How are we doing online? We got everybody on. Okay. All right. It's 6:30 in the Hesport Township Joint Land Board meeting uh for June 4th called Order of Flag Salute. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible and justice for all. Okay. I'm Tom McKay. Uh chair um had the flag salute. We'll do the
sunshine law. Notice how this meeting was published in accordance with the open public meetings act. All right. And we have no new business after 10:30, meaning that we won't start something after 10:30, but we will finish something uh anything that has uh is
ongoing as of 10:30. Uh um Secretary do a roll call for us. Mrs. Tardy here. Mr. Narita here. Mrs. Lein here. Mayor Gilmore here. Mr. Traco here. Mr. R. Murphy here. Mr. C. Murphy here. Miss
Costco here. Mr. Holden absent. Mr. Mai here. Mr. McKai here. All right. Uh we have three items for business today. Uh the first one probably should be fairly short. Mr.
Dia, are you here? Yes. This is case 23-06A JDEB Mourn Highway. Uh it's preliminary and final site plan. And Mr. Julia, um
the board has your May 21st, uh 2025 letter requesting an adjournment. Uh but I'll let you um give us uh more amplify the reasons for the request. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh I have to start off by uh apologizing.
At the last meeting, I was emphatic that we would be ready by tonight. And I even offered that if we're not ready by tonight, just dismiss it. Uh, I totally believe that. I knew that there were a couple of things that we had to do.
The previous meeting and the meeting before that, we came here and we found that there were an inordinate number of engineering issues that were still open that had not been addressed. In short, uh, we came here unprepared.
Uh, I know that the board and yourself, Mr. chairman uh was direct in in addressing our professional uh and uh he was not he was not prepared. We felt that having had that
happen and that it was time to relieve Bill Nicholson of his responsibilities and bring in somebody fresh to take a fresh look at this and make sure we were addressing all the issues. Uh we did that promptly. Uh after the last meeting
uh my client interviewed a number of uh engineers was uh able to hire Terry Combmes who is here uh to answer any questions that you might have as to what he's been doing. He has been working diligently to try uh to get everything
up to date. We were not prepared for the time we had to file the plans. Uh it it's hard for me to tell you how embarrassed I am by this. Have to be standing here to say this, but it happened. Uh but it but it happened and I think what we have done is taken some
very positive steps. Uh I think it's in all of our interest to find a way to get this thing approved. We need to get it approved so that the client can move forward with his business. And I think the township needs it approved to clean
up a site that is, as I've expressed before, I think is unlikely to otherwise wind up being cleaned up. I respectfully I apologize. I respectfully request that you give me additional time to let Mr. Combmes complete. Now, I uh Scott, uh
you met with Terry today, did you not? We did. and uh they but to try to lay out, you know, what needs to be done and what he's looking for and what he's looking for in the new plan. We're expecting the survey next week. uh all the details that were not on the survey
that we were making sure are on the survey, but we should have that next week and that'll give us a chance to submit new plans and have a full meeting with both uh Tererry uh with uh with Scott as well as the uh
LIMO engineer. Uh with that, I submit to your discretion on granting the postponement. Thank you, Mr. Douly. I I must say I I I think that the shortcomings that created issues here were not on your part. Um and I do
appreciate your assistance in trying to move this forward. Thank you. Um you've proposed two dates um having uh relisting this if the board agrees to the adjournment for July 10th with a document submission to
professionals of June 20th. And I just want to make sure that those gates can be etched in stone. And if not, then we ought to confront that right now. Terry, when I've been talking with Terry uh and
as I say met with Scott earlier today, and I asked him again just now, let let me let him address the board. Let me swear a minute. You swear or affirm the testimony you give will be a truth, whole truth, nothing else truth. I do. I do. Terrence Combmes. I'm with
the Petty Group in Manua Township. I'm a licensed professional planner and licensed landscape architect. Both in the state of New Jersey. My licenses are still in in good standing.
So, we have so we have these uh these two dates and um I I I don't think we should delude ourselves in because in the past uh we've had trouble. Yeah. Complying with with deadlines. So don't
create an artificial deadline and give it to us and then break it. I'd rather have a real deadline. Understood that June 20th was the the June 20th is the document submission to professionals date. I I'll say this, the plans are 85%
complete. I've done everything I can do. We needed survey information. Our firm does not do survey. We're using the surveying company that did the original survey for the property and uh the the information on which the previous site
plans were prepared. Um I'm supposed to get this they're supposed to be out there Monday getting the rest of the information we need. Um and you know if I have that I I can tell you definitely the 20th I
said I spoke with them as as recent as last week. They said Monday they were going to be out. So I can tell you yes, we can make the 20th. Um I can't commit that I can trust the survey. That's the only thing that
um the survey has everything in it. The 20th is is real. Um I I don't want to be standing here again in a position being here now. Uh, and if uh if it's acceptable to you and you want it to
take August, I take August. That's got to be Frank. But I I'm trying to push it because I know it's taking too long. Yeah. I mean, frankly, uh I' I'd like to I like the June the July date if you give that as long as I can say this. I
the information that we need from from the surveyor isn't I I don't believe is critical. Um, I think I could I could I haven't I've met with Scott. I have not had any discussions with your uh your engineer,
but I think I can if if for some reason the survey is delayed, I think I can uh discuss several of the engineering issues with your board engineer and we can get the plans in. um they'll be
subject to the final survey, but I think I can address most of the engineering issues without having the actual data. I just was reluctant to submit an incomplete set of plans given the history of the project. I didn't want to, you know, think, you know, the
reputation of our company coming in to replace another engineer and and being in the same boat. But the plans, uh, I, you know, having reviewed the plans with Scott, I I'm confident that, you know, we're pretty close to where we need to be. Um, if the 20th is critical to the
board, I'll I'll say yes, we'll have them in the 20th. There may be a couple uh issues that need to be added to the plans, but I like I said, I think I can address those issues without the survey information. Um, Scott, uh, is that is
this a schedule something you can work with? It it works for us. Again, subject to not really knowing exactly. So, for all of us, it's sort of taking that leap of faith of it comes in on the 20 and it's clean, then July would be great. If it's
not, then we're back here having another brief discussion in July and we're in August anyway. So, it may make sense to just list it for July. Everything's good. If for some reason the survey is either incomplete or there's some major issue, we reconvene in in July
um and then it gets pushed to August, but it may make sense to just shoot for July. Ryan, are you on board with this too? Yep. I'm on board with that. Okay. Members of the board, questions of the witness or Mr. Julia. Mr. Chairman, one question please.
regarding the the rule. This might be a question. Can you use the microphone? Yes. Usually I speak loud enough for everyone to hear, but I just had a question. Since it's July, a lot of people are going to be on vacations. Uh the rules of eligibility for board members to vote
is if you've missed one meeting, there's a good chance this we've had so many meetings on this particular one. Almost everyone up here has probably missed at least one meeting. Uh eligibility to vote. Do you have to have been at every meeting or you can listen to it? You can actually go online and listen to the
recording and sign a documentation with me stating that you list listen to it. That way you can hear it. Okay. I believe there was a couple board members that already done that. I was one of them. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That that that raises a question. U Bob th this one
might consider this July 20th um hearing on this to be almost a new presentation on this. And the question is uh if there's somebody on the board who
uh has not heard every one of the episodes of this um of this development application. uh is is it necessary to listen to them given the fact that we're getting a brand new
uh sort of start starting from scratch um site plan. Well, if I can, I'll let Bob answer that legally. I don't think we're starting from scratch. There's a new engineer doing the plans, but I think we're at the 85%. I don't know that we're going to revisit
every what's in each building and and start entirely from scratch. That's your view of the you you've seen the plans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yeah, I I think I I think we're trying to get this from
60% of the way there, whatever that percent was to finalize. They just happen to be using a new engineer. But I think all of the testimony and at least my notes from all those prior hearings are going to be the basis of sort of my evaluation.
Um but I but I would defer to Bob and and council because I I don't think you're looking to start this really from scratch. So our plans are are basically just filling in the blanks and there were there were quite a few blanks but
um the our we used the pre previous engineers base plans um and then just you know worked at the on the letters and added things to the plan. So um it's not like a a complete change to the plan. It's it's just a supplementation
of the previous plan. I'll speak on this. I've been I've been to every one of these meetings and I'll be honest with you, I can't remember every little thing that we've talked about on this. It's almost like I need to have a refresher course and that's not on a video watching 3 hours of video. It
almost has to be recapped from the beginning. You know, I don't want to make this any longer than I have to either. No. But I also don't want to make a decision on information that I think I remember but I don't necessarily remember or it's on a video somewhere that I interpret that I interpreted
wrong. So there's a lot of variables in there that I have to almost guess on. You know, I don't remember which way the trucks are going, how much time they can they make a left off of that road, can they make a right off of that road? Correct. There's a lot of information there.
Two really good points that I hadn't thought of, by the way. Uh yes. Uh if you're a board member, uh I think it's a good idea to go and uh check to make sure you were at the meetings. You are I've already confirmed yours. Uh and the
uh uh also in terms of what I wanted to do when I came back in, first of all, I want to republish and renotice uh uh rather than keep making announcements at the meetings. Uh I I the the list is old and I want to get a new one up to date and I want to notice
the public and I want to advertise accordingly. Um I don't think it has to be a totally treat it as a totally new application but I think it behooves us to come in
here and explain it our presentation which would not be a presentation for the fifth hearing. It should be a presentation like it's a first meeting. So, we go over everything we've proposed, what we've resolved, what we
haven't resolved, what we need some input from the board from, but it's got to be a pretty exhaustive presentation and I feel very comfortable that we can do that. What what I might ask then, you know, Mr. Chochi's point is perhaps in conjunction with the plan
resubmission, if you or somebody on your team I don't know if that was me or not. Sorry. Um perhaps go through and and give us and do a written summary that's perhaps two or three pages that says
building one will be used for this. No outside storage. It will be this. the four containers in area two and have a little bit of a precy so the board members can have that in advance of the hearing because that that 18 minutes summarizing
6 hours of hearings is is a little overwhelming for all of us. But if you could submit that up front, the board engineer in our office can review that and then try to make sure that that's sort of encapsulated for the board members as as a reminder. We know that some of those things are actually
changing because um the modifications to the site plan, but I think maybe a summary uh anything listen a nice presentation for once would be perfect. But obviously to have
that on top of a summary page would be you know at least a better try than we've had up until this point. We agree. We agree. Absolutely. Good idea. All right. That suggestion will be taken to heart. I'm sorry. That suggestion will
be taken to heart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. On the July date, will we have a list of what will be done for remediation on the site and the schedule for when it will
be done? Will that be part of what you're presenting? Um, we keep hearing that, you know, this is good for Hannesport because you'll be cleaning up the site and remediating it. And so far, I have just heard maybe everything has dissipated. So, I just I would like to
know where we have that um information. I don't The answer is I I don't know as I'm standing here. What I do know is that we did engage in LSRP uh and I know we're working on it. I know that I think there are a couple of issues that I have to work out with uh
Mr. Taylor uh uh with regard to exactly what the parameters of that are, but we'll have a lot more to present to you at the ne at the next meeting. Having a full remediation plan is uh is a lot. I
mean it but uh we'll at least be able to give you uh some comfort level as to what we are expected to do and how we how we plan to do it and what we how we plan to use the property in the meantime. So I I I can tell you that I'm
doing the best best I can on that. I know he he couldn't join July. 400. Okay. Any other board member questions? Well, uh the one question I know the frustrating part from the last meetings
was that line item, you know, going through all that stuff and it wasn't completed. We just want to make sure that when July comes that we're able to go through the list and get everything answered because that was the frustrating part that last one. I mean, it felt like nothing really got completed and we just want to make sure
you have the time. I mean, is July going to be enough time for you or is it going to be August? Cuz we don't want to be sitting here again. He's we're comfortable with July. I I'm as anxious you are. And I think the only thing I disagree with you, it wasn't just the last time, the last few times
that we went through this that I thought I'm not an engineer and uh that I thought we had smoothed over and when I got here I heard what I heard and the only thing I would say is we'll be submitting
on or around the 20th of June and depending on how quickly your professionals can do if it was August, that would give us time to work out any any issues that Scott or Ryan have with
the plans prior to coming before the board. I mean, that's the that would be the only advantage I see pushing it to August. Let me let me give another When do you make the final decision on the agenda? I've talked to you about you have what these agenda meetings are.
Pre-aggenda meetings. Yes. Um Can I ask you when that is? And maybe we could tell you give you a better idea of what we really want to get July, but if we need August, is there a way I cannot mess up your list by telling you by a
certain date? Monday is our pre-agenda. Monday like uh the 9th, 5 days from now. Yes. Right. At 3:00 at 3:00. So, so I would say that um we should
settle on a date today whether that date is June 20th that the professionals the professionals have any reason to believe that moving it to August would help with some um dialogue after the reports are submitted. I can I can appreciate that
but we can keep it to July. I'd prefer to keep it to July, frankly, because I prefer to keep the pressure on everybody. Yeah. Um, pass. We all know.
We all know how that works. I've never seen you do that. All right. Uh, there being no other comments, um, I have a motion. Oh, Tom, you had one. I'm sorry.
uh the um FRP plan that we've been asking for at several units has no information whatsoever. I think it's very critical that we get that on time to know what the area of concern is what
the cleanup plan is because otherwise is this going to be a medical or not? To me it's a very [Music] part of the
process here. We look good. As I said earlier, I can't I can't guarantee you that. I can promise you that we're going to do everything we can. I know we have an LSRP in board. I've never spoke to you. Uh but uh that would be my goal is that uh that we have
something significant for you from the LSRP on the 20th is what we said. I'd like a financial I want to see report before I get this vote to me if it's not
[Music] that's a big deal. Well, we know we have to do it. You're asking me to tell you I'm going to have it for you by a certain date. I I I apologize. I'm not prepared to
answer that. If you feel safer uh with August, I'm fine with August. I personally would prefer July like everybody else has said. Uh but I will uh I will have more information on on that tomorrow.
No, I understand. I I just to add to this. Yeah, mirror [Music] testimony here will be I do um I had contacted the LSRP. He actually I was going to engage him for this particular meeting with the
postponements and what have you. But yes, to answer your question, he'll be here to answer questions. um because it's been such a long drawn out process since he did the actual findings. Um he's probably been a little bit uh to to really verify the where the
plume is and all. He knows where the wells are and all that type of stuff and how deep the contamination is and um but I'm going to have to probably review with him to find out exactly. Um I kind of gave him a a line item on the list of exactly what you guys were looking for.
I didn't know that you wanted a verbatim plan. Um, but uh I knew that you you were very concerned. The board the board itself was probably very concerned about how long it was going to take the process. Um, but I think that uh I I had
a full intention of having him. So, um, when I when we have a definitive date for the next one, I'll make sure that he's here to answer any type of questions and kind of I guess kind of get a um an idea of exactly what you guys would like because I I know that
there's uh there's going to be uh extensive work in that regard. Well, you know, we're talking about July or moving it back to August. And what you just said now gives me doubt that the July meeting
um is sufficient time for your expert to get together and plan, which is what he has to seems to seems to seems to want. I think it's I think obviously safer,
but uh again I was trying to push this the same recently. Who is the LSRP? Uh Spencer. It's it's it's dynamic Earth. Um but he he's not sure if he's going to be able to I told him about
July, but I wasn't I wasn't cons I wasn't um I didn't know the exact dates. He's going to have a very choppy July. This is the same information that we've asked for in about three at least. We we've we've submitted everything. We I
I've submitted to um uh the board all his findings, 500 pages. We've already submitted that. It's been a while ago. Um but according to um my understanding you want something a little bit more
definitive in regards to the the plume how long it's going to take and that particular process. So he has to revisit all of this long process. I think any information is helpful, but because dating back to the use variance, a lot
of your testimony for the positive criteria for the grant of that relief, right? All tied back to we need relief for all of these other things because we have to spend so much money on the environmental cleanup and we've asked asked for some particulars to substantiate the
testimony that you've given in support of that relief. At the last hearing, there was some discussion that the site is actually naturally dissipating that contamination itself and there could be a period of time where nothing needs to
get done. So that was two months ago. So the board has and the professionals have been asking for some degree of specificity to substantiate the testimony that you've already given to back that up to
understand are we talking about $800,000 which I think was one of the numbers that was put out or are we talking about $8,000 and then the board can take that into consideration to Mr. from the Tai's point of what length are you going to to
do this and and what relief does that sort of justify to fix up that is not in a great shape now. So I I I think the answer is as much as you can give us. We know that we're not going to have a work plan that says 18 months of this, 36
months of this, 72 months of this, but anything is at least a start. But to date we have Nothing. Essentially nothing. I disagree there wholeheartedly. Okay. All right. Well, I I think that in order
to really get a more definitive answer, um it's he actually probably will have to retest all the wells. Um when I said that things are de diminishing was from the last um test it's a benzene contamination. The problem with benzene
it doesn't disappear. So it has to be removed. That's the problem. That's what I've always told the board was it's a benzene contamination. It will not uh disappear both of it. It's going to have to be removed in some facet unless
unless something has come up that I don't know about that they can actually treat. they can't treat them. I think that's slightly different than what was related at the last hearing. There there was some reference that one of the LSRP said that the site is actually naturally dissipating the
contamination. So what's what's actually necessary from a remediation standpoint is really unknown. Well, I I I we we have to get you that information. We we know that and you know, we understand the questions. U
you know, I think there's a limit to how much we can provide. In any event, but the idea of having some idea, some clarification on the parameters and the scope of the project, I think uh I think
we'll uh be able to do that and we'll be in we'll be in touch with you as well. I mean, if I may at a minimum, would the LSRP be willing to identify what reports have and investigations have been done up to this point? Has there been a preliminary assessment done? Has there
been a site investigation? And is that what you provided to me, that large document? Yes. If that's the case, then maybe the next step is a remedial investigation work plan. Can the LSRP provide us with what they will need to do to get to that remedial investigation
work plan state? Because I think that's what the board is looking for. What is the plan to remediate? Can we get some type of prior to uh next month's hearing a timeline or an outline of what it is that they that he or she needs to do up
to this point and what the next step would be and the use of the site and how that interplays with the existing contamination in terms of capping. what types of remedial investigation can be explored or employed to satisfy the
board and your testimony that you're going to make this remediation. Yeah, I I think that uh um I know how slow this this process is regards to the remediation aspect. I I don't know if we'll be able to do by July. Honestly, I
think that um I it I actually want this now. I firmly believe with the current uh engineer, I think that the site plan will finally get processed. I actually want to take that next step. So now I want to fully engage the LSRP to to
start that process. So that's I guess uh answer your question. I think that it's it's important for me as well as as the board to find out exactly where we stand at this point. get retest, you know, test the wells, see where see where we're at and actually get a more definitive idea of what's happening and
what what uh how we proceed. So, in addition to their testimony next month, will they be able to provide some type of an outline of what they expect to again, if they can if if they can do the parameters, the time parameters? Um, I I firmly believe they'll be able to answer
all those types of questions and and provide the board with some sort of a synopsis of exactly what's going to happen prior with along with the submissions, the submissions. There's no way they're going to have Can we get something from the LSRP ahead of the meeting? I can only again I I I'm going to have to I'm gonna have to talk to
him. I did talk to him today uh just via email um just to find out you know what what uh I told them a line item list of what I thought was going to be asked. They realized that you want they you guys want a little bit more definitive information. I'm going to have to go
through all that with them to find out. I know it's going to take time. It took him two weeks to get back to just to just to just to confirm uh he'll be able to show up. I I appreciate time because I remember you sitting in my office four years ago starting this project. So, I
appreciate time, but well, um to answer your question, I I'm going to uh I'm going to discuss with this uh tomorrow at least see if I can get them on the phone um and uh address some of the concerns of of with you as well as the board and myself. I I need to find out
where where we can how how we can proceed in regards to the remediation aspect. All right. All these answers raised doubt in my mind that the June 20th um or that the the June 20th deadline or
the uh July meeting deadline um is going is real because your uh environmental guy uh seems like he needs more time. So, I'm going to suggest to
the board that we look at August 6th as a hearing date. And that is that will be etched in stone. And then I'll ask the professionals to
give us guidance on whether the June 20th plan submission date should be pushed back a little bit and then I'll ask the board their feelings
and we'll find out motion. I I don't see why we can't get Terry stuff in by the June 20th date. I can't represent what we're going to get back from the LSRP. And I think the sooner that they have a chance to review what
Terry did, the more he'll have a chance to make whatever adjustments in the time of the order hearing. So, in terms of submitting plans for our uh I think we should hold it. It's June 20.
uh that uh we will have to get information uh from the LSRP and uh we should have the formal hearing which I'll notice and publish for at the August date that August 6th
August 6. So, we'll stick to June 20 or the engineering reports, but do we want to assign an an intermediate date for the environmental just to give him a deadline so he has something to work with?
I think it's a good idea that day. Any guesses? August, June 1st or uh not June 1st, uh July 1st, July 1, July 1. It gives them an extra
10 days more or less beyond the engineers deadline. The engineer is is June 20th. The environmental consultant July 1st. Mr. Chairman, it it may make more sense, especially if Mr. Combmes has some
questions about his survey coming in in time from a third party. Just administratively for staff. I I think Mr. Desai and I agree that July 1 would probably work for both submissions.
That may give him more time and uh it may simplify the process a little bit. July July one is the Tuesday. All right, Mr. Mr. Dillia, are you in agreement with these new revised dates? Yes, I am.
Mr. Dillia, do you agree to time extension? Yes, I do. Okay. I I grant a extension for the board to make its uh decision in accordance with the dates we just came up with. Thank you, Mr. Kings. All right.
Uh members of the board, given that we've shifted these dates now again, um as a courtesy, I want to make sure none of you have any questions. If you do, please ask now. Otherwise, I'll call for a motion. [Music]
No, I just want to say that after I left the last time, I said to myself, we need a different engineer. And so I'm so happy to see that that's the direction that you took. So I'm happy with that.
I know Mr. Nicholson for over 30 years. I've worked with them on and off and it's uh I appreciate what you're saying. All right. Can I have a motion to grant the extensions uh as as previously
outlined? So move. Second. I'll second. Roll call, please. Mrs. Tory, yes. Miss Costa, yes. Mr. Noidita, yes. Mrs. Levin, yes. Mayor Gilmore, yes. Mr. Jacobi, yes. Mr. R.
Murphy, yes. Mr. Cury, yes. And Mr. McC. Yes. Thank you very much. Have a good evening and uh happy 4th of July. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll uh we'll move to case
24-03A, Hannesport Family Apartments. This is a revised site plan and bulk variance request for offense. Um council, please state your name for the record. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, uh board members. My name is Christopher Burr of the law
firm Deluca Lewis and Burr here tonight on behalf of the applicant, uh Hannesfor Hannesport Family Apartments LLC. Good evening. Good evening. Um so as the pardon me as Mr. Chairman uh mentioned uh this is an application for amended
site plan approval. Um it's for the property uh located at uh Creek Road and Martin Highway. It's block 104 um 1.06 on the tax map. Um, now as the board may uh recall, uh we were here before you
just over a year ago for a preliminary and final uh site plan approval for this uh 72 unit affordable housing um development on the property. Um and uh that property uh I'm sorry that
application uh received approval. It has moved through um resolution compliance and is now under uh development. Um, since that time, uh, the applicant has determined that the 6-ft tall fence proposed and approved at the rear of the property, um, would better serve the
community if the fence if the fence were raised to 8 ft to provide better screening from, uh, the adjacent industrial property. Uh, so we were here tonight with a very limited site plan amendment just to change the height of that previously approved rear fence from
6t tall to 8 ft uh, tall. Um and so we do seek amended uh pardon me, we do seek amended site plan approval for that uh limited change. Um that change does implicate bulk variance relief under uh
your ordinance. Um in this zone I there is a maximum uh 6T um height uh limit for fences. But I will note that in the adjacent industrial property uh that abuts this community an 8ft tall an 8ft
tall fence on the same property line would be permitted. Um so the uh the condition if you'll rise to the variance relief tonight is simply because it because this 8ft tall fence is on the other side of the property line. Um so
in light of that situation and in light of the fact that this that um this proposed fence is going to provide better screening um for for this for this approved affordable housing community on this property from the industrial property and that it's and
that uh this 8ft tall fence would be permitted just over the property line. We think it's clear as you'll hear in the testimony uh tonight um there will be no detrimental impact to the neighbors. uh there's going to be no detrimental impact to your zoning ordinance or master plan. Again, because
the same fence just over the property line, which is a condition that will be imperceptible to the public or to the or um to the residents um uh is a benefit to the community and the township. Um so I've got some brief
testimony um from a representative of the applicant, Ed Spitel, uh tonight as well as the applicant's engineer, uh Denise um both. And so I'll present uh Mr. Spiceel uh first unless the board has any questions uh for me before we uh dive in. Uh does the board have
questions of council before we move to testimony? Anyone? You swear our firm testimony you give tonight will be the truth truth. Yes, I do. Mr. Spel, um you've been before this board before? Yes, I have. All right.
Just give us in 10 seconds your qualifications. So, sorry. All right. So, just to clarify, so Mr. Spitel, he is repres He is a representative of the applicant. He's not our engineer. Oh, are you're not appearing as an engineer? Not as an engineer. Okay.
All right. Um and so during my opening commentary, I gave a you know, brief background on the history of the project. Um I mentioned the um status of the con of the development of the property, but I'd like to ask you to just kind of go through that in a little bit more details. I guess first off, can
you just explain to the board what gave rise to this um decision to change the uh the previously uh proposed 6T fence 8 ft? Certainly. Um we've been in touch with uh our neighbor to the rear Tristan Silk throughout the entire process.
we've cooperated on a bunch of different things and a as we've gotten under construction and even before that um both his organization and ours realized that we would both benefit um from a taller fence. Um and so we vacasillated
over which way to do it. We had even negotiated an easement on his property to put the fence up. After some back and forth with um him and some folks here, we we thought it might just be easiest to come in and ask for an amended site plan to have the taller fence on our
property. One added benefit of that, too, is by being on our property, it's it's not as close to his truck uses where the fence, you know, was more susceptible to getting damaged. So, that's really what the request is for tonight. Plus, you'll maintain the
fence. Absolutely. Okay. Uh, is someone going to give testimony about uh, uh, what the fence is going to look like? Yes. Okay. Yes, certainly. And and um, just very briefly, can you just explain to the board sort of the the status of the
development at the moment? Sure. Uh, it's, uh, well under construction as I'm sure many of you have seen. Uh, the structures are all in various stages of construction. Uh we are the weather hasn't cooperated with us, but we're hoping to get base paving down if not
late this week, early next week. And we are looking to open the lottery for the units at some point in uh August. And we'll work with your township administrator on that and advertising for that. And we're looking to occupy uh
units in uh starting in November, December. Great. Right. I thank very much. Thank you. All right. And um as our next witness, I have Denise Bove, uh the applicants engineer.
Denise, affirm the testimony you give will be the truth or truth. Okay. Right. Uh Denise, can you just start by giving a brief overview of your qualifications? Sure. My name is Denise Bo. Uh I have an uh degree in civil engineering from Ruckers University.
I've done engineering for 28 years and I've been licensed in state for 22 years. Okay. Your license is still in good standing. Okay. And uh you're familiar with this uh project has prepared the plans for this project.
We'll accept you as a as an expert witness in this area tonight. Thank you. Right. Thank you. There's an easel. Uh there's a stand back there for that if we can borrow it. I'm not sure whose it is. Thank you. not there.
I have the site plan uh is dated 417 2025 is what was submitted with this application for amendment. Okay. And is this just to summarize is this site plan essentially identical to that which is
previously approved except for the overlay of the new fence. It is there have been a few uh revisions not to the site plan but to utilities as during construction we house but overall it's
basically right. Okay. Okay. Um, so Denise, can you just um point out to the board where on the plan um the new proposed fence is located and the limits of that fence? Sure. The fence is along the rear property line. It starts at the
just past building one and extends all the way along the back property line to the end there. Now initially on our approved plan that was 6 foot high and that's what we're proposing this area to be 8 foot high along this border which is adjacent to residential that will
remain as 6' high and it's a white vinyl fence. Okay. All right. And in your papers you have a you have a a a drawing of the of the style of the fence. Yeah. And I can pass these out um now. I've got
submitted. Yes. And I can I do have copies of the site plans. I can test these out now. Well, we do we everybody has that so you don't really need for the record it's a it's a solid you can't see through white vinyl fence.
Correct. Denise. And so here just um on the site detail sheet page two of the site plan. This is the detail of the fence here toward the bottom middle the page. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And
so it's it is an opaque white rental fence will be 8 ft tall. Yes. Okay. And again that's that's going to extend the rear portion of the property that you indicated and it'll convert to a sixt fence at the corner where it turns down um towards the towards the
sideline of the property. All right. Two two measurement questions. Um, one, how far will it be between the facade, the rear facade of the buildings along the fence line and the fence? What's the gap between the building and
the fence? Right. Well, the building is 20 ft. So, I imagine the fence will just be a couple feet inside the property line. So, 18 ft. 18 feet. Okay. And then the other you've sort of answered my second question is how far
inside does your uh fence installer inside the property line does your fence installer put the fence? Two feet. Two feet. Sort of a standard. Yeah. In the in the business. Yeah. Trying to keep it as close to the property line as possible. Okay. And um is this fence
repairable so that if somebody punches a hole in a panel, you can come in with a new panel and replace it and keep it up to up to appearances. Yes. And that's one of the reasons that the applicants said they wanted the fence on this property so that if there is some
damage to it, they will be quick to repair it. All right. Okay. Thank you. Um members of the board, do you have questions of the engineer? Anyone? Just a reason why you did eight and not eight and eight or just you left that at six
just for curiosity sake. Why would you just uniform the entire thing 8 ft shoot for that? Is there a reason for that or just keeping it as simple as possible? Honestly, we were we were only focused on the the buffering with the rear
neighbor. Um we're not Yeah, it doesn't cost that much more um to do it in. So, if you wanted to taper it to a certain degree, we're we're uh amendable to doing that, but we were mostly just had an eye towards the rear property. That's
all. And yeah, cuz I don't know if it's a benefit cuz that's a tot lot right there. I don't know if that helps or hurts it. I'm not the expert, but I'm just thinking out loud, you know, just from uni uniformity standpoint. Why wouldn't you just make it all eight and
shoot for that? Well, this has been this has been noticed to neighbors as submitted, right? So, um the only thing I would offer is that is a single family house on the adjacent property. Oh, is it? Okay.
Yeah. And um an 8ft high fence can be pretty can be a little bit overwhelming, but in our discussions with Kathy and the applicants team, that 8 foot in the rear as Mr. Burr, Mr. Spel indicated if we
had moved it 6 in this way, it would have been permitted on the industrial property, but there was no mechanism. If that blew over in a storm and the Silks no longer owned it and there were different owners, the town wouldn't have any way to force the reconstruction of that fence. By this being on the Hesport
family apartments, this is a condition of their approval. This will run with their land. And then if that fence falls over, the board through enforcement can require that 8 foot high fence to be reconstructed in place.
Good answer. I look at it from the zoning point of view is that our open streets is that any fencing is within the size of property lines. There's no set denomination or anything like that. Knowing the industrial park as I do and
this particular block and lot the issue that I see having two feet behind that on the property line is that that business will grow onto your two feet. I will tell you right now that's going to be a given. So the question that I would
have is that would it be best then to put it with inside that property line meaning post literally right on the property line um to avoid any other issues because again you've seen it clean up there you saw how much was on
that property it will grow 2 feet from end to end I promise you that Miss Nukem that's a great point and when we started this development and and the initial survey showed those types of encroachments. So, we're we're fine with
doing that. That's a point well made. Are you going to have a problem doing any service to the fence if it's pushed right up to the property line? No. No, we can access it from our side and we have enough of a relationship with the silks where, you know, some off chance
we had to access it from that side, we could, but realistically we can just access it from our side. It might even be a mechanism in speaking with the industrial park is how to protect that side of the fence somewhat from them
because the heavy duty use that's behind this will instantly take out counters of your problem. So I think that might be a discussion that maybe we all have with the industrial department. I'm glad to help you out on that. We would
appreciate that because you know while we're used to repairing fences, that type of use next to it, you can see foresee it happening more often. So yes, thank you. So we can try to mend fences instead of repair fences. We wait. Sorry.
[Laughter] All right. Let's mark the modified side plan as exhibit A for tonight. Thank you. I was just of the board by the board of um the applicants council or or the
witness any sorry just okay I was just going to make a comment that in the industrial park back behind there I'm happy to see that the fence is going to be higher the residents there because it is very industrial and it's right there so it's um it's improvement yeah and
just by way of just a couple of quick um closing questions just to make sure to get these on the record and I mentioned these points during my opening comments. Mr. Taylor mentioned some of these points as well, but uh Denise um so just for purposes of um the variance relief. So
obviously a 6ft tall fence is is uh permitted in the zone. Um but an 8ft tall fence would be permitted in the adjacent in the adjacent industrial uh zone. Correct. Correct. And so when we're looking at u substantial
substantial detriment to the pump to the owning plan or the owning ordinance, you'd agree with me that there's no substantial detriment because that same condition just of the property line will be would be permitted. Correct. Okay. And
this is going to provide better visual uh screening and and a better uh uh visual environment for the residential community to screen the the to screen uh this use from the neighboring industrial use. Okay. And um
the difference in height it's not going to cause any detrimental impact to the neighbors or the public. No, it'll just it'll just screen these two uses, pardon me, of one another. Correct.
Wonderful. All right, Denise, thank you. Those are all the questions I had. All right. And council, we are we are in agreement. Are we not? that uh this fence will be erected um
closer to the property line than two than the 2 ft was discussed. I don't know whether we're going to pick a ju just say at the property line or within 6 in of the property line. I Yes, I'll be agree with that.
within 6 in or closer um at the property line or within or within 6 in. Bob, are you okay with that? Within 6 in. No, 6 in or closer to the property line. Is that property already marked or are we seeing our not
are we seeing our property markers still out there? I know the course of construction sometimes they can, you know, taken out or renewed. At this moment, I'm not exactly sure, but we're more than happy to go have some new survey stakes put out there. I make sure it's in the right spot. Yep.
All right. Um, no further questions of the board. I'm going to open it to public comment if there is any members of the public in the audience. If any, now's your time to ask questions. hearing nothing. We'll go online. If you're online and you want to
ask a question, unmute and we'll hear you. I'm told no one is unmuting. So, we'll close public comment. Uh board members, one last opportunity to talk, otherwise I'll ask for a motion. We need a motion to grant a variance for
an 8-ft fence and an amended sight. Yes. um question. Um will they uh I don't know what in what instructional information on the fence erection is on exhibit A, but if there
is any that needs to be corrected, then I I think you probably have to submit a a new plan just with the verbiage. We didn't specify a distance on the plan just showing along the property. Then fine then then we we've got a verbal
record of what the agreement is. Okay. Um motion to um to approve the um variance to 8 ft and the amended site plan.
So move second. Second. All right. Roll call. Mrs. Tory. Yes. Mr. Ngarita. Yes. Mrs. Leven. Yes. Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. R. Murphy. Yes. Mr. C. Murphy. Yes. Miss Pasco.
Yes. Mr. McC. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. [Music] All right. Um, does the board need a break for two three minutes? No. No. Nobody calling for one. Okay.
We'll move to the last matter on the board on the board tonight. Case 25-04 Royal Plaza Group preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances for 1285 Route 38.
Good morning. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. My name is uh Christopher Norman from the Plat Law Group on behalf of the applicant Royal Plaza Group. Uh we're here before you this evening on an application for preliminary and final major site plan
approval with both variances and design waiverss permit the renovation of the existing structures on the site.9 acre site at uh 1285 Route 38 uh to renovate those structures and change the use to a
a mix of office use 2100 square ft medical office which would have two physicians and four staff which is I believe is gives you a little more detail than a 4380 ft medical office and retail space of
2838 square ft with improvements for parking, storm water management, lighting and landscaping. Um this again the site is 89 acres. It's
in the HC highway commercial zone. Proposed uses are permitted uses. The sites presently developed, there's a single family dwelling which is part of the renovation to convert to retail space. Um the bulk variances we are
going to require are minimum parking sideyard setback 20 ft required 4T proposed. Minimum parking rear yard setback 20 ft required 5 ft proposed. And we also need a parking variance. We're proposing 34 parking spaces. We
require 40. Uh much of these these variances we believe are uh should be granted based on undue hardship. Uh it's an existing site that the applicants acquired and is trying to renovate and and work with what's out there. Uh some of the there's been there's uh
improvements to the parking lot area to make sure that there's ample parking for as much parking as we can provide on the site. And uh with me tonight I have uh the applicant uh principal Goven Patel who will give you some details
concerning the site. Uh Mark Malinowski our project engineer, Michael Yiddberg our architect and Andrew Feranda our traffic engineer. All right, Mr. Norman, I appreciate that
introduction. Um, I I was looking at at this whole plan this afternoon. I I was um my list got longer and longer and longer of of issues to cover tonight. So, uh I don't know whether we're going to be able to finish this tonight. I not
saying that we won't, but it's a complicated matter. Understood. Um but there is one matter as a threshold that um that got my attention when I when I looked at it. Really two I suppose but the primary one is uh whether this site
is connected to the sewer is going to be connected to the sewer system or is going to continue to operate um on a septic system which I think is the current status. And so maybe you can answer that question because I thought to myself as
I looked at this that especially the medical office section of this the intensive use of water in that situation might not be uh well suited to a septic system. And I like your I believe like
you would maybe maybe what we should do is is uh swear in Mr. Malinowski. He's he's our engineer and I I mean that's that's question number one first and foremost. So we I I'm not the engineer. So uh we
can do that. Maybe we can get a testimony to get them disqualifications. Yeah. I'd like I mean if you want to have testimony about other non septic non sewage issues later but I I think upfront I' I'd like to hear how how this site's going to work with the intense
use you're proposing uh on a septic system. Yeah. Um Mark I this is an issue that came in the environmental report which we received this evening. So that that we would have
been more prepared with the answer. I think Mark is is can answer it. So generally speaking, yes. Swear me in. Want to swear in. Mr. Kingsbury, you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth.
All truth. Nothing but truth. I do. Okay. Mark, have you appeared before this board previously? Oh, yes. Okay. Last year. We'll we'll we'll accept the witness as as an expert in the area. And your license is still in good standing. Still in good standing. Okay. You've
heard the question concerning septic versus sewer. So So the applicant had hired um South Jersey engineers to do the septic design and it was based on the criteria that's uh before you this evening as far as the uses are concerned
regards to medical offices, the office and the retail use. So they designed the system um based on that. Um and as the plans show, we show uh general details on that, but they have quite a number of
holding tanks and uh pumps, pump lines and and filter systems for this specific use. Um, so it the system was designed specifically for the uses before you. In fact, there's no I know one of the
permitted uses is restaurants, which is an obvious, you know, that's that's the one that's going to obviously trigger sewer. We're not proposing that. So, we we tried to work with within the permitted uses where you could operate with the septic system. So is there an
opportunity at that site to connect to the sewer system? Uh there is a possibility to connect that sewer system. There is an existing um uh gravity line that comes out from the Glennet Basin development. Uh it's
adjacent to this site. It's a little further. The uh traffic line comes out to Route 38, New Jersey State Highway, Route 38 to the west of the site, which is you're looking at the plans to the left. Um more like that right away. It comes out to was that the Mason's Creek
entrance? It's Is it It's actually between the entrance and it's down a bit of weight. It will require um DOT approval, of course, if we if we go that route. Uh it'll require a pump station. We can't get there by
gravity. So it'll be a lift station. Um and um and it possibly uh may be some D permitting involved with that. Not 100% sure on that depending on the specifics of that design.
Um that's what we would be up against. Yes. Versus would need versus the septic system cost. That's right. So there's a bit of a cost benefit analysis in the design of this site. Yeah. There's cost and there's time specifically
is taking quite a while to get things through and also uh and of course D which that's nothing new but um right what's the D approval needed for you going through wetland well there is uh as is possible uh we go through wetlands
uh it depends on ultimately what they determine the buffers are uh on it but there is uh there is wetlands on the adjoining properties but near the uh line for the partial question. Um so 50
foot pumper so it could um it could require the approach of that population. All right. And the DOT approval. Are you making street cuts into 38 to do this or you'd be in the right way?
All right. right away which is not our problem. Right. Mr. M ask you has there been any preliminary um information given to the Rome County Health Department to deal with the wells and process? Yeah. Not there hasn't been an
application yet. We made that application what the approvals are. This property has water service. Correct. You're not using You're not using wells as well.
[Music] Right. Um I mean I've zoned in on this because it it frankly caught my attention when I was reviewing the papers. Um it's it was almost like a is this a non-starter issue or or not. So I'd like any do we
have any comments by professionals on this at this point? Uh I don't have any. Um Ryan. um on this as well. Ask our utility engineer looked at this as well. All right. Um has has Alimo uh in in
their review? I didn't I don't think I saw any specific comment in your review letter on the septic system or the viability of it given the the medical office use which I thought pretty intense for a septic system.
No, I I did not want everyone to learn from this. Okay. All right. Um sure how intense it would be and wash their hands maybe more frequently than retail use or something. But I just uh
well I mean I I envision a steady stream of patients going in and out of uh a doctor's office, which is pretty much what you see these days. And uh water gets used, facilities get used. It's not like a retail where you might
have 10 people an hour walking through, none of whom use use the facilities. And we we have agreed to a limitation on two physicians. So that somewhat limits the uh maybe the cap capacity and
intensity of the use. So yeah. And no urologists. Wow, he's you're really you're really hot tonight. Caffeine and lack of sleep. All right. I'm sorry to uh to sort of jump start this on that topic, but I
thought it important to get it resolved right up front so we can perfectly on perfectly reasonable. So guys, go ahead. Yeah, absolutely. Um, you guys know that I don't know why in my memory of being in this town for a long time that that property is always
wet. Does that does that ring true to you guys working with this site like the water retention? It just seems like I just remember being around that property and it seemed like it was sppy. And if you take the times I've been out there okay
you do have a drainage corridor just to the west of it. Um like after a heavy rain though I don't think cuz you know what I was saying about a septic system and like after a heavy rain is the property well that could that could rain in some areas where change would be
improvements. Yeah cuz that medical building next to it that gets pond in there too. Oh, Doug. Yeah, I know that. I've seen it after after heavy rains, you know, and I don't know if it's all tied in with the water system there to the waterway there, but
yeah, basic basically this site drains from east, which is the right side of the to the west. It kind of splits around um the existing building and we kept that pattern. Yeah.
Um I'm I'm guessing that um Hannesport doesn't have any requirements for looking like I I owned a house in the 80s and a part of Haynesport that was had a septic tank and I was not given a choice as to hooking in. I had x number of years to hook in and um I was pretty
sure if I sold the house even before then that I would have that would be part of what had to happen. There's no requirement for businesses along 38 to hook in change of ownership or anything. What also happens is is that if you're required by a group to put the pump
station by gravity in the world of construction, we cannot force them to do that. Um that's even when we went through the uh silver project back in the early 2000s many conference here in Kport that because
the gravity they were going to be mandated to put on some type of pump station or whatever the case may be. Um and they were excluded because you cannot force that on someone. So I don't know if there's any other rules though that can't support that if that's the
case. Um and I know for a fact that the NUA has been involved with this. They have given us uh really great uh information shots where the line or they've done extensive work. Um and it it is pretty extensive. So but again
that's up to [Music] And then is there a maintenance um requirement for that to maintain the Yes, they have to run in station on private property. you're requiring to maintain um
in any way. All right. Uh my second point u as a preliminary matter was or is have you and I think the answer is yes you have. Have you settled on removing the residential component and substituting?
Yes. I don't know whether it's retail or office, but using the house for other than residential purposes. It would go it would be converted to retail from residential because that's not a permitted use. Yeah. And office. Yeah.
Office. I'm sorry. Office. Yeah. Um and that's what actually generated the um park variance that we're requesting. Um because before with the with the residential use uh we've complied with the 34 spaces by converting that to the
office use. You're six short. Yeah. Or rather if we went to retail use it would even bump it up further. Right. So in your present thinking this is a what a threepart
if I can put it that way development. You have this medical office at the back. You have the retail on the right as you face the building and then the house is going to be um yeah house
will be office going to be office. Is that going to be office related to the to the retail or standalone office? Standalone office. All right. And is um retail? It would be an accessory retail
accessory office to a retail. So it's it's independent standalone. And it's is there going to is it retail in the back. And are you you're doing a you're doing uh architectural improvements
uh to everything but seemingly not to the house. Is that changed? Will that change given that the house is now going to be no longer a dwelling? In other words, in other words, make it look a little more uniform.
We have to we we have our architect uh here tonight to answer that question. Yeah. Yeah. You want to get that answer right now or we'll swear him? No, I think I think when in your presentation, why don't you just uh why don't you just cover that? I mean, I you know, an
architect critic uh you know, the the retail section is fine. You know, it's a it's a a decent design and then looks like some somebody pllopped down a house at the end of it, which doesn't look very good in my
opinion, but I'm just one person. But go ahead, put it in your put it in your presentation. Absolutely. Work on it. All right. Sorry to interrupt. Okay. Well, you you want to get go go go on to the the rest of the menu for the for the
site plan. Going to mark those as you go along, please. You want the site plan as exhibit A. How do you do? Fine to start. fine to start with that A and uh then you have renderings
can be BC and yeah A whatever A1 A1 A2 colored rendering of the site plan A1 is actually a sort of modified version of the existing condition and uh demolition plan
just show existing condition I'm Um so and just wanted to point out of course of course we already discussed about the structures that are on the site the area site 89 acres that in itself
additional um requires 40 acres. So this is 38,963 plus um there's also an existing setback in
addition that highle house 5t side road set back 14.9 ft from the property line and then also the road settle yeah 90 ft and it's um existing building
is 46.3 ft from the front. So those are some of my nonations. Uh also wanted to point out that um it's got two driveways driveway. Um it's really just one rest and one
rest system. Is there somebody can't see? No. No, we were trying to turn the microphone around. I'm getting hand signals from I wasn't sure what the hands
I'll try to project a little better, too. Um so so yeah there's there's the stone areas that that were used for for parking. Um and and that's basically it. It's pretty simplified.
I also want to while you're on the site where um you described with when our discussion earlier about the septic system uh various uh various tanks uh obviously there's a probably a beds a septic bed someplace. Um yeah that all
is that all noted on the plan that we're looking at? Uh we don't show um the septic system because we believe it's in this area behind um sort of behind the one story portion um just to the west of the twotory portion pretty much the
grass area back there cuz that's pretty much the only open space that would have been affected by the addition these additions. Uh so we believe it's in that area. We see no evidence of this the septic system although it it goes somewhere. So um and it's not open the
public. So we're uh so we believe it's in this area which is probably in the wetland buffer area of the site. So that would the intent is to abandon that because we don't know any we don't have any information on that system. Uh so we don't know how it would uh be able to
handle any kind of effluent from it with those uses. So that field would be abandoned and left to replaced. That'd be just Yeah. Just left in place and abandoned. Yeah. and your new system would would be where on the property. So the new system
um it's shown it is shown on the uh our utility plan or utility grading plan but but basically um what we doing we'll we'll tie in all the existing laterals from from the uh buildings and there's a number of tanks just to the uh west of a
two-story edition. Uh this tank does have a lift a pump in it and we because we don't want any croach in the in the wetland buffer along here along the westerly property line. Uh we're routing it around and then we have some
additional tanks in the front. These are all underground tanks and they're all treatment tanks. Um and then it gets pumped into uh the septic field which is located in front of the B level uh unit. That would be a new septic field. And
that would be the interceptic field and and all this would be according to current codes uh that was based by uh that was designed by the South Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just one question while we're on septic. Yeah, I want I want to ask both of you if if you had any
questions on this issue. Does the abandonment um of the prior septic is that under the jurisdiction of county health department regulations? So there needs to be a sign off from them about that. That would be my understanding. Yes. And of course
they they need to approve the the new study, right? I assume you have to you have to fill in the old the old holding tank if there is one. Yeah, if there is one. Yeah. All right. And the new septic field that will not be in the buffer zone, right?
That is correct. We're outside of the wetland buffer. And there's enough there's enough space in that front yard to do that. Just Shoe horn. You getting there? Yes. I was going to say shoehorn was the operative word. Yes. Um do we have a new delineation of where the wetlands are
and what is that done? We do show um we do show the delineation on the plans that were submitted. Uh that's I don't know if you can see it from here but at least on this plan we have little triangles that delineate the flags of the wetland line and then we associate a 50ft buffer. the application and all for
the LOI and actually a treat transition area waiver um is is in the process of being submitted. Uh I think we're almost there. I think there's another document that needs to be signed for for submission. But any case um so we're
we're getting the determination letter of interpretation of D and then also the transition area waiver. There is some grading that's associated with um with the septic field that encroaches a little bit within the uh 50 foot buffer
and then there's also some uh changes to the entrance of the B level unit uh that that encroaches in the buffer because this half half of the B level is half buffer area. So so there's a waiver that we're permitting for that also. Has that
building been inspected recently? The condition of the building that I do not know yet. Good. Good. You might have to answer that question. All right. As long as we're on drainage and related issues,
um have you seen the May 29th, 2025 um memo uh from the Environmental Commission on drainage issues? We Yeah, we just got it this evening. Yeah. Uh sometime during your presentation, and I'll leave it up to you to work it in,
can you deal with the three questions that are asked? Um yeah I mean we we do comply with the storm water management regulations on that. Uh they also recommended about um well why don't you just deal with them one by one. First the question is
um explain how storm water will be managed. Number two is uh suggestion of permeable grid pavers um versus pavement and number three
uh we've already dealt with actually by my qu my first question to you. So if you can deal with one and two I'm sure the environmental commission would appreciate that. Yeah. So regards to storm water management again uh we're we're maintaining um the uh the current
drainage pattern um by uh the state's storm water regulations you're allowed to increase the impervious cover by uh no more than a quarter acre and we were within that limit. Um so we don't have
any additional storm water controls um other than uh you know just the grading on on the site actually it's it's a little bit improved and then also we have some uh discharge points um at the rear end and also at the front of the property uh the the drainage site to the
drainage cart. You're draining more into the wetlands that so it'd be um a minimalized amount. That's why the storm water regulations are are uh set up the way they are because you know you have that quarter acre and and and the
regulation is set up that it's a dimminimous amount of increase. So it doesn't it's minimal impact also assuming that the site currently is draining properly. Well, yeah.
And it appears to be okay. I didn't visit the site or anything, but just a comment was made earlier that that maybe the site already is a little bit mushy. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. I haven't Which and justic
field right draining additional things. Yeah. What we do, we we've routed around that septic field with a swale area. And again, it's not that it's not taking out a lot. You know, there's not much runoff going into those areas. Again, it's split also split between the five pretty
much evenly. Um, so would there be any consideration to instead of all the spaces having some of the spaces maybe towards the back um being the connect so that there is some
pvious surface for some of the parking as opposed to all that's being paved or Well, we could consider that. That's a requirement from the board. We can consider it. If if we go that direction, our only thought would be the rear building is the medical office
and those types of papers don't always work well in that environment. So, we may want to look to distribute them perhaps some somewhere else on the site. Um, let's hold that thought as we go through this. So, Mr. Norman, despite
the probably the annoying interruptions on my part, uh, continue. Let's We prefer to deal with the elephant in the room first. Well, yeah. Could let's complete your presentation and then I The only way to efficiently go through
this is to take each of the letters and walk through them and hopefully uh we can do that today. I mean, if you want to do that now, go through the letters and address each item as we go through. So, no, I think I I think you probably ought to finish your presentation. You
got to deal with architectural issues. Um, you got to deal with some parking issues. To the extent that you uh in doing so, you answer the questions on the engineers checklist, the planner checklist, that's fine.
This is a a color aerial. I'll mark it at A2. If that's appropriate to grade, you get the color right. Yeah. Mark that while are you calling A2? So A2 is just the
color rendering of of the modified site plan. Okay. [Music] And then this will be A3. A3 is a colored aerial of the site and the surrounding
properties. Um it's kind of small, but we want to try to cover as much area as possible. Uh so the property um is is outlined in in red on the rendering on the aerial. Um as you can see to the left, which is the
left of the uh exhibit, uh you have the Glant Mason Creek retirement community. Uh we have the uh wellness center that's over to the east and that also that property runs both to the east and north of of our site. And then um to the south
of course is New Jersey State Highway Route 38 and across the street uh there's an abandoned uh building which I believe it's was used to be a car dealership back in the day. So gives you an idea of what the uses are currently.
Um the what's showing is a farm field across the street that's under construction. I believe it's believe it's residential that's going up there. So that gives you an idea. Just one thing I want to point out. We talked about the wetlands on the westerly side
of the property. As you can see, we've got the drainage corridor that's dividing our property um with the um Planet Mason's development. You can see it's a substantially wooded area. It's all environmentally restricted area
also. Um so that in itself creates quite a substantial buffer between our property and the u the senior housing development. You did say you're applying for an LI permitting. That's correct. Transition area waiver and the LOI
determination. Will there be any, and this is one of the checklist items when we get to the Taylor letter, but any um any tree removal issues or land clearing issues at all? We do have some trees. Um we have about three trees in the front.
One's quite large and that's to help accommodate the uh the septic system. Uh and then there's uh well, actually two trees, but to accommodate the septic system. There's also another tree that's only a few feet from the corner of the B level, the southwest corner of the B
level um that should be removed. So, it's only a matter of time where it'll cause problems. So, we're proposing some tree those three trees removed there and then there's a couple in the rear of the property to accommodate the proposed parking. Okay. So,
please continue. So based on that comment or your question, um, one of the comments that that Scott had brought up in his letter was with regards to tree compensation. So I did take a a look at that because we had not done any kind of
computation with regards to uh the tree compensation. Um, and I had to go and confirm the uh diameter of these trees, but I estimate that um we'll probably need um like for 11 to 14
compensatory trees um on site. We do propose uh 10. So, we'll have to sort of work that out in some form or fashion. And the location you'd work out with the uh planner. That's correct. Yeah. Either that or we'll do the monetary compensation for stuff because it is a
tight site. So we might not be able to fit you know all the additional trees that and you always want to maintain an adequate sight sight triangle. That's that's correct. 30 of course I'm referring to.
So again um the B level of course the bu the building is shown as as the tan existing buildings the tan color the B level which would be office use uh the onetory edition in the front would be the retail use and of course the twotory addition in the back is the
uh doctor's office medical use uh we are maintaining the entrance drives of course we're improving them on our property uh to access the site again it's a bifurcation ated uh entrance. Uh your ordinance requires one entrance for
this type of frontage. The uh we have 220 ft frontage. So your ordinance only requires one driveway. So we're technically proposing two one ingress and one egress. Um so we may need a waiver for that uh requirement.
Does does department of highway department have any say in that split entrance? Look we have a traffic engineer Mr. Brando will provide testimony. I believe we there's already been a letter of no interest from DOTS
as yeah and they show you know they show that those driveways as they are. So they have a letter of no interest with regard to that. All right. We'll get the details of that but go ahead. Okay. Excuse me. So um again we're improving the site. Uh we we're proposing uh 34
parking spaces. Uh, two of those spaces will be ADA compliant. One of them is ADA guidelines. We're also proposing one uh EV ready space in the rear of the property. There was a um
there was a comment uh in the Taylor letter um I think it was the Taylor letter about the three spots. Yeah. Right here. These three spaces. We we we discussed that in our premeating today. We thought if we made that employee
parking, you're you're less likely to have the cars will park there early and leave and they'll be the employees and they'll be familiar with it. It won't be customers pulling in and out. Yeah, there's a there's a couple I guess
benefits you could say with this. Um, one, it again, it's a bifurcated entrance, so you only have the one traffic going in uh instead of a two-way at this location. So it simplifies the the maneuvers in that in that particular area. Also um with these three spaces or
even you know any number of these spaces they have quite a bit of visual um area uh to to check to see if there's any incoming cars and then also cars coming into site. There's nothing that restricts the visual movement of these vehicles. So that that's a benefit also.
So I am I hearing you say that you've essentially proposed to deal with the issue by dedicating those three spots to employee parking. So they so that there's even less movement on Yeah. between the vehicles incoming vehicles. Then you'd have to label that such we
could put sign we would sign either signs or on the pavement itself. Whatever we could do either or both whatever is the hesport way of doing things. Well it's the best way is what we want. Um all right, continue please.
So with the parking and of course um the the site has to you know to make the site a viable site as far as its use um because of the uh the location of the building and its
relationship to the perimeter of the property. Uh we have limited area and the and the environmental restrictions on the westerly side. we have limited area to to provide uh the parking spaces. So that in itself uh creates the need for um some parking setback
variances. Um and what we have is uh your requires 20T parking setback uh for the rear and the side and we are proposing 4T along the side and 5T along the rear. So that's a that's a clearance
that we're requesting. Also um your ordinance requires um the part the parking to be curved and um most of it is curved. We have curving around the building curve curving around most of the perimeter.
However, along the easterly side, we didn't propose any curving. We have wheel stops along there. And the purpose of that is because as I indicated before, the uh adjoining property to the west, the wellness center, I'm sorry, to the east, um drains in that location.
The yard area drains toward the site. And if we put curving, it'll stop uh the water from going through our site. Runoff, storm water runoff going through our site. So instead of creating like a potential ponding condition, we just uh
have the pavement set um so that it can flow the way it flows now which is splitting between the rear and the front of our property. All right. Um that shrubbery along Route 38, any site triangle issues with that?
Uh I did take a look at that. That's existing. I assume that's existing shrubberies. No, what's we what we show on this plan is all proposed is proposed. That's the compensatory for the trees that are going to be removed. Yeah. So, we've proposed some street trees. Like you said, there's some shrub
shrubbery in this area. Some of these do um encroach on the um slight triangle. I did run that site triangle today. So, we can we can move those. We can adjust the landscaping to be out. It's not it doesn't encroach by much. uh the site triangle comes through and it's it goes
down like 530 feet, right? Um but all that front shrubbery, you're willing to work with the planner to get get it right. Yeah. Yeah. I think there's also some additional comment about maybe adding more shrubbery or making it more intense in that area. So we do have to we are a little you know it does get a
little confined because again we have some of those um structures for the septic system in this area too. But I think we can I think we can uh make the adjustments so that uh we accommodate both the site distance and and the the utility structures. Where do you have
your handicap parking? So the handicap parking is along the east side parking. So it kind of gives um you know general sort of a general location so they can hatch. Yeah. So they could walk up whether they're going
to the medical or retail or or even the office. So kind of general area and then of course the EV space we we show in the back. Okay. Um the other item
with regards to parking and also well let's just talk about the um dumpster. proposing a a large dumpster area for both trash and recyclables. This dump the planner's comment had some
comments with regard to that um and the structure. That's correct. We're proposing uh solid PVC vinyl fence around it. Um and then the doors are the uh swing doors are also swing gates rather are also um PVC vinyl uh that are
mounted on uh metal structure metal framing. Yeah. a planner and this board has found that kind of structure to be problematic um because it doesn't have a durability
and looks quickly fairly shabby um and the UVs break down the plastic and it's much better uh in the board's experience to have a masonry type structure with with a sturdier gate.
Okay. Yeah. Well, my experience has been in the ones that I've designed, um that they held hold up pretty well. Uh also, um they're easier to maintain. So, if for some reason it gets damaged, it can, you know, you putting a new fence
fencing up. Uh it's easier and more cost effective. Uh also, um it's it's in a remote location, so it's behind any visual from the in from the building. Um and then as we've referred back to the uh the overall area as you can see um
it's it's well buffered the the dumpster location would be in this uh northwest corner. Um and of course you can see it's it's well screened as it is and and the BBC, you know, it's your typical um like residential type of entry. So that
that tends to hold up pretty well. Uh, Norman, I I hear the argument, but I think the board might see it differently. That's fine. That's everyone's a prerogative. Yes. Correct. So,
um, so to sort of get back to the dumpster enclosure, um, there is a, uh, of course a 50ft buffer along the Westerly property line. that dumpster uh does most of that dumpster does encroach in that area and
then um part of the little corner of the parking spot, the last parking spot in the rear that also encroaches in that in that buffer area. And that buffer area is associated with being next to a a residential zone. And of course, the uh
land at Mason's Creek is in a uh is in is in a residential zone. So, we had those those encroachments um there. However, getting back to the fact that you have that large drainage corner corridor and that's about
a minimum of 400 ft across that heavily wooded area. So, all right, getting back to the trash container that the um planners also suggested and in his letter he offers
dates um or times for uh restricted trash pickup. um 7 to 7. Uh uh I I don't have his letter memorized, but whatever in his letter is what what uh that that's reasonable given that the residential
community, no one wants to hear the term keeping early in the morning. Exactly. There's a similar um similar uh time restrictions on on delivery trucks to the extent that there are other than maybe an UPS truck coming in.
Um, are you are you willing to accept the the parameters offered by the by the planner? Yes. In that regard. All right. And and then let me let me let me go back to the trash compactor or the the trash receptacle. Yes. Um the planner
suggestion um is masonry with a with a with a better better level better heavy duty gate. Um are you prepared to accept that suggestion? Well, that's Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay.
All right. Please continue. Okay. Let me just give a few minutes. I think we've pretty much covered um covered this up because the lighting, of course, we're proposing new LED lighting uh along perimeter of the um of the parking lot. Again, the uh there
was some Scott's letter referred to spillage. the the lights along the easterly side and on the northerly side of the parking. There is some spillage onto the adjoining properties. Uh we do propose
um houseside shields that do limit that still illuminate some of the lawn areas in the wooded area at the rear. Um some of the things that help mitigate that is that we are proposing a 6ft high solid vinyl fence along these uh locations. uh
that'll also mitigate also the encroachment of the parking within that parking setback. Um so we do have that. So that is is there was also reference to um uh setting um timers timing cut
off timing cut offs that would diminish the intensity of the light after business hours. Um and that's that's also noted on the plan. I think we have to maybe elaborate on that note a little bit to uh to address Scott's letter. Uh
and I'm going to do that. Um but uh but that also u we're also proposing. All right. So on the lighting issues which I'll basically summarize as spillage brightness and timing cut off issues. Um
you're in agreement with the planner or we'll work with the planner to resolve those issues? Yes. Yes. Scott, is that okay with you? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Um, please continue. I didn't um you know, I honestly didn't pick up the
fence in my review. I guess my my eyesight was great. But you're proposing a fence on um on two sides, the portions of two sides. Correct. Along the uh eastern side um because of the the um parking being so close, it's a
mitigating measure. and then also along um the rear again because of the parking encroaching area. So, it's a mitigating mitigating measure for for that. Um could could I ask the planner to to weigh in on that? I I don't recall seeing any comment in your letter on the
plan. Are you neutral on it or you have some thoughts? I'm neutral on it. Um it it does create some separation and minimizes headlight glare offsite and because there is a reduced buffer. Um
the the one area where and I I spoke very brief briefly with Mr. Mr. Mowski this afternoon the uh the fence in the top left corner of the site sort of ends and if that were to extend another
10 ft and then connect into the trash enclosure, it would eliminate kind of any potential for headlight glare into the woods. Most of those woods are deciduous and um and we know we have residences on the
other side of those woods. We may be able to eliminate any need for additional landscaping in there if that fence Mark maybe you can sort of point that out. Yeah, the fencing we had of course at the end of the parking lot was
the dumpster location. So proposing the property corner, not the property is over here. Yeah, just pull it straight down. Pull it straight down. Another because if we do go any further um to the west then we're associated
with the the buffer and it's my understanding that rules have changed up there and then if you're even putting a fence in the buffer area got the permit for that. So you're in agreement with the planners. So modest suggestion about extending the fence. Yeah, we'll have to make a little bit of adjustment in here
with regards to providing some clearance underneath because this is a swale that we're just that's taking the runoff from the the northern side of the site and discharging it into the drainage corridor. So, we might have to make some adjustment with the fence to accommodate that. Otherwise, I don't see any issues.
It's good to extending that fence. Is the is the color of the fence uh something we ought to discuss or I don't know whether there are other options besides white. Yeah, we indic Well, we indicate tan. Um, yeah, it's already tan. I think that was one of the earlier discussions. Yeah, it kind of goes with
the it goes with the building. So, I think I think Yeah, tan is what we specified. Okay. And the building is largely tan. So, that right kind of can be blinding in a way. There's a lot of Yeah. Is there still going to be a that double gate in the back corner? And
yeah, we have we're proposing a double gate back here. And the reason for that is that there is a fire hydrant on the adjoining property. So this prov this allows um access to that fire hydrant for fire. We have fire department compliance issues with the lock or
anything or is it not locked? It'll be Yeah, I don't think we're not really proposing the lock and if we do it would be need box. Uh and we would provide that for the fire department. And would that gate be the fencing material? Uh that's correct. Could be the solid fencing material. Be the solid PVC fence
and just be a gate. Yeah. Double swing gate. All right. I'm sorry to sidetrack you on the fence issue, but we got a lot of things cleared up in the process. Yeah. No, that's it's fine. Um not sure if I Yeah, I did kind of lose
track. I'll take I apologize for that. Uh, I think I pretty much covered um, [Music] you have your architect here, too. That's what I wanted to cover. Yeah. Uh, we talked about the landscaping already.
What about this? There's a little shed here. Oh, yes. Yes. And what there there's two items that were mentioned in Scott's letter. This this square here, pad and shed next to it. Yeah. This is existing shed which uh the applicant has
no problem removing. Uh this is a concrete pad for the ent exit door. There's it's a B level uh uh unit. So that's the lower level. That's there's an exit door. The old patio. So is the patio. Yes. Essentially. So that we're
proposing that to remain. That might even be required by code actually um building code. So that's to remain. Okay. All right, if that's it. Thank you. And let's move on to the architect. Okay, Michael.
Come on up. Your right hand, please. Okay, Michael, you brought your architectural exhibit. Yes. and you heard some of the questioning concerning the architectural modifications particularly with regard
to the residential former residential parcel. Uh can can you talk about what type of uh modifications you made? I think the whole point of this project is to take a a a property that uh the
sort of home that hasn't for years in your community and and with a modest investment create something that really uh brings value to to the community around it. the existing e existing
economic conditions are not such that a tremendous amount of investment is uh going to produce a incomeroucing uh project for the owner. So uh the project leaves in place all the existing
buildings and uh so there's no demolition there are no demolition costs. Uh and then what what we have proposed in a very modest way use the materials is to take the the brick on the lower story of the
house. We're taking that brick uh in around uh the other parts of the other two sections of the uh uh of the complex in order to tie it all together. We're also using color and trim to um create a
consistent look across the three uh properties. Uh paint of of a consistent paint color. There are five entryways that are being treated uh uh similarly.
Uh three of them are have um gables. Uh the other two here and here slightly behind this tree. uh uh are have a flat roof, but they all have similar treatment uh to all five entries. Um
there are uh we have a a flat roof building in the middle with gable roofed buildings at either end uh as sort of a masking concept. Uh there are um pitched roof office
buildings uh just a stone throws away from this site. Oh, it's consistent with uh the existing context. Uh for the house, uh the some minimal improvements are to get rid of the shutters. Uh
replace these uh the uh double hollow windows with uh and the garage door, existing garage door with large glaze openings which match the uh large glaze openings in the existing building. So
all these things I would think are modest but significant in terms of really uh creating something that uh is going to transform the property uh you know not 100% but in a way that uh really adds value. Um now we're not
doing it on the back sides of the buildings. It'll just be uh paint upgrades to the to the structures. There's no there's no are no improvements proposed for those sides of the building which are not visible from the street.
We mark that architectural drawing. No, I don't believe we have. A4. You sure can. Uh the another question that we were asked was about uh the screening location and screening of the mechanicals. Again the uh existing
systems are mostly through wall systems. Uh there's nothing on the roofs and they're all again uh coming out of the back sides of the building. Nothing on the visible from the from the street or property. We have a question for them
right away. Yeah. First you it's nice on the right side. I was just wondering like how and you brought up, you know, keeping the price down a little bit, you know, trying to appreciate that, but but how difficult would it be just to take those A-frames that are in the new
building, you know, your new proposed and put like one of those, you know, or two of those on the house to make the house not Well, we could do that, but our feeling was was rather than just have it all the same to to have a little
mix up, but uh uh our our our client felt we felt that too many of these was didn't look good. It's a small a small uh group of buildings and and and the
entrance that's right here uh uh um intentionally was made not to look like the three main entrances. And so the idea was that that one looked like that one. Uh it's not a big deal, but um it's
seemed reasonable to us. What uh what's the um the present house memory stories writing? I'm looking at your photograph too. Um looks like a kind of like a light gray. Are you are you residing into white? Is that what
I'm seeing on you to to paint the walls all a consistent uh white color? Yes. Okay. So you I get everything on that. You're painting you're repainting the house, not residing, right? But you're putting new windows on and and the and
the building in in back, right? That's getting resided or painted? Paint. Paint. Yeah. Yeah. The existing the existing one story and the back twotory that gets the brick facade and then other parts of it get painted and that pretty much wraps up the
facade. [Music] I don't know. I just this one person that that violent at the end of the building just looks weird to me. Uh but I but I appreciate your economic argument. Well, yeah. I mean, would one do this from starting from scratch? No.
But I hope we let you guys I would hope not. All right. So, um, you're pretty creative, I got to tell you, but maybe not so creative when it gets down to that house.
[Music] It looks like a house stuck on the end of the building. Maybe think about that a little bit. What could be done? I don't know. You know, you know, it is what it is. But I do feel that h having this continuity
here w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w around all three is something that doesn't exist at the moment. You go from brick here to stuckle here to block on the next building and a little bit of consistency to wrap them together is a a
small but significant gesture I think. All right. In terms of the interface between that the old house, a proposed new office and the other one-story section, are they going to be integrated or you can go from one to the other? Are they going to internally are they going to be separate separated?
Well, it depends on the tenant whether they're uh you know whether it's three tenants or or uh two. Uh there is an existing door between the house and
the retail sector. Okay. So that people the retail could use that house for its offices. Well, that would exacerbate the parking barriers really. That's it' be all it's
would never be uh well if if you say that it is then then he would uh lock up the door but the the and I don't know that there that there can't be a door for emergency access or
some other reason but the prior house needs to be dedicated to office as a principal use for the parking requirement right um And we calculate retail space at gross floor area. So if
there's a small office in a LAWA or any other store, that still counts as the gross floor area of the retail. Sure. Sure. Okay. So that's great. Okay. So yes. Yeah. Yes. Yes. I I I I think I
think I think the point that might it may trigger a need for some additional parking spaces, but the functionality of it as an office is no different whether it's an office as a principal use or as an accessory use. It's it's not going to be as active as a retail store would be.
It's it's a it's a legal fiction we have to deal with in land use, but that's that's that's how I see it. But the board will have to deal with it tonight if if understood if you're considering that or at a subsequent um something that the board chooses to
approve the application that the house itself we keep talking about office office and then the back is medical. So I see maybe a small dental office saying hey I really would like to have this
house so to say as my dental office. What I would like to see that if we're going to approve this application that that house is that it's to say office only not
medical office. I really think that needs to be resolution that's acceptable because there's higher higher trips with medical offices and labor offices and dental offices are included within
the definition of medical offices. Correct. So the understanding is that this would be described as uh a non-medical commercial correct office. Excuse
me. We have a question. Do you have any idea on what kind of retail? Well, that's a question for uh Mr. Patel who's going to make us a witness. What I can tell you is is it's the old chicken and the egg. We got to get the land use
approval first before we can start trying to find the tenants. And that's that's there's not going to be a tag here. I guess I guess the question is I imagine somebody has thought about what might be possible in this building
in this at this site. Yes. And so you have sort of a generic scope of you know Mr. Pelt can speak to that his his uh uh basic thoughts are not uh someone
talking to a restaurant or something. No, no, not that. Yeah, we're not talking about a Dunkin Donuts where you're going to have a gazillion cars now. So, the Dunkin Donuts won't Yeah. All right. When Mr. Patel gets up here, we'll we'll talk to him about that. We're just curious. That's Yeah. I mean,
we're mindful for the fact that the site we're we're trying to provide as much parking as we possibly can, but we got to work with with Sarah. So, all right. Yeah. Well, thank you for that architecture review. Anything else? We can move on to Is there anything with signage? Uh well the signage again you
want to do the signage now the signage will be applied more later when when we have a tenant and it's a little premature I guess but if there if you want to give us some direction for what the board preference is. Well, you know, um the suggestion uh seemed to be that
you were going to try to rehabilitate the existing um rather sad looking sign. Um and the placement of that sign is maybe not optimal for your purposes. So,
um yeah, I mean perhaps this sign issue is the subject of a subsequent application once you get tenants. I don't Yeah, it's either it's you're going through a sign permit. I guess through the zoning office or if if it doesn't meet the code then it would have to come back before
the board for various. Yeah. And I imagine your tenants would want to have something to say about the sign too. Correct. Correct. So can we discuss right now the existing sign? Is that anticipated to stay the full sign? I I think at this point it is
just in case it can be reutilized depending on the tenants. you basically grandfather in as long as you're using that square. Yeah. The framing of it because what I'm looking at is the fact is that you're going to have some type of medical
signage versus retail and has there been any thought to those two different uses about how and where signage is going to go in regards to that um with the retail. or
anything outside signage. Yeah. Again, we haven't really gone that far because of the tenant requirements. We'll see what they require. But yes, it's very possible we might have some uh facade signage on the So, if they
code for the facade sign, that that's office. Correct. I I I guess I was more concerned about the existing design of both uses medical and retail trying to squeeze anything into that existing
um standalone. Correct. That that most likely won't work. But we want to keep our options open at this point um until we know for sure. But for purposes of this application, you're proposing rehabilitation of the existing on the
existing side. Uh, and if that changes, then if that changes where that's no longer applicable, then that will come down and and a different signage package will be presented either to the zoning office or to the board. I just don't want to send anything to the board, right? Yeah. Assuming assuming we deal
with just the rehabilitation existing site. Does our planner have any suggestions as to the design parameters of that? So they're really limited to repainting the existing structure and refacing of the existing sign. So our recommendation
would be that any any structure modification must be limited to just painting and that paint should match the structure and then they can because it's an existing non-performing structure reface that sign. They're entitled um to
be able to do that. How do they how do they internally lit or externally lit? Uh that is currently internally. Yeah, I believe it is. Um we had asked that question because with multiple uses on the site and having medical office at the rear, the potential need for
directional signage or other signage from the front building directing people to the rear to try to eliminate confusion I think is kind of important for the circulation element. So, I I think that's I think that's important.
Yeah, this sign could actually even just say Royal Plaza with the uh street number on it uh just for initial identification and then in the future when we get tenants, you can have the facade signs that identify uh the different uses on site. So, that's an option too. So, we'd like to keep those
kind of options available. All right. But for now, the existing sign, we've got parameters of that. Correct. It's just got to stay within the limits of your business. And if what they propose or they need a directional sign or a medical office sign on the front building directing someone to here cuz
the medical office is somewhat hidden and uh you don't want somebody's pulling in the driveway and kind of turning off to the left and now they're they're sort of stuck not being able to get back there. So if it doesn't fit within the parameters of the ordinance, the
applicant will have to be we might I guess we could propose maybe a wayfinder sign to the medical just because it's in the bag something something that'll point for circulation purposes that that may be helpful and depending what I mean if the board's happy that can just be
deferred to a future zoning permit or variance application if necessary. If for some reason the board doesn't feel comfortable with any other issues tonight and this gets carried a month or two, the applicant may want to consider that and give some thought to that. So,
so it could all be done at the same time. But I think either way works. Yeah. I mean, unless the board member has a strange objection, my suggestion is stick with the existing sign for today. Everything else is way too hypothetical. Yes. until you get some
tenant information. Right. And then but then you're going to have to come back in with the sign sign application variances if you need it. Yep. Correct. But then they can be do that as a package deal, right? Not not one by one.
All right. Anything else on the architectural issue? I I think that's it. Unless there are questions. I I had one last comment and that I wasn't sure I heard from an earlier discussion that the about septic systems that the building to the east of this building
has a septic system designed by the same fellow who's designed our septic system and the leeching field is in front of that building just as it is in front of our building. So we're actually only replicating an existing condition at
this location which it only exists because of the distance to the main. So does the what is the location does that determine anything about your subject location?
We're outside. Yes, it does answer your question. reason why you're not yet health department. No, those applications have again waiting for the number one board here to
to give their blessing before we go through that those uh processes. All right. Well, thank you for that additional piece of information on the set system. Um, anything more council on the architectural side or can we move to we have a traffic engineer? Ready to
move, Mr. Chairman. I I just have a couple for the architect. Yes. Um, sorry to cut you off. That's all right. So, uh, Mr. theater. The uh the medical office building the treatment of that building
is that does that get new windows or is that just being what is happening to that? It's not getting a new window. is just getting paint and and and the new the the interior will get totally redone obviously
completely, but the outside of the building will just be painted and get this new twostory entrance. So that twotory entrance that we're looking at there on the rendering, that's you're you're going to be doing
that brick work and that small gable element to that rear building. And then the balance of that building will just receive. Yes. Yes. And then the right or east side of the front retail building.
Yeah. Along here. Yes. Uh-huh. You can see see it here with elevation right so that gets the same treatment generally as the front similar treatment uh there's again just for create a little bit of variety so it wasn't all
the same this entry and this entry have uh uh don't have brick on the peers it just has brick on the wall adjacent walls here brick on the pier on the peers um thirdly
When we were reviewing this and trying to find some strategic way to make the B level look less residential, we had actually sketched on our um the submission that we had exactly what Mr.
Murphy had indicated of the possibility of taking one of those cable entrances and introducing that um element. I think it's still distinctive enough that everybody will realize that's a separate building, but I think either carrying brick columns or doing something at that
entrance. Well, you know, I'm I'm sure you guys felt the board felt that that was an essential aspect that we wouldn't have any trouble doing doing it. But to date, we didn't do it because we thought this looked uh just fine. Right. But to the chairman's
point, yeah, it's not that it has to be that, but something that transforms it a little bit from a completely converted 1962 by level uh to something else. The the only other question, so I I think
something okay some other steps, you know, would be nice. Okay. Would you be w would you be willing to uh to work a little bit with our planner and kick around some uh some ideas? of course on that the B level building the house
building I'm sure we could yeah um and the last issue is one that sort of happened um the build you know the residence was initially submitted to remain or that would have required the use variance and then through some discussions the applicant has gone the
the commercial route that has steps and the Mr. Malinowski's plan show steps up to that. I think under the construction code when that changes from a residential use group to an office, you're going to need an
accessible route. It's it's small enough that we we don't 2,000 ft. Yeah. So you were according to the New New Jersey uh uh code. It's it's it's small enough that
we don't need to have an accessible uh access. So the question I have on that is that you said there's a back area that goes into the house. The ground floor. The ground floor. Yes, the ground floor is accessible in that
sense, but the second floor is is not. What is the threshold for that? I, you know, I don't remember my head, but I thought it was 10,000 square ft. So 10,000 is where you don't need an elevator and accessibility to the second
floor. Yes, that may be something you want to give some thought to sooner rather than later. We've been involved with several of those. Um because Mr. Mr. Malinowski is going to need that information and it and because of the nature of it
being a B level, you not only need to get to the door, but you need to get to one floor for accessibility. So, you may end up either being in a cut situation to get to the ground floor or all the way to the uppermost floor, either of
which has some issues. But I think um the new 2021 codes we're going to get ready to go in 2014 as well is that the ABA issues in the 21 code have changed drastically. Yeah. I mean back after the 2019 codes
and 21 they was one of the biggest changes with the ADA codes. So we're going around about my office right now with uh an existing business as well in regards to ADA issues. Um so I really think that this is really something you
really need to take a look at uh because it is going to affect not only the exterior but the interior of the boat. Absolutely. I'm sorry I didn't come to my care with the with the number, but we did check this
uh we go to make sure that we were okay. It did not require uh the New Jersey or just the ICC. No, the New Jersey. Yeah. All right. Well, I I I think we ought to
mark this um our planner would mark this as a as a as an open unresolved issue because it is. And I appreciate your research. We need to we need to independently verify that that works. And normally things like
that can get deferred to the time of of construction permit. But that's a big enough issue that it will have if accessibility is required. We probably have 5 ft of rate change. There's going to need to be a
significant amount of either walls and or ramping to be able to get actually to get to the lower level. We couldn't when you look at the B level existing B level you see a garage here. So that is relatively the same elevation as what
we're proposing. that's going to be proposed. Our steps our set start um are creating west of that. Correct. So So there's a possibility that that garage door area could be an accessible man door. What do you have the garage
door as now? Just a second window. But this Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. But this applies to the That's correct. back building too. Uh that building is a twotory twotory building and I I we checked and and that
does have accessibility to the first levels the first level but not to the second the second level and that's that speaks to as I understand it from review we're dealing dozens of these and also from building a 3,000t building in Mount Laurel you have to provide accessibility to the
primary floor the restrooms on every build on every floor have to be accessible even No. Yeah. Yeah. The bathroom still has the bathroom still has the but that my understanding is 10 I think 10,000
square ft is is that exception um only for the uppermost. Yes. Right. So they'll have to provide the main accessibility on the main level. Yes. All right. So to wrap this up, you you what I'm hearing is you'll agree to work
with our code official and the planner to to come up with a resolution that meets uh any applicable codes for the back building as well as the VI level for handicapped accessible. Yes. Okay.
Have we concluded the architectural issue issues? I'm done. All right. Let's hear from your next witness. Okay. Mr. Baranda. Yes. Have you testified before previously? I
have, but it's been a while. Sir, raise your right hand, please. I'm swear testimony will be the truth. Full truth. Nothing but the truth. I do. Mr. Miranda, give us 30 seconds on your background, please. Sure. My name is Andrew Firanda. I'm with uh Shock
Associates. I'm a partner at the firm. Traffic engineer, also a certified PTOE, which is a higher certification in the traffic engineering field. Um, I've been a licensed engineer for over 25 years. I'm a licensed engineer in New Jersey,
good standing. Currently, I reviewed traffic for other boards. Cranberry Township, exit 8A, uh, Freehold Township, Mammoth County, uh, and, uh, again, I've appeared before, uh, over, uh, 150 courts throughout the state, zoning board, planning board, uh, and
also being qualified in the superior court uh, for traffic testing. Thank you. We'll accept who's an expert for purposes of testimony. Thank you. Okay. DOT letter of no interest. We have a letter of no interest. we applied to the DOT uh stating uh exactly what we're
doing at this site. Uh we are not changing the driveways. We're keeping the two driveways. Uh we're the building's size isn't changing. Uh and based on um the proposed use of the site, we went for a letter of no
interest. DOT granted us that letter of no interest. Uh the site to the DOT is a non-conforming site. um based on the frontage of the site, based size of the site, based on adjacent driveways. By non-performing, what does that mean? It means the EOT puts a trip limitation. It
just doesn't say you're fine, you have unlimited trips. Um typically, uh you can size a use on site based on the uh performance of the lot. Uh in this case, the components of the lot says we're
limited to just over 140, I think it's 128 trips for the site uh during peak periods. That would be the A.M., PM, and Saturday peak periods. Traffic engineering, those are the uh peak uh hours that we evaluate traffic. Uh
morning commuter peak, afternoon commuter peak on Saturday commuter peak. Morning is between 7:00 and 9:00. in the afternoon between uh 4:00 and 6:00. Now on a Saturday, it's typically between 11 and 2. We find the highest hour. We determine uh the peak traffic that we
travel uh to the site trips in and out. And then we base that uh on the ID, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Engineer Bible. Uh they go study sites, count uh trips in and out of sight. They compile it, put it into
information for many sites, uh many sizes uh that we use that data to get the uh the peak trips for site of similar size and similar use. That being said, our site trips uh for the peak hours in the A.M. would be 30 trips in
the PM it would be 53 trips and on a Saturday it would be 35. So, as you can see, the trips for this site based on its size and its use are 1/5 to3 of the total amount that the DOT would permit on the site. The DOT would
permit a more intense use, but that's not what we're asking for. So, the DOT says fine, you can have a letter of no interest, not uh changing the site access, the size of the site fits for this location. There was a question about the driveway and I want to get to
that. Um, there are two driveways. The DOT permits one driveway if it were in and out, but it's bifurcated. So, there's an in and then out. You have to have both ingress and egress access uh and exit. So, the DOT allows the
driveways to be bifurcated and actually that simplifies especially along a right in right out uh roadway since there is a medium barrier there. You want to direct traffic coming in with a right turn and especially going out with a right turn. By bifurcating a driveway, you don't
just have a wide driveway where cars can accidentally maybe head the wrong way. In this case, we can actually help that cause by not changing the driveway and allowing that in and out and signing and directing the traffic to make that right
turn. Again, those who come to the site on regular basis, medical office, freedom, retail would understand that. But if somebody comes to the site, uh this type of driveway helps direct traffic to the right in right out
situation. Um there was uh a question about the first couple of parking spaces at the entrance. There's 40 ft between the fog line, the shoulder line, uh, of the roadway, the travel way, and the first two parking spaces. So, there's
some room for a car to pull in. Notice that there's a vehicle, and I understand coming in off of a 38, it's a higher speed road. You want some time to slow down. Well, again, a vehicle's naturally going to slow down as it enters a site. This 40 foot throat lane to the first
parking space is not gate at typical for what you would see in a gas station convenience store. The first parking space, they try and get a lot of parking space and they put them as close as possible, but there is some throat length there for either a passenger vehicle or even a box truck at 40T. You
could pull off the road and not interfere with the uh traffic on the roadway. So with those first couple of parking spaces, I think it was agreed to you that they'd be um employee parking that certainly would be helpful. There's less turnover in the parking spaces.
They come in once to park. They leave at the end of the day. It's not like patrons or patients for the medical facility where the spots are being used over and over and there will be more activity improvements in and out space.
So that that's a good compromise uh for these couple of spaces at the entrance. Uh the circulation on site 24T I know your ordinance is 25 foot 24T works um and especially for this site the 24 foot works because parking is along the edge.
Typically 25 ft would be necessary if you have headto-head parking and the potential is that they don't pull in or there's a longer vehicle on one side than the other vehicle. That's when you need that extra foot to uh have the aisles potentially wider for the two-way
traffic. In this case, the overhang of the vehicles is on the perimeter. Most of the spaces are on the perimeter and not back to back. Um so in this case, I definitely could justify 24T rather than 25 ft for the circulation tile. Um
the for signage uh I agree that any signage that comes in with the labor package any way finding signage would be appropriate to help vehicles circulate the site without going the hallway. You certainly wouldn't want to head towards the small office when you want to go back to the medical office. So uh that
would be a good idea rather than having that extra circulation on site. the uh house that's there. We're talking originally it was uh proposed to be residential. Now we're uh looking at maybe office.
In traffic engineering terms, I would see that office as say a real estate office or a uh insurance agency or some kind of professional office that would have a lower turnover. Um certainly would have a few employees but not that many
employees inside space. uh that we're looking at there. And that is consistent with the um parking that's going to be on site for medical office, the retail and the um now um professional office
building, not medical office building. As for the uh parking requirement, um we did the calculation based on I believe it's on the plan as a residential home and then the medical office and the retail space. If you took uh the higher
parking requirement, the 5.5, and used that for the office space, the small office space, I believe we come out to just over 40 parking spaces required with the 16 spaces for the medical office and the space um 5.5 for the
space. I believe it's 5,60 would be the small office and the retail space if that's all calculated. 5.5. What I did as uh a traffic engineer I again refer back to the institute of transportation engineers they not only
look at trips but they also look at parking they have many studies um again throughout the country for different uses and they look at um how many parking spaces there what's the demand is the word I would use what is the demand for the parking spaces on site
there's three components to parking there's a requirement certainly you want staff requirements to cover the parking demand. There's a parking supply that's the actual delhood parking spaces on site. Parking supply is typically at the requirement or slightly less and that's
where a variance would be required. But what I look at is the parking supply what's available on site cannot meet the parking projected parking demand. and how we get that parking demand. Again, we go back to the ITV. Look at the rate that they've come up with for a site
like uh this site. Um what I used for this site would be um I I left your medical office requirement in there and that's taken care of with 16 spaces based on two uh doctors and six spaces
each and the four employees. Your parking requirement says 16 spaces would be needed. Take that aside. Look at the 5,000 square foot of the office building and the retail building using the IT
peak demand rate of 2.79 times the 50 um 50 down of 5,60 would require approximately 28 spaces. So with the
I believe it was 28 I believe 28 I take that back that was if the whole shopping the whole center was considered shopping center um taking that medical office account and just doing the 5,000 the number would come up to
about 15 or 16 parking spaces demanded in addition to your parking requirement for medical office. So what I'm looking at is the 15 or 16 spaces demand based
on it for the retail and the office not using the IT demand number just throwing in your parking requirement which is typically higher than the demand and that's the way it's supposed to be. Your parking requirement would cover your
demand. putting that requirement, the 16 spaces and the 15 or 16 spaces. Um, based on the 2.79 for the 5,000 square ft retail plus the office space, you're looking at about 32
parking spaces that would be uh demanded uh during the peak hour. We're providing 34. What I'm getting at here is we can cover the peak demand for this site using an requirement on a medical office and
using what ITP says will be the peak demand for the retail and for that office space. So based on that I I believe the 34 spaces certainly will cover a peak demand during off- peak periods. uh the site will have plenty of
parking and in addition that there's uh shared parking components to this. A retail site typically has its peak in the afternoon or the evening when people get out of work and they want to stop by. The medical office will typically have its cheap earlier in the day, not
when the retail um is up and operation by its highest um use. So in that sense, it's a smaller site, so it's a less of a shared condition there. But I just want to give the board that extra component that the medical office will be used
throughout the day. It's metered by the appointments that doctors make. So this it's not like an uncontrolled all of a sudden there's 10 people showing up to the doctor's office. That's metered. And that's one component of medical offices. Even though they get more trips turned
over, they're certainly metered. But that's through the day and then the retail um would be used more during a weekend or an evening and there's kind of an offset with the uh medical office and when you expect the the retail uh to
be used typically again more on that evening 4 to 6 later afternoon or on a weekend between say 11 and 2. So, that being said, I I think it's um our
parking um provision uh of 34 spaces makes sense for this site. And I know there was some discussion about keeping the gravel and making uh as much uh impervious parking. We certainly don't want to pave something that we don't need and don't feel there's demand uh
for on the site. Thank um questions from professionals on this parking variance, parking space variance issue. I have a question. Um
so I see a lot of um seniors coming on the the small bus um that take a lot of those medical things. Is that in the party like in coming in dropping
them off around. And this is a small uh mantle office, a doctor's office. Um small 5,000 ft. I guess that's large enough for a couple of patient, couple people to be brought by a bus or a taxi. I don't know it be a large bus. It might
be a van. It might be just again [Music] the county language. is counting. I I understand the one that may actually be better because they're all coming into one van as opposed to individual cars. I
was just wondering if you reduces trips and reduces parking. But that aside, I understand what you're getting at. Will it fit on will work on site? Certainly a box truck will work on site. A UPS truck, a FedEx truck, a Amazon truck, they will work on site. this type of uh
delivery bus and I I know what you're talking about. It's the van extended van with the seats in it. I don't know that they will fill that. There might be a book patients who come to this location or some there might be patients in it that stop here and then move on to the next site. I I know how those work. I
have family those buses. So, I do understand what you're saying, but the site is designed uh for two-way traffic on a 24T aisle and the vehicle certainly could uh navigate the site. Thank you. All right, I want to take about a two-minut break, but I want to
wrap up this traffic engineer issue. So, any other board member questions on the traffic issue? One thing I have is to put the employee only sign for this first three spots to park. Yeah. Yeah, that would be fine to put the employee.
You can also put uh designations on the pavement, some markings that uh indicate that it's for employees. That's that's certainly um something that we can do. Um the only the only comment just very briefly and I spoke with Mr. Malinowski
or Mr. Norwood about this today. If if the board has any concerns and and I don't I don't have any um real questions for and sort of agree with some of that time and potential for shared parking analyses that Mr. Fanda has. If the
board has any concerns, we we've done this with some other boards that the board could potentially grant that variance, but with a condition that if any point in the future, the township determines that there's inadequate parking that the applicant will be required to return to the town
administratively or the board to remedy that because it could end up needing valet parking. We don't have a safety valve at this site. If there aren't enough spaces, we have route 38. But a condition to that effect might be able to then open up a discussion of maybe
some of the medical office timing of how the patients are not over overlapped can get worked through. But I I don't have any real issues with the deviation that the board may want to consider that kind of condition as a safety net. In case we do get a very successful retail
franchise, we should hope we get almost the parking lot. Mr. Norman, are you agreeable to that condition? Does your client agreeable? Yeah, I I I I I guess I'm a little bit cons concerned. I I I understand the principle and agree
with the principle, but we don't want to reduce the marketability of the site to someone that is it's got to move in, but they're subject to all kind of may have to I don't know what kind of changes you have to do to to accommodate. All right. Well, let's do this. Let's take a
5minute break. Sure. Maybe talk to your client about that subject and report back to us after after the fiveminut break. Yes. All right. That Let's break 10 after 9. 5 minutes. traffic issues. Yes. Um, you're going to
call Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel, come on up and be sworn, please. And Mr. Patel is not going to answer many of my questions. Probably more of your questions. Well, you'll start with Okay. Mr. Patel, you swear or affirm testimony will be the truth. Whole truth must be
the truth. Yes, sir. Okay. Are you the principal of the applicant Royal Plaza Group and the owner of this property at 1285 Route 38? Yes. Okay. When did you acquire the property? In uh September 2028. Okay. And do you have any proposed
tenants currently? Uh no, I haven't. Okay. And is it really a function of you need to get your land use approval of what your mix of uses are before you can pursue tenants? Yes. Okay. That's That's pretty much that's all the only
questions I have for him. My other professionals did such a good job, but it's really your your questions for my my client. All right, Mr. Patel. Uh, one of the board members, and I don't want to jump in and take uh take your question away from her, but she had inquired generally as to tenants you
might be looking for. uh ideal tenants, hypothetical tenants, things you have in mind even if you don't have them uh under any kind of agreement at this point. Well, actually I purchased the property for myself actually to use for
the wedding decoration and event decoration on the beginning but I got another bigger property what I looking for it. So I could you found another site for this principal? I just try to rent it this is important. All right.
All right. Hopefully medical use or the details people. Okay. Um board members questions of Mr. Patel seeing none. Um professionals questions of Mr. Patel. You said you bought it when?
2023. September. September 23. 23. 23. Yep. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Norm. Uh, I'm trying to find a way to do this efficiently. We've got the
Taylor Group design letter, April 29th. Uh, we've got the Alimo letter May 28th. What I'd like to do is go through them. Um, and I think I can do this fairly rapidly because we've either covered
most of the things. Yeah. Or I think the most of the remaining, if not all of the remaining are pretty routine kind of stuff that I would expect um we'd come to an agreement on pretty quickly. Um, can we do that?
Yeah. Let's take the Alimo letter first. And uh we'll go to we'll start on page three and just go through the numbered paragraphs first under uh page three under excuse me page
two I'm sorry under site plan um here numbering tell me tell me when you're caught up. [Music] and you can stand up here because I was going to say the two of you should share
the podium as we go over these things cuz I want to do it um one by one. Uh number one uh under site plan we don't need to address. Uh, number two, parking. I think we have resolved
that. And please, um, uh, Ryan, jump in. Yep. On this. I think we've we've resolved that with the parking space and the testimony from, um, the planner and, um, uh, excuse me, from the U traffic engineer and and Mr.
Malinowski. Agreed. Yes. Okay. Um, we have the parking setback issues. Um, and um, you're asking for a variance for those two. Um,
are are professionals a in in agreement with that? [Music] No. And and just for the record, for purposes of the record, these these variances are justified based on undue hardship. Yeah, it's based on the existing current there existing there's
existing existing conditions in the limited area of development. Yeah. All right. Um number four are the waiver requested for the drives to Route 38. Um you provided
testimony with regard to that and correct um and the no interest letter from from the state um loading area buffer. Um are you in agreement with the
uh with the suggestion of the planner in that regard? The loading area buffer was it the planner? Uh, no. It's the engineers engineers comment. I'm sorry. Yeah, I think he's talking about the uh 25 foot green area
along the highway. Yeah, just Jason just the driveway that I guess that drive out the oneway drive to make sure that's 25 ft. That is correct. You make sure that this line is 25.
Okay. Okay. So, you're going to you'll comply with the 25 ft line. That's correct. Perfect. Um, parking curbing um you seek a waiver on that. You've explained the curbing curb stops in lie of curbing and
the drainage uh justification for that was the drainage, right? Um are the professionals uh Ryan, are you in are you accepting of that? Yep. Yes, I am. Explanation for the for the curb stops. Okay. Can I jump over here? Yes. And any
if a board member has a question on these as I go through them, please jump in. Yeah. Uh I through the you know through this whole process, I noticed that you did someone did comment about drainage coming from the other property and I brought that up earlier about the
whole property being kind of a little bit wet, right, over the years. And um so that eastern side of the property where there's going to be just the stops and no curbing. Correct. what the elevation that's there now
compared to the finished elevation on that eastern perimeter. Correct. What's that difference going to be? Well, it's we're we're we're matching that for the most part along here to keep that. That's why we're not putting the curves in. The curve elevated that elevation
6 in official 6 in. So, if I have a curve along here, you've got the yard going to the east draining toward our property toward the west. um that curve will stop the run off the storm water run off of
these. So that is why we're asking for adjusting this location for the curving and what I've said is I set these elevations pretty much um actually there might be a little difference elevation here but then I have to swirl around uh to to accommodate that grade but the
challenge was in order to match this grade and get everything over to here to to keep the current So in that instance, that's why we're asking. If you had put the curbing in, would it cause potential drainage issues on the adjoining property? It will stop
the run from Yeah. So So basically you're saying that and I could be wrong, but you're saying that you're expecting drainage runoff from the other property to go through your property that we um did on show property, the grades show that so so we
need to accommodate that. Correct. Yeah. And I guess, you know, that's kind of that might be why some of us are a little, you know, a little bit fuzzy about the uh leech, you know, will it be a leech field that seepic? Yeah. Yeah. You know, we got all this water running from one property to another and then
getting into the wetlands and then we're putting a leech field in there. Yeah. We're we're um we'reing it around on each field. So, yeah. Okay. So, I I'm still a little concerned just because um I mean storm water runoff is going to
just be increasing, not decreasing. Um and we don't currently have an up-to-date line of delineation as to exactly where the wetlands are now that there's been I think was done before Basin's Creek or when Mason's Creek was put in there. Um, I'm not confident that
the storm water increase over the next 20 years or whatever is going to be handled and and if it ends up puddling near your, you know, if you're if you're directing it around but it's not directed um properly or it overflows and now you've got water puddling on top of
each field. We Oh, no, no, no. That could be a problem. We've got elevation uh change of each field and all. So it's been graded around this area on a grading plane show. Um particularly you know some of this some of this area will
be coming through this location um which is between uh R38 roadway and the releving [Music] and the and the neighbor's property or how big is that correct? Um I know it's not required but it have you considered
any other kinds of um green storm water management practices like putting in a bioail or something to to help with the flow that's coming off landscape areas. So that's different
than actually trying to manage it. It is it is relatively tight here. Yeah, it's not management and it's not a BMP of any uh you know any recognizable BMP through the uh storm water management regulation.
Mr. though just to return to a point that was raised um earlier and that is the use of permeable um pavers uh or other permeable parking surfaces
uh to help recharge the uh storm water. Um, and you indicated uh, I think um, an agree you were agreeable to consider that and I'm wondering we we we've talked about it back by the doctor's
offices and the inadvisability of doing it back there, but are there other places where it could be done? And Mr. Chairman, I just looked at where that entrance is. The entrance to the medical office is actually in the bottom right hand corner of that rear building.
So maybe maybe in that back those are probably the least frequent to be used and maybe if the doctor makes their employees in the doctor's park there it's lower turnover. So if if four or six of those spaces were going to be converted it it may actually make more
sense in that location. What about from the back edge of the building to the property line? That rectangle basically say yeah everything that that rectangle right yeah that you had I mean we can we can do
this other expensive but we can do permeable a not not permeable but uh you they you grow grass and grass or whatever in between them. It's it's the I don't know what the actual term is for
them, but it look like cement block. Yeah, like a hexagon block. It basically allows the the problem with that is identifying the parking spaces and the limits of the parking space. I think they have some things like addition different kind of thing that you put in where the the spaces are. But you have
to be careful with them because my husband is handicapped. Believe me, a man in a wheelchair or somebody using a walker, when you have them in any of the medical areas like that kind, even when you have concrete that sinks a little or
anything like that, that becomes a real problem in a medical area. If anything, maybe more so on the retail, but we have seen this even in our construction offices where we have them for those reasons, meaning allowing the water to
go through. The problem is is that it depending upon the um the dirt and everything now that's on the site through the years they sink and it becomes an issue in regards to parking
or if you're having trucks pull on them. as good as idea and I appreciate that because the fact is is that yes the water needs to be flowing in in a but we have to think because of the use how that's going to pertain to the medical
bacteria or even the farm. That's just my opinion. I I don't know what my professional think. All right. Well, this is this is the environmental commission's suggestion. So, I'm going to lean back on the environmental commission to make a call on a preference on this given the
two two arguments we just heard. Yeah. I mean, I'm just not confident that the water is is being considered enough for the being so close to wetlands. Yeah, we can and it took a lot of effort on and you know, and and although you're only
not paving over more than a quarter acre, you're significantly increasing the amount of impervious surface on this particular site. And um yeah, I I forget what the number is, but it's it's you know, from 35% to 53%. But percentage wise, it's you know, you look at this
property and it's it's paved and it's a lot of impervious surface property. The difficulty I have with percentages sometimes is like 5% of what 100. Oh, I understand percentages. I'm just looking at the picture. I'm just looking at the
picture and you and you know it's currently not um paved. It's gravel which I get I know gets compacted but I don't think that I don't think that property got a lot of use. I mean it looked like it was always going out of business. Um, so maybe the maybe the
pvious asphalt is sort of that bridge between the two because it can be firm and slip resistant and accessible, but it also can take a tremendous amount of water. I have not seen grass block pavers used in
a parking lot aside from like an overflow lot at like Longwood Gardens or something like that. Yeah, we had them in our church more so but you know very very infrequent infrequent use for that but but maybe I'm just saying in yeah no
my only experience is this one location where we did use them all the time but um um but I would also be satisfied if we converted some of that just bushes or whatever to something that was more of a So are you saying not to use pvious asphalt? Well, I've been told that
unless you maintain it, um, it becomes impervious very quickly. So, well, but so do the the grass block pavers literally any of those features just like it's a pension basin. If if that is not maintained in accordance with the D
guidelines, they will ultimately fail as well. So, that is one of the the storm water management. So, I mean maybe they can do some bio swells or something. They they have limited area but I was just suggesting that the pvious pavement is in lie of nothing that is one of the
BMPs and that will help with trying to get some some recharge and reduce the runoff in the wetlands. Maybe we can dish out some of this area here and put some grasses. Yeah, just like a rain garden type thing with just in
case. But and what it'll do is it'll dish in the pond there an inch or so. Um allow more water to infiltrate and then just overflow back into the park. That might be a possibility in few seconds along this would contain
some of these shrubbery more of your type grasses that would be able to handle being submerged in water. We can pick some wetland shrubs like red twig dogwood that'll actually cluster and then you don't have to mow. often do. So that that might if that would uh you
know satisfy the environmental commission be willing to uh give a shot. Paul Costco any thoughts on this and help reduce that? No. Okay. So on uh site plan paragraph six um uh there there is a a waiver requested
uh but um to facilitate the granting of the waiver um it sounds as if um uh the applicant has engineer has agreed to uh re design the eastern border
uh to improve improve um runoff retention in that. Correct. Is that worded? All right. That is worded. All right. And and and that would be
that would be a compromise done to support the waiver that's requested. Seven aisle width. That's the 24 versus 25 ft. Oh, yeah. We didn't really uh talk about that, but correct. Your ordinance requires 25. 24 is a typical
minimum uh for I believe Mr. Piranda provided testimony on that. There's test there's testimony in support of in support of that waiver requirement. Um I previously asked the board if they have anybody has any questions on that. If
not I'm moving on. Um loading space uh eight we didn't discuss um I don't think we did um we did not um yeah we're asking for a way loading
zone um we're maximizing our parking so we really didn't have any areas for loading uh typically we expect box trucks or or the Amazon type of vans and things like that sprinter vans um so they could uh fall into a an empty
parking spot or uh typically these deliveries are shortterm so you can pull off the curve and then let's be real well what do we do um some help from uh Scott Taylor on this but
what do we do if um the tenant does get a a regular 40ft box truck or 40 But trailer delivery of supplies even once a month
um is one way to deal with it to mandate as a condition that those deliveries be made at certain hours that don't conflict with traffic off off peak hours. I I think that's the solution.
Yes. And then it sometimes it just happens the other way. the the stakeholder of the WBMason truck shows up to the park. The driver is there for five minutes and sometimes people have to wait, but for a
very small center like this, it's not uncommon to not designate a full loading zone. All right. So I in in support of your waiver application, you um will the applicant agree to work with
the planners as a condition of approval to come up with appropriate hours for delivery and other restrictions on deliveries. Yes. In in lie of the loading space designation. Correct. We would agree to that. I think it'll it'll
be difficult for us as a condition of approval because the tenants won't be known. I think it may be better long term for the board to just impose a condition that way it can be ongoing and enforce that um delivery hours will be
in during off peak hours to minimize disruption to off-site parking and then that way if there's really a problem at some point Kathy's next person after she retires at some point in the future um off peak hours defined as Yeah,
because we won't know that. It could be two years, but off peak hours coming anywhere. So, they're not So, it would still have to be between 7 a.m. and 700 p.m. Um, but if if they have to schedule a larger piece of equipment or something
coming in, if the doctor's office closes at 5, they would then schedule that at 7. or if they don't start until 10:00, but but until the practitioners are in there, hard to tell. There's no way to really know that. But so it's it's
pretty commonly just done as all deliveries 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and um major deliveries of larger vehicles will be done during off peak hours of the from the business. Are you agreeable to those kind of
conditions? Yes. Great. grading and utility plan. Uh there's a rip wrap suggestion on nine, paragraph nine. Yeah, we actually do show um at our discharge plants we do show um the uh and um we'll provide some
calculations the sizing calculations. All right. Uh a lot of the rest of these I think will be generally agreeable cuz uh we have a the number 10 the forage uh 4in drain pipe. Um yeah we can pipe material needs to be noted. You're
agreeable? Yes. You agreeable with 11 12 and 13? Yeah. Actually that's 11 is existing water service proposing. So you're agreeable to 11 12 and 13. Yes. And 14 That's just a comment. Yeah, that's it.
All right. Uh we're moving to uh construction details. Yeah, I don't see any problem with any of those. Okay. So, you're agreeable with 15 through 19. Uh general comments 20. That's just a comment, but you're going to you you either
deliminate delineated them or you're going to for number 20. The buffer limits. You've already put in a request for that. Yeah, that's that's an LI. Number 20 is an LL. Okay, we're moving to under general
comments to paragraph 21. Actually, we do show the needs and balance provided. Um, there's a just go back to 21. I don't think there's really an easement agreement per se. Um, but it could be noted on the deed. So, we'll have to
pick that up and provide that. All right. But you'll provide which of whichever of the two existation you rely on that to show that easily, right? All right. Um 22 22 there's no existing
well. Um the septic field again we know a general location but we don't know the exact location because there's no uh above ground improvements identified. So that could be difficult. But the closure um yeah the closure would be in accordance with the county health
department. You propose that the that the final plan at least show in general terms the old bed location even if the meets and bounds are not precise. All right. And we'll also note the closure requirements for it. All right. No be
noted on the plans. Correct. All right. Um 23. Well, we've talked about the ADA issues quite a bit. Yeah. Um you need to meet them. You got to meet them and you'll agree to do that. Yeah.
24. Um, that's just a submission detail. You'll agree to that. That's not a problem. 25. That's not a problem. Okay. Once we finalize the plans and also the the construction
cost can be cost estimate can be provided. Right. 26 is is mandatory. other approvals. You'll agree to that, correct? 27. Um, yeah, that's typical standard. Typical. Um, 28, you probably already complied, but
you have to comply with that cert certification of taxes being paid to date. And 29, easement, deed restrictions, other encroachments, and covenants noted on the plan. to the extent there are any,
you'll do that. Okay. Um, any board questions on the Alimo letter before I move to the tower design letter? Um, for addressing like building A, building, building one,
building two, how to do that? Uh, we have not, but um there will be some sort of Yeah, we'll need some sort of identification for that. [Music]
All right, let me just Okay. Taylor design letter page three of six under the general comments section. Uh, number one, um, I think use and operation testimony has been provided to the extent you can give
it at this point. Correct. Scott, any further issues on that? Nope. Um, number two, I think two and three have sort of been they're minor items that revis.
All right. Number four, testimony was provided about that concrete pad, which was the old patio and the shed, which I believe you were going to remove. The concrete pad may have to remain. Yeah, concrete pad, right? And probably
uh it's uh it's outside the door anyway. Yeah, we believe it's required by um five, the um limitation on trash pickup uh and deliveries. We already discussed that and it was agreeable that we go
with the suggestion by the planner deliveries we just discussed basically with regard to uh in the engineers letter I think. Mhm. Um and Scott, are we okay on that paragraph? Yep. Seven. U board on board
trash closure. I just want to make sure we're agreeable. We were at we were at odds on that. You guys wanted one design. Our planner strongly suggested another design and I know the board likes the masonry one. We're going to you're going to you're going to adopt the planners design. Thank you very
much. And those dimensional information that stuff should be noted on the plan. Right now we show six feet. So I believe that's what's required as far as the height. Okay. for the trash enclosure. All right, moving on.
Paragraph eight, um page four of six, um parking requirements. Yeah, we'll update the parking requirements. All right, we have initially we had the residential use and that's shown on the parking calculation, right? and and and and
you've asked for the variance of um of uh 30 34 spaces uh versus a calculation of uh possibly as many as 40. Correct. Um number nine, um
we've talked about that. That's the three parking spots that are going to be labeled employees only. Correct. Yes. 10. Um we didn't talk about sidewalk frontage or sidewalks. Um, I guess we should do that. Scott, what's your thought on that? This would be
Would these be in the right of way along the frontage? It would be in the right of way. Um, you know, decades ago, the board wasn't looking at sidewalks on 38, but I think with some more recent applications, the the board has recognized that there are
folks that ride their bike and walk to work and walk to stores along 38. Um, I know it's something we talked about during the prior application that was on this site. Um, and with there being a retail use, it's something the board may
want to give give some thought to is it is I don't think there's sidewalk on either side and pretty substantial amount of distances around absolutely no sidewalk. So, this little bit of sidewalk here will be uh So, I believe
the site at the intersection two sites down from you is proposing sidewalk at the intersection along their site frontage. Okay. Um the former Wawa the former Wawa site. We just I'm not sure we will be able to
implement any type of sidewalks and three other um establishments along the way. Um our feeling was it's probably better if if there's a NJ dot program that just uh um does the whole stretch
um you know sidewalks instead of PC here and there over the decades you know you'll have sidewalk and nothing and then a little bit of sidewalk and then you got woods um and you had the uh but but if that kid is able to not walk in
the shoulder for the 200 f feet along your site isn't that safer than them walking in the street. And so this is a three-part question. So should we never ask for sidewalk from any developer along Route 38? And and the third question is, are you
aware of any program where DOT installs sidewalks in front of businesses on private property? I am not aware. Uh there's currently there's currently a project on Route 70 where the DOT is doing the corridor
through from Marlton to Cherry Hill and they are installing sidewalks. What they're doing is hitting those missing pieces cuz there were some. But what Mark is saying here is if we put in a piece and the DOT doesn't match up because they have something else through that corridor, they're going to take it
out. And that's what's happened in the uh Route 70 Carter. If there's sidewalk that doesn't match their plans, it comes out. And but is that the exception in your career for sidewalks? The DOT
has had to remove existing sidewalks. Uh it depends on the location. That's a little bit more urbanized than this location. This location, there aren't sidewalks. uh if you put it in at this location, it might be 10 years before you have something to connect to. If
this were between a site where there is sidewalk and is sidewalk, I would absolutely agree that you connect between them or if there's sidewalk on one side, it makes at least a continuous piece. But I don't know that there's But if we don't ask as sites come in to develop or redevelop,
isn't it safer for there to be some sidewalks than no sidewalks? if it gets used. Okay. I'm not sure that it would because there's Is it better than somebody walking on the shoulder? Absolutely. As
a traffic engine, I couldn't tell you anything other than that's all that's all I was trying to Okay. get to. While you're there, can I just ask um I think around there we go from three lanes like emerging lanes. Where does that where
right in front of the site right in front of the site? Is there any way to mark? I mean, so I've seen people where they're trying to get in front of the person. They, you know, and so they're blowing and they're slightly on the, you know, I mean, it just seems um or whatever, you know, it's it seems
like that's a bad spot just because it is going from three lanes to two lane. The three lanes has already dropped before this site. Okay. At this point, you're really narrow. Uh it's narrowed down. You're really in two lanes at this point. You can't have side by side cuz
there's no lane to use. Where exactly is the does the lane drop? Can you show me on the So, it's it looks like according to the area that occurs right on the uh corner of the adjacent that's where it starts to and then it starts to tap and
come through. It's a very dangerous piece of road. I drive it every day. I one of those old people that lives in the morning. Um, but you said the DOT didn't want to make a comment about
anything. Have you thought about asking them to either extend that or or to market as um would they market as driveways and um for turns only or something like a little further up it says that the right
lane is for turns only. Yeah. Would they consider doing it? Maybe they would have to do it back by where the buses are. That would be where there's an actual lane designated for deceleration. Uh sometimes a shoulder can be designated in this location. It would be very
difficult to do that because it would extend beyond the property here and you would have to take right of way going back uh to the east on the office property, maybe the two office properties. They have a hard time coming out of there. I I see it every day. they
have a little bit more difficult time because they're more in that three getting down to two. We're just beyond that site. So, I understand what you're saying that there's a lot you're going to be coming out and you got people that want to go in right next door, too. Fortunately for our site, our driveway
exiting the site is further away. It's more to the west. So, we're even beyond that. We're we're actually, I think, into the two lanes with our outbound driveway. Our inbound driveway is people are going to drive on that shoulder even though the to get to that site even
though it and you know I'm not sure that there's much of a shoulder because the lane is transitioning over and then the shoulder gets wider in front of our uh property because that third lane is dropped and it all occurs right there
and I absolutely know what they're coming they're coming three cars side by side trying to get into two lanes and somebody wants wants to get to that doctor's office or that retail, then it's an accident might happen. And
where would the sidewalks theoretically go if they were to be put in? Can you show me out here? Within the uh just on a big picture, go within the PT rightway. So the red line represents the property line. So between the property
line, from property line and the education. So we are walk And our our frontage is what 225 ft or something like that. The frontage of this block, I'm sorry. The the the frontage of the
lots and then you have the interruption with the two driveways. So, it isn't it isn't a lot of sidewalk, but it is, you know, um the need for it is is kind of questionable because I'm not sure where
these people are walking to. Um if they are um this and even if even if this site was generating [Music] traffic from from the east. So,
is there a bus stop somewhere near there? Right in front of the wall. Yeah, they're saying they're saying um sidewalk along future sidewalk. There's a bus stop there. Yeah, but
right now there isn't. All right. We were just asking for the on the sidewalk issue. Let me get a sense of the board, please. as to where where you where you are individually on this. Um Paula, can can you just do a
roll call on this? And you know the question is sidewalk yes or no? It is. This is I don't know. That was a fair
that's a fair answer. Yeah, just let me just get a sense of the board on this. Mr. Noida, no. Uh, Mrs. Lein, I feel like we just recently asked some another business on 38 to put in sidewalk. Um, for consistency, I
would say that would be the Nissan deal. Nissan more. Or did the state require that? Um, it was actually both. And what was the one across the street on a great sidewalk there as well on the
Mar Highway had not Mar Highway. There was some something of paving like a parking lot on the Oh, the uh Rosenthal. No, the Hport auto we require sidewalk on that. Not as our curb cuts. Yeah.
On the Nissan sidewalk though. there there is some logic to that because where the new jug handle is going in the reverse jug handle there are sidewalks the state's putting in there. So there while there are there are gaps there is a there is an ongoing apparent
effort by the state to go from the jug handle all the way up to the what is it the coffee shop at the other end Starbucks and while there are gaps and that was Black Creek on Black Creek there's a good bit of there's a good bit of
sidewalk there is to that run Starbucks to the hotel which also accommodates section the Nissan. So there is a lot of pedestrian traffic there simply generated from the hotel from that particular use
from the hotel. And I think the Glenn has sidewalks out to Route 38. They're not on 38, but they're not on 38. I was at all so people can walk out. Neither is the kidney center. The kidney center doesn't have doesn't have me yet. All right. So Paul, just finish and and
finish the the roll call. I'm thinking yes, but I'm not a strongest. Get more. What's the question? Sidewalks, yes or sidewalks, no? Yes or no? There's nowhere to go other than the bus
though. So, I guess it's a no. Mr. Jacobi, I say no. Mr. R. Murphy. Yeah, we didn't go with HINS. I mean, so I'd say no. Okay. Mr.
C. Murphy. No, I don't think this location calls for it. Miss Kuska Piper doesn't look for it. Mr. McKay. Uh, I'm a no with Mr. Murphy for the same reason. So, it looks like the sense of the board
is no no on the sidewalk. So that resolves 10 11. Um quite a different issue. Bicycle rack. I shouldn't think you'd have a problem with that. Yeah, there's no issue with that. Um loading area, we've actually discussed that a moment ago with regard to the loading
times. That's 12. Um 13. Are there any deed restrictions uh are not aware of or easements that you're aware of? Is the drainage ement that we discussed these or west? No, decided or was decided, I'm sorry, for the property, which will be noted on the plans. Which is noted on
the plans actually. Okay. Um, double gate test paragraph 14. The double gate fire the firegate at the rear. You've already discussed that. Yes. And whether you need a lock box or not depends on the uh what the fire department. Yeah. If if it's locked and I'll talk to the
applicant about whether you're going to lock it or not. They'll probably need it for the buildings as well. Yeah, most likely. And we may even have notes that pertain to that based on the last application. 15 deals with the existing sign and uh we've agreed you're going to
you're basically limited to rehabilitating the existing sign and you'll come back with more signage if you if you need it at a later time. Correct. Correct. Uh building design F is what we're on
now. One um that's been done. You've provided that testimony by the architect. Uh anything further on that, Mr. Taylor? No, sir. To um uh regard testimony regarding location screening of building
mechanicals? We didn't actually touch on that, but might want to address now. I believe Mr. Yearbrook did that there's there locations. Yeah, because they don't. That's right. You did. You said all you said the septic tanks and other related equipment will be back in that
corner. It's all back in here. So, it won't be out of view. So, you provided testimony in that regard. The lighting character uh lighting section G1, two, and three. I think we discussed all of that and and we agreed to um
to modify light spillage and the candle uh output and um cut off time. Okay, we're on uh page five of six, landscape H1.
And did you generally say that you would comply with the landscape comments and work with us to just address all those? So, I don't know if you want to go through them about the terms. No, I don't think we I don't think we need to go through them if you'll agree to work with the planners to resolve all
landscape issues. Yes. [Music] Okay. Would you all right? Um and and that uh I want to make sure that includes number 10, the irrigation issue. [Music] Yeah.
Irigation. Um at this point, we're not proposing any specific, you know, ground irrigation on the site. Yeah. I think the planters planters experience is that the irrig irrigation of the uh of the shrubs out front go a
long way to preserving their their appearance over time especially warm water the logic I mean yeah is it aren't the is it the property of I mean, we're going to work on that.
I've heard the storm warning. We'll we'll agree. We'll agree to that. The irrigation. Yeah. Sorry. That's it. Um before I open this to the public, which I which I need to do. Um are there any final comments or
questions from the board? I mean, it's a mushy site. Absolutely. Scott, from a, you know, from a planning board perspective and everything and and the water and the the water ran off from the adjacent property, seems like everybody's kind of
agreeing that there's water coming from the adjacent property onto their property and then passing it to the wetlands. Is that like is that really like their problems? Is that like like how does that work with So you can't dam I'll defer to Mr. Desai, but if you put
a 6-in curb in, you will dam it on their property. So you have to let water go the way it's going. As Mr. Malinowski said, um the whack-a-ole you may fix one problem and create another one.
Yeah. Now it's not a substantial amount because it's just really a lawn area. We still don't. That's why your your your little mini swale on the eastern border that would help might actually
uh help quite a bit. Yeah, it was you put the right plantings in it and do a slight depression or something like that. Okay. All right. Um members of the public, I'm going to open
this this board meeting for public comment. So, if there any members of the public in the audience, um, please raise your hand and I'll identify you and you can help be sworn to give testimony.
Seeing no hands raised, I see no people in the audience uh at all other than the participants in this hearing. So, I'm going to do the same thing to those online now. If you are online and you're listening online, maybe shut down. There
are no more online. All right, then. Um, public comment is closed. Bob, let's just talk about a motion that might be made here. Well, it depends on whether you're inclined to grant grant
preliminary and final or just preliminary. If you want to grant preliminary, you can have them come back and show the modifications to the plan that we discussed. If you prepare to go to preliminary and
final, you can do that in one motion. There are a number of variances that are included in the application that are listed in the Taylor and Brian group letter. Some of them are existing conditions.
uh lot area, front setback, sideyard setback, number of parking spaces, uh parking sideyard setback and parking rear yard setback are the main ones. And then uh in doing a resolution, I would
have to include all the comments that we discussed in going through the planners letter and the engineers letter and where waiverss are are granted. Um it's a long list but uh we discussed all
of them. So let's deal with the mechanics first. Main question is do you want to go preliminary and final or just preliminary? That was my question to you for the board members uh education on this. Uh what if the board uh or a board
member proposes a motion uh to grant preliminary only? Um what will be the effect of that for a second hearing? The effect would be that they would have to come back with all the changes that we discussed tonight in the modifications
and you would have to include the the bulk variances that requested. I don't think there were any objections to the bulk variances. But the plan would have to show the modifications that we discussed today in compliance with the congressional
letters. And the board would get to talk about the the new plan and have questions on the new plan before deciding whether to accept it for final. Yes.
Or we could the board could uh move to do both preliminary and final tonight. Um accepting that the various conditions uh and agreements that have
been made will be properly worked out with the planner and the engineer so as to eliminate the need for the board to micromanage the review of the plan at a second year. You know, if the engineer
and our engineer and our planner don't agree that they have complied with the requirements, we'll have to come back and and sort it out. Right. Mr. Confer that comment that I stated that will be in there as well about the front building that's eating
the house um and specifically regarding the office that it won't be able to be used as a medical office. Correct. I don't know who the tenant is going to be. Well, no.
If we stipulated that medical offices, the medical office that we proposed, we're not going to propose anymore. And it's only those uses. They can't have a restaurant. They can't have a convenience store or food store because those included all have different. I just want
to make sure outline that that front building is specifically for office general. I think that was clear. Yes, I can put that as a condition in the resolution. Yes. I think this is going to be a long resolution. There's a lot
of conditions and a lot of references to the professional letters. Yeah. I mean, I think the resolution might even have to go through a draft to be circulated, you know. Yes. And you have to do that anyway at the next
hearing assuming it right. Exactly. But I mean I mean circulated among the professionals beforehand and it comes to the board as a draft and we'll look at it and approve it. But you ought to see it too to make sure
the draft uh that you have input into the draft. Yes. All right. So the choice board members is a preliminary and final motion uh granting the variances and the waiverss subject to the conditions that have been
outlined uh too numerous to summarize right now. Um or um just grant preliminary uh at this time and deal with the final review at another meeting.
May I have a motion? So you say we say yes from preliminary. So your motion is to grant preliminary and final subject to uh all the conditions and granting the requested waiverss that have been been
approved during our discussion and the variances. All right, I'll second that. All right, so we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call, please? Mr. R. Murphy. Yes. Miss Costco. Yes, Mrs. Tory. Yes,
Mr. Noita. Yes, Mrs. Logan. Yes, Mayor Gilmore. Yes, Mr. Tracoi. Yes, Mr. C. Murphy. Yes. And Mr. McKe. Yes. All right, gentlemen. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you for your testimony. I
want to thank the board for efficiently getting through this complicated matter and getting it through successfully. Thank you. Thanks for getting us there. All right, we still have a few more
things to do. Um, minutes of the last meeting of April 2nd. Um, can I have a motion to uh approve and file the minutes? Second.
All right. Uh, roll call. I'd love to look at We had a second. Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mr. Novarita. Yes. Mrs. Yes. Mrs. Leen. Yes. Mr. Choi. Yes. Mr. R. Murphy. Yes. Mr. C. Murphy. Yes.
Miss Kasco. Yes. And Mr. Mc. Yes. All right. Um, we have a we have three resolutions. The first is Seagull Holdings. 2025-17. Uh you all have the revised
version of this that was provided. Uh this this basically uh adjourns the next hearing uh until uh August 6th, 2025 with um plans due late no later than
July 1st, 2025. Can I have a motion to adopt as written? Second. Second, Mr. Traochi and Yep. got it all. All right. Uh roll call, please. Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mr. Tracoi, yes. Mrs.
Tori, yes. Mr. Noita, yes. Mrs. Le, yes. Mr. C. Murphy, yes. Miss Pasco, yes. And Mr. Nick, yes. Uh, next we have another German resolution 2025-18 Verizon of New Jersey.
Um, this requires uh uh paperwork filed with the secretary by July 1st, 2025 and a hearing on the application scheduled for August 6th, 2025. That will be a fun meeting.
May I have a uh have a motion to adopt this as written? Second. Roll call. Yeah. Gilmore. Yes. Mrs. Len, yes. Mrs. Tory, yes. Mr. Narita, yes.
Mr. Fochi, yes. Mr. C. Murphy, yes. Miss Kasco, yes. And Mr. McG. All right. Yes. Uh, the last one is resolution 2025-9. Um, this also grants continuence of
uh the u the site plan. [Music] I have a motion on this motion. The mo motion on this resolution, please. So move. Second. Second.
Gilmore. Yes. Mr. Jakoji. Yes. Mrs. Tory. Yes. Mr. Narita. Yes, Mrs. Lein. Yes, Mr. R. Murphy. Yes, Mr. C. Murphy. Yes, Miss Kasco. Yes. And Mr. Mitch. Yes.
Uh, there's a few pieces of correspondence, two to be precise, they're listed on the agenda. If no one um seeks to discuss either one, can I have a motion to uh receive and file uh both items of correspondence? So, move.
Thank you. Second. Second. All in favor? Hi. All right. Any professional comments beyond what we talked already about today? Good night. Good night. Is that is that a professional comment or just a comment? Take it anyway. Or it's an
editorial comment, I guess, would maybe that's best to describe it that way. Any board comments? Are we allowed to ask a question about something that Absolutely.
Did we the right project on Mar Highway? Were they supposed to talk to that neighbor about something? Because we never touched on that tonight. Weren't they supposed to clear something with the neighbor neighboring property about the driveway driveway there? Yeah. So,
so they the existing driveway straddles that rear property line, which it it can't. So, they're moving their um their one-way
occasional access drive in off of the rear property line by 15 ft, which is what the ordinance requires. We asked them to restore that, including the encroachment on the neighbor's property, and they agreed that they would to the extent that the neighbor
will permit them to access the property to restore that. If the neighbor says, "No, you can't come on my property. I want to travel to stay because he parks a Jeep on it." It wasn't subject to the application. So, it kind of will just live its life.
Yeah. Okay. But I still think he would on on on the right side, he'd still have to redefine the access driveway for himself. Yeah. He'll have to remove all the gravel from his rear property line
to I forget if it's a 10 foot or 15 foot step back to where his new driveway is going to be located close to the barn highway. Okay. Any other board comments? Public comments. The record can show
there is no public left in the room. It is uh it is 10:15 by my uh [Music] Uh 10:15 by my watch. Can we have a motion to adjurnn? Second. Second. All in favor? Any
oppose? Hearing none, we're return.