Go ahead. >> Door of the zoning board of adjustment, Ryarden Township, New Jersey, meeting 21st, 2026. 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 scene with the township clerk and transmitting scene to the courier news and the Star Ledger. Roll call, please. Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer >> here. >> Vice Chair Mr. Aul Damchi, he has asked to be excused. Mr. Steve Farcio >> here. >> Mr. Randy Block
>> here. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero, he has asked to be excused. Miss Lindsey Kbrangel >> here. >> Miss Lorett Cina >> here. >> Miss Donna Drews >> here. >> And Mr. James Miller >> here. >> Four professionals. We have board attorney Mr. John Dill
>> here. on the portable mic. >> You're walkie-talkie. Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Barella >> here. >> We have Mr. Ryan McCarthy on behalf of township engineer Rakesh Dari >> here. >> Traffic consultant Mr. Jay Troutman
>> here. >> Board planner Miss Jessica Caldwell has asked to be excused and township landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas >> here. Okay. >> Can I get a motion to excuse the board members? >> I'll make a motion.
Oh, wait. That was Lindsay and who? >> Uh, Rand. >> Yeah. Randy. >> Chairwoman. Miss Cynthia Schaer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindseay Kbringell. >> Yes. >> Miss Laura Cina. >> Yes.
>> Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. Yes. James, you get >> Oh, there. >> Oh, James. >> Okay. Uh, >> watch out. Going to comments, announcements, distribution, correspondence and
seeing none. No resolutions. Moving to the applications for this evening. Case number 03-2026. Applicant Jiva Ram Swani location block 63.11 lot 40 6 Proidence Drive.
application for a C variance for proposal proposed in ground pool exceeding the 20% maximum hard surface in an R3 zone. >> You get started just tap the microphone. So it's green. Green means go. Red means
stop. >> Mr. Clerico, that one as well. >> Yep. >> Okay. Very good. Uh >> and on the little portable mics, sometimes you have to pick them up. >> Okay. Wow.
>> Good to know. We'll make it happen. Uh uh good evening uh board members and uh board consultants and staff. Uh my name is Erica Edwards. I'm a land use and zoning lawyer uh here in New Jersey and I am here before this board tonight on
behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Ja Ramaswami. Uh the uh property in question or subject property is six Providence Drive uh in the township of Raritton and the R3 zoning district uh with cluster development. Uh it's block 63.11
lot 40 on the township of Rariton tax map. We are here this evening uh for a variance for hard surface coverage uh in order to uh permit us to install a pool
and patio and associated improvements in the rear yard of our property. Uh we have two expert witnesses uh this evening. Uh our licensed professional engineer, Mr. Robert Clerico of the firm Van Clee Engineering Associates and our
planning consultant, Mr. Mark Rema, who's sitting right to my uh to my >> How do you spell his last name? >> Uh Mr. Rema. >> Yes, >> it's Rema. >> Okay. Which board professionals are participating in this application tonight? I know Jessilla
is. Anyone else? And Ryan McCarthy. You guys are just in for a show. Okay. And all four of you please raise your right hand. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Joel. I didn't mean to interrupt. I I also intended to uh introduce uh the applicants themselves,
Mr. and Mrs. Ramos Swami, who are standing right here uh behind me. If we could >> are they going to testify? >> Uh they'll be available for any questions the board has. So if we could wear them too, that would be great. >> Okay. So we have Jiva Ramaswami and who else?
Can you spell that first name? >> Yeah. >> G I R I J A J. Last name A G A N. >> Hey, did our board secretary get that? >> No. >> Kind of noisy out in the hall, huh?
>> Yeah. >> Let's close that door and then I'm going to have you spell his last name one more time after the door shut. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Good idea. >> Yeah. My last name is Rama Swami. R for Randy. A for Apple.
>> Okay. My last name is hers. >> No. >> No. >> I got it mixed up. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> My last name is Ramas Swami. R for Randy. A for Apple. M for Mary. A for
Apple. S for Sam. W for work. A for apple, M for Mary, Y for yellow. >> Okay. And your first name again is >> J for John, E for Edward, E for Edward, Me for Victor, A for apple. >> Okay. And your first name?
>> J E R I J A for girl. >> I for India, R for Andy, I for India, J for John, A for Apple. >> Okay. >> My nickname is Joe. That will be easy for everybody. >> Okay.
Can everyone who will you stand up raise your right hand? Anyone who might testify in this matter raise your right hand. >> All of you swear or affirm the testimony you will or may give in this matter will be the truth. The host is nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> I do. >> I do. >> I do.
>> I do. >> I do. >> Good day. >> Very good. >> Thank you. Uh with that, we'd like to call our first witness, Mr. Robert Clerico. Um actually, we'll qualify Mr. Clerico. I know he's been here many times, but we'll do that for the record.
Mr. Clerico, would you put your um educational and professional credentials on the record, please? >> That's Robert Clarico, CO licensed professional engineer uh state of New Jersey, been licensed for about 50 years. Um partner in principal in the firm of Vancake Engineering Associ.
>> You got to that closer to you. I heard everything but >> Okay. >> Okay. and and and doing um land development, municipal engineering work uh for about 55 years. >> How many how many times do you think
you've been accepted as an engineering expert by a planning board or a board of adjustment over the course of your career? >> Probably something shy of a thousand. >> And this you've been accepted before this in the past, correct? >> Yes. Okay. >> You accept him as first.
>> Thank you, Mr. Clerico. Yes. So, um, as the attorney just said, uh, we're here for a, um, basically a impervious coverage variance. We're in a zone that allows 20 20% m maximum
impervious coverage. The ordinance also includes a provision that allows a property owner to go up to 27% under an administrative procedure of uh installing certain storm water management um components on site to accommodate uh to regulate the runoff of
of infiltration and runoff water from the property. Uh this applicant is here because they have a proposal which I'll explain in a minute uh that's going to take them up to 28 uh 28.4% 4% uh which is essentially in the case of this property is essentially
300 square ft of additional impervious surface. If the prop a property was if the uh improvements were less than that they wouldn't be here. There'd be an administrative uh matter before near township engineer but as noted on the plan uh there's a proposal to install an
ingground pool which is depicted on the plan. uh surrounding the pool would be a a paver walkway. Um behind the pool and just to orient you the road there on Providence Drive which is uh to the south of the property to the north um is
the rear property line adjacent this property to the north uh is an open space element that contains a regional storm water management facility uh serving the entire development. Uh so to the rear of the pool or to the north of the pool they want to install a patio.
The purpose of the patio is to accommodate a gazbo that they would like to put put on the on that particular part of near the pool and uh on that particular area. The outline of the gazbo is depicted on the uh on the plan itself. We actually have some additional
copies of the gazable should somebody want to see its dimensions and whatnot. Um essentially that's that's the application. Um as part of the uh improvements again to conform with the ordinance we're installing uh we've done
soil permeability test on the property to show that we have a suitable place for permeability uh to infiltrate groundwater. Uh we've uh designed a system uh for that which would be a subsurface system consisting of a stone bed and dry wells with a discharge out
to the rear of the property. Um we get when we go through your professionals reports there was been some comments about the methodology not the methodology but the standards that were just used utilized the design the system your engineer is indicating that the um provision of the ordinance that we use
to design this is not applicable because this property is in a um a development a development that was previously approved uh that it acts it more as a as a major development in terms of the stormwater criteria and not what otherwise would be minor development if this was a
standalone piece of property. So, we're going to have to make some modifications to the design uh again of the underground system. Again, that's an administrative function uh that will have to be uh reviewed by your engineer similar with the review he's already completed. >> I don't think it's that's an administrative function anymore. If you
eliminated the 300 square ft, the whole thing would be an administrative function. But since you're here for the C variance because you want to go up to 28.4%. I don't that's if the board wants to see that they can see that. If they want to delegate it, they can delegate it. But
once you need that C variance, you're out of the administrative, you know, mode. >> Um, defer Eric on that. I I I wouldn't have thought I wouldn't have thought that would be the case, but um, >> yes. Do you do you agree you're the planner?
>> I agree. Unless the board has any other uh concerns. Just for clarification, is it 28.04 or they say 20? He says 28.4%. >> 28.4. >> Your plan say 28.3.
>> Oh, and then it's I'm sorry, 28. I saw some place was 28.4. >> Yeah, the the zoning chart on the front shows 28.3%. >> Well, at 28.3 again, we're we're dealing about about 330 square feet of excess
over and above the 27. serious >> they couldn't eliminate 300 square feet and save themselves having to have two experts and varants. >> We've had that discussion >> and all that. >> We've had that discussion. Um the the size of the patio they want to build
behind the um behind the pool is a function of the type of gazable they want to put on the property. And again, I can't testify in first person on behalf of the applicant. Uh, but the size of that is able has to deal with their their internal needs within the
family to utilize the outside facility. >> Just curious. >> We we've had that conversation and basically that additional three or 329 square ft. This uh patio in the back is 20 foot wide and it's approximately
almost 25 feet long up to the pool. Uh the 300 square feet u would basically be um taking off about 16 ft of that. Taking off 16 ft from the 27 20 uh about 25 ft really wouldn't leave them enough
room to put the gazebo they want to put on there. >> Yeah. Yeah, like I said, it's a very marginal call, but >> gazebo's going on top of a patio, not right on the lawn. >> Well, swimming on the patio. >> On the patio. >> Today's not additional impervious
coverage. It's just a component of the type of um coverage you're putting there. >> And what adjustments to the storm water management facilities are you talking about having to make? Well, I would again uh the engineer and we can go through the reports is asking us to
follow a different provision of the ordinance which is requires to do a different analysis of the site. Um and I'm based on my initial uh and I really only got these comments the other day, but based on preliminary review, I believe it's going to be a larger system. Uh the applicant would like to
keep everything here underground. These are not very large properties and again this area is right adjacent to the patio so they like to keep everything subsurface. Um we've and we're going to get into the planner is going to get into a discussion of this but uh right now we've designed this thing uh with
the uh an underground system with an outfall pipe uh that would be about uh I believe it's um 30 feet or 25 ft from the property line. uh and um there's some discussion about whether the outfall from this has to meet the the principal building setback or accessory
building setback. Um again, I'll let the planner um when he testify speak to that. It's our belief that we um to give some additional well it's our belief under the ordinance this would be classified as an accessory structure not a principal structure that we we should be able to get this to the um maintain
the 15t setback from a property line which would accessory structure could be one of the factors this should be can take into consideration >> okay wait a minute I'm not the you're saying that explain that that why that you think the ordinance the discharge function only applies to accessory
structure and not principal structure. >> I know the uh planner as part of his test I'm going to go into that but essentially uh the alpha structure would be it's not a principal structure. Uh it's an accessory element to the uh principal use which is the single family
residential use on the property. >> What's the ordinance section at issue? >> Again, I'll let the planner speak to that when he when he testif. >> So it's it's something that >> I understand, but I just want to >> Thank planner, you're going to make an argument that it doesn't that that the ordinance doesn't apply because it's an
excess because it's an you want me to explain. >> Yeah, I just Yeah, exclaim. We like to set we like to set the table up with a card so we know what we're dealing with. >> Yeah, kind of correct. >> So, >> yeah, you got to qualify him also. >> Mark, please uh place your uh education.
>> We can't hear you because your microphone's off. >> Thank you, Mr. D. Um Mr. Mr. Remson, would would you please put your educational and professional credentials on the record for the board, please? >> Yes. Uh good evening, uh madame chair and and ch uh board members. Um my name
is Mark A. Rema. Uh this year I'm starting my 47th year in the field of planning. Uh with regard uh to my lensure, I am a licensed landscape architect and a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. Both of my licenses are in good standing.
With regard to my educational attainment, I have a bachelor of science and environmental planning and design. I have a master of city and regional planning and I also have a master of business administration with a concentration in finance. I currently serve as a municipal planner for two
municipalities. I have also uh appeared before numerous planning boards and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey as well as this board. and I've also been qualified as a a professional planning witness by New Jersey Superior Court.
>> Which um two municipalities are you the planner? >> I am currently the planner for uh Beverly City and also Eastampton Township. >> Okay. And how many times in your career have you been accepted as a planning expert? >> Probably close to what Bob has.
>> Yeah. And you haven't been here very often, but I think you were here on what application >> was it Pastana? Were you here on Pastana? I was >> I believe that the board accepted you as a planning expert. >> Yes. And I also reappeared for uh uh when they came for their uh site plan
and also had um uh both variances. >> Yeah. This chair you accept as >> Yes. >> So what ordinance section are we talking about here? >> All right. So there are there are two ordinances involved.
So the the one ordinance is uh chapter 400, right? >> Chapter 400 deals with storm water uh uh management and chapter 296 is your land development
ordinance. So in the um section 400-12 which is called the discharge in all other cases it says in all other cases the discharge shall be directed to the nearest ditches
or contained in a dry well on the owner's property so that it does not adversely affect or flow to adjacent or neighboring lands. All such discharge locations shall be directed down slope and shall discharge at a point no closer
than the adjoining property line than the zoning setback line. So now I look at that section and I go elsewhere in chapter 400 and I look for the definition of zoning setback line.
There is no definition. So therefore, I consult chapter uh 296. That's your land development ordinance. And so I turn to uh definitions and I'm I'm going to go through several
definitions to to describe how I arrived where I did. So first of all, I look at the definition for an accessory use. Well, for before you do that, is there a definition for setback line in the definition section? There's a definition that says the
distance between a building or structure greater than 3 ft in height >> in any lot line. >> That would be that sounds like that's a zoning setback line, doesn't it? >> Yes. Now, the zoning setback line for a structure
>> Yeah. But if it says zoning setback line and it doesn't say setback to what, >> right? What setback line would you use? >> Well, there's two kinds of zoning setback lines. One is for principal use or principal
building and also there's one uh in your ordinance for a setback to an accessory use or building or structure, >> right? It's very >> why why would the term zoning setback line in a
stormwater management ordinance have different requirements? Why wouldn't it have the zoning setback line? Which again, there's no definition for zoning setback line. There's a definition for setback line. Why wouldn't doesn't it seem logical that you would take the
zoning setback line for the principal use? >> No, it's not logical. And I will explain to you why. >> Explain and then I'm going to ask our plan. >> I'll explain it to you because you have to go and understand what an accessory use structure or
building is. Right. For a zoning issue, I agree. But for a stormwater issue, why? >> I will explain it to you if you allow me to finish. >> Yep. >> So, an accessory use structure or building
is a use, structure, or building subordinate to the principal use of a building on the same lot and serving a purpose customarily incidental to the use of the principal building. You you may want to hear what I'm saying
so so I don't have to repeat myself. >> So in the case of an accessory structure or building, it shall be detached from the principal building. All structures or buildings on non-residential lots are considered principal structures on the lot and shall conform to the
requirements of principal structures. This is a residential use. So that last sentence does not apply. And as I said, I went to go look at what's defined as a structure. So, and and I've experienced this before in town
where a structure is any assembly of materials above or below the surface of land or water, including but not limited to buildings, cavings, fences, dams, levies, bulkheads, dikes, so on and so
forth. goes on through a long list, but the drywall is an underground structure that is incidental to the principal use. >> I understand all that. I understand why there's a separate setback requirement for an accessory structure and a
principal structure. What I don't understand is what that has to do with the price of tea in China when it's talking about a stormwater regulation. That's what it >> because the stormwater regulation says to the zoning setback line, >> but it doesn't say the zoning setback
means that you have to view accessory versus principal. Let's Ryan, do you have an opinion on this? Because my legal opinion is that to me when the stormwater ordinance talks about the zoning setback line,
if you have two to pick from, you pick the more conservative one. Number one. Number two, that the zoning setback line seems to be not getting into the particulars of if this if the structure or building is accessory or principal. But Ryan, do you have an engineering opinion? Yes.
>> So I would say that what we've customarily interpreted this as is for the principal setback. Um and and why and the only reason why is that it would it's my opinion that the when the ordinance was
adopted the intent was to keep all the discharge locations on the property so that it doesn't adversely impact the neighboring properties. So if you get accessory setbacks generally speaking are pretty close to the property lines and if you're going to have some kind of overflow or discharge from a from a
stormwater perspective and it's only in this case is if it's 15 ft some zones have 5T um I don't imagine that that would be customarily what we would typically see. So it's been our opinion that we have generally viewed it as the principal setback
>> that that's a township engineer and the board engineer's opinion. What about the township planner's opinion? >> I I would agree and just for the record has never been interpreted that way. Uh it's been uh treated separately and that it's been the zoning setback as the primary setback line and it has never
been approved uh any other way. So, I think as a threshold matter, the board should discuss this and then vote on which applies because they're going to either have to make a major adjustment in their storm water plan or I don't
think that you can seek a variance from the board of adjustment from chapter 400. I think that you either have to apply or not apply. >> So, the board want to discuss this? But if I may, I I haven't completed my my my
analysis. Um, >> so and Jonathan, I respectfully disagree with you because you have to look at the construction of of of the ordinance and the construction of the ordinance is zoning setback line in chapter 400. It
does not say principal uh setback line. And when you look at and and analyze what a uh underground storm water management system is, it is an accessory use, an accessory structure to a
principal use. The principal use of this property is a residential dwelling. And and what's happening here is we we are uh um putting a very small storm water management drywall system underneath the
ground and that it's collecting the little bit of additional runoff from the uh uh additional impa imperous surface and in this case what it's doing is is um uh discharging into a storm water
management basin to the back. But the point is nowhere does it say that it's a principal use and then how to uh apply uh a principle use requirement on an accessory use
u in my mind it goes against uh the construction of your your ordinance. >> You had anything else? You have any >> Well, it depends on what else you say. I may have to respond. >> I don't want to cut you off. You said
that I hadn't let you finish. Do you have anything else that you want to add to that? >> No, it's it's pretty simple and straightforward. Is the drywall system an accessory use? Yes. >> Do the board professionals have anything else they want to add? >> The the only one other comment I have is
that there's two sections in that um chapter 400. So, the one that we're referring to is the discharge in all other cases. That's 400-12. for 400-11. The intent is to have either the connection to a publicly available storm
sewer system or it's supposed to go out to the road. And the requirement for that section, I'll just read it so that way it's on the record for everybody. If the storm sewer is not available, the sump pump, floor drain, roof drain, or related apparatus may be connected underground toward the street so as to discharge on the owner's property at
least 20 ft from the curb line or pavement gutter line, provided the gutter has more than a.5% slope. There's some other information here just >> saying is that's the general rule in all other cases this so your opinion is that's another reason why you should use the principal
>> right and and specifically for this zone the the accessory setback is only 10 ft so that's why we have generally >> 15 ft >> okay the the zoning table on the plan says 10 >> yes >> for the for the rear yard >> 15 take a look at the plan what's it say on the plan
>> I looked at the ordinance okay the plan wrong. Can you take a look at the plan? Tell us if the plan is wrong or right. >> Regard set back >> and again that's that's just more to go to why we have looked at as the principle is that I wouldn't see it as
if you're if you can't meet the intention of what they're trying to do it with 20 ft >> on the plan it should be 15 >> should be 15 ft. So, I've heard planner's opinion. I've heard the board engineer's opinion. I've heard the board
planner's opinion. I agree with the board planner and board engineer. My opinion to the board, but you don't have to. You make your independent judgment. I don't have to I don't tell you what to say or do but my opinion is when the storm water ordinance talks about other
the exceptions to the rule that the zoning setback line should be interpreted as it has been internally interpreted and not have a new interpretation and it should be to the principal setback. So you guys should now deliberate and let's have a vote on that so they know where they're going.
Just for the record, the setback's 10 feet. >> Wait, what do you mean the setback? >> The plan is correct. Where did you get Mr. Ram? Where did you >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. The setback is right at 10 ft. >> No, the accessory structures because the
cluster provision, it follows the R six um setback rules, not the R3. So, so it's it the plan's correct. >> So, Clerico is right. It's 10 ft. Mr. Ramsea was wrong. It's >> I I applied the R3. >> Yeah. So, it should be R six. It is a cluster. >> Gotcha.
>> Okay. All right. >> So, the issue for the board is should the zoning setback line be interpreted as it's been internally interpreted by the township planner and the township engineer meaning use the principal
setback, not the accessory setback. So it should be a a deliberation or straw poll principal setback or accessory setback with all the board professionals recommending principal setback. >> All right, let's take a stroll a straw
poll. James >> principal >> sensible >> principal >> principal >> principal >> principal >> principal >> okay so let's make a motion then let's get the point out of the way to for an
interpretation that is the principal director make it a formal motion and then they can have it deal so I'll make it make a motion to interpret the zoning step back line in the ordinance section of the 400 -12 as the
principal setback line. >> I'll make a motion. >> Okay. >> Somebody second it. >> Perfect. >> Roll call. >> Chairwoman. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Miss C Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindsay Cooper.
>> Yes. >> Miss Laura Cina. >> Yes. >> Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. And Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Okay. So let's go back to Mr. P's testimony now with the input that you've gotten and a formal interpretation by the board. Now my question was what
changes would you have to make to the management plan or facilities knowing that the board interprets it that way following the design. It's the on the plan that's in front of you. or we'd have to move the uh what is now the outfall head wall for this structure uh
back to be 40 ft from the property line um which is essentially right now where the um where the if you look at the plan where the underground storage system is so that the the system would have to be rearranged so that the discharge from that point is 40 ft from the property
line. Uh again, if I'm understood the conversation up to this point, uh you're saying that that provision is in the stormwater section. So there's not even an ability to get relief from that. >> That's right. Okay. >> The township committee go to the town. >> All right. So there so that if if that's
the ruling of the board, then we'd have to redesign this or lay this thing out differently so that the discharge uh point is at 40t from the from this from the property line. Again, I pointed out earlier the property line here is a property line to an open space. So, it's not like we're dealing with a
neighboring property or anything like that. >> If the board had the variance power, that would mean a great that would be a great argument to make to them, but they don't have the authority to vary chapter 400. >> I I accept the discussion I just heard.
>> Yep. Uh so what other changes based on the engineering report from environmental solutions would you have to make to the >> So um so the engineer is asking us to do a reassessment of the sizing of this structure um based on uh the
infiltration rate to show that we're they were infiltrating uh the u volume of water that would be coming off this property as if it was developed at the ordinance limit of 20%. Again, we're at 27 and a half percent. So, we have to re
we have to rerun calculations to show what the sizing of this underground system based on the permeability that we've proven that we have on the property uh would be. Uh it's the applicant's desire, it's not an obligation, but it's the applicant's desire to try to do this in underground system. Uh the other option here would
be to do some sort of a surface system, which would actually give us more volume uh in a smaller area, but again, that's something I'd have to work with the with the applicant on. Again, these are not relatively small lots. They're they're right now they're not using right now
they have no infrastructure in their rear yard. Uh and they're trying to improve their rear yard. So, >> let's let's see. Ryan, you have anything else that you would want them to do? But it sounds like they're not going to be able to finish tonight because the revisions to that plan are going to have
to be made, have the board professionals comment on it, and then the board make, you know, a decision on it. But Ryan, you have anything else in that report? >> The only the only other thing just to clear it up to make it easier um was testimony about the the existing drainage patterns on site. Just just if
you could just very quickly go over what the what the layout currently is. >> Sure. As you can see from the topo that's on the property, it's it's what I would refer to as basically a sheet flow out the back. There's a few depressions on either side, but this goes right into uh an open space area which is
immediately utilized by a storm water facility. So surface water from this from this property just drains to to the north right into a a surface storm water facility. I have some aerial photographs of if you want me to introduce that just to to
kind of visualize that. But that's that's essentially what we're dealing with. Ryan, I have a question on your report. >> Yes. >> Um, item number 12, >> where you indicate that there's a twoft opening.
>> Yeah. Uh, Bob, if you could just uh give some information about that. So, I think that the concern is that it wasn't really clear what was proposed for the opening um for the drywall. if it was just going to be on the plan it just shows a 24 inch diameter opening. I
didn't know if there was going to be >> well the the the structure the pre-cast structure has a 24 inch opening. Um but in this particular case it would have like a manhole. It would be like a manhole. >> Okay. >> A manhole you see in the street is a 4ft diameter mandle. It has a two-ft opening in it but they put a cast iron u you
know structure on brings it up to the surface. >> Is that and that's what will be on this? >> That's would be Yeah. And my suggestion is save a lot of time since they have to come back to redesign it anyway. Why don't they address all of the engineers comments in your revisions? Hopefully
you come back and their report is clean saying everything they wanted you did. Is there so is there anything in that engineering report that you disagree with? >> Now we've had some communications with Ryan just to clear up some of the wording on on some of the commentary. I
think we have a pretty understand clear understanding uh of what what he's looking for. U most of this many of the comments in here are just um um adding a dimension um making a notation about soil erosion. Do
>> you agree with it? Don't you don't have to say it. Is there anything in there that you disagree with? So when you come back with the revised storm water plan, if there's something in his report that you disagree with, tell us now because if you come back and he has a clean report, you only have to discuss it.
>> No, the the two critical things were the uh and we had the conversation with Ryan is the the section of the ordinance he was referring to is how this the standards this thing needs to be designed under. Uh and then the other critical one was the discussion just had about where if we have a a discharge and we're going to have to have a discharge
in the system >> again. So there's nothing else nothing else in the report that you disagree with. >> I'm looking but I'm I'm not seeing anything right now. And let me >> see something because we can go to the next witness. If you see something, just let us know.
>> At the moment, no. When we go to redesign it, obviously you'll look at the re revised design and when we come back, if we have to have a discussion about an item, we'll have a discussion. >> No, the point is when you come back, we're trying to avoid having a discussion about an item. We if you so
when we go to the next witness look through if if you have like an issue with it have the discussion tonight so you can make all the revisions in the plan and come back with a clean report. Now Jeff do you have anything on storm water that you want to tell them about? >> I just wanted to add I I placed the
table one um more for the board's reference. These are all uh >> is it table one to your report? >> Yes, table one on page three. It includes all the applications that the board reviewed um under imperous surface variances. Um and a lot of the the
initial applications they were um mitigating 17% to apply for additional >> that's interesting. What are they mitigating on this application? >> 20% which they would do even if it was under 27%. It would be an administrative review. So in this case they're doing
we'll put it to standard and and it would be a benefit if if they're if they're ask for a variance. We're going to ask the planner. You have to remember you need some it's not going to be a hardship, right? So, it's going to be a C2 variance with the impervious coverage. Jeff's right. All other than
administrative approvals, which have required storm water mitigation to 20%, every single variance that this board has ever granted for imperous coverage since the impervious coverage max has gone down
has mitigated to 17%. So maybe you want to take a quick recess. If you can mitigate the 17%, you almost have an automatic >> positive. If you don't mitigate the 17%, it's going to be very interesting to see what you come up come up with as the positive on why they should grant the
impervious coverage variance. >> The v the var the reason again we're reasoning here is because of coverage. In terms of the design element, if you're indicating that up to this point, the types of applications the board has seen the mitigation has been down to 17%
opposed to 20%. That's a design factor. If that's if that's the factor we have to take, if you're telling us that's the factor we have to take in consideration. It's saying you have to, but if you do 17% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 times they have made a
finding that if you do it to 17% it's a it's the positive criterion of the C2 impervious coverage variance is proven. They had one denial. >> Guess what? Hm. They didn't propose down to 17% and they did not come up with a
C2 argument that the board accepted. >> Yeah. The answer is yes. We have if that's the standard. >> It's it's a design we have to undertake. If that's the standard that we're we're we're not trying to get that's what we're going to have to do. It's not >> it's not a standard. It's not a
requirement. I'm just pointing out you should talk to your planner. Your planner is probably going to want you to do that so that he's able to testify that a a C2 positive criterion. >> So they'll make the decision. Okay. So my question to you is
do you want a fivem minute break? Uh the board would like to know get all the questions out and everything now, >> right? >> So we don't have to go back when we come back. Hopefully it's quick for you and it's clean. So would you like a fivem minute break?
>> Thank you. because I take that an insult to my gender. Back to order. Thank you very much for the uh brief recess. We are ready to resume. Mr. Clerico, would you like to summarize the
substance of our discussion while we were >> We reviewed the other comments in the report and they can all be addressed. Uh we will redesign this thing using the 17% as the standard. Uh and I'm not exact can't sit here and tell you what that's going to look like right now because obviously we have to run through
the numbers. Uh but that's that's going to be our objective. >> So we need a continued hearing date. When's the next available hearing date? >> So Miss Mr. uh JRO, could we put our planner on? Is that appropriate or you
would prefer us that we not do that? If you put your planner on now, he hasn't even seen the plan. He hasn't seen that the thing's been designed for you testifying to >> he hasn't seen that the thing needs. >> Yeah. So, we want to >> continue this hearing,
>> get the revised plan submitted, get it reviewed. So, the board has a 21-day >> uh rule on when to make submittals before a hearing. But first, Mr. Clerk, how much time would you need to revise the plan? >> We just went through our calendar. It's going to probably have to be one of your
first meetings in August, but for us to get the time, get the design, get it done, get it submitted, meet your 21day standard. >> You would you would say an August meeting date would be preference. >> Yes. Is that what you're saying?
>> Yes, based on the unfortunately we are already booked. So the next first availability is our fir um September meetings which one moment September those dates are September 3rd and September 17th
>> you have a preference >> 17 >> what's the preference >> 17th >> the hearing in this matter is continued to September 17th no need for further notice by the way your notice and the affidavit was delivered this
I looked at the form of notice. It's satisfactory. Taylor, you looked at the uh certifies. >> Yes. And they are satisfactory. >> So the board, you didn't ask before, but the board, in my opinion, had procedural jurisdiction over the application, and let's get an extension if you are if
they're being scheduled for September 17. Let's get an extension of the time to act out to November 30th, 2026. Is that acceptable? >> That's acceptable. >> Okay. Hey Taylor, you need her to give you an email or a letter or saying on the record is okay. You want her to
submit something? >> It's up to you, Taylor. >> Yeah. Submit. >> Why don't we do it? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. We'll see you in September. As I say, but remember the 21day rule. The earlier you get it submitted, the earlier you get it reviewed.
>> Understood. >> Happy summer. >> Thank you very much for your time this evening. We appreciate it. We'll see you in September. Thank you. >> What? No. >> Yes, I do. You not address your Yes, I'm only kidding. I'm only kidding.
Michael, please do it from >> Okay. >> Or if you want to say something to your client and you don't want the everyone else to listen, >> click red. >> All right. You call the next application.
>> On the next application, BOA case number 19-2025 applicant is Marinelli's restaurant location 41, lot 60 and 61, 502 and 505, highway 12. Applications for D2 variance
and bulk variances for expansion of non-conforming use in residential zone. >> Okay. Now on this application, >> we're going to have two board members who are going to recuse themselves not because of an actual conflict, but because to avoid out of an abundance of
caution to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. So the two board members recusing are >> Steve Forio >> and >> Lindsay Cole. >> Have a nice evening. >> Good luck. >> Bye. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> You owe me.
>> No board members. >> Bye. You have five, but I don't think you're finishing tonight in any event. It's 8 o'clock and you have five witnesses, I hear. >> Yeah. So, you might as well go, you know, go for it. And you have a a board
stenographer and so people there two members can read a transcript and you can get up to seven. >> John, >> yes. >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Alternates are here. >> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. >> Yeah, >> everyone else is recused. We only have
five. No is recused. >> Yes. >> Yes, he is. But we I do not know for a fact if Russul ising himself. >> That's true. >> We have We're going to have a maximum of six and there's nothing we can do about it because the borrowing statute only
allows a board of adjustment to borrow from a planning board to get up to the bare five quarum. It doesn't allow you to borrow to get seven. So there's >> okay >> the max you're going to have is six. No matter what you do with >> you're going to have to live with six.
Yeah. Do I think >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Green means go. >> Okay. >> So, go. >> Good evening. >> Good. Good evening. Um, madam chair, lady, members of the board professionals. My name is Howard Abgar.
Um, I am an attorney here in Flemington, New Jersey. I represent Veto Marinelli and Christine Marinelli. Um, husband and wife. Just a little closer. >> You can't hear me? Okay. Um, uh, Veto and Christine Marinelli and who
are the owners of Marinelli's restaurant. This is an application regarding, um, block 41, lot 60 and 61. Um, and, uh, it's a relatively simple
thing. we um wouldn't put a relatively small addition on it, but it's um by existing non-conforming use, which um makes it a little bit more complicated. So, um my first witness is going to be
Mr. Marinelli. Before you tell us who all the witnesses are because as you saw in the last application, I swear everyone in together right in the beginning so we don't forget. So, please give me a list of your witnesses and spell their names.
>> Okay. Veto Marinelli. M A R I N E L L I. And he is the owner applicant. >> Okay. >> The second is Ralph Finelli, who is the architect, F I N L I.
The third is going to be our professional engineer, Chris Nasser, Nus Eer. Craig Craig Paragroy who is a traffic engineer. P E R E G O Y
and our planner is Elizabeth Mcmanis. Okay. Word professionals. I assume everyone at this table is going to be participating. >> Okay. So, can we have everyone whose name was just mentioned and all the board professionals, everyone stand up
that your name was mentioned? Raise your right hand. Does everyone and I'm going to point you? They're going to say it really loud. Does everyone swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. We're gonna go back to this. I do. And state
your name for the John Thomas, board landscape. I do. I do. Jay Troutman, board traffic consult. I do. >> Jeff Aarel, township planner. I do. >> Ryan McCarthy, board engineer. >> I do. Sorry.
>> Engineer. I do. >> Beth McManis, board of applic. Okay. Um, John, do you mark uh the notice package as A1 or >> it's been submitted? If you want to mark as an exhibit, we will, but we generally
we only mark as exhibits things that haven't already been submitted. Is this notice affidav package been submitted? >> Correct. >> Certified, right? >> Correct. >> And the notice, the form of notice is also satisfactory. So, in my opinion, the board has jurisdiction over the
application. You still want it marked or not? I if it if it's part of the if it's part of the application package then we're I'm fine. >> Great. >> Okay. So, my first witness is going to m Mr. Veto Marinelli. Veto, you want to sit up here so you can talk to the mic? Sure.
>> No. >> Okay. C can you just give a a summary of what you're going to be presenting? >> Me? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, again, Mr. Mr. Marinelli was going to tell you what uh what we're uh
>> we'll have Mr. Marinelli give summary then we'll ask Jeff to summarize the uh the background from the the township's end of it. >> Okay. Mr. Marinelli, you you are the owner of of Marinelli's restaurant on uh located at uh one uh what is it? 505. Um
>> I am. >> Okay. Speak louder and right into the mic. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> All right. And um and how long have you owned Marinelli's Restaurant? >> We've been in business since 1988. >> Okay. >> You've been How long have you owned it though? Since 1988.
>> So my father and my mother started it in 1988 and I've been there uh with them ever since. >> Okay. But are you now the owner? >> I am. >> When did you become the owner? >> Uh probably the owner of the property 2016. >> When did she start running the
restaurant? >> Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. We have an owner of the property since 2016. And do you The restaurant's a business, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Do do you all is the business also owned by you or somebody? >> It is. Y
>> Okay. So, you also own the >> I do. >> And how when did you become the owner of the restaurant? >> Uh I believe 1995. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um can you just give a brief description of Marinelli's restaurant?
What you do there? So, we're an Italian restaurant and pizzeria. We've been there since, like I said, 1988. Uh, we've started out as a uh pizza and restaurant and uh well, we started as a lunchonet and then we morphed into a pizza and Italian restaurant and been doing business there ever since we
opened. >> Okay. So, you your your primary products are pizza and >> pizza, sandwiches, pastas, that kind of stuff. >> All right. And um you're here tonight to ask the board to
allow you to u build a frame uh addition onto the restaurant. >> Yes. >> And um is that replacing something else that used to be there? So we during COVID or
before CO we put a tent up which was um part of like an outdoor dining experience uh to you know keep people out of the elements and uh we kept that up ever since uh the um co was over and then you know wanted to put any more permanent structure onto
the uh restaurant. >> I don't think I have any more questions for Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. You want Jeff to give a >> Yes. Jeff, could you please give usective >> summary? >> So, based on the application and everything I've read in the in the file,
um >> Jeff, just a little bit louder. >> Around that time, um >> around what time? >> About 1990, I believe it was. That's when the board of adjustment received an application for an interpretation of use. I think at that time, there was a change from a lunchonet to then pizza uh
sales. And there was concern by the previous planner that that was an intensified use. And there was a determination um made by the board of adjustment uh by resolution um within my report I believe. Yeah, you attached to
your report resolution number 10-90 from the Rarantic board of adjustment which memorialized an interpretation and this resolution was adopted on June 7, 1990.
>> That that's the one you're talking about. Yes, that that's uh it included eight conditions which um spec specified pizzeria with some uh 16 seats and there was a list of conditions from 1990. Soon after 1991, I
believe there was some disturbance that was made but it was worked through with the township planner and township engineer and there was a a plan and everything was approved by the by the township. Um since then there was very few documentations approving any
expansions that have been um a result resulted on the on the property which included some parking expansions uh buildings being converted, buildings being constructed, um additions. Uh so what the board is seeing right now is um
it's an aggregate of of jobs that's been completed without review by the township or the board. There's been some notices of violations been sent out by a parking expansion in in 2003. I don't know what the result of that was. And in July of
2025, last year, it came to our attention that the addition which they're now seeking was built. Um the construction office, fire department, and planning and zoning department were out there and a notice of violation was issued. Uh since then,
I don't think any other work was done. I met with uh Mr. Marinelli and um and his professionals and went over a pre-application meeting and ever since then it's it's been uh okay no further
violations have been issued. >> Couple of questions for Mr. Marinelli. So ignore the whatever was is what they're proposing this addition was that they're seeking after the fact approval of the addition that was built. Correct.
Okay. So ignore that for now. How many seats would you have in the the restaurant without the addition? >> I believe 40. >> Okay. So, how did you get from 16 seats, which was condition three of resolution
10-90 to 40 seats? >> Sir, I never knew that there was only a 16 seat condition. >> Mr. Mayorelli, how old were you when um your father came before the planning? >> I was 15.
Right. So you when you took ownership of the restaurant in 1995, you didn't look to see about any of the approval history? >> No. I No. >> Okay. That's the only question I had. All right. Any board members have
questions or Mr. Marinelli? >> Um >> Oh, one one more question. So they're seeking after the fact approval of the addition. When you say the addition was built without approval, it was it had a construction permit though, right? >> No. Okay. So, they're seeking an
afterffect approval of the addition. Um, and are they seeking an after effect approval of the the expansion of parking area? >> I would say so since the board never acted and it's a it's a it's in a residential zone. >> Is there anything else you guys need an
after- the- approval of? Because you might as well try to clean everything. John, it is our intention intention and I'm sure Beth or Chris or or somebody will get to that, but our intention is to clean up everything that hasn't been approved before.
>> Are you seeking approval for anything that hasn't been built yet? >> No. >> You want to build in the future? >> No. >> So, you're only seeking approval after the fact approvals for things that were built without approval. >> Yes. and someone other than you two will
explain what those things are. >> Yes. >> I just have a question. The I'm I'm a little confused because the plans in one place show the um wooden framed out addition that
replaced the tent as new. But the conversion of the other area in the back that was a garage to now a seating area. Did you appear before any boards and get approval for that? >> I I did not.
>> Okay. And by the way, who made the decision to build the addition without construction permits? I can understand if you said it's not an excuse, but I can understand if you said you didn't know about the the board approval, but who made this the decision to build the addition without
construction permits? >> So, I would say I did. >> Okay. What was the thinking of all you didn't think you needed a construction permit to put an addition on? >> You know what? I I had I have I have owned several restaurants in my career and when I rebuilt Jinny's on Route 12, we didn't need a site plan to go ahead
and build that. You see, >> is that in Ritan Township? It's not in Rit. >> No, it's not in the town. >> It's not in Ritan. So, you know what? I never even thought about it to be honest with you. Not that it's >> Before rebuilding anything, you had permission under the COVID ordinance
that the township adopted to put up the tent, correct? >> Yeah. >> Right. So, you had an approval for the tent? >> Yes. >> No. >> No. >> No. You had nothing. >> You didn't even go for the uh approval. >> During during CO, I took out a permit to have that tent up.
>> Oh, no. It's It's not in the file. It's It's not here. Do >> you have a copy of that permit? >> I don't. No. >> Okay. So, how do you know you took out a permit to put the tent up if they don't have it in the file and you don't have a copy of >> you know things? You know, when we do things, it's usually, you know, we do we
do what we do, right? I I pretty sure I took out a tent because we had the same thing happen in in another place in Stanton. So, uh you know, whether it was a permit that was taken out, it wasn't even expensive. I believe it was $20 permit.
>> John, I I I remember when the when the um tent went up and and and I'm sure everyone >> You going to testify? >> I beg your pardon? >> You want me to swear you in? >> I I I'm just providing the board with um a little bit of my local
>> swear you in. >> You don't need to. >> Well, then don't provide the board with anything. It's factual. You can make ludal arguments, but if you're going to talk factual, I'm going to swear you in. My question I think to Jeff is Jeff, do we know what in the fire marshall's
report where they're talking about there are outstanding violations. Does is there a list of those outstanding violations? >> I do not know the list. Um I can request him to >> I was going to say can we request request that? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Are we going to also cover every building in on the property? >> I think that the attorney and Mr. Marinelli are not they're not going to have any answers. >> Okay. So, let's move on.
>> I'm going to walk over to their professionals and find out who amongst them is the best person to give information on. Well, Mr. Ner, Mr. McManis have made an excellent suggestion. They say veto needs to explain what the uses are for
each of the structures and then either Beth or Chris and they'll decide who they'll they'll go into and show where these structures are and which structures need after the fact tools and all that.
>> So we need Mr. Clarely would take the board to each structure >> over there >> and explain what the use of each structure. >> So are we talking about the structure that was put up on the >> structure of the map? >> Okay.
>> You probably have sheds that are >> okay. So we're going to talk about every structure. >> Every structure. Let's do this first. We're going to get disqualified. Just so the board knows, the plan that has been submitted is signed and sealed by
another engineer who had a health issue. So, he's not here. Chris is is filling in. I the municipal land use law 405D or D-10e provides that the technical rules of
evidence shall not be applicable to the hearing, but the agency may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. There is a land use law commentator employees commented that 10 has a couple in intentions behind it.
One is to make things a little bit more informal, but one of them is if you have a signed and sealed plan, whether it's by an engineer or an architect, the plan itself can be admitted into evidence without anyone testifying about it. But you need someone to be able to answer
questions about it. So, we're going to ask Mr. Nesser, first of all, I'm going to qualify you generally. Have you appeared before this board and been accepted as a planning expert? As a engineering expert? >> I have. How many times do you think you've been accepted as an an engineering expert before this board
alone? >> More than 10. >> It comes down to your license in good standing. >> It is. >> Okay. >> Does the board accept Mr. Nuser as a >> engineering expert? >> Yes. >> Now, Mr. Nuser, did you have the opportunity to review this plan? >> I did.
Are you capable of answering any questions that the board or any professionals have about that plan? Yes. So, in my opinion, she can testify about the plan and the plan is in. >> Okay. >> So, why don't we do this? Generally, board stenographers don't like this, but
I'm going to ask for special dispensation. They have like a joint thing going where Mr. Nuser is going to point out a building and then Mr. Marinelli is going to say what the use of that building is because Mr. Nusser knows every single building
on the property and that's what the chair is asking about. So you're going to go building. Do >> you want a number? >> Yeah. When we do letters letters, >> we're going to either letter the buildings or number them and we're going to ask Mr. Nuser to do that. >> So we wanted to is this part of the
application? >> This is going to be marked up. So this >> it's going to be this is now going to be exhibit one. Right. We're eventually revived. You're going to take Let me take a five minute recess so he doesn't have to rush. >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. So, Chris, take your time. Just
you either use letters or numbers on every single building. Okay. >> Mr. Marin, >> are we are we back? >> Back door. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Dill. Um, for the benefit of the courter,
um, Mr. Marinelli and Chris Noser um our project engineer um our uh administr suggestion are going to go through the board and tell you exactly what's in every structure. >> So first we're starting with what is now
A1 dated today. This is sheet three from the submitted plan set. So sheet three of four three 30 three of four dated or last revised >> 2226. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> And it's been modified
with my trusty blue pen with numbers for all of the different structures. Uh and we will walk through them. >> Are we ready? >> We are ready. And go at this nice slow pace. I take notes. >> I'm practicing here.
>> Okay. So I am starting west to east. So left to right on here. >> Yeah, I know. I just realized that I can turn it a little bit here for everybody. >> I think public. >> Okay. Is there anyone in the public?
How many people in the public? Not that we're counting hand, but how many people in the public are here because they are in support of the application? Raise their hand. Okay. Is there anyone in the public opposed to the application? No. So, if you guys are all supporters of the application, do you mind losing your right to see this exhibit so the board
can see it? No problem. Okay, let's move right up here. >> Okay, >> John, you can move up here now if you want to. >> Any board professionals want to go up there? You can go up there, too. >> I'm going to walk around. I will be
descriptive on them as I go through stuff in a little bit of Okay. So, we are going to start with structure number one which is the brick patio
uh to the again this is we're starting on the west side of the property. So, uh, I haven't explained anything about the site, so I feel kind of weird that they in the way I'm explaining this, but, uh, we have the exit driveway, uh, on the west on
the left side of the property here. We have an entrance driveway. >> Yeah. Where's the north arrow pointing up? >> Straight up. Okay. >> So, yeah, left side of page, we have a brick patio uh, that is located just off the edge of the parking lot. And that the patio is used for
>> just seating, just chairs. The people just, you know, I don't really use it that much. Nobody really sits on there. I just >> I just basically have it there just as like decoration. Uh flower pots that >> when uh I was out here on Tuesday,
they're not table. It's more like like deck furniture. >> Decorative stuff. Yeah. >> Well, like deck furniture. >> Yes. >> Like with cushion cushion seats. So, yes. A table that you would sit at, per se. >> Put it this way. If someone wanted to sit there and eat, you would let them
know. You would not let them know. >> Okay. So, you got this brick patio located up the parking lot and it's just used for decorative furniture pretty much. >> And no one there's going to be no um use. >> Just people just sit out there just, you
know, when they walk their dogs, that kind of stuff. There's, you know, they go out there, they sit. Um, >> that's going to be no consumption of food or drink on that patio. Correct? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> What about by the residence? >> The resident. >> The residents on the other side the other side of the
>> Oh, isn't there apartment? >> Oh, yes. Well, >> okay. >> You saying that the Oh, the people. No, they don't really sit. No, >> no, >> they don't. They don't use it for that. Okay. >> Like >> it's not a patio for that. Not like that. >> No. People who are just Yeah, pretty
much. people who are waiting waiting for tables or just to hang out and >> number two. Number two, >> just real quick if I think it might be helpful if you just say the square footage looking >> great idea. So that >> so the brick patio was 297 square feet.
>> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Number two is the existing um the barn with the garage that's located immediately to the east of that patio. And what was constructed
of it is uh wood framed and it has been there. It's on the prior plans, the 1991 plans. It's shown on there as a garage, I believe. >> Hey, what is that used for now, Mr. Marinell? pretty much tables and chairs
that we store for outside. >> You have there's seating in it right now. Yes. >> Yes. Right. >> Yeah. There's tables and chairs and there's seating in there. Yes. >> Oh, there's seating in there now. >> Yes. >> So, you're calling that the cabana on No. That's a wrong
>> It's mislabeled on there. There's two things pointing to it as Cabana. It's not It shouldn't be labeled as Habana on there, but it >> Okay. So Chris, >> I'm not running. >> Yeah, it's pointing to two pads. So are
you saying the back pad is the garage and the front pad is the square is the cabana? >> Correct. >> Yeah, the square. >> Okay. >> Is the garage. >> Okay. >> It has a little bit heavier of a line. And then in front of that, which is item
three, >> okay, >> the cabanas. And those are it's two metal um basically forget at the you go to Lowe's
or >> so wait we go back to the bar the garage. >> Yes. >> Um >> how many tables are in that room? Uh >> I believe five. >> Five. And is it four at a table? >> Well, two usually.
>> Okay. >> What's the max for each table? >> Uh, four. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Two to four chairs per table. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> And that shed is >> Yes. square footage. >> 464
square ft. >> 464 square feet. That's the barn garage. 464 square feet. Yes. >> Yes. >> How about the cabana? How many square feet? >> No, don't go there yet. >> Oh, don't go there. Okay. >> Okay. So, I'm just clarifying on Jeff's picture photo
are is the is that the gray structure and and and what John just references is number three. >> The gray structure a closed in a garage is now a room where people eat. >> Show me the left.
>> It's this gray structure back here to >> the left. Yes. >> Okay. So, how is that going to be labeled on the plan? >> Structure number two. >> Yeah, he he's numbered them. That's what we're doing. It's easy. I mean, we don't we can refer to it as the barn. I think we do. >> No, let's go with the numbers.
>> No. >> Well, I needs to go to something. >> It needs to get I mean, the plan needs to get corrected to label it correctly. But that's not >> that's not your tongue. >> No, I think I think they were >> really
listen I think it is. >> Joe was rarely wrong saying. >> Yes, you're correct. >> But it's used as restaurant seating, not as an event room >> at at the moment. >> That's what was testified to. >> Plans need to be corrected. >> And what's the thing in the middle that
where you keep talking about the event room? That's >> okay. Let's Can we go in order, folks? >> Yeah. Yeah. I know called it. Okay. >> I >> Okay. So, >> if you I say if you if you bear with me and let me go >> try and go methodically through this. I know >> I appreciate >> we're going a little back and forth here
and we're connected at the moment. So, >> you can >> Well, I like being the center of attention. So, >> got my wish for the night. Um, >> so next is the cabanas that we were talking about.
>> Number three, >> two cabanas, >> the two cabanas, which area wise actually calculate >> 701 square ft listed is the cabanas plus
the garage. >> Yes, we're bar right 701us 464. No >> 323 >> on the planet the 701 for the cab. >> It's both the barn and the cab. >> The barn and the cabana together is Yes.
>> So 01 at the track 464 you get 3.3. >> Do you know? >> Okay. Well, we have two engineers here. We got three engineers. Let's figure out three of your answers under the 701 is
back. Let me see. engineering over >> the known fact that it members who need lips helps them with the transcript. >> I don't know how she knows who's >> so get the pen out of your mouth, Ryan.
>> So it says the cabana pad on the survey is 323 square feet. >> Trying to help her >> not doing a good job. takes theater class. >> Is it dying, John? >> No, it keeps on shutting off
>> and I get to keep on pushing the button on the bottom. >> There's there's some inconsistency in the numbers. >> I'll deal with it. I'll deal with it. >> Okay. So, the 323 for the cabanage is correct. was follow this
I go with Brian's number here that the garage bar >> number two >> to be 373 square ft which >> doesn't have to number one >> we're getting it >> you'll get the details
>> the bottom line is since you're not finishing tonight and they're coming back you're going to revise this plan you're going to submit it with all the numbers on it and all the right n all the correct numbers we're So, so the use the table again set the table like we did in that the pre the prior application there we were setting the
table what relief do they need here we're setting the table what relief do you need but the way to do that is to first go through and see what do you have what you're using it for and what you want to use it for there's a method beyond all this madness
>> so the cabanas right now I should turn it on the use for the cabanas is seating outside. Yeah. >> For outdoor outdoor seating. Yes. >> How many tables and how many seats? >> Uh I believe there's
uh five tables. But wait, one, two, three, five or six tables. Uh four a piece. So like 24. So five or six tables with two to four people. Yes. For tables. Two to four chairs per table.
Okay. Number four. Number four is the what's labeled as the the proposed addition which so it's the event >> the event room that's proposed which is
I would say partially constructed. It's not finished on the inside that the outside structure is up. It's not sided. It does have windows in it. um currently not used for >> anything.
Um previously had the tent on it and the tent was used for additional outside seating was your testimony from before. Correct. >> Yes. Okay. So, what is this event room proposed to be used for? Because if you read the application, it says special
events only, but I take it you want to also be able to have restaurant tables and seating there or not? So the I guess ex we're gonna >> we're gonna get into that. >> We're gonna Yeah. Let's go through the
buildings first and then come back and explain the I don't want to >> Okay, listen. For now, okay, for now the event room right now has no use currently. >> It's just proposed. Let's just say it's for the proposed events which we will
explain when we're done with the square footage. And that is 875 square feet. >> Okay. >> Next number five. Apologize. I label I skipped five when I
was writing this down. >> So number six uh is the existing >> So we're we're hopping over five for now. >> Okay. >> We missed something. We'll label that one five. Okay. We're saving that one. >> Well, we're saving it. All right. Number six.
>> Is the existing >> restaurant? Yeah. >> And >> there's a second floor apartment. >> There's a restaurant, second floor apartment. >> So, existing restaurant on the ground floor, second floor apartment. How many bedroomedroom apartment? >> One.
>> And how is that apartment occupied? >> Employees. >> Employees. >> Employees. Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. >> Well, is it limited to that?
Is there anything that limits it to an apartment for employees? I know that. >> No, not in the not in the prior approval. >> Yeah. >> So, it's it's a rental apartment. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I would leave it at that if I were you. >> Okay. And we won't. So, a one-bedroom apartment and the existing
restaurant. >> Yes. Oh, I guess I'm not sure if the information that was provided by our planner that showed the dimensions of
the original restaurant building showed it as a L-shaped buildings with no bumpouts or >> Where is that? >> That is >> that indicated that's in your report. >> Yes, it's attached the last last page of my report.
>> So maybe not. Mr. Marinelli, but at some point the maybe the architect could explain the difference in the dimensions and the size. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I see. You know, I don't >> ask something.
Yeah. Oops. Question is, is it's different in shape. Why? >> All right. >> Or how? >> Well, okay. Yes. >> Um, was there ever an addition? There's a walking box back there,
but that's those are separate. >> There's a walking box back there. This room has always been part of that. >> This is a walking box back here. >> Hold on for a second. The date on this drawing
that Jeff has is March 20th, 1992. And this >> date >> revision date is July >> 15 >> 15th, 1992. And it's per the township engineer and township planner. So this appears at
least to follow the adoption of the interpretation resolution 10-90. Do you Jeff, have you been able to figure out I think that there was a second memo and it was it was a there
was a second memo addressed to the board, but I don't think the board acted on it. I think it was to the applicant. There's a memo to the board dated January 9, 1991 >> and it's saying that there was some disturbance and board approval will be
um required but it never there was no documentation as far as I could see and there was a plan that was signed by Bob Crren. >> So it looks like this was administratively approved. >> Yeah. >> On July 21, 1992 and authorized RK which
would be Robert Cran. Is that correct? >> That's correct. So according to what was approved back in 1990, the main building is supposed to look like a L, >> right? And so it looks like there were
put on. I think actually it's a trunk taken. That's a box. That's a box. It looks like this was made wider this way and this way. So, I guess I'd ask that your architect compare the plan that was approved to the design for the
building. Now, >> yeah, that would be the simplest. >> Yeah, we'll clarify, right? We're we're coming back anyway. We'll clarify. >> Yeah, because it it it appears that maybe additions were punched out the back and maybe on the sides. >> You got to say louder. Say it. >> It is it it may be that there were some
additions put across the rear and in the back of the building. >> That's what it appeared, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm not aware of any, but we'll >> Yeah, >> we'll clarify. >> Okay. >> It's number six is a restaurant. And the
restaurant is >> 1625 square ft. >> 1625 square ft. And how many tables and how many have chairs at each table in the restaurant? >> Uh so we have a total of uh 12 tables, I
believe, and it's 48. Okay. Four chairs per table. >> Except for the high tops only have two. >> There's some twos and there's some >> Yeah. >> That are some two tops and some four tops. >> But if you have 48 and there if you have
12 tables already there >> there's there's a total of 48 seats, Mr. Manelli. Is that correct? >> Yes. Total of 48 seats. >> That makes sense. Are there some that have more than four? Unless some tables have more than four.
>> There's 12 seats, right? >> There's 12 tables. >> 12 table. But there's 12. Yeah, there's 12 tables. >> So 12* 4 is 48. But if you have some high tops, it only >> So maybe I counted wrong. Maybe there's 30 uh uh take away two. One, two. I count one, two, three, four,
uh 10. any which one do you need? 32 >> 32 >> 32 seats. >> So he has 12 tables, two to four chairs per table. >> Yes. >> But you have a total of 36 chairs. >> Yes. >> 36
32. >> Total of 32 chairs. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Tops. >> Including he said there's 12 tables. Some are high top, some are low top, some have four chairs. >> Configure the restaurant all the time. You know what I'm saying?
>> Some have two chairs. But if you counted up all the chairs, he says it's 32 chairs. And if you count up all the tables, it's 12 tables. >> That's his high tops. >> Sticking with that. You know what? the the high tops. Some people come in and when they're picking up to goes, they sit at the high top so they just relax
and we don't really use them as a a sit down for people to eat at because they are, you know, rather small for Italian dishes which are rather big. >> Okay. >> Number seven. Number seven is labeled as
>> 57 square ft. It's to the rear of the of number six, the restaurant on the uh on the west side. >> Is that deck attached to Is that does deck number seven attached to existing restaurant number six or deck? >> It's a walking box. Yes.
>> It's a walking box. It's mislabelled. >> It's not a deck. >> It's not a deck. >> I don't know why it's labeled. >> Okay. So, number seven labeled deck is going to be relabeled. Number seven is going to be a walk-in box. >> Yeah. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah.
>> That's freezer. >> Freezer. Storing food. >> Yes. >> So, walk-in freezer number eight. >> What's a square foot? >> Uh 57. >> Thank you. >> Number eight is the generator
at 11 square feet. The generator is Fueled by >> gas, >> natural gas. >> And emergency backup generator. >> Yes. >> Keeps everything running, especially the walk-in boxes. >> Walking boxes.
>> Is that thing exercised once a week? >> It does, sir. >> Do you have a a specific day and time when it's exercised? >> I believe it's Wednesday. >> So, it's on it's on a um on a timer. Yes, sir. Okay. >> So, the restaurant um ovens and stoves are natural gas.
>> Natural gas. Yep. Number nine is driven cooler and 76 square ft. That's to the rear of the building. Is it a cool? >> It is. >> That is that is a cooler. That looks
like a shed with an air conditioning unit. >> Yes. >> Oh, no. No. Okay. Forget it. Cooler. Number nine. >> How many square feet? >> 76. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Uh 10, 11, and 12 are the sheds.
>> Wait, could you What are the two little squares next to nine to the west of nine? >> Between eight and nine >> condensers, >> air conditioning, condensers, >> condens well, condensers and compressors for the uh walking box units.
>> Let's go with 5A and 5B. How about that? >> Say that again. >> 5 A. We'll use 5 A and 5B. >> 5B. We got to use five, >> right? You got a bonus point for that one, dude. I got a couple. I know. >> Yeah.
>> 5 A and 5 B condensers. 10, 11, and 12 are the three sheds that are just to the east of the building. 10 being the one closest to Route 12. >> That's 10, 11, and 12. Which one is north?
Which one is south? >> I just said the one close 10 is the one closest to Route 12. >> South I'm not looking at the map. >> It's 144 square ft. Okay. >> I knew which one you meant.
>> 11 is 128 square ft. That's the one in the middle. >> I figured that one out. >> Number 12 was 192 square feet and that is the one to the north. >> That's the one you're have a question about. >> One of 12.
>> So, could you talk about the use of that shed, please? >> So, the the uses of the sheds. >> Well, specifically number 12. >> Well, let's go. >> Okay. >> Yeah, let's go in order. >> You can go in order >> 10 and 11. Um,
>> so 10 and 11 are uh paper goods, uh, catering, uh, dishes, that kind of stuff. Or both of those trailers. Um, >> when you What do you mean? What do you mean trailers? >> They're I mean they're they're storage. I mean, I call them trailers. They're storage. >> Are they sheds? >> They're metal.
>> They're metal. >> They're metal. >> Made of wood. >> Huh? >> Not wood. No sheds. >> Okay. What are they made of? >> Like metal? >> They're metal. >> They're metal. But are they metal sheds or they are like a trailer? They're like They're like trailers. They're like the back of >> Did they have wheels and you took them off? No,
>> they don't. It's like a That's what I said. Did it have wheels and >> pots of a It had wheels and they came off. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, it had wheels and they were taken off. >> You could see on photo four is the back of one of them. >> It would be number 11.
>> Correct. >> So, they're kind of like a a pod. I don't call it a pod. Instead of a shed, we're calling them pods. Okay. Listen. Are they permanently attached to the ground or are they just sitting there? >> They're not. They're just sitting there.
>> What about number 12? >> 12. >> Number 12. Is that a pond or a shed? That is number four. It's >> four in Jeff's photos. That is that is wood frames.
Yeah, >> that's a shed. >> It's a shed. Yeah. >> But what's it used for, please? >> Uh like uh uh paper goods like for the uh um you know uh just papers like filing papers and stuff like that. So it's not paper goods. Filing papers is
what I meant. Yes. >> So there's air office uh papers and um just different you know uh things for the restaurant and that kind of stuff. Do people use it like for office
functions inside? >> We do occasionally. I do occasionally to do like, you know, uh, payroll, that kind of stuff. Occasionally, yeah, we do >> because it looks like it has an air conditioner on it. >> Is it heated also? Is it a fully conditioned building? Heat, heat, and an air conditioner. We see
>> it has a um electric heater. >> Okay. So, it has electric heater and it has AC. >> So, it's an office. you >> yeah, but I don't really Yeah, I don't really use it as an office. I mean office. But >> you actually do. >> Not Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> When I have time. Yeah. When I have time. Let's leave it at that. >> Next is number 13, which is the duster enclosure that straddles lot 61 and lot 60.
uh all the way at the north end of the eastern set of parking and that's for trash and recycling. >> Yes. >> By the way, I forgot to ask this in the beginning. >> Do you own both of the lots? >> I do. >> In the same name? >> I do. >> Okay. Any reason why they had never been
merged? >> My wife owns everything. You got to ask her. I just work for her. >> Four answer. You want to answer? Okay. Now working south number 14 is
labeled adjacent shed and that shed is used by >> we have um uh snowb blowers uh that kind of stuff in that shed. Snowblowers any kind of uh >> is a maintenance shed maintenance for
kind of both the properties. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And what's a shed made out of? >> Wood. Yeah, it's a wood shed which was there from the previous owner. >> And what's the size?
>> Since it's going to ask Brian to >> Mhm. >> to up 242 about 242 ft. >> Okay. And the dumpster enclosure, by the way, is that what is that? Is it a
fence? Is it wood? Is it blocked? It's wood. It's wood fence. A wood fence >> with a concrete bed. >> Oh, you mean you mean uh the dumpster enclosure? >> No, it's a it's a metal fence. >> Okay. Three sides or four sides with a
gate? Two sides and then the gate in front. Three side. >> Nothing in the back. >> Nothing in the back. No, >> it's showing on the plan. >> No, I don't have one on the back now. And is there a pad, a concrete pad for in the dumpster?
>> There is not. >> If uh what's the uh if you drew a line, right? So you'd have a rectangle. What's the square footage of the rectangle of the dumpster enclosure? Now, it's not the dumpster itself would be the impervious, but if there was a pad
placed between fence lines and you drew a line where the >> 193 square ft. >> So, you got to take a look at the plan. If you want to have a fourth side, you leave the plan like it is with one side
showing proposed. If you don't want to have four sides and you got to pick that off. >> Correct. I You think it would be >> appropriate to have four sides, >> especially since the township ordinance requires that? >> Yes.
>> I didn't know that. Why would that be? >> Well, keep animals out. >> Keep trash. >> Keep trash in, keep animals out. >> Um Okay. Number 15.
>> Number 15 is labeled as adjacent garage. >> And the garage is used for >> storage of the catering storage. >> Gatoring storage. And it is 587 square ft.
>> So no no car storage. >> No. >> No. No, the entrance to it is facing south has parking in front of it. Uh and then last one I have number 16. 16 which is
the threebedroom residence on lot 61. Sorry, lot 60. It's a residence. How many floors? >> Two. Okay. How many apartments? How many bedrooms on the first floor? How many bedrooms on the second floor? >> I believe there's one bedroom on the
bottom floor and two bedrooms upstairs. >> Now, is this a rental also? >> It is. >> And is this rented to to someone who needs three bedrooms or the bedrooms rented out individually? >> No, no, it's one family. >> One family. Okay.
So this is a single family detached dwelling. Yes >> square footage. >> That's a,082. Unless I missed something. Need to add a 17. Figured the parking lot stood on its
own. >> Any signage? There is signage but not separate freestanding and that's assumed when I did direct freestanding. Thank you.
>> Yeah, there's no freestanding. >> Not not I not site ID sign. Obviously there's traffic control signs but >> okay. Yeah. >> The septic tanks that are shown on the plan behind the
new addition, are those above ground or underground? Do they have a cleanout portal to the surface? >> Okay. >> We have clean outs above ground >> for those two. >> Six months.
>> So that's 17 maybe those two. >> They were considered septic tur. Yes, >> I believe they are. >> Can you um describe where the >> Can you go loud, please? >> Fields are >> Can you do it again loud? Your microphone's off. The reporter not hear
me and we're not hearing. >> Sorry. Please describe where the subject distribution fields are. I I think again Chris if you want to I think when I think what we've done here is describe all the structures and and when the engineer actually tells you what's on
the plan he'll tell you everything about where the sub is. >> Yeah, I can go and I can answer the questions probably a little bit quicker and neater for everybody but just in my direct I can just explain how the site works and
and all those things. I know I'm standing here and testifying right now. U but it was this was direct this was a special purpose rule testimony so everyone would understand all the structures and what the uses were. >> Right.
>> And then there was a question that so if we're done with that. >> Yeah. So any board me right hold any board members have any questions for Mr. Nusser about any of these structures the sizes the uses or anything like that?
I mean, I will testify. We'll be still here. >> Yeah, I got it. They don't have any clarifying questions. He did a good job. >> That worked out. >> It did. >> Yeah. Yeah. You just can't add.
>> Yeah. Well, that's a problem. >> Okay. So, now that we've established that, Mr. Marinelli's testimony is now concluded. Does anyone have any? >> There was a question and I think it may have come to J about the event space.
>> Right. >> Right. Right. But your attorney wanted to save that for the presentation. So, but if anyone has any questions for Mr. Marinelli about what the proposed use of the event space, now would be the time to ask. >> Okay.
>> What is it? >> For special events anniversary. >> Okay. All right, >> birthdays, small gatherings, that kind of stuff. Christmas parties, uh just a small, you know, event space to have people where you can fit them all into one room because obviously in the
restaurant part of it can't fit that many people in that area to be able to do uh what I do in the event space such as the tent and the uh event uh room that I'm building out there. >> Are you aware I saw somewhere I think I saw it in the applicants traffic report.
I think I saw in the dynamic report where they said dumb things to the ah here it is on page three or four the second paragraph. In order to mitigate the requested parking variance, because you're going to need a parking variance, the applicant will not
utilize the existing restaurant space for seating for seated dining when the proposed banquet facility, which is the event space, is in use and will only fulfill carry out orders during these times. This essentially results in the banquet
facility, the event space becoming the restaurant space with the remaining space being utilized as fast casual takeout restaurant. Is that your intent? >> Yes sir. >> Mr. Marinelli, why don't you come back and sit down now? >> Sure.
>> Keep the microphone. >> Just a clarifying with that. So are is your aspiration to do the new constructed area along with the garage area together for events both of those places?
>> So I think that um I would answer that question correctly. I would say yes because um you know if we're doing small event parties in there, we'd have to do like u uh you know tables to put food in on. Mhm.
>> So if you need more room. Yes. >> Okay. So So there's a possibility that both of those spaces would be used for your special events at the same time. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So m Mr. Marinelli the the Okay. Is everyone satisfied? Does everyone know
what every building does on this site? >> We know what he's told. We know what Mr. Marinelli has told us happens in all those buildings. >> Okay. Can we talk about the event space now? Yeah, that's the proposed event space. Yeah.
>> All right. Now, Mr. Mayor, this event space again, >> tell me how it it's going to work. Tell me how you're going to use it. Tell me what you're going to use it for. >> Basically, you know,
>> they just did. I think >> people come in and, you know, a party, you know, tables, chairs, >> uh, tables and chairs. How many tables and chairs will be in the new event space and how many and expla describe what will be going on in the garage if you're able to use that in conjunction
with the event space. So first how many tables and chairs in the event space. >> Can I just interject the microphone? You can just stick to chairs because I think tables you might use bigger. You might put them together. Okay, fine. How many
tables do you think will be chair? me. How many chairs do you think will be in the new event space? 50. >> Is those t is the setup in the event space going to be permanent furniture or is that like a fold up event type thing where the tables get folded down and the
chairs get folded up as it comes and goes? >> More permanent. >> Permanent. Thank you. >> And we have we have both though in order to do that. Sometimes we have the round table that you just open up and and um the food.
>> Yeah. But how will the garage be used in conjunction with the new event space? You said you wanted to be able to use the garage with it. In what way? >> It depends on how the party is set up. >> Okay. So, give us a couple examples.
>> So, we can put um you know the buffet table in there. Uh we can put you know I've had people get married in there uh with chairs you know where the uh the priest came and uh you know uh n you know a married to a couple in there so
we put chairs in there. So it it all depends different usages. >> Would it be used for additional eating space? >> It could be right. >> It could be. >> So the events so the event would have 50 chairs and the garage would fit how many
chairs? 20 already. >> I'm He said 20. Chris, I can't see you behind that board. I see your arms. That's okay. >> It's It's his question to answer anyway, but just in total. >> Yeah, 50 to Yeah, 50 total chairs.
>> Okay. I don't understand what that means. If there's going to be 50 chairs in the special event space, there's going to be no chairs in the garage or 50 total between the event space and the garage. >> 50 total between the event space and the garage. Is that correct? >> Yes. Yes. >> Chris, why don't you just grab the
microphone? >> Yeah. >> And hold it. >> Put the mic. Well, listen. >> Relax. >> Relax. >> Chill. Be here a while. So, in in the event room, you you you the
banquet facilities, you're going to make the food on site. >> Yes. >> And you will serve it in serving trays. >> Shaping dishes. >> Shaping. shaving condition. >> Shaving condition. >> Okay. >> And um you'll use it all year round?
>> I would like to. >> Okay. Now, the entrances do you have you have exterior entrances or do people have to come through the restaurant to get to it? >> Uh yeah, both. >> Okay.
Um, your servers will come or or or the the food will come from the restaurant >> into the event space. >> All right. And you'll have tables that the shaving dishes will sit on. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And it'll
>> folding tables. >> Buffet style. >> Buffet style. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, if I can understand this correctly, you're heating or air conditioning a space that you're going to use temporarily. Because if you're using the restaurant,
>> so I I if you're putting uh furniture out, it should be in a conditioned space anyway because being the fact that if it gets too hot in there or too cold in there, it does do damage to whatever furniture you have. Okay. >> Just like your home, you know. >> Okay. So, you're going to heat and or
cool this space. >> Yes. >> Along with the restaurant. >> Yes. >> Okay. Even though you may only use it. Okay. >> So, he's hoping to use it a lot if he's successful. >> No, but if he's using that, he's not using the restaurant. >> I understand. There's also, but there's
also Yes, I would say. Yes, I would say what he what what John was saying. I would, you know, I would condition that room to keep it, you know, hot and cold and hopefully use it a lot a lot more often than I do now. >> Yeah. >> How about the garage? Is the garage heated or cold? >> No. >> Do you plan on heating or cooling the
garage? >> Um, it would probably help if we're putting food in there. Yes. So the reason for my question was um I'm thinking of logistics. Okay. So he books the room on a Saturday evening.
Okay. So it's good to know that you're heating cooling it all the time because if he's doing an event on Saturday evening, he's closing the restaurant. >> He's closing it for seated customers. He's gonna carry, you know, people can go in. >> Right. So I'm trying in my mind to see
logistically it makes sense. Your answer makes sense. Thank you. that he's heating the whole building all the time, which to me in my mind is a big expense. Not a restaurant owner, so I'm just trying to get the feel of this. And if he has these events every Saturday
night, every Friday night, or whatever, he's now heating, cooling the restaurant, which he's not using. So for the seating. Okay. So just trying to figure it out in my my mind. >> And everything's going to be cooked in the kitchen, which is located in the existing restaurant. Correct.
>> Yes. Yeah. Good. Have you given some thought? It's going to be hard as a business owner if the event space is booked and longtime customers come in and want to sit down and have dinner.
>> I I have. And the idea behind it is to do it on the off hours. Oh, should I just shut There you go. to do it on the off hours um like in the afternoons where we're not typically as busy because we're an Italian restaurant and people come more at night. So by
four o'clock it would be over with and then you would have the event space you know uh just for the event for the afternoon and then the restaurant would seat whatever we were seating in the restaurant which uh what are your current days and hours of operation? We're open from
Tuesday to Sunday. Uh 11 to 9 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. 11 to 10 on Friday, Saturday, and 12 to 8 12 to 9 on Sundays. >> Close Mondays. >> I hope you make use of your day off on Monday.
>> Do I go in there and sweep the floors? >> So, how does that work? So, are you I'm a paying customer. I'm going to I'm going to go out to dinner on
Friday night. I think I'm going to your restaurant, but you booked an event. So, I get to the door and you say, "I'm sorry you can't come in because there's an event going on." >> Again, he's trying not
to hit, but he's Yeah, I'm I'm trying to to book the stuff for auto village. Correct. >> I'm I Yeah, I'm trying. Yeah, exactly. So, I'm I'm just a small businessman, right? We try to make a living however we can. Yeah. >> And we're trying to do it, you know, legally and and to the best of our knowledge. Yes.
>> And it's not easy these days because of all the stuff that's going on in the economy. In a perfect world, would I like to to say, "Hey, you know what? I haven't I mean, I've been here 40 years. I've never had an infraction in 40 years. I've been doing this correctly and I've been trying to help people out and case, I did a couple things along
the way, right? But with that being said, would I like to sit people while I'm, you know, doing an event space? If I can, yes. But my kitchen can't handle more than what we got. So, as a as a businessman, I don't want you to come into my restaurant with your husband and then me say to you, "I'm sorry, I can't
serve you. But I also don't want you to come into my restaurant and say, Cynthia, I'm sorry, uh, but you know, you had to wait two hours for your dinner when it only took 15 minutes to make thing to begin with." >> It's not just then you also don't want to not have a place to park. Well, it's larking and I hate to say it, it's
septic. >> Septic. And so I'm just again I'm just trying to figure out, you know, and I agree. You're a business owner. You're trying to do do the best you can. And yes, there have been things that have we we've talked about. Okay. They're infractions, but I I just need I just
trying to figure out how do you stop? >> Can I go ahead? Go ahead. I think what she's saying is if she feels that she'll want to approve this, right? >> Yeah. >> But she's concerned about any negative
impacts, she's thinking what kind of conditions could be imposed to make sure that what you're saying here is when you're using that event space that you won't have seated customers because of a parking issue and a septic issue.
>> So, so if you can't If you want to explain to me how >> if I can't feel if I and I'm only speaking for myself. If I can't feel comfortable that there's a separation, then I'm going to look at the application as the worst case scenario.
You're going to have an event, you're going to have a restaurant, and you have a septic that doesn't fit that, >> right? >> And and you know, I parking is another issue, but but the septic is my concern. >> Well, parking do it is a >> concern. Okay. I can park. So, so that's I'm in my head I'm trying to say
>> if you can show me how you can separate that and again I know you're coming back so I'm I'm just talking through this >> and I have to go with the worst case scenario. >> Well, and I I guess I'd like to flip the conversation. Did you think about maybe at some point merging the two lots, expanding your
parking and and upgrading your septic system and modifying your kitchen so you can do events and your regular business at the same time? >> So that >> Yeah. You know, here's the big thing to to answer that correctly and honestly,
hey, >> it just costs too much money. >> Okay. >> Oh, we we just can't afford to do what we're doing and you know, it just costs way too much money. I mean, you know, uh the the labor and the cost of doing all this construction was just going to cost us way too much money. It's at this part
of the game of my life. I'm 53 years old. I've worked for the past 40 years in the same business doing what we do, okay? Serving our community, helping the customers out. It It's not feasible for me to put a million dollar debt on my back and, you know, try to pay it off in the next seven to 10 years of of, you
know, whatever it's going to be. So, >> that's an Yeah. Okay. restaurant. Do you make reservations? >> Do we make reser Andy? Put your speaker put your mic up. Do it again. Ask him again. >> At your restaurant, can you make reservations? >> We do, sir. We make uh well, we do call
aheads. So, you can call me and you can tell me that, hey, Randy Block is coming and we'll have you down and then hopefully we'll have a table ready for you. If not, we'll tell you to wait a couple minutes and then, you know, table should be clearing up. We don't overbook. We don't uh we try to bas basically uh maintain a flow of people
coming in and out if if that was the case. >> So that would no board members eat at this restaurant until after this application's over. >> That would cut back on um >> not the reservations as as far as events. If you knew you were having
event tonight, we're only having we're only making reservations from certain time to certain time. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Like I said, uh, sir, it's we our kitchen is only so big. We're not going to be able to do more than what we're already, you know, at
capacity at this point. >> Well, thank you. >> And to Cynthia, to your point, heard, we are coming back and we'll make sure we have something clearly outlined for you on how that would work >> just written out
so that it's, >> you know, >> Yeah. and and understand that if if I if we if we can't understand how it can be done separately then our thought process is one the septic and two the parking we had another application here was event
and and it ended up being that um they could have offsite first of all there was a situation where they were parking on the grass which was a violation because of uh New Jersey regulations. Okay. And then we we got to an agreement
where they could bus from the school. There was the opportunity to bus from the school, the local school. So again, we're thinking we're trying to think ahead if if if he has an event there and he's having both. >> God forbid there was an accident on
Route 12 and and and he has all the best intentions in the world, but everybody driving a car uh makes mistakes. So, we're just trying to think of everything. >> No, and I and it's a it was a more than fair question and I think we just want
to make sure we have a a really good response for you very clear on on how that would be outlined and it may be some discussions with the board professionals too beforehand on >> and I know I know your planner is an earshot here. >> Yes. So um the the thought process here
is that how do I how there have been past discussions okay and that's something different okay but how can that we put conditions in this agreement and make sure >> then you can feel confident we'll be
>> thank you so understood understood and >> again just trying to lay it out on what we're trying to think here. I mean, >> I I understand that and I would expect nothing less. >> Mr. Schaer, and again, I'm not testifying. I'm I I think I'm just going
to paraphrase what veto has said five or six times. He the number of people he can serve is limited by his kitchen. >> That's what he said. She wants to know, give, give me, give me some sport,
>> Mr. Chaper. Uh, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. >> I'll get you an apron. Come work for me. You can figure it all out together and then we'll know exactly. >> But then you're going to then you're going to lose her. You're going to lose your vote. I'm los and then >> you know, >> but I do agree with you. Yeah. What
you're saying. I do 100% agree with it. I mean, I have I have the same uh conflict in my head, but we're going to make it work the best that we can. It's all flow from me. Yeah. >> At the end of the day on what I and what on what I feel comfortable bringing in because there are times where I tell
people, listen, I'm sorry, we just can't see you. And people say, "Thank you very much." And I'd rather be upfront with the customer so the customer does return rather than upset a customer and not have them come back because, you know, they've been sitting there for without a meal in front of them. Yeah, I guess when I look at the numbers
on um >> the Marti engineering report, it seems like if you are not using that um framed space that's supposed to uh contain
50 chairs and you're also not using the garage which is 20 that's a total of 70. >> Hold on for one second. What muji engineering report? this one the plan. >> Yeah, it's not addressing the real number.
>> February 24th to Jh. >> It doesn't seem to be addressing the real capacity of the event space which to me is 70. And also if the event space is not being used, it doesn't seem to
address the capacity of the restaurant plus the um >> I guess those gazebo um that gazebo space which can have six tables and four chairs each. So >> with four chairs each
>> and the the testimony was that there's the 20 seats right now in building structure number >> two garage >> the the barn. Yeah, garage. >> But the between the event space and that
the new addition and that it's 50 total seats. >> So you be eliminating the seating that's in there now. And what the testimony was was that the the space would be used or you know the buffet tables could be set up in there
or you know there were a number of things that were discussed about how that would be used but ultimately would be 50 seats maximum between both of you know for the event space use which is both of those areas. >> But do any of those that testimony
doesn't include seating outside under the gazebo? >> Right. And the gaze, you know, the Yeah. Cab got number three there. >> And that's part of the restaurant use, right? We have 32 inside and then
>> 24 outside. Yeah. So that that also >> I think the helpful if you come back with really clear numbers about what seats are in what areas because >> Yes, I think yes. I think there's some things that need to be written down and submitted in advance that it's y
>> very clear and yeah >> we already have notes for that and we will take care of that. >> Yes. >> Donna, did we have a question about the water? Yeah, I guess um so um >> we have an aquifer
>> um ordinance in our township which the our planners letter notes that um the water capacity is appropriate but that we'll need to see the water quality testing while and while this well is regulated under the public water supply
rules and nitrate and caulifform are done >> is it tested every Minelli can actually that >> yeah that testing is great and is required but our township has a separate ordinance
>> that requires water quality testing >> additional parameters >> addition a a large number of additional parameters. So we would ask that you comply um with submitting a a water testing that meets the parameters that are required in our >> what state labs does for me every
quarter when I pay. Now, this is >> No, >> they're testing. They're going to come grab the same sample, but instead of running for this amount of things, they're going to test for, >> you know, more testing for more things. >> The ordinance I believe the ordinance
says if if you ever need a site plan approval for something and you're on a well, you have additional testing that the township wants done. It's not just water quality. It could also have quantity
>> it's not adversely impacting other wells >> right and our hydro geologist has already weighed in with Jeff correct that the quantity issue is not so much but that the quality the sample of the water quality needs to be >> yes that's the correct I checked with
the board hydro ggeologist Glewellyn he reviewed the memo and the plans and he he was comfortable with the with the uh quantity he was just questioning the quality and the type of testing that the applicant was um required. >> Yeah, but the quality under the counter
board or the what I just short circuit it'll >> do. >> We'll do it. >> Thank you. >> Yep. CP. >> All right. And then for the septic, are we asking for a >> Yeah, I I would
>> I'll address the septic when I get into >> Okay. I would aspire for some affirmation from the county health department. That's I mean that yes it it will >> on the testing system and any improvements that >> thing is you're saying the February 24th
letter from Maruchi doesn't go far enough. You want more details and you want find out what the county health department has to say about it. >> Yes. What has been approved on the site and how many gallons and what for the existing system on site? We need a a
letter from the county >> department. >> We are good for it. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Perfect. >> And I believe our engineers wants to know where the field is. >> Yes, we have that that I think that came
up already before and we will we'll address that. >> Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Um Ryan, you also were requesting soil logs be done in the >> um
is that proposed location? >> So the the soil logs will need to be done to just to affirm that you can off recharge. >> Understood. Okay. So so far you guys have told Mr. Nesser, what do
you want done from an engineering perspective? Right. So, >> you want to do you want to just go through the letter? >> Yeah, why don't you why don't you go through the letter, see if there's any issues with that since you're coming back. >> So, you know how you do this, right?
You're going through. If you agree with a comment, you don't have to say anything. If you don't say something about a comment and they grant approval, it becomes a condition. >> Before you do that, I just have a I have a question, Donna. There there are two septics, right?
>> There's a separ shows two tanks, >> right? Okay. >> That doesn't mean that there's two, though. >> Oh, >> it could be one field. >> Okay. That That's what I'm getting to. >> That'll get confirmed. >> There's two separate tanks. >> So, there two Well, there's two tanks, but is there two disposal fields? Because sometimes there's a pumping tank
and then or a separate holding tank. >> I think they're just in line. >> That's what I mean. Yeah. So is it So it's two tanks but it's one system. >> Yeah. But you're going to put the on the plan put it on the plan >> and and so Donna I'm I'm naive. So will
they be a will the report be able to say this septic is for the restaurant and this one is for the house? >> So I ask a question. Is there a separate >> for 60 >> has their own septic system? >> Yes, that's all septic. Yes.
There's that on the plan also. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, there's two tanks for the restaurant. >> The water well. There's one well shown under the existing addition. Is that for both? >> There's two. >> There's two wells for the restaurant, one for the house. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Uh so we want that on the >> Yeah, they'll need them on the septic in the world. show that the second well for the house on the plan. >> Yeah, on the right that's on lot. >> Yes. >> Okay. Whose report are we going to first? >> Going to Ryan's report.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I'm on page three starting on general comments. >> Right. So, if you agree, you know, look, if it was it may require waiver relief, you got to discuss it. If
you're willing to make a change, you say something, I put a C. If that means if there's an approval, it becomes an approval condition to revise the plans. If you say number two, no problem. I just put a C. You know, you know the routine. If you have an issue, >> yes, >> you got to tell them about.
>> Yeah, understood. And so number one is really outlining relief. >> Well, it says require relief. Do you require that relief or not? >> Uh, as it relates to the hairpin
striping, it's not currently hairpin striped. I think the uh if >> the parking lot's in good condition and it's not going to be restriped. >> So, you need relief. >> So, we would need relief. >> Okay. >> Do you comply with curbing or seek
relief? >> Seek the relief. >> C. Screening and location of parking lots and access. >> I will seek that relief. >> Seek relief. E >> uh it's for having the access drive and driveway for use that's not permitted. So obviously we need that relief
>> the relation and E >> E is the the parking lot. We say we're seeking a relief. >> Okay. So and exceptions from all of
these. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Item two, we'll comply with that. A that's going to be a C condition. Now, along those lines, I don't know if he has it in there or not, but ask to you guys, under the county ordinance, do
those ties have to be >> fastened into the ground? >> Yes. >> So, this shed >> like a shed on >> shed just sits on >> Yeah, but Right. But this is not a
residential lot. I I don't know the answer. I'm asking I tell you what, can you >> We'll find that we'll find that answer out for you and either >> look into this is commercial use. >> I imagine storage. >> My guess is you'd have to secure them
in, but it's probably not a big deal. >> But we'll figure it out. I mean, if there's a code requirement, >> that's what I'm saying. >> Code requirement needs to be met. >> Yeah, I understand. I mean, >> is there a base at all or is it just on the ground? But yeah, stone. >> Oh, but the there's a bottom to the
>> Yeah, it's all metal. >> You're saying underneath it or it itself? Yeah, there's gravel underneath it. >> Okay, >> just find out. Let them find look into it. >> Yeah, we'll look into it. >> And number three, we take care of three, we will take care
of four. >> And now number five is testimony that we will get to. >> Right. Number six is testimony that we will get to >> do and that that's not going to be a condition of approval. You're going to do that before approved.
>> Correct. >> Yes. >> That to do it now. >> Okay. Eight. >> Number eight. We will comply with that. Well, >> well done.
Hey, that can be guys that can be a condition of approval number eight. They don't now, do they? >> Yeah, so long as it shows that it'll that it'll work. >> Y nine. Uh, that's testimony. >> Testimony. Okay.
10. We will comply. 11. We will comply. >> Well, uh I believe we did that already. That testimony was provided. >> Yeah, testimony was provided. Do you guys need these on the plans or can >> It's on the plan. Isn't it listed?
>> It's identification. >> It indicates that there's one >> Well, we can indicate I think the maybe the the one-bedroom apartment needs to be better indicated on the plan as being within the restaurant. >> You want to park? Yeah, it was more it was more just trying to figure out what
is where. So yeah, if if we could just clarify in the plan that clarified in testimony, but on the plan it needs to say restaurant and second floor >> 13 will comply with 14.
Um yeah, 14 will comply. speak 14 into if >> it it just there's a note on the plan. It says that flood hazard area is shown from a flood hazard area map, but it
doesn't give the map number. So, we're just asking that that just be depicted. >> Got it. 15 >> that we will also do. >> And just while we're on that, the other one that was brought up um so thank you John. The >> that's John Thomas.
>> Yes, John Thomas. the >> take the >> the stream that's on the property is a C1 stream and generally it's a 300 foot setback. So that that would also have to be shown on the plan. >> Yes, we can. >> Let me just add in >> amend that
D1 >> 300 foot setback. Is that a setback or a buffer? >> Buffer. >> I guess buffer is a better word. Yeah, >> zonearian buffer. Okay. >> Probably going to trigger a lot more
variance. That's probably going to trigger a lot more relief. >> Um, >> you won't be able to comply >> with >> 300 foot setback from the stream to your buildings. You show one at 160 some
feet. >> But as it relates not complying what way? So, does the NGD buffer requirement allow structures? >> Yes, it does. >> With a permit,
>> the structures there, >> well, not the but the the the proposed what was constructed partially. >> They're they're there and they've been there. Um the any of the work that was done up until the point
of January of this year would have been work in a disturbed repairing zone. It's a minor project in a disturbed repairing zone would have been a permit by rule. And so while it's a technically a permit, it's a permit by rule. It requires no filings with the state. So
anything that's there is in compliance with the rule. Uh as it comes to the flood hazard area, that's something that is on there. That was 15. Making sure we have the right the flood hazard area to
be correctly shown on there for the current standards to make sure that any of the structures, you know, the the proposed structure um and even the use really of the barn converting that into a use. If the flood
plane comes up that far, uh, then that would be a permit. >> Okay. >> Right. But the actual what's there that's >> Yeah. >> That's compliant. It does require a variance. >> Yeah.
So for the 300, >> it's it's included with the reservation natural features buffer. It includes the riparian zone for uh C1. Okay. Hey Jeff, what are you saying? >> The municipal ordinance says
that if there's a 300 foot buffer >> that it's still require it requires relief for that work. >> Okay. Can someone just give me the ordinance section? >> It's 296-141 A2. >> Was that from memory?
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Let you flex. Okay, got it. That's not a right. They show the 300 foot repairarium buffer and they're going to have to also the application to apply for a variant from the 300 foot repairarian
>> from that 141 296-141 A2. So that would mean that my comment number 16 which is 29641 A1 wouldn't apply. So it would be the 300 foot because I I had
>> separate separate. >> Okay. >> And and I think when you put that line on your dumpster enclosure is going to be >> and by the way >> within the setback >> item 16 they don't comply with that. So they need a variance from that. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Item 16. Yeah. If confirmed by the by the engineer >> if we're within 100 feet you're saying >> right of the dump >> the stream bank. Yeah. >> I think the I mean when I looked at it before the drywall was in we'll double check on the
>> the dumpster. But I think the the way the stream shows on here it's it it's a little weird that it put it this way. I'm writing it and we'll put it on there and we will take care >> with it or or variance
>> and there are existing structures you know that >> the septic system itself is within that space. >> So and we'll document it on the plan and we will discuss it the next time. >> Yep. 17 environment statement reports no
wetlands have been identified within 50 ft of the proposed improvements. The report should be revised to indicate if there are any wetlands or transition areas that have been identified in the site. Now there's a December 12, 2025 letter to
Rob Marti from Jeff Tiela Environmental Consulting. >> Yes. >> Okay. So what does he say? Are there's no wetlands within >> 50 ft of the proposed improvements? Not it's not a statement about the lot itself. There's a creek in the MAC.
>> Yeah, we we were looking for the wetlands line to be delineated and it's not like it's a large property. So, um I think it would be just a little bit more clear. That's something that we've typically done with other applications. So, >> is this a delineation? Just a like
having Mr. Terrella go out do a delineation. we >> and then any buffer then >> I don't think so long as it's >> not an asking that >> just a wetlandation on the >> because his letter says >> yes because his letter says there aren't
any wetlands >> well said there's he doesn't >> he said within 50 ft >> Ryan see on the property >> on the right he wants >> because typically we get conservation easements on wetland areas and buffers.
>> Buffers. Correct. >> Mhm. >> With signs and cap pins. >> With sign pins. >> With signs and capped pins is what he meant to say. >> Captain pins.
>> Cat pin. Like a dog pin or a cact pins. Right. >> Correct. >> Got to annunciate, man. >> It's good for the goose. It's good for the gander. We yell at them. L you >> can't hear you. >> Hi.
>> Microphone down. >> Everyone honest 18. >> I think that was discussed. >> That was discussed. >> 19. Uh that's validating the parking spaces
for the residential to be identified for that use only. >> Can you put that in the plan? >> Yes. >> Okay. 20. No lighting improvements are proposed. Epsilon should be provided. You want to give that testimony when you're giving the rest of your testimony? >> Yeah. I don't want to do it now. Yep.
You're going to put it Yeah. Not doing it now. 21 uh this is don't know that we need as it stands that we need >> I mean as required we'll get certification
>> right >> yeah so the the ordinance and this is this is where the board can comment so the ordinance requires for a minor stormwater project either 2500 square feet of disturbance for 1,000 square ft of new impervious. Um, based off of
what's shown in the proposed condition, they don't meet that. However, you guys can weigh in on the addition of all these other things that may not have gotten approvals. The problem is that the the minor storm order requirement was put into effect in 2023. So,
>> yeah, but they if they had approvals for that other stuff, they'd all be grandfathered, right? But they don't have approvals for that other stuff. So, in my opinion, it the board's call, but the board would be well within its rights to say if you take into account everything that's been added without
approval, not none of that stuff is grandfathered, therefore it should apply. But that's not for me to say. That's just that's for you guys to decide. But if I'm asked a legal question of are those other things grandfathered because they were done prior to that date, my answer is no. The
only way they'd be grandfathered is if they were lawfully created. They weren't lawfully created. They were just created. >> My comment, we went here. My comment was just the amount of disturbance that's actually proposed. I don't think it's
going to be over 5,000 square feet at this time where soil conservation would get involved. But if it is, we'll do a plan to soil conservation. >> Ryan, back to you. Yeah, let me >> I mean the drywall and
>> the structure that's graned already up was built on top of a concrete pad that was there, you know, disturbance with it. So, this is just running um you know, putting the the drywalls in or the drywall in with the the roof
leaders, it's going to be fairly minimal in its disturbance. If there's other items that are being addressed in here, again, if it goes over 5,000 square feet, we get the approval. >> Let's look at the CC, >> right? I just don't want to say we're going to get an approval and I'm going to go to soil conservation. He's going
to look at me and go, "What are you doing here?" >> We'll change uh comment number 21A1 to if required. >> That's for soil conservation. >> Municipal ordinance. >> The municipal ordinance still requires soil conservation measures. They just
may not require a permit from Hunter County soils. >> Okay. >> Right. >> I guess. Okay. >> Okay. So, hold it. 21A1 is I comma if required. >> What's 21 A2? >> Uh two is about tree removal. There's no
tree removal proposed. Um I don't think there's any tree trees within any distance that could be affected by the proposed disturbance. But again to the same point, if required, if we need tree protection fencing, we will put it
in. >> Although John Thomas has done a memo, >> can we get to John Thomas' memo when we get to >> Yeah, I guess. >> So I said if if we need to do it, we'll do it and we'll talk about John's memo tonight. >> So Ryan, just to be clear, the
impervious >> 45 >> impervious coverage. >> Yeah, let's go to the bottom of this. Sorry. >> Sorry. >> So my question is for imperous coverage
>> given Mr. Drill has advised us that anything that was any impervious coverage that was put in without approvals could be considered now as it as part of the trigger for the storm water management. >> Sure.
So, uh, I did a a very rough estimation and I think it would be fair to ask for to have a better breakdown for the next meeting. Um, I looked at what was installed sometime roughly around by 2004 to what exists today. It appears
from my calculation that it's approximately.16 acres. So, it falls beneath the requirement for a major stormwater project from D. So that's why we're looking at it to be a minor stormwater project for the Raridans ordinance. >> Okay. So then then they'd have to comply under our minor.
>> Correct. >> Okay. So that's if you disagree obviously Chris you he'll say something but at least the township engineer saying it's his opinion even the non-grandfather stuff it's not a major it's a minor.
>> I would agree with that assessment of them. >> Thought you would not. So the tree removal thing that's just if required it will be done >> if required. Okay. >> Yeah. Uh another just another thing
about the C1. Uh there's the DNR Canal Commission that will probably be an outstanding agency approval, but that's going to be another thing that you'd have to get approval from for the C1.
>> Well, they have our own So they have their own buffers. >> I should be adding a 27 F. >> Yes. >> DNR and now commission. explain why the DNR now commission would be involved
when generally Raron Township they haven't been unlike Montgomery where I am they always are >> because in this part of the town the water goes to the Delaware River where normally most of the water in town goes to the Raridan and out so it's that
portion is outside of there >> and it specifically goes in it goes directly in the canal They separate out of their canal. >> They're placed. There are trains in the >> I did not know >> that go underneath the canal. >> Most of them do actually.
>> Most of them do. >> It's very strange to see into the canal. So that's why they didn't. >> You learn something new every day. >> Go for a walk on the toe path. You'll see them. No, >> I ride on path. Don't go past. I don't see. >> You got to stop and enjoy the scenery.
>> I feel the the air going through my helmet. 22. We will do that. I think we already kind of agreed to do that. >> 23. We will do that.
>> 24. That >> we'll clarify. We'll clarify. We'll make sure there's sufficient cover on the drywall. >> Okay. So, you're going to add it's going to be some kind of >> We'll clarify. Yeah. >> 25. add that note to the plan.
>> Yes. >> 26. Ah, this is what >> this is the discussion application. >> Yeah. Well, even if we were to discharge all the way back to the stream, which we're not going to do, we'd be discharging to the stream and it would
comply with >> the ordinance. Um, I if we're doing discharge locations, I mean, I would just put them as overflows at the building at the bottom of the gutters and go across the grass.
>> And on 26, what what wording has to be added based on what Chris is saying? >> Um, >> I think we'll just say that you'll comply with 26. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Makes it easier.
>> I think we were doing >> you can do a popup emitter or or any kind of free. >> We were doing an overflow grate was what was proposed on the top of the drywall was just going to have great that's shown. >> Yep. >> So I mean if that works then we do that. >> Okay. >> 27 are all the approvals A through F.
28's administrative. Yes. 29 is administrative. Yes. And 30 is administrative. Yes. Yes. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. We even have Mr. Thomas, if you >> Yeah, it's 9:50. You got 10 minutes. >> There's I can I can fast.
>> I can handle this quickly. Number one, >> hold it. This is >> This is >> John Thomasson's first landscape report dated May 18, 2026. >> Correct. The first one relates to tree removal.
There's a request in there to add a note that there's no trees proposed to be removed and that it'll comply with u section >> Wait, is this a yes magnetic condition? >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Number two. >> Number two is regarding street trees with the recommendation of grouping the trees at the corners of the road frontage and set it back from the overhead wires. We agreed to that. >> Okay. >> That a condition.
>> Number three. >> Number three, uh, regards parking area screening, making some notes about the limitations of the site, uh, and a suggestion for putting plantings at the corners of the road
frontage and the property outside required sight triangles. Um, we'd be happy to work with you on it. I'm just a little concerned that by the time you put a sight triangle in that there's not really What are we buffering at that point? Right. If the purpose of it is some parking lot buffering, does it end up
being so far back that it's kind of >> We can we can we can discuss it. It appeared like because because in this case the right of way is dem I think it'll still work. And we can take a look at >> Yeah, we can take a look and we're going
to have work with John Morgan Thomas on screen planting the provided component of the road fun of property outside required triangles but as if I work with John Thomas and and furthermore the simple clear go there's a traffic island
front of the building that has some landscape planting in it. It's all in the NJPOT right so we're not getting into that. We're just saying maybe we can get some planting at both sides. This would >> supplement. >> Yeah. And where it makes sense. We're
>> happy to comply for a second. Sir, with all those plantings and stuff like that, just so you know, if you miss the restaurant, >> Mr. Marinelli area. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> So, because of the fact that they they're brining the roads nowadays, all of my trees are now dead.
So therefore, like you know that island that's in the middle there, I have to replace all those plants there. So if you're planting other plants in the front of there, what's going to stop it from doing that as well with the >> they're going to end up pulling it back >> back. Well, I mean, mine are pretty much back. >> We're just we're just going to get some
we'll get some salt resistant plants. I mean, we This is not I mean, this is kind of what everybody has to deal with. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We don't want >> We don't want to put them in and have you replacing them constantly. That's not in anybody's interest. There's something. >> Yeah, just have your cous plants every year
and yeah, spend money on >> number one's got this far. I don't know if I want to get be able to afford the plants pretty soon. >> Well, number four. Number four is make a plan that shows all. >> Yep. Day one, >> which will do. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Okay. 45 minutes. >> To go through >> Okay. Well, just going to going to request that, you know, we start discussing scheduling and >> Well, do do we have 10 minutes? I mean,
Mr. >> Hello. Hello. We're not going to stay past 10. So, we're going to do schedule testimony. >> If we have time, then we'll take Mr. But we're not going to not talk about scheduling until 10:00 because then we won't be done till after 10. These guys are volunteers.
>> So before anybody speaks, I would like to make a note. Next time, one person speaks at a time. Let Chris go through everything. Then we ask questions because that took forever for no reason. Two, I would just like for
everybody to go over a list of what this board is asking for in your advice plans. We did it for our last application that was very similar like this. Too much commotion happening at once. Please, let's just make sure everybody knows what revisions need to
be made. And along those lines, because there's a board stenographer, I highly suggest that you order a transcript because then everything the board asked and you guys said you would do is write in a trans. >> Well, they are required to order a
transcript. >> To get one, a copy of one. >> I understand. But I'm talking about getting one now, not at the end of the case. >> They should be getting it ASAP anyway. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, let's talk about dates. So scheduling.
>> So just like the last application, unfortunately we are looking at September. So you can either do the same thing as the application tonight and go for September 3rd >> or you're looking at the second meeting in September, which I believe that was the 17th, >> right?
>> September 3rd, June. >> Yeah, it's about to be done. >> Okay, we'll take September 3rd. >> September 3rd. So the hearing in this matter is going to be continued to September 3rd, 2026 >> with no need for further notice. And
we're going to ask for the same extension we asked the last applicant extend to November 30th. Is that acceptable? >> Yes. >> First, that means you have to what date to submit? >> Yeah. Just so you understand, right? You had the 21-day rule. You have 21 days
before September 3. So Chris, sometime August 13th, they have to be in Now you still have five minutes. Mr. Penelli, can you do five minutes? >> Right. Mr. Pelli says he can't do it in
five minutes. So when we come back with his revised plan, he continues to testify, wraps that up with a bow. Then we go to Mr. Finelli. So like I said, this matter is continued to September 3rd. No further notice. See
you all then. See you in September. Thank you. >> Thank you. Let me >> Are we adjourned? >> Okay. I'm think I'm thinking. Okay. I'm thinking. Give me a minute. Okay.
>> Okay. >> Did someone make a motion? >> Yes. Yes. Okay. Stressed out. Okay. I was just thinking of uh >> traffic report, so I I'll let it go. Okay. Uh, can I get a motion to adjurnn?
>> Yes. >> All in favor?