Good evening. This is the April 14th regular meeting of the Flemington Burough Planning Board Zoning Board of Adjustment. Uh I do not have the official OPMA statement, but we're going to say that this meeting is being held in performance of the Open Public Meetings Act. Notice has been given according to law and we'll go with that
and uh this uh and hopefully uh one follows the rules. We'll just leave it at that and um and I beg everyone's for forgiveness on not getting the the disclosure exactly right. Um so let's start with
the flag salute. Please rise and grateful. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all.
>> In the absence of the uh board of secretary I'm just going to call the role so it's recorded uh and recording and we have it. Mayor Carol >> here. >> Council vice president Anglehart >> here. >> Mr. Campion >> here. >> Miss Gifin is excused. Miss Whitesman
>> here. >> Miss Swingle >> here. >> Mr. Scho >> here. >> Mr. Schlanganger >> here. >> Mr. Dashna is here. Mr. Eckle >> here. >> Mr. Hayne >> here. >> Mr. Pavers >> here. >> Attorney Kazinski >> here. >> Engineer Clerico
>> here. Kyle >> here. And engineer Troutman is excused but is available if we need him by phone is what. Um okay. So item one as always on the agenda is a period for public comments for items not currently in front of the board. Any member of the
public wishing to make a comment, please raise your hand. John Mcdana, I see you in the attendees. I know you're raising your hand because you are attached to one of the later agenda items. I'm assuming you do not have a public comment.
Thank you. All right. Uh nobody in the room as well. We'll move on. Item two on the agenda. The mayor comments. >> I don't have any comments tonight. Thank you. >> I know you want to drag this out. >> It's okay. Council comments. >> Sorry.
Comments very slowly. >> That's fine. That's fine. Um HPC comments. Dennis, >> take your time. We we have uh a meeting since the last meeting, but I will remind everyone we
are doing the historic house and gardens tour on Saturday, June 6 from 11 to 5. If anyone wants to participate, they get a free ticket. Just let me know. Oh, can I can I tag team on that because
I just found out today that the historic society on May 9th um is going to be doing the first of a series of walking tours in the burrow on the Asher strength of photos. If you don't know what those are, uh the family left all
of these original photos of historic Flemington that go back about a 100 plus years uh to the society. uh most of them were um not described and uh Peter Goodell
who is born and raised in the burrow and he's currently the president of the society spent the better part of about a year uh identifying where all of these houses are that have been changed. Some have been changed, some were original. Uh and even at the fair they put 20
photos out, at least eight of them got identified by people looking at the photos. And so they've been described now and um he's going to be starting a series of of the historic houses in the burrow, what they actually looked like
back in the day compared to today. Um and the first one is scheduled for me and I just found that out today. I think it's pretty exciting and cool and really cool. >> So um and that's to do the historic society here in Flamington. So
>> thank you. Um, all right. Item five on the agenda, comments from Environmental Commission. Alyssa. >> Uh, we haven't had a meeting since our last one, but our cleanup planning is still underway through the weekend before the house tour. I did get the
list of homes from Dennis. So, now that we have an area to focus on, we're going to put together a better list and a plan. >> You're looking for volunteers. >> Just looking for volunteer. Always looking for volunteers. information. >> All right. Um >> Um I could I could actually add to
Dennis. >> Sure. >> Think if you'd like. Um Dennis, yet last night the council introduced the revised HPC um map with the the adjustments um that were needed that were requested. So that
was introduced at council last night. And uh it's on Oh, wait. Let me see. >> It is a discussion item for >> 27. >> It was on the 27th. Thank you. That's going back to reminding me too. >> Last night, last night council, it was
also introduced the bamboo ordinance that originated from the environmental >> bamboo ordinance as no bamboo >> as don't play anymore. And if you got it, take care of it or else get out of control. >> Excellent. Susan, just a a question.
That wasn't for the CLG. >> The for the CLG. Yes, the CG. >> Okay. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Excellent. Great. >> All right. Um, sixth on the agenda,
professional reports. Cara, do you have anything you need to uh report on? >> I do not. >> All right. Uh, Bob, do you have anything? >> Nope. I should nothing other than we're we're
continuing to work through uh the historic preservation items that we talked about. I think we'll talk about that later. And then uh just master plan committee I just sent over so get that >> okay >> rescheduled but other than that no.
>> Okay. All right. Uh item seven on the agenda this evening is approval of the minutes from our prior meeting of March 24th, 2026. Those were sent out on the docket if I'm remember it correctly >> or no separately
issues in there. >> So we will No. So let's table that to the next meeting. That's not >> that was bills >> and bills. There are no bills. >> Well, that's 13. >> All right. So we will we will deal with the minutes at the next meeting. Item
eight on the agenda is the continuation of the public hearing for Spark Orwash LLC application 2025- lot 49 lot 6 which is continued from uh our prior meeting of March 24th. Um if
you could just click on there to turn the camera on, leave the audio off and that way folks can see. >> Okay. >> Hey Cara, where are you? I am coming up on uh I'm right by the um fud shop. >> Okay. I did the same
situation. >> Sorry. So, if you could just click on the on the on the on zoom. Um yeah, if you wouldn't mind. >> Oh, let's turn on the camera so it's a little bit easier for folks to see it. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we have the camera going.
Audio I don't need to. >> You know what? Audio has already been running. So, and if you wouldn't, you can turn the plat so that you're a little bit more in frame. >> There we go. >> Okay. So, um um for to remind folks, uh
we were um we had heard testimony from a number of witnesses and I think we were up to the planner if you could kind of catch us. Everyone up. >> Yeah, that's great. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Uh for the record, everyone, John Wescol, it's our pleasure to be back here tonight on behalf of Spark Car
Wash. Uh this is a uh continuation. It's actually our third public hearing with respect to this application. Uh to date you heard uh detailed testimony uh actually at two of the meetings from our civil engineer Doug Wolf. Um board may
recall we made some fairly significant revisions between the first hearing and the second hearing. Uh we increased the uh the buffer and the setback up at the front of the property. Uh we increased landscaping uh throughout the site including on adjacent lot five brous
coverage down more. Uh we pulled the building out of the easement area. Uh so we've honored all the easements uh for access etc. Uh that benefit the shops of Flemington as well as uh the uh as the bank property which is lot 8
approximate. Uh last month uh in in addition to Mr. Wolf, you heard testimony uh from our project architect uh as well as our traffic engineer and we have a fair amount of testimony as well uh from our wastewater uh specialists who spoke to the uh the
reclamation system. Uh in terms of this evening, uh we we kind of landed we we just didn't ran out of time before we got to our planner John Mcdana uh who actually is gonna be joining us. >> He's he's in the wings. Is he in the wings? >> He is. I I'm going to promote
>> Okay. >> I'm going to promote uh John to panelist. Um and that way um you can turn your camera on and uh that and uh >> he can unmute himself as well. Uh so
everyone can see >> we can see John. And just one other housekeeping issue. We do have uh Doug Wolf, our engineer, is back tonight uh because um there was a question uh they wanted somebody on board wanted clarification on water usage as well.
So, we'll circle back to Doug on that uh to to address that too. Uh but uh since we have Mr. Mcdana up on the screen, um why don't we have him sworn in and I'll have him go through his 12. >> So, he was sworn in. We swore everybody
in before. Did we swear you in, John? Maybe. >> Let me uh do it again just to be safe if that's okay because I honestly can't remember if I if I will swear in or not. >> Hey, John, can you turn your audio down on your settings because your your mic
is like it's blaring. >> Yeah, I'm not sure either and I can't look at my notes. So, why don't we just do it? Um John, raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. Still too loud. Yeah.
>> I don't think so. >> No, I think >> and I'm just car I'm just handing out um exhibits that mark. John's going to mark. >> I think we're up to exhibit A.
>> I need to double check. >> Okay. So before we do that, let's um and John, would you please provide the board with an overview of your educational professional background and licenses you hold? >> I I'm I'm coming in on a second to voice
if that's okay. My hand is raised so I'm not so loud. >> You're fine. Just uh you get and uh I think we're okay. >> You sure okay, Mr. Chairman? I don't want to. If the sound is muted, I have a second device here. >> It's, you know, if you just get a little
if you're if you back yourself away from your laptop, you probably be fine. Try try talking now. >> Is that better, John? >> I have a second exaggerating. >> So, John, please provide >> or do you want do you want me to lo you want me? I can I can promote you on the
other device. That's >> would be better. Thank you. >> No problem. >> Okay. >> How's that? >> Always have a backup plan. >> Did we have John? Was he sworn in? I'm sorry. He's handing >> We did swear. >> He's been sworn. Okay. Mr. Mcdana,
please provide the board with an overview of your educational professional background and licenses you hold. >> Sure thing. Um, again, for the record, John Mcdana, MCDO, OU GH. I am the project planner. I hold a license in professional planning here in the state of New Jersey. That license is current
and it is in good standing. I am also a member of the AICP, the American uh Institute of Certified Planners. Also current and in good standing. Um, I testify throughout the state on a nightly basis, including here in the past, um, and your surrounding towns such as Raridan, Readington, and
Franklin, and I've been here for all of the hearings. >> Thank you, Mr. McCullen. And I just before you jump, any further questions or objections to qualify Mr. Dun as an expert in plan?
>> Okay. Um, again, for for the transcript, um, our attorney, Miss Kazinski, got here at 7:18 in person and it was off of the Zoom. >> All right. Thank you. And I just, um, Miss McDonald, I just handed out, uh,
your exhibit package, uh, which are the photographs. I'll ask you to, uh, describe that, um, when you get to it. U,, but we should mark that. I I said as I was passing it out, we were up to exhibit A14, but actually have A18. I
just looked back in my notes. So, big up, M. McDonald, you're familiar with the application. You've been through the hearings. Uh you've been part of the design team in this regard. You're familiar with the variance relief that's being requested, the project in general. Is that correct?
>> Yes, I am thoroughly. So, I'm going to I'm going to turn the floor over to you, man, and see if you go through your testimony. >> Okay. And with the chair's permission, I'll share a screen that shows the exact same exhibits that um everybody else is looking at in person. I know we have
some people here on Zoom. >> You should have permission now. Here we go. Okay. Did that come through? Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, A, John, did you say?
>> A A18 with today's date. >> Okay. A18 for the >> A18 for the record. Um, we're showing the subject property. The first sheet is going to be an aerial satellite photograph that shows the subject property outlined in yellow with its uh
irregular shape. It's actually two lots. The primary lot, of course, is lot number six. You've heard a lot of detail about this so far. And we're including part of lot five uh through the shared access uh arrangement that is in place with the with the easements. In
aggregate, we're looking at about 1.89 acres. Uh this is developed as a vacant restaurant that was originally TGIF's. Uh then it was um the Red Crab after that. Uh it is part of a uh an overall
shopping center. Um as well surrounding land uses are all commercial. You can see that here as we're at the the circle. Um we're looking at uh the shops at Flemington. I testified on that one some time ago. Uh the we've got a Duncan
nearby. We've got a TD Bank neighboring as well and McDonald's and retailers in the area. So, you have a nice mix a nice mix of service uses along your service corridor of a route 202 uh again near the the uh familiar circle.
Um just take you through some of the rest of the photographs here. These are >> just terms describing it just if you could just articulate total number of sheets in exhibit A18. >> All right. So A18 is a total of five sheets. The first was an aerial
satellite photo photograph just to help with orientation. And then we take these drone photographs just to give a sense of what the site looks like in the real world in in 3D from a bird's eye perspective. Um we're looking at the subject building going to be centered in
pretty much all of these photographs which were taken back in December. Another cold snowy day like we experienced throughout the winter. Key point here, of course, it's a developed site, developed with a a former restaurant pad that's now closed and not
contributing anything to the vitality of this important corridor and certainly a face uh to the corridor as well. Not only to the corridor, but to the shops that are are behind it. So, this is sort of a gateway, if you will, to what we see be behind. And certainly a site in
stagnant condition is not doing anything to add to again the vision for a vibrant commercial base. Um that's the second sheet of A18. Third sheet is just another vantage point where again we're looking at the
subject building in the middle of the photograph and you get a sense of the surrounding commercial land use context. Number four. Now we're starting to pan to the back of the site looking back out towards the highway. And again, you're getting a sense of the four sides of the
um existing building. And then finally, a last few as well looking back. Just going to let this sort of hover here, John, as I go through the the rest of the testimony. Um can certainly come back to any of the exhibits that have been pro provided in the proposed. Um,
in fact, why don't I why don't I pop to the overall here just as I point through some of the some of the proofs. So, um, again, this is going to be redevelopment as you've heard. We're demolishing all the existing on lot number six and we're going to
construct a new Spark car wash as you've heard through the witnesses before me. Um, this is a well- tested model. This is certainly not this applicant's first site. Um, it works very well on a site of this size and in this context, 4,432
square ft. Uh, we'll talk a lot about the interactive process that took place here, which is exactly what our Supreme Court says the process should be. That's why we hold these hearings. The board with your local knowledge makes comments, gives input, and the good news
here is that we have an applicant that has listened and has responded. Um, I won't go through all of the changes. they're already on the record. Um, I will say Mr. Kyle as always has given the board a good list of things. Um, in terms of the a thorough review of the
application and on that very first page of the March 6th review letter, um, there are a whole list of bulleted items that the applicant has made uh, substantial revisions based on the board comments to take what was a good plan and make it even better, which again is
what the the process should be. Um, in terms of the key zoning criteria here, we're going to see that most of the higher tiers of zoning are actually met. We're in the HR highway retail district. Uh, this is a commerceoriented
zone. It allows a wide range of business enterprises. I count 53 categories of use uh uses that are permitted here. One of the permitted uses, category number 46, is miscellaneous repair. um and
under SIC code 75 which includes car washes. So, it's been established already and I'm just reinforcing that this is a a permitted use in the zone. Um along with the use conformance, we've got a project that substantially complies with your bulk controls in your
HR zone as well. the building height, the building floor area, the front yard setback, the sideyard setback, the parking all comply. Again, as part of this interactive process, the applicant has increased that buffer along the front as well. So, you're going to
experience as much green space along the front of the property um as any of the neighboring properties. And you get a sense of the lack of landscaping on many of the surrounding properties. So, uh, this is going to present a nice green face to the community as one travels on
Route 202. The list of relief here relatively minor. Um, again, I think they've been well vetted as the applicant has gone through the process here. The lot area of the existing lot 49 lot number six um
is at 37,141 square ft where 65,000 square ft is the minimum that's required. This is a um existing condition and an existing lawfully platted lot with no additional
land uh available to uh to cure that deficiency. Likewise, the lot width at 137.4 4 where 150 is the minimum that's required. Same as the above, this is an existing condition that the applicant is
not causing but working within the land or the context of a lawfully platted parcel. Next relief is for the rear yard setback which is really internal to the overall shopping center where uh 50 ft is the
minimum that's required and 10.8 8 is what uh is actually proposed. Again, that's in favoring uh a nice green space along the front of the property and we'll get to that as well. We really really see that as a better zoning alternative for the property. Uh to have
this building set back is on par with what we saw with the existing building. Um and therefore we believe no substantially adverse impact. Um we've also got the accessory building front yard setback. Uh you saw the visuals of how one would navigate through the site
and your first stop as a customer is at the pay kiosk which is an open-sided structure. Uh that is in the front yard setback at 29.9 ft where 35 ft would be the uh minimum that's required. So again not a
substantial deviation. Bear in mind it's a relatively small uh opensided structure as well. Uh there was uh some setback relief as well for another accessory structure, the covered pay stations, which has been eliminated as
part of the interactive process. Um uh lot coverage is at 7 has now landed at 72% which is going to be an improvement over the existing condition at 81% and is certainly less than the variance
that was granted for the original TGIF um on lot number six when uh that was originally approved. Um the requirement is 50%. The applicant is certainly moving the needle closer to conformance again on an undersized lot.
Counterbalancing to the impervious coverage, we've got an open space ratio requirement uh where we're proposing 28% certainly greening up the site compared to that which is there now where we're at 19%. Uh that's an improvement over
the existing condition. It doesn't quite conform with the 30% minimum that's required, but certainly moves very close to conformance. Um, you heard through the operational testimony and the site engineering testimony that we're looking for relief related to the loading space,
not hap having one that is separately designated. Um, we believe again based on operator experience. Uh, given the fact that this is a small vehicle, relatively infrequent deliveries of short duration here. um a separately
designated area would be wasteful and unnecessary. So, we think that certainly advances the planning goal for efficient use of land. Um there is relief related to the sign package. Um the number of signs, and I can certainly put up the
elevations if you'd like to see them again, but Oliver, our architect, went through them last time. uh the freestanding sign setback is going to be less than 20 ft which will integrate with the overall uh sign with the overall site and is not intrusive. And
then we've got relief related to the building signs in terms of the number, the height and the area, but that sign package is certainly tasteful uh and integrates well with the site. Uh, we've got five signs here where five would be the max, I'm sorry, five proposed where
two would be the maximum that's allowed on a building. We have a projection of 5 in where 4 in is the maximum that's allowed. The aggregate of all of the signs are 322 ft where 100 square ft
would be the maximum that's allowed. Again, we can go back to the the sign package. And the height of that the I'll call it the tower element sign uh with the logo and the and the tagline or or the uh the brand name is at 8 ft 2 in
where 4T would be the maximum allowed. And I'll put up in the on the screen in a second what that package uh actually looks like. So you've got some C relief related to the bulk. You've got some C relief related to the signs. And then the last bucket of relief that the
applicant is asking the board to move on are design exceptions which have a more relaxed standard of proof than those those C variances. The applicant has really wittled away at this list as well. In terms of the
landscaper landscaping uh parking area trees, we have uh zero proposed where eight are required, but we do have trees at the perimeter of which counterbalancing counterbalances that. And then we've got a front buffer at 25
ft. We were at 12 ft when we started. We're at 25 ft. uh where 35 feet is uh the required condition doubling the existing condition which is now also at 12 feet. We were matching the existing now we're we're doubling it and then
there was relief related to the lighting levels which our engineer really put forth the justifications as reasonable and appropriate meeting that lesser standard. The lighting levels at the property line will be at 16.7 where 0.1 is the maximum that's allowed. all in
the interest of safety and and safe navigation without creating objectionable glare on neighboring properties. Uh the lighting levels at high activity areas are at 12.1 where two would be the maximum that's allowed.
And then finally related to those vacuum lights at the parking areas, 15.9 uh is proposed where 0.9 would be the maximum that's allowed. I'm going to take all of that relief here and as always we look at an application
holistically. We look at the the benefits of the application as a whole and we see if they s substantially outweigh the relief that the applicant is seeking and that comes from the pull in case P U Len. Um we look to the purposes of zoning at
NJSA45D-2 and it's an applicant's burden to find that one uh of at least one are met here. I see multiple as being met including purpose A. The project will promote the general welfare because it will deliver a permitted use which
explicitly means it serves the public good and provides car cleaning services for improved visibility, improved safety, comfort, and prolonged car life. Along with purpose A, we also see the advancement of purpose G in that the
project will promote the planning goal to provide for a variety of uses in appropriate locations because the site is located on a main roadway lined with compatible commercial and auto service uses. Variety, as we know, drives
competition and better overall customer service. This is a land use that has certainly evolved with greater innovation as it has become uh more automated and certainly customer wins with those innovations. Uh purpose I the promotion of a
desirable visual environment. Uh because this will eliminate an eyesore again a a vacant abandoned site and revitalize the site with an active use and a fresh new image a neat clean attractive building a wellorganized site and then of course balancing that with a new site
improvements and landscaping throughout. Uh then finally, purpose m our planning goal to promote efficient use of land because it puts underutilized stagnant commercial land back into productive functional use. Um in terms of the public impacts related to the or the
detriments associated with the relief based on all of the testimony, you've got a real solid record here. Nice interchange with the applicant and the board that this site will flow, function, and operate safely, efficiently, and comfortably. Um, the project is compatible with other uses in
the area and will certainly not alter the character of the area. Uh, the project is loaded with landscaping and will not have a negative visual appearance appearance. Uh, you've got good testimony from a traffic expert that the traffic generation will not be
detrimental. We've got from NJ DOT a loney or letter of no interest. And as you heard through the operational testimony, this car wash is modern. It's state-of-the-art. It's best-in-class and uh up to your municipal standards. We'll
call it the uh the gold standard. Uh certainly echofriendly based on the testimony on the record. Um the sign package is simple. It's tasteful. It's not overbearing or gaudy or excessive. Each sign serves a purpose from multiple vantage points coming northbound on 202,
southbound on 202, and from the back uh by the shopping center as well. um all well integrated into the overall site. Terms of the zone impl impacts, I believe relief can be granted without substantially impairing the intent of the zone plan. Uh again, we're not
looking at departures here that are substantial. The use is permitted in the zone. Uh certainly the advancement of the overall master plan goal for a viable and stable commercial base is going to be met here through that reversing of ongoing stagnation which is
a condition that is inconsistent with the zone intent. I think the board can find that relief relates to a distinct site with distinct attributes and certainly the minor relief here is not going to be tantamount to a reszone that takes care of all of the C relief that
the applicant is asking the board to move on. I think this lands squarely on the positive side. And then lastly, with respect to those design exceptions and the more relaxed standard of proof, uh again based on the testimony of the witnesses before me, uh the relief here
is reasonable and appropriate and certainly meets a standard of impracticability whereby strict or literal enforcement would serve no practical planning purpose. Um, with that said, in conclusion, the applicant is going to revitalize and mod modernize
underutilized commercial land that will integrate well with the rest of the center and its environs. Uh, it's going to give the site a fresh new look and enhance the overall image of the community. Um, and the criteria in my opinion for approval are met and
therefore approval is warranted. Um, I'm happy to go back and answer any questions or show any of the other exhibits that were provided during the the course of the hearing. That's all I have on direct John. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, it's our practice as as
many of you know to start with questions from our professionals. So, Jim, we'll start with you. Questions on testimony. >> Okay. Ear down. Rob, >> just one clarification on the lock coverage variance. your testimony if lot
six you said you're you're down to 72%. I think you said 50% is is required. The or your plan said 70%. >> 50% is what I had in my memo and I think it's 50. >> I did note that error
>> table and I can check. >> When all else fails, go with Mr. Kyle. But if I recall, again, I'm going on memory now, but if I recall correctly, it's a 20% reduction. You go from 70 to 50 if you're not doing storm water was
was my recollection. Um, and that they're listing it on their plan that way as 70 is the is the standard. Just to clarify what the record is. Any other question? I don't know if you testified to it. The coverage you have on lot five, uh, the
plan says you're at you're down to 81%. Uh, and again the standard is either 70 or 50. I believe it's 70, but uh Jim can clarify that. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that. >> Uh, yes to confirm. >> And just to be clear, Bob, they're not
doing the water, so it should be at 50. >> No, they they do have uh the site has existing one site. So, what you're saying is the actual standard is 7. >> The way the ordinance reads is that it's it's you you're allowed the ordinance
specifies the amount of coverage you're allowed. If you're not meeting certain standards under storm water, you reduce that down. You don't have to meet those standards. If you reduce it down 20%. And I'm just going by what our reports
have said and what the what the chart says. If that's if that's wrong in some way. If it is 50% for some reason, then uh then that's the standard you're granting the variance from. >> But there is existing storm water infrastructure on site. >> There's existing and they did a storm
water report which we went through in our on our end to show you know compliance with that. >> So I mean and I guess the clarifying question then is are they at 72 when they need 70 or are they at 72 when they need 50? Correct.
util and service uses 70%. >> Of course, there's no reference to that production. >> It's that other provision 26. >> Oh, it's in the >> You gota remember I didn't write this one. I just updated it.
>> Okay. Um, so we're checking on that. Um, while we're checking on that, I'll go to board members with questions for the planner on testimony given. Let's start with the remote folks. Dennis, Don, Mike, anybody have any questions? Dennis is a note. Uh, >> no questions.
>> Mike, you have anything? >> No. >> Okay. Anyone here? >> One question for the planner on the signs. Can you hear me? Okay, >> I can hear you just fine. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Um, there was I I know we saw the exhibits last week, but could you just remind us there's five signs proposed which of the essentially four elevations
of the building has two signs on it or is that something we should be going over with the architect? Well, architect's not here, but John actually has these. John, why don't you just bring up the uh the architecturals as well because we have that we've got that.
>> Oh, that's the fifth element. Yeah, that's >> Let me uh let me pull that up on the screen here. >> John, can we just clarify? I think it's actually six. I had six for the last on both sides of the plate. sides of the
>> Can you all see my >> Y >> go back to where you were before now. >> Oh, sorry about that. Let me try one more time. >> I just want clarification on the number
and the both the others. So, sorry I didn't form that in a question. >> It's an inside joke with me. >> Here we go. Two. Three. Four. I only see five. There's one that we
>> So, do you see the Spark Park sign on the bottom elevation along the the orange arch that goes over that? It says >> Oh, no. >> There are there is Okay. I could be tiny. Okay. >> This is such a small sign and it's just
really to it's almost more of anformational sign. This is where you have the mat cleaning area. Um you heard about that through you know so it's just sort of to announce where those um mechanisms are where those services are.
>> Can you confirm the height of the tower that's got the sign on it? >> Yes. Uh the the uh height to the top of the spark tower element. >> Yeah. >> I'm going to go on the architecturals here. But again, you've got uh you've
got this is the sign that needs the height relief for 8t 2 in where 4T is the maximum allowed. It's just to have the the brand name and the logo together which fits nicely. But the overall tower element, I'm just going to pull up my
architecturals here. That's what I had. >> Yeah, >> just trying to find the plan with the dimensions on it. Bear with me. >> We're hearing 326. If that's close enough, if that's sounds right, we'll that
>> Yeah. 3246 is the average, but the average rate is the diameter an inch. So 32 >> 3, excuse me, 346. That's correct. >> 30 32 >> 3246 >> 32.46
ft. >> Yes. >> Which is just >> the building height per the calculation in the ordinance. >> Yeah. It's It's telling me I'm going to I'm going to stop share and then I'm going to share. Can you see all that? Just let it
populate. Okay. Over here. 32.5 ft to the top of the blade. >> 32 >> 32 one. Does our ordinance say four feet something and you're asking for eight feet something? >> Overall. >> Oh yes. The Yeah. from the top of this
logo >> to the bottom of the word car wash is 8 feet 2 in. So, um 4 feet is the each individual component would certainly comply, but it's the combination of the two. >> And is that in addition to the sign
that's on the pole that's existing? >> I'm sorry. >> There's already a sign for the complex that's got >> the freestanding sign. Thank you. the tenant with all the tenants on there. >> Yeah. So, >> yes, >> it's in addition to that. >> Correct.
>> That's already a high sign. >> Do do you have the the existing structure? What's the height of the existing structure? So, give us a comparison if we're asking the existing the existing building. >> Yes. or 20 something
24 years. The reason why the reason why I'm asking is just to get a sense as to the scale of this the relief being sought for this side which while which which as it relates to existing conditions and
existing large uh complex sign I guess for a better word >> didn't you have a rendering >> we did yeah John can do you have do you have access to the rendering >> I do rendering views that showed
approximate to the other building. >> Yeah, that would be helpful. >> Thank you. >> The same thing for the ex the same communal uh sign.
>> Oh, we're asking for that for the building right there. >> It's it's one of the images I'm looking for. >> Is that Does that image help? >> Yeah, it does. So what what I guess what we're trying what I'm trying to discern here is whether or not the Spark Tower
32 and a half foot element is taller or at the same height or shorter than the existing shops at Flemington sign. >> Yeah. >> And if if you can find a way to answer
that question, that would be wonderful. Well, I'm going to say looking at the telephone poles, which are generally between 37 and 42. >> Yeah, that sign's about as tall as those telephone. It's just >> we we have that existing sign. Oh, that
was 30 foot high from the surveyor. >> So, the proposed spark sign is two foot and a half shorter roughly roughly than the sign for the entirety of the center. >> Yeah, correct. Okay, >> step back.
>> Understood. It was just Yeah, the the um >> Okay, I'm trying to be questions. All right, other questions. >> That was my only question. >> Question, just question. >> I had one question. >> My one question pertains to the lighting
and that we're asking for a you guys are asking for a variance because mostly because of the vacuum lighting. Am I understanding that mostly? >> Yeah. And couple things. The vacuum lighting does shut off in the business. >> It does. >> It does. Yeah, it does. Yeah, that was actually And >> okay,
>> we clarified that that's not on all night. Write it down. >> There was like an errant note. Okay. >> Originally saying if we remember some of those and you know the lighting testimony you heard is was you know some of those lighting standards
are on the backside within that existing just off of the lot line but into other parking lot areas. Okay. >> So, we get back to that sign question. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, the existing
sign for the whole complex is 34. >> Yeah. 34. >> 34. You're asking on the blade to do 32. >> What is the blade allowed to be under ordinance? >> What's the maximum height? Maximum of height is
>> dun by the way just for the record on screen >> 35t max building >> sign >> even though it's it is a it's the building but even though there's a sign on it even if the sign wasn't on there it would be performing the height is
what you're saying >> other questions so can we just go back to the imper real quickly clarify. Thank you. >> So 2637 says the impervious cover limits for all commercial multif family developments which disturb 2,000 square feet or more or proposes to increase
impervious cover by 200 square feet or more shall be subject to the following. And it says the permitted impervious coverage shall be 20 percentage points below that which is permitted from the maximum identified unless the following conditions are met. And it says,
"Development shall meet the stormwater management requirements for major development pursuant to section 21-4 Flemington BOR ordinances. Such development shall only rely upon the following storm water management compliance strategies. Non-structural bio retention constructed storm water
wetland pavement vegetative filter strip infiltration basin drywall." Now, this poses an interesting question because generally under storm water, Bob you can kick me if I'm wrong. In a situation where you're reducing the
existing impervious coverage, that's more or less your compliance, right? You're not required to implement additional measures. >> Well, it gets a lot more involved than that because you get into water quality issues or retra. It gets a lot more involved. That that provision, if I
recall correctly, was put in and it's not in the storm water section of the ordinance. is in the land development section of New York that was put in to adhere to to projects that are not subject to the stormwater regulations which is why one of the elements in there say compliance is if you comply
with the stormwater regulations it's sort of your get out of jail free card except we went on to add those other provisions as long as you do A B and C which at the time were more restrictive than what the stormwater regulations the stormwater regulations have changed at least twice since then are going to
change again this year so it's kind a moving it was an attempt by the burrow like I said to put some standard in in place because in reality very few projects in the burl would disturb more than an acre of land or add more than 2,000 or had a quarter acre of
additional impervious coverage >> at the time the burl said well we don't want to you know we have a lot of imperous coverage we have storm water issues we would like to do something for projects that aren't going to fall under storm water regulations hence that's what we did I'm looking at this under
the provision that this does fall over the threshold for a major project which is how the applicant has been presenting these things and showing compliance with those standards which is why I again that's why they're and the acting engineer can speak to it that's I
believe why they put the 70% is the is the target that they're they're you know deviating from and not 50%. Can you confirm that? >> That is correct. Yes, that's why we put 70 and yes we did state that we do comply with those storm water regulations. is based on nonstructural
strategies and whatnot existing based things. >> We'll get to that in a minute. That's that's the you know what you meant that we'll get to discuss. That's that's the premise they're working with from the zoning perspective. I believe the target is 70 in this case 50.
>> They're still not they're still seeking they still >> it's still marriage leave. It's just 22. >> Right. >> Well, let's clarify that too. There are two separate lots here. The bulk of this the building and the bulk of the car
wash improvements, but not all the car wash improvements are on what is currently lot six. >> Yes. >> Um but they have a lease area that extends over into lot five because they couldn't fit everything on lot six within that boundary.
>> And rather than making a boundary line adjustment application, they've combined the two lots together. For the purpose of this application, you're looking at both lots in combination, which is why they have two different sets of zoning assessments for lot six and for lot five. Um,
so in the case of lot, I'm going round numbers here. In the case of lot six, they're reducing it from some number down to 72%. In the case of In the case of lot five, they're reducing it from some number down to 81%. Again,
my understanding is that 70 is probably not 50. Um, but it's the variance. It's a variance either way. >> Yeah. Lot five goes from 83 to 81. >> Right. But again,
>> I'm sorry, from 85% existing to 81. They went from 85 to 83. Now it's 85 to 81 because they added that landscape island on the north side that took a lot of impermanence coverage up. >> Okay. But but again the
be careful here to ask this this way. Um the prior approvals for the shops at Flemington which include multiple parcels, right? It included um both lot six and lot five. Those were
constructed at the same time. If memory serves the Fridays was built at the same time as the shops, I think maybe >> shops are in a different lot. Five five is actually the um >> parking the tea event. >> But yeah, lot five is is the mattress
and >> my my I guess my question is was lot five part of the shop's application or >> they built the access road to their Indonesian but it was it was not part of the >> correct. Yeah, my recollect actually >> line five. When the original application
came in for Bri and Briad, that was TJI Friday's uh parent company that was approved in 1998. It was originally a 6,000 something square foot building. It ultimately they came in and amended it. uh at that time and I just know this
from looking at the uh the variance relief at that time uh they were granted variance relief for impervious coverage on lot five the larger lot of approximately 83% uh and
uh for lot for lot six about I think it was like 73.6% 6% north >> and the under excuse me the underlying reason for that is that putting the bulk of the parking that was needed for the restaurant on lot five that's why lot
five was expanded that's why lot five has so much parking right but but again I'm trying I'm trying to understand the relief that they're the applicant is seeking >> well we're going to call it 70% is the standard >> right 70% is the standard the the the
impervious coverage on lot five that is outside of their lease area, outside of the project. >> Oh, we haven't looked at it that you're looking at it, you're look I will correct me if I'm wrong. You're looking at it on actual lot area, not lease area. Correct. >> Lot correct. >> You're so the number that that 85 to 83
to 81 that Jim just said, that is the entirety of lot five. >> Correct. >> It exists the lines >> lines. Not the least line, >> not the least area. >> Okay. I'm trying to calculate. That's what I'm trying to
>> We're calculating that. There's a there's a number of moving parts here. And >> maybe Doug can clarify. What's the square footage reduction and impervious coverage on each slot? Both of them are being reduced. So
percentage is hard to grasp, I think. >> All right. So if we're talking I got acquies. All right, starting with lot six. So lot six we are reducing by 3,431
square ft. That's for the smaller lot. We're live five. Lot five, we're reducing by double that, which equates to 6,364 square ft. >> So it's roughly 10,000ish across both lots.
>> That's correct. >> So quarter acre. >> That's correct. We we clearly have moved past the planner but I don't want but but before before because >> so it's relief. So >> no I I understand but the there was um just just to just to do this by book are
there any members of the public with questions for the planner on testimony given. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we we covered that. All right. So I understand then your engineer is up here answering questions about relief, but was there additional testimony that the engineer would >> Yeah, there was a question. There was a
question and it was raising our >> Sorry. Did you check the attendees? >> I did. There's nobody. All right. I can only see the one topic. Sorry. >> Did we Sorry. Do we need Mr. McDonald anymore? >> Because I know he has somewhere else to make. >> John, do you have a couple minutes to
hang up? I'll I'll uh I'll stay on standby here. >> Just please um I'm just calling Mr. Wolf back because at the end of the uh night uh there was one of the board members uh
had asked once again to clarify water usage. We spoke a lot about the reclamation system etc. And Doug if you can just speak to to to water usage our allocation and and what the reality is and practicalities. Sure.
Good evening everyone. Again, >> I remind you you're still under oath. You've previously been sworn. Your license is still in good standing. >> Correct. Yes. Doug Wolf again, civil engineer for Polar. >> Yes. So, regarding water consumption, uh comment was made by one of the board
members, I believe it was Mr. show who's virtual um about total annual water consumption. Um he threw out a number of approximately 4 million gallons um for the entirety of the year. What he did there is he essentially took our gallons
per day that we provided of 10,796 and multiplied that by 365 days a year to get to a total annual number, which makes sense when you look at it holistically. However, it's a complex calculation as to how we got to that 10,796.
And I'm going to break that down for you here as to why our annual um water consumption really is not near 4 million gallons. Um so the real reason for this is because that 10,796
is based on a peak car wash days of 553 cars. So, what we did there is we looked at three sites, three active sites that Spark Power Carwash owns and operates, and we took the three highest months out of a
12-month period. So, three months for each site, and consecutively, we looked at, okay, what three months out of 12 had the highest amount of cars coming to them. So, we looked at that and then we took those three highest months for each car wash. We averaged that number
together, and that's what got us to the 553. So, that is a peak number. That is not the true average of what we see on a month-to-month basis if you were to roll this over into 12-month period. So, I'm going to get into that. Why is that? Um,
the reason there is because there's snow and there's rain and there's weather conditions that a limit operations and when it is raining heavily or snowing, a car wash is effectively closed. They they're open technically, but all they do really is they they'll clean the
operation. and they'll tidy up and do what they need to. Um, but that's that's most it. Um, so what I did is I back calculated these numbers to determine, okay, what is what is the actual number here? Because we came in with the average peak. I want to clarify
average peak, not average, it's the average peak. We wanted to come in with a conservative number. That conservative number again, 10,796. So, we looked at this again, three locations, three existing locations that Spark owns and operates um for the year
2024 specifically. And I looked at it in terms of every single month for 12 months, not just the three highest peak months, but every single month for 12 months. So, I averaged this out 12 months for three locations. And that comes down to an average car value of
483. So, that's 483 instead of 553. That's about a 70 or so car drop per day. Now, this number we can use to actually calculate this, you know, average annual value. Um,
so we're going to outline that. So, we dropped from 553 to 483. In addition, I want to outline um a little bit of the existing site. So, the prior restaurant right now has a sewer allocation of 9,600 gallons per day.
Um if you've been near or around the site, it has little to no landscaping. Um so we can assume that the irrigation demand was likely very low if non-existent there. Um therefore, one could assume that the water demand is equal to the sewer allocation roughly or
approximately. Um so if that is the case, the annual water consumption for the restaurant again 9600 is the current allocation. If you take 9600 multiply by 365 days per year, that is 3.51 million
gallons. So 3.51 again for this existing allocation of the restaurant. Now when we take the numbers that I just outlined to you that 483 cars per day based on an actual average of existing sites
and our reclamation system that we are using and testified to previously our total water consumption and this keep in mind this total water consumption is comprised of the car wash itself and the tunnel a backwash which the backwash is
the filter that's required irrigation that we are proposing on site as well for the plentiful amount of landscaping and domestic. Domestic is for employees going to the bathroom. We assume three employees um 25 gallons per day. You multiply that together there. So when
you combine these four factors, car wash, backwash, irrigation, and domestic, that number equates to 2.45 million gallons, which is approximately 1 million gallons less than the existing restaurant allocation. So, I wanted to
make that clear to everyone that we really are not increasing the demand here from the existing use. We're actually lowering it about a million gallons um than what is allotted for that study currently. >> And this and this is a discussion as
well that you had with the utility. >> The utility provided us with the 9600 gallons >> and your analysis. Does that factor in reclamation at all? >> It does. >> It does. Okay. Just because my we had talked that the bathroom which I guess was personal irrigation that's not
reclaimed but that's factored into >> Yes. Correct. Uh dome so domestic irrigation and backwash are completely separate from the reclamation system. The reclamation system is really only related to the car wash tunnel itself and what's going through that.
>> What about the >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. uh the Spark Park area. Is that included in your calculation? >> That's correct. >> Is that part of the >> That's part of the RLF. Yes, sir. In a previous testimony,
uh there was uh the the reclamation turnaround for the uh the wash area was I I heard I recall hearing a couple different numbers and I remember I I listened to the December tape so I
apologize. I um it was a little hard to hear every every word. Um but I I heard 60 65 and 80%. What is that calculation that you just gave us based on? >> Sure. So that calculation is based on
what we are currently proposing which is a new rec system that I testified on last time here. >> Yeah. Between between December and March and March >> uh we we enhanced the uh >> Yeah. And that's why I just wanted to
get clarification because I wasn't here in December, but I heard that change. So, can you remind me what the percentage was that you testified to at the last meeting and what that calculation is based on? >> Of course. So, our reclamation percentage that we are now proposing is
80.32%. >> Okay. >> And that's what the 2.25 uh 2.45 gallons are based on million. >> 2.45. That's correct. Yes. So, and and I'll quickly break down a little bit how we got to that 80 just very quickly. Uh,
the car wash uses a total of 32.61 gallons per car. Of that, 6.4 gallons is spot-ree uh water. It's essentially fresh water. And the remaining 26.21.
So, 6.4 + 22, excuse me, 6.4 + 26.21 equals our total of 32.61. Of that 32.61, 26.21 is from the reclamation system. So when you divide those numbers against themselves, you get 80.32% of reclaimed
water. >> And then the the filter backwash system is what's basically filtering out that reclaimed water for usage. >> It's cleaning the filters essentially so they operate effectively that the car wash can >> be as efficient as possible.
>> And that's part of the calculator. That's correct. Dennis, you had Dennis, you you were the ones who had the questions. I want to make sure that you're getting the answers to >> Yeah. Um, this was helpful. I just want to make sure I understand though. Um, before when it was 10,796,
that was 553 cars. Now I understand why it's 483 cars. But um the gallons per day like you had mentioned the 483 is 87% of the cars but the gallons per
day are I think they're 62%. What what changed? You know what I mean? Like what is the gallons per day now? Isn't it like 6712? Is that what you're using? What is what
are you using now? So, so to clarify here, the the numbers we submitted to RVE and the township for review, that is based on a peak factor of the three consecutive months in a row, >> right? >> That is different technically from what
we're talking about here in terms of actual million gallons per year. We're talking about million gallons per year. This is realistically the total amount of water that you're actually going to use over the year. The numbers we submitted are
based on a peak factor and are conservative in nature. So there's a difference there. >> I think what Dennis is saying though is if he calculates the 550 some odd cars and divides that into the the number that you originally gave >> 796
>> and then he does the same using the 4x number of cars. He gets a different per day number than what your 2.45 million's coming out to. Is that right, Dennis? >> Yes. Yeah. So, what's the new gallons per day
based on the 483 versus the 10796 that was based on the 553? >> Well, we we understand that the the 10,000 and change number was, you know, the conversations with water with the water department and the sewer authority to talk about peak and that we
understand why that there's a difference. So what we're trying to get at is in totto based on your analysis of what the expected number of cars per day is that's that we're trying to figure out what the actual right and so these don't line up is is where we're at.
>> Yes. So so I I now know why they don't line up. >> We are looking at and when I testified to that I should have clarified a little earlier. When I testified to that 2.45 four or five million gallons. That is referencing three existing car wash facilities in
their total cars that are coming in and the usage relating to that. However, those facilities are not running an 80% reclaim system. They're probably only running a 60% reclaim system. This system that we're providing now is more
effective and more state-of-the-art than anything these existing facilities have. So that's why there's a fluctuation in those numbers there. >> So you're So again, just make sure we got this. So you're you're using the three facilities to figure out how many cars are coming in, correct?
>> And then you're using the model for this proposed new project to figure out how much water was going to get used by those of those cars. The where he got the the prior number was based on actual usage of the three others. >> That's correct. >> Okay.
>> It's not just you. It's 85,000. >> Okay. >> So, another way to say that that would be your original calculation of the 550 and equaling the 10,000 whatever gallons a day was based on a 60% reclaim system. But when you're recalculating with the lower number, then you're pulling in the
80% that you would see on this site and that's why you get a lower number. >> That's what I agree. >> Yes. I think so. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. I guess. >> So, is that what you're saying? So, the 10,796
was not based on the 80% reclaimed system. It was based on the lower percentage. >> No, the 10,796 is based on the new reclaim system, right? >> Then, I'm sorry, I'm still confused then
because >> it's the cars. No, I I get it was more cars, but if they're both based on the reclaim system, why the number of cars went down 87% or is that 87%. Right, it went down 13,
but the gallons are at 62%. Why did the gallons go down 38% when the number of cars averaged per day only went down 13? That's what I'm just trying to understand. We are getting in the weeds.
>> Let let me try to clarify. I'm gonna I'm gonna run through this report here. >> Details matter. >> All right. >> Okay. So to clarify Okay. So, let's see. So, the 10,796. Let's start. Let's start there.
That is based on the new reclaim system of 80%. is a combination of city water, irrigation, domestic backwash, and a 10% contingency. There's a 10% contingency added onto
that calculation. the annual just just to just to go back to that 10,000 796 there's a 10% contingency and it's based on a peak number of cars with
a new reclamation system with 80%. If we go to the 2.45 45. That 2.45 is also based on
car wash usage, backwash, irrigation, and domestic. And where the difference is here. For one, there's going to be a slight difference in irrigation because irrigation across various sites is not
the same. that's based on landscape area. This project in particular has quite a bit of landscape area in comparison to others. Also, the filter backwash is generally the same
and the domestic generally the same and the average cars is also the same. So the difference here it's it's the irrigation value which is changing that number. It's the amount of water usage there versus our site versus the other one. That's the only differing variable
in this equation other than um existing the exist the three existing uses. So the 10,796 again that is based on 553 cars.
The 2.45 is based on 483 cars and a differing irrigation value because the 2.45 45 is based on existing three car wash facilities while
this 10,796 is based on exact manufacturer data from our reclaim provider for this new system that we are proposing. So it is it is different in a few aspects and that's why the numbers are
not matching up perfectly. Does that >> I'm asking better asking Dennis. >> Dennis, does that help you understand a little bit better? Do you still have questions? >> Um, so I thought you said the irrigation would be more in this scenario
because of the property with the landscaping. So, wouldn't that be more? >> It's it's different. I can't say off the top of my head if it's more or less based on the existing facilities. I know it is different. I know it's not the same because we pull a irrigation number
for each site differently. So that's that's where the difference lies. >> And the 2.45 million gallons, does that include uh 10% contingency? >> That does not.
>> Okay. >> Does not. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. All right. Uh, Don or Mike, do you do you have questions uh for the engineer? >> I do not.
>> Same here. Thank you. >> Uh, I wasn't on testimony from today, but this reclaim system, so like when it backwashes all the filters and stuff, then all that goes down the sewer or does that correct? Is there that's so
>> it's fresh water coming in and >> old water going >> the dirt so >> going down the store there so it's okay so it's not reclaiming any of that >> that's correct >> and then I know not I don't think it was the last meeting meeting before just uh I know we had talked about like
so when you exit the car wash after your car is washed uh I had asked a question about water collection like right there is the existing car wash that we know on route 12 there's water 100 ft down the road
both even though you're not supposed to turn left you see see it there and it's just any of that collected so it doesn't pose an issue during winter months >> yes it is collected spark does have state-of-the-art blowers I want to just
first clarify that but as you exit the tunnel there there's curbing on both sides which then turns and there's a double catch basin right there that water will go into. No water is going to be entering public right away whatsoever there. >> Okay. >> And the same goes for the tunnel
entrance. Just cla >> I'm good. >> Um go back to the imposed cover is very does this 1% on lot five. We said that was the total taking in the calculation for
totals total employees coverage on law five. >> Yes. >> Is that that does that answer the merger question that we've been talking about or is that that six and five possibly are supposed to be merged together because they're combining a piece of six
or five and six. >> So we've had a conversation today. Jim and I also talked about it. Um, I don't know if you want to put your information for the board or um, but ba bottom line is based upon the way we're looking at this, based upon the doctrine, based
upon the circumstances, we're looking at these as two separate lots, which is why there is a calculation of percentage impervious coverage per lot as opposed to overall. The fact, my opinion, that they're leasing a portion of both lots is
irrespective of the calculation of the coverage per lot and the setbacks and everything else that we're dealing with here. >> That that would be my my conclusion. >> I don't know if you have anything else to say, John. I don't know if you >> No, nothing else to add.
>> No, we we talked about it today. We all agree that the the case that put forth the merger doctrine had had very specific circumstances that are not the same here because both first both of these lots are already developed and the
Lener case was more about subdivision of smaller lots that are in common ownership. So not applicable here was the conclusion that we all came to. >> Yeah. Which then is why you're looking at different calculations per lot.
and John had provided some analysis and some other case law that he had prepared and sent to us. So that's what we were reviewing. >> Just one last question I have. Um I'm not to go into the calculations again, but is there some kind of like a a threshold
that you're meeting? Like is there a certain gallon per year number that you have to stay below that? And where are you relative to that? Even with your most conservative estimate,
>> there's nothing statewide or townwide we need to stay below. >> Um, as far as I'm aware now. >> Okay. Okay. So, no more questions for the engineer. uh questions. No, I think we have to go
back and talk about this in previous coverage standpoint as it relates to strong order. >> So, should we do that? Let me let me Is that is that a discussion or is it or is it a question on testimony? >> No, I don't I think it's going to be a discussion. >> Do we want Okay.
>> Are we done with the plan? >> Well, that's that's why I'm asking. So, um, if are there any members of the public with questions for, uh, the engineering testimony that is given? Okay, seeing none, is there any um any
further questions for So, the planner is is >> Sorry, guys. >> Any questions? Yeah. >> All right. Um, >> John, you're free. >> Yeah, I was say, do do you have Do you have other witnesses?
>> I have no other witnesses. >> Okay. Um, then where we are would be, you know, a question of if were any members of the public wanted to make comments at this point because there's no other test. What you're talking about is board
discussion is what I'm saying. board. I'm it needs to be discussed with the applicant, you know, for input into the discussions. >> Well, that's then the question is, do I want do we want to have this discussion before we close the hearing? >> Yeah, that's why I'm asking. >> Yeah, I think we need to go back and have the engineer answer some more Bob's
questions. >> All right. So, let's do that now. Um, and but I think I think we're done with the planning questions. So, okay. I try I try to simplify this and it does get complicated when you when you start going with the ordinance criteria for parking and try to marry that with the
with the stormwater provisions of the ordinance and this is I I've kept a sort of a chronology in our reports on these particular issues so you can see what where it started what they've done with it and where they've ended up with it but if you if you look I mean the heart of it is probably on page 12 of my
report uh under idling four this is going to be um this is in the uh the zoning section >> March 17th >> uh report >> March 17th report that's the fifth generation of the technic report uh item
four deals with the um impervious service um and again it goes kind of read this verb for them but it goes to the issue but I'll just read the last element of this this item previously was related to the excess and if you recall we
Because all the parking on lot five was essentially constructed for the restaurant since the restaurant use is gone now there's no demand for parking associated with the use so we end up with an excess the numbers varied a little bit but I think we ended up at 89
excess spaces at one point we thought it was 70 something but irrespective this a substantial number of excess parking physically residing on lot by part of it within in the lease area that's being reed to lot six but
predominantly on lot five. Uh and the the issue we have here uh is that we have we have we still have albeit they're reducing the impervious coverage on both lots. We do have still an
impervious surface on lot five uh for parking spaces where we no longer have a use demanding those particular parking spaces on. So on the land use side you have you got to deal with the impervious coverage issue tied to that relief from
the purgous coverage issue. Uh you have to relate that to the why is there still excess in previous coverage? tend to do more to reduce imperous coverage. And that essentially is spelled out in item four, page 12 of the report. Related to that, the goal was page 15 of
the report, which is the storm section under the storm water provisions. And they went through and dealt showed compliance with the various components of the storm water obligations, the green infrastructure, uh you know, the storm water reductions, the uh recharge
in the water quality. So they're going through um methodically on the storm which is what they have to do uh on all those particular provisions under the um the the first provision though under the green infrastructure. We noted there are several strategies that they had this
goes back to the original submissions that they had not addressed. One of them um was on the green infrastructure was an obligation to reduce the amount of impervious service. They actually actual wording is minimize services and break up disconnect flow of strong storm water imperous services. That's the target
they're supposed to hit. We said initially they didn't hit that target. When we did the report in March, excuse me, in and December, we said it was partially addressed. They actually amended the the report to include nonstructural strategies and we listed
the amounts of reductions which I think have changed again. Again, this was from December. my latest version of the report which is March 17th which is the is the document you have before you said the item was partially addressed let me just read from this because it's probably easier said the site plan has
been revised to reduce some of the excess impervious coverage by removing two vacuum spaces increasing the existing 14T landscape buffer along route 202 to 25 ft and installing a large landscape island adjacent to the
entry point uh queuing lane although the combined Impervious service on lot four and five is being reduced by 23 acres or 10,019 ft. The coverage of east lot still exceeds the 70% maximum allowed. Refer back to comment B4 which is the one I
read earlier regarding the amount of excess parking on this property resulting from the proposed change in use. It gets a little complicated because you're dealing with different elements of the ordinance, storm water and uh and
parking and impervious coverage. Um, and the way this ends up because we're dealing still with two independent lots. These are not merged by any way, shape, or form. We could look at those independently. We can look at lot six and say they basically, which is the one
they've gotten down to um 72% impervious coverage. They've essentially done everything they could humanly do for this proposed type of use uh on that lot to reduce the impervious coverage on lot six. However, when you look at lot five,
they've done some things islands or whatnot to reduce impervious coverage, but the what's glaring what's staring you in the face here is we have seven or 89 parking spaces that we no longer need. >> And again, that kind of and that's why I said there was only partially addressed
uh on here. And then in order for us to say that they've complied with the stormware regulations, we'd have to hear some some testimony as to why those spaces have to remain um or what purpose they would serve otherwise we're
not meeting that you know you know that particular purpose of the storm water regulations but again it ties into the fact that you're being asked to still grant albeit a reduction still a significant uh redu um excess of what's
allowed in zone that you heard reference before as to why it's there it's there because relief was granted when the restaurant I gathered That's what I heard when the restaurant was when the relief was granted presumably because there was a demand for parking which is
why relief was granted. We're essentially removing the demand and leaving the excess and peruse coverage which from a land use standpoint is certainly board something the board to consider. But you also have to look at it from the stormwater perspective side
and are are you literally meeting uh that um that objective of of of from a green infrastructure of making every effort to reduce impervious coverage and that's kind of where the that's kind of where the the I don't call a dilemma
that's where the balancing act. Now, if if and I don't want to suggest this as a solution to this, but if the property was the lease line, you could then look just simply at the storm water to lot six as a separate
entity. Uh, and you could say that they made every effort within the boundaries of lot six to reduce impervious coverage. The way this is is presented again the nature of the lot. These are two separate lots. The applicant has a
lease for lot uh six. They have an agreement with the owner on lot five to lease a portion of lot five which brings lot five into the under the same umbrella if you will uh for looking at this particular site. Um and I'm more
than happy to hear discussion on this or input on this or how we how we kind of get I don't want to say get around but how do we deal with this particular issue. Let me and I I touched on this when we were here uh last month. Um you know, we're not we're not the property
owner. Uh we are a uh we are a tenant. Um started out with just with lot six. Part of the reason we're going out as well and approaching so to speak into lot five is due to the fact that we are increasing the buffer out front. That's
slid things back, increased us into that additional area. We don't control block five. We control what what is in that leasehold area. We have gone to ownership. We've had this discussion with ownership
uh relative to well are you we're heading this landscape area, you know, the area that's kind of on that north side in that back area. We're going to eliminate parking, etc. Uh what what we have before you is as far as our
landlord was willing to go. Um, candidly, I'm not sure what they view in terms of the future of the of Lot Five Powers Sports. I understand they've been in there for a while. I don't know that they think they're necessarily going to
be a long-term tenant. And their position has been um we may be looking to redevelop, you know, left five in the future. uh which is why they've expressed to us that they're not willing to grant us the ability to come before
this board and say let's reduce the impervious coverage further. We just we don't have control over that. What we have control over is lot six and that additional space that we're able to, you know, have them agree to to
allow us to to convert whatever that is 6,000 some odd square feet of of that adjacent lot six. That's that's really the sum and substance of it. I'd love to be in a position that I come back and stay longer than we just bank a row of parking there. They want it in the future. That's those are the things we
we come up with. Um but uh I think due due to their their uncertain view of of the ability to to redevelop that site and you know candidly you know it's on a primary commercial corridor. you're going to want. I don't know what's going
to happen with lot five and their their buildings, but uh by allowing that to remain, it provides them flexibility uh to develop to redevelop their site. They're certainly going to have to come back before a board in the future if they're doing anything substantial to
change it. They'll probably have to deal with storm water management and the like, but >> and we won't forget it. >> So, so can so this is why I was asking the set of questions before and if you could provide some more context. This might be helpful in terms of the development history. >> Yep.
>> Um the the restaurant use which is being this application is seeking to abandon the restaurant use and replace it with a permitted use the car wash. Right. The the parking on lot six was attached to the restaurant use and it was required
for the restaurant use. >> Correct. >> I certainly say portion of the parking >> on lot six. Right. And a portion of the parking lot on lot six has to do with mattress firm and a portion of it has to do with power sports lots
five sorry five. So a portion of the parking is for the existing businesses to the north of the applicant pro property. Some of the parking on the south end of lot five is there I if I'm remembering correctly is there a lease agreement with McDonald's. Yeah, there's
a lease agreement with McDonald's terms, >> right? >> I know there are a number of shared parking. >> So, so when lot five was developed, >> I don't know if you could provide some when that was when these other pieces
happened. Uh there the parking reason why we have this 85% covered lot was because of all of the parking for all of these uses that were here, right? Is that is that a fair characterization? >> I don't know all the details. I can't
give you every detail because I open it. I got resolutions and so forth. I didn't necessarily see that they got an 80 83% variance because they needed to put more parking associated with the restaurant. But I just I just know those are the percentages that were approved back in
1998. the Duke. >> So my question was the the the Friday's restaurant project was what year? >> 98 >> and the other developments to the north were those before or after the restaurant.
>> Good shops after there's stores there, right? I don't know me there. >> Okay. I I I guess I guess what I'm trying to put together here is the the
relief that that you're that the this application is seeking is conj is and you're making you're giving testimony that you cannot meet the sto the the impervious issue which does affect the storm water as Bob laid out because of
this excess of parking on lot five. The excess of parking lot five is due to a use that you are proposing to abandon. is is is what I and so I'm trying to get a sense of like you say that there's no control but there is control because if they're supposed to still restaurant if
like another restaurant were to come in even if it's a site plan review it would be it' be a different conversation right we might not understand but yeah >> they're saying that the landlord is >> I understand the problem they have the
issue I'm trying to put to the board is the finding you have to come from a stormwater perspective Right. >> Well, you have the issue you want to grant. >> So, relief unfuries coverage which is the land use social media want to speak to what the criteria for that is. But for the stormware perspective, you know,
you have to again read this again. Your one of your objectives here um is um under under the the nine the nine structural strategies I'm quoting here. Minimize imperous services and break up or disconnect the flow of surface water
over impervious services. I went on to kind of elaborate on that and I kind of underlined this in the original report. Accordingly, in order to meet this objective, the applicant and board should consider removing excessive amount of impervious motor vehicle surfaces that is not required and will
not be utilized in the operation of the site. I think they clearly did that on lot six, but since lot five is part of the application, we have this glare, this excess parking staring us in the face here. Uh, and can we, you know, can
we can the board reach that conclusion >> that they've done everything they could? >> Are we having a hearing where everything's in question? Are we having any discussion? We should close. >> What though? That's so I was trying to answer it as a question to get the history of what was going on here. What was tied to what? Go because I I think what what Bob's trying to do is identify
the relief and make sure that the applicant is presenting the board with all information that it feels it has so the board can consider that relief really clear the land doesn't want to >> Okay. >> So, is there anything else on that point that you would want to add? Let me add
>> No, I don't I don't have anything else to add in there. >> Okay. Bob, is there other discussion than you have? We had a lot of other comments in a report the act been agreed to in these last reporting that I tried to indicate what items were addressed what items would be conditions of approval
and unless there's some questions about that type I don't think we had any questions but a lot of technical requirements and so forth that you identified they're all fair and >> all right so we have your response to this question we'll leave it at that if it's on the record um then at this point
um do you have any other witnesses to No. >> And there's no other questions from our professionals that require answers or testimony from the object. >> Okay. So then I'm going to ask if there any members of the public wish to make a statement. >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to
close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Uh >> do you want a conclusion there? >> Just listen just briefly if I may. We we appreciate uh everybody's time relative to this application. Uh we're obviously coming into a site that's uh that has
had a a restaurant use here. It was originally a Circle Diner and then definitely redeveloped TGI Fridays became a right of crowd. It has been vacant for years uh marketed for years. Uh we come in with this application uh
really to bring a a a new use, a clean use, a permitted use into the zone. uh we do have certain structures which we've just talked about relative to to this particular lot uh you know as well as expanding into lot five. One of the things we had to deal with were not only
the existing improvements but you recall there were issues regarding storage powers sports revealing uh had stuff parked all over the lot. Uh that sort of became our burden dealing with the application. We surveyed everything. Uh
would that we could have just not included lot five. It it certainly would have made it easier. But from an overall perspective, remember we are reducing impervious coverage. Look at the lot lines or whatever. But as a practical matter, it all functions as as one
property just in terms of access through etc. Uh we've reduced impervious coverage uh by about a quarter acre 10,000 some odd square feet. Uh I think we have done everything possible uh to address the issues and to provide a very
nice project uh that I do think is going to be a benefit to this community uh with an enhanced landscaping plan, an irrigated landscaping plan. So this is going to be one of those projects where you plant a bunch of street trees uh and
and some bushes and they all die within six months. Uh there'll be maintenance obligations and the like. Uh but we think it's a project that that really looks nice, fits in well in this area. You heard our traffic engineer. Uh it works from a traffic perspective. We've
confirmed availability of water and sewer. Uh and and we're really excited to to be here in Fington. This will be a state-of-the-art facility. It's going to be dramatically different than the other car washes you have here. Uh and we think uh you know, my my client I know
is very excited to be a part of this community. Um and we would respectfully request that grant approval for project as submitted. >> Thank you. So we have a motion to close and seconded. Um
uh Carrie, do you want to call the role as >> uh Mayor Carol? >> Yes. >> Councilman Englehart. >> Yes. >> Mr. Campion. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Engle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sh. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Yes, Mr. Apple. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's time for for discussion items. Uh maybe let me start with with with Jim and talk through you know your anything you want to
highlight relief sought things like that. I'm cognizant of the the clock as well. >> Sure. Yeah. Um so in my view between the December hearing and what was submitted in March I think was a a market improvement in
the plan. We saw a significant increase the buffer. Yes. And we had to move some things around and it increased the rear yard relief. But I agree with Mr. McDonald. Essentially the back of this site just functions as part of the shopping center more or less. Um
I don't take any issue with um the variances saw. I think really for the board and again I don't vote. I'm I'm just trying to give you guys all the information that so that you can vote. Um I think really that the signage is you know probably the most important
thing that that we're considering here. I know a lot of you had some question particular questions about that. Um which leads me to think you might have some concern over the signage. So, I think you just have to decide if if it's reasonable. Um, I think Mr.
Mcdana's point in his testimony was, you know, and again, it's a unique site because you have access to this facility from all sides. So, people could come out of the shops, go to the car wash, they could come from, you know, around Powersports, they could come from 202, they could come through, you know, TD
Bank. So it I think the point that he was trying to make was that you know we do need to identify the site because it's accessible from multiple areas. Um I think on its face it seems like a significant amount of relief. But I think when you look at the purpose of it
and what it's serving that's really what you're judging is it is it serving to guide people to the site safely get them where they need to be without a lot of access movement particularly given the maze of access that we have around here. Um,
I don't have any particular comments about the testimony that Mr. Mcdana provided. I think he addressed the the statutory criteria. He gave you testimony to consider on all the variances essentially. I would agree with his characterization uh on the polling case particularly when
you're considering C2 variance relief. What the polling case said was you should be looking at the benefits of the project as a whole, not just the individual benefits of the individual variances. So you can kind of take it in its totality. I think if you're satisfied with the overall picture, then
the variance relief can be justified. >> Thanks, Bob. Is there anything you wanted to uh add? >> Okay, word discussion. I'm gonna start with folks online if we could. Uh
Dennis, Don, Mike, anyone anything they want to start off with? >> I just had a question and it's more guidance. Um the town like from a water standpoint, there's no, you know, we've said that we have enough water. Is that
what I understand that that doesn't weigh in on any of this? I just want to make sure I'm clear. We there we have we have a letter right there will serve letter that that says that you know that means there's capacity to
serve this development in the view of of the utility authority. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't >> say it's not a consideration. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Don, anything you want to add? Raise.
>> No, I'm good. Thank you. Mike, anything you want to to say? >> I'm good. >> Start over here. Melissa, >> I'm good. S >> um I just uh I'd say that I think the
what what uh Jim said is really important about the overall picture. Um, I'd say the signs and the overall design of the building are are relatively tasteful and three of the six signs are are really just small logos. So, I'm not
that concerned about the signs. On a foursided site, it's an internal site, so I want to take that into consideration when it comes to signage. um that connection between the main road
and uh the shops is extremely important. So, I'm happy that the blade sign is a little lower. Um I would like to see the landlord work with you a little more um in order to, you know, like you said,
bank some expand upon the um Yeah. And uh yeah, but otherwise that cross connectivity is maintained which is really important and good no matter what. >> Thank you.
>> Oh, good. >> So I got a problem. Um we have been hammering for the last couple of years on the planning board of improv coverage about how hot this town is. These aerials that you showed us
just illuminate this part of town and how much impervious coverage is over there. You guys have a 20-year lease. We have one bite of this apple now, right? This has been sitting there for years. Uh those two little buildings north of this site have been those two little
buildings since I was a kid. So I don't think that's changing. We have one bite of this apple and that's to hammer the landlord to reduce that impervious coverage down to 70%. As part of this application, we made Bank of America, which is a Fortune 500 company, do that.
We made a pot shop do that. We made Chick-fil-A do that. We've been making everybody do it consistently. Come down in impervious coverage and add more trees. This town is hot. It is six to eight degrees warmer in Flemington
Burough on the highway here than it is five miles out of town. It's a lot. It's a lot of air conditioning bills. You know, it's hot in here. Going out five miles, it's going to be 5 to seven degrees cooler.
You know, they forecasted for this area on national news that it was going to be 83 degrees. It hit 90 today in Flemington Burough. It's hot. You have one bite of the apple. I can't. You guys did a great job with your landscaping, with your water consumption, with the
site. I have no problem with anything you want to do at this point except this impervious coverage issue, which is the long-term future and comfort of this town. And I can't support this application unless landlord agrees to add that impervious to remove that
impervious coverage and adds more trees just like Bank of America did and everybody else. I just can't because this is a this is or bite the apple. You guys have a 20year lease. It is hotter here. Is there anything
that could be done with that in your best interest? >> In the best interest. >> I think a lot of powerful words have been said. I do think that but at the same time I think there's
been a certain degree of understanding at the same time too. And I just don't I don't I wish I don't know how this application would have gotten that much more. >> So it's up to the landlord at this
point, right? >> They've got a viable tenant. They are selling their liquor license. So it isn't going to be a restaurant again, right? They have a viable tenant is it's been marketed for years and they are selling a liquor license. so they can
agree to do it, but let this tenant go away. I I I mean, our job is to plan, not to watch out for a landlord's interest. It's the long-term planning in this town >> and they're going to run into the same landlord's not going to deliver back on
you. >> No. and and and I I I let let me just say for the record, if you've got an issue where Marcia and I agree, you you there's something going on. I'm just going to say because I think everything you said is right in terms of the the this impervious question. This is why I was asking all these questions about the
use and these questions about I it's a it's both storm water and impervious. It is you're they're they're not meeting because of the landlord. They are not meeting the uh the what we're looking for to do on our storm water because
they have not done everything possible. I know their answer on the record. Their answer on the record is that they've asked they've asked they've asked um and um that's that's you know fine. That's their answer on the record. I'm not denying that they've put that on, you
know, that's their testimony, but you know, we are being asked to look at our storm water rigs and we're being asked to, you know, in terms of have we're we're we're be making a finding that they've done everything possible and they've haven't done everything possible because our
engineers made it very clear in his report that an option is to take these 80s something extra parking spaces and do something with it there beyond what has been proposed. Um and so they are seeking relief and yeah the difference
between 72 and 070 is small and if this if we are um to kind of consider what both our planner and the applicants planner said if we're looking at the totality of the relief saw under the variances we're looking at all of these pieces together looking by itself a 7
and 72 is small and it's dimminimous and it would be it would be weird for us to deny an application just for that little bit of extra whatever, right? But if we're looking at the total project, we're looking at all how these pieces go together and the peculiarities of this
lot, I can't ignore that there is this potential right here to to fix this problem. Not because of, you know, um, you know, dimensionality, not because of
slopes, not because of anything that is, you know, peculiar to the land. It's because of the landlord. And that's that's a that's that's that's a problem. And I I have a hard time granting the relief when there is a solution that is so >> straightforward
um uh in in front of us here. In particular, the fact that the reason why there's so many parking spots here um is because of a use that the applicant is abandoning. If if there was if there was if there
was a use if there was if there was a use that was like okay we're doing a shared count of existing uses and there'd be some extra there and they need these spots and there's no way to do it or if it was like that I I think that'd be a different conversation that that the reason at least in part the
reason why there's all these spots sitting here on lot 5 is to meet the parking requirements the TGI Fridays and then subsequent uses and so that use is going away. I have a question for Cara that can I can I can I mean I know we can't get testimony from them but we can
get feedback from our professionals. Correct. >> So Cara when we put in um requirements you know when we do a resolution we get conditions. Thank you. Sorry it's been a few years. It's >> we put in conditions in a in a
resolution and one of those conditions is provide, you know, uh impervious and storm water relief somehow on lot five. Um obviously
like you know I was sketching up widening up and taking away parking spots and doing lots of you know items and stuff. We've asked Banks America and all everybody else do it and there's no reason why this landlord shouldn't improve their
services their their property. Can we put that in as a requirement and then the owner if they haven't signed their lease yet or it's like obviously their lease is probably a condition of our approvals. So
>> most definitely. >> Yeah. So I if we put in a requirement then the landlord will lose this tenant if they don't comply. If can we give them
like I would trust I would trust Tim and and Bob and our professionals to come up with a design. It's pretty like it's a it's a blank slate here. a design on on lot five that would meet our
expectations. They know what we like. They know what we want. >> Is that a possibility? >> I think you have% I think you have a couple options. I think that you could grant the relief the other relief and deny the request for the impervious
coverage variance which would mean that and then say you could proceed with the remaining relief that was granted provided that you worked with the board's engineering planner and and revise the landscaping islands whatever to comply with the impervious coverage
requirements otherwise the application you know cannot not proceed. The the rest of the relief isn't granted. You could come up with a less number. I mean, we've got 2% on lot 6, 22% on lot five. You could, you know, say fully,
you know, you could reduce those and and grant relief but in a lesser amount than what's requested. Um, those are your options. I would not put a condition because conditions are I think separate. This is
a relief issue. either you're granting impervious coverage relief or you're not to in any extent or a lesser extent whatever the case may be the condition I think would be that they do not have to come back to the board for revised
approval provided that they can do it to the satisfaction of the engineer and the planner >> so so you're something along those lines >> so so make sure I'm understanding you're you're saying we could theoretically grant site plan approval with relief >> and all the other variables the variance
that they're requesting, not grant relief for the um various coverage and then they decide how to make this work. I mean because because my my concern is then the design questions are not insubstantial. It's not like we're
asking them to work with our board professionals to pick out the right variety of trees. grasping them to the the the the elimination of a couple dozen parking spots, the inclusion of planting islands. Would those those kinds of things might affect traffic and flow?
Like I'm concerned that it's it might a lot to ask, but >> I just ask. >> Yeah, >> mayor, you said 70%. Is the target to get it to be conforming? >> Um, it is the target to be conforming. Okay. Um,
it's 2% there, but it's five is something. >> So, just to put it in perspective, >> yeah, >> they would have to eliminate 16,054 square ft to get to 70%. >> I say that number again. That was what I was going to I couldn't ask him. >> 160054.
Now, just to give you an idea. So, we have perfect bays of parking here. >> Mhm. >> Are they 9 by8s? >> Not. Yes. >> Okay. So each parking space and half of its drive aisle is 270 square ft. >> They have to eliminate 59 parking stalls
with drive aisle in order to get to that number. >> Or lot six or lot five. >> Six five. >> What is the problem? Yeah. >> What they want on six is the minimums compared to >> So if they eliminate that many spots,
are they still in compliance on lot five? >> There's an excess of I think 89. >> Okay. >> That's the point. Everybody's like, "Oh, wow. How are they going to do that?" But isn't that the point? It's an awful lot of black talks. That is the point. It's
a huge key island. >> It is. Right. >> One of the things I had I had mentioned before was that that that need and that the connectivity from the street to the shops and how that needs to be enhanced
um as opposed to like little a million little islands. >> Yeah. You know how they've done this really great landscape area in the front doing like doing um some strong
enhancement to kind of really direct the um the traffic from 202 back to >> are you on lot five and the landlord's problem. >> Yeah. >> Well, we really can't do sight designs for the landlord. >> No, we can't. But >> well, we've done it before. No. So,
yeah, but we're trying I'm trying to >> So, there is one other option and I see Mr. Wascal and his team frantically talking. >> The other option is we don't vote tonight. They go away and talk to the landlord and say, "Hey guys, I got a
problem here >> before we do anything." >> So, so, so listen to >> it's like you WANT TO TAKE A five minute deliberation break. So, so that it's 9:00. This is about when the board takes a break.
>> So, so, so that so that people stop me. Um, >> no, no, I'm going to I'm going to take Let's take a break. >> Let's fall down if you pull that vegetables.
>> All right, we're gonna we're going to we're going to take our break. Um, I'm going to strongly encourage whatever conversations need to happen to happen. And then we when we come back when we gather back in in five minutes, we will we will decide if we're going to carry
or not. I think that would be if we could be in that position that would be helpful. >> All right. Motion to No, we're not adjourning. We're just taking motion. There's no motion. We don't need motion motion easily. No, we're we'reing >> I'm ging us back in. It is 9:12 p.m.
Carol, would you mind calling a role just so we know who's here? >> Yes. Mayor Carol >> here. Uh, council vice president here. Mr. Campion >> here. >> Uh, Miss Witman >> here. Miss Fable. Yeah. Mr. Show
>> I think I heard it here. Mr. Schlanger >> here. Josh here. Mr. Angel Eckle >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Hayne here, >> Mr. Favors >> here. >> Uh me, Mr. Carico here, >> Mr. >> Here. >> Okay.
Um we're going to we're going to suspend our board discussion for a moment because I believe it wants to say something. >> Yes, if I may. Um we we understand your board's concerns and certainly heard them. Uh we would like to carry uh the
meeting at this point. Uh, I will tell you we are going to go back to the landlord, have another discussion with them and see what we can do. Uh, I do not know that we're going to be able to get them to agree to, you know, bringing
that property down to 70% due to the the the amount. Uh, but but we'll have a discussion. We'll see we'll see if we can do better than what we have before you, you know, presently. >> Okay. Obviously, and I, you know, as I articulated, you know, landlord is not
sure what their future is on the building. Candidly, all we know, you're going to have a restaurant use that goes into, you know, one of those buildings. It needs more parking again. So, but we'll see what we can find out, you know, between now and and next month's meeting. Uh, and if we can uh we can
work to uh to to have them agree to reduce impervious coverage further, uh, we'll we'll we'll certainly push to the maximum extent we can. Uh and again just realizing we have a lease for lots >> and about 1,200 square feet of lot five.
So >> understood >> but I get I get the fact and I understand these are the bites of the apple mayor. I I I do I understand that. So we'll we'll do what we can. It's less we can do and uh >> Okay. So what I'm going to do is uh I
think I think I have discretion as chair to do this. I'm going to uh pause our board discussion. The public hearing still remains closed, but we are going to carry this matter. This is the So, we're going to carry the public hearing of Spark Car Wash application 202502
block 49, lot 6 and5. Um uh we're going to carry this to our next uh noticed meeting which is on uh April 28th. Um at this time in this room um no further
notice is required. Um I'm sorry. Can I just interrupt? Is that enough time for you? >> We could carry it to a different date. Certainly is just notice. >> Why don't we carry it to the 28th? And if it turns out we need more time, would that be okay? And
>> that's it's it's entirely that's fine. So let's carry it to the 28th of April. No further notice. Um at that point, we will either reopen the public hearing um for additional testimony to be given or the board will continue with its discussion and any vote that might
happen. >> Terrific. >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you all. >> You're welcome. Um, our next item on the agenda, >> just something just for my purposes. >> Yeah, >> I know we had a bunch of people that were absent in December. We had a change
in a board member. Um, I don't know if there were people that weren't at the last meeting and not this meeting. >> Has everyone had the opportunity to listen to the tapes? Is everyone's exactly Karen? Is everybody else here my bag? So
I I'm assuming I should be given that Caitlyn. >> That's fine. I just want to make sure that we've got everyone eligible the next time we come here. >> I will be eligible by >> you. Okay. All right. But you need the list and
>> I'll be out on the 28th. >> We may not may not be. We'll see. We'll see what happens. >> There's a question I have. So may I listen to the recording from last session, but I wasn't on the board in December. So the 16th
>> 16th needs to bring a couple more the next. >> Yeah. So, >> all right. So, so we will we'll make sure that everyone who is not here tonight gets caught up. We'll make sure that anyone who is here but needs to has heard recordings and everyone will provide certification.
>> Yes. So that we can uh have a full complement of participating. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right everybody. two weeks. >> I want to move things along. Uh item >> nothing. He's good.
>> Um >> okay. Um >> All right. So item nine on the agenda is discussion responding to council resolution 202682 is what's on the agenda. Is that the resolution number? >> Uh I don't know because I think that was
what they were considering. >> So we did we did um get from >> Carla today, right? She sent um >> I'm sorry. We're talking about the >> item nine on the agenda which was the um >> Yes.
So, I I did prepare a resolution um in anticipation of this. Um I don't know the number of >> 2026-82 is what we is what I'm looking at. >> 82. Okay, perfect. >> She said that today.
>> I didn't get it. It was 201613, which is authorization, right? >> No. Okay. So, resolution 2026-82 was sent to Oh, that's why because it was sent to me, Ara, Karen, and Caitlyn.
>> It's discussing 628. >> Yeah. No, the So, so the resolution that was adopted at council last night did not get sent out to the board, >> but it was sent to the it was sent to the chair and vice chair and board secretary. >> Don't rush. You can just
>> So, is it We don't have a We don't have talk just restarted >> so we we can we can carry this to the next meeting so that we can forward this resolution out to everyone to see it. Correct. >> Let's do that. >> Um we'll we'll we'll referral >> um for the referral. Um we'll we'll push
that to the next meeting. Um item 10 on the agenda tonight is the HPC property list and the the review of what we're doing for public hearings. So Jim, can you report on the conversation you're having with uh um John Hatch? Right.
>> Yeah. So John and I spoke again today. Um he provided me some clarifications on the list. So there's really only two on there that John and I agreed do require a public hearing. Um it's Union Hotel and then there was another previously vacant property that had a
house constructed on it. The designation was changed. So John will prepare a memo on behalf of HBC that will be submitted to the board. I think what we had done in the past was hold a joint session of HPC and the planning board. We we don't
hold a hearing. HPC has the hearing, but then we they refer it to us and then we provide a recommendation to council. So, we could kind of wrap that all into one um meeting and action if we wanted
to. 20-day notice on the hearing and then we have to provide mailed notice to the affected properties which in this case will only be two 20 days prior to that hearing as well. >> So realistically given the meeting
schedule um we theoretically do it on May 12th but it's more realistic May 26th is would be the earliest to reasonably do that. I think that's a good target because then we make sure we get all the notices proper and we have John's because we have to have John's report on file 20 days prior to as well.
>> Oh, okay. So, it it's we we're either talking May 26th or we may want to even think about June 9th. >> He didn't think that was a problem. >> Okay. >> Either either later in May or beginning of June. He really said, "Look, whatever meeting isn't the busiest, then you know, let's try to target that." >> All right. So, for the purposes of the
minutes and we'll hopefully uh I think it's May 26th that >> it's right after Memorial Day and council. >> Hold on. It may not be the 26th. I don't >> 26 this Tuesday. >> No, no, it's the 19th. >> It's the 19th.
>> It's the 19th. So, the 19 I honestly think the 19th is is only a month off and I don't think we have time. >> I think we should be looking at June 9th as as the target for for that. >> That's that's not a problem. >> Okay. So let's if you could let him know that that's what we're aiming for. >> Sure.
>> All right. >> Yeah. We've got two meetings back toback the 12th minute. >> Yeah. So in So I would say Dennis if you could please um obviously John Hatch is in the middle is is going to know what's going on, but if you could um let HPC
know that we might want to try to do a joint meeting on the 9th for the purposes of that hearing. It's an HPC hearing, but it would allow us to have the planning board as well. Um, >> yes, >> you could just kind of let folks know that that's what we're aiming for and
hopefully they can clear their calendars because it's not a regular uh meeting date for HPC. >> We will. We have our meeting tomorrow. >> Great. Okay. >> Okay. >> Any other question discussion on that? >> Good. All right. Um, escrow requirements. We actually have time for
this. Um so part of the docket that was sent out um was um there was two things. One was um a list of
nearby municipalities with what their escro schedule was and then another was a folder that we had put in um several recent applications. Save one. I asked her to pull one out um that was the
subject of pending litigation. So I didn't want us to have a constant problem. Um to uh uh look at the kind of es and flows of how escrow has happened on recent applications. So um
where would we be we can discuss have have folks had a chance to review is my >> we can discuss it. >> Yeah. Have folks have a chance to look at it. >> Yes. You look at it like you know when I first blew out
>> and it's very complicated. >> Give me five of them. >> So what would help the board I guess? So we pulled the ones that were the most akin to you know maybe what we thought this would want to do. what would help
are so complicated like I think we're you know we are a very busy planning board but we're you know we're well let me ask you this like are you comfortable with the we looked at a lot of things when we went through the checklist are you
comfortable with the classifications of the fees I'll take a look and see if there's anything we don't collect for right now >> interpretation sometimes because they're missed in in some towns. But, you know, maybe it's
just a matter of, you know, a increasing a little bit a certain percentage, you know, keeping all of the the classifications again the same, but just kind of bringing it up to the times and implementation
because a lot of other towns when you hit, you know, less than half of your escrow, you're not proceeding until you replenish it back up to where it was. I think that's I think we don't collect enough. I don't think that I think we allow it to get too too low or we ask for more money.
>> Yes. >> And I think um you know there there's stuff that happens that we end up continuing to collect escrow from, you know, to pay for escrow. um
that should we need to make sure is covered that things that happen even after a planning board hearing if it's you know during the whole >> compliance >> process. Oh yeah. >> You know that well remember the there's
always a condition in your resolutions that say you have to keep your escrow fees up to date. So the minute that that's not done and there's a request and it's not replenished, I think I have in there replenished within 30 days, you're, you know, we don't have to number one continue to do anything else,
any other review, but you're, you know, essentially not in compliance with your approval. >> So you know what Ren Township started doing before they adopt the resolution and memorialize it. They see where the escrow is at and if it's deficient, they say, "Hey, guess what? we're not going
to adopt your resolution until you bring your escrow into into you know bring it current. >> I think we have to have um >> that's not >> targets. In other words, like we're saying if it gets below 25% of the full, you know what I mean? Because
>> listen, there are so many town where they have such a problem, especially if an application's denied. >> Like I have one town that's been chasing somebody for escro money for a year and a half. >> Yeah. I I think when we started this conversation a while ago, it was Eileen
just just trying to chase folks down. I mean, that was really the biggest concern. And then we were, you know, and so so maybe it's the maybe it's >> but we were also depleting the because >> numbers were Yeah. And I and I and I just think it should be simple like if
it's a minor it's this. it's a measure it's that or something like there's so many calculations in some of these municipalities that if it's like they're asking for this it's going to >> well x amount per square foot from this to this and those are usually the most complex ones are usually for major site plans right
>> you know usually you've got your variances those are fairly simple are you doing overall or per variance it's a major site plans that usually >> Clinton seems to be the simplest of the five that you set >> okay >> just >> township or town >> town Clint.
>> Oh, yeah. >> I I've never had a problem escroing the town of Clinton. Not once in 10 years. >> Yeah. >> They have a lot coming through like legal. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Or I'd say more. >> Yeah. Township. >> We've got like three. >> Yeah. But it's usually small smaller
stuff. >> A lot of that since she was on top of that stuff. So, >> oh, I'm think I'm I'm thinking of township then. A lot of both. I think the thing that we need to have in the ordinance and in the escrow agreement is that Caitlyn has the
opportunity to look and say, "Okay, I just paid all these bills. There's $1,000 left in the account. You need to send me this much money now." Right. >> Well, Eileen, just for the record, Eileen used to call us and say, "Hey, just we're down to this. What do you think you got coming?"
>> Yep. So part of this is making sure that our board secretary is feels empowered to do that, >> right? Yeah. >> But it's not just like what do you think you've got coming as far as your bills? It's also like you know like right now
like dealing with Liberty Village for instance, our professionals are involved in you know issues that have been happening over there with storm water and whatever. So convers been involved and um
I'm trying to think of who else really but I mean my point is is that they get they need to get paid out of escrow you know while this is ongoing so it's not just like what's happening in >> and that's not our escrow though those those rubbings going to be a different
>> yeah but also at a certain point Bob goes on to inspection fee >> money instead of you know the escro that we collect to process the application. Yeah, >> I I but what happened with the with with the Union Hotel, you know, when Beth
started like doing compliance on the resolution and she found that the windows were different and this was different and that heard that, >> right? And that was escrow. >> That was absolutely escrow. This escrow >> Yes. >> I would I would call >> there was nothing in there. They had to replenish it. I I think it's easier if
and Eileen always did a great job calling us and asking us, but I think not having a definitive if it drops below half, replenish it to full leaves us open for someone to either us not to have enough or for someone to say, "Well, where does it say that?" I think
it needs to be more. If it it's a $5,000 escrow, once it drops to 2500, you have to replenish it back up to the original escrow. You you actually have that on the inspection side. If the number is over a certain amount, they don't have to put 100% up. They put like 50% up. But there's provisions. When that 50%
gets down to 25%, they have to go back up to 50 again. >> So we don't know you, but we can use that. >> We don't have extraction. >> So So it sounds like there's there seems to be consensus that we need to have some mechanism like that. >> Y >> um sounds like >> definitive.
>> I mean the enforcement, >> right? Is that right? The enforcement is we're not doing anything. Your application's staying right where it is. You're not getting >> What about jobs that are already in, you know, >> doesn't matter. >> Well, they're not going to get their co if they don't. >> Yeah, that's
>> whatever whatever the next stage of >> what they need comes in because again, that's a condition of all of our resolutions. >> So, you're not getting sign off on resolution compliance in order for you to go and get your CO or your building permit or whatever the case may be until
you pay it. So then it's up to them how much they want to drag it out. >> You know what I'm not seeing in any of the five of these >> is the thing that you that the actual thing that you're asking for, which is
Oh, wait a minute. Township of Readington. This is the fifth one I've looked at. I'm looking for that reup clause. >> Extension. >> No. No. If it's below expl I don't even know if this is correct. I
haven't found us. >> So, that's something we want to have. We want to make sure that the money itself is the right amount of money because we've obviously our professional fees over years have have gone up um appropriately, but there's still like,
you know, we're running out of money faster because >> Readington does. >> Yeah. Look at paragraph for the A C4 at the end. That one has a clause at the end. >> I didn't see them in the any of the
others, but Readington's goes on for holy cow nine pages. >> But yeah, we're way too complicated. >> Enough money and the automat and the replenishment. We only pay Caitlyn for so many hours. We really can't have
>> right. >> No, no, that's the point, right? >> I do think it would be a good idea if the professionals kind of go that we we run that by Caitlyn like this is the you know that we're used to doing it this way and can we make sure we do it this way in the future places? So, who knows
if >> what's the other where she >> Sorry. >> Yeah. Ask her how they do it. >> Right. >> Well, we don't see much in California. >> Yeah, I know. But to deal with it, >> it's all it's all Highlands preservation
area. So, it's all just, hey, I want to make a single family house into a duplex or, you know, something like that. >> Still has to deal with something like mechanism. >> We we've had three applications in the last two years. >> Preservation. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Any any other So so so do you feel like you've got enough guidance, Cara, to kind of take the next pass? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And and the pass would be to put something >> put something together and and let us let it'll be easier for us to have a discussion I think if if we've got at
least a >> you know a draft to to talk. >> Can I get a consensus of an increase? 20% increase 10% increase. >> When was the last time we increased it? I left >> long enough ago that no one remembers 20%.
>> Okay. >> Then we can see we can see >> and then we'll see what it makes sense. Yeah. >> Look it, you look we you don't want you don't want it to be too high of a number to be too honorous for an applicant, but it's money that's going to get spent. It's not like it's coming out, you know, >> and it can get refunded if they
>> and remember application fees are supposed to be to cover administrative costs, >> right? not estro or well with the exception of me I'm the only one that that covers now what we do have and I don't know as I was going through this I don't know that we've ever collected it we have the ability if a meeting goes
longer than one to collect more fees for me and I don't know if that's ever been done >> well ourselves you can use it yourself but ultimately you know you know what I'm saying like because it the specifically
states that my attendance fees cannot be paid out of escrow. >> Right? >> So that's why I have a separate situation. But what you do have and what you're allowed to do and you rightly have in your application fees is any time that a meeting goes over more than
one, there's additional application fees collected that specifically go towards my fees. >> That's a good idea. >> Yeah. No, it's I've never seen that before. >> I was going through that. that any of the other let's keep enforcing that one. >> Yeah, I don't know if we have
>> because it also force applicants to get their stuff together and not >> come in and have it incomplete and this and that and they know that every time they come back in come in preparing. >> Correct. >> All right. Excellent. >> Make that one a little more substantial.
>> I'll do that. >> They're not just Oh, yeah. It's 50 bucks for everything. >> I think it's 250 right now. That's fun. >> But yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else on escrow? Thank you all. Um chair items. I didn't
know I was chairing items. >> Actually, Jeff, this is the part we want to short. >> Right. >> We did not get bills. Do we need to go to executive session? >> Uh motion tojourn. >> Yes.
Uh, I'll say I'll say Harrow Swingle. So, it's on the record and we can get in the minutes. All in favor say I. Anyone? that girl actually like