To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. 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 Morris newsp and the Morris County daily record and posted on the Bolton board in the Burough Hall. 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 appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Karen, roll call, please. >> Mr. President, >> Mr. Mess
>> here. >> Mustard >> pres. >> Okay. The first item on tonight's agenda is the approval of meeting minutes for the October 20th, 2025 meeting. The board has received copies of those
minutes. Does anybody have any ads or changes? >> Uh on the bottom of 398 and the top of99 the last sentence >> that was easy. Anybody else?
Okay, with that correction, can I get a motion to approve these minutes? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, all in favor? >> Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda are comments from the public. And this is
specifically for items not on tonight's agenda. Hello. >> My name is Carolyn Bennett and Road. >> I just have one thing to read. I don't think I'm breaking any rules. My kids are here. So, we might run off, but
hopefully we get through this. >> Okay. Um, good evening everyone. I hope you're all doing well. Um although I haven't been at this forum in a while, it's been nice to see many of you guys around town and at other meetings and my children here tonight because you know the ordinance questions that I have and
have been discussed, they affect their daily lives as well. Um as well as some of the other families on Dayton Road. So first I wanted to thank the Burough Council for all of the work that they've been doing on amending the ordinance that allows drive-through restaurants in
residential zones. At the November 13th meeting, um the burough council unanimous unanimously voted to revise ordinance 14-2023. Ironically enough, I was delivering those twins when the certified letter went out announcing that the drive-thru
was going to be added as a permitted use buried among other updates. Um, so I'm especially glad to see that two years and one month later, um, the concerns that residents have been raising are finally being acknowledged and the drive-through allowance is, you know, being discussed to being removed. Um,
anyways, as written, I know we all know what the ordinance says, but um, this drive-through restaurant, the ordinance allowed drive-through restaurants in the heart of downtown Plains without clear guard rails related to safety, pedestrian access, environmental impact,
or traffic flow. The McDonald's project highlighted many of these concerns. Um, so this new ordinance, ordinance 11-2025, will remove drive-through restaurants as a permitted use in the Burough's B2 zone. And while this isn't going to change the McDonald's project currently
approved back in December 2024, it will prevent future drive-through restaurants in the B2 zone, which is crucial to residents safety who live there, crucial to those three little ones back in that row. Um, and like I said, many other residents in the area. So, while we have
nothing against McDonald's, although it's not necessarily at the top of our takeout list, the drive-thru location proposed for the 413 and 435 Spiegel Avenue is just not the right business model for that area. So, I'm looking forward to the next steps because I know you guys are going to be continuing
discussing that at upcoming meetings. Now, my second point, um, I do mention those speed well addresses because it connects directly to some of the questions I've been trying to wrap my head around lately, and I raised this as at last week's council meeting. And I
appreciate that the mayor, you committed to helping me find an answer. Um, I can send you my email so that we can connect over email, but I know Bill, you were there. Sue, I think I saw you in the crowd, too. But I wanted to bring this question to this board because ultimately the planning board is to
approve the McDonald's application. So I assume that the answer is known here. When I look at the Buroughs code, specifically article 5, chapter 22, I interpret the weight restriction ordinances as follows. Trucks over four tons are not permitted on Dayton
Academy, Canfield, Mountain Way, Silven Drive, Trow Ridge, or Washington. Trucks over five tons are not permitted on Malipartis. Deliveries are exempt only when the delivery is to an address on those streets. So that's where my confusion clicks in and my major issue
with this. Um the McDonald's project address is not on Dayton. It's on a Speedwell Avenue, the addresses I just mentioned. Um but this application was approved with an egress onto Dayton Road. So that means large delivery trucks, semi trucks carrying
food, supplies, waste removal, all of that is going to be using Dayton Road even though it falls on that weight restricted residential street and McDonald's is not on a Dayton Road address. Um, the applicant never requested a variance for this, but if I
am wrong, I I am looking forward to being proven wrong by reading testimony or timestamps of videos or or where they did request that. Um, perhaps this is exactly the scenario that the ordinance seemed designed to prevent. Many
residents flagged this, yet the conflict with the ordinance was repeatedly downplayed in the countless hours of discussion that a lot of people were involved in. I don't know how many of you guys still have the McDonald's application on top of your mind, but for us living right there, we do. I invite
you to walk by the current state of the site. Piles of debris flowing everywhere. you will have to turn onto Dayton because they have a nice green cover for anyone driving on Speed Well, but if you come down onto Dayton, that cover is gone. So, you can see right into the uh site, you can see everything
that's there. I personally don't see how it's any less of an eyesore than the Friendlyies building that was there, which people had made a point of we got to get it down. It's an eyesore. Um but to each their own. Um, so we also learned recently that ordinance
6 2025 added two more streets to those truck restricted roads, Rosedale and Hillview. And there is signage that needs to be ordered or DOT has to approve it. Whatever the process is, there has to be signs put on those two new streets, which also leads to signs
being put on the other street that I previously mentioned that had not been there. So, it just leads to a lot of questions in my head. Like, did the McDonald's application get approved without addressing this variance simply because there was no sign that said trucks over four tons are not permitted?
I I hope that's not the case. Um, so I'm not looking for an immediate answer tonight and I don't know how much longer they're going to be quiet for. So, I just respectively request clear clarification on all of this. Whether it's a phone call, an email, a written letter to my house that I will keep my
eye out for. I am happy to talk in a a one-on-one setting, but I don't have clarity on maybe I'm interpreting the ordinance wrong. The weight restriction, how it relates to the McDonald's application and how the McDonald's application got approved without
requesting a variance for that or um I know that the mayor's going to be looking into it. Like I said, I appreciate that, but also maybe some of the other yes votes can can chime in because I'm assuming we all needed to, you know, understand that before we voted.
>> Yes. So, that's already in the book when I get all of that. I will make sure to get that was brought up at McDonald's. >> Okay. um like by end of months do you think or like in six months?
>> No, I mean relatively shortly here. Um >> sure go ahead. >> Uh Andy uh sorry I was at the reason the the um when the application comes in uh it is reviewed the applicant says
various planner our our planner our engineer also look at it and say yes you need those varants or not. No one flagged that as a variance. I think number one, it would be a variance because on a technical aspect, the prohibition on um using that road is not
in the zoning ordinance. It's in the general police powers. This order can't give a variance from that. They can prohibit something that's illegal, but they don't they couldn't give a variance. That's one. But that presumes that that the interpretation is as you read. The applicant, our engineer, the
boards engineers and people that read it read it this way. Not that uh that the limitation is to deliveries with a mailing address on a particular street, but deliveries on and to that that on
that street, not a mailing address on that street. McDonald's is most definitely the property is along that street. It doesn't say to a place with a millions. However, be that as you may that was raised at one point by members
of the public. Absolutely. The planner even but the planner Mr. Stepp who came up and spoke on behalf of the objectors the public downplayed that issue. That still doesn't answer the question. It's an interpretation that almost everyone said it's not it was not the exception
for again a street address but a delivery on that on that street not it doesn't matter what the post office is policy be that as it may this you know those matters on appeal and the it is currently scheduled for trial which is really an oral argument both sides
submit briefs that this was valid or wasn't valid um but I think January 8th or 9th so judge is going to decide by So if you are right um and your interpretation >> sorry if I'm right or are you saying I am right? >> No if if your if your argument is right
on the interpretation the judge will agree with that. Judge Mwitz is a very bright guy and for many times if in fact that's agreed it would be a reason to overturn what was done. If he doesn't agree with you it'll be there's lots of other there's lots of other reasons to challenge but that issue is going to be
addressed by that interpretation whether or not that's validated. Okay. So, um I don't know if this is the whole I thought it was very black and white like street address is where delivery is being made.
>> It doesn't say that's the point. It's for delivery on that street. It doesn't say with a postal address on a specific I don't have to go back and forth. No, I know that wasn't my full question was going to be >> would it be worth and this is a question
maybe rhetorical to further define that clarity in whatever that the police code the or like do we need to get to that level of granularity so this doesn't happen in the future whereas oh well when we say address do we mean this side of the property or the mailing address
where the mailbox is like do does do people usually get into that level of detail or is it usually up for interpretation I think that's up for interpretation but I think more of I think it's and again it's my understanding and most of the professionals looked at it that it was
just a you know a gut thing you ride them along a particular street and you deliver it to there or there or there doesn't matter again I know this interpretation here I'm not saying that has to the thought process is you don't want that road unless they're going to
deliver something that's on the road address on the road but with where a truck can get off using that and that's so that's the thought. So I think that hasn't been an issue because it's been interpreted generally the way the way it was looked at here not with not with
particular area mailing address but if the public which is your voting public and you vote for people the governing body that should be changed absolutely but the understanding of it up to this point is is no is a different understanding not that it can't be that
you're allowed to as the public officials and say we think you should change your ordinance to be X and Y hasn't Okay. So, everything that you did just voice over though, you're confident that it was brought up and proven such way in the testimony that's on record.
>> Oh, no. You you don't when when you when you are the question is how a law applies or what it means. You don't have testimony about that. That's a legal question. Do they need a variance or not? And it was discussed and that that issue was discussed as I said I remember
it because the planner that spoke on behalf of the objectives who objected to the application when he was asked what's it doesn't really that doesn't apply I'm paraphrasing but even Mr. Stack was not of the opinion that that would prohibit
the use uh of the vehicles that were going to make deliveries to McDonald's and then exit out. He he he wasn't given that much. He had lots of other problems with the with the application, but not that. >> So, Mr. Steph was I don't want to be grouped as a part of
the objector because I I actually never even spoke with the man. I I I saw him at a meeting similar to you. Um there were other planners though involved in that interpretation because you've only mentioned his name, but my understanding there were other planners, right? other
planners but when it was raised that this that the the discussion that I gave you on how it would be interpreted was given as the reason why a variance is not required and anybody could have said no it should be interpreted that way but that's you know that was generally
understood and if so if if so that's that's how it came about was not testimony on what did the governing body mean when they said property and didn't say address. No, it was not that. There was a question, does it apply or not?
Would it prohibit these drugs? And the understanding which was stated in the way that I said was accept is generally accepted by the professionals that looked at it. It's an interpretation of the statute. It's not there for fact. People say no, this isn't it's not that
way. People can read it and the professionals read it and the determination was the advice that was given by the by the planners. Um my interpretation is the same but again I said this is going to be before Judge Minkowitz on the second week of January.
This question will be decided. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean I I need to digest all of this. I don't want to just say that this has answered all my questions. It takes me a little bit of time to listen to everything that you just said. But it's still not sitting right with me. And um like I feel like one
planner's name has been thrown out. But I would like to hope everyone's best interest is the safety of everyone. And if there's an or if there is a police law saying really heavy trucks shouldn't be on this road because little kids and residents live here, then I just can't wrap my head around why we would be
like, "Yeah, let's approve an application that literally forces these trucks on said road because the egress is only on that road." Like I would be just interested in maybe continuing this discussion in a smaller form. fit, but I
I think I have some followup questions and um yeah, I'm looking forward, I guess, to January. Thank you. I know that was longer than maybe a time limit, but I appreciate it. >> It's okay, Miss Bennett. Thank you. Thank you for uh voicing your
concerns. Um I do just wanted to to your concern about um whether it looks at the street address specifically or just the street itself. As as uh Mr. Brew was saying, it doesn't doesn't specifically call out also addresses in the ordinance. Um that's something for not
the board but for the council to look at right as the ordinances. So um and I hear your concern. Um and I think it is something worth looking at. We do need to currently uh the ordinance is being looked at by NJOT. We actually got some response from them. There's some action
that we have to take on our side um to comply with what they've asked us for in order to get the signs. U but it's also something we can look into as to whether or not we can take delivery to wholesal for example right I know very right now it's very generic um it says uh you know
uh on the street but it's something that you know as as the council on the ordinance committee we can look into that >> okay >> I'm going to respectfully at least as to not disrupt the rest of the meeting but I will be watching because I do watch
you guys and and I'm you know I am glad when we do the right thing. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Okay. Close this portion of the agenda. Uh committee reports, minor site plan committee update.
None. Master plan review committee. Any updates? >> Uh hearing correspondence and bills. So purchase order 52093 for
Falcon LLP McDonald's litigation 14,1724 purchase order 20252089 again legal services $2.50 and last is 20250
excuse me 20252036 Anderson and services 10. That's all the bills and I will approve these. Please give me a second. Mr. Just real
quick, that first one you read that was Did I get the number correct? $14,1724. Is that correct? That is correct. I will uh I will sorry. Okay. I I will second them as agenda. Take care. Roll call, please.
Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bezel. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Steer. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Houston. >> Yes. >> Mayor Carr. >> Yes. >> And Mrs. Mc.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Next item on our agenda um is under applications. We have PB-1-25, which is Rivian LLC, 329 Speedwell Avenue, lot 23, lot 1.01.
Uh, tonight the board will review the application for completeness only, and no testimony will be heard. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Um, again, Joe Pero from Bronberg and Newman on behalf of Rivian. As noted, we are here for completeness. As the board may
recall, um we were here at the October 20th completeness hearing. Uh based on the recommendations of your consultants, uh the board granted some of the uh checklist submission waiverss. Uh two were not granted. Those were denied and
we agreed to resubmit and include a refu recycling plan and a full landscaping plan. Uh resubmission was made to the board and to your consultants. Uh, and we did receive responses from the board engineer uh, updated review letter dated
November 12th, 2025. And your planner issued a report dated November 13, 2025. Um, both of those letters recommend administrative completeness now that those two missing items have been supplied. Um, so we are here just for confirmation that the application is now
technically complete and we would respectfully request that we be placed on the board's agenda for the public hearing at your next meeting. That would give us sufficient time to get our public hearings in order. Happy to answer any questions. I believe
the professionals have gi on on your the board's received your documentation. Uh that was the 1112 memo. >> Correct. >> You want to take us through that real quick? >> Well, it's it's pretty straightforward. >> What gentleman said the waiverss were
granted, the outstanding information was provided and the application administrative >> and yeah, Miss Miss Lane is not here tonight. I guess Kate I'm not sure if Kate called to be here, but same is true
with report. >> I read her letter. Yes. >> Correct. So with the recommend recommendation from our engineering and planning professionals, I have a motion to the application complete. >> So move. >> Is there a second?
>> Second call. >> Okay. It was Mrs. Mrs. >> Okay. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bezel. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Ste. >> Mr.
Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mayor Carr. >> Yes. >> And Mrs. >> Yes. >> And so the December meeting is in three weeks. It's a week earlier than nor December 8th. >> December 8th. Okay. We'll see you then.
And if there's anything else, Karen, that we need to just let me know. >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate. Look forward to seeing you on December. >> Okay. Next on the agenda, old business. Anything any new business?
>> Sorry, I do have one thing for visit. Um, just uh as the as the uh board heard earlier from uh Miss Bennett um on Thursday night, the council unanimously passed uh the ordinance uh that would
effectively remove uh the drive-through restaurants from the B2 zone. Um >> the ordinance We correct we we introduced the ordinance that would uh that would remove the drive-through restaurants for B2 zone. Um the next
step is for the planning board uh to review to make sure that it is not inconsistent with the master plan. Uh so that'll be coming to the planning board um at the the next meeting and that's where the discussion will be and uh you know based upon recommendation from the
planning board uh the council will look to uh to take hopefully final action at the uh the next December council meeting. So just making you all aware that that's coming up >> and that information on the ordinance is in one of the packages that you'll pick
up on the way out tonight. Okay. Yes, >> a copy is for this. I have a copy from this this lady also. >> I'll make sure >> I'll make sure she got this.
>> Okay. All right. Um, first I want to wish all the board members and everyone and our public audience. Uh very happy each of you are able to spend time with um next scheduled planning board meeting
is December 8th as previously mentioned. It's right here in the council chambers. I get a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. All in favor? >> I think.