay.
>> But we're going to keep it all within this um dumpster enclosure area. Getting to the lighting issue. I just um don't have this report with me. So um you know we're a little concerned about night sky. You got residence behind you. Um
that rebar lights in the back. It's going to be all facing down. Right. Okay. Um and I just want to ask you that review. We have not reviewed this site
plan, but um the uh addition of obviously shade trees um do we know um if it meets the standard or >> we have not adopted the new state rags plant trees
and business um >> I would just say that like shade tree just take a look at the landscape plan and um just give their recommendation as to what trees um to use. >> We have a list with the trees that are scrubby and crappy.
>> Yeah. So, you know, we really want to upgrade to more native New Jersey. Yeah. >> We're meeting in September. >> No pairs. >> I will say that one of my recommendations They incorporate
additional native trees, native species. So, >> so we're aligned on that. >> Understood. >> Adrian, you have something like Dennis, do you have anything on that? >> Um, it's related to the plantings. I was
looking at Beth's uh write up. It seems like they're not compliant though, right? It would require 38 trees and there's only 17 existing and proposed. So that I'm unclear. Are they meeting
the requirements for the trees? >> That's what that's what I was asking. >> No, there are a handful of uh landscaping items for leaf that I've identified. It's uh street trees. Uh oh, I'm sorry. They they need the street trees on the
uh parking buffer. They have uh they require relief uh as there are areas along the northern side and rear yards of the site that have a very small setback and annual plantings. So relief is required for that area for those two
areas. For the parking area plantings, as Dennis had referenced, 17 trees are are existing and proposed. However, the parking spaces at 113 spaces require a total of 38 trees. Uh what the applicant
had done in regard to the parking area plantings though is they for the for the purposes of uh I think how they address compliance probably in one of the compliance tables they separated the existing parking spaces and and that is
non-compliance and they have 39 altered parking spaces which require 13 trees for which they are proposing. Uh and so I think the applicant requires relief for the existing conditions of the parking spaces that are unaltered uh but
not but they have uh attempted to uh move the property towards compliance by providing the trees necessary for this 39 altered space. >> So how many are they actually insured? >> Uh it is let's see uh well they have 13
trees 39 are required so presumably uh 26. Would the would the applicant consider making a donation to the burrow to put other trees in other places as the garden? >> Is there a tree fund? >> There is a tree fund and um you have the
choice to to to have either choice of I either plant them at a location you guys don't acceptable or do contribution. Would that be acceptable? >> We I I don't know if we allow you to plan. That's up to the DPW.
um superintendent whether or not they'll allow you to plant ISIS but >> what you're >> yeah I would I I would prefer just the contribution that's
>> we would like to see you know that's a heat island so >> no if there's places to put additional trees I prefer that as well just a few would help to similar. >> Yeah, I believe there were
recommendations for land >> which we were >> maybe professionals and I'll put that tree. >> They have they've agreed to additional plantings near the trash enclosure, the landscape islands on the western side of
the building. They've agreed to a row of shrubs along the northern side of the property line uh shared with Wendy's. They've agreed to additional native species. They've agreed to add uh to shift the location of plant street trees
which I had recommended and they had agreed to provide some additional shrubs approximate to the that outdoor seating area on the very bone side. >> So they have agreed to a number of uh new trees and new shrubs. I I can't say it's going to bring the site fully into
performance, but it's certainly going to improve the appearance of the site and move it towards conformance in significant >> donations. We'll we'll go back as a business approved. See if we can put any more trees in. Anything that's a deficit,
we'll do the tree. >> No, yeah, we have to our ordinance. So, just so you know, I believe it's $900 per tree. So, it's probably your best interest to see where you can >> instead
is island and I know both and myself have driven it and watch. >> So, we'll try obviously we'll do the best we can to make native species of trees and see how it sounds. Um, you're on Dennis raised that and
started that conversation. So, let's go back to see if he has anything else. >> Nothing else for me. >> Okay, great. And Melissa, >> um, I had questions about the plantings, but I think we just pretty much answered all of my questions. So,
>> great. Um, Michael, Mike, >> I'm good. >> Okay, sounds great. Anybody else? Mine were covered I think under the um engineering report. Yeah. >> Yeah. So one one other thing maybe just item 16 with the roof right you
indicated earlier you if you don't have an inclination want to do drywalls on the property but how do you intend to discharge them >> they altered it suggest >> uh currently they discharge into uh underground um >> they do >> conway. Yeah.
>> Where do they go? >> We need to confirm. is part of your comment 14. We intended to determine that um that dis point for those uh trusted uh item 15. What do you intend to do if that inlet's going to be
sitting at the high point >> in rearranging a site? They have an inlet was was in the original development. A lot of a lot of >> that I think that was an access point out 31. only got eliminated when they redid the circles and in their prior
plan it was endless sitting like in low point like two or three parking spaces and rearranging the parking in this area it's now at a high point so it's not going to work >> and I'm just wondering what you you're going to leave it if you're going to convert it into we can move we can
review the grading right now we're resetting it I think that curve line does uh we do not indicate it here >> the elevation not recent great but uh we'll confirm that that is at a high point >> it is at a high point you'll later
>> I think I think that ones that were options we could patch it all anybody feels this witness. Are there any members of the public that have comments or questions questions for this
witness? Um, seeing I don't see anything online. There's no um questions online. >> Sure. >> And he's he'll be here for another question we may have. U my next witness is Mr. Chuck Keats. Uh there's a regular
architecture. >> Council before we move on, can I make suggestion? We usually stop at 9 for a little break. >> Sure. >> Can I make would it be a good point for us to vote between witnesses? Would that be acceptable minutes? >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we're going to do that.
Um we'll pause the hearing the 10 minutes and we get back to the next question. Conversations We'll do that. Thank you. >> Thank you so much for starting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Convenient after our great to say all that. Really convenient. Could we um quickly do the roll of this to make sure everybody's back >> for the record that we know who's here not? knew was here but
>> here's the end of the >> here >> Mr. Here >> the doctor >> present here >> how she actually
>> do the announcement >> should we do an announcement >> right so what do I need to say >> uh so For anybody in the audience or online, uh, Bless Wellness, we're going to adjourn that hearing tonight to the
board two hearings from now, which is September 16th. Same time, 700 p.m. No further notice uh, will be provided. >> So, it's that's the one I was going to come.
>> It's going to be on the 6th September. >> September. >> It's going to be around this time. >> Yes. 7 o'clock. >> Okay. I'll be here. All right, >> let's talk and see you taking part in the government. >> And we will do everything at that point as well. We're not going to complaint
tonight. >> Just keep it clean. I know that's what you'd like to do. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, back to item eight. Would your next witness please? >> Sure. Um, so my last >> just really quick,
>> right? That's >> so we have Mr. Chuck Chuck De from D uh D Partnership. Uh, he's the regent architect. Um that I like their >> theme as a expert witness architecture. >> Her picture.
>> All right, you're good. Melissa, we got um >> could you spell your name for the >> I'm going to give you my legal name which I signed the drawings on. >> Sounds like the one >> Charles Dets. E I E T Z managing member of the Deets
Partnership LLC located in Paripity, New Jersey. I'm a licensed practicing engineer. I shoot myself architecture >> uh for the past 37 years. I'm licensed in 14 states other than New Jersey and
my license is good standing and I have a bachelor's of architecture from New Jersey Institute of Technology, New Jersey School of Architecture. >> I could have the board accept me as an expert that would build architecture. Any other questions? >> I have testified before the board many many half many years ago.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Could you just um I guess show the board I believe A5 a colored rendering of the renovations that will propose it for this retail sound. >> Yes. >> Is it on the thumb draft? You want us to bring it up?
>> It should be. Yeah, it should be on there. >> Okay. So, this is A5 color rendering of the facade. No date. Put today's if you'd like. >> Today.
>> Thank you. >> I'm just gonna make sure >> I'm just going to make sure. >> Okay. >> You can confirm that what is on the screen. >> Thank you. >> So, if you could Mr. Beats in the narrative hit a couple things. one, describe what the facade uh treatment
is, what we're looking at, what the proposed renovations are. Um, also hit upon the signage and the variance that we're requesting. Um, and then confirm the ADA compliance as well. Yes, I was hired approximately two and a half years ago by the applicant. Uh, I'm sure everybody's familiar with this project
and the disrepair that this building is in as we sit here today. So, I certainly had my hands full when I took this job on for the applicant. I think the two major things I'm looking at is this is not just a facade reification renovation. It's a beautifification of a
project that's been long overdue for a remodel and and cleanup of many issues of just age and wear and tear. Uh the two main features of that is my mind is the roof change. It leaks. It's a green
standing seam roof. This is a wood trust building. The green style and color came in probably mid 80s and went till about the mid 90s and I was just a victim of designing buildings with that. I've spent the next 25 years changing it. So I believe I'm offering a a wonderful
color. It's classic. Uh it's it's uh easy on the eyes. It's called champagne. So that will be the new standing seam roof that'll go on after we take the old green one off which will hopefully solve many of the leaks that are in the building currently. The second big portion of my architectural was the
applicant, which you never see an applicant do this, but based on what the market was dictating and the types of uses we're proposing is give GLA away. We took about 50% of the building and pulled it back into the stores to allow
a 10-foot section under a covered canopy that provide outdoor dining for the types of uses that we think would want to come to this building in this shopping center into your lovely town. So, he actually gave up GLA to accommodate uses for specific tenants
like restaurants. And after COVID, many boards adopted outdoor dining that didn't have it before. if not it's been enhanced since co and almost every center I design these days provides some type of outdoor space seating dining whatever because that seems to be the
wave of where we're going and most municipalities enjoy that. So we gave up GLA to do that and that like I said about 50% of you looked at the site and you saw the jog in uh that's where we've cut the building and then when we're not proposing most likely restaurants the facade where it is today is going to
stay where it is. What you see in front of you that's a dominant portion that we changed are all the brick colonades across the front. They were the structure that was there to support the truss when the facade was out at that edge. So you can see from the rest of the buildingasters are against the building. The part that's being
recessed, the columns are now exposed. So we're rewrapping those with brick and cultured stone and a stone war table. All classic materials, traditional materials. I've been in Flemington long enough. I know the history of Flemington. Classic. Traditional architecture is what Bloomington is
known for and is all about, but we tried to adhere to things like that. Uh, a lot of the other things were really just modification and upgrades. The things that were already there, basically the signage that you see, the little gables and then the little flat shed roofs that
you see dotting across the facade basically are updates to what's there today. Today, they basically, I think, are all the same size and all the same shape. I didn't want to do that. The challenge we have and why I didn't just put a big parapit across this. As I said, there's a wood truss roof. I
cannot with my structural engineer overload these roofs with a snow drift. If I build these parapits all the way across, it would overload the truss and the building would be in failure. We certainly can't have that. So, we relocated some of them where they were and then put some new ones in. And I
broke up the style. So you can see the very first one is a sign band with a little classical gable, little round classic, you know, applique in the middle. And the ones that have the gable, I'm proposing a hardy panel like
you see in residential, a hardy panel siding for the sign to be mounted on versus the original ones that have all stuckco or ethas on them. We have classic trim, white trim and I've done some classical classical architecture over my career and cream is a wonderful
color. It's a traditional color and I thought it would go well with this property in the neighborhood with the champagne roof. So, I'm proposing the uh the Hardy panel. They have a beautiful uh cream sighting that comes prefinished so you get a nice warranty. You don't have to go out and paint it every year. And then you move on to the next one.
We've got two tenants on that little French manserb as we'd say that has basically the same champagne manser roof on it. And again, that would be a stucco, but we would get the stucco to match the same hearty powder color. And then so on and so forth as you go down the facade. Gable, manart, gable,
manart, gable, uh, with that color scheme. These signs are also accentuated by again a very classical look, a gooseeneck light fixture that will shine down on these tenant signs and help illuminate them as well as illuminating the architectural features that these
gables and mansarts are housing. And that's consistent throughout. Uh what we did uh when we got down past where the building is being recessed, the existing brick, because we don't have to touch it, is going to be repainted and reestablished with a new color that will go with the color scheme that we've
developed. We're proposing the cultured stone base that's on the the new part all the way across that and around the right side of the building and partially around the left side of the building. and what we're proposing for the rear. After that all gets clean and sealed,
then we'll paint that again in a court spining color to go with the color scheme we have. But nothing new other than some exit doors for the tenants. Nothing new is being proposed other than maybe a disrepair of a down spout or a gutter. And then we'll repaint the entire facade to bring it into the color
scheme that we're proposing. The third big item, and I've done this before, and I don't know if anybody's familiar, going down 202 into Raritan Township, Bridgewater, Rar Township. Uh, I had done a smaller shopping center where the side of the building faced the main
drive in Route 202, not the main facade. We similarly have this, even though this is facing 31, we really wanted to pick up the people coming around the circle to be able to see who the tenants are and what the tenants are. We have a pylon sign, but it's all the way to the
north driveway, so you really won't see that as much from 31. So, I proposed a mini facadel like pylon using the same features on that facade, which is the 201 square ft sign, and we've given the name of the shopping center, which will
be lit by the gooseeneck fixtures, and then internally illuminated uh signs along that facade, which would list the proposed nine tenants. if in fact we get 910 we've subdivided it for nine it could be less it's not going to be more but it could be less so that's what
we're proposing and what I also did is I kind of symmetrically redesigned this parapit wall and that would go to my testimony about blocking the HVAC units again we can't put a load on these trusses but they built small platforms
in the back and that's what all the units sat on reuse those we might have to add a few more. But when that original parapit was built and this parapit, it actually screens all those units cuz they sit much lower because the units are on the low end of the gable. They're not up high. They're down
low. They're just above the roof line or the the gutter line. So this mansart or parapit will help shield from paring lot and good parts of 31 and the circle. You won't see our HKC. And again, I made I'm
a symmetrical kind of guy. I restepped and reshaped this parapit to be more symmetrical and again we've introduced the new colors both below above and I think this cultured stone is a classic looking stone and we did a feature I was and I heard you talk about you're going to have a special meeting which I should
come to about your wonderful welcome to Flemington sign across the street and I won't say anything uh really >> but that inspired me to say I think we could do something special here knowing and I saw the one the other one you did which I never knew Is it Vicario,
however you say his name? >> That's where I went because he bought Profeta's farm that I designed and he changed the name of I designed that 10,000 foot >> form, right? So, okay. But so, he put that. So, I'm thinking, >> okay, let's do that on the building.
Again, it's a variance. I think we're entitled to a sign on that facade, just not the square footage and having all the tenant names. But for those reasons, that's why we would like to ask the board to see fit to grant us that bare. Um
I think it's exciting uh working with the broker and the applicant on some of the people they're talking to. We have no leases signed but the activity has been strong which is always a good sign. Hence he wanted to come before the board and get this approval so we can take those leases down the line because no
one's going to sign a lease until you get approval. So I think this is a big step. They have exciting people that actually want to come to Flemington and would love to be in the shopping center. I think Dynamic did a great job cleaning up. Again, not only was the building in disrepair, I believe the site and the
surrounding area in the property was in disrepair. So, I think between our two firms, I think we've done a strong case to really bring this shopping center back to life, bring in some fresh new tenants, get some ratables for the town, and make it beautiful at the same time.
uh the other signage which is the facade sign I believe you can correct me if I'm wrong your facade signage ordinance basically says you're allowed one sign and then they do cumulative if you have multiple tenants so each of the signs that I've shown on my drawings as an
individual sign only each tenant gets only one facade sign excluding what's on the circle side and we're proposing those would be conforming where we're not conforming is if you add all those signs up and multiply times 9, we exceed
your overall value of signage allowed as if this was a single tenant user, you know, and we could have that size sign. We've chosen to break them into nine smaller signs, one for each tenant along their front entrance. And those single
signs meet the ordinance requirements for area, height, and square footage. So, I think the two sign variances almost have an asterisk next to it. If you gave every tenant one sign, that sign's conformant. You add them all up, it's non-conforming. And then if you
choose to want to have the sign on the circle, obviously we know that's a variance, but we think it's a beautifification. It's directional in nature. It grabs the attention of people while not distracting them while they're driving uh along the circle to know what's happening because this center
almost has its back to that part of the circle, right? It faces the wrong way. So it faces Wendy's. So, unless we're grabbing everybody out of the Wendy's drive-thru, this is the kind of science we feel is important uh to both the shopping center success and drawing
those types of tenants to come to uh the shopping center. Uh so, really, I think, you know, I think I did a good job. I hope I did a good job uh for beautifying and bringing classic style materials back to Flemington at a shopping center like this. And I actually have two more
exhibits that I don't really have to testify to, I don't think. But I think one of the requirements I think maybe the planner asked, what are these materials? What do they really look like? So instead of bringing a sample board, lately we've been actually grabbing the photos of the product from the website and putting the actual photo
of the color texture of what those are. And those are on my sheet A6 if you want me to mark that. I'm not sure if you saw that. And then we put a finished chart in there that says this is the stone, this is the this is that. And then we actually created another sheet A4
A4 A5 which are the same elevations. All we did was put the finished tags on there that says, okay, here's the pretty picture. This is ST1. This is E1. This is And this way you can take that and go back to the chart and understand what product it is that balances what I
testified. And there's a picture to the right of it that says this is what it looks like from the website. Let's mark both. A6 would be >> materials materials and the color samples and then A7. >> Well, it's actually six and I think it's
five and >> we've done five already. >> All right. I mean my my sheets I'm always a problem is the mine always start with a. >> That's no problem. Y >> but these were already submitted or did you know? Don't >> no I think we didn't get these in. These
are part of the comments. >> Okay. All right. So, what we're going to mark is A6 uh your textural sheet A5. >> So, do it that way. You want to do A6 first. >> So, A6 is actually the materials. >> Yes.
>> A6 is A6. >> A6. >> That never happens. >> Wow. >> All right. >> Awesome. >> You were prepared to be A6. All right. A date on that. A6 >> uh today's date.
>> All right. And then A7 is architect sheet A4. >> Uh A4 kind of A4 and A5. It's our two elevations just with the finished tags on them. >> Okay. So they're elevations >> with finish denoted on the elevations.
>> Okay. Finish noted land today. >> Yes. Are those new drawings from the submissions or are they just updating? >> They're just updated with the tag. So the elevations are >> Are they A4 version two or version? We could write that down because I'm saying
no upgraded response to the SN. So we added >> So here's the same front elevation >> but with this like oh this P1 is this part. >> Yeah. But then this same elevation now tells you what the material it's brick one stuckco wall two >> and and and the Um, what's on the flash
drive are these? Correct. >> Correct. So, you can have everything. >> Yeah, that's what she updated those sheets. Well, those brand new sheets >> updated them today. >> Updated from the original submission. Correct.
>> But they are updated versions of those, not brand new. >> Correct. >> You know what I'm saying? >> No. Now, now you confuse me because that's entirely different from what I said. So, okay. So A6 is the materials and color samples, >> correct? Yes. >> It also is referenced as architectural
sheet A6, >> correct? >> With today's date, >> correct? Correct. >> As a revision date or as an original >> revision date. >> The original date was >> no original date is April 17th, 2025. And then last revision date was 82625.
>> Okay. So let's do the same thing for A7. A7 is architectural sheet 8485 elevations with the finishes on them. uh last updated 82625 but originally dated >> uh 8 uh 41725 >> 417 thank you
>> y >> thanks >> that's all I have that's all I have for the architect agent testimony thank you um go to our professionals on that >> yeah thank you I have a couple questions um the first question I'm sorry I missed
what you were uh your testimony in regard to the component that's put on top of the roof to the rear. Is it that you can't screen it because of the structural loads? >> Correct. >> The equipment will remain where it is today. >> This never submitted. >> Yep.
>> So, Dynamic was nice enough to put the pictures on a board, but then I didn't have to do. So, he has a sheet one dated today that has photos of the existing center. So, if you want to mark that. >> Okay. That was that in the photo report.
They should have been part of that package that was sent. >> Okay. I have a photo report. >> They're they're taken from the photo report. >> Okay. So that is okay. >> Okay. >> So as you can see from this photo one >> it's not. Sorry. Let's just mark it just
to be sure. The photos are a little bit different. >> A >> uh existing conditions >> and I don't have that. >> Yeah. I don't think. >> So here just there a date on there today. All right, camera
way. >> I'm moving. Okay, so photo one upper left >> shows you the existing parapit. Then it shows all the rooftop units sitting on the plat. So you can see they're way lower, three to four feet below that parapit. >> So we're going to reuse those platforms
and maybe add a few more when we put the new tenants in. So my testimony is they'll be screened just like they are today. So unless you're directly behind this project on the backside, yes, you'll see the units, but from the parking lot and most of the street, you will not see these units. >> Are you unable to provide screening
along the rear of the building because of that structure? >> Same reason, >> correct? I cannot run continuous and that the stop stop you'd see through all. You can see how many there are and we're going to have at least that many going forward. But would it be would your testimony also be that they they
will be they wouldn't protrude above the ridge of the roof. They're going to contain within you visually you would the roof >> and and the parapit again. That's what I did. I updated this parapit played with the high. So with this parapit in place you won't see them from the circular
that part of 31. They're lower than the roofs. You won't see them from Wendy's side forward. >> What about the residents live behind it? If they're directly behind, they're going to look exactly what they're looking at or they have looked at for the past 20 plus years or 30 years.
>> They don't protrude above like the reserves. >> Yeah. They won't see the rear buildings. >> Yeah. They're closer to the Wendy's side. So, they shouldn't be and this won't affect them. >> Again, that that was my first inclination before I knew it was a trust. I'm going to run a whole new parab across the front and the back and
put my sign in. >> We got inside. We found that wood trust structural engineer went nope. So we came up with a different design. >> Hence why the other architect when he first did it put those crazy looking dog house bump ups where he did or she
>> when they did the whatever the last renovation was because they could they knew not to do the same thing. Another uh question I have the my first my next two questions are in regard to some inconsistencies that I had identified um
in regard item 4.1 is in regard to uh an inconsistency regarding the floor area. And I want to be clear about the indoor space versus the outdoor space because it may impact it could impact parking in the future. I mean, restaurants are based upon seats, but I I just I'd like to have those uh figures corrected to
the extent necessary. >> The way we measured, I can't speak for dynamic. We measured the outside face of the wall structurally. So, if we took 10 ft away, I pulled my dimensions in and took, as I said, I gave away GLA on the
building. I'm not sure if that's what Dynamic did, but I I only measured to whatever was the the solid wall sitting on the ground. >> Okay. So, So you're still under Yeah. So Chuck's plans is correct. Our the diamond plan
will be updated to be consistent. The floor area ratio is based on that footprint of the building. >> The larger the exact >> the out the total. >> So it'll come down. Your F will come down. >> It was all changed. The calculation was correct. But the individual unit uh tenant labels were not
>> they were based on the total reflect on collect rent. He would but we can >> not the not the uh interior only as they should be. So revised plans would reflect that. >> The tenants have used that space or does it have to be included?
>> No, because it's it's not part of the building floor area and then outdoor the burrow's outdoor dining regulations uh exclude. Okay. So as long >> they have to come in, right? You get a permit for outdoor question. So we're going to comply with
that section. Now we did go through with our client the team uh we comply with all the requirements of that outdoor uh dining uh section which what number was escaping? >> It is uh 269 >> yes
>> it's right in front of every impression. >> Yeah it's >> correct. Yeah. So we comply with that. And then there's also ballards that I believe are we can install decorative but structural ballards. I just did this
up at Woodbury by Woodbury Common. They're decorative in nature but they have a large steel post filled with concrete that'll go down at least 3 to four feet buried in concrete. And that way if a car does hit them, they'll have some damage before. So
you'll see it's no room but provide protection to the diners along this um the >> obvious space for ADA widths and all that. >> Yes. Correct. Yes. Yes. But also preventing cars from dumping occur.
Correct. >> Correct. >> Another question I have is it's item 4.2 in my report is about uh inconsistency. This is in regard to the uh the sign sizes. Uh, for example, the north parking lot facing the parking area
parking lot has 396 square feet of facade signs for the architectural plans, but 352 according to the engineering plan. So, I'd like to just get some feisty. >> Charles plans are accurate. >> Okay, thank you.
>> It's totally great. >> I've done this a couple times. >> Um, and then >> I think those are all the questions I had. I had uh I just want to refer back to the board for your consideration about the architecture and the and the science if that's necessary.
>> Yeah, we'll go sign I'm sure discussion for me. >> Any other professionals with questions for this? >> Okay, let's get into science then. Um, Beth, can you
explain to me the the detail about that got multiple are they are they compliant because your report says they're not compliant, right? But >> yeah, >> so that test can we can you explain between you the testimony there
different signage on the parking lot side? >> Sure. First, >> sure. So uh just for the record the non-compliant is limited to facade signs as opposed to anything in regards to their freestand sign. >> So for their uh for the maximum facade
there are several requirements. They are permitted to have two signs per tenant and they comply with that. They have uh they have one sign for tenant facing the parking lot and then they have a an additional sign uh facing uh Route 31.
So they're compliant with that. >> When you say addition say 31, are you talking about the one showing on the side of the building? >> Yes. The fall sign, it sort of looks like a freestanding but it's on the facade. >> Yeah. >> Um in terms of the facade area, the ordinance permits uh up to 100 square
feet. And so facing the parking lot they have 396 square feet. Facing the circle group 31 they have 201 square feet. That 201 is the individual sign with all of the indiv with all the tenants listed.
Parking lot is obviously the individual signs for each tenant. Um for their uh maximum side length it's a maximum of uh side sign length. It's maximum of 50%
of the frontage of the ter space. I they do not comply but it's only facing the parking lot. So it's the length uh and the size facing the parking lot. Um in terms of the uh the maximum side height it's a
maximum of four feet and that is non-compliant facing 31. So for the um for the parking lot let me just break that down. For the parking lot, it's the area, it's the length of the signs. And then for facing 31 or the
circle, it's the height of the sign, and it's the area. >> So, they're not proposing at all a regular post sign as well. >> They are also proposing that work >> and that is uh and that is located approximate to the main entrance. So,
>> that will also all tenants. >> Uh yes. Yes, that sign is compliant. It's proposed to provide the I think the center name as well as the individual tenants. It's similar in terms of the information provided to the uh the sign on the uh side.
>> So Beth that one's compliant ones facing the parking lot are all just too big. So they're not compliant. The one on the side of the building facing the circle is not allowed at all. >> Yes, it's allowed. It's
>> not They're allowed an extra little sign. Correct. But not >> is it two and a half times almost three times the size we allow? >> Yeah. It's significantly larger than what's permitted in the burrow. Um I would >> And it would and it's going to be a lit sign. >> They're all external externally
illuminated with the the gooseeneck fixture shining light light upon the building on the sign itself. >> But you give test didn't you give testimony that the one on the >> one on 31 will be internally illuminated? >> I'm sorry. because it's too cold. Goose neck would never reach to the bottom
goose. >> You have goose neck goose necks, but just it's going to light the name of the shopping center. >> Can't go 15 ft down. >> The extra one building you want. It's 11 ft long. Is going to be internally lit.
>> Is it going to be? >> Well, you won't see the light source. >> No light source. You see the plexi panel face with a routed letter or a vinyl letter and the light sources behind it, but you'll never see and they're all LED today anyway, but you will never see the light source. It'll just be a glow just
like any freestanding sign or other signs that you see on many of the shopping centers. >> So, it's it's like a freestanding sign, but if you put it on >> basically same stone, same >> I designed that first then I sees that from the circle. You have to
go all the way around the circle again. come down route 31 north they're left into the complex right they can't go like if they're coming around they see it >> they want to go in >> pick it up till they've decided to get on 31
>> no on the circle they're coming >> they're coming south from north on 31 >> or they're coming in >> uh heading u west on route 202 to the circle like they were going to go south to They see it and they go, "Oh, I want
to go to that shoe store." They have to go all the way in a circle, right? There's no way in and then they have to come up um 31 north to make a left into the complex >> if it was somebody in the circle and they could see it yet.
I I I was envisioning that they would it would really be picking up the people that already decided to go on 31 North. So, I'd have to look closely at what that view angle is once you've decided you're not going to 31. What are you going to think?
>> That's both. I think you'll see it from both. >> Yeah. So, if they're in the circle, then they can see it. Yeah. That's correct. >> Now, is that any different than seeing the regular compliance sign with all the scores that are in it? further down is
>> it say it's furthest north most point on the site that you probably won't see from 31 or the circle because it's the furthest north >> on our property. >> Yeah. So this sign you know this is our building uh that sign here. So you got visibility coming from 202 heading in
the southern direction uh as well as you know coming up 202 in the north as well. Moving on the line the sign sign is >> RJ >> is is towards the north end of the property. So that visibility really from this
direction or even yours would be pretty limited. >> Will you be able to read the facade sign while you're in Sville? >> I'm sorry the freestanding sign I know speed you're going around there. I've done studies with speed and signs of letters. >> That would be challenging. real. We
allow this non-compliant sign when people start stop complaining about the welcome sign. >> No, >> we can make the sign bigger. >> Okay. So, can as a as a as a dimension just a curiosity and you may not have
measured this or not. So, one of going back a little bit, the prior approval of this board for the shops at Flemington, there was the for their sign package, there was a substantial conversation around how big those freestanding pylon signs would be, the tenant signs would have to be in order for someone to make
a a traffic decision, you know, with enough time to d. So do you have any just as a reference scale do you have any can you can you give a rough estimate as to the dimension of the proposed facade circle facing sign
relative to what is nearby I guess you is what I'm asking >> well I want to go as small as Ritton did at the title center that I designed little itty bitty signs for 500,000 square feet if I step back for one second I forgot I know. I forgot to
testify. This photo five on exhibit A8 shows you the existing carpet that actually has signs on it today. >> Yeah, I was going to say that. I thought >> what I did is I organized them >> not too down low a giant circle, one over here and one over there that
obviously your eyes are going, well, where do I want to be? I've organized them, put them in a vertical fashion, use the architectural materials that I'm proposing for the facade design, and put them all in one spot. So, you got this giant circle that's probably a five or
six foot diameter. This is pretty big. Two little ones across the bottom. They took the plank off and another one that matches this on the other side here. I don't know what to look at. So, I took that. Well, they allowed them to have some signage there. I organized it and then as the shopping
center grew to how many tenants we might have, it got a little bigger than my original sketch because they said we want to maybe get nine. Again, if you only get five, we're going to probably put five on there. >> Nine. Jeff, how Jeff, how precedent setting was the shops? Like >> it it was it wasn't precedent setting.
It was it was just it was a very we had a very long public conversation because we were the especially like McDonald's wanted McDonald's wanted their logo on that sign even though McDonald's you know wasn't on the circle but people
could get to McDonald's through shared d and we had a lot of conversation around how tall those pylon signs would be how big individual 10 signs had to be those were also internally eliminated because we wanted to make sure that folks had enough time to make a decision on the track
>> for a much larger. >> It's a much larger project. >> So, so it was I don't I don't want to use the shops as any sort of precedent because it's a much like you're saying it's a much larger center and it's also >> uh several free standing locations and
other signage and I was just thinking of like yeah >> the visual clutter on the circle of like that side versus what this might look like. And maybe you can even just say what's did you mention the dimension of what the Circle K is? I know it's not Circle K. >> That's at least 5 foot diameter like the
old shop right might even be a six foot diameter. >> What you're what you're proposing on that facade is >> much so just how I determine this. I didn't just throw a random number. I backed into it. So they we said, "Okay, 9/10. I have books that tell me what the
minimum size lettering and color should be for a human being while driving a certain speed can read it." So I worked backwards to say I want nine tenant slots or 10, whatever I drew there, knowing each panel had to be a minimum size to get a letter that made it
worthwhile to even beyond the building and then adding the name of the center at the top. So that's how I backed. I didn't arbitrarily say let's make it 210 square feet. I ended up there knowing each tenant got the same weight, same size, no matter how many square feet they're taken and you know worked
backwards and I ended up at 210. >> Very large. >> Which one these are? >> I was talking about the circle. >> Where's the knife? So I see seven >> little the little Mary's counter or whatever the heck the
>> addition. So it's not in the >> I'm looking at A2 has eight. A5 has seven. >> I've been totally went back down to eight. >> Yeah, there we go. >> The answer the mayor with my asterisk.
My individual facade size on the parking lot are conforming 100%. Your ordinance, they're adding eight signs and coming up with a number. But if you took each tenant sign, it's conforming. So, they're not too big in my mind per your
ordinance. But if you add them all up because we have eight tenants and you do the math, then yes, they're non-conforming. And that's how you word. Your testimony is that if these were eight freestanding buildings, >> they're conforming signs. >> It's conforming within it. >> Correct.
>> The going back to the one on the 31, if that was a freestanding sign, like that's the alternate, right? You say you say the freestanding monument is almost would say useless but less useful than this one in terms of in terms of correct
>> if this was a freestanding they still wouldn't be compliant right if but it's actually building I was just trying to see if we could rethink in terms of giving that up and having this if it's more useful for the for the benefit you know what I mean like >> yeah so I think that so just for for
reference the maximum freestanding area is 50 ft >> yeah when and they're proposing 200 for the for the facade sign that has a a clearance. Um >> so it is certainly uh oversized. I mean
I I do understand the testimony about there's significant amount of traffic and potential customers at the circle that will not have an opportunity that will not be able to read the tenant signs face in the parking lot. They will not be able to read the freestanding sign. I think I I believe that's accurate. Yes. Um I think what the what
the board needs to weigh is whether or not that is important enough to permit such a significant deviation and whether or not that uh generates the need for mitigation. So mitigation in terms of less signage overall for the center to improve the
site overall if you're if you're considering flexibility on the side of the building. Um, in terms of the the I just want to share a couple points for the uh facade size signs facing the parking lot. >> The board should take a look at exhibit
A. I'm sorry. That one that's right there. Uh, maybe not A7. If you're No, I'm sorry. Actually, exhibit A. >> It's already up there. >> Well, it's up there. >> Yeah, sorry. I don't know. I put out the the >> Yeah. But if you look for those that
might have the plans in front of them, but if you scroll in, what you see is there the word tenant >> is actually smaller than the size that they are proposing. And it's not that they're it's not that the plans are being uh are
inaccurate clear about that. >> That box is what we're allowed. We just didn't >> to be able to have signs that would fill the entire box. Correct. >> The measurement is based on that box. >> I understand the distinction I want to make from the board is when you look at
those words tenants over each of the storefront there could be a larger sign there if you look fill the whole >> fill the entire the not the whole box of the parapit but the dash line around the word tenant. >> Um so I I I think the board should take
that into account. I would also >> Oh, it is on. It's quite Oh, yeah. It's showing on the platulation is for the dotted box. >> Yeah. >> Sign doesn't get any bigger square footage wise. It's just we don't like the stretch because then it gets
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. The tenant put out eight letters. Exactly. >> But thanks for pointing that out because also then my concern is that's assuming that the tenant would come in with a rectangular site. If they came in with something, what then?
>> Yes. And one of the other questions I I meant to raise was the type of signage proposed on the front. Is it is it proposed that all signs shall be channel letters consistent with what we see here? >> Yes. >> Um, good. >> Because that's going to mitigate the
size of the sign. You don't have a big box of >> you have a height restriction so they can't go above the 4T. We didn't even design those mains to be full enough. >> But you're proposing individual letters, not a >> but if you have one tenant that has six words in their name, they still have to
fit in that box. >> Yes. I just want to be clear. It's always going to be six words with individual t individual letters as opposed to a single signed panel that >> I don't like box signs. >> Have corporate logos that not exist. >> I think that is not part of what is
being essentially. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And is the same true on the um end correct time? You're not allowing their no corporate logos. >> Some tenants might just want like Starbucks is a perfect example. We've done things where we've written the word
Starbucks and they'll say no, we want our mermaid instead. Everybody knows the mermaid. So, we'll give them the mermaid as long as it falls in the parameters of the square footage and the area. >> Not here. >> It'll be on the facade. >> Correct.
on the signage at the um Staples Plaza. >> I'm sorry. >> Staples. The calculation on the signage like there >> that's >> I mean it's it's >> I I I don't recall how that I mean it would be it would be similar to the same >> same thing, right? It's the whole
whatever it doesn't matter how many tenants they they do. They've cut buildings and units before. >> They recently cut >> um a storage two stores. I know that the Flemington, which is partly in rare and partly in Flemington, >> I know that the Flemington Department
Store, which is in rare township, they have a lot of signage and they're 40 to 45 miles per hour and they did the blue on cream and they complied completely with um the requirement and this is you
know where this building is, it's almost at zero. I mean, you know, people do not do 40 to 45 miles an hour with the sign. So, well, I'm just saying to me, these letters are they're, you know, to allow something that's that deviant from what
we allow and say, well, it's because there's nine tenants and this would be allowed if it was nine buildings. Well, Staples complies shops and I know in other municipalities that complied that have a much higher speed limit than this area does.
>> Absolutely. One one thing that the board might want to uh talk about is on the side of the building they have space for nine tenants and I my assumption is the top one is intended to be an anchor anchor tenant. >> Um but it seems like it's going to be
repeated in one of the one of the slots below. Uh that might be an opportunity to easily reduce the size of the sign without uh without having to sacrifice kind of names. I'm not sure that's enough for the board, but it seems like duplication. It's sort of blow out.
>> Yeah. I'm very grateful that this owner wants to come in and clean up the site and it's been like so for years and it is a really nice design, but I don't want to see it all locked up with large overly large letters that are to scale almost the same I mean like almost the
same size as all the windows everything. So, um, and I don't know if it's really necessary with with given speeds as people are coming into the circle or going around the circle unless you're driving at 2 o'clock in the morning, you know, >> just you can't do it.
>> You can't do those kinds of I mean, you just don't you come to a dead hall, right? >> You have to come to a dead hall right in front of the store if you're any 31 south. You have the freestanding sign. Go 31. You have this big sign on the side. Is it necessary? >> In fact, builds all the way around the
circle. I mean, we're stopping all the way around circle. So, having huge oversized letters just because you're calculating it based on if this was freestanding buildings versus the fact that this is one building, I think you could easily
comply to what our word says on this. Um, you're already complying on the other side. Then to me, it's a question of whether we allow 11 foot sign that extra visibility or not. But be the
the area that they're putting there tenant that's compliant if we consider them individual. Is that correct or not? >> That's the argument. >> Yeah. >> All facads are compliant individually. >> It seems but there's an overall size
limitation of 100 square feet and that's where the >> And I'm sure the shops comply with that too. and you know um >> you're not sure if the shops complies >> I think they're fairly big and so I again I don't recall how that was how we
we talked about that um because it was a different conversation because those were internal navigation once you're in the center to find the score as opposed to someone on the road >> right it's much larger center >> so 100 square feet is meant to is
compared to their 400 square ft of 396 or 350. No, 396. Is it 396? >> And that's for the facade side facing the parking lot. >> So produce 34. >> So 100 ft per the way the ordinance list
it is 100 ft per front edge. And so it's 100 feet. This site doesn't work out as cleanly as the same, >> but it's on 31 and it's on the It's on the circle. So, if you think about it in that context, it's 100 ft facing the parking lot. >> Mhm.
>> Um, and it would be 100 ft facing the circle. >> And how much do they have facing the parking lot? >> And they are proposing 396 parking lot. >> Four times the size >> and 200 facing the circle. You don't slightly bigger, but I just >> It's only four times because it's
continuous. >> Yeah, that's the that that's the thing that that's getting mixed up is that if this didn't think of it that way because these aren't conforming >> if they were individual buildings and not go in >> but then the ordinance should be this is the
>> ordinance story like this building is not sitting in middle of Main Street. It's sitting on the outside. So, >> but Yes, these are the rules in in this zone, right? So, we do have different rules. >> Oh, okay. This is >> still, >> but my my concern is is less my I'm
>> I'm more willing to deal with the parking lot signs because I do feel like they're trying to be performing in terms of a tenants. The the the circle facing building facade is very large and there's one their their submission drawing here has nine tenant slots, but
if we break out test, it's only going to be eight. So certainly that could be scaled down, you know, potentially. I do like what they're trying to do in terms of bringing all the signage and it's not but it's the
>> reducing the size >> if you come out of 202 that's that's a long and when you look at the Google >> view there's big signs all over that right now. >> What the maximum amount? They have a
similar look to this. >> Um, who's in there? That's >> maximum. >> That's different. It's not how we retail. I think that's >> No, that's not compare.
>> Trying to compare. You have we have to look at what's before us. We have to look at that proposal. I mean, it is quite possible. You know, they are trying to maximize, they're trying to be consistent across the board with each tenant and make the box the max that it could be and ask for that relief. I mean, it's quite possible that they're
going to have people come in that are going to be less than that. So, when you measure, Beth confirmed you measure the box around the lettering. So, if their lettering is smaller, >> you know, it could conceivably be less than 396 square feet. >> We don't know, but it could be. You see
what I'm saying? These wouldn't be subject to individual individual tenants having to apply for their sign. This is going to be you're going to >> be standard >> standard. >> If you if you approve this proposal, >> they will come in and get a sign permit
to construct in accordance with your approval. If you gave an approval that said that each sign for each tenant that came in would have to either be conforming overall or they'd have to get a variance and that's something different. And the Ford may want to include conditions
about any sign design requirements that are important to you. So, channel letters, lettering, if it's consistent coloring, uh you know, logos facing the parking lot, something along those lines. So, you should think that through, especially in uh in the context of the relief,
>> but is it all or nothing? Is it 400 400 feet or 100 feet? There's no uh there's nothing in between. I I I would uh I would recommend that the board identify a square foot that you're comfortable with. If it's if it's not what they proposed, if it's not necessarily 100
feet, it could be 150, 200, 800 feet, whatever uh the board was comfortable with. >> I definitely support something bigger than 100 feet, but again, this is a dead stop area. It's a dead stop area. Nobody's doing >> 40 or 45 miles hour. >> That that's true. But my my other
concern is that the because of the orientation of maybe the their pylon scientific experiments, but the the 10 tenants 6, seven, and eight, which towards the interior of the site, the furthest away from 31, it's going to be harder to see those because because
they're kind of away from the road. I'm thinking of somebody coming down 31 approaching the circle southbound into the circle maybe even in that cutaway lane to 12 right to to go towards the bur go back that's what they everybody that's
>> no I was say like that that's what I'm worried about that you don't see >> like I'm willing I'm willing to give a little more grace on that one but >> the kebab side all the way down >> and you know I appreciate the design element of the sconces. So, it makes it
difficult if they didn't have the sconces there. They could bring the height down without sacrificing the size of the lettering, >> you know, and bring it down. But, but but you know, I appreciate the fact that they're they're putting those cones.
It's a nice design. >> It's difficult to >> comment. >> I think the external >> I'm gonna stop sharing. So, >> I I I just wanted to comment. I I don't have a problem with the parking lot signs. I I understand that. The one that
faces 31 though where it's 18 feet high. I think that one needs to be the 100 square feet. That one's huge. And the ones in the parking lot, you know, I don't have a problem with that. But the one facing 31,
>> um, >> it's huge. And I think it should fit to the 10 the 100 square feet. I believe it's 11 ft wide. 11 ft wide >> than just the sign itself. >> Yeah, we're not counting the stone. >> But it's 18 feet tall, right?
>> Correct. >> Which which gets reduced if we take the ninth down >> a little bit. >> I don't know what it is, but correct. >> If you pull up Google Maps and you go from 202 over, you see why the sign is to be that and it's set back. So I mean
you can probably cut cut but it makes sense to me. >> Seems to be almost in proportion. >> But yeah I mean you can slow down. I don't think you're doing 45 around the circle but if you're coming from 202 and you're going along that stretch there's no stop there. You you you don't have
the yield. You got the yield coming in. You already got the people covering southbound crystal. Right. >> Right. Well yeah. Nobody does a circle roundabout. Right. Portugal I have no problems getting around a circle in Portugal. problems. But yeah, I mean, you've got that covered with the other
two, right? So, this really covers that two or two around. Yes, granted, it might have to go all the way around the circle and turn around. Uh, but it's really for sellability. I mean, I don't I mean, yeah, I mean, this sign could be reduced. Um, but I don't think the
height is you go 11 feet by 100. I mean, it sounds enormous, but when you when you pull back the Google map or Google Street View, you're gonna see a proportion. And the Google Street View shows you all the
other big signs that were there that they were pretty big. >> What is this gonna like my part of my concern is if we allow this, are we going to get a flood of people around that circle coming in >> and it's gonna >> You always have traffic around the circle. I mean I mean
>> is your question about other varants requests or >> yeah this is a big press >> this is a very unique I'm sorry this is a really unique prop um I don't think there's any other property in the in
this area that is not oriented towards the street and that has this unique uh tier of architectural design that sort of uh it creates a place for a sign Um, additionally, I don't think we have
another site whose entrance is so far. And it's not that it's so far away, but the the context location of it is so different than where this other sign is. So, >> regardless of how the board votes in terms of this sign, whether you're granted variance, I I think you can do
so feeling comfortable that if anybody tries to point to this and says, well, you know, Circle Py got it, so so we should get it, too. the board will have plenty of ammo to push back and say that was very unique situation that doesn't apply to this property, this other property. >> But to that point, I know we're not
supposed to compare, but the property right next door has one's end on the anchor on the side. So the one >> the orange thing. >> Yeah, >> it's bigger than this one. >> So from historic preservation when we sat, we made sure the resolution was
very specific to the property. You can never compare one property to the other because that's the first thing that everybody came in. They said, "Oh, well, this person over here allowed it. So, you're gonna allow it here?" No, this this is being handled by this property owner, this property and its uniqueness.
So, what I would propose if this is allowed that we make sure we write in the resolution and we describe the uniqueness of the property as such to make sure it's not just a set of presence >> both in architecture and orientation, >> right? There's two big factors on why
I would consider this. >> I would als this is a adaptive reuse of the building as opposed to a new building too. So I think that also if >> I can make one other comment if you look at the rendering before you and you look at that this obviously looks bigger
because it's a big blank white. I'm not proposing big blank white plexiglass panels like you normally see. If you look at my rendering, we're doing a very subdued black background and then allowing the tenant to put their colors within that. So, it's going to read very
different and not this sparse looking big white box and it stays vacant until you get a tenant. So, it's actually going to look architecturally. >> Are you talking about this parking lot? >> Do you want to 31? >> It's going to be allowed to choose their colors in that building because on the
parking lot you said it's all going to be standardized. So this >> Well, no, it would be their colors. So if their sign is red, they're going to get a red sign. If >> But is it is the font going to be restricted like it is in the parking lot? >> I hadn't proposed it. I didn't think your ordinance mandated it. So I never
>> Yeah, I didn't like I don't like to push things like that, then it becomes too monotone. When you just said the center that has the blue in the cream, blue is one of the worst colors you can ever pick for a sign because you can't read it at night and you can't read it in the day. And if that's the other sign, is that going to have their logo?
>> If it's allowed, we could, but they my demand and what I thought you said is if I stay within this square footage, this height, and within that box, they can put their logo next to their sign. You know, Starbucks doesn't usually do that. I always use them as an example because I do a lot of them. They would probably
just put either the Starbucks or they're just going to put the mermaid. They don't usually put the two together. And and to to the chair's point, you said that this is standard the channel letters with the tenant. That's not what I'm hearing. >> Yeah, there's channel letters. >> They don't I'm not going to say
>> one can't use one font and another person use a different font as long as it's a channel letter. >> But they don't need to use the font at all if I'm hearing they just put the mermaid just logo >> or just the logo. >> Wait, I'm getting so confused. Well, that that's why I want to make sure
there are compliance signs at the north entrance and the sign along the wall that's completely non-compliant 11 by 18. You're proposing that they can put in their own colors and their own fonts, whatever. >> Correct.
>> The signs that say tenants running along the parking lot, you're now saying they can use whatever fonts they want. >> That's what I'm saying. I don't think your organs No, but I thought they I thought they'd already testify that everyone was going to have the same exactifi
that it would all be channel letters. Specify the font or the color. >> It needs to be same color, same >> just like it is in the render. >> Yep. Exactly. You can't have a new You'll have your answer in a second.
I'm about to be overruled. >> So, I mean, I think I think agree. I mean, I I would like to have flexibility here for, you know, a logo like a Starbucks if they choose to put the mermaid in. However, for this one, to clarify, and if we're not clear, I apologize. We will keep it channel lines, but same font, same color
uniformly through the parking lot. A all all these eight tennis signs will be the same. >> It'll say Starbucks, you know, Cavo or whatever. Is the freestanding sign going to have the same black background as the side of the building there? So, it's not going to be completely different. Those two are going to
>> Yeah, this and the sign out here. That's >> We just built one like that. It's very cloudy looking, which drives me crazy. These big signs with all this plexiglass that's white and it's blank and it sits there and it looks bigger than it really is. Black is subdued. You don't see all the lines blur and then when the color
comes in, it pops and looks good. whether it's being a sign or it's blank. That's why I started doing >> um I just want to raise one issue with the side the sign on the side. I think just consistency in the rendering the
center is in individual channel letters affixed to the stone facade in the black in the drawing that was done. It is a panel sign. And so I think the board and you guys should be clear on what's >> the rendering.
>> Okay. It's always the rendering >> channel letters each individually affixed to the whatever that is. >> It's a box. It's plexiglass just like a sewing cabinet on a pylon >> and they'll route the black plexiglass out
>> and then the color will push through. >> So it actually won't be sticking off like the facade sign. It's part of that black box. that they route the letters out internally illuminate it and then if it's a red plexiglass or we're going to do all the same whatever it's going to
be that's what go so it's not a black box and then another sign sticking out further >> it's all part of just it's being done just like the pylon being done the pylon is a big sign cabinet >> that's internally illuminated they put plexi in it whatever color and then they
route the plexi out but the colored plexi in of whatever color we're choosing And that's what you'll see. So you'll see it on the pylon and you'll see it on the Route 31 side. Identical. The only ones that stick out off the facade will be the ones in the parking
lot. They will be affixed to the background like a normal sign would be >> on a raceway, not on a raceway. And they would be the and they're way shorter than 4 feet. They would never come close to projecting four feet, which is your other two signs will be identical. A box
internally illuminated route. The sign goes to the sign vendor who built this. Gives him his font font font and they'll route it out. Put the plexiglas face in. Beautiful. And when it's empty, you replace the black panel and it's solid black until the next tenant comes.
>> Given that I'm seeing this visually almost like a freestanding sign, but our freestanding sign, you're happy to have that one at 50 square feet. What was the square footage of this one again? 200 >> 2011. So I'm just seeing is there
flexibility there to like >> it's going to be a little smaller once they take out the knife. >> So again I don't know much but >> my concern for them I guess as well is how does this the base comes quite low honestly right compared to other
compared to other signs we've discussed in the preview. >> How does that impact the the um that you said there was quite a lot of street um landscaping along that edge. Is that going to >> I don't think there I don't think it's
uh it's not tall enough to impede view of the sign. I think they had a street tree that was proposed in front of the the facade sign which I recommended they shipped over and they just >> I'm thinking then that the opportunity to bring the base of it up rather you
know smaller tall >> we also have a in our ordinance we not have the minimum height off the ground of a pylon side to be like eight feet off the ground or something like that over there >> minimum
>> yeah It's the >> max height. >> And I think that I I wouldn't want if if if the goal is to make this thing pseudo like a pylon sign but attached to the building and it legally being a facade sign so that it serves that kind
offormational purpose >> because they're allowed to pretend it's want to make I would say we would want it to be consistent height off the ground which I thought was 8 foot over there. It's actually zero. Um, >> it's 8 ft for George Street, 8 for 202,
but zero for uh 12 and 31. >> That's weird. >> You mean the clearance below the sign, right? >> Zero. >> How does it even be a pylon sign? >> Because it doesn't spec. We don't specify. >> Okay, never mind. I just figured everything.
And just to answer really quick, the pylon is a little bit almost half the distance to the street as this wall sign. So that's why that didn't have to be >> overall as large >> because it's closer to the roadway than this and the angle that you're driving
seeing this. These are perpendicular to the driver, the pylon line. When you come to here, these aren't. They're parallel. So you're always seeing the sign sideways. You're never driving unless you get all the way down circle. So too, if you ever look at the
perpendicular right angles to the other side looking straight, >> correct? Was your testimony about you may have you probably said this but was your testimony about how the facade sign with
the black panels with the light and the color shining through will that apply to the freestanding sign as well? Is it >> the free not the facade signs the ones on 31? >> The facade signs were going to be >> nothing in the parking lot. I mean the one fac
>> it's the same basically the same sign type affixed to different structures. >> Absolutely. So that's all consistent. >> Yeah. Yeah. The the two signs that look like freestanding signs. >> I'm consistent. Now you know.
>> Question. A monument sign that would be on 31. Is that that's going to have signs on both sides of the sign or it just >> So it's on both. >> That's 100. >> Yeah.
What's your just rendering that? Is that right? We refacing it. It's that's the actual You're not building a new one of those. That's just facing what's on there. >> No, it's a new We're taking the old one out and this is basically going relatively the same. >> Does that stone match the side the stone
on the side? >> Yes. As does the brick. So whatever we what we've chosen if we stay that chosen that will be all all assigned will be bound by these colors you know same materials same geish trim at the top >> disc
will only shine on >> for the record I'm just put on the screen of what of the submission exhibit A3 Well, I was saying when we're looking at that one, there'll be one stone eight
similar with size one and and the bish. >> But yeah, I think that that's >> if it's good to be >> I'll change probably the top one and split it then probably remove the bottom row which will get you eight versus nine. >> And would you make the same change on
the facade sign as well? Like the the side facade side method. Yeah, I have. Yes, I will shrink that. So, I think >> this may or may not be acceptable for the board, but I do think the applicants proposed to get rid of a portion of the
sides of the sign facing the 31 for uh facing the um for the excess tenant space. And then the center name is not part of the sign panel. It's it's going to be individual letters on the on the stone similar to the or as shown in the
rendering as opposed to or actually in that >> we put a box around that as well for you to calculated. >> Yeah. So, you know, it's it's still well beyond what is permitted. But I think the the reduction and the circle or the
the positing being in individual letters rather than part of the sign panel, that'll help mitigate some of the height. Whether that's enough for the board remains to be seen, but I I do think you should take that into consideration. >> It reads differently than the than the tenant. >> Yeah, it has less visual impact if it's the individual letters rather than part
of the the larger panel. And you can get a sense from the from the side of the rendering. It's just it has less impact. It's admittedly I think it's less visible factor from what's there today. We've enhanced that. It's less clutter. doesn't have to go all over the facade
to try to find and they're all different sizes, all different shapes. I consolidated, made uniform and tied all the architecture for the facade into my signage, both freestanding and that side. >> How did you come up in my mind wid of the building? >> What's that?
>> How did you come up with the 11 foot width >> proportionality and knowing each panel had to be a certain width and a certain height and I gave the same width and height? So again, could I squeeze the stone and make it a little skinnier? It's not going to change my signage area because that's all I measured, but the
the stone could get smaller. I wouldn't want to change the panel wish because I feel like they're at a minimum already to be visible. And I just thought the stone was so attractive as a feature on that wall, you know, it's it's an enhancement. They should thank me
>> almost between you and them, but Um, does anybody else have any um things to add to any >> what what is going to be on the freestanding sign? >> That's the one we're show on the screen now. D >> is this the freestanding one?
>> Yeah, this is the freestanding one. Yeah. >> And and this one meets the requirements, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Y that's the test. Yes. >> So the freestanding one is going to be facing like 31, right?
>> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. And then I I I don't get why the the wall one needs to be so big then. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> One of the reasons you have the mon sign is to identify the driveway as access
in. So I think it's there's a bit of a distinction between the facade wall facade sign we have and the actual moni. >> Okay. I think we I think you get a testimony. Gotcha. >> Yeah. Do you have Does anybody have any other questions for this um Oh, anybody
anybody on the board? >> No. Um any members of the public have any questions for this witness? >> I don't see any hands online. >> No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thanks. Uh my next uh will be the
traffic engineer, Mr. Cory Chase from Dynamics Engineering. >> Yes. actually feel. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Cory Chase. Uh, first name C O R E Y, last name C H A S E. Principal of the firm Dynamic Traffic, licensed professional engineer
in the state of New Jersey and five other states. Bachelor's of Science and Civil Engineering in the University of Massachusetts and I've been qualified as an expert in traffic engineering before over 130 municipalities throughout the city. >> I would ask that you be accepted as a expert traffic engineering.
>> Anybody? >> Thank you. >> So, Mr. Chase, could you uh just mark you mark um in the exhibit the attractive report that you prepared? Uh describe uh in the narrative um the sufficiency for circulation ingress
egress uh the number of parking spaces is that we're posing is uh above the required for the zone and also just confirmed DOT has no interest I believe. >> Yes, certainly. >> Hold on really quickly. Um so there's a traffic report that we're going to mark
in that was not provided in connection. I believe it was provided, but just for the record, this is >> Do you see that? >> Yeah, it was. >> Okay. I'm looking at your report. I didn't see it record. >> Yeah, it's on the front. It's the third bullet point. >> Ah, there we go. >> It wasn't called the traffic.
>> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> No, no problem. Um yes, as Jeff mentioned, so we did prepare a parking and circulation assessment was dated April 14, 2025. Uh it reviewed the site access to circulation and the overall improvements to the site as a result of the redevelopment. I think certainly one
of the things that Tori mentioned that's a highlight of this redevelopment is we're providing a much more efficient parking layout adjacent to the northern building facade. Currently there's some angled parking, one-way circulation. It's very odd adjacent to the actual storefront. So, as part of this
redevelopment, we are proposing a much more efficient and standardized two-way circulation layout directly adjacent to that northern building facade. Also proposing 90°ree parking, which is much more traditional for commercial development. Uh what that does allow us to do is we actually gain parking stalls
over the existing condition. I believe there are approximately 99 parking stalls on site currently. That'll be increased to 113 as a result of the redevelopment. that does exceed the burrow's requirement of 101 parking spaces for the current tenant mix that we have proposed with consideration of
the credit for the four electronic vehicle charging stations. That would actually get us to 117 parking stalls provided but 113 physical stalls will actually be provided. >> Um we did uh Mr. Troutman, we did receive your review letter which was
dated August 25th, 2025. Um, as he correctly notes in this review letter, the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, they're going to utilize the o overall building square footage as their metric for developing traffic projections. So, as Mr. D just mentioned, there is a slight reduction
in that overall building square footage. So, really the traffic conditions will be comparable to what the prior development had previously generated. Um, and as Mr. you're traveling correctly noted, we aren't changing any of the access points to Route 31 or to the ramp from Route 31 southbound to Route 12. And with that slight reduction
in building square footage, technically we would not need to go to the New Jersey Department of Transportation for any type of approval. In an abundance of caution, we did submit a letter of no interest request to the department. Uh that was approved. It was dated July 25th, 2025. Miss Kazinski, I'd be happy
to provide you with a copy of that letter of no interest like >> just for the burough's benefit. Uh, so just mark this really quickly. We'll mark this as exhibit A9 >> and that confirms that the New Jersey Department of Transportation takes no
issue with the redevelopment of the subject property is currently proposed. No new access permitting would be required. We did review the on-site circulation, the overall layout of the existing herb cuts to Route 31 and the ramp to um Route 31 south through Route
12. We feel that upon redevelopment of subject property, it's certainly going to continue to provide safe and efficient access to the subject property. The parking layout, as I mentioned, is certainly going to be enhancement there. Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board, Mr. Troutman has, Jeff, if you think I missed
anything, but in the interest of time at the current hour, be happy to end my direct testimony with that. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Um, professionals. Yeah, just just on on comment five, you'll clarify on the plan what those signs are. I think I saw double posted signs that
oneway section. The video does not pulled out. >> Yes, certainly, Mr. Traman. I apologize for not touching them out in my direct, but yeah, we'll be happy to work with your office and clarify that signage and add any additional striping that you may feel is sufficient to reinforce that oneway circulation on the southern building facade.
>> Excellent. Any other professionals with this? >> All right, anybody from the board? Let's start with the second bus. >> No. Um well, I have one question. Um when you're coming down up Route 31 north, you are just like you can into Wendy's, you are going to be able to
make a left to this shopping center. Correct. >> That's correct. At that portion of Route 31, there is actually the two-way center left turn lane. So, you do have a refuge area to actually make the direct left into this site. >> And you have time to get over to that. It's not, it doesn't creep up on you
right away, right? It's >> No, there is it's approximately 100 feet of separation between where the circle actually terminates to where the the two turn. So, you do have the ability to maneuver. >> That's why
they >> No, no, they can't. >> So, the the exit though is around there's a separate exit, right? It's one way in, one way out. that. So there is a full movement driveway located adjacent to the northern property line which is solely
on route 31 frontage and then the ramp from Route 31 southbound to Route 12 there is a right turn exit only driveway. >> Okay. So people can get out from the farther one >> the southern access is only and it's right turn only. >> Well the northern
>> the northern one is two-way. That's correct. So adjacent to the northern which is just south of the Wendy's property >> that is both entering and >> ex people can get out of there and get into the circle. >> That is correct. >> Not get trapped >> and not not have to take the ramp up from 31 south to route 12.
>> Was it always like that? >> Uh I believe prior to the circle improvements there was an additional access point but ever since the circle was improved this is how the access has been. >> Okay. Thank you.
at that point. I know I went on the adjacent property and no left turn onto that 31 which >> I just sign like oh I can go if there's nothing coming anyway. Okay, that's that. Yeah. Um the
the Walgreens you can only but Wendy's your left >> the Walgreens is based in the proximity the traffic light nothing more exciting than that >> my my traveling habits at Wendy
>> nothing >> I'm good >> just a quick quick question uh one drawing that uh I guess showed with the people on it the the rendering of it The handicap part. >> Yeah. >> So the handicap part is that just going
to be like marked on the or like will there be like sign? >> We're required to put signs in front of those here. So by law we have to actually put the postmounted signage in front of those >> sign didn't show it on here like the one
but >> we knew Mr. D want to take away. was in India to do a rendering what all those signs look like. >> Yeah. >> Um online um Melissa. >> Oh, Don. Sorry, Don. I missed you. Went
right over your screens. Right. >> I was just wondering about just the um briefly describe the um deliveries. I guess they take the northernmost and then they would have to exit from the southern. >> Yeah, that's correct. So any deliveries
would enter through the northern access point, full access driveway. They'll circulate in a counterclockwise manner towards the southern building facade. You can see there's some yellow hatch striping directly adjacent to the southern building facade. There are doors, all employee doors, man doors towards the rear of that. So they do
have direct access to load from the rear of the building. They would have to exit onto the ramp to Route 12. Fortunately, there is the circle immediately to the west of that where they could then execute a U-turn and head back towards 22 and 31 if needed. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um Melissa online, anything? >> No questions for this witness. >> Okay, thank you. And then Dennis? >> No, I'm good. Thanks. >> I think that's it. >> Okay. >> So,
>> um any public questions for this witness? Actually public anybody online towards don't see any hands raised no hands raised for this >> my last witness uh Mr. Joe Sper from
Dynamic Engineering will be a professional planner this evening. >> Good evening. >> Hello. >> Yeah. Uh Joseph Speron with dynamic engineering, a graduate of Rucker School of Engineering, professional planner in the state of New Jersey and have been
accepted as an expert in professional planning before various other boards. >> The board accepts professional planning. >> Any questions for comment? >> No. could you uh take us take us home with the specifications of the variances um
and take us through it please? >> Yeah, I'll keep it brief in the hour tonight. Um basically what it's down to you have the you have the existing non-conformities that they're requesting to carry through. That's between the rear yard and front yard setbacks that are not changing. Uh the maximum floor
area ratio, maximum pvious coverage, both of which will be reduced compared to what the existing condition is. So the request is to continue uh to carry those variances through with this application. Uh the remainder of the variances are in regards to the signage and I believe it's the accessory
structure was the the final discussion there on the um on the hot box for the for the water utility. Um all in all the variances that are being requested are going towards enhancing, modernizing, revitalizing what is basically an
underutilized existing site. Um the benefit of these being uh that uh they go towards improving the aesthetic of the site. Um the signage, it's aesthetically pleasing in harmony with the proposed architecture as was testified by the project architect at
length. Um promotes clear and safe identification of the site for multiple vantages so the public uh can safely navigate to the site. Um and and again it's it's it's done in a tasteful manner. So it's not goddy. It's tied into the the architecture of the
building. The accessory structure, whether you consider that a structure or not, it's really utility equivalent to a transformer. Um, any other type of utility structure as that um that you might see around for public utilities and or private utilities, it's something
required by the water company. Um, and it's required to provide a uh fire service for the site. So, there's really no way around that. and the water utility itself is going to want that uh they require it actually to be closer to the frontage um as close to the
connection to the water man as possible. There's reasons for crosscontamination and things of that nature. Uh all that said um you know I think all this can be approved uh under the C2 variance flexible criteria uh benefits being the positive criteria purposes of the
municipal land use law would be advanced by deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement. uh for that uh I believe we advanced purpose A, purpose G, purpose H, purpose I and uh purpose M. Um as far as benefits of the deviation which
substantially outweigh any detriment, uh you have what I just listed again it's all towards beautifification and enhancement of the site um serving to provide a better alternative uh and goes towards the benefit of the community that it represents a better
zoning alternative. It does not necessarily need to be specific to request relief, but the overall proposal, which I think testimony from the civil engineer uh and the architect uh show that that's been accomplished with the negative criteria variance be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair intent purpose of the zone plan uh andor ordinance. Uh in this case, firstp prong impact on adjacent properties and damage character of the neighborhood. Um, I don't think this could be seen as anything but an
enhancement to that existing retail corridor. Um, it's uh it's similar to the existing adjacent retail uses. Um, again, it will be modernized. It'll be enhanced with basically a totally uh
redone architecture will look like as much as an existing building can look at like a new building. And that carries into the site as well with new landscaping, uh the paving striping being redone, u better circulation, um new lighting, LED lighting. So in in
essence, you have what is going to look like for all practical purposes a new site. Uh but at the same time, you're taking uh uh an existing building completely underutilized and bringing it back to life. Um second problem, grounds
off sports variance act adequately justify board approval. Um, as was stated, retail service and development use is permitted in the highway retail zone. Proposed development complies with the bulk requirements other than the existing non-conformances that have been
requested um andor improves upon the existing non-conformances. So you have sideyard or um sorry rear uh front yard setbacks that will remain unchanged and then again you have um the the floor area ratio on purpose coverage are actually being reduced compared to the
existing condition. It's in character with the surrounding neighborhood and land use pattern uh and it's consistent with the master uh master plan state redevelopment plan. Um as far as as was mentioned enhancement of the existing underly utilized commercial building with a mix
of uses including new specially retail and restaurants which is uh believe language that's directly from the one of the goals of the master plan in Flemington uh and encourages community and economic development as far as bringing again a center that's uh back to life hopefully attracting uh new
tenants um uh to the area. All that said, the applicant's consistent with good planning and uh statutory tests for relief are met and uh I believe approval is warranted if the board so chooses to grant it. >> No further for
that's the direct testimony. Yeah. >> If you want time to do a closing that um professionals >> I don't have any any questions. uh the applicants planner uh indicated that the C variances uh the C variances that are requested um I'm happy to to answer any
questions commentary but I think that they he indicated that uh the variances can be satisfied the new variance in particular satisfied via CC criteria with five purposes and then uh indicated that he thinks it testified that the
negative criteria has been met as well. Okay, on the board then. Anybody got any questions for this? >> No questions. Dennis, no shaking his head. Melissa, any questions for the planner, please?
>> No. >> Okay. So, you don't sound. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you very Oh, public. Anybody in the public have a question for this witness? >> Public hearing after all. I don't see
any raised hands raised anyone. So, I'm going to say no. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You want to make a application? >> I I think for the brief, I think uh we all know the property. It's dilapitated. It needs uh reinvigoration. We're proposing something I think that's very aesthetically pleasing. We've treated
them great care in the design. Um, I think we've made I think a record and with our design commitment to try to work within the uh boundaries of the Bloomington code, but there are some deviations that we would appreciate um your assistance to try to grant the variances, especially for the signage uh
namely the signage. And I think that will help us create a wonderful product for this town, something that's going to be very viable and um a long-term asset to the uh to the burough. That's that's all I had to say. >> Okay. I just have one question before they close. The board's going to
deliberate obviously, but one of the things they're going to have to discuss is um whether or not to grant a variance from that sideyard setback requirement for the hot box. So, we're going to do a no closer than what would you propose?
>> How far? How close can we get to? Zero, right? >> Two. gives us it gives us flexibility because like we all know when they come out there they're going to dictate to us put it. We'll do our best obviously. >> Okay. >> Not have to come back. It's been lovely.
I hope result. >> I'd rather not be back here either. >> Yeah. Just for this little thing. It would be a bit silly. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Get on the back for maintenance. So we got our >> Right. Exactly. >> Um Okay. That it then mov
>> Okay. So, can I get a motion to public? Anybody been waiting till this point to have public combody in the public in the room? >> No. Then I ask >> allowing
on that one. We call the golduction. >> Yes. Mayor, yes. Um, Miss >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. All right, more discussion time. Our favorite part >> other than the things we've already brought up or anything else like
I just I mean I think sleep it's really really nice. It's a huge improvement. Uh, I'm so happy that it's getting the attention it needs and deserves. I'm just not sold on the signage. It's not
sold on it. I I agree with Dennis. I just think it's like so much overkill. Um, I've heard what everybody said up here and I respect everybody's opinion, but like I said, it's a slow zone and u
I can actually I I don't know. I just I just am not sold on the signage aspect of how big the letters are in the parking lot and how I'm I'm actually more comfortable with how huge the sign is on the side of the wall than I am on how big the
letters are in the parking lot. >> Really? Mhm. It's for everybody else. >> I know. I know. >> Well, that's why we have people. >> I agree. I agree. I don't want anything. >> I'm actually getting very comfortable to
sign, >> what I call the digital sign. >> Very comfortable. Yes. Because I'm looking at it from the perspective of that tenant at the very end of that site. Nobody driving by is coming in. They're just not. I don't care how big
this the the letters are for those end units. If we want them to be full and we want to make sure that we've got people parked in there and going in, they need to know they're there. >> No, suggestion. Yeah,
>> I was I was uncomfortable with the Route 31 sign until Mr. Deetsz, you know, explained the composition of it being black and >> I think it's going to be very tasteful regardless of the size of it. It's, you know, anything that's not neon is good.
>> Exactly. in my >> everything else everything else everything else sounds good with >> okay >> my question has been answered happy with it >> right you're good too
>> I'm in agreement as well um I'm happy that we kind of clarified the the parking signage and that we're hoping for it to be uniform and that we're not allowing it to be everybody body's logo. Um, I think that will help tie it in
more too. So busy like worried for so that was my biggest clarification. >> Yeah. And I I think it's a site that's long overdue for for to getting fixed and I think it's great to see it is a reuse and something Beth said before
that really that landed with me is this is an adapt or maybe it was Cara that this is a reuse, right? This is an adaptive reuse of an existing site that needs to get ra and if they were if this was new construction, I think I'd feel very differently about the signage. I'd feel very differently about it. It's
kind of a blank building as as it is. And I think that what the architect was able to do with this kind of variated tenant sides facing the give some difference to the tenant spaces. Give
something to the building that is, you know, it is of a period. It certainly got that Korean screw going on. Um I I I I I I hear the concerns about the size of the sign and it does sound like the the they're going to be able to bring in
the size of the circle facing facade sign because we don't have that extra that ninth tenant and the consistency between the freestanding sign post on the north end of the property and that I think is a nice design element also. Um, as for the other stuff, you know, the
other variance is really just just a matter of documenting existing conditions. I I appreciate that they're going to try to um they're going to work with us on putting more trees in if they can and making contribution if they if if if they're unable to and choosing the right trees that we want to see happen.
It is a big parking lot and I to try to get as much green in there to break up that cabin is going to be helpful, especially that part of town. There's still a lot a lot of asphalt over there. that's that's certainly going to be helpful. I agree with Marcia that, you know, it is not a place where you're doing 45. It is a place where course
traffic is fairly slow. Um that said, you know, you've got these kind of flat facades and breaking up. They're break they're breaking up and getting visual interest with some of the sign stuff. Again, the mix between the um the
shopping center sign, which I think is distinct from the tenant signs, which I think is is a nice way to do that as well. the materials are good and appropriate and use the brick makes us feel like it's in the burrow and the colors make it feel like it's in the burrow even though we oftentimes have that problem between what's
>> the main street stangle parts of town versus the highway retail. I think this does as a gateway feel like it's pulling it a little elements in there. So I I like I guess I guess all that said appreciate what they're trying to do here. So, I'm willing to to to support the relief they're seeking on the on the
signage given the totality of all of that. Right? If it was just signage by itself, I think it'd be having a different conversation. So, so I think that that for me that's that's >> um I I would just I'd echo a lot of what people said. Um, for me the sign I'm
happy that to see the building being refurbished. I think it'll be really nice. You know, to me the sign, the freestanding sign is great on 31 going south. I the parking lot signs I think look really nice. Um, I I think I just
think about when you come down 202 and you're going on the circle and you're going around, you're going to face that sign. and I feel that it's too large and I'm disappointed that the applicant didn't offer to meet the uh the standard
for that one. So that's that's disappointing, but I think the overall project is very good. >> Okay, thank you Melissa thoughts. Um, echoing a lot of what everybody said,
I'm very grateful about the willingness of the applicant to work with us with landscaping, with appropriate trees, shrubs, bushes, any type of green stuff that we can put in there because we need it badly. Um, at first I think the signs at first
glance when I opened the documents earlier the signs were extremely overwhelming. But I think but I think it was part because it's been the way it is now for so long and seeing this whole new concept was just like wow like but
the more we had the discussions I feel a lot more comfortable with the signs than I was eight hours ago 10 hours ago. However many hours it's been, >> that long
this morning. I get it. Thanks, Melissa. Um, yeah, I mean, I echo what everybody said. Really, you were really pleased to see something happening here. Did I miss some? Did I miss Don? I thought I went to
the >> only I'm blending in at >> No, I'm I'm happy with with everything here. Um I like the consistency of the signs. Um certainly from the parking lot standpoint. Um and as far as the the the
relief they're seeking, I would just make sure that it's clear in the resolution, the uniqueness of this bill, right? make sure that we clearly document it in resolution so that there is no president set. >> No, that's a good point. We could raise that and we'll make sure it's in like
100% look at it. It looks too important when when after the testimony and you hear it's it's almost part of the design element in some ways and I am pleased that it's going to be controlled by the lamp. It's not going to be random weird signs in these spots. It's going to have
a look and it's all part of the design. It's large part of the design which um said it's it's it's improving the overall building. Um say as long as we make sure we're clear about that. I also want to be clear about the aspects from
the engineering reports that that instead of seeking the variance they agree to work with but and make some changes that's an absolute must happen. I think >> I think the way to word that is they agreed to do
>> vegetative filter strip where I think there was a sufficient for they're going to do something >> something >> on the site to accommodate the runoff talking about uh and if they do that then they they qualify for the uh the higher percentage but they're already
over the higher percentage anyway but that's a pre >> I'm just want to be like for resolution compliance that thing must happen if that doesn't happen you Yeah, >> we should have sort we leave but we for resolution compliance we'll be watching that kind closely
caught on that before. That's something real strongly about >> and and even if even if they're not being able to put trees in that's going to putting more bio as part of the storm water is I think a good net also for right >> yeah exactly made some really good
suggestions of what we could do and I want to see that happen rather than just but overall Everybody else said the improvements to this site look forward to uh visiting whoever comes in. I hope it gets still there. Um and um I think
there's a lot of improvements to the site being made by the proposal the variance and it sort um but yeah that's my thoughts. I don't have any more otherwise I'll ask for ask car for us. I just wanted to flag you guys
need to make decision if you want to require any additional cross access. That's the only other >> on the northern side. >> So that and the issue of are you okay with the two feet closer to the two side. >> So the cross access something a
possibility for the future. They would still be able to use the parking spots for now, but what what what effectively is like a drop thing that would allow somebody to come through the road to be re realigned between those two blocks. Is that okay? >> Did you say the referencing the grade?
Yeah. So, um to the north towards the Wendy's, uh the things that would have to occur is I think Wendy's need to be redeveloped. Um there's there's a legitimate concern about the fact they've got the drive the drive-thru there, but yeah, there is a grade change there. So in any redevelopment scenario,
um if they're going to implement that cross access, they would have to do some regrading of the sidey road setbacks between these two that they can >> connect to properly. Um to the south side, they have a bigger grade change and and I think a smaller area to work
with. Um and so I think any cross access that would be provided to south it would be part of a major redevelopment scenario that might also include this property so you can match the grade. Um so is the south is admittedly much more difficult >> and is is this cross access something
that we need to be moving towards that we or just it's a nice to >> I think it's something it's I think it's something that's nice for municipalities. It helps to keep cars off of the highway. So, if you are going to grab something at this place and go to Wendy's, you don't need to go out on
31 and then back in. You can just cut through the lot. Same thing would apply for folks that are on foot or on bike. Uh admittedly, you could use the sidewalk in there, but it's but it's more convenient. >> Um and it's really just an effort to uh to try to make linkages between the
properties more convenient and keep cars off off of the streets possible. We've had we've had we've had cross access of parking lots as a goal in master plan documents for a very long time. Right. >> Right. But in this case, it does rely on
Wendy's not being owned. So something not having a drive-thru. >> It's a really long It's a long It's a longterm prospect because you know this site is being redeveloped. Wendy's might be developed in two years, 10 years or 15 years from now. Um and at that point
that's when you can ask the question. So, but if you regardless of whether you decide that you want to apply it to the north, south, or just keep the west, it's it's really about a long-term prospect and connecting these properties over years and and likely decades.
>> Um, but if you don't start now, >> so that's something to consider to be a requirement >> condition for this. It would also require adjacent property owner approval. That's we could
put that in as the condition and we could say something like should the adjacent property be developed in the future the applicant's required to approach the property owner to see if this could happen. But short of that they say no way. >> Yeah. Because because no way unless you
put it in your master plan which is a different way. >> No. Look, they they're proposing a place on the Western where it could go in the future. And all it is is a mark on the plan that if it were to happen in the future, this is the spot that they're saying it's going to happen. They we I
asked the question, they gave testimony. They don't see an automatic spot on the the north >> spot to do that and they're concerned about the parking and there is a great issue and there is a drive-through issue. So, it may be >> we may not be able to get that second >> Yeah.
>> cross access on the north side. Um, I mean at a minimum the at a minimum the west cross access were to actually happen could conceivably enable somebody to come off of you know Broad Street into this center which would really I
think from a safety perspective have some >> real advantages um for neighborhood businesses um having to not have to navigate the the circle. Um, so, so that makes certain amount of sense. The connection to whatever what currently is
Wendy's is probably less critical for that connectivity >> in my mind. So, I'm not I know I raised the issue, but I'm not >> I don't want to go up the works on this one. if you want to preserve that actually is potentially happening 10
years from now, 15 years from now, having put something in the deed because you don't record these maps and I can see the difficulty they had even trying to find the stuff that was done in 2004 88 and stuff. So I think put something in so somebody doing a survey or
something a title search will see if there >> don't we do we feel like we even >> I'm not comfortable making I personally don't think we should make a requirement on the north side at this point but they've already got one on the west it's already on
>> we gain one >> you did >> and that's part and parcel of because one of our standard conditions would be that it's approved as shown on the plan and what's shown on the this proposed potential future cross access. Yeah, >> that's that's the way we can we can
handle it and you know other language in there >> as to how that would be facilitated if it comes. >> Yeah. >> And then that would be recorded. >> So then the other question you had car was about the two feet for the sideyard for the hot box.
>> Could you just say zero and leave it up to the utility custody? >> Yeah, >> we could do that too. I'm >> because at the end of the day it's the utility. I mean what if they come back and say well we need to be a foot and a half. They got to come back because they just took a guess at two feet. It's like
a gamble. Just just throwing it out there. I mean you can tell any company's not going to put zero speed. >> Listen the only reason we're addressing it is because it has to be addressed relief that's required by your wasn't we
wouldn't be. Well, we certainly can say zero ft. We don't have to put a measurement in the front yard because that's prohibited entirely. So, what we're basically saying is you're allowing it in the front yard. We don't really have to put a a location on it. But here there's a foot requirement,
foot sign requirement. They're not meeting it. So, we have to if we're going to grant relief, we have to say what extent of the relief is that we're granting. And it could very well be zero. My my concern about zero is that we're talking about something that is going to require maintenance and to to
service the thing >> require would require you know going onto the adjacent property. There's I mean again it's not a deal breaker but >> that's why that's why that's why two feet seems to make sense. >> Well actually it can't be zero because
there's a wall there. So oh that overlaps. >> Okay. Well then there's that. I mean >> we say wherever they put it. >> I mean I think we have to put a number in there again just because there is a
measurement just to you know do it properly. I think we have to put some type. >> Can we can we say like you said because of that chicken situation can we say one foot or two foot unless determined that necessarily we
can't say that by the the authority that put it. Well, it sounds to me like if there's a wall there and we say one foot that covers can't be zero because the walls there. So one foot >> one foot cover a gap but give a little bit more flexibility in terms of what they
>> and if the burl water department wants more they'll have to do once. >> Right. >> Well the the thing is it's it's in the sideyard and the we're not it's not going to be 15t away from the sideyard because that'll run into the building. So or
whatever but So, so clearly that's not going to happen. It's just we're talk. So, if it's one one foot works >> I I think that works. >> They can't realistically put it as closer. >> Yeah, >> that's the reality of it. >> It's just like a number to put in there.
It's >> like the difference between >> all right, that sounds good. >> All right. So, you want to hear? >> We got a list, Chris. Do again. >> All right. work with me. >> Um,
>> compliant with all requirements and recommendations set forth in the board professionals con uh reports uh as entered as evidence except with regard to Mr. Clerico's report
uh they will not be complying with item nine. They will instead be complying with item 10. And with regard to item 13, um they will work with the burough engineer to his satisfaction to comply
with the requirements of 13. I guess that's C3. >> No, 13 C 13 C >> 3 C >> B. Okay. Yes.
>> Um All right. I think that's C3B. >> Yeah. Um and with regard to 19, this is another condition that they will provide detailed proposed above ground structure which is subject to additional relief. The relief the board will grant will be
as outlined in board planes report in addition to the following relief. board will grant a relief from the front yard setback prohibition for accessory structures in the front yard to allow for a hot box be placed there by the
water department uh and a sideyard setback of no more than one no closer than one foot to the lot regard to that same hot box. Um there's also design labels that we talked about
signage again we talked about the relief that's required there is outlined in the report. Um the application are is approved as depicted on the plans. Any changes to the plans except as otherwise required by the conditions uh the
applicant must return to the board. Um, I heard that the lighting, and I wasn't sure if this was noted as any comment. I just wanted to put it in there. They'll replace the head on the existing lighting so that they're consistent with the new lights. Um, the plans do depict a cross access easement with lot is that
lot eight, >> correct? >> Lot eight to the west of the property. Um in the event that that does come to fruition, the cross access easement will be prepared uh to the satisfaction of the board professionals and it will be recorded on both the subject lot and lot
8. Uh RTMUA approval must be provided. Press access for not doing that. We talked about dementia water structure. We talked about um the applicant will work with the
board planner to her satisfaction to determine exactly what trees will be incorporated into the landscape plan to incorporate some more native uh tree species. Uh the discharge point for the roof leaders identified in number 16 of the
board engineers letter um will be located. >> That's not right. >> Say it again. >> The you talked about where the roof leaders were going to show where >> they're indicating they go underground and you're going to show that they will
be on SER starts be some ser underground >> but you're going to want to locate that show that on the plans. Uh 15 uh 15 of the board engineers report that's with regard to the high point of the catch based review and modify the
satisfaction of board engineer. The engineering drawings will be amended as necessary to comport with the information in the architectural drawings with regard to building square footage and signage. The applicant will comply with all outdoor dining requirements of ordinance
2629. Uh all tenant signs facing the parking lot will be channel letters as depicted on A5. Uh no corporate logos will be permitted.
In color same color and same font. Any changes in that and they will be a fixed to the panel. Any changes uh to that must come back to the board? >> Can we stop for a sec? >> Yep. >> Requiring them all to also all be
capitalized or all capitals. In other words, we're famous. One sign for the all caps and somebody else's famous capital F small letters. Sorry, dude. Um so I think we need to be specific one way or
another. >> Okay. All same color, all caps and all the same font. Okay. >> Comply with ADA and handicap parking requirements. >> And then the rest of our standard conditions.
>> The uh the mention of uh the landscaping adding uh to the tree was not mentioned. >> I I did, but one of the things I did forget to say, thank you. I said that they work with the board board planner to her satisfaction to uh
modify or incorporate some additional data species. But what I also had there was the input from the shade tree commission. >> Thank you. >> Can you require them to impose a cross easement on the neighboring property? Uh, no, but like I said, I'm going to put in there that if that becomes
available, >> if it's they they would have to do one to our satisfaction and report it, but it's all dependent upon and that'll go in there. All dependent upon whether or not they say it's >> put something in the title if they join property. They can't do that. >> But they will if they come to an
agreement with because they have to come to an agreement with the adjacent property owner. You can't do a cross access easement with an adjacent property owner without consent from both lot owners. So, if they do, then they would record it on both lots. Otherwise, the language will be if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Regardless of that,
>> I got one is that the drawings depict nine tenants slots on the facade sign in the circle and a freestanding sign on 31 test that they're going to be eight tenant slots. So plans will be revised to
>> the signage will come down from the 2011 proposed uh facing room 31 and presumably from the 50 square ft 50 ft on the freestanding sign. >> Yep. >> Well, yeah, the freestanding sign is conforming. So that's not the that's not the issue.
>> Does it have to? The other one the freeing ones could be a little bit bigger, but I I I think that I think it's the the facade on the circle that if if it's brought down from 200, >> it'll be amended to reflect eight tenants. So, proportionately reflect eight tenants, >> but the sign, but I think the
distinction is they're going to shrink the 2011, >> right? >> Want to make sure that that's in there. That'll bring down the height of that facade a little bit. And also the center sign, the center name on that sign will not be one of the uh the sign panels.
It'll be individual letters >> as depicted on A5. >> Yes. Back up. >> Right. >> Okay. >> I'll move second. Yes. >> And that would be totally >> I said yes. >> Yes, he did.
>> Yes. Oh my goodness. >> No. >> Okay. >> Councilwoman Fara. >> Yes. Miss Mr. Champions off. >> Yes. >> Miss Weissman.
>> Yes. >> Miss Swing. >> Yes. >> Mr. Show. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Eckle. >> Uh. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. Give you a surprise
to get the resolution. >> Well, yeah, we'll work together on that. >> I appreciate. Thank you for your time. U look forward to working. >> Thank you. All right, let's go. >> Um,
>> all right. Um I only have one I just wanted to report on the >> one the ordinance um the consistency report is what's the word on the consistency hearing on the ordinance the
power council is coming up on the 9th we'll have a report from the planner we will also have um kind of The sub committee will pull together some possible commentary so that I also
want everyone to that when that comes in so that we can have a good discussion about it on the night. >> Good what I'm saying. Um all right. Anybody else have any other items they want to bring through the know? All right. Um
item 10 is bills. They were definitely distributed. >> I do. Sorry. I have a question for >> what happened to work? You were gonna call them after they run out. >> Did they
put in? Sorry. I know. One of the appensions. Then you weren't applying for an extension of an extension to actual time to act. >> Told they were doing that. We got
nothing from it other than that. >> Um item 10 is the bills which were contributed thanks to our whole packet. I love this meeting packet. Otherwise, I lose them all over my email.
>> All right. So, can I get a um at this point? Um >> the bills. >> Yes, please. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Swingber. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Excellent. Now, item 12. You want to go into exact? >> I would. I will make it very brief. Uh we need a motion to go into executive session. You've discussed status of litigation involving the uh Clement Circle billboard and potential
litigation options regarding the same. We will not be making any formal determinations during executive session and we will or will not return back to public. >> I don't see any need to return. >> No, we will not return back to public. So the motion is to close the public
session and go into executive >> so quiet. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Councilomano. >> Yes. >> Weman. >> Yes. Mayor Carol, >> yes. >> Uh, Miss Gffin, >> yes. >> Miss Swingle,
>> yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Swinger, >> yes. >> Mr. D, >> yes. >> Thank you, Mr. >> H. Yes. >> Okay. So, I'm going to stop the recording and lock the webinar. >> Yes. Tap.