##VIDEO ID:2OeD8iY8a7E## e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] what no I'll I read I love that word she know she did hi Josh that please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance America I hereby announce that this meeting is being held in accordance with chapter 231 of the open public meeting act proper notice of meeting dates has been given to the Mars newsby in the Mars County daily record and posted on the bulletin board in B pole this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and deorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times good evening and happy New Year this is the planning board meeting of January 20th 2 2025 and it's our reorganization meeting I'm sure you notice there are some new faces here councilman Bill Houston and Andrew wolf welcome and there are some faces that are sadly missing one would be former councilwoman Kathy Kelly and the other are former mayor Frank dretler the new governing body chose not to reappoint Frank to the reappoint Frank to the planning board Frank was first appointed to the planning board for a three-year term before he ran for Council he served on the council for six years and when he was elected mayor in 1987 he served on the planning board for 32 years as mayor and an additional six years since he retired from being mayor that's 41 years as a member of the planning board quite a record he will be sorely missed you see Frank knows where all the easement are and why they're there he knows every street and he knows where most of you live where there is dedicated open space or Green Acres property and how and when it was acquired he knows every stream he knows every storm drain and where it empties every parking space most of which he created when he was mayor he knows all the shade trees and he knows every utility pole and who owns it how all the sewers flow and where the wetlands are he knows the history and the origins of most all the properties and developments all the businesses in fact he made this burrow the reason all of you live here he has that institutional knowledge that even our professionals rely on but he has more than that he is something that's in very short supply these days he has wisdom and for almost 50 years he shared that wisdom with us to make Mars Plains the community that it is Frank you will be deeply missed and this board will not be the same without your knowledge and especially without your wisdom thank you for your dedication roll call please Mr pres Mr pres Mr pres m m pres Mr Kelly pres Mr here pres Mr W here president okay I'm going to turn this over to the mayor thank you chairwoman and uh good evening everybody this is the mors plains planning board reorganization meeting of January 20th 2025 the first order of business is the reorganization of the moris plan planning board for 2025 Mr H Steve augenblick was reappointed as class 4 member and Mr Andrew wolf was appointed as a class four member with Mr Bill Houston was appointed as class three member and rep representing the governing body and myself was reappointed as class one member at this time I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome Mr Wolf congratulations and councilman Houston to the planning board good luck and uh best of luck to you for both of you thank you next order of business is the nomination of a board chair to serve in 2025 may I have nominations for a chairperson I nominate Sue meski I would like to nominate Michael [Music] gabag are there any additional nominations being no further nominations I declare the nomination is closed and ask for a roll call on the nomination of Sue as chair Mr chair no Mr G no Mrs ster yes okay Mr you abstain no I didn't abstain I'll vote Yes okay Mr Kelly no Mr Bessel no mayor car yes Mr Wolf no Mr Houston no okay now can I have a motion for Mr Gaga as chairman Mr Oran yes yes okay Mr Gaga yes Mrs ster no Mrs mclusky no Mr Kelly yes Mr bezel yes mayor Carr no Mr Wolf yes and Mr Houston yes okay so on that I have a first can I have a Mr bezel was the first to Mr kagle can I have a second on that vote please I'll second okay thank thank you all right um nominations for board Vice chair I have nomination for a vice chair I nominate Mr bezal there any other nominations seeing none I close the nomination I have a second for a roll call on second so second Mr bezel domination [Music] second okay Mr Oran yes Mr gaglia yes Mrs ster yes Mr mclusky Mr K yes Mr bezel can vote Yes I'll vote Yes L Car yes Mr Wolf yes and Bill Houston Mr Houston yes at this time I would like to congratulate Mike caraga and Mr John bezel on their election [Applause] and at this time I'd like to especially thank all the board members for their time and service and I'm looking forward to working with the planning board members on all matters that come before us I also like to uh thank uh uh member Frank Drexler and Captain Kelly for their prior roles on the planning board and everybody up here for their time and their dedication spent away from their family uh long evenings uh looking over plans for hours takes a lot of dedication and I thank each and every one of you for the time I'd like to thank Miss pusy for her time as a chairwoman of the board and uh thank you everybody look forward to working with I turn the meeting over to Mike car thank you than okay good so first of all um I want to thank the board for their vot of confidence and electing me as chair for 2025 for the for the planning board um uh I vow to make the most of the opportunity and work for The Bu of Morse Plains to do the best job they possibly can so again thank you very much sheet uh I do have that sheet so if I go to the agenda uh the next order of business is to adopt the resolution to approve the meeting dates for 2025 and I will read that resolution planning board resolution number 25-1 notice of meetings be it resolved by the planning board of the Bureau of moris PLS the county of moris in state of New Jersey on on this 20th day of January 2025 as follows whereas chapter 231 of the public laws of the state of New Jersey for 1975 known as and herein after designated as the open public meetings act requires notification of meetings of public bodies as therein defined in the manner therein set forth now therefore for purposes of compliance with the open public meetings act a for said the planning board of the Bureau of moris plains hereby makes the following designations and there are five designations number one the Morse Daily Record and the Morse newsby or as an alternate to the Morse newsby The Star Ledger are hereby designated as the two newspapers to receive notice of meetings as required by in any and all sections of the open public meetings act it appearing that said newspapers are most likely to inform the local public of such meeting meetings two the location of the posting of the notice of meetings shall be the bulletin board of the burough Hall three the sum of $5 is hereby fixed as the amount to be paid by any persons requesting individual notice of meetings as provided in section 14 of the open public meetings act four the regular meetings of the planning board for the year 2025 shall be February 10th March 17th April 21st May 12th June 16th July 21st August 18th September 15th October 20th November 17th December 8th and January 19th of 2026 at 7:30 p.m. five all meetings of the planning board shall be open to the public can I have a motion to approve the resolution for the meeting dates for 2025 may I ask a question on number three sure per applicant per application or per per the year what's the $5 what's the what's the window for each meeting no every meeting is on but okay one time oh got you you good Steve yes okay can I have a motion to approve the resolution for the meeting dates for 2025 I approve M can I have a second whose name was taken on the first okay Mr you and now I need second I'll second Karen roll call Mr yes Mr Gara yes Mrs steer Mrs mki yes Mr Kelly yes Mr B yes mayor car yes Mr Wolf yes and Mr H yes okay the next order of business is to adopt the resolution of Professional Services for the year 2025 I will also read that resolution planning board resolution number 25-2 legal notice burrow of Morse Plains Morse County New Jersey planning board Professional Services whereas the planning board of the buau of Morse Plains desire to desires to retain the services of planning Consultants an engineer and an attorney to to perform Professional Services as required for the year 2025 and whereas the foregoing services are Professional Services as in njsa 40a Colon 11-2 um parentheses 6 which are permitted to be contracted without public bidding as set forth in njsa 4A col 11-5 parentheses a parentheses or I'm sorry five parentheses 1 parentheses a and as a non-fair and open contract pursuant to the provision of njsa 19 colon a-205 and whereas the board has determined that the value of each of the Professional Services will exceed $17,500 and whereas each of the professional Consultants named Below have completed and submitted a business entity disclosure certification which certifies that each firm has not made any reportable contributions to a political or candidate committee represented by a board member in the previous one year and that the contract will prohibit the below listed firms from making any reportable contribution through the term of the contract and whereas the board has determined after due consideration that the following name named individuals shall be appointed to fill the positions Hereafter designated now therefore be it resolved by the planning board of the Bureau of Morse plains as follows one the board retains the services of the following to be compensated pursuant to the sums appropriated for the purpose in the duly adopted Municipal budget for the year 20125 a planning Consultants Paul a Phillips and Li Laney of Phillips price Briel Lany Hughes LLC B engineer William Ryden of Anderson and Denzel Associates Inc C board attorney Andrew M Brewer Esq of maraziti Falcon LLP two the business disclosure entity certification and the determination of value be placed on file with this resolution and three the board secretary shall cause a copy of this resolution to be published in accordance with njsa 4A colon 11-5 parentheses 1 parentheses a parentheses I for this resolution shall take effect as provided by law can I have a motion to approve the resolution adopting the Professional Services 4225 Mr yes I do have a question um again question um the value of each Professional Services will exceed $17,500 um what does that value come from that's a threshold um 17,500 threshold work awarding certain contracts um with or without public bitting in noce um you know if you are going to buy bricks it's like a uh type of thing that goes out to bid because um anybody can provide bricks um that are generally uniform I don't going too deep into this uh Professional Services sometimes Professional Services they go out bitting so they don't go out to public they go who you know if they're known to have experience and comfortable but you can only um The Entity you you have a qualified purchasing agent which I believe which it does but that's at the threshold and it's if it is estimated that the you know because of the history of billing it's going to be more than that that's a you put it down there it's going to be sucessive okay so it's not that they we gave a detailed estimate of on contains typically it's on of history of it okay so because it's estimated to exceed 17,500 that means that it does not have to go B it means that a qualified purchasing agent is going to be reviewing it and eventually and you're you can app the ultimate approval is done by qualifi thank you so again can I have a motion to approve the resolution adopting the Professional Services for 2025 okay I have a second second second I second okay roll call Karen all right Mr Oran yes Mr Gaga yes Mr ster yes Mr mclusky yes Mr Kelly yes Mr bezel yes mayor Carr yes Mr Wolf yes and Mr yes okay the next two resolutions are for the committee appointments and Mr Brewer I have a question for you is it okay to table this until our next meeting so that I can decide and review the members since I was just elected chair yes I don't believe that's an issue pres would have toire those appointments to be made okay so so for planning board resolution number 25-3 which is the minor site plan committee can I have a motion that the resol resolution adopting the minor sight plan committee for the year 2025 be moved to the February 10th 2025 meeting a motion can I have a second I'll second roll call Karen Mr yes Mr gadri yes Mr yes Excuse me yes Mrs mclusky yes Mr Kelly yes Mr bezel yes mayor car yes Mr Wolf yes and Mr Houston yes okay planning board resolution number 25-4 which is the master plan Review Committee again can I have a motion that the resolution adopting the master plan Review Committee for the year 2025 be moved to the February 10th 2025 meeting I'll second roll call Karen Mr or yes Mr yes Mr ster yes Mr mcy yes Mr Kelly yes Mr Bez yes may yes Mr Wolf yes and Mr yes okay the next item on the agenda is is correspondences and bills Karen do we have any this evening we have B Kelly I have purchased order number 202 42412 for Michelle quick for transcrip proceedings for $112 and purchase order number 202 42413 for Philips price and GLE for planning general for $3,985 purchase order number 202 50021 for Michelle quick for transcripts $49 and purchase order number 202 50109 for Michelle quick for transcripts per $49 there's no questions I make a motion to approve the second roll call Karen yes Mr yes Mr yes Mr mki yes Mr Kelly yes Mr yes mayor yes Mr wol yes yes okay next on the agenda are comments from the public and this is limited to items not on the agenda so State your first and last name spell your last name and then State your address m i r a l49 Lane in um my first question is since we have some people up here um could we possibly give consideration to members of the board refraining from using or having their cell phones out during the meeting I personally don't have a problem with that I know I I turn mine off mine is sitting here so I I don't have a problem with that either we do say that at our Council of might use their cellones during meetings and you know not Town business okay thank you um the three people who voted yes to Grant the variances for the m confence application could you please explain the benefits or how those variances benefit the community give a take comment but you can't can members don't have speak this is comment typically what it is but to force coming back forth there's a resolution that forward it so I understand the desire but it's you're going to have prent where they're going to require uh give and take certainly um um my my advice and and the chair nor the board has to take it but my advice is this is that this is a public comment period where the public can say whatever chooses it is it is not um uh a mandatory give and take where um the board members have to ask specific questions and the and and it's going to be prestent setting if the chair and the chair can't require people to speak they can if they choose you can you could hand it off to them obviously um and the actual reasons are set forth in a resolution there are um again I'll build far field there are a significant number of court cases that say that the comments of an individual member on reasons for thing are relevant is what gets adopted in the resolution with that being said it is a judgment call but so I would tend to agree with that but the piece that I agree with most is that it's irrelevant I think at this point so I would I would side with my legal advice and say no um now I'm not sure if this is a question for the planning board or for the Town Council but would there be any plan to do an air quality study in the area of the McDonald's site before the operation starts just so that if a question does come up in the future we have something to compare it with what do you youting sorry just I'm trying to get some depth in this question where is where what are you um I specifically are you looking for I don't know if this is a question for the planning board or for the Town Council but are there plans in the future to do an air quality study before everything starts happening understood but I was why Bas because if we need to compare something we have we have it before the operation starts I'll answer briefly um there one of the requirements um one of one of the conditions of approval is that they have the applicants going to have to demonstrate that they comply with all the performance standards I I don't think that there is an air quality one there's there's noise there's odors there's some other things that will have to be undertaken but that I know it's a general you you'd have to go to the ordinance look at the performance standards those things will have to be demonstrated at some point but I don't think the M the planning board has no power to go do things can't require it at all and I have no indication that the governing body is going to be doing that but they nobody up here speaks for the governing body okay thank you so State your first and last name spell your last and state your address um cheran Davies d a i at 23 cath pleas I was about to say Mars just so used to saying that so um I don't know if this is for planning board or the council it's been many years um since I've been in front of either the council or the planning board I can't remember um but in this week's um about this topic in this week's weekly email was the notification of um another version of a draft flood map um sorry Jason you can that's okay I I know you do um so I just again I don't know if this is the right place to ask um it's like I said it's been about 10 or 11 years um I have a copy of the draft flood plane map from 2015 in my house that's how long ago um I was working on this with some neighbors as well so I just want to understand what is the next process what has Mars Plains been doing about it in the last 10 years I'm I'm happy to take this offline I don't know who to take it offline with any longer um I'll just for I have a meeting tomorrow with Ryden our engineer who was at a uh I I'll say a seminar that might not be the right word for it but was at uh for an explanation of the new flood maps so he's going to go over with that us tomorrow um I intend to put some not some sort of notification out to the residents that are affected um but I have to get a better understanding of who's affected who else is affected who may be taken out of that out of those zones so there'll be more to come on that but tomorrow is a schedule can any me can members of the public or myself be involved in these meetings just to understand or so I will have once I get a better understanding of what's going on I will have either myself or Bill contact you that's my intention okay along with your neighbor I know who's yeah so yes I I got an email from her as well so we we'll be in touch okay perfect thank you thank you very much State your first last name spell your last and state your address uh Tom battley B A TT a g l i s e two Cutler Road I just wanted to follow up on the the air pollution question just to get some better Clarity around that so will the testing for the different performance standards which does include odors at a minimum um noise and some other things will that be done before the lights go on so to speak as well as after the lights go on to show uh you know that they're meeting the the conditions during normal operations I can give a general one I don't know about the specifics the general one is the what this board can enforce is that and one of the conditions is that they have to demonstrate that they will meet the performance standards after that it's not up to the board you know two years 5 years 50 years down the road if something else changes I'm not sure typically it is what is required what is you know I know was a bit of an issue on performance standards whether they have to demonstrate it as part of the application or it can be a condition of approval that's how the board members that voted chose to do it so prior to them getting a CEO and turn on the lights as you say they would have to demonstrate that the operations would comply with the per the performance standards I don't know if there'll be continuing to testing by the burrow after that okay so so far as an example they said they will comply with the noise standards based on a report that was submitted with insufficient data that was not submitted by a noise expert so I think you guys need to get some more clarity on what would be expected because I think just saying they will meet it is I think quite insufficient in my mind um to prove that they actually meeting it and this is what the the whole reason why I was trying to raise these points beforehand because before you approve an application you should have the wherewithal to understand are they actually going to be able to meet it so I don't know who's accountable for that but I have a this seems very gray and open-ended at the moment Bill I'm not sure this is a I don't think I have anything to add other than what I said addressing you know demonstrating performance standards before I'm not sure if you have anything to add I don't have anything else to add uh just to reinforce that we will conduct those tests we will oversee them and if the standards are met then the certificate of op will be issued and ongoing compliance would be a zoning enforcement okay and and and there will be written reports then that will be available through the annex like there was with the application or how how will the public have access to that information there will be written reports I'm not sure what the protocol is for disseminating there will be part of the record okay all right I don't I don't I don't really know how how to get better Clarity on this but it seems rather rather open-ended maybe I don't know the chair if there's some way to to get you know better granularity and what this all means but it seems really uh you know open-ended at the moment Ken can you do me aor um at this point can you just make a note of this and then I'll come back to you and I'll I'll try to get more information I I'll leave it at that okay thanks very [Applause] much State your first name your last name spell your last name and state your address Lisa schroer 97 Maple Avenue so first of all I wanted to commen commend the board for voting in Mr G vaglia is the new chair thank you all for demonstrating to the town that we deserve someone in that seat that will treat residents with the respect that they all deserve to the newest members thank you and thank you for your service I know that it will not always be easy to be up there and I understand that your votes are dictated by legal standards and not just public opinion I know that each of you are going to find yourselves in borderline positions where empathy give the public the explanation and the attention that these matters deserve naps and nasty comments to concerned members of the public have place here Mr Brewer going forward we need you to be the lawyer that this town needs surely you know that an attorney who has been paid by their client with crowdfunded funds does not represent all donors to the crowdfund Morris Plains uses crowdfunding called taxes to pay you does that mean that you and I have an attorney client relationship of course not of everything that went down last year during the hearings from McDonald's the decision to allow that absurd assertion to stand was the most egregious the exclusion of the Bayon evidence was a close second I know you had a very aggressive chairperson breathing down your neck but you have an obligation to the town and to the residents to deliver accurate legal advice and I know it's hard sitting up there and I don't envy the position that you are in but you have chosen to be up there so please be the lawyer that we need Haney we need you to be more engaged thoughtful and strategic it was asserted during the M McDonald's herods last year that once a town approves a use it has essentially also concluded that the town can handle the additional traffic volumes that come with that use if this is indeed true then why in the world did you not advise the board about every single new use that was added in ordinance 14-223 I have read your report to the planning board dated September 14th 2023 and it was nothing more than a rubber stamp where was the analysis where was the expert guidance that you owe this town why did you not perform a use by use analysis of whether this town town could actually withstand every single new use for each zone why did you not call it to the board's attention how easy it is for two neighboring lots to be merged and suggest that this should perhaps be accounted for in the rezoning ordinance you're paid to advise the board on all potential issues and outcomes that might not otherwise be on the board's radar you are the expert I have no doubt that certain members of the board were applying pressure to you for a certain result but we were all so disappointed by the lack of diligence here because the p that deeply flawed ordinance was the original sin and this entire McDonald service could have been prevented with more thoughtful and strategic guidance Miss deer many of us watched the footage from October October 19th 2023 uh the council meeting where you chastised the council members who voted no for the resoning ordinance it's truly ironic that the profoundly special character of this town that you so passionately spoke about will be destroyed by your vote you commented that there no vote in the ordinance indicated a lack of trust in the process that your bare yes vote without any explanation or commentary is but one example of why no one trusts the process the ordinance was barely analyzed and there were open questions and you you think it's okay to vote Yes on something that's not even half baked if that's how you think diligent well-informed decision making looks and I don't think a council run should be in your future finally a huge thank you to Mr Kelly Mr augen bck Mr bezel and Mr garavaglia for having the common sense to vote based on the record and not based on political forces behind the scenes I hope the new board members take note of this excellent example of competent and outstanding public hi my name is Paul Coler c l o l e r y 18 h of numorous planes I was wondering if the board had seen this letter that's been put in the mailboxes of everybody in and around McDon the McDonald's site it's seven or eight streets everybody and Realtors are saying sell now because of the the the the damage that's going to be done by this construction by this change in the uh in the zoning and the building that process there's going to be Zoom calls there's going to be discussions Realtors who have 20 to 25 years of experience telling us that this is going to be damaging to our homes this is irreparable damage to the Investments of the people of this community had my wife and I known that this was coming down the pike we would not have invested $110,000 extra new roof new Hardy Board signing and other and other fixes there is no way we would have spent six figures had we known this was coming down the pike and now we've got experts putting things in mailboxes saying irreparable harm to our investments a home is the largest investment most people will ever make in their lives and this the council passing the zoning law and this board approving the the license McDonald's is damaging the Investments of the people of this community [Applause] I just love the microphone so I'll get up here Carolyn Bennett b n n t 19 Dayton Road I guess my first question is just about process because this is new to me being only 29 and dealing with all of this um Can somebody on the board explain to me what exactly the approval of resolution means and what's going to happen in a few minutes talking about the McDonald's resolution uh yeah but I mean in general I'm assuming the process is the same for any application to this stage sure um the the vote to approve was done last month the um the courts have recognized that um just the votes saying yes or no needs to be put the reasons behind it the justification the analysis has to be put into writing in a form that people that agree that disagree could challenge it and that a court if it need be would have something to review so the standard way to do um vote on a vote on an application is to vote um at one meeting and read and have a resolution that embodies things so there's a draft people look at it make sure things are correct that um that's what's going to go forward on McDonald's it is it is the logic of having voted for a resolution only the only people that would be I mean I'm sorry voting for voting in favor of the application the only people that would be qualified to vote for explaining why it wasn't approval would be the people that voted so the people that voted in favor are qualified to vote on this resolution what that does is sets the reasons for it but also that will be published in the newspaper in two or three or 4 days and then the law provides publication which by which has to challenge it that that's really that's the for it's a formality that that sets the reasons for a vote so another body a court uh if need they could say actually does a few things one it sets the reasons for it two it sets forth all the conditions so there's something in writing what what the applicate will have to do as part of their approval does that answer it I hope kind of yeah so who is who on the board tonight is officially voting on that there are three people I believe that were that are still on the board that voting for it Miss ster the mayor uh M mcclusky I believe are the three members that are still on the board that's all you can only only members that voted in favor are qualified to vote this would be kind of illogical to have a person said no and then setting the reasons for a yes that's that's why that's courts you you only people voted so there are three legally could they change their mind or is it essentially they will say yes because they voted yes no the the the courts have said the operative thing that happened is the yes vote that that such thing the rights are happening then there's things that kind then there's times one of the things we talked about before timing things so to pass a resolution if not the applicant can go to court and force a resolution to be adopted and municipality has to pay the cost so there's no changing the minds there's just setting setting the reasons for and the conditions tonight will we hear the reasons of those three people voting yes or no I'm going to read a very if if the standard is as usual I'm going to read a very long resolution which is why I have water yes you I it is the it is the practice of this board to read for the attorney to read the resolution out loud and that will include the reasoning of people who voted yes who are no longer in this room it's not the reasoning of people it's the reason of the board I know that's a fine line but it's what the board has decided are the reasons sorry to jump in and then I guess so moving forward if things come up and excuse my verbiage here because again this is like a new territory for me so let's say there becomes an issue with this application moving forward or what not and it has to come back to the planning board does it like is it this board now that's invested in the future of the application or is it only the three people who had voted yes last year like if the vote went out today I think it would be a different outcome so is it just a timing thing I'm not sure what you mean by come back to the board my understanding is that let's say there is an issue six months from well I don't actually know the timing of these things so down the line we have to do a test at the McDonald's property and it fails and I know that's super generic but I hope that kind of makes sense and then they need to do something again with that like they have to come back and talk to the planning board for whatever reason does that ever happen does the does McDonald's Council ever have to come back and speak with this board typically the demonstrate the examples you gave performance standards on whether they're going to per comply with the condition that is one of the board professionals or the burrow professionals to make sure they look at the the you the noise decel level they have a noise little meter at the property line that measure it you know on their their sound boards does it matter or you know does it reach I actually and I'm sorry to interrupt you I have a more practical example that I think will help me so the application laid out which I know we're all aware of that the crosswalk is going to be moved but I know that that is contingent on things with the dot so let's say whatever the timing is the dot is like nope you guys actually never talk to us or no no we found this whatever and the crosswalk does not get moved so that would change the application as I understand it so can we use that example like if the dot changes their mind on this crosswalk moving if development start to get anything I'm going to say if and I sorry I I'm hearing talking so it's hard for me to focus if if anything has to come before this board and that's that's the best way to do it catch all and I don't know there's a million different there's some reasons why things may have to come back to the board they want to minut if something have to come back to the board it's the whole board that hears it it's not just the three because they're coming now for new relief from the board okay it's not why the old decision was made it's new relief but that's that's an if and I don't know there's lots of hypothetical so I I don't want to say what would have to come back but if a change had to be made if if they needed goath from the board everybody is everybody votes I see everybody's qualified the bothe can vote okay um I guess in the spirit of new board members and I am agreeing with the no phone rule I don't know if it has to be written down but I think it's crazy that somebody was able to sleep during a lot of the testimony and then vote can that be a rule too that if you're not at x amount of hours alert and conscious maybe you have to like like pay like paying attention that you can't cast a vote on something like that [Applause] I I mean I had heard rumors of what you're talking about but no no no hang on hang on hang on hang on so I I've heard rumors I didn't see it firsthand I was sitting down there um I'm not on Facebook so I would say as a board member um if for instance my buddy Andrew fell asleep I would make sure he was up okay so I would I would do my best to make sure that that doesn't happen but I don't know what else to tell you as far as that goes I mean I okay is there anything legally that no so is is that true that nothing can be done legally if a board member is sleeping at given times during [Music] testimony it's the first time I've ever heard of it but I'll give you an example the the why you're you're treading into water that's very difficult occasionally the issue comes up on whether an individual board member has a conflict so if if they if the Provident Bank was moving in and there was a officer of Provident Bank on this board nor neither I nor the board has the ability to to prohibit them from voting only a member can do it they can go against the advice of good judgment but this has been a it's you all have heard the league of municipalities down Atlantic City every year this has been a topic of discussion that boards don't have a power to sanction or prohibit one of their own from voting because of a conflict if that's the case you're you're not going going to um you're not going to have the power and I and I don't want to give Credence to it but anyway for for what is perceived to be not paying attention to meetings people can not be at meetings read the transcript and still vote so if there there's an accusation of non-attention that is in no way something that a board could prohibit one of its members from voting because of that allegation you're treading into really bad water there I'm the board though asked them to listen to the transcripts or read the transcripts as if they were not here board can't require it it can only require if a person is physically absent from a meeting that's the only that's the municipal land use law requires and actually the board doesn't require that is then if if the person is during roll call is marked absent and does not attend a meeting at which testimony is given that that's the one situation their their name would not get called for with the vote at the time unless they had signed the certification that they had read it but there's no extra grounds for a board to be requiring people to read to read transcription I have another question um and I had two cases before two different towns and um the town wasn't able to approve the uh application without the do approval are we allowed to approve this site without them actually having an approve from the do it is it is subject to do approval one I think one of the things talked about is often times an application will require approval from the planning board as well as the health department as well as do as well as other entities lots of there are lots of regulatory entities that approval process has to start someplace so an entity you can it's often the case you approve an application subject to getting your other approval so a a health a health clinic has to get um approval from the you know New Jersey Health Department and Health and Human Services or whoever but it starts at someplace and then you don't get that approval they don't get the final Co I'm lesson until the do or the other approving agencies also approve has to start someplace because and you'd say they have to go to the NJ doot well the NJ do says you also have to have your site plan approvals somebody has to go first that's that's not it's not uh it's not a strange event where an application needs approval of several different entities so it it often happens most of my resolutions in most towns have a provision that it also requires approval by all the other agencies with jurisdiction over that action that's not uncommon seems like we're putting the cart before the horse I mean it's a lot like easier in minor to get do approval and it is the town approval so if for some reason the do was to turn this down and now we've already approved them they can't go ahead with it that's correct they need de that's a condition is that they need the highway access that is one of the conditions that's in this resolution they wouldn't it have made sense to make it I mean the other towns made it sound like I didn't have the choice I had to have do approved where they were before they we didn't even hear it or before they would vote on it that's that's I I I think my my experience that's on that's that's the reverse of what it usually is but that's you know it has to I said it has to start someplace one entity has to give it when two three or four entities have jurisdiction over a matter can I since we're on do do you mind I ask more questions no because I actually have a DOT question so by all means Okay cool so I was at the council meeting uh on 7th and I'm going to get his name wrong so if you guys know his name you can correct me I'm going to say it was Camille wanovich maybe I'm pronouncing his name wrong and you guys don't even know who he is he he spoke at the council meeting and uh he said that he called the do and there was no record of anybody from McDonald's or the group contacting do now I know I could call the do and probably get no information as well I just think we need some clarification on that because it was even put in your resolution I read I have written down where it's at um that there was some kind of meeting with the do and the engineer um applicant had a pre meeting with the New Jersey do so I would really L clarification and I don't know how we can get that clarification that the the do has been informed sure as a as a general matter you you really I'll I'll answer the second question and you'll be satisfied I think uh as a general matter if you believe that there was testimony that was dishonest or whatever that would be a reason for going back in I've seen the email I've seen an email from the njdot with about eight other NJ doot people on it and people to McDonald's setting up a zoom call to discuss the pre-application that mean it's it's there perfect I will I will represent that exists so this issue is a it's it's out there but it's non issue okay and I appreciate that because again I know I could call tomorrow and they're going to tell me they have no record whoever you're talking to may have had no record exactly the record EXA thank you John just for your clarification that at meeting just for your clarification that happened at a re at the reort meeting uh the next day I got that information from uh the person that spoke that night I got his information and uh his open request that he sent to the dot the next day um I had the paperwork that that the meeting was and he has that paperwork and in all the emails and email thread and all and all that I take the minutes for the meeting and everything else thank you that was kind of my next question so in applications like this cuz I'm sure we're going the others unfortunately is there a central dot contact that like like does Mars Plains planning board have a do contact or is every situation different and like the applicants go to their own do contact and it could change each application I don't know any standard dot contact people come and go from the place and whoever gets it so there's not a standard name there's not like one name that people more exp to De to it could be other people okay that's helpful um if I have concerns about stuff in the application is now the form to share them or at a different time and place um say that again if I have concerns that I don't feel we accurately addressed in all of the hours we spent together last year is now the time to air those or is it a different time or place the application closed that that's I don't that's such a general question I don't know I mean okay I mean I'm happy to continue asking my questions then and then you can tell me to be quiet I guess so um I already said my name but I hope that a name that you guys know just like any of the other residents on Dayton because I would assume that once an decision was made prior to that you guys actually went out and met the families that this was going to be accurately or directly affecting um but regardless I would was also hoping that you guys know how many expecting moms young kids which ones are riding tricycles versus which ones are learning to ride their two- wheelers how many dogs are being walked every night how many kids are riding their electric scooters um all of these things would have been important to understand in order to sit there and accurately say the benefit the benefits outweigh the detriments I don't see how that decision could be made without actually getting to know the residents on that street so I'm a little bit confused about that and while I have concerns about pretty much everything on the entire application I think that the ESS onto the residential street Dayton is so unnecessary and I don't think anything good is going to come of it so unfortunately I'm trying to like proactively plan for the worst case scenario I know that we were talking about how the public didn't have models I don't want to bring in a model of a kid that can't walk anymore or a model of a broken like so hopefully we don't need a model of that but these are things that run through my head knowing that this is in the pipeline and like this is what's going to be my my family's future um if there is any way again I don't know the process but like during this whole thing if there is any way to block that egress off and let McDonald's do their thing without coming on to Dayton maybe I'll have less concerns but I think it's a huge issue that this town needs to be prepared for I'm not even getting into this sound the pollution in on speed well like we are going to see drive-thru traffic and delivery trucks on a residential street and I don't think that we're actually wrapping our head around what that means um again I don't want to harp on my age not even being 30 yet but uh I know door Dashers I know Ubers like this is my generation we are not going away we are going to continue ordering food for delivery we're going to continue going to the green which I know people in this room are familiar with and not being able to drive home we're going to need to get in Ubers to come home these types of services they need to be glued to this phone while they're driving they're not going to their family's house they're not going somewhere that they know they are literally picking up food and bringing it somewhere that they don't know so they need to be looking at their Maps Uber drivers same thing who wants McDonald's I don't know many people but maybe they have been drinking all day so they can't drive they're in an Uber when the Uber is dropping them off at McDonald's and getting in a car to go pick up their next passenger they're looking at their phones and I just I'm not saying that the problem would be solved if they just exit onto speed well but if I am imagining somebody on their phone leaving on to Dayton they're not going to care that there's a kid riding their bikes and I think it's just something that I wasn't ever allowed to talk about because the experts never brought it up so I'm just airing that here to the room and I really hope you guys can consider that because I I just I'm imagining the worst and it's not great um yeah blue to our phones the semi- TRU thing I felt very dismissed by the traffic expert and I can go and look at the recording and read the transcript share it with you guys but I it me paraphrasing it was kind of like I said it was going to be dangerous semi trucks have bigger blind spots and then I was told there are no blind spots or it's not a concern it is it's a semi- Tru we drive by them how many of you guys have had to honk because they're going to hit you on 287 or 80 when they're moving over imagine that happening on your street with a kid like you they don't see things in that certain area which is why it's called a blind spot and I just I also fearing the worst um the other thing I wanted to just quickly chat about was I don't see how the application effectively um proved that the police efforts police efforts were going to have to go through the roof again people come to M McDonald's they hang around it's going to be all these different types of people like I know that I will be calling and complaining about some suspicious people or people that aren't usually hanging out on my street but if they are because there's a fast food restaurant like I I don't know I just I think that's an issue I also didn't notice like any police officers involved in this process which I'm a little confused about I didn't see them ever in this room unfortunately Mr Mayor I know you're aware they didn't come in this building until I went to Mr Mayor on December 17th crying telling him that some of the public felt intimidated by some of the people that were presenting the case for McDonald's and I don't mean to paraphrase our conversation so you can interrupt me but you shared with me that you've had police presence at every meeting and I said yes I've seen the car out outside by The Pickle bar courts or behind the building in their car they weren't hearing comments being made to the public outside the door they weren't hearing what was going on outside in the parking lot so multiple people I don't want to think this is just a me thing um multiple people did not like that and they felt uncomfortable so I went to the mayor and I asked him can you please have police presence here I think it was quoted that the police escorts were here for the McDonald's Council which I just want to make sure that is not true we asked for it because we didn't feel safe leaving here no matter how the vote was going to go so I guess my ask here is if there's going to be another application with such an interest from the public if that could be considered maybe a baseline to have police officers near the entrance and exit without having somebody having to experience something that made them feel uncomfortable that would be great um but I'm also hoping we don't have an application that one would need to feel that way again or do business with people that would make somebody feel that way again um my handwriting got messy because my kid was like Mom are you going to hang out with me tonight and I said No not tonight somewhere else to be um all right I think oh the crosswalk I don't know if this is a question for this board or Town Council you guys know I go to Town Council so I can ask it there again but I'm very confused about this crosswalk situation we were told a few months ago before public hearings for McDonald's that Mars Plains got a grant again I'm paraphrasing so if I'm on the record this is my these are my words that Mars Plains was awarded a grant we were one of a handful of towns and it was great that we got a grant to enhance the crosswalk that's currently uh by Hill viw and it's a cross speedwall I don't understand how that moves forward if this application moves forward too we're not going to have two crosswalks cars can't even stop at whatever so what happens to that money is it now McDonald's money that's paying for the cross off enhancements if they made men's meet with the dot or were we waiting for McDonald's to pass and let them fund it so we can do something else with the grant money like I'm not wrapping my head around that situation do you Jason do you know about the grant so we are working with do to see what we're going to do with those funds any improvements will be on the back of McDonald's um there are two crosswalks there already so maybe we'll I know the one set of blinking lights was for this for the McDonald's crosswalk I'll say the other one is going to be for uh the one that's over by provider or the old provider bank right there so but we'll find some other use if the do allows us to use those that money and that fund somewhere else okay so this application did not change the purpose of those funds no okay and as I'm planning for the worst case scenarios because that's what I need to do I just want to also talk to everyone and let you all know I'm a good driver I don't want to jinx anything but if you look at my record I'm a good driver so if I am turning left out of Dayton and I'm I'm doing this because the traffic expert dismissed me he was making jokes about McNuggets or whatever I don't want to get into it but if I'm making a left out of Dayton I already have such an issue looking left looking right looking left looking right I need the academy light to turn red then I need to hope the intersection with East Handover and speed well also turns red I have just enough time it's not 3 seconds or 7 Seconds whatever I need to make sure there's no pedestrians walking across gate and going to the train I'm one of them so I know that people do that or the US PS postal the USPS workers that also Park their car elsewhere and walk to the post office so I'm always checking for those pedestrians but now I'm going to see The Gap I'm going to go and then I'm going to have to somehow instantly stop if somebody exits McDonald's on foot and tries to cross speed well I don't want to run anyone over but logistically like I'm not understanding how as a mom with screaming kids in the car I don't even use music in my car like these are things that will happen and I would hate to put someone in danger but I don't see how moving the crosswalk is safe for people leaving Dayton so I don't know maybe the egress not being on Dayton will help solve no it won't solve that to be honest with you like do we just close Dayton and nobody can come in and out of it I don't know but I'm really nervous having to drive my kids to daycare I don't want to disclose where cuz I just don't but I have to make a left onto Dayton multiple times a day sorry a left onto speed well from Dayton and it's too much that I'm going to have to look at Left Right cars pedestrians already Crossing and now a crosswalk that's 40 ft or whatever is closer to me I'm just saying that again I'm nervous for it um and I know there's others on my street too because there's multiple people that feel the same way and my last thing I will leave you with thank you for entertaining me so long is I just want to know from someone on the planning board what I can tell my son who I brought to Town Council the other night um when he's not allowed to go outside during demolition you guys saw him with his inhaler that he takes multiple times a day after his stunt in the piku for a few months he needed to breathe with good air quality so what am I telling him when he wants to go outside with his twin sister and older brother and I say hey you can't there's a big demolition happening you won't be able to breathe what should I tell him can someone give me an answer cuz I certainly can't think of one there will be a preconstruction meeting before any demolition there will be dust control there'll be monitors um more than likely I don't want to speak before the preconstruction there'll be everything will be wet down so there there is no dust and it'll be monitored by our buer engineers and Zoning officials and if there's an issue with that I come to this board if there's an issue with that you uh you call the zoning you can call the police if you have dust issues uh there's many people that could resolve the issue more than immediately rather than com to a meeting okay with that thanks for listening to me sorry I was rambling but I think I needed to say what I said so first of all I want to commend you for coming up here in front of the planning board uh coming up in front of the council um it's a very tough thing to do um and to watch you pour your heart out uh to the council and to the planning board um I used to live in that area um so I have a personal connection to it as well um nothing I can do can can change the vote um but as the council aison I hear you um and I will do my best to listen to the residents and try to represent you um on the on the planning board and the council moving forward um so I hope I know that's not a lot but I hope that some consolation um I do hear you thank [Applause] youate hi my name is Jim hunt and 44 jqu Avenue here in T I just want to pick up on the process question for a minute to understand a little bit more and I think all of us have gotten a tremendous education about how these things work and the question is this the resolution that was passed at the last meeting was very very general was basically we approve and whatever variances that requested we approve and if you read the resolution I think if it's in verbatim you can see how General it was so my question is who came up with the reasons for granting this when you've drafted the resolution which is going to be very lengthy as I understand but who came up with those reasons were the affirmative voters responsible for the reasons that are applied is the applicant providing the reasons for the benefits for the approval who wrote the resolution and who came up with the detail of the resolution I wrote The Resolution it is up to the members to approve it's it is I could go fin but um you the standard way that resolutions are done is board members members that vote on any application for last 50 years they don't because they don't all jointly at the time that they're voting set down the reasons by which the board would agree so I've written lots of resolutions I've listened to the evidence I know what would fit to justify I don't vote them I put together what evidence goes toward what standards have to get met the the votes on the resolution that that's the determination yes that's right or no that's wrong so when the resolution is reviewed tonight There's an opportunity to say that doesn't sound quite right and we need to modify the resolution that there the board members vote yes no or they can change it that that's that's what happens they that can always happen so there'll be discussion of the resolution that's you you presume something will happen there there is the the um resolution can be voted on by the three members that voted they can if once the resolution has been read they can vote on it they can vote Yes it's great Andrew they can vote no um at which time there' be a lawsuit but um or things can get changed and occasionally there are occasionally there are some but only by those three mbers that is correct that is correct so the logic that again is that the the members that voted yes this resolution defines why they voted yes it would be illogical for a person that said no to define the reasons why they voted yes it it doesn't doesn't work that it makes sense you so I'm understanding that you in effect use boiler plate what you usually do you put into this resolution I would not say that did you then pick from the record that was provided by the applicant did you what how did you choose what you put in the resolution were influen transcript and notes the transcripts and the notes not you influenced by the members who voted yes when you drafted the resolution I don't think I'm influenced I'm influenced by the record well I did you have a discussion with any of the guest folks about what went into the resolution I do not discuss what's in that other than people see it on a they'll see drafts and they'll make changes say you forgot this that's lost to history but yeah that's you you have to but they'd be blindsided if they saw something not so they they drafts often drafts happen so the fact that it was very general Is Not Unusual and and adding what you've added Is Not Unusual to be added for resolution I would have to uh disagree when you said things are General so that's that's that's your subjective description of what happened you read the resolution that was passed it sounded general just to many of us so thank you for the explanation I do want to mention one other thing is the dot discussion has been very active tonight I want to tell everyone here that the dot is now under the direction of the state government to take a very strong hand and safety for all users on roads like speed Avenue they have just tightened their complete streets policy and in effect what they're going to do now is tie most requests for State funding to the ability of the town to to to show them that they've determined it's safe for what they're doing so I want you to know that there's a potential here with what happened with this safety issue that we know lies outside the property and which the applicant has declared as the town's problem and not theirs that we have every possibility of some of our requests for funding to be looked at with less than a positive eye in the future another unfortunate outcome of this passage thank [Applause] you special service thank you I lower it too sometimes uh Hey guys Carl ring r i n g 22 Dayton Road um I wanted to build on one thing that Carolyn mentioned earlier um just for General awareness um when you're coming out of Dayton it is impossible to see in either direction without encroaching on if not coming completely on the crosswalker cross dat because of blind spots on both sides so that in of itself to me is a general safety concern outside of the whole McDonald's application that I think the board should consider the town should consider and should look into unfortunately I think some of the blind spot issues are tele polls one of them is also I think the Citizens Bank building so I don't know how you're going to solve it but my point is it's already an unsafe intersection to begin with so I'm just calling that into uh attention I also wanted to follow up on something that I think Carolyn mentioned um maybe just offhandedly but you know in addition to the possibility of revisiting whether or not there needs to be an exit onto Dayton which I also would encourage the board to reconsider and whatever possibility that can happen at this stage in the game um but also I know that at the end of Canfield was was dead ended at some point several years ago several decades ago possibly at this point is that something that if this continues to pose a safety problem we would be able to bring back to and is it to the council is it to the planning board to request that Dayton similarly potentially be dead ended just south of the Citizens Bank and and a part of McDonald's eventually possibly hopefully not property such that no traffic even though I know the angled Lane is somehow magically going to keep anyone from turning right um but if if that becomes a problem how do we go about petitioning the board the council or anyone to say you know what let's just not let any traffic come down Dayton let's similar to Canfield let's dead end it and everyone has to go out of CAD Mr Carr is that something that would go back to the council yeah I mean that's something that we could always look at with the Public Safety fire department or police department with the council so if it turns out to be a problem something we can certainly look at okay is there any formal process or request by which that happens or uh you know I think by just somebody sending in a letter or coming to speak to somebody if there's an issue up there I think that would be enough to start a process okay well I'm just going to leave it with all of you to actually think about that without someone having come back and do that because it sounds like the outcome of all of this is that the as I said in my closing statement in last year the responsibility in the onus is now on us as Citizens to police this town these businesses what do you all do for work and that's what I'm doov three for West your name again k a m i l vov w o r o n o w i CZ three Crest View Court West so thank you all for your I apologize for being late I did get um an email threat from Mr May which I was very thankful for um again it came from the applicant so so it's not an independent verification but if um most likely that me happened um I just have two more comments um those verification meetings I believe require opening date or plan to stage in the development including buildout year that wasn't part of the minutes provided by the mayor so some information that was missing another piece of information that was missing was I think it was mentioned earlier about the plans that would affect the applicant or application which was again talking about the crosswalk so I'm not sure why two things would be or some things would be missing from the minutes um again maybe I missed them because mayor Mr Mayor seems like that information was there maybe I missed them um but I would again we would like to have independent verification and then right if that meaning happened we would have been nice to see what was truly discussed because if this information was missing maybe something else was missing or Mis was misrepresented um and not in exactly the way that may um our residents would like it to be presented to the do thank you sorry if I could just add Tom battle EBA AGC tocolor Road I just wanted to add a clarifying process question to the comments or one of the issues that Carol and Bennett raised so the vote that was taken last time did that include there was no variance for the Dayton Road egress right what isn't isn't that part of the town code that Dayton Road is not permitted to have delivery trucks driving on and if so I don't believe the application ever had an official variance made for that so the vote that was taken last time seems premature if I'm understanding this whole thing correctly Mr Ry do you remember that I don't I have no comment on this I I'll address it briefly um that the issue and I don't have the language in front of me essentially is no trucks over a certain weight on the road but it doesn't prevent deliveries along these roads and so it's an interpretation deliveries the position and and if it's wrong you obviously people are free to challenge it but I I I I agree with it is that this property is along um I think was like on the name of the Road Dayton Road it's a long dayon road it's a speed address though right but but the the ordinance does not say making a delivery to a property with a with an ad address on date says property is along date so on the roads it doesn't say what the property address on it so and and I think to the public whatever if you disagree I understand that um but that's that's that's how it's worded it the the operative language isn't addresses on a on a specific Road it's deliveries long road but you're saying that trucks cannot travel they over a certain weight and these trucks will be above that wait right I'm saying the ordinance and the the the reason why it wouldn't be an impediment to this application is that it allows for kind of all including allc compassing catch all it doesn't prevent delivery deliveries along those properties along those roads and so dating properties on dating or that is a long datting this definitely touches dat that's the whole point it does that's the issue and the delivery those there the the testimonies that would be delivery to a property that is that is adjacent to or on dayon it doesn't have a Dayton address but that's not how the ordinance is written the ORD is written along that street that's that's the issue so you're saying it doesn't need a variance or should it have a variance in the application and then if this is approved as part of that well wouldn't it wouldn't be I don't think it would be two things it wouldn't be a variance because it's not the zoning code that regulates what you're talking about that's something separate but even more than that I think the bigger question is are would a delivery to this property that also uses date would be prohibited by that specific provision and it's my interpretation and I I believe I don't think it's disputed by the professionals have looked at it um and and Mr St didn't either Mr St said it was a policy but it's no provision there's lots of other issues with Mr St but um it it just didn't that's that's my my interpretation because it doesn't say addresses on date properties W doesn't prevent Pro deliveries to properties at Long Gate Road and again I'm paraphrasing I don't have in font of me but the operative language is not address is on okay my gut feeling is this sounds like it needs further discussion from the rest of the board but I'm not I'm not an expert here it just seems you know on this topic of how to interpret the code it just seems like there should have been a variance submitted in my opinion um I don't know what you do in this case but it seems like there should be you know wider discussion beyond your interpretation because it does sound like it's not black and white you're as you're describing it right oh no I think it is and I think that the the professionals have looked at I understand your point of view but the the people that did look at it that's the determination that they came came to it's it's a different determination than you than what you're arguing who who who are the professionals that you looked at he just said he had no comment Mr Ryden said he had no comment so what professionals actually looked at this aspect all the professionals looked at Prof looked at your question is looked at and heard the testimony it's professionals here and it's the traffic or traffic consultant Mr molz and I and I don't you know I understand and and there was lots of testimony trying to get in what's the address what's the address what's the address but that's not how the ordinance is written the ordinance allows for deliveries along that prop along that road and those properties most definitely are along dat they're along two different streets you know that it it borders two roads all right I don't I don't know what else [Applause] that ass who ass mic who assigns this is a 4 ton limit for dat I think the there's a reference to the coordinance provision that that addressed several roads in tail yeah does that come from the does that from it's a local ordinance it's a local I'm sorry it is a local ordinance hi um so yeah just to pick it back on the last discussion another uh interpretation of that I'm sure residents of Dayton would take that a long dayon Ro meaning any address along Dayton Road maybe around Academy whatever that other street is that's only accessible through dayon or near the post office but not necessarily if you already have a driveway from another road main road like speed well to then require variant to go into datting because it's not making deliveries of on Dat that's the only to get there along Dayton Road right so again how will we do to interpretation um but it's not the only interpretation thank [Applause] you hi good evening Jesse Williams 22 Stony Brook Road so you indicated that the um speed Avenue um addressing address for for delivery trucks to interpretation I'm sorry excuse me that that the that it was open to interpretation correct oh I'm sorry I'm short thank [Music] you that the Dayton Avenue ordinance was open to interpretation correct I gave you what my understanding and I give the board my understanding of whether or not the specific ordinance would prohibit the presence of trucks that had delivered to McDonald's to be on date and I'm not being vitious people can say I interpret it a different way so if you say open to new interpretation I don't you know people can say lots of things at some point you have to give an interpret an interpretation when somebody says this action is barred by this ordinance by reading the ordinance and making a judgment yes it is or it is not I am necessarily giving an interpretation I don't believe the other interpretations are correct but that's why there's courts and not I believe that that's a correct read of that because it doesn't say street addresses it says and again I don't have a fun of you I believe it says a that along those rows so anyway so listening to your question again so my point is that was put in place to protect the residents correct I have I don't know I don't know I I wasn't there I didn't want I don't want to prend but we have to assume that that was put in place to protect the resid and yet if it is open to interpretation our members of our community are interpreting that on the side of the applicant and not on the side of the resident which of which intended to [Applause] protect thank [Applause] you do you need it now you want it now okay so we're going to take a break and we're going to take a break for 12 or whatever 13 minutes till 20 after is that okay is that good okay what are you do with the stream the closet or let it roll I can mute it CU there's nothing really happening so I'll just mute the Stream e e e e e e e e e e e e e e the talk to yourself she a [Music] I'm iting know am I'll put that in this good yeah you doing yeah hang I know right and [Music] okay you ready okay say state your name okay last name b a a g l i e Toler Road u l um so m Mr B I just wanted to since we didn't have the the language up before I just wanted to read the ordinance that I was referring to uh so it specifically States trucks over four tons bro weight are hereby excluded from the following designated streets or portions of streets and there's multiple streets listed including Dayton Road which states the entire length of that location um and uh so I'm wondering what you know how how does that not require variance then when it's pretty straightforward there a variance you can only give from the zoning ordinance that's not in the zoning ordinance so that's a technical reason you couldn't require variance because you this board only has the ability to give the variance from something in the zoning ordinance that's in the general police power because something it's different so they wouldn't have the ability to so really I think the question you're asking I can phrase it another way is how can you approve a site plan that and this is your this is your reading of that how do you can improve a site plan that allows traffic that is not supposed to be on a certain Road that's not a variant question it's a different different question about the site plan but I think the biggest part is the part that you didn't read about the deliveries that that's a catch all that says this doesn't per and I don't know what it is you have to read it that's that's the reason it's not not the initial portion of theion says doesn't apply or that this won't prohibit deliveries along the street you'd have I don't have in front of me so if you read that part that's really where it comes from okay but it says okay nothing within the section shall be construed as preventing such trucks from making deliveries of merchandise or other property along streets from which such trucks are excluded or any streets reached thereby or as excluding from any Street in the barow any trucks used by public utility companies and connection with the construction installation operation or maintenance of public utility facilities or from from or to any premises within the barrel un set streets or any streets reached thereby upon which an authorized operation or activity is being permitted in accordance with ordinances and regulations of the barrel that's the part you're referring to I guess I think the first Clause not that all the other stuff not the first Clause okay and and so you were saying that that was your interpretation which you you were saying that the ordinance is a bit ambiguous I don't think it is ambiguous I think it's a catch all phrase that says it doesn't prevent delivers on those roads so I don't think it is ambiguous the whole and there's there's another tweet that again sometimes I get too far something that prohibits that would be in the the police power code that that would result in a fine or something along those lines you say that's a something along a you know prohibition criminal stat St or something along those lines it has to be utterly clear that it is that that's kind of a protection to somebody that that is a defendant that is getting punished by by the state or the municipality that that provision that says nothing prevents deliveries along those roads is a catchable so that that's an accept if you're delivering that doesn't apply it's essentially what it says I I don't think that is V I don't think it is open inter that's the catch all was be if you're delivering along those roads it doesn't apply was was the purpose I mean these are residential streets I think if I'm looking down here every one of these that's in the list is purely residential so do you think that that exclusion about deliveries was intended for commercial full-time commercial activities or for to protect the the residential nature of those streets so what was the question so the streets that are listed in this ordinance are not commercial it's not uh commercial zoned uh streets right so Dayton Road is is a residential street would it be then correct to assume that the reason for this um ordinance was to protect the residences as opposed to commercial activity and I guess would was friendlies allowed to make I I don't know I don't live there so was friendlies allowed to make deliveries or utilize Dayton Road for truck access whole bunch of things in your question here maybe taking up too much of the board's time but he stopped me BR me in if I am um no matter what the potential purpose was there was apparently a huge recognition it doesn't apply to deliveries on those streets which would indicate and it doesn't really matter what the intention was because you have to apply what the words are that's all that this board or or the police that issue tickets or anybody else can do it doesn't apply to deliveries so if you want to look at the attention yeah generally they don't want big trucks but if you're delivering you get an exception you do that's just how they they made that understanding so you know people are going to need deliveries and so sometimes it's going to apply to truck and it would only be important and only necessary to give that catch all exception it doesn't apply to delivery is if they understood that's going to be deliveries over 4 tons because under four tons isn't regulated so they were saying there's going to be really big trucks and if they make a deliveries this doesn't apply that's that's what they wrote so going behind yeah there's some ideas about it but there was an overriding exception if it's a delivery it's not prohibited that's how they that's how they chose to vote it write it sorry about my grandma okay so it seems ambiguous to me as I understand when a law is ambiguous you're supposed to look at the uh legislative history to better understand the intent of the law did you as you're making your interpretation here did you do that no because I don't think it's ambigous I I don't I think deliveries are allowed and the story that that's what you know they said you can't do it deliveries you can do it that that's that's how it's written so if this is not as ordinance then who is are you the one to determine this or is the the town attorney I who who is in charge of that ordinance oh that's that's the police power that be the police if if someone believes that there is activity on a road that is in violation of an ordinance and you can tell the police that's but that that's not something this board can't give tickets for things like that if if there's right no no I mean in in determining the the you know the black and white interpretation of this law who who is you just said that this is not a zoning ordinance so you're in charge of the planning board from a a legal perspective right so who who is the defining uh anything in the police power you don't go get nobody gives you advisory opinions hey you can you can't either the police you can you can call up the police department you can say I believe that this activity is taking place in violation of one of the local ordinances and the police can either enforce it and they can say yeah that's that is prohibited or they can choose not to enforce it if they say no that's permitted but that's it's an enforcement action the enforcement of your local police ordinances is done by the police who uh you that's activity on a road that would be that would be the police if they believe that that was a violation of the ordinances Mr B all is your question um about who creates the ordinances and and the what's inside of them is that your question I think or is it or is it about enforcement of the ordinances no it's not about enforcement I think what I'm you know the whole point I was trying to raise after Carolyn spoke was that it seemed to me that the vote in December on this whole application was made maybe not completely considering the ordinances that are on the books and this is one of them that I I thought would have needed a variance or needed some kind of uh wave of the hand to say hey yeah normally we don't allow delivery trucks on dayon over 4 tons in this case we as a board feel that this is fine and I'm assuming that this is not in the memorialization statement that's going to be read because it was not you know part of the application in terms of specific variances or specific you know uh I don't know what you would call it then if it's not a variance uh something going going outside of the the ordinance on the books so that's that's really what I'm trying to question yeah understood um so just to just to clarify for you and everybody else who might might have a question right the ordinances are um created by the council right put know by the council um so it's ultimately up to the council to look at that um uh can I ask which which ordinance number you have that that you reference to it's Article Five limiting you uh limiting use of certain of streets to certain vehicles and it's uh specifically 22-5 under Article 5 okay thank you okay I don't have anything else I'm just you know we're about to hear you vote on the memorialization and and to me it just seems premature I'm raising the the flag so to speak I don't know you know what you do in this case uh in terms of the board uh and you know how to move forward thank you [Applause] this coming nor again from West um it was definitely helpful uh having heard uh the actual text and not just assuming right anything because you're right the first part does say something about deliveries but the second part I think it's very important part the mentions it has to be reachable or accessible by dat Road and we all know that driveway on Dayton Road is one way out it is not reachable by Dayton Road is that correct and if that's the case if if it's truly unequivocal that driveway cannot be accessed for deliveries and dayon Road cannot be accessed for deliveries because that address is not the location is not reachable by day row it's one way out correct [Applause] and therefore there needs to be some changes thank you hi Carolyn Bennett 19 Dayton Road I forgot to ask one question kind of related to process so thank you for entertaining me a second time um what happens to the current tenants that are not in the friendly lot but in the LW adjacent to them if this passes do they get kicked out of their leases do they get paid like what what happens that's not something that the board does so you guys can approve an application to D to rip down a building where there's businesses being run out of I don't make the sense I'm just like I know Lush somehow got the inside scoop that this was coming so they moved down I don't know what happens to the businesses that are there so I know Lush moved right yeah I don't know what triggered that and then another one I know moved to 520 uh speed well Avenue I'm not sure what's left in there uh as of now so they've already found new spaces in the bur all of them I don't know what's left in there now I know two of them and I don't know what's left one or two so so what happens to them then to go find new spaces and hope the applican is looking is helping them find those those new spaces that kind of con that concern so is there a chance that there's people just doing business out there that you guys aren't aware of I don't know like I see so I walk there all the time and I know that there's businesses being done there I don't know if it's the willow tree or the limo Ser like I don't know what is actually still there but I don't if I should be concerned that I'm seeing businesses if I can answer it quickly the the board you know the the only thing the board's about to do is the owner of the property said I want to I want to sign off and allow this application to go forward whether or not it get built because there are still tenants is is a contractual obligation between the owner and tenants that may be on there but the board can't you know lots of applications come um when there are existing tenants because the owner wants to change the use but the board can't say no you get the tenant you have to get them in here and give permission to do what you want with your property what what an owner has allowed to be on his property it's a matter of the'll lease contracts and they'll get dealt with but the board can't get every single tenant in here and say actually you don't have they don't have permission if an owner puts in an application the board has to hear it so it's not saying they're going to kick them out and no one's going to get killed during construction and thrown out of their office well hopefully not well no it's a contractual issue the owner wants to change what's there so the owner can seek approval and then going forward there's you know there's going to I shouldn't say Obviously but there's going to be a preconstruction meeting and you're not allowed to tear down a building with a person in it or an operating that's just not allow no I know that it's a contractual it's a contract I feel like a lot of people have been calling them to vacant lots and that's not the case so it's either one it's supposed to be vant and it's not and I need to call the police or two we need to talk about that it's actually not vacant oh no I think they were saying that the friendlies was vacant okay um so the owner is is the owner of that second lot legally allowed to receive information that's like how do they know that all of this is happening that's legal for them to know the own owners like I guess I don't know I'm just imagining there's got to be a lot of behind the scenes conversations happen on to proactively plan this I'm not sure my question but you answered my first one and my thoughts are going to keep going so stay tuned till next [Applause] meeting Craig Moran m o r an 7 Hillview Avenue uh clearly I'm one of the people that is disappointed by the decision that was reached last month um one of the things that I'm just so shocked and Amazed by is that the four people that shot down uh this application were so clear in that there were questions and concerns that needed to be addressed they felt so strongly about it that they could not they could not support this yet one of the deciding votes that was that was cast to uh approve this uh prior to the vote was so emphatically stated that and I'm paraphrasing here I guess all the questions have been answered in just yes and it was done I don't understand how that happens thank you [Applause] anyone else okay so we'll close the comments from the public next on the agenda approval of minutes for December 9th 16th 18th of 2024 quick question can I do these all at one time or do they have to be done separately as long as everybody was here for all three of them you could do it and they could all vote and I believe everybody was actually only the people that were here during those meetings can vote but yes you can do them all three but I believe that there may have to be one amendment to yeah yeah so do do them all together you can okay and in addition then um um Andrew wolf and Bill Houston will stain corre can't approve minutes if you weren't there got it okay so um approval of uh can I have a motion to approve the minutes for December 9th December 16th yesman I have a uh I have a change there's a correction okay so which which set december9 okay um page 14 down at the bottom Mr dretler I make a motion to deem the application complete that's incorrect he made a motion to deem the application incomplete no that's oh is that 109 109 that or is it yes yes Ken you have that you have that I have it yes but it will have to be corrected transcript correctd me that's it for that that's it for that um minut for those minutes 18 yeah sure okay December 18th there's no page numbers on here so all I can tell which wait I you have to one at a time you have to approve them one at a time the minutes do together all if everyone's oh okay well there's more there's more Chang okay so okay so so let's item one just itemize 168 all right so December 9th sue you have those changes are there any other changes for December 9th there are more changes no not for December 9th okay are there any other changes from the board on December 9th so with that can I get a motion to approve the December 9th 2024 meeting minutes as amended tonight move I'll second um assuming that page 14 gets adjusted amended correct amended roll call please Mr yes Mr yes Mr yes Mrs M yes Mrs Kelly Mr bezel yes and mayor yes okay minutes for December 16th are there corrections to that yes I have Corrections for that the transcript incorrectly states that it's the meeting was held on Tuesday December 16th 2022 in fact it was Monday Monday December 16th 2024 there are two transcripts the one is prior to the uh McDonald's hearing and the second one also it needs to be corrected for the McDonald's transcript Karen do you have that that okay so can I have a motion to approve the December 16th meeting minutes from 2024 as amended so move can I get a second I'll second roll call please yes mrri yes Mr ster yes yes Mr Kelly yes mrzel yes yes okay so for the December 18th meeting ster yep there's a correction there's no pH numbers so it is um I think it's the fourth page from the end uh the vote was not captured correctly um let me just see if it's that it's that page uh my vote was missed in the uh in the transcribe transcription so it has to be corrected okay excuse me I didn't hear what you said the minutes the transcription is incorrect it's missing my vote yep December 18 is that it yeah that's the last yeah okay Karen Karen you have that I have that and I will you know have to tell Michelle okay so can I get a motion to approve the December 18th I have a correction you have a corre no uh chairman mclusky made a statement I just want to correct the record Mr Mr Kelly drive-thru restaurants were proposed for the B2 Zone on the very first spreadsheet that the master plan Review Committee received from the council Business Development Committee for the P2 Zone okay that was back in November of 20121 first of all the master plan doesn't propose anything it only provides what is permitted in usage so restaurants drive-through restaurants were permitted I have the worksheet that was given to was on May 5th of 2023 originally it was stated it was just restaurants caverns and cafes what was added was restaurant restaurant bar or Tavern Restaurant drive-in restaurant drive-thru and the final approval for the council I believe was done in November of 2023 not 2021 well it was 2022 actually and I misspoke it was 2021 the first um uh spreadsheet that we got that came from the business development committee had it on I have it right in front of me Su and maybe you want to speak to the planner because she said it was 2023 was approved I don't know where you're talking from I have the papers home I didn't bring them with me that's it doesn't matter we're talking about the minutes are you still stating that the master plan proposes uses for the now excuse me you stated that the master plan proposes the uses you're saying that we proposed that no no no no no no no no I did not say that I said that the business development committee proposed that use at the very first meeting that we had that they had recommended them and um Liz had given us that spreadsheet and it added on I it here it's right here so this is the first time it's done it's May 5th no the first one was back in November I'm sorry it was back in November I have it at home Ron if you want me to prove it to you I will but we're talking about the minutes here tonight not about this discussion that you and I are how your way Sil transcript to this and all of these Corrections will be posted into the new transcript that's coming coming out tonight do you understand what I'm trying to say like I would correct my copy to State this information but all of the corrections will be stated in the minutes tonight okay um want to pipe in a little bit there's been a lot of discussion I don't know if specific language has been recommended to be changed I would I would defer to the chair whether it wasn't there was a lot of call we go back so with Ron the references you made are in the meeting minutes from the 18th okay so what's there yeah exactly so can you provide Clarity on the specifics of what needs to be change I'm talking about no no no no no no but I want to make sure Karen has them so that they get accounted for correct all right I'm just talking about the minor changes being like 129 109 M way incomplete rather than complete 12:16 Monday rather than Tuesday 1218 uh U Miss deer's vot was missed okay so that's what I'm saying this situation here with the master plan maybe we could table that till next next uh meeting but the master plan as part of the meeting notes from the meeting minutes from the 18th right yeah okay so we can okay okay so again yes this is this is this is part of our record in the case so it benefits everybody that we have a good record and a good transcript um we can't change the transcript she said what she said you said what you said right is that accurate yeah so the transcript remains whether or not who's right or wrong you guys got to decide that but the transcript has to stay the way it is right Mr Kelly are you asking that anything be changed that's fine okay all right thank you if it is incorrect as miss the transcript says she did not vote that has to 100% agreed I'm just talking about this last cqu about who was right about the master plan notes and all this other stuff like the transcript says what it says and no one here is saying that it should be corrected on that point he just disagrees I think it's I think it's sit down I think that's being addressed where the question was posed after the cqu what was stated and what do you believe should be changed and I don't believe anything is going to be changed from that unless def back the chair I didn't hear a specific language being proposed to be changed about the and I I agree with that so so what I asked Mr Kelly was to make sure that Karen had his comments not for change but to make sure the record was correct or the transcript was correct so Mr are you saying that you make comments during the meeting that are not in the transer what I'm saying is she quoted 2021 understand I think she's wrong are you saying there should be more information in the transit than there is stop stop stop just think [Music] stop I think nobody should speak stop I I think that we right now we have for the December 18th one change that we know that's been proposed hasn't been voted on yet M deer actually be voted number two Mr Kelly has start a talk but I think leave it here is there specific language in the transcript that you believe should be changed and it's it's not on the merits of the statements that were made but the minutes are only supposed to be what was said not whether or not it was right or wrong so if there is specific language in the transcript you can read a sentence and say no what was said was actually X not y That's I think fair game for amending the minutes arguing about the merits of what was said Is it supposed to be just what was said not if you agree with me basically a semantics she said drive-thru restaurants were proposed for the to you're not proposed they're saying they permitted but but I think the question is did she say proposed if she said proposed then it's what written then the minut should then the minut should be changed I'm reading from the transp so all I'm saying is that the date should be changed to the accurate date when it was actually approved by the council no no thing is that's not was so even you may be correct but that's not what was said so it cannot be corrected counil so that's clear as mud I think so Karen you have everything one CH for one yeah one change will also this will be included in sorry don't you will have these Corrections within this trans correct yes and I will correct my copy in St okay so can I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from December 18th 2024 as amended this evening rad call Karen yes yes Mr yeski yes Mr Kell yes yes [Music] okay applications the first application pb-4 d24 which is R Keller construction 109 Mountain Way uh y yes I was going to read this and then excuse so loock 67 lot 7.01 yes Mr bezel and the minutes will fact Mr bezel is stepping out of the room okay I don't think I see anyone representing the applicant here tonight no so Mr Ryden and Liz you guys last set of correspondents from the applicant you deemed um inmet uh is that still the case so Mr chairman is is the mic here on Mr chairman this application was previously deemed incomplete at the December 9th meeting as you recall uh the applicant subsequently submitted revised application and other information which we then reviewed and I made that report in my December 30th 2024 letter in that letter I find that the application is still incomplete there's a number of issues which I will detail so there's two checklists involved for these applications one is checklist a for the development and the other is checklist f for variances so under checklist a item one which requires a complete application form the item number 14 in the application form is not complete it's not addressed at all that that's an outstanding item of directing completes not it's not a waiver issue um the other two items are in checklist F that's 23A they haven't provided the height of the proposed building and 24e which requires elevations at the corners of the proposed buildings and pavement etc those that information has not been provided so on that basis along the application still stand to be incomplete now there are there are 17 waiver requests that have been made by the applicant of those 17 uh I find that we can agree or I can recommend that the board accept those waiver requests for 15 of those but two of them I would recommend they not accept those W requests so if you like I can detail the specific items here for for you or you can just have my my letter as the record in in for the meeting how you like to do so so I do so I do have some questions but I I I would like more detail for sure um however since the applicant is not here can we deem this the applicant's not here there could be a motion to deem the application incomplete for the reason set forth um in Mr R's letter report cor and requesting the information you know more information on the labers and the other information that was set forth in Mr Ren's report correct so so that's what I would opt to want to do tonight because we are already 10:00 and we need to sure work through the McDonald's so um that's why I asked if you would want me to go into detail exactly I initially did but I I don't know so but I do I do want to go on record saying that where there are waivers requested I would like to have some more information so we can talk about that another time or well so the ones that we're recommending I I don't believe we need any further information for the other two that uh those two that are not recommended are item 24f and checklist f for colored photographs within 200 ft of the of the PQ the property question I I'm they requested the waiver on I'm recommending that waiver not be granted I believe Liz also is not recommending that be granted agre and then so on that basis if you don't grant that waiv that's another area that's in fet and then uh item 24 which requires all kinds of neighborhood information within 500 ft of the PQ they're requesting waivers for all the items one the one which is 24 G3 that has to do with building coverage uh I'm that that not be granted because this application has a variance for building coverage so it would be important to know what the area surrounding it the typical building coverages in that area so we should have that information okay one the other thing though that I guess what I'm getting to and this is a very simplistic example but within this checklist a there's tree removal permit waiver requested I I want to know why for I for for if I look at it's uh 38c item 38c tree removal permit waiver requested may seem very insignificant but I want to know why is there no tree there and it's not required or the lot is less than an acre so it's not required I or is there another reason I'm sorry this is not a development application it's a subdivision application to create two lots out of one so those items wet lands disturbance soil disturbance tree removal storm water man all those things are not relevant here because there's nothing to propos in that regard you simply want to create two onset so can we say can we say that can can you say that in your letter so that it it's it's identified as such because I'm not sure everyone maybe realizes that well I just said it for the record here oh okay all right but I'm I'm saying in in in a letter that you provide us is that something that you you want that subsequent to this letter here sure that's fine sure I think it just it's Clarity okay in my opinion but that's the that's the basis for the would be my recommendation for the basis for those waivers because it's they're not relevant here they're not part of the application so can we say that can we say that they're not relevant I understand I'm saying now for gotcha okay okay any anything if you if you like I I can make a sub report that that states that I think since the applicant has to um since the applicant's not here and this is not complete they have work to do I think I'm the next iteration of your letter to us you can do that right if that makes sense absolutely okay it does the board have any other comments to that a lot of times when they go and okay and I guess that's that's okay too I get I guess what I'm trying to get at is limiting the questions that maybe we would have that chew up the time right and and maybe I'm wrong and I'm still not seeing the bigger picture but but in my view the more information that comes in ahead of time that we can address is less time that we have to ask him questions and it's less time that maybe eventually the public can ask questions I maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture but that's kind of my view Fair sure does that sound fair okay um Liz I guess I would ask the same thing of you um not necessarily go through yours here um because of time but I would say the same thing that if there are waivers requested I would like to see a little bit more information uh okay that's fine um I just want to make two points regarding my letter uh with checklist F item 13 uh requesting a copy the zoning officer's decision um my understanding is there was no decision by the zoning officer so that uh can be the waer request and it can be recommended uh the other item to note is 24 G3 which is um asking the applicant to provide building coverage and approximate total principal building floor area all floor within 500 ft something that we've done at the zoning board level where we've dealt with these applications more regularly is limited the 500 ft from the uh subject property to 200 feet because it seemed to be too onerous on the property owner to do 500 feet so that may be something that the board would want to consider okay okay does the board have any questions additional questions or comments no so then can I have a motion to deem this application incomplete yes for the reason set forth in that rep for the reason s forth in that report a motion motion second second second okay um but can I also state do you want to change 500 ft to 200 which Liz said stated um I well that's that's what the board of adjustment is doing now it's instead of 500 ft a ramp ranting the property that go into 200 maybe Li you want to explain it a little better sure uh first of all it it's a fairly honorous task to put on a single family homeowner and 500 feet is is even you know more owners so I think that the zoning board has found that 200 feet provides the information that is necessary and informative for the board it's up to you though the checklist says 500 checklist you can you can grant waivers woman the requirements cannot be changed except by women checklist ex set by womens you can you can you can give waivers you cannot change the terms of the checklist the ORD the municipality has to do that by ordinance all right so you can you can so I think Grant a waiver from the 500 ft and and give it for 200 Jason Mr Mayor you have experience here what's your thought I mean I think in a neighborhood like that you also have experience what's your take you you also have experience on the board with what is your take on 200 graning 200 what do you think 200 ft is sufficient this is a this is a minor subdivision I just I just want to be sure well that's absolutely and I would always always go along with the recommendation of our planner that's why we hire her we we do but we've also heard a lot of comments on lack of and I'm not saying that there was but part of in my experience which is many many years of experience we would definitely defer to the plan on this very it doesn't matter let me explain that this is a fair owner's task to put on a single family homeowner in general yes we're asking within 500 ft it's it's a lot and often times the people don't have attorneys representing them they're doing it themselves and they're having to provide and do calculations that are not their expertise they're often not correct and it requires them to do an opr request to get the tax records for all the properties within 500 ft so in deference to the board and and to give you all a sense of what the uh inferious coverage is in the neighborhood so you can compare it to what is being requested here we're not saying to wave the entire requirement but we're saying try to make it a little less onerous on on somebody who is a single family homeowner okay I I can agree with that I agree with that so that would be the only waiver you would be dealing with in this resolution okay I just want to be clear on that not on any other W request okay yet it's incomplete why is all this discussion yeah well I exactly okay so can I have a motion to deem the application incomplete yes with the 200 with the with the Amendments that second second second roll call Ken all right Mr or yes Mr caga yes Mrs ster yes Mrs mosy yes Mr Kelly yes mayor Carr yes Mr wol yes and Mr hon yes to goel back okay the next application b-124 McDonald's USA LLC 4:15 and 435 Speedwell Avenue block 23 Lots four and five so just just to level set a little bit this is to certify the McDonald's resolution Mr Brewer will read the entire document once complete only the board members who voted yes on the application will vote to approve of the five members who voted yes three remain on the board for 2025 Maryann ster Suzanne mclusky and mayor car are those members so with that planning board resolution number 25-5 resolution for preliminary and final site plan approval merger design waiver and variance relief planning board burrow of Norris PLS application number pb-1 -24 applicant McDonald's USA LLC premises 4:15 and 435 speed well Avenue O 23 Lots four and five whereas McDonald's USA LLC the applicant or developer made application to the planning board of the buau of Morris Plains board for preliminary and final site plan variance and labor approval for its proposal to merge two existing lots and construct the McDonald restaurant the development and various site modifications on property designated as block 23 Lots four and five on the tax map of the burrow of Morris Plains commonly known as 4:15 at 435 speed will Avenue the property or the site where the property is owned by melli morrris Plains LLC and melli Morris Plains 2 LLC and whereas applicant published a hearing notice in an official newspaper of the board and provided notice of the application to those required to receive the same in accordance with the law and file proofs of publication and of service with the board secretary and whereas the board determined that proper notice had been given to establish jurisdiction to consider the application and held hearings on the application on September 16th October 21st November 12th December 9th uh November 12th and November 18th and December 9th 16th and 18th 2024 reviewed reports filed by the applicant and review the reports of the board engineer William Ryden PE and the board planner Elizabeth C Lany PP and board traffic consultant Harold mol Harold K moltz PE PP all reports attached here to consider the questions and comments of the public and consider the testimony and Exhibits presented by the applicant and whereas public hearings were held during which Frank J BVO Esquire represented applicant whereas after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant the board now makes the final the following factual findings and conclusions one as requested in its application the applicant seeks the following relief from the board a variance from section 13- 5.7 a to permit 32 parking spaces inclusive of the two Space Electric Vehicle credit and two Ada spaces where 41 parking spaces are required two section 13- 5.7 B1 to permit zero loading spaces where one loading spaces required three section 13- 5.8 C1 1.1g to permit approximately 46.8 total square ft of wool signs on the south facade of the building where the total area of wall signs on a single wall shall not exceed one foot one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of store Frontage but not more than 40 square ft four from section 13- 5.8 C1 1.1 H to permit 3 3.5 foot tall McDonald's logos's wall signs along speed well Avenue the southern facing facade and the Eastern building facade where the height of a wall sign is limited to 2 ft five from section 13-58 C1 1.1a to permit one facade sign on the rear of the building Eastern building facade that is 14 Square ft where no signs are permitted on the rear of the building which does not face on a street six from section 13- 5.8 C7 to permit five from freestanding signs in the drive-through area where one freestanding sign is permitted seven from section 13-58 c 77.2 to permit freestanding signs in the Drive-Thru area where freestanding signs are only permitted in the front yard 8 from section 13- 5.8 C 77.3 to permit freestanding signs totaling approximately 75.4 s ft where a maximum of 20qu Ft is permitted 9 section 13- 5.8 C 77.7 to permit freestanding signs comprised of aluminum material and red or yellow in color where freestanding signs are required to be constructed of painted wood woodlike or wood appearing material and shall be painted in dull or matte finish colors with contrasting colors for lettering and other message elements section 13- 4.1 C 2f to permit no or limited screening of the off-site parking spaces along the front yard facing Dayton road where all off street parking and loading areas are required to be screened by a fence wall or Landscaping when facing premises situated in any residential zones B waiver FR section 13- 4.14 c 2.2 di of the revised ordinances of the buau of Morris plans revised ordinances which requires parking spaces to be at least 200 sare ft at least 10 ft by 20 ft the applicant request a design waiver to prevent 9 ft by 18t parking spaces two section 13-4 point4 c2f of the revised ordinances which requires screening with a fence no higher than 6 fet whereas a fence of 8 ft in height is proposed three section 13- 4.14 C 2.1 and 13- 4.14 B 3.6 which requires a ramed 25t radius at Street intersections where none is provided C the applicant further requests that the board Grant uh any other waivers deviations and or variances which it may deem necessary desirable or appropriate with regard to the foreset application two at the public hearings documents A1 through A10 and 01 through 06 were marked as exhibits and entered into evidence three in addition to the marked exhibits the applicant submitted and the board consider the following documents which were made part of the application a application for develop development and Associated checklist e preliminary and final site plan B certified list of property owners in the burrow of Morris Plains within 20 ft of the property C certification that taxes are paid on each of the two tax Lots D draft notice of hearing to Property Owners within 200 ft of the property e draft notice of hearing to newspapers F plans entitled preliminary and final site plan for McDonald's restaurant Lots four and five tax map sheet number two latest provision date 2 20 2023 4:15 and 435 speed Avenue US Route 202 burrow of Morris Plains Morris County New Jersey prepared by Dynamic engineering Consultants PC Thiago F darte PE dated May 31st 2024 and consisting of 18 sheets G signed and sealed copies of the traffic report titled traffic impact study for proposed McDonald's restaurant with drive-thru prepared by Dynamic traffic Craig perago PE and Connor Hughes PE dated May 28th 2024 H resolutions of approval related to the property four the board considered the following submittals from its Consultants a report of William Ryden PE of Anderson and densler Associates board engineer dated September 5 2024 B report of Elizabeth C Lany aicp PP of Philips price gel leany Hughes LLC board planer dated August 8th 2024 and C reports of Harold k moltz p e and PP of hamal Associates Inc traffic consultant dated June 21 and October 18 2024 and five the board carefully considered public comments as well as the following testimony at the public hearings a applicant produced Thiago dwarte PE of dynamic engineering who testified as to his credentials and was accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering B Mr DTE testified as to exhibit a one and aerial map that outlines the subject property he testified as to the size and location of the property which is 42,46 Ft as well as the surrounding uses the property is currently developed with a vacant friendlies restaurant and multi-tenant commercial space there are currently two full movement driveways on speed well and one full movement driveway on Dayton Road you further testified that the application proposes to make the driveway on Dayton Road ESS only the application seeks to remove moove all site improvements and to construct a 3,36 ft building for a McDonald's drive-through restaurant with Associated parking and related improvements C he further testified that the new building will have a 52ft front yard setback from the road while the existing Friendly's building is 23 22.3 ft a non-conforming condition he testified as to exhibit A2 a colorized site plan rendering with superimposed proposed Landscaping the requirement for setback of the building to the residential zone is 35 ft the existing friendlies is 34.5 ft while the proposed McDonald's will be set back 96.7 ft from the residential line access to the property is proposed to be a single full movement driveway on Speedwell and an egress only driveway on Dayton Road the proposed exit on to Dayton will be shifted 13 ft from the adjacent residential property uh and 13 ft closer to speed well Avenue D he further testified that in response to comments from the board professionals the access onto Dayton will be restricted to left turn out only towards Speedwell Avenue and away from the Residential Properties the plans will be amended to include changing the angle of the driveway and using curbing to prevent rate turns onto Daton he further testified that the application proposes 30 parking spaces with EV credits and a uh with two EV credits for a total of 32 spaces whereas 41 are required there will be 39 seats inside the restaurant and there are between 10 to 12 employees depending on the time of the day depending on the number of seats the Morris plan's code would require 16 parking spaces while based on the size of the building area the Morris planes code requires 41 spaces he testified that since covid approximately 23s of the traffic entering McDonald's uses the driveth through and do not dine in the restaurant e Mr dwarte testified that the application does not propose a designated loading space because the deliveries only take about 30 to 45 minutes are scheduled during off peak hours and are typically done twice per week off peak hours mean between the morning and lunch rush and between the lunch and dinner rush he further testified about site circulation parking and movement through the proposed drive-thru Lanes in response to questions from the board has testified as to where the delivery truck would typically Park during the unloading process he testified that the drive aisle is wide enough to accommodate the park truck and the movement of traffic through the parking lot F Mr dwarte testified as to exhibit A3 a colorized version of sheet c18 vehicle circulation he testified that the proposed circulation pattern and lack of a dedicated loading space is how typical McDonald's are designed and he is not personally aware of cars being blocked by the truck during the building process at other locations he further testified that McDonald's is Seeking a waiver as it is proposing parking spaces 9 ft by 18 foot rather than the required 10x 20 he testified that the parking is along the perimeter allowing for an overhang so that 18 ft in length is sufficient G Mr dwarte testified that they will install new LED fixtures in response from comments from the board's professionals the applicant will lower some light levels in the parking area he testified as to the proposed Landscaping on the perimeter of the subject property and that the combination of the landscaping and proposed 8ot High vinyl fence would prevent car lights from shining onto neighboring residences the Morris planes code limits the height of a of the fence to 6 ft while the applicant seeks a variance to allow for 8 ft to prevent SL less light impact on the neighboring residences in response to questions from the board the applicant consented to a condition that the site light would be on a timer to dim the lights during times when the restaurant is not open he testified that the applicant will reduce impervious coverage by 2533 Square ft improving and reducing Peak runoff and Improvement to the existing storm water conditions the applicant will also use perforated pipe to further reduce storm water R off H testified as to exhibit a exhibit a for a colorized elevation of the proposed restaurant the proposed siding is a cement material Mr Forte testified about the means by which the applicant would meet the required performance standards as to odors which will be equivalent to or an improvement of the mechan mechanism utilized in the Morris PLS Chick-fil-A and chipotle they will also meet all performance standards as to liquid and solid waste noise vibration and player which is to be reviewed and approved by the board's professionals prior to and as a condition of obtaining a certificate of occupancy I he testified that the original plans proposed five building signs but the applicant reduced it to four the code allows one sign per wall facing the public right of way which the application as amended while which the application is amended proposes two requiring a variance a variance for sign area is also required where 32.8 ft is proposed and 30.4 ft is permitted in response to questions from the board the applicant amended the application to lower the wall sign Camp to three thereby removing the need for that variance he further testified that there is an additional variance with a number of freestanding signs because the menu boards in the Drive-Thru meet the definition of a freestanding sign J he further testified that the Refuge area will have a brick veneer to match the building the applicant consented to the condition that the gate to The Refuge area would have a timed lock such that pickups could not take place overnight or before 7: a.m. the applicant agreed to provide Granite block curve and hair pin striking hair pin striping thereby deleting the original originally requested waivers for those issues the applicant will also provide a sfe triangle easement removing that requested waiver as well the applicant consented to the condition that the deliveries will be during daylight hours and never overnight Mr dwarte further testified about compliance with the report of the board's engineer the applicant had a pre-application meeting with the NJ doot and have Incorporated the initial comment to widen the crosswalk from 6 ft wide to 10 ft wide they have also Incorporated the burrow and njts request to install pedestrian actuated flashing overhead beacons with pedestrian crossing sign assemblies and to install quote do not block close quote striping on speed Wall Avenue all of which must be approved by the NJ deot he testified that the speed well Avenue access will require approval of a major access permit from the njdot K in response to questions from the board uh by the board planner the applicant agreed to revise the plans to incorporate an on-site cross wel to channel foot traffic to the front door the applicant will also obtain the review and approval of the board's Planner on the final facade appearance and material applicant consented to add signs at the entrance to Daton Road prohibiting right terms and to add the installation of bicycle racks Mr VTE received question question from the public related to concerns about safety on and near Speedwell Avenue and Dayton Road the hearing was continued to October 21st 2024 L Mr BTE was questioned by the public at the outset of the meeting on on October 21st 2024 about traffic site layout and safety expected number of transactions and customers and the use of datton road by delivery trucks M Mr DTE testified about revisions that had been made to the plan since the previous meeting he testified as to exhibit A5 a colorized rendition of the site plan which depicts the redesign of the Dayton Road driveway he testified that changes were made to the angle at which cars approach and enter Dayton Road to deter any right hand turns onto Dayton Road the entrance point is also shifted further from the Residential Properties the driveway width was reduced from 20t to 15 ft to further deter right hand turns and signage related to no right turn was also added and he testified that the driveway on speed well was shifted 3 feet to the north onto the subject property and also widened to improve maneuver ability he testified further about modifications to the Landscaping plan including the addition of a 3ot high burm along the rear of the property and additional plantings along Dayton Road to screen headlights testified about the bike parking and the inclusion of trash recepticles and revisions to the lighting he agreed to comply with the comments and suggestions of the board's traffic engineer as to signage and striping we further agreed that all sight lighting including menu boards will be turned off except those that are needed at night time for Safety and Security the applicant agreed that the hour's operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. oh Mr dwarte testified as to exhibit A6 a vehicle C circulation exhibit which demonstrates the ability of delivery trucks to enter the site from the Northbound side of Speedwell Avenue we further testify that the deliveries can be made trucks that have side loading which will allow for deliveries to go through the door at the rear of the store Mr DTE was question by the public regarding Provisions to the plans and site access and circulation during cqu of Mr DW's testimony a member of the public who lives on Bon Road indicated she would not be in favor of deliveries in the early morning before the restaurant opened or at night after it closed the hearing was continued to November 12th 2024 P Mr dwte was questioned by members of the public at the beginning of the November 12th 2024 hearing Q the applicant present the testimony of Craig Parago PE who testified as to his qualifications and was accepted as an expert in the field of traffic engineering Mr Parago testified as to the traffic report that he prepared dated May 88 2024 and revised September 13 2024 the report looked at off-site traffic traffic impacts and on-site circulation parking and the drive-thru design he testified that they took traffic counts on speedwall Avenue at times determined to be the busiest on the roadway as well as the times that the proposed restaurant will be at its busiest he further testified about how and when the traffic counts were taken the peak hours for traffic would determined to be 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 a.m. to noon on Saturdays they also Camp to pedestrians Crossing at Cross crossing the cost walk at speedwall Avenue which was one pedestrian in the morning 8 in the evening and 4 on Saturday in addition to the traffic counts the report utilizes a 2% growth rate utilized by the ngd to model future traffic the report uses expected trip generation from The Institute of Transportation Engineers it published rates for fast food and drive-throughs R he testified about the peak hourly rates and the projected Peak hourly rates based on it data he further testified that both the it data and McDonald's project project on a daily basis 710 trips in and out of the restaurant testify that utilizing the traffic counts and it analysis along with the recommended along with that recommended by the board's traffic engineer it is projected that speed well driveway will operate at a level of service e or better which is acceptable to the njdot who has the ultimate control over the driveway the data and Analysis also indicated acceptable exit queing s he further testified that a collected traffic data on September 12th 2024 on a day when school was in session to undertake a gap study to determine the ability to access on the Speedwell Avenue based on published Highway standards there are sufficient gaps in traffic to accommodate 138 hourly exiting vehicles in morning peak hours 104 in evening peak hours hours and 113 in weekend peak hours brother testified that based on projections of a high of 60 morning 44 evening and 74 Saturday exiting Vehicles there are sufficient gaps in traffic further testified that based on the uh relocation and widening of the speed the crosswalk and the installation of pedestrian actuated beacons and sign assemblies at the crosswalk and removing one of the drivers on speed well there will not be any increased safety concerns for site traffic entering or exiting T he further testified regarding the adequacy of parking on site he testified that moris planes requires the greater number of spaces based on the number of seats or based on the building size based on the number of seats 16 spaces would be required while based on the building size 41 spaces would be required based on the it standard of parking spaces pro seat the average Peak demand would be for 18 parking spaces he testified that of the over 30 McDonald's that he has been involved in the most cars he's ever seen parked in the lot was 30 and that was at a much larger restaurant with 97 seats as opposed to 39 proposed at this location based on using it data and his experience with other sites he testified that in his opinion 30 parking spaces was more than enough paring to accommodate the proposed restaurant you he further testified about drive-thru queuing he testified that the drive-through system has a total capacity of 16 cars Based on data from other New Jersey McDonald's between 60 to 75% of their customers use the drive-thru Lanes he undertook a queuing analysis using a presumption of 75% using the drive-thru which resulted in less than 1% chance of exceeding eight spaces in the que and the probability of exceeding 12 spaces and backing on to speed Wall Avenue was 0.01% he further testified that data from single Lane drive-throughs and double lane drive-throughs support the analysis based on his review of the data and Analysis he provided his opinion that there was more than adequate viewing space on site to accommodate the restaurant and not back on a speed well evident uh D he proposed that he testified as to exhibit A7 which depicts the Turning maneuver for cars pulling into the driveway he testified as to exhibit A8 which is a truck turning exhibit depicting the preferred location for the park of truck the depicted space for parking and unloading of the truck is the standard layout used from mcal which do not use or have a dedicated loading area we further testified as to exhibit a nine which depicts the ability of a vehicle to drive past the parked truck uh W Harold MZ the the board engine the board traffic consultant testified that he concurred with the trip generation calculations and that Mr Parago had made changes that Mr Mt had recommended and that he was satisfied with the calculation done by Mr Parago Mr MZ explained why he had requested the Gap study and testified that he was satisfied with the results and that Mr Parago had satisfactory addressed the other comments in his report Mr Parago then responded to questions from the board and public the hearing was continued to November 18th 2024 at the November 18th 2024 meeting Mr Parago continued to be questioned by members of the public regarding his traffic testimony why the applicant presented Nicholas graviano PP who was waret the hearing was continued to December 9th 2024 at uh Z at the outset of the December 9th meeting the applicant attorney read a portion of the letter from Chris Shay the Moors PLS Fire Marshal in response to Mr Shay's request the applicant will amend their plans to show a fire lanane in front of the building AA the applicant presented Nicholas ravano PP who testified as to his credentials and was accepted as an expert in the field of planning Mr Riano testified as to the existing conditions and proposed development which is the subject of the application provided testimony quoting the master plan reexamination report and the ordinance which permitted drive-throughs in the zone we testified that the application meets all set requirements he testified about the modifications made to the initial plans to improve safety and circulation including crosswalk improvements the design of the driveway entering uh Dayton Road Landscaping and the reduction of building mounted signs he provided his opinion that nothing in the application constitutes a substantial D detriment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance BB he testified as to the request for a variance for no loading space section 13- 5.7 B1 he referenced the testimony that there will be only two deliveries per week and testimony that the loading unloading and unloading could be done safely without a loading space and that this is the standard designed for McDonald's and moris County CC he testified as to the request for a variance for the number of parking spaces section 135.7 a Schedule E he testified that the ordinance section has two standards one based on the number of seats which the applicant would comp complies with and one for restaurant size for which a variance is required he testified the test he testified that the testimony established that 30 spaces would easily satisfy the it it standards and that spaces was more than sufficient for the other 31 McDonald's in New Jersey which were referenced in his opinion the additional spaces would not be needed to satisfy the parking demand and constructing the spaces would create additional detrimental impervious coverage d d he testified as the variance to allow an 8ft fence whereas 6 fet is the maximum height permitted in the zone a higher fence creates more screening for the residential neighbors and the benefit outweighs any detriment he testified that as to the sign variance from section 13- 5.8 C and referenced exhibit A10 a revised architectural elevation of the building depicting the building mounted signs he testified that the applicant was willing to work with the board's professionals as to the final facade design on the front elevation with a proposed McDonald's arches a height variance is needed where 3.5 ft is proposed and 2 feet is permitted on the south facing side facade the applicant seeks a variance for proposed height and square footage of the golden Orchard signs on the Dayton Avenue Frontage which has the McDonald's lettering sign the applicant needs a variant for letter height he further testified that the lettering height was selected to promote visibility and is similar in size to several banks on speed well Avenue he further testified about the variance from section 13- 5.8 C1 for internal site lighting where internal lighting is not permitted uh e he testified as to the variance or the number of free standing signs caused by the menu boards he testified this variance is mostly a technicality because the ordinance does not provide for menu boards he testified that one freestanding sign is permitted and five are proposed there is only one freestanding sign which meets the size limit on speed well the other four signs and menu boards for the drive-through they have mixed use commercial overlay on Route 10 does provide for many boards and the proposed boards in the application would meet those requirements the total square footage of the freestanding signs is 75.4 square ft whereas a maximum of 20 square fet is permitted requiring another variance there is an additional variance for freestanding signs in the side yard where they are only permitted in the side in the sidey yard necessitated because the menu boards are located in the side yard another variance for sign material is required where wood or woodlike material is required and aluminum is proposed finally a variance for internally lit signs is requested whereas only indirect lighting is permitted he further testified that the vast majority of uh commercial uses along Speedway Avenue had no loading area FF he further testified as to design the design waivers for parking stall side 9 by8 whereas 10x 20 are required and the screening to permit an 8ft fence whereas there is a maximum of 6 ft permitted he testified that all the variances and waivers can be granted under the C2 criteria in that the purpose of the municipal land use law would be Advanced by deviation from the zoning requirements he testified that the variance would Advance purposes a g and I G G he further testified that the benefits sub substantially outweigh any detriments all of the variances do not create a substantial detriment to the Zone plan of zoning ordinance nor the public good and there are solid reasons for granting all the request variances Mr gravano was questioned by the board professionals board members and Heather kummer Esquire on behalf of several burrow residents and finally by members of the public Mr gravano testified that the applicant would amend the application to include G neck lighting and not internally lit signs to remove the need for variances for internally lit signs HH Heather Kumer Esquire called Peter St PP to testify who testified as to his credentials and was accepted as an expert in the field of planning I I Mr St testified about exhibit 01 he testified as to the existing conditions of the subject property Mr St questioned whether the applicant had presented testimony as to the odor filtering system to be used and the noise from the speaker he said that there is a house maybe 10 ft from where the delivery tuck will park and that clearly there is a noise issue Mr Tech Prov Mr St provided his opinion that section 13-5 .7d creates the need for a variance for the parking in the front yard setback along Dayton Road as to the possibility of headlights shining on Residential Properties he testified he did not know the nature of the proposed 8ft fencing during cross- examination Mr T Mr St testified that he did not attend any of the prior meetings or review the transcripts of any of the prior meetings he stated that prior to this evening while I review the application materials and did not attend any of the hearings or listen to the prior testimony he was asked and of course if you had reviewed the testimony you might have had a different opinion in this case he responded I don't know KK at the December 16 2024 hearing Joseph amaroso PE provided his credentials and was accepted as an expert in the field of traffic engineering Mr emeros testified that in his opinion the traffic study was flawed because he believed there was flawed data collection on Cross examination Mr amaroso testified he had ever prepared a traffic impact study for a drive-through restaurant and could not Rec call if you had ever critiqued a traffic study for a drive-through restaurant LL Tom bag provided his credentials and was kept as accepted as an expert in the field of environmental issues he testified about issues related to environmental performance standards for noise odors and air pollution and provided opinion that he believed the applicant had not demonstrated compliance with the performance standards mm the board finds that the valid concerns about the performance standards set forth in the Morris PLS code will be addressed by requiring demonstration of compliance with all performance standards as a condition of of approval as is provided for in the code and end at the conclusion of Mr vag's testimony a statement from Heather Kumer es Esquire was read into the record and testimony and comments were presented from members of the public which includeed testimony about concerns regarding noise pollution traffic and safety and approximately 11:00 the meeting was carried to December 18th 2025 after the December 18th 202 I'm sorry December 18th 2024 at the December 18th 2024 hearing testimony was received from members of the public related to concerns about noise pollution traffic and safety six with regard to the property and the development the board finds the following a the property consists of two Lots located in the B2 Zone B the property consists of approximately 0.976 Acres C the applicant proposes to demolish all existing structures and construct in 3,3 6t McDonald's restaurant with two lane drive-thru with 32 on-site parking spaces Landscaping lighting Paving and other related improvements seven with regard to the applicants request for design waiver relief the board finds the following a with respect to section 13- 4.14 c 2.2 di parking stall size the board finds that enforcement of the current regulations would be practicable because the use of 10x 20t parking stalls would further decrease the number of parking stalls and will exact UND hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land namely the size of the property which is being developed with a permitted use B thus the board thus finds that applicants design requested design waiver from sections 13- 4.14 C 2.2 di is reasonable and within the general intent of the regulation C with respect to section 13- 4.1 C to F screening parking areas which faces residential uses with a fence no higher than 6 ft will be impracticable because an 8ot high fence would more effectively screen the property and would exact an undo hardship because the alternative would be an unreasonable amount of landscaping D thus the board finds that the applicants requested design labers from section 13- 4.1 c2f is reasonable and within the general intent of the regulations e with with respect to section 13- 4.14 c 2.1 and 13- 4.14 B 3.6 which requires a ramed 25 ft radius and Street intersections the applicant's testimony and Exhibits demonstrate the ability to safely maneuver into and from the property period F thus spelled that the board finds that applicants requested design waiver from section 13- 4.14 c 2.1 and 13 - 414b 3.6 is reasonable and within the general intent of the regulations eight with regard to applicants requested variance relief the board makes the following findings and conclusions a because the property borders and ab buts a residential use the maximum height of a fence in the front yard is 4 feet and the side yard is 6 feet while the application proposes a fence of 8 ft in height in order to effectively screen the residential home a need was created for a very Rel pursuant to njsa 40455 d-7 C2 from the maximum fence height requirement B the board finds that such a variance would recreate a more desirable visual environment by effectively shielding the commercial use and parking lots from the adjoining residential uses the board finds that the benefit of deviating from the requirement that weighs in a detriment which might arise from the height requirement because it more effectively screens the residences with no detriment c section d section 13- 5.7 a requires that a restaurant building of 336 ft will require 41 parking spaces while the applicant proposes a total of 32 spaces 30 built and two space EV evv credit which results in a need for a variance pursuant to 40 call 55 d-7 C2 D the board finds that the parking variance would promote the public health safety and Welfare by allowing the effective devel Vel mment of property on which there's currently a vacant restaurant and will promote a desirable visual environment by allowing for the development of property on which there is a vacant building with a use permitted in the zone the board finds that the testimony of the applicants experts which was reviewed and approved by the board's Consultants established that 30 parking spaces are sufficient for the proposed use due to the changing nature of fast food restaurants and will not have any detriment for that reason the board gives less weight to the testimony of Peter St because of his failure to review the testimony of the applicant's engineer and his admission that his opinion might have been different if he had read the testimony e section 135.7 B1 requires that one loading space be provided whereas the applicant seeks a variance with no loading spaces F the board finds that the variant for no loading space would promote the public health safety and Welfare by allowing the effective development of property on which there is currently a vacant restaurant and will promote a desirable visual environment by allowing for the development of property on which there is a bacon building with a use permitted in the zone the board finds that the testimony of the applicants experts which were was reviewed and approved by the board's Consultants established that a dedicated loading space is not necessary due to the infrequent nature of deliveries and the ability to safely take deliveries without a voting space and will not have any detriment for that reason the board gives less weight to the testimony of Peter St PP for the reason set forth above the board acknowledges that there was testimony and concerns about the potential noise from delivery trucks however that same concern would arise whether the delivery trucks were located during deliveries and there wherever they were located during deliveries and therefore granting of the variance does not result in any greater noise issues than requiring deliveries in a dedicated loading space g the application seeks the following variances for signage I section 13- 5.8 C1 1.1g to permit approximately 46.8 total square ft of wall signs on the south side of the building where the total area of wall signs on a single wall shall not exceed one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of store Frontage but not more than 40 square ft two from section 13- 5.8 C1 1.1 H to permit 3.5t tall McDonald's logos wall signs at Long speedwall Avenue the southern building facade and the Eastern building facade where the height of a wall sign is Li lied to 2 ft three from section 13- 5.8 C1 1.1a to permit one facade sign on the rear of the building Eastern building facade that is 14 Square ft where no signs are permitted on the rear of the building which does not face on the street four from section 13- 5.8 C7 to permit five freestanding signs in the Drive-Thru We Are One freestanding sign is permitted five from section 13- 5.8 c 7 7.2 to permit freestanding signs in the Drive-Thru area where freestanding signs are only permitted in the front yard six from section 13- 5.8 C 77.3 to permit freestanding signs totaling approximately 75.4 ft or a maximum of 20 sare ft is permitted seven section 13- 5.8 C7 7.7 to permit freestanding signs comprised of mum material and in red or yellow in color where freestanding signs are required to be constructed of painted wood woodlike or wood appearing material and shall be painted in dull or matte finished colors with contrasting colors for lettering and other message elements H the board finds that the variance is set forth above related to signage would promote the public health safety and Welfare by allowing the effective development of property on which there is currently a vacant restaurant and will promote a desirable visual environment by allowing for the development of property on which there is a vacant building with a use permitted in the zone They will also provide a sufficient V visibility to passing motorists the board notes the intensity of several of the sign signage fances was decreased by the applicant at the suggestion of the board and its professionals the board finds of the testimony of the applicants experts which was reviewed and approved by the board's Consultants established that the proposed signage is necessary for the effective identification of the proposed restaurant and the effective movement of vehicles on site and is similar to already existing in the vicinity on SK Avenue and will not have any detriment for that reason the board gives L rate to the testimony of Peter St for the reason set forth above I section 13- 4.1 c2f to permit no or limited screening of off street parking spaces along the front yard facing Dayton Road we all off street parking and roading areas are required to be screened by a fence wall or Landscaping when facing premises situated in any residential zones J the board finds that the variant set forth above related to screening of off-site parking spaces will promote the public health safety and Welfare by allowing the effective development of property on which there's currently a vacant restaurant will promote a desirable visual environment by allowing for the development of property on which there is a bacon building with the use permitted in the zone the variance also promotes the safe circulation and access because it is required in part due to the realignment of the egress driveway onto Dayton Road to prevent right turns due due to the extensive landscape along other portions of the property facing Dayton Road the fencing and the movement of the existing driveway exit Point closer to speed well Avenue the variance will not have any detrimental impact a as to all the requested variances the board finds that the benefits of deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment variance relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and with no impairment to the board Zone plan and zoning ordinance the board finds that the application has presented does not require a front yard setback for parking areas as set forth in section 13- 5.7 D1 that section prohibits parking areas in the front yard setback quote unless specifically permitted in the respective Zone close quote another section of the Moors plan code section 13- 4.14 c Schedule a is entitled minimum distance in feet for location of parking and loading areas and for the B2 Zone provides a distances distance from the street right away and from the property lines satisfying the exception of quote unless specifically permitted in the respective zones close quote thanks now therefore be it resolved by the planning board of the burough of Morris PLS in the county of Morris in the state of New Jersey on the 20th day of January 2025 as follows one preliminary and final site plan approval lot merger variances and waivers as set forth above are hereby granted as depicted on the fores said plans as amended subject to the condition here and after set forth two compliance with all fire and police department comments and recommendations three uh applicant shall comply with and revise the plans to address a the June 21st and October 18th 20124 reports of the board traffic consultant B the August 8th 2024 report of the board planner C the September 5 2024 report of the board engineer four applicant shall submit revisions to the facil and Architectural plans to the board planner and board engineer for review and approval prior prior to signing of the final plans five all deliveries shall be during daylight hours during non- peak times and shall not occur during overnight hours six all sight biting shall be on a timer such that all lights except for those necessary for Safety and Security shall Dim when the restaurant is not open seven the trash SL refug enclosure shall contain a Time block that will be set to prevent any Trash Refuge pickup during overnight hours eight applicant shall amend the plans to provide for hair pin striping and the use of granite block curbs nine applicant to amend plans to include the provision of no boering signs at locations to be approved by the board engineer 10 applicant to comply with the recommendations of the board traffic consultant regarding the use of ballards to deter rightand turns onto Dayton Road 11 applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the board traffic engineer as to signage and striping including the outline of payment markings 12 hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 13 applicants shall amend the plans to provide for fire Lanes as recommended by the burough Fire Marshal 14 applicant to revise plans to provide that all signs shall be with goose neck lighting and not internally lit 15 applicant shall amend the plans to provide for greater land escaping in the North Eastern corner of the property between Dayton Road exit and the Eastern property line to Shield residences on Dayton Road from the headlight glare 16 applicant shall amend the plans to provide signage indicating that employee parking shall be in spaces along the Eastern property line and require any employees to park in the indicated spaces 17 applicant shall execute a developers agreement with the burrow of Morris Plains in a form satisfactory to the burough of attorney prior to the execution of the site plan which shall include what is not limited to a a requirement that the applicant post all necessary performance guarantees B the requirement that the applicant post all necessary maintenance guarantees 18 applicant shall be bound by and comply with all the representations made by applicant and the applicants Witnesses and professionals before the board at all public hearings and the same are hereby are Incorporated herein and are representations upon which this board has relied in granting the approval set forth herin and shall be enforceable against the applicant and any developer of a particular section or parcel uh as if those representations were made conditions of this approval 19 disapproval is additionally expressly subject to the following conditions no trash or recycling shall be scheduled for pickup prior to 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. B applicant shall perform noise testing to ensure compliance with all noise standards 65 DBA for daytime 50 DBA for night time in accordance with ordinance 4-2019 prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy in compliance with the performance standard under the supervision of the construction code efficient in the event the applicant fails to set test it shall install noise attenuation measures to bring the site to compliance C applicants shall provide no idling signs at a location to be reviewed and approved by the board engineer D prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy applicant shall demonstrate compliance with fall performance standards to be reviewed and approved in writing by the board engineer and shall comply at all times with the board with the barel performance standards ordinance similarly at the time of application for certificate of occupancy applicant shall demonstrate that the actual business to occupy the tenant space as finally constructed conforms to the performance standards ordinance continued compliance with the performance standard ordinance shall be a requirement of continued occupancy or operation of any process or equipment e all building facade shall be instructed in accordance with the architectural plans for the site to be reviewed and approved by the board planner F applicant to obtain all necessary state county and local approvals including a major access permit from the ngt do in conformance with the plan submitted and approved as part of this application 20 prior to the execution of site plan a applicant shall obtain the written approval of all plans as finally revised from the fire department B applicant shall obtain approval of the moris County Soil Conservation District C all plan revisions are requ as required elsewhere and this approval shall be submitted to the board engineer board planner and the board traffic consultant D applicant shall submit to the board engineer and bur attorney for review and approval a deed of merger 21 prior to obtaining a construction permit the commencement of site construction building permit Andor land disturbance the following conditions shall be satisfied applicate shall pay all engineering inspection fees two schedule a pre-construction meeting with the burrow engineer and Fire subcode official three submit a construction cost estimate to the barel engineer for determination of inspection fee and mail and payment of inspection fee four install an orange construction snow fence in order to prot protect trees and shrubs to be retained five obtain a signed site plan 22 prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupany following conditions shall be satisfied applicant shall one obtain the fire department's written confirmation of installation of required fire safety improvements site familiarization and walk through two obtain Police Department's written approval of traffic signs markings and site familiarization and walk through three obtain the burrow Engineers written certification of satisfactory completion of the side improvements non-safety items such as Landscaping trees top por of pavement Etc may be deferred due to seasonal weather conditions four post the 2-year maintenance guarantee for shade trees of landscaping five submit as built plans showing building setbacks and utility lines and profiles and height of buildings six obtain the board secretary's written certification the adequate funds are in the board escrow account to cover all past present and future charges up to and including the issuance of certificates of occupancy seven all deed of easement shall be recorded in the Morris County clerk's office and copies of same provided to the board secretary 23 if any of the individual findings conclusions or conditions as set forth in this resolution are subsequently declared invalid then the remaining findings and conclusions shall be deemed sufficient to support the decision of the board in the remaining conditions 24 the board secretary shall provide a copy of this resolution to the bough attorney and to the construction official within 20 days of the date hereof 25 this resolution shall take effect as provided by water one of the three moving yeah so can I have a motion to approve this resolution second car roll call okay Mr ster yes yes mayor yes good night gentlemen the last application on the agenda tonight is p-3 d24 uh 16251 LLC BL 17135 2 and 225 Litt Road LLC 17153 sure I was contacted by the applicant attorney who understood with the weather and the interest in other applications that they were they were they asked to be carried so this at the the application PB 3-24 um is technically started right now but only for a millisecond to carry it to the next meeting of this board which is February 10th 2025 correct correct so there be no further notice on that applic I believe that is back in our normal spot which is 531 yes we are good okay uh committee reports minor site excuse me I need a motion and a second for that and you can do a voice vote no problem to carry all right so can I get a motion to carry the wer to next month's meeting second yes yes yes yes Kell yes Fain yes yes yes committee reports minor and master plan any updates there new business okay can I have a motion second second call yes may yes yes yes next next SCH planning board meeting is February 10th council chambers 5en you need a [Music] voice okay