tina keep good evening everybody body um it's 7:30 i'd like to call to order uh the April 24th 20125 Oldbridge Township Planning Board meeting please rise for the pledge of
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stands nation okay Daniel can we have a roll call please mr diploma here mr lenning is absent mr agopian
here miss Canon miss Mr rena here mr petty here miss Mel is absent mr mcisac is absent mr brennan here and Mr ferrara here i'm here
and chairman Lowour here mr chairman since recession isn't here yet maybe we hold off on swearing professionals until he comes for the application okay uh we're going to go to the minutes of March 27th
2025 do we have any questions additions deletions okay can I get a motion on that okay second okay mr dalma yes mr agopian yes miss Cannon
yes mr rena yes mr petty yes mr brennan yes mr ferrara yes and Chairman Lowour yes okay uh next we have resolutions uh resolution 32-20223P Stanton Construction
Corporation we have any questions about that okay Mr chairman just to address uh the comment that I did not receive your email regarding that one last condition so it was not included in the draft resolution uh that is before you but just to assure you and the board members
the one condition regarding the uh pedestrians crossing the street and them uh controlling that uh to the best of their abilities uh and restricting it to the best of their abilities is still part of the record it is still in a condition it's just not specifically set forth in the resolution due to my
missing that in and drafting it and I did not see your email to add it in before this evening but I just wanted to assure you and the board members that even though it might not be specifically listed it is uh a part of the record and it is part a condition that they would still need to comply with as part of their resolution compliance okay thank
you very much for that uh okay do I have a motion to approve okay that's who's that mr brown you're first do we have a second was Mr brand
second Mr hopian mr dalma yes mr goian yes miss Cannon yes mr rena yes mr petty yes mr brennan yes mr ferrara yes and Chairman Lowour yes
okay we have another resolution uh I think that would be Vina um Danny can you Mr chairman while uh he's bringing that up just for the record uh Miss Masala has joined us for this meeting
do you need to swear oh yes uh uh if I may I will swear in the professionals before they make any testimony this evening um do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you so good evening board members what you
have in front of you is a resolution um the council is requesting the planning board to authorize me to undertake an area investigation study which uh for the raceway park and surrounding area so
it's mostly the area to the souththeast intersection of John Wall Road and English Town Road and as you see Raceway Park has uh is the largest piece but there are other properties
that are either uh undeveloped or are in uh a state that would qualify them uh for the area designation so um I request the planning board to pass a resolution authorizing me to undertake that study i
think um that area uh has been um uh under the radar for quite some time there are property owners that are interested in redevelopment uh redeveloping those sites there was an application or a pre-application meeting
that I had for a flex space and a storage space on that area as well uh in the past two there have been numerous applications by developers but none of them really went through uh I think this is the right time to evaluate there are
three properties that are within that mocked up area that were excluded and uh one that the the one to the bottom which is a triangular piece is uh owned by NJ do and that's why we uh exclude that
parcel i'm really surprised why uh that piece is really owned by DoD it's not like there is a there is a highway or a freeway uh nearby but that's one piece there are two properties that are also excluded one is um uh used for
recreation it's owned by the township and is uh currently uh used as a cricket uh ground um Tanny can you hover your uh mouse yeah that's the property which is excluded and then the largest piece
which is behind Raceway Park um that property is zoned for environmental recreation it is fully encumbered by wetlands uh so that piece is excluded so other than that what you see on the map it comprises of 29 parcels and um I
would like the planning board to authorize me to undertake an area investigation study for the same okay uh thank you Vina um do we have any uh questions uh about Yes it does
yes the entire area yes and they're going to determine what type of things should be developed there that would be the next step but the first step would be to see if the area even qualifies for an area in need of redevelopment designation
okay would the planning board have a say in how it's developed it will come to the planning board the plan once written will come to the planning board okay thank you
uh do we have any other questions okay well then we're looking for a motion to move this along i make a motion okay second second second
mr dama yes mr agopian yes miss Canon yes Mr rena yes Mr petty yes Miss Melith yes Mr brennan yes Mr ferrara yes and Chairman Lowour yes okay next we have
uh consistency review uh again I pass it over to Vina yes um so this is an ordinance to amend the setback requirements for accessory structures like a shed within the R5
zone especially uh because uh R5 zone although the minimum lot area requirement is 5,000 uh square ft majority of those lots are much much smaller they are between 2,000
square ft and 2500 square ft² the planning board generally doesn't get to see those applications but if you talk to any member on the zoning board they every meeting there is an application where somebody is in front of the zoning
board asking for a C variance or even a floor area ratio variance because now the lot size is much smaller the than the minimum lot area requirements and the home owners even if they want to put a tiny shed or a deck have to come back
in front of the board this is uh a temporary fix to relieve the residents from going to the zoning board and be able to put in a shed or a deck uh eventually and that is what the master plan suggests too that the R5 zone needs
to be re-evaluated for its bulk standards because if the land use patterns are such that the lot sizes are much smaller then we need to revisit the standards uh unfortunately because of all that is going on with affordable
housing redevelopment uh and the development that is going on in Oldbridgeidge I have been a little busy uh that will need much more research and study i will literally have to study the uh lot sizes and come up with bulk standards but this is something that
will temporarily ease or will not will save many of the residents from going to the uh board what the recommendation does is if your lot is larger than 5,000 square ft² so if you
comply then you could have 150 square ft shed with a 3 ft setback required uh requirement but if your lot size is much smaller than 5,000 you could have a 100
square foot shed uh and it could be placed at 1 ft from the property line the only hitch is you cannot have utilities in the shed um the reason being it's a UCCC requirement you need for you to have electricity you need at
least a 3 ft requirement so we've reduced it down if you have a shed and there's no utilities to it and it's a undersized lot you could still have a shed because uh originally they couldn't have a shed so uh this is only to help
the residents and make it easier okay thank you and it is consistent with the master plan because the master plan re-exam report talks about revisiting uh our five zone standards and easing them okay thank you Vina um do we have any
questions about this okay I have a question okay Ed um you know the 5,000 square feet these properties that are quadruplex properties they're HOA regulated so
would there be a conflict between the HOA and the and the uh the people the owners i cannot imagine I cannot imagine a 2,000 square ft or a 5,000 square ft lot to really have quadruplexes i would
be really surprised i know recently the zoning board approved a multif family unit on an undersized lot but it's an anomaly you don't have and we can't write ordinances for that instance they would still have to go to the board but
um I don't believe it uh imposes any uh burden on the HOA if there is one if there is a large uh property and it has an HOA then most likely those are multif family units so I don't think a shed
would really make a difference they would have a common maybe a storage area within the building that's what I've seen most in most places but not in separate accessory structure as such as that thank you anyone
else okay um can we get a motion to move this along i'll make a motion okay second Mr diploma yes mr agopian yes miss Canon
yes mr rena yes mr petty yes miss Miscella yes mr brennan yes mr ferrara yes and Chairman Lowour yes okay and next we have an ordinance of township of old bridge amending redevelopment plan for the intersection of Jake Brown Road
and Highway 9 and in the intersection of White Oak Lane and Jake Brown Road uh okay Vina you're up again so this is I think one of the exciting ones uh because uh this is a plan amendment to what we call it often as
the segment redevelopment plan and if you recall when the plan was written there were four zones that were created there were uh I3 CI and I 10 but there was another zone called
EDO2 and that zone was created to actually encourage highway commercial the three other zones were um mostly to encourage light industrial warehousing type of uses but this zone which fronts
on the highway and right across from Regency Center was zoned as EDO2 when the plan was written like 4 years ago there was really uh not much information we didn't know what would come in and
also at that time cheesecake quick from I don't know this evening I have been saying cheesecake every single time in the agency meeting no one no redevelopment agency meeting too i kept calling it cheesecake cheesecake farm
property was not included in the redevelopment plan and if you may recall a couple of months ago I came back for an amendment included that parcel into the redevelopment study area now we have a nice stretch of commercial strip and
uh I think it's ripe for development um so we had to fine-tune the ordinance uh so that we can have because many of the uses that are permitted are conditional uses there's a lot of interest uh from
different tenants who want to move in there or like the location however there were no conditions included for the conditional use and when there are no conditions then the application is kicked to the zoning board uh instead we
wanted to work and see how the design flows better and uh the circulation works too uh so Rakkesh's group myself we have worked very hard to come up with these standards uh signage was the most challenging because I've often said uh
old bridge signage ordinance is one of the worst I've dealt with but it also takes a lot of time because there are a lot of things involved to clean up a signage ordinance uh probably when I have more free time that will be my priority but right now I just wanted to
focus on the signage pri part the ordinance is written such that it uh matches up luckily we have Ken here who represented Regency Center but the signage ordinance for this plan is written so that it kind of is consistent
or it goes with the signs in Regency uh center and the whole area looks like it was planned and designed uh uh very well so I request you to uh move this resolution up too uh the master plan has
always talked about uh redevelopment of this area segment was already included so uh anything we do to improvise is only uh consistent with the master plan okay thank you u does Rakkesh want to
say anything about this particular No I don't have any comments okay okay i just didn't want to leave you out i appreciate it okay uh I need a motion to move this along can I just ask a question oh I'm sorry i I Okay so is
this going to be primarily commercial yes okay no warehousing nope okay commercial okay uh any other questions before we move this on okay i'll move it
i'll second mr dalma yes mr agopian yes miss Canon yes mr rena yes mr petty yes miss Misella yes mr brennan yes mr ferrara yes and Chairman Lowour yes okay joe you want to announce yes thank
you Mr chairman so the next uh item on the agenda is the application for Visionbridge for urban renewal LLC that uh application is being adjourned to June the June 26 2025 planning board meeting without further notice so if
you're here on that application uh please be advised that it's being carried uh and adjourned to that June 26th hearing uh with no further notice to be provided okay thank you uh next we're going to give
u the old bridge reason a chance to jump ahead and uh make the request good evening Mr p good evening Mr chair sorry that's off right now you just got to turn it it's It's actually still off
there it goes sorry good evening Mr chairman good evening board members kenneth Pape of the firm Hyelurn Pap on behalf of Regency we published a notice for this evening we'd ask that you accept the the notifications that have been filed with the board and we're
looking for a re a new date um if you could let me know what the opportunities are I'll let you know what works for us i think we should carry it to the June date because the May date is already taken up with Alfairy and uh
that is a litigation matter so if in between we have a special meeting then maybe if if you want to renotice and appear at that meeting I'll let you know but for now we don't have a special meeting so it would be June 26th
understood if there's an earlier meeting that becomes available and you're able to give us advanced notice then we can publish a notice we'll take you up on it but for the if sounds like it's June 26th if you could make the appropriate announcement council absolutely mr
chairman are we words in favor uh do we everybody in favor of that june 26 okay thank you then um just as the last application this uh application for Oldbridge Regency Village LLC is being adjourned to the June 26th 2025 planning
board meeting and no further notice is being provided so if you're hearing that application please be advised to come back on the June 26 uh 26th date yes thank Thank you good night see you June 26th or
earlier okay next up is uh Oak at 18 LLC amended major preliminary and final site plan with a C variance uh represented by Salvatore Alfair Esquire good evening good evening chairman
members of the board dante Alfuri on behalf of the applicant i'm Sal's young uh son so um as the chairman stated we're seeking the board's approval um with relation to block 19013 lots three and five it's amended major preliminary and
site plan approval with C variance so if the board's familiar this was previously approved with preliminary and final major site plan um and sub minor subdivision approval back in July of 2021 um tonight we're here seeking to
amend that approval i have four individuals to provide testimony tonight i have our engineer our traffic expert um we do have our architect available and we do have our planner so without further ado I'm going to have our engineer come up introduce the site and talk about the changes from the existing
approval okay very good mr chairman if I can swear him in do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you and now can you just state your name and spell it for the record please
thank you thank you uh my name is Richard Ortiz r I C H A R D O R T I Z thank you ortiz could you please provide your credentials for the board sure uh so I've graduated uh from Ruckers University with a bachelor of science in
civil engineering um I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey i have over six years of experience as a project manager with dynamic engineering and over have worked on over 50 small to mediumsiz commercial developments in the state of New Jersey okay you're accepted thank you
um so Mr ortiz if you could please orient the board to the site uh what was the existing approval and then touch on the modifications that brings us here tonight sure and I do have exhibits so just give Danny a second there
uh the second PDF please so this is going to be a new exhibit that we'll mark correct okay so we'll mark this as exhibit A1 one second to finish loading okay thank you um so the the general site location is uh Before we do that let's identify
this exhibit sure uh so this is an aerial map exhibit dated uh April 24th 2025 uh prepared by by Dynamic Engineering and I think we're marking this A1 correct yes thank you thank you all right so the um the general site
location is on the eastbound side of Route 18 uh as mentioned earlier it's block 1913 lots three and five uh the applicant is in the process of finalizing a consolidation to make the the the lot a new lot 3.01 uh the
overall parcel size is 1.107 acres uh that's an existing non-conformance that was previously approved and currently the site is undeveloped and and wooded uh with an irregular shape uh and and to orient yourself I like to think of the uh the shape of the lot uh that yellow
line at the center of the the exhibit basically pointing in the direction of the north arrow so north is to the top left of the sheet just as we continue to work through the exhibits uh the existing zoning is community commercial uh that's more or less identified by the the cyan line that goes along the back
side of the property and then continues to the left on the sheet um you know that the existing Wawa and Duncan that are next to the site uh located northwest of the site are also in that same zone uh located to the back of the site uh the southeast portion is a
undeveloped wooded uh property owned by the county uh there is some wetlands offsite uh but that's entirely offsite based on an LOI that we've received and then to the northeast of the site is Route 18 with some residential properties located across the way um I
do want to note that the uh existing rightway is is fairly unique here just given Route 18's uh frontage you can more or less see it there the the line that goes across the middle of the page u horizontally is plus or minus the existing edge of pavement of Route 18
and then the yellow line is the front property line of the property so there's a pretty significant rightway between uh the edge of pavement and the start of the actual property plus or minus 50 ft and then Danny if you could move on to the next
page very helpful thank you um this is uh the previously approved site plan last revised i don't have the date offhand but I it is on that exhibit um this was basically the plan that the township previously uh provided final
sign off on and this was prepared by our office and we we'll just mark this I know it was part of the prior approval but since it's amended we'll just mark it as A2 just for clarification sure so that's last revise would be over the
left last revised was um June 12 2023 so before we get into the amended application or the amended layout I just wanted to remind the board of what the original application looked like um the the building was approved as a retail strip center that contained two two
retail tenants and two restaurant tenants uh with outdoor seating for one of the restaurant tenants um you can see at the top of the page basically northeast portion of the site that there was um oneway access into the site and then one way access out of the site basically a a one-way circulation
throughout the site connecting to Route 18 um overall the you know the the entire development itself is is serviced by the infiltration basin at the back of the site um and then there is one trash enclosure that was proposed for the the overall building that's located on the
southeast portion of the site um I guess if I can try and point at that point you to it just want to make sure I don't it is not oh there we go so that trash enclosure I was talking about is generally over here
um thanks Justin um and then along the site frontage we did propose a an extension of the existing sidewalk that's located along Route 18 basically picking it up where it where it ends at the Duncan under current exist current conditions and then continuing across the property to the southeast side of
the property um and with that said I I'd like to move on to the next exhibit if you wouldn't mind so this exhibit is the site plan rendering dated April 24th 2025 also prepared by my off by dynamic
engineering i'd like to mark this A3 please so overall if you you know if you couldn't tell that the site layout is generally consistent with what was previously approved what we're looking to do here is we do now have a tenant a n a name brand tenant that is signed up for a lease for the property uh that's
Dollar Tree um basically what we're looking to do is consolidate the two retail spaces and the two restaurant spaces into one retail space for the Dollar Tree and one restaurant space you know to be determined um overall the layout is is generally the same the
parking works the same the circulation works the same we maintain the same pedestrian access across the frontage and through the middle of the site um and then there is an addition of a loading space on the northwest side of the building to service the Dollar Tree
um just to kind of touch on variance relief that was previously granted uh the building itself has increased slightly in footprint uh from 9,340 ft to 9,479 ft uh we did receive variance relief for a rear yard setback
requirement previously at 15.8 8 ft or sorry 15.7 ft where 50 ft is required uh we did slightly improve that with the new building to be 15.8 ft so there is a 0.1 increase to that that setback um overall parking stall-wise we're
providing uh a mix of 9 by8 and 9 by 20 foot stalls um the 8 by excuse me the 8 by 20 foot stalls are are dedicated to the the ADA spaces and a majority of the parking spaces are 9 by20 with the exception of the three
spaces on the southeast side of the side site that are shown to be 9 by8 just to make sure that we have a a decent buffer off that property line excuse me as far as a parking requirement goes uh overall 80 spaces are required for the
site and we are proposing 37 so var variance relief is required um this is a slight improvement versus what was previously uh granted for the original application uh previously we had 103 spaces required and 44 proposed so we're
we're improving upon that condition uh we do require design waiver relief for the placement of the parking those those three parking spaces on the south property line um the the requirement is 5T and we're showing 4.7 ft that's that's a new relief that we're looking
for uh as far as EV charging spaces go we do provide one EV make ready space which is consistent with with what was originally approved and also is compliant with the New Jersey state rules uh we do understand that the township ordinance does require additional spaces and we are seeking
relief from that requirement um just on the basis that we do comply with the New Jersey state rules and um you know don't expect that EV spaces will be a a super necessary uh addition or amenity to this type of use and sticking with the EV spaces I do
want to um bring to attention the the relief that we're seeking there uh the EV space proposed for the site originally was located on the northwest side of the site but we did relocate it to the the uh the northeast side of the site basically in front of the building
uh the idea there is to have it opposite the ADA spaces and also maintain a a pedestrian access uh to the right of way so that EV space is uh provided to satisfy the New Jersey state rule and also is accessible to satisfy the New
Jersey state rule uh the the relief that we are seeking for that space is that it's located within 10 ft of the front property line uh more specifically the charging station is 2.3 ft away from the front property line when 10 ft is required um and in addition to that we
are look seeking relief for the uh mechanical supporting equipment for that charging space to be located in the front yard uh again it's you know we're trying to keep it away from the building so that it's not taking up space in front of the building and it it does help to uh maximize the amount of
parking we're providing because of that striped area be being utilized in addition to the ADA space through the center of the site um moving along to loading operations so as as I previously noted the the original application did not have a dedicated loading space we received
variance relief for that requirement um due to the anticipated vehicle that will service the Dollar Tree and provide deliveries to the Dollar Tree we are seeking we are providing a loading space on the northwest side of the building that space will be utilized to service
the Dollar Tree and also act as a a a holding place for the trash enclosure the Dollar Tree does have a door on the side here that will be used for service and um overall the truck will circulate into the site around and then back into the space and then exit the site
straight through to the exit driveway um sticking with with driveways we are seeking new relief for the northwest driveway just based on the basis that the driveway does does exceed the maximum uh driveway width requirement of
30 ft that curb to curb measurement basically from here to here is about 40 feet i I would like to note that however that the actual driveway that will be utilized by pedestrian traffic will be is is channelized to be 24 feet um the
only reason that we have such a a a wider driveway in this scenario is to incorporate the striped area to help with the circulation to allow the truck to access the loading space um so that that's our basis for requesting relief from that requirement um and I again I do want to note that the the um the
driveway itself will actually be 24 feet for the most part and you know assuming that that people do follow that striping another improvement from the original application we we went from one trash enclosure in this area to a second on the opposite side of the site to
service the Dollar Tree so uh the Dollar Tree will have its own trash enclosure over here and the restaurant itself will will have its own trash enclosure over here uh the previous uh setback that was approved for that trash enclosure was 2.3 ft whereas uh I believe it's 50 ft
as required we did improve upon that the trash enclosure on the southeast side is now set back six feet and the trash enclosure on the northwest side is now set back 9.5 ft and then I I know a um a mention in the letter is is questions about operations
we do have operational information for the Dollar Tree uh that can be shared um the delivery truck that's expected is a WB50 uh 55 foot long truck that will basically provide deliveries i think it's twice weekly uh early morning
between 5 and 7 am so before the the building itself is actually open and serviceable um and there will also be smaller bi-weekly vendor deliveries uh which will you know take place with box trucks also within the same loading zone uh the proposed hours of operation for
the Dollar Tree are Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m to 10 p.m and Sunday 8:00 a.m to 9:00 pm uh and as far as number of employees we will have uh four to five uh max max employees during any shift uh and a total of 15 employees
that will fill out those shifts as they as they regulate um we do not have specific operations for the restaurant at the moment as we don't have a tenant uh but delivery vehicles uh could be expected to be something as you know no larger than a box truck similar to the
original approval and to touch on um some of the additional improvements associated with the site uh storm water management uh the overall drainage design is is very much the same to what was originally approved we do maintain that infiltration at the back of the site uh
that that basin is has been designed to more or less capture runoff from the develop portion of the site detain it and then route it to the the uh DOT rightway which is uh similar to what was previously approved uh we do have a draft permit in hand from DOT on the
amended design uh with some minor technical comments to close that permit out um as far as utilities go uh water sewer gas and electric um very much the same from what was previously approved and Oldbridge MUA has seen and and approved the amended design uh that
you're looking at tonight uh landscaping very much the same with the original design just given that the site layout is is very similar we did increase the overall counts of of plantings provided from 180 to 212 um and in re in reviewing the township
professionals uh review comments we don't we don't see any issue complying with their recommendations um lighting we we are proposing a a lighting level at the front of the site that exceeds the maximum permitted uh one foot handle uh generally that that is you know the
attempt there is to provide safe and efficient lighting at the at the main entrance of the drive aisle um or of the driveway uh the idea too is that given the right given the the extent of the rightway we don't expect that there will be much spillover into the actual traveled lane of the uh of route 18 so
while there is some spillover it's it's captured in that grass area between the front property line and route 18 and and will help to provide a safe and uh you know a safe lighting situation for people that are entering and leaving the site uh and to clarify I know there was
a comment in one of the review letters the the lights at the rear of the building will be motion sensored very similar to the the original application and sticking with lighting I I can confirm that the the lighting design was prepared uh with 18 foot mounted height
in mind um I I believe that is compliant with the ordinance so we don't need relief from that requirement we can simply uh revise our area light foundation detail to show that we are compliant uh because the design itself has been prepared accordingly and to to wrap it up I I do have a you
know some some items that have changed on the signage package uh the freestanding sign has been relocated from the northwest side previously over here to the the southeast side uh to promote visibility as people approach the site uh it we do maintain the same
one- foot setback uh that was approved as variance relief for the original application and then finally the building mounted signage that was approved previously included four signs whereas only one sign is permitted uh per per a commercial building we are
reducing that four signs to two signs given the the change in number of tenants um and just to quickly touch on outside agency reviews uh we we do have amended approval for Middle Sex County Planning Board uh Freehold Soil Conservation
District as I mentioned the OB the Old Bridge uh MUA uh our NJDP approvals from the original approval are valid and we do have a draft permit for the modified access permit with NJ DOT that will be closed out shortly
you've reviewed the board's professional letter of April 24th 20125 i have were there any comments in here that you not previously testified to that we cannot conform to i don't believe so i think we can comply thank you open it to the board
okay professionals vina Rick first go ahead thank you Mr chairman um I do appreciate the applicant agreeing to satisfy the comments of our memo so I won't go through all the the various comments in the memo um though I'm happy to speak to
any that the board may have questions about uh I do have a few questions um first uh could you just explain to the board why we need that exit driveway to be so wide sure so the the exit drive um
to basically to accommodate the larger vehicle that's that's going to be servicing the Dollar Tree um that the way that that can access that loading space it the the loading vehicle enter into the site circulate through the site stage in the striped area you know
basically pull forward and stage in the striped area before backing up into the loading space to service the Dollar Tree so when you say stage in that in that striped area are you saying that he they need that stripe area to maneuver to maneuver basically yeah it wouldn't be
sitting there for much longer than than it needs to to pull in and then back up so So it can't it can't pull up into that 24ft aisle and then and then back in not with what we we saw with our truck turning movement i mean we we can look at minimizing it but that's we we
expect that that's that uh space is required to accommodate the maneuver okay and as the other question speaking of the and that's I may have missed your testimony about the the size of vehicle for the dollar tree uh because the previous approval had limited the
vehicles accessing the the site the delivery vehicles to a box truck type of vehicle so you're asking for relief from that requirement then from the previous approval that's correct um the the anticipated vehicle for the Dollar Tree is a WB50 it's a 55 foot long tractor
trailer um that will only be here you know two two times a week f early in the morning before the the business is open okay and was and I'm I'm looking through your sub plan submission to see your maneuvering plan is is that part of the submission here the maneuvering plan yes
okay because I can't seem to find it um I think it's one of the last two sheets okay uh I'll take a look at that obviously we'd like to minimize that as much as possible but um that's something
the board will have to I guess discuss because that was one of the one of the conditions that the board had imposed um I'll move on from that uh you you said you have an application pending with DOT currently is that for this um plan yep
yeah so DOT has seen this plan they've issued draft permits with minor technical comments okay yeah would would you one of the conditions of our memo was that you would supply that permit and the and the actual approved plan to the to the board professionals so you don't have an objection to that right
absolutely okay the restaurant use uh the prior approval uh again had limited the seating to 38 seats for both restaurants that was when there was a larger restaurant space and a smaller
retail space the thinking there was that the um restaurants would offset some of the the retail space and then because there were two restaurants it was limited to 38 seats as I read your plans you're planning on having 38 seats for
this restaurant yes that's correct um that's 30 seats indoor and eight seats on the out on the outdoor seating patio okay yeah I mean I would be more comfortable
limiting the seats because of the uh variance that is sought one for a,200 square ft² restaurant to have 30 seats seems to be a little cramped up more than that the variance that is sought is
quite significant um when when we approved the original application there were like 3,000 plus square ft of re restaurant use now it's come down to 1,200 i would be more comfortable to
restricting it to 20 uh seats than 38 38 seems to be too much for the site i think the at least from my understanding that the the driving factor with the um with the previous parking requirement was primarily retail
um or rather yeah primarily retail that's basically helped reduce the parking requirement because we've added more retail so our our expectation was that the 38 seats for the restaurant would would still be sufficient i mean
we I don't expect that you know we we'll get all the way up to the 38 seats but we'd like to have the ability to be able to do so if if possible i would be more comfortable in limiting the size so so the and and I'm guessing you're going to have a traffic engineer
also testify so one of the things that we really would need to have some testimony and some discussion on is is the the offsetting peaks and and the parking demands for the retail versus the restaurant the the type of of re of restaurant really matters a lot when
you're talking about that synergy between the retail and then the restaurant space a200 foot restaurant is probably going to be a quick serve kind of restaurant maybe I don't I don't see a drive-thru so it's not going to be a Starbucks or a Duncan but something
along those kind of lines uh that that would probably operate pretty much the same kind of hours as a retail so so that offsetting peak almost kind of is affected in that regard Again I'd like to hear that testimony from your traffic engineer but we do need to have some
some further discussion about limiting the restaurant space i I agree with Rakkesh because if it was a restaurant use that has different peak times then granting a variance that significant makes sense i mean for example if it was
a breakfast place their peak times are different um then the parking would have worked but to allow for the 38 spaces I don't have a problem with the restaurant use but the the number of seats uh kind of are concerning
but I'll hold off to hear back from your traffic i do have one other thing Mr chairman i I know the applicant agreed to satisfy the comments of our of the the memo that Vina and I had put out um I do want to draw the applicant's attention and the board's attention to
comment number 22 on page nine uh which speaks to the the township's PR rata contribution for traffic um this is a requirement that was put in by by the board we've always had a a PR rata contribution it was put on hold because it was dated it was from it was
implemented in 1980 and uh about five six years about six years ago uh the township asked uh our office to to revisit that and and and uh basically restudy the prata
contribution and come up with a new prata plan which which we did and uh after a lot of careful thought and and that's been put in place since that approval so as as this is an amended approval uh we uh we're basically stating that this this application the
summit application is is subject to that proretta contribution um so the applicant amable to the pro contribution for traffic well I guess it's not really a question you are going to have to contribute to the pro contribution for traffic right understood
um that's all I have Mr chairman we do have numerous comments in here most a lot of them are are detailed kind of comments um in general the site plan is from a from an engineering standpoint from a stormwater standpoint uh isn't really changed very much there's a slight increase in impervious surface uh
which is accommodated in the stormwater management system that was previously approved so the applicant isn't really proposing any uh changes with the with the man stormwater management there's a change there are changes to the conveyance system how the water is actually getting to the basin uh but the
actual stormwater management basin uh isn't being changed and isn't required to change to accommodate the the slight increase in impervious coverage u therefore it's it's the previous design is is still valid and and and um acceptable uh I don't have any further
questions for the for this for this witness but I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have Um I I think I already spoke about the parking and what I feel about it i'll just hold off on that but uh there was a
variance cited for building mounted signs i don't think you require a variance because if that was the case then every shopping center that has multiple tenants would have required a variance it has to be one uh sign per
tenant so your proposed two signs for two tenants makes sense to me i don't believe a variance is required um I just want to let the board know many of the variances and that's why I had multiple tables uh many of the variances and
waiverss were granted by the previous application uh the ones that were triggered were mostly because of the electric uh charging station having moved from one side to the other so um none of the variances that are sought are really concerning and I planning
wise I don't have much questions do you have an architect who's going to testify because all I wanted to know is does it really affect the uh architectural uh elevations that's all does the EV the no
the amended site the amended signs we we'll have our architect touch that but I don't have any further questions okay um anybody on this side uh my right have a question
i have a question um first relative to the the parking the three parking stalls at the circular entry they appear to be somewhat problematic if you envision someone trying to back out of the space while you have the traffic flow entering
into the parking um I just don't like the way that it looks it appears to be a potential issue uh for those three particular spaces did anyone see that and think that through so um we we did um DOT does have a
requirement to um keep the first movement for from their basically from their edge of pavement 50 feet from that edge of pavement so that we do comply with that requirement and the idea there is that um say say there is a car that's backing up out of those three spaces there's enough room in the drive aisle
in the in the throat of the driveway so that that there could be a queue behind it cars waiting to allow that that car to exit the space um while also staying off the main roadway so the first space on the right is set back 50 yep and
that's where it was in the second observation is is the location of restaurant uh garbage container same thought process if you can envision a truck pulling in and then obviously it would
have to reverse to back up to pick up that garbage it would have to be coordinated based on operations like in kind to a delivery to the Dollar Tree otherwise that would block all of the entrance coming in so I
don't see how you'd be able to function and have garbage picked up simultaneously that could not occur the the expectation would be that uh trash pickup would occur at early morning hours basically during off peak hours so there there wouldn't be um you know the expectation is that there wouldn't be a
excessive amount of vehicular traffic going on on that would be written into the lease so they would not they would not permit trash pickup during business operation hours it's just something you need to consider because we have no objection including
that in in our lease as a requirement I think those are the only two questions I have thank you thank you eric you have any questions the only comment I have is knowing what's going there you don't believe
that you can get more parking anywhere in there it's not a lot of spots if you have a restaurant and a Dollar Tree that's not a lot of spots we we did design the layout to maximize the parking spaces um and primar the
primary driver to maximize parking spaces was uh to not comply with the ordinance requirement of 10 x 20 foot stalls so we did provide 9 by 20 foot stalls so basically in the the the row of spaces that we have in front of the building and opposite the building um
every 9 to 10 stalls not complying with that requirement allows us to provide an additional stall so um and obviously with the loading space added in that that did take away some space for parking um just given the irregular shape of the site that I think this is
uh as parked as it can be with the layout that that we're presenting i don't I don't um pretend to be a planner but I'm looking at your the vehicle circulation for the um the 55 ft trailer so it doesn't look like too much
of it is impeding onto the yellow stripes now if that trailer is only going to be coming in pre-ours right between you said what five and seven between five and seven is there an opportunity to put more parking
and have them stage over a parking spot as opposed to just striping is there anything that precludes that so so all right so the yellow stripes right so right right next to the yellow stripes to the what is that to the south
the southeast right is a what it looks like an island is that an island if you were to remove the island push the spaces into that that striped area okay since those tractor trailers should
not be coming in during during business hours can they stage and queue themselves in there you could probably gain at least another two or so spots two spots at least you should be able remove that island is that something that that could be done so my my concern
is so if you go as you leave here if you go up to Route 34 there is a Dollar Tree there and that also has a restaurant right next to it that's that lot is crowded a lot right there's a a lot of people will frequent Dollar Trees dollar
Trees is bringing a lot of folks there's not one within his vicinity so I would assume that people will frequent this if you have a restaurant open and the Dollar Tree open there's going to be a need for spot which will then spill spill over into the the Dunkin Donuts
which could potentially cause a problem with that tenant so I'm just trying to look at ways that you can gain more spots actually to Mr dama's point I remember but it was like 2020 so almost 5 years ago i remember asking this
question at the meeting that have you considered having a shared parking uh arrangement with Duncan because Duncan has its peak time in the morning and towards the end of the day
the the use is kind of dead or minimal so if you have a restaurant use and you could use the parking on Dunkin Donut side I don't see a problem then but I don't remember the response i don't
remember what exactly transpired uh and whether you reached out and Duncan refused i I don't have any recollection of that i I would expect that the tricky part with sharing parking with the Duncan is if you're head if you're heading to the Dollar Tree and the
restaurant you're going to you're going to aim to go to that site first if you don't have spaces available you can't go the opposite way on Route 18 to get to Duncan so I I don't know that that would really pan out the way we What will happen is folks coming down Route 18 to
go to there we'll probably be slowing down in front of the Waw Wa look to see what the parking situation is and then cut into Dunkin Donuts prior to going to that lot that's I I could just foresee that folks getting Well I'm just going to take a look if it doesn't look like there's a
spot using that and then potentially causing some level of conflict with the with that tenant if there was a connection and you have the one-way driveway you don't find a spot on this side you could potentially if there was
a connection you could go on to Duncan site and park there if there was a connection I I don't recall what transpired from that um I I would have to ask the applicant if if he does i I
He needs to testify he needs to be sworn in can you just repeat that for the So my client noted that uh essentially COVID was the the the crux of of the issue with that and um I guess based upon that it just it never came to fruition
i think just you know we we could consider um adding the spaces in in that striped area i know I I guess in that striped area specifically on the north on the northeast side the only issue I foresee with providing parking spaces there and maintaining this area for um
loading space maneuverability is that on the front of those parking spaces we won't be able to put anything that will keep those cars from going straight out of the driveway that way um so that could lead to an unsafe condition having Yeah well I'm I'm just looking danny can
you bring up that circulation it's um It should be in the USB yeah I think it's uh page 25 or Yeah that's it it's the And if this is something Vina and
Resher this is something for the traffic person that's why I can wait and hold off on it but I just want to um just look at it just because the way that the tractor trailer maneuvers in there's still a there's still some space doesn't necessarily need to be as wide as there's more than there's more than
enough space even with putting a blocker now this is probably best case scenario of someone who could really drive a truck the the one thing that I was talking to Rakkesh is probably it may be a good
idea for you to ask for a variance for tandem parking because you have the striped area along the uh building where probably your employees could park if
you time your uh trash pickup such that it's done in the morning we hours in the morning before the use is open maybe the employees who work for the dollar store or the restaurant could have tandem
parking in that area and and the township doesn't allow tandem parking but to to ask for a variance just for the employees so that area would be strictly for employees and you how many spaces would do you think
we could get from that area at least four yeah at least it's a 55 foot truck i mean I would not be comfortable I would not be comfortable to have like three stacked spaces but two yeah two side by side so four and then
you could get another two in the striped area along 18 so six six spaces um we'll consider it um we'll have to talk to the applicant and potentially the tenant as well
yeah because if you have four employees plus restaurant employees you're going to take away a third or a quarter of those those spots unless those folks are dropped off i just looking at this plan now I do see I guess corners that we could
potentially add you know especially just seeing it now I see where you you know you could sneak another space there cuz you see how the how you have it drawn out how they'd have to back in you take out that median you can add a spotter at least two spots two spots would probably
the max at 18 ft right or on the right side too or no and yeah I was wondering if we could fit a space here maybe shift the um the freestanding sign over to the right and I'm curious about whether or not we'd fit a space in here the only issue with
with this area is I don't I don't know that we'd be able to get a curved island i think it would have to finish off with striping just to to end that bay are we required to have a curb island our ordinance does require it but that would be a design waiver
i mean I think from Yeah so with that so with that so the the b the benefit of the tenant and the benefit of the people that look to visit here getting an additional spot I think outweighs the need for curbing there so
there's the potential that we could pick up three spaces um by slightly adjusting those island areas on on the the three points and then you could like Vina was saying earlier oh I apologize like Vina was saying earlier uh you could um still
do employee only parking in that loading area tandem side by side that you could pick up four spaces that way uh and again that's because it's employee parking that you can they can time it or you know or time time the trash deliveries trash pickup and uh
deliveries that way too eric are you finished yes I'm done okay okay to my left questions for this witness just a quick question the uh the parking the parking places for the um
employees where the truck's going to go so the employees would need to be there when the truck comes to help unload it so there might be a little bit of a shuffle needed or a conflict there just a thought yeah they they would it basically would have to be something where they'd have to coordinate so they
they would have to either you know if they're getting a delivery they're expecting a delivery that day they would it would be during the um off- peak time so they could there would be spaces available to them and then outside of that time they could park in that that area is all we're
saying okay any anybody go ahead so according to your diagram tractor trailer is going to come down Route 18 pull in and then back into your loading area
correct it's the the maneuver is um and I I'll point over here but the maneuver is it it enters into the site circulates across the front of the building pulls up into the driveway and then backs up into the loading space here that's
scary that's scary on Route 18 with all that traffic coming in and out well the truck wouldn't re-enter Route 18 no but he's in that parking lot with other people trying to get in and out so but um what was testified to is that the the
deliveries are going to happen early morning before there is any type of real activity with regard to the stores if you correct me if I'm wrong but the um the stores won't be open at that time correct the the deliveries will happen between 5 and 7 a.m and the stores will be open at 8:00 a.m and you're telling
me that you're going to guarantee that there aren't going to be any deliveries at any other time of the day not can't guarantee it but that's that's the operations that we're expecting that's that's what's consistent with
other um dollar trees in the area okay mr petty you're finished right anybody else okay got a couple questions uh currently you were proposing 37 parking spots and
you're you're bumping it up a few more or I'm sorry parking spots are we proposing you 37 are shown on the plan currently um if we do you know pursue the additional spaces that were discussed previously that I think it's an additional three that would be within
the main parking area and an additional four to five that would be for employee only in the loading area okay that that loading area idea sounds pretty good hopefully a firetruck doesn't have to get in there while they're parked there that could be a problem hopefully it
won't but um my other question is um the sign you said something about moving the sign uh I guess it was uh further north and you're going to move it to the entrance yep closer to the entrance so the the previously approved
sign was located on this side of the site we we relocated it to this side of the site just so that um there's more visibility of the sign as you approach the site having it over here it you know you you basically pass the sign before you pass the entire site so the idea
there is just to promote visibility given how far set back the property is from Route 18 and and if you know if we do add an additional space over here we'll just we'll simply move that freestanding sign further to the uh southeast basically
well I was thinking that that the the sooner somebody could see the sign uh the the the best way for them to slow down they wouldn't have to jam on their brakes to to get into your uh your your site
so you think it maybe should be not so close to that entrance or do you know exactly where it's going it it should I mean currently it's proposed over here um yeah your the oh sorry the the issue
with yeah I understand that because it it would be right on you know you wouldn't see it uh readily um what else I have um and you said the building increased uh by I didn't catch how many square
feet it it increased by uh I believe it'sund 139 square feet that's the total increase right correct oh okay that's all I have okay um we can open up to the public now
would the public like to see no hands close the public portion thank you so uh without further ado I'll have our second witness come up Mr taylor if I can swear you in uh do you swear or
affirm the testimony you're going to this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do can you please state your name and spell it for the record justin Taylor t A Y L O R thank you uh Mr taylor could you please provide your qualifications for the board uh surely uh I hold a bachelor's
in engineering from the University of Delaware i'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey as well as Pennsylvania Delaware and Texas i'm also a certified professional traffic operations engineer by the Institute of Transportation Engineers we're practicing traffic planning for gosh almost 25 years now and I've testified to hundreds of boards throughout the
city New Jersey including this board although it has been a little bit little bit of time you're accepted thank you very much take it away sure so um I have the ability to sit in the back and hear the comments the questions and really the crux of what we need to talk about from
a traffic perspective at a very high level we submitted a new traffic study the results were essentially the same as the last time uh we submitted this we can make the driveways work based on the projected trip generation with good levels of service and as you heard from our previous witness we do have a draft
NJ DOT permit they have reviewed this new layout they s have suggested some minor modifications to the driveway um but they did issue us a draft permit so as we iron out those final technical details we will be completing that permitting process um shortly so really
what what are we here to talk about we're here to talk about the parking right we are requesting a rather substantial parking variance based upon the ordinance calculations i would state that the municipal's ordinance requirements for both the retail and the restaurant seem to be a little antiquated
um at the one per 150 uh for retail and the uh the ordinance requirement for one per 50 for restaurant are higher than what we're seeing in the industry and so when we see something like this what we would do is go to the Institute of Transportation Engineers and their publication parking
generation which is an ever evolving document that um tracks trends in parking demand for various types of land uses when we look to that most recent publication what it would say for a
retail portion is about 2.91 parking spaces per thousand square feet what that translates to for this facility is 26 parking spaces max demand if we were to consider it a purely retail shopping
center right that's what we'd set forth in our traffic study reading through the transcript from the last hearing there was lots of talk back and forth and there's been some tonight too about the varying peaks of these type of uses what we did almost instead by way of the
tenant that was selected here is introduce a tenant that generates parking demand actually at a lower rate than what your generic retail would right so 2.91 is the number that it would say for a retail center right it's what I would utilize if I didn't know
who the tenants were and we were trying to fill this out to make sure that we had enough parking but they have other land uses and what we're talking about here falls under what it considers discount store order right what we're talking about is a dollar tree with um discounted prices of various types of
uh commodities and when we looked at the data that it published for that we actually see a a rate that's almost half that we're seeing a rate of 1.29 29 spaces per thousand square feet right during the during weekday and I I believe it's
1 93 on a Saturday afternoon when we apply that to the Dollar Tree that we're asking for that translates into a parking demand that we would estimate for this of 16 parking spaces right that's inclusive of employees inclusive of customers the max demand what we're
looking at is about 16 spaces we have 37 right so that 21 window is now what feeds into what the the restaurant would be able to generate in that demand if we look to it it would say for the restaurant the smaller size restaurant
that we're talking about uh demand of about 12 parking spaces um based on the square footage of the building so when I first evaluated this whole thing I came to the conclusion professionally that there was sufficient parking to accommodate both of those uses right now both of those numbers also look at this
as a standalone isolated type of use it doesn't incorporate the fact that there is some ability for overlap between the two of these maybe you come to it's a you know a pizza joint and you grab a slice of pizza and then you shop at Dollar Tree or vice versa maybe it ends up being a breakfast place and you're
grabbing breakfast and then you do a little bit of shopping um the IT numbers don't contemplate that they look at both of these as standalone so again I think that what we had would be sufficient to support the demand of the project but I think everything I've heard tonight with the
board's suggestion is is a really good idea we have the ability now to add some spaces into this area i do agree that the curb line along the uh northeast corner on the egress driveway has the ability to be shifted further north right we don't need all
that space for the truck circulation my understanding is it's potentially a hold over from the last go round when we can get a slightly bigger truck and once we found out the Dollar Tree only needed 43 foot trailers we didn't need all that space we weren't trying to get a 53 foot trailer onto the site um so that does
give us an ability to pull the uh that northern curb line a little further to the north and pick up probably two spaces in that area i think we can also add the space along the face of the building adjacent to the loading area to pick up an additional
space there and then finally I think the while it will be an operational issues not um it will be an operational thing that needs to be handled by Dollar Tree i think it's absolutely doable right
you've heard the deliveries are coming in between 5:00 and 7 a.m you don't have a full contingent of staff in Dollar Tree at that point you probably have one person taking delivery and they can park out in the parking field because nothing else is open at that point then once that delivery is done then those spaces open up to be able to be tandem spaces
for the employees you pick up four additional spaces in there for the four to five employees that Dollar Tree is going to have so I think it's a great uh suggestion to pull some of the employee demand out of the main parking field and put it into that loading area give a dual purpose for that for that loading
area since they really only get it twice a week um with those deliveries so based upon that and us picking up essentially an additional seven spaces bringing the effective total up to to 44 I'm more than confident based on what
we're proposing that there will be uh sufficient parking to accommodate the demand of the project and that's I mean that's really all I I've got okay our professionals Res would you like to go first thank you Mr chairman
uh so that and and Mr taylor's testimony is exactly the what what I was trying to elicit from the applicant as far as uh the type of use that we have the the the whether they have offsetting peaks and also the uh a Dollar Tree discount store
like this does tend to have um uh more of a high turnover uh kind of patron uh it's it's not like the kind of place where you have people coming and and parking and staying for a half hour 45 minutes you might my kids might but but
most normal people are in 15 20 minutes out uh but but you do you do get and then also the the restaurants again similar kind of thing because you have a smaller restaurant a lot of them are are are more quicker turnover kind of restaurants so I I tend to agree that uh
given that type of synergy and also the modifications that um Councilman Dealma and and Vina have come up with um I think the that that would sort of lend lend itself to to this and also one other thing we should add is that the
the applicant from a technical standpoint does get a 2 to1 credit for the EV so so you'll have that extra space as well although although it doesn't really exist on paper it will um so I I don't have any questions uh for the for the applicants witness um
but but I do um agree with uh the testimony in in principle okay thank you um Vina would you like to well actually um Rakkesh said it all and
um the one thing I was I was discussing with Rakkesh even before uh the traffic expert came to testify is if you think about it originally the application required 107 parking
spaces it has reduced now the parking requirement has reduced to 80 parking spaces which means your parking requirement has gone down by uh 27 spaces
with the proposed parking 41 were proposed and now you have 37 but with the six or seven spaces that are being added you really have more parking that was originally proposed and
I have to say this when I originally um reviewed this application I wasn't smarter uh over the years learning from Rakkesh from Deanna um uh I I started analyzing parking a little differently
so uh if it was an application a new application that would have uh been filed I would have done my homework and worked on the IT standards because that's the norm we follow now but because this application was approved a
it was filed in 2019 and I never really got involved much into the parking calculations it was uh the traffic expert who would analyze it i never commented i took that memo and started working off so my apologies but I think
um I do agree with the IT numbers i think uh if you look at the whole scenario the the parking requirement has reduced with the four tandem parking spaces and the parking spaces in the striped area I think there should be
adequate amount of parking okay thank you u anybody in this side comments I mean I don't agree with the statistics that they give I I think once hitting the spots I think that gives a lot of relief to what it is 27 spots
would not do it here i can guarantee that so no but I'm just saying based off of that but I think bas like getting those those extra spaces I think that allows one getting the employees onto the side of that building for for Dollar Tree will greatly help because now
you're freeing up four or five spots right so while as folks are shopping uh and then as the restaurants come in there's probably going to be an overlap at some point where probably about that 8:00 time frame seems when people want to run out for something for their kids
for school at least that's what happens in my house someone run to Dollar Tree we need something for a project that's due tomorrow um that there will be some overlap that'll that'll crowd it but I just think that you guys seem to be amendable to to get it probably also
save some construction cost you don't have to add that extra curbing if we could do that but I think that allows for that those couple extra spots plus the employee parking will will satisfy at least what what my concerns were i I do have a question um what was the
calculation that you had for the restaurant was it a total of 12 parking spots yes so based upon the IT number um it projects 8.9 per thousand square feet right and that translates into
11.19 or 12 spaces so we'll use the number 12 uh as a talking point we we would expect to have maybe three or four employees could it be a 1:1 ratio with vehicles there you typically aren't going to see that you're going to see
some utilization of mass transit along the the bus line along Route 18 um worst case scenario so okay you want to say yeah the worst case scenario two to three spaces like that correct so so we're looking at the best case scenario is 12 and four is 16 well no no no no
the numbers it quotes includes employees as well as customers it so the reason that is right it is based on data presented by transportation engineers such as myself i would go count uh the local pizza joint i'm counting the number of cars in the spaces and I know
the square footage of the building but I don't know whether it's an employee or a customer parked there i just know that there are 12 cars parked so all the number that it give us incorporates both every every user that would be on the site for that use whether it's an
employee or a customer so we can say perhaps now three to four employees and eight to nine yep nine that's correct so if we have 36 seats yep what's the ratio of vehicles to occupants is it Yeah 2 to
one so your ordinance contemplates a 3 to one one per three seats when you look at uh a restaurant right right so now you're saying on average there's three you know I mean I go out to eat I'm a family of four right but maybe there's a family of two or a single person coming in so what we see is about one per three
so that translates into 12 correct for the occupants without the employees which is 15 so now you're 16 which exceeds the original 12 that we may have calculated for i think that's the formula I'm trying to
figure out if we have potentially 36 occupants and we've got a now a 1:3 ratio so I've got 12 vehicles for those patrons and I've got four workers there now I'm up to 16 i'm over the 12 count
that we calculated using the IT calculations so where I'm going is it sounds like we need to add the additional spaces to be compliant just applying logic forget about the formulas sorry I have a hard time putting down
the formulas because I live and breathe every day i agree but you see where I'm heading i do I I think the 16 that you've got over there right and then if we were to take Dollar Tree as a discount store that we're talking about for it numbers it's another 16 we're at 32 we are now up to what
37 40 44 I think between 43 and 45 depending on how it all so I think there's it does it builds that buffer and that little factor of safety in there on when you're going to have the overlap between the two uses um I I think it's a great idea
that's all I have thank you okay and yeah I I just have a question i know we keep talking about the big trailers that are going to come between 5 and 7 what time are the box trucks coming it's not 5 and 7 no they have uh
because I mean if we're taking those parking spots the island everything away they still have to come in pull up and back in so there there's two solutions to that one it the box truck doesn't need nearly the swing area that the tractor trailer
does to get in and out correct they still have to pull up and back in right they do have to potentially back into that area but they also don't need the depth that the tractor trailer needs as well so if we have the ability let's eas the employee spaces that we're talking about no no I understand but I'm
saying where is then the box truck has the ability to come in and stage in this area right along the edge in front of the parked cars so the parked cars could be there while the box truck deliveries is taking place so where's the entrance where all the supplies are going to go into the store into uh Dollar Tree and
to the restaurant are they going to go through the front door with the box trucks they're going to go through the restaurant is absolutely going to go through the front door the loading dock on the loading area on this side is anticipated for the Dollar General similar to the last application the small box truck food deliveries that the
restaurants get in would most likely stage either in a parking space out front um or in the aisle in the morning before the the peak uh happens for the whole place and they they go in through the front door of the restaurant anything further Carrie
ed you're next i have a different idea i propose that you lease spaces from the Dunkin Donuts for the employees at least six spaces and make that part of this contingency uh so that there wouldn't be
you wouldn't need those those spaces you'd be added to for uh regular uh shopping people though lease the spaces from Dunkin Donuts yeah uh I I understand your comment unfortunately we can't as a board require them as a
condition of approval to lease spaces from a site that's not subject to the application that's outside the application so if they did that on their own that's fine but we as a board can't require that as a condition of approval anyone else well
uh originally the last time you got your approval I I wasn't happy then about the parking spots uh being less than half and like Vina said it started out over 100 at one point and uh got down to 80
and but anything you could squeeze out of the site I'd be happy with so uh thank you for your testimony uh now I have to open up to the public seeing no hands close the public portion
thank you very much thank you thank you uh so we're going to call our our third witness which is our architect just to touch on the signage and um the the exterior facade of the building would you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth and could you please just state and spell your name for the record sure william Cohen A it's C O H E N thank you mr cohen can you please provide your qualifications for the board oh sure i have a bachelor and masters of
architecture from University New Orleans Louisiana i am a a nationally licensed by ENARB i have I'm active in six states right now New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Connecticut Georgia and Florida i have been doing this for over 30 years
believe it or not and uh I've personally uh overseen over a billion dollars in construction to date okay very good you're accepted thank you um so uh Mr cohen if you could just touch on two things one is the side uh the signs themselves and then the exterior facade
of the building sure you can hear me as far as Let's take the second question first as far as the uh new treatments of the exterior um the the foot first of all the footprint of the building has as previously testified is
fairly remained consistent with what was previously submitted the only thing that we did do on the north elevation which in plan view would actually be towards the bottom of the sheet there was originally a little bit of an offset um the layout now is consistent in one
continuous plane along that elevation uh which gained us a net I believe 139 square feet was what it was previously testified to um as far as the exterior treatments if you want to go back to the elevations uh again the overall shell of the
building did remain fairly consistent it's a concrete block construction uh we've revamped the northern elevation which is the front of the building um it is now mostly consistent of split face rock uh 8-in concrete block with the
center treatment being an ephus or stucco type treatment uh the general height or the parapit height has remained consistent as well with the exception of we did uh as you see on the uh top of the sheet we did add an arched
um what's called paraped or bulkhead area which would be consistent with uh Dollar Tree's aesthetic um which comes just under the 30 foot mark which is what's allowable this zone as far as the signage now since it's only a two tenant building and as
previously testified to it will be Dollar Tree and a future uh assembly in A2 um tenant restaurant um Dollar where it says tenant letter A that would be consistent with Dollar Tree's logo um
and then the second one on the left would be a future tenant which is undetermined at this time we have no further direct okay thank you um professionals i don't have anything for this witness mr
vina do you agree to work with me uh or during compliance reviews with some some tweaks to the architectural only because we have some recent buildings that were approved along the um along the highway
and uh there are some like specific materials that we would like to see would you be willing to work with me you want to discuss them now for a few minutes at least to give us a heads up of what you're No I think as I mean it's a standard that when we go through the compliance plans I work with the
architect and we finalize it be happy to meet with you sure thank you on my right any other questions comments for this witness okay that's what we were going for uh anybody on my left our goal
okay go ahead you said something about outside seating correct where would that be that was in the previous That was in the previous application as well if you look on the upper left I'm sorry the second drawing from the
top i'm sorry yes no no go back i'm sorry same sheet the second elevation the second detail that would if you're looking at the top drawing it's the far left side is the restaurant and the second drawing is that side elevation there'll be a pair
of uh storefront doors which lead to a concrete pad and as previously testified there'll be seating for eight patrons are you done Ed okay anybody else go ahead MCEL go ahead yes sorry um on the next if you
I turn oh I gotta get close to it sorry yeah if you scroll down it looks like if those tables are are twoozies then we got like 16 seating for 16 outdoors i don't know if it's just a rendition or just a rendition there's as previously testified and testified by myself we are
seeking seating for eight people okay yeah do you have any kind of idea what kind of restaurant i mean is it like a fast food thing i just draw pretty pictures i have not have nothing to do with the real estate component a donut thing a fast food thing what kind we
don't have any proposed tenant at this time you had one we'd be appreciative if you can introduce us maybe you'll get part of the deal okay okay i'm just curious those back u the back of the building the four doors is there going to be a sidewalk around
that whole building there is a sidewalk proposed yes on the that's just for emergency eress okay i want to hold back yes okay thank you um okay we're going to open up to the public again seeing no hands thank you very much thank you very much thank you
and uh last but not least we'll have our planner Mr flynn who's patiently waited hello uh would you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do can you please just state and spell your name
for the record yeah matthew Flynn F L YN thank you uh Mr flynn could you please provide your qualifications for the board yeah I have my education from uh Ruckers i have my master's degree in planning and public policy i have my professional planners license in the state as well as my national license
which is the AICP license i testified before this board in 2023 for the Outback as well as over a hundred other boards across the state okay thank you you're accepted thank you take it away so I'll just I'm going to try to be as
brief as the last witness uh essentially this is a refinement of the uh prior approval now we do have a defined user of that space being the dollar tree i think at this point the board has asked all the right questions in regards to that new user the operations the parking the circulation
um really what comes into play with having this defined end user um and a better sense of what's going on with the space and how it's being used in terms of the relief being sought really I would say none of it constitutes a substantial departure from what was
already approved in 2021 again it's really just a refinement of what was already approved in fact several of the variances are actually improvements uh like your parking variants that we just talked about so just to run through those again the rear setback again
that's a very slight improvement over what was approved in 2021 uh parking stall size as testified by our engineer the number of parking spaces again that's a um a substantial improvement I would say from the original approval
whereas we had a 59 space deficit in 2021 and now we're seeking a deficit of only 43 spaces um the EV station in the front setback being less than 10 ft similarly the mechanical equipment in the front yard um I would say both of
those are really the result of the layout that was approved in 2021 here we have the parking situation that was approved then and we're really working with with that approval um and finally the trash enclosure setback we're proposing uh 6 feet and 9.5 ft whereas
50 feet is what's uh required again that's another improvement over the existing or over the approved uh application where 2.3 feet was approved in 2021 um I would note that this well I'll get into the uh design waiverss
real quick uh parking the side setback for the parking 4.7 ft whereas we need five feet so a dimminimous uh deviation there and then the driveway width exceeding 20 ft and there's already been substantial testimony on that um I would
note that that parking setback of 4.7 ft is essentially where that trash enclosure that was 2.3 feet was proposed so we are actually pulling this development away from that setback line um I won't go through this list of
the previously approved variances since we're not changing those um so really just to tie it all together I think we can look again to the C2 test the benefits of the application substantially outweigh any detriments um the board found that the C2 test was met
in 2021 we looked at purpose A promotion of the general welfare this is a permitted use in the zone uh bringing underutilized space uh to functional use that's in accordance with the uh CC zone requirements purpose G variety of uses
in appropriate locations this is a main corridor as the board knows and again affffectuating the purposes of the CC zone which wants uh retail and restaurants uh on properties in the zone uh purpose I desirable visual environment i would say despite the fact
that we do need that setback relief we saw I think in one of the earlier exhibits that we do have that wooded area that's in actually an environmentally protected zone um relative to that side setback to the right on that uh image on the screen
there and from a massing standpoint we are substantially compliant which I'll get to in just a second uh purpose m efficient use of land i would say this doesn't represent overdevelopment or underdevelopment it's really an appropriate use of the space um so lastly in terms of the C2
test the negative criteria no substantial detriment to the public or to the zone i looked at zone conformance uh we comply with front setback side setback building height landscaped area ratio as well as F floor area ratio so
really alto together um this really is a building that's substantially in keeping with the massing that is uh contemplated per zoning the board did find an element of the C1 hardship test at the prior hearing whereas the relief relates to an undersized lot and a irregularly shaped
lot we could comply for example with that rear setback if we proposed an awkward diamond shaped building that was more uh corresponding with the with the lot shape but again I think some of the relief is related to some of those unique site
conditions uh so again I'm trying to be brief but in conclusion I would say that what we're proposing here is substantially appropriate and in keeping with the 2021 approval and I would say approval of this refined application is warranted
so that's all I got okay thank you Matthew um okay I guess this would be Venus i don't have any questions oh okay rakkesh I'm good okay am I right
question am I left go ahead Ed um on the setbacks um there's a side uh you have 15.7 feet on one side the requirements is 50 feet it's the rear
not the side rear not the side yeah I see what is a side setback the side setback that we're proposing bear with me a second i'll pull it up here uh side setback is I think 27 feet whereas we
need 25 feet so we're compliant okay thank you am I reading that yep that's correct okay uh we have to open it to the public now again seeing no hands thank you
thank you thank you Mr flynn and uh Joe do you have anything further we have nothing further we would just uh request that the board grant the application tonight for the amended site plan approval you've heard the testimony from four of my experts um and we've
heard the comments and the concerns with regards to the parking i think that the testimony that we've provided with providing the additional parking um uh allays any of those concerns and we we would appreciate the board's approval tonight okay uh Mr chairman uh a vote in favor
of this application would be granting the amended uh major preliminary and final site plan uh um application with the requested uh C variance and design waiverss uh the applicant uh will be uh as part of the conditions of approval will be required to comply with the uh
conditions of the original approval as unless otherwise modified by the testimony and approval granted by this board uh they would be uh as as testified they would be uh in compliance uh or agreeing to comply with all of the um comments with the uh set forth in the
board's uh professional report dated April 24th and we'll work with the board to make sure compliance with the same uh the uh applicant also agreed uh to um require uh the trash enclosure uh
excuse me the trash pickup uh to be done during off- peak hours and we include that in the lease agreement with its tenants um the applicant after um uh extensive discussion with the board agreed to modify its plans to uh
include uh uh an additional parking space uh excuse me I'm just looking for my notes here um uh to adjust where the striped area is and the um the curbing area uh where the truck uh maneuvering into the loading space to potentially
add two spaces near where the striped area is in one space uh along the building as well as requesting relief for tandem parking uh for use in the uh loading area when not being utilized in the loading uh by loading during the
off- peak hours for employee parking only which would increase the parking to approximately 44 uh spaces uh being provided um I guess on that point and I I think maybe we should have a little discussion on this if it turns out the
engineer cannot provide those spaces at least the the two spaces and the one spaces that we um agreed to and that this is why I'm raising a question to the board and the board professionals would that then trigger them to come back to the board um for further board retrained jurisdiction and they can come
back to board for further testimony um that's my thought on it so that way it's not that you're starting over but you have to come back before the board uh to to explain how okay we have no to not go into further depth but it's if if we're all in agreement then we'll deal with
that um the board the applicant will work with the board professionals uh with regard to the final architectural design during uh compliance review and that is what I have
thank you uh before we uh go for a motion uh does anybody have any last comments go ahead yes just wondering if the you said roughly 20 oh uh well the the we didn't get
actually a final I think that was kind of just left out in advance we didn't get to a final um discussion or agreement with the applicant on that uh and it's up to the board whether they would impose it even if the applicant didn't agree to it but I guess that we should open that up thank you for bringing that back up i missed that one can I just ask so right now what what is
the what is the request for the request is for 30 38 with the outsour outdoor with the outdoor okay and you were 20 28 or so so 28
20 inside eight outside 37 versus well 38 versus 28 excuse me 30 outside that's So I think if the applicant would be So I think if it's 32 it would be eight
outside and 24 inside i think my client can agree to that all right so what was the the final agreement so it's 32 spaces 32 seats with 24 inside and eight outside and that is what um is being agreed to by
the applicant would be included in the uh board's vote if it votes in favor of the application one more second please y we're okay okay so that that is the uh vote being presented by the board if the board acts in favor of the application
okay again before we go for v vote does any have last comments no this side they thanks um thank you guys for being amendable to some of the changes we normally don't go through this many changes in an application um
but I I do appreciate you guys working with us on both the parking as well as the the restaurant space myself i I I hope you can squeeze as much out of the parking lot as you can uh so uh do I have a a motion i'll move
it if I Gary who got second gary mr dama yes mr egopian yes miss Canon yes mr rena yes mr petty yes yes miss Misella yes mr brennan yes mr ferrara
yes chairman Lauer yes thank you Chairman members of the board we do appreciate your time tonight thank you now we can open up to public and we we're going to open up to the public for any
comments any comments from public see no hands close the public portion need a motion to to adjurnn move it second second
all in favor i I