did something. Good evening. The Raritton Township Planning Board is now in session. Call to order. The notice requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act have been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building, filing
the notice with the township clerk, and transmitting the notice to the Hunter County Democrat, the Courier News, the Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. I have a roll call, please. Chairman, Mr. Edward Eddings, here. Vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews here. Miss Robin Fatu here. Mr. Scott McDade here. Miss
Michelle Kavakiri here. Mr. Dennis Conan here. Mr. James Miller here. Mr. Glenn Solowski here. Board professionals board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello here. Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Barella here. On behalf of township engineer Mr. Kesh
Dari we have Mr. Ryan McCarthy here. Township township landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas here and all other board professionals have asked to be excused. Very good. Thank you. I'm going to ask everyone to please rise for the reciting of the pledge of allegiance
and a moment of silence to remember the men and women in our armed services. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you. Next up would be reports. I do not have any report items this evening. Anybody from the board have something they want to address? I'll just mention we're making progress in the housing sub committee. We do have a draft plan
invention that will come before this planning board for review and then forward along to the committee for sub. Excellent. Thank you. Engineers comments. Ryan got anything? We'll put you on the
spot. Okay. Planners comments. Jeff. Yeah, I just wanted to address that. Last year I know that there was discussions about possibly um a few different elements whether storm water element or a circulation element. Uh there was money budgeted for for that.
So if there's any discussion items may maybe not tonight or just it's in motion. So um I just wanted to make that announcement. Okay. some. So the uh circulation element will will
identify either improvements or or um ratings of different roadways so that it in the future there's specific areas that there could be improvements or additional roads that are that are added within the township. The last element
was created maybe 2005. So a lot of it there were improvements that were if assessed right now have been either aliviated based upon other uh changes. So it just needs
to be updated and reassessed. Will that take into account concerns related to truck traffic patterns, pathways, etc. It could. Yes. That's actually good timing for that because yeah, it's a different town than
2005. Yeah. And it might be even if we're going to go down the circulation plan path because it sounds like you have to decide which one. Might be good at some point to um hear the results of those traffic studies that were done
that we heard about here or river. Yeah, one of them is still ongoing gathering data. We're actually using tom wiring, but some of the tools
that our police department uses to place these devices that then calculate and create the data generated, it actually has the capability and we're seeing the data of not just times of day, the size of the vehicle. So, it's able to
actually say different kinds of vehicles and all of the Yes. So, um I don't think we were quite aware that it had capabilities beyond how many how fast. Yeah. So with this deeper level of data, I think it's becoming more informative.
It's not obviously a full-fledged traffic circulation element that we use in the master plan, but it is helping to feed the insights um at a deeper level. Maybe when when both of the reports are
done, Justin could give us a briefing as the planning board about findings. Do we have funding for both elements or just one? What did you say? There's at least to to start. It hasn't been there's no contract or any any uh
exact numbers, but it's it's just a decision of whether or not to start both or to start on one and and finish it or um it's more of a discussion with with the board of what direction to go. Do you have a recommendation based on me? I
think to start on both if there's a a preference then we can then I believe we would have to go out and for professional service for for this but um is there any reason Jeff why that couldn't start
could or could sorry I'm sorry it wasn't clear is there any reason that it couldn't start at a double no other than just the the direction of which way which which element to to focus on. Then I could I could either um deal with it
maybe a subcommittee or even um a few members just to get more clarity and then we can we can uh start the project. Yeah, that might help just with getting the RFP and the scope and I mean and I think for us as a board too to understand
like how bad shape are they in? So how much work is going to be needed to do the update? I would assume the storm water is a little bit more routine kind of update just to retain some of the new regulations and maybe even incorporate our utility kind
of efforts in but the circulation we've changed less yes circulation would be more intensive I need everybody speak into the microphones because I can hear you now Robin yours I know you have to hold it
I'm special. I have to hold the button down because I talk too much. Um, can I make a recommendation then on behalf of the board that we ask Jeff to move forward with both projects knowing that they're both critical to the storm water utility and obviously we have grave
concerns about truck traffic patterns in our town. Okay. Yeah, I would second that. I think we should. Okay. So Jeff, if you'll reach out to Karen and Karen Gilbert. Yes. Yes. I assume that's where it has to be generated
from. This would actually be through Yeah. This would be with the board. So it would I I'll I'll talk to Karen about it. Um Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe bringing a couple people along the journey on that would be informative. Just so I don't know. I
don't know how that works. you hire somebody out to do it, but like submitted. Yeah, we'll we'll have to go out for a professional service um for this for the for both elements. Um but yeah, I'll I'll I'll give an update at
the next meeting as far as the next steps and then if there's a subcommittee that's generated, then then we'll create it. Yeah. And I'll check with the mayor to see when and how we can provide some of the input that we've already seen on the couple studies that have been going on. That data that's coming out of these
little fancy boxes is pretty cool. Yeah, that it is. That's great. Jeff, thanks for bringing that up. Y Mr. Toriello, any attorney comments this evening? Nothing to add. No. Okay. Uh any correspondence? Tell her I'm not aware of any correspondence coming in the last
two weeks. No, sir. So, what next up on the agenda are the minutes from our January 22nd, 2025 meeting, and Taylor was kind enough to circulate that to everyone prior to the meeting. Does anyone have any comments
or suggested changes to the minutes? It it I'm I'm just going to make a note was brought to my attention that I forgot to mention that you chairman Gettings had um recused yourself from the second hearing of that night, the Joseph and
Despina or Despina McNelte application. So I will just add that. Okay, very good. So the minutes the recommendation would be to um move forward with them with the amendment of Ed recusing himself from that application.
Okay, thank you. We have a motion to approve the minutes for January 22nd, 2025 with the noted change. Motion second. Chairman, Mr. Edward Giddings. Yes. Vice Chairwoman, Miss Donald Drews. Yes. Miss
Robin Fatu. Yes. Mr. Scott McDade. Yes. Mr. Dennis Quincan. Yes. Mr. James Miller. Yes. Mr. Glenn Sofowski. Yes. Okay, very good. Next up, we do have a resolution this evening. This is to appoint a board
hydrogeeologist. You'll remember that we had some conversation and vice chair Drews did a short presentation on the hydro hydrogeeologists and the candidates. And so this evening we have the resolution
appointing this person to the uh to the the position, G. Luwellyn. I hope I'm pronouncing his name correctly. Is there anything else to discuss on this? I don't think so. Thank you, Donna, for your work on that. And
Jeff, you you too. So, I have a motion to approve the appointing of Mr. G. T. Luwellyn as um board hydrogeeologist expert. So, you can have it. All right. I'll give it to Michelle.
Are you going to second it? All right. Chairman, Mr. Ever Getdings. Yes. Vice Chairwoman, Miss Donna Drews. Yes. Miss Robin Fatu. Yes. Mr. Scott McDade. Yes. Miss Michelle Cavakiri. Yes. Mr. Dennis Clinkan. Mr. James Miller. Yes. Very good. And I think this also means that I
don't have to say hydrogeeologist again sometime. So, okay. You'll let the know that was needed to go through this process. Yes. That's great. Sounds like a great fill
for the position. So, we certainly need expertise and we've got three people sitting at this table and one next to me that provides us such great input. So, okay. Citizens privilege. If we have anybody in the room this evening who would like to
address the board on any subject other than the public hearing that will start immediately thereafter, now would be the time to do so. We do not have anybody online any longer. Anybody? No, we do not. Okay. Thank you. Next up is public hearing. I'm recusing
myself from this application. So, I'm going to pass this over to Vice Chair Drews to uh walk everybody through the the hearing. Thank you. Thank you. See you in a couple. See you.
Bye. All right. The next uh application is the public hearing on Doughboy, Inc. It's a minor site plan and C variance for addition and generator installation block 16 uh 01 lot
604 highway 31. Solicitor. Good evening madam chairperson, members of the board. Steven Gruinberg, Gruenberg Law Office. on behalf of the applicant Doughboys Inc. Um Angelo's Pizza has been in uh Raridan
Township for over 40 years in this location and um they are in desperate need of a generator. Um, in the past they have had experiences where they've had flooding in their basement and they had to install a sump pump and with the
storage that occurs in the basement for the restaurant business, when the uh basement floods, it causes thousands of dollars worth of damage. So, if they don't have a generator in those emergency cons uh situations where the basement could flood, um it is a real
problem for the restaurant and has been a problem in the past. We originally filed this application before the board of adjustment for a C variance to allow the generator to take place. And during the hearing process of that board of adjustment application, questions
started to come up about the existing location of gravel on the property, um the existing features on the property, and it was decided the best thing to do would be to transfer the application to the planning board because some of these
site plan issues were coming into uh to question, file a minor site plan application, and uh address any of the non conformities that appear to have existed for many many many years. And that's even though uh Angelos has gotten
uh approvals from the township in terms of a CO in 2005 for the patio improvements and the building improvements to the back, but we really want the generator and we really want to just have the the building as it standed
or stood for many many years to be ratified. Um I have three witnesses this evening. Um Mr. Capola to testify as to the the site itself and and his use over the many years. Eric Rupner will take you through the minor site plan and then
John Mcdun will give the planning testimony and I provided the proof of service and publication of the notice of hearing in advance of the meeting and I asked that the board attorney confirm that the board has jurisdiction to receive the board has jurisdiction. I did review it. Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to swear everybody in at once?
I would. I'd like to swear everybody in and then we'll whoever is going to testify. Board professionals, too. Um, if everybody could raise your right hand, do you swear that the testimony you're going to give before this board in this matter is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Starting from left to right, please state your name and spell it for the record. Eric R. Hi everyone. John Mcdana MC capital D O N O U G on the plan.
Angel, I'm the owner. A N G E L O. Last name C O P O L A. Uh Ryan McCarthy as the board engineer. MCC A R T H Y. Jeff Bakarella, township planner. V A CC
C A R E L L A John Thomas uh Township Landscape Architect T H O M- A S Thank you. Before we go any further, let's just remember we have our synographer here and for the recording,
if you're going to speak at all, please speak into a microphone. You don't want you to see me over here closer. You're going to want to talk to that microphone. Got it. There you go.
Okay. So, um, Mr. Capola, why don't you tell the board how long you have been at Angelos's, uh, at that location since 1982. And you've been the owner of that property since 1982. Yes. And um what
type of restaurant is it? It's a pizzeria slash fast food restaurant. And um at any time in the past that did was there a fire or anything that occurred at the restaurant? Yes, we had a fire about nine years ago. And were you
allowed to rebuild after that fire? Yes. And um you've had a prior minor site plan application before the board as well. Correct. Correct. And as far as you knew, everything had been built in accordance with that prior minor site
plan application. Yes. Um in during the COVID crisis, there had been an ability to allow for outdoor dining. Correct. Correct. And I was I was approved to put outdoor dining to
stay in business. And that was in the rear yard of the property. Yes. And um did you put gravel down and tables down in order to be able to stay into business? Yes. Um as part of this application, we're not proposing to
continue that outdoor gravel area. Not at all. And we're planning on removing that gravel and receding it to lawn. Correct. Correct. Let's talk about the patio area in the back. Is that patio, how long has that patio area been in existence? 30 years. And as far as you
know, that was previously approved and and reviewed by the township. Correct. Correct. The zoning officer was Jamie back then. And and you received the CEO as a result of the improvements to the back of the
building and the patio area. Yes, I did. Um, let's talk about the generator. Why do you need a generator? Well, every time it rains, like today, if the power goes out, I was saying about an hour, you would have about 2 ft of water in my basement.
And what's what's in the basement area? Generally, all of my supplies that I used to have upstairs in the attic. And then when we had the fire, the township told me I wasn't allowed to have any storage upstairs that I could use the basement.
So all of your all the storage for the restaurant business is located in the basement. Correct. Correct. And if the sump pumps fail because of no electricity, you're going to have a big problem on your hands. Correct. About $30,000. Okay. Um the power didn't go out today.
Correct. Not at all. I hope not. But it would be a huge problem for you if it did. Yes, it would. Um, we plan on presenting a plan that shows the location of the generator, but this generator is only going to be used in emergency situations. Correct. Correct.
Yeah. Um, the questions that one of the uh professionals asked, we're not changing any use. Correct. We're keeping the same number of seats that have always been there. Yes, sir. And we're um you're
still going to have the same number of employees, which is approximately four. Correct. And your hours of operation of 10:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. are going to stay the same. Correct. Yes. And you have trash and recycling two times per week, which is always the same. It's not
changing. Correct. Nothing's changing. And your deliveries are approximately three to four times per week, and that's not changing at all. Correct. Correct. Really just trying to put a generator on. Correct. That's it. Um, there had been a question as to the
number of seats. It's 86 seats was previous and that's what you use now. Correct. Correct. Plus plus the patio when when it's allowed seasonal. Yeah. That that's includes the the patio is the 86 seats. Correct. Correct. Um and your parking's not impacted at
all. Correct. It's the same as it always has been. Correct. Um there had been an one of the board professionals uh raised the issue of um the landscaping in the back uh double
row of trees that were required to be planted. Did you actually plant those trees? Uh that was about 25 years ago. I recall I planted them. I think it was J&J Landscaping. That's what the township wanted and that's what I did.
Right. So the trees that are actually appear to be on the Goddard school line were actually planted by you by us. Correct. Um and nevertheless there's been a suggestion to incorporate one row of uh like an arbor variety or evergreen
by um Mr. John Thomas the landscape architect. And we're willing to do that. Correct. Correct. So, as part of this application, we're reducing the impervious coverage by removing that gravel that you had been allowed to put on. Correct. Yes. And
we're going to improve the landscaping by taking care of that one row that Mr. Thomas suggested. Correct. And we're asking for the generator. That's all I want. Okay. That's all the questions I have for Mr. Capola. Any questions, remember members of the
board? Any questions from the public? I will call Mr. Brutner. Thank you. Mr. Rutner is sick, so I'm going to make him stay way away from me. I'm moving the microphone over, but
Eric, you're still going to have to try and talk real loud and slow. Okay. Um, qualification. if you provide the board with the benefit of your qualifications. Um, I'm a licensed professional engineer in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Um, licensed are in good standing within both states. I have a bachelor's degree from Villanova University and also a masters from the same province. We'll accept you again as a professional engineer. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Eric, you have a u a plan set
up there. Is that the identical plan that was submitted to the board? Yes. And has it been colorized or changed in any way or that's exactly what was presented to the board? No changes. I suggest that we don't need to have it marked. I would agree. No, I would agree. Great. Eric, why don't you take
the board through the site? Certainly. Um, so the property is located on the easterly side of Route 31. Uh, the property boundary is highlighted here in yellow. Uh, the lot is approximately 20,000 square ft. And where is in the B3
zone? Uh the property is 20,000 ft² and it's located in the B3 commercial zone. Um the property is currently an existing undersized lot. Um as Mr. Capella indicated previously, there are no changes that's being proposed or
additions to the building outside of the generator. Uh to the north of the property, uh we have the Starbucks uh restaurant that's located. To the east of the property is the Goddard School and then to the south of the property along Route 31. Um that is the laundry
mat. Um this property on site we have 20 parking spaces and an additional 20 parking spaces that's shared between the restaurant and the laundry mat. So we have a total of 40 parking spaces that's available for patrons. Um based on the current seating, the applicant requires
57 parking spaces. Again, the applicant is not expanding or changing uh any of the seating arrangements within the building. Um what the applicant's proposal entails and this is sheet number two of the plan set. Again, it's an exact copy
of what was submitted. No change has been made. And what I have here is the existing one-story restaurant is shaded in gray. The area to the back that's striped um in this northeasterly corner, that is
the existing outdoor patio. Um the area basically to the south of that, it's a fenced in area and that's where all the mechanical equipment are for the restaurant. Um and then further south uh this shaded area that's where the uh refrigerator um the walk-in cooler is
located and enclosed as part of the building. The applicant's proposal will not modify the building footprint in any way. Um there are several existing non-conforming conditions regarding the side setback along the south side the rear of the property. There's also an existing non-conforming condition and
then similarly the existing building to the north the side setback is also non-conforming. The applicant's proposal is to install a 30,000 watt generator. Um the generator is going to be located on a concrete pad. Uh the concrete pad is going to be approximately 9 ft from
the property line. So that is an additional encroachment uh that the applicant requires relief for. And um essentially that's the applicant's proposal tonight. So there the board uh professionals had some comments. We're going to remove the
existing gravel driveway, a gravel area, correct? Yes. And um Mr. Varela has a comment on number 11 that an outdoor dining permit I think he said will be
approved for approved. It's going to be if the board approves this application, then it's going to be in conjunction with that. So that no other technically if it was if there wasn't a site plan outdoor dining is a permitted accessory use that could be administrative approved. So it's just going to be on
top of if the if the board approves it just so there's no no additional step. Number 12. Thank you. Number 12. Um we're not changing any of the seating on site and we're not uh the RTNUA has already indicated that there's no issue
with this application. Not changing anything. Okay. Thank you. Um, we don't provide any architectural plans for the generator and the building's been there for a long time. So, so this was and I and I heard Mr. Rupinarian um stated before is that it's
um on the plans it says proposed enclosed refrigerated unit. is is that is is that existing and it's and you're just seeking approval for it now or is it it's existing it's not a proposed and it um
it's what's there now okay and has been for a long time um and I guess the whole issue was when that occurred there had been a setback set forth of 30 some odd feet and it ended up being 17 1/2 ft
somewhere around there, but that's what was previously approved and um cos issued and everything. We're not changing that at all. It's not a proposed condition. Okay. So, that was my confusion because the the plans did
say proposed. So, what you're seeking then is a variance for the pre-existing condition in terms of like belts and suspenders to clean it up because it had been there. Correct. Then we'll take that word proposed off the plans and make that existing. Correct.
Certainly. Um I think we touched on the parking uh on number 14. Um and we did provide the deed and um we'll provide further testimony from Mr. Mcdana on what his observations were. Number 15. As
discussed, we we don't suggest the double row of evergreens because that would be tight and I think Mr. Thomas agrees and we would be willing to do the one row to his satisfaction. Um 16 is just a comment that F is not implicated. 17 he's uh
deferred to the township engineer regarding storm water, which isn't an issue either. And um 18, 19, and 20 are just your standard comments. Council, before you move on, I just need to just uh speak with our planner. Um, are you
satisfied that for uh that 13 has been addressed and that no architectural plans are needed? Because you would you I I I heard the explanation from the applicant, but I haven't heard whether you're satisfied or not. I mean, based on the file that I I
researched, the 33.9 ft is the addition that they got approval for. I couldn't find anything regarding the mechanical equipment or the proposed enclosed refrigerator unit based on a board application or uh zoning permit. Yeah. And that's why
we're here. Um but you know the the building is as the building is and we're seeking the variances for that. Um, and I don't I respectfully would suggest that new architectural plans for something that's existed for over 20
years is really required. It wasn't a it wasn't a comment to require it for this application. It was more of a of a comment saying that there was none. Okay. So, you're I just want to make sure you're because I had this as a potential issue to be res. I just want to make sure you're satisfied. Yeah, I'm
good with it. Thank you. Yep. Um, with respect to Mr. Dargy's report. We're willing to do everything. The I think we provided the testimony as to all of these issues.
Um I don't see anything here that we haven't addressed. I think the only thing that we had was the uh just the easements that were supposed to be filed as a part of the old resolution of approval. There's the the easement for the off-site parking, the easement for the dumpster location that's not on the
the subject property, and then the easement for using the driveway that's on lot 61. Yeah, I think we provided what had been recorded as part of that prior approval, which was the uh I I I don't know if it's in it's in the Wow. Yeah, the
So, does it cover all three elements or just the parking? Yes. Yes. So, I I think we're good on that. That was I think from 200 2003 three. Yeah. And the site's been functioning since
then. Um just a question clarification. Maybe Eric you can help us. The I I admit I didn't look closely enough with the removal of the gravel area. Do the plans note what the restoration method
is and lawn mix? you know, the typical kind of yeah, it's going to be the t the typical uh stabilization measures the soil conservation generally recommends um in terms of lawns or whatever that type of uh planting mixes. So, you'd agree to comply with whatever the
standard soil erosion and sediment control conditions would be. Correct. Okay, great. That's I all I have for the sick guy over here. Hey, I showed up. Items one and three in your report still
conditions. Items one items one and three. Yes. Yeah. One, two, and three would still be conditions and they're they've agreed to address those. They're it was just minor plan stuff. Nothing nothing crazy. I just want to make sure my notes are
correct. Thank you. And then I'd like to ask Mr. Mcdana to come forward and talk about the variances. Do you want to use this microphone? I'll put it right here. Can you hear me? Okay. If you could give the board the benefit. You can grab that mic. You're
going to have to use that one. There. That one's better. I'll be brave. Bless your soul. You give the board the benefit of your qualification. Sure. I am a licensed professional planner here in the state
of New Jersey. That license is current. It's in good standing. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. It's our national certification, current and in good standing. This is what I do on a nightly basis throughout the state of New Jersey. I've been here in your great
community before. Um, and as I say, um, licenses are current and in good standing. I offer Mr. McDunn as a professional license expert professional. We accept him as an expert. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, John, you've reviewed the site. Can you give the board the benefit of your analysis with respect to the variance
relief that we require? And if you have any exhibits, maybe we can have that marked. Sure. Um, I will hand out the exhibits. As I'm handing them out, um, your your planner has laid out for the board the things to think about with this application, the relief that the
applicant is seeking. We're in the B3 community commercial district and the app the use is permitted. We're not here seeking any D relief, obviously. That's why we're in front of the planning board. Um, there are six C variances that the applicant is asking the board
to move on. Four of them are setback related and I have some pictures to show you why I think there will be no substantially adverse impacts associated with those setback variances. There's the coverage variance related to the pavement that's there now, the gravel
area which is going to go away. And then you also heard about the parking supply. The 20 p spaces on site plus the 20 adjacent gets us to 40 where 57 um is the minimum that's required. A longstanding existing condition that's
not changing as part of the application. No increase in the dining area, no increase in the seats, the hours of operation. These are all utilitarian in nature in terms of the improvements that the applicant is proposing. So, the parking demand on the site is not going
to increase. Um, with that, I'll start on my left here, your right, and I'll hand out some exhibits to help um substantiate the setback release. And if you could just identify the package, and I'd like to ask that the whole package be marked as exhibit A1. It's it's going
to be a five sheet exhibit, and they're all drone photographs that were taken today, so it's as close to real time as as we can get. So if you hear of any drone sightings in Raridan Township, we don't do this at night. Say now this explains the
activity. Finally got to the bottom of that. So uh we'll take you through. Was this A1 again? Yes. All right. A1 for the record. Five photographs that were taken today. I'd say they were taken midafter afternoon. So, it's after the lunch
peak. Obviously, there's not a lot of cars in the parking lot and was taken um before the uh the evening rush, I'll say as well. The subject building is the brown pitched roof building that you see in the middle of the photograph with the
parking lot in the front. Basically, what you see is what you you'll get. One of the nice things about this application is the utility structures, the mechanical equipment, um the dining area, and the generator are all going to be located in the back of the building,
remote from the public realm. So, none of these utilitarian structures are going to be visible to the public eye in the public realm from Route 31. Second page of A1 gives you a similar view of the subject site from a slightly different angle. Um,
importantly here, all of the surrounding uses are non-residential. You've got the Starbucks, you've got the Golden Bowl Chinese Restaurant, you've got the GDDARD child care facility, you've got the Flemington Elks on the other side of the street as well. So, this is a
nonresidential area. We don't have a situation where we have non-residential use impacting adjacent residential properties. Third frame, we now take you to the back. This is sort of the impact area. We're looking to validate that
which is there. Again, it's the brown pitch roof building. I think the first thing that will jump out at you is the nice framework of buffering that our applicant has provided around the property. I think um I think Angelo said these are about 10 or 15 years old.
Those trees have nicely grown up and filled in and provide a nice solid continuous row of screening along the perimeter of pro the property to screen these elements that we're talking about this evening. Going from right to left or from left to right along the back,
you've got that addition that is going to house the the walk-in cooler which is set back at 22.36 ft where 50 ft would be the minimum required. It's there. You get a sense of um how well screened it is and
separated from the neighboring land use. I'm sorry to interrupt. Your testimony was is going to house. Does it house or is it going to house? It it houses. Okay. And it's been in existence. It it houses the walking. Okay.
25 years. Thank you. Next you see the white fence enclosure which encloses mechanical equipment. um that is set back 17.7 feet where 50 feet would be the minimum required. Again, the mitigation or the
mitigative elements are there with that screening that you see in place. Certainly, these structures don't rise in height above uh the height of the evergreens that are around it. And then lastly, you've got that patio area in place as well, which is
approved and not uh don't believe that's being validated as part of the application. It is as well. I don't have a setback for that. Um, but it is not any closer than the refrigeration unit or the mechanical equipment
addition. And then of course in that uh northern corner, that far corner, back corner is where this generator would go at 30,000 watt on a 6x6 pad would be framed by the landscaping that you see in this photograph as well. plus the
supplemental planning that came out as as part of your professional comment and the applicant adhering to that. Uh the generator is going to be set back on the side 9 ft where 20 ft would be the minimum that's required and then in the rear the generator would be
38 ft where 50 ft would be the minimum that's required. So those are the four setback variances that the applicant is asking the board to move on. two for the generator, one for the refrigeration unit, and that uh small addition 724
square feet. And then the mechanical equipment as well. You get another view of the rear of the property and the effective screening that's in place in page number four on a number two. And then finally, just sort of a top- down view to show how it all knits together.
the remoteness of these structures from the road. The building becomes somewhat of a buffer, if you will, blocking any visibility of these structures from the road. And then the landscaping becomes the buffer in the rear. So the screening elements are effectively there to
conceal any visual impacts of of these additional structures. The lock coverage is going to be 75% where 55% would be the maximum that's allowed. You can see in the back of the site on this top down view sheet number five, there's sort of a tan or
brown area next to the outdoor patio area which will revert back to lawn or to to green. So that will be an improvement over the existing condition which is presently at 83.2%. Um, and as I just said on the subject
site and the site adjacent, you're looking at 40 spaces being striped. Um, where 57 would be the minimum that's required. In terms of the justification for the relief, we're going to look to both the C1 hardship test and the C2
balancing provision. I think this board knows well that either C1 hardship or C2 balancing needs to be met. This is a case where I think both tests are met. Um I would say the justifications here are double
strong. So first under C1 all relief clearly relates to the land and the structures that are lawfully existing thereon. The lot is undersized and the site is developed creating practical difficulties in complying. Again we're working with an established site. The lot area is about
half of what the minimum zoning requirement would be. So there's constraints related to the size and the shape of the property. That's a textbook C1 hardship. And then also related to the fact that the building is already there and we're working off of that. I
think we could stop there and say the C1 test is met and this applicant will have met its burden, but I think the board can also find that the C2 test is met whereby the benefits of the application as a whole would substantially outweigh any detriments. The beneficiary of these
improvements of course are the customers um with improved service and operational efficiency. The project will promote multiple purposes of the MLUL at NJSA 405D-2 especially purpose A the
promotion of the general welfare. Purpose M our planning goal for efficient use of land with infill of a within the building footprint or the development footprint of the site. Purpose G to provide for a variety
of uses in appropriate locations. And purpose I the promotion of a desirable visual environment. This is going to maintain what is locally familiar in the landscape and not alter what is seen from the public realm. With respect to the negative criteria under both the C1
and the C2, all relief can be granted without any substantial detriment to the public or the zone plan. The impacts here visually and functionally are minimal, if any. The improvements are well screened and concealed. Uh based on all of this, I believe the improvements will enhance
and establish business with a long-standing commitment to the community. Uh in that regard, the statutory criteria for grant of relief are met and approval is warranted. That's all I have on direct. I have no questions of Mr. Mcdana. He covered
everything in my notes. I was maybe I missed it because I might have been reading. I can't hear you. I'm sorry. Maybe I was missed it, but um proofs related to the parking deviation. Again, it's an existing condition. Yeah. That has existed without detriment. The
parking supply has served the customer base and the employee base that's there. There's going to be absolutely no change. Again, these are utility structures. We're not increasing the dining area. We're not increasing staff. We're not increasing hours of operation
or the or the product base, the menu. Um so I think the board the board can rest upon what has functioned adequately for years um without any change. Thank you. Any questions, Jeff? No, I was I was just going to add that even even if the
even though the factor the parking factor has changed the um the required for the required amount of parking for the use is is is the same. That's correct. The the supply will meet the actual demand as it has in the past.
Any other additional questions? Nope. Jeff, anything left from your report? No, I don't believe so. I I believe they addressed everything. Um, I was mainly concerned with the planning the planning variance the variance
reliefs were covered. Yeah, all all of them have been adequately uh covered and testified to. Um, yeah, great. No other questions. And Mr. Thomas, since we didn't like ask you before your the would uh in
relationship to your recommendation for the single row, can should that be added as a note to the plan or how how do we memorialize that? Yeah, I think that should just be added as a note to the plan. Yeah, I'm sorry. I think that should just be added as a note to the plan. The the the plant, the single row
plant, the hedge. Great. Okay. Yeah. just so that that I was wondering that along because it seems like the issue of the cross easements and stuff gets had got lost and had to be found again and I'm wondering if it might be appropriate to note those easements were recorded
just so that in the future if something needs to happen again with the project site it won't be a question. So that's good. That would be my other suggestion. I think we provided them so that it's been satisfied, right? Maybe it could be referenced in the
resolution. Okay. Okay. Any other additional questions? My stellar legal conclusion will be that I think that we have addressed all of the variances and the positive and negative criteria and as quickly as we
could move on uh getting this approved so that if there's a power outage, they don't lose $30,000 worth of product. that would be greatly appreciated. Anything else? The only only other note that um Ryan in your report you had
asked for the details on the generator uh pad could that be included as part of thea the construction application or how how would it be best to look at that? I think it would probably be best to add it as a detail in the plan. It's nothing nothing crazy. We would just but it just makes it cleaner so that way it's it's
it's usually a site improvement type of thing. So we would just ask that be added. Yeah. Your generator guy will probably have a detail you can just Yeah. provide. Okay. Great. So the conditions I have is condition one, three and eight of the engineers report
as well as a single row of plantings to be depicted to be updated. Those those are the conditions I have and uh soil erosion. a note on the soil erosion and sediment control. Um re we'll call it uh reveation or or we'll just if we can add
some notes and just some details about how we're going to readee the ground area I guess is okay. Also on on the plans yeah okay that's fine. Yep. So I have what I need. I'll make a motion uh with all those
little caveats there um to approve. Second. Okay. Roll call vote. Vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews. Yes. Miss Robin Fatu. Yes. Mr. Scott McDade.
Yes. Miss Michelle Cavakiri. Yes. Mr. Dennis Cookit. Yes. Mr. James Miller. Yes. Mr. Glenn Solowski. Yes. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Yeah. So my basement with all these
things. It's crazy. All right. So uh our next uh hearing coming up is Hunter Medical Center. Correct? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes. All right. Huh? Preliminary and final for proposed
community services pavilion. Yeah. A whole little building. We already got that back. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we have it. All right. I've obviously been pouring over it. Of course. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjurnn? You speak for everybody. All in favor? I
I Good night, folks.