11 to 14 compensatory trees um on site. We do propose 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. And you also want to maintain an adequate sight sight triangle. That's that's correct. 138 of [Applause]
course and I'm referring to propose. So again um the B level of course the bu the building is shown as is the tan tan existing building is a tan color the B level which would be office use uh the
one-story addition in the front would be the retail use and of course the twotory addition in the back is the doctor's office medical use. Uh we are maintaining the entrance drives. Uh of course we're improving them on our property uh to access the site. Again
it's a bifurcated uh entrance. Uh your ordinance requires one entrance for this type of frontage. The uh we have 220 foot 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 highway department have any say in that split entrance? Well, we we have a traffic engineer, Mr. Fran, will provide testimony. I believe we there's already
been a letter of no interest from DOT bases. Yeah. And they show, you know, they show the 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. I 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 accordance with ADA guidelines. We're also proposing one uh
EV ready space in 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 that 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 been
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 uh maneuvers of these vehicles. So that that's a benefit also. So 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 and then you'd have to label that as such. I we could put sign we would sign either signs or on the pavement itself. Whatever we could do either or both. Whatever is the heport 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 ordinance requires 20 foot parking setback uh for the rear and the side and we are proposing 4 foot along the side
and 5 foot along the rear. So that's a that's a uh variance 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, cur 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 curbing, 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 the 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 sight triangle issues with that? Uh I did take a look at that. That's existing. I assume that's existing shrubbery. No, this what's we what we show on this plan is all proposed. is proposed. I think 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 sight 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 goes down like 530 ft, right? Um but all that frontage 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 that those utility structures. Where do you have your handicap parking? So the handicap parking is along the easterly side parking. So it kind of gives um you know general sort of a general
location so they can hatch. Yeah. A hatch so they could walk whether they're going to the medical or retailer or even the office. All right. So kind of general area and then of course the EV space we we show in the back. Okay.
Um the other item just with regards to parking and also well let's just talk about the um dumpster. We're proposing a a large dumpster area for both trash and recyclables.
This dump the planner's comment had some comments with regard to that u 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, the 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 a with a sturdier gate. Okay. Yeah. Well, yeah, my experience has been in the ones that I've designed um that they 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're just 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 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 fencing. So that that tends to hold up pretty well. Uh Mr. Norman, I I hear the argument, but I think the board might see it differently. Well, thanks. So, it's up to you. 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 50-ft 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
Glenn at Mason's Creek is in a uh and is in is in a residential zone. So we have those those encroachments um there. However, getting back to the fact that you have that large drainage corner a 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 uh 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 don't have his letter memorized, but whatever is in his letter is what what uh that's reasonable given
that the residential community. No one wants to hear the truck beeping early in the morning. Exactly. And there's a similar um similar uh time restrictions on on delivery trucks to the extent that there are other than maybe a UPS truck
coming in now. Um, are 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. Uh let me just go through my notes. I think we've pretty much covered um covered this up because there's the lighting. Of course, we're proposing new LED lighting uh along a perimeter of the
um of the parking lot. Again, the uh there was some Scott's letter referred to spillage. the lights along the easterly side and and 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 uh still illuminate some of the lawn areas and the wooded area at the rear. Um some of the things that help mitigate that is that we are proposing uh 6' high
solid vinyl fence along these uh locations. uh that also mitigate also the encroachment of the parking within that parking setback. Um so we do have that. So that is is set. There was also reference to um uh setting um timers
timing cut offs 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. Um and we're willing to
do that. Um but uh but that also um that's what we're also proposing. All right. So the 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 or will 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 I guess my my eyesight wasn't
great, but you're proposing a fence on um on two sides or portions of two sides. Correct. Along the uh easterly 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 in it. 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 fence. 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 briefly briefly with Mr. Mr. Malinowski, 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 have any of course at the end of the parking lot of course here's the the dumpster location. Uh, so we're proposing to talk about the property corner. No, actually the property corner is over here. Yeah, just pull it
straight down. Pull it straight down. Trash enclosure. Trash and 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 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 dis 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 issue with with the extending that fence. Is the is the color of the fence uh something we ought to discuss? 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 with it kind of goes with the team. I think goes with the building. So I think I think Yeah, tan
is what we specified. Okay. Tan is and the building is largely tan. So that right it's less the white is kind of can be blinding in a way if there's a lot of it. Yeah. Is there still going to be a that double gate in the back corner and what? 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 pro 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 need a box. Uh and we would provide that for the fire department. And would that gate be the fencing material? Uh, that's correct. It' be the solid fencing material be the solid PVC fence and just
be a gate 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. So, yeah. No, that's fine. Um, not sure if I Yeah, I did kind of
lose track. I apologize for that. Uh, I think I pretty much covered um basically Norman, you have your architect here, too. What I wanted to cover. Yeah. Uh, we talked about the landscaping already. What about the
There's a little shed here. Oh, yes. Yes. And what there there's two items that were mentioned in Scott's letter is that this this square here, concrete pad and the shed next to it. Yeah. This is an 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. There's a sliding door. The old patio. So it's a 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. Raise your right hand, please. Swear affirm square. Okay, Michael, you brought your architectural exhibit. Yes. And you've 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 has sort of come and has been for a number of years in your community and and with a modest investment create something that really uh brings value to to the
community and everything 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
materials is to take the the there's a 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 uh 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 massing concept. Uh there are um pitched roof office buildings uh just a stone throws away from this site. So 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 hung 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 we 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. We did not. A
is it A4 or A4? A4. Okay. A4. You sure can. Uh the another question that we were asked was about uh the screening location and screening of building 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 uh visible from the from the street or adjacent property. We have a question from a member right up front. Yeah. Personally I feel you know that it's it's nice what you're doing on the right side. Mhm. You know, I was just
wondering like how and you brought up, you know, keeping the price down or everything, you know, you always trying to keep up. I appreciate that, but but how difficult would it be just to take those A-frames that are in the new build, you know, your new proposed new? Yeah, those 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 mixup. But uh we 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 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 the
present house u memory stories and writing? I'm looking at your photograph too. Um looks like it's kind of like a light gray. Are you are you residing into white? Is that what I'm seeing on the to to paint the walls all a consistent uh off-white
color? Yes. Okay. So you I guess everything will match. You're paint you're repainting the house, not residing, right? But you're putting new windows on a 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. I don't know. just as one person that
that bi sitting at the end of the building just looks weird to me. But I but I appreciate your economic argument. Well, yeah. I mean, if would one do this from starting from scratch? No. But I better 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. Looks like a house. It looks like a house stuck on the end of the building.
Yes. 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 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 spaces? It depends on the
tenant whether they're uh you know whether it's three tenants or or uh two. Um there is an existing door between the house and the retail sector.
Okay. So the people the retail could use that house with its offices. Well that would exacerbate the parking variance really. That's correct. It would be all it's would never be uh well
if if you say that it is then then we we 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. Right. Um, and we calculate retail space at gross floor area. So if there's a small office in a Waw Wa or any other store,
that still counts as the gross floor area of the retail in the Sure. Okay. So that's great. Okay. So yes. Yeah. Yes. Yes. 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 we will go with whatever the pleasure of the board is. Yeah.
Question. So I foresee in the future and something if the board chooses to approve the application that the house itself we keep talking about office office and in 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 the board were to approve this application that that house slash office at this
point is that it it's to stay office only not medical office. I really think that needs to be defined in the resolution. That's acceptable because there's higher higher trips with
medical offices than regular office. We agree with that and dental offices are included within the definition of medical offices. Great. So the understanding is that this will be described as uh a non-medical
commercial correct office. Correct. Excuse me. We have a question. Do you have any idea what kind of retail this is going to be? Well, that's a question for uh Mr. Patel who's we're going to make as a witness. But 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 the idea any there's there's not going to be a check here. I guess I guess the question is that's 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 Yeah, Mr. Pel can can speak to that, but his his his
uh uh basic thoughts are not uh someone talk mentioned 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. So the Dunkin Donuts won't Yeah. No. All right. When Mr. Patel gets up
here, we'll we'll talk to him about that. We're just curious. That's on. 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 architectural review. Anything else or we can move on to Is there anything with signage? Uh, well, the signage again want to do with signage now? Well, no, the signings will be applied for later when when we have a tenant and it's a little premature, I guess, but 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 know. Yeah, it's either it's 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 variances. Yeah. Yeah. And I imagine your tenants would want to have something to say about the sign, too. Correct. Correct. Yeah. 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 tenant. It's basically grandfather bin 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 retail, are you going to have facade signage? Yeah, again, we haven't really gone that far because of the tenant requirements. See what they require. But yes, it's very possible it might have some uh
facade signature the intent of the code for the facade sign that that's in the zoning office. Correct. I I I guess I was more concerned about the existing sign 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. Um, 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 keep sending you to the board
for anything. So, yeah, assuming assuming we deal with just the rehabilitation existing site, does a 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 be 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 on 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 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, we can add 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. to just try to stay within the limits of the existence and if what they propose or they need a directional sign or a
medical office sign on the front building directing someone to because the medical office is somewhat hidden and uh you don't want somebody 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 back something something that'll
point for circulation purposes that that may be helpful. And depending what I mean if the board's happy that could 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 strenuous objection, my suggestion is
stick with the existing sign for today. Everything else is is 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 a 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 drafts. All right. Anything else on the architectural issue? I I I think that's it unless there are questions. I I had one last comment and that I wasn't sure
I heard in 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 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 only exists because of the distance to the main. So does the the wetlands the lineation
does that determine anything about your septic location? We have to stay out of we're outside. Yes, it does to answer your question. So we are not possible yet to the county health department. You
don't have anything from the D yet? 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. Yoderberg, the, uh,
the medical office building, the treatment of that building, is that does that get new windows or is that just being paint? 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 bounce of that building will just receive paint. Yes. Okay. Yes. And
then the right or east side of the front retail building. Yeah. Along here. Yes. Uh-huh. pick what you wish see see here in the 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 gable 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, may be helpful. I'm I'm sure if 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 to kick
around some uh some ideas? of course on that the B level building. Yes, the house. I'm I'm sure we could. Yes. 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 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 square 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. Well, 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 right off my head but I thought it was 10,000 square feet. 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. Yeah. 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 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 uh right, the new 2021 codes, we're going to be getting ready to deal with 24 codes
shortly as well. is that the ABA issues on the 21 code have changed drastically. Back. Yeah. I mean, back after the 2018 codes and then we went to the 21, they that was one of the biggest changes was
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 we really need to take a look at uh because it is going
to affect not only the exterior but the interior of the prop. Absolutely. And I'm sorry I didn't come tonight paired with the with with the number but we did check this uh with the current vote we to make sure
that we were okay. did not require uh you know it's the New Jersey edition or just the ICC edition. No, the 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 we need to we need to independently verify that 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. You 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 in 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 were proposed it's going to be proposed our steps our steps start um
our 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 big window but this applies yeah I believe so yes but this applies to That's correct. Back building too.
Uh back building is twotory building. Twotory building and I I we checked and and that does have accessibility to the first level to the first level but not to the sec not to the second level and that's that's the exclus as I understand it from reviewing dozens of these and
also from building a 3,000t building in Mount Laurel. Yeah. You have to provide accessibility to the primary floor. The restrooms on every build on every floor have to be accessible even though Yeah. Yeah. The bathroom still has to
still the bathroom still has to be but that my understanding is 10 I think 10,000 square ft is is that exception um only for the uppermost the upper yes but you still have to provide the main accessibility at the 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 B level or handicapped accessible issue. 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 this board previously? I have, but it's been a while. Sir, raise your right hand, please. I swear the testimony you give will be the truth. Whole truth. Nothing but the truth. I do. Mr. Miranda, give
us 30 seconds on your background, please. Sure. My name is Andrew Ferand. I'm with uh Shropshire Associates. I'm a partner at the firm, traffic engineer, also a certified PTOE, which is 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 boards throughout the state, zoning board, planning board, uh and also being qualified in the superior court uh for traffic testimony. Thank you. We'll accept you as an expert for purposes of your 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, uh 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 on the size of the site, based on adjacent
driveways. By non-conforming, what does that mean? It means the DOT puts a trip limitation. It just doesn't say you're fine. You can have unlimited trips. Uh typically, uh you can size a use on site based on the uh conformance of the lot.
Uh in this case, the conformance of the lot says we're limited to just over 140, I think it's 148 trips for the site uh during peak periods. That would be the AM, 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, and Saturday commuter peak. Morning is between 7 and 9. afternoon between uh 4 and 6 and on a Saturday it's typically between 11 and
two. We find the highest hour. We determined uh the peak traffic that would travel uh to a site trips in and out and then we based that uh on the IT institute of transportation engineers traffic engineer bible uh they go study
sites count uh trips in and out of sites they compile it put it into information for many sites uh many sizes uh that we use that data to get the uh peak trips for a site of similar size and similar
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 15 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. You're 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 an 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 the cause by not changing the driveway and
allowing that in and out and you signing and directing the traffic to make that right turn. Again, those who come to the site on regular basis, medical office, frequenting the 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 feet 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 you're coming in off of a 38. It's a higher speed road. You want some time to slow down. Well, again, a vehicle is naturally
going to slow down as it enters a site. This 40 foot throat length to the first parking space is not atypical for what you would see at a gas station, a 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 40 foot. 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 be um employee parking
employee parking that certainly would be helpful. There's less turnover in the parking spaces. They come in once, they park, they leave at the end of the day. It's not like patrons or uh patients for the medical facility where these spots are being used over and over and there
will be more activity movements in and out of those spaces. So that that's a good compromise uh for these couple of spaces at the entrance. Uh the circulation on site 24 foot I know your ordinance is 25 foot 24 foot works uh
and especially for this site the 24 foot works because parking is along the edge typically 25 ft would be necessary if you have head-to-head parking and the potential is that they don't pull in or there's a longer vehicle on one side and the other vehicle. That's when you need
that extra foot to uh have the aisles potentially wider for that 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 24 ft rather than 25 ft for the circulation aisle. Um, the signage, uh, I agree that any signage that comes in with a later package, any wayfinding signage would be appropriate to help vehicles circulate
the site without going the wrong way. 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 like 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 for the size 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 detail and the um now um professional office. I'll call it 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 per the space. I believe it's 5,60 would be the small office and the retail space if
that's all calculated at 5.5. what I did as uh a traffic engineer. I 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 uh 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
that requirement to cover the parking demand. There's a parking supply that's the actual available 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 can that meet the parking projected parking demand? and how we get that parking demand. Again, we go back to the IT, 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 the 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 uh would require approximately 28 spaces. So with the I believe it was
28. I take that back. That was if the whole shopping the whole center was considered shopping center. um taking that medical office out 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 the 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. Uh, 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 the requirement on the medical office and
using what it says would 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 um 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 peak earlier in the day, not
when the retail um is up and operational at 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 there's it's not like an uncontrolled all of a sudden there's 10 vehicles 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 uh 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 would 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 two. So that being said, I I think it's um our parking um provision uh of 34 spaces makes sense
for this site. Again, 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.
All right. Thank um questions from professionals on this uh parking variance, parking space variance issue. I have a question. Sure. Um because I live behind the medical center. So I see
a lot of um seniors come in. I think the Sen is the the small bus um that take a lot of them medical uh business things and they drive along. Was that
in the party like in coming in dropping them off turning around. I mean this is a small uh medical office, a doctor's office. Um small 5,000 square ft. I guess that's large enough for a couple of patient couple of people to be
brought by a bus or a taxi. I don't know that it would be a large bus. It might be a van. It might be No, they're just again I see them behind my house all the time dropping them off. Um it's the county link. Yeah, it's counting to my I understand the one that may actually be better because it's they're all coming
into one van as opposed to individual cars. I was just wondering reduces trips and reduces parking. But that aside, I understand what you're getting at. Will it fit on will it 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 couple of 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 use those buses. So, I do understand what you're saying, but the site is designed uh for two-way traffic on the 24T aisle, and the vehicle certainly could uh navigate the site.
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 we put employee only signs for those first
three spots. The park, please. Yeah. Yeah, that would be fine to put the employee. You could also put uh designations on the pavement, some markings that uh indicate that it's for employees. that that's certainly um something that we can
um anything the only comment just very briefly and I spoke with Mr. Malinowski or Mr. Norman 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 meaning 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, but the board may have considered that kind of a condition as a
safety net in case we do get a very successful retail franchise. We should hope we get almost the parking problem. Mr. Norman, are you agreeable to that condition? Is 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 principal, but we don't want to reduce the marketability of the site to someone that is has got to move in, but they're subject to all kind may have to I don't know what kind of changes you'd have to do to to accommodate. All right.
All right. Well, let's do this. Let's take a fiveminut break. Sure. Maybe you talk to your client about that subject and report back to us after after the fiveminute break. Yes. All right. Let's break 10 after nine. 5 minutes.
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 them. Okay. Mr. Patel, Patel, do you swear or affirm testimony will be the truth, whole truth, nothing
but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay. 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 2023. Okay. And do you have
any proposed tenants currently? Uh no I don'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. 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 her 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 actually I purchased the property
for myself actually to use for the wearing decoration the event decoration from the beginning but I had another bigger property what I looking for it so I could He found another site for his principal business. I just going to try to rent it this properties since I
bought it. All right. All right. Hopefully medical use or the retails people. Okay. Um board members questions of Mr. Patel. Seeing none. Um,
professionals, sir. Questions of Mr. Patel. You said you bought it when? 2023. 23. September. 2023. 23. Yep. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Patel. Thank
you, Mr. Norman. 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 I'm trying to tell me tell me when you're caught and you can stand up here because
probably I was going to say the two of you should share the podium as we go over these things because 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
um traffic engineer and and Mr. Malinowski. Agreed. Yes. Okay. Um, we have the parking setback issues. Um, and u you're asking for a variance for those
two. Um, are are professionals agre in in agreement with that? No exception. 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. They're existing there's existing existing conditions in the limited area of the development. Correct. All right. Um number four are 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 that Jason just the driveway from that. It's just that drive the oneway drive aisle just to make sure that's 25 ft
off. That is correct. Okay. Okay. So, you're going to you'll comply with the 25 foot 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 side 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 in right there? 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 matching that for the most part along here to keep that. That's why we're not putting the curve in the curve elevates that
elevation 6 in additional six inches. So, if I have a curving along here, you've got the yard property to the east. They're draining toward our property toward the west. that curve will stop um the runoff the storm water
run off from the joint. So that's why we're asking for just in this location for the curving and what I've said is I set these elevations pretty much um at there might be a little difference in elevation here but then I have a
swale to accommodate that grade but the challenge was in order to 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 put the curbing in, would
it cause potential drainage issues on the adjoining property? It will stop it will stop the run from the So So basically then 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 joining the 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 like would it be a
leech field for the septic? Yeah. Yeah. You know, I mean, with 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're scaling it around the leech field. So, yeah. Okay. the 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 a upto-date line of delineation as to exactly where the wetlands are now that there's been I think was done
before Mason's Creek or when 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 beachfield. We Oh, no, no, no. That could be a problem. We've got elevation uh change field and all. So it's been graded around this
area on our grading plan we show particularly you know some of this some of this area will be coming through this location um which is between Route 38 roadway and the leechfield line there
okay do you have like four feet between the parking and the and the neighbor's property or how how big is that location that's correct 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 the property landscape areas. So that's different than actually trying to manage it. It is it is relatively flat 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. Although 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 I think um an agree you were agreeable to consider that and I'm wondering we 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's that rectangle basically. Yeah. everything that that rectangle, right? Yeah. That you had I mean we can we can do I mean expensive
but we can do permeable a not not permeable mint but the you you grow grass and you just 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, hexagon block, like a hexagon block. It basically
allows the the problems with that is identifying the parking spaces, 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 and 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 else 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 and that but we have to think because of the use how that's going to pertain to the medical back area or even the front. That's just my
opinion. I don't I don't know what my professionals think. All right. Well, this is that this is the Environmental Commission's suggestion. So, I'm going to lean back on the Environmental Commission to make a call on their preference on this given the two two arguments we've 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 you took a lot of effort on and you know and and although you've 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 on this property. The difficulty I have with percentages sometimes is like 5% of what 100 acres. Oh, I understand percentages. I'm just looking at the picture. I'm just looking at the picture and you're 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 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 in our church that I used to go to Morstown. But you know, very very infrequent infrequent use for that. But but maybe I'm just saying in 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 pers literally any of those features, just like a detention 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 bioales 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 into the wetlands. Maybe we can dish out some of this area here and put some grasses. Yeah, just like like a rain garden type thing just in case. And what it'll do is
it'll air an inch or so allow more water to infiltrate and then just overflow back into the might section along this contain some of these shrubbery more of your ornamental
type classes 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. we have to do so that that might that would uh you know satisfy the environmental commission be willing to uh give that a
shot. Paulosco 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 approve um runoff retention in that. Correct. Is that worded? All right. That's 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 foot. Oh yeah. We didn't really uh talk about that, but correct. Your ordinance requires 25. 24 is a
typical minimum for parking areas. I believe Mr. Panda 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 any 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 of a
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 Amazon type of vans, things like that, Sprinter vans. Um, so they could
uh pull into empty parking spot or uh typically these deliveries are shortterm, so they can even pull up along the curve. just wherever you want. Let's be real. We'll just 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
foot 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 think that's the solution. Yes. And then it sometimes it just happens the other way. the the Staples or the WBM Mason truck shows up in 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
enforced that um deliveries will be in during off peak hours to minimize disruption to on-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 going anywhere. So, they're not. So, it would still have to be between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 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, it's hard to know. There's no way
to really know that. But so it's it's pretty commonly just done as all deliveries 7 am to 7 pm and 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 points we do show Riverstone at
the end. Um we'll provide some calculations, sizing calculations. All right. So, a lot of the rest of these I think will be generally agreeable because uh we have a the number 10 4 in 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, it's 11 is existing water service. We're not proposing any. So, you're agreeable to 11, 12, and 13. Yes. And 14.
That's just a common. Yeah, that's 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, correct? Uh, general comments 20. That's just a
comment. But you're going to you've you've either delinated delineated them or you're going to for number 20 the buffer limits. You've already put in a request for that. Yeah, it's that's an LOI. Number 20 is an
LI are we are applying for. Okay, we're moving to uh under general comments to paragraph 21. Actually, we do show the needs and balances. Um 22 there's a just go back to 21. I don't think there's really an easement
agreement per se 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 Yeah. We relied 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 to identified. So, that could be difficult. But the closure, um yeah, the
closure would be in accordance with the V 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. Correct. And we'll also note the closure requirements for it.
All right. No be noted on the plans. All right. Um 23. Well, we've talked about the ADA issues quite a bit. Yeah. Um we 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 that's acceptable. Not a problem. Okay. Once we finalize the plans and also we'll the deep 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 29 easements 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 for address are we just signing these like building A building one building asked all about how you're going to do
that. Uh we have not but there will be some sort of Yeah, we'll need to some sort of identification for that. All [Applause] right. Okay. Tailor 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. They just be revised. We'll coordinate. 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 shed should remove the concrete pad may have to remain. Yeah, the concrete pad, right? And and probably uh it's uh it's outside the door anyways. Yeah, we believe it's required by
um five u limitation on trash pickup uh and deliveries. We already discussed that and it was agreeable that correct 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. Uh 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 that 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 of course. Yeah. 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, initially we had the residential 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. 40. Right. 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 that have
absolutely no sidewalk. So this little bit of sidewalk here with the So I believe the site at the intersection two sites down from you is proposing sidewalk at the intersection along their site frontage. Okay.
the former Wawa the former Wawa site we just I'm not sure when you would be able to implement any type of sidewalks in the three other establishments along the way. Um,
our feeling was it's probably better if if there's a NJ DOT program that just uh does the whole stretch um, you know, sidewalks instead of peace mealing here and there over the decades. You know, you'll have sidewalk and nothing nothing
and then a little bit of sidewalk and then you got woods and then you have the uh but but if that kid is able to not walk in the shoulder for the 200 feet along your site, isn't that safer than them walking in the street? And so this 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.
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 because 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 card. 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. 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 off. Where does that where does 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. and they, you know, and so they're blowing and they're slightly on
the side, you know. I mean, it just seems um going sidewalks or whatever. You know, it's it seems like that's a bad spot just because it is going from three lanes to two lanes. The three lanes is already dropped before this
site. Okay. At this point, you're really narrow uh it's narrowed down and you're really in two lanes at this point. You can't have side by side because there's no lane to use. Where exactly is the does the lane drop? Can you show me on that? So it's it looks like according to
the area it occurs right in the uh corner in the adjacent building. That's where it starts to and then it starts to taper 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 blind. 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 it as
um would they mark it as driveways and um for turns only or something like a little further up it says that the right lane is for turns only. 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. Well, 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 of They'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 ends, 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 you're saying. But they're coming. three
cars side by side trying to get into two lanes and somebody wants to get to that doctor's office or that retail. I'm just saying it's an accident waiting to happen. And where would the sidewalks theoretically go if they were to be put in? Can you show me on the uh just on
the the big picture? It would go within the right way. So the red line represents the property line. So it would be between property line from property line and the education. So it'll be a
and our frontage is 225 ft or something like that. The frontage of this lot I'm sorry the the the frontage of the lot is and then you have the interruption with the two driveways two driveways. So, it
isn't it isn't a lot of sidewalk, but it is, you know, the need for it is is kind of questionable because I'm not sure where these people are walking to. Um, they are
um this and even if even if this site is generating pedestrian traffic from the east. Is there a bus stop somewhere near there? Right in front of the Waw Wa. Yeah, they're saying they're saying
there's going to be um sidewalk along the future sidewalk along the front of the There's a bus stop there. Yeah, but right now there is 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. We did this toy. I don't know. That's a that was that's a fair that's a fair answer. Is that an extension? I don't know. Yeah. Just let me just get
a sense of the board on this. Mr. Novarita. No. Uh Mrs. Lennin, I feel like we just recently asked some another business on 38 to put in sidewalk. Um so for consistency, I would say that would
be the Nissan deal. Nissan Nissan or did the state require that? Um it was actually both. And what was the one across the street on we put in sidewalk there as well on the Martin Highway had not Mar
Highway. There was some something that paving like a parking lot on Oh, the uh Rosenthal. No, the Hesport autoport. We tried to go. Did we Did we require sidewalk on there? Not because of 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 8 the Nissan so there is a lot of pedestrian traffic there simply generated from the hotel from that particular use
the user 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 that was developed so people can walk out to the kidney center. The kidney center doesn't have it. Doesn't have meeting. All right. So, Paul, just
finish and and we finish the the roll call. I'm leaning yes, but I'm not a strong yes. There go more. What's the question? Sidewalks yes or sidewalks? No. Yes or no? There's nothing nowhere to go other than
the bus stops, so I guess it's a no. Mr. Jakochi, I say no. Mr. R. Murphy. Yeah, we we didn't do it with hi Hannesport, you know. I mean, so I'd say
no. Okay. Mr. C. Murphy. No, I don't think this location calls for it. Miss Kasco, I agree. Doesn't look Mr. McCay. 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 with
a moment ago with regard to the loading times. That's 12. Um 13. Are there any deed restrictions? Uh we are not aware of or easements that you're aware of was the drainage ement that we discussed along east or west side or westly side
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 is paragraph 14. The double gate fire the fire gate 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 says. Yeah. If if it's locked and I'll talk to the applicant about whether we're going to lock it or not. Probably need them for the buildings as well. Yeah, most likely. And we might even have notes 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 you might want to address. I believe Mr. Yanderberg did that there's if there's Yeah, because of the building. That's right. You did. You said you said the
septic tanks and other related equipment will be back in that corner. It's all back in here. So, it'll be out of view. So, you provided testimony in that regard. The lighting character uh lighting section G1, two, and three. I think we've discussed all of that. Yeah.
And and we agreed to um to modify light spillage and the candle uh output and um cut off times. 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 item by item. 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. Okay. Would you All right. Um and would and that uh I want to make sure that includes number 10, the irrigation issue. Yeah. We this week discuss
irrigation. Um at this point we're not proposing any specific you know ground irrigation on the site. Yeah. I think the planners planners experience is that that irrig irrigation of the uh of the shrubs out front go a
long way to preserving their their appearance over time especially warm water tell me the logic I mean yeah is it aren't the is it the property of the yeast going to water Thank you. I mean, we're going to rely
on that. I've heard the storm water. We'll we'll agree we'll agree to that. The irrigation. Yeah. It is already system. It's already 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. I just want to ask Scott. Absolutely. Scott, from a, you know, from a planning board perspective and everything and the and the water and the the water rain 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 to the wetlands. Is that like is that really like their problems or 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. We're a natural drain. You got to keep
going. Yeah. Now, it's not a substantial amount because it's just really in one area for you still don't want to cause any problem. That's why your your your little mini swale on the eastern border that'll help might actually uh help
quite a bit. If 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 welcome to 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 online, maybe it's shut down.
There are no more online. All right, then. Uh, 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're prepared 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. They're listed in the Taylor Design 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 for 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 tonight in compliance with the professional
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. If the engineer and our engineer and our planner don't agree that they have complied with your requirements, we'll have to come back and it's sorted out. Right. Mr. Kingsbury, that uh comment that I stated that will be in there as well about the
front building that meeting the house um and specifically regarding the office of it won't be able to be used as a medical office. Correct. [Music] I don't know who the attendant's going to be.
Well, no. We we stipulated that the medical office is 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 Well, that's not what was included. All have different I
just want to make sure outline that that front building specifically for office. Yeah. General office. 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 Yeah. Right.
Exactly. But I mean, yeah. 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 and final. 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. That's fine. 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. Novarita. Yes,
Mrs. London. Yes, Mayor Gilmore. Yes, Mr. Chochi. 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. 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? So, move. Second. All right. Uh, roll call. I love the look on your face. We had a
Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mr. Novarita. Yes. Mrs. Tory. Yes. Mrs. Lutin. Yes. Mr. Tracoi. Yes. Mr. R. Murphy. Yes. Mr. C. Murphy. Yes. Miss Kasco. Yes. And Mr. McG. Yes.
All right. Um, we have a we have three resolutions. The first is Seagull Holdings 2025-17. Uh do you all have the revised version of this that was
provided? Uh this Yes. This basically uh adjourns the next hearing uh until uh August 6th, 2025. No, just with um plans due late no later than July 1st, 2025. Can I have a motion
to adopt as written? Okay. Second. Second. Mr. Traco and Yep. got it all. All right. Uh roll call, please. Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mr. Mr. Coochi, yes. Mrs. Tory, yes. Mr. Novarita, yes. Mrs.
Lutton, yes. Mr. C. Murphy, yes. Miss Costco, yes. And Mr. McKay, yes. Uh, next we have another adjournment 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.
[Laughter] May I have a uh have a motion to adopt this as written? So move. Second. Roll call. Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mrs. Lutin, yes. Mrs. Tory, yes. Mr.
Novarita, yes. Mr. Doochi, yes. Mr. C. Murphy, yes. Miss Costco, yes. And Mr. McKay. All right. Yes. Uh, the last one is resolution 2025-9.
Um, this also grants continuence of uh the u the site plan. I have a motion on this motion. The mo motion on this resolution, please. So
move. Second. Second. Mayor Gilmore. Yes. Mr. Jacobi. Yes. Mrs. Tory. Yes. Mr. Novarita. Yes, Mrs. Leen. Yes, Mr. R. Murphy. Yes, Mr. C. Murphy. Yes, Miss Costco. Yes. And Mr.
McKay. 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? Some
moved. Thank you. Second. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. All right. Any professional comments beyond what we've talked already about today? Good night. Good night. Is that Is that a professional comment or just a comment? Take it any way you want. 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 like this? Absolutely.
Did we the the Reich project on Martin 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, the exiting 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 the gravel 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 set back to where his new driveway is going to be located closer to Mar 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 Uh 10:15 by my watch. Can we have a motion to adjurnn? Oh, so moved. Second.
Second. All in favor? Any opposed? Hearing none, we're ajourned. All right. Thank you for the blanket. Great job. I saw you. months of what they were doing in