It's 7:31 and welcome to the Melbourne Township Planning Board meeting. In accordance with the with section five of the open public meeting act meeting act chapter 231 public law 1975 be advised that notice of this meeting is made by posting on the Bolton board at town hall
and serving the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Milbour Board of Education Education Center building at 7:30 p.m. on March 4th 2026. May I have a roll call, please? >> Jonathan Baxter
>> here. Allison Campfield >> here. Michael Cohen >> here. >> Jorge Master Petro >> here. >> Deborah Neas >> here. >> Frank Sakamandi >> here. >> Michael Zion >> here. DJ vice chair. >> Chair Gustin Hert >> here. >> Sitto >> here.
>> Chris He >> here. >> Okay. Tonight uh on the agenda we have some minutes to approve, a couple applications and a brief executive session or an expected brief executive session. executive session at the end.
Um, so housekeeping first. Did everybody get the January 7th, 2026 meeting minutes, regular meeting minutes? Are there any comments or questions? I'll make a motion to adopt the regular
meeting minutes from January 7th, 2026. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Oh, >> no. I think you would have to abstain on that one. According to the attendance record on the minutes themselves of director, >> you're right. All right. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> All in favor? >> Oh, sorry. Did we get another? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All in favor? I >> All opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Uh, did everybody get a chance to go over the
January 7th, 20 2026 executive session meeting minutes? Any comments or questions? As such, I will make a motion to adopt the meeting minutes for the executive session from January 7th, 2026. Do I
have a second? Second. >> Uh, all in favor? >> All opposed. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Next up, we have uh two applications. And I was given notice
that that somebody wanted to switch the uh order of the applications, but I'm not certain which one is going to take longer. Uh so I think we're just going to leave them the way they are and hopefully they both go very quickly and squiggly and we'll get out of here
tonight early. Uh but so first up is application 26-001 preliminary and final major site plan with associated C variant lease and design waiver Milbour LLC 187 Milbour A
lot 305 lot one the representation Richard Skolnick I have my own law firm here in Milbour and as you mentioned I'm representing UE Milbour LLC the property owner We're at 187 Milbour Avenue. It's lot
305, lot one of the tax mass. We're in the B2C zone. And you're all familiar with it uh as the Milbour Gateway Center with the existing Trader Joe's and PetSmart. We're here tonight for an amended site plan approval to add two
new tenants to the roster and to make what we believe are significant upgrades with a a patio, a seating area, sidewalks, and a new staircase. We're going to call that a pedestrian plaza. Uh we're adding two new tenants, as
mentioned, Barry's Boot Camp and Jet Set Pilates. These are nationally recognized tenants going into a portion of the space previously occupied by Motion Fitness. That space has been vacant for
five years. So, we're happy to have some new tenants. The new tenencies are causing a need for some relief in terms of parking because a few years ago the township changed its parking ordinance
and made some differing standards for health and fitness facilities that have classes versus a generalized health and fitness type facilities. So where a general gym is one per 200 uh the uh
gyms with classes are one per 100. So that increases the the demand by 31 spaces in this shopping center. 704 spaces are now required per the ordinance. Back in 2009, as I set forth
in my application package, the board grant an approval for 583. 583 was approved. There's 580 out there today. A little bit of slippage and we proposed 567
spaces, a loss of 13 uh spaces due to the new pedestrian plaza. The fire department is looking for three additional spaces for greater space for maneuverability and we of course agree
to uh amend the plan to recognize the request from the fire department. So we'd be down to 564 from the 580 today which is a little bit lower than the 583 of. So I'm going to call it marginal differences. uh you
have done a parking survey that's in your package and the maximum observed spaces was 243. 243 was the maximum observed. So that's only 42% of the spaces at a maximum time were being used. So there's plenty of
parking in the in the very large parking field that we're familiar with. We do have some relief on the signage that uh we're requesting and we'll go over that. In terms of the lineup chairman, as we discussed, we're going to start with very brief testimony from Charlie
McDonald, the owner's representative. We'll have the civil engineer, Rob Murray. We'll have our parking expert, Michelle Brihoff from Collers. And then Mr. Keller, Rich Keller, who's going to come and talk about the variances in the
waiverss that we need. As I had mentioned, we have the architect here who had done the signage plans. I'm not going to call him, but he's here if available. And we also have representatives from those two tenants,
Barry's boot camp and Jetet Pilates. Did Akira make it? He just made it off the plane uh to come in for us to be available if you need the information. But I thought four witnesses may be enough. I think I'll take about 45 minutes depending on the questioning of
course. So uh with that chairman uh may I call my first witness. >> Please actually chair before you do I just want to note for the record that I did have an opportunity to review the notice. Found the content to be sufficient found it to be timely served and published served by certified mail
on February 17th published in two newspapers. you don't get extra credit for two over one but uh but uh in my opinion particularly nowadays uh uh uh with the uh situation going on with online news publications uh so February
18 star ledger and February 19 uh the item uh and certified mail was on February 17 all of them at least 10 days prior to this evening so the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application tonight and I'm happy to swear in all the witnesses at once or at
least those that we think are going to be testifying uh and uh that would help things as well as our board of professionals. You'll all >> want to stand up the want to stand up and >> you take the four or even the seven just >> we got them here. Okay.
>> There's no extra charge for the swearing. Do all of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. I think we got all set. So, thank and our board professional. So, we'll all set this channel. Thank you.
>> Okay, we'll call our first witness, Charles McDonald. >> Want to call you Charlie? >> Sure. >> Charlie. Charles. >> Okay. >> Good evening, >> Charlie. Uh, what's your position with uh with Urban Edge? >> Director of development.
>> And you've been responsible for the project that's in front of the board tonight. >> Correct. Can you just tell us very briefly uh about Urban Edge? >> Sure. Uh Urban Edge is a publicly traded real estate investment trust based out of New York City. Uh we focus on the
owner owning and management of suburban shopping centers across the northeast corridor. Um in totaling about 72 uh shopping centers with 33 uh in the state of New Jersey. >> And what are the towns uh around here that you have? We we there are many uh
Montlair Morris Plains, Pamis, WHung, South Planefield, the list goes on. >> And Urban Edge has owned this center since 2017. >> Correct. >> And there's been some work done uh in terms of maintenance issues. Can you just talk about that and you know how
you got here today? Yeah, the work that's been done since 2017 has been typical capital expenditure work. Um landscape upkeep, uh parking, restriping, just the general things that go go into owning a shopping center. Um now we're at the point where uh this
tenant has vacated and we're looking to make a uh an upgrade to make the space releasable for future teny. >> Okay. And um could you go into your thought process, your design process? Uh, I'm going to call out the pedestrian
plaza which is in your package. So, Mr. Moore, I I don't need to remark it, do I? >> Uh, no. But if you could identify with date and uh uh sheet number if there is one or just the title for it. >> Okay. I think I called it Barry's Landscape New Barry's Landscape. This is
new number one prepared by studio 39 with a date of February 18th, 2026. Okay. And Charlie, this was prepared under your direction and supervision. >> That's correct. >> And you worked with the civil engineering drawings and the the
renderer and and you were involved in putting this together. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And uh the question I had was, you know, what was your thinking on what you want to do with the shopping center at this time with with these two tenants? >> Sure. Like Rick mentioned, uh the former tenant, Motion Fitness, vacated in 2021
following the COVID pandemic. Um in the time since then we have reached out to a variety a real number of retail tenants to backfill that space. Um what's become clear over time is that the configuration of the space really it depth is not conducive for a current uh
retail business operation. Um a as we've kind of went down the roster of tenants who even could occupy that space. it began clear that demising the space for a multitude of smaller tenants would be the the most probable outcome. Um at at
that point it became a question of how do you deliver customers to those those tenant spaces? You really need to create a new retail tenant storefront which you can see here on this exhibit. >> Okay. You have about 10,000 square feet. Correct. >> Okay. About 11,000 square feet. It's a
big chunk of space. >> Correct. Yeah. So, so as we worked through and understood that a demising would be required to release the entirety of the space, it became a question of, you know, where is that new tenant storefront? As it become became clear that it needed to be to the left
of Barry's on the site plan, you needed to we needed to regrade an existing burm. It's about 14 to 16 feet depending on the area uh to create customer pedestrian access to those new retail storefronts. >> Okay. And uh in in redesigning you and
get to get the access you're able to add some uh some tables and you know nice patio landscape area of course. Okay. Our civil engineer will take this in a little bit uh more detail. Um
there was a cost in terms of some parking >> right >> just talk a little bit about the thought processes there. You know, it it it was a conversation with our parking consultant over time, understanding where where folks are parking and where are they going from. Once they park,
where are they going? Um, when we came to the conclusion that the parking lot in its entirety only got to a 42% occupancy, it made us comfortable with removing a few additional spaces to enlarge the size of the pedestrian plaza that you see here. um which kind of
gives we think a little bit better of access for customers through these variety of different um entry points uh to different areas of the parking field. Um additionally, the the new uh staircase is we're aware that people come, you know, up and down from Trader
Joe's and you have to shoot past each other because it's a narrow stair stairway. um by by enlarging that it allows for customers who do park in this field um to to kind of better maneuver uh the the property. >> Okay. >> And the civil engineer will talk about
it. This this pedestrian plaza that's going to give you access sort of at the upper level to the barrier, the jet and what we've called the two be determined. That's another tenant that you're you're looking to fill at some point there. So they they all there's now three separate
retail entrances sort of on the upper level. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And that's that's different today, but it's going to you sort of built up. >> Correct. So um any idea who's going to take that space? >> We we don't know yet. Um we've been speaking to tenants, but no one with
real certainty of who might take that space. >> Hey chairman, that that concludes this. Want to just give you a little background where we were, how we got. Does anybody have any questions? >> So, if I'm understanding, this plaza is
going to come out into the parking lot where the top of the current stairs are from the lower lot up to the upper lot. >> That's generally speaking correct. Yes. So all those parking spots where
overflow, Trader Joe's, and PetSmart parking often occurs will be gone. 13 of those spots will be gone. >> That That is correct. >> Okay. The calculation on 42%. Is that the
upper lot and lower lot or just this upper? We're going to have a parking person, but that's the 42 of the entire parking field. She'll be able to break that down uh a little bit.
>> Just a followup question. So, will there still be spots on that upper lot next to the stairs for trigger dose overflow? >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you have a sense of how many of those spots were made
>> close to the stairs? >> If I recall, okay, maybe 50 to 60 >> remaining well remaining in that in that portion that that you refer to. >> Okay, >> bear with us because we're going to have
the civil we're going to have the civil drawings next. Any questions? Will the city drawings show which parking spots are being taken away? >> Yeah, I think so. Yes. Yeah, just hold
that question. We're we're we're almost there. >> How long has the own property? >> Since 2017. I'm not sure how >> um average you know what we we spun off of another
company in 2016 and for many of these properties I mean we can get some in our portfolio since the six piece uh you know it depends on the property we call ourselves a definite holder You have any questions? >> Thank you.
>> Absolutely. Anybody from the public have any questions? >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Yeah. Pull our next witness, our civil engineer, Rob Murray. >> Okay, Rob, you're on the oath still? >> Yes. >> Uh, could you provide the board with
your professional qualifications? >> Stephen, I graduated from Stevens Institute Technology in 2017 with a bachelor's in civil engineering. I've been a professional engineer for five years now and I provided numerous testimony on numerous boards but never in front of miling board
>> and you've been recognized from by those boards as an expert in the field of civil engineering. >> Correct. >> Okay. If we could get your >> just one one further question unless the chair was just asking. Is your license still current in New Jersey? >> Yes. >> Thank you. You are acceptable as a civil
engineer. Okay, this is an aerial. This is not in the package, right Rob? >> Correct. >> So, we're going to mark this as A1 for tonight's date of 34 26 and we're going to call it aerial
photo Milbour Gateway Center. Hey, Rob, can you orient? Can everybody see this? Okay. No, >> I'm sorry, Mr. Schollet. Did you say this is a exhibit A1? >> A1 that up so
>> I don't want to grab ahead. You can stand up front. Okay. Wow. >> Okay. So, this is the aerial photograph of the existing site. And just to orientate my drawings today, both of my
exhibit north is facing up. The site better known as Milbour Gateway is designated as lot one in block 305 is located to the north of Milbour A between Wyoming A and Myrtle Avenue. It
is approximately 9.6 6 acres and is located entirely within the B-2C highway business zone. The site is surrounded to the north beyond the Delaware Lacawana and Western Railroad by single family homes to the
east by single family homes and commercial uses to the south by town homes and to the west by commercial uses. Okay, >> if I can share with you my next exhibit,
which is our overall plan exhibit. >> Is this in this is not in the packaging? >> This is not in the pack. Call this A2. You called it overall plan, >> correct? The applicant is seeking to
to replace the vacant motion uh fitness with three new penant spaces. uh two being at the Berries boot camp and the Jetet Pilates and the third an
unknown pennant but likely being a another fitness the and this is a colorized rendering with our improvements shown to the northeast corner. The applicant is also seeking to
provide a patio area approximately 7,000 square ft. This includes concrete sidewalk, a bike rack to the north of the uh of the northeast corner, a two seating areas to the east of the
building right here and right here. Reconstructing the existing stairwell to be 8 foot wide as previously explained uh to provide an ADA compliant ramp to the north here.
All this demolishing a existing portion of the parking area to pro to enhance the site aesthetics and its function. >> Uh Miss Neas asked about where the parking spaces would be lost. Can you can you show that? Yeah, there. So,
stating the obvious, the patio area is here as I explained before, but if I can refer back to my existing conditions exhibit, they're approximately within this area here. >> Okay. And for transparency, the fire
department also recommended that we remove three spaces. >> Correct. So, >> can you show and we obviously agree to that. Uh that's a safety issue. Where are those three spaces? So they will be the three nearest spaces on this corner
of the upper parking level closest to the building. >> So that's presumably the fire department felt that uh there' be a safety improvement >> uh with that and and the client agrees to do that. So to the extent necessary,
we amending our application on that issue. >> Okay. The site improvements also include two compactors to replace the existing dumpsters at the northwest location of
the site. These compactors will be sealed to not let rainfall in. I know that is a a concern. >> Uh there was a comment in one of the review letters to put a a fence around that. We can we can do that as well.
>> Correct. >> Okay. The improvements to the enhancing the site also include landscaping. We are providing two deciduous trees, 93 shrubs and providing uh decorative light
fixtures, removing the existing light fixture that was in the area of the existing patio or within the limits of the proposed c uh patio, excuse me, and providing redecorative lights to really enhance the aesthetics and function of the site.
This site not considered a major development as it is not disturbing more than a quarter excuse me more than an acre and providing more than a quarter acre of impervious area. It actually equals the amount of impervious area.
>> So no increase in impervious so no storm water requirements as part of this application. >> Correct. And just to tee up the the waiverss existing on conformity in both variances
of the site, the lighting waiver within the patio area. We have an average of 5.39 foot candles where one is the maximum, a maximum of 8.9 foot candles where three is allowed and a unifor
uniformity ratio of 5.93 where three is a maximum. We are existing non-conformities include parking setback where 9.1 ft is exist where 20 is the minimum. >> And we're not changing that.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Parking dimensions. The parking spaces are 9 by8 where 9 by19 is required. Again, we are not changing. And the loading spaces, we are required four
spaces where two are provided. >> And again, we're not changing that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Well, I just talk about the lighting a little bit where we added the decorative lights. And this is a we're in a waiver situation. I think the board appreciates that. It's not a variance,
but it's a a waiver because it's in the site plan ordinance, so it's a a little bit of a lower standard. What was your thinking in terms of the design? And then I know you've had a back and forth with uh Mr. Keller on right on what we should do to the light. >> We want to enhance the aesthetics and
function of the patio area to really be a a bright spot of the property. Um the ordinance is a pretty tough uh ask to be under the one foot candle average
um that is required. Um and just to reiterate the applicant really wants to freshen up the site with enhancing the landscape and lighting of the patio area. >> Okay. uh in terms you know we're over
but is it in your view as an engineer is it going to have any impact on any of the neighbors and Rob got gonna >> yes >> I don't anticipate any impact from theos links to the neighboring property >> okay I think Eric felt perhaps that a
decorative light could be lost you think it makes sense to have a a little bit better lighting in these uh more uh well traversed areas >> I I think it makes sense to have is well lit for the sake of the pedestrians
maneuvering site >> with with no impact really on the neighbors >> with no impact on >> Okay, but the client's flexible because we're talking about decorative light, you know, how much decorative lighting. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, we have one new parking space that's 9
by8 somewhere. >> Yes, correct. >> Well, can you just point out where that is? at the bottom of the stairwell on the lower parking level just adjacent to this proposed crosswalk. We're providing one space. >> Okay. So that's just one. So we need a
waiver for that because we're one foot short, but we want to get that space in there if we can at a 9 by8 which is standard in a lot of places. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um anything else Rob? to mention the bolt variance on the parking.
>> We are providing uh after taking the three parking spaces as suggested by the fire official we are providing 464 spaces. >> Sure about that? >> I'm sorry. 564 spaces.
564 spaces where 704 spaces are required but previously approved for 583 spaces. >> Okay. And we'll hear the testimony on the parking analysis. That's going to be a separate RI. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, uh loss of 13 for the plaza plus the three for the fire department. uh with with some increased demand because we've gone to gym classes versus the motion fitness and general gym. >> Correct. >> Anything else? There's no changes to the
building or no other, you know, no other site plan changes. Fairly modest. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Chairman, that's really it. It's not that complicated. Um >> what are the bike racks? Can you get again? How many how many bike racks are there? >> The bike racks are here.
We amended the plans. I think there was some discrepancy in the different plans and so we we cleaned that up. >> Yeah, we clarified where the location would be. We could provide the number on the cleaner. We do not have the number shown on the racks at this
>> room for two racks something like that. >> Yes. And then also for the uh have you given more bucks to the electrical vehicle restriction? How many spots? >> We are we're not required any electric vehicle. Um therefore we're not
proposing any electric vehicle. >> Do you think it's a good idea to include? Well, seeing as this is seeing as if we're not really proposing introducing a lot of new parking, it doesn't make sense to me to introduce
the collection. >> Uh can I ask a question about that? And it's not required by state law to provide EV parking per question. Second question, since you are short in parkings uh for how many uh 300 parkings short,
right? Why you don't provide EV parkings to compensate because the state said that for every EV parking you can't regular parking? So maybe why is not required?
>> But I believe it's based on what you're required. You get credit on what you're required to provide for EB station. So I don't believe that we could get any credits for it. >> Why not required here? >> We are not required. If you look in the frequently asked questions for sites
that are providing where there's where the parking is already provided existing parking and you are not improving the parking count. You are not required any additional you're not not required any
spaces. You're not you you're not adding but you're reducing >> we're reducing the particle. >> Yes. So in that case maybe may will make sense for us to say okay there is a detriment about the parkings maybe you
can say okay we are losing so many parkings we can provide parkings. My second question about that >> I hear you we'll take that if you can hear you maybe we'll have a couple minutes. And my second question is uh again we are short in 300 parkings or something like that. Do you think that
only two uh bike uh racks is enough when this town many people likes to to bike and we are trying to to make this town more bikable. So >> we find room for another bike rack over
there. Rob, >> again we are short in 300 parkings, right? So Yes, in one way, but the board previously said, you know, 580 is okay. So, >> technically we're technically we're
short, but Rob, I think that's reasonable. >> If the community think we could find room for another bike rack somewhere >> that I can commit to. I don't have to a big parking lot. So, maybe
five is not enough. What goes in the spot where the pre for the fire department are going away. Does that just stay asphalt where it's accessed for the trucks or >> Yes, it would be hatched for for fire. >> It's been like this obviously for a
while. Presumably the fire department said, "Look, we're going to take another look at that." And you know that happens from time to time. They said, "We're looking for improvement. We like those spaces. We realize that there's going to be some maneuvering around at those very peak times uh with the with the parking
spaces uh there. But this is the layout. There's not too much the parking. The fire guys said they want those spaces with our truck. So >> where you're building the whatever your pedestrian area, is that over the existing parking lot below or
is it just the hill that you're going straight up instead of the hill? the the area here. Are you taking away any over the existing parking lot or I think it's a hill there. You're just kind of filling in the hill to create space above it.
>> Yeah, we're we you're saying is it the proposed patio area is more level with the upper parking area. It's not sloping down. >> He's asking are we losing any spaces in the lower part? >> Yeah, because that's my next question. You said you're adding one, which is
good. Seems like there's open space there and a bunch of cars just kind of hang out as people load and unload. Are we losing that sort of hangout space? >> We're we're not losing any spaces in the lower parking area. You're providing >> not spaces. It's just kind of like open pavement right in front of the Petco
where cars just kind of conglomerate there because you can't find parking over here. So, they kind of like load and unload there. >> You have the answer there. because they're not losing >> and they're turning one into a formal space because I think there is extra
space. >> You may know better. Good job. That's smart. >> And there's no changes to the the pets place. >> Well, Mr. Keller wanted us to take the shrub out. We were going to fight that,
but we thought we' seed to that request. There's a there's one from we were prune it, but we said >> we'll just defer to Mr. Keller on that. Since we're planting quite a few shrubs, we said take away the shrub. We're not
sure why he wanted to remove that, but we're happy to. >> Rob, you had a chance to look at Mr. Keller's review letter, >> correct? >> Okay. No, no issues with anything that's in there. >> No issues addressing. >> Okay. We chairman, we did have one
thing. Mr. Keller pointed out something with the calculation of of all the the different tenants. One of the tenants over on uh this side of the building, the western side, right, Rob? One of the tenants, we we marked it as retail when
we did our parking calculation. It's a It's vacant right now. We marked it as retail. It's You want to show them where that is, Rob? is about 1,200 square ft. >> So get it on the side of the building. >> Yeah.
>> We think that it's likely that if that does get leased, it's going to go medical, which would create a demand for 2.9 additional spaces. So if the board is willing on the fly,
we would like to amend the application to sort of remark that as medical So that if they get medical, we don't have to come before you again. If you're following it, there would be an increase. We realized it from Erin's
letter that uh there's about 1,200 square feet there. >> Um it's 23 on Mr. Keller's letter March 2. >> Yeah, it's it's on the side of the building where there's, you know, plenty
of plenty of parking. And what it would do is, you know, if we came back in and they got medical, we wouldn't have to come back for anything that's out. I think the board appreciates the the enormity of the cost of this. >> What is the final parking?
>> So, it would it would move us up 2.9 or three spaces so that it uh it would go to 707 would be per ordinance from 704. We repeated that's the requirement. Of
course in 2009 the board approved 583 being reasonable and our next witness is going to talk about the fact that even at the peak on a Saturday they've only been at 42%. have a really good this this field is a I'm sure all of you have been out this
field is is okay most of the time former tenant has been there for a year but >> that is that is correct but somebody's going to go there at some point that's you know and and I think the point that
Miss Dennis was getting at the the um hours of operation and the busiest times for the boot camp and jet in the early hours, you know, 600, 7, 8 a.m., but there's going to be certain times a day when it's going to get more crowded and people are going to have to
walk. There's plenty of parking. They're going to have to walk a little farther. And, you know, there's there is going to be some additional congestion in that area at the very peak time. We appreciate that, but they they could, you know, like any parking lot,
sometimes you got to walk a little, >> right? But your your working expert did it live on Friday until I think 3:00. So was not there earlier in the day. um when
it's busier because kids are in school and parents are shopping at Trader Joe's and doing what so that I I was wondering I can ask you about that but not sure why came or she came at three um which is much later for people who were out
and about >> our next witness. >> Okay, I did have some questions. Um I don't know if this is for you. >> Can you like Oh, actually no. I'm sorry. Those aren't working. Never mind. My bad. >> I will try to speak louder.
>> Um if you are the one who would address the foresters concerns about the rose bushes. >> Yes, we can we can revise plan to address all the comments on plant feeding including the um the foresters.
maybe some native plantings. We >> we're certainly agreeable to a condition to to get a sign off on >> I had some questions about the lighting since you're going to be adding it sounds like a fair amount of lighting. Um what the environmental impact is. I
know you're you're you're expressing concerns about the neighbors, but I'm just wondering how targeted the illumination is going to be and um whether there's a way to use more LED lighting or to decrease whatever might
interfere um or might contribute to light pollution. >> Okay. So, we are providing three. It's mostly decorative lights. They're not as
heavy as the LED lights. So to address your concerns on the light pollution, it's not like you're the LED light would I would anticipate you'd be worse for the light pollution. But as I can reiterate, it's not spilling
from this. The proposed light fixtures are not spilling. The impact from the proposed lights, it's not making it past the property line. >> Those are the lights that are protected in the renderings.
The three lights on posts here. >> You describe you said it's not LED and it's decorative. What does that mean? So, we provide I believe on the final
page of our site plan. They're more like rounded and and they're like more decorative and they don't they're not as high as the rest of the parking. It's a other rendering you
had earlier will be a lot more see is >> okay this is in the package right so we're we're this is Barry's landscape view one upper level prepared by studio 39 February 18th can you point these out
Rob with the decorative lights that you're talking about that put us over on the requirement >> year year period. >> So we have we have the three puts over you like them. We think it makes sense
to give some lighting to that area, but differing minds can differ. >> It's a dark area. >> It's a dark area. They're decorative. I understand they're not bold fixtures, but the lamps are the LEDs, incandescents, fluorescents. What? Why you keep saying decorative? I don't know
what that >> means. I They are LEDs, but they're not the high LEDs such as the neighboring light fixtures. >> Okay, so they're LEDs and dimmable,
controllable, all that good stuff. Are they going to be on all night? They so talking with the applicant they they're they go on they with the photometric of what the current natural light is. So
from dusk to dawn they will be on. >> Yeah. Okay. So all night long. >> No >> after after midnight they turn off. >> Charlie stand up. You're on the road still, right?
>> That's correct. I apologize. Um, yes. So, they they are on from dusk until 12:00 p.m. midnight and then they turn back on at 5:00 a.m. until dawn 8 a.m. depending on the season. >> Can you I don't know if you're the
eyewitness, but I'm just a little confused about the functionality of the patio. Like what is what's being planned there? Is that like seating? and you know and then now I I might have a different opinion about the lights going off um in the dark area. So can you
explain the functionality of the patio? >> Well, in terms of the the landscaping you're providing to the city as I said to the city trees, right? >> But are there benches? Are they what are you expecting people to do there? >> There's there's seating areas. We don't
show any details on our plan, but we providing detail uh seating areas here and here. They're a little bit ambiguous at the moment of what exactly are going to be put as what furniture. >> So my concern is that some kind of I'm
just concerned about a security issue with an open seating area now, you know, that's dark in the middle of the night. You know, I think I would just like a little more detail about what's planned. Is the idea for that patio to be an area
where people that arrive early for their class on a nice day can sit outside? Is that the intention? I think so. Or maybe they just finished a class. Pilates, for example, if uh feels primarily to women. They may stay around
for a little bit after, have a cup of coffee, maybe drink or something like that. An amenity, an upgrade. It's not a play area, right? Uh we have you know landscaped area uh some seating the bike area is there anything else any other
furniture conceptual furniture uh proposed there? >> I I think you nailed it. I think we we're providing the landscape we're providing the bike racks and we're providing seating area >> or pedestrians. >> So if there's a seating area I think the
concern is that perhaps people that shouldn't be there might come there at night. >> That's right. Uh, in which case maybe it would make sense to leave those lights on dawn to dusk instead. That make more sense or be agreeable? We we're very agreeable to that. Yeah, we we can work
with your team on on either those those specific decorative lights being on for those hours to make sure that no one is, you know, doing anything or being in that area when they shouldn't be. Um, yes, we can certainly work with that. >> Is there anybody monitoring the site? you know, you've been remotely uh
overnight. >> We we do I we do not have um video surveillance. I do not believe we have folks coming around at night as well. >> So, you might want to have video surveillance because we have had issues
with some vagrants in front of Trader Joe's lot area. >> We we can certainly install a a CCTV camera to give an monitor that area. One thing I've done, we could do a consult with the police department on
that also to see what they recommend uh on that. Not going to be a make or break issue for us. We're having to talk to them. What do they think? >> To have a building, you know, the stores are all closed and locked. That's one thing. But there we have a seating area
that until just now was going to be dark. You know, it's I think it just needs some more control. And certainly a meeting with the police is is advised. >> Is is Barry serving coffee? Like where's the coffee coming?
>> That's that was it was a figurative sense. Barry's is I don't think they're serving coffee. The representatives of Sierra just if people wanted to sit out there it could be with their water bottles figurative. >> We do have a car. You got to come up and
get your your your sworn. Come on up. board your name. >> I'm sorry. I'm Aira Bryson. I build berries. So, I travel across the country and build all the berries out. So, we have three different offerings for berries. Um, right now this is called Suburban Drive. It's hit or miss as to
whether or not we have a juice bar. Um, so I'm not sure if we're having So, if anyone's sitting, it's typically we'll have a juice bar. I do not think we have a juice bar at this particular location. So, um, >> so if there's no juice bar, you don't usually do this patio element.
>> No. Um, and I don't want to I mean these guys have a different um uh I guess goal with their development, but uh and if you have questions for me, typically our customers come in and they're out because we have it by class. So there's
not a lot of loitering for us. Um and typically want in and out. So >> but I'm happy I answer any questions, but I don't want to mess up their how they're planning. >> We appreciate it. >> So >> okay, >> if I could just suggest I think it may be helpful for the board, Mr. Co's comment in particular page sheet six of
your site plan filing is a landscape and lighting plan which depicts the location of the benches makes it helpful mounted >> I want to refer to that for the board um but it depicts the bench locations and
the decorative light fixtures and location doodle >> I think it says you probably would have a goose if you do so that would raise if you what kind of graphic you have in the patio so that people can
throw out their >> It's a good point, Mr. Cohen. They should provide trash receptacles regardless you have a gathering area, right? >> Um at least give them the opportunity to throw their stuff away whether they do
or not obviously. >> No problem. Got a step on the tray. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, uh this sheet is this sheet six part of your package. You got a last
division date. Uh June, what do you got here? >> February 16th. appreciate staff and getting us on getting the DRC. We're here quickly so that's appreciated. >> So it looks like there's a total of four benches that are proposed. That correct?
>> Thank you, Grant. >> Within the two seating areas here and here. >> Well, the question is on the engineering site plan, you point to both of those areas as areas of the bike racks. that that was revised in our latest
submission >> these on February 16th plans. >> The only was another plan. Not one sheet was revised. >> Submitted submitted February. He added the bike
rack on >> clarified the bike rack will be located here and the seating areas will be located in the former >> submission where we were saying the bike rack. I knew my file, Mr. Keller.
We clean that up after the DRC meeting. >> February. >> February 18th. Okay. We clean that up. >> All right. >> All right. Well, there goes that question. Um, if I could just ask, uh, as depicted
on the February 18th submission for the bike rack, um, you're depicting retaining one of existing light reset to proposed grade. Um, >> that that's a typo that the existing light is not typically
placed at the proposed grade. It's being eliminated. >> It's being eliminated now. Okay. Cuz because Yeah, I just wanted to spread it up with the rendering out just shows the three deck. So the only light fixtures in this proposed patio area are just those three decorative fixtures. >> Correct. Okay. And just also for the
benefit of there's a detail sheet on the last page of the site fence submission that shows the picture style. >> Just while Miss Mr. McDonald had testified that the lights go off at midnight. Is that every light in the
entire center? Yes, that is correct. So, the entire center is dark. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> You want security level overnight? >> Well, I mean, >> generally, you know, that's that's the practice
that I've always followed is you want um some level of lighting that the police can monitor and the owner can monitor >> conditions, you know, in the lot. um you know, it's a balance between
protecting the residents um from the light levels. Um all the fixtures out there are LED. I'm sure they relamped all that stuff, which is nice. They are very bright.
I'm sure you all know that. >> Do they have residential shield guards, side guards? >> You don't normally do that with LEDs. Um, >> are they downward directed? >> They are all downward directed. They're
they're full cut off. Um, but I mean they're 25 30 ft in the air. You know, they're tall lights, which is typical in a commercial shopping center. Um, but they are bright. Now, I don't know if they have
the controls. I don't know what their control system is. And you know, if they're willing, I think they should evaluate that. There's also with LEDs, if they have the right technology to go with them, that those lights are
dimable. >> So, >> so you dim them down to a security level. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I would c certain lights would go off. I I would ask them to submit a plan for a security lighting based upon
what circuitry and light controls that they have. >> Agreeable. My client is nodding. We appreciate the suggestions. Be hopeful that's something we could do as a condition of approval to work with
uh your designated person and the police department. Makes sense. >> I'd still like the plaza area lights to be a little dimmer, you know? I mean, they have 48 watt LED
fixtures there. That's a pretty high wattage for an LED fixture. >> Maybe the security level lighting condition would extend it to the decorative lighting on the pedestrian plaza as well. that you could probably get away with just one of the the middle light being on overnight
subject to the review and approval of our engineer and police department. Uh they're reasonable in their reasonable discretion, >> which is always reasonable. >> That that's fine. This is not a you know, we want to work with the community, you know,
>> I'm a reasonable guy. >> We could always come back if if we can't get to a solution, but that that's fair. My client is not happy to make those upgrades. Appreciate the suggestions. >> We got the stipulation. Excuse me. Thank you.
>> How wide is it from the building where Barry's to curb side? >> You're saying from from Barry's here to here? >> I can get you that answer
because they I heard the usage. I'm not clear like why do you need so much space? It's beautiful. Don't think at all. >> If you have the trade-off between parking spaces and it looking nice, it's tough eliminating those overflow parking
spaces >> about 60 ft. You have to wonder the practicality of hopefully the overflow Trader Joe's parking lot down below that would not have enough space and you're going grocery shopping and you have your your
cart. You're not going to drag the cart up the stairs. So a lot of humble park in those spots that are being eliminated. >> One more question on the lighting. Uh back to uniformity we said it was the average is five and we have a
requirement of one >> the average is 5.39 where one is the maximum allowed and I state it's a pretty ambitious um requirement to >> so can you describe in non-numerical terms maybe graphical terms what the
difference between the one and the five is because we're talking about safety before and my understanding of uniformity is that you want a balance of light so your eyes don't have to adjust as you're walking around and you can see stuff like you're not looking at two
distinct levels of lighting. So what is the 5 million so we're talking about uh the minimum and maximumity that is 5.93 where three is the max. So
it's not as you know complicated as the one that you stated for the average >> right but so yeah my my concern is just that it varies too much right that's that would be the average in in the in the area. So
why again? Why why is five okay and one is just way too extravagant >> as an ordinance? Why do you think one is >> what Mr. Keller calls >> aspirational? It's it's it's very very aggressive. >> Yes. It's aggressive to trying to
maintain one foot. Why? You got to explain why. >> Because it would require the engineering behind putting lights across this area. It's
putting one in this area for the uniformity would increase the uh uniformity instead of decreasing it. So the three are there for to keep things more uniform. However, for the average,
the 5.39, the one is just very aggressive, you really have to spread out the length, >> right? So, if you added another post and decrease the intensity, would that help with the uniform? Instead of three, go to four.
>> That would be ambitious to find a working, excuse me, a working light. However, we can work with Mr. Keller on providing the lighting plan that you suggested. >> I mean, having
more fixtures is going to even out the bright spots and the dark spots. Mr. Albert, that's really that's uniformity, right? >> Is is bright areas to low areas. By having more the lower level lower level
of illumination will help even that out. It I mean one foot candle average over a parking lot is really pretty dim. Um I've you know retailers especially
want something more like five and six for an average. >> Okay. you know, the uniformity is just a matter of having a more, you know, even so you don't have really bright spots and then dark spots because our eyes
don't adapt to that. Drive along the highway and you get to an interchange and it's really bright and then you come out of it and it's like I can't see anything. So by having a more evenness to the illumination throughout the parking lot, that's a uniformity which
is easier on the eyes. Um so I think by going to one more fixture or a different optic in the fixtures. Um the the decorative having kind of a circular
area in there. I mean, there's different things. LEDs are wonderful when it comes to managing the where light goes. There's all kinds of different optics. The old style lights did it with reflectors. The LEDs do it by the
technology of the individual diode. Makes it much much more efficient and easier to control. So, um, but I'm happy to work with, uh, the applicant on that.
So, >> that stipulation that we were talking about earlier, that cover, >> well, that's where I was going. It was more towards a security level lighting. But uh if we could extend that stipulation to the lighting uh uh on the pedestrian plaza in its
entirety, that same reasonleness and the same uh monitors are our engineer and our police department or at least our engineer with respect to lighting uh the security level because what I'm hearing is it may be one more fixture and they
may be all four at a lower level than the three is what I'm >> right lower wattage um you know brings the overall light level down a little bit and improves the uniformity. >> So would the applicants stipulate to that assuming the board wants to uh take
that stipulation put it in the hands of our engineers? >> Yes, we're you know we need to talk to the police because they may want a little more. We're going to look at, you know, the overnight and the security lighting and try to get a reasonable bound so we don't have too much and certainly not impacting the university
stipulation and I'm hearing that the applicant is willing to stipulate to it. >> I do have a question. Um I'm sure Mr. Kelly took in consideration the stairs. Is that correct? And is there enough light and will that also right be
considered? I think after going through the parking lot the night before the meeting um um instead of looking at it during the day when the lights are off. Um I think that and that would be part of the plan
is that we make sure that the one of the security lights if we can do that and at least we could do it in you know is that it's by the stair. So, you know, as engineers, unfortunately, we have to kind of design,
and don't take this the wrong way, we're stupid. >> Um, and having people do something that they probably shouldn't, but um if they do it and you didn't provide for lighting, then it's your fault, not
theirs, for doing something stupid. On the note of doing something stupid, what's the surface going to be? The actual paved surface of the patio area because right now it looks like a really fun little skate park. >> You're asking the material is that?
>> Yeah. The actual material under foot that you're going to be walking on, not the grass, but the >> It's going to be concrete similar to side. >> Okay. So, it's going to be smooth. >> Yes. >> So, you're going to get skateboards, especially when you've got like rails on your stairs and things like that. Just a thought in terms of people doing
something stupid that we might be liable for. That's >> why they haven't. >> Okay. I'm just maybe the service could be pebbled or something. It's much less rid >> for some people.
>> I don't know how many skateboarders you see them around. Wyoming, >> which is where this is >> I mean it'll be fun. >> I did have one more question. Um just regarding I know you had made a
statement regarding a fence enclosure around the trash compactors that's not depicted on the plan but I just wanted to get some more details of that on the record. Right. We can provide on we can update our plans for a fence probably board on board.
>> Board on board. Okay. Wood fence. Um and I would recommend the six foot high. Would that be sufficient to shield the compactors? Do you think six foot fence? >> My client is not that that makes sense. >> Um and the configuration of the um compactors and the fences in this location, you know, there are some
adjacent parking spaces. Just more of a question. Should the fence be protected by ballards or anything? So, you know, a wood fence could be subject to damage a car kind of pulling into space adjacent. Um, just kind of a question regarding that. >> That's fine as well.
And on that, you may want to add um a mang because if putting in the comp they're putting their trash or whatever into the compactor at the back um depending on how you know and that's a discussion with with your client on
getting in there so that they're not walking between the compactors or whatever. That's an operational thing for them. Uh, I just, you know, ask you to consider that as part of the design. Would there be gates across the front to
close it in or would you just have it, you know, so that the trucks could just back up to it? And maybe that's a question better suited for Mr. >> Maybe if we have a break or something like that. All right. That's your reason that I
>> mean it's it is tucked away in the back corner of parking lot. Generally, you know, we like compactors, dumpsters to be screened so that people don't see them. Um it will certainly be an improvement over
what's there today. Um, so, um, gates tend to, especially if you're talking about a wood fence, the the dumpster companies will destroy
those. So, you may want to, if you decide to put them in, do something different than a wood fence. They will >> Okay, we appreciate that, suggestion. >> And that would be even worse to have a gate hanging there. Um, I do have a couple other questions
at the board's time. I >> you might before you go on, can I ask a question about compactors? >> Which tenants will be using those? Will Trader Joe's continue their normal waste disposal method? >> Okay. So, it's just just the tenants on
the top, I suppose. Is that correct? Excellent. And the intent of putting in the compactors, is it to hold garbage longer or is it is it just to control the volume?
>> Riley, you know, >> it it it's to control and clean up just the the few dumpsters that we have kind of across across that back area today. Consolidate, make it cleaner, more compact. It's all your Thank you, Mr.
Um the we made I'm not going to go through my letter. You've covered most of it and you said you would cover all. You do have a concern about there is a trench drain at the what was the entrance to
Motion Fitness. >> The plans called for that to be removed, but that sidewalk still slopes from the parking lot towards the building. Um, I know you've tried to grade it to go
to the right. I'll call that north is up, >> Mr. Murray. >> On your plan. Okay. So, you're you're trying to grade it to the right, but with a flush curve in that parking lot
sheeting towards that area. of this concern that you're going to get run off through the parking lot. >> We have no problem in satisfying your concern. >> However you're going to do it, you're going to do something. >> Yeah. >> We take care of that water for you.
>> I think that's a simple storm water thing that I have no problem in working with them on on dealing with. So I don't know where does that turn go today? Do you know? you should be. It's unknown.
It wasn't picked up in the survey. However, we can have it verified by contractors. >> Okay. All right. That's fine. Um, the reason that I asked about removing that shrub down by the loading area
>> back on the shrub >> at Trader Joe would remove it because we didn't want to spend time on >> Okay, then if you're going to remove it, >> we said we'd remove it. >> I'm done. Um, last thing back up top.
Um, ADA parking. There's ADA parking to the west of that area. Um, which you have the medical uh surgical center and the medical office space there. I see
that and this came up at the DRC meeting about punching punching through that landscape area between the doctor's office and motion um fitness. Um
what's the slope on that um area there? >> I don't have an answer at the I can find you an answer maybe while one of the other professionals is testifying. Okay. However, it is with under 8.33 or one over.
>> Okay. Is it 80 compliant? >> The only point is if it's over 5% you need railings. >> Yes. Okay. >> We can provide railing. >> You could provide railings to provide additional detailing. Okay. >> That's really a code issue, isn't it? >> It's outside the building. So, it may be
a code issue, but it's my issue. >> Okay. Um, is there a need for because you're now adding tenant access in this northeast corner
of the building where there was limited access before? Is there a need for a redistribution or an addition of ADA parking spaces in that area? So to provide a due to the site constraints,
it's really tough to provide ADA compliant parking elsewhere to give a path to travel to the heads on the upper part. The slope of the parking area is >> so the parking the park the existing parking area that's remaining is greater
than 2%. >> Correct. >> Okay. and >> outside of the path of travel from >> okay >> from here to the >> okay so the ADA spaces to the west of these tenant spaces would be the appropriate and most convenient space to
provide a compliant ADA parking >> correct >> okay um last point you indicated that um you're not a major development under storm water and your impervious coverage is remain being generally the same. Is
that correct? >> Um is there a change though in the impervious coverage that you're providing? You're taking out parking spaces and replacing it with sidewalk. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, there is a marginal improvement in water quality because now you're taking out regulated motor vehicle space. Correct. Correct. That's That's good for us, right? >> It's a good thing. Nice job, right? >> That was a bone.
>> Yeah, that was that was a softball since I wasn't sure. I was wavering on whether or not I was good until I go for it. >> He giveth and he take it away. >> Was a leading question. I didn't know the answer. >> I'm equal opportunity.
>> I have a couple more for you. Don't mind. Did the ADA ramp take up or any parking spaces or was that just done on the sidewalk? >> The ADA ramp I believe you're talking about connecting the existing sidewalk
by doing spaces here is not eating out. It's it's connecting to previous landscape. >> And then my last question is on the the space that was added down by the truck.
uh >> delivery loading area. Yeah. Um did you guys look at maneuverability of all the trucks, garbage trucks, semis that come in there and everything is fine with adding that space? We we we the only movement we looked at was maybe
a fire truck through here, but we could provide movements for >> I would Yeah, just check with Trader Joe's or whoever that going to use that space because that space is already very clogged when they do bring trucks in and out of there. So, make sure it works.
Does anybody else have any other questions? Oh, I did have one more. Is there a retaining wall for for the the new plan? >> Is it over six feet? >> Yes. >> Do we have to have a variance for that? >> Yes.
>> Retaining walls of a fence or whatever. Same. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. You said yes, it is over six feet. >> Yes, it is over six feet. >> Yeah. Was that height depicted? I didn't see that height. It's the height that >> it's on your height. It's uh
>> uh 13 13 and 12 ft at >> and that's a long loading area. >> And yeah, >> right.
>> Yeah. Which you need to depict on the plans, >> right? >> False textures. It'll be depicted and it's also an additional bulk bar of 13.5. >> Mr.
comments on >> and just for clarification for the board and everyone else the the uh the additional amendments that were made earlier by uh Mr. on behalf of his client as well as his additional fault variance. Those are all covered within
the catch all language of the notice uh provisions. So the board retains jurisdiction uh as the same and no further notice or anything needs to be done. >> Just for the benefit of everyone here, it's DRZ 609.6 subsection B
>> 609 >> 609.6B. Got it. And just one other thing on the retaining wall, please put a note on the plan that it requires a building permit.
>> Okay, we get anything over 4 foot and higher requires a building permit. >> So some people forget that it'll be in the condition.
>> Any other questions? Any questions from the public? >> And if I may, Mr. Chairman, that would include any questions of the other gentlemen who continued testimony as well as our one representative for lieutenant. Any testimony that was
given, any members of the public may ask questions. All right. Thank you very much, M. Murray. Appreciate it. kind of a little longer than we thought, but uh moving on to our next witness, our parking expert, Michelle Ryoff from Collers.
>> Michelle, you're under oath. Could you provide your professional qualifications? >> Sure. Michelle Brihoff. I am licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing. Um I graduated from Nor Eastern University 2008 with a degree civil and environmental engineering. Um
and I have been working for Collier which was formerly known as major consulting for since 2013 and I'm currently the geographic discipline leader for traffic. >> But you testified for planning and zoning board >> many of boards. I actually don't think I've been before this board but I did
work with the town um on the the downtown streetscape projects a few of them. So I am familiar with Milbour and not before >> and you've been recognized as an expert in civil engineering and with a with a traffic expertise.
>> You're acceptable as a traffic expert in front of the board. Thank you. >> Okay. And colleagues prepared a report. You heard some comments uh give a a general overview and then you know talk about the issues that are going to uh be faced here and and your opinion as to safety and feasibility.
>> Sure. So, our office um did a parking summation study um which is where we actually go out there and we survey the actual parking demand that's occurring on the site. Um those counts were done on Friday, September 19th and Saturday, September 20th of 2025. Um as you
mentioned, yes, our counts were done from 3 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Friday and 11 to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. Um what we found for this site as a total is that the maximum maximum peak parking demand occurred um on Saturday the the 25th uh
sorry Saturday the 20th and that was equivalent to 42% or 243 spaces. Um so as as we've mentioned before as we've as I will get further into overall the site
is about 42% occupied at any given time >> as a max >> as a maximum. Yes. Now what I will say with that is that we did break it up into subsections. So we looked at the area that is adjacent to Trader Joe's.
It's PetSmart. uh the upper area when you just get up that staircase uh which is this area here, this lot over here which I refer to as the northern lot as well as the western lot or CVS's and the offices and stuff. So we did look at it
in a more granular way as well which I will get into the results of that. Um but I will remind you that overall the maximum parking demand is about 42%. Um, as was previously testified, the difference between the previous gym that
was there, which was Motion Fitness Club, uh, versus the proposed Barry's Fitness and the Jetset Pilates, we're looking for an additional 31 spaces. When we compare it to the previous fitness use that was there, >> that's because that change in the
ordinance. there's a change because the parking demand is more intense for the instructional type classes where you have >> uh you know these one-hour long classes that you sign up for and you come and then you leave. So it is a little bit more intense parking demand. So again
when we compare it to the previous gym that was there versus what we're looking to uh do with the Barrys and the Jetet, we're looking for an additional 31 spaces. Um, what I will say is that the parking areas, which just is not going
to be a surprise to anybody here who shops here, um, is that the parking areas that are adjacent to the Trader Joe's and the PetSmart as well as the parking area that is at the end of that staircase do fill up. That was shown in our parking study. Um, those are those
are occupied, so to speak. There are very few spaces available in those areas. However, this northern parking lot here, um, it it fills up to about 29%. So, again, anybody who's been there knows
that that parking area is very underutilized. There are a significant number of parking spaces in that area. Um, so we feel that again with the location of the Barrys and the Jet Pilates that that lends itself to using the available
parking in that lot. Um, I think that's further. I don't want to beat a dead horse with the the patio area, but having that patio area, having kind of that entrance way into those uses, um, again kind of lends itself to use that
parking area that is very underutilized currently. Um, for the most part, again, I think that with the parking that we're asking for, um, the maximum
parking demand, I said 42%, that's 243 spaces. Um, we're looking now, I don't want to do math on the fly, but I think we're looking for, I guess, 564. >> That's what we'll end up with. >> We'll end up with 564. Um,
so again with the the actual parking that's there, the 564 versus the actual demand of 243, we feel that those additional 31 spaces that we're looking for could easily be accommodated, especially in this northern lot, which
is now going to be adjacent to these uses. >> Any issues in terms of safety and walking? people I think uh Miss Ne's point people may get pushed out a little bit any issues in terms of safety whether it's a Trader Joe's customer
varies >> I think the improvements again to this patio area we're expanding that um lighting landscaping um we're going to be providing this crosswalk from the stairway to the building um again this ADA compliant in
the rear of the building I think that all of these enhancements will lend itself to making the site a little bit more walkable um and and really again um lending itself to these two uses here. >> Now, in prepping for the meeting, we we
took a look at the class schedules and I don't know that we have to go into this, but a number of the classes uh are going to go on 5 6 7 8 a.m. before Trader Joe's and Pepsmart even open. So, >> they're mostly on the hour. Um, I know
the Pilates I believe is uh I'm sorry for Barry. Barry's the classes are actually every 70 minutes to give their classes are 50 minutes long and they're actually spaced 70 minutes apart. So that actually gives way for people to leave the site and then the
new people to come in. Um, we did look at, you know, information from the applicant as far as how many participates participants they expect per class. Um, we actually found out that with the worst case scenario for Jetet Pilates and for the Barry's
fitness that that would be a worst case scenario with the employees of about 69 visitors. Uh, which I want to point out is actually interesting because your ordinance at the one per 100 square feet at that square footage equates to 62
spaces. So, so your ordinance is actually pretty close to what we are anticipating with um information based on the applicants, you know, the actual uses >> as a peak >> as a peak. Again, worst case scenario, both classes are filled and all of the, you know, the employees are there and
that's that's equating to to 69 spaces, so to speak. So, again, right in line with what your ordinance would um would calculate that to be. Um, and really, I mean, that's that's really the the crux
of of what we did as far as studying the actual parking demand and justifying uh the parking for this site. >> So, you know, we've had space that's been vacant for five years. >> Yeah. >> And and we're putting in permitted uses here and some people at some times of
the day are going to have to walk a little further. >> That that's basically >> that's true. from your perspective as an expert in uh parking and traffic and safety, it's all safe and and in accord with standards. >> Yeah, I think the improvements that
we're making to the site um you know lend itself to be a more functional space and and better for pedestrian access and and walkability. >> There'll be some times in the day when the classes are quieter that there'll be sort of less traffic than some other permitted use. From what we understand
again based on information from the applicants is that they are very busy in the morning and busy very busy in the evening and the middle of the day is kind of you know the it's just not as busy for these types of you know to take your classes either before work or after work or and and the
middle of the day is is a little slower. So there'll be sometimes during the day, you know, depending on when the when the peaks are of Trader Joe's where there's sort of fewer than some other permitted uses or maybe Ocean Fitness had,
there'll be some more spots, >> correct? Yep. >> What time is the last class? >> You have that on there? >> Yep. Um I believe so both classes one is 7:30 p.m. and the other is 700
p.m. >> That's the last class. >> That's the last class. Yeah. >> Got some nods. >> Trader Joe's is still open. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Trader Joe's is 9 to9 and so is Pet. >> Have you given any thought to making
some of the spaces because Trader Joe's is really where the chaos happens? um making some of the spots reserved for Trader Joe's customers as opposed to the new tenants. >> Charlie, I do also I do want to also add
to that before Charlie um that we were also discussing um making sure that the employees for and Trader Joe's are parking, you know, in this rear of the site where there is available parking. But Charlie, uh, as far as designated spaces,
>> yes, as it relates to designating parking spaces for Trader Joe's, um, unfortunately, we have obligations to the other tenants at the site and we cannot give Trader Joe's specific parking spaces, >> Trader How about the Can there be a discussion with the employees?
>> Oh. Oh, sure. Yeah, we we have a great relationship with the the store manager for both Trader Joe's and Pesmart and can certainly um ask that they have their employees parked in the area that Michelle had designated in that northern portion of the lot that is presently 29% occupied at
>> that all employees not just >> and the the barries and right all of the employees in that area where you know in the rear where there is a surplus of parking >> I have a question so do you know how Many employees used
to walk and or take public transportation or they drive. >> I I don't have that information. Um I know that the employees for these sites uh for the Jetset Pilates um for instance Barry's has approximately three
to six employees uh and the Pilates studio two to three employees at one time at you know on the on the site at once. Um so it's not a a huge employee you know demand. Um, so I don't know how many would walk or or take public
transportation out. But again, even if they all drove, I'm still confident that there's enough parking here to support that. My question is, did you look certainly where Trader Joe's is the flow where you have people coming in off of Noburn
Avenue in one spot? Was there ever any consideration from anybody about that is the most congested area? I don't think it's so much about parking per se. I think it's more about getting cars in and out of that lower level.
I don't know if you do blow kind of analysis. >> It wasn't it wasn't part of it. Again, we're focused on on parking and making, you know, supporting the parking variance of the numbers that we're we're asking for. We did not look at the uh the flow just because it is an existing
center. So I I'd like to say that I I when I look at this immediately I think of how it's for flow not that it's minus the parking spot. People park up there
because it gets congested during those very busy times. So even on the corner adding another road opening permit for you know Milbourne Avenue for this particular property. I don't know if that's something that's practical or
>> lose parking. >> You would, but I think the the problem's not we don't have enough parking spaces. I believe it's about how the parks within those station >> and there is generally a constant
>> seems like someone's always saying >> I would say given the number of times that I've had to park on the upper li there there is a dirt of parking spaces. So, and I I just want to say that I think one of the reasons that the
northern lot is not used is because it's super inconvenient to park back there and you're taking away the most convenient spots and you can't get parts up there. So, you're asking people to walk even further when they're not going to be able to bring their car down to
the lower lot and throw bags into their car. You're going to be, you know, walk even further. And I'm still not really clear why this patio is so big when it doesn't sound like you're that
there's going to be coffee or juice or whatever. As someone who works out, I never linger because I've got like 10 more things to do once I'm done with my workout. Um, so I just I'm not getting why
shoppers at a very very busy Trader Joe's and Pets Mark are going to be so inconvenienced when it seems to me like that patio if it needs to exist doesn't necessarily need to be as big as it is being made to
be. I think they appreciate it needs to exist minimally because you need to be able to reach the other two stores so to speak. >> Okay? >> Because you have to there's only one like Motion Fitness only had one entrance. So you need some sort of grade
issue to get to what I'm going to call jet stores. You need to get in there. Chairman, if I may pick up on on something that Miss Canfield said for observation, you guys could decide if it makes any sense. in terms of, you know, where it's crowded that um the visitors
to Barry and Jetet are very because they come regularly, the regular V. They're going to like figure out pretty quickly the path of least resistance and probably park in that northern lot. That's just No, you're not buying a >> They're going to take up the western
lot, which means there's going to be no overflow for Trader J. >> They'll they'll go to the space that's most convenient. Yeah, that's that's normally open. That's normally that's what I was trying to convince spots. There's going to be no overflow
>> in in the morning when they're open. But say they're there Saturday at 10. Aren't they just gonna they'll know if they're 11:00 class? >> They're going to park the closest, which is they'll wait till the spot open.
Okay. I mean, maybe some of these get taken because they're closer than those, but >> the overflow is going to disappear. >> We're we're not arguing and and it's self-evident that, you know, there's going to be a tenant, you know, there's got to be a tenant. How do we accommodate that in the in the in the
best way and that some folks are going to have to walk a little further? they don't like that walk, they're not happy, they'll decide to go to Whole Foods or not, you know, whatever they're, you know, they have to have that from Trader Joe's. They'll have to walk a little
further. >> Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me, let me ask you, Mr. Bryhoff, if you pull up exhibit A1, please get the the existing condition here. So the lot in the southeast corner at
Myrtle and Milbour Avenue is packed. Everybody knows. >> Yes. >> So people, however they get to that upper lot, say they park, you know, where that sewer easement comes through, they park on the far, you know, someplace up in there.
What do they how are they getting from that parking space down to Trader Joe's? What do they have to >> go through? >> Yep. There will be the the new patio area. >> Let's talk about what it is today. >> I'm giving you I'm giving Rick another
softball here >> for the board to consider. I'm I'm just eliciting facts. So, how do they get from that parking space down to Trader Joe's? >> Yep. So, through the parking lot uh through again these handicap spaces over
here and then down steps. So, they're walking in a parking lot. >> Okay. They're walking. Okay. Now, whichever exhibit you want to use. >> Now, those parking spaces in the northern lot are in the same place. You
haven't changed them. >> How are they getting down to Trader Joe's now? >> Right. And that that lends itself. I was trying to say that the site would be more walkable and pedestrian friendly. just creating this uh this scaped area
uh that's lit that's paved and then access to to the staircase >> wider stair. >> Yeah. >> But walking and I understand you you say they'll have to walk further. I guess it's you know if you're walking back to your car from a from a Kali studio
that's one thing but if you have a whole uh you know cart of groceries you can't be walking you know I mean how are you supposed to carry that? You can't bring your cart up there. So, if you've got all your groceries, what are what are you supposed to do? >> I I mean, to be fair, that is exactly
what's happening at Trader Joe's. You know, we're not changing the pavement area or the parking spaces in this lower level, which is adjacent to Trader Joe's. Uh so, anybody who was previously walking up the stairs will will still have to walk up those stairs because,
you know, this area is going to stay the same. Uh we're not changing the number of park. We're actually adding one for big one. Um, >> but also the argument against like I don't think we can make an argument that because now there's no tenant there so everybody gets to use the upper parking
lot. That's kind of unfair, right? We can't >> it's not really a valid argument. Once there's a tenant there or when there was a tenant there previously presumably that parking lot >> we appreciate when motion fitness was there these folks did not you know provide
>> the same motivation of getting as close as possible and everything else that >> there's a competition there's a competition for those spaces that are closest to the stairs when motion fitness was there it will be you know they're con it's a convenience
people don't want to walk they want to be as close as possible possible. If they're pushing a cart, they're going to keep circling through that lower lot till they find a parking. >> Right. But now they're going to be 15 fewer spots >> up top.
>> Up top, not at the bottom. >> That's what I'm saying. But you're saying when motion was there, you know, those spots weren't there, but there were there were 15 more spots when motion was there. on those are now because the fire department I'm adding on the fire department which is taking
another so I'm just saying it's not quite the same >> we can advertise that if you're in a fitness place park further away then you get you get you get I address you
>> the what the undisputed testimony is is that there's plenty of parking there's a parking requirement that is very aggressive. You the board in 2009 granted 500 acres. There is plenty of parking.
That's the undisputed. There's plenty of parking. The undisputed testimony is also that what we're proposing is safe. There's no I don't think anybody is disputing that we have a safe sound design.
the point you make is a reasonable one, but it's simply a matter of convenience and and my client is suggesting that for business reasons, they think this is a very good design. I appreciate what you're trying to protect, but
we we we need a parking bar, but there's no dispute here that there's plenty of parking in these parking lots. I don't think anybody is making that argument. And we're also undisputed that it's safe. So, we appreciate that you have a different design view that the tra that
Trader Joe's the people who go to Trader Joe's should get to keep their very convenient uh parking. But I think there's another side that my client is coming to a proposal that's safe, there's adequate
parking, and they think it makes sense because they have to balance these other tenants. with chair permission and I'm sure there'll be a summation. uh the the the the um and maybe it'll be shorter now.
The the the the um just a couple of quick questions if the chair will indulge me and I apologize if board members still have questions and even my fellow board professionals, but the the uh the 29% uh uh underutilization in the northern parking area, that's per the
counts that were done back in the fall when uh the higher upper level tenency was vacant. Correct. Obviously, it would have been more. It wasn't vacant. It was more back when as you were saying when motion fitness was there.
>> Correct. The the there was a less of a vacancy in park. There were more parking spaces utilized >> area fitness was needed. >> Correct. Yes. >> They haven't been there for five years.
>> Right. Right. And uh right >> so the Trader Joe's customers has been spoiled for the last five years and there's been extra part right >> now they're gonna have to >> but our job is not geared to >> but I still have the question out there
why is that patio so big >> beautiful why you mean so much it's beautiful if I may I still have >> credit for it So, so, so factually that that that 29%
uh parking rate or vacancy rate whatever for the parking whatever you want to call it was when not when motion was. >> Um also the planning board reduced the required number of parking spaces at 583
uh because motion fitness was there or at the time motion fitness was there. Correct. Uh Charlie, yeah fist we thought was there in 2009. >> Yes. Yes. We we Yeah. >> So that was when there was a gym that did not have instruction that generally
requires more parking than a gym with instruction was there. So that that 583 has to be viewed in a certain way by the board. Uh it was a a set when there was a gym without instruction. Now there's a
gym with instruction that is understood to require more parking. >> Yes. And we we acknowledge that that the the parking requirement if we looked at the parking requirement for motion fitness versus the parking requirement for these instructional uses. We're asking for 31 additional parking spaces.
If we were just to compare those two >> Yeah. uses, >> it goes up to 704. And then I made the comment we'd like the the board to also consider those extra 2.9 or three. So we could put a medical tenant in there on the other side.
>> So the presumption is that the planning board 5883 would have been a higher number required uh uh of parking spaces uh than uh if they und if it were an instructional gym or a gym with instructional classes
as opposed to a general gym. Correct. >> Well, the ordinance didn't exist then. So it was it was the same. So you're like if the planning board in 2009 knew an ordinance was going to come into play later. Is that what you're asking?
>> It was a question for the witness the the uh >> is it your is your opinion that the gyms with instruction require more parking >> than gyms.
The total number of parking to be utilized by the new space area 60s something spaces that earlier. >> Um yes. So the um between the Jets Pilates and Barry's the ordinance
requirement would be 62 spaces. We found through discussions with the applicant based on maximum uh participants per class plus the maximum employees per shift that between those two uses we're finding that number to be about 69.
>> Yeah. So I roughly >> there's more than 70 spaces vacant in that. >> Exactly. So, what we're arguing or what we're testifying is that the um the vacancy within this parking area, which is relatively adjacent to the the
fitness uses, is is more than adequate >> to cover the employees >> to cover to cover the employees. And again, we are going to uh ask the Trader Joe's employees, the fifth floor employees, the employees for the fitness uses to all, you know,
park in this in this upper area to uh hope to alleviate some of the the other parking demands in the lower portion >> and and the property manager owner urban edge can of require that of those others or only
>> they can require it. They can use their best efforts >> because the leases are already in existence. You can't change them now, right? >> Yeah. I I think that and again to get the practicality, all of the tenants are going to have an interest in having their employees. It's
going to be a little more crowded at certain times. They're going to have an interest in pressing their employees to to a little bit park up there. So, we can use our best efforts, but we can't force a a change as an obese.
>> No, understood. Back to the board members. >> To make things easier, would it be possible to do some sort of ramp and you would have to sort of zigzag it to go from the lower lot to the upper lot or would not like that because they probably don't park all the way
>> that and I think that you're going to get into more parking space. >> I don't think there's enough space and if they were if you were to make it enough space, you're going to lose one. Yeah. Yes. >> So I just had a question of circulation assuming one enters the property from
the CVS side at this point in time you can and if you want to go to baries you got to go up that road. Uh but there is a stop sign there right now and there's a no left turn. uh and you know with most no left turn
signs people still do take the left right and so you know hopefully Barry is a successful enterprise and then traffic generated there but it's conceivable that people might come from the other side uh and get out from the CVS side so the question is I hope that stop sign as
well as the noturn sign still going to be there and >> yeah we don't plan on changing the access or uh internal circulation uh for the access directly to the site Obviously, we have some improvements here, but as far as access to and from the site, uh that will remain as it is
today. I just have a house cleaning and for our professionals is currently are parking spaces when you have two levels like that would a grocery store would they
have been allowed to go on that lower level with the amount of spaces or was it the total spaces and the reason I'm asking is because as we look at zoning maybe they should be considered in the future
maybe two different you know if you don't have access except to climb stairs with the additional parking so in other words a current grocery store right now would would that be allowed and that's something we can discuss later but for
the record I think we should this isn't the fault of you know this is that we're including all parking spaces instead of looking at the actual levels and does it make sense to put a that
kind of retail in a smaller space >> the I won't speculate or opine on the future conditions of what you're referring to but the way the ordinance is structured now uh parking is determined at a site level the the lot level so if there is sufficient parking on the lot um and if the parking
requirement calculations you know to be satisfied on the property itself not locations specific on the property Okay, >> Alison, I think you hit the nail there because if we were looking at this now and it was Trader Joe's that was applying for that space, I think a lot
of us would have a lot of serious reservations about allowing that. Now, to the extent that our zoning code allows it obviously, so that's something we should take the zoning code exam in some way and see if that's something we can fix for the future. But for today, we have to deal
with >> No, I agree. Just for the record, I think it's something that we should look at. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. >> When does when does the Trader Joe's >> Charlie Trader Joe's lease expiration date if you know? >> Oh, I I actually don't know that. I
apologize. >> I mean, if it's within a year or something, we could ask that the lease include a provision that the employees parked in the upper lot. >> It I I know it's not that near term.
It's It's maybe 20 to 30 years out. >> Will you still be on the board, sir? >> But uh my client has told me many times he's representing have a good relationship with them. There's going to be some change and and they're happy to have a conversation. >> Just confirm that that's correct.
>> Charlie, you you'll make good faith efforts to work with Trader Joe's. stand up to encourage employees to you party out in the in the open area. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> It needs to be looked at because
it's well known that in the downtown it's the uh employees of the stores that take up all the good spots. So, and you know, how do you enforce that? So, you know, it's not just it's going to take more than please do us a favor. It's going to take more than that.
I I agree with you. Trader Joe's is a tenant that as a company we have good relationships with both at this property and a few others. A brand new store that opened in Woodbridge uh and and a few others that I can't disclose but are in the pipeline. We can maybe work some
sort of side agreement one of those other deals if possible. >> That' be great. >> We appreciate that. We hear you. There's an element of good faith in all these things. It's planning. It's a I think Miss Campfield does recognize it's a tricky shop with a fiveyear vacancy, but
we think this is the best way to upgrade it and do something that's nice and and a beautiful place. Appreciating the concern that there's going to be some competition for the space. >> It's crazy there. I mean, I don't, you know, even the times you were there
Saturday, what did you say? 11 to 3. It's nuts over there at that time. And if you could get back with the date, certainly >> we're going to try to >> just a question on so on the opposite side of the shopping center, we went
from retail to medical space which increased the number of spaces. Would the same thing happen >> uh with could the same thing happen with the third tenant? Do we need to increase that as well? >> If that happened, we have to come back. >> Yeah.
If that happened, we we have it as general J now one per 200. So if we go above that, we know we're going to have to come back at another time. We come back with the classes for that third tenant, that's going to increase
and we're going to have to make another appearance. So you know, as a as an amendment uh in front of the board, 2.9 additional spaces over on that side. But if we go to medical or we go to classes in the third space here, we're going to
have to come back to you for for a new parking various. We're not we're not going to amend that on the fly. >> I suspect you're going to look for general gym. >> We've heard the concerns of weard my
clients here. part of his good concerns. >> One more thing, I'm sorry. U numbers for anticipated bike rides. You're in there and figure out how many actually bike racks we need. >> I don't. >> Okay. >> Sorry.
>> They don't have an ITV for bike rides. >> And honestly, it varies so much um for geographics like where places that are bike versus not bike. So >> I don't have anything for for >> if if whatever you guys can do for
biking around there. I eat my bike as well. I like take my backpack trailer. I go every day get my supplies for dinner whatever and I take my bike but I don't work. So anyway that's just anecdote. >> Um are there do you guys have any more questions?
>> Are there any questions from the public? Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> I think it's three for five and I keep going. >> Keep going. Let's keep going. Okay. I need one minute to talk about the EVs. Mr. Keller, you're on the oath still? >> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. You're here as a planner tonight? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Uh chairman, I know that he's been qualified previously. are his >> license remains a good standing. Correct. >> It is. I just think the 14 credits.
>> Okay. Uh Rich, you are sorry, Mr. Kelly, you are acceptable for this work as just a planner this evening. >> I I never really take off my engineering hat, but um my primary purpose is to do plan test. >> Thank you. And uh you you've looked at
the architectural plans that have all the details on the signage, Rich. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And I'm gonna I'm gonna sit down for a few minutes while you go through the bag. Okay. >> First thing I want to do is just clarify a few things that I hadn't se I was kind
of in late so I hadn't seen this exhibit mine very similar to draw on it a little bit. And so this would be a >> uh did we only do two? >> We're up to three.
>> That's today's date. So this is a uh this is an aerial photograph of the site similar to the last one. Last activity you saw. It's taken from nearmapath.com. It's taken on a Wednesday um roughly midafter afternoon and that would be
March uh capture date was March 19th 2025. Site basically is as it exists today. We superimposed over that um the property lines on. We also superimposed the three tenant spaces and the extent of the
plaza as it overlaps on the parking. And so obviously as was discussed they're looking to convert 11,032 ft of what was motion fitness. There's really no way to get a 10 and 70 meetingt back in through a narrow corridor. And the only way to really do
that was to open up that facade. There's one that's a little circuitous space three. will come in, walk down a hallway, and then open into uh 4,600 ft roughly. Um and the other the other two tenant spaces um for Baron and the Pilates really have more presence on
that new plaza we're creating. I will say that that um couple of things happens when we're trying to open up doors at grade into these 210 bases. Right now that floor is considerably higher than the existing parking lot. because part of the part of
the purpose of this plaza is also to mitigate that grade through a couple of steps well as sloping areas um to allow us to get from the parking lot up to at grade entrances uh that face the roughly the east. So when you ask why is that
plaza so deep part of it is to mitigate that slope. The other the other purpose was was intentionally to incorporate the stairs into the plaza so that you're no longer walking between um strike strip area for handicap and or fire zone. So you really separate it. So you're
walking up into this plaza area coming up you're coming down a series of stairs uh that's that's running along a new retaining wall. So it's natural grade just like you see now on the right side as you're going up on the left you have a wall that holds up that plaza. pause. I have actually I started working on
this property in 1983 to 85 when Irwin Aerman bought it from Gordon Taylor. Um at the time they worked with a worldrenowned architect to do almost like a a little high and mini mall 1988. Economy killed that. So we um we came
back and we put um the time Whole Foods took 32,000 ft well 11 petsmart uh and we had Trader Joe's when this was approved. By the way, Trader Joe's was not very successful. They were in Westfield. Um we had when when Foods
moved out wanted to do the 60,000 square feet space. Um Trader Joe's only wanted half of it. My wife actually did the demising plan, show Trader Joe's how they could actually use one loading dock with Pascar. Um, and then we we finally convinced the owner. We took him, Irwin
Acriman took him to Westfield. He still wasn't convinced that Trader Joe's would be successful. Um, I don't I think he was off on that one. Um, but clearly um, they they took I thought they had that talk at 15 16,000 square feet. Um, and they've been wildly successful and they
most successful every year. So, we'll talk about how, you know, how did the supermarket get there? Actually, this is half the size of what Whole Foods was. Um, but it was a different day. Um, with regard to the, uh, access, there are access points on the west side of the
building, east side of the building. Um, Miss Canfield's comment about, you know, there is a circulation problem at this entrance. Unfortunately, you can't move that driveway any further. First of all, you want driveways to be as far away from intersections so you don't cause uh conflicts in turning movements between
people entering and exiting and Myrtle Avenue, but also you've got significant total traffic change because Milford Avenue is dropping. So there's really this is the only atra place where you can actually put driver anything further besides the fact that you'd lose six to
eight spaces to do that. you'd also be um you it's an uneasy circulation pattern, but you would really kill it if you tried to move drive it further up. Um we looked back in 1988 and again when
um when when foods moved in and again in 95 or something like that, we've looked at it. There's really no way to get better circulation up in there. And it is true that over time the upper lot has become the overflow does not accommodate grocery carts. I will say where we're
losing spaces um you can see we're losing four existing spaces um where the plaza extending we're losing four spaces um in the striped area handicapped area or it's not really handicapped it's just
striped for fire lane we're losing four there fire department has asked us to take out three and these spaces if you've parked in the next row up um I'm pointing them to the um the second row of parking along the um the parking that's top of the main
drive um on the north side of the building. These are actually undersized because the radial the the narrowest dimension is undersized. What they're doing is they're restacing those and we're losing two on each of those. So they're really making the existing parking safer and less likely to have
door dings etc. So we're losing four and four is eight. two uh is 10. Another two is 12. Then we're losing two up in the area of the dumpster area. So it goes to 14. And then we're adding one space at
the bottom. So we're not picking the parking out, but we're adding one space at the bottom. We're plus one. So the net is uh this team that we're losing two in the west. Two just make it a lot safer. Four. Four. And then three, I can
request to the fire department, which I think if we came in for something on the CVS side, I think fire department will still come over and say, you know what, we've never been comfortable with proximity of the uh parking lot to the building, so we'd like you to lose three there. So, I think this is a safety
issue. The three is a safety issue that we really don't want to argue with fire department. They don't put their apparatus close to the building, but they know that how they're going to fight a fire. And um we're actually we're giving them a lot more room. the fact that they've asked around I think it's it's almost automatic they would
ask for three spaces to come out on the existing lot. So not all the spaces are coming out uh in this area. Some are being done, four of them are being lost just to make it better parking. The um so the variance requested regarding
parking um is for the number of spaces as was indicated um 704 is required. we don't consider the little medical office area. Um if we take out the four the three that the fire department has
requested. Um then we go from um yeah we go from uh removal of 19 uh 16 spaces which is a 19 space deficiency from the prior approval. Obviously those numbers don't quite work as Mr. Warner was saying air traffic expert has indicated
because um because there is a net increase to the shift but I think what's been clear to us because we've looked at this upper parking lot for for the last 15 years is that once you cross that drive aisle um there's a lot of there's a significant amount of spaces. There's
also a fair amount of spaces on the east end of that area. So, you know, I used to have these conversations with uh with the mayor, Sandy Hoff, who said, "We don't really have a downtown parking problem. We have a proximity proximity problem." Um where people can't park as
close as they want or we have sometimes a perception problem. It's not actually as bad as they I park downtown every day. Uh I go for lunch or I go for coffee. Um and I've always found that sometimes I have to walk further than I want to. My wife never pulls in this lot because it's crazy and she just drives
right up to Myrtle, makes the left and comes into what'sever available. Um, so I think people have gotten used to it and if I if if I or my wife knows we're going to do a heavy shop, we don't go during the rush hours. We don't park up here. Otherwise, we take just deal with
heavy bags. If we're doing a large shop, um, we will, um, find a spot at at off hour, park in the lower lot services. Um, look, the it's in the owner's best interest to make sure that um the Trader Joe's is happy for that 30-year lease.
And I think we're actually adding one space below. We can't do anything about circulation. I think actually the suggestion of removing the the large shrub bush that's up the bottom is a good one because people do coales in that that hangout area where they're not supposed to. Um, but they really can't
see when their spouse comes out. And so while I don't encourage people parking there, it actually limits visibility limits visibility for people who are moving out of there. So I think it's actually a good idea to remove that. It just frees up a little more visibility. And I think part of the problem in that lot is visibility. So with regard to the
um the parking spaces, we are a 19 space deficiency from the prior approval. With regard to the we also need I'll go to the part of your package. This is the architecture sheet number
A1. I have this uh dated 1213 2026 prepared by addressing architecture and design uh safety. >> So what's the title of it? Milton Gway Center proposed wall
graphics signage for new existing. So again, here's that demising plan of doing 4,000 for various 2200 for the remaining 4832 for the unnamed tenant which we've taken the belief that given the fact that most used to be
experiential and not um pure retail but we've taken the evidence we've assessed it at the higher rate of a gym class. So we're just assuming that we've been a little concerned gym. >> I'm sorry the gym's the gym. class. So,
um, we've kind of made the assessment that it's not going to be retail, that it's going to be a slightly higher component for GI. The existing signage on the building, there are um signs on the front that are 24 in in height for
both Trader Joe's and um, PetSmart. On the eastacing facade, the Trader Joe's letters, and this may be slightly different from the Arctic plan, we actually measure them today. The Trader Joe's letters are exactly 2 feet. And if you move over to the pets smart actually each of the letters is actually two
feet. Technically the way we calculate graphics now with the little squag and the circle and the and the diff it's actually that sign it would be technically considered five 4.85 ft uh in height. That's the existing pex. Although each of the letters is two feet
and I think it's probably just the way that calculated back in the day when it was approved. The uh the upper area the motion fitness has been removed from both facades. you have now is a rather blank facade. This really is the most banal facade um on the building possible
except right around the corner facing elevated Wyoming Avenue. We've got another loading dock. But this area here um is a very large blank facade. Keep in mind that this is the upper level relative to the primary Trader Joe's
Petsmart. This actually feels like a first floor. So whether we call this a first floor, that's a lower floor or the first floor, second floor, um the signage that goes up in here, we've applied for some variances because signs can't be above the first floor level. We're considering the lower plaza of your be first floor. We've got some
signage that's above that. So we're looking for v deviations or variances for both the height of the letters as well as the location being technically above the first floor line. Um, with regard to the actual signs proposed, I'll go to the uh
the grin groups A2. This is again gateway center proposed wall graphic signage for new existing appendix sheet A23 2026. You can see if we uh if we start at the
uh at the part of the property that's facing over an avenue, these signs are compliant. Um but the face now they're 2 feet. Um they are looking to move those um sign actually the sign G is the
PetSmart. Petsmart again the letters are two feet. The overall signage comes out to 3 foot seven in because of the little tail and the in the bullet. But the letters themselves. So we're looking to take those move them up the facade where
motion was at a much larger size. Um that was uh actually close to 8 ft I think with with all of the graphics on. So we're looking at taking Joe and PetSmart moving to the upper facade and we're looking at providing sign H I and J.
>> Those are two B hi and J just be two feet. >> Yeah. >> Okay. As I was just about to say, the signs are proposing for HI and J are for the new tenants up in the back and those are all fully conforming at 2. So there's no variances need for the sign of the sign proposed signage nor the
location of the signage for the new but we are bumping a couple signs up into that second floor. So again replacing a much larger motion fitness with the Trader Joe's moving up and then the three upper level tenants appearing in lie of the existing trader
modifications. If we come around the side and we start looking at the the here's the pets mark, you've got a loading area. I think this is a good exhibit of of how we're we're taking that lawn area and we're filling that little retaining wall. It does require
variance, but we're filling that area to extend that plaza. We extend out to get access both access and window visibility into these spaces to make them attractive spaces. So this you can see the new plaza infill is kind of highlighted in this drawing. And so with
regard to the proposed signs, we're looking to replicate the exact height that was approved in 2009 for PetSmart and Trader Joe's for getting the dippy do on the circle. We're looking at providing 3 feet by 15 for the Pilates,
the unnamed penant. And then obviously for the uh the barries we're looking for a sign that is 3 feet of depth letter and 25 and a half feet overall length. I would point out as is shown on the uh the allowable wall graphics area we are
considerably under what's permitted by code. So these songs could be longer or we could separate them and move one up higher and one down lower. There's things that we could do to possibly try to get around the ordinance, but um the
reality is these are really the most attractive signs. The signs are really appropriately scaled to the building side, which is why the board approved that 3T height back in 2009. The applicant at that time about 42 or 46 in I think uh and the board denied that,
but they felt 36 in was appropriate given the 360t from this facade to the nearest residential dwelling for us. um across uh Myrtle Avenue. And from the first place you can actually see this part of the building as you're coming west on
Milurn Avenue, it's over 400 48t away. Um actually yeah, it's 460 ft. So, I went out today and the first place was you're coming west on Milurn Avenue. Um, basically the driver's side of the right lane. It's
460 ft where you can see the farther side. Um, you're about 75 to 80 ft before Myrtle. So, you have enough you have some visibility. You can see it framed in the distance. Um, you can either decelerate and make the turn and come in or if you see it, you can come
back. Hopefully you don't go this way or you continue around start to navigate the site clockwise to find the parking up above. So given these distances 460 feet 360 ft um 360 ft actually from this
sign to the closest part of a canopy on the closest residence that's actually looking through some landscaping. Well, everybody else further up was looking through landscaping. So given the distance, I think that's why the board approved the 3T, you feel it's still appropriate today. I did the planning
for that. We did engineering for that back in the 2009ation. >> Rich, does that fall into the C1 or C2 basket of proofs. >> Right where I'm going right now. >> So we've got some variances for the location being above the first floor >> and some height. So we see this as being
all C2 variances. C2 variances being where the um uh personal keep in mind C2 um does not require a hardship. We always talk about hardship. That's a C1 variant where it's some hardship created by the property, the topography, the river, whatever shape of the property.
C2 varants do not need a hardship. Um the board can find that the proposed plan with the deviations advances. Um if the board can find that the proposed plan with the deviation represents a better planning alternative than a fully
conforming one, you would meet the positive criteria. Um the purposes of the land use law should be advanced by the deviation um from the zoning ordinance and the benefit benefits of the deviations in net should uh subst um the benefit should uh substantially
outweigh any detriment. Um under the purposes of the act that are advanced under municipal land use law 4055b2 there are about six of them that we have advanced. The first is safety. That's uh that's a that's the
reason it's it's it's uh it's first. We believe that um first of all the signage size of the letter is the minimum that can be seen for Miltr avenues to allow motorists to navigate uh safely into the area of new tenants. Um also the new
project does allow for the widening of the steps from roughly 3'2 in up to 8 feet and much more generous so people can go up and down with their bag and pass each other. Uh certainly a safer condition. Um we're actually, as we indicated, we're moving the access to
those stairs out of the parking area. Three access points to get into that stair area to get down. So you're no longer walking through a parking area to get down to that area. Again, that's safer. Um and then the uh as indicated we're actually creating a safer parking
lot more consistent with the uh the guidelines the dimensional guidelines in the ordinance body um making sure we have 9 ft across all these spaces at the nominal dimension so we're losing four spaces there. So those are really all advancements to safety. Um the proposed plan in net also promotes general
welfare, provides um the addition of nationally recognized high quality fitness and wellness brands and will increase uh uh traffic, foot traffic u as well as support neighboring business further Milburn as a desirable destination shopping, dining, health and
living. I'm reading that directly because I stole that right from um Explore Milbour's um letter their review perspective, but I agree with it. Steve said it better than I did. So I might quote give him credit. The um the uh
these two these two uses fill places for vacant for five years driveby train. It's never going to have vacancies that's so close to your downtown but then the bat store the entire building empty for close to six seven years now. Um vacancies don't do
anything. And I also um I'll get to that in a second. the um we also so that's A in both safety and general welfare. Uh we also advance G and that we're providing for a variety of commercial uses the needs of the community and New
Jersey citizens uh in general. There are very few commercial spaces um that are large enough um and have enough park to provide um this type of highintensity class training use. I haven't been asking uh clients have been asking me for years, I need more space. I need
more space. The uh the shops that are um uh in the B4 district in the downtown, they're not large enough and they there's absolutely no part. Um other areas you go up onto up onto uh Morris Avenue um to find something that's appropriate, but people are really
looking for something that's closer anchored to the downtown, closer anchored to the Wyoming section, South Mountain section. So you can encourage people to walk and ride bicycles. Um I'm still an avid believer if you put bikes racks in. So if you build it, they will
come. Um unfortunately I work at JB Fitness a couple times a week and I work at the J I work out a couple days at the JCC. I've never seen one person ride bike yet, but we're still hoping that they will. Maybe Gon will be he'll be the one to start the movement.
Um but I think that again there's an opportunity. We're providing for um a benefit to the community through a variety of uses. Um it also it's a healthy use. We're promoting uh we're advancing um overall health in the community providing these kind of spaces. The only other similar sim
similar piece of barrier is the orange theory. Much smaller in scale much smaller classes harder to get classes uh and they have parking lot that's really severely limited in its dimensions. you park back there, you're going to get your doors. And that's part of the reason why we're reconfiguring these
four spaces. So, we're also providing a desirable visual environment through creative techniques and pieces of design. I love planner, somebody who's used this for years. It it does a number of things. It mitigates that slope and it provides an opportunity for some coalesing people. Some people hang out,
most people know afterwards. Besides providing that that uh variety of the topographic change to get into the building um it opens up that whole facade. I think uh as was shown um I think this was already ex in the exhibit correct?
>> Yeah that's in a package. >> So as you can see um it's this part of the building which I showed you before which was really on uh the previous exhibit which is really kind of blank and banal. You can see the grade change from curb up to it's hard to see.
There's a about a three foot grade change up to the building level um where motion fitness was, but it's really the most unattractive. I I firmly believe when I hit train, I like to see the back seats of buildings. I like to see them look as good as the fronts. I think this
does that. This corner opens up the corner, opens up the next, allows people to safely maneuver off of the uh off of the the paved area and out to the stairs or up into the buildings. Again, this is sloping up. So, you got some steps and it slopes up at a reasonable rate, less
than 5% to get into the building. So, it is a handicap accessible once you get to this point. Think it's a great motion to uh provide access from the handicap that's in front of the uh um the uh rehab place um the physical therapy
place. Um, as was indicated, um, I think people indicated, um, the parking lot that's further down, it's all greater than 2%. Anywhere from three to 4%, you have to have 2% areas for handicap. So, none of that is viable. I think it's a
smart move to put it between the old motion fitness entrance and the physical therapist. >> Rich, uh, Graham pointed out the variance for the height of the wall. Is that sort of part and parcel to the creative civic design here? >> Yep. All all part of the uh the C2 where
on balance all of these things add up. They're still attractive. That wall is still attractive. Um and lastly um the uh as indicated in terms of statics significant upgraded building on both the sides of Myrtle Avenue and train line increasing the green space slightly
at least in terms of planted areas that were visible um and a more attractive landscape plan rather than very heavy that that kind of building now >> rich to to wrap up any impacts on the master plan here. Last I will say is we're advancing conservation of open
space because I'm not going to let them not going to be pushed around here. >> We've got a large open area. We could provide we could put another more than an acre of paved surface on this property and not go over the 85%
coverage. Um to do so would be pointless because we're we'd be adding pavement to an area where we don't need it. Um right across from the Myrtle Avenue. So any attempts to meet the parking demand by by providing more parking would really be a negative to would be certainly a negative toward the residents. So we
think >> this is like saying speaking of negative negative criteria would be >> negative criteria. Well we think there is um there's no substantial detriment to the public good. Um this only is a benefit and the architects and the engineer have mitigated away really any
possible negatives. We're agreeing to work with the uh uh your township engineer, the airport engineer on the lighting levels. Um I was the cowboy that said it's it's aspirational. Um one foot candle is aspirational. If you're really even across the parking lot, the
the the response is you either make your lights taller and brighter to get more uniformity or you make them smaller and add a lot more of it. So obviously we've indicated that we're going to try to get closer to the town requirements and uniformity is absolutely most important much more important than the average
breakfast. So we're willing to work with the town on that with regard to the uh no substantial uh um effect on the uh the zoning plan and zoning ordinance. We think this only advances the major domestic plan goals and objectives on page 43 of the master plan
reexamination. Um we still maintain that this is this promotes the character of town with small suburb of the highest quality. Um objective 102 is for both the appropriate mix of uh development uh in other downtown and other commercial area which this is to maintain and enhance
economic vitality in the downtown and other business district which is chapter 4.01 promote opportunities for high quality retail and commercial activity in all business districts. Maintain a 402 is maintain a public scale of all in all of our big business districts. This
does it's very un scale as was uh shown on the partyier divid package and finally uh leverage opportunities for new commercial development or redevelopment existing properties where appropriate this building needs some redevelopment uh and strengthen the existing business center. So we think
that it advances multiple facets of the purposes of the land use act required to meet positive criteria under C2. We think it's a better uh planning alternative than trying to meet some of these requirements such as signage or
parking. We think that um in the uh in the final analysis, we think net net this is a vast improvement to the site. >> Rich would two new EV spaces when they're not required also help to further the public good. Well, I would
say um if you look um Kia just um announced their shelving their next two EVs due to lack of interest and um Paris. Um EVs have not been selling well certainly in the current economic climate. They're not they're not
encouraged. Um I'm all for EV8. Um my next car will be an EV. >> Rich, we got it. >> But just offer two EV spaces. We got >> I didn't know we'd offer >> Yes, that's what I said. We're two easy spaces. >> I said two easy spaces
>> which we're offering. >> It's a waste of money >> or help brother. Good. Just a yes or no for me. >> Yes, sir. >> Appreciate that. >> In conclusion, Rich, >> we think it's Do you think it's an opportunity to improve the site? Net net. It's a huge improvement over what's
existing. Lighting can be put on a sensor so that it can be very low. When someone walks on the site, they mid height. So we can work out the lighting issues for safety, security. Um we want to create create attractive nuisance, you know, attractive buildings. If they
become attractive nuisance, there's way we ways we can handle that through lighting and other methods. Um you know, skateboarders do get them occasionally, but I think we can work. I think it's a great opportunity and I hope you approve of the variances. >> Any questions for the board?
>> So yeah, just quick question. So, as you pointed out, if we didn't grant the parking variance, they could just paid over some of the pvious coverage, make more impervious coverage and >> have more unutilized spaces, but we
would meet the requirements. >> It's a better it's a better plan. >> Quick clarification if I could. the signs on the eastern side of the building. Trader Joe's is three feet or two feet. >> Trader Joe's is the letter to I'm sorry.
3 ft. >> Three feet. Okay. Okay. I did say that wrong. It's 3 ft. Exactly. Both Pets Mark and uh Trader Joe's letter. >> Okay. >> Can I call you? Scale looks good. Three feet. Berries dead set looks good. All
right. >> Design is nice. What kind of building materials metals radio? >> Um, we pretty much always try to um to use sustainable materials, recycle what we can from the existing building. It's just smart and more economical. U always
low or actually no VOC um paints and raw materials etc. Um all the all the new HBAC will be um energy star compliant. So to the extent possible, I don't think we're using any um true recycled
materials. We're really punching openings and we're adding some metal canopies. I think everything inside you know just good good business practice from all professionals any question from the publication we we've addressed identical issues just
we have our uh architect and the batteries and jet set it doesn't sound like we need further questioning you like that. I'll I'll >> You know what? I'm sorry. One quick thing, my apologies. There were some other reports just to make sure that's covered on the uh record. Uh the fire
officials report of February 24th, 2026. I assume you're stipulating to all 11. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh we have the uh Forester no comment. I'm sorry. Forester species selection.
>> We addressed that instead. That was the reason that we would work with the forester and your designated to get >> Mr. Gillow's uh pro business letter. We got that the the um
police department. No further concern. Uh and the environmental commission had recommendations, vegetation, waste management, parking, storm water management, building materials. You've considered those to the extent you're stipulating to any if
any uh you've already addressed. >> Yeah, I don't think there was anything in there. We both remove Mr. Keller, >> right? >> Mr. Keller, not that place of black there. >> Black for the correct Mr. Sheller and
Keller, excuse me. And uh and we have our uh engineers report and obviously you satisfied Mr. PTO with respect to his report. So, thank you, Mr. Ch. Thank you. I don't know if we're done yet. I'm I'm never done, but I'm
done now. >> Is it Does anybody have any discussion items for the board or should we have Steve kind of sum up what we >> I'll sum it up. I didn't know. Are you done by summation? I mean, we want to give you some time to get to the next. I
think the board understands what the applications are. >> I I'll give a run through on the relief sought and the conditions stipulated to as I have them and anyone and everybody can correct me where I'm wrong or let me know what I missed including Mr. Stone will not be shot the um I have the
relief as amended preliminary and final site plan approval. Um both variances for minimum number of parking spaces uh 704 technically required and uh 560 what was the ultimately we were doing 564
provided >> right and then 704 we went up with the other 2.9 >> uh 703 70 required >> uh and 564 provided >> after the aftering the brief from the
fire department. Um in addition to that parking variance, maximum facade sign height 2 feet permitted, 3 ft posed for the four signs. Uh designated location of signs, graphics may not extend above
the second floor line or roof line. Uh and uh about all the signs uh on the well obviously on the second floor or the upper of the two uh require that bearings. Minimum number of loading spaces uh two exist no change but four
required minimum parking setback right of way uh 20 ft is required 9.1 exists and no change proposed also the uh wall variance wall variance retaining wall variance uh 13.5 ft at it highest
elevation uh and six feet maximum permitted. So that's the bulk variance there. Uh as well as the two design waiverss minimum pause for a second. Does the 13.5 ft include the height of the security fence? It's a combination. >> Do we count the uh
>> it's a yes combination? >> Add four. So >> may not be that high, but make it for shown >> 7.5 total height. We just need that. >> We just need the total height for the
variance. 17.5 proposed to include the guard rail screen above uh six feet maximum. Those are the variances. Site planned waivers or design waivers minimum parking stall size a 9 by8 for existing and one new 9
by19 required and average light intensity within security areas uh 1.66 versus between.5 and 1 foot candle. There were other design waiverss uh stated with respect to illumination
average etc. I'm going to rely on the record for those. The magnitude of those. I can assure you they'll be correct in the in the uh uh uh in the resolution of approval. It's approved stipulated conditions. All those set forth in the various reports that we've
just addressed as well as the following additional stipulations uh which were made this evening. Three bike racks. um install uh a security camera uh per uh
police department consultation. Uh the uh security level lighting uh per uh consultation with and subject to the review and approval of the engineer and the police department. Um, bear with me
because we forgot I did not go with the uh uh lighting being shut off uh between uh midnight and 5:00 a.m. on trash receptacles in the pedestrian area or excuse me pedestrian plaza.
Um the uh security level lighting uh will be subject to the review and approval of the board engineer and the police department and the board engineer will also uh have reviewed approval over the lighting uh on the pedestrian plaza. We had that discussion. There may be one
more maybe lower level. uh a board fence enclosure for the compactors six feet high to be shown on the plans with protected ballards and a person gate.
Um the uh guard guardians guard rails on the staircase uh and penmanship uh lessons for Steve. Uh the um and see I think that
the employees of Trader Joe's, Pets Smart, and all the tenants uh will be good faith encouraged by the uh owner manager uh of the plaza to park in the
northern portion uh or northern portion of the upper parking level area. uh and uh that good faith effort will utilize the relationships and leverage that that party has with respect to the
aforementioned tenants. Um uh and think that's >> we've agreed to two EV spaces. >> Two EV spaces. Yeah. Right now >> I think we sp five. >> Did we get up to five?
And they >> used to >> I heard this kind of like when I used to ask for allowance. >> I'd ask for $50 a week. My father say $40 $30 for three. Three was a number we could come >> three bikes. But is that only three
bikes or is that three bike racks? >> Three racks rack. Three racks. >> How many on a rack? >> How many bikes? >> You know how many per rack? >> Two. >> Two. It's a couple per rack. >> Okay, we got you need a different
>> Okay, two empty spaces. We got that. >> Um, >> any other stipulated conditions that I missed? >> Seeing and hearing none, that's the relief that's the conditions if the board is amendable to approving with alum stipulated conditions. Uh, and of
course, it's a majority for passage five out of nine. >> So moved. Oh, no. >> And you're certainly allowed to have deliberation. >> Oh, I'm sorry. But not required. >> Are there any? Yeah. >> Any further comments or any discussion from the board?
>> All right. Then we'll go back. >> Whatever Steve said. So moved. Do I have a second? >> All right. Can I have a roll call vote, please? >> Jonathan Baxter. >> Yes. >> Allison Canfield? >> Yes. >> Michael Cohen? >> Yes. >> Jorge Master Pedro? Yes. >> Deborra Neas.
>> Yes. >> Frank Sakamandi. >> Yes. >> Michael Zion. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Serini VJ. >> Yes. >> Chair Gustin Harder. >> Yes. >> Thank you. We appreciate your time. I knew I could do it in 45 minutes.
>> That was a lawyer's 45 minutes. >> Thank you again. We appreciate your time in the comments. If >> we can have it quiet only because we have more business to do, please. like to make a motion to extend testimony past 10:00, not to exceed 10:30. Our
bylaws don't allow us to take new witnesses after 10. We're going to take a new matter, Mr. Chairman, with witnesses and go to at least 10:30 for now. >> So make a second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> All oppose. Motion pass. >> Yes. You have representation for application 2600 minor subdom 33 West inch LLC 33 West Road 2801
16 and 45. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and good evening members of the board. My name is Stepheni and I'm the attorney representing the applicant of 33 West LLC. though I could say that I'm glad Mr.
Sknick was not under oath. That was the longest 45 minutes I've ever but uh I appreciate you much appreciate you extending the time tonight. We will be quick. This is a fairly straightforward application with one witness.
Although I do have my client here in case there's any questions for him. But with that being said, we are seeking tonight a minor subdivision consisting of a lot line adjustment between two existing conforming lots. So no new lot is being created tonight. Both both
plots will be will be fully conforming to all B requirements in the RO R4 zone and no variances are are saw tonight in connection with our application. So, the purpose of the adjustment is to reallocate upland area to lot 16 uh in
connection uh with a proposed new single family home while leaving the environmentally constrained wetland area uh largely consolidated on lot 45. Um we are uh also uh aware that the township
has a drainage easement going back to 1937 um which handled anything in existence at that time in one of the tenants of your engineer uh was to codify that in in a new 2014 easement which uh if
necessary we are certainly willing to do uh for uh the approval tonight. Uh, with that being said, what I really want to do is turn it over to Mr. Keller, who we just heard from, uh, who's our engineer, and we'll >> go through the exhibits. He will be have
to be sworn >> and before he's sworn, I'm just going to let the records reflect that I did review the notice. I found the content to be sufficient found it to be timely served certified mail February 20 as with the prior application and as proven again in my opinion particularly in this
February uh time frame here we're switching over March one's going to be a little bit of a new notice statute for applicants uh it was published in two papers both the star ledger on February 17 and the item uh on February 19th all those dates being at least 10 days prior
to this evening so the board does have jur jurisdiction to hear and decide the application this evening. I'll swear in Mr. Keller as well as our board professionals again >> and and I'll also like to my client just in case there's any questions for him uh representative of the applicant. >> Certainly all four of you will raise
your right hand to all four of you. Swear to God or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you all. Please uh with the chair's permission, please proceed. >> Great. Thank you, counselor. Uh so I'd like to call Mr. Keller as my first witness. He'll be acting as a civil
engineer tonight. And again, if you want to give the board your qualifications, then I'd ask the chairman to qualify him as a professional civil engineer. >> Yep. I have a licensed uh engineering plan in the state of New Jersey since 1990. I was a bachelor of science in civil engineering with a concentration
in water resources and environmental engineering from Ruck University. I also hold a masters in architecture with a concentration in urban planning and design and as you technology where I was also an adant professor both graduate undergraduate vision for approximately
11 years I appear for this board of adjustment approximately 110 boards for the city of New Jersey. I've also provided uh consulting uh engineering services to uh the south orange village as well as I was the engineer for three
years for the um for the long hill township. I've also provided planning testimony uh professional services to the board of adjustments in Coldwell a couple years ago for two years. My licenses are in good effect and it's always nice to be back and this time I
promise I'll be more brief. >> Court finds you acceptable as a professional civil engineer. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. So Rich, why don't you take us through the existing and conditions and what we're proposing with the wild adjustment? Well, first of all, I want to I want to make sure because I see we
have some neighbors who have kind of endured the whole the whole first application. And so I want to make sure it's clear um that the area that is at the bottom back of the property, what is primarily um lot 45 that's off of Laurel
Fort um is uh is not going to be built. There's nothing that can be built on that. Nothing that will be built. So we are um observing the steep sulfur area that comes off the laurel will not be touched and then we've had the wetlands delineated. We have a letter of interpretation that's been applied for.
Once we get it's been probably six eight weeks once that comes through we will provide that to um your board professional as well as the uh township engineer um for their for their use and obviously any uh any deed
restrictions that are uh part of that um would be uh would be filed at appropriate time and verified by your township. The um the purpose of uh of the subdivision as indicated uh by my term is that it's to transfer right now
the existing lot line the small lot uh that exists on West Beach and the larger lot um is off of Laurel and we're looking to basically uh take 14,171
square feet um from Laurel Court 45 transfer it over to lot 16 resulting in lot 16.01 which is along the blue line which is just outside of the wetland. So there'll be no wetlands located on that property. Uh there is a transition area.
Uh we're looking at possible trans looking at a transition averaging plan to get a little more buildable space behind the building as it's provided by DB and we would be trading off some buildable area that sits behind uh one of my previous clients uh the resolution
in lot 14. Um, so really nothing can be built behind block 15. No house can be built on lot 45. It's really about transferring some of that upland property onto this property and eliminating what um uh really just
making it for a more buildable lot. You know, the lots already exist as two lots today uh two fully conforming lots um and they will be um two fully conforming lots and all located in the R4 zone. um throw just a lot in just I'm happy to
answer any questions. I will say that um yeah about uh two weeks ago. Um by the way I apologize this drawing is not what's in your package. This is our drawing minor subdivision flat 32 truck road. Uh it is originally dated 105
2026. It's got a revision date of 219 2026 and the revision was eased. So why don't we let's make that A1. Yep, that's our A1. So, uh, back on the 19th, uh, the township engineer approached me, while we do have a blanket easement that
allows for any pipes that existed back in the late 30s, um, there's an existing pipe that drains West Beach Brock down through the mix corner of the property and discharges behind our property. There are no other known pipes that discharge off of beach into that area.
There is a fair amount of drains that comes off a world court as well as morning type court that drains into this through this area through what sometimes looks like a pond is pretty much always a wetland that's really part of a sort of panic drainage that's laurel courting
side and the beach and so since the easement from 1937 I believe was a blanket ement talk about pipes in existence at the time engineer asked that we codify that making a 20ft ement tent for either side of an existing pipe
So that um if the town goes through with dissipated drainage improvements in Beachcraft Road, they do have the right to increase the size of that pipe. Yeah, they will. It's 10inch pipe, very steep, which is a lot of capacity, but um it gives them a flexibility. They can go in
and it defines that even 20 ft or there was no width on. So um my client agreed to uh to work with the challenge to ride it. So that's the shaded area. You see a triangle on that's 668 square ft 20 ft wide 10t on each side of the pipe
traverses to our property >> on that. >> I'm sorry. Did you say the 668 is being uh dedicated to township or >> it's being it's part of the it's not being dedicated to township. It's part of the ements area 668
>> and that easement area is outside. So see the um what we found is 20 foot um width um of shaded area 10 foot on either side of that pipe that runs from each crop into the adjoining lot 18 and
we've shown 10 foot on either side of it and that shaded area is the area we're defining by meets and bounds. I >> I guess my only question if I may chairman is is it wasn't on the original it's on this one. What uh uh what's changed? Is it outside the existing lot?
Is it or >> it crosses the lot? The the in the inlet is not on the property. The outfalls on the property, but we know that the pipe crosses assuming there's a linear connection to it. We know that the pipe crosses. So, so nothing changed other than you've shaded the area that you
believe to all uh be part of the drainage easement area because the pipe is understood to assumed to be there. Correct. >> Accurate. >> Correct. The the township engineer wanted to make sure that there was clear
rights for the township >> to do work on that pipe. You know, I didn't know that there was a blanket easement. I don't know if she did. She wanted to have a definitive easement. They've agreed to provide it.
The pipe is already there. So that's that's what they're doing, >> right? And then the shaded area better identifies the location >> of it. Okay. Now I got it. >> Right. It'll be a meets and bounds. So we're not giving up ownership of that property part of this. But I will say
that is outside the buildable envelope for any home. It's outside most of it outside. It's accessible >> accessibility structure. Um but it does at least the town because we have a blanket with no width. It's 10 ft. It's 5t 8 ft. So this defines it as being 20
ft more than that allow work store it um work on that. >> No barriers relief required but might actually be a benefit. >> It is benefit but there's no there's no benefits to the community but there's no uh there's no barriers. >> I have a question. You you said that
nothing could be built behind block 15. Uh why is that? Like you've drawn the setbacks but just avoiding that section. >> Well, you see you've got you've got a a line that's a a 50 foot wetland transition area. >> So there's a little bit of a an old area
that currently you could put an accessory structure in. Um however, by the time you factored in your your 12oot offset, um you'd be left with very little. The reality is what we're looking at doing is pushing back the uh
the transition area to get a little more room behind and we'll dedicate much of that area to an expanded transition area which means that everything behind lot 15 um would be um not developable. I would say a principal
home could not be develop but could not be placed back there. Currently, you could fit a small accessory structure like on any property back there. But once we do the anticipated transition averaging plan, uh that whole area will be swapped for a little more buildable area right
up to the steep slopes area behind us. So again, um that's not where a principal the principal structure is going to go pretty much biased to the minimum setback, but it does allow for some use of the backyard in terms of accessory structure. >> This is like a legal question. What's the status of what you just said
>> in in shortand if I can kind of assist here basically >> people won't let you do it >> you can't build in the transition area what they're proposing to do is swap some of the transition >> I understand you've had that verbally undertaken but there's nothing on my map that says that I'm just wondering what the legal status of
>> well the transition averaging >> no I'm understanding is he giving us a stipulation that this is not going to happen or >> actually let me let me withdraw it's currently our intent the follow through of the transition average. We may or may not. Right now, I will say that no no
principal no part of principal dwelling could be built behind lockers. We may do some swapping as as Graham said to get gave up a little transition area right behind the house and increase the transition area to the wellness over
behind 15. Um 15 is the client. had a long discussion with them today. Um, look at clients, make sure they were comfortable. As with all my clients, I do a lot of work in the area. Whenever I start work, tell them I'm going to protect my other clients because it's
really protecting the same. So, I would say I'm not stipulating that we will do a uh we will do a uh um a um transition averaging or we'll continue transition averaging. But I can say that no part of a principal dwelling
could realistically be placed behind lockd >> and just if I can also ask a clarifying question Mr. Keller is that subject to review and approval by the transition averaging. So there is another level of approval of that state to >> so we've actually requested but whether
we you can request the transition we've we've gotten the we've requested the LOI that's the letter interpretation that that DP signs up and agrees to the extent of the wounds. We've also requested an LOI six eight weeks ago. Um that is an option we can get from the
DP, we can act on, we cannot. Most likely we will, but I would not like to stipulate at this time. What I would say um as I just indicated relative to the previous question no part of a principle behind >> we use
that bann will get >> but even you'd have more than 12 set back on the side, right? So, we do in the R4, but I didn't know about an ADU until I
visited my son in Portland and the owners built an ADU right behind and moved to the new one and rented the front house to my son. Incredible. Two little houses on one. But also just for clarification in the documentation I submitted, there was a
2009 application for the zoning board on the the pre pre-existing home for a sideyard variance for a patio. The house has been demolished. So right now it's it's a vacant lot. So any any construction on that property would be
subject to a lot grading plan and and going back to the town for permitting and whatever. So while the variance runs with the property, I'm not sure that's going to be come into effect when the house is constructed on on >> if it's vacant land, it's
been banned. >> The barrier. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So we we actually the the previous language was the patio lot. So, by moving by moving the lot line to the, you know, so how much how much extra
square footage does that allow the new house to be built? >> Well, you're adding uh 14,000 square feet um times 14. So, probably 2800 total something. Let me let me grab my phone. >> I assume there are no plans for that
house that are final. Yeah, I >> am. We're still waiting for D approval. So you could the house footprint could be an additional 1900 foot larger. Not that it will be, but it could be. It's really more about right now the
difficult thing about developing this property is um getting some accessory uses behind the property um where you can kick into this area. So it's really constrained more on the uh on the ability to develop
uh accessory programs in the backyard which are typical to the >> So there is an existing house right out there right >> which was just demolished just looks like >> yeah we we we prepared these plans back
in November. >> Okay. So in essence just giving it a bigger yard >> because the other lot is unusable. >> It's unusable. It'll remain unusable. It remain under Tom and ownerships gives
the owner the flexibility to either um you know there there is a general perception if you tell people you have a property and it's for sale it's got weapons on it, they won't come look at it. This way you have a larger property doesn't have any wealth on it and the new buyers can either buy it and add it to it which case they'll get it right
back or they'll use it because if they they wouldn't really want to ever combine the combine the two you would have accessory stuff in the front yard from Laurel court. So these will always stay individual lots. Uh it also allows the flexibility of either this to be sold off either or uh and the mayor may
know better. Um there's been some talk at least by the business administrator since they are going to be uh looking to increase drainage in the beach area, put more water back in here. They know they get more park. They know it morning side actually using open space funding to possibly make this part of the township's property since they use it
for storm water man. But allows flexibility for any of those three. >> Excellent. question for my uh or our our professional. Did the township say anything about purchasing it? And was
this area large enough if they did uh have any intention to buy it? Like did they need to purchase more? My concern is this this lot was cut off in the south here and it's just steep slope behind it. Uh
any idea why it was originally cut off from or not included in that front property like not that I'm aware of. We when we had the DRC meeting we did discuss um that the township may seek to acquire
it. If you note that lot 44 also on Laurel Court is a vacant lot probably you know that also has I'm sure a wetland area on it as well. >> It's a huge bas all contiguous. Yeah. >> Um so
that was not part of my discussion with the county of engineer. Her concern was the drainage easement. So you know happy to see that added. Um, I don't really have any questions because there's not a lot here. It's just moving a lot like
and I think with the demolition of the house and that voiding the prior variance, the conditions that went with that prior variance are also null and void. >> Um, and that if they because the
variance was for the patio and it was a condition that they pro maintain a evergreen buffer. Well, if you don't have a patio, then there's there's no basis for requiring, you know, but that's a legal issue and I'm not getting
into that. You guys deal with that. I just, you know, I had put that into my memo because I didn't know the house was the model. Well, the condition says the applicant shall maintain the existing evergreen buffer shown on sheet L2 of the Davies plant for so long as the
patio continues to exist on the northeast property. >> There you go. It's not there anymore. >> I would point out the reason that the prior owner, Carol, went for the variance because they were so limited in the back. They couldn't get a patio in the location. So, they asked for
permission to put it on the side. We're we're we're trying to eliminate that possibility and our intent is to come with a fully compliant application. Uh, and part of the way we're doing moving accessory stuff into the backyard rather than the sideyard like the proposed is by expanding that lot area in the
possible transition a >> and and it's possible you'll have accessories a one or more accessory structures whatever the ordinance allows uh uh in that new a portion of the new area
>> uh to the extent it is not prohibited by setbacks. from correct property the new property course >> we'll meet all the setbacks and we're going to put the accessory stuff where it belongs in the backyard >> and I take it and maybe our professionals can weigh in with the
chair's permission I'm sorry for jumping in but uh that um it would be impossible for a portion of any principal structure which presumably could be larger now on a larger lot uh 1900 square feet larger
I guess uh no portion of that principal structure would be in the newly transferred area but only an accessory structure would be there or could a portion of the principal structure. >> There is something here that is showing
you like >> you could but >> since the ordinance the township ordinance requires accessory uses to be in the rear yard then putting the principal use that far back you know then where do you put the
accessory structure? So, you know, um >> I mean, if you didn't do the lot line adjustment, it would be two lots and the owner can extend the principal structure as far back as he wants. Even if he goes over the pro over the lot line, then the lots would have merged.
>> Then they would have merged by >> consolidate the lot in order. >> No, but you No, an owner can do it because I've looked up this. I have a case law not to but I looked it up. If it's done, it merges automatically. Oh, well you're talking about the locker doctrine for automatic
>> automatic but they're back to back lots. >> It doesn't apply. >> Locker doesn't apply. >> Locker does not apply to >> So it's no automatic merger. Obviously we don't want to merge it. No, we don't need we don't need that big a house. We don't want to merge it because then I
run into the issue if I start to put accessory stuff back here. Now it's in the lower court front yard even though it's 400 ft away. So through lots are really not anticipated fire ordinance and they're not treated well. So we're trying to we don't want to do it through lot. We don't want to consolidate them. We'd like to have a lot that is wetland
free and give the people the people who own it before the humans created a wonderful little Japanese garden down there. I don't know how they got rid of mosquitoes, but they had a wonderful little Japanese garden. Um maybe the next owner will too. I don't know. Or maybe you know my client has to decide what the whether they're selling the
property, what they're doing with it. But um it allows some flexibility um and preserves that lot 16.0 lot 45 lot. >> But it's not just a bigger yard, it's a bigger house too, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> And point with respect to as it's shown on the plan, Mr. Keller. So is it correct that the the wetland transition area line actually comes forward of the rear yard setback line? So really, you know, it's it's resolving the wetland trans
the encroachment in the transition area that is really kind of dictating the depth of the house, I'll say, >> correct. >> So, so you know, we have kind of competing approvals in that the state regul the state regulatory framework for the wetland transition area is actually a greater rear yard setback than our own
rear yard setback. So propos a series of >> conrainting they're going to reduce the wet land uh gap on the >> right to allow them to at least get to our municipal recept. So there's a series of approvals is what I'm saying >> but you can only reduce the transition
area by as much as you can compensate it someplace else >> and you can't reduce it by more than half the width of the transition area in this case 25 >> ft. >> Right. So there are >> there are a series of constraints. >> Yeah.
>> Constraints that will protect and maintain that wet land in the back. >> That's the case then that's actually going to more or less fill in that >> corner. Squares it off basically. >> Yeah. But I would say fill in from a
geometric perspective, but we're not we're not filling that area with soil. When I say fill, I just mean that the amount of area that you if you want to go back to 25 ft >> behind the existing lot 16, >> 25 ft into the wetland transition area,
that much area that you take out pretty much fills. If you're going to add it back on the left, >> it's going to take that little flag part of the lot is basically going to fill all that in. >> No, no, no. I mean the the averaging process if I understand correctly the D
is going to approve is you can build closer to the wetland over here if you give all of that area back somewhere else. >> Correct. Correct. >> Yes. Equal >> and if that area gets given back the only place it can be given back because there's only one to do it is over here on the left. >> Right. >> As the other Mr. Keller said has to be
an even swallow area and a maximum >> and but but was also like Graham indicated what starts to dictate is your rear setback. So, you can't put your principal structure back there, nor would you want to. Um, so I don't think you because of the constraints on its setbacks, I don't think you're ever
going to get that extra, 1900 square feet. It's really more about creating a more usable yard, >> right? But the point is the lot line where it is now. You still have that usable yard. >> Well, don't forget I've got 25% rear yard unoccupied.
And so when I start to bundle 20% coverage rear and 25% rear and occupied I get where I can get a house in but I've got area but I don't have enough 25% rear and occupied start putting stuff. So this 14,000 foot adjustment helps helps us breathe a little. When
you say start putting stuff >> accessory structure accessory structure doesn't have >> you have to have you have to have a 36,000 foot backyard to start with a with a tennis court and our whole lot is
only 21,000 going up to 34,000. So you would never do a tennis court, not a pickle ball court. Pool would a small pool possibly more really gives us the ability to do appropriate patios to the back of this house and keep them out of the side here.
>> Yeah. Okay. I guess we're done with >> Yeah. Motion to extend another 15 minutes. >> Second 10:45. Is that okay? >> All in favor? >> All opposed.
Passes. >> Um, >> is that the end of your direct? >> That's the end of my direct, please. >> Uh, any questions? >> I got >> Everything was covered in the engineers report.
>> What little was in there? Yeah. >> Well, wait, wait, wait, wait. Board members, board professionals first. >> The the the um >> and I think the uh uh fire officials comment with respect
to tax department for verification. No articulation for that. >> Yes. >> No comment from the forester. No comment from the police department. Uh and the environmental commission recommendation was proposed recently may enable future
development. Uh I'm not an expert. Something to do with wetlands and storm water. Mr. Keller recommendation. Uh consider the long-term environmental and storm water management value of the parcel. Maybe beneficial to the county
to explore acquisition. Okay. So that's not necessarily a recommendation to you. >> We see environmental commission also. >> All right. Yeah, that's what I was just referring. I think that covers the uh all the reports. >> Is this your only witness?
>> This is my only witness. >> Are there any questions from the public for the witness? >> From the public. >> Comment and question. Yes, we'll get into depth, but that'll be the next step. >> Well, you can actually combine them discretion of the chair if you want. You could ask questions. I can comment. I
could swear you in >> when you're ready. >> Would you like to stand? >> That's fine. >> If you could just give us your name and address. My name is Jennifer and I'm at 30 West
>> 30 West Beach. Please raise your right hand and swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. And again, you can ask questions as well. >> Okay. So, I guess I'm very happy for the topic
of drainage and storm water management come up because that is a major concern in the Beachcraft neighborhood. Um, I'm in frequent contact with Martha and Christine about this issue and
uh I think there's more than I I actually think the document that was submitted is a bit misleading because it talks only about Laur drainage. We did verbally talk about West Beach stock drainage, but basically everything from West Beach drains behind that property
on the Laurel Court property coming from basically two inlets on with West Beach Crop only. So it's an exorbitant amount of water that needs to be managed. >> Kind of pointing one thing. >> This is not an application to construct a home. This is to create a lot. So when
they do construct the home, they have to go through a lot grading plan, discuss drains with the municipality, comply with all their regulations on drainage. The engineer will review that. So that's why you didn't hear a lot about drainage on the current site. >> I guess I'm just afraid this is
pun a slippery slope. Like if we say, okay, we're going to give you all this extra land. You're not really going to build on it. It's an investment property from what I understand. Um
I I have a lot of backstory that raises a lot of red flags for me. Dirt has already been brought in and taken away without any permits. >> That's not the demo permit has been received and it actually been closed out. >> But that was before the demo.
That I mean that happened. The realtor is married to the investor. These are concerning topics that I think everybody should be aware of. It's not just somebody bought the property, wants to improve the neighborhood, and is
going to live there with the consequences. I live there, and I suffer from the consequences of what goes on in the neighborhood, >> and I'm really passionate about it. I guess my ultimate question is what is the intention?
What what is the plan? >> Plan is build a home and >> but what kind of home? >> A single family home. We we are I I worked on your property for you and Ferman prior owner. You got a nightmare of a condition. House was built above you. They took out in some drywalls.
Have pipe that runs under your house under your deck. Um that's high. And I would say that there are um if your property sits over here, drains into an inlet in your driveway, comes in through this pipe, discharge back in here, and this is this is more than 20 22 feet below.
>> Is her property lot 17? >> I'm 33. I mean, I'm 30 332 one >> lot. West on the on the uh on the tax on the right. They're directly across the street.
>> But all of our drainage goes behind there. The whole neighborhood >> actually it goes two ways. Part part of it goes down. There's an inlet that picks up a substantial part of West Beach, takes it down through lock 15. >> Right. But that goes to the same place. >> Goes the same place. And then there's a
significant part of each beach crop that comes down gets picked up. There's some drainage in the back of lot three it gets picked up and that actually splits. Some of it goes west and some of it comes east and some of it does join with the water that comes down your property and other properties continuing 282 and
three etc. They'll bring down everything from each crop comes down uh significant amount of water comes through that existing 10-in steel pipe drops some 20 ft into that wetland area. So, two things. One is that's not changing. All that will be made available. Part of the
reason for more clearly defining that easement is because the town is talking about the beach cross is it's a really unique area. Drainage is awful. The pipes were put in way too shallow. They should have been three feet lower knowing it had a 20 foot outlet. They could have been four or five feet lower
and bigger. So, it's a nightmare. It needs to be fixed. But that's why that easement that we're giving to the town helps secure that the town if they need to, I don't know if they'll have to, but they can increase the size of this pipe. We already increased the pipe. When this property built, we actually uh put a
15-inch pipe where there was an 8 inch pipe. We increase it to a 15inch pipe that comes down and discharges the back 20 lot um 15. So, none of this will adversely impact you at all. And I understand because I've worked a lot in the beach and it's a nightmare. Um, and
the only way to handle that is to get deeper infrastructure, use the existing pipe and get that into the flow where it hits 20 to 25 ft down. So, and that's not going to be touched at all. And as our attorney said, when we come for the government plan, regardless of the size of the home, we need to demonstrate
through the use of dry wells or other methods that we don't increase the amount of runoff into that you know wetland area, we have to be painted on some safhill, nothing will impact that pipe that goes to our property and that's now protected further by an additional defined
easement. And we will have we provide a grading plan to the municipality to demonstrate no increase in runoff into that area. We want to provide conservation techniques to protect that wetland area from any kind of sediment, soil, etc. And of course got all the key
areas. >> How do I get to speak up? >> Well, you've got you've got infrastructure in the town. You got to you've been speaking to Martha and Christine. They will be the one Christine will be the one who grading and make sure all those parts what we're
looking to do here is just allow it. That's all. >> Well, look, there's there's going to be house. We're clear about that. But we don't know what the house >> Well, the house didn't have to be torn down. That's the other I mean, it was a $2.6 million house that got torn down. So, you are already in a whole lot of
money, right? plus all of this that you have to go through to recoup your investment. >> So, I respectfully believe that's irrelevant to to our application tonight and argumentative if so, >> but the the
with chair's permission with the the uh questions that were asked and answered and the comments that were made I think are appropriate enough for the board to consider and give the appropriate way to I don't know if Mr. Keller wishes to weigh the board's
Mr. Keller wishes to weigh in on what the applicants Mr. Keller said visa be answering the questions uh and concerns expressed by the member of the public but >> just briefly I I mean I think he
addressed it fully this will any development on that property will require uh review and approval by the township engineering department and if there are any variances sought they will come back to the appropriate board.
>> Right. But it if I may uh by if the lot line adjustment is granted by this board it will afford the applicant an opportunity as you heard to build a larger house andor have accessory
structures further to the rear of what is the existing lot 16 that would become a deeper lot 16.01 01 without having to come to a land use court for variance relief. Uh they may
or may not still need relief depending upon what they propose to do when they have their development application uh uh put together, but there will still be block grading plans and permitting required by the municipality. And again, I'm going to leave it to M or Mr. color
so to speak to address the the magnitude that storm water management is reviewed in connection with those non-land use board applications. >> Correct. Whatever they propose to do, they have to meet the storm water
requirements set forth in the township code. So it that may end up restricting how much impervious coverage they put onto the property because there are a lot of conditions that have to be met and that's all under the purview of the
of the engineering department. >> Would it would it also perhaps andor uh require additional storm water management to be implemented by the >> on that property? Yes. Yeah. I don't think there's anything on the property today. So, um,
any new construction, and it is now a vacant lot, any new construction needs to comply with today's code. And if the check and if I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Keller
is looking at that. Um, Mr. Aelina, the council for the applicant does have a point with respect to certain comments made visav relationships between investors and property owners. Um, we as a land use board, as our planning board
well knows, uh, we don't regulate occupants or home who owns or who what relationships people have with each other. Um, that's not our authority. It's simply land development applications uh that are before us uh that we
consider. So, so I didn't when I when I said Mr. Relina that everything that was said was appropriate. Let me just caveat it. >> I appreciate that. >> By the way, following up on my comment and and my cousin, Mr.
The um >> no relation >> the reality is that um even though I said by area you could build 1900 ft larger house the reality is the physical constraints setbacks the rear occupied the the transition averaging the sidey guard setbacks will all limit that for
much small if if I'm getting I'm not getting much more benefit to the main footprint of the house I could you know certainly builder there are other lots on the block that you can get larger houses in because they they are larger to begin with and they don't have the same environmental constraints. So when we say it's 1,900 ft, it's you couldn't
possibly get a house that's 1900 ft. You're not going to get a house that's 14% on the property just because you've got so many other constraints. If for some reason we could though, you would have to provide the appropriate detention. We don't have the soils to accommodate it as said it. You may have to size down on the house, make it
smaller, just need to detention request. So from every aspect there are controls that will limit the size of this house certainly protect the public um from excess water going down into the wetland area um and certainly will not impact any of any of the properties that above
us in the beach. >> So I'm going to ask you Mr. question. Um, and not to be simplistic, but in your opinion, you know, by moving this lot line, are we making things better, making things worse in terms of storm
water management or not really having any impact? >> I I think it's it's fairly neutral. I mean, it gives the uh property owner of lot 16 more flexibility on how to deal with things
um because it is now all on a single lot and not by a line and a piece of paper that says, "Well, here's the lot line." Yes, it gives more land area. It's the applicants. Mr. Keller testified. Um
it you still have to meet all the other criteria within the code and also storm water management. Storm water management will all go to the back. It will go where is that wetland area away from west beach crop because that is the
topography of the land. So honestly I think it's probably from a stormwater perspective neutral. So if they were to just merge the two lots, wouldn't they have even fewer
restrictions because then their storm water management could take advantage of that wetland area, right? >> You create zoning issues because now it's a through lot. You got two front yards. >> Yeah. >> You know, that automatically, you know,
brings any application to a board. >> I see. you know, because you're creating that um you're not going to be doing anything in the wetland area itself because state regulations prohibit activities in there. Um, so you really
gain nothing because you're still constrained by the developable portion of the lot because you also can't disturb transition area other than averaging it.
So that is this part is no longer within transition area. This part is now in the transition area. um it, you know, it really creates no benefit from a development perspective
and creates zoning issues. And I mean, I'm not going to weigh in on the the the um salailability or the, you know, people want not wanting to have wetlands on their property. That's a marketing
issue. That's not my So, um, but from a construction perspective, merging the lots really does nothing positive. >> And can the steep slope be touched at all? Is that
>> 1,000 square feet of it up to 1,00? >> If I merge these and made a 1.5 acre lot, I couldn't get a bigger footprint on the house. It's again the footprint is going to be constrained by those environmental issues not but I I I can only disturb for instance in the front
I've got 687 ft of sleep so that we can disturb under under your normal zoning. Um any more than that I really only have another um 317 square feet left. So I can't even disturb much of this area in the back here. So I'm already
constrained can't build patios of steep slopes once I go thousand square feet. I've got a lot of constraints in the property. They're going to keep that house fairly compact towards the front. Really about getting the producing, >> but if they didn't touch the steep slope in the front, they could touch a
thousand square feet in the back to anywhere on the property. >> Mr. Plet, I have a question for you. Certainly, you've been in the neighborhood for a long time. Any history as to why it currently doesn't
do its job? some of the easement and the pipe as you mentioned it, you know, wasn't large enough. And I'm I'm looking at this as the question. I'm I'm trying to break it down for her, too. >> Um my concern, and I understand her
concern, is how do we know it's not going to happen again when this new house gets on there? So maybe we could help her understand that the regulations are different today or if you please I don't want to step on here.
>> No, there's See, there are a very large part of the beach cross gets drained through two pipes down into this area. One is this 10-in metal pipe and there's another pipe I think it's a 15 in somewhere that comes down through the
property um um bisect somewhere taps up. We don't know where exactly it is. Um, that's a lot of drainage area for a neighborhood. And those pipes t generally tend to be 12-in pipes, some small. They're very flat and they're
very shallow. They're only a couple feet deep, which means you can't it's very difficult to grade into them. Um, sometimes you have to put pipes, you chase gra, you actually put a pipe in, you run an auxiliary storm sword in in the street to run down and catch the sword because they're so shallow. So
there's been a lot of we've done a lot of things to help some of these neighbors in the area, but until such unfortunately the way it was built um just too shallow and too restrictive they were designed for 15ear storms back then not 100redyear storms and so
>> thank you. That's what we wanted to hear. So all of that, but any any new work the town would do would look at a comprehensive solution to start draining this area. And the place you would generally start, you always start in your downstream part place they would generally start if they're going to do
that work. The benefit of the neighbor street would be um at the discharger point. So they'll they're not going to change that. They may lo they may make that pipe larger. They're not going to change the slope. It's got a large capacity, but all these pipes that come through the beach props um would need to be uh
made deeper and larger and you would really start at this point and start coming up has funds allowed to start running pipes in abandoning the old pipes, picking up it's a it's a costly costly solution. Um the town has done that in the South Mountain section to
mitigate some of the flooding, but this is the area where you start. But because things were designed to a 15-year storm at best back in the 30s through the 60s um and now we look more towards much larger and also you know we we don't design all street storms street drain to
be 100 but where we look at it when you go less is when it bubbles up it goes down on the next on the next end until it's capacity that doesn't happen to be it's got no place to go so restricted by two pipes that drain it. So there's a solution. Um we're not we're not
hindering that solution or helping that solution but providing amusement. Um but nothing because we sit lower. We're the lowest point in the beach maybe except for north beach crop just to our east here. But um we're the lowest from beachcraft and the west beach crops um
come down through this area. So um there's nothing that we're doing. We're sitting below the road. The house will be designed. The only way you can get a house in is probably to have that three to four feet the first floor three to four feet below the curb wall. So, we're not building the house up and pushing drainage towards the street. There's
just not enough room to get a driveway in to to get a house on that property. So, you're going to have to push that push that down to get a driveway and a side facing garage. So, there's no way that any of this drainage can ever get up to West Beach. It's all going to be directed at the back and it'll be
through a an appropriately designed uh storm water management system to meet the counterpoints. >> I I'm hoping that it answered a lot of your questions as to why and you know that this house would actually help.
>> So, it's not going to hurt down the hill. >> Yeah. >> So, it's not going to make it work. >> Right. >> Right. It's very complicated and I just wanted that clarification. So the audience >> this was a subdivision from 1968. That's when these laws were created.
>> That's how far back >> just want to get people on extending again probably >> cut off. Might as well make a motion to extend till 11:30.
>> All in favor? All right. Passes. Before anything else, I know we have one more public commenter and questioner. >> Yu and Isaac tri. >> Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to go affirm testimony? You're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth.
>> I do. >> Okay. Questions, comments, both. >> Sure. So, um I just wanted to as I sat here and listened to this, um I don't think it is totally neutral. They um I guess the applicant painted this as if this were a small house. They're trying to be able to provide more land for a
large house. The existing house that was just demolished was one of the larger homes in the beach neighborhood actually. Um and my kids actually played at that house with the previous owners. Um and yet they did have a deck behind the house and a patio underneath that. It was a threecar garage. So this was
not an insignificantly sized house, which is why I'm not sure we need to extend this. And again, I think it is a little bit of a slippery slope to extend it to create a larger monstrosity. I will say despite the fact that they are supposed to meet all the storm water management um you know guidelines etc.
when the new constructions have occurred in the beach crops I've lived there for 10 years. There has been a dramatic change in the drainage. Um, you know, I know the houses were subdivision of 1960. I know my house is a 1939 house. And so it's it's a very old neighborhood. You know, historic you
might even argue. And I know when there was a house built eight North Beach Crop at the end of North Beach. My neighbor told me my neighborhood lives at 33. No, no, sorry. 3. She's You're 36. So she's she's 36. She's 3. Sorry. My
neighbor at 36 West Beach Crop told me that that even altered it. So, they're clearly getting approvals for these new builds, but it's still managing to really alter it. And for those of you not living in the neighborhood, you're not experiencing it. I mean, even something as simple as PSEG was updating
their meters and that caused flooding my house by exter um externalizing my meter because it disrupted the soil that's been there for over 80 years. So it just even things that seem to you know um suffice or meet these storm water water
just disruption of the soil etc. I mean the soil's been a lot in a lot of cases been sitting there for eight some years and it can really alter the way the drainage is. So those are just my comments. Um so I'm I'm highly concerned also that there's going to be this large house and it's really going to alter the way it is. So those are just my
comments. Great. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so just to sum up very uh briefly, uh, we believe the application satisfies all the zoning and subdivision standards. Um, there are
no variances required as I indicated previously. Uh, the professional reports uh that I've reviewed and that were submitted um really give no uh basis for denial. They've agreed to the request for the stormwater easement to be provide the town. I think that is a
clear benefit. Um I think the testimony of our engineer clearly uh illustrated that this isn't a development plan. When we develop the home, we will obviously comply with all lock rating and storm water management requirements. This is
really just trying to make a more logical configuration so person could have a backyard. uh maybe the house will be bigger than what was there uh already uh but it won't have a sideyard issue which the previous uh house required a
variance uh to put a sideyard patio in. So with that being said, I uh I respectfully request approval of the lock line adjustment and we'll comply obviously with the uh recommendations in the engineers report.
>> Any Eric, can I ask you a question? If if the township does end up purchasing it and it's considered now a basin of sorts, we're required to
fence that off basically. Correct. >> You can fence it off. I mean we I there's always been a lot of discussion about do you fence an area that you know it's functionally a basin or do you
leave you know there's pluses and minuses to it. Um ultimately it would be a decision of the township if they acquire it how to um they may fence it more to keep people from dumping stuff in there. I'm sure
that that's an issue with any kind of vacant lot. People find that as a convenient place to get rid of the stuff that they otherwise don't know where to put. Um, but I mean that would be a decision of of the of
the governing body um in consultation with the engineering department. >> Okay. Would would they would they fence along? It looks as if just from looking at the lay of the land, if the property is
divided there, this is at the bottom of the hill where the basin starts. Would they build the fence there or would they need to put it further up? It would probably be easier to construct at the top. Um I I will note that on the
Laurel cord side that steep slope area at the end of the culdesac is in a transition area. The wetlands extend almost up to that based upon the mapping. So that slope is
regulated not only by the township as a steep slope. It's regulated by D as a transition. and are you know I mean you can get a permit to fence it. Um the D if they do go for an averaging plan may
require them to post not a fence but markers that say that this area is transition area and you're not allowed to do anything in there. Um so but that would be part of any
approval that they got from D. Now that there's a requirement that they record the LOI when they get it, they um go for an averaging plan. The D will make them deed restrict the
wetland and the transition area and record that there will be a deed restriction on that. Um was it filed for both lots? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh well the transition yeah
currently the transition's on both once once we if we get subject approved it'll be on the whole >> right >> it depends on how they the D is very restrictive on they want as much of that if they only
apply for lot 16001 then they can only restrict deed restrict that it it doesn't matter because the lot 45 is is not going to be buildable it's not usable. So >> I guess second question I don't know if
it goes to you or to Graham. This would be on uh feasibility of building accessory structures. So the case we've been given is that they want to be able to build accessory structures in the backyard, not in the
sideyard and perhaps not have to go for variance. Is there anything preventing them from using the same lot lines today getting a variance and still doing everything they
want in the backyard? >> So there like >> but it need to go on the son board >> right >> and it needs to be approved by then >> right but it can be done. You would think that if we approve the lot line
the way it's drawn out today that we're approving that already to say yes, you can build there and there should be no reason why the zoning board should say no, you can't build there. Correct. >> I don't know if we can speculate.
>> Well, I I don't know how they opine, right? But what I'm saying though is that if we think it's good enough to do, there is reasonable there's reason that zoning board would find the same way. >> Right. >> Well, they have different criteria and
thresholds depending on >> they would need to both be >> right. Correct. But it it can still be sought. >> It's a lot more difficult for them to go in front of the zoning board than it is move which is why they're most likely doing that. >> Okay. And again, I go back if it's such
a bad thing or it's like we have so many restrictions against it, why are we allowing them to do? >> I don't know. Given everything that's been presented, we have a legal basis to deny itself
any relie >> application. when you go what then even okay let's say that >> be clear like I understand the the the neighbors concern that perfectly reasonable size house was you know fits
in the bay or was torn down something bigger might get built but it's not our duty to adjudicate that or even consider that we have to look at the application what's in front of us and they're not seeking a variance from us we have to
you know our hands are tied to a certain degree as to >> absolutely and I'm not disagreeing with the size of the house. Right. Not my concern. My concern is the wetlands and if we as a township need to use that as some type of a basin where we need to do something with it.
There it's divided that way at the moment, right? Because it's >> we wanted it as a township. We would condemn it. We would take it. We would we would just take it >> and for a public purpose. >> Yeah. >> With just compensation. understood but but that's a hypothetical but I can't
>> that's a hypothetical but we but we wouldn't have to do it anyway if the the lot line stays the same same as it is today >> Mr. Mr. To to the extent, if I understand you correctly, to the extent you may be saying uh uh is there a justification for variance relief?
Should they have gone to the in the hypothetical case that they went to the the zoning board of adjustment for both variance relief for setbacks for accessory structures or what have you. U but the fact of the matter is that they do not have to do that. They chose not
to do that. uh and they have an a right to come before us as a planning board for lot line adjustment which is a an easier way of saying minor subdivision approval right >> uh and uh it is and and it's conforming to the extent no variance relief is
required. So, we cannot, as the mayor stated, we cannot use that standard in even in reverse, so to speak, uh to to look to see if there's a justification for the
relief being sought by this board. Our authority doesn't extend that far. Our jurisdiction doesn't extend that far. We have to consider the application as the mayor said that as it was brought to us it is a fully conforming i.e. no
variance relief required a minor subdivision request i.e. a lot line adjustment. So we really can't look at it the way I believe you're suggesting we might want to look it.
>> Okay. All right. No problem. How else then can we look at it to protect our can and we put conditions on this love line saying you know what don't do the averaging keep it the way it is to protect our wetlands regardless of who owns the land in the back we we I I do
not believe we have the authority to prohibit a a property owner who's making a fully performing minor subdivision approval by way of a condition to prohibit them from uh pursuing their
rights. These would be the D regulations and and and asking for and maybe getting a wetlands transition buffer uh >> average or an average buffer plan. >> Short answer, no.
>> So, >> that's the obstacle they're going to have to overcome, >> right? No, but the D is not us, right? This is this is Milburn and the P is usually just going to say yeah it's okay >> you have to have the tools
>> you have to have a basis and and and if there were variance relief sort might have a basis to have certain conditions um here what's being offered is a drainage easement being codified an LOI being provided and and and and uh
reported as well as stipulating to the condition set in our engineers report and I don't think we really had any other conditions. Um and it's a fully conforming application. uh we don't have the authority in my
legal opinion to uh uh condition approval on waving your right to bumper averaging needs to be the DP or otherwise. Um >> yeah I understand. So my suggestion to the neighbors is to
check whence they are doing the construction to make sure that they are following all the rules because I saw that that many people present plans and then they don't follow. >> Yes. >> So you need to make sure that they are following all the rules.
>> It's a full-time job. >> I know. >> I know. I have it inside my house. That's I know it. >> But you will need to follow that. Thank you for listening. Made me feel better. >> So any event that is the relief sort
those are the conditions uh for the board for deliberation and vote. Is there any further deliberation or motion? >> It appears as if the chairman's not inclined to make >> Did you get the motion in second?
all my >> uh Jonathan Baxter. >> Yes. >> Allison Canfield, >> yes. >> Michael Cohen, >> yes. >> Organ Master Pro, >> yes. >> Deborah Neas, >> yes. >> And Sakamandi, >> yes. >> Michael Zion, >> no.
>> Vice Chair Serv, >> yes. >> Chair Gustin Hbert, >> no. 72 pass. Thank you, sir. >> All right. >> Thank you for your time tonight and extending your time. Good to everybody.
Please uh welcome. >> Thank you. very very >> Mr. Chairman, I think we're gonna have a brief if I'm not mistaken. >> We are we're going to go into close
session and we will reopening just to close meeting. There will be no formal action taken after signing off and see you next time.