That's right. One is so big. It's just Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> This meeting complies with the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting were published on the municipal bulletin board and the applicable sites in accordance with the law.
>> Kathleen roll call please. >> Mr. Heyman >> here. >> Miss Rosal >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. >> Miss Kusano >> here. >> Mr. Seleia >> here. >> Dr. Hoffstein >> here. >> Miss Bradley >> here. >> Have resolutions this evening. Miss Cyprieni. >> Yes, we have two. The first one is
resolution 2026-12 granting amended site plan approval on property located at 1197 East Veterans Highway block 13801 lot 7.01. This is the concourse holdings application that
was before the board a few uh meetings ago and all of the conditions placed on the record are incorporated into the resolution. A motion and a second to approve the resolution, please. >> Motion. >> Second.
>> Roll call, please. Kathleen, >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> And the second resolution is of a
different kind. It's resolution 2026-13. It's appointing Brian A. Inendola PE PPPCME CPWM of Neglia Group as the board's traffic engineer.
>> Okay, we need a motion and a second to approve, please. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Wasn't me. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Kisano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, yes.
>> Miss Bradley, >> yes. resolutions. Uh, we have minutes for this evening from the May 20th, 26 meeting. I need a motion and a second to approve the minutes, please. >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Roll call, please. Kathleen. >> Mr. Heyman? >> Yes. >> Miss Rosol? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor? >> Yes. >> Miss Cusano? >> Yes. >> Mr. Seleia? >> Yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein? Yes. >> Miss Bradley? >> Yes. I also have the voucher for this evening's meeting from the township of
Jackson for our recording secretary in the amount of $175. I need a motion and a second to pay the voucher, please. >> Motion. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia,
>> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> We have any announcements this evening, uh, Miss Cypriyani? >> We do not. >> Okay. And there was no executive session this evening. Uh matters for discussion. I don't believe we have those either or
administrative approvals. So in record time, Mr. Alfuryuri, we are moving on to applicant number one, Thouserano Group LLC, Enzo's Restaurant Preliminary and Final Site Plan 938 with use variance 3525.
>> Good evening again, Madam Chair, members of board. Salvator Alfury on behalf of the applicant we um are here. >> We didn't swear in the professionals. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> Mr. Swear in the professionals, please. Mr.
>> Yes. Please raise right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name and position for the record. >> Sure. Matthew Wilder, board engineer. >> Ernie Peters, board planner. >> Gina Tumalo, zoning officer.
>> Mr. Rafiri, my apologies. >> No, no problem. Thank you. So, um, this is a continued application. We were here in August of last year, January of this year. We renoticed for tonight because the meeting that we were previously scheduled for was cancelled and therefore an announcement could not be
made. Um, and we're we did make a plan um revision and resubmission to the board since the last hearing that Mr. McFarland will go get into momentarily, but just procedurally, have all seven board members um listened
to the tapes because we had an August of last year and then a January of this year. >> Yes. Good. Okay. So, >> let's just verify with our officer, [clears throat] please. >> Okay.
>> Well, Mr. Tumalo is looking at that. I just want on a procedural matter when you were here before there were a large number of conditions that were placed on the record. I know that there were new plans so I don't know how many of those conditions were incorporated into the new plans. Uh if you want me to go
through the conditions that I have on the record or if we should start a fresh >> um yeah I guess if you want we so we have a complete record and then Mr. McFarland can indicate which ones have been addressed. I do know that all of
the conditions that were discussed will remain in place. We're not seeking to deviate from what we agreed to previously. >> Okay. Uh I'm going to go through it though uh just because I feel like it's been a long time and it may be helpful for the board. So the conditions were
that there was uh no uh work to be done on the property, no hazardous materials. The shed behind the restaurant was to be used for dry storage only. Uh sheds and prefabs were to be staged
and displayed. Nothing is to be built on site. The house would be the office for the shed company only. All vehicles on the site must be working registered vehicles. Maximum number of stored vehicles site on site. No more than 10
tractor trailer trucks. remainder of stored vehicles not to exceed 40. Uh manufactured treatment devices to be placed in leased parking areas. Um storm water management required if it meets the criteria for major
development. You were required at that time to submit for approval from the resubmit for approval from the fire official. Uh wetlands and riparians. The existing encroachments were to be removed. um an interpretation from D
uh conditioned on the approval of the LOI as per application and that would just be part of uh the normal conditions. Uh there would be three storage bins 12 by 18 ft with a maximum height of 6 feet.
Access sufficient for emergency vehicles must be maintained. All sheds in one area with a fence around it. Parking area to be impervious. guide rail along access drive between the drive and the basin. Um leased parking area was the operative operation
would be 7 am to 7 pm. Board of health approval required. Septic system inspected and approved. Uh tractor trailer is limited to area one. Variance would be needed for the additional sign panel. And that was it.
>> Yeah. and and some of those conditions have been eliminated um but not modified but eliminated. So we'll we'll get to that. >> Okay. So I'm going to sort of start that list again and we'll just review it at the end to make sure that we're catching all conditions.
>> So um Mr. McFarland u has been previously sworn in and qualified. So can we continue with him? >> Um yes. And >> and Gina, are you still looking? The only copy of the affidavit I do not have or have not come across so far is
Miss Kusano's uh affidavit. Do you recall if you had watched the videos for it? >> I I was here for the January. I definitely watched for the summer one. I could check my email. Sometimes I give it a hard copy here or I email it to always make sure I come. >> Right. Either one is sufficient. I just
wasn't sure. And I my computer's updating so I can't check that. I do have the other two board members. >> Thank you. Okay. Graham, um could you update the board? I guess generally describe what changed since the January hearing with your plan resubmission.
>> Sure. And if Anthony, maybe we can get the uh the new exhibits up there. Um >> what' you say, Anthony? >> 101, >> I believe. So
that is probably 12, right? [snorts] >> So if you can go to 10 for me >> and Graham, would you identify the exhibit as you go? >> Yeah. So A10 is the variance plan uh with the revision date of February 11,
2026. Um that's the plan that was submitted to February on February 17th. So the revised plans that were submitted for the application uh based upon the feedback and we we've gotten from the board and the uh prior public hearings that we that we attended that we
attended. Uh so this is the updated plan which has uh you know some modifications from from uh when the application was first submitted. If the board recalls, originally the application was proposed in a lease parking area uh both here and and up here [clears throat]
uh on two parts of the site. Based upon discussions and I think recommendations from the board, those lease parking areas have been omitted, you know, have been totally removed from the from from the project. So the project now includes the uh the restaurant area up front, the
area for the shed and prefab buildings and the area for the landscapers business in the back as well as the uh you know the warehouse uh you know conversion of that garage to to the warehouse. Um, so the areas dedicated to the uh to the shed and prefab building
and to the uh landscape landscape businesses have increased a little bit from what was initially proposed. Uh, the plan also now shows dedicated parking spaces for the landscape business. I think that was on the plan last time, but just to highlight that
there are dedicated parking spaces for the uh for the landscape landscape business. Uh buffering has been added along the east property line as requested by the uh by the board from our previous discussions. Uh there is a a single family house adjacent to the to
the project even though um that is not in a residential zone. Buffering is technically not required by uh by ordinance but based upon discussions and recommendations of the board we have added buffering along that along that that that uh that that property line. Uh
Anthony, maybe go to A11 for me. Uh and actually actually just go to A12 for A11 is the grading plan we submitted. A12 is a lighting plan that we've added to the set again based upon input we've gotten from the board. You can see that what we have uh what we are
proposing is what I call safety level lighting. We're not proposing lighting in full compliance with the ordinance. Uh that is based upon uh public public utilized parking spaces. So we're providing a series of lights along the
access road. You can see one, two, three, four, and then two additional lights in the uh in in the shed um in the shed display and sales area. Uh in my opinion, just to give adequate uh safety level of lighting. Again, not
lighting that's similar to we would to what we would see in in an office parking lot or a shopping center parking lot. I just don't don't think that's warranted for this type of application. I think the levels we have are appropriate again to to provide an adequate level of safety. So technically that's a waiver from your ordinance
because your ordinance would require these areas to be illuminated at a higher level. But again, I think what we have is appropriately suitable for for this type of these types of uses. Uh we have updated the statement of operations. Uh again that that was
submitted back in February. uh essentially it has omitted again it has omitted the um the lease parking areas and we have also tried to uh just clarify the the uses
um associated with the landscaper's business and I think we um you know tried to identify that suitably with it with enough enough information uh so that it that so that it can be clear uh most importantly it indicates that the landscaper will will basically be
utilizing that portion of the site from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Um, and it discusses that the employees will arrive on site, park their personal vehicles in those spaces which are which are which are dedicated and it talks about the uh the equipment that's generally going to
be stored by the landscaper. Confirms that there's no repairs or surfacing of equipment. Uh, indicates mulch, stone, top soil, other materials will be confined to the storage bins. Uh there are some rolloff containers uh that are
desired as part of the application. Uh and the statement of operation confirms that they will be disposed of off-site no less than twice monthly and uh the wood pallets will be stored in a designated area limited to the height restriction. Uh that's indicate that is
indicated on the uh on on the plan. [laughter] So, Miss Cypriani, you did you did um a couple of your comments did discuss the lease park and again just for the record that has been uh omitted from the project that's no longer proposed. So, any of those comments would certainly
will no longer be be applicable. Madam Chair, >> if I might just so our record's clear, the statement of operations that Mr. McFarland referenced was last revised February 6, 2026. and I believe it's going to be part of
the resolution for the purposes of enforcement. Um, I'll let the applicant know. I still get calls from the resident about people being there before sunup listening to backup beeping. But if this statement of operations is what's being requested, it can be part
of the resolution. It can be used by code enforcement. End the story. We don't have to bother the applicant. It'll be his tenants that the town goes after. But just wanted to be clear that the applicant has willingly put these hours of operation
restrictions on the record. Um, and obviously we expect them to be kept. >> And Graham, one followup before you continue. Uh, the neighbor to the west, I guess it is the we had agreed to provide her with a fence along that
property line. That's still proposed. >> Yes, the west is the bottom of this sheet as you look at it. And we do have a fence proposed consistent with what she had with what she had asked for. >> I had had that as um an 8 foot chain link fence with privacy slats protecting
the neighbor's property. >> That is correct. And that's what our plan shows right now. So we have already already made that that addition to the uh to the application. And if I could uh if I could continue, I
would just like to uh briefly go through Mr. Peter's letter just to uh make sure we're we're on the same page uh with with him. I have a letter from Ernie dated March 16th of 2026, which uh provides some discussion of the application, identifies the uses that
are proposed in the earlier pages. He uh confirms which uses are not permitted um on page five. and we take no no exception. We agree with his representation. He also identifies one, two, three, I
think it's four variances that are requested and we agree with those requests. >> You've previously testified to them. Correct. >> I have. And then on page eight, he has some discussion about the LOI being
required, which we take no exception to. And then further on uh let's see on page 10 he has some uh some discussion about waiverss that are necessary in in connection with the application and
again I don't take any exception I think his analysis is correct and we are seeking the waiverss that he has identified based upon our previous discussion and based upon this current plan. On page 11, he has some discussion about
the signage. Um, variance was already granted for the sign under prior application, but we are proposing to add a new panel to the sign. So, that does require variance. So, again, we take no exception to that. Uh, sidewalk. Our plan does not
currently show sidewalk proposed along West Commodore. I think we've already discussed that, but that final decision is up to the board. If the board agrees to the waiver, the applicant would be obligated to contribute to the pedestrian safety fund.
Uh on page 13, Mr. Peters asks about uh anticipated frontage improvements along the uh along the front of the site. I would say West Commodore Boulevard is already fully improved to county standards, so we are not required to make any road improvements.
And the last thing is on page 14. Uh again, it's some waiverss pointed out by Mr. Peters in regards to the refuge enclosure which is proposed for the application. The refuge enclosure is proposed in the front part of the uh
site there at the corner of the building and a location that is that is accessible and and suitable for to be used by by the applicant. Uh so that does require some some waiverss and we are requesting those waiverss for the for the refugees enclosure.
So that's all that I have for right now. That's that's all we have to present. Um the applicant is present too if the board members he did testify previously but if you have questions of him he's still here. >> Thank you. Uh in no particular order I do have maybe a half dozen questions or
so. Um, for the truck circulation, we we you note in the operations manual that you might have low boys and some larger vehicles. The plans don't show any gates either for the landscapers area or the shed area. I'm just curious how vehicles are going to get into those areas,
circulate, and then leave. >> Well, we we can identify gates on the plans we submit as part of resolution compliance. >> Okay. And then for emergency vehicles, what is the plan if there's for instance an issue in the landscapers area either with a truck or with a mulch pile? Um
there's really no area to for an emergency [clears throat] vehicle to turn around. >> Well, we had we had submitted this plan to the Bureau of Fire Prevention and they had they had already approved the application or approve approve the plan. Uh I can I can resubmit this final plan
back to them to just to confirm the approval. they have already looked at it and approved it and really the only change from what they saw initially is that we we've omitted the least uh you know the least part >> and the at the January hearing one of the conditions we stipulated to was that
we would require final fire approval whatever the final plan is. >> So I'll I'll submit back to them again just since we've made some edits to the plan as the process has uh has gone on here. >> Sure. And I'd like if if possible I'd like to see a truck circulation route just showing the vehicles moving in.
>> Agreed. Um the trash enclosure for the restaurant is like directly on the western property line. Is there any ability to shift that more into the site um so that the banging of the dumpsters does not create any real sort of noise disturbance for the neighbors?
>> Well, I don't I don't think there really is um where we have it right now. It's uh easily accessible for the garbage trucks when they come in. It's it's it's easily accessible for the restaurant to utilize it. Um, you know, we did have several public hearings. The uh the
neighbors to the west were here. Um, and they didn't really offer any any comments on that um to to my to my recollection. Um, so I mean I I I think they're in in a suitable location, but uh the board can certainly give us their
direction as well. >> Um I don't know if it was testified to at a prior hearing. Would you have any issues putting in like noise dampening mats underneath the enclosure so that when they're put down they don't slam? >> No, I would have no objection to doing something along along those lines. >> Okay.
>> I'm sorry. Mr. Walder, could you say that again? I just want to catch. >> They have these rubber noise dampening mats that go underneath the trash enclo the dumpster so when you put them down you don't have metal banging on concrete. >> Okay. Thank you for the chair. >> Just to Mr. Wald's point, uh I did bring
up that concern. I believe that it's the trash is 2 feet away from the property line um at prior meeting. Um when I was there today, I did see that there's currently a yellow bin on the left side of the building there on a concrete pad. I didn't know why that couldn't be moved
there or just widen that pad a little bit larger and move it to the center. It's right when you come in. If the lack of space is the issue, I I just don't think that it's appropriate to have it two feet off of a property
line next to a neighboring property. >> Well, we could uh we we could take a look at, you know, sliding it sliding it a little bit forward and and getting it further than than two feet from the from the property line. Uh if we if we did that, you know, maybe we could get a
little bit of landscaping um on the uh on the west side of it. Um so maybe we could we could move it up so it's 5t from a property line instead of instead of two feet. That would be a concession. That would be acceptable.
Is there a reason why you can't put it on the other side of the building? I think the bin you saw might have been a clothing bin, was it? >> Yeah, correct. Meaning you can definitely put one there. The question is, is there room to expand that and put it there or just have them reversed
because you're having a refuge next to a neighbor's property? The fumes of the trash and stuff like that can carry over there a lot easier than the clothing bins. >> Understood. So, the applicant's going to test answer the question. So first for
the record state your name >> Toronto >> and you were sworn in previously. Yes. >> And Okay. Go ahead. So you have a comment or response? >> So even with the extension of the pad to put both of the bins over there, >> the parking spots in front of it would
prevent the garbage company from getting there if the business was already in operation and they came in the afternoon without automobiles having to be moved. And in addition, there are overhead lines that I think would prevent them from picking up the dumpster and putting it in the truck.
>> Thank you. I didn't see those lines there. That's a good point. Thank you. >> Well, we will, assuming the board's okay with the general location, we will agree to shift it some so we could provide a limited area for buffering with plantings.
>> That would be great. I mean, you know, if further off the property line, the better. Um, regarding utility services, currently there's two residential structures and the restaurant. >> Is there just one septic system on site?
>> No, there's a separate system for the restaurant and for the and and for the existing single family house that's going to be converted to the to the office >> and those septics are going to remain as is. >> Correct. >> What What about the utilities to the warehouse? Is that going to have restrooms? >> The warehouse doesn't have any plumbing.
So, is it just electric? >> Yes, just electric storage. >> Um, for the the rolloff dumpsters for the landscapers area, I'd prefer that to be on a concrete pad. I just feel like the moving of that on a gravel surface
is going to destroy the gravel. >> That's fine. That's fine. >> Okay. And then I guess the same question more operationally for the the sheds and the prefab buildings. I'm not sure the process by which they're loaded and unloaded. Um I'll
sort of elicit some testimony from you that the gravel can been be maintained in a reasonable appearance even though you're moving sheds in and out of the area. >> Yeah. And the reality is they've uh they've been doing this for several
years already and that gravel is properly maintained. Uh we're certainly not interested in making making that area to totally impervious. Uh I think it functions perfectly suitably as uh as gravel and uh that's what we're
requesting for the application. >> Um regarding the area I guess behind the trash enclosure adjacent to where you agreed to put the 8oot fence, it looks like that is an area where we could do a little bit of additional landscaping similar to what you did on the east side. Are you opposed to doing some
similar landscaping? Well, yeah, we're we're really not interested in putting any more landscaping back there. We're not really uh changing what's happening in that part of the site. I think we've already given uh a lot of concessions here to add the buffering on on the other side. We've already addressed the the comments from the neighbor who was
here on that adjoining lot 20 by adding the adding the fence there. So, I don't I personally don't see the benefit of of having to add more landscaping in that portion of the site. >> Yeah. just for the boards. My theory is you're going to have trucks, large trucks coming in and out apparently
based on the operations all times of the day. Um I think it's appropriate for landscaping to be added there. And again, we're talking about three or I don't know five to eight trees. We're not talk we're not talking about an excessive amount of of trees. >> The septic field for the restaurant is
also in that location. Um, so I really don't don't uh want to have to put additional landscaping in that portion of the site. >> How close to the septic? >> What do you mean how close to the >> How close to the field are we talking about? 20 ft away.
>> Uh, well, he's asking us to landscape that area which is relatively close to the septic. >> How close? That's what I'm asking. >> Probably 20 or 30 feet. >> Code is 10 feet, so don't worry about it. >> Well, there there's no there's no code that dictates that. So between between the septic field and the trash
enclosures, you have 75 feet. And we were talking about moving the trash enclosure closer towards West Commodore to increase the setback. So it's very likely you're going to have in excess of 80 feet. Even if you want it to be 20 feet from the septic field, you'll still have 60 feet to do some landscaping. I I
don't think it's an unreasonable request. >> Madam Chair, that's all I have. Uh yes, first I want to say that uh from the first time I looked at this site until this afternoon, the cleanup that
was done was was excellent. Uh there just some some things that are there that I'd like to know what is happening with them. On the west side, there's a truck trailer, large truck trailer that's sitting there. What is the use of
that? Uh the large trailer is owned by the landscaping company. We were waiting for that area between the warehouse and his area to be cleared so he can move it away from the buffer zone and that's he stores equipment in there. Um the three smaller containers are being removed. Um
but that larger vehicle will be moved to the back with the area designated for the landscaper. Correct. Um, and I just would if I could clarify just because I had notes from the last time that there was a current trailer that was being used in as an office and that was going to be removed
>> once they once they renovate the home. >> I think you just mentioned a three containers there to sit in there. A large one and three smaller ones. Yes. Is that land the landscaping? No, the three smaller ones belong to the gentleman who had the the red trucks and
the dumpsters there and he told me he's selling them and they're to be removed. >> So they they will be removed. Okay. Um what about the >> Did that include the big one? Is that including the big trailer >> container that's there? >> The large one belongs to the landscaper >> that's being moved.
>> And then there's a trailer there as well. Not not just a bin. >> The large trailer. The truck trailer. >> There's a truck trailer. And then there's a large bin, right? There's three small ones and one large. >> So the bins are the garbage bins we're talking about. >> No. Is it
>> I think I will hit everything if you let me continue. Okay. If you don't mind. Um yeah, also on the west west side near where the truck trailer is, there's some kind of shed or whatever it is that has
all equipment. Is that the landscaping? >> Yes. >> And all that those things outside. Is that part of landscaping business? >> Yes. >> And the two large uh units, is that part of landscaping further back? >> What do we mean two large units?
>> Look like either diggers or mover is a part. Okay. There were also uh two boats on the site. >> They've been told that once they're in the water, they can't come back next year because they they will be removed.
>> Yes. Will will you have uh barrier between the two outdoor businesses? >> Yes, we're going to have to do some type of delineation just to avoid, you know, >> potential issues between them later on.
Yeah. >> What do you intend to do? >> Some type of fencing. >> Yes. Our our plan does show a fence a fence proposed between the different uses. So, we do have a fence proposed here separating the the shed uh storage and the landscapers.
>> And I I just want to I just want to piggy back off of Dr. Hoffing because there is there's one issue that I saw out there that I I think needs to be addressed. So, Dr. Hoffstein said he's very happy with what was done. I'm 90%
of the way there. The last time we were here, I mentioned that there were wood wooden pallets and there was what looked like a hunter stand in the repairarian buffer. Good news is those are gone. The bad
news is in that same spot are two huge front end loaders sitting in there. Okay. So, my hope is that once we get the surveying done for the fence and then I can also ask the guys to mark out where the buffer is and then I can tell the
tenants, hey, anything beyond this point, you can't go, right? So, they're tell them here and then they move a little bit, but if I can mark it out, then they'll know. >> But I think we kind of know where the repairarium buffer is and these are well within the repairarium buffer. So, I think they need to get moved quickly.
>> Okay, they will be moved. And we've and nothing can be stored in the riparian buffer. We understand that. >> Yeah. The the other part of what and I know it's going to be more for the state to to decide what can be done in there or not, but you've already stated that
the landscaper has planted trees that he intends to use on his job sites. So hopefully the state reviews that closely and and gives you some feedback as to what truly is needed because I think if you're going to go that into that type
of a business in within the repairing buffer, I mean, I think they need to be given permits so that we know what's going on in there. Okay? Because again, we don't want trucks or equipment in there that potentially are spilling gasoline or oil and stuff in that area. >> Understandable.
So, we're getting the LOI, so that hopefully will flesh itself out. >> Yeah, [laughter] >> it it just it hit me. So um on the statement of operations for the warehouse building
I'm kind of confused um talk about the warehouse building will be leased to one to four tenants. The building will be used as a traditional warehouse have the definition the warehouse will not include any office space nor will it be used for any mechanical repair or
service. Currently, if you go up there, the landscapers is using that building. And as plain as day, right on the on the door is a sign that says office. So, are we not having an office space or are we having office space?
>> No, you shouldn't be having office. >> There's no It can't be used for an office. There's no bathrooms. It's not >> That's why I'm saying because today, the way it looks today, it's it's Oh, yeah. >> It's labeled as an office. Well, he was told also that, you know, just like the other shed has to go like that outside
office, whatever, he's got to move his stuff and figure out where he's got to be. >> Okay. >> I just wasn't ready exactly for all these. The septic um seemed the neighbor had a very big issue with at the last meeting
saying that it smelled often, that it needed to be replaced >> to redo the septic field. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I have concern with having one to four tenants, one tenant at max for the warehouse is what I see. I I don't see it being appropriate to have so many different tenants there um
for parking, for traffic, and for the general property. I mean, it's great to repair that warehouse and make it usable and look um better. I think that's a positive, but I don't feel that a
warehouse for one to four tenants is particularly suitable for that piece. Um, have we addressed signage in the front? Because there's currently a sign there for the landscaper. What do we say about that?
>> The the only new sign would be a new panel, correct, to the existing sign. No other signs will be allowed. Currently there is a sign that says the landscaping company >> that's being removed. >> Yeah. The only the Yes. The only sign that will be on the property when this
is if this is approved would be the existing large sign with one new panel for the um shed company. Right. Is that who it is? >> The new panel uh could have two businesses on it. So, we're proposing
one additional panel 24 in high by 48 in wide, which is on our, you know, part part of our plans. Um, it could identify two businesses on that panel. >> Okay. Uh, and you proposing eight spaces for the landscaper. Um, currently I
think I saw at least three or four three larger front loaders. Um, there was additional skid steers, whatever you call the, you know, smaller ones. There were snow plow, bunch of them laying around. There's
um, looks like landscaping generators that are sitting there on the property. Now, I'm not sure where all these items are being placed on this property. Um, and if these parking spots are only for the employees, is there proper circulation? How do we know that
everything's being laid out properly and safely? >> Right. So, what we showed on on the plan is Anthony, maybe go back to A10 for me, the site plan, and just uh if you don't mind, you know, zoom zooming in that zoom in this back portion a bit again.
So again, this is a this is a land a landscaper yard that does, you know, essentially include, let's just say, a couple different uses that are occurring within that property as a function of the land of the landscapers business, right? They're the employees come in the morning and and our thought is that
they're going to be utilizing these parking spaces to park their personal vehicles, get in the, you know, the vehicles, go to the job sites for the landscapers. Anthony, maybe scoot over just a touch for me. That's a That's a touch big. >> No, over right here. Okay.
We're getting closer. Um, basically then we have the area dedicated for, you know, for for wood pallets. We have the area dedicated for mulch, stone, gravel with the with the storage bins. Then the rest of the site would be used for the landscape landscaper to park his
equipment, whether it be a front end loader, whether it be trucks. Um, you know, this area this area is is is pretty big. I think it's about uh give me a dimension. kind of hard when you look at a plan. You don't you don't think it's big, but that area is is
basically 100 feet by about by about 80 feet. So, the thought is that's going to allow for him to have some freedom and flexibility to store his uh to store his equipment in that in that space. >> All right. So, there's no particular spot that he's going to be parking his equipment in or leaving long-term. I
mean, now he's not using his snow uh plows and they're just sitting there out there on the side. Um, my concern really is for circulation in a case of an emergency. How are they getting around there if there's no specific place that they're
going to be leaving them? They just dump them wherever they want. How does that make any sense? >> Well, I think I think it makes sense for this for this type of business. Again, there's no structures proposed. We spend a lot of time talking about, you know, or sometime talking about emergencies
and there's no structures proposed. There's no buildings back there. the likelihood of something happening there, in my opinion, is very very very low for this type of this type of business. Um, but it's really an open yard that allows him some flexibility to store his equipment there. Uh, if you want me to
go through the exercise of, you know, showing where a truck is going to be parked, I can do that, but frankly, in my opinion, it's just a waste of time. Um, you know, I I could do that if that's what you want to see, but I really just think that's a waste of time. Could that be provided as part of the circulation plan that Matt
requested? >> It could be. So there'll be no storing on any other part of the land other than his dedicated area. >> Well, I think this plan is very specific and that's one reason why why we're here and we have this plan. It clearly
identifies portion of the site for the shed. Clearly identifies portion of the site for the landscapers business. Agreed. He can only utilize that that portion of the site. If he's got equipment over here, Gina is going to go out there and knock on a door and send him a notice and say, "Why are you parking over here? You're supposed to be
over there." >> Agreed. That's why I just want to make sure we that's clear for everybody. >> And just to point out, you say that it's a large space. Um, currently he's got the front loaders, as Mr. Sleia said before, in the repairarium buffer. He
has many trees or bushes planted in the repairarium buffer. Those are all going to be moved out and into this area which should have been done already because he's using the repairarian buffer when they're >> well I mean we could we could get into that if you want. I really didn't want to you know have that level of
discussion here with the board because it's a little complicated but you know we can get into that. Anthony maybe put up A11 for me please because I did do some research um on on that topic after you know the uh the prior meeting. So A11 is is a grading
plan and Anthony if you could zoom in on this on that chart right there for me. So I did some homework and research the riparian rules. Um, riparian rules are regulated under the flood hazard control act by the by the D and they have a very
specific set of regulated activities that are identified and they identify one, two, three or four, five, six uh activities that would trigger a permit from a D and again would be considered a regulated activity and I'll I'll go through them all. Those regulated
activities are number one the alteration of topography through excavation grading or placement of fill that is not proposed or not being done. Number two the clearing cutting removal of vegetation and repairarian zone areas containing vegetation for a portion of the year such as agricultural areas that
are periodically plowed and cultivated or considered vegetated for the purposes of this chapter. We're not doing any clearing cutting removal of vegetation in the riparian zone. Number three, the creation of impervious serpents. That is >> one second. Can you go all that those
those trees that he planted in there when he removes them? Why is that not removal from the repairarian zone? >> It's not the riparian zone existed and then he is doing some agricultural work in the riparian zone. So my my opinion that
agricultural work is not regulated under this section of the code by the by the DUP. Item three is creation of impervious service. That is not proposed. Item four, the storage of unsecured materials. That is not not proposed. Item five, the construction, reconstruction, repair, alteration,
enlargement, elevation or removal of a structure is not being not being conducted. Item six, conversion of a building into a single family home or duplex, multi- resident is, you know, is not being conducted. So those are the six items that are regulated that would trigger a a permit in accordance with
the riparian zone. None of those activities are proposed. Mr. McFarland, I think that the board has some more questions regarding number two. Um, because as I understood what is happening here, and please correct me if
I'm mistaken, the landscaper has planted trees in the riparian zone, but those trees are not meant to be permanent. He's going to remove them as part of his landscaping business. >> Correct. It's an agricultural area used
for landscape nursery stock storage. >> Correct. >> So you're saying that it falls within the section of two that uh agriculture areas that are periodically plowed and cultivated are considered
vegetated for the purposes of this chapter. >> No, I did not I did not say that. I I believe that he has that the landscaper has the right to store these materials in there. Uh they are not you know they are not planted they are not part of
permanent vegetation. Uh we have to apply to the D for a jurisdictional determination we'll we'll do so and if they say we can't do it you know they they would be uh would not be permitted to do so. But my opinion from the research I've done is that I don't believe that any activities that are
proposed here are regulated under this section of the of the uh statute. >> I I help me out here. It says for number two it says such as agriculture areas that are periodically plowed and cultivated. If he's planting them and they're going
to be removed to be taken to your house or Mr. Peter's house and planted, how does that not apply to I mean maybe maybe I'm the only one confused but I don't understand how that doesn't apply. What am I missing? I don't believe it rises to the level
where where a permit is going to be required but we will apply to the D for a determination and if they say a permit is required a permit is required. >> Thank you. >> I would agree with the chair that that you should. It's too questionable. Uh,
just another question. Is is a landscaping business going to be open to the public at all? >> No. >> And I just want to go back, Mr. To Mr. Heyman's question. I'm going to piggy back about the warehouse. He mentioned
the one to four tenants in the um statement of operations. Forgive me. How big is the warehouse again? >> I think it's about 2500 square feet, something like that. >> 2500, right? I believe so. Yes. >> For that size, I I have to say I would
agree with um I don't I don't show on my old notes that we mentioned one to uh more than one tenant, but for 2500 square feet, I would agree with Mr. I mean, I don't remember them mentioning that it was more than one tenant before. >> Well, the the application has we have
always asked for that uh to be possibly a multi-tenant building. From day one, the application has included that distinction. uh from an operation standpoint I personally don't think there's there's any difference whether it's one tenant or four tenant it's the amount of space which dictates the uh
the intensity or the level or the level of the usage uh having it having the flexibility for one to four spaces I think is is a benefit to the to the owner to a to a to a local business owner who's trying to you know do do
something uh something right here is trying to rehabilitate this building modernize it bring it in accordance with current code requirements uh and just have something that he can he can uh lease o over time. Um you know the market conditions can change. He may get
somebody for for take the full building for one year but then maybe next year after you know not have the opportunity for someone to take the whole entire building. So I I don't see any benefit of uh limiting it to uh to only one tenant. But that's the board will make
that call when you deliberate and you can grant or not grant whatever relief you feel is appropriate. >> So really it's a limited commercial zone and we're asking for so many principal uses on this piece of property. I mean we're like pushing the buck as far as we
can go on a limited commercial property. I just don't feel that it's >> I don't I personally don't agree with that assessment. I think this application is a very low intensity. We're we're not proposing to build any any buildings. Uh we're just utilizing
it it trying to utilize it in a fashion uh that that it that is sensible uh that that provides a service to a couple local businesses that that need these type of uh these type of spaces. Uh very
low intensity uses proposed. So I I don't agree with the assessment that that you're making. >> I'm sorry. How many use variances are you requesting? >> Four uses. I don't know about they're not all use varian but four principal uses. Correct.
>> Any other questions? Mr. Chair, >> what size are the dumpsters that we were talking about that you have on the gravel? restaurant. >> Whichever ones he was talking about, he thinks gravel is okay for them to sit on. >> Are you talking about the like the red 5
yard? >> Nobody said gravel is okay for the dumpster to sit on. Your engineer asked if we could put concrete pads >> underneath those and we said yes. >> You alluded to something a little different. >> Yes, we put concrete pad and I said yes. >> Okay. So, your answer was yes. My >> answer was yes.
>> Okay. Just clarifying that. So what they're like the five yarders, the red ones. >> Yeah. >> The ones for the restaurant are a six and an eight yarder. >> Okay. So they have wheels on them. >> Yes. >> So they would need concrete anyhow. >> Okay. Do you think arguing with this is
going to help your application here or help your applicant? All I hear is in my opinion and argument, we're trying to help him by doing it right the first time and you have an attitude and I take offense to it. So please stop.
>> I just want to know the particular suitability for the landscaping um business specifically. So with such close proximity to the repairarian buffer having a hard time
seeing the suitability >> just so I'm clear. You mean the storage or the whole thing? I mean you got front loaders going right near the repairarian buffer. There's there's gas. There's multiple trucks. There's a lot going on there. the proximity to the buffer,
especially with the lack of sensitivity currently to that buffer um gives me a lot of concern. >> Father, Mr. Peters, any comments on that? I mean as it relates to the discharge of
hazardous materials, oil, gas, um a way or a means by which you can address that is to pave the area. With the gravel surface, it will go through the ground and infiltrate. Whereas a a pavement or concrete surface is a more permanent surface. Um the applicant had testified
that they want to maintain the gravel. They said it works well now, but I I would have similar concerns. Um, we also talked about uh I believe the applicants professional said they're not really concerned about emergency vehicles, but the state I believe changed the building
code recently that no longer per permits wood mulch against buildings because it's such a fire hazard. So I I do have concerns just relative to the number of uses and and how things are laid out. And the same is true for the number of you tenants in the warehouse. it is very likely that a fourunit warehouse is
going to have more trips, more vehicles, more deliveries than a one tenant warehouse. Um, so I I think you know a lot of the points the board brings up is is prudent and relevant. >> I would agree with Mr. Wilder and Mr.
Hyman regarding the warehouse and Mr. Wilder actually made my point. It's not so much the space. You're right. one tenant or four tenants could all take up that 2500 square feet. The problem's going to be the traffic now is increasing. You have these other uses.
You have other um equipment such as the front loaders, the snow plow equipment, everything parked in parked in that area and everything and you're going to increase the number of the amount of traffic coming in and out. So, that's the problem for me. And I do agree with
four different uses. I think we need to be careful how much we add to this property and what we expose the repairarian buffer to. The chair, I I would suggest that warehouse be limited to two rental units
and that would cut down a good part of the traffic you would have there. And see if you agree with that. I agree with Dr. Hopstein. >> Yes. >> By limiting it to two. Do you think that
helps the gravel? >> The traffic in and of itself. It's not a large building, but the deliveries and things like that that is somewhat unregulated. When you order something, it comes when it comes. Um I I again if
this was just that use or just this use, but you have a multitude of uses that don't all sort of work together. I don't think someone would say a landscaper's yard has a similar operation to a shed or
prefabat building sales area. So I think the more the more we can ensure that we don't have conflicts between the uses I think the better. >> Back to the point about the concrete and the gravel how big of an area would if you were to
say if if this were to be approved and the condition was it had to be concrete as comp as compared to gravel. How big of a space you looking for it to be concrete? So, I had asked initially that the rolloff dumper dumpster sit on a concrete pad just so it doesn't destroy
the gravel. I think it's reasonable to ask that where the vehicles or the machinery is parked is also on a permanent surface of some sort. Again, that would address not only the maintenance of the of the gravel, but it would address any any spills or leaky
leaks from the from the vehicles. >> So, where the rolloff would be, we'd want that. You're saying that should be concrete and also the any where the vehicles and the machinery are. >> Correct. And um the applicants professional had indicated that as part of the circulation plan they'll show where things are going to be parked and
that would be able to be used for the establishment of the permanent surface. It would also give the town a very easy inspection or enforcement. If they go out there and there's machinery parked on gravel that's not supposed to be very quickly you can identify that issue. Peters.
>> Uh, I appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the board over the last nine or 10 months. Um, this is leaps and bounds better than what we started with. Um, and I I sort
of remind the board that um, part of our charge here was to put some order into the what goes on out here. And I think that's been accomplished um with the designation of areas um with the statement of operations. Those are
things that as Mr. Wilder said and as Mr. Briani have said end up in a resolution. It's something we can call code enforcement and say you're supposed to be doing this, you're doing that. At the end of the day, we don't have to deal with the owner of the property.
It's tenants. As long as the owner has it in their lease that they have to follow this approved plan or this resolution, I think we've brought the site into better compliance than what it started out with. Some of the details that we've talked about tonight, I think are valid.
Quite frankly, if if we can get areas that have motor vehicles on them to drain towards the storm water management basin by having some sort of permanent surface, I think that that's a good idea
because storm water management system is 2026 version of the state storm water management design standards. So those tweaks I think are good for the site. Um, I also don't want to lose sight of the idea that we had a little bit of the
wild west going on out here nine months ago. And I think both the board members and the applicant have done a a pretty good job of turning this into something I think can sort of sustain itself out in the field as
opposed to being the, you know, the crux of well some guy walked in and said I want to rent this so I let him rent it sort of thing. Um, so I think we've come a long way and I think some of the construction details can be worked out
with Mr. Wilder. Um, I just having reviewed this a number of times over a couple months, I'm much happier from a layout perspective, from a planning perspective because we've described the uses and we
put them in a statement of operations that can end up in a resolution that can end up with the zoning officer or code enforcement. Um, so I think both sides have sort of come to a point where I think we're almost ready to go with this
now because we better defined the chaos that was out there before. >> And um, we I did have an opportunity to discuss the request for of Mr. Heyman and and Mr. Wilder and we will agree to
have a solid surface for storage of the equipment in the landscape area and that would be the only location that that equipment could be stored and we'll work out a plan with the engineer so it's adequately reflected on the final plan [snorts]
>> any other questions or comments before I open it to the public. >> I'm going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward about the testimony you've heard this evening, please do so. Thank you so much for your patience. >> Richard Egan, 526 Diamond Road. Um, I
just would like to say I know the applicant. I know his entire family and Mr. Falorano has made the most improvements on this property since settlers ran off British soldiers. It was a complete and total mess and he's cleaned it up tremendously. Anything
that can be tweaked is going to be obviously tweaked and put into a resolution. And listening to the testimony about trees near a buffer, what landscapers do, they call it healing in. They'll put the trees down in the root ball. They'll
cover it with mulch to keep it moist until they move it to to plant it. It's not a permanently stuck into the ground so it's not contaminating the wetlands. So I think that's, you know, anything else you can think of, they're willing
to uh make it right for you. So I wish you would grant to his variance. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward. Seeing no one else in the audience to come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Miss Joffrey,
would you like to make a closing statement? Um, >> no, I think you've heard plenty of the testimony and I think everyone agrees that we've come a long way. There are a couple of items that I believe we need to just wrap up when when the board acts on the application. One is what you want
to do with the sidewalks, whether we need sidewalks or pay into the fund. The second is um Mr. Wilder requested about seven trees be planted on the western portion of the property and um we defer to the board on what they what you want
us to do. And I guess the third thing now that we've agreed to to have a solid surface in the landscape area is the number of tenants in the warehouse building. Um those were the three items I believe the board needs to deal with when it deliberates.
Otherwise, we'd request that the board grant the approval with all the conditions that we've stipulated during the various hearings. >> Um, I do have it in my notes, but obviously the board can consider it now. But at a prior hearing, the discussion came up regarding the sidewalks and
there was a a general uh feeling on the board that payment in Lou was acceptable. Obviously, you know, there's been no vote, but that was discussed at a prior meeting. All right. So, board, it's up for us to
Yeah. Okay. Try that again. It's up to us for discussion, questions, comments, issues. >> Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. >> I was just going to say on I was just going to say for the three items that we just talked about. I mean, I'm in the fund is to me is makes all the sense,
especially on that road. Um, I'm going to go since you have residential on both sides, the more landscaping the better. So I would I would like to see that and I'm in agreement with
the number of tenants. I I would like to see as small as possible. Um only because we've seen you know yes we have come a long way in the nine months. It was I think Peter said the wild west out there. Um I've been out there three
times and each time it gradually got better. Uh so I appreciate that. So, I I just would like to see us keep it as minimal as possible. >> So, I would say the same sidewalk. Um I think it's appropriate to have a
contribution to the fund. As far as the trees, again, I would agree with the recommendation of putting in those trees. Um particularly because there's no fronting um bushes in the front. There's no general plantings in there. I
don't see why the applicant wouldn't agree to that. As far as the tenants, I would really love to see one tenant in there, but as Mr. Hoffstein suggested, I would be um okay with having a second tenant, definitely not four tenants.
It's a little bit too intense. Um and then lastly, um just want to make sure that there there's going to be some kind of clear delineation between the preparing buffer. Um very clear guidance once it's
worked out that there will be absolutely nothing going on that's not allowed to be done there. >> Right. And we'll we'll work with the board engineer for how you want that demarcated that area so there's no issue. are we still we I think we're still looking for the letter from the D
uh about item two on the uh repair zone. So I think that should be part of the resolution. Um I I still think two is uh units in the warehouse would work. Um sidewalk fund
donation is is good. uh the extra landscaping that was asked for by Mr. Wilder should be uh added. Other than that, we've seen a a really good cleanup of something that that was
there for for who knows how many years or what else may be buried under there. And uh uh what we have now is a is a good layout. it it's easy for the zoning officer to
keep an eye on on what's happening and uh will add to the quality of life of the nearby neighbors. Uh and we've heard the concern about uh what was going on. So my suggestion would be to to approve
this. If I may, I don't want to I know in the middle I just we've had so many uh conditions and discussions, some of which are incorporating the plans, um that I think it's probably useful at some point before there's a motion to
just put them on the record one more time so everyone's clear on what uh is being voted on. I don't know if this is the time or if you wanted to have further discussion first. Yes. No, I didn't hear you. Sorry.
Questions, comments down there, Mr. Chmer. Miss. >> Yes. So, um, first of all, thank you because I was just going to ask if we could have that. Um, I also was at the property twice. Once in January time by the other meeting and then this past Sunday and I also saw a um, significant
improvement. It made me happy. And I would say also the two pieces that were very important to me was the sidewalks and also the number of tenants and um, now I'm more comfortable with that. So, thank you. >> I agree with Mr. Hobstein. I'm ready to approve that.
>> Emmer. >> Okay. Um, first of all, no offense to the applicant for what I said earlier. I know your family a long time. I know you work hard. I also know why the red truck is there and how hard you're trying to get everything out of there. And I commend you for what you've done. like
the border said, you've done a really nice job cleaning it up with some adverse people you were dealing with. So, kudos to you. Um, the landscaping on the side with your neighbor, you know, you have a problem there. The more distance you can put between
their eyesight and what you have would be smart. >> Not saying you're going to win, but do the best you can. So, if you can, please. Um, there's no sidewalks there. So again the contribution two tenants [clears throat]
maybe three max but I agree the four is a little little tough and [clears throat] um other than that the um your biggest issue Mr. Hinman was pointing out is keeping the landscape rent in tow. So
you just might want to have some plan in action just to keep an eye on that so you it doesn't bounce back on you. But other than that, you know, you've done a good job and keep on going. >> I think >> take the mic.
>> I think if we put the black top in, as he said, and pave it, then he'll know his designated area. And >> then it's also easier for me to go back there and say, "Hey, >> that's what I'm saying. >> You're off the black top. You're off the black top. You're off the black top." >> Yeah. you let them off the leash, they're going to park and go wherever
they want to go. But yeah, that that that'd be great. Just set some fail safe up for yourself. Thank you. It was a good job. One more thing. Um because there's not going to be any bathrooms for that warehouse, is the applicant willing to
stipulate that they will not have any portable restrooms on the site? >> Yes. >> Thank you. conditions. Now >> I do I just I I want to add this last one ahead.
>> Yeah. So we've heard All right. So I'm I'm sorry to do this to you again but one more time. So for these are the conditions as of today's date with the change of the plans and everything
that's been discussed. So though I and some of these things were on the plans uh the revised plans but just to confirm the 8 foot chain link fence with privacy slats protecting the neighbors property. Um, for the landscaping business, it will not be a retail operation, just
storage, no gas fueling of vehicles on site, no gas tanks on site, nothing more than a standard landscaping gas can. No stump stump grinding, no vehicle repair on site. The only signs will be the existing restaurant sign with a new panel. Seven trees will be planted on the
western side of the property. Uh, sidewalks, there'll be a payment in lie made into the fund. The current trailer that's being used as an office will be removed and the h current house uh property will be an office for the
shed company only. Shed behind the restaurant will be used for dry storage only. Um for the shed business sheds and prefabs will be staged and displayed. Nothing will be built on site. All vehicles on site must be working
registered vehicles. will be a resubmission for approval from the fire official for the wetlands and riparian buffers. All encroachments to be removed incurring the two front end loaders that are currently in the buffer. As far as
the planting area in the buffer, there' be application to DP for determination if permit is required and if so, permit to be obtained all plantings and I did hear Mr. Egan to be removed but the board wanted to have that determined. um
the buffer to be delineated um in a manner uh based on consultation with the board engineer. What I have right now is the warehouse no more than two tenants. Obviously that's up to the form of the motion. um LOI to be obtained. Landscaping business
um where the vehicles and the machinery located and the rolloff will be on impervious surface concrete or paving 5t off off the gravel area or uh any pvious
area. Um access sufficient for emergency vehicles to be maintained. All sheds in one area with a fence separating from the landscaping business. Parking area to be impervious. Guide rail along access drive between
the drive and the basin. Uh septic system be inspected and improved. Uh noise dampening mapped under the dumpsters. Uh dumpsters on concrete pad. We already discussed that. Uh the trackage enclosure to be moved as discussed by Mr. Wilder. Three small
trailers to be removed. the truck, the large truck trailer to be moved to the back. Uh, no Porta Johns will be on the property and the two boats are to be removed. >> That's it. [laughter] >> Yep. We'll make a motion to approve
based on uh Jean's uh list of comments and uh just include the uh two tenants in the warehouse. One of the conditions. >> I'll second it.
>> We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia. >> Yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Yes. >> Miss Bradley. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Sorry. >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> Motion to adjurnn. All in favor say I. >> Nobody's opposing. Thank you. 7.