There we go. We're on the bat signaling on on checking on his bet for tonight's game between the Packers. The Packers and the Commanders who we don't we don't exist anymore. But I also like
How about Yankee Stadium? Doug, I didn't know why you went back. I also was a big fan. How about who? Riggins 44, right?
We're live. Okay. Ready, everyone? I've been ready. I mean, oh my god. Yeah. I was I'm ready. We're ready. Let's go. From a manhood. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Hillsboro Township Planning Board
meeting of September 11th, 2025. Please join me in salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the which stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised to se according to section five of the open public's meeting act chapter 231 public law 1975 otherwise known as the sunshine law notice the 2023 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated designated newspapers
township clerk post on township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents plans have been made available on the township civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting.
Complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice. And with that, may I have a roll call of plane board members and also board and township professionals, please Miss Smith, Mayor Cherelli, and
committee Leani are absent. Mr. Wagner here, Mr. Flag here, sawitz here. Mr. Mr. Vitali here. Mr. De here. Mr. Smith here. Vice Chair Pas here. Sra here. Present. Ball here. Bernstein.
I think I'm here. May and myself and the videographer are here. Okay. Welcome everyone. Um, as it was noted during the roll call, the mayor and and then the committee men are not here right now. They're actually at a 911 uh ceremony over at Woods Road
Firehouse. So um you know with that I think it would be uh appropriate for us just to take a moment of silence uh and me in remembrance of those who lost their lives 24 years ago. Thank you. Okay we do not have meeting minutes for
consideration. No resolutions for consideration, no planning board business, no ordinances for consideration. So I will go for business from the floor for matters that are not on this evening's agenda. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to come up and provide any comments to the board that's
not related to this evening's agenda, please feel to come up. Okay, see no takers. We're going to be moving on to tonight's public hearing. Um, the first one I know was a last minute scratch. So,
last minute a last minute request for a scratch. Okay. Apparently his the pitching arm is a little tired. Hopefully, Michael. So, we will bring up uh Green Care Farms LLC file number 24-PB-09-MS
did have a time of decision of September 30th, 2025. And right now, the applicant is looking for an extension uh and to be adjourned to a date, I guess, somewhere in the future um
without further notice. So, Mr. Grodnik, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um my name is Michael Grodnik. establish law firm on behalf of Green Care Farms. It's a major subdivision. Looking at the agenda, we felt probably wouldn't going to be squeezed in for this evening. So, we're
requesting an adjournment without additional notice and we've executed a and already submitted a time of decision through the end of 2025. Okay. We have the October 9th meeting
available. Yep, that's perfect. Yep. Okay. So, may I have a motion to uh for injurement to reconvene at the October 9th, 2025 meeting with the time of
decision extended to the end of the year without further notice? Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any comments? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Rowitz, yes. Mr. Vitali, yes. Mr. De, yes.
Mr. Smith, yes. Vice Sher Pel. Yes. Shar Saji. Yes. Okay. So they say that was easy. So next up, SPG Hillsboro LLC file number 25-PB2-
MSPV. Uh time of decision. We've already passed the time of decision. So it's listed as September 12th. Is that a typo? You're looking for a motion. Oh no. Tomorrow motion to Yeah. No, no. Um, I'm already uh
tomorrow, so that's my mistake. Sorry. Okay. Block 143, lot 12.01, commonly known as 315 Roycefield Road. The applicant is seeking amended preliminary and final major site plan approval sebulk variance and waiverss to
add an additional 34 parking spaces to the existing 71 parking spaces currently on site to consist of uh striping only to the existing asphalt location to the rear of the building along the drive aisle on the property located in the I2
light industrial zone. and I will turn it over to representatives of the applicant. Closer counselor. Uh, good evening, members of the board. Uh, move move the mic clo as if you're literally talking right into it.
Thank you, Mr. Bernstein. Uh, for the record, my name is Luke Pulley Castro from the law firm of Valentine and Spitzer. On behalf of the applicant, SPG Hillsboro LLC, this evening, the applicant is seeking amended preliminary and final major site
plan approval to add 34 new parking spaces to the existing parking lot in connection with the one-story approximately 54,600 ft commercial and flex warehouse building on property located at 315 Roycefield Road and identified as block
143, lot 12.01 01 as identified on the township's tax map. The property comprises approximately 5.965 acres and is located in I2 zone where the existing use is permitted. While the applicant meets the township's parking
requirements, the applicant proposes additional parking to meet increased demand generated by the existing tenants, including the pickle jar, which is an indoor pickle ball facility. No new variances are required. However, there is a pre-existing non-conforming condition with respect to the minimum
lot width that is to remain. The applicant requires a design waiver with respect to the minimum parking space size proposed. The record will reflect that the design waiver can be reasonably granted because the proposed parking space size presents a safe planning alternative and an overall safe design.
In support of the application, the applicant will rely on the testimony of George Folk, the applicant's engineer. Just as a matter of recordkeeping, the applicant would like to acknowledge that is in receipt of the following review letters. The July 22nd, 2025 letter from
the fire marshall, the September 5th, 2025 board planners letter, and the September 8th, 2025 board engineers letter. Um, I would I just be able to have an HPM HDMI cable to connect That's weird.
Okay. Okay. And just before we begin, I do have uh exhibit packets that I can pass out for the board. We can mark them evidence as well. Council, just for your edification, we mark exhibits one at a time even though it's multiple sheets.
Okay. No. No. Okay. We're keeping him busy. The boss is watching. Um, okay. With that, I'd like to call first witness, uh, George Folk, the applicant's engineer.
And George, if you would, would you just give the board the benefit of your background and qualifications? 40 years, licensed for 35 years, license is current today as of today. Does the board accept his credentials?
Any objections? Okay. Headshake. No. So, we accept. Thank you. And would you just confirm that your office uh and would you just confirm that your office prepared the site plan before the board? Uh, yes it did. Okay.
If you would, would you also just go through the existing conditions on the property? Uh the existing conditions uh on the property is is existing 54,000 square foot uh commercial flex warehouse building. It's relatively new to the
township. It's been recently built. Um you want to flip the page. Uh there's 71 parking spaces that exist. There's a drive aisle that goes all the way around the building. Uh, it's a two-way drive aisle.
We're trying to make a bit of heads or tails on here to make sure we all have the right exhibits that council pointed out. So, if you'll give us a moment, sure. Does everybody think we How many How many packets are we looking at? Council
there there should be uh five total. Uh, this is the site plan that was submitted. Um, so I don't know if five pages to one packet. This is three pages. I suspect we're going to be working our way through this a little. So,
why don't we Sorry, Mr. Folk. Why don't we start with go back a page? That's A1 council. Correct. Okay. Mr. Folk, for purpose of the record, communicate what A1 represents. A A1 represents the cover sheet to the
uh submitted site plan set. Who's the author? I hear author. I still hear you. He asked who is the author of the site plan? Oh, my office. I am. Okay.
And what does A1 depict? A1 is a cover sheet for the site plan set. It's an overall key map of the project site. uh includes zoning data uh for the site, current users, uh parking spaces uh
associated with the users and a list of adjoiners. Thank you, Council. Okay. Proceeding now to the second sheet in the packet be marked as A2.
Mr. Spoke, would you please describe what the board is looking at? Certainly. A2 is an existing site conditions map that was authored by myself and my office and Gary Marmo, my surveyor. It
depicts the existing conditions on site. U the topography on site and the physical features that are present on site. While we're on the existing conditions, would you please elaborate? Uh it shows the 71 parking spaces. They
uh they access on the Royce Field Road. Um, we're on the west side of Royy'sfield Road. Just south of the Landscape Materials, Inc. property. Uh, across the street is uh is uh the GSA, the county facility to
the east. Um, our property is as accessed off of Roycefield Road. And there's parking spaces along the frontage of the building. And uh this application is to install parallel parking spaces along the rear of the building in the drive
aisle that accesses around the entire structure. I'm moving to the third sheet. We'd like to mark this as A3. This depicts the applicant's proposal on the site plan. And if you would just go into more detail into the applicant's proposal, please. This is the proposal in front of the
board tonight. It's the parking plan. It's the uh we intend to uh restripe existing pavement that's out there. This project does not propose any new impervious coverage, any new imp uh no uh improvements whatsoever except for
the painted stripe on existing black top. Uh we're showing handicap spaces being installed, two of them. And then um uh 30, let's see, 34 spaces
u for parking, additional parking on the south side of the building on the west side of the building at the rear of the building. So, essentially turning a two-way driveway into a one-way uh circulation around a building in a counterclockwise
rotation. And if you could you just touch on the size of the parking space proposed. Uh the the handicap spaces are are 10 by 20. Uh the proposed parallel spaces are
8 ft wide by 22 ft long which uh I understand from the town it's uh a waiver for that size. We request a a waiver for that. Uh the town's uh length is uh 20 by 10.
uh parallel parking is typically narrower than uh perpendicular parking and it's an it meets what the uh industri the standards in the industry here uh in parking. So it's it's it's acceptable parking spaces at 8 by 22.
And is it your testimony that with that parking space size uh regular vehicles as well as fire apparatus would be able to safely circulate around the back of the building? Yes, that's correct. In fact, our spaces could go to 9 feet if the board so chooses and still safely navigate around
the entire uh structure with a firet truck apparatus, an E100 apparatus, which is a tandem wheeled aerial truck. And as for other deliveries on the site, what type of deliveries are anticipated
uh based on the existing tenants? Uh truck traffic. As far as tractor trailer, we don't expect many if any. Uh the site addresses that with a simple K turn into the loading dock on the northerly side of the
property. Um again, there's the tractor trailer is is we don't think there's going to be any need for that if if at all. Uh typically it would be a box truck for some kind of supplies for the pickle ball court.
maybe uh maybe UPS trucks, Amazon trucks, uh GrubHub vehicles. I I I don't I don't see any large uh trucks on the site being users. Um and the the intent is not to have any tractor trailers uh
drive around the back of the truck out of um excuse me, around the back of the building anyway. They will be precluded from driving around the building. We will not allow it. And for the board, would you please just touch on the status of the outside agency approvals for this project? Uh, the planning board, the Somerset
County Planning Board has approved the project as they find that has no impacts to them and the DNR Canal Commission has given us a letter of an exemption as there are no improvements uh necessitated by this application.
It's all the direct testimony I have for this witness. Mr. May you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'll direct the board's attention to our review letter dated 8th September. Specifically on page two,
um, the applicant mentioned the parking space dimension varies from the township ordinance. Our office takes no exception if the board was inclined to grant a waiver for that parking space dimension. As the applicants testified, parallel
parking is usually a little different sizes than a 90deree parking. Uh under our general comments, number one, we requested a um firetruck turning plan. We received something um called a
turning template plan um from the applicant's engineer uh dated 910. Um a quick review today appears to show that the the fire truck would be able to
maneuver. I know the fire chief had a concern about the decreased width of the uh access. Um, based on the plan that we were submitted, it appears the firetruck can maneuver around the building with the additional parking.
Um, our other comment was number two, provide a truck turn analysis for the largest delivery truck. Um, I would suggest if we're going to condition approval, we would like to see that K turn on on the plan. Certainly.
Um, our third comment was about spot elevations. I'm assuming that's something that could be done uh as a condition of approval just documenting ADA parking meets the requirements and that uh I'm assuming if approval was granted you would agree to update the
parking chart showing the required ADA parking spaces. Um the last comment we had was number six. Uh the ordinance requires buffers along street lines uh to help mitigate the view of loading areas.
Um it it the L-shapedness of the building provides a unique challenge because you have a the entrance eliminates an area that you could put plantings. Uh I also our office received today I don't know
if you're going to provide this exhibit some views from the street. Is that your intent to show that at with the next witness or We can bring it up right now if you'd like. Um, my only comment would be is for the board to take a look at that and decide where they feel like the the
intent of the ordinance has been satisfied or whether an additional evergreen tree or two would help the situation. If the board was so inclined, would the applicant be willing to add if a evergreen tree or two?
But as I was stating, um I think that's for the board to take a look at what the applicant submits and make a decision. That covers our review letter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I had some communication with the engineer trying to clear up uh as to the exact formula that was used. So uh in correspondence
uh with him we're in agreement with what he has on his plans in terms of the number of spaces required. What we ask as a potential condition of approval is that the formula is included in the plans specifically to each one so that future us will know where that came
from. Certainly. Um again the engineer already addressed uh the waiver request for the aisle and uh Mr. Mayhew addressed that as well. Uh the only other comment we have um because it didn't seem like it was
included with the prior approval, uh we just asked that anti- idling signs be clearly posted on the site uh just to protect the property owner in the future. Uh so that the property owner isn't the one that's getting the tickets for potential idling that it's actually
would be the u the people keeping their vehicles on. So, we're just looking to get that on the site plan just to protect the owner. Other than that, that's all we have. Thank you. Board members, I got questions. Okay. Thought someone
would already ask this because I see in there the handicap spots are going around the building also. Is there access to those units from the side and rear of the building? the handicap uh spaces are located
there's five of them spread out across the entire frontage of the building and uh those spaces uh are essentially trying to you know spread out so it's they can address any tenant that may
require it. Okay. I thought you had mentioned that there were additional ones going around the building. There aren't any going around the building. Uh handicap around the back of the building, right? No. Okay. I thought you had mentioned that. Okay. And then just as far as because
obviously this is going to be anticipated for uh clientele. Again, a question about access to I'm going to call them each one of these businesses or entities. Is it strictly through the front of the building or like any folks that are going to be
parking around the back of this building, do they have to walk all the way to the front? Uh, sir, I I think the operator is here tonight and he could probably answer that way better than I could. Well, you don't have I know there's doors back there. Whether they're, you
know, uh, the front doors are in the front of the building. Uh, I'm sure there's access there is access for each unit as far as the fire concerns go. There's, you know, for the exits, but I'm just wondering because I don't, and again, I'm maybe
I'm not seeing it, but I don't see any walk, you know, pedestrian walkways or anything around here. So that's why I'm asking if people are going to be expected to walk around to the front of the building or if they're going to be crossing these. My understanding is is that this these
extra spaces are for the pickle ball ball people that come at certain times and they're you know congentrate at that time. Uh there is a five foot wide no parking fire lane up against the building all the way around
the back of the building. So there is a dedicated five- foot strip that's you know out of the traffic and u you know if they're there for exercise maybe a little exercise warm-up walking to the front door I I'm not sure sir if there's a a back
door to the pickle ball courts but again um Gills here he could maybe discuss that. Okay Mr. Chairman yes sir Mr. Folk, do you recall when this
application was approved? I'm sorry. Do you know when this application was initially approved by this board? Um, I've been involved with this project for probably 20 years. Um, it was
subdivided back in 93, this lot somewhere around there, 96 maybe. Um then it was sat dormant for a while and then it was uh uh brought up in front of the board years ago uh for this this
building and then subsequently sold uh to the current owners and then now uh this application brought before the board. So I would say that application for the building construction was probably three years ago maybe four years ago. Okay. Five maybe.
Yeah. I mean I say in Mr. May who's has review letter has has resolution from the size of the building changed from then till now. No sir. So, can you or
council is going to call another witness explain to the board why the applicant is seeking 34 more parking spaces for a similar size building that this board approved in the last couple of few years at 71 parking spaces?
I I think I could answer some of that. I mean, I I was at that meeting and I think a lot of this board was there. um that miss uh that Ron uh the owner of HH H he he wanted more spaces at that time
because he was afraid of this happening uh because he had users in other places that this happened um and everyone chose to go with what was currently there I guess and and that's how we came to what we have today and
now we're back in front of the board uh asking for additional spaces. But uh yes, uh Gil is here. He could probably perhaps explain why 34 more spaces are required. Thank you, sir. But it is primarily tenant driven based
on the new pickle ball tenant that's coming in. So the board needs at least have something on the record. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, uh Mr. Faulk, what's the lighting in the back of this building?
Uh, it's it's what's out there today. It's it was approved by the board and in fact the CL was uh recently received for it, but there is substantial lighting on the site. Is it lighting attached to the existing building or are there freestanding post
lights around the back? There's lighting uh on behind the curb that faces towards the building. Okay. There is. Yes. And there may be some lighting on the building around the doorways probably by code, you know, a light safety. There's no anticipation of there's no
ant no anticipation of adding any additional lighting now that there's going to be parking in the back. Uh I I would testify that the lighting is it meets township uh standards for illumination currently.
All right. All right. Well, I'm gonna ask then, Mr. choice. Do we have different lighting standards for just general driveways versus pedestrian, you know, walkways? Our lighting standard applies and Mr.
Mayhew possibly if he has more information. It just it's very specific. It's basically one one standard is my understanding. It doesn't change from a driveway to other parts. I don't believe it goes into that detail.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kois is correct. The ordinance does not differentiate different illumination levels based on the use of the area. I I will for the record based on the existing site conditions plan submitted by the applicants engineer.
There are light uh fixtures shown along the uh rear drive and it looks like there's six or seven poles located along the rear. Are there currently around again I'm I'm not to you I'm sorry. Going around the
building are there speed bumps? No sir. Okay. Would the applicant be willing to put some in there, you know, to to slow, you know, obviously to be call it traffic calming because that was used a long time ago once, you know, as they approach those corners
because obviously we're going to have folks, you know, walking around the corners. I'm I have a feeling. Yes, they will. Okay. So, and those will be added to the plants for as a condition. Okay. Okay. Any other
comments before I open it up to the public? I have a question. Just uh as far as in the back of the building, are there any loading dock doors? Loading docks. Loading docks for this. No, just all just regular doors. Um yes.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. May I have a motion to open the public? So moved. All in favor? I I if there's anyone from the public that would like to ask question this witness on his testimony, please come up.
Okay, seeing none, you can move to the your next witness because I think at this time uh we have no further witnesses. Um uh councel, you may want to call the employee representative. Okay. At this time, we'd like to call
Gilladoni. Losing points for that. All right. And we're going to for you in over here. Gil Adoni Gil Mr. Bring Oh N I close closer to you that one because it pulls.
Okay. Oh, Gil Adoni. G I L A D O N I and what is your role within the applicant? Uh one of the members. Okay. Would you just explain for the board's benefit why this building needs additional parking spaces?
Uh the building has a pickle jar in there and also has a a play for kids. Um so they kind of get hit in a wave of parking. So it's either really busy or really slow. You won't see anybody there. just depends on the peak hours
that they are busy. So what we see happening is um most of the employees parking in the back and everybody else parking in the front. Um with that said and that's why we kind of want the back parking in in the back. Um
so are there essentially just two businesses there or there that's the major business. There's G GSA which got like eight employees which is not much. There's another tenants there that does uh it computers really no customers there. Um there's also uh
Eastern Torque um which they're not open yet. They're in the business of opening but they're not really in a lot of customers will be there. I don't I don't see that like um customers coming in and out stuff that they'd be doing inside inside uh the warehouse.
Okay. Mr. Bernstein, anything more that we need? Okay, Mr. Mayhe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, would this be the appropriate time you
want to share with the board some existing photographs of the street view and the landscaping and Yes. And actually, I would direct your attention to the packets already submitted. There are three photographs of the existing building. Apologize if the computer has died and we'll be able to put it up on the big screen. Uh we'll
talk to the law firm about that one later. Okay. So, I guess just for the record, who took each one of these photos? Gil. Uh one of my employees. Okay. And about approximately the date today. Okay. This morning.
Okay. And I guess do we individually number these or can we do we have a profer as to who the photographer is and when they were taken? Yeah, we just the owners or the operators did. Yeah. Mark the mall as A4.
Okay. Could you just explain what currently exists on site today in terms of landscaping part of the building? Um, as you see, it's dressed up really nice in the front, which kind of buffers um everything everything in the back. Um,
I don't see any other additional planting needing obviously what's there. Um, you can't really see the back of the building driving, you know, in, you know, on on Roycefield Road unless you're actually going in. Um, so I I don't I'm not too much worried about the
the do, you know, seeing the dock. It's kind of to the side of the L if you're looking at the building. Um, and you see the landscaping. We we keep it very nice and well uh landscaped throughout the year.
And I believe across the street is county property. I think so. I think so. I think Mr. Dhoni, are you familiar with um what the original approvals were for? Do you
have a history of that at all? A little bit maybe. Okay. Um my understanding and just for the board's edification because uh the board council had asked the question um this site was originally approved as a warehouse and
it is my understanding looking at the records that the original parking that was contemplated there was based on the warehouse use and um in terms of you owning and operating the site my understanding is that you have a number of uh different tenants and uses.
Correct. Correct. And each one generates a different amount of parking that's required. Correct. Correct. So that's that's when we've re reviewed everything breaking it down from tenant to tenant. That's just for the board
certification. That's how we've gotten to the number at least to the 71 number because again the site was approved at a lower number and that's because it was believe one space per 5,000 square feet per warehouse but the code goes down
into other uses and as they have started to fill the space up with other tenants different uses have different parking requirements and so each zoning permit that's been issued that's where there's been additional parking needed.
That got you to 71 or the 105? 71. That's how we got to the 71 minimum. 71. So, what's the basis for the extra 34 based on the calculation? Are you asking me? Well, I'm asking you, you've reviewed
the plan. I'm not I gave up at least my planning degree a while ago. Um the recommendation here for additional 34 I'm assuming is based on additional tenants. Yeah. On the tenants, right? On the tenants that are there warehouse.
Are the spaces reserved in the sense that they're assigned to the various tenants right now? They're not reserved. Is there an intent to do so? If if I need to leave that to the board.
But just just to comment on that, it it gets hit in a wave. So yeah, if the pickle jar is at one time might use a lot of it. So if it's reserved, you know, but Mr. Chairman, I have no questions for this witness. Okay.
Board members. I mean, the only thought I thought you have about, you know, maybe you made a mention about, you know, maybe the employees will park in the back. That might be at least something to direct them to the back to leave the spaces in the front open.
I definitely see that happening. Okay. Have a question. I guess probably for for our professionals. I mean based on the the zoning and the property is there enough space into the mic. Sorry.
Is there enough space to put parking lot or you know some spaces in front of the building? I know I understand it's would be um a little bit more comp comprehensive to build that out but just curious. I mean just just from a zoning
perspective um and thinking about it because I'm not sure how close they are to have to look at the bulk standards but then you run into impervious coverage you run into additional storm water and and things like that. I believe the intent was to try to work
within what what they have to do the least amount of of impact. Um, for us as we're looking at it, we're trying to make sure you can the site operate safely with parking spaces proposed where they were
not originally in and you know on their end they needed to look at okay it was two-way so they're going down to one and then so that's where we started looking at our standards and things like that and Mr. Mayhew and myself also asking for the parking uh like detering
templates and things like that. So from from our perspective, um, again, from a zoning and planning standpoint, this is the the least amount of impact on the site working with with what they have. But I defer to Mr. Mayhew on on
answering the rest of that. I don't expect you to do the calculations right now. I was just curious. Um, Well, as Mr. Koi said, I think the goal was not to increase any impervious cover. So, to answer your question, if
you stay within the existing pavement footprint, I don't readily see any other areas to introduce parking unless you were to create a issue with the loading docks that are at the short end of the L. You
know, there's additional pavement there, but that's probably necessary to allow trucks to back into those those areas. So, nothing jumps out at me. Any other questions? We're already open to the public, right?
Public soul is still open to the public. Still open timings. So, if anyone from the public would like to question this witness of his testimony, please come forward. I do not see any takers. Counselor.
Uh, we have nothing further. Ask that you respectfully approve the application. Okay. So, now this is the final bite of the apple for the public. public wants to chime in on their thoughts of approval for this, please
come forward. Again, I see no takers. So, motion to close. Yep. Motion to close the public. So, move. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Okay.
You're closing. Uh once again, the increase in parking is solely driven by uh high demand but based on the existing tenants uh and we'd respectfully ask that you approve this application. Okay, Mr. Bernstein.
Well, I the question that I raise is a question for the board, which is whether or not you want the applicant to at least either designate employee parking andor suggest that they designate parking for the various tenants. Otherwise,
apparently there is such a need for an additional 34 parking spaces that it may become difficult for some people at some times to find parking and others at not. Um I I see no need for assigned parking. I
mean, we know that what they said is, you know, volumes fluctuate based on time of day or whatever. you know, I I don't see any need for Yeah, I agree with Mr. Wagner. I think leave it up to the operator if they feel that there's a need to to designate
parking and have their tenants uh organized. The other issue is employee whether you you know it was raised by a couple of the members of the board whether or not the back end of the of the building might be more suitable for
employee parking versus tenants visitors. I I just think the the issue with that again I don't think it needs to be something to uh impose on on the property owner because you don't know how many employees they're going to be. You don't know how many parking spaces
are necessary, not necessary, and to limit the to limit in some way might be overburdenome for what they're trying to do from what it sounds like. Board is discussed. Board is debated.
The application, Mr. Chairman is to approve SPG Hillsboro LLC file number 25-PB-02- MSPV block 143 lot 12.01 315 Roycefield Road
seeking preliminary and final MA major site plan approval C bulk variance as set forth by the testimony of Mr. Folk and comments by Mr. Mayu and Mr. KO for an additional 34 parking spaces to the exiting 71 parking spaces currently on
site striping accordingly. Excuse me, Mr. Bernstein. Yes, sir. And that would include the speed bumps. All conditionals of approval that were agreed to. Okay. During testimony. Just want to make sure. Y and that's my question exactly just with
regards to that. Do we need to put something in in an approval as to the number of speed bumps or where they're going to be located at this time or say to work with Mr. Mayhew to his satisfaction, but it probably should be, you know, at each as he approached each
term because that would be where is that acceptable to the applicant? That's fine. Thank you. He was going to become speed bump guy. Okay. with multiple with with potentially multiple speedcomming devices to be determined
traffic calming trafficcoming devices between the to be worked out between the applicant and the board engineer. I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. To approve.
Okay. Any final comments? Okay. So, we have a motion on the table. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Vitali?
Yes. Mr. De? Yes. Mr. Smith? Yes. Vice Chair Pen? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't care what you don't care how many or where you put them. It may not be speed bumps. It could be
something else. A calming device is basically the vernacular I keep being told is where we are. Luke's Luke, you good? I'm gonna go right into the next one. Okay.
Okay. Okay, as we transition over, next up is HMG Fuel LLC, file number 24-PB-03-MSPV. Time of decision, September 30th of this year, block 142.02, lot 17.01 and
18, commonly known as 144 Route 206 or also Route 206 and Park Avenue. Applicants seeking preliminary final major site plan approval. Seabbulk variances and waiverss to consolidate two lots to construct a 3,450
square foot convenience store on site where a service station exists with associated improvements on property located in the HS highway service district and the ASD architectural and site design overlay district. And with that, Mr.
Um, good evening members of the board um and professionals. My name is Michael O'Rnik, Savage Law Firm. Here today representing the applicant HMG Fuel LLC. Uh, as indicated, this is on 206 at Park A. Uh, long served this community as a
service station. Looking at the aerials, it looks like it was built sometime between 1956 and 1965. Um today we're here to present an application for the modernization of the site that will enhance its utility and
aesthetic appeal consistent with the permitted conditional uses in the HS zone. uh as indicated uh by m by the chairman, it's a proposal to add a convenience store, 3,450 foot convenience store to the existing
station and completely re rebrand the site as a Philips 66. Um site upgrades include the installation of an underground detention basin, sidewalks, curb, drainage, trash
enclosure, landscaping, and EV charging. subject property um based upon my research has always been the existing uh lot size of 1.02 acres. Um
with respect to the zoning this um gasoline stations with convenience stores are permitted conditional uses in the HS zone. Uh and of course we're not before the board of adjustment. So we meet uh the conditional use standards uh
which are as follows. has to be um equal to equal or greater to 100 foot set back from any residential use. This complies no outdoor storage of wreck or damages damaged vehicles. This complies parking
requirements uh one space per employee plus two per service bay. This complies retail uh parking requirements are three 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square ft. 12 are required and and 19 are proposed and a
trash enclosure at least 30 foot from the property line which that complies with respect to the bulk standards and the variances necessitated by this application. Uh as indicated this is an undersized lot. It's 1.02 acres. It's a
2acre zone. That's a C1 variance. Um the lot depth again existing condition required 250 ft. We're at 157 ft. Again, a C1. Um the front yard, the 206 required 40. We're proposing 29 ft with
that building. Uh the rear yard is 75 ft and the existing canopy is 40.3 feet, which is a nonconformity that exists today. And impervious coverage maximum is 60. We're proposing 67.4.
There's also some pre-existing curb cut widths that are no longer permitted, but we think uh really don't impact the site negatively. Uh a one-way width is even for a service station is only 12 ft. Uh right now we have a range of between 49
and 52 foot on the on the curb cut. And then the two-way width maximum 244 feet and we're proposing 38.9 feet on Park A again for sight circulation and vehicular ingress and egress to the site. Uh the rightway width on 20 on 206
required is 86 existing is 66. Uh there's also um a variance or waiver for tree spacing. Uh we have some wires that get in the way. So, we'll talk about some landscaping with with our site engineer. Um, and then the u parking on
the front and the side on the front and side parking which necessitates a variance. As for signage, um we're proposing a monument sign uh of 84 square feet and we're also proposing to to put the price of fuel on the sign uh
which is um in variation with uh the ordinance that just requires the the sign content limited to the sign the station name which would be the Philip 66 rebrand. Surrounding areas include
Tequila Grill and Bar to the south, East Coast Print Shop to the northwest, and Amwell Auto Body to the north. And again, of course, across the street is the store space storage center. As for architectural style, we've really
spent um a majority of our time uh both in informal conversations with the municipality and our our site professionals. We're trying to design this uh in a
modern vernacular style uh referencing the aesthetic of the classic agricultural barn and the and the rur that respects the rural character of the surrounding area. Um we think the architecture on this is great. Think it's a good improvement for that stretch
of 206. Prominent features including steep pitch gabled roof, a couple of wind vein. Uh we think it's a thoughtful combination of vertical panled siding uh evoking uh the look of a traditional barn with a stone veneer base that
grounds the structure. This design approach moves beyond the typical commercial aesthetic to provide a structure that is both functional and visually appealing. not only a convenience store but a positive contribution to the visual visual landscape on Route 206 in compliance
with the architectural site design overlay zone for building massing scale and style to be consistent with the community designs. We have submitted uh notice uh in accordance with the municipal land use law publication in
Hillsboro Beacon and the of course the supporting affidavit of publication and certified mailings. We have three witnesses tonight. Uh we have Eric Hoff, he's our civil engineer. We have Jaspender Aranji, our architect. Uh four
witnesses. We have Gary Dean to provide some brief traffic testimony since this is on a state highway and John Dino, our professional planner. And of course, we have the applicant, uh Mr. Khal, available to answer any operation operational questions. Sites open 24
hours a day. We want that flexibility. Although uh we intend to operate the facility probably from 5:00 a.m. to midnight. Um with that I would ask that we uh swear in our civil engineer, qualify him as a professional and go over the existing
conditions. I do. My name is Eric E. H. So sir, you're a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. That's correct. Rodnick, your client can
just make sure he talks into them. And how long have you been practicing as a civil engineer? Well, I first graduated from Rucker University in 2006 with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and I have been working at Burton Engineering for over 19 years as a design engineer and
I'm currently licensed in the state of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of the record, let's not ated 802 Committeeman Leani and Mayor Shikarelli have arrived. Sorry to interrupt. Too late. And your license your license is active
in the state of New Jersey? That is correct. And you have you pl testified before planning boards and zoning boards in the past? Many in the state of New Jersey. Yes. Um could you just go over the existing conditions for this site and the proposed conditions? Uh yes. Uh at this time, can I plug in?
Okay. And first, just real quick, board members, any objections to the qualifications? Okay. So, we accept. All right. So, uh, the first sheet I have here is our cover sheet, which is,
uh, sheet C 1.1 of our site plan set. Um, the property is a irregular rectangular lot at the intersection of Route 206, which is a state highway, and Park Avenue, which is a municipal road.
The site address is 144 Route 206 and is on the northbound side of the highway. The property is lot 18 oh southbound. I apologize. Uh the property is lot 18
and 17.01 in block 142.02. There's a total of 474 feet of frontage including approximately 260 feet along Route 206 and 214 ft along Park Avenue.
The lot area is 43,666 square feet or approximately 1 acre. Uh it should be noted that the applicant bought lot 18 from the township in July 2022 hoping to add a seed store building
which this is the subject of uh this application. Lot 18 is 6,285.9 square ft or 0.14 acres. The lot width is 294.1
ft and the lot depth is 157.2. two, there are two uh easements on the property. One 10- foot wide sewer easement along the rear of the site uh where the sewer line seems to be the existing sewer line seems to be outside
of this easement and there's an aerial utility easement at the intersection. The lot is in the HC highway service district which the use is conditionally permitted. As far as the surrounding uses in the area, to the north of the
site, there's a one-story uh Amwell Auto Body Shop. To the south across Park Avenue is a one-story restaurant. To the east of the site, across Route 206 is a threestory self storage building. And to
the west is a twostory office building. just to uh go over the existing conditions. This is sheet C2.1 of the site plan set. Currently, uh there's an existing uh
fueling station with a 27.75 foot by 84 foot canopy, which is 2,332 square ft. There's a 100 square foot uh kiosk with limited sales. There are
dispensers for co car and truck fueling with a total of nine dispensers with 12 fueling positions. There's underground storage tanks located south of the truck fueling location
there. Uh there's a propane cage uh closed drop off and a trash enclosure all located on the site. There's currently a 26 foot tall freestanding sign on the north side of the property.
Uh the sign area is 84 square ft. The impervious coverage is approximately 46.4% of the site uh which is 20,599 square feet. And uh it should be noted based on historical aerials uh the
fueling station as we see it was built between the years 1972 in 1979. There was a small fueling station with a repair garage building in 1963 which contained a a driveway to Park
Avenue which was located uh closer uh to the intersection to route uh uh 206. So to go over the uh proposed improvements, I would like to share an exhibit.
Uh this exhibit is uh the landscape rendering. This is just a want to mark this as A1. I don't believe the current rendering is a color. Is that correct? Uh correct. This is a landscape
rendering dated 9925. Uh this is basically just a colorized uh site plan to depict uh the landscaping and the different coverage uh coverages uh on the property. So this shows the proposed improvements.
It's proposed to add a one-story 3,450 square foot convenience store building and associated improvements. Uh the fueling station will remain and shall be rebranded to Philip 66.
Other site improvements include building sidewalks that will meet all ADA requirements, a proposed trash and recycling enclosure located in the the north north corner of the property. There will be air pump and
vacuum uh occupying two spaces located on the north side of the building. There's also an EV charger uh for two parking spaces, also lo located on the north side of the building. It is proposed to replace the
freestanding sign with a lower monument sign. And uh as far as parking, there's a total of 19 parking spaces proposed, including one ADA space where 15 spaces are required based on municipal
requirements. Uh there are some interior seating proposed. Uh so if this consider if this is considered in the parking requirement as a restaurant, the additional uh will be based on one space per three seats
for six more spaces required. That would bump up the requirement to 21 spaces required. But it would only be 19 if you take into account the EV credit. So either way, the 19 spaces provided would
comply. As far as circulation, uh it's proposed to keep the existing driveways on Route 206 that have curb openings of approximately 49 ft and 52 feet in width.
The NJ do is working on highway plans that will change the site frontage while keeping the existing driveway locations. So, this proposal will work with those modifications. It's also proposed to uh
add a two-way freemovement driveway along Park Avenue with a curb opening of 47 feet wide. This is located on the the north side of the building. Uh most traffic will follow a counterclockwise circulation within the
site. Uh and the fuel delivery uh will occur over the tanks and any store delivery uh will occur under the canopy where uh fueling dis uh these fooling spaces can
be blocked off. As far as grading and drainage, the existing topography gently slopes towards the intersection. The site sheet flows towards the Route 206 southern driveway with the closest inlet
uh towards the intersection of Park Avenue. It's proposed to regrade the site for propo the the proposed improvements and ADA compliance. The site will continue to sheet flow to the Route 206 southern driveway and a
trench drain is proposed at the Park Avenue driveway. The impervious coverage will increase by 9,669 square ft which uh increases the coverage from 46.4%
to 67.4%. To account for this, a a 1,874 square foot coldtech underground detention basin is proposed to mitigate the additional impervious collecting
storm water from the building roof and a portion of the pavement. I I've reviewed the board engineers uh comments and the applicant can comply with all of the board engineers drainage comments.
Uh all utilities are available along the street frontage uh the sanitary on site and new uh connections are proposed. A couple of the proposed utilities can be relocated outside of the aerial
easement to address one of the board engineers comments. There was just a little section where the our proposed connections went through that easement so that can be relocated. As far as landscaping, uh we have seven trees will be removed
and based on the trunk sizes, 18 replacement trees would be required. Uh it should be noted that there are five existing trees along the north side of the property that will remain. Uh proposed landscaping that we we are
providing uh include 10 deciduous trees, 10 deciduous shrubs, 43 evergreen shrubs, and 52 decorative grass plantation. There are new shade trees proposed as
shown here along the rear and side property lines. However, we do not have shade trees proposed along the do uh NJ DOT rightway along Route 206. This is due to the presence of overhead wires. There's
overhead wires along both frontages, both Route 206 and Park Avenue. And and we also have the aerial utility easement located uh near the intersection.
um saying that uh the applicant will pay a cash equivalent to a tree fund for this deficiency. I believe it's $500 per tree per section 188-164E. Um moving on to lighting.
Uh there are five proposed LED down lights on poles with a 16 ft mounting height. There are 13 LED canopy down lights which are existing with a 15.5 foot mounting height. Uh these are flush
with the canopy deck. Uh and there's also two sophet lights uh on the building with a 12 foot uh mounting height. The average light intensity is 3.5 uh 3.95
foot candles with a max under the canopy of 16.69 69 foot candles and a minimum of 0.09 foot candles. Uh these intensities are already low in my opinion based on fueling station
standards and uh I don't believe they should be lowered uh any further for security reasons such as uh there's going to be transactions under the canopy. So I I believe the intensities shown are are adequate. Uh there are uh
a couple other notes. The off-site public average is 0.35 foot candles with a max of 2.07 foot candles. And the off-site private average is 0.09 foot candles with a
maximum of 2.1 foot candles. And uh and finally uh there was a note in the uh board engineers review letter. we can add any additional construction details uh as per the his comments. So
that's pretty much my direct testimony. I have no further questions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayhew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I direct the applicant and board to our review letter dated 8th of September.
And I'll specifically turn to page three. It appears the applicants engineer has addressed or comment too about making the adjustment for the utility easement. Um I didn't hear any discussion and I'm
trying to avoid going through every single comment here. Um, but I didn't hear any discussion about providing sidewalk along Park Avenue and a pedestrian connection between Park Avenue and the building. Right now, we we don't show it. We have
building sidewalks around the building as part of the NJ DO plans. They they will have sidewalks. So, we can provide sidewalks along Park Avenue. Right now, there aren't any. Uh, so we aren't proposing it, but we could provide
sidewalks. So, I'll leave it to the board's discretion, but our office would recommend according to the HS zone to have sidewalks and appropriate ADA ramps on Park Avenue and at least one pedestrian connection from that sidewalk
to the building. Okay. Uh, is it safe for me to avoid the the simple comments here? Um, I don't want to ask you to blanket say you agree with every comment in the letter. Um,
we're we're comfortable with that. We went through this and we're comfortable with that. So, what I want to just do is hit the highlights down or things that I I think it would be helpful to clarify. Um, our office is a little concerned about the number of parking spaces. I
understand the math that the you have explained. I think at some point it would be helpful for the board to understand the use of the food area inside the building. Uh you mentioned there's a
seating area and there appears to be an area for preparing food. So I think it would be important at some point to put on some testimony because I think the question comes down to and I'll defer to Mr. quoise as well. The township doesn't
define a convenience store. Um, and so I think it's important to understand is this going above and beyond a convenience store and therefore need more parking than three and a half per thousand square feet. There will be further testimony by the
architect uh about the uh building and the floor plan. Okay. So, I'll I'll revisit that at that point. Uh, can I assume the utility comments will be addressed, the grading comments will be addressed, and I understand you've agreed with the
stormwater comments. I just want to clarify one of them uh because it may be the most interesting one to address and that's um comment number three to meet the infiltration requirements.
I saw what appeared to be a submitted test um pit analysis and it appeared to have some good infiltration rates, but I didn't see any recharge calculations in your storm water. So, are you agreeing to perform those calculations and add that? Correct. Correct. We will we can update
our drainage report with that. Okay. And then so I assume the rest of the other comments under storm order will be addressed. Correct. Okay. Under landscaping comments, is it your intention to rather than adding 10
more trees to pay for the the trees as I understand? Yeah, there's really no additional space to put trees because of uh the conflicts I described. the overhead wires along the frontage. Uh so that was the
intention. Yes. And then under landscaping comment number four, our office encourages a possible modification to your sign detail to try to follow the ordinance which suggests you know utilizing stone in the architecture for the
We can definitely look into that and provide that. Okay. Under lighting, I understand your concern with safety and and our office is not uh recommending revisions to the lighting under the canopy, but we do
recognize and point to the board the intensity on the other areas of the site are significantly higher than most commercial sites that we've seen approvals lately. And so we would ask to work with your office to try to minimize some of those non canopy areas. Absolutely. We will work with you
and see what we can do about that. Okay. And would that include working with trying to minimize the spillage over the northern property line? Yeah, we can even we can even think about putting a fence there to block it. Uh but we will we will look into
avoiding any spillage. It's it's minimum right now, but we can look into minimizing it less. Thank you. Also, under lighting, I I saw a color rendering that was submitted recently and it didn't appear to show
the actual lighting fixtures in the canopy area. And I'm sure the board's aware of there are a lot of different types of ways to light under canopy. I would like to have some more details. Our goal was to avoid and the
ordinance requires that these would be recessed so you're not looking at the luminere. Uh you're talking about the canopy lights under that that are flush with the Well, that's what we don't have any information that I can see that explains that they're going to be
flush. We can provide additional information. Sure. Okay. So, there's not going to be a light fixture hanging under the canopy. No. Um, and I'm assuming you you agree to the truck turning comments to help help our
office review those turning circulation planes. We can comply and we can modify that. I will say that this is an existing movement and I was on site today and I I saw a truck clearly uh exit the site without going over any curbing or going
into the opposing lane of traffic. So I believe uh it's existing to remain in and there's no issue with truck circulation but we will update our exhibit our plans accordingly. Yeah, we're looking for a scale that allows us to confirm
we'll we'll blow up the line work. We can blow it up. Yeah. Thank you. I'll defer traffic comments to Mr. Dean and I think I've heard you would agree to update any details. Yes. So that that covers our review letter, Mr. Chairman. Okay. You miss.
Sorry, Mr. Mayhew. Just wanted to check in. Did you also have comments? Um and if not, I could I could ask. Um, was there supposed were we recommending additional landscaping on Park Avenue where they only show the lawn? I didn't want to bring that up if you
already had hit that you're correct. We've discussed it verbally, but it didn't make it into a review letter. So, got it. I could Sorry. I'm sorry to put you on the spot. So, yeah. So, and and perhaps when we talk to the architect and talking about what that side of the
building looks like, but based on what's currently proposed, I guess we're trying to understand why there was no landscaping proposed on that side of the building. Well, as long as there's no conflict, I know there are overhead wires, okay, going down the east side of Park Avenue,
but maybe some additional low shrubbery we can look into doing. Okay. Yeah, we wouldn't want it to anything with the sight triangle, but something to, you know, kind of enhance enhance that area if possible. And then my other question is or clarification. So, you
indicated that NJ do plan to put sidewalks on Route 206, correct? Will you be able to show a rendering? I'm thinking potentially. Would you be able to add some sort of sidewalk to
connect so that people can walk into this? AB: Absolutely. We we could definitely do that. We don't show it on our plan right now because we don't know when the DOT is going to do that. We are more than familiar with with how long. So, and if the DOT does that, they they
can certainly uh add a sidewall connecting. What would be super helpful is to have a plan in there showing that and a note that that would be in there. just we're what we would hate to have happen is the sidewalks get put in and then you know people are just going to make their own
path right so why not just plan for that design now uh so that would be our recommendation there and then the area where the the gasoline will like where the truck will be fueling and
everything like that uh I don't know if you have any details on the logistics of how that works like do you see a conflict with people trying to park, especially if it's 24/7, people potentially trying to park and then where the truck may be doing the refuelings.
Now, we we have a turning template showing that it doesn't interfere with any of the parking and these are normally during non- peak hours as well. So, I don't see an issue with it, but uh you we we do have a traffic engineer
then get more into it. Okay. But uh I don't see a potential issue because is there an angle that they would be parking in order for it to because I see I see you showed the the angles in terms of how it's turning, but my question is more our question is more
geared towards when it's parked and it's actually fueling the fueling station. Yeah, I would say it would be on on an angle to not go into I see. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, I believe the rest of my questions will
be for the for the architect. I don't know if there was anything else you wanted to hit that was in my report as well. Um, I think my only other comment is actually adding some anti- idling signs uh as you had heard me in the other application. Uh, so just getting that added to the plans. Sure.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I just um there are several dimensional variances requested in waiverss. Um Mr. Grick, is there going to be testimony on like building it within the setback line? Is this the witness that
I mean we have a planner to justify the variances? So you're going to be bringing him up to talk about? Yep. He'll be our closing witness. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, board members. concerning
206 and I don't sorry about that. Um the question is does um because in that area it looks I mean it looks to be right up against the curb so I don't know if the new part of the road is going to go further to the
south. Uh not sure how they're gonna and I know we can't we what if they never do it right and that job's not going to get started until the end of 2026 maybe 2027 depending and so we're talking about the
future here but I I know we're talking about curb cuts and whatnot and I don't know if the curb if if they decide to go to on that side of the road does that impact where you're putting underground water storage does it impact anything on
the site? No, because they're going to they also have to remove utility. No, it doesn't. We we accounted for the future uh DOT plans. So, it wouldn't affect our proposed development. Uh the curb openings are going to remain the
same as they are now. Uh they're just adding sidewalks and we allocated for that this space. So, there shouldn't be any conflicts. Okay. I was just, you know, the the way they they they're going to there's going to be two lanes there plus grass plus sidewalk which might end up under your
canopy. That that was my concern is that it might be so invasive from the state. It it it wouldn't it wouldn't affect our our design. Okay. It couldn't go that far. All right. I would say
Mr. Mayor's concerns are pretty valid. It's almost what I remember this gas station and we we've seen this gas station change hands from several years that I've been in this town right I think it used to be a Texico before it was something else then it became Loras I remember this place very well it's
sort of the choke point out here for entering into the uh Hillsboro's business district as I see here is a question and maybe it has been answered but I'm going to put it out there again not being part of the you know proceedings on this case before if there was any
The number of variations that we see requested, right? They're pretty significant. Are we redoing everything out here? Are there any tracks of variances? Because there are other occupants who occupied this place,
right? Other owners, right? Have there any differences? Because what I want to do is very narrowly define the scope that we have here for our board um to kind of understand. Well, the the variances I see there are uh front yard variants, sideyard
variants. The building is positioned there to uh to accommodate the circulation of the uh of of the site. Uh so the building really has to be located there. Other than that, we have a
uh total impervious coverage uh where there's 60% of the site required max and we're at 67.4. four. So that's that's a variance and again that's for circulation of the site but we're accounting for that with our our
detention system. Uh everything else is existing as far there's a significant amount of variances with the the widths of the driveways c uh and but those are existing to remain.
Okay. So that sort of answers my question. In the checklist that we have, several are already approved. We are aware of them. Okay. Um the other question again maybe it might have been tackled there. Pardon my not knowing about it but obviously we
expect some kind of an increase in traffic out there because of the new conveyance source etc. Um and and am I hearing did I hear someone say here that there's going to be a separate testimony about the traffic? there is a separate uh traffic expert to testify about the increase in traffic and there will be an
increase. I'll reserve my questions for that session then. Thank you. Yes. Uh during the environmental commission meeting, we discussed that the site is located in an area of known groundwater contamination. Has uh have the LSRPs or environmental professionals
uh for that contamination been notified of the proposed development? I I wasn't there for the environmental commission. I know the architect was, so he can probably testify to that. Okay. Can Can I add a follow-up question, Mr.
Chairman, to that? Um, we're talking about recharging stormwater management here. Uh, is that an is there still existing groundwater contamination or Not that I'm aware of.
I guess if we would want to make sure from your professionals that recharging storm water would not cause a groundwater issue or make any groundwater issue worse. Under understood.
Thank you. Yep. Just to clarify the site is located within two overlapping areas of known groundwater contamination. I would think you you could have an expert LSRP or someone address that issue for the board. Okay.
Thank you. Further questions? Okay. May I have a motion to open the public, please? Second. All in favor? I I If there's anyone from the public that would like to question this witness on his testimony,
please come forward. I don't see much public here tonight. So, that's it. Okay. So, um so our next witness, if you leave this up here, that'd be great. Yep. You need a break? Okay. We're gonna take a break. Yeah.
Uh we'll do about 10 minutes. We'll reconvene a quarter of these Okay, we're back in session. Mr. Granick, the floor is yours. We're back. So, what's the what's the score?
Zero to seven. Uh Jordan Love had a nice little pass there. Hold on. All right. So, our next witness is Jazinder Arjani. He's our architect. Um and he could I guess first uh get him qualified as an expert and then answer some of the questions that you had to button up some
of the engineering. Where you in right here? I do. Uh, my first name is Jaswinder. J A S V I N D E R. Last name A R J A N I
Jinder. Um, Jazinder, can you please uh give the board a benefit of what you've been doing for the last 30 years? I I have a bachelor's and a master's degree in architecture. Uh I have been work uh practicing as an
architect for 35 years. I have a license for last uh since 2009. That's 16 years. Uh I have uh been with Burton Design Studios since 2002. [Music] uh and I've worked on various fueling
stations, convenience stores, apartment buildings, all kinds of uh buildings uh and have testified in front of various planning and zoning boards. And your license is in good standing. Yes, it is. Okay. I would ask that he be admitted to
and testify as a expert in the area of professional architecture. Any objections? Hearing none, we accept. Please continue. Go ahead. Okay. Uh before I start my uh testimony, I I was here at the environmental
commission meeting and you asked the question about the current status of the site. It it Tex Texico Shell that owned the station earlier. They are uh monitoring and they are responsible for the cleanup. There are monitoring wells
along the front of the site. And at the meeting we had talked about for the building adding a a vapor uh extraction system under the slab which we agreed to and when we prepare the construction documents that would be part of that uh
uh perforated pipe in stone set under the building for vapor intrusion. Uh and other than that uh I think another question was on the um your engineer asked about the canopy lights. I just want to before I go it's on
drawing C 2.5 uh that's on the board. It's a lighting intensities plan. It's part of the set. It shows the canopy. These are existing and uh sorry change the these
Yeah, the these lights are flush with the deck. Uh they do come down. It's half an inch, 1116th of an inch. If the the dimension is I don't know if you can see it on the plan. If that answers your question.
Um well, maybe you could help the board because maybe they'll maybe I'm just not looking at this correctly. Sir, this help walk us through that detail. What What are we looking at? This is a canopy uh set. The the gas
fueling station canopy has lights in there at the ceiling. The old lights used to be those box lights and they were recessed in the ceiling. The ceiling was cut and the box was above and that's where recessed lights came up
with the gas associated with your fueling canopies. But these LED lights are are really thin. If you see the thickness of the light, it's 1116th of an inch that is flush with the ceiling of the canopy.
Well, can you explain please um the the two details because it almost looks like these um 1116 fixture is is sitting down below the canopy. So maybe you can help explain what those two details are on
the top. the th those are the drivers for LED lights though th those are above the above the deck. So the the canopy is flush with this uh I don't know if you can see I see your highlighter. So you're saying where your highlighter is that's the
bottom of the canopy. Correct. Canopy deck. Can we add that kind of information to the plan so the building department and everyone else know to expect? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So now I'll
start with my I'll go to the floor plan drawing that is part of the set and that is sheet yeah sheet C4.4 is part of the set. It's called
preliminary floor plan and I'll use that to describe the the building. Uh Mr. Hoff had earlier mentioned um and the building is 3,450 ft² one-story structure that is being proposed.
The use it's meant for a convenience store with a cook and serve counter and uh we are proposing 18 seats. Uh and uh the kind of products that will be sold here are typical of convenience store. Things like prepackaged food, bottled
drinks, uh frozen items, candies, convenience items and and sandwiches will be assembled on site and sold to patrons. Besides the um uh sales area, there is utility rooms
and restrooms for the patrons. Now the the building footprint uh we had uh once the CL uh applicant acquired that corner piece of property we had prepared a sketch and we had come for a
pre-application meeting with uh your team and at the time we had a a a simple box rectangular uh store proposed but based on the input and the discussion about the overlay design overlay
standards. We took the rectangle and broke it into two rectangular sections and changed the angle to create more design interest. So what you see on the uh sheet up there is uh a convenience
store and on the left is uh of the sheet is route 206 and that section is a square a 40x 40 square and uh the left wall of that uh portion of the building
addresses road 206 and the right section which is towards the west is the convenience store part for uh shelving and uh bottled and packaged goods. And that is uh 36 ft wide by 54t roughly in
length. And these two rectang uh rectangles intersect in uh at an angle. So it will create uh interesting uh footprint and uh form when uh and I have a view to show that.
Can we mark this as A1? A2 A2 sorry uh before I go to the uh rendering that we have uh of the building the bottom uh wall uh on the sheet is facing the
canopy that's where the main door uh with a uh porch is proposed and it fronts from towards the parking and the fueling positions where the patrons can either either park at a fueling position and walk into the store if they have to
or they'll pull into a parking space and walk into the store. There is a door proposed on the left side uh towards Route 206 and uh as per uh previous testimony uh there is a sidewalk along the building and once uh we we will
connect this to 206 sidewalk when it is installed. So there would be a walk-in from 206 once that happens. Uh the the back wall which is facing Park Avenue and the west wall currently
are blank and if you see the function inside uh it's uh cannot have windows opening into those spaces. But as uh your planner mentioned that the the walls seem a little blank on that side
because uh of the uh windows being on the front and route 206. We will uh add some false windows to make the appearance better uh so they don't look so uh blank.
Okay. So this is the rendering that you may have seen in the package and it is uh drawing R1. If we can mark this as A3. Okay. This is a Can you indicate what this represents?
This is a rendering a view from Route 206. It's dated uh 6 62025 and it's drawing number R1. So uh as u Mr. Ogrnik had mentioned
earlier that the building design we picked a modern vernacular style and that is what uh is uh you can see in the uh exhibit and this was uh when we were at the pre-application meeting we were
asked to look at uh some of the improvements in city and specifically Walgreens but at the same time the applicant has another location uh which is look in upper saddle river which is very similar and it's called the Elmer's
which has a very similar look with a a silver roof and a red siding and it is a country store. So using these two elements we decided the form that we have proposed. The east portion which is
on the left side of the rendering that faces uh route 206 as I mentioned is a 40ft square and being a square we are proposing a hip roof. The slope is 6 and 12 um and there'll be a cupola on top of the
uh on the peak of the hip roof. The eve height is at 14'6 in and uh the finish as I mentioned in stand standing seam metal roof of u galvanized steel um a brushed finish and the walls
are uh hardy plank cement board siding and the uh this section of the building will have vertical siding which is bead and board siding and the windows uh are uh again aluminum windows which will be white colored or again brushed aluminum
to match the roof. The top portion the transom there are mullions proposed as per the overlay standards. We have kept the bottom portion clean glass we can add mullion there if if your uh professionals feel that but we feel this
is what uh gives a cleaner modern vernacular look for that section of the building. Now the west portion uh is uh is uh is slightly lower. It the eve is at 12 ft.
And this again was intentional deliberate to break the uh eve height and break the monotony of the roof style and the uh elevations. The eve is at 12 ft while the left
section had 146. The peak of the right side is at 168 while the left was higher at 30 ft. We are proposing a manser here which is again not allow uh not preferred by your standards. However,
the manser we are proposing so we can hide the rooftop equipment or uh mechanical equipment behind the mansard and that was the purpose and that is one of the requirements that the mechanical equipment be hidden or shielded behind a
screen and we thought a mansaid would be better to shield the mechanical equipment than a screen or a a parapet wall. The finishes as I indicated earlier are standing seam metal roof for the both
the sections and the walls are hardy cement board but on the right side it's horizontal siding. It again breaks the monotony of the wall. So you have vertical siding on the left side or the east side and on the west side it's is
horizontal uh siding. There are uh two signs proposed on the building. There's one facing Route 206 and one facing the canopy. The the sign facing Route 206. It's it's better uh
you can see it better on the elevations and I can go there. But before I change uh the sign facing the canopy this is 20 square ft and it's it's square in uh dimension is 4T 5 in roughly and the one
facing 206 is slightly larger is 40 square ft and it's 6'4 in square. the the fueling canopy currently says K fuel on it and once it's rebrand branded to Philip 66 you can see what the sign
would be like it's um 14.1 square foot sign it's on both long faces and the opposite side has one too which is similar to this and then finally the freestanding sign sorry the monument sign which is replacing the freestanding
sign is on the north corner which will have a Philip 66 uh uh panel, the store panel and the price signs. Uh this uh monument sign will be placed on a uh low wall with stone
finish. Now I did not mention uh when describing the building the right the left portion the base is 10 in uh base which will match the bottom uh style of the door and then on the right side
there is a stone base which is uh two u about 2 foot 6 in or 2' 10 in and that's a stone uh with windows raised in that section. Now the same stone is uh being carried onto the base of the sign and
the canopy although it's existing we are proposing to add uh stone facing to the columns for the bottom um two/3 section of the column just so the whole site ties together. Uh I think one of the suggestions of your professionals was
that we use the stone that from that we see on the Duke farms wall. We could do that. Uh but those stone stone uh sections are pretty large and in scale uh they they would not look appropriate
on u the canopy columns and the building face. We can do that on the sign which is what the recommendation was. But if we want to tie the whole site together, we would like to use the same stone for every element on the site. But we are
open to if if that's what the board wants, we are open to putting that stone on the sign. Uh and to uh conclude I would just mention that um the civil testimony had talked about the dumpster in the north
section which is behind the sign in this and that uh will be built out of masonry and we will put the same stone finish on the trash enclosure which would match the stone of the sign the canopy and the building. Uh
I I think we have tried with this to meet the intent of the design overlay zone. uh the the site is in the highway approaches section of the overlay zone and uh there are certain uh aspects which do not meet the requirement
because some of those are for a larger complex with multi-tenants two-story buildings and u and this building is a one-story smaller building but we have made an effort to meet with the standards we can
uh with that uh I conclude my destiny. I have no further questions for the architect. Okay, Mr. Mayheu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, sir, do you have the ability to put up on the screen
your drawing C 4.3? Sure. This is your exterior elevation plan. Yeah, I should have gone there. Um, this sheet shows two elevations. The top one is the face of the building that
will face Park Avenue. Correct. And the bottom one will face 206. Correct. Correct. So, I just wanted to bring it to the board's attention and I think you might have testified there are no doors nor any windows proposed facing Park Avenue, although I think I heard your testimony
now that you would incorporate some elements that might look like windows but not actually function as windows. Correct. Uh, and I think I've also heard testimony earlier. Mr. Ko brought up the concern with no landscaping on this side of the building. So, I heard that you
would agree to put some shrubbery. So, I just want to bring it to the board's attention that this is what they will be looking at on Park Avenue and just make sure you're comfortable with that view. Why don't we mark this A4?
It's drawing C4.3 preliminary preliminary exterior elevations too. And yes, we we agreed to add window elements uh which will look like windows on this wall and shrubbery uh subject to the easement. Uh there is a aerial easement
there. I don't think there should be a problem adding shrubs in that area. So we will uh we will add some shrubs. Okay. The um other question I had if we go to the floor plan that you had earlier. Yeah. Before you leave that, you might also
want some signage on that side. I'm just making a suggestion for something to you know another architectural feature. You have it on the other the lower elevation, but something similar on that face too. Just just something to Yeah, we can add
to add features to that wall. So, thanks uh Mr. from you. And thank you. If you could go back to sheet, you've already had it up there, sheet 4.4, which is the floor plan. And um I think I our office had
mentioned earlier our concern that there there may or may not be enough parking proposed. Um, I guess I would like a little bit more detail about that area that you're on the left where the seating is and it says cook and serve because I want to bring to the board's attention in the
ordinance there is a parking category for what's called quick food and that requires one parking space for every 30 square feet. So, I guess we want to make clear that this wouldn't or the board wouldn't determine that
it's quick food. Um, or if it is, then there'd be a waiver because it wouldn't meet the parking for that. So, I think maybe more testimony on what's what's going on in that half of the building, I guess, would be helpful. Sure. the the the applicant has uh other
locations which are similar to this. So, it's easier for me to uh describe from what I see in those locations. And uh they do have uh it's a convenience store with a section that would have a section where they can cook and serve
freshlymade sandwiches to the patrons. Um they also have uh uh one location they have seating, one they don't have seating. uh but uh a big part of their uh cook and serve is also u they get
orders for uh from people and they supply to uh schools and in in the other location I'm telling you what happens I don't know if it'll happen here or not but there is people don't uh in those
locations don't hang out so in terms of we have seating they'll come they'll eat and leave so it is kind of a place where uh the food will be served in the sense they won't have uh it's self-service.
They won't have waiters uh doing that. But it's it's not a fast food in terms of uh like a McDonald's or a Burger King or that kind of a it's not like that. Yeah. It's a deli section.
You said that there's a site existing similar to this. They they have in uh it's in upper Saddle River if you know of it's called Elmer's. I can even give you the address if you and do you know how much parking is provided for that site? They have uh I'm sure they're less than
19. I don't know exactly the numbers right now, but uh I'll give you the address if you is it's 359 East Saddle River Road in Upper Saddle River. It's called the Elmer's.
That's that's the only questions I have for the Swiss Nits, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Now you're up. 15 in upper Sal River. That other location they have 15 spaces.
They just told me. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. So, you're saying there's 15 parking spaces in the upper south river site. Do you know what the square footage of that site is? No, I do not remember. Yeah, I mean I can provide that information if you're
that'll be helpful. Sure. Thank you. For the for the HS um well for the corner lot, it would allow two signs. Right now, you're currently at two signs, but I believe the one sign you have
it's um it's facing directly at 206. Correct. And so usually the preference is is to have a sign perpendicular so that the as the traffic's coming they can see it. So you may want to consider instead of putting that one there to put it on the
park side so that people would see it. If you if you wanted to potentially add a sign that would just be an additional believe that would be a waiver. Yeah. Because I believe that's through the design standards. I believe there would be a waiver if you requested a third
sign. Yeah, we would like to I think mayor also suggested that we add one. Um I appreciate the effort that's that's been made u architecturally to to add everything. Um thank you for considering and wanting to
add the the fac the facade the faux windows to that side. Um I don't have any additional questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, questions. Uh, just a couple quick ones. Uh, didn't
testify. Are these signs illuminated or not on the on the building? U, we proposing it to be illuminated. Yes. Okay. Have we have they submitted a sign? They meet design standards as far as sizes and everything and standards
for that. There's a variance um for the monument sign. The ordinance requires that it's only the station name and we're looking to put also the fuel pricing on the sign which is typical in modern signage for
uh gas stations. And then the monument sign size is a maximum of 30 square feet and we're proposing 84 square feet. And the signs on the buildings themselves, they they meet the standard. They're conforming. They're conforming and they'll be they'll be illuminated
back lit illumination. Okay. Do we have a standard as far as colors in our zone as far as what they have? We allow a mix of of colors. There's nothing standing out that they would request uh require any waiverss for what
they're proposing right now. Okay. Um with with regards to the stone and dukes, I I think if you at least try and mimic the color Sure. As much as in style necessarily the size of the stone, I understand they're much
larger boulders, but so at least the from a an aesthetic standpoint, they they blend with the large walls from Dukes. We we'll do that and and we can turn the direction to make them more vertical instead of horizontal, which is what Dukes is, but the scale will be smaller.
Can you show me one more picture? Um, so just to understand, so you're calling cook and serve, but really are you actually making hot sandwiches as well as cold deli? So it does have a a mixture of correct? Yes. And so people would place an order, wait
in the queue till that sandwich is made fresh. So they might be sitting waiting for the sandwich to be ready and then pay and leave or eat there. That that happens. But a lot of uh cases these days the have mobile orders so they order in advance and pick it up.
It's it's very common these days. You have that ability to do that. Yes. Okay. Um All right. There was something else but it escaped me. So I'll defer now. If it comes back to me I'll I'll jump out.
Mr. Chairman, I just have one additional thing to add. Thank you for adding the colored uh rendering. It's very helpful. Focus too much on the black and white. We do have a technical requirement in our in our sign ordinance that um is
asking for usually a a darker background. And so basically proposing white internally, you would just technically need a waiver. the the concern I believe in the ordinance is that the the bright white light can can
be a little too bright too often. Um so technically be a waiver. We do have signs throughout town that do have that, but that would just be a te a technical waiver unless you were going to do a dark background with
with white for for the store. For the country store, I see the country store for the store. We are It's It's a dull color. That's the one you want. Okay. Yeah. And uh the Philips 66, they have their standard. So that changing that would Yeah, that that's fine. That that
wouldn't need the waiver. It would just be the country store sign to have the predominant white background. That wasn't something I saw until I saw the color rendering. I think we can consider that. But can we
ask for a waiver and then try and meet the so we don't have to come back or I I don't know I'm asking you can you can ask you could ask the board but we'll make the effort or even white we we uh have in the past made them more
opaque so it's not translucent so the light is very faint. Yeah we just want to make sure it doesn't go over the brightness. Correct. We have done in the past for signs make make the white is not translucent but it's opaque. Yeah. So I just would hate to have it you you
know get your approval potentially and then go all the way to the zoning permit and you get denied based on that. So I just want to make sure that gets cleared up. But Mr. Voice we we do have a sign review committee. It's true. Which you get through this process and
something comes up with the sign. We it it it's more efficient. You just address the sign. Sure. So, um, but while we're talking about the signs and you mentioned that Philip 66 has their own standards. Is that is that why the sign is that much bigger than
what's allowable? You know, we went from 30 something square foot to 80. So, does Phillips have a standard size that they want the sign to be or is it a is that an industry standard for being able to see the No, the the sign uh the the monument
sign that we are proposing has three sections and that together is what makes it bigger. The Philip 66 section could be a little smaller. uh but with the other side which you have the store sign and the uh price
sign that couldn't be smaller than that combination. So we are just using the whole panel but it if it could be smaller in that section but then it would be odd to have an edge. So now now that I see that it I see that it's actually three parts.
Yeah. So, okay. I remember my question. Old age. Um, is this a 24-hour facility or is it a um until 10? We are asking for 24 hours. Um the uh
owner I think you I think you mentioned earlier it was 5 to 12 or something. Yes. So, um I know you missed us in the introduction. Sorry. Because No, no problem. you're uh doing your doing your duties. Um so we're asking for 24 hours just like quick
checks uh that are north and south of this location, but we intend to operate this facility from 5:00 a.m. to midnight. Sorry. So this I'm going to be looking at David or Matt or Mark. um with regards to this
cook and serve and to me it seems very similar to quick check. So I'm just wondering how is the parking over there because it seems to be about the same amount of seats over at Quick Check too. I could look.
But I'm kind of What's interesting about the quick check? They get the parking almost or at least around the three sides, I believe. Um, yeah, but I'm just curious for, you know, for comparison purposes, not necessarily the square footage, but I mean, it's,
you know, they got I think they have about the same number of seats and you could probably I use say gues guesstimate you know that the the business of people going in there and ordering is probably going to be very similar. So
while they're looking up at that you guys New Jersey lottery. Yes. Okay. Well that's going to contribute to traffic particularly the way it went past couple of weeks. I guess you have to draw drive a long way to buy lottery in that section,
right? You won't have to over there. But it certainly makes it easier on the ride home. So yeah. So Quick Check has close to 35 parking spaces.
It just, you know, the site is a little bit different from this one in that this one has an existing canopy. Yeah. Right in the middle. and they're not proposing to to move it, which by not changing that geometry there and presents a little bit of a challenge,
but it's it's different from the quick check and as how compact the quick check is is located. And to be fair to you, Mr. Chairman, I I'm not sure how that was administered at the time. I wasn't here for when for when that one came in, but Mr. Mayhew and I when we looked at
it that just jumped out to us and just had a little bit of a little bit of concern and then also not not knowing exactly the clientele that this is targeted towards meaning you know obviously the site can't handle truck
traffic parking and there's no sort of trucks parking you know presented in there and so that's just where we were a little bit concerned like is there going to be enough parking there. So that's that's the reason why that why that came up. But technically, it sounds like
through the numbers that the formula and because of the EV, it sounds like they they meet the standard potentially or not quite. Well, Mr. K, I guess it comes down to is what standard
from the ordinance would you use to calculate the required parking? If the board's comfortable calling it convenience store, then it's three and a half spaces per thousand. If the board feels that it's something more than a convenience store, then
other criteria come into play. And I guess that was kind of my line, you know, didn't phrase it well, but was quick check considered a restaurant? Yeah. And that's that's the part I'm not sure how how it was treated at the time.
And as Mr. Mayhew pointed out there, we lack a definition. We lack a definition of of a convenience store. And depending on which the era that that was adopted, I don't know what the intent of the town was at the time, you know, 20
years ago, what did the convenience store for gas stations look like compared to what they are now? They they've changed. Mhm. Um, so I just want to note we did handle that application. It's been a while
for the quick quick check out application. Was here from another error. So, so I don't believe it was considered under the restaurant standards. The one thing I wanted to mention is that u for these types of uses, people park in the fueling bays and then go in
and order food because these are fast food type, you know, quick, you know, service operations. So, it's not just the parking stalls, it's also all the fueling base. Yeah. Now, leave your credit card in the door till you get back. So,
anything from the board. Okay. So, we are still open to public even though I don't see much public, but maybe someone's passing the hallway that would like to come in and question this witness on his testimony. I see no takers.
So, thank you. Good job. Okay. Our next witness is Gary Dean from Dolan and Dean. He's our traffic engineer. Mr. Chairman, um I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm looking for the right time to introduce
uh an exhibit that our office had prepared. Um and we'd like to make it as part of our review letter. I've shared it with Mr. O'Neic. Um and I it when Mr. Deb brought up his concern about the number of variances and trying to visualize them, our office had
anticipated that may be an issue. So, we created a one-page exhibit that may help the board understand the variances. Um, and I'll pass these around. And just for the record, Mr. Granick, you're fine. Yeah, I have no objection to the exhibit
and I think we should label it B1. Mr. Mayu, your office created this, correct? It's um labeled Penoni exhibit. It's dated 911
2025, sheet 101. It's uh a colorized version of the applicant site plan. We show the property line in red. We showed a setback line in red. We show the canopy
and building in a a greenish brown shading color and then we point out some of the variances to just kind of help the board visualize when you hear that there's a certain um
setback variance. This gives you a chance to look at it visually. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So, we have to swear in Mr. Dean. Yes, sir. Nothing carries over from last week. Tonight, the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Gary Dean. De A. Pleasure to be back and see so many empty chairs. I'm a by way of record, I'm a licensed professional engineer that specializes in traffic engineering and municipal
consulting for traffic related matters. And in that capacity, I've appeared numerous times over the past 40 years before this board as well as many other throughout the state and my license is current and in good standing. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, no need to ask. We we we know you
quite well. At the request of the applicant, uh our office was retained to evaluate the overall site circulation and uh to assess the projected traffic impacts. Uh for that we submitted a traffic study to
the board dated February 8th of 2024. Uh it's obviously taken us some time to get here. Um but that uh report sets forth a basic summary of what the traffic is on 206. Right now it is an undivided highway uh with a single lane
in the northbound direction, a single lane in the southbound direction. 206 is busy. There's no question about that. It carries 2200 to 2,000 vehicles per hour. Um, as the board is aware, the Department of Transportation is in the
midst of an improvement project to dualize the highway uh from Doctor's Way, which is to the north of the subject site where the median barrier and two lanes in each direction ends near the I think it's still a day's in that tapers as one approaches Brown
Avenue to the north and then there's a single lane continuing past the subject property and under the Conrail bridge past uh campaign and then the the work that has been suspended near Cisco's
facility partly includes the widening the resetting of utility poles and the like. Uh this one particular section is that missing link that has been uh really bogged down by virtue of the need to relocate the Conrail line and that has been the longest lead time in the
DOT process. But the intent is to make it a uniform cross-section throughout the community or at least in so far to the bypass um that will carry the two-lane in each direction with a median barrier across the site frontage. Um as
a result and even though it's not prohibited today in the future that the site will be limited to right turn entering and right turn exiting. when that future occurs, the crystal ball gets a little hazy and I suspect uh
mayor and council would be better apprised to that than than any of us in in the public sector. But um it is imminent. It's just a matter of when, not if. Um so our traffic study identified the site traffic. It it is I
would characterize fairly light. Um we did uh in our traffic counts not not only count each of the site driveways but also Park Avenue. Um as you as you know traffic engineers tend to focus on the peak traffic hours or the commuter
hours when conditions are busiest. Um and during those hours I again would characterize the site as fairly light. In the morning we had 19 entering vehicles and 13 exiting. Why the difference? Some were still at the pumps
and in the evening that was a little more balanced 18 in, 18 out. So, not a busy site uh compared to certainly some of the others we've evaluated in the township. Our study then looked at industry standard
uh what we refer to as uh it rates for the the projection of future traffic associated with the sea store. As you've heard, it's not a restaurant. It it is identical, albeit in a smaller scale, to
Quick Check and Wawa that are typically 5,800 to 6,000 square feet in size. And I know that because I do work for both of them. Uh with a lot more parking, a lot more fueling positions. So, they tend to be very uh robust and active
stores. They do have a a counter where food can be ordered either on a mobile app or at a touch screen. and the patron, if anyone's been there, and I'm embarrassed to admit after a late meeting, I've been a patron and gotten my dinner. Um, that's that's made to
order. It is not fast food where uh items are pre-made and and simply available to the customer. The only thing that's pre-made is is a cup of soup uh other than prepackaged goods. So, um, it it is a component of a
modern convenience store associated with a with a service station, but it is in in my opinion, and you'll hear from our planner, more of an accessory component than a primary use. And and the challenge we run into in starting to segregate the building components is
there's also a small office space. And if we're if we're going to get that granular a level to say x square feet is restaurant and y square feet is convenience store each with their own parking standards. Well then restrooms don't require any parking nor does
storage and then the office. You know we start to really get away from this being a convenience store. And I think the applicant has been consistent with um what I imagine the board considered for quick check. um but certainly not
allocating that separately and and the seating that's available is really limited to those patrons who simply wish to you know remain on site um but I wouldn't characterize it as typically a restaurant um nevertheless getting back to it we did look at the time of our
report the available IT data which was I'm going to get really detailed in the 11th edition of trip generation uh that was the only publication available last year. As of about a month ago, it released new data. They do so
about every six years. And when I compare the 11th edition, which has somewhat older trip generation data, it has purged a lot of that antiquated data. In fact, anything prior to 1990
has been removed from the database. Um, and across the board, the projected traffic for this site and this store would be 20 to 22% lower than we used in
our study. And we didn't amend our study, but if I did, the projections would be less than we considered. And and to put that into scale, I mentioned that we had roughly uh say 20 vehicles
per hour. When we uh use it data and and go straight to the size of the convenience store, that would generate an additional roughly 55 to 65 vehicles
per hour or one a minute. And that's assuming right that it follows the standards and that's the only measure we have to follow at this juncture. And that is the most contemporary traffic projections available from it for a
convenience store uh with a gas station or with fueling uh components. So all of the projections contained in our study I I would say are overstated in terms of what the contemporary more recent data u
would otherwise indicate. Um because 206 is so busy there are and from our counts there aren't very many people who try to turn left. It's I won't say it's impossible because people
do it. But by way of example, over the course of the in both peak hours, as a matter of fact, there were only three people out of 20 who turned left to go north. U those people wait a long time. No disguising that fact. That happens at
any unsalized driveway along the corridor. Um, and as a result for those left turns, you wait a long time. That delay is a minute, a minute and a half, and if you're lucky enough, eventually
you get a break. Um, as the do work eventually is completed, those left turns get eliminated. But in this interim condition, um, you know, we we've estimated that more traffic will try to turn left, um, to go back towards
Somerville. I'm I'm not sure why, but people could do it and they will wait a long time. There's there's no way around that. Most of the traffic we expect would be because it's convenienceoriented, right turn in, right turn out, but for
the time being there there are no restrictions on left turns. Um, our traffic study did assume that there would be a a minor increase along Park Avenue. Um, literally a handful of vehicles, two to three, just just because, and I don't have the site plan
handy, but there is some parking along the side of the convenience store, uh, along the north side. Um, and some people just by way of convenience may elect to go and use park. What we what we also didn't take into consideration
is, and I'll have to defer defer to either Mr. Mayhew or Kois, the Brown Avenue Road extension is is I don't know if it's under construction or nearing completion. The one thing that wasn't done was to connect park to
Brown and that was for a very specific reason. It was the I spoke with the designer of the Reynolds group that was to avoid extensive DP permitting just because of the amount of impervious disturbance. However, the westerly
terminus of park could easily be connected to Brown and I'm not sure what the thought process is. I do know that the original concept by the county intended to have Park and Brown connected. So at whatever time that
occurs, um obviously there will be an alternative for site traffic to go north on 206 um and and use that connection as sort of a reverse jug handle. In the alternative, traffic would continue south on 206 past
Champlain Road and then use the jug handle that's been constructed north of Hillsboro Transmission and on the Cisco property in their front yard basically. Um, and that's part of the current 206 project. So there there are ways to to
enter and more safely enter and exit the site as these highway improvements uh come online. the the relief we're seeking uh from a traffic engineer perspective pertain to the width of the driveways. Um those are actually
mandated well they're existing for one but secondly do controls the dimension of highways or driveways rather on the highway the minimum width for a highway driveway that's one way is 20 feet and I believe your ordinance restricts that to
12. So, I'm not going to play attorney, but given that DOT has jurisdiction over the dimension of driveways in their right ofway, we we kind of need to abide by DO's minimum dimension.
More importantly, DOT requires us to demonstrate that trucks can have adequate circulation and the ability to turn. I know Mr. Mayhew caught in his review the fact that one of the templates, I don't recall which one, you know, gets close to or hits the curb.
So, it needs to be a little wider simply to accommodate the delivery vehicles, the tankers that that bring in the motor fuel product. So, in my opinion, a they exist and have done so free from defect, but secondarily, we're required by the state to have
driveways that that don't necessitate that trucks get into uh cross the center line or or encroach into a neighboring lane under the two-lane section. So, um given the unique nature of the use, in my opinion, there's sufficient uh
justification to allow for the wider driveways and and they will make it uh safer for the vehicles that need to access the site. Uh beyond that, uh the applicant complies with the amount of required parking. Um it may even exceed
I I don't quite uh profess to know the exact calculations but 19 spaces are proposed and and I believe 15 are required. So we do slightly exceed that. I've been involved with over my career probably
150 different service station applications and for smaller convenient marts such as this unlike the bigger wawas and quick checks we typically have a dozen spaces one or
two for for the employees and the balance are are for customers um with having 19 and with having uh the fueling positions also act as de facto parking, meaning someone who's filling their
vehicle can go into the store, pick up a snack, uh what have you. They function as though they are on-site parking spaces. So, with that ability to have, I think it's uh 19, it'll be 31 parking spaces. I in my opinion, it it more than
meets uh the the amount of required parking for this type of use. Um and with that there is some coordination required with DOT because as part of their project they are changing the grades of the highway. Um you can see
from some of the the ongoing work how they're either depressing or raising the elevation of the highway. That's one of the reasons why we can't get ahead of that and in essence construct the final DOT design or driveways or even the sidewalk because there'll be additional
elevation changes. So, um, all of that will be done by the state. Um, but, uh, all of the proposed improvements are compatible with the DOT design. And unless there's something else, Michael, that that's all I have in the way of my directives. I have no further questions for Mr.
Dean. May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Dean, I bring your attention to page 506 of our review letter dated 8th September. Specifically, traffic comments. Would your office have any issue providing the
additional calculations that our our team has identified? My my only concern, Mr. Mayhew, is and first off, as a obviously as an outside agency, we will we will provide the board with with the appropriate DOT approvals or or exemptions from any
permitting. With regard to comment number two, um the land use code cited in your letter is a rental car facility. So, I don't think that's an appropriate land use code and and that may be the now
obsolete part of the DOT permit system. The DOT permit system is using not the 11th version of it. They're still stuck in 10. So, they haven't updated their own system. And as a
result, their access management code specifically states that it the current edition s shall serve as the basis for any permitting applications. But we will provide this board and obviously your professionals with the final DOT
approvals. Um the letter that we wrote in terms of the exemption assumed that the do work would be completed um and that the the Park Avenue access
would be minimally used. We we will take that up with the state. I do also want to let the board know that once the DOT does their project, they are obligated under their code to provide this property owner with a new permit. So regardless of how we get there through
the state, we we will provide that to your professionals. Um I don't take any other exception to to the other comments in this review. Um and and as again as an outside agency, we will provide that information to the board and your
professional satisfaction. And that number six, the proposed traffic arrows, I I don't think we take any exception to that recommendation. Just to clarify the directional intent. Thank you.
That's it. Thank you, Mr. Mayhem. course, you're up. I have no questions for Mr. Dean. Okay. Board members. Mr. Dean, can you just um clarify? I know other um applications that come
before this board uh involve increases. You know, we just I I would term it as a destination. You know, put a building somewhere and now traffic is going to flow there. Uh, and I'm looking at Mr. Mayhew's letter uh, referencing
increases of 216, 147, 128 trips. My thinking is these are vehicles that are going down 206 anyway and are going to use that as a stopping point to refuel and as you say, grab a bite or a snack. Can you comment on would there would you
in your opinion say this would be a true increase in traffic or just an increase in stops? based upon the uh business that will be improved there. A very astute observation and allow me to clarify when when we look at DOT
permitting and and I know Mr. Mayhew's principally the traffic comments focused on our correspondence with DOT DOT doesn't care where the traffic comes from north or south. All they care about is how many additional cars come in and
out of the site. And those numbers are correct. However, as we look at the characteristics of that traffic and we've actually as part of our work for Quick Check many years ago, we we interviewed customers to find out, are you coming here to make a special trip
or are you on your way somewhere else? And your intuition is spot on in that 85 to 90% of the traffic is comprised of people who stop by because it's convenient and they're on their way home. The only time candidly I think of
going to a gas station is when I ran out of gas cutting ran out of gas cutting my lawn and it's like now I have to go to the gas station and then I go back home. But if we're commuting at at our peak hours I'm hardressed to understand the
sort of logic of someone that says it's rush hour on 206. I'm going to go out and get gas right now and then come back home. it. So virtually all of that traffic is is what we call the technical term is pass by and that is the nature
of gas stations with convenience stores in particular. Thank you. My question was very essentially what Mr. Pan asked you here was very similar to what I would also be asking in a slightly different way. Here is how I look at it, right? I understand the data
points that have been provided wherever we've extrapolated that from, right? But as a person, a resident of Fsbor, what I'm thinking is I'm coming down this way. We know what the gas station looks like right now. I see a nice little place. Also, given the unique, you know,
choke point, the chicken necking of that place, if I may use that expression, right? If I'm stuck there, I need to run to the bathroom. I'll stop at the gas station there, right? Not the gas station, but the convenience store. So do we if I wanted an
estimate maybe right rough rule of thumb saying base case as what happens today right cars running by versus stopping what kind of what percentage pure guess should I see an increase there of now I
understand the left turns difficult you might stop might not stop people coming south what percentage if we were to guess would think we're going to see an incremental traffic, you know, stopping there where we've done before and after
studies uh for even national corporations where where they have a gas a long established gas operation and they put in a convenience store, the traffic typically goes up 30 to 50%. It depends on the store of
what's there today. For this station, recalling that it only does 20 vehicles per hour. Now, that'd be maybe 10 more and and they're all passed by. Not a big number. However, I you know, respect the process and the
fact that um your reviewing engineer will look at the same book I do. We took it that extra level to say for this size store, for this number of fueling positions, what would that traffic be? and and we
put in our report that it jumps up from instead of 20 vehicles per hour, it could go up to 84 vehicles per hour. So, it's a big percentage, but then it's only 60 vehicles per hour. And I don't
get excited about that. That's why I say it's a car a minute. And I won't ask you, I know time is tight. We want to hear from our planner, but if we were to sit here for a minute in dead silence, you'd be like, "Oh my god, that's an eternity." That's not a big traffic demand. So percentages are sometimes misleading and that's why I do like to
look at the volume for context. I'm hardressed to to to say that the site is going to quadruple in volume. But I'd be remiss if I didn't at least consider that possibility in our study. And and just again share with you as I
look at the contemporary data our projections I know I said percentages so let me quantify it. We overstated the morning traffic by 29 vehicles and in the evening it's 37.
So we're we're less than and I think that's more realistic of what this station will do. But yeah, we it's a beautiful facility and when I first saw the rendering I said that looks like Walgreens and I was involved in that and I think that's been a nice asset to the community certainly as far as the
architecture and it's keeping that theme going and I and I think it will certainly clean up what is not the prettiest station with all due deference to the applicant but indeed certainly a step to modernize and make it more of a gateway statement
that that your estimate gives us a good good at least gives me a good understanding there because I had two questions on my mind and one sort of is tied to the other. First is traffic of course and the second is number of parking parking spots. So u I mean there isn't really a question
question per se. I wanted to understand if there's a specific formula that we use the DOT widening the entry does it you know kind of play into the increased number of you know kind of parking spots or something I do not know but there should be some kind of a formula I
believe right and is it the township that governs it I yes your ordinance requires three and a half spaces per thousand square feet of building area and that that yields based on 3450 required parking spaces and and And we're providing 19
dedicated stripe spaces. We get a two space EV credit, but they're Phantom. And then we have the 12 just a dispenser spaces knowing that, you know, takes a few minutes to fill the tank, run in, get soda, you know, whatever, lottery
tickets, what have you. Thank you. You're welcome. I know that most of I mean I think just as a habit you're driving down a road and if the gas station is crowded you just keep going going to the next one right so um
no disrespect to uh to help or busy all the time but if you're there's more than one opportunity to stop if you don't necessarily feel that the the weight or the parking lot's full right I've done that at quick check go by go we'll just pass that one and go to the next cluster
somewhere down the road but um Where I find the biggest problem, and this is just me, is the landscapers, the trucks and trailers tend to take up, they queue into a parking area. They obviously it's one one vehicle, but it's two, you know, with an 18 foot trailer taking up a spot
in in a in a bay and they're going to go in and load up their lunchbox with, you know, 14 sodas, six waters, six lottery tickets, and and 18 burritos or whatever they're going to get. And 10 minutes later, they come out and they're ready to move. and then sometimes they like to
sit in the truck and and have a snack. So, you've allocated for for that kind of possibility. I I can't disagree with that observation. I I the only thing I those types of individuals tend to be
creative but but generally considerate and in where those vehicles are. Um, and as we look at the northeast, and I don't have the ability to show the site plan, but the site the site has a lot of uh areas where where that type of limited use could be accommodated without
interfering with access to the canopy. Um, you know, the other the only other alternative is simply to say, "All right, we we'll put a sign up and prohibit it and go to title 39." Are there talk about parking on Brown Avenue
or P Park Avenue? I'm sorry. Park, right? Is anything that's prohibited from them parking on there and walking in? If I can answer the the biggest challenge would be there's no way to turn around on park. So, if they go by
the site, turn right on park, they're facing west, there's no culde-sac at the end. So, they're going to go into the parking lot to the left at the restaurant because there's an entrance there they can spin around. There is also no parking signs along Park Avenue. Perfect. There is no parking signs.
Okay. Well, that's why I wanted to ask. So, if there comes a problem, we have enforcement. I'm done. I have a I have a question. Um, I guess comparatively speaking, you you guys said you own another store, you know,
very similar in upper upper Saddle River um, uh, with the same um, setup and sandwich shop and whatnot. Um, I know it's it's not it's apples to oranges. Not the same traffic patterns
obviously over there, but just uh thinking through it, do you know the percentage of customers roughly that come in just for the sandwiches versus that are the you know guess just stop by getting gas. I just trying to think
through it like personally for me I do go to Wawa just to get a sandwich because it's a good sandwich. The best case scenario is this place has really good sandwiches and I'll go there just to get a sandwich. You know, is there any sort of data on that? The the difference is both Quick Check
and Wawa started as convenience stores and then they realized, you know, to drive a little more convenience store business and that was their primary uh revenue source. They said combining this with fuel gives us the ability to
all right we we can sell some gas but the real motivation is to drive more convenience store traffic. So the difference this is this is Philip 66 which is you know for decades been involved in the sale of motor motor fuels. To answer your question, the the
convenience store grew out of the tradition of having vending machines at gas stations, cigarettes, soda machines, candy, and the like, not the freshest, etc. So, now they got a little bigger, and we started with the mini marts that used to be, and I'm old enough to, if any of you are, you know,
they had the little mobile tuck mart. You had a literally a kiosk underneath the canopy. Well, that wasn't big enough. and all right so they kept growing and growing and now they're tucked on the side to answer your question from the from we've we've segregated that we've done research
counts at these combined operations and it's and it's about 40% uh fuel only about 40% convenience store only and about 20 20 to 15 and you know
those are loose numbers but 20 do both so you're absolutely absolutely correct that we know that there are certain customers now those are the quick checks and wawwas as for these you know different branded hard to guess it really is but but at
least from the the the bigger boys quick checks and waw wa that's that's how the percentages break out that gas and sea store is pretty even in terms of traffic sales in the convenience store are are higher there.
So there's that, you know, between lottery, cigarettes, other, you know, sandwiches and then we have the 20%. So it does add to the gas business and gas does go up with this component. So more people will stop because there's a convenience store
they can run in, it's 5:30 at night, get a loaf of bread or milk or whatever's on the shopping list and go home instead of, you know, dealing with Shop Right's parking lot. So if this I just using that logic if the store was a hit and the sandwiches
are amazing 40% of the traffic is going to come just to get the sandwiches. Correct. But keep in mind our our traffic projections show you know showed a four times increase in traffic. If I used those percentages I had had I the 40 40 20 my projections would be much
lower. So we did assume that yeah this convenience store is really going to drive a lot more traffic. We did we did include that assumption. Thank you. You're welcome. Anyone else? Okay, just before I open it
up to public, just a real quick note. Um, you may want to correct a couple of typos on pages 14, 15, and 17. I think they uh used they wrote in the year 2014
instead of 2024. I think they just because the project number ended in 14. I think they carried it over. I don't have that many pages in my report, but I I Well, I guess it was all scanned in. Oh, it's the data sheets or the survey sheets. You are 100% correct. Okay.
Mr. Donna Telly has been with us a long time. Yes. Get the project number right. So, I know it's 24 and he discovered time travel. So, Oh, look. He got it right on the other peak hours. Good catch. Thank you. Apologize.
No, no worries. Just wanted to get on the record just Yeah. I think first thing, can I have a motion to extend what we think 30 minutes? All right. Well, the issue becomes Mr. Mayu's
exhibit and how we're going to inter to deal with that, but for a half an hour. Yeah. Okay. May I have a motion to extend this hearing till 10:30 p.m.? So moved. Okay. Can we do it by affirmation or do we need a roll? Okay. All in favor? I
I Good. Can I have a motion to open the public? Oh, we're already public. So, all right. Anyone passing the hallway? You want to come on in to have the question Mr. Dean on his testimony? He's already left. Okay. No, he's just hiding in the back.
So, all right. No one's here. So, um, Mr. Chairman, our final witness is our professional planner, John Taikina, uh, of his firm, All Things Planning and Development. And we'd ask him to swear him in and qualify him as an expert in the field of professional planning.
I do. John Tyina, T is in Thomas, AI, K is in Kelly, I N is in Nicholas A. I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. have been since I completed my studies at Ruckers University in 1992. Last 33 years I've done this, testified
before planning and zoning boards around the state and across the country on behalf of applicants big and small. Um I was last here in September of 2024 and before your zoning board in 2023. Okay. Any objections? Okay, we accept. Please continue.
Thank you. Uh I am here to talk about the application from a planning st standpoint. uh specifically the uh variance justifications. I'm not going to repeat all the information that Eric and Jess VinDer and Gary gave you on blocks and lots and areas and all that
stuff. They did a great job. Um we do uh most importantly from a zoning standpoint in the HS highway service district, we do meet all of your conditions uh for to be a gasoline service station uh with a retail convenience um which is the most important one. Uh the balance of our uh
relief is by and large um due to existing conditions uh with existing driveway widths with lot widths with lot areas etc. All things that will be C1 relief relating specifically to the existing additions on the site. Uh in
terms of new quote unquote variances, uh we do require a front yard variance uh for the new sea store, both from uh Route 206 and from uh Park Avenue. Uh and we do require some additional impervious coverage. Uh we're about 7%
over uh on the on the acre. Uh the balance, as I said, are uh variances that are related to the existing uh conditions. Um the uh so in terms of the site and again
I uh how do I get the disc up there? We're on it. Okay. Thank you. That's not the site. There we go. I like the pretty picture. This is
This is A3 uh previously uh in evidence. Um and this is again the building's really the star of the show here. Um actually the Penoni exhibit is very helpful. it kind of does um kind of lay
out um what was left to be able to um to place a building and the applicant actually did all the right things. They actually even acquired more land uh to be able to make sure that you know they could have the largest site possible to be able to um provide an additional permitted use here. And actually, I
submit to you, an additional permitted use that kind of goes to more of the purposes of the uh highway service district in terms of uh additional employment opportunities, additional destinations uh and more to the pedestrianism of the uh of the township and and the
gateway as it leads into the business district and the town center. Um so in terms of you know the challenge here is we have an existing center ex existing service station um with an existing canopy, existing gas pumps, existing gas tanks uh all of which are in place. Uh
really not a good reason to rip it all up and and start over again as as we said because there really wasn't a lot to gain because again a service station needs certain areas to be able to to circulate. The driveways need to be a certain dimension to meet DOT and to meet our truck turning as Mr. Dean said,
uh, we have all of those things. So, the the right thing to do was then to place the building in a spot where it fit, um, and where we could, uh, then use the building to satisfy the rest of the, uh, design criteria and the design guidelines that are set forth in the
overlay. And I think the building did a great job of doing that. They broke it into two pieces. They made it different heights. It looks like a building that was, you know, if you look at their historic barn vernacular, it was kind of built over time. Okay, we did we did this piece when you know we had a good year this year and we did that piece, we had a good year that year and uh you
know it all kind of came together in in a way that uh does look somewhat of vernacular and one of the benefits that's going to acrue to you um in the township from having this site on in the gateway is you're going to have another example of what you're looking for.
You're not going to have to just say look at Walgreens. you're going to be able to say look at Philip 66 as well in terms of um you know what the the vernacular architecture that you're looking for with some of your commercial buildings and for example that you
didn't get a quick check um you know again this applicant has gone above and beyond in terms of making sure that it does meet a lot of these standards um so in terms of uh the relief that that's in question um as I said we have a bunch of C
variances that are specifically um that are related to physical uh features on the site in terms of lot area, lot setbacks, lot depths, driveway dimensions, um etc. and the balance are C2 variances where we we believe it's a
better plan to have uh the building located where it is even though it requires front yard setback variances from uh Park Avenue and from Route 206 because with this uh icon architecture we're going to be able to anchor that
corner in a way that it's not done today and and really establish the gateway um before we get the new Conro bridge and all that stuff. But interesting in terms of our front setback, when you sit in park and you look to your right and you
you sit in park going out onto 206 and you look to your right and you line yourself up with the front of the restaurant and you look to your left, you line yourself up with the canopy. So the canopy and the restaurant are at the same setback dimensions. So, we kind of
just dropped this building in the middle and we're going to kind of continue that streetscape at that 29 feet, uh, which we think is most appropriate. And again, if we're going to have the pedestrian connections, if we're going to have the sidewalks, we're going to have the walkway that connects you in, we're going to have all these windows, uh,
we're going to have, uh, architecture on Park Avenue that reflects these window elements, etc. that has the sidewalk, etc. We're going to want to make sure that it's a reasonable walk. you're not walking 50 feet across a front yard um you know to try and get to a building.
You can get there in a reasonable you know amount of time and you're going to get uh actual pedestrianism uh hopefully along that carter. Um so again in terms of our variance justifications as you know there's four standards. Uh first and foremost
excuse me relate to a particular piece of property. Uh this relates to 144 Route 206. No other property. We don't convey any uh what's the word I'm looking for? I just drew a blank.
There's no precedence. Thank you. There's no precedence. That's that's carried forward because oh, we granted the front end variance here, you know, etc. No, we granted the front end variance here because we had a funny looking corner and we put a great building on it. That's justification of grant a front yard variance. Um and if somebody wants to do that in the future, fine. You justified it on your own
property. There's no precedence because you rented it here. Um, we have our C1 or C2 justification again relating to the physical features or exceptional features on site or that it's a better plan. It's a better planning alternative to have what we're proposing than a
conforming plan. Um, we advance some of the purposes of zoning and I'll talk about that. And as with all of your variances that we um meet your negative criteria, you're not going to have any substantial detriment public good. We're not going to have a substantial impairment to your zone plan or your master plan. So in terms of um the
variances, I think uh as I said all the C1s, they're driven by the existing lot shape, relief for lot area setbacks, driveway dimensions, street relief. We have overhead wires on two frontages. We have aerial easements on the frontage and on the corner. So we're going to
going to try and work around that, get good landscaping, but again planting street trees in that area uh is not possible. So, we're going to take advantage of the town county town county town county town county town county town county town county town county town county town county town county township a board that allows us to to pay um further the oddly shaped corner lot in the corner configuration drive placing
the building closer to park to uh continue to permit adequate parking and fueling movements and again consistent with lang v board of adjustment uh a grant of variance can be supported if it permits improvements that are of normal size and shape for the utility. So, um,
you know, we because we're on a small site, we're not going to all of a sudden have 15 foot parking spaces. You know, parking spaces need to be a normal size. We need to have the right dimensions to have the truck circulate, etc. So, just because we're on a 1acre site, it we don't get to shrink everything by 50%. Um, fortunately, unfortunately,
everything has to stay at its normal size. Um, and then our C2 variances, we think the proposed building configuration provides a better planning alternative for the use. The impervious coverage is a result of providing appropriately dimensioned circulation improvements to allow for fueling, convenient access, and parking. Um, in
terms in terms of our advancing our purposes zoning, I'd submit to you there are three. Uh, G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses in accordance with their environmental requirements. The site is an appropriate location for sea store and gas as set forth by your zoning um
and route 206 frontage with added side street access. Adding additional storm water and landscaping ensures that we satisfy the environment requirements and we heard the site much like virtually every existing gas station in New Jersey is under uh continued groundwater
monitoring and uh has a Fortune 100 company behind uh making sure that that cleanup happens. um uh eye to promote a desirable envir visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. The new site will be substantially
better looking the existing. It's a better building with more landscaping. It's going to be a better looking site, a more attractive sign and frankly the building the building is going to be an icon for the northern entry into the town. an M to encourage coordination of the various public and private
procedures and activities shaping land development a view towards lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of the land. Again, the applicant needs to run the gauntlet of all those agencies, DOT, Somerset County, including coordinating with DOT improvements, township soil erosion,
meeting four or five masters requirements, and making sure that they're all met and that we still provide for a uh an attractive site that that's efficiently and can operate. and we chose to use the existing improvements and that's frankly a more
efficient use of the land uh than it would be scraping the whole thing and starting a new um in terms of uh in terms of our negative criteria no substantial detriment public good no impairment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance um again we advance the purpose of zoning uh which is a
substantial but a substantial benefit to the public good the development takes into account the need to enhance protect the surrounding environment and certainly benefits granting the relief does substantially outweigh any detriments. Again, we're providing for all the right lighting. We're providing better landscaping. We're going to have
a great looking building at your gateway. Um, in terms of your ordinance, I'm sorry, there's no detriment as well. Uh, the new building is attractive, moves it closer to providing a gateway look to the town center. Pulling up to the street enhances pedestrianism. We'll have full sidewalk improvements when DOT
gets around to doing their improvements. We will connect to them and uh actually have a place for you to walk. Uh I'm a sidewalk guy. So uh again I think full sidewalk is a good idea. Um in terms of your master plan uh your master reexamination talks about encouraging
commercial development or redevelopment suitable areas of the community that are most economically useful commercial for commercial purposes. Uh Mr. Ko was nice enough to site uh the highway service district purpose which creates a special land use transition into and out of the
gateway and the town center development. And again, I think this is a a great opportunity of a gateway site. Um, we're taking an existing uh service station use, dressing it up, providing some icon architecture, uh providing for additional modest employment along
portions of 206, and providing for planned mixeduse development uh and home occupations. So again, while we are a uh we are an auto use, um again, we think our lighting is not extensive or excessive, our signage is appropriate for the use and our traffic
requirements, as Mr. Dean said, can certainly be accommodated. In terms of your architectural site design overlay, um a was to provide a more defined community identity uh through integration of creative divine design components which will enhance the functional and desirable forms of
development. I think with this architecture of this building again, it's going to be your second example. It's not going to be just Walgreens. Don't go look at Walgreens. I mean, look at Walgreens. Look at what they did with a sea store. Okay? We did this with a sea store.
All right? That's that's something you're doing something. Uh to develop architectural and site design standards which are reasonable and predictable and provide for creation of a functional pedestrian oriented development within a township. Check. Here we are again. you'll get to point to it and say, "Look
what this Sea store gas station did. If they did it, you can do it." Uh to promote a desirable visual environment, obviously, to improve the image and economic vitality of the township, supporting the town center, and protect the township's quality of environment while promoting beneficial economic
development and growth. Again, substantial investment in the town. Uh it's going to be a better site at your gateway. And coordinating public and private investments. obviously we're coordinating with DOT making sure that that investment is going to be worth it when it comes um and giving the township
a great gateway use along the way. So for those reasons, I believe you have the ability to grant the relief requested. Uh whether it's C1 or C2, I think we the benefits outweigh the detriments on a whole. That is the standard. It's really is a whole project outweigh the um the uh you know the fact
that there are variance included. I I I recognize that quote unquote there's a lot, but there's a lot because they relate to the existing site. Um the substantive ones are the new front yard setback and the impervious coverage. And we think placing the building there is a
better spot than trying to stick it somewhere else where it didn't belong. It does something that's beneficial up at that corner and that's going to be good for the township. You have the ability to grant the relief. I'm available for your questions. You may
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, um could you address whether the um the front yard setback off of Park Avenue, let's say, is the minimum necessary variance for the site? And
given the amount of building coverage that's falling over the required setback line, is this the the minimum size building that's required for the site? Um I believe it is. I mean, I don't do as much uh sea store work as Mr. Dean
does, but I do do a substantial amount of it. Probably about 30 of them last year. Um, typically they're 5,500 to 6,000 square feet. So, dropping down to 35 3450 square feet is getting into the minimum range of what you would do as a
as an effective sea store. That's one you're going to want to go to. Um, it's interesting. Uh, Mr. Mr. Mr. Deb talked about being able to go to the bathroom. You can't do that today, but you'll be able to do that tomorrow. That again, it's a building
that's big enough. It's going to have restrooms for the public. They're going to be clean and well done and all those good things. I've been to Elmer's up in Upper S. I didn't know it when I was there, but again, it's a clean, well-run store. Um, and uh, you know, so again,
yes, I think this is about the minimum size. And the challenge here is the the existing driveway uh outbound driveway onto 206 really sets the edge of where those parking spaces can be and then if we go 18 ft from the parking spaces and
then 5T for the walkway, we only get left with what we have and and we decided 10 feet was a good number uh for the setback along park. I think that's totally reasonable for a minor street like that. Um again, it's it's quote unquote a blank wall. We'll dress it up
the best we can, but it's not going to have a negative impact on Park or its streetscape or or the bar across the street. Um, again, I I recognize that that it's small compared to 40. I mean, I I don't think 40 is a good setback, period. I much prefer 10. Um, but most
importantly, from an urban design standpoint, it pulls it up to the corner and anchors it and says something. Hey, look, this is a different this is a different place. You pass the beauty of Duke Farms, then you get, you know, days in, you get extra space storage. You're
about to get a shot at them soon. Um, you get the the auto body place, which actually doesn't look bad. It's an attractive auto body place. And then you're going to have a great looking store here and an interesting bar and restaurant again. And we're in line with the interesting bar and restaurant and
our canopy. And then we step back a little bit to the to the um to the auto body place. and then, you know, extra spaces back because of the uh because of the jug handle. So, I think it's the right I think it's in the right spot. I could I could move it closer to 206,
frankly, but I think we dropped it in line with the other buildings and that's the right spot. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Co. Good evening, Mr. Ta. Uh, I apologize if I missed it. I just wanted to make sure
the um did you have anything to address the the signage the variance associated with the signage? Actually I did not. Um okay thank you. The the signage these RC2 variances um for the for the monument sign. It is
larger than is allowed by the ordinance. 30 square feet is frankly very very small. They actually when you build them they kind of look kind of funny. Um but uh again so we think this is the minimum size to represent the three elements
that we need for Philip 66 for the store and for the price. Um unfortunately we're not WAWA. We only have one name. Um and you need one name and price or quick check need one name and price. Uh we kind of need two. Um so we we think
that uh and we think the icon of Philip 66 is important. um taking an independent to a national brand is is a great thing. Um so we like having that store and it's frankly an iconic uh signage element. So uh we think it's
important as Jazz Vinder said we we could push and pull around the Philips 66 a little bit. Um we'll make sure that it's uh that our sign is opaque white so that we don't not a light bulb. Uh I don't like that either. um and only our
element is illuminated and totally illuminated but I think it's the appropriate size I guess state miller is the is the case that um a variance for a sign is supported when it's believed that that is the the size that is appropriate to provide for good visibility from the road up and down. I
think the mayor had a good good suggestion to move either add a sign to the south side to the I guess it's the west side of the building u 206 south side of the building and um either instead of 206 or or added an additional
have the waiver for the additional one there. Again, I think more elements on that frontage are appropriate from a design standpoint. Uh and I think that relief would be appropriate is reasonable for the board to grant as a waiver. Um so accord and then or the
rest of the negative criteria etc all applies. Thank you. I have nothing else Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you. Word members. Good evening. Thanks uh for your testimony. Do does Philillips 66 have
any does the national frational body have any franchise rules, operation rules that this facility is going to run under or when it comes to the restaurant or the the convenience store part of it?
And the only reason and the reason I'm asking No, they would not control it. They would not. No. Okay. Does do we know who will control it? The applicant. So they'll they'll run the Yes. Okay.
Yeah. One thing I do want to mention that we may want to put a demising doorway between the two uses potentially just because the hours of operation are not going to be consistent with the convenience store. think that more of a field change, but
it's going to be owner operated for the for the uh food portion of the convenience store. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Anyone pass in the hallway?
Okay. So I guess now I will ask the people passing the hallway last bite at the apple. I don't see anybody. So motion to close the public. So move. Second. All in favor?
I. Okay. Rodnick closing. So quiet in here. We can start to I I can walk to my car without an escort. Uh we believe that these upgrades um of
this outdated fuel station represent a modern convenience facility with a blend blend of classic almost barn-like rural American building forms with modern materials and commercial functions. Uh and again the relief requested really summarizes here to is based upon the existing size shape and the
long-standing nonconformities from the construction of the site back in the 1970s. Um, our design team has worked to create a visually appealing and contextsensitive commercial building instead of a po purely functional Bach Bachlike convenience store. And we would
ask uh the board to approve this application. We think it's a a real real improvement of what's there and uh we'd hope we'd hope everybody would consider that to be a good a good improvement to the gateway. Mr. Bernstein,
Mr. May you uh you provided to the board exhibit B1. Do you believe and I'll ask the same question of Mr. Kis that the testimony addresses all of the various variances that are being sought by the applicant.
Uh Mr. Bernstein, I I'll leave it to the board, I guess, to decide whether the variances have been addressed, but I can say that I heard testimony discussing each of the variances if that's what you're looking for.
I could basically add to that each point was, and again, the board can decide if they were met or not, but I agree with Mr. Mayhew, especially on on our side of things, that each part was talked about
and now it's up to the board to decide if it meets the criteria for relief. Thank you. You've all been provided with the Penoni exhibit. In light of the evidence, the board has to at least give consideration to
whether or not on top of the testimony you received, whether or not you are interested in approving or requesting additional items related to the variances sought. So question for Mr. Mayhew then uh or
for anybody. Um the way I'm looking at and and thank you for providing this this is a a big help to to Mr. Deb's question also is to kind of quantify this, but the way I'm reading this is that really most everything is an
existing nonconformity uh except for the minimum rear yard which are two uh variances, the monument sign coverage and the monument sign naming. Um, everything
else looks like it's an existing and the proposed is is the same as the existing nonconformity. So, I think those three or four issues were testified on and I think I'm okay with it.
Um, I I concur, Mr. Pearson, with what your your summary except I think you might have missed their increasing impervious cover. and they're decreasing front yard setback with the addition of the building. But the rest, as you mentioned, are existing conditions.
Well, your your chart shows existing 67.4 and proposed 67.4 for maximum total impervious coverage variance five or V5. Oh, that's a great point, Mr. Pearson. I
think um that's a typo on our chart. Yes. Um you're looking on your chart. You're looking at the site data chart at the bottom left corner. And um if there's any any confusion with the
numbers then the applicants numbers should should be the ones that we would use. And I think on the applicant's own plan as Mr. Deb said there's existing impervious is in the 47% range. Right. And that's what's stated in your review
memo. Correct. So, I apologize for the typo in the in the site data chart. Yes. So, this lot's obviously u it's a very constrictive lot. Um there isn't any
real room for growth. They did buy the the land that they could acquire to try and help with setbacks. Um I'm sad to say I've I've been in this town long enough to know what was in this this spot. back to the Gulf station in the early 70s. Um, and it wasn't
nearly as attractive as uh as what the applicants proposed. Um, you know, the building where where it is and the side setback on the uh they call the rear setback because it's two frontages on on a it's really just a
an access road. It's not a very heavily traveled road. So, you know, the the 10-foot setback is really the of all the variances they're asking here, I think, is the most um egregious, if you want to say, of of all
of them. But really, with the site constriction, there isn't any real place to put the property. Um and uh it does it does um the building in itself is is attractive enough to feel that it's it
outweighs the detriment of really a very low traveled road. Sean, I I I agree. Uh I think based upon the surrounding properties and the use of the surrounding properties, it's it's pretty appropriate and an improvement. So, and I think what's been testified
too is I think there's agreement as some of the conditions here and and what was in the review memo. I think the applicants already agreed to uh to address those or to um abide you know by those or the
requests. So, So, uh, Mr. Chairman, um, based on the testimony provided and and the, uh, applicants willingness to address areas that were brought by the the board with addressing the landscaping on the side
and and fixing the the wall to have it more aesthetically with some faux windows, etc. um and all the other agreements for as far as providing testimony and information for the plans. I' I'd make a motion to approve the application.
Okay, we have a motion for approval. I'll second that motion and um you know appreciate the effort to improve the site uh as you described kind of an anchor at least in the gateway and something more
appealing to look at in that area. Um, so I I second. And I think the folks that are going to that are over at Dockerty Park will be very happy to. Okay. So, we have a motion for approval on the floor. Any comments?
Okay. Can ask for a roll call, please. And before I begin, Mr. Smith, unfortunately, you are um number 10, so you don't get called. Um, Mayor, excuse me, Mr. Wagner. Yes. Mr. Flag. Yes. Mr. Ratowitz. Yes. Mr. Vitali. Yes.
Mr. Deb. Yes. Um, Committee Leani. Yes. Mayor Cherelli. Yes. Vice Chair Pee. Yes. Chair Sarra. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
[Laughter] Does Mr. Does Mr. O'Gardic still need an escort? Thank you all. Okay. So, before we adjourn, we have a business meeting or do we need that? Okay. So, may I have a motion to cancel
the September 25th business meeting? So, move. Second. I can do it by acclamation. Right. All in favor? I I Okay, the meeting's canceled. We do have a meeting on October 9th because we just scheduled. I would I would remind the board that there is a meeting on
October 9th. There's a new application that's been added for some of you were here, others were not. It's green Care Farms. Uh I will remind those members of the board who are participating in the Harvard way
the core application five fab five Fab Five that it is October 16th and if for some reason you know that date is going to become a problem while Mr. Grodnik clutches his chest. Um
please let Mr. Kois know sooner than later so we can address it accordingly. Okay. I would rather not wait until the the day of in order to to come. All right. With that being said, I will entertain a motion of adjournment.
So, second. Okay. All in favor? I We're journ everyone on October 9th. Happy birthday, David. Happy birthday, David. I wish