Now it's coming in the windows. Yeah, I think Tom McCay, the chair of the of the committee. Uh this is the August 6, 20 uh 25 uh meeting of the Hannesport Joint Land Use Board. And we'll begin with uh
a flag salute >> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Good. Can we have a reading of the
sunshine law, please? >> Notice how this meeting was published in accordance to the open public meetings act. Uh we have a regular no new business after 10:30 p.m. which means we will not start a new matter after 10:30. But if something's uh being uh being reviewed
before 10:30 and it runs over, we'll complete that. Um can we have a roll call, please? Paul, >> Mrs. Tory, >> here. >> Mr. Noita >> here. >> Mrs. Len, >> here. >> Mayor Gilmore >> here. >> Mr. Traco >> here. >> Mr. R. Murphy absent.
>> Mr. C. Murphy >> here. Miss Costco >> here, >> Mr. Holden absent, Mr. Mcai >> here, >> and Mr. McKay >> here. >> All right. Uh, first item of business on the agenda is JD EB Martin Highway case
23-06A. Um, we have um a letter um and this letter is in the file, correct? >> Yes. uh from July 30, 2025 from uh Mr. Deia, Vincent Deia Esquire, who's the attorney
for uh the applicant and uh he consents in writing to extend the board's time for decision until a September 3, 2025.
um and um uh he's been advised of the documentation and reports that are needed uh for that meeting. Uh so um uh can I have a motion to uh grant the adjournment of this matter to September
3, 2025? >> So move second. >> Second. >> Um roll call, please. Mayor Gilmore, >> yes. >> Uh, Mrs. Leon, yes. Mrs. Tory, yes. >> Mr. Novarita, >> yes. >> Mr. Chukoi,
>> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Holden is not here. Sorry. Mr. Mai, >> yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Miss Costco? >> Yes. >> And Mr. McKay? >> Yes. >> All right. Right. Our second matter and
last matter for tonight is case 21-06B Seagull Holdings uh aka the Nissan dealership property. Good evening, Mayor Gilmore, Mr. McCay, members of the
board. May it please the board uh Steven Eisner representing Seagull Holdings and Mount Holly Nissan. I'd like to with your indulgence just introduce all our witnesses and have them sworn because they may offer
commentary during my remarks if that's acceptable to the chair. >> That's fine. Have them all come up, all be introduced. I give name uh the position all sworn in and then we can move forward with testimony as needed.
>> Thank you, gentlemen. And I think you have you have at least one expert to qualify, but we're familiar with the experts. So >> I know that um Miss Tyber asked that we
use the microphone. So as you as you introduce yourselves, please use the microphone. >> Good evening. My name is Teal Jeff. I'm principal of Jeff Engineering Associates. Uh 707 North Main Street,
Glboro, New Jersey. uh 08028. I'm a professional uh engineer licensed in the state of New Jersey. I'm currently licensed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. I presented myself in front of multiple planning board and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey. Have been
considered uh and as an expert uh land use engineer uh in front of those boards. >> Thank you, Jeff. Mrs. Jeffers, we will accept your qualifications and uh qualify you to testify as an expert in this matter. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
James Miller, professional planner, 222 Nicholson Drive, Morristown, New Jersey. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey, certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners, and I've been qualified by this board on a number of occasions and uh including as recently as this year.
>> Yes. To the extent we want to accept your qualifications, again, we do so. >> Thank you very much. Good evening. Uh my name is Harry Wright. I'm a registered architect 35 years with Regerian Partners. Uh we're located in West Steepford and uh I have
appeared before this board one time before for Nissan. Um >> Mr. Wright uh will accept you as an expert in the field of architecture for this hearing. >> Good evening. Dennis D. Simone,
contractor, construction manager, 601 North Main Street, Glboro, New Jersey. 51 years in business. I'll be representing Mr. Wright doing the construction project. >> All right. Only I don't think there's a need to qualify you as an expert
witness, but we appreciate that background and your credentials. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, everyone. Tina Wright, owner of Mount Holly Nissan, managing member of Seagull Holdings. >> Nice to see you, Miss Wright. Seen your commercials.
>> Yes. Commercials. Yes. >> Sometimes I want to go, "Oh, no." >> I get to talk to you in person, >> but thank you. >> They're great commercials. >> Thank you. >> Everyone raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth, whole
truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Eisner. Thank you. >> Briefly, um, Mr. McCay, members of the board, this is an application for amended final site plan approval with
certain bulk variances. When we filed the application originally, we were requesting a variance. I guess I would call it a D or use variance to allow the continuing use
of certain storage containers on site. Those containers were on site when we purchased the property. That request is withdrawn. There is no request to continue the use of the storage containers.
In lie of the storage containers, my client is proposing a building approximately 24 ft by 36 ft about 16 1/2 ft high which will be used
exclusively for storage. There will be no maintenance or other automotive activity in that building. One of the issues we had was that one of our small storage containers was used for EV equipment
to service the Nissan electric vehicles. What we have decided to do is to do a very small addition on the rear of the garage area of the existing dealership that's about 150 to 160 square ft. And
um that will allow us storage for the vehicle the electric vehicle equipment and that other storage unit will be removed. >> Well, thank you very much for that because it does eliminate a a bit of a
thorny issue that we had on the on the Dvarian and the the lack of permission permitted use for the C containers. So that's good. And I should point out that uh Mr. Taylor did point out to us that
in effect we would have to obtain a I guess Scott a revision to the redevelopment ordinance that that even if the board wanted to entertain a devariance it could not. And we felt
that given the the feeling of Mr. Taylor and the other professionals that it would be better just to remove that request in its entirety. >> Well, thank you on behalf of the board. I thank you for that. I know that you all know where the property is located.
It's about 7 and 12 acres in total. I also know and I'd like to address the fact that there have been delays in this project. We attribute the delays and 90% of those
delays to the DOT. Um, we have been able to with the cooperation of our neighbor to the rear. I'm not sure what their current name is. It was Black Creek. I know at one point
it was BTC, but the warehouse developers, >> we call them Black Creek. >> Okay. We were able to reach an accommodation with them to eliminate the diagonal driveway which bisected our property and
which was a terrible traffic hazard. And I know that the board has been trying since roughly 2005 to have that driveway eliminated. I know that the our predecessor in interest Tom Hessard of
Classic Nissan was here several times and attempted to obtain an easement across that roadway which he was unable to do. Fortunately, because of the cooperation we received
from Black Creek and frankly the cooperation we offered, we were able to do a land swap. And even though we were promised by the DOT that we could maintain two or three
driveways, the DOT was very disingenuous and kept changing their minds about the driveways and the plan had to be re-engineered and resubmitted. I'm going to guess four to six to eight times.
We did not receive DOT approval until September of 2024. The diagonal driveway was used by Black Creek that entire time
and we were able to solve we even after we gave Black Creek a temporary construction easement so that they could have some access from Route 38. We ended up as part of the land swap
sharing an access driveway with Black Creek. And one of the um reasons for our appearance this evening is that Black Creek agreed to allow us an entry at the rear of the driveway for delivery trucks
and things like that so that we can segregate those truck movements from the passenger vehicles from our customers. I have nothing further by the way of introductory remarks. I
would note that we have done whatever we can to work with Mr. Taylor, Mr. Desai. We've received some significant input from Mr. Taylor and we've tried to be responsive to that. Our application tonight
um we believe addresses those issues. There are some bulk variances which we consider relatively minor and some other open issues but we think that we've made a lot of progress in coming to a meeting
of the minds. >> All right. Um, obviously you've seen um Alimo's uh letter of July 23rd and um Taylor's letter
of um July 17th. Uh and I think it I assume you've you've spoken to them about this beforehand. >> We have um we have, Mr. Chairman. Uh let me know if you think you have a
better way of doing it. I'm have no pride in authorship so to speak but I think it would be best to uh to at least touch on the various sections uh of the tailor letter which I I want
to do first. Um primarily the you know the obviously we have the bulk variances, we have the design waiverss and um if we can go through those uh section by section to see if we have an
agreement uh on on those issues. Uh I would appreciate it. U you prepared to do that? >> We are Mr. Chairman. And I I would note also, I'm not trying to get ahead of the chair, that um Teal Jeff, our
civil engineer, had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Desai of the Alimo office and I think that they have reached a relative meeting of the minds and feel that any issues presented in the Alimo
letter can be worked out between the two of them. There was really nothing that either of them considered of great significance. But I will defer to the wishes of the chair. >> Right. I I have seen the July 21st Jeffrey Jeffers engineering letter which
does address um specifically or generally those items. And we'll just hold that because I feel that that is a shorter matter to deal with. We'll hold that uh till we till we get the the tailor design letter
uh done. Um so for the record and for the the tracking of our uh of our solicitor for a future resolution on this um if we go to the tailor design letter of July 17th
um and uh we get to the first item of issue the variance discussion. Um I think we have worked that out Mr. Taylor based upon representations of the council but do you have any comments?
Did I miss anything? Did we miss anything >> on the D1 use variance? No, that was that was stricken. We also, and I think it just for future reference, we did issue an amended and updated report dated July 30, 2025.
Um, that >> July 17 letter is really the July 30 never got to me. probably my filing fault. Not blaming anybody. Um, all right. On on the D variance, it
looks like the comments are basically covered, but under what we under what council has just discussed. >> Yeah, there were two sort of jurisdictional one. The first was the the board's inability to grant or entertain a grant that was withdrawn. Um
and the second was because there is work actually being conducted on the black treated property. Um we had noted that that parcel needed to be included in the application um and signed and that uh information was subsequently submitted and is
reflected in that July 30 report from our office. right now. Perhaps it makes sense uh because the applicant is now proposing a um an enlarged storage building in lie of the sea containers to
deal with um to deal with uh the Taylor design architectural questions which um if I could ask um so we deal with this building get it out of the way. Mr.
Chairman, which um which letter should I >> Well, if we go to the Jul the Taylor July 17 2025 letter, if we go to page six of seven under category E building
design, um that um that addresses um I think both this new building that you're constructing and perhaps also uh
Mr. Taylor uh the existing building, the showroom building, unless it's going to stay exactly the same. >> The showroom building is going to stay exactly the same except as Mr. Taylor
notes that we are adding a very small addition of about 150 to 160 square ft at the rear of the building, but that is the only change and that will not be visible
um except to our personnel. >> All right. And um I guess uh we'd like to hear some testimony from your architect about the storage building. Um, you've given us a brief description of it.
>> Sure. I I would call Mr. Wright and um I'd also call Mr. D. Simone because he can provide background perhaps about construction timing, things of that nature. >> All right. There I will offer as I did
before, there will be no dealership activity um under any circumstances that takes place in that building. It is solely for the storage of obsolete parts, surplus parts, snow removal equipment, and maintenance equipment.
>> Right. >> Okay. >> Steve, I have a question before you start. I thought in your introductory remarks you said they are proposing a building 24 by 36,
but Scott Taylor's letter says something else. I thought it was 24. >> Maybe it makes sense. I don't know. Did does Mr. Jeff have a an exhibit or a rendering that maybe he could sort of walk through? >> Yeah, we have Mr. Wright has a rendering that we can
>> That would be great to put that up. Call it Call it exhibit A1. >> Okay. >> Teal, do you have a color rendering by any chance? >> Mr. I guess the confusion might be the 24 by
36 dimensional information in the Taylor uh July 17th letter and it it indicates that that's before the addition before the enlargement of that building to hold the AV the EV parts. So I guess
the question is is it still 24 by 36 or is it a little bigger? >> Mr. chairman, the enlargement of the building and I apologize because I obviously con confused it. The
Harry, if you could correct me and teal, if you could show the board exactly where this is going. The actual dimensions are 24 by 36. >> So there there are two different things happening here. One is a storage building 24 by 36 in the central area of
the site >> and then the removal of the sea boxes is precipitating the construction of a 10 by 15 ft bumpout storage area on the rear of the building. So, there's a 10x5 edition and a 24x36 new building.
>> And the 10 to 15 ft edition, 10 x 15t edition, the so-called bumpout that's attached to the existing dealer showroom building. >> Yes, it is. It's in the rear of the building next to the um garage and service area.
>> All right. So, just to review for us and provide some testimony from the for the record, uh we have the dimensional information. Anything else? In terms about the design of that building, uh the compatibility with the existing building, issues of design,
color, um roof, roof lines, um uh dealing with uh concealment of uh HVAC and other types of equipment. >> Uh these are items that have been brought up in the tailor design letter.
Um but not but not answered. >> There is no HVAC at this building. It is an unheated unairconditioned building. >> The new building. >> Yes. There may be and there is no
auxiliary HVAC in the little bumpout. Um, this building may have electricity. It may have water to it, but that's it. >> Well, I would certainly think it would
have electricity. Water is another matter, >> right? So Harry, if you could explain the elevations and >> um start with the the uh small shed on the back of the dealership. >> Yeah. So start for for for just
reference, get us our heads all straight about the where's where does the uh existing dealer showroom sit on that diagram and then work from there. I have I have uh extra copies at the
board would like to see those. Um but the the dealership is there's a long rectangle up here. 38 is is the to me >> right runs 38 runs top to bottom on this diagram. Correct.
>> Correct. That's correct. And then at the back corner of dealership behind the service bays will be a shed addition for the storage of the EV equipment. >> Okay. And that isn't a freestanding unit. That's a going to be an an actual
extension of the existing building. >> That's correct. It'll be attached to the existing building. >> Right. And that and where's this new this new uh 24 by uh 36 storage shed going to be?
>> That's off off to the uh in the in the parking area on the opposite side of from the dealership of the diagonal road that's being eliminated and it's to the back of the site. >> All right. It's 20 24 by 36
>> and just get give us the give us the the details information about what that building's going to look like >> height that sort of thing. >> Sure. The the freestanding storage building is 24 by 36 as we mentioned
earlier. Uh it's the peak of the roof is about 16 foot seven and the the average median height of the roof is like 148. The metal it'll be a metal clad building with a metal roof, the gable roof.
Um in the in the shed, the smaller shed building will also be a metal building with a metal roof painted to match the color of the uh of the dealership. All right. >> And the the new building 24 by36, it's
going to have uh what? Overhead garage doors on one side. >> Yes, it has uh two overhead doors just for access. Um and and a and a one man door. >> All right.
>> And then the the smaller addition addition to the dealership will have a a overhead door. >> All right. Um just to wrap this whole thing up um there is also the issue um that was
raised by Mr. Taylor of the um the garage uh excuse me the the the dumpster issue. You have you have a couple of dumpsters, at least one, maybe two that you presently have. And uh there was suggestion in the Taylor
report that um uh a containment uh area be be constructed uh out of masonry and you proposed or your your engineer has proposed doing it by chain link fence instead. Can you address where that is
and uh why the masonry suggestion by Taylor is not acceptable and and that's actually a requirement of the redevelopment plan. It wasn't just a suggestion from office. >> Thank you.
>> Good evening. With regard to the trash and recycling containers, they're currently located behind the dealership uh in the service yard, which is a fenced yard uh area behind the dealership um uh enclosed with a 6' high chain link
fence. The dumpsters, the two dumpsters are located here adjacent to the western property line, which is the commercial property to the west. Uh we are proposing um currently they are roughly 290 ft plus or minus back from the edge
of 38 behind the building. Uh in light of the concerns uh what we were proposed was to utilize the existing fence that's along the property line and put privacy slats along those fence and then include another section of fence on the Route 38
side of that uh those dumpsters that would also include privacy slats. to effectively screen the view of those dumpsters from 38 and from the adjacent properties. In reality, those dumpsters are very limited have very limited
visibility and would really be from a a particular angle looking down between the buildings here currently. Um given that area back here, which is a stone service area, um and really the the use
of the dumpsters and so forth, we felt that it would be more advantageous to enclose or to screen them versus necessarily enclosing them. Gives us some flexibility in terms of u of utilizing the the dumpsters. Minimizes
any damage to the structure itself. it's only visible in this scenario to the service area. Um whereas a concrete structure or masonry enclosure would really provide screening on two sides that are not necessarily necessary because it's only visible from the
internal service area. So that was the proposal that was offered uh in effort of trying to further screen those dumpsters that are set back you know significantly behind the building itself. >> And what do we do with the with as Mr. Taylor points out the uh requirement in
the redevelopment code. We ignore that. We were requesting the board's consideration of a waiver given this this specific condition, this specific site condition. >> Mr. Taylor, thoughts on this issue. >> True.
>> Um >> it's not a use. >> It is uh Yeah. So the board has the right. It's not a use component. So the the redevelopment plan allows design waiver and C variance relief to be granted by the board. Um in terms of the
the proofs for that, it's really in the board's discretion. One of the reasons for the masonry enclosures is it stops wind from blowing through and it collects trash and debris in those areas. So it's partly visual, partly functional. Um, if this were any
more visible, I would not recommend that the board consider that relief. It is somewhat removed from the site, um, from where the public will be on the site, etc., and sort of in a utility type area. So,
uh, this one's really in the board's discretion. We could see it going either way. I I would presume that cost was a large factor in this decision. um although not mentioned but uh so that's something the board may want to
evaluate the the benefits of. >> All right. >> Well, let's hold this thought on the dumpster issue until later on. Okay. And we'll see what else develops. Um Mr. Taylor on the general information
about the building addition, the new storage warehouse. Uh do we do do you uh do you have any other questions or do you think we have covered that in terms of uh well a a couple of the thoughts and we sort of suggested in here the the applicant is
doing sort of a facelift of the entire site. We're getting a lot of new signs. They're refacing with very modern sort of aluminum brushed signs and the building is sort of a stark white. And we were asking whether or not any painting of the building, we thought
maybe a a silverish gray might sort of blend in and fit in better with the signs that they were looking to do. And then similarly um for the storage building, it is a metalsided pole barn and the testimony
was that that would match the color of the dealership. And for utility buildings like that, having a stark white building in the back there, um that would tend to emphasize its presence. And if that was a more muted gray, it would sort of
recede into the background a little bit more. So I think touching on those two issues of trying to make the storage building a more muted color and was any consideration given to sort of updating the dealership paint from the stark white. >> All right. So there's two questions in
there. A little paint job on the dealership or not. >> Well, >> and then and then uh a little camouflage if you will on the storage building. >> I don't think we have any objection to that. One of my clients concerns was
that we not paint the new storage building to match the dealership building because my client really doesn't want the public walking over there and thinking that they can it's a service area or anything like that. But
I feel >> yeah that's not what I was suggesting. No said they were going to match. Right. So, I think the I think the storage building should be a much deeper gray. Let that blend. There's some landscape around there. Let that sort of recede into the background. And the dealership
building could be a >> Let me ask Mrs. Wright her feeling on that. >> It's It's not my feeling. So, I just wanted >> Please come up to the mic. Go speak to the microphone, please. >> Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, we can.
>> Okay. So Nissan dictates what color my main building is and it happens to be called cyberspace and it's a very dark gray. In fact, I need to paint the front part, the showroom part. I don't know if that's what you're referring to. That's white,
which we will the whole building will be called cyberspace. It's required by Nissan. >> You're so you you're you're re I don't remember what color the I'm >> It's mostly cyberspace now. We just didn't paint the white showroom portion
that will be painted and the entire building will be cyerspace. It's a very dark gray. >> All right. So, this is Nissan's This is Nissan's standard color that you need to abide by under the >> correct. >> So, the dealership will be painted. Okay. I understood I thought the testimony was that it was not
>> Well, we had just painted it the back half two years ago. This is we're not talking new building. We're talking existing showroom and and service building. >> Right. Correct. So we do have to paint the front part of it that's governed by Nissan,
but so the out building, the separate storage building. >> Can we Let's just stay on the first one. So >> the whole building will be painted one color which is cyerspace. >> Correct. >> And that's a very dark gray. >> It's what it it's what the color of the
three quarters of the building is right now. I already painted it two years ago. So that that wouldn't change. I Nissan wouldn't allow me to have Nissan branding on their building if it wasn't compliant.
>> And the addition will also be the metal siding for that will either be correct finished in cyerspace or >> correct. If I can get a metal siding that would be cyerspace color, that's what I would use. If not, it would be painted so that it blends right in.
I actually think cyerspace is the exact color of the darker bands on the warehouse across the street um at the Hannesport Commerce Center. Remember it serves. Um, so would you look, you would look to do that same
color for the storage building? >> I would, if it's okay, I would re prefer to set it off. I thought white with um I also wanted to have a lighter roof color. So, since it's metal, I would have thought of a light gray roof, white
building, and then put the corners silver to match. And silver is such a um I can't come up with a color right now, but I'm sorry I wasn't prepared to show you, but I wouldn't object to picking a metal because it's not going to be
painted. It would be the metal siding that I get to choose from. And I wouldn't mind picking a lighter silver color for the whole building. Then I could do the two garage doors white so that it doesn't look all lumped together. I I don't mind that. That's if
if you're okay with that suggestion, but I would try to refrain from doing the cyberspace because I wouldn't want people to drive over there and think, "Oh, look, this is some place I need to go for service." It will not have any
Nissan logos or anything because it's only for my employees and for us to use. >> All right, how about we do this? You got to paint the rest of the showroom, which I'm I'm going to call the main building, the showroom.
>> You've got to do that per Nissan's requirements. >> Correct. >> On this newly con to be constructed storage building. Uh we'll make it a condition of approval. Uh I suggest to have uh the final colors
on that whether it be the selection of siding or paint over the siding um approved uh by our professionals on consultation when when you get to the point of doing the paintwork. >> Okay. >> Is that fair enough? >> Very fair.
>> And just for the board, my preference would be to stay away from white. that will actually draw less attention, especially for the public. And seeing two large white overhead sort of garage doors might almost draw more attention. Also, in utilitarian applications, those
white doors tend to show dirt, show dings, show dings and dents. And so staying away from the cyerspace and going with a medium gray might strike a good balance there where it sort of ties in a little bit visually, but it is
distinct and different from the dealership itself. >> Right. And garage doors come in lots of colors, too. I mean, they're not >> We'll work that out. >> That's that the garage door color and the siding color. They all go together for for review before you do it and
approval by by our professionals. >> That's fine. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, um uh Mr. Taylor, unless you think we missed something, I'd like to move on
uh from the um building design issues. The trash container we've just put on hold for the moment. And um look at the um the bit a bit thornier issues in the uh
the uh bulk variance relief which is page three of seven under 2. Uh we have various setbacks. Um Mr. Eisner, have you have you spoken to
Taylor about these various items? I know that um Mr. Jeff has I don't know that there have been any conclusions made between Mr. Taylor and Mr. Jeff. So
um >> perhaps Mr. Jeff then could come up to the mic. >> We could talk to him about these issues if I may. I'll refer to the site plan sheet C 1.0 that was part of the plan set that was
submitted. This specific one is the amended version that's dated uh 718 2025. Uh again that was submitted as part of the application. Uh with regard to um item number two under Mr. Taylor's
letter page three of seven under bulk variance relief. Um the first parking setback from Route 38 east of the proposed driveway where 50 ft is required 15 ft was previously approved. However, additional spaces are proposed in that location that pertains to this
frontage along 38. Uh the area east of the proposed drive. The proposed drive is roughly in this somewhat centralized location to the frontage. The board previously approved a 15-ft setback for that parking. However, at
that time, there was no parking proposed where the entrance occurred with the elimination of that entrance. Uh, as was mentioned a little while ago based on the DOT permit, this this layout proposes just extending that parking and
continuing through the area of that previous driveway. So, as I understand, that condition would apply to where we're infilling where the driveway was eliminated along the frontage. Uh, number B, uh, parking along Route 38
west of the existing drive where 5T is required. 5T was previously approved, a zero feet is proposed for the eight display spaces that pertains to the existing eight stalls here along the front of the the building itself. Currently, as a result uh of really it's
been in condition there for years. Uh the parking is uh a butts up to the right ofway line along Route 38. There's a zero foot setback there. These stalls are proposed to remain and that's an existing non-conforming condition that we're proposing to leave as it is. Um
I would like to say there was some discussion. Um >> I guess Go ahead. Let me just interject. But um could you could you comply by move uh by with the previous approval by moving them back
>> to the 5-ft space? >> And that's a that's a very good question and that's something that I looked at and I discussed with Mr. Taylor um early on in the process is if we move this stall these stalls back 5 ft to comply the maneuvering area of the drive behind
it becomes substandard. It's less than the required dimensions for a driveway and for 90 degree parking. The previous approval, as I recall, had proposed diagonal parking spaces in that location. The concern that I had from that is a diagonal parking space is
typically associated with a one-way driveway. If diagonal parking spaces are set, if you will, from a northeast to a southwest direction, that would suggest that cars exiting would would come this way, but they would not be able to because of the property line. that would
force a car to back up and have to maneuver in the driveway to go back into the site. I felt that was a very unsafe condition. >> Well, but let me cl just to clarify one point. These are not >> these are parking spaces. >> These are these are for display vehicles. This is not customer,
>> right? So, these are dealer display vehicles only. >> That's correct. >> You actually drive vehicles inside the building also. >> There's also an entrance uh from here to go into the building as well. >> Right. So part of the rationale during the redevelopment plan was
a person that drives and moves car inventory for a living can move in and out of a 45 degree angle parking space and have a 16 or 18 which is sufficient room to back up to move those cars because they're actually going to be pulling some of those cars into the
building itself which is not a standard parking condition either. So this isn't customer or employee, it's inventory display. Correct. >> It is inventory display, but on that diagonal and yes, it would be limited to employees or personnel moving those
vehicles, but they would still need to back out into this drive aisle to maneuver back into the site. And that's where I had concern from the safety because this is a very busy driveway coming in off of Route 38. >> Well, except you got you got a you got guys who are professionals doing this. I
mean, it's not the average Joe off the street who's driving up to look at a new car uh and is driving in parking in this area. And these are these cars are static pretty much. Um unless one of them gets sold. Um so I don't really see
the problem with a professional driver negotiating a slightly narrow lane if we benefit from the push, the five- foot push back. I mean, these car I drove past there last night and uh on my way home and I I the
cars look like the the front bumper is is touching the edge of Route 38. I mean, they're pretty close to the highway and the the five foot as proposed and have previously granted u makes a lot of design sense to me. I don't know, Mr. Taylor, how you feel.
>> Yeah, I don't have a concern with the additional spaces east. You know, we started talking about the display spaces, >> right? the 50 versus 15 >> under under 2A. I don't have an issue with that. I I don't see any reason why the prior approval can't be
>> can't be respected consistent with the redevelopment plan. >> Right. Right. So 2 2B is the issue now. 2A is I think the board has not got a problem on that because of the consistency of uh of the whole line of
cars. But on this one, um, it seems to me that the five- foot, uh, requirement, uh, ought to be honored. And your safety concerns, I don't think are concerns because we're dealing with professional drivers. Correct.
>> Well, we're dealing with professional drivers. I'm still concerned from a professional point of view in terms of that maneuverability. Um, >> how much? >> What I would I would hate to see somebody pulling out of the first spot and moving into that driveway and then getting hit by somebody pulling into the
driveway. That's the concern that I have as a professional. >> Well, who's going to pull into the driveway? >> A a customer >> c customers are are being directed elsewhere. >> Well, this this is a full access driveway where a customer or even somebody from the public could make a
right turn and enter into the site here. They can also enter into the site from the driveway on Black Creek uh access point. >> You know, it's easy to >> angle them the other direction. The person who is driving to stack them can
back down the driveway. So then the pull out movement back into your access drive is a head first maneuver. just rotate it instead of being 45 degrees the way it was on the original plan where somebody could potentially
>> I think in a scenario in a scenario like that I think the safety concern could be mitigated. Sure. >> Okay. >> Or at least reduced. >> All right. And that gives you the five foot setback that's previously been approved. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, why don't we if we
could >> like we have an Sounds like we have a a compromise here that's acceptable to everybody. >> We'll work that out with Mr. Taylor if that's okay as far as the diagonal or whatever. >> Yeah. In terms of this the the geometry
of the of the angles and whatnot. But the point here for our purposes are that the acceptance of the of the previously approved 5-ft setback and then how you park the cars, left angle, right angle, you'll work out. >> Yes.
>> Agreeable, Mr. Taylor? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, that's 2 P. 2 C. Um 2C pertains to a setback at this location with the same display vehicles here.
And as noted, um there's uh concern with regard to the the parking in the back, which is service and employee parking within the service area. That parking is up against Let's let's look at the two areas. First, the the rear area, uh that parking is within the fenced area and up
to the existing fence which is along the property line. This is currently used for parking, storage, and so forth. that uh we're just looking to leave uh leave that parking area on the stone in this particular location here in the front. Uh again, that is um
the existing display area there. We can look at what is feasible to provide there. If we're going to make some modifications with a diagonal in the front, we can look at trying to comply with that requirement there.
>> All right. So, so C similar to B, uh, on item two, um, you'll you'll try to, um, work out an arrangement where the previously approved 5T is honored, correct? >> In in the front, in the rear, we would
like to leave that as is because it's already an existing fence stoned area. >> And I don't have a major issue. I don't think that >> that's pretty much like a >> Yeah. >> You know, it's it's existing and uh >> not a problem. >> It's changed slightly from the prior
approval, but I don't think it's really inconsistent with >> Yeah. Okay. So, we've done A through D. Uh C and D will be uh or or excuse me C will B and C will
be uh the 5- foot uh previously approved setback will be honored with the um the geometric the geometry for the parking to be uh subject to approval by the professionals.
Agreed, Mr. Taylor. >> Yes, sir. And uh D uh >> D pertains to the trash and recycling. >> The trash recycle. We're back to the correct on a different but on a different >> uh issue. Correct. But this is this is a
setback issue. >> With regard to that setback and complying with that would force those containers to be moved a minimum of 20 ft into the into the property. The concern there is circulation with vehicles coming around the building uh
and just obstructing the general circulation path. It's going to basically set out into the stone area really in a very odd and unique scenario. concern is it would just conflict with vehicle >> trash trucks access that >> trash trucks would access that by coming
into the through the gate around the building in the stone yard access back up and leave. That's how they currently >> go out the same way they came in. >> Yes. >> Typically, yes, they're here. >> Those those trash containers have been
in that spot for how long? since um 2016. It was that way when Tom Harder owned it nearly 40 years. >> Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Jeff pointed out to us, um they happen to be virtually next
to the dumpsters from the neighboring property. They're in that same location. Yeah, Mr. Taylor, on this one, uh are we looking at something uh like 2A?
>> Yeah, in a way. And and one other thing I'll offer, again, it is sort of an existing condition in that location. Um the the third option that maybe the board can consider in the applicant is
um they make some very tight weave mesh chain link fence that has about a 3/4 of an inch mesh that actually stops most trash. Um it provides a little more visual screening.
Uh our biggest biggest concern with the chain link fence is those vinyl slat inserts aren't terribly UV stable. They get broken down. They get brittle and they just crack and they look worse than anything. >> They look worse than the trash. >> I think we've all seen them at the
recycling site on bypass. >> Well, the applicants uh the applicant has suggested um in lie of the m masonry that they would do something like that. They were proposing sort of a standard tennis court fence that has vinyl slats slid in
between and those are the ones that really become a maintenance >> and you're proposing something different. >> What what we're suggesting is and tal I don't know if you've ever dealt with that. Most of the master halo and all the chain link companies make a 1 in or
3/4 in mesh um still chain link but it becomes very difficult to see through it. Trash doesn't flow from it but it still has the durability and the simplicity of a chain link. >> I I think that's
>> that's acceptable Mr. Chairman. We'll work out that issue with Mr. Taylor. But they may come in colors. You can work out the, you know, black, green, I don't know, blue, whatever. >> But work out a color that works for the situation. And this solves two problems.
This solves the um uh the waiver of the masonry enclosure because we're using the chainlink fence now as modified by this um this covering material. And um
uh I think I think you we have the the fact that these dumpsters have been there for 40 years is the testimony more or less. So um their their location is seems to seems to work. Well, that would be
>> Sailor seems to be willing to to to uh to give you the the location and your you're offering the the uh the the the better grade of slats or whatever we're calling that that material.
>> Agreed. And we'll work with Mr. Taylor to resolve that. >> And it'll be subject to approval by Mr. Taylor's office. >> Yes. >> So that takes care of um that takes care of 2 A through D. Um, the only other issue that Mr. Taylor raises in F is the
height of the accessory building. And you did give that, but I forgotten it. >> Mr. Chairman, we we originally had talked about a building with a possible height of 20 ft. We've reduced
that and that is now approximately 16 1/2 ft. 16 and a half >> at its peak >> where the uh where the requirement the permitted height is 15. >> That's correct, Mr. Chairman. >> So, so Bob and Mr. Taylor, we can the
board could if it was so inclined grant a waiver for that small height difference. >> Yeah. So that would be a C variance and I would suggest the board maybe consider 17 ft. That way if there's some variation in the final model, they don't
have to come back to the board. >> Right. Any board members have a strong disagreement with that? >> Thank you. >> Question >> on this storage building on these doors that you're doing. Do you plan on
bringing any type of not public but any of the employees work vehicles or anything into this building? >> The employees. What? I didn't hear the word. storage building. They're going to garage doors. Um, are you going to be bringing any type of vehicles in there?
The only reason I asked is because I know if you have any type of height issues with any trucks or anything, then your doors get higher and then the building gets so have you picked a building out yet? Have you thought about
>> I know that Mrs. Wright has. I think I don't know exactly what would be stored there. We have a golf cart. We have a plow. Um >> you would come up >> we have
no no trucks to answer your question. Okay. >> No no no trucks but we have a golf cart that we use around our lot. We have like a Bobcat that we use that's very small, you know, dirt equipment. That's the best I could do. I'm sorry. But no
trucks, no um maintenance work, nothing like that. It's basically for storage and things like our snowb blower, all of our snow equipment, uh shovels, anything that we use to maintain our property.
Plus, the reason for the garage is because if you need a new headliner in your car, that's the entire length of it. It comes in a very big box. Same thing with um sunroofs and uh some of the exhaust systems. They don't fit very
well. That's why they had the storage containers. Those oversized items would go in there. And that's why >> so the depth of the building will be as will accommodate >> correct >> items and then again the reason I ask is
because a lot of times um when you go look at buildings you take a look at the doors when the doors become higher for larger items then the height of the building and the trust line changes. So, I just wanted to make sure that they were normal size doors, not something really big.
>> Normal size. I think we have I think we have them at 10 ft, which is what I would say normal cuz otherwise they'd be at 12. Correct. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I just have two follow-up questions on the the storage building. So, there will be no toilet facilities
or anything else in the storage building? >> No. >> Um any water? You you mentioned that there may be water in there. So there may be a hose down or rinsing. >> There may be water just to let the techs
wash their hands or in case they have to do something with one of the machines, but most of the all that maintenance work, anything significant will take place in the shop. >> All right. So, so I think we need to clarify that
because if there is going to be a handwashing sink in there, um, then we need to make sure that there is water service, that it is properly drained, and you've got you've got that tied into your utility. >> Oh, we'll certainly do that. We we understand that.
>> Um, and then that there, you know, just to clarify that there are no toilet facilities planned in there. >> No. Um, and then you may also want to give I know you were saying it wasn't going to be conditioned area, but if you are going to have water service in there, you're going to address how
you're going to heat it that >> in the winter. We'll we'll address that. If um for some reason there is um some type of heat put in, we'll work that out with your office
and provide the necessary screening. But I don't envision that we would have any rooftop units or anything of that nature. >> I may question >> on the 10 by 15 for the EV stuff. Are there any batteries going to
be stored in here or is it just the repair equipment for the EV? >> It's really just the repair equipment. >> Okay. I just want to have that because that makes a huge difference if you're storing batteries in there. It changes everything in our construction world. No.
>> Okay. As long as I know that. >> Is there a question on that? Does Mrs. Wright have >> um No, no, I don't have a question. I just wanted to just clarify. No batteries. >> No batteries. That's an excellent question.
>> Talking We're talking auto EV auto batteries. Correct. >> Not small little seat. >> No, I'm talking about the the one that's basically the vehicle with the car on top. So, what we'll store in there is a lift because you have to have two lifts.
Your car has to go up on the lift and then you have to have a lift to lower the battery. We would not ever be able to store batteries in there because they have to be packaged and um have shipping to go out right away. >> So, definitely no batteries of that what
you're talking about. >> Y >> and the the rest is safety equipment for the EV tools and safety equipment. You would heard me represent that there would be no toilet facilities in that storage room. Is that correct? >> Absolutely. No toilet. That's the last
thing I want out there. >> But you might have you might have an eyewash sta station or a hand cleaning station or something like that. >> Probably something more on the lines of a hose bib. So basically if you had dirt
um say our tools had dirt, shovels, something like that, there would be somewhere to rinse off. That would be it. >> That would be it. All right. >> Or yard hydrant is a another good option. >> Are you on public forum there? >> Yes. >> And sewer.
>> Yes. >> All right. Um I think that um that completes item 2 A through G. Um well, I take that back. It completes A through F. We have the um
the freestanding sign issue. >> If I can clarify, we are not changing any signs. The only signs which will are proposed are the ones which were there when we purchased the property and remain there. So there
are no changes to any freestanding signs and no variances requested. The only variance is for a as I recall 14 square foot 5 and a half
foot height monument sign which will be placed on the common driveway with Black Creek just directing the public into the Nissan driveway. It'll be a Nissan internally illuminated sign. So that
would be how many freestanding signs on the site then? >> Four. >> Counting the three that we have now. There are this would be the fourth. >> All right. And uh what about uh building
facade showroom building facade signs? >> There are none proposed other than what may be there now. There will be no changes to that signage. >> I don't I don't know what's there. I don't recall what's there now to be honest with you. Maybe Mrs. could could
explain to us >> on the front of the building. It just says Mount Holly Nissan and it's set at as um set out as Nissan does on every building of theirs. It's always the name and then it always says Nissan and that
that's all I can have right in the front. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Taylor, what what what are your thoughts about these signs? And there is a sight triangle, separate sight
triangle issue for the proposed monument sign. >> Mr. Taylor uh mentioned that in one of his prior review letters just and we may need that so I wouldn't put it too far away. Sorry about that.
>> That's okay. Mr. Taylor mentioned that I Mr. Taylor had a concern about the fact that the sign was in the sight triangle and in response in our latest plan that sign was moved out of that
area. Would you show structural. >> You would show the um location. >> Yes, sir. The original location, please, and where it's been moved in response to Mr. Taylor's comments.
>> Well, and also, let me clarify there. The fourth monu pylon or mon or um identification sign is a monument sign which is proposed here on the north side of the existing driveway coming in from Black Creek's driveway. That sign as Mr.
Eer mentioned is 14 square ft little over 5t tall. It really serves as an ident or a directional sign for cars that are pulling into the driveway to know that this driveway is for the Nissan because it is quite removed from the dealership. Right. So, you're going down the driveway and the sign tells you
to stop and make a left here or >> it it says Nissan and then next to it there's a directional sign saying customer parking sales so forth. >> Go no f go no further. >> Go no further. >> All right. >> The concern with regard to the site triangle is that little directional sign
which is there are some images here that sit next to it that is on the road side was proposed to be on the road side of the sidewalk and that was a concern about the sight triangle. We have revised it on the amended drawing and we shifted both of them into the site
further to avoid the sight triangle. So the monument sign was not the issue with the sight triangle but the associated directional sign was just to make that clarification. But we've revised it to move it in to eliminate any impact to a sight triangle for a car exiting here
being able to look back this driveway. >> And that's a private that's the private driveway not not a public thorough affair. >> That is correct. >> And it's fairly deep into the site. It does. Yes. >> And just for clarification for some of the new board members, both of those driveways, part of the amended
application that's being heard tonight is to permit both of those new driveways because the original plan from 20 February of 2022. >> Yes. >> So, roughly >> um did not contemplate any driveways on
there. The first driveway was required by DOT that's closer to Route 38 and that was triggered by elimination of a driveway, a second Nissan driveway in the middle of the site directly from 38.
The applicant is also requesting um a second rear driveway to facilitate their load off their loading and drop off circulation um on the site. So that's those are two of the more sort of significant changes from the original approval
from 2022. >> So um show the board please where the other three signs are. >> Absolutely. >> That's ex these are these that's excluding the facade sign that we've already >> that that's correct >> described. >> Starting on the western side of the
Route 38 frontage. This is the existing driveway into the dealership. Just to the east of that, there's an existing monument sign, I'm sorry, pylon sign with a Nissan logo. As you extend easterly, somewhat center to the frontage, there's another uh sign where
it talks about the pre-owned vehicles, Nissan pre-owned vehicles. And then you continue westerly almost over to where the Black Creek driveway comes through. And then there is an existing pylon sign there. It's shown here, the three symbols in red.
>> Right. And you're proposing to keep the three pylon signs dimensions exactly the same. Is the sign itself, these these internally lit sign, are they going to change at all? >> There's no changes proposed at all to
these three signs. They're going to remain as they are currently with no changes. The only new or change to a pylon or a freestanding sign would be the new small monument sign back here that has the Nissan logo on it >> that we've spoken about. Okay. >> Yes.
>> And that is internally illuminated. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Right. >> Uh Mr. Taylor, your your thoughts on that given the history of these signs? Yeah, I I think you know this is sort of a unique access
uh where one of their customer access is coming in off a private drive. So I think there's good justification for better traffic circulation because the last thing we want to do is have somebody pull into that driveway and end up circulating through the Black Creek
site. So getting folks or even into the second driveway which is more of a service drive. So, I think justification to get folks into the site off of that drive are better. And frankly, once people know where this site is. Um, the
existing driveway right in front of the dealership is a tight driveway, very close to the building. So, I think a lot of folks will, you know, and employees sort of prefer to come in that other drive. >> Right. And and if I may add to that,
this monument sign, proposed monument sign is over 200 feet set back from Route 38. It's have very limited, if any, visibility from Route 38. So, it's not going to be drawing or advertising to the folks on 38. We have the travel
lodge next door. We have the parking lot. We have some landscaping in the water valve box for Black Creek in front. So really that becomes obscure from 38, but once you turn on that's going to onto this Black Creek driveway, that sign's going to provide that
identification for them to turn left. All right. Um that that discussion sort of wraps up 2G um under the bulk variance relief category. Um, members of the board,
section three on page 30 of 7 provides the the standard for granting the bulk variance relief that is being sought. Um, and you can all all read that at the
bottom of page three of seven. Mr. McKay, I can offer testimony from our planner if the the chair so desires that. >> Um, I know you have a planner here and um, this would be one of the reasons I
brought this definitional information up. So, and now might be a good time to have the planner address the bulk variance standards. Just for the record, Mr. Miller is is our planner. He was previously sworn.
And Jim, if you would address those issues. I'll probably go pretty fast here because I think most of the testimony is on the record, but it does need to be put in the context of the uh statutory proofs. >> Take your time.
>> The relief we're seeking this evening is a C2 variance in every case. And for a C2 variance, we have to show that the relief would advance uh purposes of municipal land use law and that the relief would be uh the the benefits of
relief would outweigh any detriments and that the relief would represent a better zoning alternative. And I believe that the purposes advanced by this relief uh are consistent throughout the uh the various variances. uh they are purpose a to encourage
municipal action to guide the appropriate use of land and development of all lands in this state in a manner that will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Purpose C to provide adequate light, air and open space. Purpose G to
provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for IDA agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. and purpose M to
encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with the view of lessening their cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land. Basically, as I go through the C variances, I think you'll find that they are appropriate uses of the
land. They will advance the public welfare. Uh they will provide adequate light, air, and open space. and they will provide for an efficient and sound layout for the overall project. The first um item I'd like to address is
the uh height variance. And I concur with uh Scott's recommendation that the height relief be uh taken to 17 ft. That avoids the issues you sometimes have with surveyors and then you know the grading. It's nice to have a couple
inches in there to uh give them give them some flexibility. The benefit of the relief is basically that it uh enables the storage building to be of adequate uh height and size to efficiently accommodate the storage
activities that are proposed. And again, the board's heard details already as to what that those activities are. So basically the added height allows it to have an appropriate roof pitch and a functional and efficient interior
uh for for the structure. So those are the benefits. The detriments are I believe uh there are no detriments from the leaf. Basically the added height is dimminimous. Uh it will not be discernible from uh certainly from Route 38 and probably not even from
adjoining the building. It's very difficult to distinguish between a 15t building and a 17t building. And I would also cite the fact that it's well over 250 ft from the nearest public hub rightway which is Route 38. And it's
also screened by uh vegetation from some directions and uh basically uh all these impact all these factors combined to mitigate any potential impact from this deviation. The deviation is relatively small and because of the setback the
scale of the building the location of the building and the sight lines to the building there is no detriment. So the u relief satisfies the balancing test. >> Mr. Miller, just one question. The construction of that building and this
overall plan will cure a prior nonconformity because the storage containers uh will be eliminated. Would you go mention that? >> That that's that's the most important point. What this what this what this structure does and the structure that's
added to the garage is it eliminates the need for the storage containers which are on site currently. And that's a significant benefit of of this relief as well. It allows the uh storage containers to be removed and it provides the uh a a structure that can
accommodate the storage needs of the dealership. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Board questions of Mr. Miller. >> Well, I still have the trash enclosures and the >> You're going to Okay. All right. >> Unfortunately, there's a they're all technical at this point, but I do have to go through the uh
>> Sure. the the proofs in terms of the trash enclosure. Um this is basically relief that allows the uh the trash um containers to remain in the location where they currently are located. Uh one
of the benefits of this location is it allows it prevents the trash structures from interfering with the circulation on site. Uh basically by tucking them into that location, they don't interfere with any of the dry vials or circulation activity in the rear of the uh of the
site. Um there's no uh detriment from this relief because of the location of the trash enclosure. Uh it's it's well over 250 ft from the the nearest highway and is fully screened from Route 38 by not only our building, but also by the
uh strip center, which is immediately to the west. there's only a little narrow area between those two structures and that that area is also uh heavily vegetated. So there's really no visual impact beyond the area
at the rear of uh the Nissan garage. And basically the the other potential benefits of the enclosure are or containing the any trash that might get loose. The uh containers themselves have lids and and enclosures, so I they're
not really prone to that. But regardless, I I agree with Scott's recommendation that the small orifice uh uh chain link fence is would be an ideal way to enclose and contain those trash uh receptacles. And uh so basically
there's no detriment from this relief and I think some significant benefits in terms of maintaining the circulation patterns on site and as a result I believe the benefits of the relief are greater than any the fact that there's no real detriment here.
Uh the next item I want to address is the uh freestanding sign. Um again, you've heard extensive testimony on this, but the benefit of the the sign, >> this is this is number four. >> Yeah. >> Freestanding sign number four. >> Free freestanding sign number four. The
sign that's on the U on the uh unnamed uh >> common driveway. >> Yeah. And the benefit of that is that it provides identification of the driveway and distinguishes the driveway as an
element of the Nissan dealership. Uh when I first visited the site uh a couple weeks ago, I turned into that driveway and you you do have a a moment of indecision. Even though you you you think you're at the Nissan dealership, you're not really 100% sure because of
the extent of the parking field. And what the sign does is it basically first of all identifies the driveway itself as an entrance to the Nissan complex. And secondly, it gives you some confirmation that you're in the right place and you know that you're going in the right direction, which I think is is a is a
benefit. And and there is no detriment from this sign. It's on a it's on a private drive. The only other traffic that utilizes that driveway is basically the truck traffic that's going to come from the uh warehouses to the uh to the
north. And uh so it it has a significant benefit from in terms of wayfinding and there's no aesthetic uh impact on the surrounding community because of its distance from Route 38 and its relatively small size. Basically, it'll
be screened from the 38 right away by by the parking and and and other elements there. So, again, there's a a benefit, significant benefit and no detriment from uh from that sign. >> Can you address please the issue of the
four signs where it appears two would be normally permitted? Well, f first of all that the three signs that are there are existing and and permitted and um the the fourth sign really isn't
creating any any kind of an impact which would basically what your sign is wants to do is it wants to control sign clutter and you don't have that here because um the fourth sign is not going to really be in a location where it's
readily visible to any other that it's more of a directional sign than identification sign. And you also have a a property with very substantial uh frontage. And if you think about this property, if it was utilized for other
commercial uses, it would would be typically located along Route 38. In all likelihood, you'd have more signage than what's there now. Uh so, um I think the signage is appropriate. It's necessary to identify the dealership. Uh
especially as you come um westbound on 38. There's just a lot of things going on there and and it really is helpful to have the the this it's necessary for from identification purposes for this use. >> Okay. Have you completed your comments?
Uh I believe I have except for um just some brief testimony regarding the u the setback along the uh along the the edge there on the western edge. Uh basically that's >> called the the 5 foot versus zero
>> correct setback for the display cars. >> Correct. Uh that's really an existing condition. it it may not need any uh any further relief but to the extent it does what the benefit of that is is that it it
again contributes to the efficiency of the circulation system. Um as you can see from the uh site plan the uh the lines kind of converge here in the corner and uh it it basically creates a
a more efficient layout for the parking in that section of the facility. And again, this is one where there's no detriment because the only uh utilization of that is by employees of the uh dealership and uh so uh it's an existing condition. It's it's
functional. It works well and there's uh no detriment and the relief does contribute I think to the overall efficiency of the uh of and circ of the circulation pattern. So to the extent it needs any relief, it does satisfy the the the positive criteria for that type
of variance. So I believe that covers everything unless I missed something. Uh I do want to just briefly go through the positive or the negative criteria. Uh and as the board knows there's two prongs to that. First we have to show that there's no
detriment to the public welfare. And then secondly that there's not an impairment of the intent of purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. And here also we have to include the redevelopment plan because this is also within a redevelopment area. In terms of
the um impact on the surrounding community, the relief we're speaking about this evening is is basically very limited at this point. Uh a lot of the more impactful relief has been eliminated through design changes over the past couple of months. But um where
basically the positive criteria show that there's no significant detriment from any of the relief. Uh, and none of this relief really changes the overall intensity or character of of the uh Nissan dealership. It's also an appropriate use to the area. It's a
permitted use within the um within the redevelopment plan. And it's located basically between a warehouse complex and a uh really heavy commercial concentration on the opposite side of Route 38 where you have home improvement stores, wawas, and what have you. So,
uh, basically this dealership is a good fit for the area and it's not really going to none of this relief is going to change the overall character or intensity of the use. So, there's no potential here for any adverse impact on the surrounding community. It's basically a a use with a similar
character and intensity and it's not going to change as a result of of the relief we're seeking this evening. In terms of the uh balance of the negative criteria, I don't believe there's any impairment of the intent or purpose of the zone plan or or the redevelopment plan as a result of this relief. Uh this
is a use that was contemplated by those plans. It's also part of an ongoing effort to achieve many of the major uh purposes of that redevelopment plan which include the elimination of the
diagonal road that used to service the area to the north and the creation of the the new driveway which is located on the u on the eastern side of the property. And what that does is it creates a much safer and more efficient circulation pattern both for the
warehouse use and also by eliminating uh this uh very uh obsolete intersection between the uh that travel lane and route 38. And those were those were significant uh goals of the
redevelopment plan. They were the reason that this uh property was included in that plan. And this this is another step towards the uh the uh uh implementation of that redevelopment plan. So from that perspective, I don't think there's any
question that there's not only not an impairment of the intent of purpose of the plan, but there's actually steps which are implementing that plan. As a consequence, there's uh this plan these variances also satisfy the negative criteria. they apply to this application
and as a consequence I think that the uh all the variances would deserve your approval. >> Thank you Mr. Miller. Board members >> I have a question or statement is that on the C boxes um if you go ahead and
approve everything can I have a time frame that they must be removed by in the resolution for enforcement issues? Mr. McCay, our our intention, Miss Nukem, um our intention,
we need to use those until the storage building and the um a small addition to the rear are completed. >> Then I'd like to have that as a condition in the resolution that upon that completion that they removed
immediately. >> Well, can we get 30 days to do that? That's up to the board. >> Okay. >> But we've gone through this before with other sites and it always needs for my enforcement and the things it needs to
be specified in the resolution. Um because I've used those resolutions and enforcements on several of our commercial properties to have them removed in the time frame that we're supposed to. >> We have no objection to your request and concept. I would just like to have a
little >> That's up to the board. >> Right. But that's certainly acceptable as a condition. That was our intention. >> And I think that same concept, and I don't mean to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, go ahead. >> Same concept actually applies to the
execution of the improvements because this is a site that is already operating. We're already operating based on the 2022 approval, which was never perfected. The plans were never perfected, but the site has been operating out there.
loosely under the 2005 approval, but that approval was never perfected. One of the requirements was easements. So, this the site has been used organically is probably the nicest way I can say it uh for some time. So, I think
it would be appropriate for the applicant and the board. Um, normally if this was just a farm field and they were building a dealership, they wouldn't be allowed to open the dealership building until all the site improvements were totally completed. But because they are
already open, I think some time limit um would be appropriate and whether that is 12 or 15 months or 18 months of of how long this project is going to take um so that we aren't three years from now still operating out there, but none
of the tree maybe the signs went in, but none of the trees did and none of the some of those other improvements. >> Yeah. Your your your letter, Mr. Taylor of the 17th uh makes that point and so
um I guess the question Mr. Eisner is uh what do you suggest as a as a deadline for completing the various components? We are we are now in
for this. We're approximately halfway into the fourth extension which could be granted by the board. We don't we have to go back to do we have to go to soil conservation.
I would like to have the time until I'd really like to have the last possible extension within which to complete this. Now, I know Mr. Taylor's concerns. I know the mayor's concerns,
the township's concerns. We are here tonight because we want to move this matter forward. Mr. Taylor suggested as an accommodation to us in May, try to get your plans in so that you can appear in September. We
got them in as quickly as we could so we can appear tonight. So that would be my request. Um the DOT is impossible to deal with even on something as minor as this as minor as that second secondary
opening. Um, we will work with Mr. Taylor's office to come up with a staging plan. That was mentioned by um, Mr. Jeff. I know that he and Mr. Taylor have discussed that.
We can't >> Can we put a date? I think we have to put a date. And if I can, if the board just grants you your full extensions from February of 2022, that extends you through February of 2027. Correct. >> Yes.
>> That doesn't actually say that the the improvements will be installed by that date. That just protects your approval from any changes to the ordinance. So there would still be no actual date that you had to do the improvements.
>> My intention, frankly, and and that was my mistake. My intention subject to speaking to Mr. D. Simone, who's here tonight, we would accept that as a a date of finality.
>> So, February of 27, >> whatever that date is, Mr. Kingsbury knows the exact date from the date of the memorialization of our prior approval. Yes, I feel confident that we
can get it done by then. If we run into a problem with the DOT, we'll speak to the board. That's all we can do. Um, but I will also tell you that we will revise the plans as if this
is approved as quickly as we can. We will copy Mr. Taylor, Mr. Desai, Mr. Kingsbury and I guess Miss Tyiver and anyone else you want so that you know we're proceeding diligently. That's what our
intention is. We if we could get this done tomorrow, we would do it. My client would love to have this done for winter and have her parking lot done because she's selling cars and when the winter comes, everything becomes a mess. So, we
will get this done as quickly as we can and we can accept that as an outside date. >> Okay. And um Mr. Kingsbury, do we have that date? Do you have that date h handy? >> I believe it's March, but I'm second.
The only issue if we are running into an issue with DOT because I can't imagine it would be with any other agency, we'll come back to the board and advise you of that. We certainly won't come in here in February of 2027 and tell you that we
had a problem. The original approval was in January uh 5, 2022, but it didn't take effect until the adoption of the resolution, which would have been February whatever the first Wednesday in February 2022 was.
>> February 2. So the date is February 2, 2027. >> Do your on-site improvements require DOT approval? I >> the driveway reconfiguration.
>> I believe that um it's just the driveway that requires that. But I think a lot of that will depend on what the outside agencies >> that is if the board approves this and DOT is an outside agency
>> unless and until they sign off on it, you can't start anything on site. So, the board may want to consider splitting this and tying that those driveway improvements to the DOT approval, but giving you the authorization
to start with your on-site work as soon as the plans are finalized. >> We still need I think Mr. Taylor, we still will need Mr. Desai outside approval from the Burlington County Planning Board from the uh from soil
conservation. >> Agreed on all. >> Okay. So we don't have any objection to that. >> So my thought is especially with these SE boxes and the building uh the storage building is that in
segue from Scott's thoughts is that if the board were to approve it and then separate that out per se is that can that storage building be started long before DOT has nothing to do with
it. In fact, it makes more sense because if you're going to be doing construction back there where the storage building is at and the seat boxes are to come out, you're going to be bringing vehicles, you're going to be bringing equipment and everything else. So, my thought is
to if the board again were to approve this is to consider that to have a time frame for the storage building and the um seat boxes removed. Um, and basically that's, you know, I think one of the
more important things here because it's back there. So I I just feel like because these SE boxes obviously are not permitted anywhere in town without, you know, approvals is that I don't see why that that can't have a time frame on it.
>> We agree to do with DOT. >> We agreed. I think what Mr. Taylor was suggesting was that the DOT approval be, if I can use the term, bifurcated from this and that the remainder of the improvements be completed and that we
begin working on those immediately, which we'll do. But we can't commit to a date when we're subject to other agency approvals. >> But I I don't find that the storage building and the sea boxes have anything to do with an outside agency. What they
have to do with is that we can't we can't put up our storage building until we have outside approvals. We don't have the right to do that. >> But that outside the outside approvals, which are several
um in order to construct the storage building, you'll need you'll need those, but you won't need the DOT approval. >> Understood, Mr. Chairman. And that's fine. >> So I think what's being suggested is that there's a you use the term
bifurcated. I'll use the word the term two-tier. There'll be a two-tier deadline. Uh uh one being this February 3rd or second or third
>> second um uh 2027 for the entire project. and then perhaps a uh a shorter deadline for the nond do related improvements.
>> I had understood it differently but I guess we can >> well Mr. Kingsbury. >> Why don't we ask that question? Why don't we ask the two separate questions? When we said overall, you had said, you know, the five-year extension period, we should have everything done February 2.
I presume that that included the DOT drive, which is 19 months from now, which seems for a roadway construction permit realistic. So, if we have that as a driveway date certain, February 227,
that we're really not going to carve a whole lot off of that. Um, what is a realistic date for the on-site improvements? Understanding you need county county planning board shouldn't be much of an issue and soil erosion shouldn't be much of an issue.
What is, and maybe Mr. Jeffris needs to opine on this. What is a requested time frame for those things to be completed? Is that 12 months? Is it October 30th of next year?
You're So you're suggesting everything anything including what Miss Nukem s spoke about except the DOT approvals. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Construction of the new building, >> right? removal of the sea boxes,
the the parking setbacks, all the the things we haven't even discussed yet. Some landscaping, that sort of thing. All of that wrapped up into a a different deadline, a shorter deadline, >> Mr. Taylor. Yeah,
>> there I was looking at their D approvals up in 206. Do they need to go back then for that's round four technically? Would they have to go back and have that updated wetland delineation
>> DOT or D? D >> expired when >> it is up May se actually May 17th 2026 >> so >> it's 9 months >> we should probably put something in there that they need to either get a
letter from D extending that or give us justification of why the commencement of work stops the tolling of the time on that permit but at least just address it. Lost >> I don't have.
>> And what was the date of that expiration, Kathy? >> Uh May 17, 2026. I think that I'm going to uh modify Mr. Taylor's suggestion. I think November 1st, 2026
for everything else should be fine. And again, I think the board's treated us fairly. If we are having a problem, we will know immediately and we'll come back to the board and keep you advised. But I think that's a realistic
date and the uh other members of our Nissan team feel the same way. >> All right. And then as just a further complication to this, the the you've proposed a 30-day uh removal period for the SE boxes once
the storage building uh >> is gets occup gets an occupancy permit. the storage building and I guess that little bumpout >> and the bumpout assuming they're built at the same time. >> Yes. >> And is the 30 days acceptable
>> to you, Kath or? >> Correct. Uh we can do I'll note that and we'll make it for construction permits and and um we'll set that as a note that's to be removed uh at the uh 30 days within the time of the CL.
>> Right. >> That's that's >> that's fine. So in any event it would be by assuming we don't get the get the CO until November 1st 26 it would be um
December 1st 26 just by way of example that's fine right >> so are they both going to be done at the same time obviously I have two different cos >> we hope to do that it depends on the availability materials and things like that
>> the representation is that you'll do it but it doesn't matter Even if you do them separately, the 30 days starts to run when you get the CO for that particular >> right from the first C >> building, >> right? And that's >> and then one more complication and that is this D permit for the wetlands
delineation which is apparently up May 17, 2026, nine months or so from >> while you approach the talk back there. I asked that question is that did they do you folks have to go back to D for
asked for any extension because your permit expires May 17th 2026 from D >> Teal. Could you address that please? >> Yes. >> Something we discussed and I'll call on >> Mr. Jeff. It'll be 2026 before we know
it. >> Just trying to quickly locate it. get my fingers on at the moment. >> It's It's actually right here. >> Yeah, I was going to say I had a copy with you. Yeah, with regard to this. >> Yeah, the expiration is May of 2026. Up
until that point, uh the work can commence. >> We are looking at getting >> So, however, as of right now, that permit is valid. >> Oh, sure. >> So, from an approval point of view, >> um it can be approved understanding that
that permit is valid. If work continues after that, technically we would need that consent. >> I just want to bring that up. >> Sure. >> All right. Thank you. >> It's understood, Mr. Chairman. Miss Nukem, thank you. >> All right.
Um, Bob, do you have all those >> deadlines? >> Okay, because we can we can uh we can move on, I think. Um let's go to um let's go to page four
of seven of the um the tailor design letter uh of June July 17th and these are um a series of uh design waiverss
uh under the general comments questions um and Mr. Taylor, read along with me. I think that um >> and we touched on some of these. I could >> Yeah, we we have touched on some of these and I I you know there there are 18 or 19 of them. I'm happy to go
through all of them, but I think we can cover some of them quickly. >> Um and maybe I can suggest that you go through and tell us where you think >> we have. Yeah, >> we have done enough on and any that we that we need to.
>> So, we're on page four of 7D. the general comments. General comments. Right. >> Thank you. >> Right now, we don't tech we don't have hours of operation, number of employees site on number one. We don't we don't have any of that, but we could get that very quickly through some testimony.
>> Well, and the main thing we said because this is an amended approval, the board can really rely on all the prior. So we had really just asked them to highlight are there any marketked changes from the conditions or the testimony from their
prior approval and if they say no the the operation is substantially the same except we have added a storage building for those items that they spoke about then I don't think we really need to get into rehash all those items unless there's something in particular the
board wants wants to hear about >> there there are no changes. I just wanted to comment on D4 about deliveries. Um, going back at least 40 years, Nissan
does very late night parts deliveries four or five times a week. The truck comes in, it's approximately the size of a UPS truck. It It has a key to a certain area. It unloads and it leaves.
So that would be the only exception to those hours. >> So you're not talking a semi-truck back. >> Oh, no. No. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then and you say those could be up to um what up to up to the middle of the night, up to midnight or something like
>> Yes. We can't we cannot control that. Coincidentally, when I was >> The driver has his own key, he lets himself in, drops off the parts, and he leaves. And when I was reviewing for the meeting today and read the resolutions and um related to the prior applications
by Mr. Hessert, that was disclosed as well. It's been going on that long. >> All right. In so far as just the the the garbage trash truck aspect of this, is the 7 to 7 uh still a workable time frame? >> It is. Yes.
>> All right. Um >> and on on three you can provide all the cross access easements. >> Yes. >> Agreements that give you the second access to the Black Creek Drive provide. >> Yes. In fact um I know that
I believe that you saw the consent we received and of course Black Creek signed off on our application to give us that permission. >> Right. Right. >> Um All right. So on the the the timing of deliveries, um
uh I guess we do you're you're agreeable with the 7 to 7 that includes car deliveries but not parts deliveries, I guess. >> Yes, >> that's the distinction we can >> Yes, >> we can fairly draw because you can't control the timing of the parts
deliveries. >> That's correct. >> But on the timing of the the the big car trailers, the 77 still works for those. It does. Yes. >> Okay. So, um ex accepting parts
deliveries which the applicant doesn't control. Um all other deliveries between seven and seven. >> Yes, that would be fine. >> Okay. And then on five, um
I I I I guess there could be a need now for some new testimony on the route of car truck deliveries or since the road configuration has changed a little bit. Teal, if you could, this is uh number
five. >> Yeah. >> Uh D5 in Mr. Taylor's letter. >> Is that ours? I don't think so. >> Time to get a new stand, guys. >> You know what I think I'm going to do to
get this? I don't want to >> have some have somebody maybe put a hand on it while you work off. >> I just I'm going to refer to the turning plan that's included in the >> right
>> timing, route of travel, frequency of frequency of deliveries are the three. >> Okay, let me talk about the route of travel. I think we there was some discussion a moment ago about the timing uh the frequency. I'll let Mr. talk about that. With regard to the car
deliveries, trucks will enter in from the Black Creek driveway to the second driveway of the rear uh position or stage in the in the back part of this lot to unload the inventory vehicles on the north in the northeastern corner of the property. and
then turn and exit out through the front driveway, back on the Black Creek driveway, and back out to Route 38. This parking lot and the driveways were designed to have that circulation route for that truck that was designed with a 53 ft trailer. We also accommodated that
a truck a delivery or parts uh Jeff can also come in and maneuver through to the front to make deliveries to the dealership and then exit out onto Route 38. Now, there's also discussion that a trash truck can also come in through the
existing driveway, come back to the dumpsters, then exit back out to the existing driveway on 30. >> Mr. Jeff, could you explain to the board how the deliveries occur at this time before the
at present because we're not using the rear driveway now. At present they they utilize the front driveway off of loop 38 and then they also use the the new driveway off Black Creek access drive. >> The car car from from henceforth the car
once that driveway is is open if it isn't already the car carriers will use the the new driveway. will use a new driveway. And there's directional sign here to indicate truck deliveries to the rear driveway. And then another directional sign here to direct trucks
into this driveway. >> Okay. And there will be no unloading of cars then on route on the shoulder of Route 38. >> No. >> Correct. That's correct. >> Absolutely not. >> Okay. >> All right. And the only other thing the only other piece is frequency of car of
car deliveries. >> Mrs. Right. three to four per week. >> We were asked to >> Okay, so we get truck deliveries, car deliveries via tractor trailer holds nine cars,
>> car carriers, three to four a week. I don't and I just want to clarify that I don't have control over that. Meaning >> they they could come two in a day, they could come one. Maybe that's just Nissan
and how they travel, but they do come during working hours because we have to inspect the cars and they never I can't say never as far as anything under my control. Never any delivery on 38. And
before we used to come in our second driveway that we no longer have, that was the designated driveway. And and this just will be so much nicer because they have a route to go around. >> Right. >> Currently, it's a little bit challenging.
>> And the 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. time frame, that works for the car carriers. >> That is our hours. Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. Uh on um D general comments number six,
we've I think we've uh covered the trash enclosure business before and we have timing on the pickup. Um on uh eight uh seven was stricken on
on paragraph 8. I think we've covered everything on the building. Nine has already been addressed. >> Nine has been addressed. Um, you read faster than me, say so. Um,
I think we've covered 10. We've covered um we haven't covered 11. >> Yeah, 11 is new. The prior approval required um that that angle drive was going to be restored and reveated as
lawn and green space and the applicants now proposing 35 uh service department vehicle spaces in there up to a gate and then they're actually showing the asphalt staying all the way back to the Black Creek property
just by way of explanation that the majority of that pavement was put in by Black Creek because they were using that driveway for access off Route 38. I'll defer to Mr. Jeff.
>> The the prior approval, excuse me, proposed to remove a portion of the asphalt of that existing diagonal driveway. I had the plan necessary, but approximately some place back into here
with the balance of that asphalt proposed to remain. Under this scenario, when we modify the parking to come back 15 ft from Route 38, provide the necessary driveway or drive a width and parking saw widths in the front. That
was a comment of the prior application. It pushed everything back, pushed the fence line back. We're relocating the fence line back into the site, keeping the gate location With that, it really reduced the service area. So, what we were proposing to do
is utilize that pavement that's there as parking for the service area, extend fencing around to the backside and just enclose that into the service area, do a little infill paving between that and the existing edge of paving and make that part of the service area. So, we're
utilizing that service drive for parking within the service service area. We're proposing a gate at the back and weaving the the bounds of that asphalt. And really that's just going to serve for maintenance purposes for access to the rear portion of the site for maintenance
reasons. This is not going to be utilized. It's going to be a gate uh that'll obviously be secured each night to secure the service area itself. >> Mr. Jeff, my I seem to recall and I guess you and Mr. Taylor can correct me that the
impervious coverage for the property is below the allowable 75%. I'm looking at Mr. Taylor's letter page four his table there. >> That's correct.
>> And does that include your calculation including that that pavement remaining? >> It does. >> Okay. So that was that pavement was originally left because this approval was supposed to be a phase one before a new
dealership building could be built which would have needed a new new redevelopment plan. That pavement was specifically allowed to remain as part of the redevelopment plan so you could count it toward your regulated vehicle surface as impervious for your
dealership expansion. Knowing that that is not part of the long-term plan now, I don't see any reason why we need to leave a 20 foot wide asphalt driveway for lawn maintenance at the rear of the
site. And and where we had significant restoration of that area before, I don't see any reason um that that area be left as asphalt. The the one concern that we would have if we were to uh to remove that would be
the added area of limited disturbance on the property and it potential impact on Madison. >> So that was kick you into a major for greater than kick us into a major What what do you see is the Mr. Taylor,
what do you see as the real detriment to leaving that as as is and having the use is now proposed? Um, this is a site that has grown organically over the years and wherever land could be cleared and turned into
stone and cars parked that has occurred and having a double wide gate there and allowing the asphalt opens it up for this or subsequent owners or any future dealership owner to be able to utilize that space. So,
while it would be problematic to kick this into a major development, um, leaving a double wide vehicle access gate back to that area, um, just seems like opening up that we're going to be
storing things back there. So, at a minimum, I think the gate, >> you know, just solid, leave that solid and let it have a 4 foot man gate or maintenance gate. I was going to say the Scott and the board
if you would be we can revise that to let's say 6'8 the reason being six foot case maybe through there or something >> get a small you can get a small vehicle through there but not traffic >> uh I don't even think a small vehicle would go through a six foot even a golf cart might be a little tight
>> lawn mower would I guess the golf cart golf carts aren't 6 feet wide at least not the ones I've >> I mean we would also accept the condition in the resolution that it is not to be used for vehicle storage or anything of that nature. Whatever Mr.
Taylor is comfortable with. >> Well, from an enforcement and believe me, just those words don't mean nothing to most business people two, three, four years down the road. I am constantly having to go back
because over the weekend we decided to do this or we needed to get through that. the fence with the gate to me on an enforcement end is acceptable. Just putting that verbiage in there that we're gonna do it. No, it doesn't work.
>> My suggestion was that both be put in. But I think the gates's fine. The gates's fine with us. >> All right. We'll we'll we'll accept the offer of both going in for the resolution.
I think I think 12 has been addressed. >> Let me see. Um 12 has been addressed. 13 has been addressed. I think >> um 14 I >> I think has been addressed. >> Has been fixed.
>> I'm sorry, Mr. K, I didn't hear. Uh we we're we're just going over uh page five of seven and we said that 12 13 have been addressed, 14 I think has been addressed. Mr.
Taylor, tell me if you disagree. Um 15 has been addressed, 16 we haven't discussed, but it seems like a pretty simple issue. >> That's acceptable. We'll work out the location with Mr. Taylor, >> right? Um
17 is just a a requirement to just a a note that has to be should be put on the plan which I assume is no problem. >> No, it's not. >> Um >> 18 is more information. >> 18 is more a comment than it is a a a
design suggestion. Uh moving to page six of seven under building design. I think we've covered that quite thoroughly. >> Yep. >> Uh so let's move to F lighting comments
>> and summarize. Can you just are there any of those comments that you can't comply with? >> There are not. I know that the um this was I I think that you that there were similar comments made on our first
application original application. Um we don't have any problem with this. We we have to have and I think this is in number two when you say discuss the hours the lights will operate. I believe
that we have one row of lights which stays on in the showroom all night and that um reduction overnight to security levels. The parking lot lights would be dimmed but they really should have to
remain on for security. There has been a problem with vandalism. So we would like to keep those lights on but I think that that was similar to the comment about on the original plan. And I think yeah, I think there was a condition in the prior approval that the
lights will be dimmed, >> right, >> andor turned off within one hour after closing. All right. So we the the previous approvals on lighting really doesn't sound like they've changed. The lighting situation really doesn't sound like >> it has not, Mr. Chair.
>> Previous approval. the needs, >> right? >> Not changed. >> They have not. >> Okay. Uh G, we're down to landscaping comments and um
they pretty much uh G1 through nine are all relate to landscaping comments. Um do you have a you have a general position on on all of these or do we want to take them one by one?
Teal, >> let me uh quickly summarize the the landscaping and I think it'll address a lot of those questions. There are a lot of those coming. Um with regard to existing uh vegetation and trees on the property, the survey uh reflects the
location and size of all the individual trees on the property itself. That's been added to the survey and reflected. We've identified and categorized trees that are being removed uh in this area here to allow these improvements. Uh we've determined >> that that being the new driveway area,
>> the new driveway uh and a connection between uh across the diagonal driveway. There's a total of 11 trees being removed under the ordinance requirement for replacement trees. There's a requirement for seven replacement trees.
Um there's also a requirement for street trees. U at 40 foot on center based on the frontage that equates to 14 trees. So there's requirement for 21 trees to be planted. We are proposing to plant
those 21 trees along the rear uh and in the center part of the site uh back away from the display vehicles. Uh the concern that we have is having those trees around the display or inventory vehicles in terms of limb dropping, bird droppings, leaves, damage to the
vehicles themselves. So we we what we're asking for the board's consideration in this case is to allow us to plant those quantity of trees, but plant them at a location away from the display vehicles rather than in and around the uh the
site frontage or uh around the display vehicles themselves. Thirdly, there is a requirement for shade trees one for every 20 parking spaces. When we look at the number of parking spaces, we look at the customer, employee, and service parking spaces.
Um, and we calculated there was requirement of six trees. Currently, there's 47 uh significant trees on the property. We remove 11, we leave 36. Uh so we feel that that shade tree requirement of six is more than
adequately compensated by the existing vegetation the existing trees that will be kept. Now in addition to that we are adding some uh three ornamental trees in the center here. We're adding some decorative shrubs and some ground ground cover that uh on these interior islands
that help define the access way or really the route for customers to come and go through the site. uh that along the frontage of the property, we are adding uh shrub masses uh with infill or areas in between uh was originally proposed with um peel or decorative
stone. Um >> yeah, there was a comment about flipping that into a lawn area. >> There was some concern and some discussion and and Mr. Mr. Taylor and I discussed that and after further evaluation, what we're what we'd like to do is take some of these stone areas along the front and change it over to a
ground cover or something similar very low growing ground cover. Then along the side along Black Creek Driveway, uh revert that to grass. Um >> you're going to sprinkler that >> if that's a requirement. Uh we were I
know that right now there's no irrigation along the Black Creek's driveway. unsprink unsprinklered uh planting areas large uh large enough uh such as these are um
tend not to survive without uh without sprinklers we have found and um it just makes it look ugly after a while. Whereas you're putting in that much shrubbery in at that cost
wise to sprinkler and keep them looking nice. I I know that that's a a desire by the client or the applicant to have it look nice and be kept nice. I >> mean the last thing you want is to put them in have half of them die and it look looks ratty and rather rather you
want it nice and green and lush and well cared for. It's very inviting and that's what you want, I'm assuming. >> Correct. >> Correct. Now, um, is it is it the board's position that all landscaping
areas would need to be land irrigated? >> I don't think I said that. I was referring to the to the front areas. I don't know what you you I don't know what you what you're referring to. All landscaped areas. That could be the back of the site as well. could be the
islands by the delivery truck areas. >> My thought is with irrigation along the the front there along the route 38 frontage. >> Mr. Taylor, what do you think about that? >> Yeah, the redevelopment plan actually offers some language that suggests irrigation for those highly visible
frontages uh along sites. So the site frontage and and perhaps the Black Creek Drive um up to or perhaps just past their customer entrance off the Black Creek Drive. That way that most visible portion
is well established remains healthy. Um but then those interior areas of the site can be and we can work with them to try to select plant material that'll be a little more drought resistant. this way that sort of public facing strip um
>> that would be acceptable. >> Just to clarify, Scott, we're talking about this area here to the driveway, >> the site frontages, and then perhaps, you know, 20 ft past that first driveway, the Black Creek.
>> Yeah. Just so your sign area, >> that's acceptable. Mr. Chairman, >> I got I got a question. Are the cars parked behind that shrubbery right there where the sprinkler system is going to hit? >> So along the Black Creek Drive, they're only proposing lawn. They're already there are shade trees or street trees
that were planted in conjunction with the Black Creek all the way along that drive. Um so there won't be any shrubs along there. There will be some shrubs planted along the Route 38 frontage and some low ground cover and those are pretty heat tolerant. and where are the
cars at compared to the the only reason I'm saying that I'm a car guy. I never park my car by any sprinklers because that does a number >> and if you got your cars parked right in front right there and those sprinkler systems they're going to do a little I
mean it's tough to get some of those stains out of those cars. >> Well, so that's my question. >> I would imagine Miss Wright will put half circle heads along that curb line so everything is only shooting out. But yeah, I've had the same issue. If somebody puts the full rounds in, they're overspraying the parking area.
You're hitting the vehicles. >> Yeah, that that's a good comment, but >> yeah, sprinkler designers are have different ways of doing it to mitigate that, including drip lines. >> So, um I I think your sprinkler guy can
come up with a solution very easily. >> Okay, >> circling back on street trees, the ordinance does require street trees along the Route 38 frontage. Um I understand the concern about the trees
um overhanging vehicles and damage. Um one of the things that we had suggested I know a couple times along the process is there are some very narrow upright shade trees that get 10 to 12 feet in diameter like a bohall maple. Um we have
a 15t planting strip. So those types of street trees could be installed um along that site frontage and those branches would then not overhang any of those vehicles and and result in you know fruit dropping or bird droppings uh on
the vehicles. So that may be something the board wants to consider. point of history years ago in the Hesser time frame of ownership or maybe if there was somebody before that
there were trees along Route 38 street trees and they were all cut down one day. >> Mr. Chairman, I know that that is extremely problematic to my client. Um >> the presence of the street trees. Yes,
just the street trees because the that first row of automobiles is our our shelves. That's our display window and the street trees will block that. So, we really would appreciate it if Mr.
Taylor would think about allowing us to dispense with those. >> Well, the board has to do that. The our ordinance and the redevelopment plan have the requirements. We had suggested if you use a single branched high stem, none of the branches would be below 7
ft. Average height of a driver looking in is about 2.75 to 3.25, sometimes four feet above grade. So any driver you would have a 46 inch caliber tree, but all of the canopy would actually be
above your inventory. So there would be minimal disruption to that cone of vision to be able to see the bumpers and the windshields along with 30. >> But don't those trees still shed shred leaves? I mean shed leaves. >> Uh trees do. >> Okay. Those tree those leaves will blow
around especially in the rain and they'll get stuck on the cars and they can cause significant paint damage. I mean we've Mr. Taylor's been extremely accommodating. And this is just one thing where we disagree. >> What's the board's sense? Can I Can I
hear it? The board's sense on these street trees. >> Well, I recall this being an issue on past applications, a point of contention along a lot of dialogue about the trees along the front >> and I recall the board supporting having some
some type of tree along that frontage, some type of compromise >> for the whole eastern half of the site. The applicant was supposed to have all of the cars set back 50 feet >> and they're 15. >> They've asked the board to reduce that down to 15. So if they were complying
with the 50 ft in that area, there'd be more than enough room to provide the required street trees without incident. >> How many are required in that length? >> 14. >> 14. Is there a way to review this to come to
some of some type of a better solution or clustering or something that could mitigate any potential damage to falling leaves? >> Absolutely. Any any solution of something if the board has any direction on that and whether that is provide
seven along the front or cluster them at the corners. Yeah, I think that that would be even if you just spread them out even like I said limit the amount and then addition to that maybe put them on the ends that way they give them that that pop when
they drive by you see the trees that you see the the cars and then you see trees you know they give them that opportunity of that window when people are driving by that might be an option >> Mr. Chairman, if if I could make this suggestion because I think the comments
are very helpful. We have to our professionals and Mr. Taylor, Mr. Desai are going to have to meet. I am hopeful that they can come to some accommodation. So if the board favors us with an approval, that's what I would suggest.
Teal, is that all right with you? >> That's fine. That's fine. The only other thing that I would suggest to the board is that there's concern in terms of the appropriateness of the trees in front of these vehicles. I know typically in a in a replacement
scenario, if an applicant's not able to plant trees on their property, one of the other options is to plant trees in an appropriate location or public property. I would offer up if there's a another adjacent or close property that is available for street trees where
those trees could be provided for that scenario to plan them at that location. That could be another alternative. >> The ordinance, our ordinance doesn't provide for that in any way, shape or form, only for reforestation. And that's all subject to township committee
approval. So, this board doesn't have the authority. There's nothing in our ordinance that allows trees to be planted off site. So, the board would have to consider some degree of waiver relief. >> Let me just uh I'm not um I'm not advocating this. I'm just pointing it
out as as a possibility that um street trees could could possibly be planted along uh along the new access route, but that might require
>> they are already Black Creek was required and they they have put them in consistent ordinance. >> They've done that already on their on their stretch. Is there just lawn there as are there going to be any type of bushes or lowlevel foil like plantings?
>> They're not. >> Can can we do that? >> Mhm. >> Yes, there are. >> Okay, that's what I thought. Yes, >> the entire stretch. >> Right now there the entire stretch and then there were some stone areas
intermitting. So it would be a mass of plants, stones, massive plants. What we were discussing earlier is that we'd be willing to that that those stone areas out to a ground cover. So, it's a continuation of vegetation along the front edge. Right? >> It's all low growing. It's not going to
obstruct the view of the vehicles. >> It's knee high or waist high at at best. >> At at best. >> Right. And and you're and and you'll get rid of the stones and you'll irrigate. >> Yes. So, I just jumped on Google Maps and I was looking around along Route 38
corridor at other car dealerships and I don't see trees along their frontage, >> specifically the Ford dealership and the Chevy dealership, but beautiful green lawn, >> irrigated beautiful green lawn
>> and the Chevrolet dealership is just stone. Um well Mr. Ozie you you make a good argument for against the trees and I guess the question is
um how would the board members feel if we left this as Mr. Eisen has suggested and that is that he uh we we leave this the tree issue to um
uh to a a meeting and a further review with the professionals to see if we can come up with um perhaps a substitute for the street trees. I think >> some sort of some sort of of good
substitute for the for the street trees. >> I think Teal that's okay with you. >> I would just ask for a little more clarification in terms of what that substitute acceptable substitute would be >> just so that when we when we meet we
know what the board's clarification is meaning my substitution might differ from Mr. Taylor substitution. I just want that clarified. >> The requirement would Mr. Taylor would be 14 trees. >> Yes, sir. >> Um
14 14 trees or some lesser uh amount that is is is deemed to be equivalent, not numerically, but at least in terms of the the uh the appearance that it provides,
>> as long as there would also be some consideration, as Miss Costco suggested, of an a more intense shrubbery buffer or something of that nature. And I think that >> right that you could take maybe maybe 14
trees turns into a shrub >> a large sense that than what was originally proposed. Yes. >> Right. >> I think that Mr. Jeff suggested um eliminating the stone area between the shrubs.
>> Right. Putting in uh putting in uh drought tolerant grasses or other shrub >> ground cover or >> grass even a lawn. >> Right. >> Miss Costco, how how does that sound to you? I mean, it's good, but I also grapple with the idea that, you know, generally
you have a landscaping and a maintenance crew that can utilize tools available to them to remove the leaves and to make sure that those situations aren't occurring or to mitigate them as they do occur. I mean, I'm,
you know, it's it's >> I mean, you couldn't you just, not to interrupt, but couldn't you just prune them the to a smaller size at some point? Just keep them the way hypothetically, you know, a two foot, three foot wide to six foot high and and
keep them at that height all the time. You know, if somebody a fresh professional comes in, I do it to my trees. >> I can't >> I don't want to have a 20 foot tree. I keep it at 10 feet. >> I can't comment because if I if I touch the tree, it'll be done. So, you're
asking the wrong person. >> Let me understand. >> What do you do about snow? I mean, you send somebody out to cut clear the cars for the snow, right? >> Yes. >> You know, for me, it's a car dealership. the stone that's there. You get decorative stone that looks great. You
want people to see the cars off of 38. You're not for me. I don't I can't understand why 14 trees can't be put somewhere on that property because it's so big. >> I mean, I >> Yeah, that's what >> I want to look at the cars. I don't want to be ducking while I'm driving by to
see a tree or whether it's, you know, hedged or whatever it may be. >> I think something decorative off the street would look great in stone. And if we can put these 14 somewhere on that property. I mean, >> we're we're doing what we're supposed to
do with trees added to this area. >> This is a car dealership like >> uh she had mentioned before the Ford dealership or the Chevy dealership. You ride right be past them and there's nothing in front of them. >> And >> part of that is the age when they were constructed. That's what we're aspiring
to. There there are other car dealerships that have a few street trees along the site frontage in Princeton and Cherry Hill and West Windsor and Stafford and other places and and and it can work if if if the board wants to relocate them further into the site that
that can easily be accomplished. Um but but it can also be accomplished the other way successfully. that if the board is leaning towards eliminating the street trees along the frontage and moving them in the there's already a requirement that they provide a
continuous hedge along the front and that you know that is really it's not even waist high it's more knee high. Um so there will be full visibility of bumpers and headlights along that route frontage but instead of just having all
stone or just low lawn there will be a low vegetative strip along that front. But if the board is more inclined to to move those inside, we can move those interior to the site. >> Frankly, that would be I appreciate Mr.
Taylor's comment and your comment. That would be our preference. >> So, zero street trees in the front. >> May, Mr. Chairman, >> I'm sorry. >> May I make a statement? >> Absolutely.
>> So, um a few years ago, um we did the project over at the old um Hadenfield fence where the Hatesburg Auto Truck is and they bought that small building, turned it into offices and everything.
And one of the things that we did do there and to the this day it still looks fantastic and they have an irrigation system on it. I don't know if you recall this, Scott, is that they had this really nice small shrubs out the front.
Um, and they were kind of layered through the project. Um, it looks fantastic and they it's very wellkept. They're hearty. Whatever you suggested, I think they were first. >> Yeah, they they look really good. Um, just my thought is that that might not
be a bad suggestion to still have that landscaping uh and and not the trees. I don't know if you any of you ever go by you put auto and truck and there's the little >> office building there. >> They're like little boxwoods or
something. >> Yeah, that's what it looks like. >> That's all there are. >> All right. So, there's Let me just uh get a uh a vote of the of the board right now on this because we've talking about this for ages and still haven't come to a resolution. We got to do
something. Um, we have the 14 proposed uh street trees per uh our professionals, but laid on the table is a proposal to eliminate that requirement so long as
the applicant agree to plant an equivalent number. um on the site uh in a manner and in a location
um that's agreeable to the planner and that will be something that will be discussed negotiated with the applicant. Um, poorly framed, I suppose, but what who who's in favor of that sort of
compromise here? >> Got to raise your hand so I know. Looks like I got a looks like I got a clear majority. >> They put the 14 in. Yeah. >> All right. Now, is that is is that agreeable to you? >> It is agreeable. I'm sure we can work
with Mr. Taylor to come up with locations and I think that that's very doable. >> Mr. Taylor, is that something you can work with? >> Yeah. So, and just for clarification, can they go internal in the parking lot islands or are you basically saying at
the rear of the site adjacent to the preserve woods? >> I would say we want to we really would like to keep them away from the cars. So just for the board, they they will all be >> at the back at at the rear of the site >> where there's already
>> a lot of trees, >> foilage and trees. >> But I don't I don't think it excludes the possibility of beefing up the shrubbery in the front so long as it doesn't obscure the cars. I mean, you can have something that beautifies that
front strip of grass. Uh it could be the rough equivalent of two trees or something like that. That's fine with us. I think that we can come up with a solution >> and the other 12 trees might go in the back or whatever >> or elsewhere where it could be.
>> All right. >> We I think we can work that through with Mr. Taylor. >> All right. Uh let's just um Mr. Taylor, let's go over the landscape requirements real quick. G1, we've just spent uh good good
bit of time talking about that as well as two. Uh number three, the applicant has already indicated that those stone beds will be removed and replaced with either
a type of shrubbery or perhaps a lawn u based upon an agreement with your office, Mr. Taylor. >> Yes. Um, have we covered four? >> We we did and the board we we spoke about this on another recent application
because that was adopted as a township code and not a land use code. The board does not have jurisdiction relief from that. So, the applicant will have to comply with that or would need to seek relief from township committee. >> Right. We're we're out of our
jurisdiction on that one. Okay. >> Which with number four. Uh we are providing the required replacement trees on site. We're now requesting a waiver from that. We've determined that there's a requirement for seven uh >> you say six >> replacement trees that we're planting on
the property. >> We're talking about item number four, the tree replacement requirement under order. >> Yes, we are. >> Yes, >> we are complying with that. >> So that'll be complied with. >> Yes. and reference through 5 through nine.
Uh there should be no problem on that. They're just notations on the plans. >> They're all acceptable, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Um let me just turn to the Alimo letter of July 23rd.
Um Ryan, um where uh are there any disagreements or stumbling blocks that you you have on your engineering issues? I did not an engineer and respond for everything my
letter and I believe comply with everything I have >> is that uh is that correct? >> Yes, I know that there was information to be exchanged but I'm sure that we can work that through with Mr. Desai. >> Very good. It's good to hear
>> the um storm water basement uh management plan that's adhered to >> t the storm >> number 11 on under storm water drainage calculations >> maintenance plan uh yes that's something
that we'll work with here to put together rain for the existing >> okay and then what metrics were used in calculating how much storm water would need to be managed in the site. Um what numbers were used as far as amount of
rainfall? Um the the new numbers or old numbers. >> The the project doesn't classify as a major development storm water regulations which would then trigger compliance with not only the current but the projected rainfall amounts and so forth.
>> Uh because this was evaluated as a non major development. We looked at it from an overall site. of the values based on uh rational method and current rainfall amounts >> like today. So 10 years from now it might not >> I'm sorry
>> 10 years from now it may or may not or like >> is is there an issue currently with the rainfall now there's a bigger warehouse in the back and we had you know 4 in >> sure the warehouse in the back was designed to comply with
>> right >> the DDP and the town ordinances at the time >> and that's working well >> and that's got storm water management measures and I don't know how that's working. I haven't inspected that site, but my understand >> it's not flowing into your site though. >> No, what that does is that actually that
site accommodates flow that came from the travel lodge over into the site and also accepts the overflow from the site uh into their system. That was designed as part of that system. Uh to my knowledge, there's there hasn't been any issues with the storm water system on
this. >> Okay. Um or any further board questions of the applicant or board comments of the applicant before I open it up to the public?
>> Um COA where are we doing COA on the addition but not the storage building? Um the the township's um the affordable housing assessment will apply as required by the ordinance
to the value of >> the equalized one and a half or two and a half% equalized >> redevelopment plan have a certain number on it like >> yeah whatever whatever is required the board is there the applicant is
required. >> How does it know if the accessory building was needed? Well, the assessor then approvement applies that >> to the equalized assessed value then then it would be contributing. If that's all set forth in the statute
>> questions hearing none seeing no hands um may open this up to public comment if there are members of the public that wish to comment upon this application or ask a question about this application.
if you would just raise your hand and uh then I'll take you one by one. Seeing no hands raised in the audience, we'll close the public session here and ask if anyone online wishes to comment. >> There's no one online.
>> There is no one online. Therefore, I'm going to close the public u public hearing a public question session and uh we'll uh look for guidance on a
resolution. So, >> uh they are asking for an amended final site plan approval with certain bulk variances. The bulk variances that we discussed are in the tailor design group
letter uh under bulk variance relief and the board agreed to grant those variances with the exception of 2B which refers to parking setbacks and the applicant will work with tailor design
group to uh satisfy an alternate solution or an acceptable solution to that otherwise the applicant is going to comply with the uh requested setbacks and maintain existing conditions.
Um the applicant uh has agreed to all items in the Alimo engineering review letter. Uh going back to the Taylor Design Group letter, uh they will comply with the
recommendations of the Taylor Design Group letter and uh wherever there are discrepancies in the plan, they will meet with uh uh Taylor uh TDG and uh either comply
with the prior approval or they will seek an alternate solution. As far as deadlines are concerned, uh the see what I have here. They have uh until and if I if I got
these wrong, Steve, correct me or Scott. Um they have until uh they have a DP approval until May 17, 2026. >> Right. uh the uh
they have until February 2, 2027 to obtain NJ DOT approval, >> right? >> And and construct >> and construct the going in the bumpout, >> right? DOT related material, >> right?
>> And there's an 11126 date to complete dis construction. Well, uh, >> I had slightly different dates than that. I had November 1, 2026 for the buildings and all site work.
>> Right. I have >> 30 days. >> My note is comp complete construction all buildings and site work except for DOT >> the DOT drive >> issues. Okay. So, we're we're on the same page, >> right? But that's that's February 2, 2027
>> for the DOT >> for the DOT driveway. >> For the DOT driveway, but for >> all others, it's 11126 >> and then 12126 for the removal of the storage >> 121, right? 30 days later.
>> All right. >> Okay. >> With 30 days from whenever that building is we get a CO from that, >> right? That's actually that's that's correct. So if the CO is prior to 111, it's 30 days from that date.
>> So I think our dates sync up. >> That's what my notes reflect too. Um there was extensive discussion on the trees versus landscaping in the front
and my understanding of that was that the applicant will meet with Taylor Design Group to seek an alternate solution to the requirement to plant trees in the front in terms of alternate locations for those plantings and
landscaping strip along the front. I'll put in a proision a provision that is this uh development applies to or COA re regulations apply to this development and there was no public comment. So they're seeking amended final site plan
approval with those conditions. >> Okay. >> Under the bulk variance relief. I know we said B they're going to keep the five feet. Was C also keeping the five feet or was that one >> you're asking about the C boxes?
>> No. Oh, under 2C were we uh >> under B. >> Scott, which page was that if I >> uh three of seven. >> Okay. >> Three of seven. >> I know on B we said we were going to move it back five feet. That's to the left right in front of the building. We
were to diagonalize. What was C? Was that are we going >> was that the 10 spaces of at the rear of the site are okay? >> Okay. Okay. >> And that um the one foot in the front display space in the bottom
left corner of the site that the applicant will attempt to increase that with the angled reconfiguration. >> Okay. >> We're as I recall we're to meet with Mr. Taylor to try to resolve that issue on the parking configuration.
>> Yep. >> All right. Um, members of the board, does anyone have any question about the proposed resolution that you may have forgotten to add or
something that you have a question about? >> Mr. Kingsbury stated that's a sixoot fence at the rear. >> Right. I'm going to include that >> single sixoot gate. >> Okay. >> Did he mention that I'm sorry if I didn't hear it? >> I didn't mention it, but it will be in
the resolution. And uh you're also approving four freestanding signs, including the monument directional sign. >> Right. Three existing, one new monument sign. >> Any board questions on the resolution?
If not, let's call for a vote. >> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, we have that small orifice um fence. >> We agreed. >> Yeah. If you guys agreed to it tonight and it's in my notes and or Bob's notes, it'll be in the >> Okay.
>> So, enclosure will be the I think the board concurrent. >> Okay. >> Small mesh chain link. >> Yeah. I've forgotten the exact the phrasiology of the type of fence, but yes. And no and no uh we we're agreeing to leave it in where it is.
>> Yes, that was my understanding, Mr. Chairman. >> Right. It's just a matter of uh the new fencing around around it. Instead of those slats, we're using the other material. >> Yes, we'll work that out with Mr. Taylor's office. >> Right. Exactly.
>> All right. Let me call for a vote then. Um there being no questions on the resolution. Uh roll call, please. I need a first and a second. >> Oh, that's Well, we have a resolution. We have a resolution framed. We haven't actually had one made.
>> You're right. It's getting late. >> Yes. >> Uh someone wish to um uh make a resolution based upon the outline frame by council. >> So move. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Roll call then.
>> Mr. C. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nvarita. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Tory. >> Yes. Mrs. Leen, >> yes. >> Mayor Gilmore, >> yes. >> Mr. Chakochi, >> yes. >> Mr. Mai, >> yes. >> Miss Costco, >> yes. >> And Mr. McKay,
>> yes. >> Thank you very much. I I know it's been a long application. I appreciate your patience. >> Well, thank you for your cooperation and your client's cooperation tonight and uh good luck with the project. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. Um, moving on. Uh, we have minutes from the June 4, 2025 meeting. I have a resolution to uh adopt those minutes and approve them as drafted.
>> Some moved. >> Second. >> Second. We have a second. >> Yes. >> And a roll call. >> Mrs. Tory. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Luton. >> Yes. >> Mr. Novarita. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gilmore. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jakochi.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Mai. >> Yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Miss Costco. >> Yes. >> And Mr. McKay. >> Yes. Now, we have three resolutions that were voted on at the last meeting
that have now been reduced to writing. We have resolution uh 2025-24, which is the Hannesport Logistic Center, uh granting a one-year extension of minor subdivision approval.
And um if there is a motion uh to uh approve the resolution as drafted, I I'll be happy to hear that from someone. >> So move a second. >> I'll second. >> Second person.
>> Roll call, please. >> Uh Mrs. Leen, >> yes. >> Miss Costco, >> yes. >> Mrs. Tory, >> yes. >> Mr. Novarita. >> Yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mai. >> Yes. >> And Mr. uh McKay. >> Yes. Yes.
>> All right. Then we next we have resolution 20 25-25. This is uh the Frank Palante LLC application on the three single family houses constructed
uh across from uh the Wolfington bus depot. Um, can we have a motion to approve as drafted? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Mrs. Tory, >> yes. >> Mr. Novarita, >> yes. >> Miss Luten, >> yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy, >> yes. >> Mr. Mai, >> yes. >> Miss Costco, >> yes. >> And Mr. McKay, >> yes. Finally, tonight we have resolution 2025-26.
This is Mr. and Mrs. Singh, who uh sought a variance for a threeseason sun room on the back of their house over in Mason's Creek. Um, can I have a motion to approve the resolution as drafted? >> So, I'll make the motion.
>> Oh, go ahead. >> We have a motion and we have a second. >> Mr. Novarita. >> Yes. >> Mr. C. Murphy. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Tory. >> Yes. Yes. Mrs. Lutin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mai. >> Yes. >> Miss Costco.
>> Yes. >> And Mr. McKay. >> Yes. Um, nine is correspondence, but I don't believe we have any correspondence. >> So, that's a that's a non-issue. >> Yes. >> And uh the next meeting will be on uh
>> September. >> September 3rd. Wednesday, September 3rd at 6:30. Yes. >> All right. >> Yeah. Uh any uh oh >> any professional comments on tonight? >> Is Mrs. Tory did you have to leave the
room? >> Mr. Taylor, I want to thank you in particular for your help on this complicated matter tonight. Um >> it was important that we get it right and I think we did. >> And um
>> I do I do greatly appreciate council's note takingaking on the resolution. It's extraordinary. >> Almost ran out of >> preferences. >> Uh any uh any board comments?
>> All right. Any uh any public comments >> from the room or online? >> No. >> The room's the one fellow in the room I can make out is shaking his head. No. Uh, >> so it doesn't appear to be public
comment. >> Um, anybody online want to comment? There is no one online. >> Uh, Larry just popped back on. >> Okay. >> I don't think he wants to comment. >> Larry's been on and off all night. So, >> uh, if there's online public comments,
unmute and we'll hear you. Hearing none, we'll close public comments. Uh, a motion to adjurnn would be in order. >> So, move. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Passes. >> Yeah,
>> good job. That was >> That was a lot. >> Yeah, >> good job. >> What's that? >> All right, I got to sign some stuff. >> Oh, I know.
>> That's why we come. Oh, by the way, my