Board of adjustment for May 18th, 2026. Legal notice required by the in accordance with the open public meetings act satisfied in a statement certifying same will be executed. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> The first item is the consideration for approval of the minutes of the March 5th, 2026 reorganization and special
meeting. >> Don't we have to do a roll call? >> Oh, we're going to do a roll call. [laughter] >> Mr. Goldberg >> here. >> Mr. Trackberg >> here. >> Mr. Williams >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Schustster >> here, >> Mr. Benois >> here, >> Mr. Kramer >> here,
>> Mr. Woodford >> here, >> Miss Simmons >> here, >> Mr. Evangel >> and then for the board staff we have our board attorney Mr. Eer >> here, >> our board engineer Joseph >> here >> and our board planner Keller >> and I am Ryan Kerpa the board secretary.
>> Okay, so now consider first item is consideration for approval of the minutes for the March 5th, 2026 reorganization and special meetings. Everybody reviewed that? Any comments, questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion.
>> I'll make a motion. Second. >> Thank you. All in favor? >> I. >> All oppose. Motion carries. [clears throat] >> Next is a resolution for the application DA28-25. Mr. Olen. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a
memorializing resolution with respect to the application filed by Todd McName for property at 46 Burnham Road. um who applied to the board for permission to modify an existing non-conforming dwelling by constructing an addition which require variance relief for
sideyard setback of 5.8 ft where 10 ft's required combined sideyard setback of 4.8 ft where a minimum of 20 ft is required impervious coverage of 56.2% 2% which was both already existing and it would be proposed uh where a maximum of
55% permitted and to uh expand the non-conforming structure uh for the reason set forth in the resolution that application was conditionally granted with our standard conditions members any comments questions if not I'll entertain a motion
>> so moved Mr. Chair >> second thank you roll call >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Williams. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schustster. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ben. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Woodford.
>> M. Simmons. >> And Miss Simmons. >> Yes. Next. We go to a public hearing. There's two on the Thank you. There's two on the agenda tonight. We're going to skip ahead to BA-02-26
because it looks like a relatively short application. Yeah, [clears throat] this is application BA226 block 9606 lot 3, street address for Flint Lock Run and the RA15 zone for a
section C variance. The applicant proposes construction of a two-story addition on the rear of their principal structure, a new patio, and a new deck where the variance request is for pre-existing non-conforming right side yard of 16.32 ft with a proposed 16.28
ft and there's 20 ft required. >> Okay. Can we have you wait time over here? Okay. Can we have everyone's name for the record, please? Yeah. Matthew JL,
>> would you both please stand and raise your right hands? Do you solemnly swear that the I'm sorry and our professionals as well, which is as well. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help your guy.
>> And again, for the record, everyone for the record, please, your name. >> Yeah. Matthew Diel Forbes. >> Okay. Mr. Forbes, can you give us the benefit of your background? >> Graduated from New Jersey Institute of
Technology in 2007 licensing in 2014. I've been practicing locally ever since office in Chicago. Um multiple boards in the area
recently some of the other boards some at Chattam Chatt and your license is intact. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Except you as a professional and an expert in the area of architecture.
Okay. Who's going to proceed first? >> Yes. So, uh yeah, my name is Matt. Uh my wife and I just moved into town uh coming up four years and we bought a house uh that we loved in neighborhood
and uh we love all of our neighbors and have decided that it's a place that we want to stay and wanted to expand on the back of the house just so we have more room since we've got a one-year-old daughter now and uh we plan on having more. So, we wanted to have more room
and update the kitchen so that we've got a nice area to hang around since it hasn't been updated since it was built. >> Okay. >> So, you've reviewed the uh plans and this is what you want to do? >> I have. Yes.
>> Okay. Uh board members, any questions? Professionals, any questions? Members of the public, any questions of this individual? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. You may proceed. >> All right. So, uh, Matt and his wife
Kaen came to me, um, like he said, uh, looking to just do a marginal expansion in the rear yard just to make the, um, really the first floor, uh, a little bit more modern to the standards, give them better access to the rear yard. Um, so
the address here is four foot lock run. It's lot three, block 960. in the R15 zone where we are required to have a 15,000t lot. We're just over that uh minimum at 15,028.
It's a BLE home. Um one of those mid 20th century styles. Um built very efficient um floor plans. Not a lot of extra space between them to move stuff around. Um, so what we're doing and I can kind of um
if I can use that microphone, I guess microphone on might have to turn on on the bottom. >> Have to hold it for a couple seconds. >> Light up. >> It lights up. You're good.
>> Okay. So, um, >> so Mr. Forbes, the what you have on your easel, is that the plan that we have? >> Yes, it is. >> And it hasn't been modified or rendered? >> Not at all. >> Okay. So then I don't need to mark it. Go ahead. >> So if I'm looking at um cheap BOA1 in
your packet, um and I look at the proposed survey, uh Flint lock run is here. Um we're looking to do a 10-ft addition on the right side here where in your zone RA15, we are required to have a 20 foot sideyard setback. The existing
building is set back at 16.32. It's a little bit skewed in the front at 16.4. So when we do that 10ft addition, we actually end up with 16.28. So this existing non-conforming condition gets ever so slightly worse, but we're
staying in plane for those 10 ft. Um, we then have a a small deck down to a patio. Um, we have a lot of a big setback on the left side. Um, so we are actually in compliance with the combined sideyard setback. Um, so really what the
hardship here is is the sighting of the existing building is just slid a little bit too far to the right. If we could pick the building up and just move it slightly left, we would be in compliance. And I think that's important to note because the overall length of the building is compatible with the zoning. It's not
like the building is extra long. Um [clears throat] everything else um is in compliance. The building uh the site's not saturated. Building coverage is required or maximum is 20%. Existing is just under 10%.
We're proposing 11.55. Uh lot coverage you're allowed to be up to 45%. Existing is at 23.33. We're proposed at 28.79. Again, nowhere near um saturation of the
site. Building height is allowed to be up to 45 ft. One of the benefits of this neighborhood um is that a lot of the older buildings sit lower at about 26 ft. So, this building really is very much compatible with the neighborhood and kind of understated. Um
one of the benefits of not kind of starting over and building a new house there that wouldn't be necessarily compatible. Um, I'm going to flip the sheet, just walk you through the floor plans real quickly. So, this is the lower level of the the B
level, right? So, if you would come in the front door and you would go down half a flight. Um, there's a bedroom down there and a bathroom. We're renovating the bathroom. And there's that 10-ft addition off the back, kind of creating a family room down there for them. um with access to the below the
deck and the patio. There's that setback. There's that required 20 ft. So, if I could just slide the building, I would be in conformance. Here's the first floor. So, you [snorts] come up from the B level, you come in, you got a little living room. There's
that original kitchen that we see a lot in a very small eating area. We're just pushing back 10 ft creating an open floor plan. Um the deck we pushed back off the plane and we just have the steps coming down. So that gives some relief
along that right side step set back. There's the front elevation. Really nothing is visible from the street. This is all in the back. Um there's the left side elevation. You see the garage doors existing the deck in
the foreground. the rear elevation. Here's this is this addition right here that we're proposing. Again, not going above the existing building height, staying actually a little bit underneath it. Here is the continuation of that existing non-conforming side for that 10
ft. Um, and that's really it. And then today, just on before I came here, I put an exhibit together of pictures I took this morning of the site that I'd like to, if possible, mark in. >> Sure. Would you just mark that A1,
please? And you put today's date on it. >> Sure. >> Is it one sheet? >> That's one sheet. Yep. With photos and a satellite view that I took today. So, here's just a photo of the front of the house. Again, nothing that we're doing is going to be visible from there.
Here's the right side. I thought this was important because you can see the neighboring house that would be most affected. That is their driveway. So, their house is quite pushed off of the property line in this side. There's actually about 35 ft between the two buildings. And they the neighbor kind of
goes down this driveway and then turns in. So, this is really the utility side of their their house that we're kind of closest to. Um here is in the back where there's that existing gravel patio. This is where we're going to be doing that expansion. Here you can see Matt and his wife
actually started to plant some skip laurels to kind of create some buffer that'll hopefully grow in in the next few years. Here's a satellite view showing this. Right. So, I'm just trying to show that there's really no negative impact to the neighbor. Not there's plenty of light
and air um between the houses um [clears throat] and everything else is really in compliance. So for us, we feel like there's the hardship of the existing sighting of the building. And we also really feel like the
positives of modernizing this house, maintaining the existing um house that's compatible with the neighborhood really outweigh any of the negatives here. >> Thank you, board members. Any questions? >> No. The only question I can see, I see
that fence on the um uh that's on the um plans on the uh survey. Part of it's in one lot and part of it's in the other lot. What's the deal with that? Is there any Is there ever been >> the fence on the other side here?
>> Yeah. So that was uh that was in before we had moved in and [clears throat] my neighbor and I both agreed that we didn't want it there and didn't need it there and so I gave him permission to take it down. >> Okay. So has it been taken down? >> Yes. >> Oh, okay.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Board professionals, any questions? >> Any member of the public with questions of either uh either witness? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. Board members,
any uh opinion on this application? >> Pretty straightforward. The change in encroaching 4100s of an inch in addition to the prior encroachment. >> So basically >> the minimus 400
>> picked that up from you guys. [laughter] >> Yeah. No one will notice. Uh, so could I uh >> I make a motion that we approve this application as proposed. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Williams? >> Yes. >> Mr. Schuster? >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodford? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I'll have a resolution for you at the next meeting. Thank you very much.
A tenth of a foot. don't 400 in different. >> Next we go to BA-04-25 383 South Street LLC. >> All right. a millimeter
less than a little closer. >> I don't think they're in here. >> They're not in here. >> 1 mm. [laughter] >> 32 to 28. >> I just bring it up here. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay, those guys in the back. >> Yeah, I think George just went back. >> Oh, here they come. Just under a half inch. >> Okay. >> Different. >> Yeah. >> 4100s.
>> Yeah. 100 foot. >> Oh yeah. 400 in 48. >> Yeah. >> Sometimes you look at those and you think it's feet and inches are >> under half an inch. >> Exactly. 48 in.
>> You want to change your thinking about it. >> It's half an inch there. moving out. Either way, they would have good. >> Are we good? >> You ready? >> Yes, sir. >> All right, Mr. Cali. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board, nice to see everybody this evening. For the record, Larry Cali, on behalf of the applicant, 383 South Street LLC. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'd like to briefly frame where I think we left off and then I'll turn over to board because I think it's it's it's back essentially in the the board's hands at this point.
Uh, as we continue the process, the last public hearing, we concluded redirect of a few witnesses and direct of our final witness, uh, the new witness, our acoustic engineer, along with redirect of civil engineering, uh, and planning as well. Uh at that point the objector concluded their case and chief we
concluded ours there was no more cross-examination open but the hour was getting late and prior to um either applicant or objector providing any summation statements and then we had a dialogue with the board as to what prospective conditions might be if this
board had a motion to vote affirmatively on the application. We said uh we'll be back next month and that's where we essentially left it. So at this point we are not continuing with any witness testimony. Um at this point we will let our objector say whatever he would like
to sum up when it's the board's pleasure. I know we have public comments still at a certain point. Uh and then perhaps uh we we can dialogue as to the prospective conditions which is a long list that both Rich and I have been keeping for many many months this project. Uh and then I think we're at sort of the natural conclusion at that
point for the board to deliberate this evening and hopefully put the matter to a vote this evening is our goal. >> Okay. >> One of the things I wanted to address, we've got received this letter from Mr. Rosenbach that's basically uh a letter brief outlining uh whether this is a
major requires uh the um whether it's a major application >> major development >> major development. So, um, why don't we hear from, uh, Mr. Rosenbach about why he thinks it is, and then we'll hear from you as to why it shouldn't be, and
then we're going to hear from Mr. Hoy as to whether it's, uh, what his uh, position is on this. >> Certainly, and we're going to rely on the testimony of the prior sworn witnesses as well, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mlen testified that it's not triggered. So, my profer can only bolster that so much, right? Council. So, um I I think
we'll be a pretty uh quick date in that regard from our side of the table. >> But let's get that moving. >> Why does he sit in the middle? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I sent this letter more than two weeks ago because I thought that it was uh to begin with
very complicated and I wanted to make sure that the board had the opportunity to focus on it and uh also because it was very important to me in the sense that it is not testimonial. It is a purely legal argument. Chair, Mr. Chair, you already described
it as a brief and it is a brief uh and it is purely legal. Uh and it relies on the relevant case law and on the New Jersey administrative code and what it is doing
this course is is is challenging the testimony that was given to the board on rebuttal by I believe was it Mr. Müller? Was that his name? who was talking about a penetrometer and how soil depending on how compact it is can be considered as
an impervious surface and what I was doing and what I did do in this letter which I hope everybody has read or has a chance to read is to say it's just not right that under the regulations the quality of the soil and whether it's at one point in its life has been compacted
at one point if it hasn't been has nothing to do with whether this is a major development and whether therefore this board has to uh it require that the applicant do more. So the letter itself has
I guess four pages. And what I do is uh one thing I note by the way is at the top of page two I cite a reported appellet division case called safe Hamilton open space which means
it's binding on this board as every other board in this state and it says that it is the responsibility of this board not the D and not someone else is the responsibility of this board to determine on the record whether the application complete complies with storm
water management rules and the board may not defer that determination to other agencies or condition approval on future compliance. So to be real clear about that, a board shouldn't say we're we're approving this provided that somewhere
down the road you get D approval. >> Yeah. So let me just cut in where you're at, Phil. Okay. So I agree with what you just said. I think that the Safe Hamilton case really just says what the regulation says, right? And the regulation says that whether it's a a
major development or not gets determined at this level. Yes. >> Right. And when we get to it, our engineer, we're going to ask him for his thoughts on >> I understand that position. >> And and by the way, one of the thing one of the other things I say and and I guess I'll get to I'll try to go in
order. I don't want to read the letter. Uh but I but I do at that point go through the definitions because there are a series of definitions in the New Jersey Administrative Code and just like the appellet court, the New Jersey Administrative Code controls this board.
We can't evade it. It's it's statewide law. And so the New Jersey Administrative Code defines first of all defines what a major development is. And it's it talks about something called regulated imperous surface.
And regulated imperous surface is defined. And at the top of page three of my letter, there's a somewhat lengthy definition of regulated imperous coverage. It's more than 10 lines long. I'm not going to read it. And that
definition itself relies on the term impervious cover impervious surface. So you get from regulated imperous surface to imperous surface and that's defined and that's a very short definition that is a surface that has been covered I
will repeat the word covered a surface that has been covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by water. Now we all know what it means to cover something. It means there's something somewhere and you put something on top of it. So that
is completely antithetical to saying, "Oh, gee, if some dirt happens to be more compacted, it becomes an impervious surface because it isn't. There's no cover over it." So under these regulations, unless there's a cover, and the cover could be asphalt, it might be
gravel, it could be a building, but it's not just dirt that's lying there and has been lying there for decades. So for that reason, this all this testimony and again I'm saying this as a matter of law. I'm not an engineer. I know I'm not
testifying as an engineer, but I'm a lawyer and I'm saying that as a matter of law. All the testimony you heard about the penetrometer. It's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether something is an impervious surface. Now,
I also note that it is up it's up to the board, clear law. It's up to the board to accept or reject expert testimony. You can reject my experts, you can accept them. You can accept their experts, you can reject them, but a court cannot rely
on expert testimony that flatly contradicts the pertinent legal authority. You can't just make stuff up that's contrary to law. So, I say that in my letter. And finally, I say one more thing, and this is it's not an attack on the board, and it's not an
attack on the engineer for sure, but it's just a statement of the law, which is ultimately it's the courts that determine and and interpret regulations and even town ordinances. Everyone on this board can have an
opinion on what a town ordinance means. Mr. Oler can have an opinion, the engineer can have an opinion, the planner can have an opinion, I can have an opinion, Mr. Cali can have an opinion, but our opinions aren't that important. What's important is what a court decides. And there are well-known
rules about what courts do to determine what things mean. [clears throat] And one of the rules is they don't rewrite things that are pretty plainly written. And when something is plainly written and says you need a cover, it's not up to anyone else in this room to say,
"Well, it says that, but we're going to interpret it differently. And that is my analysis that I wanted to present to the board. And again, I appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity to address it. Uh, you could
ask me questions, but all I can do is pretty much parrot what I already have. >> That's a question. My name is Phillip Rosenbach. R O S N B A C H. board members, any questions of Mr.
Rosenbach about his arguments here? >> Mr. Older, any questions? >> None. >> Okay. Mr. Cali, >> very limited. I I mean, Mr. Chairman, members, we've all been here. I'm on that side of the tablet often on this side of the table more often. Chapter one of an objective manifesto was
delayed, delayed, delayed. That's the game. Uh we're not too surprised. There was an 11th hour submission by Mr. Rosenbach. They understand that the intent might have been meritorious, but it's nothing more than an opinion opining as to engineering criteria and scrutinizing engineering review. We disagree with it. The board has heard
significant engineering testimony from the applicants, two engineering witnesses over the course of the past year and more on this application. Following completeness determinations, following several tech meetings with Mr. Bucha's office, discussions between Mr. Stewart's office and Mr. Guucha's office
leading up to this major development, minor inquiry that we've got here today, right up until the April public hearing when Mr. Mlen was back here testifying. That door is closed. I understand Mr. Rosabach's argument. He's probably going to have 15 more if he decides he wants to challenge a board approval should this board approve the application. The
issue is closed. This is right for a vote this evening. All testimony has concluded. He continues to opine on an engineering disagreement. I'm comfortable with the sworn testimony of our expert witnesses who swore on their license that this in fact is not a major development and even more than that I'm happy that the board has the cover you
do with your own engineer uh to give you his guidance on behalf of the board as well essentially sitting in a mediator capacity of which engineer may have been right or wrong. So at this point Mr. Chairman we continue to rest our case and chief notwithstanding the letter submitted by Mr. Rosenbach and we look
forward to moving this forward towards prospective board deliberation this evening. >> Well, you've reviewed what he uh he argues as to the definitions. Do you have any counter to that uh argument? >> Well, he he just restated the definitions. I mean, I will say that title 7 it defines impervious quite
broadly any surface limiting infiltration. That was part of Mr. Mlullen's testimony during the last public hearing as well. So an interpretation as to whether or not that methodology was implied in line with that interpretation, it's wholly subjective. He can have any opinion he wants on it at that point. You've heard
testimony from the engineer as did Mr. BHC. And if there's inquiries of the actual engineering criteria that was implemented to come to these conclusions, >> we were already there. Now, I'm not saying that ship has sailed. We're never going back there. We think that that ship has both sailed and concluded
adequately and thoroughly comprehensively with the testimony. So, uh, my my opinion of how he reads a definition is almost irrelevant in a courtroom. >> Well, I would like to hear what you're >> I understand. Well, I I I think he recited the definition, but I think he's taking a subjective angle on his
interpretation. If we're in a courtroom, we're relying on the transcript, and I'm relying on the transcript of Mr. Stewart, Mr. Mlelen, Mr. BCH I'm not relying upon my own whimsical thoughts as to how I'm interpreting an engineering code as an engineer. >> So I I put relatively little stock in
that Mr. Chairman. [clears throat] >> So Mr. Chairman while it's a legal question it is based in engineering and I think we need to hear from Mr. Vuch uh to get his interpretation. >> [clears throat]
>> So I'll start with um save Hamilton the case law u my opinion as an engineer that the case law is not providing for you a decision on
determination of major development is simply stating an understanding of the regulations which is that matters related to public health safety and welfare are part of the principal promps of preliminary approval. They are
under the strict jurisdiction of the local board and [clears throat] not a higher agency. The the reference in safe Hamilton is specific to the fact that that determination is not to be deferred. If you look to the Cox book, you'll find references in the Cox book
specifically related to the same and um other more recent decisions such as uh Hoboken versus Shipyard which challenged that and somewhat uprooted that and it is a heated warning to the board's heated right not HAT but heed to heed a
warning um that you should consider that under your jurisdiction and not defer to other agencies changes in rule promligations for the effective date of a filed application to you. And where this comes from
is the 1972 Clean Water Act, right? The Clean Water Act established EPA's storm water phase one rules. That was in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, under phase 1 EPA, major development was defined at a
federal level. It was defined as 5 acres or more of disturbance that then required the creation of programming to hand down to states and uh I don't want to get the term wrong
but the uh native nations um to regulate major developments at their level to the equal or greater standards similar to think of an right of our state government what they hand down to us at equal or greater
requirements. Hence why now we have minor development standards if because we find them appropriate not because the EPA or the state required them of us. Um in 1997 98 phase 2 rules came out from EPA. Phase 2 rule promagation changed
the major development standard from 5 acres to 1 acre. It reduced that standard. It also made a critical determination that populations of a 100,000 or less were to be considered small MS4s and to be regulated under the
MS4 program. >> What's MS4? >> The MS4 program is our um is our storm sewer program. >> We as municipality are tasked under our MS4 permit to review these applications.
The storm water rules of our state came out of that 98 2000 rule promagation from EPA that required that we address our flood hazard control act, our freshwater wetlands, our storm water rules, and all
these rules that you've seen most familiarly in 2023 and 2026 under the Murphy administration be amended and also prior in 2021, green infrastructure. So the the infancy of our storm water rules came out of the
EPA major development 1acre threshold. And so we look back about 30 years of history to what we consider major development one acre and it's been consistently the minimum standard applied from the top down and at the bottom level at our level it's public
health and safety. So it's our determination even when there's a D permit that has to be obtained. This is a little bit more education outside of just this discussion. It's important for you to understand that when a D permit is required, D's storm water management
reviewers are looking at the storm water management in the limited purview of whether or not it is appropriate for the issuance of the permit at hand, the flood hazard permit, the wetland permit, whatever. It is not for the totality of the development and and the full level
of public health and safety. that is this board and under MLU your jurisdiction or our planning board's jurisdiction. Um, and so that's what save Hamilton says. It says don't forget that you shouldn't punt to somebody else the principal prongs of preliminary
approval. Right? It it's messed up more often than not in our state. Unfortunately, I've been in other venues on that side of the table having to remind people of it and I've been on this side of the table having to remind people of it. Um, there's a certain level of prudence that's dictated and
that prudence goes back to with a preliminary and final site plan, an amended preliminary approval that may be warranted and necessary after you go get a D permit because you've changed the land use component or the public health
and safety of the application. So, if you can't satisfy the storm water public health and safety at the board locally, when you go to D and come back, you may often need an amended approval, but it's not often identified. Um, as it relates
to this application, we heard testimony from Mr. Stewart and his associate, Mr. M clone regarding the overall site design, the history since the Bruins took over the property and what they did without
permits, identifying a and then trying to rectify that with a survey of record and an understanding of what the historic footprint of the site was. We also heard similar testimony from the objectors engineer dating back further in some are aerials and then trying to
reconcile shapes that were proposed by both And as Mr. Cali said, you know, if this was to be determined in a court, we're going to rely on the transcript. So, I'm going to try to rely back on recollection of
of my prior testimony to this board from our last hearing. the overall net disturbance of the property and the overall net impervious increase. It's one acre of disturbance or quarter
acre increase of imperous surface or regulated motor vehicle surface and we're looking at time of application for 2023 rules. So we don't have the redevelopment of existing areas in play. So, if you have existing in the 2026
rules, if you have new pavement going in place of old pavement, that counts towards that quarter acre. That's a big difference moving forward. >> Yeah. >> Um, but I I reference that because I want you to understand the history of this disturbance on this site.
In the last five years, it's a little more clear. It's the activity since they took over the pro property and they they they degrubbed areas that had grown in and before that we see a development
pattern that was rather expansive of the property with that prior expanse on the property. There was impervious cover cover of gravel surfaces in many areas and that's what I keyed into with Mr. from Mcclullen's
testimony that there was tracked areas that were highly impervious and highly compacted and resistant to infiltration so generate high runoff and [clears throat] in those areas many of them also had gravel laid down and
tracked prepped areas over time. Those areas were reestablished with vegetation but that vegetation was reestablished through the gravel cover. So re-establishing those areas back as gravel is still a net a net neutral on
the impervious increase. So I think on the ground to the quarter acre is more specific to areas that were previous impervious prior to 2020 prior to 2022 2023 when this applicant took over
>> and its reestablishment of those areas. I find it to be mostly a a net neutral replacement. The overall one acre of disturbance somewhat similarly is over prior areas
that were historically disturbed. Many of the activities can be se segregated into two parts. The first part being property maintenance and taking back reclaiming the property from what had
been abandoned and had been grown in right over time and then the establishment of the footprint of the proposal you see in front of you, right? the former um being probably on the fringe of where
we would if we cumulatively added these things in to the ladder we'd be going from that I want to say it was 08 yeah8 acres in land disturbance from Steuart Engineer's testimony >> right
>> into an area that we're getting closer to that one acre or exceeding it and which would align with the objector's testimony Um, again, all these areas that are being reestablished for the programming today are areas that were part of the site's
80 to 100 year history. And I I'm confident that most of this is restoring the site to a prior footprint, a prior reg established footprint that had operated under major develop
operated as a facility previously and was was lawfully existing. And so the net changes >> on this site I don't believe constitute major Let's see. He's not quite saying that.
>> I believe we have a land use disturbance threshold that was that was testified to at point8. We have an increase in pvious coverage that was testified to as a net decrease, but I think it's more conservatively.
You could understand that there were some increases of of those areas, not exceeding a quarter acre. Um in the event that this I believe we have a minor development.
Um the the design of this site is meant to address storm water runoff from a overland flow direction of flow maintaining drainage patterns and improving drainage from the site to
wooded and regulated areas that won't be disturbed in the future. won't be developed in the future to mostly to the rear of the property. Um, and areas that therefore won't impact directly existing neighbors or public lands um or the
potential for development of those lands. If we were to consider this a major development, the analysis that's required is going to be uh comparison of existing to proposed
with an existing condition that was well documented in the testimony in front of you previously as being highly resistant to infiltration and generating high runoff, including soil testing that was referenced, which I think the intent of
that testimony was was in first priority to discuss the lack of infiltration and the high generation of runoff and in so trying to also identify it as
an impervious surface. If we just stick with that first part, the imper um the highly highly resistant to infiltration and generating runoff, you have a high what we'll call a high baseline hydrograph on the existing conditions. The proposed conditions
in comparison are going to be similar land cover, similar intensities, and so you're going to have similar hydrographs pre and post. It's most likely they would they would have an opportunity to comply with what we call curve under curve which is what you do without
mitigation where you identify that the site will drain similarly and the site will not exceed at any point the existing runoff pattern the existing hydrograph the distribution of the storm as it runs to the discharge point.
um if they were to design BMPs to mitigate that and do what we call peak runoff mitigation, right? So we meet the peak runoff standards where by decreasing the peak and attenuating out the volume, you're looking at two similar volumes that are then right in
in both conditions that are then being attenuated and dragged out. you're that management. [clears throat] If if they were to do that design, the design on this site would be in a few
located areas around the parking areas to run off naturally into a a basin area, probably a a shallow, wider area of an infiltration bed, which we now know is in resistant to infiltration. So that water is not likely to then
infiltrate, but instead is going to need to go through the outflow and attenuate out. It's going to extend the time of that water on site and then attenuate it out slowly and leaving the water on the site as opposed to shedding it from the property where
you're going to have activity of of retail and other activities. Um, I don't believe that if they had to do BMPPS, it would change the layout of the programming to the extent that it would affect this board in their land use
approval, the consideration of a land use approval for, you know, variances requested and and other aspects of the layout or or the programming and what parts of the site that would be in. I think that's relatively static and confident here. And so
my position is I find it to be a minor development consistent with the testimony provided by the applicant. If that was to be um challenged and overturned in court, the appeal on that I think would not warrant
a significant change in the approval of what you're providing. the contents of the plan if then redone because it was determined they had to be I think would be the same substantive application in front of you for zoning purposes.
>> So basically what you're saying is that the runoff is not going to change and if there is any change in runoff it's going to be very very minor with a very small increase or possibly even a decrease. And it it's important to understand that
the the pvious surface increase, the quarter acre part, the motor vehicle part is what generates the water quality requirements, right? Um and then the any of them uh the the one acre or the
quarter acres generate the water quantity side of it. >> The water quantity is the mitigating the the flood risk, the impact to others. the water quality is the impairments to streams and other waterways. Um that water quality has been eliminated from
this discussion and analysis really by by discussion of from both the objector and and the applicants engineer. So we're talking about managing the increase in runoff from the site which I find by theory and understanding of the site
conditions will be relatively minor compared to the normal land disturbance. Right? When you have a virgin land and you disturb those wooden areas and then you take high infiltration areas and you turn them into imperous cover, you're
generating a giant quantity of volume comparative to the existing condition that needs to be mitigated. The the purpose of defining something as a major development and to requiring the mitigation is to ensure
that you're not creating an adverse impact to the public. I don't see an adverse impact and and an issue with public health safety and welfare under the principal prongs related to this discussion of major versus minor. I
think it it's a technical matter that in I've made my interpretation and if it was the opposite it would not create a concern for principal prongs of preliminary approval. >> Okay.
Do you want us to respond to that at all? >> Yes, very briefly. And and I certainly am not going to get into and and the board doesn't want me to get into a debate with Mr. Buchin. That's not my goal at all. I mean, first of all, uh we too will stand by the record. That's what we got. We have the record. We stand by it, too. Along those lines, is
my letter part of the record? >> Yes. >> Okay. And the last two things I would want to say is there was nothing whimsical about this letter and it was not for purposes of delay. It was to raise what I think is a very serious issue. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Any response?
>> No, sir. >> Okay. >> So, so just so our record is clear, I think we'll mark um Mr. Rosenbach's letter as the next exhibit on the objectives list. I have 013.
>> So, that would be 013, right? >> [clears throat] >> public comment. >> Yes. Right. Okay. At this point in these these proceedings, we are going to open up the this meeting for public comment on this
application. So, any person wishing to be heard or make a comment about this application, please proceed up to the microphone. >> Hi, Mr. Chair. Can I just ask a question before we do that? >> Sure. Two documents that were in our packet for tonight. I just want to get clarification on them. One was the noted
New Jersey stormwater definitions and the other the Mars County Soil Conservation [clears throat] District soil erosion and sediment control notes from Steuart Engineering. Were were these new additional documents that were being provided to us? Um or was there going to be any discussion on them? Were they just supplementing something that
was owed to us in the past? >> Yeah. So, so that was I can add on Mr. Chairman and certainly Mr. Roller can can add on to that. This was the backup data that supported Mr. Mlullen's testimony at the last public hearing where we were talking about the coverage changes and the plan details in the
context of not a major development because uh there was a question as to whether or not the bulk table would be updated to reflect those conditions that was prepared by uh Mr. Stewart that was submitted today. He had a one-page document today where he submitted the delta of that coverage which is still downward adjusted from from existing
conditions. Um I hope that answers your question, Mr. Goldberg, but but it really just automated prior testimony. Yeah. And and for the record, you know, while we're marking things, um Mr. Chairman Rich, um can we mark that document of Fred Stewart's office dated today, May 18, 2026 for the record for
the applicant? >> Yeah. So, we we have the uh zoning requirements that I guess correspond to the plan last revised March 26, right? That is from Mr. Stewart dated today.
We'll mark that as A8. >> Thank you. Have you seen that document? >> No. >> Do we have another copy to handle? >> These two documents. >> I will
dated today. If I may ask, from the microphone though. >> Are these brand new proposed calculations that uh are either the same as or inconsistent with what's been previously shown during the past many
months. >> So, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, right, Larry? This is we had asked for the zoning a updated zoning chart
based off of the March 26th revised plan. The now the March 26th revised plan shows that um front plant area, right? Right. >> Um,
in in the revision of March 26th, it shows it a little differently than the original plan, which only had a single path through. >> Right. >> By the way, Mr. I, I must say that when we were here last, um, and there was a reference in testimony to the March 26 plan. I'd never seen any March 26 plan.
Certainly wasn't an exact wasn't made public. >> A little bit. Let me just clarify for the record where I think we stand on that. And Ryan's going to correct me if I didn't get this right here, but but as I understand it, the March 26th plan prior to its revision date of March 26
was submitted to the board in digital form um as a proposed exhibit on February 27th. And then if you recall, our February meeting was cancelled due to the snowstorms. >> And then we went into March. in March, I think we had a lot of objector um
comment and testimony and they never got to the point of of uh reviewing this plan that they submitted in a in a digital format and then it was subsequently revised to March 26, although I it doesn't say what
the it just says update plan for site conditions, but when you go back to the February version of it, it has this new it has the same path configuration within the plantings area, right? And at
the last meeting, the discussion was, look, if we were to vote at the last meeting, we had the plan that only had the single path through it, >> right? Physically in our hands. The digital copy of the plan had been
submitted, but not a physical copy. and they got kind of I don't want to say cut off but but never got to it because the hearing that they were going to introduce that at um was really taken up mostly by objective testimony and then
uh Mr. Stu I'm sorry Mr. Mlullen uh testified >> and he reverted back to or discussed the March 26th version of the plan which had technically been submitted in digital format but not in hard copy to
the board. >> As I said, I noted the reference to the March 26 plan. I was not aware of a March 26 plan. To this day, I have never been provided a copy of any March 26 plan and I have never seen it. nor have nor has the public to my knowledge. Uh
and talk about delay and talk about prejudice. Here we are when the applicant has already so Ryan was the February plan that was submitted digitally on the on the website. >> No, it was not. >> Okay.
Was this plan with the revised pathway put on the site at [snorts] all? The March 26th revision wasn't received until in hard copy until May the 4th and it has not been available digitally on the website.
>> Okay. But the the prior version because this is the revised date. Right. The one that was submitted digitally in February. It >> was uh admitted it was received digitally February 23rd and planned it to be introduced as an exhibit. uh was
never introduced as an exhibit and was later revised by the March 26th version. >> So, okay. And was it was it provided to the board? >> The original February 23rd version was provided to the board but never got introduced as an exhibit.
>> Okay, understood. Right. >> Yeah. >> So, let me again say that we've never seen it. uh it hasn't been made available to us either as a courtesy copy or in any other way. And here we are at what is supposed to be uh a final
determination by the board where apparently the board is going to be asked to vote on plans that we've never even seen. Well, so again, I think the difference in this plan is the path where plants are staged, right? and the
additional pathways resulted in a different imperous um percentage. >> Well, still downward adjusted from the prior condition, >> right? >> And it creates no additional relief and it was on file with the board and a courtesy copy. While that would have
been a nicity for me to provide, it's not required as you know. So, >> yeah, it would have been nice to have sent it to >> it's not it's not required. I wouldn't expect one. I I've asked for courtesy copies of objector exhibits for months and I never got them from Mr. Rosenbach. So you're going to get the version of me
that you deserve and and that's what he got here, Mr. Chairman. >> Right. But at the same time, things have been introduced into evidence in these hearings and certainly this hasn't either version of this plan. >> It was a filed plan filed more than 10 days ahead of the public hearing warrants testimony. Mr. BH can advise if
you need to hear testimony to walk through that front yard area that creates no delta of relief. We would gladly do that. Uh, but it doesn't warrant that. It changes no relief. >> It warrants us having at least the opportunity to look at it and to compare it to the existing plan. And I don't need Mr. Cali telling me how to
represent my clients. Does >> council need to direct their comments to the DAS? Okay. >> More than 10 days out and and the applicant is is comfortable with that position. Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> it would have been very nice to send Mr. Rosen a copy.
Um, how do you want to proceed? >> So, Mr. Voyage, do you think you need any testimony on the revised March 26th revised plan? >> I do not. The area that's being
referenced is right the front the front yard, the front lawn. Um, it was originally proposed with a brick pa path that was serpentine straight down and then you would kind of
double back along that path. Um, the objector's engineer on his exhibit identified that as 1600 square ft of brick path. the
um the Stewart exhibits show that area in a comparable size. It's a different shape, but it's redistributed over that area and likely increased in impervious
cover, but the total calculations are still showing are now inclusive of that area and showing the the net decrease on the site. So I think the the entirety of that area was
accurately shown as disturbance by both objector and applicant and the discrepancy is over the difference in the impervious proposed table over that area and it doesn't rise to the level of the quarter acre threshold.
>> Okay. >> Do we have a copy of the March 26 plan that we can hand Mr. Rosenbach right now? Can I ask Mr. Vucha a clarifying question on that? >> Yes. >> So you said it doesn't rise to the threshold of a quarter acre of
additional impervious coverage. >> Yes. >> Is that just for that area or is that in terms of the total site cumulative >> cumulative the site the the difference between the difference between the two versions >> doesn't then cumulatively add to
increase over the total quarter. >> Right. And as noted on the weather today for Mr. Stewart, there still is 6941. >> Yeah. Yes. But before before we do that, I just want I think we should mark the March 26th uh plan as an exhibit. So,
we're going to mark that A9 >> percentage. >> All right. And then the letter that's already been marked A8 really corresponds to the plan that's now marked A9. >> Very good. Thank you. This is the new one. Yeah. >> So, that having been said, I think we're
going to take like a short uh recess to allow uh the objectors council and the objectors to review these these documents that they've not seen before. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate that. >> Okay. Next. >> Well, we're in recess.
>> Township board of adjustment for May 18th, 2026. [clears throat] We have roll call. Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg >> here. >> Mr. Trackenberg >> here. >> Mr. Williams >> here. >> Mr. Schuster >> here. >> Mr. Benis >> here. >> Mr. Kramer
>> here. >> Mr. Woodford >> here. >> Miss Sibs >> here. Mr. Evangel >> and our board attorney Mer >> here. >> Mr. [clears throat] Voch our engineer >> here. >> Miss Keller our Pitter >> here. >> Mr. Schustster needs to turn his
microphone on. >> Oh, so do I. >> I got I thank you. >> You're on. >> Here. [laughter] >> Okay, Mr. Rosenbach. Uh, I've had a chance with my clients to review the plan that is stamp received May 4, 2026.
And of course, I have heard Mr. VH's comments or testimony, however you wish to describe it, concerning the plan. But I do have a question. And my question is whether this plan shows or purports to show what is on the ground at this time,
or whether, like was mentioned a few meetings ago, the board might approve something which isn't what's on the ground. in which case the applicant would have to perhaps undo things. So I would like to some testimony from someone and the reason I asked Mr. Chair
specifically is because there's been testimony going back months that this entire front area where the one serpentine path has been replaced by a more complicated path is gravel and
that's that's an impervious surface. And so I would like to know what's actually being counted up front or whether as far as this plan is concerned there's grass here. I'd like testimony. >> Mr. Kelly. >> Yeah. You know, look, I I'm not
surprised to hear that there's more vetting being sought by objectors counsel here. It's a minor plan change, a minor programming change showing a front walkway. The balance remains the same and the only supplement to the
board was confirming that delta of impervious coverage change. Again, it's not a variance issue. It's only even site plan reviewable because it's part of this pending application. It is a small item. It is incredibly lowhanging fruit and the applicant is not intent on
walking down this road with the objector to delay for track or continue to overwork and overfunction that detail. We are resting our case, Mr. Chairman, and we're resting our case with that detail in play that Mr. BH confirmed cumulatively doesn't make it a major
development. It's still a minor. Doesn't change any variance relief and the delta of impervious coverage continues to come down, you know, period. But you would agree that if this plan were approved that what we now have before us for from
revised March 26th is what would be built. It may already be built but I thought the [laughter] intent was that this was reflective of what's on the ground now. >> It says that >> but if it's not it >> and will continue. Correct. Correct. Okay. The ultimate outcome is that
detail in the front yard area. It does happen to be there today as sort of a meandering path for folks to come and walk in and out to check the available stock. >> Right. Okay. And that path is composed of what that uh pavers. >> It's pavers.
>> And what's the balance of the area? >> The balance. >> Yes. Of the front area. >> That'll follow the question. The balance. >> The part of it is pavers. The path is pavers. >> Oh, the balance of material. >> Right. and crush stone >> and the loop stone. It's it's the same
material that was out there under the prior conditions with when the pathway was different. >> Okay. >> So, there's no change in the um no change in the materials on the rest of the uh area, the front area. >> Well,
I I'll say this. We'll stand by the record on this too, which will show that that was always grass and shows pictures now very vividly showing that it's a a gray uh grally type of substance. And I would hope I would hope that if the board does happen to approve this, and
by the way, I hope it doesn't, but if it does, I would hope that somebody visits the site and if it turns out that there have been misrepresentations to the board at the very least to make the applicant undo it. Well, again, what they're asking us to
do is approve this plan last revised March 26th. >> Yes. >> And if this is approved, then this is the plan ultimately that would have to be on the ground upon inspection for a CEO to issue. >> Correct. But I know that the board is
not an enforcement agency. >> Right. So, but this is what the board is being asked to approve. >> Okay. Understood. >> All right. So, now where do we go? Public comment. Yeah, I think we're up to comments.
Okay. Once again, we're back to uh whether any member of the public wishes to make any comment or statement regarding this application. Please come up to the microphone, identify yourself, [clears throat] be sworn in, and then say what you want to say.
>> So, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And your name, please? >> My name is John Peele. I live at 15 Prospect Place. >> And can you spell your last name, please? >> P [clears throat] E L.
>> Thank you. 15 Prospect. Okay. >> Okay. Yep. Proceed. >> So, I'm here as a neighbor. Um, I also happen to be a licensed professional planner and an environmental [clears throat] consultant for the last 40 years. I've
lived in my house for 30 years and have seen this the old florest property numerous times in its natural state. Um what I what I find curious here is that this place is already built. It's fully operational and it's still got a use variance
pending here and it's curious to me as how that got this far. It's basically the applicant has built the project and it's operational. Just curious how that happens without actually having the approvals. So, that's just one comment. Um, I've
been I've heard noise events over at the property two or three times, which would have been offensively loud. Uh, one day on September 13th, I had my new granddaughter. She was a newborn child there. A fight broke out in the parking
lot. It better not happen again or I might be involved in a fight next time. Um, >> you say a fight broke out. Can you give any details or just what did you see? Would you hear? >> Yeah, there there was a screaming and yelling from the uh from some of the
neighborhood people and from the uh operators of South Street Gardens. They came over onto the uh parking lot property where the old school was and a fight nearly I had to break up the fight to be honest and this was during a party
for my little do granddaughter. Um, you're you were just talking about the front yard area in South Street Gardens is always a lawn. I've been living there for 30 years. It was grass. There was no grapple there. That was a pvious area.
And the impervious the impervious calculations, if the NJ gets involved in this, it's going to be very interesting. I've got experience doing impervious calculations and submitting applications to the D.
And the proofs to the DP for what is considered impervious are are very high, very difficult. I think it's like 200s of an inch of rainfall in 24 hours. If it's still if it doesn't percolate,
it's not impervious. So my my understanding is that there's uh the D is actively involved in looking at this property as we speak. There's an enforcement action I think that's pending. The enforcement group I deal with them
all the time too as well as land use regulation. Enforcement will kick this to land use. And if the land use guys require any kind of a permit or a waiver as part of a letter of interpretation process. I don't think that's ever been
applied for yet. um the D could consider this a major project based on their in on their regulatory authority for for determining that. So, you know, it's disturbing as a
neighbor to see this process go through what it has gone through. Um it's already built and functional. It's basically the the applicants has ba basically said we're getting our use variance so just get out of the way.
That's what it looks like to me. So, um I don't have a lot to more to say about that. Just that there's been there's been some misinformation. This thing went from a a non-conforming use expansion to to a a nursery center. I thought that
was really nice. They did a beautiful job at that, but they're pushing it too far by having an event center with a noise late till 10:00 at night, 5 days a week. It's offensive. The noise had better not continue is all I can say. It's been quiet since September. I'll
tell you that. That's really all I have to say. >> When you said there's an enforcement action, what can you expand on that? Yeah, somebody made a complaint to the NJD. They have been to the site's really not that funny, Mr. Kramer.
>> Yeah, I think we should >> Excuse me. We should Wait, I'm being addressed here. Excuse me. >> Yeah, you're laughing at what I'm saying. >> Uh, >> yeah, you're laughing. >> Not Not laughing. >> All right. So, there's an enforcement action. Whether it's valid or not will
be up to the D, but that has happened. Correct me if I'm wrong. The I don't think >> so. I think we should just go to our engineer who has some information about that. >> Okay. So related to the enforcement action, um
I was contacted by D enforcement, what's now probably two plus weeks ago, um related to uh a complaint that was filed specifically for disturbances of areas to the rear of the property, right, that
were identified that >> that the complaintant identified as being in regulatory areas, wetlands specifically. >> Right. Is that referring to the areas at the rear [clears throat] >> where that um um wetlands area correct
base that had been pushed in and was recently filled? >> Correct. And so uh I I went through discussion with D to provide them as much context and background of the application to the file documents on record. Um and our
board secretary was coordinating to give them access. I directed them to our website to the documents that were on site and then we were looking to compile any additional information that the EP requested from basically the rep the application record. There's anything
they wanted to see on the application record and informed them that the plans that submitted to the board include a delineation by an expert working a wetland delineator that was working with Mr. Steuart's office as part of [snorts]
the survey and site plan application set that included wetlands on the ditch area uh between them and the pro and prospect property and then into off offsite areas into the paper street >> right >> and that's where they were delineated on
the plan sets. I also informed them that the wetland delineator uh an expert for the objector had indicated in their testimony that they believe that those wetland flags should be closer to the property if not on the property. And
that was essentially the basis of what in D was looking to investigate was if they believe that that representation was accurate to where the wetlands are in the rear and if there was a a disturbance that had occurred both
on-site and immediately offsite to wetlands andor their buffers. >> Okay. >> Um I had not heard back from D as to a result of their findings, but I understood that Mr. Cali coordinated a meeting uh for enforcement to meet with
the owners of the property and have access to the property to get access to whatever areas they wanted to access. And I I understand that had occurred. >> Has that occurred, Mr. Kelly? >> That has. >> Okay. And you haven't heard anything back from D at all? >> No, sir.
>> Okay. All right. Anything else you wish to >> Yeah. Going back to one of the um technical TCC meetings, I think the board planner originally recommended that the applicant get D letter of
interpretation. I don't know if that's ever been applied for, but that's the one that sets jurisdictional limits, not not a consultant like me, not not their consultant. The NJ determines what their jurisdictional limits are. And again, I
don't think that's even been applied for yet. I've done about a thousand of them. Um, I know the process really well and there's no record of it. So, enforcement's involved. They could kick it over to land use if they think there's an issue, but land use will be
the final arbiter. If a permit or a waiver is required by land use guys, then then the D will get to look at it as a major or a minor. they will determine if it's a major permit or not or major uh development or
not. At which point the impervious calculations are going to get very interesting. That's really all I have to say. >> Board members, any questions of this witness? [clears throat] >> The only question I would have uh for
Mr. Peele or Mr. Cal if they know does the NJP after they come out and do the assessment say you'll hear from us in 90 days 180 days 12 months any sense on the ETA >> specify and with them it could run the gambit of a long time to a very long
time so we're uncertain although the young agent who contacted me coming out in the field she was quite diligent so she came out within a matter of days of you know speaking with me um so you want to hope that they're going to do a relatively fast turnaround for that agency See, but you never quite tell
department. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Agreed. >> Any questions at this one? >> No, sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Your name, please.
>> Beth Fistle. F I S E L. >> Miss Fistle, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. So help me God. >> Um, your address,
>> 5 Calpa Road, Mars Township, Combat Station. >> I wrote down because I tend not to be that good at just off the cuff. For the most part, beyond corporate and numerous board of education meetings, I've attended a handful of adjustment board
meetings in the last four decades in the localities in which my family has lived. My usual presence was to advocate for those who could not advocate for themselves, sometimes much to the dismay of the boards I was addressing. And for me, that was okay because it was in my
eyes the right thing to do. I have watched and listened to past Morris Township uh meetings to get a sense of how the process works here. The patent patient patience shown for this process over the last nine months is in my
opinion beyond normal human capacity. I am here to advocate for the approval of permits, variances and whatever is needed for South Street Gardens to continue to operate and open as a garden home decor event and cafe space. In the last meeting, several experts informed
the public and board of the issues with decibel levels of several scenarios. I heard that there was a ballot performed test at the proposed venue at South Street Gardens. A speculated albeit statistically acquired decibel level from the venue by the opposing side to
me is hardly a viable definitive conclusion. As a resident, I have heard people complain about the helicopters that fly over our homes. decibel levels 80 to 100 dBA. But these helicopters are flying precious cargo, someone's mom,
child, spouse, or immediate for immediate medical attention. How lucky are we? There are outdoor generators, 60 to 70 DBs, which I hear tested every month or used during power outages, which happen far too often, but grateful that we have
them. Kenty field events. The entire surrounding neighborhoods hear the loudspeakers, bands, games, and we should all be grateful and happy and enjoy the fact that many are getting together to celebrate, appreciate, and relish the ability to bring communities and people together. We hear them blocks
and blocks away. As for the concern surrounding the water spring table moving, did all this happen before the landscaping and building? It has to be a pre-existing condition following the abandonment of the property decades ago. There has to be a simple amicable solution for the concerns surrounding
this long outstanding issue. Think of what could have ended up at this property. Apartments multiple stories high with open windows, blaring speakers, lights at night. We have leaf blowers, lawnmowers, plow trucks, all items we use to enjoy our spaces and beautify our neighborhoods. At some
point, we have to embrace the technologies that make us better. I have caused I heard cause of quality of life and there are so many things that affect this. What adversely changes your quality of life? Stress, negative
behavior, illness, pessimism, worry. I believe we're all culpable in working together to ensure the quality of life for everyone is acceptable. Even though there may have to be some concessions for a few to embrace the community. Many many of us are thrilled with the presence of South Street Gardens in our
backyard. On a side note, regarding the issue from last meeting uh or question comments, I council high school and college students applying for college or employment. Anything you post, write or
comment on the internet lives forever there for anyone to find whether you delete them or not. We all have to be careful what we say verbally or online. Is it possible for all of us to address concerns and work together to have a
happy neighborhood? We are all too swift to jump into mean attack and fail to listen to each other and work together. I feel we have an opportunity to welcome a business that has made and will continue to make formally run down a formally rundown abandoned overgrown
property a beautiful place that welcomes all and encourages everyone to relax, enjoy, and take in peaceful surroundings that make our town better. I would hope that as a community we can come together to support and positively engage with the new business in our town or face
future business owners taking their business elsewhere. And I wouldn't blame them. I'm imploring the Mars Township Board of Adjustment to please approve the permits for the all for an all-encompassing business and venue space and an inviting welcoming partner in our neighborhood.
Thank you. >> Board members, any questions? Back. Any questions? >> I do. Just a few. >> You had [clears throat] come up to a microphone. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. >> Am I correct that you live in a single
family residential home? >> Yeah. >> Am I correct that you live in a single family residential home? >> Just a second. M, could you use this microphone right here so you're not like right on top of her while you're asking questions? Sure. Sure. >> Right over here.
>> That'll come out of the stand. It's just a handheld. There you go. 10 bottom. It >> timed off at >> the at the bottom. Bottom >> flat part of the bottom.
>> Hold it for a few seconds. >> There you go. >> Now it's on. >> Okay. Let's try now. Okay. So, let's start from the start. Am I correct you live in a single family home? >> I do. Am I correct that you live in a single family home neighborhood?
>> No. >> Okay. What is the neighborhood? >> I have condos behind us and apartments. >> Okay. And you So you have condos on one side and otherwise aside from the condos, it's single family homes. >> Yes. And the nuns convent. >> And how far is that?
>> Um 150 200 feet. >> Okay. And so I gather from your testimony that if one of the if a single family home near you were to sell itself and become a party center, you would
have no objection. Is that correct? >> Well, I wouldn't have an objection, but the problem is that it's they're like a third of an acre. So, >> well, leaving that aside, I gather that you would have no objection if there was a party center with a band five or seven
days a week a few doors away from you. Am I correct about that? >> Sure. >> That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. >> Can I put the microphone back? [laughter] >> Anybody else have questions? >> No, you good. Thank you.
Yes, sir. Your name? >> Yeah. Yeah. Good evening. Um, my name is George Telerico. I live on Blackberry Lane. >> Can you spell your last name? >> It's TS and Tom. A L A R I O. And I live
on Blackberry. >> Cal Rico. Would you raise your right hand, please? You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And your address again, please. >> Uh 24 Blackberry Lane. >> Thank you. >> And Blackberry [clears throat] Lane uh
intersects South Street pretty close to the South Street Gardens. >> So [laughter] just relax. Please let let them >> listen. Don't listen there. Just speak to the board, please.
So, like I said, it's uh Blackberry Lane's pretty close to South Street Gardens, and um I've been on Blackberry Lane for about 26 years. And I knew of the old site. It
was it was a a florist that I used to I used to go to buy flowers and then it just like kept decaying and it was kind of sad. And we worried about what was going to go there. And then when South Street Gardens came in, we were happy
because one, it it it cleaned up uh kind of a decrepit, overgrown site. Two, it it preserved, you know, open spaces. Like we're all about open spaces in this township. Um and three, it saves us from having to
drive to Morristown to, you know, cuz it's a big pain from where where we live to get to Morristown. You got to get in 287 to go to Lafayette. So, we have a we have a garden center right there. Get a cup of coffee. Um, and and to [clears throat] reiterate what the uh
one of the other witnesses said, it could be a lot worse. Like 200 ft from my house, they're putting up 104 affordable housing units. I mean, if I could switch the Gordon Center for 104
units, I would. So anyway, um I just want to come out in support uh of of their variance and [clears throat] uh like I said, it's a nice place to visit and I think it's a big improvement. >> Thank you. >> Sure.
>> Any questions, Mr. Rosebach? Any questions? >> No questions. >> I think you have none. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Any other member of the public wishes to testify on this on behalf of this application or oppose this applicant?
>> Hi. Uh my name is Jocelyn Grisetti. It's uh G R I Z E TI. Um >> Miss Grisetti, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> And your address, please. >> Oh, sure. I'm uh 25 Blackberry Lane. Um I am wanting to speak um in support of approval of all the variances and and
just moving this thing forward. Um, [clears throat] I have no prior knowledge of this family or their businesses, uh, their landscaping in Mendum, but, uh, my son worked for them last summer and, um, I all I can say is
they treated him like family. And, um, uh, I mean, they were true to their word that he he had come in to apply. They said, "Come back. We'll give you a job." And they were true to their word. And I just uh I found that very um respectful.
And I also feel that um what they're doing to the area. I I echo what everybody else has said. It's definitely be beautified the area. Um I have been here before listening to our affordable
housing and listening to the cannabis approval. I I sat through all of those and I was too afraid of what might be there. So, I um I find that this is a very welcoming and pleasant addition to our community. I enjoy walking down our
beautiful Southgate Parkway that they renovated and walking over and just um you know, perusing the home center, perusing the gardens. Um I don't mind grabbing a cup of coffee or an iced tea because that's wonderful. Um so I just,
you know, I feel for them. I feel like, you know, it's just time to move on with this. And and um um one last thing is I did ask about potentially hosting an event there. And what I was told was at one, you know, they couldn't do it because it hasn't been approved, but
that they were, you know, agreeing or like the the noise ordinance for Morris Township is 10, but they would they had to shut things down at 9:00 if they were to get approved so that the no everything could be um cleaned up and
moved out in time and before 10:00 to um kind of meet the neighbors halfway. And I thought that was very respectful and um I don't believe um Oh, I think I was also told like no loudspeaker systems or
any bands would be allowed. I was like, listen, it's just like a little party. It's not a big deal. So, um I wouldn't I wasn't even thinking along those lines. But anyway, long story short, I just uh appreciate their presence in our community and I think it makes it a
nicer place to live. >> Board members, any questions? >> Mr. Calli, Mr. Rosenbach. question. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other member of the public wishes to speak uh regarding this application?
>> Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. So, should we have council >> chair? >> Yes. >> He's not my >> Okay. Do you wish if you're not? >> Yes. >> Well, then come up to the Sure. >> I was asking if anybody else You should have said something.
>> Sorry. Hi [clears throat] everybody. My name is Guy Ben Aaron. >> Can you spell that please? >> A gu Y B E N A H A R O N. I live in 18 Prospect Place.
>> Okay. Would you raise your right hand please? You solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. Yes, I do. >> Thank you. So I live in Aden Past place for 11 years. It's been always quiet neighborhood
and it's been quiet since September 13. Before September 13 was quite a lot a loud events and it's not okay. I'm sorry. I cannot watch even TV in my living room in peace and quiet. When they opened the
garden center, I was all for them. I was very happy if they did a beautiful job. They did a a magnificent job, a beautiful job and I can actually can speak behalf of my my neighbors. We all been very happy that they opened the
garden center, but we're not okay with the events. All we ask is peace and quiet in our own home. I'm sorry. I'm not asking too much. the the two people that been here right now. Blackberry, I'm sorry. This is way
way far. I live in par place. I hear everything. This is not okay. Like what are you talking about? Blackberry. Please open the map and see where is blackberry and where is the
garden center. Way far. I'm so sorry. All I'm asking to live in peace and quiet in my own home. I love my neighborhood. I I get along with all my neighbors. I live in a great neighborhood. All I want to do is continue to live in peace and quiet in
my own home. I'm I don't think I'm asking too much. It's very simple. I'm not trying to close the garden center. I nothing gets them. They want to do a a business. Go ahead. Do whatever they want. I want peace and quiet. Is that
too much to ask? I don't think so. Peace and quiet. I don't think nobody else can ask some somebody simple like that. I'm so sorry. Peace and quiet. That's it. >> Thank you. Uh any questions from board
members? >> I have one question. So, um is do you consider yourself to have had peace and quiet since September 13th? >> Yes, because since we we object they've been quiet. But before that there was a
quite loud events if it's like during the day early in the morning even late at night and that's not okay. I cannot even hear in my own living room. I cannot even listen since September 13th though everything. >> Yeah. I I don't remember quite the days. >> Okay. But roughly there's been no
>> Yes. And if if you're going to approve those events, I'm sorry. This is not okay. I don't live I wish I was living in Blackberry because Blackberry is way way far. I'm so sorry. This is a joke. Really bad joke.
>> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Once again, any member of the public wishing to speak on this application? We're not going to reopen it. Okay. Close the public portion. So, how do we want to proceed?
[laughter] >> Mr. Rosenbach, do you wish to sum up? >> I sure do. Thank you. Okay, as you all know, I represent John Weiss Gerber and Eric Vieiraa who each live on Prospect Place and who are
opposing this application. Uh and this is an application to place a quite substantial commercial development in a RA15 residential zone. And according to the application, this
project will comprise more than 18,000 square ft of commercial space. That will include a large retail store selling products, at least some of which are related to gardening. It will include, if approved, a 1,700 ft² coffee
shop and if approved, a 2,200 ft² event space. And this this is being called a garden center. Everyone, I think we've all agreed there's no definition for a garden center. And although the RA15
zone includes agricultural uses, there is no contention by the applicant that this proposed development is permitted as an agricultural use. Now, when I say proposed development, uh that is of course a misnomer as pointed out by one
of the neighbors just a moment ago. It's not proposed. It's on the ground. It's been there for months and months and months. And in fact, it was running events until they stopped. So in a sense, as far as the applicant is concerned, this board is almost irrelevant because they're just doing
what they're going to do. And nonetheless though, they do need variances. And and one of the variances, as as I said, the right to allow
the public to rent out space on their site to have parties has already been happening. Although again for the moment at least it has stopped. Now as a matter of basic law I'm a lawyer. Variances for commercial uses in
residential zones are disfavored. They are to be granted only sparingly and with great caution. I'm quoting from the New Jersey Superior Court. And for a use variance, which is what we have here,
there are two different things that the applicant has to satisfy. And they they go by the term positive criteria and negative criteria. And they must both be satisfied. I find those phrases to be unhelpful quite frankly, but that's what they are. And the positive criteria,
that's the first half, requires that the applicant establish what are called special reasons for the variance. I believe that's right out of the statute. And on the other hand, for the other half, the negative criteria, the applicant must show that the variance, and here there are a bunch of
variances, can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. And both of those, the positive and the negative, they both have to be proven because if the
applicant fails on either one, then the application must be denied. Now in terms of the positive criteria there must be there there are two ways typically to do that. Well there's a third one which is called an inherently beneficial use but
nobody's contending that that's the case here. That's like a church or a school. So there are two other ways. One is the general welfare is satisfied because the use the proposed use is peculiarly fitted to the particular location for
which the variant is variance is sought. So in this case that means that this particular use and the use by the way is a retail store I think also maybe a gift shop I'm not sure a coffee shop another use a party
space another use and I believe a food truck [clears throat] so all of those things they have to be peculiarly fitted for this particular location at 383 South Street. [snorts] The other way is that there is if if
there's undue hardship because if the use variance is not granted then somehow for one reason or another the property can't be used for a conforming use. And by the way the law is also very clear
that the economic convenience or advantage of the owner is not a reason to grant the variance. And so if I'm a business and I would like to expand because it'll give me greater efficiencies of scale, but I happen to
be in a residential zone, a land use board isn't supposed to say, "Oh, you're going to be more profitable, therefore we will disregard our zoning code." Now, back a year ago, it's taken a while to
get here. In May 2025, a TCC report on this application noted, and I'm going to quote it, it said, "The TCC advised the applicant that a D1 use variance would be required
to permit the proposed use." Again, D1 is not necessarily vocabulary that flows off the tongue of people. D1 is from the statute for variances. D1 is a use variance and there's something called a D2 which is an expansion of a
non-conforming use. So in May in May of 2025 the TCC advised the applicant that this was a D1 use variance. Nonetheless, 2 months later in July 2025,
the planning report provided by the applicant called this AD2 variance and basically said the garden center is a lawful existing use. And what the planner said for the
applicant was it's already there. It's a lawful existing use. It's not even in front of the board. Ford has nothing to say about it. So all we care about as the applicant is the coffee shop and the party center. They call it an advanced
space. I call it a party center. And that was despite the fact again that the TCC had already said to them this is a D1 variance. And in fact, at the last meeting of this board, it was made very
plain that the existing garden center isn't the baseline. That that's up for grabs, too, and that the applicant has to prove every single stick of this application. Now, by the way, I will tell you that my
clients, like the last person who testified and like other people have testified, actually have no big problem with the Garden Center standing by itself. It's a plus for the neighborhood. It's an expansion of what used to be there,
but it's not bad. It's not awful. That's not where the quarrel lies. And we we'll get to the quarrel. I mean, I think you know what it is. And so one significant point though is that
the applicant and its planner had months and months and months, including the rebuttal testimony at the last hearing, to provide planning testimony in support of the very base
use of a retail gift shop oriented around flowers or flower type products. It never did. The only planning report this board ever received for the applicant was the one that presumed
that the gift shop is fixed in stone. And the only thing this board had to worry about was whether a party center and whether a coffee shop were legitimate expansions of a
non-conforming use. But it is not a non-con it's not a lawful non-conforming use. it needs a use variance. Now, one of the reasons that this is very important is because the TCC had also asked the applicant to
look around and find other garden centers and see how they operated. And in fact, the applicant did what the TCC wanted and the applicant presented comps as part of its testimony. We objected to them. I stand by those objections saying that whatever happened on some other piece of property on some other town has
no bearing on the particular facts of this case. But but there's a more significant point which is that what the applicant has said and what the applicant's planner has said is we need these things. We need
the coffee shop. We need the party center because we need to enhance our operations, to enhance our revenue in order to allow what they call a garden center to survive
because competition is so hard. Now, that would be okay perhaps if the garden center were already lawfully there, but the garden center isn't lawfully there at all in the first place. So, what they're saying is we want one variance for what we're calling a garden center. And oh, because that
garden center can't survive on its own, we want the board to give some more variances. We want we want to be able to serve coffee to in a large coffee space and we want to be able to have parties. So, they're bootstrapping themselves from something that they shouldn't have in the first place
in order to have three distinct uses plus maybe a food truck. Now, one other notable thing about the planners that the the applicants planner report and testimony is he never mentioned the fact that Mars
Township has a master plan. He never he never referred to the master plan. You would think that there is no master plan in Mars Township based on on the applicant's case, but our planner, Mr. clean. He referred to the master plan
and he noted he testified that in the 1994 master plan most recently evaluated in a 2017 re-examination its first goal first goal is the preservation of the residential
character of the community and it has as another goal the maintenance of existing commercial areas and restriction restriction on new commercial development. That's what's controlling in this town, but you wouldn't hear it from the applicant because you didn't.
Now, [clears throat] let's go back to this idea of the positive criteria. So, it's the applicant's burden to show that this particular piece of land at this particular location is peculiarly suited
for the purposes that it wants. So, you could say to yourself, any of you could say, what's so special about 383 South Street that it needs a party center? And I suspect your answer would be nothing. There's nothing special about it. There's nothing about 383 South Street that says we are desperate to have a party center here and it belongs
here. I think the coffee shop is slightly less gruesome in that I could imagine a business could want to want want to be able to serve coffee as long as it's really limited to the
business the customers of the business and doesn't become a draw to outsiders. But there's nothing in the world that connects a party center to a garden center. Now I know there was testimony, oh we'll try to have things
that are garden themed. Okay. Uh that would be great if there weren't weddings, bachelor parties, you know, whatever. Uh just general parties. There's nothing there's nothing that says that a a party at this place must
somehow have a horicultural or agricultural theme. I mean, who has parties like that? So again, I say in terms of the positive criteria, which this board has to find or it can't support the application, there's nothing on this site that says we must have a
party center because this is the right place for it. Now, in terms of the negative criteria, that's the other half and that's the half that says there can't be substantial detriment to the zoning plan. Let me say that New Jersey
law is very specific that for a use variance, a board actually has to make very specific findings. The law calls it uh an enhanced quality of proof. That's their phrase. And there must be an enhanced quality of proof and clear and specific findings by the board that the
variance is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and the zoning ordinance. I've already quoted the master plan to you and this is inconsistent. It's substantially inconsistent with the master plan because yes, if we concede that you can have a commercial space there anyway,
that doesn't mean you just get to build it up and build it up and build it up. And by the way, given that there's no definition of uh of a garden center in your ordinance, and there isn't. I mean, what's next? An ice hockey rink? Uh a pinball machine, you know, a pinball venue? I mean, there's there's no reason
that there can't just be a grab bag of different uses that this applicant says, "We need these things in order to stay competitive." And each time they would come before you for for a variance, I hope. Well, no, that's not true. They would probably do it and then they would come before you for a variance.
But the fact is that there is a substantial detriment to the master plan and there's a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Now, I think it is all very well and good for people who live nowhere near here to talk about how delighted they are to have this
facility. Very nice of them, but they're not living with it. And what we have is a bunch of testimony showing how damaging this has been. One of the things was Mr. Fierra, who was so taken by the noise that he
went walking around the neighborhood with his phone just to get the noise. And as he testified, you could hear the DJ, you could hear words being spoken by the DJ throughout the neighborhood. You've heard people say they can't have peace and quiet in their backyard. They
can't have peace and quiet in their homes. Uh we had an acoustical engineer uh and our acoustical engineer, Mr. Zabor ran a standard computergenerated program in
Cook it up for this presentation. And what that standard program showed was that based on the topography, based on the buildings, that what happens is it just bad luck that noise from the site gets funneled down Prospect Place.
It just happens. It's bad luck. And so people living on Prospect Place end up hearing substantial noise. And he said that that was consistent with the testimony that Mr. Vieier had given. And by the way, the applicant as part of
its rebuttal case put on its own acoustical engineer and he presented different testimony, but I don't think he rebutted that point. And in fact, the most interesting point to me of the rebuttal testimony was there was a lot
of questioning by the board of well if we allow these parties how do we police the noise? What do we do? And one of the answers was well you know we're good neighbors and we'll we'll be good and the rebuttal to that was well
we already have evidence from last September that that's not quite the case. So then the answer is well there's a learning curve. will get better. And the question was, well, still, what do we do? What what do the neighbors do if they're being barged by noise? And the answer was, well, they can call they can
call someone. Uh, and I think that that discussion took about 20 minutes. It's a long discussion. Back and forth and back and forth raising these issues, which I'm glad to see were of significant importance to the board. But what I take
from it is there shouldn't be there shouldn't have to be a 20inut discussion about how to control noise on a site where there shouldn't be noise. I mean the simple answer is no noise. It's very simple. And so for instance,
let's say I I I don't think there should be a party center at all, but at least it could be no amplified music. And I'm I'm very glad to hear a witness, a nonparty, telling us what the applicant told her about what they're willing to do. I don't know what the applicant has told the sport. I think I've heard
different things, but there just should be no amplified music. End of story. There should be no outdoor music. End of story. And if that makes it hard for them to run an event center, so what? It's in a residential zone. They don't deserve it anyway. So, one issue is
noise. And there's another type of noise because Mr. Weber testified that he hears, let's call it operational noise. He hears heavy machinery noise deep into the night. They hear noise early in the morning. And that is a different type of
noise that wouldn't exist if this were treated as a residential zone and didn't have these types of uses. Now, Mr. Rice Gerber also testified uh that there is excessive lighting. Uh
he was questioned on that but he said there was excessive lighting and there is a there's a simple solution to that typically which is you have shielded lighting or down lighting or aside from maybe a skeletal bit of uh safety lights go off at a certain time. That's that
seems pretty routine. So, in terms of again the negative criteria here, there's noise that shouldn't exist. There's lighting that shouldn't exist. There's just commotion that shouldn't exist as testified to by Mr. Peele. Uh,
none of this stuff should exist. And these are all negative there. It's a failure to satisfy the negative criteria part of this. Now, there's been a lot of testimony even today about the extent to which this site
affects water runoff. Uh I'm not going to go through it again other than to say that I will repeat we stand by the record that we think that we have shown that this is a significant problem. Uh I learned today that there's some sort of investigation going on. We don't know
what it is. I can't make any points, score any points from it, but we know that at least it's being looked at. Uh, but again, it's a pro we're we're contending that it's a problem. And again, bear in mind that it's a problem where the applicant has already done all
these things without bothering to wait for something as trivial as an approval. Now, let me conclude as as follows. I I've said that my clients don't really object to the garden center, if I may use the
term in and of itself, but there's something else for for for you as a board to consider. My clients don't make a decision. They they're not one of the five votes that are required for this application. You are. And the garden center 2 requires proof
of the positive and negative criteria. And I've already said to you that they never provided those proofs. When the applicant presented its case, they presumed that the garden center was lawfully there. So you can comb through this record all you want and you will
not find any planning testimony that justifies a garden center on this site. So I can say my clients don't care. But that doesn't mean that you don't care. You still have a decision to make. And then otherwise we are vehemently opposed
to the party center. Totally vehemently opposed. And if there's going to be one by this board's decision, as I said, no outdoor music, no amplified music. They can do all the indoor acoustic music they want as long as it's indoors and the windows are closed and it doesn't
invade the neighborhood. And as for the coffee shop, I said we can live with that. Again, we don't want it to be a destination draw. We don't want the extra traffic. But if it in fact is a legitimate service, a legitimate perk for people who are shopping there, we understand
that you can't really object to that. So the issues are then aside from the outright denial of the event space which we think should happen, the fact that there's no support for the garden center itself and the coffee shop which is sort of
sitting off on its own. Then the real concern is if you were going to approve this despite these positions and if you said, "Well, it's all been very interesting to hear all this stuff, but we don't care." Uh, or we're convinced by the application. Then at the very least, limit the noise, limit the hours
of operation, limit the hours of lighting, and do your best to preserve this neighborhood, this residential neighborhood from this invasion because that's what it is. U
thank you for your attention. >> Thank you. >> We're going to be incredibly brief compared to that. Mr. Chairman and members, uh we would like to get into respective deliberations and then discuss potential conditions of what could eventually be a motion on the
application. Um you know, in short, I just want to sum it up at a high level as this board knows we'd like to tend to do. I mean, the applications stand on their own. Uh, as does the testimony. Our objecting council to tremendous liberties with the recreation of the road that got us here. I don't
agree with most of that. Uh, we're going to rely on the record. As I've said before, the record is what controls and we've had compelling testimony on this hearing record. Compelling testimony stands solidly. It stands on its own. We don't need to bolster it. Now, you've heard testimony from Michael Toby on three separate occasions, uh, testifying
as to the use variance relief on all of those. Uh Michael is not a fly by night planner. Uh he testifies regularly. He did not miss those proofs. So I'm not going to humor that with the recitation of the positive negative criteria that was put in the record uh to date. But at a high level, I will say that I know the
board's very familiar with this site, very familiar with the historic uses of this property. It's been on this property for decades. The board's also seen the eventual disrepair of this property for many years. And then along comes new ownership. Proud ownership. Ownership that has a positive
relationship with the neighbors and the community. Ownership that's got pride in what they do on that property and off that property and how it looks and how it functions. This is not a back of a napkin application that was filed with this board a year and a half ago. This went through, excuse me, extensive
vetting with the TCC, with the board professional staff, um, engineering and planning throughout. Um, and this was a very well-conceived plan that the applicant brought forward to the board for a, you know, prospective enhanced
use of this sizable property in an industry that was growing. And that was the point of the parallels drawn in that submission and the testimony offered from Mr. Tobia previously as to the other facilities that you see that are engaged in this garden center with some limited uh, and and sort of high-end
event space component to it. You know, a lot of people like what the applicant is doing here. We've had droves of folks supporting us at every meeting and in the parking lot. The point of that is the objectors represent what I think is a very small faction of detractors. And what you've heard from them has been
thematically consistent throughout from the witness, Mr. Vieira, from his council repeatedly. It's a parade of horribles. What if? What if? What if? You're going to see this, you're going to see that. It's going to be a nightmare. We haven't seen any of that yet. We saw some raw footage that we really couldn't analyze at any
meaningful level from Mr. Beer's cell phone and nothing more. And it was a good question earlier. You know, Mr. Goldberg inquired, well, have you had any loud ruckuses since September? Nobody really said boo about it from the public. There's been amplified music on this property every day in that garden center out there just playing ambient
music in the background while folks are out there. You've heard our acoustic engineer who actually did do a study on the property. the other acoustic engineer, you know, threw up a pass and just said, "Well, it might land here." We were actually in the field performing the studies uh at a forensic level and
it works. The applicant comes in under those levels as proposed. Again, this was wellconceived at every level right down to traffic engineering that was undertaken to confirm that we could occupy this property with this use and the intensity would actually match the site. The proposal was comprehensive and
a wellthoughtout design. I mean that's effectively the punchline we took away from this from the date we had a completed application before the board and started prosecuting it patiently before the board. Um there's been a significant investment to evolve this property with this continued non-residential use on this sizable lot.
Now you know while the investment is not dispositive as to the warranting of a grant of an approval I think it is indicative of what foot forward the applicant is putting in this case. The applicant has consistently undertaken significant efforts to make this
property work better for them, for the community in a way that has been very mindful of the neighbors from start to finish. Notwithstanding the limited detractors we have here with us. Once we're in this room, you know, it's the board's case to hear as the zoning board
of adjustment. We realize that our neighbors are never going to have Thanksgiving dinner with us, and that's fine. We wish it were better relationship. It's not. It's actually eroded even more since the start of the process. But what we brought to the board was our case, right? And like I said, we've had compelling testimony.
The board heard from operational testimony thoroughly. Uh we've had civil testimony a number of times on this case. You saw beautiful architectural designs and layouts of the structures, the existing structures that were being rehabilitated on this property. You know, it's adaptive reuse, which is what
zoning tends to like. Um, we've had traffic and parking testimony on this from dynamic traffic as well, including an acoustic assessment prior to the last hearing that was submitted by way of a report and augmented through testimony of the acoustic engineer saying we had
speakers pointed in every direction. We had that at full volume and we complied at the property lines. That was the benefit of Mr. Mueller's analysis and testimony, which was uncontroverted by Mr. Zura. I I will I will uh note um who just essentially said, "Well, it could
be this." Um we've also had planning testimony. You've heard from Mr. Toby a number of times. I find it interesting that there's an allegation that there's a void in Mr. Tobia's testimony on the planning proofs. He testified as to the D relief on multiple occasions going back, you know, over a year when this
case started, including the submission of a report, which is effectively supplemental to the testimony. What you've got at the end of the day here through all the testimony from operations through the full complement of expert witnesses is a use that's been balanced, tailored, and tempered. And
it's a use that can be uh met with conditions that are imposed to mitigate the impacts of that use. The applicant's been all ears from the start. I've had a running list of, you know, a dozen, two dozen items. I know Mr. Oler has as well. I know the board would discuss them if we're moving forward this
evening. And there are conditions which certainly do have a nexus and bearing on the relief being sought that could be imposed as a mitigating measure to the board's grant of that relief. That's what a board of adjustment does if a board's inclined to vote favorably in an application but has some reasonable
controls that they want to put on that. The applicant is amendable to that. The applicant is not barreling forward here um just saying we're going to get what we want in an entitled manner. The applicant has succumbed to the process. Everything that happened in that field prior to the application before any, you
know, hammers swung was met with permitting by the applicant. At every turn, when additional testing and reviews were sought, the applicant met them. Anytime Mr. VH asked Mr. Stewart to undertake X, Y, or Z, Mr. Stewart promptly did it. Again, thematically, the applicant has been working with the
township on this property they proudly own. And that property is not going to turn into Animal House. It is not a party center. This is a high-end event space that's going to be under the control of the applicant for all events both within the structure and the
outside proposed events. The outside proposed events are proposed to be amplified. We realize that they might shut down earlier. We discussed 9:00 p.m. with the board. We realize it's not going to be 365 days a year for the outdoor events. There's going to be meaningful controls on it, not just for the township, but for the applicant. The
interests are very much aligned in that respect. But we know that this site, its configuration, its pre-existing use, what the applicant wants to do here can all be reconciled under the code and the relief can be granted reasonably with the imposition of reasonable conditions
on that and and I'm sure we'll talk about those shortly. Um the proposed use certainly doesn't undermine the integrity of the composition of this area nor does it challenge or neglect to address any of the issues raised in any
of the professional staff reports throughout uh both from you know Mr. Gu's office, Miss Keller's office as well as the complement of other reports the board had prepared on their behalf throughout the process. all the applicants professionals have agreed to work with the board consultants where there was a divergence or else the board
consultants have agreed with the conclusions drawn by the applicants experts in those reports and through the testimony. Um so at the end of the day again Mr. Chairman and members, you know, I I keep coming back to looking at this as a measured proposal. Um, supported by the extensive filings, the
time, the studies that were all undertaken, not speculative, but undertaken on our property, not a drone fly over where there were a bunch of assumptions made or anything like that by off-site observation from our objectives experts. realize they have a limited role of what they can work with, but we're working with hard objective
data and it works and it can certainly work on this property through a grant of this board with proper controls to ensure compatibility with the varied land uses that certainly are around us uh to an extent. Um with that said, uh Mr. Chairman and members, I want to
thank you all for your time here. This has been a very long hearing. I can only think of one longer we've had in this board room years ago uh for the Unitarian Church application that might have been only slightly longer than this one. But um we want to thank you for your time. The applicant is incredibly
eager and hopeful to get up and running in a meaningful way uh in comport with the plans that they've prepared and they are incredibly excited for this board to consider the application that will finally be [clears throat] this finish line. Mr. the chairman and members, but you folks have sat on a number of
nights, late nights, mostly on Mondays. It's not easy. So, I want to personally thank you for sitting and hearing it. I know the board knows this case well. I know you've heard the thorough testimony of the expert witnesses. I'm not [clears throat] going to rehash any of that. Mr. Chairman and members at this time, we'll rest our case. And I guess again, we we might be discussing uh if
and when uh that there's a motion when we start talking about perspective conditions. I do think that is an important point of this application, Mr. chairman is what are the tailored conditions that could be implemented to control the relief that's being sought here because we're not seeking a car launch without any type of measure of
control. We realize there's got to be controls at some level. So, we look forward to discussing those with the board shortly as well. >> Okay. I I think what we should do and I asked Mr. to concur on this is should we discuss the conditions before we do any kind of motion or should we have a
preliminary motion as to like should we go forward with uh listing conditions or just have a general discussion uh on that? >> Well, I think we could discuss conditions because there were many topics that came up that we didn't
really reach a determination on, but it's a topic that the board still needs to discuss. So >> yeah, I think we should have those discussions and as we heard from Mr. Rosenbach, I think, you know, the general consens consensus from his clients anyway is that, you know, the
florists part or the and the coffee shop is okay, the garden center is generally okay. It's really all about the event space and what conditions can be placed on that and to some extent the the garden center as well. So, so I have um
a pretty long list of of um proposed conditions that I think we should discuss and there may be others. >> Mr. [clears throat] Rosen, do you have the copy of this proposed conditions? >> I I was given a copy a few weeks ago. I don't know if it's current or not. >> We have an extra
>> and if anybody else member of the public wants one, we have several extras here. >> Mr. Chairman, I can I just ask and Mr. or two as well just as a point of procedure. >> If we're discussing conditions now that might be imposed upon this applicant's application, right? >> It's board and applicant. I I I I don't
want Mr. Rosenbach to assume he's got an active role in this part of the process at all. My position is he certainly does not. >> Okay. But on the other hand, he should have >> a copy of what's going to be discussed. Absolutely. Mr. >> And I think this is a discussion for the
board right now, right? the the case has been turned over to the deis, right? >> And if and if the board >> and if the board has a question of you or Mr. Rosenbach, they can certainly ask it, but basically this is a board discussion. >> I I agree. There might be conditions that the applicant might need finesse,
Mr. Roller. So, in that regard, I would just, you know, um chime in when there's an opportunity when we get to one of those items where the applicant is looking for some discussion on uh evolving a condition perhaps. I am quite aware that I am not part of the board discussion.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, in in no particular order really, um I prepared I prepared this list of conditions. Uh just kind of following along through the hearing notes. Um so, number one was that there
be no outdoor events shall take place on the South Street uh front yard lawn area. And we can take these one at a time. If you have any questions, I I think we should just address them as they come up. >> Right. Two is outdoor event shall only be permitted on the paper courtyard in
the greenhouse. >> Hours of operation shall be the florest and home decor business 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Coffee shop 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Uh the garden center 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The event space would have a
10 p.m. curfew. >> Right. Um, >> so the the board members, any questions on those? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What? >> Uh, first one, >> no outdoor events in the front yard. So, if they decide to have a wedding, they
want to have pictures taken out there that's not permissible by this. I think we're getting a little too nitty-gritty. Just want to make sure that what we're proposing encompasses everything that might be an issue, >> right?
>> And that doesn't include things that really aren't an issue. >> That's fine. I mean, that that came up at like the first hearing, right? So, it was in my notes and I'm just listing everything that was discussed at the time. we could qualify that to say no
group event to you know the I thought the intent of that was that there would be no group of people >> it wouldn't be the center >> I think that the I think that the better one would honestly just be the second just do number two outdoor event shall only be permitted in the center
basically the center of the site um because I think that you know when you're talking about someone taking a photograph or something like that like that's not that's not where that event is taking place >> right >> and I think that that's that. So I think that that's a good point and I think that we do want to but you know the again this is this comes down to
enforcement but I think that I think that we want to be where we can I think we want to be specific in the affirmative >> rather than in the negative [clears throat] >> um in this in this thing. So, you know, it's outdoor events shall be permitted
in the, you know, and maybe we can even have have like an like somebody that shows it or something like that, you know, but I think, you know, the acoustic engineer had where he located potential and nothing was in the technical front yard. Everything was in the body of the property, if you will. Yeah. >> Yes. Because I think that they, you
know, I think we don't want to we want to we want to keep this, it's not going to be simple, but I think we want to [clears throat] keep it as simple as we can and not um not not duplicate or contradict any of the conditions. Scratch one, keep two. >> That would be my suggestion. >> Okay.
>> All right. And then the hours of operation, anything there? >> There was some mention of 900 p.m. at one point. >> Yeah, there was today. >> The comment that that that was said and I I can't remember who that came from. Oh, I guess it came from one of the members of the public speaking was that
she was told that the applicant had said that the events have to end by 9:00, so they can be totally shut down by 10. So that's in line with the applicant's proposal for outdoor events. The applicant's proposal for outdoor events is amplified events, particularly on the heels of that acoustic study, and they would cease by 9:00 p.m. is the plan.
And they are certainly not going to be uh year round, 365 days a year in the outdoor events. >> Yes. >> So outside events would ter terminate at 9 and indoor events at 10. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. I And and I think that a lot of this goes back to the fact that a lot some of these conditions do date back to
earlier in these proceedings. Um, I would recommend, you know, that any of the retail coffee portion of the site, you know, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., outdoor events 9:00 p.m., indoor events 10 p.m. >> If that's acceptable, just just again to
streamline it. Just to streamline >> Sorry, give me that again. >> I was just going to say if you kind of combine the florist, home decor, garden center, coffee shop, retail sales, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. >> Okay. So, they have some flexibility there. >> Yeah. And that way, you know, >> they can close at 4:15 >> and you know, like what what if one one
cash register is using something for the other, you know what I mean? So, they could close earlier, they can open later, but 7 to 6 would be what that would be for retail sales and uh garden supply. Um outdoor events, 9:00 p.m. curfew. Indoor events, 10 p.m.
>> Board members in agreement with on that. Yeah. I mean, I guess the only point of clarification, if if it maybe it's not apparent to me, but you could have a hybrid event where it's like outdoors and then you're coming indoors, right? It could be the same event just has to move it inside at 10 p.m., right? So, there's no inside at 9 p.m.
>> inside at 9:00 p.m. to continue on till 10 p.m. inside. >> Yeah. I I would assume, you know, I mean, again, just what their operations are, but typically you'd think that it would be something that you would move it in earlier than that because a little late in the night, but yes, that they technically do. Yes. [cough and clears throat] Okay.
>> Okay. Uh, number four, the applicant indicated they would uh repave Pear Street. They would need township committee approval to do that. So, they'd have to apply for that. >> That's fine. [clears throat and cough] >> We could just on that topic. Um,
there there's Well, you know what? Let's get through all the parishry stuff and then I'll discuss it because there's potentials of of other vacations and other things, license agreements. So, we'll discuss them all at home. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I would I would kind of categorize
these under the conditions that involve township committee or municipal approval. Kind of look at those as one bucket. >> Right. So, um, the next one then is the applicant shall apply for township committee approval to retain the fence
located within the pair street right ofway or relocate the fence to a permitted location. Um, if required by the township, the applicant shall enter into a license agreement with the municipality for the use of the existing on street parking spaces along Pear Street.
>> Correct. >> You want to jump in there? >> Yes. So in totality everything that's in Pear Street is part of a paper street right away and at some and the road has been maintained by the
municipality historically. Um that I don't believe the road was originally constructed to our current municipal standards. So I think it's sub a substandard road. Um, but it provides sufficient ingress and egress to the site as well as to two residential
properties on Pear Street as you transition past the what used to be the old utility building, >> right? >> And you go past that last driveway of residential access is exclusive to this property.
Um, I would recommend the applicant seek the vacation of the of the right of way >> beyond >> west to the west of the last driveway which is sorry it is address 8 pair
street west of that driveway where the pro the access is essentially a what is a private a public paper street without the correct improvements for us to accept.
>> Right. So in lie of in lie of improving it for us to be able to accept the on street parking and the aisle in that area. I think it's more beneficial to all parties that the applicant seek it being vacated. >> Okay. Um so it would be to amend this to
include a recommendation that they seek the road to be vacated west of a pair street driveway and in lie of that these the license agreement is the alternative. >> I have a I have a question Joe. What if if that were to be vacated if it were to
become part of their property wouldn't that change some of the technical aspects of this application >> um in terms of coverage or like um I mean like >> as I think as filed it I don't think as filed it does I think
um as the act because the action would be after this board's action it would be >> okay >> right it would be a vacation of of the of the area that would not be in whole to the applicant's property >> it may also be to
>> say 22 prospect on the opposite side >> at half width and then private private easements would be secured between them. >> What happens if they can't get those easements and >> then it goes to the license agreement option with the municipality that's already stated. >> Okay.
>> There's no purpose for the municipality to hold that road as a public road, >> right? >> Yeah. Um and for that on street parking that could become on-site parking as part of their calculus of their parking
available to them, >> right? Mhm. [clears throat] >> So essentially the driveway starts as you pass that original utility building and then on the opposite side that that emergency access going out the other side starts at their driveway as well. Everything else is interior to a site.
>> Okay. >> So it's the alternatives of the mechanism to vacate Pear Street or obtain the appropriate license agreements, >> right, >> for those those areas that were improved. Got it. Okay. Continuing on.
The two-story frame dwelling may only be used as a caretaker residence. [clears throat] It may not be separately rented to a third party. >> Um, no power equipment shall be used on site prior to 9:00 a.m. There was some discussion about only using electric blowers on the property. >> Can I offer something there, Rich, on
that real quick? And the caretaker issue is fine. The applicant already stipulated that one. Um, >> the applicant does use electric blowers. The before 9:00 a.m. is certainly fine. They don't need to fire anything up before 9:00 a.m. They use electric blowers. They do have commercial landscaping services on this property once a week where their landscaper comes
out once a week. The landscapers often throw on gas fired backpack blowers. So if the condition we're amenable to a condition that says electric blowers, but if we could tailor it to the applicant's use, we really can't control our landscapers right now. Maybe one day
the ordinance catches up and it does. Um but what the applicant's concern is is we know we've got neighbors um few but neighbors who are always paying attention to us. The applicants not interested in the PD being called every single time you hear a gas blower. And it turns out it was you know Mike's
landscaping company and it wasn't South Street Gardens. So that's the only issue with that respective language the applicant would offer. Um >> can council wait to comment until we're done discussing the particular line item? I >> I can't. Rich has 20ome items. I don't
know if he wants to go. So, >> I was just I was just going to say >> the the town the township allows gas blowers. Until they don't allow it, I don't think this restriction should be put on them.
>> Well, the thing is it's um a commercial property in a residential zone. So, and it's a garden center, so there could be a um opportunity for lots of gas blowers. We all get annoyed by gas blowers um especially in the fall, but
uh putting the uh a requirement for the property owner to have use uh electric blowers. Electric blowers are so much quieter. >> No, they're not. I own both. They're
really there's very little. I I I own I own a gas uh electric blower and I can be running mine and I can hear the gas blower way down the street. >> Okay. >> Uh so I think um your suggestion is
probably preferable if you got people an outside contractor on there using gas blowers acceptable until the township bends it. But your people will just use the electric. >> And how are you going to how are you going to police that? You know what I'm saying?
>> I understand that. Yeah, I understand. But at some point, you've got to trust them to do something. And >> it's better it's better to have it there than not put it there and just say it's going to be impossible to enforce. >> Yeah, Mr. You know, I'm I'm always here saying, you know, with forcibility
forcibility, but I think that the the idea that this is a business that could use blowers as part of their hourly daily operations, that's the distinction here. once a week, you know, whatever they come by. That you could do in a residential zone. You know, that I think is you're right on that point. Um, but I
think that's where the noise actually can have an impact. >> Yeah, because they're going to be blowing up pathways and everything else in the patio. >> Okay. >> Uh, regularly. [clears throat] >> And just a question on the no power equipment. Um, because again, how do we,
you know, enforce all this, right? They may have a backup generator. or the power may go out and there may be power equipment running at 8 in the morning to keep the plants alive or whatever they may have and then you know we want to prevent situations where the neighbors are calling saying I hear power equipment running or what have you
because nothing before 9. So, I just don't know how granular we need to get with this and I'll defer to the professionals on that or any thoughts. >> You know, I I I think obviously what we've heard throughout the hearings and especially tonight is that, you know, the noise element of this business is is
of concern to a lot of neighbors. So, this is just one other way to try and keep the overall noise level down. >> And I I think you know something even say except in case of emergency, >> right? um because you know unfortunately if there's a power outage it might be
the whole neighborhood you know something like that so that would you know something >> I just don't know how granular you know we're able to get on some of those but >> Mr. Mr. Kelly, would the when the the um the contract with landscapers come,
that's not going to be performance. >> I I know, you know, you can kind of control that. Not always, but >> they typically come It's a weekday. They typically come right now on Mondays. Um it's it's typically morning. Um you know,
>> I mean, that's not something we've heard complaints about. I will I will say because you don't want there to be complaints, but it's it's you having experienced it, you don't want the landscapers coming at 7:45 a.m. if you're you have been at a hearing late the night before. Um, but yeah, I think that, you know, that's that's kind of
been that whole threshold of >> Are you okay with the 8 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. rather? >> We can we could definitely live with eight with our landscaper. I don't know how much early we can control them. You could try for nine, but >> let's go with >> nine or eight. >> I'd go with nine.
>> Nine. >> I know. Wait a minute. What's the township ordinance on with uh 8 a.m. >> eight? >> Yes. >> Township ordinance is eight. So, should we do eight? >> We We really can't control the landscape or anything. >> Right. Right. I understand. >> Nudge them, but we can't guarantee is
the So, we would say eight for them, nine for us. We're fine with what we can control being at 9:00 a.m. >> Board members, any thought on that? >> Stay with Keep it simple. Town ordinance. >> Stay with the ordinance.
>> Okay. All right. And then indoor and outdoor events will be limited to the following types of events. Floral design and gardening workshops, wreath making, butterfly and terrarium workshops. I think this list came from the applicant, by the way. [laughter] >> I would recommend simplifying this.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. Do you want to hear them all or you want to simplify it? >> No, just get rid of >> A through J. >> I mean I I would state this as um you know events events on site shall be limited to um you know instructional
sessions, workshops and classes related to things sold on the site. Um weddings and similar party weddings and showers similar parties up to maximum occupancy of 48 people. Um, get rid of D, get rid
of B, get rid of E. Um, F, I would just say private parties, fundraisers, or corporate events. Other private parties, fundraisers, or corporate events up to 48 people for the event space. Um, the problem though is that that doesn't address the outside
um, you know what I mean? Where it has the maximum capacity. So maybe we because I I I think that maybe we even take out the permitted occupancy because that's a part of the code. to go over printed occupancy, >> right? Which is 48. >> 48 that that's within here. Yes. >> And that that's those are humans, right?
They're not just the party go staff also that's working the party. So >> it's 48. >> 48. Okay. I just want to clarify that. >> Just how we laid out the seating. So the occ the volume of that room could handle a higher occupancy under fire code. But 48 is what the applicants said. We're not going over this amount. That's our
max. We need to lay this on. So 48 was the number they landed at with design. >> Great. Okay. And that would be 48. Yes. >> Okay. >> Right. Right. >> We are either allowing an event space to happen or not. I don't believe that we should be dictating what types of events there are. What if there's an event that
isn't listed in in this? I just think we're getting again getting too granular on this. >> Right. Okay. >> Fair enough. Yeah. And and as as as Mr. Eer said, this this list did initially come from the applicant. So, I think that's the framework we were working. >> Yeah. >> We were worried about that too, Mr. Schustster. You know, because at what point are at what point are you not
quite in G, but you might be? and who's orbiting that, right? That the enforcement issue. I think that the terms private, the private parties, corporate events, and fundraisers, those are very large shotgun blast, I think, types of phrases. So, I think that we as an applicant team are covered because my client said to me, "What about X event?
What about Y event?" Well, that's a private party as we see it. So, I think that that does give us the the rubric of cover there. But but I agree with you, you know, when you start getting too granular, it's it becomes um a mess, >> right? >> Okay. Uh food trucks shall be permitted in
conjunction with permitted events on a temporary basis. Applicants shall obtain any required health department permits for each event in which a food truck is used. It shall be uh there shall only be and then again we started throwing numbers around one food truck um per
event permitted. >> This is to confirm that from the last hearing, >> right, >> the permanent food truck is no longer part of this application. It's well this is a good time to bring that up. So, the applicant is fine with that condition. I think 9H it's written as right there,
Rich. >> Um, >> but if the board wants favorable, if the applicant does have a request that that semi-permanent food truck that the board has seen here now, it only operates till 3 p.m., but it's out there now. The board asks that that can remain until there's a CO in place for the cafe. And
then at that time, the food truck will proceed under 9H permitted in conjunction with the events. And the reason being that gives the applicant a runway for their business. The food truck is is doing very well right now. The community seems to love it. It's not impacting anybody in a negative manner.
It closes timely. It's not creating any noxious reality. >> When's it when it when's it closing right now? >> 3 p.m. Oh, yeah. >> 3 p.m. So, when there's a CEO for that cafe, that's when the applicant will gladly pivot to those operations there for that, you know, that that that light fair. And then the food trucks will come
in on a permitted basis. you know, they'll apply for the permits as they need to when they're having their events. >> To me, the distinction I I I I think that that's fair. You know, I'll defer to the board on that. Then the event the event se the event food truck [laughter] store that's a couple hours and that
obviously would have [cough] um because as we learned last time there isn't really anything in the township code that discriminant one once the cafe is open that [laughter] yeah that's when your scope starts to get a little more than what we ever thought we were >> do we want to put a limit on the number
of food trucks and what is that limit >> for an event >> I honestly I just my My take on this is that just the size of the site, the number of people that are limited to the events, I think that's going to self police. Someone's not going to want to pay for, you know, three food trucks that aren't going to get used or
something like that >> for 50 people. >> Yeah. >> Well, correct. So, how many do you think? [clears throat] One, two. >> Again, two. It's a big world out there. >> We're getting into the nitty-gritty, but but not for [laughter] 50 people,
>> right? Well, that wouldn't they wouldn't necessarily need an event space for the I mean they don't have to use you could advertise it as a food truck festival and bring in 12 food trucks and then they could shop and do whatever they want, not necessarily have to use the event space. >> So, let's limit it to limit it to two.
>> What do you think? I just before that >> the discussion [clears throat] where they are located on site because like we were just saying about self it self polices itself. If they're going into courtyards there's only so much
space to functionally put a food truck and then have people congregating around it in in a an outdoor event. >> Right. >> Right. So if they were to be designated in an area in the parking lot, I don't think that's ideal. I think it's more ideal probably that they're in the
courtyard or in what what's currently like the on street parking area, >> right? >> Parked end to end there using up that space. So, everybody is then walking across to that area. But I think of those spaces where you would put them,
where they would be put for an event when you're thinking of how many you would like to have on the site or if you're restricting it. Well, well, another thing is that you don't want the food truck taking up all two parking spaces that are part of the site. So, I think that that's that that would be I would I would offer that
>> or anything, you know, no events. Even something Sorry, we're getting a little creative. But you don't want to take up off street parking. >> Yeah. >> If there's a food truck there now, you have some experience with that. Where is it? >> It's right in the entrance way.
>> So, so previously went, so why don't you answer? So it's immediately [clears throat] west of the proposed coffee shop tucked in next to the building and surrounded by um plant material. >> Yes. >> So it's not in the road. >> Exactly. >> As Mr. Bruce mentioned on something the
parking stalls in a really good spot. And what we could gladly do is work out a detail with Mr. which are effectively a staging detail that if here's where the food trucks are going to be, Joe, if and when we have events down the road, we're glad to supplement that and file that as a as a postapproval resolution
compliance item. Uh and then it might be self-p policing. You might not fit multiple trucks. It might it might be cost prohibitive for an event to say I want it catered by two different uh you know purveyors. So um I'm not sure we need to regulate the quantity. It's certainly not going to be 10 out there. But is it likely be more than one? Maybe
not. But but could it be? Could >> Right. But we don't want like a food truck uh galla. >> I understand. I think that's true. >> I think comfortably in the location that it's at now, which is on the side of the courtyard. >> Right. >> Right. It you could squeeze two in there
side by side >> and that would be about it. >> And then from there, there's not really another spot in the courtyard that's convenient to put them. Correct. Um if there were more I so I think two in courtyard and then the others if they
were to do it I think would be naturally in that on >> I'd like to limit the number. >> Keep it at two. We got two more of these to go. >> We got to keep it at two. >> Yeah. >> And we have four minutes left. So >> Okay. Keep it at two. >> Does everybody agree on that?
>> Okay. >> Okay. So then this one which may need more discussion here is about the outdoor music right. So indoor and outdoor music in connection with permitted events may take place except that any outdoor music shall not be
amplified and no speakers or microphones shall be used with any outdoor events. Um and at the last hearing the applicant spoke about um limited amplification by providing some amplifiers that would have governors on them of some sort.
>> Yeah. So, so the applicant's request is to be clear, they would like amplified music outside. They think that's supported by the expert testimony in the record from the acoustic engineer and the applicant and and it was brought up as as a discussion point, I think perhaps from Mr. Buch was, "Well, can you control the equipment?" The
applicant said, "Yes, we can control the equipment. Can you control the equipment in a way where you're managing it with a regulator or governor where it can't go above certain volumes and there can't be that oops moment and we're not getting a call saying lower it. Oh, we'll lower it. Sorry, it won't happen next." Yes, this can be completely controlled on the
front end before there's any incident proactively. It would be equipment that would be controlled by the applicant. I don't know if they would actually be the ones that actually own title to the the equipment or not. I'm not sure what this costs, but the equipment be controlled by them. Remember, the applicant is at every event. They're running every
event. The caretaker lives on the site. The outdoor events will have a shut off time. Um the speaker placement during that acoustic test was such that it tried to boom in every direction the acoustic [clears throat] and it complied in every direction. So the events are in
the body of the property. >> Yeah. I'm just saying like the fact that it complies uh is not the be all end all because they're asking for variance to put this property in these events in there. >> I understand that's why >> so that and that's why you know I'm concerned about the neighbors. It's one
thing if you know somebody in a residential neighborhood has a party you know once or twice a year as opposed to a regularly scheduled event taking place outdoors and the people down the street are saying you know I hear this four nights a week I hear this three nights a
week because they you know they don't know exactly how often this is going to occur but they're going to want their windows open you know on a nice evening and they don't want it all coming in >> I understand >> so I I'm like in favor of not having acoustic music outside.
>> So, so amplified amplified outside because this is important to the applicant. So, so here here's what we're profering for. It's amplified music outside. The applicant is willing to have an earlier shut off time of 9:00 p.m. as opposed to
10. It does comply with the acoustic measurements. I realize that doesn't get the whole warm and fuzziness, but it does comply, right? To be clear, it does comply. And the applicant is not intent on doing this year round. There's going to be seasons where it's it's completely uh in >> I understand that >> the applicant has talked about an
average of you know no more than an average of one a week. Just to put a number on there's 365 days a year. There's not going to be 365 outdoor events a year. The applicant said you know what if we're averaging one a week that's 52 a year. So that is a cap that you're likely looking at. I suspect it'll come in remarkably lower than that
outdoor events because they're going to want to use that beautiful indoor space as well. Um and again the applicant's not proposing animal house out here. about amplified music playing out there today in the garden center as you're walking around. >> Oh, is the ambient music. >> It's ambient. It's ambient. It's ambient
and it's not heard on off the property lines. >> I understand. But amplified, it is amplified music. >> So, we can say ambient music is allowed so long as it's not heard uh beyond the property lines. >> So, so the applicant's proposal for the outdoor event space is for events to be amplified at their election. They may
not all be, but eventually be amplified. The outdoor events will shut down by 900 pm and the cap effectively is 52 a year. No more than an average or averaging less than one one a week or less on the average. >> And how do we Yes. >> Just just I want to point out I'm going
to remind you of what the uh sound engineer who did the tests. >> Yeah. I don't have the exact number here, but it was 50 to 60 dB at the property line and it was only a couple of dB above
route 287. That's in the report. That's what the sound engineer measured. It's barely above 287 with amplified music. I'm only going to throw that one out there. You could hear it at the property line at
about I think it was two or three dB. Anybody else remember that? >> I remember. Yeah. >> Okay. I think that's a really important point. >> Mhm. >> Barely above 287. >> 287's loud. >> Well, >> which but when you say it's barely above
287, you're barely hearing this above. There's a lot of noise already there, >> right? >> But they built sound walls around 287 on there. >> Not there for a reason, but every place else. I mean, >> amplified music is the biggest sticking point to the people that are against this.
>> Okay, that's true. And I I think that needs to be heard. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Not like amplified music. >> I don't think there should be amplified music outside. >> I agree with that. >> Pertaining to events. Okay. >> These people have spent months and months. I appreciate their attendance
and participation and they have really guided this application to where it is now. And I think the noise particularly
for the local neighborhood is it's a real critical issue. I would I would be in favor of no amplified music. >> I'm sorry. >> Concur. >> Yep. >> Again, everything else. [laughter]
>> Okay. >> Yeah, I can't see that. Sorry. [laughter] >> All right. Uh 10 was the event space. I think we talked about it already. maximum 48 seats. Um, all activities on site with seats no later than 10 p.m.
Again, the outside uh was uh included by >> 9 p.m. because we already have it in the captured >> we captured in the earlier ones. >> Uh, all permitted events shall be staffed and monitored by the applicant or its successors. There shall be no
third party rentals of any space on the site. use of any alcohol shall be subject to the approval of >> Let's go back to that staff. They don't permitted events, they don't have to be staffed by they'll have somebody on site, but they could bring, you know, uh, bring in caterers from the outside
because that's part of being staffed. So, it's just like they're going to have somebody just the terminology that someone from the property or ownership will be there. That's all it is. >> I would recommend combining that with the um this like it's like two two or three down about no subleting the space and one operator. I think that's all one
condition. I think it's very clear, especially if you combine those two, it's very clear what that's intended to state. >> Okay. So, we're omitting staffed and just saying monitored by applicant as well. >> Having staffed is fine. Is that is that what we're saying? >> Yeah.
>> Monitor. >> Okay. Um, use of alcohol subject to approval by the township police department and alcohol beverage control board. Uh, no food shall be prepared or cooked on site, although food may be reheated on site. The kitchen shall only
be a warming kitchen. No meals or food of any kind shall be served outdoors. >> Well, wait a different, right? We can just skip that one. >> Yeah, there's not going to be formal seating, you know. Uh,
For number 16, I believe you haven't even submitted a detail of a dumpster dumpster. >> So, we already have it on the plan. >> So, we already have that. Okay. >> It's dated uh from last summer, but yes. So, that's >> okay. The applicant would comply with
all directional requirements of the board's traffic engineer. Uh there should be >> Okay. Uh again, we talked about 18 would jump up to become part of 12, but there'd be no subleting of any space or uses on the
site, right? All uses on a site shall be conducted by one operator. >> The proposed signage shall only have externally grounded, mounted, low voltage lighting. >> Yeah, I I agree with that. I think that I think, you know, the applicant has to abide by what's on the planet.
So, >> okay. There shall be no outdoor signage or advertising of the coffee shop. Um, all site lighting shall be downshielded to avoid light spillage offsite. Is that a plan detail already? >> I don't know if it was or not, but they agreed to it.
>> I think that's compli because because there might be ex of lighting that's not new or something like that. >> Does that include dark sky? >> Yeah, I had dark sky separately later came up later, but that would be part of that same condition be [clears throat] dark sky compliant. Um, I had a blank
one in terms of deliveries being made Monday to Saturday, but the hours >> 7 to 7 >> 7 to 7 report okay with 7 a.m. 7:00 p.m. on deliveries. >> Yes. >> Remove all the debris from the wetlands area to the satisfaction of the township engineer and obtain any required permits
prior to removal. [clears throat] Joe, is that right? >> Yes. >> 23. >> 24. No landscape materials including bulk quantities of mulch, soil, stone, wood chips shall be stored on site and no such item shall be delivered by the
applicant to any third parties. >> Rich, can we stop at that one for a moment, please? Thank you. So, the applicant does have material stored on site. It's for their own use as they need it. So, material comes in, they've got a pile of top soil, they put it down to keep the, you know, the material. >> They don't sell in bulk. You're not coming out to you're not coming out with
your own company going over to a bin with a bucket loader or a Bobcat, lifting it up, putting in the back of your truck, scooping it. >> So, there is [snorts] some outdoor storage. Um, these sales are are retail, you know, retail. You're coming in, you're grabbing a bag, you know, you're grabbing a 20 pound bag of material, you're walking out,
>> but there is some um on-site storage of of materials >> for use by South Street Gardens, >> but not for delivery. So it's >> so it's like it's so it's no no sale of bulk materials. >> No sale. There's no wholesale.
>> No. No. But no one's buying, you know, 5 cubic yards of soil. >> No, that's right. Landscapers aren't coming getting, you know, enough to to do someone's entire front yard bed, you know, for that spring or something like that. Right. >> And is that area designated on the plan
>> for where the I >> I don't know if it's on Fred Stewart's plan. We certainly can locate it to the satisfaction of Mr. Booch. >> Sounds good. >> It's a small area material. It's not like you're talking about a contractor's jar where you've got the gravel here, the P gravel here or or you know the aggregate there and the top soil here.
Um >> Rich, I think I think from the condition standpoint, what I think the idea is that it's coming on the site via a delivery >> and that's it. >> No other trucks are coming out. >> It's just not for delivery. >> Truck. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm just going to change that to say it could be on site, just not for
delivery. for delivery to >> sale. >> They said they're going to bag it up and sell it, which is fine. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. [clears throat] I I you know, again, I'm trying try not trying to delay things, but I just want to be clear for the purposes of the public and
the the the noise and stuff in the neighborhood. So, if deliveries I mean, you have some large shrubs, some large trees. If you're having deliveries of material at 7 a.m., is it all manual [clears throat] offload? Like are you going to be using a forklift or anything to take that off of the truck and making
noise to at that early in the morning? I'm just trying to sort of protect, you know, what we're trying to preserve. >> Does the landl come from your own from the applicant's own supply or >> No. Okay. >> No. No. They try to stagger deliveries. So, so at 7 a.m. you're not going to
hear a lot of beeping typically, but 7 to 7 is the window they need for deliveries because they in fact do stagger them. Okay. Yeah. Again. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. >> Okay. 25 would become part of what we've already talked about, right? Dark sky
compliant on the lighting. Um 26. The monument sign shall be shall not be a digital sign. Um and may not be internally illuminated. I think we already talked a little bit about the sign. >> Yeah. Just so you know, that plan is already as an [snorts] exhibit
>> uh from months and months ago, >> right? >> Um ground lighting's confirmed. No internal illumination is >> okay. >> Uh the applicant shall apply for township committee approval to retain the landscaping existing within the township rightway and any additional
landscaping proposed to be planted within the township right ofway. This is going to go back to whether there's a vacation or not. It's assumed in the same all in one comment condition, >> right? And if if that's not approved by the township committee, they may require
its removal. I mean, what's what it's going to be in their ballpark? >> Yeah, it's going to be one or the other, >> right? Vacation or license agreement. >> Yep. Okay. And then some of these are a little more standard. um would comply with our health department letter from February
of 25, comply with the ongoing health department requirements, comply with environmental commission's report from March of 25, um obtain Morris County Planning Board approval, and comply with all other township agency requirements. >> Fine. C can we revisit the outdoor
amplification for a moment? Applicant made a comment to me that perhaps the board would consider as Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um it's a big component of what the applicant is hopeful to do as the board knows. Um we understand we've heard several board members, certainly a
majority of them say there's a concern with the outdoor amplification. Would the board perhaps be amendable to fashioning some sort of a condition that does allow the applicant to apply on a special basis for outdoor event permits up to x number of times per year. uh as
opposed to the carp launch of any day we want to go out there and have an outdoor event because we've sourced a client to come up to the property and have an outdoor event which like I said could have been up to 52 times a year. Is the board amendable to us doing this on a more of a special basis for an outdoor
event? Um regulated either in quantity or by time of year. We would say quantity might just be the simpler one. But the applicant keeps coming back to this, Mr. chairman for a reason, you know, and and they're certainly amendable to working with the board to get the comfort level there, but something is better than nothing. And
the something is not not a very big ask with what they're asking for. You know, a number you could probably count on a couple of hands. >> Is there and I guess I don't know if this question is for Joe. Is there an existing township kind of system in place for that? Because otherwise that's
kind of a >> special event. Yeah, it's kind of a burden to to to kind of create something new just for this site. Um, >> right. [clears throat] >> You know, and and I don't, you know, I don't I think I I understand what Mr. P's asking. I think it makes sense in somewhat, but I just don't know how
real, you know, like will that involve going to the CC every time, you know, I what what exactly? >> Yeah. Who's who's the approval mechanism? >> Yeah, exactly. >> I understand there's a [cough] there's township committee special event approval. So we have to go to
>> carnivals, fairs, block parties or the like which has an ex which is noted in our noise chapter 345. >> Okay. >> Has an exemption for special events. Approvals by the township committee uh of a special event such as a carnival
fair, block party, or the like shall be deemed to confer an exemption from the strict requirements of this chapter. the township reserves the right upon short notice to withdraw the exemption conferred in this section. So I think the intent there is if there's a special
event permit requested from the governing body and they provide that approval then it's governed by the b the bounds of how they've prescribed the event the date and time you know the nature. So that would be it's not us
giving that approval. It would be the township committee giving that approval. Even if we said no way outside events, they could still >> No. No. No. So perhaps just the way to to phrase it would be that the if there
there are outdoor events that are permitted in this use approval, the amplification of music can be added to a special event request of the governing body. Right? So, so
you're not excluding the amplification of music, you're deferring it to the governing body as a special event on the property as opposed to one of their curated events. >> So, I I I agree. I agree. I'm I'm going to make it a little like I think like
the way I look at this is is again this is a D1 use variance that they're asking for to have these events here. And I don't know, you know, this is this is not a zoning chapter like you know what what this but I [clears throat] I think what we would want to do would maybe be something following the procedures of that chapter. It would not mean that they were able to violate the noise
ordinance because that's what that's saying because that's talking about like big events and I don't think that's what you're asking. >> No, it's not. We're asking for you know we have up to 10 12 a year. >> So that was my next question. But I think that there is a procedure in place and it again this is this does get
complicated but the the for as the board this is a D1 use variance and you have the right to control that if you say no outdoor amplification of music they cannot go to the township committee and ask for an event from it >> right and that and that's the concern
with the total proclusion is is very tough for the applicant. We're fine with it not being infinite. We're fine with being a finite established number in a resolution of approval, but that's what we're asking the board to consider is a finite number of outdoor amplified events concluding by 9 p.m.
>> So that the outdoor event is part of the contemplation of the D1 use approval, >> right? and then be deferring their request for >> there would have to be a special condition saying >> so so the the event can happen under the
use the wedding indoor outdoor on the property and if that particular client wishes to have outdoor music they could work with the applicant and make a request for a special event permit
>> from the governing body to allow music or we just move on from it. It's it's not part of right the discussion. >> It would not it would it would put it it would this board's role would be to decide if that is something you'd be willing to consider and have that in the resolution. And look, I mean
>> the hard line on the D1 news package without it. >> Yeah. Without it. Without it. It would be a special you'd be approving it with no and then you can either approve it with no outdoor amplification of music. you can say the the applicant may request a special event permit for up
to, you know, 5 to 10, what whatever number they throw out um from the TC, but also or from the governing body. But that doesn't which also, you know, that doesn't mean you're going to get it, >> right? That's right. It's just that that it's just that this zoning board does not shut the door on that opportunity up to a certain number. That's essentially
as it's built in suspenders. It's not a guarantee it's even going to happen. up to 10 events being requested for amplified music as a special event from the municipality. >> And I think that, you know, it's more work for the governing body. Um, but it um they would have to put together a
plan for special events. You would have to, you know, you're not going to have to bring an acoustic expert every time, but you're going to have to, you know, put together what that would look like. So, it is it it is an extra layer on the of protection on the applicant if the board is interested in allowing that.
That's it. So, but that my question is just if there was a procedure in place, which there is. So, that when I think you could kind of defer back to that >> the special my understanding of our code, the special event permit process is not prescribed in our code. It's afforded it's referenced in the noise
section. So, I can't speak to when somebody wishes to have a block party, how they procure that through the clerk's office, right? >> And what's part of that application? I can't speak to that. I'm not familiar with that yet, but there is a process for getting that approval from the >> TA. Exactly. I didn't want us to be
making up some new process. That was too complicated. >> I don't care what the board will board members think. I'm still in favor of the no u amplified music outside. I think it makes it very simple.
>> Yep. >> And and so am I. But question here becomes can we do we approve the ability of the applicant to have events up until 9:00 outside and then if they want to go to the time committee for the amplification
of sound that's a separate thing. We're only saying you can have the event without sound unless you can get sound from the township committee play on the same >> and we can limit that number of times they can do that per year. >> Right. So you say no amplified music
>> without a firm further permitage from the township committee [laughter] >> or go inside >> and limited to x number of times per year >> five times a year.
>> He had said 50 times a year. So I >> well number kept going up. I was looking at the [laughter] faces and started five and I get a pledge. I went to 10. We we I think look I I like to go numerically like 52 was the weeks 12 is one per month. I mean 10 to [clears throat] 12
we think and it's it's an up to it's it's it's a ceiling. It's >> once a quarter four [laughter] >> once a year number in mind. >> Uh I once a month seems reasonable >> but you know they're not going to be holding them in January February. Um,
>> well, that's the problem because in June they're going to want to have four. >> Yeah. So, six. >> I know it's not a five or a 10, but >> I like >> I'm still inclined just to have no amplified music and keep it simple, but
that's just my >> That's your That's my Yeah. >> Andy, what do you think? >> My opinion. >> I would be open to like I would think 10. I would be open to 10. Darnell, >> I think that they should be able to have their music. I think that we can monitor
it. Um, we'll put a limit on it. >> Um, and I'm okay with 10. >> I'm okay with 10. >> 10 far end of the >> way. I like it. >> What?
>> I've been an event planner for 35 years. Okay. If you have a an event for 50 people, you don't need amplified music. >> You don't, >> right? >> You want to do it, do it inside. >> Yep. >> You know what? I would agree to amplified vocals, but not not
instruments. >> But again, how do you police it? I don't want the neighbors calling, you know, the police department every time something goes on. >> You will. >> Well, that's what's going to happen, right? That's that's their only mechanism. >> I know, >> right? is to say, "Hey, they have
amplified music. It's it's louder than the ordinance permits and 911 >> and the the guy who runs the equipment isn't on duty. So there's no because it's going to be at 9:00 at night. And if the guy's not on duty, they can't
enforce it [clears throat] cuz not all officers are uh trained to run that equipment. There usually about two or three." >> He makes a good point. For 35 people, they need amplified music. I would that's what I'm saying. Let's just I'd rather go with no amplifier.
>> No amplifier because you already have the ambient music that's permitted during all the use, right? >> Yes. And we well we can write that into the resolution ambient music that can play throughout the facility in various events >> is just ambiance,
>> right? >> Okay. Okay. Let's move on. >> I think that was all of them. We went back to this one, >> right? Or should I turn? >> No, not yet. [laughter]
>> Okay. So, >> members of the board, now that we've put all these conditions in place, we have to discuss whether we wish to approve this application and why. >> And and as you I would suggest we have a
motion, right? >> Right. in the second and then the you know the reasons for how you would vote should be explicit um explicitly put on the record. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, do I have a motion?
>> I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair, that this um application be approved. I think that as the world changes, the use has to change with this property. I think that it's a better uh better than its current law. What it used to be [clears throat]
used is basically it was a uh a blighted piece of property in Mars Township. Uh I think that we should be moving in the right direction. The use uses change, things develop new new uh avenues and I think we should approve
this application given the current conditions that we have >> with the current conditions as we discuss >> as we discussed. I'll second that. >> All right. So, why don't uh somebody start off saying why they would like to approve this uh application?
>> Sure. Uh I think this is a a a great uh item that's uh that's being brought to the township. Uh I I love the fact that it's multi-use. Uh, I think it'll uh it's it's an opportunity for uh a garden
center that might not actually uh be as successful as it would be uh without these other elements. I think it's great for the community. Uh the um the look of the space is fantastic. Uh they do a beautiful job. I think it
I think it'll be an asset uh to our town. and I I look forward to uh to continuing to uh to enjoy that. I've been there a couple of times. Uh they're great people. They offer a great service and uh I hope that we can uh we can pass
this and uh and welcome them to our town officially. I think that the um with these conditions in place and I want to again thank members of the public for coming out because it really helped define the the end product here. Um with the
conditions in place, I think that the positive attributes outweigh the negative. Um very concerned with the negatives because of the neighborhood. Um, the positives are the reuse of a piece of property that was formerly a
garden center and will continue to be a garden center and will will use the property in in a in a community centric fashion.
Uh, some people have said it could be very well be 25 town homes. Um, I think that with the right conditions in place, it won't be invasive to the neighborhoods, but it'll provide it'll
provide um community areas for people to go and a shopping center for flowers and stuff for the community. And I think that overall that's a real asset for the community to have. So, for those reasons, I think that the positives
outweigh the negatives. and I would be in favor of the application considering all the conditions that we put onto it. >> Yes, sir. >> So, I don't have as much time in the township as you do, chairman, Mr.
chairman, but I first visited saw that property that I remember when we had an application in for a fence >> right >> about four years ago >> at the corner of Pear Street.
>> Yep. And I remember looking at the property and it was not what I would consider an asset to the community. I'm just reminding people what has been there in the past. I I I
think the conditions we've come up with are are with the conditions I I think this is a a positive thing for the neighbor for the community. >> So, thank you, Mr. Goldberg.
>> Oh, yeah. I concur with uh my fellow board members. I mean, have been to the property. Um, the the treatment of the property, it's it's stellar. I mean, they've done a great job of rehabilitating it. It's certainly an asset to the community. People I meet around town have been there. They love
it. It's really only all it's all good news. Um, I think with the restrictions we've put on them, but the um things we've stipulated to for them to agree to tonight um on balance makes for a good approved application. um and can only
see more great things happening at the space and uh you know hope to be fortunate uh and should this pass in this form to uh maybe attend an event there at some point down the road or have an event there for my own family. So um nothing um but good things to say
to the additions of the community. Um when we sit up here as as sort of volunteers on the zoning board, we have to take into account the totality of the residents of the residential area. Um the Mr. Um what was uh the attorney what's the attorney's name?
>> Rosenbach. >> M Rosenbach. Thank you. Um you know his points aren't lost on me about the the master plan and you know really trying to restrict commercial development in a residential neighborhood. Um you know so taking that all into account though you
know um based on what we've put forward here today it would uh in favor of of approving it. So, I'm in favor of approving this. I've been out to the site on several occasions. I'm very, you know, I' I've looked at it for this particular
purpose, and I've also shoed there with my wife. So, it's a very nice place to go. Um, I think the people of Mars Township will be very happy with uh the approval and uh I look forward to uh you to go in there,
maybe some events at point in my future. So, that's it. Anything else to add, Mr. Williams? >> No, not at the moment. >> Oh, yeah. I just wanted to add uh concur with the uh what the other board members
have said. Uh but one of the uh I want to add that one of the items in the master plan was the maintenance of existing commercial area and this was had been a commercial area. Um and it was a very depressed commercial area and
this uh application this applicant has rejuvenated that area and uh with the conditions that we put in place especially the restriction on uh ampl amplified music outside I think that the positive criteria way outweigh the
negative criteria. So I would be in favor of this application. So, having made a motion prior, I think we could have a roll call on the on the motion. [clears throat] >> Mr. Goldberg,
>> yes. >> Mr. [clears throat] Trackenberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Williams, >> yes. >> Mr. Schustster, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Kramer, >> yes. >> Mr. Woodford, >> yes. >> Motion. >> Okay. I will have a resolution for you a
month after you get me to transcript. [laughter] April 15 still, I think, and then this one short. So, >> we'll get you that, Rich. >> Okay. >> Some light reading for you. >> Yes. >> Anything else, Mr. Chairman? [laughter]
>> Yeah, she graduated from Mr. >> Chairman. Motion. Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? I >> meetings adjourned.