Thank you. Calling to order the zoning board of adjustment routing township, New Jersey, regular meeting December 18th, 2025. Notice of meeting the notice requirements of the open public meetings act has been satisfied by the placing of
a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building filing same with the township clerk and transmitting same to the hun county democrat the courier news the star ledger and the Trenton times roll call please chairwoman Cynthia Schaefer here
vice chair Mr. Damchi >> here >> Mr. Steve Farcio >> here >> Mr. Randy Block >> here >> Mr. Mr. Jim Ferrero >> here. >> Miss Lindsay Coal >> here. >> Miss Lorett Cina >> here. >> Miss Donna Drews >> here. >> And Mr. James Miller has asked to be
excused. Uh board professionals. >> Board professionals. Board attorney Mr. John Drill >> here. >> Township player Mr. Jeffrey Beckerella >> here. >> And all other board professionals have asked to be excused. But >> correct. Board secretary Taylor Vaughn
here. Okay. Okay. Can I get a motion to excuse James Miller? >> So move. >> I'll second. Uh, roll call, please. >> Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Russell Damg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindseay Coell. >> Yes. >> And Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. Okay. Moving on to comments and announcements. We do have an announcement tonight. So I would like to read into the record something that was
provided to me which I'm happy to read. Township of Riden County Hunter New Jersey proclam proclamation honoring Donna Donna Drews as the Raridan Township 2025 citizen of the year. Whereas the citizens of the township of
Raridan have a long have long demonstrated a deep spirit of volunteerism, generosity, and civic pride, contributing their time, talents, and resources in countless ways for the betterment of our community. And whereas the township committee has established
an anno annual award to recognize an individual who has made a difference in the community through her his or her leadership and volunteerism. And whereas nominations for this these honors are received from members of the community who wish to acknowledge the
extraordinary efforts of their fellow citizens reflecting the collective appreciation and unity that define Ryan Township. And whereas the Raran Township Environmental Commission and Green Team members have nominated their fellow volunteer Donna Drews as the Raran
Township Citizen of the Year in recognition of her many years of extraordinary service and dedication to the community. 10. Whereas Donna and her husband Tom have been residents of Rarina Township for nearly 45 years during which Donna has selfishly
volunteered her time, talent, and expertise to improve the quality of life in our township. And whereas Donna is a long-standing and highly respected member of of both the township planning and zoning boards and is currently serving
as vice chair of the planning board. And whereas Don has guided the environmental commission and green team through sustainable Jersey certification and grant processes processes leading Ryan Township to achieve bronze certification and working towards silver
certification. And whereas Donna has personally adopted and maintained the Veterans Memorial Garden in the front of the municipal building and has led volunteers in the upkeep and planning of the native plant pollinator garden throughout the year. Now therefore be it
proclaimed I, Bob King, Mayor of Ron and Township and on behalf of the township committee hereby recognize and honor Donna Drews for her exceptional contributions, leadership, service to our community, and proudly naming her township raring township 2025 citizen of
the year. We would like to thank you for your experience, expertise for the board of adjustments. Greatly appreciate it. >> And if you don't >> if you don't eat the candy, I'm sure the grandkids will.
>> Thank you so much everybody. I appreciate >> it's it's good that we recognize all the volunteers and all the work that we all do. >> Yes. Okay, moving on to the applications for this
evening. BOA case number 06-2022, Nicholas Carappa, location block 37, lot 2-14 River Road application time extension request for obtaining zoning construction permits for approved
addition condition number seven of the BOA resolution 2023-15. Is that this letter that we have? >> Yes. December 8th, 202. Yeah. >> So I believe based on the letter you
just you wanted a um extension based on timing and and originally phasing of the project. >> Explain explain to the board. So it's resolution 2023-15 and Jeff which condition number was it? It
looks like it's condition seven of resolution 2023-15. Yes. Of the original resolution. >> Right. Can you read condition seven time and within which to obtain zoning and construction permits, commence and complete construction, obtain permit, certificate of occupancy for the
proposed addition. >> Read the entire thing. >> Well, put it this way. His letter says he needs to the issuance of zoning and construction permits by February 1, 2026. >> That's correct. >> And that's what he wants extended
because he doesn't need anything else extended in that condition because everything the rest of that condition is based off when he gets the first construction permit. Correct. >> Correct. >> So when do you want the extension to from February 1, 2026 till when?
>> I would like that deadline extended. I was asking for 12 months. I believe I asked in the the letter. And >> so you asked for six month extension in the letter, but >> Oh, I did. >> Yeah. But in thinking about it, you're thinking maybe a year. So explain to them why you need the extra time.
>> Sure. Um, so I recently engaged um, uh, design build company to come out to design the, uh, addition that I'm planning for my house. And it's in the final stages. Uh we're we've already got
the layouts all all done, but um I still need I'm not going to there's no way I'm going to have the construction drawings to submit in time to meet the February 1 deadline >> and to have it approved as well. >> So just so the board understands, Jeff,
when the application was submitted, he didn't have architectural plans or anything like that. It was a plot plan and he showed the where the addition would go and that's why the you knew and the board knew what setback variances he needed. Correct. >> Correct.
>> So what he's saying is okay now the rubber is meeting the road and he's got to get the thing designed and he's not going to have enough time. >> Okay. >> And you you know he has for six months but quite frankly that's not going to be enough time. >> No. And I I don't really want him to
come having to come back. >> Right. So you want to just give them a year? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Everybody agree with that? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So they they have to make a motion. >> I appreciate the the thought. >> So this is going to be extend from
February 1, 2026 to February 1, 2027. >> And he does have a CL for the shed. So condition eight he did comply with which he did request another exception.
>> So it's only condition number seven not condition number eight. Correct. >> Correct. He he complies with that. >> Okay. So someone first can someone give like a reason before you make the motion to grant the extension. Give me something or Jeff give us something.
Somebody give us something. I it's it's a necessity that he needs more time. needs more time because they're now into the design. >> Yes. >> Yeah. The plans aren't going to be done, >> right?
>> Correct. >> That's going to take time and then it's going to take time to get everything in motion. So, it's not it's not doable. Okay. More time is now into design. Need the plans and then
>> you're not going to construct this yourself, are you going to get a contractor? >> No. I I have a Yeah. Same guy that's uh designing is going to do the building. >> Okay. So, right you said design build. >> Yes. >> All right. Okay. Someone want to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to grant the extension to a year. >> I roll call, please. >> Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Sodoni. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindseay Cbringel.
>> Yes. and Miss Lorette Cina. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Happy holidays. >> Thank you. You too. >> Okay. Moving on to the next application of this evening. BOA case number 20-2025.
Applicant is DCX Docs Raveren Urban Renewal LLC. Location is block 40 lot 5.06 408 Highway 202. Application C variance is to permit a building facade
over the 100 square foot maximum and 5% 5% area facing a road. Good evening. >> Good evening chairman. >> Why don't you introduce yourself and then take it how you want to take it? You want to describe what we talked about before? Whatever you want to do,
but eventually we got to get there. >> Certainly. Uh my name is Justin Marquetta, partner with the firm English Taylor in Paripany, New Jersey. Uh here on behalf of the applicant. Um I was and
excuse me uh I'm a little bit um >> he was caught off guard by >> caught off guard here. Approximately 5 minutes before the start of the meeting, Mr. drill pulled me aside and raised uh an issue that he believes uh this board lacks jurisdiction uh to hear this
matter. Um if I can make my record >> Oh yeah, correct. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Yep. >> Um the the board absolutely has jurisdiction to hear this matter. This is a flexible C or a C2 variance application for signs on the facade of the uh applicant building which is at
408 Route 202. That's block 40, lot 5.06 on your tax maps. This is the county distribution center for restaurant depot and jetro cash and carry um which was uh approved pursuant
to a redevelopment plan uh for I believe the former uh US bronze site uh or portion of it. Um I learned from Mr. drill uh that he has an issue with the board hearing this application uh based
upon uh what I understand is his interpretation >> well three three things >> of the plan of the planning board approval and and three items in there uh and he also references the planner's report I will point out uh again this is a relatively straightforward application
for signs uh signs uh to be mounted on the facade of the building um we are not seeking a use variance Uh we are not seeking uh any other relief. Um I again found out about this 5 minutes before we commence despite uh the planning report
being available uh since Friday. Um and now we sit here and it's Thursday. I have a witness uh who drove over 5 hours to be here. Uh he was denied uh the opportunity to appear virtually. Uh I have a client who's spending uh real money on this. Um, and now we are uh
surprised and caught off guard uh that uh you know Mr. Drill wants uh this matter not to be uh before the zoning board. >> It's not that I don't want it. This is my legal opinion. It's up to them. >> So you keep on making your record. I I'll give my legal opinion. Just so you
know, you can ask people in your office like Derek Orth. The reason that I didn't get to look at this until today was because I've been wrapped up in affordable housing matters with Derek and others. We've all been wrapped up in a bouncing matters, Mr. >> Okay. So, yeah, the planning report's been out since December 11. I looked at
it for the first time after lunch today, >> right? And and I didn't I didn't receive a call, but >> Yeah. And by the way, and I I pulled your eye 15 minutes before the meeting, so I wouldn't, you know, so you wouldn't find out about it once the hearing started. I thought I was giving you, you know, a courtesy.
>> Understood. I'm I'm just making my record here. So, so I mean, Mr. Dill, if you if you want to give Let let me explain. >> I'll respond to the the points. >> So the I'll give you the points that I believe
I put jurisdiction over this matter with the planning board and then I'll let Jeff have some additional points. So when I read Jeff's memo, two things jumped out at me. The first was his item number eight. He said
signage was not discussed and was agreed to compliance per finding 58. What he's talking about is the planning board approval resolution which he attached to his memo as a paragraph 58. In paragraph 58 it
says the applicant has agreed to submit a compliant sign package for the project to the township planner for review and approval. Now that's on page 13. If you go down to the bottom of the resolution
starting on page 19, that's where the formal conditions are listed and there's no condition listed there that says they have to submit a compliant sign package. What I told the applicant's attorney was in my opinion
there's case law that says just bec look a better resolution would have had it in the conditions but just because it's not in the condition section if it's a condition it's a condition so in my opinion a condition of the planning board's approval was that the sign
package had to be compliant so Mr. Marquette said, "Well, maybe that's talking about the directional signs." And I said, "You know what? I thought the same thing." So I asked Mr. Varel to Is there anything that supports
planning board paragraph number 58? And so he went into the transcript of the planning board hearing and the May 8th, 2024 transcript of the planning board hearing
on page 134. It's probably why Jeff remembered this because Jeff asked the following question to Mr. Santo. SA N O L A. Who is that? Do you know?
>> I do not. >> Executive vice president of who was the applicant. >> Okay. So Jeff said, "I had one question about the signage of the plan. Will there be a coordinated sign plan for wall signs in any directional signs?" That's Jeff's question. The answer for
Mr. Santolo is well the wall sign, our plan is to meet the ordinance. I think where the locations are that you're seeing right now, they'll be no less. They'll be way less than 5%. So my first
legal opinion to the board is I believe that paragraph 58 is in essence a condition of the planning board approval. So it they they don't merely need C variances for these wall signs. They need relief
from that condition. In my opinion, case law says you got to go to the planning board to get relief from that condition. And when you get relief from that condition, if they grant the relief, then the variances would be for them. But then it but then it went a
um step further. Jeff's comment number 13 was second sentence. It was agreed that earth tones were to be used to blend into the natural environment. Please confirm. So I asked Jeff, I don't understand that comment. And he said,
"Did you look at the elevations?" So I looked at the elevations and I'm like, "Okay, now I understand the comment." You have the elevations of this application that we could put up on the screen. >> Which ones do you want? From the original or >> No, the ones from this application. You guys can start off by looking at
they have a the sign package included elevations. Mhm. So, if you look at while Taylor's trying to get that thing up on the screen, if you look at sheets four of eight,
five of eight, and six of eight, you'll see elevations be helpful if it could be up on the screen. If it can, it can't. This is part of their submission. And you look at the colors there. And then
I'm then so I again said to Jeff, "Okay, look, I obviously represent the DOA. I don't represent the planning board. Where are you getting that from?" And he said again, he was the he sat through those hearings. He said, "Okay, there we go." So
it's blue and gray like that. Now, Jeff said the transcript of the May 22 hearing, pages 16 to 19, they had a discussion and
they had said we were apparently there was a a line on the top of the building that they took off and they put a softer gray. That's on page 16. Then on page 17, they described two options. There was apparently exhibit A6,
A5, A6 and A7. This is between pages 17 and 18. Exhibit A5 according to the witness and the witness at this time was ah Mr. Santo again. So,
exhibit A5 was option one, front entrance. Exhibit A6 was option one, the view from Vorhees Corner Road. And then they had A7, which was option two.
And there was a discussion back and forth. And on page 19, Ms. Fatu, how do you f a t >> for two? >> For two. >> She's a planning board member, I assume. >> Yes. The planning board member of Fatu said
that apparently they must have stupled themselves and she said we have a quorum of a preference for option one. So can you put up exhibit A5 and A6 from the planning board hearing to see how that compares with that because I said if
it's different again if they want to make it different they got to go to the planning board. If they if you said tonight now we'll go to you know we'll switch it to what's on A5 or A6 then I would say that wouldn't be a problem. So if the applicant wants
to stay here are they willing to go back to what's shown in A5 or A6? >> Let's see A5 and A6. >> Right. Because if you needed relief from that again that's from the planning board not the BOA. >> No. Do you have A5 and A6? >> It's going okay.
>> It is loading. This is A5. >> Okay. And now show A6. >> This was what was labeled as A6. But if you're looking for option two, it would be A7. >> Okay, let's look at A7.
So A7 is the more beige one and the planning board wanted the uh >> first one. A5. So go to A5 again. And so can you maybe just >> talk to your client? >> Let well I I just did. So let me let me
um just hit the points that uh Mr. Drill raised. >> So uh >> we have one more point to go. >> Okay. Let let me hit these two and then we'll save the best for last. Um so the applicant's position is it's it's not a condition of the planning board
approval. What what Mr. drill is reading is uh Mr. San's belief uh regarding the submitted signs with the planning board application was not made a condition of the planning board resolution. Um they said that a
compliant sign package would be submitted. The restaurant depot signage is not strictly compliant which is why we need strictly need C2 variance relief and why we're before this board and not seeking amended site plan approval. the beige
and I'll I'll point out there is some stark blue uh striping on this building as an option that was presented to the planning board. So, it's not just earth tones. Um but th those were not made express conditions. It's the compliant sign
package that we need relief from because our signs are larger than that permitted by your ordinance. Um, I will point out as as our planner uh just mentioned that the blue color of the restaurant depot sign is actually it it that is a
rendering of the glass of the sign. It's not actually >> but we're not talking about the color of the signage. We're talking about the color of the facade. >> We we brought up the we brought up the earth tones. We said the earth tones and it just said signage up there. So I don't know what uh in I believe this is A5 from the planning board. I don't I
don't know what signage means but >> this is this a separate issue. This is the facade color. >> This is not sign color. >> Right. And and the applicant is not seeking to change the color of the facade. We're seeking approval for >> Yeah. But that but what you're showing to the board if they approve the plan
tonight, the applicant's entitled to go with that facade that's up on the pardon me that's in the that's in the package tonight. That facade is inconsistent with the with the facade that's shown on exhibit A5 that's up on the screen. That's the that's the point. How is it?
Our our exhibit uh our signage exhibit is based off the architectural renderings that were before the planning board. >> Was it the original or the >> You need to speak to that microphone. >> Was it the original or what was revised? >> Let me let me pull that. Yeah, let me
pull that up. We're taking Jeff is saying if you look at the facade on the signage plan, that facade is not the facade that the planning board They're windows, right? >> Yeah, >> the blue is windows.
>> Hold on. Hold on. Look at sheet four. >> Look at she look at sheet four. Those aren't windows, are they? >> No, >> come take a look. >> Yes. >> Name for the record. >> Jeff Reign with the sign company.
R I E S and let me get you to raise your right hand. You swear affirm right. >> I understand. I understand. I'm saying that the architect has switched >> Yeah. >> facade color.
from from what was shown to the plan on the approval. >> Got by looking at understood >> well at this point you're swear sworn in. If you want to have a seat right there that's fine but if you talk talk into that microphone please
>> John I for these two >> for these two points I have a question for you. >> Okay before we get to point three. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, we have a luxury here of having Donna who is also part of the planning board. >> I understand, but we're not we're not
going to Donna is not going to become a witness in this case. >> That's why I'm asking. >> Okay. We are going to rely on transcripts and >> it Yeah, you answered. Thank you. take this.
>> I might have one more. >> Oh, also by the way there is a condition. This is on page 19 of the resolution and it says >> number two. >> Hold on. Let me read it please.
Condition number two. Completion of the proposed project shall be consistent with the testimony offered at the public hearing the findings and conclusions of the board. So guess what? >> Yes. This condition number two has incorporated by reference all those findings and made them conditions. So my
opinion is even stronger now and that would include the testimony from you said the executive vice president of >> Woodmont >> of Woodmont about the color of the facade which which the board said they
wanted option one which was shown on exhibit A5. So, so that so now if there was any doubt in my mind which there wasn't but now there's actually an expressed condition which again in my opinion the board cannot modify this
condition regarding the facade colors only the planning board could >> Mr. drill. The applicant is not here to modify the facade colors that were approved. >> If the board grants this approval, it in effect you and you go in for a permit,
you're going to the permit is going to unfortunately let you do what is shown on the sign package, which modifies the facade covers of the building. >> Look at the sign package signs to be mounted to the facade.
We we can make it if if if the rendering of the of the facade of the building has changed, right? >> We can use whatever the architect >> excuse me submitted uh for the final approval. Again, if >> you actually can't you have to you have
to go with option number one, which is exhibit A5. If you want to seek an, you know, an adjournment till next month and resubmit to have the approved facade on there, no problem. But we still have to get to the the last issue. >> All right, let's let's move on to the last issue.
>> And the first issue was needing relief from the representation that the sign package is going to comply and not need variance. That's still a problem unless the applicant agrees as part of the modified application that it's going to reduce all the signage to comply.
Then you wouldn't even need a C variance. >> No, the applicant cannot agree to uh comply with the size limits in the in the ordinance. So that one alone in my opinion kicks you to the planning board. But the last issue is we're going to need testimony on this. What is the you
what is the proposed use of this building? You said distribution. Is there any retail or wholesale sales going to take place in this building? >> And and unfortunately I do not have the right witness here to testify to that. I do not have the the company officer for restaurant
>> because I asked Jeff to take a look at, you know, the website for them. So, can you did you did you give Taylor the website information? >> Nope. >> I did not forward it. I apologize. But I believe it's it's on their u restaurant
depot main website. >> Go to the restaurant. Can you just wwwepo I assume.com? Mhm. >> If what I'm not testifying, but I what I think you're going to find when you get to that is you take a look, it looks
like a Home Depot or a BJ's, which and just so you know, so we took a look. Jeff said the application was presented as a warehouse. I said that doesn't bother me because there's nothing in
here as far as I'm aware that limit limits to a warehouse. The US Bronze and 75 Vorhees Corner Road Redevelopment Plan, which is has the date on it, January 30th, 2023 on page
nine lists permitted uses and warehouses are permitted and retail is permitted. So, the fact that there's retail going on there, no problem. The problem is that according to Jeff, I asked him before
and that's what we also discussed in our meeting down in Jeff's office before the hearing tonight. Jeff said that the parking shown on the the planning board approved site plan is based on a warehouse. It is not based on retail. So, we'd have to know exactly how many
square feet it's going to be warehouse and how many square feet is going to be retail. Because if the whole thing was retail, first of all, Jeff, how many park spaces are provided on that the plan that went to the planning? >> 186
>> and the 186 spaces was based on what? Wholesale? I mean, >> warehousing. >> Warehouse. >> Yes. >> Okay. Assuming for argument only. >> Yeah. Mr. drill, before we get in before we get into the math and and I think I can save us some time here. Um I believe
it would be easier if if the applicant requests an adjournment so that we can figure out if we are going to resubmit and and uh you know provide additional detail here or >> Okay, but let me just get the the whole thought out. >> Okay, just trying to save you some
>> No, I understand. But I think it's better if we get everything out on the record. Then we'll we can also you can order a transcript. you'll know exactly what my opinion is. So, the plan submitted to the planning board and it was presented as a warehouse had
186 parking spaces. And Jeff, you say the 186 spaces was based on warehouse which is how many spaces per thousand square feet? >> One per 2,000. >> One space per 2,000 square feet. Just
I'd like to say SNG, but I can't. Just for hypothetically, if the entire building was retail, which I don't think it is, but if the entire building was retail, how many spaces would First of all, what's the retail parking space
requirement? >> It's four per thousand. >> Four spaces per 1,000 square ft. So, if the whole building was retail, which again, I don't believe this is based on what Mr. Maretta told me down the hall, but if it was, how many spaces would be required?
>> 1,400 15. >> Okay. Now, I don't know what percentage it's going to be retail, but what you got to do is find out. You're going to have to Was it delineated on the plan that there was any retail or did the whole thing show?
>> No. I mean, they they they showed locations for offices, but it wasn't that did not come up. It wasn't >> specified. So you guys are going to have to go back and find out, you know, if for example in a Home Depot, like you've been in a
Home Depot, what part is retail, what part is warehouse? Well, the Home Depot, I would say, is entirely retail. It's like a shopping store. Even though they have large stacks of stuff, you go in there and you get the stuff from the stacks, unless there's something in the back that we're not seeing, which is very
possible. If there's something in the back, a warehouse. So you guys have to figure out and submit a plan showing what part is retail, what part is warehouse and then do the parking calculation. >> So the way our ordinance is written is that it's it's based on the permit. It's
the principal permitted use. And so whatever is incorporated with that, it's unless it's subdivided into an actual in in in an area that the main purpose of the of the building would have to be the parking calculation, whatever falls into it. So if it's manufacturing and some of
it is ware is >> hypothetically let's say that they present proof that the primary purpose of this building is actually warehousing distribution. Let's assume hypothetically that they have other of these restaurant depots around the state or maybe even in Pennsylvania for all I
know. And let's assume that this facility is going to be a warehouse and district center to those other places. But there's also going to be a retail place in the building. Read the ordinance. Give me the ordinance section. that says you can you can ignore the retail. I just
>> to butt in, Mr. Drill, but before we get into >> all these hypotheticals and and these these gracious community volunteers are are sitting here listening to this. Um, let's just have an adjournment of this so we could figure out uh you know what
what we're going to do. We've we've heard your arguments. We've we've heard the issues presented. >> I'm not making arguments. I'm trying to render an opinion. I need to see the ordinance to finish this off. 3 to see where I'm going to come out on this because if the if the ordinance says that if you if the building is
principally distribution even though you have rail even though you have retail then you're partly going to be okay. It depends on what the ordinance says. Are you not interested in finding out my opinion on it? >> You can you can make your opinion but >> well if you don't want to we cannot do it and you can pick your journ as far as
I'm concerned. I'm okay. You can continue. It doesn't bother me. We were going to be here anyway. Yeah. Okay, this is ordinance section 296-155. This is ordinance section 296-155. >> A no C. In the event of a mixed use, the
required off- streetet parking shall be the sum of the required off- streetet parking for each you for each use. A mixed use is two or more independent and distinct uses in the same separate structures, not the separate portion of
any individual use. I.e. a manufacturing use will also contain warehouse and office space, but the parking calculation shall be based on the gross floor area using the manufacturing standard. Does it talk about retail anywhere, Jeff? >> No. >> Because I would say that
that thing makes it clear for manufacturing, which makes sense. I don't know if it's the same level of clearness. So, you're going to have to look at that and see if you think that ordinance says that if the primary purpose here is distribution that the
board can ignore retail from the parking requirement, maybe your parking complies. But if that's not what the ordinance says or if there's some other is there a a chart for parking requirements, it has to be you told me. >> Yes. Yes. It's on.
>> Is there any language in regards to that chart? Yeah. So, this is 296-155F required spaces by use in cases of use of not specifically mentioned in the following schedule. The planning board shall determine the number of spaces
required through review of testimony from the applicant, review of recognized parking standards, review of similar standards contained herein, and through field investigation of similar uses. So find me retail and find me warehouse.
Please retail store. That's not this is not a store. Wholesale? We We got to be careful. You're not the applicants. This is not wholesale, is it? >> No, it's a it's a distribution center to
its other >> It's a distribution center with some retail. It's not a distribution center and wholesale. >> No, wholesale is not a component of >> Is it just distribution or is it going to be retail too? >> It's going to be retail too, >> is it? >> Well, that's is it? Yeah, that's what he
told me. Unfortunately, Madam Chair, I don't have the right witness here to testify as to the >> So, you don't know >> the actual >> Okay. So, they're going to they're really going to have to come back on that because I was under the impression from speaking to him beforehand that there was going to be a retail component of
this. But again, the ordinance, you got to look at that ordinance. So, they have to find out if there's going to be a retail component, you got to put it on the plan and then make your argument about whether you comply or not. If they don't comply with parking, then it's my opinion, it's another thing they have to
go back to the planning board for. And that one is an amended site plan approval. >> So, so they went so they got approval in the planning board. >> Yes. >> For warehouse and never mentioned retail. >> Did you read the transcripts and were
you there? >> Yes, I was there and I don't recall retail ever. >> So, so a typical warehouse. Okay. And now now they're they're here for the signage and their signage is significant.
>> Well, put it this way. I don't think Right. Let's ask the signage guy. Was this signage Do you need the signage for a distribution center or do you need the signage because you're also having retail and you want people to see where they're going? Because McDunner's report that's
what he says. >> I can't I'm not able to address that. >> Okay. Okay. So if we look at M Mr. Mcdana's report which is their planner right the basis for the variance in his report
is it promotes clear and safe identification of the site from multiple vantage points. Um, and if this was a distribution center, you know, I would think that the drivers >> we know where they're going. A warehouse
is a warehouse has an address number on the building and that's it. >> Right. But it seems to me that Mr. Mcdana's argument is >> Yeah. that the reason that the board, whichever board has this, should grant
the variances is so members of the public coming on the site know where they're going. >> Okay. >> But that's that's they have to find out, but I'll be shocked. You know, it's possible. I'll be shocked if there's no retail component or I don't think they'd be here asking for these sign barriers. >> And and to that point, Mr. Drill, it
restaurant Depot is a national brand. I mean, you don't need a logo on a building to find a law firm. But Gibbons plasters its name on the building in North because it's it's proud of its brand. >> Restaurant, >> but it's a warehouse. I got a question. >> I mean, if it's tr truly a warehouse,
all the warehouses are in the township have >> right. So, put it this way. >> Minimal. >> I asked you, couldn't you just reduce the signage to comply with the ordinance? You said you can't do that. Why? That that's visibility. So, it it sure seems from Mr. Mcdana's report, your planner, that the purpose is
visibility for people that are going to go buy retail. But again, we have to wait for >> Well, okay. So, and and part of the the argument was why was the signage needed? And if you put that signage up there and it is a warehouse, you're going to have people driving into something that they have to turn around and come out of. So,
again, this is very confusing and I don't know. >> Hence the request for an enderman. >> Okay. >> Can I just ask one question? Restaurant Depot is a national brand. I get that. My question to you is are there and you may not know the answer.
The sign guy will well their locations. Here's my question. My lo their locations are every one of them do they always have a retail component or is it or are some just warehouses? >> I don't have the answer. Unfortunately, I don't have the witness here who can answer. >> Okay. No problem. That that would just I
think that's right >> because I always thought Restaurant Depot had a um you you had like a retail component to it. If I was a restaurant or something, I could go there and right >> in a local restaurant. >> Let's get Let's get that website up.
Okay. Get the website up. I don't know. I could be wrong. >> Maybe there's an answer on that website. >> Okay. >> Let's get the website up there. This is www. restaurant
>> restaurant depot.com >> and if you go to about us it goes through >> Oh well I went to uh signing up for a membership because it has specific what you have to present to them to go >> yeah so I don't know is that
>> yeah but listen that goes to Steve's question that doesn't answer the question. >> Yeah. If you go to >> about what they are. >> Yeah. >> Go to >> Yeah. >> Stop there. >> Is that what this place is going to look
like? >> Is that what the place is going to look like? >> I think that you don't know either. >> We don't have the witness here. again if it come back. How do I get >> you affirm that your testimony?
>> Yes. >> John Tyena licensed planner state in New Jersey happens I completed my studies at Ruckers University in 1992. spent the last 33 years doing this. That's the farm for planning and zoning boards around the country and across the state on behalf of applicants just like this.
I was last here in 2023. Nice to be back. >> Well, how do you spell your last name? Slowly. >> T is in Thomas. A I K is in Kelly. I N is in Nicholas A. >> Okay. Did you you were going to come here to
testify about the basis for the C variances for design. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Were your reasons going to be similar to what was in McDonald's report? >> Yes. >> So, if someone asked you, were the signs for visibility for people coming onto
the site to buy something? What would you have said? >> No. >> Okay. So, what's the reason then for the signs that have to be that large? >> It's branding on a 350,000 foot building um for a national uh for a national tenant.
>> Okay. and and to provide a location and direction for the many truckers that will uh come here and to think that just because they have an address they're going to find a building. That's uh not generally our um our feeling. The difference between a
restaurant depot is much like Mr. Drill said, Home Depot. So there is a Home Depot where you can go in and buy all the things that we buy, you know, in 125,000T Home Depot or to use a recent example where I was here in front of the
township. Uh for Target, you can go into an 80 86,000 foot Target and buy a bunch of things. If you go to Logan, New Jersey, there's a two million square foot warehouse in Logan, New Jersey that stretches for over 3,000 feet along
Route 322. And on the front of that warehouse is a big bullseye that looks exactly the same as the one that you see on Route 202 over here. It is branding for a national tenant. So, we were here just to seek the approval for the
branding for our national tenant, which is Restaurant Depot and Jetro Cash and Carry. Jetro Cash and Carry is the parent company of Restaurant Depot. >> Do they operate as one model or two separate models?
>> Both. They have them together in some locations. They have them just jet roll cash and carries in some locations, just restaurant depots in some location. Most recent restaurant depot that I did was in Neptune. It is just like Home Depot.
Just take away home and insert restaurant. >> So it look >> it looks like the the restaurant depot facility where a restaurant tour or a business owner would go in to buy things for their restaurant. Looks like the
exhibit up on the screen. Okay. But just >> So you're saying So you're saying the reasoning is for advertising? >> Yes. >> And for truckers who don't have GPS available? >> Yes. It's advertising on a building. >> And how how is Jetro different?
>> Uh it it's a slightly different >> It's less restaurant oriented and more businessoriented. >> Retail. >> Less restaurant, more general. more general retail, general um industrial supply,
uh kind of like a Granger, you know, where you can go get all your things for uh to operate your facility or whatever the case may be. It's closer to a Granger than it is to a >> restaurant company. >> Here's my question then. Do you know, you may not know, but do you know
whether or not that the one here is going to look like that or No, >> I don't know specifically. I do know specifically it is a distribution center. >> Okay. >> And that is one of the signs that we're seeking. >> It's now the only put distribution center on the building.
>> Yeah. The only thing I'd say and I the problem that I see is that of what the of what the resolution says and one of the conditions is that you're going to apply you're going to adhere to the I understand exactly what you're saying. I personally right now from what I I mean
I think it's what you're saying makes a lot of sense to me that you want to brand it and you want to be able to see it for truckers or whatever. I get that. Uh the problem that I see is that the resolution it it says you're going to comply with
the sign ordinance and you're not doing that. >> Right. >> Correct. Because to refer to the transcript that Mr. Drill read, Mr. San testified that yes, we're going to comply. I can't imagine that we're going to be more than 5%.
>> That was his testimony. >> Okay. >> And that is the ordinance standard. It's 5% of the building wall. >> Okay. But >> it's subject to a 100 square foot cap in your ordinance and >> the interpretation of what the front
facade of the building is. The the zoning official came up with a limited interpretation. So I understand that that's what planners do for a living. That is not necessarily what executive vice presidents of major development companies do for a living. So I have no doubt when Mr. Sento spoke that he's
going to have a compliant 5% signage package that he believed a compliant 5% signage package could be 500 ft² 600 ft 700 ft. >> He did not think a 100 square feet on a 356,000t
building is what he is seeking. I get that the pro but the problem is that was his testimony and that's one of the conditions and I think that's what >> I'm saying listen this might be a piece of cake application to grant but I I think it's got to go to the planning board
>> if for no other reason than that first one but I think that at this point >> that you should if you still want that adjournment take it give them the adjournment look into it but my my opinion open
willing to listen on the parking thing, but that that condition finding 58 which has become a condition says to me that it belongs at the planning board and maybe you can just
you know correct so to speak this the elevation shown in the sign plan and get rid of that issue. But if you don't if they're not corrected that would also go to the planning board in my opinion. So um what does our next meeting agenda look like? Um, it's pretty light. It's just one
application, but that's also our reorg meeting. Um, and that is January 15th. >> January 15th. >> Mhm. >> If that's the reorg, we can go to the meeting after if that's more convenient for them. >> No, they they hear cases at their at their re. >> Some do, some don't.
>> Yeah. No, we do. >> What is the other case for the re? >> It's a residential application for impervious coverage. >> Oh, god. Who am I? >> Oh, yeah. Well, yeah. So, the board has a 21day rule.
>> So, do you have enough time 21 days before? >> No. >> January 15th >> is Christmas. >> Okay. So, what's the next date in January? >> We don't. That the next date is February 5th. >> Okay. All right. All right. All right.
February 5th. What is What is on that agenda if anything >> right now? Nothing. >> Well, guess what? >> So, we'll put this on. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And then >> and then between now and 21 days before then, they're either going to say, "Hey,
you know what? >> We're going to the planning board." Or they're going to say, "We're we fixed the elevation. We don't have a parking problem, but I >> and you're going to come up with some case or something to get around finding 58 becoming a condition by
reason of condition number two of that planning board resolution." >> And I'll have more than 15 minutes. Come up with it. >> Correct. I just want to bring up one more month one more item that kind of stuck out. >> Okay. >> Don't understand why you need it on four sides of the building when one side is
residential, one side is that agriculture. Just bringing it up. >> Well, actually, you know what? Listen, do you want some do you want some feedback from the board if you are coming back here? >> Be happy to have feedback. I I don't believe we have any signs facing the residential uh piece. That was a
>> four sides. You have four sides. >> Four corners is residential. >> Yeah. And there's the agriculture in the back. >> Taylor, can you put up the uh the again in their sign package, they have like a uh a sign plan showing the signs on the different sides of the building.
>> B she and madam chair, we understand your concern and there was actually specific testimony and discussion that there would not be signs specifically facing east corner. Um, again, the board, this board, unfortunately, you suffer from not the familiarity the
planning board would have. >> The building's a thousand feet long. Um, so >> we know what it is. >> So, right, you hit the you hit the nail on the head. That's the problem. >> They don't know anything about this. So the sign that is on that side of the
building that you're saying is the is is on the middle of the f of the thousand foot long uh side in the middle over the door. So it's literally like there's an entry door and there's a sign over like just like that you know uh television screen is over that door.
>> I suggest you do some elevations and sit at the intersection of Vorhees Corner Road and Reading Ridge and look down at that whole length of the building which is visible from that residential corner. Totally visible. >> Totally visible. So >> tell you what. So mark that down. If you're coming, if you decide to come
back here, they want >> Yeah. perspective perspective. >> And while we are at it, the back side is a Greek church and high school or middle school. >> Middle school. >> So you need to figure out why do you need sign there either for advertise. And the other the other issue from a
visual perspective as you're traveling uh south on 202 and you first encounter the building just past, there's a very large row of evergreens along your property boundary, which really visually obscures
signs that you're potentially proposing to put in, maybe negating the need for them because those trees have to be preserved. So, you know, just look at some of the visual perspectives. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. Someone sign
one is long Georgia. Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You guys, they're here. So if you have anything else, >> anything else, questions, comments, whatever, give it to him because >> I have one comment. So when I looked at
this, I immediately thought, wow, this signage, the design of the facade, coloration, and everything reminded me that of a retail establishment. And it was very odd for me uh for me to
imagine that this is a warehouse facility and you need all of this color and all of this signage. And so I immediately question what's going on inside the building. And now for the first time I'm hearing that there will
potentially be some retail. So we really need to know what's going on inside that building and what kind of traffic it's going to generate. Is it going to be the public? Um, we just need that kind of information. >> Yeah. Because my my thought process was
when I was looking reading this, I was like, "Okay, it was a warehouse." Okay. So, then I see these signs and I'm like, "Well, people are going to drive into this because they see the sign and then they're going to have to turn around and come out because it's a warehouse in my mind,
>> distribution center." So, so I'm so I'm confused, >> right? >> So, and then I would talk to Jeff. says, "Well, if this is just center, why is there so much parking?" And we talked about, "Well, it's got to have this parking blah blah blah." But my concern is warehouses usually just have very
minimal sign like a number of the road because >> Oh, you mean like You mean the address? >> The address. I'm sorry. Because truckers usually know where they're going. Or if they don't, they usually have GPS. >> GPS. >> So, my concern is that the public is going to think this is a
place they can go in and then we're going to have people going in and then having to come out. So I I don't know. So >> so if they if you decide to come back here this you know to address that also. >> So so related to that traffic >> when you have warehouse the type of
traffic which may have been approved by planning board we don't know is very different. Oh, put it this way >> then. >> Listen, the planning board approved this as >> Okay, this they're not here to reit
the planning. >> When they come back and >> listen, if they come back here and say there's no retail and the board grants the application, I'm going to put a condition in saying there can't be any retail. >> Yes. But if they say there's some retail, >> then
>> then they're going to address it and then then they're going to have to address the number of parking spaces and circulation. >> Would that not be an amended site plan? If they have to change their parking, >> correct? If they have to change the parking, that's why I said amended site plan. That would also kick it to the
>> plan circulation traffic. I I understand if if there's some retail, even if the parking is still okay, they may have to address circulation, which again, in my opinion, that's amended site plan, kicking it back to the planning board. But they
this is very good because you're hearing more than you probably wanted to hear, but this is giving you so much information on what this board is thinking about, maybe you want to go to the other. >> Well, now you know why we're confused, >> you know. So, okay. Anyone have anything else before
they leave? >> Just one last thing. The >> um there was very strong opinions about earthcoled buildings and very strong um
opinions about keeping the building consistent with what was approved at the planning board. >> Mr. That is our that is our intention. the drawings the color the colors on the drawings I guess in the multiple copies whatever the case may be don't necessarily match
>> they're going to be corrected right >> we will number one stipulate that everything everything's going to match the approval uh first and foremost if we have to correct the the renderings we'll get them done by the same person who did the architecture renings whatever the case may be not changing the color we
were here for signs that said jetro and carry restaurant depot distribution better. >> That's it. >> Weren't changing another thing. >> That's not what your submission looked like though. So that's the concern. >> Yeah, cuz that's cuz when I when I saw
it, I was like I went to Jeff said, "Where's the site?" I I got to see the and he says, "Well, that was the planning board." So I said, "Why are these colors like this?" So again, just challenging. Okay. >> Okay. So the hearing in this matter is
continued to February 5, 2026 without need for further notice. When is the time to decide the application expire? >> March 19th. >> So let's get an extension to April 30th just in case there's a freak snowstorm and it blows up to I guess April 30th,
2026 extension. Yes. >> Yes. >> Without need for notes. Okay. And just for the record, this was not a work session because right someone comes to the board of adjustment
applicants can go to the planning board for a work session. This was this we the open hearing. I raised the jurisdictional issues. They were totally vetted and just in case the board does have jurisdiction, the board was nice enough to tell them all their issues which will make the next hearing session
if they are back here a lot smoother. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Thanks for the conversation. >> Thank you. >> It won't be me in February. I'll be on vacation with my wife for our 35th wedding anniversary. You're probably gonna have a better time. >> I certainly will.
>> Happy anniversary. >> Thank you. So, we're going to now after the applicant leaves, we're going to go into close session. >> Right. >> She didn't want you to take out. >> We appreciate the insight that you gave us as well. So,
>> right. So, >> once the motion >> Yeah. Yeah, we're going to take a break. >> Once a motion's made and seconded to go into close session, we know we can relieve our court reporter. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I'm just >> Yeah, we're going to just take a we're >> Well, I'd like you to put to get the motion to go into close session in there
and everything. >> I was looking for >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Can we take a break? Well, >> why don't you take a break before the close session? The >> meeting. Well, or do you want to take the mo you want to make a motion to go into close session now or take a break then come back and make the motion? >> I want to take a break. Okay, take a
break. Five minute break. >> Calling the meeting back to order and we're going to make a motion to go into close session. >> And the close session is going to be to discuss pending litigation which is
Flemington 202 versus the Rar Intensive Suit Authority, the Rar Intensive Planning Board and the Rarity Intention Board of Adjustment. >> Okay. And I'm going to be rendering attorney client footage advice in the close session, which means that the minutes of the close session are not going to be
released until the final conclusion of the litigation and any and all appeals. >> Okay. Anyone want to make a motion? >> Someone say so moved. >> So moved. >> So seconded. >> Seconded.
pick. Yes. >> You want to hold fast. >> Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Osamji. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindsay Kranell. >> Yes. >> And Miss Lorette Cina.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Just give me one minute, please.