Welcome everyone to uh tonight's special meeting of the township provotion board of adjustment. Nicole, will you take the roll call, please? >> Mr. >> Here >> Mr. Pelli >> here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. here. >> Vice Chairman
and Chairman >> here. Please rise for the salute the flag to the flag of the United States of America to the Republicy and justice for all. >> The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have
been satisfied. A copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press in a coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk. Emergency notice. There are emergency doors through the courtroom doors in the back and two exits also or I guess it's the front. All two exits at the rear of the
room. No smoking, please. If you have to smoke, please leave the building. Board policy, no new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. We don't need to talk about that because we only have one case tonight. Notice all meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceans Community Cable
Channel 22 and Verizon Kios channel 77 on cable vision. All cell phones must be turned off. If you need to make a phone call, please make your call outside of the room. We have one case tonight. Oh, do we have a resolution? No, >> we do. We have three resolutions.
>> Okay, >> thank you very much. >> Okay, we have three resolutions. I think we can all vote on them, right? Um, well, they're all the same. All right. Uh, the first one is Towel 7 Oakwood.
Second was Congregation Megan David, 395 Deal Road. And finally, Dorfman, 415 West Lincoln. >> Can I get a motion? >> Motion. >> I'll second. >> Mr. >> Mr. Yes.
>> Mr. Carolina, >> yes. >> Yes. Okay. Now, on to the one case we have tonight. WF Ocean Redevelopment LLC, 1600 New Jersey State Highway 35, block 34, lot 4 in the C2 zone.
Attorney for the applicant, Miss Crimco. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Jennifer Krimco. On behalf of the applicant, first and foremost, on behalf of my client and myself, thank you for coming tonight. I know it's difficult on a holiday week. I know how much you're sacrificing to be here. As a result,
I'll try and speak a little quicker than normal uh in the hopes to get us out of here, but obviously I want to cover everything. So before I give an opening, I'm going to let Mark move in the items that he pre-marked and then I have a few extras and we can go from there. >> All right. Exhibit A1 will be the
variance application. Exhibit A2 is the NJ DOT letter of no interest dated February 11th, 2025. Exhibit A3 is a traffic impact study. Exhibit A4 is the drainage study. Exhibit A5 is the boundary and topographic survey. Exhibit
A6 of the for plan and elevations for Wells Fargo. Exhibit A7 is the architectural plan for Dunkin Donuts. And exhibit A8 is the preliminary and final site plan prepared by Nelson Engineering and that's revised through October 23rd, 2025. I then have the
following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 is the board planners report. Exhibit B2 is the board engineers report. Exhibit B3 is the code of enforcement report. Exhibit B4 is the DPW report. Exhibit B5 is the traffic safety bureau report.
Exhibit B6 is the crime prevention bureau report. Exhibit B7 is the Fire Marshall report. And exhibit B8 is the Environmental Commission report. Those are all the exhibits I have. >> I don't think I got that. The Environmental Commission
Okay. And I don't have so many. So, uh, A9 is an aerial photograph of the subject site. And then A10 is a color rendering of what I presume
to be the landscape plan. Yes. Sheet five of 14 of what was moved in as A8. Excuse me. >> So just a colorized site plan for A8. >> It's sheet five of the site plan.
And by way of brief summary, and while Dave is uh preparing, we're all familiar with the subject site. It's on the um west side of West Park, West Park Avenue. It's on the west side of Deal Road. Um it currently contains a very
large Wells Fargo Bank. It's on the corner. Uh the applicant is looking to demolish that oversized bank, get rid of the full service drive-thru lanes altogether, and construct a much smaller
bank uh in generally the same location with a drive-thru for the uh ATM only. And on the remainder of the space, we are proposing a Dunkin Donuts with a single drive-thru lane, but the approach comes Oh, thank you. Outstanding. I
didn't realize that. I didn't mind. >> The approach, as you're going to see, is a double approach in order to provide for queuing. Uh, generally when this all started, uh, it was an understanding with with Jim and myself. I'm just giving you the background so you
understand what what went on before we showed up here today. Uh, Jim originally had indicated it was all conditionally permitted use and no variances were required as for the use. We submitted and it started at the planning board. after his further review and then we had
a meeting, he had made a decision and a determination that we did need a conditional use variance because and the language of the ordinance is very strange. It says that uh drive-thru fast food restaurants are conditionally permitted uh standalone or part of a
shopping center. Well, we're not a shopping center. There is no definition of standalone. Originally, he had assumed that standalone meant a standalone building. He then changed the interpretation uh after further investigation to mean standalone lot. So he was taking the
position that in order for it to be uh conditionally permitted it would have to be on its own lot with no other building. So we are here seeking a devariance uh conditional use variance as it relates to that. Additionally, and I understand this interpretation was uh
uh memorialized visav the recent billboard application that more than one principal structure has been determined not to be permitted. So even though there are both they are both commercial structures and the same structure. It's Jim's interpretation
that essentially we need a D1 variance as well to allow for two principal structures uh since they are not the identical use and it's not a shopping center. So that's why we're before the zoning board uh and not the planning board because the uses themselves are permitted. There's just some nuance with
regard to that. Additionally, and by way of background, uh the township uh engineer approached me uh with regard to the town's desire to widen Deal Road and whether or not uh we would be willing to
dedicate uh 8 ft in order to provide for the roadway width. that's shown in the township's master plan. We said, of course, we don't own the property yet. We close, you know, once should we get approvals, then we would gladly do that.
Uh, one of the things, and we did have a technical, and I'm sorry for boring you with all this in advance, but I think it's important to set the stage. I had the opportunity recently to meet with all of the board's professionals, including Mark, as well as um the township engineer, the township manager,
and the township attorney to kind of figure out the best way to do this to get the town the road widening as soon as possible. And one of the things we agreed upon, and I wanted to put it on the record here because ultimately it's going to be up to you guys, is if the
board approves this, we would agree to immediately, as a condition of approval, dedicate the right of way to the town. So they would immediately own it. the town would proceed as the applicant in front of the DOT for the road widening because a municipal improvement or road
widening is going to get a much quicker treatment and review than it would be if it was part of a development. Plus, it separates the road winding from our development and doesn't hold us up as you go through the DOT. But one of the things that we did agree to do, we committed to uh the township manager and
the township engineer months and months ago was that if the DOT approves their road widening, we would widen along our frontage. We would do that work. Since it's not going to be part of this application, should this board approve it, we've already stipulated to the
township's professionals and to the township manager that we would agree to address it as part of any developers agreement. So, if this board approves it and the town is successful in getting the road widening approval from the DOT, then we would enter into an agreement
with the town that would require us to widen along our frontage and at least that way it it ties it into our development. It saves the expense uh for them. So, that's the very long-winded background just so you understand uh all
of the different elements that come into play. So, with that, I'd like to introduce Dave Bash, have him sworn as our certified landscape architect as well as vice president of Nelson Engineering, and uh start walking you through existing and proposed. >> Right. So, the swearing testimony you're
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Healthy God. >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> David Bash, B O S C. >> And you are a licensed landscape uh architect in the state of New Jersey, correct? >> Yes. In good standing. Yes. >> Thank you very much. Go ahead. >> All right, Dave. So, let's walk the
board through what's there today and what we're proposing. >> Okay. Referring to A9, which is the aerial photograph of the subject property. Uh, as Jennifer had mentioned before, the property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 35 and Deal Road. It's currently
occupied by a overly large Wells Fargo Bank and it's associated uh parking and circulation aisles for a four-lane drive-thru facility. Uh it has a dual a two-way access on Route 35 and a two-way
access onto Deal Road. Uh the one of the intents of the design as we started out was to try and repurpose as much of the existing facility as we could. Uh so we are looking to retain the curb lines or limits of disturbance
along the east, north, and west sides of the property. It's not a two-way access on deal road. >> In and out is permitted. >> No, no, no. It's there's no right to You're correct, Mr. So, it should be no
right turn. Over the years, when the bank was there, all that striping disappeared. So, when we get there, you're going to hear that we were going we are going to limit it to right in, right out only. And we're going to do that via striping now. And if and when the widening occurs, subject to the
design of the township engineer, we'll put in an actual island to to channelize it and prevent it. But again, it doesn't make sense to do that now if it's just going to be ripped out and widened. So, we would offer that we would wait. But and we have our traffic engineer who's going to go into it in great detail, but
we know how unsafe it is and how dangerous it is to make a left out of there. People are doing it today, but we're hoping that what we're proposing will limit that. Thank you. Um, in the C2 zone, the minimum required lot area is 2 acres.
The existing property is 1.32. So that's an existing nonconformity with the proposed dedication of 8 ft of rightway along Deal Road. That will be further reduced to 1.28 acres. So variances would be necessary for minimum lot area.
The lot width particularly along U the width would be the route 35 frontage 250 ft exists which is conforming but again the 8ft wide wid widening would reduce that to 242 ft. So variance would be necessary
for that condition. The lot depth 250 ft is required. It's existing at 230 ft. That's not going to change. front setbacks. The existing facility is deficient to the required 100 foot
setback to both deal road and route 35. To deal road, the setback to the drive-through canopy is 55.9 ft. To deal road is 65.4 ft. So
deficient in both frontages. The side set back which side is to the north 50 ft is required 36.2 two feet is existing. >> Before you go on, Dave, let's highlight. Are we going to make that worse or make that better in our proposed?
>> I was getting there. I was going to go through all the existing ones first and then I was going to how we're going to be improving. >> Okay. Well, let let me give you a preview. We're improving all of those non-conformities, if not eliminating them. >> Is that accurate? >> What what she said? Yes.
The most striking uh improvements are in the reduction in gross floor area. We're coming down from over 8,000 square ft on the existing facility to a combined uh floor area of just over 5600 square ft.
So the net result is a reduction in floor area of 2,641 square feet or a 32% reduction in the floor area of the of the the buildings. The impervious surface coverage is also
being reduced by uh 2,81 square ft. So where the minimum landscape requirement uh of 25% is not met in the existing condition of 18.23%. The proposed condition we don't meet
that 25% but we do get to 23.81%. So again, we're improving the imp uh landscape cover required landscape coverage. >> Even though we're losing land, we're still able to reduce the coverage and um increase the landscaping.
>> Correct. Um, one of the remaining uh invoices, variances, excuse me. Um, was the required front yard landscaping. 30% of the required front yard is required to be open space. Now, the front yard in
this condition is 100 ft long two streets. So, that occupies almost 75% of the property. So where in the existing condition the front yard uh landscaping is uh 24.96%
in the proposed condition we are going to be 21.78%. So we are exacerbating the variance but the main reason behind that is because the area that we're dedicating along Deal Road >> is 80.3%
open space. So, we're giving up our prime front yard landscaping. Um, then going to a 10. Was it >> A10? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We're looking to again retain the
driveway opening to Route 35 and Deal Road. two structures both improving on the setback conditions with the uh Duncan actually conforming at 100 foot setback and the required uh sideyard
and rear yard setback. We have a two-way circulation aisle running across the east and south sides of the property with counterclockwise circulation around the balance of the site.
There is a dual drive-thru lane for the Duncan restaurant and a single ATM drive-thru lane for the Wells Fargo with a bypass lane going along the northern and
western side where the existing bank had a parking requirement of 55 parking spaces, but there are only 50 spaces on the property. >> So, they're deficient in parking now. >> Existing. Correct. The proposed
condition only requires 35 parking spaces. And even though we're reducing the amount of parking from 50 to 48, we are conforming to the parking requirement. >> Right. And I that's going to be important I think because obviously when we want to look at based on the lot area
and the um D3 whether or not the site can accommodate the use anyway we're reducing coverage we're reducing building coverage and most importantly we're getting rid of a parking deficiency. So essentially everything we need fits on the lot without
exacerbating any variances but for the fact that we are dedicating that right of way. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then we are proposing to upgrade with the normal amenities, additional landscaping, refurbished lighting, um
restriping uh and coding the the parking areas. Um there are uh we're looking to repurpose the existing signs. One sign just to the south of the Route 35 entrance and one sign just to the east
of the Deal Road. When you say repurpose, you mean we're going to keep the poll and we're just going to change the sign message on it. >> That's correct. >> So, while it's non-conforming, we're not changing them in size. So, we don't need variances for that other than because
they're existing. But our setback is actually being diminished if we dedicate the land. >> Correct. >> In that area. >> Correct. >> So, we are reducing the setback. So, for that one, we do need a new variance. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what's the setback existing and proposed? I mean it's going to be an
8 foot difference but >> okay the existing sign set back to Deal Road is 13 ft and it will be proposed to be 5T. >> Okay. But again the road widening as you understand it is not going to bring the
road to the property line. Correct. >> Yeah. My understanding is that the the curb adjustment is going to be in very li limited in >> about two or three feet. Two or three feet, >> right? So visually it's not going to really look any different than it does today. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you you had mentioned trees. I
know that in Jim's report he had noted that he wanted us to provide the street trees and uh one of the things we talked about obviously when you have retail uses or commercial uses, you don't want to block it with trees so passer by can't see it. So one of the things that
he suggested and that we agreed to provided the board is okay with it is we would meet the number of street trees and the type of street tree would be you know his up to up to Jim and we would just work with him as to the location meaning we might clump them in certain
areas so as to not block visibility. So we would need a variance for not having them 40t on center in that repetitive way that I think is really more set up for residential type streetscapes. we would give you the number and just ask for relief as it relates to the spacing.
Was there anything else that he had mentioned with regard to landscaping? I don't think so. >> Yeah, right. We talked about all that. Oh, a couple additional things that I just want to go over from um this
letter. The parking space size, again, we're asking for the um 9 by 18 as opposed to 10 and >> with hairpin striping, >> right? And as that's something that's typically seen in most municipalities unless it's
a shopping cart type use. >> Correct. >> Okay. And um while we understand that we're under that that we're over the parking required for use like this where there is no on street parking, we think it was
a better zoning alternative. And I think Allison can confirm for Jim that that he agreed that it's better to have more parking than less. And you know certainly the idea of making the parking spaces wider when it's not necessary doesn't make a lot of sense. >> Understood. Yes.
>> Okay. in the one-way traffic aisle where we have uh 13 ft is required or we have 12. Where is that? >> Those are for the the bypass lane as well as the dual and single drive-through lanes.
>> Okay. And the traffic engineer will talk about the safety of that and and how the 12 is typical. And then uh the other variance that wasn't mentioned and again it's not really something we're changing is the location and number of curb cuts. We're essentially utilizing the existing
curve cuts. We're not changing that. >> Correct. >> Okay. As to loading spaces, we're not proposing any loading space. So, the bank in its current condition, they're not changing their operations. They don't currently have a loading space and they don't need a loading space. Um, and
how is the loading going to work for the Dunkin Donuts? Well, the the Duncan uh hours are from 4:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. And they've indicated that they have their deliveries done on non-b businessiness hours. So, between 11:00
p.m. and 4:00 a.m. and they would load from the drive-thru lane. >> Okay. So, when the businesses closed, they would unload from the drive-through lane and access the building that way. So there's no need for a formal >> correct >> loading which would create more
impervious coverage. >> We talked about the street trees. I think I hit all that. I just want to make sure I'm getting everything in Ben and Jim's letter. Was there anything with regard to the stormwater management and grading in Ben's letter that we have an issue with?
>> I just want to to identify, shall we say? I don't know why how this number came about with the water elevation being 73.5 ft which is basically about foot and a half deep at our southeast corner. Well, that condition probably
would not occur because the uh catch basin located at the southwest corner is about 8 in lower than the catch basin in the southeast corner. So if the system should ever reach its capacity, the water would bubble up out of this catch
basin and out through the driveway to Deal Road, which is the current direction that the water flows from the site today. >> Okay. So we can we can address everything in um in his letter. Traffic and circulation I'm going to leave to the traffic engineer
as it relates to any of the technical comments from Ben under the traffic section with with regard to striping um and uh sight triangles and the like. Is there any issue with complying with that?
>> No. >> Okay. Uh the landscape and the lighting, let's talk about that. Uh we need some relief as it relates to setback of the polls as well as the overall averages. >> Right. Because number one, this is a
financial institution. We feel that additional illumination is is necessary, especially since you have ATMs that are available for public use uh 247. Um, >> how many ATMs are there? >> There are two. There's a a remote
drive-thru ATM and then there's an ATM located on the front of the the east side of the building. >> That's a walk up. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then and then just to clarify, I know Jen, you said it uh the drive-thru is only for the ATM. There's no window service. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Clarify that. Uh >> oh, >> we're in a dual step call thing over here. Sorry about that. >> So, one of the other conditions that the the town's ordinance requires is, shall we say, set back of poles and ill
illumination levels at the property lines. Well, they didn't accept exempt the driveways. So, in order to provide what we consider to be adequate illumination at the driveways, we'd be seeking relief from the setback of the poles and the illumination levels as
they occur at the two driveways. >> And again, we're not in any proximity to any residential, so there'd be no impact. >> Correct. The the facilities to north, I forget the actual name. I call it the pet palace. It's a animal care facility. >> Uh Green Leaf.
>> Okay. And we have a uh automobile gasoline service station to the west. >> I think I hit everything in the letters. Was there >> directional signs and the building mounted signs? >> Yes. I'm sorry. So the as it rel the building mount the architects will speak
to, but what I can represent is we do need relief for the number of signs on the building, but the calculation is we're well under the 10% that would be permitted. So we could have much bigger sign if we made it one and much bigger
as you'll hear, but we're just seeking to do smaller signs and and you'll understand why when we speak to them. And then um Jim had had a question with regard to there are a lot of on-site signage for directional purposes. And
while Jim didn't call out whether or not um that they weren't really the types of signs that the ordinance regulated, he did ask us to prepare a plan to make it clear as to what on-site signage we have. So I'd like to move in as A1
the uh sign exhibit and that is revised through 1023 25 in order to make it readable. They printed up large ones if you don't mind. We don't have enough
for everybody. I have three over here. >> I gave. >> So Dave, let's just walk through the on-site signage to make it clear because on the plans they're all there, but they're not labeled and identified as
clearly as they are on this plan. Okay, first and foremost, we have the the two identifi freestanding identification signs. Uh, one located south of the the driveway to Route 35, the second located to the east of the driveway to Deal
Road. >> Okay. I mean, and let's let's not go through one by one. Let's group them as to the types of signs that they are and where they're located. >> Okay. Then there the larger majority of signs are related to identification of the drive-thru lanes
for the separate buildings. Uh there's a cluster of uh drive-thru identification signs, you know, just the low roughly around three square foot signs uh indicating that here's the
drive-thru. You've got the clearance bars that are also can be considered sign. Um the pre-menu board and menu board and the exit sign for the Duncan
facility. Then there's similar but fewer number for the Wells Fargo entrance. the entrance identification, the clearance bar, the kiosk itself has some signage on it for the remote ATM and of course
then the exit signs. Uh and then the shall we say traditional uh traffic directional signs, the do not enter signs uh at the southwest corner so that people do not go the wrong way down the
oneway aisles. the stop signs at any potential uh intersection of vehicles and directional one-way you know indicating which aisle is directed in what direction. >> Okay. So the so these are all either
identification or directional to help aid in the safe uh pedestrian and vehicular circulation of the site. >> Correct. >> Okay. So they're not intended as advertising signs or the type of signs that would um be seen from the general
public. It would only be on site. They would be relevant. >> Correct. For for guidance, for ease of circulation throughout the site. >> Okay. >> Y recognizing that we have the architects and the traffic engineer and the planner, are there any questions for
Dave's testimony so far? I don't know this for the traffic engineer, but you talked about they're going to look bring the deliveries in at night through the drive-thru. How do they do that? You have a clearance sign that's blocking that. So, how does a truck come in
through there? They can actually possibly not through the drive-thru, but the bypass lane and sit back in the area of the uh uh >> the proprietor for the Dunkin Donuts. That's how it's currently done. So, the
type of truck that makes the deliveries can fit within the drive-thru. >> Okay. I had a question on the proposed parking. So, how many spots are required? >> 35. >> 35. And what was the number?
>> 48 are proposed. >> So, I'm just looking at the 12. >> 35 for the whole site is required. >> Yeah. >> Okay. 35 for the whole site. And how many are you proposing? >> 48. >> 48. >> So, I'm just looking at the 12 spots along Deal Road. You're losing the grass frontage. And I know it was in the
planner report that if we eliminated spots or reduced those number of spots, we would have more green space. We well the the >> could could be >> right the the the short answer is maybe but realistically we're just in full disclosure let it all
out we're the contract purchaser of this property Wells Fargo will remain as a tenant they will not sell it to us if they lose those spots. >> Got it. >> So we we you know we're obligated to provide the parking that the tenants also believe is absolutely necessary.
And realistically, I I understand that on paper you want more green space, but realistically when you look at it, having I mean, I grew up here my whole life and driving up and down, none of those areas have green because they're constantly have cars there, nothing's
really going to survive all that well, and no one's really going to see it all that well. I think having the landscaping inward of the site in the form of trees as opposed to along the frontage is going to prove to be a much better aesthetic solution.
>> And can I just ask a question about the parking? I assume it's shared parking. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, there's not going to be any exclusive for Duncan, no exclusive for the bank. >> There's a sign saying parking for Wells Fargo customers only on the sign. >> And that was a leftover from the original, wasn't it?
>> Yes. left over where we had dedicated sites. >> Yeah, that we did and and Jim made it pretty clear that he didn't want to have that. So, >> yeah, I see that too. So, so that's going to be removed from A1. There's going to be no and the signage
indicating exactly the opposite will be removed. >> Yeah. Well, as I'm thinking about this though in in since we have the excess spots, I I don't want to take it away if they want to have it realistically. No one from Duncan's going to park on that side
in front of the bank. And it might make sense to direct the bank users to those spots as opposed to the spots that would be used for Duncan. >> Well, I I don't want to complicate it, but uh how many is it broken up when you come up with 35?
>> Yeah. What are the What is the requirement for parking for each of the uses? >> Okay. The the bank Yeah. We just need to know this. Yeah. The Wells Fargo Bank is required to have 24 spaces at one per
150 square feet and the Duncan is required to have 11 spaces at one >> 11 >> 11 spaces for Duncan. Okay. >> So, we have plenty. We have those 11 outside of the ones on Deal Road. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So again, I want to give them the option that if they want to stripe or keep those as their own since we meet parking and we wouldn't be creating a deficiency that perhaps we don't eliminate that. >> And how many spaces are near the I'm looking at it
>> near the Duncan? >> Yeah, because you're going to have to keep at least 11, >> right? >> So the ones that can be identified as well only keep the ones in front of the wells, >> right? We would be sure that the 11 in front of Duncan would not be signed. That I can
commit to. >> So, we're literally talking the ones that say 11 spaces right here are the only ones that could be wells only or down here too >> on the east side. >> No, what I'm suggesting is is that we only need 11 spaces for Duncan.
>> We're going to have 11 here. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, seven. So what I'm saying is we'll be sure that the Duncan has its 11 space and nothing else.
>> So 11 spaces closest to Duncan. Does the most need on both sides of the building? >> Probably not because I could see somebody parking here. >> I don't want maybe. And and Right. And and you know, part of the other problem is I know that they're going to want
just for them, >> but we have more than we need for parking. So, as long as we're providing the amount for Duncan, >> I don't know. >> So, do you need to It could a similar
sign park for Duncan only. >> No, because who's going to go to a bank and >> unless they're going to Dun. I could see the situation like Alison just said, someone used to use the ATM
>> at the bank and then they walk over to the Duncan rather than moving the car >> near customer. >> That's bank parking. >> So let's we have to delineate it in some fashion where these parking spaces are
um so that there's no question in the resolution. >> I think signs are shown on the plan. Where which ones were the ones that Wells talked about? >> The 11 in the front along Neil Road >> immediately adjacent to the south and east facade only. And then the five the
five right here where the L's are >> right >> where LNL is are where the signs are that say wells over. >> Right. So, we would ask for the ability to make wells only for the parking spaces up against the wells building >> and the other ones would not be signed
>> except for the handy gest. >> Okay. But >> you don't which you don't have a sign there for it anyway on on this plan, >> right? But it wouldn't make sense for a handicapped individual handicapped spot at the bank and then walk over to >> if one is is taken up. You don't want to
limit their access to it. >> Fine. No problem. >> Excuse me. >> Okay. So, I'm going to have in the resolution if the board approves the application that the the spaces marked L
are the only ones that can be wells only for an agreement. >> Mhm. You have something marked L on in there before I say I'm in agreement. >> Yeah, they say L. >> Okay. >> Out >> then. Yes. >> Okay. I don't know what the L means but but
it's just key to the detail refers to this side. >> Okay. Oh, it does. All right. >> Sorry about that confusion. >> Got it. Go ahead. It was important to clarify. So,
>> are there any other questions from the board? >> Any more questions? Any questions from the public? Great. I'd like to introduce you to Justin Taylor who is in his Sunday's finest for us.
>> I don't know if I've ever seen you in real shoes. >> Mr. Taylor, do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole self you got? >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Justin Taylor. T A Y L O R. >> And you are a licensed engineer of state of New Jersey. Correct.
>> I am. And your license is in good standing. >> It is. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> And Justin, you >> you specialize in the field of traffic engineering. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> And you've been accepted before multiple boards and courts as an expert in that. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. So, within that context, if you could walk the board through from an access, a circulation as well as a parking um compliance and in your opinion traffic safety standpoint. >> Sure. So, as part of this application, I
work handinhand with Mr. Bes to lay out the site to ensure that we have safe and efficient access to and from the surrounding roadways, uh, good on-site circulation and sufficient parking, uh, to support the demand that we would anticipate for the facility. As uh Dave
mentioned, we are essentially maintaining the existing driveways as they are today with a right and right out driveway along uh Route 35 as well as a right and right out driveway uh along Deal Road. Now, the driveway on Route 35 is under the jurisdiction of
the New Jersey Department of Transportation. uh we submitted to them and received a letter of no interest for the uh proposed addition of the Duncan and the reduction of the bank essentially saying that there is no need for a new access permit and that they approve the driveway uh as it is today.
They actually went one step further than that and said you don't need a new access permit but we do suggest you submit for a highway occupancy permit to improve the striping out there. They wanted us to put a right and write out sign and the striping which typically would sometimes require an access permit. So they agreed that the new
development does not require that access permit, but they wanted us to put the signs and striping as you see today, and they were okay with putting it in the right of way. So the way we have it laid out, I think provides for good circulation to the site. Um because the
uh the uses are primarily pass by type of uses. You're grabbing the people as they're traveling southbound along Route 35 and you're grabbing the people as they're traveling uh westbound on Deal Road on the way to Route 18. It allows you to um facilitate those movements and
the right and right out nature of both of those will actually work uh well to support that. We also took a look at the operation the actual capacity analyses of these driveways and the adjacent intersection at Deal Road and
35. We performed the traffic counts. We looked to the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication trip generation to generate traffic for the reduced bank and the and the Duncan and we ran the capacity analyses for the project. What we find is that the
intersection of Deal Road and Route 35 is going to operate at >> one. I don't know why. >> I got it. >> It's blinking at me. Keep holding. You're the engineer.
>> Sorry. >> All right. >> Perfect. >> Um, so what we found was that the driveways are going to operate safely and efficiently with good levels of service and the intersection of Route 35 and Deal Road is going to have
negligible increases in delay. And again, that goes back to the fact that most of the traffic being utilized by the site is already out there today. It's already traveling along Deal Road. It's already traveling along Route 35. So based on the analyses as conducted, we feel that there will be safe and
efficient access given to the facility. Um Mr. Bash walked you through the layout of the site. I can just agree with all the conclusions that he drew. Uh we will be able to circulate the vehicles that we do anticipate. You've heard that the delivery vehicle for the
uh the Duncan's going to come overnight, so we don't need to worry about other vehicles on the site at that time. I would agree with the uh assertion that the 12T aisle and the variance associated with that is something that can be granted without any detriment to
the operation. Now I'm overwhelmed. Don't >> uh because because we're talking about a drive-through facility in a one-way aisle, you're not parking. There's no parking maneuvers to go along with that.
And by nature of a drive-thru, vehicles orient to the left side of the lane. They need to get to the pickup window, right? Whether it's the ATM and they're reaching out, whether it's the Dunk and they're getting their food. In my opinion, you could probably go to a 10-ft lane and still have safe operation of that. We haven't. we had the space to
be able to do a 12, but I think the board can feel comfortable that that 12 is not going to impede the circulation on either one of these drive-through lanes. Um, so I think the variance can be granted without any uh any detriment. >> What's the queue amount in these in the drive? >> I'm getting to that. That's perfect. So,
we are providing 17 spaces for queued vehicles with the dual stacking area as as shown on uh A10 A10. It is a single order board, single pickup window, but two lanes because we really wanted to ensure that there was
going to be sufficient stacking to not back up onto Route 35. Uh to justify that, we actually went out and picked up queuing analysis at multiple locations, including the other Duncan here in Ocean on the northbound side. And what we found was a maximum queue on any of the
days that we studied of 15 vehicles with an average uh average maximum of about 12 vehicles. So you can feel comfortable that that is more than sufficient to handle um the traffic that we do anticipate. >> And let me just ask you a question. Um
the one that you looked at, did that have the dual lane coming in or was that a single lane? >> All three that we looked at were single uh order points um with it and they all especially the one here in Ocean has just a single lane as it approaches. >> If you add a second order point, does
that reduce the make things go faster? >> It does. um that's not what's proposed here, but yes, that does. What I would say is it this current design also follows what um what current industries
uh show really coming out of COVID and when the proliferation of drive-throughs, everything got much more popular again. And what we found was the the backup caused in drive-throughs was usually because the distance between the pickup window and the order board was either too short or too long. most of
the time too short and what happened was your order wasn't ready when you get to the window which means then you're waiting which then pushes it back in the queue and the queue tends to extend beyond the uh the order board. What they found was for Duncan for the type of use that you're here today that five about
that 100 ft is really what you want to be. So then as you pull up to the window you're handing over your credit card you've already paid on the mobile app and your your order is ready and it allows you to operate much more efficiently. Um, >> let me just interrupt you and if I could just ask the board and again this is all
at the presupposition if we reach the end and get an approval tonight. I know that Mark in his resolutions often write that any change requires coming back to the board. If the operator decided to keep the same queue length, keep
everything but add a second order board in order in order to facilitate something. I would ask that if the board were going to vote in favor to give us that flexibility to run that by Jim and Ben just to make sure it works from a traffic engineering standpoint. And then
in the worst case scenario as it is today, we still have more than we need. But if we add the second order board, it's just going to make it more efficient. So I just want to have the flexibility to add that subject of course to review by the engineering planner. It doesn't create any new
variances. So I don't think it's something that would have to come back to the board. So, I would ask that the board consider that. >> You don't have to decide now. >> I I would think the board would want eyes or something like that if they're going to add a second. >> I would have a concern that the order
point then would shift about seven or eight car lanes back even if it's two, right? It would go to where you have the double lane rather than >> No, the double lane could be extended. >> Oh, you could you could bring the double lane around. Okay. >> And again, we're happy to come back. I I
know that this is something that the operator may want to do but didn't know to do it that that corporate didn't advise us 10 days in advance of the meeting in order to get you the plans. So again, we're just looking for some flexibility. I don't know that the board
typically would have an engineering comment. And again, I I know that Mark always likes us to come back to the board, which is why I'm bringing it up and asking if it's not that likes to come back. >> That's all your fault, Mark. >> The fact that the board normally, what
I've experienced over the years is there changes on the site after approvals and board members come up to me afterwards and say, "That's not what we saw at a hearing. It's different. >> So therefore, I like to point out to the board that it's up to the board ultimately. You can give Jim that power
if you wish. If it doesn't create any new uh >> I would suggest giving Ben the power, not Jim as the engineer. I I think I I would recommend to the board that um at if if that were to be the case that they do come back to the board because that
would change uh you know where the start the cars would start stacking up for for ordering. It would change your your impervious coverage uh if if they there was a modification made to the the lanes. So I think that the board should
have the opportunity to see that. um rather than it just being an administrative approval. I think it's a substantial enough change. >> Okay. Then then we will move on. I once once I lost Ben. >> Yeah. You're lost. >> There's no there's nowhere to go >> because I imagine you can't go into very much detail on what the second one would
look like right now to be able to say we're okay with either one. >> Yep. Okay. >> So, let's just Can >> while we're there talking about the dual lanes, >> me personally, I'd like to see that extended a little bit further.
like >> because you're right backing up right on the entrance to 35. So, if it were to stack up, you're going to be blocking the entrance. It's going to allow some more cars to queue up. So, I mean, I would say that the the
length that we have designed here, right, again, is there's 17 vehicles to the back before you would even hit the driveway. So 17 both the 17th cars are the back of this uh the dual lanes here. >> Where's car number one when you're saying that
>> car number one is here at the window picking up >> wraps around car five is at the order board and then it splits out and in that direction. Um and as we saw in a single drive-through lane, the most we saw was 15 vehicles. So this allows even that
and that's the busiest time. I'm comfortable that and it was something that we went back and forth and back and forth in our original design. Originally, we didn't have we had about 12 uh with a single drive-thru and one of the big concerns we had was the impact to route 35. So, I think the layout that we have here will um
accommodate those. And again, I would note that in the studies that we did of the existing facilities, the biggest queue we saw was the northbound approach right across from Wegman's here in Ocean Township. They have 80 ft from the or pickup window to the order board, right? So they can only
stack four and the one we counted in Point Pleasant, which is a new modern design with a five had cues of about maximum 10 to 12. So what you really see is as you get that efficiency in the drive-through operation, you're reducing the queue that you see overall on the site. >> I'm hoping that it'll be successful and
you're going to backed up, but I just don't want to see traffic backed up in 35. >> Agreed. No. >> And the operator wouldn't either. I mean, that wouldn't be good for anybody. So, and you know, realistically, and just as an aside, and I know he's not here, but I think Ben, you were at the meeting when we were with um Jim. Jim
was comfortable with it because realistically, if there's that many cars in the drive-thru, no one's going to just stop and then try and park in the middle. They're going to quickly pull up and run in because it's going to be a much longer wait in the drive-thru than it would be to just run in and get it
yourself. So I think that if I remember correctly that was where we ended with that. >> I I don't remember exactly what the conversation was but but Alison is here and Alison can talk. >> No, but I did speak to her about >> No, no, I understand. But Alison can voice her opinion if uh I don't think
she has an issue with >> No, I don't have an issue with the stacking. >> Okay. >> How many cars stack in that area? I'm sorry. How many cars are stacked there? Like >> 17 from the pickup window all the way back. >> Sorry. In the duel. I meant to say, >> oh, in the duel. >> Yeah.
>> Um, it was >> four each, three each. >> I think it's four each. >> It's about 60 feet from uh where you enter to where the lanes start to That's three three cars. >> Yeah. about about three four depending
on the size of the car and how tight they are, but yeah, you'd say about three each. About six out of the 17 are in that dual area. >> And how does that work? They just >> one goes like a zipper effect. So, just rely on the goodwill of somebody else.
>> Yep. One thing I do want to point out also is uh >> the uh the you know when you're stacking vehicles in the lane that's not an all day stack. You know that is a stack that's usually you know lasts about an hour in the morning you know during rush
hour afternoon. Um I go to that Duncan that you're talking about all the time twice every morning. And uh you know the uh it's a very quick process and I do what you say when there's you know four or five cars I go inside but the uh but
the the sacking it's not an all day process. It's it's goes very quickly and during rush hour is really the time that you're going to have stocked vehicles. >> That's correct. Y >> point that out. Y >> when you did your your your survey what time of year did you do that survey?
>> We just did the uh the counts in uh just this past October. >> But I mean generally I mean >> you testify all over the state for many decades. It's consistent with what you found in these types of drive-throughs. Oh, absolutely. >> You just happened to do the counts
locally, but you've testified for hundreds of these and that's generally what you found. >> Oh, agreed. Yes, we continuously update this data and submit it to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, but this is this is typical what we would say. That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Did you happen to look at the one in I think it's Tinton Falls near the UPS?
>> I did not. The three that we counted was this one in Ocean Township. >> I just picture a million cars on that line. >> Oh. uh route 36 in West Lawn Branch and uh route 35 in Point Pleasant. And what we were trying to do was come up with
some of those facilities that laid out exactly or as close to what we are being is proposed as here. >> And even though the one here in Ocean Touch, it doesn't have the same geometry, has the shorter stacking, I knew I couldn't get away with not looking at that one and come to talk to you guys about it.
>> Any other questions for Justin? Are we on quiet? I feel like we interrupted Justin on Are you Did you present everything you needed to? >> The only other thing I had was just in support of the parking variance. I think the 9x8s are more than sufficient for this. I don't think there's any
detriment to granting that variance. You have any questions? I have a couple. Um Justin, you mentioned the DOT mentioning just uh striping concerns. uh that is they're talking about striping on the
applicant's property only. Is that right? >> So what they said is uh they would allow us to actually stripe if we wanted to push the stop bar a little bit further forward um into the DOT right of way. >> Say that again. Stop line. Okay. >> So we had pulled the stop bar back onto
the property so as to not have work in the right of way and not necessitate a new access permit. A lot of times this type of striping would require an access permit. We didn't want to go in for a year and a half and have that done, but they recommended uh that we could do that under a much lesser order permit.
>> Does the applicant have the ability to ask for changes on striping on Route 35? >> So here's Laugh at me. That's really >> No, I'm not laughing at you. That's that's an insurmountable thing to drive. >> So here's here's here's the the the the
issue I I have or the you know the the the I don't say problem but the concern I have right because we all drive on Route 35 and all these intersections are you know kind of disasters when it comes to turning in turning out right you picture going northbound and you want to
go into the shopping center that has the rook and all the other stuff over there. um there's a shoulder and if uh me as a good American, a good citizen, I'm staying in the travel lane waiting till I get to the shopping center to make that turn in rather than use the
shoulder as a travel lane. I go to make that turn and somebody else is coming in because they want to get to the traffic light and make that right turn. So, they're driving through the shoulder. That happens now coming south. You see people trying to come out of the um what you call the puppy pals, the green leaf
leaf, right? And suddenly here comes somebody through this, you know, it's striped. Um, clearly illegal, but trying to get to that traffic. And so right now there's a bank here. Not many people going in and out at all times. There's going to be a lot more traffic coming in and out. And right now it's right into a
the exit is into the shoulder, right? >> Yes. >> So is there a way to petition the state to try and maybe make that an actual travel lane so people everybody knows the rules of going in and out and using it? um because that's a concern.
>> So the the short answer to that is no. >> One of the reasons we can't push it back is because that would then put the driveway in the full width of that lane, which the DOT does not permit. Right. The right the reason it is where it is is it's where the lane opens up to the
through lane. So if we were to stripe that further, it then actually eliminates the ability to have that driveway there because of its location in the lane. >> Because it's in a lane. >> Yeah. So the spots where they the places where there is a travel lane and there's
turns in and out that is what so is the old way of doing it. And >> it's an old way. It also depends on where. So if it's a it's because it's uh termed an auxiliary lane here, right? It's it's essentially feeding the far side jug handle as opposed to an actual
through lane auxiliary lane. If that lane continued further south past the jug handle, it'd be fine. But because it feeds into the jug handle, it interesting. It It's not permissible. Or if it was an exclusive right turn lane, it's not permissible there. >> So one one traffic light north at West
Park, is that right? Yeah. >> Um there is a ent exit onto a travel lane, but that does go >> but that comes straight through West Park. Correct. >> Well well well uh well beyond. Okay. >> So Mr. Phil, I just want to be clear. Um, he's probably right in what he's
saying and Jen's also so right that it's almost insurmountable. You always can have them ask. The odds are it's not going to be granted, >> but you certainly can have them ask if that's something that you want to do. >> And it may not be worth it based on what Justin just said, but I'm just I just want the board to understand that it's
always something you can ask the applicant to ask the DOT. >> Yeah. I don't know if I would say we should ask if it's not something that's proper to ask for, right? I'm not suggesting nothing would be granted. They're probably right. >> Perhaps it's something that we can talk to Greg Blash about. Again, if it's a
municipal request, it's just viewed differently. So perhaps when Greg is looking at the road widening and the purpose of the road widening to reconfigure the access across Route 35, perhaps that's something he can look at as well. >> Bennett, we didn't talk about this before. What do you do? You have any
initial thoughts on what I'm talking about? Um I >> you could tell me that it's you know it's crazy. >> Well I think that the the if you extend the actual lane on 35 then
it goes across the the driveways that for this site and the the next uh the neighboring site and that could could b essentially block those driveways from people trying to turn in. Um, if you
keep it straight as it is, um, where on on the you can see it on the aerial, it's got that that cross, >> excuse me. >> Um, it prevents cars from stacking up to block the driveways, if that makes sense. >> In theory, >> in theory, yes.
>> But but we kind of just have to deal with the fact that people will break the law, so to speak, and it's you can't plan for people in that situation, I guess. Right. >> Right. Okay. Um, the other thing just to be clear, uh, currently if you're going east on
deal and you want to make a left turn into the bank, um, currently is that an illegal left turn? >> Yes, there's supposed to be a sign, I think every couple years they put a sign up and then it gets knocked down again, but there isn't no left turn >> and we are proposing a sign. >> That's correct. As well as the stripe
island um, to clearly delineate that it's right and right out >> and then and then ultimately making it impossible to make that left. >> That's correct. once the the widening comes through. >> Okay, that's bad news for everybody that lives west of uh 35 and uses that bank.
>> Well, the bank people use that bank all the time and but they've been making illegal left turns. >> You would just end up coming you go to popular and come down West Park and then down 35 to get into the bank, right? You won't be able to make the left in. >> Any more questions? Is there a fence
between this property and Green Leaf existing or proposed? >> Dave, that's a Dave. >> Sorry. >> I don't recall that we're proposing it. >> Whether or not one exists, I'm not sure. It appears there are sections of fencing
at least from the survey. Dave, it does say >> another hyper local concern that's a little bit traffic, a little bit sight plan that people do park in the bank parking lot to get to Greenley. They literally use the bank parking
spots in the back of the bank and walk their dogs across the property line because it takes so long to go around Greenley, especially if you live east of Right. But now they won't be able to because they won't be able to make a left into the site.
>> Right. But my concern is actually if that is happening now and the bank has signage in the back that says, you know, bank parking only, you'll be towed if you're going live dayare. Um there's a lot more traffic proposed right there
where people might be illegally. Again, to John's point, I don't know if we can take action against people who are >> remember when that was a gym and not really >> that came here. >> I used to park there for the gym. >> That approval came to the to the board.
>> But I I guess I'm asking, is there a way to deter that even more now that you have a >> so active drive-through lane there instead of some abandoned banking? So I think it's naturally going to attenuate only because you've eliminated all the
parking that was used to be used by you know if you look at the aerial the the parking in the northwest corner is the least utilized by the bank which made it acceptable for the um the green leaf customers to be able to use. Now that we we've eliminated all that parking to the
west on the site, as well as introduced the drive-thru, which is going to be the component of the Duncan that's um the most likely the busiest. Dave also mentioned that there is a chain link fence in the overgrowth here. So I think it's going to naturally attenuate.
>> Okay. Whose property is the fence on? Is that >> it straddles both? >> So we don't know whose fence it is. I can tell you that it's been there since the 80s at least. >> I got a question just from looking and
just from myself coming in from Route 35. There's enough room. You're coming in on the right side and then you got to make a quick left going into the drive-thru for Duncan is that yes, there's plenty
of room for the vehicle to be able to come in here. We wanted to give a little bit of separation for the people that did want to exit onto 35. Um, as well as to uh allow for the circulation if you're going to come to the Wells portion of the site. Uh, but there is plenty of room for them to enter either
one of these drive-throughs while this vehicle is making the right. And realistically, as you come north on the access aisle, the only reason you're coming this direction is to make the right out. So, yes, there is enough room for those to circulate concurrently.
So question I had was about the wraparound aisle that goes from 35 all the way out to Deal Road. Was there any analysis done of worry about worrying about this being a cut through? And I didn't see any signage on here for no through traffic. I love that
you asked that because that's what your board of professionals asked and that's what Greg asked and it currently is that configuration and I don't know that there's a lot of people doing it in the current configuration but you can answer but I'm just I'm smiling because it's exactly
what we were asked in our tech meeting and I would say what she said. Um but no it was it was it was it was a question we had a a semi-lengthy discussion about it um because it's not something that people are used to doing now and the the viewshed doesn't change right if you
we're not changing anything along the northern property boundary and the the view from here does not encourage that and we don't really necessarily see it as a problem. I would also say that southbound route 35 doesn't really back up all that much. and it does like every traffic light, but it's not the deal
road approaches where people are stuck in traffic trying to get across it. You catch the light and then you you move on. Um, so I don't really see it as an issue. >> Any more questions? >> I think I hear there's a question. >> We have questions over there. circulation.
>> So, >> would you talk about fire truck circulation on the site? >> Uh, yes. So, I think >> it's not so much on site, it's getting into the property is what was asked. >> So, no, there there will be no issue with vehicles, uh, large vehicles, and we can provide it truck circulation. I
believe that was one of Ben's comments in his letter that we have no problem providing it as a condition of approval, but >> we'll provide the truck turning for the the the fire truck. >> Yep. The municipal fire truck. The island you're putting in is not going to keep a truck, a fire truck coming down road. >> We're not putting an island in right
now. >> Island, >> right now it's striped. I would >> striped and if an island goes in, it's going to be at Greg Blash's direction. >> So, we're not proposing an island right now. Just strip it. Oh, even the when the final
after the you know if the roads widened even that then there won't actually be an island there >> only if the town requires it and if he does he's going to make sure that it can be accessed. I mean typically those islands also would have mountable curbs for a truck or something. >> That would be my suggestion especially
where the fire house is that they would uh we would make it mountable for he he could make the left if he needed to. Any other questions? >> Any more questions? >> Do you have any more questions? Did they cover everything?
>> Uh, I think we covered everything. >> I had a comment in here about uh EV parking. >> Yes, we will provide the make ready. If not, I I don't think we're required to based on the number of spaces, but I do think it makes sense to do it.
>> Aren't you required because you're redoing the parking lot? >> It's under the >> under 25. >> Okay, then. >> How many spaces do they need? >> They only need one despite factor two uses.
>> Uh, yes. And where where you going to put the one? Any idea? No, it's going to depend on where the electricity is. And >> all right, so I'll put that the EV has to be uh approved by Ben, I guess. >> I mean, just as an FYI, the EV parking,
they could put one in now and not come to the board. The statute allows for EV parking to go in without any board approval. Yeah. So, that shouldn't be an issue. >> Bear with me one second. I have Martinez. >> It just had a location be
>> I don't know if I have it. I didn't have the environmental commission. Let me see. Um, okay. Okay, I can ask that question. So based on the the the question was that their fire apparatus and large
ambulances would have limited access around the building due to decreased lane size. Uh the 12T wide lane. Is that adequate for circulation around the site by these larger emergency vehicles? >> Yes, it is. And we'll provide the truck
circulation templates proving that. Let me just see if there's anything else. And also with the size of the buildings and them being one story, they don't need to circulate around the buildings uh the way they would with a taller building in order to fight it. Correct.
They could the hoses and and would be accessible. >> Yes. I mean, you have access of three easy access of three faces of the building and and hose access along the the interior aisles between the two of them. Okay. >> May I keep this? Yes. Thank you. And
you'll agree to everything else in that matter, Jen. I think you the fire marshals letter. I don't see anything else that's controversial. >> We don't have a fire access road. Um fire lanes. May I make a suggestion that we'll
either comply with or work it out with them to satisfaction? >> Okay, that's fine. Alison, did anything from your point of view? Any questions? Okay. >> Any public? >> Don't go anywhere. >> Okay. No questions.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, I'm going to defer to the board. We submitted architectural plans. Everything is clearly delineated on them. We don't need variances for the building themselves. We only need variances to the number of signs. We stipulated that we're well under the 10%. If you'd like to hear from the
architects, they are here. I'm happy to walk through them, but I often know that sometimes when I go to do that. I I get >> they're often just as happy not to show them if the board doesn't need to see them. >> Right. So, I'll defer to the board if you'd like us to go through that presentation. >> And legally, I do not believe we need
it. >> Does anybody need to see the architectural plans? >> The risk of devaluing my profession. >> Wait for you to answer first. Wait, what's your professional? >> He's an architect. >> That's funny.
>> I wish I knew that then. I would have been really >> Okay. >> No, not the value. It's necessary. It's just not always necessary for the board. >> Okay. So then I'd just like to wrap up with our professional planner to kind of put it all in perspective for you as it relates to the variance relief that we're seeking.
>> All right. Do you swear testimony about the people, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and helping God? >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Sure. John Barry. B A R R E E >> and you are a licensed planner state in New Jersey. >> I am. Yes. >> Thank you very much. Go ahead. >> And that's all that's required from
Mark, but you serve as both an applicants planner as well as a municipal planner. >> I do. Yes. >> Okay. So, from a planning perspective, walk the board through the relief and what the planning justifications are. >> Sure. So, um you've heard the layout of the site, the orientation, and context.
Everybody's very familiar with this intersection. So, I'm not going to walk back through that in too much detail. Uh we're here for preliminary final site plan, of course, along with use variance to have the two principal structures on a single lot and conditional use
variance to permit the fast food eating establishment on a a lot that doesn't have 40,000 square ft of area dedicated to that use. So, we we know the context. There's about a little over 8,000 square ft existing Wells Fargo bank branch on
the property that has four drive-thru lanes. Currently, the proposal is to tear that down. Two smaller buildings that have roughly 52 5,300 square ft in in lot area, I believe, com building area combined along with one
drive-through lane for each use. So, we're reducing the overall intensity of the square footage on the site, reducing the number of drive-through lanes, albeit splitting it now into into two uses. So, the properties in the the C2 highway commercial zone, these are
certainly the types of uses that are envisioned for that zone, both in the master plan and zoning ordinance and in the context of the 35 corridor. I mean, these are these are uses both that exist elsewhere on 35, if not already on this property and fit in well with with their
surroundings. And the the condition of having multiple uses and multiple structures on a single property is also one that's not uncommon on the 35 corridor. Shopping center immediately to the south on Deal Road has a number of uses, has a pad site um with the Wendy's. So, there's um you know, this
condition is is certainly something that's that's not breaking any new ground. the variance analysis. As I said, we have a D1 use variance that is related to having the two principal structures on the property and the D3 conditional use variance. Before I get into the the
more technical D1 analysis with the conditional use variance, we look to the Coventry Square case, whether the property can continue to function despite non-compliance with the condition. In this case, the condition that we're we're looking at is that we don't have adequate lot area dedicated
to this fast food use. It's not a standalone. >> We don't have it alone on the lot. Correct. Another use. >> Yeah. We we don't have it alone on this property. >> 40,000. We just don't have it for just this use. >> Right. So, in that context, the lot area does would would comply were it alone.
Um the number of parking spaces we we are providing more than required. The floor area is well below what's required. Site's not overbuilt in terms of lot coverage below what's permitted. And the circulation patterns, you heard the the traffic testimony about how
they're being improved and uh accommodating the queuing needs and so forth. >> So, John, to put it more simply, in your professional planning opinion, can the site accommodate the conditional use even though we don't meet that one condition? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. and what would be the test as it
relates to the D1 variant. >> So we look at both um whether the site is particularly suited for this this situation with having having two uses on or two structures on the same lot and also whether there's special reasons from the purposes of zoning that uh
would be advanced by this project. Uh quickly purpose a in terms of um promoting the public health safety morals and general welfare is advanced. I think the road dedic the road widening dedication on deal road will do a lot of heavy lifting to that front. We're
improving overall circulation patterns not just for this property but for the township as a whole. Um purpose G about providing sufficient space for a variety of uses including commercial uses. As I said this is exactly what the master plan talks about in terms of
revitalizing the Route 35 corridor. This is a continuation of a lot of smaller scale redevelopment that's happened along the corridor. The um purpose H encouraging location design of transportation routes to promote the free flow of traffic. Um we've heard
traffic testimony we're maintaining the site access as it is today. We're improving the site the um circulation along Deal Road through the dedication and eventual widening and the more formal elimination of that left left in left out situation on Deal Road that may
be informally existing today will be to the benefit of the public as well. And then finally, purpose M encouraging coordination of various public and private procedures to um lead to a more efficient use of land. Having these two uses together, if they were on separate
lots, they'd have two separate driveways. They would have kind of multiple sets of infrastructure. Combining them together on one piece of property is certainly more efficient. >> So, John, in your opinion, we're furthering purposes. I mean, the Spanius law and the site is particularly suited for the use.
>> Absolutely. >> Okay. And as it relates to the bulk variance, we talked the bulk variances, the dimensional variances, we can't do anything about the lot area, the lot width. >> Correct. We're eliminating the front yard setback variance. >> Uh we're reducing the front yard setback
variance. >> Right. Correct. I'm sorry. We're improving it. >> Yeah. We're we're improving the condition that exists today. >> The the directional signs we went over extensive testimony on the freestanding signs are not changing. It's just a matter of the dedication. >> The dedication's impacting one, but
they're not moving. >> And the building mounted signs. indicated that um while we exceed the number, it's only because we're breaking them into smaller, less impactful signs than one very large sign on the facade. All correct. >> Correct. And >> for each of the building facades, we
have less than half of what would be permitted. >> Perfect. The parking load and circulation I don't think is really a planning argument. I think that's a an engineering argument as it relates to the parking space size, aisle width, curb cuts, and loading spaces. We heard that from the engineer and the traffic
engineer. >> The minimum landscaping again is as you heard and we talked about a function of the dedication that we're actually increasing the amount of open space by reducing the impervious coverage and we talked about the uh street trees. So
>> correct >> overall again we've already talked about some of these are hardship that we can't change the lot. We've talked about the the furthering the purpose of municipal land you saw. So that covers the positive criteria. So from a negative perspective, would
the granting of this variances have a substantial detriment that's so substantial that it outweighs all of the positives? >> No, I I don't believe so. >> Okay. So you believe and by granting this approval, there wouldn't be a substantial detriment to the zoning ordinance or the master plan?
>> No. As I kind of discussed in the beginning of the testimony, these are the types of uses that are envisioned for this area. Um the objectives of the 2023 master plan are are very much consistent with this type of project and the road widening is something that's specifically called for in that master plan as well.
>> We're furthering that. >> We're furthering that. Absolutely. >> Board of any questions for our planner. >> The road widening runs the whole length of the property. >> Correct. >> Well, again, the dedication runs the whole length of the property. How much
is widened within that and where it stops and where that's going to be up to the township engineers. So I can't speak to that but we're giving the 8 ft along the whole front. >> Any else questions? >> Any questions colleague? No.
>> Any questions from the public? >> All I have Mr. shares subject to the ability to >> question >> question or comment. >> Okay. So, we'll move to statements from the public. >> Swear you in, sir. >> Sure. >> And sir, just so you know, when you make
a statement, we have the right to ask you questions. So, you're aware not everybody knows that. So, >> and the applicant's going to have a right to ask you questions. >> Of course. >> Uh, do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Just state your name for the record. It's Jundep saying,
>> could you spell that please? >> Uh, J E V A N D E P. >> I'm sorry. Try J E >> V A N >> E A N >> D E P >> D E P >> Last name is Sing S I N G H >> Okay. And your address?
>> Uh 280 W Road, Eden Town, New Jersey. >> 281 Waff Road. >> 280 >> 280 Waff Road in Eden Town. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Actually, it was more of a none of the technical. It's just uh with this Duncan coming there. I mean with when we had
the we running the crowers next door with them bagels. It's just we have a concern like being in the same vicinity, same kind of business is pretty much going to affect us uh on our business. I just want to know if we could do something on that or if it's going to be
>> I I mean I can address that. So, you know, knowing that you were coming, I I made sure to do the research and competitive advantage or effect on other businesses is not really a planning consideration for the board to consider.
It really has. It's again, this board can't control the commercial marketplace. >> That's why I just wanted to make sure that's what it was. I wasn't sure. >> Yeah. So, I mean, you know, objections have to be based in the planning, not if it's a permitted use and it's going to hurt your business.
I'm sorry if you just want to make sure it's, but that's not really something that this board can consider. I hope it doesn't. >> I hope so, too. >> I hope that all the people I >> We were hoping for the same thing when Wawa happened. >> All the people from the east Yeah. But this is different cuz the people from
the east can't make a left turn in. So, if they're going to want coffee, they're going to want to make the left. >> But the thing is, uh, east is not our traffic only. We get traffic from both sides, >> right? >> So, we will be losing some traffic coming going west from D road to that. >> So, I will confirm what Mr. Crimo has
just said. >> Yeah. >> The board can't make decisions based upon whether your business is going >> No, I got I just wanted to put it out because I was I wasn't sure. I >> I understand. Yeah. >> I mean, I am sure exactly that they cannot make decisions based upon that.
All right, that that was it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any more statements from the public? >> See none. Just very very briefly, we worked very hard with the township's
professionals and the board's professionals to really tweak this plan to their satisfaction before coming to you for to make it hopefully go as smoothly as it as it did tonight because we recognize that it's a busy corner and
that we are uh proposing uses that as Mr. Lineski said we hope are very successful there and bring some vibrancy to that corner. So, we were very careful in order to address all of the concerns. So, I think in light of everything that was presented as well as the testimony
offered and the conditions that I know Mark is going to oppose, I'd ask that the board vote in favor of the relief as well as the site plan. >> Okay. Um, we close the public hearing. Does anyone have a motion?
>> A positive. >> I'll second that. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Damo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> And Cherry. >> Yes.
>> Thank you very much. >> And we may be back expanding it to two menu boards. We'll see. >> We know how to do that, right? Yes. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> No oppos. Good night, everyone.