Hey, John. Like to call the March 3rd meeting of the Raron Township zoning board of adjustment to order. Um the uh notice requirements of the open public meeting act have been um
satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting in the bullet on the bulletin board at the municipal building filing same with the township clerk and transmitting same to the 100 county democrat the courier news the star
ledger and the Trenton times Amy roll call zoning board chairman Mr. Mr. Roger Erenss. Yes. Here. Vice Chairman, Mr. Kevin Cool. Um, asked to be excused tonight. Chair Pro, Miss Cynthia Schaefer, here. Mr. Steve Farcio,
Mr. Randy Block here. Mr. Jim Ferraro. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim's muted. Jim, you're muted. Trying to unmute. No, I'm here. There you are. There he Okay, there you go. Mr. Brad Perry here. Mr. Bill Cumins
here. Mr. Rasul Dami here. Board engineer Mr. Tony Hijar here. Board attorney Mr. John Drill here. Landscape architect Mr. John Morgan Thomas
traffic consultant Mr. J. Troutman. Excused. Board planner Miss Jessica Caldwell. Excused. Township assistant planner Mr. Jeffrey Vakarella here. And board stenographer Miss Jackie Clap here. Uh, could I have a motion to um excuse
those people who are absent? So moved. I'll second it. Uh, chair, Mr. Roger Erenss. Yes. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. Yes. Mr. Randy Block. Yes. Mr. Jim Ferraro.
Here. Mr. Brad Perry. Yes. Mr. Bill Clemens. Yes. and Mr. Rasul Damji. Yes. Okay. Comments. Um the only comment is I'd like to welcome Rasul as our newest member. Uh Rasul, we look forward to
having you with us. Thank you. And for the record, I just want to say that Steve just joined us on Zoom or is joining us in the process. Okay. Can I ask if the new board member has taken his oath of office? Yes, he has. Excellent
announcements, distribution of correspondence. Um, we have the BOA 2021 annual report. I think all of you have had a chance to review that. Um, is there any question
about the last item? And Amy, I want to thank you for um, uh, penning that for us. Uh that's item number seven for those of you that haven't seen it. Uh item number seven says the board also recommends the establishment of a
temporary supplemental board of adjustment to alleviate some of the backlog of applications as permitted by NJSA 405D-69.2 of the mun municipal land use law.
Can I have a motion to approve the um recommendations of the and the annual report? I move Roger, I have a question on that. Yes. Just um and John,
this may be more for you, but with respect to number six, how is that done? I mean, we're going to give our annual report, but do we have to does anybody have to go to the to the uh council and tell them? No. the the annual report. Amy, can you
please read the proposed resolution adopting the annual report? That's a resolution. Did he hear Did he hear Steve's question? Steve's question was, "How does the governing body find out about this?" So, please read that resolution.
Oh, okay. Whereas the municipal land use law, the MLUL, specifically NJSA455D-70.1, requires the Ritton Township zoning board of adjustment, the board to review its decisions on applications and appeals for v for variances and to
prepare and adopt by resolution a report on its findings on zoning ordinance provisions which were the subject of variance requests and its recommendations for zoning ordinance amendment or revisions. Whereas NJSA455D-70.1 further requires that the board send
copies of its annual report and the resolution adopting the annual report to the governing body and the planning board. Keep read keep on reading till the end. Yeah, keep on going. Now therefore, be it resolved by the board by motion duly
made and seconded on March 3rd, 2022 as follows. The board's 2021 annual report dated March 3, 2022, a copy of which accompanies the within resolution, is hereby adopted. The secretary of the board is hereby directed to transmit a
copy of the said annual report, as well as a copy of the within resolution to each member of the township committee of the township of Raritin and to each member of the planning board of the township of Raritin. And that's how
I just didn't know. Steve, go ahead. I'm sorry, Steve. Does that answer your question? It does. I just wasn't sure if we were supposed to have someone go and talk to them, but that I mean that makes sense to me. So,
uh, and with regard to number seven, um, I met with the mayor two days ago, so there is communication. Yeah. And with regard to number seven, there was a little um misunderstanding
on the part of the mayor and the township administrator of exactly what the request was. They interpreted the request as being could you ask the planning board to take some of the board of adjustments cases. That's not what
the request is. The request is to create a supplemental zoning board of adjustment. The suggestion is to man that board. They could pick the class four planning board members, but I pointed out there was an legal issue that the township attorney would have to
weigh in on. So once I saw that misunderstanding in emails about I don't know four hours ago, I sent an email directly to the township attorney and the township administrator and I CCed um the board chairman and Amy and
explained and the township attorney then immediately emailed back that he's now going to look into it and they're going to get back to the board. But but he says they understand now what the issue is. Yeah, John, he rendered that opinion before I talked to the mayor. Ah, I didn't even confusion didn't come.
The confusion did not come. The mayor and I were on the same wavelength. Mr. Sordillo had already sent that to the mayor and the mayor pulled it out and gave it to me. That's how I was able to send it to you. Okay. Got it.
All right. Any more questions before we vote on this? And I suggest that instead of the motion being to approve the annual report, the motion should be to adopt the resolution adopting the annual report. Then you can take kill two birds with one stone.
I'll make a motion to accept the and I'll second that. Cynthia and Roger. Chair, Mr. Roger Erenss. Yes. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. Yes. Mr. Randy Block. Yes. Mr. Steve Farcio,
yes. Mr. Jim Ferrero, yes. Mr. Brad Perry, yes. Mr. Bill Cumins, yes. And we should explain to our new member that as an alternate, you only vote if the number of regular members falls
below seven, then if it falls to six, alternate one votes. If it falls to five, then alternate one and alternate two vote. Understood. Okay. Minutes. We have minutes of the February 3rd meeting.
Can I have a motion to adopt the minutes of the February 3rd meeting? So move. I'll second. Chair. Mr. Roger Erenss. Yes. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. Yes. Mr. Randy Block.
Yes. Mr. Mr. Steve Farcio. Yes. Steve. Mr. Can you hear me now? Yes. Mr. Brad Perry. Yes. Mr. Bill Cumins. Yes. Thank you for having me, Amy.
Okay. We also have minutes for February 17th. Can I have a motion to adopt those? I'll make a motion. I second it. Mr. Roger Arens. Yes. Mr. Kevin Cool is absent tonight. Miss Cynthia Schaefer.
Yes. Mr. Randy Block. Yes. Mr. Jim Ferrero. Yes. Mr. Bill Cumins. Yes. As always, Jackie, your uh minutes are immaculate. Thank you.
Okay. Resolutions. Uh we've already passed the resolution uh adopting the um the 2021 annual report. Uh we now have a resolution for um uh Douglas Striker. Uh that is resolution 2021-27
Douglas Striker 15 uh 153 Old Croin Road BOA19-2021. Yeah, sorry about that. Okay. Yeah. Burton Township Board of Adjustment Douglas Striker 153 Croin Road Block 26
lot 3 application number BOA19-2021 resolution memorializing grant of C1 and C2 variances to allow addition to existing dwelling on pre-existing nonconforming lot resolution number
2021-27. Does anyone have any corrections? Oh, I'm sorry. Um, this is 2022-03-01 version 4. And I have some corrections to this version if no one else does. And I've
sent those to Amy and to John. John, do you want me to read those into the record? Yeah, please read them into the record. And Amy, you can just correct the resolution for me. Yeah. Yes. Okay. On page three, line two, it reads garage
is 4.04 ft and the the should be taken out. There should be no the. Then on number two on the same page number three
uh minor grammatical issue line one ninth line down reads um north and 15.06 06 feet to the south semicolon and should be comma. But more importantly, we've got a couple
other on page five. Uh this would be the first paragraph. Third to last line reads, deviations will not be perceivable. Um in light of the and then it says in
light of the again. So in light of the should be taken out. Page six line two uh reads findings above the board found that that this that second that should be taken out.
The last line of that same paragraph reads uh grant C1 variances at issue comma subject to the conditions set forth below. And I think there is just one more change
on page 10 I believe under the third heading or second heading uh number 18 easements uh dedications and conveyances. Uh it
the second line says easements, dedications. Those are all of the changes that I have. Anybody else? And I have a motion to adopt the resolution. I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution with the
corrections. I second it. Amy. Okay. Mr. Cav is not here tonight. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. Yes. Mr. Randy Block. Yes. Mr. Steve Fio. Yes.
Mr. Brad Perry. Yes. Mr. Bill Cumins. Yes. And Mr. Robert Los is no longer a board member. Okay. I'm sorry it took a minute to find the uh resolution that had the
corrections on it. All right. Um for those of you who are new, uh let me tell you how we work. Um we'll spend an hour on the first application, then we'll go to the second application. If we're not finished with the first, we'll spend an
hour on that. Um, if in fact we're finished uh with uh the first application, then we won't go back to it. But if we're not finished and there is remaining time, we'll go back to the second application. Um, so the first application tonight is
BOA case 25-201, applicant John B. Schneel Jr. and Lisa A. Schneijel location block 53.07 lot 15 11 Collins Lane application C
variance hard surface coverage deck Mr. Chairman, could you also please make the announcement now on Shanti? Yes. Um uh the second case that we're going to hear tonight, which is BOA case 17-2021
and the applicant is Shanti LLC, that is being carried to May 5th. So that will not be heard this evening. Okay. But to be clear, it's being carried with no need to renotice in to the 200 footers,
but there is a requirement that they renotice in the newspaper because the reason it's coming off tonight is unbelievably the applicant attorney correctly sent the notice to be published in the paper and the newspaper has a couple papers under its umbrella
and they they publish the notice in the wrong newspaper. So nothing the applicant did wrong. It's the publishing company, but they're going to have to renotice in the newspaper. Their 200footer list do not have to be re be noticed. So if anyone
is either here or online, you will not receive an individual notice. You'll just have to come on May 5, 2022 to hear the application. We're done with our public service announcement. Mr. and Mrs. Shyel. Um, remember our
trans our transcriptionist is uh taking notes. So, please nice and loud and slowly if you would. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And before we start, before we start, let's I want to get everyone sworn in. So, I ask Shibles and I ask
Tony Hijar and I ask Jeffella to please everyone raise their right hands. We were sworn in before, John. John, this is a continuation. Continuation. Yes. Okay. My my bad. Correct. So, everyone remains under oath. Thank you for reminding me.
Yes. We were before the board on December 16th in which we presented our variance and after discussion the board I'm so sorry. Can you hear me?
Yes. We were before the board on December the 16th to present our variance. The board considered it and asked us to um do a mediation in which uh to install a basin with a drainage
um and remove our old uh concrete patio. We asked the board uh before voting on our variance if we could investigate to see if that was something that was doable. They allowed us time. Um and
then so we're back here to tell you yes, we would like to move forward. We will do the um mediation. Um, so excuse me and we would like the board to vote on our variance.
Did we need Can you tell us about what you're going to do? What the mediation was, what the board required. Um, they asked us to do a basin that was 15 feet by 29 feet and by 1 ft depth.
that would um have, excuse me, uh landscape fabric as well as two and a half clean rock in the basin. And then it would have a drainage pipe in the basin that would feed down
into our um drainage. The Yeah, the community drainage. Okay. Um, we did get a quote and we did check also with our HOA and we've been approved to do the basin. The
basin is going to be located underneath the deck. I did speak with Tony because I was concerned about having the basin right up against the house. He said we would be able to do instead of
15 feet, we could do 7 and 12 feet, still do the 29 ft, but go 2 feet down instead of 1 ft. So that was agreeable to us and it was
agreeable to our HOA and we'd like to move forward with it. Tony, do you have any uh I'm okay. Uh this is what we discussed at the last meeting and Right. Yeah.
Anything else? Um no. Maybe we want to close for Well, just that Tony your report everything's been Tony your report everything is from December 8th. So I guess this doesn't
Yeah, I believe they were willing to comply with everything except that storm water and now it has been resolved. So Okay. Is that correct? Right. You will comply with everything else. The the one thing that was of um concern is that we
were asked to connect into our um drainage, the drainage for our community, but I was told by the HOA we couldn't actually connect into it. We had to we could feed into it, but not connect to it. That was against the
rules. So, and I I checked and they said it was okay to just feed into it. Okay. Okay. All right. So you visit the back of the property there's a embankment like swale on the bottom and there's several catch basins
on the bottom of that swale. So the the homeowner it's owned by the homeowner association. So they won't let them connect to the basin directly but they could pipe it and create like scour hole and just sheet flow into the into that swale. Okay. And that would be
acceptable. Okay. So, so Tony, for my purposes, I need you and Jeff to issue a supplemental report just so I can get the condition correct and just indicate that condition. What What condition number is that for the storm water?
The storm water was in uh item five and six and so I need the supplemental and seven. So seven will be eliminated and the the pet with the stone will take care of five and six.
Okay. Pit and stone satisfies five and six. Number seven will be eliminated. And can you just clarify for me? So Shyel said that two and a half clean rock.
What does that mean? Two and a half. That was the size of the rock. The size of the stone, right? Two and a half inch. Two and a half inches. Ah, two and a half inch clean stone. Okay. Yes. Okay, I got it.
Any more questions from the board before we close? Just maybe just one question for me. Did did the design of the basin change anything with the design of the deck? No. Thank you.
And you have and Roger, before you close for deliberations, can you just ask if there's anyone in the public who has any questions or wants to make any comments? Yeah, we just about to do that. John, um, I have a question that is, do you have a letter from the HOA? Yes. Great.
Could Tony have a copy of that, please? Yes. So, why don't we get that letter from the HOA entered into evidence as an exhibit? We're gonna I have to make a copy of it. I only have the one. That's fine. Okay, Tony. That's a requirement for the
zoning permit. So, submit that with the zoning permit. Okay. So, I'm going to make that All right. Let me make that a condition. HOA letter satisfactory for the township engineer to be submitted. Okay, I got that.
Anything else? Are there any questions or comments from the public? Okay, why don't we close for discussion? Anyone like to start? I guess I'll start. I'm for the application. I appreciate their effort.
I know it was difficult. Um, and I'm glad we were you were able to satisfy that and move forward. I have no no complaints. Yeah. And I I would second that. It's Brad Perry. I would second that. Um, I thank the applicant for your efforts,
for your investigation and and coming to a a resolution on the drainage. Uh, I too um would like to thank the applicants for their efforts. um glad that we're able to come to this uh agreement. Um and I would certainly
endorse this application. Someone like to make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve this application. I second it. And it's subject to all the the usual conditions and everything else we said on the record. Correct. Correct. Yes.
Chair Mr. Roger Erenss. Yes. Miss Cynthia Schaefer, yes. Mr. Randy Block, yes. Mr. Steve Farcio, yes. Mr. Jim Ferrer, yes. Bill Commons, yes.
Thank you. Thank you. We'd like to thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Next application is BOA case 30-2021 applicant executive snow control LLC location block 35 lot 12 68 highway 31
application C variance for wall sign welcome Mr. Mr. Gruinberg. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Steven Gruenberg, attorney in Flemington, New Jersey, on behalf of the applicant executive Snow Control LLC.
This is our application for assigned variance uh on the property that is located at 68 State Highway, Route 31, known as block 35, lot 12 on the Ritan Township tax map. Um, you if you've
driven by Route 31 in this property over the last several years, you'll see that my client has done an amazing job in cleaning up that property, painting these buildings, and making them look much, much better. I'll provide testimony with respect to some of the
efforts briefly as to what my client's done on that site to clean it up, but we need a sign for the business. Um, so that's why we're here tonight. Um, I provided appropriate proof of service and publication of the notice of hearing
and I would ask that we confirm jurisdiction of the board. Yes. So, I reviewed the form of notice and found that it was acceptable and Amy can report in on the uh the certified. The certifies were good.
So, in my opinion, the board has procedural jurisdiction over the application. Thank you, Mr. Drill. It's very strange you being over my left shoulder for a change. That's how you've been at times. So, welcome.
The shoes on the other foot now, my friend. That's right. So, I have two witnesses this evening. Carrie Shimre, who is the uh president and CEO of Executive Snow Control LLC, and then Elizabeth McManis, our professional planner. And I would ask
that they be sworn in. Okay. So, let's have everyone who's going to be testifying stand up and let's get back in the picture here so I can see her and Tony and Jeff stand up. There we go. Okay, everyone, right hands up. Do you
swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. So, let's start with Beth and go right down the line nice slowly. State your name, spell your last name, and
give your relationship to the applicant or the board. Hey, I'm not hearing I'm not hearing Carrie at all. Can you get a microphone? Steve, there's someone on the stand if that's easier for you guys to give that to him.
My name is Carrie Shamre. Last name is spelled S C H E M B R E and I am president of Executive Snow Control. And Carrie, how do you spell your first name with a K? Yes. K E R R Y.
Okay. Township assistant planner. Tony Hajar, board engineer. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, I would um
um Bill Cummings is recusing himself. Bill, we're going to ask you to uh turn off your screen if you would or you can leave the screen on. Just turn your your voice off, audio off since this is the last. Yeah, he can leave. Can you He can
also leave the meeting. Last application, so you can actually leave. All right. Great. Thank you guys. Thank you. So, um, I'll have Mr. Shamre testify first. And Carrie, can you please uh tell the board your position with
Executive Snow Control? I'm president of the company. And what type of company is Executive Snow Control? We're a commercial uh snow removal company. And so we uh provide snowmobile services to commercial businesses uh throughout New
Jersey uh and New York. And how long have you been doing that? Our company was incorporated in 1983. So it's a longstanding company, correct? Yes. Yes. Um you purchased this particular piece of property about 5 years ago. That's
correct. And what were the prior uses of the property that according to your understanding? The property was uh used to manufacture concrete block as well as cement. And there was also a a a
business on the property that uh was both a marine sales company as well as boat repair company. And when you purchased the property, what generally without getting into the nitty-gritty details over the last 5 years, u what
kind of improvements have you done to the building and site? When we uh purchased the property, there were two NJ D cases that were tied to the property. So, we inherited those and then we worked uh for approximately one to two years to clear both of those
cases. So, we uh I believe our total um cost for that was several hundred,000. And in addition to that, we cleaned up a substantial amount of debris and garbage and uh other um other things that were on the property. There were dozens upon
dozens of of containers uh of of uh debris that we were able to remove. And then after that, we uh continued to improve the buildings. We painted them and uh we we improved the property substantially. Um the improvements that you did inside the buildings, did you
secure building permits for that work to the buildings? Yes, I believe uh we just we had a permit recently. I believe that was our 35th permit. Uh so all of the work that we did inside the buildings and around the buildings we we uh we um uh we mo majority of everything we did
there were permits involved. Sorry. So um the building that we're talking about here uh what's the usage inside that building? The entire uh first floor of the building is occupied by our company. So
we have our offices and then we have a dispatcher and operations area and then another area that we will be using for a training and educational purposes for our employees. Now that building kind of had partitions with units in it, but
it's your intention to occupy the entire first floor for your building uh for your use. Correct. Yes. Nobody is in uh is occupying the first floor outside of our company. Uh we are uh daily uh on a daily basis we're utilizing about
twothirds of the building and there's a little bit of work that needs to be done to the the one part of the building and then we'll be occupying that. Um that's in our plan for this coming spring. And on the upstairs portion of the building, the second floor, uh when you purchased
the property, um was there a residential unit in there? Yes. And it's your intention to eventually uh move into that space as well, correct? Yes. Um, so we're proposing a wall sign and and Miss Mcmanis will get into the
nitty-gritty about the sign, but the reason why we're here is because the ordinance uh doesn't allow a wall sign to be above um the windows. Correct. That's correct. Um and in fact the ordinance is
296-164B1 and it says that um wall sign shall only be located within the signable area of the facade of a structure. The signable area of the facade of a structure is that portion of the facade up to eaves
or second floor windows whichever is lower which is free of windows and doors or major architectural detail. Correct. Yes. Um, we had a report from Mr. Hajar
and Mr. Vakarella dated February 25th, 2021. And they had some issues that I'm going to just direct you. Is that the correct answer? 2021 or is it 2022? It's 20 The report says 2021 on it, but
it was sent on 2022. Okay. So, I read it right, but it's just a typo. Got it. Um, and the one this number two we'll get into with
Ms. Mcmanis, but they raised an issue about there's several for sale items that were placed in the right of way. What What were those items and they've already been removed? Correct. Yes, they were. What item What item number are you in the report? Uh, it said number six in the report. Okay.
And it says several for sale items were placed in the right of way and they've been removed. Correct. Yes. And what were those items? They were some small uh snow removal attachment pieces that we were trying to sell. Right. You're not going to do that
anymore? No. Okay. Um so this this will be a condition of approval. Correct. Yeah. That they've been removed and there'll be no display of things for sale in the front like that. Okay. Um there's an existing monument ground
sign with no advertisement on it and the request is to please testify. Um Steve, what item? What item? What item are you? Sorry, I was going in numerical order. Number seven. Number seven, there's an existing monument ground sign with no
advertisement and as shown in the photo. Number one, please testify. Um, it it's our agreement that we would remove that sign with if we ever needed to come back for the board, we reserve our opportunity to come back to the board
for another monument sign, but we would agree to remove that sign. Correct. That's correct. And there's a there's actually an is there an additional ground sign near the access drive? Further
Yeah, that's not in your report. It's not in the report, but I believe there's a second ground sign. In other words, will the applicant agree to a condition to remove all existing ground signs, but they can apply in the future to reinstate any of them? That
that second ground sign is tied not to the building that we're discussing tonight. That's that that bu that ground sign that Jeff is referring to is not tied to the main building. There's never been a signage on that pertaining to the main building since we've been there. I
believe that that signage is tied to uh a a se a separate building that's on the property that's pre-existing that's been there. It's a separate lot, too. It's on the same It's on the same lot. It's a separate um It's a separate building that was on the property when we bought it. Was that uh the sign for the um the
boat the marina um company? Uh, no. I think the the one that's on the application tonight is the one that's for the marina. Um, this is there's there's a separate six bay building, kind of a six bay shop. So, the the the sign that Jeff's referring to was tied
to that building, not the main building. We'd like we'd like to keep that one in place with an opportunity to use that in the future for that building. Um, but the one that's tied to this building, we'd be willing to remove with the
ability to come before the board if we need to put another one in place. Let's ask Jeff, is is that other ground sign fully compliant with the ordinances or not?
No, I believe it's uh non-conforming. Okay. And what's non-conforming about it? I believe the it's not shown on the survey, but I believe the setback from uh Route 31 is not complied with. Yeah.
My recommendation is that Steve that that the condition be that both of the ground signs be removed, especially if the thing is non-compliant and he can always apply in the future for future signs. I mean, the applicant
owns the entire property, correct? They're not just leasing that building. Is that correct? That's correct. That's that's fine. Okay, great. We have to come back for that. We will.
Um 8, nine, and 10 deal with issues about um whether we would be willing to merge the lots and subdivide them. the residential portion in the future, whether there's a shipping containers
that has a roof on it that um is being used to store salt and that outdoor storage is not permitted in the B2 zone. Please testify. I had a conversation with um Mr. Hajar and Mr. Varela and the
applicant's willing within 90 days to come back before uh the appropriate board to address those issues about the merger of the lots and the subdivision um and any other type of issues dealing with outdoor storage. It's just it's
kind of difficult to address all of those issues in such a short period of time and it's not really related to the sign that we want to put on the building. Um, so we're willing as a condition to uh come back within 90 days
uh to address those issues uh by way of application. Okay, you got to explain this a little bit more to me. The applicant shall address the issues within 90 days. You the applicant shall apply within 90
days for what? What would the application be for? It it would be for um the appropriate merger and subdivision um
and minor site plan to address those issues and whatever other relief we need if we need relief. Okay. Tony and Jeff, is that acceptable? If it's not simply they're going to come back within 90 days to address these
issues. They're going to file an application within 90 days proposing merger, subdivision, and minor site plan with any other required relief. Is that an acceptable condition? Yes, that is.
And the last thing on number 11 is that uh it's mentioned that the building identification letter A is being relocated. Um, please confirm with the township 911 coordinator where on the building they want us to relocate it to
and we're happy to do that. And that's all the testimony to that testimony I have for Mr. Shamre. Questions of Mr. Shamre? Yes, I do have a question. Uh, I think you mentioned it when you're in your opening remarks
about item five. Just want to be clear what you guys are going to do about that. The use of the second floor the right now it's a a residential use. Correct. That's correct. And um there was a lease
involved in that that you're bound by but you're it's my understanding you correct me if I'm wrong. Your intention is to move into that space. That's correct. We're we've continued to grown since we've occupied the space. So it would be used as a commercial use there.
That would be additional offices for our company. Okay. And this I just need clarification. So this is for you guys. Sorry for that. Uh does this relate anyway to item eight? I just don't understand. So I
just need clarification on that. No. So they're I believe there's three different lots and they're kind of utilizing the three lots for the executives. Now one of the lots that actually front Pennsylvania
Avenue has a house on it and that's the residential use, not the not the apartment on top of the Gotcha. the building. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Can I can I follow up on that question? the there's a a a written lease for that
residential apartment on the second floor. I I believe I believe we do. Yes. And when does it lease expire? I I don't know off the top of my head. Um it's something that we could provide, but I I don't know off my memory.
Because my preference for a condition here is not simply to say that the applicant intends to eventually occupy the second floor for commercial space, but to have a an end date on the residential use. So Tony and Jeff, what's your suggestion about that?
Well, doesn't it doesn't that depend on the lease or what if the lease is a 5-year lease? Put it put it this way. Is the residential use of the second floor of this building in this zone a permitted or non-permitted use? Well, it it's not
permitted. It's not permitted, but it's been in place for many many years. And I, you know, I'm not seeking a certification of a pre-existing non-conforming use. You know, we're we're we could potentially deal with
that issue on the uh the 90-day thing with the other issues dealing with merger and and lot line if that that's my suggestion. That's my suggestion that that issue be included in the uh the application for 90 days. And my my
recommendation is that that would be a tough one to get the board to grant a variance for. So when you come in within the 90 days, know when the lease termination is and if it's within a reasonable period, you should offer up a condition that the residential use of
the second floor is going to cease by that date. But that'll be up to you. I understand your point. Okay. But You understand my point? But you're going to agree that to include that in the issues that are going to be
addressed in the application, it has to be filed within 90 days. Correct? Yes. I just I don't know what the lease says, so I can't agree. I understand everything else. But and I didn't say that you had to. I just suggested and
now I'm going to say I strongly suggest that you find that out and that when you come back, you propose to have an end date on that. that it will make things a lot easier for the applicant. And that's why I said I understand your point.
Okay, I got you. Mr. Shambre, if you were standing at Stodoff well drilling looking across the street, uh there is a building to the far left uh which seems to be painted the same color as the other buildings.
For a while that was a car detailing um shop. Now, it appears to be a garage door shop. Is that um a business that leases space from you? Yes, that's correct. Okay. Are there any other businesses on the premises um where you
have people who are leasing space from you other than the the work that you're doing as executive snow control on on that property? Um 68 Route 31. uh next to the garage door uh installer there's
um a shop that is uh being utilized for be to the right of the garage door. Correct. So that's contractor storage and we had full permits inspection CCOs for that um space when we um when they when they uh moved in. Okay. Uh Tony and
Jeff, are those businesses in compliance uh as far as you're concerned? I believe so. Yes. Okay. Okay. They have uh cos and whatnot. Okay. Um, other questions from board members
of this witness? No. Are there any questions from the public for this witness? Mr. Grinberg, would you like to call your second witness? You're off the hook. Elizabeth McManis.
Beth, I know you've appeared before this board, I believe, but why don't you give them briefly your qualifications? Sure, I'd be happy to. Um, first and foremost, I'm licensed in New Jersey as a New Jersey professional planner. I'm also a member of the American Institute of
Certified Planners, and I've been practicing uh my license is in good standing. Also, I've been practicing in New Jersey for uh doing land use work since uh about 2001 or so. And during that time, I've spent quite a bit of it
representing municipalities, but I also do quite a bit of private development work. I've been qualified in in this municipality but also uh places including but not limited to Longhill Township, Trenton, Piscatoaway, Bernard's Township, Princeton Burough,
Franklin Township, Bridgewater, Hopewell Burough, and Hopewell Township and a variety of other places. Frenchtown too. Frenchtown also. I offer Miss McManis as an expert planner. Uh the the chair will accept this witness as an expert. Thank
you very much. And why don't you give the board the benefit of your review of the application? Sure. So uh I've gone through the application and that means that I've submitted the materials that were uh submitted to the to the township. I've also reviewed the professional report that's been issued.
And to further help me prepare, I've of course done a site visit, reviewed the zoning ordinance, and also reviewed the master plan. Um and what's your opinion with respect to the C variants uh request for the sign if you could discuss the ordinance
itself? Sure. So um let me just say quickly I think we qualify as a C1 and a C2 variance and I'll give testimony addressing both of uh the criteria for those two types of variances.
So, first, if you don't mind, let me uh just give a little background on uh in terms of the sign of exactly what we're looking to do and where we are located. I have some exhibits that I'd like to hand out to the board and I'm sorry to say it occurs to me I'm not sure what to
do with our virtual board members. I do have a flash drive. Well, you give the exhibits to Amy and believe it or not, gonna hold them up to the camera so we can see them. John, if she has a flash drive, I can just screen share. Oh, take the gift. Oh, by all
means. I didn't I thought you meant you were going to submit it. I didn't realize you had it. Excellent. And Beth, while Amy's doing that, Could you go just for the record, tell us how many exhibits you have? Let's label them exhibits A1 through whatever. And just
nice and slow, identify each exhibit for the record. Just before you do that, the two exhibits that we're going to present, they're already part of the application materials. I don't know whether you want to mark them separately. Um, we just brought extra
copies for the board to have. I'll tell you what, let's just just let's mark them just just to make sure there's no confusion. That's fine. So, how what's the total number of exhibits you have? Let's use the exhibit
A1, exhibit A2 should be the two exhibits that have already been submitted into the record. But what's the total number of exhibits you have including those first two? So, there's a total of four exhibits. Okay. Uh A1,
which is one of the sheets that was submitted to the township, is the sign plan that is unlabeled. So I'll refer to it as the uh sign plan prepared by CTI
and dated July 13, 2021. and it depicts the proposed sign. Okay. What's exhibit A2? A2 is was also previously submitted. This is uh
titled square footage calculations. It is a single sheet prepared by CTI dated July 13, 2021. Okay. And what is exhibit A3?
A3 is a site identification map. This is a new exhibit. It's an 11 by17 map identifying the site uh in the surrounding area. Okay. There is there uh with today's date. Okay. So, it's
dated March 3, 2020. 2022, correct? And what's exhibit A4? A4 is uh a new exhibit or a new document I put together titled example second story facade signs with today's date and
it depicts uh has two images of area buildings. Okay. All right. So Beth, why don't you get into it? get into your testimony and you indicate which exhibit you're referring to. Yeah. When you want to refer, I'll
I'll hand the exhibits to Amy. Actually, Steve, do me a favor. Give Amy all four exhibits right now so she can mark each one A1 through A4. And then when Beth refers to an exhibit, you can hand them all out to the board members.
And then Amy will be free to um share her screen. And so Amy, I'm going to start with exhibit A3. It's the map. Whenever you're ready. Yeah. Give Amy time to get them marked first before you surprise.
That is the map. Oh, there it is. I see it. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so folks, what we have here is exhibit A3. This is uh it's called a site identification map. And ultimately, the purpose of this map is I
want to make sure everybody knows where our property is. I think that we have a a pretty prominent site here in Ritton Township. But uh just in case anybody's wondering about the details, you can see our site here uh outlined in red. Of
course, it is block 35, lot 12. Uh more specifically, we are uh 63 Route 31 68. I'm sorry, I had a typo my my uh notes. It's 68 uh Route 31. Uh as you
can see, we are on the Route 31 quarter. We are approximate to but not on uh its intersection with P Pennsylvania Avenue. Instead, we are actually across the street for where New York Avenue uh intersects with Route 31. Furthermore,
we are in the B2 district. So, we are in a uh I would say a thoroughly commercial district. Although we have some characteristics of sort of a light industrial use, some of our surrounding uses include uh retail shops. We have a Dunkin Donuts just uh a couple doors
away and gas station a handful of generally I would say retail highway oriented uh commercial uses. Um the next thing I want to go through is just simply a little bit about the
application itself, our proposed sign. And so I'm looking at exhibit A1. Thank you. And so what you see here on exhibit A1 quite simply is the proposed sign in the proposed location. And as you uh I think is very obvious from the
from the plan. Our uh our sign is located above those seconds story buildings uh excuse me windows. And that is that is what triggers me to be here before all of you requesting variance relief. Uh your ordinance limits signs
to the first story of a building. We have a second story building. I'm going to tell you a little bit about why it is that I think that this is the appropriate location. But before I do that, a couple of characteristics. Our sign is 60.5
square ft in size and more specifically is 3 feet in height and 20 feet 2 in in length. Furthermore, it is internally illuminated. One of the things that you'll you'll note on our sign detail,
the the lettering below the image itself is halo illumination, meaning that it'll have uh sort of that soft internal illumination that I think we've all come to recognize these days. The sign other than the variance that's
been requested is otherwise conforming. Absolutely. Yes, we meet the it is only because of its location on the building. it the uh the size in particular I want to be clear about is very much conforming. Um and to sort of further that point I want
to turn to exhibit A2 which is the image of the entire building. Thank you. Um and so I think this this image does two things. One, it shows you what the existing building looks like, but two, it gives a sense of the size of
the building that really can't be obtained from exhibit A1. This is this is the zoomed in photograph of the two-story portion of the building. But as you look at A2, you can see that the building is actually significantly larger than what you might suspect if
you're only looking at exhibit A1. Um, I submitted A2 for a couple of reasons. One is just to make sure folks uh have a good understanding about the appearance of the building, but also because it's this uh this sheet of our
submission that helps understand how our permitted sign area is calculated. And one of the notes in I believe Mr. Hajar in Vakarella's letter was that we needed to adjust how we calculated the maximum permitted size. And I can run
through that with all of you this evening. the uh if I can just skip to the finish real fast, let me say we remain compliant and uh our revised calculation would actually permit a larger sign, but we've declined
to do so because quite frankly I I think the sign is much better scaled than if it were larger. So, let me just run through this quickly. You could run through it run through it slowly. You're doing great. Thank you. Yes, that's a good reminder. succinctly.
Yes. Um so we had calculated our uh our permitted sign calculation based on the twotory portion of the building. So 52 feet wide by 22 feet high. But it was correctly pointed out that it should really be calculated based on the area
of the building that we occupy. And that is the entire first floor building as we just had Mr. Shembre uh testify to. And so that means that our calculation is instead based upon a 142 ft length and a
14 ft height. Now the permitted sign area is 5% of that facade and that yields 99.4 square ft. As I said earlier, we are proposing 60.5 square feet. So, our sign, although it
is in a non-conforming location, is approximately 40% smaller than what it could otherwise be based on your 5% uh area calculation. And before, and so that's my overview of the proposed sign. Before I talk to the
board about how I think we meet the C1 and C2 uh criteria, are there any questions board members have about the sign itself? I did. That's why I asked you.
Excuse me for a second. So we when we saw the submar we went and we measured the the length and he said was how many feet?
42. 42. Yeah. We had 140. Okay. And the height to the eve was 9 ft 9.42 feet. I don't know where you measured to the
14 ft, but 14. So based based on that calculation, the total facade area is 1,321 square feet and that will allow you a maximum size s sign area of 66
square feet. I just want to make sure everybody's on board with this. What was the Tony? I'm sorry. You said it was 140 by and what was your calculation? Nine 9.42. Yes. Well,
I'm not inclin I can if the board would prefer, but I'm I'm not inclined to chase through my documents to try to identify the source of the 14 ft. And I say that because if your calculation yields 67 feet, we remain compliant. 66 66, I'm sorry. We're we're still
compliant with the ordinance. You are compliant. Yeah. Not 100. Yeah. Yeah, that's that's fine. So So I'm happy to accept that. uh that calculation for the for the purpose of tonight's hearing. And I'll strike my statement that we're about 40% less than what we could be.
Instead, we're about 5 and 1/2 ft. A little different. Okay. And Tony and Jeff, my question is when we eventually get to a resolution, if I just say the sign complies in all respects except for location, is that
going to be acceptable? Are you Are you going to want something in there about the calculation? If you want something in there about the calculation, I'm just going to ask you guys to email it to me. Okay. Okay. Go. And I think there was a question in waiting. Yeah. Um I have two questions.
Uh one is uh because you're an expert in this things, how is this sign going to how how is this sign going to upgrade the environment in that area from an appearance point of view? You're getting ahead of me. I'm going to testify to that in about 2 minutes. Okay. Okay.
Yeah. So, that's one. Yep. And then the second one is the location thing which was item 11 of uh their report about 911. And so I just want to make sure that that has been considered in terms of
where the number 11 deals with the location of the A, the letter A. Correct. and we're proposing to move that to the right side of the building. And Mr. Hajara and Mr. Bakarella have just asked us to confirm that the
relocation of the A is uh agreeable to the 911 coordinator, which we're we're willing to do as a condition of approval. Yeah, because it's my understanding has to be on the list because of my other job, but just make sure you clarify that. Yeah, we will as a condition of any approval. We'd be
happy to do that. Okay. If uh if there's nothing else, I'm going to talk to folks about the C1 criteria. Okay. So, as I said at the outset, I think that this sign qualifies for both the C1 and the C2 variance
criteria. And I'll start with the C1. That is of course the uh the hardship variance. And so, the board can grant these hardship variances where they can identify one of three conditions being relevant to the granting of the variance. The first one has to do with a
specific piece of property, whether it's narrow, shallow, or some other particular shape, shape. The second item is about exceptional topographic conditions or physical features affecting the property. And then the third addresses extraordinary and
exceptional situations uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structure that lawfully exists thereon. And so I'm I'm going to highlight this third item because as I look at the existing building I think
the existing building's architecture triggers that uh this C1 variance and then specifically the exceptional situation relating to this particular structure. So very simply,
due to the uh the unique architecture of this building, the fact that we have the awning that extends through, yes, it's through the middle of the first and second floor, but really more importantly, it actually runs through a portion of the second floor because uh
and I'm sorry, if we could throw exhibit A2 or A1, let's do A1 with the sign itself. Thank you very much. Um, so as you can see from exhibit A1, the awning uh that
that metal awning while it runs between the two stories, importantly, it actually uh is located within the second story as well as you can see the way that the second story buildings are sort of um embedded within the awning. And so
what that what that really results in is an inability to create a sign that's legible to the traveling public. You know, one of the things that we agreed to before I started was removal of our freestanding sign. So this sign is particularly important to alerting folks
to the fact that we're here. And so because of this awning, we don't have the ability to place a facade sign uh within the first floor of a bu of the building in a in a location that's going to be visible to the public and at a
size that is legible. So other areas might include perhaps along the along the ground, but I think that's very clearly not going to be uh legible to the public, particularly if there's just about anything that's located in front of it. um and other alternatives are
really just frankly too small to provide an adequate sign that would announce the the uh the name of the business. As you can see on from exhibit A1, we have the um the first word executive. And so if you look at our building facade, there's
really very little opportunity to place this a sign of this approximate size in a location that is visible to the public. But slower, please. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Uh I know you're
from New Jersey, but you have to slow down. Um but also in a location that's proximate to the main door to the building. And so for those reason, for those reasons, Go ahead. I'm going to ask something
after you finish. For those reasons, I think we qualify for the C1. Yes. My question to you and then maybe if you don't know to Jeff and Tony is could a sign first of all, what is that canopy composed of? Is that a
metal canopy or a fabric canopy? No, that's a that's a metal structural canopy. It's not one of the decorative uh awnings that you might see on a building. So, I I want to know if a sign was placed on the canopy, would that comply with the ordinance or not comply
with the ordinance? I'm going to defer to the township's experts on the compliance. I I'm not sure. The reason I asked it will not comply. Okay. And why would it not comply? I don't believe it's because it has to
be below the eve. So if you put it on top of that canopy, it's on the basically it's on the second floor. Yeah. So signage signage can't ex can't extend above um a roof structure or an e.
Okay. Okay. So, what you're saying is just like under the ordinance, a sign can't be above a second floor window, a sign can't be above the eve. And you're saying that canopy is the equivalent of the eve.
That's correct. Yeah. John, if I might, I can read the language of the ordinance, which is 2964 B1. And it says the the signable area of the facade of a structure is that portion of
the facade up to eaves or second floor windows whichever is lower which is free of windows and doors or major architectural detail. Right? I need someone to define what is
an eve. How is a the eve defined? and no definition for even book with you. And if you don't have the Moscow book with you, maybe Beth can go on and one of you can go into Tony's office because I know you guys have the Moscow book in
Tony's office. Can can I indicate that even if it was just up to the second floor windows because we have a major architectural detail of that um awning structure.
That means it has to be underneath that awning structure because the awning structure goes right up to the second floor windows. So regardless of whether you call it an eve or an architectural structure, you can't put a sign there.
Well, Steve, what I'm looking to do is I'm not suggesting the sign belong there, but if a sign could be placed below the second floor window, if it physically could be placed below the second floor window on that awning and
it's that awning, if it's not considered an eve, I think personally that would be look awful aesthetically, but that would give you a slam dunk C2 argument for where the sign is, which um I'd rather do than a C1. That's where I'm going
with this. I just want to I just want to see if in fact an awning is an Eve because I don't think it is. But I I'm not an awning whether it's an Eve or not, it's it's an architectural detail
and that means that you couldn't put the sign on the architectural detail regardless. Explain why you can't sign. I don't understand why you can't put a sign on an architectural detail because because it it says the ordinance says
the signable area of the facade of a structure is that portion of the facade up to eaves or second floor windows whichever is lower which is free of windows and doors or major architectural
detail. So that awning is a major architectural detail and you couldn't put a sign up to that. And and I'm sorry, furthermore, John, the township regulates canopy signs, which arguably
I think would be relevant if we had proposed to place the sign on the what we're referring to as uh as the awning. Well, that see I think that's a canopy and not an awning. Quite frankly, that that's where I was going.
But the canopy canopy signs in canopy signs in the township ordinance are limited to uh two square feet. So that is not a viable compliant alternative for us. Right. So, there was another application the board heard maybe six
months ago where the exact argument that was made for why to allow a sign above is because technically they could put a canopy sign, but if they put a canopy sign, it would be too small to see be seen by the public and
aesthetically it didn't look as good as if they put it above. So, the board granted approval to put the sign above on a C2 basis. That's exactly where I'm going with this. Why are we calling this thing an an a um an awning?
I've just referred to it as an awning. I don't know that it's formally referred to as an awning. I I think that thing is a canopy. That's I'm I'm happy to refer to it as a canopy, but the the point stands that even as a canopy, if we change the
terminology, it's still not a permitted location for the sign that we've proposed. And I do have C2 C2 criteria coming as well. That's where I'm hoping that you're going with this because I guess I'd like to try to stay away from the C1, but I believe that's a canopy. I
believe technically you could put a canopy sign there. I think that you need to testify that what size would be a compliant canopy sign, why that's too small. And I think that should be your reason for having the sign at this
dimension in the location proposed. So, the canopy signs are while they're permitted in the district, they have a limitation of two square feet. At two square feet, that is an inadequate area for us to properly identify the site to the traveling public along the
busy highway corridor of Route 31. Jeff, do you have something for us? Uh definition of Eve from Mashkawit just for the record is the projecting lower edges of a roof hanging. Just for the record, the definition from
the Mosquist book for an eve is the projecting lower edges of a roof overhanging the wall of the building. Jeff, could I ask you to take a look at this exhibit that was handed out? and
look at the picture of best tile. Tell me if you think that the Eve at the top of this would fit that definition. And that's exhibit A4 for the record. Amy, can you put exhibit A4 up, please?
Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. And by the way, in exhibit A4, do we do we know if those signs were granted by C2 C1 or C2 variances or not? I don't.
Jeff or Tony, do you know the answer to that question with regard to best tile? No, we don't. Okay. Tony and Jeff, do you remember the application I'm talking about where the board approved the signage in lie of having canopy signage
is that the doctor is in you said you said it was recent. Yeah, it may, you know, it may have been the the application I substituted in and represented the planning board in. I I just don't remember. Pioneer. Oh, Larkin. It could have been Larkin.
All right. It It doesn't really It doesn't really matter. But um in other words, in my opinion, if a sign could be placed on what I'm referring to as a canopy and not a an an awning, then that
would defeat the C1 argument. But they'd have a very strong C2 argument in my opinion. So Miss Man McManus, why don't we talk about the positive and negative criteria of a C2 variance? I think that's a good idea. So the C2 variance is referred to
as the flexible variance or sometimes benefits versus detriments variance. And it essentially asks um whether or not this is a better planning alternative. And so in order to ask and answer that question, my role is to view this
through the lens of the purposes of the municipal land use law. And I think there's one purpose that very clearly uh relates positively to this application and that is purpose I which is to promote a desirable visual
environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. This building is uh I think obviously uh quite old and it's it's unique in its architecture. Uh not so much unique as
an architectural gem, but unique in the sense that I'm not sure an architect of today would build this building exactly as is. And so what does that mean? It means that we've got to get a little creative in order to do the things that we need to do on the exterior of this
building and to make it look nice. And so we've we've started that a little bit, you know, with the applicants previous work before before we got to the sign application with painting the building and trying to upgrade it. But now for this new phase, we're at the point where we need to identify the
building for identify the building as the business and for visitors to the site. And so because of the unique nature of the building, the fact that we've got this uh can canopy through the between the first and second floors, the fact that
we've got the seconds story windows sort of embedded within this canopy. Uh I think that what we've done is we've found uh an interesting way to add signage to the building. And so yes, it's effective in the sense that it's
it's about 60 feet, 60.5 square feet. It's large enough for us to properly alert the public uh bit visitors to the site. That is the fact that our business is here and the building is uh where the building entrance is located. Um but
also one of the things I like about this sign is uh is really the way that it relates to the architecture. I think that in addition to providing those functions, I think it actually improves the site a little bit, improves the appearance of the building. So, we have
a sign that's I think properly scaled to the building and uh it actually creates a little bit of visual interest in this somewhat of a blank area of the facade which is the area between the seconds story build second story windows and the
roof line. Furthermore, I think there is one of the characteristics of this sign that helps advance this purpose and really just to overall help advance the aesthetics of the building is the fact
that this is not a describe this. It's not a a solid sign that's you know perhaps a rectangle that we're going to mount to the side of the building and so it's 60 square feet of solid material. Instead, what we have are individual letters and an individual
logo. And so that reduces the visual impact. It reduces the the perception of mass of the sign. And I think it's it's a little bit in keeping with the character of the building, which is sort of this uh utilitarian sort of edging a
little bit towards a modern clean lines of a building. And so our sign is in keeping with that to the extent possible given the fact that we're dealing with an old concrete block building. Um and so as I look at exhibit A1, I see that
we've that we're really utilizing the purpose this particular purpose of the municipal land use laws. I think that we've really use utilize some creative development techniques in the sense that we're putting the sign in a location that's unusual. It's above the those
second story windows and the result is uh is improved aesthetics or in the language of the MLUL good civic design and and good arrangement. Do you have an opinion as to whether there would be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial
impairment to the zone plan and the zoning ordinance if this variance were granted? Absolutely. So I I don't think there is any substantial detriment. I don't think there's any detriment to this. And in terms of the public good, I just want to highlight exhibit A4. These
this is the exhibit that identifies a couple of other buildings in the corridor with somewhat similarly placed signs. Now, I'm not suggesting that this sign placement that we're proposing is entirely within character with all of these buildings along the corridor that
have second story signs. The point of this exhibit more uh more than that is to highlight the fact that this is not such an unusual placement that it's going to look out of character that it's going to look awkward. And so,
coincidentally, just across the street, we have a sign uh best tile and wood. And it's not that it's above the second story of of the singlestory building, but rather it's at a at a height that because I was talking too much.
Um, so as you look at the top picture of exhibit A4, that's the best tile and wood. And what we see is a sign that's located not in a second story, but well above those first floor windows. And so
it creates a height that's that's uh not dissimilar than what we're proposing. And we can see uh another example at the bottom of A4 and that's the right family funeral home south along Route 31 as you near the intersection with with Church
Street. And here we have the wall sign, the facade sign placed uh actually above the seconds story windows uh as part of their you know on the architectural feature. And while these are these are also examples of unique buildings, I
think that these are also examples of how signage can be made to work in unusual places on unique buildings and and that's not uh dissimilar than what we are proposing. And so for those reasons, I I I think that this is not uh
this is not unusual for what we see in the area. But furthermore, for the public good, as I testified before, I think the location of of the sign and the style, the size, the scale of the sign actually improves the appearance of the building and that certainly
contributes to the lack of any public detriment. And in terms of the zone plan, I also don't think there's any substantial detriment to the zone plan. And I say that after having reviewed your re-examination report and your master plan. Now, I will say there's
nothing in those documents that I think are quite on point or directly related to our application tonight, but you guys do have uh five uh intents for the your sign ordinance
listed in section 296-159. And I think all of these are uh or rather our application is supportive of all of these. And let me run through these for you. Uh again, this is section 296-159
intent B. The intent is to promote signs which are the following. One, compatible with surroundings and expressive of the identity of individual proprietors and the character of the community.
Two, orderly, readable, and appropriate to the activity to which they pertain. Three, nondistracting to motorists so as not to contribute to traffic accidents. Four, safe from hazard. And five,
aesthetically pleasing. I think in each of these instances, our sign supports uh the intent of your sign ordinance. I have nothing further from Miss McManis. Just a quick question for Jeff. Can you give me the ordinance section that has
the canopy sign limitation in it? That is I I can get to it quickly. It's It's section 296-1 163 D. Great. Uh D4
specifically. Okay. Thank you. I actually do have one other question. Yeah. Uh on number two of um Mr. Hajar and Mr. Varela's report, they raised the question of whether adding the sign to
the building is an intensification of the nonconforming use and possibly requiring a D2 variance. You have an opinion as to that? In my opinion, it's it's not intensification because it doesn't relate to uh the operations of
the building or the operations of the business or the the physical limitations of the building either interior or exterior. I happen to my legal opinion agrees with Beth's uh planning opinion.
That's all I have. Sorry, Tony. That um John, that was a little garbled. Can you say that again? I said my legal opinion is consistent with Beth's planning opinion that I do not think the sign is
an intensification of the norming use that's all I have okay uh John I actually have one clarification of um so what about uh the setback from the
structure from Highway 31. Do you think that that's uh Put it this way. Does is there a requirement for a wall sign to have a setback?
If there's no requirement for a wall sign, it is attached to the building. No, I I understand. But is there a requirement in the ordinance that a wall sign have that a wall sign itself has to comply?
Look, if it was a a groundmounted sign, it's freestanding. It's subject to setbacks. But is there a requirement that adding that a sign a wall sign comply with the the building setback?
There's no requirement for the sign itself, but there's requirement for the building. Right. But our awning or Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. I'm sorry. If they were proposing a a larger canopy, then yeah, that would
be subject that would be a setback variance. If they were putting a sign on the edge of the canopy extending it further, they would. But in my opinion, if they're putting the the sign on the side of the building, it doesn't. Now, if you want to play it safe and
add a a variance for the setback for the sign, I guess there's no reason not to do that, but I I don't think it's required. I I agree with you that I don't think it's required, especially since the canopy already projects into the that
setback. We're not aggravating the setback at all. Yeah, but Steve, if it was a variance, it would be a C variance. If you I know it would be a C variance if if it isn't a variance, but the argument you're making goes to why they should grant it, not whether or not
the C variance for setback is required. I'll go back to your first point though is that there's no standard requiring a a sign to meet the setback standard if it's a facade sign unless by putting a facade sign on
it creates a setback situation. I'm saying if the canopy wasn't there, then yeah, you'd be moving technically the wall because the sign's attached to it closer. But if once that canopy is there sticking in there, I don't think it needs a C. But again, Tony and Jeff,
if you want if you want to say, yeah, it needs one, then I would say that all the reasons that Beth gave for the C2 to have it in this location, you could use those same reasons to support us the setback.
What do you guys prefer, Tony and Jeff? It It's in my opin It's certainly not a a D. If it's a setback, it's a C. I'm okay with that. You're okay leaving it alone, right? No. C, correct?
That's correct. Okay. I have a question. I just want clarification. So, I'm going to refer to a couple of your um exhibits here. Exhibit A1. Um the snowflake itself, just to
clarify, the snowflake itself is illuminated. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, now I'm going to go to A3. Do can you tell me do you know and I don't think it's an issue. I just want to know. Do you know where that
snowflake lines up and what is across the street? And Cynthia, if you look at A1, it it says that there's going to be wires attached to each letter and logo. So, it looks like it's all lit up. Oh, yeah, it is. It is. I'm only concerned about the snowflake. Yes, you're Yeah, just
curious. I think it's I'm in all fairness, I'm just looking at an aerial photograph as I answer the question. I haven't done an analysis to make that decision, but or determination, but as I look at the aerial, it appears that it's going to be
across across Route 31 is that small uh there are a couple little retail stores. There's like a Filipino restaurant. I know what you're talking about. Yeah. And I believe it's I believe it is across the street from one building. I don't know exactly where it lines up
though. Okay. Yeah. I just couldn't tell from what your drawings or your So I just wanted to ask. Thank you. Sure. That's all I have. I have two questions. Brad Perry. based on the the distance of the
building from the roadway. Uh I think there was there was testimony given that putting a sign on the first floor facade, it would be too small for the traveling public to see. How how what is too small? How is that determined?
Particularly for a sign that's illuminated. What I'm looking at is the area between the the bottom of the awning and the top of the first floor windows. Can you put that exhibit up? Can you put that up on
your screen? Yeah, thank you. Um, as I look at exhibit A1, what I don't see is adequate space to achieve two goals. first is simply placing a sign that's large enough uh and noticeable enough to the
motoring public along Route 31 so that they can adequately identify the sign. So that's and how is that determined that that something's noticeable enough? Well, so as I as I look at this building, um if we were to essentially take that sign and move it uh down
between the bottom of the awning and and above the first four windows. So I don't see enough space. So hold on. It's it's two things. So one, it's adequate space. Beth what he's ask Beth, what he's asking is if you fit,
we understand that size sign could not fit above the first floor windows. So, if you put the maximum size sign that could fit above the first floor windows, regardless of how it would look aesthetically, but if you figured out what is the maximum size sign that could
fit there, and then he wants to know how do you know that that size sign would not be visible to the traveling public. That that's what he's asking you. So there there are calculations that can be run for an area of the sign or the
size of the letter based upon the distance from the right of way and the speed of traffic that uh goes past a property. I have not done that analysis and I've not done that because because one as I look at the building uh I don't
think there's adequate space to to achieve two goals and the first one as I as I said was um to create a sign that is adequate area and noticeable enough if you don't mind that language to the traveling public which I I hear you questioning. But the second concern I
have about it as well is just frankly the aesthetics of the property. So, while yes, you can literally place a sign in that area and setting aside the the size availability, if you will. What I think
would result is a building that looks less pleasing than what we're proposing here because we're going to essentially be uh shoving that sign in a very small area and it's going to result in a very
cluttered appearance along that first floor. And so our proposal to relocate or to locate the sign above the seconds story windows, it enhances the visibility and also enhances the aesthetics of the building. taking a look.
My suggestion in response to the board member's question is if the board's going to grant this variance on this and C2 basis, it should be done on aesthetics only and not traffic safety because the calculations that Beth is referring to have not been run and those
calculations should be run by a traffic engineer, not by a planner. So, if the board wants to grant this, in my opinion, the way to do it is C2 aesthetics because you have enough testimony in on that. Yeah. And and what we're talking about is that in
the alternative would be to place that sign above the doorway in the area above the the first floor windows and underneath the canopy. Correct. That's correct. But I think the the al the the
proposal is consistent with that C2 criteria. I think it's I think it's an improved zoning alternative. The the deviation actually supports a nicer looking building. Okay. And I have I have one more question.
So I noticed that the sign is going to be illuminated. It wasn't clear to me how bright the sign is going to be. And and at the location that's being proposed, it's rather high. It looks like it's maybe 18 feet high or somewhere around there, which is about
the same height as a traffic light. So, it's it's high up and and rather visible. And I I just want to understand how bright it is and why that won't be a either a distraction or it'll be shining into other windows. Can I mean, can you
can you talk about that? Um, one I can say that I don't recall if Ritton Township has illumination standards, but if you do, we will certainly comply. Um, I don't think there's been an illumination study done for these signs. Uh, there are to the as
I said to the extent that the township has elimination standards, we commit to compliance. Um there are there are instances but there are a few instances of I think signs eliminated signs being a distraction and perhaps
confusing drivers for signal locations etc. Uh there are thank you sorry um there are certainly examples I've seen them in other communities I can think of a bank for example that caused outrage and was and was subsequently adjusted
afterwards. Um, but as I said at the outset, I don't think there's been an illumination study uh produced just yet. This is also along It's not like this is in a residential zone or on a um
No, it's on a state highway. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. With a variety of other illuminated signs in the area. Correct. That's kind of the the norm along a state highway to have signs to advertise. Correct.
Yes. And and maybe just the a quick followup to that is is it planned that it's going to be illuminated 247? Yeah, actually that that's a good that's a good question. And if the board wanted to, they could impose a condition that the sign could be illuminated only when
the business is open because the purpose of the sign is for site identification, not for advertising. Mr. Perry, is that what you're suggesting? Well, be because of what the use is. To be blunt, this is a a 24-hour
seven operation during the winter time when you have storms. So, it is a um there there is operations in at night on Yeah, but Steve, people that go in there at night are going to be the drivers, not me, not customers, right? The reason
for the sign is for for customers to come to the offices. Does uh and I'm sorry I don't know the answer but does Ritton Township do nightlight tests typically as part of their compliance? Yes, but not for signs.
We listen we put a condition in that a nightlight test be done for the sign. But again, I would be again if Mr. Perry is suggesting a condition that says the sign lighting can only be on when the business is during regular business
hours or up until you pick a time. Um, in my opinion, that would be a legal and lawful condition and consistent with the purpose of this sign, which again, it's for site identification. They said it's not for advertising. Yeah. And and thanks, John. And I I wasn't really actually suggesting that
it only be limited to, you know, daytime business hours, but I was questioning is it going to be illuminated at 4:00 a.m.? Yeah. Yeah. But I'm talking about either business hours or you pick a time that it's got to shut off at 8:00 p.m. Whatever you want to pick. In my
opinion, you could do that because that's the the purpose of the sign again is for site identification. Customers are coming by. It's not to identify the site for employees who are going to be, you know, driving in there to pick up their vehicle.
John, didn't we set a limit or didn't we talk through with Hunter Healthc Care on Sand Hill where when they put the signs up, we just we just set a time like 10 o'clock at night or 11 o'clock at night to say that. Yep, that's correct. In
fact, but I but I also want to be but I also want to be careful that you know um if he has new drivers and there's a storm obviously a new driver trying to get there. I want to be sensitive to that too. Um you know snow doesn't
really have schedules. So yeah Cynthy I would think though if they're going to have a new driver they're going to have some sort of training period where at minimum they're going to be told where the facility is. And also, thank you for reminding me that's the other sign. Stan Hill was
another sign above the second floor which the board granted and it was done based on aesthetics. Yes. Yeah. Actually, John, that was a that was a devariance. I' I'd like to recall, Mr. Chambre as to
the some more of the reasons why we need a a sign at night uh particularly during the winter months. So um so in the winter months we're we're often thought of as only operating when in the winter months we're often thought of as only operating when it's
snowing. It's not actually accurate. Um we we are actually operating many many nights when it's not snowing uh due to ice control uh for the type most many of our customers are zero tolerance meaning if there is any sort of precipitation any standing water we're out night after
this this winter I believe we were out over 40 nights working as a company um so so we have a lot of of traffic coming in and out of our property and because we are a seasonal company a lot of our labor is temporary very seasonal on
demand. So we it's it's not by preference, but it's more by necessity. We we do have a substantial amount of individuals that work for us. Um I don't want to use the word sporadically, but it's but there there's there's a lot of of movement. So and and that is often at
night when we're operating. it it also there there are occasions when vendors might need to be coming to the site at night um to be able to uh provide material and service the the vehicles. That's correct. So we do have vendors coming at at at very um not just on a
9-to-f5 basis but actually on the overnight basis as well. But but the sign itself is is going to be a single color of white light. Correct. That's it. One color uniform. Um, so and as um as Beth testified, we would be more than willing to comply with any sort of a
nightlight test. Yeah. So that if there's any objection to the glare or the the intensity of the light that uh we'd be willing to to uh adjust that accordingly. Absolutely. But you would like the ability to maintain the light on the lights. Uh you would be willing
to uh you are asking for the ability to maintain the light lighted sign at night. Correct. Yes, that's correct. I have a few questions. Um, uh, it's I think we're going to be just about finished before 9:00 if I'm not
mistaken. Okay. Jackie, you okay for the moment? Okay. Um since we took um questions out of order in terms of the uh review comments uh and since we also said that um the
applicant would be back in 90 days. Some of the uh 11 um comments that you made Tony don't apply because they'll be addressed uh when they come back in 90 days. Is there anything here that you and Jeff have asked that hasn't been
covered that should be covered? In other words, are you satisfied that the things that deal with the sign itself or with the property um have been covered in full um with the exception of the things that they're going to come back with in 90 days such as number seven. Yeah. So
item number three is basically revised plan and they read it out I believe. Yes. And item number four is basically a condition of approval that the first floor space cannot be
leased by executive snow otherwise then the sign will be will be in a varian condition. That's acceptable and that relates to my second question and that is the use of the second floor of
that particular building. Is it currently being used? Um, I refresh my memory. You may have addressed that, but we we did I think um that was the thing that Mr. Drill and I went back and forth on that that's going to be part of the 90 days. Okay, that's fine. Yeah, Roger.
The 90 days is covering items six, seven, and eight. the way I see things because they haven't objected. All the other comments are either they've either been satisfactorily addressed in testimony or they're going to conditions of approval when I write up the resolution if the board votes in favor
of granting. Any other questions? Any questions from the public? If there's I'm sorry, just one more clarification. Uh this is for you guys, Tony and Jeff. Exhibit A 1A. Do you guys want them to make correction
to the 60.5 square foot to what you guys think is the right thing just for the records? Well, the the 60.5 is correct. So, what was the 66? The issue is uh when you
when you do the calculation for the facade is from the ground to the E and that was 9.42 ft. And the length of the building as you could see here they took the length of the building as a portion of it and they went all the way to the
second floor. So that's not correct. So the length of the building would be the entire length of the building which is 140 times from the ground to the E which is 9.42. I I have a suggestion. I have a
suggestion for how to handle this and that is I'm going to ask Tony and Jeff to send me an email, put the proper calculation in, and I'll work it into the resolution, make it clear that they were allowed up to a maximum of 66.
They're only at 60.5. And the 66 is calculated, you know, as follows. Blah blah blah. I'll take whatever Tony and Jeff send in the email. That way, no one will be able to rely on the square footage calculations in the exhibit.
Thank you, John. We we agree, including the blah blah blah. Okay. Roger. Any questions? Yeah, I think the board you should pull the board though on this. You're going to have the nightlight condition test sign or you're going to have the sign has to be shut
off at a certain hour. Yeah, let's do a poll. Amy, yes, I would go 24/7 based I would propose 247. I would support that based on this nightlight testing and I would add one more thing which Cynthia had mentioned about the snowflakes because
there was a specific reason. Sorry. Sorry for that. Can you hear me now? Yes. I would support 24 by7 with the nightlight test. In addition to that, whatever you can do with the snowflake so it doesn't impact across
the street. Yeah, that would be part of the nightlight test. Okay. That's all going to be illuminated at the same level. It's my understanding. Yeah, I would support the nightlight test. Yeah. So would I. So would I. Same here.
Great, Jim. I yeah I I actually have a lot to say but I'll wait until we deliberate but um I would absolutely be for um 247 Jim Ferraro. Yes. What
you ask me something wrong straw poll on either a nightlight test or having uh the hours limited for the signage. I I would limit the hours quite frankly. I don't know if you go through a night like test. The reality is of a couple
things. Number one, the the using the word executive as the name um of the building, but the name of the company is Executive Snow Removal LLC. So, if I'm a general public person riding by, how would I know that executive means
anything? Number one, and number two, I wouldn't be going there. You don't see customers going to that location for any any reason. Most the service are rendered off site and both of these Jim what what they argued is that they
need the sign lit for employees but they have seasonal part-time employees and for some vendors that take deliveries at night. So the issue is would those people the signs going to be lit for would they recognize executive or would
they have to see executive snow LLC? That's that's the issue. Those people would not need to know anything executive but we've been referring to the general public knowing what's there. They're not going to know
where the word executive might. But in any event, uh I I I I would say they should have a time frame rather than nightlight test. Okay. It seems as though nightlight go. I'm sorry, Steve. Go ahead. I just want
to clarify something. When I said I'm I'm for 247, I I want to be clear. I I am for the applicant to be permitted to use the lighting 247. Yeah, correct. Okay, that's what everyone has said other than
Jim. Okay. I just want to make sure. Okay. Okay. I think the straw poll is in favor of 24 uh nightlight test and 247 if if it passes the nightlight test. Are there any questions from the public?
Okay, seeing seeing none, let's close for deliberation. Who'd like to start? Chair, could you give us a second? I I need to talk to John Dill for a minute. Yes. John, can can I call you on the phone? Yes.
So, we're taking a break. Yeah. Tony, you have do you have my USA virtual number? Let me give you the number to call. 732. Hold on. I think we're going to take a break for
five minutes. Tony 73. We're taking a break. We're going to come back into session. Yeah. Calling the meeting back into session. Is that in B2 or All right. So, what we This is what has happened. Tony called
me. Tony and Jeff right now are looking in the ordinance. Tony called me to say, "Hey, they didn't realize that they were going to be actually operating in the building 247." They knew this was a snow removal operation. And they assumed that
the drivers would come in, take the vehicles out, and then return them because this is the B2 zone. And according to Tony, there's an ordinance provision that limits the hours of operation in the B2 zone. You guys might recall that in the WAWA application, the
prior WAWA that went to the planning board was a B2zoned property and the planning board denied it because it was a 247 operation because they ordinance the ordinance limits it and they would have needed a a youth variance. So, we
brought this to Mr. Coenberg's attention and said, "Look, the only way this application can proceed tonight is if the applicant agrees to withdraw the request to have that sign lit 247, have the sign lit only during the hours that
the ordinance allows. And then if they want to be able to operate 247 out of the facility, they're going to have to address that in the application that they file in 90 days. I mean, it's one thing if they have the drivers come in during the open hours, take the vehicles
out and return them, you know, after they can operate again, but having vendors make deliveries in the middle of the night and having people come in the middle of the night after the uh after the hours that are permitted, that's going to require a D1 use variance. So,
I asked Tony and Jeff to get me that ordinance section they're talking about and to read it into the record slowly. So, you know, we'll have everything on the record and then we'll hear Mr. Grinberg's response who said he has spoken to his client's representative because if they want to get tonight
again, the way to do it is withdraw the request to have that sign lit 247. So it's 296-1 144 hours of operation
in the B1, B2, B3, B4, 01, O2, or I'm sorry, O R zone and CRR zoning districts. The hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 a.m.
to 12 a.m. where such a use is adjacent to a residential zoning district. Adjacent to shall include uses located across a public street from a
residential zone. Okay. Is is this site adjacent to residential zone on Pennsylvania Avenue? I think I believe their own property actually is residential zone and it does above their
lots. Okay. So in in your opinion and Jeff, in your opinion, does ordinance section 2961 144 limit the hours of operation of this facility to 5:00 a.m. to 12 midnight?
That's correct. Okay. So, Mr. Gru, do you have a suggestion on how to proceed? Yeah. What we would suggest is that we would agree for purposes of this evening for the the sign to be lit uh during
those hours of operation that are permitted under the ordinance of 5:00 a.m. to midnight. I'm not conceding for purposes of tonight that we're limited to a 247 because we have to review the history of the site. I have to review
the entirety of the ordinance. So standing here at whatever time it is 10:00 at night when this issue just comes up I can't concede that point that we're not allowed to be operating 24/7 but what we can do say for purposes of tonight for the sign that we'll agreed
for it to be limited up until midnight and we'll address all of those issues within 90 days. Um I'm not asking you to concede anything. I mean, for you it's 10 it's 9:15 at night. For me, it's 4:16 a.m. So, I feel
for you. Yeah. You're You're not You're not getting any sympathy from me, right? That's right. From you. I mean, right. I wish it I wish I was 9:16 p.m. Yeah.
No crybaby, Steve. Um, but all right. Listen, you you said what you had to say. In light of what Mr. Bloomberg has said, in my opinion, the board can go forward with voting on the
requested C2 variance to allow the proposed wall sign at the square footage proposed in the location proposed. Yeah. And we would like to revisit the 247 of the sign when we revisit the rest of the application. Well, put it this way. If
you don't revisit it at the time that you file that other application, you're going to get a zoning violation, right? Which brings me to my other point, which is 90 days is getting a little difficult now with adding additional issues. You might have to ask for 120.
Ask Tony and Jeff. Don't don't ask me. Don't ask the board. Ask Tony and Jeff what they recommend. Tony and Jeff. I mean the f the first time I spoke with Steve I and he asked for 90. I was under repression would be 60. I think 90 is a
fair fair number of days. And now now I'm dealing with a potential whole other issue which is why I'm asking for another 30. I mean so these people have been on site for five years and have cleaned up the site
really well. They've been working with the township really well. Um, you know, we're not going anywhere. You know, we're we're we've done an environmental cleanup here. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to make this site work for us. So, we're, you know, I I
know you wanted at 60, I wanted 90. We're adding issues now. I'd ask for another 30 days to let us get I'm going to have to hire an engineer. We already got a great planner. Um, but we're we're going to have to do some work here and do some investigation. How does the board feel about this? Well, first of
all, uh, Amy, when could could we even get them back on to the agenda if for for another meeting? Well, when they submit again, they have to go through completeness. So, you probably won't see them. If they submit in 90 days, you probably won't see them
for 120 days. Yeah. Is this is this 90 days to submission of application or to hear? I'm ask submission of application submission. Okay. So if they submit 90 days then not complete that's another 45 days plus
another 45 days plus depending on how bad the board is backlogged. I'm okay with they've done a lot of work here. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm okay with 120. Anybody else have an objection to that?
Steve Farcio. I do not. Thank you. Okay. So, if this is the if this is the case, then in my opinion, the board can proceed to
vote on the requested C2 variance. Okay. We were at the point of asking for any public comment. I don't think there is there has been any. Uh I think we can close for discussion. Who'd like to start? Roger. This is
Steve Farsy. I'd like to start if I can, please. Okay. So, um so first of all, I I don't know how familiar everybody is with this site. Um I am very familiar with the site. I I am not within the the
limit of uh notice but my law firm is close to where this site is. Um I I just want to condition this on again I think that our our experts and our attorney
have always guided us in the best way and always provide guidance for the applicants and I think in today in this application it was very helpful as it always is. Um, I thought the planner um and the owner's testimony was excellent.
Um, this site I I I can't tell you how impressed I am with the how this site has been cleaned up. Um, this site was a mess. Um, it is actually it it has a very nice look to it now. Um, I you know
where they're going to put this sign, there's no other place to put the sign. Um, it is a perfect spot. I don't see any detriment to it. Um I'd be interested to see uh if there, you know, when this next application comes up
about the lighting on the sign and and the the 247. I know we're not talking about that, but I'd be interested to see if anybody from the residential area opposes this. Um, the one thing I will say is that, um, where the building is
located and where this sign's going to go, um, it definitely has to be lit because I'm telling you, as you drive down that road, um, you're going to be able to see the sign, but you're going to have to look up a little bit to see it, but it's the only place to put it.
It's a nice looking sign. It makes the property look even nicer. Um, I don't see any um, traffic issues. I don't see any um uh you know with the lighting during the the time that they're allowed to have it. Um I don't see any issue
with that. Um there's no I I don't see any detriment at all uh with this application. It is going to be this this site. Um again, I can't tell you the cleanup has been great and this sign's going to make it
look even nicer. Um it's really been cleaned up. So, I am all for this proposal. Um, I think it's just it's made it's a it's an interesting piece of property to begin with. Um, but there's no other place to put that sign and they need a sign because I can tell you that
sometimes I'm driving and I'm going and I drive by this probably every day. Uh, there's times where I'm like I I don't I'm not sure who's who's where. I mean, I know where some of them are, but um I really think that this is a benefit to our township and I'd be all for it uh
based on, you know, what we've agreed to and the conditions that Tony um has put on it. But, um I I'm all for it and um I'll I'm looking forward to hearing the the the follow-up uh application and see how that goes.
I would um agree with everything Steve said. I think it's very clean looking. It's readable. I would also add that um as you come north on 31 and you go through the train the the train track uh the brid the underpass there that blocks
your site. So then you come out and you kind of curve a little bit. So I think where this sign is being located is um very readable and I think it's the only place it can go. And I I do agree with Steve. I think the property's been uh
extremely cleaned up and it looks very good. So, I would be in favor of approving this. Brad Perry, I I would say I'm in probably partial agreement with with what has been said. I think aesthetically I think the case has been
made and I I agree that this is probably the best placement for the sign. I'm not convinced by the exhibits and the testimony today that a sign could not be put in other locations. Uh but I I think that the location selected is probably
the best location and I would be in favor for this. I um I agree with my colleagues. Um I I remember this um particular u real estate ladder ladder.
I remember this real estate um prior to five years ago and it was a mess. to see it now. I'm very impressed with how they handled it and what they did to it. So, I think a sign where they want to put it would be the perfect place to put it. I
I agree with it. Jim Ferraro, no objection to the placement of sign and I'll vote for it. First of all, I want to thank you guys for what you have done for the five years. I totally agree with Randy. I know the area and in fact during the
break I was talking to my colleagues I was saying we need something light it up there. So I would totally support and really thank you for the effort you guys have made. Yeah. Yeah. A quick teaching moment quick a quick teaching moment is during the break shouldn't have been
talking to the colleagues about it. That that should be done on the record. So for now on colleagues about cases on the break noted and this is a rookie mistake. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. That's why I'm That's why we're correcting it.
Thank you, D. I'd like to make some final comments. Um I too have driven past this property almost daily since 1988. I've never seen it in nicer condition than it is right now. Um now that the buildings have been painted a
dark gray, um the fact that this sign is white and is in the upper leftand corner, uh aesthetically is going to be very pleasing. Um the buildings already are very pleasing, but this I think will add to it uh on the basis of aesthetics.
I would uh certainly agree with uh moving forward with this application and approving it uh during the hours that it's limited for the time being. Yep. Okay. Anyone care to make a motion? I'll
make a motion. I second it. Okay. Okay. The motions to grant the C2 variant subject to all the conditions we've discussed and the board's regular conditions. Correct. Correct. I have Cynthia and Randy. Chair. Mr. Roger Erenss. Yes. Miss Cynthia
Schaefer. Yes. Mr. Randy Block. Yes. Mr. Steve Farcio. Yes. Mr. Jim Ferraro. Yes. Mr. Brad Perry. Yes. And Mr. Russell Dami. Yes. Thank you all very much. Really
appreciate it. Thanks for welcome. Four o'clock in the morning. John, could I have a motion to adjourn? So move. Second. John, that's crazy, man. Listen, this is
this is my my fifth one. I've been here two weeks. This is my fifth 2 amerrer. Um and I I fly back Sunday night. I'll be back in the US Monday morning.