In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, PL1975, chapter 231, adequate notice of this regular meeting of the zoning board of the Township of Franklin's been provided. Board members, applicants, professionals, and members of the
public, please speak directly into the microphones so that our recording secretary can properly process minutes. Applicants and professionals, please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony. Thank you. And we'll continue with the
roll call. >> Okay. Um, Faras Khan and Shapendo Singh both asked to be excused this evening. Cheryl Betha >> here. Richard Brokanic >> here. >> Bassim Verdas >> here. >> Alan Rich >> here. >> Gary Rosenthal >> here. >> Robert Shepard
>> here. >> Michael Dy >> here. >> Kunal Kia >> and Chairman Thomas >> here. Uh minutes regular meeting October 16th, 2025. >> I'll move >> second.
Shia, >> yes. >> Richard Proanic. >> Yes. >> Basim Verdas. Yes. >> Alan Rich. >> Yes. Gary Rosenthal, >> yes. >> Robert Shepard, >> yes. >> Michael Dy, >> yes. >> And Chairman Thomas, >> yes. And next would be a resolution
establishing the 2026 board of adjustment calendar. Uh, does >> last night they did a general poll like you just said, does everybody agree? So I don't have to go down the line unless Brian, you would like for me to do that. It was >> Okay. So, I did check with our reg uh
some people on the both boards to make sure that I was not incorporating any holidays or religious reasons not to have a meeting on Wednesdays or Thursday. And it just so happens in 2026, none of them affect those days. So, everything that's on the calendar
that you got, we should have meetings on. There should be no reason to not have them or to make something different. >> Okay. If there are no uh questions, comments, or proposed adjustments, we'll entertain a motion. >> So move.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion passed. Uh we have no discussion uh section here other than what goes with each individual applications. The
first hearing on the agenda, proposed hearing I'll say, 11 property ZBA 24001. It's a preliminary and final major site plan with variances which applicants propose to construct a four-story
apartment building at 940 Eastn Avenue, Somerset, lot 385, lot 2.07 in the GP zone. This has been uh postponed tonight as it has been a couple of other previous times. It's carried
tenatively to March 19th, but everybody uh the public needs to be renotified. Uh next was Somerset Bible Baptist Church 254
CND variances in which the applicants asking permission to build a one-story 35- ft tall 8,640 ft gymnasium at 42 Cedar Grove Lane block 424.02
block 12.02 in the R40 zone. This also has been uh taken off the agenda tonight and carried to February 5th, 2026. In this case there, this is the notification. No
further notification needed carried to February 5th. Uh >> the application we will hear Manet Sing and Ravinder Cower ZBA 24
O11 site plan with use variance and C variances in which the applicant's proposing to convert the existing repair garage into a convenience store at 339 Elizabeth Avenue, Somerset, block 493.01,
lot one in the R10 zone. So, if we can get everybody up here for that. This was carried from November 6th, 2025. And in this case, uh, we need evidence of notification. >> I think that was provided.
>> It's all provided. Okay. >> Very good. And again, uh, it's been a while since we heard uh, anything. So, I think from uh the board's point of view, it would be wise if you could give us a quick synopsis of where you think we
are. >> Okay. Um Michael Svaji uh from Levery Svagi and Cohen on behalf of the applicant. Uh the chair is right. It's been some time. Uh last time we were here, we presented u the project as described by the chair and there were
some issues raised by board members and the board's professional staff concerning uh internal traffic movements, parking um and some of the interior layout. So following that meeting, uh we went back and kind of
sharpened our pencils. We also had an opportunity to meet with um Mr. Healey and uh a few other municipal officials uh to get some ideas of what might be uh a more
practical approach to this. Um I think all of you are aware of the property. I mean it's it's kind of small. uh probably not much bigger than this this room and its triangular shape presents challenges as well as the existing
building and the uh layout of the gas uh pumps. But we were able to do some things that our engineer will discuss in in greater detail as been were described in the board engineers report as well as
Mr. Healey's report. Most importantly, um we were able to provide some additional parking. We also closed off, uh some entrance points, um which help better direct the traffic circulation in and out of here. Uh everything will come
on and off of of Elizabeth. Uh we were also uh able to relocate the um um dumpster. Uh, and you we by doing that we took a site that has over 90% coverage. We got it down to about 70%.
We were able to uh add some parking that's not there. Uh, and most importantly, we were able to keep what was our original intention, which was to to get rid of that unsightly u mechanic automobile repair shop. uh
fix up that building so it's aesthetically a heck of a lot more pleasing, provide a use that quite frankly, as Mr. Healey noted in some of his photographs. I don't know if he did it intentionally, but right now the use um you know, the mechanic parks on the
road, customers park on the road, all of that will uh should be eliminated. I mean obviously you can't stop people from parking there but at least there's enough parking on uh uh internally that that should not be an issue and also by
eliminating uh the access uh and keeping it concentrated on that one side also provides a safer alternative. So on balance you know you're you're getting a site right now that's not very efficient. It's not aesthetically pleasing. Um you
know it's it's grandfathered in. We get it. But we're hoping that with these improvements, uh it's a site that you'll find certainly more uh compatible, if you will, with that R10 zone. Understand the R10 zone only
allows residential. Uh but even that, which is a permitted use, it'd be tough to get a house on on this lot. Um, but we're we're able to overall improve this uh to a point that
makes some sense and certainly, you know, as as they say, you can't make a purse out of a SA's ear. Uh, but we're trying to get close here on this. Uh, so what I'd like to do, Mr. chairman is uh a lot of the overview that I've given
our engineer who was instrumental in preparing uh the plans can go into some greater detail in the course of doing that uh issues raised by uh Darren and Mark will also uh discuss those as well uh and then um some of the internal
traffic circulation Gary Dean who's our traffic consultant can also kind of expand upon u so if if the board uh uh would like I'd like to get into that u because you probably want to hear from those guys more than you want to hear from me.
>> Okay, it's your application. Okay, go ahead. >> So, uh and and I I defer to board counsel. Everybody we're presenting has testified. Well, except maybe our planner. Uh but, uh I I don't know if we have to put them under oath.
>> They're still under oath to the extent that they've testified before. Anyone that hasn't testified before obviously will. >> I will. Okay. And and Tyler, while you're getting situated, um since you were here last time, uh your license is still uh in good standing, correct?
>> Yes, that is correct. >> All right. Good. So, uh uh and Tyler, you were instrumental in the preparation of the initial set of engineering plans, correct? >> Yes. >> And you oversaw the preparation of these revised plans, correct?
>> All right. Um, and I I know >> so let's before we move forward just so the answer >> he has to speak to the mic. >> Yes. >> Just for the record. The answer to all of your questions were yes. Just for the record because we have a recording secretary. >> I'll take this one. >> Okay. All right.
>> There we go. Um, and and to the extent it may not have been picked up, Tyler, uh, since you were here last time, uh, your license is still in good standing. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> And you still consider yourself under oath. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. Why don't you take us out um
on what really is a a new um site plan and uh what were some of the improvements and what what were some of the objectives we were hoping to achieve by doing that? Before we go any further, um um I can't really see very much
except a uh uh something of a design through that. >> Um so I was hoping we could get something on our screens. >> We're doing that right now. Also, is this the um the version of
your uh your site plan >> for the >> uh from from when what's the month? >> Uh this is October 13 of this year. >> Okay. And this was the the board's
professional reports. Um uh both uh your engineer and planner both reference and relied upon these these drawings. >> Mr. Sajology, I know this is part of your application materials, but we should since we're putting on the screen, we'll mark it as an exhibit. I don't remember where we left off last
time. >> Yeah, I don't remember either. >> We'll call this for tonight's purposes A1. >> Yeah, we'll call it A1 and and we'll put the date of uh December 4th. >> Sure. >> All right. So, I don't know if you can you guys okay with where we have it?
>> Yeah, that's that one's not working, but we've got three out of four. So, >> all right, that's that's fine. Um, so hopefully Mr. Shepard, you can >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's the only one that's not the one closest to you is the one that's not working, >> right?
>> Um, all right. So, uh, Tyler, why don't we get into, um, and again, I I know it's kind of a revision, but the propertyy's small enough kind of just almost start from the beginning, not not talking about what was presented, but what we're doing now,
>> right? Absolutely. Okay. Uh, so yes, we have this uh, unique shaped property. It's this triangle shape, has fronts on three different streets. We have Elizabeth to the west, Cedar to the east, and we have Mercury Street uh to
the south. So, we have a lot here that's confined by three front yards and then a sideyard which is to the rear of the existing building uh bordering the residential properties to the north. Uh as was discussed, the site currently uh contains a maintenance garage and the
the fuel sales. The fuel sales consist of the canopy. Uh there's two dispensers beneath that canopy as well as a kiosk between the two dispensers. The fuel portion is all intended to remain. No, no changes uh to the fuel sales, number
of dispensers, type of fuel being sold. Uh same thing goes for the underground tanks that serve the dispensers. Uh those were just put in a few years ago. Um so those are staying um existing as they are. No change there. What this really comes down to is a change of use
to the the main building, principal building uh from the maintenance garage into a convenience store. The architect previously presented the plans whereby the bay doors would be closed off, uh replaced with windows, uh
a number of other beautiful improvements to the building as far as the siding, additional windows, uh etc. What I wanted to focus on here was really the function of the site. Uh this was largely what we discussed at the last hearing. We did go back to the
drawing board, submit a new drawing. There was uh comments from your professionals. Uh whereby we decided not to uh come back with that plan and instead went back to the drawing board again uh and had a meeting with those professionals. So uh we've arrived at a
place here which which we feel probably presents the um the best circulation for the site. uh certainly from a safety perspective uh and a vast improvement over what we're seeing today. So, as was mentioned, we have uh two driveways existing off of Cedar to the east of the
fuel sales in the existing condition and two to the west on Elizabeth Avenue. The intent of this plan is to close off both driveways off of Cedar. So, all circulation would come in and out off of Elizabeth. And then we have this simple
uh loop structure of circulation, two-way circulation uh around the fuel pumps or underneath the canopy depending on what your purpose for visiting the site is. And then along the perimeter of that circulation, we have uh parking provided.
What this allows for is a number of things. Uh cleaner circulation where we don't have uh vehicles coming from from every which way. Uh it also provides um much better drives as you recall during the first hearing. uh there was some significant uh deviation from the
standard of the municipality which is 26 feet. We are now providing 24 feet. We recognize that's still a variance but um akin to uh industry standard as far as two-way traffic flow. Uh what we have here is the main parking bank is
immediately in front of the building. There would be a sidewalk in immediately outside the front door uh with a 6-in curb. That sidewalk uh loops around to the east and continues down that bank of parking to connect to the public
sidewalk along Cedar Avenue. And within that sidewalk, we have our ADA ramp to our handicap spot directly in front of the building. >> Okay. So, so I'm I'm trying to follow this
and um it you've you've got the building and then the building kind of juts out and it comes around. There's a there's some angled lines on a parking space. That is that your ADA space?
>> That's the hatching. Great. That's the the walking aisle next to the handicap space. >> Okay. And then and then you've got um I guess those are the doors in and out. And then you've got a sidewalk that
comes down all the way to >> Cedar. >> Cedar. >> Yes. >> All right. And how many spaces are there? >> So directly in that bank of parking is four spaces. >> Four altogether including the handicapped. >> Correct. >> Okay.
And then >> where are the rest of them? >> So then we have three additional spaces in what I'll call the point of the triangle down towards Mercury. >> How do I do for a segue for that, right? I I asked the right question. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Great. That's exactly where I was
heading. So then we have the three spaces down there on the south side. Uh and then we have an additional stall which is to the west of the building uh near Elizabeth Avenue. That's next to the loading space. Uh we've provided for a loading spot directly uh adjacent to the building on
that west side where the refuge enclosure is proposed. >> Okay. So there's like a one in a circle. That's where the space is. >> Yeah. One parking spot there and then this bigger spot next to it is the loading stall. >> The loading that like for the refu
>> that would be for refuge pickup. That would also be for box trucks making deliveries. Uh there is a back door on that side of the building with a little you'll see a little sidewalk ramp there. >> Y >> um and so they would be able to bring deliveries into the storage room, soda, chips, that sort of thing.
>> Okay. So Okay. Well, there's no sidewalk that goes from where the four spaces are down to where the three spaces are, right? Uh only on c if you walked on cedar that would be the
>> So is there a sidewalk on cedar? >> Correct. Yes, there is. >> Okay. See? Okay. >> Yeah. So there's sidewalk on all frontages around that entire peninsula >> is is public sidewalk. >> All right. >> Um so our total count with the parking
then we have uh a provision of eight stalls. Uh which of course is a variance. Uh the ordinance actually requires 18 stalls. Uh but the reality is and our traffic consultant will get into this uh four of those requirement have to do with one
stall for per fueling position. Uh which is a bit unconventional because if you're if you're getting fuel, you usually don't need a parking space. Um but based on the building itself, 13.5 stalls for the retail use. And again,
we're providing eight. If if you wanted to provide a credit of four for people leaving their car at the pump while they run inside, you know, then maybe you're looking at 12. But a variance either way, uh, our traffic consultant will provide justification for that.
We've also provided for, and I'm sorry, I was moving this around. I didn't realize everyone's looking. Everyone's probably getting dizzy. Uh, moving down to the third sheet here is the landscape plan. And and what you can see there that I want to highlight is really that we're infilling with a whole lot of green space. I know it was
mentioned in the introduction where we're coming from 90 97% almost 98% coverage on this lot. Uh down to just a little over 70%. Yeah. 70 and a half%. So a significant
reduction. The goal with the landscaping plan is to infill that with um a whole lot of landscaping. We have a number of shade trees here specifically along cedar as well as lower shrubs to shield the parking and then larger evergreens to the side to to shield that
residential property. But really softening the look largely off of cedar where all the residences are. And then lighting really is unchanged from the original application other than maybe a pole shifting here and there, but we have the lighting at the
underside of the canopy, a couple of building mounted fixtures, and then a few poles throughout the parking lot. >> And what about uh the the dumpster? There was a issue raised about the screening or or um Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, of course, the the
ordinance would contemplate that the dumpster or the refuge enclosure would be put in an area um that's not highly visible. This is a unique lot. As we said, we have frontage on on three properties. So, we don't have a location that's accessible to a truck that's not in a front yard. Uh so, you can see
we're providing it there to the west of the building. Again, trying to keep it towards the uh more busy county road as opposed to the residential neighborhood to the west. Uh this would be enclosed with a fence and surrounded um by landscaping to provide further
screening. >> And in the landscaping Oh, yeah. Go ahead. >> Where where's the dumpster going to be? Is it going to be over toward Elizabeth Avenue? >> Correct. So, uh, that loading zone that
we talked about earlier, it's right at the tail end of that >> the north end of >> of the loading zone. >> Okay. >> You can see that we have an enclosure with two separate uh, dumpsters in it. Today, the dumpster uh, sits on a concrete pad off of Cedar. So, the pickup isn't even done from the parking
lot. It's done from the street. >> Uh, so we're going to eliminate that and bring it towards Elizabeth instead of Cedar. >> Yep. Yep. Okay. and the and the landscaping to the back. Um there was a comment in
Mr. Heeler's report about six-foot evergreens. Um that certainly the the applicant would agree to um plant those evergreens. Correct. >> Yes. And with respect to um um there was
an issue raised about the use of the American elm. Um >> yeah, I was surprised that you guys had chosen that particular >> Yeah. and and we'll we'll something that we can put an alternative. Uh Tyler, if you have an alternative or we
want to rely on Mr. Healey's recommendation, >> yeah, we could certainly switch that out with something that uh is preferred. >> Okay. Um now, um in in um the board engineers report,
um there were some comments made. you had an opportunity to review all of these reports, correct? >> That's correct. >> Um was there anything in terms of um Darren's report that um you take issue with or or we can't achieve
um based on this plan? >> Yeah, I think all the engineering requests um we certainly will work to make those changes and and are happy to address those comments. Um the one comment that I would just seek
clarification on before it gets put in a resolution if this goes that direction is about the mortorium on cedar. I guess my concern being we wouldn't want to hold up the applicant from proceeding. Maybe something could be held in a bond for those curbs to be replaced later. So
typically what happens is you'll go to the department of public works if this is approved and they have uh additional requirements on a road opening that's in a mortorium involve infrared repairs as well as uh the limits that would be determined by the DPW director. >> So it wouldn't necessarily stop you but
there would be some extra hurdles for you to get through. >> Okay. >> Understood. >> And and and and by the way because it was in both Mr. Hilly's report as well as Darren's the the layout the interior traffic circulation you designed that so
it would be able to accommodate a WB50 >> vehicle. Correct. >> Yes. That would be the um delivery vehicle of the fuel and we prepared an exhibit on sheet four of the plans where we basically uh showed different design
vehicles maneuvering the site. We had a fire truck, uh box truck delivery, the refuge truck for um the garbage pickup, and then most importantly the um the fuel delivery vehicle being able to maneuver the site uh without hopping
curbs or or running into parking areas, things like that. So um even just showing that even with the changes, modifications to the layout, closing of the driveways on Cedar, those deliveries can still be made as they are today. Okay.
Um, that's kind of a, again, there's not a lot going on. There's the site is kind of small. I mean, that was kind of the highlights, but certainly Tyler can um answer any questions that board members may have.
>> Board, any questions? >> I've already asked mine. Just so as a reminder, how many parking spaces are you going to end up with? >> Eight total. >> And you're required 18.
>> The ordinance stipulates 18. >> How's that going to work, Bob? >> Yeah. So again, our traffic consultant will have more detailed numbers on how this works with this specific type of use versus uh what the ordinance requires, but just generally again uh there's a requirement for one stall per
fueling position, which um again people are fueling park at the pump. So that's not really practical. Uh and then as far as a convenience store, it considers the entire footprint of the building, not actually just the retail space. So
there's office, there's a large storage component um which isn't seeing retail traffic. So um while the ordinance would stipulate that amount, practically speaking, we don't anticipate that to actually be the need and our traffic consultant will get into that more
detail. >> Any board questions? >> Um just a actual overall question on the application. Uh is the um is the architect here tonight? No, we there was one was away and the other one has a
injury. So, uh >> Okay. >> But the architectural plans haven't changed from what you saw last. Well, well, that that that was the first question, frankly, because the first my recollection is that the the plans that
are on record are I guess the original plan that I recall had basically had like a flat roof and then at the and then at the first hearing, the architect presented as an exhibit a change, you know, and it was presented
to the board, you know, for the first time as an exhibit with a with a peaked roof. So it was my question is what what's the proposal? >> It's the peaked roof. >> Okay. And then I don't recall uh because it was a while ago. There are a bunch of
architectural related design standards. I don't remember did he even testify to that or did it stop? But otherwise if he if he didn't testify to that there's a number of architectural related design standards that haven't been testified to. >> Those are in my report.
>> Yeah. No. No. understood. I we we had thought that Mr. Burn had when he was here last had touched upon the uh those architectural design standards if if we're mistaken. I mean I I get it. It was some time ago. >> Yeah. We can review the minutes and see,
but um so why don't we move forward and we'll just we'll look at those minutes. I just >> um you said it the ordinance you said the ordinance was for 18 parking spots assuming that all of the building is
retail but in actuality part of it is is not retail it's an office and uh storage space. So based on how much of it is actually retail how many parking spots would you have needed? >> But that that's not how the ordinance works. I mean, the ordinance is is based
on the square foot. It takes that into account. I mean, every retail establishment is going to have an office component, is going to have storage spaces, is going to have bathrooms. >> So, the parking requirement for the retail is based on the gross square footage. >> Okay. >> So, I just wanted to make sure he just didn't go down an angle that is not
>> Yeah. No, since he brought it up, I as wondering if this is atypically large one versus the other or since you brought that up as a reason, I just was clarifying that >> uh as far as most of this client's uh
other projects that I work on, there is a little bit more storage here than I would typically see, but just given because this building is larger than than most of his sites um and we're dealing with the existing building. Um, so yes, I would say there is a larger
storage component uh than we typically have, but well, as far as the convenience store demand for parking as opposed to just general retail that the ordinance contemplates, I'll defer to the traffic engineer. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Now, um,
maybe I'm confused. Did you say that you there was one parking space that you were counting that was actually a fueling spot? >> No, I what I was what I was indicating was the the ordinance requires one stall per fueling position as part of the
parking requirement. So, in other words, if you have a place where a car can fuel, they also need a parking space somewhere else on the site. >> Okay. Practically speaking, that's not actually that doesn't actually function that way because if someone's getting fuel, they're in the position getting fuel, not not in a parking spot. Uh so
in essence, the fueling position acts as the parking spot. >> Okay, I got it. >> It's more of an argument for the variance than meeting the technical definition of the code. >> Just two questions for me. >> Yes. >> First, I know you said that you could comply with my letter. The one thing I
wanted to touch on is if the border act favorably would be would the applicant have any o uh opposition to putting in a 4 foot high fence for screening a headlights. I know you have shrubbery there. I've seen that before in the past and what happens is sometimes it either dies or cars or people run over it
>> and we lose that buffer. So, we want to make sure that we don't transmit any headlights. >> That's fine. We we would put the fence in. >> Okay. And the second is I know you mentioned the largest vehicle is going to be a WB50. What are the anticipated times of delivery and how many times a week do you expect that truck to come
in? >> So, the fuel delivery um I believe on this station you're probably looking at about two to three times a week. Uh the times can be scheduled. So, if the board wanted to stipulate something, but certainly it
wouldn't be overnight. Uh it would be during business hours >> and we could do earlier in the morning which you know um >> you want to avoid when the convenience stores at its busiest point for fuel because it's going to jam up the whole site. >> Sure. >> Yeah.
>> I know you said that you provide you're providing space so that that truck deliver fuel delivery truck has access and it can be accommodated. But when it's actually there and refilling tanks,
>> how does that affect a customer coming in and >> or customers coming in and out and parking? >> It would certainly be impacted. I mean, that that is the case um pretty much with any station unless you're talking like a big Wawa or Quick Check where
they have their tanks in a fairly remote spot. Um, but the fuel under the canopy, we're not intersecting with that space. So, vehicles could still um get back and forth in that area. Uh, otherwise, instead of doing a loop of circulation
in and out, there's a chance they need to exit back out the driveway they came in. There would be a level of interruption. They typically put cones out. There's more direction from the employees that are around at the time trying to direct traffic, but >> there certainly would be an impact.
So it is rather important to the functioning of the whole site that the truck deliveries. It would be helpful if they could be scheduled for >> officular area times that are off peak
>> and how much control does this operator of of this facility have over that? Yeah, my understanding is that they do have control, you know, not to a specific minute obviously, but if you were to give a few hour window, um my
understanding is that's typically doable with the way that they order the deliveries. >> Okay. Any uh other board questions? Okay, we will open to the public. This part of the meeting is should be
devoted to members of the public asking this witness questions based on his testimony. There is an opportunity coming to state an opinion uh later in the hearing. So is there
anyone in the public who wishes to question this witness? Okay. If not, we'll if you're finished, we'll move to the next one. >> Yeah, I'll just leave. Yeah, you can just leave it there. >> Our next witness is Gary Dean, who uh
was here previously and and Gary, since >> Actually, I wasn't. My partner Dolan was here. So, >> Dean, if you can raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you just repeat your name, spell
your last name for the record, please? >> Certainly. It's Gary Dean. De A. I am a principal with Dolan and Dean Consulting Engineers in Somerville, New Jersey. I'm a licensed engineer in the state and at my license is current and in good standing and I've appeared before this
board at some point over the past 42 years. I forget which application candidly there have been many. >> Thank you. >> Um all right. Um Mr. Dean, you've had an opportunity to review the revised engineering plans that Tyler has prepared. Correct.
>> I have. And what's your opinion on the adequacy of the site visav traffic and parking uh given the proposed modifications >> there? There are certain existing conditions on the site that limit quite
frankly how much can be done. The canopy exists, the underground storage fuel tanks exist and were replaced fairly recently and the repair bays exist. So you have three major components and I'll refer to the exhibit up at the very
northern end. We have the existing building. There are three repair bays. Um vehicles routinely are stored awaiting repair along Cedar. I think Mr. Healey's report reflects that. So the building can't move. Uh similarly the
canopy which is now more in the middle of the site as I'm moving the cursor that currently exists as well. And then we have the third component which is the underground. You don't see it unless you you know to look for it, but it's a big concrete pad with the fills for each
tank all the way at the southern end. So those those are there and there's very little flex there's no flexibility to move those. The station exists and it operates. Um we had a meeting with with Darren and Mark uh maybe a month month
and a half ago. Uh we we as always appreciate their time and input. Um and we were directed as Tyler indicated to go back to the drawing board and and make it a little bit better. Uh if the board members recall, the original plan had six spaces
where I'm where I'm indicating along Cedar that were generally perpendicular to Cedar. They were heading closest to the MART building, but we had left a driveway on Cedar Open and recognizing the sensitivity of the receptors, the h
the homes across the street, we were asked and and charged with can can you make it better? Can you improve on the layout um to give us bigger buffer to reconfigure the parking and most importantly get rid of all driveways on
Cedar? And we've done that. So, as a result, as Tyler has described, there are four spaces closest to the building. One at the very northern end next to the refu enclosure. I should also point out to the board, the existing refu enclosure is right on
cedar where I'm indicating in the very northeast corner. When it's served, the truck has to come up Cedar and then pick up that directly from the street itself. Um, and that was feedback we took from the last meeting um to to relocate that
to a more appropriate location. The the hardship we have, and you'll hear from our planner, is the unique shape of the lot. It's triangular and three of its frontages are street frontages, meaning the only other place to put it would be directly behind the building, but that
has access limitations for trucks and and certainly doesn't allow for I I'd say protecting more of the residential buffer to our east and to our north. So, in terms of circulation, we're retaining two driveways along Elizabeth. traffic
just as it does today can come south and turn left and come right to the dispensers and and then go right back out the southerntherly driveway or same thing in the northbound direction, a right turn in, hit the dispensers and then circulate to the northern driveway
and turn left and right. It's not a busy station. We submitted a traffic study. The total volume in the morning is about 20 vehicles and in the afternoon peak hour it's about 30. So one car every two
or three minutes. It's certainly not a a highway or high volume station like we would have with Quick Check Wawa or or even Nationals. I know for example I forget what brand it is now the Exxon at Cedar Grove in Easton. That's a busy
site. The quick check right off the highway is also a busy site. This, by contrast, is a neighborhood site and and does probably a fifth of the volume of those higher locations. So, in terms of parking sufficiency in
in my career, I've done a lot of these. They're known as bay conversions uh for the major oil companies, Shell, Exxon, BP, and the like. Um the the the buildings themselves are very small. Typically 1500 2,00 2500 square feet.
We're right in line at just over 2,000. Um and because as you've heard architecturally much of that building is comprised of storage of ADA accessible restrooms and an office to run the
building that would exist irrespective of the conversion to change it to bay. So the actual footprint of the retail area is pretty small. It's it's we we call them mini marts. I it's I don't have the exact number from the architectural plans, but it's roughly
1,00 maybe 1,200 square ft. Candidly, you just can't fit a lot of merchandise in there. As soon as you put in a cooler, that chews up some of that square footage. So, it's left to principally convenience items, snacks, candy, gum, maybe prepackaged baked
goods, um occasionally prepackaged sandwiches, things that are are found in most gas station affiliated convenience stores. As a result, and I'm getting to the punch line, these don't generate a lot of parking demand. It's usually they're particularly on the ones that
have been converted, they typically have five to six parking spaces. It's all you need. Part of the reason is, as Tyler explained, while you're waiting to fill your car, many customers just walk to the mart, get their soda, their snack, their quarter milk, what have you, and
by the time they're back, the car is done, and then they leave. Some customers will come on come in specifically for the store. And for that reason, we've increased the parking supply to make it accessible directly to the
building. and and we have five very close or on the west side and south side of the building. And then we have the three down in the point of the triangle which I would recommend are used for the employees. One in the store, one running
the pumps. Um and that leaves one extra space for overflow though we're not needing it for our site. Much like the parking that occurs today, the entire site frontage along Cedar allows for on street parking. It's not
prohibited. Now, in our traffic counts that we did, we only saw one car come into the site from Cedar. So, we're not expecting anyone to park on Cedar, but if you're a local resident from that neighborhood, it certainly would be very
convenient to park, walk right in, and then turn around and go back home instead of having to come out on Elizabeth and then go back out onto Elizabeth to go back up Cedar. So, it exists, and we don't affect that. That that would be governing body. I mean, in
terms of whether its use is continued or subsequently prohibited. Um, but I be remiss if I didn't at least acknowledge and I would say you could probably fit eight vehicles along that curb frontage. So, as we start to look at what is our
actual parking supply, yes, we have eight fixed spaces. We have four I'll say dualpurpose spaces at each dispenser um or fueling position. Forgive me for that's 12 and then whatever can could
fit on cedar. Again, we're not relying on it. We're not using it in our count, but I can't put the blinders on it. It is publicly accessible parking. Um, so on balance, I've also visited the site. Um,
candidly, it's it's a bit of a nuisance. There are a lot of cars parked along the frontage on Cedar awaiting repair. Um, one of the challenges with repair bays is vehicles are often left for many days. They're disabled. They're awaiting
parts. There's storage of waste, mufflers, brakes, things that require disposal. um and a more activity associated with parts deliveries just to run that function. And then we have the noise aspect. We know that air tools are are
they're loud and you know hammering and the like that goes on with automobile repair certainly has an impact. All of that would be cured with this application. Is it perfect? It is not. We need a lot of relief. But the site today,
let's say le let's say we're not successful here tonight. The station just it's it's there and it's functioned for I looked at some aerials. This station has been in existence since at least 1963, I believe. So, it has a 63-y year
history when there were no homes around it. Um the neighborhood has grown around it. That is that is true. Um, and as we look at it, you'll hear from our planner, getting rid of those nuisances with auto repair, getting rid of the vehicles parked all along Cedar, some of
which are trucks. I think on balance and getting rid of the driveways combined with the landscaping and the aesthetic improvements on balance, uh, at least from a traffic engineer's perspective, certainly makes this a better site and redirects all of that
activity out towards Elizabeth. Um, with that I I think and and again we appreciate the staff's uh attention and and input on this design. Um, but there are very few options uh in terms of
getting creative with with where to fit things. But in my opinion, uh, having done probably 150 different service stations, I would say for a low volume neighborhood station, this this meets the typical design standards. We are
seeking relief, I believe, for one area where we have a 24 foot aisle. I'm highlighting it with the cursor. That area is dimensioned as 24 feet, but it's to the edge of the canopy. There's another 8 ft that that exists between the can the edge of the canopy
and where the fuel dispensers are. So, it's actually 32 feet. Um, as Tyler indicated, most contemporary design standards are 24 foot aisles. And and I say that because streets, two-way streets are are designed in width
anywhere from 20 feet to 24 feet and and upwards. So for two-way traffic flow at a very low volume and a very low speed, 24 ft is more than sufficient in my professional opinion to accommodate the the parking and deparking maneuvers of
each of those four parking spaces. And then we have 24 ft for the remaining three. and then well in excess of 24 ft for the one space to the north. So I I think the appropriate justification exists. The compromise would be to lose
a parking space and also decrease the uh the buffer towards Cedar if we were to comply at 26 ft. And I I think the hardships associated with the with the shape of the property and its geometric
properties um allow for that relief to be granted with no detriment to overall circulation. Um and that's all I have in the way of uh I'll say additional testimony. And I know a lot of ground was covered by my partner at the last hearing, but I'd be
happy to address any concerns or questions the board may have. Any board questions? >> I I have a couple of questions. Um, so just to be clear, you're you're not providing planning testimony. >> I am not. We have a plan. >> A lot of the testimony was very
planning. >> I am a licensed planner, but but I'm but I'm not I'm not qualified tonight. I'm just >> I'll say buttressing what I expect will be the planning testimony with traffic. >> Sure. Um, so the one thing I I guess my general question is what's the
justification for the parking variance? We don't need that many spaces. Your ordinance has a one-sizefits-all for all retail. And that's retail and service. It's one per 200. Even for shopping centers, I haven't seen five per thousand for a, you know, a million
square foot mall in 20 years. Um, in this instance, given the actual size of the retail area, which again, this application, we're still going to have that component of office, restrooms, and storage just to run the service station.
If I look at what the retail component is, in my opinion, we meet what is necessary given the unique excuse me, the unique aspect of this particular use. We have in effect nine spaces. So it's it's more I excuse me 12 it's
adequate. What about it? Is there any >> literature and any reference manuals within the industry that you can refer to? >> It's lower. Yes. >> But what is it? It's not in your report. >> It's it's not in our report. I don't recall offh hand but I I recall it being somewhere around eight. >> But it's not in your testimony and it's
not in the report. >> It's in my testimony which I just indicated. So eight is appropriate. From practical experience we've seen five or six being used. No, I'm asking about it or a reference manual relative to the industry.
>> As I said, I I don't have that with me. I'm >> I understand, but that's kind of the I think the predicament that us as a board is in. I agree that the the parking requirements for the township are a bit robust and a bit dated and the one for 200 or whatever, but there hasn't been
any thing other than in your professional opinion, which obviously carries a lot of weight, but I I'm going by a lot of experience with like I said about 150 service stations. the basis for it is people like my
office going out doing the studies and then submitting the data to it. So that whether it's me or other traffic consultants that that's how that reference material is compiled in this instance as we start to look at the use
and and I do understand what Mr. He's position. It's kind of odd to have to provide one parking space for things like a restroom and storage areas, but your ordinance by its literal interpretation requires
that. And it's a little challenging to apply an ordinance standard for something like Shopright, which has a lot of retail area, not so much. It has storage, but not a lot of restrooms. Whereas the percentage of this building that is occupied by those
non- retail components in my opinion overexaggerates the required parking. So by way of example let's assume we had a th00and square feet of retail area at accepting your ordinance at five per thousand that's five and then your
ordinance requires one space for each dispenser technically that's two. So if I look at the ordinance, that means it's seven and we have eight. So that's why I while I understand what you're after in terms of it, I'm looking
at it as to what drives the need for customer parking. It isn't the restrooms and it isn't the storage, it's the retail area. So that's why and and your ordinance, I looked it up before, it's actually it says one space for each dispenser.
So I think our requirement is slightly less. I think it's uh what is it? We have I think our requirement is actually 13 not 15. I think Tyler used four correct Tyler for for the assumed >> dising position right here.
>> Yeah, he did it by fueling position. Your ordinance language is dispenser. So there's two fewer spaces we need. But that that's my opinion why this works. It's it it requires less parking than the repair bays do.
>> I I'm I'm not necessarily disputing your your claims. I'm just pointing out that it's based solely on your opinion. Um this operator doesn't have I I believe not a robust enough portfolio where you can refer on
operational needs from another site or a similar site. >> Oh, I can this this applicant has I believe 31 stations. He might be up to 32 >> and that's great. But none of that's presented. >> We we well I'm presenting it now. >> We we did a site for him identical to this in Pac Ladstone. Very small site,
existing building, existing dispensers, and I am fairly certain we wound up with eight parking spaces. >> You were approved for eight, >> right? Is that correct? >> Correct. >> But that doesn't necessarily match the operational need of the facility.
I I don't think the investment would be made to rehabilitate the site. And I I know we had the architecturals at the last hearing. It's an expensive upgrade and I I don't know of an applicant that intentionally puts considerable money into a renovation knowing that it's
functionally obsolete. So, a lot of times I defer to the operators as to if you think you have enough and they have experience with 32 stations, I I sometimes have to listen to that. They're the guys writing the check. But from my own independent reviews, I I I'm
doing a poor job at conveying is more than excessive. >> He cuts the checks. So, you're going to agree with what he says he needs. I'm I'm I'm for this. I want to believe you. I want to approve this, but it's there's no evidence that supports the variance
other than professional opinion when there are literature out there that could be referred to. And and I'm referring to empirical studies we've done independently outside of his operations with Mobile Shell
Exxon where where we've gone through this 40 years ago when bay conversions were first in vogue and and repairs have only become more complicated as vehicles have become more complicated. So there there are fewer and fewer. I I think we
also did one in Rarit and Burrow um that also had a a seven or eight parking spaces. I'm going by memory that was approved within the past year and a half. Bay conversion, clean up the site, get rid of the junk
vehicles and mufflers stored outside and make it fit better with at least aesthetics >> planning testimony. But I I I don't have any other questions. Thank you. >> You're welcome. In your traffic study, did you do a traffic count on Elizabeth Avenue?
>> Yes. >> And how would you describe that? Moderate, heavy, light. >> I I I characterize Elizabeth as as I, you know, I'm the traffic guy and I'm
used to dealing with Route 22 and 78 and and several thousand vehicles per hour on state highways. Elizabeth Avenue has about 500. So I would consider it light but
at least moderate whereas Cedar by contrast is carrying 130. >> All right. I have a little bit of a hard time viewing this as a comparable site to one
in Pac Gladstone. Right. and and I don't think I don't think that's a comparable situation. The second thing is as you mentioned, you have an applicant making a significant investment.
Uh from my point of view, I would look at that as the idea him making that investment and that he's going to try and improve the volume. And I think that the traffic on on
Elizabeth Avenue, I don't know what your 500 is based on, but it's significantly busier than it was 5 years ago. Maybe more maybe busier than what the normal percentage of growth has been because of all the
growth that's been taking place here. And I don't want to have reservations about, you know, we're starting off here with this property, this application designed to fit a certain
size clientele, let's say, and and it's going to outgrow it and it's in a residential section. The other reservation I have is is with the parking. you you you referred to the parking
on Cedar Avenue and the idea that the driveway is going to be eliminated and it's going to be curbed. What's happening in my from I'm wondering is you've actually created more onsite on street parking that's
available for this use which isn't really permissible to be considered when we're talking about this application because people do use Cedar Avenue now and there
the the only reason it works a little it is that it's a repair facility. So those cars come and they sit. Now we're talking about a operation that has a retail component where those cars will use Cedar Avenue.
They may see they may not visibly see a parking space from Elizabeth Avenue since there are not very many of them. And as I think you mentioned, this site's filled with different restrictions and limitations and different things that you can do. So the
easy thing will be to drive onto Cedar Avenue and park there. Uh, you know, and I can see I haven't seen haven't had heard anything that convinces me that that won't be part of
this application. That that concerns me. it it's currently part of the site. I mean, it's it's occurring today, >> but that doesn't mean it what's happening there shouldn't be happening now and shouldn't have been happening now. That doesn't mean that we as a
board need to condone it to continue to happen. and and what we've done is listen to the input at the prior hearing and and from staff and have closed all access points,
vehicular access points on Cedar. To me, that's a step in a positive direction. If we look at if we look at the plan, you Tyler and I spent a a fair amount of time looking at this. I I can't fit
another space on this site. Well, see, I think that's where our problem is. Uh, >> I'm still looking and I know the planner's coming for proof that this is a suitable site for this use.
And I'm wondering about that because in somebody's testimony here it was mentioned that you have fuel dispensers, you have a triangular shape, you have a small property, you
have all kinds of restrictions that dictate how this site plan has to be constructed and dictate how the circulation plan is going to work. And uh I think when we get to it, we're
going to need to spend some time on suitability. And I take this liberty speaking now because I think we got, as Rich said, quite a bit of planning testimony involved with the uh traffic report
here. Uh any other questions for this witness? I have a I I know you talked about the what the uh current uh um uh trip generation is, but there's another whole
section in uh the report where they talk about um uh trip generation and and why it's how it's going to increase when you change it from a um uh from a uh uh
repair station to a convenience store. And it seems like those are the numbers, those are the uh the traffic uh generation numbers that we should be looking at, not not necessarily what is,
but what is likely to occur. >> Sure. Obviously, the investment is made in in an effort to recapture that through increased sales. We we haven't disguised that. We have included estimates in our traffic report for that very growth and whether it's attributed
to new development in the community or or just this site becomes more attractive for the traffic that's already passing. Yes, the applicant hopes to uh improve his business. I I in this instance and I want to go back to
one thing because I don't know whether my partner testified to it at the last hearing but there's a note in our report handwritten note it's not written in the report that she looked at it sixth edition parking generation and there are
two standards there's a suburban standard I think arguably this could qualify as suburban and then there is dense urban you know Jersey city hoboken I I don't believe that's applicable. It says for a store with four fueling
positions is eight spaces. In a dense urban area, it's only five spaces. And that is consistent with my testimony. So, I do I was remiss for not catching that earlier. It's just in her notes. And again, I don't know if that
was covered at the last hearing. in in in terms of the parking, the objective has been to take it off of cedar. That that's what the focus of this application is by eliminating a use that
typically is considered a nuisance. It's it's this is an alternative that in my opinion is superior from traffic and circulation. We know that there will be an increase, but our study has said that that increase is not going to affect
levels of service or operating conditions on Elizabeth A. They're still at a very high level of service. B as in boy. Um, even with a traffic increase, the the the whole nature of the convenience store is for for decades,
snacks were provided at gas stations through vending machines, cigarette machines, Coke machines, candy machines. Over the years, that has evolved to putting those components inside a building for better customer experience.
So, this is doing nothing more. And and certainly there's I don't want to play attorney in this case. I played planner enough, but there there has been cases that have acknowledged that the sale of snacks and the like at service stations
is an accessory component of a typical service station. So as you get into site suitability, if this were a vacant site, the burden of proof here would be extraordinary. But the fact that there's an operating service station here with a component that may or may not be perceived as
being less desirable for the community, I'll leave that to you in your deliberations. But the whole effort here is to make it look better, to make it aesthetically more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood through the architectural materials. There's brick, there's clapper sighting, there's a peaked roof
uh with asphalt shingles. it. You know, I'm I'm not an architect, but to me, the renderings look like a house. And I think that's what the objective was to get rid of this rather bunkerlooking building that's just white masonry into
something a bit more harmonious with the neighborhood. But yes, we do expect more traffic. That's the nature of the application. But it's not of such a level that'll materially impact the neighborhood. And more importantly, with the proposed improvements on Cedar,
there will be a positive traffic benefit to the neighborhood. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, I'd like a clarification here. >> Right here. >> Oh, sorry. >> Yes. So, you said it's an improvement for the traffic. >> Yes.
>> But you expect that there would be more parking on Cedar? >> No. >> No. >> It's available. I I want to have my testimony be very clear. It's it occurs today as part of this site's operation.
By the proposal we have on the site and and what we've done as far as looking at parking sufficiency, in my professional opinion, all the parking required for this site can be accommodated on the
site. However, we know that perhaps neighbors are accustomed to using cedar for parking and some of them may find it more convenient to park on cedar rather than go all the way around the block to come into the site. We're not relying on it. We're not counting on it, but it
exists. So, I don't expect that there will be an increase. I expect that there would be a decrease in the amount of parking that occurs on on Cedar. And I know it's in Mr. Healey's report. I didn't count the number of vehicles,
but there are some photographs appended to his report and we have some other street view photographs. There must be five or six cars parked on the street. Now, today from current imagery as the
Google vehicle drives by, >> we expect that to to to no longer be part of here. Okay. Thank you, Tyler. So, Those are part of the service station. >> Correct. This is part of the site today. We assume that they're either vehicles awaiting repair. They're they're parked
on the sidewalk, they're along the curb frontage, they're doubled up. We think the community would want to see that practice remedied. >> Yeah, I'm sure the community does too. But
>> this is the opportunity for that. Mr. I have to also say I've traveled down that street probably a dozen times since this application came before us and I can honestly sit up here and say except for
the cars waiting to be repaired at that service station I have never seen a car parked on Cedar Avenue. They're in driveways. So what you're if what you're trying to
accomplish is to get those cars that are being repaired off the street, that may happen. But if they're replaced by people using >> the facility, I don't consider that an improvement
because there's basically little to no I know it seems hard to say it in this day and age, but I've never seen a car parked on that street other than at that service station. So, like I said, to me, that's not an improvement. You're just
replacing you're actually replacing stationary vehicles with moving ones for sure >> because they're those people are going to come park go in come out and leave and they're not going to turn around on Cedar Avenue. They'll go to the end of
it and go out to Elizabeth Avenue one way or the other whichever way they they come. So you you are de facto cons increasing the traffic on Cedar. I respectfully I don't agree with that. We
My testimony is we have sufficient parking on the site to accommodate it. If a neighbor at 10:00 at night or 8:00 at night decides they want to park because they can on Cedar and walk right in and then go back home without getting
on Elizabeth. From a traffic person's perspective, that's a good thing. >> Well, those neighbors, if you're talking about true neighbors, would probably be walking. Some might, some I the old joke is the most coveted spots at a health club are the ones next to the door.
People don't like to walk. I don't know why it's we're we're an automobile ccentric society. We're we're improving, but we still tend to people like the convenience. So I I I would expect again this to be remedied.
this photograph that we're showing that is associated with the repair operations. This will all be landscaped. This will be buffered and it will be cleaned up. The building design will be substantially enhanced from what you see in this photograph. Can can I I can't
make the site bigger. There's no available property to expand it. Uh which wouldn't be permitted anyway. So that's it's a balance. Doesn't that speak as a planner, doesn't that speak to the
suitability of the site for the use >> because it's already a service station and because it's already functioning as that? I will I will let the planner address that, but in my opinion that that is why it is perfectly suited for the proposal.
It's perfectly suitable in your opinion for us to continue to allow something to exist that shouldn't be there. >> I I I look at >> what you're saying. >> I look at it as if if this application is not favorably considered, the station
isn't closing. So, it's a balance of which is more preferable. That's what I said. It's an imperfect site and circumstance. the the attempt here is to make it better and I'll say prettier and that's subjective
but to to to enhance it and make it modern and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. >> All right. I'm sorry, Cheryl, for dropping in on you. If you have any other >> No, that was that was pretty much it. I I just was trying to get the gist of
benefits overall >> for this application. That's what I'm trying and I I know you're not the that's what the planner is essentially >> correct >> testimony >> from from the traffic engineer's perspective that the closing of two driveways on Cedar absolute benefit to
remove the parking that's depicted on this photograph associated with repairs disabled vehicles that one large vehicle that white vehicle it's it's I assume blocking the sidewalk it's um it's it's it's an issue that can be fixed with
this application. So from a traffic engineering perspective, I find that the improvements in terms of closing those driveways, they make it an easier, more well-defined on-site circulation and they eliminate eliminate two points of
conflict on cedar headlight glare, things of that nature. All of that goes away. So that I think the planner can further expand on the benefits of the application. But this is a little different in the use varants in that the site is there. It's a functioning gas
station. It's not even closed. So it's what's more preferable as and that's a rhetorical question, but that's the that's the essence of this application. >> Gary, if I can too, the the photographs um or the photograph that's being shown, excuse me. Um, I mean those vehicles
that are there to be serviced are certainly sitting along Cedar for a much longer period of time than the typical convenience store customer. Correct. >> I It's a photograph, so I I don't know. But >> assuming since there are vehicles waiting to be repaired,
one could logically deduce that they're going to be there a lot longer along the side of that road than somebody running and buying a a soda. >> Correct. But just on this photograph alone, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, seven cars. And and I can't see beyond
that. I've I've seen other photographs. I've I've seen more vehicles parked, but it it is something that, as I described, is a nuisance that can be remedied with this application. >> Okay. Any other questions?
All right. Again, we'll open to the public. Anyone who wants to ask this witness a question based on his testimony. >> We would need your name and address. >> Okonnell, 25 Spring Street. Um, just
listening to it, I just walked in. Um, I don't agree with this man in my opinion that if I would be his client because I ride my bike by there, I drive my car past there and if I saw something on Cedar, I would park there, run in, run
out. Um, this gentleman here spoke about the cars will be gone. You know, like he made the argument that the cars would no longer be there. But in minute one, I show up. Okay, I run in, get my soda, walk out. Minute three, another person
comes to my spot and moves in there. So the in the way there will always be a car there, people walking in and there. Um, but if you do approve this application, put your money where your mouth is, put yellow curbing and put no parking signs
on Cedar Grove, and that would be, you know, an option. We we don't take exception to that unfortunately other than and I'm not sure who the elected officials are. That is for the mayor and council. >> Are you sure? >> 100% part of your that can be part of your application. Is it
>> own? We don't own the road. It's a legislative act that only the governing body can adopt. >> Now the planning board can make that recommendation but this applicant takes no exception to that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Anyone else? >> Okay. We'll close the public. Next
witness. >> Thank you for your time. Can I have two minutes with before we start, Mr. Chairman? >> Yep. >> We'll take a two minute. We'd be again ready for the next witness. >> Raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're
about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Just uh state your name and spell your last name for record, please. >> My name is Cameron. Last name is Black. B A C. >> Thank you. >> Make sure you speak directly in the St.
M. >> Mr. Black, um you are u a professional planner, correct? >> Correct. and could you let the board know your educational background uh the status of your license as well as your experience in testifying in planning matters here in New Jersey?
>> Yes, sir. Um I went to the college of New Jersey, got my degree in urban planning studies and sociology. My >> think you need speak louder. >> Environmental studies. Uh I went to graduate school at the Blouseen uh urban planning school at Ruckers University.
Received my mers in urban planning. I've been a licensed professional planner for Jersey City for uh it'll be nine years in February of 2026. >> Have you testified outside of your
experience or tenure at Jersey City? >> Yes, sir. I've testified in land use boards um outside of Jersey City, Egg Harbor Township. Um yes. >> Okay. Um and you've been accepted um as
a professional planner in in both Jersey City obviously as well as uh those other municipalities. >> Yes. >> And the status >> I think we can accept. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so uh Cameron you've uh been a participant here in the uh
audience. Um we are looking for we'll start with the D1 variance. What's your opinion as to um the appropriateness of that variance relief being granted for this proposal?
>> Yes. So, I don't want to belabor a lot of the planner testimony that we've already heard, but when looking at a use variance like this under Medici, what you'll do is you'll look to see that the site is improving and coming closer to
the intent and purpose of your zone plan and master plan. And I can firmly say with confidence that this site is an improvement and will be brought into closer conformance with your zone plan and your master plan. Um specifically
your uh zone it encourages attractive building designs, good landscaping, efficient public private development, um preventing sprawl and blight. And we've already heard here how the existing use has um been somewhat of a blight. And
this change in use would reduce that. Um we would also see improvements to storm water. Um it would be percolating through landscaping and collected um on site more appropriately. Um there would
be an improvement to the air, light and space of surrounding neighborhoods um capturing particullet in the landscaping and reducing noise to the adjacent property owners. Um, overall it's my professional opinion that this
would be a dramatic improvement to the public's general health, welfare, and well-being. Now, the um there's case law out there and specifically the Burbage case that talks about aesthetic improvements also
being one of the special reasons that would uh justify uh a use variance. Correct. >> Yes, exactly. So, with non-conforming uses, um, what they look to do is mitigate some of those negative criteria
that you see on site. And here, um, specifically, we have an existing auto body, um, mechanical car repair site, which we've heard already, you know, can be noisy with the power tools and
equipment. Um, again, it would be a decrease in the intensity of use and a more appropriate use for the surrounding neighborhood. Um, you know, but hypothetically, theoretically, the
neighborhood could walk to the site if they needed a snack or a band-aid and walk home. After all, walkability is encouraged in the state master plan. Um so I I believe that covers that.
>> Now the the the use currently is is pre-existing. It's it's nonconforming. Um and when when you had spoken earlier about this becomes perhaps more conforming or or more compatible. It's
still a not it's still not a permitted use. Correct. >> Correct. So, how does that how does this change from an auto body repair shop to a convenience store kind of become
more compatible or or less non-conforming when that use is is still not permitted in the zone? Um well as planners we look at it as intensity of use and we would define the
auto body um mechanical repair site as a high intensity and the convenience store here would be dramatically lower intensity and um would accompany the site in a way that we see
used around the state ubiquitously. H how do you def right here? How do you define the term intensity? Because I look at this particular site as having maybe one guy at the gas pump and maybe
two guys working in the uh garages to work on cars. And once in a while, as the other uh traffic engineer planner said, the um
uh it's not a very busy station, but if I know that if you just from the traffic information, I know that if you uh if we allow this that there's going to be a lot more people coming into the station
to use not only the gasoline, but also So, uh, the convenience store lure, it's going to become many more people are going to be coming across that site. And for me, that defines intensity, not
whether some guy is in a in a building banging away on somebody's disc brakes. So, I I don't agree. I don't Well, you know what? It's not so much that I don't agree, but I don't understand how you're defining intensity. Could you give me a help there?
>> Yes. So in planning, zoning, land use, you'll uh delineate uses um according to uh intensity in ways that um a auto body
mechanic shop would be considered uh industrial potentially. So we have a retail convenience store. um you you wouldn't consider it to be uh borderline industrial like a mechanical auto body
shop would be. Um you know uh you have >> Keep your voice up or closer to the mic. >> You have to dispose of um contaminated toxic waste potentially on site. Um you're not containing, you know, those hazardous materials like you would at a convenience store uh where you're just
going to dispose trash regularly. So those are the things taken into consideration. Um, I understand your concern. Um, but, uh, based off of case law, this is this is how we would treat it. Um >> whi which case law which case law
addresses that intensity issue >> I would have to refer to um my mul and um look at the state uh law but um off cuff I I
don't have the answer for you. So part of what we we when we're trying to get a use variance is we also look at um the negative uh impacts and clearly the majority of the board believes that
the potential increase of traffic whether it's foot traffic or uh vehicular traffic in and out of a convenience store would be a negative. What's your opinion as to whether that is and and more importantly is that
perhaps outweighed by the positive aspects of this? So the the negative criteria here uh planning we don't find any detriment to
your zoning or master plan. Um in fact your master plan encourages um the commercial and industrial development in areas with access to major regional highways and in the established areas. This is an estab this
area has been established. It's an existing non-conforming. Um the the the site suitability is there. Um the improvements are coming. It's
C can you show me where in our master plan it encourages us to approve um a a a D1 variance for use like this in a R10 zone.
>> So you don't you don't specifically call that out. However, there are implications that you want to improve the economics of your municipality and encourage uh retail and commercial uses. Um,
again, in established areas and and this is an established area. It's been here for >> What do you mean by established area? Established as what? this being established as an existing
use since approximately the 1960s, >> but it's established as an automobile service station, right? That's not the application. So, I I I just don't understand what I I
don't understand the terminology the terminology that it's that it's established and what that where that's going. I I just I just don't understand the nature of the testimony. >> Um I'm afraid I I I feel like I've expanded all I can. Um it's an existing
non-conforming use and um you know I I can read the room. I understand that you want to hear more about traffic counts and um I I >> Well, let me get to the question. A question that I'm struggling with, too.
I It sounds like a lot of your testimony is talking about an expansion of a non-conforming use. >> No, that's not what we're saying. >> Well, he mentioned Burbridge and he's mentioned expansion. >> Burbridge though was for the aesthetics. It wasn't for an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use.
>> Okay. I mean that but this is a D1 use variance for the convenience store. That's what's being added here. You have to prove particular suitability. I haven't heard particular I haven't heard testimony addressing the planning
testimony addressing the particular suitability. >> Um >> I've heard we're getting rid of problems and some other things. I haven't heard lang testimony about the particular suitability for this site as a gas station and a convenience store.
>> I I can happily expand upon that. Um the the site is undersized. It is irregular. Um it is abudding uh your B1 zone um which would permit this use that is
proposed. Um the site has operated as a gas station for decades. Um you're looking at um meeting criteria of the MLULG um to provide sufficient space and
appropriate locations for a variety of commercial and open space for the public and private in accordance with um respective environmental requirements. um you know, you are eliminating um the
curb cut. So, you're promoting purpose A, which is to promote the general welfare of the public, and those property owners um will now have a vegetative buffer there. So, they can
not only remove the blight on site, but uh decrease traffic. Um, you're reducing the impervious coverage. Purpose A, uh, purpose G, um, th this being an unders
sized, odd-shaped lot right near a major highway, it in all likelihood would not make for the most attractive site for residential. and a gas station convenience store would be in fact
closer to what your master plan would ask for which is again encouraging commercial uses near your arterial roads. Um I I I don't believe there is any
negative criteria to uh defend. You are entirely uh making improvement to the public and you are bringing the site into closer alignment with the zone and your master
plan. Um that that is my professional planner testimony on this site. Any board questions? >> I'm sorry. Can you just summarize again what when you say so this is again it's
a non-conforming use but it's an R10 zone. You're you're keeping the gas station adding a convenience store. It's a single family residential zone. How does that bring it
closer to the R10 zone? So in the purposes of your zoning for residential, you um highlight quality development to attract good building designs, good landscaping
and good private development, preventing sprawl and and blight. This would improve landscaping. This would get rid of blight. Um this would not create sprawl. Um, >> those are not but that's that's that's again I'm sorry but that's not answering
my question. Those are not the standards for the R10 zone. The R10 zone is a single family zone on quarteracre lots. That that's the intent of the R10 zone. So how does adding a gas station bring this site close? That's been your testimony there. The gas station.
>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'll I'll I'll correct that. How does adding a convenience store Thank you. How does adding a convenience store bring this closer to the intent of the R10 zone? because that's what you've been saying, but then you bring up other things. The intent of the R10 zone, single family
homes on on quarter acre lots. So, the community benefits I I firmly believe outweigh any detriments to the zone and and that is
it. the the site is existing and the the site suitability is is there you know yeah I'm I'm I'm >> you know
philosophically like you keep saying the gas station is it's an a non-performing use and it's existing so adding in a convenience store philosophically is means that we're we're expanding
a non-conforming use. Now, we're expanding a non-conforming use onto a property that's having difficulty handling the use that's there and for lack of better words that's not expanded. How is
any of this benefiting Franklin the neighborhood or the R10 zone? Why is this site suitable for this kind of a use? I mean, one thing you mentioned its proximity to a
highway. It's true. It sits next to 287. That's a border there between the zones. But you can't get on to 87 without driving a mile and a half. So, how is that an advantage
or reason to approve this? >> So, >> give us something we can approve. I I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I but but the
and Cameron the purpose I of the municipal land use law talks about a desirable visual uh environment. I mean forgetting the traffic and everything else. I mean, aesthetically, the improvements proposed to the
building certainly would further purpose. Would you agree? >> Undoubtedly. And and storm water improvements and air, light, space. But knowing that this property is in the R10 zone, which is residential,
the building proposed, is that more compatible aesthetically with the R10 zone than what's out there now? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> So
the um would that go in furtherance to what Mr. Heel had talked about? I mean, does that from an aesthetic standpoint make this uh more compatible with the the R10 permitted uses which is only
residential? >> Absolutely. Um now with regards to um um the the traffic um
the the this is a service station automobile repair. Correct. >> Correct. >> I mean theoretically if Jify Lube wanted to use the space it could. Correct. >> That's correct. Yes. Um, and
I mean I I know you're not a traffic guy, but certainly an automobile repair business such as that would probably generate more traffic than what's being seen there now. Correct. >> Correct. And anecdotally,
you >> that beyond his expertise? >> No. >> Probably generate more traffic than what we've seen. >> Well, I can ask Mr. I can ask Mr. Dean the same question. Well, well, >> I can I you know, look at the end of the
day and and you know, I I I get where you guys are coming. If you don't buy the fact that and and you would rather see a crummy looking automobile service station because you don't get as much
traffic, then quite frankly, you know, we're we're wasting our time to be honest. I mean, and I I don't mean, you know, I'm not angry, I'm not bitter, but that's the reality of it. I mean, what what you're getting here presumably what we thought was was an improvement
aesthetically um getting those those vehicles on. If if if the paramount concern is the traffic that this new nonconforming use would generate, you know, you're right. It will I mean
there'll probably more people come to this site to buy a Coke than they will be to get their disc brakes changed. And if that's the driving concern, then you know what? We might as well end right now.
I guess you guys don't like this. >> Undecided. >> I don't know if that's the the single driving concern, but it it's a concern. The aesthetics are important, but you can't
say that the town wants something that's not good for it in general just so they can ride by and say we like the way it looks. Uh I don't think anybody likes the way it looks now. I don't
I don't want to justify that either, but I don't know about the rest of the board, but I I haven't heard real justification that you can hang your hat on for me anyway at this point to approve
it. I don't know what else to tell you. >> Understood. You can say something. you want. >> I just want to add I I'm just not hearing that aesthetics is enough to
justify adding another nonconforming use. It's already in existence. The cars are already there. The biggest argument I'm hearing is it's going to look better.
>> Where's your phone? >> But if we're adding a non-conforming use to me, that's not that is not closer to what the goal is, that that is one aspect of it. But
>> I just feel like hanging that one component on a reason to approve. I'm just not convinced. >> Understood. And we we're not really adding. We would argue we're substituting one for the other. But I I
get your what your point is. I think what we're attempting to do, we're attempting to ask you how we can okay this, but we but with all due respects to everybody, we we
haven't heard it. So, I agree with Gerald. I think would be maybe we should open to the public and get that over with and see what what happens there and and uh reflect a
little bit. >> Understood. >> All right. So, we will open the public at this point and you can do either uh make your statement concerning the application, you know, and or ask questions of the of the planner.
Good evening, chairman, board members. Uh, chairman, um, >> put put your name on the record. >> My name is Joe Danielson. >> Okay. >> Um, has it been part of testimony or the uh, application how long the the applicant has owned the property?
>> And if if not, could you please ask the applicant that question? Ask them what again. >> How long the applicant has owned the property? >> You can ask him. He He can >> How long has your client >> 13 >> 13
>> 13 years. Okay, we could stress that number. Uh, first of all, Mr. Hilly, thank you for um questioning the mention of case law. That was not in any report that I read. >> Mask, are you a lawyer? >> No, I play one on TV. >> Oh, okay. No, I was just curious. >> I practice law, though.
>> Okay. But I'm not an attorney >> illegally, but >> Well, no, no, I didn't know if you were here representing somebody or representing yourself. >> No, I'm just a member of the public, sir. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> No, you are. >> And Mr. Proanic, thank you for uh calling out the reference to the absence
of tables and comments that just weren't supported. Um, in your deliberations of the benefits outweighs the detriment, I think you have to start with the fact, well, let me just also establish I've I live in the neighborhood next to this uh
site and I've lived there my entire life and still lived on a street I was born uh which is uh about four blocks away. And from that vantage point to my west into southbound broke there
is three convenience stores about a mile or less away. To my east there are two convenience stores in that direction. All less than a mile away. So five convenience stores
possibly six but five. So my neighborhood and the neighborhoods around us have a lot of convenience stores. So need or uh should go way into your deliberations.
Um for the benefit of the board, I would like to share some photographs. Thank you. Yeah. >> So, the the applicant >> Well, can I just interrupt you? I apologize. I'm I'm to your left. Um, are we at a point in the hearing where we're
taking testimony from the public or is this only question? >> As a member of the public, >> but we're giving uh commentary, not testimony. >> Oh, I'm sorry. But we're we're not we're past just the questions for the planner. And then do we need to mark this is this is the >> sworn. >> Yeah. I just I just want to make sure
we're >> Why don't we swear him in >> if he's counselor? I appreciate that, but I'm giving public commentary and I'm not here as a witness. >> Well, does this make me witness? Okay. >> I know you you just distributed
exhibits. So, >> all right. >> Raise your right hand. Thank you. >> All right. >> Uh do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is true, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. >> And can you state your la your state your name and spell your last name for the record?
>> Joe Danielson. D an . >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh the first photograph they should all be in the same order >> and and we're going to mark these as exhibits. So we'll just call them u for simplicities 01
through how many photographs do you have Joe? >> Approximat 11. >> Okay. 01 uh through 01. >> Right. So, this the first photograph is of a vendor booth for the gas operation
uh that was taken out of commission a number of years ago when they replaced the pumps. And this is sitting along Cedar Street many years ago. This was put there. Also notice the truck that's parked on the sidewalk that
is in um in disrepair and blighted. with weeds growing, leaves sitting, rubbish on the ground. Also, the next photograph again, the uh the truck obstructing the sidewalk that's cracked and disrepair
and blighted and the other vantage point the opposite direction. Uh that booth along with um storage containers containing one would have to assume hazardous materials such as uh used oil and other garbage. I I object only
because I don't know if you went out there and test. Did you take these photos, by the way? >> I I I took those photos with my Samsung Galaxy S22. >> The next um photograph is of a shed that's behind
the property on the side of Cedar Grove. They dilapidated, rusted out garbage with overflow uh shed with overflowing garbage and assorted uh used and new tires and um
lawnmower. Look to the right of that bottom right of that photograph. More garbage. The next photograph are the two gas pumps that were taking out. Now,
I'm going to tell you how long these gas pumps have been there. They've been there $2.19 a gallon ago, right? You can see the slum that this landlord has maintained. And that's just
with this. The next photograph is the uh the garbage container. Let's enjoy that out in the middle of the not in the middle on the side of the street outside. It's container overflowing. And then let's enjoy looking at the
brand new house built next to it. The husband and wife and the children are beautiful. They sent their thank you trust to >> Well, they they did. That's my >> Well, what do you objective? It's
hearsay. You I mean whatever they said you you can't testify to that. >> Okay. All right. So the next um photograph is my vantage point on the street looking up Cedar Street.
So that's a 25 mph road. This is a dog leg intersection. But what I'm bringing to your attention is the peak of that road which happens the peak of that road is about at the location of the front of that building. Beyond that you cannot
see. That's approximately a 100 yards away from the curb I'm standing on across the intersection and moving my body and the camera angle
over to Elizabeth Avenue that equal but the uh close to the same point opposite that side of the intersection which gives me a vantage point of both Cedar Street and Elizabeth Avenue. Now, the peak point of Elizabeth Avenue
is a little further back. Let's call that, though. I didn't measure it, but I'm I know I'm pretty close. It's about 150 yards. That road is 45 mph at the speed limit. Now, I
know you all drive the speed limit, but coming out of this intersection today, sitting at that intersection, you're going to wait during the high peak hours. You have >> object. He's not a traffic consultant.
>> Okay. While standing at that intersection, assuming that you have traffic coming left or right, that traffic coming from the north traveling south, you have less
than two seconds. >> I object again. It's traffic. >> Well, hold on a second. He's lived in the neighborhood his whole life. I think he can testify to what he's witnessed. He's not an opinion. >> It's algebra. Okay. All right. A car
traveling at 45 miles an hour, >> Cedar Street, >> 200 yards is about 2 seconds. >> You could do the math. >> You object to the math? >> I I object to your ability to make that statement. No, I But but I've been
overruled, so say whatever you want. >> Okay. >> You have two seconds or less. >> And what's the speed limit you quoted? >> 45 miles an hour. Okay. Okay. So now you have two roads conversion at one place.
If now you're actually adding trip generation traffic on or off that site, you have to imagine that part of that is going to be difficult to see tra on common traffic. The bottom of that road, you should also know, is under
287. And then it goes up again. And the the sight line is also obstructed by the bridge of 287, making it even more uh difficult. If this be did become a convenience store, you're going to have
traffic, more cars on and off that lot trying to go in and out just with a limited sighteline view, making it more dangerous. But it really doesn't stop there. >> What's going to happen? And actually, can you uh Mark, can you
bring the site plan up again? The the three spots, parking spots that they have at at the very point of this property. Now, and if you look at this photo, it'll be uh right next to the weeds that have never been picked or mowed or the
garbage or the broken sidewalk. And after 13 years, you should know, never once did they do landscaping, cut the weeds, shovel the snow, nothing. So if you think they're going to do it now, in the future, you giving them a
convenience store, you're foolish to believe it. >> Object. >> What they've done in the past, they're going to do in the future. >> Objection. >> So what I noticed about those three, what is your objection to that? because you're making comments assuming that
because he didn't do it then he's going to do it. You have no idea. >> Okay. And neither does your uh the assumptions your engineers put in his report that are outside his uh scope of his state license. Your your traffic engineer made assumptions. >> Yeah. But but they're experts and
they're permitted to do that. They can offer >> but but they didn't support him in the reports. >> Yeah. Okay. Fine. >> They didn't support him. Let's go. It's case law. >> Yeah. All right. >> So, let's look at the uh the three spots
uh on on the bottom. So, assuming somebody parked in that spot, you're also going to assume that they're they're going to walk through the traffic lane of coming in or out to
the right of the filling station. Right? I'm not I don't want to assume that. Also now for them to back out of those three spots, they have to cross that travel lane where cars slowing down from
at least 45 miles an hour are entering the lot. That's a dangerous situation. So those three parking spots should not be located there. today. >> This shows me. >> Also,
I also had questions of the the planner, your planner, right? Mhm. >> Correct. >> You said the site would be improved. Why have they not made improvements now? Landscaping, beautifification,
basic maintenance. Why would they now start doing it after 13 years? >> I can't answer that question. >> No, you cannot. Aesthetics. You mentioned aesthetics. Why don't they improve aesthetics now?
No. Um, you said the you you mentioned that uh the noise that the service station makes. Are is that within your scope of expertise? councelor >> he me he he mentioned the noise the
autoshop makes is that within his scope of expertise >> it's an anecdotal assumption with the permitted use as it is >> okay um what's the typical decibel level created when a door a car door slams
shut or closes shut we say over 100 dB >> no you can't you can't say he he doesn't know >> he doesn't know Okay. So, um how many currently how many um service bays are
there in this shop? >> I'd defer to the traffic engineer. Three. >> Okay. I'm going to tell you there's four. Three facing the lot, one facing Elizabeth Avenue. There's four.
So, let's say four vehicles can be in that shop. I happen to know anywhere from two cars to 15 cars. So we're thinking 15 cars a day. That's 15 people
bring their cars there and and back maximum 15 door 15 doors closing opening and closing. Will the convenience store generate more cars opening and closing
at the expected decibel level? >> I I can't answer that question. >> Uh can you look at this photograph? It' be the second to the last one where it shows the house uh owned by one of one
of our residents, firefighters, Michael Schmagi. His wife and children live there. Will that will m Mr. Schmagi hear more doors slamming shut with a convenience store or
would he hear more doors shut from a service station where someone just brings their car there, they get a ride home, they come back? A convenience store would have to obviously operate more with more customer arrivals than 15 cars, right?
I can only testify to my experience with landscape architecture and the reduction in offsite noise we uh
we imply when improving sites. So I I I can't um answer that question. I find I find that disturbing because you testified your testimony about sight intensity, site use intensity. Why are you running from me right now?
>> He's not running from you. Answer the question. >> I'm I want I'm going for an intensity cuz I just >> I I just mentioned now I even helped your case a little bit. I I went from three bays to four bays, right? Bringing those two comparisons closer. And I know
based upon my personal experience, I could testify on when I have my car worked on, oil change, tires, you know, uh, fixing stuff. Um, I drop my car off and then I come back and pick it up.
But a convenience store trip is much more rapid in arrival in my experience, my observation. And you spoke to intensity. Um, these questions are getting into uh the
science of decibb and door closing and um >> my question was on intensity. >> I don't think I'm >> You could argue that someone gets out while their car is getting pumped full of gas. They go get a soda, come back.
It be the same number of times that the car door opens and closes as in >> Can I ask you a question? Maybe you don't know, but maybe someone else on your team does, but when measuring sound, is there not a minimum length of time the sound needs to occur before it's measured based on NJDEB
requirements? >> I would have to defer to the team. I can answer. >> If you want an answer, I have somebody that can answer it. Impulse sound levels do not qualify. It has to be a sustain a sustained sound level. I
would also submit that the sound attributed to the service station car doors closing are no different than what is customarily found from vehicles parked in the neighbors driveways. It is a sound endemic to a residential
setting, a commercial setting attributed to cars being started or passengers entering or exiting their vehicles. >> All right. One second. What qualifies him to make these statements? >> I'll be happy to answer that, Mr.
Chairman. I'm a licensed professional engineer. I have >> that's what we need to have on the >> I have been qualified as an expert in New Jersey D sound level standards. I've served as an expert testing and evaluating sound levels for commercial
uses such as car washes. >> We have something >> certainly >> and and then just one question. I I thought Elizabeth was 35. Could you clarify if it's 35 or 45? >> It's 35. The the neighbor is incorrect. There's also abundant sight distance
looking north and south on Elizabeth Avenue. And just for identification purposes, it's not Cedar Street, it's Cedar Avenue. >> And that's substantiated by the picture of the speed limit sign. >> Yes, >> correct. >> Thank you. >> For the record, the Avenue street
changes when it hits the border. >> Depending on how long you've been riding your bicycle there, you could get confused. Uh to the engineer, wasn't it in your report where you made assumptions that the auto repair market trend
is decreasing with the uh new technology vehicles? >> That that has been my experience and and my opinion. Correct. >> Is that within the scope of your license that to make that such opinion? >> I own a car. >> So yes or no, sir. Is that in the scope
of your license issued by the state of New Jersey? And are you testifying now as a non-expert on the matter? I am tech testifying as an expert related to traffic engineering particularly as related to automobile service stations
and I'm butressing that with 42 years of experience specifically with automobile service stations and the reasons why small repair facilities are closing at gasoline service stations in favor of
convenience stores. Uh, >> so this is just your personal experience like my personal experience. >> Well, yeah, but but he can as an expert. >> His is better? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I've served as a qualified expert in 150
different land use applications for service stations. So, yes, I'm qualified. >> But would you also agree that the service station being removed could simply be also a function of the property owner getting rid of it and replacing with a convenience store? It's more profitable.
>> That I can't answer. That's a business decision. >> Well, what would you say to an auto repair location? Hey, like this one who's got three to five days waiting, cars waiting. Does that seem like that's growing or shrinking? And by the way, he's only been there a few years, so he
he's new. >> Is that growing or shrinking? I >> I can't corroborate that testimony, so I I can't answer your question. There's no foundation for it. >> Okay. So, uh, let me give the board testimony as a witness that
the customer base here is growing. So, there's clearly a need for it. And yes, he does park along Cedar and then up um Jim, is that Nassau Street? >> Uh, the road uh that goes along par what
>> the park is Nassau Street. Uh what's >> then Greek Street goes from Cedar. >> Yeah. What's the one? >> Mercury. >> What? >> Mercury. >> Mercury. Thank you. >> His whole life he's been there >> faster next time. Uh along Mercury. He parks up there. That That's how much
needed our area has. That's the amount of need our area has for auto repair. That's a need met here. but he's at liberty to rent that to whoever he wants and um convenience store just doesn't
have a need. But a convenience store will. So, let me bring up another um point to you. A a convenience store located here. Clearly, it won't be for my neighborhood or the neighborhood of uh east, west, and south of us. This
will be frequented by the 18 wheelers that drive by all day and all night long. the box trucks. Right now, the box trucks that uh visit this site, many of them park on Elizabeth Avenue. And let me remind you
to remember that sight line is very limited. 2 seconds. That again, I object because you're not qualified to make that statement. So, >> what's the appropriate sighteline distance? >> I don't I don't know. >> Okay, then don't talk about it, please.
Look, I I can talk about it because I drove it and I timed it. >> Yeah, but that's that that's not sufficient to make that >> statement that there's >> What's my statement exactly that you're >> that 2 seconds is is all you're going to have and that's not enough time >> at 45 miles hour.
>> You're also the same. Yeah, but it's not it's posted 35. >> Okay. So, all right. So, at the time, >> but that's a be in in the world of traffic, sir. 10 miles is a big difference. Okay. So I don't think I think hold on a second. I think that the
witness should stick to the facts that he has observed over the time he's living there >> and refrain from rendering opinions as an expert that he's >> so what I want the board to join me in
anticipating is 18 wheelers 18 wheeled vehicles will not pull into the spot. They will stop on both sides on the shoulder of Elizabeth Avenue and park there, making that limited sight location even more dangerous. Even more
so that um my legislative office across the street and my private office across the street when I had 10 20 people there in the parking lot twice, I was required to hire the police
for traffic safety because of the limited sight line of that location. And I'm at the top of the hill. Let me stress that. The police made me hire traffic safety because the sighteline is
so dangerous. And I was happy to do that because I'm all about safety for the people. So, but when that you add parked vehicles, commercial, industrial, private passenger, this is going to
become a disaster. I I again I object with the premise that ve you know 18-wheelers and box trucks are going to park up and down the street. >> How can you object to that? >> Because you have no idea if that's going to happen. It's your opinion. I but I
object. I think your opinion is wrong. >> Well, you also said that there's five or six convenience stores in the immediate area. So why would they all start coming here and not go to the other ones? I was demonstrating the point that there the need is nil.
>> Okay. So then there should be no traffic coming because there's other there's other options. >> Will your traffic expert testify to to the point? >> What point >> that 18 willers will not stop park? >> No, because it's it's pure rank speculation. >> Wait, hold on. So your engineer and
traffic expert can uh it's speculation uh for me, but it's uh professional assumptions on that. Not. They'd never testified to that. >> They made they made assumptions and you said they're allowed to because of their license. >> Yeah, but you're making a statement. You're assuming that's going to be the case. But look, keep going. I mean, we
all know that trucks, large ones, will stop, run across the road, walk over the curb, and if they can't pull in, they're going to take the convenience of that parking opportunity. And also now you also have those four new homes right
along between Cedar and Elizabeth. Now they're going to be parking in front of those homes. Again, more doors opening and closing, more families disturbed while they don't even need that convenience store. So this is a quality of life issue. This
is an inappropriate application. It's one of the worst I've ever seen. And I'm saying that with 14 years uh on the planning board, this should not be allowed. And we don't ever reward a slum lord. >> I object.
>> And expect they're going to be a good neighbor. >> Any other people wish to speak? >> Good evening. Jim Wickman, uh Somerset, New Jersey. Um just just a few comments that if I understand correctly this ser the
original service station was built somewhere around 1963 on that location plus or minus close enough. Um when were the zoning laws established in Franklin Township? I believe it was
in somewhere in the 70s where it was really kind of fortified. So, so in all likeliness likelihood that service station was built and and established long before that was residential, that was farm, whatever it was.
>> It was 1958. That's when the township first had zoning. >> Okay. Okay. And but was that area what was that zoned at that time? >> Well, that that's a different question.
I mean, the zoning it morphed and got more complicated and convoluted over time, but you know, that that area, my understanding is that that area >> I shouldn't speak to that. I shouldn't speak I don't know. >> Fair enough. But my my point being it was probably there long before there
were any considerations of residential zoning versus something and and so here it is. And as long as it's there, you you can't shut it down and say you can't be a a not nonresidential zone business
in here because it doesn't fit. I I think that's correct. So, it's there. We can accept that. Um my my concerns are and I I think uh somewhere in the planning board's report it it it it talks about the uh the applicant needs
to um like beyond the the shadow of a doubt show the importance of granting these variances and there's a lot of them. the impervious surface. Yes, it was 90, now
it's 70. It's supposed to be 30%. It's still not close. Eight parking spots versus 18. Still not close. So, all of these things, yeah, they're they moved, but it's it's still not close.
and and to to um uh jump on board with some of what the previous uh speaker said that that business has been there for 13 years. It's a dump.
The cars are parked on I I don't know who owns that sidewalk. Is that township property? Okay. They're parking vehicles on the township sidewalk. Many times those vehicles don't have license plates on them. So, who's enforcing
what's not happening at that site as it exists? There's vehicles parked on the sidewalks. There's junk as he as he told you for however many years they renovated the the the pumps and the kiosk and the and the canopy. Well, the
stuff that they took out is sitting out on the street on our residential side of the street, not Somerset County's Elizabeth Avenue. It's on our side. I drive past that place twice a day at least. And unfortunately, I have a
problem with going to Shopright just about every day of the week. So, that's a different thing. I drive by that all the time. That stuff's been sitting there in many instances. Not only are the cars parked on Cedar Street, Cedar Avenue
on the curb or on the sidewalk without license plates, they're also running up the hill on Mercury Street on the grass, tearing up the grass, for lack of a better term, weeds, whatever it is, creating a mud hole
over the curb. And I think that's technically I think that's state property on that side from 287. But they're tearing that up. The cars are in the street and the township's not doing anything to enforce whatever rules may be in place. I know if you don't cut
your lawn, they'll come around. If I leave a car in the street without a license plate, they're coming around and they're they're going to give me a ticket. It's happened. I've seen it in my neighborhood. But but this business runs
without a worry in the world about that. There's junks. The cars. They're not Don't I get it. It's a repair facility and there's cars there that need to be repaired, but there's cars that have been there for months months sitting on that lot.
So, the the the zoning is what it is. It's not compliant. This won't be compliant, but the efforts to try and make it, I just don't see it. I don't see the the hardcore the variances of the uh the
impervious surface, the parking, the they're just not there >> and it doesn't make sense. And I and I would like to see someone in a township make an effort to um enforce the rules on that spot to clean the place up. It's
a dump, plain and simple. It's been like that for years. Used to be a beautiful place. >> Yeah. >> So, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Then we'll close to the public.
What's your pleasure? >> Give me a minute with my client. >> Yeah. Well, well, before you go, I I had one question probably of your client, and that is what does he plan to do in terms of hours of operation of the uh of
the uh gas station part of the business and the um uh the uh convenience store part of the business? >> We can wait till you come back to your comments. >> No. Well, he can he's been uh put under
oath before he Good evening, Bo. Good evening. Yeah, we planning to do 629 both sides. Both the convenience store and the gas. That is correct. Okay. Very
good. Thank you. Seven days a week, I assume. >> Yes. of course I wasn't told you can't >> I I I think for the record to be complete and I Mr. Healey hasn't had a chance to comment. He did raise the issue about um the architecture and the
compatibility uh I I believe and um unfortunately like I said our our architect had a u a recovery that uh they're they're dealing with. So um with the board's permission I'd like to see
the the matter carried um and I could bring Mr. turned back um whenever I I I doubt we're going to be going in January given uh your your schedule, but whenever the next meeting available date would be um and we could put that
testimony on and then see what happens. >> Would the architect be the only witness you were going to >> I I may bring back our planner too. >> Okay. how we stand with that >> and I will certainly give I know um the
question was raised earlier about extending the time and everything else we yeah we would certainly do that absolutely >> so are you asking do you want me to provide you dates that are available and you can check >> I have them um you can come as early as
February 5th we have another matter that would be heard before you >> that's February 5 is fine I I don't think we have You're okay with that? >> Yeah. February 5. I I I >> I think Mr. Burn should be available on February 5. Either that or we can get
>> in on a journey. >> Yeah. So, uh so we'll do February 5. Tell them that's the date. He's got to he's got to get here. >> Okay. So, then I'll make the announcement that the matter will be carried to uh February 5th, 2026 at 7:30
p.m. here at 475 Deont Lane. Um, and no further notification will be needed as this is the notification. >> Yes, >> you do need to provide me in writing with an extension. >> Yeah, we'll extend it through February 28th. >> Yeah, that's fine. An email will do. It
doesn't have to be anything fancy. You can just send that to me. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. >> Okay. Is there a motion to close? >> I move that we close. >> Second. >> A second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed.
>> Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.