Okay. Calling to order the zoning board of adjustment R and Township, New Jersey regular meeting July 17, 2025. The notice requirements of the open public meetings act has been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on
the bulletin board at the municipal building filing same with the township clerk transmitting same to the hiring county democrat the courier news the star ledger and the Trenton times roll call please chairwoman miss Cynthia Schaefer here vice chair Mr. Samji
here Mr. Steve Barcio as to be excused Mr. Randy Block here Mr. Jim Ferrero here. Miss Lindseay Kbringell asked to be excused. Miss Lorett Cina here. Miss Donna Drews here. Mr. James Miller here. Board professionals board attorney Mr.
John Drill here. Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Parella here. On behalf of board engineer Mr. Kesh Dari we have Mr. Ryan McCarthy here. Traffic consultant Mr. J. Troutman here. Board planner Miss Jessica Caldwell here.
And acting township landscape architect. Good, sir. You got to say your name. All right. Can you Can you spell that for us again? We asked. Really? Yeah. Really? A h. Okay.
Okay. Can I get a motion to excuse Mr. Farcio and um Miss Kel? I'll second. Roll call. Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer. Yes. Vice Chair Mr. Russell Damchi. Yes. Mr. Randy Block. Yes.
Mr. Jim Ferrero. Yes. Miss Lorett Cina. Yes. Miss Donna Drews. Yes. Mr. James Miller. Yes. Okay. Moving on to comments or announcements. I do have um a comments that I just want to let the board know. So, you remember where we were going to
uh re-evaluate our annual report and we had a meeting um Lorett, Donna, Jeff and myself and um we talked about how we can enhance it and so uh Lorett did a great job and has provided that to me and then
Donna has done the same and I believe Jeff you said you emailed something today. I emailed the chart. Yep. Yeah. So what I'd like to do is distribute it to all the board members for ask them to review and uh give us your feedback and then we'll put the whole report together and we should be done with it.
Okay. Uh distribution correspondence none and meeting minutes none. We have one resolution for this evening. Okay. Raren Township Board of Adjustment Jeff Wadssworth 42 Rake Road block 20
lot 12.01. 01 application BOA-06-2025 resolution memorializing grant of the C2 variance to allow 3,763 square ft of an accessory structure where a total of 800 square ft of an accessory structures is the maximum
permitted. Resolution number 2025-11 version 2025-07-8- version 2. Any concerns, condition, uh, or updates? Hearing none, can I get a motion to approve? Okay. Who moved?
Who moved? All right. We'll give it to Lorett. Randy. Nope. We given it to Lorett. Lorett. Okay. Seconded. Thank you, Randy. Roll call, please. Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. Yes. Vice Chair, Mr. Russell Damchi. Yes. Mr. Randy Block.
Yes. Mr. Jim Ferrero. Yes. Miss Laurette Cina, yes. Mr. James Miller, yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, just so the board knows, I sent out the second draft of the Kiyoko realy resolution this afternoon
just to the applicant attorney, Carara, and to Taylor just to keep her in the loop and to the board professionals to review. I've asked them to get back to me by next Friday, not tomorrow, next Friday with any revisions. And then on
Monday, we'll get a third and final draft out to the board for adoption for the August 7th meeting. Okay, great. Okay, moving on for the applications for this evening. Just giving you a warning. It's long and detailed.
John, of course. POA case number 02-2023 applicant is Flemington Family Partnership LLC. Location is block 72.23 lots 31 and 31.01 324 and 328 Highway 202 applications for
preliminary and final site plan with Dvariance and bulk variance for proposed car dealership. Good evening. Thank you Schaefer. Chair Schaer uh is in the applicant from Giros
here tonight representing the applicant Tomington Family Partnership LLC. Uh we started out today with a a couple little deviations. Our traffic engineer is stuck in South Carolina and our representative from the applicant has had a personal issue so he won't be here
tonight. Um but we certainly wanted to continue to present this to you. I drove up from the shore for vacation. So, we're here moving forward as best we can and uh we hope that at the end of this you're going to uh believe that we covered every single one of your issues
and hopefully if we can get all of our testimony bring this matter to a vote tonight. Um as a quick recap, hold up one second. I just want to make sure you get a microphone. So, I know you have a court reporter here, but I want to make sure we get this on a recording also. Now, you're doing a good job. We can
hear you. I just want to Okay, so as a quick recap, as uh Chair Schaefer just indicated, we are here this evening looking to relocate our existing Toyota and Nissan dealerships. Um, we've been here for a while. We had our first meeting in November of 2023,
believe it or not. We had a couple hearings, some of which were adjourned at 24. Uh, we were here February of this year and most recently in April of this year. At the end of our April hearing, we went back with again some changes,
some comments, and some work to do. And just a quick November of 2020. I thought the first hearing was February 6, 2024. That was the first hearing. I mean, February 6, 2025. There was And then the second one was April 3, 2025.
We didn't have any hearing in 2024, did we? Nope. But there were whatever. Okay. My my indicated that we didn't. We've had more than Well, there were there were issues with completeness if we want to put that in the record. But see, I don't want to say too much. We're
here. We're ready to go. Record. I just wanted to make sure the record's clear. This is the third hearing session. First being in February, second being in April. Now we're in July and the third hearing session. Okay. So, we went with some work to do and
we've come back to you with revised site plans that are before you tonight. We also have some exhibits that we've prepared that have also been submitted to you electronically. I have hard copies for all of you. And uh again, we're hopeful that these will address
all of the concerns that you had at the last hearing. For purposes of the record, the latest set of plans are the preliminary and final major site plan originally dated November 1, 2022 and revised through
May 30, 2025. The other set of plans you have are the full sets of architecturals that somehow didn't make it to you guys originally. Um, they have been redated as of May 5, 2025, and they depict the elevations and the signage, and our architectural
expert will go through each sheet for you and be able to answer any questions. We also submitted a revised traffic report. Okay, just a quickie. I thought again I thought the architecturals are last dated May 30th 2025 not May 5th 2025th
30th files over there you got to check that's correct May 30th May 30th okay just we also submitted a revised traffic report that you have before you and again exhibits that will provide you with hard copies at the appropriate
time. Um, our plan tonight is to present information with regard to the submissions, but I'd like to put on the record ahead of time that we agree to pretty much every single comment that is outlined in the most recent reports from
your board professionals. Those reports are the board planners latest letter of July 11th, the township planners latest letter of July 12th, the board engineer and landscape architect's letter of July 15th, and a traffic engineer's letter of
July 11th. So, with the exception of the specific items that we will discuss during testimony of each related professional, we agree to every other item that is outlined in those letters. So unless there are any questions, I have three witnesses here with me
tonight. First, our engineer, Kelly Ouch, will be back to testify as to the revised plans and the exhibits to address the comments of the board. Our Kelly Ouch has been sworn and accepted as an expert. Correct. Who's next?
Uh James Necker, who was also sworn and testify as an expert with regard to the architecturals. Uh but we will start his testimony over again this evening. Continue to be under oath now that you have the full sets of architecturals in front of you. Uh we also have our
planner Mr. Kyle who will be here to testify with regard to the relief required for the application and the specific criteria required by the municipal land use law for you to grant that relief. As I indicated, our traffic engineer Betsy Dolan that was supposed
to be here this evening is stuck in South Carolina. Uh Mr. Dean is here tonight to play backup. Uh she was the one that we were dealing with originally and we have prepped her and he is here willing and able to testify and answer any questions. But we do believe that
since we are willing to agree to everything in Mr. Troutman's report uh and we did submit the revised traffic report that addresses all of the original comments in his prior um that you may have enough information in front of you without traffic testimony, but we
leave that up to you. If you do have questions, he's certainly here to be able to testify for you. Uh and unless anybody has any questions, I'd like to call our engineer. It's fine. Thank you. So, Kelly, just state your name for the
reporter. Sure. Kelly Ouch. K E L L E Y O Apostrophe S U C H. And you remain under oath, correct? Yes. All right, Kelly, you heard my opening.
Why don't we start with the revisions that were made to the plans that are before me? Sure. So, I have sheet eight of the plans up on the uh easel right now. Um and that depicts the site design or the site plan. Uh at the last hearing, there
was a comment regarding wayfinding signs and adding those to the plans. We have since gone through revised the plan set to include wayfinding signs throughout the property. All of the wayfinding signs with the exception of one will meet the ordinance size requirements.
And what is that size requirement? Uh three square feet or less. Um but one sign we're going to ask for relief and it's going to be uh 24 square ft and that'll be along or near the entrance drive which will basically have
Could you show us on the exhibit because it's extremely hard to figure out where what you're talking about? There's in this island. Hold up one second. Is there anyone out in the audience that is not here with the applicant or in support of the
applicant? Anyone not somehow related to the applicant? Okay. And you're an interested party. Oh, reporter. Okay. So, uh my suggestion is to take that easel and bring it
right over here. And if the reporter wants to look at it, I have no problem. Do you want to set up a chair here? He's got the best seat. John, John, I'm sorry. Just to confirm, the three individuals in the back are with this applicant. Yes. Okay. I believe they're actually with the
property owner. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Before you go on, property owners. Cara, move that microphone closer to you. And then Kellen, will you sit back? Move that one closer to you, too. All right. I don't know.
Anyone on the board cannot see this exact Well, it's just when you're talking about Yep. multiple things. Use your laser pointer and I have a quick question. Um,
if you could let us know which one of these review reports you are starting with and so that we can follow along more systematically. I'll I'll mention the letters when I get to them. I'm just going off of previous comments from the board here.
Okay. So, at the last hearing, there was a comment about adding wayfinding signs to the site plan. My understanding is the actual location of the wayfinding signs do not have to match the exact locations that are shown here, but it's more for illustration that there's going to be wayfinding signs on the property.
That said, there is one proposed wayfinding site. Is that true? What are you saying? What do you mean that you're The board should approve if there's a sign package. The board should microphone. If if there's a sign package incorporated with the site plan, the the
board should know the locations. If if in the future there's some sort of deviation, then the township planner can review it, but as part of the initial one, it should that is and that is exactly what the intention is. We're showing them on the plans where they are. If there needs to be some sort of change down the road
operationally, we'll certainly let you know. What we are presenting to you tonight by way of all signage is what we're asking you to approve. Aha. Okay. That's different than what he said. Okay. Thank you. So they're not illustrative. They're what you believe. Right. Correct.
This is your proposal. This isn't just an estimate. Correct. There is one wayfinding sign that is not going to meet the ordinance requirement. That wayfinding sign is located along the western property boundary along the along the proposed access drive. That
wayfinding sign is going to be 24 square ft and it's going to have a logo for both the Nissan and the Toyota dealership along with service sales um and other wayfinding items with directional arrows. So basically the
idea is that wayfinding sign will prevent the general public from continuing on through the uh entrance drive into the either the future neighbor development andor into the rear of this. Okay. So in your plans on one of the pages you have the sign pack the sign
we have. Yes, we have the sign package which is on. So what sheet is that so we can see that sign sheet 29. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm looking at the sheet and it looks like it's the bottom right hand side. Number six. Correct. Detail six.
Detail six. And it's really just the Toyota and Nissan symbol, logo, and then verbage. Correct. And arrows. So, what what's the permitted sign for a size for a wayfinding sign?
Three square feet. And this is how many square feet? 24 square feet. So, why isn't this a sign versus a wayfinding sign? It's the entrance sign. regulation. Yeah. So, where is this really a
wayfinding sign or is this a ground sign? It's a wayfinding sign because it's providing uh direction to the general public on where these sales, service, and parts departments are for the Toyota and the Nissan dealership. What is the maximum size?
The regulation is three and within the section it the planning board or in this case the board of adjustment can regulate it to 16 square feet. So I'd say that 16 is the max the max. What is the maximum size of a ground sign?
100. They already need variances for the number of ground signs or not? Yes. Yes. Yes, we do. Are they better off calling this a ground sign and not having a square footage restriction and adding
another variance or an additional ground sign? Or are they better off calling it a directional sign and needing variance for the directional sign which by the way I can't remember when the board has ever granted a variance for a directional sign but
has granted you know I'm not going to say a lot of variances but a fair number of variances for additional ground signs. I'm just asking this question. I don't I'm asking the question I have no opinion on the answers. What do you think is the talent plan? I mean,
because there's a regulation of 16 16 square feet, it would be more appropriate for it to be another ground sign. So, why do you need if let's assume this was a directional sign, why do you need it 24 square feet? Why can't it be 16?
And if the answer is like a really good answer of why, then why would you mind calling it a ground sign? I I don't think we would have any objection to calling it a ground sign. The reason for the size is again let he's got an answer. Not yet.
It's for visibility of the general public coming up that access drive that's going to serve multiple developments. This development and any future development on the neighboring property. And again, it's it's to deter the public from going the wrong direction. It's to guide them where they
are supposed to. But this this is going to be located right on 202. No. No. Out back. It's Donna. It's it's in this area, this gourd island. Once you come into the driveway, it's right here.
And again, just keep in mind, remember, this is a court ordered shared driveway aspect off of 202. So that also furthers, you'll hear more from our planner in connection with that, but that also furthers the reason why this sign may need to be a little bit larger
than one of your typical way finding signs. Why Why would that It's a shared driveway. You're putting it on your property, correct? Correct. Well, no, the the not to get going back into the beginning, the shared driveway is on the neighboring property. Correct. All right, let's not let's not
go down. We're getting off track here. Is this on the subject property or off the property? The wayfinding sign is on the subject property. We are willing to request a variant from an additional ground sign, which this is much less than 100 square feet per
minute. And I'd like to leave it at that and we'll move on. Okay. The only other change, let us just take the notes. Think it's a good idea. So, this is not going to be a wayfinding sign. It's going to be considered a ground sign. You'll need a variance for
a third ground sign. What's the setback to that sign? It is 2.3 feet from the sideyard. But whether it's a ground sign or a directional sign, they'd still need relief from that, wouldn't they? Yes.
So it doesn't change that. All right. I think we've resolved the first burning issue. Thank you. Okay. Second, um she 29 also shows an additional uh change. Yes, we've added a typical wayfinding
sign detail which is detail seven on that sheet and that illustrates a three square foot wayfinding sign which would be typical. Okay, so that's all the signage we have on the drawings. Um let's talk about the
last change uh with regard to parking. Yeah. So, at the last hearing, there was concern raised over the five stacked car storage in the rear of the property. We've heard those concerns from the board and we've the applicants decided
to remove the last row of stalls. So, the 13 stalls that were previously along the southern boundary of the um car storage area, namely in this general uh location, has been removed. So 13 stalls
have been removed from the project. We are now proposing a total of 471 stalls on the property. Uh 297 of the the spaces would be dedicated to parking in accordance with the ordinance and 174 stalls would be
dedicated to display/car storage. Were there any changes done in response to the feedback about the landscaping islands and the need for the landscaping islands? We're going to get to that when we address the comments of the engineer landscape architects letter that we're
not going to comply with. If you wouldn't mind just letting us go in order so we make sure we hit everything in reducing the or removing the 13 stalls. We no longer need relief for five stack stalls. It's now down to four stacked stalls. Um, and there was a
comment within the township planners uh letter to confirm that um the car storage is less than 50% of the area used and we reviewed that and based on the breakdown it is less than 50% of the
car storage or of the parking area. What is it? Uh, and did you submit it? [Music] And Jeff, does that get inter or Jessica, does that get interpreted the 37%.
Um, okay. And just I'd like clarification because the board wasn't given that information and it's been something I've had written down that we needed. Yeah. I just want to get say that in a sentence. Say it in a sentence. Yeah.
The answer is 37%. No, the what the answer start with the question. The answer is the question is what the car storage area would be 37% of the total parking area on the property.
So, does that include just the physical dimensions of the parking spots or are you including the drive aisles that are part of that impervious? Just the parking areas, but you can't get to the parking areas without the drive aisles. That's not the way the ordinance is
written. Can we read the Can someone find that ordinance? Give us the section and just read it. [Music] Okay. What's the ordinance section in the microphone? What's the ordinance section?
Section 296-159 E4. Read it slowly, please. The area devoted to outside display of new and used cars, machinery, or equipment shall not exceed the area of the principal or main building or 50% of
the total lot area, whichever is greater. Car storage is 37% of what you said parking area. The parking area, right? That was Jeff, please. The area devoted to outside display of
new and used cars, machinery, or equipment shall not exceed the area of the principal or main building or 50% of the total lot area, whichever is greater. All driveways, customer parking areas, display areas, and vehicle storage areas shall be paved or similar
surfaces. The bottom line is it's not the car storage area is not limited. It is display areas are limited to no more than 50% of the entire lot area building or lot area whichever is greater.
Right. So can you do the calculation again sentence correctly? The car storage over the lot area is 4.2%. 4.2. Well, unless unless there's some other ordinance.
That seems to be the ordinance requirement. Yeah, I guess um I feel uncomfortable when the data to support that or the calculations isn't on the plans or wasn't in any of the you you're just
giving us a number. Um, do we have Kelly 8A, which was previously submitted and is part of the plan set delineates the difference between the general parking area and the display parking.
And as you can see, anything in pink is dedicated to car storage and display. And it is less than the normal parking. And as I just testified to, it's 4.2% 2% of the total lottery.
So you're doing you're having display in the back of the building. Car storage display. All the green spaces in the front of the building are not display. No. Okay. I mean most car dealerships that
they see display in the front, not in the back. This is this is what our client's proposing. Okay. That's what we're presenting to the board. Someone going to testify how the display in the rear of the building is going to work. They're going to have people walking around.
It's it's storage. But that's not display. That's different. Correct. It's display and storage according to the ordinance. Could you read that ordinance again, please? The area devoted to outside display of
new and used cars and machinery or equipment shall not exceed the area of the principal or main building or 50% of the total odd area, whichever is greater. Okay. So, you're right. It's only displayed. But I I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that my client can't have the parking layout the way we have it here? I'm not saying that. I'm just saying
that since most of the other car dealerships that that ever seen have him in the front, some board members might not believe that he's actually going to have display in the back and not in the front. That's what I'm saying. You'll have to have someone explain, you know, the theory behind having
display in the rear just so they understand and believe it, basically. Okay. Well, Mr. Ganati that I think everybody believed was a very credible witness testified that this is what we're proposing. This is what we're willing to be bound by. I not
I think there are other issues too in addition to that the logistics of how that's going to get handled and what are the implications of that. Yeah, we we testified at the previous meeting. I think there was concern about in the front the display if the general
public saw an open spot within the display area and they got stacked in within the customer service parking and that's a valid concern. And what we testified to is there would be some type of pavement marking andor small signage that says no parking in these areas.
These are devoted to car storage and display. And likewise, there would be the same markings in the rear. So that's why I want to make sure the the pink the one row of pink that has 15 spaces in the front and all the pink in the back. Those are the display spaces and green
are not display green or parking. Correct. That's that's what you're saying. Correct. That's that's their testimony. Okay. That that's on the plan. Okay. So, I think that seeing the square
footage of where they're located versus the total lot area, which is on the plan as well, gives you the backup for the I'm sorry to keep on harping on this, Jeff. Regard me that language. It's 50% of the building area or the lot area, whichever is greater, meaning what?
Which the building area or the lot area that's greater? That doesn't make sense because obviously the lot area is always going to be bigger than the building area. Or does it mean that the percentage of 50% can't be more than either the building area or the lot area, whichever is greater? In which case, the greater percentage would be
taking it against the square footage of the building area. I'm not even sure I understand what you just said. John, can you say that again? In other words, read the ordinance one more time slowly, and I'll explain what my question is. The area devoted to outside display of
new and used cars, machinery or equipment shall not exceed the area of the principal or main building or by 50% or 50% of the total lot area whichever is greater.
So do a calculation of square footage of display and the square footage of the buildings. I just want to see how it fits in the ordinance because something I'm not fully understanding
the the square footage of the buildings we have at 60,993 square ft is the footprint area. Mhm. If we take that and divide the car storage area, which is how much?
Okay. It's 100% of the building or 50% of the lot area, whichever is greater. Okay. So, just tell it what is the square footage of the display area. 21,78 square ft.
21,000 21,700 what? 708. Okay. So, the display is certainly less than 60,933. And you're saying that the building area divided by the display
comes to 4.2%. No, the building area, no, the car storage area divided by the building area. That's what we're asking. Call it a display area. Please don't call it car storage. I want to I want to follow the wording in the ordinance. the display, the square footage of display,
which you said is 21,78 ft. The ordinance, as I understand it, says it can't it can't be greater than 100% of the building area. And it's not correct. It is not. And it can't be greater than 50% of the lot area.
And it's not. So tell me what again, what percentage is a display area of the lot area? I thought you said 4.2%. Yes, you did. So, I unless some of the experts think
I'm wrong, I think they're fine. You're fine with this. Unless you don't believe that that one line that the, you know, the green areas are not displayed. They're testifying that those are parking spaces and not display. Okay.
All right. Second thing we've gotten over. Okay, we're making progress. What's next? Making progress. All right. So, Kelly, does that outline all of the changes reflected in the revised plans?
Yes. That was previously testified, too. Correct. Correct. The removal of the parking spaces reduces the total proposed impervious coverage on lot 31. Is that correct? That's correct. And what does it reduce it to?
48.81%. And is that in compliance with the ordinance? Yes. And does the removal of those 13 spaces also decrease the percentage of hard cover surface uh within the steep slope areas? Does it affect that?
Yes. That would now be 54.46%. And that's in the 13% to 19% areas. Correct. Correct. And that is less than what was previously proposed but still more than the 27 and a half% that's permitted. That's correct.
So we do need a variance from that. Correct. Okay. Um and we also need variances for the other steep slope items that are outlined in the planner and engineers reports. Correct. Correct. And we'll address those. Uh can I ask a quick question?
Sure. So, um, in the May 30th letter, um, from James Quaser, it says the hard coverage is being reduced to 54.46%, not 48 what you whatever that number was that
you just said. That was the impervious, not the hard surface. Hard surface. Hard surface is being reduced to 54.46. Uh, the impervious is being reduced to 48.81. Yes, you're referring to table four, correct? And the 54.46 is related to the 13 to
19%. Correct. Wait, so so the hard surf so does this require a variance or no? Yes. Yes. That's what we say. Thank you.
Okay. Jessica, is that in your report somewhere? Page. Can you just tell me what page and what's table four? I had it just a second ago and then I scrolled away.
I think it's on the chart on page eight. No, she's talking about page 13. The hard surface but hard maximum hard surface coverage they comply. Yeah. 48.1% and then later on in under
there's a section later where it references sheet 13 of your letter 54% but the hard surface coverage it does match I think that's tree removal maybe not let's see because again something's not making
sense the chart on page eight says again we we we've have testified to this. It's the the overall properties impervious coverage is 48.81. Within the various slope categories, there's other hard surface coverage limits. We are over the limit within
that 13 to 19% category. Okay. And that's where the 54.46%. So, it's not that it's hard surface versus impervious because Rarin Township doesn't have impervious. Correct. Rarin Township only has hard surface. is to hard surface on a slope area between
13 to 19% and hard surface on a slope area more than 20%. Is that correct? Correct. And that number did not change from what was previously testified. And that's in my report on page 13 on the top. Yeah. Okay.
Because I thought I heard someone say impervious. That's what threw me off. You did. That was me. My apologies. Okay. Can the zing table on the sheet sheet number one be revised to reflect that? Absolutely. In what way, Jeeoff? Just so I'm clear.
So in the zoning chart, it says 48.81, but there's no aster. If you go to sheet five of the plans, it illustrates that breakdown. Right at the aster say see sheet five. Okay, that's fine. And just so I can follow along, Jessica,
the which report were you referring to? You talked about sheet 13 July 11, 2025. Her report number five on page 13, table four at the top of that page. Nope. Right. Yeah. Okay. Yep.
That's correct. Page 13 on the top of the page. Okay. All right, so let's get into the fun stuff. As if this wasn't fun already. We're clearing our throat. Let's talk about one of the exhibits. So, I have hard copies of what was
submitted to the board as additional exhibits. Um, like to hand them out. We're up to exhibit A4 from last time. So, this is going to start with exhibit A5. Correct. So, let's let's mark first of all these good. So these are just clipped onto the
board so they can be folded after. So let's mark each one starting with A5. So hand them out first so everyone can mark them together please. I basically made a package. That's good.
There you go. Taylor, are the are the digital copies of these exhibits up on the No, right. So, tomorrow tomorrow you can put them up there, right? On what? I have them digitally.
Are they on the um the Google Drive? No. So, yeah, maybe get a a file folder for exhibits. All right. So, it all put together. No, no, no, no, no. We're going to go We're gonna They're going to mark each
one. Okay. So, the first one in your packet is an existing conditions plan, which has not changed from the existing. We just provided an additional copy. Whoa. Whoa. Have everyone open it. Let's make sure
they have what you have up on the board. For example, I'm looking at mine and maybe mine is upside down. All right, everybody take a deep breath. Kelly, which one are you showing right now? And which one am I going to put up on the TV? I was I was trying to explain
that in the packet there is an existing conditions plan which Kelly provided just so in case there was anybody in the audience in case we needed an additional one that has already been marked as A1. So we can put that aside. Right now you haven't handed A1 out here, right?
is A1. Okay. So what you are saying I want to make sure because the existing site conditions exhibit you're saying this is a large size of A1. Correct. So I do want people to mark this at A1
so they know which one you're referring to. So which one is A1? So Kelly put A1 up there. Okay. and A1 was marked during the February hearing session first hearing.
So put A1 and then you guys should put 26 2025 under it. Now what you've handed out though is a revision dated May 30th, 2025,
not of the existing conditions. There is a revision. Oh, there is one. I'm sorry. Okay. It is noted on there. Nothing has changed on the So, can we cross out revision one? That's fine. Yep. Excellent. That's what I was a little confused
about. Now I'm cleared up on that. What we would like to mark is A5. Okay. Okay. is the next one in your packet, which is the newly updated proposed conditions plan, which reflects the
amendments to the site plan that are presented to the board. What carrot says, you must mark exhibit A5. Yes. That's not what this exhibit says. It says proposed site conditions exhibit.
Correct. Didn't use the word new and something else in there. I just want to Okay, just read what this says proposed site conditions exhibit prepared by AKRF dated February 6th, 2025. Revision one,
May 30th, 2025. Okay. This one is A5 marked tonight. 7 17 2025. That's A5. Okay. What do you got next?
You want to mark them all? I want to mark them all. All right. A6. This is the pylon sign crosssection exhibit. sign. [Music]
Okay. Pylon sign crosssection exhibit. This is A6 and it's dated 530 2025. Correct. That's correct. That's getting today's exhibit date which is 717 2025. That's a6
one so far. 86. We got it. Yeah. Yeah. That's 86. Hold on. Okay. Ready? Yeah. I want to confirm some
that doesn't have any revisions, right? A6 does not have any revisions. Okay. A7 will be the light pole across Route 202. Again, don't say across from the exhibit. That's what you're messing up. A
along Route 202 frontage crosssection exhibit A7. dated 5:30 2025. Correct. And market 717 2025. That's the date.
Let us just give us a minute to write this down. That's 87. You guys ready for the next one? A8 is the rear tree sighteline exhibit.
Is the what? This one is not titled. Profile view. Profile. That's what it says. Okay. This is exhibit A8 is profile view. Correct. Yes. Now this is dated February 6, 2025.
Revision 530 2025. Is that correct? That is correct. This is A8. again entered into evidence on 717 25. Okay, everybody ready? All right. So, at
the last last time you testified, Kelly, we did not get to the site lighting. So if we can have some testimony with regard to the site lighting and then we will discuss exhibit A6 which is the pylon
A7 uh I'm sorry A7 which is the light pole exhibit exhibit A7 correct correct correct Before that though, the the lighting plan sheet 16 of 37 is on the
diesel. Yeah. Yeah. So before you get started, if you recall, uh I had asked something about where the light is and the impact of that into the neighborhood and across.
So I hope you'll cover that while you're going through this. Yes. Okay. So at the last hearing, we were testifying to the lighting. They the lights were previously mounted at 25 ft for the pole mounted lights. We've since revised the plan that all polemounted
lights are at 20 ft high. Uh in addition to that uh all lights that are polemounted will have downward shields uh specifically on the southern portion of the building nearest the residential properties but also along uh 202. Uh,
and those those poles are facing inward towards the site, not out towards the highway. They're facing inward and there still would be downward shields on those um those poles as well. And so would that totally reduce it or it will minimize?
I'll get to the um the exhibit A7 that will illustrate that. um in the rear of the property uh there would be zero spillage uh to the residential properties. So it would
be zero light spill at the property line in the south. Uh along the eastern boundary which is uh or sorry the western boundary which is with the uh shared drive there is spillage but it's on a commercial property and it's on the shared driveway. Uh and that spillage
gets up to 1.6 six uh foot candles. Um in addition to that, we are asking for relief in the parking area for exceeding the 4:1 ratio of minimum to average lighting
um or average to minimum. Sorry, I said that backwards, but the 4:1 is exceeded where we are proposing 18.3 to one. And then all other parking areas where we previously had less than uh.3
uh or 0.2 foot candles in the parking areas have been revised to meet uh the 0.25 minimum requirement and.3 is the minimum shown. Uh so if we move on, could you point out the areas where
you're exceeding the lighting just generally on that map? When you say exceeding where you seek the relief, sorry. Yeah. So we're seeking relief in the front here. So it'll brighter.
It the average or the Yes. The average to the minimum ratio is higher than four to one. And all of that is on our property. And again, that's the average lighting level to the minimum is what gets you that exceedence. So it's not necessarily that it's much brighter. It's just that
it goes from number X down to zero in the the measured area. So that ratio gets higher. Do you know what the purpose of the average to minimum requirement is? It's to generally keep a uniform light spill over the parking area.
So you don't have some spots that are showing real bright and some that are showing Correct. Correct. Now, one of the things we did agree to do in one of the last hearings was to conduct a uh lighting test uh and to determine if there should be any
adjustments. Um and also we agreed to dim the lights to uh 75 or 80% uh depending upon the board's preference outside of hours of operation. Are we still agreeing to do that? Yes. And there's notes on the plans to that effect. But would that 75% dimming still exceed
our minimum or our standard average to minimum? Is the average to minimum? It will still exceed. Asking for relief from that. Yeah, we're asking for we're just saying in order to help how much Well, that No, I don't I don't think I
think we're muddying waters here. We're we're designing the site with when the lights are on. full blast. We're asking for the relief from the 4 to1 ratio at that point. Yeah. But our question is when you dim the lights, it's off hours. It's not operational hours. And then
we're turning them off completely after those. She wants to know when you dim them, does that change the average to minimum any? If you measured it at the 75%, you know, the dim rate, what average to minimum would you have? She's curious.
That's what she wants to know. I'd have to do the calculation. Yeah. The I mean the concern is that light spillage I mean we've had some historical areas. Yeah. Again the light spillage is
zero on the residential properties. It's zero on the frontage along Route 202. The only spot that there's light spillage over the property line is on the western property boundary. You take that exhibit. Yeah. Bring it right up here. I understand it. But on you have to
admit there will be night glare in the sky. You'll see the glow from the parking lot lights as you approach the site. The lights. Yes, you'll see lights facing down towards the the parking lot just like you would see in any commercial site throughout Riden
Township that has lights on. I just want to understand the extent of that glare. That's why the question and we totally understand it and that's why I think that one of the uh benefits of doing a nightlight test post
construction will enable us to determine how much dimmer we may need to do it. Maybe we need to go 70%. Maybe we need to to take a look at that. But the the on I would submit to the board that the onsite testing and tweaking is actually going to be more beneficial than doing a
calculation right now. We're looking for a theoretical answer. If you have 100% there's x glare. Now she's saying and I'm with her if there's 70 or 80% reduction what would be that glare? It's that from a calculation then you can do whatever you want to do when
you're installing. We're not these numbers aren't measuring glare. Right. So I can't answer that. We're not measuring glare. Yeah. And I think too just to quickly just to kind of clarify. So it's looking
at the average divided by what the minimum required lighting is on the site. So if the lights are dim, that ratio would just in theory go down because the the highest peak level will reduce as you dim the lights. So that number is going to come down. But yeah,
I mean we we don't have what that number. So let let me stay with the maximum because there's a variance they're looking for. How much does that extend from what we would allow them? because it's a variance. Yeah, sure. So, the required is 4 to one
and I believe he said 18.3 to one. Correct. That's what they're proposing. 18.3 to one. So, I assume when the lights are on full blast, if it's 18.3 to one, you will see certain areas in the parking lot that are a lot lighter than other
areas. Is that correct? That's correct. And it and am I am I dumb to ask if it's 18.3 if you're going to reduce by 3/4 when they're deemed it's going to be No, we're talking about a ratio measured from different light areas that we're
testing on the site. It's hard to say too just because in theory some of those levels on the site would go to zero. So now you're trying to figure out divide by zero. Yeah, right. You can't divide by zero. So I thought you guys talking about average. Say again. I thought they were talking
about average is something I heard something about you have leveled it so there's an average number right yeah so so if it's an average and if it's 18.3 is it fair to assume then that's going to down so I think what Ryan just said and it's
correct the average is going to come down when we lower the lighting level to 75 or 70% there's going to be areas within that parking area now that are at zero foot candles. So when you do a ratio of whatever the average is divided
by zero, there's no answer. So what I understand is because of the leveling, there are certain areas it would be brighter than the other yet 100%. And then when you bring it down, it would proportionally go down and you can't commit to that unless you know what
those are. The the lighting source is what is controlling everything. So, we're saying the light source would be dropped 70 to 75% of what the full blow is. And that comes out. I got I'm I'm so I have the ordinance here in front of me now to read it. So,
ordinance section ordinance section 29675 uh G2C. So it's actually it's taking the average divided by the minimum required for the ordinance which is 0.25 foot candles.
So when the average so when the lights are dimmed on site it would be whatever the new average on the site is divided by 0.25. So so 025 stays the same. 025 stays the same. I do not know that. Okay. In theory when that gets Thank you. That answers my question. Okay.
Because that way even if it's proportional it's going to be down right. And so when is there going to be what's going to be the exception or condition we're going to put in here for that? Well, they are seeking an exception to
allow them to deviate from the 4:1 average to 0.25 ratio to allow them to have 18.3 to one um average to minimum 0.25. Can
you just Ryan, do you know which of the areas in the parking lot are going to be brighter and which are going to be dimmer? Or actually, why don't I ask Kelly? Yeah, Kelly, do you do you happen to know which of the areas are going to be brighter?
Which of the areas, in other words, are going to be that 18, you know, 3 to1? The take a step back. The lighting is measured in various locations on the property. So there's different areas where we're measuring this 4:1 ratio. There's the display area and parking in
the front. There's the customer parking on the side, customer parking in the middle, and customer and employee parking on uh the other side. The east. Yeah, the other side. And then there's a measurement of the overflow parking area andor car storage display area. Car display
car display area in the rear. within those areas. There's high and lows within every section of those measured areas, and that's where the ratios are coming from. So, your answer of where it's going to be highest
throughout the site, you got it. Kelly, your your table on 16, drawing 16 and 37. Yes. Indicates the front row display customer parking, which is across the front of the building. Correct.
Is the area that has the highest lighting on the site, has the highest ratio number. Correct. Correct. Could that ratio be um because it there is more than adequate lighting in that area? Could you
increase the spacing in your poles and potentially reduce the number of poles to pull that ratio down? We could look into that. I don't want to throw another wrench into the equation here. Um I believe the chart then is then wrong where it shows
the average divided by the minimum. I think we're using the the minimum of what was measured but it should be 0.25 as the minimum. Right. So I right now just looking at that the one that has 18.3 that would actually be 22 to1 request.
You saying this exhibit has to be redone per it's not per the ordin you did you did average to minimum when it should have been average to 0.25 25 to the township minimum to the township minimum. Right. So the exhibit's going to have to be redone revised.
And then the variance you're looking is also different. Then the numbers are going to be changing. Right. That's not the exhibit. It's sheet sheet 16 of 37. Right. Because right now you're doing a 20 foot spacing on those poles across the front of the building.
Uh no, it's more than 20 ft. 20 What's E? That's the mounting height 20 ft high. Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. And thank you for bringing those down. Know what we did. You understand our concern, right? That's
100% understanding. We are in an area and we don't want to because we do have dealership on 202 which is fine whatever it is and we're moving into a area where we want to be a little more concerned about things like light at night which again was why I had thought that
uh test and a a a tweaking as necessary after construction is in my opinion best way to make sure that your concerns are are let's follow just went out. Let's say there's a condition. Normally, if the board grants approval, there's a
nightlight test. The nightlight test is for two purposes. One is to make sure that the lighting is actually per the plan. And the second one is to make sure it's not too dim for safety and not too bright that doesn't have glare and all that. Exactly. Right. The tester is normally the
township engineers office. So you comfortable that you could, you know, do the test maybe if the board wanted to create a subcommittee of less than a quorum, you go out there. This is what Bernard's Township Planning Board does all the time. They do it. They have a
landscaping subcommittee with the uh the township planner and they have a lighting subcommittee with the township engineer to go out after the thing's been constructed to both check to see if it complies with the plan and to
especially the lighting landscaping to see if there's any gaps and the lighting to make sure that it's not aren't any total blind spots or you know glare coming in. And what happens? What happens if they the test they have to make the adjustment? This is something that
and if the adjustment is substantial, they got to come back to the board. If the adjustment is not substantial to field change. Okay. So in my opinion, you could impose a condition like that and I assume the applicant would be fine with that. Right. 100% that we propose it.
Yeah. This this is something that we do quite quite often. But that's again if your design can your design be modified to to be more in conformance with our ordinance especially across the front display area
where you have the highest exceedence. Now what she's asking is what would you have to do to get either the 18.1 or the 22 according to Ryan to one closer to four to one? What would you have to do to to do that? That's a
question to Kelly. We would have to lower the average level that we're measuring off of. And and how would you go about doing that? We would have to reduce the light uh the the level of the light coming out of the sources and the measurement at the ground where it's a highest point.
So, could you do that and still have the facility be safe? Safe. Yes. Okay. So, what's the problem in doing that then? Uh well, we're not going to adequately site the light the area of the car
display, of course. Okay. From what? So, how what's the hours of operation? I have to go back because the only time you would need to light the display would be in, you know,
the wintertime months when it gets dark at, let's say, 4:30. But what time do you close? Bear with me. What place is closed at 7, right? testimony at the first hearing. Yes, I believe it was 7 to 18.
Let me imagine. Yeah. This my notes say the board was actually going to impose a condition that service was 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm and sales was 8 am to 8:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Now I assume if you go in for service, you go in, you
know, if you have a problem with the car, you make your business to get in. If you're going to this is these are assumptions, and you're going to tell me if if I'm incorrect in my assumptions. sales. I would assume most people would like to keep on working and at the end of the workday, let's say 5:00, then
they're going to go between 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to buy a car. Now, if they're going to the dealership to buy a car, what is the purpose of the display area? Do you don't look at the cars inside the showroom? I mean, I know during the day people walk around. Do people walk
around when it's dark from 5 to 8 and look at the display area under artificial lights? Who can answer that question? Because if the answer is no, that normally doesn't happen. Then what are we talking about? Just get rid of the variance. So I think we need an
applicant's representative to answer that question. In other words, is it really important to the operation that you get this exception granted or can they tell Kelly fix it so
it complies? And from 5:00 pm to 8:00 PM, you know, you're not going to have a real well-lit display area. Obviously, I have to check, right? Um I say you're going to check. So, I think we should move on to the next issue. But this is something that should be checked because if you eliminated that
exception, you eliminate this whole line of questioning. But your your request is to see what we can do to get We already know what Kelly's already said what he can do. The question is, will the owner allow him to do it? Because what Kelly said was, if he does,
what has to be done to get towards the 4:1 when it's dark out, the display area is not going to be well lit. Got. And if you guys show up for that, I don't want to blindside you. I will ask
this person a question about my previous concern about walking around at the back for your display. So that you are aware I'm going to ask that question. Can you can you clarify logistically because what I'm used to and it's just because most of the
displays in the front correct hardly any at the back. In fact, they're always service cars when you go to at least where I go. So I just can't understand the logistics of how this was going to work. I mean it's your business but I worry about safety of people.
Okay. Kelly, before we get off of this, I have some questions. I couldn't find the distance. I could find the distance from 202 to the building, but I couldn't find the distance from 202 to the parking lot, the first line of displays. Do you have
that? Yeah, we have an exhibit A7 that I can bring up that illustrates that information. Okay. And then um so if I understand it correctly today um from the property where the parking would be to 202
there's a slope of 15 12 15 ft and it depends on where you're measuring. Okay. From but there's a definite slope. Yeah. There's an increase in height and and your proposal is to fill that correct to change the elevations. Yes.
Okay. So, so then the park the first again where we're talking about the lighting. So the lights are going to be 20 ft in the air and the distance from that parking down to 202 is 10 to 12 ft.
So are we're saying that from 202 the light pole is defin about 30 feet in the air. Um without measuring it about about Yeah. Okay. So, so I just want to get that picture in my mind as we're talking about what the lighting should
look like. And my concern is um from the standpoint of your your current facilities, okay, and how well lit they are um and and in that area that works fine. In the cart, all that rows of cars
and lots that works fine. And and I'm only talking my opinion here. Um my thought process is is that uh that would not be the same lighting we're having up at the new facility. Uh the way the Toyota blocks are all lit on the on the
wall and everything that it would be look more like the BMW uh dealer at night where it's extremely low and I think that's where we have the 4:1 lighting ratio. So again, I'm just trying to visualize what we're talking about here and then give you my thoughts
about what you have currently, what what I think our expectation is is that's not repeated up where we're moving to and that it's more of the 4 to one. Okay. And here's the last thing. So in the winter when it gets dark
around 4:30 to 8, it's winter and it's very cold. So, just ask him if he really has people walking around outside between 4:30 and 8:00 p.m. for sales in a display area when it's in the middle of the winter and
it's cold. Because again, if he doesn't, that's all the more reason he should authorize Kelly to try to comply with the 4:1 ratio. Okay. And Kelly, I was just speaking for myself. No, I appreciate the feedback. Well, if
people agree with the chair, they should indicate. So, it's not just the chair. Yes. Agree. I agree. Yeah. Agree. Okay. So, you were speaking for the board. You didn't even realize it. Okay. Okay. All right. Going back to your original question of how far that pole or the poles are
mounted from 202. Thank you. We're referring to exhibit A7 which was entered today. Measurement from the curb line of Route 202 to where the poles are mounted is 65.4 feet
horizontally. So if you think of a basketball hoop is 10 feet tall, it's more than 10 basketball hoops laid down off the road. Okay. Okay. Thank you. The the question is more you're going to be looking at 30 ft, right?
Uh well, it depends on again it depends on where you're at at the site because the site the park the parking lot is all level at the top. 202 loses grade as you go across the frontage. So as you get closer to the light near uh Vorhees corner, the lights
are going to be technically higher at that point. Whereas closer to the driveway opening, it's going to be not as high. Yeah. So this cross section that you picture here, yes, that's what we're talking about. Yes. Okay. And if if you're looking at A7, we provide the cross-section through the
light. Uh the one we're proposing is a third one in going into the Toyota building, which is relatively in the middle of the site, just to kind of give the average look of where that pole's going to be. Just to clarify, that has the little orange box.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. You have any move? I have one. Visually, I can't see the impact. Can you try to explain me? Yes. It would be because that what I'm what we're illustrating on this plan is the pole mounted height of 20 ft
from the elevation at the drive or the parking area. And the cone in purple is the actual light spillage coming out of that. So, in the rear or closest to 202 at this point here, which is
approximately 50 ft off of the road, you're hitting zero foot candles. Okay. So, anything out to the road is still zero. There's no light spill. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. This was a big one, so I want to make sure no one else has any questions.
Let's leave that there for a sec. So, u I'm trying to look at the lighting plan in compare. So, so it goes from 13 to 14 foot candles at the parking
lot, you're saying, down to and that that's because they're measured with the light shields on. So the the lighting model can take in those shields which blocks light from going out the back of the mounting area or minimizes
the amount of light that goes out the back. Again, I'm sitting in my car looking to go down the highway and looking up. Will I see You're going to see the source of the light if you look for it. You're going to see the light if you
look for it. But that's going to be the case no matter what's there. Listen, if it's a foggy night, you're going to see even more. Let me let me put it this way. When you're driving down 202, if you look over to the Aldi's across the street, you see the lighting in the building there. You'd see the lighting in the inside the dealership lights because
it's all windows in the front. You're going to see light. Yes. When you're driving down 202. Okay. Any other questions or I don't know if we convinced her. Well, I I guess I look forward to seeing a revised lighting plan
more in conformance with our ordinance as well. She's hoping is you come back four to one like I said or closer or closer closer then you'll can I ask a question? Does if we come back let's just say four to one which I
don't know if we can do come back four to one you don't need relief from that. Correct. However, will it address the concern that you have with regard to seeing the light from that location? That will only Absolutely. Because the intensity of the lighting on the site is reduced significantly.
Okay. Just making sure because I know the elevation was a big issue. So, I just wanted to make sure since we're not going to be changing the elevation. I'll play devil's advocate. When poles were 25 feet tall, were you getting spillage down to the roadway? It was. We were not getting spillage
down to the roadway. No, it was a little bit further than it's showing now, but it was not down to the roadway. In all fairness, we had issues about visualization, too. Yeah. Of the Yeah. And Mike, so just to be clear, even if it's four to one, I would still
recommend you have this that comb to illustrate that. Yeah. Yes. Don't remove that cone. Yep. Just so I understand, don't I mean the they're always going to be shielded, right? That's not going to change. You're always going to have the down mounted shields. Correct.
Yes. Correct. Just want to be clear. Yeah. Absolutely. And Brazil, if I'm understanding, you want an updated exhibit, too. Or is that not correct? I think that's now they want an update. Listen. Yeah. They want an updated exhibit because you did the calculation the wrong way.
Lighting exhibit, right? Not exhibit A7. No. Okay. I thought you wanted another A7. Okay. Okay. Because if anything, it's going to get better than that the more we reduce it.
This is a worst case scenario. Okay. All right. Um let's talk about the other impact. Uh you have another exhibit that you've prepared uh for the board. That would be exhibit A8.
That talks about the You want to do the sign or you want to do the the rear first? The sign. The sign. All right. All right. So, last time we were here, there was a question with regard to the calculation of the height of the pylon
sign. What exhibit are we working on? A6. So you prepared an exhibit to address uh that question with regard to the calculation. Correct. That's correct. And that's what we have in front of us is A6. Could you just give the board um
your information with regard to that? Sure. So again, it's the same orientation that was shown on the lighting exhibit just before. The Toyota's on the left hand side here. The Nissan's on the right. We have a cross-section running through where the proposed pylon sign is for Toyota, which
is here on the left. And it's illustrating where that 25 ft high sign is mounted. And you can see there's an elevation change going down to the elevation at Route 202. And as the ordinance reads, if there's an elevation
change of more than 3 ft between the edge of the road and where the sign is mounted, you got to measure from the the road elevation up to the top of the sign. What ordinance section is that? Does anyone on our table know loud?
296-164 A1. I don't have it exact. I just put a note in. the whole thing. Yes. The maximum height of the ground sign
shall not exceed 25 square ft. However, ground signs in industrial office and neighborhood business zones shall not exceed 10 feet in height and shall not exceed six feet in height in residential zones. The planning board may permit assigned height up to 20 ft where it
finds that such height is appropriate to the site and is necessary for reasonable visibility of the activity on the premises. The height of the ground sign shall be measured from the base of the sign to the extreme top of the sign including framing and structural members
where the grade from the edge of the existing pavement of the street from which vehicles primar primarily view the sign to the base of the sign differs by 3 feet or more. Height of the sign shall be measured from the grade at the edge of the pavement to the extreme top of
the sign including framing and structural memories. Now I understand why. Yes, that's correct. [Music]
John, I understand why he has two measurements. He has one measurement on the crosssectional view number one from the base of the sign. Ground elevation at the base to the very top is 24 ft. And then he has another measurement from
ground elevation at the edge of the road to the top of the sign of 32.96 ft. It's because of that ordinance section. Kelly, that is correct. Okay. And John, you put the number on for me on the Toyota sign. It is 32.96 ft per
the ordinance on the Nissan sign. Again, as you're going down 202 closer to the light, the elevation of the road lowers, the pole mounting elevation is plus or minus the same as a Toyota. But as you lose that additional grade, now the
proposed sign for the Nissan is 42.15 ft. Yeah. When was this either Jessica or or Jeff? Do you know when this ordinance section was adopted and what the reasoning was for that? I have the date.
I will say in all my other municipalities, is it the first time I'm seeing a requirement like this? Have you either Jessica? Have you seen in any of your other municipalities anything like this? You know what? I don't. I'm sorry. It's amended at
You're going to speak up. It just says it was amended at the time of adoption of the code. Anyone have an idea of why the ordinance would be what the purpose would be? I guess I not have the thing look too
not have it look skyh high. So the question is if you lowered it any does it still serve its purpose as a sign? And if not, if there's some safety thing, do you have someone who could
testify about that? I also want to know what is the height of the sign across the street is the because the ordinance says what it says. I mean, aesthetically, what are we looking at? If the site the sign across the street
is here and this sign is sitting up on Mount Puvius. Yeah. I don't I don't know. But the grade is definitely different. Oh, it is. It It definitely is. Which which sign are you talking about? The sign for the Kohl's uh shopping center. Yeah.
I mean, don't you think we want to the the elevation is lower over there? So, it's going to even if it's a 25 foot high sign, right? It's going to look lower. It's going to look Yeah. Right. So, here here's the question. That's your point. How much could you lower?
Because the ordinance says 25 ft. your both of your signs are 25 ft in actuality, but under the ordinance they're not because view one sign 32.96 ft almost 33 ft and the
cross-section view 2 is a little more than 42 feet. How much could you lower each sign and still have it serve as a safe sign so you don't need the extent of those deviations? That's the question. We will certainly look into that
question. Um the answer very well may be that we cannot change it because this is what's been provided by the manufacturers. However, if the board let please if the board feels that in order to grant the relief that we're asking for, they would only grant a lower sign that
is of course within the board's permission to do that. Right. The board is going to want to know. They're going to want to know how low can they go and be safe because they're not going to want their expert to do that. They're going to want your expert to say how low can you go and
still be safe. We can look into the meeting the board the right way. We can certainly look into the safety issue. I just wanted to put on the record that that may be and Kelly just a a question about the exhibit um for interpretation purposes.
So I'm assuming the green area is representing the fill area that's going that the brown is the native earth and the green is the fill. It was more just a representation that it's going to be vegetated in that area. Oh,
so it's a the elevation going along here is what the proposed elevation is. I didn't break down what the existing elevation is necessarily on the crosssection. Yeah, because I started looking at the in some places you've got 8 to 10 feet of fill
right in that area. So yes, so going back to the sign. Okay, understand that a business likes to have unified unity in other states.
But the sign that we have both the Toyota and the Nissan is just blocks. The sign at the top has has their logo, but in the middle just blocks. So I I
understand you're going to go back and ask. It just sounds silly that the height can't be changed because there's blank blocks. Unless there's in the future there's going to be they're going to come back and say I want I want context in there. But I'm saying
yeah as of right now this is the signage package proposal. Y um understand all of your concerns, everybody's concerns and if the board feels and we look into a safety issue to the extent we can answer that question. But yeah, and we're just saying maximum as
we've said on other applications, a business has a business model and that's great. Y but you know if it might not work and again certainly within your purview to say the maximum that you're willing to give us a
variance for. Okay. All right. I think it's a good time to take a break. Good idea. Okay. Let's take a 10-minute break. calling the meeting back to order. All right. Where were we? Good question. Exactly. Okay. Uh
sign done with the sign. I think for today I think Yeah, I think we covered everything. Again, unless this was prepared to obviously address your concerns, we're going to go back and sign issues. But yeah, I think you were moving to exhibit A8. That's what I think.
Yep. Okay. I'm going to I'm going to ask a question and I don't mean to derail you. So you can just say we'll cover it later, but along with sign height is the flag. Yes. And I I think that's got to be talked
about and we can talk about later, but uh I don't know if you want to talk about now because it's about height. How high is the proposed flat? It's complies with the ordinance requirements. What is that? It's
a 45 foot high flag. Is the thought processes we're putting the same size flag in this location that we have down at the other location? You'd have to ask. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Could Carol, could you please ask that question to the Are we taking the old one and putting it
here? Is that what you're asking? Yeah. I Is it the same size? Because I was hoping size. Okay. I was hoping it wasn't, but if it's in the ordinance, I guess I can't. I mean, it just seems that all the car dealerships all have it down there.
You're talking about the physical flag itself. Yes, sir. But I assume the side the reason you need the height is to put that size flag there. That I don't know the answer to. We're just the ordinances for the mounting height
or how high the pole is. So, okay. But what I'm hearing is the size of the existing at the existing location you think is too large. Well, I think they're fine all down there. I mean, it's kind of like But my my concern is that if you bring that up here
to the new location, then is somebody who reopens the IOP going to do the same thing? is, you know, we're going to be dragging or we're going to turn it into a 202 to a row of gigantic flags versus trees, which we
Okay, just a thought. Yep. Okay, where are we going? Uh I have exhibit A8 on uh and this was previously uh entered and testified to but we've
since revised it based on comments received at the last hearing. Uh but this is a viewshed of for the record the prior exhibit would have been A4 the rear sight line exhibit and now this
is A8 is the profile view. Is that what you're talking about? Correct. Okay. Can we illustrate what a uh person standing at the nearest residential property uh to the south of the site
uh would be seeing looking through the existing vegetation that is uh along the southern property boundary uh through that regulated area that there's an existing uh ditch that's regulated by the state and the local
ordinance and there's an approximately 75 foot wide vegetated buffer split between that uh ditch on either side that buffers this property and the residential properties within that area. There's a mixture of
deciduous and evergreen trees. Uh I went out to the property again today. Again, I was in the culdesac heritage court. I did not go on the physical properties. Uh but looking from the culdesac or the center of the culde-sac out to towards the subject property, there's some
significant evergreen trees nearest the residential properties which is um buffering the sight line into the subject property. And that's what this cross-section is illustrating. So the purple cone on this is if the site was
not obstructed, what the person standing at that nearest house could see. And in between that area, there are existing vegetation as I testified to that is uh protected via both the state regulations and local regulations.
Um and then once you get into the property, we're proposing some additional landscaping. And I'll get into my landscaping testimony in a little bit to provide further uh information about the landscaping noted in this area. How did you determine the tree height?
Uh based on visually going out to there and looking at the height of the trees and measuring it or something survey. It was not surveyed by a professional surveyor, but it was measured looking at it with a las with a laser. Yes.
So question. Yes. Okay. So looking at your A8 and looking at page eight. Okay. Yes. The color the colored lines that you
have 100% hund stream buffer and the 75. Do you have? Yes. There you go. So, correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. What we're saying trees are going that are remaining right now will not remain
when the road the township road in that in that exact location where we're showing the cross-section the trees would still remain still. Okay. But then further down past the culde-sac,
yeah, as you get closer or further to the east, there is a portion that could Thank you. there's a portion in this area that could be losing some trees. Okay. But again, that's that's state regulated again. So there would be permits required by
the state to the D or from the town to the D for any disturbance in that area. they would likely require mitigation of some sort which is usually additional vegetation whether that's in that area or somewhere else in the township. Okay. So I just want to just want to
confirm on page eight the orange line that would be the the local town's 100 foot stream buffer and that matches your orange line on A8. That's correct. Okay. And what this what she G8 doesn't show
is on the neighboring property to the south. There's the same buffers that aren't shown here. We're just showing what's affecting our property. So basically that 100 foot line that the for the town is a 200 ft strip at that point to the neighboring property.
Kelly, can you go to the plan set sheet seven? I believe that shows trees to be removed and trees to remain. And I believe that shows trees to remain in the area where you're saying they're remaining. Can you just confir confirm that?
Kelly, how hard would it be to put the site plan sheet A7 up there? Kelly, she's going to put it up there. It might be I can't prepare. I'm not even a voice job.
On A7, can you show them the trees that you testified are going to remain assuming that that road gets constructed? Sheet seven, not A7. Yeah, sheet seven. Yeah. Uh so if the road gets again this is the same orientation. So top of the
page is route 202. The rear or the bottom of the page is the southern portion of the property. This area is that 100 foot buffer that Cynthia was just referring to. Everything south of that is to remain as
part of this prop or this project. There's nothing being removed as far as trees along the southern boundary. And that's on the opposite side of the 100 foot wide JCPNL electrical easement that's running through the property. Uh which further
for purposes of clarity of the record that road we're talking about that's the master plan road. Correct. Anyone have any more questions about this? Any landscaping testimony you want to provide? So, a question and I don't know if
you're going to cover it later or not. How many trees are you going to move? Is that coming later? Are we removing? Yeah, I I'll put testimony on or we already put testimony on about the mature canopy that was being removed as a percentage,
but I will give you the uh caliber inches of removal that are required for the tree replacement ordinance and what we're giving back. Okay. So, that's coming later. Yeah, it's coming pretty much in the next five minutes. Yeah, I guess it's a perfect segue. Perfect segue to go there. You know, when I ask I have concerns,
right? No, I understand. Yeah. Um, all right. So, sheet 13 of 37, this is the overall landscaping plan, has been submitted to the board.
Uh, the applicant's proposing a landscaping plan um to landscape the property. We're proposing some street trees along the frontage with a mixture of low-lying shrubs. Uh there was a comment in Tim's
Tim Kay's Mr. Kay's uh memo about potentially trying to swap the size and adjust the size of these street trees which we would gladly work with his office. And and just to clarify that the trees I want to increase in size are large shrubs, small ornamental trees,
flowering trees. Typically you plant them at six to eight feet. So they've agreed pretty much to uh increase the size. So it'll make a more immediate impact in there. Uh in addition to the street trees along the frontage, there's some canopy trees
within the parking islands along with some low-lying shrubs and those are spread out throughout all of the parking and display areas. Um, in the rear along the large banked uh display area with the four stacked, there is an area that
um Tim's memo noted that uh they would recommend having a minimum width of 20 ft in that island area. And we're we're agreeing to adjust the the layout a little bit to provide that 20 foot
minimum in that island area. And I believe that was comment 72 in the most recent memo. Yes, correct. Um, all right. So, now I'll get into some numbers here.
Uh, so as far as the landscaping within the parking area, the applicant is proposing approximately 12.05% 05% of the landscaping area as measured
towards the total parking area uh where 15% is required. So we're just under 3% below what the requirement is. If someone's going to ask you so I might as well ask you what's the problem with complying going to 15%.
[Music] And aren't there two standards and are there Okay. You're going to address the next standard for the landscaping islands. Yeah. Well, first thing that question, well, we would have to lose additional
stalls or we have to expand the limit of disturbance to provide the same number of stalls and add in the islands to add the additional canopy trees. How many stalls do you think you'd lose to get up to the 15% of the landscaping 15% of the parking area? I I'd be
guessing I'd say somewhere in the 10 to 15 range. Is that like a killer? Uh if you ask the applicant, I would say that they think that's a killer. Based on what we had talked about before the break, why don't we ask that?
We we can ask that certainly and we we have asked that. So there's just to be clear, there's two different standards the applicant is required to meet. One is the 15% of the parking of the total area landscape in addition to the landscape islands at one
every 8 ft. It's it it's both. But the way you get to that 15% is utilizing that 1 to eight. So we're we're also not providing islands every eight stalls. So just to be clear, I think our interpretation in the ordinance is
there's two areas correct that you have to provide landscaping. One is the perimeter areas and then the second is the landscape islands. Correct. They agree. And they're applying for relief from both.
Okay. You're requiring for relief from both. Correct. Because the 15% is one of them, right? because you're all your landscape. I just you know I I apologize but I know in the past our landscape architect has been very clear about
what's included in that 15% and what is not included and I could be have a faulty memory which some would say I do. Um but I I would never say that. Oh yeah. But I would say the landscape islands generally aren't included in
that 15% requirement that it's they're an The way I read the ordinance is you're required to have up to 15% of the parking area needs to have an equivalent landscaped area within that parking area. Listen, let's get the Let's get the
ordinance out. Let's You've been doing so well with that. Let's keep going. Let's go to the videape. Let's go to the ordinance. Everything starts and finishes the question. You still want this on the screen, John? You guys still want this? Yeah.
I just know we've had applicants that had it, you know, for example, Chimney Rock wasn't meeting, you know, the the 15%, but they did the landscape islands. They met with that and one did not flow to the other.
We're going to have Jeff's going to find the two ordinance sections and we're going to read them. We're gonna And there's also some updated ordinances around that. Figure it out. Oh, you wouldn't wouldn't trigger you. Continue in the meantime or should I just wait? Yep. Go for it.
Okay. So, in addition to the Hold on. Hold on. Oh, thanks. Got it. What's the ordinance section? Good job, Jeff. 296-75. Wait, move that microphone right to him. 296 O 296-75
D or O D or D D as in dog. D as in dog. I heard D as in boy. D as in dog for the small letter O. O. What's it say? Off streetet parking lots designed to accommodate more than 25 vehicles shall
be landscaped so that landscaping equal to at least 15% of the parking area is provided in the manner specified below. The landscaping plan sh should specify in detail what areas are proposed to be included in the 15%
parking area calculation. A graphic depiction of eligible parking lot landscaping areas described below are are on file with the planning board. The parking area is that area devoted to parking spaces, aisles and space backup
area and shall generally consists of such areas within curbing but excluding building access aisles leading from a street to the parking area, pedestrian walkways and landscaping areas. Excludes landscaping
or include excludes. Yeah. And then it goes to one. In calculating the landscape area, the following may be included. A landscaping within the parking area
consisting of landscaped islands between rows of parking spaces and islands at the end of parking rows. So that means, and just so I'm clear, that means that the islands in the parking areas are excluded from the calculation of parking area of which 15%
must be landscaped. No, it's included. Yeah, it's included. Kelly's right. Kelly's right. See, you might be shocked, but he's right. Keep going. No, I know. No, I I I keep going.
B. Landscaped areas which may extend into the parking area from the perimeter of the paved area, even though such may be outside of the parking lot curved area, and landscaped areas where parking lot curved areas are extended, would intersect. Examples are included in the
buffer yard planning guidelines on file with the planning board. Landscape areas other than those illustrated may also be part as used as part of the required landscaping if approved by the planning board in determining whether to include such areas as part of the required
parking lot landscaping. The planning board shall find that such areas is so located and landscaped as to contribute to the objective of the parking areas be landscaped. Wow. Should the landscape aisles which are
required every stalls be included in the 50% parking area requirement? Yes. Okay. So meaning again the landscaping in those islands can be counted towards the 15%.
Parking area. Okay. That's what it appears to be. So, was there any ch any um effort made or assessment done on how many landscape islands this project would have been to
comply with the one every 8 ft? We looked at it and we presented it to the applicant to break up the parking areas. It was a no-go for them. John, get that microphone. John, microphone.
For argument sake, I'm not putting words in the board's mouth and I'm not predicting anything that the board was willing in this particular case to grant relief from the one the landscape islands for every eight stalls but was not willing to grant
relief from the 15% landscape requirement. Where does the where does the landscaping have to be? Does it have to be in any particular part of that parking area? Well, I I think it would probably be in that lower area. And that's I think what you were getting at
before. You could add, you know, get rid of some of the skull on the It's much better to have a big island to landscape than little 9 foot wide islands because every time you go into a parking lot, you look at them and they're filled with dead trees because they just don't have the soil wide. So, what you want is a
big area and mass the planting in that area, which that lower area would provide. So, put it this way. Again, not speaking on behalf of the board, but can can you com do you think they Kelly thinks to comply with the 15% they have
to lose stalls. Do you think they can comply with the 15% without losing stalls? Right. I don't know if that's going to do your calculation. You might have to lose some more. But maybe Yeah. So, I think this is one of those exceptions. This is one of the three in the letter from the
engineer and landscape architect that we were not willing to specifically just so everyone's on the same page which one it is that specifically is item 72. Correct. So again yeah I guess I just have to I'm going to
No, but we're going to get back to the we're getting back to the landscape islands every age. I want to start with the 15%. Yeah, but the intent of the 15% has always been based on the fact that we will get landscape islands within the
parking areas to reduce the heat island effects to reduce storm water to improve water quality to improve the aesthetics. We can we have a great example of how we required target. Yeah. to put new landscape islands in
and that site looks phenomenal with the new areas in the extended that now complies. So I guess that's where yes you can stuff landscaping around the edge of your property but does that meet what the intent and the purposes of why
we ask for those landscaping islands to begin with? And and I just think I get it. the use is is what it is, but there could be a better effort on some of these uh long runs to get some
landscaping islands in there. Yeah. Jeeoff, can you read section four of that same ordinance? Before he does, if you had landscape islands every eight stalls, how many landscape islands would you
have to put in? I think you can ask I can't do that off the top of my head. John, don't worry. Don, if you did that, thank you. If you did that, it would bring you well over the 15%. Correct. That's correct.
So, let's say that for argument sake, you put in landscape islands every eight, every eight stalls. And you wanted to comply with the 15% but not go over it. Where would you eliminate landscaping to to to keep the landscaping at 15% of the parking area
and not go over? We would widen this w uh this landscape island in the rear which sorry big island you're talking about from Hawaii. You're missing you're missing my question.
Yeah. If the board required, if the board said we are not granting an exception from the landscape islands every eight stalls, right? And you actually had to put in landscape islands every eight stalls.
I assume if you did that on the current plan, it would bring your percentage of landscaping in the parking area way over 15%. If you're at 12.05% 05% now and you had to add a landscape island every eight stalls
in your opinion would that bring the total percentage of landscape parking area over 15%. Yes, I think I answered that already but yeah so that's the setup for my question. Okay. So, if you then actually did propose
landscape islands every eight stalls and that put you way over the 15% in the landscape in the parking area and the ordinance only requires that you have 15%. Where would you eliminate landscaping to bring it back down to 15%.
not eliminating the landscape islands, eliminating other landscaping so you wouldn't be over 15%. Where would you eliminate it and then still be in compliance with all provisions of I mean the so it's a either or yes the logical area would be along the
frontage because you would want to have additional um visibility to the car display storage area. So we would be losing some street trees and some low-lying plantings along the frontage. Couldn't you would there be an
opportunity to make the planting island in the rear smaller so that therefore you had space to put planting islands in and that would also probably some good design let you think about I think we're actually thinking the
opposite. We're proposing to make that island in the rear even larger than it is now and put additional planting in there as well as additional evergreen planting to help buffer with the residential properties in the rear. I I I think the point is that we may
need a little design tweaking because if we we can go back and look to see how we can put islands every eight stalls, but that may end up necessitating or allowing, for lack of a better word, us to remove landscaping elsewhere that you
may also like. So I I want to make sure that that's a dance that we do in such a way that we don't sacrifice something you like on the plan just to put something else there. So you know maybe if we could kind of get a gauge from the board as to which they would prefer.
This might be a straw polling issue. I actually have a one more question that might contribute to the uh straw pole decision. I was wondering if given all the fill and the um benefit of um deep
rooted trees, especially those shade trees to um stabilize and uh protect the soil and keep it from eroding and so forth. Um where the would the
fill and the the steep slope characteristics of the property warrant landscaping in certain areas over others just because of that soil um stability and protecting and preventing um erosion
in those steeper slope areas um would benefit. Well, I think in that front area they've got I I put three to one slopes. So, you have to be careful if you want to put larger trees. You got to think of the the width of that root ball. Typically,
if you get a two and a half, three inch caliber tree, you're talking about 34 inch wide root ball. If you think about 3 to one, that's the root ball is going to be sticking out. So, that's one reason you want it up at the top, I guess, because you can get a
little more of a level area. Well, could so could the use of structural if planting islands are put in given that this whole site is filled, could structural soil be used in planting islands um similar to what we saw used
on the target project? Yeah, you can do that, but I guess if you move, you know, you're you're taking away asphalt here and if you're going to comply with 15%, then you're going to add it somewhere else. So, I'm not sure you're really gaining anything. And again, I'm my belief is the bigger the
planting area, the more the faster the growth, the more stable you can come in and you don't have to have structural soil. You can come in with regular soil because when you're in the middle of the parking lot, you know, you got subbase gravel and it's like putting a tree in a in a container and it's it's going to be
stunning unless you you know, expand it out into the into the paved area. And I I don't know like the width of the islands. What's a typical width of an island? Buries. It's like parking 10. Yeah.
10 feet. So now again, you got that little area and you got trees in there. You know, they need water, right? Good soil. So I'm not I I'm not a big proponent in the middle. I think, you know, around the edges, I think you're much better
off. Well, I guess I I my desire is to comply with our ordinance and I'm s you got I believe you guys should straw poll. If you have any other questions, ask them. Each person get put your opinion on what you think about it. I'm going to I'm going to say something.
I'm very uncomfortable straw polling right now. I'll give my views why. Okay. uh I'm hearing the expert because I'm looking at what's the basic reason of why we're doing this and that's what you are saying as an expert. On the
other end, I'm also looking for consistency and visual because your target looks very good. So, I'm not there yet. What I would suggest is uh the chair lady showed me how many we have and I can totally understand why
Donna is making that comment. There's practically none. I I'm overdoing it. There are fewer which visually doesn't look right. On the other hand, I'm all for listening to the experts, right? That's my track
record. And I I'm kind of torn. So, I would rather you guys sit offline, figure out a good way to show this. Okay. in terms of maybe adding few more where the parking is
versus what we're going to give by doing that because of aesthetic and and if you're going to go with the island I wouldn't do a 10 one every eight that's why you guys work it out and come back every 20 make a bigger island
just figure out what makes sense but whatever it is right now I totally agree with my colleague it's not right and At the same time, I don't want to lose the benefit of what you're talking about. So, you guys have to figure out how to get All right. So, scratch the straw polling. But why doesn't everyone at
least express their feelings so everyone knows my feeling? Yeah, that's your feelings. Yeah, I would be open to uh consideration of large less but larger. I am definitely in favor of the landscape islands. Um,
we were adamant about Target, how they could just clear a parking lot and it looks, you know, we hate to say it, we're a community of trees. I I we always talk about the trees. They're very important here. Um, I just, that would be my opinion. James,
you want to go? Um, our regular landscape architect for a long time has been a big proponent of the islands and I agree with that and it's consistent across the township. We've always stressed it. Um, what I would like to see is if you can present possibly a range of options that would
work. Maybe larger islands, smaller islands, no islands, a lot of islands. Um, I'm I'm open to you guys presenting a couple options if that's if that's feasible for you. I don't know if it is or not, and then maybe we can kind of find a middle ground somewhere. But I do
think that there's a middle ground to be found here. But I strongly strongly strongly think that we should do everything we can to get islands in there because as Donna Drews was saying, it helps. When you say that, you also mean get enough islands to bring the total up to
15% of the parking. Yes. Yes. I'm not Donna. I want is Donna is that also is that so it's it it's when you're looking at it. Yes. We want to see compliance with our landscaping provisions. in that's consistent with what our
township has been getting uh and requiring out of applicants for a number of years and this is also compounded with the fact that relief is being asked for parking stacking of four in a row. So we're seeing a the whole
rear of the building is a sea of asphalt. So that's where in my perspective we could deal with you know because people are going to be coming right through that area. I just want to make sure you're not suggesting exceed parking landscape islands to bring the
total landscaping over 15%. Just up to the ordinance is what you're suggesting. I mean, they can do more, but there I'm we're not asking them to. No. And I before we go to Laura, I also want to consider and I what something James said is is there possibility that
they're only in certain areas? Do we like you said, what is an option? you know, um, is it where the people are parking is the most important? Is the storage display in the back not whatever the option? Um, we
need to just look at them. I'm sorry, Lorett, I didn't mean to stop you. I appreciate what you're saying. I agree. Yeah, Lorett, what what about you? What's your feelings? I think that there's a couple opportunities where um some slightly
larger islands could tee into the perimeter islands and I think that would benefit not only that um bringing trees into the um heart of the site a little bit um to alleviate some of that heat
island effect, but also I think that becomes a um by integrating the the landscaping areas even more beneficial from a storm water perspective and also um using the the trees to um for the the
root structure benefits. Jim, so I heard you're not they're not done yet. You got Jim and Randy to go. Jim. Yeah. Microphone. You don't yell at us.
You're good. Don't don't [Music] like the idea [Music] of the size, but I don't think we should be doing anything more than the 15% charge required, but I think that's an option
really should be explored. or he doesn't think they should do more than 15%. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Nick Randy, I agree with what my colleagues have to say. Um, basically I agree with all the different ideas that they have, but the
one thing, maybe I'm crazy, but have a larger um have a larger tree with landscaping um and to make it look like Target, more more freezable. That's all. Okay. Okay.
Good. We're good. I want to add one thing to this conversation and that is this is not simply an exception because of the conditional use standards. One of the standards is that you have to comply with all the zoning ordinance regulations and another one is
you have to comply with all the site plan design standards. This is also part of their D3 conditional use variance. In other words, if they're they're seeking relief from the landscaping, which normally in a nond
variance case would simply be an exception. This is part of the D3 relief they need. So, it's a bigger deal than it normally is. Thank you. All right. Next, just one quick question. I heard something at some
point um talking about getting to a point where we add additional landscaped islands to bring the 12.05 to 15. Right. So that's what we should be focusing on right now. Obviously we understand that we can do more.
Right. Right. But a couple a couple board members said options. I heard someone say in addition get rid of some of the stuff in the back and put a couple more islands. They're not asking you to go over 15%. But they're not. At least Donna Drews is not simply saying,
"Give me enough islands to bring it up to 15%." She's saying she wants the 15%, but maybe she wants more islands and just, you know, the minimum there. Maybe you get rid of some landscaping in the back. I don't think they're going to want you to get rid of landscaping in the front. And I just wanted to quickly add on too,
Donna, just to make sure. So, because the rear of the site is being used for we're going to call display, would you be looking for more of the the islands in the in the front of the site where people could see from the road or or would putting in the rear work just kind of what what were the thoughts of where you know?
Yeah, I guess from a visual perspective if this is going to be at some point in the future we will have a township road through there to see a sea of asphalt. This is how
many hund you know 100 and some feet not 100 that's exactly she's right the backyard won't always be 174 parking space the rear won't always be the rear is what you're saying it yeah it isn't really so in the future when the road goes in what's it going to look like
you know and so that's again good point part of the consideration of the large asphalt area also it's shade and cooling in a large asphalt area. And we and we do, just to point out, we do have landscape islands in a parking
lot with porest pavement. So that's target. Bear with us one second. Okay. All right. There's a couple things we just want to clarify here. So, I think I heard up to 15% is where
we want to be when it comes to the one and eight. If we added I'm just making up a number now. Eight landscaped islands and that gets up to 15% but we're still not meeting the one for every eight parking stalls. Where does
that get us? Closer. Yeah, I think that's what I was trying to to get to. It seems like it gets us closer, but what it seems that Right. But Raul said he doesn't want to stump pole that until he sees what Jim said is that he wants to see
options. Well, and then that's my next question. When we say options, does that mean we're coming to another board meeting with a revised plan? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, that's what you're saying. No, no, no. Let me finish here. I don't want to come with five different options and then sit here and waste
another meeting and then waste another six months before we get another hearing on the landscaping. I'd rather work out these options before the next hearing. So, how do we do that? How do you do that? Can because
you can't ask the board professionals to advocate some position because what if the board doesn't want it? I mean, I guess you could ask to have meeting with a uh a subcommittee of the board on it. If there were objectors out in the audience, I might feel differently. Um,
but what if the subcommittee, you know, you can't the board can't be bound? If they give you informal input, they can't be bound the rest of the board can't be bound by it. So, you might still have that situation. And and and you're absolutely right. And by the same token, I think that all Kelly is trying to say is we and I
understand we don't want to do a straw poll and that's fine, but maybe if we could if somebody could say we'd like to see or we can agree on more island Donna Drews wants if you asked her she wants all the she wants one and she wants at least
15%. That I got that one I got. You know, the reality is we've granted relief before for the one per eight and we have done it for other applicants, but there was a striving to try and at least show you're respecting our
ordinance and putting some islands in. There are some here. There's no question. I like some of them look kind of good, you know, and you've kind of gotten created like with the one in between the building. But, you know, um, could we get some ideas to whether people would like to see more in the
front, more in the back? I mean, could we at least get some direction? Can I stop here, please? I'm not willing to give any ideas. All right, we'll work. I think Donna opened my eyes, too, that hey, eventually whatever you're saying is back is going to look like front. So,
we need to think about that. But, Jim, we're going to design the rear based upon a potential roadway that may never that be built. Okay. Again, show us something. Okay. Show us a few scenarios and we we'll we're willing to work with you. Even Donna who
was very steadfscape islands. A parking stall is 9 by8. If we have double stack parking and we're taking up two stalls back to back, is that one landscape island or is that two landscape islands? It meets the one per eight because each
row of parking has So you're going based on the number of parking stalls is what you're saying there. Typically, and you've been here before and done that. Yeah. No, I know. I just I want to make sure I'm on the same page. Typically is a double space, but if you say there's a better way of doing it.
Here's the issue. The board has never had a stacked parking plan. No. Yeah, you have. You have two stalls back to back all the time. All right. Maybe not four deep. Maybe not four deep, but I'm just asking the question. Yeah. So, when it's two front and front, we get a clamping
island. Let's let's take a a certain section and let's make sure we're perfectly clear. So, let's look at one section. If we're looking at this area, right, we got a row here and a row here, and there's an island that's covering plus or minus four stalls. Is that one island or is
that two islands? The minimum I'm reading from that same witness section, the minimum width of landscape island shall be 10 ft. One landscape island shall be placed for
every eight parking spaces. Seems to me a double stack space is two. A four stack space is four. It's spaces. That's what the ordinance says. If you ask me my legal opinion, that's my legal opinion. Thank you. Okay,
that's helpful. So, we're good guys. Yeah. I don't even I even get into tree removal at this point cuz listen. Yep. You You should I think. Yeah, you think you should definitely hear what they have to think, what they have
to say and feel about tree removal if you're coming back anyway. If you don't do that, then you're going to find out for the first time when you come back. All right. So, actually, let let me bring another fireball up real quick. The irrigation system, the applicant is
still against installing the irrigation system. And anecdotally, from my understanding and talking to them, they have had sites that have irrigation systems and they become a maintenance nightmare and they end up ripping them out immediately. So they rather than
install it now. Why why do they why are they a maintenance nightmare? Yeah. Uh with the the landscaping equipment and the maintenance equipment grabs the the lines and rips them out and then they get broken and have to get repaired is my understanding.
Maybe maybe they don't have careful people doing their landscape maintenance. I'll have Tony talk about that a little bit more when he gets here. The I think the point that he was just trying to make is that we have gone to our client and that's what they have specifically
said which is why they prefer to do the actual irrigation work themselves on a regular basis and will obviously agree to replace whatever uh plantings die within x period of time. But the irrigation system and their their um
lack of enthusiasm about it, not a cost issue. Let me ask you this. There's a two-year maintenance bond. Correct. But if they're not going to put the irrigation system in where they agree to perpetual maintenance of the landscaping, they're not not limited to
two years. I will certainly ask that. Um but I'm telling you that's what they would do anyway. So, okay, I will ask that question. Why don't you get to the real fireball issue? All right. So, the mature canopy, we we
previously talked about the removal. What sheet? So, it's it's sheet uh seven, right? Yes. I believe the board secretary is going to put seven up on the screen. I think he's in the process of doing that right
now if I'm right. [Music] [Laughter] As long as we don't get Windows updates in the middle of the uh Oh, god. All right. One of the previous hearings we talked or we testified to the
percentage of the tree canopy removal. That has not changed as part of the site plan changes. Okay. So, what is the percentage of the tree canopy removal? 64.21%. What? Give it to me again. 64
64 214 64.21% canopy removal. And the maximum allowed is what? 55%. Okay. So the obvious question is why do you have to do that? What would
happen if you complied and only removed 55% and not 64.21%. Uh the site doesn't work. We have the existing JCPNL easement is uh encumbering the majority of the property
and everything outside of that area is a developable area. Within the property, there's a large area that was previously cleared, which is no longer mature canopy, and that's in the middle of the site. To build the
the um the development around that area along with tying in on the cross driveway on the neighboring property, which is court-ordered, this entire area has to be disturbed. So
if you made the dealership buildings smaller and you eliminated parking spaces, what would you get closer to 55%? Correct. Uh could we get closer? Yes.
How close another again, how low is the applicant willing to go? That's that's going to be the ultimate question. Yes, that's that's the question. Yeah, I think they're at the limit. I don't think they're willing to go any lower is my understanding. They might not be willing, but what's the re what
what's the planning argument going to be for the 64.21% canopy removal? I mean, is it going to be a hardship argument? We're not going to testify to that now. We'll let our planner do that. I understand, but I'm just saying because
it's it seems to me that would be a self-created hardship that you're going to have to deal with because you want a certain size of buildings and you want a certain number of parking spaces and the way I see it that's driving the 64.21%.
So is there if it's not if it's not that what is it? So someone's going to have to come up with a justification for that relief. And again, it's it's D3. It's not just it's not simply the underlying relief. It's also why would
the site remain appropriate for a conditional use where the conditional use ordinance contemplates compliance with everything. So you got find out from the client if the Well, first of all, this is me
speaking. The the board should speak. Getting late. I totally agree with what you're saying. Say again. I agree with you. I'm not going to repeat anymore. Yeah. Ditto. If I just just if I remember the
testimony last time was that the current I want to say buildings was 82,000 and they're going down to 61,000. That's on the it's on architectural plans, but that sounds about right. They're definitely small less square
footage in this proposal than we currently have. But they also testified that they didn't use microphone. They also testified they didn't use the third story of the existing building. Exactly. So we have to get apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
All right. Thank you. All right. So the question is valid. That's at least my view from a board point of view. Why not small buildings? If board members disagree, tell them. I don't think so.
Well, I think we have a lot of concerns with trees now because of the previous um issue we had from another applicant. Well, put it on the record. What application might you be talking about? Maybe the Pioneer application. Yes. I'm not familiar with that one.
So, just for the record, Cara, you were the attorney for Pioneer, correct? Correct. And the board granted an exception from the 55% tree removal and allowed tree removal of what? Anyone remember the percentage? More than that.
H I was going to say 82%. And then what happened? Once you start cutting trees down, it's kind of hard sometimes to keep to the limit. And they went over that. Correct. Didn't they also cut down trees on a pre another property? Correct. And again, not that
I'm sorry, but you're you're you're getting the In other words, the board had a bad experience the last time they granted one of these exceptions. It's making him apparently making him nervous and going to have to be a very strong justification to go from 55 to
64.21. That's that's what I'm sensing. I I hate to say it. That's what it comes down to. And since you're coming back, I'd hate to say that you'd have to investigate that. Um we're if we granted I I mean, I don't even
know how we're going to manage it because it obviously didn't work last time. Right now, at least in my head, and I'm just talking for myself, that's not even an option. So that's why give us something which says you can be
creative. And then if we're closer then we can talk right we will but right now we're not there. Okay. And I think we are being creative with what we have on the property there. There's be more creative. Let me ask let's assume the let's assume
the board was willing to grant some relief from the 55%. What kind of proposal could you guys come up with to make them feel confident that whatever they granted more than that wouldn't be cut? Can can you guys
come up with some proposal to give them that? Yeah, I mean we could put a requirement that there needs to be at the very least like a staked out area with tree protection fencing installed prior to site clearing activities at the limit of
disturbance and that would have to be maintained throughout all of the site uh construction activities. And and just to clarify too um so our office has only been involved with the township for a couple years now. Um throughout all of our pre-construction meetings that we've had with developers
coming in, the thing that we always include is that the limits of disturbance do need to get staked out before construction and then our office as well as John Morgan Thomas or in this case it'll be Tim or or Jeff or we'll go out and actually walk the site, review the limits of disturbance. Uh tree
fencing has to get put up for tree protection. and silt fencing goes up and then that has to be maintained throughout the entire construction process to ensure that no additional trees are actually getting cleared. John, did you get that for the Yeah, I got it. I feel better.
And then and and also the Hunter County Soil Conservation District, they'll also come out and and walk the site as well to make sure. So, this is this is one of the big things I know, especially with what recently happened. Um, this is the first thing that we talk about at every pre-construction meeting now just to make sure that everybody's aware and we
bring up that there was a bad experience and it's not going to happen again. So, well, still exist. Yeah. No, no. And I I understand the concern, but it's not as simply as looking at a flat piece of paper and saying, "Well, just make less trees go away or keep as many trees as possible."
There's storm water management. There's site improvement stuff. There's elevation changes. But isn't it all driven by the size of the buildings and the number of parking spaces? Doesn't that drive the the number of trees that have to be taken down? If the buildings were smaller and there were less paved parking spaces, less trees would have to
come down. True. True. That's it. Okay. So, caliper trees. We're currently removing or proposing to remove 2,815
caliber inches of trees. The applicant's proposing to replace 2,716 caliber inches of trees using 3-in caliper trees. In accordance with the ordinance, the deficit, the applicant
would agree to either work with the township to plant additional trees off site or pay into the township tree fund in accordance with the ordinance. And what is that deficit as it currently stands without any revisions? [Music]
It is on because obviously this changes depending upon what the revisions may be. Sorry, Kelly. I thought you had that handy. Yeah, I should. It's okay. Going outside the box here a little bit.
That would be 99 caliber inches is the deficit which if you divide by three which would be the three caliber in is plus or minus 33 additional trees. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Donna. I think you should you should say
I I heard you say you should say that too. Go ahead. Lorett said it. So whoever said it say microphone please. So my thought was can we um you use
a tradeoff to um some of the uh tree replacement requirements be met by adding some islands that go above the 15%. [Music] something we can look into.
And that is thinking outside the box. And and just for my edification, based on the ordinance requirements, would the types of trees that could be successfully planted in an island of the width required qualify as a replacement tree?
I don't know. Okay. Anyone know? Maybe we'll have to look into that. What kind of trees? Can we look into that? Yeah. Can our landscape expert look into that? Yeah. Great. Thank you.
I think that concludes what I had prepared for tonight. That's perfect timing since it's 9:40. Maybe we'll get done early. Kelly, I just had one one last thing since we're going to be coming back. Uh are we for the for the parking? I remember in
the very beginning I forgot to mention it about making sure that the parking for the display is going to be marked. if we can just add whatever that's going to be to the plan. That would be something we would ask before construction anyway, but we should just get it so that way everybody has to look at. That's fine. Hey, Kelly, thank you for your
professionalism. Really? No, no, appreciate that. Yeah. And next meeting, are we going to talk about the construction site logistics package and the impact of the field trucks? Well, unless you want to talk about it
now since you do have 13 minutes. That was the last question that I did have here to deal with that. We did submit that uh site logistics package. Um we could also go through trying to start talking. We have three Yeah, we have three people who have questions about Okay.
Yeah, let's do that please. So, Kelly, you okay with the Okay. And then we'll just go quickly through the only things from an engineering perspective that we are not willing to address in the reports to the extent we haven't already. Okay. Donna, I think you and Russul are
have the same kind of question. Donna, so let's just say, are we talking about the construction site logistics package dated May 30th, 2025? Is that what we're talking about? Yes, we are. Okay. Go ahead.
Well, is are you gonna present? Yeah. Why don't you can you summarize At the last hearing, there was concerns over the amount of fill that was testified to and the way I understood it, the logistics of getting the fill in
and out or the fill into the property. So this document we prepared that illustrates the hauling routes into the property as well as out of the property for the anticipated uh tandem axle trucks that would be
bringing in the fill. Uh, as you can see on those images in this report, A1, A2, A3, and A4, there's arrows showing the northbound and southbound lanes along with
circulation paths. The anticipation is all the construction traffic would be on 202 andor the county roads and it wouldn't be on any local roads in and out of the property to get the construction vehicles and the fill into
the property. In addition to that, there was a conversation over how much fill was coming into the site and how it was going to be handled. Uh so we we kind of took a look at the overall cubic yardage based on the current grading plan and
how many trucks would be required based off of that. Um and we estimated approximately 800 total trucks. The traffic report or the traffic engineer can testify further. In their report they broke down how um that would
be handled as the trucks come from a traffic perspective into the site. We didn't get into that perspective. Well, I thought I saw something in someone's report saying it was going to be approximately eight to 10 trucks a day. So, it would take six months.
That's the traffic engineers report. Oh, that was okay. So, Kelly is uh I saw some there to build upon. So, in the plans that you've prepared on page sheet 19 to 37, it it includes your construction
schedule. And uh could you interpret when what weeks within that construction schedule you anticipate Phil being brought into the site? By the way, what page this report is
that construction schedule? It's the sequence of construction on sheet 19 of 37 which is on the soil erosion and sediment control modes plan. Okay, got it. Do you know the answer? Yeah. So I mean the it would occur
during items four through eight. there would be fill activity on the property within that sequence of construction. So, um, help me understand then what if you're raising the elevation of the
whole site? Well, this can't be right. Wouldn't you be having the fill in place before you start constructing your improvements and your storm water and all that stuff? You're you're going to work and raise
the site in stages. is there's other improvements subgrade that have to get installed as well. So it doesn't come in and then all of a sudden it's 10 ft higher. You have to do it little by little in one foot lift so that the the fill is compacted properly. Right.
And as they're doing that there's other activities on the site as the property is being Kelly. Are you sure that you're still going to be importing fill in sequence of construction eight? The reason I ask is because in the in
the traffic impact assessment, it says that the approximately 800 truckloads of fill are going to be generated over a six-month period with 8 to 10 truckloads per day. But your construction sequence 8 construction of site improvements in
the car dealership buildings is 80 weeks. 60. But 60 60 weeks, whatever. Yeah. But I'm saying it's it's not going to happen the entire length of the eigh the eighth item. It's going to happen in that eighth item.
Okay. So you so in your opinion the traffic impact assessment is correct that the 800 truckloads of fill will be generated over a six-month period. That's correct. Continuous six-month period or like spurts that will total six months. It's
going to be continuous as long as there's no stops of construction. How many weeks are in six? There's 4.3 weeks in a month, right? There's 4.3 weeks in a month. So, 6 months times 4.3 comes to what?
26 25.8. Okay. 26 weeks. 3 4 9 12. Okay. I see. All right. Will there be a higher propensity for trucks coming to the site
during the initial phases of construction when you're building because you obviously have to build up? Yeah. the the initial the initial construction on site is going to be a contractor out there clearing
the site removing trees based within the limit of disturbance and the first activities are going to be raising the property right that's not going to be the only thing once that starts there's going to be other things that start occurring as the fill operation is still happening
okay so but the initial few weeks is going to be more fill operations than later in So in that timeline there's a chance for a larger number of trucks to be compressed within a smaller period of time as you're raising the site.
Yeah. Again I'll defer to the traffic reports but broke down how it would operate. I'm asking you as the design engineer, right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I think the other um kind of issues when do you anticipate
your like this plan doesn't talk about dust control and enhanced tracking pattern? Yeah, that's part of the soil erosion sediment control permit that's already been issued by the soil conservation district and has to be maintained
throughout construction. Yes, I agree. Okay. But they um but there are instances when it it may not necessarily be soil erosion control issue when you're bringing fill in sometimes.
Yes, it is. Okay. Yes, it is. It's all under their part of their purview on that. And and not only that, but I'm sure during the pre-construction meetings if there's any concerns with regard to fencing, uh dust control, all of that, it only behooves
everybody for this to be a smooth transition at that point in time. So that's that certainly is not any of any concern from the applicant's perspective. Yeah. Um at that at that point in time too the there could be conditions that would prohibit trucks going out of the site
making the right on Borheis corner road going down to old the other construction maybe huh the other construction what conditions I'm just trying to figure out so yeah as a as a condition you know I think we really want to not have trucks
going down past you know down corner past the school making the right which we all know is the bypass that they all bypass 202 traffic lights. So by doing that we would take this traffic circulation or the truck traffic plan that was submitted that would be another thing
that again just just to put on the record. So this would be another thing that we'll take assuming that this the board acts favorably and this project moves forward. This would be another document that we would bring to the pre-construction meeting. Make sure everybody has a copy of it and says this is the way we're going to do it. If we
see trucks going not this way, everybody's going to stop. We're going to come back here. We're all going to talk again. So, it would be one of those things again where it' be a condition of not necessarily approval, but a condition of construction that Yeah, it'll be a condition of approval also, right? That's the way to do it. Okay.
Thank you. So, that um kind of brings up the idea that I um hope there'll be no trucks going up Route 31 North, coming up and down Route 31 North, like toward the hospital and past the high school.
I'm glad to see that that's not a route um in your hall plan, but is there a way to condition the approval that it doesn't it doesn't become a route? Well, if the condition is that the trucks with Phil shall comply with
the construction site logistics package and it's not in here, they can't do it. I I just wrote that down as a condition just in the event the board ends up approving this. Okay. All right. I have a question. I I just wanted on the record. Um I talked to Jay this before we started the
meeting. My concern and I just want to get your thoughts. um coming off the property and attempting to make a left at the light. Okay, we have the circle where we now have the three lanes going into two
lanes and now we're going to be making a right out of this property and people could go left. And so I just want to make sure that there was assessment consideration that there is no issue
uh that it's safe and uh that what you have planned is is acceptable and Jay first Kelly I assume your team has looked at that. We've looked at it and it's a state
highway. So ultimately the the design of the driveway opening has to meet the DOT requirements which I'll defer to the traffic engineer on the status of the DOT permits and everything but my understanding is they've reviewed the design of the driveway and are in favor
of how it's designed and they believe it meets their requirements. Okay. I think you're talking about the left turn on church and then the left at 31. Yeah. What we looked at was, do you have
uh adequate uh linear feet for somebody to move out of that driveway and safely make a lane change so that they can get into the left turning facility at Dory's Corner
Road. And I did actually map that out with the distances. I located where the driveway is going to be on an existing conditions plan and check the distances and there is adequate uh transition area for for a truck to safely make the
maneuvers to make that lane. It's it's not too close to where the driveway is going to be. Good. Okay. And the other thing I just want to I I before you move on, can I just ask did you do that during rush hour because that area gets really congested? Speaking from in a non-professional but
local perspective. Talking about the trucks with skill or construction. No, no, no, we're not talking about construction. We're talking about when the when the site is operational and cars are coming out of there, okay, on a regular basis and they want to make the
left light, the left turn at church. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. And I'm not I'm not worried about church on 31 because that's a lot easier. There's less traffic and and it's that getting into the left turn lane from Church onto 31 is no big deal. But on getting on the
202 and then getting over into those left turn lanes onto Church Street in that short span, I understand you're saying that there's ample room, but with heavy traffic, that makes it a lot more difficult. Mhm. And especially with the with the slowmoving uh truck with, you know, cars
speeding by, everybody desperate to get home. Yeah. Or to work. And and it becomes a question of is there adequate uh distance between the driveway location and that left turn lane, you know, given the gaps that are
available in northbound 202 for that to be safely made. And and and to me, the key is you don't want this driveway too close to that left turn lane. So that's why I kind of studied that that weave that would be taking place and whether there's adequate speed. We
can hear from their traffic expert as well. Yeah. In in your opinion, what is the safe gap time to make a left out of the site? I've heard all kind of conflicting stuff from 3 seconds to 7
seconds. In your opinion, I know it depends on speed limit, but in here, what is the safe gap to make a left out of the traffic? Well, making a right in the traffic, but immediately going to Yeah, it's it's a right turn gap. And and for uh for a heavier vehicle,
um let let me get the exact number, okay, out of the manual, but okay, that's going to be a question that going to be asked to your traffic expert in any event. And Jay's going to check him on. Is that in does he have do they have that in their traffic report? No. No.
Okay. Put the uh exact information. Do you understand what I'm asking about? You Yep. I got All right. And the last question I have is I'm sorry, Randy. You do? Go ahead. I'll answer you.
Okay. The last question I have is Jay, in your report, you're doing estimates for lots 30 and 31.01 and I just where are we getting the numbers from? Where are we, you know, I mean
and and are we saying we're going to approve this? You know, if we were to approve this application and then 3101 comes in and these numbers are way off, are we going to deny that application
because now the traffic is not acceptable? I mean, is it so the numbers in my report are based on the business park plan for lot 31.01. Uh,
okay. So we we have those numbers from that. Hold on one sec. If 31.01 comes in with a permitted use, the only thing the planning board is allowed to consider is safe traffic
circulation and safe ingress and egress. They're not allowed to consider offsite. only if they're coming in with a prohibited use does the board of is the board of adjustment allowed as part of the negative criterion to consider
off-site traffic impact. So my question is what does that business park use mean? Where did you get that from for 3101? That was from the the latest site plan that they had on that site that was in
our file. Okay. But is that a permitted business? Carrie, you represent that. Is that a permitted business park use or what? You you had an application here for some What was the prohibited use? You were here on that? We were uh we
were here for a number of different uses and then went to apply for a um wholesale use which was the latest application but that has since been
removed from your ordinance as a permitted use. So wholesale what is business park and where did it come from? What is the current proposed use on 3101? If you're if you get your application complete, which is incomplete in front
of the planning board is my understanding. If you get it complete, what is the proposed use on 3101? I think that's a I don't have an answer for you. And okay, so Jay, where did you get this business park use?
So that was from a a trip generation analysis. No, no, I understand that. the trip. You went to the manual. You said business part had those numbers. What I'm saying is what are the permitted uses?
Flex space. Was it flex space? No, that was the original that was the original application that was I just want the question is being asked does this traffic report consider the development of the other lot?
Yes. What I want is it on the chart it considers a use on the other lot, but I want to see what is the permitted use on that other lot that would generate the most amount of traffic. That in my opinion is what should be in the chart.
I don't know what a business park is. Can you Jeff get out the ordinance? Look, this is the B2 zone, correct? Yes. Can you look up some B2 zone uses? Give them to Jay. Let's pick. In my opinion, J should picked the permitted B2 zone
use that the IT 11th edition of the trip generation manual says would generate the most number of trips and that's what should be used in the chart. So, we'll hear back on that at the next meeting. Yeah. But I Okay. I want to Yeah.
I get yelled at. So, this is section 296-114 B under principal permitted uses. Multiple permitted per principal uses and structures are permitted as follows and subject to the standards set forth here.
One, retail and retail service uses excluding recreational facilities with loudspeakers and concessions unless the entire facility is located within the building and excluding those listed under subsection D which are conditionally permitted. Two, business
and professional offices. Three, hotels and motel. Four, animal hospital and commercial kennels. Five, commercial green houses. Six, funeral homes, clubs, lodges, and fraternal organizations.
Seven, self storage. Eight, childc care center. Thinking retail will probably generate the most traffic. I think you plug in retail business. office
notice there's really no market for new office buildings. So he should go with retail plug it in and see what it comes up with. But to answer your question, that's I think that's all he can do.
Yeah, you're right. You're you're absolutely right. Thank you. and and and any planning board application for that lot would need to have the the numbers replaced. If these numbers are not correct, they would need to take the
auto dealership as the no build and add in whatever their development is and we could evaluate the site access as a planning board application. Yes. Yeah. But not right. But not offsite improvements. Correct. Okay. Randy, you had a question. Yeah. under construction when
Randy microphone I always do this under construction if it does start what time in the morning will the trucks be eight that's that's based off of the the township ordinance I I don't know off the top of my head if it's 7 or 8:00
typically it's let's say seven or eight you mean at seven or eight I don't know if you ever been in this area but uh it's it's jammy so you're going to have these trucks coming in 7 or 8:00. That's going to be
that's going to be a problem. Are you talking about construction trucks or trucks with Phil? Trucks. No, because the construction the trucks with Phil is covered in the report and in Jay's report and he Jay says that the applicant will agree to a
condition that the fill trucks will be outside the roadway peak hours. Okay. Okay. Okay. So you don't have So they will accept a condition having the fill trucks not be during peak hours. So there's no other no other trucks
going to be well you could you construction trucks you'd have to talk about that but that's that's what was in their traffic report. Okay. Uh I know it's getting late. Um are we good?
So let's talk about dates. Yeah. Do you want us to go through the remaining items? I don't know if there are any, but we could just real quick if there's any that we're not going to satisfy or you want us to hold that for the next one. Hold it for the next one.
Okay. What do we got? [Laughter] Good, Kelly. Good. Good try. Taylor, what's what's available? The next available date is October 2nd or October 16th.
Okay. Okay. So, October 2nd or October 16th. Just so you know, they extended the time for the board to decide the application till September 30th. So, we're going to I'm going to ask that they extend the time to November 30th. Actually, I'm going to ask that they
extend it to December 31, but let's be realistic here. There's There's no way that there How many more witnesses do you have? Kelly's got to come back with It took me three and I'm done. I know. Kelly's got to come back with cleanup. You got the traffic expert and
you have your architect which hopefully won't take too long and then you have Jim Kyle batting cleanup. So there's no So I'm going to ask for an extension till December 31st, 2025 which I think is totally reasonable under the circumstances. You agree? Uh sure.
Okay. So do you want October 2 or October 16? Uh I won't be here the 16th. So for purposes of extending the hearing and adjourning to a date certain, we'll take October 2nd.
Okay. So this hearing is going to be continued to October 2nd with no need for further notice. Can they be the only thing on that agenda? Yes, sir. Okay. And can we see if we can create a special meeting
upon new notice or is that not something that's up to the board? [Music] If you would like to discuss now, I do it now and then if not, please just send me a correspondence and then I will send it out to the board. It's up to you. I'm happy to request it
in writing and then you guys can request in writing can figure it out. But that just so that would be something we'd really love to make happen if possible. All right. Okay. All right. Anything else? All right. Can I get a motion to
adjurnn? So move. So move. Second. All in favor?