Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The Skyaway Township Board uh planning board meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News. Notice posted on the bulletin
board of the municipal building. Notice made available to the township clerk. Notice sent to the Courier News and the Star Ledger. Miss Buckley, would you please call the role? >> Mayor Waller, >> present. >> Councilwoman Cahillo, >> here. >> Miss Corkran, >> here. >> Miss Saunders,
>> here. >> Reverend Kenny, >> present. >> Mr. Atkins, >> here. >> Did Mr. Foster make it? >> Nope. Uh, Mr. Mr. Ahmed, >> Mr. Aaria
>> here. >> And Madam Chair, >> present. Um, Mr. Barlo, could you read the open public meeting notice? >> Certainly, Madam Chair. In keeping with the guidelines that have been disseminated by the Department of Community Affairs playing board has
tried its best to comply with the open public meeting act. In addition, the applicant whose matter will matters will be heard this evening had the login information for the online meeting platform put forth in their notice. Members of the public who wish to be heard will be afforded an opportunity as
if they were an actual physical space. Um we've complied with the guidelines and the open public meeting act. Madam chair, >> thank you. Roll call, please. >> We did that. >> Oh, we did the roll call. >> Yes. I remember saying here. Okay.
Over my road right shoulder is the uh flag. Can we all recite the pledge of allegiance in union unison, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag >> of the of the United States of America and to the to the republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Can we have the swearing in of the professionals? Can you please raise your right hand? See,
>> Carol, I got it right here. >> He's waving. >> Okay. Um, do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um, are there any changes to our agenda tonight, Mr. Barlo?
>> Madam Chair, none that I'm aware of. We have two matters on for this evening. Thank you. Uh, may I have a motion to pay the duly audited bills? >> Reverend Kenny, I make a motion to pay the duly a ordered bills. >> Do we have a second? >> Carol Saunders, second.
>> Roll call, please. >> Mayor Waller, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Cahill, >> yes. >> Miss Corkran, >> yes. >> Miss Saunders, >> yes. >> Reverend Kenny, >> yes. >> Mr. Atkins, >> yes. >> Mr. Earia, >> yes. >> And Madame Chair,
>> yes. Do we have a resolution to memorialize tonight from the January 14th meeting? >> None. >> None. >> Thank you. Um, do we have minutes to adopt tonight? >> Yes,
>> Madam Chair. Um, Carol Soners, I'd like to moralize the minutes from the regular meeting of January 14th, 2026. >> Do we have a second? >> Rey, I'll second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mayor Waller, >> yes. Councilwoman Cahillo, >> yes.
>> Miss Corkran, >> yes. >> Miss Saunders, >> yes. >> Reverend Kenny, >> yes. >> Mr. Atkins, >> yes. >> Mr. Foster, >> yes. >> Mr. Foster is here. Uh, Mr. Etchavaria, >> yes. >> And Madame Chair,
>> yes. Item number 1025 PB19/20 V and Victor 51 Holly Road Associates for a minor subdivision in bulk variance. Mr. Lavender is a >> Thank you, Madam Chair and board members and professionals. Thank you all very
much for having us this evening. Uh, as you stated, my clients 51 Holly Road Associates. The property uh issue is four Seymour Terrace. It's in the R10 district and it's currently at a single lot and my client proposes to subdivide
the existing track into two lots. Um, the one lot, the first lot that would be subdivided is fully conforming. The second lot would require variance for uh lot width and frontage. And um there are some existing bulk variances. Uh again,
they already exist. Um and I have one professional uh witness tonight, Mr. Angela Valtud, who's both an engineer and a planner. Um and with the the board's permission, I'd like to have him sworn in. And um I will give him my seat and I will take his seat behind me.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Hello. Um, >> I don't know how to sit your >> I don't know how to stand up or >> Okay. Do you the testimony about to give me the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Your name for the record?
>> Sure. The name for the record is Angelo, middle initial J. Last name Valatudo. B A L E T U T O U uh 424 Amboy Avenue in Woodbridge. I'm a licensed professional engineer, a licensed professional
planner in the state of New Jersey. Both licenses are still in good standing and I've had the honor and pleasure of appearing before your board probably close to 40 years. >> Thank you, sir. Your credentials are acceptable to us for testimony as an as
a as an expert both fields. Thank you, ma'am. Uh, as as Mr. Lavender indicated, we're here to seeing what we believe to be a a fairly simple application for a minor subdivision. As he's indicated, it's
right now lot that's over 22,000 uh square feet. It has an existing dwelling of three bedrooms fronting on Seymour Terrace. The property as it exists now is a corner lot. Its other
frontage is along Wade Street and the application is to subdivide to create a second lot with just frontage on Wade Street in which it'll be fully conforming in lot width, lot area, and
lot depth and frontage. However, we are not seeking any development at this time. However, with the board's approval, our application is to seek that this building or this property,
excuse me, the new lot will be a fully conforming use for the uh zone being single family and we envision it to have three bedrooms, which is what the existing dwelling has. that will be
still uh performing in terms of most of the items except as Mr. Lavender indicated with regard to lot width where we'll be at 9969T versus 100 required and a frontage of a
similar 99.69 where 100 is required. Uh and the other items we receive reports from both the zoning officer and the board planner and we can comply and already the applicant
has already removed the fence and remove the shed which were two items that were in the zoning report. Um and we agree should we re hopefully receive the benefit of the approval this evening to show on a revised plan the fact that
both items the shed and the fencing that was nonconforming for the zone were removed. Uh in addition, we can comply in total with the board planners report. Uh and the one item uh is to show an
entry with regard to lot frontage and again at that same number 9969 and uh changed what I had shown as two side yards to make the one frontage on the existing dwelling that fronts on
Seymour to use that behind it as its rear yard and that dimension would be 37.1 ft. um at its closest which is in excess of the 25 feet. So that as it stands now the only variance would be
with regard to lot frontage and lot width where we are 31 which comes out with just under 4 in of 3.72 to be precise. Um, from a
planning standpoint, I suggest or offer that we can provide it as a C1 hardship, which as the board is aware to show that of pecular peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties due to
exceptional and undue hardships upon the applicant arising out of the exceptional narrowness, shallowess, shape, or specific piece of property. And it's with that specific piece of property I'm offering that we do not to have we do
not have the ability to expand the property in both width and frontage to give us the exact 100 because we are a corner lot. So that's right into a public rideway. And then the lot immediately adjoining us is not only
fully developed but it is already at the minimum of 100 ft. So that we do not have the ability to um increase our width without causing a domino effect and creating other variances that uh we
believe can be addressed uh this evening. It is an existing condition. We're not making it any worse. And that >> less than 4 in, right? >> Yeah. And like I said, 3.72 in um >> that that's the difference. I mean
that's really >> yeah that's how much we're that's how much we're missing. So um >> for all practical purposes it it meets it but for three >> yeah it's a dimminimous but again I was asked to keep it as tight as possible.
Obviously, if there's any questions from the board or its professionals or the public, we'll be happy to answer them. But quite honestly uh we believe that uh through the efforts of the applicant who the owner who is the owner of the property uh and my office and the
guidance uh with your planner and your zoning officer I mean the first blush we didn't in we didn't install the uh optic wiring uh so we so we did that and uh
other than that I'm going to take a sip of order. And if there's any questions, Madam Chairwoman, uh, we'll be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. >> Um, members of the board, do you have any questions of this witness >> or the on this application?
>> So, you're all good with it? >> I am, Tom. They agreed to um all of the reports, so no issues. >> And same here. This this is a you know ultimately when you clean up you know the the different items um it's pretty
darn simple. >> Uh Angela one thing um this is a pretty deep lot right? >> It is. >> It is. And and part of it like the existing fence they this current owner is not using the whole lot right. So it is like a dead zone of like 30 feet
right? >> Yeah pretty much. If um let me pull my plan out. Ron. >> Well well since Mr. Lavender was leading the witness. I'm leading the witness, too. This is not an efficient This is not an efficient use of land. I mean, you've got like 30 ft that does nothing.
So, by doing the subdivision, it's more in context with with the area. I I mean, I I was in this area. Forgive me, I didn't go during this uh uh cold spell. It felt like it was a North Pole, but I remember it from the swim club, which is only a block away. So, by moving this
now, you're going to have something that's more in context in my opinion. But, you know, if you want to confirm that you agree, that's that that's fine. >> No. And then and like I said, I had drafted and put together a fairly lengthy and I know you have a items
beyond us this evening that may not be as simple, but you're 100% correct. The existing fence that establishes the rear yard coming from Seymour is right at the point that we're doing the subdivision. So, it's the only use of that portion
was the shed that we're removing or has been removed already. >> Okay, that that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> I'll open it up to the public for any questions. Members of the public, we've heard the testimony of this witness regarding this application. Does anyone
in the public have any questions that they would like to ask this witness? >> You can raise your hand or unmute. No one. >> Thank you. Close to the public. If there are no more any questions,
would someone like to pose a motion for this application? >> Madam Chair, uh Doran Corkin, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the application subject to the um CME report and staff report. >> Madame Chair, I will second that.
Councilwoman Cahill. >> Thank you. Roll call, please. >> Mayor Waller, >> yes. Councilwoman Cahill. >> Yes. >> Miss Corkran. >> Are you Are you muted, Miss Corkran? >> I think we lost her. >> I think she dropped. >> Yeah. >> Have to wait for her to come back. Yeah,
because all of a sudden Carol showed up right in and I can finish the roll call though. Miss >> finish the roll call and she'll see if she's back. >> Reverend Kenny. >> Yes. >> Mr. Atkins. >> Yes. >> Mr. Foster. >> Yes. Mr. Edaria.
>> Yes. >> And Madame Chair. >> Yes. >> Thank you guys. Thank you all very much. >> Thank you very much. >> There she is. She's back. >> Go. What's your vote? >> I apologize. Yes. >> Yes. On the motion. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you all. Tom, good to see you. Bye bye everybody. >> I just figured the cat hit your tablet or something and >> Okay. Item number >> item number 11 25 PB178 Vas and Victor KRCX
Price and Price Reach LLC for a preliminary and final site plan the bulk variance. Um those appearing for this application. >> Good evening madam chair. My name is Danielle Kimbeck, attorney at Prime
Touvel Misselli on behalf of the applicant. >> Thank you, Miss Kinbeck. >> Thank you. Um, so as the chair indicated, the application is by KRCX Price Re LLC, who is the owner of the shopping center known as Piscatoaway
Town Center located at 1280 Centennial Avenue. Uh, it's also identified as block 5601, lot 1.02 on the township tax map. The property is approximately 9.57 acres and improved with a large shopping center building and one pad site. The
application before you tonight for preliminary and final site plan with bulk variance and design waiver relief is seeking approval to convert the existing 2553 square foot bank building on the property which has been vacant for a number of years into a dunking coffee
shop with drive-thru. You'll hear there are a number of variances being requested with the application and may have seen them in your review letters, although many of them are related to existing non-conforming conditions on the property that are not being altered by the application. Um, you'll hear our
professionals testify to them. Predominantly the new relief that is associated with the improvements we're making to convert the bank to the Duncan, excuse me, um is a slight reduction in the parking count, sign variances, and relief from buffering the loading area
for the Duncan use. Um prior to the hearing tonight, we did have a pre-application meeting with the township as well as a workshop meeting with the board professionals. So, we worked to address those comments um and concerns before we came before you tonight.
For the record, uh, we published the our public notice was published in the corer news on January 30th, 2026. It was also mailed to all property owners within 200 feet on January 30th, 2026. So, I submit that the board has jurisdiction to hear the application.
>> I would concur. >> Thank you, Mr. Marlo. Um, so we plan to present the testimony of three witnesses. Our civil engineer, Mr. Richard Ortiz, our traffic engineer, Craig Pariggoy, and our professional planner, Justin Oiello. Um, so if it pleases the board, we can have our first
witness sworn, and that would be Mr. Ortiz. >> Mr. Ortiz, can you please >> can you please raise your right hand? >> Do you swear that testimony about to give away the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Can you uh please spell your
last name for the record? >> Sure. It's O R T I Z. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. Can you provide the board with your professional and educational background? >> Sure thing. So, I graduated with a bachelor of science and civil engineering from Ruckers University in
2019. Uh, I am a principal with dynamic engineering consultants with over six years of design experience for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. Uh during my experience, I've worked on over 50 small to medium-siz commercial developments similar to this project. Uh and I am a licensed
professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Uh my license is in good standing and I have previously been qualified as an expert in the field of civil engineering. >> Does the board have any questions on Mr. Ortiz's qualifications? >> No, we have no questions. You may proceed.
>> Thank you. >> Mr. Mr. Ortiz, do you want to pull up an exhibit or um describe the existing conditions and surrounding area of the property subject to the application? >> I do. So, I'm going to just share my screen here. >> Sure. Miss Kinvach, unless he I if any
of the exhibits that are being shared are not the specific plans that were submitted and have any yellow highlighting or blue marks on them like this one, we'll just mark them as A1, A2, and just keep going. Okay.
>> Okay, that sounds good. So, um we'll mark this one A1. And Mr. Ortiz, you want to describe the exhibit for the record? >> Sure. So this is the aerial map exhibit dated 211 2026 uh prepared by dynamic engineering.
>> Thank you. >> All right. So with that um this as Danielle had mentioned the site is a previously or an existing shopping center located at the intersection of Centennial Avenue and South Washington Avenue um within the shopping center
zone. Uh the existing development does >> does have access to the site. from Centennial Avenue being via a via signalized intersection. Um, and there is a right in right out access along South Washington Avenue here where you
can see my cursor. Um, to the north of the property there you can see there's a wooded area as well as some additional commercial properties all within the same SC zone. Uh, to the east we have more wooded area with additional commercial properties be beyond again
within that same SC zone. Um, and to the south is a wooded area that does include an off-site stream. Uh, the properties beyond that uh area are located within the R20 zone, mainly undeveloped in this portion of the of the uh of the area. Uh, and you can see this is an
industrial warehouse uh located to the southwest. To the west is South Washington Avenue, again with some more industrial and office uses. Uh, those are located within the LI5 zone. Uh, as Danielle had mentioned, zooming into the site, uh, one of the existing buildings
is a larger, uh, plus or minus 9.5,000 square foot, uh, retail building, and the other is the smaller 2553t former bank with a drive-thru. Uh, generally the project area is focused on this on the northwest region of the
property. Uh, as we are converting that bank from a bank to a Duncan. Uh, moving along to the next exhibit that I think we can enter as A2. Uh, once it loads, you can see this is the Duncan location map exhibit dated 211 2026, also
prepared by Dynamic Engineering. Uh we just wanted to note for the record um that the plan is for this existing Duncan that's located at the intersection of Centennial Avenue and Stelton Road, which does not presently have a drive-through lane, to be relocated to this new site, uh which is
the subject property. Uh we just wanted to document that so that that that was, you know, aware to the board. Moving along, this is the overall site plan exhibit. We do have a similar sheet within the site plan set that was submitted. However, this one has been modified slightly to update the notes
based on comments received from the township uh professionals. So, this is the overall site plan exhibit dated 211 2026 uh prepared by dynamic engineering. Uh and I think we can enter this one as A3. Uh the the purpose of having this
overall view up is to go over some of those existing non-conforming conditions that Danielle had mentioned. Um most of those are captured with the within the review letter issued by CME. uh and a a large majority of them will remain unchanged as part of the project. Uh a
few of those include the minimum lot area. Uh overall the minimum lot area requirement in the SC zone is 10 acres. We're just short of that at at about 9.6 acres. Uh but otherwise the site frontage, the lot width, and the lot depth do comply with the zone
requirements. uh the existing building footprints exceed the maximum building coverage uh requirement of 20%. Uh under under existing conditions the percentage is 25.3%. That is not going to change as part of this application. Uh when you zoom into
the center of the site there is an an existing clock tower located at the approximate center of the larger building. Uh that clock tower is at plus or minus 60 ft in height and does exceed the 20 foot height requirement for accessory structures. Uh we did identify
in a prior resolution that's you know part of the property history that that clock tower was approved at 60 ft uh with a prior requirement of 50 ft. Uh that's remaining unchanged as most of the project is focused on the northwest corner of the site.
Sticking with the buildings, the front and rear yard setbacks for both buildings do not fully comply with the minimum setback requirements. Uh again a majority of these remain unchanged with the exception of one of the setback requirements which is related to the existing canopy of the bank. That
setback is going to be improved from 75 77.5 uh 5 ft to 99.4 ft as part of the project. Um behind the property or towards the rear of the property there are two existing trash enclosures. One up here in the northeast portion and one
out one down here in the southwest portion. Uh those do not comply with the minimum setback requirements, but um given the adjacent off-site wooded areas which are uh you know undeveloped at the moment, they are substantially buffered. Um moving to the parking lot, uh in
general, the parking lot does not comply with front or rear yard setbacks. Uh but there is a substantial burm along the front the property frontage and and decent uh landscaping that we believe uh sufficiently buffers the parking area while also maintaining visibility of the
shopping center from the roadway. Um sticking with the parking lot, uh it does not fully satisfy the minimum number of required trees, although it does have substantial trees along the frontage and wide landscape islands within the center of the site that do
have trees placed within them. um comparing this you know to the adjacent developments in the area it seems to be you know a bit more than what's what's seen elsewhere along the same corridor. So again in the respect of maintaining visibility to the interior of the site uh we don't plan to supplement uh those
trees with additional trees. However, we did prepare and submit a proposed landscape design for this area of the site uh that you know to accommodate the new site improvements uh throughout the site mainly along the rear of the uh exist larger existing building. There
are a few instances of substandard parking stall dimensions and drive aisle widths. Um a majority of those are located along the rear of the building uh mainly in areas which would be frequented by employees who would be familiar with those conditions. So we're not too concerned about those resulting
in an unsafe condition just given that they won't be, you know, primarily used by by customers who are unfamiliar with the site. Related to the main site access points uh along Centennial Avenue and South Washington Avenue, those do exceed the
maximum width requirements of 35 ft, mainly due to their design and layout. Um, as previously mentioned, the Centennial Axis is part of a signalized intersection, so that leads to a larger width. Um, you know, it's it's a great access to the to the site and and promotes uh success of the site by
allowing full movement along Centennial Avenue. Uh, and similarly along South Washington Avenue, if I zoom in here, this uh driveway is restricted to right in and right out movements. Uh, so because of this pork chop, this concrete apron that's in the middle of the
driveway, that leads to a wider width. Um and finally uh the the last of you know the the list of existing non-conforming conditions relates to the two freestanding ID signs. One here near the main inter intersection that the site is
adjacent to and then one down in this area. Um those do not meet the minimum setback requirement of 50 ft. Uh they're at about 17 feet and 25 ft respectively. uh but they do fit in well with the existing landscaping and uh serve to identify the overall development without
specifically identifying tenants. So they they you know those will stay un unchanged as part of this project as we don't propose to add any dunkage Duncan signage to those uh to those existing signs. >> Thank you Rich. I know it was a lot of
pre-existing conditions to walk through. I think in um Mr. Reinhardt's letter. Uh there was two more listed associated with the parking lot as distance from the residential zone and apologize if you covered that. Um and maximum amount
of parking in the front yard area. >> Correct. Thanks for thanks for catching me there. So um the front yard area um we conservatively took that to mean this area between the main uh site frontage and the front of the larger building.
So, as you can see that we, you know, the existing shopping center does exceed that 50% requirement. Um, however, you know, it's it's mainly due to efficiency. It's it's the most efficient way to park a site is outside in um with your building towards the back. Um, so
that's that's mainly the reason why that's been laid out that way. Uh, obviously given the minimal scope of work we're we're looking to do here, that condition is is is to proposed to remain unchanged. Uh, and then as it relates to the residential zone, I will shift back
to the aerial map exhibit. I believe that relates to the rear of the site. If this loads, so as I previously mentioned, there there is a stream offsite here that that does basically run along the back of the property. Um, given that stream is there and and you
know, and this area is presently undeveloped, um, we don't expect that development will will really ever take place there. So the the parking that is along the property line here should be substantially buffered from any future residential development that may take place a bit further south.
>> Danielle, were there any others that I may have missed? No, I think uh we covered all of them and the remaining ones will be addressed uh in explaining the uh the site improvements and proposed conditions. >> Sure. So with that, I'll move into the
proposed conditions. This here on the screen is the site plan exhibit rendering. >> Madam Chair, if I could just interrupt for one second. I just for clarification, um the property to the due south is the Ambrose Dodie Brook uh County Parkland. So that will not be developed. There is
another parcel after that that was approved for a storage facility. Uh but everything else is all part of the parkland just for the record. Okay. >> The mayor read my minds. I was going to say it's a park. So we're good. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. So this is the site plan exhibit rendering uh dated 2112026 and also prepared by dynamic engineering. Uh this is basically a colorized uh rendered version of the
site plan that was submitted. Uh >> and for the record this will be A4. >> Oh correct. Thank you. Um again this is a rendered version of the site plan that was submitted with the lands the proposed landscape design superimposed. Uh we did along the
property frontage show trees based on existing conditions but and most of the proposed plantings are generally in this area around the building. Um the application again the application proposes to reoccupy the vacant building with a Duncan featuring a drive-thru uh
which is permitted within the zone. All proposed improvements will take place entirely within the existing uh developed limits of the site uh and actually will result in a very minor reduction of impervious coverage on site. A few key a few key proposed improvements include a redesigned
drive-through lane providing nine vehicles of stacking and a partial bypass uh which supports the Duncan standard. So that's up here. The existing bank had a stack of about four to five spaces. Duncan requires a bit more than that. So that's why this ex this is extended uh to due east. Uh
again, we did maintain a bypass lane here after the order point in case somebody wants to bail out. Um uh as a you know, an accessory to the drive-through lane. Um mainly to maintain efficient and safe circulation near the drive-through entrance, we are proposing to convert this drive aisle
that goes along the outer perimeter of the site from a two-way function to a one-way function. um that'll allow cars to basically, you know, safely maneuver past the drive-thru drive-through lane and avoid any issues with cars coming towards the drive-through lane exit. Um
with that conversion, this ex this drive-thru lane uh this drive aisle, which which has a minimum width of 24 ft, uh is below the minimum requirement of 25 ft. Again, given its one-way functionality, we don't expect this would be an issue. Um because of the
extension of this drive-through lane, uh parking is impacted because of that. Uh we are reducing the overall number of spaces by 11 spaces. Uh taking the total down from 489 to 478. Um but the layout of this design was was
uh prepared with the goal of minimizing impact to reduced parking um and also improving and maintaining safe circulation around the perimeter of the site. Um, zooming in here to the proposed drive-thru equipment, the menu board, the order canopy, and the clearance bar.
Those have those have been identified as accessory structures that fall within the 100 foot uh front yard setback. Um, again, those are located as as needed for the drive-through lane. And if we and with the way we designed the drive-through lane, if we were to locate
those within the setback, it would reduce an an additional uh it would result in additional reduced parking. So that that was one of the main goals in this layout is to avoid or minimize the impact to parking on site. Um moving away from the drive-through lane and into additional accessories for the
building, we are proposing a new 10x 20 foot masonry trash enclosure at the rear of the building. Um, refuge truck collection to this trash enclosure is anticipated to take place during off- peak hours approximate approximately two to three times per week which is consistent with the remainder of the
existing shopping center. Um, to access that trash enclosure uh there is a new sidewalk that's proposed here uh with access to the existing service door. This store will be used by employees to dispose of trash uh and also for delivery loading which is anticipated to
take place in this drive here again during off- peak hours. Uh the largest anticipated vehicle is consistent with you know what you might be used to with a Duncan. Uh it's a standard unit box truck. Um and as far as delivery delivery frequencies uh dry goods are
expected to take place once a week whereas doughnut deliveries uh typically take place daily overnight. Um, sticking with operations, uh, and regarding employees specifically, a total of 15 employees, uh, is are anticipated. Those would be split into three shifts, and
the hours of operation it is will be 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. uh, 7 days a week. Moving away from the building, you'll note here that this this area light has been relocated. Um, that's mainly because there was a landscape island here where the new drive-through
entrance will be. It's a minor shift to the lighting um that accommodates the new the new layout. Um as mentioned in the CME planning review letter, there are a few minor deviations from minimum or maximum lighting requirements which require design design waiver relief. Um
these conditions exist today and are modified slightly just due to this relocated area light uh but still represent safe lighting levels even with the minor deviations. Um, as previously mentioned, we're proposing some supplemental low-line landscaping around the drive-through
lane that's up here, down here, and then also around the building over here. Um, I had a conversation with the township landscape architect earlier today, and he noted that the proposed landscaping design uh was sufficient with no comments be beyond those that he provided in the staff staff report dated
January 20th, uh, 2026. Um, moving back to the overall site plan exhibit, I believe this was A3. Um, and primarily related to site signage, we are proposing seven new directional
signs again to promote safe circulation to the drive-through lane. Those are generally highlighted in yellow here. Um, two of which if I zoom into Centennial A, uh, two of which are located closer than the minimum 10- foot requirement, mainly because we expect
Centennial A to be the main point of access to the drive-through lane, given that's where most of the traffic enters the site. Um, we are proposing that those are 4.4t away from the property line as opposed to the minimum 10- foot uh requirement in order to uh promote
visibility of the signs. Uh beyond that, on the other side of the site at the South Washington access, there is an an additional drive-thru uh directional sign, that sign will be compliant with the minimum 10- foot setback requirement. Um and then throughout the sign, we do have another four sign uh
sorry, throughout the site, we do have another four signs that help with directing traffic effectively to the the drive-through entrance. Um other otherwise existing site utilities uh and grading and drainage patterns will largely remain unchanged given the scope
of the site work. Um in general the the proposed site improvements mainly focus on refining circulation and providing a longer drive-through stack to support the needs of the proposed use. Um, in addition, the applicant is amendable to working with the township professionals to satisfy the fiber optic line
requirement as well as other general site maintenance requirements uh that were raised in their review letters. >> Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. Um, with the lighting deviations, can you explain uh before we get in the elevations if there's any impact to adjoining property
by those deviations and how the deviations being altered by this application? >> No. So, I I wouldn't expect any any impact to the adjacent properties. I mean, if I'm if I move back to the aerial map exhibit, um there are there are some lights along the back of the
property that we did not model, we did limit our our lighting model to this area. Um but these are mainly security purposes and again with the wooded areas that are offsite that no impact to adjacent properties. Um, regarding the site frontage, uh, there is one minor
deviation of of a 6 ft handle that we've noted along the property frontage where 0.5 is is the max permitted. Minor deviation with with really no impact to adjacent properties, especially given the the lighting that would be coming from the adjacent roadways.
>> Thank you. Um, and there was an additional waiver noted in the review letter that I think um, you evaluated to find the site was conforming related to parking lot landscaping, 20% in front yard, 10% in other areas. Um, can you verify if that complies?
>> Yes, that's correct. We did run the calculations um, and had sent that a a markup that I guess documents those those measurements uh, to CME. Um, but yes, we the the existing property does comply with those those percentages.
Okay, thank you. >> So with that, the this exhibit here is the architectural colored rendering uh dated 29 2026 and prepared by GKNA architects. Um I believe >> we'll mark this A5. Um
>> and just so the board is aware, this has not previously been submitted and Mr. Ortiz will walk you through the revisions, but some of the comments we got on the workshop, we had originally proposed uh five facade signs. Um, and we revised the design and now have three
facade signs. >> Thank you, Danielle. Um, so related to building renovations, I I don't have it up on the screen, but the the interior floor floor plan will, you know, basically be reorganized to accommodate what Duncan typically prefers. Um outside of the of the building uh there
is a replacement of the bank canopy uh that will be replaced here um by a smaller canopy. The existing canopy is presently 77.5 ft set back from the property line whereas this smaller canopy is uh I think it was about 99.4t
back from the property line. Um, in addition to that, the existing ATM uh and teller window will be replaced by a brand new drive-through window based on Duncan standard. Um, and as far as the rest of the facade, you can see here, if
you know, if you're familiar with the site that we're not proposing to modify the the, you know, the look or the feel of the building, mostly to just maintain consistency with the other architecture that exists on site. Uh we are proposing, as Danielle noted, three new building mounted signs uh down from the
original five that were part of the original submitt. Um those are consistent with the three signs that the existing bank used to have. And two of these signs, mainly this one on the southern facade and this one on the northern facade, are fully compliant with the maximum allowable area
requirement. Uh the the sign that is on the western facade here which is is basically where the main entrance of the building is. Uh that sign is just over when you count the white background is just over the the maximum allowable sign area. Uh which would be 46.4 square feet
or 10% of this facade area. Um including the white area. The sign is at 54.6 square feet. when you exclude the the the white background and just focus on the text itself which is basically the sign um that area is actually smaller and compliant it's at 39.2 square feet.
So the white background is mainly provided to uh improve visibility of the sign against the existing brick color and can be seen as part of the BU building facade. Um, so with that, I mean to quickly summarize my testimony, uh, the project delivers a minimal impact improvement to
a long established shopping center by converting a vacant building into a modern Duncan with drive-thru. Again, all of the proposed work is fully contained within the existing developed areas and enhances circulation while preserving the existing character of the site. Um the the requested variances and
waiverss relate mainly to long-standing conditions or minor adjustments necessary for safe and efficient site operations really without creating any adverse impacts to the site itself or the surrounding area. Um and before before I close just touching on the the
township professional review letters. Uh the applicant has agreed to satisfy those comments and we've also received approval for the project from the township fire official and DPW. Um, and at this time I'm happy to answer any questions that may not have been addressed in my testimony. >> Madame Chair, it's Councilwoman Cahill.
I think I really just had one question. Um, if I may. >> No, go ahead. Um, Councilman Cable. >> Okay. Thank Thank you. Um, this the the company that owns this Dunkin Donuts is not affiliated with the
Dunkin Donuts that's at the corner of Centennial and Stelton. Are they the same? I'm just wondering, is one moving? >> Uh, yeah, Mr. Ortiz started his testimony um with that. The intent is for the Duncan without a drive-thru at
Centennial and Stalin to be relocated here. >> I'm sorry, I didn't catch it. my audio. >> No problem. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Kenny, >> go ahead. Re Kenny, is that you, Rean Kenny? >> Yes, it is. >> Can we take this? Can we take what you
call down? >> Sure. >> Stop sharing here. >> Re Kenny, go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one question. There is no more baking on on site uh at this Dunkin Donuts. Is there I know before they used to have baking
on site, but you said you have delivery trucks. That's bacon on on your master site and then delivered to this place. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay, that's the only question I had. Thank you. >> Any other questions from members of the
board? >> I have one a couple chair. Mayor Waller, >> does Mr. Ortiz, did you real uh know that um sometimes Applebees has car wash fundraisers on the side of their
building that stacks cars up? >> No, I I was not aware of that. Well, typically from May to October, >> they allow some of the civic organizations to have a fundraising event to have people to come in and have
their cars washed, handcar washed on the side of the building uh for fundraising purposes. And sometimes that may contribute to some of the flow of um the traffic. And the reason why I bring this up because I've been around long enough.
I I remember when Bank of America first opened and when Shopright and all the other businesses were in full swing, um the traffic flow within the parking lot was not necessarily optimal. Um I do know, you know, your plans show a different layout. However,
um I just don't want to repeat what's happening up at Starbucks up the street where they are blocking some of the uh lanes up there while they're waiting. And then if you go even further into South Planefield and Chipotle uh drive-th through lanes, uh it's always
chaotic with the whole parking. So, I just want to make sure that this is not going to be a repeat action. And I know you're going to have a um traffic expert testify, but some of these little items that is never anticipated in a traffic
report or engineering report. And I just want to make sure we don't create more. I'm not saying I'm not not in favor of this application. I just I'm just concerned that, you know, if and when Kimco gets another tenant in there uh to
the building where Shopright left, I just don't want any traffic, you know, constrictions within the within the parking lot. Even though you're you're doing a lot of uh signage to try to steer people to which way they're they're supposed to be going in the drive-through lanes.
>> Yeah, understood on the concern. Um I I think you know that's something that I'm sure Kimo would be willing to to work out and and kind of come up with a better plan for right obviously um you know they don't want to take that away from Applebee's but I think something like that like a car wash um fundraiser
typically takes place midday. The Duncan specifically would have uh peak hours during the early morning. Um, and also with the way we we've oriented the drive-through lane, the entrance is actually pointed away from from where the Applebees is. So, if there is a stacking in the Duncan, it shouldn't
conflict too much with what's going on the Applebees. Um, but as you mentioned, I mean, I'm sure my traffic engineer has some other thoughts on that, but that's that's at least the first thoughts I have. >> I I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware that was going on. I'm not suggesting that,
>> you know, they tell Applebees that they can't do it, but I just want to let you know sometimes during some Saturdays and Sundays that does happen. >> Understood. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Hi, this is Phil. Mr. Ortiz, this may be
a very nuanced question, so I apologize, but with the Dunkin Donuts that currently exist, there's no drive-thru. The one that we're adding in, is there a drive-thru? Is there any estimates on the amount of uptick in customer service that you expect from a drive-thru? Just trying to anticipate as if Shopre gets
filled, the development now has more customers, just lines that kind of break in that cause a little more traffic when people try to park. Um, I don't know if you guys have rough estimates or if that's for your other engineer. >> Uh, I can I can offer some thoughts on that. I'm sure my again my traffic
engineer has has more to add. Um, in general, the the addition of a drive-thru to a Duncan does increase the efficiency and and while it does tend to draw more customers, it does tend to work through them quicker because they're able to just fly through the
drive-thru. Um, specifically with the Duncan compared to the rest of the the site, the larger building, the biggest thing we focus on is is the difference in peak hours. Duncan is very busy. It's popping in the morning and the early morning, whereas the rest of the shopping center probably won't open
until, you know, later in the morning that 7 9:00 a.m. So, and and by that time, most of the morning commuting traffic that would pass through that Duncan has passed. So, um that that's my quick thoughts to to the question. I'm sure you know Craig's Craig's testimony
would cover more of that. Um and if not, you can ask him the question and see see what he has to say. Thank you. >> Can I can I ask council do are you do you have the operator here tonight? There's a reason I'm asking because this will clarify this. >> Uh yeah, we have a representative here
from the operator. >> Okay. The reason I ask is when it comes in into play, um I always ask the operators how much business do you get via the app versus the actual drive-thru? Because what's happening is, and I I've
done several Duncan applications, the app is almost becoming a, you know, a plurality of their business. So, what happens is it's it's people order on the app and they're going into the drive-thru to pick up, which reduces the amount of time, but I will link that up
to you to testify to. That may help Mr. Cher and his question there. >> Okay. Uh, I think a representative was here and heard heard the question. I don't know um if he can communicate with us if he has any data um on how that app
mobile ordering um impacts. So >> Miss Kinbeck, what's his name? Because I have a few attendees that didn't sign on through the link so I could give him access to speak if he >> um so I see and maybe whoever um wants to respond can raise their hand. It may be Himchu Patel or Dwar Patel.
>> Yeah, >> I see Dar Patel. Yep. Anyone who's gone through a drive-thru who has kids will tell you that that that's half your time is getting the order straight. If you order any order on the app, it's just like one and done. You come up and say, "This is my order." And you pick it up.
>> Okay. I think Mr. Hermanu had his hand raised um so he can sw to answer the question. >> Let's swear him in if he's going to be answering any questions. Sure, please. Miss Saunders, if you want to unmute. Yes, I'm unmute and I might have my
camera on. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can you please raise your right right hand, please? Do you swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Do we have his name?
>> Himman Shupel. I'm a franchisee. I'm the operator. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yes. So, uh I can answer the question regarding this. Uh you're absolutely right that uh you know since the covid era that we've been going through more of this drive-thru and you know we getting more order through the
app and uh you know these days that we are getting about 25% of our sales uh through the app. So when the when the guest place order they come by the time they come the place you know orders are ready either they come in a drive-thru or they come in the front and pick up
the orders. So, it's about 25% of the cells we get in a of a typical store. >> Thank you. >> Does it answer your question? >> It does. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Now, are there any other questions from the board members or anyone else here before we actually open it up to the public? >> Now, listen, just one statement. Uh, chair, this applicant team, they sent me um responses here. They were very
thorough. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Fine. Now, we're going to open it up to the public um to for anyone who has any questions of this previous witness. Would you indicate by waving your hand
if you have a question? >> No one, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. close to members of the public on this witness. You can call your next witness. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. My next witness is our traffic engineer, Mr. Craig Paraguay.
>> I'm here. >> Can you please raise your right hand? >> Do you swear that the testimony about the give truth to nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you please state and spell your name for the record? >> Sure. My name is Craig Paraguay. P E R E G O Y. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Paraggoy, can you provide the board with your professional and educational background? >> Sure. Uh, I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Virginia Tech. I'm a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey. Testify pretty much regularly on a nightly basis in front of planning and zoning boards. I testified here in Piscataway and I live here in
Piscatoaway. So, Mayor Waller, I uh I know about the car wash. It's going to show up more than just on the engineering plans. Um, so I'm very familiar with the area. And I miss shopright being an art side of the border. And did you say your license is current in good standing? Sorry.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> He's acceptable. >> Just one question. Are you are you with Dynamic Dynamic Engineering or do you have your own firm? >> It's Dynamic Traffic. We're affiliated with Dynamic Engineering with a traffic firm. >> Thank you. >> Sure.
>> Sorry, Miss Kim back. You're a witness. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Paraguay, did you uh prepare a report in support of this application that analyzed the uh traffic impacts and parking? >> We did. >> Uh would you like to explain to the board the analysis you conducted and conclusions in your report?
>> Sure. Uh I'll go through the the traffic impacts, the parking, and the drive-through queuing and try not to bore you with uh all deta too many details. Um, for the traffic side of things, when we look at a shopping center like this, the IT, the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, and New Jersey DOT consider this whole thing a shopping center, and they would run the traffic numbers based on the square footage of the shopping center itself, which isn't changing. So, if we were on a state highway, this would be zero increase. But we did take a look and
drill down at the difference between the bank, the former Bank of America and the Duncan. And the real key here is uh the pass by traffic associated with this the these uses. In other words, somebody's already on South Washington or Centennial and they pop in to go to the
drive-thru to pick up their coffee or their sandwich on the way to work and continue on their way. So that car would have been there no matter what. You have some of that with the bank, but you don't have nearly as much as uh you do with a Duncan. So if I isolate just the the bank and the Duncan and look at the
new traffic, how much traffic would impact the roads, the difference is an increase in the morning, obviously Duncan's busiest in the morning of 21 trips in the peak hour. It's actually a decrease in the evening of 18. And then Saturday,
uh the Saturday midday gives me an increase of 23, but that's because they don't really isolate morning and evening for Saturday. Obviously, the Duncan increase is going to be more so in the morning than it is in the midday. And that really makes it a good fit here from a a traffic and even a parking standpoint because you have a shopping
center that has uses that primarily are going to peak in the midday in the afternoons, whereas this is going to be its busiest in the morning. So, it really is a nice fit there. And I know when Shopright was there, I used to try to get there as early as possible because that was when everything else was the least busy and you could get uh
a better parking spot. So, it fits it fits really well. traffic perspective and uh considering you're moving one location to the other, you're really just sort of shifting that traffic um and not really creating any uh substantial negative impacts.
Uh with regard to the parking, the last iteration that I think this board reviewed included the shopping center with the Applebees and then there was a dental office in there and the bank. And if you do the math based on the ordinance requirements, I won't bore you with all of it, but the math was 626
spaces were required and 489 spaces provided. So it was a shortfall of 137 spaces that was a variance was previously granted or previously approved. That dental office is now gone. Presumably, it's going to wind up going back to some sort of retail use. And everything else stays the same. The
bank and the uh Duncan parking requirement is the same. But we are losing, as uh was uh in the prior testimony, seven spaces for the drive-thru. And then the Patel Brothers grocery store that's going to come into half of the Shopright space, uh they they were taking four spaces away for uh
shopping cart corral. So you're losing 11 spaces, but if you do the math without that medical office in there, the total requirement is 604 spaces, whereas we're going to have 478 proposed. that shortfall reduces from
the previously approved 137 down to 126 spaces. So, we're actually reducing the the the the delta there. Now, that's the technicality part of it from the ordinance numbers. The reality is um um Duncan's obviously again park has its
peak parking demand in the morning. the the Patel Brother store, the pizza place, all those place, most of the most everything in that shopping center, Applebee's is in the evening or the afternoon. So again, it's it's going to fit. We did do some parking counts. I
know it's like a ghost town compared to when Shopright was there, but we just wanted to get an idea of, you know, the parking availability. We uh counted on Tuesday, September 30th, and Saturday, October 4th. Um during the peak times
there were 450 spaces vacant in the morning when the Duncan would have its peak period and a total of 403 vacant overall on on the Tuesday. That was when that happened and that was at 7 p.m. when it was at its minimum. Now
obviously all that vacancy is because you have a huge amount of the space that's that's empty right now. But if you do the ordinance requirement based on that about 65,000 in change space that's empty at one per 175 square feet that would require 373 parking spaces.
So there is enough to even meet the ordinance requirement left over uh based on those counts. Now obviously as I said I shop at that shop right all the time and I know it was it was crazy. Um, I didn't count parked vehicles at the time I was going
to get groceries, but I did look back. We have a high resolution aerial uh software that has four or five shots a year going all the way back to 2014. So, I went back and looked at all those and I found one that was pretty representative of how busy it used to
get. And during that, you know, high-end time, there were 66 parking spaces vacant on that entire site. But what's interesting is 38 of those 66 are back by where the Duncan is. Those spaces around right at the intersection that are kind of on the curve there, they're
almost always available. So, not only are we kind of offsetting the peak parking demand by bringing in a morning use, but we're putting it in the most remote part of the shopping center where even when it was super busy, uh it was not filling up in that that area. So,
from a parking perspective, I I I don't see any issues at all. Uh, last thing I I'll get into is the queuing. I heard somebody I heard the Starbucks was mentioned. They only have a sixcar stack and they're the only drive-through coffee game in town right now. We have nine car stacks. So, we got 50% more
than uh than they do. And I think you're going to split some of that. I think some people who are Dunkin people maybe out of I don't want to get out of my car and walk in bad weather, so they go to Starbucks. So, maybe we're going to bring some of that traffic over here and split it a little bit. So, I think we have enough here. I'll get into that. But I think we also may help that
situation at the Starbucks. Um so in terms of the drive-through usage, um about 75% of the traffic at Duncan goes through the drive-thru. So you don't really have people walking in um too much. And as um uh as was mentioned, the app really helps make that think
that more efficient. But what I did, and it's in my report, we did a queuing analysis based on the service time and that 75% of the traffic going through the drive-thru and the 95th percentile queue, that's what you would typically design to, was five cars. Again, we have
nine uh stacking spaces available. The probability, and this this this procedure calculates the probability of exceeding x number of vehicles. So, if I look at nine, what's the probability of one car hanging out past that nine? It's 0.6%. So, I think we have certainly plenty of
drive-through stack uh available. And again, we're in the most remote part of the shopping center, and the only time you would ever see an extended QB that that might even approach nine vehicles would be in the morning when the rest of the place is pretty quiet. Applebees, I don't even think they serve breakfast at
Applebees, so that's not there. And uh I don't think anybody's in a car wash at that time either. So, overall, it's really it's a good fit. It's a it's a good improvement. And it uh Uh hopefully bring some life back to that place. >> That's it. Hopefully I didn't bore
everybody. >> Thank you. >> Members of the board, you have any questions of this witness? >> Hello. Is everybody still with us? >> I did. I put them all to sleep. >> I have no questions. Maybe I could just
say this. I don't know that um if you um >> uh if you could answer this question is, you know, we're talking about that particular shopping center and, you know, quite frankly, it's not where the Dunkin Donuts is, but up by where the the the stores are is always that it's
just a terrible situation when Shopright was there with the way traffic flow went. I mean, would there be any availability at all? I I know our ordinances call for a certain amount of parking spots, but couldn't some of these aisles be made either bigger or
maybe make one that doesn't have parking spaces that might alleviate it? And it's not really for this application necessarily, but just generally that maybe Kimo could redo that and it would still be conforming. I'm not sure. I am just throwing it out there as as an
option. >> Yeah. And I understand I know right where you're talking about where it's sort of like it's a slalom right in front of where uh the main entrance to shop right was. And I think a couple things you know you make the aisles wider and then you get people going faster which we don't want. That's where a lot of that's where a lot of the pedestrian activity is. And I think it
it really depends on what's going to go on the other half of that shop right. What kind of user is going to go in there? The good thing is the shop right splitting into two. I mean, I know Shopight had that secondary entrance to the weird side, the pharmacy side thing, but everybody went into the main door.
So, you kind of concentrated everybody right in that one spot where it's a little bit of a curve. So, I'm hoping that, you know, the Patel brothers, which I hope they're successful, but I can't imagine they're going to be as busy as Shopright and then whatever use comes in, are going to split the pedestrians for two different locations.
So, hopefully that'll help. >> Oh, that's a good point. Yeah, thank you. >> Uh, so just a quick comment, Mr. Paraggoy. Um, I always use the pharmacy side as manager. So, you know, >> um, >> you're in the know, you realize that's the way to go. But sometimes the
shopping carts are on the other side. >> Um, I just want to, you know, no question, just want to thank you for explaining the traffic side of things very clearly. Central Jersey, ton of traffic. That area is high traffic. So, it's nice to hear that there is a plan to make sure that we're not adding small
traffic to already existing big traffic. So, thank you for that explanation. Yeah. And okay, thanks for the slalom comment winter Olympics and all. So guys, good. >> Oh gosh, >> that's kind of what I think about when I go to crawl through there.
>> So does anybody have a actual question? And did we open it up to the public for this witness? >> Not yet. >> Okay, then let's open it up to uh the public for any questions that they may have uh pertaining to traffic uh for
this witness. Would you please indicate by wave of the handoff? >> No, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Thank you. Close to the public. Hey, >> do you have another witness? >> I do, Madam Chair. Thank you. Our our final witness is our professional
planner, Mr. Justin Oella. >> Okay. >> Good evening. >> Can you please raise your right hand? Do >> you swear that the testimony you're about to give the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, ma'am. Can you please um state and spell your
name for the record? >> Yes, absolutely. It's uh uh Justin Oiello. A U C I E L L. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Oiello. Can you provide the board with your professional and educational background? >> Yes, absolutely. Uh I have a masters in
city regional planning from Ruckers University that was granted in uh in 2005. Uh I've been a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey since uh 2008. Um I am a partner with uh Capone Consulting Group uh located at 52 Reckless Place in Redbank.
Um I have been qualified as a professional planner um at planning and zoning boards uh throughout the state on hundreds of occasions. Um I have appeared uh in front of uh your planning board and and zoning board on multiple
occasions over the years as well. >> And your license is current and in good standing? >> Yes, it is. >> Thank you. Does the board accept Mr. Mr. Oello's qualifications. >> Absolutely. >> Uh now, Mr. Oil, you were present for all the testimony here tonight. >> Yes, I was. >> Thank you.
>> So, um th this is an application as you heard from our our site engineer and our traffic engineer. Um this is a in my opinion a a classic uh C1 and C2 application. And as the board is aware, um even though we do require multiple
variances, uh most of these variances are for uh existing conditions uh due to due due to conditions that are of no fault of our own, but it's just within the confines of the shopping center also in the confines of the existing uh bank
building as well. Um so under the C1 criteria um I would process this as being uh being an exceptional situation due to existing physical conditions on the site and of course that's uh the existing
building and the overall shopping center. Um as you know I had stated as as a previous witnesses um have stated uh there are numerous existing additions that are not going to change on the site. Um, of course, we also have the confines of having uh this being a
corner lot with with, you know, two frontages. So that that like in and of itself also presents some practical difficulties. Um, so with that said, it is my opinion that the strict application of the zoning requirements would cause practical difficulty uh that
would hinder the overall zoning objectives that are that are handled under the C2 uh criteria. Um, in terms of the C2 criteria, which is also known as, uh, as flexible C, uh, which is
essentially a a test of whether or not there are public benefits associated, um, with this application and the variances that are required. Um, of course, this proposal uh is a reuse of uh, an existing commercial structure.
Um, I would I would also add that it is a it is a highly visible uh structure that is currently um uh you know vacant uh right near the intersection. Um so from a planning standpoint we always
seek to um you know ensure that spaces are not vacant in shopping centers that goes to overall vitality but it also sends a certain signal to the community as well. So, it is my opinion that by by occupying um this building with the Duncan use,
which which obviously is as the board knows is a is a popular use uh in the town uh and and and also in the state that does um you know represent uh good planning and and you know leads to a more functional um shopping center. Um
and it's not just my opinion. you you did hear the testimony um from our site engineer and our traffic engineer relative to the ability of this site uh to accommodate the the the Duncan use in a uh safe and efficient manner. Um the
signage that is proposed um it is my opinion that it is essential to provide for necessary wayinding. Um again um two uh two frontages. Um there is not I would note for the record there is not an existing pylon sign that that is you
know fairly typical in shopping centers. Um so there is the need to provide uh for for adequate wayfinding. I believe the signage package as had been testified um by our site engineer um is is is pretty modest. uh it's attractive
um and and is really intended to ensure that motorists can both find the site and also when they're on the site can navigate the site uh properly as well. Um as you did hear from our site engineer uh there's proper lighting and and landscaping proposed. I would also
add that as existing um there is uh there's you know uh quite nice um you know landscaping uh and birming that's on the frontages as well. I believe what's proposed is a is a nice supplement to that. Um I would know from
a planning standpoint another benefit there is a uh minor reduction of impervious coverage. Um that is something that I always look for in my review of applications and I believe that certainly is a public benefit. Um certainly I I I think overall there
there are numerous public benefits here that uh do advance uh sound planning and that is a good segue into the purposes of zoning um that I see that are advanced relative to the municipal land use law. I would I would note for the
record uh criteria A uh to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of land in the state to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Um certainly uh by occupying a vacant building uh
with a use that certainly uh you know is in demand that will be a benefit to the community but also a use that as you heard from both witnesses uh will operate safely and efficiently. I believe this is a benefit to to the general welfare uh criteria G to provide
for sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses. This is a permitted use in the SC zone. Um certainly there is sufficient space as well as testified by the other experts. Criteria H to encourage the location and
design of transportation routes which will promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging location of such facilities and routes that will result in congestion or blight. As you heard from our our our traffic engineer, uh this site can certainly accommodate um
this use both from a traffic circulation standpoint and parking standpoint. Criteria I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Um certainly this is an attractive building. um you know
properly sized um signage and I believe this fits within the the overall scope and and design of the shopping center and I to encourage and excuse me criteria M to encourage coordination of various public and private procedures and and activity shaping land
development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to be more efficient use of land. I think from a planning standpoint uh by occupying an existing uh vacant building um with an active use that uh fits with in this in
the style and scope of a shopping center certainly is certainly efficient. Um it's also efficient notwithstanding the fact that um you know tearing tearing this building down uh and and replacing with something else it would be uh inefficient. So I think uh this
certainly is good planning um by um by occupying uh this vacant use. That's a positive criteria. In terms of negative criteria, um I certainly don't see any substantial detriment to the public good. Again, reuse of the structure.
It's not a noxious use. Um this site is uh this pad site is uh is well accommodated for this use. Parking is sufficient. No negative impacts to parking or circulation. Um there there is a burm as as I had stated on the property frontages. Uh no no impact to
the neighbors and as was stated earlier even though there is a residential zone to the south there's a stream um there's um uh you know there trees there and there's a park as well so no impact to that area. Um in addition uh no impairment to the intent and purpose of
his own plan zoning ordinance for the master plan. Uh this site uh this shopping center uh has been here for you know for decades. Um certainly it is a permitted use. It's certainly consistent with the zone plan zoning ordinance in
the master plan. master plan speaks to economic development by occupying um this uh you know this building certainly helps to achieve uh those goals. Um so you know with all that said um certainly um I think from a professional planning
standpoint uh the benefits of um of these varants or of granting these variances uh certainly outweigh the detriments and if the board does find any detriments the statuto criteria is substantial and I certainly don't see any detriments that would ever rise to
the level of being substantial in this application. >> Thank you Mr. Ala. Thank you. >> Any questions from members of the board or for this witness? >> Hearing no questions, let's open it up to the public.
>> Madam Chair, can I ask one question? I'm going to lead the witness here. Mr. Oiello, this is a pretty large site, isn't it? >> Absolutely it is. >> Okay. So, in your experience with Dunkin Donuts or other drive-through facilities, this is a pad site. This is
not a typical site for a Duncan. No, I mean if just and I think everybody can relate to Starbucks, Duncan on smaller parcels. This is a big parcel and it has a lot of queuing uh uh thing here because there's not a lot of public
impact from this. So this site could absorb uh the drive-thru. Would that be correct? >> Yes, absolutely. I mean I this is certainly a you know unique opportunity to to site a Duncan in a site that could absorb um you know the demand from a planning standpoint. Thank you very
much. >> Thank you. >> Any other members have questions of this um witness? >> Hearing no response from the Hearing no response from the members of the board. We'll open it up to the public. Members of the public, you've heard the
testimony of this um of this planner. Does anyone have any questions that please do so by waving their hand? No, Madam Chair. >> Closed to the public. >> Do you have any other witnesses, madam?
>> No. That concludes um our presentation. >> Okay. Do you have a closing? You have any closing statements you want to give? >> Um I I'll rely on how uh Mr. Oiello wrapped up the application. You know, that it's a adaptive reuse um to revitalize the shopping center. The
pad's been vacant for a number of years. Um, we are reducing impervious coverage. Um, and despite the relief requested as part of the application, we believe the benefits outweigh the detriments. Um, so we're asking the board for an approval tonight. >> Thank you. >> And Mr.
>> I I know we open to the public for questions of Mr. Oiello just to confirm for the record if maybe at a later point you open up for general comments from the public just to cover that. >> Well, that's not that's uh that can be done. Members of the public, um you've heard
the testimony of three witnesses regarding this application um for a very um central site in this township. If anyone has any questions for any some questions for any of the witnesses, you can do so by raising your
hand at this time. >> No one, Madam Chair. >> Closed to the public. Members of the board, do I have a uh do I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, Reverend Kenny, I make a motion that this uh application be approved subject to uh uh the applicant
uh complies with all the the said reports and uh I look through all of them and seems to agree with everything and I make a motion that this application be approved as set forth. >> I will second that, Madam Chair.
>> Thank you. Roll call, please. >> Mayor Waller, >> yes. >> Councilwoman Cahill, >> yes. >> Miss Corkran, >> yes. >> Miss Saunders, >> yes. >> Reverend Kenny, >> yes. >> Mr. Atkins, >> yes. >> Mr. Foster, >> yes.
>> Mr. Avaria, >> yes. >> And Madame Chair, >> yes. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. Good night all. >> Happy Valentine's Day everyone. not going yet. I didn't close the meeting
yet. >> Okay. Well, >> okay. Um, well, we have completed our agenda. I just want to remind you that our next planning board meeting for March will be March 11th. And, uh, our subdivision site planning meeting will be on March 25th. Do I have a motion to
adjurnn? >> Motion. >> Uh, all in favor? I >> I meeting adjourned. Thank you. >> Have a wonder.